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. 

Hell Hath No Fury...

Another blogger spotted this video put out by the European Commission, called "Science: It's a Girl Thing!":



I noticed that it's been viewed 2,645 times and that 2,572 people disliked it (only 66 liked it) (as of today at 1:30 pm); . The comments by both male and female viewers, scientists and non-scientists are worth reading: they find the video appalling and find very creative ways of expressing their disgust. A couple wanted to flag it as "inappropriate".

The reaction to it by real women in science (me, at least) is captured in an "Unofficial Response to the Official Teaser "Science: It's A Girl Thing!"":

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

Science Fans

Last week I had a new experience.  I have been attending a conference in another country and gave a plenary presentation. It went well, and afterwards, several people approached to talk and ask questions. Two students came up and told me that they were big fans of my work...had read all of my papers, etc. Both, by the way, were female.  The one who could speak English the best and who seemed to be most "star-struck" asked if she could have her picture taken with me.  I obliged.  

I then asked the students about their interests and what their research projects were about. They were soon joined by other women, professors and students, all of whom were apparently fans of my work.  We had a great time exchanging stories about our work and experiences (problems, triumphs).

Anyway, this was the first time I've ever experienced this--being asked to have my picture taken with someone...a stranger.  I have been approached by students before who liked my papers and wanted to meet me.  The request for a photo was new, though.  It seemed awkward from my viewpoint, because I do not know this student.  However, I realized that she felt she knew me through my papers and especially just having heard me give a presentation.  So, it makes sense, I suppose, to want to have a photo of me.  I'm not sure what she will do with this photo. Keep it on her computer desktop as encouragement through her graduate program? 

I relate this story to make a point, which is that we often don't know how much our research articles influence others, especially students and junior scientists.  It's only when they come up to us at meetings and tell us about the impact our work has had on them personally that it becomes apparent.

These students (and their female professors) explained that they followed my work and looked forward to each new paper.  They also explained that they had been encouraged (by my work) to pursue a particular area of research themselves.  I hesitate to use the term, role-model, but that was what I was thinking when they were explaining how they viewed me and my publications. I had not thought of being a role-model in this way before...for strangers I may never meet or meet only briefly.

Is it better to meet someone you admire (who perhaps will not live up to your expectations) or never meet and maintain your mental image of them?

I recall meeting a Famous Scientist early in my career, someone whose work I admired, and being quite shocked to discover what a jerk he was.  It may have been better had I never met him, as I could never look at his papers with quite the same admiration after meeting him.   

On the other hand, I've met scientists whose work I had followed for years and who turned out to be great people and very supportive.  Some have become good friends over the years. 

Are Female Scientists An Endangered Species?

An article recently asked this question based on the observation that fewer than 10% of UK professors are female.  The problem posed is the familiar one of retention of women in science after graduation, rather than engagement of girls at earlier stages.  Statistics quoted for the UK are similar to those in the US: around half of science students are female (even higher for biology).  So, there seems to be less of a problem attracting young females to science.  After graduation, however, the numbers shrink as women, facing the realities of balancing a career in a highly competitive field with family obligations and other interests, begin to drop out.  The article goes on to discuss what might be done to help women stay in science.

Viewing women in science as endangered is an interesting way to look for solutions.  Using the endangered species model as a guide, we can immediately focus on the habitat as a critical factor in species survival.  Just as an endangered plant or animal requires certain environmental conditions to maintain a healthy population, women in science also require a supportive environment to not only survive, but to thrive.  For example: sufficient resources and space (habitat) as well as ways to support recruitment and minimize losses are necessary to have a viable population.  From an individual's standpoint, it means everything one needs to compete with others successfully.  It's not a perfect analogy, but perhaps useful to ponder how one's work environment, especially support from superiors, staff, and colleagues, can be a major factor in whether a woman chooses to remain in her career or drop out. 

