| From: claire | 21/09/99
20:16:45 |
| Subject: Women in Science | post id:
39258 |
| This is in this weeks
Nature..just thought you sciency people might find it interesting..:o)How
to boost the careers of women in science? This week, Nature launches an international web debate on the factors that lead to the scarcity of women in research. Tackling discrimination is a high priority. Why is the rarity of women in science, especially at senior levels, a problem? A common response is that societies demanding a skilled technical workforce must stop squandering half of their scientific potential. This argument is being increasingly used by governments that wish to develop knowledge-based economies. A second aspect of the problem is the widespread frustration that is experienced by women who, for one reason or another, find their scientific potential difficult, if not impossible, to fulfil. A third, more controversial, argument is that having more women scientists would lead to a broader range of research being tackled. Some concerned with the needs of developing countries, for example, argue that more women scientists would mean a greater emphasis on tackling societal challenges through research. Whilst one cannot be sure of the validity of this statement, it is reasonable to suggest that, to some degree, progress in science will reflect the backgrounds and interests of those doing it. We cannot and should not seek to legislate in order to have science fairly represent the needs of society, but society can reasonably expect that the make-up of the scientific community reflects that of society at large to a greater extent. Of course, one needs to take into account not only the impact of childbirth, but also the fact that child-rearing is, in practice, still undertaken predominantly by women. Reconciling the needs of families and of scientific careers is something that industry appears to have tackled with more gusto than has academia. But there are other factors disadvantaging women that are much less widely acknowledged, as witnessed by consistent reports and peer-reviewed research from around the world showing variously that women scientists earn less, have less prestige within departments, have less lab space, get worse jobs on graduating with science degrees, have more teaching responsibilities, have more difficulty getting grants and apply for fewer grants in the first place. These and other issues will be described and discussed in a web debate launched by Nature today (http://helix.nature.com/debates). | |
| From: Trev(TAO) | 21/09/99
20:43:44 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39266 |
| bloody women give em the vote and
they think they own the bloody world...I dunno back in my
day...:-) :-)> Trev(TAO) | |
| From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) | 21/09/99
20:43:54 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39267 |
| Good show. I would like to make three points. 1/ These days, I suspect that the direction of scientific research in the world is determined principally by 'what the market will bear', rather than the feelings and propensities of the scientists individually or en masse. Most people can't afford to fund their own research, and the scholarships (and such) are heavily weighted towards short-to-medium term economic benefits. 2/ The cultural attitudes in academia and scientific industry, in my opinion, play a role in slowing the careers of women, and no doubt there are some high school teachers out there who secretly don't think science is 'lady-like' and emit negative vibes to that effect. However, the general attitudes of people in all walks of life probably do damage as well. My personal impression is that science women are less accepted by society at large than are science men and non-science women. 3/ I hope the people supporting the notion that encouraging women into science careers will change the direction of science for the better have some evidence that women are generally more interested in societal and humanitarian aims than men are. Sometimes the things that 'everybody knows' are just plain false. And now for an anecdote. I have just graduated as a geophysicist, and I would guess that the percentage of geophysics graduates today that are XX is about 25%, considerably lower than the overall percentage of science graduates that are female. (The distaff percentage of all geophysicists is much lower again [very rough estimate: 5%] due to the fact that most of them graduated at a time when there were hardly any women in the 'hard sciences' at all.) When I was at university (a small number of months ago), the wife of a geoph lecturer was in the office while I was working with a women who was enrolled in the same course. The lecturer's wife is a linguist. Before she left the office, she went up to my female colleague and said, ''Is this really what you want to do?' student - "What?" linguist - "Geophysics. I don't mind when the boys do it, but I really don't think it's what women should do. Have you really thought about it? Are you sure you wouldn't be happier with arts, or something? Think about it, won't you." One assumption I have never made is that all other men are like me. Of course, other men might assume all men are like them! 8^) | |
| From: claire | 21/09/99
20:50:07 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39269 |
| I wonder if you can go and post
that on the debate site?..Your opinion I mean Daryn...not Trevs...I don't
know that they could cope with
