Thursday, May 31, 2007

No Surprises Here....

The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Sixth Level of Hell - The City of Dis!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

LevelScore
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)High
Level 2 (Lustful)Very High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)Very High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)Very Low
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)Low
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)Very High
Level 7 (Violent)Moderate
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)Moderate
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)Low

Take the Dante's Inferno Hell Test

First seen at Addy N's.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Hungry for Equality - Two Debates about Single-Sex Events

A debate from last week:

Each year, we hold a women's research symposium on our campus. This event has been going on for some time and has been quite successful. There has been a call to open the event up to males - with a suggestion that the event is a type of reverse discrimination. We have no similar event for males or for the entire faculty. The nominal leader of the group of women running the event asked the women faculty listserv (you are signed up when the ink on your contract is dry) what we all thought of this.

The correct answer was not, apparently, what I said. I tried to open a structured dialogue. I asked some questions. One question in particular that everyone ignored was "Are there goals of the symposium which would not be met by opening up the symposium to men?" Several e-mails came back. At least a few were angry. One even used ALL CAPS for some points. Can I just say how fond I am of people YELLING AT ME via e-mail? In the end, my attempts to bring a discussion together failed miserably.

I have participated in many female-only events that encourage female participation in math and science. I've done this because it is the case that significant inequalities persist that result in discouraging girls to pursue SEM fields. In other cases, I gravitate towards moving single-sex events to all-inclusive events, such as Dr. H and I did with our co-ed bachelor/bachelorette party. I thought perhaps a discussion on the listserv would help suss out our views on the subject. Turns out, everyone had already made up their mind. I could summarize it as follows: One group (humanists) said not understanding the need for this event was like putting one's head in the sand and and denying the need for affirmative action. The other group (social scientists) said "We're scientists, not women scientists." I was the only natural scientist naive enough to enter the discussion.


A debate from many years ago:


I received my Ph.D. at an R1 with a large and vibrant Expanding Your Horizons program for middle school girls. This program encourages girls to continue to take math and science in high school. Over 300 girls participated each year. Dozens and dozens of postdocs, graduate students and undergraduates worked hard to pull this event together each year - from coordinating promotional materials and sponsors to developing science workshops to shuttling groups of girls around campus. The number of women-hours put into this was huge. Every year, the question about inviting boys came up - because the women who want to help girls succeed in science are the same women who are concerned about equality and fairness. These same women all saw the value of a single-sex event. My favorite quote: "Girls need to see that women who look like women they know do science."

Finally, after much debate one year, a woman said something like this: "Look, this comes up every year. The truth is female postdocs and grad students on this campus put in countless hours of planning and preparation for this event. Some have the support of their advisors, some don't. The take time aways from their research to do this because this issue is very important to them. They have experienced sexism. They have withstood attempts to discouraged them from pursuing science. So, I say if the male grad students and post docs want to run a workshop for boys, let them. We'll even help." In my recollection, there was no further discussion that year, or the next.


Technorati:

Just a piece of advice for daycare providers....

When you wish to give a parent advice about how to handle their child's tantrum, do not start the conversation with "Have you seen Nanny 911?"

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Real Climate

I love the site RealClimate. RealClimate is a group blog by a group of climate scientists for journalists and the general public. It offers much more than sound bites, and covers a range of topics. Recently, they put up a new post/site feature entitled Start Here with a lot of links to basic information about climate change. It looks to be a very good resource, with suggestions for complete novices to those wanted really technical information. I teach about climate change in some science classes for non-science majors. As I am not a climate scientist, I am often in need of technical information to answer student questions. I often have trouble finding this information in simpler sources intended for a general audience, and I also have trouble digging it out from more technical sources. More often than not, I find the information at RealClimate.

Today, they also have an interesting post about temperature changes over the last 1000 years.

Monday, May 28, 2007

Satisfaction

Heard on NPR's Hearing Voices today...

How to described the sound of Mick Jagger's voice?





