The Scientist Who Happens To Be a Woman

This month is Women's History Month, and last Friday was International Women's Day. Such celebrations are set to recognize and pay tribute to the contributions made by women throughout history. Many of those contributions were by women in science.

A growing number of women, however, are becoming increasingly uncomfortable with efforts to highlight women in science because such emphasis may lead to the conclusion that there is something unusual about female scientists or that we need "special help" to succeed (special awards, fellowships, grants).

The problem seems to be exacerbated by news stories in which the female gender of the story subject is emphasized over whatever it is she has accomplished. Articles about women scientists invariably talk about the fact that they are women (".....she's one of a handful of women to work on this topic.") and about family matters ("....she had to leave her three-year-old for a month to do field research in the Antarctic"). Some focus on special challenges they face as women in a male-dominated field ("....she had to accomplish twice that of her male colleagues to be acknowledged as competent").

I came across this post by Christie Aschwanden, who suggests the Finkbeiner Test for articles profiling women in science. It's similar to the Bechdel Test, which assesses gender bias in film, which I've described here previously. To pass the Finkbeiner Test, the article cannot mention any of the following:

• The fact that she’s a woman
• Her husband’s job
• Her child care arrangements
• How she nurtures her underlings
• How she was taken aback by the competitiveness in her field
• How she’s such a role model for other women
• How she’s the “first woman to…”

I agree that over emphasis on gender can backfire and send the wrong message. But I also understand the journalists' viewpoint in trying to make a technical topic more attractive to readers (especially female readers) by emphasizing gender and/or the unusual. To get people interested in reading about a topic, the journalist has to find a "hook", and anything unusual works well to attract readers. Look at the recent media buzz about Danica Patrick, the first female NASCAR driver to win the pole position in the Daytona 500 competition. Even though media attention is focused mostly on her gender, she's edged out male competitors to become the most popular NASCAR driver, especially among female fans of the sport. Her crew chief said that he's given out "more lugnuts to young girls this week than he's given to anyone in his career". 

I do wish that we could just write and read about the accomplishments of a scientist or race car driver who just happens to be a woman. But that's not going to happen as long as the subject's gender is seen as something unusual. Journalists can help things along by de-emphasizing gender in articles about female scientists (as Aschwanden and Finkbeiner suggest). As scientists, we can decline to provide answers to gender-based questions in interviews and refocus attention on the science. 

The Movie Heroine

I recently received a comment about the series I did a while back on how women are portrayed in Hollywood movies.  In one post (Feminism and the Movies), I used several examples of movies by James Cameron, including the Terminator series, and applied a couple of tests designed to gauge how central female characters are portrayed (as true heroines or as stereotypes designed to support a male protagonist).

One of these is called the Bechdel Test and the other is one I made up called (tongue in cheek) the Feminist Film Test.

It's been a while, so I'll repeat them here:

To pass the Bechdel Test, the movie must have:

1. Two women (who have names),

2. Who talk to each other,

3. About something other than a man.

The Feminist Film Test requires that the movie:

1. Have a female lead,

2. Who survives or succeeds,

3. Without the intervention of a man (saving her, dying so she can live, etc.). 

The commenter focused on the fact that I said Terminator II failed the two tests and argued that technically this movie passes both tests, pointing out how the lead female character (Sarah Connor) had matured from the helpless victim in Terminator I into an aggressive, militaristic woman with a violent plan (to save the world) in Terminator II.

Well, maybe Terminator II squeaks by on minor technical points (Sarah speaks briefly to another woman and does take charge of her destiny), but this comment misses the point of the litmus tests and my series on feminism and the movies. My purpose was not to identify "anti-feminist" films or to nitpick movie details, but to question the presumption that these are films that align with feminist ideals and/or provide useful role models of "strong female characters" simply because they have women who can shoot, cuss, and fight as well as a man.

The two litmus tests I described are meant to make people think about stereotypes and how women are portrayed in film.  One blogger, talking about the Bechdel test, emphasizes that "passing the test does not necessarily make it more feminist, or otherwise, positive-for-women." Nor does failing the test make it a bad movie.  This blogger goes on to explain that the test is a crude tool to begin examining sexism in movies.  If you look at the site that lists movies and whether they pass the Bechdel Test, you'll see lots of nitpicking about minor details; but it's not very productive to focus too closely on these tests (or try to find technical loopholes). 

