Notions of Feminism, Science and Mathematics.

[Kiless]

From another thread:

How many of us truly understand what the notion of 'feminism' means and what female contribution to the world has brought us and how much is truly overlooked by those who limit themselves to literary rather than scientific figures?

I started this because I am aware that my own education rather limited me in this arena... and I was concerned that many young women weren't aware of women's contributions to history let alone the fields of Mathematics / Science.

How many people out there can name personal heroines (it's so odd, even the word 'heroine' seems to have passed out of practice) in fields they work / are interested in? Has the notion of feminism begun to die out, to be replaced by.... what? I found when mentioning the topic to female teenage students I was faced with sneers and stereotypes of hippies and loud-mouthed, bra-burning "terrorist" figures.... and yet when I mentioned their future options they were all insistant about their rights to be considered for good career positions and not having their gender count against them.

Do we, as these young women suggested, just get moving on what we want and not consider gender politics anymore? Is feminism (whatever 'wave' we're up to now; second, third....) no longer relevant? Have we gone beyond or progressed enough in our world that it is not something for women to 'fight' for anymore or have we just lost the energy or desire to care about the issue? Is it still an issue?

Ack, early morning summary:

Has feminism done a disservice to female contributors of the world of Science and does this mean that feminism is no longer relevant in modern times?

[Vagabond]

Has feminism done a disservice to female contributors of the world of Science and does this mean that feminism is no longer relevant in modern times?<<<<<<


People confuse everybody having equal opportunities and treating everybody equally. Nobody deserves to be treated equally for anything not even all men. Women for whatever reason are normally followers and not leaders. This is a fact. Women are not as physically strong as most men, this is also a fact. Women are far more likely than men to have self esteem issues. This is a fact. This is why women are under represented in politics, corporate management and the military. It has nothing to do with the fact they aren't given equal opportunity or aren't considered equally for every position. They just aren't as qualified for some things as men are. That is a fact, regardless of whether you want to accept it or not.

If I remember correctly, Marie Curie worked with her husband. Women are far more likely to have and perhaps need male counterparts. Women in management rarely do the firing but have a male for that task. Because they find it distasteful? Perhaps, but these kinds of things do matter.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Cheers to Vagabond, for demonstrating why feminism is still relevant. :)

Originally posted by Vagabond
People confuse everybody having equal opportunities and treating everybody equally. Nobody deserves to be treated equally for anything not even all men. Women for whatever reason are normally followers and not leaders. This is a fact. Women are not as physically strong as most men, this is also a fact. Women are far more likely than men to have self esteem issues. This is a fact. This is why women are under represented in politics, corporate management and the military. It has nothing to do with the fact they aren't given equal opportunity or aren't considered equally for every position. They just aren't as qualified for some things as men are. That is a fact, regardless of whether you want to accept it or not.


This raises a few questions.

Are these claims true? Where is the evidence (physical strength aside)?

If they are true, is the inferiority of women in these areas purely a matter of human genetics or is it to some extent culturally constructed?

If they are true, how big are these differences? Can they be overcome by talent or hard work?

If they are true are these areas of inferiority the reason why woman are under-represented in positions of power in and of themselves, or are they merely the basis for a prejudice which keeps unusually talented women out of positions of power?

My own suspicion is that the answers are that the differences are not very big, they can be overcome by training, they are partially culturally constructed and they are the basis for prejudice more than they are genuinely the reason why women don't get the top jobs very often.


If I remember correctly, Marie Curie worked with her husband. Women are far more likely to have and perhaps need male counterparts. Women in management rarely do the firing but have a male for that task. Because they find it distasteful? Perhaps, but these kinds of things do matter.

Do you have evidence for this stuff, or is it just the usual run of "everybody knows that!" sexism that feminists have been beating back for decades?

[Vagabond]

Cheers to Vagabond, for demonstrating why feminism is still relevant. <<<<

I am not anti-feminism I am pro-reality.

Plato said "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike."

Demanding equal pay as the ten other men who have your same job, when you are the 11th best of the bunch, only have your job because you are a woman and you are too cowardly to ask for a raise is BS. Taking such things seriously takes time and effort away from actual injustice.

Just asking me for sources is a lazy man's arguement. Most of what I said is obvious. The fact I don't care to find a source to backup something I said doesn't mean it's not true. Nor does your just asking for sources count as any kind of counter arguement.

As to whether such things can be overcome in other ways. It would depend on what we are talking about. I don't think there is a chance in hell Hillary Clinton could be elected president despite the fact she is certainly more qualified than the current one. I might choose to campaign against her despite the fact she is an excellent candidate just because I might believe nominating her is handing the presidency to the republicans again. These kind of things are not easy fixed or overcome. Woman won't vote for a women for president either.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Demanding equal pay as the ten other men who have your same job, when you are the 11th best of the bunch, only have your job because you are a woman and you are too cowardly to ask for a raise is BS. Taking such things seriously takes time and effort away from actual injustice.


This is an instance of begging the question in a huge way, since it assumes that such situations are the norm and also that they are the basis for equal pay legislation.


Just asking me for sources is a lazy man's arguement. Most of what I said is obvious. The fact I don't care to find a source to backup something I said doesn't mean it's not true. Nor does your just asking for sources count as any kind of counter arguement.


Welcome to the JREF forums, where we ask for evidence of people's assertions. There has been plenty of research into differences between the sexes. Go cite some if you want us to take your opinion the least bit seriously.


As to whether such things can be overcome in other ways. It would depend on what we are talking about. I don't think there is a chance in hell Hillary Clinton could be elected president despite the fact she is certainly more qualified than the current one. I might choose to campaign against her despite the fact she is an excellent candidate just because I might believe nominating her is handing the presidency to the republicans again. These kind of things are not easy fixed or overcome. Woman won't vote for a women for president either.

Go off on tangents much?

[Leif Roar]

Originally posted by Vagabond
If I remember correctly, Marie Curie worked with her husband.

Partly correct. Marie Curie did work together with her husband Pierre Curie on the work that gave them (as well as Bequerel) the Nobel Prize in physics in 1903. However, Pierre died in 1906 and the work won Marie the 1911 Nobel Prize in chemistry was hers alone.

Of course, Marie Curie was already a talented scientist before she met and married Pierre.

[Vagabond]

Welcome to the JREF forums, where we ask for evidence of people's assertions. There has been plenty of research into differences between the sexes. Go cite some if you want us to take your opinion the least bit seriously.<<<<<

Welcome to the land of Vagabond, where people who never quoted a source nor made a single point about anything but just ask for sources so they can be a troll are not taken seriously and ignored.

[Leif Roar]

Mr. Vagabond, meet Mr. Ignore List. I'm sure the two of you will be seeing a lot of each other.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Vagabond
Welcome to the land of Vagabond, where people who never quoted a source nor made a single point about anything but just ask for sources so they can be a troll are not taken seriously and ignored.

Around here it's assumed that people who advance controversial claims, such as "X is true of women" where X is a sexist stereotype, are expected to be able to support them.

The alternative is to let people spout any old rubbish and let the burden of proof be on anyone who disagrees with the rubbish to prove otherwise, but I am sure you can see why that is not a good way to run a serious discussion.

Frankly, I think the claims you made are mostly sexist garbage. But around here when we are being polite what we say is "Do you have evidence for that claim?". Thus we show that while we suspect your claim to be false, we admit that we may be wrong and establish that we are willing to change our minds if and when evidence is presented.

