41–50 of 70 posts
The need to celebrate the one symbolic "woman of science" is sexist and crude. The idea of one "woman of science" makes the work of other female scientists seem less important. The idea that the "woman of science" be symbolic makes Marie Curie's work seem symbolic and unimportant.
Why can we not just celebrate both Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace as excellent scientists, leaving gender out of the discussion?
I 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…
> She's a hero here in France and obviously in Poland. But here we call her with her full Polish(hers)-French(husband) name, not only the French part. a new bridge in Warsaw was recently named after her http://goo.gl/maps/Y1X5d
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my case I plead ignorance. I grew up knowing her as Marie Curie and not as Marie Skłodowska-Curie. Who does one pronounce Skłodowska?
Sklo-DOV-ska Sclo like it's halfway between a and o, _not_ an “oh”.
I 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…
She studied on the underground university not because she was female but because Poland was under Russian occupation; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_University
Marie Curie is undeniably one of the greatest female role-figures in science of the last century. I don't know why she isn't more revered, although perhaps are here are a few reasons why: (Note: I bring them up mostly in hopes of pointing out how silly they are) 1. Her work eventually killed her. There was no way for the Curies to know what effect long-term radiation exposure would have, but it's still not a huge ima…
Not sure about in US, but I'm pretty sure majority of kids in this part of the world knows who Marie Curie is than Ada Lovelace. Ada Lovelace is celebrated among us the computer geeks, because she's the female icon for the field.
And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Hopper way, way more awesome than Ada. Length of nanosecond http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpsKnWZrJ8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So following that reasoning, a chinese scientist who made his/her PhD and research work in the USA should be called "an american researcher"? I think you can understand that that is not only not nice, but just wrong. If you think that not respecting her because she was a woman was a terrible thing (I agree), then we should not do the same, and as a sign of respect, at least, we should call her by her real name
She was technically Polish, but she didn't owe much to Poland. Especially not her successes in science. That's what I mean. For me it's ethically wrong to boast about Maria Skłodowska-Curie as a Polish scientist. And it's not just "not respecting" ! It's likely that she wouldn't achieve anything if she chose to stay in Poland. She was denied higher education !
Marie Curie was a groundbreaking scientist and an admirable figure. The need to celebrate the one symbolic "woman of science" is sexist and crude. The idea of one "woman of science" makes the work of other female scientists seem less important. The idea that the "woman of science" be symbolic makes Marie Curie's work seem symbolic and unimportant. Why can we not just celebrate both Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace as exc…
Marie Curie was a groundbreaking scientist and an admirable figure. The need to celebrate the one symbolic "woman of science" is sexist and crude. The idea of one "woman of science" makes the work of other female scientists seem less important. The idea that the "woman of science" be symbolic makes Marie Curie's work seem symbolic and unimportant. Why can we not just celebrate both Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace as exc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She's a hero here in France and obviously in Poland. But here we call her with her full Polish(hers)-French(husband) name, not only the French part. a new bridge in Warsaw was recently named after her http://goo.gl/maps/Y1X5d
And there is a university in Lublin named after her too.
Marie Curie was a groundbreaking scientist and an admirable figure. The need to celebrate the one symbolic "woman of science" is sexist and crude. The idea of one "woman of science" makes the work of other female scientists seem less important. The idea that the "woman of science" be symbolic makes Marie Curie's work seem symbolic and unimportant. Why can we not just celebrate both Marie Curie and Ada Lovelace as exc…
Just to be clear: my blog post is not arguing that there should be a Marie Curie Day, it is arguing that if you are going to have a day named after a woman scientist as a celebration of women in science then I think Ada Lovelace is a poor choice.