Cameron, Laura

Canadian Woman Studies / les cahiers de la femme (E-Journal, York University)

- Book Reviews FEMININE INGENUITY: HOW WOMEN INVENTORS CHANGED AMERICA Anne L. Macdonald. Mississauga, Ontario: Random H o w  of Canada, 1994. by Laura Cameron F m h  Ingenuity: How Women In- ventors Changed America has a sure historical mandate; to give recogni- tion to the dozens of women who patented in the United States in the last 200 years. It llfills its mandate meticulously and painstakingly, ac- knowledging the names and inven- tions of women as diverse as Mary Kies, the first American woman to succeed in gaining a patent in her own name in 1809 for a straw-weav- ing process, to Dr. Gertrude Elion, a Nobel Prize Winner in 1988 for her work in developing drugs crucial to the treatment of cancer and viruses. The hours of research and the de- tailed documentation are apparent. That this is a work of love is obvi- ous-the author is herself a patented inventor, and her indignation at the short shrift female inventors have re- ceived at the hands ofa gender-biased society is evident on every page. And it does bare some interesting points about the relationship between women and their inventions, between the suffragettes and women inven- tors, and occasionally about the con- text these ingenious women lived in- but it moves on too quickly without letting the strong andvibrant person- alities of the women develop. One of my great delights in history is coming across an historian that takes a question and turns it upside down looking for possible interpreta- tions. One of the best things about a good provocative question is that it can open the door to speculation, hrther questions, eureka! moments of sudden comprehension. They can help us understand our motives and give us some context that we can apply to present situations. Then his- tory becomes a dynamic influence- a yard-stick or DcuAbby thatwe can turn to for advice and wise counsel- our conscience. While Macdonald's text does fill a gap in women' S history, there is little analysis, and the information, while comprehensive in its limited sphere, does not allow for provocative ques- tions. Over-extension and drift is an occupational hazard for the histo- rian. However sticking too closely to a self-imposed thesis is also a hazard; lack of context does not allow for original analysis. Barbara Tuchman, U.S. historian and author of The March ofFoolly: From Troy to Vietnam combats this hazard by laying wide her parameters, but imposing a struc- ture in the form of original questions that allow her to roam through her material. Macdonald fails to provide this solid organized structure that would allow for similar exploration. While the text is arranged somewhat chronologically, the chapters are also arranged around particular subject areas-similar types of inventions or Fairs and Expositions; the result is erratic, and has the reader leaping back and forth in time, between in- ventions and inventors. There is little psychological space for analysis and an uneasy structure to ground it on. This is a scholarly text packing in close to 500 pages, with an extensive bibliography and appendix that in- cludes a detailed list of the patentees Macdonald cites in the text. Two- thirds of the book is devoted to women patentees from 1809 to the turn of the century. It is meant, as Macdonald says, to fill a gap in the history litera- ture. It is meant to right a wrong. Approaching a subject from a bot- tom-up angle can have the unfortu- nate effect of insinuating a tone of self-righteous fury to the pages, like gasps of air drawn between clenched teeth after each word. At times this tone so overwhelms the subject that I found myself scribbling furious sar- castic notes about author pretensions in the margins. But Feminine Ingenuity is also h n -  damentally about women acting in the best entrepreneurial spirit pos- sible. Women who bucked tradition, who had an idea and who fought for that idea, many as ferociously as they would have fought for the life of one of their children. Because their ideas and their inventions were as their children. They struggled, often against poverty, always against a male- dominated culture that scoffed, and even found slightly scurrilous, the idea that women might problem-solve and see those solutions through to completion, even to the point ofwag- ing a pitched and constant battle to market and reap financial rewards for their product. This last was beyond the pale. The women who invented and patented were primarily entrepre- neurial free-market thinkers, who fre- quently invented out of financial need-the correspondence between the inventor and the patent ofice is often stark, the inventor pleading for a patent that will enable her to market her invention, as it is the only thing standing between her and destitu- - tion-and they were strong and reso- lute, driven by curiosity, the need to create and to problem-solve. These women did create, in spite of the obstacles. One of those deterrents frequently came from other women, suffragettes who were beginning to exert influence, under Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Lucy Stone and other re- formers-some marching under the banner ofdress reform, others oftem- perance. Reformers wanted the in- CANADIAN WOMAN STUDIESlLES CAHIERS DE LA FEMME ventors on side; they were market- able commodities, proof of female wit and wisdom, and they were &er all sisters united in a common front. Generally though the inventors sim- ply wanted to invent, and resented what they often felt was exploitation by the "sisterhood" for their own