Great women who changed the world book £3.49 Prime £5.48 Non Prime @ Amazon
348°Expired

Great women who changed the world book £3.49 Prime £5.48 Non Prime @ Amazon

25
Found 24th Feb
Best price ever on camelcamelcamel for this book.

Have just bought a copy for my daughters
Community Updates

Groups

Top comments
25 Comments
This one is £3.99 Prime too Fantastically Great Women Who Made History amazon.co.uk/dp/…7JS
Changed it in a bad way? Doesn't say does it?
This looks like the one that was bought for my daughters by someone who did not look at the contents or didn't know. If it is the same it has Coco Chanel in it who collaborated with the Nazis
It's only 2 pages long
Thanks ;-)
john76767622 m ago

Going to be a short book then


It's not huge at 32 pages, but use Amazon's look-inside feature to see how much information there is on each page.

As mentioned above, there's also Fantastically Great Women Who Made History, just landed, at another 32 pages:
amazon.co.uk/Fan…H11

And if it's pages you want, you could try Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls at 224 pages (and a soon to be released sequel):
amazon.co.uk/Goo…H11
Edited by: "EQL" 25th Feb
Disappointing comments.

Thanks for posting. I'll take a look and see if it's suitable for my girlfriend's young sister.
Have they got the updated information that Amelia Earhart was found alive on a planet 75 thousound light years from Earth in the Delta quadrant?
In 1913 the British Empire held control over 23% of the world and 412 million people. We then gave women the vote and how far have we progressed?
corkeinator2 h, 17 m ago

Have they got the updated information that Amelia Earhart was found alive …Have they got the updated information that Amelia Earhart was found alive on a planet 75 thousound light years from Earth in the Delta quadrant?


Well it's about the level of facts the SJW require for their comments, thats for sure
This one was bound to turn tedious.....
marty-40133 m ago

In 1913 the British Empire held control over 23% of the world and 412 …In 1913 the British Empire held control over 23% of the world and 412 million people. We then gave women the vote and how far have we progressed?


Now, about this "we". I gather that it was you and some other(s) Who are you referring to?
I have a feeling that you didn't and that you're simply lying to troll the thread.
Edited by: "Adult" 25th Feb
PhilK1 h, 19 m ago

So according to you, they contributed what exactly to humanity ? Acted as …So according to you, they contributed what exactly to humanity ? Acted as nurses, OK - but so do thousands of people every day. Female AND male. Should they all get statues ? OK so what did they do that was "exceptional" that wasn't already being done by plenty other males as well as females ? Also how did they "change the world" - take your time


I pointed out that changing a tyre, plug or lightbulb was probably an irrelevant skill, but sure, I can see that you haven't really heard of them (Seacole was a nurse. Anning was a paleontologist) so lemme fill you in. Seacole was a contemporary of Florence Nightingale, and they both volunteered to nurse soldiers in the Crimean war where conditions were awful for the injured troops. Both women were fantastic for different reasons. Nightingale campaigned for better conditions for the soldiers, and due to her activism in this area the death rates dropped sharply. In some ways Nightingale is considered as the founder of modern nursing. Seacole, by comparison, applied to be sent to the front to help and was rejected, probably because she was a mixed race woman in the mid-1800s. Instead she self funded her journey and offered succor to wounded troops, because she felt it was important work. As a nurse, she probably wasn't as skilled as Nightingale, but as a black woman in a nation that had only outlawed slavery in 1833 she was an active demonstration that black people weren't inferior to white people. Her impact might not be as quantifiable but her role in history was important nonetheless.

Mary Anning was probably one of the best paleontologists that Britain has ever produced, but wasn't allowed to join the Geological Society because of her gender. She identified coprolites and belemnites, and discovered the first correctly identified ichthyosaur skeleton. She is considered a pioneer in her field, and just imagine how much more she could have done had she had access to the community that her male peers did.

So there you are, two nurses that contributed to changing the world, and one paleontologist. And none of them probably had any need to change a tyre, plug or lightbulb.
lostmyshoos11 m ago

I pointed out that changing a tyre, plug or lightbulb was probably an …I pointed out that changing a tyre, plug or lightbulb was probably an irrelevant skill, but sure, I can see that you haven't really heard of them (Seacole was a nurse. Anning was a paleontologist) .


