some thoughts on #metoo and women

Like everyone I've seen the feeds of #meetoo on social media. I didn't want to add myself in the mix while I was thinking. Mainly because I thought it was fairly common knowledge that women are being harassed, partly because I am private about "what happened to me" since it's private. Yes, this would be one of the issues that make the harassment difficult to stop, the shame and non-privacy aspect.

Anyway, after these more than two weeks since it broke a few things stand out to me.

First, it's been a huge thing in Sweden where equality work and feminism is on the active political agenda (two of the political parties have very clear wording on what they would like to accomplish in terms of future society, and almost all party leaders call themselves feminists). It's been a drive to "stop this culture of harassment now!" and demonstrations and now the latest the secretary of arts becoming involved with the national dramatic scene since 456 actresses published an article today telling their stories of harassment and sexual abuse in their work spaces (theatre and movie industry as well).

Second, the comments from not just one man but several in my vicinity where they've opened with various comments as "I just don't understand, those allegations refer to something that happened years ago" and "really, it's just a comment - it's not that bad", not to mention "Do you really think all these women have had something happened to them, maybe just someone calling them cute in the workplace, that's really not harassment". And of course, with utmost sincerity "well, it hasn't happened to you right - so not all women" and the subsequent shock when I had to reply to them "It's happened to me, several time and degrees. I don't think I know any of my female friends over 25 who hasn't had an inappropriate come on from a coworker/manager, and let's not even go into the bar scene where everyone I know have had a least one man grabbing their boobs or butt" (I tend to separate the drunken incidents from the general discussion since I have noticed that "I was drunk" is a common point of excuse and takes the focus out of the actual problem - the touching/harassment.)

Third, the subdiscussion coming out of this where a bunch of men, and women, start yelling and talking about "this makes it impossible to joke at the workplace" and "all these women turning into victims and this isn't helping women's image as strong at all". It's been a surge in the "let¨s all do the Mike Pence way and not be alone with a woman if you are a man" thinking. Not as much discussion about what kind of jokes are you really throwing around in a workplace? It's not your home you know.

To me the obvious faulty step with the third point is that it really says "a man can not be left alone with a woman since then he will assault her because he can't control himself". I call BS on that. Most men I know have no issue being alone with a woman and nothing goes out of hand. Some men are bullies(opportunist/sociopaths/harassers/bad people). These people are always going to use a one-on-one situation to their advantage. For the life of me I can't understand why not more men are raising to the occasion and saying "I don't want to be associated with those men, therefore I will not be the silent witness around".  Not to mention that the idea that a man can't control their behaviour around a women when opportunity arises to be doing something alone seems to me to be.... let's say very animalistic and basic, not really civilized and being in control of your own body and mind. Something similar to the argument that a woman can't be president because we don't know what will happen when her ovaries gives her PMS and she has access to the nukes. Yes, BS.

If we bring it back to the science scene, rather than the acting scene since I'm a trained scientist and have spent more than two decades in academia and pharma. Science and art have similar feature when it comes to perpetuating the genius image. You know the "he is so talented and successful, super special" feature. The golden lab with the associations. The PI who gets all the grants, the PR and the glory. The lab where you go and then you get invitation letters to the ball with the keys to the kingdom after a successful grad studies/post doc/first appointment.

And when genius is involved, a lot of things slide. Same with money, when money gets involved - a lot of things are overlooked. You want to keep the golden ticket and be associated with the gold and the glitter. Especially if you have invested in them. The higher up, the more protection. Nothing new about that.

I'm missing the biggest discussion I have had though. I touch on it in the second comment above. "It doesn't seem so bad that someone would lose their job now 15 years later" - mentioned in context about "he touched her thigh under the dinner table at a state dinner" and "he talked about oral sex in front of me when I thought we were going to talk about work". I had to get into the nitty gritty details and explain the surrounding extra things that to my surprise was not on the radar of the person I was speaking to. Then again, while talking I remember again that the perception of "threat" is very different when you are a tall man compared to a average woman. Not to mention that if you go to a state dinner to discuss affairs of the state, is it a positive to realize that the man next to wants to touch and grab you, rather than respecting you to know your thoughts and politics about the issues at hand?

Long story short, the upsetting (and unacceptable) part in these stories are when you as a woman have to encounter sexual advances from men while you think that you are discussing work, while they are not remotely interested in you as a contributor to the science, but rather to make them feel good and feel manly and in control. Every such encounter adds to your archive of incidents and after a few years, you start seeing these (what some people call) small incidents as the start of something bigger. It's the "feeler/grooming" territory. It's about not respecting your boundaries since they are not even a part of the conversation. It's also simply about power and a little help from their friends.

It's been said SO many times, most of these men know exactly what they are doing. They are not behaving like this with everyone. They do it when they know they have the power. And maybe most galling, the do it when they know that the other (powerful) men around them will not do anything against them.

I wrote on twitter awhile back "Do they behave in this way in front of their wife or daughter?". If they do, they fall into a very clear abuser definition since they are very entitled. A lot of them do not though. They know where the line is when other people whom they need to maintain a good character in front of are watching. After a dinner at a conference where they are in control is not one of those times.

A friend and I talked about the age old "professor sleeps with student" scenario that seems to be so  difficult to get understanding that it is not appropriate and never excusable. Never mind the post-doc/grad student in a relationship with PI. The latter is especially galling to me since I've heard the excuse so many times "she is a grown woman and can choose what she wants. You don't know thtat the PI inserted influence and there was anything inappropriate going on". (I say her since it's mainly female post-doc/grad student with male PI). Never mind the whole structure in science that we know that if your post-doc PI doesn't support your future career in science, it's going to be very hard for you to get the keys to get invited. And IF your PI opens the door to inappropriate behaviour, how difficult is it to reject the advances without hurting that precious position? And especially if you know that your institution nor the other PIs/people in power doesn't have the best track record of helping you/the non faculty. So WHY would the PI want to risk their reputation on this? (Because they don't risk that much, that would be my short answer).

When I started in science I naively thought that the employee handbook - where it clearly states "no person can have a relationship with someone who is their direct report" - was a rule. My friend works in a place where they have the same rule. I saw that Berkley, San Diego and the other universities that have been in the news for their disgraced PIs lately have similar writings. Yet, when it comes to geniuses, or people who has secured a lot of grant funding, these rules are just not as easy. And most often it's the "oh, would you really want to ruin his life and lab, it was just a little touching, or a late night text. Surely you can take the compliment and not make a fuzz." The colleagues to the person stepping over the line silently distancing themselves doesn't help either.

The long and short of this rant is this:
To me it's obvious what a lot of this confusion is about when it come to "why such a big deal". It's that specific feeling of being regarded as meat, as someone's pleasure, regardless if you have a will of your own since their will overrides everything else. You should be happy that this genius is interested in you - not your mind though - but wanting to be with you. You should thankful that they deem you interesting enough to care about them. I guess they think that the shine will rub off once they sully your body with their hands or their thoughts about what they can do to you.

I don't think they have ever considered how impersonal it is to be viewed only as a piece of meat (boobs, butt or other parts) that makes them feel happy and aroused. Because really, isn't that what being a woman should be all about? Being admired and wanted for our looks. We all apparently want to be Helen of Troy, not Morgaine Le Fay.

smile! You're in a meeting

The last couple of months have been a little..... taxing. When pressure mounts on both sides of "inside work" and "outside work", it's not an ideal situation. The outside of work pressure, well it's something I'll have to deal with in my spare time and shouldn't affect work,. I don't share that with my coworkers, it's for my friends. However, work has been increasingly about emotions, managing not only expectations, managing up but also being the emotional support for a couple of peers, well - it's good to relearn one's limitations, right? Joke aside, it's not.

However, I can't but help think that part of what really has annoyed me is a little nagging feeling inside that a certain situation is in play because of the fact that I'm a woman. You see, I've been told repeatedly over the last couple of months that I need to manage my face in meetings. My regular face is not what one would say a "smiling complacent woman face eager to please". My regular face is neutral. Nothing wrong with that, and if it stayed as such, there wouldn't be a as much of a problem. However, I have a tendency to have a different face when trying to follow a thought process when someone is talking, or when I'm working out a problem, or when I'm mentally writing out a time line and making notes of all the potential issues that will come up when planning new projects.