gains. The women who invented de- fined themselves less by their gender and more by their individualistic in- ner drive to create. In one case the dress reformers, who regarded themselves, Macdonald writes, as "missionaries to women in need," suggested to Susan Taylor Converse, the designer of three "re- form garmentsn that she make her designs freely available to all women. Ms. Converse refiued, writing, "With all their zeal for woman, did they [the dress reform committee] ever askwhy one woman like myself should give of her head and hand labor, without fair compensation!" In response a com- mittee member writes, "In our zeal for woman we did not ask 'why one woman should give head and hand and heart,' for we were all giving it and expected others to do so." It is a fascinating conflict, and though Macdonald reports on it, she shies away from further discussion. In the light of current dissension over the definition and direction of feminism today, by such various and self-de- fined feminists as Katie Rolphe, Camille Paglia, Naomi Wolf and Gloria Steinem, it could provide an interesting and valuable reference for women leery of cookie-cutter femi- nism. A recurring theme throughout Feminine Zngmuity is the debate about thevalidity ofso-called "house- hold" inventions, primarily devel- oped by women, versus the more "serious" or technology-driven in- venting dominated by men. From the day in 1809 that Mary Kies re- ceived her patent the argument raged. Women have dominated the areas of domestic invention because women have traditionally had more experi- ence in these fields and recognize and demand innovation. But it was a question that split early feminists, who often lamented that "women'sn inventions, like dothing, household appliances or children's articles guar- anteed that women would remain shackled to their traditional arenas of b i l y  and home. The question of what constitutes good inventing is fundamental and interesting and can encompass not only gender bias but also cultural and dass bias. For example, in relating the story ofthe invention ofthe "Snugli," the pouch-like infant carrier popular today, Macdonald tells us that the "inventor," Ann Moore, copied the idea from the Togolese of West Af- rica where she worked as a member of the Peace Corps in the early 1960s. Later, after the U.S.-made "Snugli" had become the cornerstone of a hugely successful company, foreign marketing sold "Snuglisn back to the more wealthy people ofAfrica. While Macdonald finds this an "interesting twist" to the invention, she drops the information quickly. In another example, the women Macdonald includes all hold patents in the U.S. patent ofice; she notes that while many women undoubt- edly contributed to many inventions that do not bear their name or ac- knowledge their effort, it would be impossible to record their contribu- tions accurately because of the lack of hard evidence. It is a necessary note because in spite of the seemingly end- less list of names Macdonald records, it is in fact not endless. In the final chapter Macdonald writes that only 5.6 per cent of all patent holders are women. It is usefbl to be reminded that official record does not consti- tute ingenuity. However, these are both points where a discussion about the ownership of ideas, cultural influ- ences and the power of free-market access would be a fascinating adjunct to the story. The strength behind Macdonald's text is the enormous amount of leg- work that a comprehensive presenta- tion of data represents, and in an area ofwomen's history that has until now largely been ignored. Women have long had a thriving and active entre- preneurial spirit, and if Feminine Zn- genuity can serve as a foundation for further exploration and discussion, then it is well worth the effort. How- ever, we are now at the point that we have recognized that traditional his- torians have reneged on women, re- vising, revamping and refitting actual events to suit a gender bias. We need to move beyond the indignation. I know that my gender has received short shift in the traditional history books. I know that few male-centric historians ever asked provocative ques- tions about women in history, about the role of women or about how the two genders worked together in cre- ating history. I get angry, I get frus- trated. But tell me something differ- ent. Give me questions that I can sink my teeth into, that I can analyze to help with the present and future. Give us women's history that is his- tory-telling at its best, that pokes and prods and brings personalities and events to life, that reveals that "special talent that lies in the ability to wade through mountains of documenta- tion and come out with a clean story- line, that invites the reader to follow the author through the maze ofevents and data into the life of a period."1 Into life. Don't just tell me it hap- pened. lJournalist and historian Frances Fitzgerald, commenting on Tuchman's March of Folly. MAID IN THE MARKET: WOMEN'S PAID DOMESTIC LABOUR Wenona Giles and Sedef Arat-Koc, Eds. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, 1994. by Ann Dufi Since the 1960s, a sizeable literature has becn created which examines women's paid labour force cxperi- ence. Despite the progressive devel- VOLUME 15, NUMBER 1 

Feminine Ingenuity: How Women Inventors Changed America

https://cws.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/cws/article/download/9443/8560

Feminine Ingenuity: How Women Inventors Changed America

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Canadian Woman Studies / les cahiers de la femme (E-Journal, York University)