Isis the Scientist is fighting, steaming mad. I mean, the kind of irrational that might lead to her hit "publish" and then wish she hadn't in the morning. But, no matter. Dr. Isis is full of a couple of pieces of toast and Diet Dr. Pepper and she's about to air some laundry.
Figure 1: Seriously, this angry. But, only way, way, way hotter. And not so creepy. Ok, actually nothing like this.
What has raised the ire of ScienceBlog's domestic and laboratory diva? Earlier yesterday, one of my favorite bloggers shared this article with me. Here's the relevant excerpt:
To this I say, "blah, blah, blah" And then I add more....
As female students increasingly dominate in science competitions across the country, educators are facing a conundrum that requires more social analysis than hard science: Boys are not just getting beaten by girls -- they're not even showing up.
---------------
"We're beginning to have concerns," said Reni Barlow, executive director of Youth Science Canada, a national organization that oversees the national and regional science fairs in its mandate to foster Canada's future generation of scientists.
Educators are searching for new tools to lure more boys back into the fold. In Quebec, where girls made up 68 per cent of students at this year's provincial science fair, regional organizers recently created a program focused on technology and robotics -- deliberately promoting fields where boys have traditionally shown the most interest. Youth Science Canada recently launched a mentorship program that it hopes will inspire more boys to continue in the footsteps of Canada's top male researchers.
Ironically, many of the programs mirror those that have been used in the last 15 years to draw more young girls into the fold, when the alarm was raised about the lack of women in science university programs across the country.
To this I say, "blah, blah, blah" And then I add more....
This is not the first time that I have been told that young girls are better represented in science than boys and that this signals the end of sexism in science. Or, worse, that there is now reverse discrimination against boys/men that will someday cause science to be female-dominated.
It's not the first time I have head the argument that boys are being unduly discriminated against in science. While I appreciate the angst that the perception that girls are replacing boys in science causes, it is complete and utter nonsense to attempt to extrapolate this to predict how women will fair in the future. What I think has raised my ire is that fact that, so often, it is men who show me these types of articles/studies as evidence that things have improved.
In many ways things have improved. In many ways, regardless of what elementary school children are doing, things are no different.
At the end semester I ran into a graduate student who had been pregnant. I absolutely adore this woman and think that she is one of the sharpest students I have met. I ran in to her because she had returned to our department to take a final...5 days after giving birth. I know that 5 days after I had Little Isis I didn't want to be sitting for any length, and with the post-childbirth discomfort, the pain in my breasts from just establishing nursing, and the distraction of the new baby, there would have been no way that I could have concentrated on successfully completing a final. I saw her post-final. As I cooed at her new baby, I wondered why she had felt the pressure to finish her final. I knew that she had discussed her due date with faculty. I wondered if she had put pressure on herself to finish, but I also realized that it didn't matter. Someone should have had the good sense to tell her that her final was not as important as being at home, rocking her new baby...that the final could and should wait until she was completely recovered. That biochemistry could wait 8 weeks while she focused on being home.
Thinking about this, and reading the article I linked to above, evoked an additional, hidden level of ire that I was not prepared to deal with. You see, usually the men that point out articles like this and tout all the new-fangled equality in science for girls are not simply men. They're white men, enjoying an extra special flavor of privilege that people in out groups don't get to get a scoop of. Sometimes I think their whiteness colors their perceptions and prevents them from appreciating that, even if they believe women are being treated a particular way, it doesn't mean that it's universally true.
A couple of weeks ago I was chatting with a particular boy blogger that I adore. As he tends to do on occasion, he was colorfully expressing his anger towards the mainstream media and their inability to substantively cover topics. I told him that I don't read most of the mainstream publications -- in the morning I read El País and La Opinión. As I told him about some of the articles on the front page, I realized that there were a number of events occurring in the non-white world that he had no idea about. It wasn't that he didn't care. He lacked the frame of reference to realize that these things were occurring and that he ought to be paying attention.
The same is true for many women in science and academia. White male members of these spheres may think they've plugged the holes, but they lack the reference to appreciate cultural differences that put pressure on women to leave professional careers. I'll never forget being 20 years old and in college, going home to meet the parents of a boy I was dating. After dinner, the boy's father leaned over, pinched my hip, and told his son, "¡Qué bueno, hijo! Ella tiene cintura perfecta para estar embarazada."
I am so pleased that young girls are becoming better represented in science and I certainly hate to think that young boys are not pursuing science. However, to conflate this with the success of women in science is short-sighted and fails to appreciate the complexity of the factors that keep women from transitioning from trainee to career scientist
I fear that if I read one more article like this I may take a page from Zuska's book and start puking. Dare I say it, on shoes.
Education & Careers
Life Science
Comments
Thank you so much for writing this! That article....head hurts!
Posted by: Coturnix | May 19, 2009 9:41 AM
I still don't buy the reverse discrimination argument.
I'm a guy, and on OBGYN right now. It's 80-90% female (both faculty and residents) and at my current institution, probably because general surgery has been/currently is such a boys club. Despite this I haven't been discriminated against, OB hasn't been a "girl's club". The only factor in who gets to do cool things, or who gets attention, has been how interested you are. Whether this is a fluke, or representative I have no idea.
Posted by: Whitecoat Tales | May 19, 2009 10:00 AM
Interesting post.
You're right that fact that there are the problems educating boys doesn't mean that women in science don't suffer from the effects of past and present sexism. Maybe the article should have mentioned that.
But if we don't educate our boys, we will be experiencing problems of a different nature in the future.
Posted by: Dave Munger | May 19, 2009 10:04 AM
I think it might perhaps be apt to mention that scientific research is about the least representative area of work compared to the general population.
Compared to the almost complete absence of certain sections of the community in sceintific research the male female ratio disparity is almost negligible (although certainly not unimportant).