Just the other day, I was talking with another member of a Women in Science group at a university where I am an adjunct.  I've been attending the meetings of this group off and on for over a year and providing some insights about being a woman in science, basically saying that there will be bumps in the road, but it gets better if you stick it out.  One or two other senior female faculty had also been attending and providing the same type of message, in various ways.  This was not a planned strategy on our part...it just came across that way. 

I had been wondering if the students and postdocs who belonged to this group were getting anything out of our meetings (I had never really gotten any direct feedback from them, positive or negative). Anyway, she had been talking to one of the students who belonged to the group and who had told her that these meetings had greatly influenced her.  The student had been having some problems and was thinking that she was not cut out for a career in science.  Hearing from some senior female scientists and seeing how we had succeeded convinced her to persevere.  It seemed that hearing stories about what issues we had faced and how we dealt with them essentially sent the message that they were not alone in their experience, i.e., it was normal to occasionally feel inadequate or uncertain about a science career, but it would pass.

It's important to have a support group, whether you are having problems or not.  Perhaps you are supremely confident in your capabilities and are sailing through your graduate program or postdoc training.  However, you never know what might change tomorrow to throw a wrench into your plans.  I find that those students who have rarely (or never) faced real difficulties are the least prepared to deal with a major setback. They are so accustomed to things always going their way, that they are left confused and shaken when things go wrong.  Instead, those who have had to work hard expect difficulties and usually have developed good coping mechanisms and especially a support network. 

Having a support group can be a life saver in such instances.  I didn't, and struggled to maintain my confidence and to see my way forward when those obstacles occurred.  Even my spouse (a science professor), who provided emotional support, really didn't understand from his perspective as a male in a male-dominated field.  Consequently, much of his encouragement missed the mark.  He really could not grasp what it is like to be marginalized or even actively discouraged by superiors and coworkers.  He was always accepted as rightfully belonging to the science club, assumed to be competent (or had the potential), expected to be ambitious and to advance up the career ladder.  He's never really understood what it was like not to have that kind of underpinning. 

I'm convinced that it takes someone who has had similar experiences to provide you with the right kind of support or encouragement.  Peers (male or female), who are not experiencing problems, may even be dismissive or critical of you, believing that the fault lies in your inability to deal with everyday issues (or even that your behavior is the source of the problem).  This attitude, whether voiced or not, can be extremely damaging...perhaps more so than the problem itself. 

Anyone who is facing a problem, especially one that shakes an individual's confidence, needs reassurance that they can overcome it.  Yes, in some cases, the victim is part of the problem and needs to do some serious reassessment of their interpersonal dealings.  But the way to help them (if you are their friend) is to assure them that others have had this same problem, but succeeded in dealing with it....by doing x, y, or z. Hearing a true story from someone who lived through it is a safe way to get the message across without blatantly blaming the victim, which will only make them more defensive. 

In recounting such a story, a veteran might say, "I didn't realize initially how I was viewed by colleagues, but once I did, it seemed obvious that they would continue treating me badly as long as I continued my behavior.  I finally realized that they had no incentive to change, but I did. Once I modified how I (fill in the blank), their attitude toward me began to change." 

Stories are excellent ways to teach others.  They convey real (or sometimes imagined) situations and describe how the heroine overcomes obstacles and goes on to a successful career in science.  Perhaps we need more of such stories, including the emotional and gritty details, to help prepare those starting out to expect and conquer impediments....and eventually, women in science will be taken off the endangered species list.

Madame Who?

A colleague described something surprising (to him) the other day.  He had attended a Ph.D. student's general exam recently at which the student was asked to name a female Nobel laureate (in science).  She could not name a single female recipient....not even Marie Curie, who received two Nobel prizes for her work in physics.  Another member of her committee (not my colleague) had asked this question. When the student was unable to come up with a name, the professor mentioned Madame Curie. The student had never heard of her.