This different face, let's call it "my thinking face", is the issue (like "resting bitch face"). It looks angry. Or maybe not exactly angry, "it's rather like you are malcontent or just scrunching up your eyes and it's a little unsettling". Or, as one person said "well, your face is not looking happy right now". [you bet it doesn't, your proposal has a lot of issues and I'm going to have to fix them all dude] In short terms, I have forgotten, due to trying to fix all these new tasks and extra stuff at work while navigating my outside life so it doesn't affect my job, that the most important part of my job is to smile and be a happy woman in every meeting I attend.

Well, to be clear - I'm pretty good at the smiling face in project meetings with "the non-special people". The crux is that these comments are coming from the closer people at work. The ones I've worked with a long time and know me. My close work groups. The ones who have been talking about "we should all be close and so good friends" groups. The irony isn't lost on me. This whole time when we have "gotten to know each other" and it's been about "you need to learn how to trust close coworkers, drop your guard" I've been a smiling woman. Now when I'm relaxing in my interactions with them, the critique and disappointment has reared its head since my face isn't as nice [fake] as before and that bothers them.

I wish I could tell them this, but I won't. It's not going to be what they want to hear. It might be what they THINK they want to hear "let's be honest, everyone likes honesty". No, actually most people don't want 'honesty' and 'real' - they want 'convenient & affirmative'. And most of all the want "non threatening". And a non smiling woman [me] in a meeting not giving them constant affirmation is quite clearly not what they want. And especially not when part of the deal is that I'm there to help them figure out all the snags and issues that will come along in their projects.

So, back to neutral face with a slight smaller smile I go. Of course, it's interesting that I don't see this need of having a smile or being affirmative reflected in my male peers and their interactions with people. Nor have I heard any male peer being critiqued in a large group "you really need to smile more" as I've been admonished. It's quite alright for the male peers to sit with scowling faces in meeting after meeting, interrupting and throwing in "helpful critique" whenever suits their fancy.

Alas, I'll label this under "things I knew before, got persuaded for a while I was wrong and paranoid as a feminist, but it turned out I had the right idea all along so it would've saved a lot of energy just listening to my own perception". And then I'll move on.

Welcome to the world "Ms neutral face with a small smile". Adios real face where I actually use my time thinking about what you're saying instead of rearranging my face so you feel comfortable. I wonder if they ever realise how disappointed in them this made me? Most likely not. C'est la vie d'une femme, souriante tout le temps.

International Day of Women - links and practical things

If you read this blog (thank you if you do), you know that I have an opinion on equal rights, women in science and that the world is not a fair place at the moment. I've gone through my old posts and I wanted to write something new for today - being the 8th of March - and figured I could do some practical link love.

There is so much to do to work for equality still. (No, I don't think we are considered equal, us woman and men.) Every where you read research says that if women are given the opportunity to control their reproductive rights (read: not get pregnant too close together aka spacing children or postpone their first child to after 18 years of age) they will have a higher chance of finishing school, thus having a higher chance of supporting themselves and their families. It's one of the things that make me upset knowing that current politics of the USA is removing this opportunity since they are pulling the funds for all health aid IF they even mention abortion (they don't even have to provide it, just the mere fact of talking about it makes the money void).

Well, instead of making this a venting upset rant - I'll go right ahead with some links to things I find important this March 8th of 2017.

Site from United Nations on women and "changing the work today". Lots of facts and explanations on WHY it's important to work towards equality and what we could have in the future.

A Mighty girl; my "go-to-site" for inspiration and presents for my friends who are parents, and also to myself when I I need a pep talk and be inspired by all the great girls and woman all around us in the world.

For more practical "what can I do to help" - consider kiva.org where you can be a lender to micro loans to women (men and groups) all over the world with a small risk. The micro lending makes it possible for a lot of people to finish school, purchase that small extra that is needed to sustain their business and other things. You can choose places, people and projects that you feel are important. They have a special drive for March 8th, go take a look.

The book I would like every undergrad to have to balance the male dominance of all the science history and reports every day.

"We should all be feminists" by Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie - there's a TED talk and a small book (based from the TED talk). It might interest you to know that the book was handed out to a lot of 8th graders in Sweden last year.

A list of the 100 most powerful women in 2016 from Forbes

Some self promoting (but at least I'm not rewriting the same things this year) - my old posts from March 8th:
Silly slut on Woman's day 2010
IWD this March 8th 2012 
being just enough woman, IWD edition 2016 

An old blog carnival: "IWD How To Do It All, one woman's perspective" lots of good posts

And finally, I found my blog post about the book Seducing boys club  that I never bought since I thought it was too "post-modern American" but now in a better mind frame to read and contemplate. Anyone read it? Any thoughts?

Now, let's go to work.

women's rights and marching in the USA

I had an interesting experience Saturday when I met up with American friends for talking a walk in downtown city where we live. (paraphrasing, we went in the march.) I've done this quite a few times in my home country Sweden. This was different though and since then my head has been going a little on overdrive. I've tried to vocalize what's going on, and how to phrase it but I'm not there yet. However, I want to write something while it's still fresh and people might be interested in reading?

Anyhow, the main thing I hadn't really grasped before is exactly how uncomfortable and unused to demonstrations (marches?) a lot of people in the United States are. I should probably have known this, considering I've taken history and have lived here for a decade but still, the magnitude of things that has come up since threw me for a loop.

I'll explain the quickest and simplest way there is. I grew up in a country where there is demonstrations every May 1st. The international workers' day, as it is in most leftish/socialist countries all over the world. I also grew up with worker strikes (not many but the few that happened were pretty big), school demonstrations (students doing a "sit out for a cause") and a lot of demonstrations for solidarity - example "against violence against women", "for accepting refugees in the country", "for stopping the war in country X,Y or Z" (depending on which group is having the demonstration)* or protesting a decision that is going through in the local government. 

Most of the bigger demonstrations happen down town Stockholm (capital with the State government building) but a lot in "downtown small town" if not to show that people all over the country support it, like the "we stand together against racism" and similar.

My point? That most of the demonstrations (caveat; it's changed a little in the last decade with being more polarized and "counter-demonstrations") are peaceful and police are there, yet don't do arrests. And even if they end up "not super peaceful" there has only been one time the last 30 years when the police has shot someone and (international demonstration in Gothenburg with EU meeting and Bush visiting in 2001) and teargas hasn't been used since 1970ies (it wasn't allowed until a provision for very limited use in 2012 and forth...).

Obviously it's a different story in the USA. And add on top of that liberal gun laws in the South and who knows what can happen? Yes, different indeed. 

However, what really got me into this thinking is the aftermath conversations that have come up in conversation with coworkers, the media, on facebook and in twitter. It's partly "what's the point of a demonstration? You should DO something instead" (I) and partly "the march excluded a lot of people and also, {you} white women should be ashamed of not doing this earlier and listen to other women" (II).

My very brief thoughts on I and II based on my experience in organized politics from another country.

(I) One point of demonstrations is to show "the people" that there are several who think like them, to find unity and seek support towards or against [what ever the demonstration is there to show]. It's a good way (imho) to get grass roots to feel included and is generally a good way to rally people to get involved. (Part of why I was disappointed that the march I went to on Saturday didn't have pamphlets with "this is what you can do now when you are here and wanting to ACT", perhaps local organizations and phone numbers/names on congresspeople and state representatives supporting this?) 

The second, less kind yet important, part is to show "the rulers" that there is strength in numbers and that they shouldn't forget that the people put them in power, and that they can be removed. (this is of course more philosophical, yet why it's powerful with demonstrations and why a lot of countries don't allow them. Tienanmen square anyone? Terrible optics for the government and all for the world to see. Don't disregard it as a tool for power.)

(II) [read and remember that I am not American, living as an immigrant in the USA and English is not my first language.] The debate on white women, the blame of their vote for Trump. The debate on exclusion of transwomen when making signs showing uterus=woman and vice versa. And maybe most of all to me, the debate on women of colour and people of colour and that they have marched all this time and been met with violence and disregard but now when white people engage, it's a different story and it's peaceful.

This is the section I have hardest to explain eloquently what my perception is. I might be able to do it by simply telling my story - and letting you see where I come from - before being judged. 

