STEMinism & Women in Biology: The Female of the Species

[Stanmenistan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hard sciences seem to be the study of nature while soft science seems to be the study of people.

That may be too simplistic, idk.

That's almost 100% correct. However, the Hard sciences can involve the study of people in certain contexts (e.g. anatomy, medicine, neuroscience or Biological anthropology (AKA Physical Anthropology)), while the soft sciences may touch upon the study of nature (albeit typically in relation to human beings; examples include Zooarchaeology, Anthrozoology and Ethnobiology). There are disciplines that combine aspects of the two but by and large, they are different things.

I think it is inevitable that the hard sciences would involve the study of people even if they are primarily about the study of nature. After all, we are not apart from nature,we are a part of nature

---

To quote Charlie Chaplin

We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge has made us cynical. Our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity. More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.

To paraphrase Charlie Chaplin

Daughters! Don't give yourselves to harridans— women who despise you — enslave you — who regiment your lives — tell you what to do — what to think or what to feel! Who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as lab rats. Don't give yourselves to these unnatural women — machine women with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are women! You have the love of humanity in your hearts. You don't hate! Only the unloved hate — the unloved and the unnatural!

[Stanmenistan]

I don't care about these distinctions at all. There is no pressing need to classify the sciences as either hard or soft. It doesn't matter.

AGAIN, STEMinism is about women in STEM, which is women in the hard sciences, technology, engineering and Mathematics. If you don't understand this distinction, why are you here? Everyday feminism screwed up, which is really disappointing as the website is supposed to educate people about social justice topics (although from a very biased slant, admittedly).

Will you stop comparing this to Astrology?

No, it's perfectly apt.

And you totally ignored my reasoning afterwards.

They are not comparable. Yes, other factors may play an influence but this is simply the one I know most about. Children are influenced by a variety of factors and people (advertising, parents, peers, teachers) so chalking it down to one thing is reductive, but we all have to start somewhere

Here it is again.

On average, women and girls would be more likely to be interested in the Life Sciences and the evidence we have from nature and babies reflects this.

Playing with dolls does not reflect an interest in a career the life sciences.

A girl who plays with a vet Barbie is more likely to want to be a Vet than a child who does not. A girl who plays with toy animals is more likely to want to be a zoologist when they grow up etc.

[Stanmenistan]

I'm not proposing to stop anyone from celebrating her achievements. I'm just saying that it isn't a big deal for a website to not mention her.

Until I see her name as a role model on a majority of STEMinist websites, I will not stop my quest. And that goes for Judith too.

No it didn't. Do you not know who Marie Curie is?

Marie Curie's work on uranium and other radioactive materials eventually led to the development of the Manhattan Project, which resulted in the deaths of thousands of Japanese Civilians.

All the cool scientists on social media.

Yeah, those guys are pretty cool. But they are especially cool if they are women in biology.

Sure, whatever.

Thank you.

I'm not telling you that there can't be any women in science presented as role models. It's just weird that you so obsessively want this woman front and centre everywhere.

Because without her and Judith, the term STEM would not be as commonly used as it is today. I think that they deserve more credit for that. Every STEMinist, everyone who wants more women in STEM and every woman in STEM should know their names.

It super isn't. It's not a big deal at all.

See above.

[Ifreann]

This has descended into absolute nonsense.

[Stanmenistan]

This has descended into absolute nonsense.

That happened the moment you started treating hard and soft sciences as the same, even though STEMinism is about women in the hard sciences.

[Xmara]

If a woman wants to enter a STEM field, then she should be able to without facing discrimination on the basis of sex. If not, then she shouldn’t be forced into it.

[Stanmenistan]

If a woman wants to enter a STEM field, then she should be able to without facing discrimination on the basis of sex. If not, then she shouldn’t be forced into it.

Exactly.

My issue with STEMinism is that its overt focus on women in the fields of physical science, engineering, technology and mathematics makes women in the life sciences seem less "worthy", even though biology is one of the few STEM fields with a large amount of female representation already. It's especially troubling considering the term STEM was popularised by two female biologists, Rita R. Colwell and Judith A. Ramaley. I know it's probably unintentional, but if you make a mistake, you should correct it.

[Xmara]

One thing I always found kind of odd were the stories about women (in late 20th-21st century America, mind) who were deterred from pursuing STEM careers because they were female. Does that really happen that often? Because I've never really had anyone suggest to me that I could not pursue science because I'm a woman.

Sorry if it seems like a silly question, but I'm legitimately curious.

[Ankenland]

What we really need to do is encourage girls to grow up dreaming of doing construction work, trash collection, welding, plumbing, electrical, sewer work, power line work, road maintenance and repair, warehouse work, trucking, other transport, logging, mining, oil rig work,

and literally every demanding, dangerous, dirty, low-paying job that is dominated by men.

