4 ms·

They were mostly nobles (Poland had lots of these - almost 5% of population) or rich middle class women before feminism (so - no need to work).

• cema 10y ago
  Not necessarily no need to work, but more importantly, easily available free time to spend on learning (or anything else).
• mamon 10y ago
  First of all, number of nobles in Poland was much bigger, some say even 10% of population, which made it mostly the customary title, rarely followed by an actual wealth. More importantly, since Poland was under Russian and German rule nobles were often dispossesed and persecuted. Maria Skłodowska-Curie herself had to earn her living (mostly by being private tutor), as did her husband, parents and others. So no, education was not rich women's entertainment, it was necessity.
• Mz 10y ago
  If you read the book "More work for mother," which details 300 years of the history of housework, women have long been saddled with about 60 hours a week of housework. In modern times, if a woman works a full time job of 40 hours a week, that only falls to about 40 hours per week of housework. I seriously doubt most of these women were living a life of leisure. Additionally, let's assume you are right: How on earth does that rebut my comment about educating people who desire to learn? Because surely the leisure class could have been bar hopping and throwing or attending wild parties instead of trying to learn something in spite of it being against the rules to get an education.
  • ajuc 10y ago
    > Additionally, let's assume you are right: How on earth does that rebut my comment about educating people who desire to learn? It doesn't, why should it?