Cooking has always been about experimenting for me. Going by the recipe is fine for somethings, like candy making or if I know I enjoy this person's particular formulation of the dish, but by and large I like to tweak recipes. Non-baking recipes I'll usually just make up as I go along. Baking recipes are more chemistry dependant and therefore harder to do on the fly.
Lately though, I feel like I am having to reinvent the wheel, knowing what a wheel looks like but having to make it with very limited and somewhat unsuitable materials. It's exhausting trying to do that for every dinner.
Lately I've been having PCOS flare ups, partly just because and partly because there has been some stress in my life, so I've had to switch back to a stricter low-carb/low-GI diet. This would be annoying but par for the course, if we hadn't started a gluten-free diet for DH. He's had 'stomach problems' all his life, which I have been trying to solve for the 3 years we've been married and I've been in charge of procuring his food. Gluten-free was the last on a long list of things we've tried, and so far seems to be the most successful. We'll look into having proper testing done at some point, but since he just took a new job in a new city, the timing is not right for finding a specialist in our current area.
So in short, I am facing the challenge of cooking both low-carb/low-GI (LCLGI) and gluten-free. Lots of LCLGI food is gluten-free because if you aren't using any grain-flours you aren't going to be including gluten. It's also rarely recognizable as analogous to its carb-loaded counterparts, and to a certain extent just requires recognizing that there is no substitute for pasta or bread. Gluten-free foods, of which there are TONS on the market right now all nicely labeled, are rarely LCLGI because they are made with rice starch, tapioca starch, potato starch, etc. Pretty much everything I can't eat. Thus I am faced with the choice to make two different dinners, or to try and find food that lies in the overlap that we both find palatable.
Of course, some things don't really change. Meat is gluten-free and low-carb. Vegetables, pace potatoes, ditto. But there is something so fundamental to having some kind of starchy thing, and that's mostly where the problem lies. DH can have rice, but I can't. There are both low-GI and gluten-free pastas on the market, but of course they occupy opposite ends of the spectrum. I can have rye or spelt bread in small amounts, but he can't. I can make risotto with rice for him and risotto with barley for me, but that seems absurd. The best LCLGI and gluten-free recipes feature coconut flour, which has a noticeable taste for me that I don't always want. Most of the recipes I've come up with use almond flour which is unavoidably gritty, or oat flour which is gritty and whole-wheat tasting unless you really work to hide it.
Cookbooks are typically one or the other, and if they are both they are typically one of the crazier diet fads, like paleo. While that is the closest to what we are eating, I just can't say we are going paleo. The whole diet is based on bad or non-existent science, cheese is something I rely on, and I can't get over the absurdity whenever I see a paleo recipe call for things bananas or brussel sprouts. Those yellow bananas you get in the grocery store have existed for less than 200 years, and look nothing like a paleolithic banana. Brussel sprouts only popped into existence in the 1300s. Coconut flour also did not exist in paleolithic times.
In short, food posts are probably going to be a little less "here's a recipe I made up last week" and more musing on what works and doesn't work as I try to reformulate, replace and otherwise revamp my repertoire of foods in the coming months. A journaling of success and failures so I hopefully don't have to repeat the latter too often. Also most likely they will be shorter interludes as I work on my Basic Physics series. And if you happen to follow me on Twitter (@PhysicsGal1701), now you know what all the food posting is about.
Cheers!
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Twitter. Show all posts
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Monday, June 23, 2014
The problem with science communication
As a break from everything else that's been going on lately, I've been reading/watching a variety of what could be largely lumped as "science communication" blogs/videos. While I've been doing so, I of course have run across the odd "why do science communication?" post. The answers usually boil down to geekery ("because science is so cool and people should know it"), political ("If everyone were more science literate, they would vote X"), or humanitarian ("if people understood [this], they wouldn't be hurt by [that] or taken in by charlatans"). These are by no means bad motives for doing these things. And I utterly agree that science communication is a critical activity in our day and age.
