Let Her Speak, Please!
June 8, 2017 3:09 AM Subscribe
At the World Science Festival, last Saturday in NYC, about one hour into the panel discussion "Pondering the Imponderables: The Biggest Questions of Cosmology", moderator Jim Holt was interrupted while paraphrasing the work on string theory of panelist Veronika Hubeny, who had barely had a chance to participate, by a shout from the audience: "Let her speak, please!"
Marilee Talkington had been live-streaming the panel, and felt compelled to intervene. What followed, after wild cheers from the audience, was an outpouring of commentary, and further encouragement from Hubeny herself.
Marilee Talkington had been live-streaming the panel, and felt compelled to intervene. What followed, after wild cheers from the audience, was an outpouring of commentary, and further encouragement from Hubeny herself.
it shows Hubeny's comment for me... is this link better? (Mods!)
posted by progosk at 3:29 AM on June 8, 2017
posted by progosk at 3:29 AM on June 8, 2017
Nope: I don’t see any comment from Hubeny on that link either: do I have to be logged in to Facebook to see comments?
(If so, this is another reason to shun Facebook: they’re locking away content so that you can only see it if you’re logged in.)
posted by pharm at 3:34 AM on June 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
(If so, this is another reason to shun Facebook: they’re locking away content so that you can only see it if you’re logged in.)
posted by pharm at 3:34 AM on June 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
works on a computer, without being logged into FB, but doesn't work on mobile... is there a fix for fb-comment permalinks for mobiles? Her comment is dated "Jun 5 at 10:03am". (damnedfb!)
posted by progosk at 3:37 AM on June 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by progosk at 3:37 AM on June 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yes, it turns out that you have to be logged in to FB to see comments on posts. Sigh.
I quote the comment in question here for mefites who avoid FB:
I quote the comment in question here for mefites who avoid FB:
Veronika Hubeny: I applaud your heroism in standing up for what you believe in! I know well the shaky feeling and subsequent exhilarated and heartwarmed contentment in the knowledge of having done the right thing, and I think that doing so has become more crucial than ever. Your behavior was inspiring and I’m glad that many of those inspired shared their gratitude with you.posted by pharm at 3:38 AM on June 8, 2017 [45 favorites]
I guess that, being the subject of the incident, it might be worthwhile to offer my perspective, which to my surprise is rather more atypical than I had hitherto realized, but which I hope might perhaps provide some encouragement to all those who feel put off by the present situation — especially to those who feel drawn to science yet dissuaded from following their hearts’ calling. (For posterity I also feel compelled to correct a point about the physics — as a physicist I can’t help myself ;-) — but since I realize that that was entirely beside the point of the post, I’ll only do so at the very end…)
You may be amazed to hear it, but during this panel session I genuinely did not feel affronted or discriminated by the moderator’s behavior. It seemed more amusing to see him try posing a question in a way that at the same time tried answering it. It’s true that this made the question a bit of a moving target for me (and therefore harder to address coherently), but I don’t a-priori assume that the incident was rooted in sexism. Maybe I’m too naive, but I simply gave him the benefit of doubt that he was so excited by the newly-learned idea of the duality that he couldn’t resist, and that the same might have occurred had the panelist been a male instead of me. So it didn’t bother me.
In fact, even though in my entire academic career I was in an environment where women were in striking minority (and as a student often the only woman in the class), I never felt discriminated against or thwarted in my calling. The feeling was rather one of camaraderie: the challenges to unravel the deepest mysteries of the universe, the thrill in understanding another tiny bit of this grand puzzle, and the sheer wonder at how beautifully the physics hangs together, put us all in the same boat, so to speak. In retrospect I think I was fortunate in being amongst like-minded physicists who were not only great but gracious and earnest in their love of science. But when I eventually did start coming across others who were not of the same caliber, they somehow seemed insignificant.
I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual “discomforts” not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting. I think the subjective severity of a lot of these issues can be greatly influenced by one’s mindset, one’s psychology. If you allow yourself to enjoy the beautiful things that really matter, if you don’t let social or peer pressure dissuade you from pursuing a field which appeals to you, then no pettiness or childishness or boorishness that you encounter can harm you so much.
Please understand that I’m not trying to say that sexism in science is a myth. It is real and we should all aspire to diminish it. But I am trying to say that it need not pose as much of an impediment as you might fear and that you might be in more control over its influence yourself than you might think. Just as you put up with long lines to see a great show, or with sore feet or mosquitos to have a great hike etc., the annoyance of otherwise abominable behavior diminishes in the larger perspective of doing something you really enjoy.
OK, so now to the physics (sorry):
First, what you refer to as the “two theories of string theory that seem to contradict one another” are actually two ‘dual’ descriptions of the same physics, which while curiously different in rather amazing ways, are completely consistent with each other (one using the language of string theory, the other of a field theory).
Second, I cannot take credit for inventing this holographic (so-called AdS/CFT) correspondence — I have worked on understanding how it works at a deeper level, but the AdS/CFT was originated by Juan Maldacena in 1997.
Once again, let me stress my appreciation, Marilee, of how you bravely stood up for your principles and values! Well done!
I can't seem to link directly to it on a mobile, but the interjection from the audience is at 1:05:37 - although you should start from at least a few minutes earlier to appreciate why so many people welcomed it.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:06 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:06 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
What an amazingly cathartic experience. Agreed with Joe in Australia - start watching from a few minutes before the interjection for the full experience.
...and can I just say, after reading her comment, that I'm even more in awe of her world-view?
posted by popsciolist at 4:08 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
...and can I just say, after reading her comment, that I'm even more in awe of her world-view?
posted by popsciolist at 4:08 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Oh my god, that video is infuriating! I skipped back through to various places beforehand to see how the moderator behaves with the men, and it's totally different. He even leaves silences hanging sometimes after they stop speaking or when they start going , "um um", but with her, he doesn't just jump straight in when there's a pause, but just talks over her and doesn't cede the floor back when she tries to keep speaking.
I'm glad that she didn't feel like she was being discriminated against, but to an outside observer, it sure looked like it.
I was at a dinner with a whole lot of physicists recently (my husband is a physicist too), and there were a couple of women there, both of whom insisted they've never noticed any sexism in physics, and were strongly against the idea that things needed to be improved for women in the field. Another (male) physicist grilled them a bit about certain specifics, e.g. whether they had been given specific opportunities (like mentorship, networking, invited out for drinks by supervisors); whether they'd seen female role models frequently giving keynotes at conferences, teaching prestigious courses, leading research groups or departments, etc; whether they had more outside-work responsibilities like carer responsibilities, housework, family issues, etc than male colleagues, etc, and they answered most of those in disappointingly predictable ways but still didn't feel like there were serious gender issues at play.
So I think maybe there is something different about the perception of sexism in physics compared to in some other disciplines. Maybe it's something like fish not seeing water. And/or maybe it's because I would say of all the academics I know, the physicists seem to have the lowest level of openly misogynistic people - I have literally never met a physicist who makes deliberately offensive sexist comments, subscribes to the belief that women are inferior, or actively discriminates against women etc, whereas I have at least occasionally in most other disciplines. So maybe because open, individual, deliberate sexism is so rare, women in physics feel individually secure, and are less aware of the structural problems?
posted by lollusc at 4:15 AM on June 8, 2017 [30 favorites]
I'm glad that she didn't feel like she was being discriminated against, but to an outside observer, it sure looked like it.
I was at a dinner with a whole lot of physicists recently (my husband is a physicist too), and there were a couple of women there, both of whom insisted they've never noticed any sexism in physics, and were strongly against the idea that things needed to be improved for women in the field. Another (male) physicist grilled them a bit about certain specifics, e.g. whether they had been given specific opportunities (like mentorship, networking, invited out for drinks by supervisors); whether they'd seen female role models frequently giving keynotes at conferences, teaching prestigious courses, leading research groups or departments, etc; whether they had more outside-work responsibilities like carer responsibilities, housework, family issues, etc than male colleagues, etc, and they answered most of those in disappointingly predictable ways but still didn't feel like there were serious gender issues at play.
