Saturday, May 14, 2005

Get Back in the Bus, Woman, and Make Me a Souffle!

Not to keep harping on Professor Bainbridge, but On Firm Ground points me to another interesting factoid about his little list: the only woman he thinks "definitely" deserves to be on it (assuming his "glaring omissions" are his "definites") is Julia Childs. Because what makes an American woman great? If she can cook, of course.

Reviewing the list again, I see that he has Rosa Parks as a "definitely not." Julia Childs yes, Rosa Parks no, Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt maybe?

Right.

UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge thinks my whole motivation for knocking Julia Childs is "political correctness." I'll admit that, being a college student, my knowledge of good food is limited to "it's not in the Dining Hall." And hey, maybe Childs should indeed be on the list. I'm just saying that it is pretty skewed priorities to place a woman's contributions to the culinary arts over those who were critical to racial equality, woman's suffrage, and woman's equality, respectively.

See my other update here.

6 comments:

Lawgirl said...

I also note that BOTH of your trackbacks to his site got posted, including the one that references my blog - but my original trackback to his site is nowhere to be found.

I guess I better get into the kitchen and start cooking!!

(I hope he knows I'm just kidding around - I'm not bitter- really).

N.S.T said...

You got a problem with Julia Childs? You wanna mess? Julia Childs WAS a great American, and she gets extra points here for being an important figure in more than one respect. There's the food thing, of course, but there's also the instrumental role played in popularizing public television. Rosa Parks is famous for one thing, and that fame and significance is mainly symbolic. So while her actions were commendable and still should be commended, I don't know if she is in the realm of true greatness. That leaves Susan B. Anthony and Eleanor Roosevelt. Susan B. Anthony gets major points taken away for having been a part of early temperance movements, and for not being the single most important figure in her movement(shared the spotlight with Cady Stanton and a few others). Eleanor Roosevelt gets points off for marrying her fifth cousin. Marital status aside, she never did anything that truly stands out as seminal to American history(I'll of course, have to defend that statement against a lot of yelling, but no matter). While Julia Childs' name brings to mind a clear image, a clear purpose, a clear notion of historical importance, Roosevelt's name does not.

David Schraub said...

"Popularizing public television"? That should dock her so many points, she should never see quintiple digits on one of these lists.

Susan B. Anthony "shared the spotlight". So she wasn't an egomaniac, horrors on horrors. And the temperance movement, well, I oppose it, but is it really more disqualifying than "supported brutal dictators who hacked the limbs off civilians"? I don't think so.

Parks, in addition to her "one thing," also has been a famous lecturer and speaker on civil rights. So her "symbolism," if you will, extends well beyond that one act.

Eleanor Roosevelt, in addition to serving as a role model for millions of women, played a pivotal role in her husband's white house. Oh yeah, she was also the US' first ambassador to the UN, and the first chair of the Human Rights Panel.

I cannot believe you're actually defending Childs over Parks. That's delusional even for you.

N.S.T said...

Yes, eleanor roosevelt was the first US ambassador to the UN. And what a great governing body it has proved. The only valid reason for putting Roosevelt on the list would be the marian Anderson thing, and I'm not sure that's a big enough event in American history-- great as it was-- to qualify her. I'm not sure where you're going with Susan B. Anthony. And I don't see why you're knocking Childs.

Cathie said...

I think nst should tell all of those people who have received food or education from UN sponsored programs what he thinks about the UN. Problem with the UN haters is that they can only see the negatives. Yes, when you have six billion people in the world to represent, you are going to have problems, especially when your troops aren't allowed to engage in battle when they need to defend people. But those same people who are criticizing the UN for its ineffectiveness are the same ones that advocate the US' limited role in the organization and support the appointment of self-avowed UN haters as its ambassador.

In addition, Eleanor was a role model for women at a time when they were losing their husbands during the war. In this day and age, some of us don't know what a real leader is, but she certainly was one.

I agree with Jackie Robinson. #42 belongs in the American record books.

N.S.T said...

It's kinda hard to accentuate the positive with the UN when they spend, no-joke, 75% of their energy and time officially bashing Jews.