1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

she blinded me with science

That Time Some Chauvinists Rejected Marie Curie’s Application to the French Academy of Sciences

by Jamie Frevele | 11:51 am, January 23rd

Share on Tumblr

It’s probably hard to believe that a two-time Nobel Prize winner for her work in both physics and chemistry, a person who discovered and created the word “radioactivity,” was rejected for membership by the French Academy of Sciences on this date in 1911. We are talking about the one and only Marie Skłodowska-Curie, pioneer for not just women in science, but in the field of radioactivity. And when she applied for membership, she was rejected by a margin of two votes — because she was Polish, maybe-Jewish (not that it matters, but she wasn’t), and a woman. Yup. Marie Curie — rejected by the French Academy of Sciences for having a vagina. If they weren’t already dead, they’d probably be kicking themselves in the most French way imaginable.

Let’s review what Curie had achieved leading up to her application in 1911:

Discovered the new elements polonium (named after her native country, Poland) and radium.

One Nobel Prize for Physics in 1903 (shared with her husband, Pierre Curie) for isolating radium. She was the first female winner of the prize.

Head of the physics laboratory in Sorbonne.

Obtained a doctorate in science and a professorship at the Faculty of Sciences (the first woman to do so).

Seemed like a lock, doesn’t it? But alas, the men in charge of accepting her application for membership into the French Academy of Sciences were not interested in having a woman as a peer. As Academy member Emile Hilaire Amagat put it, “Women cannot be part of the Institute of France.” (Which is adorable, considering his name looks so much like “Emily Hilary.”) Instead, they inducted radio pioneer Edouard Branly, because the French were really annoyed by another popular and successful Italian radio guy you may have heard of: Guglielmo Marconi. But mostly, Branly was a devout Catholic with the endorsement of the Pope himself. And also a dude.

While the religious factor is dirty enough by itself, the possibility of Curie being Jewish as an excuse for not accepting her application sounds like just that — an excuse. (In fact, her mother was also Catholic and her father was not religious at all.)

As Wired notes, this snub by the Academy did not go over well with everyone in France; the progressive press stood up for Curie, putting a spotlight on the sexist, bigoted decision. However, it being 1911 and all, there was plenty of conservative support for Branly (and opposition to Curie) that the decision stood.

So in response, Curie did what any of us would have done — she threw herself into her work on radioactivity and won a second Nobel Prize for Chemistry later that same year. (This one was all hers.) That made her the only person to date — let alone the first woman — to have been recognized for her achievements in more than one field of science.

Curie was never inducted into the French Academy of Sciences, and it took them until 1962 to finally induct a woman — Marguerite Perey, a French physicist who discovered the element francium, and a student of none other than Marie Curie.

(via Wired)

TAGS: | | | | | | |


  • http://twitter.com/Super_Widget Joanna

    She rocks my socks.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_R7GVNIKWG3S2UTHEQOMSZXT4M4 Anna B

    This is not really surprising to me, given the era.  If this had happened *now*, I’d be shocked.

    Which is to say, Madame Curie is ten times as awesome for what she’d accomplished.

  • Happily LS

    They had some things right. While women should be able to participate in most professions that men do, they should not be able to be judges or prosecutors, because women have no understanding of violence, and no understanding that enforcing a law means sending men with guns after a person, to kill them if they resist. The exception is former female police officers or members of the military, who do (or should) have an understanding of violence.

  • Anonymous

    I dare you to tell that to Israeli Female soldiers….  I double dog double DARE you…
    That and women who hit their husbands.  What’s that you say?  Women hit their husbands?  Women have as much understanding of violence as us men…  They’re as violent as we are. Don’t kid yourself.

  • Anonymous

    What did I just read, I don’t even…

  • Carmen Sandiego

    I smell a troll.

  • https://twitter.com/ZenPoseur ZenPoseur

    I encourage you to explain this to every woman you meet.  There’s no risk to you, since women don’t understand violence.

  • Happily LS

    Like I said, the exception is female police officers or soldiers, because they have an understanding of what violence means. Most women don’t.

    We raise them to believe the world exists to protect them and care for them. It’s Candyland. Just marry someone and divorce them for half of their money. Fine, but you can’t have it both ways. Women with no experience in it should not be able to give orders to have violence carried out on their behalf.

    And any woman who tries needs to be taught what violence is firsthand.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, of course, and all boys are born grim-faced and ready to skin little animals to survive the harsh wilderness. Soon they are taught that it’s a dog-eat-dog world and strong fists are the only way to protect the womenfolk, who are in the meantime busy looking pretty, smelling nice and not understanding violence. You’re absolutely right.

  • Anonymous

    Oh, MRA troll in the house.

    People, please don’t give funnyface up here the satisfaction of any more responses.

  • Anonymous

    Hahahahahah!! You’ve clearly NEVER met a woman before.