Novel Retraction

No, this is not about yet another retraction of a Journal article related to someone's irreproducible results involving high-stakes biomedical research. It is about yet another novel that has a character who makes paranoid statements about feminists as she is thinking about her own life. As I was reading a novel recently, I found myself wishing that novels could have Errata, or retractions, or second-thoughts; that an author could realize "Oh no, those things I had that character say and think are really stupid in a way I did not intend" and then fix the problem. That would be a novel retraction.

Here are some excerpts from The Post-Birthday World by Lionel Shriver; I don't know if these thoughts reflect the beliefs of the author, Lionel Shriver, or only her main female character (Irina), but I hope it is the latter:

Irina assumed that Jude was prideful in that wearing feminist way about the fact that she'd not taken her husband's surname.

She [Irina] didn't care if feminists would have maintained that she didn't need a man.

She [Germaine Greer] was that rare animal, a feminist with a sense of humor..

Older, she [Irina] was wiser to the woes that could fall abruptly from the sky like weather, and all that feminist brouhaha aside, a woman was safer -- plain safer -- when she made a survival pact with a male of the species.

Thus over Ramsey's protests she demurred from taking his surname, not from feminist zeal but because she could not afford it; the appellation Irina Acton would make official the very vanishing act at which she was already getting too much practice.

One gets the impression that this Irina character has an imaginary little feminist sitting on her shoulder, criticizing her every decision (no doubt in an unpleasant, shrieking voice).

I am sure that there are wearing, humorless feminists wandering around out there somewhere, hating all men and despising women who take their husband's name, but do I really need to say that those descriptions are not applicable to most people who would call themselves feminists? Perhaps the author only used statements like the ones above to illustrate the insecure mindset of her main character; if so, this was effective.

Whether or not the anti-feminist statements are part of the fictional world of the book or also represent the beliefs of the author, the question is: Do spurious anti-feminist statements like the above examples ruin a work of fiction for me, the reader?

The three most recent examples that I have discussed in this blog are Solar (I McEwan), The Perfect Reader (M Pouncey), and The Post-Birthday World (L Shriver); one by a male author, two by female authors. There are parts of Solar that I liked, and I can't say I hated the book, but there were quite a few things about it that I disliked. I hated The Perfect Reader entirely. And I didn't really like The Post-Birthday World (I liked Shriver's other books more). So, maybe..

But, in fact, I really don't think the occasional anti-feminist elements were central to my dislike of these books. The "feminists hate men", "feminists are humorless" etc. statements and caricatures certainly didn't help me like the books, but I would probably feel the same if a novel also involved repulsive stereotypes of scientists. Oh wait, Solar had that too.

I am trying to think of a recent novel that contains overt "anti-feminist" statements or characters, but that is an interesting, thought-provoking, well-written work of fiction. I don't mean "anti-feminist" in the sense of having a plot line about a woman who doesn't have a career and/or who is a 40 year old "girl" who loves to shop (I don't consider either of those anti-feminist). I mean "anti-feminist" in the sense of the excerpts above. I am sure there must be some, but my memory fails me right now. Any suggestions?

Strident, Humorless & Shrill

Women now comprise half the work force and have made impressive gains in some professions. An essay by Joanne Lipman in the NY Times on Saturday notes these data but makes a compelling case that they are misleading. Making up half the work force is not the same as having equality. Women still make less money than men, are not taken as seriously, and are not treated with respect at the same level as professional men.

I liked the essay, but one thing about it surprised me. Near the beginning, Lipman wrote:

My generation of professional women took equality for granted. When I was in college in the 1980s, many of us looked derisively at the women’s liberation movement. That was something that strident, humorless, shrill women had done before us.

I am of her generation of professional women, but my college friends and I never took equality for granted. We were not derisive about the women's liberation movement, and I don't know (well) anyone my age who was.

To my friends and me, the women who came before us and fought for equal rights are heroes.

We believed that people who bought into the stereotype of feminists as strident, humorless, shrill women were ignorant. My Republican uncles thought of feminists that way. And my postdoc supervisor, who used to tell jokes about feminists who were strident, humorless, and shrill, and then when I didn't laugh, he took this as proof of at least the humorless part.

These were older, conservative men. None of my friends felt this way, though I must admit that I don't know anyone who has worked at The Wall Street Journal as did Lipman. My friends and I thought Gloria Steinem was (and is) smart, glamorous, and cool.

It was interesting to read an essay by a successful woman who is similar in age and educational background (I looked up where she went to college) and who has been surprised at not being treated with as much respect for her talents and accomplishments as she would have been as a man. I have not been surprised by similar professional experiences in my own (much more modest) career, but we've ended up with the same opinion, writing about similar topics.

