{"id":1761,"date":"2025-12-15T16:28:33","date_gmt":"2025-12-15T21:28:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wwp.northeastern.edu\/blog\/?p=1761"},"modified":"2025-12-15T16:28:33","modified_gmt":"2025-12-15T21:28:33","slug":"symposium-sciences","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wwp.northeastern.edu\/blog\/symposium-sciences\/","title":{"rendered":"Symposium on the Marginalization of Women in the Sciences"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Catherine Trusky, English MA student<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

On October 27, 2025, The Philosopher<\/em><\/a> hosted a webinar on the historical marginalization of women in philosophy and science. The event gave participants the opportunity to learn from experts across several disciplines about women\u2019s historical roles in science and philosophy, the ways in which these fields uphold gender binaries, and avenues for resistance. Over 133 people signed up to attend from across 19 countries. This event was organized as part of a TIER 1<\/a> grant funded collaboration between the Women Writers Project<\/a> and the PolyGraphs project<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The first panelist was Jennifer Park, Lecturer of Early Modern English at Glasgow University. Park\u2019s approach to literary research is informed by questions of how marginalization is crafted, justified, and replicated through language and literature. The second panelist was Francesca Peacock, the author of Pure Wit, The Revolutionary Life of Margaret Cavendish<\/em>. The third panelist was Dame Athene Donald, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of Cambridge. The panel was moderated by Peter West, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Northeastern University and co-PI of the \u201cNew Digital Methods for Understanding the Impacts of Early Women Writers on the Development of Science and Philosophy<\/a>\u201d project.<\/p>\n

\u200bThe panelists opened the discussion by addressing the importance of recovery. They collectively argued that uncovering women\u2019s work in the fields of science and philosophy reveals alternative perspectives, in turn reshaping the way we view historical events and strengthening historical accuracy. In addition, they underscored how this representation applies to the present: through unearthing new modes of knowing and understanding, we are encouraged to rethink the scientific and philosophical status quo. The panelists then moved to the notion of \u201crecovery resistance,\u201d or the challenges of recovering and disseminating women\u2019s writing. These include difficulties of access, the purposeful obfuscation of women\u2019s work, and the lack of scholarly or critical editions of these writings, which leads readers to interpret them as historical artifacts rather than legitimate philosophical or scientific thought.<\/p>\n

\u200bThis led the panelists to discuss stereotypes and \u2018the canon.\u2019 Because women are stereotypically disallowed from the fields of science and philosophy, those who seek to challenge this paradigm are further marginalized. This creates a dynamic where minority representation becomes exceptional instead of normalized. Women who challenge the canon (or canons) are seen as special or as possessing masculine characteristics, further reinforcing stereotypical assumptions.<\/p>\n

What, then, can be done to create space so that women in science and philosophy become the rule, rather than the exception? The panelists emphasized primary school as an early site to interrupt the stereotypes that sort girls and boys into academic disciplines. They also discussed how the supposed differences in male and female ways of thinking are a broader reflection of cultural, educational, and historical factors. The panelists tied this to the historical representation of female scientists and philosophers as \u201chandmaidens\u201d to men, or as intellectual appendages to more important thinkers. The same structures of thought are reflected within education systems: boys and girls are encouraged in different ways, leading to unequal opportunities and social norms. The panelists stressed that addressing these systemic biases requires active effort from everyone, not just those who are marginalized.<\/p>\n

\u200bThe discussion portion of the webinar concluded by providing the panelists an opportunity to spotlight any women in science or philosophy whom they feel have been overlooked. Park highlighted Hester Pulter, a poet and playwright whose work spans across political, scientific, religious, and personal revolutions. Her work is available digitally through the Pulter Project<\/a>. Peacock called attention to Margaret Cavendish\u2019s stepdaughters Jane and Elizabeth, who were authors in their own right. She pointed out the ways in which the Cavendish women exemplify how historical networks of women co-produced works of literature. Finally, Donald brought in musicians Fannie Mendelssohn and Clara Schumann: two highly influential composers during the Romantic era.<\/p>\n

\u200bThe webinar concluded with a Q&A section. The topics discussed are outlined below.<\/p>\n