There’s still a gender gap in the sciences, with far fewer women than men in research jobs, and those women earning substantially less, but it doesn’t help when journalists treat every female scientist they profile as an archetype of perseverance.
Such was the consensus that emerged from a discussion prompted by a March 5 post at Double X Science by freelancer Christie Aschwanden, who observed that:
Campaigns to recognize outstanding female scientists have led to a recognizable genre of media coverage. Let’s call it “A lady who…” genre. You’ve seen these profiles, of course you have, because they’re everywhere. The hallmark of “A lady who…” profile is that it treats its subject’s sex as her most defining detail. She’s not just a great scientist, she’s a woman! And if she’s also a wife and a mother, those roles get emphasized too.
Aschwanden cited a few examples littered with phrases like, “she is married, has two children and has been able to keep up with her research,” and proposed that, as a means of avoiding such gratuitous gender profiles, reporters adopt a simple, seven-part test. To pass, a story cannot mention:
- 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…”
Aschwanden dubbed her checklist, “The Finkbeiner Test,” in honor of her colleague, science writer Ann Finkbeiner, who had written a post for the blog Last Word on Nothing in January about an assignment she’d received from Nature to write a profile of a female astronomer.
Finkbeiner, an award-winning journalist, noted that the assignment had come “just before the magazine announced publicly that it needs to redress its problem with a gender balance that favors males,” and that both she and her subject were “suspiciously female.”
“I honestly don’t care,” Finkbeiner concluded. “What I won’t do, however, is write about this astronomer as a woman.”
Finkbeiner went on to explain that she’d written many gender-oriented profiles over the course of her career at various editors’ behest, and learned all about sexual harassment and the challenges associated with having both a career and a family.
Some progress notwithstanding, those problems have not gone away, she continued, but she had grown “bored” with writing about them, and pledged to ignore gender in the upcoming profile. “I’m going to pretend she’s just an astronomer,” she wrote.
Finkbeiner stressed in her post that she was describing a personal decision, but expressed wholehearted support for Aschwanden’s test in a recent interview.
However, both she and Aschwanden, whom I also interviewed, emphasized that the test should apply mainly to the sort of general-interest scientist profiles that one might find in The New York Times or the front section of Nature, which are supposed to focus on professional accomplishments.
There is plenty of need to write about gender issues, the two agreed, but the point is to do it right. In an email, Aschwanden wrote:
A lot of commenters have said, ‘But isn’t it sometimes ok to mention these things about a woman?’ And my answer is, yes. In some circumstances it’s perfectly fine. For instance, if you’re writing a story about sexism in science or about the gender gap in leadership roles in science or you’re writing about sex-related issues specifically.
What’s not ok is to turn a story about a scientist’s professional life into one about her personal life or her gender roles. What’s especially problematic is to frame the story, ‘and the most remarkable thing is that she accomplished all of this while being a woman!’
Still, the virtue of some rules in Aschwanden’s test is difficult to see at first. Take the rule of “no firsts.” In the comments section below her post for Last Word on Nothing, Finkbeiner explained that no sooner had she taken the vow to ignore gender, than she caught herself writing that the astronomer she was profiling was the first to win a certain award. After a reader urged her to stick to her pledge, she removed it.
*Ghez’s fascination with telescopes and her pioneering work with speckle imaging, which led to proof that a supermassive black hole lies at the center of the Milky Way—and it has nothing to do with her gender.*
Absolutely, except it did say she wanted to be a ballerina as a child :-)
#1 Posted by vijee, CJR on Sat 30 Mar 2013 at 09:37 PM
While the "no firsts' rule is very appropriate, what I really want to see more of is 'seconds'. "She's the second woman to win .." tells me that the award committee isn't just looking to check off the ''female recipient' box.
#2 Posted by Jo/e Noakes, CJR on Sat 30 Mar 2013 at 09:40 PM
This is great stuff! I would say this applies not only to female scientists, but to most profession-based articles about people who happen to be women.
Especially in the case of something that discusses work from decades past, if the subject is female, then yes, as a reader I will probably have a little internal "GO WOMEN!" moment. That's my prerogative as a reader. But if the article is about science or her work as a scientist, do let's stick to that.
#3 Posted by Evelyn Stice, CJR on Sun 31 Mar 2013 at 08:12 AM
The rule of "no firsts" is a difficult one for me. I think it can be quite valuable to recognize the significance of a first when it demonstrates how much harder a victory it may have been to achieve. Everyone that follows in those footsteps has it a little easier by virtue of the fact that the barrier was previously broken by that pioneer. The breaking of barriers matters. It was an added burden, it signifies an added victory. I think it's worth remembering the history involved and noting how change is won. Progress is an inspiring part of these gender gap situations, I don't think we should leave that part out.
#4 Posted by Marykate Clark, CJR on Sun 31 Mar 2013 at 12:15 PM
As a woman who is a lawyer, and whose female relatives ran a wholesale frozen foods company in the age when Yvonne Brill was doing her (yes, "brilliant") work, it is actually important to acknowledge the totality of what she accomplished. It was damn hard. And the reason that most men are not credited with this side of her accomplishments is that they did not do it. As we used to say:"They had wives". Both my female relatives and myself have shared the same battles. While there are stellar women such as Dr. Brill (at least I assume she had at least one PhD - or could "challenge for credt" if none was granted her, as often women did the work without the acknowledged accreditation), what we really need to do is not keep placing these same expectations on young women coming up. So the problem is that the journalists, or at least obituary writers, lack the literary gifts to really give credit to how awesomely challenging it was for her to accomplish all that she did. I only wish that women such as her were more celebrated by women and men in their lifetimes, and it did not take another obituary to bring her amazing life to our attention.
