What is Wrong with Girls?

When people discuss gender gaps in society, it always becomes a difficult issue to address in a politically correct manner.  Are there differences between men and women?  Are men genetically better at math?  Are women genetically predisposed to grammar?  The answer to these questions are all, in my opinion, a moot point.

It seems clear that people will succeed where their talents lie, and where they have been encouraged to succeed.  Others will fail to capitalize on their talents, or fail to enjoy the full benefits bestowed upon them.  But, according to a study reported on by a recent NPR piece women are more likely to be swayed by their perception of how people in a field are perceived.  To determine this, the study assessed the interest of women in a career in computer science while they were in a room decorated with either a nature-themed poster, or a Star Trek poster.  In other words, women's interest in the career was strongly influenced by insignificant cues in their surroundings that affected their perception of those associated with that field.  I think that requires a bit of reflection.

Everyone, or near enough to everyone who takes part in society, is concerned with how others perceive them.  It is, I assume, part of what allows us to take part in society.  Without concern of the opinion of others, it would be difficult to agree upon social constructs like law and manners, let alone enforce these ethics.  Yet, when people are overly concerned of the superficial, say, the display of a Star Trek poster, society judges them harshly as well.  One who would lie about their interests in "nerdy" subjects based their judgmental view of nerds, is either consciously or unconsciously shallow.

When NPR asks if STEM fields should be made "more cool" to encourage the shallow to enter the fields, I reject even consideration of the proposition!  Should STEM fields be accessible through outreach of interesting and intelligent people?  Yes, I have long argued that universities should recruit by partnering with school districts to have guest lectures from interesting, young, energetic people.  Should those people deny their affinity to Dr. Who to entice a "cooler vibe"?  Preposterous!

As a scientist and engineer, I fancy myself a nerd, or a geek - I am nonplussed which label is applied.  I am fascinated by the natural world, and by how civilization uses that knowledge to improve our collective experience.  I also enjoy riding and working on bicycles.  I enjoy running, yoga, and cooking.  I enjoy reading, and debating the proper use of grammar.  Most of this is insufferably nerdy, and like many celebrities, apparently, I am not afraid of the nerd moniker.  The most striking thing about my nerdy ambitions, and the nerdy and geeky passions of the CNN-interviewed celebrities, is the variety of nerdy subjects!  Christian Louboutin is certainly a nerd, regardless of his opinion of sci-fi, though I have no idea how cool he is.

Once again, back to the NPR piece that suggests women are more likely to be swayed by their perception of how people in a field are perceived.  Cosmopolitan Australia recently had a piece that had an almost surprised tone about the feminism of nerdom.  With no intent to suggest that Cosmo is a leading light in women's rights, it does suggest that women are perhaps more surprised than men at the existence of enviable women nerds.

If interest in a subject fails to excite enough passion in a person for that person to pursue that field (and, thereby be a nerd), is it a crisis?  I am not talking about the difference between the sexes, nor whether society has given any group a particular disadvantage.  What I am asking is that if a person thinks that being a nerd would be too horrific to follow their dream of programming computers, was it really a dream?

I have pondered whether compulsory military service would not benefit this country.  First, I think most 18 year olds do not have the experience to make a career choice.  For example, in the geosciences, to attain any sort of career stability, the average geologist will need an advanced degree in a niche area.  Every autumn, Americans who have never taken an earth sciences course are asked if they want to spend the next 10 years preparing for a career they have never really been exposed to.  Obviously, they cannot truly make an informed decision.  Second, it seems that many young people are unable to afford life on their own.  They continue into adulthood without having realized that they need to make the bed, buy the groceries, and sort out difficulties on their own.  Some time away from their parents would do wonders to expose young people to new ideas.

A friend, after a long discussion of the benefits of compulsory service to the individual and society (which are also numerous), asked an ex-Marine what he thought of compulsory service.  His response to the notion that the military would be a good venue to groom these grown children for the world was along the lines of, "I don't want the worthless people in the military, just as much as you don't want them in the sciences"!  While I disagree with the ex-Marine on the value of compulsory military service, his perspective is striking.  I want people in any career to be passionate about that field, at least to the point that they do not base their opinion of it on what television show their colleagues watch.  To put it more bluntly, to any person who washes out of a field of study owing to a Star Trek poster, good riddance.

Yet, being rid of the problem does not necessarily solve it, and as a nerd, I cannot help but ponder the questions I see in the world.  Why are women more likely than men to be swayed out of STEM by the possible presence of nerds?  Nerds are sexy to me, but obviously this does not hold true for the studied group of college women.  On the other hand, to me, jocks are awful.  If I perceived that a certain field was full of sports-crazed, good-ol'-boy rednecks, would it keep me out of that field?  It seems not, as I have made a living in exploration geology and hazardous waste management, and was educated in mining engineering.  These fields abound with said types, but the study suggests that men are less swayed by these perceptions.  Thus, it seems, I am not qualified to sympathize with the concerns of these young women.

