Very few men in this forum?
Maxine Clarke
Wednesday, 08 April 2009 12:50 UTC
I just counted the members of this forum, and the vast majority are women. (Aboutut 20 out of 24, a couple of initials and gender-neutral names so not exactly sure). I was hoping to see a good number of males among us. I wonder if the forum topic means that males believe they are not “allowed” to join. I suppose that for a “chemistry” forum, one would expect mainly chemists to join, but is it sensible for the same to hold for this forum – does it mean women are talking among themselves, and the issues discussed here aren’t interesting to the other half? Probably not, because men have contributed to some of the discussions, but don’t seem to have joined the group. So what’s going on? I’m curious.
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
I went to lunch with a gang of colleagues recently, all of whom were women, and for all I know, still are. The main topic of discussion was the well-publicized death from cervical cancer of Jade Goody (a reality-TV star, for those who’ve been living in a box buried beneath the Martian south polar icecap). The conversation turned to the patchy attitude of health authorities in the UK towards cervical screening compared with other countries. After that the conversation got rather gynaecological, to the extent that I earnestly wished for some other topic of conversation to obtrude while I tackled my steak tartare, tripe, liver, sweetbreads and raw squid. Eventually, having tried in vain to finish my meal, I stood up, declared loudly that my next task would be to examine my own testicles, and left.
-
Henry, do you think there’s a chance they might have carried on to discuss testicular cancer and prevention with as much interest if you’d said something? Or maybe you could have just tried to change the topic? Did they just assume you were ok with this?
(warning about vast generalization)
Point taken though, girls do tend to discuss ‘female health issues’ much more readily than guys.
Anyway, there shouldn’t be any danger of that here, since a ‘women in science’ forum probably wouldn’t focus on cervical cancer, unless it’s from a cancer research perspective…
-
Anonymous
Sure, Steffi, they probably would have done – the reaction at my declaration was collegial mirth and one
ejaculationcomment that “men’s health is also very important” but to have diverted the convsersation so abruptly to a minority interest (N=1) would have seemed rude… -
And I’m not Anonymous, I’m me….
So there -
ooh, don't start that here as well... -
More seriously though – I think the episode illustrates somewhat the point Maxine is trying to make: that it would be nice if men’s and women’s ‘issues’ were interesting for all involved…
-
I’m proud to be in one of the most gender-balanced parts of life I think I could have found (bioscience and related trades). I know we’re a bit of an anomaly (possibly along with publishing), and I know there’s still a bit of a preponderance of gents at the top, but I really think that if you want it to be less of an issue than it might, come to the biosciences. But, that may be the issue..?
There was an interesting thing on radio 4 the other morning talking about the possible death of post-post-(post-)feminism. It featured some vox pops with several of the lady persuasion and they nearly all claimed not to be feminist, but by the definition I’d offer, which allows for it to simply be an assertion of equality in all but snow writing, they all were. Translate that response (heightened by the bioscience context) for men and you get ‘If they don’t care themselves [since feminism kind of won, apparently, at least locally], why on earth would I?’
And worse (though not male-specific, sorry I am Captain Tangent), I think that anything that has gender in the title these days invokes some kind of folk myth about burning things, getting trampled and singing earnestly in small groups. The gains from decades of protest are taken as given by many (kind of like voter turnout here versus new democracies). All of the above taken in combination might lead to the assumption that flagging things as for women may indicate rabidity, or a dysfunctional nostalgia… And there is an assumption (from within as well as without) in many groups that a group’s issues are its own business (whether gender, ethnic, economic); the ‘within’ one is more pernicious if anything (‘What would you know?’ or ’What’s your real motivation?’).
And though on that day I might well have offered to share the taxi with Henry, as much to get out from under as anything (as he says himself), men do care about women’s health. I have a daughter, and she has a mother, as do I, and friends, and beyond that I’m a citizen (for want of a word that doesn’t make me sound quite so likely to be trying to climb into my own colon — didn’t dare venture ‘human’…)
-
Maxine, I can’t help thinking I should have named it the ‘More women in science forum’, then maybe it would have sounded like a cause rather than a stipulation, and more men would have joined up.
Henry and Chris – join us! Henry, if you do, I promise to start a thread about men’s health.
-
hi Angela, I hope you don’t mind me posting this question in your forum. I agree that the name could get a bit unweildy, but I wonder… your subtitle is a lovely, all-inclusive “For anyone who wants to see more women in science, technology, and related professions”, but they are being shy! So how about amending it to: “For anyone, men and women, who wants to see more women in science, technology, and related professions”? Just a thought. (No excuses then, ha!)
-
Maxine, don’t mind at all! In fact, I was starting to wonder about the paucity of men myself – I would have thought all Imperial College students would have signed up straight away.
Your excellent suggestion has been enacted.
Results
-