But, why? Why is science so hard to communicate that we need not only institutionalized communication (e.g. science class), but grassroots efforts, from blogs to podcasts to videos to local science festivals? Humans have been communicating stuff to each other for centuries. We have developed a wide variety of methods and tools for convincing people of things. Heck, we have a whole industry dedicated to it (advertising). Why does science communication seem so hard to do sometimes?
First, there is the sheer logistical reality of it. The better you understand a topic, let's say optics since I know that one, the deeper you've gone into it and the more that subject and it's prerequisites have become second nature to you. You now now Maxwell's equations almost instinctually. You have a gut reaction when you see velocities faster than \( 3*10^8 \ . You either stopped asking what was waving or have dug really deep into it, but either way you probably can't explain it in 100 words or less to the average person on the street. On the other hand, the less you know the topic, the easier it is to explain at your level of understanding to someone who doesn't know much or anything, because you remember being in that state.
I have slowly started to realize this as I've been teaching problem solving sessions for the past five semesters. When I started out, I was not remotely confident in the topic. I had taken a few courses beyond the level I was teaching, but I knew I didn't really *know*, in the sense of understanding and internalizing, even basic electromagnetism. My algebra/calculus was shaky because I didn't do it all day, everyday, and hadn't really touched it in 8 months (I took some time off between undergrad and grad school).
So everytime I taught, I had very very detailed notes explaining the calculation to myself, because I knew I couldn't do it unprepared. My students were able to follow my solutions (handwriting permitting) because I wrote everything out, every single step, no "and it can easily be shown that", no "clearly, this equals". It was there. But my analogies to explain the weirdness of electromagnetism were terrible. I mean, really really terrible. Confused, convoluted, mixed. And I didn't have a sense of the background of my students, what they would or would not be familiar with.
Now, I do algebra and calculus for my PhD research. My dining room table, my chalkboard, my whiteboard, my desk, random napkins are full of equations. I sit and do page after page (and redo page after page) of math. I've gotten better at recognizing common algebraic patterns. I no longer have to FOIL simpler multiplications. I do not question the utility of sines and cosines. It's obvious! So my worked out solutions in class have started to skips steps. Bit by bit, I assume a higher level of math literacy from my students. My analogies and metaphors have, generally, become better. I no longer mix metaphors, I stick with one main metaphor throughout a topic, and I don't use analogies to things that my students have no idea what that is. So while my students feel less baffled by my words, I get a dozen of them before and after class asking how we got from point A to point B in an equation.
And this is I think a hurdle science communicators have to face. The best ones are good in their field. They breathe physics, chemistry, biology, what have you. It's a core component of their being and they are excited to share it with you. But it also means that they are far away from the confusion and doubts of their audience. They need to practice that skill of empathy which, at least in pop culture, we famously lack. It's not an easy skill, to put yourself back at that point of confusion and try to talk to that person. It's like trying to teach a small child something that is to you so easy you don't think about it, like tying your shoes. The best thing is to have a non-STEM friend to test out your explanations on, but even they can be a biased sample depending on how frequently you try to explain your work to them.
The second problem, as the many youtube comment sections to these videos attest, is that science bumps up uncomfortably against areas of worldview and identity for people. The world is a big, nasty, confusing place and people build their worldviews and identities in a way that, fundamentally, tries to make them feel safe, even if it is a very weird and convoluted safety. For example, conspiracy theorists, whatever their theory of choice, want to believe that someone is in control. The idea that violence or disease or natural disaster just happen, is intolerable. Far preferable that a malevolent and powerful group somewhere is in charge than we being hostages to fortune.
And this is even harder than empathy for confusion, because it does not require a shoveling on of better explained facts, or more facts. It requires the mindset of a missionary instead of a teacher and it is a very different mindset. Its also a mindset that makes many scientists uncomfortable. Science isn't a religion, it isn't faith, it's fact. Facts exist whether you want them to exist or not. But science is increasingly touching areas of our lives that are not experienced as fully rational, where strong beliefs are preexistent and the science communicators job is no longer to make clear something that was not thought of or not understood, but to modify or replace beliefs. And it is a much longer process.
