The 25 Most Powerful Women of the Last Century
Time has released its list of the twenty-five most powerful women of the last century. I might be biased, but I think it's pretty powerful to provide critical evidence for the structure of DNA. And, to discover jumping genes. But evidently, not really. No Rosalind Franklin. No Barbara McClintock. There is one woman on the list whom I consider a scientist, but not everyone would so consider her: Rachel Carson. Without her outstanding writing skills, though, she wouldn't be there either, regardless of her ability to discern the dangers of pollution earlier than most people. So what should one do to be considered a powerful woman? I read the obituaries of the New York Times regularly, and the suite of approved activities for a powerful woman includes: philanthropy, marriage to a magnate or politico, founding a dance company, becoming an opera diva, writing many bestselling books. It looks like Time reached into politics a bit, tried to be international, although not all that successfully. But I must say, there are some names on the list that shocked me. Take a look and see what you think.
A All reasonable choices to me
B Not bad, but there are a few strange choices (tell us which ones)
C Geez, brains, at least science brains, were left out in the cold almost entirely
Scifeminista brings up a great point! Sally Ride has influenced so many young women not only through her own career but through her outreach to young girls through her summer programs as well as her advocacy efforts for improved science education. I can't believe I missed that one!
Yes, I think the women astronauts deserve to be included. And I'd bet there were some influential and powerful women physicians, but I can't name them. I'm also thinking about Rosalyn Yalow who designed the radio immune assays on which a lot of medical tests are based (although fluorescence has replaced radioactivity in a lot of them.)
cheers,
Laura
What about the category of astronauts? We could include Mae Jemison and Sally Ride, who have given so many wonderful talks to aspiring women in science after they stepped down from flying into space. I consider them scientist; they were required to have extensive training in science and engineering to qualify.
Hi Helen,
I agree about Georgia O'Keefe. In fact, I pretty much endorse Postdoc Cat's whole suite of suggestions! I've received some emails saying we need not focus on something so trivial as such a list, but here's my rationale: as a teen, I used to take these things seriously. What should a woman do to be influential today? If I saw no current woman in science, I would have had a reaction. Perhaps it would be, "I can do this, let me show them!" But some women might react thinking," I cannot do that, I cannot be that." So I think it's worth thinking about who should be on such a list.
Thanks
Laura
Hmmmm. Depends how they defined power. Was it long range influence on society? That's the best definition I can come up with for the non-political picks. That would explain why only Marie Curie made the list as a nod to a high profile scientist.
Strange ones for me: Why Aretha for music? Good singer granted but musically not a stand-out. Didn't change much on the color side of things but she has influenced the the current generation in many ways, so OK. Madonna certainly has had more influence. Gloria Steinem...really...Betty F. seems more logical to me. And why no artist like Georgia? That's as big an omission as the science part. I would have made separate lists for influential vs. powerful vs. impact on society (most scientists there).
I like the idea of "My life is different because of x done by woman y" as the best way to pick these women. So I'd like to take off Madonna who has made no difference in my life and put on one of the three women scientists suggested by Postdoc Cat. I know Chanel and Lauder were in fashion, but the fact that they were successful entrepreneurs keeps them on my list, ditto Oprah. A wildly successful money making woman is almost as good as a lawsuit to help all women, in my view. I guess I'd take off Aretha and Julia so I could add all three of Postdoc Cat's women in science. It's all comparing apples and coconuts, right?
cheers,
Laura
Going off discussions we've had before, what about Henrietta Lacks, the donor of HeLa cells that enabled curing of polio and many cancers?
I have mixed feelings about Margaret Sanger; she did help women get birth control, but she was somewhat of a eugenist and used it in racist ways in the inner cities, so I don't totally admire her needless to say.
I'd question Coco Chanel and Estee Lauder, possibly Julia Child much as I enjoyed her cooking show, Aretha Franklin much as i enjoyed her music. Why should they choose Gloria Steinem over Simone de Beauvoir or even Betty Friedan, and I'd also question Oprah Winfrey. I think Georgia O'Keefe belongs on the list, was glad to see Virginia Woolf. Other women in science who should be there include Maria Goeppert Mayer, Lise Meitner, Liz Blackburn.
I like Jane Addams who founded the Settlement Houses to help the poor, even though she's not a scientist. And women leaders of state, those make sense too. I'm not so sure about Oprah, Martha. In fifty years will anyone really remember them? And of course, Madonna?
Uh oh, I missed...Marie Curie! Yes, everyone would agree she's an important bona fide scientist, even recognized with two Nobel prizes. Sorry, speed reading can do me in. Of course that means 2 out of 25, and that's twice as good, but still not good enough for me.
cheers,
Laura
Well, I do consider Rachel Carson a scientist. Did you read Linda Lear's wonderful biography of her? Many would have given up science in the face of the overt and almost overpowering discrimination she faced. So I will pick B out of these choices. Madonna? Not so much. What did she influence?
