Over to The Ways and Means of the Immune System. I am divided no more, an immunology nerd and a postdoc am I. Thank you for reading, I hope you'll come by my new-ish digs for some immunology mixed in with rants.
Still looking for Clarity. Looking...
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
Gender Differences: Cultural Artifacts or not
Another Friday, another Judith Warner column...It is however subscription only, so I have quoted relevant passages. She expresses exactly what i feel, so I will let her say it first.
and
Seriously. I really do not believe in the idea that men and women are fundamentally emotionally different, a view typified in the vulgar extreme by "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus". I think that our emotional responses and general mental age and health are strongly conditioned by society, and as such, Society has different expectations of men and women. Society however is not entirely an independent entity, it is certainly a greater force than the sum of its parts, but it is ultimately made up of men and women. Ergo, men and women impose and propagate, or have imposed and have propagated, certain gender expectations that result in this artificial perception of deep-down-difference between men and women.
Some might say, probably rightly, that men did most of the original imposing, but women have had a share in the propagating and now we spend so much time and energy debunking unpleasant-and untrue- stereotypes. I do not know how or why these roles were allotted to the genders in the first place, there is any amount of tired, hackneyed, insightful, intelligent or just plain hokey literature out there that addresses the subject, and all of you are smart and erudite enough to know the speculations on the subject. Maybe because I am a biologist, I cannot understand the idea that men and women are deeply different. At all. We are all human (boo!) and most of the so-called gender-specific emotional differences can as easily be explained by cultural forces, nationality, education and even religion.
Classic "male" emotions? Competitiveness, aggression, directness, ambition, drive, being opinionated-I have just described the attributes almost every scientist I know. Male or female. Classic "female" emotions? Caring, empathy, nurture, gentleness, tolerance, love of gossip-I have described attributes of most of my friends, male or female, and of many of the important men in my life. Human emotions they all are, and all of us have felt them all in some degree or the other at some point in our lives. Understanding all these emotions is easy once they are placed in the realm of our own experience. Why then mystify the feeler of the emotion by filing them away under a gender stereotype?
I tend to believe that much (though not all) of what passes for gender difference is culturally encoded (if not determined) and brought out situationally. So I should have been prepared to find much commonality with Pollack, another narcissistic and self-indulgent writer-type; with Stracher, a lawyer, law professor and writer struggling with the personal and economic fallout of cutting back on work in order to make it home at least five nights a week to cook dinner for his kids; and to a lesser extent with Lerman, a much more testosterone-y kind of a character, who left a career in journalism and as the co-executive producer of “America’s Most Wanted” to stay home full-time with his preschool-aged son. They’d all rejected traditional fatherhood to become, in a certain sense, “moms.”
and
On the surface, this profound identification with the dads was vindicating: it validated what I’ve tried to say in the past – that men’s and women’s human similarities are far more meaningful and significant than their sex-specific differences...Yet on some other level it was vaguely troubling: Am I less a woman for finding the best depiction of how I experience myself as a mother in the voice of a dad? The words “Stockholm Syndrome” intruded upon my thoughts.
Seriously. I really do not believe in the idea that men and women are fundamentally emotionally different, a view typified in the vulgar extreme by "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus". I think that our emotional responses and general mental age and health are strongly conditioned by society, and as such, Society has different expectations of men and women. Society however is not entirely an independent entity, it is certainly a greater force than the sum of its parts, but it is ultimately made up of men and women. Ergo, men and women impose and propagate, or have imposed and have propagated, certain gender expectations that result in this artificial perception of deep-down-difference between men and women.
Some might say, probably rightly, that men did most of the original imposing, but women have had a share in the propagating and now we spend so much time and energy debunking unpleasant-and untrue- stereotypes. I do not know how or why these roles were allotted to the genders in the first place, there is any amount of tired, hackneyed, insightful, intelligent or just plain hokey literature out there that addresses the subject, and all of you are smart and erudite enough to know the speculations on the subject. Maybe because I am a biologist, I cannot understand the idea that men and women are deeply different. At all. We are all human (boo!) and most of the so-called gender-specific emotional differences can as easily be explained by cultural forces, nationality, education and even religion.
