History of Women in Science
Women have continually played a part in scientific endeavor, even prior to invention of the term ‘scientist’. Nevertheless, in Western culture, science and femininity lacked unity and the masculine painting of science revealed not only that more males did science, but that science itself was seen as an integrally masculine venture.
The notion that mathematics and science were unsuitable or ‘hard’ for women, and even ‘at odds’ with real femininity, can be trailed back to the beginning of modern science and the commencement of the Royal Society in the seventeenth century. Then ‘femininity’ became the exact opposite of the new, masculine, experimental science of Newton and his colleagues who needed to break from the passive, reflective analytical style of outdated ‘natural philosophy’, the former word for science. (Schiebinger, 1996). This divide that detached women from the new experimental science, was made a lot wider by the Nature’s tradition being embodied in female form only. The masculine scientists made ‘mother nature’ their goal of research, and branded her as a female muse who could trick them, but if trained would also permit them to ‘enter her secrets’. This entire trap cast femininity as the inactive, topic of investigation and the male as the virile, enthusiastic investigator; a dualism that just increased the difference between science and femininity (Jordanova, 1991).
Regardless of this, there existed women scientists— botanists, mathematicians, astronomers chemists and more—who took part in science in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Actually, Ann Whitfield, who wrote on the outcomes of a thunderstorm in Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, in 1760 was the first female to have published an article to the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transactions. In the end of the eighteenth century, Caroline Herschel, an astronomer, issued some papers, together with one describing the three nebulae’s discovery. Women as a rule lacked an education equal to their colleagues, instead being taught in domestic obligations and accomplishments instead of academic topics thus were disadvantaged when it came to scientific research issues.
Women scientists have developed to objects of an innovative study field in academy. For the past fifteen years an entire different field of inquiry recognized as “gender in science," “women and science,” has sprung up in America. A number of questions are asked in these new studies, each considering the disparities women undergo in the professional field of science in a different way. First a historical query is women's contribution in early science, or has it become significant during the twentieth century? A second question: where is women's involvement the highest in India, China, the U.S., France , or Britain? More crucial disparities than the practical questions are the analytical ones. How could increase in women participation in science be accomplished? What situations cultivate more women participation in the sciences? And a subject of hot debate question: if women played a superior role, would science be any different, does men's and women's way of scholarship vary, or are their study interests, priorities, and ways of handling problems totally substitutable as we have been made to believe?
Women’s participation in science is not new, or the fulfillment of the present world, but is, indeed, ancient. One of the historic females in science in the West was Hypatia, an astronomer and mathematician. She lived in Alexandria in the 4th century. She took after her father as a professor of philosophy and mathematics at the university. Hypatia authored several mathematical texts, though most vanished to history when the great Alexandrian library was destroyed and burned. Hypatia was highly esteemed at the campus and amid civic leaders but she was killed, not for the reason that she was a woman but because she had become ensnared in the political battle between Christians and Neo-Platonists. Christian leaders in the town regarded Hypatia's philosophy as heretical and, Hypatia, an honest teacher and advocate of ancient philosophy lost her life in the conquest of the Neo-Platonists in 412.
In the middle ages, the church controlled education in the West, and women contributions came mostly from educated nuns. As a result of the emergence of modern science in the 17th century, the formal base of science shifted. The control of education by religious foundation and colleges gave path to scientific academies the Academia des Sciences in Paris, the Akademie der Wissenschaften in Berlin, and the Royal Society of London. For over 300 years, women were not supposed to join these societies. When these academies began operating, were there no eligible women scientists? Evidence from the past centuries reveals a significant number of women in science anticipating to take their part in the new science institutions.
A case in point is a German astronomer, Maria Winkelmann. She was not an exemption: as eccentric as it appears to us these days, 14 percent of German astronomers in the early eighteenth-century were women. In 1710, Maria Winkelmann petitioned the Berlin Academy for a position as assistant astronomer and calendar-maker. Already a seasoned astronomer when her husband and Academy astronomer (Gottfried Kirch) died in 1710, Winkelmann requested the Academy to elect her calendar-maker in her husband's place. She had, indeed, published astronomical observations under her husband's name while he was sick and dying. In spite of the fact that the great Leibniz, was among her supporters, her appeal was declined. In rejecting her request, officials in the Academy placed a significant negative precedent for women's contribution in scientific bodies. The first active scientist woman to become a participant of this academy was Lise Meitner (who along with Otto Hahn discovered nuclear fission) a physicist, during the 1940s and then she was given access just as a corresponding associate.
