Hedy Lamarr:Silly Bimbo? Or Inventor? Nobody Answers Elder George
Nobody Answers: Last week I promised to get back to Elder George on whether Hedy Lamarr, actually should get any credit for inventing anything besides thinking up a name to replace her real one, which was, Hedwig Eva Maria Kiesler.
And before I start, I must admit my egregious error in calling Hedy a “blond” bimbo. She was no such thing. She was, as Elder George remembered her perfectly, a stunning raven-haired beauty. A beauty who said, “Any girl can be glamorous, all you have to do it stand still and look stupid.”
Well, easy for her to say. I stand still and look stupid all the time, it doesn't make me glamorous.
Last week, my “genius” friend, Jack Lander, who himself has 11 patents, is an established engineer, and actually works with inventors in developing their products, got back to me.
Jack goes around the country and sets up whole factories, and designs the machines in them. Trust me, Jack knows his stuff.
He also has been writing for Inventor’s Digest as their technical advisor for years.
Because he is a “man” and therefore might beg more credence with Elder George than anything I might say, I quote him here:
*******
“Yes, as far as we know, Hedy did invent a radio-control device for torpedoes. Her husband at the time was a manufacturer of torpedoes, and one of the problems was that those that were radio controlled could be driven off course by transmitters on the target ship. It was easy to locate the control frequency, and then send a counter signal, etc. (not the composer)
Hedy came up with the idea of using a second frequency, quite low, maybe even in the sound range, to alter the torpedo’s radio frequency. The second frequency was a synchronized between the transmitter and the receiver on the torpedo. Essentially, it was frequency modulation—a kind of vibrato that caused the radio frequency to wander all over the place, but in perfect sync between transmitter and receiver.
I doubt Hedy worked out the exact circuitry. (As do I.) She most likely invented the concept, and had an electronics specialist work out the tuning mechanism. But she deserves the lion’s share of the credit because one requirement for a patent is that the device not be obvious to anyone skilled in the art. Once the technician had a definition of what Hedy wanted, the rest is routine (obvious to one skilled in the art of making radio transmitters and receivers). But the concept of a synchronized wandering radio frequency was not obvious to the technicians and engineers or they would have thought of it first.
Lots of women are excellent inventors, and it’s only that they’ve come to accept the myth of male superiority in the area of inventing that holds them back.
I recently read an account of how tryouts used to be done for musicians to be hired for symphony orchestras. Inevitably the men were picked, and only if no men were available might a woman have a chance. Then, an orchestra was looking for a cello player, I believe, and the directors’ daughter was such a player. To make sure that there was no favoritism shown, they had the players play behind a screen. And the young woman was chosen over a number of men. This was a revelation, and certain orchestras began using it (grudgingly) for all tryouts. Today, there is little prejudice in the selection of such musicians, and we see a good mix of men and woman—young and old—white, black and Asian.
There was a time when women couldn’t own property. Apparently intellectual property was included. A woman who invented something traditionally surrendered it to her husband to patent as the inventor. One such woman invented a feather duster, which was challenged in court. When her husband had to testify about the invention, he fell on his butt, and it came out that it was his wife’s invention.
Finally, one of our “great American heroes,” Eli Whitney, didn’t invent the cotton gin engine at all. He went to work as a tutor for the kids of a Civil War general who died in action. The wife invented the cotton gin, and showed it to Whitney, who eventually fraudulently patented it.”
*******
There you go. Jack presents us with some very interesting facts.
Nevertheless, in agreement with EG, history reports that not many women ever did anything worth of reporting, at least in inventions.
But, could it be that history was mostly written by men? (Yes.)
We will never know just how many women thought up great ideas, only to have them made by their husbands. Certainly, the record would report at least a few more “ideas” from women than we know.
That’s why it’s so important for all the fathers out there to encourage any daughter that has a proclivity that seems to aim toward a “manly” subject, I say—give her a chance.
So, Mr. Elder: If a man had thought of this idea…would he be given the fame for the concept, even if he had to hire an engineer to work out his designs in his head?
That’s what all inventors do. They come up with stuff that no one has thought of before, (not obvious to one skilled in the art) and if they do not have the “mechanical” expertise to make it, they hire a prototype maker, and explain the concept in drawings. Even Bill Gates did not “build” his many concepts.
The main point as Jack points out, is that no one else had thought of the idea…but Hedy did.
Most artists and creative people will tell you that sometimes, ideas just seem to come out of space….and these “ideas” do not care if you are a man or women.
So Mr. George…I said I’d get back to you…what do you think?
I would also like to thank Jack Lander for taking the time to give me his expert “opinion.”
