Women in Science? Sexism doesn't help... (EU Ad Campaign)

[Bored@Work]

Yes, there is basically equilibrium in today's teaching system, and with the information revolution and the internet, both boys and girls pretty get the same exposure at the formal education level, and the availability of information.

I have seen the first articles about studies where it is argued that girls already get more exposure than boys, especially in formal education, as a kind of overcompensation for the past. Hardly any program specifically targeting boys has been seen in the past, while there is an endless stream of programs and activities exclusively targeting girls.That EU thing is just one of them.

It is also interesting that in many countries children are exclusively educated by women for many years. The nursery school teachers, the kindergarten teachers, primary school teachers are almost exclusively women. Only after that a relevant amount of male teachers start to show up. It has come to the point that a male kindergarten teacher is such a rare occurrence that people thing something must be wrong with him "might be a pervert?". At many primary schools the only male they have is the janitor, and he better had to be old, married, or being gay.

So, a lot of how girls see the world is taught them exclusively by women.

So why don't we see as many women in engineering and science?
Well, science has a big percentage of women, but engineering is still fairly low.

Because women teach girls that engineering is not for girls. Engineering has a bad reputation. For the first 10, 12 years of their life girls are taught women, and are taught that engineering is where you get your hands dirty, and girls can't have dirty hands, but are supposed to be pretty. And they dominantly see women in social jobs (teachers ...).

It is then no surprise when they don't consider engineering as a career. Initiatives to convince 16 or 18 year old girls to consider engineering come much too late. You have to hammer it into the woman that do the early education that they need to educate girls differently. But well, how do you convince a primary school teacher to not tell girls that a job like a primary school teacher is a great job?

[RRobot]

It takes years of schooling and decades of research to contribute anything meaningful to the real (hard) sciences. And even with that you still might not produce a paper of any significance. The idea that some dumb TV commercial will cause someone to become a scientist or not become one, is the only thing I find insulting here.

[westfw]

how do you convince a primary school teacher to not tell girls that a job like a primary school teacher is a great job?

Especially since it IS a pretty great job.
I suppose that could be the beginning and the end, right there.  STEM professionals tend not to be very visible as role models.   Not in real life, not on TV, not in the history books.  Girls have, in their teachers, VERY visible role models.  The boys; less so, so perhaps they range more.  (Best thing for women in STEM: sucky teachers that hate their jobs?  I hope not!)

to contribute anything meaningful to the real (hard) sciences.

yes.  no.  maybe?  Not every scientist gets to be famous for inventing/discovering XXX.  That doesn't mean that they haven't contributed anything meaningful.  I can look at my own field and be rather proud of the number of people who made meaningful contributions, who will never be getting their names in any history books.  And why should a meaningless science job be any less desirable than a meaningless retail sales job?   Don't tell me that it's "harder", because I'm not sure I believe it.  I surely would not enjoy the retail sales job!

[IanB]

It takes years of schooling and decades of research to contribute anything meaningful to the real (hard) sciences.

Oh come now. Decades? You may start contributing to research as an undergraduate and certainly as a PhD student. Many original contributions to science have come from workers in their 20's. Possibly most.

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--As with men, women who want to advance to the top tier in Science, will probably have to forgo taking lots of time off to care for the family. We need to make sure that women who want to be scientists are given the same opportunity to succeed or fail as men. In the US college placement is in large part determined by the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT. At some point Educators noticed that women were not (at that time) scoring as well as men. Further inspection showed that this was largely due to a difference in Mathematics Scores. Now at that time the SAT score was half Math and half Verbal. Women tended to do better in Verbal than in math, so the decision was made that in the future Verbal would be 2/3s of the score and Math 1/3, making women appear smarter in general but making women who excel at Math appear less intelligent. The result was leg up for people who are good at book reports over those who are capable of understanding the Mathematics that is at the root of all real physical inquiry. Or as Feynman should have said "this is where we separate the Adults from the Children."

--As I have said before, I have heard Liberal Arts Majors talking about how the Engineering Students are stupid. It would help a lot if the Suits in Academia, were not always telegraphing their subconscious notions, that women and blacks cannot cut it, with quotas and commercials, like the one that started this thread.

