In fact, today I fear it's not even mortally wounded and that men in science will never be able to see beyond my truly stellar rack and consider me a scientist before they consider my femininity. Don't get me wrong, I love being a woman and I have said before that I don't think that being who I am and being a scientist should have to be entirely mutually exclusive. In spite of this, I find that I often interact with people who believe they are never mutually exclusive. Dr. Isis was reminded of this fact this morning while reading the comments on a recent post on the DrugMonkey blog about the representation of women at scientific meetings. Brother Drug notes that at a recent scientific meeting only 22% of the platform presentations were given by women and only 10% of breakout session participants had vaginas, as opposed to penises. Dr. Isis is not at all surprised. The 2008 report from the Women in Physiology Committee at the American Physiological Society notes that 25% of APS members are women (22% of regular members and 45% of student members). In its favor, the most recent past president of the APS is a woman (Dr. Hannah Carey) and women are fairly well represented in the senior leadership of the society. But 22%? Hmmm....coincidence, sweet, DrugMonkey? The issue is not that women are not represented at meetings; the issue is that the rate of attrition of female scientists is shameful. Fellow blogger drdrA discusses the problem with a special focus on funding here.
But, back to the comments that have Dr. Isis so riled up.
Figure 1: Comments on DrugMonkey's post remind the domestic and laboratory goddess that many of the same, stale views on women in science are still alive and flourishing.
DrugMonkey commenter Dave shares with us the following patriarchal gems:
Meetings with federal supplemental funding typically need to show evidence of women and underrepresented minority representation. Which is why a few prominent people with mediocre science get talks at every meeting I go to.
I'm not saying it's a good thing that women and minorities are underrepresented in science. I think women and minorities do science as well as anyone else, often without the hierarchical dick-waving and ego battles common among old-school white men. I'm just reporting the facts.
I might as well share the observation that the worst women scientists I've seen tend to participate and take advantage of programs like WISEST. The best women scientists I have talked to about this stuff (which include two National Academy members) acknowledge the leaky pipeline for women but have personally generally avoided the politics and activism and bitching and just gotten on with their work. With minorities, my experiences are a bit more mixed. The most deluded young scientist I've ever met was a black woman. She spent more time looking for programs to support minority scientists and getting fellowships than she did science. She was an assistant research professor with the knowledge of a mediocre high-schooler. Every former supervisor told me they hired her because of her grant-getting skills, but that she was useless in the lab and in teaching. She was seeking a job in my lab. I had a straight talk with her; I told her to go back to her former institution (where her supervisor didn't even know she was looking for jobs), focus on getting her science done and publishing if she ever wanted a tenure-track faculty position.
There IS a real problem with women dropping out of science. I have asked people who study the problem professionally why. They tell me the loss of women happens at many stages, for many reasons. Most reasons appear related to sacrifices that need to be made in two-career families and women giving in to traditional gender roles when things get tough.
And thus from Dave pours the same vile junk the domestic and laboratory goddess deals with all too frequently:
- Female and minority scientists are only here because of initiatives to bring them to the table. Mediocre female and minority scientist are taking the jobs of more talented white male scientists
- Women in science are subordinate to the dick waving that is being done by male scientists (I don't even know what this means. Do you men really wave your genitals around at each other? If you do, frankly, I'd like to see more of it out in the open because it would make heated seminar battles much more entertaining).
- Women and minorities who complain about or try to change the status quo are obviously not committed to doing good science. If they were, they wouldn't be spending so much time whining about how oppressed they are. They'd be shutting their traps, in the lab, collecting data already. Only mediocre scientists have time to complain about gender and racial disparity in science. How fortunate that men like Dave can have "straight talks" with us silly little women. In fact, shouldn't Dr. Isis be more focused on her own work and less on blogging about science? Clearly Dr. Isis is not a serious scientist.
- Women all too often fall prey to their ovaries and, when you hire them, you must consider the risk that they're going to leave to go birth babies and bake all day. How fortunate for Dave though that his wife tells him regularly that he is a better scientist than she is, thus maintaining the power structure in their own home.