Posted by: Sigmund | May 19, 2009 10:28 AM
Nice, Isis. And please please tell that poor grad student to GET HERSELF HOME. I won't deny I'm seriously impressed at her badassery for taking a final 5 days after giving birth, but she should not have had to do that. It's a no-brainer that a baby is more important than a final.
Posted by: Scicurious | May 19, 2009 10:28 AM
Wait. What?!? Are you saying that there is no gender disparity in academia?
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 19, 2009 10:33 AM
You make a great point, and it is abundantly clear that something falls apart in the middle.
I find myself, with two sons and two daughters, knowing full well that I do outreach to young ladies, but thinking always, "gosh, boys would like this too!"
Posted by: sciencegoddess | May 19, 2009 10:38 AM
@sigmund:"Compared to the almost complete absence of certain sections of the community in sceintific research the male female ratio disparity is almost negligible (although certainly not unimportant)."
This is yet another misconception with the parity/disparity crap. It's not just about numbers. The ratio may be 50/50, but if there are no women in positions of power, it's NOT parity.
Posted by: jc | May 19, 2009 10:48 AM
"Wait. What?!? Are you saying that there is no gender disparity in academia? "
I certainly did not say that.
What I am saying is that there are many disparities in science (gender, ethnicity etc) that are much more extreme compared to professions with similar qualification periods (say medicine, law etc). I don't discount gender inequalities, although these may be more extreme in different places - I cannot speak for the United States but I know Scandinavian countries do try to make some effort in this regard.
The question is why is scientific research so skewed?
You only have to look at the blog list on Scienceblogs to notice it is far from representative of the general population, indeed in terms of gender inequalities scienceblogs is probably worse than academia!
Posted by: Sigmund | May 19, 2009 10:51 AM
Posted by: Whitecoat Tales | May 19, 2009 11:17 AM
My department is unusual in that there are more female faculty than male (discounting those in Admin positions), but is not unusual in that it is dominated by female grad students. It is not uncommon for me to be the only male at a committee meeting of proposal defense, etc. In this environment it is easy for male students and faculty to look around and say that there can not possibly be gender disparity in science and I can't tell you how many times I have had to beat people over the head with the fact that female grad students and post-docs don't make the jump to PI as often as their male counterparts. Just because one's immediate envorenment isn't skewed doesn't mean that the field isn't.
I think this is the same thing that the author of the article (and apparently the admin of youth science programs) is missing. I would argue that we need to train more female than male scientist if we have any hope reaching a balance at the PI level for reasons like the situation you describe, unless we change how pre-tenure works for women who want to start a family. Who wants a career where child birth is viewed in the same vein as the flu? I was barely coherent 5 days after my daughter was born. I can't imagine expecting someone who has actually birthed a baby to do anything but recover and spend time with the child that soon after birth. But obviously she felt like it was expected. Badass or not, this is a problem.
Posted by: Prof-like Substance | May 19, 2009 11:18 AM
the pipeline is leaking in several places- how many of those asskicking girls are going to get self-doubts in middle school, or lose interest, or whatever? how many of those girls dominating in science now are going to finish a science degree, get into science?
because i tell ya, when we're kids everyone wants to be a doctor, a teacher, a veterinarian, a firefighter, a police officer, an astronaut, whatever. but not all of us end up DOING those things.
where they're going in the end is the question.
oh, and Isis, what that boy's father said to you... that makes me angry too.
Posted by: leigh | May 19, 2009 11:28 AM
More evidence for my hypothesis that Western notions of masculinity are inherently based on fear and the projection of insecurity. Men don't have to be aggressive, but as a whole we are. Men don't have to disproportionately step on others' heads to get ahead, but as a whole we do. Male patriarchy in seemingly any context seems to be a huddled-together defensive reaction to outside threats (best analogy I can think of is a lipid micelle where talent is hydrophobic and douchebaggery is hydrophilic). As a result, the male status quo is always to panic at the first hint that maybe a legitimate threat to our lineage of power is emerging, and society as a whole has bought into it. This is why such articles get written.
Posted by: Toaster | May 19, 2009 11:29 AM
Apparently what Sigmund is getting at with his/her elliptical hints is that there are no black people in science and no black bloggers at Teh Worldz Most Self-Involved ScienceBlaaarghSpot.
True.
So what? Gender disparity is still a huge problem. And the easiest to identify because men and women of all walks of life share so many environmental (and genetic) factors and are distinguished solely by gender (and the cascade of effects resulting from that fact).
Posted by: BikeMonkey | May 19, 2009 11:39 AM
I am in pediatrics, which has been 50+% female longer than any other specialty in medicine; however, our academic faculty, especially senior administrative positions, is incredibly male (and white). My own impression is that most women decide that they can't have a family and be in academics. The truth? Only in an academic practice will you have the opportunities for cross-coverage and job flexibility that I have had. It's much harder to reschedule a half-day clinic than to drag home a laptop and write after hours. I probably log more hours per week than those in practice, but I do it when I want. So even with sufficient women in the pipeline, they aren't making it into academia or leadership positions. Those of us who choose to be physician-scientists are fewer. If you have MD after your name, eventually you can say screw these reviewers, see patients, and make more money with less grief than writing grants and papers provides.
On another note, I don't know why taking a final 5 days after giving birth seems so extreme to a goddess who blogged in the first 24 hours of her newborn's life;)
Posted by: Pascale | May 19, 2009 11:47 AM
where they're going in the end is the question
Exactly. It's one thing for a girl to show interest in science in jr. high/high school, and quite another for her to tell her parents that she actually wants to major in science in college. From what I can tell (I tutored high school kids for years), most parents have two reactions: "Science doesn't suit you" (i.e. is not feminine enough) or "Don't you want a better paying job?" How this plays out in the real world:
I'm taking post-baccalaureate classes now in preparation for grad school (next year), and the situation hasn't changed much since I was an undergrad 15+ years ago. Half of the chemistry majors are women...but more than half of those women are actually pre-med or pre-dental students. The other half might go for a master's degree, but then they're going into industry. *sigh*
I once tutored a fabulously brilliant young lady (she had self-esteem problems more than homework problems) who eventually decided to major in chemistry. It was fun to see her evolve from "I don't know what I want to do with my life" to "I love chemistry!" Guess what her career aspiration is? She wants to teach jr. high science...
