In 1925, a twenty-four-year-old woman sat at a desk in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and wrote one of the most important sentences in the history of astronomy. Then, because a man told her to, she wrote a second sentence directly beneath it; a sentence designed to make the first one disappear.

The first sentence said: “stars are made of hydrogen.”

Overwhelmingly, almost unimaginably hydrogen. Not iron and calcium and the heavy familiar substances of the Earth, as most astronomers of the time believed, but the lightest element in existence, present in quantities so vast that it fundamentally altered humanity’s understanding of the universe.

The second sentence said: “the enormous abundance of hydrogen is almost certainly not real.”

Between those two sentences lies the story of Cecilia Payne.

She had not arrived at that conclusion by intuition. She had arrived there through mathematics, physics, and an almost ferocious intellectual discipline. Months of calculations, spectral analysis, ionization equations, and the emerging insights of quantum mechanics had led her to a result that explained the nature of stars themselves. She had discovered what the visible universe was made of.

Yet the story of Cecilia Payne begins long before the discovery.

Born in England in 1900, she entered Cambridge University intending to study botany. Astronomy found her unexpectedly. In 1919 she attended a lecture by the astrophysicist Arthur Eddington describing his expedition to observe a solar eclipse and test Einstein’s theory of relativity. The lecture changed her life. Years later she would recall the experience as a revelation. She left knowing that astronomy was what she wanted to pursue.

The problem was that wanting and being allowed were not the same thing.

Cambridge educated women but did not fully recognize them. Women could attend lectures, complete the coursework, pass the examinations, and outperform male students while remaining excluded from the degrees granted to those same men. Payne accumulated academic distinctions that officially did not exist.

By the time she completed her studies, she had learned a lesson familiar to many gifted women of her generation: talent alone was not enough. One also needed somewhere willing to allow talent to exist.

That place seemed unlikely to be England.

When Harlow Shapley offered her a fellowship at Harvard College Observatory, she crossed the Atlantic almost immediately. The move was not merely an academic opportunity. It was an escape route. England had trained her. America, she hoped, might permit her to work.

At Harvard she immersed herself in a field undergoing profound transformation. Spectroscopy allowed astronomers to read the chemical signatures hidden within starlight. New developments in atomic physics offered tools for interpreting what those signatures meant. Most astronomers assumed that stars shared roughly the same composition as Earth because the same elements appeared in stellar spectra.

Payne looked more closely.

What others interpreted as evidence of similarity, she realized might instead be evidence of temperature and ionization. The strength of a spectral line did not necessarily indicate abundance. It indicated how atoms behaved under specific physical conditions. Once those effects were properly accounted for, an astonishing conclusion emerged.

The stars were overwhelmingly composed of hydrogen.

She was twenty-four years old.

Her doctoral thesis laid out the argument with extraordinary rigor. Today it is widely regarded as one of the most brilliant PhD theses ever written in astronomy. At the time, however, it appeared impossible.

The thesis was sent to Henry Norris Russell, the most influential astronomer in America. Director of the Princeton Observatory and one of the defining authorities of the discipline, Russell reviewed her conclusion and rejected it. The enormous abundance of hydrogen, he argued, could not be correct.

Without the approval of figures such as Russell, a young scientist had little room to maneuver. Payne had already crossed an ocean to pursue a career that barely existed for women. She understood the realities of power perfectly well.

And so she wrote the second sentence.

She inserted a qualification stating that the extraordinary abundance of hydrogen was probably not real.

The conclusion remained in the thesis. The evidence remained in the thesis. The calculations remained in the thesis. But the warning label remained too.

What makes this moment remarkable is not that Cecilia Payne doubted herself. The evidence suggests that she did not. What she doubted was the situation. She understood that a twenty-four-year-old woman challenging the assumptions of an entire discipline possessed little leverage against a senior man whose authority shaped careers.

She made a calculation.

The kind of calculation women inside exclusionary institutions have often been forced to make.

She chose survival.

Yet she was also too intellectually honest to erase herself entirely. Buried within the thesis, carefully preserved beneath the caution, remained the original conclusion. Later historians would note that she appeared determined to ensure that the record showed where the idea had first emerged.

She wrote her own erasure.

And she watermarked it.

Four years later, in 1929, Russell published a paper reaching the same conclusion through different methods. Stars were indeed composed primarily of hydrogen. He acknowledged Payne’s earlier work as an important contribution, but the broader scientific community largely associated the discovery with him.

This is the part of the story most often told because it is the easiest to be angry about.

The theft.

The erasure.

The familiar spectacle of a woman producing foundational work while a man receives the recognition.

The anger is justified. But it is not the whole story, what is often forgotten is that Cecilia Payne stayed.

She remained in astronomy. She continued publishing. She trained students. She produced influential work on stellar atmospheres and variable stars. She built a scientific life inside institutions that frequently underestimated her.

For years Harvard paid her through budgets intended for technical staff. For years she taught courses that were not officially listed under her own name. The obstacles she faced were often not dramatic enough to become legends. They were bureaucratic, procedural, ordinary.

And yet they shaped entire careers.

In time, recognition arrived. Slowly. Incompletely. Then undeniably.

She became the first woman promoted to full professor at Harvard. She later became the first woman to chair a department there. The institution that had once struggled to imagine women as scientists eventually found itself led by one.

Yet the events of 1925 never entirely left her.

In her autobiography she returned to the moment with unusual candor:

“I was to blame for not having pressed my point. I had given in to Authority when I believed I was right. I note it here as a warning to the young. If you are sure of your facts, you should defend your position.”

The warning mattered because it came from experience.

She knew exactly what it cost to remain silent.

In 1976, three years before her death, the American Astronomical Society awarded her its highest honor for lifetime achievement.

The award was called the Henry Norris Russell Prize. She accepted it.

She stood at the podium and spoke about discovery, curiosity, and the extraordinary privilege of being the first person to understand something about the universe that no one else had ever understood before.

She did not mention 1925.

She did not mention the second sentence.

Whatever private reflections accompanied that moment remained her own.

Perhaps because she had long since learned that history is rarely interested in the emotional cost of survival.

What she had discovered remained true regardless.

The stars are made primarily of hydrogen.

The galaxies are made primarily of hydrogen.

The visible universe is built from the simplest atom imaginable.

She was the person who first understood what the light was saying.

She was twenty-four years old.

She was right.

She was told she was wrong.

She knew she was right.

She said she was wrong.

And she was right.

The stars remained hydrogen whether people acknowledged it or not. Reality had not required permission.

Perhaps that is why Cecilia Payne spent the rest of her life repeating the same lesson to younger scientists. Not that authority is always wrong. Not that courage always triumphs. But that evidence matters more than rank.

She had looked at the light of the stars and understood something no one else yet understood.

For a moment, she allowed authority to stand between herself and what she knew.

The universe did not change its mind.

It was still hydrogen.

And she was still right.

Make sure to subscribe for excellent, personal and deep writing.

For the entirety of my life, even during the long winters in Northern Sweden, at one point in the day the Sun comes up. Every day, every single day of my stay on this Earth, I have been graced with the light of our star, the Sun.

It produces, every second, more energy than humanity has consumed in the entirety of its existence on this planet. It does it reliably, without sending anyone an invoice, and has been doing so for approximately four and a half billion years. It will continue doing so for roughly another five billion, at which point it will expand into a red giant and incinerate the Earth. But that is not really my problem, or yours.

The remarkable thing is not that we eventually figured out how to use it (solar power, that is). The remarkable thing is how long it took us, and how hard certain people worked to make sure the woman who got closest to solving it first didn’t get the credit she deserved.

That woman was Mária Telkes.

Born in Budapest in 1900, Mária grew up in a family unusual for the era: they let her be curious. As a girl of ten or eleven, she conducted chemistry experiments in a garden shed and once produced a small explosion. Most families would have taken this as a sign to redirect their daughter toward more suitable pursuits. Her father took it as a sign she was onto something interesting.

She studied physical chemistry at the University of Budapest and earned her doctorate in 1924, an extraordinary achievement at a time when women in European science departments were so rare they were sometimes treated as clerical errors. A book on alternative energy sources that Mária read as a freshman at the University of Budapest sparked her lifelong fascination with solar energy and laid the foundation for her pioneering career.

