STEMinism & Women in Biology: The Female of the Species

[Stanmenistan]

Weird N Wild Creatures trading cards and Zoobooks are great introductions to zoology and natural history for young people, especially girls.

Yes, it is great Zoobooks is still going.

A quote from Everyday Feminism "We have a deluge of programs specifically catering to girls and underrepresented minorities that have an interest in a future STEM career. These programs range from one-day conferences to full summer camps.

For those less interested in workshops and classes, there are toys that teach them about physics, and building, and coding" and yet not one of them teaches Biology.

Doctor Mae Jemison fortunately mentions gardening as encouraging young people to get into STEM

Jezebel fortunately mentions the girl scout badges "go on environmentally conscious camping trips", the “Survival Camper” badge and “Eco Camper” badge when discussing Girl scouts and STEM badges

How hormones influence job choices

This article mentions many young hopeful female Biologists

I can't believe the Carnegie Science Center "engineering, chemistry, and robotics programming (workshops) for Girl Scouts" and not a single one on Biology

Prince Ea said it best: we are not apart from nature
We are a part of nature
And to betray nature is to betray us
To save nature, is to save us
Because whatever you're fighting for:
Racism, Poverty, Feminism, Gay Rights
Or any type of Equality
It won't matter in the least
Because if we don't all work together to save the environment
We will be equally extinct

[Ifreann]

So I ask again, where is the insult? If being a "soft" science is not a bad thing then how is it insulting to refer to biology as a "soft" science?

Because it is inaccurate.

Inaccuracy isn't insulting.

[Ethel mermania]

Because it is inaccurate.

Inaccuracy isn't insulting.

Depends on the context. In this case it's inaccurate and insulting, as it is meant to be dismissive of the field of biology and the people studying it.
It is especially moronic insult as the science of biology is our best hope for dealing with the current pandemic.

[Major-Tom]

I hardly know anything about STEM because I have an inferior brain, but, I imagine that if there are programs and initiatives encouraging women to get involved with the STEM field, then they're probably fine. It just seems so mundane and like a total non-issue.

[Ifreann]

Inaccuracy isn't insulting.

Depends on the context. In this case it's inaccurate and insulting, as it is meant to be dismissive of the field of biology and the people studying it.

How is it?

It is especially moronic insult as the science of biology is our best hope for dealing with the current pandemic.

The article was written in 2014.

[Ethel mermania]

Depends on the context. In this case it's inaccurate and insulting, as it is meant to be dismissive of the field of biology and the people studying it.

How is it?

It is especially moronic insult as the science of biology is our best hope for dealing with the current pandemic.

The article was written in 2014.

1. By saying women in biology dont count as women in science. Because biology isnt a hard science.
2. So we see the folly in 6 years. (6 years why are we talking like this just happened?)

[The Holy League of Saint Peter]

Interesting, I am not sure its as serious an issue as you make out but it's interesting none the less.

[Stanmenistan]

Inaccuracy isn't insulting.

Depends on the context. In this case it's inaccurate and insulting, as it is meant to be dismissive of the field of biology and the people studying it.
It is especially moronic insult as the science of biology is our best hope for dealing with the current pandemic.

How is it?

The article was written in 2014.

1. By saying women in biology dont count as women in science. Because biology isnt a hard science.
2. So we see the folly in 6 years. (6 years why are we talking like this just happened?)

Sir, I salute you.

I hardly know anything about STEM because I have an inferior brain, but, I imagine that if there are programs and initiatives encouraging women to get involved with the STEM field, then they're probably fine. It just seems so mundane and like a total non-issue.

Yes, of course there are programs and initiatives encouraging women to get involved with the STEM field. My concern is that they have a overt focus on non-life sciences, a STEM Field which already has many women working in it (e.g. veterinarians, doctors and nurses, zoologists, marine biologists, microbiologists etc.).

To me, this is/could be another form of femininity shaming, in that by praising masculine girls and women we encourage thinking of feminine girls and women as lesser. And in STEM Feminism (or STEMinism as it is sometimes known), this is especially concerning as the term STEM was coined popularized by a female biologist, Rita R. Colwell. Rita holds degrees in bacteriology, genetics, and oceanography and studies infectious diseases.

Not to mention the differences between boys and girls brains may play a part in their career decisions. I don't think adults should (intentionally or unintentionally) shame children for doing things expected (or unexpected) of their sex/gender.