Thank God I had good parents who didn't try to limit my career aspirations in any way, shape, or form. (They've already produced two female professors and I'm hoping to be #3.) I hope I can be as supportive for my children...this is one of the times I regret not having any girls, because I'd sure love to have a daughter who would follow me into academia.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | May 19, 2009 11:51 AM
It's not that we aren't teaching the young males -- it's what we're teaching all of the kids.
I'm minded of a young man whose wife had just given birth to premature twins by emergency C-section. He'd spent the previous 48 hours with her (in L&D) and the babies (in NICU) and was dead out -- he got home by being driven, since he wasn't safe to drive. He arrived to find a message waiting from his office: be here, NOW, or your job is history.
Never mind how it worked out for him, think of all the others -- including your new-mom test-taker -- who observed the Way Life Really Works. Is that the lesson we want to get across?
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 19, 2009 11:58 AM
ohh...i saw that article, blew a castigate and then started fumigating about another bad commentary in that same issu...
Posted by: ScientistMother | May 19, 2009 12:07 PM
Dear Goddess. You may find that this illustrates the relationship between news and science quite well.
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
Posted by: Labness | May 19, 2009 1:08 PM
Those mean old girls are outcompeting the poor widdle boys in science fair. EMERGENCY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 19, 2009 1:28 PM
"You see, usually the men that point out articles like this and tout all the new-fangled equality in science for girls are not simply men. They're white men, enjoying an extra special flavor of privilege that people in out groups don't get to get a scoop of."
How convenient to have a boogeyman to blame for the ills of science demography.
On another blog, CPP blamed my comment and its content on me being a white dude and the reason I managed to survive and succeed in science. That, of course, despite my mediocre science (the asshole doesn't even know my science); that a white dude I could not compete with the geniuses of today where funding is concerned (the foulmouth has no idea about my science funding) and that I try to protect my damaged ego (this stalker does not know me from Adam) by commenting the way I did.
Are we going to blame the white duda (female dude) for the unproportional small number of African American women in science? Or is it also the fault of the white dude?
I believe that a significant part of the improvement seen today in the demography of science is due to white dudes. I haven't noticed a MLK-type scientist pushing the cause of African American scientists; I haven't heard or saw a Susan B. Anthony-type woman scientist fighting for other women scientists. In contrast, I sure have heard much whining, especially on this blog, about the white dude and his crimes.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 19, 2009 2:14 PM
BikeMonkey, you would do well to observe your own point and not discount the fact that there is not only a gender disparity in the sciences and academic fields, but also a glaring racial disparity as well.
Sigmund suggests that there is a lack of proportionality here on this blog when it comes to race. You say, "So what?", as if racial disparities don't matter. And since when has noticing racial and ethnic disparities been any more difficult to identify than those based on gender?
It seems to me that the best way to solve this problem is to establish programs or to expand existing programs that encourage young minds from all backgrounds to explore the sciences. We as a society simply can't afford to leave any stones unturned when it comes to innovation. With as many problems as we have today, we need all the bright ideas we can get.
It's great that there are more girls participating in science fairs today. My nieces are among them, and I couldn't be happier. But there's no need to put down any efforts to get more boys involved, nor is it necessary to trivialize the fact that there are still many racial and ethnic inequalities in our society that need to be corrected. Science is just one field out of many. Just because Obama is the President doesn't mean that racism has suddenly gone away.
Posted by: hrob27 | May 19, 2009 2:21 PM
So now it seems like your "senior producer" may finally have her controversy! Your "Letters to Our Daughters" project will only serve to make this imbalance worse! (As per my satirical/ironic comment of last week: http://scienceblogs.com/isisthescientist/2009/05/the_letters_to_our_daughters_p_3.php#comment-1620317 )
Posted by: Harold | May 19, 2009 2:32 PM
Have you not been paying attention to what Dr. Isis is doing here?
And since this apparently has yet to permeate: talking about a problem is a form of action. Talking about sexism in the blogosphere is education for all involved and it has a tangible positive benefit.
Posted by: Toaster | May 19, 2009 2:36 PM
@D.C. - You're kidding me, right? If I recall correctly, you have children. So you know that the "new-mom" in no way compares to essentially what amounts to a tired man. Regardless of whether the woman in the Isis story had a C-section or delivered vaginally, the combination of the physical agony of birth (which may or may not have included having one's perineum ripped or surgically incised), the onset of nursing, the complete and utter overwhelming feeling of mothering a new child might be "the Way Life Works" for a woman, but that cannot be compared to anything a man undergoes outside of a major automobile accident. (and this is a guy who bitched and moaned about his inconsequential vasectomy).
When we have men coming over here and telling women what they should or shouldn't feel and implying that men have it equally tough, you make clear that we have a very long way to go as a profession and a larger society.
I want to know where the professor was in this whole episode to provide some guidance for the student. For the record, I told a new mom student that I'd be happy to postpone a final exam for a week, 10 days, two weeks, or whatever time she thought was necessary to recover physically. She is now director of pharmacy at a major metropolitan hospital. I don't believe that this alternative arrangement when measured over four years of a professional program gave her any unfair career advantage. To me, I just felt like a human being in acknowledging the pain that I could never imagine. Is that really so wrong?
Now if the woman in your story was asked to go to work 48 hr after a C-section - that would be something.
