What's it like being a woman in a STEM field?

[SeriousSillyPutty]

The problem with the Science Cheerleaders is that they entice young women to join science--a field created and dominated by men. They are saying: You can have your cake, and eat it too! You can be a scientist/engineer/ mathematician and still be a girly girl, after hours of course (put on that makeup, do your hair, and wear short skirts). I'm not saying that it's that simple--of course we are all complex human beings with multiple identities and social roles. But, I do not see how short skirts after hours is going to help women contribute to science in meaningful ways, and I am shocked that we (i.e., STEM majors) have not been taught about the influence of gender in our fields (and indeed the world).

I see what you mean about science norms being generated by men, but you used a line that makes me like the science cheerleaders.

I have often said (perhaps on this forum even) that, growing up, I never absorbed the stereotype that girls couldn't be sciency, but I DID absorb the stereotype that scientists couldn't be girly. I was a smart, logical type, which meant that I was such "trivialities" as caring about my physical appearance. The result? In middle school I only wore loose-fitting t-shirts. I posed as someone who didn't care about what people thought, but I was terrified of someone asking me to justify why I was trying to look nice. (So I never tried.) I was a freshman in college before I ever wore a skirt to class -- and if someone doesn't like skirts, that's fine, but I actually did like how they looked and felt, I was just too afraid to wear them in high school.

There was a point where, "women can think scientifically, like men" was a step in the right direction toward equality in science. But now I think it's important to say, "women can think scientifically, like women." And women who think scientifically can still value elegance, beauty, fashion, etc. From that standpoint, I'm in favor of science cheerleaders. I can see how, on one hand, it's like in "A League of Their Own," they made the women play baseball in skirts, which is stupid. Science girls shouldn't have to be hyper-feminine to make their mark. But, for all the girls who think there is a dichotomy between beauty and (science) brains, seeing people with both can prevent them from a forced choice of one or the other.

[wildviolet]

I see what you mean about science norms being generated by men, but you used a line that makes me like the science cheerleaders.

I have often said (perhaps on this forum even) that, growing up, I never absorbed the stereotype that girls couldn't be sciency, but I DID absorb the stereotype that scientists couldn't be girly. I was a smart, logical type, which meant that I was such "trivialities" as caring about my physical appearance. The result? In middle school I only wore loose-fitting t-shirts. I posed as someone who didn't care about what people thought, but I was terrified of someone asking me to justify why I was trying to look nice. (So I never tried.) I was a freshman in college before I ever wore a skirt to class -- and if someone doesn't like skirts, that's fine, but I actually did like how they looked and felt, I was just too afraid to wear them in high school.

There was a point where, "women can think scientifically, like men" was a step in the right direction toward equality in science. But now I think it's important to say, "women can think scientifically, like women." And women who think scientifically can still value elegance, beauty, fashion, etc. From that standpoint, I'm in favor of science cheerleaders. I can see how, on one hand, it's like in "A League of Their Own," they made the women play baseball in skirts, which is stupid. Science girls shouldn't have to be hyper-feminine to make their mark. But, for all the girls who think there is a dichotomy between beauty and (science) brains, seeing people with both can prevent them from a forced choice of one or the other.

 

I agree! I am not suggesting that girls need to choose one or the other. I, too, went through a phase in my life (sophomore year in college) where I rejected my femininity and wore loose jeans and t-shirts with sneakers, did not put on makeup, and did not pluck my eyebrows!

 

However, my sense is that right now, it's more like "A League of Their Own," in which what is considered legitimate science is still dominated by male thought, rather than "women thinking like women." What I'm afraid of (and critical of) is the superficiality of women cheering for science only for them to be inducted into male ways of thought (I love men, don't get me wrong here). But, female thought also has something to add to science, so what I'm arguing for first is simply a recognition of these differences and how they may influence the practice of science, which, like anything else, is a human endeavor influenced by social values and norms, politics, economics, etc.

