Lady

“Lady” with the emphasis on LAAYYYDEEEE said Jerry Lewis in his really old movies.  We have “First Lady,” “Lady Gaga,” “Lady Liberty,” “Lady Madonna,” “Lady Antebellum,” “Lady Marmalade,” and “Lady Macbeth” but do we know when it is proper to use this term in the media?

The Associated Press styleguide says this about nonsexist language.

• Take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary gender-specific language.
• Avoid using a generic masculine pronoun when the antecedent includes both men and women.
• Use substitutions for words with masculine markers when possible and logical. Example: firefighter instead of fireman.
• Females over the age of 18 should be referred to as women and males over the age of 18 should be referred to as men.
• Parallel terms should be used for men and women. Examples: ladies and gentlemen, wife and husband.
• Women and men should not be referred to by their roles as wife and husband, mother and father, brother and sister, or son and daughter unless it aids in the comprehension of the content.
• Take reasonable steps to avoid unnecessary use of the words “feminine” or “woman” as modifiers. Examples: woman doctor, feminine logic.

. N.p.. Web. 24 Feb 2014. <http://identitystandards.illinois.edu/writingstyleguide/&gt;.

So is woman proper instead of lady or is lady nicer than woman?  As we all watch Downton Abbey, we hear all sorts of titles like, Dutchess, Countess, Dame and Lady.  Who can tell us what is right and what is wrong and what is sexist?

Here is a take on this from Maeve Maddox, an author, editor, PHD in literature who offers tips on cultural literacy.

“In the 19th and early 20th centuries, lady and woman still had connotations of social class. A NY Times article dated 1887 tells how a “gentleman” knocked down a cabman because he’d insulted the man’s wife by referring to her as a “woman.” In many novels, servants are careful to distinguish between “ladies and gentlemen,” and “persons” of lower rank. As late as 1966 Agatha Christie describes this exchange between Hercule Poirot and his manservant George:

Poirot considered this reply. He remembered the slight pause that George had made before the phrase–young lady. George was a delicate social recorder. He had been uncertain of the visitor’s status but had given her the benefit of the doubt.

“You are of the opinion that she is a young lady rather than, let us say, a young person?”

“I think so, sir, though it is not always easy to tell nowadays.” George spoke with genuine regret. –Third Girl

I suppose that in our “nowadays,” any significant difference between the words lady and woman has disappeared for most speakers.”

. N.p.. Web. 24 Feb 2014. <http://www.dailywritingtips.com/is-she-a-lady-or-a-woman/&gt;.

So what is the history of these words?  When do you use Lady and when do you use Woman? I found one take on it from Mrs. Margaret Deland (American novelist, short story writer, and poet – 1857-1945), who wrote on this confusing question.

“Any discussion which makes us reflect upon the value of words is helpful, and the question under consideration — when it is right to use the word “woman” and when “lady” — ought to set us all thinking. In considering this question, we must, of course, go back to the beginnings of both these words to get at their primary reason for being. One authority traces the word “woman” back to wifman or webman: the person who stays at home to spin — as distinguished from the word weapman, who goes abroad to fight. The suffix man is, of course, generic, and includes both male and female. Lady, primarily, signifies one who has to do with a loaf or bread — one who kneads. So it would appear that, to start with, both these words meant that the person so named was a worker. By-and-by, however, new meanings begin to grow around these primitive and simple ideas. Woman meant merely an adult female of the human race; lady meant some one who was, as we say, “well born,” and, consequently, well-bred; in other words, “Lady” grew to mean a woman, plus education, refinement, dignity and culture.

This use of the term “lady” is plainly courteous. Even when the street car conductor cautions us,” Don’t get off, lady, till the car stops,” or the cash-girl wails at us, “Here’s you change, lady,” and we feel half impatient and half amused, we hardly know why, even then, we do realize, I think, and appreciate, that it is meant courteously. “Woman, here’s your change,” would be distinctly unpleasant, even though strictly true, and not meant to be impolite.

