6 ms·

> “Ultimately, we don’t only need to increase the number of girls choosing science, we need to increase the proportion of women who stay in science,” We need t

> “Ultimately, we don’t only need to increase the number of girls choosing science, we need to increase the proportion of women who stay in science,” We need to do neither of those things. Women who are smart enough to contribute to science are also smart enough to make their own mind about whether or not they want to contribute to science.

reocha 4y ago
Do you not think people are less likely to go into fields where they don't see themselves represented?
- version_five 4y ago
  I think most people don't consider identity politics when choosing a field. Anyway, equating "seeing themselves represented" to some shallow race and gender stuff reflects reality for very few.
  - gspencley 4y ago
    I usually shy away from these conversations because of how politically toxic they are, and how easily people can twist and manipulate words to fit any meaning they want to ascribe. But you've just echoed a sentiment that I've had for quite some time relating to the "representation matters" claims. I grew up loving Star Trek. DS9 is one of my favourite of the series and I considered the character of Benjamin Sisko to be a huge role model and influence on me. I felt similar sentiment towards the characters Katherine Janeway and Seven of Nine on Voyager. Seven of Nine was particularly relatable to me as a nerdy outcast trying to fit in with "normal society." More recently, I felt a powerful attachment and kinship to the character of Elizabeth Harmon in The Queen's Gambit. To the point where I have never felt so personally represented by any fictional character in my life. The obsession, drive, ambition, social awkwardness, the anger issues, being ruthlessly self-critical and even the drug abuse (was stimulants for me as a teenager) were all characteristics that felt like they were taken directly from my own life. But according to many, that shouldn't be possible because those characters have different skin pigmentation and genitals than me. What a racist and sexist proposition that is. Almost as if ideas, character, personality and morals don't matter. We just need to go back to assuming those things based on little more than superficial irrelevancies.
    - hexane360 4y ago
      >But according to many, that shouldn't be possible because those characters have different skin pigmentation and genitals than me. [Citation needed] I don't think you could find an example of even one feminist claiming that you can't find representation from people with different demographics to you. This is not what people are claiming when they say "representation matters". In fact, minorities are MUCH more likely to find representation outside their demographic, out of necessity if for no other reason. What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them. In other words: Yes, a black woman can empathize and relate to characters of any gender and race. But that's not a good argument that we shouldn't correct the underrepresentation of black women in media and STEM. It's also not an argument that black women won't be helped by seeing increased representation in media and STEM. I'm assuming this is a good faith misunderstanding, but if it's not, it's a very good example of what you call "twist and manipulate words to fit any meaning they want to ascribe".
      - gspencley 4y ago
        The problem with discourse today is that people don't listen to understand. They listen to react. > What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them. Having gone back and re-read my comment, I have a difficult time seeing the distinction between your choice of words and how I expressed the sentiment. To illustrate why: what does "relate to" or "empathize" mean if not to imagine yourself in the shoes of another? I think where the disagreement might enter the picture is in the emphasis on systems and institutions. You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household. When it comes to personal anecdotes, empirical data is always called for. I can [Citation Needed] your clarified statement of the claim just as easily as you can mine. These are just claims, at the end of the day. A claim that I find suspect because, to restate my position, if someone has a difficult time imagining themselves in the shoes of others because they see race and gender (even if it's a belief in societal systems rather than individually held prejudice), it is still a personal choice to see the world that way. And it's not a very good look on the person making that choice in my humble opinion.
- goethes_kind 4y ago
  Why would representation be an issue? You make it sound like there are no women at all in male-dominated fields, but the gender ratio lies around the 30% mark. So although they are not the majority, nobody will bat an eye that a mathematician or a physicist is a woman. If by representation you mean support, women have way more support than men in terms of funding and ease to get fixed positions. And frankly I do not think young people are making career decisions based on representation. That's more of an academic's way to look at life.
  - raziel2701 4y ago
    "You make it sound like there are no women at all in male-dominated fields" Where in their statement did they make that claim? You're inventing arguments.
- akira2501 4y ago
  What's the case? That people won't naturally come to the idea that they could do something unless they are "represented" in that field already? How does any new field form, then? Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field? I think there's a valid question of, do people want these jobs for the status of having them, or do they want these jobs because they have a deep passion for the subject itself? I presume that if it's the latter, then simple "representation" poses no barrier to those people. If it's the former, then I'm not at all bothered by their inability to chase status in a particular field.
  - abdullahkhalids 4y ago
    > Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field? The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study. Having to overcome both is certainly not fair to anyone.
    - akira2501 4y ago
