Every time I read some one saying that Jane is ‘too girly’ to be a scientist, well first off say hello to my good friend androcentrism, secondly I’d like to remind you all that Natalie Portman is a Psychology graduate. She gained this degree from Harvard. Whilst pursuing an acting career (in the Star Wars prequels!), where she had to look pretty like ALL THE TIME. This was on top of also studying four languages and completing some undergraduate courses.
So, you know, being pretty doesn’t make you stupid, or incapable of science. It’s not like make up and good hair renders you immune to deductive reasoning or hard sums.
From her wikipedia article:
"As a student, Portman co-authored two research papers that were published in scientific journals. Her 1998 high school paper, “A Simple Method to Demonstrate the Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen from Sugar,” co-authored with scientists Ian Hurley and Jonathan Woodward, was entered in the Intel Science Talent Search. In 2002, she contributed to a study on memory called “Frontal Lobe Activation during Object Permanence: Data from Near-Infrared Spectroscopy” during her psychology studies at Harvard”.
You’re willing to buy a Norse god smacking the shit out of things with a magic hammer and being able to travel between different realms by means of a sparkly rainbow bridge - but a conventionally attractive female scientist?! THAT’S STRETCHING CREDIBILITY TOO FAR GOOD SIR!
Also,don’t try to tell me that psychology is a ‘soft’ science, I should know my Dad teaches it.
Fuck you and the horse you rode in on is what I’m saying.
#Natalie Portman#woman of science#androcentrism