My colleague expressed shock that this student, a female, was unaware of who Marie Curie was and seemed to know of no other female laureates.  Apparently, my colleague and other male committee members could name several: Barbara McClintock, Carol Greider, Ada Yonath were some of the names mentioned.  I've asked similar questions at student exams, e.g., to name five famous female scientists and what their contributions were.  Previous posts on this topic are here and here.  In most instances, the student can name at least one or two women, usually Marie Curie. Curie's story is so well-known, it's hard to imagine anyone going through school and not ever hearing about her.

My colleague was perplexed and apparently thought I (being a woman) could shed some light on this student's failure to answer the question.  I was stumped at first, partly because I did not know the student.  I said that it did seem unusual that a female student of science would not know who Marie Curie was.  I asked my colleague why he thought this student had failed to hear about Curie during her schooling or any other female laureate (not to mention making an effort to learn about them on her own).

He did not have a good answer, but speculated that knowing about famous females scientists was not important to this student.  Perhaps. 

Another possible explanation (or contributing factor) in this case is that the student's field is one that is not recognized by the Nobel prize.  Not being in medicine, physics or chemistry, she might not pay much attention to awardees or to their contributions.  That's just a guess. I would bet that a male student (in this same field) would have difficulty naming more than one or two male Nobel laureates.  They would probably guess Watson and Crick or Einstein, but not likely know less famous recipients.  How many of us know the names of recent recipients of the Nobel (outside our fields) and the details of their discoveries?

What I wonder is whether this professor asks this question of all students. Does he ask them to name any Nobel laureate, ask male students to name female laureates, or does he ask only females to name a female laureate?  My colleague did not know since he had never served on a committee with this other professor before.  Is it fair to ask the question of female students and not male students? Is it unfair to ask a female student to name only female Nobel winners, since there have been so few of them?  I think this professor thought he was asking an easy (and fair) question. He probably assumed that she would at least know of Marie Curie.

The motive behind such questions is to gauge how broad the student's knowledge is. Students should be familiar with major discoveries in their field as well as in other fields of science and who made them.  I would expect a student of science to have some knowledge of well-known scientists--at least be able to name a few Nobel laureates (male or female) and why they received the honor.

You Are Not in Kansas Anymore

I mentioned in earlier posts that I had been doing fieldwork recently in a remote location (think jungle, mosquitoes, scorpions, bucket latrines, no refrigeration, no TV or internet).  Spending time in a tropical forest and away from "civilization" is an experience that simultaneously makes one appreciate the variety and abundance of life on our planet as well as the comforts that we in developed countries tend to take for granted.  A single hectare of tropical forest may contain hundreds, even thousands, of species of plants, animals, fungi, and bacteria. Walking through the forest and stopping in front of a massive old tree, I was reminded of the movie, Avatar.

If you've been following this blog, you've read my previous review of Avatar and sexism in movies by James Cameron. I was pretty critical in those reviews, but there's another aspect of Avatar that I've wanted to explore.

In the months after the release of Avatar, a number of people began posting comments on various forums about how the movie affected them.  Some said it changed their lives and how they view the world. Others became sad or depressed, presumably because their lives did not live up to the fantasy world created in the movie. Some posters even stated that they'd contemplated suicide (it's hard to tell if these are real or fabricated statements). Although a lot of those who had strong reactions to the movie were very young and impressionable, some were adults.  Their words indicated that they yearn for the life of the Na'vi, the imaginary indigenous people of Avatar.  The depressed are being advised to shed modern conveniences that harm the environment and to live "closer to nature".  That way, they can take an active role in creating their own world (instead of sulking in a dark room in front of the TV or computer).

In case you haven't seen the movie, the Na'vi live close to Nature; they are 10 foot tall, blue, cat-like humanoids with "bones reinforced with carbon fiber", and have coming-of-age rituals in which the inductee acquires a flying dragon, which becomes their steed for life.  At the beginning of the movie, we see that life on Pandora is quite dangerous. The evil antagonist, Colonel Quaritch, eloquently describes the situation to new recruits:

"You are not in Kansas anymore. You are on Pandora, ladies and gentlemen. Respect that fact every second of every day. If there is a Hell, you might wanna go there for some R & R after a tour on Pandora. Out there beyond that fence every living thing that crawls, flies, or squats in the mud wants to kill you and eat your eyes for jujubes."