Both tests are designed to uncover the glaring pattern of sexism in Hollywood movies.  When you have to really search and search for movies that portray true heroines, you have to conclude that there is something wrong somewhere.  Can you think of, say, just ten movies (out of the thousands made) in which there are two female characters who have meaningful conversations (about something other than a man) that advance the storyline (see end of this post for a few)?  Hollywood writers, directors, and producers seem to have difficulty in creating strong female characters without making them violent, gun-toting, and physically threatening (with a few exceptions, see below). In the past, women were routinely portrayed as weak victims (to be saved by a man).  Now it seems their only option to be "strong" is to adopt violent, masculine behavior.

Let's be realistic.  These are male fantasies:  the helpless woman (needing to be saved by a man) and the "I can be as tough as a guy" woman (a titillating sex object). Movies with such characters are not sincere efforts to portray strong women. They are in these films solely to sustain the male (mostly adolescent) viewpoint.  One can speculate as to the reasons: screenwriters/directors/producers are mostly male and, therefore, emphasize a male point of view; the target demographic is the young adolescent male, and action movies are geared toward their perspective. There's nothing wrong with this; the objective is to make money on these movies, after all. However, one wonders why Hollywood is ignoring half the population of movie-goers.

But back to the point.  What constitutes a strong female character who is the heroine of a film? She might be mentally and intellectually powerful, emotionally resilient, highly competent and skilled (in something other than gun play), of great moral character, and courageous...all without resorting to violence.  A heroine is defined as "a woman of distinguished courage or ability, admired for her brave deeds and noble qualities".  Is Sarah Connor a true heroine?  Do we admire her or feel repulsed by her adoption of violent methods to solve problems? Is her plan to kill the creator of Starnet (the computer network that will take over the future world and destroy humanity) courageous, noble, or admirable?  Was she a good mother (to John Connor)?  Is she a role model you would want your children to emulate? 

I'd say Sarah Connor is the anti-heroine.  Not that there's anything wrong with an anti-heroine character....just don't confuse it with a heroine. 

Can we think of other movies, even violent movies, in which a true heroine appears?

Yes.  There are very violent films that manage to depict strong female characters who are the antithesis of the Sarah Connor character (in T2). One example that comes to mind is Police Chief Marge Gunderson in "Fargo", played to perfection by Frances McDormand. She manages to solve an extortion/kidnapping/murder case and captures a killer (carefully shooting him in the leg, instead of blowing his head off)...all while pregnant and suffering morning sickness.

This film passes the Feminist Film Test (Marge succeeds without any male assistance), but fails the Bechdel Test (technically, Marge interviews a couple of female prostitutes, but the focus is on men [the killers]); she also talks briefly on the phone with a high school friend, but about a man who is stalking Marge).  Does that mean the movie is flawed from a feminist standpoint? Of course not.

In my view, this film provides a compelling portrait of a real heroine.  Marge is a down-to-earth, no-nonsense kind of woman who is successful in a very male-dominated profession.  She's a heroine, not because she catches a killer, but because of the courage, integrity, and humility she displays in her professional and personal life. 

Some other movies with well-developed female characters who talk to each other about something other than a man and whose interactions advance the storyline: 
Gone With the Wind (1939)
All About Eve (1950)
The Bad Seed (1956)
Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)
Julia (1977)
Nine to Five (1980)
Silkwood (1983)
Working Girl (1988)
Mermaids (1990)
Thelma and Louise (1991)
Enchanted April (1992)
Girl, Interrupted (1999)
Black Swan (2010)
The Help (2011)


Image Credits:
Still image from Terminator 2, TriStar Pictures
Still image from Fargo, Gramercy Pictures

What Women Want

I've been thinking lately about the reaction of men to women's support groups (and blogs devoted to female scientists). I sometimes get the comment from male readers and colleagues (who hear that I write a blog about women in science) that it's not necessary to talk about gender issues due to the  improvements made over the past ten to twenty years.  Yes, there have been improvements in some areas, for which I'm thankful. However, there's a flaw in the idea that because the situation for women in science has improved, we no longer need to be alert for gender bias (or to discuss gender-specific issues).

First, if you are experiencing gender bias in your workplace, it is no consolation whatsoever that things have improved for female scientists overall. If you were suffering from a rare brain tumor, it's unlikely you would be comforted by being told that few people get this tumor...and because of its rarity, no researchers are interested in finding a treatment for it.