A greater part of the eighteenth and into the nineteenth century, there was a single branch of science perceived as appropriate for women. Botany was known as a venture offering chances for moral development and women had more socially sanctioned admittance to it than to every other science. Women gathered, drew and experimented plants and, in this manner, botany was related to women and coded feminine (Shteir, 1997). Women also steered their way in to further sciences, often as colleagues to male relatives (astronomer Caroline Herschel); popularizes of science to an amateur or young readership (chemist Jane Marcet); scientific work translators (mathematician Mary Somerville) or illustrators of scientific work (Marianne North).
Another scientist in the eighteenth century was Bassi. Laura Bassi was the first woman in modern periods to teach at an institution of higher education; once again her discipline is one which by modern values is hard for women to go into physics. After an open disputation in Latin she was presented her doctorate and the Pope chose her to teach at the University of Bologna. Bassi is furthermore said to have had twelve kids, a responsibility which appears not to have gotten in the way of her scientific efficiency. Every year she issued the outcome of a new study on the effects of air pressure, electricity, and so on.
The example of Laura Bassi brings up two further concerns. First, how did she handle twelve children and also be productive in teaching and research? To some extent, various techniques of dealing with raising children made it possible. For upper-class women of the eighteenth century, child care was possibly less a problem than it is for nowadays upper-class women. During the eighteenth century, the kid was given over to a governess, soon after birth and raised in the countryside. A mother was not in a position to see her child again up until seven years of age when the boys were taken to boarding school.
Although privileges of class permitted Bassi to be both a mother and scientist, the main point is that the burden of child upkeep usually falls on the woman. One could learn diverse solutions women have developed across the centuries for handling the uneasy fit between professional and reproduction life. However, the fact still stands that science, like professional life in overall, has been structured around the hypothesis that the society require not to reproduce itself, or that scientists are not amongst those included in reproduction. This hypothesis has systematized science institutions. If there was complete integration of women into science from the start, we might not have encountered the kinds of conflicts women get themselves in relating to child raising and professional life. The concern goes deeper than child rearing and bearing. During the middle-ages, the life of the mind was a celibate one. Intellectual life happened in religious foundation. Monastic traditions influenced their beneficiaries - university life. Professors at the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, for instance, were not permitted to marry; up until late into the nineteenth century celibacy was needed. In the late-eighteenth century, an English historian stated:
The studious and learned have often opposed to female corporation, because it so enervates and eases the mind, and offers it quite a turn for trifling, levity , and dissipation, as makes it completely unfit for that application which is essential so as to become outstanding in any of the sciences. In evidence of this, they contend, that the greatest philosophers rarely or never were men who enjoyed, or were suitable for the association or discussion of women. Sir Isaac Newton barely ever communicated with any of the sex… ([He] died a foreigner to love). Boyle, Des Cartes, Bacon, and a number of others, prominent for their knowledge and application, were but unexceptional companions to the just.
Another concern raised by Bassi's dominance in physics is the “math anxiety" amongst women. Nowadays we are often informed that women cannot be scientists since they have a distinctive fear of mathematics. By reviewing the past great scientist’s women, we can verify that a great proportion of those women were, actually, mathematicians. Moreover, to the women already stated, there was the Italian mathematician, Marie Agnesi, who was well-known for her 1738 script on calculus. Sophie Germain, Maria Winkelmann, and Madame du Chatelet were women participants in math-based sciences during the eighteenth century.