The first bad thing you did that felt good


Oh yeah.

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Gender Bender

Recently, my son said "Mommy, I wanna wear the kitty underwear!"

By kitty, he meant the Hello Kitty (TM) girls underwear purchased for my daughter.

I paused for about three seconds. Then I cheerily said "Sure!"

I'm not proud that I paused. I think pink is for girls is a silly and unfortunate rule. I think it is silly that toddler underwear is gendered at all. Moreover, I have no problem with crossdressing - or behavior or dress that crosses gendered lines. Really. Reversed gender roles are quite common in our house and among our coupled friends. Androgyny, especially in dress, seems popular among our friends as well. And we have a friend or three who crossdress on occasion. One of my favorite comments at a party held by us was: "He wears those with the panache of a man who's worn garters before." But I digress.

So, back to my son. I do not really have a problem with him wearing girls underwear. But still, I paused. Why? Is it just overwhelming social conditioning? Am I giving myself too much credit to hope that part of the pause was practical - I mean, perhaps I was concerned that we have a limited amount of kitty underwear? After all, if both kids want to wear it we'll run out faster. But alas, I probably cannot let myself off that easy. I am pleased to say that we now have plenty of kitty underwear to go around. Also, as luck would have it, my daughter now wants to wear the choo-choo-train underwear. (Thomas, nominally for boys, in case there was any doubt.)

The vast majority of the differences I see in my son and daughter, I believe are due to them being totally different people. Maybe some of it is gender, but I don't know how much. Little, I suspect. I do think a fascinating question is this: To what extent do the genders differ, and how much is DNA and how much is society? My husband even does research on such things.

Where my children are concerned, I would like them to grow up in an environment where their genes/inherent personalities are allowed to express themselves, and are less burdened with societal-enforced gender roles. Given that we live in a society where children are bombarded with gendered messages constantly, what can I do? Having a girl and a boy at the same time helps. All toys are everyone's toys at this stage, so there is no problem. As they get older, this will be more problematic, especially where gifts are concerned. My hippy sister-in-law and I get along in part because I am the relative that buys her daughter cars instead of dolls. Gifts from her are no problem. But what to do about my mother?

Case in point: When my twins were about 5 months old, Dalton was trying out yelling while throwing things from his exersaucer.

My mother: He's such a boy! From the moment he was born....

Me: What do you mean?

My mother: Well, Dalton has always been loud. Much louder than Curie. You know, yelling like a boy, right from the beginning.

Me: What are you talking about? He was quiet. His cries sounded like "La La La". Curie, now she demanded attention, loudly. Forcefully, at the top of her lungs: Whaaa!

My mother: Really? Well, I seem to remember Dalton being the loud one.

Me: No [then to myself only: No no no no NO!]

Now, I have my own faults in this regard. We have some gender specific clothes. Curie has long hair and shoes with butterflies. Dalton has short hair and shoes without butterflies. The hairstyles seem to suit them, the shoes fit, and their father has long hair, so I'm cutting myself some slack here. But, I'm going to try my darnedest to burden them with little more than butterflies.

The recent brouhaha over The Dangerous Book for Boys has certainly got everyone riled up. I don't even know where to start, but here is a "for" from Tertia and an "against" from Raising WEG.

Me, all I have to say is "No no no no NO!"

Hopefully, no one will buy it for Dalton for his birthday. Just something with kitties.

Monday, May 21, 2007

Losing My Religion

I remember the exact moment it happened. The moment I realized that I believe there is no God. It is a moment in time I can pinpoint exactly - but it is also a long story that ironically, starts with conception.

My mother was 25, unmarried and catholic when she became pregnant with me. My mother is not a hypocrite. She did not think premarital sex was wrong. She did not think she had done anything wrong. So, she never, ever said she had done anything wrong. She did not want me to believe I was wrong, so she never let anyone say anything of the sort in front of me either. So, from the beginning, I was to view Catholicism as having rules that it is okay to break in some cases. Birth control - no problem. Premarital sex - fine as long as you love the person. It was more important to be nice to people and not hurt others. Hell? Well, it was for people who did really bad things.

