Socializing Girls Away from STEM

Sometimes, I wonder if the problem with STEM and girls and their interest isn’t that we devalue STEM to girls, but that we devalue girls and their interests.

Image via EDF.

Image via EDF.

In October 2015, EDF’s Pretty Curious campaign drew a lot of ire from scientists (mostly women), both for the name and for the content of the promotional material. You see, one of the people involved was a cosmetics scientist.

I found the outrage over the name to be a bit baffling, because while I admit I really wished to be called pretty when I was a kid, I was called pretty curious all the time (and I suspect those who’ve worked with me can attest this much is still true; I’m insatiably curious about the world). I don’t hear a slur or a gendered put-down in that; instead, I actually hear the kind of language people are encouraged to use when discussing young girls: talk about their minds, not their bodies. And “pretty curious” is definitely addressing the mind!

It almost seemed like bigger outrage came around the fact that the campaign includes cosmetics scientist Florence Adepoju. Rather than focusing on diversity, as Adepoju is a woman of color, critics focused on the fact that she’s a cosmetics scientist. Because, you know. Girls and makeup and stereotypes–nevermind that you actually need science to make makeup, and that’s part of the point of including Adepoju in the first place: she used science to study how to make makeup (her dissertation was on getting lipstick to stay on lips), and built that into a successful smallbatch makeup business for women of color.

Not bad for 24, eh? Certainly the sort of women I’d like the girls in my life to look up to, anyhow.

But she does makeup, you see. And so people jump on it for being too girly, and the message that’s sent? Well, whether it’s intentional or not, it’s telling girls (and women) that it’s bad to be interested in makeup, in “girly” things.

My cousin wanted to start up summer jewelry-making classes in an income and resource-poor area of the country; she’d provide the tools and materials and teach anyone who was interested how to make jewelry…and sneak in geology lessons via gemstones. After all, to understand the quality of what you’re working with, you need to know how it’s made. She was specific in saying that anyone would be welcome, but also that she wanted to target younger girls in her community who might feel alienated from more boisterous physical sciences summer-camp-esque classes, which are largely populated by boys in her area.

I floated the idea by some scicomm people, who were horrified. Jewelry-making? It’s too stereotypical! We need girls to go into STEM! Not be girls! Another friend is getting the similar pushback over a science-y fitness class.

…it’s a very weird sort of mental holding to have, isn’t it? We can’t use science to talk about things that girls are interested in, are targeted to via advertising, will likely spend lots of money on for themselves over the course of their lives, and have the potential to be skills useful for real-life, adult, science jobs.

The examples, though, seem to me to indicate not a problem with STEM, but a problem with girls. In particular, a problem with the way society can socialize girls to be “girly” – to like makeup and jewelry, to want to stay fit, to be interested in clothing design. But instead of working to open those areas up to boys while simultaneously encouraging girls, it seems like we’ve kneejerked so far away that any attempts to frame these “girly” areas as science-and-okay-for-girls is rejected.

But I have a feeling that when we do that? We’re rejecting the girls who are interested in these areas, and not the socializing behind the girls.

4:46pm, edited to add: After I posted this, Bethany pointed out that this was a discussion going on in early January that I probably missed because I was still recovering from emergency hospitalization/surgery/death-flu stuff. So here is Jamie Bernstein’s post In Defense of Pink Science, and Shannon Palus’s post that Bernstein was responding to.

Lying Liars Who Lie & the Internet is Forever, CDC Edition

What, did you think no one would notice, CDC?

Did you think no one would oh, I dunno, save the image?

Eight days ago, the CDC used this infographic in a Vital Signs post about women and alcohol:

A closer view of the top part of the image:

CloseUpOriginal

You don’t have to take my word for it, as it was the outrage heard ’round the feminist internet:

Today, that same Vital Signs post has this infographic:

CDC-changedgraphic

And to further add insult to injury, they’re trying to pretend that this is the way it always was. See, the CDC actually has a little count down at the bottom of the page that’s supposed to change when they update things, and yet,…

Liars

Click here to see the full image, including day/time stamp, if you want proof I took it today. Or just look at their website. Tomato, tohmahto.