I feel it is important to note here that science communicators should also be aware of where to stop. There is a fine line between teaching scientific truth and teaching your world view. Most of the time I have seen science communication blow up is where that line is crossed. For example, please, by all means explain the correct mechanisms for evolution and the strength of evidence we have for it. The minute you say "See? You don't need a god to make this work after all" you have lost any ground or good will you may have gained.
I think we could borrow a bit from missionaries, modified to our needs. One of the classic techniques for missionaries is to talk to people, and begin from their starting point. The missionary can then more easily lead in small steps to the point where the next step is faith or not faith. I don't see why would couldn't develop a similar method for science communication where the problem is not information but belief. Again, using evolution as an example. Starting with something close to home (antibiotic resistant infections), moving further afield to elephants losing their tusks as a defense against ivory poaching, to dogs from wolves, making the gradual transition from 'microevolution' to 'macroevolution' to a final understanding that it is all just 'evolution'. But again, changing beliefs is not fast. It requires investment.
So, what is it that I am trying to say? Are we doing science communication badly? Should we stop doing it unless we can be just great? NO. By no means. What I am saying is that we already have a community of science communicators who are really good at what they do. Dr Skyskull has a great blog for weird physics, occasionally cats and horror. Myles Power has a bunch of great videos largely debunking bad science/logic in a fairly respectful manner even if his language is a little coarse to american ears. JimTheEvo has a really cool series on infection, evolution and human history*. My point is that we can be even better. Maybe by focusing our audience, maybe just by being more thoughtful. I think it might be time to move to the next level.
*I know they are all males. The women scientist blogs I read are less explaining and more linking to it things people would know. Powered by Osteons does a great job pointing out where bioanthropology intersects popular culture, for example.
But, why? Why is science so hard to communicate that we need not only institutionalized communication (e.g. science class), but grassroots efforts, from blogs to podcasts to videos to local science festivals? Humans have been communicating stuff to each other for centuries. We have developed a wide variety of methods and tools for convincing people of things. Heck, we have a whole industry dedicated to it (advertising). Why does science communication seem so hard to do sometimes?
First, there is the sheer logistical reality of it. The better you understand a topic, let's say optics since I know that one, the deeper you've gone into it and the more that subject and it's prerequisites have become second nature to you. You now now Maxwell's equations almost instinctually. You have a gut reaction when you see velocities faster than \( 3*10^8 \ . You either stopped asking what was waving or have dug really deep into it, but either way you probably can't explain it in 100 words or less to the average person on the street. On the other hand, the less you know the topic, the easier it is to explain at your level of understanding to someone who doesn't know much or anything, because you remember being in that state.
I have slowly started to realize this as I've been teaching problem solving sessions for the past five semesters. When I started out, I was not remotely confident in the topic. I had taken a few courses beyond the level I was teaching, but I knew I didn't really *know*, in the sense of understanding and internalizing, even basic electromagnetism. My algebra/calculus was shaky because I didn't do it all day, everyday, and hadn't really touched it in 8 months (I took some time off between undergrad and grad school).
So everytime I taught, I had very very detailed notes explaining the calculation to myself, because I knew I couldn't do it unprepared. My students were able to follow my solutions (handwriting permitting) because I wrote everything out, every single step, no "and it can easily be shown that", no "clearly, this equals". It was there. But my analogies to explain the weirdness of electromagnetism were terrible. I mean, really really terrible. Confused, convoluted, mixed. And I didn't have a sense of the background of my students, what they would or would not be familiar with.
