Yesterday I asked you if blogs were a useful tool for scientists and if you thought scientists cared about blogs. You answered and here are the results:
Figure 1: 89% of you think blogs are useful tools for scientists.
I am reassured and thankful that most of you did not note that scientists have no time to read blogs. However, the most interesting information came not from the survey, but from what some of you wrote in the comments. There really is great, great stuff in that comment thread. You should read it. But, here are the highights:
Arlenna offers the reason I began my blog much more eloquently than I ever could when she writes:
Look at the population of science trainees and young faculty who read/comment on/write blogs, both here on SciBlogs and elsewhere. I would estimate there are thousands of individuals all over the world who benefit from this format every day (based on the range of commenters and posters I see around). This is a revolution in information-sharing, mentorship and camaraderie. The interactions we get here are fundamentally different from any we get through "real-life" mentorship because of the nature of the internet, and provide a completely different (and invaluable) context for these relationships.
Professor in Training agrees:
Blogging connects me to other junior faculty (like Arlenna) with whom I can discuss the issues we are all facing without fear of retribution. I have also received invaluable advice from more senior PIs about issues ranging from people management to grant writing. Finally, it's been amazing to have students and postdocs ask questions about my own experiences in grad school and/or as a postdoc and between myself and my commenters, I know that those interactions have helped them with the decisions they have to make.For me, it's not about sharing science per se but rather sharing experiences and getting advice on nuts and bolts issues of my job. I'm not sure I would have survived to this point without blogging.
So, it's apparent that early career faculty find the blogosphere to be a useful source of camaraderie and support, but Toaster Sunshine indicates that there is also an important role that blogging can play for trainee scientists:
By coming here, not only can I see inside the lives of scientists higher on the totem pole than I, but also participate in the dancing of that totem pole. This is invaluable as getting a tenured prof to speak frankly about the challenges of his work is like trying to get granite to cry pearls
When I began a postdoc, the chair of my department suggested that I should ally myself with a new assistant professor and watch how he set up his lab, the pitfalls he faced, and how he managed his research and teaching responsibilities. It was great advice. I have learned tremendously from watching people more senior than me. This places gives scientists a way to watch our colleagues and learn from them in an environment that seems more equalizing and honest.
So, as I ponder these questions, consider the next smoking hot project I have to share with you all soon, and think about how much I love the community of bloggers that has developed here, I start to think about ways we build our community of bloggy scientists. In the last nine months I have been surprised by the fact that I could develop such attachments to pseudonymous people in the blogosphere, but I think that reflects a need scientists have to bond and communicate outside of the home departments and institutions.
Pascale offers us a few more ideas:
If someone hadn't sent me a link to this blog, I would not "know" Isis. Now, I haven't a clue to Isis' real identity (see posts during EB), but it makes me happy to know there is another woman out there who is combining family life, science, and fashion successfully. The world of science is just too big to find a "sole"-mate (spelling intentional) through random contact.
I wish this blog had been available to me as a trainee. I would have felt less alone in the world. The women I did meet tended toward Birkenstocks and didn't read Style magazine. I have never understood why knowing that Laboutin's have red soles made me less smart, but knowing batting averages from 30 years ago does not deplete intelligence in the same way.
Bottom line: We have to keep blogging to scientists.
So, I leave you with a final question to continue the discussion. Pascale tells us we need to keep blogging to scientists and I agree. But, how do we blog to scientists who do not know or understand blogging, or who have the pre-conceived notion that blogs are places where 16 year old girls write about what they had for breakfast?
Education & Careers
Technology
Comments
how do we blog to scientists who do not know or understand blogging, or who have the pre-conceived notion that blogs are places where 16 year old girls write about what they had for breakfast
We infiltrate our scientific societies and demonstrate the value that blogs add to scientific discourse and/or career development. As you have begun to make inroads with APS, I suggest that each of us in a position to do so should propose an education or career development session at the next annual meeting of our respective societies. Propose a program that would include Bora Zivkovic (Bora is essential because he can speak so broadly and authoritatively on the medium) and two or three additional specialist bloggers. Big networks such as ScienceBlogs or Nature Network should provide sponsoring support and add gravitas to "legitimize" such efforts.