Still, I think it's important to be reminded every now and again that this nonsense exists and still continues. It's also important to not let these fallacies (or phalluses?) go unanswered when they are spoken by individuals with the potential to influence female scientists-in-training. They contribute to the notion that being a woman, scientist, wife, mother, etc all at the same time is too challenging to even be attempted. Unfortunately, in The Real World these types of shenanigans happen behind closed doors. The blogging world offers us the ability to gain insights that we silly women would not normally be privy to. However, women in science do have allies. Dr. Isis has found men like DrugMonkey, PhysioProf, and Abel Pharmboy to be more supportive of women and minorities in science than her brand new Victoria's Secret Biofit bra is of her amazing rack. Dr. Isis is amazingly thankful for men like these (and to her amazing male commenters, lest she forget) who have been the underwire of her career. But underwire that would be completely and totally useless if Dr. Isis didn't have amazing knockers to be held up in the first place.
Figure 2: The Biofit Uplift bra. $45 (or $48 if you wear a bra larger than a D cup) at Victoria's Secret. This really is an amazing bra. Dr. Isis recently bought 3 of them and they are the greatest bras I have ever owned, although it did make the domestic and laboratory goddess a little cranky that she had to pay $3 more for the DD size.
Education & Careers
Comments
Grrrr ... sometimes I wonder if we're still living in the stone age.
Posted by: Professor in Training | December 9, 2008 12:22 PM
PiT, I for one have already been clubbed over the head once this week. I fear that we are, sister. I fear that we are.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 9, 2008 12:23 PM
...
Oh my.
May have to change some of my work browsing habits...
"But underwire that would be completely and totally useless if Dr. Isis didn't have amazing knockers to be held up in the first place."
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | December 9, 2008 12:26 PM
I'm one of the biggest supporters of women going into science that I know (in fact, I've literally gotten angry at every girl I know that has changed major from a sciencey subject to a less sciency subject), but I've always wondered what the goal is here.
Do we want to have equal numbers of men and women in science? Because that may not be a reasonable goal... and why should it be something that we want, anyway? Perhaps it is simply the case that women would rather do other things. The problem should be when there is a discrepancy between the %age of women who want to engage in science (or whatever) and the %age of women actually engaged in science. Of course, the former should probably be lower (certainly not everyone of either gender who wants to be a scientist is qualified), but if it's a much lower proportion than the comparable statistic among men, then there is a problem.
Posted by: Josh | December 9, 2008 12:36 PM
When I read comments like Dave's, I find myself starting to doubt my achievements and intelligence, even while completely disagreeing with what he says. It's lovely to read a good rebuttal!
Posted by: sarcozona | December 9, 2008 12:37 PM
Bravo, Dr. Isis. Bravo.
Posted by: Dr. Zeek | December 9, 2008 12:48 PM
@Josh: I don't know that there's really a realistic 'goal' number, but the disparity of 22% vs 78% is a clear sign that there are still real societal impediments that discourage women from careers in science. It may well be that in a perfect society with no sexism that men and women (or whites and minorities x, y, and z) would still not be represented in proportion to their percentage of the general population for reasons external to the world of science careers. But the disparity would not be near as great.
I agree that breaking it into some fuzzy combination of age/education (e.g. comparing women 25-35 in and not in science as a percentage of the population would have to also consider women with Masters's -vs- women with PhD's, number of years in postdoc, etc etc) would possibly give more encouraging numbers, but it might not.
I don't have an answer, obviously I'm just speculating wildly, but I have three daughters and would be thrilled beyond belief if they were to go into science careers and I'd just like to think that in 20 years there will be no barrier based on their gender.
Posted by: Rev Matt | December 9, 2008 12:59 PM
fantastic continuation of a very important topic, bravo! (and thank you for posting about that bra, the pursuit of gravity defiance is particularly close to my chest!)
i'm also linking this :)
Posted by: kristin | December 9, 2008 1:39 PM
ala Dave:
"She spent more time looking for programs to support minority scientists and getting fellowships than she did science."
the nerve of some people! haha
This really seemed abnormal to Dave? After all, its the main JOB of a PI to secure funding so their labs and continue to do experiments, right?
I'd be HORRIFIED if my PI spent all of his time trying to secure funding...oh wait...
Posted by: broadbill | December 9, 2008 1:58 PM
So, when it comes right down to it, we need to isolate, clone and study the "boob-fixation receptor". My money is on a non-selective cation channel that neither inactivates nor desensitizes with prolonged stimulation. Probably expressed heavily in the brain stem. Gene likely residing in the groin of the Y-chromosome.
