3 ms·

It seems a bit sad that we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two? I think it's perfectly legitimate to celebrate Marie Curie but at t

by krig 14y ago

It seems a bit sad that we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two? I think it's perfectly legitimate to celebrate Marie Curie but at the same time also celebrate Ada Lovelace, and I don't see how the two are in competition. If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science? Aren't there other computer pioneers worth celebrating? Well, yes, but talking about Turing doesn't lessen them. And, for that matter, why do women have to be their own category at all? Why does "Ada Lovelace Day" automatically mean "Woman Day", does that mean that we should also elect one single man to name a day after?

marquis 14y ago
>we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two? I don't accept the premise of the article that Marie Curie isn't celebrated in her own right. I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman in any science who isn't aware of both of these women's contributions along with Grace Hopper, Rosalind Franklin and others. >why do women have to be their own category at all? Well, among the many many reasons that require a large number of comments to annunciate all the possible arguments here's a simple one: when there aren't many of your minority group in any field, celebrating a member of your group enables more members of your group to enter the field because precedence is set.
- jgrahamc 14y ago
  > I don't accept the premise the article that Marie Curie isn't celebrated in her own right. That's not the premise of my article. The premise is that Marie Curie would make a much better figurehead than Ada Lovelace.
  - marquis 14y ago
    I agree if we are speaking about achievement in general, but Ada is specifically celebrated for her insight into computing, so it's relevant in that context whereas Curie, as far as I know, never had anything to do with the topic.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- krig 14y ago
  Yes, I agree with you and I didn't make myself clear enough. I think it is perfectly fine for women to be brought up and given attention, and that them being women in science is highlighted. What I object to is that apparently women are strictly confined to this particular category, so that 1) there is a ranking of women and only one can be THE woman of science, and 2) women cannot have their own day but have to compete for the "woman day". That is, woman becomes the all-compassing defining trait, and they are only recognized within the constraints of that classification. That, I think, is tragic.
jgrahamc 14y ago
I think it comes down to the fact that role models are helpful in some circumstances and so highlighting an individual can be a sort of metaphor. By choosing an example of a successful woman scientist some young women will be better able to identify with the idea of being a scientist. And my blog post argues that Curie is a better choice than Lovelace. As an example, Sally Ride mattered a lot to me (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4283227 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4283227) even though I'm a man, as I wrote when she died: "RIP Sally Ride. She was a personal inspiration as a child because I saw a woman going into space as an indication of the opening up of space to 'normal' people. She was also a scientist and not a military person."
yummyfajitas 14y ago
If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science? No one. He isn't "the man in science" - only a few computer geeks know about him. The man in science is Einstein. I seriously doubt the man on the street could name anyone else, with the possible exception of "schizophrenic Russel Crowe".
- rdl 14y ago
  Hawking would also be recognizable, if not recalled without being prompted, even if only as "smart guy in a wheelchair". (I think Newton might have a shot, and maybe for people 35-55, Carl Sagan?)
- krig 14y ago
  Precisely. Would anyone argue that instead of Einstein Day, we should have Turing Day? No, the objection to that would be that for one thing they have very little in common, so why would one replace the other, and for the other part, why can't we have both an Einstein Day and a Turing Day? Both valid points. So why are women different, why is it the case that the only way Curie can become more prominent is if Lovelace takes a step back? The choice of Turing as an example: He was a closer match to Lovelace in being a computer science pioneer.

by krig 14y ago

marquis 14y ago

>we apparently only can have one woman in science. Why not have two? I don't accept the premise of the article that Marie Curie isn't celebrated in her own right. I'd say you'd be hard-pressed to find a woman in any science who isn't aware of both of these women's contributions along with Grace Hopper, Rosalind Franklin and others. >why do women have to be their own category at all? Well, among the many many reasons that require a large number of comments to annunciate all the possible arguments here's a simple one: when there aren't many of your minority group in any field, celebrating a member of your group enables more members of your group to enter the field because precedence is set.

jgrahamc 14y ago
> I don't accept the premise the article that Marie Curie isn't celebrated in her own right. That's not the premise of my article. The premise is that Marie Curie would make a much better figurehead than Ada Lovelace.
- marquis 14y ago
  I agree if we are speaking about achievement in general, but Ada is specifically celebrated for her insight into computing, so it's relevant in that context whereas Curie, as far as I know, never had anything to do with the topic.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
krig 14y ago
Yes, I agree with you and I didn't make myself clear enough. I think it is perfectly fine for women to be brought up and given attention, and that them being women in science is highlighted. What I object to is that apparently women are strictly confined to this particular category, so that 1) there is a ranking of women and only one can be THE woman of science, and 2) women cannot have their own day but have to compete for the "woman day". That is, woman becomes the all-compassing defining trait, and they are only recognized within the constraints of that classification. That, I think, is tragic.

jgrahamc 14y ago

I think it comes down to the fact that role models are helpful in some circumstances and so highlighting an individual can be a sort of metaphor. By choosing an example of a successful woman scientist some young women will be better able to identify with the idea of being a scientist. And my blog post argues that Curie is a better choice than Lovelace. As an example, Sally Ride mattered a lot to me (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4283227 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4283227) even though I'm a man, as I wrote when she died: "RIP Sally Ride. She was a personal inspiration as a child because I saw a woman going into space as an indication of the opening up of space to 'normal' people. She was also a scientist and not a military person."

yummyfajitas 14y ago

If we're going down that route, why are we paying so much attention to Alan Turing, who elected him as the man in science? No one. He isn't "the man in science" - only a few computer geeks know about him. The man in science is Einstein. I seriously doubt the man on the street could name anyone else, with the possible exception of "schizophrenic Russel Crowe".

rdl 14y ago
Hawking would also be recognizable, if not recalled without being prompted, even if only as "smart guy in a wheelchair". (I think Newton might have a shot, and maybe for people 35-55, Carl Sagan?)
krig 14y ago
Precisely. Would anyone argue that instead of Einstein Day, we should have Turing Day? No, the objection to that would be that for one thing they have very little in common, so why would one replace the other, and for the other part, why can't we have both an Einstein Day and a Turing Day? Both valid points. So why are women different, why is it the case that the only way Curie can become more prominent is if Lovelace takes a step back? The choice of Turing as an example: He was a closer match to Lovelace in being a computer science pioneer.