by Madeleine Kando
I read somewhere that only three percent of the most illustrious figures of history are women. Ben Franklin, Einstein, William the Conqueror and Freud do not have female counterparts. It is as if the genius gene only gets passed on to sons, carefully skipping over daughters.
Famous men of history often had more sisters than brothers; Benjamin Franklin had seven sisters, Freud had five and Darwin had four. What happened to them? They all lived their lives, side by side with their famous brothers, only to vanish without a trace, almost as if they never existed. Were they less talented? Or did they have a different role to play, a different destiny?
Looking at the size of the families that these famous men grew up in, one wonders how anyone of the female sex could find the time to do anything but pop out babies. Women were baby factories, not much else. Josiah Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s father, had seventeen children. His first wife died giving birth to their 7th child, so he didn’t waste time and married Abigail Folger that same year, who bore him ten more children. She started at age 23 and had her last child at age 45. Josiah Franklin, 'made sure that each of his sons learned a trade', a noble endeavor, to be sure, but there is no mention of his many daughters being included in these paternal ambitions.
This incredible silence throughout history of the female voice is an accepted fact. If you look at the ratio of sons to daughters, it is about the same in most famous men’s families, but usually the sons were given special treatment, especially by their mothers. Freud had his own room, while his many sisters had to share one and both Hitler and Picasso were their mother's 'favorite'.
The many sisters were there to be married off and pop out babies of their own. They barely had time to catch their breath between deliveries, let alone learn how to read and write, study or create opportunities to become people in their own right.
Napoleon's mother Letizia Ramolino, had her first child at fourteen. The baby promptly died and so did the second one. Only eight of her thirteen children survived. She is described as 'a hard, austere woman, toughened by war, who punished her children to teach them sacrifice and discipline.' She actually died at the ripe old age of 86, having had her 13 children before the age of 35. Many women these days haven't even started a family at that age!
The few sisters that survived oblivion did so at the expense of their offspring. Pauline Bonaparte, Napoleon's favorite younger sister, had only one child who died at the age of eight. Pauline was considered the most beautiful woman in Europe at the time. This, combined with her frivolous character, her enormous sexual appetite and her fondness for intrigue, guaranteed her a well-deserved, albeit notorious place in history. She would be a perfect candidate for a write-up in the National Enquirer. Some historians even suspect that she had an incestuous relationship with Napoleon himself.
Some sisters survived oblivion simply be being born famous. Octavia Minor or simply Octavia, was Augustus' sister. She was one of the most prominent women in Roman history, respected and admired for her loyalty, nobility and humanity. She married Mark Antony, who cheated on her with Cleopatra and she had the misfortune of being Caligula's mother.
Some sisters deserve to be forgotten just by being unsavory characters, unworthy of being remembered. Paula Hitler, Adolf Hitler's younger sister, had a clean slate, until it was discovered that she was engaged to Erwin Jekelius, who was responsible for gassing 4000 people during the war.
Of all the sisters that I did my limited research on, none speaks to me more, than Jane Franklin Mecom, Benjamin Franklin's younger sister. As historian Jill Lepore observes in the New York Times, 'by looking at the divergent paths of these two siblings, we can learn a lot about history, about gender disparity, and about luck. The two had a similarly modest background, but he, alone, transcended it.'
Benjamin Franklin wrote more letters to Jane than to anyone else. His literary legacy is legendary, brilliant, entertaining, hers is full of spelling errors, awkwardly written and she constantly apologies for her own writing style.
While Benjamin wrote his famous biography, Jane wrote what she calls her “Book of Ages", a 14 page description of the deaths of her children. She had twelve, eleven of them died. She was trapped in poverty, trying to take care of a mentally ill husband, having babies who died one after the other, keenly aware of the 'what might have beens', had she not been a sister but a brother. She was thirsting for knowledge, for the education she never had.
Have we made any progress? Are sisters still in danger of living out their lives in obscurity, motherhood forcing them to give up on greatness? The social pressure on women to have children is still strong.
London School of Psychology's Satoshi Kanazawa, found that maternal urges drop 25% with every increased 15 IQ point. He finds smart women's reproductive choice 'dumb', because 'If there is one thing that humans are decisively not designed for, it is voluntary childlessness. Reproductive success is the ultimate end of all biological existence.'
Well, Mr. Kanazawa, if women choose to remain childless, it is a reflection of society’s failure to provide the support they need to raise children. Forcing women, especially smart ones, to choose between greatness and obscurity, between career and kids and then lecturing them on their 'duty' towards our species, is hypocritical. We need those women's voices to fill the historical void. Then, maybe, perhaps, eventually they can also have children. If you ask them nicely. leave comment here
5 comments:
Brilliant. Feminism at its best.
