Women in the Newroom, Women in the Schoolroom, Where Will It all End?

Enjoyed Pati Poblete's article today "Personal Perspective: Whither the Woman's Viewpoint?" in the SF Chronicle. It is so true that getting up into management and calling the shots on a news story is rarely a woman's choice. But this is also true, actually much worse, in industry trade press like the computer industry. It's hard to have the dual tech and writers credentials, and keep them current given the levels of stress (work, family, finances) and demands of the business post-bubble. But, as the they said during the Blitz, "We'll muddle through somehow".

I also was asked today privately about an academic's work who happens to also be a woman married to another technologist who does similiar work. The question in a nutshell was "Should she be considered part of his work, or is her work separate"?

Kind of an odd question, isn't it? After all, I haven't had anyone connected to me except for those nine-months (thrice) when I was pregnant. Amazingly enough, ever since my kids were born they have not been connected to me, let alone my husband. So assuming that a woman, just by marriage, must somehow be "part" of her husband's work instead of a "co-worker" is really quite bizarre. But of course, this question is interlinked with Harvard, and we all know what's been going on there. But if everyone is "enlightened" and "talking about it", why does this question keep coming up? Perhaps it's simply lack of disciplined thinking... so let's practice a bit, shall we?

I try not to interlink a woman who's clearly trying to establish her own professional identity separate from her spouse or significant other with her partner. I respect her as an individual. And I respect that man who is a separate person in his career, but a man doing his own thing in his work is kind of a given, isn't it.

Unfortunately, many men aren't aware of how difficult it is for a woman to achieve respectability in a field when she is associated with a strong man in the same field. They assume she's some kind of "weak sister", even if she's head of a department or receives patents or publishes or otherwise demonstrates competence, just because she has also worked with her partner. It's really quite narrow-minded.

In academia in particular, as many readers are probably aware, there is a long and honorable history of women and men working in partnership and marriage on research projects, ranging from physics / astrophysics (my field) to anthropology, with each partner contributing fairly. It's always interesting to see personal relationships intersecting with professional - in fact, sometimes these teams balance and strengthen their talents, and all the rest of us in the field are the beneficiaries of the works stemming from these collaborations.

In other words, sometimes spouses just really enjoy working with each other, and find they do great work together. Don't you work best in a friendly and honest collaboration? I sure do. :-)

It's a shame that such associations are viewed so negatively nowadays. It is a great loss when we can't work with the people we like and do best with, simply because of prejudice and envy. Anyone who uses such associations like marriage or personal partnerships, which should be viewed positively and with respect, as a means to attack or undermine the worth of an individual contributor merely as a way to get back at her spouse is despicable. It is a mean and petty act.

There will always be unfairness, but that is also an opportunity for courage - witness Pierre Curie's refusal to exclude Marie from the Nobel prize because she was a woman and women were not awarded Nobels. Pierre said it was dishonest to exclude the primary researcher on this basis. He stood by her and did not allow envy and dishonesty to prevail. She couldn't fight the battle directly, simply because the debate was over what she was and not what she had done. (NB - they would not present her the Nobel as an individual, so he was also named as a compromise, but I have studied his contributions as the history of physics is a hobby of mine and found he guided her on much of her work and was valuable in his theoretical insight. In other words, he was more her unnamed collaborator and probably contributed more as a team member than many named Nobel prize winning male collaborators).

Oftentimes (one sees this in biz all the time) a woman's contributions are viewed as ipso facto below average and reduced in value, where a man's contributions are viewed in like manner as above average and increased in value - both without a fair and balanced review. So I try to view everyone, men and women, as individuals with value and accomplishments independent of others biases or agendas.

And if they are partners, I view them as a team effort, and judge it on the basis of comparison with other teams and what they've achieved. So it works quite well across many different disciplines. :-)

I think this attitude has served me well in leading diverse teams in OS, networking, semiconductors, and Internet companies. You look at what the person has to offer, and understand what you have to give. As an aside, it must be especially interesting at Harvard right now, with Sommers spouting off those women are intellectually inferior arguments. Quite a tempest in that neck of the woods. And an example of sloppy thinking leading the charge here. Yet out of every storm a bit of growth arises. So let's not be lazy. Perhaps evaluating everyone as individuals is a lot more work than just relying on stereotypes and assumptions. But it does make life a lot more interesting and fun.