I say this since I was part of a movement that worked on change back in Sweden. We wanted to promote diversity, not having only males in the university board. At first it seemed straight forward, trying to change language to "at least 30% of each sex". Of course, it is not simple. It then became a discussion if we didn't need more inclusion of "people from non traditional environments", "people originating from other countries", "people who had disabilities", "people who were religious" etc... and in the end, while we were talking about these important issues - because they are, and yes, we wanted a diverse board - nothing happened. After many years, the only thing that was concluded was "the board should be changed, however the parties can't agree on how the new board should look like apart from 'it needs to be diverse and included everyone'" but there was no change. The status quo had "won". (Similar debate is currently on going in discussions with Company Boards as per the Norway law that went into effect a few years back.)

The only one who wins when the oppressed people argue within themselves are the oppressors. The best way of not getting any progress is to get too focused on history that needs to be apologized for or special subgroups or interest and other things that detract from the main issue. It's the curse of caring for everyone and wanting inclusion and diversity; if you subdivide too much it won't pass, it needs to be finding the least common denominator and go for that (we are all human and should have same rights; regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity, religion?)

I would hate for this great point of working on getting equal rights for everyone** in the USA would be more stalled because of infighting. I understand that there are a lot of issues and widespread fear that this will be another way for white people [women] to get ahead at the expense of people of colour or anyone, but I really hope that the group will unite and see the opportunity of working together is so much more than the alternative. One of the slogans chanted Saturday was "women united, cannot be divided".  Even while women are a diverse group as they come - voting R, D or green for example, yet still there are opportunities to find common ground since at the moment, it is not all common with the general man, or everyone considered equal.

[I really hope what my head has been churning these last days came through in this post, but if I reread and notice it's off I will take it down.]

*also less savory demonstrations as the neo-nazis marching for Charles XII (annual commemoration of his time of death). freedom of speech and all.

**access to healthcare specifically in this case since it's so glaringly obvious it isn't. accessible good schools would be another one.

most important for a woman: being likable

After reading this article in Slate about The Hillary Haters and contemplating the last few months at work when people who are scared that the changes will lead to a couple of people getting let go "but you are safe because He likes you", I'm back to the thought that the key aspect of being a woman today is to be likable (and attractive of course).

Remember the comments from leading RNC people describing Melania Trump (yes Newt, Chris and the retired colonel) "who care about the speech, she is attractive and likable".

And then listening & reading all the comments about Hillary... if she was a man, they'd be phrased a little different. They might still state "go to jail for emails" but I really doubt that they would emphasize the "robotic, manhating, non attractive" style as much.

This point was also raised in the UK when choosing their new prime minister Theresa May. She isn't attractive, although she also has another flaw - she is not a mother. Why this is important? Well, as far as I see a woman who is taking power is automatically going to be viewed as a "mother"["for the country" when talking about PM or President]. A mother should be warm, kind, likable, and potentially soft and malleable to her husband. Theresa May had her opponent (also a woman, notch) state that since she was a mother, and May isn't, she was more qualified to be prime minister. Yep. I'm tempted to dive into the sad stats which points to that a lot of women in power are childless (or affluent with specific childcare options) since again, the biggest gap between salary&power in men and women are when you look at "married men with children" compared to "married women with children". Women without children have a slight less gap to the males.... but I won't. Not now.

Anyway, am I overly pessimistic? Too feminist? Is it not against women per se but only against Hillary this hate and attractiveness concept?

Please let me know what you think since I'm getting very sad and tired and there are still three months left before the US election.

Parental leave

Another of those articles in NYT, this time about the Swedish phenomena "parental leave". It's titeled "In Sweden, the men can have it all". I have to admit, it's not all roses and there is something to be said about the problems on being viewed as "the woman who probably will take 10 months off with pay" when being in their 30ies and looking for a job, but in all pales when faced with the realities of parents in other countries (mostly thinking about the US right now, obvious reasons).

Anyway, I have high lighted some things from the article that I find interesting.
"Among those with university degrees, a growing number of couples split the leave evenly; some switch back and forth every few months to avoid one parent assuming a dominant role — or being away from jobs too long. The higher women rank, the more they resemble men: few male chief executives take parental leave — but neither do the few female chief executives. "

"Eight in 10 fathers now take a third of the total 13 months of leave — and 9 percent of fathers take 40 percent of the total or more — up from 4 percent a decade ago."

"In Sodermalm, Stockholm’s trendy south island, the days of fathers taking only two months are clearly over. Men with strollers walk in the park, chat in cafes, stock up at the supermarket..."
This was one of the things I haven't thought about too much but was made clear to me last year while on vacation. My travel companion pointed out, a number of times, how many men in groups with strollers that we saw... all over the city... and on the bus... and they seemed having a good time and there was no women around these small children. It was indeed one important moment for me too. I clearly forget that my upbringing and traditions are indeed different than here in the South. (I'm not saying dads aren't involved here, I'm simply saying it is less overt and less easy.)

"Claes Boklund, a 35-year-old Web designer taking 10 months off with 19-month-old Harry, admits he was scared at first: the baby, the cooking, the cleaning, the sleepless nights. Six months into his leave, he says, he is confident around Harry"
I would think that most mothers are fairly scared around the baby the first few days too... but society kind of tells us that "women automatically knows what to do"...

But, all of this must cost money. What's the numbers?
"Taxes account for 47 percent of GDP, compared with 27 percent in the United States and 40 percent in the European Union overall. The public sector, famous for family-friendly perks, employs one in three workers, including half of all working women. Family benefits cost 3.3 percent of G.D.P., the highest in the world along with Denmark and France, said Willem Adema, senior economist at the OECD."

This means, for regular people, that the income tax is somewhere around 32% (as a starting point for average income person) and rising, tax on stuff you buy in the store (alcohol and tobacco and gas excluded - these are higher taxed goods) is 25%. And a number of other taxes will add on. What do you get? Among other things (no tuition on universities, schools and lunches included in many schools);

"With full-time preschool guaranteed at a maximum of about $150 a month and leave paid at 80 percent of salary up to $3,330 a month, “people feel that they are getting their money’s worth.” Parents may use their 390 days of paid leave however they want up to the child’s eighth birthday — monthly, weekly, daily and even hourly — a schedule that leaves particularly small, private employers scrambling to adapt."

And then the last part, as I mentioned in the beginning, "Small businesses find it particularly tricky to juggle absences, said Sofia Bergstrom, social insurance expert at the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, which represents 60,000 companies. Worse than parental leave, she says, is the 120-day annual allowance for parents to tend to sick children, which is impossible to plan and which is suspected of being widely abused"

In general though, I wonder if it isn't the last comment of the article that sums up my own feeling about life and the ponderings about moving back. "Graduates used to look for big paychecks. Now they want work-life balance."

Remember, 5 weeks of vacation a year..... that's not too bad either. But sure, you will not be Rich and someone will take money from you to redistribute them to others. And one lands in the discussion that "it might not be great, but it seems better than the other side of the spectrum, at least in my humble opinion". And I don't know what I'd do if the US decided to implement some of this thinking for potential dads... and mothers... considering that where I currently work there is no fatherly leave, and only a few weeks of unpaid maternal leave, which I find appalling. Then we haven't even approached the strangeness of "sick child leave".*


*most of my experience with this here in the US have indicated that it is ok for many non-hourly people to just leave work in order to go and pick up a sick child... it's also sort of understood if one doesn't come in one day due to child's sick, even if it might not be mandated by the work policy... this imho is strange since it gives off an idea that it is ok to "sort of lie", not to mention that others have to pick up the slack. It would be so much better with a more realistic system, that allowed for both men and woman to take care of their children in an orderly fashion. After all, don't we want involved dads and women with jobs? (maybe we don't?)

an interesting notion, better written than I can do

It's all about that magic little r.... mRs... that's what I talking about.

Or rather, what this column in the NYT expresses. My ranting is just, well, my ranting ;)

We all know it, although some of us are obviously trying more that others to avoid the discussion. The single woman, turns unmarried and then implication "poor little one, she never got picked and now shes beoynd the child bearing years so it's definetly over" [since women are mainly attractive when they can bear children, their man's children, and after that it would mainly be about something else... mutual attraction? heh.].

And this still when people know that stating to a guy when you start dating that you are "interested in your own career, not sure on children - but if there are children we'd split evenly when it comes to child rearing, by the way - I want my own money and not just yours" in short - being ambitious, is the biggest gamble ever. I know there are men out there who are OK with this, I'm just saying as in narrowing the field, that's a lot of narrowing...

Do you know how many times it all turned to quiet when I said I was a graduate student on a first date? (let's believe for a minute I am fairly attractive and not hideous.) Or when I mentioned that I knew I wanted to go abroad for my post doc? (not to mention the lovely post doc who told us grad students that "post doc times are great for brining the wife to have children while you build your papers and research career". Oh I wished I was a man then and there.)