Posted by: DSKS | December 9, 2008 2:14 PM
Josh- valid point, but irrelevent to reality. The post that lead to the post at DM that lead to Dave commenting that lead to Dr. Isis responding was itself a response to an article in this week's Science. (confidential to Rev Matt- please read that article)
In biomedical sciences, at least, women are going to grad school, getting degrees... often getting prestigious postdocs. At rates approaching 50%. I think most of them want to be scientists. And they are constantly told by people like Dave that they 'don't want it *enough*' because *insert sexist blather about "when times get tough" here*.
These women, with PhDs in biology, do not become scientists. There is a real problem; and you will know it is solved not when the % of women scientists = X%, but when people like Dave STFU.
@broadbill- nail. Head. obviously the role of women in science is to collect all the data and get crumbs of the credit, not to write grants and obtain funding! That would make the manly men around them feel inadaquete!
DSKS- the gene is actually for resistance to breast oggling, and is subject to escape from x-inactivation such that women get a higher dosage. However, as we all know, escape from x-inactivation at a given locus is variable from woman to woman...
Posted by: Becca | December 9, 2008 3:09 PM
Excellent post Dr.Isis. I would like to add that it the Dave's of world that make it so difficult. Its the comments like "cat fight" when two women have a heated debate about science. Its the "can't you take a joke" comment when you call them out on it. Its ok to take off early to go skiing but leaving early to take your kid to see santa is a no-no. The seminars/journal clubs/networking that are scheduled at 5pm.
Posted by: ScientistMother | December 9, 2008 3:23 PM
I feel like I'm stepping in front of a moving bus, but here goes...
I don't think that the incredibly hot Dr. Isis has treated 'Dave' in an entirely fair way (You wouldn't hit a guy who kisses ass, would you?). It's good that he was so thoroughly quoted because it shows the contrast between straw man Dave and what Dave actually wrote. Now, I have no idea if 'Dave' actually is a chauvinist, he may be and I can see how someone might suspect so when reading between the lines, but at least make the distinction between criticisms of what he wrote and criticisms of what you think that he thinks based on what he wrote.
Normally I would quote from what Dave's comment and compare it to the hyperbolic characterization of it (see numbered points in the post) but in this case it is redundant. The way I would interpret what Dave said (I'm not sure why it needs interpretation but apparently it does) is that he acknowledges that 1) women can do science as well as men. 2) Many excellent women scientists are not pursuing science and this is a problem. 3)Some women are taking advantage of programs designed to increase the representation of women in science (of course they are, it is what the programs are there for), but not all of those women are as skilled as other scientists who might otherwise fill those positions/get those grants (I assume that these 'other scientists' include some excellent women scientists who Dave acknowledges are still 'leaking out the pipe').
It is difficult to design programs that use selection criteria other then merit (e.g. gender) to further the representation of a group in a particular field without sacrificing some meritorious potential candidates. Of course the need for these programs comes from the historic and continuing use of opposite non-merit-based selection criteria (e.g. sexism).
The result of the later has lamentably been the loss of good (and great) women scientists, to the obvious detriment of the scientific endeavor. The problem is that the former may not actually perfectly compensate for the latter. Ok, well that even confuses me. How about sexism allows less qualified men into positions that would otherwise be held by more qualified women while compensatory programs do the opposite. The end result is that some qualified women and some qualified men are shut out. Maybe some would chalk that up to the old adage that life is not fair. That seems insipid in the context of an issue that is about fairness. It seems unfair to ridicule someone just for suggesting that that preferential consideration of women will not occasionally exclude more qualified scientists. I have not observed this myself, but I don't see why it couldn't happen in principle.
Posted by: Matt K | December 9, 2008 3:48 PM
Comfort...from Victoria's Secret??
My mind is blown. Don't neglect La Perla at the high end for fancy, comfortable underthings.
Times like this are when I realize that via my girlfriend I know too much about girl clothes.
Posted by: Chris | December 9, 2008 4:04 PM
The goal is that my children won't do hard time for homicide thanks to some [expletive] who teaches my granddaughter that she can't be a _____________ when she grows up because she's a girl. Especially that a BS line like that won't have even the ghost of truth to it that it might have had 15 years ago.
--
dcs
Still ambivalent about $DAUGHTER keeping the perp's identity secret until I was past the "murderous rage" stage.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 9, 2008 4:06 PM
SOme of this whole debate sounds like "My best friend is Hispanic/disabled/ Jewish/ female but. . . ". There's always that but on the end isn't there.
Meantime, I am thrilled to think about the necessary underwire holding up my gems.
