"Women in Science" blogs: can they be used as recruitment tools for girls?

I'm a grad student. Before I started reading a few blogs written by female academics, I already knew that I wanted to be a scientist, but I thought I was sure that I didn't want to work in academia. Now I'm becoming more comfortable with the idea. Rants (esp when written with a sense of humor) are fine with me because I know there would be annoyances in any career and I'd rather know what they are and how people deal with them.

I think the use of pseudonyms often prevents bloggers from revealing details about their work that would help those not very experienced with sci/eng understand what exactly it is they do. For example, it make sense to me when a blogger says she misses bench work and wants to prioritize making time for it, but if she can't describe her actual activites in the lab or field, or give specific reasons for why the work is exciting (relations to previous discoveries, applications), it doesn't paint the most exciting, vivid picture.

Question 1) I'd recommend this blog and Female Science Professor's blog -- I think they bracket the range of experience from new faculty to established 'distinguished' faculty, and the experiences & concerns therein.

Question 2) I don't think blogging anonymously reduces the credibility at all. I do think there is a reality in ANY workplace that public ranting or pointing out the obvious can be held against you.

Question 4) The two blogs I've recommended have a nice balance between rants and descriptions of daily life. FSP describes her travel, her writing, her research, her teaching. And gives 'everyday' anecdotes of being a FEMALE SP. Your blog does the same -- describes the joys and frustrations of early scientists as well as some of the challenges of being a woman in a male-dominated field.

Wow what an excellent idea! this will be long BUT you asked, Here we go:
Q1 - Favourite blogs: yours, DrdrA at bluelabcoats, FSP, Dr.Jekyll&mrs.hyde, acmegirls thesis with children, dr.mom, VXWYnot, candid engineer in science, curiosity killed the cat and oh the lady scientist, you will notice almost all these are only blogroll though it does need updating. If the young girl was new to science I would avoid YFS(young female scientist), even though I can immensely relate to her experience and believe that too many women (and men) share her experience, her frustrations, negativity and yes bitterness are not balanced with ways to deal with or overcome the barriers - its not solutions oriented.
Q2 - I don't think blogging pseudonymously takes away from the creditibility of the blog. Most science blogs from females and males are lacking specifics because science community is small when it comes to subfields. Blogging pseudonymously is an acknowledgment that (1) politics are present in science, (2) there is a separation between work and personal (3) not all women (or men) are feeling comfortable with being completely open and honest about issues in science
Q3 - not 100% sure what you mean BUT my thoughts on being a visible minority? As a 1st-generation offspring of immigrants, I do not seeing male or females of my heritage in academia, and am always excited when I meet professors that are punjabi. I know of one female punjabi professor and when to her seminar only because she was a successful indian-heritage professor. Do I think that my skin color is an issue, no I don't. I think being a woman has made me face more challenges than being a minority.
Q4 - I have ranted once or twice but I attempt to balance my rants with solutions as well. The above blogs that I mentioned do an excellent job of presenting the challenges and then discussing some of the ways those challenges can be overcome. I hope I can do as well as yourself and the others.

My favorite blogs written by women in science (other than this one) are No Seeds, No Fruits, No Flowers, Shelly Batts at Of Two Minds, and Aetiology.

Ranting is good because unfair things happen and sometimes it's because we're women. And it's nice to know it's not just me.

In my opinion, as scientists and researchers, if you want to use your blog as a recruiting tool, you need to blog as yourself. As a female scientist/professor and private blogger for almost 4 years who rarely talks about work but does talk about life with a family, I understand all of the reasons for keeping your identity hidden. It does give you more freedom to talk about your job, personal issues and joys, and the challenges you face without the worry that someone from your institution will discover what your true feelings are. However, hoping to attract more diversity into the sciences by blogging in this manner is almost deceitful. It's like saying come join our ranks but don't let anyone know that you feel different than the rest of the crowd or that you have any thoughts that might not be acceptable in your workplace. I think that new blogs that are completely open and honest and forums for discussion of the challenges that women and minorities face at each of their institutions will be beneficial to students considering science as a profession and to those who are already on the science career path. Keep this type of blogging for what it is - a place to vent if necessary when there is no else to listen.

Great ideas, I've become a big science blog reader since returning to grad school and I frequent more blogs focused on women and science than any other kind.

