BU Astronomy has Lady Problem

There hasn't been a single woman graduate student entering the astronomy department at BU since the fall of 2011. That class had one woman. She left after the first year to go be with her boyfriend. My class entered in the fall of 2010; there were 9 women. Of these nine women, one has left by choice, and four others have been asked to leave. As with UCI, the number of women that are asked to leave is disproportionate. A higher percentage of women leave than men (in my informal tally). Why is that? I don't believe that it's because the women aren't smart enough to get through. There is something systemic going through the department. And now apparently they are raising the minimum physics GRE score to 50%. The argument is that there is a correlation between GRE scores and success in classes, comprehensive exams, and research. But it is fairly well established that standardized tests are biased towards men, and it's a correlation, not exact. I would not have gotten in had that been the cutoff when I applied. However, I have the highest GPA that the BU astronomy department has seen in 15 years. 15 years! I passed the comps on the first try. I have a published paper, and a second one in the docket. If the cutoff had been in place, BU would have missed out on an excellent student. After a rocky start at UCI, I have excelled at BU. I wish they would be able to see past the test scores, etc. and not be so rigid about this. This policy will continue the trend of not having any women in the department. The few that do get in notice that there aren't very many of us. I'm not going to lie if I get asked about it. This is bullshit and it cannot continue. Either BU will have to change its policies, or they can deal with the consequences.

It concerns me that I know lawyers that don't seem to understand the Constitution. Well, most people don't seem to understand it. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. As long as the government isn't infringing upon your speech, anyone else is free to tell you you're being an asshole. They're even free to fire you.

Love Is...

Not supposed to be hard. This is not to say that it doesn't take effort to maintain a relationship, but the back and forth, will-they/won't they of movies doesn't work in real life. Rarely do you break up with someone multiple times and still have that person be a good match for you. Generally, you break up with someone for a good reason, and you should never look back. Good relationships should make you the best person you can be, and they should elevate you. They shouldn't make you miserable or unhappy.

I Like Pink. I Like Princesses. I'm an Astrophysicist.

Deal with it.

This video has been getting lots of shares around Facebook, which is not surprising, given that I know a lot of ladies in science:

While I don't have problems with the product, I've been getting more and more prickly about the presentation. See, every time people try to talk up how awesome science is, they have a tendency to put down things like "pink" and "princesses." It makes things that are traditionally "feminine" into something that's bad, like there's something wrong with it. That the ideal state is "masculine." And that's pretty bad, too. And as someone who likes those things, it makes me feel like I'm not a "real" scientist.

I've always been traditionally "girly" and "prissy." As a baby, my mom would try to get me to play in the dirt. I didn't want to get dirty. When I had the ability to pick out my own clothing, it was strictly pink and skirts and dresses until 2nd grade, when I occasionally started to wear stirrup pants and bike shorts under giant, baggy t-shirts(it was the early 1990s; please don't mock my sartorial choices). I refused to wear jeans until I was 12 or 13. When people asked me my favorite color, I would say "Pink, blue is for boys." (I eventually grew out of that, and I wasn't getting that attitude at home, so clearly, there was some socialization going on.)

When it came to toys, maybe choices were less gendered than they are now, but when I was very young (pre-school age) all of the toys my parents had for me were gender-neutral. Legos, train sets, giant colored blocks, this set that you made towers with and then dropped marbles down the track (my mom LOOOOVED the noise that made!). I concede that it is entirely possible that my parents actively avoided the gendered toys, but I have to believe these items still exist for children. There were also toys like Lincoln logs and tesselation blocks, which I wanted so badly but never got. I really liked these toys, but I also really liked playing dress-up in my sparkliest, most princess-y outfits. My mom wouldn't buy me Barbie dolls, although family members did, so they weren't verboten. As I got older, I tended towards these more feminine toys. I had a lot of barbies and barbie accessories (including Disney princesses!), American Girl dolls, and one of my favorite games was Pretty Pretty Princesess.

Despite all these gendered toys that I preferred as I got older, I still managed to do science. We had elementary school science fairs, and my projects in 5th and 6th grade were pretty kick-ass. Ask me about my 6th grade project on the fat content in ice cream. I was doing extremely sophisticated sampling for a 6th grader. Even though I didn't play with "science" toys, my parents still encouraged me to keep up my interest in the subject, while simultaneously not keeping me from the more "girly" things that I enjoyed. I think that's what's missing from the discussion. Rather than discouraging girls from liking pink and princesses, we should let them know that it's ok to simultaneously like math and science. This requires parental guidance, but I'm guessing that the people who are buying their kids educational toys and who are interested in these issues are able to put that kind of effort in their parenting. There's really no need to put one thing down to build something else up. Just keep an open conversation with your kids about these issues, and they'll turn out fine. And if it turns out they like princesses AND science (or even just princesses), they'll know that there's nothing to be ashamed of.

Fuck Everything

Fuck Republicans. Fuck the Tea Party. Fuck rape culture. Fuck victim blaming. Fuck the patriarchy. Fuck misogyny. Fuck classism. Fuck racism. Fuck sexism. Fuck all of the other "isms." Fuck the little asshole football players in Steubenville and Maryville who get away with rape because they're local Gods. Fuck not taking "no" for an answer. Fuck the fact that the government shutdown is costing the people I care about their livelihood. And it's costing me mine.

