I am not saying that you should be given extra credit if you happen to be a lady that gets into science. If you make a fantastic discovery, whatever your gender, you should be applauded and celebrated for the work you’ve done, NOT your gender.
I had a similar argument today with a LGBT campaigner, who wanted more LGBT issues raised in schools. I am completely for this, and I agree that when it is appropriate (for example during sex education, or in history if a specific person fought for rights of LGBT or faced adversity because of their sexuality, or in English if studying a text which may hint towards some themes of LGBT) it would seem odd to me to find it a taboo to NOT talk about it with students. It’s a perfectly natural, normal thing, so to ignore it completely would seem wrong. To me. However, students may be confused themselves as to their sexuality, or they may have heard some things from older family members or friends which are very homophobic, so they may not be of the same opinion, so I think it IS important to make it as normal to everyone else.
At the same time, and I have taken a HUGE tangent here, this guy was trying to say to me that we should just mention if a scientist is gay or whatever, just so that we accept them as normal people, and so that gay people in the class aren’t confused or embarrassed by their sexuality, as it is a normal thing which we talk about a lot (which was apparently was what he wished when he was a boy). My argument however, was that by making it a big thing in a topic where it isn’t perhaps that relevant WHAT sexuality the scientist may have been, is in fact what is causing the issue in the first place. In my eyes, by treating it this way, you are making your issue, the issue. I wouldn’t even mention if someone was straight, why would I just casually mention that they are gay, lesbian, bi or transgender? Surely that is isolating that community more by picking that out as a defining feature of this person?
Coming back to the women in science thing, I have the same (sort-of) argument. Of course, normally you can tell if someone is a women, even by their name, or a picture of them. But I wouldn’t ever mention it explicitly. If I was explaining a woman’s work to a class, I would be commending the work, NOT the sex of the lady. And equally, coming back to my previous argument, I would NOT base any achievements on sexuality. Or race to that matter. Sure these groups may have faced adversity over history more than your typical; white, heterosexual male. And they may have had to get through more in their life. But their gender, sexuality or race isn’t what THEY are. It’s just a part of them. And they made this discovery, come up with this theory, solved this problem etc.
I am passionate about getting girls in science. Because I want the stereotype that people (mostly women) have, of a scientist, to be scrapped. Because. We are all people, and we can all do what ever the hell we want to do regardless of anything. And it’s true there are more males in science, but there shouldn’t be. I don’t think it’s because women aren’t capable, I just think they don’t know they can be involved in science (especially involved in science, and not be a dork). But they shouldn’t be celebrated because they are women in science. They should be celebrated as they have achieved in science.
alullateaches 