I have to say though, it's never been as obvious as here in the US that there is another perception out there; single older person = gay. It seems to be the way people interpret most of these "powerful people who are unmarried". I mean, divorced means a failure, but they still tried out the heterosexual marriage deal. (If you don't believe this wonderful distinction, let's look at dating sites where you can choose between "never married, divorced, widow" as a status.)

It's still one of those prickly things in me. As a woman, once I have gone from Miss to Mrs I can never go back... as divorced you can choose by taking Mrs or the Ms... a newer invention apparently? Being Mrs with your maiden name sounds like your mother, being Mrs with your old married name just sounds like you are still married (imho). (I am referring without the children here, although the number of times I have heard women going "I'm staying with his name since the children have it and it's easier that way" so they are still the Mrs Married although the papers are signed and it's over.)

It's nice when you can avoid the whole discussion and dive for the Dr. "Are you Miss, Ms or Mrs? oh, Dr you say"... Obvious pit fall on having a non-obvious female name in US, would be numerous letters addressed to Mr Chall... duh. Although, at least it is easy to weed out commercial and non-personal correspondance. But I did get annoyed when my frequent flyer miles place sent something out to Mr Chall, I mean - I have an account with them.

silly slut on women's day

I wrote a post a while back, one of those I don't post since they end up too much of a diary entry than a science "related" post, that I named "rather a silly sleepless slut than stupid". I tried to ramble about scientists and the connection to the brain and mind, and that everything we are is linked to the intelligence and creativity of the ideas thought up.

...then of course, it could be something about being form where I am where swearwords and cursings are more to do with being "an idiot" and other "non-sexual connotations" and you don't care what your mother is doing and with whom. I tried to make a coherent post about this being linked to several things about women and their rights, not to mention older views of relationship and commitment. Back in the viking era, the wife of the Lord was in charge of the farm and the serfs and all, when the man was gone raiding.... and then there was this idea of handfasting, where two people could live together - as married and share a bed - for a year before deciding if they were going to go on (disclaimer; if there was a child made in all of that, they had no choice, since marriage was to protect the children and ensure them of a father etc).

And this is not even mentioning the tradition of having women making their last name as "daughterofX" and therefore making it more important of the old family, than adapting the name of the husband. Something that was also common in the aristocracy up until the 19th century- you know, after the Age of Enlightenment - when things started to change.

Anyway, why I thought of all this, yesterday was brought on by a discussion about cleaning the house, vacuumers and the traditional role of a woman. Yes, I might have failed in the cleaning department of where I live. Apparently something that was told to me earlier in my life did stick to my brain; "you do not need to be perfect and have perfect home and a perfect career". Still, the cleaning is going to have to be solved. However, in the course of the discussion I was brought to the attention that the International Women's day is not a common knowledge here in the US. Funny enough, I probably should have realised that, considering the socialist history of the day and the not so socialist history of the US. I did not.

So, I am embarking to work today, having an feeling that there will be no women in red socks, no flowers, and probably no men who are preparing to cook for their wives or celebrating them and the progress made in the world....

It might be interesting?!

it's March already?

I am a bit scared now. It's March already and the paper that I have been staring at (read; not done a thing at in a few weeks) is not nearly half done. I haven't heard word from my old PI though, but I know that I need to do the pushing. [whining]But there are some bigger things in my life coming up the next couple of weeks and I don't know how I will have the time to do it all[/whining]

I guess that means "step up and do it like when you were a post doc". This is also known as "not having weekends off to slouch, mornings to wake up slowly or time to just stare into space at work" ;)

On other news, since I am shocked it is already two months into the new year and I am not near my resolution of three months (something about exercising 4 times a week to loose the belly and get more harmonic). I woke up to this piece of news in regards to Utah women. (The first link to the New York Times is a bit more informative and the UK link is more... Independent?) In short, this may lead to that if you have a miscarriage in Utah, you might be prosecuted. It all stems from a rather sad and horrible story about a woman (teenage girl 17 years old in a rural eastern part of Utah) who paid a man to beat her up so she could get a miscarriage in the 7th month and not have the baby.... the baby was fine and was later adopted away, the man thrown in jail but as of the law today apparently they couldn't prosecute the mother ... (I find this a bit strange but sure enough, maybe it falls under the same ruling that you can't prosecute a mother to be for smoking/drinking/drug use here?!) The bill is partly written to make it illegal to seek for an [in Utah illegal] abortion in late term pregnancies.

I don't know but in my mind this suggestion aims a bit wrong - something about cutting the head of when you have a head ache!? Of course, the mother in this particular case seems to me to be in need of some psych help and that it shouldn't be applicable to "every case of a pregnant woman" but then again, I am no lawyer.... just a woman... And I haven't read the original thing just yet since lots of "opinions" are the first hits on google this morning... but as far as I can tell, we're back to the deal that Roe vs Wade does not really talk about the age of the fetus/determine the realms of the abortion since it is either ay or nay. In most European countries there are more of a "up until 12 weeks" discussion, and then in some other ones "up until 20 weeks with special consent". In the US it's different. Although, for my part - the thing that makes this bill a bit strange would be that you would have to report your miscarriage and that someone would know when you began your pregnancy. As I said, not really sure on how much is propaganda and how much is stemming from a conservative state legislature that have made some earlier decisions about individual freedom that I find less individual and more "in the name of the Father". Ah well, just wanted to point at a potential "up roar article" that's already moving through the internet with comments and misquotes etc.

And then there is this article in the Scientific American about post docs in the US. I haven't read it in full yet, since I started to get opinionated after the first paragraph and needed to go and do actual work instead. It looks interesting in any event, whether to agree or not... it's the old story about "too many post docs or not". The Chronicle has a shorted answer already here.

My bad in general is that it would probably do everyone a bit of good if we told undergraduates who are going into graduate school, or simply just telling graduate people to "have a back up plan in case you are deciding for whichever reason when you are done with your PhD/Post doc that Academia and TT isn't for you so you are not standing naked in a cold snow storm when it hits". (not to mention that your advisor may or may not help you out with a shield and a warm coat... some of them actually does that, some would rather not see you in the snow... end of ridiculous analogies for now.)

And as a final story, The Germans who are granted asylum in Tennessee since they want to home school their 5 children and since that is not allowed in Germany*, they moved to the US...

With that, I will go and try and plan my week in detail since I need to fix a lot of things in a short amount of time and if I don't get my hand on that data analysis sooner than later (since it is already way late) I will be a sad former post doc.


*You have to let your children go to a official school (it can be religious though, or public non-denominational) in Germany and not "only" home school them.

Did I mention I loathe...

[An added comment since this post is apparently all about me "feeling jealous and realising that I will never be loved as much as a man being willing to marry me and think of me being worthy of diamond ring". Well, I guess I am disturbed about the fact that a small part of me wants the bling jewellery and thinks at times that it all means that it is all great and that my life would be wonderful and story wise happy ending etc etc etc.

Then I remember that life isn't quite a Cinderella fairy tale; it's not about "who has the biggest ring is loved the most aka materialistic things as proof of love and friendship" (duh) and most of all - I don't aspire to be only a pretty face that men fight duels over (I want a brain too...). But when I am silly enough to do go on the bling train [I thought about saying 'the crack train'] at a Friday night and watch some shows with special commercials about "soon it's Valentine's day and you need to buy the bling for your honey" and some other extremely bad shows "don't feed the monster"^: I guess I only have myself to blame?

Anyhow, I thought about deleting this post but figured that I'll add this instead and let more people read the rant than made someone annoyed enough to call me fairly dull names and implying that I would have been happier not with a PhD (I know, I shocker to say to a childless woman in her 30ies) but being thinner and more of a "real" woman and a mother. Then "maybe a man would have made me a happy wife ages ago and I would've gotten the things I now look down at". Yeah... thanks for the encouragement and for reminding me why I am not as wrong as I thought two hours ago...

^why do some women find it soooo easy to spend someone elses money and at the same time pout when they don't get their way? Seriously, they are all over 20 years old and still do pouting for real, and make threats (yes, like "you won't be getting anything for a long time if I don't get that one!"]

original post>

It's clear to me at certain times why I don't watch certain TV shows at certain channels when I do end up at prime time with a popular show.

What I am talking about.