So I think maybe there is something different about the perception of sexism in physics compared to in some other disciplines. Maybe it's something like fish not seeing water. And/or maybe it's because I would say of all the academics I know, the physicists seem to have the lowest level of openly misogynistic people - I have literally never met a physicist who makes deliberately offensive sexist comments, subscribes to the belief that women are inferior, or actively discriminates against women etc, whereas I have at least occasionally in most other disciplines. So maybe because open, individual, deliberate sexism is so rare, women in physics feel individually secure, and are less aware of the structural problems?
posted by lollusc at 4:15 AM on June 8, 2017 [30 favorites]
there were a couple of women there, both of whom insisted they've never noticed any sexism in physics
I work (not in physics) with a woman who studied physics at an undergrad level and she's a more aggressive version of the same with a touch of "women who complain about sexism are whiners who couldn't hack it." It's in pretty strong contrast to female scientists I know in other disciplines, though as a man and non-scientist I just keep my mouth shut and change the subject.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 4:21 AM on June 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
I work (not in physics) with a woman who studied physics at an undergrad level and she's a more aggressive version of the same with a touch of "women who complain about sexism are whiners who couldn't hack it." It's in pretty strong contrast to female scientists I know in other disciplines, though as a man and non-scientist I just keep my mouth shut and change the subject.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 4:21 AM on June 8, 2017 [8 favorites]
There's probably more than one selection effect influencing this. E.g., women who have suffered more from sexism in physics are less likely to get graduate positions in the first place; women who win those positions may have succeeded partially because they didn't acknowledge sexism on the part of their mentors; and of course some women will have been lucky enough not to experience it at a professional level.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:39 AM on June 8, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:39 AM on June 8, 2017 [19 favorites]
> "So I think maybe there is something different about the perception of sexism in physics compared to in some other disciplines."
Having observed this among a few people, I think there are a few things going on:
1) These days, the sexism in question is usually subtle.
While there are occasionally flare-ups of outright, obvious sexism, most of the time it's hard to point at any particular case and say, "Sexism happened here." Did you not get the job because the other candidate was better or because the other candidate was a guy? For any individual moment, it's almost impossible to say -- you have to look at large patterns involving lots of incidences to come to an overall conclusion instead. And even if people are aware of those large patterns, they often don't apply them to their own experience because ...
2) People don't want to be perceived as whiners by themselves or by others.
When something happens to you -- you don't get the fellowship, someone talks over you at a meeting -- asking the question, "Was that sexism?" can feel like you're making excuses for yourself. And asking it aloud brings with it the worry that other people will feel like you're making excuses for yourself. I've got no doubt this occurs in all disciplines, but it may be a particular problem in physics because ...
3) There is a deeply entrenched mythology of meritocracy.
The best are supposed to excel and do well, the second-best are supposed to be left by the wayside. Even though this is obviously not true in numerous cases, the idea is so pervasive that it can be hard to get out from under it. The corollary to the myth is obvious -- if you didn't do well, it can only be because you weren't the best. And now you can add on top of all of that ...
4) Selection effects.
As Joe in Australia observed, the women who are asked are usually the ones who have done well. A tenured professor may be less likely to say she has personally experienced sexism than someone who dropped out of grad school because her advisor sexually harassed her, but who's more likely to be asked about the current state of physics?
posted by kyrademon at 4:49 AM on June 8, 2017 [49 favorites]
Having observed this among a few people, I think there are a few things going on:
1) These days, the sexism in question is usually subtle.
While there are occasionally flare-ups of outright, obvious sexism, most of the time it's hard to point at any particular case and say, "Sexism happened here." Did you not get the job because the other candidate was better or because the other candidate was a guy? For any individual moment, it's almost impossible to say -- you have to look at large patterns involving lots of incidences to come to an overall conclusion instead. And even if people are aware of those large patterns, they often don't apply them to their own experience because ...
2) People don't want to be perceived as whiners by themselves or by others.
When something happens to you -- you don't get the fellowship, someone talks over you at a meeting -- asking the question, "Was that sexism?" can feel like you're making excuses for yourself. And asking it aloud brings with it the worry that other people will feel like you're making excuses for yourself. I've got no doubt this occurs in all disciplines, but it may be a particular problem in physics because ...
3) There is a deeply entrenched mythology of meritocracy.
The best are supposed to excel and do well, the second-best are supposed to be left by the wayside. Even though this is obviously not true in numerous cases, the idea is so pervasive that it can be hard to get out from under it. The corollary to the myth is obvious -- if you didn't do well, it can only be because you weren't the best. And now you can add on top of all of that ...
4) Selection effects.
As Joe in Australia observed, the women who are asked are usually the ones who have done well. A tenured professor may be less likely to say she has personally experienced sexism than someone who dropped out of grad school because her advisor sexually harassed her, but who's more likely to be asked about the current state of physics?
posted by kyrademon at 4:49 AM on June 8, 2017 [49 favorites]
Hi, I am a biologist, and I know several incredibly sexist physicists. And based on the discussion of this event on the March for Science fb page, we are so fucking far from egalitarianism in science.
Also, for completeness, Rebecca Solnit's original essay "Men Explain Things to Me", which is very parallel to the situation at hand, and which many people who like to mansplain mansplaining have never read.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:13 AM on June 8, 2017 [24 favorites]
Also, for completeness, Rebecca Solnit's original essay "Men Explain Things to Me", which is very parallel to the situation at hand, and which many people who like to mansplain mansplaining have never read.
posted by hydropsyche at 5:13 AM on June 8, 2017 [24 favorites]
One of the deeper problems represented both in TFA and in lollusc's post is the meta-sexist expectation that all women are feminists who recognize sexism because they are deeply conversant in social justice.
Instead, most women are - just like most other people who've been raised and living and gaslighted by the insidious sexism in life.
Of course there are women who aren't fully aware of the sexism used against them. Just like there are men who are unaware. Yet we expect women to be omniscient.
Many, many women voted for trump.
posted by Dashy at 5:36 AM on June 8, 2017 [35 favorites]
Instead, most women are - just like most other people who've been raised and living and gaslighted by the insidious sexism in life.
Of course there are women who aren't fully aware of the sexism used against them. Just like there are men who are unaware. Yet we expect women to be omniscient.
Many, many women voted for trump.
posted by Dashy at 5:36 AM on June 8, 2017 [35 favorites]
And/or maybe it's because I would say of all the academics I know, the physicists seem to have the lowest level of openly misogynistic people - I have literally never met a physicist who makes deliberately offensive sexist comments, subscribes to the belief that women are inferior, or actively discriminates against women etc, whereas I have at least occasionally in most other disciplines.
I'm not a physicist but I've spent a lot of time with physics professors, including a few very prominent ones, and this matches my anecdotal experience. The people I've known personally were individually not grossly discriminatory at all, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an open and accepting field.
It's good that particularly egregious examples are getting called out. Solnit's essay (linked above by hydropsyche) is great and I wish it was mandatory reading.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:40 AM on June 8, 2017
I'm not a physicist but I've spent a lot of time with physics professors, including a few very prominent ones, and this matches my anecdotal experience. The people I've known personally were individually not grossly discriminatory at all, but that doesn't necessarily translate into an open and accepting field.
It's good that particularly egregious examples are getting called out. Solnit's essay (linked above by hydropsyche) is great and I wish it was mandatory reading.
posted by Dip Flash at 5:40 AM on June 8, 2017
I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it.
