Geeky Mom

Ok–so things have been pretty serious around here lately–which is fine with me, but I thought I might need to mix it up, lighten the mood a bit before launching back into some serious stuff. So tonight, my body accommodated such a desire for humor. Tonight, as I was coming down the stairs from the kids room, my shoes (and feet) came out completely from under me and I fell on my butt and slid about 4 stairs (there are only 4 stairs, btw). Now it hurt like hell–and still does–since said stairs are wooden. But thinking about myself flailing about, completely out of control kind of makes me giggle. I mean, I totally had no control. And, like the great plasma screen incident, make me think of Richard Simmons. Which made me giggle.

So here I am, with a hell of a sore butt, completely determined to blog despite the pain. Oh, and I should say, that I now have complete faith that Mr. Geeky can care for me in my old age. The man picked me up off the floor and put me in bed and then took off my shoes. I think he thought the shoes were the main culprit here and should not be allowed anywhere near me.

My entanglement in the Summers’ fiasco was probably poorly timed as I’m in the middle of reading The Paradox of Choice (nearly finished). I’m hyper aware now of making choices. While I believe that, according to Schwartz, I’m a satisficer and therefore, settle for the good enough, I also believe that I don’t make choices in a vacuum. My choices–the big ones mainly–are affected both by very obvious constraints, but also subtle ones. The subtle ones are the ones that became more obvious during the whole Summers debate I found myself in.

Elizabeth, at Half Changed World, is discussing Family-Friendly policies based on reaction to the Brooks article in the NYT (which I read) and linking to all kinds of resources. She is very intelligently discussing the issue of providing more options to women in terms of policies that make it easier for women to make choices about entering the workforce. Interestingly, as she points out, in both Brooks and Gilbert (the specific response she is discussing), men are left out of the equation. No one is pondering policies to make it easier for men to choose to stay at home. Yes, these are all phrased as “parent” but the policies are based on trends among women in the workforce.

I have a post in my head that will have to wait about my own choices and what they were shaped by. I have little regret, but I do think about the ways my choices were affected by things totally out of my control and so subtle I did not recognize them at the time.

Thank you all for your thoughtful input stemming from Summers’ comments specifically on the 80-hour work week required to do science. I appreciate everyone clarifying their points and apologize for misquoting or misrepresenting. As I said in the post just previous to this, this is an emotional issue for me (not sure why, just is). Anyway, I agree that perhaps one ought to expect an 80-hour work week or more for jobs at prestigious universities. But if, as most of the commenters argue, you can’t work 80 hours a week and be a mother, then all the mothers are excluded from that work. I hope I’m stating that correctly, but I think that’s what some of you are saying. I said somewhere that perhaps a mother could work 80-hours a week if she weren’t the primary caregiver, but as Ben pointed out, that’s usually not the case. So what do we do? Accept that most mothers are not going to become great scientists? Maybe. Are we missing an important viewpoint by not having more mothers as scientists? And what happens when a female scientist becomes a mother, thinking she can handle both, but then can’t? Do we just accept that? Maybe we do. I’m sure similar things happen to men–job expectations are greater than they thought, a family illness comes up, etc. and suddenly he can’t do the job anymore. The issue I have with the whole conversation–not necessarily with any particular arguments anyone has made–is that I think it sends a message to women about what they can and can’t do. If Ben is right, and most women want to be mothers and they’re thinking about what career to pursue and also thinking about being a mother and they know that being a scientist involves an 80-hour work week which can’t be balanced with their desire to be a mother, then they might exclude that as a career choice.

And there are other careers like that as well. It’s a biological fact that women reproduce. But it’s a sociological issue about how we as a society deal with that fact. Some people might advocate for dealing with it within each individual family. That’s fine–a perfectly logical solution. I’m simply advocating for the conversation to take place about what society’s role might be in preventing some women (mothers) from pursuing certain careers because there are barriers in place that conflict with her role as mother. Maybe that makes me want a warm and fuzzy world. Frankly, I’d like that. I want to help people; it’s just my nature. But I certainly don’t want to prevent anyone from working 80 hours if they want. And I certainly appreciate the results of some of that work.