DoYouEvenInternet

Edited to add: And Jess Beasley offers this wonderful point:

3:05 pm Addendum: Apparently when BuzzFeed calls, CDC listens, blanches, and then takes down the offending graphic. …proving that yet again, the CDC does not understand that the internet is forever.

The Centers for Disease Control & Hypocrisy?

Last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a highly contentuous new Vital Signs post on women, pregnancy, and alcohol. The main message was, essentially “don’t drink, ever, if you could possibly be using your uterus to store more than endometrial tissue, fibroids, or intrauterine devices.”

Oh, nice try CDC. I see they finally changed their graphic, a week after the uproar. Unfortunately for them, the internet is forever. This is the original, infuriating, graphic.

Oh, nice try CDC. I see they finally changed their graphic, a week after the uproar. Unfortunately for them, the internet is forever. This is the original, infuriating, graphic.

The impetus for the post appears to be the fact that roughly 52% of pregnancies in America are unplanned, and many women are pregnant for 4 to 6 weeks before they realize they’re pregnant; in that time, there’s the possibility of consuming alcohol.

Now, while studies don’t support the idea that mild drinking while pregnant will harm a fetus, the CDC (and many commentators) have latched onto this rather ludicrous THE RISK IS REAL DON’T TAKE ANY RISK approach for alcohol and pregnany, even going so far as to say it’s not worth risking a single IQ point.[note]Which makes me wonder: really? Given we know that socioeconomic status can affect significantly more than a solitary IQ point, would the recommendation be not having children if you’re below a certain SES? Hmm.[/note] Let’s say we accept this fearmongering approach, ignoring the lack of scientific support for the assertions, ignoring the victim-blaming nature of the infographic,[note]Someone abuse you while you drank? WELL WHAT DID YOU EXPECT? …yeah, the CDC went there.[/note] even ignoring the fact that the CDC conveniently forgot not only a man’s role in conception but the damage drinking can do to sperm and how that can affect fetal development.[note]Designer Chris Giganti kindly provided an updated graphic for men.[/note] Any risk is bad. Wrap pregnant women up in cotton, leave them in a padded room, and don’t let them do anything in case they happen to be in the process of 9.5-odd months of gestation.

Really don’t let them smoke, right? I mean, the risk is real! Smoking while pregnant can cause fetal death, low birth weight, preterm birth, affect the integrity and function of the placenta, is a risk factor for sudden infant death syndrome–oh my gosh! This list is just as bad, if not worse, than the risks of pregnancy and drinking for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Certainly with the release of new data on the risks of smoking and pregnancy–completely separate from the other known risks that smoking has on health, such as cancer, emphysema, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and death–the CDC has created an equally dire infographic and message saying that the risk is real, so quit smoking, why take the risk?

Yeah, nope.WaitWhatYoureKidding

We didn’t even get an infographic.

Instead, we got a very sensible, calm, factual question-and-answer style statement from the CDC explaining how smoking can harm a pregnancy and baby, the number of women who smoke while pregnant, benefits of quitting, effects of second-hand smoke, and further resouces, with various facts hyperlinked within the article itself.

It’s almost an ideal example of how to present facts about a risk in order to allow women to do an analysis of the situation based on their own agency and autonomy.

The CDC did everything right this week with their publicization of new information about smoking and pregnancy data and risks. As Sarah Richardson and Rene Almeling noted in the Boston Globe on Monday, “[w]omen are constantly bombarded with advice about what to eat and drink and how to behave during pregnancy,” and rather than add to the growing list of simplistic injunctions of an “omg if you do that you will kill the baby” variety, the CDC provided pregnant people with credible information about how to weigh reproductive risks.

And yet. And yet. In the light of last week’s NO RISK IS ACCEPTABLE message regarding women and pregnancy, it’s a stark difference in approach and messaging, and both underscores the hypocrisy of their “ABSTAIN OR ELSE” message regarding alcohol while further damaging their credibility as a trusted source of health information and regulation.