Even read through the filter of cheerful understatement, I wonder if there are any men who can say the same. or who have said the same. I'm not a physicist so I have to work up a metaphor to put myself in her place: I like music so much that I'd be quite willing to have a foot cut off for the privilege of being left alone to practice the piano several hours a day.
but I think it would be better if I didn't have to
also, I think it would be better if all women, and no men, didn't cheerfully expect to have to.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:01 AM on June 8, 2017 [12 favorites]
Even read through the filter of cheerful understatement, I wonder if there are any men who can say the same. or who have said the same. I'm not a physicist so I have to work up a metaphor to put myself in her place: I like music so much that I'd be quite willing to have a foot cut off for the privilege of being left alone to practice the piano several hours a day.
but I think it would be better if I didn't have to
also, I think it would be better if all women, and no men, didn't cheerfully expect to have to.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:01 AM on June 8, 2017 [12 favorites]
also speaking of understatement, Hubeny is no dummy and even physicists know very well how a good cop/bad cop routine works. especially on men who are excessively ready to divide women into pleasant ones and difficult ones. I think nobody who is a little frustrated by her response should fail to note the extreme praise and appreciation she expresses to Talkington both at the beginning and end of her comment.
the end goal of feminism is for women like Hubeny to be free to think about nothing but physics. & I think when she says, basically, that that is all she thinks about, the goodwill she feels toward Talkington is not unrelated to that.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:09 AM on June 8, 2017 [19 favorites]
the end goal of feminism is for women like Hubeny to be free to think about nothing but physics. & I think when she says, basically, that that is all she thinks about, the goodwill she feels toward Talkington is not unrelated to that.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:09 AM on June 8, 2017 [19 favorites]
> “Even read through the filter of cheerful understatement, I wonder if there are any men who can say the same. or who have said the same. ”
My PhD advisors (both men) have more or less said to me: "Becoming a professor is awful, too much hard work, not enough time, miserable, takes a toll on your autonomy and personal relationships. But I couldn't imagine being anywhere else!" All that plus sexism is a tough pill to swallow, but there is definitely an institutional culture of academic masochism.
posted by Maecenas at 6:14 AM on June 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
My PhD advisors (both men) have more or less said to me: "Becoming a professor is awful, too much hard work, not enough time, miserable, takes a toll on your autonomy and personal relationships. But I couldn't imagine being anywhere else!" All that plus sexism is a tough pill to swallow, but there is definitely an institutional culture of academic masochism.
posted by Maecenas at 6:14 AM on June 8, 2017 [6 favorites]
Kyrademon, I agree with all the factors you mention, but it still remains to be explained why these would be different in physics than other disciplines, if in fact my anecdotal observations are correct that there is a difference between physics and other disciplines I am most familiar with.
Taking them in order, though:
1) These days, the sexism in question is usually subtle.
The point I made above was that I think the sexism in physics may in fact be more subtle than in some other disciplines.
2) People don't want to be perceived as whiners by themselves or by others.
Not sure whether this is particular to physics in any way, although it's possible that the perception of a person who complains about sexism is worse in disciplines that have the highest gender skewing towards male, because such a small percentage of the people hearing the complaint have personally experienced anything similar, so empathy may be less.
3) There is a deeply entrenched mythology of meritocracy.
This I think is more so in physics, and mathematics, than in some other sciences. There's this cultural meme of the genius kid who was discovered on their genius kid merits and became an international science celebrity (see Good Will Hunting) that feeds into it. Along with the idea that people do their best work by the time they are like, 25.
4) Selection effects.
These too may be bigger in fields that skew more heavily male, I guess.
Finally, I had in mind above mainly a comparison of physics to other sciences, but when I compare it to the humanities and social sciences (which I myself am in), I think that's where dashy's point becomes very relevant. The women, and most of the men, in my part of the university are very familiar with social justice, feminist theory, etc, and many of them incorporate aspects of it into their research, so it's unsurprising if they are more attuned to it in their lived experience too.
posted by lollusc at 6:20 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Taking them in order, though:
1) These days, the sexism in question is usually subtle.
The point I made above was that I think the sexism in physics may in fact be more subtle than in some other disciplines.
2) People don't want to be perceived as whiners by themselves or by others.
Not sure whether this is particular to physics in any way, although it's possible that the perception of a person who complains about sexism is worse in disciplines that have the highest gender skewing towards male, because such a small percentage of the people hearing the complaint have personally experienced anything similar, so empathy may be less.
3) There is a deeply entrenched mythology of meritocracy.
This I think is more so in physics, and mathematics, than in some other sciences. There's this cultural meme of the genius kid who was discovered on their genius kid merits and became an international science celebrity (see Good Will Hunting) that feeds into it. Along with the idea that people do their best work by the time they are like, 25.
4) Selection effects.
These too may be bigger in fields that skew more heavily male, I guess.
Finally, I had in mind above mainly a comparison of physics to other sciences, but when I compare it to the humanities and social sciences (which I myself am in), I think that's where dashy's point becomes very relevant. The women, and most of the men, in my part of the university are very familiar with social justice, feminist theory, etc, and many of them incorporate aspects of it into their research, so it's unsurprising if they are more attuned to it in their lived experience too.
posted by lollusc at 6:20 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
sorry, that was unnecessarily oblique of me -- there are, I know, men who gave up actual comforts for physics. so literally, yes, there are many men who could say that and probably think they were in the same boat. but what I meant was, Hubeny writes "comforts" for equal treatment and respect, and to an audience of women with the recent context, that's understood (as well as from the rest of the paragraph that statement's in, which is explicit about it.) I profoundly dislike that kind of code even though it is extremely useful when two separate sets of people are going to be listening to you.
it is incredibly attractive to think of disrespect as just one of many ways a person can be made uncomfortable, and thus not much more than an opportunity to demonstrate your toughness and dedication. seriously, it is attractive to me. but there's comfort and comfort.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:21 AM on June 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
it is incredibly attractive to think of disrespect as just one of many ways a person can be made uncomfortable, and thus not much more than an opportunity to demonstrate your toughness and dedication. seriously, it is attractive to me. but there's comfort and comfort.
posted by queenofbithynia at 6:21 AM on June 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
Can I also just say that I love how the woman who intervened is called Talkington. Eponysterical, amiright?
posted by lollusc at 6:23 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by lollusc at 6:23 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
Whilst the physicists I know are generally good people, there’s a guy who is still a fellow of the college where I was undergrad & a practising physicist who used to assert that “women can’t do physics”. So these people do exist sadly.
Maecenas: I suspect that everyone has it hard at every level: applying for posts, applying for funding, you name it, which makes it difficult to single out this particular difficulty for individuals. In the UK (and the EU?) the Athena Swan project is trying to push back against some of the institutional issues that hold women back (things like the mentoring mentioned above) but I don’t know how effective it has been.
posted by pharm at 6:23 AM on June 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
Maecenas: I suspect that everyone has it hard at every level: applying for posts, applying for funding, you name it, which makes it difficult to single out this particular difficulty for individuals. In the UK (and the EU?) the Athena Swan project is trying to push back against some of the institutional issues that hold women back (things like the mentoring mentioned above) but I don’t know how effective it has been.
posted by pharm at 6:23 AM on June 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
(I’ve never understood how you could even honestly come to that viewpoint myself. You could possibly claim that on average women weren’t as good at physics or something, but that’s true of both genders. There’s enough high-end physics that has been done by women to disprove the general rule on the spot, so how anyone could assert it escapes me entirely.)
posted by pharm at 6:25 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by pharm at 6:25 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
I’ve never understood how you could even honestly come to that viewpoint myself.
Risking a godwinization, they don't say it because they believe it about those people, they say it to justify what they want to do to them.
posted by Etrigan at 6:32 AM on June 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
Risking a godwinization, they don't say it because they believe it about those people, they say it to justify what they want to do to them.
posted by Etrigan at 6:32 AM on June 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
(I’ve never understood how you could even honestly come to that viewpoint myself. You could possibly claim that on average women weren’t as good at physics or something, but that’s true of both genders. There’s enough high-end physics that has been done by women to disprove the general rule on the spot, so how anyone could assert it escapes me entirely.)
I can't believe I'm putting forward this argument (which I don't subscribe to myself), especially after having asserted above that individual physicists generally seem less openly sexist than many other science disciplines I am familar with.
But.
