A funny thing happened when Kevin insisted I wear makeup for the wedding. I discovered that I liked it.
Back in middle and high school, I had to glob makeup on my face every time I performed in a dance recital or musical. It was always heavy and felt caked on. It always made me break out. The experience led me to reject makeup altogether, and for years I almost never wore any. Unless a friend decided she wanted to make me over for a party, in which case I often felt awkward unless I managed to forget I was wearing makeup. But then I inevitably smudged my eyeliner or mascara or whatever, and looked awful by the end of the night.
Once Kevin asked me to wear makeup for the wedding, I knew I'd have to get in practice. I needed to remember how to apply it and learn how to get through a day without messing it up. I bought some stuff at the drug store and started playing.
It was surprising how quickly things started coming back to me. The realization that I needed to buy some extra brushes to get my eyeshadow just right. Mourning for the eyebrow brush I threw away so many years ago. Not to mention that it was satisfying. When I got my eyes looking just right, I was proud of myself.
In addition to this, I'd been looking for a specific shade of lipstick I loved in high school. It was being re-released in a limited run, and tracking it down was really difficult. In the process of trying to find it, I ended up visiting a lot of beauty sites and began to see tips on applying eye liner, keeping lipstick from smearing, finding brands that actually last all day. It all looked so fun and, more importantly, accessible. See part of my disinterest in makeup can be traced to my mom's disinterest in makeup. Without her to teach me the finer points I had a hard time learning. Though if I'd really wanted to I probably could have.
I also started seeing articles about women wearing too much makeup. Hand in hand with articles styling their hair in the wrong way or wearing the wrong shorts or just generally not being appealing in the right way. And I thought fuck that. I've never much cared about fashion or anything, opting for ease and comfort over style. But if men were going to tell me not to wear makeup, then I was damn well going to start wearing makeup.
And finally, the snowflake that caused the avalanche. Being one of the only women at work. Seeing twenty interns hired with nary a woman in sight. I got fed up with being one of the guys and decided to deliberately other myself. Because it turns out I do have a pretty strong contrary streak. I'm surprised I wasn't a more rebellious teenager (though I didn't really have anything to rebel against, so).
I went out and bought eyeshadows in fun shades. Blues and purples and pinks. I picked up some bright lipsticks to play with. I signed up for birchbox, because getting samples in the mail every month seemed like the ideal way to experiment. And in the very first box I found a hair product that I definitely have to start buying and using. It's amazing.
Incorporating makeup into my morning routine was surprisingly easy. I never do anything that takes more than five minutes, so it's not a big time suck. And it's so fun and satisfying that I find myself wanting to do things. I probably shouldn't have tried eyeliner for the first time on a work day, but it all worked out okay in the end.
Through all of this, the words of a guy I almost dated have started echoing in my head again. When I asked him about his tattoos, he replied "You only get one life, you might as well decorate it." It was these words that pushed me into getting my first tattoo and that are defining my experiments with making my face up every day. It's one more way to play with color, decorate myself, and define the way I look. It really is an art form, one that I'm getting better at and having a lot of fun with in the meantime.
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Saturday, June 7, 2014
Friday, May 30, 2014
The 17%
Google recently released data on the demographics of their staff in an effort to be more transparent and to be held accountable for their diversity. They certainly have a long way to go to achieve equality, but it's good that they're trying. One of the numbers caught my attention immediately. When I saw it, I was struck with that weird mixture of disappointment and lack of surprise that is becoming all too familiar.
Google's tech force is made up of 17% women. Why did that number catch my eye? It was brought up in an NPR program that got a lot of attention about a year ago. The transcript can be found here. The take away is that that number - 17% - is an unsettlingly common number. It is, by and large, the number of professional women currently working in traditionally male-dominated fields.
17% of Hollywood film directors are women. 17% of US Senators are women. 17% of engineers, surgeons, professors, etc are women. Do a bit of digging, and you'll see this number everywhere.
More interestingly, 17% of people in crowd scenes in movies or television shows are women.
