Women in Numismatics

Understood. You leapt to another response within the same response to my post. All good.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

For those that may have missed it, look up "American Numismatic Society" on YouTube. There are several excellent lectures archived by the ANS. One that I recently viewed was Arthur A. Houghton, III's Silvia Mani Hurter Memorial Lecture "Seleukid Excursions: More Questions than Answers", given when he accepted the Archer M. Huntington Award for 2015.



During this lecture he makes it very clear that the current state of the ANS today is "magnificently and substantially" due to the work of Dr. Ute Wartenberg Kagan in her 20 years as Executive Director. Women lead, they don't just follow.

http://numismatics.org/utewartenberg/

 

I once walked with Bluma Trell to the site of a numismatic meeting. She was coauthor with Martin Price of "Coins and Their Cities: Architecture on the ancient coins of Greece, Rome, and Palestine." She told me that while writing it she was offered a collection of architectural coins, but she declined because she was not interesting in owning them, just studying them.

Is our reaction to owning and collecting things (from coins to trucks to porcelain to dolls), which is evidently different between men and women in this day and age, more a result of societal gender conditioning over the ages or a result of evolutionary biology?

 

Yes.* Just as many women as men are "collectors." The difference is in what they're conditioned to collect, starting at a young age. Try going to the Winter Antiques Show sometime! Or, as you mention, look at areas like collecting porcelain, dolls, etc. In any event, I think the disparity is far less for numismatics than it is for things like baseball cards. Especially given the predominance of women in (and entering) academic fields related to numismatics (particularly relating to ancient coins), such as classics, art history, archaeology, etc.

* Even if you're into evolutionary biology -- the popular presentations of which are largely hooey -- it may have been the men who hunted the mammoths, but it was the women who gathered and collected and maintained the fruits and nuts!

 

While I agree that it seems to be men, probably older men, who are most interested in numismatics, I do not think it is because of any conditioning. At least this does not seem to be the case in my experience. Nobody, be they male or female, in my life is interested in it or really interested in history either and to me these two subject are closely related. My daughter certainly has never been conditioned to like a certain thing because she is female and, being my daughter, I certainly sought to interest her in my passions, but she has little to no interest. Same goes for my wife, a mathematician by education and trade, nor my mother, sister or father and most of my friends for that matter.

I do not feel there is a need to target people to try to get them interested either although I have at times without success.

When I first started teaching history I observed a history class being taught by a woman who played a lot of games in class. She told me on a break she did this because history is boring and you need to make it interesting. I was a bit amazed that a person who taught history would describe it as boring since I found it inherently interesting. She had a point though...many people do find it boring so to teach it you might need to try to hold their attention just to get them to learn what they need to learn to pass the class. However if they just don't like it, then I understand and while I love to see a young person interested in history, I understand it's not for everyone, or most.

Otherwise I do not think there is anything standing in the way for anyone regardless of gender or race when it comes to learning about any subject. I just think that a lot of people are just not interested in it. My daughter is interested in art and design, but not in the art of the coin. My wife is interested in literature, art and mathematics, but is less than inspired by the art and history of currency although she likes the coins I make. Nothing I do or say will probably change this fact.

I welcome anyone with this passion but I don't feel the need to try to attract anyone to it. If they like what they see, they will be welcomed but we are all individuals and we like what we like. As a teacher I try to spark a love of history and hope that even if, as young people, they do not see it as interesting, maybe later in life they will come back to it.

I do think both history and numismatics appeals most to more mature people. I know when I was young I didn't care one wit about coins and only scraped the surface of history. As I grew older I became more and more interested in history and discovered numismatics on my own, nobody led me to it.

Also I think it is something that has never really attracted a lot of people to delve deeply into it in the first place.

 

I run into Sylviane Estiot's work often. (Among other works) She's leading the charge to update RIC V-1.
http://www.ric.mom.fr/en/home

As a percentage there are more men than women on ancient coin boards but that doesn't matter. We're (mostly) all here for the love of the history behind the coins. There are many women authorities, researchers and collectors among the best of the best. Many of the most interesting posts here are from our female contributors.

This is a great thread to recognize those contributions. I'd just say thank you to our female posters here for making this community better.