Trev...:o) | |
| From: Leith | 21/09/99
20:59:27 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39274 |
| Do you think that women generally
are not interested in a certain ranges of science.Where culture comes
along and reinforces this notion as you've outlined above.With all the
other valid points. | |
| From: Trev(TAO) | 21/09/99
21:02:11 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39275 |
| seriously though my wife who is
as we speak going to TAFE to get a better edjumakation had to do a report
type thingy on a famous woman of science and although there was a fair few
to choose from compaired to males there was bugger
all. :-)> Trev(TAO) | |
| From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) | 21/09/99
21:30:16 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39279 |
With regard to your question, Leith, it is certainly true that fewer women choose to enter science degrees than men. It is hard to separate out the causes. Some suggest that women are inherently poorer scientist than men for genetic reasons. While I suppose there is a chance that this is true (though personally I doubt it), it is an unnecessary complication to the model, since the cultural bias against women in science is sufficient cause for the observed imbalance in enrolments and in postgraduate advancement. As I opined in Trev's thread, if the percentage of women in science was principally determined by genetics rather than culture, then one would not expect cultural change to affect this percentage. In fact, over the last 40 years the female percentage of new Australian science graduates has increased dramatically, as the culture has changed. (Presumably no-one argues there has been an overwhelming change in the gene pool in this country.) 8^) | |
| From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) | 21/09/99
21:33:22 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39280 |
| I did send that post off to the
Nature debate, but if I understand their instructions, they are only
taking e-mail contributions from subscribers. As I am not a Nature
subscriber, it may just be
scrapped. 8^) | |
| From: Em | 21/09/99
21:41:26 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39281 |
| As a young person, and female
having recently completed my B.Sc and doing honours with the vain hope of
being qualified for a job, I can speak from experience as to the attitudes
toward women who undertake or are interested in Science (Specifically Chem
and Bio fields). Okay, these are generalisations, with some specifics. Not everyone behaves this way, but the majority do! Firstly in high school, every teacher told me I could do anything I wanted, but recommended Drama, my Chemistry teacher told me not to pursue it at all (I have just completed a major in Chem). And forget Mathematics ('you know our brains just aren't built that way') Most often all I have to say is what I do and people immediately assume I have a big brain and I must be a real nerd and get uncomfortable, but this happens with anyone who has been to uni I spose. However the hardest attitude to deal with is the Leturers most nearly all of which (I had 3 female lecturers during the course and only one of those was a full-time lecturer the others were guests) were male. Most are more comfortable talking about topics (like families etc) other than my career or questions, and I wasn't taken seriously until now, when I have learnt to ask questions a different way or find the answers from other sources. In my experience the 'girls' are put down and if we retaliate were butch bitches, especially in the laboratories. Also we seemed to do the bulk of the extra work (like continuation of experiements over weekends etc) and it wasn't asked, just expected. The other factor, is behind every(mostly I know its not all)male is the woman who supports him (mother, wife sister, maid, secretary) through cooking, cleaning etc. In general women don't have that, they have to go home after a long day in the lab, cook, wash up etc and listen to their partner, children, flatmate etc then try to study. This hinders them through guilt, I know it does with me. And forget children. My greatest Admiration goes not to men, but to women, like Marie Curie, who have the guts to pursue their careers and have children, and not neglect either of the responsibilities. That's awesome. Other factors are the amount of bachelors in the lab and undergrad, they (men and women) assume that if you're not interested in dating someone from the course, your a lesbian(not just maintaining a professional distance). And their subsequent behaviour. Or conversely, the men have the attitude that your taking another mans place and that's cause for them to dump crap on you, I found this occurs with men from the arabic region (Some not all, I know!). Overall, Science is still male dominated and has a structure which reflects this. Although my graduating class was 50:50 most of the girls were concentrated in Biology and not looking for research careers, just a easy pharmaceutical sales job or part-time work in a path lab. But the biggest factor is most girls are not confident and stubborn enough to put up with the crap and pursue their goals. And for that I place the ball in societies court. *Stepping down from my Soapbox* Em | |
| From: steve(primus) | 21/09/99
22:19:11 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39286 |
| When I joined the Bureau of
Meteorology there were very few women meteorologists and no observers.
