Jamie Reidy hurts his pea brain trying to think of genius women throughout history.
I recently discovered College OTR’s ranking of the Top Ten Ugliest Colleges. And perusing the list got me to the thinking.
Nine of these ten colleges are what I would call “smart schools.” Only St. John’s, a commuter school in NYC, isn’t ranked among the most difficult acceptance-wise.
(Full disclosure: my mom went to St. John’s after she aced the math portion of her SATs. Apparently, she wasn’t only a curve buster grade-wise, but in attractiveness, too! I say that in a completely non-creepy way, and with the hope she remembers this blog when Christmas shopping.)
Applying a logical conclusion to these unscientific rankings, I can only deduce that smart people are ugly.
Think about it. Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Doc Brown. I doubt any of those guys got any ass in college.
For comparative purposes, I wondered if well known genius women are unattractive, as well. Sadly, aside from Marie Curie and the girl who played “Winnie Cooper” on TV, I struggled to name names off the top of my stupid head.
So, I googled “famous smart women in history.”
And nearly spit water all over my laptop screen, thanks to “Top Notch Mama”, a student looking for wisdom.
Here is the third-most popular link to the aforementioned search criteria.
im writtin an essay but i need an example of a smart woman dat contribute to society wit her knowledge
OK, so Gertrude Stein she’s not. But it gets even better. Do your self-esteem a favor and scroll down through the entire list of answers.
“Opera.” I realize this isn’t a spelling bee, but it would be nice to get the spelling correct when answering a question about intelligent women.
“Conellisa Rice.” At least this responder knew she didn’t know the spelling.
Here’s the thing about those two answers: Ray Ray and Mrs. Nighs were active participants on the internet. They could have googled the names and simply cut-and-pasted the correct spellings. Call me Mr. Sighs, I guess.
But Countess provided my favorite answer to “Who r some famous intelligent women?”
“Theodore Roosevelt.”
I bet those three responders went to hot colleges.
* * * * * *
That’s where I originally ended my pithy blog.
But a question has been gnawing at me all day: What in the name of Lawrence Summers gives?
Why can I rattle off guys like Oppenheimer (atomic bomb), Watson & Krick (DNA), and Moore (computer chip), but I hardly know any female superstars in engineering or science?
Maybe that is my fault. Perhaps that’s the fault of historians. Or, maybe my co-editor Joanna Schroeder is right: men steal all the good ideas from women. (That’s certainly the case in the “Scooby Doo” cartoons; Fred totally rips off Velma’s theories.)
What do you think is the reason behind the glaring difference in notoriety between men and women in these fields?
About Jamie Reidy
“Or, maybe my co-editor Joanna Schroeder is right: men steal all the good ideas from women. ”
But not the bad ideas?
This entire blog entry was my idea, and Jamie totally stole it. Men.
Just kidding.
I think it’s obvious that this is 100% Jamie.
If I was gonna steal an idea, I hope I’d only pick a good one.
They steal all, but only take credit for the good ones.
Say, for instance, that Jamie stole my invention of a plug-in electric back massager for the bathtub that comes complete with an extra long cord. After beta testing (or alpha testing?) Jamie might not be trying to claim that one.
By the way, I said men steal women’s ideas in a mostly-completely joking tone of voice with only a hint of bitchiness, so let’s be clear that I’m totally unprepared to back this claim up with evidence. As I just made it up.
I don’t know, man. You really aim high. What I’ve read/heard/believed is that generally speaking, the reverse is true: attractive people are more intelligent. Why wouldn’t it be true that the finest members of our species also possess the finest minds? Tom Matlack and Oprah are two examples that spring immediately to mind of smart, successful, attractive people. They might shucks and folks you and say they’re not so smart, but if they weren’t actually incredibly smart about what matters, they wouldn’t be where they are today.
I’m not talking about just “smart.” I’m referring to superfreakinggenius, especially in science, engineering, etc.
And you might wanna raise your bar attractiveness-wise!
Perhaps you should consult with zombie Marie Curie to start: http://xkcd.com/896/
Justin, that was some grade-A ass kissing
I can’t believe I’m not on that list!
You aren’t as wickedly successful as a capitalist, though you are definitely better looking than Oprah.
It’s the Patriarchal conspiracy at work! Shuck off your bras, ladies and invent something! Naw…I’m only joking.
