Hello all.
The other day (Wednesday) I read two different articles. And each of them pissed me off for different reasons. And both of them could be categorised under the same label. Guess what I'm talking about?
I spent a few hours posting on Facebook about it, so I thought I might as well blog about it (even though I had said I would stop).
Article no. 1: Not sure what the title is ("University Challenges"?), and can't easily find who it's by. Fantastic. Sorry, I would love to quote correctly, but finding it difficult.
Whilst I do not disagree with any of the facts about women employment I almost pathologically disbelieve in psychological studies. Mainly because I'm not convinced that things like "beliefs" can be measured. My disbelief was born (as so many) by reading Stephen J. Gould's essays on differences in IQ results between people that were used (at least partly) to support eugenics. IQ is considered a measure of intelligence by a large part of the population, yet few know that IQ questionnaires are far from standardized, that what they measure isn't necessarily agreed upon by all those who use them and that IQ can change quite dramatically through a person's life.
This is my main issue with this article. It is definitely true that in the sciences, especially in the physical sciences, there are more men than women, especially when it comes to senior positions. That this is due to the fact that people in senior positions believe that there is a "special quality beyond hard work and intelligence" needed in order to perform their jobs is a completely different story. Of course, this isn't what the study mentioned says (the study only correlates a strong belief in the need for this special quality and the lower amount of women), but the way the article has decided to interpret it (and probably the authors of the study, but I haven't had time to read the study yet so I won't pass judgement on this) is that this correlation means something. Which would imply that people who are entrenched in a field are more likely to believe that men possess special qualities than women. I don't have data to refute this conclusion. I don't have any data saying that people entrenched in a field don't think that men are more likely to possess a "special ability" than women. But in any case, I don't think this is a good way of going about things. Changing people's beliefs is difficult. Telling a group of people, especially scientists, that they believe a certain thing with no proof is tantamount to convincing them that they're right and you're wrong. And, finally, correlation doesn't imply causation. In fact, it could be very specifically the other way around: since there are more men in physical sciences it has led to the belief that men have a special quality allowing them to study physical science.
In any case, I think this type of article does very little for anyone. It might be hailed in the media a few times, and people in science will say it's not true, and then what? Seriously, will this change anything? Will this change the fact that names are included in most CVs and that most recruiting processes aren't blind? Will knowing this get more girls studying sciences?
There's a common belief that knowing the root of a problem is key to solving the problem. I don't deny that this is true in many cases. However, in this case, firstly, there is no inequivocal evidence that the root is the "belief in the special quality" and secondly, even if this is the root, what is one going to do about it? These types of beliefs are usually ingrained, not something one thinks about when hiring someone, in other words, an subconscious bias. They do not lead to solutions, and because often they are based on questionable science they only lead to disbelief amongst the community being accused. (Also: I am currently sitting in a lab where the majority of workers are female and the boss is a male. This is not an example of a place where clearly this doesn't happen, but just want to point out that I might be biased, since this is not the first time I am in a situation where women are the majority of workers and feel appreciated and not a bit inferior to the men).
Article no. 2: "Women in labs. Still unequal?" by Susan Watts.
I appreciated this article. In fact, I thought it needed to be written. And then I came across this sentence:
"The traditional academic lab culture of late-night and weekend working can hinder women who have children"
And it pissed me off. Not because it isn't (possibly) currently true, but because in what followed (something about automation making these late-nights and weekends unnecessary, which for the record, is not true in most of the cases I'm aware of) there was an implication that the way to go to resolve this issue for women was to make late nights and weekends less of a thing. There's nothing wrong with that. But there are experiments that will (at least for the predictable future) require a human to be there to look at the results or to set things up. There will always be times when things go wrong and a person needs to be there to overlook.
So the solution isn't for weekends and late nights to become less of a thing (because when they have to happen, it would still be men taking over) but for women and men to share child rearing. The above sentence presupposes that it's women with children who are hindered, which implies that it's women with children who are taking care of the children. I do agree that women just prior to giving birth and just after giving birth might need time off (in most cases, less than we would be made to believe). That's inevitable so long as women go through pregnancy. But in most cases, women can work almost until they give birth and can go back just a few days or weeks afterwards (if the birth has been normal and their job isn't too physically demanding). Most of the "juggling work and home" depends on one thing: is there anyone else to take up the slack at home? Because it's true. A child requires attention and time. But guess what? There are two parents. It's not (or it shouldn't be) just women benefiting from less late nights and weekends. Men have to start asking for time off work to take care of their kids too. Not just because it's just fair, but also because it's beneficial both for them and for their children.