Recent psychological studies have found that most men perceive this as equality. When a group's ratio is 83 men to 17 women, the men are likely to say that there are as many women present as men. When women speak 17% of the time, men are likely to say that the women talked just as much as the men. And a worrying fact: when women speak 30% of the time, men start to complain that they were dominating the conversation. We have been conditioned to view 17% as good enough, to view anything approaching true equality as greed.
I should acknowledge that this is better than it was a generation ago. We have made great strides since my mom and my aunt were the only women in their respective offices. But I'm one of only five women in my office. We each get our own private stall in the bathroom, a perk I would gladly trade in to have some more female faces around me.
It actually feels like it's gotten worse the farther I've gone in my career. My college class was 25% female. Not great, but a good sight better than the 17% (or less) I deal with now. In fact, six years after I graduated, my alma mater achieved a 50-50 student body, and even graduated three more female engineers than male engineers. But they aren't making it into the workplace. At least not yet.
There are a number of reasons for this. Partly it's that they aren't being hired. Not through overt sexism, but because of a more insidious variant. A resume with a male name is likely to be seen as representing a more qualified individual than a resume with a female name, even if the two resumes are identical. A man being interviewed seems like a better fit for a company than his female counterpart, for some undefinable reason. Let's call it "culture".
There's also evidence that women aren't applying for as many jobs as men because of one of the sneakier aspects of sexism that I've only recently become aware of. Apparently women are likely to apply to a job only if they feel that they meet 100% of the requirements in the job description, whereas men will take a chance if they meet 60% of the requirements. This speaks to issues with self-esteem, confidence, and even arrogance. Of course, many companies are satisfied with that 60%, and they hire one of the men who applied as opposed to one of the women who didn't.
Then there are the cultural elements, something President Klawe identified and worked really hard to overcome at Harvey Mudd. Even if you're qualified to go to a school or take a job, many women will be put off by a student body or staff that is overwhelmingly male. Even if there's a lot of support for women, and a genuine effort to provide opportunities. My company is great about this, and I feel wholly supported there. It doesn't change the fact that when I interviewed I met with four men, and the only woman I saw the entire day was the head of HR. That leaves a distinct impression, and if there's an option to go somewhere more egalitarian, even if it's less prestigious or offers less money, the environment might make that trade off worth it.
Finally, there's the drop off effect. Women dropping out of college or PhD programs because the constant sexism becomes too grating. Women leaving careers in technical fields because they're sick of all the extra work that goes into being one of only a few women. Being constantly surrounded by men is exhausting. You're always on guard for them to make a sexist joke, wondering how to respond to one when it happens. Is it better to be a meek pushover or a feminist killjoy? Better to network and be on good terms with your coworkers or focus on your work and seek promotion based solely on your own merit? And what happens when you see man after unqualified man promoted ahead of you for a slew of reasons that are difficult to untangle and articulate?
Half of the things that happen to me in office barely even register as strange or uncalled-for. Until I share a story with my female friends and see the look of horror on their faces.
What's to be done? In college, we made a concerted effort to unite the women living in our dorm. And in our time there we saw a huge shift in the culture of our dorm, one that resulted in more women willingly moving into our dorm. But these were people I lived with, people I saw every day. An effort like that at my day job, where I really am supposed to be working instead of socializing, feels daunting. As does specifically recruiting more women, which by the way is not in my job description.
At the same time doing nothing feels cowardly. Like I'm betraying my gender, my future children. Watching that number stagnate is disheartening, though I can always hope that things will get better. But how long will that take? Will my (hypothetical) daughter be struggling with these same issues thirty years from now? Will we have merely jumped from 17% to 30%? Or will we be able, in that time, to actually create a diverse corporate world that reflects the realities of the world we spend the rest of our lives in?
There aren't any easy answers. It's hard to know where to start. At the moment I'm so exhausted (by this, by the recent Isla Vista shooting, by the prospect of another summer dominated by male action heroes) that I hardly want to do anything. But the pendulum will swing, I'll befriend the new woman on my team at work, and things will get easier again. They say it's best to attack these things from a place of strength. Until I get there I'll just rant on my blog.