Classic "male" emotions? Competitiveness, aggression, directness, ambition, drive, being opinionated-I have just described the attributes almost every scientist I know. Male or female. Classic "female" emotions? Caring, empathy, nurture, gentleness, tolerance, love of gossip-I have described attributes of most of my friends, male or female, and of many of the important men in my life. Human emotions they all are, and all of us have felt them all in some degree or the other at some point in our lives. Understanding all these emotions is easy once they are placed in the realm of our own experience. Why then mystify the feeler of the emotion by filing them away under a gender stereotype?
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Me? Harry?
As seen at Propter Doc's
You scored as Harry Potter. You are Harry Potter. You are daring, and have quite a lot of nerve. You rely on your instincts to make decisions. You're a natural leader. You are highly concerned with justice and actively fight for what you feel is right.
Harry Potter Character Combatibility Test created with QuizFarm.com |
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Anonymity
The paradox of anonymity is that you can be more yourself.
Anonymity enables us bloggers. Intimacy, truthfulness, genuine feeling, none of these would be possible without being anonymous. One expresses frustrations with lab, with particular people, one shares one's stories-be they funny, sad, outrageous or mundane. We all do these things under the comforting cover of anonymity. the first post about one's lab is made with trepidation, will someone see me? What if they find out? Then gradually, acquisition of a blog-persona emboldens you, you become Veo Claramente when you're typing, not Dr. Postdoc. You say the things that you have always thought and only told Postdoc Parents, Postdoc siblings, Mr. Postdoc-to-be or those always lovely and amazing Fellow Postdoc friends. Writing comes pouring out and suddenly people are reading! Someone comments, and you're on your way. You have this different life, almost, and you feel free to talk about the things that bother you. And then some.
Anonymity also shields some truly repellent people, who stalk and threaten. Trolls who lurk and comment. Malicious bloggers who use also their anonymity to liberate themselves, but to liberate their bad sides (maybe I shouldn't assume these people have good sides, but) and let it hang out in all its stinking glory. Freedom is universal after all, and can be used in any way. Your personal code is the only thing that prevents its misuse. The protection of anonymity is offered to everyone.
Here's the rub, It really bothers me that we should should we need it. The need to hide bad behaviour is obvious, the need to hide frustration less so. Why do we have to be careful about voicing our frustrations as long as we are reasonably polite and resort to only limited name-calling? Why is it that we face the possibility of reprisals for expressing opinions and telling it as we see it? I do have a quixotic sense of justice and what the world should be, but even so. Something is not right if so many people are out there, blogging about being grad students, postdocs or faculty, all staying anonymous and guarding that anonymity intensely. Hey, I'm not "coming out". I feel like I should be able to without the fear of destructive consequences. However, if I was guaranteed no bad consequences, would I turn Veo Claramente into a pseudonym? I don't know. My conscience and my sense of what is right would be satisfied, but I don't know if I want all the things I say to be attributable to me. I really don't know.
What would you do if you could out yourself without negative consequences?
scientiae-carnival
Anonymity enables us bloggers. Intimacy, truthfulness, genuine feeling, none of these would be possible without being anonymous. One expresses frustrations with lab, with particular people, one shares one's stories-be they funny, sad, outrageous or mundane. We all do these things under the comforting cover of anonymity. the first post about one's lab is made with trepidation, will someone see me? What if they find out? Then gradually, acquisition of a blog-persona emboldens you, you become Veo Claramente when you're typing, not Dr. Postdoc. You say the things that you have always thought and only told Postdoc Parents, Postdoc siblings, Mr. Postdoc-to-be or those always lovely and amazing Fellow Postdoc friends. Writing comes pouring out and suddenly people are reading! Someone comments, and you're on your way. You have this different life, almost, and you feel free to talk about the things that bother you. And then some.