Interesting, I am not sure its as serious an issue as you make out but it's interesting none the less.

It may not be too serious an issue now, but what about 5 years time? Next Decade? The next few decades? Will girls who want to be Engineers or Physicists think it is okay to bully girls who want to be vets or marine biologists? Will parents stop their daughters from playing with animal toys and force them to play with toy machines instead? Will Female biologists become pariahs of the scientific community, shunned as too feminine by a harsh mainstream narrative? It may seem unlikely, but I fear it may be a future that comes to pass if STEM Feminism does not do more to support women in biology. The earlier you notice a problem, the better and more effective the solution will usually be.

---

I wonder if Enchantimals will inspire any future female biologists...

I wish Steminist.com had an interview with Rita herself; the only things they've got is an interview with a younger environmental biologist inspired by her, MAILLE LYONS

[Stanmenistan]

New Poll up.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Interesting, I am not sure its as serious an issue as you make out but it's interesting none the less.

We're calling it STEMB now. Moving on ...

[Stanmenistan]

Interesting, I am not sure its as serious an issue as you make out but it's interesting none the less.

We're calling it STEMB now.

What does the B stand for? Please don't tell me it stands for Biology as Biology IS. A. SCIENCE!!!!!

The only STEMB acronym I know is Single-Tube Extractive Membrane Bioreactor.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Actions speak louder than words. If women claim to doubt that men are more prone to choosing to the physical sciences, and women to the life sciences, but tend to choose the latter, then as true as it is that they as individuals aren't a representative sample of the trend, collectively they're a stronger sample.

I'm not saying this to conflate "most biologists are women" with "most women are biologists" any more than I would for men and engineering. I'm just saying this has established a gender role we shouldn't stack the deck against any more than in its favour.

The real question is why if they're a majority of biologists are they not a majority of doctors; these are very closely related fields.

The irony is, this domination of biology might be the very thing stacking the deck against such gender stereotypes. If it's mostly women who object to this particular gender stereotype, is it possible that they may be stacking the deck against evidence of a role for sex hormones in this decision? At least in engineering, a parking garage's collapse would expose an engineer's lies and/or mistakes. What would be the equivalent of this for biologists?

[Cekoviu]

The real question is why if they're a majority of biologists are they not a majority of doctors; these are very closely related fields.

We're not a majority of biologists though, Stanmenistan has failed to demonstrate that.

The irony is, this domination of biology might be the very thing stacking the deck against such gender stereotypes. If it's mostly women who object to this particular gender stereotype, is it possible that they may be stacking the deck against evidence of a role for sex hormones in this decision?

That's an absurd conspiracy theory.

At least in engineering, a parking garage's collapse would expose an engineer's lies and/or mistakes. What would be the equivalent of this for biologists?

Other people redoing a study of theirs and repeatedly failing to obtain the same results?

[Stanmenistan]

Actions speak louder than words. If women claim to doubt that men are more prone to choosing to the physical sciences, and women to the life sciences, but tend to choose the latter, then as true as it is that they as individuals aren't a representative sample of the trend, collectively they're a stronger sample. I'm not saying this to conflate "most biologists are women" with "most women are biologists" any more than I would for men and engineering. I'm just saying this has established a gender role we shouldn't stack the deck against any more than in its favour.

Okay, but where is the line between telling girls/women it is okay to do and enjoy doing "masculine" things and shaming them for being feminine, even if unintentionally? If STEMinism doesn't do more to support female biologists, this is what I fear may happen.

The real question is why if they're a majority of biologists are they not a majority of doctors; these are very closely related fields.

Because women were trained overwhelmingly as nurses, another medical profession (and, to a lesser extent, they still do train mainly as nurses).

The irony is, this domination of biology might be the very thing stacking the deck against such gender stereotypes. If it's mostly women who object to this particular gender stereotype, is it possible that they may be stacking the deck against evidence of a role for sex hormones in this decision?

There may be some biological (nature) reasons why men and women choose different jobs and have different interests, it's not just because we live in a society (nurture).

At least in engineering, a parking garage's collapse would expose an engineer's lies and/or mistakes. What would be the equivalent of this for biologists?

Cekoviu described this better than I could.

Other people redoing a study of theirs and repeatedly failing to obtain the same results?