You may find yourself in a job with, for example, coworkers who think women cannot be good scientists...who show you daily, in various ways, that your work is less important because you are only a female.  Your once supportive supervisor may retire and be replaced by someone who thinks a woman's place is in the home; he undermines you at every opportunity, but is careful to stay within the law.  Your complaints to superiors may be dismissed or ignored because no one has technically broken the law.  Such treatment gradually eats away at your confidence and feelings of self-worth. If you are in such a situation and are told that you should not be concerned about gender bias because it's no longer prevalent in science, how does that make things better?

It doesn't, of course. In fact, it will make you feel even more isolated and alone in your experience. Eventually, you will begin to question yourself. You are told that most other women are either not having these problems or that they don't dwell on them and just get on with their work.  You may ultimately think that there is something inherently wrong with you because you seem to be the only one experiencing these difficulties.  You may find yourself, the victim, being blamed for the actions of the perpetrators.  No matter what you do: ignore the problem, suffer in silence, or take official action against your tormentors, things continue to get worse.  Your friends and once sympathetic colleagues begin to avoid you....they join the "blame the victim" camp.

Second, just because blatant discrimination against women has been mostly curtailed (at least in Western countries with laws against it), doesn't mean that cryptic or unconscious bias does not exist and does not have an equally devastating effect on women in science.  By cryptic gender bias, I'm talking about those people (both male and female) who believe women to be unsuited for traditionally male fields, such as science, technology, engineering, and math.  Or, they may intellectually accept the right of women to work in those fields, but think that they cannot succeed without "extra help".  They may hold personal or religious beliefs about the traditional roles of men and women and find it difficult to think and act differently in the workplace.  Such people know better than to voice these thoughts in the workplace, but proceed to act upon them in various ways (e.g, "forgetting" to tell you about an important meeting). Those with unconscious bias toward women are perhaps the most damaging because they don't recognize that what they are doing undermines women ("But I was just trying to help her design her project!") and blindly blunder along trying to be "helpful" and "supportive". 

I know such bias exists, because I continue to experience it and to hear from other female scientists who also experience it.

Third, everyone (male and female) must be on the alert for gender bias because it hurts all of us...and scientific progress...when anyone is prevented from achieving their potential because of conscious or unconscious bias.  We should also keep in mind that although women in some countries have equal rights as men under the law, this is not necessarily the case in all parts of the world.  One of my goals in writing this blog is to make others aware of gender issues, not just in the US but in other countries, as well as to explore solutions.

Finally, the fact of gender bias is supported by numerous studies, many that I've mentioned in previous posts and that are readily found in the published literature. So I won't be restating those statistics to justify discussing gender bias in the science fields.  At least a portion of the readers of this blog are having some problems stemming from gender bias (or gender-related issue such as work-life balance).  I know this because I can see what search terms are used to lead readers to this site and which posts are most frequently read.  That knowledge is all the incentive I need to continue writing about gender issues.

In the following posts, I'll review the four most common forms of gender bias.

Quest for Equality

I often wonder about our ancient ancestors and what were the real roles of men and women in ensuring survival of early humans.  I was reminded of this recently when I saw an ad for a film I watched many years ago (1981)--one that was quite interesting and entertaining.  It remains one of the most unusual and thought-provoking depictions of prehistoric humans (although one can quibble about the science and postulated interactions between humans and pre-humans). 

In the film, "Quest for Fire", a group of prehistoric tribesmen (Homo neanderthalensis) embark on a search for fire.  Lacking fire-making knowledge, primitive humanoids depended on finding natural sources of fire or stealing it from other clans.  After being attacked by another group (Homo erectus), their official fire tender (an especially clutzy guy) loses their fire source.  Consequently, three other male clan members are selected to find or steal another fire source.  During their adventure, they barely survive encounters with sabre-tooth cats, mastodons, cave bears, and cannibalistic groups. Eventually, they meet up with a female (Ika) from another, more advanced group (Homo sapiens).  The trio rescue her from the cannibals, and she tries to persuade them (non-vocally, since they have no common language) to return with her to her tribe. One of the males (Naoh) decides to follow her....

To make a long story short, Naoh discovers that this tribe knows how to make fire. The scene in which he realizes that it's possible to start a fire by "rubbing two sticks together" is pretty touching. The trio eventually return to their clan. One of the most hilarious scenes occurs when they hand over a new fire source, carefully packaged in a hollowed-out piece of wood, to the fire tender. Unfortunately, the clan has been hanging out in a marsh, and the clumsy fire tender, in his extreme excitement over getting a new fire source, stumbles into the water and douses the embers. One wonders how many times this has happened over human history: an incompetent man in charge of an extremely important task (see previous posts about the Dunning-Kruger effect).