"Every kiss begins with..."*

"What's a umphs letter word for he loves me.... he went to...." **

"I remember this place.... not this one (voice over: now she'll always remember this place)"***

And all these commercials, every time there is a commercial break at least one of them come on. And every one of them states this "if he truly loves he, you'll get diamonds"**** (and if you don't get anything, he doesn't love you).

And people wonder why I fret about shit? yeah... let's wonder. What ever happened to a flower? Kiss? Happy times together? No, let's build debt together....*****

*K... jewellery store

** Jarods - jewellery galleria

*** K again (I don't know if there are any more diamond stores here in the US... my guess is that these two buy all the ones from Sierra Leone and other nice places in the world where people die, live in poverty and have corrupt governments but as long as we women get our precious stones from the men who supposedly loooooove us, then we're good. [slight irony here as well]

**** if I was a man, I guess I could get a Lexus/BMW/whatever other car that screams "I'm sooo rich and blingy". OH wait, that was what some women got from their husbands for Christmas.... according to commercials...

***** I'm not all together against gifts. But I would love to see some kind of "real" affection concepts and not only "be thin, beautiful, successful and flawless" but I guess that's my fault from actually watch TV or not being totally secure in my own right (but it's hard sometimes, I'm sorry). And I should've been better to write this with a more of a feminist angle and interpretation as I have been trained to do.

Well, this is my blog and not an academic paper for me to get an A at (then I would've moved into a discussion about why our society makes it a point of having women compete about who picked the best man to provide for them and assure them of their status in society. This, something that is an old fashioned and still viable course to assure themselves of power, since most female power still comes from being associated with a very powerful (and/or rich) man. Men would like to show off a woman as their mate, whom their peers would find interesting yet possible for the man to control, as well as being a support for the power. This would've been the starting point ;) then we could have moved into the area of female value as bearing children and acquiring an heir and some spares...)

Board of Directors and lovely dreams

A few days ago I found myself in a fairly strange situation. I was at home looking at a company with a product that I had been introduced to, and it is a very interesting company with very good potential. Anyway, I was scouting their website and trying to understand where they were located and if it was some kind of future in working for them or what they were up to in general.

They have a smaller interest in microbial growth prevention, which is partly what I found intriguing. Anyhow, my fun part was looking at their Board of Directors (and their contacts and scientists) and wherever I looked I saw men. Mostly ex-military, some PhDs in chemistry and some "general men with board of directors experience". I didn't see any microbiologist nor any females nor a combination of female PhDs in microbiology. The answer was clear to me. I should write them and offer my services!

Somewhere here I realised that this line of thinking was a bit off for me. I mean, I'm all about liking myself and believing in my abilities but email some company stating "I can be on your Board of Directors if you need a (good) female microbiology alibi since I am a stellar person", that's not really my behaviour.

Then it struck me. Even if I didn't feel "affected"* by the pain killers I was on at the time, clearly I was feeling way more positive and over-stating my importance. Behaving a tad bit out of the ordinary and feeling all good about lots of things. (Later on I found myself giggle just a bit too much at nothing in specific to be me "normal".) I didn't finish that email, but rather closed my computer and went to bed. (Later on that night, I did fall down the stairs since I wasn't affected and therefore could walk down stairs in the dark.... sure... not affected my ass. And then I slept for like 14 hours, and woke up tired. Me and pills are clearly not best pals, to my happiness actually.)

I have mulled about this afterwards though. I am still not all that convinced that it is a super-bad idea to have some kind of microbiologist on the board, or in the development lab... and I have to admit, I am a bit tempted to contact them and see if they have any openings for interested parties who want to get involved. They also have operations overseas and that is something I find very interesting. However, I doubt that I will finish that email... but it would have been very fun though. I wonder what they would have said "look, here is an email from a girl in the South who offers (!) to be on our Board of Directors for shits and giggles and to become a female alibi for us so we would look better in Europe".

Haha, I can see why someone who came home later that night laughed a long time when I told about it in my highness... :)

*read "high on legal pain killers", I am not used to taking anything and have a fairly high threshold for pain... clearly I will keep it that way.

Nobelprize and Swedish golf clubs

It’ a bit of a mix this one. Today is the ceremony for the Nobel prizes in Sweden. All of them in Stockholm, apart from the Peace prize which is handed out in Oslo. I find the prizes in physics, medicine and chemistry the most interesting.... actually before the literature one the last couple of years. I guess it might be because I find the literature ones harder to relate to these last 20 years since I have read a lot of the “old” ones from the 40ies and 50ies.

Anyway, I digress. The interesting thing about today is one article that the prize winner in 2000, Dr Arvid Carlsson, writes in one of the Swedish papers “I wouldn’t have gotten the Nobel prize (if I was a young Swedish scientist) today”arguing about funding and the conditions of young scientists today. He talks about the Swedish situation, although I would think it is slightly similar in some other countries considering the situation in the US and the UK. It’s interesting since it proves, yet again, that the scientists and the politicians/Funding masters do not have the same concept of reality or how to reach greatness.

One of the main arguments from Dr Carlsson is that he would have never gotten the Novelprize today, since back in the day he was given funding that was sufficient for two technicians, a few PhD students and another person helping out when he was a young scientist changing (!) fields. And this group was the founding core of the research he later got acknowledged for in 2000. And as he says, “a young scientist today might get money for a research technician but that is not enough”....

Let’s hope that the research climate of funding could be discussed (again) soon since, at least in my very humble opinion, the present system isn’t really working. If nothing else, I can tell by looking at the three biggest funding agencies in Sweden and look at who (and which groups) they have decided to fund. Let’s just go with that it is not as easy as it once was.

The other thing on my mind has been the latest week of jokes sent to me, via email and other people. “I hope you don’t have a golf club in the house...” (to which I responded, “as far as I know it shoudln’t be a problem unless someone is cheating?”) I’m not really into the whole “the world needs to know and we all need the update of what goes on in that house” if it wasn’t for a few things. First of all, when you get involved in selling things based on your character (your morale and your life values) then you need to realize that this might follow you if/when you make a mistake. Maybe it would’ve been better to be viewed as a “slightly good person but no one is perfect”. Even then, it might be a hard sell to be exposed as someone with 5+ excess people in your marriage (that the other person might not even know about on top of it), even without the concept of having one extra wife for more than half of your marriage.

It’s all good though, and I wouldn’t have given it a care in the world if the wife was in on it. Some people argue that “she would know about it and then it is ok”. Sure, if she knew she might have thought this and that - but as far as I remember since this whole thing started with a strange car crash in the middle of the night and those elusive golf clubs.... I guess she wasn’t in on it? That said, I don’t find the jokes fun (I’ve been told that I don’t have any sense of humour before) partly because I don’t like physical violence between spouses fun. I also understand that there might be a bit over reaction to think like that.

Anyway, what I was thinking about when I started writing this post was more along the line of “the higher you get on the ladder, the mightier the fall”. And I really hope that this situation does not escalate into something where people do things that are irreversible. I get that feeling when the vultures are circling and other stars have been circled before ending with loosing more than their hair.

One interesting thing though, the only woman so far, involved in all-the-high-stakes-men-having-affairs-being-exposed-in-the-press-the-last-couple-of-years, NOT to “stand by her man” was also the richest one.... Mark Sanford's wife, who isn’t only an heiress but mother of their four sons. (She moved out of their house and took the children with her after lots of things were revealed.) All the others have stood there and said “I support him” or something to that effect. Never mind what I think I would do (I’m not an heiress but then again, I haven’t married into money either), I find it intriguing that the money/marriages these families/men have are so much about money and pre-nups that people do not talk more about business arrangements rather than love. I might be the greatest cynic, but it sure looks to me like “if we marry and you give me children and the illusion of a happy marriage, I’ll give you a lot of money when we divorce later on after I have spread my seed a bit more - after all, that should make both of us happy in the long run, right?”

What my grandmother told me ages ago still holds true I guess; “Be careful not to mistake money for love, and be sure not to give it all up* for a man who can leave you bitter and poor. Have some insurance, like your own money or career and then hopefully your relationship will be one between partners where both of you want the other one to be happy.”

And I get reminded that I didn't see that show "The Good Wife" that is all about this.... maybe it is on hulu for me to recap?

*no, she wasn't talking about sex, she was referring to the over all picture - with morale, status, self worth.... that kind of "all"...

