In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Appendix 1 Arguments about Women’s Natures A ppe n d i c es 0014_Frize_5x8_B_v09_16_11_2009.indd 305 16/11/09 6:19 PM 306 THE BOLD AND THE BRAVE Table A1.1 Framework of forms of arguments about women’s natures Women’s natures Philosophers’ views (minds, talents, Child bearing Structure that can be used to abilities, or capacities) Logic of position capacity of society support position A. The same 1. Men and women have the same Not relevant Based on nature. Plato talents/abilities/capacities. Therefore women Averroes 1 2. Access to education is based can occupy the Astell 1 on one’s capacities. same social Descartes 2 3. Therefore women should have positions as men. de Poullain access to education. Locke Mill 3 B. Different (less than 4. Men and women have inherently Not Based on nature. Aristotle or inferior) different and unequal talents/ necessarily Therefore women Aquinas abilities/capacities. relevant cannot occupy the Tertullian usually attributed to 5. Access to education is based same social James 4 the Ancient Greeks on one’s capacities. positions as men. Hume 6. Therefore women should have Kant a different education than men. Broca 0014_Frize_5x8_B_v09_16_11_2009.indd 306 16/11/09 6:19 PM Appendices 307 Table A1.1 (continued ) Women’s natures Philosophers’ views (minds, talents, Child bearing Structure that can be used to abilities, or capacities) Logic of position capacity of society support position Different 7. Men and women have inherently Relevant Based on nature, Aristotle (complementary) different natural talents/ so women cannot Tertullian abilities/capacities. occupy the same Kant especially 8. Access to education is based social positions Hume prevalent in the on one’s capacities. as men and Wollstonecraft 5 17 th to 19 th centuries 9. Therefore women should have vice versa. a different education than men. Notes 1 Averroes and Astell may not have envisioned a completely transformed society. 2 Descartes himself did not argue for women’s education, but de Poullain uses Cartesian arguments. 3  Mill seems rather to base the structure of society on the principle that everyone, regardless of gender, birth or race ought to be treated equally so that his/her nature may have the greatest chance of optimum development. 4  William James supported education for women, but his views nevertheless support the view that women should not be given access to higher education. 5  Mary Wollstonecraft argues both for a radical social reform and for maintaining the general structure of society in which women occupy distinct but complementary social positions. 0014_Frize_5x8_B_v09_16_11_2009.indd 307 16/11/09 6:19 PM 308 THE BOLD AND THE BRAVE Table A1.2 How data is accounted for by the different positions Position Data Interpretation Philosopher Women’s nature essentially skilled or intellectual women an exception or anomaly, “women with Aristotle different from men’s beards” (Kant), odd and undesirable Aquinas James (this includes both the view frivolous, intuitive, emotionally evidence of women’s true nature Hume attributed to the Greeks that swayed, or ignorant women Kant women are lesser men, and Rousseau the NCT view that they are Society plays no significant role in forming altogether distinct, but individuals complementary) Women’s nature skilled or intellectual women evidence of women’s true nature Plato equal to men’s Averroes a product of appropriate nurturing Astell Wollstonecraft (?) frivolous, intuitive, emotionally a product of inappropriate nurturing Descartes (?) swayed, or ignorant women de Poullain Mill Society plays a significant role in forming individuals 0014_Frize_5x8_B_v09_16_11_2009.indd 308 16/11/09 6:19 PM Appendices 309 Appendix 2 Degrees Awarded and Students Enrolled in Science and Engineering 0014_Frize_5x8_B_v09_16_11_2009.indd 309 16/11/09 6:19 PM 310 THE BOLD AND THE BRAVE Table A2.1 Changing proportions of undergraduate degrees awarded to women in engineering in the United States and Canada, selected years, 1966–2005 Proportions in Change from previous Change from previous United States selected year in United States Proportions in Canada selected year in Canada (%) (absolute numbers) (%) (absolute numbers) 1966 0.4 1970 0.8 130 1975 2.1 151 3.6 1980 10.1 608 7.9 181 1985 14.5 89 10.8 53 1990 15.4 -11 14.0 37 1995 17.3 10 18.9 54 2000 20.5 12 20.3 28 2001 20.1 -2 .4 20.6 6.3 2002 20.9 6.4 19.9 1.97 2003 20.3 2.2 19.2 --.003 2004 20.5 2.2 18.2 --4.1 2005 NA 17.5 --4.7...

pdf

Additional Information

ISBN
9780776618845
Related ISBN
9780776607252
MARC Record
OCLC
864851766
Pages
366
Launched on MUSE
2012-01-01
Language
English
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.