Things have changed a bit. We have a woman as Officer-in-Charge of the
Sydney Airport Met Unit, the Olympic Weather Support Coordinator is a
woman as is her 2-i-c, four out of the five meteorologists in the Special
Services Section are women and two out of four meteorologists in the
Climate Section are women. We don't have any at the moment in the Regional
Forecasting Centre but we have had and will have women there
again. | |
| From: Michael Gunter | 21/09/99
23:14:41 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39298 |
| Very interesting input from
Em........ My wife is a medical specialist, and though this is not exactly science, it is a full time (plus overtime, plus being on 24-hour call for months at a time) job, and I honestly don't think she could have pursued a career to its full potential if she had not had somebody else around to do the parenting to three young children. I bet Marie Curie had nannies, maids and servants at critical times of her career or at critical times of the children's development. Try school holidays for example!! Now that the world population has exceeded six billion, hopefully more women will feel free to pursue tertiary education and science careers. It is a sobering thought that when the Pill was made publicly available the world population was only 2.5 billion. If we want to have even that many people living sustainably on this planet, there is a lot of work for science to do, much of it involving mitigating the environmental damage of our consumer society. Corporate funding of science is often leading in exactly the opposite direction. .....Consumer Society = Consumptive Planet | |
| From: Daryn Voss (Avatar) | 21/09/99
23:45:03 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39301 |
| Some of you may remember that the
second last prime minister made a commitment towards universal childcare.
The provisions have been wound back considerably in recent
years. | |
| From: Trevor Wilson (Avatar) | 22/09/99
7:07:59 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39325 |
| Here's my personal view, relating
to one woman in science: My partner is a scientist. She is a very good one (or course, I may be showing a little bias, here). She is destined to remain at the lower end of the pecking order, in the (Government) organisation she works in. She will not play office games. She will not 'suck up' to her superiors. She does her job. She will even go above and beyond the call of duty. None of this matters. The important stuff is to go to business lunches, buddy up to the boss and rort the system for as much as one can. Unfortunately for my partner, she has a deep sense of what is right and wrong. She will never make it in science. Trevor | |
| From: Dr. Ed G (Avatar) | 22/09/99
8:16:14 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39327 |
| While I don't by any means think
that it is the only reason, or even the principal reason (lack of material
support for women as has been mentioned has perhaps a bigger role to
play), I think expectation and moral support have a lot to do with the
lack of gender balance at all levels in the sciences, and in particular
the physical sciences. One of the things I've learnt from my experience in
academia, research, and to a lesser extent industry, is that the biggest
element to success is not competence but confidence. The intestinal
fortitude, perserverance, and no short measure of bloody minded arrogance
to press on, full steam ahead, and "damn the torpedos!" And I suspect such
a mind-set is generally only possible with a raft of people behind you
saying, "Yes, I know you're worth it, and I know you can do it!" and a
tradition of people in front of you, people (mentors) that you can in some
sense relate to, that have done it all before you. And if you're constantly confronted with reactions like, "you're doing a PhD in Physics? ... that's odd for a woman isn't it?" instead of "you're doing a PhD Physics? ... brilliant, you can explain to me then why the sky is blue?" (I'm alluding to an actual concrete example here, these are two actual responses), then those niggling doubts that everyone has can easily be magnified into "Hang on, if other people do see me as a physicist/scientist, maybe I'm not really cut out to be a physicist/scientist?" (and very few who embark on a career in physics (and I suspect all the sciences), male or female, are 100% confident that they can really cut the mustard) Having one's ego massaged occasionally is soooo important to simply getting out of bed in the morning to face any human challenge, and I suspect men expect, demand, and receive such encouragment more often than women. And, until we all both expect and appreciate women's aspirations as well as accomplishments, for what they mean in and of themselves without neccesary reference to gender (like simply being told, "Wow, you know, you're really bright!" instead of "Wow, you're a really bright woman!" which is dangerously close to "you're really bright, for a woman"), then it's still going to be hard for women to even embark on a career in science, let alone maintain one. And all this is still part-and-parcel of our use of language. When you still hear phrases like, "the most advanced do-hickey known to man", and "the advancement of mankind", it's hard not to visualise (and we all visualise) men doing all these remarkable things - regardless of the fact that we know consciously that women can and do make profound contributions to these things - in this case it is very much the subconscious that matters. So when little Johnny Howard declares that only chairmen will chair meetings in his government, regardless of their gender, I can't see this as anything more than a completely retrograde step in our attempts to make Australia a cleverer country. And as has been said by others, the loss of women to science is not only to those individuals who never experience the sheer joys and satisfaction of doing good science in a stimulating and supportive environment, it is a loss to science and society as a whole. Science is a vigorously intellectual pursuit, and in order for any intellectual pursuit to advance it needs the input of a broad diversity of ideas. So if we are only drawing on the life experiences, approaches, and ideas of 50% of the population, then we are limiting the supply of a sustenance to science that is as vital to science as oxygen is to life! Soupie twist, Ed G.  | |
