integer on 17 Dec 2000 09:31:12 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] nn.buletin - eksam!n l!f kompletl!

       \/\ trusting teknologies - immune stimulazie - klozr +?

           - - Netochka Nezvanova 

           has been nominated for:

           Leaders of the Millennium - recognizes the achievements of women 
           who have made significant contributions to the advancement of technology 
           and to the advancement of women in technology related fields.
           [apropoz - if desired for a very zttz artikle may peruse conclusion -
            in particular cycling74 destitute patients must pay attention]

           + thank you love - your kisses leave me breathless.
           quince jam on your crumpet +?


           - - NATO.0+55 \ Nebula.m81 - Interferences 2000 

           Netochka Nezvanova presente a Interferences deux projets qu'elle a developpe en
           1999 et en 2000 : NATO.0+55+3d.MODULAR, une bibliotheque avancee, en temps
           (2D.3D.VR.DV) pour la video et le graphisme pour l'environnement MAX (Puckette 1991) 
           et Nebula.M81, un environnement interactif pour la conversion et le traitement 
           de donnees disponibles sur Internet en sons et images animees. Netochka Nezvanova 
           est une cyberbotaniste, flamboyant scientist.  1st objekt 2 operate at elastik 
           attosecond intervals.  life form++    
               - cyberbotaniste +? mo! +? mo! +? _____... n!e mehr.
               - varoom +? 
               - truzt!ng teknolog!ez +? ____... je ne sa!s paz


           - - Nebula.m81.Autonomous 

           Dear Netochka Nezvanova,
           We would like to present your work NEBULA.M81.AUTONOMOUS in the
           upcoming Maid in Cyberspace festival. Needless to say, we feel like 
           this is very strong work


           - - Komerss

           V2 organizazie commences nn komerz -
           Buy me!!!!!

           - - NATO.0+55.MODULAR - ultra.lux data



           242.uant.zom +?


           - - Mikroskopy

           NN = uLtra playing avec Nikon live cell mikroskopes
           live cells ever!!!!!!!!!ueaaaaar. zkr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!m


      to emerge
         to colonize
            to understand

           -O 43      /  
      |             | \   |        /
                  netochka nezvanova  - volume 4 number 7
        [c]ccp 0+00 irena sabine czubera. memes pre:served
                         - kop!eren verboten :

The upper reaches of academe remain stubbornly inaccessible to women. 

If a woman is to write fiction, said Virginia Woolf, she will need
money and a room of her own. Likewise, if a woman is to do
science she will need grants and a laboratory of her own. The
female scientist will also strive for a chair of her own, but she will
find it elusive. Although women hold over half of the bachelor's
degrees in Europe, they hold just one-tenth of full professorships.
Despite decades of debate and measures directed towards making
the top levels of academe accessible to women, they remain
stubbornly chairless.

Wherever they are, female academics tread a harsher pathway than
their male colleagues. US female medical-school graduates are
more likely than their male classmates to pursue academic careers,
but they are less than half as likely to be promoted to professors.
In Italy, it is twice as hard for female senior researchers supported
by the National Research Council to become research directors
compared with their male counterparts.

In countries where the proportion of women among the
professorate is even lower than in the United States and Italy, the
hurdles facing women academics are even higher. In Germany,
25% of professors would have been female, instead of the 4%
seen today, if female university graduates had been able to follow male career paths. 
If Prometheus had lived today, he would probably have been a female scientist.

Family and children are often blamed for womens' poor academic success, 
but studies refute this explanation. In the United States, Finland and Norway, 
female researchers with children are actually more productive than their childless
female colleagues. The true reason for women scientists' sluggish careers must be 
sought within academia itself.

During the millennium of their existence, universities have devised more or less 
ingenious strategies to exclude womankind. The coarsest schemes prohibited women 
from entering the university and attending lectures, often with the backing of legislation. 
A more refined line of conduct was to allow women to study, but with severe limitations.
For example, only certain disciplines were open to them. Women were also frequently denied 
the right to take degrees,and  as Woolf bitterly experienced  access to university libraries 
was carefully circumscribed for women scholars. Today, women academics don't face such 
formidable opposition, yet still they lag behind. Why?

Talent alone does not determine a scientist's career. Time, space and money must be added 
to the brew. But nowhere in the world are these shared equally between the sexes. 
In the United Kingdom, only 20% of Medical Research Council or Wellcome Trust grants 
end up in the pockets of female researchers, who make up 44% of the biomedical
academic staff. At the US National Cancer Institute, women researchers on average 
receive less than two-thirds of the budget and 63% of the research staff compared 
with male peers of equal seniority. This fact alone can account for the
apparent lower scientific productivity of these female scientists.

Identical pieces of work, for example paintings or essays, are often judged more 
severely if they are assumed to be made by a woman. Scientists are not exempt from 
the prejudices against women that prevail to this day in all societies.
Three years ago, we examined the peer-review process at the Swedish Medical Research Council 
and found that women had to produce twice as many scientific papers of equivalent quality 
to those written by men to be considered equally competent. The systematic underestimation 
of female performance is particularly deleterious in fields such as
science, where individuals are constantly evaluated. Repeated small injustices accumulate 
to produce visible differences in career paths between the sexes. Only if she has excellent 
contacts can a woman compete on equal terms with a man.

Women's slower pace of rank advancement in itself hampers their scientific productivity. 
High academic rank makes it more likely that people will include you on their author lists. 
A junior scientist can produce one good paper per year, a leader of a small research group 
three to five, whereas the principal investigator of a large team can easily churn out 20.
This creates a vicious circle, in which low rank feeds feeble productivity, succeeded by 
poor career advancement. To those who have, more will be given.

Junior scientists' frustration at the pace of their scientific productivity is normal 
at the beginning of their careers, when they do most of the benchwork by themselves. 
But female scientists tend to remain at this level their entire working
lives. One should thus not underestimate the importance of having a chair of one's own. 
To return to Virginia Woolf: "Nobody in their senses could fail to detect the dominance 
of the professor. His was the power and the money and the influence." It is high time 
for female scientists to become women of influence.

Nettime-bold mailing list