Reading Connections #2

Personally I am still trying to figure out in my head how this whole notion of women not being part of the scientific revolution is possible! I mean, in history, there have been a lot of things that women have not been aloud to do, but they still do them anyway. Why would this be so different? My question is, where was all the writing? We know how much Anne Bolyn influenced king Henry, we know about the daughter of Galileo, but why do we know nothing about any other women? Where are the "lost texts" of the age? I just really am trying to understand how this is possible. We have all kinds of texts about women writers during the 16th century. The women listed on this website are just a handful http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/sr-women/05-SR-WOMEN%20OF%20LEARNING.html Look at all these women that did all these amazing things!!! Why don't we read about them at all!!!!
I just have a hard time believing the article that we read in class about women and modernity. I think that it makes no sense that just because there were witch trials, or that because a woman's assumed role was to be in the kitchen that there was NO ONE at all anywhere any place at any time involved! But they were! Why is it that we still have this idea that women were not involved, why is this still a common idea and a common view that women were unable to do these things. I think it is just crazy.
Works Cited:
http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rhatch/pages/03-Sci-Rev/SCI-REV-Home/sr-women/05-SR-WOMEN%20OF%20LEARNING.html

Watts, Ruth. "Gender, science and modernity in seventeenth-century England." Paedagogica Historica. 2005. 41, 1, 79-93. ISSN: 0030-9230.