#IDWGS Essay - Place of Women in Science by Anmol Sharma

The topic of women's roles in science is explored in the two texts under consideration, although the writers take distinct approaches to the problem. Londa Schiebinger, therefore, focuses on the categorization of animals and its impact on the allocation of jobs within society. Sarah Hutton simultaneously investigates the part that women played in science during the eighteenth century. Upon analysing how women were perceived in society, both writers come to the conclusion that women were expected to take care of their homes and had no right to actively engage in any aspect of social life.

The narratives of the two pieces differ significantly as well. Hutton emphasises that misogyny and patriarchy were pervasive in the globe (18). The author points out that although women were ready to engage in scientific discussions and had an interest in science, they were unable to enter the field of science or its history due to male supremacy. Women were also denied the opportunity to receive an education in the eighteenth century, particularly in the field of science. However, the author gives numerous instances of women who have contributed to science (Hutton 21). However, because women were given a different function in science, there isn't much information about that topic in the history of the field. They were to concentrate on taking care of the home and let males handle social activities.

Schiebinger contends that women have always been assimilated into people's thinking, despite having the same opinion about women's roles in eighteenth-century society (or women who lived before the twentieth century). According to the author, scientists were prepared to acknowledge the important role that women have had in human history. Linnaeus therefore selected a category that reflects a trait that distinguishes women (Schiebinger 2). Schlesinger points out that, in contrast to Hutton, women were thought to be significant beings who supported the entire planet. Men began spreading stereotypes of women as carers and hearth keepers as a result of this nearly divine position that women played at the same time. Put another way, women lost sight of their responsibility as humanity's nurturer and started to focus primarily on running their homes.

These two writers, as was already indicated, concentrate on the position of women in social interactions. The pieces, however, take a different tack and highlight distinct elements. Although Schiebinger's theories are intriguing and worthy of further consideration, they come out as unrealistic given how much of the articles concentrate on the word choice for mammals. The author attempts to demonstrate that the decision was shaped by the prevailing patterns of the time rather than being a spontaneous one.

The fact that women were valued and perpetuated as the carers of all of humanity cannot be ignored, yet this had no bearing on the word choice. More likely, the scientist chose to concentrate on the most important characteristic. In addition, the nurturer stereotype influenced how women were later treated (given to the job of a household keeper). But this was only one of the elements that contributed to the way roles are distributed in society. Hutton's method appears to be more precise and dependable. The author makes no attempt to analyse patterns or happenings. The researcher only examines how women have contributed to society's scientific life and how their participation has been emphasised in scientific and literary history. It is notable that the author bases her critique on specific works and facts, playing it safe. Interestingly, Hutton only emphasises how men attempted to minimise women's attempts to engage in social life.

It's interesting that both authors reach the same conclusion and emphasise how women had to become confined to their homes. Hutton, however, is more upbeat (or realistic) and asserts that women have always aspired to work in the scientific field. According to Schiebinger, women were driven to pursue domestic responsibilities and the concept of motherhood by the nurturer's image. However, a large number of female writers, scientists, and public activists might be considered as models of women's goals and willingness to engage in society. Hutton's opinions might not be novel or influential (since they can get lost in the sea of similar thoughts and writings), but they are true and reflect social trends that have persisted for ages in society.

In conclusion, since the two pieces address different facets of a crucial topic, it is reasonable to say that they each have a legitimate place in the world and merit consideration. They offer perceptions into the fight of women for the opportunity to advance humankind.

Reference:

1. https://uis.unesco.org 

2. Obamawhitehouse.archives.gov 

3. https://pace.coe.int

4. https://www.britannica.com

5. www.nature,com

6. https://www.onlinemanipal.com

7. https://oligofastx.com 

About the Author

I am Anmol Sharma student of ba LLB at manipal university jaipur. i am dedicated and ambitious with a passion of law and a commitment to social justice and equality. i am excited about the opportunity that's lie ahead in my legal career.