The Madame Curie Complex: The Hidden History of Women in Science (Women Writing Science) by Julie Des Jardins

The Madame Curie Complex: The Hidden History of Women in Science (Women Writing Science) Reviews

• 
  Marie desJardins

  I thought this had some really interesting material -- and I wanted to like it more than I did. I had three main problems with it, though.
  
  First, by focusing almost entirely on extremely successful, high-profile women scientists, Des Jardins (no relation! :-) skews the picture of what it is actually like to be a woman in science. There is an implicit message that women are only successful if they're *super*-successful, even though the vast majority of scientists (male and female) are not super-successful.
  
  Second, there isn't really a consistent thesis or message, either for the book overall or for any given chapter. I'm not sure that Des Jardins knows what messages or conclusions she wants to draw from these stories of women scientists and their struggles to be accepted. Maybe there isn't a message -- but without a message, it's just a collection of facts and observations.
  
  Third, the writing is perfectly lucid, yet it's often very dry and frequently repetitive. I felt as though I was reading the same things over and over again, and reading about some of the same people over and over again. I'm not sure quite what the chapter-by-chapter narrative structure is supposed to be -- again, this sort of relates to the problem of a lack of a clear theme or message. The book is vaguely chronological, but not exactly. I found myself getting lost or bored rather often -- which was too bad, because many of the stories and insights were really quite interesting; it was just hard to pull them out from the random details and somewhat rambling discussions.
  
  I felt as though the book would have worked better if she had identified a few clear themes or messages, with a scientist who somewhat exemplified each of these, then had a chapter about the theme followed (or preceded) by a chapter about the scientist. Instead, the biographical material is all mixed together with the analytical material, and as a result, everything is very blurred together.
• 
  Jennifer Glass

  A beautifully written and extremely well-researched book. The best non-fiction book I've read in ages. I loved des Jardins' developed of the "Curie Complex", as captured on the final page of the book: "The persistent presumption that women must be more devoted, more myopic, more talented than men is a sign that modern womanhood is still defined by traditional domesticity to some degree, and modern science is still defined as its antithesis". Amen. This book educated me about the historical details rarely told in popular science books, aside from the story of Rosalind Franklin. Sad to say, I had never heard of Gilbreth, Cannon, Mayer, Yalow, Keller or Galdikas before I read this book. Now I know their stories, and recognize that women's struggles to break through the laboratory technician's "glass ceiling" into the realms of the principal investigators/"big thinkers" date back at last as far as the "computers" at the Harvard Observatory in the 1880's. Des Jardin's explains so clearly the reasons behind some fields' (for example, primatology) historical openness to women, and other fields' historical disregard for women (i.e. physics, mathematics, engineering). I only wish Des Jardins had included my own field, geological sciences. Maybe in her next book.....
• 
  Jenny T

  An extremely well-researched (and cited), well-written look at the history of women in science, exploring the reasons behind the lack of recognition for female scientists as well as describing how women have changed the very nature and definition of what "science" entails.
  
  The book begins with a discusion of Marie Curie and how her work both helped and hindered women's participation in the traditionally male world of "hard" science. Then come Annie Cannon and the women who worked at the Harvard Observatory in the early 1900s, examining telescopic photos and cataloguing and measuring stars. Next, the women who moved themselves and often their families to Los Alamos to participate in the atomic bomb project. The book delves into the lives of several female winners of the Nobel Prize, as well as several who were passed over in favor of their male co-scientists. Also discussed are the "Lady Trimates" (Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey, and Birute Galdikos) who made the field their laboratories, living in the wild to study primates.
  
  I was often angered and saddened by the reasons why we haven't heard of so many of these scientists, either because their work was claimed by a male co-worker, or their work was "feminized" by the media (and thus declared "not science", or they simply weren't feminine enough to be considered worthy of notice. But I learned a LOT and highly recommend this book.
• 
  Mónica Mar

  La segunda parte del título es un tanto engañosa; sugiere un panorama histórico amplio y diverso, pero en realidad se reduce a la la historia «oculta» de mujeres científicas blancas estadounidenses de los siglos diecinueve y veinte.
  
