3 ms·

A 'role model' is someone who shares your background and is successful in an area of interest where you would like to participate/contribute (science, art, spo

A 'role model' is someone who shares your background and is successful in an area of interest where you would like to participate/contribute (science, art, sports, politics, ...) . It's someone who demonstrates that 'someone like you' can be successful, too. Therefore, the closer this role model is to your inherent and unchangeable properties (age, sex/gender, origin, social class), the more it can inspire you. Surely, a man can be a role model for a woman in science (and vice versa) - e.g., if you are from the same small ethnic minority as the role model. However, male/female lifestyle, upbringing, interests, challenges, etc. are quite different in general, even in otherwise very homogeneous (western) societies. Therefore, the role model having the same sex/gender is very important. (Just my view - I don't have evidence or experience in this regard).

bubblewrap 7y ago
I'd say that is just toxic feminism telling women they can't have men as role models. Why not? Would they say women can not achieve what men can (at least in science, if not in physical endeavors)? Because if they say women can do that, then why shouldn't they take men as role models? "Someone like you" - is for example a white man from a middle class background more like a white woman from a middle class background, or is that white women more like a black woman from a poor background? I think to say "biological sex" in that context is more defining for "likeness" in academia is a silly, toxic narrative. In my youth, I personally also enjoyed books and comics with female heroines, and never thought that they shouldn't be my role models. I guess these days that wouldn't be possible anymore.
- 0815test 7y ago
  Yes, "role models" are a good indication of how weak or strong our social capital is. Our society is increasingly fraying apart, so much so that people are now unwilling to view others as fundamentally sharing the same humanity and social outlook as themselves, unless they happen to share some shallow but somehow salient features like gender, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation and so on and so forth, that make them a part of some increasingly narrow "tribe". This kind of thing used to be seen as a significant social faux pas, but increasingly we see it being accepted.
- Tehchops 7y ago
  This is exactly the kind of comment that make these threads toxic. Gender, like it or not, shapes the life experience of an individual. Why would you not want to have a role model that had a similar life experience to your own? Except, inevitably, when a woman expresses that desire, it gets called "toxic feminism", and the justification is, wait for it: the personal anecdotes and experiences of a male. I am shocked that in 2019 there is still so little self-awareness around this.
  - bubblewrap 7y ago
    So the personal life experience of a male doesn't count for anything? THAT is what I would call the actual toxic attitude. What makes women unable to have male role models, but men able to have female role models? Is there a difference between men and women, then? Is that what you are saying? By that logic, why shouldn't I as a man say "fuck women in STEM", because apparently we will never be able to communicate about anything meaningful anyway. People who make it clear they don't care about my opinion, why should I want them in my life? I stated my reasons why I think focusing on gendered role models is misleading and harmful. Fine, you may disagree. But calling it toxic and "mansplaining" - that's not furthering discourse, and frankly, if that is your attitude, STEM may be better off without you anyway. After all, science is about keeping an open mind, among other things.
    - Tehchops 7y ago
      >So the personal life experience of a male doesn't count for anything? THAT is what I would call the actual toxic attitude. Ah yes, the classic: "I'm not toxic, you are!". Where in my original comment did I say the male perspective, anecdotal as it may be in a given context, counts for nothing? I didn't. What I did say was that a singular, anecdotal male perspective was not appropriate as a justification for depicting a woman desiring a similarly-gendered role model was somehow indicative of "toxic feminism". >What makes women unable to have male role models, but men able to have female role models? No one said they couldn't, but you're depicting what was said as far more benign than it really was. You didn't ask an open-ended question about it, you specifically categorized said desire as "toxic feminism". >if that is your attitude, STEM may be better off without you anyway. After all, science is about keeping an open mind, among other things. Maybe one of the STEM fields will be able to develop a device that can accurately measure the immense amount of irony bundled up in that sentence. Same merry-go-round as usual in these threads: Subtly patronizing comment(mansplaining if you will), someone points out "hey that's kind of toxic", original commenter retreats to victimhood and "I'm not toxic, you are! No one has an open mind about this kind of thing etc...", and around we go. If you want to pretend like STEM doesn't have a centuries-long history of fairly uneven footing for other genders and minorities, and accuse everyone of suddenly being close-minded and toxic, fine, but you're going to have a hard time cashing in the victim card when someone points out the ridiculousness of it.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
>the closer this role model is to your inherent and unchangeable properties (age, sex/gender, origin, social class), the more it can inspire you. // Citation? I call bunkum on that. TBH it seems both sexist and racist to say one can only be inspired by people of one's own characteristics (in science). In this case the sex and race are irrelevant to Bouman's contribution AFAICT. If you were talking about someone like Payne-Gaposchkin, then she overcame a deal of sexism, fair enough. The whole she did it and had ovaries, omg, seems so condescending and unnecessary.
- hlurhhh 7y ago
  Dude where does it say we can only be inspired? > The whole she did it and had ovaries, omg, seems so condescending and unnecessary. it's not omg she had ovaries, it's omg she did it, knowing she's going to get shit on by people (e.g. these comments) instead of applauded for what her and her team did for science. That's how it's inspiring to me.
okmokmz 7y ago
>A 'role model' is someone who shares your background and is successful in an area of interest where you would like to participate/contribute That may be your personal definition, but that is not the actual denotation of "role model". Some definitions I found are: "a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others, especially by younger people. " and "a person whose behavior in a particular role is imitated by others" There is no mention or qualifier of it needing to be someone who shares one's background

