In Article <3eei83$qps at riscsm.scripps.edu> "SLForsburg <susan_forsburg at qm.salk.edu>" says:
> I think we have a REAL problem in how the world sees us. There are
> two types of scientist that appear in popular culture. There is the
> distant old gray bearded guy, a bit like the high priest of science
> interpretting it for the minions, who is out of touch with the real
> world, and there is the young, ambitious,
> immoral guy who will do anything for money/glory without regard for
> its consequences. Neither of these are women. If
> not actually the baddie, scientists are not
> usually goodies either. Where is the diversity of people who actually
> DO science? The idealism? The compulsion to KNOW? Why can't scientists
> be seen as heros in popular culture?
>> oh well, just another voice in the wilderness....
>> susan
>susan_forsburg at qm.salk.edu
I just thought of another woman in a scientist's role in a movie. Louise
Fletcher plays a brain scientist of some sort in "Brainstorm". I thought
the character was reasonable and had many of the qualities Susan mentions
above. She also chain smokes and dies of a massive heart attack. In fact,
as I remember the movie, either character could have been of either gender
without materially changing the outcome. So why didn't the male in the
pair die? Why weren't both scientists female? Dunno. Interestingly,
tho, the role of evil, ambitious, greedy bad folks is assigned to the
manager in charge of the project, who sells out the technology to evil
government spy people.
Just some more fuel for the flamage.
Kevin
oconne18 at pilot.msu.e