I did once have a physicist claim to me that the gender skewing in physics might be biologically based. If I recall rightly, their argument was that the people who can do cutting-edge research work in physics have to be at the very far end of the bell-curve for intelligence (see my comment above about the meme of the boy-genius). And that the pool of total people at that end of the IQ scale is so small and so hard to measure (since IQ tests don't even work for people that many standard deviations out) that we don't know whether there's a gender difference in intelligence at that level of genetic freakiness. We can claim that there isn't, but that's ideologically based rather than empirical. So their argument was that it's possible that statistically more super-geniuses might be male than female, not that any individual woman is less capable than any individual man.
As I said, I don't subscribe to the argument (since I can't think of any mechanism that would cause a gender difference in IQs at high IQ levels that wouldn't also affect the distribution further down the bell curve where it would be detectable. ). But since you say you can't see how someone could honestly hold that viewpoint, I'm giving an example of how someone I know did.
posted by lollusc at 6:40 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
I can't believe I'm putting forward this argument (which I don't subscribe to myself), especially after having asserted above that individual physicists generally seem less openly sexist than many other science disciplines I am familar with.
But.
I did once have a physicist claim to me that the gender skewing in physics might be biologically based. If I recall rightly, their argument was that the people who can do cutting-edge research work in physics have to be at the very far end of the bell-curve for intelligence (see my comment above about the meme of the boy-genius). And that the pool of total people at that end of the IQ scale is so small and so hard to measure (since IQ tests don't even work for people that many standard deviations out) that we don't know whether there's a gender difference in intelligence at that level of genetic freakiness. We can claim that there isn't, but that's ideologically based rather than empirical. So their argument was that it's possible that statistically more super-geniuses might be male than female, not that any individual woman is less capable than any individual man.
As I said, I don't subscribe to the argument (since I can't think of any mechanism that would cause a gender difference in IQs at high IQ levels that wouldn't also affect the distribution further down the bell curve where it would be detectable. ). But since you say you can't see how someone could honestly hold that viewpoint, I'm giving an example of how someone I know did.
posted by lollusc at 6:40 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Uh, by that logic it's equally possible that there may be statistically more female super-genuises than male, because we just don't know and can't measure accurately. How on earth did your physicist reconcile that?
posted by Liesl at 6:48 AM on June 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by Liesl at 6:48 AM on June 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
Even if you subscribe to the 'there are more men in the tails of the distribution' theory, there are plenty of women who *have* published top-grade physics research. Emmy Noether & Lise Meitner for a start. I’m sure there are others. (Noether gets 2 Theorems and a Lemma named after her!) They may not be numerous, but their existence disproves the rule.
Maybe as Etrigan says, the point is more to justify the thinkers actions more than anything else, which in turn means that people who think like this will automatically discount any individuals one comes up with as somehow being exceptions to the rule: either their work wasn’t *really* all that good, or else they weren’t *really* women somehow in a way that makes them not representative of women as a class. (when you have a small number of people in a larger group, each of them is going to be individually exceptional in some way almost by definition.)
posted by pharm at 6:51 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Maybe as Etrigan says, the point is more to justify the thinkers actions more than anything else, which in turn means that people who think like this will automatically discount any individuals one comes up with as somehow being exceptions to the rule: either their work wasn’t *really* all that good, or else they weren’t *really* women somehow in a way that makes them not representative of women as a class. (when you have a small number of people in a larger group, each of them is going to be individually exceptional in some way almost by definition.)
posted by pharm at 6:51 AM on June 8, 2017 [3 favorites]
Holy cow, that is INFURIATING to watch. That moderator is a sexist ass. He keeps interrupting and talking over her as if she's not even there.
posted by zarq at 7:21 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by zarq at 7:21 AM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
this is interesting reading -- I mean the whole interview, if you can get hold of it -- if you like getting inspired but then mad and depressed. "mepressed" if you like. it's the new hangry.
(I am not a scientist, like I say, I just found it in the course of trying to detective out who the "Tom and Bunny" were who sent my physicist dad letters from Zurich in the 60s.)
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:22 AM on June 8, 2017
(I am not a scientist, like I say, I just found it in the course of trying to detective out who the "Tom and Bunny" were who sent my physicist dad letters from Zurich in the 60s.)
posted by queenofbithynia at 7:22 AM on June 8, 2017
My take on this is that Hubeny, as a victim of abuse has been minimizing it for years in order to survive. Unsaid: "Oh, I just smile when they verbally abuse me and don't take it seriously, or I would have committed suicide years ago." Psychological wounds run deep. Just to survive sometimes you minimize what is happening. And remember that often defending yourself results in annihilation - Speak up and they won't just talk over you, they might physically assault you in the lab at night. Stay small and squeaky and let them put their name on your papers as co-author and as mentor and they tolerate you.
posted by Jane the Brown at 7:24 AM on June 8, 2017 [18 favorites]
posted by Jane the Brown at 7:24 AM on June 8, 2017 [18 favorites]
As someone with a little bit of experience splashing around in that end of the gene pool, it doesn't seem like it would explain the gender bias in physics on its own. I've certainly known more male supergeniuses than female, and met more, but we're talking 60-40 instead of 90-10. My parents and I were told it tends to be inherited maternally; that's anecdotally likely but whether it's actually based in genetics, buggered if I know.
If I were to guess, I'd say there was enough friction to doing STEM subjects that most girl geniuses wandered off and applied their mental energies to other things. I wasn't particularly interested in developing interpersonal or intrapersonal skills, but that kind of thing is often coded feminine so there's less friction to mastering that than to STEM, and it's usually not acknowledged as 'intelligence', despite human social structures being one of the key things we have our intelligence for. Like, Dolly Parton could have done anything with her intelligence, but growing up where she did, I'd imagine that songwriting and performing was less contentious, and just as interesting, as some of the other possibilities.
I'm putting my ten bucks down on 'Hubeny literally doesn't notice sexist behaviour, so any subtle marginalisation doesn't even work' because I know that is absolutely a thing amongst supergeniuses who have better things to think about.
posted by Merus at 7:26 AM on June 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
If I were to guess, I'd say there was enough friction to doing STEM subjects that most girl geniuses wandered off and applied their mental energies to other things. I wasn't particularly interested in developing interpersonal or intrapersonal skills, but that kind of thing is often coded feminine so there's less friction to mastering that than to STEM, and it's usually not acknowledged as 'intelligence', despite human social structures being one of the key things we have our intelligence for. Like, Dolly Parton could have done anything with her intelligence, but growing up where she did, I'd imagine that songwriting and performing was less contentious, and just as interesting, as some of the other possibilities.
I'm putting my ten bucks down on 'Hubeny literally doesn't notice sexist behaviour, so any subtle marginalisation doesn't even work' because I know that is absolutely a thing amongst supergeniuses who have better things to think about.
posted by Merus at 7:26 AM on June 8, 2017 [5 favorites]
There's a culture in physics that believes that physics is a rational meritocracy. The best ideas—and the smartest people—will naturally rise to the top. The top people in physics will tell you this, and naturally you can trust them because they're the smartest people. We think we aren't sexist or racist in physics because we, more than any other field (other than maybe math), are logical and we can surely reason our way out of unconscious bias. If you're successful in the field of physics, even moderately so, it benefits you to believe these myths because they explain that you are successful because you share this virtue of being hyper-logical.
This partly explains why so few people say they've experienced overt sexism in physics. Blatant sexism is illogical. There are only a few physicists who think they've got a logical basis to say that women can't do physics, but, to most others, this is an irrational statement, and they won't admit to having such irrational thoughts.
As a woman in physics, I survived my early career by being oblivious to the sexism I experienced, which was mostly on the down-low: low expectations, being discouraged from being too ambitious, not maybe getting all the same opportunities, subtly sexist language, weird assumptions about women and success in physics, gendered praise and criticism, etc.
