9-to-5 scientists (was: women and men..)

Patricia S. Bowne pbowne at omnifest.uwm.edu
Tue Dec 5 22:14:25 EST 1995

Michelle Mynlieff writes :

" More than once I've heard "You have
kids?  Oh, then you must be a 9-5 scientist."

Call me lazy, but why on earth should we be
anything more than 9-to-5 scientists? It seems
very odd to me that we all accept the idea that
we should work 70-80 hour weeks for the kind of
pay a scientist gets. Sure, if your work is also
your recreation, but is that really true of
most scientists? I can't help thinking the
profession is being sold a bill of goods -
you really ought to love it enough to give
your life up to it for measley pay, or you're
not a "true" scientist.

Women should recognize this load of *bleep*,
shouldn't we? It's a lot like the "good mother"
images I used to see when I was younger.

I know it's the prevailing system and you have
to compete to get along, but it doesn't have
to remain the prevailing system. If you look at
the old requirements they used to have for
school teachers, you see that these unrealistic
systems have existed in that profession and are
now gone. Lots of people used to be expected to
work 15-hour days. Now, most of them have 40-hour
work weeks. How did they do it - and why haven't
we, if we're so smart?

Let me admit though that I have a non-research
job, and none of the big grants. So I'm talking
theory, not experience. - Pat Bowne

More information about the Womenbio mailing list