Subject: Stereotypes
Date: Jan 6 08:27:45 1995
From: "Michelsen, Teresa" - TEMI461 at ecy.wa.gov



On the subject of stereotypes w/respect to birding populations - having
posted one of the earlier comments, I would still agree with the concern
over stereotyping. However, it should be kept in mind that most stereotypes
exist because they have some basis in fact. For example, it is a fact that,
societally speaking, women conduct most of the child-rearing activities, and
it is also a fact that women and minorities have (as a group) a lower
average income. These two facets would tend to make these overall
populations less available for expensive leisure activities. However, it is
certainly inappropriate to apply these trends or generalizations to any
individual, since there are certainly women (myself included) who do not
fall into these categories and it also follows that men who have lower
incomes or who spend a lot of time on child care may also have difficulty
achieving expert status in birding.

Being a woman in a relatively high-powered science environment for most of
my career (Caltech, MIT, UCLA), it has been interesting to watch the changes
in these institutions (especially Caltech) as women have become a greater
part of the populations there. For all the talk about stereotyping, there
are real differences (I believe) in our ways of approaching scientific
thought. When I was an undergrad at Caltech, women were just becoming a
significant part of the student body. Interestingly enough, a few years
later a major curriculum review was conducted and they found that they
weren't adequately serving the needs of biology students and other natural
sciences. It's interesting to note (though not widely discussed at the
time), that women at Caltech were entering those majors in far greater
numbers than engineering, math, or physics. The curriculum was changed to
include a greater number of courses that were relevant to these majors. I
have found my approach to science to be quite intuitive and visual, unlike
many of my male colleagues (and my brother and husband), who are more
engineering-oriented and tend to rely more on mathematical and logical
concepts in pursuing their work. Again, there are obviously those men and
women who do not fit these characterizations, but I have seen it so many
times over the years that I don't think it should be discounted as purely a
stereotype. I believe that both approaches to science are equally valid
(the *best* scientists appear to be capable of merging intuitive and logical
thought), but that most scientific disciplines are slow to realize the value
and contributions of intuitive and creative thought processes.