And yes, this has been said before. But it was just shocking to me that in an article written by women about a subject that would fall easily into feminism the above sentence can be found without a second thought. Late nights and weekends are incompatible not with women with children, but with people who have to take care of children. There's nothing about being a woman that makes it automatically more difficult for you to turn up on weekends or stay later in the evening. Except for sexism.
So there. I'm sort of back. Now that I've spewed all of this out I feel better and maybe can give the subject a rest for another year or so.
As usual, hope you enjoyed, thanks for reading, comment in the comment section below.
H
Friday, 23 January 2015
Friday, 16 January 2015
My place in the world
The other day I became very aware of a type of privilege that up to now had been rather unknown to me. That is the privilege of being British.
The reason I became aware of it is because I was talking to a British man, and this person was making fun of US people who didn't know the name of the current British PM. So I promptly asked him, what is the name of the Spanish president? He looked at me puzzled.
-"I have no idea, but that's not the point!"-he replied with a huge grin.
-"Erm, you're making fun of people for not knowing the name of the PM in your country, but you don't know the name of the president in mine. Why should I not laugh at you?"
He looked at me for a couple of seconds, and then, without smiling but also without any contrition, he answered.
-"Well, let's be honest, it's not like Spain is as important in world politics as the UK".
And as much as his answered pissed me off, and I wanted to say, that's exactly the same reason many people in the US don't know the name of your prime minister, I didn't say anything. And the reason is that I know he was right.
The reason many people in the UK don't know the name of the Spanish president (but they do know the names of the French President or the German Chancellor) is that Spain is considered a lesser political power. And the reason for this is that it is. Spain has, undoubtedly, less political weight both in Europe and the world than many other countries. And somehow, I still don't think this justifies my friend in making fun of Americans for not knowing Cameron's name. Because that's privilege.
There's this idea that everyone must know British PM's names, and British history, etc., but almost no one recognises that underlying this there's an idea that the UK is better. And worse, there seems to be no consciousness that this type of thinking and expressing oneself is another form of colonisation, similar to the one that has been done in the past 100 years by Hollywood movies.
Anyway, it's no big deal. I mean, after all, British colonisation isn't that bad: I'm not all that aware of British culture or British politics (or at least I wasn't until I lived here). What shocks me is the entitlement of people who are surprised or offended because I'm not. A final example: I was watching University Challenge the other day. I knew the answers to most of the art questions (in this case, naming the authors of a series of paintings, all Italian), but very few of the answers to many of the other questions. When I pointed out that the rest of the questions were clearly geared towards British educated and British raised people I was met with surprise. I wasn't complaining: after all, it's a British show so it's understandable that it should be about British things. But I do not like the assumption that I'm stupid or less knowledgeable because I don't know that much British history (and believe me, for someone who didn't suffer the British education system, I know quite a bit about it). Just because I don't know much about your country it doesn't mean I don't know much about anything at all. (Plus, you probably know less about mine.)
The reason I became aware of it is because I was talking to a British man, and this person was making fun of US people who didn't know the name of the current British PM. So I promptly asked him, what is the name of the Spanish president? He looked at me puzzled.
-"I have no idea, but that's not the point!"-he replied with a huge grin.
-"Erm, you're making fun of people for not knowing the name of the PM in your country, but you don't know the name of the president in mine. Why should I not laugh at you?"
He looked at me for a couple of seconds, and then, without smiling but also without any contrition, he answered.
-"Well, let's be honest, it's not like Spain is as important in world politics as the UK".
And as much as his answered pissed me off, and I wanted to say, that's exactly the same reason many people in the US don't know the name of your prime minister, I didn't say anything. And the reason is that I know he was right.
