It sounds like Clara is challenging the current theory and questioning it but I don't see that she has in any way perpetuated dysfunction.
Facts indicate that woman have been and are still discriminated against but this doesn't explain all the variation we see- not by a long shot I don't think. I am not saying I agree with Clara, but wow, your statement, Silvia, is very dogmatic. Clara presented ideas to be considered and opinion to help inform the collective. Silvia rather, sounds much more bombastic with the intent to stifle her- that is unfortunate. Mark -----Original Message----- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Silvia Secchi Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:43 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Fwd: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal and professional life Men make the rules, men win the game, Clara. People like you that do not question the system or do not try to change it perpetuate a dysfunctional professional environment. Silvia Secchi Assistant Professor, Energy Economics & Policy Southern Illinois University Carbondale On Apr 11, 2012, at 11:14 PM, "Clara B. Jones" <foucaul...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andres: 1. ...i think i really do "hear" what you are saying, and i "get" > that the advantages afforded to professional females (including > females in research science careers) in some countries are beneficial > to them and their families... > 2. ...however, what level of Science are these females doing... > 3. ...is their productivity, including the quality of their research, > equivalent to that of USA men who work, say, 80+ h/week... > 4. ...is the quality of work being done in the countries you cite > equivalent to what would be required to achieve "senior" (i;e., > professorship [+]) status in the US... > 5. ...i don't think i know what the answers to the above questions > are; however, i suspect the answers are "no"... > 6. ...from what i do know, however, i THINK that collaborative > research is acceptable in Europe to a degree that it is not in the USA > where, it seems to me, females who rely on collaboration are > often/usually perceived as "hitch(h)iking" on a senior person's > research projects...though this strategy may, indeed, purchase senior > status in the USA, it often does not translate to reputation or respect > (indeed, there are exceptions)... > 7. ...following from the threads on this topic in the past few d...i > think i "hear" females saying that they're not competing for the sorts > of positions that i describe above...so be it...as one respondent put > it, after a baby came her "priorities changed"...again, so be it...SORT OF... > 8. ...what i mean by SORT OF is that i don't see a problem with USA > females changing priorities UNLESS they've received funding or made > other commitments under the guise that they want to be senior > scientists *as defined in USA*... > 9. ...several female respondents have pointed out that female graduate > students, post-docs, etc. are "grown-ups" capable of making their own > "rational" decisions...all good...then they should be prepared to > assume responsibility for their decisions...understanding *the > realities of USA science that they signed up for*... > 10. ...what is the Plan B for these girls that will fulfill their > commitments *(to USA science)* when they switch priorities... > 11. ...what is their plan for purchasing UNDIVIDED, UNINTERRUPTED, > SINGLE-FOCUSED, LONG-TERM, OFTEN UNPREDICTABLE TIME required to > accomplish the sort of senior science *as defined by USA standards*... > 12. ...some females & minorities assert that the structure of USA > science needs to change...for a variety of reasons... > 13. ...however, why should the USA modify the system producing among > the best and most successful scientists in the world... > 14. ...more important, in my opinion...is that "RATIONAL" grown-ups of > whatever sex or sexual orientation or personal status sign up for this > system & need not only to have their eyes open but need to step up by > not changing the rules unilaterally in mid- or late-stream...clara > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Andres Lopez-Sepulcre <lopezsepul...@gmail.com> > Date: Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 4:01 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Families in Science - Balancing your personal > and professional life > To: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu > > > Andres, do you have any ideas about how we can import that Finlandian > model >> to the U.S.? And how to get more universities and other employers in >> the U.S. to recognize the need to provide for professional couples? >> Thanks, David >> > > Ufff... this discussion may become more political than ecological... > the problem, as I see it is more fundamental. How willing are we to > pay higher and more progressive taxes, socialize higher education (and > health care), punish job instability, remove undergraduate and > graduate student fees (in fact, undergraduates are paid in Finland!!) > or increase graduate student/post-doc salaries and benefits at the > cost of reducing those of professors...? > > > ---- Andres Lopez-Sepulcre <lopezsepul...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> In my experience, it all depends on the country and how easy funding >>> agencies, research institutions and governments make it. I have >>> experience in several countries: Spain, USA, France and Finland. >>> They each have their good and bad points on that respect. Fore >>> example, while the USA and Canada tend to be pretty good at opening >>> jobs for couples, which helps enormously the two-body problem, I >>> find that some European countries offer better conditions to be a >>> parent. For example, in Finland and Sweden the government offers >>> paid maternity and/or paternity leaves of at least 10 months. Since >>> this is a 'stipend' independent of the scientific fellowship or >>> contract, it essentially means that if they had 3-years of funding, >>> they now will have that + 10 months (i.e. the grant or contract 'slides' >>> forward). >>> Moreover, there are good free or cheap daycare services and even >>> sometimes, daycare or family-housing in field stations. The >>> conditions are so good that I have never seen such a high rate of >>> graduate students pregnant or with children as in those countries... >>> and they are consequentially doing better than average at keeping >>> women in science. Of course, many countries (like Spain, my >>> home-country) fail in all aspects. >>> >>> Andres Lopez-Sepulcre >>> Laboratoire d'Ecologie, UMR 7625 >>> Ecole Normale Superieure, Paris >>> alo...@biologie.ens.fr >>> >>> http://web.me.com/asepulcre >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Apr 11, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Rachel Guy wrote: >>> >>> I've been following the debate Simone Whitecloud inspired concerning >>>> babies in the field. This brought to mind something I was told when >>>> I was pursuing my B.S. in Wildlife Ecology: >>>> >>>> "You can be a scientist, a spouse or a parent. Two of these things >>>> you can be simultaneously great at doing, while the third will >>>> suffer." I'm not sure I entirely agree with this statement, but I >>>> have seen personal relationships tried by professional obligations >>>> and professional obligations tried by personal obligations. >>>> Particularly in a field that often demands long absences and >>>> irregular hours, I can see how this would particularly be true. >>>> Though, I have also seen faculty and research scientists with >>>> families that seem pretty stable and happy. Is there any substance >>>> to this paradigm, and if so, are there realistic ways in which we >>>> can change them? I'd love to hear the communities' thoughts on this >>>> as it is something that I have often reflected on as I've >>>> progressed through my career. Can we have it all? What are the key >>>> differences between the ones that are seemingly able to do it and >>>> the one's where the challenges become too great? >>>> >>>> Rachel Guy >>>> Project Coordinator, Research Assistant >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> -- >> David McNeely >> > > > > -- > clara b. jones