Posted by: kiwi | December 9, 2008 4:32 PM
Can't you find a better metaphor? Gems are cold and hard.
--
dcs
Who discovered two of the greatest comforts in life with his first meal.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | December 9, 2008 5:07 PM
This sends a chill down my spine. Actually, all of Dave's remarks on sexism and racism have the same effect on me.
Funny as dearest Dr. Isis is at the comic relief points of this post, I can't even laugh. Dave didn't even take the topic seriously. He used it as an excuse to troll DrugMonkey's blog. Were he sincere about debating instead of proselytizing, he wouldn't have congratulated himself so smugly and so openly on turning the conversation "lively" and broadcasting it beyond "whispers exchanged over beers in a bar". That last-- as if! As if white males aren't free to espouse the views he expressed everywhere!
And then some of the male commenters chiming in: "Now, now, you women haven't been fair. Who's to say you don't tend to do mediocre science? We've never explicitly generalized women (or minorities) that way-- we're just asking this loaded question in an interesting way. So, therefore, the bigotry you perceive must be entirely in your humorless, pretty little heads." *Shudder*
Dave has been complaining about Comrade PhysioProf. I will take a thousand Comrade PhysioProfs over one Dave in science, any day of the week.
I don't like to admit it, but people like Dave scare me. White guys like Dave have always scared me. I don't know whether to feel shamed or angry.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | December 9, 2008 7:05 PM
Juniper, please don't let Dave scare you. He's one of those lousy little impotent twerps who can't figure out how to get the good attention he so desperately craves. If he had the least bit of talent or worth, he wouldn't need to troll. Just delete him if he ever shows up on your blog and ignore him everywhere else.
Then go do some more kick-ass science. Or writing. Or political action. You, unlike Dave, have lots of options.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | December 9, 2008 8:24 PM
I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic, but it is important for people to understand that depraved misogynist racist scumbags like Dave and Sol Rivlin are lurking in the dank shadows of hiring committees, grant review study sections, editorial manuscript peer reviewer lists, and promotion/tenure review committees. Rather than deleting and ignoring these people, we need to expose them to the light. And they will scurry like roaches when their fundamental depravity is clearly and distinctly unveiled.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 9, 2008 9:07 PM
PhysioProf, in this instance I agree with you completely. It is can be blind-siding to encounter these types of attitudes in the ivory tower after being told that "one can be anything they want to be when they grow up."
As I explained to a commenter by email, I think it is important to let these folks comment as they will and then to point out the error of their ways.
I suspect the root of the problem may be that Sol and Dave's mommys did not put them in time out often enough as children. Dr. Isis is perfectly willing to do it now.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 9, 2008 9:12 PM
Most reasons appear related to sacrifices that need to be made in two-career families and women giving in to traditional gender roles when things get tough.
So it's the old "women choose to leave" + "women don't want it badyly enough to make sacrifices" explanation for the gender gap in science. Of course! I'm sure having to deal with dudes like Dave has nothing to do with it...
(And $3 extra for DD? What a rip off! That's why I don't buy my bras from Vicky's.)
Posted by: Peggy | December 9, 2008 9:35 PM
CPP, I'm not saying everyone should delete and ignore him. I'm saying that it's a good thing to have a space you can control when the assholes start to get to you and no mark of dishonor to shut them out when you need to.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | December 9, 2008 9:54 PM
Stephanie-- thank you. I just really, really had to get that off my chest, is all. It disturbs me.
I mean, Dave posted a response to Dr. Isis tonight that took my breath away. There are scientists who think like that? I mean, by the time you're Dr. PI McBigShot (as Dave claims he is), you ought to be smart enough and knowledgeable enough to not be a such a prejudiced asshole . . . right? Okay, okay, maybe I'm not quite that naive. :) But that's still the reaction I keep having on some level. Not to Dave alone, but what he represents.
You're right about Dave being a twerp, though-- all by himself. He's been desperate for attention, giving unsolicited and backhanded compliments to DrugMonkey, insulting Candid Engineer out of the sheer blue -- it's like middle school. At least we can treat this as a learning experience.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | December 9, 2008 10:37 PM
Dr. Isis, thanks for posting this. The contrast in comments here and on the DM post is stunning.
And thanks, also, to Stephanie Z for your response to Juniper S. I was also feeling the way she was, and your comment made me feel better. I also realize after reading what CPP and Dr. Isis said about letting the Dave creep continue to comment, why that can be considered necessary - because my first reaction would be to delete! I have a hard time responding to BS like that, so I'm glad all of you took up the cause.