Nobody’s Perfect: Hedy was married six times. She said in response to her bad record: “I must quit marrying men who feel inferior to me. Somewhere there must be a man who could be my husband and not feel inferior. I need a superior inferior man.” (Amfortas, where were you?)
Nobody Knows; Jack Lander not only has talent in the field of inventing, he has just written a fabulous book called “Not in This Desert.” It’s not in the stores…YET…but it really is an outstanding first novel. I’ll let you know when it comes out. I’ve had a peek at it…lucky me.
Nobody Cares; Because I had a mother who ran a printing company, with thirty employees underneath her…and she could do every job in the plant but lift the paper to feed into the press…
And because I, her daughter, worked in over forty bands, (As a drummer) which consisted of all male musicians…and they always hired me because I was usually the best out of the pick of tryouts…
It’s very hard for me not to believe that women cannot compete with men. (In some jobs of course.)
And that’s why I agree with Jack—Hedy Lamarr was the sole inventor of the idea.
And that’s why she gets the credit, by most all the experts. If the men at Boeing thought she was pretty smart, then who is this nobody to argue?
I am a nobody. If the different classes of America were color-coded, I would be in your yucky brown, one rink up from the bottom. I grew up in Naples, Florida and live near the Mississippi River now with my husband and two dogs. I am part of the slowly disappearing middle-class. I was a musician most of my life;drummer/singer/keyboards---but I retired before the plastic surgery flu hit. I have no degrees, which could be a good thing...depending on how you view our educational system. I do have three patents...but that really doesn't make me a somebody. The one thing that is constant in my life is my OPINIONS...which I have more of than perhaps even Carl Sagan could have imagined, mostly political. Hopefully other nobodys will put their opinions on my site. But if you are a sombody...you're more than welcomed to help out. I will try to prove that sometimes nobody knows the answers, sometimes nobody cares, sometimes nobody wins, and most importantly...NOBODY is perfect. Please bear this in mind when you read my thoughts. I don't mean to offend nobody, it's all in good fun. | More from Joyanna Adams
Stumble It!
July 11th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
MMX says: “Not only that, but how much potential benefit rests within each particular respondant’s approach? Yours, mine, amfortas’, Mike LaSalle, and Elder all have different potentials. And, if you’re serious about the cause, you have to properly grade the potentials.”
Right. But go further. We must develop and USE all the different potentials in the service of the ’cause’ if success is to be achieved.
I have always struggled with the ‘urge’ in some MRA’s to make women the enemy instead of Feminism. Man=Good. Women =Bad. A simple reversal of a feminist lie.
EG would be the first – I imagine – to understand the ‘point’ that it is the effects of the concept of Feminism that is the root of the problems we face and not the nature of masculinity and femininity. So why are we getting bogged down?
I am all in favour of understanding and developing the potentials of both masculinity and femininity, and yes, grading them BOTH is an essential component of the plan.
Sure there are many deficit points that will need a lot of work if they are to be reversed or eradicated. But the natures of men and women are complementary and any advance in human society, perhaps even human evolution, requires honouring both the masculine and the feminine. Not imprisoning them.
The constant carping and criticising, marginalising and denying that is going on in this thread and some other one comes across, is destructive.
We men need women. Women need men. I am not anti-MRA when I say that women have a great contribution to make to the MRM. Yet what do we see? Constant tripping up. Constant catching-out.
I am not averse to subjecting people’s motives and actions to scrutiny and even calling them to the drum-head from time to time to explain themselves. But when a good person, one who is effective at highlighting issues fairly – and even with humour – like Joyanna is made to walk the plank I say hold on there. I don’t want EG to walk the plank either. His ability to highlight issues is worthy and valuable.
The issue of ‘invention’ is a furphy. (Oz slang for fake). It is a distraction. EG makes the point, which even I have conceded, that men have been inventive, seemingly mush moreso than women. But it is not shown anywhere that this is a function of masculine/feminine difference. So why labour that point.
I urge EG to stop being a plank, to walk or otherwise, and be a table instead. One we can sit around rather than whack one another with or be made to walk out over the water on.
Where do the inventive ideas that people have, come from? Discovering that is a much more worthwhile pursuit. A pursuit more likely to produce results.
Where does insight arise and how? It seems to me to be an aspect of human mind as opposed to any other animal. Why? Is is due to the architecture of human brains? Or is it confined to only 50% of human brains? That seems to be EG’s thesis but for the life of me I don’t see the evidence and he promoteds a path down which we wander only to get bogged down in demeaning the other 50% of humans.
