What Do You Think?
I observed a little while ago, to a collection of Lady Emineneces, the following:
That while I can think of at least a dozen out gay male grad students and post-docs in my large biomedical sciences program, and at least a handful of out gay male profs, I couldn't think of a single out lesbian, and only a handful of women who I thought might be lesbians but wasn't sure about.
Admittedly, there are more men than women faculty, so the total number of gay women profs should be smaller than the total number of gay male profs. Obviously. This does not hold for the graduate community, though, because it's close to 50% female.
So where are all the lesbian biologists???
Hypotheses:
1) There is not a representative proportion of gay women in biomedical science as compared to the total population.
2) Lesbian biologists are proportionally represented in biomedical science, but are not out as often as gay men.
3) There are dozens of out lesbian biologists in my program but there is a conspiracy afoot to keep me, Joolya, from knowing about them.
As #3 seems a bit far-fetched, we are left with #1 and #2 as probable explanations.
Now, if I were a certain ex-president of Harvard, I might be tempted to start my studies using hypothesis #1 and start coming up with various evo-devo reasons why the ladies who like the ladies don't pursue advanced degrees in the biomedical sciences. Such as:
a) Lesbians are "hyper-feminized" women; ergo, they are less statistically likely to be over in the genius end of the famous bell curve in hard subjects like math than "normal" women.
b) Biology is a "soft" science, whereas lesbians are "masculine" females; ergo, we expect to find them more often in the more butch sciences, like physics and chemistry.
c) We all know that scientists have a high probability of marrying other scientists. (It's true, we don't meet anyone else. Okay, I did, but I met him in college, so that doesn't count.) Ergo, why would a lesbian biologist choose to enter a field where her odds of meeting a life-partner be so low? (Since there are so few tenured XX professors.)
Okay, my tongue is in my cheek here, rather, but you get my point. It may in fact be that there is some merit to the underrepresentation hypothesis, maybe along the lines of:
d) More lesbians who would pursue PhDs are focused on more politcal topics in the humanities for personal reasons, and so the pool of potential lesbian science nerds is depleted.
Although more data is necessary to confirm or disprove these hypotheses, my inclination is that #2 is more likely correct.
Supporting evidence: One of the Lady Eminences, when I made this (faux pas?) observation said, "Oh, they're there," implying that hypotheses #2 and #3 were more likely to be correct than #1. I still feel like #3 is on the far-fetcheder end, but I leave open the possibility that my lady gaydar is just defective, or that lesbians categorically hate me and duck into dark alleys when they see me coming, or that there is a secret LGBT society that has in its charter, "For the love of Sappho, just don't let Joolya find out about the lesbians!!!"
I have no idea why the lesbian scientists would shun me, though. I mean, I actively support marriage equality and don't mind showing my love for Amy Ray and Emily Saliers. But this does bring me back to hypothesis #2, which is that lesbian biologists might not be so comfortable being out lesbian biologists.
I feel like the ink is still damp on the "it's okay to be a gay scientist" page for men, so it wouldn't surprise me if gay women weren't quick to broadcast their sexual preferences in mixed company. I mean, the ink ain't exactly dry on the "it's okay to be a woman scientist" page, and the last thing one needs on the slippery slope to tenure is more being defined by sex/gender issues.
Two more words in support of hypothesis #2: Denise Denton.
Denise Denton had a stellar career as an engineer and was the first female dean of engineering at the University of Washington. From the time she was hired by UC-Santa Cruz, she was under scrutiny over her compensation and recruitment package, as were a number of UC chancellors and deans. (Interestingly, the most closely scruntized have been the female and minority deans.) One issue that came up was $600K for renovation of her house - which was actually owne not by Denton but by the university!
She also had the gall to be an out lesbian whose partner was also hired by UC. (Raise your hand if you know someone in an XX-XY couple whose partner was part of a "package deal" at some university . . . )
The furor over the financial issues turned personal and Denton was repeatedly harassed in her home and at work for, among other things, being gay. She wasn't just a controversial chancellor, she was a controversial lesbian chancellor. She eventually committed suicide. And then she was dead lesbian chancellor.
Is Denton's a cautionary tale to young lesbians trying to get ahead in academic science? Should I not tell the world, via my science blog, that back in my college theatre group I occassionally kissed girls? If I do, is that what everyone is going to be thinking about when I'm up there droning on about protein X binding protein Y? (Or, heh heh, protein XX binding protein XX?) Should I be really careful not to supply any more rope to a posse who might be looking for an reason to lynch me?