Posted by: Silver Fox | December 9, 2008 11:43 PM
In fairness to Dave, he's said several reasonable things.
1) He said my idea (of a wiki of awesome female and minority speakers) is good.
2) He said my point about being more nurturing toward the next generation of scientists was good, and asked for my advice on the matter.
3) He claims that what we want is "Competition but not discouragement." Despite the fact I think he's setting it up as more of a false dicotomy than it is; he has at least correctly identified a reasonable goal.
maybe he's not an entirely lost cause?
(granted he can still be an ass... the question is how he will respond well to being given attention solely for not being an ass)
Juniper Shoemaker- you should neither feel shamed or angry due to fear (random philosophical aside: I think most problems resulting from fear must first travel through shame or anger). But I do wonder, why are you afraid of Dave?
To me, he seems very... unreal?... in some ways (mostly due to things like the transexual comment).
Mind you, I totally agree with Stephanie Z that you should feel totally free to delete/ignore him as you see fit. He's crossed any reasonable line past which people are not owed civil treatment or consideration. I'm more just trying to understand how you feel about it because your feelings matter to me.
Posted by: becca | December 10, 2008 12:56 AM
Yup, always good to be reminded what we're fighting against.
Can't really bring myself to read these long comment sections anymore for that reason. On my blog, I activated the moderator function so I can delete early and often when I feel it doesn't add to the discussion. Came to that decision after blogging for a while, though. Personally, I think it's a personal choice. Funny to note, though, that even requiring a login name and email is not sufficient to deter these mofos. Most of the really bad ones I get are anonymous.
So, really? The Biofit Uplift? I've been debating about trying to get some of those new ones (I've been a fan of the Ipex for a while), but VS is remarkably stupid about how they do online ordering. I wish they would just hook up with Amazon already and make my life easier. Funny how they send me sooooo many catalogs and then make their ordering so annoying, I don't want to buy anything from them ever again! Talk about lack of business sense!
Posted by: msphd | December 10, 2008 1:33 AM
Becca, in fairness to everyone whom Dave was pissing off, what he was doing was taking over the discussion to decide who could and could not be heard. Not that yours aren't excellent ideas, but I don't believe his reaction to them is any more than steering the conversation. In short, beware of the gatekeepers, even when they agree with you. Sometimes, especially then.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | December 10, 2008 8:31 AM
RE: Josh's comment
"Do we want to have equal numbers of men and women in science? Because that may not be a reasonable goal... and why should it be something that we want, anyway? "
Josh may mean well, but the thoughts he offers offend me.
Why has it has been okay for there to be more men than women in sciences for so long. Why should we have to trim back our pursuit of equity? Women are, after all, more than half the overall population. Personally, I wonder if equity goes far enough. Can't we have more women than men in the sciences?
As Bella Abzug said, "Our struggle today is not to have a female Einstein get appointed as an assistant professor. It is for a woman schlemiel to get as quickly promoted as a male schlemiel."
My personal latest beef it trying to understand why men get so offended when we explain that institutional and sub-conscious sexism is rampant, and those subconsciously sexist views are rampant among both men *and* women.
When someone points out you have screwed up and done or said something racist, don't get defensive and say that you did it unintentionally, or that circumstances forced you into it. Instead, feel terrible, reflect on your actions, and try to change both yourself and society. Geez!
Posted by: learner | December 10, 2008 10:54 AM
There is an enormous gulf between some senior (male) researchers and their complete and delusional lack of understanding of their own sexism.
I was at a Gordon Conference on nitric oxide a few years ago, and a very senior NO researcher was giving a talk about the history of NO research. He showed a slide taken 20 years ago at his lab where all of the lab members were wearing tee shirts with the saying:
"what part of NO don't you understand"?
He was all yuck yuck yuck (as in laughing) about it because it was such a big joke, that in his lab they were trying to understand all about NO and here there was this tee shirt that said exactly that.
I didn't think it was funny at all (and was like yuck (as in disgusted)) and turned to the woman sitting next to me (who was also of an age to know what it was actually about) and said, "doesn't he realize it was about rape?" She mumbled that some men are pretty oblivious to such things.