“The book explained that the usual energy sources have geographical limitations, especially in the less-developed tropical regions, but the sun is directly overhead in the tropics, and you do not have to explore for it”, she said later.

Mária envisioned a future in which people in developing countries could meet their basic needs through freely available solar energy, and she was determined to help bring that vision to life.

After earning a doctorate in physical chemistry in 1924, she remained at the University of Budapest as an instructor before immigrating to the United States, then at the forefront of solar energy research. In 1928, she joined the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, a young nonprofit academic medical center, as a biophysicist.

For nearly a decade, Mária worked with surgeon and scientist George Washington Crile on experimental biophysics research. Although the work had little to do with solar energy, it established her reputation as a gifted researcher and inventor.

It was during her time at the clinic that she first attracted media attention. Although reporters initially showed interest in the foundation’s scientific advances, coverage often drifted away from the research itself and toward more superficial subjects, a pattern that would follow her throughout much of her career.

In 1932, syndicated columnist Arthur Brisbane, whom newspaper editors of the era described as “the most highly paid and most widely read editorial writer in the world,” visited the clinic to write about its work. Yet rather than focusing on the groundbreaking research being conducted there, Brisbane devoted much of his column to remarks about Mária’s appearance, personality, and his unsuccessful attempts to charm her. Some things never change.

While working at the Cleveland Clinic, Mária continued pursuing solar energy research in her spare time, developing a thermopile capable of converting sunlight into electricity. The invention attracted national attention and established her as a rising figure in the field.

After becoming an American citizen in 1937, she joined Westinghouse as a research engineer studying the conversion of heat into electricity. When she learned about MIT’s new Solar Energy Conversion Project, she immediately sought a position. Her initial application was unsuccessful, but Mária refused to be overlooked. She traveled to Massachusetts and personally demonstrated her thermopile to the project’s all-male selection committee, arguing that it was far more efficient than existing solar technologies. Her persistence paid off: in 1939, MIT invited her to join the program, giving her a place among the nation’s leading solar energy researchers.

Ironically, the MIT program was led by chemical engineering professor Hoyt Hottel, who remained deeply skeptical that solar energy could ever become a practical source of power. While she saw the sun as an untapped solution to humanity’s energy needs, Hottel viewed such optimism with suspicion, a divide that would persist throughout their careers.

Any debate over solar energy’s future was soon overshadowed by global events. After the United States entered World War II, MIT’s research priorities shifted toward the war effort. Mária joined the Office of Scientific Research and Development as a civilian advisor and was tasked with solving a life-or-death problem. Allied pilots and sailors stranded at sea often survived crashes or sinkings, only to die of dehydration before rescue could arrive. Surrounded by seawater they could not drink, they needed a portable source of fresh water.

Mária believed solar energy could provide one. Inspired by a jellyfish she spotted while sailing, she designed a portable solar still, a lightweight, inflatable device that used sunlight to convert seawater into fresh drinking water. It required no fuel, electricity, or moving parts, making it ideal for emergency survival kits.

The U.S. government was impressed enough to order 100,000 units. Yet, once again, Mária faced resistance. Production became bogged down by delays at MIT, where project director Hoyt Hottel repeatedly revised specifications and changed manufacturers. By the end of the war, none of the ordered stills had been delivered. Although the invention arrived too late to aid the wartime effort, it was eventually incorporated into military emergency kits and remained in use for years afterward. An unknowable number of pilots and sailors likely survived because of Mária’s innovation.

After the war, Mária turned her attention to what many considered solar energy’s greatest unsolved challenge: storage. Capturing sunlight was one thing. Storing its heat for use at night or during cloudy weather was another.

She proposed an experimental solar house that would use Glauber’s salt, a heat-storing compound, to absorb solar energy during the day and release it after sunset. Despite skepticism from her supervisor, Hoyt Hottel, MIT approved the project and built the house in 1946.

The experiment failed. The salt corroded its containers, causing leaks that rendered the system unusable. Mária blamed poor operation of the test house. Her colleagues blamed the design. The disagreement escalated, and Hottel removed her from the solar project.

Most people would have moved on.

Mária doubled down.

In 1948, working with architect Eleanor Raymond and philanthropist Amelia Peabody, she helped build the Dover Sun House in Massachusetts, the first house heated primarily through stored solar energy. Using an improved version of her thermal-storage concept, the house demonstrated that solar heating could work on a practical scale.

“Sunlight will be used as a source of energy sooner or later anyway. Why wait?,” she wrote in 1951.

Newspapers celebrated it. Visitors traveled from across the country to see it. For a brief moment, it seemed possible that the United States might embrace solar energy decades before the energy crises of the 1970s.

It didn’t.

Many researchers, including Hottel, remained unconvinced that solar energy could compete economically with cheap oil and gas. Mária disagreed. She saw solar power not simply as a technical challenge, but as a way to reduce dependence on finite fuels and expand access to energy. Once again, her vision put her at odds with the scientific establishment. Although the Dover Sun House became an international sensation, Mária found herself increasingly marginalized at MIT and eventually pushed out of the project she had helped pioneer.

The story, however, was not as triumphant as the newspaper headlines suggested.

Within a few years, the Dover Sun House began to struggle. Components failed. The heating system proved expensive to operate. Eventually, a conventional oil furnace had to be installed.

Back at MIT, relations between Mária and Hoyt Hottel had deteriorated beyond repair. Colleagues complained that she was stubborn and unwilling to submit to authority. Mária argued that her work was being judged unfairly and that many of the project’s problems stemmed from poor implementation rather than flawed ideas. In 1953, after years of conflict, MIT fired her.

For a moment, it appeared that both Mária and her vision of solar-powered homes had been defeated.

Neither stayed down for long.

Over the following decades, Mária continued inventing. She directed solar-energy laboratories, accumulated more than twenty patents, and remained one of the world's most outspoken advocates for solar power.

Then, in the 1970s, she got another chance.

At the University of Delaware’s Institute of Energy Conversion, Mária helped develop Solar One, an experimental house that successfully generated both heat and electricity from the sun. Unlike the Dover Sun House, Solar One benefited from advances in materials, engineering, and photovoltaic technology that had not existed a generation earlier. The future Mária had spent decades arguing for was finally beginning to arrive.

She was described as emotional. Difficult. Uncooperative. These are familiar words used against women who refuse to subordinate their judgment to men who, on the evidence, are less accomplished than they are. She was also described as:

“Her mind was somewhere else, it was not on these everyday things. She did not cook, she did not sew. She was a visionary and thinking about projects and problems, and the other things didn’t matter.” - Joy Olgyay

Mária continued inventing, publishing, and advocating through her seventies and eighties. She received recognition from engineering societies and the Smithsonian, and was eventually celebrated as a pioneer of solar energy, a visionary, a woman ahead of her time.

Perhaps Mária’s most enduring legacy was not the solar house or the solar still, but a far simpler invention: the solar oven.

Decades before terms like “energy poverty” entered the mainstream, Mária understood that billions of people lived beneath abundant sunlight while lacking reliable access to fuel. In many communities, cooking required hours spent gathering wood, accelerating deforestation and exposing families to dangerous smoke from indoor fires.

After her death, scientists working in Central America and Africa found that Mária’s insight had been remarkably prescient. Programs teaching families to build and use solar ovens often relied on versions of her designs because they were inexpensive, durable, and easy to adapt to local needs.

The benefits extended far beyond cooking. Families spent less money on fuel. Women and children spent less time gathering firewood. Homes had cleaner air. Communities used the time saved to pursue education, start businesses, and organize local projects.

This was the future Mária had imagined decades earlier: not solar energy as a technological curiosity, but as a practical tool that could improve everyday life for people with the fewest resources and the greatest need.

She died in Hungary in 1995, ten days before her ninety-fifth birthday, during her first visit to her homeland in more than seventy years. Despite decades of pioneering work and international recognition, Mária's death in Hungary in 1995 received so little attention in the United States that newspapers did not report it until the following year.

The phrase “ahead of her time” is one worth examining. It usually means a person was right while everyone around her was wrong, and that the wrongness lasted long enough to become a civilizational embarrassment.

