sempozyum_bildiri_kitabi

Rhône and Saône into a ‘new Jerusalem.’” 14 However, these early incursions into social history would
be very useful for her later, in her work on women’s studies.
One notes, therefore, a certain connection between a feeling of alienation and the ability to discover
a historical subject who had not been listened to. Each of their personal experiences allowed them to
understand women as an historical force.
A second common aspect that I wish to highlight is the coincidence of their approaching the study
of women’s history from an intellectual, and, at the same time, practical, perspective. 15 This is a
consequence too of the intimate connection between intellectual knowledge and life experience, as
Lerner explains.
What I brought as a person to history was inseparable from my intellectual approach
to the subject; I never accepted the need for a separation of theory and practice. My
passionate commitment to Women’s History was grounded in my life.” 16
The three of them highlight in their biographies the interest in facilitating women’s access to
university studies and the continuation of an academic career. For this, it was necessary to create
structures, which would allow women to make the development of their family life compatible with
their education and academic work. Both Davis and Conway had suffered the consequences of
gender discrimination and the difficulties encountered by women who wanted to have a career and a
family. Conway describes her frustration at not receiving a grant from the Australian Foreign Ministry
because she was a woman, even though she was more eligible than the men who also applied for it:
I could scarcely believe that my refusal was because I was a woman. Inquiries made by
faculty friends and friends with connections in Canberra confirmed that this was the case.
‘Too good‐looking’ was one report. ‘She’d be married within a year’. ‘Too intellectually
aggressive’ was another assessment. […] I could not credit that merit could not win me a
place in an endeavor I wanted to undertake, that decisions about my eligibility were made
on the mere fact of my being female instead of on my talents.” 17
Davis also noted how at the University of Toronto she began to feel a part of a community, but that
men were the center of this academic world:
I could see the struggle of women in the graduate programs at the University of
Toronto, especially those trying to juggle marriage and children as well. Together with
several of them, I organized a questionnaire for those graduate women at the University
of Toronto who were also mothers. We submitted our mimeographed report with
recommendations on things like flexible schedules, daycare, and library hours to the
University of Toronto administration in 1966. We didn’t get an answer.” 18
They began from their conviction that the conciliation of the two spheres was not an obstacle, but
rather an enrichment of their professional life. Conway, Davis and Lerner developed their work and
managed to reach leadership posts without rejecting marriage or the creation of their own families.
It is true that the three of them counted on the unconditional support of their husbands. For Davis,
for example:
The key, besides shared parenting with Chandler, was closely connecting the two
registers of life, in action and in thought. I got very good at instant transition from sandpile
to study room, from reading a Calvinist tract to Pat the Bunny. Sometimes I typed with
a child on my lap. Interruption became a way of life, good training for my professorial
years much later. Having children helped me as a historian. It humanized me; it taught me
about psychology and personal relations and gave flesh to abstract words like ‘material