It been brought to my attention…

..that a recent blog post of mine was considered to be ”uncomprehensible”. I therefore will retort to my old way of writing (and I am quite sure that my old teacher will cringe in his home…) – namely bullet points.

So, in short the points I was trying to make, although I am the first to acknowledge that I was a tad bit upset when writing, which never makes my writing clear.

Regarding the issue of being a woman and furthermore being in science or maybe we can call it “why some careers are more obvious for women than men and vice versa”.

* XX and XY might not be biological exactly similar, that particular feminist theory might be a too large assumption to make.

* XX and XY might not either be completely biological different, like other feminist theories state.

* The over all variance within each group of XX and XY in regards to brain capacity, nurturing feelings and other ‘behavioural” aspects is greater than the difference between the groups.

Why do I think this?
* To avoid thinking that men and women are unaffected by the society we grow up in is naïve. We are all affected by the families we grow up in, the role models we see every day, the music we listen to, the books we read, the history we all share – and let’s face it, to state that there isn’t a large societal baggage that is present in our everyday is spitting all previous instances and years in the face. (As usual, try to exchange the word ‘woman’ for ‘race’ or ‘class’ and the argument might be a little clearer?)

* Therefore to assume that we all are “free to make the choices we make solely based on the fact that we have XX or XY chromosomes” is non correct.

* To draw conclusions that women want to be veterinarians based on the argument that “they are nursing and gentle in their nature” proves two things to me.
First of all, the person doesn’t know what a veterinarian does since it has little to do with being “nurturing” and if you look where vets are employed today you’d find a vast number within the food industry checking our cows, pigs and lams before they go to slaughter. Not all vets cuddle cute little dogs and kittens….
Second of all, not many years ago there weren’t too many women working as vets so clearly something has changed, either in the work itself or in the educational system (or women have changed). To make the argument that nowadays women choose being vets because the want to nurture (like nurses?!) rather than becoming physicians is somewhat odd.

* Based on general grades from high school (from my Scandinavian country anyway) teenage girls have significantly higher grades and therefore they have access to the education of vets – boys do not. (The same ratio is now starting to present itself in medical school and there the solution has been to increase the ratio accepted into Med School based on interviews rather than solely on high school grades.)

* And the given reason girls have higher grades in high school? Because they are smarter of course! (Not that they are more prone to study harder because of the pressure? And that teenagers, especially girls, are still more eager to please [their parents among others] and be top A student. Or some other _sociological_ reason….)

* The [vet] discussion [in the article] is uninteresting since it simplifies the complexity of the issue if you look at “which areas do women choose” only from one angle and nothing else. (I could say that my scientific training has taught me not to hastily draw conclusions based on things that seem to be correlating but rather really investigate if there is a real deductive argument (based on causality) or if it is “a false hypothesis based on false premises” to use the words of my old philosophy professor.

It all reminds me of a discussion back in the day when I was a “horse girl” (no, not drugs – actual horses). Everyone talked about the vast number of girls existing in stables and taking care of horses and riding and being involved. That it was such a “girly thing to be”. Then we looked at the top riders, jumpers and steeple chasers in the world. Any takers? Yes, there are mainly men. One could wonder how that happened since usually you would have to look with a prying eye and really swift through massive amounts of teenagers to find the boys in the stable

Why?
Heck if I know. But I do have a theory. And yes, it is based on the same “mix between biological and sociological” that I have mentioned before.

Maybe we teach boys (men, XY) to be more egoistic – self centred – and thinking about their own goals and wants, whereas we teach girls (women, XX) to think more about their ‘social’ bands like family and relationships than their own goals primarily. Maybe women in general are more willing to consider, consciously or unconsciously, compromises rather than pursuing their own dream no matter the cost?

I mean, even if we have come a long way on the road for equality the fact is there, whether or not I like it, that in today’s society the primary caretaker for children is considered to be the mother. I agree, there are men who want and do take care of their children but if you look at communications from the government, the kindergarten teacher’s calling home to ask about the children, not to mention the “work situation”; the main statement is still “mother is the most important person in a child’s life and therefore women will stay home with sick children and we can understand that”.

(I have more than three men in my close vicinity who have told me about their bosses [nasty/non-understanding/negative] reaction when they wanted to be home with their children and take responsibility like they thought was obvious since they were fathers and a part of the family…. No such thing when my female friends said they needed to pick up from kindergarten, staying home with a sick child etc. The bosses thinks it is annoying to have one less worker but they “understand” since they are women…)

And this leads me to my last paragraph; that women are usually considering the needs of others when making a decision – and this fact is most likely not based on biology as much as social ties and convention. Maybe it will all be better in the future if not only women try to become more “historically male-like” in their behaviour but if men (“we raise boys”) to be more “historically female-like”.

Feel free to exchange the words male-like to “think about you and your wants” and female-like to “think more about social ties and others around you”.

Hopefully this post was clearer?!

(And I who had plans to write about Red wings and being an unfaithful supporter as well as my views on “How you can avoid making a bad decision as a mentor” – well I can say that in short; when someone in your lab is giving a talk – don’t plan to sleep in because that will look strange to everyone…. And give the post doc less enthusiasm about the whole thing.)