Although the article is almost a month old, I thought it worth bookmarking for later discussion. John Tierney of the New York Times reported "Legislation Won't Close Gender Gap in Sciences." The headline almost makes it seem like fact, but I found the article more opinion, and quickly digresses from the briefly mentioned legislation into the now cliched argument that rather than gender biases and discrimination, the desire for a family coupled with personal preferences are the reasons behind any gender disparities in science.
I have a hard time with this argument for a few reasons.
First, it's important to recognize that gender bias/discrimination isn't necessarily an overtly sexist comment, or grant rejection based on gender. Institutional/structural gender bias can occur through the establishment of workplaces which fail to cater to family-oriented professionals (male and female, but the fact of the matter remains that home work remains unevenly distributed as well) create, perhaps unintentionally, an atmosphere which begets inequality. Family-friendly practices are, of course, not the only institutional change which could occur, but tends to be the discussion point of choice within these types of discussions. Here, I agree with Mr. Tierney's points on, rather than legislation which focuses on “activities that increase the awareness of the existence of gender bias," perhaps legislation would be better served by creating more accomodating workplaces. Recalling some points from my previous post, workplaces become more egalitarian not just by changes to maternity leave and work-week attitudes, but also by men (managers?) taking paternity, leaving work at family-friendly hours, etc. I believe that shifts in such "corporate" (I'm talking about science, though) attitudes are what any "awareness" activities could usefully be directed towards.
Similarly, nursing schools don't look at applications and dismiss those from men, and a prevalence of male physicans indicate that men are just as interested in careers in health care as women. Instead of overt sexual discrimination, there exists a history of nursing being a "woman's job." I would argue that any legislation truly committed to gender equality might also include ways to make nursing and teaching more accessible to men.
The difficult reality remains: success in science is demonstrated by a continuous record of publications, grants, and participation in various committees/boards. All of these activities require considerable amounts of time and focus. Although there are admirable women (and men) who continue to succeed through this workaholic culture, it's not difficult to see how a pregnancy, maternity leave, and subsequent child-rearing may put a damper on scientific productivity. It seems a formidable environment to change--particularly when some institutions remain entrenched in an "old boys club" attitude. (For reference, I work in a department where the male:female professor ratio is 22:3, while the student ratio is 7:17. Either there is a major shift in the works, or all of these female PhDs are getting sucked into a black hole.)
Second, the "personal preference" argument is entirely too subjective to be used as a serious gauge in discussions of gender in science. More women are graduating from college with science degrees. More women are going to graduate school, not just in psychology and medicine. The argument makes little sense to me, even when I consider my own distaste for math and physics.
And, in the end, although the piece makes some valid points, I can't help but feeling combative towards the dismissive attitude of if all. Writes Tierney, "Now that women are earning a majority of all undergraduate and graduate degrees, it’s odd to assume they’re the gender that needs special help on campus. If more women prefer to study psychology and medicine than physics and engineering, why is that a problem for Washington to fix?"
It's easy to claim that the quest for gender equality is finished, that we live in a gender- and color-blind nation. But, then again, today I found new news on the gender pay gap. Neither Michigan, nor Wisconsin fare well (women in both states earn under eighty cents for every dollar earned by men).
No comments:
Post a Comment