Now, I do algebra and calculus for my PhD research. My dining room table, my chalkboard, my whiteboard, my desk, random napkins are full of equations. I sit and do page after page (and redo page after page) of math. I've gotten better at recognizing common algebraic patterns. I no longer have to FOIL simpler multiplications. I do not question the utility of sines and cosines. It's obvious! So my worked out solutions in class have started to skips steps. Bit by bit, I assume a higher level of math literacy from my students. My analogies and metaphors have, generally, become better. I no longer mix metaphors, I stick with one main metaphor throughout a topic, and I don't use analogies to things that my students have no idea what that is. So while my students feel less baffled by my words, I get a dozen of them before and after class asking how we got from point A to point B in an equation.
And this is I think a hurdle science communicators have to face. The best ones are good in their field. They breathe physics, chemistry, biology, what have you. It's a core component of their being and they are excited to share it with you. But it also means that they are far away from the confusion and doubts of their audience. They need to practice that skill of empathy which, at least in pop culture, we famously lack. It's not an easy skill, to put yourself back at that point of confusion and try to talk to that person. It's like trying to teach a small child something that is to you so easy you don't think about it, like tying your shoes. The best thing is to have a non-STEM friend to test out your explanations on, but even they can be a biased sample depending on how frequently you try to explain your work to them.
The second problem, as the many youtube comment sections to these videos attest, is that science bumps up uncomfortably against areas of worldview and identity for people. The world is a big, nasty, confusing place and people build their worldviews and identities in a way that, fundamentally, tries to make them feel safe, even if it is a very weird and convoluted safety. For example, conspiracy theorists, whatever their theory of choice, want to believe that someone is in control. The idea that violence or disease or natural disaster just happen, is intolerable. Far preferable that a malevolent and powerful group somewhere is in charge than we being hostages to fortune.
And this is even harder than empathy for confusion, because it does not require a shoveling on of better explained facts, or more facts. It requires the mindset of a missionary instead of a teacher and it is a very different mindset. Its also a mindset that makes many scientists uncomfortable. Science isn't a religion, it isn't faith, it's fact. Facts exist whether you want them to exist or not. But science is increasingly touching areas of our lives that are not experienced as fully rational, where strong beliefs are preexistent and the science communicators job is no longer to make clear something that was not thought of or not understood, but to modify or replace beliefs. And it is a much longer process.
I feel it is important to note here that science communicators should also be aware of where to stop. There is a fine line between teaching scientific truth and teaching your world view. Most of the time I have seen science communication blow up is where that line is crossed. For example, please, by all means explain the correct mechanisms for evolution and the strength of evidence we have for it. The minute you say "See? You don't need a god to make this work after all" you have lost any ground or good will you may have gained.
I think we could borrow a bit from missionaries, modified to our needs. One of the classic techniques for missionaries is to talk to people, and begin from their starting point. The missionary can then more easily lead in small steps to the point where the next step is faith or not faith. I don't see why would couldn't develop a similar method for science communication where the problem is not information but belief. Again, using evolution as an example. Starting with something close to home (antibiotic resistant infections), moving further afield to elephants losing their tusks as a defense against ivory poaching, to dogs from wolves, making the gradual transition from 'microevolution' to 'macroevolution' to a final understanding that it is all just 'evolution'. But again, changing beliefs is not fast. It requires investment.
So, what is it that I am trying to say? Are we doing science communication badly? Should we stop doing it unless we can be just great? NO. By no means. What I am saying is that we already have a community of science communicators who are really good at what they do. Dr Skyskull has a great blog for weird physics, occasionally cats and horror. Myles Power has a bunch of great videos largely debunking bad science/logic in a fairly respectful manner even if his language is a little coarse to american ears. JimTheEvo has a really cool series on infection, evolution and human history*. My point is that we can be even better. Maybe by focusing our audience, maybe just by being more thoughtful. I think it might be time to move to the next level.