1) http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/
- All around great blog, looks at the world through the eyes of a scientist scorned
http://scienceblogs.com/sciencewoman/
-generally positive and uplifting posts
http://youngfemalescientist.blogspot.com/
-can be quite negative, but I have learned a lot from her
http://amiawomanscientist.blogspot.com/
-infrequent but very well written posts, I've also learned a lot from this blogger

2) I don't feel that credibility is gained or lost when pseudonyms are used (I don't know anything about coolness.) I do assume that the blogger assumes something they plan to say will make them unemployable, which does give me some preconceived notions about said blogger, wether justified or not I don't know.

3) I'm interested in the scientific life and experience, I don't really think about the bloggers race. Honestly I don't think I'd be that interested, but I'm a white scientist in a dominantly white scientific community, so maybe my opinion isn't that interesting to this question.

4) I generally find ranting tedious but I read these posts if they include enough information about the bloggers situation for me to learn something from them. I assume that part of the reason we vent on our blogs is to help others learn from our tribulations.

1)Definitly Fairer Sciences, Peggys Women in Science and Zuska
2)Pseudonymity itself doesn't do anything. Kids grow up nowadays with online pseudonyms. I do think it detracts from a sciencists ability to write comprehensively on her experience.
3)Yes, not specifically WOC science bloggers tend to turn white, which is, as we well know, the invisible race, the standard.
4)I think ranting could turn of young women, its hard to relate to if you have no direct experience. So it needs to be carfully balanced.

Funny, when I read the post headline I imeadiatly thought of a Portal with an extra blog for recruitment purposes...

Q2: I completely understand wanting the confidentiality a pseudonym affords. As a reader, I respect that and it�s a nonissue for me. But I agree with other readers that it is very interesting and useful to know specifically what it is that people do within the sciences or engineering. Some bloggers do a better job of giving and idea of the area and the type of work that involves than others, and that helps me to relate it to my own situation and why things may be similar or different.

Q3: I appreciate a discussion of peoples� identities in general � gender, ethnicity, social class... These are things that influence our lives as scientists, how we approach things, and our experiences as people, and things I spend much time thinking about myself. What people do or do not emphasize is probably a function of what they feel is most relevant to their experiences as women in science. For example, I often feel some class isolation in academic settings, and it�s something I would inevitably discuss if I were a blogger. My ethnicity feels less relevant than my social class MOST of the time. My gender is constantly there. But all these things are in the mix, and I appreciate discussion of them when people want to bring them in.

Q4: I agree with previous commenters who have mentioned a balance between ranting and description of life as a woman scientist. I am a PhD candidate studying out of my country and culture and with no family or social circle references for academic or scientific life. When I discovered this blog and a few others, I felt that it was potentially a great resource, and it has been. Through it I�m able to see that my experiences are common, and to get ideas for managing tough issues. Furthermore, I�m able to socialize myself a bit to the way things work in the U.S., something with which I have zero experience, having studied out of the country and facing a return. It�s been an invaluable resource. We all need to rant, and I do it myself with a certain frequency. The rants are an online community of women struggling and enjoying their profession and sharing the good, the bad, and the ugly with others. The descriptions are a great resource. I want them both, in balance. Both are reality.

I keep ranting on about this, but nobody ever listens, so here's my response to the titular question.

*ahem* NO!!!

I feel like all of us bloggers have gone completely up our own backsides in recent years with this completely unsubstantiated idea that somehow we are changing the face of recruitment/outreach/media. Where is the evidence that blogs have any impact on anything whatsoever? And why would a blog about women in science and engineering be of any interest to women that weren't already keen on the subjects in the first place? This is the question that as far as I can see science bloggers generally absolutely refuse to tackle, and so I would absolutely be in awe of you if you would start to take that charge seriously.

To answer your specific questions, admittedly as a man:
1) Bug Girl's Blog - (http://membracid.wordpress.com). It's amazing that she hasn't been made a SciBling yet. Also Skepbitch. Both of them go and get on with science without dwelling to much on the umms and ahhs of being a woman in science. That's not to criticize blogs that do, it's just that if I want to start a new career, having it presented as a some heavy politicized challenge is not what I want to here to begin with.

2) It's irrelevent. I don't really give a #@%$ who you are, it's what you say and how you say it that's important. I think most adults in 2008 are well aware that it's sensible not to give out too many personal details on the intertubes.

3) Okay, I'm not a woman blogger so I appreciate this question isn't aimed at me, but I feel that you're confusing the issue when you start to conflate sexism and racism. They are two related but separate problems. Tackle one problem at a time. Not to mention, many black people find it slightly insulting to compare the two issues, and so equating the two may actually drive away young black women.