I'm assuming that these things happened to me a lot; like I said, I was oblivious to it at the time. I've finally unpacked a few things that made me feel uncomfortable when I experienced them, but I wanted to be the cool girl—and, anyway, I didn't have the language and conceptual understanding at the time to tease out or explain what was wrong with them—so I kept quiet. I understand now why they were wrong, and how they damaged me without me knowing how or why at the time.
I definitely adopted the values of the macho physics culture: in physics you have to be tough, and not all women are tough enough, but I am, and that makes me special. Tough girls are cool. Girls who complain about sexism just aren't tough enough to hack it.
I wouldn't have spelled it out that way, of course. This insight came after a lot of learning about feminism and much personal reflection. But this is another one of those myths that it benefits you to believe: I am successful, therefore I am virtuous; there is nothing wrong with the system because if I found success in it, any deserving person could do so.
Eventually I realized that I was getting ground down to a nub by misogyny in my field. With much help from friends and MeFi, I have finally learned to identify heavily gendered criticism. I finally developed a healthy skepticism around whether praise or criticism that I receive is objective, and intended to be helpful, rather than taking everything at face value.
I spent years trying to perfect myself, make myself small, try to avoid annoying people or giving offense or making mistakes, because I thought that was actually possible. But I'm occupying a space that certain people unconsciously believe I don't belong in, so of course everything I do seems wrong to them, and they don't hesitate to let me know. So I am trying to unlearn the strategies of flinching at criticism, shrinking back, being silent, tiptoeing, avoiding. It's probably going to take as many years to unlearn those strategies as I spent learning them.
I used to be grateful for the obliviousness of my younger years, but now I am seeing the harm it has done to me. I used to worry that talking about bias in physics might be setting my students up to have the wrong psychological mindset, to paraphrase Dr. Hubeny. But I've rejected that idea, because 20% of physicists are woman. Where are the missing 30%? For every woman in physics who has found success by ignoring and being oblivious to sexism, the are more who have been lost to the field. I'm trying to teach my students who are women and POC that filter, teaching them that people will say things to you that are influenced by their implicit biases, and, while, of course you can't just ignore all criticism, you can't just take it all onboard and assume that it is a true reflection of your strengths and weaknesses, either. I'm trying to teach them that sexism and racism isn't something we have to be tough and accept, it's something we have to change. And I am teaching my white male students about this stuff, too, because they are the majority in this field, they are seen as belonging in the field, and they will have disproportionate power to change the way things are.
posted by BrashTech at 7:48 AM on June 8, 2017 [69 favorites]
This partly explains why so few people say they've experienced overt sexism in physics. Blatant sexism is illogical. There are only a few physicists who think they've got a logical basis to say that women can't do physics, but, to most others, this is an irrational statement, and they won't admit to having such irrational thoughts.
As a woman in physics, I survived my early career by being oblivious to the sexism I experienced, which was mostly on the down-low: low expectations, being discouraged from being too ambitious, not maybe getting all the same opportunities, subtly sexist language, weird assumptions about women and success in physics, gendered praise and criticism, etc.
I'm assuming that these things happened to me a lot; like I said, I was oblivious to it at the time. I've finally unpacked a few things that made me feel uncomfortable when I experienced them, but I wanted to be the cool girl—and, anyway, I didn't have the language and conceptual understanding at the time to tease out or explain what was wrong with them—so I kept quiet. I understand now why they were wrong, and how they damaged me without me knowing how or why at the time.
I definitely adopted the values of the macho physics culture: in physics you have to be tough, and not all women are tough enough, but I am, and that makes me special. Tough girls are cool. Girls who complain about sexism just aren't tough enough to hack it.
I wouldn't have spelled it out that way, of course. This insight came after a lot of learning about feminism and much personal reflection. But this is another one of those myths that it benefits you to believe: I am successful, therefore I am virtuous; there is nothing wrong with the system because if I found success in it, any deserving person could do so.
Eventually I realized that I was getting ground down to a nub by misogyny in my field. With much help from friends and MeFi, I have finally learned to identify heavily gendered criticism. I finally developed a healthy skepticism around whether praise or criticism that I receive is objective, and intended to be helpful, rather than taking everything at face value.
I spent years trying to perfect myself, make myself small, try to avoid annoying people or giving offense or making mistakes, because I thought that was actually possible. But I'm occupying a space that certain people unconsciously believe I don't belong in, so of course everything I do seems wrong to them, and they don't hesitate to let me know. So I am trying to unlearn the strategies of flinching at criticism, shrinking back, being silent, tiptoeing, avoiding. It's probably going to take as many years to unlearn those strategies as I spent learning them.
I used to be grateful for the obliviousness of my younger years, but now I am seeing the harm it has done to me. I used to worry that talking about bias in physics might be setting my students up to have the wrong psychological mindset, to paraphrase Dr. Hubeny. But I've rejected that idea, because 20% of physicists are woman. Where are the missing 30%? For every woman in physics who has found success by ignoring and being oblivious to sexism, the are more who have been lost to the field. I'm trying to teach my students who are women and POC that filter, teaching them that people will say things to you that are influenced by their implicit biases, and, while, of course you can't just ignore all criticism, you can't just take it all onboard and assume that it is a true reflection of your strengths and weaknesses, either. I'm trying to teach them that sexism and racism isn't something we have to be tough and accept, it's something we have to change. And I am teaching my white male students about this stuff, too, because they are the majority in this field, they are seen as belonging in the field, and they will have disproportionate power to change the way things are.
posted by BrashTech at 7:48 AM on June 8, 2017 [69 favorites]
When I was an undergraduate student I participated in a summer research program in the sciences. They housed all of the students, regardless of subfield, in the same building. I remember introducing myself to someone and talking to them about my hobbies, which included listening to podcasts. He asked about some of the podcasts I was interested in and I listed a few, including some that had to do with women in STEM and feminism. The guy then when on a rant about how sexism in the sciences wasn't a big deal and he thought the best way to combat sexism in science was by doing good science. Because if you're a good scientist you'll be able to get hired and the problem wasn't people and a culture of sexism, but an individual's abilities.
He was a physicist. Also, a giant asshole. This is all starting to make a little more sense, especially with BrashTech's comment about about the culture in physics.
posted by lucy.jakobs at 8:43 AM on June 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
He was a physicist. Also, a giant asshole. This is all starting to make a little more sense, especially with BrashTech's comment about about the culture in physics.
posted by lucy.jakobs at 8:43 AM on June 8, 2017 [11 favorites]
I just responded to the Doctor over on Facebook:
---
---
"I had early on decided that I like physics so much that I’d be quite willing to give up quite a bit of other comforts for it, but perhaps having made that decision and bracing oneself, then made the actual “discomforts” not only more bearable, but genuinely less discomforting."posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:33 AM on June 8, 2017 [25 favorites]
With all due respect, Dr. Hubney -
The kind of "comforts" you are describing are things like having your colleagues treat you with respect, and being paid an equal salary. Those should not be considered mere "comforts". Rather, they should be EXPECTATIONS. or REQUIREMENTS from anyone pursuing any career, not just one in the sciences.
I applaud and commend your fortitude, and am inspired by your being able to use your love of science as a foundation to help you endure this. However, I am at the same time utterly heartbroken that you are convincing yourself that you do not automatically deserve the same treatment that your male colleagues can enjoy without question.
Giving up "comforts" to pursue a career in the sciences should refer to things like how many vacation days you have, or whether you can afford gourmet coffee or have to settle for the lesser-expensive brand. They should not refer to things like whether your colleagues treat your ideas with respect.
I am a scientist. I am not a physicist, but I know several, so we talk about this a lot. It's interesting that the experiences/flavors of sexism vary, and perhaps that is what obscures their summed weight? For example :
Experiments at Fermilab gave women fewer opportunities to present at conferences. Notably, even the physicists who disagree with the specific point made still agree that sexism is rampant in physics.
Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions. Notable quote "Although a subset of women did not report experiencing sexual discrimination, the majority experienced subtle insults and slights known as microaggressions."
A survey at the University of Melbourne. The heartbreaking part is that many of the "physics is for men" comments come from women.
