This just struck me odd, but i really have hard time naming the most important / influental female person in history, as it seems that history we know is mostly dominated by the males and male history writers.

So i would like to know your takes on this. No applicants from me yet..

Catherine The Great?
Elizabeth I?

Catherine de Medici was probably more influential than Elizabeth I.

the first woman, whoever she was.

Probably Isabella I of Spain.

In the scientific community, Emma Noether must be near the top with her contributions to mathematics and physics, not to mention the more famous Marie Curie.

In the religious community, you have the Virgin Mary, but her contributions are more legendary. St. Catherine of Siena was influential; more so was St. Clare of Assisi, Francis of Assisi's admirer and friend who founded her own order. Both seem to have been truly admirable people. Not as influential as Isabella, perhaps, but more to be looked up to.

Mary, the mother of God.

Depends on what you believe there really...

Strictly speaking, you have a point.

But even if the mother of Jesus ben Joseph did nothing notable in her life, the size of her cult and the importance the very existance of such a thing has had/has, must be considered momentous.

Then you could also put the Mother of Mohammed in that bracket as well.

would that mean that jesus' father was more influential than jesus?

One does not have to be a Buddhist to acknowledge Buddha's importance.

Of course, if you want to argue for the sake of it, do... :)

If Jesus was the most influential man then his mother, Mary has got to be the most influential woman. She is nearly as worshiped and idolized as Jesus is among the Catholic faith.

If Jesus was the most influential man then his mother, Mary has got to be the most influential woman.

so a list of the most influential men would read like this?:

1. mohammed
2. mohammed's father
3. isaac newton
4. isaac newton's father
5. jesus
6. jesus' father
7. buddha
8. buddha's father
9. confucius
10. confucius' father


She is nearly as worshiped and idolized as Jesus is among the Catholic faith.

what is being idolized is a myth, not a particular woman.
(it's of course an implementation of mother/fertility cults into christianity)

jesus isnt mentioned as influential because he's being idolized anyway, but because the historic character started christianity. (indirectly)

My mom > Jesus' mom

Elizabeth or Cleopatra were great monarchs, but aside from having a vagina they didn't really do anything other male monarchs didn't do. Likewise, the Virgin Mary had no influence, just because she got held up as this figure of worship doesn't mean she had any say over what or how a bunch of dudes chose to use her in their books and doctrines. She's really just a glorified fertility goddess.

In terms of influence, it's gotta be a feminist, most of the others named just served to help perpetuate existing (male-dominated) orders, either religious or secular. Because women were so marginalised and oppressed throughout most of post-agricultural history I think when talking about influence you have to talk about influence in changing and reshaping the social order. Aside from popping up occasionally functioning as ersatz men when circumstance and their own willpower allowed it, I think the most influential thing women could do was help set off the fire of liberation.

I'll say Mary Wollstonecraft just because she was very radical for her time and wrote the first real feminist treatise.

well, this isnt about the most influental feminist though...

i'd go for marie curie...

Well let's put it this way. The only serious candidates in the "most influential ever" thread are those who had lasting, far reaching impacts down the ages and in many times and places. That's mostly religious figures, especially Jesus and Mohammed.

To me the only serious candidates among women, who had this sort of widespread impact in time and space, are those who like the most influential men, spread ideas that outlived their temporal impact. Who do you think has had more impact on the way we live our lives today, some random ancient or middle ages monarch who happened to have a vagina, or the big feminist intellectuals and activists of the last 250-odd years?

Well let's put it this way. The only serious candidates in the "most influential ever" thread are those who had lasting, far reaching impacts down the ages and in many times and places. That's mostly religious figures, especially Jesus and Mohammed.

To me the only serious candidates among women, who had this sort of widespread impact in time and space, are those who like the most influential men, spread ideas that outlived their temporal impact. Who do you think has had more impact on the way we live our lives today, some random ancient or middle ages monarch who happened to have a vagina, or the big feminist intellectuals and activists of the last 250-odd years?

i pick c) marie curie :D

anyway, this argumentation makes more sense, right.

Discounting mythical figures, I'd say Catherine the Great or Isabella I (politics) and Marie Curie (science).

