I must begin by saying that I have never had a “real job,”
other than summer internships or other similar short-lived experiences during
my time as an undergraduate and now graduate student. Being stuck in the
infamous bubble of the “Ivory Tower” has undoubtedly kept me sheltered from the
“real world.” However, I feel that I can still comment on the topic of women in
the workplace, specifically women in academia. A few months ago, a study was
published (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109)
showing the results of a social experiment: when professors were sent identical
applications for a laboratory manager position in their lab (the only
difference being that half the professors received an application where the
individual was male, and the other half received an application where the
individual was female), it was shown that the professors (both male and female)
were more likely to hire the male applicant and pay him more, even though the
female applicant had the exact same qualifications. This paper has gotten much
publicity because it was the first study to truly conduct a controlled social
experiment where the only variable was gender, and the outcome was that there
is evident gender bias in academia.
After “Science faculty’s subtle
gender biases favor male students” was published, I had the privilege of attending a panel discussion
about the results of this study. The lead
author of the paper, Corinne Moss-Racusin, mentioned that she was surprised
that there was so much criticism because many others have also published that
there is gender bias in academia; this is certainly not a new concept,
especially in the sciences, which is traditionally a male-dominated field. Additionally,
Moss-Racusin said that now that we know this gender bias exists, it’s time that
we do something about it, and that this discussion about what to do must
include both genders in order to move forward. I couldn’t agree more.
There were some men in the audience (although some of the
comments they made were confusing or not that helpful), but at least it wasn’t
a situation in which we are just preaching to the choir. As an aside, I compared
this scenario to another situation in which I attended a forum about careers
outside of academia for women PhDs, which featured a few women panelists. I remember
noticing that there was one guy present, and I thought, “You know what, good
for him; he attended the discussion because he wanted to hear what these
panelists have to say because they are smart, successful individuals who would have
a lot of great advice.” (The same was not true, however, of the freshmen
writing seminar I took in undergrad about women’s literature; there was one
male student in our discussion group, but he didn’t last; he switched to
another class after the first session. But hey, at least he signed up and went
to one session.)
I think every woman knows that there is still gender bias,
even if she has not experienced it herself, and there will probably always be
some gender bias. Don’t get me wrong, though; I’m happy that I didn’t grow up
in the 1950s, and women’s rights are certainly a very severe issue in a number
of other countries compared to the US. Still, we should always strive for what
we believe in, and we have the right to do so. It’s time to move forward and
have the discussions that we really need to be having: gender bias exists, so
what are we going to do about it?
Anne-Marie Slaughter’s article in “The Atlantic,” titled “Why
Women Still Can’t Have it All,” (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/)
has also gained much publicity/notoriety.
Her article addressed the ever-present dilemma of having to choose between
raising a family and having a productive career. Again, my life will never be
as busy as hers has been, and I probably have not experienced anything in the “real
world” compared to what she has gone through, but I feel that even the title of
this article isn’t helping us move forward as a society. It’s not helpful to
say that women can’t have it all, especially if you are a woman. Furthermore,
it’s really not helpful to discuss whether or not women can have it all. If we
want to be equal, then we have to just say that we are equal. Discussing whether
or not women can have it all indicates that we are not equal to men because men
would never have this type of discussion; a man would never bother to write
this type of article about his gender. I’m guessing it’s also less likely for a
man to say in a thank-you speech for a prestigious award that he couldn’t have
gotten to where he is today without the support of his spouse, but a successful
woman almost always has to say that the reason (or at least part of the reason)
for her success is because her spouse was so supportive and helpful. If you
want to thank your spouse, please do so, but otherwise let’s just be proud of
our accomplishments, man or woman.
Slaughter is being considered to be the next President of
Princeton, which is another hot topic; if she wants the job, then she will become
very busy again, but I’ve gotten over my frustrations with her article and decided
to say good for her; she is very talented, and I’m sure she will find a way to
handle it, if that’s what she wants. Same with Hillary Clinton running for
President; I couldn’t think of a better woman for the job, and it would be
amazing if she does want to do it. However, we all heard about her fainting,
and she has said in many interviews that she is looking forward to just
relaxing and spending time with her family after finishing her term as
Secretary of State, so if that’s what she wants to do, then good for her, too. (This
is still more interesting than discussing Michelle Obama’s bangs. I love Michelle
Obama; she is an amazing role model and has so much to offer to our country
that talking about her bangs is insulting to her intelligence.)