Then of course, there are the egregious cases like Geoff Marcy (previously)
But let's end on a better note - there are so many awesome women in physics! Fistbumps to all the physicists in this thread. And here are two cool people that I've come across lately:
In line with this post, astrophysicist Katie Mack from Melbourne had an epic burn for a sexist jerk that made the news
Cosmologist Risa Weschler at Stanford does great scicomm, like a piece for Teen Vogue.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 9:35 AM on June 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
Experiments at Fermilab gave women fewer opportunities to present at conferences. Notably, even the physicists who disagree with the specific point made still agree that sexism is rampant in physics.
Gender discrimination in physics and astronomy: Graduate student experiences of sexism and gender microaggressions. Notable quote "Although a subset of women did not report experiencing sexual discrimination, the majority experienced subtle insults and slights known as microaggressions."
A survey at the University of Melbourne. The heartbreaking part is that many of the "physics is for men" comments come from women.
Then of course, there are the egregious cases like Geoff Marcy (previously)
But let's end on a better note - there are so many awesome women in physics! Fistbumps to all the physicists in this thread. And here are two cool people that I've come across lately:
In line with this post, astrophysicist Katie Mack from Melbourne had an epic burn for a sexist jerk that made the news
Cosmologist Risa Weschler at Stanford does great scicomm, like a piece for Teen Vogue.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 9:35 AM on June 8, 2017 [9 favorites]
The idea that there is such a gender disparity in math-heavy fields because there are more male super-geniuses than female super-geniuses isn't new. It's very popular in anti-feminist circles.
Of course, there's another problem for it, apart from lack of evidence): It buys into the myth that people in these fields are super geniuses. That's based more on how popular culture portrays them than reality though.
Yes, you have to be smart. But a super genius? No.
I gave up math in part because I felt I wasn't "genius" enough - I was afraid that, since I wasn't naturally talented and didn't find it easy, I would fail in graduate school. This is after I double-majored in math for fun and graduated on the dean's list.
How much of this was honest self-assessment, and how much of this was because I wasn't taught to be confident in my abilities, or to consider myself as possessing the qualities a mathematician needs to possess? We know from sociological research that (a) we're much more likely to ascribe the label "genius" to men, even when there is no real difference in demonstrated intelligence, and (b) women's ability to compete is judged more harshly in fields where "genius" is considered a requirement.
I don't know the answer for me. But I am pretty sure that a young man in my position would have been much more encouraged to try.
(I'm not really bitter about the choice I made; I'm in graduate school in a field I love equally well and have done things a mathematician usually doesn't get to. I also get to pull the degree on mansplainers who think a woman in a "soft science" can't possibly understand their STEM lord bullshit, which is always satisfying.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:36 AM on June 8, 2017 [23 favorites]
Of course, there's another problem for it, apart from lack of evidence): It buys into the myth that people in these fields are super geniuses. That's based more on how popular culture portrays them than reality though.
Yes, you have to be smart. But a super genius? No.
I gave up math in part because I felt I wasn't "genius" enough - I was afraid that, since I wasn't naturally talented and didn't find it easy, I would fail in graduate school. This is after I double-majored in math for fun and graduated on the dean's list.
How much of this was honest self-assessment, and how much of this was because I wasn't taught to be confident in my abilities, or to consider myself as possessing the qualities a mathematician needs to possess? We know from sociological research that (a) we're much more likely to ascribe the label "genius" to men, even when there is no real difference in demonstrated intelligence, and (b) women's ability to compete is judged more harshly in fields where "genius" is considered a requirement.
I don't know the answer for me. But I am pretty sure that a young man in my position would have been much more encouraged to try.
(I'm not really bitter about the choice I made; I'm in graduate school in a field I love equally well and have done things a mathematician usually doesn't get to. I also get to pull the degree on mansplainers who think a woman in a "soft science" can't possibly understand their STEM lord bullshit, which is always satisfying.)
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:36 AM on June 8, 2017 [23 favorites]
Nothing at all to do with physics, but men tend to interrupt women in any conversation. I called my husband out on it every once in a while. He had a rational explanation: "If I don't go ahead and say what's in my head, I'll forget it." Yeah, that's more important than letting me finish my sentence. Would you do that to a guy? He was silent for a long time.
Eventually, he explained, "If I did that to another guy, he'd just interrupt me right back."
At least it got him thinking about how we communicate, and he got better with it over time.
posted by Miss Cellania at 9:47 AM on June 8, 2017 [15 favorites]
Eventually, he explained, "If I did that to another guy, he'd just interrupt me right back."
At least it got him thinking about how we communicate, and he got better with it over time.
posted by Miss Cellania at 9:47 AM on June 8, 2017 [15 favorites]
"If I don't go ahead and say what's in my head, I'll forget it."
This shit drives me up the fucking WALL.
You mean, you wanted to say something before you forget it because it was important to communicate to someone? What the HELL do you think I was in the middle of doing?!?
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:19 AM on June 8, 2017 [22 favorites]
This shit drives me up the fucking WALL.
You mean, you wanted to say something before you forget it because it was important to communicate to someone? What the HELL do you think I was in the middle of doing?!?
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:19 AM on June 8, 2017 [22 favorites]
The Only Woman in the Room is Eileen Pollack's memoir-investigation of being a physics major at Yale in the 1970 is well worth reading. In the last section she talks to current science majors and finds how much has changed and stayed the same.
posted by spamandkimchi at 11:57 AM on June 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by spamandkimchi at 11:57 AM on June 8, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's completely possible to not consciously hate women or think less of them, while still committing completely sexist actions.
The fact that he didn't sit down before the conference and decide, "Oh, if she tries to explain her ideas I'll break in and do it for her because obviously I, as a man, can do it better," doesn't change the end result. However unconsciously it may have happened, he's absorbed the idea that this is just how you act around women. I could see that he was genuinely surprised when it was pointed out to him. Hopefully he takes it to heart and starts thinking about some things he's never had to think about before. I'm pretty sure he will if he's the person Hubeny describes.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:05 PM on June 8, 2017 [25 favorites]
The fact that he didn't sit down before the conference and decide, "Oh, if she tries to explain her ideas I'll break in and do it for her because obviously I, as a man, can do it better," doesn't change the end result. However unconsciously it may have happened, he's absorbed the idea that this is just how you act around women. I could see that he was genuinely surprised when it was pointed out to him. Hopefully he takes it to heart and starts thinking about some things he's never had to think about before. I'm pretty sure he will if he's the person Hubeny describes.
posted by The Underpants Monster at 12:05 PM on June 8, 2017 [25 favorites]
people who can do cutting-edge research work in physics have to be at the very far end of the bell-curve for intelligence
Echoing what has been expressed above, that: (1) this idea is "not even wrong" as stated and (2) if you interpret it according to popular stereotypes about intelligence and the role it plays in science, it becomes false.
The process of cooking up and making rigorous one's ideas is complicated and is approachable in a sufficiently wide variety of ways that a fairly diverse range of cognitive toolsets can be brought to bear successfully, so it's not even clear what should be on that bell-curve's x-axis.
Most of the people I know in my, say, physics-somewhat-adjacent field (I'm in math) seem to me to be really quite bright, but I suspect that assessing them on metrics amenable to placement on "bell-curves" would pretty well decorate the whole "quite bright" zone of said bell curve, and not correlate that strongly with the impressiveness/influence of their work. Too many other personal characteristics, features/fuckups of the community, and random factors are at play.
A particularly common archetype is the person who is extremely quick, has an intimidating command of theory due to very good memory, is an able trickster, etc. whose actual creative work is good and useful, but not as stunning as it would be if the "revolutionary work iff super-genius" trope were valid.
Then there's this. There is also some very useful writing that pushes back against the "genius myth" by Moon Duchin (pdf) and Piper Harron.
posted by busted_crayons at 1:00 PM on June 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
Echoing what has been expressed above, that: (1) this idea is "not even wrong" as stated and (2) if you interpret it according to popular stereotypes about intelligence and the role it plays in science, it becomes false.
