Math Is Hard, Let's Go Shopping!

[sisabet]

I've got another meeting to run to in a minute, but this one involves Pizza! so they have my full and utter cooperation.

Also, I might be a little bit in love with them. They are feeding me pizza!

::is easy::


All last night, in between waiting for the pending botulism attack that never came, I thought about vids and vidding and being a vid viewer and this morning while I was laying in the tub, I was composing a very long and detailed LJ post about this and all morning at work I have been adding to it, hoping to get a moment to just sit back and type it out.

And then I checked the New York Times headlines and forgot all about it.

http://nytimes.com/2005/02/18/education/18harvard.html (free registration required)

So apparently the President of Harvard University is something of a... well I believe the technical term is "A Dick" but since I am a woman I am intrinsically wired to not really care about technical things.

But - to be fair - he does say several times in the released comments (about the shortage of women in science and engineering fields) that he would love to be proven wrong. I am no fan of censoring ideas... but see, while he states that these are just ideas -- he also discounts that socialization has very much to do with any of this at all.

(I also love how he manages to imply that catholics aren't really wired to be investment bankers and jewish people just don't farm).

And while he says that these ideas are just that - ideas - and hey, I agree we need to ask questions and search for answers -- my big problem is that he appears to not only be voicing an intrinsic female disinterest (we just don't have the ability) in science as a potential reason there is a shortage of qualified women in the field, not solely as an idea - but as a belief that he will hold until it is proven otherwise.

And I think I can safely say that he Just Does Not Get It. He discounts socialization without ever understanding exactly how pervasive it can really be. It isn't even like this is something we have overcome and this current generation of adolescent girls have a wide-open choice to enter into any field that they find interesting - no, we have made GREAT progress in recognizing the many and insidious ways we as a society steer girls actively away from being interested in Math and Science, but hell - we still have a lot to do.

It was less than 15 years ago that Mattel released a talking Barbie doll that actually said the subject line of this post. The doll was pulled and the saying has now entered our collective unconsciousness, but the fact remains that a MAJOR TOY PRODUCER let this product go all the way through to customer and no one stopped and said "Hmmm... this is kinda ridiculous and demeaning." And if you don't think Mattel had a major impact on a lot of the American Female Collective Experience - well, maybe you had a different collective experience than I did. It happens. (and I am not saying we all played with Barbie dolls. I am saying that we were encouraged to play with Barbie dolls and a lot of us did as we were encouraged. I myself had a very strong and active Barbie addiction from 1979 up and until I finally went cold turkey in 1987. It was rough. Even now I sometimes see money in units of $10 with each unit being represented in my head by 1 Barbie Doll. An Example: "Oh, I just got $100 bonus! Wow, that is like ten barbies!")

My point is that this is not something we are going to overcome in a generation or two. We just identified it as actually being real and valid when I was a child. I don't expect to see real and permanent progress in fighting this until... well I probably will be dead. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't work really hard at recognizing and eradicating this mindset and supporting our young women absolutely. This just means there is a ton of work and time keeps marching in one direction. I think - see I was never really good with that kinda stuff.

::goes shopping::

Comments

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

Sooner or later I'm going to get around to doing a lengthy rant on how feminism trapped American women by denigrating homemaking and childrearing (making it so men don't want to be seen dealing with either and so women feel shamed to claim either is important

See - I don't think feminism is the where we need to look to pinpoint the denigration of homemaking and childrearing. That was going on loooong before feminism became an active movement.

I think it is important to stress that taking care of children is NOT "woman's work" - that it is "human's work" but again - I don't think feminism is to blame for the absolute cultural contempt in this country for *anything* perceived as being feminine.

Being a Girl= bad or an insult. Being a Boy = good for all concerned. So girls can now play with trucks and race cars and wear blue (and yay! this is wonderful and I *wish* it had been around more when I was a kid cause I loved my brother's racing cars) but let a little boy want a Barbie Doll or like the color pink...and all hell breaks loose.

The quickest way for a female to be overlooked or not taken seriously is to wear a lot of pink. Ask Lana Lang about that.

I don't think feminism created ANY of these attitudes, it just makes it all more apparent that they exist.

[fyrdrakken]

See, the rant I want to write is about how feminism's mistake was in allowing the terms of the debate to be defined as, "Women are as good as men -- because we can do anything men can do," and wound up trapped in trying to do everything men do and everything men do, rather than in attacking the proposition that "feminine = useless." Feminists haven't been trying to do the latter very much at all, just the former -- and that's why "girly" remains an insult and even women sometimes feel vaguely shamed at doing or caring about feminine things.

[fyrdrakken]

Should have been "everything men do and everything women do" above, BTW.

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

Well I do think that I can do anything a man can do. Well - urinating while standing is rather difficult...

But yeah - I think there is merit in both positions, cause I'd make a shitty as hell homemaker.

[fyrdrakken]

See, I can't stand cooking or cleaning and have never been a fan of small children so I always figured that if I was going to have kids it would be great to have a husband who was willing and able to be the one to chase around after them. Except for the whole breastfeeding thing and me figuring that I could stand to stay at home with the baby at least a little bit (keeps the kid healthier and helps me burn off those pregnancy calories, right?) -- and another grudge I have with the setup in this country came when I learned that the 12 weeks mandatory unpaid maternity leave we were only given by the grace of Clinton really sucks compared to the full year unpaid offered in Australia or the six months paid (and optional six months unpaid extension) in the UK. One of my coworkers came back from her maternity leave last month -- my office cleverly convinces a lot of the female employees to voluntarily exchange 12 weeks unpaid for 8 weeks paid leave, which basically gave her barely enough time to recover from her C-section.

But, yeah. A former coworker explained to me that he worked nights because he and his wife had moved to Dallas from Oklahoma and all their family was back there and they didn't know anyone here they'd trust to babysit so they deliberately worked different shifts so there'd be someone at home with their daughter at all times. And only got to see much of each other on the weekends. I was damned lucky that Mom's parents A) lived close by and B) retired while I was in kindergarten or first grade, thereby buying me summers and afternoons at their place rather than at a daycare. (Until age almost-seven I was deemed old enough to be a latchkey kid -- though my younger sister remained in daycare.)