Google's tech force is made up of 17% women. Why did that number catch my eye? It was brought up in an NPR program that got a lot of attention about a year ago. The transcript can be found here. The take away is that that number - 17% - is an unsettlingly common number. It is, by and large, the number of professional women currently working in traditionally male-dominated fields.
17% of Hollywood film directors are women. 17% of US Senators are women. 17% of engineers, surgeons, professors, etc are women. Do a bit of digging, and you'll see this number everywhere.
More interestingly, 17% of people in crowd scenes in movies or television shows are women.
Recent psychological studies have found that most men perceive this as equality. When a group's ratio is 83 men to 17 women, the men are likely to say that there are as many women present as men. When women speak 17% of the time, men are likely to say that the women talked just as much as the men. And a worrying fact: when women speak 30% of the time, men start to complain that they were dominating the conversation. We have been conditioned to view 17% as good enough, to view anything approaching true equality as greed.
I should acknowledge that this is better than it was a generation ago. We have made great strides since my mom and my aunt were the only women in their respective offices. But I'm one of only five women in my office. We each get our own private stall in the bathroom, a perk I would gladly trade in to have some more female faces around me.
It actually feels like it's gotten worse the farther I've gone in my career. My college class was 25% female. Not great, but a good sight better than the 17% (or less) I deal with now. In fact, six years after I graduated, my alma mater achieved a 50-50 student body, and even graduated three more female engineers than male engineers. But they aren't making it into the workplace. At least not yet.
There are a number of reasons for this. Partly it's that they aren't being hired. Not through overt sexism, but because of a more insidious variant. A resume with a male name is likely to be seen as representing a more qualified individual than a resume with a female name, even if the two resumes are identical. A man being interviewed seems like a better fit for a company than his female counterpart, for some undefinable reason. Let's call it "culture".
There's also evidence that women aren't applying for as many jobs as men because of one of the sneakier aspects of sexism that I've only recently become aware of. Apparently women are likely to apply to a job only if they feel that they meet 100% of the requirements in the job description, whereas men will take a chance if they meet 60% of the requirements. This speaks to issues with self-esteem, confidence, and even arrogance. Of course, many companies are satisfied with that 60%, and they hire one of the men who applied as opposed to one of the women who didn't.
Then there are the cultural elements, something President Klawe identified and worked really hard to overcome at Harvey Mudd. Even if you're qualified to go to a school or take a job, many women will be put off by a student body or staff that is overwhelmingly male. Even if there's a lot of support for women, and a genuine effort to provide opportunities. My company is great about this, and I feel wholly supported there. It doesn't change the fact that when I interviewed I met with four men, and the only woman I saw the entire day was the head of HR. That leaves a distinct impression, and if there's an option to go somewhere more egalitarian, even if it's less prestigious or offers less money, the environment might make that trade off worth it.
Finally, there's the drop off effect. Women dropping out of college or PhD programs because the constant sexism becomes too grating. Women leaving careers in technical fields because they're sick of all the extra work that goes into being one of only a few women. Being constantly surrounded by men is exhausting. You're always on guard for them to make a sexist joke, wondering how to respond to one when it happens. Is it better to be a meek pushover or a feminist killjoy? Better to network and be on good terms with your coworkers or focus on your work and seek promotion based solely on your own merit? And what happens when you see man after unqualified man promoted ahead of you for a slew of reasons that are difficult to untangle and articulate?
Half of the things that happen to me in office barely even register as strange or uncalled-for. Until I share a story with my female friends and see the look of horror on their faces.
What's to be done? In college, we made a concerted effort to unite the women living in our dorm. And in our time there we saw a huge shift in the culture of our dorm, one that resulted in more women willingly moving into our dorm. But these were people I lived with, people I saw every day. An effort like that at my day job, where I really am supposed to be working instead of socializing, feels daunting. As does specifically recruiting more women, which by the way is not in my job description.
At the same time doing nothing feels cowardly. Like I'm betraying my gender, my future children. Watching that number stagnate is disheartening, though I can always hope that things will get better. But how long will that take? Will my (hypothetical) daughter be struggling with these same issues thirty years from now? Will we have merely jumped from 17% to 30%? Or will we be able, in that time, to actually create a diverse corporate world that reflects the realities of the world we spend the rest of our lives in?
