Add climate change to the agenda during this Women’s Wave

This weekend, women around the world will march in the third annual Women’s March. It will bring diverse women and communities together to push for progressive social change. This is important because women’s rights are so deeply entangled with nearly every other aspect of our lives — including the unignorable climate change.

Women disproportionately suffer from the consequences of climate change. This is because the majority of the world’s poor are women, and climate change especially affects poorer communities. These communities tend to directly rely on natural resources for their livelihood and have few resources for responding to natural disasters [1,2]. Richer countries continue to exacerbate climate change, while poorer ones suffer the most immediate and tragic impacts. At the same time, women are frequently cut off from resources that could help them cope with the effects of climate change and are underrepresented in decision-making bodies that provide opportunities for mitigation [3].

Yet in many cases, women are behind powerful, effective, and equitable solutions to climate change. The podcast Mothers of Invention has turned me onto the many ways in which “Climate change is a man-made problem — with a feminist solution.” In each episode former Irish President Mary Robinson and comedian Maeve Higgins discuss responses to climate change that help counteract the inequitable effects of climate change. More in-depth features of some of these “mothers of invention” can be found in Robinson’s book, Climate Justice: Hope, Resilience, and the Fight for a Sustainable Future.

There are concrete solutions we can adopt to mitigate climate change and its disproportional  impacts. Thanks to the Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), I’ve recently learned about the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, a proposal that was introduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate in 2018, that sets out a plan for addressing climate change in a way that benefits all Americans. Here’s how it works:

  • It imposes a fee on fossil fuels. It starts low (much lower than estimates of the damages fossil fuels incur) and gradually increases. In this way, it incentivizes industry to decrease their reliance on fossil fuels.
  • The government collects this fee and distributes an equal share to all Americans. The government does not keep any of the revenue, which means the government does not expand. It also means that Americans have more money to spend as they wish.
  • Imported goods will also be assessed a border carbon adjustment, and exported goods will receive a refund. This will protect U.S. jobs and manufacturers.

Independent assessments of this proposal have revealed that not only will it be make substantial progress in reducing climate change, decreasing emissions by at least 40% within 12 years. This means it will be good for people, who will benefit from a safer planet and better health and wellbeing.

Since every American will receive the same dividend through this policy, it will disproportionately benefit low-income Americans, as the same sum of money makes a greater impact for people who have less to begin with.

If passed, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act will help prevent extreme climate change without exacerbating inequality. To make sure it is passed, we need to communicate our support to elected officials. The Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL) provides resources to make writing, calling, and tweeting to Representatives easy. If you’re as excited as I am about the bill, you can also join CCL to make sure our country takes this important step forward for the environment, the economy, and social justice.


Cover Image by Mobilus In Mobili, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Women%27s_March_on_Washington_(32593123745).jpg

Advertisements

Do babies matter? A review

I was very excited to find this book by Mary Ann Mason, Nicholas Wolfinger, and Marc Goulden: Do Babies Matter? Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower. The authors deal with the complex and multi-faceted relationship between families and academia in an organized and data-driven way. They use detailed survey information to present the beliefs and career decisions of academics (especially women) at different points of the academic “pipeline,” from graduate students through tenured faculty members and how these relate to two of the most typical milestones for family formation: marriage and childbearing.

images

As a married female graduate student who loves much about academia and also hopes to raise kids eventually, this book’s agenda is important to me. After reading the book, there are a few undeniable takeaway points:

  • Women, especially at the earlier stages of academic careers (PhD students and postdocs), are more likely than men to perceive raising a family and obtaining a tenure-track faculty position as incompatible goals.
  • Academic institutions lack flexibility that exist in other professional fields like law and medicine like alternating between full- and part-time work or taking maternity and paternity leave after a birth. Even when academic institutions do have these policies, people often do not know about them or are hesitant to use them because of their associated stigma.
  • Women (and especially mothers) are underrepresented at the top of the academic career ladder.

There are lots of injustices in the world, and academia is not immune. Whether we want to or not, humans have subconscious biases, and these biases take a ton of work to overcome. Bringing awareness to discrepancies is a crucial step toward eliminating them, and this book does a great job of doing just that. There are a few recurrent underlying assumptions, though, that didn’t sit right with me as I was reading this book.