*I know they are all males. The women scientist blogs I read are less explaining and more linking to it things people would know. Powered by Osteons does a great job pointing out where bioanthropology intersects popular culture, for example.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
Women in Science Part 2
In part one, I told my boring story of how I got into science without anyone telling me I couldn't because I was a girl. I wanted to put my story out there not as a "See? It's not really a problem. These people are exaggerating" but to show that this huge, widespread problem doesn't have to be. I didn't grow up in some science or feminist utopia. I know one other woman made it through college with a science degree without anyone telling her she couldn't, and she was homeschooled by two engineers. We shouldn't be the outliers. We shouldn't be considered lucky for having been encouraged or at least not actively discouraged. We should be in the majority, with those who were discouraged the outliers who ran into the few bad eggs.
And it's a big problem. I've heard the horror stories, seen the surprised looks when students walk into my classroom and see me, a woman, standing up there ready to teach them. I've had female students come up to me at the end of the semester and tell me how happy they were to have a female teacher, because they are interested in physics but were afraid that we were all, their words, "men or old cranky spinsters". But it is honestly shocking to me that there are so few women in my classrooms, or that I would have to serve as some kind of female-breaking-into-science role model. Am I in a 21st century secular classroom or what?
The problems pop up all over the place. It's not just people with outdated or misogynistic ideas discouraging girls the farther they get in their education. It's the fact that women in science is presented as this new thing, instead of us having been here all along, just kind of hiding. That scientists are socially inept man-childs. That to be a good scientist means having no life outside the lab. The fact that lab equipment is all designed for use by men.
I don't completely know what the solution to this is, either. I know what things should not be included in the solution. Things like telling women scientists to marry starving artists. Yes, this was the advice given to us by the feminist speaker at the Undergrad Women In Physics conference I attended. The logic being that a starving artist would be willing to follow us around wherever our careers might lead, would be willing to take care of the house and any children because they would just be so grateful to be eating. The way to more women in science should not be paved with turning men into Betty Drapers. It should not include pink science sets. It should not including trampling other people and it shouldn't involve superficial changes.
I think a part of the solution needs to be scientists speaking out, not just as physicists or biologists, but as people. Something that nearly scared me off of grad school was the perception that I would lose who I am for that opportunity, and I have heard the same sentiment from the young women whom I teach. We don't want to be pigeonholed as housewives, nor do we want to be pigeonholed as scientists. There needs to be an explicit acknowledgement that you can be a human being with relationships and hobbies and be a scientist.
A trickier thing is to push for more inclusion of women without making their inclusion about their gender. The "we want to make sure we show off the women in our department" mentality is just as insulting (to me) as setting us up for exclusion. Include me because I am a scientist and my work is interesting, and make it possible for me to attend. Don't include me to make quota.
Science, and society, needs to do some soul searching. It is a painful absurdity that half the population is implicitly and explicitly pushed away from making the kind of discoveries that change the course of humanity. How much farther could we be if we didn't waste half of our intellectual resources? Scientists want to show that science is the way forward for humanity, they need to start proving that they aren't willing to leave half of us in the dust.
And it's a big problem. I've heard the horror stories, seen the surprised looks when students walk into my classroom and see me, a woman, standing up there ready to teach them. I've had female students come up to me at the end of the semester and tell me how happy they were to have a female teacher, because they are interested in physics but were afraid that we were all, their words, "men or old cranky spinsters". But it is honestly shocking to me that there are so few women in my classrooms, or that I would have to serve as some kind of female-breaking-into-science role model. Am I in a 21st century secular classroom or what?
The problems pop up all over the place. It's not just people with outdated or misogynistic ideas discouraging girls the farther they get in their education. It's the fact that women in science is presented as this new thing, instead of us having been here all along, just kind of hiding. That scientists are socially inept man-childs. That to be a good scientist means having no life outside the lab. The fact that lab equipment is all designed for use by men.
I don't completely know what the solution to this is, either. I know what things should not be included in the solution. Things like telling women scientists to marry starving artists. Yes, this was the advice given to us by the feminist speaker at the Undergrad Women In Physics conference I attended. The logic being that a starving artist would be willing to follow us around wherever our careers might lead, would be willing to take care of the house and any children because they would just be so grateful to be eating. The way to more women in science should not be paved with turning men into Betty Drapers. It should not include pink science sets. It should not including trampling other people and it shouldn't involve superficial changes.