To cut a long story short: are you just airing your prejudices for the edification of people who already agree with you? If not you need either argument or evidence.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Kiless
From another thread:

How many of us truly understand what the notion of 'feminism' means and what female contribution to the world has brought us and how much is truly overlooked by those who limit themselves to literary rather than scientific figures?

I started this because I am aware that my own education rather limited me in this arena... and I was concerned that many young women weren't aware of women's contributions to history let alone the fields of Mathematics / Science.

How many people out there can name personal heroines (it's so odd, even the word 'heroine' seems to have passed out of practice) in fields they work / are interested in? Has the notion of feminism begun to die out, to be replaced by.... what? I found when mentioning the topic to female teenage students I was faced with sneers and stereotypes of hippies and loud-mouthed, bra-burning "terrorist" figures.... and yet when I mentioned their future options they were all insistant about their rights to be considered for good career positions and not having their gender count against them.

Do we, as these young women suggested, just get moving on what we want and not consider gender politics anymore? Is feminism (whatever 'wave' we're up to now; second, third....) no longer relevant? Have we gone beyond or progressed enough in our world that it is not something for women to 'fight' for anymore or have we just lost the energy or desire to care about the issue? Is it still an issue?

Ack, early morning summary:

Has feminism done a disservice to female contributors of the world of Science and does this mean that feminism is no longer relevant in modern times?

Are you talking about feminist theory, as a school of scientific research, or are you talking about the media use of the term 'feminism', such as bra burning, the ERA, and other political activism?

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Leif Roar
Mr. Vagabond, meet Mr. Ignore List. I'm sure the two of you will be seeing a lot of each other.

Never yet actually had anybody with an ounce of sense make such a threat. Always makes me chuckle when they broadcast it like they are doing me some kind of harm by withholding their mindless, inane cackling.

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Around here it's assumed that people who advance controversial claims, such as "X is true of women" where X is a sexist stereotype, are expected to be able to support them.

The alternative is to let people spout any old rubbish and let the burden of proof be on anyone who disagrees with the rubbish to prove otherwise, but I am sure you can see why that is not a good way to run a serious discussion.

Frankly, I think the claims you made are mostly sexist garbage. But around here when we are being polite what we say is "Do you have evidence for that claim?". Thus we show that while we suspect your claim to be false, we admit that we may be wrong and establish that we are willing to change our minds if and when evidence is presented.

To cut a long story short: are you just airing your prejudices for the edification of people who already agree with you? If not you need either argument or evidence.

If we were only allowed to talk about things and make points for which we could quote numerous sources like a college term paper we couldn't have discussions. You are the one making a judgement by saying what I said is sexist garbage. I was just giving my opinion, I never made any such judgements. It should be your task to prove me wrong if you are going to make such a generalization. Just your saying so doesn't make it true. We aren't having a discussion if your only answer to mine is "it's sexist garbage". That is what they call just being an arguementative troll. Just trying to start an arguement for it's own sake. I don't play kiddie games, so save it.

[crimresearch]

Am I the only one getting a whiff of old socks?

[Vagabond]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Am I the only one getting a whiff of old socks?

It's always just the same few morons too.

[crimresearch]

Well, you see....refusing to have a rational discussion of the topic at hand while complaining that 'morons' won't treat you right is such a tired old troll trick, that it is hard to discern whether the troll behind it is new or old.

[Chanileslie]

One of the women that I look up to was a Scientist: Rosalind Franklin - without her work on the DNA structure, Watson and Crick would not have been able to discern the double helical nature of DNA. She died way to young at 37 - her contribution could have been so much greater.

I think like the word liberal, feminism has been made into a dirty word by its detractors and unfortunately, it has worked. Of course highly visible and controversial figures in Feminist movement have not helped that because the detractors always point to the same few women and say, "SEE?!?! BRA BURNING NUT JOB WHO HATES MEN!!!!!! THAT'S WHAT THOSE FEMINISTS ARE!!" Completely ignoring that fact that every movement has its extremists.

And yet without the feminist movement girls would still be under the same glass ceilings and constrictions that their grandmothers and their mothers fought against. Girls today don't realize what was done for them because except for the occasional small skirmishes, we women have won that war; heck people who express views like Vagabond did above are looked at as crackpots now while 50 years ago, that was a common belief system about women.

The feminist movement served its purpose: it set the wheels in motion and brought women, men and society a great victory, so maybe now that girls can sit comfortably knowing they have all these hard earned rights, but not realizing that they were hard earned, not seeing the actual cost, they have become complacent in a way that they expect to be treated as equals as a matter of course, not as something they have to fight for. Just as long as that is never let go, we will be fine. We will still be feminists, but it doesn't matter what we are called for to quote Shakespeare, what is in a name? We will just from now be called women and equals and that was the whole goal from the beginning.

The real problem I see now is this whole idea that other women are the enemy that I think has come out of the making the term feminist a derogatory - I would like to see that end. I would like to see women team together like we did during the 60's and 70's and early 80's and support each others in our goals. It is almost as if by becoming the equals of men, we must behave like men and all things 'womanly' are bad. I have seen on this board and as well as other places, some women that I really like and who I thought of as strong women say some very demeaning things about the female sex, and I don't get that. Lets support each other and realize there is nothing wrong with being a woman. Being equal doesn't mean that we all have to be tom-boys. Let start treating each other with the respect that we all deserve whether we like to wear pink frilly dresses or rough and tumble jeans and tee-shirt. Whether we like to climb mountains or race cars or whether we like to go shopping and have tea parties or all of the above and more. We are women; let us roar!

[The idea]

Originally posted by Kiless
[...] I was concerned that many young women weren't aware of women's contributions to history let alone the fields of Mathematics / Science.
Were you concerned that

1) some particular contributions to history, mathematics, and science are deliberately ignored and that the ignoring is motivated by the fact that the contributions were made by women?

OR

2) many young women do not attach special importance to the fact that a contribution was made by a woman?

[epepke]

I'm glad that someone started a new thread on this.

First, some disclaimers. I have to say that feminism is so broad a category that it's impossible to say anything about it in general, except that it has something to do with women. It's a bit like atheism, only worse, because it's used casually as well as rigorously. So I'm going to restrict the notion with respect to what I say to a small subset of feminism, which is feminist history produced, studied, and promulgated within academia. Note that academic feminism in general is discinct from and in many ways highly inconsistent with or contradictory to what the average walking-around type person who calls her- and/or himself a feminist means by the term and to what political commentators usually mean by the term. This is the stuff that you will find if you get a post-graduate degree in Women's Studies, which is different from the stuff you will find at the local NOW chaper. I offer the disclaimers in an attempt to forestall the flaming that happens in most discussions of feminism or, failing that, to be able to have a solid basis for counter-ridicule should the straw men that I have seen hundreds of times come up. I will use words casually in subsequent writings, because I can't be bothered to write a disclaimer on ever single sentence, but they all are intended to be interpreted in the context of this paragraph.

There are a couple of reasons that I focus on academia. First, it's the field most relevant to Dr. Adequate's original complaint, which was about a poster and a story in academia which is most likely to have been created and decided upon by those in academia. Second, having been an academic myself and having studied it rather intensively (I moved on to other thing after having read somewhere around 250 books on the subject), it's one of the two subsets of feminism that I know the most about (the other is the history of.