The Arrogance of Mitch McConnell and Friends– Or, Flaws in Assuming You Know God’s Will

Maybe it’s all part of a great big ineffable plan. All of it. You, me, him, everything. Some great big test to see if what you’ve built all works properly, eh? You start thinking: it can’t be a great cosmic game of chess, it has to be just very complicated Solitaire. And don’t bother to answer. If we could understand, we wouldn’t be us. Because it’s all — all — ”
INEFFABLE, said the figure feeding the ducks.

-Terry Pratchet and Neil Gaiman, Good Omens

 

As you probably know, I’m religious–Tibetan Buddhist, to be precise–so I do understand the idea of following religious moral rules even if that puts you sort of outside lockstep with modern society. I tend to view religion as a separate (complimentary) sphere to say, science. And while we do things differently across the international religious dateline, I know that a lot of Christian-variations feel the same way.

Part of the reason I know this is because I was raised Catholic.

And that’s why the arrogance of modern Christians is often breathtaking and baffling to me, that they think they know God’s will to the point they’re willing to legislate it. I mean, the last I looked, there were at least six different variations on what you could argue was God’s effort at the clearest commands, the 10 Commandments, which between Exodus and Deuteronomy actually come out to more like 17 Commandments.

But somehow they absolutely 100% know God’s word on fetal tissue used in research.

swirl

When I was a kid, and Mom was still trying her best to raise me as a Good Catholic, I had a book called something like Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen. It was not, as I recall, Catholic-specific, but non-denominationally broad and probably bought as a form of self-defense.[note]Some personality traits are apparently set from an early age, and “why why why, but why, ok how?” was apparently present early on.[/note]

BankRobberThe book was full of examples of bad things God allowed to happen, and asked questions like “if God doesn’t want you to rob a bank, why doesn’t he just put a giant bag over the bank every night to keep everyone out?” and it was illustrated with something like a Ziploc dropped over a cartoon bank, and a cartoon robber trying to figure out how to get past it.

The answer was always a variation on a two themes: free will and the ineffable nature of God. In short, God wants us to have choices and for those choices to be made with the guidance of his wisdom for the circumstances of our lives, and we can’t actually know what God wants from us, or anyone else, because that Plan is ineffable–literally unable to be known by mortal minds–so we just do the best with the circumstances in front of us and trust that God will trust us, too.

swirl

It seems to me the height of conceit and arrogance to assume a mortal human could understand the will of God, let alone be able to perfectly apply that will to modern life. If you believe, after all, that God can speak to you, where the N of you is Very Quite Large, then why couldn’t God simply reach into the mind of everyone and speak to all at once? Why are some people the special folks God speaks to–not really a question in Catholicism, which has its hierarchy of chatting, but a big, big issue in Protestantism, which holds that everyone has equal access to God.

The minute you start hearing God tell you things, you’re removing yourself from that equal access situation and insisting God has spoken to you and only you in mysterious ways.

What especially boggles me is this: say Marco Rubio continues his NO ABORTION EVER rhetoric, and continues to insist that this is because he knows God’s will. What’s to stop someone else from coming up and saying “sorry, but God spoke to me and said that abortion is okay, because it’s one of his tools for teaching–people learn different lessons from abortion, and hey, it’s also how he gets necessary donated tissues to researchers who will cure all kinds of diseases in His name!”