There aren't any easy answers. It's hard to know where to start. At the moment I'm so exhausted (by this, by the recent Isla Vista shooting, by the prospect of another summer dominated by male action heroes) that I hardly want to do anything. But the pendulum will swing, I'll befriend the new woman on my team at work, and things will get easier again. They say it's best to attack these things from a place of strength. Until I get there I'll just rant on my blog.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Let's Talk About Orphan Black
In preparation for the second season premiere next week, Kevin and I went back and re-watched the first season of Orphan Black. This may be my favorite show currently on the air, and I have high hopes that the second season maintains everything that was incredible about the first season. If you've never seen it, you should definitely remedy that (and you should not read the rest of this entry). There are only ten episodes, so there's plenty of time to catch up before the second season begins on Saturday.
The first and most obvious thing to praise about this show is the lead actress, Tatiana Maslaney. Maslaney does incredible work playing not one, but four main characters and three side characters. She's on the screen in almost every scene, interacts with the entire cast in various guises, and even interacts with herself in some incredible scenes that will make you wonder if she's actually a twin and not just a single actress.
The most amazing bits come when she plays one character pretending to be another. Whether it's uptight Allison pretending to be wild-child Sarah in front of Sarah's daughter, Kira, or damaged Helena barely putting up a front as Beth to cop to gain access to her computer, Maslaney knows these characters so well that it all seem effortless. She can even slip into different accents when a character feels pressure and make it seem like an accident.
What really made me fall in love with this show, though, is its unique examination of patriarchy and all the little ways the system has to keep women down and all the ways that can affect the women trying to live in this society. It's not the most intersectional examination of feminism - we're still focused on pretty, white women who have some privilege of their own. But it still does a good job of teasing out all sorts of aggresions, both micro and macro, and showing the importance of working together to achieve common goals and help with personal goals.
The clones in this story are all ultimately struggling for the same thing - agency. The two main antagonistic groups (both populated almost exclusively by men) are trying to take that from them. The church wants to simply kill all of the clones and be done with it, rid the world of what they view as an abomination. The neolutionists, who created the clones in the first place, monitor the clones closely. They claim it's for the clones own good, but their true intentions are almost certainly more nefarious. It's revealed in the finale that any freedom or privacy they offer is just a lie, a way to throw the clones off the scent so they can continue their work without interference.
This state of constant surveillance and fear affects all of our clones (women) if different ways. Helena was recruited by the church as a child where she was taught that she was special. She was told that she was the original and has internalized the message that she's not like the other clones (women). This allows the church to manipulate and use her for their own ends. It's only through her bond to Sarah that she begins to shake their influence, although she's ultimately too far gone to save. Going forward, I have to assume that Rachel is a variation on this same model. She's working with the neolutionists, and I can only assume that she has also internalized a sense of being different and, more importantly, better than the other clones.
The other three main clones are only just becoming aware of these structures that seek to control their lives. They all react to the news differently, and they all fight against the system in different ways. But it's important to note that they find strength in working together. That the Neolutionists ultimately achieve their victory at the end of the season by driving wedges in between these women and feeding on their more selfish motivations.
Cosima is arguably the most well-adjusted of the trio. She's a scientist, and she reacts to the knowledge that she's a clone by seeking more knowledge. She learns about Dr Leekie and the Neolutionists and looks for opportunities to learn more about them. Cosima is sure that if she can just arm herself with enough knowledge, she can find her way out of the maze. If she asks enough questions, she'll find the answer that sets her free. But that's not how it works. All she ultimately discovers is how thoroughly trapped she is, and how hopeless the entire situation is.
Allison, my personal favorite, reacts in almost the opposite way. When Allison's world gets turned upside down, she starts falling to pieces. She's all about control, and the sense that she's losing control, or worse, that she was never in control to begin with, she does not handle it well. Allison lashes out at everyone as she tries to figure out how to regain her sense of normalcy. She ultimately decides that privacy is more important than freedom and signs a deal with Dr Leekie to get her life back the way it was. Unbeknownst to her, her life is exactly as it was before, complete with monitored activities and secret, invasive medical exams. I almost can't wait for her to discover that she was duped. Her rage is already a force to be reckoned with, and when she finally figures out who to focus it on there should be some serious fireworks.