[Stanmenistan]

The real question is why if they're a majority of biologists are they not a majority of doctors; these are very closely related fields.

We're not a majority of biologists though, Stanmenistan has failed to demonstrate that.

I never claimed women were a majority of biologists, simply that Biology was a STEM field that had more women in it, but the vast majority of STEMinists rarely mentioned this fact. I wonder how many STEMinists know who Rita R Colwell even is.

The irony is, this domination of biology might be the very thing stacking the deck against such gender stereotypes. If it's mostly women who object to this particular gender stereotype, is it possible that they may be stacking the deck against evidence of a role for sex hormones in this decision?

That's an absurd conspiracy theory.

I'm not quite sure what he was going for either but I gave him the links to the parenting science and national geographic articles.

[Cekoviu]

That's an absurd conspiracy theory.

I'm not quite sure what he was going for either but I gave him the links to the parenting science and national geographic articles.

I've been learning to translate LUNA into English -- looks like he's saying that because women dominate biology and want to suppress that fact, women biologists suppress results indicating that hormones are associated with the pursuit of different scientific fields. Of course, the premises are patently untrue and the conclusion is unsupported, but that won't stop him!

[Rojava Free State]

I'm not quite sure what he was going for either but I gave him the links to the parenting science and national geographic articles.

I've been learning to translate LUNA into English -- looks like he's saying that because women dominate biology and want to suppress that fact, women biologists suppress results indicating that hormones are associated with the pursuit of different scientific fields. Of course, the premises are patently untrue and the conclusion is unsupported, but that won't stop him!

Yeah I couldn't understand what he meant at first but then as I read it, it dawned on me.

Clearly biologists have agreed that men are physically stronger on average than women, despite biology being mostly women. The scientists report the results as is and don't fabricate them, so if they're willing to report an ingrained difference in the sexes, I believe them when they say women don't naturally choose different jobs from men.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Okay, but where is the line between telling girls and women it is okay to "masculine" things and shaming them for being feminine, even if unintentionally? If STEMinism doesn't do more to support female biologists, this is what I fear may happen.

I'm under no illusions that being "neutral" on the subject is even definable, let alone feasible. All I ask is honesty. Honesty about what one really thinks "are" and "aren't" good OR bad reasons for any particular major/career choice.

Because women were trained overwhelmingly as nurses, another medical profession (and, to a lesser extent, they still do train mainly as nurses).

So? A degree in nursing is just as much of a springboard into entry to medical school as a degree in biochemistry, and it's arguably a better background on account of familiarizing them with what their colleagues are doing.

There may be some biological (nature) reasons why men and women choose different jobs and have different interests, it's not just because we live in a society (nurture).

I'm not claiming they buried "all" the evidence, but you don't have to bury "all" of it to bury "some" of it.

Cekoviu described this better than I could.

Other people redoing a study of theirs and repeatedly failing to obtain the same results?

Peer review only incentivizes truthfulness if one's peers are more honest. Any pervasive bias could make peer review stack the deck against this sort of thing.

[Ifreann]

How is it?

The article was written in 2014.

1. By saying women in biology dont count as women in science. Because biology isnt a hard science.
2. So we see the folly in 6 years. (6 years why are we talking like this just happened?)

What's the second word in the phrase "social science"?

---

Actions speak louder than words. If women claim to doubt that men are more prone to choosing to the physical sciences, and women to the life sciences, but tend to choose the latter, then as true as it is that they as individuals aren't a representative sample of the trend, collectively they're a stronger sample. I'm not saying this to conflate "most biologists are women" with "most women are biologists" any more than I would for men and engineering. I'm just saying this has established a gender role we shouldn't stack the deck against any more than in its favour.

Okay, but where is the line between telling girls/women it is okay to do and enjoy doing "masculine" things and shaming them for being feminine, even if unintentionally? If STEMinism doesn't do more to support female biologists, this is what I fear may happen.

The real question is why if they're a majority of biologists are they not a majority of doctors; these are very closely related fields.

Because women were trained overwhelmingly as nurses, another medical profession (and, to a lesser extent, they still do train mainly as nurses).

The irony is, this domination of biology might be the very thing stacking the deck against such gender stereotypes. If it's mostly women who object to this particular gender stereotype, is it possible that they may be stacking the deck against evidence of a role for sex hormones in this decision?

There may be some biological (nature) reasons why men and women choose different jobs and have different interests, it's not just because we live in a society (nurture).