My answer is that, yes, feminist history has given short shrift to successful women in math and science.

I have two basic ideas about why.

First of all is that feminist history, while there is some variation, follows a fairly standard pattern of fall and heroic redemption. It follows a pattern that can be visualized as a V. At some point in the past, everything was great. Socities were matriarchal, everybody got along, and there were no wars. Then men started to dominate, and the more they dominated, the worse things got. Women were oppressed, everywhere. Then the V bottomed out with the discovery of feminism, which started to make things better, which will lead to a future in which everything is matriarchal again, and everything is peachy again.

The resemblence of this to the Christian mythos is obvious, though usually denied, so for convenience, I'll use words familiar to those who know the mythos.

The details vary. The Garden is set sometime in early history or prehistory and can be anywhere from about 6,000 to the time of the Heidelberg cave paintings, to a few million years ago. Sometimes it's justified by reference to archaeology, which usually involves building a lot of conjecture around some fat female stone dolls, or some pottery with illustrations of men and women frolicking, or a cave opening that was carved to look like a vagina. There's also a lot of stuff about double-bladed axes and bull heads.

The fall also varies, from rapist hordes on horseback to an evolutionary adaptation to eat meat to the beginnings of Judaism or Christianity to the development of agriculture itself (except in those stories where women invented it in the Garden).

The redemption varies in time but is usually within a century of the present, either way. The source of the redemption is always feminism or a precursor.

The future paradise is fairly inspecific, but if you took the Aquarian mythos of the 60s and got rid of all the men, you wouldn't be far off.

That's probably enough details for now. The point is that any heroine has to fit this framework, and it excludes a lot of women.

The second reason is that there has always been an inherent distrust of logic, mathematics, and science in academic feminism. There are claims that logic is a "patriarchal trap," claims of "women's superior ways of knowing through the body," and references to the process of giving birth as the only truly creative act, by which comparison all the efforts of men are monstrosities. This is probably best known by way of the Frankenstein myth, but it also resembles the Christian mythos, in which Satan is the "ape of god" and cannot really create anything but monsters in imitation of God's perfect creation. Also popularly known through Lord of the Rings. It quite resembles Earth Mother ideas, but that, too is usually denied.

I'll write about why I think Countess Ada fits a lot better than Emmy Noether, I'll write about that another day.

[Giz]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

Girls today don't realize what was done for them ...

Most people don't realise (or often seem to value) what was done for them in the past. There's such a low voter turnout in the UK nowadays which is appalling considering the struggles through the 1800's and early 1900's to get where we are.

Anyway, people tend to take what they have for granted.

[epepke]

No takers, I guess. Nobody's interested. Oh well. Carry on.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by epepke
No takers, I guess. Nobody's interested. Oh well. Carry on.

I'll be back once I've taken the cat to the vet. :)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kiless
I'll be back once I've taken the cat to the vet. :)

My best wishes for the cat.

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Kiless
*snip*

Has feminism done a disservice to female contributors of the world of Science and does this mean that feminism is no longer relevant in modern times?


I do think that some of the feminist organizations have done a disservice to themselves. The females who have made great contributions to science and out understanding of things were innocent bystanders who got bayonetted in the process.

And I may have a bit of cynicism here, so bear with.

But it occurs to me that any 'rights' or 'protest' group has a fatal flaw. What happens when they win? You have a group of people who have become dependant on the cause, both emotionally and finacially. If/when you get what you want, the cause falls apart. So that if/when doesn't occur. Can't occur. There is always a new atrocity to be protested, a new facet of the cause to be dealt with.

One of the famous ones I'm reminded of is trying to change the word 'history' to the word 'herstory'. The word 'history' is devoid of ANY gender-based roots. And even if it was, wouldn't it have to be 'itstory'?

Well, I realize the above is slightly silly, but on the other hand, it was also true. When you're nitpicking at this level, a few things may occur to someone watching. The first is that you've run out of real issues to talk about. The second is that you really don't care about the women involved anymore. You're all about the 'movement'. The artificial construct has taken the place of real people. This is usually a sure sign that it has outlived its usefulness. Third, you're just being completely silly. When you take yourself THAT seriously, it becomes awful hard for anyone else to do so.

I do agree with epepke. It is an interesting thought. Instead of looking for/at women who could be held up as true role models, they held up effigies that fit their own view of persecution. And they MUST be persecuted! MUST! Else it weakens the 'movement'. That is why some folks in the feminist movement claim that any heterosexual relations are rape. I have heard the claim that any sex with men cannot be consenual. Well, at this point the start alienating. There are a few women out there who have figured out for themselves that sex with the right man can be..well..pretty darned good. As a man, I must admit it's pretty darned good on our end of that deal, too. Thus, they actually detract from people who might've supported them. Including women scientists.

These are just my views. On a much more personal note, I believe women got the raw end of the deal with feminism. Why the smurf they would settle for equality is beyond me.

[epepke]

Originally posted by clarsct
I do agree with epepke. It is an interesting thought. Instead of looking for/at women who could be held up as true role models, they held up effigies that fit their own view of persecution. And they MUST be persecuted! MUST! Else it weakens the 'movement'.

Thank you. And, of course, I agree back.

At first glance, the story of Emmy Noether might seem meat for feminist analysis. She grew up in Germany at a time when that country was highly misogynystic compared to other European countries. Kinder, Kuche, Kirche was the byword. She couldn't attend gymnasium, or in English prep school, because she was a woman. She had to audit courses until 1904, when she was admitted as a full student, and got a doctorate summa cum laude. For a time after that, though she had to work without pay for a while, until she got moved to a position where she could charge students directly.

Seems good so far.

However, beyond that, it becomes problematic. She was given opportunities because of nepotism (her father was a mathematics professor) and also as a result of such male luminaries as Hilbert and Einstein. When she moved to America, of course, she got a full paid professorship immediately.

And beyond this was her own pure chutzpah. She basically defined the branch of mathematics that is now usually known as Modern Algebra. She solved an outstanding problem with General Relativity, in such a way that it also held significant applications for Quantum Mechanics and will certainly be an integral part of any Grand Unified Theory or Theory of Everything. I don't know how to convey how rare it is for someone to be both a theoretical and applied mathematician, but she was both, supremely. She was, arguably, the greatest mathematician who ever lived, and she was certainly the greatest mathematician of the 20th Century.

But she did it without feminist mentorship and is therefore ideologically impertinent. Her success cannot easily be chalked up as a success for feminism.

These are just my views. On a much more personal note, I believe women got the raw end of the deal with feminism. Why the smurf they would settle for equality is beyond me.

Heh. I've heard that before, even from feminist sources. "Any woman who wants equality with men lacks ambition." In one sense, a bit unkind, but in an individual sense, quite admirable. Why should anyone do other than seek to be exceptional?

[Kiless]

Originally posted by epepke
My best wishes for the cat.

Sorry about that. Didn't want you to think you're being ignored, busy weekend, et al. Cat grumpy, no other developments. :)

Originally posted by epepke
But she did it without feminist mentorship and is therefore ideologically impertinent. Her success cannot easily be chalked up as a success for feminism.

I feel all ambivilent about the matter. I'd like to say, 'bloody well done for her as a person' and yet don't want to think that just because she didn't have a female mentor that she isn't a good role model for young women. I want to think that she is demonstrating why women should be encouraged in the sciences and yet not be used as some sort of icon to be shoved down people's throats as an example of the 'evil patriarchal system and how many other "Emmy Noether's" could have, should have done it and more, only if they had the chance - Shakespeare's sister, where art thou??