If Jesus was the most influential man then his mother, Mary has got to be the most influential woman. She is nearly as worshiped and idolized as Jesus is among the Catholic faith.

Then again, the Catholic faith is not the only "flavor" of Christianity on Earth... And other denominations don't give her nearly as much importance as Catholics do. With that being said, I still do think she is the most influential female in history.

Victoria queen of England

^ The most important/famous figurehead, yes. But like Meiji in Japan it's her ministers who do most of the ruling. Nevertheless her name is still associated with that not-so-glorious-after-all era of British imperialism.

^ The most important/famous figurehead, yes. But like Meiji in Japan it's her ministers who do most of the ruling. Nevertheless her name is still associated with that not-so-glorious-after-all era of British imperialism.

Are you kidding? Not-so-glorious era?
Some proud british moderator bann him please

Well I'm a British moderator, although I hope I don't suffer too much from the vice of pride, and I think he's entirely right. Queen Victoria was a miserable old baggage who did very little of any interest and worth (rather like the current incumbent); the fact that she was not personally responsible for the atrocities of the British Empire is possibly the best thing you can say about her. Certainly she is not a serious candidate as history's most influential woman, because she had no power to speak of (when Gladstone, whom she hated, won an election, she wanted to appoint Disraeli, whom she liked, as prime minister instead; she had to be gently told that she couldn't). She's clearly far less influential than Elizabeth I. I think that both Theodora, wife of Justinian I of Byzantium, and Irene - the first woman to rule the Roman empire in her own right, and who called the Seventh and last Ecumenical Council - both have a far greater claim to the title.

As for the Virgin Mary, it is ridiculous to cite her as an influential woman to rank alongside Jesus as an influential man. The reason is that Jesus is enormously influential largely because of who he was and what he actually did. We can argue about how much of Christianity came from Jesus himself and how much from later people, but there's no doubt that Jesus himself was enormously important in the sense that, had Jesus been completely different, it wouldn't have happened. Whereas in the case of his mother, we know pretty nothing whatsoever about her. When Christians began seriously to venerate her - in the third and fourth centuries AD - they didn't know any more than we do. Their veneration of her was based partly upon their worship of her son (ie, Mary was to be venerated simply because she was Jesus' mother) and partly upon legends. So the veneration of Mary had nothing to do with anything she actually said or did other than give birth to Jesus, something that in itself was obviously no more of an achievement than any other birth. The woman herself, then, didn't have any influence at all, other than any influence she might have had over the young Jesus which led to his doing and saying the things that he did; but that is pure speculation.

Is this a hypothetical question? :mischief:

Well I'm a British moderator, although I hope I don't suffer too much from the vice of pride,

That's explain all ;)

Damn, that is extremely difficult question!

Probably Marie Curie, because of her legacy.
Regarding Virgin Mary, I agree with Plotinus.

I believe Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher are also worthy of mention.

The most important woman in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%2C_the_mother_of_Jesus

The most important woman in history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary%2C_the_mother_of_Jesus

we've been there.

we've been there.
So, this opinion is quite popular.

My mom > Jesus' mom

Your Mom is not a virgin !

Queen Victoria, clearly. You tell me another person, let alone a woman, who ruled over 1/4 of the world's land area and influenced the politics of the most powerful group of countries (19th century Europe).

If Queen Victoria had been alive, WWI and consequently WWII would not have occurred and the path of human history would've been that different.

In science, clearly it's Marie Curie. In the arts, I'm going to be bold and say someone like Jane Austen who influenced generations of women (and their men).

Of course, Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I and many others are important also. Actually I would put those two together as a mother-daughter team and put their influence in the religious sphere. It was Anne Boleyn that paved the way for the Church of England and Elizabeth I that really made it a permanent part of England. They were the religious reformers.

Of course, you have been told many times how wrong you are about Victoria.

If Queen Victoria had been alive, WWI and consequently WWII would not have occurred and the path of human history would've been that different.


If Queen Victoria had been alive she would have been pushing on a hundred. And people say the royal family arn't aliens :rolleyes:

Queen Victoria, clearly. You tell me another person, let alone a woman, who ruled over 1/4 of the world's land area and influenced the politics of the most powerful group of countries (19th century Europe).