  • Tenured faculty is the ultimate goal. For many grad students, this is true. In fact it is a waste of a graduate education if the recipient is not going to remain a competitive academic researcher. In a paragraph about how “Many of our best and brightest young people are rejecting careers at research universities,” the authors write that “The United States cannot afford to lose many of its best researchers and thinkers, scholars who will eventually train the next generation. And these talented young scholars should not have to forsake careers for which they have already invested many years of their lives.” If PhDs take jobs outside academia, the United States is not losing them at all. Their training isn’t going to waste, it’s just going to a different use than many people assume it is “supposed” to go to. Not to mention, many people don’t look at getting a PhD to be career training in the sense that getting a Nursing Degree or even a Master’s Degree is. You do a PhD to gain experience, thinking, communicating, innovating, and answering nearly intractable questions. Academics love to say that you don’t get a PhD to get rich (though a job is pretty universally expected at the end).
  • Correlation and causation… There are times when the authors do remind us that statistics don’t allow us to make causal claims, but other times when the authors seem to forget that crucial notion. Comments like “Marriage also leads women to leave the labor force. Compared with an unwed woman, her married counterpart is 28 percent more likely to not work.” It may be true that marriage is the reason these women leave the labor force. Or perhaps women who leave the labor force have more time for dating and get married at higher rates (that’s fairly ridiculous, but technically possible based on the statistic). Or perhaps there’s some underlying personality difference between women who choose to get married and to stop working and those who don’t, a hidden variable responsible for the different work behaviors that isn’t marriage at all, but instead tracks with marriage. What if marriage is so fulfilling and stabilizing that women decide they don’t need to keep working at jobs they’ve hated?
  • Women and men have the same career goals and desires. This follows from the assumption above. Men and women are biologically different. It’s a good thing, too, because that keeps humans on the earth. These biological differences are pronounced in parenting. I don’t doubt that dads and moms can love their kids equally, but women carry the fetus for 9 months, give birth, and often feed the baby milk from their own body. As they’re raising a human being (or multiple humans, as is often the case), women may decide that their former jobs don’t provide the same meaning that parenting does. They may cut back on work or cut it out entirely, and this might be a great thing for many women. It is a luxury to be able to make this choice. And in some families, it may be the father who makes the choice and the mother who continues to work, but I don’t think that biology has set us up for that to be the majority choice. The statistics about women who remain in R1 (top research) faculty positions and those who take less demanding roles or stop working altogether are presented as proof enough that women are underachieving because of families. If it is a genuine choice that a woman makes to prioritize family over work, isn’t that quite an achievement?

Crucially, it needs to be possible for women to be successful researchers, wives, and mothers if that’s what they want. I believe that is the authors’ motivation, and they give suggestions for ensuring this possibility. But women who leave the pipeline shouldn’t be considered failures, and their decision should not necessarily be chalked up to injustice. It’s a really messy issue, but it won’t get better unless we keep talking about it as this book has successfully prompted many to do.

Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science

I recently discovered this Science article: Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science, which reports a study that improved women’s success in a college physics class using a very simple affirmation exercise.

Image: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2013/08/24/olin-college-class-of-2017-women-in-stem/
Image: http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2013/08/24/olin-college-class-of-2017-women-in-stem/

There were 339 students in the study (both genders). Half were to write about their own values like friends and family (the values affirmation task), and the other half wrote about other people’s values (the control group). They only did the exercise twice – once at the very beginning of the 15-week course, and once a few weeks into the course, before the midterm.

These graphs show their results:

Graph A shows the overall scores when all tests are averaged together. In the control group, men far outperformed women. In the values affirmation group, however, the difference between the two groups was much smaller. Graph B shows the scores just on the end of the semester exam: this graph that shows that among the students who performed the values affirmation task, women actually scored higher than men, whereas the men still outperformed women in the control group. Notably, men's scores do not change depending on the group they're in.
Graph A shows the overall scores when all tests are averaged together. In the control group, men far outperformed women. In the values affirmation group, however, the difference between the two groups was much smaller. Graph B shows the scores just on the end of the semester exam: this graph that shows that among the students who performed the values affirmation task, women actually scored higher than men, whereas the men still outperformed women in the control group. Notably, men’s scores do not change depending on the group they’re in.

Why did the value affirmation task only improve females’ performance? The authors claim that the value affirmation task protected women from the common stereotype that they’re not as competent in STEM fields as men. I guess that would mean that men didn’t improve because they weren’t facing the psychological threat of the stereotype to begin with. It seems to me that the link between a cultural stereotype and writing about one’s own values would be pretty weak – the two seem to be only distantly related, so I’m still skeptical about their explanation.

It also surprises me to see such a difference between women who completed the values affirmation task and those who did not because the control task was actually very similar. The students in this group still wrote about values, but they were someone else’s values instead of their own. The take home message is that resiliency against a stereotype is bolstered only by reflecting on our own values.

These results suggest that a simple task (they only completed the values affirmation writing task twice) can have huge effects on women’s ability to overcome a stereotype (the article also cites other similar studies that have successfully explored a similar task with other populations who are likely to feel burdened by stereotypes). Could a simple psychological intervention really shape the demographics in STEM fields?