--It does not always take decades before a contribution can be made to real knowledge . Sometimes even undergraduates do cutting edge research. Amelia Fraser-McKelvie of Monash University has found a large portion of the Universe's missing mass in  previously unseen filaments that run between galaxies, clusters and super clusters. Good on ya, Amelia. See below link for article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/24/oz_undergrad_finds_the_missing_matter/

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.."
Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens ) 1835 - 1910

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[_Sin]

If there is a bias in our society that is pushing women away from science, then it is absolutely worth our time and effort to attempt to correct that. Why? Because otherwise it seems that we're probably losing out on some *awesome* engineers, who happen to come from the ~50% of the population who are being turned away from their vocation before they've even discovered it. Why would we want fewer great people in our chosen field?

Also, I think it might help reduce the amount of macho and/or sexist bullshit you tend to find in a male dominated environment. I'm a bloke, and even I find that fucking depressing.

So it's not about dragging people in who don't want to do it, it's about removing the stigma which turns people away, and hopefully everyone benefits.

Attacking the root cause, which is probably a combination of societal pressures applied to the different sexes, pretty much from birth, is *hard*. It's especially hard if you're just the representatives of one particular career choice. How do you change the whole of society?

However, it is possible to try to attack the problem from the other side, and challenge the particular stereotypes at play, make the career seem appealing, and generally make the people you're trying to attract feel *wanted*. The more women who become engineers (or programmers, or plumbers, or whatever), the less the societal pressures will be an issue for others. And ultimately society *will* change.

This video is certinaly not going to do that. It's just patronising bullshit. I'm amazed it got as far as it did before they deleted it. It should've been stopped before someone wasted money producing it.

FFS - just highlight how good a career in science or engineering could be. What someone can achieve. How cool it is. Show some of the existing women in the field who are doing awesome and interesting work. Often all people need is a role model to aspire towards.

[HLA-27b]

I have never seen anybody who needs encouragement into science, male or female. The only thing that is lacking is enough funds to support the science.

And then some organization gets some cash and orders from above to "encourage science" And guess who do they choose as their target audience? Yep, glamor girls, the female counterpart of football hooligans - same intellectual depth anyway.  Not politicians, not financiers but glamor girls. Obviously they were trying to appear as if they were doing something in the most politically correct and inconsequential way possible. And what is the most PC and inconsequential thing possible - science and girls of course!!

 

[nitro2k01]

That video was, of course, just horrible. A much getter way of getting girls into science is to do something along the lines of what Vi Hart is doing. She's explaining math with drawings in an informal way. There's something distinctly "girly" about her videos, but certainly no makeup references.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Vihart

[olsenn]

I'm against the very idea of trying to get anyone into the sciences. Women know what science is just as much as men do... if they aren't interested in persuing that as a career path than sobeit. You can't manipulate people into changing who they are. Science is about challanging EVERYTHING you have been told as a kid and trying to learn how the world works from basic principles all by yourself. It requires incredible courage and a strong desire to do so... if they don't have both of these things than they won't make good scientists. If someone's decision to take up that career/hobby is based on whether society says it is okay or not, than I don't want that person involved in it. Let them go to art college.

For the record, I do not consider engineering to be a science... it is a technical art. Scientists discover the underlying principles that engineers eventually exploit.

[_Sin]

So basically overcoming any associated stigma to become a scientist should be seen as some kind of test now? And women, having to overcome more of that than men, will just damn well have to "man up"?

What a load of shit.

If you think that's fair, you are part of the problem.

[olsenn]

So basically overcoming any associated stigma to become a scientist should be seen as some kind of test now? And women, having to overcome more of that than men, will just damn well have to "man up"?

What a load of shit.

If you think that's fair, you are part of the problem.

It's not a test, and the act of thinking is not to be associated with manliness... that is the stigma that needs to be avoided. For more women to become scientists, the solution is not to make it so that thinking is not required for science because thinking is a manly thing and it is unfair to say women shouldn't practice sceince unless they're manly; the solution for more women to become scientists is for more women to think! Specifically, about how the world works.

There is no tax on thought except the one we put on ourselves! Thinking about how the world works is free to all, regardless of gender, race, or age. I spend hours just looking at my water bottle and asking what makes the plastic platic? Why is the plastic translucent? what does it mean to be translucent? The water inside the bottle is also translucent, what does the water have in common with the plastic? Anyone can have these thoughts, and anyone who does is effectively a potential scientist. If I conduct experiments (any kind) to try to figure out the answers to these questions then I AM a scientist, and if I come to the correct answer, then I am a good one.

[HLA-27b]

So basically overcoming any associated stigma to become a scientist should be seen as some kind of test now? And women, having to overcome more of that than men, will just damn well have to "man up"?

