Embedded Files
April's monthly publication out now!!!
March's magazine:
“The Footnotes We Forgot to Read”
“The Footnotes We Forgot to Read”
This Women’s History Month feature explores the stories that don’t always make the headlines but still shape everything beneath them. Across history, science, health, and wartime, these pieces look beyond the obvious narratives to examine how women’s influence is often present, powerful, and persistently overlooked.
From behind-the-scenes strategists and erased innovators to dismissed pain and temporary empowerment, this collection reveals how recognition is not always given to those who earn it. It uncovers the patterns that decide whose contributions are amplified—and whose are quietly minimized.
Together, these essays challenge readers to reconsider what we define as impact, who we choose to remember, and how much of women’s history is still waiting to be fully seen.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
"The Power Behind the Curtain: Were Women the Real Architects All Along?”
History tends to celebrate the loudest voices, often overlooking those working strategically behind the scenes. This article reveals how women quietly shaped major reform movements through organization, funding, and education, only to be written out of the narrative.
.
"Believing in Women’s Pain"
Women are often told their pain is “normal,” even when it signals something far more serious. This article exposes how medical bias continues to dismiss women’s experiences, delaying diagnoses and putting their health at risk.
“Credit Where It’s Due… Or Is It?”
The story of innovation often credits men while quietly erasing the women behind the breakthroughs. This article uncovers how female scientists’ contributions have been overlooked, revealing a pattern of bias in who gets remembered.
"War, Work, and the What-If: Who Were Women Allowed to Be?”
In times of war, women are called to step up but rarely allowed to stay there. This article examines how wartime expands women’s roles and power, only for society to push them back into traditional expectations once the crisis ends.
all Images sourced from pinterest
all Images sourced from pinterest
“The Power Behind the Curtain: Were Women the Real Architects All Along?”
By: Lina Bernatska
We often remember the “large” moments in history: speeches, office positions, and other events. Nowadays, the narrative focuses on visible and documentable action, with the portrayal of men as saviors at the center of the story. Less awarded are the actions of women, who moved quietly to shape history and call for improvement. Their struggles and sacrifices, unfortunately, are often lost in the pages of most history books.
Around the 1790s-1840s, America experienced waves of religious revival known as the second great awakening. Churches sought to revitalize faith through experimental, emotional religion that would be accessible to all social classes. The religious experience shifted to one that emphasized personal salvation and personal experience. The movement emphasized personal responsibility and moral improvement, which led many to believe that they could improve society through collective action. Out of this period, grew an era of major social movements and reform that included abolitionism and educational reform.
Major figures in the abolitionist movement include William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass, who published The Liberator and the North Star. These major figures result in the lessening of the memories of “less valuable” women who aided the cause. As women were excluded from formal politics, they leveraged their religious networks, personal wealth, and moral authority to influence the public. The Grimké sisters, Angelina and Sarah, were born into a wealthy slaveholding family in the Deep South. Firsthand exposures to the inhuman cruelty and treatment of slaves led them to support abolitionism. They took public speaking tours throughout the North and published many written works that helped bridge abolitionism and women’s rights early on. Through a more behind-the-scenes perspective, they were instrumental in organizing and running fairs in Northern cities which sold many goods to raise money for anti-slavery societies and to support escaped enslaved people. They strategically recruited women to participate after teaching them how to link moral activism with fundraising, creating a social network. Planning for the future, the sisters even taught the next generation how to organize anti-slavery societies, run meetings, and petition themselves. They were able to rationalize their involvement in politics as a Christian duty, a clever cover up. During this era, male abolitionists were more credited as leaders at the expense of women being seen as supporting roles.
Women were also able to quietly reshape future public morals and political engagement by inadvertently improving educational reform. They worked behind the guise that women were moral guardians of society to pursue this kind of reform. Figures like Emma Willard and Mary Lyon created schools for women that would expose future generations to fields and subjects previously reserved to men. They framed these schools as institutions that would improve women’s domestic capacities, which made them seem legitimate in the public’s eye. Both women traveled to states and wealthy donors to attempt to secure financial backing for their campaigns. Their reasoning helped to make women have a long-term place in the educational system. The educational network had a sturdy base of socially respected, educated women who would be able to work together to exchange curriculum ideas, teaching methods, and organizational strategies. By training women to become teachers and become exposed to new subjects, they helped to mold agents of reform and prove that women could be intellectual leaders. The role of educational reformers is often overlooked as they are assigned the role of teachers rather than social reformers. The effect of their efforts seemed insignificant compared to the larger, more prominent reform efforts and therefore are often omitted in traditional historical narratives.
Overall, gendered narratives harm history by labeling women’s efforts as womanly duties associated with their assigned superheroes. It is unfortunate that today, texts books favor dramatic public events over long-term strategy.
"Believing in Women’s Pain"
"Believing in Women’s Pain"
by Aria Sena
by Aria Sena
From the beginning of her first cycle, she told her mom about the pain. Her mom said it was normal and gave her over-the-counter medicine. This went on for years: agonizing pain with little relief from any pain medication or heating pad. Finally, at eighteen, she goes to her doctor, only to be told the same thing, “It’s normal, most women have pain”. This goes on for years. She lives with the pain, only when switching doctors does she discover her pain isn’t normal. It was endometriosis. Often in medicine, women’s pain is ignored or downplayed. From anxiety to endometriosis to chronic illness, women’s diagnosis and treatment takes years longer than the average man. Bias in research, diagnosis and treatment is still impacting the medical world today, so let’s explore why.