I haven’t the answers to these issues, but I’m very thankful that Ben, Vera, Suzanne, and bitchitude were willing to share their thoughts and help me shape my own.

There is lots of snow. I like snow, but not when it’s 3 degrees outside and when I have to be at work. The kids have a delayed start this morning.

I realized that the whole men and women are different and the work/family balance issues are very emotional for me–in an angry way, not a sad way. I am in a good spot right now and am also contributing to educating women in the technology field and hopefully sharing my experiences in a way that will encourage them to fight for better balance. But still, it makes me angry. I want to continue to explore this in a more objective way.

I have a big, big week ahead. Search committee duties, dealing with students, getting the lab up and running, working on a couple of presentations and who knows what else will come my way. I think that’s the biggest difference between my job and that of a professor. Very few random tasks fall into a professor’s lap; my day is made up of them.

Go Eagles!

Over at Mother-in-Chief, the argument spawned by the Summers’ comments still rages. A commenter there argues all kinds of things about women, like that most want to mothers and are genetically incapable of being scientists. I posted this response to his latest comment. I was so mad, I was shaking. I encourage you all to check out the discussion. Suzanne has been very reasonable in the face of this person’s ridiculous statements. Here’s my response to him:

Ben, your statements are absolutely ridiculous. I was an academic and my husband is a scientist–who does not work 80 hours a week and is well-recognized in his field–so I can speak for what an academic life is like. First, you make this statement:

“The reason that there are so few outstanding female scientists is that most women want to be mothers, and hence would have to be part-time scientists.”

Where’s your evidence for this? How do you know most women want to be mothers? And it takes two to tango, so usually a decision to have children is not just the woman’s but a couple’s decision with the man involved. Because usually, as Suzanne points out, women are working before they have children, so lots of shifts are going to have to occur in order to have children. The second problem with this quote is that they do not have to be part-time scientists if they have a supportive spouse at home or good daycare or a combination of both. You can have children and work full-time. I do and it’s mostly thanks to a supportive spouse and good childcare.

Another statement you make is about the way science works and you use this example:

“A web designer who produces 300 lines of code a day can be just as good as one who produces 1200 a day, just slower.”

In fact, a web designer who produces 300 lines of code is better because the page will be lighter and load faster; they’re more efficient in the long run, so this was a bad example and you obviously have no idea how programming works, so you’ve lost your credibility. I think at times the same could be true of science, depending on the science you practice.

Suzanne is not necessarily asking for part-time in all careers, but for flexibility in all careers. The definition of worthwhile is subjective, so while your definition of worthwhile might be publishing in Nature, someone else’s might be applying that published research in a clinic in rural Arkansas. The person who applies that research might be a female scientist at a state school who has worked out a flexible agreement where she teaches only on Tues./Thurs. mornings, leaving her time to research on M,W,F mornings and afternoons when she can pick up the kids from school and then take them with her to the clinic where they learn how to give back to the world. If her spouse is supportive, she may also be able to work more than that, especially if his work is also flexible, so that some days he is the one meeting the kids instead of her. You have to think outside the box sometimes and academics, for all its liberal thinking, rarely thinks outside the box when it comes to its own working conditions and requirements for tenure. Ben, get out some and talk to people, especially some of the women in your field. Find out what would work for them. In my experience with the female scientists with kids that I know, they accomplish just as much working their 40-50 hours as the single man who “works” 80 hours.

I ended up not writing today. I had to make a trip to the grocery store before the 20 inches of snow settled in. Since I have two books to get through, I decided to do some reading instead. I’m in the middle of Barry Schwartz’s The Paradox of Choice. It’s interesting so far, but we’ll have to see how it turns out. I’m reading it for a reading group at work, which I’m excited about being a part of. It’s an opportunity to have some intellectual discussions with some smart people, something the faculty are able to do quite frequently, but the staff don’t get the opportunity too often. I miss that about being an instructor. There were always plenty of lectures, discussion groups, and conferences to participate in. And there are still plenty of those, but we’re not always encouraged to participate. Other tasks get in the way.

