Years ago (1980's?) I attended a conference on "Women in Science". At the time there were not very many in the profession (certainly not mine), but at this conference women formed a clear majority of presenters and audience members. Many were scientists but there were many from other fields as well. I came away confused.
In one presentation I remember the speaker read excerpts from a diary of a female scientist from the 1930's. There was no attempt at analysis or even synthesis of the material. Yet the audience responded very positively, as if this were somehow a "good paper".
I came home that evening and my wife had the explanation. "Lorne! You don't get it! Women like to talk about our feelings. We do it all the time. We love it when people express their feelings."
Hmm. OK. I went back the next day and things made a bit more sense. But it was still confusing. At one point someone stood up to argue "We need to get more people from the general public to experience our seminars! There is so much good here that isn't being shared!"
What? I'd be hard pressed to find a member of the "general" public who could understand the title of a scientific paper let alone be able to benefit from attending a seminar about it.
So, I came home again and started to think about it all. Let's agree that some women are motivated to seek knowledge through science but also like to talk about their feelings and do so when they meet at conferences. So? Is this bad? Why?
The next question, obviously, is what motivates men? Well, men seek knowledge through science, but when they meet at conferences they are also concerned about the competitive display of this knowledge. They are showing off their antlers, so to speak. It's about maintaining and enhancing one's status among peers.
Neither the sharing of feelings nor the display of antlers contributes directly to the progress of science. One could argue that the antler game is also zero sum so that there is no overall benefit at all, even to the participants.
However, academic scientists are publicly supported and the resolution of any argument about what they should be doing must rest on their effects on a wider society. At the time of this conference the search for a cure for AIDS was well underway, and one of the key moments was the discovery of the virus that causes it. One of the leading scientists was by all accounts a terrible person, motivated entirely by the prospect of leading the world in citations. As I recall he stole the first picture of the virus and claimed it as his own. (My memories may be faulty here, so take this as a hypothetical, as there are other examples.) Nonetheless, he and his lab were part of an astonishing contribution to society.
Ideally, "masculine" science puts people in a competition to see who can do the most to improve human welfare. The competition itself is completely uninteresting - i.e. in the big picture it matters not a whit who wins. But the competition channels the private and selfish interests of smart people toward a public purpose. Ideally.
Did I say "ideally"?
A more "feminine" science may be less stressful for the participants, but the benefits are shared less widely. Thus the need to make the public more aware of the wonderful things that happen in academic seminars. Thus, perhaps, the legitimization of "activism" as an academic pursuit in some disciplines.
The feminization of academe has led to other changes as well. I doubt that a group of men on their own would have attached much significance to "my lived experience" or "my personal truth". These are just feelings, after all. Cancel culture seems very close to feminine bullying among teenagers. Women also seem to have more difficulty with free speech when it requires separating criticism of ideas from criticism of the people who hold them.
At the time when I expressed these ideas to a colleague he commented that it was a very "antleresque" version of events. Love to hear some alternatives
Hi Myrid, I'm working on it, article to come. I've actually written on Hate Speech/ Hate Crime laws in Ireland a good bit, when I publish the new article I'll be sure to link to all of them
Good article. I recommend Carol Gilligan’s work for further thoughts on this. I’d say ‘Why Patriarchy Persists’ and ‘In a Different Voice’ are vital reading
I would also recommend Joyce Benenson's Warriors and Worriers (Oxford, 2014). Her thesis is that during the many millennia of human evolution, human bands without effective warriors either were pushed into resource poor areas or were conquered, the latter often meaning males taken as slaves and women as mates. So the male genes that survived were those that predisposed the males to be good warriors. Women, on the other hand, were the main determinant of the survival of their children. So they had to worry about their own health, and get along with the other people in the band while still pursuing their (and their children's) interests.
So men are predisposed to explicit aggression, risk taking, etc. Women, on the other hand, are predisposed to hidden competition and to be especially concerned about safely and health.
One reason women do so well in modern schools is that they are female-friendly. One could look at it the other way and say, poetically, that schools are a "hostile environment" for males. As a former high school teacher, I was struck by this from pages 178-9, "Unlike boys, girls almost never boast, command each other, tell jokes at one another's expense, try to top another's stories, call each other names, or in any way show off." All of those are things that a teacher today would warn a student are "not appropriate".
In 1970 it was not uncommon to post student grades on the classroom wall. A teacher who did that today would immediately be called into the principal's office. Perhaps that is one reason 57% of college students then were male and 42% are today.
Every quarter term our desks were re-ordered from highest in one corner to lowest in the other depending on our test results. (English boys' boarding school age 8-12.)
I think it’s best described as the rise of the “liberal woman” -and she is described as the unhappiest of all demographic groups. This makes the story of her rise more complicated I think.
I am a licensing coordinator for Cognella, Inc., an independent academic publisher located in the San Diego area of California, USA. I am writing on behalf of professors at The University of Austin (Texas, USA), who would like to reprint this article in an academic coursepack for a class they are offering in Summer 2023.
I could not find an email address for you to send an official request to reuse your content. Would you please reach out to me at your earliest convenience? My contact details are below.
Years ago (1980's?) I attended a conference on "Women in Science". At the time there were not very many in the profession (certainly not mine), but at this conference women formed a clear majority of presenters and audience members. Many were scientists but there were many from other fields as well. I came away confused.
In one presentation I remember the speaker read excerpts from a diary of a female scientist from the 1930's. There was no attempt at analysis or even synthesis of the material. Yet the audience responded very positively, as if this were somehow a "good paper".
I came home that evening and my wife had the explanation. "Lorne! You don't get it! Women like to talk about our feelings. We do it all the time. We love it when people express their feelings."