Anonymity also shields some truly repellent people, who stalk and threaten. Trolls who lurk and comment. Malicious bloggers who use also their anonymity to liberate themselves, but to liberate their bad sides (maybe I shouldn't assume these people have good sides, but) and let it hang out in all its stinking glory. Freedom is universal after all, and can be used in any way. Your personal code is the only thing that prevents its misuse. The protection of anonymity is offered to everyone.
Here's the rub, It really bothers me that we should should we need it. The need to hide bad behaviour is obvious, the need to hide frustration less so. Why do we have to be careful about voicing our frustrations as long as we are reasonably polite and resort to only limited name-calling? Why is it that we face the possibility of reprisals for expressing opinions and telling it as we see it? I do have a quixotic sense of justice and what the world should be, but even so. Something is not right if so many people are out there, blogging about being grad students, postdocs or faculty, all staying anonymous and guarding that anonymity intensely. Hey, I'm not "coming out". I feel like I should be able to without the fear of destructive consequences. However, if I was guaranteed no bad consequences, would I turn Veo Claramente into a pseudonym? I don't know. My conscience and my sense of what is right would be satisfied, but I don't know if I want all the things I say to be attributable to me. I really don't know.
What would you do if you could out yourself without negative consequences?
scientiae-carnival
Monday, May 07, 2007
Lab Personalities I: the Alpha
Lab personalities-I’ve been thinking about doing this series for a long time now. So much of the character of a lab and so many of the problems that beset researchers today are the result of various lab personalities. Outsize personalities and larger egos are not unique to academia, however they dominate academia in a truly unique way.
Appropriately enough, the first in the series, the Alpha. Pushy, confident, assertive and all-knowing, every lab has one. They always have an opinion about everything, they are absolutely sure that what they do is right and they are not shy about sharing their ways to improve you, your experiments and your future. They think nothing of charging past long-standing lab traditions to ensure that their way prevails. They always have a comment or seven at lab meeting. They know where everything is and like it that way. They define who is worthy of incorporation into the inner circle and who isn’t. They usually sit next to the boss at meetings and speak for him or her in their absence.
They are absolutely infuriating and usually quite indispensable. Their confidence is jarring yet enviable. Sometimes long-standing traditions should be done with and only alphas have the guts to do away with them. Comments make lab meeting interesting, and often, people participate when the Alpha’s comments rile them to the point of speech. It is useful to have one person who knows where everything is although one could do without the “I think the best way to use it is…”. Many of the worse clashes in labs develop because of them, as Alphas rarely conciliate, discuss or mediate. The misery levels of new members of the lab are largely governed by their reception by the Alpha, probably second only to the next personality I plan to discuss, the Escalator.
So with the Alphas, smile, ingratiate yes be firm for all Alphas yield to superior strength. Appreciate what they give to the lab, develop sudden deafness in the face of their opinions. And in the end, all of us have a little alpha in there somewhere. Some are more successful –and less abrasive- at letting it out that’s all. But, be warned, disaster might ensue if the PI is an Alpha and hires another.
So do you have a little Alpha in you? I would say I am about 10% Alpha….
Appropriately enough, the first in the series, the Alpha. Pushy, confident, assertive and all-knowing, every lab has one. They always have an opinion about everything, they are absolutely sure that what they do is right and they are not shy about sharing their ways to improve you, your experiments and your future. They think nothing of charging past long-standing lab traditions to ensure that their way prevails. They always have a comment or seven at lab meeting. They know where everything is and like it that way. They define who is worthy of incorporation into the inner circle and who isn’t. They usually sit next to the boss at meetings and speak for him or her in their absence.
