The scientific literature has shown that there are inequalities between women and men in STEM. Denying that a problem exists is the single biggest obstacle in promoting gender equity in science. The way to move forward is to start off from the position that things are unequal; so what are we going to do about it?
Many women eventually drop out of STEM fields because of organisational barriers to career progression, lack of career guidance and support, and family commitments. The same is not true for men who work in STEM. Although many women scientists successfully balance their careers and family responsibilities, there are still institutional obstacles for women in STEM. Having women role models and good mentors are powerful simulators for change.Our Aims
- Make women in STEM more visible to the public, with a special focus on women scientists on Google+
- Promote careers for women in STEM
- Highlight issues of gender inequality
- Address solutions to improve women’s participation, inclusion, leadership and recognition in STEM.
Our site and content managers are women who are actively work in the STEM fields;
takes us through imposter syndrome, job preparation and negotiation trepidation to her new job as Deputy Director of Arecibo Observatory. Congrats, Joan!
I applied for a job that I was “not qualified for” – a job in astronomy leadership as an observatory deputy director. Here’s how I overcame my own impostor syndrome, handled the interview questions, and learned to negotiate. I can only hope that this information encourages other women to apply for jobs that they are “not qualified” for! http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/2015/11/astronomy-leadership-applications.html
Stanford law Professors Daniel Ho and Mark Kelman have conducted research showing that larger classes in law schools increase gender inequality. The study has relevance to STEM as the findings support other research about teaching in physics.
The study, published in the Journal of Legal Studies, included almost 16,000 grades given to around 1,900 students. The researchers find that pedagogy (teaching philosophy and teacher-student practice) matters to gender outcomes. The authors conclude that smaller classes where teachers provide more feedback reduce gender differences in grade scores. The researchers found that women outperformed men in small, interactive classes focused on practical exercises. The researchers note that similar results have been found in interactive physics courses.
Professor Kelman argues that the finds go against the "common sense" presumption that gender performance are "fixed":
"Some naïve reactions are that if women get poorer grades at law school, women must be less capable... I think it's surprising to many – and perhaps a confirmation of a more optimistic view that I have – that much of the inequality we observe in the world is mutable, and that the structures that we sometimes take for granted may work to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others."
The study: http://buff.ly/1BoxATp Quote: http://buff.ly/1BoxATs #stemwomen #law #physics
We spoke with Professors and who are outgoing and incoming chairs, respectively, of the Committee on Professional Opportunities for Women (CPOW) in the . The CPOW was chartered in the early seventies for “increasing recognition and opportunities for women biophysicists”. Shortly after, the Society elected its first woman President. The timing was not a coincidence! Since then this society has worked to elevate many women scientists to leadership positions and supported the career development of both men and women biophysicists.
To find out how a professional society can advocate and promote the careers of women and increase diversity, read our blog at: http://www.stemwomen.net/promoting-stem-women-how-scientific-societies-can-help/
This crowd sourced bingo card was compiled from all the apologist comments to this summer's bumper crop of sexism in STEM. So the next time you hear one, pull out your Bingo card and play along with us!
Our very own Dr , founder of STEM Women, spoke out against the sexist comments by Prof Tim Hunt. On Buddhini responds to Professor Hunt's defence that he was making a joke when he said women are prone to fall in love and cry easily in the lab:
It's not a joke to many of us who have experienced these things or have heard stories of people who have experienced these things... We can all bring up personal examples of these things, but there's actual data on this. There have been studies done on how institutionalised the sexism can be. Scientists like Sir Tim Hunt are ignoring that data... The laboratory is not a singles bar. And it's insulting to men when we act as if men can't control their lustful thoughts around women.
Listen to Buddhini talk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02tczpd #stemwomen
The problem with "girls" in lab according to Nobelist Tim Hunt: "You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.” Hunt went on to explain that he was in favor of "single sex" labs although he didn't want to "stand in the way" of women.
Sadly, this sort of rubbish is routine for women in STEM.
It is a shame that the aim of making science more inclusive to women by reducing sexism is such a threatening subject to you that you feel a need to attack women in science.
More women in STEM boosts innovation and makes a positive impact on society. Anyone who pushes women out of science through sexist "jokes," thoughtless comments, or aggression, such as your comments here that effective dismiss women scientists' concerns, robs society of a valuable resource. Comments such as Tim Hunt's, and your defence of him, are symptomatic of a much broader problem in STEM, which is why they should never get a free pass.