Finally we have Sarah, arguably the protagonist of the show. Sarah has trust issues, and learning that she was a science experiment does nothing to help this. She's just as angry as Allison, just as curious as Cosima, but she's got years of experience to help her stay a step ahead of the neolutionists. Unfortunately, she can't do it alone. While she still has her brother Felix, standing ever faithfully by her side, the loss of her daughter could very well send her into a self-destructive spiral she can't pull out of.
What I love is that none of these women can take down the bad guys by themselves. Their strengths and weaknesses balance each other out. Cosima's level headed rationalism helps Sarah and Allison stay grounded while their rage reminds her to get angry. Sarah's trust issues make Cosima properly wary of Delphine, and Allison's motherly instincts help Sarah see that she needs to do the best thing for her daughter, not just for herself. The three of them are going to need to figure out a way to work together again if they have any hope of breaking free from the shackles of the neolutionists. It'll be great to see them go head to head with Rachel and learn how she was recruited (or raised).
I'm really looking forward to the second season, which should build on these themes of teamwork, individual agency, and the oppression of patriarchal systems. And also more of Maslaney being jaw-droppingly amazing. Here's hoping for a second season that's even better than the first.
The first and most obvious thing to praise about this show is the lead actress, Tatiana Maslaney. Maslaney does incredible work playing not one, but four main characters and three side characters. She's on the screen in almost every scene, interacts with the entire cast in various guises, and even interacts with herself in some incredible scenes that will make you wonder if she's actually a twin and not just a single actress.
The most amazing bits come when she plays one character pretending to be another. Whether it's uptight Allison pretending to be wild-child Sarah in front of Sarah's daughter, Kira, or damaged Helena barely putting up a front as Beth to cop to gain access to her computer, Maslaney knows these characters so well that it all seem effortless. She can even slip into different accents when a character feels pressure and make it seem like an accident.
What really made me fall in love with this show, though, is its unique examination of patriarchy and all the little ways the system has to keep women down and all the ways that can affect the women trying to live in this society. It's not the most intersectional examination of feminism - we're still focused on pretty, white women who have some privilege of their own. But it still does a good job of teasing out all sorts of aggresions, both micro and macro, and showing the importance of working together to achieve common goals and help with personal goals.
The clones in this story are all ultimately struggling for the same thing - agency. The two main antagonistic groups (both populated almost exclusively by men) are trying to take that from them. The church wants to simply kill all of the clones and be done with it, rid the world of what they view as an abomination. The neolutionists, who created the clones in the first place, monitor the clones closely. They claim it's for the clones own good, but their true intentions are almost certainly more nefarious. It's revealed in the finale that any freedom or privacy they offer is just a lie, a way to throw the clones off the scent so they can continue their work without interference.
This state of constant surveillance and fear affects all of our clones (women) if different ways. Helena was recruited by the church as a child where she was taught that she was special. She was told that she was the original and has internalized the message that she's not like the other clones (women). This allows the church to manipulate and use her for their own ends. It's only through her bond to Sarah that she begins to shake their influence, although she's ultimately too far gone to save. Going forward, I have to assume that Rachel is a variation on this same model. She's working with the neolutionists, and I can only assume that she has also internalized a sense of being different and, more importantly, better than the other clones.
The other three main clones are only just becoming aware of these structures that seek to control their lives. They all react to the news differently, and they all fight against the system in different ways. But it's important to note that they find strength in working together. That the Neolutionists ultimately achieve their victory at the end of the season by driving wedges in between these women and feeding on their more selfish motivations.
Cosima is arguably the most well-adjusted of the trio. She's a scientist, and she reacts to the knowledge that she's a clone by seeking more knowledge. She learns about Dr Leekie and the Neolutionists and looks for opportunities to learn more about them. Cosima is sure that if she can just arm herself with enough knowledge, she can find her way out of the maze. If she asks enough questions, she'll find the answer that sets her free. But that's not how it works. All she ultimately discovers is how thoroughly trapped she is, and how hopeless the entire situation is.
