Women role in history has always been the petite defenseless housewives who relies on her male counterpart. As portrayed by their era women weren’t all that smart or educated, however in reality there has been many instances were this has been proven false. This is shown in the autobiography, A Woman’s Education the Road from Coorain Leads to Smith College, and the biography, Rosalind Franklin: The Dark Lady of DNA. Both women in these books Jill Conway and Rosalind Franklin displayed great academic achievement despite that shock of many. However, did society play a role on urging both women to become successful in their career? Did society stereotype for women in education during their era mold a certain attitude/personality that Jill Conway …show more content…
This is mentioned when Conway asserted, “The question was how to model such a system. I thought strong women’s college could do just that: be the benchmarks for the ways society thought about educating women, be the counter instances in physics and mathematics, or political sciences and economics, where popular stereotypes decreed limited expectations for women. To insist on alternative models was unpopular, because the prevailing liberal orthodoxy stressed assimilation for women, or blacks, or any other disadvantage group. But I knew from studying the abortive history of women in the professions, from the 1890s through the 1950s, that liberal notions of assimilation had not worked…. I’d found in my life that the great liberal ideal of access was valuable in giving women entry into privileged educational enclaves, but not valuable enough, because entering an institution (clubs, profession, school, military unit) did not necessarily mean becoming a full member.” (Conway 42) This statement made by Conway accurately reflects the educational view and the general view of women in the work field. This stigma placed on the career she was going to embark on already had limited her possibility to naturally progress as her male counterpart because of the sad fact that she is a woman in a male dominated profession. Furthermore, knowing that she …show more content…
Franklin was an adamant individual who stuck with her choices regardless of the continual pressure by individuals to become a housewife. The main individual was her father who constantly asserted that science had made her a cold person. He asserts, “You frequently state, and in your letter you imply, that I have developed a completely one-sided outlook and look at everything in terms of science. Obviously my method of thought and reasoning is influenced by my scientific training – if that were not so my scientific training would have been a waste and a failure. But you look at science (or at least talk of it) as some sort of demoralizing invention of man, something apart from real life, and which must be cautiously guarded and kept separate from everyday existence. But science and everyday life cannot and should not be separated. Science, for me, gives a partial explanation of life. In so far as it goes, it is bases on fact, experience and experiment. (…) I agree that faith is essential to success in life (success of any sort), but I do not accept your definition of faith, i.e., belief in life after death. In my view, all that is necessary for faith is the belief that by doing our best we shall come nearer to success and that success in our aims (the improvement of the lot of mankind, present and future) is worth attaining. Anyone able to believe in all that religion implies obviously