There is, however, another term which is coming more and more into use, which saves us either of these extremes. I mean the old, dignified, non-committal word, “madam.” “A conventional term of address,” the dictionary declares it to be, “to women of any degree.” It is courteous, and, because it is conventional, it is exact.

The fact is, we have so cheapened the beautiful word “lady” by using it without meaning, that I think many of us prefer to say “woman” whenever we can. And certainly this word, at first used to designate one who labored, then as merely a distinction of sex, has grown in dignity and value. How much we mean when we speak of a friend as a “fine woman,” and what a curious and subtle condemnation would lie in the phrase “fine lady”!

. N.p.. Web. 24 Feb 2014. <http://www.public.coe.edu/~theller/soj/cur/lady.htm

So which title do YOU wish to be called by?

What are you? A rocket scientist? Yes, I am! And I’m female!!!

To the New York Times, being a rocket scientist doesn’t rate you as a person if you are a female.  Esteemed rocket scientist Yvonne Brill died last year and her obituary certainly did no justice to her.  But that did catch the eye of many observers:

Laura Ashburn – editor-in-chief Daily Download

Brill was instrumental in the development of propulsion systems for satellites, but the opening line of her obituary emphasized her cooking skills rather than her stunning scientific achievements. (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/01/laura-ashburn-destroys-sexist-new-york-times-obituary-of-female-rocket-scientist/)

From Laura Ortberg Turner, Christianity Today

She made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband from job to job and took eight years off from work to raise three children. “The world’s best mom,” her son Matthew said. Thus began the obituary heard ’round the world, written for Yvonne Brill, a rocket scientist, wife, and mother memorialized in the New York Times last weekend. It didn’t take long before the Times changed its first sentence to reference Brill’s work as a rocket scientist (“She was a brilliant rocket scientist who followed her husband…”), but that hardly satisfied the outraged masses, who called her gendered portrayal “disgraceful” and “inappropriate.” (http://www.christianitytoday.com/women/2013/april/beef-stroganoff-isnt-rocket-science.html)

From Alaia Howell, The Daily Beast

Last week, The New York Times published an obituary on influential rocket scientist Yvonne Brill, which sparked controversy and a whirlwind of Twitter backlash for highlighting Brill’s role as a wife and homemaker in the lede, as opposed to her groundbreaking advancements in satellite technology. Douglas Martin, the Times staff writer who wrote the column, said he “wouldn’t do anything differently” and explained that he was simply trying to put Brill into the context of her time.

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/03/on-rocket-science-and-stroganoff.html)

Of course this was not the first time, persons of importance have felt that women don’t deserve a place in the science and math fields.

During nearly four years as president of Harvard University, Lawrence H. Summers has earned a reputation for blunt, sometimes brutal comments. After upsetting African Americans early in his tenure, he has provoked a new storm of controversy by suggesting that the shortage of elite female scientists may stem in part from “innate” differences between men and women.  Some women who attended the meeting said they felt that Summers was implicitly endorsing the notion that there are genetic differences that inhibit girls from excelling in math and science.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19181-2005Jan18.html)

We’ve come a long way since the days when 19th century mathematician Sophie Germain’s parents confiscated her candles to keep her from studying mathematics because it was considered “unsuitable” for a woman. But the long-standing debate over gender differences in mathematics is alive and well, and continues to be a lively topic within psychology. Most experts agree that if gender differences do exist, they are small and likely to affect specific areas of math skill at the highest end of the spectrum — and there’s no indication that women cannot succeed in mathematically demanding fields. Still, women continue to be underrepresented in math, science and engineering-related careers, and there’s evidence that girls can lose ground in math under certain circumstances.

