
The Finkbeiner Test: A Tool for Writing About Women in their Professions - m-ou-se
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/2017/10/26/the-finkbeiner-test-a-tool-for-writing-about-women-in-their-professions/
======
rayiner
Where this discussion gets confused is that it fails to recognize that there
are actually two different issues and two different kinds of articles at
issue. To make the discussion neutral, instead of women in science let's talk
about startups. There are many (but at least two) kinds of articles about
startups. Ones that focus on the technology, and ones that focus on the "human
interest" angle. There are articles about Tesla that focus on the limitations
of cameras-only versus LIDAR. And there are articles about how Tesla is racing
against much bigger and established competitors like Toyota and Volkswagen.
The latter kind of article is not a diminution of Tesla's technology, but
rather one that focuses on an entirely different sort of topic that might
interest readers for different reasons.

There is nothing illegitimate about these human interest articles. Succeeding
as a women in a male-dominated profession in fact presents real and unique
challenges that merit writing about, just as succeeding as a startup in a
field dominated by entrenched incumbents presents challenges worth writing
about. Where articles about "X in science" get in trouble is that (1) people
care a lot more about the human interest angle than about the science; and (2)
journalists aren't up front about what kind of article they are writing, or
are themselves confused about what kind of article they are writing.

~~~
gms7777
I agree, and I think there is definitely space and a need for "women in
science" articles, because there are topics that are of particular interest
for women in science. The issue that the author is pointing out is that it
seems like when it comes to female scientists, it seems like _every_ article
about female scientists is written from this "women in science" perspective.

~~~
rayiner
And I think that is a valid issue. But I think the real answer is,
unfortunately, that people don't really care about science articles. The human
interest angle is the only thing that sells ads.

------
unit91
> Take the things that are said about a female subject and flip them around as
> if they were said about a male. If they sound ridiculous, then chances are
> good they have no business in the story.

Exactly. Every time I read something that fails this test, I can't help but
dismiss it as identity politics. If somebody does great work, let's praise the
performance. All this focus on male/female, black/white, rich/poor, etc. only
creates an environment where people can't think straight about the issue at
hand.

~~~
crooked-v
To me, this sounds like an excuse to pretend that systematic inequality
doesn't exist, and thereby imply that not being able to rise above it is a
personal failing.

~~~
mieseratte
To me it sounds like you don't like anyone who dares challenge your personal
orthodoxy.

~~~
dang
Personal attacks will get you banned here, regardless of how wrong someone
else may be, so please don't post like this to Hacker News.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

(Incidentally, no one likes anyone who challenges their personal orthodoxy,
and we all have one.)

~~~
mieseratte
Writing off folks opinions as "just an excuse" is rather insulting, impolite,
and antagonistic.

That I had the audacity to directly call out that behavior instead of coaching
attacks in vague language is the only difference here.

By your own, cited guidelines

> Please don't use Hacker News primarily for political or ideological battle.
> This destroys intellectual curiosity, so we ban accounts that do it.

This whole conversation is off-base. Consistency in the application of rule
would be great. This seems like the exact kind of situation that calls for a
detach / remove.

------
ggg9990
Another thing I’ve noticed is articles using large headshots of women for
companies where they could use product photos. With men it’s much rarer...
they even prefer to run cheesy graphics of “AI” instead of headshots.

~~~
ghostbrainalpha
That's true, but now your pushing into the territory of marketing.

When you are making compelling images to attract attention its more about
creating an effective advertisement than a political agenda.

~~~
ggg9990
I'm not talking about the companies themselves... but media outlets who don't
have a responsibility to market the companies they're covering.

------
xamuel
As a male scientist with a family, I wouldn't mind if someone wrote news
articles about my work and mentioned I'm "a loving father of two" or whatever.
Just as long as it doesn't dominate the whole article and distract from the
actual science. A family is something to be proud of!

------
notadoc
Interesting. It's notable that you read the exact same type of statements
emphasizing masculinity when an article mentions a male who is a nurse,
teacher, veterinarian, yoga instructor, social worker, or any of the other
professions that are dominated by women.