4) I think you have to strike a balance. It's very important to highlight the issues facing women in science, however I do think some people go a bit too far with it. Many women enjoy happy, productive, successful careers in science, and I can't remember how many times you and other bloggers have highlighted the careers of people like immunologist Polly Matzinger for example, or looked at fields that are dominated by women at the upper levels.

All of your questions though are based on this assumption that blogs have any impact at all - an assumption that you guys so far have utterly failed to give any concrete evidence for. It's frustrating to me that it seems like you're all concentrating on how to fine-tune your message, without stopping to ask if the message is likely to even be heard. That's the area I really, desperately want to see addressed - what is the impact of blogging, and how can we increase it?

I hope some of this helps...

I definitely think that *some* posts from numerous science women's blogs can be useful recruiting tools. I'd suggest that someone/a group set up a special page with links to specific posts on various blogs that can get young women interested. Perhaps that page should also note some of the "down side" issues that are covered on other posts in some blogs. They could then choose (or not) to read more of the blogs they find particularly interesting.

As just one example, I'd hesitate to just send someone to Abbie's ERV blog straightaway, but some of her posts on the actual science and her own research are marvelous in the enthusiasm and scientific curiosity she demonstrates.

I think I'd also encourage including entries from some blogs that are written by non-academic women and even some without PhDs to show that there are worthwhile science related careers that don't necessarily involve an early commitment to the full PhD, post doc, tenure track route.

In response to Martin Robbins (#7?) on the list:

First, Skepbitch (www.skepbitch.wordpress.com) - although it is a blog by an investigator of paranormal claims, Karen isn't a scientist in the same vein as the ones you mean.

Yes, she'd be a more than worthy addition to ScienceBlogs (for reasons I'll expand upon) and probably a well-needed breath of fresh air - but it's best to know the qualifications of who you admire before they're touted!

In saying this, I would certainly say that other sorts of science blogs like the bug one you mentioned, have good info - but there's just a 'more of the same' element.

In comparison though, Karen's Skepbitch (www.skepbitch.wordpress.com) blog does reflect how she does have the required academic background (albeit in Linguistics) and experience, ongoing research and dedication that stretches back to her teenage years! Her qualifications include:

"Academic, Author and Associate Editor of the Skeptic magazine, and webmistress of Bad Language... insatiable writer for the Skeptic, the Skeptical Inquirer, and Australasian Science (as a Naked Skeptic columnist). I write books, scripts, boring academic tomes, and am the US Correspondent for The TANK Vodcast."

She therefore demonstrates a whole new star in a galaxy of science-reporting, having worked at investigating pseudoscience from a VERY young age (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPjnGjt6qAA) for national television in Australia and international publications. She is truly 'the face of young skepticism' and is already being lauded by publications like Skeptical Inquirer and has been one of the best reads in the Australian Skeptic for probably over a decade.

And (phew!) back on topic:

1) I'd strongly suggest for young women to go to those blog sites where there are women with relevant qualifications in the field that they're interested in - who are willing to answer questions and give direct advice, perhaps in comment boxes.
Anything else is probably just more 'cheerleading' and not really something that they couldn't get more effectively from home, educational providers, teachers and peer-mentoring in real life? I'd like, as Martin Robbins said, to see more research on what really influences young women into science careers before assuming that it's 'blogs that say science is cool!'.

At least interactivity can show some solid evidence of intellectual engagement - and SO MANY 'hip' sites are just not teen-girl friendly with flamewars and other concerns like atheism and sexing-up-science.

2) Don't think anon vs. non-anon is relevant. As long as there's credentials and they research and fact-check, take time to find out the answer and listen, their qualifications and quality should speak for itself.

3) Any cultural, socio-economic, gender and background should be considered a useful lens to view an issue and a professional should be able to see from all sides as well as admit their own background. Good ol' Scout Finch and 'walking around in someone else's shoes'.

4) I think that problems are natural and inevitable - the key is to show that there are strategies and tactics that any logical person, regardless of background, can reach for when things get tough. It's what we suggest for co-workers when things are difficult and promote self-help and personal health - so the opportunity to either say 'here's some ideas that can help if you're in the same spot' OR EVEN TO SAY 'this is too much for me, help / suggestions wanted' is a good idea.

