Women and Science, yet again.

[orichalcum]

So, 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?

Comments

[bloodstones.livejournal.com]

It comes across like an editorial, not a well balanced article presenting both sides of an issue. And while you've captured all the big issues two details that bothered me include: A. the fact that they cite the high number of women earning Ph.Ds in psychology despite the fact that psychology is pretty consistently mocked for not being 'real' science, a trend that's correlated with women taking over the field and B. the fact that one of Pinker's listed credentials is being related to her brother just serves to highlight the gender discrimination.

[holmes-iv.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure, but from the fact it was written by Tierney (who used to be what I thought of as the gently-conservative voice on the op/ed page) and has a generic title under which it appears ("Findings"), I suspect that functionally it is an editorial. Might be more clear in the print edition, but this is probably his recurring column on whatever vaguely scientific he wants to write about, which just happens to have gotten a lot of attention this week.

[orichalcum.livejournal.com]

I think it is a column rather than a strict article, but given its location and non-formal-editorial status I feel like he has more responsibility to present both sides of the issue, even if he then comes to a firm conclusion on one side.

[cerebralpaladin.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the article, but I agree with Holmes's statements about its status. Tierney's column is not a news column-- it's a news-based opinion column (like the articles on Slate, say). On the progression news articles->news analysis pieces->columns by people like Tierney->op-eds and columns on the op-ed page->masthead editorials, it's pretty far towards the opinion side of the spectrum.

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.