Originally posted by epepke
Why should anyone do other than seek to be exceptional?
Nice summation. I do think, however, many younger women I know sneer at the word 'feminist' because they do find the stereotype of the 'angry woman' absurd. A woman who arrogantly asserts not only the rights but superiority of their gender over men. And this then creates "What if the boys don't like me if I'm smarter than them? What if being exceptional makes me stand out and then be left out?" Therefore I can't dismiss the need for young people to know about women in history and what they faced... but perhaps to see the desire for exceptionality as being non-gender specific.

(I hope that didn't come across as too babbly - wrestling a cat into a box, fifteen minutes drive of screaming tabby and one bitten veterinary assistant tends to take my coherency.)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kiless
I feel all ambivilent about the matter. I'd like to say, 'bloody well done for her as a person' and yet don't want to think that just because she didn't have a female mentor that she isn't a good role model for young women.

Not at all. I would think she's a great role model for young women, and young men, except that I don't put much stock in the term "role model." I think that she was a hero, or a heroine, if you prefer.

My point is that feminist historians aren't in the business of doing that. They're in the business of doing something else. I'm not even saying that what they do is bad; just that it's different.

I want to think that she is demonstrating why women should be encouraged in the sciences and yet not be used as some sort of icon to be shoved down people's throats as an example of the 'evil patriarchal system and how many other "Emmy Noether's" could have, should have done it and more, only if they had the chance - Shakespeare's sister, where art thou??

That's why she isn't promoted by feminist historians. The myth of Shakespeare's sister is great, and it fits into the story. A poor woman, who could have been great, were it not for patriarchal so forth and so on. So is the undeserved myth of Countess Ada.

I think the key phrase here is "I want to think." I want to think a whole lot of things. I want to think that America is the land of the free, home of the brave. I want to think that the cops are there to serve and protect. I want to think that car salesmen are honest.

Nice idea. Shame about the reality.

Nice summation. I do think, however, many younger women I know sneer at the word 'feminist' because they do find the stereotype of the 'angry woman' absurd. A woman who arrogantly asserts not only the rights but superiority of their gender over men. And this then creates "What if the boys don't like me if I'm smarter than them? What if being exceptional makes me stand out and then be left out?" Therefore I can't dismiss the need for young people to know about women in history and what they faced... but perhaps to see the desire for exceptionality as being non-gender specific.

I don't know why many younger women of your acquaintance sneer at the word "feminist."

If you want to teach people about women in history, then go for it.

But it's one thing to go out and do it and quite another to assume that it must necessarily already be done in women's study courses, which constitute the teaching branch of academic feminism.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by epepke
I don't know why many younger women of your acquaintance sneer at the word "feminist."

Probably because they equate it with 'man- hater' / misandrist / misanthrope? The average hetrosexual female wouldn't like that label applied to them; I certainly wouldn't. It's a little difficult when they immediately say 'but I have a boyfriend!' when you start talking about feminist issues.

[clarsct]

Originally posted by Kiless
Probably because they equate it with 'man- hater' / misandrist / misanthrope? The average hetrosexual female wouldn't like that label applied to them; I certainly wouldn't. It's a little difficult when they immediately say 'but I have a boyfriend!' when you start talking about feminist issues.

Which all ties back to the idea of the feminists shooting themselves in the foot. I think we're running circles, here.

Maybe you need to go back to the roots. Show them that a feminist can be *gasp* married..;) And still be a feminist. Show them the side the PC folks like to ignore. It's hard. When you march for a cause in the beginning, it is with a LOT of doubt and uncertainty. When the people you've grown up with, the girl you used to braid your hair with, gets arrested for speaking her mind..well...it makes an impression. When a woman becomes a social outcast for HAVING a degree, then the idea of equal rights has much more impact. Hell, WE don't even know what that's like..let alone the newer generations. And remember, however much women 'mature' faster than men, these are still teenage girls. I was a freaking genius when I was a teenager(well, I still am, but I no longer believe I know EVERYTHING:D ).

I wish I had something more useful to offer. The types of things I used to teach teenage girls, back when I was underage myself, had more to do with physiology than history. (and was taught myself on several memorable occasions..)

Teach the history. Teach the heroines. Teach what's there.

Teach the facts.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by The idea
Were you concerned that

1) some particular contributions to history, mathematics, and science are deliberately ignored and that the ignoring is motivated by the fact that the contributions were made by women?

OR

2) many young women do not attach special importance to the fact that a contribution was made by a woman?

Sorry, I'll clarify - it's neither 1) nor 2).

More that the education I recieved and the education I see being given to young people in my state (West Australia) about what 'feminism' is, is being taught in the upper-level English classes, designed for those who wish to apply for University entrance, and they do not seem to look beyond feminism in literature - Greer, Faludi, Steinem, et al. The conversations I've had with a few people of undergraduate status or those who experienced exposure to feminist ideologies at university only seem to go in depth further with the feminist scholars I've already mentioned... I should poke around further to see if this is in any way true beyond my limited experiences, and this thread is a start! :)

I don't think there's a spiteful blanket hiding over women's contributions to any particular field (no conspiracy theory, honest! :) )... but I'd like to see a wider recognition for women's contributions to science, because I personally feel ashamed that I don't know. :( As for your voicing of point 2), I wonder if you consider that a good thing, if it is true?

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Okay, I am only popping in just to check out the books in the "What are you reading now" thread (I've run out of library books, and don't know what to pick up next...)... So I have not read this thread at all!!

Now on to my comments... I am old (pushing 50), and I graduated from college with what was then (and still) is a non-traditional degree for a woman (aerospace engineering... one of the two other women in the department was the first female test pilot for Boeing).

I did join the Society of Women Engineers... and because of it I have met some very interesting women. These include at least one astronaut and the first woman to do research in Antarctica. They have some great stories. I have spent the last couple of years sorting through and scanning the archives of my local section, similar to this:
http://www.reuther.wayne.edu/collections/sweguide.html ... still lots of great stories. If you need a set of resources for your school you may want to start here:
http://www.swe.org/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&ssDocName=swe_000889&ssSourceNodeId=99

Actually sometimes the contribution has been overshadowed or forgotten. In the movie "The Right Stuff" the testing and promotion of the first American astronauths are chronicled... BUT what is not widely known is that there were women being tested as possible astronauts too. See Promised the Moon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1568582757/) (hmmm... a list of books I should see if my library has them).

Also, in modern engineering companies it is not just the contribution of one person. Would you care that 20 years ago that the development and testing of an airplane the focal person who developed the analysis program and did the studies on the structural dynamics (wheel shimmy) of the Boeing 757 nose gear was a woman (not me... I just used and refined her stuff for another plane).

Or lately, the accomplishments are now just mundane and do not seem so unusual. Even though only 3 of the 12 2004 Nobel prize winners were women. And the only reason one was really noticed around here was because she was a local (http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/2004/buck-cv.html )

That's all for now, I'm sorry I can't contribute much... But I am off to the library website to reserve some summer reading.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kiless
Probably because they equate it with 'man- hater' / misandrist / misanthrope? The average hetrosexual female wouldn't like that label applied to them; I certainly wouldn't. It's a little difficult when they immediately say 'but I have a boyfriend!' when you start talking about feminist issues.