Allison, my personal favorite, reacts in almost the opposite way. When Allison's world gets turned upside down, she starts falling to pieces. She's all about control, and the sense that she's losing control, or worse, that she was never in control to begin with, she does not handle it well. Allison lashes out at everyone as she tries to figure out how to regain her sense of normalcy. She ultimately decides that privacy is more important than freedom and signs a deal with Dr Leekie to get her life back the way it was. Unbeknownst to her, her life is exactly as it was before, complete with monitored activities and secret, invasive medical exams. I almost can't wait for her to discover that she was duped. Her rage is already a force to be reckoned with, and when she finally figures out who to focus it on there should be some serious fireworks.
Finally we have Sarah, arguably the protagonist of the show. Sarah has trust issues, and learning that she was a science experiment does nothing to help this. She's just as angry as Allison, just as curious as Cosima, but she's got years of experience to help her stay a step ahead of the neolutionists. Unfortunately, she can't do it alone. While she still has her brother Felix, standing ever faithfully by her side, the loss of her daughter could very well send her into a self-destructive spiral she can't pull out of.
What I love is that none of these women can take down the bad guys by themselves. Their strengths and weaknesses balance each other out. Cosima's level headed rationalism helps Sarah and Allison stay grounded while their rage reminds her to get angry. Sarah's trust issues make Cosima properly wary of Delphine, and Allison's motherly instincts help Sarah see that she needs to do the best thing for her daughter, not just for herself. The three of them are going to need to figure out a way to work together again if they have any hope of breaking free from the shackles of the neolutionists. It'll be great to see them go head to head with Rachel and learn how she was recruited (or raised).
I'm really looking forward to the second season, which should build on these themes of teamwork, individual agency, and the oppression of patriarchal systems. And also more of Maslaney being jaw-droppingly amazing. Here's hoping for a second season that's even better than the first.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Election Round Up
Guys, a lot of really awesome things happened last night. Apart from Obama winning the presidential election and getting four more years in office, there were a lot of great results.
Puerto Rico voted to become the 51st state of America (though it does still need approval from Congress)
New Hampshire became the first state to have an all-female governing body (governor, senate, and house representatives)
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) become the first Buddhist and the first Asian-American woman in the Senate
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) become the first openly gay senator
Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) became the first disabled woman and first female combat veteran in Congress
Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) became the first Hindu elected to Congress
Gay marriage was, for the first time in our nation's history, legalized by popular vote
And, because I'm amused by it
Colorado and Washington both legalized marijuana
It's baby steps, but we're definitely moving forward. I can only hope we get more changes like this in the coming elections until we run out of firsts.
Puerto Rico voted to become the 51st state of America (though it does still need approval from Congress)
New Hampshire became the first state to have an all-female governing body (governor, senate, and house representatives)
Mazie Hirono (Hawaii) become the first Buddhist and the first Asian-American woman in the Senate
Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin) become the first openly gay senator
Tammy Duckworth (Illinois) became the first disabled woman and first female combat veteran in Congress
Tulsi Gabbard (Hawaii) became the first Hindu elected to Congress
Gay marriage was, for the first time in our nation's history, legalized by popular vote
And, because I'm amused by it
Colorado and Washington both legalized marijuana
It's baby steps, but we're definitely moving forward. I can only hope we get more changes like this in the coming elections until we run out of firsts.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Cecilia Payne
When you study physics, every great discovery comes attached to a name. The lessons are almost as much about the history of the field as they are about physics itself. You learn about Schrodinger's Equation (and cat), Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Einstein's theory of relativity, Feynman's diagrams, Kepler's laws, Galileo's equations, the Copernican model of the universe, Bohr's model of the atom, Newton's laws, Maxwell's equations, etc.
But you've probably never heard of Cecilia Payne.
I hadn't, until I stumbled across this article about her. Cecilia was born in Britain in 1900 and came to America to study astronomy at Harvard in 1923. At the time, it was thought that the sun had roughly the same composition as the Earth, but no one knew the exact proportions of the elements. Ms. Payne was tasked with determining this and used the latest advances in ionization theory and spectral analysis to do so. She concluded that the sun is, in fact, mostly hydrogen.
