Marie Curie Day
blog.jgc.org
Marie Curie Day
1–10 of 70 posts
Re: Marie Curie Day
#2I too love Marie Curie and the 1927 Solvay Conference's picture (which sits in my living room for the edification of my kids!)
She's a hero here in France but I don't know about her reputation in the English speaking world.
She was a very amazing person. Born in Poland, she studied secretly for years in her native country, because higher education was not opened to females! Then she moved to Paris to join her sister and continued her education during the day, while tutoring in the evenings to pay for it.
- - -
There was a nice play (in French) that I saw in 1989, called "Les Palmes de monsieur Schutz"
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_Palmes_de_monsieur_Schutz
A movie was later made from the play. I didn't see the movie but hear it's not too bad for that kind of adaptation from scene to screen (and it has cameos from Pierre-Gilles de Gennes and Georges Charpak).
Re: Marie Curie Day
#3It 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?
Re: Marie Curie Day
#4Agreed! Our school curriculum covered Marie Curie on multiple subjects: Chemistry and English (her biography made for inspirational reading) and by contrast, Lovelace has had what one would call "honourable mention" ;-)
I keep referring back to this topic more and more these days... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiglers_law_of_eponymy
Re: Marie Curie Day
#5It 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 celeb…
>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.
Re: Marie Curie Day
#6It 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 celeb…
>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…
> 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.
Re: Marie Curie Day
#7This woman is an inspiration. She fought great challenges to stand on equal ground with mental giants. I find her humbling and amazing.
Re: Marie Curie Day
#8It 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 celeb…
>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…
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.
Re: Marie Curie Day
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
> 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.
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.
Re: Marie Curie Day
#10It 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 celeb…
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) 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."