Search Results

This chapter situates the sex chromosomes within the history of twentieth century theories of sex, gender, and sexuality. The author shows how the X and Y chromosomes, thought of as “sex itself,” came to anchor a conception of sex as a biologically fixed and unalterable binary. The chapter frames the book’s major questions, locating them within scholarship in feminist science studies and social, historical, and philosophical research on the social dimensions of science. The book’s theoretical and methodological innovations, including the concepts of “modeling gender in science,” “gender analysis,” “gender criticality,” and “gender valence,” are introduced and defined.

This opening chapter outlines the main arguments presented in this book and household recipe books as a historical source. It contends that the production and circulation of recipes lie at the heart of what we might call “household science” – that is quotidian home-based investigations of the natural world. It situates these knowledge processes within larger and current conversations in gender and cultural history, the history of the book and archives, and the history of science, medicine, and technology. It argues that household recipe practices generated more than just natural knowledge but also knowledge about materials and techniques, household management, social and familial strategies and health and the human body. The broad term “everyday knowledge” aptly serves as an umbrella for these varied epistemic activities, reminding us that “knowing” often comes from the “practices of everyday life”.

A favorite gendered cliché, the midlife crisis conjures up images of male indulgence and irresponsibility—but it was first successfully presented as a concept about women’s rights. This chapter introduces the feminist definition of midlife change put forward by the New York journalist Gail Sheehy in the 1970s. It examines Sheehy’s place in existing origin stories and disciplinary histories of the midlife crisis and challenges the dominant narrative of science popularization. Pointing to the focus on men in contemporary tales about midlife crisis, it highlights instead the particular relevance of life-choices and midlife reassessments for women. Lastly, it discusses the gendered double standard of aging and the literature on menopause, gender, and science, drawing attention to the relevance of feminist contributions and critical and liberating concepts of middle life and aging. In the course of the discussion, the chapter also gives an overview of the book.

What is the meaning of the surprising origin story of the midlife crisis? Reflecting on the history of the midlife crisis in light of ongoing debates about the cost of living for women and men, the final chapter points to the relevance of female and feminist discourses about aging and the life-course. Feminist conceptions of “midlife crisis” continue to exist, although the term is rarely used. The idea of changing your life midway through is central in the work of theorist Sara Ahmed, and middle age also remains prominent in the debate about gender and careers, where a new “midlife crisis at 30” describes women’s anxiety about integrating work and family lives. However, as Sheila Heti points out, time and aging often liberate from the strain of making a decision and can bring relief for women who are faced with the choice of motherhood. By illuminating critical attitudes and alternative conceptions of the meaning of life, the story of the midlife crisis makes visible the legacy of feminist thought and practice. This makes it important to better comprehend who suppressed it and how, while also encouraging a fuller engagement with feminist pasts as a starting point for new visions today.

Straddling comparative literary and cultural studies and the history of science, this chapter insists on the importance of translation to the scientific culture of early- to mid-nineteenth-century Britain. It emphasises the centrality of women to the translation of Humboldt’s work for a British readership and explores more generally the reception of his work by the British critical press.

This concluding chapter argues that recipes and recipe knowledge were framed by the complex concerns of everyday life. The household as a site for making recipe knowledge had far-reaching consequences. For many fathers and mothers, writing it was combined with a dose of family history. Concurrently, recipe books were records of social networks and, most crucially, accounts or ledgers of obligations and gratitude. Writing down recipe knowledge was thus potently influenced by these frameworks of social and family strategy. Recipe trials were also one of the main pathways through which householders gained a deeper understanding of sickness and health, of the human body, of natural and man-made processes, and of materials. Exploring recipes thus grants us a glimpse into the lives of early modern men and women and into the making of “everyday knowledge.”