vacations

Terry McT. tam2731 at usl.edu
Wed Mar 12 05:27:04 EST 1997


Sabine Dippel wrote:
> 
> In article <199703111447.IAA11615 at mail.utexas.edu>, linden at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU
> (linden higgins) writes:
> |>
> |> Sigh.  This is not a spam, but just another point of view. It just seems
> |> that all this talk of long hours & intense work has lost sight of one of
> |> the (often) main complaints of women in the scientific community:
> |> family-unfriendly expectations.
> <snip>
> 
> Yes, I think so too. And it's not only family-unfriendly - people like me
> who do not have a family (meaning spouse or children - we tend to forget that
> parents and siblings are also family in this discussion) still have some
> "surrogate family", meaning friends - especially some friends with a
> "normal" life.
> 


I'm in a very field work oriented area of biology and my experience 
has been almost directly opposite to those posted here.  Our research 
teams consist of PI's, grad students, and technicians.  Those 
individuals (regardless of status level) with spouses and children 
(esp. those with *wives* and children) are given deferential treatment 
over we single, childless people.  Single people are given the 
assignments that keep them away from home for longer and place them in 
more uncomfortable positions.  In many cases, these end up being the 
more dangerous assignments as well (offshore research vessels versus 
day trips on boats within a bay).  I'm sure my married counterparts 
appreciate this situation, but when a single person ends up covering 
for a married person time and time again it begins to grate a bit.  
I'm not saying that married people should avoid field research, but 
that they (like the single people) should plan for these trips and 
carry and equal load or look for a project that doesn't require 
extended collecting trips.

Please don't flame me.  I'm just stating a view from different angle.

Terry



More information about the Womenbio mailing list