Just because feminists think that only women have worth and men are worthless, we should not go down the destructive opposite path. We are so busy lauding faux-masculinity that we do not see the point that there are several alternative roads to take. A Squadron of MRA tanks can travel some of them but others will only allow footsore individuals in single file.
July 11th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
KateM – I “get” your points but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of them.”
KM- Why would any man ever wish to say “I Do..” … in marriage… to you?
You represent every trivially inconsequential female “attribute” that men have rejected, and have realized that they do not need.
Thank you.
I could write more.
But you are the exemplary metaphor for why young men should never marry.
I’m sure you are “an exception to the rule…”
Go girrrrrrllll!!!!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
KateM — “This one by Joyanna and Elder George’s recent posts are interesting and thought provoking. I am curious to see how they might benefit “the cause”.”
Not only that, but how much potential benefit rests within each particular respondant’s approach? Yours, mine, amfortas’, Mike LaSalle, and Elder all have different potentials. And, if you’re serious about the cause, you have to properly grade the potentials.
July 9th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
kate…I think E.G and a few others are simply counter-attacking after 40 years of vile, feminist demagoguery that has thrown America into chaos…
July 9th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
I agree with you, Scottkirk. And as someone who can see what is happening to boys, men, and fathers I also can see that entitled women, (and current laws that completely favor women as well as countless double standards), negatively affect me too. (Thinking long-term of course but I am certainly knee-jerk viewed differently because of them.)
This one by Joyanna and Elder George’s recent posts are interesting and thought provoking. I am curious to see how they might benefit “the cause”.
July 9th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Unmarried women could always own property—and voted when that right was tied to property ownership—but whatever she had would essentially come under the husband’s control if she married. Only if she were illiterate or deemed too ignorant due to lack of education—which wasn’t rare—would she have an imposed guardian if she wanted to enter into a contract.
July 9th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
kate…
“…until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property, (including patents), or entering into legal agreements in their own names.”
women were treated as children during that time period..
A man would go to jail for his wifes crimes in that time period..
You see the problem men are having with this situation is women want it both ways..and in effect want it all!!!
In some ways they want to be treated like children (not held fully accounteable under the law)…. well documented!!!!
and in other ways want to be treated as adults in the work place..(but still want to be treated as children )..
If they would make up their minds society would treat them any way they want…just not both ways at the same time..
By receiveing the rights without the responseability…white middle class women have become the most liberated group in terms of health, wealth, leasure time, and general life options that the world has ever seen!!!
July 9th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Conservativation,
To your #52, yes, I read the thread and my original comment was in response to it and some of the comments. And as mentioned previously, “…until the late 1800s laws forbade women in most states from owning property, (including patents), or entering into legal agreements in their own names.”
DaPoet,
A woman, not a man as you said in your comment #22, invented the washing machine. (Margaret Colvin in 1871.)
MMX,
Gender score-keeping is significant to the article and thread.
From your comment #33,
“But you’ll be interested to know that, of the inventions attributed to INDIVIDUALS, about 19 were developed by MEN, and only ONE was invented by a woman.
So, there you have it. Before feminism, 95% of inventions were credited to men. Yet after feminism…what’s 19 divided by 20? 95%, of course.”
Please recall your comment #42 as well.
BTW, you did not credit Elder George for use of “PICTURE” and “POINT”.
Elder George,
I “get” your points but that doesn’t mean I agree with all of them.
Scottkirk,
Both my sisters are stay at home moms. (One of them has a business as well, which she successfully runs from home but her children and family are most certainly her priority.) I respect their choice, actually the choices they each made with their husbands, and think they have made wonderful decisions for their families.
July 9th, 2007 at 6:46 am
kate….John W. Reed invented the rolling pin in 1864, Amfortes. But given the date attributed, that could mean that his wife actually invented it…
Kate its women like you that are forceing women into roles and expectations that are not their own, and suicide, depression ect. ect. naturally fallow..
Are You the type of women who make other women feel guilty as stay at home moms??
July 9th, 2007 at 4:42 am
To KateM,
MMX stayed up later than I did but he gave you essentially the same answer that I would have. I hope that you don’t lose the equanimity that you exhibit as things heat up.
Women are designed to bring life into this world and nurture it. Men are designed to provide the environment and means for that function to take place. Our attributes are opposites—that’s why we need each other. Research is not required—understanding is.
Western society is drowning in research but is bereft of understanding. Understanding is conceptual. Get the point?
July 8th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
KateM — You simply don’t get it. The NEED for gender score-keeping with regard to inventions is silly. (That’s the PICTURE.) But the pursuit of understanding the masculine and feminine influences, whether positive or negative, on the inventive process is crucial. (That’s the POINT.)
