I have to agree with Carolyn here. I am not going to say that Clara's observation is not data, but I can't help think, what if "female" and "young" were substituted with other groups -- ethnic-based, sexuality-based or some other kind of classification of people?
I think there'd be a lot of words about that. So I don't see how this is much different than marginalizing another grouping of people. I also think that sexism can still come from the same gender (not that it should come from any). I've observed it many times, particularly during my Master's program among intelligent young, and competitive women. That said, it's observation and data. Facts. But emotional responses to this comment are another kind of data and fact. Something that when dealing with people, needs to be accounted for since none of us are completely objective in our observations of one another. As a young female graduate student, hearing Clara's observation worries me about what I need to accomplish during my degree. It also tells me several things --- 1) candidates are still judged by their gender and thus 2) I need to work even harder than my male counterparts to gain equal respect to overcome the preconceived notions of how useful I'd be as a new hire, and 3) should I wonder if I'm not being mentored well enough by my advisor compared to my male counterparts in the field? Maybe this will be a good thing in the end. Maybe I will have that much more of a competitive advantage because I'm aware of these biases. But this is based on one observation. I wonder why no one else has stated whether or not they share the same observations? I apologize if I've missed them. Because if this is mostly true, as a young woman, I'd like to know what I have to prepare myself for when looking for jobs. It also saddens me that even with the leaps and bounds of feminism in the last 50 years, we still battle sexism. Just because it's more subtle than before doesn't mean it's not there. If we continue to treat it like it's something to brush over, we let those stereotypes persist. Remember, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. All the best, Skylar NB: If you make a comment on a public listserv, you welcome yourself to people's responses, so I don't see what the problem is with people responding with how they feel about the issue given that the comment was put out in the open. -- Skylar Bayer University of Maine School of Marine Sciences Graduate Student of Marine Biology Darling Marine Center 193 Clark's Cove Road Walpole, ME 04573 [email protected] On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Carolyn Nersesian < [email protected]> wrote: > Do you really not see how one perpetuates the other? > > First female scientists - who already have to overcome societal beliefs > that they are less capable then men - are singled out on a public form as > being less prepared then male scientists - notably in the absence of > evidence for this assumption. This is followed by respondents that find > this offensive, who are subsequently dismissed - which leads to secondary > argument that ultimately culminates in a silencing effect. > > And finally, we're back to - hey, what's wrong with pointing out that > woman are less marketable than men Š maybe it will help themŠ > > Of course the assumption that woman are less marketable then men has never > been substantiated or discussed - yet it's now evolved in the discussion > as somehow factualŠ and even supported by "evidence" related to lack of > mentoring and access to preferable opportunities by females. > > Therefore, does one not essentially lead to the other. If we believe women > are less prepared do we not ultimately exclude them? > > The way I see it, the real problem is inappropriate, sexist assumptions > that differentiate men from woman, followed by a lack of discussion and > silencing that shuts down any attempts to argue against biased beliefs > which ultimately feed a cycle that really needs to be discussed and > brought under the microscopeŠ > > Two centsŠ > > > > On 13-02-19 3:17 PM, "Max Taub" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I feel for Clara Jones who is being blasted for sexism and I don't know > >what else, for what was presumably intended as a helpful word to younger > >aspiring scientists. > > > >Her point, as I saw it, was that too many young scientists develop only > >the general, generic skills of the discipline, while what is marketable > >is often very particular research skills. She suggests that this is more > >the case with young female than with young male scientists. > > > >Nothing in that suggests negative attitudes about the capabilities of > >young female scientists. It might suggest female scientists are (on > >average) less well mentored, or that they are (on average) shunted into > >less novel and exciting projects by grad school advisors. Or a host of > >other possibilities. > > > >I see no reason to tear into someone for posting such perceptions, > > > > > >Now you can blast me instead of her, > > > >Max Taub > > > > > > > >-- > >Daniel Taub > >Professor of Biology > >Southwestern University > >1001 East University Ave > >Georgetown TX 78626 USA > > > >Phone: 512 863-1583 > >Fax: 512 863-1696 > >[email protected] >