All medicine stems from research, yet many studies ignore women from the start. In current medicinal studies, only 37-41% of participants are women. A study analyzing 21,000 patient records showed that women were far less likely to receive any pain medication than men being treated for the same symptoms. Research from Joan C. Edwards School of Medicine showed that nurses were 10% less likely to utilize women’s pan scores and women spent an additional 30 minutes in emergency departments when waiting for treatments. So from the start of our medical journey,women are often being ignored.
The lack of treatment typically stems from bias rooted in the idea that women are more dramatic about their pain. Studies have shown that clinicians often perceive women’s pain as less intense than that of their male counterparts presenting with the same symptoms.The cultural view of women being dramatic or exaggerative has become so common that it is embedded in the idea of clinicians that we are unable to accurately explain our pain. This stereotype has killed women across the world. An estimated 795,000 patients a year die or become permanently disabled due to misdiagnosis often starting from a lack adequate of care.
Let’s take a deeper look at a chronic condition often overlooked and undertreated: endometriosis. The condition is described as the growth of uterine lining outside of the uterus. When untreated it causes immense pain and possible infertility. It’s estimated that one in ten women is affected by endometriosis and on average the diagnosis delay is anywhere from 7 and 10 years. Research in the condition has been underfunded for decades causing a major loss of research and even greater difficulty in treatment.
So what can be done to help protect our health and get early treatment? If you are able, help to increase the funding in research for women’s health specifically. Push for those around you to stand their ground when someone is trying to minimize their pain, especially medical staff. Do your own research on women’s health, even if it’s not
a struggle you live with, having a greater understanding can help your friends and community into more widespread knowledge. And keep in mind medical professionals are meant to help you, they’ve unconsciously been taught the “reality” of women’s pain, standing your ground while remaining respectful is key to helping break the stereotype of women’s pain.
“War, Work, and the What-If: Who Were Women Allowed to Be?"
“War, Work, and the What-If: Who Were Women Allowed to Be?"
by: Nora Kovacevic
The roles of women in wartime have historically extended far beyond traditional caregiving, encompassing espionage, factory work, and leadership in resistance movements. These expanded roles often represent significant, though temporary, shifts in societal expectations and opportunities for women. Examining these diverse contributions reveals a complex interplay between wartime necessity and deeply entrenched gender norms.
Espionage during wartime has seen women leveraging their perceived inconspicuousness to gather crucial intelligence. Their unique positions allowed them access to information that men could not easily obtain, influencing military strategies and outcomes. Simultaneously, the demands of war economies propelled women into factory jobs, essential for maintaining the production of war supplies. These roles not only supported the war effort but also provided women with economic independence and a sense of capability outside the domestic sphere.
Furthermore, women played pivotal roles in resistance movements, organizing and participating in activities that undermined enemy operations. From smuggling information and supplies to actively engaging in combat, their contributions were vital in challenging occupying forces and supporting national liberation efforts. These acts of courage and resilience often defied societal expectations, highlighting women's capacity for leadership and strategic thinking.
However, the empowerment experienced by women during wartime was frequently short lived. Post war periods often saw a retraction of these expanded roles as societal norms reverted to pre-war expectations. Women were commonly pressured to return to domestic roles, relinquishing their positions in factories and other sectors to returning male soldiers. This cycle of temporary advancement followed by regression underscores the persistent struggle for gender equality, where progress made during times of crisis is not always sustained in peacetime.
all images sourced from pinterest
all images sourced from pinterest
“Credit Where It’s Due… Or Is It?”
by: Elisa Nikovic
Here’s a question worth asking: how many “great men” were standing on the work of forgotten women?
Since the beginning of time, women have had their ideas stolen by their male colleges with minimum credit given to themselves. Men are often credited for the work of minorities since they are taken far more seriously. Society refuses to acknowledge the work of women as well as people of color due to it not suiting their narrative of how these groups of people are. Women are viewed as far too incompetent to create something yet the moment a man claims to have created that very thing they are viewed as a genius.
A prominent example of this is chemist and x-ray crystallographer, Rosalind Elsie Franklin who didn’t have her work in identifying the double-helix structure of DNA acknowledged. Rather her male colleagues were credited profoundly for the discovery. Maurice Wilkins worked on investigating DNA as well and violated the code of conduct by showing Franklin’s x-ray of DNA to Francis Krick and James Watson. Photo 51, a photo showing a clear double helix in the structure of DNA, taken by one of Franklins students in 1952, Raymond Gosling was crucial to this discovery. Krick and Watson went on to discover the structure of DNA, relying heavily on the work of Franklin to find this. These men, as well as Wilkins, won the 1962 Nobel prize in Physiology or Medicine for this discovery yet Franklin did not receive anything. These 3 men all winning the Nobel prize, including Wilkins outlines the issue in society. Those men won since they had all worked on this theory yet Franklin who had contributed heavily to the results of this was not credited.
This act of men stealing credit from women has occurred numerous times throughout history. Another genetic discovery made was by Nettie Stevens, an American geneticist who built on Gregor Mendel’s theory of genetics. Nettie Stevens observed male mealworms and saw that they had produced two different kinds of sperm. Prior to this, many people raised the question, how is sex determined? This proposed a scientific answer to the hundreds of years old question, this was the X and Y model. This meant that the fathers sperm would either carry an X chromosome or a Y chromosome to his offspring. An X chromosome would make the child a girl while a Y chromosome would make a boy. Stevens male colleague, E.B. Wilson had been working on determining the same thing. Wilson had at first believed that men had one less chromosome than women and that was what decided their gender. However it was likely not until 1905, when Stevens released her research that E.B. Wilson came to the same conclusion. E.B. Wilson received an overwhelming majority of the credit and overshadowed all of Stevens' work that aided him in reaching that conclusion.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse