On gender stereotypes, rocket science and the f-bomb

Rocket scientist dies. NYT obit leads with her cooking skills, husband and kids. Oh just fuck off. nyti.ms/13GUqax HT @stevesilberman
— Ed Yong(@edyong209) March 30, 2013

The above was retweeted by someone I follow this afternoon, and I was interested enough to follow the link to see what the minor uproar was about.

Reading the obituary, I learned a great deal about the contributions to engineering of rocket systems used in satellites and space missions made by an engineer who happened to be a woman. As so often happens when I read obituaries, I was a little sad that I did not know more about Yvonne Brill's accomplishments during her lifetime, but I do feel enriched by having learned something about her life and work.

Of course, the reason that the obituary was pointed out by Ed Yong was because it leads (lede? I'm not a journalist.) off with a stereotype of a women as a cook and mother. I take Yong's outrage to be that because this was first in the article, it must be assumed that we are to think that Brill was foremost a mother and wife and secondarily, therefore lesser, a scientist or engineer.

When people I respect link to other people that I don't follow on twitter, I do want to take them seriously. On the other hand, I have hesitations about engaging with people dropping f-bombs. The chance that the issue raised is too likely to be emotionally charged that I have a hard time judging rationally the actual content of the article.  In this case, I had to reread the article three times so that I felt I could honestly evaluate the problems with this article.

Here's the introduction to the obituary:

She made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband from job to job and took eight years off from work to raise three children. “The world’s best mom,” her son Matthew said. 

But Yvonne Brill, who died on Wednesday at 88 in Princeton, N.J., was also a brilliant rocket scientist, who in the early 1970s invented a propulsion system to help keep communications satellites from slipping out of their orbits.

Is there a way that it could have been written to be less offensive?  Let's try this:

She made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband from job to job and took eight years off from work to raise three children. “The world’s best mom,” her son Matthew said.   

Yvonne Brill, who died on Wednesday at 88 in Princeton, N.J., was a brilliant rocket scientist, who in the early 1970s invented a propulsion system to help keep communications satellites from slipping out of their orbits. 

That's better.  There's no need to include words like "but" and "also" when we're talking about people's career versus personal life.  The distinction should be obvious to any reader.

Can we make any other improvements?  What if the order of the first two paragraphs were switched?

Yvonne Brill, who died on Wednesday at 88 in Princeton, N.J., was a brilliant rocket scientist, who in the early 1970s invented a propulsion system to help keep communications satellites from slipping out of their orbits 

She made a mean beef stroganoff, followed her husband from job to job and took eight years off from work to raise three children. “The world’s best mom,” her son Matthew said.

I personally feel the argument that starting with the cooking and family life details is implicitly misogynistic to be a little weak. I had to read the article multiple times to make sure I wasn't missing something more than the opening paragraphs. By my count, 16 of the 22 paragraphs were about Brill's work, including being a woman in a male-dominated field. Is she not also entitled to be remembered for what she was like away from the office? By simply reversing the order of the two first paragraphs, the implicit framing of Brill as woman first, scientist second is removed, no doubt.  For me, that's enough to justify a claim that the obituary could have been better written.

But, can we take the outrage down a few notches?  Reading through the conversation following Yong's tweet, it seems that there is a "you're either with us, or you're against us" mentality. No doubt, there are some who just don't get what the outrage is about. Are we trying to raise awareness about how profiles of scientists can be framed in potentially harmful ways, or are we just looking to have outrage for the sake of outrage?

For me, I learned about the life work of a person I had never heard of, and I am grateful I now know a bit about her. But, it was also a reminder why I'm skeptical of emotionally charged tweets. In this case, I clicked through, and was please to learn about Brill. I might have just as easily decided to skip the article because of the language in Yong's tweet.  Frustrated or not with gender stereotypes, I don't believe that the science community is necessarily always better off with outrage as the default reaction.