This thread is an excellent response to this problematic article and I would highly recommend reading through it. One specific aspect that alarmed me in the op-ed was the patronizing language used and I want to expand on that a bit
The article author writes of women #scicomm instagrams being full of “pretty selfies, fun videos, and microscope images captioned with accessible language and cute emojis.”
She closes the article out with, "Publicly documenting the cute outfit I wear and the sweet smile I brandish in the lab isn’t going to help me build a fulfilling career in a field where women hold less senior positions, are paid less, and are continuously underrated.”
Language matters in these contexts. The women scicommers I follow on Instagram and other platforms show passion, engagement, energy, and creativity in the way they present their research.
Describing it in adjectives like “cute, pretty, sweet” reduces their work and contributes to the problematic ways we write about women.
These language biases filter into other formats, such as the differences in descriptors used for men vs women in recommendation letters: sciencemag.org/careers/2016/1…
It reminded me of @Ehmee’s line in this piece last year:
“Graslie said the fact that she is passionate, funny, and relatable—qualities that are embraced by fans of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye—are interpreted in her as cute or adorable.”
the-scientist.com/?articles.view…
“Graslie said the fact that she is passionate, funny, and relatable—qualities that are embraced by fans of Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye—are interpreted in her as cute or adorable.”
the-scientist.com/?articles.view…
A study from 2012 of US biologists and physicists found that women are more likely to engage in public outreach than their male counterparts (Biology: 69% of women vs 32% of men. Physics: 76% of women vs 58% of men, 97 people surveyed). journals.plos.org/plosone/articl…
Quote I want to highlight: (1/2) “A corresponding interpretation is that scientists may have the perception that outreach is a more feminine, care-oriented task, which may further decrease the legitimacy of this pursuit."
(2/2): "And unless science outreach efforts increase in legitimacy at top research universities the academic careers of the women who engage in outreach work may actually be hindered.”
I found this whole story extremely informative and it made me aware of the gender gap in science celebrities, something I hadn't paid attention to before. I want to shout out the author too: @erinbiba