You know, because of Gender Equality.

Once Gender Equality has been achieved in those sectors, you all should come back, and start telling me about how we need it in high-education, high-paying jobs. Gotta start somewhere, ladies.

[Xmara]

What we really need to do is encourage girls to grow up dreaming of doing construction work, trash collection, welding, plumbing, electrical, sewer work, power line work, road maintenance and repair, warehouse work, trucking, other transport, logging, mining, oil rig work,

and literally every demanding, dangerous, dirty, low-paying job that is dominated by men.

You know, because of Gender Equality.

Once Gender Equality has been achieved in those sectors, you all should come back, and start telling me about how we need it in high-education, high-paying jobs. Gotta start somewhere, ladies.

If a woman wants to do those jobs, then fine. She ought to be able to do them. But this thread is about STEM fields.

[Stanmenistan]

One thing I always found kind of odd were the stories about women (in late 20th-21st century America, mind) who were deterred from pursuing STEM careers because they were female. Does that really happen that often? Because I've never really had anyone suggest to me that I could not pursue science because I'm a woman.

Sorry if it seems like a silly question, but I'm legitimately curious.

Many STEMinists discuss the issue of women quitting STEM careers and girls deciding not to pursue STEM careers. Your personal experience may be different, of course. This Medium article may be of interest to you, Xmara.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Source 9
Source 10

What we really need to do is encourage girls to grow up dreaming of doing construction work, trash collection, welding, plumbing, electrical, sewer work, power line work, road maintenance and repair, warehouse work, trucking, other transport, logging, mining, oil rig work,

and literally every demanding, dangerous, dirty, low-paying job that is dominated by men.

You know, because of Gender Equality.

Once Gender Equality has been achieved in those sectors, you all should come back, and start telling me about how we need it in high-education, high-paying jobs. Gotta start somewhere, ladies.

If a woman wants to do those jobs, then fine. She ought to be able to do them. But this thread is about STEM fields.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Northern Astra]

This seems to really have digressed. My 2 cents are that if biology is equally welcoming to women (it's not) it is not going to be talked about by people who are pulling for social change. The argument that people who are trying to change the world should just celebrate something instead of highlighting problems to fight seems silly. Everyone who wants to should go into STEM. It would be great if gender was a non-issue in this world, but it is not. Therefore, people will highlight the places where it is especially problematic. Of course they don't mention fields that are better! Those don't need as much work! They talk about the majority of STEM fields, which are dominated by men.

[Stanmenistan]

This seems to really have digressed. My 2 cents are that if biology is equally welcoming to women (it's not)

I never said biology is equally welcoming to women, just that women are particularly prominent in the field of Biology, and this deserves more acknowledgement than STEMinists currently give it. Especially considering the term STEM was popularised by two female biologists, Rita R. Colwell and Judith A. Ramaley.

it is not going to be talked about by people who are pulling for social change. The argument that people who are trying to change the world should just celebrate something instead of highlighting problems to fight seems silly.

Modern Feminism's lack of a positive outlook is a major issue why people are put off by modern Feminists. And there's no reason you can't celebrate something whilst also highlighting problems elsewhere.

Everyone who wants to should go into STEM.

Agreed.

It would be great if gender was a non-issue in this world, but it is not.

Agreed.

Therefore, people will highlight the places where it is especially problematic. Of course they don't mention fields that are better! Those don't need as much work! They talk about the majority of STEM fields, which are dominated by men.

Again, there's no reason you can't celebrate something whilst also highlighting problems elsewhere.

[Northern Astra]

This seems to really have digressed. My 2 cents are that if biology is equally welcoming to women (it's not)

I never said biology is equally welcoming to women, just that women are particularly prominent in the field of Biology, and this deserves more acknowledgement than. Considering the term STEM was popularised by two female biologists, Rita R. Colwell and Judith A. Ramaley.

it is not going to be talked about by people who are pulling for social change. The argument that people who are trying to change the world should just celebrate something instead of highlighting problems to fight seems silly.

Modern Feminism's lack of a positive outlook is a major issue why people are put off by modern Feminists. And there's no reason you can't celebrate something whilst also highlighting problems elsewhere.

Everyone who wants to should go into STEM.

Agreed.

It would be great if gender was a non-issue in this world, but it is not.

Agreed.

Therefore, people will highlight the places where it is especially problematic. Of course they don't mention fields that are better! Those don't need as much work! They talk about the majority of STEM fields, which are dominated by men.

Again, there's no reason you can't celebrate something whilst also highlighting problems elsewhere.

By saying it has digressed, I was more talking about how it went through way too many detours (girl scouts, differences in genders, etc.). Which is sad because it is a valid point.
It would be great if they had a more positive viewpoint, but I think they probably are just so used to seeing problems that it is hard to celebrate anything.
The fact that biology is sidelined is pathetic. There should be far more support for people in biology, and more generally great, inspiring people who have been overlooked, like Rita Colwell and Judith Ramaley.
We seem to agree, which is great!