Victoria didn't "rule" anywhere. She reigned. These are not the same things. You might as well say that Queen Elizabeth II is one of the most powerful people ever to live because she "rules" not only Britain but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and wherever else. But of course she isn't, because she doesn't. All she does is travel about attending receptions. Queen Victoria didn't even do that - she just sat about on the Isle of Wight being miserable.

If you disagree, then give an example of something Victoria did that actually influenced what went on!

Of course, Anne Boleyn and Elizabeth I and many others are important also. Actually I would put those two together as a mother-daughter team and put their influence in the religious sphere. It was Anne Boleyn that paved the way for the Church of England and Elizabeth I that really made it a permanent part of England. They were the religious reformers.

Anne Boleyn didn't do anything that brought about the Church of England! All she did was have Henry VIII fall in lust with her. It was Henry who broke the church away from Rome, and he probably did that on the advice of people such as Thomas Cromwell. It was certainly Cromwell and Thomas Cranmer who worked out what sort of church the Church of England would be, and who took advantage of the situation to create a church that was influenced by Lutheranism rather than merely a splinter faction of the Catholic Church. Do you have any evidence that Anne Boleyn had any input in any of this?

Elizabeth I was certainly more important for the Church of England since she enforced its status as the only legal church, although she was certainly not solely responsible for this. For example, the success of this endeavour depended to a large extent upon popular hatred of Catholicism, which itself was largely a product of Foxe's Book of martyrs. Moreover, Elizabeth, like her father, had no interest in theological or liturgical matters, and once again the character of the Church of England was determined by other people. The Thirty-Nine Articles, which were issued during her reign, were basically a revision of the Forty-Two Articles which Cranmer had drawn up years previously.

Hatshepsut. Perhaps the most powerful woman in history. Cleopatra and her grain second?

Elizabeth I was certainly more important for the Church of England since she enforced its status as the only legal church, although she was certainly not solely responsible for this. For example, the success of this endeavour depended to a large extent upon popular hatred of Catholicism, which itself was largely a product of Foxe's Book of martyrs. Moreover, Elizabeth, like her father, had no interest in theological or liturgical matters, and once again the character of the Church of England was determined by other people. The Thirty-Nine Articles, which were issued during her reign, were basically a revision of the Forty-Two Articles which Cranmer had drawn up years previously.

I agree, the only reason at all that Elizabeth was interested in religious affairs was to increase her own monarchical power and make sure the country entered into a period of stability. Besides Edwards era was far more important for the creation of the Church of England than Henry's and Elizabeths.

Oh yeah Victoria's great, she was one of those enlightened people who made the Great Famine even greater in Ireland, and enjoyed a lovely banquet in India, while the Indian peseants starved to death. She may have been influential, but she was a terrible woman. It's a pity our Jubilee Plot failed (we still got the 'terrorist' invented, though).

Oh yeah Victoria's great, she was one of those enlightened people who made the Great Famine even greater in Ireland, and enjoyed a lovely banquet in India, while the Indian peseants starved to death. She may have been influential, but she was a terrible woman. It's a pity our Jubilee Plot failed (we still got the 'terrorist' invented, though).

Queen Victoria never visited India.

Yes, you're right about that bit. The point still stands though, that they were having a banquet to honour her ascension while the country starved.

A monarch eating while their subjects starved? Colour me surprised!

Victoria didn't "rule" anywhere. She reigned. These are not the same things. You might as well say that Queen Elizabeth II is one of the most powerful people ever to live because she "rules" not only Britain but Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and wherever else. But of course she isn't, because she doesn't. All she does is travel about attending receptions. Queen Victoria didn't even do that - she just sat about on the Isle of Wight being miserable.

If you disagree, then give an example of something Victoria did that actually influenced what went on!


First of all, Queen Victoria was more influential than Queen Elizabeth II. Second of all, the British Empire actually existed as a single political entity and was far more influential than post-WWII United Kingdom.

You have to remember that when Victoria ascended to the throne, it had only been some 48 years since the French Revolution had passed. The British monarchy was also questioned at that time.