 

Earlier in the thread, some people brought up the issue of implicit gender bias. There's a lot of interesting work going on with that right now. Even if you do not explicitly express bias against women or minorities or the mentally- or physically-disabled, your unconscious still holds biases, and they come out in real ways that have real consequences for others. For example, both men and women show an implicit bias against women. In fact, some women are even more critical of other women than they would be of men with the exact same credentials. So, researchers have found that science faculty are more likely to give a position to a male (with a higher salary) than they would to a female (with the exact same resume) and that both male and female faculty show this bias.

 

The only way to combat this, according to some researchers, is to think about these biases consciously and to work against them consciously. To me, this shows how powerful social conditioning is--we've all come to accept the "norm" as White, male, and middle-class culture. When you work against this culture, you face resistance. If you do not accept this culture, you face rejection. If you create your own culture, you are labeled misfits, deviants, etc. Let me be clear--I am not against White, male, and middle-class culture; I am against the current power structure in which White, male, and middle-class culture is overwhelmingly dominant over other cultures (and I'm not just speaking about ethnicity or race here).

Edited February 10, 2013 by wildviolet

[TeaGirl]

I think there is a problem in making science and fashion/beauty connected with a causal relationship in the first place. As far the science cheerleaders go, I'm not sure I appreciate trying the sexy sell on science. Yet again, instead of dealing with a problem, we're selling something else with the sexy-woman body image. Rather than establishing some new stereotype and adding to already enough pressure on girls to look a certain way in order to feel accepted (it's not enough that you're a scientist, you must be a sexy scientist!), I think a better way of going about it is to simply show different female scientists. They come in all shapes, colors, and kinds, and in all ranges of fashion consciousness. The idea here is to make women comfortable to pursue science in their own skin without having to conform to one stereotype or another.

 

 

However, my sense is that right now, it's more like "A League of Their Own," in which what is considered legitimate science is still dominated by male thought, rather than "women thinking like women."

 

I'm not sure I understand this. What is male thought here?

Science is science. In it's pure form, there's no male thought and female thought: There's the scientific method, logic, facts, etc. To be a scientist, you get rid of your personal biases, social background, etc. and just address the facts and problems. I don't see that women are trying to think like men. I think both are thinking and producing science in the same way.

If you mean there's a male social culture and pressure in some scientific fields, then that's true. The problem is in being treated fairly and equally in the social professional sphere.

[wildviolet]

I'm not sure I understand this. What is male thought here?

Science is science. In it's pure form, there's no male thought and female thought: There's the scientific method, logic, facts, etc. To be a scientist, you get rid of your personal biases, social background, etc. and just address the facts and problems. I don't see that women are trying to think like men. I think both are thinking and producing science in the same way.

If you mean there's a male social culture and pressure in some scientific fields, then that's true. The problem is in being treated fairly and equally in the social professional sphere.

 

I'm still learning about this topic myself, but I'll try to explain...

 

Science is not just science because science is a human endeavor. Some researchers hold a theoretical perspective called sociocultural theory--it's actually been around for a while, and it says that we cannot escape our personal biases, social background, etc. If you are interested in this topic, you can look up the "Science Wars," which occurred in the 1990s between scientists (predominantly male) and sociologists who studied scientists (also predominantly male). Basically, the wars ended in a stalemate--neither side could agree with the other, so they chose to agree to disagree, so to speak.

 

I'm quite fascinated by the field of science studies--I've been trying to read some of Bruno Latour's work, where he documents scientists in the field and how they produce portable representations of the real world (like maps and diagrams) from data obtained from the real world. It's making me view science in a new way. I, too, once thought of science as "objective." To a certain extent, it is, but at the same time, it is also heavily influenced by social and political forces.

 

Some of the more radical work comes from feminists. I'm going to have to learn a lot more, though, before I can write cogently about it!

[abeilles]

In a lot of ways I think I've been extremely spoiled because (with the exception of my undergrad advisor) I've always worked for women. These women have been phenomenally accomplished, brilliant, and hardworking, and 2/3 of them have really emphasized work-life balance. I realize that I take this for granted, and I haven't yet had to learn to enforce my own work-life boundaries, which will only become more important as I start a family.