I think it’s more to do with the way society is set up in general. How many of these superfreakinggeniuses are from poor families? How many are non-white? How many were uneducated? – that’s the big one. Most of the people who are recognized as being wicked smart in our history were part of some sort of institutional education system…and the people who were part of that were mostly rich white guys. And then you gotta ask who is writing about them…other institutionally educated people…they’re the ones writing history books. And so they’re also a lot of rich white guys.
That’s my take on it, anyway.
Which wow…I’m not saying that uneducated people aren’t super geniuses. I’m saying the ones who get recognized are often part of the education system.
Heather, stop saying that poor people are stupid.
Just kidding.
No, you’re definitely right Heather about the class issue.
lol yeah that’s all I need…someone thinking I’m saying poor people aren’t smart.
Several loosely related points:
After reading the collegeotr link, I think its a number of related factors for people at ‘smart schools’ that brings their perceived attractiveness down. Nobody looks good after staying up for 50 straight hours to write 3 papers, do a few problem sets, and study for the big test. People who get into ‘smart schools’ are the people most likely to do just that, and probably did many times before they got in as well. In addition, someone who chooses academics to socializing will have less practice at socializing, which can lead to social awkwardness – usually considered unattractive. In my personal experience, this is generally the case for UChicago , which is on the list. (not myself, but I have friends that went there)
Slate article on intelligence vs attractiveness:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2012/01/are_smart_people_ugly_the_explainer_s_2011_question_of_the_year_.html
Essentially, kinda ugly people are slightly dumber and brilliant people lie at the extremes – either gorgeous or disgusting
Brilliant women in history – Several of the early names in computing were women: Ada Lovelace, Hedy Lamarr (yes, that one), Grace Hopper
Engineering by its nature rarely produces superstars, its purpose is to take what the mathematicians and scientists have already done and make it applicable to the real world. Hence, I know Carnot (theory for converting temperature difference into work or vice versa) but I have no idea who designed the first refrigerator.
As for why the sex difference in famous names in science, the answer is that there have been fewer women in science in general. The class issue has been covered already, so I’ll talk about the other issue – math. It’s well established that the majority girls in western culture start to become averse to math sometime around middle school. This wasn’t the case in Russia under the soviets; the ratio was always around 50:50. This is likely because being a scientist or engineer meant having a much better life than the average person. Ten years after the dissolution of the USSR, their science and engineering sex ratios were just as lopsided as those in the west. This show the intuitively obvious point that women are just as capable as men at math heavy fields, but it’s unclear whether there’s cultural pressure against women in these fields, or if, everything else being equal, women prefer other subjects. Correlation vs causation, etc. From my own experiences meandering through various natural science disciplines, as well as through the experiences of friends and peers, I can anecdotally confirm that the less post-calculus math involved, the greater the proportion of women. Physics had maybe 1 or 2 women in 10 people, chemistry was roughly 50:50, and biology seemed to be approximately 60:40. Curiously, there was almost always a greater proportion of women in math than in physics, about 3 or 4 in 10. I can’t weigh in on the various sub-disciplines of engineering.
The only really famous woman in science besides I can think of besides Mdm. Curie is Henrietta Lacks, but she’s not famous for being brilliant, she’s famous for being literally immortal. Cells cultured from her cervical tumor in 1951 can be bred indefinitely, giving a source of cancer cells so that possible anticancer drugs can be tested for activity, among other things. Anyone in biomedical research is very familiar with the HeLa cells.
I think it’s interesting what you say about math and science with women. I was really hardcore into math and science as a kid. I took a summer college course just so that I could do calculus a year early in high school. And yet, now I’m a social sciences field. I mean yes, there are some strict science sub-disciplines in archaeology, but I’m not in them. I’ve often wondered why it is that I didn’t go into the physical sciences.
And I really don’t have an answer for you…or at least not one that is related to my gender. It’s all just personal stuff about why I became interested in anthropology and archaeology. Hmmm. – I wonder if part of the seen division is because of an inaccurate division of the sciences between physical and social. Like I said, there are plenty of archaeologists who are most certainly not part of the social sciences…and yet I wonder if during a study they would get lumped in with the rest of us.