| From: Kothos | 22/09/99
11:28:36 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39366 |
Wow, I can hardly believe my ears. I must assume that everyone has their opinions backed by their own experiences but I must say that in my engineering classes I've never observed the (precious few) female students being treated any differently from the males. Okay so a certain amount of institutional sexism exists (physics examples always referencing cars eg) and stuff, and society may not actively encourage girls to pursue science careers, but I've never seen them experience an actual hindrance. So maybe they need a bit more arrogance and a bit more confidence, but even as far back as high school all teachers I knew treated everyone equally. In fact, the only thing stopping them I can see is themselves. My physics and engineering classes contained only boys, and electrical engineering (including all related majors) still only has a 5-10% femal participation rate. Especially in engineering, I think we need more girls (take the environment for one thing, us guys are ruining that). They seem to have their hearts in the right place (Environmental Engineering has 50% female students), but none of them seem to realise that prevention is better than cure. How much better off would the world have been if the BHP engineers, the Lockheed and Boeing Engineers, and various other engineers working for petroleum, mining and defence companies too numerous to name, were female?? | |
| From: Martin B | 22/09/99
12:31:52 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39373 |
| Kothos, when differences exist
(on average) between the way men and women relate to education, then
"treating everyone the same" can reinforce those
differences. However you perceive the interplay between genetic and social factors, there are few people that argue that these differences do not exist. I think Dr Ed has provided an excellent analysis and one that is backed up by my own (N=1) experince. When I did Physics at Uni, the attitude given by most of the lecturers seemed to be "Physics is the hardest subject at Uni, so you have prove yourself to be intellectually superior before I'm going to give you the time of day." Needless to say, the vast majority of students dropped out of physics by half way through second year. Unsurprisingly, the students who were left were almost exclusively male. There was one woman in my honours year. The following year there were none. Is this because women were not interested in physics? No, the percentage of first year students, while not 50-50 was substantially greater than 5%. Is it because the women were in general academically inferior? I was not privy to exam results, but I would be amazed if this were the case? I think it has everything to do with the confidence Dr Ed described. To make it through to 3rd and 4th year, students needed to be sure of what they were doing, have the confidence that they could do it and have external support ('cause the department sure wasn't about to give much support.) Anyone who didn't have all of these factors got pissed off with trying to prove themselves to the Physics crusties and went off to maybe go and learn something useful from someone that was actually glad to see them. Now I'm not for a minute suggesting that the Physics lecturers 'singled people out' or treated women differently than they did men (though they may well have, I certainly couldn't say). However the different ways (on average) in which women relate to education, to their teachers, to thinking about their life/career ambitions all meant that very few women saw the point in 'sticking it out', while a substantial number of men did. I think these kinds of factors are prevalent right through scientific life. Prestige is an important part of a scientific career. And just like in business and politics, academic prestige is large shaped according to a masculine 'norm'. Characteristics like the ability to denigrate the work of peers and to claim individual responsibility for collaborative work are highly rewarded. The idea that 'treating people the same' will sort out all the differences only make sense if a) differences do not exist currently; or b) our actions are completely neutral with respect to gender, culture, politics etc. This is rarely the case and only when we are doing something that is completely inconsequrential. | |
| From: Dr Paul (Avatar) | 22/09/99
13:23:51 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39384 |
| Hi all, may I say this has been one of the most interesting and stimulating threads to read and ponder. Well done all, I hope society can advance in the shape you people can lead. Now for my (N=1) contribution. It may be difficult to try to teach young males and females in the same manner. I have read and seen BBC docco's that stated that in early (relatively speaking) science (mainly physical based sciences and maths) males and females respond to different teaching methods in a BIG way. Males are typically confident and cocky, so respond well to a competitive environment. (Not all will respond like this in all subjects) Females respond better to a quieter observational method of teaching. To get the most out of younger students we may then have to separate the genders so that the males may be encouraged in the ways of males and progress and find meaning in their testosterone wildness, and females are NOT discouraged by the over exhuberant males, but are encouraged into the detail of science (I feel the urge to say the beauty and wonder). I repeat again, not all those males and females interested (initially) in sciences will fall into such broad brush strokes, so an examination of each student individually may allow an intermixing of sexes based on their capabilities and their responses. Having separated the genders in teaching manner, I think it highly important