Mária Telkes demonstrated practical solar thermal technology in an American house in 1948. She built solar-powered desalination systems during World War II. She designed solar ovens that are still improving lives decades after her death. Many of the ideas she spent her career defending are now standard components of the global transition to renewable energy.

Yet throughout that career she was forced to prove herself repeatedly. Newspapers wrote about her appearance instead of her work. Male colleagues questioned her judgment, delayed her projects, removed her from leadership roles, and eventually pushed her out of institutions she had helped make relevant. Traits celebrated as brilliance and determination in male scientists were often described as stubbornness and insubordination in her.

It is impossible to know what Mária Telkes might have accomplished had she received the same support, funding, trust, and institutional backing routinely afforded to many of her male contemporaries.

What is easier to see is what she accomplished without them.

The sun, for its part, continued showing up every single morning, exactly as it always had: indifferent to egos, academic politics, and humanity’s remarkable talent for ignoring good ideas when they arrive in the wrong package.

Leave a comment

The women in these stories are gone. Their work isn’t.

Subscribe to Dead Women Society for new essays on the scientists, inventors, artists, activists, and pioneers who helped shape our world, whether history remembered them or not.

And if there’s a woman whose story you think deserves to be told, or if you’d like to contribute a piece of your own, I’d love to hear from you.

Subscribe now

There is a particular kind of threat that power finds unbearable. Not the sword raised against it. Not the conspiracy whispered in corners. Those, power knows how to answer. What power cannot tolerate… what makes emperors lose sleep and invent charges and eventually reach for exile and starvation as their only remaining tools, is the person who simply will not perform submission.

Agrippina the Elder did not perform submission.

She lived in Rome at the height of its imperial confidence, in the first century of the common era, when the machinery of the Julio-Claudian dynasty was still warm with the ambitions of Augustus. She was granddaughter to that Augustus, wife to the most beloved general Rome had seen in a generation, mother to nine children, and the woman whom the Roman people called; in the words Tacitus preserved, “the glory of the country, the sole surviving offspring of Augustus, the solitary example of the good old times.”

She was also the woman a sitting emperor destroyed slowly, over years, with the patience of someone who knew he could not be seen to hurry.

The Blood She Carried

She was born around 14 BCE into a family so entangled with power that there was no separating her biography from Roman history. Her father was Marcus Agrippa: the general and architect who built the Pantheon, who won the Battle of Actium for Augustus, who was essentially the military arm that held the whole Augustan project together. Her mother was Julia the Elder, Augustus’s only biological child, a woman of formidable intelligence and reportedly formidable appetites, who would herself end her life in exile, slowly starved on an island by her father’s order.

There is something to pause over in that lineage. Agrippina was born to a woman who died in imperial exile, and she would die in imperial exile herself. The pattern suggests not a family curse but a recurring structural truth: in the Julio-Claudian world, the women who carried too much public weight; too much love from the people, too much symbolic legitimacy… eventually became intolerable. They had to be removed. The empire needed them to be decorative. When they refused, there was only one direction left to send them.

Agrippina survived childhood watching her immediate family dissolve. Her brothers Gaius and Lucius died young. Her brother Agrippa Postumus was exiled for unruly behavior, then killed. Her mother died on Pandateria, the island of women the dynasty didn’t know what else to do with. By the time Agrippina was in her mid-twenties, she was, as one historian notes, the only member of her immediate family not dead or rotting in exile.

That survival shaped everything that came after. She was not naive about what the system was capable of. She had seen it at work on people she loved. And she refused to moderate herself anyway. That is the first thing to understand about her: her stubbornness was not ignorance. It was refusal.

The Marriage That Was Also a Partnership

In 5 CE, she married Germanicus Julius Caesar. By all accounts; and the ancient sources are unusually consistent on this point, it was a genuine partnership. Not the ornamental arrangement most aristocratic marriages were. Agrippina accompanied Germanicus everywhere he went, across campaigns and provinces and the rough edges of empire, bringing their children with her into conditions that no Roman convention required her to endure.

When Germanicus took command of the Rhine legions in 14 CE, she was there. When Augustus died that same year and the legions mutinied, demanding better terms of service, she was in the camp. She was pregnant. She was also, by all accounts, present and functional in ways that mattered. Tacitus records that during the chaos of the mutiny, it was suggested to the soldiers that Agrippina: a woman, a pregnant woman, was preparing to flee with her children to safety among foreign people, because they posed a greater danger to her than the Germans across the Rhine. The soldiers’ resolve broke. Reconciliation became possible.

She had not given a speech. She had not fought. She had simply been there, visibly herself, in conditions that exposed the soldiers’ threat for what it was.

The following year, when a Roman fleet returned from a difficult German campaign battered and demoralized, Agrippina stood at the bridge over the Rhine and stopped the panicked soldiers from destroying it. She met the returning men there, personally, and according to Tacitus thanked them for their service. Tiberius, already watching her, took note. A general’s wife who could stabilize legions was not a wife. She was a rival.

She did not see it that way. Or perhaps she saw it clearly and refused the performance of smallness it would have required to make Tiberius comfortable.

What Happened in Antioch

In 19 CE, Germanicus died in Antioch. He was thirty-three years old. The cause was debated then and remains debated now; sudden illness, or poison, or the long-running political enmity of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, the governor of Syria, whose relationship with Germanicus had broken down in ways that were never cleanly resolved. Agrippina believed he had been murdered. She believed Tiberius was involved. She said so.

That accusation; spoken by a woman, in public, against an emperor, was not forgotten.

What she did next became one of the defining images of her life, and of the ancient world’s understanding of grief as political act. She had Germanicus cremated in the forum at Antioch. She took the urn containing his ashes into her own hands. And she carried him home.

The journey from Syria to Rome was not a private one. At every port, at every town, people came out. When her ship was spotted off Brundisium, crowds had already gathered at the harbor, on the walls, on rooftops. Tacitus writes that her companions were worn out by prolonged grieving, so that the sorrow of the fresh mourners who now met her was, by contrast, more demonstrative. Veterans wept. Strangers wept. The whole country, it seemed, was waiting for her to arrive, because watching her arrive was a way of saying something that could not otherwise be said: that Rome had lost what it most valued, and that the man who still sat on the throne was not it.

She walked through Rome with the urn in her arms and her children around her, in silence, to the Mausoleum of Augustus. And then she placed her husband there.

Tiberius was furious. He could not publicly punish her for a funeral. But he understood what it had meant. The procession was a verdict. The silence of the crowd was louder than any accusation. And Agrippina had staged it without a weapon, without a political alliance, without anything except the fact of her grief and the people’s love and her own refusal to grieve quietly at home.

The Long War

The years between 19 CE and 29 CE were a slow, grinding campaign of mutual hostility. Tiberius withdrew increasingly into suspicion and then, in 26 CE, into literal withdrawal, retreating to the island of Capri and leaving Rome in the hands of Sejanus, his Praetorian prefect: a man whose primary interest was eliminating anyone who stood between himself and the succession he imagined for himself.

Agrippina gave neither of them the performance of deference they required.

Suetonius records a dinner at which Tiberius offered her an apple. She would not eat it… she feared it was poisoned. The story may be apocryphal, but Tiberius, whether it happened or not, reported it to the Senate as proof of her accusation against him. The Senate, under the conditions of Tiberian Rome, accepted this framing. She had charged him with attempted poisoning, the emperor said, by refusing fruit. That a woman’s self-preservation could be reframed as an attack on an emperor tells you everything about the architecture of the accusation system that eventually consumed her and her sons.

Tacitus describes her in these years as proud, inflexible, increasingly confrontational. He uses these as criticisms. But read from outside the Roman social contract he inhabited, they describe something else: a woman who refused to become smaller to save herself, who continued to say what she believed to be true even when the cost of saying it was clearly escalating, who would not flatter a man she considered complicit in her husband’s death.

Her sons Nero Julius Caesar and Drusus Julius Caesar were the visible targets. Sejanus had them accused, exiled, killed. Agrippina, after her protector Livia Drusilla died in 29 CE, was herself arrested and exiled to Pandateria; the same island where her mother Julia had been sent decades before.