Feelings

It's not hard to find commentators, pundits, politicians and others who are worried that Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice, if confirmed, will be guided too much by her emotions. In fact, for illustrative purposes, let's confine our examples to statements made by men named John:

Republican senators will have to conduct thorough questioning in the confirmation hearings to make sure that she will not be a results-oriented voter, voting her emotions and politics rather than the law. (John Yoo)

She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences. (John Cornyn)

It will be important to determine if Judge Sotomayor will decide cases based on her own personal feelings and political views, or the bedrock rule of law. (John Thune)

Was this an issue for the last couple of guys nominated for the Supreme Court? Was it one of the talking points?

[sarcasm alert:]

Wouldn't it be great if we could have a big computer program to decide cases strictly on The Law? With a program, no one, not even a sensitive male judge, would be tempted to consult their feelings about an issue and we wouldn't have to worry about all these emotional females populating the Highest Court in the Land every decade or two, tossing aside the rule of law on a whim if it suits their (probably hysterical) feelings to do so.

As an FSP, I am of course always doing that with my own personal research. Despite decades of experience as a scientist, I'll be doing some research thing, and when it comes time to interpret the results, or make any big decision for that matter, I get all emotional and I forget all the bedrock rules of math and science, and I just go with whatever my emotions tell me to do at that exact moment. I really can't help it.

[/end sarcasm attempt]

Wouldn't it be great if vast numbers of people saw those stupid "her own personal feelings" talking points that various John et al.'s are spouting and thought "They must not have any substantive criticism if that's the only thing they can come up with."?

Keeping up with all the angry women

Letter to FSP:

You are an anomaly. Why be so bitchy about that? Give it up. Men AREN'T trying to "hold you down." You are a woman in a male-dominated field.

What is up with all these angry women? Men have it rough too. You think we all are bright enough and have the financing to get a PhD. I am a man and have found life to be very very very very very hard.

Give the hatred a rest.

Anonymous

************************************

Dear Anonymous:

I have good news for you! Women don't think men are all bright enough. That's part of the problem. Men who are no smarter than we are somehow are respected more, paid more, and given more resources and opportunities in general. When we do attain something (e.g., a job, a grant, an award, a position of responsibility), a common assumption is that we don't really deserve it. That kind of makes some of us angry. So, that's what's up with that.

I am sincerely sorry that your life is so difficult for you. However, although I of course have absolutely no insight into your life, I will point out your tendency to leap to quick and inaccurate judgment about people ("hatred"?), your self-pity, and your complacency about the lack of women in science. These are not good things.

Thank you, though, for providing me with another entry for FSP's Guide to Academic Etiquette:

When corresponding with (or talking to/about) a woman, try not to describe her as "bitchy". It is not a very creative term, and might undermine the point you are trying to make.

Sincerely,

FSP


P.S. - One of my colleagues, who is a bright enough man, thinks your letter is a joke. I hope he is right, but I fear he is not.

Women Over Forty

The NY Times today has an article about how older women (> 40 years old) may be more supportive of Hillary Clinton than are younger women. The author of the article attributes this split to the fact that younger women have "grown up in a world of greater parity " and therefore "seemed less likely to allow gender to influence their vote".

The article quotes a 73 year old former professor of women's studies; she is a Clinton supporter. Her 39 year old daughter, who works for a "nonprofit feminist organization", is not because, as she (the daughter) says: “Senator Clinton’s struggles are not my own, and they are not those of my generation of women,” and “The idea of a woman being president just does not seem to be as powerful or as revolutionary to me as it does to feminists of my mother’s generation.”

This blog post is not about Clinton vs. Obama vs. anyone, and I am not proposing that women vote for Clinton because she is a woman. Nor I am implying that I will vote for her. I am writing about this article because the quotation above from the 39 year old woman made me wonder whether I somehow missed an important event in American history: has there been a woman president before? I am quite sure there has not been. How would it not be revolutionary to have a woman president of the United States?

And why would a "nonprofit feminist organization" even exist if the US were really a society in which the gender of politicians truly didn't matter? I wonder what this organization does. I wonder if this woman ever reads the news. Is she aware of all the sexist comments that have been made about Clinton? Methinks these indicate that gender is an issue in this election.

The part about Clinton's struggles not being this younger woman's "own" and not of her generation really annoyed me. I am apparently showing my age by my reaction, but is it only the > 40 year old women who still struggle to be taken seriously, to be paid the same fair wage as men for the same job, and to have the same opportunities? This younger woman can vote for whomever she wants, but if she thinks that the struggles of oldsters like her mother and me are confined to our generations, then I hope she gets a clue for her 40th birthday.

The Gender Lens

Every once in awhile, someone writes or tells me that I am seeing things through the gender lens. I have probably used those words at some point too.

I have a feeling that only women are told that they see things through the gender lens. What exactly is the gender lens? To me, the gender lens brings things into focus. Most people who use the phrase, however, seem to believe that this lens causes distortion, and therefore, because my vision is obscured or skewed, I am likely to interpret a remark or incident as sexist.

