Why Do Men Become Scientists?
There's a fascinating essay about the real reason there are hardly any women in science. The answer it gives is that science is an undesirable career, not in the best interest of those intelligent enough to do it, and men are in it because they're kids who never grew up.
"Some scientists are like kids who never grow up. They love what they do, are excited by the possibilities of their research, and wear a big smile most days. Although these people are, by Boston standards, ridiculously poor and they will never be able to afford a house (within a one-hour drive of their job) or support a family, I don't feel sorry for them.
Unfortunately, this kind of child-like joy is not typical."
The author continues:
"A lot more men than women choose to do seemingly irrational things such as become petty criminals, fly homebuilt helicopters, play video games, and keep tropical fish as pets (98 percent of the attendees at the American Cichlid Association convention that I last attended were male). Should we be surprised that it is mostly men who spend 10 years banging their heads against an equation-filled blackboard in hopes of landing a $35,000/year post-doc job?"
And is that a bad thing? (Other than the part about being a petty criminal, of course. I don't know why he has to lump that in there.) I'm have weird interests myself. Most of the arguments in the essay against a science career are of a financial nature, and bore me. I don't actually know any scientists personally, but my stereotype of them is someone motivated by ideological abstractions, like truth and knowledge and humanitarianism, rather than money. In contrast, the article says:
"A good career is one that pays well, in which you have a broad choice of full-time and part-time jobs, in which there is some sort of barrier to entry so that you won't have to compete with a lot of other applicants, in which there are good jobs in every part of the country and internationally, and in which you can enjoy job security in middle age and not be driven out by young people willing to work 100 hours per week."
What kind of people think about that when they're choosing a major at age 19? Heck, I can't think on that level even now. I think "I have an awesome life. Now how am I going to pay for it?"
On the one hand, I'm mature enough to take on a well-paying job that sucks my soul out through my eyeballs, and I would do a good job, not complain, and fulfill my dreams after hours. (Link: "11 Tips For Surviving Your Day Job With Your Creativity Intact.") On the other hand, the people whose jobs I admire most are like my friend Tomak, who has to sleep on a cot in his sculpture studio, or like my friend , an animator (don't know if he's a starving artist or not). They are living the dream.
My biggest problem with the essay is that I really don't want to think of women as that boring, uninteresting, and soulless.
Comments
tammylc on Mar. 2, 2006 7:36 PM
I don't think it's as much about being "boring, uninteresting and soulless" and more about being practical, which I think women have tended to need to be more so than men. It was up to women to figure out how to make the dollars stretch to feed and clothes the kids, for example. Women's lib gave some woman a chance to be as free and playful and what have you as men. But at the same time, we've seen a rise in single mothers, and girls raised by single mothers, who don't want to be in the situations their mothers were, and thus tend to value a good paying job over emtional and intellectual satisfaction.
zifferent on Mar. 2, 2006 7:52 PM
I think that women, being more supposedly more socially conscious, aren't as willing to be nerds. It's not socially acceptable for women to be fall below the norm in social context.
Heck, it's something I fought against for decades, before I figured out that it wasn't so bad being a nerd, and that there is a broader geek community out there to belong.
Also, maybe if we stop trying to sell girls Barbie and Disney Princesses and expect them to do their own mental heavy lifting (my wife as much of a feminist as she is, still prefers to defer hard choices to me) there would be women in the sciences.
rachelann1977 on Mar. 2, 2006 9:42 PM
It's not that there are fewer female nerds, it's just that men really don't pay attention to them, even the nerdy guys. Nerdy guys look at all the pretty girls rejecting them, and they never notice that there is a group of "invisible" girls that they themselves are unknowingly rejecting.
As a nerdy girl myself, I tend to notice the other nerds, since they are my salvation and hope for myself, and humanity as a whole.
I totally agree with Tammy's assessment. I have chosen to go to medical school instead of going into graduate psychology or some other graduate science program. My choice was primarily based on what I thought would offer me the best career choices in my present society, so that I could one day support a family. I was 16 when I made that decision, 19 when I reaffirmed it for the first time, 21 when I reaffirmed it for the second time, and 24 when I finally made it to medical school. So, a 19-yr-old is totally capable of that decision, IMHO.
