Dear C. Brown:
I am a retired (81 years old) professor who is not retired from the women's
rights movement and is still active in AWIS (Association for Women in
Science). Your statement that what she does is less important than how she
looks is true and I have not yet found a way to reverse that importance.
Her face and features, her physical shape make a difference in the extent
to which obstacles confront her. That is, if she is "average" in physical
attraction, what she does may in the long run count more. But if she is
beautiful, what she does matters far less. And if she is not well endowed
physically, her looks are a hindrance. However, there are exceptions: I
met Rosalind Yalou many years ago. Even as a young woman, long before she
won a Nobel Prize, she was unattractive and age and fame did not improve
her appearance. Another person who achieved fame without being attractive
is Betty Friedan. My conclusion is that a realist makes the most she can
of her appearance and then forgets about it. An enthusiastic,
well-groomed, self-assured girl will make others appreciate what she does
even if she is plain-looking and overweight. Among my friends and former
colleagues, I knew many such. The challenge is to convince the young girls
that what they do, matters. Good luck. Sincerely, Anne Briscoe
DrAnnieB@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 02 2000 - 15:07:54 EST