  Des Jardins parte de Curie porque su éxito rotundo como mujer científica la convirtió en un modelo sin parangón: ese éxito era imposible de replicar por cualquier mujer con inclinaciones y aptitudes científicas. Y lo que debió ser un ejemplo a seguir derivó en un obstáculo, en un techo de cristal: para que una mujer pudiera ser considerada exitosa como científica debía alcanzar las mismas cotas que alcanzó Curie. Los hombres, poseedores por naturaleza —según ellos mismos, claro— de la razón y la intelectualidad puras, tenían como derecho de nacimiento la posibilidad de desempeñarse como científicos.
  
  La ciencia fue concebida como un área fundamental y exclusivamente masculina en la que las mujeres solo podían aspirar a ser meras asistentes, hacedoras en lugar de pensadoras. Es por ello que se les ponía incontables barreras: se les negaba el acceso a recursos de investigación, se les arrebataba el crédito por sus descubrimientos, se les asignaban posiciones que implicaban arduo trabajo y se les pagaba menos que a sus pares masculinos, que asumían menos labores. Las mujeres eran vistas por los científicos (la gran mayoría de ellos mediocres y mucho menos competentes) como intrusas que dislocaban sus esferas masculinas.
  
  Curie fue una figura transgresora. Su dedicación a la ciencia, dedicación que implicaba descuidar sus deberes como ama de casa y, posteriormente, como madre, era vista como una obsesión malsana. Aquella era una obsesión digna únicamente de un hombre, puesto que un hombre no tiene que cargar con la responsabilidad de llevar un hogar y criar a los hijos; para eso están las esposas. Pero Curie perseveró. Y descubrió un nuevo elemento químico. Y ganó un Nobel. Pero esto no demostró que las mujeres eran igualmente capaces de hacer ciencia, no. Esto demostró que, para hacerlo, se veían obligadas a abandonar su espacio natural: lo doméstico. Que para hacer ciencia debían «masculinizarse». Solo asumiendo una postura masculina y dejando de lado sus deberes femeninos, podía una mujer hacer ciencia equiparable a la de un hombre. Y solo un éxito arrollador garantizaba un reconocimiento como científica. Si se era menos que Curie, si se alcanzaba menos, era prueba fehaciente de que las mujeres no tenían cabida en la ciencia. Curie se convirtió entonces en un símbolo de esperanza para las mujeres científicas, pero también en un agüero de fracaso. Pocos, tanto hombres como mujeres, podían alcanzar semejantes cúspides. Pero eran las mujeres las intrusas, así que no podían darse el lujo de ser mediocres o meramente competentes. No. Debían ser extraordinarias.
  
  Des Jardins construye todo su texto alrededor de esta «masculinización» de la ciencia, en particular de las ciencias exactas como la física y la química. Escoge a un puñado de científicas que se destacaron en el panorama científico estadounidense y reconstruye sus carreras profesionales, las cuales estaban, inevitablemente, íntimamente ligadas con sus vidas personales. Después de todo, en los siglos diecinueve y veinte, la mujer no gozaba de individualidad: siempre era la hija de alguien y, mejor aún, la esposa de alguien, la madre de alguien. La propia Marie Curie, en su tour por Norteamérica para hacerse con unos gramos de radio —¡el elemento que ella descubrió!— fue a menudo descrita en función de su estatus como viuda de Pierre Curie, o como «madre de la humanidad».
  
  Lo que hace Des Jardins es una descripción minuciosa de las circunstancias que restringían o permitían el acceso a las ciencias de unas científicas —Annie Jump Cannon, Maria Goeppert Mayer, Rosalyn Sussman Yalow, Rosalind Franklin, entre otras— y las relaciones que entablaban con su entorno laboral y sus colegas, circunstancias y relaciones que, en mayor o menor medida, podían extrapolarse a la mayoría de mujeres científicas blancas en los Estados Unidos. Esta descripción es concreta y fuertemente basada en otras fuentes; Des Jardins solo se permite hacer conclusiones después de exponer todos los hechos. Su estilo es directo y sí, bastante científico. Dejando de lado el semiengaño del título, su trabajo es un registro valioso de unas épocas, unas actitudes y unas circunstancias sociales que no se han dejado del todo atrás.
• 
  Susan

  This is by far one of the most informative books I've read about the role of women in science. With a combination of biographies and philosophical insight, des Jardins narrates how science having been an all boys' game has always meant that generously extra helping of hard work for women to survive and thrive. And despite that progress has been painfully slowly over the century and even now.
  
