Women in STEM Need Feminism

The Scientific Method does not translate to inclusive culture

Women’s rights demonstration 1970.

Surprisingly or unsurprisingly, some female academics in STEM may avoid identifying themselves as feminists. And if they do, it is often in superficial ways, typically just encouraging more women to go into STEM.

This is not surprising. Scientists receive different educational training than feminist science scholars. However, there was a brief period in the late 1960s and 1970s (known as ‘second wave’ feminism) in which many (but not all) women in STEM truly embraced and advocated for structural changes in STEM hiring and research. The field of “feminist science studies” emerged which exposed sexism that not only permeated scientific studies but unfair hiring practices and culture. And this worked. Scientific research instituted things like informed consent, reporting conflicts of interests, and consideration of race and sex in medical studies. More women also started majoring in STEM.

Today, STEM majors often lack formal ethical training and tend to have minimal humanities requirements. And even if they do take classes which critique social structures, it’s often not directly about science or technology. This results in training a group of scientists who may be unable to critique the social implications of their work.

By the 1990s, there was tension between women in STEM fields and feminist science scholars.

Starting in the 1990s, theory began to dominate the field over “the matter of women in science”. This coincided with a break between scientific professional women and feminist science scholars. Some female scientists found feminist scholarship inaccessible and did not necessarily identify as feminist themselves. So, by the 1990s and 2000s, there was a sharp division between feminist critical approaches and projects to help women achieve career goals in science (Richardson 2010). A conference on women in STEM called “Balancing the Equation: Where Are Women and Girls in Science, Engineering and Technology?” by the National Council for Research on Women and the Barnard Center for Research shows this “schism”:

The women scientists tell the feminist science studies scholars that they don’t understand what they are talking about. ‘You’re talking jargon, you’re talking over our heads,’ or they say, ‘What you are saying had nothing to do with what I have to do every day in my lab.’ On the other hand, the science studies folks are often defensive about their methodologies and the questions they want to address.” (Hammonds and Subramaniam 2003) (p 941)

Feminist scientists can also struggle with the setbacks and momentum of social progress since they are conditioned to do work which is completed, evaluated, and non-reversed (Rossiter 2012). Even though many women in STEM can recognize instances of sexism, they cannot articulate the social and institutional structures contributing to this sexism (Nash and Moore 2019). These women are so shrouded in the “meritocracy myth” that they typically view sexism as isolated incidents rather than systemic issues. A study examining the diaries from undergraduate women in engineering programs at four different schools found limited variation in their accounts and interpretations of engineering:

While providing clear and strong criticisms of their experiences, they rarely recognize structural inequities, or translate these matters and their own marginality, either individually or collectively, into a commentary on the engineering profession itself. To most of these women, feminism is a voice of complaint, asking for special treatment through affirmative action; they also reject it because it suggests that their talent and experience do not meet standards of objective merit and individual achievement [...] By adopting the core professional values of engineering, women themselves, perhaps unwittingly, uphold structures and cultural practices that ultimately undermine goals they purport to share: an equal opportunity to pursue a meaningful career in this historically male-dominated field (Seron et al. 2018) (pp 132-134).

In the anti-affirmative action climate of the 21^st century (Thomason and Brown 2023), it is unsurprising that many young women may perceive feminism as asking for “special treatment” rather than as a source of empowerment. The women in Seron’s study have completely embraced the “meritocracy myth”. Once they graduate, they are likely to perpetuate this inequality in their workplaces.

Social media, women, and STEM classes. “I fear I may have girlbossed a little too close to the sun #womeninstem”

For instance, Rhoton interviewed 30 female STEM faculty (25 identifying as white) at a Midwestern University on gendered structures (Rhoton 2011). The pattern of responses indicated a belief in gender neutrality and meritocracy in STEM. Though some respondents admitted to discriminatory incidents, they stressed their hard work and perseverance to overcome them. These practices, Rhoton argues, end up hurting the advancements of women by denying structural and cultural factors that inhibit women’s success. Furthermore, these attitudes only perpetuate the stereotype of the “ideal scientist” as objective, single-minded, with exclusive devotion to career. Britton interviewed 102 women faculty at thirteen research-intensive universities in the United States (Britton 2017). Britton found that women faculty resisted seeing their workplace climates as “chilly”, but could recognize instances of bias as a “storm” or “cloudburst”. Britton suggests that there was resistance about addressing gender bias, unless it was an issue of immediate concern to them. Britton also suggests that white women may be more likely to minimize incidents of bias. Notably, in another study of Latina, Asian, Native American, and Black faculty women at a state university, 60% of women of color reported organizational barriers to career progress, versus 45% of white women, 35% men of color, and 30% of white men (Thomas and Hollenshead 2001). Sara Petersen recently did a great breakdown on the history of feminism and how black women were excluded and marginalized. The Unknown Literary Canon just posted a great article on the rejection of feminist by Right Wing Women.