One factor inhibiting girls is self-confidence, says University of Wisconsin psychologist Janet Hyde, PhD. “Even when girls are getting better grades, boys are more confident in math. It’s important to understand what might be sapping girls’ confidence.” And that lack of self-assurance likely stems from culture, research suggests. After reviewing decades of research on gender differences, Cornell University psychologists Steven Ceci, PhD, and Wendy Williams, PhD, conclude that while there’s probably some genetic basis for small differences between the sexes in math and spatial ability, culture plays by far the bigger role in men and boys’ higher interest and achievement. Research by Hyde supports that idea. In a January article in Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 136, No. 1), she and her colleagues found that the more gender equity a country had — measured by school enrollment, women’s share of research jobs and women’s parliamentary representation — the smaller its math gender gap.

“When girls see opportunities for themselves in science, technology, engineering and math, they’re more likely to take higher math in high school and more likely to pursue those careers,” says Hyde. In fact, women in the United States now earn 48 percent of bachelor’s degrees in mathematics and 30 percent of the doctorates, says Hyde. “If they can’t do math, how are they doing this? They can do math just fine.”

(https://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/07-08/gender-gap.aspx)

In this country, women now earn close to 60 percent of bachelor’s degrees overall, but only 20 percent of the degrees in computer science, 20 percent of those in physics and 18 percent of those in engineering. Women constitute half the nation’s work force but just a quarter of its scientific corps, and women with science degrees are less likely than their male counterparts to work in a scientific occupation. Instead, many end up in health care or education.  People may say they consider women the equals of men, but as Jo Handelsman and her colleagues at Yale University reported last year, simply substituting the name Jennifer for John lowered both men’s and women’s estimation of an aspiring scientist’s résumé.

(http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/science/mystery-of-the-missing-women-in-science.html?pagewanted=2)

Natalie Angier wrote in September about the paradox of why girls who were equally competent and confident as boys in science and mathematics still chose not to enter the STEM fields — science, technology, engineering and math. The statistics are baffling. For example, women earned 37 percent of computer science degrees in 1985, yet only 18 percent in 2010. And only one-fifth of physics Ph.D.’s in this country are awarded to women. (http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/22/why-arent-more-girls-choosing-to-pursue-careers-in-math-and-science/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0)

So I went out to search for the top women who are in the media and are mathematicians and scientists and to disprove the male myth of superior in the math and sciences.

Amy Mainzer, PhD: Astrophysics

 

 

 

 

 

Amy Mainzer earned her PhD in Astronomy from UCLA. She is the Deputy Project Scientist for the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer. She is also the Principal Investigator for the NEOWISE project to study minor planets and the proposed Near Earth Object Camera space telescope mission. She has appeared several times in the History Channel series, The Universe. Her research interests include asteroids, brown dwarfs, planetary atmospheres, debris disks, star formation and the design and construction of new ground and space-based instrumentation.

Fun Fact: The asteroid (234750) Amymainzer was named after her.

Aditi Shankardass, PhD: Neuroscience

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aditi Shankardass earned her doctoral (MD) degree from University College London and she attended the University of Sheffield for her PhD in Neuroscience. She performs pioneering clinical work using electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings of the brain to help diagnose developmental disorders in children. Her previous work using EEG recordings of the brain to help identify the underlying neurological cause of dyslexia, was the subject of her award-winning presentation at the 2001 United Kingdom Parliament’s Annual Reception for Britain’s Top Young Scientists, Engineers and Technologists. Shankardass serves as a board member of the Global Neuroscience Initiative Foundation, an organization devoted to raising global awareness of neurological and psychiatric disorders. She has been a consultant for the BBC Science Line in the UK, providing expertise for radio and TV documentaries.

Franziska Michor, PhD: Evolutionary Biology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Franziska Michor received her PhD from Harvard’s Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology in 2005. Afterwards, she was a Junior Fellow in the Harvard Society of Fellows and worked at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston. From 2007 to 2010, she was assistant professor at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. In 2010, she moved to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard School of Public Health. Her lab investigates the evolutionary dynamics of cancer.

