Dear Group,
Well, I was discussing with a friend last night what we have been
discussing here in the group, and she made a strong point that I think we
need to address. Actually two strong points.
First,neither of us feels we have ever been the subject of any kind of
sexism in the difficulties we are encountering in finding academic
positions. As Sabine and Constanze have reported for Germany, it is hard
for both men and women to advance in academia. We do, however, agree that
there is nevertheless a bias working against women in academic science.
But it is indirect. There is definitely a culture in which the poeple
producing the most publications and generating the most money become
successful and those who don't do those two things are left out
completely. But the reason this works more strongly against women than
against men is that women are more likely to be team players, to work for
the advancement of the project and less likely to be concerned with their
own personal interests. This takes the form of a million small decisions
every day. Whether or not to help someone learn how to do something new.
Whether or not to take the time from beginning an experiment that really
could be put off till tomorrow so that someone else's experiment can
proceed. Etc. A million times a day. Sometimes the opposite personality
can be positively hostile in refusing to make the choice that might be
self-sacrificing. Men are MUCH more likely to keep their mouths shut and
to try to remain uninvolved if they can see that an interaction is more
likely to benefit someone other than themselves. This is sometimes
absolutely mean and cynical and hostile, but more often it's subconscious
and simply the self-centered way that men are allowed to be from childhood
on. Women are asked to share as children and are made aware of the
negative connotations associated with being selfish. I don't think men
are conditioned in the same way.
So as a result, women are less aggressive in their styles in the
workplace and are therefore less productive by the criteria that currently
determine success in academic science: how many publications are produced
and how much grant money is brought in.
So then we started talking about the other side of this situation.
Can we with absolute certainty say this situation should be changed? That
we SHOULDN'T be judged on the number of publications we produce and the
amount of grant dollars we can bring in? If we were the people whose job
it is to be accountable to the tax-payer for how research dollars are
spent, wouldn't we also choose those criteria to aid us in making these
decisions? Isn't is only reasonable to want to fund productive people?
So maybe we are complaining about the fact that we can work really
hard as team players and get squeezed out? And maybe that means we have
to be selfish and have ethics other than those we have found comfortable
and consistent with our own moral codes of conduct? And that the only
choice has to then boil down to, "am I willing to be a bitch to survive?"
Because being a bitch--agressive and self-centered (sorry to use that
term, but no other word is as powerful in this context)---seems to be what
it takes.
It just seems to me that we aren't asking "why is there no room for
me?"...we're asking, "why can't I be a kind, generous, tolerant,
team-oriented and yet hard-working scientist and still find professional
achievement and reward?" And maybe the answer to that is that we've
over-populated the field and limited its resources. Who was it who said
"cruelty is nothing more than fear under stress?"
Not that these thoughts are novel; I just thought I'd add them to
the pot....
Aloisia (alice) Schmid