This may be tough for some of us pseudonymous bloggers but some of us have begun writing under our real names on blogs that might be considered more "professional."
As you have shown us, oh iGoddess, lead and the leaders will follow.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | April 28, 2009 12:11 PM
I'm with Abel. It is hard but I think it's worth it. The chair of my department was making fun of blogs in a meeting yesterday, though I have previously shared my interest in them to him, I felt totally stuck and said nothing. I think it would be great if we shared our stories and successes with each other -- I'd like to hear more on how you got that APS Grad Award started, for instance, if you can share. With time I think I'll be able to convince even the most anti-blog in my field that there is something to be said for finding internet colleagues and spending time sharing our thinking too.
Posted by: Kate | April 28, 2009 12:19 PM
You could work to engage scientists who already blog, such as The Planetologist. Comment at their blogs when they discuss a subject of interest.
You could email scientists who have published papers relevant to a specific post of yours and invite them to comment.
Posted by: AK | April 28, 2009 12:49 PM
I think one of the ways to engage other scientist is to write about papers and write about their work. I've been amazed at the people that I've met by doing this sort of thing.
And, it probably doesn't hurt to let them know you've written about their work and send them an e-mail asking them to stop by and comment.
People find it hard to stay away when they are part of the subject and discussion.
Posted by: Sandra Porter | April 28, 2009 1:35 PM
The science community will learn about blogs through what we are doing right now. How many of them checked out ScienceBlogs last week when all of EB (or at least APS) was a-twitter (literally & figuratively) about the identity of Dr. Isis? A number who had never read a blog before are now checking in on the goddess daily, even those who don't know shoes!
Glad to know NIH is now twittering - can't wait till the applications get to be 140 characters or less!
Posted by: Pascale | April 28, 2009 2:05 PM
When y'all talk about TV shows you like to watch, no one ever says, "Scientists don't have time to watch TV."
Most of you have cried out against monomania as the only way to kick ass in your career. So you take up sports or painting or shoe-shopping or stalking your hot orthopedic surgeon* or hanging out with your partners and kids** or whatever, and the overwhelming majority of you do not chastise one another for "having no time" for these activities.
Given this context, I find it ridiculous that you even have to make the statement above. I've always wondered about the "real scientists have no time to blog" nonsense. What if scibloggers are blogging instead of watching TV or reading novels or something? What if a lot of you are just really efficient at time management? What if a lot of you are also good at writing and reading very quickly? What's up with the anomalous hostility toward blogging?
Were it not for science blogging, I would feel very alone right now. I value the support I get as much as I value the extremely useful information. I cannot be the only one who feels this way.
*You know I'm just kidding, PiT. I just needed an excuse to make a gratuitous reference to you because you're awesome.
**Yes: callous/lone-wolfish as I am, I still understand that these activities fall into a different category altogether than the others.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | April 28, 2009 2:17 PM
Ohhhh...could their be a joint Pascale/Isis symposium in the future?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | April 28, 2009 2:28 PM
Although blogging about science can be interesting, I always find the more personal posts make me connect with the writer a lot more. It's nice to glimpse the other side of life of academics, especially since it's so rare to see in "real life" (at least for me, as a grad student - I don't often see the real life of the professors in the department).
I personally like bloggers who share many aspects of their life - whether they write about what's going on in their lab, their issues with referees, shopping for a car, what their favorite hockey team is doing, their favorite recipes, etc. etc..
I think one of the worst stereotypes scientists face is that we don't have lives - if we can continue to show that, in face, this is dead wrong, on our blogs, it could really help break that stereotype. Even as a grad student, to see real professors that have lives is very important!
