I think this is a much better argument than all the overheated comments about how I'm a misogynist pig. But still. Here's a comparison. This person:

* Discussed refraction with the brilliant philosopher Thomas Hobbes

* Computed the first table of antilogarithms

* Wrote manuscripts on the circulation of the blood - and may have anticipated Harvey

* Also wrote on psychology, and the size of the universe

* Conducted some of the first experimental research on medicine

This is Walter Warner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Warner). Probably way more distinguished than you or I will ever be, but not quite an unknown genius - just the first name I saw on the Wikipedia list of 17th century scientists. So, in terms of actual achievements, is this less than Lady Ranelagh?

To be clear, I have zero problem with people writing books on unknown female thinkers. I'm sure I'd find this an interesting book! What I think is bad is the overclaiming that sometimes goes along with it - giving inflated importance to historical figures based on what they might have done, if only society had been fairer. I think this comes from two reasons: a sense of historical injustice, and a desire to have historical female role models for scientists today. (OK, and maybe a third, the desire to sell one's book.) But however laudable those reasons are, we should not distort history in their service.

> I think this is a much better argument than all the overheated comments about how I'm a misogynist pig.

What is the purpose of this kind of victimisation? Nobody said such a thing. Or do you simply want to let everyone know how brave you are to voice such an opinion knowing full well the PC firing squad will be knocking down your door at any minute and yadda yadda?

I don't find this kind of flame-baiting productive at all.

When you say "nobody said such a thing", are you perhaps not aware of

> But the fact that this is the top comment and gets defended (instead of flagged for the misogyny it is) says enough.

So, it a response and reaction to the very same sentiment and detraction as you're objecting to. You just missed the in-between where their comment was in fact referred to as misogynistic.

I think most of us here would prefer to avoid the discussions going in that direction. But it should be allowed to reference such a thing.

Yeah there’s always this strawman (strawwoman?) argument against feminists for questioning the male-dominated status quo. Misogyny is deeply embedded in society and it’s not productive to go around blaming men for every problem; but neither should we accept that history is a complete telling of the world as it was.

History is dialectical, meaning its interpretation changes over time according to the norms of the times. Many historical accounts themselves are not contemporaneous with their subjects, some coming hundreds of years later. When understood this way, this drive to uncover feminist history is entirely in line with the historical narrativizing process.

Curiously, what articles like these do, the more they accumulate, is to discredit the notion of a dark, "misogynistic" arc of history (where "misogyny" is understood in the erroneous categories of our day; the false notion that for men and women to be equal as persons and in dignity, they must be the same). After all, the more of these women you find, the more it undermines this narrative according to its own criteria.

Literally no one said you are misogynist pig. One called it "taking offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it". I said "bias" in response to someone who called your comment win.

You grossly exaggerate reactions and what people said.

And you are in fact taking offense on her having freaking article about her. That is it, the article exists is the issue here.

Not just an article, an assertion of an "incomparable intellectual". That means an intellectual "without equal". It is fair to question such hyperbole, given that the editors of Nature are surely well acquainted with the English language.

But speaking of cracks in history, note how all these notables are aristocrats. Let's ponder all the "incomparable intellectuals" who were not to manor born, male or female.

You're right, nobody said I was a misogynist pig. I was exaggerating! But only in fun. And I really don't think I took offense at anything.

Just a protip, that kind of exaggeration is poorly received on the Internet because there’s no context to base it in. Even offline, it’s taken as a sign of immaturity and usually met with eye rolls. Probably best to remove it from your rhetorical toolkit if being clearly understood is a goal.

To be fair, three people have called me a misogynist, and one suggested my comment should be flagged. Nobody has called me a pig yet, though.

Kinda proves the point though; your meaning got lost in your rhetoric.

assuming there is greater difficulty to achieve things as someone with a particular quality than the difficulties others face in achieving similar things leads one to naturally consider that without those difficulties perhaps they would have achieved much more.

Harrison Bergeron once removed of his obstacles would surely have conquered the world and been the greatest dancer and thinker of his generation, were it not for Diana Moon Glampers and her ten-gauge double-barreled shotgun.

If this lady's achievements were on a par with Walter Warner's, then we should discuss how much more difficult was it for her to do these things as a woman. It might not have been as difficult as we assume, as we compare the misogyny of her era with those of eras that we know better. I would think poverty was more of a hindrance than gender in her time, but I do also suppose gender was some sort of hindrance.

on edit: changed thinking to thinker, changed difficult to difficulty

> assuming there is greater difficulty to achieve things as someone with a particular quality than the difficulties others face in achieving similar things leads one to naturally consider that without those difficulties perhaps they would have achieved much more.

This might apply to Warner just as well, since it seems that his work was dispersed and then likely destroyed after his death. It just goes to prove that minor and largely unacknowledged figures are pretty much ubiquitous in history. Many of these figures could have valuable books written about them; it's just a matter of doing the work.

good point, and while I do not think she should be classified as an incomparable intellectual given what little we know it would seem reasonable to think she probably had greater unrealized potential based on her gender in the same way that I look at someone like George Washington Carver and think what could he have achieved unobstructed by racism.

You raise a good point. My take on this is similar to yours in that if we can wax lyrical about an aristocrat who happens to be a woman, what about the genuises not even afforded the opportunity to engage with the high minds of the time. Literature like this tends to hyperfocus without context and that makes it uncomfortable to read as a fellow learned individual.

My point is Im not going to cry a river over some aristocrat who rubbed shoulders with the greats as compared to someone who had nothing but worked their way into recognition and forgotten by history.

I agree so much with that first paragraph. All these "women geniuses snubbed by 18th century sexism" are aristocrats (which makes sense because all the men geniuses are also aristocrats). The lack of discussion of people who didn't have the opportunities that, for instance, Ada Lovelace did, is a pretty big misstep imo.

Yeah, I think that's absolutely true and fair. It's possible that Lady R might have been a truly awesome scientist in a different world, and it's a good idea to remember all those "flowers born to blush unseen". And, in any case, maybe Lady R is just a really interesting person! You don't have to be a (drumroll) Great Scientist to be an interesting biography subject. My objection is to overestimating someone's actual achievements in the interests of a political agenda, no matter how well-meaning.

Sounds like she was a woman of letters. That used to be more of a thing, someone who corresponded a lot and had an influence on a lot of notable people, one person at a time. It seems that while she would have had a tremendous impact on the intellectual life of her time, it would have been all through personal relationships that wouldn't have left much of a trace when both parties died.

And we have no way of knowing that she'd have wanted it any other way - she clearly had the respect of the people who mattered to her.

So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history.

Not saying she wasn't a formidable thinker, but many people were and are. Only a few become famous because their inventions have long lasting effects.

> So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history.

The weird thing is that she seems to have been popular, yet she isn't mentioned (so far as I can tell) in the main sources of pre-20th c. biography (e.g. the DNB). Uncovering such minor but influential figures that hadn't yet been comprehensively described has always been a main interest of historians and antiquarians, so I think this author's work can be described as a very real accomplishment.

Even describing the lives of normal people would be interesting. The problem is that "feminist scholarship" carries a very real risk of history revisionism.

> Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything

By this logic, Ja Rule is the smartest man alive.

https://youtu.be/XYfKzzyWQjM