At least in engineering, a parking garage's collapse would expose an engineer's lies and/or mistakes. What would be the equivalent of this for biologists?

Cekoviu described this better than I could.

Other people redoing a study of theirs and repeatedly failing to obtain the same results?

This idea you seem to have that the toys chimps play with proves something about the careers humans pursue is very silly. Like, do you think that a career in biology involves something somehow comparable to playing with a toy doll? Lots of biologists primarily do lab work, which is not going to be hugely different from the lab work done by chemists or physicists.

[Risottia]

I strongly object to having CS above the cool line.

CS aren't Software Engineers, mind you.

[Stanmenistan]

1. By saying women in biology dont count as women in science. Because biology isnt a hard science.
2. So we see the folly in 6 years. (6 years why are we talking like this just happened?)

What's the second word in the phrase "social science"?

Social Science is not a hard science, but a soft science.

There may be some biological (nature) reasons why men and women choose different jobs and have different interests, it's not just because we live in a society (nurture).

This idea you seem to have that the toys chimps play with proves something about the careers humans pursue is very silly. Like, do you think that a career in biology involves something somehow comparable to playing with a toy doll? Lots of biologists primarily do lab work, which is not going to be hugely different from the lab work done by chemists or physicists.

Many make the connection between children's role-play and toy choices and future career paths. Hypothetically, a girl who plays with a Barbie Vet and animal based toys is thus more likely to become a veterinarian or another woman in the life sciences, whereas a boy who plays with Lego or Meccano would probably become an engineer.

My point is males and females are different, and we should not shame them for their freedom. A Biology lab is vastly different from a chemical lab or physics lab, as biology involves living things.

[Ifreann]

What's the second word in the phrase "social science"?

Social Science is not a hard science, but a soft science.

Science is not a science, but a science.
think.gif

This idea you seem to have that the toys chimps play with proves something about the careers humans pursue is very silly. Like, do you think that a career in biology involves something somehow comparable to playing with a toy doll? Lots of biologists primarily do lab work, which is not going to be hugely different from the lab work done by chemists or physicists.

Many make the connection between children's role-play and toy choices and future career paths. Hypothetically, a girl who plays with a Barbie Vet and animal based toys is thus more likely to become a veterinarian or another woman in the life sciences, whereas a boy who plays with Lego or Meccano would probably become an engineer.

Lots of people make a connection between the astrological sign a child is born under and specific details of their fundamental personality and the events of their future.

My point is males and females are different, and we should not shame them for their freedom. A Biology lab is vastly different from a chemical lab or physics lab, as biology involves living things.

Different in specifics, but not in general. Deep biological differences such as you are proposing would not lead people to careers that involve basically the same day to day actions. Our genes cannot distinguish between typing at a computer to do physics and typing at a computer to do biology.

[Carvio Saikesenassia]

It goes a bit deeper than that. In Nordic countries where gender equality is near-perfect, men and women still CHOOSE different jobs. And in the scientific world, most women choose to be Biologists, rather than physicists, Engineers, computer technicians etc. By not mentioning this vital fact, you ignore a large chunk of female scientists.

Scientists did test on babies and female babies preferred looking at biological motion while male babies preferred looking at mechanical motion. That's why girls toys are often animals while boys toys are often machines.

ah but you see, that's not true at all because my beliefs in tabula rasa prevail over sex differences and its implications in intellect _/s

[Stanmenistan]

Goldieblox, a STEM-orientated female brand and website, does not mention Rita R Colwell at all. That is disappointing because Rita coined the term STEM in the first place, frustrating because she is a very successful women in a STEM field (she was the 11th Director of the National Science Foundation from 1998 to 2004, she was vital in Cholera research and she founded the company CosmosID) and disturbing because of Rita's uniqueness compared to other STEMinist role models. She's much older, she has a husband and children and she works in the field of Biology.

Are they afraid to show girls and young women an elderly woman in a scientific field? Do girls and young women not look up to their grandmothers and other elderly female relatives as role models? Is it because she is married (to another scientist, Jack Colwell, a physical chemistry graduate) with two daughters (also scientists)? Rita is living proof that you can be a woman in STEM and still have a family.

[Ifreann]

Goldieblox, a STEM-orientated female brand and website, does not mention Rita R Colwell at all.

Who cares?