Fun Fact: Both Franziska and her sister Johanna, who has a PhD in Mathematics, are licensed to drive 18-wheelers in Austria.

Clio Cresswell, PhD: Mathematics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clio Cresswell received her PhD in Mathematics from The University of New South Wales, Australia. In 2004, she published the best-selling book, Mathematics and Sex. The book focuses on how math can help unlock the secrets of love, exploring such topics as dating services, dating as game theory, the mathematical logic of affairs, and the numbers behind orgasms.

Quote: “My most famous theory is the 12 bonk rule. You have 12 partners and then you pick the next best after that. The next best could be number 16, 50, 110—it’s up to you to decide. I’ve had way more than 12 partners. That’s shown me that I have probably met someone in my past that I could actually be very happy with, but I’ve just got a commitment issue” ~ Cresswill talking to ABC.net

Olivia Judson, PhD: Evolutionary Biology

 

 

 

 

 

 

Olivia Judson received her PhD in biological sciences from Oxford University. Her first book, Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation (2002), grew out of an article she penned for The Economist titled, “Sex Is War!”. The book is written in the style of a sex-advice column for animals. It details a variety of sexual practices in the natural world and provides an overview of the evolutionary biology of sex. The book was an international best-seller and was nominated for the Samuel Johnson Prize for Non-Fiction. Her second book, Dinosaur Eggs for Breakfast, came out in 2009.

Quote: “True monogamy is rare. So rare that it is one of the most deviant behaviors in biology.”

Rhonda Freeman, PhD: Neuropsychology 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rhonda Freeman earned her PhD in psychology, specializing in neuropsychology, from Drexel University. She trained within the neuropsychology track, evaluating the cognitive and emotional status of patients diagnosed with psychiatric conditions. She has provided neuropsychological services to individuals with moderate to severe brain trauma, stroke, acute stress disorder, and various other neurological and medical conditions. Since 2001, Freeman has worked for the largest neurology practice in South Florida- Sunrise Medical Group Neurology. You can follow her on Twitter, @DrRFreeman, or via her website, RhondaFreemanPhD.com .

Fun Fact: She was a cheerleader for the Philadelphia Eagles between 1995-1999, and she cheered for the Miami Dolphins between 2006-2007.

Jennifer McCarty, PhD: Materials Science and Engineering

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jennifer Hooper McCarty earned her PhD in Materials Science and Engineering at Johns Hopkins University. After finishing her PhD, she worked as a researcher in the Materials Department at Oxford University, and carried out historical analysis on 19th-20th century wrought iron and steel structures, including archival and documentary research and discussions with local blacksmiths, historians and shipbuilding experts. Based on her studies of material recovered from the Titanic, she co-authored, What Really Sank the Titanic: New Forensic Discoveries. She currently works at Oregon Health & Science University.

Talmesha Richards, PhD: Molecular Medicine

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Talmesha Richards was offered a full academic scholarship from both Princeton and Johns Hopkins. She eventually received her PhD in Cellular and Molecular Medicine at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where her research focused on breast cancer.

Fun Fact: She was a cheerleader for the Baltimore Ravens and is currently the captain of the squad for the Washington Redskins.

Kirsten “Kiki” Sanford, PhD: Neurophysiology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kristen “Kiki” Sanford earned a PhD in Molecular, Cellular and Integrative Physiology from UC Davis. She was a research scientist in neurophysiology at the UC Davis, specializing in learning and memory. She left bench science to present science through a variety of media outlets. In 2005, she was awarded the American Association for the Advancement of Science Mass Media Science & Engineering Fellowship in recognition of her work with her radio show, This Week in Science. Through this fellowship she worked as a producer at WNBC News.

Fun Fact: She holds a black belt in taekwondo. Also, one of her dreams is to have a cameo on, The Big Bang Theory.

(http://cltampa.com/dailyloaf/archives/2012/07/26/top-10-sexiest-female-scientists#.Uu-w5vY4TVx)

Now that we have met more than enough brilliant women who are science or math geniuses, let’s return to the paper of record, The New York Times.

