Give the Gift of Science and Gender Policing

A recent series of blog posts at Scientific American criticizes a company's offering of extremely gendered science kits for kids, including thirteen perfume and makeup related chemistry investigations for girls and six rocket, outer space, and slime related editions for boys, all complete with pink and blue wrapping as appropriate.  What is especially interesting is that it there is actually much of the same stuff going on in both versions of these kits, minus some extra rocket and space stuff for the boys :soap-making, slime analysis, crystal growth.   Yet the girls' are exclusively about beauty, while the boys' are all about shenanigans and grossing out your sister.

So while you're giving your child the gift of budding Scientific Curiosity this Christmas, you can wrap it up in a nice layer of gender policing, because you know, girls have to be beautiful while boys just want to make things explode!

Naturally, I find the very concept so all kinds of wrong that it gets my blood boiling, from the insult that pink and sparkly helps girls be interested in something to the subtle yet toxic reinforcement that if you are a girl it's only normal after all for you to care about being beautiful and all of the shit that does to one's self-image later in life.  Whenever you say "hey look, we changed this up so that your can do this too even though you're different!" you are subtly implying that all those things that make you different are set in stone and sort of bad for you but we know you can't help it.  Or, as the post author put it:


"In tandem, the messages conveyed by these kits seems to be saying:  you can like science without transgressing the boundaries of acceptable feminism--but those boundaries are important, and you would do well to learn to stay within them."

However, this whole charade of reaching out to young members of each gender differently is a subtle, subtle affair, because there are girls who really love pink and sparkles, who like to be pretty and smell good, who might also actually like science.   It is insulting to dumb something down to make it acceptable--but it is also hugely insulting, and a whole separate load of gender-related baggage, to assume that a girl who likes pink and sparkly is also dumb and not also totally into science of her own accord.  Pink and sparkles are neutral, not an indication of inferiority.

There is nothing inherently right or wrong in liking to smell good and look good or in liking slime and to watch things explode...within reason. (Clearly I'm talking Mythbusters here, not terrorism.)  It's is just when you start wrapping things in contrived narratives that tell kids that because you are a girl, you should like to be beautiful (and when you're an adult you'll find that if you aren't beautiful then you aren't desirable and if you aren't desirable than you are a failure), because you are a boy you should like to blow things up (and when you're an adult you'll find out that if you don't like violence then you aren't masculine and if you aren't masculine then you are a failure and possibly gay or a woman and that's even worse) that we get into what's actually a really toxic and mean present to give to some unsuspecting little kid.

There is an incredibly fine line between "oh, you like to be pretty, well there's some science you can learn about that, too!" and "you're a girl so you must to like to be pretty (even if that doesn't mean you can't do science.)" I doubt the creators of those kits intended anything like the last message, and probably meant all the best, but I'm not convinced that the second message isn't what they've ended up selling anyway.

This is not a new trend in children's toys, but science is really something it is worth just keeping all the gendered crap out of.  We don't need all of that baggage.  What's masculine or feminine about looking through a telescope, envisioning a deep sea creature, collecting interesting rocks or shining light through a prism, anyway?  What has to be so masculine or feminine either about launching a rocket or making soap?

Knowing Something

Sometimes at my new work I spend a great deal of time reading building code and Material Safety Data Sheets.  Surprisingly enough, I actually found that interesting, at least for a certain time span.

It used to be that things buildings- and construction- related were mysteries to me, falling into this realm of mystically un-knowable knowledge that most males all seemed to just be born with, but most females were automatically never to touch.  Not like there was anything overt about that, it was just stuff men knew about and little girls like me didn't.  Any information about these things that I overheard were all carried on by men who I was less comfortable around anyway so why would I want to join in as a shy little girl, plus they all contained references to this whole network of information I just had no access to, so of course couldn't contribute, so of course felt confused by and never particularly confident about these topics when they came up later in my life.

It turns out I just had to have somebody explain to me what the jargon means, what tools exist and how they are used, what practices are followed, etc.  The difference between knowing and not was just that:  taking the time to acquire the information, and most importantly, learning it from someone who recognized that I just hadn't learned it yet, not who assumed I didn't know because I was stupid, or a girl and thus stupid.

If we don't teach girls technical things, then of course they aren't going to know technical things, because you have to learn about something to know about it.  It's not some inherent gender difference, it's not some inborn differentiation of knowledge, it's just whether you bothered to learn or not, and somebody who already knew bothered to help you learn.