Not to worry. Our hero proceeds to show his clan how to make fire.  Drumroll....   Unfortunately, Naoh never actually practiced the fire-making technique--he only saw it done by the Homo sapiens tribesmen.  After an unsuccessful and embarrassing attempt, he is about to give up, when Ika (who has followed him) takes over and makes the fire. They live happily ever after.

I was impressed that this film actually had such a scene and others--in which a woman was shown to be superior to a man (in more ways than one). If you've read my previous posts about Hollywood depictions of women, you know that such films are rare.

Some anthropologists suggest that the Paleolithic was the most gender-equal time in human history. Archeological evidence indicates that male and female members of prehistoric groups both participated in decision-making and that some females were of high status. That makes sense to me. For a group to survive, all the members would have to have multiple skills, especially basic survival skills, and to be flexible in allowing anyone who was especially good at some task to use that talent to promote the success of the group.  That egalitarian approach should have provided an edge over groups that may have had more restrictive gender roles in which an individual's inherent skills were not necessarily realized (lowering their overall competitiveness with other groups). 

Anyway, it makes one think about gender roles in modern human cultures, the future survival of our species, and whether our Paleolithic ancestors have something to teach us with respect to the advantages of an egalitarian society.

Image Credits: modified images from "Quest for Fire", International Cinema Corporation (Trivia: this film won an Oscar for best makeup).

Well Behaved Women Seldom Make History

The title of this post is a widely-repeated statement made by a feminist historian, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. This saying is from an obscure scholarly article Ulrich published years ago and has appeared on T-shirts and bumper stickers over the years. It caught my eye recently...as the title of a book in which Ulrich tries to explore the topic in greater depth (Vintage Press, 2008). I've not read the book, but apparently it focuses on three prominent women in history plus shorter anecdotes about other women who've made contributions to society, but remain relatively unknown.

Anyway, seeing Ulrich's statement made me think about the pressures on girls and women to be "well-behaved".  What do I mean by this?

Men are expected to misbehave (at least occasionally) and are quickly forgiven; we even have phrases that acknowledge this expectation: "boys will be boys".  Boys and men can be rowdy, aggressive, impolite, arrogant, sloppy, etc., and no one holds it against them. They may be shameless self-promoters, bragging about their accomplishments, no matter how minor.  It's in their nature. We forgive them...and even find their misadventures endearing.

Women, on the other hand, are pressured to "behave well" under all circumstances. I'm not talking here about misbehavior of the type depicted in spring-break videos, e.g., "Girls Behaving Badly", but about women who speak up when faced with sexism or other unfair treatment, who don't remain quiet when their contributions are overlooked in favor of a male colleague's, who don't politely wait for someone to acknowledge them or their accomplishments, or who even fight back when treated inappropriately.

As I've described in previous posts, women of my generation (growing up in the 50's and 60's) were held to a certain standard of behavior (and career choices). We were expected to be modest, quiet, polite, submissive, and well-groomed at all times. A single indiscretion could have long-lasting repercussions.

I don't think things have changed that much.  Yes, women can now participate in activities and have rights that were not ours in the past, but we are still bombarded with advertisements and images of what is expected of girls and women...both physically and behaviorally.  Much of this information is internalized early in our development, and we willingly police ourselves to conform to what is apparently expected of us as females.

Those of us working in a traditionally male profession find ourselves in a Catch-22 situation. If we behave modestly and politely, our work is overlooked, and recognition goes to those who are not similarly burdened. If instead, we are assertive, strong-willed, independent, tenacious, out-spoken, and proud (positive attributes of our male colleagues), we risk being branded as being "difficult", "uncooperative", "stubborn", "overbearing", "angry", or (horrors) not a "team-player".

Our experiences in this regard vary dramatically among workplaces.  This, I suspect, is often the reason for the very divergent experiences of women in science fields. Some laboratories are populated by supportive superiors, colleagues, and staff who view women as being equally capable as men.  Other workplaces have one or more individuals who believe otherwise and can make life miserable for female scientists, especially if they happen to be successful and productive.

Sometimes I wonder if such misogynists see women (who succeed in a male-dominated field) as ill-behaved (and thus need to be reprimanded)? Girls were once taught that they should not outshine their brothers, boyfriends, or husbands. A woman should do her job... but not so well that she outperforms her male colleagues?  If she succeeds by adopting behaviors acceptable in male colleagues, is she viewed as somehow violating social standards?  I'm only speculating here, as it's difficult to put myself into the minds of such men (and some women) who hold a double standard.