It’s difficult to comment on a piece that contains nothing but truth. But I’ll jot down a few random remarks, just to indicate that Madeleine is not whistling in the wind:
1. Regarding history: It’s not possible to change the past. Only the future. Now don’t misunderstand me, I am fully aware of, and in agreement with, Santayana’s famous words - “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” So it’s okay to rehash Freud, Hitler, Franklin and the rest of sexist history (And I, too, was the beneficiary of sexism, I suppose, but I am not responsible for that).
Some years ago, a conservative friend of ours asked,”why do we need departments of “Women’s Studies.” My brilliant daughter replied: “Because all previous studies have been ‘Men’s Studies’.”
2. Madeleine’s critique of Professor Kanazawa is interesting. Of course smart women shouldn’t have to choose between children or career.
Which brings me to my main point: We need to change things NOW and for the FUTURE. We need policies which will spare women that choice. Generous paid parental leave and all the rest of it. Scandinavia, as always, shows the way: Because of their social policies, those countries have the highest female participation in governance in the world.
So what I fret about the most is not the past, but the present and the future. The fact that the majority of the world, TODAY, continues to treat women abominably. And it also seems to me that there is a real danger of regression. The Hilary haters are all around us. I have already sent a check to support her candidacy.
I also read the Times article about Franklin's sister. Reliable birth control is my choice for the one thing that makes a difference in women's lives. Very interesting post!
I see nothing new here, it is a rehashing of the current politically correct attitude regarding women that all people are supposed to subscribe to. If they don't they're often sent to "sensitivity training". Since the dominance of this feminist argument in the 70's, your side has pretty much decided social policy. Are women happier as a result? Has the upbringing of children improved, when we look at crime, educational progress, drug addiction, suicide? All cultures will make decisions, or at least emphasize and encourage certain roles for young and old, male and female. There is no culture that has not done this. For those feminists who argue men and women are essentially the same, there is no use arguing with them. But the forefathers and mothers who created this great Western Civilization saw things differently. Contrary to what the feminists say, the role of wife and nurturer of the young was a highly regarded and esteemed role in society, perhaps the most critical of all in creating the "good" society. As that traditional family was undermined and ridiculed we have the results: aimless youth on drugs, violent movies, gangsta rap, and usually educationally illiteracy. How nice. Meanwhile these sexist men were risking and often fighting our wars, protecting our streets, and working 10 hour days in mines and similar work. The other charge that we were keeping our women undeducated is pure nonsense. Most of the literary societies since the first days of this nation were dominated by women, who were well versed in the topics of the day, and art, poetry, literature. In many cases, that is how knowledge was passed on to the young. Even among the poorest on the frontier, the women preferred home life to taming the frontier , and doing the backbreaking labor to survive. It is a real shame that we have spit in the face of the very people who's sacrifices, both men and women, who did the hard work in creating the nation we enjoy today.
Just a couple of things - for the heck of it :
1. Anonymous expresses the standard conservative position. I respect that , even though, in my view, he is wrong. But I don’t want to get into an endless exchange about his arguments, which I could refute, time permitting.
2. While women have made much progress in parts of the Western world, the worldwide situation remains abominable. The oppression of women remains monstrous in dozens of countries, worst of all in most of the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere. The oppression ranges from the “social” and “cultural” practices such as those hinted at by Madeleine, to outright physical torture, mutilation, murder, slavery and execution of innocents. Even conservatives agree that what the Taliban has in mind for women is monstrous. That’s one reason why Republicans support our Middle Eastern wars.
I suppose pointing the finger at “the other guy” is a bit of a cop-out, as if to say that “we”, in the West, are blameless and that gender discrimination is a thing of the past.
I’m just saying...
This is an excellent piece of writing--especially the research you did. Yesterday the SF Chronicle published a story about another interesting woman. Juana Briones was born in California in 1802, when it was under Spanish rule. She and her husband--a Spanish soldier--had 7 children. Because of his abuse and his drunken behavior,she ran away in her twenties. She started a dairy farm in Yerba Buena (the original Spanish name for San Francisco)and sold milk to crew members of the ships that visited SF. In 1844, she also started a cattle ranch nearby. She is credited with saving the lives of at least 2 people by riding her horse several miles to aid them when they were seriously ill. She lived to age 87. Her only memorial in SF is a small brass plaque in North Beach. She lived successfully under the flags of three nations, even though she was illiterate.
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!