User:Lhanlon/sandbox

To See A Clean Journal Of Project
click this link https://docs.google.com/document/d/15Uj7_mWQ9cc5r0nmXalfpQ2HMhBFJc1pAGn6VyWdmKo/edit?usp=sharing
 * Users:TaviWright, Midgeholland, Lhanlon

'''LOOKS GREAT! love Michaela'''

Work for "Woman in Science" & H.J. Mozans


 * Added H. J. Mozans redirect to John Augustine Zahm


 * Added "H. J." in front of "Mozans" on John Augustine Zahm's page as his psyeudonym.


 * Links for "Woman in Science":

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1012286?seq=1

H. J. Womanin Science. Pp. xi, 452. Price, $2.50. New York: MOZANS, D. Appleton and Company, 1913.

" "H. J. Mozans", in his Woman in Science, gives us a most comprehensive survey of the scientific activity and attainments of women. Primarily in- spired to his investigation by extensive travels in Greece and Italy, the author begins with the learned women of ancient Greece-Hypatia, Sappho, and As- pasea, and of somewhat less widespread fame, Gorgo, Andromeda, and Cor- inna-and passes on from them to the women of ancient Rome, the women of the Middle Ages, when education was largely confinedto monasteries, the wom- en of the renaissance, and the women of subsequent and modern times. He shows during each of these epochs the advantages and opportunities offered to women in each country, and indicates where their achievements were least, and where greatest. He very conclusively proves that where opportunity was great, achievement was likewise great, and vice versa. "In every depart- ment of natural knowledge," he states, "when not inhibited by her environ- ment, woman has been the colleague and the emulatress, if not the peer, of the most illustrious men who have contributed to the increase and diffusion of human learning." He analyzes most carefully the biologic capacity of wom- en for scientific pursuits, coming to the conclusion that the reputed differ- ence in intelligence between men and women is due not to difference in brain size or structure or innate power of intellect, but to education and opportunity. He then goes carefully through the historical development of each science, beginning with mathematics, going on through astronomy, physics, chemistry, the natural sciences, medicine, and surgery, archaeology,and invention, and shows the instances, extent and value of woman's contributions to each sci- ence. He concludes with the prediction that increasing education and oppor- tunity for women will bring about ever-increasing participation in the ad- vancement of science." "NELLIE SEEDS NEARING".

http://www.amazon.com/Woman-Science-H-J-Mozans/dp/0262630540#reader_B004ISLQ6M

Preface:

“Like Michaelangelo, long centuries afterwards, who ‘saw with the eyes and acted by the inspiration’ of Vittoria Colonna, these masters of Greek architecture and sculpture saw with the eyes and acted by the sublime promptings of Aspasia, who was the greatest patron and inspirer of men of genius the world has ever known.

I felt then, as I feel now, that this superb monument to the virgin goddess of wisdom and art and science was in great measure a monument to the one who by her quick intelligence, her profound knowledge, her inspiration, her patronage, her influence, had so much to do with its erection-the wise, the cultured, the richly dowered by Aspasia.

This thought it was that started the train of reflections on the intellectual achievements of women which eventually gave rise to the idea of writing a book on woman’s work in things of the mind.”

“But it was not until after I had visited the great university towns of Bologna, Padua and Pavia, had become more familiar with their fascinating histories and traditions, and surveyed there the scenes of the great scholastic triumphs of women as students and professors, that I fully realized the importance, if not the necessity, of such a work as I had in contemplation.”

“Only then did the magnitude and the difficulty of my self-imposed task begin to dawn upon me. I saw that it would be impossible, if I were to do justice to the subject, to compass in a single volume anything like an adequate account of the contributions of women to the advancement of general knowledge. I accordingly resolved to restrict my theme and confine myself to an attempt to show what an important role women have played in the development of those branches of knowledge in which they are usually thought to have had but little part.”

“The subject of my book thus, by a process of elimination, narrowed its scope to woman’s achievements in science. Many works in various languages had been written on what women had accomplished in art, literature, and state-craft, and there was, therefore, no special call for a new volume on any of these topics. But, with the exception of a few brief monographs in German, French and Italian, and an occasional magazine article here and there, practically nothing had been written about woman in science. The time, then, seemed opportune for entering upon a field that had thus far been almost completely neglected; and, although I soon discovered that the labor involved would be far greater than I had anticipated, I never lost sight of the work which had its virtual inception in the peerless sanctuary of Pallas Athena in the ‘City of the Violet Crown.’”