Posted by: Abel Pharmboy | May 19, 2009 2:36 PM
Toaster,
The gender disparity in science is a problem that has been recognized and worked on long before Isis became a scientist and a blogger. Talking about a problem, educating people about its existence and possible ways to alleviate it is good and important. Blaming white dudes and posting pictures of an angry woman is not an action and is not educating. Recognizing that the problem belongs to all of us and the solution to it is the hands of all scientists, regardless of gender and skin color, is the correct way to work toward its resolution.
Posted by: S. Rivlin | May 19, 2009 2:48 PM
The other half might go for a master's degree, but then they're going into industry. *sigh*
Why the sigh, UnlikelyGrad? Would you be happier if those women got their PhD’s and then went into industry? They are still chemists, you know, doing valuable work/research (cf. Percy Julian). Part of the problem is that too many people think success=academia. If your goal is a TT position in academia, I wish you all the best, but bear in mind that you are a long ways away with no guarantees of securing such a job. Should someone sigh if you change your mind down the line and decide that you want to go into industry instead?
Posted by: Hope | May 19, 2009 3:03 PM
So if a feminist wants to find women-only space, she should be a science major? Thanks for examining this claim, Isis.
Posted by: Level Best | May 19, 2009 3:22 PM
Nope. I am pointing out how bogus it is to drag up other situations of inequality when the discussion is about gender inequality. This is a classic distraction/minimization technique in this context. Sigmund exhibited this technique very explicitly in #4.
Since forever. Racial and ethnic identities tend to be correlated with a host of other factors including socio-economic status of household, educational opportunity, peer and family expectations, priorities, etc, etc. Factors which may have independent effects on participation in science, thus complicating the assignment of cause.
To the extent that these factors are associated with the racial and ethnic identity, they are fixed across gender. Of course, there are indeed many interesting interactions of sex and ethnicity but that just further illustrates the complicated morass. In contrast, looking at the simple main effect of gender is simpler.
Posted by: BikeMonkey | May 19, 2009 3:26 PM
Hope: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with industry. The problem is that professors, not industry chemists, are the ones who end up serving as role models for the next generation.
I will never have a biological daughter for whom I can serve as a role model, but that doesn't mean I can't have the chance to influence young women. I honestly hope that, some day, I have the chance to tell female students that I took a bunch o' years off to raise my family, and it didn't wreck my career, because I think women should know that it's a perfectly valid option. I want to show girls that it's okay to have a career that is considered "not feminine" and not exactly the world's best paying job...that you can choose your career based on what intrigues you, what meshes best with your personality.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | May 19, 2009 3:45 PM
Agreed. Especially since I've only seen one woman leave the hospital before day 3 after a C-section, and even then, they went to home to rest. Some perspective here, a C section is major surgery, would we expect someone to go to work 48 hours after a major surgery?
@Bikemonkey - I agree with your point, Sigmund appears to be trying to minimize gender inequality by pointing out other inequalities. But even if it wasn't your intention, my iimpression of your comment was to think you were minimizing ethnic/other inequalities. Clearly this post isn't the appropriate forum to discuss those inequalities, but lets not pretend they don't exist because we're talking about gender inequality today.
Posted by: Whitecoat Tales | May 19, 2009 3:53 PM
I've only read the bit of the article that Isis quoted, and I'm not particularly up on any larger context to this article or issue generally, but I don't see that the article itself or the issue it raises should be dismissed, and I don't see that the article is saying that males are now at a disadvantage in science generally (though, again, I'm not very up on this and perhaps there's an assumed undercurrent here that I'm missing).
To be clear, it's just silly to say that more young girls than boys being into science means that we don't need to worry about the opposite gender disparity later on, and the latter is to my mind a bigger deal for larger sociological reasons even apart from the differences in magnitude, but significant gender disparities anywhere are prima facie signs of gross inefficiency and are worth trying to correct. If this effect we're seeing among children exactly canceled out later pipeline leaks among females, that wouldn't mean that everything was fine - it'd just mean that we have two huge problems instead of one.
Posted by: Gotchaye | May 19, 2009 4:15 PM
Abel, the point is that $EMPLOYER valued the $LIFE side of things so little that they would threaten to fire an employee for putting three immediate family members -- two in ICU -- over being in the office.
Teaching that lesson is exactly how you end up with a woman rushing from childbirth to take an exam.
As I wrote, it's not so much who we teach as what we teach them. The worst offenses aren't gender secrets, they're indoctrination applied equally to boys and girls, with and without melanin.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 19, 2009 4:17 PM
Hey, I served on a search committee within 48 hours of a C-section, granted remotely via email, at the insistence of my dickish chair. I bet I'm not the only one....
Isis, is this article really suggesting that the disparity is a case of reverse discrimination or that women don't face any obstacles at higher levels in science? In my department, we have similar bizarre patterns of not too many white guys going for honors theses, research experience, big awards, etc. I do think it is indicative of a general problem in how we teach and promote science.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 19, 2009 4:30 PM
Thanks, Whitecoat Tales. I agree with Bikemonkey, too, but his first comment sure came across as an unnecessary dismissal. Which is easy to do when you're not the one being left out.
Canadian novelist Ann-Marie MacDonald, who was also an Air Force Brat, wrote about a girlhood in which she was told by everyone around her that she could be anything-- a doctor or an astrophysicist even-- at the same time that her father forbade her to mow the lawn or go hunting, her mother fretted over her lack of "ladylike" conduct and pressed her to wash dishes and cook while her brother was excused from "domestic" chores, and her entire community typically segregated boys and girls from one another in school and play, lest they "corrupt" one another by teaching each other "gender-inappropriate" behaviors.
This resonated deeply with me. Of course, in this situation, kids wind up professing desires to enter a diverse array of careers. Girls (winningly! like beauty pageant contestants!) tell their uncles or aunts or inquisitive strangers who pause to admire how "pretty" or "well-mannered" they are that they're going to be veterinarians and professors and CEOs and scientists.