Think small; get small. If you focus on the PICTURE, at the expense of the POINT, you lose a lot.
Think big; get big. If you focus on the POINT, at the “expense” of the PICTURE, you gain a lot. (”Expense” is in quotes, because the cost of ignoring the PICTURE is offending some small-minded individuals, which, in a grand scale, isn’t much of a cost.)
July 8th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
And Kate..
I promise that I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in whatever appraisal you may deliver…
As a faux- “originator of concepts…”
You go grilllllllllll!!!!!!!!!!!!.
. (period)
July 8th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK2yqVqHCpY&mode=related&search=
If you want to see what this silly debate is about, go to YouTube.com and search Hedy Lamarr.
Try not to weep when you realize what women used to be like…..
July 8th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Elder George,
Yet we do not know, (see Artfldgr comment above), whether the ideas were the original thoughts of the women with regard to those two patents I sited.
I do understand your point and have been/am considering it. It is an interesting debate whether or not women can be the originator of concepts. From what I read, I think yes but I’m looking for more reference/support of that. I promise to keep you apprised.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Concerning my post #67, the relevance to this thread is that both genders can improve their thinking using the same techniques. Though men and women will still have their differences in how they think, we also have a lot in common.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Those interested in the process of invention and thinking — which seems to include everyone on this thread — will enjoy books by Edward de Bono. He is probably the world’s foremost authority on the subject. I’ve read several of them and I thought most were excellent. No need to spend a dime because they should be in your public library. For a description of some of the titles see this link:
http://www.edwdebono.com/debono/booksi.htm
His books show how to develop thinking skills (i.e. habits and practices) that can be used to solve a wide variety of problems in all areas of life: technical, business, social, etc. The ones I like are “Lateral Thinking”, “Simplicity”, “The Book of Wisdom” and “The Six Thinking Hats”.
Best of all, his methods work for both men and women. And even children.
July 8th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
Thanks for that KateM. Since its invention, by JWR or his missus, there have been many inventive ‘not-for-purpose’ uses made of it, usually by mothers-in-law and wives. Perhaps a few here need to feel its extra-purpose effects.
July 8th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
What is truly missing here is the respect for the sparc of invention. Forget whether its a male or a female, thats just accounting. However one thing here is terribly clear, people think that solutions at the time AND place of conception are not something special and valuable.
i am right now in a pickle over a search circuit that would really improve search speeds by huge amounts. the circuit is actually quite simple. however, no one is using it, or incorporating it, etc.
here is what a man who helps inventors wrote back to me, when i was worried that what i have will be taken by whom i could show it to (and have shown it to):
People don’t respect ideas until they are patented, and they have a way of
twisting things around until the idea is a minor input, and their
exploitation of the idea is what deserves all of the credit. Intellectual
corruption.
yes several people can have an idea, and there is most assurdly a first person. but its the first person who writes it down, and knows it can work. they do not need to know how to build the circuit, they can describe the principal that would create the specs for that item.
in my case, i cant make a fab, or open a chip factory. i dont have the resources to by the items in flip chip and assemble them into a pseudo asic… nor do i have the talent to create ultra high speed circuits, as microwave and faster acts very different than slower speeds.
however, i can block diagram the solution, and all the functional parts, and work out the timing constraints and such… ALL of which come NATURALLY from that initial spark.
to make it easier to see. the whole nano industry was started by one scientific paper by a physicist who may be one of the greatest unsung heroes of our age. richard feynman. bout the most most people know if they know at all (other than his fans), is that he worked on the manhatten project, got a nobel for feynman diagrams, was the one that figured out the o ring problem of the shuttlecraft, and he wrote a paper that put the world in perspective. the paper was titled “plenty of room at the bottom”, and the whole nano industry and billions and such going into and things coming out started with one idea and one paper. it could have started 10 years earlier… after all, not much in the paper except noticing the scale and proportion of things and of how much room there was to work with.
if one would deny hedy her idea, then one must deny feynmans as well.
after all… feynman died, and never really got to see much of anything towards the idea… so he cant be credited with actually building things towards a solution.
and hedy, she didnt build the final products either. but she not only was a person who thought of it in the company of someone that knew the technology, but a man who was fair and honest and credited her with the germination of a solution that potentially made a large difference in the war effort.
you would also have to deny the honesty of her husband, as well as the fact that he didnt think that “just having an idea” was not important. obviously he thought differently than those here who think that the idea is nothing (individual), in favor of the people who make it work (the group).
the creation of an invention always starts with one person. the reason that many people end up on the list of that invention is that in order to make it work a bevy of other inventions became possible… so often its the first in a string of items that originally were started by that thought.
i like to think that michealangelo thought so too when he painted the sistine chapel.