In the early decades of nineteenth century, women with interests in science often indulged themselves as science grew in status and popularity and as institutions, such as London University, initiated science lectures to women. British Association for the Advancement of Science, established in 1841, also welcomed women at their meetings even though in the early days they were supposed to be in the listeners only and allowed in on different ‘women’s tickets’., as science worked toward professionalization and retreat from any indication of amateurism, in the mid-nineteenth century, institutions wanted to be more special; typically, an initial step to attaining serious scientific rank was a closing of the doors to females. All through the nineteenth century, there sustained to be the outstanding scientific women. Among them was Sophie Kovaleskia, a Russian, well-known for her effort in partial differential equations. Since the Russian universities did not allow women to study, she decided to go abroad. During that time in 1870s single women were not allowed to cross over Russia's borders unless accompanied by a husband or their parents. As a result, she took the radicals solution and signed a “white" marriage: a marriage of suitability which gave her freedom of movement. Kovaleskia left for Heidelberg to study mathematics. She finished her doctorate at Weierstrass in Berlin, but since the university did not grant degrees to women, she was awarded a doctorate from Gottingen University in 1874. In 1888 she won the popular Bordin prize from the Academie des Sciences while in 1889, she was appointed as a mathematics professor at the Stockholm University.
It is remarkable to mention that Kovaleskia was a mathematician of stature such that her brain was weighed during craniological examinations (the study of brain size and skull as a measure of brainpower). Her brain after four years of alcohol consumption weighed in at 1385 grams compared to the 1440 grams of Helmholtz’s brain. The larger brain weight of Helmholtz proved a pyrrhic victory, while Kovaleskia's was proportional to her body weight than did Helmholtz. Craniology, a reputable science in the nineteenth century, fell into disregard in the 20th, as it was discovered that there is no connection between intelligence and brain size.
Marie Curie was the first person in history to win two Nobel prizes. She was born in Poland and in the 1870s she went to Paris to carry on with her study of physics and mathematics. While still there she married Pierre Curie. As was the case with most women in this era, her legitimization in the discipline came through her husband since he had professional contacts, as she worked as his assistant. Their cooperative work earned them a Nobel Prize in 1903 (also shared with Becquerel). After her husband's demise, she not only carried on their joint work, but also presumed his professorship at Sorbonne. in 1911 she was awarded another Nobel Prize, in inorganic chemistry, for the invention and separation of radium and polonium elements (the latter called after her native country Poland). In spite of the fact that she was the first to be awarded two Nobel prizes, she did not make it in her Academie des Sciences application in Paris. The Academy’s spokesman maintained it exceedingly wise to respect the undisputable tradition against women election."
The last decades of the nineteenth century was a period when scientists began looking at the disparities between males and females to determine which roles and activities were best suited to every gender. After Charles Darwin, man evolution became a hot topic whereby scientists clarified that women’s brains had not developed to the same level as men’s. Darwin’s natural selection had not supported the progress of women’s rational capabilities: however male’s brains developed in competition with other men for companions. Women were selected for their intuition, maternal, and caring traits. Darwinist medical men and scientists questioned if women, who were perceived to be partial and emotional, with a tendency to achieve shallow understandings and shift attention, could be entrusted to do science. Females were skilled in their ‘natural’ responsibility as mothers and wives, but they were temperamentally and intellectually unfit for scientific work; they were too emotional to be trusted with proof.
During the twentieth century, the issue of women being put forward for election by male leaders became an annoyance for some learned communities. The Entomological Society which was ‘publicly so exclusive that women who provided papers were not allowed to turn up when they were read’ nominated its first female member in 1904 according to science journal Nature. In 1902, the first female, Hertha Ayrton, was nominated for election by the Royal Society. She was an electrical engineer and a physicist. This nomination triggered off great separation; those backing up her nomination were against council conservatives who cautioned that electing females risked degrading the Society; this claim won and the Royal Society maintained to an all-male cooperativeness for the following forty years (Jones, 2009). The first females were elected as associates in 1945(biochemist Marjory Stephenson and crystallographer Kathleen Lonsdale) and the Royal Society gender profile in 2014 showed that female fellowship in the Society is approximately 5% (Royal Society, 2014). Nonetheless, things have advanced. However, it can be inappropriate to think that the position of women in science progresses in a steady as slow manner. After females in the U.S. won admission to graduate schools at the beginning of the 20th century, they flooded Ph.D. programs in all disciplines. Their numbers had up surged significantly by 1920. However, with the increase of conservatism and fascism surrounding the cold war, between 1930 and 1960, the number of females pursuing Ph.Ds. in the sciences faculty fell, and levels were recovered in the 1970s. Females' achievement in science wins through persistent work but not due to social evolution.