Lara Bell at Jezebel applauded the change and took issue with Douglas Martin’s word choice stating:

It’s easy for Martin to say he was simply highlighting the difference between culturally assumed women’s roles and the life of a rocket scientist — but it’s no longer an “interesting” choice. It’s tired, it’s predictable, and it’s regressive. Are we still supposed to be shocked that a mother, wife, and maker of a mean beef stroganoff could also be a rocket scientist? As long as we keep perpetuating these “would you believe!?” assumptions about women, we’ll be repeating this same shit into the next century.

Meanwhile, back at the Times, public editor Margaret Sullivan agreed that Martin had taken the wrong tack:

The emphasis on her domesticity — and, more important, the obituary’s overall framing as a story about gender — had the effect of undervaluing what really landed Mrs. Brill on the Times obituaries page: her groundbreaking scientific work.

Amy Davidson of The New Yorker addressed the outrage over Martin’s original “beef Stroganoff” reference:

Some defenders of the beef Stroganoff lead have said that one ought not to be silent about the demands placed on women in that era to fill certain roles. And one shouldn’t. But that doesn’t mean simply repeating the stories they needed to tell to succeed in a workplace that would otherwise have wasted their talents. “ ‘You just have to be cheerful about it and not get upset when you get insulted,’ she once said,” the Times tells us. But now, from the distance of years, can’t we be a little insulted on her behalf? She might not have let on that she was insulted—but it is clear that, at every stage, she pushed back. (Leaned in, one might say.) Perhaps, in that sense, we could admire some of the optical illusions she herself engineered, rather than just setting them to music.

(http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/articles/2013/04/03/on-rocket-science-and-stroganoff.html)

When we all celebrated the turning of 1999 to 2000, I thought we were in a new millennium.  The clock may have gone forward, but for The New York Times, we are still in the last millennium or maybe it’s just The Twilight Zone.

TV’s New Wave of Women: Smart, Strong, Borderline Insane

At first glance, this looks like a great moment for women on television. Many smart and confident female characters have paraded onto the small screen over the past few years. But I’m bothered by one persistent caveat: that the more astute and capable many of these women are, the more likely it is that they’re also completely nuts.

(. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/magazine/tvs-new-wave-of-women-smart-strong-borderline-insane.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0&gt;.) by Heather Havrilesky, March 12, 2013

When women are given space as “smart” in the media, they often find themselves simultaneously undermined by stigmatizing qualities; finding it difficult to gain and maintain a romantic connection, for example, or watching her less intelligent friend/sister/colleague get all of the attentions of others. Some smart women are coded as nerds, and in many other cases, intellect is conflated with madness, monstrosity, or witchcraft, harkening back to the healer and the hag.

(. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=202156&gt;.)

In what ways does Hollywood control expectations about the brains of women by foiling their intellect with their own bodies?  Beautiful and naïve Elle Woods becomes a successful lawyer based on her knowledge of hair care products in Legally Blond; Natalie Portman is an astrophysicist whose sarcastic charm wins over Thor, heir to the God’s Realm of Asgard in superhero blockbuster Thor; and Easy A reminds us that smart teens—even ones as stunningly gorgeous as Emma Stone—aren’t accepted in the brutal high school hierarchies of popularity.  How are smart women cast as threats to the social order, as in Julia Roberts’ portrayal of 1950s Wellesley College co-ed Katherine Ann Watson in Mona Lisa Smile?  What do we make of cinematic strategies that cast women as the counter-intellectual to men of superior intellect, such as Bella Swan in the Twilight saga, and Cameron Diaz in Bad Teacher, or don’t allow them to display any characteristics of the intellectual at all? (2012 Film & History Conference in Milwaukee, Wisconsin)

Here are some examples of smart and often strong women who have these character flaws:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nurse Jackie – pill popping RN who remains calm while chaos surrounds her

 

 

 

 

 

Homeland – pill popping but uber smart CIA agent, Carrie Matheson who lives with bi-polar disorder

 

 

 

 

 

Emily Owens, M.D. – brain goes to mush when her dreamboat enters the room

 

 

 

 

 

The Mindy Project – Mindy is a ob-gyn who is obsessed with her looks and being able to land a husband

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30 Rock – Liz Lemon who is on the cusp of social retardation and wanting a relationship and is obsessed with Star Wars.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Good Wife – Alicia Florrick who is obsessed with two men, only one being her husband.

