Can we talk about Lady Gaga's new video? Because I could. All day. Not only is it a response to a certain era of Madonna, but it also goes to a lot of strange, strange uncomfortable places, the fascist references in its physical language being close to the top of the list. It's incredibly cool, smart stuff. There needs to be a Gaga Studies Journal, that's all I'm saying.
From all of my friendslist to all of yours: liljacks_corner is a community that has been set up for fan creators to make G-rated stuff for an eight-year-old boy named Jack who has just lost his legs; one of the only things that cheers him up right now is Doctor Who. He's only seen the first two seasons of the New series. What's being requested is a story about a little boy, much like the one it's for, going on an adventure with the Doctor and Rose. Details at the community.
So, what did you think of that NYT article about women in science you linked to? It seemed pretty well written and well sourced to me.
My observations about women in the sciences is that just about any woman with the mathematical ability to get into a doctoral program will get the doctorate if her life/family circumstances permit. But what happens to women after they've got the doctorates is ... disturbing. More women who get into tenure track jobs end up not getting tenure for all sorts of reasons, most of them having nothing to do with their actual abilities as scientists. Women who go into non-tenure track jobs stay on "soft money" for decades sometimes. Arguably the biggest single driver behind both of these is that the women are having children in the decade following their doctorates. They put off the whole marriage and family thing to get through grad school, but the biological clock keeps ticking and they're keenly aware of the risks associated with childbearing after age 40. So we end up with a fair sized population of women scientists in their 30s who are working part time in science while also doing mommy track stuff.
Anyhow, my point is that the reason we still end up with the top tier of the professoriate populated almost exclusively by men is *not* due to any especially high intelligence on the part of those men, but rather because the women with doctorates seldom devote themselves to a single-minded pursuit of advancement in academia during their 30s and 40s. In a perfect world the men wouldn't either, as they'd be as engaged and involved with their young families as the women are, but we don't live in that perfect world.
Your point (which is pretty good) is not, regrettably, the point of the article.
Additionally, you don't quite acknowledge that the reason women do not single-mindedly devote themselves to a pursuit (scientific or otherwise) in their 20s, 30s and 40s is because it is a cultural taboo for which they have little to no support to do so, expected as they are to have children to prove their gender, sacrifice their career (as opposed to a male partner sacrificing his) for said children (again to prove success at gender) and then to additionally care for aging parents who rarely want to burden male children with such tasks if they have the option not to.
While I acknowledge that most people of both genders desire children; women are told their whole lives that they do -- negating the possibility for many women of considering otherwise, and certainly negating for many more women the possibility of negotiated partnership around children that allows a woman to maintain career power.
There is nothing that indicates that women are innately less ambitious, intelligent or science oriented than men or in overwhelming majority want to sacrifice those things for having a family. But articles like this fall back on "girls just don't like science enough", "sure, lots of women are good, but only men can be great" and "women don't know how to take risks"
I was trained, from the very first moment of sentient life I can recall to never take a risk, to never make a mistake and put everyone else above me. The reason women aren't scientists have nothing to do with their being women, and everything to do with the ways they have been treated because they are women.
The women and science bullshit is right up there with "men write about ideas; women write about feelings." As if things like nation building don't happen due to jealousy, possession and desire.
can i just say amen to that last comment of yours. even when feminists start in on women and earth/emotions/mysticism/etc, it makes my 21st century brain go into overdrive. hello, self-ghettoizing.
he's totally right about tenure. we're at Princeton, at which the admin has tried in a number of ways to equalize the tenure/family problem, without success. lesser administrators (department chairs, etc) find ways to continue punishing both male and female faculty members for having families (female faculty disproportionately).
in fact, here, you get an "extra" year to get tenure for each child you have, whether you are male or female. good idea, right? unfortunately, that just means that you ahve to get 6 years of sprinting done instead of 5 (when the idea is that you should have 6 years to get 5 years of sprinting done, so that you have a year to devote to being a parent.
by sprinting, i mean that my husband was working on the order or 80 hours a week during my son's first year. they wanted to "give" him an "extra" year, and i insisted he not take it, because i wanted him to be part of my son's first few years at least. the policy is a good idea with bad execution. i think that's common.
Yeah. The article made me kind of irritated and uncomfortable; it seemed to me to be saying or include a number of people saying: 'hey! We [partially, vaguely] mitigated one factor affecting why girls don't do as well as boys in science/math, and there were still a lot more boys who were really good at it -- so that must mean it's biologically built in!' And my thought was: while you're trying to mitigate that one factor, which did make some difference, those girls are still getting all the other crap from society about what they're supposed to be or not supposed to be interested in, and that crap about what they're supposed to value and how they're supposed to act from everyone, including their friends and their families, and you think that all factors are now compensated for so if girls really can be as good as boys at this, they would now demonstrate it with the numbers?