The process of cooking up and making rigorous one's ideas is complicated and is approachable in a sufficiently wide variety of ways that a fairly diverse range of cognitive toolsets can be brought to bear successfully, so it's not even clear what should be on that bell-curve's x-axis.
Most of the people I know in my, say, physics-somewhat-adjacent field (I'm in math) seem to me to be really quite bright, but I suspect that assessing them on metrics amenable to placement on "bell-curves" would pretty well decorate the whole "quite bright" zone of said bell curve, and not correlate that strongly with the impressiveness/influence of their work. Too many other personal characteristics, features/fuckups of the community, and random factors are at play.
A particularly common archetype is the person who is extremely quick, has an intimidating command of theory due to very good memory, is an able trickster, etc. whose actual creative work is good and useful, but not as stunning as it would be if the "revolutionary work iff super-genius" trope were valid.
Then there's this. There is also some very useful writing that pushes back against the "genius myth" by Moon Duchin (pdf) and Piper Harron.
posted by busted_crayons at 1:00 PM on June 8, 2017 [7 favorites]
It's completely possible to not consciously hate women or think less of them, while still committing completely sexist actions.
I dare say this is even the default stance of most people in our current iteration of the patriarchy. It requires conscious and sustained effort to behave otherwise, regardless of what one believes in their heart of hearts.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:07 PM on June 8, 2017 [15 favorites]
I dare say this is even the default stance of most people in our current iteration of the patriarchy. It requires conscious and sustained effort to behave otherwise, regardless of what one believes in their heart of hearts.
posted by tobascodagama at 1:07 PM on June 8, 2017 [15 favorites]
My take on this is that Hubeny, as a victim of abuse has been minimizing it for years in order to survive.
You know, I do *kind of* agree that this must be true. On the other hand, I feel like it's disrespecting Hubeny not to take her statement at face value. Like, it's a thing that whatever a woman says must not be her actual world-view, and let me correct /explain what she meant.
"Let her speak, please!"
Along with "Nevertheless, she persisted." I want this on a t-shirt!
I dunno, man, I already went and got a PhD in astrophysics. Seems like more than that would be overkill at this point.”
*fist pump*
posted by BlueHorse at 1:36 PM on June 8, 2017 [14 favorites]
You know, I do *kind of* agree that this must be true. On the other hand, I feel like it's disrespecting Hubeny not to take her statement at face value. Like, it's a thing that whatever a woman says must not be her actual world-view, and let me correct /explain what she meant.
"Let her speak, please!"
Along with "Nevertheless, she persisted." I want this on a t-shirt!
I dunno, man, I already went and got a PhD in astrophysics. Seems like more than that would be overkill at this point.”
*fist pump*
posted by BlueHorse at 1:36 PM on June 8, 2017 [14 favorites]
I think BrashTech is right on in her assessment of physics culture. There's a certain sense of how logical and straightforward physicists are (plus a bit of patting selves on the back) "We really value intelligence and ability - if we don't respect you and your scientific ability, it's not because you're female it's because your scientific ability isn't great". Straight-faced, true believers. With absolutely no awareness that their personal judgement filters could be feeding them false perceptions of scientific ability that are based in gender.
As a female physicist, one of my personal frustrations is that I'm NOT the shining-star exception like Dr Hubney. I don't do crazy-sounding theory-based physics that is rooted in mathematics and the nature of the universe, I build and troubleshoot laser-based measurement systems, and I'm pretty good at it. But it's not glitzy physics, and apparently in my job what I'm better at than all the guys is managing projects. And I have to decide whether I want to manage projects because I'm good at it, or whether I am being told I should be managing projects because they would rather imagine me being good at that, than thinking about me being good at replacing coolant lines and swearing at wrenches while trying to make a broken laser go, which is also not glitzy physics. If I were to put my foot down and demand to be a lab monkey, I could do that; they wouldn't be so blatantly sexist as to tell me my good outcomes are unacceptable or hold me to different standards on paper. But the baseline assumptions of what women are good at have seeped in around the edges and it's basically impossible to be sure any more which of my skills is really outstanding, what I really want, and why I really want that.
The sexism in physics isn't blatant and forbidding, it's insidious - and leads to things like assuming that the way we get treated (for example, talked over) would happen to anybody (for example that the interviewer was just so excited about the science) and has nothing to do with gender (despite the interviewer's behavior with other panelists).
posted by aimedwander at 1:39 PM on June 8, 2017 [29 favorites]
As a female physicist, one of my personal frustrations is that I'm NOT the shining-star exception like Dr Hubney. I don't do crazy-sounding theory-based physics that is rooted in mathematics and the nature of the universe, I build and troubleshoot laser-based measurement systems, and I'm pretty good at it. But it's not glitzy physics, and apparently in my job what I'm better at than all the guys is managing projects. And I have to decide whether I want to manage projects because I'm good at it, or whether I am being told I should be managing projects because they would rather imagine me being good at that, than thinking about me being good at replacing coolant lines and swearing at wrenches while trying to make a broken laser go, which is also not glitzy physics. If I were to put my foot down and demand to be a lab monkey, I could do that; they wouldn't be so blatantly sexist as to tell me my good outcomes are unacceptable or hold me to different standards on paper. But the baseline assumptions of what women are good at have seeped in around the edges and it's basically impossible to be sure any more which of my skills is really outstanding, what I really want, and why I really want that.
The sexism in physics isn't blatant and forbidding, it's insidious - and leads to things like assuming that the way we get treated (for example, talked over) would happen to anybody (for example that the interviewer was just so excited about the science) and has nothing to do with gender (despite the interviewer's behavior with other panelists).
posted by aimedwander at 1:39 PM on June 8, 2017 [29 favorites]
I have literally never met a physicist who makes deliberately offensive sexist comments, subscribes to the belief that women are inferior, or actively discriminates against women etc
While I don't want to say that these personal experiences are wrong, they don't cover all experiences (obviously) and aren't the whole story. There is a fuckton of straight up, blatant sexism and active discrimination in physics.
posted by medusa at 7:41 PM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
While I don't want to say that these personal experiences are wrong, they don't cover all experiences (obviously) and aren't the whole story. There is a fuckton of straight up, blatant sexism and active discrimination in physics.
posted by medusa at 7:41 PM on June 8, 2017 [2 favorites]
As a female physicist, one of my personal frustrations is that I'm NOT the shining-star exception like Dr Hubney.
I think this is really common in male dominated fields. It's a lot easier to accept that there are a few exceptional women than to accept that the average woman is as good as the average man.
I remember a discussion on this site from a while ago about coding, where someone mentioned that it seemed like unless you as a female coder were at the very top, you would be considered to be bottom of the barrel. There was no space for women who were just good at their jobs, instead of being undeniably outstanding.
I suspect I'm experiencing a mild form of this with one of my advisors, but what are you gonna do.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:12 AM on June 9, 2017 [11 favorites]
I think this is really common in male dominated fields. It's a lot easier to accept that there are a few exceptional women than to accept that the average woman is as good as the average man.
I remember a discussion on this site from a while ago about coding, where someone mentioned that it seemed like unless you as a female coder were at the very top, you would be considered to be bottom of the barrel. There was no space for women who were just good at their jobs, instead of being undeniably outstanding.
I suspect I'm experiencing a mild form of this with one of my advisors, but what are you gonna do.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 2:12 AM on June 9, 2017 [11 favorites]
I need terrible female engineers by Amy Nguyen
posted by BrashTech at 3:58 AM on June 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by BrashTech at 3:58 AM on June 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
The kind of "comforts" you are describing are things like having your colleagues treat you with respect, and being paid an equal salary. Those should not be considered mere "comforts". Rather, they should be EXPECTATIONS. or REQUIREMENTS from anyone pursuing any career, not just one in the sciences.
I entirely agree with this. But I am also convinced that I am treated far better as a woman in physics in academia than I would be as a woman in the private sector, or in most other academic disciplines.