I think a part of the solution needs to be scientists speaking out, not just as physicists or biologists, but as people. Something that nearly scared me off of grad school was the perception that I would lose who I am for that opportunity, and I have heard the same sentiment from the young women whom I teach. We don't want to be pigeonholed as housewives, nor do we want to be pigeonholed as scientists. There needs to be an explicit acknowledgement that you can be a human being with relationships and hobbies and be a scientist.
A trickier thing is to push for more inclusion of women without making their inclusion about their gender. The "we want to make sure we show off the women in our department" mentality is just as insulting (to me) as setting us up for exclusion. Include me because I am a scientist and my work is interesting, and make it possible for me to attend. Don't include me to make quota.
Science, and society, needs to do some soul searching. It is a painful absurdity that half the population is implicitly and explicitly pushed away from making the kind of discoveries that change the course of humanity. How much farther could we be if we didn't waste half of our intellectual resources? Scientists want to show that science is the way forward for humanity, they need to start proving that they aren't willing to leave half of us in the dust.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Women and Science Part 1
There has been a lot of very good discussion lately on how women are treated in our society. It's a discussion that needs to happen, though it's a terrible shame people had to die for it to happen. The discussion has been going on long enough now that it has started to group off into subgroups a bit. One of the discussions on my twitterfeed for the a few days was about how women still face discouragement when they try to enter STEM fields, with women sharing stories of subtle and not so subtle prejudice.
It's a discussion that I could probably be expected to enter. On paper, I look like the right kind of girl to have experienced this kind of thing. I came from a strongly religious background, I went to a small high school and a Christian college, entering a field with some of the worst male/female ratios. Someone somewhere along the line should have told me I shouldn't go into physics, right?
Fact of the matter is, no. No one in my life ever told me I couldn't do science. I had a handful of people tell me I couldn't be a pastor because I was a woman when I thought that was what I was going to do with my life (oddly enough, one of them was a chemistry teacher). But no one ever said or implied that I couldn't do science because I was a girl. Through my entire growing up, I was given the opportunities and encouragement to explore whatever interested me. The fact that I landed in science feels less like "I beat the odds! I am woman, hear me roar!" and more like "I followed my natural inclinations and talents and this is where I landed".
Though I am nearly 100% certain this was not their intention, my parents gave me what, in retrospect, was a fairly gender-neutral choice of toys growing up. I had baby dolls, a toy kitchen, dress up clothes and play make up. I also had a big bucket of blocks, a wooden train set, an erector set, an a tool belt with kid-sized real tools. I got a microscope and an EZ Bake. If I expressed an interest in something, they got me books on the subject or took me to the library and helped me find what I wanted using the card catalogue or the computer*.
So I read mystery stories, fantasy stories, books on bugs, plate tectonics, and anatomy. At my grandma's house I read the encyclopedia, I experimented on one of her many spider plants, I cooked weird things and found out what was inside bath beads. For a science fair my dad helped me build a contraption exhibiting different types of levers ending in connecting a circuit with a ball bearing and lighting a small bulb. He explained the physics of musical instruments and other things. No one ever told me that I shouldn't explore any topic I found interesting.
In school, I will admit science education was a little haphazard. On the bad side of things, my seventh-grade science teacher was actually qualified in english, not science, and we learned more about his college hockey career and the three types of rocks he could pronounce than we were supposed to. He thought the preserved frogs we were supposed to dissect smelled too bad and left them to soak in buckets of water over spring break. That wing of the school was unusable for a week after spring break since it turns out that when you wash the preservatives out of dead frogs and leave them in a 90 degree classroom, they rot pretty quickly.