to encourage some social interaction to develop the abilities to talk to each other. Having started in an all male high school I found to be too tough to develop in, although moving to a Coeducational school, I found that the females were somewhat discouraged from science due to the overt activity of the males, although development of social skills was better at the mixed gender school. I agree, younger females appear to be actively discouraged in advancing into a science based career, or even study. It is difficult to get young females interested in a science based study when they are bombarded by body image from a very young age with this being reinforced by the notions that this will influence how "boys" will look at them. But we can try, we need to encourage both genders to look at science. We likely need to actively encourage young females to stick with science if that is their goal. (Final comment) We need to actively fund science so that all those who follow their study may be allowed to benefit society by their abilities. Will we see this last bit? .... Paul Back to the shadows | |
| From: Di | 22/09/99
22:40:59 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39503 |
| Yey! for women in the physical
sciences!!!!!!! Join the revolution! | |
| From: lisa | 23/09/99
14:35:33 |
| Subject: re: Women in Science | post id:
39799 |
| Wow! Of all the links here, this
one has got a lot of responses - It must prove what an important issue it
is. There have been lots of good things said - but most relate to the involvement of women from university level up. We are missing, I feel, the most important point: for the majority of the population, decisions such as what to do with your life (become a Nobel winner or have a family - neither of which I have done, but I'm told would be great things to have) are made at a very early age. Once someone has decided to commit to an area, such as science or education or politics or any other field, I feel that it is more dependant on the individual, and circumstances thrown in their face, as to whether they stick to it. Sure there are obstacles, but that is life. To the guy who only had one woman in his physics final year: you said half the people dropped out by second year - well if the female proportion consists of say 10 out of a class of 100, then only five would be left by second year. And so on, leaving one in final year - I'm sure that there would not be such a striking difference between the relative proportion of males and females that drop out / continue. And I have seen similar situations in other fields, of my engineering year, 8 out of 12 graduated, while only around 35 out of 80 guys did. Leading me to my point: if the ratios of women to men at the start of the courses were closer, then the issue of committment, and "sexist obstacles" I'm sure would not be so important. The solution to getting more women into "non-traditional" fields is unfortunately a more subtle and challenging area than any single institute or group may be able to tackle. It is due to social expectations, and begins from the day a baby girl or a baby boy is born into a family. I do not consider my parents archaeic at all, but in retrospect I find it surprising that they put so much hope into only one child (the boy), and didn't expect anything much out of the other two (girls). (An aside, which may be totally irrelevant - the two girls are happy and very successful in their chosen fields, while the elder son has fluctuated between unemployment and part time depression). But yes, I am rambleing. Without people realising, they (society) bring up their children by subtley conditioning them to a way of thinking, and establishing in them life expectations. No one asked me what I wanted to "be", perhaps a hairdresser? But more importantly, no one asked me what I thought, or showed me things, like: see how that bridge has been built so well, come to the science show to see your uncle, tell me what you learnt today, what type of car is that son, and so on. It wasn't until I started bringing home fancy report cards (year 11), that it was noticed that I might have a "career option". And so then I studied harder, because I was praised for good marks, (being a not so good looking quiet child, this was the first time I was noticed). But many of the girls at school did not need to bring home good report cards, because they had always been noticed - by adoring parents and pimpled teenage boys. This is not a release of some pent up teenage angst at fellow pretty classmates or my parents (who compared to friends' parents were very modern!), but I am trying to demonstrate a point. To be a good scientist or engineer requires a way of thinking: analytical, critical, objective, we all know this, just like being a nurse or a social worker requires caring, listening and compassion. People choose careers because of the way they have been brought up. We still bring up little boys and little girls very very differently. We can't bring up a girl, without ever stimulating their intellect, and training them to accept things they are told without questioning them, and then suddenly, when they get to the age of 17 (when the biggest thing on their mind is more likely to be sex, drugs and holidaying) expect them to enter a field which they have had no mental preparation for, and have only ever been shown how dirty or hard it is. I agree (and am very thankful for) the changes in society on these matters in the past decades, but we still have a long way to go. And it will be the hardest step - because it requires us acknowledging the most subtle social conditioning. But we'll do it, and the world will be a better place for it. Cool. I've been wanting to say that for a long time. I hope some one actually reads it! cheers everyone, and we can all contribute to a much more exciting world - if we simply change our attitudes and treat everyone like the valuable human being that they are, Lisa. | |
This forum is un-moderated. The views and opinions expressed are those of the individual poster and not the ABC. The ABC reserves the right to remove offensive or inappropriate messages.