  She splits the 20th century into three sections to group the scientists - Upto 1940 (Mme. Curie, Lillian Gilbreth, Annie Cannon & the Harvard observatory ladies); the post-war 1941-1962 years (Manhattan Project, Rosalind Franklin, Maria Mayer) and finally the 60s and onward (Evelyn Keller, Barbara McClintock, Jane Goodall & others). The list seems long but in a 300 odd pages long book, I thought she did a great job of describing these women, their backgrounds and their work doing enough justice with plenty of references. Quite a few of these women and their works were unknown to me, and so I found it particularly enjoyable to look up their stories.
  
  A highly recommended read; particularly if you like science and biographies.
• 
  Naomi

  This was one of those non-fiction books that was written in such an engaging way that I really had a hard time putting it down. The Madame Curie Complex is about the women behind the scenes of science over the past couple of centuries and the obstacles they faced in blazing trails of discovery. I found this to be inspirational at the same time as somewhat disheartening. As a woman scientist myself, I often struggle with feelings of inadequacy next to my male peers, but have to remind myself that I am just as capable. My skills and gifts allow me to approach research and just general lab management in a different way...and that's okay, even great! But in the male-dominated scientific workforce, sometimes it's difficult to see that.
  
  Des Jardins writes often about the fact that women who achieve accolades in science are usually either talked about as an amazing superwoman who can have a family AND a career, or if there's no family involved, they're considered eccentric. This is something that I find to be extremely frustrating, as successful male scientists are known as just that: successful scientists. There isn't a "wow" factor to the thought that they are also able to have a family - it's just assumed that they do, or if they don't, there's rarely talk of eccentricities.
  
  Women in science (and in other industries) have certainly come a long way, but this book just serves as a reminder of both the long road that was taken by so many unnamed women (and men!) to help gain something closer to equality in the workforce, as well as the rocky road ahead in continuing to strive for equal opportunities, pay, and recognition for equal hard work and intelligence that will come about by bringing awareness to the fact that different methods, questions, and cultural ideas can contribute to great scientific achievements.
• 
  Shannon

  Such an interesting, well-researched book. The troubling part is that many of the issues she points out which women scientists faced at the turn of the 20th century are still endemic to women scientists today.
• 
  Nicole

  I overall liked this book. It gave me a lot to think about and made me realize how little I know about women in history period and how mistreated they were for going into a "mans world." This book has made me wonder a lot about today's woman. I have chosen a more traditional world to live in and love it, but am not in the thick and thin of a "mans world." I really don't think of it as a mans world and so I wonder if in the enlightened world of 2017 if women are truly still thought of as less than men. Incapable of the "hard sciences?" Do women really still get paid less than men for a job of which both are equally qualified? My mind thinks of course not. Men obviously see, experience, and know women are just as capable. But this book makes me wonder.
• 
  Melisa

  This book was well researched and very detailed. I'd recommend it for anyone interested in women in science. I felt it dragged on a bit so much so that the point could easily be missed.
• 
  Pers

  This is written with great clarity so it's easy for a layperson to read.
• 
  Ms. Online

  MASCULINE SCIENCE SCIENCE V. MARIE CURIE
  Reviewed by: Catherine A. Traywick
  
  The persistent dearth of women scientists has been researched, contested and speculated upon in recent years, with study after study interpreting this paucity as born of bias, biology or some combination of both. But amid this understandable concern about why so few women succeed in science, another significant question is often neglected: how the few women who have succeeded managed to do so.
  
  Fortunately, a new book out by the Feminist Press may help fill that gap: The Madame Curie Complex, by historian Julie Des Jardins, challenges the prevailing notion that interest and aptitude are enough to rectify gender disparity in science. As she illustrates through a dozen or so profiles of women scientists from Marie Curie onward, when passion and genius take a woman’s shape, the male-dominated scientific community puts her in her place.
  
  It’s maddening to note that, even in the past 100 years, the breakthrough scientific work of extraordinary women has been willfully appropriated by or attributed to the men who shared their labs. Today, few people remember that the world’s most popular woman scientist, Marie Curie, was long dismissed by her contemporaries as little more than her husband’s assistant: Even her Nobel prize was contested by fellow scientists. Moreover, at roughly the same time, men astronomers at Harvard and MIT were publishing under their own names the groundbreaking research of their low-paid, less-educated women lab assistants. Decades later, molecular biologist Rosalind Franklin spent years meticulously uncovering the double helix structure of DNA, only to have her work usurped by 25-year-old James Watson, who won a Nobel prize for what was arguably her discovery.
  