Our founder, Dr spoke with Researchers about the history of our community:
"Back in 2012, I think it was on International Women’s Day, someone on Facebook shared a list of female scientists whom you may or may not have heard of. Obviously Marie Curie was in it, and there were lots of other black and white photos of women who were mostly already dead. Great that such a list is being shared, but I figured I should put together a list of more current female scientists to whom people could better relate.
"I used which was pretty new at that time and had lots of female engineers and scientists who were posting publicly about their work. So I started compiling a list of their names and ‘shared’ them around, making a group of strong female role models who could inspire people. Off the back of that, I teamed up with two other female researchers and launched a website to celebrate females in STEM, and to comment on the current issues they face."
Learn more about our origins and why we fight for women in STEM, from the microaggressions of everyday sexism, which build up over time, to systemic inequality across institutions.
Read more: http://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-researchers/2015/05/22/sticking-up-for-stem-women/
Original image Maia Weinstock, CC 2.0: https://goo.gl/dOiZ1p Adapted by STEM Women. #stemwomen #womeninstem
Organic chemist Dr. Asima Chatterjee developed several medicines to manage grave illnesses, including for cancer, epilepsy and malarial. Dr. Chatterjee published around 400 peer review articles on alkaloids, coumarins and terpenoids, and analytical chemistry, amongst other topics. A true pioneer, she received several honours, including:
* Being the first woman to be named a Doctor of Science by an Indian university in 1944;
* She was the first woman scientist to be appointed Chair of any Indian University
* She was also the first woman to receive several prestigious national science awards, including the Shanti Swarup Bhatnagar Prize for science and technology in 1961;
* Dr Chatterjee was appointed General President of the Indian Science Congress Association; and
* She was nominated by the President of India as a Member of the Rajya Sabha, "the upper house of the Parliament of India in which individuals are selected for their contributions to art, literature, science, and social services." (http://buff.ly/1xvZlYO)
Her life motto was: “I wish to work as long as I live,” which proved true to the end, until her death in 2006.
Reference: http://buff.ly/1xvZonj #stemwomen #chemistry
Put a scientist on the $10 bill, sign the petition: barbaraonthebill.com/
Scientists rarely seek fame. Barbara McClintock was no exception. After a life time of following her passion in a male-dominated environment, she finally began to receive the recognition that she deserved, wanted or not. Since the late 1960s, with the discovery of jumping genes in other organisms, scientists realized that jumping genes were in nearly every organism and began giving McClintock public credit for her first publications. The full recognition came when McClintock was 80 years old. She was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, the only woman to win that award unshared, and only person to win the award for studying higher order plants.
Read her story: http://www.barbaraonthebill.com/barbara/
New article on our website that puts the Tim Hunt fiasco into context, demonstrating that this is not an isolated incident but instead a symptom of the larger problem.
"Perpetuating harmful stereotypes can have a lasting impact on the diversity of the people who do science. Why is diversity in science important? The practical application of science is about creative problem solving – if everyone thought or behaved the same way, we cannot find solutions to the problems that plague our society, from curing disease to addressing climate change. The culture of science is as important as the content it produces. We cannot escape the endless cycle of blunder to blow-up to backlash until we acknowledge the existence of sexism in STEM, and then stop defending those who perpetuate that sexism"
Read more at http://www.stemwomen.net/summer-of-sexism/
Our goal is to create a space for emerging women of color in STEM to engage with and learn from other women of color who are at different stages of career and development, but who have all obtained (or are in pursuit of) STEM degrees. Please join us in making this conversation richer and better with your participation.
The process of actually coding in the programs was laborious as well. The guidance computer used something known as "core rope memory": wires were roped through metal cores in a particular way to store code in binary. "If the wire goes through the core, it represents a one." Hamilton explained in the documentary Moon Machines. "And around the core it represents a zero." The programs were woven together by hand in factories. And because the factory workers were mostly women, core rope memory became known by engineers as "LOL memory," LOL standing for "little old lady."
Hamilton is now 78 and runs Hamilton Technologies, Inc., the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based company she founded in 1986. She's lived to see "software engineering" — a term she coined — grow from a relative backwater in computing into a prestigious profession. "I began to use the term 'software engineering' to distinguish it from hardware and other kinds of engineering," Hamilton said.
In the early days, women were often assigned software tasks because software just wasn't viewed as very important. "It’s not that managers of yore respected women more than they do now," Rose Eveleth writes in a great piece on early women programmers for Smithsonian magazine. "They simply saw computer programming as an easy job. It was like typing or filing to them and the development of software was less important than the development of hardware. So women wrote software, programmed, and even told their male colleagues how to make the hardware better."