This message is driven home as Jake Sully, the human protagonist, is almost killed four times during his first day in the jungles of Pandora.  He survives, of course, to become one of the Na'vi, fall in love with a Na'vi princess, and ultimately shed his paralyzed human body for a new, Na'vi-like avatar body.  Later brushes with death are presented as exciting adventures, which only add to the fantasy of a perfect world. The movie experience thus yields a sense of adventure, wonder, and happy endings and never hints at reality.

Perhaps it's for the best.

Real life in the gritty, parasite-infested tropical forest is somewhat less pleasant than one would guess from watching Avatar. Most people I know would not last two minutes in the bush before they would run screaming back to air conditioning, iced drinks, bug-free manicured lawns, entertainment on demand, and all the other trappings of civilization.

What movies like Avatar do accomplish is to get young people excited about nature and about preserving the natural world.

On the one hand, I'm sad that it takes a fantasy world (patterned after the Amazon rain forest) to make people care about the only world we know that has life--Earth.  On the other hand, I'm glad that people are moved by the environmental message.  I'm with Cameron in believing that people don't get motivated by just talking or reading about Nature.  They need to vicariously experience it without all the danger and discomfort. People are especially affected by stories that touch them emotionally.

And Avatar accomplishes this.  

The technological breakthroughs that allowed the creation of a believable world populated by fantasy creatures are quite simply amazing.  The reactions to the movie reveal how effective such a story-telling approach is...especially with generations who never knew a world before CGI.

One might wonder if such fantasies simply set young people up for disillusionment.  However, I recall being excited and fascinated by the original Star Trek TV series. My imagination was fired up about what life might be like on other worlds and whether I might one day travel to those worlds and study the life found there.  And Star Trek had very clunky special effects; even I thought they were corny at the time. Nevertheless, the series influenced a generation of young viewers. Even though our original, idealistic expectations about space travel were never realized, some of us succeeded in achieving our dreams of becoming a different type of explorer--a scientist.

With its incredible special effects, Avatar may have a profound impact on the current generation.  

Avatar's success in this regard also has a message for those of us who are concerned about attracting young people (especially girls) to science.  People pay attention to compelling stories that 1) they can understand, 2) are memorable, and 3) affect them emotionally.  I'll bet young fans of Avatar can answer correctly more questions about the ecology of Pandora than about our Earth.  What do you think?   

Photo Credit: Avatar, 20th Century Fox; AnotherBigDamnTree, DrDoyenne

Name Five Famous Women Scientists

I've mentioned previously that I like to ask female (and sometimes male) students this question during their general exams:  Can you name five famous female scientists and what their contribution to science was?  I have yet to get an answer that lists more than two women (often, one of these is me, which doesn't count).  This statistic has not changed in the past 20 years.  Surprising, considering how many more women are succeeding in science, are getting degrees in science, and who should be interested in success stories of other women.

I often hear from female students that they lack female mentors or role models.  Perhaps they don't have someone they know personally.  However, there are plenty of women in history who have not only succeeded, but have done some pretty amazing things.   

As I was growing up, I read biographies of famous scientists--all male.  I've since tried to read biographies of female scientists and naturalists as well as books they've written about science or about their experiences.  Some of the more amazing women include Mary Kingsley (explored east Africa alone during the 1800s) who wrote several accounts of her explorations.  She was one of the first women I read about who inspired me.  There have been many others since--not all of them well-known.

Anyway, there is abundant information on the internet nowadays for anyone interested in knowing more about the contribution of women to science and exploration.  The library of Congress has a starting list of readings for girls and young women: Biography of Women Scientists. There are also links to other information such as Girls in Science and Education: How to Engage Girls in Science.

Check it out.