bubblewrap 7y ago

I'd say that is just toxic feminism telling women they can't have men as role models. Why not? Would they say women can not achieve what men can (at least in science, if not in physical endeavors)? Because if they say women can do that, then why shouldn't they take men as role models? "Someone like you" - is for example a white man from a middle class background more like a white woman from a middle class background, or is that white women more like a black woman from a poor background? I think to say "biological sex" in that context is more defining for "likeness" in academia is a silly, toxic narrative. In my youth, I personally also enjoyed books and comics with female heroines, and never thought that they shouldn't be my role models. I guess these days that wouldn't be possible anymore.

0815test 7y ago
Yes, "role models" are a good indication of how weak or strong our social capital is. Our society is increasingly fraying apart, so much so that people are now unwilling to view others as fundamentally sharing the same humanity and social outlook as themselves, unless they happen to share some shallow but somehow salient features like gender, ethnic background, religion, sexual orientation and so on and so forth, that make them a part of some increasingly narrow "tribe". This kind of thing used to be seen as a significant social faux pas, but increasingly we see it being accepted.
Tehchops 7y ago
This is exactly the kind of comment that make these threads toxic. Gender, like it or not, shapes the life experience of an individual. Why would you not want to have a role model that had a similar life experience to your own? Except, inevitably, when a woman expresses that desire, it gets called "toxic feminism", and the justification is, wait for it: the personal anecdotes and experiences of a male. I am shocked that in 2019 there is still so little self-awareness around this.
- bubblewrap 7y ago
  So the personal life experience of a male doesn't count for anything? THAT is what I would call the actual toxic attitude. What makes women unable to have male role models, but men able to have female role models? Is there a difference between men and women, then? Is that what you are saying? By that logic, why shouldn't I as a man say "fuck women in STEM", because apparently we will never be able to communicate about anything meaningful anyway. People who make it clear they don't care about my opinion, why should I want them in my life? I stated my reasons why I think focusing on gendered role models is misleading and harmful. Fine, you may disagree. But calling it toxic and "mansplaining" - that's not furthering discourse, and frankly, if that is your attitude, STEM may be better off without you anyway. After all, science is about keeping an open mind, among other things.
  - Tehchops 7y ago
    >So the personal life experience of a male doesn't count for anything? THAT is what I would call the actual toxic attitude. Ah yes, the classic: "I'm not toxic, you are!". Where in my original comment did I say the male perspective, anecdotal as it may be in a given context, counts for nothing? I didn't. What I did say was that a singular, anecdotal male perspective was not appropriate as a justification for depicting a woman desiring a similarly-gendered role model was somehow indicative of "toxic feminism". >What makes women unable to have male role models, but men able to have female role models? No one said they couldn't, but you're depicting what was said as far more benign than it really was. You didn't ask an open-ended question about it, you specifically categorized said desire as "toxic feminism". >if that is your attitude, STEM may be better off without you anyway. After all, science is about keeping an open mind, among other things. Maybe one of the STEM fields will be able to develop a device that can accurately measure the immense amount of irony bundled up in that sentence. Same merry-go-round as usual in these threads: Subtly patronizing comment(mansplaining if you will), someone points out "hey that's kind of toxic", original commenter retreats to victimhood and "I'm not toxic, you are! No one has an open mind about this kind of thing etc...", and around we go. If you want to pretend like STEM doesn't have a centuries-long history of fairly uneven footing for other genders and minorities, and accuse everyone of suddenly being close-minded and toxic, fine, but you're going to have a hard time cashing in the victim card when someone points out the ridiculousness of it.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago

>the closer this role model is to your inherent and unchangeable properties (age, sex/gender, origin, social class), the more it can inspire you. // Citation? I call bunkum on that. TBH it seems both sexist and racist to say one can only be inspired by people of one's own characteristics (in science). In this case the sex and race are irrelevant to Bouman's contribution AFAICT. If you were talking about someone like Payne-Gaposchkin, then she overcame a deal of sexism, fair enough. The whole she did it and had ovaries, omg, seems so condescending and unnecessary.

hlurhhh 7y ago
Dude where does it say we can only be inspired? > The whole she did it and had ovaries, omg, seems so condescending and unnecessary. it's not omg she had ovaries, it's omg she did it, knowing she's going to get shit on by people (e.g. these comments) instead of applauded for what her and her team did for science. That's how it's inspiring to me.

okmokmz 7y ago

>A 'role model' is someone who shares your background and is successful in an area of interest where you would like to participate/contribute That may be your personal definition, but that is not the actual denotation of "role model". Some definitions I found are: "a person whose behavior, example, or success is or can be emulated by others, especially by younger people. " and "a person whose behavior in a particular role is imitated by others" There is no mention or qualifier of it needing to be someone who shares one's background