In fact, I do ‘see’ sexism quite frequently; that is true. When you have been told directly and/or indirectly nearly every day for more than 20 years of a career as a female science professor that you are not as serious, intelligent, mature, interesting, technically skilled, quantitative, creative, or professional as men with equal or lesser talents, you do start to get the impression that sexism is pervasive.

If there is a gender lens, it is like an excellent (although perhaps unstylish) pair of sunglasses that lets one see things clearly even in harsh light. Those without such glasses are squinting into the glare and unable to see some very obvious things. I highly recommend a pair of gender lenses to those who are unable to see sexism even where it is rampant and pervasive. They don't make you see something that isn't there -- they just let you see.

Mini-Victory

This particular post is difficult for me to write because I am going to boast, and maybe even gloat, both unpleasant characteristics, I know. Even so, here goes: I am awesome at miniature golf. I don’t know why I am, but I am. I play mini-golf once a year when I visit my family at the ancestral home, and that is quite enough for me, so perhaps I shouldn’t quit my day job just yet and go on the professional mini-golf circuit.

This bizarre discussion of mini-golf is not entirely off topic for this blog. At the mini-golf course where my family and I recently played, the best scores for men and women are listed separately. I think this is strange because mini-golf isn’t like real golf, in which strength is relevant. Even so, during my recent visits to this particular course, the men’s score was typically better than the women’s score. That is, until I played an incredible round, got numerous holes-in-one, and came in well below par for the course. I was just happy to have beaten my brother, but when my name was written on the board as the woman with the best score, and my score was significantly lower (i.e. better) than the men’s, my daughter was ecstatic. She danced around, singing “You’re better than all the men!”. Mini-golf is very quantitative and unambiguous, so this statement could not be disputed within its context. So much, however, for the simple thrill of having gotten a little purple ball past a windmill, a fake stalactite, and some boulders: perhaps I also inspired female mini-golfers on that course for at least a day or two. Female Science Professor Sans Frontieres..

Women & Girls

I recently asked some of my female students, including 23-30+ year old grad students, why they referred to themselves and their friends as girls instead of women. I feared that their answer would involve the explanation that they didn't consider themselves feminists, but no, they just shrugged and said that the words "woman" and "women" sounded "old" to them. Their mothers are women, they are girls.

I told them that my college and grad school friends were quite insistent on being called women and not girls, in part because the male students were referred to as Men, and it was annoying to be considered a girl when our peers were considered Men. My students said they didn't think of their male peers as men, just as guys, dudes, boys, whatever. My most talented, independent, smart, energetic female students call themselves girls, and I know they see themselves as the equal (or better) than their male peers, so the girl/woman thing clearly doesn't have the baggage that it used to.

My generation drew the line at age 18 or so, but now I wonder where the boundary is for my grad students -- when they get their degrees? get married? get a job? have children? get some wrinkles? Or never? My aged aunt still refers to herself and her friends as "the girls", as did my grandmother. Perhaps there were a few decades in the late 20th century when "woman" was considered a positive term that was worth insisting on, but now that's over.

Even if the women/girl terminology is no longer an issue for some, I still correct my senior male colleagues when they refer to the women grad students (or undergrads, for that matter) as "girls", "gals", or even "ladies", since they do not refer to the male students as boys or guys or gentlemen. And I can't help it.

Vital Information or Boring Old War Stories?

I always wonder how much to tell my own graduates students and postdocs, particularly the women, about 'the bad old days' of being harassed and patronized. I must admit that if I have to hear the same old stories from some of my senior women colleagues yet again, I will run screaming from the room, but that is only because I've heard some of their tales 5 or 6 or 10 times. I am glad I heard the stories at least once though. It gives me some perspective about what has changed and what has not, and I respect these women very much for having prevailed against the odds.

But what do I want and need to tell my own students about my history? And how much do I tell them about things that happen to me today? I keep things pretty informal in my research group, and the research activities sometimes require my spending lots of time with my students and research associates (traveling or in the lab), and we have lots of opportunities for chatting about things other than the tasks at hand. Sometimes I tell stories about my grad school days, presenting a mix of generic tales of science and personalities, and a few times I've mentioned The Dark Side of being a woman in these settings. I've never told them about the really bad episodes though, and I doubt I ever will.

Most of my group are, to varying extents, aware of what life is like today for a woman science professor, but are they getting a balanced view? Are they learning what they need to know to succeed, not just as talented researchers, but as women who will have to navigate some difficult situations? Is it enough just for me to be a quasi-passive role model?

My most typical way of discussing these topics with students or postdocs is to make a joke of some annoying episodes (the old professor who patronizes me, the jerk on a committee who called me a 'feminist' to discredit my support for a female candidate, etc. etc.), as in - aren't these guys amazing? and then I discuss how I handled the situation, for better or worse, and we talk about it and laugh. This sometimes seems a bit feeble to me as an approach to being an Inspiring Role Model, but I'm not sure I'd succeed at anything more direct.