I was thinking about the way I’ve filled my life with all these extra intellectual pursuits–reading, writing, blogging. When I stayed home with my son for a while, I tried to do the same thing, but I don’t think there were as many outlets then, or perhaps I am better at motivating myself. I was much more isolated then too. In a small rural town surrounded by people whose interests were completely different from mine. Now I’m in a bigger city with more options in terms of people to relate to.

I was just thinking about all of this because I was realizing how important it is to me. But it seems like it’s more valuable to me as a hobby than as something I do for a living. I wouldn’t want to depend on my intellectual pursuits for my livelihood. It’s part of why I think about staying home so much, now, as opposed to 10 years ago. Now that I’ve developed some things that I’m interested in, I think being a mom as my main job with reading and writing on the side could work. Then again, I turned my previous hobby into a career. It would be a long trek, though. Just something I’ve been thinking about lately.

I have plans to write today. I’m not feeling particularly motivated, but I’m just going to do it. Last time I did this–two weeks ago–I ended up with 27 pages. If I can get the same amount done this weekend, I’d be more than halfway through my rewrite. The goal is to get beyond the already written and into some new territory so I can just finish the damn thing!

It’s also supposed to snow 18 inches between now and tomorrow evening. At some point, I will need to make a trip to the grocery store so that we don’t starve to death. Maybe I’ll send Mr. Geeky . . .

I have to say that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone’s blogs over the last few days. It’s been very rewarding. Mr. Geeky still doesn’t get it.

I didn’t pee until 3 o’clock. That’s what kind of day it was. I like being busy and the kind of things I was doing were interesting (for the most part), but I need some time to sit back and digest everything that happened.

At 3 o’clock, right before I peed, my office mate, Web Guy, came running over to me in the lab and said, “Did you see the plasma screen go by?” I said, “Is it here?” thinking that Language Guy’s new plasma had arrived and Web Guy was on his way over to watch the set up. “No,” he says, “your plasma screen.” So Web Guy chased down the guys carrying out the plasma, asked them where they think they’re going. The department secretary follows quickly, which was a sight to see, let me tell you. As the plasma-carrying guys are loading the plasma into a truck, they tell Web Guy their boss told them to do it. Likely story, said South-Philly-native Web Guy. He tracks down someone, who calls someone who tells him an upper management person arranged for someone else to “borrow” our plasma until their brand new 65″ plasma arrives in 3 weeks. Never mind that I’m using the plasma (that’s now on a truck on its way to another building) next week and the two following weeks for some workshops. Never mind that I was having a student design a nice slide show to display when the screen was not in use. If the whole scenerio of Web Guy chasing down two guys with a plasma screen in a fit of heroics (followed by the secretary, of course) weren’t so damn funny, I’d be really pissed. I was really pissed actually and yelled at several people who had nothing to do with it just to get the yelling out.

After that I had to pee (who wouldn’t?). Then I was in the kitchen getting some tea and suddenly starting thinking about Richard Simmons’ “Sweating to the Oldies” and went back to tell Web Guy, who was reliving the whole episode with some other co-workers and between Richard Simmons and the whole plasma screen fiasco, we were both in hysterics. People offered us drinks, but I think they thought we should be institutionalized.

By then, it was 4:00, and I finally started checking my e-mail. This weekend, I have to read two books, write, and watch football. Not sure how I’m going to make it.

I am drowning in laundry. There’s just too much of it. And I don’t really like doing it.

Exercise is really hard to fit in. I went for 5 days without exercising, then finally exercised last night only to realize that I probably won’t today. I’m going to be somewhere else until 8. I could exercise when I get home . . . we’ll see. The cold weather is not helping my motivation.

I want to have another writing day(s) this weekend. It’s supposed to snow so this will probably have to take place in my own home.