No one is perfect, after all. Why falsely pose as if 'science women are never in need of a helping hand?' And let's face it, if you're encouraging networking, isn't that what young women should see too?

www.podblack.wordpress.com
5)

I love blogs. I have learned a lot about being an academic from reading blogs. I like following people's stories, hearing about their triumphs, reading about their frustrations. I... well, I love them. That said, though, I don't think that blogs I enjoy most and find most helpful would be a good *recruiting* tool. They discuss the difficulties more than is effective for a recruitment tool. I've learned a lot about what to expect from academia & science from them, but that's not the way to first recruit someone.

That is, if you are using blogs for recruiting, I believe they would be best as a sort of tiered system. First, show all the blogs that talk mostly about the exciting science the authors do. Show how people -- women -- can do really cool things, and find them fun to do. Then introduce some of blogs that discuss more of the office politics, in a balanced way. I think this blog is a good example because ScienceWoman is pretty happy with her job and provides a balance, and because you are not pseudonymous. (You also seem pretty happy with your job; that just wasn't my point.)

As to Q2, you say "does it make the reader question what their work environment must be like if the blogger has to hide?" If you use blogs for recruiting, I think it's worth emphasizing that everywhere, in every line of work, ranting off the cuff in public is going to get you in trouble (e.g. Dooce). It's doubly worth emphasizing that everywhere, in every line of work, there's something worth ranting about. The pseudonymity of the blogger says nothing about how much worse that blogger's work place is than anywhere else (again, in or out of science, academia, etc.), just that the person wants to talk about the frustrating parts of the experience without putting their livelihood at risk.

The pseudonymous blogs are very important for giving voice to experiences that tend to be hidden. But I'm not sure they're good recruiting tools for science, because the women have to hide their research specialties in order to maintain their pseudonymity. So if you want to sell the idea that science is really cool, and yeah, women do it, you're probably better off with blogs in which women talk about which science they do.

That doesn't have to mean ignoring women's issues, or being all sunshine-and-roses. In fact, I would recommend a feminist who talks about her science here at Scienceblogs: Green Gabbro. She's funny, she's smart, she's hip, she can snark with the best of them. She's cool, and she's modeled mud volcanoes, which makes her even cooler. And she isn't afraid to be a feminist.

I pretty much grew up loving science. I agree that it is crucial to catch women while they are still girls. But what about older women?

I decided to have a child at my peak fertility and then pursue a career. The only problem is I am now finding that many scholarships for women in science are only for women under a certain age (or number of years past high school). Suddenly I find myself 21 and not a "promising young student" anymore!

There is something wrong here, I think. I won't let it stop me (though it is slowing me down), but I think our nation shouldn't focus only on the youth at the expense of everyone else.

Answers:
1. I like "Cognitive Daily", because it has semi-regular reader polls which it converts into lovely bar graphs. I think it shows how science can work on an everyday level to teach us more about ourselves.
2. I always get the impression that people who remain anonymous must be in danger of loosing their jobs if they were found out! I can never decide if they are very brave or cowardly or both. I myself am semi-anonymous, but I give a lot of info about myself in my bio, because I don't want anyone to think I'm hiding anything.
3. I hardly blog about gender, because I personally believe that my rants will only perpetuate the problem. I don't keep the facts secret though: I proudly give examples in our society of how equal rights for any people group has always benefited everyone. I don't think we should ever focus on just one angle of equal rights (gender, sexuality, race, socioeconomic status, etc.), but rather on how "humans are humans", because our issues are always larger than just one demographic.
4. I do my best to not rant about personal issues without a disclamer at the top, because it annoys the hell out of me on others' blogs. (It might have something to do with my ADD.) I do think that if someone's personal issue has widespread implications, though, it should be exposed. For example, if I got sick of the men at my work calling me "sweetie", I think it would have an element of tackiness blogging about it, but it is still very relevent in our society. The "to rant or not to rant" issue is kind of hard to make black & white, so I say it's a personal decision for each author to make.

Q1: I would recommend ecogeofemme's blog for being rather upbeat and happy.

Q2: I think blogging pseudonymously adds credibility because it allows for more honesty.

Q4: Speaking from my own personal experience as a grad student, I am not sure that women in science blogs are a good recruiting tool. When I first found all the women in science blogs, I felt reassured and less alone. Here were all these women who shared my insecurities, and that made me feel better. I really enjoy the honesty. However, I am increasingly feeling that I don't want to stay in academia after I graduate. I read about how hard everyone has to work to balance career and family, and I see that it is doable, but I want time to relax. I currently feel like the women in science blogs are turning me off from a career in academic science. This is only my personal experience though and my feelings on these issues tend to fluctuate a fair amount.

