Science

Skepchick Quickies 3.04

Amanda

Amanda is a science grad student in Boston whose favorite pastimes are having friendly debates and running amok.

Related Articles

12 Comments

  1. The “avoid masturbation” link got me thinking; I think I’ll try being “master of my domain” until I find a new job. Like a hunger strike. Except repressing a different function of the hypothalamus. I think it’ll be an interesting experiment.

    I won’t be turning to religion, or anything silly like that. I’ll just… give it up, cold turkey, and see how long I can last.

    Starting tomorrow, of course.

  2. "6. If the temptation seems overpowering while you are in bed, GET OUT OF BED! Go into the kitchen and make a snack, even if it is in the middle of the night, and even if you are not hungry."

    I wonder if the list on controlling binge eating suggests that you masturbate to take your mind off food.

  3. The Mormons got it all wrong.

    I present you with: "Resisting the Urge: A Guide For Christian Boys"

    (and no, it's not a guide to *get* christian boys, for you priests who may wonder)

  4. Well, thanks for that, it was a good laugh, I thought it was worth reposting it :-)

    Besides, now newcomers don't have to go back there necessarily (a masturbation free week? that's just awful! ;-)

  5. Re: women "opting out" of science careers

    An excellent article. There was however no mention of the recent stats on women scientists leaving the NIH over similar social stressors.

    The practice of science today is more servitude rather than the pleasure advancing knowledge. Particularly in the medical profession, it also doesn't pay well to be a clinician-scientist. Often one's job is on the line in a publish or perish environment. The competition to get grants is fierce with limited source of funds. The peer review process over accepting publications is often quite harsh and can make or break a person's career. I am a physician and the vast majority of women physicians (and men) I know would rather become a private practitioner rather than face the social and economic pressures of scientific research.

    To pursue a career in science 24/7 requires an inidividual who is so dedicated that he/she is willing to even sacrifice the desire for family. It is someone who can take the rejection of initially not getting published. It requires financial sacrifices (ie. if you have kids don't expect to pay their way through Harvard). It requires years of work to achieve that golden moment when you become "tenure".

    The big question is whether this restrictive system is fair? Does the end product of quality science justify the means? Is it egalitarian? Are the social and economic pressures patriarchical manifestations? Is there a better (and perhaps more enjoyable), fairer means of enabling a person to pursue a career in science and enjoy other dimensions of life (ie. family)?

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close