|With Mayim Bialik in D.C.|
Surrounded by such a variety of positive female role models, I thought I would take the opportunity to go spread the word about FabFems, the new site that matches girls in science with female mentors in their area. The result was baffling. At first, I was pleasantly surprised by how many booths were being "manned" by women. Next, I was disappointed to find that many of them described themselves as being "just in HR" or "volunteering with a friend", disavowing any relationship to science themselves.
Those who *were* scientists kept telling me "Oh, no, I'm not really in the sciences...I'm just a math teacher." or "I'm not actually a scientist, I'm a psychologist." I even heard one lady say "I'm not a scientist, but I write books about science, is that okay?" After reassuring these women that they had a valid relation to STEM, I handed them my info and suggested that they sign up as mentors so that they might inspire a young girl to someday believe that her contribution to STEM is also valid.
|My normal attire|
Before I go further, it feels important to mention that when it comes to STEM conventions, I usually have the most exposed chest in the room -- I have no problem wearing low collars, as long as it remains age-appropriate and doesn't get to the point of becoming a distraction.
Judgements not yet formed, I thanked them for the chat and headed back to my booth. As it turns out, these ladies have been all-but rejected from the female scientific community in an effort not to replace one stereotype for another.
|Example Brogrammer Meme|
This spinning vortex of extremity went a long way toward exploding my mind over the weekend. When asked about my opinion of these radical groups, I had to defer my answers. On one hand, I am such a big fan of supporting non-traditional individuals in any field. On the other, I'm appalled by the perpetuation of a woman being most prized as eye-candy. (Another honesty side note: I most likely only feel that way because I don't fit into the eye-candy stereotype and I want to be prized, too.)
Finally, I came to peace with my answer. If brogrammers existed as a group, I would hope that their derogatory attitudes wouldn't be accepted in any workplace anywhere. The practices being heralded as brogramming basics would make for sloppy and unsuccessful coding practice, and their kind wouldn't last in a start-up world anyhow. Attitude aside, I do LOVE the idea of programmers who stay active, stay social and buck the system. There's no reason to fall into a stereotype just because some group appears to outnumber you.
As far as the Science Cheerleaders go, I approve of the message, but not the outfits. As long as the science is real (and not dumbed down) then the method doesn't really matter to me. Why should I care whether the message comes from a cheerleader, an old man or a rat? The reasoning is in the results. If it works, it works! I figured out that my initial shock came from the same place as if I had seen my child's kindergarten teacher dressed in a similar outfit. It just doesn't feel like an appropriate costume for the age group that they're reaching out to. In the end, I say to the cheerleaders: "The message is good. The outfits...not so much."