I Don't Care About Your Food "Sensitivities"

Note: If you have food allergies that can cause death, this does not apply to you. This does not apply to you if you've gone to the doctor and had allergy tests and you have a real food allergy. I understand that those are nothing to fuck around with. This is for the morons that claim they have some sort of "sensitivity" that has no basis in reality.

Here's the thing--your food issues are just not that interesting to me, so stop posting about them on Facebook (and yes, I could just filter things, but this is my blog and I'll rant if I want to). I find that people with genuine allergies don't spend all that much time telling people about them. If it's germane, they'll bring it up, but they don't spend all their time on Facebook detailing the effects of their "sensitivities" on their bodies. If you're doing it at home, it's just as likely that the placebo effect is taking place. You think you'll feel better if you cut out gluten, and then lo and behold, you do! You must be allergic to gluten! And now you're going to tell EVERYONE about how gluten is the devil and if only they'd stop eating it they'd feel SOOOOOOO much better. Yeah...I think you're full of shit.

It's also insufferably boring. Like, don't you have ANYTHING else to talk about? Weather? Politics? No, we can only discuss you're crippling wheat allergy that gives you vague symptoms. You feel "fatigued." I'm so sure that's the gluten. Try getting more sleep and then get back to me. It causes "inflammation." What the fuck does that mean? No seriously, how can you tell if you're "inflammed?"

In conclusion, I don't give a fuck about your food issues. If you've cooked something interesting, by all means let Facebook know. I love cooking! I'd love to see what you made! But I don't care about how it affects your bowels, your knees, or your overall health. You're probably just making that up.

Proposition 37

As a scientist and a foodie, I am happy Proposition 37 failed. While I understand that the campaign against it was funded by Monsanto (a company with policies I would consider questionable, at best), it was not a good proposition. The argument for it was funded by an anti-vaccine nut, and the parallels are obvious. Study after study has shown that GMO foods are no different than "regular" food (and I put regular in quotes for a reason), however the argument says that just because we say something's safe now doesn't mean it's actually safe. Scientists don't speak in absolutes, which is frustrating to the public and leaves room for them to grab on and present a counterargument.

Now, what exactly is the difference between GMO food and what we consider "regular" food? a few dozen years. Much of the food we eat has been genetically modified in some way or another--that's what cross-breeding is. Why is your tomato uniformly red, rather than tasty? They were bred that way. Tomato breeders found that certain tomatoes turned red more uniformly, and genetically selected those. Those tomatoes have a genetic mutation that we've selected for. We also do the same thing with pest-resitant crops. In the early days of agriculture, our ancestors would notice that some crops just weren't tasty to bugs, and select for those. How is that different than finding a gene that makes our plants taste icky to bugs and inserting it straight in the DNA? It's the same process, just quicker. I'd rather that than ingest questionable amounts of chemical pesticides.

That's my scientific reasoning, but I'm also interested in food and the quality of my food, so I do understand why people are against Monsanto. Monoculture is highly damaging to the environment, and the way our food is treated is terrible. Unfortunately, there are too many people on this planet for everyone to eat organically and locally. And while you can argue about overpopulation and how the best way to handle it is, the reality is that right now we have 7 billion people to feed.

Mark Bittman and Michael Pollan argue that if only people knew what they eating and how bad it was for them they would shop solely at the farmer's market, eat only locally sourced, organic food, and spend time crafting home-cooked meals for the whole family to eat together. This is just not realistic for many people. It's hard for me, and I have the luxury of money and time. My farmer's market is on Thursday afternoon until sundown, and only runs from June until October. I have to plan ahead and leave work earlier than usual. In the summer, that's fine, since the sun sets late here in Boston. Come October, it's a no-go. For a person with a desk job, that might not work. And then there are the food deserts. Some people don't even have a reasonable grocery store, much less a farmer's market. Some people work two jobs and don't have time to cook. Yes, it might be cheaper in the long run to make home-cooked meals, but you don't account for the time it takes. That's time someone could be getting paid.

We need to seriously think about how we use our resources in the United States. If you really want to fight Monsanto, we need to entirely overhaul agribusiness. If we stop subsidizing corn and soy, food prices across the board will go up. The price of food in other countries is significantly higher in other countries than it is in the US, which I think many people here are unwilling to pay. Yes, let's educate people about food, but let's also make it easier for people to make good choices. Let's address the growing inequality between the rich and the poor so that everyone has the opportunity to eat in a sustainable manner. Let's all eat more vegetables and less meat to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses produced. We need to change the way we think about how wasteful we are as a country, not just when it comes to food but in regards to everything. Do you need a new car every year? A new iPad? New clothes that you're going to toss after three months because they're no longer "in style"? Addressing these questions is hard, and won't be fixed by slapping a vague label on a can of spaghetti-o's.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject, if you're interested:
GMOs are OK
Why Activists Need to Stop Stoking Scientifically Baseless Fears About GMOs for Political Purposes