Where Is Jill Nye the Science Gal? [sciencetechnology-center.blogspot.com]
I am in the process of trying to start an Association for Women in Mathematics chapter at my University. I wasn't really inspired to do this until recently when I came to a sad realization while viewing the "people who inspire you" section on my Facebook profile...none of them are women.
What is worse is that when it comes to literature, history, and business I know of many examples of women who figured prominently and made significant contributions, but in science and mathematics I can only think of a few. Of those few, most are in the social sciences and some met with some pretty terrible fates (i.e. Marie Curie). I am also well aware of the stories of women who would have had their names in the history books, but alas their work is overshadowed (and not credited properly) in history books by their male contemporaries, even thought their work is what made it possible for those men to make important discoveries.
I began to also realize that as a child grow ing up I had no female role models in math or science when it came to pop culture. I loved Indiana Jones and wanted to be an archeologist for the longest time. I watched Beakman's World and Bill Nye the Science Guy every chance I could. All of my childhood science heroes were men.
Even today when I watch television or go to the movies it is still mostly male characters that dominate the world of math and science. Women, when cast as scientists, are often characterized as brilliant, but so socially flawed that they are to be pitied.
In the media women who are gifted at math and science and who are also cool, fun, interesting, and desirable are mostly portrayed as doctors, psychologists, or nurses. All of these are noble fields, but these are not the only science fields. Women are rarely portrayed in the applied and theoretical sciences such as engineers, mathematicians, scientists, and researchers.
Even my favorite shows like Big Bang Theory and Bones do thi s. The one "normal" character Bernadette in the Big Bang Theory still had to contend with the possible emasculation of her future husband by her earning a PhD. Although she is normal, especially in comparison to most of the other characters in the show, Bernadette's character is subjected to the sexist storyline that she should walk on eggshells because she dared to be an accomplished female scientist who would make more money than her less educated and less accomplished husband to be. Other characters like Amy Farah Fowler are meant to comically mirror the bizarre Sheldon Cooper character, or as in the case of Leslie Winkle are characterized as women who behave as men do (even sexually); one would assume because she is in a male dominated profession.
In Bones Dr. Brennan is so dependent on her logic and facts that she pushes people and her feelings away because they aren't as reliable. She is brilliant but damaged, so damaged that the audience often wonders if she can ever really be happy. In one of my favorite cancelled shows Numb3rs, Amita is portrayed as a brilliant and beautiful mathematician, but her role is largely supportive of her love interest Charlie Epps. This support even threatens her ability to move forward in her career. The audience is led to want Amita to give up her goals for Charlie for the sake of the love story. Amita doesn't really get a chance to focus on her own work until the show ends or when she is briefly broken up with Charlie; thus emphasizing to the audience that her work is not as important in the grand scheme of things, or that women in the sciences must choose between love and success.
One of the few positive featured female role models in science pop culture right now (that children would be exposed to... sorry Dr. Ruth) is on the TV show Mythbusters. Kari Byron has been on the show for years and shows young kids that women can be good at science and be just as successful as men. We need more Kari 's so that little girls can have that woman that makes them feel that they can be a mathematician, scientist, or engineer.
I was lucky. I had parents that encouraged my interest in the sciences and made it clear to me that I was capable of doing anything I wanted to in any intellectual pursuit. I am also lucky that social norms did not stifle my exploration into math and science. But if the media is still portraying female mathematicians and scientists in sexist and denigrating ways, how do we encourage young girls into math and science? How do we change the perception in society to women who are good at math and science are normal, interesting, cool, and desirable? I don't know the answer yet, but I'll keep trying to think of one.
Related Where Is Jill Nye the Science Gal? ArticlesQuestion by : How is science more credible than the Bible? Science is always changing and never comes to a truth when the Bible has it all contained within the book. Science is just a never ending rabbit hole. One day there is a new finding then the next day it is overturned and so forth. The Bible stands the test of time not science! But then the computer can be disproved some time soon. Best answer for How is science more credible than the Bible?:
Answer by numbnuts222
Science developed that computer you are using You can improve a computer but you can't disprove it
Answer by Scarlet
Science is always expanding and knowledge is continuously growing. Human's curiosity leads it to this.
Answer by The Mind Of Clive Jones
Because it works. Why not build a computer from the instructions int he Bible (as it has everything) and then come back on line when you have done that? It has it all? right. So this should be no problem for you. >>But then the computer can be disproved some time soon.<< Cant tell if trolling or.........
Answer by Narathzul Arantheal
If you have to ask why testable, repeatable and falsifiable explanations are better than an ancient book from a time people thought disease was caused by demons, you would not understand the asnwer.
Answer by Fah King Genius
in the bible, Pi equals 3 and Methuselah survived the flood.
Answer by Gerry
Science has made great strides in modern times. As a result, old theories have given way to new ones. What was once accepted as fact may now be seen as myth. Science textbooks often need revision. The Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.
Answer by Peter
Cock
Answer by Sam
The ultimate quest for science is for the first source and center . The quest for the bible is to learn the will of God . Both have a long way to go.
Answer by Michael
That's like saying that a clockwork Babbage computer is superior to an electronic one because they only built one!
Answer by EAH
Science isn't a belief system, isn't meant to be a belief system. That is why there is things like philosophy, psychology and art. Check those out, and improve your mind. Science does not change. 2+2 still equals 4. Theories change, when new evidence supports a change, but those changes are not going backwards. The bible is a fixed, goat herding wisdom which taken at face value is absurd. The only rabbit hole, is religion trying to disrespect science.
Answer by Foxy
Science has changed how the world works DRAMATUCALLY From a society that depends on human labour to one that needs workers with specific skills to operate amazing advances in machinery and technology. Revolutionised the world. Think how we have progressed from just only 50 years ago till now. SO much has changed because of science and it had impacted a community and it's environment drastically. From computers the size of half a room to one that can fit in your bag. Transport, ability to power homes, I can go on forever.
Answer by lainiebsky
Science is based on observable reality, not ancient mythology. The findings aren't overturned that often; in most cases they're just refined and expanded with new information. Being consistently wrong is not an improvement over getting more accurate every year.
0 comments:
Post a Comment