There is a place where sexism challenged people can go to learn about such things.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
Learner has it exactly right. "When someone points out you have screwed up and done or said something racist, don't get defensive and say that you did it unintentionally, or that circumstances forced you into it. Instead, feel terrible, reflect on your actions, and try to change both yourself and society."
To me, that is exactly how I try and run my life, and is certainly how I try and do science. That is how all scientists (should) try and do science. "When someone points out you have screwed up and done or said something [wrong], don't get defensive and say that you did it unintentionally, or that circumstances forced you into it. Instead, feel terrible, reflect on your actions, and try to change both yourself and society."
As a scientist, to continue doing something wrong after you know it is wrong is to do scientific misconduct. It doesn't matter if you can further your "career" by doing stuff that is wrong, it is still scientific misconduct. A "career" based on something wrong is garbage. Any enterprise that rewards wrong behavior is a garbage enterprise. That includes institutions, relationships, jobs, governments, etc.
If you don't have the intellectual flexibility to abandon wrong ideas you shouldn't pretend to be a scientist because you are not one. You should abandon science before you do any more damage to it.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 10, 2008 12:05 PM
I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic, but it is important for people to understand that depraved misogynist racist scumbags like Dave and Sol Rivlin are lurking in the dank shadows of hiring committees, grant review study sections, editorial manuscript peer reviewer lists, and promotion/tenure review committees. Rather than deleting and ignoring these people, we need to expose them to the light. And they will scurry like roaches when their fundamental depravity is clearly and distinctly unveiled.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 9, 2008 9:07 PM
PhysioProf, in this instance I agree with you completely. It is can be blind-siding to encounter these types of attitudes in the ivory tower after being told that "one can be anything they want to be when they grow up."
As I explained to a commenter by email, I think it is important to let these folks comment as they will and then to point out the error of their ways.
I suspect the root of the problem may be that Sol and Dave's mommys did not put them in time out often enough as children. Dr. Isis is perfectly willing to do it now.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 9, 2008 9:12 PM
Isis, do you know of any depraved misogynist racist scumbags like Dave and Sol Rivlin who are lurking in the dark shadows of hiring committees, grant review study sections, editorial manuscript peer reviewer lists, and promotion/tenure review committees? Or you just agree with any bullshit that this pompous ass, CCP, paste here and elsewhere?
Posted by: S. Rivlin | December 10, 2008 7:20 PM
None are so blind as those who will not see.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 10, 2008 7:25 PM
daedalus2u,
If you know of any, have you done anything about it? Or do you just whine, like so many, and do nothing?
Posted by: S. Rivlin | December 10, 2008 7:39 PM
As opposed to beating down those who are whining about injustice? That is worse than doing nothing.
Posted by: daedalus2u | December 10, 2008 9:24 PM
Yes, Sol. I have known quite a few in my time. I'd suggest you go back to the old blog for examples. Dr. Isis has considered this a topic of interest long before there was a PP on her blogroll.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 10, 2008 11:25 PM
Isis,
Have you done anything about those scumbags beside blogging about their existence?
I put my career on the line fighting against them. None of my colleagues was ever willing to join me in my battles. When it comes to fight them, very few will take a stand against them. I have offered to send you my book in which you can get a sense of the price whistleblowers pay for their actions. I know that PP read at least part of this book, thus he knows where I'm coming from yet, he continuously paint me as one of those against whom I fought for the last ten years of my career. In all the cases in which I was involved the victims were women. In all of them I could easily do what all their colleagues did i.e., turning their backs on them. I am proud of my actions and my stance in support of justice for those who usually don't get it. I didn't do it for fame or monetary gain. I did what I did because I saw the wrong and believed in my duty to try my best to correct it.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | December 11, 2008 4:57 PM
Yes, Sol. Again, I encourage you to go back to the old blog for just such a tale. However, I think we should not write off the improtance of blogging about the issue. I think it is important for young female scientists to be aware of the types of things that happen in the academic environment. I think it is imcredibly important that other scientists know that there are people with similar experiences to theirs...hence, why I became to blog sensation Dr. Isis as opposed to remaining Dr. Real Life Isis.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 11, 2008 5:34 PM
Becca:
Thank you for caring about my feelings.
I'm sorry I ever joined this conversation in the first place. What I've learned from the exchange on DM is that, if I want to be a (successful) scientist, it would greatly benefit me to do mostly as Dave says. Shut up, and focus only on besting my competition. Specifically, I first need to best my competition, and afterwards I need to help other women and minorities by dispassionately requesting their presence wherever there's a dearth of them. At all costs, I need to keep my feelings out of it.
