I recently had someone write me regarding my views on women, and she cited Ada Lovelace as an example of a woman who had contributed to science in some way. I of course replied to her comments (my response is posted down below), but I decided to make a caption for her enjoyment as well :).
"Ada Lovelace you say huh? Hmmm… interesting choice. So she recognized a simple algorithm on a machine that was essentially an overgrown abacus… I am not particularly impressed. And let’s look at the historical record for a moment: how did she come to develop this algorithm exactly?
Oh, that’s right: by translating the work of a male mathematician (this I actually had to look up; as he is never credited in the history books), Luigi Menabrea. So yeah, she was basically a glorified secretary that translated a man’s work, recognized the significance of his writings, and then applied some of his principles, ideas, and theories to Charles Babbage’s Analytical Engine.
My only real question is: if she had been a male do you think her work would be deserving of anything more than a footnote, or is it simply because she was a woman that her contribution is deemed worthy of any sort of acclaim and remembrance?
Personally if I were in your shoes, I would have gone with RDML Grace Hopper instead. She is a much more influential figure in the field of computer science; as her work still has some degree of practical impact, albeit tangentially, on modern programming and language\compiler design.
Ada Lovelace on the other hand (at least in my opinion): is nothing more than an overrated historical figure whose minor contribution to the development of computers is glorified beyond its merits simply so it can bandied about by supporters of the pro-feminist agenda.”
Dio cosa ti farei!
Ok te lo apro subito!