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.
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.
You make some interesting points. Certainly, if being "cool" means denying an interest in certain TV shows in order to impress people, that's just silly.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there's a lot more going on when it comes to female geeks. Young women who have proudly declared that they are nerds have been viciously harassed online and in person. If they are anything less than the physical ideal, they get cruelly criticized for their weight/appearance/whatever, and it is suggested that they are only nerds because they are not attractive enough to get a man. If they are very attractive, they're accused of being "fake" geek girls, because no geek girl could be attractive. (Here's an article that outlined some of the recent harassment: http://www.dailydot.com/society/rape-misogyny-female-geek-gamers-culture/ or do a Google search on "harassment of geek girls")
Any young woman who has experienced or witnessed these things might be cautious about admitting an interest in computers or the sciences, and if the presence of a visual reminder makes her more or less willing to open herself to criticism or harassment, that may be more a sign of how deep the fear goes than of how shallow she is.
In short, if we want more women in the sciences, or if we simply want more people to be able to follow their true dreams, we need to make sure that people are not subjected to threats of rape, death, and other violence for admitting those dreams.
Chris, thank you so much for the thoughtful comment! I have spent many hours, and a couple of long runs thinking about what you said, and if I had missed something profound in my post. When I read the NPR article, it was my impression that an anonymous survey would capture the attitude of women prior to any geek-girl harassment, suggesting it is a matter of the perception of being a geek vs. cool by the survey respondents. As someone who was picked-on for not being cool, normal, etc., I am discouraged at the notion that science should be made more inclusive to those who would not have math club as a "cool" lunchtime activity.
DeleteAll that said, you raise a valid issue that once girls are geeks or nerds, their battle with harassment does not stop. The examples from the Daily Dot article are alarming, but not without hope. It seems fitting that the Droidist(?) writer be fired for questioning Felicia Day's nerdiness. To me, it is not my right nor any other's to label someone a "fake geek," being into being geeky makes one a geek. (I suppose there could be exceptions for individuals who seek to injure "real" geeks in a "Taming of the Shrew"-like manner, but this is an unlikely digression.) Geekiness and nerdiness are (should be?) self-policing, where a community of people brought together by uncool lifestyles do not accept the persecution that brought them together among themselves.
If someone asked me if "gamers" and "Twilight" fans would get along, I'd lean towards no. Personally, I'd rather debate if the wolf-boy or the vampire are hotter than play a video game. As for the option of doing both, I guess the Venn diagram of Twilight-loving gamers does probably lead to heated Mario Kart races for the eternal glory of the hotness of werewolves or vampires, but this seems like a minority of two minority groups.
It also seems like Simon Pegg is a bit of a chavinist, in that he objectifies women who wear gold bikinis as delicious to look upon. I know I'm treading on thin ice, but however uninvited the objectification is, should I ever find myself choosing to wear a gold bikini in a public venue, and Simon Pegg posts a picture of me with a caption alluding to my hotness, I would take that as a compliment.
Lastly, on the subject of objectified women in toys and video games, it is unfortunate. It saddens me deeply that gamers are interested in vile pursuits, such as raping and murdering nuns. At the same time, what I find reprehensible others may not, and nerdom is an inclusive community that finds morality through communication, not judgement. As for wanton objectification, when I achieve the level of fitness that my brother's He-Man doll had I will be equipped to decide if supernatural perfection is attainable.
I guess what I see is two different problems. The first is that some women (and men!) perceive being geeky as disagreeable to their cool image, and I have no patience to coax them into the sciences. The other issue is the mistreatment of women by society. Sexual harassment is horrific in every field, from farm workers being raped in the fields to journalists being denied access to test a new game. How do we confront those issues? A question far more worthy than how to make science cool enough for girls.