Every Killing* begins with a K

To paraphrase one of the most annoying commercial on TV at the moment, imho. The "Every kiss begins with Kay". For you who don't know, Kay is a jeweller store chain... and soon is the most important time of the year, apart from Valentine's day and Mother's day of course, for diamonds. As the commercial goes, it is fairly obvious. Woman stares into fireplace/snowstorm/other random semi-romatic place when the man sweeps up from behind and present the little box .... they kiss and they live happily ever after. Sometimes there is a baby in there and the woman holds the baby and the man sweeps in from behind and the baby has the present in her/his hand. Or there is a voice over with a little reading story "once upon a time Santa was in the house since the man loves his wife so..." or something like that.

Don't get me wrong. I love romance as much as anyone. I am just a tad bit over-sensitive about this whole "if the man loves you, he would give you a diamond necklace/earrings/ring/wedding and engagement ring", which implies that if he doesn't give you [expensive] things, he doesn't love you. (Since the commercial is played quite a few times when I have happened to be in front of the TV, the amount of them that I have seen might influence the irritation I feel?)

Of course, maybe I am just bitter - after all, this starts the thought process "how many diamonds do I have?" ;)

side note:

I can see this as an easy quantitative measurement of "how much does he loves you" (like papers from researchers is a measurement as discussed at Nature Network) if it wasn't for a few simple things. It's too simplistic, poor people can love too, and how does the man measure the love from the woman then? (I mean, she doesn't give things to him.... implying she doesn't have money and all that jazz.) Or maybe that was never part of the equation since she (one assumes in this fairy tale a la historic times/50ies) agrees to marry him after he proposes? So many questions, so much irritation from this women's rights/feministic corner. All because of one silly commercial... sometimes I just wish I didn't care so much about small things. Or just saw a romantic moment with a man loving a woman giving her a diamond necklace, not a political statement. It's Crazy(Christmas)times for sure.

And I know that there are a lot of women out there who make less than their husbands (therefore making sense that the richer gives the less rich etc) and I do like getting pressies from my loved one (and other people, I don't discriminate - I like pressies). It's just the whole combination and that it is all about EXPENSIVE things to PROVE you are WORTH it (the love?). That's my main rub, today as yesterday as - most likely - tomorrow. I like pressies in general since they show that someone thought of me. If they are expensive I tend to be more uncomfortable... if they fit me, I am happy. Special pressies are better than expensive ones. Then again, I am not in it for the money or adoration from others who oogle my stuff and think I am rich. Come to think of it, maybe that is my main problem? ^^ Nah, I probably have a good heap of them. (seeing that I am ranting now, time to stop and prepare for the work week!)

*Killing here is me. Me getting killed, a small part of me dying every time this commercial comes on (a lot!). Or me killing the TV or the commercial or shouting at the telly and the people in the commercial... nothing drives me more insane than realising that I am humming the jingle in the lab while pipetting buffer. I mean really?!?!?! Talk about subconscious imprinting.

Girl - Woman

Reading this article At 16... still a girl, and yet a woman and it reminded me about a few of the conversations over the years. It links to the "are you a scientist or a Female scientist?" (maybe a bigger leap but in my head it makes sense) and a bit about a thing in Swedish where we have kind of three words for "the same thing" (aka female); flicka, kvinna och tjej. The first one translates into girl, it is also [more or less a given] that the 'flicka' is young (and innocent). The second is woman. And the third would be.... hmm... slang for both girl and woman? (help me out here anyone of the Swedish speaking people who might read this) The thing is that there are older women, you know like in their 40ies and 50ies, who uses 'tjej' as "jag och tjejerna" [me and the girls - no not those ones.] rather than "the women and I". I guess the main purpose here is that there are usually a "15 year old girl in an attack" and a "23 year old woman". It is the 19 year olds that might be both 'flicka' and 'kvinna' depending on what angle the news want to tell.... 

Ah never mind, maybe it has nothing to do with my basic train of thoughts here. There was a time when I would have said that the difference between girl and woman was the sex thing. Or the period thing. Or even, as told by a former in-law to me "you become a real woman when you finally have conceived" (yes, that was a perfect example of why I did not really fit into that circle. Also, note the "real" before woman... I guess you are faking it until then?). 

Then again, I understand that the word maybe means something more that "just" having had sex (you know what I mean). It is a "mature" thing. And heaven knows I don't think you are mature as a teenager. I guess that is why I kind of like the Britney song "I'm not a girl, not yet a woman" (yes, I know someone else wrote it most likely so sue me). It kind of sums it up.

For the record, I am also quite intrigued that it took a while for me to think of myself as woman... rather than "tjej" ... and I guess this might be why I am conflicted about the whole female scientist and scientist. I'd rather be a scientist [full stop] but I am a female scientist and I do think it has shaped me somewhat different than if I would have been a [male] scientist. Then again, maybe it has shaped me more that I am and will continue to be a [foreign] scientist?

With that, I am off in this lovely day that will be spent in a closed room without windows and people wondering around. Hopefully some good results will come my way too....

response to response

I promised not to blog from work… and now I am fleeing annoying bacteria, an elusive protein production and realised that YFS had responded to comments on her post about “American postdocs”.

See, I noticed that I was mentioned in the beginning of the post and read my statements and the answers to them. (I noticed that my spelling mistakes were [sic]ed and got annoyed that I still can’t spell taught.) Anyhow, I think YFS’s response answered a lot of thoughts I had about “where she is coming from” and “why she would think that way”. I also realised that maybe it was hard to understand what I had tried to point at in the comment?!

Therefore, I will try and explain one key thing that clearly did not go through (the language barriers or rather, my shortening my comment and trying to keep it simple).

“But then Chall said: I don't think this makes it "another factor working against you" - if nothing else because the key ingredient of getting that faculty job is networking/knowing the field/being known in the US and as a US born,bred and science thaught[sic] with an american [sic] mentor you have a huge advantage against at least the average foreign post docs.

Which raises a point I want to address.
1. Just because I have an American advisor does NOT give me, as an American female postdoc, a default advantage.
All of my peers are foreign postdocs who have the same advisor.
It's more important that our advisor LIKES us, which means that we have to meet certain expectations. So far as I can tell, the expectations for Americans are different than those for foreign postdocs.”

Lets start with the last thing first, since I think this is key. “It is more important that our advisor LIKES us” – yep, it is. Although I guess you could go for respect you or something in the similar idea. And the likelihood that your Advisor will like you usually increases if you are like your Advisor, i.e. coming from the same background, sharing cultural markers, social ladders etc. (Interestingly enough this is written in another comment, where it is used as Russian/Chinese PIs stock their lab with Russian/Chinese post docs.) It is also one of those things that is repeated throughout every seminar I have been to “people usually pick someone that resembles them” as an explanation that men tend to favor men, since they can ‘identify with them’ or like the "Southern men who likes football and beer identify with other Southern men" etc.

Anyhow, that was part of what I wanted to say but more importantly – what I meant with my whole first comment was that if you are born and raised (i.e. doing your undergrad/grad work) in the US and you speak English, you have had a much better opportunity to get to know more PIs and Professors in the States*. Not to mention you will come from a lab/uni that is known within the States … and therefore you will have an advantage against the foreign post docs.

[Like I would pride myself with having better connections when/if I apply for a position back in my home country since I have spoken to most of the peers/professors in my field, they know (of) my professor and his work etc.]

I guess I also need to clarify that I did not write this out of a “poor me, this is why it will be so hard for me to get a faculty job here in the States**” but rather to try and explain why some PIs don’t really see the point of “wasting” their contacts on foreign post docs and why it might be considered as an advantage for the “American academic” who has had at least 5 years (mostly more than that) extra to “connect” with people in US Academia.

All this is of course based on one large assumption that you “understand” that networking is important and that you most likely will get a job due to the people you know (or know you or know of your work or knows your old Advisor).

I would nothing else that to be able to send in my application to a job advert that I have seen somewhere, get selected out of my wonderful merits and then go for an interview. Oh no, I would LOVE that. (Did I mention that I think my merits are decent and quite good?) But I really don’t think that is going to work. And I am sure I wouldn’t place all the eggs in that basket.

Why? Because of all the people I have met and talked to, about how they got their job, most of them (if not all) stated either “I know this guy who told me about an opening they didn’t advert” or “funny enough, it turned out that A’s aunt worked as a HR and she gave me the name of the person looking for a job” or “I got in touch with the professor of the committee and s/he said they were looking for a person most interested in K”.