Hmm. OK. I went back the next day and things made a bit more sense. But it was still confusing. At one point someone stood up to argue "We need to get more people from the general public to experience our seminars! There is so much good here that isn't being shared!"
What? I'd be hard pressed to find a member of the "general" public who could understand the title of a scientific paper let alone be able to benefit from attending a seminar about it.
So, I came home again and started to think about it all. Let's agree that some women are motivated to seek knowledge through science but also like to talk about their feelings and do so when they meet at conferences. So? Is this bad? Why?
The next question, obviously, is what motivates men? Well, men seek knowledge through science, but when they meet at conferences they are also concerned about the competitive display of this knowledge. They are showing off their antlers, so to speak. It's about maintaining and enhancing one's status among peers.
Ne
Sorry, I hit the wrong button. To continue:
Neither the sharing of feelings nor the display of antlers contributes directly to the progress of science. One could argue that the antler game is also zero sum so that there is no overall benefit at all, even to the participants.
However, academic scientists are publicly supported and the resolution of any argument about what they should be doing must rest on their effects on a wider society. At the time of this conference the search for a cure for AIDS was well underway, and one of the key moments was the discovery of the virus that causes it. One of the leading scientists was by all accounts a terrible person, motivated entirely by the prospect of leading the world in citations. As I recall he stole the first picture of the virus and claimed it as his own. (My memories may be faulty here, so take this as a hypothetical, as there are other examples.) Nonetheless, he and his lab were part of an astonishing contribution to society.
Ideally, "masculine" science puts people in a competition to see who can do the most to improve human welfare. The competition itself is completely uninteresting - i.e. in the big picture it matters not a whit who wins. But the competition channels the private and selfish interests of smart people toward a public purpose. Ideally.
Did I say "ideally"?
A more "feminine" science may be less stressful for the participants, but the benefits are shared less widely. Thus the need to make the public more aware of the wonderful things that happen in academic seminars. Thus, perhaps, the legitimization of "activism" as an academic pursuit in some disciplines.
The feminization of academe has led to other changes as well. I doubt that a group of men on their own would have attached much significance to "my lived experience" or "my personal truth". These are just feelings, after all. Cancel culture seems very close to feminine bullying among teenagers. Women also seem to have more difficulty with free speech when it requires separating criticism of ideas from criticism of the people who hold them.
At the time when I expressed these ideas to a colleague he commented that it was a very "antleresque" version of events. Love to hear some alternatives
Thanks! I was scanning through your substack but having you link them would be handy. Will read all.
Can you write something about this an/or free speech in Ireland and the new Hate Speech laws? What's the history of Ireland and censorship?
Hi Myrid, I'm working on it, article to come. I've actually written on Hate Speech/ Hate Crime laws in Ireland a good bit, when I publish the new article I'll be sure to link to all of them
Important 2019 essay on this theme
https://thoughtsofstone.com/the-day-the-logic-died/
Just a heads up, I think there's a missing "more" here:
Women have earned bachelor’s degrees than men every year since the mid-eighties.
Yeah you’re correct, unfortunately it’s kind of a pain to correct though, so I’ll leave it as a reminder to do 97 revisions next time instead of 96 😭
Good article. I recommend Carol Gilligan’s work for further thoughts on this. I’d say ‘Why Patriarchy Persists’ and ‘In a Different Voice’ are vital reading
I would also recommend Joyce Benenson's Warriors and Worriers (Oxford, 2014). Her thesis is that during the many millennia of human evolution, human bands without effective warriors either were pushed into resource poor areas or were conquered, the latter often meaning males taken as slaves and women as mates. So the male genes that survived were those that predisposed the males to be good warriors. Women, on the other hand, were the main determinant of the survival of their children. So they had to worry about their own health, and get along with the other people in the band while still pursuing their (and their children's) interests.
So men are predisposed to explicit aggression, risk taking, etc. Women, on the other hand, are predisposed to hidden competition and to be especially concerned about safely and health.
One reason women do so well in modern schools is that they are female-friendly. One could look at it the other way and say, poetically, that schools are a "hostile environment" for males. As a former high school teacher, I was struck by this from pages 178-9, "Unlike boys, girls almost never boast, command each other, tell jokes at one another's expense, try to top another's stories, call each other names, or in any way show off." All of those are things that a teacher today would warn a student are "not appropriate".
In 1970 it was not uncommon to post student grades on the classroom wall. A teacher who did that today would immediately be called into the principal's office. Perhaps that is one reason 57% of college students then were male and 42% are today.
Every quarter term our desks were re-ordered from highest in one corner to lowest in the other depending on our test results. (English boys' boarding school age 8-12.)
Thank you! I’ll put them on the list
I think it’s best described as the rise of the “liberal woman” -and she is described as the unhappiest of all demographic groups. This makes the story of her rise more complicated I think.
Good essay, but you should correct the grammar on "it's," which is a contraction for "it is," versus "its," which is a possessive pronoun
Hello Conor,
I am a licensing coordinator for Cognella, Inc., an independent academic publisher located in the San Diego area of California, USA. I am writing on behalf of professors at The University of Austin (Texas, USA), who would like to reprint this article in an academic coursepack for a class they are offering in Summer 2023.
I could not find an email address for you to send an official request to reuse your content. Would you please reach out to me at your earliest convenience? My contact details are below.
I look forward to your response!
Best wishes,
Laura Duncan
Licensing Coordinator
lduncan@cognella.com, 858-552-1120 x550
320 South Cedros Ave, Suite 400, Solana Beach, CA 92075
www.cognella.com – Cognella, Inc.
Thanks Laura, email sent.