What a load of shit.

If you think that's fair, you are part of the problem.

The only stigma that needs to be overcome are those of closed mindedness, lack of interest, laziness and impersistence.  It makes no difference what your gender identitiy is. Is it a test? Yes but there is no obligation to take the test.

[_Sin]

So are you (either of you) saying that there is *not* more stigma for a woman to overcome than a man, or that there is, but that's just fine?

To be clear, I think the following things are true:

1) Getting into something like science carries a stigma (although maybe much less so today than it did when I was growing up).
2) Women are *more* stigmatised than men.
3) Any stigma associated with doing something is basically a bad thing.
4) One group of people being more stigmatised than another is even worse.

I mean yes, science needs people who like to think about stuff. I don't believe for a second that there's any inherent gender-divide in 'thinking', so I have to think that there is some inequality at work here, and I don't like that.

[PeteInTexas]

This ad came from the perception that "there are not enough women in science".  The reasoning goes, as it usually does, that if women comprise about 50% of the population, then there should be about 50% women in science.

That thinking is very flawed- becoming and being a scientist is not a random event like gender.

As long as there are no direct or indirect efforts to keep women out of science (and there are none in this day and age) the observed proportion of women and men in science is simply a consequence of the choices these people made for themselves.


BTW, there are not enough males in full nude exotic dancing.  Not that I care.    I just want to see ideological consistency from critics. 

[WorldPowerLabs]

For the record, I do not consider engineering to be a science... it is a technical art. Scientists discover the underlying principles that engineers eventually exploit.

I'll agree that this is often true, but I know plenty of electrical engineers who are involved in cutting-edge, original research in labs and universities.  So, while engineering may not itself be science, there are plenty of engineers who are scientists.

[olsenn]

This ad came from the perception that "there are not enough women in science".  The reasoning goes, as it usually does, that if women comprise about 50% of the population, then there should be about 50% women in science.

That thinking is very flawed- becoming and being a scientist is not a random event like gender.

As long as there are no direct or indirect efforts to keep women out of science (and there are none in this day and age) the observed proportion of women and men in science is simply a consequence of the choices these people made for themselves.

This is absolutely correct! Men and women have different mind-sets. That's not a bad thing. Get over it!

To be clear, I think the following things are true:

1) Getting into something like science carries a stigma (although maybe much less so today than it did when I was growing up).
2) Women are *more* stigmatised than men.
3) Any stigma associated with doing something is basically a bad thing.
4) One group of people being more stigmatised than another is even worse.

1) Getting into science does carry a stigma... that stigma is that you must be smart. It is no less so today than when you were growing up.
2) There is no gender inequality in terms of this sigma. Women are NOT more stigmatised than men
3) I personally like the stigma of being smart... they are not all bad.
4) Refer to statement number 2

[HLA-27b]

  I just want to see ideological consistency from critics. 

Not enough football hooligans in science...

Isn't this a male stigma? As a male, if you don't overcome your "football hooligan" stigma you are unlikely to end up in science, period.

Same for girls, if you are soap opera - hair saloon - 250 pairs of shoes type of person you will never have enough time for science.

[_Sin]

This ad came from the perception that "there are not enough women in science".  The reasoning goes, as it usually does, that if women comprise about 50% of the population, then there should be about 50% women in science.

That thinking is very flawed- becoming and being a scientist is not a random event like gender.

As long as there are no direct or indirect efforts to keep women out of science (and there are none in this day and age) the observed proportion of women and men in science is simply a consequence of the choices these people made for themselves.

This is absolutely correct! Men and women have different mind-sets. That's not a bad thing. Get over it!

Can you point at an actual genetic difference that makes this true, or is this just unsubstantiated sexism?

1) Getting into science does carry a stigma... that stigma is that you must be smart. It is no less so today than when you were growing up.
2) There is no gender inequality in terms of this sigma. Women are NOT more stigmatised than men
3) I personally like the stigma of being smart... they are not all bad.
4) Refer to statement number 2

1) "smart" isn't a stigma, it's an entrance qualification. The stigma is what society says about, and to, people who choose to follow "smart". Are you seriously suggesting there less smart women than men? Not just a little bit either, but a significant proportion?
2) I think you're just outright wrong here. I'm baffled as to how anyone could think that gender stereotypes, thrust on people from birth, play absolutely no part in how people grow up and the choices they make.
3) Again, "smart" itself isn't a stigma.
4) The outright wrong one?