That's really just a restating of the process that goes in their heads. Besides, it's supposition.

In any event, I think it demonstrates one of the problems that clairsct points out in terms of foot-shooting. Obviously, for whatever reason, such young women as mentioned have made a decision for themselves. Others may make a different decision and embrace feminism. If feminism is to stand for anything good, then it must necessarily stand for the rights of these young women to make a self-determination, even when it entails not self-identifying as a feminist.

It's much like the flag debate. If the flag is to stand for anything good, it must necessarily stand for the right to burn it in protest.

Any movement that is, at least in part, about liberation is necessarily about making itself superfluous, even silly. There's a retrograde aspect in all such movements, because any actual success means giving up self-identity.

Of course, feminism can be used to psychoanalyze such young women, to tell them that they're wrong or bad or brainwashed (which is just a polite way of saying "stupid"). I'm not saying that you're doing that, but that's where it leads, and I see it being done all the time. They will probably be exposed to a Women's Studies course, which is now mandatory at a lot of universities. They may want to think critically about such things, but when they try, they will be told that they're anti-feminists. When this happens, said young women see feminism as the force that it telling them what they may or may not do, think, or say. They may, in the their individual lives, compare it to how their not-particularly-feminist professors treat them and conclude that they don't want much to do with feminism.

The reason that they perceive things this way is that it is, to a large extent, true.

One can, of course, try to demonstrate that one can be a reasonable feminist. This is also, to a large extent, true. Doing so might even do some good in society. A younger generation of feminists has improved the tone of feminism immeasurably, and compared to them, the old guard simply seems retrograde. However, feminism, at least as an established academic institution, resists reform to a rather high degree, and so these young women will get the sneaking suspicion that there is a whitewash job going on, which is also largely true. They will get the impression that they are expected to take something like a loyalty oath based on an accident of birth, which is also largely true.

An anecdote is appropriate here. My ex-wife took a women's studies course at USF. For most of the course, the professor pretty much toed the line. About three-quarters of the way into the course, the professor found out that her application for tenure had been denied, and so she started saying what she really thought. It was like night and day.

[clarsct]

HCN:

I'm pushing thirty..so just a babe yet by your standards;) .

I was speaking of my own generation...I suppose it'll teach me to be specific. Most of the REAL right marches went down in the sixties and seventies. I can't say I remember the seventies, but not for the usual reason. I was 4 in 1980. It's all a bit distant for me, so how much more so would it be for someone who is currently 16?

And, I must add, YOU ROCK. I never knew any of that stuff about you, but it's very cool. Maybe Kiless should start teaching about HCN?

Or those three Nobelists. I couldn't think of a better way to show just how things were, and how much they've changed. I'll post it again, any country that does NOT recognize Universal Sufferage is doomed to be a third world country. They're basically like a boxer trying to compete with one arm behind his(or her) back.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by clarsct
HCN:

I'm pushing thirty..so just a babe yet by your standards;) .
...snip..
And, I must add, YOU ROCK. I never knew any of that stuff about you, but it's very cool. Maybe Kiless should start teaching about HCN?

....

Aw, shucks... thanks... :th: ... (there really isn't a good blushing smilie). And, yes... either you are just a babe, or you are making me feel older by the minute (hmmm... I got some "Shocking Orange" hair dye for my daughter, perhaps I should try some).

No one needs to teach about me. I only worked for 8 years... and then I have been a stay-at-home mom for the past 17 (I gave birth to a child with on-going health issues). I have the best of both worlds: The opportunity to be in non-traditional career and the advantage of being able to afford to stay home because I am married to a most wonderful brilliant man. Which is also why I can also dwelve more in the women's history (I just passed on the local archves to someone else... I looked after them for 20 years, now I need to work on my own family's pile of unsorted pictures).

I also took one "Women's Studies" class in college. It was right after I had completed my 6-month Engineering Co-op job at a fabrication division for a local manufacturer (I did drafting by hand on mylar of things like the sprinkler system of a warehouse). Since I was a student without a car I took the bus to the suburb with a bunch of other workers, mostly women who worked on the line (included one who had been promoted to polishing a wing section). Anyway... I dropped out of the women's studies course because it made me gag big time. All these academic types talking about "who wrote what in which book", while ignoring my just previous experience completely. I hated it.

So my point is to stay away from sociologists when it comes to women's issues -- check out some good memoirs. First person narrative is usually better. (Some of the links in the www.swe.org page can point you to some, I also have created a rich text file of the procedings of an engineering career guidence conference sponsored by SWE in the early 1970's -- it has some great first person narrative. If Kiless would like, she can PM me and I can email it to her... I'm not sure how kosher that would be,but it is not copyrighted, also I have sent a copy to the SWE Archives).

Though I have in the past read some books that piqued my interest. Like for women in the military I recently read
Cathy Willams, From Slave to Female Buffalo Soldier (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0811703401/) (dreadful book, a rather dry historical account of what could have been a really interesting story), and Generally Speaking (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0446527939/) (a really GOOD memoir of the first woman 3-star general in the US Army!), and Women in the Military (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891415130/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-1492261-6820734?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) (NOT a recent read, I read the 1982 edition of this, looks like I need to check out the updated edition). These are usually more interesting than engineers and scientists, plus they tend to reflect what is going on in society at large.

[athon]

It's difficult to separate the feminism of media enhanced pop-culture and the feminism which has actually changed the discourse of society. People like Germaine Greer and Naomi Wolf do nothing to help their cause, in fact damaging it, while the all-too-quiet revolutionaries who change mentality through demonstrating 'why' change should happen (rather than petitioning it) are the real motivation behind change.

It is a shame that the loudest are those who often represent the minorities, and it is no different with effective feminism. Unequal pay was more of a symptom of a belief in nuclear families where the male figure alone supported the family. It was assumed that working females had no family to support; hence the standard for male pay was based on a family unit. Change has come because the belief in this stereotype has been slowly changed.

This is the key word; slow. In terms of generations, it has been a brief moment in history. This generation will see no conflict in admiring a female figure in a defining social role as much as they do a male. The evolution has come because of many factors, and many small changes gradually changing the gestahlt of post-industrial societies.

As more and more people see the reality behind workplace equality, where a person is defined by their skills and not their sex, and positions are defined by those same required skills and not a gender, then we'll increasingly see change. In addition, as the 'typical' family becomes more of a myth and society increases in flexibility concerning it, diversity will continue to balance. The dinosaurs who relish in holding onto their age-old, popular myths, such as Vagabond, will die without new dinosaurs to replace them.

It's a shame we sometimes feel like we're watching history on slow motion.

Athon

[crimresearch]

It is a shame that the loudest are those who often represent the minorities,

Granted that there are loud voices who use minorities to advantage themselves, but I would hope that at least some folks see through them.

And there are other loud voices who should not be dampened.

Even though hundreds of years of politely waiting, and quietly working produce no significant change, should we believe that when change finally occurs in proximity to unpleasant confrontations, that the Malcom Xs and the Susan B. Anthonys and the Madellyn Murray O'Hairs, and the Andrea Dworkins were not the catalyst?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Kiless
I don't think there's a spiteful blanket hiding over women's contributions to any particular field (no conspiracy theory, honest! :) )...
Maybe a lot of harm is produced by discriminatory attitudes precisely because no conspiracy is required for those attitudes to have an impact.