I have a lot on my plate both at home and at work. I’m not panicked yet and I keep reminding myself of how much I’ve accomplished. Work is annoying right now because it’s the time of year when I have lots of interruptions. I want to write up some papers and work on two, yes two, presentations I’ve been asked to give. I need a quiet stretch of time.

I helped some faculty get a grant, but it’s likely I won’t get paid–because I’m staff, not faculty. The two faculty are trying to advocate for me.

I lost a bet with Mr. Geeky and so I’m on kid duty every night this week. It’s cramping my style.

I can’t wait for the weekend.

I wasn’t going to post on the Lawrence Summers fiasco because so many other bloggers have and have done so quite eloquently, but given my own recent personal experience with sexism–my own and others’–I felt compelled to comment. What really prompted me though, was a Echnide’s post on the matter and the resulting commentary, which is thoughtful and polite unlike some others, which I haven’t seen.

I have to say that it is utterly chilling to hear about people taking difference and turning it into better and worse. Have none of these people taken feminist theory 101? Oh, probably not. Too many science requirements. On the first day of feminist theory (and this would actually go for ethnic/cultural studies as well, any study of difference), you learn that basically people have a tendancy to take the differences between men and women and determine which characteristics are valued more than the other. Sometimes this is conscious and sometimes not. And the results are usually that any characteristics that are male are better than the female characteristics. E.g. being physically stronger is better than not; being taller is better than not; being aggressive is better than not. As you can see by my examples, many of these characteristics and not exclusively male–some women are taller or more aggressive. But society often negates these characteristics when they show up in women; they become bad.

I think a lot of sexism and racism is very subtle now and leads thoughtful people like my colleagues and male scientists to assume that it doesn’t exist anymore. But it does.

Some personal examples:

People rarely ask Mr. Geeky about the kids. They ask him about his work. I get asked about the kids. (Both men and women do this and it infuriates me because I have always worked and Mr. Geeky and I are truly 50/50 parents).

I only had one teacher encourage me to do Math and Science (thank you, Mr. Chandler) and everyone else pushed me to do English. Honestly, who knows where I’d be if someone had really supported my efforts in math and science.

My daughter is already–at 5–encouraged to play with dolls more than to play video games and do math. We’re constantly trying to combat this. We do math quizzes at dinner and in the car. My son plays video games with her. I dread junior high.

At my recent conference, the split between men and women was pretty even, until you went to sessions geared toward “decision-makers”–CIOs and the like. Then, it was predominantly men–and white men at that.

Once, Mr. Geeky noted that the men with stay at home wives seemed more productive than the ones without. He said he felt a little weird about being home for dinner every night and a little jealous of their seemingly endless free time, but that he would never want me to stay at home just to make him more productive. It would make both our lives less fulfilling, he said. This may sound more sexist on his part than it was. It spawned an interesting conversation about productivity and the family unit. Yeah, we’re disgustingly geeky.

___

One of the thoughts I had regarding the 80-hour work week (which is common in the IT field, too) was that in the sciences and the IT field, whether you work 80 hours or not is more visible than it is in the humanities where you might do a great deal of work at home and no one knows whether you’ve been working or taking care of the kids or juggling both. If you’re in a lab running experiments or hacking around on a server (which can be done from home, but most people don’t do it that way), you’re visible and people know if you’re there or not. Students see you; colleagues see you.

The 80-hour work week is ridiculous no matter what field you’re in. Mr. Geeky has the occasional late night, but it’s usually at home. And I, too, pitch in frequently in off-hours, but we both only do it when we want to without letting it interfere with family life. I think science would survive and perhaps even be better if we allowed the 80-hour work week to die.

The thing that infuriates me about the whole assumption about women in science is that it’s obviously a complex issue and it seems–based simply on the few blog posts I’ve read–that women are quite willing to explore many reasons why this might be–social, genetic, flat-out discrimination–whereas men tend to say that a) there must be a genetic difference because b) there is no discrimination anymore; we fixed that already. There are exceptions, of course. It’s just something I’ve noticed.

Anyway, this wasn’t quite the thoughtful post I’d hoped for, but really, it’s hard to post about something objectively that you basically live every day.