They are absolutely infuriating and usually quite indispensable. Their confidence is jarring yet enviable. Sometimes long-standing traditions should be done with and only alphas have the guts to do away with them. Comments make lab meeting interesting, and often, people participate when the Alpha’s comments rile them to the point of speech. It is useful to have one person who knows where everything is although one could do without the “I think the best way to use it is…”. Many of the worse clashes in labs develop because of them, as Alphas rarely conciliate, discuss or mediate. The misery levels of new members of the lab are largely governed by their reception by the Alpha, probably second only to the next personality I plan to discuss, the Escalator.
So with the Alphas, smile, ingratiate yes be firm for all Alphas yield to superior strength. Appreciate what they give to the lab, develop sudden deafness in the face of their opinions. And in the end, all of us have a little alpha in there somewhere. Some are more successful –and less abrasive- at letting it out that’s all. But, be warned, disaster might ensue if the PI is an Alpha and hires another.
So do you have a little Alpha in you? I would say I am about 10% Alpha….
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
The Colonial Hangover Persists...
| You Belong in the UK |
 Blimey! A little proper, a little saucy. You're so witty and charming... No one notices your curry breath |
They didn't have cricket on the list!
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Scientiae Carnival: 5th Edition
Hello Everyone,
Sorry about the delay, but here it finally is, the 5th Edition of the Scientiae Carnival, the theme of which was, approximately, why and how do you labour at what you do. I have had a great time assembling this, though I am feeling tremendously guilty because I am doing this at work since I have no Internet at home. There might be something shadily appropriate about that given the theme and all, but.
Some of these posts were e-mailed to me, for which I thank you very very much! Others are the result of some intensive trawling, with happy happy results for my blog roll.
Propter Doc tells us here how she became a chemist and developed a healthy disrespect for authority, roughly at the same time. Doc-in-training tells us about how she loves what she does
Also, Jenny F. Scientist tells us about seeing Paul Nurse give a talk in which he told stories about how he did the research that would eventually get him a Nobel prize. Yes, Science Is Hard and needs a healthy dose of serendipity.
On a more introspective note, Jane is trying to figure out whether her job is worth it, and uses the analogy of a bad relationship to analyze her relationship to her job.Thoughtful and insightful, and something I am sure we all think about frequently. This is the first in what promises to be a really good series. Take a look.
All labour needs the leavening of leisure, and doc-in-training talks about the problems grad students face in their quest for leisure. She has a really useful pragmatic approach towards this.
A Female Scientist tries to keep her positive spin on life through a quarter life crisis
Some people address some of the more practical aspects of working: Science Woman has two great posts on taking her baby on a field trip and to a seminar, truly a labour of love. I consider the merits of greater professionalism and the folks at Fairer Science calculate how much more a woman has to work to earn the same amount as a man. Holly at field Notes of an Evolutionary Psychologist wonders how to get into a research network and Saxifraga at Rising to the Occasion discusses talking about science in the public.
Some discuss Ph.D. dissertations: A+ is not a "real" doctor, but has some interesting thoughts on how to write a dissertation at Ph.D. (People Have Doubts: Best title Ever!). Is fear motivation enough? Post-doc at Minor Revisions courageously shares the story of her thesis defense with us. I'm so impressed she continues to work in academia after this. Minor Revisions: Indefensible
Another interesting question: How much advising is too much?
Not women in Science, but great reading. Lou has some answers to the question of whether Ph.Ds are worth it. Derek discusses Doctorates and discontents
Looking for blogs from different sources, Nature has recently set up a networking site, and there a few blogs on it. Anna Kushnir has a fabulous blog on lab life. I haven't selected one particular post, I think the whole thing is great reading. Lab Life - Anna Kushnir's blog - blog on Nature Network
In other great news, FemaleScienceProfessor has been chosen as a Blog of Note-Yay! Congratulations. It's a fantastic blog and deserves the recognition.
And finally, Skookumchick has a suggestion for a Scientiae logo.
I really enjoyed doing this, I hope you enjoy reading it. The next edition will be at Science Woman's, coming out on the 15th. Happy blogging!
Scientiae Carnival Delayed Sorry!
I have no Internet at home, so I am assembling this at work, between experiments, so sorry! It will be up by tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
