I am a woman scientist...and I'm not a pioneer
Who here has heard of Rosalind Franklin? Probably all of you--or at least most. She is a battle cry. She is the story of repressed women. Talking about how wronged she was is close to a cult in feminism.
Rosalind Franklin was an x-ray crystallographer who was best-known for determining the structure of coal. At least until recently, when she is best known for being denied credit for the structure of DNA. The story fits the narrative that feminists choose to make of history--this revisionist idea that men have always ignored the value of women, and very strong, determined women in science have been placed at the kids' table at the banquet of revered science, powerless to fight back.
Honestly, the reasons Rosalind Franklin didn't get the credit for discovering the structure of DNA: 1) she was jerk. Sure, if she was a male jerk, maybe she would have been a little more tolerated, but nobody liked Rosalind Franklin. She was a witch-with-a-b. 2) She didn't discover the structure of DNA. She made an observation about DNA that was necessary for Watson and Crick to do it (that the phosphates in the molecule are arranged on the outside), but she didn't define the helical structure of DNA. She simply didn't. 3) Photo 51--the x-ray crystallograph that was supposed to have been stolen from her--was actually a collaboration between Maurice Wilkins and James Watson. DNA research had been declared communal at King's College, and Franklin wasn't actually supposed to be working on DNA structure. So, it was fair game for Maurice Wilkins to share that with James Watson. 4) Nobel Prizes can only be split at most three ways. Since James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins all had just as much (or even more) claim to the Nobel as Rosalind Franklin, basically the Nobel Committee had to wait for one of the four to kick the bucket. Rosalind kicked it first, and was out-survived. That's why she didn't get it.
Note: Franklin's own sister has said that most of the stories about stealing the photos from her desk, and all of the discrimination that Franklin endured is completely fabricated.
But this post isn't about the Franklin Cult created by Franklin's friend and biographer, Sayre. It's about all the women that feminists--by necessity--ignore in creating their Oppressed Woman Narrative.
You see, if science was the terrible, sexist place that feminists claim, then the Women of Science Pioneers who go their just praise, prestige and acceptance during their time...well they simply cannot exist. And so, feminism is forced to ignored strong women. Put them at the kids' table. That's where the patriarchy was supposed to have put them, after all.
Today, a few women that feminism is forced into oblivion.
1) The Hershey Experiment.
Ever heard of the Hershey experiment? Probably not. Partly, because it's not called the Hershey Experiment. It's called the Hershey-Chase Experiment. If science was sexist, though, it would be called the Hershey Experiment.
The Hershey-Chase Experiment confirmed that DNA is the heritable material. It put to rest a competing hypothesis that proteins carry hereditary information. This experiment revolutionized genetics almost as much as Watson and Crick. True, Martha Chase didn't receive the Nobel that Hershey did. But, that's solely because she was a lab assistant at the time of the experiment. The experiment was in 1952, and she didn't complete her PhD until 1959. All the more reason why any sexists would have had perfectly justified rationale for calling it the Hershey Experiment. But it's not, it's called the Hershey-Chase Experiment. But we can't highlight Martha Chase. She doesn't fit the narrative.
2) The Michaelis Equation
Ever heard of the Michaelis Equations? No? Probably because it's called the Michaelis-Menten Equations. But highlighting that Maud Menten got her recognition...well, that doesn't fit the narrative. In 1913, Leonor Michaelis and Maud Menten published their equations predicting the kinetics of enzymes. The world of biochemistry has never been the same since. But Maud Menten must be pushed back into history where the patriarchy purportedly put her.
3) The Cori Cycle
So, the Cori Cycle is called the Cori Cycle. Because it was by Gery and Carl Cori. A husband-and-wife team, "sexist" scientists should have had no problem writing off Gerty entirely in the discovery of the metabolic pathway for lactic acid. She was just her husband's wife, after all,right? It just doesn't fit the narrative that they shared their Nobel.
I could go on and on. But the core is this: we need to stop forgetting the pioneers of Women in Science. The truth is that more early career people in science today are female than male. Women in science are not pioneers anymore. Isn't that wonderful?
So, here are a few women that feminists don't want to be known. Because science was too good to them:
Gerty Cori
Martha Chase
Maud Menten
Rebecca Lancefield
Barbara McClintock (she was even kind of a royal jerk)
Lise Meitner
Virginia Apgar
Lynn Margulis
Sister Miriam
Irene Joliot-Curie (I don't put Marie Curie on here, because feminists kind of concede her existence)
I welcome additions.