The reason many people in the UK don't know the name of the Spanish president (but they do know the names of the French President or the German Chancellor) is that Spain is considered a lesser political power. And the reason for this is that it is. Spain has, undoubtedly, less political weight both in Europe and the world than many other countries. And somehow, I still don't think this justifies my friend in making fun of Americans for not knowing Cameron's name. Because that's privilege.
There's this idea that everyone must know British PM's names, and British history, etc., but almost no one recognises that underlying this there's an idea that the UK is better. And worse, there seems to be no consciousness that this type of thinking and expressing oneself is another form of colonisation, similar to the one that has been done in the past 100 years by Hollywood movies.
Anyway, it's no big deal. I mean, after all, British colonisation isn't that bad: I'm not all that aware of British culture or British politics (or at least I wasn't until I lived here). What shocks me is the entitlement of people who are surprised or offended because I'm not. A final example: I was watching University Challenge the other day. I knew the answers to most of the art questions (in this case, naming the authors of a series of paintings, all Italian), but very few of the answers to many of the other questions. When I pointed out that the rest of the questions were clearly geared towards British educated and British raised people I was met with surprise. I wasn't complaining: after all, it's a British show so it's understandable that it should be about British things. But I do not like the assumption that I'm stupid or less knowledgeable because I don't know that much British history (and believe me, for someone who didn't suffer the British education system, I know quite a bit about it). Just because I don't know much about your country it doesn't mean I don't know much about anything at all. (Plus, you probably know less about mine.)
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
My thoughts on the matter
I've been wondering for a few days if I should write a blogpost about the terrorist attacks in Paris. Not writing seems cowardly, but writing seems... to me? Pointless. I am not going to say anything that hasn't already been said. I do not feel a strong urge to share my opinion on the attacks themselves or on who is responsible, on whether they are an attack on freedom of expression or not or whether I agree or disagree with the "Je suis Charlie" movement. But not writing about it, not saying anything seems cowardly.
So here's what I will say. A few days ago 2000 people were massacred by Boko Haram. A few days ago a bomb was set off outside the NAACP chapter in Colorado Springs, with no victims. A few days 10 journalists and two policemen were killed in Paris, and soon after four more people were killed in an attack at a kosher market in the same city.
All of these pieces of news have come to my attention in the past few days, some with a lot more strength than others. The Boko Haram massacre, without a doubt the more serious incident of the three, has been possibly the least represented in my sources of information. The NAACP chapter bombing, although clearly the least serious incident of the three since no people died, was an important show of the anti-blackness that is currently surfacing in the US and the fact that it took hours since it happened for it to be reported is clearly problematic.
However, the one that has gotten the most attention of the three has been the attacks in Paris. I understand why. For one thing, it happened in a western country, in mainland Europe, where for some reason we (and I mean we Europeans) think we are safe most of the time. For another, we have come to see deaths in other parts of the world (other parts meaning parts that aren't the US, Canada, Australia or Europe) as second class. Simply put, the Paris attacks have gotten more coverage because there were deaths and the deaths were deaths of "first class citizens". The people killed by Boko Haram are not considered (by the vast majority of people or media outlets) worthy of coverage.
The other day when I was on Twitter, a couple of people were complaining that there was coverage of the attack in Paris but no coverage of the NAACP chapter bombing. Although I disagree with this person that the NAACP chapter bombing deserved more attention on US TV because it had happened on US soil, I will say one thing. A lot of the defense of the attack on Charlie Hebdo has been based on the fact that it was an attack on freedom of expression (as though murders are better or worse depending on who they are committed against or whether they are committed for a certain ideological point). The NAACP chapter bombing has been reported as a news item, but as far as I've been able to read very few journalists (at least in the European sources that I have read) have made the most important point to be made about this attack: it was an anti-black attack. It was an attack on a black institution and therefore it was an anti-black attack. If we are going to talk about the Charlie Hebdo attacks as being attacks against freedom of expression, then we need to talk about the NAACP bombing as an attack on black Americans. Because in this sense, both attacks are noteworthy and it is important to point out their ideological importance. In this case it is not the gravity of the attack being discussed, but the motives, and I personally do believe that attacking someone because they are black is worse than attacking someone because they have a certain viewpoint.
