Overall, it's an interesting, highly informative piece. But I have one gripe:
Although Emma Darwin was most likely referred to as Mrs. Charles Darwin during her time, haven't we evolved since then? Today she would be Ms. Emma Darwin (or even Ms. Emma . . . and whatever her maiden name was). I think readers could have just as easily guessed who NPR was talking about if the article had been, "Ms. Emma Darwin's Advice For Walking Upright." Also, if we're going to click on her body parts, shouldn't we know just a smidgen (ha, funny word) more about her--like that she enjoyed outdoor sports (and was especially good at archery), was a pianist, and birthed 10 children?
I know the article is about Darwin's evolutionary theory, but NPR could have easily fit those few facts about Emma into one sentence without taking anything away from the main piece. In fact, all the inclusion would have done would be to enlighten readers a bit about Ms. Darwin.
I am sure plenty of people would roll their eyes at me (stop being a nit-picky feminist!), but I'm just saying . . . Although social evolution happens in a second compared to physical evolution (and with different processes), why not recognize both? Just because Emma's society saw her as belonging to her husband (hence the "Mrs. Charles Darwin") doesn't mean we have to. Especially since her husband's work no doubt helped break some of that (often faith-based) ownership.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.