      > The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study. And, "representation" fixes this? I see the connection between the two, but I don't think it's direct.. and I think calls for "representation" step over this chasm entirely in the hopes that the solution will sort of just materialize. I also think it is highly likely that focusing on this alone creates the opposite social pressures, pushing people into highly competitive landscapes filled with driven people just to serve as an undistinguished poster child who's meant to merely be a token of "representation in the field." I don't think genuine "unethical social" or "political resistance" to inclusion is solved this way. Further, if there are these gate-keeping mechanisms in front of what should be pure meritorious pursuits, then all you might be doing is forcing those gatekeepers to put a different face on their lack of ethics rather than throwing them off the sciences entirely. It's not so much that I disagree with it or think it's not a valid concern, I just think this sole focus on "inclusion" and "representation" is entirely half thought out will only serve to make the actual problem worse.
selljamhere 4y ago
I disagree. It isn’t about smartness. There are plenty of intelligent women who may enjoy and be well suited for science, but were discouraged from pursuing it at a young age.
- goethes_kind 4y ago
  First of all my comment is not about intelligence. It is about the patronizing attitude of people who think they can brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals, as if these smart young women are not more than capable enough to think for themselves. As for your comment, your sentiment is based on no evidence what so ever, and prolonged efforts to attract more women to male dominated STEM fields results in zero gains.
  - worik 4y ago
    > ....brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals It is not a matter of brainwashing. It is a matter of giving young people the tools to overcome the intrinsic bias they encounter. My experience of computer science labs in the 1990s were testosterone drenched pits of bullying and bragging It was not just women put off by that. Brilliant women were not, they achieved. It was the average women, and average indigenous, average queer, etcetera who were driven out. It is not sustainable to keep out people who do not look like, sound like, and smell like the main stream. "brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals" Pfftttt
    - 30amxn30 4y ago
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - shrimp_emoji 4y ago
    If you believe IQ testing, then why women aren't equally-represented in STEM is mysterious, cognitively. That leaves you with the notion that maybe something innate to the female brain simply makes them less interested. But a funny analogy I've heard is: why are there way more woman cellists (people who play the cello) than woman guitarists? We know women can play instruments, but is there something in the female brain that makes them more interested in cellos and violins than in guitars? For that, the cultural explanation, that guitars are more masculine-coded in our culture, is way more compelling. And then I wonder what other trends culture could be enforcing. >the patronizing attitude of people who think they can brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals, as if these smart young women are not more than capable enough to think for themselves. I think the concept of libertarian free will that you're assuming here is a religious one. It doesn't really exist. Your sense of pride has been wounded on others' behalf by the assertion that forces outside of people's control influence people. But of course they do. We're all products of our environment. Being mad about it and denying it only distances you from the goals you want to accomplish. >As for your comment, your sentiment is based on no evidence what so ever, and prolonged efforts to attract more women to male dominated STEM fields results in zero gains. Is there evidence for that? Here's some claiming a huge increase in women participating in STEM: "Women made gains – from 8% of STEM workers in 1970 to 27% in 2019 – but men still dominated the field."[0] 0: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-...
areoform 4y ago
When I was growing up, I was told that women were by and large too dumb to do any real science by teenage boys and girls. I found great solace in Joan Feynman's story, > “Women can’t do science, because their brains aren’t made for it,” Lucille Feynman declared to her eight-year-old daughter Joan. The news was a huge blow to the little girl’s ambitions which, at the time in 1935, were firmly set on following her brother Richard into a life scientific. “I remember sitting in a chair and weeping,” she recalls. > whilst the doubts about a woman’s abilities to undertake a career in science, planted in her by Lucille, remained, Joan’s interest in science continued to be fuelled by Richard’s progress through university. Before he’d left home, her brother had made a deal with her that whilst away at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), studying for his bachelor’s degree, he would answer any science question that she sent him. > “So I did,” says Joan, “and I got a little further each time. And then one day there was a figure in the book of a spectrum and underneath it said ‘the relative strengths of the Mg+ absorption line at 4,481 angstroms… of Stellar Atmospheres from the work of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin’.” The caption was a revelation to Joan. Cecilia was a woman’s name, and the hyphenated family name indicated she was married. It was proof that a married woman was capable of doing science. Representation matters. That one hyphenated name, proof that someone like her could contribute, gave us an exploration of auroras and solar wind. It enriched our world immensely. If some other little girl, even one, can find solace in one of these wikipedia articles, then it's worth it.
- onos 4y ago
  I don’t think many people have a problem with the concept of representation. Eg conservatives can have daughters and want them to be happy as well. The issue that rubs many the wrong way is that advocates often simply replace one form of exclusion with the other. For example, at my local children’s science museum they have a large exhibit titled “this is what a scientist looks like”. It includes six large posters of women scientists. This is not “inclusive”. It’s also not uncommon. I’ve seen similar within some of my kid’s science classrooms. Lastly, I think it’s not surprising that the example you quote is from the 1930s. Today’s bias (in the usa at least) is most definitely towards promoting female achievement.
  - 4y ago

reocha 4y ago

Do you not think people are less likely to go into fields where they don't see themselves represented?

