Via Swans on Tea, a great article about Richard Feynman’s days in the 1980’s working for Thinking Machines on their groundbreaking massively-parallel computers. (Reprinted from Physics Today.)
Richard did a remarkable job of focusing on his “assignment,” stopping only occasionally to help wire the computer room, set up the machine shop, shake hands with the investors, install the telephones, and cheerfully remind us of how crazy we all were. When we finally picked the name of the company, Thinking Machines Corporation, Richard was delighted. “That’s good. Now I don’t have to explain to people that I work with a bunch of loonies. I can just tell them the name of the company.”
But then there is this:
The charming side of Richard helped people forgive him for his uncharming characteristics. For example, in many ways Richard was a sexist. Whenever it came time for his daily bowl of soup he would look around for the nearest “girl” and ask if she would fetch it to him. It did not matter if she was the cook, an engineer, or the president of the company. I once asked a female engineer who had just been a victim of this if it bothered her. “Yes, it really annoys me,” she said. “On the other hand, he is the only one who ever explained quantum mechanics to me as if I could understand it.” That was the essence of Richard’s charm.
“Charming” and “sexist” are not actually exclusive properties. We don’t have to say “he is sexist, but very charming, so it’s okay”; nor do we have to say “he is a brilliant and charming man, but incorrigibly sexist, and therefore cannot be admitted to possess any good qualities.” People can be talented and charismatic and warmly human, and yet have a looming blind spot when it comes to gender.
All of which is perfectly obvious, but worth reiterating because the pervasive culture of science is steeped in a sort of geeky pseudo-machismo that is handed down through the generations. Charming it may be, but far from harmless. The latest evidence to add to the teetering pile comes from a new study by the Center for Work-Life Policy, who looked at the career paths of women in science, engineering, and technology.
Based on data from 2,493 workers (1,493 women and 1,000 men) polled from March 2006 through October 2007 and hundreds more interviewed in focus groups, the report paints a portrait of a macho culture where women are very much outsiders, and where those who do enter are likely to eventually leave…
They also do well at the start, with 75 percent of women age 25 to 29 being described as “superb,” “excellent” or “outstanding” on their performance reviews, words used for 61 percent of men in the same age group.
An exodus occurs around age 35 to 40. Fifty-two percent drop out, the report warned, with some leaving for “softer” jobs in the sciences human resources rather than lab bench work, for instance, and others for different work entirely. That is twice the rate of men in the SET industries, and higher than the attrition rate of women in law or investment banking.
The reasons pinpointed in the report are many, but they all have their roots in what the authors describe as a pervasive macho culture.
Engineers have their “hard hat culture,” while biological and chemical scientists find themselves in the “lab coat” culture and computer experts inhabit a “geek culture.” What they all have in common is that they are “at best unsupportive and at worst downright hostile to women,” the study said.
Too many scientists figure that, if someone leaves the field, it must have been because they weren’t good enough. There are other reasons. Providing equal encouragement to everyone entering into science would not only make for happier people, it would make for better science.
Even terrorists are having gender issues these days!
Female fundamentalist Muslims are fighting for the
right to be suicide bombers, too, just like their
male counterparts:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/31/world/main4142514.shtml?source=RSSattr=HOME_4142514
Sadly, they only get half as many virgins as the men
do upon a successful detonation – even the afterlife is
just so unfair.
The whole species is just plain warped!
To Haelfix (#43): but the question, of course, is: did she make you that cup of coffee for you?
To teadrinker (#51): yeah, I saw that, and I agree; that is so warped.
Give this Feynman thing a rest: the man was a genius, let it be. Isn’t there a Motorhead song that says something like ‘don’t expect the best if you can’t take the least’?
There are approximately two types of sexism among older males. There are the men who can still treat you with respect (most) of the time, who can engage with you on science, who can be interested to talk and to hear what you have to say. And, they occasionally say the ‘wrong’ thing or ask for coffee because of a generational issue about perception and roles. This is different from the older, creepy, leering or hating men, who never really engage with women or consider them equals, and with whom one gets the sense that there is a type of hatred or chip on the shoulder about women. I am more willing to excuse the former than the latter. The problem is the men of all ages who really do actually hate women on some level, usually due to personal issues with relationships, sex, female relatives, and so on. There is the sexism that comes from societal conditioning and then there is the sexism that comes from hating women, and they may overlap but there is a difference I have sensed there.