Now you have belief in God’s word being spoken to you in two separate people, with two separate belief systems, and…there’s no way to balance out who is right or not, short of God actually speaking to the entire world at once.

swirl

Of course, none of this is really about religion. If it were, Mitch McConnell and his Republican cronies wouldn’t have voted to lift a moratorium on the use of donated fetal tissue from voluntary abortions in 1993. Yet many of the GOP members who voted for that medical research are now speaking out against Planned Parenthood, and it’s not because they’ve gotten more religious in the last 23 years. It’s because we’re gearing up to what is going to be a very contentious election cycle for the GOP, and as usual, politicians are pandering to the extreme members of their base–the ones who vote in primary elections–in an effort to secure money and, ultimately, nominations.

swirl

DrinkThisMuchIn his sign-off from The Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart said “the best defense against bullshit is vigilance. So if you smell something, say something.” You have to decide what your own olfactory tolerance is, but at least for me, when people begin talking about the voice telling them to control the actions of everyone around them, I think a lot less God, a lot more charm and kool-aid.[note]Which, as my pal Laurie points out, was actually Flavor-Aid. Isn’t it weird how the name-brand became the cultural trope, and not the fact? There’s probably something incredibly meaningful and relevant in that.[/note]

If nothing else, ask yourself this: when the federal funds Planned Parenthood receives do not go towards abortion, what do Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and the rest of the GOP politicians gain from defunding Planned Parenthood?


Aid Organizations Working in Ebola Regions

Last night, Ian Mackay posted this very disturbing logistics/supply chain chart, showing that some personal protective equipment stock in countries battling Ebola are at “zero” – and have been for a while. Articles from the and New York Times bleakly illustrate just how bad the situation has become.

Donation box. Note: Cats are not needed at this time.

Donation box. Note: Cats are not needed at this time.

Because, contrary to popular opinion, humans don’t always suck, people seeing these posts immediately started asking what they can do to help and began brainstorming ways to crowd-fund supplies. However, as Twitter user Macrophagic so succinctly put it, the best thing to do right now is use established supply lines.For more information on why this is the case, read Harvard professor Calestous Juma’s excellent Al Jazeera op-ed on how the lack of infrastructure in the affected region and how this affects all public health.

In support of both people’s inclination to give, and to have that giving filter through established supply lines, here is a list of trustworthy organizationsTrustworthy as defined by me, based on research, name recognition, and Charity Navigator if possible. Vague, I know, but I wanted to get an international-as-possible list up as quickly as I could. that, as of Sunday, August 17, are still operating in Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia. I’ll update this list as I come across more information, or as people enter/leave the affected region(s). Feel free to add your suggestions in comments.

Please check to see if your workplace does matching donations for charity.

The CDC Foundation
The CDC Foundation is an independent, nonprofit organization that connects individuals and the private sector with CDC’s expertise and distribution channels. The Fund’s Global Disaster Relief Response Fund is only activated during extreme emergencies, and has been activated for the Ebola crisis. They are providing personal protective equipment, communications equipment, emergency operations equipment, and funds for public health campaigns. The CDC Foundation received a rating of 96.07 from Charity Navigator. Donations are accepted worldwide.

The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
IFRC is the world’s largest humanitarian network. Their donation page currently has a Syria crisis appeal, but if you select “donate,” the second option is for their Ebola campaign. You can also make a donation to your specific Red Cross or Red Cresent; here is the link to the American Red Cross website; that donation is tax-deductible. (I would recommend donating directly to the IFRC website, as that is guaranteed for Ebola efforts.) The American Red Cross receives an 85.25 rating from Charity Navigator.

Updated 21 August: Here’s the link to the Australian Red Cross donation page. They’re helping with awareness, contact tracing, medical treatment, and burial.

Direct Relief
Direct Relief is coordinating with doctors on the ground in Sierra Leone and Liberia to provide personal protective equipment and other supplies, which are being sourced directly from manufacturers. You can direct your donation to their Ebola efforts; they accept international donations. Charity Navigator gives Direct Funds a pretty amazing 99.71 rating.

AmeriCares
AmeriCares is organizing air shipments to hospitals in Liberia that have no necessary personal protective equipment, including gloves, gowns, and masks. They are accepting contributions for future shipments. AmeriCares receives a rating of 92.89 from Charity Navigator. Donations are tax-deductible.

