View Full Version : Sitcoms Destroy Female Science Potential.

02-02-2009, 04:58 PM
The Times’s Weak-Willed Women
How else to explain female absence from the sciences?

28 January 2009

Women, feminists proclaim again and again, are strong, indomitable, and equal in every way to men. Except, that is, when they run up against an obstacle, thrown malevolently in their path, that is too formidable even for them, such as . . . a sitcom.

New York Times science reporter Natalie Angier recently called for renewed attention to the lack of proportional representation of women in science. (In the past, Angier has made something of a specialty of discovering proper gender role models in nature, along the lines of dominatrix polyps and sexually submissive male arachnids.) The imbalance in the sciences, Angier reported, is especially bad in physics, where just 6 percent of full professors are women. After canvassing some current theories explaining the imbalance, Angier offered her own scapegoats: “Bubble-headed television shows like ‘The Big Bang Theory,’ with its four nerdy male physics prodigies and the fetching blond girl next door.”

Imagine the devastation that such a show might wreak. A 15-year-old math whiz is happily immersed in the Lorentz transformations, the basis for the theory of special relativity. She looks up at the tube and sees a fictional group of male physics students bashfully speaking to a feisty blonde. Her confidence and enthusiasm shattered, she drops out of her AP physics course and starts hanging out at the mall with the cheerleading squad.

Gender-insensitive TV shows are just the start of the barriers blocking girls’ entry to the empyrean of pure science. There’s also the father of modern physics himself. What self-respecting girl wants to look like Albert Einstein? “As long as we’re making geek [culture] chic” under our new, science-friendly president, Angier suggests, “let’s lose the Einstein ’do and moustache.” We’re in whiplash territory here. For years, we have been told that the patriarchy brainwashes women into excessive concern with appearance. Now, however, it turns out that girls with an innate knack for science could be turned away from their calling just because the Über Role Model is frumpy. If Einstein had looked like Tom Cruise or Angelina Jolie, apparently, girls would be clamoring to participate in the Math Olympiad and earning their proportionate share of physics Ph.D.s.

Which is it? Are women “strong”? Or can they be crushed by fears of a permanent bad hair day and inspired by something as superficial as Hollywood fashion?

I cringe every time some slack-jawed feminist starts to squawk about "gender equality" in the sciences. Success in the hard sciences requires a few non-negotiable traits: mathematical ability, high order conceptual imagination, and the willingness to engage in competitive activities such as research publication and grant applications. Both are activities that necessarily entail criticism and intellectual oneupmanship.

While many women have no trouble mastering the level of mathematics required in clinical medicine, civil engineering, pharmacy, or line chemistry; very few have the ability to excel in theoretical physics. Get over it.

Even women who have the potential don't necessarily have the temperament. Most women are extroverts who dislike naked competition (intellectual competition - they're fine with the other kind) and who prefer to work in teams or groups. They are "people persons" and there is no room for that kind thing in rarefied research.

The outstanding women who have contributed to physics and math are example of sheer genius - not girl-next-door potential.

City Journal (http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon0128hm.html)

02-02-2009, 09:30 PM
I have trouble buying in to the concept that someone would let a bad stereotype on a sitcom disrupt their whole self image. If this is true what I am I to make of the cultural impact of J.J. Walker on 'Goodtimes' in the 70's?