version_five 4y ago
I think most people don't consider identity politics when choosing a field. Anyway, equating "seeing themselves represented" to some shallow race and gender stuff reflects reality for very few.
- gspencley 4y ago
  I usually shy away from these conversations because of how politically toxic they are, and how easily people can twist and manipulate words to fit any meaning they want to ascribe. But you've just echoed a sentiment that I've had for quite some time relating to the "representation matters" claims. I grew up loving Star Trek. DS9 is one of my favourite of the series and I considered the character of Benjamin Sisko to be a huge role model and influence on me. I felt similar sentiment towards the characters Katherine Janeway and Seven of Nine on Voyager. Seven of Nine was particularly relatable to me as a nerdy outcast trying to fit in with "normal society." More recently, I felt a powerful attachment and kinship to the character of Elizabeth Harmon in The Queen's Gambit. To the point where I have never felt so personally represented by any fictional character in my life. The obsession, drive, ambition, social awkwardness, the anger issues, being ruthlessly self-critical and even the drug abuse (was stimulants for me as a teenager) were all characteristics that felt like they were taken directly from my own life. But according to many, that shouldn't be possible because those characters have different skin pigmentation and genitals than me. What a racist and sexist proposition that is. Almost as if ideas, character, personality and morals don't matter. We just need to go back to assuming those things based on little more than superficial irrelevancies.
  - hexane360 4y ago
    >But according to many, that shouldn't be possible because those characters have different skin pigmentation and genitals than me. [Citation needed] I don't think you could find an example of even one feminist claiming that you can't find representation from people with different demographics to you. This is not what people are claiming when they say "representation matters". In fact, minorities are MUCH more likely to find representation outside their demographic, out of necessity if for no other reason. What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them. In other words: Yes, a black woman can empathize and relate to characters of any gender and race. But that's not a good argument that we shouldn't correct the underrepresentation of black women in media and STEM. It's also not an argument that black women won't be helped by seeing increased representation in media and STEM. I'm assuming this is a good faith misunderstanding, but if it's not, it's a very good example of what you call "twist and manipulate words to fit any meaning they want to ascribe".
    - gspencley 4y ago
      The problem with discourse today is that people don't listen to understand. They listen to react. > What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them. Having gone back and re-read my comment, I have a difficult time seeing the distinction between your choice of words and how I expressed the sentiment. To illustrate why: what does "relate to" or "empathize" mean if not to imagine yourself in the shoes of another? I think where the disagreement might enter the picture is in the emphasis on systems and institutions. You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household. When it comes to personal anecdotes, empirical data is always called for. I can [Citation Needed] your clarified statement of the claim just as easily as you can mine. These are just claims, at the end of the day. A claim that I find suspect because, to restate my position, if someone has a difficult time imagining themselves in the shoes of others because they see race and gender (even if it's a belief in societal systems rather than individually held prejudice), it is still a personal choice to see the world that way. And it's not a very good look on the person making that choice in my humble opinion.
goethes_kind 4y ago
Why would representation be an issue? You make it sound like there are no women at all in male-dominated fields, but the gender ratio lies around the 30% mark. So although they are not the majority, nobody will bat an eye that a mathematician or a physicist is a woman. If by representation you mean support, women have way more support than men in terms of funding and ease to get fixed positions. And frankly I do not think young people are making career decisions based on representation. That's more of an academic's way to look at life.
- raziel2701 4y ago
  "You make it sound like there are no women at all in male-dominated fields" Where in their statement did they make that claim? You're inventing arguments.
akira2501 4y ago
What's the case? That people won't naturally come to the idea that they could do something unless they are "represented" in that field already? How does any new field form, then? Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field? I think there's a valid question of, do people want these jobs for the status of having them, or do they want these jobs because they have a deep passion for the subject itself? I presume that if it's the latter, then simple "representation" poses no barrier to those people. If it's the former, then I'm not at all bothered by their inability to chase status in a particular field.
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  > Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field? The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study. Having to overcome both is certainly not fair to anyone.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    > The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study. And, "representation" fixes this? I see the connection between the two, but I don't think it's direct.. and I think calls for "representation" step over this chasm entirely in the hopes that the solution will sort of just materialize. I also think it is highly likely that focusing on this alone creates the opposite social pressures, pushing people into highly competitive landscapes filled with driven people just to serve as an undistinguished poster child who's meant to merely be a token of "representation in the field." I don't think genuine "unethical social" or "political resistance" to inclusion is solved this way. Further, if there are these gate-keeping mechanisms in front of what should be pure meritorious pursuits, then all you might be doing is forcing those gatekeepers to put a different face on their lack of ethics rather than throwing them off the sciences entirely. It's not so much that I disagree with it or think it's not a valid concern, I just think this sole focus on "inclusion" and "representation" is entirely half thought out will only serve to make the actual problem worse.

