There is nothing illegitimate about these human interest articles. Succeeding as a women in a male-dominated profession in fact presents real and unique challenges that merit writing about, just as succeeding as a startup in a field dominated by entrenched incumbents presents challenges worth writing about. Where articles about "X in science" get in trouble is that (1) people care a lot more about the human interest angle than about the science; and (2) journalists aren't up front about what kind of article they are writing, or are themselves confused about what kind of article they are writing.
Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, etc. only creates an environment where people can't think straight about the issue at hand.
> The issue, she says, is that when you emphasize a woman’s sex, you inevitably end up dismissing her science.
That's the point. Write about women. We need to hear about more women. Just don't emphasise how exceptional their sex is. That's how you normalise women in science.
If it's inherent, then what can we do about it?
But tone matters, and after a while, tone has an effect on people's attitudes. If you are writing about a scientist's breakthrough technology, just write about that. There isn't a need to write about the scientist being female any more than it is to write about them being male. This way, both sexes are treated more similarly. The article about their personal passions, disadvantages, and so on can be another story altogether, but not the one pretending to be about the discovery.
If you'd give a little background about a straight, white male, it might list some interesting things about the person. Surely the most interesting thing about being female isn't being female. Same for sexual orientation. I know these are true for me. I'm female and bisexual, but these don't tell you anything about me, really. I'm vastly more interesting if folks write about me being an immigrant, that I met my spouse online, or that I'm an artist.
The outcome is that the tone is that x person did y, and treats being female (or whatever) as just a thing that is, a completely normal thing. It rubs off on readers.
Sometimes not bringing something up is powerful. If you achieved something, would you really want people talking about your relationship status in your bio?
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2017/march/...
I grew up very poor, got my degrees on academic scholarships, and have published scientific findings. I'd hate it if my work attracted media attention, only to have the bulk of it focus on my impoverished childhood. What about my work? Why doesn't that merit a focused discussion?
When you are making compelling images to attract attention its more about creating an effective advertisement than a political agenda.
Perhaps it's that, when someone does something slightly outside of the norm or expectation, that becomes a notable storyline or contextual reference.
This could even be discussed without ratholing on whether or not this is a worthy goal.
https://www.sciencealert.com/someone-on-twitter-is-writing-a...
I'm actually cool with the Finkbeiner Test being a thing. But I will note that there are reasons such things get talked about.
I was one of the top ranked students of my graduating high school class. With having also been State Alternate for The Governor's Honors Program -- a live in summer enrichment program for the gifted -- I was one of the best students in my entire state. And I turned down a National Merit Scholarship, attended the local college for a bit, quit school and spent a couple of decades as a full-time mom and homemaker.
I spent a lot of years trying to figure out why I failed to get the two career couple lifestyle I fully expected when I first got married. There were a lot of factors there, but a lot of it is rooted in old fashioned gender roles.
I'm handicapped. This is a contributing factor to my lack of a real career. But Stephen Hawking was also seriously handicapped. He had a real career.
I have two special needs kids. So do lots of men with serious careers. When there are special needs in the family, it is typically some woman who ends up with the task of dealing with it.
I was a military wife and the entire military structure is rooted in a historical expectation that men are soldiers, they are heterosexual and have a wife at home and she is largely doing the homemaker thing and supporting his career. This actually works fairly well in many ways -- until you get divorced and find you have no references for a resume because you have little work experience, you moved around, you didn't keep in touch, etc. Meanwhile, the ex still works for the government doing similar work to what he did when he was active duty military and his finances are just fine, judging by the big house, new wife, nice vehicles, etc.
So part of why we mention those things is because a lot of women -- me included -- sit around wondering "What the hell do I need to do different? Is it just not possible to be married and also have a serious career as a woman? How does this work?" So it's valuable information to know that, yes, there are married women with actual careers. And then the next question is "So, okay, what is different about their marriage compared to mine? What do I need to change here if I am ever going to stop being a second class citizen?"
And that's not something you really want to ask personal acquaintances. That's a good way to find yourself blacklisted, so to speak. So we go searching articles and hoping for crumbs of clues.
The paragraph hits on so many ways in which the popular (press) conception of science and academia is toxic, and sexism is only one part of that toxicity.
Yes, the disparity in how female scientists are described in a problem. But that fact that these attributes are absent from descriptions of male academics is also troubling. How are there so many profiles of Professors that don't mention teaching or mentoring even once?!
When new phd students ask for advice on choosing a Ph.D. advisor, I give them three strictly ordered criteria:
1. Is this person a good mentor? (Where are their former students? Do those students speak positively and also candidly about their advisor?)