Her conclusion was controversial at the time. It flew in the face of the accepted wisdom that the sun was mostly made of heavy metals, just like the Earth. She was shunted into a different field and it was a few years before the work she had done was verified and finally accepted. She continued to contribute to astronomy in the field of variable stars (stars whose brightness, as seen from the Earth, appears to vary over time) and wrote several books.
As a side note, Cecilia was the first person to earn a PhD in astronomy from Harvard. Not just the first woman, the first person.
So why don't we learn about her? Why was she never mentioned in any of my physics classes? We did an experiment similar to her's in a lab course. Her name should have been included in that experiment description, but it wasn't. I thought she might have been discussed in the actual astrophysics course, which I never took. A scan of my boyfriend's astrophysics text book debunked this theory. It contains a 20-page section on Cecilia Payne's work. Her name isn't mentioned once.
I wanted to write about her here, get the word out. She deserves some recognition. She should be as famous as Newton, Galileo, or Einstein for discovering such a crucial and fundamental fact about our universe. But she's not.
Note: Apparently it is International Women's Day. I didn't know that when I wrote this post, but it seems fitting. If you can think of any other women who don't get enough love, let me know and I'll write about them. This was fun.
But you've probably never heard of Cecilia Payne.
I hadn't, until I stumbled across this article about her. Cecilia was born in Britain in 1900 and came to America to study astronomy at Harvard in 1923. At the time, it was thought that the sun had roughly the same composition as the Earth, but no one knew the exact proportions of the elements. Ms. Payne was tasked with determining this and used the latest advances in ionization theory and spectral analysis to do so. She concluded that the sun is, in fact, mostly hydrogen.
Her conclusion was controversial at the time. It flew in the face of the accepted wisdom that the sun was mostly made of heavy metals, just like the Earth. She was shunted into a different field and it was a few years before the work she had done was verified and finally accepted. She continued to contribute to astronomy in the field of variable stars (stars whose brightness, as seen from the Earth, appears to vary over time) and wrote several books.
As a side note, Cecilia was the first person to earn a PhD in astronomy from Harvard. Not just the first woman, the first person.
So why don't we learn about her? Why was she never mentioned in any of my physics classes? We did an experiment similar to her's in a lab course. Her name should have been included in that experiment description, but it wasn't. I thought she might have been discussed in the actual astrophysics course, which I never took. A scan of my boyfriend's astrophysics text book debunked this theory. It contains a 20-page section on Cecilia Payne's work. Her name isn't mentioned once.
I wanted to write about her here, get the word out. She deserves some recognition. She should be as famous as Newton, Galileo, or Einstein for discovering such a crucial and fundamental fact about our universe. But she's not.
Note: Apparently it is International Women's Day. I didn't know that when I wrote this post, but it seems fitting. If you can think of any other women who don't get enough love, let me know and I'll write about them. This was fun.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Don't Say Anything You'll Regret
In my senior year of high school I took a statistics class. Every class started with a poll of some sort. We'd analyze the results to learn about things like mean, distribution, statistical significance, and so on. The questions were usually silly. What's your favorite flavor of ice cream? Would you rather win an Oscar, a Grammy, or the Nobel Prize? How many siblings do you have?
One day, for whatever reason, our teacher asked us a slightly more incendiary question.
Are women too emotional to be involved in politics?
This class had 27 students: 25 girls and 2 boys.
Five people raised their hands for the "no" answer. Both of the male students were counted among them.
So. In a sampling of 25 fairly intelligent females (they were electing to take an extra math class; that implies some intelligence) 22 of them believed that women are too emotional for politics.
WHAT?
I hadn't expected anyone to agree with that statement. Certainly not the overwhelming majority of the girls in the class. Surely this kind of backwards thinking had been stomped out back in the 20s when wewere given won the right to vote. Or in the 60s with the invention and distribution of the birth control pill. Or in the 80s, before I was born. Surely no one attending high school in the new millennium could cling to such archaic beliefs.