selljamhere 4y ago

I disagree. It isn’t about smartness. There are plenty of intelligent women who may enjoy and be well suited for science, but were discouraged from pursuing it at a young age.

goethes_kind 4y ago
First of all my comment is not about intelligence. It is about the patronizing attitude of people who think they can brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals, as if these smart young women are not more than capable enough to think for themselves. As for your comment, your sentiment is based on no evidence what so ever, and prolonged efforts to attract more women to male dominated STEM fields results in zero gains.
- worik 4y ago
  > ....brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals It is not a matter of brainwashing. It is a matter of giving young people the tools to overcome the intrinsic bias they encounter. My experience of computer science labs in the 1990s were testosterone drenched pits of bullying and bragging It was not just women put off by that. Brilliant women were not, they achieved. It was the average women, and average indigenous, average queer, etcetera who were driven out. It is not sustainable to keep out people who do not look like, sound like, and smell like the main stream. "brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals" Pfftttt
  - 30amxn30 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  If you believe IQ testing, then why women aren't equally-represented in STEM is mysterious, cognitively. That leaves you with the notion that maybe something innate to the female brain simply makes them less interested. But a funny analogy I've heard is: why are there way more woman cellists (people who play the cello) than woman guitarists? We know women can play instruments, but is there something in the female brain that makes them more interested in cellos and violins than in guitars? For that, the cultural explanation, that guitars are more masculine-coded in our culture, is way more compelling. And then I wonder what other trends culture could be enforcing. >the patronizing attitude of people who think they can brainwash young women into fulfilling their own political goals, as if these smart young women are not more than capable enough to think for themselves. I think the concept of libertarian free will that you're assuming here is a religious one. It doesn't really exist. Your sense of pride has been wounded on others' behalf by the assertion that forces outside of people's control influence people. But of course they do. We're all products of our environment. Being mad about it and denying it only distances you from the goals you want to accomplish. >As for your comment, your sentiment is based on no evidence what so ever, and prolonged efforts to attract more women to male dominated STEM fields results in zero gains. Is there evidence for that? Here's some claiming a huge increase in women participating in STEM: "Women made gains – from 8% of STEM workers in 1970 to 27% in 2019 – but men still dominated the field."[0] 0: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-still-underrepresented.html https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-...

areoform 4y ago

When I was growing up, I was told that women were by and large too dumb to do any real science by teenage boys and girls. I found great solace in Joan Feynman's story, > “Women can’t do science, because their brains aren’t made for it,” Lucille Feynman declared to her eight-year-old daughter Joan. The news was a huge blow to the little girl’s ambitions which, at the time in 1935, were firmly set on following her brother Richard into a life scientific. “I remember sitting in a chair and weeping,” she recalls. > whilst the doubts about a woman’s abilities to undertake a career in science, planted in her by Lucille, remained, Joan’s interest in science continued to be fuelled by Richard’s progress through university. Before he’d left home, her brother had made a deal with her that whilst away at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), studying for his bachelor’s degree, he would answer any science question that she sent him. > “So I did,” says Joan, “and I got a little further each time. And then one day there was a figure in the book of a spectrum and underneath it said ‘the relative strengths of the Mg+ absorption line at 4,481 angstroms… of Stellar Atmospheres from the work of Cecilia Payne-Gaposchkin’.” The caption was a revelation to Joan. Cecilia was a woman’s name, and the hyphenated family name indicated she was married. It was proof that a married woman was capable of doing science. Representation matters. That one hyphenated name, proof that someone like her could contribute, gave us an exploration of auroras and solar wind. It enriched our world immensely. If some other little girl, even one, can find solace in one of these wikipedia articles, then it's worth it.

onos 4y ago
I don’t think many people have a problem with the concept of representation. Eg conservatives can have daughters and want them to be happy as well. The issue that rubs many the wrong way is that advocates often simply replace one form of exclusion with the other. For example, at my local children’s science museum they have a large exhibit titled “this is what a scientist looks like”. It includes six large posters of women scientists. This is not “inclusive”. It’s also not uncommon. I’ve seen similar within some of my kid’s science classrooms. Lastly, I think it’s not surprising that the example you quote is from the 1930s. Today’s bias (in the usa at least) is most definitely towards promoting female achievement.
- 4y ago