Along with what others have said, I'd be fearful that the negative experiences that are blogged about might turn young girls off from science careers. I don't think very many women in science bloggers consider their blogs as a recruiting tool, but more as a community-building tool for those already in science.

That said, I think there are a number of blogs by women scientists that are more focused on science and less on women-in-science, if you know what I mean. There are a couple of great examples listed above. I'd add Kim's shear sensibility, tara's aetiology, and karmen's chaotic utopia to the list. They are all engaging writers, mainly about science, but sometimes about how their personal lives interrelate with their professional lives.

That's why I was really struck by chezjake's idea:

definitely think that *some* posts from numerous science women's blogs can be useful recruiting tools. I'd suggest that someone/a group set up a special page with links to specific posts on various blogs that can get young women interested. Perhaps that page should also note some of the "down side" issues that are covered on other posts in some blogs. They could then choose (or not) to read more of the blogs they find particularly interesting.

It sounds like a great topic for a conference. Be sure to report back and tell us what comes up and out of the session.

I don't think blogs (at least not the women-in-science blogs I tend to read) would make a good recruiting tool because they aren't specific enough or give enough information. However, I think they would be invaluable for someone who is considering a science career so they could know what they're getting into. I keep meaning to recommend some blogs to my niece who is considering grad school.

#1 I think the blogs that talk about professional life (student, professor, whatever) would be more useful than ones that talk more about life as a scientist. Examples are Ruminations of an Aspiring Ecologist, VWXYNot, Blue Lab Coats, Lab Lemming, A Mad Tea Party, What the Hell is Wrong With You. Blogs that make being a scientist sound nice, like FSP, might be good too, although I think they should be balanced by ones that describe the difficulties.

#2 I don't think identity matters. I think pseudonymous bloggers are a little intriguing.

#3 I think that not knowing a blogger's race is an advantage, actually. We form a lot of opinions based on physical appearance at first impression. Removing those biases might promote conversation between people who might otherwise not interact.

#4 I think it depends on the nature of the rants. There is a post today at Curiosity Killed the Cat talking about how we put best foot forward for new/prospective grad students which just perpetuates the cycle of disillusionment in grad school -- it's not what we thought it would be. So maybe reading some rants would give people considering grad a more complete picture of the experience.

#1 - I think many blogs have something to offer: Maria at Green Gabbro, EcoGeoFemme at Happy Scientist, and Kim at All of My Faults are Stress-Related. Also consider the two paleonotogy blogs by women - that is, I'm aware of two: Dinochick Blogs and The Ethical Paleontologist. They are both into dinosaurs, which is cool. I also like the idea of choosing several posts from many blogs in a wide range of science fields as an ongoing compilation.

#2 - There are certain fields in which confidentiality plays a very large role, and mining and exploration geology is one of them. Some of the psuedonymous blogs do a good job of portraying their work place and personal-work issues -- and so do some of the women whose names we know. I don't think that not using one's name should imply anything dreadful about the work, the workplace, or the work environment.

#3 - I'm not really sure about race v. gender.

#4 - Some rants seem a little over-the-top to me and might not be that good for recruiting(!). Because of those rants, however, I am more aware of today's real issues, and I am (totally) impressed with what women are doing today compared to what women were doing (in sciences) two to three decades ago. The fact that all issues haven't been laid to rest at first seemed discouraging to me when I started reading blogs, but I've realized that some issues, and the intensity of other issues, are different. I would think that some knowledge of the downsides of things would be helpful for young women coming into science - and I think the blogs by women scientists are a huge resource for everyone involved. For young girls or teenagers - I don't know; the downsides could seem discouraging to some, maybe challenging to others. The resource of women bloggers and their posts/rants/stories is, however, available to today's girls and young women in a way that goes beyond how women could be there for each other in the past.

#2 The problem with anonymity is not the unspecified personal identity. It is the fact that science bloggers who are anonymous must also blur their research, as the details of what scientists do are de facto personal identifiers. There is a cultural myth that doing good science is somehow inherent to certain people (often white, nerdy smart "gifted" people). This can be broken down by describing how science actually does (and doesn't) work, and how pan-cultural (or even acultural) science can be. But describing the real difference between good science and shoddy science often requires a description of the nitty gritty details involved. If a blogger feels that describing such details would compromise anonymity, they might not do so.

I started my blog to let people know that people like me exist in science. Because I looked for blogs by people like me, and they didn't exist. So I hope that my blog can serve as a retention tool (I'm sticking it out, and I hope other women choose to so so as well). Maybe it could be a recruitment tool for the girls/women who don't think that a family and science can mix. Still, thanks for the recommendation, ScientistMother!