  How these women, some of whom Des Jardins makes a point of describing as professionally obliging and socially passive, managed to earn worldwide acclaim against such a misogynistic backdrop is especially curious. While genius and perseverance certainly played a role, their relationships to notable men (in particular, other Nobel laureates) may have played an even larger one. Des Jardins never makes the mistake of attributing the women’s successes to men, but her careful exploration of their personal and professional relationships certainly underscores the crucial importance of male allies in their struggle for gender equality. As she demonstrates in these intimate histories, the tenacity of women–in combination with the support of a few unbiased men–has fostered leaps in women’s progress.
  
  The Madame Curie Complex only takes us into the 1970s, but more recent events reveal that science is still plagued by many of the same biases. For example, when former Harvard president Lawrence Summers opined five years ago that women’s under-representation in science could be chocked up to innate gender differences, responses to his sexist comments exposed contemporary inequities within the scientific community. Most memorable of these retorts was an essay written by neurobiologist Ben Barres, who described the sexual discrimination he experienced when he was a woman: "As an undergrad at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), I was the only person in a large class of nearly all men to solve a hard maths problem, only to be told by the professor that my boyfriend must have solved it for me… I am still disappointed about the prestigious fellowship competition I later lost to a male contemporary when I was a PhD student, even though the Harvard dean who had read both applications assured me that my application was much stronger. … Shortly after I changed sex, a faculty member was heard to say 'Ben Barres gave a great seminar today, but then his work is much better than his sister’s.'"
  
  Today, popular focus on the absence of women in science obscures the challenges still faced by women scientists operating in what Des Jardins characterizes as a needlessly and adversely masculinized field. The Madame Curie Complex reminds us that in spite of our conventional equation of science with progress, the scientific community itself has yet to achieve objectivity.
• 
  Amanda--A Scientist Reads

  I'd like for us to play a little game. When you are asked to name a female scientist, who immediately comes to mind? Was that person Marie Curie? It wasn't. Okay, was it Rosalind Franklin? .. That's what I thought.
  
  There is a halo of being the most recognized female scientist of all time, that means your name becomes the default answer to any questions about women in science. This is completely independent of actual knowledge of your life and work. I have a friend who names Curie as his favorite (female) scientist, but this same person has mentioned several times that she's French... She isn't.
  
  This book is a collection of essays about the live and work of top female scientists in a variety of fields. While the individual stories are well referenced, they become repetitive as you work your way through the book. Des Jardins does a good job making the stories engaging, but instead of separating the sections by individual, she attempts to group by topic, but then flitters between the different women involved, giving the over all book a slightly disjointed and unfocused feel.
  
  All of this taken into consideration, this is one of the best collections of stories on the life of famous women scientists and times in which these women lived. We learn more about the effect of the war, and how this push for women to enter the workplace included female scientists. We learn about the choice between marriage and a career that many had to make. If you married you were often asked to leave your position, a position you frequently fought extremely hard to get in the first place. Many of the stories also reference the need to fit in and struggle to be accepted, while constantly being damned for either not being a good mother and wife, or neglecting your science and your husband's career.
  
  Reading stories about the battles of those who came before me, makes me appreciate my position even more. I didn't have to quit my job when I got married. I share household duties with my husband, who is a neuroscientist. That isn't to stay the bias isn't still there. A female scientist on Twitter recently ranted that during the comments period of her presentation at a scientific conference, someone made a joke and pointed to a male in her lab group and said (I'm paraphrasing slightly), "Well those were some nice slides, and I'm sure we should thank [male's name] for all that complex math."
  
  Yes, these are still things we struggle with, even more than a century after Marie Curie became the first female scientist to be recognized by the greater scientific community for her contribution in physics, we often still have to defend why we are here.
• 
  AJ

  This book really resonated with me, as a PhD candidate in engineering. I'm glad that there have been plenty of women before me to pave the way, and I am always conscious that women still have a long way to go before we can live and work in science in any sort of "post-gender" context.
  