In what ways does Hollywood control expectations about the brains of women by foiling their intellect with their own bodies? How are smart women cast as threats to the social order? What do we make of cinematic strategies that cast women as the counter-intellectual to men of superior intellect? And what of those whom we don’t allow to display any characteristics of the intellectual at all? Women earn 77 percent of the salaries of all American men—and that is not because fewer women than men are working. The reality of the American workforce is that women cluster in poorly paid occupations. This stems from the pervasive cultural maintenance of male privilege, something that is still communicated to girls and young women through peer groups, the media, and even the historical structure of education that educated women differently than men. Contemporary media exploits this hypocrisy. More women go to college, but they end up in overwhelmingly lower-paid jobs. Women who choose more elite career paths in medicine, science, or crime fighting are made less threatening by an over-accentuation of their “womanliness,” thus exceptionalizing their intellectual position. If she is attractive, the viewer can ignore her brain in favor of gazing at her body; if she is average looking, or nerdy, viewers are offered ways to desexualize her in order to accept her as an intellectual.

(. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://www.h-net.org/announce/show.cgi?ID=202156&gt;.)

Not everyone agrees with this percentage. Christina Hoff Sommers wrote this in The Daily Beast, on February 1, 2014.

The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers.

 

Chicks with Brains: Representing Women’s Intellect in Film

Since the Second Wave Feminist Movement during the 1970s, Hollywood has slowly begun to give prominent and leading roles to women.  However, the intellectual representations of women are out of line with reality, in many cases failing to reflect the successes and struggles that women have faced in a resistant social and political environment.  This area considers the portrayals of traditional myths about “chicks with brains” across film history, as well as new myths and/or myth-busters that may have arisen since the Second Wave.

In what ways does Hollywood control expectations about the brains of women by foiling their intellect with their own bodies?  Beautiful and naïve Elle Woods becomes a successful lawyer based on her knowledge of hair care products in Legally Blond; Natalie Portman is an astrophysicist whose sarcastic charm wins over Thor, heir to the God’s Realm of Asgard in superhero blockbuster Thor; and Easy A reminds us that smart teens—even ones as stunningly gorgeous as Emma Stone—aren’t accepted in the brutal high school hierarchies of popularity.  How are smart women cast as threats to the social order, as in Julia Roberts’ portrayal of 1950s Wellesley College co-ed Katherine Ann Watson in Mona Lisa Smile?  What do we make of cinematic strategies that cast women as the counter-intellectual to men of superior intellect, such as Bella Swan in the Twilight saga, and Cameron Diaz in Bad Teacher, or don’t allow them to display any characteristics of the intellectual at all?

This area seeks to critique the myths of women’s intellect in film across multiple genres and historic time periods, and across cultures and national borders (films do not need to have been produced in the U.S.).  Papers might consider film history as well as cultural, social, or political history when formulating their analysis, in order to examine the twin complexities of subjugation by the film industry as well as the broader oppression of women in society.

. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://agnesfilms.com/news/1439/&gt;.