So things were all well and good until I had to start participating in a real way. My biggest problem: Confession. I was a very good kid. Really. I'm not making this up. My mom says so. In any case, confession was a problem. What had I done wrong? I was an only child, so fights with siblings were a no go. I pretty much did what I was told. To come up with something to confess, I'd have to exaggerate things. Things like "I got mad at my mom when she said I could not...." This puzzled me though - doesn't everyone get mad sometimes? And I wasn't really all that mad. I needed something to confess, however, so I had to go with it. A few words, three Hail Marys and I was good to go. But I didn't really feel good. If I could have confessed to exaggerating in confession, something I actually did feel bad about, perhaps I would have been forgiven and felt better. In any case, my six year old brain had trouble with the whole idea.

I also had a lot of trouble with the stories in the bible. God asking people to sacrifice their children to him? Men having children with their servants just because their wives had fertility issues? Do the servants have a say in this? A god who wants to be worshiped? Isn't such a god suffering from pride, one of the seven deadly sins? Original sin? That doesn't seem very fair. Why is knowledge a bad thing, anyway? Such questions plagued me. Nothing made any sense.

We moved around a lot when I was younger and eventually, my mom fell out of the habit of going to church. My stepfather wasn't crazy about the Catholic church for various reasons, and we never were in one place long enough to become part of a congregation. My dissatisfaction with Catholicism and what I perceived to be inconsistencies in religion in general continued. Eventually, I figured I was a deist. Like Thomas Jefferson. Or perhaps agnostic.

I went to Catholic church once during the first few weeks in college. I'm not really sure why. I was curious. I left early, finding the experience - once so familiar - alien. I settled on agnostic. I was uncomfortable when people suggested I was an atheist. I was uncomfortable when my mother lamented that she had "let me down" by never arranging to have me confirmed in the Catholic church. I was uncomfortable when no one understood what agnostic meant. Sometimes I still called myself a deist. I was uncomfortable that no one knew what that was either.

I went to a college that focused on science, math and engineering. However, I took a lot of classics courses to meet humanities distribution requirements. In one of my classics courses, some questions came up regarding the plethora of minor spirits - nereids, niaids, dryads, oreads, etc. - basically the various types of nymphs and similar entities in Greek Mythology. "You have to understand," said my professor, with considerable passion "to them, everything was engodded." He meant this in the paganistic sense, of course, and it stuck with me for some time. I returned to it often, as this idea is fairly central to understanding many classical myths and stories.

Sometime later, while still in college, I was off somewhere standing near the top of a hill. The sun was shining and from where I stood, I could see trees, bushes and grass. Birds and a few insects were flying around. It was not an incredible view, just an ordinary, yet pleasant one. At that very moment, the ideas we discussed when studying mythology came back to me. And I saw it. I absolutely saw the trees and the grass and everything as engodded. Or, at the very least, I understood how a people could come to such a belief. And at that precise moment, when the paganism of ancient Greece made perfectly clear sense to me, and I may have even believed it for a moment, all religions became myth.

There was no turning back - something had fundamentally changed. I felt the loss of the belief system tied to me by my upbringing, but the loss seemed natural and inevitable, and I did not mourn. I was relieved. There were no more inconsistencies to ponder, no more problems defining who I was or what I believed. My former views were like remnants of dreams - those shadowy memories that float away as consciousness returns. I've come to realize that what I lost at that moment was not a belief in god, just my belief that I believed.

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

While Dr. H. was away....

Recently, I picked up the kids from preschool while Dr. H. was out of town. Some tears ensued upon reminding them where Daddy was. Everyone calmed down, and off we went. After 5 minutes in the car, my son started crying again.

Me: Dalton, are you sad because you miss Daddy?

Curie: No, Dalton's crying because Daddy is at a conference.

