The problem with Dr. Isis' Shoes
There's been raging going on about Dr. Isis' blog, and how she sounds like a bimbo. Zuska has an excellent response.
Personally, I don't think she sounds like a bimbo. I completely eat it up when she goes on about her Hotness and being a Goddess. It's hyperbole, of course, but it's also about time that there was someone out there who was unabashedly ashamed of being feminine and a scientist.
I also know that she's in the biological area of things, however, which is considerably more accepting of this. The closer you get to physics and engineering, the less acceptable this "sort of behavior" becomes.
I think it's the response by The Blogger Formally Known as Post Doc that gets me.
Why should we support other women?
You don't have to, necessarily. But I also don't agree with actively making comments to disparage them, either.
Most important, we should realize that, traditionally, women are some of the biggest enforcers of Teh Patriarchy. Doesn't anyone recall that women were some of the most outspoken opponents of women having the right to vote?
Any minority will often police it's own: it has made certain concessions to become tolerated by the dominant group, and any pushing the envelope is viewed as detrimental to the acceptance of the group as a whole. (And if you're wondering why Prop 8 didn't pass in CA, this is very much the reason. Black culture has accepted almost extreme roles of masculinity and femininity to succeed in a white dominated world. Most have accepted and even embraced stereotypical gender behavior...so, if this is how they've come to at least be tolerated by white culture, is it any wonder they would reject the notion of gay marriage, which completely tramples their gendered adaptation?)
In science, it is expected that women need to act like men to succeed. In the rest of the world, it's the opposite. By saying we don't need to support other scientists "just because they are women" means we are accepting, at least on a subconscious level, the existing paradigm of what it takes to be a successful scientist (i.e. male or at least stereotypically masculine behavior) and not embracing the full range of possibilities. Men are, generally speaking, not going to accept this because it harms them: the idea that some "bimbo" could be a scientist implies that all of the gendered male behaviors are, despite most people's claims, not necessary to be a scientist.
If that doesn't scare the guys, I don't know what does...even the most liberal of them don't like this notion. This is because the reality of science is not that it's unbiased and objective: at least some of how well you do in science is based on perception. Maintaining the perception that science is all serious and unfrivolous and most definitely has nothing to do with sexy footwear works to the benefit of those who are already successful in that venture.
So if women of all types are going to succeed in science, it has to be the already successful women in science who are willing to support them. The men will not. And unless the paradigm is shifted so that women can be considered good scientists despite their footwear fetishes or what have you, you won't be able to succeed in attracting some potentially good women into science. They will go into law or medicine where it is (more) acceptable to obsess about shoes.
Personally, I don't think she sounds like a bimbo. I completely eat it up when she goes on about her Hotness and being a Goddess. It's hyperbole, of course, but it's also about time that there was someone out there who was unabashedly ashamed of being feminine and a scientist.
I also know that she's in the biological area of things, however, which is considerably more accepting of this. The closer you get to physics and engineering, the less acceptable this "sort of behavior" becomes.
I think it's the response by The Blogger Formally Known as Post Doc that gets me.
Why should we support other women?
You don't have to, necessarily. But I also don't agree with actively making comments to disparage them, either.
Most important, we should realize that, traditionally, women are some of the biggest enforcers of Teh Patriarchy. Doesn't anyone recall that women were some of the most outspoken opponents of women having the right to vote?
Any minority will often police it's own: it has made certain concessions to become tolerated by the dominant group, and any pushing the envelope is viewed as detrimental to the acceptance of the group as a whole. (And if you're wondering why Prop 8 didn't pass in CA, this is very much the reason. Black culture has accepted almost extreme roles of masculinity and femininity to succeed in a white dominated world. Most have accepted and even embraced stereotypical gender behavior...so, if this is how they've come to at least be tolerated by white culture, is it any wonder they would reject the notion of gay marriage, which completely tramples their gendered adaptation?)
In science, it is expected that women need to act like men to succeed. In the rest of the world, it's the opposite. By saying we don't need to support other scientists "just because they are women" means we are accepting, at least on a subconscious level, the existing paradigm of what it takes to be a successful scientist (i.e. male or at least stereotypically masculine behavior) and not embracing the full range of possibilities. Men are, generally speaking, not going to accept this because it harms them: the idea that some "bimbo" could be a scientist implies that all of the gendered male behaviors are, despite most people's claims, not necessary to be a scientist.
If that doesn't scare the guys, I don't know what does...even the most liberal of them don't like this notion. This is because the reality of science is not that it's unbiased and objective: at least some of how well you do in science is based on perception. Maintaining the perception that science is all serious and unfrivolous and most definitely has nothing to do with sexy footwear works to the benefit of those who are already successful in that venture.
So if women of all types are going to succeed in science, it has to be the already successful women in science who are willing to support them. The men will not. And unless the paradigm is shifted so that women can be considered good scientists despite their footwear fetishes or what have you, you won't be able to succeed in attracting some potentially good women into science. They will go into law or medicine where it is (more) acceptable to obsess about shoes.