Posted by: MCH | April 28, 2009 2:50 PM
One of the WORST stereotypes that female scientists face is that we are frumpy, single-minded academics with no sense of style, fun, or life. Obviously, I am doing my damned best to prove this wrong. I wonder how many little girls get turned off of science because they like to read Seventeen? I mean, I was told that I couldn't wear heels and be taken seriously (and it wasn't THAT long ago).
I still remember when the movie Top Gun came out and someone commented that an astrophysics professor couldn't possibly look like Kelly McGillis! While it is unlikely that anyone outside of a film achieves onscreen hotness (I don't have a sylist and lighting expert to follow me around), why can't an astrophysicist or other scientist be attractive? Or at least dress well?
Posted by: Pascale | April 28, 2009 3:00 PM
@ Juniper #6: I would only take crap like that from one or two bloggers ... luckily you're one of them, even though you have terrible taste in toe socks. You're forgiven and I agree that I am awesome :)
Posted by: Professor in Training | April 28, 2009 3:17 PM
And then there was the time I was contemplating a new sunglasses purchase at Lenscrafters, when a teenage girl standing only a few feet away tried on a pair of glasses, looked in the mirror and exclaimed (in horror), "Oh my God -- I look like a scientist!" She immediately returned the frames to the display case and exited the sore PDQ...
Posted by: glfadkt | April 28, 2009 3:19 PM
I obviously can't spell/type/proofread effectively, but you get the drift.
Posted by: glfadkt | April 28, 2009 3:24 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with Pascale! Listening to President Obama's speech to the National Academy of Sciences yesterday, I was struck with the number of female pronouns he used, as well as the support for women and minorities in the sciences. Part of that is obviously a slave for Larry Summers' existence, but the there's more to it than pretty words and special female only funding. Female scientists need to show each other and the rising crowd of talented females that math, physics and scalpels aren't at cross purposes with killer shoes and a fondness for the arts (or an ass-shaking jam for that matter).
As I'm still of the rising (marginally) talented sort, I can't over-estimate the importance of someone who hasn't told me that I need to wear more sensible shoes to be taken seriously! (Yes, that's still happening.) No peep toe sandals in the lab/OR though - that's dangerous.
It's not all about girl power though, because letting young men know that they don't have to be neanderthal, poorly dressed, workaholics to be good scientists isn't bad either. You can be a girl (or get yourself a girl) and still be a good scientist! Blogging (in this form) is just a really nice version of cultural guerilla warfare.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | April 28, 2009 3:24 PM
"One of the WORST stereotypes that female scientists face is that we are frumpy, single-minded academics with no sense of style, fun, or life."
Really? One of the WORST?
With all the "girls suck at math", "women are just biologically incapable of doing science", "women are too emotional to be Teh UltraLogical Scientist(tm)", "women just aren't assertive/competitive enough to make it in this funding climate", and "women with babies must not really love science", what bothers you is that someone might have the audacity to consider you frumpy??
Well, actually... come to think of it, maybe that's really encouraging! Maybe we've gotten over the rest of them enough that you don't ever encounter them. That would be nice.
I still do though. Possibly I need better colleagues.
Mind, when I was ~14 I was really big on telling people that my favorite magazines were Cosmo and Scientific American. So I'm pretty sure I was once pretty concerned with asserting my non-frumpy status. And of course I understand the temptation to intentionally trigger cognitive dissonance in others.
Posted by: becca | April 28, 2009 3:35 PM
@becca:
I think that it anything making it less appealing to dangle hot science under the nose of one of the "girls suck at math" crowd is a detriment. We need talented women to change the minds of the next generation and since we all know that it's mainly social cues that prevent young from excelling in the sciences, why not just take that weapon away?
Also, Cosmo @14? Either there was a lot less about sex positions in Cosmo when you read it or I'm getting old and grumpy because I'm not sure I'd like my 14 year old (when I have one) to know about the "backwards facing butterfly tickle swing" just right then.
That's what college is for.