Larry?
Dear readers, I leave you this ample comments section to discuss. Tell me if I am being a doofus, please; I long to learn that there is in fact a thriving community of lesbian biologists and that I am just an ignorant Straighty McStraighterson!
That while I can think of at least a dozen out gay male grad students and post-docs in my large biomedical sciences program, and at least a handful of out gay male profs, I couldn't think of a single out lesbian, and only a handful of women who I thought might be lesbians but wasn't sure about.
Admittedly, there are more men than women faculty, so the total number of gay women profs should be smaller than the total number of gay male profs. Obviously. This does not hold for the graduate community, though, because it's close to 50% female.
So where are all the lesbian biologists???
Hypotheses:
1) There is not a representative proportion of gay women in biomedical science as compared to the total population.
2) Lesbian biologists are proportionally represented in biomedical science, but are not out as often as gay men.
3) There are dozens of out lesbian biologists in my program but there is a conspiracy afoot to keep me, Joolya, from knowing about them.
As #3 seems a bit far-fetched, we are left with #1 and #2 as probable explanations.
Now, if I were a certain ex-president of Harvard, I might be tempted to start my studies using hypothesis #1 and start coming up with various evo-devo reasons why the ladies who like the ladies don't pursue advanced degrees in the biomedical sciences. Such as:
a) Lesbians are "hyper-feminized" women; ergo, they are less statistically likely to be over in the genius end of the famous bell curve in hard subjects like math than "normal" women.
b) Biology is a "soft" science, whereas lesbians are "masculine" females; ergo, we expect to find them more often in the more butch sciences, like physics and chemistry.
c) We all know that scientists have a high probability of marrying other scientists. (It's true, we don't meet anyone else. Okay, I did, but I met him in college, so that doesn't count.) Ergo, why would a lesbian biologist choose to enter a field where her odds of meeting a life-partner be so low? (Since there are so few tenured XX professors.)
Okay, my tongue is in my cheek here, rather, but you get my point. It may in fact be that there is some merit to the underrepresentation hypothesis, maybe along the lines of:
d) More lesbians who would pursue PhDs are focused on more politcal topics in the humanities for personal reasons, and so the pool of potential lesbian science nerds is depleted.
Although more data is necessary to confirm or disprove these hypotheses, my inclination is that #2 is more likely correct.
Supporting evidence: One of the Lady Eminences, when I made this (faux pas?) observation said, "Oh, they're there," implying that hypotheses #2 and #3 were more likely to be correct than #1. I still feel like #3 is on the far-fetcheder end, but I leave open the possibility that my lady gaydar is just defective, or that lesbians categorically hate me and duck into dark alleys when they see me coming, or that there is a secret LGBT society that has in its charter, "For the love of Sappho, just don't let Joolya find out about the lesbians!!!"
I have no idea why the lesbian scientists would shun me, though. I mean, I actively support marriage equality and don't mind showing my love for Amy Ray and Emily Saliers. But this does bring me back to hypothesis #2, which is that lesbian biologists might not be so comfortable being out lesbian biologists.
I feel like the ink is still damp on the "it's okay to be a gay scientist" page for men, so it wouldn't surprise me if gay women weren't quick to broadcast their sexual preferences in mixed company. I mean, the ink ain't exactly dry on the "it's okay to be a woman scientist" page, and the last thing one needs on the slippery slope to tenure is more being defined by sex/gender issues.
Two more words in support of hypothesis #2: Denise Denton.
Denise Denton had a stellar career as an engineer and was the first female dean of engineering at the University of Washington. From the time she was hired by UC-Santa Cruz, she was under scrutiny over her compensation and recruitment package, as were a number of UC chancellors and deans. (Interestingly, the most closely scruntized have been the female and minority deans.) One issue that came up was $600K for renovation of her house - which was actually owne not by Denton but by the university!
She also had the gall to be an out lesbian whose partner was also hired by UC. (Raise your hand if you know someone in an XX-XY couple whose partner was part of a "package deal" at some university . . . )
The furor over the financial issues turned personal and Denton was repeatedly harassed in her home and at work for, among other things, being gay. She wasn't just a controversial chancellor, she was a controversial lesbian chancellor. She eventually committed suicide. And then she was dead lesbian chancellor.