You seem to have missed the fact I mentioned about being a nurse was hardly a claim to greatness, and being one of hundreds in the paleontologist world is no more trend setting. So - is discovering some new set of bones a rare achievement ? Hardly. Its done every week.
LITERALLY
I presume she was the one who in the 1800's discovered the iguanadon was it ?
And someone should NOT be excluded because of gender. I agree
But nor is it a claim to bloody greatness either
Edited by: "PhilK" 25th Feb
Not lying. I have just drawn upon historical facts that I know and used them in the same way as most statistics are used. In 1913 the British Empire was at its peak and in 1918 women were finally given the vote by men (we). We now have a female Prime minister who is struggling to maintain our own borders and deliver Brexit (and at times looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights). Meanwhile Churchill delivered on WW2 whilst having a bit on the side (and his son joined in for good measure I believe).
PhilK22 m ago

You seem to have missed the fact I mentioned about being a nurse was …You seem to have missed the fact I mentioned about being a nurse was hardly a claim to greatness, and being one of hundreds in the paleontologist world is no more trend setting. So - is discovering some new set of bones a rare achievement ? Hardly. Its done every week.LITERALLYI presume she was the one who in the 1800's discovered the iguanadon was it ? And someone should NOT be excluded because of gender. I agreeBut nor is it a claim to bloody greatness either


It depends what your metric for greatness is I suppose. What do you think someone needs to do to be considered great? I have provided evidence why I think these women might be considered great, and you have outlined why you think they aren't. What do you consider to be 'great'?
I hope Maggie is in there!
She's not mentioned in the Changed the World book, but Maggie was mentioned in Good Night Stories for Rebel Girls. They included controversial women.
Edited by: "EQL" 25th Feb
DingIs6 h, 4 m ago

I hope Maggie is in there!


Nice. Bit of humour was needed. Nice one !
lostmyshoos6 h, 23 m ago

It depends what your metric for greatness is I suppose. What do you think …It depends what your metric for greatness is I suppose. What do you think someone needs to do to be considered great? I have provided evidence why I think these women might be considered great, and you have outlined why you think they aren't. What do you consider to be 'great'?


More importantly, what do you think makes someone great ? And why doing the same as hundreds, even THOUSANDS makes them different - I think I know why and it's every bit as repulsive as that person being ignored because of it.
By all means explain why she is more important or the woman is deserving of great in paleolontology solely because she was a woman.
Great is creating something from nothing not following a well beaten track

However. If your happy with calling someone great, you don't need my agreement and the same the other way - I'm just fed up with rewriting and airbrushing of history. We've had too much in the past already to start with but nowadays theres far FAR more
But whatever. Pointless disagreement I won't convince you and you certainly wont convince me !
Edited by: "PhilK" 25th Feb
PhilK2 h, 37 m ago

More importantly, what do you think makes someone great ? And why doing …More importantly, what do you think makes someone great ? And why doing the same as hundreds, even THOUSANDS makes them different - I think I know why and it's every bit as repulsive as that person being ignored because of it.By all means explain why she is more important or the woman is deserving of great in paleolontology solely because she was a woman.Great is creating something from nothing not following a well beaten track


If great is creating something from nothing then most people declared to be great fall short because almost all of human endeavour is about small collaborative steps instead of great leaps forward. Do you have an examples that you are thinking of? Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon but couldn't have got there without the scientists working at NASA, the pilots that trained him to fly, or the many other people all the way back to Galileo and Copernicus.

Mary Anning challenged the notion that coprolites were bezoar stones, changing paleontological thinking and helping later paleontologists understand jurassic ecosystems. She rejected the accepted knowledge and drew new conclusions from her own expertise; that's cutting her own path isn't it? And that is just one example of the ways that she contributed to paleontology. Can you give me any examples of someone in the field of paleontology that meets your standard of greatness? Nightingale is considered the founder of modern nursing. She was a gifted mathematician and statistician that used her skills to further care. She revolutionised the profession; she created the foundation for what nursing is today. Surely that meets your standard?

And as for what I think makes someone great I don't think there is any one attribute. Physical excellence can be an indicator of greatness, Michael Phelps' and Marit Bjørgen's feats at the summer and winter Olympics respectively are great. Have they changed the world? Maybe not but they could certainly be considered great for their commitment to achieving excellence. Compassion and bravery can make someone great; Irena Sendler and Nicholas Winston both saved Jewish children from the Nazi death camps in WWII. Sendler had her legs broken and was sentenced to death for her efforts, and you should check out the 'That's Life' featuring Nicholas Winston on Youtube. Have they changed the world? They saved at least 3,000 Jewish children between them, Sendler personally smuggled several hundred out of ghettos in suitcases and packages, gave them new identities, but kept careful records of their true identities so they wouldn't lose their heritage. I think that is more than great. Do I think physical excellence can be directly compared to courage and compassion? No, but they are both considered standards of greatness. Resilience, fighting for justice, innovation, and dedication are all other attributes that I think can make a person great, along with many others.