The idea is not without merit. "If you're black, you have to work twice as hard" was the motto of my father's generation, and maybe I should return to my struggle to wholly embrace this attitude, which requires a not-unwelcome measure of repression. The trouble is that I haven't yet learned to manage my volatile feelings about being made the "other" when I don't want to be-- not to the extent that I want the feelings managed, anyhow.
Why did Dave scare me? I agree with you that he's "unreal" in some ways, like a masquerader trying on different masks to make sensations in the audience. Insofar as in his sexist sentiments are genuine, however-- the reason he scared me is because, in real life, "Dave" is the guy I wind up trying to please. In classrooms, at public lectures, at work, in my last graduate program.
He didn't scare me into quitting science, however. None of you have.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | December 11, 2008 10:40 PM
What I've learned from Zuska (and elsewhere) is that there is no proper way to be a woman in science. Yet, what I've learned from many role models (I'm looking [up]at you, Dr. Isis) is that some women succeed in spite of that. Anyone who says all successful scientists are "proper" (or universially of any particular description) is full of it.
Fuck what the Daves want.
I can now better understand what he represents to you, and why that's scary.
Posted by: becca | December 11, 2008 11:09 PM
Becca, you wrote this on Stephanie Z's blog:
Given this, I am unsure as to how to interpret your comments.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 11, 2008 11:27 PM
This is what I just wrote in a comment at DrugMonkey:
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 12, 2008 7:43 AM
You've nailed it, PP. We now know better.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 12, 2008 7:46 AM
Isis,
Sorry for not keeping abreast of your blogging. Also, with all due respect, as long as the scumbags you blog about stay anonymous, and despite the importance of letting other women scientists know about your experience, the only way we can uproot the scumbags is by naming them and expose their deeds.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | December 12, 2008 8:56 AM
Dr. Isis- what part is confusing? I'm trying to communicate on many levels, and analyze that communication simultaneously (Communication analysis- it's better than sex! [that non sequitor has no important meaning but is a quote from my college forensics days I can't resist throwing in]).
The main message of what you've quoted is "this is how I saw what I was doing in the midst of what Dave was doing" although I tried to indicate to Stephanie "I can see why you see what Dave was doing the way you do".
I get the feeling, and this may not be right, but I get the feeling you are unsure how to interpert my comments because you aren't sure what "side" I'm on- and my aliances make my words have very different implications.
I could claim I'm somehow above, or at least aside from, tribes and "sides", but that's not true.
I could claim I just really liked playing the role of double-agent in war games as a kid and never kicked the habit (which is true, but not really a base cause).
But I think the most relevant thing is to simply point out that I think some good things can result if I can get both "sides" pulling in the same direction. This would be facilitated if Dave would apologise (which I think he "ought" to do) or if you would conceed that not everything he said was batshit whackaloony (which I think you "ought" to do). But I sense that neither of you are ready to do those things any more than you have, and I know well enough that what I think isn't always what's most important.
Dave could never make me any less an adoring worshiper of the magnificant Dr. Isis. I know that the Goddess is no less imposing in her magnificance because of her magnanimity... which allows her to recognize me as a loyal subject in spite of (and indeed, on ocassion, reportedly, because of) the fact we don't see everything exactly the same way.
Posted by: becca | December 14, 2008 2:17 PM
Becca, I am always willing to accept adoration from loyal worshipers and you know of my love of a good scrap. I will simply say this to you: During my career I have dealt with (and still deal with in one case) some men who were very successful scientists with good ideas to add to the field who also were unsupportive of women in science. It doesn't matter what these people have to tell me about science because their actions serve to ensure that we'll never have equal footing on which to discuss the ideas. I think, as one opens these discussions online, it is important to try to discern the intent behind the comments. I have had very heated exchanges with other science bloggers about gender, racial, and religious issues in science that have ended quite well. The reason for that is because I know that they view equality in science as an important endpoint. Therefore, discussions with them have value and progress without hard feelings. I know that, at the end of the day, these people want to be able to sit at a table where the playing field is level, even if we don't agree on the particulars and that gives parity to the discussion. When this does not exist, I see no point in engaging other than to state my beliefs on an issue. Do you really believe that you are ever going to have parity with Dave?