Women in science (like in most other occupations) struggle with hierarchical discrimination as Margaret Rossiter calls it: as one raises the ladder of prestige and power, the women faces vanish. There are numerous females at the bottom but few at the top, for instance as research laboratories heads, as engineering colleges deans, or in high government posts. This is clearly revealed in women's incomes. In 1986, women engineers and scientists incomes were about 75 percent of the men salaries. Certain people misguidedly think that the number of employed females in science fields is so small because there is no sufficient women proficient to do science. This, on the other hand, is false. Female scientists are two to five times to be underemployed or unemployed as male scientists. Equally, more women are often employed in lower-prestige occupations than men with similar level of education and work proficiency. There is a second theory that has been developed by Rossiter for thinking about the challenge of women in science which is the concept of occupation sex-typing or territorial discrimination.
In the nineteenth-century, medical and scientific community claimed that if women were subjected to hard intellectual manual labor, their health would undoubtedly suffer. The women’s colleges established in the 1880s and 1890s were cautious of provoking condemnation from antagonists who claimed that women endangered their welfare by pursuing education programs similar to men’s. Females ran the risk of nervous breakdown (for instance, anorexia scholastica, an illness recently recognized), decrease in marriage capability, loss of womanly beauty, and loss of fertility. Motherhood and domesticity were the top pursuits for females and any woman with ‘manly’ intellectual or scientific pursuits were in jeopardy of being seen as not only unnatural, but also misguided.
The most marked instance of territorial discrimination was that men went out to find jobs while women remained at home. There is, nonetheless, territorial discrimination in academic disciplines since we realize that more women do history and literature, and a few pursue science and engineering. Still there is territorial discrimination in the sciences. For instance, in 1920s the men three big sciences were engineering, medical sciences, and chemistry; for females the big three were psychology sciences, zoology, and botany with low money and prestige. Currently women are flooded in the psychology and life sciences fields where incomes are comparatively low irrespective of sex. By contrast, fields with high income and prestige have few women. This clarifies the outrageous fact that females' representation in physics is approximately 4 percent. What about minority females? Of the 700,000 women working in science and engineering fields in the U.S., 5 percent are African-American. Blacks, either males or females, are represented proportionately to their population percentage (about 10%). Asian males and females are equally represented among -approximately 5 percent in both instances. Native Americans make up less than 1 percent of U.S.A. scientists and mathematicians. Those are the evidences regarding women participation. How about these low numbers? The hoariest and most uncertain explanation is that women can't do science well like men. This claim - collectively known as biological determinism explains that something in the intellectual, psychological, and physical nature of women forbids them from providing great science. This effort to track female's social inferiority to her hypothetical biological inferiority dates back at least to Aristotle. In the ancient world, Galen, Aristotle, and Hippocrates drew a picture of the personality of woman which explained females’ inferior social status. Aristotle claimed that women are weaker and colder than men. In the late nineteenth century, craniologists tried to justify sexual discrepancies in intellectual success by assessing the skull. Anatomists presumed that the male skull was larger and loaded with more powerful brain. On mid-nineteenth century, Darwinists used evolutionary biology to claim that woman was a man whose mental and physical evolution had been held in a primitive phase. Edward Clark in a cautiously worked out scientific research pointed out that women's intellectual growth would progress at a great cost to their reproductive growth. This kind of research on women inferiority did not end until in the 1920s and 30s, when the arguments were based on hormonal research.
Currently we are still overwhelmed with the claim that biology is destiny. Brain lateralization studies attempt to convince us that females perform poorly in math since their brains are not as specialized as males’ brains. Harvard's E. O. Wilson, a Socio-biologist explains that genes determine social differences;" he goes ahead and writes that men are more likely to continue playing an unequal role in science, business, and political life." These findings aren't much different from those of Edward Clark or Aristotle. They provide scientific explanation for persistent divisions in privilege and power between the sexes.
