Reply to comment

you know, actually, flora's most surprising statistic was one of the ones that surprised me not at all - i've encountered this phenomenon and i agree with this study's suggestion that women, although they publish slightly less (not a very statistically significant difference, actually), are cited far more often because each publication is so much broader (and probably more likely to be right).  the most surprising thing for me was (pg 67) the bit about people leaving science after having female advisors.  one of our very recent search candidates raved about having a female advisor for the first time, and said that her mentor was inspiring and comforting and pretty much exactly what she needed.  on the other hand, after some thought, i can see how, if your mentor doesn't have the life-outside-of-science that you want, she could be discouraging, too.what worries me most is still the glass ceiling.  i've heard peter beckmann ramble about it for four years now, and i finally have a clear understanding of what it means - in 1995, assistant professors were 30% female, associate professors were 20%, but full professors still below 10%.  in physical and mathematical sciences, we still hadn't hit 5%.so, women can do science but only up to a certain level?  THAT'S terrifying to me - in the same way that the fact that i can name a dozen male physicists in two minutes and only one woman (um, liz, does emmy noether count?) scares me.  when i was little and i lived in south america, i didn't understand why i had red hair and nobody else did.  i had no visual role models, besides my mom - unless you count the little mermaid.  i know this is a silly example, but it's legitimately scary to have no idea where your path leads, no-one to look up to and follow, no one to get ideas from.  we, as women scientists, look up and see a great expanse of thick glass, and on the other side, only men, schmoozing with famous people, using citations from our careful work to advance their agressive careers. that's creepy.