Throughout most of human history women were not allowed access to education. Women were not accepted in universities until late in the 19th century. As it often happens, real acceptance in society of women pursuing higher education probably took quite a while after that. Furthermore, even women who pursued higher education would end up under family and society pressure forgetting everything about it and staying in the home taking care of children and family. Even today, while men can easily have a family and a career, women struggle with guilt and stigma when dividing their time between the two or choosing just one of them. There are many issues, I guess.
@Lori: As far as today in concerened, imho, it isn’t society enforcing this (alleged) stigma on women, society does everything it can to let women know that it is OK to have both. Think about it, from movies, to TV Shows , to advertising. All are sending the message that women can have it all. Unfort, the reality is that for the most part, you can’t have it all.
Men can easily have a family and a career: I would love you to tell that to most divorced men, how is that family doing. Yup, the kids don’t live with you anymore, if you are looking , they can come visit you once in a while, like an old friend you haven’t seen in years.
Politics is about cunning, not smart. You are looking in the wrong place.
There have been many genius women in science, technology, and innovation. Marie Curie would not rank anywhere near the top of that list. I am not going to get into why, because it does not matter.
Think Rosalind Franklin and Dorothy C. Hodgkin.
Great points re: women weren’t allowed access to the sciences until the recent half of the 20th century. That explains a lot.
But, AntZ, you just proved my point.
I had to google Franklin and Hodgkin because I’d never heard of them. Even worse, I’d somehow heard the name of “Bernal,” DCH’s mentor. And crazy to learn that Watson and Crick used Franklin’s data. Thanks for the tip!
Women have been leaders and pioneers in Biology for years.
Unfortunately, when people think “genius” they often ignore science, or think of science as meaning “physics”. In fact, virtually all of the most impactful innovations of the 20th century were biology related. Why the myopia on Physics? I don’t know.
The Watson/Crick “conflict” with Franklin is a cooked book that does not square with reality. There was certainly a lack of collegiality problem, but Franklin’s results were available to anyone on request. Franklin herself never thought of it as wrong, but rather, as rude. Which it was.
More troubling is the life-long campaign waged by Watson to diminish and ridicule Franklin after her death. It is inexplicable, given that he owes his life accomplishment to her experimental rigour. A situation like this calls for a lifetime of gratitude, not a lifetime of snobbery. In the scientific world, Watson may be the greatest heel of all time.
In contrast, Crick became a close friend of Franklin before her death.
I was about to comment on Franklin. Everyone remembers Watson and Crick, but not Rosalind Franklin. No one teaches about her. I didn’t learn about her until my college biology course, definitely didn’t hear about her in high school bio.
Attractive men are unlikely to come across a woman that will provide for them. The same can’t necessarily be said for women.
Maybe there’s a lot of potential great female minds that weren’t able to develop because boys were always doing their homework for them?
I am an MRA, and the last thing I want to talk about is how discrimination impacts women. However, it is staring me in the face today, so here goes:
Question: Why is Biology the Cinderella of scientific endeavours?
The perception is that truly great scientists chose fields such as Physics, Mathematics, or Cosmology. However, how can the relative difficulty of different disciplines be measured? Even if it could be, would the answer really matter?
Would it be a better idea to talk about the impact that each discipline has on the human condition?
By this standard, there can be little doubt that Biology is the most impactful discipline, by a very large margin. Biology (and its sub-disciplines) are the source of innovation in health and the treatment of disease. It is hard to argue that the aggregate improvement in human health from new vaccines and drug therapies is not overwhelmingly greater than the sum of all other improvements in our lives put together. I-pods, computers, levitating trains, and fuel efficient cars are important innovations, but I would give up all those things for the DTP vaccine that my 1 year old son had on Monday. How easy it is to forget scourges such as Smallpox, Measles, and Polio. Let’s imagine two worlds:
WORLD ONE:
World one looks very much like this one. There are nuclear power plants, sports cars and the internet. We even get to keep our useless toys and chest-thumping icons: every imaginable type of advanced military hardware thunders on the ground, while overhead the International Space Station silently circulates its cargo of astronauts who (after the endless task of patching and fixing their tin can home) try to make time for occasional experiments so that everyone can pretend the whole thing was not a costly blunder. There are flags on the surface of the moon, and also at the bottom of the sea.