I made a comment to this effect. A girl responded, "Well it's a fact that women are more emotional than men. And when it comes to making rational choices about policies, they may not be able to reign those emotions in."
"So you don't think women should be allowed to vote?" I retorted, nearly rising out of my seat. I was so angry at this girl and so very ready to show her all the ways she was wrong.
The teacher silenced me. "Let's not say anything we'll regret."
"But-" I started to say before a look from her shut me up. Instead, I wrote "Vote for Hillary in 2008!" across the top of my homework.
Why is this belief still so prevalent? Why are there people out there, women among them, who believe that we are somehow inferior to men? That we don't have the rationality, strength, wisdom, foresight, patience, or authority to help run this country? Why is equality so hard?
There's a lot going on in this country right now concerning women's rights. The House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood. If this passes in the Senate, it would be difficult or impossible for low-income women to get access to STD/STI screening and care, annual exams, and contraception. The same politicians are trying to redefine rape so that it only counts if the victim was physically forced. They want to use this new definition to limit funds for abortions. In Georgia, politicians have introduced a bill that could make miscarriage a felony punishable by the death penalty. Tell me how that's pro-life. I dare you. It's like the kings of old executing their wives for birthing daughters instead of sons. What century is this?
That last one probably won't pass, but I'm sickened that it is even being considered.
It's time to stop being silent out of fear that I'll live to regret something I say or write. It's time to start fighting for rights I've been taking for granted my entire life. It's time to stand up and make them see that women are people, too.
Now the question is, aside from ranting on the internet, how do I join the fight? Living close to DC should make this easier to figure out, but I'm not entirely sure how to get started. In the meantime, I'll post my thoughts and rants here and share any information I do find about making a stand.
And please share any information you have with me!
One day, for whatever reason, our teacher asked us a slightly more incendiary question.
Are women too emotional to be involved in politics?
This class had 27 students: 25 girls and 2 boys.
Five people raised their hands for the "no" answer. Both of the male students were counted among them.
So. In a sampling of 25 fairly intelligent females (they were electing to take an extra math class; that implies some intelligence) 22 of them believed that women are too emotional for politics.
WHAT?
I hadn't expected anyone to agree with that statement. Certainly not the overwhelming majority of the girls in the class. Surely this kind of backwards thinking had been stomped out back in the 20s when we
I made a comment to this effect. A girl responded, "Well it's a fact that women are more emotional than men. And when it comes to making rational choices about policies, they may not be able to reign those emotions in."
"So you don't think women should be allowed to vote?" I retorted, nearly rising out of my seat. I was so angry at this girl and so very ready to show her all the ways she was wrong.
The teacher silenced me. "Let's not say anything we'll regret."
"But-" I started to say before a look from her shut me up. Instead, I wrote "Vote for Hillary in 2008!" across the top of my homework.
Why is this belief still so prevalent? Why are there people out there, women among them, who believe that we are somehow inferior to men? That we don't have the rationality, strength, wisdom, foresight, patience, or authority to help run this country? Why is equality so hard?
There's a lot going on in this country right now concerning women's rights. The House of Representatives voted to defund Planned Parenthood. If this passes in the Senate, it would be difficult or impossible for low-income women to get access to STD/STI screening and care, annual exams, and contraception. The same politicians are trying to redefine rape so that it only counts if the victim was physically forced. They want to use this new definition to limit funds for abortions. In Georgia, politicians have introduced a bill that could make miscarriage a felony punishable by the death penalty. Tell me how that's pro-life. I dare you. It's like the kings of old executing their wives for birthing daughters instead of sons. What century is this?
That last one probably won't pass, but I'm sickened that it is even being considered.
It's time to stop being silent out of fear that I'll live to regret something I say or write. It's time to start fighting for rights I've been taking for granted my entire life. It's time to stand up and make them see that women are people, too.
Now the question is, aside from ranting on the internet, how do I join the fight? Living close to DC should make this easier to figure out, but I'm not entirely sure how to get started. In the meantime, I'll post my thoughts and rants here and share any information I do find about making a stand.
And please share any information you have with me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)