(delurking)
Kordan said:
“It’s funny how women always claim they want a nice,
sensitive, and understanding guy – but the younger
ones especially (such as in college) almost always
seem to go for the big macho jerks.
Then they whine and cry about how cruel and insensitive
all men are – go figure.”
Of course no one can ever rely solely on an individuals spoken claims; actions speak louder then words. I can dig the study up for you if you’d like, but I remember a psychology paper that tested womens actual preferences (using speed dating, it’s weak but it’s the best we have) and sure enough it supported the nice guy stereotype! The women ended up liking more men that scored low on agreeableness, which I think would roughly correlate with niceness.
Antonio, the answer to why people pick people who have
power and looks over personality and intelligence (read niceness) is simple: We are still just monkeys with car keys.
Well, as someone has already mentioned, Feynman obviously has the ability to stir the pot from beyond the grave. And to be honest, I’m quite astonished at the quality of the comments written here. People are people!
#53, Your post is equally valid if one were to interchange the words “men” and “women” throughout. I would also suggest that neither is less common than the other.
#50, as people grow older, their outlook on life changes as do the qualities they look for in a partner
Having worked at two large, but good, public universities I’ve seen more than my share of talented young women diverted from working in the science by…..other women (this is apparently a large issue in mathematics and was pointed out to me by a woman mathematics professor who was despairing of the situation).
There are also talented individuals of both sexes that go onto great careers with or without hostile/encouraging environments/mentors etc.
As for Feynman, he can no longer defend himself or give a rationale for his behavior. My suspicion, on having read a large chunk of his writings, is that he was continually pushing the limits to see what he could get away with, or as others have pointed out here, to see exactly how cherished these beliefs of others really are – but maybe I’ve been watching too much House and Boston Legal.
So, I would respectfully suggest that people treat others with respect (if it is deserved) and just grow up!
All you people making strong pronouncements about Feynman’s character make me laugh; you impress me as a bunch of gossips.
How many of you knew Feynman? How many of you know someone that knew Feynman? I would wager that none of the outspoken posters in this thread have any real experience of what Feynman was like – you can’t tell what a person is like from reading books and articles.
Feynman was a human being, OK? Albeit a very smart one. He was not always perfect in all respects. Are any of us?
[As for The Feynman Lectures on Physics (FLP), also mentioned above, please don’t forget that Feynman was not their sole author – Matthew Sands and Robert Leighton were also authors of FLP. In fact the whole project was Matt Sands’ idea, and Feynman did none of the actual writing. If you ever listen to the (commercially available) tapes of the lectures on which the books are based and compare them to what is written in the books you will see that they are by _no means_ merely a transcription. Feynman was incredibly brilliant but sometimes not completely clear – sometimes far from clear – as is the case for most people speaking extemporaneously. Leighton’s and Sands’ great contribution to FLP was to “translate ‘Feynmanese’ into English” (as Leighton jokingly puts it in his Oral History at the Caltech Archives), and they did a great job, though they are rarely recognized for it.]
Michael A. Gottlieb
Physics Department
California Institute of Technology
Simple Truth that any honest observer will have to admit: Feminist professors in humanities departments m today make far more sexist comments and show far more hatred towards men – officially and in print – than Feynman ever did towards women.
Today a majority of medical students, law students and mba students are women; in addition to the humanities. But in the ‘sexist past’ all these subjects were equally dominated by men. You apparently claim that scientists are more sexist than doctors and lawyers – but is it not reasoable to consider other possibilities: men are simply more interested in science, or more realistically biases against men and boys (that’s right) in other areas with artificial entry barriers makes them go into other areas.
Incidentally MBA’s, medical doctors, and lawyers all earn far more money than scientists – maybe that is the reason for the lack of women in science!