However, the fact that I am more conscientious than idelistic does not make me any less of a nerd, or any less interested in purely intelllectual or otherwise "weird" pursuits. I am, always have been, and always will be, a complete nerd.
overthesun on Mar. 2, 2006 10:04 PM
I, as her husband, Second that comment. If she had not committed to a pursuit that would pay the bills, she would be in graduate school for something geeky, instead of medical school.
Not that med school isn't geeky . . .. It's just mixed with respectability.
zifferent on Mar. 2, 2006 10:29 PM
First let me point out that I specifically prefer nerd-women.
Onward to my point.
Your situation is very interesting indeed. I myself prefer do work with something that makes me happy. Money has never been important, and it's been my observation that a person can raise a family on whatever comes in the door. Like the next poster eternalmaiden points out, I am very likely to define myself by my job, but there again I am part of a minority.
Most technicians I know are the exact opposite of me. They don't even want to look at a computer when they get home. When I go home after a long day working on computers, the first thing I want to do is get on my computer. The really interesting thing I've found is that the more someone is likely to join a Linux User's Group the more like me they are, e.g. in love with technology and computers to the point of obsession.
While it was my love of Unix that initially started me on the open source path, it was my passion for all things computer that addicted me. Open source allowed me to play with all the technology toys I dreamed about, without having to pay for huge cash outlays for software to do so. I think it's pretty much the similar to most LUG members' early experiences.
But the thing I can't help but notice when I attend the various meetings is the almost complete lack of women. Given that techies are paid fairly well, and if you're smart, good and obsessive, you can easily land a longer term position anywhere in the country, I don't see how his theories hold water. According to his theory smart young women should be flocking to computer industry, and I just don't see that happening. Obviously, something else is happening here.
I think he's more than a little blinded by his own bitterness about his own career choices and doubly blinded by his chauvinism. Also that his view of reality has been warped because he's been off in academia-lala-land too long.
The fact is, even outside of academia, in the science and engineering fields the ratio of women to men is very low. His theories don't address it.
eternalmaiden on Mar. 2, 2006 9:27 PM
Another possibility is that men feel that their jobs say more about their self worth and value as a person than women do. Men are more inclined to sacrifice security for something that *says* something about them, or something that they can pour themselves into with gusto and fervor.
I know that I'm more likely to take a job that is less satisfying in exchange for more freedom to do the things that are satisfying. Whether that means more money or a more flexible schedule, or even good networking opportunities.
treebones on Mar. 3, 2006 4:29 PM
Ah. But I suspect many women get to do the things that we find interesting and soul-fulfilling - we just can't get a paycheck for them. So, we go and get something which will give us the resources to pay for our soul-fulfilling, interesting off-work habits.
rmeidaking on Mar. 3, 2006 9:23 PM
Speaking as a female who originally went to college to study engineering and wound up in business, it's not that simple. Whatever they say, it's not that simple.
I found science was trying to make me specialize when I didn't want to. I wanted to study a little bit of biology, chemistry, geology, and apply it all in some sort of engineering. Science wanted me to concentrate on one area, to know EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW about one itsy bitsy topic. Bleah. That's no fun! I used to my knowledge base as, "Knee deep in every topic, but not swimming in anything." (And I guess that's still true.)
I found that I could work at business (specifically bookkeeping) and have enough time left over to read things I really wanted to know. I'm still here; I still haven't starved; I can still hold semi-intelligent conversations with lots of people. I can know a bit about everything, and not much about anything, and it's okay.
My life is on my terms, not those of Science.
avt-tor on Mar. 7, 2006 1:48 AM
My mom was a physicist (until she retired). My aunt taught geology and earth science. My niece is studying genetics. I don't have a sister or female first cousin, but my (closer) female second cousins include a telecommunications engineer, an optical engineer, a design engineer, and a couple of high school science teachers.
I'm not seeing a problem with "landing" a $30-$35K job. Generally people don't start at the top. I know plenty of people who don't have science degrees for whom that looks like a pretty good raise.
I can only assume the main reason some women who might have aptitude don't end up in the sciences is that they don't have the right role models. The other obstacle they may face is that some people don't think certain jobs are right for certain genders. When I was growing up, this was called "sexism", and I don't see a reason to validate it. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
Leave a Comment