None of them responded to an advert and got selected. It might be that I have forgotten about my friends who have gotten the job in that way? Or it is the fact that, especially the last couple of years, there are much more people applying for a shrinking number of positions and therefore you need not only be a good scientist, but also with a grant, connections, collaborations AND stellar recommendations from important people in the field.

Instead of saying something snarky I think I will leave it at this.

And I understand that we can have different opinoins and I might be misunderstanding things and assuming things that aren’t “true”. But I do know one thing for sure, trying to explain why things aren’t going your way with kicking all the foreign post docs out of the equations isn’t really going to get you anywhere. (well, it will get you bitter maybe.) Trying to find a way to get around the problem (if there is something like that) might be a more productive way of solving the situation. After all, does it really get you a new job by stating "It is because I am a woman and they don't like to hire women"?

(I have ended up with that thought a bunch of times, and my key way out of that for me destructive thinking is to focus on "HOW and WHAT do I have to do in order to 'fix' this then?" And more often that not it has ended up with me realiseing that there often were something else there, like a connection I could make, and get through the obstacle. It is not going to be easy. It is not "fair" but it is life and the one thing you have to decide is how to handle things like that. Crying "it's not fair" sure as hell isn't going to help. And I know, since I have really done that and nothing good really came out of that. Bad things however, planty. Actually doing something and being proactive, effective and working hard did something. It still sucks at time though. Sure. It would have been awesome to have had that silver spoon and Advisor who gave me The job and getting the money/grant and everything I ever wanted but seriously, who gets that? And isn't that just daydreaming from the few few people who seemingly glides through life with no problem. The rest of us are working hard and trying to make it worth while.)

The other thing that struck me was “So far as I can tell, the expectations for Americans are different than those for foreign postdocs”. See, this might be more interesting to discuss (or maybe not) since this points to the everlasting “do I think she can pull it off whereas I don’t question that the guy can” as well as “foreign post docs are more desperate/worse/better since they moved from their home country”.

I feel that I don’t have the time to get into that right now (I am still at work) but maybe I will try and write about that soon enough. However, don’t hold your breath since I think it is a bit complex to group all “foreign” post docs into one group and compare them to the “American” post doc group since we had a hard time distinguishing between “American**” and “American****”.

I am more likely to go on yet another “women and men are treated differently and by jolly gosh, yesterday I heard about one of my post docs friends being known for always crying in lab meetings when people gave her criticism and I really do hate the tear factor and being a women ….”

That said, off to the lab and trying to work through the problems so I can get my next publication and more chance of landing the next job!




*the people who are on the study sections and decide who gets money…. And on the hiring committee.
** I will have more problems than that. IF I would like to try out for a faculty position here, which I think I do not since Academia and I might not be as much as I previously thought.
***being ‘true’ American, born and raised here
****having done your undergrad/grad/post doc and now being American citizen but still born in another country American

PM's wife or President's wife - and careers

The New York Times about Cherie Blair's comment to Michelle Obama and her new life as the First Lady. And they state “Her European counterpart have taken a different route…” pointing to Cherie Blair and Carla Sarkozy*.

Well, the president’s wife is not the same as the pm’s wife. Not really. The head of state is the Queen…. Not the PM. But sure, we could argue that for a second. Cherie Blair worked as a lawyer when her husband was PM. They also had a number of kids. And it wasn’t as strange that she worked while having kids.

Here in America, it is not as common to work and have kids. One kid maybe, but not several.

And I challenge anyone to see that the main problem with Michelle Obama “putting her career on hold while Barack, her husband, is President” is that they can not shift back afterwards since the kids will have grown up so there will be another issue.

It’s like in Sweden, when the four parties in Government chose their four people to work together. Of course all of them were men. The second person in each party (!) was a woman, but see that didn’t really help now when the four first people were to get together….

It is the same thing with this. It doesn’t matter if Mrs Obama chooses to stay at home while her husband is working as a president (I find it fairly reasonable to be honest, for the kids at least). The problem is that there aren’t exactly that many women who get to make her husband’s choice… or husbands to make her choice.

I though about a similar thing last week, after being cornered with four older women who were all talking about loosing weight and becoming “rejuvenated” and since I was not only the youngest but also clearly the heaviest, I sat quiet and listened. Afterwards I realized a sad thing, I don’t think their main problem of finding a husband (as two of them really want to) is their weight. Nor their age. No, there was something much more disconcerting that entered my mind – something fueled by one of those Swedish investigations in Swedish… “Highly educated women have a harder time finding a significant other”. You can exchange highly educated women with “high income women” or “high performance women”, it still holds ‘true’ to the polls. The richer you are as a women, the more successful, the harder to find a man for you. For men it is reversed….

Why? Well, something to do with ‘the statement that men want to feel in charge’/in power? And that women want to feel taken care of? I don’t know, but in general and with society today, I think it is a valid point. (Or maybe not valid but something that rings true and accurately describes influences today.)

The funny part may be that I have a bunch of men around of me who state “I wouldn’t mind being a stay at home man/dad”. When it comes to reality though, I am not sure they would really do it. Why? As some of those men, who said all those things and then the children came and they had an option to stay at home and be the “stay at home dad”…. And it didn’t happen as much, partly since it was really hard work and “I need to feel needed at work”, partly because they realized that it was nice to earn money on your own and not live of your wife.

That said I know that I wouldn’t like being a stay at home mother. Or a “kept woman”. I like earning my own money, feeling that some of these are mine and I can decide on my own what to do with them. I guess I might be a bit paranoid about being left without any money, 401Ks or things? Or maybe I just like making my own job and being outside of the house?

And since I am not yet as old as the women I sat next to last week I might be able to make it work? (It would probably help if I lost some weight and kept the wrinkles away from my face.) And the other main difference between us was that even if I had the highest degree, i.e. being the highest educated woman around the table, I probably was the least earning one…. With my meager post doc salary it is not too much to guess since they were all lawyers/CEOs/managers or like that.

Ah well, I’ll get back to thinking about Michelle Obama and really hope that she gets a good job when she gets out of the White house. And that it is interesting that Hillary was the first First Lady who had a career prior to entering the White house. Maybe that can make us all realize exactly how few years things have been a “reality” and why it is needed not to stop working for “everyone can make an individual choice but it is not individual until it is really a choice”.

This woman will now reenter the lab and try to make yet another experiment, which will bring her closer to that coveted “getting out of post doc card” ;)

*I left Carla Sarkozy out of this mainly because she/they don't have children and are recently married... most 'problems' arrive when the children arrive. That is when the idea of "someone being h0ome with your offsrping" is a crucial one. For obvious reasons.

In Swedish

About this “feminism” and [some of] the conservative women and their views regarding Aplin, motherhood and children. But most of all about why I don't understand how a whole column about "the bad about the leftish women bashing Palin" can turn out to be bashing the leftish women, when the whole point and main argument in the column is "why women need to not bash other women". Hallå?!

And if I get the energy to translate it all to English I will but now I have to write something in Swedish since I will go absolutely crazy if I don’t comment this in the Swedish newspaper Svenska dagbladet.

”Därför är framgångsrika högerkvinnan Palin från arbetarklassen så provocerande. Hon visar att det feministiska vänsterprojektet inte behövs för att hjälpa kvinnor att bli jämställda. Kvinnor kan erövra makten alldeles av sig själva. En hockeymamma från landet, som aldrig gått på genuskurs och aldrig hört talas om Underordningen kan ta sig fram i maktens korridorer. With a little help from family and friends. I USA är sådant fullt möjligt. Där lämnas människorna i fred i sina hem, byar, småstäder och del- stater, skyddade av konstitutionen mot statens klåfingrighet. Jämställdhetsministrar och genuspedagoger lyser med sin frånvaro. Ändå är USA världsledande på kvinnor med makt i samhället. Sådant svider i skinnet på genus-Sverige. Därför ska Palin fulas ut. Annars kan ju svenska hockeymammor få för sig att de kan bli något, av egen kraft. Och en framtida svensk Sarah Palin kan få för sig att lägga ner alla onödiga och dyra genusprojekt.”

