« Sexed Text | Main | halley suitt on blog gender politics »
October 24, 2003
Is it sexism or is it just me?
Back in September when I was at MIT for the TR100 [meg@megnut.com/tr100] award ceremony, they had a part of the program where Bob Metcalfe interviewed four of the TR100 recipients. 3 of the 4 were men. The three men had all started their own companies, while the woman worked for NASA. Throughout the Q & A I noticed that (this is summary/generalization) the men mentioned money a lot, whereas the woman tended to talk about the work she was doing (developing robots to go to Mars) and how much she enjoyed it. But what really got me was when Metcalfe asked them all where they wanted to be in 5 to 10 years. The men, again, mentioned money and huge success with their companies, things like "I hope it's sold for millions and I'm starting a new one," and "I hope I've gotten a big ROI for my investors and my employees," etc. The woman said she hoped to managing her group within NASA and named the size of the budget she'd like to operate.
I was totally disappointed. I know everyone shouldn't be an entrepreneur, and I have a predisposition towards being one. But however subtle it was, it felt like that session reinforced stereotypes, that men start companies and women -- even the most innovative and world-changing women -- just work within corporate or government structures. And it made me wish MIT had taken the opportunity to highlight two men and two women, perhaps two people that were doing more research and pure science in academic/government settings, and two that had more commercial interests and applications in their work. The discussion left me in a sexism funk: even at an event like this, where obviously a lot of work went into selecting the honorees and then the interviewees, traditional roles of sex and gender seemed to rear their heads. Or was I just over-reacting?
Posted by megnut at 09:34 AM in General | Permalink
Comments
I expect both things are true.
On one hand: Funny things happen when you put people on stage.
On the other: There really are nontrivial gender differences and to some extent people (regrettably) seem to want to whitewash those differences.
I came across this a couple days ago, which is marginally germane to your question: http://denbeste.nu/essays/femaleperson.shtml (well... marginally germane to my point I suppose.)
Posted by: Mad William Flint at Oct 24, 2003 2:21:42 PM
One vote for not over-reacting.
Posted by: AKMA at Oct 24, 2003 2:38:13 PM
I dunno. No, I really don't know. There's a lot of leadup before one gets to those onstage interviews, and I don't know enough about it to say what happened.
How were the TR100 recipients chosen?
Why did those particular four TR100 recipients make it onstage, as opposed to the other ones?
Who was doing the Q of the Q and A? Which questions were getting fed to whom?
And -- personally -- given a choice between three people displaying little besides naked greed and a fourth actually talking about the *work*, I'd listen to the fourth.
But I don't have the spirit that is popularly called "entrepreneurial," so that's that.
Posted by: Dorothea Salo at Oct 24, 2003 2:52:47 PM
Sounds like "just you" on this one perhaps.
Posted by: Randy H. at Oct 24, 2003 3:30:31 PM
It could correlate with a belief that money is more important than getting to Mars in several ways, some of which would involve sexism and some wouldn't.
Posted by: clew at Oct 24, 2003 4:57:14 PM
I think that this issue is a lot more complex than the entry leads one to believe. There are many complex societal factors that lead people to "do" their gender. There's plenty of research that indicates boys are rewarded for competition (which may manifest in entrepreneurial spirit) and girls are rewarded for teamwork (which may lead to an interest in governmental, cooperative positions). I think that if we are going to be upset about how gender is being portrayed we need to be angry at society as a whole for creating the current gender structures.
Sure, it stinks that something like this seems to reinforce the stereotypes that so many of us are working to dispel, but I don't think that the men or woman who were recognized should not be recognized because they fit their gender stereotype. Heck-- the woman's very recognition is an excellent step for women, letting others know it is possible, and opening the door wider for them.
Further, why is the traditionally feminine necessarily so bad? As an almost radical feminist I don't think anyone should ever be pushed into a gender role. I do however think that we need to recognize the value of traditionally female work. (Particularly if we want to enlist men into helping with it). So she's working in a government job leading a team rather than starting a business. That work is still important, and who knows where it may lead us. She's doing far more than many in order to achieve the recognition she earned.
In all of this I'm not saying that it's great that things worked out as they did, I'm just saying (in a long-winded way) that I think as feminists we need to make sure not to act in a sexist way toward people who don't fit our standards.
Posted by: lmpressl at Oct 24, 2003 7:07:13 PM
"The three men had all started their own companies, while the woman worked for NASA."
... I think that explains it more than anything. Entepreneurs do care about money, while scientists/researchers don't (that much).
Posted by: maki at Oct 24, 2003 7:29:02 PM
if you had lashed out and vandalized MIT, that would have been over-reacting. feeling disappointed is not; and asking if you were over-reacting is a disappointment to me. why do we still second guess ourselves? being validated is nice, but it shouldn't be necessary.