Any inborn inherent stuff that might shape this situation could come from gendered tendencies to think differently due to physically different brain wiring, perhaps leading to different levels of interest in the information.  I'm not entirely convinced that that is enough of an explanation in itself, because does interest drive exposure, or does exposure drive interest?  There's more than one way to think through any sort of problem, and while people have natural strengths and weaknesses, we've seen that the brain is plastic enough to get good at many things with practice--as long as you do, actually, have a chance to practice and not just hold the flashlight.  I didn't give a damn about cars and houses when I was little:  I wanted to run into the woods and write stories in my head--although I did also want to build forts and a tree house and I liked my lego set a lot.  So I wasn't exposed to fixing cars or building stuff because I wasn't really interested, and if my dad needed help, he asked me to hold the flashlight.  If I had been pushed into doing these things instead of just passively watching, as I had been pushed into doing other things that I am now confident in my ability to do, would I have been more interested, and thus know more than I do today about them? 

Who the heck knows, and who really cares.  The point is, like I read in a National Park Service pamphlet on communicating science:  "If you don't know how to fix a car, you're not stupid, you just didn't learn how to do it yet."  Don't assume you can't do something just because you haven't learned about it before, and just because there are plenty of other people who have and you aren't like them.  You aren't like them, in the sense that you haven't tried and they have.  So try.

Pronouns Are Not Neutral

On the whole gender-neutral third-person-singular pronoun thing:  "they" and "their" when used such as in "looks like somebody lost their wallet, they can re-claim it at lost and found," are grammatically incorrect, although unfortunately quite widespread.  Is the widespread nature of this grammatical foax pas due to a failure of Our Educational System to impart or even value correct language use, an artifact of our egalitarian values and/or the rise of feminism, or just because humans are grammatically lazy? 

Variety in language is driven by humans leaving off sounds and words here and there, omissions are transmitted through the generations until the omission becomes the norm, and room for another lazy change can begin and eventually multiple mutually incomprehensible languages result.  Now that we have written language this phenomenon has been greatly retarded, so that our English resembles, more or less, the English of three hundred years ago mines thee speelling--but lazy options still exist to be exploited and eventually made into mainstream.  Language will still change, eventually.  Thus, although sloppy, although irritating to Those of Us Who Care, "they" and "their" as singular pronouns are certainly here to stay.  If you use 'em, you won't be alone. 

Although on the subject of gender-neutral pronouns, and the use of the "new" correct grammatical form: "looks like somebody lost his or her wallet, he or she can re-claim it...", as opposed to the "old" correct grammatical form: "somebody lost his wallet, he can re-claim it..." (no matter if the wallet-loser was a he or a she, when we don't know), I have this series of things to say:

Yes, you could disparage gender-neutrality in speech or written text as mushy over-the-top-political-correctness, pronouns being just words.  You could assert that we're all Adults (of Both Genders) in this world, we can use our considerable powers of intellect and observation to realize that the general "he", "Man" and "mankind" actually imply both genders--so stop getting your panties into a twist over it.  ("Get your panties in a twist"--gender irony in that statement, much, that I just used with wild abandon?)

Personally I take a middle-of-the-road view of the subject (and I do try to use "he or she", or else rephrase third-person-generalities to be plural, or dispense with pronouns and just refer to the subject directly).  It is true that my life is not destroyed or invalidated by reading "he", "his", "mankind" all day long.  I am quite able to extend a mere sonoral and symbolic representation of an idea to encompass both sub-categories of human and can remind others that they ought to be doing so as well.  Furthermore, I do not need the approval of the authors nor explicit symbolic acknowledgement by them* in order to be a living, thinking, reading, participating member of the human race or otherwise affected by whatever subject matter this symbolic-of-both-genders "he" is involved in--not that most of these authors are consciously trying to deny my status thereof by failing to write "he or she" for whatever reason they fail to do so.

So I agree that it does not matter what pronoun one uses, not substantially.  Especially not with all the other gender issues in our culture that are extremely whacked: the frigid/slut dichotomy (and the particularly chauvinistic notion that those who fall into the "slut" category deserve no respect and have no boundaries at all including personal safety), men who act like Mel Gibson, that whole unattainable beauty norm thing, and not when we have for across-the-ocean neighbors people who drop acid on schoolgirls.  To name a just few, and only things related to being female.  In that sense, who cares about some pronouns in the English language?