I also thoroughly agree with you on the massive effect of assumptions about women's role with regard to raising children. Even if you are super-progressive, fighting against that is really hard.
Hmmm... I think we're in 99% agreement here. Taking things by parts:
Yes, my point was not the same as the point of the article. I still think the article is well written and well sourced, but I think its premise -- that the reason men dominate the high end of the professoriate due to especially high intelligence -- is flawed.
the reason women do not single-mindedly devote themselves to a pursuit (scientific or otherwise) in their 20s, 30s and 40s is because it is a cultural taboo
This is true. I'm not sure how much this cultural taboo affects women in physics and astronomy, simply because they've already overcome so many other cultural taboos. But it may be significant. Most of the women I know in physics and astronomy and aerospace engineering are culturally conservative (though veering toward the more liberal end of that spectrum), with their churches and communities forming important parts of their lives. I don't know if this is a way of demonstrating to the world that their scientific careers have not turned them into non-women, though I won't claim that couldn't be going on.
There is nothing that indicates that women are innately less ambitious, intelligent or science oriented than men
I completely agree. Given that my summer interns run around 3 to 1 women to men, I'd say that the population of high end undergraduates getting NASA summer internships suggests that young women in the sciences are ahead of their male peers at this point in their careers.
Getting back to the NYT article, I think what needs to be addressed is its flawed premise (Which would be Larry Summers' flawed premise) that men dominate the high end of the professoriate due to the way that more men appear in the very high end tail of intelligence distribution. While it's true that men dominate the high end of the science professoriate, and it's true that in the extreme high end of the intelligence distribution there are more men than women, the two facts have less than nothing to do with each other. So while the writing is good, and the sourcing is good, the premise itself has to be exposed as unjustified. If that premise were true, the IQs of senior science professors should represent the very highest end of the IQ curve. I'm quite sure that's not the case.
The thing that got me is that I'm in grad school (molecular biology) right now, and science is about writing at least as much as it's about math. Even the math-intensive students I know have got to have excellent verbal skills to give talks, write papers, and get any kind of funding. So even if it's true that women are better at words than math, which is inadequately proven to say the least, since when are words not a prerequisite for scientific success?
I was trained, from the very first moment of sentient life I can recall to never take a risk, to never make a mistake and put everyone else above me.
With respect to your experiences and my ignorance of them that does sound like unacceptable parenting to me. While I totally acknowledge how common it is, I still wish to note that things can be done differently- I have endeavored to do so with my young female relatives and I know older female relatives who try to do better with their children.
just about any woman with the mathematical ability to get into a doctoral program will get the doctorate if her life/family circumstances permit
In addition to the excellent comments that rm makes, I wanted to point out that it's my feeling that the life/family circumstances thing is BIG for women. Certainly, in my own case, one reason I didn't finish the doctorate, despite getting through all the hoops to be considered ABD, was because of my life/family circumstances: I was in an abusive relationship, and the abuser wanted me out of school. The other big reason was that my department did their best to keep POC and women from finishing, either through active persecution or malicious neglect. The double-whammy was enough to force me out with my Master's.
I don't think that much has changed since the 90s, given what I hear from life sciences grad students since then. What I've seen repeatedly is that women's diss projects are more frequently savaged by their advisors/committees. One woman I know had to restart her diss research 3 separate times, while watching men who came into the program with her graduate in 4 or 5 years. Another woman I know had her diss research knocked out from under her by her advisor, and two years later saw worse research on the exact same protein make the cover of Nature -- with a man's picture. One woman in my department had been in the program for more than a decade -- but she was also the laboratory supervisor for one of the full profs in the program, and he wanted to keep her in that position, so she never got her PhD.
I have only rarely seen this sort of persecution happen to a man, and often the man can get out from under it by breaking under the interminable pressure and being extra-assertive at his advisor (one man I know was allowed to have his PhD because he walked into his advisor's office and shouted at him, and kept shouting him down whenever the advisor argued).
There is a major cultural dysfunction in academia that conspires to hide this sort of institutionalized gender (and race) persecution. No one is allowed to talk about it -- you can't talk about it as a student, or you'll never get your degree! And if you talk about it after you get the degree, you won't get a job/tenure/advancement. And if you talk about it after failing to get your degree, it's sour grapes.
All of this, and it's not just the sciences. There's a reason I'm not getting back on line to do academia the way I'm supposed to, and it's not just because I'm an impatient sod. It's because the rules of the game are cruel and stacked and center on a sort of gender-policing I can neither pass nor endure.