The repetition is not coincidence. It is procedure.

The Island

On Pandateria, she went on hunger strike.

Her captors force-fed her. On one occasion, a centurion beat her so badly she lost an eye. She continued to refuse.

Whether her eventual death in 33 CE was the result of her own starvation or deliberate deprivation ordered by Tiberius is, as the ancient sources acknowledge, unclear. Tacitus suggests her food was withheld to disguise her execution as suicide. The ambiguity itself is a form of evidence: an emperor who had to obscure the manner of a woman’s death in an account written within living memory of the event was an emperor who knew what he had done was unjustifiable.

She had outlived two of her sons. She died not knowing whether Caligula, the youngest, the one who had grown up in the camps, the one the soldiers had called Little Boots for the miniature legionary sandals he wore as a toddler, would survive.

He did. He became emperor. One of his first acts was to honor his mother’s memory, to sail to Pandateria himself and bring her ashes back to Rome, to place them in the Mausoleum of Augustus beside the husband she had carried home from Antioch.

In death, she got the procession twice.

What She Reveals

Here is the question that Agrippina’s life insists on, if we are honest: what was Tiberius actually afraid of?

Not her sword arm. She had none. Not her political alliances… she was systematically stripped of those. Not her wealth, not her formal power, not any office she held, because Rome gave women no offices to hold. By every metric the Roman system recognized, she had no power. She was an aristocrat, a widow, a mother. The categories available to her were ornamental.

And yet Tiberius spent years engineering her destruction. Sejanus dedicated resources to her removal that might otherwise have gone to actual political threats. Two emperors: Tiberius through his neglect of her sons, and the whole system through its treatment of her, moved with the slow efficiency of people managing something genuinely dangerous.

What they were managing was her refusal to reflect their legitimacy back at them.

This is what power requires that we rarely name directly: it requires the consent of the governed not just in policy but in performance. The powerful need to be seen as legitimate. They need the people around them; especially the people whose proximity grants reflected authority, to behave as though the current arrangement is natural, correct, and inevitable. When someone near the center refuses that performance, they do not merely dissent. They make the performance visible as performance. And that is unbearable, because the moment power is seen as power; as constructed, as contingent, as dependent on consent… it has already lost something it cannot get back.

Agrippina’s presence in Rome, with the people’s love and Germanicus’s memory behind her, was a standing demonstration that Tiberius’s legitimacy was not self-evident. She did not have to say it. She simply had to exist, visibly, unflattered, unsupressed. Every day she did not bow was an argument.

This is what every authoritarian system has always known about nonconformity: that it is more threatening than opposition, because opposition can be defeated, while refusal simply continues. You can beat an enemy. You cannot beat a woman who looks through you.

The Mirror

She is also a mirror in the sense that she reflects back the question of what we mean when we say a woman should be “appropriate,” “measured,” “diplomatic,” “careful.” The Roman sources that preserved her story; Tacitus, Suetonius, the others… were men writing within the very system that destroyed her. And even they could not quite bring themselves to say she was wrong. They called her proud. Inflexible. Difficult. They noted her insubordination. And then they preserved, in extraordinary detail, the evidence that the people loved her, that the soldiers trusted her, that her grief was more politically coherent than Tiberius’s caution, that her sons were widely seen as legitimate heirs.

The condemnation and the evidence do not cohere. They wrote the criticism and then forgot to remove the testimony. And what the testimony shows is a woman who read her situation correctly, who identified the threat accurately, who behaved with absolute consistency from her husband’s death to her own, and who was destroyed not for being wrong but for being unmovable.

Power cannot work with the unmovable. It can only remove them. And then, sometimes, a generation later, return their ashes with state honors and pretend the removal was a regrettable misunderstanding.

Caligula became a monster, as history knows. He was also the child who grew up watching his mother refuse. He honored his mother through the procession and the Mausoleum. He brought her home.

She did not live to see either the monster or the homecoming.

She died on an island, having refused food in a body that had already lost an eye, having outlived the sons she had carried through military campaigns and tried to protect through a decade of political war. The empire could exile her, beat her, starve her. It could not make her smaller than she was.

That is not a consolation. It is simply the fact of her.

Sources: Tacitus, Annals (Books I–VI); Suetonius, Lives of the Twelve Caesars; Annelise Freisenbruch, The First Ladies of Rome; Anthony A. Barrett, Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire.

There are certain deaths that do not remain attached to the body that suffered them. They expand outward until they become historical metaphors, absorbing centuries of projection, fear, longing, and ideological hunger. Hypatia belongs to that category with unusual force.

Her murder in Alexandria in 415 CE has survived not simply because it was brutal, although it was, nor because she was intellectually remarkable, although she unquestionably was, but because her life unfolded precisely at the point where entire worlds were tearing themselves apart and attempting to reorganize reality around new forms of authority.

To write about Hypatia is therefore dangerous in a subtle way. Every century reinvents her according to its own obsessions. Enlightenment thinkers transformed her into a martyr of reason destroyed by religious fanaticism. Later secular narratives elevated her into the symbolic “last light” of classical civilization. Modern feminist readings often approach her as a prototype of the silenced intellectual woman whose visibility itself became intolerable. Religious apologists, meanwhile, frequently attempt to soften the political implications of her death or distance institutional Christianity from responsibility entirely.

The difficulty is that all of these readings contain fragments of truth while simultaneously flattening the complexity that made her historically explosive in the first place.

Because Hypatia was not murdered merely for being intelligent.

Civilizations rarely kill people for a single reason. They kill concentrations of meaning.

Hypatia was born in Alexandria somewhere between 350 and 370 CE, daughter of the mathematician and scholar Theon. Alexandria at the time remained one of the great intellectual centers of the Mediterranean world, although its foundations were already destabilizing beneath it. The city was dense with philosophical schools, theological factions, ethnic tensions, imperial politics, commercial wealth, and religious conflict. Greeks, Egyptians, Jews, Christians, pagans, Roman officials, merchants, monks, and scholars occupied the same urban organism while inhabiting profoundly different psychological realities. The city functioned simultaneously as library, battlefield, marketplace, temple, and ideological furnace.

And within that furnace, Hypatia emerged.

She was educated by her father in mathematics, astronomy, rhetoric, and philosophy, eventually surpassing him in reputation. Sources describe her lecturing publicly on Neoplatonic philosophy while attracting students from across the empire. Aristocrats sought her counsel. Officials consulted her privately. Former students wrote about her with a tone approaching reverence. She moved through Alexandria wearing the philosopher’s cloak traditionally associated with male intellectual authority, teaching openly in public spaces at a historical moment when female visibility itself carried social consequences.

This is important to understand properly.

Hypatia was not hidden. She was not operating quietly at the margins. She occupied intellectual space visibly, publicly, and authoritatively.

And that changes everything, because societies tolerate exceptional women far more easily when those women remain symbolic, distant, domesticated, or contained. Hypatia was none of those things. She was politically connected, intellectually influential, rhetorically skilled, and socially respected across factional boundaries. Christians studied under her. Pagans admired her. Civic authorities trusted her judgment. In another historical moment this might have become a symbol of cultural continuity.

But Alexandria was no longer capable of continuity. It was becoming a city organized around escalating absolutisms.

The late Roman world was undergoing a profound transformation. Christianity was no longer merely a persecuted faith moving beneath imperial structures. It had become increasingly entangled with institutional authority, legal power, and social control. Simultaneously, older pagan intellectual traditions still retained enormous prestige among educated elites. The conflict between these worlds was not simply theological. Beneath doctrinal disputes lay deeper struggles concerning legitimacy itself.

• Who interprets reality?

• Who defines truth?

• Who possesses moral authority?

• Who controls the symbolic center of society?

These questions never remain abstract for long. Eventually they attach themselves to bodies.

Hypatia’s proximity to Orestes, the Roman prefect of Alexandria, placed her directly inside one of the city’s escalating political conflicts. Orestes and Cyril of Alexandria, the powerful bishop of Alexandria, were engaged in an increasingly hostile struggle over civic authority and jurisdictional power. Ancient sources suggest rumors spread accusing Hypatia of preventing reconciliation between the two men. Whether this accusation had substance mattered less than what it accomplished psychologically.

