There’s been a lot of hand-wringing in the science blogosphere about the low numbers of women in science, and I’ve contributed my share of comments. On the theory that you shouldn’t curse the darkness when you could be fumbling for a book of matches, I’ll pass along this call for proposals from the Feminist Press:
The Feminist Press, as part of our National Science Foundation Women Working: Thinking, Creating, Making Science project, is exploring new ways to get girls and young women interested in science. While there are many library resources featuring biographies of women scientists that are suitable for school reports, these are rarely the books that girls seek out themselves to read for pleasure. What would a book, or series of books, about science that girls really want to read look like? That is the question we want to answer.
You’ll find several requests for specific proposals below. One calls for scientific detective stories based on the life, research, and discoveries of real women scientists. Another calls for stories featuring real young women–aspiring gymnasts, ice skaters, actors, dancers–using a knowledge of science to help them become really good at what they do. A third recognizes how popular Manga and graphic novels are with girls, and asks for imaginative new collaborations between Manga writers and artists to create adventures about girls who use real science to accomplish their goals.
(Via Cocktail Party Physics)
If you’ve got a good idea for a book along those lines, or some other creative project that would serve the same purpose, send them your idea. If they like it, they’ll publish it.
Where in a rational universe does it say a functional laboratory will mirror general population statistics? If one recruits the middle hump of the bell curve one obtains mediocrities. Both tails of the bell curve, genius and idiocy, are male domains. Women who qualify are not subtleties in danger of being overlooked.
Women as a class lack the cognitive dysphoria to be balls-to-the-wall researchers. I don’t want subordinates who burst into tears. I want subordinates who punch holes in the wall (mark the studs) and get back to work. You show me a Ridgid calendar on the wall and I’ll show you a happy productive bay.
Amanda Peet is a plaything suited to eventual breeding and housework. Amanda Peet is a mutant brilliant mind, but you wouldn’t necessarily want to hug her. A proper world has both in proper placement.
Haven’t you learned anything about ignominy and futility from 40 years of Head Start? Ignorance is educable, stupidity is forever.
Check out Farah Mendelson’s blog, or contact her. She recently completed a survey on what books turned her readership on in childhood and youth (I contributed) and is in the process of writing a book about it.
What girls will turn to of their own accord, same as boys, is STORIES first, and then INTRODUCTION TO ADVANCED STUFF. I men “Mathematics for the Million” or that great old Harvard book on Astrophysics, “Between the Planets”. And for fiction, SCIENCE fiction. Science as adventure. Bayta Darrel attracted more girls to science than any biography of Hypatia could ever do.
Okay, so there’s this girl, right? And she’s a ballerina? And someone stole the ballerina shoes, and left behind a note reading “SO DARK THE CON OF MAN AVOGADRO’S NUMBER” and she has to use Real Science (plus anagrams) to solve the crime? And it’s all drawn like one of those crazy Japanese comics the kids like so much and called SUPER SCIENCE DETECTIVE BALLET.
For further details about this exciting proposal, please send cash or money order.
Chad, thanks for helping spread the word. As you point out, this isn’t meant to be the Ultimate Solution to a very complex and complicated issue (also a highly controversial one, judging from some of the saltier comments my rather innocuous little tale inspired on my own blog). But it’s one match to help light the darkness. Plus, there are lots of hungry, aspiring writers out there. Why not try to inspire writers to write about science, which in turn inspires budding young scientists to pursue their dreams?
That’s the idea, anyway. Every little bit helps…
…this isn’t meant to be the Ultimate Solution to a very complex and complicated issue…
ltmt Sltn? t’s bn dn. n Q bll crv tht hd bn shftd rght vr bt yrs f slctv prsctn hd th bttm % f ts nmbrs xtrmntd vr sx yrs. t s n ffctv f nplsnt w t crt Mstr Rc.
Wht frctn f wmn r y plnnng t xtrmnt? ncl l rcmmnds wd chpprs nd strtng wth th ns sprtng mstchs.
[Running the previous comment through the disemvoweller]
That’s just about enough of that.
There’s no biological/intellectual reason why we don’t have more women scientists. In my field (psychology), the transition from a mostly male to a mostly female group of graduate students happened while I was in grad school (the switch point was 1983 in our school), similarly for medicine. Role models, reading, etc., are all useful. Who talks about the Curie’s now? There’s a female dynasty in science.