 

Nobody should care about my opinion on this matter. But I feel the need to give it anyway. I think many of you won't agree, which is is fine. I mean no harm. But i simply wish to give another perspective. For clarification purposes: im a (relatively) young, male collector from the old-continent. Maybe that's also why I look at discussions like this from a different perspective? And pardon my English, it's not the best...

I've tried to really get the point the writer is trying to make, but I'm experiencing some difficulty. So, here are my thoughts: first, the writer lists well-known women active in the field of numismatics. Then, the writer cites three situations, in which women are less present, or not present at all. The conclusion the writer draws is: "Women often just do not want to participate in these events, and the question is why. Clearly things need to change." And "If numismatics wants to attract a wider audience, our organizations have to try to include more women and minorities, who often feel excluded from events (...)" And "What I have always heard is that there are just too many men."

So, here's what I am thinking. There are many women active in the field of numismatics. On high positions, important positions, influential positions, etc. Thats excellent, of course. But I don't see the real argument given for the fact that these, and other, women, are not present at events. Are they excluded? Are they not being given an opportunity to be present? The only reason given by the writer is the one that she has 'heard': "there are too many men".

So, what are we (am I) to do about this? It seems that there are too many of my kind on events (in theory though, because I won't fly to the USA for an event...) The writer vaguely states: "... our organizations have to try to include more women and minorities, who often feel excluded from events ..." But she also notes, that for one of the events she mentions, advertisments were done in a broad manner and women could apply. So, how to put the call-up of the writer in practice? A male-quorum? Cancel lectures if not enough, or no at all, women apply as speaker? Should a topic like 'women in numismatics' be forbidden if not presented by women? Too often a call for gender-equality seems to mean a strive to reach a point where, in absolute numbers, the amount men and women is the same. Is this really the meaning of gender equality? Is the strive of women's rights, which I fully support, only achieved, if in all possible fields, the absolute amount of active women and men is the same? Or is it possible to just accept differences in interests and differences in choices, as long as both men and women are given the exact same opportunities to chose those interests?
I do not know the answer, but I think that at least a proper survey should be held amongst women in the field, with the right questions, as to why they won't go the events/lectures. Based on those outcomes, policies can be made to take away any possible obstructions which women experience, so as to increase their participation. And make sure to formulate realistic goals: what are we trying to achieve?
For me, it's important to not use gender ('all male') as an argument without knowing whats going on. That will only lead to exclusion, and real inequality.

 

@Limes has a good point. Not everything is down to inequality, some areas tend to be more women-oriented, some others are more men-oriented. The important thing is that in all such cases, the minority members should not be discouraged to participate in the group activities, and have equal opportunities to get involved into running such groups if they wish to do so. I am a man, but to quote an example mentioned earlier, I quite like Victorian porcelain dolls. If I were ever to start collecting them and join a club, I might be a minority in the room, but as long as everyone treated me equally, there wouldn't be a problem.

@DonnaML perhaps the main question about the article in question is the phrase 'feels excluded'. What is your personal opinion/experience on this? Do you think there is any tendency on either a conscious or subconscious level to keep numismatics a boys' club? Going back to the porcelain doll example, I would probably feel initially intimidated if I was to be the only man in a such a group meeting, but I wouldn't feel 'excluded' unless I could sense that I was actually being shunned.

Personally, I would be very happy to see more women getting interested in numismatics. And I don't think it would be strange either. It is not a 'macho' field really... There is a large number of eminent female archaeologists and historians, and numismatics (as far as ancients is concerned) is a related field.

 

Interesting discussion. Why there are not more women collectors has puzzled me, but I have no idea why this is so. I've never been a club-joiner, show-goer, so my collecting has been in isolation. Except for Coin Talk folks, I only know one other ancients collector (a co-worker, male). Other things I've collected over the years have been boys/men too - for instance the beer can craze of c. 1975. Talk about a boys club!

Also I thought I'd add this - Lily Tomlin, the comedian and actor, had an extensive collection of ancients. She has donated her collection - some or all, I do not know - to the Getty Museum. Here's one I happened to find:

http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/19764/unknown-maker-coin-roman-ad-59-60/

Here is a passing mention in the Los Angeles Times:

"Back in the 5th century BC, one of the most common silver coins in Greece was the tetradrachm (its value: four drachms), and of course the Getty has an example on display. The donor: Lily Tomlin, who is credited with a 1980 contribution of more than a dozen coins in the villa."