Originally posted by Kiless
[...] I'd like to see a wider recognition for women's contributions to science, because I personally feel ashamed that I don't know. :(
Why do you feel ashamed that you don't know?

Originally posted by Kiless
As for your voicing of point 2), I wonder if you consider that a good thing, if it is true?
A nondiscriminatory attitude is a good thing. A young person may, as a consequence of having a nondiscriminatory attitude, attach no special importance to the fact that a particular contribution was made by a woman. Even if point 2) is neither good nor bad, it might be a consequence of something that is good.

[Lucky]

Interesting and useful discussion. I don't think I've ever intentionally read a feminist work, but feminist issues (especially from a biological point of view) and articles by feminists appear in the popular and semi-popular science I read. I am particularly interested in the question why women are under-represented in the 'hard' sciences and technology, and what (if anything) should be done.

It is much more respectable now than it was say 20 years ago to attribute this under-representation to genetically-determined differences in brain development that influence abilities (or possibly preferences). In fact, this seems to have become the received wisdom in some scientific circles. This is no doubt partly due to the rise in status of genetics as a science and a technology, and also to the popularity and influence of so-called 'evolutionary biology', whose pseudo-explanations of gender differences, for example, have a nice scientific look. (I'm not saying the explanations are necessarily wrong, just that they are unproven speculations.)

Stephen Pinker is an enthusiastic proponent of this view, as can be seen throughout his work. For example, in The Blank Slate he quotes approvingly this extract from a presentation by social scientist Patti Hausman to the National Academy of Engineering:

The question of why more women don't choose careers in engineering has a rather obvious answer: Because they don't want to. Wherever you go, you will find females far less likely than males to see what is so fascinating about ohms, carburettors, or quarks.

This sort of thing reminds me why I don't read social science! In my opinion she's stating nothing more profound than her personal preferences.

Even if it were true that there is no prejudice and no overt barrier, people make choices for all sorts of complex reasons. If women are seeing these areas in some way as men's preserve then that can hardly fail to be relevant. I believe that Pinker, Hausman etc. (deliberately?) obscure the issue when they imply that the absence of direct discrimination proves that there are no barriers. And the feminist movement is partly to blame for this reaction, because of its adversarial attitude, untenable accusations of direct discrimination, and support of dubious sex-discrimination claims etc.

Throughout the history of science there has been a strong tendency to justify the existing state of affairs on scientific grounds. I think that evolutionary biologists and their allies are to some extent following this tradition; however, the argument is no longer couched in terms of innate inequalities, it is now equal but different.

It is ironic that some feminist social scientists etc. endorse this doctrine, with concepts such as women's ways of thinking/understanding/knowing. These are sometimes taken to extremes, as in this (http://www.nald.ca/canorg/cclow/newslet/1992/wint_v10/28.htm) attack on 'male' scientific methods:

forces women to use "white male" tools to research and define issues and seek solutions based on the male myth of objectivityFrom Kiless:
Has feminism done a disservice to female contributors of the world of Science and does this mean that feminism is no longer relevant in modern times?We don’t know why women are greatly under-represented in some areas of science and technology, and we need to know. Feminism has a part to play in answering the question, but nothing can be achieved by writing off the world of science as ‘male’.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

:clap:

Good point.

Also... nothing disgusts me more than some social "scientist" trying to tell me that the FUN I have with math and science is based on "male" restraints. ugh... I hate people who have no idea what science, engineering and math are trying to put gender on it. idiots

[epepke]

Originally posted by athon
People like Germaine Greer and Naomi Wolf do nothing to help their cause, in fact damaging it, while the all-too-quiet revolutionaries who change mentality through demonstrating 'why' change should happen (rather than petitioning it) are the real motivation behind change.

Oddly enough, I kind of like Germaine Greer and Naomi Wolf. They were personal, but there is no reason to take them other than such. It's a bit like reading something by Philip K. Dick or Harlan Ellison.

[Vorticity]

Originally posted by crimresearch Are you talking about feminist theory, as a school of scientific research, or are you talking about the media use of the term 'feminism', such as bra burning, the ERA, and other political activism?
You know, it never really happened:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/burnbra.htm

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by epepke
No takers, I guess. Nobody's interested. Oh well. Carry on.

I am very much interested but I have to admit that I understood almost nothing of your post and I am certain that this has to do with how much ignorant I am regarding Women Studies.In Greece we don't have women studies

I have a good reason for being so ignorant though and with this I reply to the opening post.

I am totally against everything that promotes a discirmination and I think that women studies do that.

I believe that feminism is irrelevant in western societies but is relevant in the muslim world.I don't believe that the problems of women in the western world are solved. On the contrary, we have reports for serious discriminations in the career field in the financial field ( women still get less paid) and I won't start talking about treatment in prisons where women suffer much more than male prisoners but this a huge and different subject.

BUT in my opinion the answer to this kind of discrimination isn't in the hands of the feminists. I find it wrong, in political terms and strategy, to talk about feminism. I believe that the answer is to talk about Equal Rights and Opportunities. We fight for equal opportunities among citizens and not among men and women.

I consider very important how you describe yourself. It's totally different to present yourself as a woman than presenting yourself as a citizen who asks for equal rights with the other citizens.

In western world we are not women, we are citizens who fight still for their rights.

[epepke when you have time could you please simplify the first reason you brought in some lines?]

[Kiless]

I have left this thread for too long! I apologise!

Originally posted by epepke
That's really just a restating of the process that goes in their heads. Besides, it's supposition.

Oh, absolutely - I base my statement upon the personal experience of having to grade half a dozen reports on students ideas on what makes a hero (based upon a novel they studied, 'Johnny Hart's Heroes') and having to read about bloomin' Paris Hilton being cited as their role model. :rolleyes: I'm biased, sure. :)

The rest of your post is wonderful and I'm finding a lot of common ground in what others have to say - in particular Athon, Hydrogen Cyanide (I am definitely PMing you, I keep having to empty out my PM files though, sorry!!)... The Idea had a question posed to me; I am ashamed because I feel like if I am challenged by a young woman, a student, about why they should choose Science as a career that I can't cite easy examples of other women....
But Cleopatra, rightly, says that it shouldn't matter. It is about being a citizen and choosing a career path that is fulfilling and being admired for making a contribution no matter what field it is. And I'm seeing that sentiment being echoed by others too.

(Feel free to disagree, I'm currently boggled by a cold that has me at a loss in terms of expression but I didn't want to have people think I'd abandoned the thread.)

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by Kiless
... I am ashamed because I feel like if I am challenged by a young woman, a student, about why they should choose Science as a career that I can't cite easy examples of other women....
...

Sometimes the options in science are not presented adequately. It is often perceived as nerdy, boring and a date killer (well... back in the days of disco, if I was being bothered by anyone at the "Loose Caboose" all I had to do was tell them what I was majoring in, and the guy would just disappear!).... except that still for women in sciences, engineering and mathematics the male/female odds are good, though often the"goods" are odd. :D

While I am taking a break from some mind-numbing financial work (I much prefer 2nd order differential equations to home finances... but it must be done), I looked up a couple of Aussie sites:
http://www.wisenet-australia.org/
and
http://wwwrsphysse.anu.edu.au/admin/women/

[epepke]

Originally posted by Kiless
I am ashamed because I feel like if I am challenged by a young woman, a student, about why they should choose Science as a career that I can't cite easy examples of other women....
But Cleopatra, rightly, says that it shouldn't matter. It is about being a citizen and choosing a career path that is fulfilling and being admired for making a contribution no matter what field it is. And I'm seeing that sentiment being echoed by others too.