But my high school physics teacher was a legend in my school. Physics had a reputation for being an easy class compared to the other sciences taught at my high school because he didn't believe in busy work (which the biology teacher was famous for). He had two classroom spaces that had been joined together into one mega-classroom, one half having a traditional lecture set up and the other half having lab tables. Everyone knew he kept a tea kettle and a hot plate in his backroom, because you could hear the kettle whistle 15 minutes into class time.
He was a brilliant teacher. He had a very simple philosophy--if you wanted to learn, he would spend hours with you, working on a single topic until you were solid on it. If you didn't, he wouldn't heap worksheets on you--you just had to take your D and not complain. He would lecture for the first 15 minutes of class, pause to get his tea, come back and answer questions we had articulated in the meantime, then set us free to the back tables to work on problem sets. We could ask him questions, and he would guide you to the answer while never giving you the answer. When you were done, you could do anything that wasn't disruptive (a small group of us worked on the NY Times crossword with him). He worked on a budget of pretty much nothing. The books were 20 years old and falling apart, and he had only one working set of equipment for each topic, if that. He improvised, he used youtube videos, anything to get his point across. He convinced me that no matter what else I wanted to do with my life, I wanted to study physics.
Sidenote: As a testament to how great a teacher he was, even among the students he failed, the legend/myth grew around him that when he retired, that science wing of the school would fall. We turned out to be half right--the year after he left they discovered they needed to retrofit that wing for asbestos before they could finish an expansion of the school, and that part was indeed destroyed.
In college, the physics professors were indeed mostly male, but we had almost 50% female physics majors during my years there (we had a minor celebration when we realized at one physics department tea time that there were more females than males there that day). My professors were never anything but supportive of the young women in their classrooms, all without making us feel like a special class of citizen. The only questioning of my abilities that I ever got was with regard to my ability to lift heavy things. But since I'm 5' 1", I can't say I really blame them, even if I did prove them wrong.
I did research with a great professor who guided me from the student-who-takes-orders stage to being in charge of his labs and coordinating between members of the project. I learned valuable skills in macgyvering lab equipment, finding what you needed in odd places and managing people. I never felt like a second class citizen. I was a physics major. The fact that I was a woman meant that I could go to the Undergraduate Women in Physics conference, but had nothing to do with my intelligence or my prospects. They were excellent role models, as physicists and as citizens.
Strangely enough, the first time I encountered anything that I could have construed as sexism with regards to my being a physicist was after I had already been in grad school for a semester. I just laughed in the commenter's face. It seemed so anachronistic. It was ridiculous, a weird joke. But no, they were serious, and far from alone in their opinion.
So, that's my story. A non-exciting story of how a young woman faced no opposition when she set her sights towards science. A story that I wish were commonplace, and I hope I can help make unremarkable.
*Yes, I know how to use a card catalogue. I don't know if that shows my age or the slowness with which my town adopted computers in the libraries.
It's a discussion that I could probably be expected to enter. On paper, I look like the right kind of girl to have experienced this kind of thing. I came from a strongly religious background, I went to a small high school and a Christian college, entering a field with some of the worst male/female ratios. Someone somewhere along the line should have told me I shouldn't go into physics, right?
Fact of the matter is, no. No one in my life ever told me I couldn't do science. I had a handful of people tell me I couldn't be a pastor because I was a woman when I thought that was what I was going to do with my life (oddly enough, one of them was a chemistry teacher). But no one ever said or implied that I couldn't do science because I was a girl. Through my entire growing up, I was given the opportunities and encouragement to explore whatever interested me. The fact that I landed in science feels less like "I beat the odds! I am woman, hear me roar!" and more like "I followed my natural inclinations and talents and this is where I landed".
Though I am nearly 100% certain this was not their intention, my parents gave me what, in retrospect, was a fairly gender-neutral choice of toys growing up. I had baby dolls, a toy kitchen, dress up clothes and play make up. I also had a big bucket of blocks, a wooden train set, an erector set, an a tool belt with kid-sized real tools. I got a microscope and an EZ Bake. If I expressed an interest in something, they got me books on the subject or took me to the library and helped me find what I wanted using the card catalogue or the computer*.