July 8th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
scottkirk,
I agree that the ritalin and prosack craze ia s a disaster.
July 8th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
thurston861 – you are banned from this thread.
July 8th, 2007 at 8:51 pm
John W. Reed invented the rolling pin in 1864, Amfortes. But given the date attributed, that could mean that his wife actually invented it…
July 8th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
Mike…
I) The first comment I made that you unreasonably deleted was neither angry nor provocative…
2) In that comment I simply pointed out why Joyanna was and her premise were both faulty and outright wrong…
3) Unable to refute my argument you resorted to the very same tactic that feminists use when they cannot logically refute their challenger and that MRA’s, and indeed, Glenn Sacks has complained about recently in another blog which was to delete my comment…
4) That is not the way to go about making friends or reaching the men you need to reach to build a solid foundation of support for the Men’s movement…However it is the perfect way to make enemies out of those men like myself ( who btw are still married and have a clear understanding about what is going on) and to polish the perception that the feminists have of MND and the Men’s Movement in general of being composed of mainly divorced, bitter and abusive men…
July 8th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Someone said: “Mike only tyrannts delete arguments that they cannot refute and in the real world they murder those who dare to oppse them…”
To which Mike said: “…I am officially tired of insults and invective. … You don’t like my bar, go down the street three blocks and turn left.”
There has to be a standard of civility, and though it’s a thankless task, someone has to enforce it. Calling someone a tyrant and a murderer, though I’m sure it was not meant to be taken seriously, is not necessary or constructive.
Thanks Mike. I love your site. Thanks for using some masculine leadership and starting it!
And I’m learning from *all* the commenters on this thread, so thanks to all.
July 8th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
I’d like to get my hands on the bastard who invented the rolling pin. Was it a man or a woman?
July 8th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
kate…
About 20% of all inventors are currently female and that number should quickly rise to 50% over the next generation.”
keep feeding our boys ritalin and prosack, and you got a good shot at 50%…
we are facing disaster as a nation by strenghtening the weak by weakening the strong!!!
July 8th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
To Kate M,
My question was for a conceptual invention done on her own. Both of the patents you ascribe to women were co-patents with men. I ‘m not having my statements redirected to something else. Joyanna could not find one, nor have you at this moment. I looked up your reference and can easily challenge it. That is not my intent. Name me one conceptual invention created by a woman. I’m not saying you won’t find one, but it will be a hard search.
I’ll be addressing this issue in my own article tomaorrow.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
DaPoet: That’s rot. You are provoking the very response you are condemning.
Additionally, I am officially tired of insults and invective. Your comments are angry and provocative.
You don’t like my bar, go down the street three blocks and turn left.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Mike only tyrannts delete arguments that they cannot refute and in the real world they murder those who dare to oppse them…
July 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Mike LaSalle — “EG challenged Joyanna to “name on conceptual invention made by a woman.” Joyanna rose to the challenge, and provided an detailed explication that answered the challenge.”
But the fact that the challenge was so CHALLENGING proved my interpretation of Elder’s major point — which I explained in my #50.
If he said, “Name me ONE!” and Joyanna cited 10,000 then Elder would’ve looked stupid. But Joyanna gave him ONE, and had to work her butt off to do it.
Do you understand, or do you think it’s irrelevant?
July 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Mike thay may have lost this argument, but this argument was created by those living in the side bars. I agree the argument “women cannot invent” is lost before it starts. That wasn’t the point.
July 8th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
KateM, no one said women cannot invent, but thanks for the information. Did you read the original thread that precipitated this?
There is a small problem with what you say though. Regardless who legally can apply for a patent, that is a formality. If “credit” were not given the woman, it is a problem with the husband no? And where was the strong gal while HE was running about taking credit.
Oh forget it, this entire line of reason is silly silly silly.
MLS, who the heck is Specialist Jack lander? I know WHO he is but who is he really? You’ve credited him quite nicely.
Are you serious that argumentative posts are deleted? Even us respectful types? Sh*t man thats what makes this ball game fun!
July 8th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
REF: Pictures and Points by EG,
Joyanna responds in comment 3:
EG said in comment #6:
In comment 9, Joyanna Adams said,
Comment 11:
Joyanna responded in comment #36:
EG challenged Joyanna to “name one conceptual invention made by a woman.”
Joyanna rose and provided a detailed explication that answered the challenge.
Many posters are now yelling “foul” because Men Dominate the Sciences and Engineering.
Sorry, conservativation and company. You have lost this argument on your emotion alone, much less the facts.