There was no way Queen Victoria could've come in and made sweeping changes - at least not overtly. It was through her ministers that she made a difference. Of course we will never know how influential and powerful she really was but she definitely held political power and cautioned and advised her ministers.

Obviously I can't just show evidence that she single-handedly made decisions because she didn't. But it doesn't mean that she was the biggest factor behind those decisions. She was the head of state after all.

Don't look at Elizabeth II and think that's what Victoria did. Victoria did a lot more.

Absolutely none of that is evidence! You're just guessing that Victoria did things even though you admit there's no reason to suppose that she did. That's not history, it's conspiracy theory. Why on earth should we suppose that characters as strong as Lord Palmerston, Gladstone (!), Disraeli, and Lord Salisbury were influenced by the queen? You say they "definitely" were, but what makes it so definite, and why are you so sure that Victoria had more of an influence than Elizabeth II does? Using your reasoning, why can't someone claim that Elizabeth is the real power behind Downing Street, and exerts her power by manipulating Gordon Brown? And if that's daft, why isn't it just as daft to say it of Victoria?

Also, you seem to overlook that the British monarchy was questioned far more during Victoria's reign than it was when she became queen. This was because Victoria did so little and was so unpopular during the couple of decades after the death of her husband. In fact, it's often said that during the 1870s Britain came closer to becoming a republic than it did at any other time in the past couple of centuries. That's why I say there's a good case for saying that Victoria was less important and influential a person than Elizabeth II. Elizabeth II may not do much of any importance, but she does do something, just about. Victoria didn't do anything at all for much of her reign.

Oh yeah Victoria's great, she was one of those enlightened people who made the Great Famine even greater in Ireland, and enjoyed a lovely banquet in India, while the Indian peseants starved to death. She may have been influential, but she was a terrible woman. It's a pity our Jubilee Plot failed (we still got the 'terrorist' invented, though).

If you have ever attended to a party, you are just as "terrible". Because I warrant that somebody was starving somewhere at the very same time. :rolleyes:

I feel pretty indifferent about her, but if these are her greatest sins, she must have been a real saint among most heads of state:D

If you have ever attended to a party, you are just as "terrible". Because I warrant that somebody was starving somewhere at the very same time. :rolleyes:

I feel pretty indifferent about her, but if these are her greatest sins, she must have been a real saint among most heads of state:D

I presume you feel the same about political commissars eatign away happily in Moscow in the 20s then?

I presume you feel the same about political commissars eatign away happily in Moscow in the 20s then?

wwoooa!! surprise attack from the left!! :eek:

Anne Boleyn didn't do anything that brought about the Church of England! All she did was have Henry VIII fall in lust with her. It was Henry who broke the church away from Rome, and he probably did that on the advice of people such as Thomas Cromwell.

Anne Boleyn was a crucial player in the English church breaking away from Rome. She had a lot of interest in the Protestant movement in Germany and was actually seen as a religious adviser of sorts towards Henry.

If you're not going to give these women the proper respect that they deserve - and it seems you're determined to be that way - then there's no use discussing this. Obviously, you think that they were of little to no importance in history anyway.

If you're not going to give these women the proper respect that they deserve - and it seems you're determined to be that way - then there's no use discussing this. Obviously, you think that they were of little to no importance in history anyway.

Yeah true to form, imply mysoginy... he named several women he did think were influential, just because he dosent agree with you dosent mean theres no point in discussing this with him

Cathrine the Great comes to mind of course. Maria Theresa maybe...Isabella the one who reconquered Grenada and comissioned Columbus of course.

A lesser known one would be:


Lakshmibai, The Rani of Jhansi (c. 1828 – 17 June 1858) (Hindi- झाँसी की रानी Marathi- झाशीची राणी), the queen of the Maratha-ruled princely state of Jhansi in North India, was one of the leading figures of the Indian rebellion of 1857, and a symbol of resistance to British rule in India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rani_Lakshmibai

The British captured Gwalior three days later. In his report of the battle for Gwalior, General Rose commented that the Rani had been "the bravest and the best" of the rebels. Because of her unprecedented bravery, courage and wisdom and her progressive views on women's empowerment in 19th century India, and due to her sacrifices, she became an icon of Indian nationalist movement.

