posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
orichalcum at 08:33am on 15/07/2008 under feminism
orichalcum at 08:33am on 15/07/2008 under feminismSo, there's an article on the NYTimes science page today by John Tierney, about the quite fascinating development that the government is considering applying Title IX pressure and sanctions to college math and science departments that discriminate against women. You might be interested in reading it.
What drove me up the wall about this article was a large number of things:
1. The picture illustrating it - because of course, what I think of when I think of a female math professor is a woman from the 1940s, primly dressed, scribbling with brown crayon all over some complicated equations (no doubt written by a Qualified Man.)
2. Tierney's sources, which include Susan Pinker and the American Enterprise Institute, but no substantial evidence from anyone showing that there might actually be, you know, discrimination.
3. The generally contemptuous tone and the impression left by the article that the real tragedy is forcing women to become scientists when really, they'd all be much happier being lawyers and humanities-types.
4. The characterization of the use of Title IX in sports as an Awful Terrible Development which has ruined the lives of 1000s of male athletes, without any sense or recognition of the enormous boon and effect that playing sports at every level has had for women.
What did other folk think?
What drove me up the wall about this article was a large number of things:
1. The picture illustrating it - because of course, what I think of when I think of a female math professor is a woman from the 1940s, primly dressed, scribbling with brown crayon all over some complicated equations (no doubt written by a Qualified Man.)
2. Tierney's sources, which include Susan Pinker and the American Enterprise Institute, but no substantial evidence from anyone showing that there might actually be, you know, discrimination.
3. The generally contemptuous tone and the impression left by the article that the real tragedy is forcing women to become scientists when really, they'd all be much happier being lawyers and humanities-types.
4. The characterization of the use of Title IX in sports as an Awful Terrible Development which has ruined the lives of 1000s of male athletes, without any sense or recognition of the enormous boon and effect that playing sports at every level has had for women.
What did other folk think?
irritated
(no subject)
Of course, that would disagree with their conclusions, wouldn't it? This article is just going in my mental file of evidence of discrimination, quite frankly.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
That said, Tierney's generic problem is that he mixes relatively interesting science reporting with relatively stupid and biased political (and political/science, like global warming) columns. I find that he ranges about 50% good, 25% some good and some annoying, and 25% trash, which is an annoying mix.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I have more thoughts on the tricky subject of gender bias in general and Title IX in particular, but have to run now!
(no subject)
I also think that, as far as I know, no one in the "but women don't want to do science" camp is drawing a distinction between doing science and operating in the science environment, as it stands. For instance, in my lab, you have to be assertive to the extreme- demand attention, argue points before the evidence is in and when you can't get through a single sentence without being interrupted. For various reasons, your average women isn't as willing to do that as your average man is, but it's not a necessary feature of a scientific environment.