Is Denton's a cautionary tale to young lesbians trying to get ahead in academic science? Should I not tell the world, via my science blog, that back in my college theatre group I occassionally kissed girls? If I do, is that what everyone is going to be thinking about when I'm up there droning on about protein X binding protein Y? (Or, heh heh, protein XX binding protein XX?) Should I be really careful not to supply any more rope to a posse who might be looking for an reason to lynch me?
Larry?
Dear readers, I leave you this ample comments section to discuss. Tell me if I am being a doofus, please; I long to learn that there is in fact a thriving community of lesbian biologists and that I am just an ignorant Straighty McStraighterson!
posted by Joolya at
9:33 AM
9 Comments:
umm. since when in the hell is biology a 'soft science; i for one will argue that psychology isn't even a soft science. and in many people's attempts to 'harden' it up they add references to biology when referring to their field
i agree that they aren't underrepresented. i also know of many here at even my small school--both profs and grad students.
so, it could be there are fewer at your university? or they are more tight-lipped about it at your university?
Well, Joolya, who hasn't kissed a girl?
Anyway...it's entirely possible that the lesbians are not as out as the gay men at your university and elsewhere, depending upon the climate (e.g., I'm guessing California is an easier place to be an out lesbian than, say, Kansas). Here's one reason why. Being a scientist is not incompatible with being a guy. Doing science, being a guy; no inherent contradiction. However: doing science, being a girl - society sees a contradiction. Where's your femininity if you are doing that very masculine pursuit we call science? Much less engineering? What do you think the engineering boys taunt the engineering girls with? Dyke. Yeah, that's it. Dyke. What do you think the engineering boys say about engineering girls in Seymour and Hewitt's Talking About Leaving? That they're ugly because, either they are just ugly because they are engineers, or because they don't take care of their appearance because they are engineers, or because they are dykes.
Men fear and loathe women in general, despite all the crap they give us about putting us up on a pedestal and blah blah. Men really fear lesbians. Men scientists fear women scientists. Imagine how much they fear lesbian scientists. Imagine you are a lesbian scientist and you have to deal with your male colleagues ALL. DAY. LONG. How out do you want to be with all of those narrow-minded, prejudiced bastards?
If you're a gay man and you're, oh, I don't know, a humanities professor, well your profession doesn't help counteract the stereotypes against you. But if you are a gay man doing SCIENCE, well science is a manly man's profession. No limp wrists there. Just the geek factor. So who are they to question your masculinity, when they are using their scientific prowess to help define their own? yeah.
These gendered understandings of what it means to do science/be a scientist are part of why I hate the terms hard science/soft science. All the jockeying for position, whose science is harder than whose. Cripes. I don't give a shit, because I never have a problem getting it up.
Pledge that you will stop using the term hard science today! What does "hard" mean in this context? What makes a science "hard"? What makes it "soft"? Bad, bad, bad, terminology.
Excellent response Zuska! Believe me, I was using "hard" and "soft" science ironically, but must have forgot to push the Irony Alert button.
All science is "hard" - as in really fucking difficult!
I am new to blogspot and came across this post when googling for "lesbian scientist". Just like you, I was wondering - where are they??
We are here. I am here. I am out and proud but do not shout it from the rooftops. Not just because I am not defined by my sexuality, but because it is hard enough being a woman in science. Being a colored queer woman is a triple threat.
Check me out at http://notarealdoctor.blogspot.com
good looking out!
Like A+, I stumbled on this while googling 'lesbian scientist'.
Interesting comments.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I guess we are all wondering the same thing. Where goes, huh?
I also googled 'Lesbian scientist' and that was because I've noticed that most OUT dyke I know are in art, entertainment or related.
Being in science myself, I know a few gay girls around me but we're guilty for being closeted.
BTW, smart girl is hot. Smart gay girl? smokin'
I've been googling "lesbian scientists" too and haven't found too much. As a scientist who is also a lesbian I am interested in the stories of other lesbians and bisexual women in science, engineering, health and technological professions. A good friend of mine in the lab I worked in was an out lesbian and there was another girl in the same school that was openly gay. So we are out there. I think there isn't enough coverage of lesbian / bisexual women in science, engineering and technology in the lesbian press. There should be more! Especially if it encourages young women to pursue a career in science if they see other gay women in that profession.
I'm writing a blog about women in science and lesbians in science. Here's my link - www.sapphicscientist@wordpress.com
We are out there & if we have more of a voice we can encourage and inspire other gay women to pursue careers in these fields too!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home