Rani Lakshmibai became a national heroine and was seen as the epitome of female bravery in India. When the Indian National Army created its first female unit, it was named after her.

Indian poetess Subhadra Kumari Chauhan wrote a poem in the Veer Ras style on her, which is still recited by children in schools in contemporary India.

If you're not going to give these women the proper respect that they deserve - and it seems you're determined to be that way - then there's no use discussing this. Obviously, you think that they were of little to no importance in history anyway.

It's nothing to do with "respect"! It's about weighing the evidence. Now you've given reasons to think that Anne Boleyn was influential, and that's fair enough. I'm prepared to be corrected on that. But in the case of Queen Victoria you haven't given any evidence at all, merely called for blind faith. Show that she deserves to be regarded as influential and I'll do it; don't just insist upon it for no apparent reason. I'm not stubbornly refusing to give Victoria "respect" because of her gender, as you imply. On the contrary, I'm affording her precisely the same "respect" that I'm inclined to extent to all British monarchs from the Hanoverians onwards. You're the one who seems "determined" to treat her differently without giving any good reasons for it. It's right that we should re-evaluate the role of historical figures and especially of women, where they have been unjustly neglected by historians, but that doesn't mean just making stuff up.

(Disclaimer I am an Atheist, i believe in Quantum Physics)
How can Virgin Mary be mother of God? doesn't the bible say God created the universe?
at that point the Virgin Mary was not alive and God is a infinite being so how then can an infinite being precede a finite one and still be the son?
(I believe, note I believe that Jesus MAY have done those things through Quantum Physics)

According to Catholic theology, God doesn't "precede" anything or anyone because he is outside time, that is, completely atemporal. You can't apply temporal language to him. Moreover, God is three persons, although they are one substance. Mary is the mother of only one of them, namely the Son. The Son is fully divine, which is why it is accurate to say that Mary is the mother of God, because she is the mother of someone who is God. However, she is not the mother of the Godhead, that is, of all three members of the Trinity. Finally, the fact that Mary is the mother of the Son does not mean that the Son came into existence only when Mary gave birth to him. Rather, he pre-existed - although this is an inaccurate way of putting it, because he is timeless - it would be better to say that his existence is not dependent upon Mary's giving birth to him.

As the creed goes "He was made incarnate by the virgin Mary"

His existance ON Earth was dependant on her.

Right, although that's "by" in the sense of "through".

It may actually be "through", now that I think of it.

I really don't knwo 'bout this one. I'd say...uh........??? I really don't know!

Did you ever think about what special people Mary and Joseph had to have been for God to say, "OK, you are the two people I pick to raise my son."

The Land'O"lakes butter girl!!!

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/770238/make_the_land_o_lakes_butter_indian_show_you_her_b oobies/ have you seen that omg!


:P

Did you ever think about what special people Mary and Joseph had to have been for God to say, "OK, you are the two people I pick to raise my son."

yeah, but this is the history forum.

Your Mom is not a virgin !

I dont think Jesus mom was one.She cant be virgin physically,maybe mentally.Warpus mom can still be more influental than Mary.


The most important female can be Marilyn Monroe.

The most important female can be Marilyn Monroe.

for making men around the globe horny and getting f*cked by JFK?

for making men around the globe horny and getting f*cked by JFK?

One of the reasons.Effecting on mode and economics etc....

for making men around the globe horny and getting f*cked by JFK?

wait, what???? That actually happened?

would that mean that jesus' father was more influential than jesus?
Christians would say so, yeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God). :p

I'm going to toss in the Famous Five. These women made it possible for Canadian women to vote and have all kinds of other rights and freedoms previously only available to men.

I would suggest that suffragettes in other countries likely had similar influence and impact.

Christians would say so, yeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God). :p

I was thinking "No we don't think Joseph is that important....oh wait....:wallbash: Jesus is the Son of God! Oh......" :lol: You had me confused for a second there...

I'm going to toss in the Famous Five. These women made it possible for Canadian women to vote and have all kinds of other rights and freedoms previously only available to men.