[olsenn]

"smart" isn't a stigma, it's an entrance qualification. The stigma is what society says about, and to

A stigma is what people perceive about you... if you are a good scientist then chances are you are smart... or very lucky; however, even if you are dumb as a doorknob people automatically assume that you are smart when you tell them you are a scientist; that is why I say the stigma is that people think you are smart.

...Can you point at an actual genetic difference that makes this true, or is this just unsubstantiated sexism?

You cannot win this argument; science is all about interpreting the truth based on evidence. The evidence shows that significantly less women take up sceinces than men. Evidence also shows that there are not significantly less women than men. Therefore I can deduce that women are less likely to take up sceinces than men are. If you think the reason for this is some sort of corruption than point it out, but it's innocent until proven guilty... if you cannot provide evidence that there are direct or indirect efforts to keep women out of sceince, than I must conclude that women just happen to be less likely to take up sceinces (I don't care if it's a matter of genetics or just some other form of karma... it isn't the result of men being sexist).

[Simon]

To be honest Im getting fed up with this equality bullshit. I'm not sexist and am happy to let each to their own. Hec I think I'm going to call discrimination on men not being able to have babies ! Perhaps women would like to share public toilets with men I mean if we are going for this equality thing let's go all the way and become a single sex race ! I'm sure we can do that as a tecnological race. Where do we stop ? Yes remove the stigma from women engineers but that video was utterly pointless to the point that i'd not have known what it was about without being told.

[PChi]

Yet another waste of EU tax payers money. Don't get me started on another anti EU rant though I am pro Europe and cooperation.

[_Sin]

Equality is not bullshit, though it's easy for someone who is not the victim of inequality to fail to grasp.

As for whether or not there are gender stereotypes associated with certain subjects, I'll just quote that bastion of feminism, Barbie, who famously said "Math class is tough".

[westfw]

provide evidence that there are direct or indirect efforts to keep women out of sceince

Ok, let's take this thread as an example:
https://www.eevblog.com/forum/general-chat/scrapper-girl/msg116675/#msg116675

A young woman posts a video with technical content, and the reactions vary from "OMG! Hawt" to "she's a fake; not enough scars" to "stupid airhead"...  Tell me that would happen if a guy has posted the same content, and tell me it's not discouraging to either her or other young women reading the comments?  "Trying to keep women out of science"?  Perhaps not.  Helping to have that effect?  I would think so.

(And: "Lady Ada" makes the front cover of Wired magazine, spurring an immediate flurry of messages on just how much image manipulation might have been involved in creating that picture ??!!)

[Bored@Work]

A young woman posts a video with technical content, and the reactions vary from "OMG! Hawt" to "she's a fake; not enough scars" to "stupid airhead"...  Tell me that would happen if a guy has posted the same content,

Yes, just read a sample of my postings as prove that I don't care if a male of female tries to take me for a ride.

Regarding that particular video, I even posted information about the production company who staged that video. I would have posted the same if the production company would have hired a dude to do that fake video.

(and tell me it's not discouraging to either her or other young women reading the comments?

You know, I actually hope it is discouraging to production companies who stage such fake videos. And discourages actors or conpersons to take part in such fakes, independent of gender.

You should blame the fakes for helping to keep out woman out of science, not us who called a fake a fake.

(And: "Lady Ada" makes the front cover of Wired magazine, spurring an immediate flurry of messages on just how much image manipulation might have been involved in creating that picture ??!!)

First, Photoshop is the lipstick of cover editors. So, if you object to the EU lipstick video, wouldn't it make sense to object to the Photoshoping of woman on magazine covers. In fact, heavily photoshoped women in magazines and on magazine covers are a known source of problematic role models for young women. That alon is a good reason people ask questions.

Second, that particular photo was so much different from how people knew Lady Ada from her videos that it is a natural and legitimate to start scratching your head.

You should probably stop taking any critical words you hear about a woman as sexism.

[westfw]

I would have posted the same if the production company would have hired a dude to do that fake video.
  :
that particular photo was so much different from how people knew Lady Ada

except that if neither had been women, there would have been no posting and no discussion (Go ahead; point me to a discussion of some male geek on magazine cover and how much it was 'shopped, or how much.  Or a comment on some clueless male tech video to the effect that the speaker looks too good to be an actual techie...)

It's not always (intentionally) malicious sexism, but it's still sexism.