So what? What good is it to have a very abstract conviction that you can be whatever you want to be when all the women you know have babies and stay at home? What about when your worth has been continually judged by your appearance and your tractability, while your intelligence is valued only to the extent that it's ornamental? "Well, my daughter makes straight-As. She's definitely more special than the other kids. But I wish she'd stop collecting bugs, reading subversive books six grade levels above hers and asking so many difficult questions!"
(What about when everyone you know never surpassed a "working-class" level of education, and the world of academia and intellectualism-- let alone research science-- is as foreign to them as another country? What about when you reach adulthood with no idea of how provincial you really are, and how much that stands in the way of your figuring out how to be whom you want to be? But those questions probably aren't appropriate for this thread, either.)
If there's anything I learned by being the first of my entire family line to go to a school like Berkeley, it's that this role model thing counts with a vengeance.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | May 19, 2009 4:43 PM
The trouble with commenting on an forum like this is that one can only approach the matter from a local perspective. My department is headed by a woman. Several other departments in the Institution are also headed by women. Indeed the head of the institution itself is a woman.
Pregnancies are common rather than rare amongst women career scientists here and the state provides subsidised childcare to allow both parents to work.
Maternity and paternity leave amount to 16 months per child and there is active efforts by the state to share this leave between both parents.
Gender disparities here at least are probably less than those that some people here seem to experience but I would suggest that this is to do with your own society rather than something inherent in science.
The point about other disparities (the "so what" group) is to ask the question of what it is about the job itself that produces such disparities. My own opinion is that it is nothing to do with inherent abilities of different sectors of the community but rather it is a function of a profession that has its historical roots as a past-time of rich gentlemen rather than something that promises a financially sustainable career.
If we ignore the fact that 93% of postdocs trying for a tenure track position will ultimately fail we are missing out on a major piece of the puzzle as to why certain groups may avoid science as a career option.
Posted by: Sigmund | May 19, 2009 4:59 PM
@UnlikelyGrad: I don’t agree that it’s only profs who can serve as role models for the next generation. However, I’m glad that you want to send young women the message that “you can choose your career based on what intrigues you, what meshes best with your personality.” I hope that when you’re a prof and your best student decides to go into industry, because it’s what meshes best with *her* personality, you will be as supportive of her as you are of the students that want to follow you into academia.
Posted by: Hope | May 19, 2009 6:13 PM
BikeMonkey, if you state that the factors of race as well as gender make measuring inequalities so complicated, then why are you dismissing the racial factors that would naturally be a part of any discussion about access to any field?
I can't speak for anyone else here on this comments page, nor would I try to, but frankly I find it a bit offensive that you are insistent on not including all factors into this discussion. So we focus exclusively on gender. As I've said before, I have no problem whatsoever with programs that attempt to involve girls in science fairs. I think it's a good thing. But should those programs then only target white girls?
This has been the complaint of many women of color since the earliest days of the woman's liberation movement of which this discussion is ultimately a part: that the equality that is supposed to guarantee rights and opportunity to women has often times been meant to extend only to white women. I guess since you think it so unnecessary to discuss race in this context, would you also think it unnecessary to make sure that such outreach programs also reach out to black, Asian, and Hispanic girls? Or do they simply not count?
You state that to discuss race in this context is to minimalize the question of gender inequality, when in fact to ignore such obvious and legitimate questions is in itself an attempt to silence and marginalize an entire group of people, some of who are undoubtedly female. I can't help but question your motives when you repeatedly refer to questions of racial inequality as "bogus".
Science is a study of knowledge that requires objectivity as a crucial component for its own survival. I say again that we live in complicated times that demand creative solutions, and we will be more dependent upon scientists and academics to find these solutions than perhaps any other time in human history.
To find these solutions we will need to tap into every available human resource. Every group will need to contribute in order for us to succeed and progress, which means that any programs that attempt to reach the youth of today will need to focus on more than just gender. It's a good start to target girls, but it's just that. A start.
Posted by: hrob27 | May 19, 2009 7:07 PM
First off, this is a story from Canada. Please realise that the fucked up gender politics of American (bench) science do not automatically apply to every other country in the world. I visited my old lab a month ago and sat around a table with 15 highly talented successful women scientists and no men.
Secondly, breaking the boy pipeline to science will not fix the broken girl pipe further along. You may get equity of genders but will it serve the public interest? I visited my old lab a month ago and sat around a table with 15 highly talented successful women scientists and no men. The topic of conversation was science and babies and how to accomodate both of them (and sometimes the science of babies). The leaky pipeline is still a problem when you get rid of all the men.
What would be so wrong with fixing both of the pipeline problems? It's not an either or decision.
Posted by: antipodean | May 19, 2009 7:08 PM
Dude, did you miss the whole paragraph where I talked about the additional factors involved with being a non-white woman? I even put Spanish in to help point it out!!!!!
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | May 19, 2009 7:12 PM
...
As a 'privileged middle-age white d00d' i will just keep my mouth shut ...except to note that some of you speak wisely and others, well, you are here representing.
I also might suggest, as the father of an early-20's man- and woman-child that perhaps the decline in male participation noted in the linked article might be linked to recent societal changes that seem to value games, and partying, and being cool to be a 'real' teen male. (A thought reflected in the article.)
I seriously think we expect less of both our young males and females. And males have more of a tendency to live down to those expectations. While young ladies fill the vacuum.
But what the h3ll does the d00d know...
...tom...
.
Posted by: ...tom... | May 19, 2009 7:14 PM
The title of this post is "There Are Too Many Girls in Science! Let the Boys Back In!" While Dr. Isis (as usual) has taken care to discuss the racial issues that many women face in addition to gender ones, the focus of this post remains gender issues.