Posted by: Dr.FabulousShoes | April 28, 2009 3:51 PM
Obviously, being frumpy is not means for public execution and it may not hold your career back (though Stacy & Clinton on What Not To Wear will show you how dressing appropriately for any career is really important). However, I think a lot of impressionable girls, especially in that middle-school age group, get the idea that they can't be good at science or math if they like clothes, makeup, and boys. Is it the science/math sterotype that is the problem, or is it that girls make other choices to pursue these alternate interests? "I want to be pretty, so I don't want to be a scientist, etc" or is it "I'm bad at math and science, so I should be pretty and study art."
Girls' test scores and grades don't fall behind boys in these subjects until that age, and I find it hard to believe that girls suddenly lose the ability to do math and science. If more positive role models were present, then girls might see that they can study science and be feminine as well. I think that may be the real issue to closing the gender gap in the sciences.
How about "Dr. Isis Barbie", complete with Naughty Monkeys? And a pink "Dream Lab", of course!
Posted by: Pascale | April 28, 2009 3:54 PM
I love reading these science blogs both for the science and the personal stuff. Like the others said, its great to know that everyone is suffering through the same struggles ie balancing work with personal stuff. I especially like the fact that it does take away from the monomania persona of scientist. Yes we love science, but we also love other things.
Posted by: ScientistMother | April 28, 2009 5:42 PM
During my uninspired college career, I roomed with a Cambridge-educated grad student in mathematics who was to land a tenure-track professorship at Harvard at age twenty-six and his equally intellectual friends. I admit that I was not an easy roommate to have. At that time, I was a bad one, actually. I was a mess. I didn't know who I was, and I was electing to stay in a bad, intense friendship with someone who had no respect for me and comporting myself accordingly. I understand that this kind of person isn't easy either to live with or to take seriously.
Nonetheless, I still recall the kindly condescension with which they interacted with me-- especially over science topics-- with pain and a little anger. It was always something. They spoke of "people watching" when I invited Drama Kids to dinner-- like we were nearly akin to strung-out train-wrecks of D-list celebrities and who were only interested in artsy,"feminine", "easy" subjects. Then, after I revealed that I was taking ONE modern dance class for ONE semester, they kept referring to me as a "dancer". It didn't matter how many times I flatly stated that I wasn't one!
In this context, "dancer" = "airhead" or "non-intellectual". I am an intellectual, and, meanwhile, I can't dance to save my life. I really can't. I really, really can't. (I WISH!)
Anyway. Isn't Acmegirl a dancer? She's also a scientist at a fucking Ivy League, isn't she? Motherfuckers.
I think it's also important to note that many women get the message that you've got to be a frumpy monomaniac to be a scientist from other women. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten a smug smile and a snarky comment from other women just for admitting that I love the color pink. 'Cause, you know. You can't love the color pink/wear makeup/don fashionable clothing/be a size zero/(have Golden Era Hollywood-worthy curves)/be pretty/watch "What Not to Wear"/excel at "feminine" things like writing/major in English/have a boyfriend/be "emotional"/be female/be black/(be Latina)/etc. and be an excellent, successful scientist, too. That's just motherfucking impossible!
Last week, I at a bookstore, reading the latest Neal Stephenson in the science fiction section while I waited to meet one of my favorite friends for coffee. Two women passed by me: they looked me resentfully over from head to high heels and then said to one another, "Oh, that's the popular fiction section. We need the real stuff."
My tolerance threshold is low these days. It irked me. What the fuck did they know about the intellectual capabilities of some random pretty chick in makeup and high heels? Have they even read any Neal Stephenson?
Yet another reason why science blogs like this one are important. It's one of many reasons, and different science blogs are important to me for different reasons. It's a biggie, though.
@PiT: Thanks! I'm honored! As well as tremendously glad I'm not going to get a painful lesson from the Farm Animals today . . . :)
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | April 28, 2009 6:08 PM
Dr.FabulousShoes- oh I absolutely agree that it's a detrimental mindset that interferes with young women appreciating hot science. It's just not something that keeps me up at night, so to speak.
