The classic dichotomy
Greetings from your guest "curator," and thanks for having me! By way of introduction, my name is Susan Castagnetto, and I'm a philosopher colleague of Laura Hoopes at the Claremont Colleges, where I teach a course on "Feminism & Science" and coordinate the Intercollegiate Women's Studies program. I'll be posting this week about some issues of gender stereotyping and bias. I look forward to your comments!
--------
At the risk of belaboring John Tierney, I'd like to revisit this forum's discussion of his recent posts about women in science, started by Laura Hoopes in a previous post here. In his June 8th New York Times piece, I want to pick up on an innuendo I see in that piece, one that is evident in the title itself, "Daring to Discuss Women in Science." The word "daring" is suggestive-we can only imagine Tierney fearfully awaiting the multitude of angry responses, perhaps even cowering under a copy of The New York Times Science Section. Suggestions of danger and aggression are also evident in his asking whether he would be "safe" raising the issue of sex differences at a workshop on gender bias and describing Summers as having been "pilloried."
The very title thus uses a clever rhetorical tactic to discredit the essay's critics-suggesting they are blinded by emotion (at the expense of rational argument). And although not named, one suspects it is women (at least "p.c." women) who are the imagined emotional critics. A sympathetic commenter revealingly invites, "Let the hysterics [my emphasis] begin!" There is a long tradition of taking emotion to be the antithesis of reason, and it is the latter that is associated with good science. (This is a false dichotomy, in any case). Relatedly, there is a long tradition of stereotyping women as emotional and men as rational. Both seem to be lurking in Tierney's piece. (And I would add that his own emotional investment in challenging the idea that there may be gender inequity in science is pretty darned strong...)
Following this theme, dear readers, I ask the following:
1) Are women in science particularly affected by this stereotype, since the paradigm of the good scientist is an independent, objective, unbiased, rational investigator?
2) Is the stereotype used to discredit protests of sexism (or gender disparities)?
3) Could the stereotype mask a genuine and deeper-seated fear that some men may have of greater gender equity-of having to relinquish some of the perks of male privilege?
4) Are there effective ways of addressing it?
Ahhh. The overly emotional woman play...it always seems to work well for most people to stick to stereotypes. It's not just outside of science where scientists are often a) crazy or stupid or b) trying to take over/destroy the world. I believe in the power of words to persuade certainly. Tierney did a good job of pushing people's buttons, and I agree a thoughtful and calm response is the only one that works. To respond to the comment that successful women in science are often viewed as "cold". It's certainly been my experience that is the case. It's tough to dance the line where one is rational and intellectual and yet also expresses the expected feminine qualities of being nurturing and supportive. Why you should have to be both in your professional life has always perturbed me.
The critical replies to Tierney's arguments seem to me among the most "rational"--very careful, thoughtful analyses.
I wonder if the emphasis on the importance of being "rational" (in the sciences but other disciplines, too--like philosophy!) obscures deep-seated emotional investments. I was just reading a relevant quote from Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin in Londa Schiebinger's book, "Has Feminism Changed Science," in her discussion of the culture of science. Here's the quote: “Science is a form of competitive and aggressive activity, a contest of man against man that provides knowledge as a side product. That side product is its only advantage over football.” Food for thought...
re: 4) , one way to address it is to look for counterexamples to the expected match of adjective to gender, then talk about the examples at meetings and after seminars.
I'm a graduate student. I pay a lot of attention at how people talk about someone after they give a seminar. Something weird happens in science. There are many hyper-rational women. When they are really successful, they are often accused of being cold. But it seems they adopt that reputation so they can do well?
I think your 1-2-3 knockout punch is right on. I wish I could think of an effective way to address 4. Beyond Bias and Barriers did use logic and data, but if John Tierney simply ignores that, is there a recourse?
Hi Susan,
Thank you for the very insightful analysis of the ways John Tierney has used language to (he hopes) sway his audience. I do feel that having a philosophical analysis of this type of presentation helps me to read it with more analytical/less emotional response. It is, of course, keyed to do the opposite--push those irrational knee-jerk feminists into an emotional, unconvincing response.
cheers,
Laura
