Definitely a thing I might going to find and watch.
OT:
About writing, I agree with making a difference between biography writing and writing about the ‘science’ solely. The latter should go about the science and less about the person behind. And please don’t ask and/or write about questions which who would never been asked at ‘male’ scientists. (Worst example 'How do you combine it with your family live? `).
However in other surcemstances, like a personal interview or biography these kind of things m/v can be very interesting and something to learn from.
I see what the test is trying to accomplish – that writing about women in science should be about their scientific achievements, and not undermined by some implicit or accidental, “not bad for a mother” statement. But at the same time, you’re left with a very dry biography. At some point, it’s not so much about the person as their discovery.
To think of it another way, if there were a challenge to write about Galois without even hinting about his age, sexuality, or anything you would avoid in a modern job interview then it would be easy to accomplish. But it would also gloss over the most interesting story of his life: how a twenty-year-old genius committed some amazing idea to paper after being snookered into a duel that would lead to his death over a bad love affair. Let’s face it, unless you are really interested in Galois groups, that’s the most interesting story.
So while we need to be sure not to minimize the importance of the work, we need to also strike a balance that recognizes them as people with their own interesting stories. Sometimes (though not always or often) that will be tied up with family life or women’s roles in their society.
Incidentally Turing himself didn’t, by some reports, treat Cicely Popplewell very well. We shouldn’t assume that members of one oppressed minority will also defend, or even be conscious of their attitudes to, other minorities.
Obviously anyone can be a jerk. 90% of everyone is a jerk, and I see no reason to excuse people from this rule just because they’re attracted to a different type of person than me, or have different parts than me.
I loved it! It makes the important point of why women often wind up being secretive, especially in eras like the 50s where their societal role was narrowing. 'Cos heaven forbid you be brilliant at something besides washing dishes.
It’s that postwar letdown that gets to me. As in, here, you got to contribute to the war effort by being intelligent because we needed the men as cannon fodder, but now that the war is over if you could fuck off to the kitchen that would be great.