I have heard male tenured professors say in one breath that their female students are always better than their male students and say in the next "if doesn't want to fuck me, why is she in my class?"
It's a big bucket of no thank you, and I admire the women in my life who are getting their PhDs from reasonably sane departments where they aren't being subjected to this sort of shit. But it's out there, and we all know it.
I admire the women in my life who are getting their PhDs from reasonably sane departments where they aren't being subjected to this sort of shit.
Yes, this, exactly. My wife just got her PhD from a reasonably sane department and it was still maddening in many, many ways.
When I got my new job, with its generous tuition reimbursement for two major institutions in the area, the first words out of my parents' mouths: "Are you going back to get the PhD?" My response: "Oh, hell no."
Truer words were never writ. This is a major part of why I teach as an adjunct, and my primary job is outside academia.
I'm truly sorry for what happened to you. You're far from being the only woman who's experienced this kind of hellish treatment in a graduate program, and I've also seen what you say about POC and women. I hope you've been able to find meaningful employment in your field as an ABD.
Someone soo needs to invent an artificial uterus. I totally understand that wanting kids before the biological clock dies. But why are we expect to sacrifice our careers for the kids' sakes?
Yeah, uterine replicators will someday transform the lives of women at least as much as The Pill did. That said, children will still need parenting. If we're ever going to get away from the situation in academia, it will require a social shift away from rewarding single minded dedication to one's profession and toward rewarding people who demonstrate that they value their communities by being good at their professions *and* good at whatever role they have chosen to pursue within the community.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif){kind=small}
liljacks_corner is a community that has been set up for fan creators to make G-rated stuff for an eight-year-old boy named Jack who has just lost his legs; one of the only things that cheers him up right now is Doctor Who. He's only seen the first two seasons of the New series. What's being requested is a story about a little boy, much like the one it's for, going on an adventure with the Doctor and Rose. Details at the community.
no subject
My observations about women in the sciences is that just about any woman with the mathematical ability to get into a doctoral program will get the doctorate if her life/family circumstances permit. But what happens to women after they've got the doctorates is ... disturbing. More women who get into tenure track jobs end up not getting tenure for all sorts of reasons, most of them having nothing to do with their actual abilities as scientists. Women who go into non-tenure track jobs stay on "soft money" for decades sometimes. Arguably the biggest single driver behind both of these is that the women are having children in the decade following their doctorates. They put off the whole marriage and family thing to get through grad school, but the biological clock keeps ticking and they're keenly aware of the risks associated with childbearing after age 40. So we end up with a fair sized population of women scientists in their 30s who are working part time in science while also doing mommy track stuff.
Anyhow, my point is that the reason we still end up with the top tier of the professoriate populated almost exclusively by men is *not* due to any especially high intelligence on the part of those men, but rather because the women with doctorates seldom devote themselves to a single-minded pursuit of advancement in academia during their 30s and 40s. In a perfect world the men wouldn't either, as they'd be as engaged and involved with their young families as the women are, but we don't live in that perfect world.
no subject
Additionally, you don't quite acknowledge that the reason women do not single-mindedly devote themselves to a pursuit (scientific or otherwise) in their 20s, 30s and 40s is because it is a cultural taboo for which they have little to no support to do so, expected as they are to have children to prove their gender, sacrifice their career (as opposed to a male partner sacrificing his) for said children (again to prove success at gender) and then to additionally care for aging parents who rarely want to burden male children with such tasks if they have the option not to.
While I acknowledge that most people of both genders desire children; women are told their whole lives that they do -- negating the possibility for many women of considering otherwise, and certainly negating for many more women the possibility of negotiated partnership around children that allows a woman to maintain career power.
There is nothing that indicates that women are innately less ambitious, intelligent or science oriented than men or in overwhelming majority want to sacrifice those things for having a family. But articles like this fall back on "girls just don't like science enough", "sure, lots of women are good, but only men can be great" and "women don't know how to take risks"
I was trained, from the very first moment of sentient life I can recall to never take a risk, to never make a mistake and put everyone else above me. The reason women aren't scientists have nothing to do with their being women, and everything to do with the ways they have been treated because they are women.