Once a society enters periods of symbolic polarization, individuals cease being perceived as themselves.

They become embodiments.

Hypatia had become too many things simultaneously.

To some, she represented pagan intellectual continuity. To others, elite influence resisting ecclesiastical power. To others still, dangerous female authority moving outside acceptable boundaries.

And perhaps most threatening of all, she represented complexity itself within a culture increasingly demanding ideological clarity.

That final point matters more than modern discussions often recognize.

Periods of consolidation require simplification.

Institutions attempting to stabilize themselves during crisis become hostile to ambiguity because ambiguity weakens mobilization. Complex figures disrupt narrative coherence. They refuse clean categorization. They create interpretive instability. Hypatia’s existence carried precisely that destabilizing quality. She was admired by Christians while remaining pagan. Politically connected while philosophically detached. Publicly visible while intellectually untouchable. Female while occupying traditionally masculine authority structures. She complicated every attempt at neat symbolic division.

Such people become dangerous long before they become disposable.

In March of 415 CE, a mob of Christian zealots intercepted her carriage in Alexandria.

The surviving descriptions remain difficult to read even now. She was dragged through the streets into a church known as the Caesareum. There, according to the chronicler Socrates Scholasticus, she was stripped naked and murdered with sharpened tiles or oyster shells before her body was dismembered and burned outside the city.

The savagery of the act carried unmistakable symbolic dimensions.

This was not assassination. It was purification ritual.

Public dismemberment has historically functioned not merely as violence against the body but as violence against representation itself. The destruction must become visible enough to erase not only the individual but the social meaning attached to them. Hypatia’s body was treated as though it represented contamination requiring eradication.

And yet the opposite occurred.

Her death became immortal.

Because there is a strange law operating throughout history: civilizations are often remembered most clearly through the people they could not tolerate.

And Alexandria has Hypatia.

Not because she “won,” whatever that would mean in historical terms, but because the violence enacted upon her revealed something essential about the age that produced it. Her death exposed the instability beneath the rhetoric of moral certainty. It revealed how quickly ideological struggle can transform intellectual disagreement into sacred violence. Most importantly, it demonstrated how often societies destroy precisely the figures later generations recognize as irreplaceable.

The tragedy becomes sharper when one realizes how much of antiquity was already vanishing around her. Libraries had declined. Classical schools were weakening. Imperial fragmentation was accelerating. Entire systems of thought were struggling to survive institutional realignment. Hypatia therefore became retrospectively attached to the symbolic death of the ancient world itself, even if history is never quite that clean. Civilizations do not disappear in single moments. They dissolve unevenly across centuries.

Still, people hunger for endings, and Hypatia provided one.

The deepest reason she continues haunting cultural memory lies elsewhere. Not in the conflict between religion and science, although that narrative persists. Not merely in misogyny, though misogyny unquestionably shaped the conditions around her. Not only in politics, violence, or philosophy.

She remains because she embodies a recurring human terror: the fear societies develop toward individuals who cannot be reduced cleanly into usable categories.

Every age claims to admire complexity until complexity begins interfering with collective certainty.

Then the pressure begins.

• The demand to simplify.

• To declare allegiance.

• To become legible.

• To flatten oneself into ideological usefulness.

Hypatia resisted that flattening simply by existing as she was.

And perhaps that is why her story still feels contemporary fifteen centuries later. The vocabulary evolves, the instruments of legibility change, but the hunger does not. Cultures continue oscillating between curiosity and purification, between intellectual openness and the need for moral consolidation.

They continue producing figures who stand inconveniently at intersections.

And what they do to those figures says everything about who they are… and nothing, in the end, about the figures themselves.

Share

Leave a comment

She was married off at sixteen to a man much older than herself. Her husband died and she refused to carry his name into the future. She took her mother's middle name, invented an aristocratic particle no one gave her, renamed herself Olympe de Gouges, and moved to Paris to become a playwright. Now you may not be impressed with this, but remember that a woman in eighteenth-century France existed legally as a derivative noun: first fille de, then femme de, then veuve de. Daughter of, wife of, widow of. She was always someone's grammatical appendage. Olympe de Gouges decided she was to be a subject. She didn't even ask permission.

She didn’t write well, technically. Her French was Occitan-infected, grammatically non-standard. She dictated most of her texts because writing by hand was difficult. The Comédie Française, the most prestigious theatre in France, was controlled by a small group of men who had run it as a private fiefdom since the 1680s. In the 200 years they’d been in operation, they had accepted 2,627 plays into their repertory. Seventy-seven were by women. That’s just under 3%.

She got hers in. It was one of the rarest achievements for a woman in that era.

Olympe didn’t just fight to have her plays staged. She fought publicly, loudly, in pamphlets she printed at her own expense and pasted on the walls of Paris. She wrote about slavery, about women’s rights, about divorce, about the children of unwed mothers, about debt imprisonment. At a time when most women who wrote did so anonymously (Madame de Staël published her political texts on the Revolution without her name, Madame Roland circulated her thoughts in private letters), Olympe de Gouges put her name on everything.

On August 26, 1789, the National Assembly adopted the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. The word used was hommes. Men.

Two years later, as it became painfully clear that the “universal” citizen of the Revolution was in fact going to be a French, propertied male over twenty-five, Olympe de Gouges sat down and rewrote the entire document, article by article.

She published it on September 14, 1791, the exact same day as the ratification of the new constitution. She titled it Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne and, with boldness, dedicated it to Queen Marie Antoinette, a deeply ironic gesture, given the Queen’s unpopularity at the time. Olympe hoped the Queen might use her influence to support the rights of women.

The document opens with a sharp question:

“Man, are you capable of being fair? A woman is asking: at least you will allow her that right. Tell me? What gave you the sovereign right to oppress my sex?”

She doesn’t explain why he’s wrong. She asks whether he’s capable of being fair. She lets him sit with that for a second. Then comes the demonstration.

Article X is the one that became famous, partly because of what happened to her two years later:

“La femme a le droit de monter sur l’échafaud; elle doit avoir également celui de monter à la Tribune.”

The woman that has the right to mount the scaffold, must equally have the right to mount the podium.

She was pointing at the logical obscenity of a system that holds women legally responsible enough to execute, but not responsible enough to vote. If you can drag us to the guillotine for crimes against the state, then we are subjects of the state. And subjects of the state have political rights. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot kill us for breaking your laws while telling us we don’t have the agency to make them.

Olympe’s article XI gave women the right to publicly name the fathers of their children. “Any Citizen can thus say freely: I am the mother of your child, without being forced by barbarous prejudice to hide the truth.” In 1791 she was demanding paternity accountability. France won’t have anything like it for another two centuries.

Article XVI: any constitution drafted without the participation of the majority of its citizens is null and void. No constitution without women is a real constitution.

In the postamble, she proposed replacing marriage with a civil contract between equals, property held in common, children acknowledged regardless of which “bed they come from,” dissolution available to either party. She was describing something close to modern civil union law. In 1791.

Then she closed with a war cry:

“Woman, wake up; the alarm bell of reason rings across the universe; recognize your rights.”

She also insisted, against Robespierre and the Jacobins who were busy building their vision of universal republican virtue out of very masculine bodies, that the Revolution was not authored by nature or by God. It was authored by human beings. Fallible, self-interested, embodied human beings. And as long as only some of those humans were allowed to co-author it, it was not what it claimed to be, and that is, Universal.

The men of the National Assembly mostly ignored her Declaration. Some laughed. To them, the idea of applying universal rights to women was not a radical extension of their own logic, it was a joke. The notion that the subject of the Declaration was not gender-neutral, that “l’homme” had always meant men specifically, was not something they were considering.

She was arrested on July 20, 1793, the same day I was born, almost two centuries later. The official charge was sedition: she had posted pamphlets around Paris calling for a referendum on whether France should be a monarchy, a federation, or a republic. But she had also been offering to defend Louis XVI at his trial, and publicly attacking Robespierre, and writing a play that dared to represent Marie-Antoinette as a complex human being rather than a pornographic monster.