Well, of course, Cleopatra is quite right about this.

I mentioned parenthetically earlier why I didn't like the concept of a role model. I think I should explain why.

The term "role model" seems to me a lot like filling someone's shoes. It might be OK if you were encouraging people to become coal miners or middle managers or salespeople or accountants. In other words, things that thousands of people have done before.

The very nature of mathematics or science or most scholarship and writing is to do something extraordinary, in a field that is highly competitive and usually offers little in the way of financial rewards.

The only way I can think of to do that is being motivated by an inner demon, which is always full of outrage and jealousy and stuff like that. You have to be able to survive when everyone tells you that what you're trying to do is impossible.

I don't see the concept of a role model as particularly useful in nurturing the inner demon. Nor do I think seeking ways to blame failure on others is useful.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
[epepke when you have time could you please simplify the first reason you brought in some lines?]

I'd love to, but I can't really understand the question. Perhaps you could clarify.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Gah... I just saw this tonight, it is depressing:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_cost_of_being_a_woman_in_science/

I wonder how it translates to the US and Australia?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by epepke


I don't see the concept of a role model as particularly useful in nurturing the inner demon. Nor do I think seeking ways to blame failure on others is useful.

This is a very interesting observation and maybe deserves a thread of its own.

You know I grew up in a house with walls covered by books and parents and grandparents that were really educated but yet I went to school first in Israel and then in Greece. Greece is a very fine country but it's 20 years behind your country in every aspect. Maybe a Greek farmer is in a better position than a farmer from Iowa for reason we need some hours to discuss but I had to make double or triple the effort from a kid that graduated a high school in NY or in Boston that had a Library and a PC. When I enrolled the School of Law I didn't know how to use a public library because in the late 80ies in Greece schools didn't have Libraries. And think that I was very privileged in comparisong with many others.

Think of a kid that comes from an agricultural area of Greece. She likes Maths and therefore she is by definition considered weird by the society. She can listen to whispers from her demon. But what is a demon? She is not certain. Then she goes to a bookstore in Athens downtown and by mistake she comes up with a popular book, let's say " Fermat's Enigma" by Simon Singh , she buys it, she reads it and she realises what those whispers in her head are about.

She reads about somebody who inspires her, she becomes passionate about that, she doesn't say a word to anyone and she tries her best in order to graduate a Greek University and then leave the country to study abroad.

And think that we are talking about Greece. I don't dare to think how important role models can become for girls that live in Middle East,Africa or Asia, places where girls have as role models Eliza Bennet from "Pride and Prejudice"!
In USA the opportunities are so many, the comparison with any other country is smashing.

You know, however hard you try, or however educated you might be when you live in small societies you need the role models even for inspiration.It's not easy because you don't even have enough of good rivals r to compete with and improve yourself.

I have posted many times that I don't make the distinction between men and women and yet when I read about those two women I felt so so terribly proud that they were women that I am embarassed to express how proud I felt. :) For me they are an inspiration.

Two Nobel Peace Prize Laureates:

2003: Shirin Ebadi, Iran, 1947-
For her efforts for democracy and human rights, especially the rights of women and children, in Iran and the Muslim world in general.

2004: Wangari Maathai,, Kenya, 1940-
For her contribution to sustainable development, democracy and peace.

[crimresearch]

Cleopatra:

What if the whisper's in this little girl's head lead her to grow up and study medicine, where she can read the results of decades of research and clinical trials...done on and by men.
Will it bother you for her to learn all about the warning signs of heart attacks for men, because there is nothing about women and the disease?

What if the demons lead her to study psychiatry or criminology, where she will find out all about male criminals...because no one ever studies women, except as victims and baby killers.

Or perhaps she will use the new equality to become an automotive engineer, where the driver's side crash test dummy is the size and weight of a male...

That is why I made the distinction earlier between feminism, and the emergent feminist theory in research, which seeks to overturn the above examples.

But....it seems as though no one discusses the latter...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Cleopatra:

What if the whisper's in this little girl's head lead her to grow up and study medicine, where she can read the results of decades of research and clinical trials...done on and by men.
Will it bother you for her to learn all about the warning signs of heart attacks for men, because there is nothing about women and the disease?

What if the demons lead her to study psychiatry or criminology, where she will find out all about male criminals...because no one ever studies women, except as victims and baby killers.

Or perhaps she will use the new equality to become an automotive engineer, where the driver's side crash test dummy is the size and weight of a male...

That is why I made the distinction earlier between feminism, and the emergent feminist theory in research, which seeks to overturn the above examples.

But....it seems as though no one discusses the latter...

Although my brain fully understands what you are talking I am not familiar with the concept most probably because I am not a scientist.

Just by coincidence today I was browsing the women's section of Science Daily ( I am STILL hoping that somebody will find something that really works for PMS...) and I was thinking how much progress we have made, of course I haven't though of those aspects of science you are talking about and you have a point.

As a female professional in a strictly male profession I feel that trying to ignore innuendos,insults,difficulties that I wouldn't have to suffer if I were male has become a second nature to me. You see, if you spend time on mourning and complaining about discriminations you don't have any time left to work on your field and this is the most important: To work and make a difference!

A joke. In my profession when male colleagues want to congratulate you they say the following: " Hey! You were damn good today. I admire you. You have such huge balls" :)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is a very interesting observation and maybe deserves a thread of its own.

Thank you.

Think of a kid that comes from an agricultural area of Greece. She likes Maths and therefore she is by definition considered weird by the society. She can listen to whispers from her demon. But what is a demon? She is not certain. Then she goes to a bookstore in Athens downtown and by mistake she comes up with a popular book, let's say " Fermat's Enigma" by Simon Singh , she buys it, she reads it and she realises what those whispers in her head are about.

She reads about somebody who inspires her, she becomes passionate about that, she doesn't say a word to anyone and she tries her best in order to graduate a Greek University and then leave the country to study abroad.

That's why I make a distinction between a "role model" and a "hero" or "inspiration." The concept of a role model seems to me a highly socially conservative and more than a bit procrustean. A role model, first and foremost, has to be the same sex and the same skin color and in many cases has to be of the same sexual orientation and come from the same city or neighborhood.

I haven't read Simon Singh, but by the name, I can guess that he's probably male, and that wouldn't fit the "role model" pattern, simply because he has a penis.

I find this counterproductive, because as someone who likes mathematics, science, scholarship, and technical fields, I don't want people who are slaves to their biology or culture entering them. Furthermore, I don't think that people who enter them should be encouraged to be such slaves. I freely admit that this is elitist and meritocratic of me, and I make no bones about it.

[The idea]

Originally posted by epepke
That's why I make a distinction between a "role model" and a "hero" or "inspiration." The concept of a role model seems to me a highly socially conservative and more than a bit procrustean. A role model, first and foremost, has to be the same sex and the same skin color and in many cases has to be of the same sexual orientation and come from the same city or neighborhood.

I was waiting for someone to say that. However, I expected it to be phrased more like this:

Suppose a young woman has a Japanese mother and an Irish father. The young woman is also left-handed, lactose-intolerant, and bisexual. She is interested in neutrinos. Is there a role model for her?