It doesn't matter, in comparison to a lot of other things that DO matter, but it does make a difference.  Words and word choice are not and will never be meaningless.  Human interaction is about meaning, and words--especially in non-face-to-face interactions like news, books, articles, the 'net--are how meaning is relayed from one person to another.  The collective experience of someone who encounters pronouns that are sometimes used to differentiate one sub-category of human from her category and must recognize the instances in which that pronoun should be taken to instead include her sub-category as well is a different experience than that of someone who reads things about humanity and doesn't have to constantly do slight, subtle mental gymnastics to feel included.  The difference isn't hard to recognize, but the issue is not about how hard it is to make that mental correction, it is about the subtle but real social implications of not being explicitly included.  It is no difficulty, relatively, no terrible hardship--but it is a real difference, and one that doesn't take a whole lot of effort to alleviate.

So when I read, say, a physics book, or any kind of science or philosophical writing that describes "humans" instead of "man", that describes the experience of a physics student and sometimes refers to that student as a "she"...it makes a difference to me.  I don't have to remind myself that the author most likely meant me too and if he didn't then screw him I don't need his damn approval to contemplate a physics problem or human development--with some inclusive pronouns every once in a while I don't even have to go there.  Then I know I am not an afterthought, not that exception to the rule that says people (and especially physicists) are male unless otherwise differentiated.  I'm just someone who is involved.

Inclusion is vitally important to a species as intensely social as Homo sapiens, and when inclusion is explicit rather than merely implied, that is a difference.  Furthermore, inclusion in something as weighty as our evolutionary or cultural history (where "man" "man" "man" is prevalent) or our understanding of the physical world is, you know, a Big Deal.  Those things affect and are affected by both genders and were so even before we started remembering to include the female when we wrote about them.  It is thus not out of political correctness because now we value that sort of thing that we adopt gender neutral speech, rather we are being true to exactly whom has always been involved. Even in physics.

So when an author makes that extra step, when he or she makes sure the hypothetical humans in question are not Default Male or not only Default Male...(by using he or she, since good authors aren't going to make the mistake of using "they", oh no) it makes my day that might lighter, that much better.  I think "you know what, thanks."

*Them, they, their/s, are third-person plural pronouns, in this sentence the subject being replaced with a pronoun, "the authors", is plural, and so it is gramatically fine and dandy to use the third-person plural pronouns in this case.

Particle Physics, Climate Change, and Dinner With Vera Rubin, Part III: Dinner With Vera Rubin

 Read Part I here.
Read Part II here.

Read article full text on the SPS website, and see a photo of Dr. Rubin and the author.


One of the benefits of being an undergraduate at this meeting was the opportunity to interact with renowned astronomer Dr. Vera Rubin.  She gave a presentation on her work to the undergraduates attending the meeting, and played on my team in Physics Jeopardy (we lost).  At 82 years of age, Dr. Rubin's presentation on her work studying the rotation of galaxies was both interesting and anecdotal:  with a colleague, it was her observation that the stars in other galaxies complete their rotation much faster than predicted by Newton's law of gravitation. It was this observation that that led to the postulation of dark matter!

Several of the students, myself included, were invited to a special dinner on the town with Dr. Rubin as our guest of honor.  We piled into a circular table at a nice Italian restaurant.  I had the privilege of sitting next to Dr. Rubin for the first half of the meal, and she was very eager to hear our stories and share her own.  She spoke candidly about both her joys and struggles in astronomy:  from the advisor who told her she would not be allowed to present her research at a conference, but that he could present it for her in his name; to the lone scientist at that conference who, instead of making a big deal about the disaster of her presence, asked enlightening questions and offered to help her publish her work in her own name.  She said she knew she wanted to be an astronomer from the time she was a little girl and could stare at the stars from the window of her bedroom—back when she believed that everything in the world could be learned from books.  Discovering that everything could not be learned from books only increased her desire to learn more, and through hard work and undaunted determination, with the help of a supportive husband and family, she succeeded at receiving her PhD, making important contribution to our knowledge of galaxies, and raising four children.

Perhaps inspired by the Pope decor, Dr. Rubin told another story as the evening came to a close.  She told us about a time when she was able to meet the Pope, as an astronomer selected to be a member of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.  (As a member of that organization, Dr. Rubin shares an honor with such notable scientists as Steven Hawking, Werner Heisenberg and Paul Dirac.)  Apparently, members receive elaborate jewelry as indication of their membership, which Dr. Rubin had not thought to wear on her evening in the Vatican.  She was expecting, along with the other members of the Academy present, to have an opportunity to meet with the Pope, an opportunity that was extended to members alone and not to their families.  Because she had not brought her jewelry identifying her as a member, and because she was one of the few female members of the Academy of Sciences, she was stopped by three separate Cardinals during the course of her ascent, and told that only members would be allowed to see the Pope.  By the time it was her turn to speak to the Pope and shake his hand, she laughed to recall that she was very angry.