Also, I was in college at 14, so it must have been ok!
Pascale- the (false) dichotomy between femininity and smart/scientific/geekery is tough for middle school girls. But excessive fixation on looks, over sexualization, and totally spastic contradictory messages we send them are tough too. Middle school girls may tend to get the idea that math and science "aren't for them". But their self-esteem also plummets, eating disorders kick in with a vengence... things get ugly for some girls, in a lot of ways. I'm somewhat worried that telling them they can look pretty might too often be perceived as telling them they should look pretty. Because I would have perceived things through that skewed lens. I'm reminded of Reviving Ophelia, which gets at the heart of what I think of as the challenges of the middle school girl experience.
Ultimately, I suspect that the best role models for adolescent girls (and boys, for that matter) are the ones that don't avoid any behavior because it is either "too masculine" or "too feminine". This likely includes many of the awesome women here, but they are not positive role models predominantly because they are feminine scientists.
Juniper Shoemaker- I know that women can be horrible about inflicting their own standards on other women in way heavy handed ways.
Also, one of the most intelligent people I know (MD/PhD, going off to do her residency at UCSF) is my dance instructor.
But anyway, I'm guessing stereotypically pretty, size-zero 'dancers' are going to be envied- the scorn is a defense mechanism. "They're just jealous" isn't a way to tell you that you shouldn't be irked (cause "it's a defense mechanism" doesn't make jerkish behavior not-jerkish), but it may apply.
I also know some scifi fans who think the "real" stuff is intellectually unchallenging, but they still eat it up because it tells them encouraging stories of lonely geeks that they can identify with.
Posted by: becca | April 28, 2009 10:20 PM
@Juniper:
I've noticed a certain double standard in terms of perceived intelligence and non-work life stuff. Women seem to be expected to be more monomaniac than men to be taken seriously. I've just noticed that men in science speak frankly about their outside hobbies and plans while women in science seem somewhat guarded here.
@Abel + Kate:
Yes to Infiltration! Does this mean we get Super Secret Meetings and Fancy Hats*!?
*This may be influenced by it being widely known that the departmental chair of a department I participate widely has a large collection of fancy hats. And a moustache.
Posted by: Toaster | April 28, 2009 11:14 PM
But, how do we blog to scientists who do not know or understand blogging, or who have the pre-conceived notion that blogs are places where 16 year old girls write about what they had for breakfast?
I think places like Nature making `nature blogs' gives blogging some credibility for those who stumble across it for the first time. Some other academic institutions have also have also set up blogs - from people within their department. Then there are other blogs from people within Matlab ect. While I think this will tend to make the the blogs a little more `guarded' in comparison to anonymous blogs at least it puts blogging in the spotlight a bit. From there the scientists can trickle to the blogosphere all over the internets. But academic and other scientific related-institutions setting up blogs will highlight that blogs are useful as a scientific medium to those who have had little to do with blogs and the blogging world.
Posted by: Angela | April 29, 2009 3:44 AM
Who in their right mind makes an EGG SALAD SAMMICH to take on a long hiking trip, and eat when around a love interest?!?!?!?! :) I just had to ask.
Posted by: katiebug ladydid | April 29, 2009 8:42 AM
@becca-
I think our societal messages make things worse for middle-school girls, but I don't believe they are the entire problem. I suspect we are hard-wired to try to attract a mate as we hit sexual maturity; after all, women have a limited period of fertility. To produce the most offspring possible (from an evolutionary perspective, our primary goal), we should get the best possible mate ASAP. One could argue that our prolonged educations and shift away from this task are the unnatural, society-induced behavior. I'm not against this, but I don't think we can put teenaged girls in a box and keep them from wanting to attract boys. It sure would not have been possible for me at that age... and I turned out OK (so far).