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-jan-26-wk-coverside26-story.html

"My name is Edith Ann and that's the truth...pppppphhhhhffft."

 

I kinda have a personal stake in this with my career. Over the years, I have been providing consumer products to various markets. Many of them have been provided to a collectors' market. However, I do find (actually know), that there are very female-centric collectors and male-centric collectors.

For several years I was in Housewares products that had a major tendency to female purchasers. However, with the advent of cooking shows on TV, etc. many males became more attracted to those markets. Cookware, knives, containers, etc. were my exposure.

However, when you moved production into sporting knives, pocket knives, multi-tools, etc. you found that a predominately MALE market was being served. And, if you made the knives and tools COLLECTIBLE, such as major influencer endorsements, or task specific, the MALE COLLECTOR emerged in FULL-FORCE. Males dominated these markets around 95% of end-consumers in those collectible markets. Loyalty can be very fierce to brand and collectible features.

THe same situation and habits emerged when we produced and provided consumer product to the CRAFT market (Sewing, Quilting, Memories/Scrapbooking, etc.): FEMALE consumers were dominate to the tune of almost 99% of those markets. When we moved into the COLLECTIBLE segment of those markets, wow, there was a fierce need to collect by those consumers. We had some of the most vocal consumers, not only commenting, but also recommending products to develop and provide to those markets.

My personal experience producing and providing for gender-oriented segments of markets, was that we were not SEEKING a gender to serve, rather it was the NATURE of that market we served that was gender-dominate. However, the MECHANICS and PSYCHOGRAPHIC approaches to Male or Female collecting were very similar, it was just that the end-products and message delivered to attract consumption were tailored to the gender-specific end-consumer. Nothing was sexist in the least bit: you tailored product, size, colors, messages, materials, textures, etc. etc. etc. to your end-consumer for their optimal response.

LOL, yeah, I also produced and provided to the Back-to-School Markets with several hand-held learning tools. Wow, introducing collectibility with colors, textures, shapes, etc. was fun. Children from pre-school to collegiate levels responded with vigor if you were sensitive to their needs, fads, fashions, etc. where they perceived they wanted a specific attribute. Yeah, there were male dominated colors and features that were responded by male users, and there were female dominated colors and features that were responded by female users. Sometimes that was defined by the PARENTS who purchased those school items for their KIDS. Sometimes it was the child who pointed to the shelf and said "I want this" when Back-to-School items were being purchased.

Personally, I found these same gender-influenced purchasing and collecting habits, albeit with different colors, features, fads, and trends within the North American, European, and Asian markets. Nothing really was different from a psychographic position between genders from these major markets being served.

Bear in mind, that we provided Consumer Products that were DISCRETIONARY decision buying. You did not HAVE to buy the products as they were not NEEDS like food, basic clothing, basic housing, etc. for a person's survival. Rather, you bought the products as a WANT to fulfill your life.

To me, coin collecting, and further to ANCIENTS Coin Collecting is definitely a DISCRETIONARY and a LUXURY purchase. You do not need them, but you have a WANT for them, all the way to a COLLECTIBLE WANT to purchase them. Hmmm... gender-specific? Observation is that, yes, it is gender-dominated. Is it the Coin Market creating that? Or is it just the gender that is creating that? I cannot and will not make an educated judgement because I am not EMPLOYED to do that. That would cost you a bit of money for me to do that.

Perhaps the first living female on a Roman coin...


RI Alexandria Livia, w Augustus Diobol CE 1-2 Æ 23.5mm 7.46g. Rev. Athena holding Nike Sheild ex Dattari-Savio Pl. 3 60-this coin RPC pag. 692-5-this coin RARE

 

I have a Granddaughter and a Grandson that are showing some interest...but the other 6 Grandkids are oblivious.

Oh, and >BLEEECH< on those Hard Ciders. I never liked them. I will stick with Ale or Lager.

 

Collecting seems to be biological. There is an evolutionary theory that men tend to collect more, as historically the accumulation of resources would help them attract more mates. So it's kind of ingrained in us more than it is in women. And that's OK. There are differences between the sexes on average, and while it's important for everyone to be open to anyone becoming part of this great community, there's no reason to unnaturally try to force the issue to achieve an equal number of men and women in coin collecting...anymore than you're going to get an equal number of men interested in, say, scrapbooking.