If you had to choose between being beautiful or being intelligent, which would you choose? It’s a hard question to answer and I bet this isn’t the first time you’ve been asked this question. Now answer this question, why must you choose between the two? The media has created a perception of unattractive people, particularly women, as smart and inversely of attractive women as unintelligent. This message is communicated to girls, boys, men, and women. This message was explicitly directed towards young girls in a recent scandal with JC Penney, in which a shirt sold on their website read “I’m too pretty to do homework so my brother has to do it for me” was discontinued, Christina Ng writes in ABC News. Next to the shirt was the caption “who has time for homework when there’s a new Justin Bieber album out? She’ll love this tee that’s just as cute and sassy as she is.” This message is not only sexist but it tells young girls that if you are pretty you do not need to be smart or work hard. The same message is portrayed in a Vitamin Water radio commercial currently airing. The commercial ends with the line “You are too beautiful to be smart.” This message of what smart people do and do not look like is a repeating theme in media and pop culture, especially in movies and television.

. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://cultureshock.scripts.mit.edu/fa2011/what-does-smart-look-like.php&gt;.

by Linsey Jackson  What Does Smart Look Like?

. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://celebs.allwomenstalk.com/25-smartest-celebrities&gt;.

We all have flaws… but we don’t all have brains.  Here is a list of actresses who have brains and who have found fame in the media:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sharon Stone, 52… started college at age 15… I.Q. of 154 and a member of MENSA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meryl Streep, 61, Yale graduate 1975, 18 Oscar nominations with 3 wins for The Iron Lady, Sophie’s Choice, and Kramer vs. Kramer

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shakira, IQ 140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Elisabeth Shue, Wellesley College and Harvard University

 

 

 

 

 

Cindy Crawford, 44, 4.0 GPA high shool valedictorian, runs own company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jennifer Connelly, Yale, Stanford, fluent in French and Italian

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Famke Janssen, Columbia University for Literature and Writing, U. of Amsterdam to Study Economics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emma Watson, 20, Brown for art and literature

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alicia Keys, graduated high school as valedictorian at 16, scholarship to Columbia which she gave up to pursue her career in music.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Claire Danes, Dalton School, Lycee Français, Yale for psychology

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jodie Foster, Yale with degree in Literature, Oscar winner, Foster graduated as valedictorian from the French-speaking Lycee Francais de Los Angeles, after which she attended Yale and graduated magna cum laude with a degree in literature. Her reported IQ is 132.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicole Kidman, IQ 132

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Geena Davis

Davis went to Sweden on a student exchange program and is now fluent in Swedish. Studied drama at Boston University, plays piano, flute, drums and organ and has an IQ of 140.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natalie Portman, hs 4.0 GPA, Harvard, speaks Hebrew, French and Japanese in addition to English.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kate Beckinsale, Oxford University studied French and Russian literature… won the W.H. Smith Young Writers competition twice.

The media don’t always portray women with character flaws.  Here are some smart characters we like from television and film:

(. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://jarviscity.com/2013/11/30/most-educated-female-characters/&gt;.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Katherine Hepburn played a lady lawyer in Adam’s Rib.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gillian Anderson, is the FBI scientist and agent, from the X-Files.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alex Kingston, is an archeologist who learns to fly the TARDIS better than Doctor Who.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mary Tyler Moore, as Mary Richards, the brilliant producer at WJM-TV, in The Mary Tyler Moore Show

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Holly Hunter as Jane Craig, Broadcast News, who is a network news broadcast producer, who emulates Susan Zirinsky from CBS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Diana Rigg as Mrs. Emma Peel from The Avengers. She was a genius in this role.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barbara Bain as Cinnamon in Mission Impossible… the only woman on this secret government team.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emily Deschanel as “Bones” in the television show with that name. She is an anthropologist, kinesiologist and is trained in three types of martial arts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lisa Simpson, who has an IQ of 159 in The Simpsons.

A recent UNESCO report describes the litany of common images of women in the media: “the glamorous sex kitten, the sainted mother, the devious witch, the hardfaced corporate and political climber.”  The report, released in 2009, states that, at the current rate of progress on stereotyping women, it will take another 75 years to achieve gender equality in the media.

(. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://worldsavvy.org/monitor/index.php?option=com_content&id=602&Itemid=1049&gt;.)

Pulitizer Prize author (and a very smart woman and someone who doesn’t need 75 years to achieve gender equality) Anna Quindlen may have summed it up best:
After all those years as a woman hearing “not thin enough, not pretty enough, not smart enough, not this enough, not that enough,” almost overnight I woke up one morning and thought, “I’m enough.”

Television Women Fashionistas

We are living in an era that we watch television (in some form) more and more.  In fact the average American watches television as follows:

Total Use of Television	Data
Average time spent watching television (U.S.)	5:11 hours
White	5:02
Black	7:12
Hispanic	4:35
Asian	3:14
Years the average person will have spent watching TV	9 years

(. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://www.statisticbrain.com/television-watching-statistics/&gt;.)

Not everyone thinks that women are well represented in the media.  One publication said:

“The representation of women in the media has always been exploitive.  It has, throughout the years, reduced women to being nothing more than objects to be won prizes to be shown off, and playthings to be abused.”

(The Objectification of Women in Mass Media:  Female Self-Image in Misogynist Culture, by Stephanie Nicholl Berberick,  The New York Sociologist, Vol 5, 2010)

While this may be true for some, I find that fashionista is not demeaning or sexist, but fun to watch and see how society reacts to what they see on television. So I figured I would compile a list of some of the iconic female figures who were fashionistas from television with the help of Redbook.

(. N.p.. Web. 5 Feb 2014. <http://www.redbookmag.com/beauty-fashion/iconic-looks/iconic-tv-style#slide-1&gt;.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lucille Ball as Lucy and Desi Arnaz as Ricky Ricardo on I Love Lucy, circa 1955.

One of most well-known TV stars in history, Lucille Ball was classic ’50s-chic in shirt dresses and pearls. She managed to be goofy and relatable, all while looking sophisticated and put-together.

Funny, I never thought of Lucy as a fashion icon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Marlo Thomas as Ann Marie on That Girl, 1965.

In this revolutionary sitcom starring a single woman who lived on her own, Thomas’ mod outfits and signature bangs helped her character become an audience favorite.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joan Collins as Alex Carrington on Dynasty, 1981.

Collins was the epitome of opulent glamour as the ex-wife of a tycoon in the popular ’80s soap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alyssa Milano as Phoebe, Shannen Doherty as Prue, and Holly Marie Combs as Piper on Charmed, 1999.

The cult-favorite series featured three supernaturally gifted sisters — who also happened to have distinct and enviable senses of style.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sarah Jessica Parker as Carrie Bradshaw on Sex and the City, 2001.

No list of this sort would be complete without Carrie Bradshaw. SJP’s character’s cool-girl style still inspires us to make adventurous wardrobe choices today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jennifer Garner (Top) as Sydney Bristow on Alias, 2002.

She reminds me of Diana Rigg (Bottom) from The Avengers, who sported Carnaby Street looks in the 1960’s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Christina Hendricks as Joan Holloway on Mad Men, 2007.

The show about Madison Avenue advertising executives is credited with bringing many ’50s silhouettes back into fashion. Hendricks’ curvy character walks the line between sexy siren and office-appropriate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vanessa Williams as Wilhelmina Slater on Ugly Betty, 2008.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blake Lively as Serena van der Woodsen and Leighton Meester as Balir Waldorf on Gossip Girl, 2008.

But since I like sci fi and comics, I have a few to add:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nichelle Nichols playing an officer on the Spaceship Star Trek and giving us the first interracial kiss on television. She was a Starship Fashionista.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or Jeri Ryan in Star Trek Voyager

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or Katee Sackhoff in Battlestar Galatica

But for me it was hands down the beautiful vampire fashionistas:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So let’s add Evan Rachel Wood from True Blood

 

 

 

 

 

But what will the list be without the vampire hunter, so I’ll go with Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy the Vampire Slayer… every icon list needs a vampire and hunter.