3 Answers

  1. Actually, the reason is indicated in the topic: because of sexism. In the forties, Philippa Foote, Elizabeth Anscombe, Mary Midgley, Iris Murdoch, and Mary Warnock all studied or worked at Oxford. Warnock recalled that “Oxford seemed deserted”: all the men had gone to war. That generation was given due attention, and these are really big names.

    But then the men came back. Anscombe, whose articles had revolutionized moral philosophy, was a Cambridge professor in the seventies, and you could still hear the older Cambridge dons saying that ” women are good for nothing in philosophy.” Pure nonsense, refuted by the forties generation.

  2. because a patriarchal society, hence, is banal….they were not allowed in this area, and not only in this area, i.e. there has always been (for thousands of years) discrimination on the basis of gender… watch the movie Agora, it explains a lot..

  3. I think the point is that for the last couple of millennia, society has been patriarchal. The men worked for a living, which was usually some kind of hard work that required a lot of strength, and the women took care of the family and the house, which, of course, also required a lot of effort, but it was easier than digging fields. As a result, to improve the standard of living, more money was needed, more money was received by people in professions that were more profitable, and such professions were taken by people who were educated or skilled. It turns out that the male breadwinner receives an education, a position, respect, and to some extent power, that is, he actively interacts with the world and has an incentive to move forward. Through this interaction, ideas, inventions, and so on are born. As for women, the incentive for promotion was, in fact, in a successful marriage, raising a son who will be more successful than the father, raising a daughter who will marry more successfully (of course, one should not think that there were no other incentives, but such goals are strongly entrenched in society). Here's an example: in the 17th and 19th centuries, it was fashionable for young girls to study music, sometimes they even received a higher musical education (which became available, if I'm not mistaken, around the 1870s), but then they got married (of their own free will or at the behest of their parents) and, as a rule, the time for studying music became too short. The result is the same: for men, the incentive to move forward in life is skills and development, for women-family employment and the introduction of a household.

    This is also due to the fact that women began to receive broad rights only at the end of the 19th century, and men began to recognize any views of women (including scientific ones) closer to the middle of the 20th century (of course, there were exceptions or such personalities as empresses, but I mean the mass nature of the phenomenon). And to be honest, even now few people listen to the opinion of women or their ideas. Take women politicians, for example. Perhaps even women themselves do not listen to other women in the same way as they do to men.

    I think that in the future, women will fill in various fields of activity with their names. This becomes possible due to the fact that technological progress (contraceptives, urbanization, the development of new technologies, the emergence of new professions) and social maturation of society (understanding the integrity of society, equality and fraternity, changing the role of women in society, as a result of obtaining social and political rights). puts members of any gender on a par, allowing the weaker sex to devote less time to the family and do those things and express those thoughts that were previously allowed only to men.

Leave a Reply

Categories