  I've read short biographies about women scientists before, but this one really gave a lot of context about the lives of many female scientists and the pervasive sexism they faced throughout the twentieth century. As the title of the book implies, the Curie Complex both helped and hindered women who attempted to emulate men in order to get by in the scientific academic world.
  
  Sadly, to this date women in science, engineering and other technology fields still feel the pressures of having to be twice as good, having male colleagues second guess us, and wondering if and when childbearing (if desired to begin with) will ever be possible. My undergraduate university had exactly zero female professors in my field of electrical engineering, and it wasn't until grad school that I had a female professor in a subject other than math. And this is in the twenty-first century after many decades of the Equal Opportunity Commission and affirmative action!
  
  While this book certainly made my blood boil reading about the injustices women faced, the author makes a good job not to paint the scientists profiled as martyrs, instead making a more subtle, grander picture of each woman as a professional and individual.
  
  I feel like this book should be required reading for all aspiring or current scientists and engineers, regardless of gender.
• 
  Mary

  Short but detailed biographies of several female scientists (including Marie Curie). What is interesting is that not only did they have the same work-life balance issues that modern women have (although most were lucky to have nannies or mothers to watch their kids/keep house while they worked in the lab) but also many did not view themselves as being "trail blazers" and were consequently not as helpful/understanding to other women in their labs as one might think they would be. While the book was well-researched (with many footnotes listed), the text was unfortunately dry and repetitious in parts.
• 
  Jessica

  I originally picked up this book because as a woman who earned a science degree I was always fascinated in school that we rarely heard about women's contributions to science, with Marie Curie as the obvious exception, and I had hoped to learn more about that contribution. To that end, the book met my expectations. However, the writing was incredibly dry and I felt like in many ways I was reading the same story over and over. I'd say this was definitely an interesting topic but I don't think the book was as engaging as it could have been.
• 
  Thera

  some real issues with weird creeping sexism in the writer's interpretation of things (like casually praising women who made do with their pay and roles in labs, but referring a lady who insisted on equal pay for equal work as "carping") and some statements were directly contradicted pages later. i didn't think it was too dry, but i did think it was trying hard to not be too dry, which is worse. hard to get through for me, which was a bummer since i love feminist readings of history, and generally science histories.
• 
  Anya

  I was very interested in learning about female scientists of the past that weren't in my history lessons. This book succeeded in teaching me about the life and accomplishments of some of them in addition to the sexist barriers they had to contend with. It was a bit repetitive and preaching at times, while sending off warning signals at other times. Particularly I was annoyed with the frequent use of "woman scientist" instead of female scientist, it sounds like they were studying women instead of just being women.
• 
  Brooke

  This was a really good feminist view of famous female scientists through the ages. Julie Des Jardins writes about the lives of these scientists not to sensationalise, but to allow readers to understand how they fit into feminist ideology and what we can learn from their life and their science. I learnt a lot about these scientists and felt inspired to continue my own studies. I also found a lot of books to put on my to-read list thanks to her incredibly well-cited chapters and her own book recommendations.
  If you are interested in science and feminism, this is a must read!
• 
  Jennifer

  This is an interesting history of women in science. Everyone has heard of Marie Curie but many other women have made contributions to various science fields. In the early years, many women could only work in science with their husbands and were shut out after their husbands died. Later women could work in labs but men took credit for their research. The essays were informative but contained just enough personal stories and quotes to keep them entertaining as well.
• 
  Marya

  The story of women's contributions to science is interesting, especially when the author puts it into a cultural context. Yet, the writing style made it read like a dissertation. Many points were reiterated and you almost felt the checklist of famous scientists, famous scientist's wives, and those few female scientists who were famous in their own right being summarily checked off. Not light or engaging reading.
• 
  Erin

  I really enjoyed this book. The topic is fascinating, and it was well-researched, well-written and engaging. A small thing not related to the content, but this book has an atypical ratio of width to height. It's about 1/2" wider than a typical paperback the same height, which means it stays open on a desk without heroic assistance. So very convenient when writing!
• 
  Phil Saroyan

  Well soughtout and researched novel on the lives of modern women in the field of science. Definitely a good resource book and barometer of our 'glass ceiling' in America. Mme. Des Jardins gives a didactic account of the very real stigmatism towards women in the field of hard sciences while providing very fascinating stories of notable women.