Posted by: sarah at Oct 24, 2003 7:29:23 PM
I am a scientist (and have been an entrepreneur). When I read the posting I could completely relate to the Nasa Scientist. I more or less have the same goals as she has. The fact that she was a woman is irrelevant to me.
I have also been at CS/IT forums where half or more of the CEOs (Fiorina, Bernard, Whitman, Magner & Krawcheck, Eickhoff, etc.) where women. At those I don't think they were choosen because they were women, but because are the some of the most powerful executives in teleco and IT industry. And the talk was all money. And I didn't feel that that 'maleness' was underrepresented because of that.
I understand your dissapointment, and respect it. But one should ask whether the 4 people are a reasonable sample of the awardees. BTW there is more reason to be dissapointed about the committee that selects the awards: only one woman (Christina Lampe) and 5 men...
Posted by: Werner at Oct 24, 2003 8:05:14 PM
That's funny. When you started by saying the men talked about money and the woman talked about her work, I honestly thought you were going to jump into an observation about what oblivious greedy bastards men are. Because we are, and that interview showcased that fact perfectly.
Posted by: Isthaq at Oct 24, 2003 8:05:53 PM
But I don't think that's an inherent or universal truth. What seems to be true, at least in the United States, is that men will not be perceived as successful without the money.
Posted by: Dinah at Oct 24, 2003 9:07:36 PM
considering that there are enough professions where gender balance does lead them to stereotyping (librarian and automotive sales are just two unusually clear examples) i would question whether it is reasonable to have any "selection committee" based methods which actually select for genuine merit to the exclusion of gender roles. if you add in the hiring, advancement, and self-direction preferences based per gender i would submit that trying to meaningfully assess bias on the part of judges is a tall order. it might be that you could do so by observing the committee members themselves and looking for "obvious bias." a better solution might be using their purported selection criteria and attempting to generate a set of candidates through an analytical formula that does not have any room for human preference.
good luck undertaking that kind of study though; it'll take more time or money than i've got on hand, or that anyone else is willing to devote to it that isn't a partisan for one or more sides of the issue.
--random noise
Posted by: anonymous at Oct 25, 2003 1:21:47 AM
Having just found this website, this is the first thing that I have read. I am much more impressed by someone working for NASA than starting their own buisness. And I am even more impressed by someone who's priorities are to do with work achievements than I am with someone who's priorities are numbers on a piece of paper from the bank.
My first reaction to the story was yes this is sexism, it is an example of men playing "I'll show you mine if you show me yours". But your reaction shows that it may have more to do with area of interest than gender. I am a scientist and an academic at heart and will never be impressed because someone made lots of money, though I would be impressed by someone who started a buisness with ground-breaking ethics and benefits for employees.
Lots of women start their own buisnesses, and are very sucessfull entrepreneurs though they are probably less likely to be in the relm of techology. Also my estimate would be that they are more likely to work part-time and have time for other persuits than push for mulit-millionair status. Again I think this is far more admirable than just wanting more money.
Posted by: suzo at Oct 25, 2003 3:54:48 AM
Hmmm... I wish MIT and others would stop spending so much time celebrating the business side and spend a lot more time celebrating the people who actually care about the tech for its own sake.
From my perspective, the NASA scientist was the only one who should have been up there, and it's totally depressing to me (a male) that the three people obsessed with cash were men.
More balance would be good, of a lot of different kinds.
Posted by: Simon St.Laurent at Oct 25, 2003 3:10:41 PM
You are not overracting, because you are a sexist yourself. Stop accusing others for being sexist, and shave your head! Why the sex should play a role in a decision like this? It is a shame that you can openly be sexist.
Posted by: Tim at Oct 25, 2003 3:56:49 PM
I would have taken an opposing perspective: how sad that the men didn't display the depth of the woman researcher and weren't more excited about the technologies they work with, and are helping to develop. Making more money and selling on the company isn't the only agenda of the entrepreneur -- and indeed, often seems marginal in the most interesting and driven entrepreneurs I've interviewed (I'm a journalist) or know personally. Most have said once you 'make it' and have your first big pile of sponduliks, the joy becomes the development of the technology, the creation of new companies, influencing industry -- anything BUT [yawn] making lots of money and having an IPO (soooooo 90s). I really don't see the group's responses as particularly male or female, either -- rather the response of a *certain kind* of entrepreneur (the kind I find intensely boring and always hope to god I don't have to sit next to at industry dinners...) and pure researchers.
Posted by: Karlin Lillington at Oct 26, 2003 6:08:05 AM
a perspective i missed; this is an awards banquet for a post-secondary institution which depends on donations. accordingly, they would want to give as many awards away to rich people as possible to butter them up for donation hits, and the female researcher was included for both tokenism and to try and disguise the utter corruption and meaninglessness of the awards in question. occam's razor is the analyst's friend.
--random noises
Posted by: anonymous at Oct 26, 2003 1:06:00 PM
