Lively comments on the 8/19/05 post on "why are there no great women scientists?"
I appreciate Dr. Chuck's mention of Barbara McClintock, and yes, do go read A Feeling for the Organism by Evelyn Fox Keller if you haven't done so already. And then might I suggest you look into some of Keller's other writings, such as Reflections on Gender and Science.
Regarding Andy Franks's comments on the topic of greatness: greatness is streaky, rare, and fairly unpredictable, he claims.
This is where we must beg to differ. And where, if my readers will be patient with me, I will redirect your attention once more to what Linda Nochlin has to say on this topic:
...the Great Artist is conceived of as one who has genius; genius, in turn, is thought to be an atemporal and mysterious power somehow embedded in the person of the Great Artist...It is no accident that the whole crucial question of the conditions generally productive of great art has so rarely been investigated, or that attempts to investigate such general problems have, until fairly recently, been dismissed as unscholarly, too broad, or the province of some other discipline like sociology. (from "Why Are There No Great Women Artists?" in Woman in Sexist Society ed. V. Gornick & B. K. Moran 1971)
The way that Andy Franks describes the appearance of "greatness" in science - streaky, rare, unpredictable - would seem to agree with this notion of genius as atemporal, a mysterious power that we cannot control or generate. It is this pernicious belief that, carried to its extreme, leads individuals like Lawrence Summers to shake his head sadly and proclaim that women are just mathematically inferior to men.
I contend that we do, indeed, have the ability to identify, nurture, and develop promising young individuals into great contributors in science and engineering. Out of this general program of development and nurturing will appear some truly outstanding individuals. We've been doing this for decades already. Unfortunately, we've only been doing it mostly for white men, mostly for middle- to upper-class individuals. The results, however, have been spectacular for the members of that tiny elite. U. S. science and engineering programs have yielded amazing individuals and amazing results.
Andy Franks claims that we are "as likely to get a few really great guys as a few really great gals over a span of a decade or so. Greatness is just that unpredictable. " Sadly, this is not the case. Greatness, at least as defined in the U. S. scientific establishment, has been so darn predictable for decades that it's disgusting. Look at the annual elections to the National Academy of Sciences or National Academy of Engineering. White men, white men, white men, all mentored and promoted and rewarded by each other in a cozy, clubby, old-boys network. I'm telling you, the system works, they have figured out how to take the raw talent and produce skilled researchers. It's just that they only do it for the ones who look most like themselves.
The great women out there - Barbara McClintock included, as Dr. Chuck noted - have to battle their way through with less support, less encouragement, less mentoring, less advice, fewer introductions to influential connections, less lab space, smaller startup packages, less of every damn thing it takes to become great. And if you're not white, but a woman of color - just double or triple all the hardships and barriers.
Finally, in wondering why Zuska chose to mention Marie Curie rather than Barbara McClintock (or, Zuska might add, any of dozens and dozens of fabulous women scientists I could have mentioned), Andy Franks asked: "Whassamadduh? Dr. McClintock's science not "hard" enough?
All Zuska can say is: Giggle. Giggle, giggle. Tee hee hee. "Hard enough"?
Now, is that "hard" as in "difficult" and in opposition to "easy"...or would that be "hard" as in "rigid" and in opposition to "soft"? Ah....don't bother.
3:25:26 PM 
|
|
