>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.
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.
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.
Comments
>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.
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.
> 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.