When considering Mary Seacole I would say her commitment to helping the soldiers in the Crimea is what makes her great for me. She chose to help with the war effort of a country that would have treated her as a third class citizen because of the colour of her skin, just because she felt it was the right thing to do. She could have chosen a relatively high position in Jamaican society but she chose to fund her own trip to the Crimea to offer what little help she could to the soldiers. Compassion, bravery, self sacrifice; these are all standards by which greatness can be assessed. Had she been a white man that chose to put herself in the same situation I would still consider that great, but I cannot find much information about male nurses in the Crimean War. Could you direct me to some resources or articles that cover this?

Assessing one person as great also does not diminish the greatness of another. I think Nightingale and Seacole are both great, for different reasons, even though they were contemporaries who worked in the same field. Unfortunately you can't list every great person in a book with 32 pages, so you have to select a few that make interesting stories. Are they people everybody is going to consider great? No, but people will have a disagreement about the order of the best ten biscuits. The debate is sometimes just as important as the facts, because that is how you find out new things. Had you heard of Anning or Seacole before we had this conversation?

You asked me what they contributed to humanity, how what they did that was exceptional and how they changed the world. I think I answered those points as clearly as I can.

And yes, I have used the word metric correctly.
lostmyshoos20 h, 9 m ago

If great is creating something from nothing then most people declared to …If great is creating something from nothing then most people declared to be great fall short....blah blah blah


Long winded and lecturing, and still wrong
People DO create something from nothing and frequently. 99% are ignored because the attitudes of people like yourself bloating the non-existent achievements of others because they tick certain boxes.
NOT having a penis between the legs being the main one for you it seems.
Neil Armstrong was the one standing on the moon NOT the others at Nasa, and to my knowledge theres been no demands to call him "great" least of all from the man himself who was also an ace pilot and test pilot at that
Odd you say others who contributed where just as important (the first thing Armstrong said when he got back actually. The opposite of your usual feminazi or PC ranter - and Collins and Aldrin did a great deal too.
He TOOK PART in a major achievement
So your example couldn't be weaker
I could plow on with several examples of what I consider great - Tesla, that kind. NONE of which are female, yet there will be plenty of female examples in everyday life. Theres people NOW who go around helping the homeless. Because NONE of the political parties will. THEY are a version of great to me.
But if some ranting heterophobic wimmin from some council says this I have to accept this one is "great" (as in Seacole) then I will cheerfully say NO
PhilK3 h, 43 m ago

Long winded and lecturing, and still wrongPeople DO create something from …Long winded and lecturing, and still wrongPeople DO create something from nothing and frequently. 99% are ignored because the attitudes of people like yourself bloating the non-existent achievements of others because they tick certain boxes.NOT having a penis between the legs being the main one for you it seems.Neil Armstrong was the one standing on the moon NOT the others at Nasa, and to my knowledge theres been no demands to call him "great" least of all from the man himself who was also an ace pilot and test pilot at thatOdd you say others who contributed where just as important (the first thing Armstrong said when he got back actually. The opposite of your usual feminazi or PC ranter - and Collins and Aldrin did a great deal too.He TOOK PART in a major achievementSo your example couldn't be weakerI could plow on with several examples of what I consider great - Tesla, that kind. NONE of which are female, yet there will be plenty of female examples in everyday life. Theres people NOW who go around helping the homeless. Because NONE of the political parties will. THEY are a version of great to me. But if some ranting heterophobic wimmin from some council says this I have to accept this one is "great" (as in Seacole) then I will cheerfully say NO


You asked me several questions and I did my best to answer them as fully as I could, as you found my first response lacking. I presented several examples of people that I might consider great, both male and female, which you seem to have chosen to ignore because it fits your opinion of me as a 'feminazi, PC ranter, or heterophobe'. You say that you cannot think of a single woman that you respect enough to call great. Does that demonstrate that having a penis is an important qualifier for you? And women who take part in everyday life are a 'version of great'? That just makes me incredibly sad, that you can willfully say that half of the human population has had no important input as far as you are concerned.

