The NYTimes has an interesting article this morning:
"In ‘Geek Chic’ and Obama, New Hope for Lifting Women in Science"
by Natalie Angier, a science writer for the paper, and author of numerous books including "Woman: An Intimate Geography."
Angier addresses how to attract women to and keep more women in science. This is a bit removed from what we've discussed so far, but definitely a related issue. Most arguments that women are inherently/biologically less-able in science (and math) have been thoroughly debunked; social constructs, including issues of family, are examined and questioned, particularly as social mores and politics are changing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
As I read this article, I found myself asking "why is this a concern?" Clearly, if there were no women in science, research outcomes would be affected. Diversity plays an intimate role in scientfic growth. But in this case, it is not an absence, but rather the inequality in numbers that arouse concern. Why?
ReplyDeleteIs this the result of feminist culture? Is this the result of a societal consciousness that women were once barred from particulate professions and a subconscious attempt to "right the wrong" by encouraging inclusiveness in this group? I think this must play some role in the rationale; how else would you explain the lack of such articles on "how to keep men in nursing!" or "how to keep men in the child care field!" Does scientific thought in and of itself play a more important role in the evolution of (hu)man than any other action? (And if so, does that not link back to the struggle of eminence - with the E - between "body" and "mind")
I think society has been conditioned that in relation to females, absence equals exclusion. In reality, absence can be just as much an indication of option as presence is. In order for choice to exist, some must choose "to" and some must choose "not to."
So, why is it important for women to choose "to"? I think it is because success cannot be measured from the choice "not to". One is not using a woman's desire to be included as the reflection of "change", because the change he is looking for is in the man ability to include. In scientific terms, the woman's desire is the independent variable - that which does not change in an experiment.
So the real question is not how to attract women to science or to keep them in science, but rather how to make men more accepting of women in science. But to raise that question would suggest a fallacy in society, a lack of evolution in thought, a remaining grasp to "exclusionary" practices - politically "incorrect" thought.