In the future, I would like to see, has scientists excelling in more than one thing, and in this future, such an event would not be considered remarkable, just normal. In this future I would like to see are equal numbers of women excelling in more than one thing, and that would be considered normal too.

The British program that I was trying to remember is documentary by Vega Trust about Emma King, a mathematician-cosmologist. I was impressed by her because she is not only a gifted mathematician, she is dyslexic, and in her hobbies: she plays harp, performs in theatre productions and engages in live role-playing including Kung Fu and Sword fighting.

>Three, I was pleased with some of the things I learned about Randall in
>that article. For instance, that she has a boyfriend who’s a rock
>climber.

What about _her_? Sheesh…

A couple of decades ago my highschool sweetheart was a rockclimber, and I was always hanging around (photography, actually). Is that odd too?

>(If anyone can point me to further reports on that intersection, i.e.,
>of physics and challenging hobbies, I’d be thankful.)

There seems to be an established link between musicians and scientists, but there are plenty of cases of scientists who have challenging hobbies, and some are women too.

Some time ago there was a British female mathematician (physicist?) interviewed by BBC (Vega Trust?) who engaged in fencing ? (or another medieval sport).. I can’t remember, nor find in my old messages, but the info came via cosmicvariance (perhaps Clifford will remember). She impressed the hell out of me, and that video got wide airplay.

Amara

P.S. I like visiting volcanoes (hopefully when they are erupting).

Thanks! No I did not know about that! Excellent find. That is indeed the high point, at least so far.

Cheers!

-cvj

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0517716

Cheers,
M

I’m actually not in any need to see or own the article for myself. After all, I know pretty well who Lisa is and what she does for a living already. I just wanted to point people who were not in the field to it in case they wanted to see it.

Yes, a lot of physicists like rock-climbing. Lisa is actually said to be be a very good and adventurous climber. The boyfriend and his also climbing is irrelevant to this part…. she’s been rock-climbing at a serious level for many years. You’ll have to ask her (or other climbers) for more information about their personal take on why they like it, since I have no first hand experience.

Cheers!

-cvj

I can explain why the text of the accompanying articles wasn’t posted along with the slideshow of images: Condé Nast magazines use their websites as a way of “driving” (the marketing term) people to their main product, which is the print publications. They typically post online some, not all, of the articles from each issue.

Two, the full-page photo of Randall was quite attractive but was also the most glammed-up image I’ve ever seen of her. (I have my own version, based on an image in Scientific American, here).

Three, I was pleased with some of the things I learned about Randall in that article. For instance, that she has a boyfriend who’s a rock climber. Since I’m aware that physicists are often drawn to rock climbing and mountaineering, I had wondered whether she was among them. (If anyone can point me to further reports on that intersection, i.e., of physics and challenging hobbies, I’d be thankful.)

Finally, on the question of paying attention to what you wear (which Chandra addressed beautifully above), there’s a striking speech in the movie version of The Devil Wears Prada in which the fashion-magazine editor responds to her new assistant’s untutored attitude by explaining how the fashion industry in fact has its influence over what we wear in ways we probably don’t realize. She also manages to cast in a different light her assistant’s belief that she is “too important to care about” what she throws on her back in the morning. As Chandra suggested, one can attend to one’s look, or not; what we want is to be accepted whatever our choice is. (Apologies for this paragraph, which I know is somewhat off the subject.)

This inspiring book from actress Tina Louise brings nature and the animal kingdom together to invigorate children to reach for the stars in anything they do. Louise cleverly compares the role of an animal or insect side by side to what a child can grow up to be. Fireflies glow in the dark; an aspiring actress can shine on the silver screen. Spiders spin elaborate webs; an aspiring architect can create a skyscraper. Children will think of their own talents as they read along and be inspired to excel. When I Grow Up shows that amazing things are happening all the time—and that young readers can grow up to be amazing, too!

Ironic, that the “sexy” actress is using a biological-model approach, whereas the “brainy” Danica is using a stereotypical-model (dare I say “sexist”) approach. Each method is a strategy to reach their audience.

The interview with Tina Louise indicated her love of teaching. BTW, Bob Denver (who played Gilligan) was in real-life a high-school teacher & very intelligent (in contrast to the character he played). There were real-life spats between the 2 on the set of Gilligan’s Island, Bob was a stickler for being on “time” (discipline from education background)..Tina was chronically late (whimsical behavior, ala Paris Hilton, et al).

At the end of the report, there was mention that D. McKellar was to be named ABC Person of the Week. (west coast airing at 6:30pm).