With regard to this post and others like it, I think it's better that way. Issues specific to women of color in science warrant their own posts, because white women desirous of a focused discussion of their personal experiences aren't going to be able to identify with them. Women are often pitted against one another in discussions of identity politics. I've had enough of the consequent backlash against people like me. And I say that as a half-black female science blogger who daily struggles both with her (not entirely fair) resentment toward ScienceBlogs as well as her anger at herself for not yet being a good enough blogger to help fill the void her own damn self.
Posted by: Juniper Shoemaker | May 19, 2009 7:56 PM
I was a science fair judge and girls swept the category. When we were tallying up awards at the end, the head judge announced that we need to have at least one boy to be fair. None of us could think of one boy that stood out, still the head judge found a boy to include as honorable mention.
I was happy to see black and hispanic kids strutting their sciency stuff. What I didn't see were black and hispanic judges, which when it comes to the kids, are invaluable as role models and real live breathing examples of a scientists to interact with.
Another thing I noticed was that a bunch of the girls reached out to shake my hand but they hesitated or didn't with the older d00ds. They would talk to me directly and point things out (even complimenting my Naughty Monkeys!). The boys did exactly the opposite. Most times, I had to reach out my hand and say "hi, I'm Dr. JC, nice to meet you" after they already greeted the old d00d.
If any of you have a chance to be a judge, please do it. It's a few hours of your time, but it really does make a world of difference to the kids to talk about things that their parents don't even understand.
Posted by: jc | May 19, 2009 8:00 PM
In this case they likely do. Just to make sure I wasn't talking completely out of my ass, I looked up the faculty list for the University of Toronto Department of Physiology and counted men vs. women faculty based on either knowing them or guessing from a name and/or picture. Out of the 115 faculty members, I could figure out the gender of 100. There were 76 men and 24 women. That's almost 50-50, right?
Posted by: LostMarbles | May 19, 2009 8:11 PM
I understand and appreciate efforts towards equality in the fields of science and academia. I just don't see how this article has much to say about any of that. Unless there was more to it than was posted here.
The article makes very little reference to representation in the field as adults (with the limited mention of "inspiring boys" and efforts to "bring more young girls into the fold") nor does it refer to discrimination. Instead, the article points out a disparity in participation by gender and states how they plan to encourage one sex to participate more...
They didn't talk about females participating less, or discrimination against females or males. I guess what I'm saying is your argument doesn't follow from the evidence presented.
I agree that your argument for equality is valid, and support your efforts to encourage women in science through all ages and stages of life. I just don't think this article is saying what you are getting from it.
Then again, I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.
Thanks again for your letters project and for being a positive voice in science.
-DJ
Posted by: DJ | May 19, 2009 8:49 PM
According to the article boys now make up only 44% of competitors! Oh noes!!1! (Although the picture caption says that girls make up 66%. What was that about science standards in journalism again?) If that difference was the other way around (like it was 5 years ago) then no-one would be talking about it. If it continues to increase it might actually be something that needs intervention - but still wouldn't have anything to do with the problems women face in their careers, of course. I'm inclined to agree with DC that these are largely about employers' attitudes to work-life balance.
We don't really have science fairs in the UK - nothing on that scale, at least. What's the social bias in these competitions like? Some of the projects sound kinda expensive.
Posted by: Charlotte | May 19, 2009 8:49 PM
I have 2 daughters; one started in a science program at university in 2000 and one in 2002.
My question is - where are all the boys?
Seriously, they attended 2 different universities, and in both easily over 50% of their classmates were women.
I can't state percentages but many, many of their professors, lab supervisors, and placement supervisors were also women.
Have boys given up on medicine,law and dentistry and decided to become plumbers, bricklayers and stockbrokers?
Just saying... It seems very strange how far the pendulum has swung over my lifetime.
Those boys are out there somewhere ... what are they doing?
Posted by: R E G | May 19, 2009 11:11 PM
I am a graduate student, and adjunct faculty. I gave birth to my daughter in November of 2007. Like the good neurotic I am, I immediately tried to find the WVU policy on pregnant students. There wasn't one, so I set about finding one.
1) West Virginia University's Office of Social Justice's director Jennifer McIntosh (Yes, I'm getting dirty and naming names) told me that pregnancy was not a disability, and therefore not covered by any WVU policy.
2) The office of student financial aid's senior administrator, Kaye Caplinger Widney, required me to inform all my professors that I was pregnant and get their permission to take their classes, given that I was pregnant, before she would release my financial aid that semester.
3) Most of my professors were sympathetic, but my sole male professor (geography, Brent McCusker) required me to to take my final in the computer lab 4 weeks after giving birth (while still unable to drive, as a result of delivery complications), told me I couldn't bring my infant, and told me that if I insisted on a medical incomplete, he'd require me to finish it up in January, instead of giving me the entire next semester, as is standard.
Only later did I learn that pregnancy is in fact specifically protected under Title VII of the
Civil Rights act as a temporary disability!
http://www.eeoc.gov/types/pregnancy.html
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html
"The terms *because of sex* or *on the basis of sex* include,
but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy,
childbirth, or related medical conditions; and women affected by
pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated
the same for all employment-related purposes, including receipt of
benefits under fringe benefit programs, as other persons not so affected
but similar in their ability or inability to work, and nothing in
section 2000e*2 (h) of this title shall be interpreted to permit
otherwise. This subsection shall not require an employer to pay for
health insurance benefits for abortion, except where the life of the
mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or except
where medical complications have arisen from an abortion: Provided, That
nothing herein shall preclude an employer from providing abortion
benefits or otherwise affect bargaining agreements in regard to
abortion."
And of course:
Title IX, Education Amendment Action of 1972:
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex against employees or students in any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. Extends coverage of the Equal Pay Act.
So yes, students are protected against discrimination on the basis of pregnancy.