At her trial, she was legally entitled to a defense lawyer. The judge denied her this right, claiming: “You have enough wits to defend yourself on your own.”

She performed her innocence brilliantly. A spectator at the trial recorded that as the charges were read, she joined her hands repeatedly and rolled her eyes toward the ceiling, then showed surprise, then looked straight at the audience and smiled. The audience, according to another spectator, would have acquitted her if the judges hadn’t cut her off.

The judges did not acquit her.

When she was in prison and the regime of Terror was fully underway, she wrote from her cell:

“Republican laws promised us that no illegal authority would strike citizens; yet an arbitrary act has stripped me of my liberty in the middle of a free people... Is freedom of opinion and the press not consecrated as the most precious heritage of man? Do these rights present only illusory meaning?”

She already knew the answer.

She was executed on the afternoon of November 3, 1793. On the scaffold, she addressed the crowd gathered to watch:

“Children of the Fatherland, you will avenge my death.”

A few days later, the radical Jacobin politician Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette gave a speech warning republican women who dared to question their assigned roles. He used Olympe de Gouges as his warning:

“Remember that virago, that woman-man, the impudent Olympe de Gouges, who abandoned all the cares of her household because she wanted to engage in politics and commit crimes. This forgetfulness of the virtues of her sex led her to the scaffold.”

Forgetfulness of the virtues of her sex.

She had forgotten to be silent. She had forgotten to stay home. She had forgotten that public speech was a masculine prerogative and that a woman who claimed it was not a woman making a political argument but a woman making a category error.

Shortly after her execution, women’s clubs were dissolved. It became illegal for women to gather in groups of more than five. The Society of Revolutionary Republican Women, the organization that had been the most active female political club of the Revolution, was abolished. The women who had literally marched on Versailles, who had been in the Revolution, were erased from it.

The Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne was written in 1791. For nearly two centuries it remained largely forgotten, a footnote, if mentioned at all, while French schoolchildren were taught about the “universal” rights of man. It was not until the 1970s and especially the 1980s, with the rise of modern feminism and the work of historians like Olivier Blanc, that the text was properly republished and Olympe de Gouges began to be recognized as the radical thinker she was.

Marie Gouze, daughter of a butcher, a widow at seventeen, died as Olympe de Gouges, playwright, pamphleteer, feminist, guillotined by a republic that claimed to have invented the universal rights she spent her life demanding it honor. She was also a mother. She raised her only son, Pierre, alone and helped launch him into a military career. The Revolution would later put their bond under terrible strain.

She mounted the scaffold. She was right all along: she had the right to mount the podium too.

Her body was thrown into a mass grave at the Madeleine Cemetery. Like so many others executed during the Terror, her remains were later lost, possibly transferred to the Paris Catacombs among thousands of unidentified bones. There is no grave marker or stone for visitors to read.

Women like Olympe are what Dead Women Society digs for.

Leave a comment

Feel free to reach out if you want to contribute a guest essay.

Sources: Janie Vanpée, “Performing Justice: The Trials of Olympe de Gouges” (Theatre Journal, 1999); Joan Wallach Scott, “French Feminists and the Rights of ‘Man’: Olympe de Gouges’s Declarations” (History Workshop, 1989); Joshua Rivas, “The Radical Novelty of Olympe de Gouges” (Nottingham French Studies, 2014); Olympe de Gouges, Écrits politiques, ed. Olivier Blanc (Côté-femmes, 1993).

Women have always been inventors, but going from invention to patent and being recognized for it continues to be a difficult journey.

Women inventors account for just under 13% of patent applications globally. Female inventors and scientists also face significant credit gaps, with research showing women are 59% less likely than men to be named on patents for projects they worked on.

A 2022 Nature study found female scientists are 13% less likely to be named as authors and 58% less likely to be named on patents compared to men.

Are women not as inventive, or are they just not getting the credit when they do invent?

Are women not creating as many inventions, or are their patents not going through?

Are women’s inventions less useful, or just less recognized?

The latter for all of the above.

Yale SOM researchers found that women inventors are less likely to have their patent applications approved than men. But that disparity dips if an examiner can’t guess an inventor’s gender from her name. Historically, many inventions by women went under male names to get passed.

Their greatness was never truly acknowledged, and their precedent therefore was never truly set.

Due to some men putting their names on inventions to steal patents, ripping off formulas and getting all the press upon release, women have often been the true mothers of invention but have rarely gotten their due.

To correct the record, we’re sharing a historical replay list featuring six tracks celebrating the stories of women who helped reinvent American industry and culture through the eras.

THE MOTHERS OF INVENTION PLAYLIST

TRACK 1: ELENA OUT LOUD

Lyrics/Poem

Elena Lucrezia, 1646

Elena Out Loud

Elena Lucrezia Cornaro Piscopia

is a name you can’t forget,

unless you’re another man

writing old historic texts.

Born in 1646, the child of a mistress,

Noble from her dad, without inherited privilege,

Cornaro becomes treasurer, making his progeny a catch

But Elena takes a pass when meeting any match,

See this 11 year old prodigy basically becomes a nun,

so she can concentrate on getting her some…

education.

At age seven she reads classics in Latin and Greek,

Soon after Spanish, French, Hebrew and Arabic she speaks.

Studies math, theology and philosophy,

Masters music and inspires books on geometry,

Translates the works of Carthusians monks,

Applies for a degree in theology but her hopes get sunk.

Bishop makes her an exception for lesser philosophy

Her laurea earning her an honorary degree,

After hours of orating girl got herself that PHD,

The first of its kind and the last for awhile,

Since after 1678, progress goes out of style.

Her legacy is followed by so very few,

with no more degrees for a woman till 1732.

So when they holler about scholars,

Don’t just think of Aristotle,

But also the shelosphers whose

words were throttled,

Who knows what other Elenas could’ve done,

If the rules didn’t force her to be the only one.

TRACK 2: WHY SYBILLA ATE

Lyrics/Poem

Sybilla Masters, 1676

Why Sybilla Ate

Sybilla Master emigrated at age of 11

From Bermuda to America in 1687,

One of six sisters, blink and the world

could’ve missed her. But lil masters, was

already a mover and shaker, an avalanche

in a world of timid Quakers.

Sick of the grind, with hungry mouths

on the mind, she created a machine,

that made cornmeal in half the time,

and even when her necessity, was

the mother of invention, her creation

got Thomas Masters, all the attention.

See she went to the King

with this new-fangled thing,

got herself the patent, but none of the fame,

cause the King proclaimed it all,

in her der hubbies name.

Her second patent? More of the same.

So next time you enjoy you

some shrimps and grits,

Think about how Sybilla, invented

but never got to patent it. So

far ahead of a woman’s place in history,

Not another patent pended till 1793.

TRACK 3: JUDY GETS THAT BREAD

Judy W Reed, 1826

Judy Gets That Bread

Lived in DC and unlikely born free,

Judy Reeds’ patent lives on in history,

Little’s known about Ms. W Reed, the

one black woman who helped America Knead,

Dough that is, her story flows like this:

Reed could neither read,

nor write, sign her name,

or have much human rights,

it was 1884 and she knew the score,

came up with the big idea

and dared not ask for more.

Lady changed the way that

dough got rolled, but never

got paid when loaves got sold,

the patent that Judy left,

is marked not by her name…

but by a simple X.

To this day Judy’s got no cred,

So say her name bitch when

you’re making all that bread.

TRACK 4: SUSAN’S SONG

lyrics/poem

Susan La Fleche, 1865

Susan’s Song

Born in 1865 on an Omaha reservation,

A Village of White Man Make Believing,

claiming to spread civilization.

A lesson in this civil discourse of course,

is Indian means less than a settler, cause

an elder dying wasn’t reason enough to get to her,

on time, an episode forever in the mind,

of 8 year old La Flesche, determined to take care of her kind,

when others left them for dead.

A member of the vanishing race

that refused to disappear,

if no doctor would come far,

then Susan would be the doctor, that was

near. Off she went to Phili proper,

graduated at the top of her class, got a medical degree

and took that knowledge back, to her community.

There she sutured wounds, gave life and cured TB

But still had no rights to vote legally.