[Stanmenistan]

By saying it has digressed, I was more talking about how it went through way too many detours (girl scouts, differences in genders, etc.)

The other posters started talking about Girl Scouts for some reason. I told them to knockoff the threadjacking. My only posts about the Girl Scouts were in relation to the organisation's relationship to Biology.

When talking about differences in genders, I was trying to point out the inherent differences between men and women that may drive them to different careers in STEM.

But you are right, this thread should get back to its core point; does STEMinism (unintentionally) downplay the importance of women in Biology?

Which is sad because it is a valid point.
It would be great if they had a more positive viewpoint, but I think they probably are just so used to seeing problems that it is hard to celebrate anything.
The fact that biology is sidelined is pathetic. There should be far more support for people in biology, and more generally great, inspiring people who have been overlooked, like Rita Colwell and Judith Ramaley.
We seem to agree, which is great!

Thank you very much!

[Stanmenistan]

No mention of Judith or Rita. Very disappointing. At least they covered Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, Mary Anning and Elsie Widdowson.

I'm glad they mentioned a biophysicist in this article

[Xmara]

One thing I always found kind of odd were the stories about women (in late 20th-21st century America, mind) who were deterred from pursuing STEM careers because they were female. Does that really happen that often? Because I've never really had anyone suggest to me that I could not pursue science because I'm a woman.

Sorry if it seems like a silly question, but I'm legitimately curious.

Many STEMinists discuss the issue of women quitting STEM careers and girls deciding not to pursue STEM careers. Your personal experience may be different, of course. This Medium article may be of interest to you, Xmara.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Source 9
Source 10

Ah, that makes more sense.

[Stanmenistan]

Many STEMinists discuss the issue of women quitting STEM careers and girls deciding not to pursue STEM careers. Your personal experience may be different, of course. This Medium article may be of interest to you, Xmara.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Source 9
Source 10

Ah, that makes more sense.

Thank you Xmara.

---

I feel this Goldieblox advert covertly attacks the concept women in biology by having a bunch of young girls send animal based toys to outer space. I want to tell that girl with the toy dolphin that "We know more about the surface of the moon than we do about our own oceans" and about the endangered status of the pink river dolphin, and the one with the elephant about how African elephants are endangered.

TV tropes discusses the affiliation of non-Life Sciences with men and masculinity and life sciences with women and femininity.

I have decided to do what it says here, and I will be the change that I want to see in the world. I will create my own Biology focused brand (aimed at a mostly female demographic, although boys and men are free to look at it too), which should help to put Biology back in the heart of STEM education and let girls and young women know that working with animals is a science too.

[Diopolis]

We should encourage women to do whatever they want as long as they aren't committing heinous crimes against others. Women should get into STEM more, because honestly that's where future employment is. Everyone should be looking at STEM. As for biology, maybe more men should look into that.

Worth noting that women are also overrepresented in most healthcare jobs, which seem very biology-ish in the same way that engineering seems very physics-ish.

[Stanmenistan]

We should encourage women to do whatever they want as long as they aren't committing heinous crimes against others. Women should get into STEM more, because honestly that's where future employment is. Everyone should be looking at STEM. As for biology, maybe more men should look into that.

Worth noting that women are also overrepresented in most healthcare jobs, which seem very biology-ish in the same way that engineering seems very physics-ish.

Healthcare/Medical Science needs a mix of both biological and chemical skills, depending on the specific occupation within the field of Healthcare/Medical Science. But you are correct in saying it is very biology-ish. You need to have an understanding of human anatomy and biology to work in healthcare.

You are correct in your assessment that Engineering is very physics-ish too. Making Solar Panels relies on you having knowledge of Solar irradiance, to be an electrical engineer you have to know about electricity (a physical force) and Electromagnetism (a branch of physics), to be a Nuclear engineer you have to know about Nuclear Physics etc.

Read my points on the Gender Equality Paradox for why men and women CHOOSE do different jobs, even in more egalitarian societies like the various Scandinavian countries reported in the study. We should give males and females a choice, not forcing them into jobs they don't want to fulfill an arbitrary quota in the name of so-called "gender equality" and so-called "balance".

[Cekoviu]

Worth noting that women are also overrepresented in most healthcare jobs, which seem very biology-ish in the same way that engineering seems very physics-ish.

Healthcare/Medical Science needs a mix of both biological and chemical skills, depending on the specific occupation within the field of Healthcare/Medical Science. But you are correct in saying it is very biology-ish.

You are correct in your assessment that Engineering is very physics-ish too. Making Solar Panels relies on you having knowledge of Solar irradiance, to be an electrical engineer you have to know about electricity (a physical force) and Electromagnetism (a branch of physics), to be a Nuclear engineer you have to know about Nuclear Physics etc.

