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.
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.
I like this post and I agree with your point of view.
ReplyDeleteAs a high school teacher, I pay a lot of attention to how kids perceive themselves and I make sure knowledge is equally accessible in my science and social studies course. In fact, I saw a couple of grade 8 girls who thought they were bad in science when the course did not even have started! I suspect that this whole thing where girls are not good in science starts to step in their mind at a very early age.