Instead, what I am left with is a question: why would young women not want to be interesting, educated, intellectual, motivated, passionate, and sexy?  More simply put, why would they not want to be nerdy?  What is wrong with these girls?

It seems like there is a quick conclusion that the girls who shy away from STEM because it may induce them to watch too much Office Space, BBC, or Star Wars is a cultural problem.  It may be quickly offered that science needs to be rebranded as "cool," but from my experience, cool is just shorthand for popular jerk.  Some might say that these women have been influenced by public education, media, or stereotypes to choose image over interest.  Yet, women nerds abound, and are successful in every field; clearly, most women are happy to be nerdy in one way or another.

Public figures have been made or celebrated in their advancement of women nerdom.  In Sense and Sensibility, the protagonists are criticized for their reading, making Austen a potential force in convincing women to be nerdy from the 19th Century.  Has 200 years of encouragement fallen upon deaf ears?  Again, from the wealth of nerdy women today, it seems that the problem with girls is a problem with only some girls.

Here then, is the heart of the matter.  It is no great tragedy if, for some unknowable reason, women are genetically less adept at computer science, or genetically less interested in the field, though current research suggests otherwise.  Furthermore, it is no great tragedy if women continue to be underrepresented in computer science, though I doubt this will persist into future generations.  However, it is a great tragedy if society identifies that some women choosing to value being "cool" over being passionate, as a women's issue.

Society must encourage individuals to meet their full potential in fields that interest them, and should combat hurtful stereotypes - including gender stereotypes, in and out of science.  However, society should not confuse the personal responsibility of people to follow their passions with a social contract to make them cool enough for the shallow.

Gender Notwithstanding

Discussing the difference between any two groups of people presents endless possibilities to offend.  It is nearly always an emotional issue.  Yet, the Supreme Court has decided that minorities are no longer disadvantaged at the polls, a New York Times columnist decided women can't do pull-ups, and a recent article in the New York Times Magazine has acknowledged that women are still under-represented in the sciences.

Owing to the high risk of offense on these subjects I want to state a few things at the very beginning.  I think that minorities should be empowered and encouraged to vote, as should everyone else.  I think that women should be encouraged to be physically fit and healthy, as should men.  I think that everyone should be encouraged to have a more developed understanding of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM), gender notwithstanding.  I think that historically (to include all time that occurred before the present, even yesterday) people have not been given entirely fair opportunities based on stereotypes, and that is wrong.

To begin, I think a few personal examples from my childhood are relevant.  As a child, I was told that being a boy who was good at math precluded me from being good at grammar.  The mostly female teachers that ruled out my grammar probably had less of a handle on the field than I do now.  I was told that as a boy who was good at math, I am not creative, nor good at the arts.  I have acted in plays, been an avid photographer, written speeches and performances, created award-winning scientific posters (a visual media), and maintain a fairly active blog.  I am not sure what part of the arts my elementary school teachers felt I was not going to be able to participate in, but I think I have done okay.  As a "nerd," I was also told that I was never going to be athletic; as an adult, I have been an enthusiast in rock and ice climbing, mountain biking, and long distance running.  I feel somewhat vindicated against the jocks (mostly men) of my youth who discouraged me from attaining my full potential.  In all of these accomplishments my arrogance, more than anything else, has propelled me to levels I was discouraged from achieving.  If those negative influences on my life had told me that the arrogance that propelled me would make me unlikable, they at least could have been correct, for the most part.

When I read the article claiming a paucity of women in the sciences, a few things were very striking to me.  First, I chose to give up some level of likability to attain what I have.  I had lonely Friday nights, and a lot of romantic interests "turn away" from men like me because I see the world differently than they do.  So, I could relate to being discouraged from achieving one's full potential, and being unpopular for trying anyway.  I can, in more ways than is prudent to discuss now, relate to the women in the story.  While this allowed me to feel empathy for their individual hardships, it was most striking that the author chose to not offer a single path forward.

Women who were "mathematically precocious 12-year-olds," the article points out, are equally likely as their male peers to enter "law, medicine, and the social sciences."  Why medicine does not count as a STEM field is beyond me, but the advances of women in medicine is apparently not an accomplishment equal to a woman succeeding in math or physics.  Regardless of the STEM hierarchy that physicists see in the sciences, a glaring omission in the article is an explanation why women are succeeding in medicine, but not other branches of the sciences.