I'm still pissed off about the whole thing, and really have no place to complain to at the University, when the Social Justice office can't even protect women and children.
Posted by: Courtney | May 19, 2009 11:20 PM
A man who became a close friend in grad school moved to another state & roomed in a tiny hole in the wall just to be in grad school. His wife stayed in their home, she was in school too. She gave birth to their child & had a complication, & was alone without family in their home state. He asked permission to leave school for a few days so he could go take care of her. Permission denied. He finished up exams on Thursday and left immediately for the weekend, and was back in class Monday at 8 (5 hour drive each way). I felt so bad for both his sick wife and for my friend, and so angry on their behalf. Grad school was a huge personal sacrifice for all of us, but for him, it was a sacrifice for everyone in his family. But failure was not an option after the investments we had made, and we chanted that mantra all the way through. None of us are inclined to monetarily support the institution since its regard for us as persons was so callous.
And BTW, I agree with the science fairs- I have served as a judge as often as my schedule allows.
Posted by: Anfa | May 19, 2009 11:31 PM
Where are all the boys? They don't have half way decent role models. They're a victim of the belief that science and education aren't important - not of some sort of reverse discrimination perpetuated by "ball-bashing Femnazis". Do girls fall victim to it too? You better believe it. Having seen it first hand, it usually starts around Middle School, although with the backasswards approach to education we take in this country, it's probably starting earlier now.
Calling that article disingenuous is being nice. Calling it an outright lie is probably closer to the mark. It glosses over the REAL problem in favor of painting an image of the "poor White man being oppressed by reverse discrimination because he has to share his toys now." And when you gloss over the REAL problem as to why boys and girls aren't going into STEM careers, you hurt everyone - male, female, White, Black, Hispanic, Asian or Other. And that REAL problem is the anti-intellectual undercurrent and the sexism that is often tied to it. We're dealing with one end (the sexism), but we need to focus on the anti-intellectualism too. For the sake of our young men and women, and for the sake of our country's future.
[/two cents]
Posted by: TheEnigma32 | May 19, 2009 11:40 PM
Wow. I think Abel Pharmboy's vaccine post stirred up less wackaloonery than this.
Also, I might have to point my composition students toward some of these comments to demonstrate logical fallacies in action. The straw man is getting the stuffing whooped out of him, poor bastard, and the red herring has come out to spawn!
Awesome.
Posted by: MFA Mama | May 20, 2009 12:17 AM
Two separate points brought up in this post.
1. The pipeline is leaky and yes, this is a BIG problem.
2. The science fair article was about something else: boys not succeeding in lower academic arena, which is certainly sensationalized - but I think pointing to privileged white baby boomer dudes doesn't help any more than saying "look how many female/minority undergrads we now have in our department!"
Girls mature more quickly than boys (look around a 6th grade classroom), and recent studies have shown that while the "classic" advantage boys have had in math can be erased, the same is not true for the "classic" advantage girls have had in languages.
It's good that young kids are getting a more balanced education. For us to succeed in educating every child, however, we need to provide them a chance to excel, something for each child to find real accomplishment in - regardless of gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status or previous achievement.
Science fairs, sports field, performing or visual arts - I'm not concerned about the specifics, but if kids are discouraged from entering because they feel like they can't compete, that merits some thought.
Posted by: Dan | May 20, 2009 12:54 AM
I found when I was going through primary school (speaking as someone who graduated high school only a few years back) there was an attitude among a lot of the boys that academic prowess was a 'girl thing' and it was more important to be good at more practically-oriented things like sport, computers, and so on, as opposed to more study-oriented subjects like english and history and science, although mathematics was an exception to this. Girls, by contrast, were more likely to be encouraged to spend more time with the books. This was an attitude backed up by a lot of the dads. I found it strange, but it meant I wasn't at all surprised when a lot of the boys, going on to high school, didn't have that much interest in putting the time into subjects that required a dedicated attitude, like science. The girls, by contrast, were more likely to work hard and consistently.
I realise this isn't necessarily representative of the wider population, but I cna't help wondering exactly how widespread this culture of 'taking it easy, there's more important stuff' is among young males.
Posted by: Ace | May 20, 2009 3:15 AM
In theory, vast multitudes of young, competitive, qualified women researchers should make those departments that hire only men look even more screwed up and antiquated.
The greater the flowrate, the more prominent the leak ought to be.
I've never put much faith in theory, though.
As for the white male thing, as a well-traveled ex-Jersey boy I've always associated that phenomenon with New Yorkers.
Everyone is parochial and self-reflective. But for some reason, it seems that many New Yorkers actually think that:
a. The rest of the universe cares about their local peculiarities.
and
b. Because they're from New York, they assume the inherent culture of their hometown means they don't have to actually travel to learn how anyone else lives or works.
and
c. The rest of the world wants to be just like them, and all criticism is envy.
Wanna take a stab at the racial composition of these folks?
Posted by: Lab Lemming | May 20, 2009 9:08 AM
Hope:
Of course, it's true that anyone *might* be a role model. But my experience is that the people I looked up to were those I was around a significant amount: a couple of hours a week, at a minimum. I never "clicked" with anyone who came into our classroom once for a show-and-tell. I never decided to idolize someone I met only once or--worse--only read about in a newspaper or magazine. It was the people who I knew well enough to know as human beings who became my role models. And I've noticed, as I've gotten older, that the young ladies who have looked up to me were also people I spent significant amounts of time with.
So...imagine I go into industry. How do I become a role model that many young women are interested in?
Scenario 1: I participate in an outreach program to bring fun science to schools. Girls think: "Hahaha. This is fun. But then, UnlikelyGrad doesn't seem to have much in common with me. I wouldn't want to do this as a career." (As though they could really tell...we would never develop the relationship necessary for a true mentoring experience.)