I remember a discussion on this site from a while ago about coding, where someone mentioned that it seemed like unless you as a female coder were at the very top, you would be considered to be bottom of the barrel. There was no space for women who were just good at their jobs, instead of being undeniably outstanding.
I think this is also a thing in physics, at least at the undergraduate level. Because of our sick-ass culture, men tend to think they're better at things than they really are, and women tend to think they're worse. In my experience the "bell curves" are the same shape, it's just that the self-selection cutoff for women is way higher than it is for men. (An interesting corollary to this is that, if you want an awesome student, hire a woman: she is more likely to be at the top of the class than a randomly-selected man.) At least in the U.S., the gender imbalance in physics is being imprinted at the transition from high school to university, which actually speaks very well for physics culture:
posted by heatherlogan at 7:38 AM on June 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
I entirely agree with this. But I am also convinced that I am treated far better as a woman in physics in academia than I would be as a woman in the private sector, or in most other academic disciplines.
I remember a discussion on this site from a while ago about coding, where someone mentioned that it seemed like unless you as a female coder were at the very top, you would be considered to be bottom of the barrel. There was no space for women who were just good at their jobs, instead of being undeniably outstanding.
I think this is also a thing in physics, at least at the undergraduate level. Because of our sick-ass culture, men tend to think they're better at things than they really are, and women tend to think they're worse. In my experience the "bell curves" are the same shape, it's just that the self-selection cutoff for women is way higher than it is for men. (An interesting corollary to this is that, if you want an awesome student, hire a woman: she is more likely to be at the top of the class than a randomly-selected man.) At least in the U.S., the gender imbalance in physics is being imprinted at the transition from high school to university, which actually speaks very well for physics culture:
The “leaky pipeline” prevents women physicists in all countries from reaching the highest levels of our profession. The amount of leakage and at what stage it occurs varies significantly from country to country. In the U.S., women’s participation in physics decreases precipitously from high school to college level and then again in the top leadership positions in physics. However, unlike the situation in many other countries, in the U.S., in the last decade, there is no leak from the undergraduate to graduate to assistant professor level in physics — the percentage of women at each of these levels has hovered around 20%.Another factor that I think plays a role here is the cultural expectation that very smart women should pursue a career that saves the world or improves people's lives, like being a pediatric surgeon or a human-rights lawyer or curing cancer. The same pressure is put on very smart young people from minority communities: become a doctor or a lawyer or an entrepreneur and bring your skills back to help your community. I think the pursuit of physics is sometimes seen as frivolous or even selfish: just dandy for a man, but women are expected to be more "responsible" and do something that changes the world instead.
posted by heatherlogan at 7:38 AM on June 9, 2017 [4 favorites]
> I work (not in physics) with a woman who studied physics at an undergrad level and she's a more aggressive version of the same with a touch of "women who complain about sexism are whiners who couldn't hack it."
I heard a fair amount of this when I worked with biomedical researchers. (Including from the women's leadership council of a membership organization for researchers.) I don't think it's terribly specific to physics.
posted by desuetude at 7:44 AM on June 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
I heard a fair amount of this when I worked with biomedical researchers. (Including from the women's leadership council of a membership organization for researchers.) I don't think it's terribly specific to physics.
posted by desuetude at 7:44 AM on June 9, 2017 [2 favorites]
My high school physics professor was fully certain that girls could not do physics (and paradoxically had serious issues with the fact that all of his AP students regardless of gender were smarter than he was.). We had collision problems regularly that came in the form of "A woman driver...".
posted by Karmakaze at 8:55 AM on June 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Karmakaze at 8:55 AM on June 9, 2017 [1 favorite]
I am a string theorist. I also happen to be a woman.
I also would have mostly found this behavior amusing-- but because it such small potatoes compared to the blatantly problematic shit I have personally experienced, witnessed, been confided in about, or even just heard pernicious rumors of.
Physics is no where near a meritocracy. Especially in our particular field, where three or four postdocs before landing a tenure track position is common (read: up to a decade or more after receiving your Phd, with still 5-7 more years before tenure is possible). Who can afford to stick around chasing this dream for so long? The privileged, in some way or other. Me, I'm white, middle class, no family that needs taking care of, no strong wish to have kids of my own, native English speaker who went to well-financed public schools in a nice suburb as a kid. I had almost everything pointing the right way, save the whole chromosome thing, and still I'm damn lucky to have a job.
Anyone who thinks high energy theoretical physics is a meritocracy is frankly nuts. It is diverse in certain ways, but I cannot name a single black woman still in the field. And vanishingly few black men (most of whom, even in the US, are not US born). There
I used to think as Veronika does, but then yippee I got seriously harassed! And then watched so many of my colleagues quit the field for reasons having nothing to do with their physics ability. There are more trained competent string theorists than jobs, by a giant margin.
There is one sense in which it's a meritocracy-- I know very very few stupid people who are physicists. Almost everyone who actually got a job deserved it. But most of us are workhorses, not geniuses, and I could name a dozen people smarter than me who are no longer in this line of work, and that's on no sleep and I haven't found breakfast. The point is not that the people who succeed don't deserve to; it's that the numbers who do compared to the numbers who try are so small, that some part of the process is lottery at best and actively discriminatory at worst.
That having been said- I love what I do. Wouldn't give it up for, well, almost anything. Now, gotta take a nap before I write a talk, edit a paper, and stop letting the bastards get me down.
posted by nat at 1:08 AM on June 11, 2017 [14 favorites]
I also would have mostly found this behavior amusing-- but because it such small potatoes compared to the blatantly problematic shit I have personally experienced, witnessed, been confided in about, or even just heard pernicious rumors of.
Physics is no where near a meritocracy. Especially in our particular field, where three or four postdocs before landing a tenure track position is common (read: up to a decade or more after receiving your Phd, with still 5-7 more years before tenure is possible). Who can afford to stick around chasing this dream for so long? The privileged, in some way or other. Me, I'm white, middle class, no family that needs taking care of, no strong wish to have kids of my own, native English speaker who went to well-financed public schools in a nice suburb as a kid. I had almost everything pointing the right way, save the whole chromosome thing, and still I'm damn lucky to have a job.
Anyone who thinks high energy theoretical physics is a meritocracy is frankly nuts. It is diverse in certain ways, but I cannot name a single black woman still in the field. And vanishingly few black men (most of whom, even in the US, are not US born). There
I used to think as Veronika does, but then yippee I got seriously harassed! And then watched so many of my colleagues quit the field for reasons having nothing to do with their physics ability. There are more trained competent string theorists than jobs, by a giant margin.
There is one sense in which it's a meritocracy-- I know very very few stupid people who are physicists. Almost everyone who actually got a job deserved it. But most of us are workhorses, not geniuses, and I could name a dozen people smarter than me who are no longer in this line of work, and that's on no sleep and I haven't found breakfast. The point is not that the people who succeed don't deserve to; it's that the numbers who do compared to the numbers who try are so small, that some part of the process is lottery at best and actively discriminatory at worst.
That having been said- I love what I do. Wouldn't give it up for, well, almost anything. Now, gotta take a nap before I write a talk, edit a paper, and stop letting the bastards get me down.
posted by nat at 1:08 AM on June 11, 2017 [14 favorites]
This is maybe a dumb solution to the basic interruption problem, but years ago, I stole from somewhere this sentence: "I'm very sorry the middle of my sentence just now interrupted the beginning of yours." Seems just mildly confusing enough to not rile, while making my annoyance clear. Eh, hope it helps somebody. It also kinda turns into ding training if a dude has to hear it from me more than once. Also mega high fives to all the women physicists in here. Simple vector multiplication did me in.
posted by lauranesson at 12:02 AM on June 12, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by lauranesson at 12:02 AM on June 12, 2017 [3 favorites]
« Older 1 Across: Experience an Inward Shiver of... | Small Country - Big Problem Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by pharm at 3:28 AM on June 8, 2017