-cvj

I should add in for amusement that to get an astro degree, one only needed to complete the physics requirements and take two or three more courses. Not really a challenge to graduate in physics and astronomy and astrophysics instead of just physics …

-cvj

As for Queen, regardless of how much we love Brian May let’s not forget to remember the other members of the band, alright? Because it’s not like med school was a walk in the park either.

And regarding this topic as a whole… I have a story. See, one of my (increasingly numerous) dalliances that does not appear on my CV is how I’ve modelled for a professional photographer- he owns a gallery near campus, I went in there once on a date, and said photographer asked me to pose for him in a “I need to take your picture!” kind of way. You sort of can’t say no when an artist guy insists on taking your picture (I mean, come on) so I posed for him twice, and my picture is in his gallery.

Now apparently, people occasionally recognize me while visiting this gallery in an “is that Yvette?” sort of way. The likeness is usually dismissed however- people conclude that it’s gotta just be a model who looks like me, because I’m a physics major!

In my mind, this latter comment sums up the entire issue. Physics dress preconceptions aside, however, any physicists who disapprove of my swishy skirts can pry them from my cold, dead hands.

Ashton Kutcher majored in biochemical engineering (did not complete).
Ronald Reagan majored in economics and sociology
Paul Verhoeven (director) Ph.D. in mathematics and physics

Cheers,

-cvj

Cheers,

-cvj

Cheers,

Elliot

-cvj

your reaction specifically to this pic?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/hitman_x/Noviembre/danica_McKellar_l10.jpg

My point is simply that I see nothing at all wrong with being attractive and smart (aren’t we all ;)) but this picture and many more of her are clearly pictures of an objectified sex object. She can be whatever she wants but there is nothing in some of these pictures that would distinguish her from say a Paris Hilton, Britney et al.

People are complex and evolve and perhaps this picture is from an earlier period in her life and she is moving in a new direction. But as we used to say in law school.. res ipsa loquitar.

Elliot

I had a quick look, but only the first page (I’m sitting here on my lunch break in a professional office trying to look professional). My first reaction is that I don’t understand your point at all. She’s a professional actress doing a bunch of glamour shots and the like. What’s wrong with that? (Maybe I’ve lived in LA too long.) Why is that incommensurate with doing mathematics and encouraging young girls to do the same? “Cute and Smart”, to use her term. In those pictures I don’t see her doing drugs, avoiding going to college to party more, crashing her car every week because she’s drunk, running away from crashed car… and so forth. All among the weekly antics of the other young “starlets” she mentioned. Are you making a more subtle point here? Or did I miss some shots of her doing those things on later pages?

Cheers,

-cvj

Elliot

Your second to last paragraph really articulates what bothered me about the Vogue piece. If a woman wants to look like thinking man’s crumpet, she should be allowed to. But other women should be allowed to look however the hell they like, without judgment.

As a woman and a doctoral student in theoretical physics, I was disappointed by Robert Sullivan’s profile of Lisa Randall in the August issue. While I am pleased to see women in physics get recognition wherever possible, I am weary of profiles that continue to marginalize those who are considered attractive and fashionable as “apt to be mistaken … for an actress studying for the part of Harvard professor.” It seems to suggest that because she is attractive and well-dressed, it’s improbable that Professor Randall could also be the incredibly talented mathematical scientist that she is.

Will the world take us seriously if publications that claim to promote women, like Vogue, propose that women who look like Lisa Randall are more likely to be auditioning for the part rather than living it? Probably not.

This is not to say that I do not salute the effort to recognize that women outside of traditionally fashion-oriented careers can be fashion leaders too. As an undergraduate in physics and astronomy at Harvard, I would lament regularly with a female classmate about the way in which those of us who liked to dress up were seemingly discouraged by the dominant culture from doing so. It is nice to see that women in physics are attaining recognition in ways that ensure their achievement will be measured according to their scientific product, not the femininity of their dress.

This knife cuts both ways. Much as I don’t want to be judged because I obviously put thought into my daily wear, I have come to understand that women who choose not do so deserve recognition for their achievements both as women and as pioneers in our field. They are mentors for all of us, and we should be proud to advertise their accomplishments, whatever they are or aren’t wearing.

Moreover, Vogue does women in physics and the little girls who will look up to them a disservice when it implicitly suggests that only women who look like Lisa Randall deserve recognition for their achievements in the popular press.

Chanda

On the other hand, I do subscribe to Details, so if you ever need anything from that magazine, I will be happy to oblige

e.