Perhaps more important will be getting boys who want intelligent, thoughtful girls. I've tried with my own son; however, I think his last girlfriend was selected more on bra size than GPA... There are some things we cannot change.
Posted by: Pascale | April 29, 2009 9:32 AM
Shouldn't we at least acknowledge the bias of surveying blog-readers about whether blogs are useful?
Posted by: eal79 | April 29, 2009 10:24 AM
Pascale- one of the most important things my father ever told me as an adolescent girl was that I could probably "obtain a mate" at any point I wanted (he said it more or less delicately than that, but it made an impression). Even with that, I was hardly indifferent to attracting boys. It's just that I knew I'd attract some boys without even trying- that somehow ameliorated significant pressure. In other words, girls who have been given correct information don't kill themselves trying to get a boy.
("a boy" in the generic sense, not the "my life is over because I've been dumped" reaction, which both male and female adolescents are subject to)
As a side point, I remember girls doing some dumb things to attract boys (and certainly the reverse as well!). But what always seemed really damaging to me, and really strange, was the girls that were doing dumb things to "look pretty" in ways that could not possibly relate overmuch to attracting boys.
I had a close friend who was a ballerina and who developed anorexia. She would talk about societal pressures in a way that never intuitively made sense to me (I would read Cosmo, but there is a difference between laughing at the hilarious sexual positions and viewing it as a guide to life!). Then I went with her to one audition. Just one, that's all it took.
9/10ths of the conversations were about food and appearance. Many of them weren't over-the-top, but the sheer amount... it was overwhelming. It was obsessive. Girls that have been given *correct* information may kill themselves trying to get a part in a ballet.
"Societal pressures" may not be a huge problem for the bulk of young women. But certain subsets of social pressures (which are influenced/informed by those societal pressures), in certain subcultures, are a huge problem.
The thing I realized once I started engaging with feminine scientists that really, truly astounded me is that not everyone is raised with a values-system where intelligence>>>beauty.
I love beauty and value it, and I know it's entirely compatible with intelligence. But fixating on beauty is against my personal values system. For that reason, I see the types of societal messages I mentioned as a central threat to adolescent girls and young women. They'll probably only be internalized to the point of obsession in a small subfraction of young women, but I'm far from convinced they are beneficial in general and they truly can be devastating.
I don't reject values systems where beauty >>>> intelligence because I think it will make people choose looks over science (they aren't actually incompatible, after all). And I don't oppose it in a futile hope we could get teenagers to not be obsessed with being attractive. I reject them because, in the extremes (which are still far too common in our society), they are profoundly unhealthy.
Posted by: becca | April 29, 2009 10:45 AM
As a young(ish) reader, I am just starting to work my way into the scientific community. I read these science blogs for several reasons. The first, is to stay up to date on the current topics some people are working on. Some blogs I follow articulate the finer details of a field, what's going on in certain labs, latest technology, etc.
The second is because it's entertaining. It's an interesting dichotomy to think about some professors you've had as a student, seen in the classroom and lab, and then read about what they really think. It's a wonderful reminder that professors and scientists are more than just the teacher. They are also learning, and curious, and confused, and angry.
My final reason, and for me the most relevant, is to maintain a firm grasp that although I'm devoted to science, I can be more than just a scientist. I can be a book worm. I can be addicted to shoes or fashion or make-up. I can want to look nice. I can be an artist, or singer, or painter. I can have a family, and children, and continue to pursue my hobbies and interests and not invalidate my career and worth as a scientist. Blogs like this one show everyone that there's more to a scientist's life than just science. There are causes, beliefs and ideals, desires and fears. It especially reminds women (in science and out) that we can be girlie and silly, and still be taken seriously in a professional atmosphere. We can be a mom or grandmother or sister, and still hold our own in our work field. We can be extraordinary.