Saturday, May 12, 2007

Existentialism....hmmm.,,,

You scored as Existentialism. Your life is guided by the concept of Existentialism: You choose the meaning and purpose of your life.



“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does.”

“It is up to you to give [life] a meaning.”

--Jean-Paul Sartre



“It is man's natural sickness to believe that he possesses the Truth.”

--Blaise Pascal



More info at Arocoun's Wikipedia User Page...

Existentialism

100%

Hedonism

95%

Utilitarianism

65%

Justice (Fairness)

60%

Kantianism

45%

Strong Egoism

40%

Nihilism

20%

Apathy

20%

Divine Command

0%

What philosophy do you follow? (v1.03)
created with QuizFarm.com


First seen at Better Living Through Chemistry.

Sunday, May 06, 2007

The Value of Sabbatical

A senior colleague recently remarked that it must be so distracting for me to be at a university for my sabbatical. This comment was made to another colleague of ours who is of more recent vintage.

Younger colleague (YC) was appropriately shocked by his (SC's) comment. She (YC) asked what he meant. SC said all the group meetings and seminars must be distracting! YC set him straight, but she and I both found the attitude so odd. It is also not clear that SC was convinced.

To provide some context: my college is your standard small regional liberal arts college - sabbatical U is an R1 with fabulous research support. Obviously, the context is important here. At SLAC, I have a relatively high teaching load. This is typically something like 3 lectures 2 labs per semester. The exact lecture/lab ratio varies somewhat, as does the load between terms within but this is a good approximation. We have almost no tech support, so lab prep is also faculty responsibility. Research, then, takes a back seat to teaching during the academic year. While some time can be carved out for ongoing research, the truth is that the majority of this is done in the summer. For me, it is very difficult to initiate new projects in the small amount of time available in the summer.

Here's what I've found to be the true value of a sabbatical leave for me:


  1. Exposure to new ideas

    Seminars and group meetings have been excellent opportunities to hear about what is going on in my subfield. We have only very sporadic research seminars at my SLAC. These are graduate school recruiting seminars and are rarely related to my subfield of study. At Sabbatical U, with frequent colloquiums and seminar series, there is no problem finding something relevant to attend. In fact, Sabbatical U has a biweekly interdisciplinary seminar series in my sub-sub-subfield. This series is narrowly enough defined that I'm sure it would be of little interest outside the target audience. In fact, the title of the series made YC laugh when she heard it. However, it is directly relevant to my research.

    Most seminars I've attended have given me at least one idea to use in research or teaching. So I guess they are distracting, but in a good way.

    I also have a budding collaboration with a seminar speaker. Though this was not originally in my plans, it has set me off in a new and exciting research direction. This kind of serendipity is priceless.

  2. Time to read, talk, listen and discuss

    Working with people in the same research area has been a great way to learn new techniques, consider new approaches and get excited about science again. This is perhaps a no-brainer, but coming back after being out of the environment so long makes the contrast obvious. Sure, at my college we may discuss current literature in seminars occasionally, but these discussions are almost never relevant to my research. On the other hand, papers discussed in group meetings at Sabbatical U. usually are. Being in close proximity to other researchers allows me to "think out loud" and try out new ideas, and gives me immediate feedback and often very helpful advice. Having more time to devote to reading the literature has also been a luxury.

  3. Time to think

    This is perhaps the most important thing for me. Having no teaching responsibilities this semester beyond picking textbooks and similar administrative tasks for the Fall has left me with much more time on my hands. Of course, this gives me a chance to actually make progress on the projects I am working on. However, the focused time to think - really think - about new ideas and directions has been the most refreshing thing. Sure, sometimes people get good ideas as epiphanies that just come to them. But, it seems that ideas flow much more freely for me when my brain is not focused on, say, my class prep for tomorrow. Instead, my brain has time to synthesize ideas from the paper I read this morning, the seminar I heard yesterday and something the grad student sharing my lab said twenty minutes ago. This I was not expecting, because it is hard to imagine synthesis happening until it does.