Perhaps it's that, when someone does something slightly outside of the norm or
expectation, that becomes a notable storyline or contextual reference.

~~~
solipsism
True, but it's still worth asking whether that practice is harmful to the goal
of increasing gender diversity in these fields.

This could even be discussed without ratholing on whether or not this is a
worthy goal.

------
AdmiralAsshat
Worth looking at this article that includes embedded tweets of mock bios for
men written in the fashion bios tend to be written about women:

[https://www.sciencealert.com/someone-on-twitter-is-
writing-a...](https://www.sciencealert.com/someone-on-twitter-is-writing-
about-male-scientists-as-if-they-were-females)

------
DoreenMichele
_“Jill makes a fantastic role model…because she is married, has two children
and has been able to keep up with her research.” It’s hard to imagine anyone
saying this about a scientist named Bill._

I'm actually cool with the Finkbeiner Test being a thing. But I will note that
there are reasons such things get talked about.

I was one of the top ranked students of my graduating high school class. With
having also been State Alternate for The Governor's Honors Program -- a live
in summer enrichment program for the gifted -- I was one of the best students
in my entire state. And I turned down a National Merit Scholarship, attended
the local college for a bit, quit school and spent a couple of decades as a
full-time mom and homemaker.

I spent a lot of years trying to figure out why I failed to get the two career
couple lifestyle I fully expected when I first got married. There were a lot
of factors there, but a lot of it is rooted in old fashioned gender roles.

I'm handicapped. This is a contributing factor to my lack of a real career.
But Stephen Hawking was also seriously handicapped. He had a real career.

I have two special needs kids. So do lots of men with serious careers. When
there are special needs in the family, it is typically some woman who ends up
with the task of dealing with it.

I was a military wife and the entire military structure is rooted in a
historical expectation that men are soldiers, they are heterosexual and have a
wife at home and she is largely doing the homemaker thing and supporting his
career. This actually works fairly well in many ways -- until you get divorced
and find you have no references for a resume because you have little work
experience, you moved around, you didn't keep in touch, etc. Meanwhile, the ex
still works for the government doing similar work to what he did when he was
active duty military and his finances are just fine, judging by the big house,
new wife, nice vehicles, etc.

So part of why we mention those things is because a lot of women -- me
included -- sit around wondering "What the hell do I need to do different? Is
it just not possible to be married and also have a serious career as a woman?
How does this work?" So it's valuable information to know that, yes, there are
married women with actual careers. And then the next question is "So, okay,
what is different about their marriage compared to mine? What do I need to
change here if I am ever going to stop being a second class citizen?"

And that's not something you really want to ask personal acquaintances. That's
a good way to find yourself blacklisted, so to speak. So we go searching
articles and hoping for crumbs of clues.

------
throwawayjava
_> For instance, in a profile of biologist Jill Bargonetti, The New York Times
quotes one of Bargonetti’s colleagues saying that, “Jill makes a fantastic
role model... because she is married, has two children and has been able to
keep up with her research.” It’s hard to imagine anyone saying this about a
scientist named Bill. The story’s subtitle piles on, reinforcing the
stereotype that women are nurturing and selfless with “A Biologist’s Choice
Gives Priority to Students.”_

The paragraph hits on so many ways in which the popular (press) conception of
science and academia is toxic, and sexism is only one part of that toxicity.

Yes, the disparity in how female scientists are described in a problem. But
that fact that these attributes are absent from descriptions of male academics
is also troubling. How are there so many profiles of _Professors_ that don't
mention teaching or mentoring even once?!

When new phd students ask for advice on choosing a Ph.D. advisor, I give them
three strictly ordered criteria:

1\. Is this person a good mentor? (Where are their former students? Do those
students speak positively _and also candidly_ about their advisor?)

2\. Does this person have a work-life balance? (Family? Intense hobby? Good
friendships outside of the department? Encyclopedic knowledge of their
favorite TV series? An inappropriate percentage of their net worth invested in
cars/wines/whatever? Literally, _any_ non-trivial time invested in something
other than work most weeks.)

3\. Are you excited about the research agendas that they currently have
(relatively fresh) money to explore, and do you think this person has the
expertise needed to help you push those agendas in the way you want?

Those three questions, _in that order_. If you can't find someone who meets
some minimum reasonable threshold for all three, maybe consider expanding your
research interests or finding a new department.

Profiles of male academic scientists should go beyond individual contributions
to discuss teaching/mentoring and work/life balance. After all, it's a profile
of a _person_ who is a _professor_! Teaching/mentoring is a _huge_ chunk of
the job, and the person is more than their work.

If there's nothing to say about the person other than some brilliant results?
If their former students resent them and their family life is in shambles?
That's a tragic personal interest story. If the person has a normal
relationship with their students and a normal personal life? Then there's no
personal interest story at all and the article should maybe just talk about
the results instead of profiling the person.

------
abalashov
And yet, anyone assuming this position might be wise to ask themselves
whether, if the suggestions were actually implemented, many women would be up
in arms about a _lack_ of special recognition of their gender-distinctive
qualities, "doing it all" and the rest.

I'm sure I'll be downvoted, but I'm coming from a place of sincere
intellectual commitment to this concern. There is a rift among the feminist-
minded about whether women should be "neutered" in this way in our
observational language. The way this polemic shakes out overall seems to be
opportunistic; sometimes women receive distinctive treatment, when it's
convenient, and other times not, when it's (reputedly) oppressive.

~~~
1auralynn
Many ambitious women want recognition, period, not to be asked about their
clothes, husband, etc. Articles that focus on those things might get more
views, which I think is the more interesting thing to discuss.