On quention 3: Well, as a woman of color, I must admit that I write more about women's issues than I do about race issues. Partially that's because I'm still figuring out what I'd want to say about that. Also, it seems like in my daily life I run into more issues that center on doing science while being a woman with children that I do with doing science while being brown. I suppose that may change over time, and I would change my blogging accordingly. But I try to write with equal candor about both issues.

That said, I get really tired of being told what I find insulting (as in Martin Robbins comment). I appreciate that Alice thought to ask us what we think. It would be nice if I could 'tackle one problem at a time' but that is not often possible. All too often, discussions of women's issues center on the white woman's experience, and treat all other experiences as outliers, or of a different category. That is what I find insulting, if anyone wanted to know.

On question 4: I find women's blogs that do deal with the ups and downs of a life in science the most interesting and informative, as someone still in the early stages of the pipeline. Often the rants elicit very helpful comments, which shows how supportive the community can be. Also followup posts can show how problems can be resolved. I also find the posts on "how to do x" that more established scientists can provide helpful. I agree with other commenters that it is important that there be a balance, or it could become discouraging.

There is a cultural myth that doing good science is somehow inherent to certain people (often white, nerdy smart "gifted" people). This can be broken down by describing how science actually does (and doesn't) work, and how pan-cultural (or even acultural) science can be.

I'd just like to point out that the basic philosophy that underlies everything we do at DrugMonkey is that being a successful scientist ain't fucking rocket science, and doesn't require "genius" or any other type of magical intellectual prowess. It is a profession like any other.

That said, I get really tired of being told what I find insulting (as in Martin Robbins comment).

Robbins is just fucking concern trolling. I would ignore his bullshit.

Q1: Adventures in Ethics and Science is my favourite female-writer blog on Scienceblogs, and I think Janet does a great job of writing very personably and wittily about the issues she faces in juggling science and family (and many other things!).

Q2: Particularly to a younger audience, I think pseudonymity online is just taken as a given, neither particularly cool nor particularly off-putting. But the way it's perceived depends to a great extent on the individual (both the author and the reader), I guess. For example, it's easy to see why a blogger who works in medicine might choose to remain anonymous.

Q4: Heck no, I reckon most folks love to read a good rant, but I think it helps a lot if it's delivered with humour rather than bitterness -- unless it's a really serious non-humorous issue, of course. And I think most people recognise that just about every sphere of work has at least one or two of those issues.

By the way, to those who think the blogosphere can't make a difference to anyone's career or pick up anyone who's not already in the area they're reading about: I'm 18 and have just left school (starting an uni in the autumn), and whilst I'm not going into the sciences -- my A-Level subjects are languages and maths -- Scienceblogs, which I've been reading for the last year and a half or so, has made a huge difference to the way I perceive acadaemia and the possibility of my eventually considering a career in it. If the blogosphere is capable of drawing girls into acadaemia, I'm sure it's also capable of drawing girls into science in particular -- and boys too, of course.

If women in science blogs were used in jr high and high school, sure, i can see them making a bit of a difference.

But even now in my University ( almost typed high school, go figure) classes, I hear girls around me whinge in Intro Biology that "why do they have to learn this stuff?"

And more telling, the girl on the street loudly proclaiming "I don't need science!"

Somehow, it'd be nice to make science interesting, at the very least. I don't know what the answer is. I'm the only one in a group of women going for a straight up science degree.

I think all the blog ranting could be detrimental to the recruiting effort. Shoot, sometimes I get freaked out reading everyone's hand-wringing tenure-track travails - and I have tenure. I can't imagine what a 20-year-old me would have thought 17 years ago if I'd read this stuff. Maybe it's a good thing I didn't know any female engineers back then.
I have to say though, all the "oh, okay, I'm not the only person experiencing that phenomenon" moments are really reassuring. Like FSP post on being refered to by your first name.

I realise this thread is growing old, but I just wanted to stop by and thank Martin and Podblack for their support of my Skepbitch blog, www.skepbitch.wordpress.com. I would like to opine though that, as a linguist, yes, I perceive myself as a scientist. Call it "social", call it "soft", but as a field that observes and examines natural phenomena, using the scientific method to analyse these phenomena, and in tackling areas of anthropology, anatomy in phonology and phonetics, psycholinguistics and cognitive linguistics, and more...these support linguistics as science.