"I told him that I was one of five female members of the Pontifical Academy," said Dr. Rubin, "and that was all I said." 

In response, the Pope looked thoughtful, said, "Oh?" and paused.  "Is that all?" he asked, to which she replied, stonily, "Yes."

"Well, there will be more," replied the Pope, and that concluded the interview.

Over the course of the evening, Dr. Rubin was inducted into Sigma Pi Sigma, joining many of the students present who were also members of the SPS honor society.  When she accepted her certificate and pin, she told us how envious she was of all of us, because we would go on to learn and discover the things she did not yet know.

And that—whether you got into science because you can see the stars from your bedroom window, or because, like me, your parents watched at lot of Star Trek—sums up both the privilege and the bane of being a scientist.  We do, especially at conferences like these, get to experience something of the breadth of what human beings have learned about our world and our universe, which grows steadily year by year, and encompasses more fascinating things than one lifetime alone could spend in awe over discovering.  And yet the more we discover, the more we realize what remains that we don't yet know, what we won't be able to know until more scientists and fresh insight come along to uncover it.  I wonder, and I certainly hope, that the mysteries of dark matter are solved, the elusive Higgs found, and any potential climate crises averted with new and more sustainable technology, within my lifetime.  Yet by the time any new discoveries come to pass, I'm sure there will be even more fascinating questions to explore.

Particle Physics, Climate Change, and Dinner With Vera Rubin, Part II: Perspectives on Minorties in Physics

 Read Part I here.

Read article full text on the SPS website.  


Two other sessions of interest at this meeting [The April meeting of the American Physical Society] were “Perspectives on The Outlook for Women in Physics”, and “Strategies for Improving the Climate for Diversity in Physics Departments.”  In the former, representatives from industry, national laboratories, and academia presented on recent changes and programs put into place to encourage female representation, while in the later, strategies for improving participation among minorities of all kinds were discussed.  I thought the second session was more valuable because it proposed multiple solutions, and was well attended by male and female physicists, students, and industry workers alike.

The speakers explained several programs that have been put into place to address continued low minority participation in physics, especially at the highest levels of physics achievement.  The list included observational site visits to departments requesting them by the APS Committee on the Status of Women in Physics, workshops in which department chairs receive a crash course on issues and strategies for improving the climate of diversity in their departments, and more recently, broad and open conversations brought to the campuses themselves.  Many of these initiatives have been remarkably successful at mitigating some of the more obvious barriers, such as work/life balance issues, the provision of equal support and networking opportunities for all students, regardless of race or gender, and awareness of unconsciously biased behavior.  Many difficult hurdles have been overcome, though many more remain.

A key feature of these sessions was the discussion of best practices for departments and minority studies.  For departments, one of the simplest suggestions was to make lounges an inviting place for students.  If there are inviting, public places to meet and network, all students have an opportunity to be involved, and some of the informal networking that often leaves minorities isolated can be made more inclusive.  This is something that has worked very well in my own undergraduate department, which boasts a very high proportion of female students, as well as a large proportion of students who are constructively involved with department activities.  Other suggestions included celebrating the accomplishments of all students and faculty whenever such accomplishments occur, and never tolerating rudeness and derogatory behavior, especially if one is not a member of the group being singled out.  Advisors and faculty should take care to build in students and colleagues an identity that extends beyond his or her minority status as the "token" member of a particular group.  Finally, the kind of climate that encourages competition for competition's sake, demands extensive after-hours work weeks, and ignores the concerns of the outside world is something that is becoming increasingly undesirable for young women and men who want to balance a rewarding career in physics with a rewarding family life.  Departments and institutions as a whole should take care to observe how policies might inadvertently deter some of their potential talent.

Some of the advice that came up for women and unrepresented groups is to go after networking aggressively, rather than wait for it to come to you, and apply for grants, funding and positions aggressively as well.  As one speaker put it, in reference to general climate and atmosphere, "Have a sense of humor, but don't be a doormat."  It is important to understand situations and to pick the correct battles, but at the same time, there is no need to tolerate discrimination.

Dr. Sherry Yennello, a speaker from Texas A&M University, commented that "physicists are the best problem solvers there are, so let's wrap our heads around this problem."  With all of the ideas, programs, and open dialogue I witnessed at these sessions, a truly inclusive and collaborative environment is something we physicists seem quite capable of building.

Stay tuned for the final installment over the next few days.