#5 Posted by Victoria Lehman, CJR on Sun 31 Mar 2013 at 10:51 PM
Here's a radical idea. It's called "freedom of speech" and it means people can say whatever they want.
#6 Posted by p-jay, CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 12:05 AM
It's fine to say that science articles should focus on science, but I really take issue with how dismissive Finkbeiner is about women scientists' comments on gender discrimination and imbalance in their fields. I am young female researcher and instructor in Computer Science at an Ivy League institution. I did my PhD at a similar institution. Unlike astronomy where there are many prominent women, in my field there are rarely more than 10% women at any conference or in any course (that I take or teach). I am interested in how highly successful women in science arrange the logistics of their lives, because I need to arrange the logistics of my life. I am interested in how they deal emotionally and practically with navigating a space that is habitually-arranged for men with support staff at home because I have to navigate that same space. When I experience bias, it is extremely useful to know that it is not "all-in-my-head," and that other women have been able to overcome similar issues. Dealing with gendered assumptions about my competence and career is a fundamental part of my experience; if women scientists go out of their way to tell you that this an important issue to them, maybe you should respect what they are trying to communicate instead of make-believing that ignoring the problems that we deal with will disappear if ignored.
#7 Posted by Gwen Spencer, CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 02:02 PM
"Unlike astronomy where there are many prominent women in my field there are rarely more than 10% women at any conference or in any course (that I take or teach)",
Consider the fact that there are many prominent women astronomers in its historical content. I'm old enough to remember when that number (In the U.S. anyway) was almost zero. Same with American women medical doctors, prominent or otherwise. (BTW, here in the Philippines where my wife and I live as American expatriates, the percentage of women in medicine, engineering, law, and other fields once thought of as "men's" professions have been higher than that in the U.S. for many decades.
I'm willing to bet that over time, the number of women in computer sciences will also just naturally grow on its own accord.
#8 Posted by Rick Levy, CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 09:02 PM
A more reasonable stance on equality in research would take into account the relative number of articles submitted for publication and the number accepted.
The gender rate in the sciences should have been mentioned in this article. What if 3% of the articles submitted to Nature for publication were written by women and 15% of the published articles had female authors? We don't know if that is the case or not, even though I am inclined to believe it isn't the case.
Including those points would strengthen your argument if the data supported your position. Arguments that are full of potential holes will be picked apart by people significantly more sexist than I am. I hope future articles will make a more complete argument.
#9 Posted by Eric, CJR on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 11:55 PM
The people who think this is a free speech issue don't understand the concept of free speech.
#10 Posted by matt, CJR on Tue 2 Apr 2013 at 03:10 PM
Herstory is as important as history. The scales aren't balanced. Men are not asked how they balance family and work, and until that is as ubiquitous as reportage on women.. as the article pointed out. Women were not in orchestras until the idea of blind auditions, listening to the player without knowing what gender they are. Until an equal rights amendment actually passes, acknowledging achievement is important. Not dwelling on gender as the chief feature is also important. We're not there yet. Wouldn't it be interesting if articles, grant requests and job applications were assigned a numerical value, and let the best ideas contend?
#11 Posted by Heidi Reidell, CJR on Tue 2 Apr 2013 at 03:33 PM
What about Women (and men) of Color (African-, Asian- & Latino/a-Americans and Indigenous Peoples)?!
#12 Posted by John Lindsay, CJR on Tue 2 Apr 2013 at 06:39 PM
I really enjoyed National Geographic's article on Edith Widder:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hc9uc
I completely forgot that she was a woman for a bit. Believed everything in science was gender neutral, for a little bit.
#13 Posted by Aida, CJR on Thu 9 May 2013 at 08:35 PM
I'll second Gwen's comment, particularly her point about wanting to see how highly successful women in science arrange the logistics of their lives. So many of the great female role models we see in the media clearly made those achievements at the expense of a family life involving children (eg, Sally Ride, Gertrude Elion), or with a great deal of ongoing, life-long support from family members who believed in them (eg, Ursula LeGuin). I actually found the story of Yvonne Brill, who I'd never heard of, inspiring and wanted to know more about how (other than sheer intellectual firepower) she managed to move in and out of full time work and into different geographies, and continue to receive opportunities to innovate. She appears to have been very adaptable, persistent, and to have neither taken offense nor accepted offensive behavior. But she also fed people. That makes friends. So let some of us have our role model, and learn what we can use from a life well lived.
#14 Posted by M. Eiland, CJR on Sat 25 May 2013 at 12:05 PM
"Here's a radical idea. It's called "freedom of speech" and it means people can say whatever they want.
#6 Posted by p-jay on Mon 1 Apr 2013 at 12:05 AM"
Here's an ordinary idea: You're an imbecile who is incapable of understanding anything on this page or why the subject of freedom of speech is not relevant to the discussion.
#15 Posted by Marcel Kincaid, CJR on Sat 29 Jun 2013 at 07:09 AM