What can Mileva Maric-Einstein's (controversial) participation in works published by Albert Einstein between 1901 and 1905 teach about gender inequality in the history of science?
Since the 1980s, there has been an intricate controversy regarding the participation of Mileva Maric, the first wife of Albert Einstein, in the production of academic works published by her husband between 1901 and 1905. This article aims to discuss the participation that Mileva had in the productio...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | Brasil |
| Institución: | Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
| Repositorio: | Caderno Brasileiro de Ensino de Física (Online) |
| Idioma: | portugués |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/91325 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/fisica/article/view/91325 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Mileva Maric Albert Einstein Science History Women in Science História da Ciência Mulheres na Ciência |
| Sumario: | Since the 1980s, there has been an intricate controversy regarding the participation of Mileva Maric, the first wife of Albert Einstein, in the production of academic works published by her husband between 1901 and 1905. This article aims to discuss the participation that Mileva had in the production of these works. The presentation of the historical episode is followed by interpretations found in the literature, according to which Mileva can be seen as a “sounding board” that did not contribute with her own ideas, or as an important co-author eclipsed by the dominant chauvinism at that time. In addition to discussing Mileva's participation in the elaboration of these works, we incorporate contributions from gender studies on the analysis of historical episodes like this. In this regard, we discuss obstacles presents on the trajectory of women scientists such as Mileva, pointing out how meritocratic discourse can be used as an instrument to demean discussions about gender inequality in the sciences. The points raised highlight the importance of research on the history of science to avoid pitfalls that contribute to perpetuating this scenario of gender inequality. |
|---|