However, world one possesses only the rudimentary health care of the 18th century. Most children die before they can walk, of horrifying and disfiguring diseases. Only the lucky live to see their 30th birthday. Entire families can be wiped out by plague in a fortnight. Cancer and heart disease are not a threat — but an impacted wisdom tooth is a death sentence. Most people have no concept of old age, because they have never seen an old person. There is no need for Social Security.
WORLD TWO:
World two looks like 18th century America. The hours are long and life is hard. People learn to split firewood and stack hay at dusk surrounded by frozen morning dew, because if they wait for the Spring there will not be enough time to get the job done. There are few comforts and virtually no conveniences. Farms are very productive (Biology!), so not everyone has to be a farmer, but everyone works like one. People attend church, not because they believe in God, but because dozing off to the steady voice of Father Talksalot is the closest thing to relaxation that most people know. Most people live to be 70. Children work with their hands, adults work with their backs, and the old care for the young.
Which world would you rather live in?
What sense does it make to deify great physicists, mathematicians, and cosmologists — while the great names (including many women) of Biology are ignored?
But wait, there is more!
There is one discipline within Biology that deserves “special mention”. The obscure technique known as X-ray crystallography is the source of the bulk of all medical and health related innovations of the 20th century. If you take a drug that was developed after 1960, the odds are that you owe your health to a “crystallographer.” Why then have so few people ever heard of X-ray crystallography?
Here is my answer. Of all the fields in science, this is the field where women have had the largest impact . This goes way past Marie Curie and early X-ray imaging techniques. There are so many female pioneers in X-ray crystallography that, as one student of mine pointed out, the “X” might as well refer to the (female DNA) X chromosome. Speaking of DNA, you already know that a woman (Rosalind Franklin) was responsible for the experimental foundation that led to the structure of DNA. Franklin paid for the data with her life, contracting Uterine cancer as a consequence of endless hours of exposure to an un-shielded X-ray generator. You may not know that the first X-ray structure was also the work of a woman, Dorothy Hodgkin (who solved the structure of cholesterol in 1937). Hodgkin followed this with a relentless series of “firsts”, including vitamins, drugs (penicillin), and proteins (insulin). Hodgkin lost the race for first virus structure — to none other than Franklin, who you already know about from DNA (this work resulted in another Nobel prize, also after Franklin’s death, to Sir Aaron Klug).
Maureen Julin described the situation in “Women in Crystallography” thusly:
>>> The Science of crystallography has been accused of being overrun with women and has been likened to “intellectual knitting” <<<
Does this description seem adequate for the technique that has given mankind the majority of all known medications?
I believe that the most important source of prejudice that affects women has nothing to do with "entry barriers" that prevent women from doing one thing or another thing. The importance of this kind of obvious prejudice is hugely over-stated by groups that benefit from ham-handed and over-zealous "protect women" hysteria.
Instead, it has to do with minimizing those things that women do. It has to do with criticizing the foundations of what is, arguably, the most significant endeavour in human history, because it is not "intellectual enough." Admittedly, crystallography often takes more patience than it does genius. It takes more attention to detail than it does grandiose thinking. It takes more determination than it takes inspiration.
So what? Billions of people are alive today, who would have died had it not been for the achievements of crystallography. Can Einstein say the same thing? Can Schroedinger? Can Hawking?
If crystallography is the scientific equivalent of "intellectual knitting", then women have woven an invisible barrier that separates our lives from horrors so unspeakable, that most of us have banished them even from our nightmares. Maybe we should thank these women for what they have done, instead of pondering and pontificating endlessly about just how smart they had to be to do it.
While there are difficulties for women entering fields, especially historically, but still today, I think the major reason why no one knows about the contributions of women to science (or just academia in general) is because no one cares. Really. The people who are remembered by history are the people that historians believe are important. And traditionally, no one really considered what women had to say to be important.
It has been difficult for women to be taken seriously by their male colleagues, any woman who obtained her PhD between 70s and 90s (your professors) will admit this.
Who is remembered in the scientific fields not only has to do with who gets published, but also who gets read and cited. If the rest of the field is not interested in what women have to say, then those ideas die with the publication.
However, to fight discrimination, it is important to focus on the
ways in which it is manifest.
Jane Goodall! Surprised no one mentioned her. She is a pioneer in primatology, and a superstar in the anthropological world.
I am now thoroughly embarrassed.