Next, a major concern of the author was that she was never encouraged to attend graduate school.  I mean no disrespect to Ms. Pollack, but if she behaved like a meek and ill-prepared student, then she should not have expected to be treated differently.  A student attending lab in stockings (presumably with a skirt), should not be admitted to the lab for safety reasons.  This is not to place those who wear skirts at a disadvantage, but to keep lab workers safe.  During my time in academia, I do not recall witnessing a single student being encouraged to attend graduate school based on academic merit.  In the geosciences, an advanced degree is requisite for a successful career, so students who are employable are often encouraged to continue.  A student who fits a project and is liked by a supervisor may be encouraged to apply, but that is simply an employer recruiting a valuable employee.  The general rule is that students are not encouraged to continue in academia.  Many academics, in fact, view attrition as key to eliminating weaker students.  Ms. Pollack probably received a 32 on her exam to convince her to leave the program; her professor telling her to stay in the course was encouragement.

I have encountered numerous professors who were the "first women."  Many of them want to prevent their current (female) students from enduring the same loneliness that they did.  I know some women in industry who still are the "first women," and I respect and appreciate their contribution and hard work for the improvement of themselves and society.  Yet, because once the second woman achieves her post, the struggles have been changed so deeply that the previous solution can no longer be applied.

The faculty in the UNLV Geoscience department is 32% women.  Obviously, women, among the faculty, are underrepresented.  While I was a student there, a proposal was being considered to pay a considerable sum of money to enroll the university in a social networking site that would connect female students to female faculty, so women could have women role models.  This network would not connect male students to potential role models, nor would it connect minority students to minority role models, and it would not connect LGBT students to LGBT role models.

Faculty and students listened to the proposal in the department's lecture hall.  After the presentation concluded, the only black student excused himself, a black role model conspicuously absent.  The two Asian faculty left to go back to work shortly thereafter, then the only openly gay faculty member also excused himself.  The straight, white, female professors continued to argue for a program that would, according to them, "increase diversity" in the department, and while I am sure that some of the 58%-female student body would have positive experiences with such a program, it seems like it was addressing a problem that did not exist.

This, I think, is at the core of the problem with the issue of women in STEM.  Society is changing too slowly, so programs do need to help it along.  However, many of the issues are not "women's" issues.  A university that does not offer childcare is not a very good workplace, but to address this issue do we need to be so sexist as to say that women deserve childcare, rather than parents?  If one's potential spouse has an unfair view of domestic affairs, it seems reasonable to find a person who thinks childcare is a family issue.

In the case of John and Jennifer, the imaginary students that illustrate gender bias in the sciences.  If, as the article seems to suggest, Jennifer is less likely to get grant funding, is more likely to request child care, is more likely to leave the sciences, and is less likely to "give everything up" for her career, is she not a less valuable employee?  In my experience, men are much less enjoyable to work with, so I can associate with giving Jennifer some points for likability.  That said, I find both sexes are equally likely to have a change of heart, and I have no knowledge of grant funding disparities between the sexes.  Thus, from my experience, I am more inclined to work with women.  That all said, I would appreciate if the article contained some solutions to the broad problem, not just merely restating the issue, again.

In thinking about the lack of a level field between men and women when it comes to work, I have some solutions.  First, childcare, like parking, costs an employer money.  Every employee should get an allowance for parking and childcare, valued at exactly (or slightly less than) the cost of the service.  Those who choose to live a more environmentally responsible (and cheaper for the employer) lifestyle who live within walking distance of their workplace get "paid" slightly more in exchange for not using a service.  Those who choose to have less home commitments, i.e. no children, get "paid" slightly more in exchange for not using the childcare service (not to mention the potential of a higher attendance rate).  The employer, considering a new employee knows that each employee costs their salary, plus childcare and parking.

It seems that mothers are more likely to take time off than fathers after a child is born.  Parents are more likely to take time off for the birth of a child than non-parents.  This puts future mothers below future fathers, who are both below eunuchs, in the predicted longevity and reliability of the employee.  If, however, every employee was given 1 year of "life-experience leave," an employer would know, regardless if used for one child, ten children, or to travel Africa by bicycle, that each employee would take a year off.  Mothers, parents, and the childless become equal employees.

These types of solutions fix the issues that we are currently struggling through.  Yet, they do not address the root cause of these issues.  Society, it seems, wants male engineers and female elementary school teachers.  Accordingly, boys are pushed to be engineers who watch sports, and girls are told to be the second income and primary parent.  I think teachers could improve this by having more rigorous training, but more importantly, if education was open to men in the primary grades.  I think parents could encourage this by accepting their children as individuals, rather than stereotypes and vessels of vicarious living.  I think communities could support this by letting the football fields fall into disuse while attending the Academic Decathlon.  In reality though, I think none of this will happen because our society does not like STEM subjects as they are perceived as "hard."

Once we accept that, as a society, we cannot do things that are hard, women can't do pull-ups, nerds can't be athletes, and we can't think through solutions to encourage everyone to meet their full potential.