Posted by: katiebug ladydid | April 29, 2009 11:05 AM
@becca
I am very sensitive to issues of body image. My daughter started out as a dance major in college. After losing 10 lbs (not too hard when you dance 8 hours a day), she was told she was still too large. Why? Her thighs were not long (thank you, genetics), so the muscles that allowed her to make all those dance moves simply looked big. Rather than start smoking and quit eating, she changed majors. She is now doing business communication and PR, and she is quite happy. She misses dancing full-time, but she is still having fun with it in local theatre productions.
I am not saying that we cannot delay gratification where the opposite sex is concerned, but I believe we are hard-wired to start caring about male attention in our teens as we mature. My parents also showed me the way to delay marriage and reproduction for the sake of my other interests, as I have with my children. But we can't change our biology to make this "mating display" go away. Society can dampen it (as in the case of most folks blogging here) or heighten it (Britney Spears & Madison Avenue, anyone?), but I suspect that teens, boys & girls, will always become sexual (intersted in the opposite sex) when they mature sexually.
Posted by: Pascale | April 29, 2009 1:17 PM
Pascale, I agree that at some point attracting the attention of boys becomes important to young women. However, do you suggest that the attention of teenage boys is difficult to attract?
As far as I can tell, a girl's 'success' at attracting boys does not directly correlate with risk of eating disorders, depression, ect.
I think that the false dichotomy between being attractive to boys and being intelligent (or good at science) is a major problem. When this leads to giving up things girls are good at (including science) because they are too "boyish", it may feed into the self-esteem problems. But there are plenty of girls who never felt they were good at those things, or who don't feel they need to give them up, who still have serious problems during adolescence.
There are some pretty sad responses to some pretty deranged messages about how all-important prettiness is. I question how much of it is an intrinsic result of "mating display" and how much is driven by the media for conspicuous consumerism or to give overt form to social hierarchies among groups of girls.
TLDR version: societal messages to focus on image are not driven solely by what boys/men want and are hazardously excessive in any case.
Posted by: becca | April 29, 2009 1:40 PM
I had a geology professor who commented during lecture, "Most female geologists don't look like Hilary Swank." This struck me as bizarre, because she herself was a very pretty young woman in her early thirties. (She had no end of students awarding her the Red Chili Pepper on RateMyProfessor.com.)
@becca: To be "stereotypically pretty", I'd have to be white. Moreover, I was a pimpled ugly duckling until age twenty-three, and often treated accordingly. I do not identify with this label at all.
I've always been effortlessly skinny. I've also gone to predominantly white schools for most of my life. I went to school alongside all these white girls who, like myself, kept getting Hollywood's message that all black girls had "weight issues", while the "natural" state of any "proper" white girl was a long-limbed, willowy, thin figure. (And a straight, sleek pelt of (preferably) blonde hair.) The few books I had that featured black girls as protagonists either took place in the ghetto or described their struggles as the one (non-mixed-race) dark-skinned chick with junk in the trunk among a sea of wispy, vicious cheerleaders who were either white or extremely light-skinned brown girls with hazel eyes and honey-colored hair and pointy noses.
That shit had nothing to do with me. I lived on military bases. I'm dark-skinned and black-haired. I talked like a white girl and read Anne of Green Gables. I was a nerdy introvert who built ladybug farms in jumbo-size pickle jars and lived in the dream world in my head. I never wanted to hurt anybody. Emotionally, I was a big baby. I realize now that I was so "unlabelable" that kids just didn't know how the hell to react most of the time.
And I was one of the willowy ones (if more gangly than willowy during adolescence), while many of "them" were the ones frowning at their waistlines. Yet I was the one scarfing down the sixth piece of pizza at the birthday party while several of "them" suffered so much under the societal pressures you name that they were barfing up lunch in the bathroom while the rest of us pretended not to notice.
It was like that for me in college, too. I had several friends who grappled with anorexia and bulimia. They were all white. They were all very smart women, and they knew exactly what they were doing. That didn't make it any less awful: it just made it more complicated and harder to address. To this day, I have no idea how I'd've responded to the pressures they were under in their stead.