Rosalind Franklin was an x-ray crystallographer who was best-known for determining the structure of coal. At least until recently, when she is best known for being denied credit for the structure of DNA. The story fits the narrative that feminists choose to make of history--this revisionist idea that men have always ignored the value of women, and very strong, determined women in science have been placed at the kids' table at the banquet of revered science, powerless to fight back.
Honestly, the reasons Rosalind Franklin didn't get the credit for discovering the structure of DNA: 1) she was jerk. Sure, if she was a male jerk, maybe she would have been a little more tolerated, but nobody liked Rosalind Franklin. She was a witch-with-a-b. 2) She didn't discover the structure of DNA. She made an observation about DNA that was necessary for Watson and Crick to do it (that the phosphates in the molecule are arranged on the outside), but she didn't define the helical structure of DNA. She simply didn't. 3) Photo 51--the x-ray crystallograph that was supposed to have been stolen from her--was actually a collaboration between Maurice Wilkins and James Watson. DNA research had been declared communal at King's College, and Franklin wasn't actually supposed to be working on DNA structure. So, it was fair game for Maurice Wilkins to share that with James Watson. 4) Nobel Prizes can only be split at most three ways. Since James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins all had just as much (or even more) claim to the Nobel as Rosalind Franklin, basically the Nobel Committee had to wait for one of the four to kick the bucket. Rosalind kicked it first, and was out-survived. That's why she didn't get it.
Note: Franklin's own sister has said that most of the stories about stealing the photos from her desk, and all of the discrimination that Franklin endured is completely fabricated.
But this post isn't about the Franklin Cult created by Franklin's friend and biographer, Sayre. It's about all the women that feminists--by necessity--ignore in creating their Oppressed Woman Narrative.
You see, if science was the terrible, sexist place that feminists claim, then the Women of Science Pioneers who go their just praise, prestige and acceptance during their time...well they simply cannot exist. And so, feminism is forced to ignored strong women. Put them at the kids' table. That's where the patriarchy was supposed to have put them, after all.
Today, a few women that feminism is forced into oblivion.
1) The Hershey Experiment.
Ever heard of the Hershey experiment? Probably not. Partly, because it's not called the Hershey Experiment. It's called the Hershey-Chase Experiment. If science was sexist, though, it would be called the Hershey Experiment.
The Hershey-Chase Experiment confirmed that DNA is the heritable material. It put to rest a competing hypothesis that proteins carry hereditary information. This experiment revolutionized genetics almost as much as Watson and Crick. True, Martha Chase didn't receive the Nobel that Hershey did. But, that's solely because she was a lab assistant at the time of the experiment. The experiment was in 1952, and she didn't complete her PhD until 1959. All the more reason why any sexists would have had perfectly justified rationale for calling it the Hershey Experiment. But it's not, it's called the Hershey-Chase Experiment. But we can't highlight Martha Chase. She doesn't fit the narrative.
2) The Michaelis Equation
Ever heard of the Michaelis Equations? No? Probably because it's called the Michaelis-Menten Equations. But highlighting that Maud Menten got her recognition...well, that doesn't fit the narrative. In 1913, Leonor Michaelis and Maud Menten published their equations predicting the kinetics of enzymes. The world of biochemistry has never been the same since. But Maud Menten must be pushed back into history where the patriarchy purportedly put her.
3) The Cori Cycle
So, the Cori Cycle is called the Cori Cycle. Because it was by Gery and Carl Cori. A husband-and-wife team, "sexist" scientists should have had no problem writing off Gerty entirely in the discovery of the metabolic pathway for lactic acid. She was just her husband's wife, after all,right? It just doesn't fit the narrative that they shared their Nobel.
I could go on and on. But the core is this: we need to stop forgetting the pioneers of Women in Science. The truth is that more early career people in science today are female than male. Women in science are not pioneers anymore. Isn't that wonderful?
So, here are a few women that feminists don't want to be known. Because science was too good to them:
Gerty Cori
Martha Chase
Maud Menten
Rebecca Lancefield
Barbara McClintock (she was even kind of a royal jerk)
Lise Meitner
Virginia Apgar
Lynn Margulis
Sister Miriam
Irene Joliot-Curie (I don't put Marie Curie on here, because feminists kind of concede her existence)
I welcome additions.
Comments