Speaking as a woman, I'm pretty sure you're wrong that other women would be up
in arms if there were more straight-up articles about womens' achievements.

~~~
abalashov
I can only speak from anecdote, but, being of academic social background, I've
known many women — some of impeccable "culturally liberal" credentials — who
would and do say things like:

"But all they did was talk about her work, and left out the obstacles she's
had to overcome to achieve it!"

There are even those who would, from a more niche women's studies angle,
critique a strictly work-substantive biography for the "masculinised"
psychological priorities it reflects and that it fails to capture the "unique
female experience" or what have you. These are usually allied to the folks who
bemoan the "medicalisation" of pregnancy by male technocrats, and with it the
suppression of ineffable qualitative experiences of femininity that come with
pregnancy and giving birth.

These are real things. The matter of a reasonably universal and inter-
subjective conception of gender equality is unwieldy.

~~~
dang
Please don't take HN threads on generic ideological tangents.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
abalashov
Sorry, that really wasn't my intent. I thought it to be germane to the issue
at hand, though of course, the issues raised by the article participate in a
larger ideological nexus.

~~~
dang
I believe you. It's just that we have a lot of experience with these tangents
where discussions become both more generic and more ideological. If you
imagine a 2x2 matrix of those variables, that's the flamewar quadrant.

~~~
abalashov
That's hard to argue with, because it's undeniably true. :) I'll be more
careful.

------
nuclearburrito
This is why I hate identity politics and why I believe all jobs for a given
role should pay identically. Men/women are created equal but different. Praise
people for their merit, not their sex. I know women who can run circles around
men in coding and sysadmin work. I sometimes have to remind myself that I'm
working with a woman when we're sat together working on something. I just tend
to notice that this person is smart, often smarter than me in a given area,
and I can learn. One of my favorite team leads is a woman from Ethiopia.
Smart, pretty, funny, able to handle the BS some of the guys give her. The
guys quickly realize she's better than most of them and they defer to her
where her knowledge exceeds their own. Let's be honest, it's refreshing to see
women excel in an area where men are usually dominant, and let's not forget,
programming in the beginning years was mostly women.

I'm attempting to teach my own teenage daughter some programming basics, not
to get her into the industry, but to show her cause and effect, abstract
thinking, building something from nothing, critical thinking, etc.

~~~
rayiner
> Men/women are created equal but different.

Identity politics is a reaction to people who say stuff like that.

~~~
viridian
It's not society and nurture stopping a woman from deadlifting 800lbs, or a
man from breastfeeding. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

My girlfriend and I were just talking about how it's pretty unfortunate that
there are basically no top level female smash players, but the fact is that
reaction time is such a huge advantage that only a fraction of a percent of
men can perform at the top level, and the female bell curve just doesn't
stretch that far. The opposite is true for some traits as well, like top
percentile flexibility.

~~~
tptacek
Well, what's stopping men from deadlifting 800lbs? Because only a tiny
fraction of men can deadlift 600lbs (the women's deadlift record), let alone
800lbs.

Will a man hold the deadlift record? Most assuredly. Does this in any way
matter? It sure doesn't seem like it does.

~~~
subjectsigma
People's lives literally depend on whether or not you believe in physical and
mental differences between men and women.

[https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/blog/2012/07/05/get-
over...](https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/blog/2012/07/05/get-over-it-we-
are-not-all-created-equal)

[https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-
not...](https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/09/why-women-do-not-belong-
us-infantry)

[http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-
special-...](http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-special-ops-
should-be-off-limits-to-women/)

~~~
tptacek
Oh come off it. If it mattered to the actual discussion, women serve along men
in the IDF infantry. But it doesn't matter; it simply begs the question.
_Nobody is debating whether peak male lifting performance is better than peak
female lifting performance._ Women are also much better at giving birth than
men! The issue is: why does that matter?

~~~
subjectsigma
I'm not sure if you're intentionally being dense or we're talking past each
other about different things.

1\. Progressive and liberal-minded individuals think that promoting the idea
that there is no functional difference between men and women will help fight
gender inequality but this is not only untrue, it is dangerous. See the linked
articles in my comment; people absolutely are debating this, these people are
driving real policy changes, and you misrepresent them saying they are not.

2\. Part of this agenda is shaming people for treating men and women
differently, like in the OP. In this case they're right to do this, it's not
productive or fair to write science articles about women differently than ones
about men. But in other ways there is definitely a culture being created where
it is taboo to treat men and women differently in any capacity and maybe
that's not entirely a good idea. That's why it 'matters'.

~~~
tptacek
You're pretending to address what I wrote without actually engaging with
anything I wrote. But that's OK, right: lives are at risk!

~~~
subjectsigma
So you are being intentionally dense. I'm sorry I tried.

~~~
dang
Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please don't post like this again.

Also, please avoid name-calling like "intentionally dense", even when you're
not attacking someone specific. It lowers discussion quality and points the
vector downward for others.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