Medecins Sans Frontieres/Doctors Without Borders
MSF has been pushed to its limits in the outbreak region, and vocal about it. What they need right now, however, is not more supplies, but more people. Their current fundraising campaign for Ebola is listed as fulfilled, and they are requesting that donations be made to their general fund for a more flexible response. MSF anticipates being in the West African region for at least six more months, so it’s entirely likely that they will re-open fundraising for that region. That said, given the extended timeline, it’s plausible general funds will be used. However, they are working in multiple regions of the world, so there is no guarantee that donations to the general fund will be used in West Africa. MSF/Doctors Without Borders receives a 92.03 rating from Charity Navigator. Donations are tax-deductible.

Added 21 August
World Food Programme
With quarantine (quite literally cordon sanitaires) enacted in many of the Ebola-affected regions, food supplies are becoming critical. The World Food Programme is ramping up efforts to feed people caught in the Ebola quarantines. You can read more about that here, and donate at this link. World Food Programme is 100% funded by donations, and the US arm of the organization receives an 89.11 from Charity Navigator. US residents who would like their donation to be tax deductible can donate here.

Added 25 August
UC San Francisco: Support the Emergency Ebola Response
UCSF clinician Dan Kelly has returned to Sierra Leone to operate a nationwide distribution network for emergency medications and supplies from their international partners; support the Ebola isolation and referral center at Kono’s Public Hospital; implement strict screening and control measures at the UCSF facility in Sierra Leone; coordinate emergency referrals to Ebola treatment centers in Kailahun District; collaborate with the District Health Management Team to implement effective contact tracing and sensitive community engagement. There is a matching gift opportunity here; every gift of $250 or more will be matched up to $50,000 total, through 30 September, thanks to the generosity of an Anonymous Donor. International donations are accepted, and US donations are tax-deductible.

Added 2 Sept
UNICEF
UNICEF is working in Nigeria to help quell their Ebola outbreak. Those in the United States can make a tax deductible donation at this link. If you’re an international donor, go here to find your country. The United States Fund for UNICEF is rated 93.69 by Charity Navigator.

Elizabeth R Griffin Research Foundation
The Griffin Foundation is working in Nigeria; you can find donation information here. I don’t know much about the group, but the foundation was formed in memory of a woman who died after contracting macaque-born B virus. The foundation works worldwide to promote safe and responsible practices for handling biological materials. So, you know, seems like they’re pretty useful right now. This foundation has not been rated by Charity Navigator.

Hospitals for Humanity
Hospitals for Humanity provide quality and affordable health care in disaster areas and people in the developing world. In addition to providing care, they also provide medical training and education to the local population. You can help by either volunteering for a medical mission or donating. Hospitals for Humanity has applied for 501(c)(3) status, but not received it yet. They are not rated by Charity Navigator.

Added 8 September
Global Giving Ebola Epidemic Relief Fund

Ebola continues to spread across West Africa, with the number of those affected continuing to rise dramatically. The latest report from the World Health Organization counts 3,069 cases of Ebola in the region and 1,552 deaths from the disease so far.

Global Giving’s Ebola Epidemic Relief Fund focuses on getting grant money on the ground fast, so that rapid responses to changing situations can be made. They are in the middle of a 400,000 fundraising appeal. Here is a full list of grants to date:
• BRAC (Sierra Leone) – $10,000
• DEVELOP AFRICA (Sierra Leone) – $26,000
• DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS (Sierra Leone) – $5,000
• FOUNDATION FOR RESTORING WOMEN’S HEALTHCARE TO LIBERIA (Liberia) – $18,000
• GBOWEE PEACE FOUNDATION (Liberia) – $5,000
• GREATEST GOAL MINISTRIES (Sierra Leone) – $20,000
• IMANI HOUSE (Liberia) – $30,000
• INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL CORPS (Sierra Leone) – $10,000
• INTERNEWS (Guinea) – $10,000
• LIFELINE ENERGY (Liberia) – $5,000
• WEST POINT WOMEN FOR HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT (Liberia) – $10,000

Global Giving is a charity fundraising web site that receives an impressive 97.94 rating from Charity Navigator. An anonymous donor is matching all new recurring monthly donations to the Ebola Epidemic Relief Fund. Donations are tax deductible for Americans.