In fact, there have been several professional women who have resisted feminism, despite benefiting from feminist gains. As Faludi writes, women are “voicing antifeminist views—while internalizing the message of the women’s movement and quietly incorporating its tenets of self-determination, equality, and freedom of choice into their private behavior.” (Faludi 1991) (p. 266). Often, these women were angling for political power (e.g. Phyllis Schlafly). Mathematical philosopher (and woman) Dr. Margarita Levin, in an American Scholar article, railed against feminist examinations of sexism in science, explaining that “science has very few female worthies, neglected or otherwise” (Levin 1988). Levin argues that “girls in the very top of their age group in mathematical ability, as determined by age-appropriate tests [(Benbow and Stanley 1980)], are vastly outperformed by precocious boys of the same age on the tests of mathematics meant for high school seniors”. Levin then takes this narrow conclusion and argues that this Benbow-Stanley study has “definitively verified” that sex differences exist in mathematics (Levin 1988). Levin argues that feminist science studies will lead to demands for “subjective” science courses, laxer standards in scientific journals, denial of funding for “masculinist” research, and different grading for women (Levin 1988) (pp. 100,101,106). Her response typifies a common backlash technique against affirmative action, fear-mongering about “lowering standards”.

My Personal Experience…

Most of the teachers and mentors I had were male; I did have a few younger white, female teachers as I moved up the ranks more. This numbers problem, however, is due to a lot of sociological and historical factors. I remember one incident, where someone suggested starting a book club in the grad department discussing a feminist book that had been recently published during the height of the “lean in movement”. One female graduate student proclaimed, that she really didn’t want to sit around discussing feminism. The book club never took off. Other “feminist” women in STEM might be comfortable championing women from the distant past, but are unable to articulate current issues. Sometimes, putting on blinders might be a survival strategy, but many of these women are also struggling to navigate these spaces. They also fail to effectively mentor and assist other women in these spaces.

My own knowledge of feminism and my work to understand the sociological and historical underpinnings of academic institutions and STEM helped me immensely. At minimum, it gave me an explanation for what was going on, and I was less likely to see myself as inadequate or an imposter. It probably helped me to persist in the field. Also, I believe it has made me a more effective mentor to other students in some ways. I temper my criticism and feedback to be constructive, not denigrating or abrasive as criticism in academia often is. I have served on search committees and believe that this knowledge gives me more breadth in evaluating applications. I answer very honestly about issues I see in culture and climate in surveys. I like many women, do struggle with how I am perceived and judgement. The struggle of women to appear calm and competent, and “neutral”, is very, very pervasive in STEM and there is no easy answer to integrating feminism into STEM.

References

Britton, Dana M. 2017. “Beyond the Chilly Climate: The Salience of Gender in Women’s Academic Careers.” Gender and Society 31(1): 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243216681494.

Hammonds, Evelynn, and Banu Subramaniam. 2003. “A Conversation on Feminist Science Studies.” Signs 28(3): 941.

Nash, Meredith, and Robyn Moore. 2019. “‘I Was Completely Oblivious to Gender’: An Exploration of How Women in STEMM Navigate Leadership in a Neoliberal, Post-Feminist Context.” Journal of Gender Studies 28(4): 449–61.

Rhoton, Laura A. 2011. “Distancing as a Gendered Barrier: Understanding Women Scientists’ Gender Practices.” Gender and Society 25(6): 696–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243211422717.

Richardson, Sarah S. 2010. “Feminist Philosophy of Science: History, Contributions, and Challenges.” Synthese 177(3): 337–62. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40985708.

Rossiter, Margaret W. 2012. “A New Era of Institutional Contrition and ‘Transformation.’” In Women Scientists in America: Forging a New World Since 1972, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 269–85.

Seron, Carroll, Susan Silbey, Erin Cech, and Brian Rubineau. 2018. “‘I Am Not a Feminist, but..’: Hegemony of a Meritocratic Ideology and the Limits of Critique Among Women in Engineering.” Work and Occupations 45(2): 132–34. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0730888418759774.

Thomas, Gloria D., and Carol Hollenshead. 2001. “Resisting from the Margins: The Coping Strategies of Black Women and Other Women of Color Faculty Members at a Research University.” The Journal of Negro Education 70(3): 166.

Thomason, Andy, and Sarah Brown. 2023. “U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Race-Conscious Admissions Nationwide.” The Chronicle of Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/u-s-supreme-court-strikes-down-race-conscious-admissions-nationwide.