Skepchick Presents: A Conversation with Dr. Eugenie Scott (Part 8)

Sam Ogden, contributing writer for the wildly popular skeptical blog, Skepchick, sits down with Dr. Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education for a conversation about the NCSE, the evolution of the creationist movement, women in science and skepticism, and more. Part 8 covers gender representation in rationalist circles.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• science
• evolution
• Skepchick
• Eugenie Scott
• Sam Ogden

[TheStann]

Damn, the pc police are all over this comment section.

[Katalyzt]

★★★★★

[fil512]

It's probably a cultural thing. Things might be different in Texas, but where I'm from, there are as many, if not more, female scientists than male ones, and to draw attention to a scientist's gender only reinforces the "societal biases" infidel speaks of.

For me, a non-sexist interview would have interviewed Genie without drawing attention to her gender at all.

But I respect that in Texas, a female scientist might be a novelty and so it wouldn't appear sexist to draw attention to her gender.

[OwOwYoureOnMyBrain]

Well, there is a statistically confirmed bias towards men actively participating in science. I think Sam is doing the right thing by saying "Hey, we need more great female scientists like Eugenie Scott to help the field; let's find out from someone with first-hand experience how we might do that."

Anyways, I really liked the interview and am glad to see it up on YouTube. Though I'm not so much for Scott's pragmatic accomadationist stance, I find her to be a wonderful and inspiring scientist.

[CousinoMacul]

Are you (Sam & Rebecca) going to put all these videos into a playlist? I think that you should. That way they'll play sequencially, and you'll even get embed code so that you (or anyone else) can put the whole playlist up on their blog.

[tehinfidel]

Sam is very obviously attempting to glean from Genie, a female anthropologist, ideas as to what inspired her to pursue science, which is relevant to his work at Skepchick of empowering women and engaging them in critical thinking and science.

Seriously, some people go so far out of their way to be offended that they miss the big picture. Wallow in indignation all you want, but denying that there are pre-existing societal biases with which Skepchick has to compete for attention is ineffectual.

[fil512]

Sam,

Your intent was not sexist. I just found some of your questions sexist. Like (my praraphrase):

"I don't have a concept of what it would take to inspire a little girl."

"Boys get excited by rockets, dinosaurs, dissections, lasers. Is there a whole other set of items like that that appeals more to little girls? "

"I saw some kids come into the museum this morning, and of course half of them were little girls, and it seemed like it engaged them really well"

"...your female role models

[SamOgdenHou]

You're kidding, right?

I'm a contributor to the Skepchick blog. Go check it out. It's geared toward promoting science and skepticism among women. In this part of the interview we're discussing the fact that so many more women are entering fields of science and skepticism these days, and touching on ways to continue that trend. Where is the sexism?

[leporidus]

Funny, I take Sam's stance as an antisexist one.

[fil512]

I appreciate what the interviewer's trying to do. But I just find his sexism a bit too hard to swallow.