A native of the land but not a citizen of the state,

No matter her status, she knew her tribe couldn’t wait.

So she trudged through wind and snow, the only

doctor for miles, all the while playing lawyer, accountant and

political liaison, for an entire reservation. In her spare time,

she taught temperance, to cure the ills of

an Indian nation served assimilation in a bottle,

a pill that’s still too hard to swallow.

As stories resounded about male chiefs and warriors,

the campfire chats continued to ignore her,

But even on her own deathbed, Susan thought of others instead,

Soliciting donations for a local hospital,

where she wouldn’t live to be a patient.

Susan La Flesches’ legacy wasn’t about person,

but people, it’s her pride in the tribe, that

she hoped to proceed her.

TRACK 5: SARA SLAYS

lyrics/poem

Sara Josephine, 1873

Sara Slays

Born in 1873 in humble Poughkeepsie,
Father died of typhoid, so Sarah provided financially,

Gave up a Vassar scholarship for a medical degree,

Then went right to work in the inner cities.

She graduated in 1898, but got told she had to wait,

Hospitals were just for male doctors then,

but that fact didn’t stop her when

she became a medical inspector in New York,

fighting the cities deadliest killer: the stork.

Suited to boot, Dr Jo made an impression,

a woman ahead of her time at genders’ intersections.

She fought for the unwed, the immigrant, the lame,

the people unseen, the ill who had no name.

Her work in city slums, summed up in

realization, stirring a mild media sensation:

“it was safer to be a soldier a world war away,

than a child born poor in the U.S. of A.

Dr. Jo implored these poorest of the poor,

to practice basic hygiene so their

kids could live to four. Jo’s personal mandate?

Just lowering a whole cities’ mortality rate.

But that wasn’t all for Dr. Jo, her fate set a date

with Typhoid Mary for more.

Jo identified Mary as the source of a disease

that set a most deadly course through our cities.

Jo even got herself stabbed, in the process of getting Mary jabbed.

A small but painful price to pay, to send Typhoid on its’ way.

When not saving the city, Jo was crushing the norm,

Creating safes space for discussion to be born,

Talking sex, gender-bending and culture upending,

Crushing the patriarchy before it was even trending.

Ladies who luncheoned, most bisexual and gay,

Some who stayed Jos’ partners in life till her dying day.

So when you wash your hands, take that one minute pause,

and remember the hard-core lesbian

who made compassion her cause.

TRACK 6: WEST KNOWS BEST

Lyrics/Poem

Gladys West, 1930

West Knows Best

Born flirty in the 30s, numbers her idea of fun,

Home economics? Gladys wasn’t getting sum,

A daughter of sharecroppers hell no that didn’t stop her,

Took her gritty to the city and got them degrees,

One of the few in her naval academy,

with her eyes on the prize: satellites in the skies.

Computed mathematics you can’t even understand,

Spinning logical conclusions, and she did them all my hand,
A human algorithm maker, before computers were the thing,

Charted gravitational courses the tidal forces that they bring,

Mapped the movement of Pluto all the way to Neptune’s rings.

Created the super model that helped us travel earth and moon.

And after getting a stroke, told to rest her head in bed,

She got up and at’em and got her PHD instead,

Her name is Gladys West, and lest you forget,

You can thank that little women for the modern GPS.

I wrote a while back about Sisterage, my view of how women can start to live together under the same roof, not as in a lesbian relationship (though honestly, if we could just choose orientation on a dropdown, patriarchy would have a much rougher time), but in a supporting, trusting, emotionally and financially balanced mutual agreement.

That idea didn’t come out of nowhere. It came from watching what really works when women choose each other without the constant negotiation, score-keeping, and invisible labor that so often defines mixed-gender households. And it feels more urgent now than ever, because the world outside those walls keeps reminding women why going it alone, or rather, building your life with women, makes sense.

Right now, women are still discriminated against in the workplace in ways that are both blatant and exhausting. We are paid less, often around 80% of men’s wages in full-time roles, with the gap barely shrinking in recent decades. Over a lifetime, that adds up to hundreds of thousands dollars in lost earnings. We have to work noticeably harder, perform better, and navigate more subjective bias just to be assessed as nearly as competent as our male colleagues. House making and caregiving responsibilities, which still fall disproportionately on women, further stall careers, contribute to stress and autoimmune disease and compound the penalty.

And then there’s the deeper, more painful crisis of trust.

In the age of the “Rape Academy”, those public websites and group chats where men openly trade videos of rapes, tactics for drugging, assaulting, and controlling women (including their own partners) while sharing tips on how to avoid consequences, and the endless parade of “Nice Guys” who perform sensitivity and progressiveness until they feel safe enough to reveal something much darker, many women are reaching a point of profound exhaustion.

While everyone was busy joking about whether a man or a bear is more dangerous, women were collecting real life trauma: surveys where up to half of women report at least one occasion of harassment or assault in outdoor spaces, stories of being followed or grabbed on trails, and now a term like “alpine divorce” for women abandoned or killed on hikes often enough for this new practice to need a name. In the same years you can count U.S. women attacked by bears in the tens, you count women raped, beaten, or killed by men in the millions. Of course we pick the bear.

And it’s not all men, of course. But enough. And the problem is that the dangerous ones are often the best at hiding it. They disguise their real personality remarkably well. They learn the language, say the right things, weaponize therapy-speak, and present as safe, evolved partners. So women are left carrying the mental load of constant vigilance: Not all men… but what if this one is? Which simply qualifies all men as untrustworthy. What if the man I’m building a life with is one of the ones who would leave if I got seriously ill? (Studies have shown women with serious illnesses face a dramatically higher risk of partner abandonment than men in the same situation.)

What if the person I rely on for emotional and financial stability is keeping score in ways I won’t see until it’s too late? What if the man I live with drugs me and rapes me at night, streaming the entire thing for millions of other sick men to see, getting instructions from the chat on what to do next with my body?

What if my boss is watching me? What if my neighbor is watching me?

Who isn’t watching me get raped?

Women.

It’s not about hating men. It’s about refusing to keep subsidizing unequal labor, unequal risk, and unequal reliability with our time, money, health, and peace of mind. But this isn’t new. Women have built these households before, deliberately, in numbers large enough to threaten the men who counted on their dependence. And every time, the system found a way to make the arrangement disappear, not by banning it outright, but by renaming it, mocking it, pricing it out of reach, or simply waiting until everyone forgot the word.

The most recent version was called Boston Marriages.

In New England, between roughly 1870 and 1920, educated women started pairing off. They called it nothing, or they called it friendship, and later they called it a “Boston marriage”: two women sharing a home, finances, social life, sometimes a bed, for decades. Some were romantic. Some weren’t. The point was the structure: mutual support, shared labor, no male head of household, equality.

Sarah Orne Jewett lived with Annie Fields for years, around six months of each year living and travelling together, after Annie’s husband died.

Mary Woolley, president of Mount Holyoke College, lived with Jeannette Marks for almost fifty years. These relationships were not secrets or scandalous. They were visible, and that was possible because they were also respectable companionships. These women had money, education, social standing. The system tolerated them because they posed no threat to the larger architecture. A few rich white ladies living together in Cambridge? Fine.

But this is left out of the Wikipedia summary: Boston marriages were not a lesbian phenomenon, and they were not just an upper-class quirk. They were a structural response to a structural problem. In the late 19th century, women’s colleges were producing thousands of educated women with no intention of marrying. Because marriage, as legally constructed, meant coverture: a woman’s property became her husband’s, her legal existence suspended. If you had a degree, a career, a bank account, marriage was not a partnership. It was dissolution of the self.

So they didn’t. They paired off. They bought houses together. They combined incomes. They raised nieces and nephews, adopted children, built networks of care that functioned exactly like the families they were told they were failing to form. The term “Boston marriage” itself is a minimization, it makes the arrangement sound regional, quaint, temporary. It wasn’t. It was nationwide, it was decades-long, and it was deliberate.

The problem? It was only available to women who already had money and education. This is how patriarchy adapts: it doesn’t ban the exit. It prices it out of reach. Working-class women still had to marry, still had to route their labor through men, still had to play the game. The sisterage became a privilege, not a right.