Full book link:

https://archive.org/stream/womaninsciencew00zahmgoog#page/n123/mode/2up


 * In the future I would like to add/edit the following pages by using bits and pieces of my midterm and what I learned from our readings and discussions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norm_%28disambiguation%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

Determined Patriarchy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abnormal

MIDTERM: "Sex, Gender & the 'Norm'"

The standard model of the distinction between sex and gender refers to biology and nature creating a dimorphism in sex by separating male and female into two distinct forms, while culture demonstrates the social construction of gender as masculinity and femininity. Biologically, there is an undeniable difference in sexes, however, gender indicates that sexuality norms are created by the society in which we live. Heteronormativity suggests that people fall into distinct genders, man and woman, with “natural roles in life” creating “lifestyle norms.” When one investigates the meaning of the word “heteronormativity,” the assumption is that the world view promotes heterosexuality as the “normal or preferred sexual orientation.” This is one instance in which culture and society affect the “gender norm.” The feminist theory proposes that gender is conceptually a lens through which we view the world and the people around us. As time progresses, this lens changes bit by bit, however, the concept of gender is very much embedded in our brains from society’s relentless reminders of the vast differences between males and females. While in the womb, the fetus is viewed as a specific sex, then beginning with an infant’s very first breath, humans start their journey of trying to fit into the gender norms. The environmental social construction of sex and gender is often linked to the ongoing debate of nature versus nurture. Whether the biological sex of an individual and their innate qualities, or the personal experiences they encounter along the way, determine the outcome of their physical and behavioral characteristics, is up to personal opinion. Fitting into the “norm” versus facing the fear and stigma of being “abnormal” is another conflict individuals must face due to society’s mold of what individuals must succumb to. The opposing idea to dimorphism is the concept of a sex and gender spectrum, in which nature and nurture are mutually dependent.

As society becomes increasingly advanced, more and more modern scholars have begun to find fault with the standard dichotomy between sex and gender, and often abandon the obsolete idea all together. Anne Fausto-Sterling discusses the population’s understanding of gender differentiation in the chapter, “Of Gender and Genitals” from Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality. She states, “Our conceptions of the nature of gender difference shape, even as they reflect, the ways we structure our social system and polity; they also shape and reflect our understandings of our physical bodies” (Sterling, 45). The way we perceive gender has a vast affect on not only our own bodies, but also the public’s structure and stance on societal issues. Sterling refers to intersex babies as exhibiting “sexual ambiguity” and discusses how the theories of gender greatly influence the outcome of such babies’ lives. Some of the stereotypes that accompany gender, such as males having a large penis and females having a small clitoris, lead to intersex babies being surgically changed into male or female in order to fit such conventional models. Sterling claims, “Deciding whether to call a child a boy or a girl, then employs social definitions of the essential components of gender” (Sterling, 58). Suzanne Kessler, a social psychologist, points out in her book Lessons from the Intersexed, that these denotations are predominantly cultural, rather than biological.

In “The Determined Patriarchy,” a chapter from Lewontin, Rose and Kamin’s book, Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature: Not in Our Genes, the authors discuss the effects that gender has on our patriarchal society. Lewontin confers that gender distinctions are the “facts” pertaining to the differences between men and women in society; “Seemingly naturalized as manifestations of essentially biological sex differences, so apparently obvious as to be beyond question” (Lewontin, 132). This idea of gender being so clearly visible mimics the views of the differentiation in sexes. While one may, but not always, be able to physically see the distinction between the male and female sex, gender is seemingly more difficult to identify. Lewontin acknowledges that, “Gender divisions in society do indeed map onto biological, sexual ones” (Lewontin, 135). It is often difficult to separate sex and gender from one another because many qualities overlap. Lewontin evaluates the current gender bisection in society claiming that it represents a, “Systematic selection, misrepresentation, or improper exploration [regarding evidence]” (Lewontin, 135). Gender distinctions are often used to characterize groups of people in scientific experiments, just as race and social class do, however with such discriminatory depictions, results are often inaccurate. From the very first stages of life, it is suggested that individuals must obtain such qualities that fall into the dichotomy of man or woman, according to the gender norm. Lewontin suggests, “All the evidence is that human infants, with their plastic, adaptive brains and ready capacity to learn, develop social expectations concerning their own gender identity, and the activities appropriate to that gender, irrespective of their genetic sex and largely independent of any simple relationship to their own hormone levels” (Lewontin, 156). Regardless of their biological makeup, even infants feel the need to conform to societies’ gender norms. Lewontin has found that, “Psychocultural expectations profoundly shape a person’s gender development in ways that do not reduce to body chemistry” (Lewontin, 156). With social norms dictating individuals’ growth, the hope of moving towards a more forward way of thinking is challenged.

Works Cited

Fausto-Sterling, Anne “Of Gender and Genitals” from Sexing the body: gender politics and the construction of sexuality New York, NY: Basic Books, 2000. [Ch.3 pp. 44-77]

Lewontin, Richard, Steven Rose, and Leon Kamin. “The Determined Patriarchy”