I would suggest that suffragettes in other countries likely had similar influence and impact.

Thought you meant, Dick, George, Julian, Anne and Timmy then.

Christians would say so, yeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God). :p

I was thinking "No we don't think Joseph is that important....oh wait....:wallbash: Jesus is the Son of God! Oh......" :lol: You had me confused for a second there...

Errm what?Isnt Jesus the god?

He is the Son of God AND God at the same time. God = Jesus. Jesus = God. Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God because he was born by God in the form of the Holy Spirit (also God ;)) entering Mary, thus, he is the Son of God but also God.

He is the Son of God AND God at the same time. God = Jesus. Jesus = God. Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God because he was born by God in the form of the Holy Spirit (also God ;)) entering Mary, thus, he is the Son of God but also God.

Bah, christian monotheism is not funny, with all the convoluted attempts at explaining away the mess their prophet/god left behind. Its an intellectual disgrace, really. At least Arius had a nicer version of it.

Thought you meant, Dick, George, Julian, Anne and Timmy then.
Who? :confused:

The Famous Five

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Famous_Five_(series)

Pretty popular series of books.

Bah, christian monotheism is not funny, with all the convoluted attempts at explaining away the mess their prophet/god left behind. Its an intellectual disgrace, really. At least Arius had a nicer version of it.

It isn't complicated, really. God shows himself in three different ways: to ancient Israel, God the Father, wrathful and lawgiving but also loving. To the His disciples and to Roman Judaea, God the Son (Jesus), merciful and humble. To those after Jesus ascended to Heaven, the Holy Spirit.

It isn't complicated, really. God shows himself in three different ways: to ancient Israel, God the Father, wrathful and lawgiving but also loving. To the His disciples and to Roman Judaea, God the Son (Jesus), merciful and humble. To those after Jesus ascended to Heaven, the Holy Spirit.

Actually it is four ways.

He is the Son of God AND God at the same time. God = Jesus. Jesus = God. Jesus refers to himself as the Son of God because he was born by God in the form of the Holy Spirit (also God ) entering Mary, thus, he is the Son of God but also God.

This is not accurate. First, if you read the Gospels, you will find that Jesus almost never calls himself "Son of God". He favours the title "Son of Man". Second, the title "Son of God" does not mean someone who is literally God's son. It means someone who is favoured of God or who does God's will. It appears in the Old Testament quite often with that meaning, and is sometimes applied to the whole Jewish nation. To call Jesus "Son of God" therefore has no metaphysical implications, it just means God likes him. It is surprising how ignorant even Christians often are about this.

It isn't complicated, really. God shows himself in three different ways: to ancient Israel, God the Father, wrathful and lawgiving but also loving. To the His disciples and to Roman Judaea, God the Son (Jesus), merciful and humble. To those after Jesus ascended to Heaven, the Holy Spirit.

Actually, the way you put it implies modalism, which is a heresy. According to Christian orthodoxy, God does not simply "show" himself in three ways - he exists in three ways. However, to anyone who thinks this is an "intellectual disgrace", I suggest they read Gregory of Nyssa's To Ablabius and also On the distinction between ousia and hypostasis and see if they think the same thing then.

But this is very off-topic. Why do people keep turning History threads into trolls about religion? Please keep it vaguely relevant to the question, people...

Huh? But that is how they taught it to me in Sunday School! I go to a heretical church :run: !

Anyhoo, Mary was probably not the most influential woman ever. But that's just because I'm Protestant :D.

Continually, the most influential woman ever is probably Hildegard von Bingen. She was an artist, author, counselor, linguist, naturalist, scientist, philosopher, physician, herbalist, poet, visionary, and composer in the early Middle Ages who is one of the first modern composers.

Over the next hundred years or so we will see a massive increase in the amount of influnetial females. Its been skewed against them for so long but thats evening out in most developed countries, and in quite a few developing ones too.

Huh? But that is how they taught it to me in Sunday School! I go to a heretical church :run: !


i guess the teachers there arent that versatile in theology, so it's not unlikely they teach you simplistic views that arent your church's theologians stances...