It would be reasonable to say that the modern world provides women with the opportunities to get involved in practically every sphere of human activities on an equal basis with men. However, there is evidence that today, quite a considerable number of contradictive gender issues exist. In particular, a relevant point is whether to mention a woman’s accomplishments outside work or not. On the one hand, it should be admitted that for females, many kinds of work are more exhaustive and pressing from the physical perspective in comparison with males. The latter ones – in most cases – have stronger bodies and mental resistance, given that these aspects are interrelated. On the other hand, nowadays’ conditions within the given scope are founded on equality. The major part of employment opportunities lies within spheres in which gender differences are diminished in various ways (automatization, gender-equality provisions, statutes, etc.). Hence, if to accept such a reality, the state of affairs in which a woman should be praised at work just for the fact that she is a woman is not appropriate.
Moreover, when it comes to the field of science, emphasizing a prominent scientist, engineer, or mathematician as a woman, wife, or mother does not seem to align with the current principle of gender equality. Given the fact that this is a whole intellectual sphere, the capabilities of males and females are equilibrated to the greatest extent. Nevertheless, it might be assumed that gender peculiarities, indeed, should be taken into account. For example, women should have the opportunity for maternity leave. Still, this is related to the general conditions – that are to be based on respect and adequacy – in which females work. When it comes to the recognition of their scientific accomplishments, the focus must be on the latter but not on various gender characteristics and stereotypes.
Here, it seems rational to note that there have been some cases that draw attention to the described issue. For instance, in her New York Times obituary, Yvonne Brill’s scientific attainments were blurred due to the detailed depiction of her domestic life as a mother and wife (Sullivan). Such an approach was not accepted by the readers, and it was criticized significantly. Indeed, numerous publications on the related themes confirm that the problem “is that when you emphasize a woman’s sex, you inevitably end up dismissing her science” (Aschwanden). It is visible that the issue cannot be neglected, and the scientific community should take appropriate measures constantly.
Thus, the inertia of attitudes towards women still persists; to a large extent, this is facilitated by gender stereotypes or the maintenance of traditional roles in the family. Then, there is the maintenance of the phenomenon of “double burden”, when a woman does two to three times more household work in the house than a man. Also, traditionally, a woman is entrusted with all the responsibilities of caring for and raising children and adolescents. All this creates unequal chances and opportunities for career advancement, full immersion in scientific work. Despite the significant obstacles women have to the public recognition of their scientific contributions, their role in science is great. Differences between men and women in the perception of the world, its functioning and values, comfort, and the need for change will give science more potential if mixed, gender-balanced teams work in science. The equal recognition of their accomplishments will stimulate this process appropriately.
Works Cited
Aschwanden, Christie. “The Finkbeiner Test: What Matters in Stories About Women Scientists?”DoubleXScience, 2013, Web.
Sullivan, Margaret. “Gender Questions Arise in Obituary of Rocket Scientist and Her Beef Stroganoff.”The New York Times, 2013, Web.