2. Does this person have a work-life balance? (Family? Intense hobby? Good friendships outside of the department? Encyclopedic knowledge of their favorite TV series? An inappropriate percentage of their net worth invested in cars/wines/whatever? Literally, any non-trivial time invested in something other than work most weeks.)
3. Are you excited about the research agendas that they currently have (relatively fresh) money to explore, and do you think this person has the expertise needed to help you push those agendas in the way you want?
Those three questions, in that order. If you can't find someone who meets some minimum reasonable threshold for all three, maybe consider expanding your research interests or finding a new department.
Profiles of male academic scientists should go beyond individual contributions to discuss teaching/mentoring and work/life balance. After all, it's a profile of a person who is a professor! Teaching/mentoring is a huge chunk of the job, and the person is more than their work.
If there's nothing to say about the person other than some brilliant results? If their former students resent them and their family life is in shambles? That's a tragic personal interest story. If the person has a normal relationship with their students and a normal personal life? Then there's no personal interest story at all and the article should maybe just talk about the results instead of profiling the person.
I'm sure I'll be downvoted, but I'm coming from a place of sincere intellectual commitment to this concern. There is a rift among the feminist-minded about whether women should be "neutered" in this way in our observational language. The way this polemic shakes out overall seems to be opportunistic; sometimes women receive distinctive treatment, when it's convenient, and other times not, when it's (reputedly) oppressive.
Speaking as a woman, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that other women would be up in arms if there were more straight-up articles about womens' achievements.
"But all they did was talk about her work, and left out the obstacles she's had to overcome to achieve it!"
There are even those who would, from a more niche women's studies angle, critique a strictly work-substantive biography for the "masculinised" psychological priorities it reflects and that it fails to capture the "unique female experience" or what have you. These are usually allied to the folks who bemoan the "medicalisation" of pregnancy by male technocrats, and with it the suppression of ineffable qualitative experiences of femininity that come with pregnancy and giving birth.
These are real things. The matter of a reasonably universal and inter-subjective conception of gender equality is unwieldy.
I'm attempting to teach my own teenage daughter some programming basics, not to get her into the industry, but to show her cause and effect, abstract thinking, building something from nothing, critical thinking, etc.
Given that, your comment seems off topic. No one is talking about whether women can hang in our industry. Is it necessary to derail this discussion by opening up that can of worms?
Identity politics is a reaction to people who say stuff like that.
My girlfriend and I were just talking about how it's pretty unfortunate that there are basically no top level female smash players, but the fact is that reaction time is such a huge advantage that only a fraction of a percent of men can perform at the top level, and the female bell curve just doesn't stretch that far. The opposite is true for some traits as well, like top percentile flexibility.
Women are more nurturing, more patient, better at handling conflict. Men are stronger, better at ending conflict should it arise (soldiers, police due to size and strength), and better at protecting families. There are exceptions. Neither sex is smarter. There are physical limitations for both. When I served in the military, for example, men had to do 20 dead hang pull ups. Women had to do a 70-second dead hang from the same pull up bar. Very few men could do the dead hang because women's muscles are different in their core. Maybe 1 out of 100 women could do the pull ups. It takes tremendous upper body strength to do 20 dead hang pull ups.
The desire to wipe away the differences between the sexes is wrong. I see beauty in the feminine and embrace it in its proper context. My wife cannot do some of the things I can do, and I certainly cannot perform as a doctor for women's health care in the same way she can. I'm at a loss, hence my wife and I both agree that men and women are better than the other in certain roles, but certainly equal.
Many people will find those mere statements to be offensive and inflammatory. You must know that we have reached a point where large segments of society find acknowledging achievement and/or biology to be a cultural faux pas and highly controversial.
I appreciate the everyday woman and man far more than those who exist to toot their own horns. There is something to be said for the woman that can juggle a coding job and then be a mom at 5 PM. Kudos to her. Ditto, men should be praised for their abilities to hold down a good job, provide for and protect their wives and children should they have them. Yes, I am a social conservative, but I'm not misogynist or blind to the modern world. Every family has a different dynamic. Everyone has to work things out for their own situation. I'm old school enough to realize what identity politics is, can spot it a mile off, and reject it. But... we can never erase the differences as they are innate. Women should be celebrated as feminine and men as masculine. To do anything else is disingenuous. This is not to say women are sex objects, for example. They are not. Nor are men to be idolized for their prowess on the field. This crap can be taken too far and injures both sexes and compartmentalizes them.
In a nutshell, I tend to embrace sci-fi author, Robert Heinlein's, famous quote in life:
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."