It is difficult to explain why it is worse: after all, if I say "black people didn't choose to be black" I would be suggesting that had they been able to choose they wouldn't have chosen it, which is just bullshit. But there is something to it. I am willing to put my life at risk for the defense of an idea, but that is my choice. I can at any point refrain from expressing my ideas. A person of colour cannot suddenly refrain from not being white.
Clearly, this is not a blogpost about the attacks in France. It is a blogpost about motives and causes for violence and why we need to always highlight violence and it's causes and how we need to stop reporting violence only as far as it affects us (again, the problematics of most media being controlled by white western people). However, in this last paragraph let me add this, in case I am misunderstood: the attacks that took place in Paris a few days ago are horrifying. That a group of people who were just going to work (no matter whether I agree with the work that they did, it wasn't physically hurting anyone, you didn't have to support or read Charlie Hebdo if you didn't want to) is horrible. That the people charged with protecting them were also killed is despicable. That more people were killed, because of their religion, when they were doing their shopping is something that breaks my heart.
So here's what I will say. A few days ago 2000 people were massacred by Boko Haram. A few days ago a bomb was set off outside the NAACP chapter in Colorado Springs, with no victims. A few days 10 journalists and two policemen were killed in Paris, and soon after four more people were killed in an attack at a kosher market in the same city.
All of these pieces of news have come to my attention in the past few days, some with a lot more strength than others. The Boko Haram massacre, without a doubt the more serious incident of the three, has been possibly the least represented in my sources of information. The NAACP chapter bombing, although clearly the least serious incident of the three since no people died, was an important show of the anti-blackness that is currently surfacing in the US and the fact that it took hours since it happened for it to be reported is clearly problematic.
However, the one that has gotten the most attention of the three has been the attacks in Paris. I understand why. For one thing, it happened in a western country, in mainland Europe, where for some reason we (and I mean we Europeans) think we are safe most of the time. For another, we have come to see deaths in other parts of the world (other parts meaning parts that aren't the US, Canada, Australia or Europe) as second class. Simply put, the Paris attacks have gotten more coverage because there were deaths and the deaths were deaths of "first class citizens". The people killed by Boko Haram are not considered (by the vast majority of people or media outlets) worthy of coverage.
The other day when I was on Twitter, a couple of people were complaining that there was coverage of the attack in Paris but no coverage of the NAACP chapter bombing. Although I disagree with this person that the NAACP chapter bombing deserved more attention on US TV because it had happened on US soil, I will say one thing. A lot of the defense of the attack on Charlie Hebdo has been based on the fact that it was an attack on freedom of expression (as though murders are better or worse depending on who they are committed against or whether they are committed for a certain ideological point). The NAACP chapter bombing has been reported as a news item, but as far as I've been able to read very few journalists (at least in the European sources that I have read) have made the most important point to be made about this attack: it was an anti-black attack. It was an attack on a black institution and therefore it was an anti-black attack. If we are going to talk about the Charlie Hebdo attacks as being attacks against freedom of expression, then we need to talk about the NAACP bombing as an attack on black Americans. Because in this sense, both attacks are noteworthy and it is important to point out their ideological importance. In this case it is not the gravity of the attack being discussed, but the motives, and I personally do believe that attacking someone because they are black is worse than attacking someone because they have a certain viewpoint.
It is difficult to explain why it is worse: after all, if I say "black people didn't choose to be black" I would be suggesting that had they been able to choose they wouldn't have chosen it, which is just bullshit. But there is something to it. I am willing to put my life at risk for the defense of an idea, but that is my choice. I can at any point refrain from expressing my ideas. A person of colour cannot suddenly refrain from not being white.
Clearly, this is not a blogpost about the attacks in France. It is a blogpost about motives and causes for violence and why we need to always highlight violence and it's causes and how we need to stop reporting violence only as far as it affects us (again, the problematics of most media being controlled by white western people). However, in this last paragraph let me add this, in case I am misunderstood: the attacks that took place in Paris a few days ago are horrifying. That a group of people who were just going to work (no matter whether I agree with the work that they did, it wasn't physically hurting anyone, you didn't have to support or read Charlie Hebdo if you didn't want to) is horrible. That the people charged with protecting them were also killed is despicable. That more people were killed, because of their religion, when they were doing their shopping is something that breaks my heart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)