So I read mystery stories, fantasy stories, books on bugs, plate tectonics, and anatomy. At my grandma's house I read the encyclopedia, I experimented on one of her many spider plants, I cooked weird things and found out what was inside bath beads. For a science fair my dad helped me build a contraption exhibiting different types of levers ending in connecting a circuit with a ball bearing and lighting a small bulb. He explained the physics of musical instruments and other things. No one ever told me that I shouldn't explore any topic I found interesting.
In school, I will admit science education was a little haphazard. On the bad side of things, my seventh-grade science teacher was actually qualified in english, not science, and we learned more about his college hockey career and the three types of rocks he could pronounce than we were supposed to. He thought the preserved frogs we were supposed to dissect smelled too bad and left them to soak in buckets of water over spring break. That wing of the school was unusable for a week after spring break since it turns out that when you wash the preservatives out of dead frogs and leave them in a 90 degree classroom, they rot pretty quickly.
But my high school physics teacher was a legend in my school. Physics had a reputation for being an easy class compared to the other sciences taught at my high school because he didn't believe in busy work (which the biology teacher was famous for). He had two classroom spaces that had been joined together into one mega-classroom, one half having a traditional lecture set up and the other half having lab tables. Everyone knew he kept a tea kettle and a hot plate in his backroom, because you could hear the kettle whistle 15 minutes into class time.
He was a brilliant teacher. He had a very simple philosophy--if you wanted to learn, he would spend hours with you, working on a single topic until you were solid on it. If you didn't, he wouldn't heap worksheets on you--you just had to take your D and not complain. He would lecture for the first 15 minutes of class, pause to get his tea, come back and answer questions we had articulated in the meantime, then set us free to the back tables to work on problem sets. We could ask him questions, and he would guide you to the answer while never giving you the answer. When you were done, you could do anything that wasn't disruptive (a small group of us worked on the NY Times crossword with him). He worked on a budget of pretty much nothing. The books were 20 years old and falling apart, and he had only one working set of equipment for each topic, if that. He improvised, he used youtube videos, anything to get his point across. He convinced me that no matter what else I wanted to do with my life, I wanted to study physics.
Sidenote: As a testament to how great a teacher he was, even among the students he failed, the legend/myth grew around him that when he retired, that science wing of the school would fall. We turned out to be half right--the year after he left they discovered they needed to retrofit that wing for asbestos before they could finish an expansion of the school, and that part was indeed destroyed.
In college, the physics professors were indeed mostly male, but we had almost 50% female physics majors during my years there (we had a minor celebration when we realized at one physics department tea time that there were more females than males there that day). My professors were never anything but supportive of the young women in their classrooms, all without making us feel like a special class of citizen. The only questioning of my abilities that I ever got was with regard to my ability to lift heavy things. But since I'm 5' 1", I can't say I really blame them, even if I did prove them wrong.
I did research with a great professor who guided me from the student-who-takes-orders stage to being in charge of his labs and coordinating between members of the project. I learned valuable skills in macgyvering lab equipment, finding what you needed in odd places and managing people. I never felt like a second class citizen. I was a physics major. The fact that I was a woman meant that I could go to the Undergraduate Women in Physics conference, but had nothing to do with my intelligence or my prospects. They were excellent role models, as physicists and as citizens.
Strangely enough, the first time I encountered anything that I could have construed as sexism with regards to my being a physicist was after I had already been in grad school for a semester. I just laughed in the commenter's face. It seemed so anachronistic. It was ridiculous, a weird joke. But no, they were serious, and far from alone in their opinion.
So, that's my story. A non-exciting story of how a young woman faced no opposition when she set her sights towards science. A story that I wish were commonplace, and I hope I can help make unremarkable.
*Yes, I know how to use a card catalogue. I don't know if that shows my age or the slowness with which my town adopted computers in the libraries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)