When I began blogging as Dr. Isis I figured that my blog would be a place I could write about all of the little crazy things I think about in a day. I had 9 readers, including Mr. Isis and I. It would be something I would do to have fun and post things I found amusing. As this evolved I began receiving very heart-felt emails from women who were looking for support in dealing with a lot of the issues I write about and I realized that (all joking completely aside) I had become a role model to some of these women. I still try my best to answer all of the emails I get in one form or another. When I moved to ScienceBlogs, I realized that my readership would probably increase and that I would become an even more visible figure. I decided when I was pondering the move that it would be unethical to move here simply to serve my own interests -- if I was going to write at ScienceBlogs then I needed to also be able to contribute something back, even if it is making parts of my life very public so that people see that the things they struggle with are not unique.
I like to consider this place like a Women in Science and Engineering (WISE) group with 40,000+ members plus a bunch of really cool guys. I can't help individual women (and men) do great science, but I like to think that I can offer a place where our humble little group can support each other, laugh together, scrap a little bit, and gain resources from each other.
I can't do this and treat it like a game. I don't mean to sound self-important, but I think it is important that people see where I stand and I don't want my lack of a response to ever be confused as an endorsement. Because I appreciate the role I serve around this place, I feel the need to respond when someone says something that is immediately contrary to the goal of gender and racial equality in science. For that reason, Becca, I have felt unable to relate to your comments. I appreciate that you may have been trying to further the dialogue, but your comments at Stephanie's place also made it sounds as though you were gaining pleasure in actively manipulating the dialogue and I see things much less grey. I appreciate and value that we don't always see eye to eye, but I hope that you also see why I have no interest in seeing eye to eye with some folks in this case.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | December 14, 2008 3:34 PM
Dear Dr. Isis,
I am still at the stage in my career where my philosophy of life has not hindered me overmuch. That philosophy is simple- I am always learning.
People like Dave have something to teach me.
I am not seeking parity with Dave. I am seeking to transend him. If one is going to be young, naive, and optimistic, one should at least be such as in as glorious a fashion as possible. Aim moon, land stars, and all that.
Dr. Isis, being considerably more knowledgeable, wise and mature, need not approach things in the same way. One only needs to encounter "a certain kind of person" so many times before what knows what to expect from all of them... at least to the point where one is rarely suprised. I can see why you have no interest in seeing eye to eye with some people. I can see how doing so publically would make you less effective in your chosen role.
However, I hope you can see why sometimes mere mortals, without formidable soul-gazing powers, will settle for seeing shades of grey.
In the absense of omnisence, I settle for compassion for who I can muster it for, rather than only applying it to those who deserve it. Do not begruge me my bit of kindness, for I cling to it because of how it enriches my life, not for the message it sends, nor for the rewards it gives others.
I am not like Dave. I do not jest to distract from, or avoid confronting, my own demons. I have thought long and hard (and am still considering the implications of) what Stephanie said about a particularly ugly brand of exceptionalism. It's true, and it cuts to the bone.
But offering humor in the face of ugliness was not something I regret. Sometimes the darkness is too great without laughter. I gain pleasure from analyzing things, including communication. That does not mean I am pleased by all the effects of my words.
I am earnest with people who are earnest, silly with people who are silly, eloquent (as much as I can be) with people who are eloquent. This, I believe, is different from treating everything as a mere game.
Posted by: becca | December 14, 2008 5:40 PM
Becca, I am altogether too good at cutting. Realize, when you're thinking about what I said, that there are also the balancing needs to not underestimate your own talents and to not make unrealistic demands of others. If you're the kind of person who thinks about these things, and you are, you're mostly going to keep yourself from wandering too far down any of these paths once you're aware of them.
Now, as for communication analysis, I like it as well as the next girl (okay, way more than most), but still, better than sex?
Posted by: Stephanie Z | December 14, 2008 11:03 PM
Stephanie- exceptionalism is insidious, I tell you. It starts when the boys you play tell you you're not like other girls because you play war games with them.
In certain contexts, CA is indeed better than sex. Though I suppose it depends entirely on the people involved...
Posted by: becca | December 15, 2008 12:31 AM
Becca, I usually found that that was offset by the girls telling me I wasn't like them because I didn't mind getting my clothes dirty or thought the snakes were pretty or was too geeky. That took "exceptional" to "exception" pretty quickly. I had to pair up both sets of messages for quite a while to realize that listening to either too much was silly.
And yes, entirely.
Posted by: Stephanie Z | December 15, 2008 2:42 PM