Token women?

Our School has just introduced two new policies regarding the gender balance of seminar series. Firstly for our two main seminar series (one given by externally invited speakers, one by internal speakers) over any year, the list of speakers is to include at least 30% female, 30% male (our gender balance in the department is about 30% at postdoc level, less than this at faculty level and more at PhD). Secondly, any scientific meetings hosted by the SChool should have both male and female speakers (unless this is a very small field and people just aren't there).

A female colleague mentioned that she was thought this was a strange thing to do, as she didn't see how the organisers of such series or meetings had the power to ensure the gender balance is met.

I disagree - it may mean looking a bit harder for female speakers, but in principle certainly for seminar series in our field it is relatively easy to do.

The more complex argument is whether this is the start of quotas for women at various things. We already have some of these imposed by the university - e.g. on interview panels. The school is aiming to have female representation (in the spirit of enhancing diversity) on the main strategic committees and promotions committees. Hence I find myself on two new committees this term. Some would say I was there as the token woman. I have indeed felt resentful of this in the past. But I have a new motto:

"Just because you start as the token woman doesn't mean you have to stay one"

I figure that without women in senior leadership positions, the battle for increased diversity (which has a strong business case) will never be won. So my goal is to learn from and contribute to these committees where I can, and if I really feel that there is no sense for me being on one other than being female, I will say so and resign. Perhaps this is overly naive and aspirational since I haven't yet attended any of the meetings, but it can't hurt to start like this.

To pour or not to pour?

Last night a group of 7 female lecturers and senior postdocs went out for some celebrations following my promotion to professor. The group included both UK and international scientists, 2 lecturers (with varying experience), 1 reader and 1 professor (elect) and 3 senior research scientists who don't have a teaching role. There were many interesting discussions, both work related and otherwise. However, one that came up was the issue of interacting with our male colleagues in the semi-formal environment of conferences and meetings. Experiences included being the only person not introduced to the group by the senior male colleague, some people uncomfortable with the idea of shaking hands with women (we *hope* this is soon to be a thing of the past in the UK as it seems to be a generational thing - in other cultures this may not be the case), and being mistaken for a secretary rather than a research scientist. Several in the group also reported the difficulty of looking "youthful and girly" although being senior scientist in the group, and the issues with being taken seriously. Colleagues with substantial fraction of grey hair, or large physical presence were felt to be taken more seriously even if their experience and skills were the same as, or lesser than, our own. An excellent related post and discussion can be found at the FemaleScienceProfessor blog.

One colleague made the point that she never, ever pours the tea or coffee at a meeting where male colleagues are dominant, on principle. Talking to my other half this morning, he felt this was an over-reaction (he has in the past worked in an environment with 2 men in a department of 17 women and had to put up with inappropriate labels concerning his sexuality as a result). I am not sure - but I suspect I end up pouring tea and coffee and sorting out immediate domestic issues at meetings more often than some of my male colleagues... so.. would you pour or not????