Scenario 2: I teach Sunday School to a group with a fair number of girls. Girls think: "Gee, UnlikelyGrad is a neat person, and I really like her, even though she's a scientist. I don't really like science myself, but I guess scientists can be okay." (Even though I have the opportunity to develop a relationship, I have no way to share my enthusiasm about science.)
Now consider me as a professor:
Scenario 3: I teach freshman chemistry. Girls say: "Wow. Dr. UnlikelyGrad is reallly cool! She tells the most amazing stories in lecture--I never thought chemistry could be so interesting! I went into office hours for help and she talked with me about stuff other than homework! She really cares"*
*This may sound over the top, but there is a female prof at our school who consistently gets these sorts of verbal reviews--from both male and female students. They all love her. She's the person I want to be when I grow up!
A woman in academia can (1) reach more young people than a woman in industry; (2) has a better chance of developing a relationship with young people; and (3) can has many opportunities to communicate her enthusiasm about ______ (insert name of STEM discipline here).
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | May 20, 2009 10:16 AM
Great post. Someone sent me this article, too. Since it's not a new concept, it just sort of made me laugh (I think FSP blogged about these "what about the boys" arguments a while back).
The most interesting thing to me was the way they ascribe motivation to whichever group is being left behind ("they're just not interested"). I had to laugh that when it's the boys it's the same thing that has been said about women being left behind (for over a century since we've been allowed to do science).
I also really like the last section of the article, where they interview the one boy who says his male friends thought it was boring until they realized how much MONEY was involved. As long as it's competitive, the boys will come. I wouldn't worry my pretty young lady head about it too much!
Posted by: msphd | May 20, 2009 12:59 PM
UlikelyGrad: You are missing the point.
Let me rephrase in a way that might hit closer to home. I have a number of friends who have decided to combine a career with motherhood, and I have a lot of respect for all that they do. But I also have some friends who have decided to become stay-at-home moms. My reaction, upon hearing this news, has never been to sigh, as if they’ve somehow let down the team. They are doing what’s best for them and their families, and they are just as deserving of my respect and support.
As a prof, you will have students that want the same things that you do and others that don’t. I would think that you would want to do right by all of them.
Oh, and you’ll be happy to hear that opportunities for those in industry to mentor young people extend well beyond the one-shot show-and-tell. I am much closer to the handful of students that I’ve mentored over the years than they are to any of their teachers.
Posted by: Hope | May 20, 2009 3:33 PM
Hope:
Since you do not understand what I was trying to say in my original post, let me put it plainly.
Most women do not consider academia as a career because it is "unsuitable" or pays too little or both. They rule out a promising option because of prejudice. *That* is what I sigh about.
I certainly don't have a bias against stay-at-home moms. That would be hypocritical of me!! Personally, I would like to see more parents stay home with their children (yes, both men and women--I was the primary caretaker of my children for 15 years, then my husband and I traded off.) I would love to see a world where this was embraced, and where people wouldn't face such bias after being out of the working world for a while. Some people have treated me kindly and others have...well, never mind.
Posted by: UnlikelyGrad | May 20, 2009 10:05 PM
I've been reading a number of comments asking where the boys are. Well they're playing video games or something similar. Why? With the social experiment here in the west of feminism; meaning promoting more woman to enter traditionally male dominated professions and fields of endeavor. In doing so woman have learned in part to be more masculine while at the same time not losing their feminine side. The result has been men have been pushed out from their arenas. As a generalization men do best in men only groups, they inherently know how to work with each other(in the masculine way) and have their own unspoken ways of sorting themselves out. When women started coming into the picture and wanted to still be treated like a woman that broke 'the boys club'; men had to change their ways in order to accomadate allowing woman into the fold. In doing so they became less effective which in turn affected our attitude in how we raised our sons - which has been nothing short of social castration. Setting aside a whole other discussion of the system that serves only the ruling elite of the world through control of government and the banking systems which in turn govern us we have the tools of those institutions being that of the school system. Having a boy starting from the age of 6 through to that of graduating high school sitting in a classroom behind a desk starting at the same time and finishing at the same time 5 days a week as school is very suppressive onto the male pysche as well as spirit of their emotions and physical well-being. Feminism has allowed women to explore the masculine aspect of themselves which in turn has necessitated men look to their feminine side in terms of a societal context. This is a good thing in terms of individuals becoming more balanced with themselves and a society that is more harmonious because individuals are more balanced. However while we batted out the bear can through the window, the rolling pin slipped out as well. As long as we have physical bodies(as they are now) men and women will always be different; there is no equality between the sexes - literally. We've denied so much that the only difference between us lies in our groins. The groin difference is really but a clue that we have missed. Does this mean we should go back to the traditional ways how a woman and man 'should' be traditionally wise? Well yes and no. Forget about trying to establish some sort of quota of how many men or women should or shouldn't be in a given field or profession and don't worry if it is dominated one way or the other. Promote women being feminine and men being masculine but allow exceptions to those souls or groups of souls who are just different and need to be that way without ostrasizing or demeaning them; life isn't black and white but it does have a natural order. Let's not get into our heads too much and trip over political mindsets.
Posted by: Jay | May 22, 2009 12:08 AM
Jay, you forgot the Jews man! It's all the Jew bankers' fault, right?
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | May 22, 2009 6:40 AM
W T F?
I could try to come up with a reasoned response, but my brain short-circuits simply reading that.
Posted by: LostMarbles | May 22, 2009 9:57 AM
No! Don't let the reasoning come into contact with the anti-reasoning! The mutual annihilation could destroy the Universe!
Sort of like crossing the streams -- a Bad Thing.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 22, 2009 3:29 PM
Oh no! Too many girls! So clearly things like the new "Science Girls" videogame will only worsen the problem!
... Good thing someone's already making "Science Papa" to balance it out.
Posted by: ScienceIsForKids | May 31, 2009 8:19 AM