The biological argument against women has yet to be established. Women have in history been barred from science institutions for over 700 years since the 12th century till the nineteenth century. It is just a century since Europe and America universities unwillingly accepted women admittance opened, although the discrimination issues did not end then, not even after outlawing sexual prejudice in the U.S. in the 1960s.
Women's failure to attain equal opportunities in science ranges from the type of toys kids play with to the type of education they get. When a woman is enrolled in science, subtle factors keep her on the edge. Barbara Reskin has revealed that when females are allowed to research laboratories, they are usually barred from the communication networks vital to the careers ideas and development. As a result, they come upon the “little lady syndrome"-the postulation that women staff members are support employees or that they won't be well-informed about complicated political and scientific issues. Others believe that females can't be depended on during hard times as their concentration is divided between their responsibilities as mothers and wives and their work.
As the professionalization and institutionalization of science continued in the twentieth century, more females won entry to science, although many were set apart in limited positions that took advantage of their exceptional ‘feminine abilities’, recognized as a submissive patience, attitude and meticulous concentration on repetitive detail. The occupations were usually low-paid, low-level assistant and technician positions which strengthened the leading gender science hierarchies, not to overwhelm them. These women’s jobs increased in the UK in the course of the World Wars when females were wanted to substitute men. Even though a good number of females scientists occupied research work − of significance to the war − in laboratories, most of them took on technician level responsibility (Fara, 2015).
For instance, during WW1 women gained their first admittance to the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) where they were hired in the Meteorology Department to carry out gauge-testing, a vital aspect of the ammunitions industry. By 1917 there were about one hundred females out of 420 staff members in the department (National Physical Laboratory, 2000). The involvement to the production of scientific expertise has of late become a scholarly enquiry topic in the science history (Hartley and Tansey, 2015).
Has there been a time when females established a science in which they were the majority of its experts? Was the science different when men did it? Midwifery is the main example of a science practiced and developed by women for the assistance of other women. Since ancient times women have take over the field of birthing and the entire women's health care. In the eighteenth century, the art of birthing was dominated by university-trained obstetricians, mainly men. However, in the nineteenth century midwives were thrown out to the rural areas.
The intrusion of men into the Midwifery field coincided with sudden changes in obstetrical and gynecological training. Female midwives had stressed the natural childbirth and their responsibility was to help the mother during child birth, while the new man-midwife, trained surgeon, worked with surgical instruments. Since the surgeons had conventionally been called in emergency cases only, a small number had ever seen a normal childbirth. Simultaneously, village midwives had helped the mother with the technical aspects of giving birth and daily responsibilities, including taking care of the children and cooking, while the mother recovered. In contrast, male-midwives attended the mother in the labor hours and ultimately compelled them to give birth in hospitals which further challenged care health systems for women. The women's association was able to overturn these trends in the 1960s and 1970s and gave back their control over their health care.
In addition to persuading women into science, the society must be sensitive to cultivate proposed changes by the newcomers. Changes can come at different levels. The world is already realizing dramatic institutional developments. The idea of employing companions demoralizes the supposition that scientists are atomistic personalities (or more appropriately, males with family units are willing and ready to move with them) and acknowledges that the society is made up of correlated groups in which the wants of every individual should be met. Changes can also come in the scientific research methods.
Women have not yet attained similar levels of success and participation in science and mathematics as men. The ongoing ambivalence displayed by girls to pursuing a career in these fields is still controlled by cultural factors: they perceive scientific careers as ‘unfeminine’, an insight that groups like WISE are working with some achievement to dispel. Their goal can be achieved by publicly increasing the number of women scientists. The current representations of female scientists in movies and on TV screens—whereby they are always stylish having their and lipstick hair in place, while male admirers wait in line, might be placing another unviable demand on women scientists.
In conclusion, more dramatic changes in the priorities of science are yet to come. The first benefits might be felt by women. Recently the National Institutes of Health were subjugated for failing to examine the aftermath of medication on women. Doctors have long recommended an aspirin everyday to prevent heart disease. However the tests were done exclusively with male subjects; no one can tell whether or not it is advantageous for women to take the same dose. The benefits however will go beyond science innovations primarily directed at women. three sciences including anthropology, biology, and primatology have been intensely influenced by an influx of female scientists. Knowledge of nature has been transformed by women efforts. The objective of the science transformations (whether they dramatically change the substance or style of science or not) is not to create a world that favors women but to produce a more human science which is unbound from the distortions caused by centuries of barring more than half of humankind from its positions. The alterations will also offer more options and extensive opportunities for men as Evelyn Fox Keller puts it.