Allvarligt talat, vad i hela friden babblar Fru Claesson om? Eler ja, det vet jag ju men jag kan säga så här; Sverige behöver fler kvinnor som arbetar som inte tar ut 13 månaders mammaledighet själva och lämnar männen åt jobbet. Däremot är det en lögn att det är så himla bra i USA med mammor. Det är sant att det finns fler kvinnor i näringslivet och inom företagen. Det är däremot inte så att dessa kvinnor har tid med sina barn. (Och senast jag läste Fru Claesson sa hon tydligt att ”barnen behöver sina mammor” så i all ärlighet måste man nog kräva viss KONSEKVENSANALYS av debattören.)

Och att säga att USA är jämställt (min fetstil i citatet) är att vara sjukt vindögd och naivt lurad. Eller i och för sig, man kan ju definiera om jämställd förstås. Går det med demokrati kan det väl gå med jämställdhet också. Och så får man jättegärna ta en anomali och framhäva som ett exempel på normalitet. Det är bara det att det inte riktigt ger samma smak av sanning som man skulle vilja.

Kortfattat om Sverige och USA och kvinnor med barn.
I USA är det inte ovanligt att gå tillbaka till jobbet efter 5 veckor när du som kvinna fött barn OM du nu går tillbaka till jobbet vill säga....
I Sverige är det inte ovanligt att stanna hemma HELA föräldraledigheten när du som kvinna fött barn.

I USA är det en brytpunkt, även för medelklassfamiljer, att ha två barn och stanna hemma eftersom barnomsorg är så otroligt dyrt. Så, om du är höginkomstagare och kvinna OCH VILL JOBBA kan du ju hyra en nanny som tar hand om barnen (vilket Fru Claesson i detta inlägg verkar tycka är bra, i sina gamla inlägg tycker hon det är dåligt: ”män kan inte ta hand om barn, enbart kvinnor har dessa genetiska förutsättningar”) men det innebär inte att kvinnorna har bra kontakt med sina barn, eller papporna för den delen heller.

Vore det inte bättre om man hittade ett mellanläge som vore bäst för såväl barn som vuxna? Att tro att man "väljer" när det är 2 månader (om jag är snäll nu) eller vara hemmafru är lite naivt och stor tilltro till "fritt val". Att tro att arbetsgivaren inte tar hänsyn till att du som 25-40 årig kvinna utan barn inte kan tänkas ta ut 13 månader och sen större delen av alla VABdagar är även det lite naivt.

Således är inget av länderna särskilt underunderbart för jämnställt men åtminstone så kan man i Sverige säga att vi har ett val.

Kortfattat från min sida, jag börjar bli redigt förbannand över att det hela tiden är en lösning för ”kvinnor och familjesaker” att man köper in tjänster utifrån snarare än att ”den andra partnern” ska ta och kompromissa och fördela.

Fast mest av allt är jag förbannad på att vissa skribenter ändrar åsikt, ljuger och förenklar verkligheten och därmed omöjliggör en diskussion. (jag skulle så himla gärna vilja ha en sansad diskussion om Vad man kan förvänta sig av sitt liv om man nu får barn?! Både som pappa och som mamma. Och de som tror att dom kan göra EXAKT samma saker och prioriteringar som utan barn kanske inte skulle ha dom där telningarna...... just a thought....)

ok, have to go now and will try and translate this soon enough. but at the moment I am just so... ehh... upset that I can't make that happen.

reading skills in women...

This link from Science shows a study about gender gaps and math skills…and this link (although in Swedish but it gives good links in English) gives some more thoughts about equality. (In short, the gender gap might be less in math but when ranking the difference between genders and reading skills they don’t seem to lessen as math skills do).

This brings me to the (not new to me) thought that maybe step two in the gender battle (or equality battle or what ever one should call it?) would be to try and encourage boys to be more open into to “traditional female areas” as we have tried to move girls into more “traditional male areas”? I know that this has been tried in the whole debate, talk about men being home with children and trying to work it out how to make it more appealing for men to turn into women areas… and that it has been hard… but still, reports are numerous (at least in Europe when looking at Academia and universities) that women are the majority of the students now and that boys are often in the lesser quartile in high school.

This in turn gives way to the “poor boys we need to look after them more as lonely PhD students” as I think I have mentioned before? Anyway, I would like to think that we will all be better off when the time is when we can focus on what each and every child and person would like to do and not stop and reflect on which gender we are in order to treat the symptoms.

And in the end of this rant, since it is late and I am tired and maybe a tad bit incoherent, I would try to raise my boys (when or if I have them) to read and be more open to feelings without necessary dosing them in pink, fluffy dresses and my girls (same disclaimer) to calculate and not only wear blue working pants and breaking their arms climbing a tree… just trying to do and expect the same from them and let them know the different avenues that are open to them in life.

Considering this said, I don’t think I am as much as a cynic as some would portray me to be…. And I am not delusional and think it will be easy, but I think it would be harder to try the “traditional” route, at least in my heart.

Secrets are necessary

“She wanted to turn away, as one does if accidentally intruding on someone in a private moment. One says nothing, and both parties pretend it did not happen. It was the only way to make civilized living possible. There are things one does not see, words one does not voice, and if they slip out in a moment of heat, they are never repeated. Secrets are necessary.”

“…is that one’s person’s protection, may be another person’s imprisonment; or one person’s idea of freedom another’s idea of license. If we refuse to look at anyone else’s pain because it is different from ours and makes us feel uncomfortable – or because it is the same and embarrasses us – then we are neither a liberal nor a generous society, and we will slowly suffocate ourselves to death.”

From “Half moon street” by Anne Perry, “A Charlotte and Thomas Pitt” novel, set in 19th century London.

It is interesting to read these novels set in mid 19th century London where the author brings in lots of old history as a back drop for the crimes happening. Really, stating it is a backdrop is quite unfair since more than half or the charm of the novels is the fact that it brings the life and society of old times to mind. And in several of them the dealings with liberalism, voting for the poor and crucial happenings for women and their lives are the main frame and not unusually the actual motive for the crimes investigated.

I love reading books that make my mind work and challenge me to think about ideas and statements that we may or may not take for granted today, especially the lives of the wives and women in history. What things that were considered normal and “as a matter of fact” where indeed we now have come to discard a whole heap of them as “superstitious” and “discriminatory”, not to mention “cruel and very unjust indeed”.

It also brings a certain discomfort – in the light of previous discussions this week – that so little has changed in minds and lives of many people. That it is obvious that history still has a firm grip of us and our senses of liberty and freedom (or lack thereof). I guess it may sound pompous and pretentious but if nothing else it makes me understand why it is so important to continue and challenge (my own) preexisting notions and facts.

As said by a third character in the book: “The image that has the power to disturb is the only one that has the power to change. Growth is often painful, but to not grow is to begin to die.”

Although, I might not fully agree I think there is a risk in complacency and that stagnation sooner or later results in decay and turning back to the way things were when maybe they were not better but rather worse.

If nothing else this has been more and more obvious when I look at some of the laws and regulations that will be passed (or hopefully I shall say, will Not be passed) in the Swedish parliament very soon before the summer vacation. Namely the so called “FRA law”, which will allow a governmental agency to sift through and screen all electronic communications crossing the nation’s borders in search for whatever (that means general screening without a court order and general meaning anyone). The idea is for security reasons, and more than anything it reminds me of the proverb “the road to Hell is paved with good intentions” [and may I add, the naivety of trust in ourselves and the people ‘governing’ us to do what is perceived to be “the right thing”.]

I guess it doesn’t matter for the time being that I started out thinking about the history of “women’s liberation” and ending up with “people’s freedom”; it is two sides of the same coin. It might not be that all people are doing what they should do or even what is good for themselves but really, it might be better for everyone if we allowed the freedom to doom ourselves rather than protecting and suffocating the lives of a few who might be oppressed by the good intentions of what is believed to be the “right way of doing things”? Sometimes I feel like we exchanged the society ruled by nobility to a society ruled by “who ever holds the cash”, i.e. the power to do what they think is right for the rest of the people.

In the end, I wonder about the truth of the saying “Real [true] power is never given. Real power has to be taken.” I guess it might be in the lines of Machiavelli, Marxism or plain anarchy? Needless to say, I miss my old university nights with red wine and night time discussions about freedom, liberation and philosophy in order to keep myself from feeling alone and powerless about the boundaries of the world I live in today.

It may seem strange to say that today has been one of the best days for a really long time and I am still smiling and feeling something very close to profound happiness. Even I can’t phantom why, but I’ll be satisfied with keeping this feeling and moving on to the other chores I need to do. And of course, try to understand how much of this is based on the fact that last night turned out to be a marvelous evening in the lab… talk about being high on research.