Looking back, both messages violently disgust me. The "black" is "ugly" one, and the "fat" is "ugly" one. (Those messages have a nastily insidious way of together compounding the harm each would do on its own. I can't tell you how thankful I am that things have markedly improved in this arena since the mid-to-late 1990s. I feel like today's kids won't have these hangups to anywhere near the degree Gen Xers like myself had.) I can't significantly identify with the Reviving Ophelia struggle: that book focused on suburban white girls, among whom I've lived but never belonged-- no matter how hard I used to try. (That's fine. My experience is so anomalous that I don't expect there to be books for girls like the one I was.) But I sure as hell can identify with shamed self-loathing over one's physical appearance.
So many stereotypes amount to magical thinking. In terms of determining who any given individual is, they're all about as useful as astrological signs. People are threatened because people are complicated. That's what they seem to boil down to. I don't have any patience for this shit anymore. Even in myself.
Point taken, though.
Seriously? So, you're, like, twenty now? And yet you're here bossing all us old people around on a regular basis? :)
@Toaster: Hence Female Science Professor's post. The sad thing is, I can't fully divest myself of the notion that an exceptional professional female scientist is far, far more likely to be a monomaniac. She may not be frumpy, but she is probably a bachelorette by firm choice who spends ninety hours a week in the lab-- without coffee or Twitter breaks. Obviously, that's absurd. But the notion lingers.
My sister and I had this conversation two years ago. We admitted to one another that it may not be PC to say so, and that we were going to get flamed for saying it publicly. Both of us are characteristically blunt, honest people, though, and we weren't going to lie. In our opinion, any ambitious professional woman-- we're talking "I want to be elected to the National Academies for stunningly, thrillingly groundbreaking work and write zillions of books" ambitious-- had to choose between husband and children and her career. We didn't believe all the people who said otherwise.
My sister said she planned to work until she and her husband were extremely solvent, have children, and then quit work to raise them "properly" while he brought home the bacon. She didn't "believe" in the concept of working motherhood. I said that would make me miserable, and therefore I planned to never marry, never have children, and have an exciting, fun career as an ambitious scientist, a charming home all to myself, and a cat.
Keep in mind that this probably has to do with the way we were raised as much as it has to do with societal messages. For starters, as the oldest child of my parents, I got the message that glamour and domesticity are mutually incompatible. I also had an extremely intelligent mother with little formal education who in her heart of hearts wanted a high-flying career but who stayed at home to raise us instead, in a community where, like, 99% of the women were doing the exact same thing. It was a conservative, traditionalist environment.
I'm still struggling to figure it out. 'Course, too, life is what happens when you're making other plans.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | April 29, 2009 2:54 PM
Ping!
Posted by: Dr. Free-Ride | April 29, 2009 4:13 PM
Yay! Pinged by Free-Ride!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | April 29, 2009 4:15 PM
Somehow missed this discussion... sorry I'm a couple days late.
I think that the younger generations are coming, and they will be here soon enough, in a tidal wave.
Even in my secret identity mode, I sometimes hear the young postdocs in my lab say things that I know they must have read on a blog.
And I've started occasionally leaking blog links to colleagues as appropriate re: their career questions, despite my fear that they might realize where I got them (!). I never refer them to my own blog, but I can only hope they won't notice that (!).
In general I think we have a duty to be honest and open. I like the idea of blogging as form of self-anthropology. Science desperately needs a little navel-gazing. How else are we ever going to fix our desperately broken system??
re: this question, however, I worry that Seed is more concerned with income, and hoping that a wider audience might bring in more money via click-through or whatever might lead to some pressure for you all to write more of a certain kind of post more often-?
This is part of why I didn't join Seed when they asked (although there were a few reasons, and I still think it was generally the right move for me).
That said, I hope you can keep on keeping on, just as you have. I think it fills a major gap.
Posted by: msphd | May 2, 2009 2:02 AM