Anyway, since this is Women's History Month, it seems appropriate to resurrect Ulrich's prediction about good behavior and its outcome...as well as a reminder of those women (Susan B. Anthony) who did "misbehave" and in so doing, garnered the rights we enjoy today.

Feminism and the Movies

There was a lot of talk back in 2009 and 2010 about James Cameron being sympathetic to feminist ideals and that his blockbuster movie, Avatar, was Exhibit A in support of this characterization.  (Those of you who have been following this blog know that I like to analyze how women are portrayed in film and TV—especially female scientists.  As I’ve pointed out in previous posts, most people never meet a scientist and generally get their impressions of scientists and women in science from the movies and TV.) 

I’d like to revisit Avatar and Cameron’s supposedly “feminist” leanings.  Part of the reason is that I just saw the movie again (on cable), and as much as I tried to view it again as “an entertaining fantasy”, I could not help analyzing it from various standpoints:  the biology of Pandora, how scientists and women are portrayed, etc.  Next I stumbled across a pre-release review of Avatar called “Is Avatar’s James Cameron a Feminist Ally?”  That got me thinking again about Hollywood’s portrayal of women and whether Avatar breaks with tradition (as claimed) or is instead business as usual.

Why is this even worth thinking about?  It’s just a movie, right?  Well, when you consider the numbers of people who have seen it worldwide and the enormous amount of money it made, it seems possible that it has had an impact beyond the typical, run-of-the-mill film.  Since its release on December 18, 2009, it has grossed $2,781,835,502 in theatre sales and another $183,484,783 in DVD sales (US only).   Adjusted for inflation, these numbers make Avatar the fourth highest grossing film of 1977-2010 (after Star Wars Ep. IV, ET: The Extra-Terrestrial, and Titanic (also a Cameron film)).  The numbers of people who’ve seen it are harder to come by (many have seen it more than once), but we can assume it’s a lot. 

The target audience was young and impressionable teens for the most part.  Did it have an effect on these viewers?  Apparently, it had a big impact on some viewers.  So much so that some young fans have experienced depression and suicidal thoughts after seeing the film (because their real worlds do not live up to the fantasy world of Pandora).  There is even a site for such suffering fans where they can get advice on coping with their depression.  Despite the fantastical premise, the movie and its CGI characters seemed to have created a very believable world for many movie-goers.  If people experienced such emotional and mental changes upon seeing this movie, it seems plausible that they also were influenced to some degree by the various depictions of corporate greed, indigenous societies, science, and women.   

So on to Cameron and his track record relative to portrayal of women.  Here’s a list of his major films (*wrote screenplay, ^directed):  The Terminator* (1984), Aliens*^ (1986), The Abyss*^ (1989), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)*^, True Lies (1994)^, Titanic (1997)^*, and Avatar (2009)*^. 

You’ll recognize that most of these films featured “strong women”.  There’s Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) from the Terminator movies.  Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and Vasquez (Jenette Goldstein) in Aliens.  Dr. Lindsey Brigman (Mary Elizabeth Mastantonio) in The Abyss.  Helen Tasker (Jamie Lee Curtis), Juno (Tia Carrere), and Dana Tasker (Eliza Dushku) in True Lies.  Rose (Kate Winslet) in Titanic.  Cameron seems to have outdone himself with Avatar, including no less than four strong female characters:  Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), Dr. Grace Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), Trudy Chacon (Michelle Rodriguez), and Mo’at (CCH Pounder). 

Does having strong female characters qualify these movies as being feminist, supportive of women’s issues, or simply good portrayals of women?  Of course not.  

There are a couple of litmus tests one can apply to films to determine whether female characters are central to the story or shown to be in control of their own destinies.  One is called the Bechdel Test, which requires the movie to have

1. Two women (who have names),

2. Who talk to each other,

3. About something other than a man.  

This site lists movies and how they rate according to the Bechdel Test.

The second test is one I made up many years ago, called “The Feminist Film Test”.  Here’s how it works.  For the movie to pass the test, it must

1. Have a female lead,

2. Who survives or succeeds,

3. Without the intervention of a man (saving her, dying so she can live, etc.).  

Very few Hollywood films pass this test. 

In the next post, I’ll apply these two tests to Cameron’s films and see how they fare.  In the meantime, you can think about some of your favorite movies and see if they pass these tests.