 

I’m going to focus solely on Roman coin collecting as it’s what my focus is in:

Just my 2 cents, but I wonder how much of it is because of how we teach Roman history. We always talk about the emperors, the strong men, and naturally boys and men are attracted to that. What guy hasn’t day-dreamed of following in the footsteps of Caesar, Trajan, or Justinian? Revering men like Camillus or Scipio Africanus. The teaching of history is very “Great Man” oriented, and that attraction to history can generally lead to ancient coins.

From a female perspective.. they’re pretty much non-existent up to the imperial era. And even then, Livia, Messalina, Agrippina the Younger, these aren’t really great women to look up to with the way they’re taught. You have to go all the way to Pompeia Plotina and Faustina the Elder before you really reach admirable women, and let’s be honest who outside of semi-professional historians knows about them?

So in summation, I think ancient Roman coins attract more men because the history of Rome is taught very man-centric. Perhaps if we learned more about Severina, or Cleopatra was taught as more than just an eastern temptress, more women may be brought into the numismatic world? Just my thoughts, as another man...

 

With the exception of homemaking from the twentieth century and before everything was male dominated. My father advised us "if women want equality to man all they would have to do is cross their legs and break the hold man never really had." He was not kidding my parents were married for 52 years before he passed. From my mother came "the constitution of love is equality." She was a secondary education teacher my father was a desalination engineer. I sorely miss them EQUALLY, Get it?

 

I don't mean conscious conditioning. There are certain hobbies that society considers to be perfectly "normal" for girls and women to engage in -- from collecting china figurines to buying antiques -- and certain things that are considered a little bit weird, although the older one gets the less one tends to care about being thought of as "unusual"! I admit, though, that it's still the case that there are very few people I know whom I tell about my coin collecting. Both because, as you say, most people have no interest in it -- and I think some of that is because of the fact that coins are generally so small and require a certain degree of effort to appreciate; if they were all actually the size of the photos we post, people would find them a lot more interesting! -- and because it is considered a bit of a strange hobby for a middle-aged woman to have. Unlike my other primary pastime of genealogical research, for which I think more than half of the practitioners and experts are women. On the other hand, more people know that I collect coins than know that I've been a devoted fan of baseball in general, and the New York Yankees in particular, for more than 50 years! Nobody expects women to know a lot about baseball, although I refuse to pretend that I know less than I do.

 

...idk...i think it mght be obsessive/compulsive...

 

I don't want to get into an argument with you or anyone else here, but I've already expressed my strongly-held opinion that this kind of reductionist pseudo-scientific thinking may be the subject of a lot of articles in the popular press, but is devoid of actual scientific support. It's about as valid as the "study" that attempted to prove that women have a genetic propensity to be interested in cooking, and men to be interested in driving trucks, by giving toy pots, pans, and trucks to baby monkeys and claiming that the boy monkeys played more with the trucks and the girl monkeys played more with the pots and pans. As if the monkeys knew what the objects signified! (Admittedly, it's true that the vast majority of adult monkey cooks are female, whereas most adult monkey truck drivers are male.)

In any event, I've said before that women have the "collecting" and "accumulation" impulse every bit as much as men; it's just stereotypically directed at different objects, whether it's clothing or china or shoes or, as you admit yourself, scrapbooking. Not to mention that the majority of people studying and getting degrees in academic subjects related to numismatics (whether history, art history, classics, or archaeology) are women, not men. Just like most humanities subjects.

 

LOL, I don't know... played baseball growing up. Bazeball so BOooooRING... Give me an ACTION SPORT like FOOTBALL or BASKETBALL... (I played a lot of Football as a youth, HS, and into University)... give me movement, some physical contact... THAT is a sport.

 

I'm not sure how accurate that is anymore, at least at the post-secondary education level. Historians have been focusing, much more than was traditionally the case, on the lives of ordinary people -- very much including families and women -- since the 1960s. It was already true when I was in college in the 1970s. And from my son's experiences in high school (he graduated in 2008), his world and American history classes were certainly not taught as solely the story of "great men."

 

Take your disgusting anti-baseball prejudices to the General Discussion forum, please!