Well, suppose there is a woman who has made fundamental contributions to neutrino research but she has a Japanese mother and a Scottish father; she is ambidextrous; and she is not lactose intolerant, but she is a vegan so she doesn't consume any lactose; and she is a lesbian. Is that close enough?

[epepke]

Originally posted by The idea
I was waiting for someone to say that. However, I expected it to be phrased more like this:

Suppose a young woman has a Japanese mother and an Irish father. The young woman is also left-handed, lactose-intolerant, and bisexual. She is interested in neutrinos. Is there a role model for her?

Well, suppose there is a woman who has made fundamental contributions to neutrino research but she has a Japanese mother and a Scottish father; she is ambidextrous; and she is not lactose intolerant, but she is a vegan so she doesn't consume any lactose; and she is a lesbian. Is that close enough?

Well, I don't know. That could easily be argued against as a cartoon, and cartoons aren't much good except for preaching to the choir. I don't think it's as bad as that, but it's worse than I like.

When I was growing up in the 60s, there were two characters on television and one character in literature that I identified with. The two television characters were Bill Cosby's character in I, Spy and Greg Morris' character in Mission Impossible. I like them because they were technical, and I was a technical kid. The character in literature was Scout from To Kill a Mockingbird, which was the first paperback I wore out from rereading.

Much later, I began to feel that I was fortunate to be a child in the 60s. There were many pathological things about that time, but there were nice things, too, including the attitude that it might be possible to get rid of all that useless and counterproductive baggage. By the 80s, people didn't seem to be all that interested any more.

[crimresearch]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050804/ap_on_he_me/fit_women_fitness_2


"Until now, the only guidelines available were based on men and it wasn't certain whether they applied to women as well. But as more women are being included in medical research, gender differences in some diseases and other health issues are emerging."


This is the sort of academic feminism that I am surprised so few people are talking about.

[Neutiquam Erro]

Originally posted by crimresearch
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050804/ap_on_he_me/fit_women_fitness_2


"Until now, the only guidelines available were based on men and it wasn't certain whether they applied to women as well. But as more women are being included in medical research, gender differences in some diseases and other health issues are emerging."


This is the sort of academic feminism that I am surprised so few people are talking about.

There does seem to be an implied, and unsupported premise here -- that male researchers are (or have been) less likely to design experiments with the goal of identifying gender-differentiated results. There may be studies that document such trends amongst researchers, but they're not referenced here.

Of course, the notion of "academic feminism" can't be applied to the goal of identifying objectively gender-specific issues relating to physical wellness.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Neutiquam Erro
There does seem to be an implied, and unsupported premise here -- that male researchers are (or have been) less likely to design experiments with the goal of identifying gender-differentiated results. There may be studies that document such trends amongst researchers, but they're not referenced here.

Of course, the notion of "academic feminism" can't be applied to the goal of identifying objectively gender-specific issues relating to physical wellness.

For the latter, of course you are correct.

For the former, even a casual search of Feminist books for the phrase "guinea pig" should disabuse all but the most blinkered of the notion that this is a particular problem of "male researchers."

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Neutiquam Erro
There does seem to be an implied, and unsupported premise here -- that male researchers are (or have been) less likely to design experiments with the goal of identifying gender-differentiated results. There may be studies that document such trends amongst researchers, but they're not referenced here.

Of course, the notion of "academic feminism" can't be applied to the goal of identifying objectively gender-specific issues relating to physical wellness.

Why do you feel that it is unsupported? And why do you feel that academic feminism can't consist of research on female wellness, (or other areas such as female criminality, etc.)?

I would have thought it more like 'unchallenged' that for centuries, medical, social, and other research was conducted primarily by men, and that only recently had studies been done using large numbers of female subjects, or performed looking for gender pertinent results.

ETA:

http://www.mith2.umd.edu/WomensStudies/Bibliographies/research-methods

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-bioethics/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/

[Neutiquam Erro]

Originally posted by crimresearch
[B]Why do you feel that it is unsupported? And why do you feel that academic feminism can't consist of research on female wellness, (or other areas such as female criminality, etc.)?
[B]

"Unsupported" within the scope of the article. As I said, there may indeed be research that bears this out, but I saw no reference to that (or missed it if it was there).

My other comment was poorly worded. Not being an academic, I associate the term "feminism" with various social and political concerns. I don't normally think of the objects of scientific research as being differentiated by their socio-political implications. The point of the article, as I understood it, was that the results of the research had been compromised by the innate gender-bias of the researchers.

[crimresearch]

Ahhh..my error, and thank you for the clarification.

I should have added 'as opposed to academics who are feminists', since I was focussing narrowly.

[Beth]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide


No one needs to teach about me. I only worked for 8 years... and then I have been a stay-at-home mom for the past 17 (I gave birth to a child with on-going health issues). I have the best of both worlds: The opportunity to be in non-traditional career and the advantage of being able to afford to stay home because I am married to a most wonderful brilliant man.

Ah, contraire! This is exactly what needs to be taught. That you can have a non-traditional career and that it's equally fulfilling and productive to take on a more traditional role. Happily married and making taking care of your family your primary work makes you a fine role model IMO.

I've spent more than 20 years working in a science-oriented male-dominated profession myself. But the some of the most difficult work and by far the most fulfilling times of my life have been when I've had the opportunity to be a stay-at-home mom, particularly when my children were babies. I regret that economic pressures have not allowed me more time at home with them, not that my career has suffered as a result of making choices that placed my family first.

I think the major flaw in feminism has been a disparaging of the traditional female roles in our society. I don't want to be confined to them, but I do value them highly. I think women who choose to be homemakers deserve just as much respect, as are equally valid as role models, as those who choose non-traditional roles.

Beth

[epepke]

Originally posted by Beth
Ah, contraire! This is exactly what needs to be taught. That you can have a non-traditional career and that it's equally fulfilling and productive to take on a more traditional role. Happily married and making taking care of your family your primary work makes you a fine role model IMO.

It's possible that it needs to be taught, but not too many feminists seem interested in teaching it.

It's also possible that it needs to be taught when men do this, too, but again, not too many feminists seem interested in teaching it.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

A touch of editoralizing levity:
http://www.ucomics.com/nonsequitur/2005/08/07/

[karloff]

Hey, y'all. New here, found a sad, interesting thread, and had to comment. And if your curiosity demands it- i'm a guy...

Originally posted by Kiless
From another thread:

How many people out there can name personal heroines (it's so odd, even the word 'heroine' seems to have passed out of practice) in fields they work / are interested in?

Okeedokee - Emma Goldman and Margaret Sanger, for their general social outlooks and activism... And in my own field of film - how's 'bout Maya Deren and Charlotte Zwerin?

Originally posted by Kiless
From another thread:

Do we, as these young women suggested, just get moving on what we want and not consider gender politics anymore? Is feminism (whatever 'wave' we're up to now; second, third....) no longer relevant? Have we gone beyond or progressed enough in our world that it is not something for women to 'fight' for anymore or have we just lost the energy or desire to care about the issue? Is it still an issue?

Man, Kiless... I can't really say how strongly I feel that feminism is still important and very relevant. The wage gap alone is still proof enough that women in the U.S. alone have plenty to fight for. Then there's all this weird 'girl power' stuff that's being spewed about by the media, which more or less equates women's might with their ability to be sexy. Sheesh. I oughtta get my partner on this here forum - she'd probably give you pages of stuff for this thread...