The percentage of tenured females has increased gradually, from around 8 percent throughout the 1970s, to around 18 percent by 1995. This proportion seems to be relatively low. That is to say, 10-15 years earlier, females were just approximately 25 percent of the group obtaining doctorates in science fields therefore becoming qualified to join the faculty positions. Perhaps most significant prediction about the future of women in science is the rising trend of females in tenure-track ranks. This number has progressively increased, from 15 percent to35 percent and in 1973 respectively. This trend seems to point out that more and more females are dignified to take leadership positions in mathematicss and sciences.

Chart 1
Number of university graduates, by sex, Canada, 1992 to 2007

There are notable differences across the provinces in the gender trends in university graduation (Chart 2). British Columbia led the way, with strong growth in the number of both male and female university graduates between 1992 and 2007. Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Ontario and Alberta saw strong growth in the number of female university graduates over the period. The percentage increase in the number of male graduates was weak in the four Atlantic Provinces, while Quebec saw very little growth in the number of either male or female university graduates.
That being said, female university graduates outnumbered males in every province in both 1992 and 2007.

References
Becker, B.J., ‘Dispelling the myth of the able assistant: Margaret and William Huggins at work in the Tulse Hill Observatory’ in Creative Couples in the Sciences, edited by H.M. Pycior, N.G. Slack and P.G. Abir-am (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1996) pp. 98-111.
Fara, Patricia ‘Women, Science and Suffrage in World War One’, Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 61 (1) 2015.
Hartley, J.M and Tansey, E.M., ‘White Coats and No Trousers: Narrating the experiences of women technicians in medical laboratories, 1930-1990’, Notes and Records: The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science 61 (1) 2015.
Jones, Claire G., Femininity, Mathematics and Science, 1880-1914 (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2009).
Jones, Claire G., ‘Discovery on the edge? The tensions of homemade science in the work of Henderina Scott (1862-1929) and Hertha Ayrton (1854-1923)’ in Domesticating Nature: Households in the Making of Modern Science, edited by Donald L. Opitz, Staffan Bergwik and Brigitte Van Tiggelen (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2015).
National Physical Laboratory, Metromnia, 9 (2000)
Ogilvie, Marilyn Bailey, ‘Obligatory amateurs: Annie Maunder (1868-1947) and British women astronomers at the dawn of professional astronomy’ British Journal for the History of Science 33 (116) 2000, 67-84
Royal Society, https://royalsociety.org/about-us/fellowship/ <accessed 07 November 2014>.
Schiebinger, Londa, The Mind has no sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science (Cambridge Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1996)
Shteir, Ann B, ‘Gender and “Modern” Botany in Victorian England’, OSIRIS 12 (1997) 29-38. Londa Schiebinger is Associate Professor of History and Women's Studies at The Pennsylvania State University. She is author of The Mind Has No Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science (Harvard University Press, 1989) and Nature's Body: Gender in the Making of Modern Science (Beacon Press, 1993).
Barbara Newman, Sister of Wisdom: St. Hildegard's Theology of the Feminine (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987).
David Noble, A World Without Women: The Christian Clerical Culture of Western Science (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1992).
Ann Koblitz, A Convergence of Lives: Sofia Kovalevskaia, Scientist, Writer, Revolutionary (Boston: Birkhauser, 1983).
Margaret Rossiter, Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1982). For an anthology of essays on women scientists, see Pnina Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram, ed., Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science, 1789-1979 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987).
Anne Fausto-Sterling, Myths of Gender: Biological Theories about Women and Men (New York: Basic Books, 1985); Ruth Hubbard, The Politics of Women's Biology (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1990).
Jean Donnison, Midwives and Medical Men: A History of Inter-Professional Rivalries and Women's Rights (London: Heinemann, 1977).
Evelyn Fox Keller, A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1983).
Donna Haraway, Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (New York: Routledge, 1989).
Evelyn Fox Keller, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985).