You didn't provide me with any examples of your definition of greatness initially, so I tried to pick someone that might meet your criteria and Armstrong was the first that popped into my mind, perhaps because he literally walked a path that no-one else had. I also think Tesla is rad so we perhaps could have found some common ground there but instead you have chosen to call me names, make assumptions about me that are completely false, and block yourself off from any meaningful discussion. At no point did I expect us to completely agree but I thought we might be able to have a civil exchange and I thought maybe we could both learn something new. But you have offered me know new information except that you cannot think of a single inspiring woman in any field. You are the reason that books like this are written and then you have an apoplexy about them existing like they are a personal attack on masculinity. I hope you can find at least one woman that you consider great. May I suggest Ada Lovelace, for her work on computing, Rosalind Franklin, who did most of the work that Crick and Watson based their DNA model on, or Irena Sendler, who I previously mentioned for her work in the Jewish Ghettos. Maybe they won't be your cup of tea; we obviously agree on Tesla but disagree on Seacole, but I'm hoping that you haven't found the right 'great' woman yet, not that you just can't see the contributions of half the population.
lostmyshoos14 h, 41 m ago

You asked me several questions and I did my best to answer them as fully …You asked me several questions and I did my best to answer them as fully as I could, as you found my first response lacking. I presented several examples of people that I might consider great, both male and female, which you seem to have chosen to ignore because it fits your opinion of me as a 'feminazi, PC ranter, or heterophobe'. You say that you cannot think of a single woman that you respect enough to call great. Does that demonstrate that having a penis is an important qualifier for you? And women who take part in everyday life are a 'version of great'? That just makes me incredibly sad, that you can willfully say that half of the human population has had no important input as far as you are concerned. You didn't provide me with any examples of your definition of greatness initially, so I tried to pick someone that might meet your criteria and Armstrong was the first that popped into my mind, perhaps because he literally walked a path that no-one else had. I also think Tesla is rad so we perhaps could have found some common ground there but instead you have chosen to call me names, make assumptions about me that are completely false, and block yourself off from any meaningful discussion. At no point did I expect us to completely agree but I thought we might be able to have a civil exchange and I thought maybe we could both learn something new. But you have offered me know new information except that you cannot think of a single inspiring woman in any field. You are the reason that books like this are written and then you have an apoplexy about them existing like they are a personal attack on masculinity. I hope you can find at least one woman that you consider great. May I suggest Ada Lovelace, for her work on computing, Rosalind Franklin, who did most of the work that Crick and Watson based their DNA model on, or Irena Sendler, who I previously mentioned for her work in the Jewish Ghettos. Maybe they won't be your cup of tea; we obviously agree on Tesla but disagree on Seacole, but I'm hoping that you haven't found the right 'great' woman yet, not that you just can't see the contributions of half the population.


Quite correct that I don't have agreement with your opinion, wrong that I consider you a "feminazi" but believe you follow the brainwashing lunacy as if it's gospel like so many.Its had the opposite effect on me as it has you. After all, I don't know you. The "feminazi" accusation was for this mentality of that woman can do anything be anything and be great at it - just don't judge on their results or expect them to actually do what they say they can.
And theres a lot of peabrained males worshipping at the feminazi false god idol too. Ive argued with plenty - even on one occasion quite happily argreeing to meet him at a local pub to say it to his face. Needless to say he didn't turn up. (That was 6 years ago - Ive got a badly healed broken leg since and not in a position of such bravura anymore ! ) the pub was the Free Trade Inn Newcastle. A regular for me then, not so much now what with the steep hill down to and up from.
Anyways, this discussion has had it's run don't you agree ?
And congrats to you on actually DISCUSSING not the brainless tit joining in contributing nothing (one of the peabrained males I mentioned earlier) if long winded, it was a discussion rather than an argument. Well done. Rare on here
I think this is great. Each generation is entitled to discover its own idols and not retain the past preserved in aspic. HIstorically, women have been overlooked and denigrated.

List of those covered:
Jane Austen, Gertrude Ederle, Coco Chanel, Frida Kahlo, Marie Curie, Mary Anning, Mary Seacole, Amelia Earhart, Agent Fifi, Sacagawa, Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks, Anne Frank

And in Fantastically Great Women Who Made History:
Elizabeth Blackwell, Qiu Jin, Boudicca, Flora Drummond, Pocahontas, Noor Inayat Khan, Harriet Tubman, Valentina Tereshkova, Ada Lovelace, Sayyida al-Hurra, Hatshepsut, Josephine Baker, Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text