Of course, YC and I both realize that some group meetings and some seminars turn out to be unproductive. But, this is the price for the productive ones. One just hopes the ratio of productive to unproductive is suitably high.

YC and I discussed SC's comment. Considering it in his context is helpful. His last two sabbaticals (at least) involved preparing something specific related to teaching. In both cases, he had a well defined project and knew 95%-100% of what he needed to to implement it. His goals did not include working out plans for research for the next X years, as mine do. In his case, he believes that going to seminars would have taken away some of what one might call his "production time."

In my case, I needed time to work on research projects. I also needed to learn a few new techniques to stay current in my field. But, none of this would truly make a difference in my professional life if I don't have new research ideas that might be publishable. Thanks to my sabbatical leave, I think I do.

Friday, May 04, 2007

Hey, focus on your own family. Thanks.

The House has passed a hate crimes bill. I'd be excited if it weren't for the lack of a veto proof majority (212 is a long way from 290). The Time's one line summary:

The bill, extending “hate crime” protections to include sexuality, is likely to face a veto from President Bush.

The usual suspects are up in arms. You know, people who focus on other people's families and women who are concerned about other's peoples sex lives.

In any case, this makes me want to share two completely unrelated thoughts:

1. A great book for kids discussing all kinds of families is Todd Parr's The Family Book. Actually, I like quite a bit of his stuff including The Peace Book, The Mommy Book and The Daddy Book. Some time ago, I introduced my much-more-hippie-than-me sister-in-law to his books. Unfortunately, this resulted in us both buying The Peace Book for the daughter of a second cousin. But I digress. These are great books for encouraging tolerance.

2. On a totally different subject, it's Leather Pride Week in Sydney! Blogthings knows this, apparently:

You Belong in Australia

Ace!
Sunny, upbeat, and cute
You make the perfect surf bum
Now stop hogging the vegemite!

Overheard - Tales from Undergraduate Life

On Sabbatical U's campus:

Female student on cell phone, slowly:

"I mean, they have to realize that my abilities will be, well, drunk - very hungover."

I didn't know abilities could get hammered. Good to know.

Male student, talking to friend:

"I looked at the clock and thought...hmmm, eleven-fifty - I *could* go to my English seminar, but then I don't care. More sleep."

Wednesday, May 02, 2007

About Facebook

So, I have somewhat recently succumbed to the Facebook phenomenon. It happened like this: I needed a picture of some cool science-y thing I did with the students for a presentation. I'd heard that one student had put the pictures up on Facebook so I join ed to see her albums. I sent her a message asking for permission to use a few pictures. At once, several students added me "as a friend on Facebook". In any case, this continued and I now have a number of student friends.

I have elected to stay on Facebook for the time being to see how it goes. One nice thing: I recently was added as a friend by a former student (now in grad school) so I now know what he is up to. Another "grown up" friend sends me links to disturbing science You Tube videos via my "Wall". Anyway, I see the usefulness.

I also see what my students are doing instead of doing their homework.

More specifically, I've seen how often they update their status as well as how often they change their profile pictures and write on one another's walls. I assure you it is often. Very often. So, under the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" philosophy, I wonder about using it in teaching. I'm thinking about creating a class group for one of my smaller classes (where everyone is already on Facebook) to see how it might be useful. I've used regular e-mail, formal listservs, blackboard and the like with mixed success. Perhaps there will be an advantage here in that the students are already using this particular implementation of technology all the time anyway. In this article, José Bowen likens using Facebook for class networking to showing up for dinner in the students' dorm - regular e-mail is more like asking a student to come to your office hours. I like the contrast here - why not meet them where they are?

I am not so worried about them doing Facebook in class, as this group tends to put their laptops and cell phones away when class starts. There was a post about this issue at Learning Curves recently, and an interesting piece in the Chronicle in January. I am worried about it in larger lower division classes. Lucky me though, I have all small classes next semester.

Everyone's doing it