Read my points on the Gender Equality Paradox for why men and women CHOOSE do different jobs, even in more egalitarian societies like the various Scandinavian countries reported in the study. We should give males and females a choice, not forcing them into jobs they don't want to fulfill an arbitrary quota in the name of so-called "gender equality" and so-called "balance".

You're acting as though the hot take that letting people choose their career is somehow a novel or controversial idea. I really don't know whence you're acquiring that idea.

[Diopolis]

Worth noting that women are also overrepresented in most healthcare jobs, which seem very biology-ish in the same way that engineering seems very physics-ish.

Healthcare/Medical Science needs a mix of both biological and chemical skills, depending on the specific occupation within the field of Healthcare/Medical Science. But you are correct in saying it is very biology-ish.

You are correct in your assessment that Engineering is very physics-ish too. Making Solar Panels relies on you having knowledge of Solar irradiance, to be an electrical engineer you have to know about electricity (a physical force) and Electromagnetism (a branch of physics), to be a Nuclear engineer you have to know about Nuclear Physics etc.

Read my points on the Gender Equality Paradox for why men and women CHOOSE do different jobs, even in more egalitarian societies like the various Scandinavian countries reported in the study. We should give males and females a choice, not forcing them into jobs they don't want to fulfill an arbitrary quota in the name of so-called "gender equality" and so-called "balance".

It's worth noting that moorish countries invariably have great gender balances in engineering, well, except for the handful where women aren't allowed outside. European countries do not.

[Stanmenistan]

Read my points on the Gender Equality Paradox for why men and women CHOOSE do different jobs, even in more egalitarian societies like the various Scandinavian countries reported in the study. We should give males and females a choice, not forcing them into jobs they don't want to fulfill an arbitrary quota in the name of so-called "gender equality" and so-called "balance".

You're acting as though the hot take that letting people choose their career is somehow a novel or controversial idea. I really don't know whence you're acquiring that idea.

The only way to guarantee gender balance in all careers and fields would be enforcing a neo-Feudalist/Caste system on people, from cradle to grave. Picking out children's career paths out before they are even born. Raising children to consider only one occupation, only one career, only one future, only one possibility, instead of alternatives. That is my idea of a Dystopia.

You can't force girls to be engineers if they don't want to be engineers. You can't force girls to be mathematicians if they don't want to be mathematicians. You can't force girls to be computer programmers if they don't want to be computer programmers etc. If they do want to do those things, good for them, but don't force it on them. Let kids grow up to be who they want to be, not who you want them to be. They are their own people with their own rights.

---

I wonder why Let Toys be toys felt it was necessary to mention Professor Elizabeth Tanner OBE FRSE FREng (a Biomedical engineer) and Elizabeth Carrey, former senior lecturer at UCL (a Biochemist) last in a list of female scientists.

[Cekoviu]

Healthcare/Medical Science needs a mix of both biological and chemical skills, depending on the specific occupation within the field of Healthcare/Medical Science. But you are correct in saying it is very biology-ish.

You are correct in your assessment that Engineering is very physics-ish too. Making Solar Panels relies on you having knowledge of Solar irradiance, to be an electrical engineer you have to know about electricity (a physical force) and Electromagnetism (a branch of physics), to be a Nuclear engineer you have to know about Nuclear Physics etc.

Read my points on the Gender Equality Paradox for why men and women CHOOSE do different jobs, even in more egalitarian societies like the various Scandinavian countries reported in the study. We should give males and females a choice, not forcing them into jobs they don't want to fulfill an arbitrary quota in the name of so-called "gender equality" and so-called "balance".

It's worth noting that moorish countries invariably have great gender balances in engineering, well, except for the handful where women aren't allowed outside. European countries do not.

>moorish countries
>in 2020
>native english speaker

[Cekoviu]

You're acting as though the hot take that letting people choose their career is somehow a novel or controversial idea. I really don't know whence you're acquiring that idea.

The only way to guarantee gender balance in all careers and fields would be enforcing a neo-Feudalist/Caste system on people, from cradle to grave. Picking out children's career paths out before they are even born. Raising children to consider only one occupation, only one career, only one future, only one possibility, instead of alternatives. That is my idea of a Dystopia.

This is only the case if you think there is actually an inherent biological basis for differences in career choices, which I find highly suspect; all you've offered for that is some really shitty evopsych and toy choices in non-human animals.

You can't force girls to be engineers if they don't want to be engineers. You can't force girls to be mathematicians if they don't want to be mathematicians. You can't force girls to be computer programmers if they don't want to be computer programmers etc. If they do want to do those things, good for them, but don't force it on them. Let kids grow up to be who they want to be, not who you want them to be. They are their own people with their own rights.

Again, real hot take right there.