Women: Know Your Limits
I don't normally propagate this sort of thing, but it's a subject I actually care about, so I figured I should make the effort.
March 24th is Ada Lovelace Day, dedicated to filling the blogosphere with recognition of the achievements of women in the sciences and technology.
Extending the boundaries of human knowledge by tiny progressive increments is a surprisingly thankless job, and it's only going to get more thankless as time goes on. Most scientific and technological discoveries made these days are team efforts claimed on behalf of institutions or commercial ventures, and the findings they make are often seen as quite abstract to those outside their field, regardless of how useful they are.
The age of scientist rockstars like Newton or Pasteur is in swift decline, and while this is good for the process of science, it's bad for the publicity of science. Would-be scientists need role models, but if you ask people to name the great historical contributors to science and technology you will probably be met with a list of men.
I don't have a lot of truck with mainstream feminism, mostly because it's intractably entrenched in the humanities. Look at any list of influential women of the 20th century and you might find Marie Curie, but you won't see any engineers or mathematicians. It's not that they don't exist; it's that the people who compile those lists have some seriously out-of-whack priorities. They don't know that the preliminary work into computational algebra in the 1930s was carried out by a woman, or that the first assembler language was created by a woman, or that the switching topology protocol the whole internet sits on was developed by a woman, because they don't know of the existence or importance of these things.
There is an impressive body of evidence (Rosenbloom, Pinker, Benbow/Lubinski, et al) suggesting that the more social, economic, academic and vocational choice women have, the more they systematically choose non-technical disciplines. I for one think this is a great shame and a terrible waste of talent. Role models and visibility of women in the sciences and technology are only one piece of a pretty complex puzzle, but as pieces go, it's pretty low-hanging fruit. How's that for a mixed metaphor?
Next Wednesday, I implore you to engage with this however you can. There are plenty of potential subjects to choose from. Pick a historical, contemporary or personally acquainted woman in the field of science or technology, and tell us about them. Maybe you have a favourite already. Maybe you have a family member who qualifies. Even if you don't write anything, have a hunt around for interesting blog posts on the subject. See what tickles your inquisitive fancy. Learn interesting things.
And when you do learn interesting things, tell your friends about them. Tell your work colleagues and drinking buddies. Tell your mum and dad. Most importantly, tell your daughters and sons and nieces and nephews. Inquiring minds need to know.
March 24th is Ada Lovelace Day, dedicated to filling the blogosphere with recognition of the achievements of women in the sciences and technology.
Extending the boundaries of human knowledge by tiny progressive increments is a surprisingly thankless job, and it's only going to get more thankless as time goes on. Most scientific and technological discoveries made these days are team efforts claimed on behalf of institutions or commercial ventures, and the findings they make are often seen as quite abstract to those outside their field, regardless of how useful they are.
The age of scientist rockstars like Newton or Pasteur is in swift decline, and while this is good for the process of science, it's bad for the publicity of science. Would-be scientists need role models, but if you ask people to name the great historical contributors to science and technology you will probably be met with a list of men.
I don't have a lot of truck with mainstream feminism, mostly because it's intractably entrenched in the humanities. Look at any list of influential women of the 20th century and you might find Marie Curie, but you won't see any engineers or mathematicians. It's not that they don't exist; it's that the people who compile those lists have some seriously out-of-whack priorities. They don't know that the preliminary work into computational algebra in the 1930s was carried out by a woman, or that the first assembler language was created by a woman, or that the switching topology protocol the whole internet sits on was developed by a woman, because they don't know of the existence or importance of these things.
There is an impressive body of evidence (Rosenbloom, Pinker, Benbow/Lubinski, et al) suggesting that the more social, economic, academic and vocational choice women have, the more they systematically choose non-technical disciplines. I for one think this is a great shame and a terrible waste of talent. Role models and visibility of women in the sciences and technology are only one piece of a pretty complex puzzle, but as pieces go, it's pretty low-hanging fruit. How's that for a mixed metaphor?
Next Wednesday, I implore you to engage with this however you can. There are plenty of potential subjects to choose from. Pick a historical, contemporary or personally acquainted woman in the field of science or technology, and tell us about them. Maybe you have a favourite already. Maybe you have a family member who qualifies. Even if you don't write anything, have a hunt around for interesting blog posts on the subject. See what tickles your inquisitive fancy. Learn interesting things.
And when you do learn interesting things, tell your friends about them. Tell your work colleagues and drinking buddies. Tell your mum and dad. Most importantly, tell your daughters and sons and nieces and nephews. Inquiring minds need to know.