Ada Lovelace Day was started a few years ago to celebrate the achievements of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (singular), commonly taken together as STEM fields. Women are underrepresented in these fields, and though there has been progress, it is frustratingly slow. And in this progress, white women are outpacing women of color. It is often thought that we need only wait until the old, white sexists in these fields are replaced by a younger more progressive population, but that expresses a complete misunderstanding of the causes of the disparity. Plus, I can tell you from experience that the younger scientific community still has a long way to go before becoming "progressive" on these issues, women included.
What are some of the causes, if not old white sexists? The Finding Ada site sums it up:
The reasons for this inequality are many, spanning issues such as social pressure on girls and women to pursue “suitable” careers, subtle misogyny in higher education and the workplace, and a lack of support for women who wish to have a family or re-skill when re-entering the workforce after having a family.I agree generally, and though of course old white sexists do have their role in preventing the advancement of women (and not just in STEM fields), I tend to think of it as primarily the result of stereotypes. In cultures/countries where the stereotype that men are better at science and math doesn't exist - such as Italy, apparently - the representation of women is more balanced, or even skewed toward women. However, even in fields like nursing where the stereotype works toward the underrepresentation of men, the representation of men increases as you go up the career ladder (I saw this in a talk so can't reference the data); there is still the stereotype that men are better leaders and managers, which benefits the advancement of men over women even in female-dominated careers.
So, stereotypes are evil and allow people to make mental shortcuts, which affect their judgment even in the face of contradictory objective data (read "Thinking, Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman). What do we do about it? Ada Lovelace Day is about doing something positive by raising the profiles of women in science and stressing the importance of role models. People are encouraged to blog about women in STEM that they admire and participate in various events, online and in person.
But when I think about what inspired me to become a scientist/astronomer/astrophysicist/cosmologist (all of which apply to me, listed in decreasing order of the representation of women), I don't think role models ever played an important role (cheeky wink!) in my career choices at all. Perhaps the lack of female role models never bothered me personally because I was a tomboy and played sports, and if anyone ever said boys were better at something, I would probably reply "nuh uh!" Perhaps it is because I was blessed with the naive sense that I can do anything because I'm good at everything, which stuck with me until grad school. Even so, I remember trying to learn about astronomy in the career center and thinking, "That seems cool, but I don't want to be an astrophysicist, that sounds much too hard." Who knows what having a role model in science could have done. I do remember having a couple of great female science teachers.
After facing the realism in grad school that I'm not better than everyone (and that that's okay, that doesn't make me the worst), I didn't exactly have many female astronomers or physicists to look up to. The lone female tenured astronomy professor in my department was a hard ass that never seemed to support women (or anyone); but I was educating myself about "diversity" issues in science and learned that it's common for older women who achieved success in a much harsher climate to avoid anything to do with "women in science" as a survival mechanism. Plus, the women I saw (and continue to see) invited to give talks at conferences are all too awesome; but this can also be explained by sociological research.
First, girls at various stages in education out-perform boys, even in stereotypically male subjects such as science and math. In college, the representation of women in these fields starts to fall, and this continues to fall at each successive stage (graduate school, postdoc, professor), a phenomenon known as the leaky pipeline. So, first assume that male and female ability is equal (even if there is evidence that girls outperform boys): when women self-select out of the field, either because of social pressure (perhaps seeing chemistry as a more friendly environment than physics) or whatever reason, the women who stay are more likely to be at the top of the ability curve. There is a biased selection effect, something which astronomers should be familiar with. When there are barriers to advancement, the super awesome women make it, while the average men make it, resulting in a pool of female role models that doesn't reflect the average a few stages back in the pipeline. (This is also a reason why striving for a percentage of female invited speakers, for example, that matches the representation in the field (which is less than 50%), is misguided: there is evidence that women are MOAR AWESOME, so invite MOAR WOMEN!)
Secondly, throwing female role models at the problem might not be all it's cracked up to be. I can't find the reference so it may not be true, but I remember hearing that role models can have a negative impact: when the role models are too few or too awesome, it can be hard for younger people to identify with the supposed role model. Perhaps I remember this because I often don't feel awesome and don't see myself in the small pool of women cosmologists who are awesome and give ALL the invited talks. (As I said above, we could do with inviting MOAR WOMEN, not just the big wigs everyone knows about!) But there could be other issues with the role model solution: this study finds that both women and men are equally beneficial as role models for recruitment (contrasted with the benefits of women for retention), and another study "suggests that role models whose success seems unobtainable can make young students feel threatened rather than motivated" (which may support my "role models too awesome" theory). Just being female and being successful in STEM may not be enough to inspire aspiring young girls.
None of this should be taken to mean that I don't support Ada Lovelace Day. It is a great chance to celebrate the achievements of women in STEM fields, and I've learned some interesting things already. But I remain unconvinced that role models are the solution many think they are, both from my personal experience and from a few snippets of sociological research I just dug up and half-remember. And when it is seen as a magical cure-all, it over-taxes the few women who have made it to senior positions in STEM, who, as one male said in a women in science meeting, need to "step up" and take on more responsibility, with no hint of irony at all.