And then it was laughed out of existence. By the 1920s, the term “Boston marriage” was a punchline. By the 1950s, it was forgotten. By the time second-wave feminism arrived, women were reinventing the wheel, “consciousness-raising groups,” “communal households”, without knowing they were rebuilding what had already existed, what had already worked, what had already been mocked into silence.

The medieval experiment

For roughly four hundred years between the Boston marriages and anything earlier, the sisterage as a visible, collective structure disappeared from the record. It’s not that women never lived together, they always did, out of necessity, out of poverty, out of widowhood, but they were not allowed to name it. The shared houses were deemed “spinster households,” a term that made the arrangement sound like failure rather than choice. The women inside them became invisible by definition.

But let’s go back further. Way back in the medieval age, there was another word for it. And they built it at scale: the Beguines.

In the 12th century, across the Low Countries and into France and Germany, women started doing something the Church couldn’t categorize. They moved into shared houses called beguinages, in groups of ten, twenty, sometimes hundreds. They worked. They prayed, but not under any approved rule. They were single, widowed, sometimes married women who simply left. They took in laundry, brewed beer, copied manuscripts, cared for the sick, buried the dead. Many communities managed property, rents, and shared resources through locally recognized arrangements. They managed their own finances. They existed outside the ordinary structures of husband-led households and formal convent obedience, though they still operated within medieval civic and ecclesiastical worlds.

The Church called them beguinae, a word that might come from beg (to pray). The etymology is as erased as the women. What matters is what they were: a deliberate, permanent household formed by two or more women as platonic life partners, sharing domestic, financial, and emotional labor.

Sound familiar?

Subscribe now

They were not nuns. They took no vows. They could leave. They could marry, though many didn’t. They could own property, which under medieval law usually required either a husband or a convent. The Beguines found a third door. They walked through it in such numbers that by the 14th century, some beguinages housed thousands of women. In Bruges, in Ghent, in Amsterdam, entire districts centered on women’s communal life, with unusual degrees of female self-governance for the era.

And the men in power could not stand it.

The witch‑burning ages were often also maneuvers from the Church and patriarchy to ensure the land and money never went to people who would not serve, well, the Church and patriarchy. So it happened that every time a witch was burned, their land and fortune was passed to the Church or local noble. So many women who tried and even made it on their own, by their own power, or by being widowed, were “discovered” to be witches and murdered for their possessions. Most of those witches were women who refused to obey and cede their possessions to a man, but some were men who simply had made a good life for themselves and refused to serve the Church and upper layer in hierarchy. The preferred target for witch title wasn’t just the wise woman with herbs. It wasn’t just the midwife who knew too much. It was the independent woman. The woman with property. The woman with a trade. The woman who proved that male authority was optional.

The Burnings

Women’s autonomy was rarely destroyed in one dramatic stroke. More often, it was eroded through a mix of law, theology, ridicule, surveillance, and fear. A household of women supporting one another could be tolerated in one century, then treated as suspicious in the next. What changed was not women’s desire for independence, but the patience patriarchal institutions had for it.

The Beguines learned this early.

As their communities grew in wealth, visibility, and influence, so did unease around them. These were women living outside the two approved scripts available to most medieval women: marriage or enclosure. They earned money, managed property, cared for the sick, educated girls, and formed durable networks of female mutual dependence that did not route authority through a husband or church representative. That alone made them difficult to classify.

In 1310, the patience ran out in Paris. They brought Marguerite Porete to the Place de Grève.

Marguerite was a Beguine, highly educated for that time, fiercely independent, and the author of a book called The Mirror of Simple Souls. In it, she argued something unforgivable: that a soul filled with divine love achieves a state of union with God so complete that it no longer needs the Church as a mediator. It doesn’t need priests. She bypassed the entire medieval hierarchy of male authority and claimed direct, unmediated access to the divine.

The Inquisitor of France called her a pseudo-mulier, a “fake woman.” Because a real woman, in their eyes, required management. A real woman submitted.

They arrested her. They held her in prison for a year and a half. During her entire trial, Marguerite refused to speak to the inquisitors. She refused to take their oaths. She refused to recant her book, even after they burned it in front of her. She simply looked at the men who demanded her submission, and she offered them silence.

On June 1, 1310, they burned her alive. The chronicles note that the crowd wept at how calmly she faced the fire. But patriarchy is thorough: after they burned her body, they kept her book. The Mirror of Simple Souls was translated and circulated widely for centuries, anonymously. It was attributed to male mystics. They killed the woman, stole her genius, and erased her name.

It took until 1946 for a female scholar, Romana Guarnieri, to find the Latin manuscripts in the Vatican and prove the book was Marguerite’s. Six hundred years the book of a burned witch was attributed to men.

Whether one sees her as a Beguine, a mystic adjacent to the movement, or both, her execution became a warning about what happened to women whose spiritual beliefs exceeded what men found manageable.

Soon after, the Council of Vienne moved against certain Beguine and Beghard beliefs and communities, especially those considered unregulated or doctrinally suspect. Not every Beguine house vanished. Some continued for centuries. But the mood had changed. Tolerance became conditional. Female independence now required explanation.

This pattern would repeat across Europe in different forms. Women who lived outside expected supervision, widows with assets, healers, solitary women, quarrelsome women, women who answered to no obvious man, could become targets of rumor, resentment, or accusation. Witch persecutions were never one simple conspiracy; they emerged from overlapping forces: misogyny, religious panic, local feuds, lots of property disputes, and state power. But again and again, the socially uncontained woman proved vulnerable.

The accusation was not always witchcraft. Sometimes it was heresy. Sometimes immorality. Sometimes madness. Sometimes merely eccentricity. The label changed with the century, as needed.

What threatened authority was never their belief. It was their proof of concept.

Women living together. Women supporting women. Women surviving without male management. Women demonstrating, in public, that dependence was not destiny.

The Malleus Maleficarum, the witch-hunters’ manual published in 1487, explicitly names women who “live alone or with other women” as prime suspects, because they were unaccounted for. Independence was the crime. While the ultimate thing a woman accused of witchcraft could lose was her life, it’s not a surprise that her house, land, tools, dowry, debts, and labor often flowed back into systems already run by men: courts, landlords, churches, husbands, brothers, sons. Whether or not greed lit the first spark, patriarchy was frequently waiting with a bucket.

And make no mistake, even though patriarchy is no longer burning women at stake today, it still has weapons to try and subdue us.

Patriarchy no longer needs fire when it has a legislature. It controls our bodies through laws written by men who cannot locate a uterus on a diagram. It controls our paychecks through a gap that has barely moved in forty years and a funding desert in women’s medicine so vast that for most of recorded history, the default human body in clinical research was male, meaning drugs were tested on men, dosages calculated for men, symptoms catalogued from men, and women were left to figure out the difference on our own, in our own bodies, when it was already too late. “Lose some weight”, “it must be hormones”, these are the specialized feminine treatments we’re all so sick of. Patriarchy controls our safety through a justice system where 98% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. Not on a technicality. Most police officers, prosecutors and judges are still male, and “boys will be boys”, or “he said, she said” will always find their way into boring cases like a rape.

And then we have the algorithm, that modern control wand that buries inconvenient ideas and surfaces convenient men. The one that hands a megaphone to Andrew Tate, the architect of modern rape culture, the man who built an empire on the premise that women are property and abuse is a business model, and calls it free speech. Substack hosts him and collects the revenue. The platform that will host this very post also hosts the man who teaches other men it’s OK to rape us.

So yeah, they didn’t stop burning women. They just made the fire digital, and handed it a Terms of Service.

Dead Women Society is not a history blog. It’s an excavation. We look at one woman, or one group of women, who built something, wrote something, invented something, lived something, and had it taken from her, hidden from the world or mocked for. Had her name filed under a man’s. Had her body or her work burned. Had her independence pathologized. Had her death not recorded.

We start with the Beguines because they are the precedent we were never taught. They prove that sisterage is not a modern feminist invention. It is a reclamation of a structure men destroyed because it worked too well.

This is what we dig. Feel free to reach out if you want to contribute your own essay or become a regular.

Welcome to Dead Women Society.

Leave a comment