The women and science bullshit is right up there with "men write about ideas; women write about feelings." As if things like nation building don't happen due to jealousy, possession and desire.
no subject
he's totally right about tenure. we're at Princeton, at which the admin has tried in a number of ways to equalize the tenure/family problem, without success. lesser administrators (department chairs, etc) find ways to continue punishing both male and female faculty members for having families (female faculty disproportionately).
in fact, here, you get an "extra" year to get tenure for each child you have, whether you are male or female. good idea, right? unfortunately, that just means that you ahve to get 6 years of sprinting done instead of 5 (when the idea is that you should have 6 years to get 5 years of sprinting done, so that you have a year to devote to being a parent.
by sprinting, i mean that my husband was working on the order or 80 hours a week during my son's first year. they wanted to "give" him an "extra" year, and i insisted he not take it, because i wanted him to be part of my son's first few years at least. the policy is a good idea with bad execution. i think that's common.
no subject
*sigh* Too true. Much too true.
no subject
I also thoroughly agree with you on the massive effect of assumptions about women's role with regard to raising children. Even if you are super-progressive, fighting against that is really hard.
no subject
Yes, my point was not the same as the point of the article. I still think the article is well written and well sourced, but I think its premise -- that the reason men dominate the high end of the professoriate due to especially high intelligence -- is flawed.
the reason women do not single-mindedly devote themselves to a pursuit (scientific or otherwise) in their 20s, 30s and 40s is because it is a cultural taboo
This is true. I'm not sure how much this cultural taboo affects women in physics and astronomy, simply because they've already overcome so many other cultural taboos. But it may be significant. Most of the women I know in physics and astronomy and aerospace engineering are culturally conservative (though veering toward the more liberal end of that spectrum), with their churches and communities forming important parts of their lives. I don't know if this is a way of demonstrating to the world that their scientific careers have not turned them into non-women, though I won't claim that couldn't be going on.
There is nothing that indicates that women are innately less ambitious, intelligent or science oriented than men
I completely agree. Given that my summer interns run around 3 to 1 women to men, I'd say that the population of high end undergraduates getting NASA summer internships suggests that young women in the sciences are ahead of their male peers at this point in their careers.
Getting back to the NYT article, I think what needs to be addressed is its flawed premise (Which would be Larry Summers' flawed premise) that men dominate the high end of the professoriate due to the way that more men appear in the very high end tail of intelligence distribution. While it's true that men dominate the high end of the science professoriate, and it's true that in the extreme high end of the intelligence distribution there are more men than women, the two facts have less than nothing to do with each other. So while the writing is good, and the sourcing is good, the premise itself has to be exposed as unjustified. If that premise were true, the IQs of senior science professors should represent the very highest end of the IQ curve. I'm quite sure that's not the case.
no subject
no subject
With respect to your experiences and my ignorance of them that does sound like unacceptable parenting to me. While I totally acknowledge how common it is, I still wish to note that things can be done differently- I have endeavored to do so with my young female relatives and I know older female relatives who try to do better with their children.
no subject
In addition to the excellent comments that
I don't think that much has changed since the 90s, given what I hear from life sciences grad students since then. What I've seen repeatedly is that women's diss projects are more frequently savaged by their advisors/committees. One woman I know had to restart her diss research 3 separate times, while watching men who came into the program with her graduate in 4 or 5 years. Another woman I know had her diss research knocked out from under her by her advisor, and two years later saw worse research on the exact same protein make the cover of Nature -- with a man's picture. One woman in my department had been in the program for more than a decade -- but she was also the laboratory supervisor for one of the full profs in the program, and he wanted to keep her in that position, so she never got her PhD.
I have only rarely seen this sort of persecution happen to a man, and often the man can get out from under it by breaking under the interminable pressure and being extra-assertive at his advisor (one man I know was allowed to have his PhD because he walked into his advisor's office and shouted at him, and kept shouting him down whenever the advisor argued).
There is a major cultural dysfunction in academia that conspires to hide this sort of institutionalized gender (and race) persecution. No one is allowed to talk about it -- you can't talk about it as a student, or you'll never get your degree! And if you talk about it after you get the degree, you won't get a job/tenure/advancement. And if you talk about it after failing to get your degree, it's sour grapes.
no subject
I have heard male tenured professors say in one breath that their female students are always better than their male students and say in the next "if doesn't want to fuck me, why is she in my class?"
It's a big bucket of no thank you, and I admire the women in my life who are getting their PhDs from reasonably sane departments where they aren't being subjected to this sort of shit. But it's out there, and we all know it.
no subject
Yes, this, exactly. My wife just got her PhD from a reasonably sane department and it was still maddening in many, many ways.
When I got my new job, with its generous tuition reimbursement for two major institutions in the area, the first words out of my parents' mouths: "Are you going back to get the PhD?" My response: "Oh, hell no."
no subject
Truer words were never writ. This is a major part of why I teach as an adjunct, and my primary job is outside academia.
I'm truly sorry for what happened to you. You're far from being the only woman who's experienced this kind of hellish treatment in a graduate program, and I've also seen what you say about POC and women. I hope you've been able to find meaningful employment in your field as an ABD.
no subject
no subject
no subject