[...] know of Alex de Campi as a talented writer of comics, both print and digital. But it seems that she’s also a animator and director, and her latest [...]

[...] been remiss in not talking about Alex de Campi’s Valentine comic before [...]

[...] author. It’s a shame that such a terrific little story was hamstrung by being pushed into an unsupported format, but selfishly, I’m glad I got to read the ending. I’m just disappointed there [...]

[...] online manga program that will include continuing volumes of Boys of Summer, Earthlight, Kat & Mouse, Pantheon High, Undertown, Gyakushu, and [...]

Tokyopop can suck it!

Get Kat & Mouse Vol 4 out there so I can read it! (aimed at those TP people)

FX

This article is well worth reading, showing some serious holes in the sort of studies you seem to be referring to (although I notice you don’t cite any – which is Sloppy Science).

This quote sort of sums it up for me:

As science becomes more central to our public and political conversations, it’s perhaps not surprising that neurological factoids are being used to “prove” ideas on both sides of a debate. But science shouldn’t be enlisted as an excuse for believing what we want to believe. Rather, it should be seen as part of a long series of steps that can lead to fresh understandings of the world.

What we can hope is that eventually, good science drives out bad, and that facts, by their sheer heft, ultimately crush the factoids. But we have to pay attention to make sure this happens. Otherwise, we will end up trusting our kids’ futures to ideas and programs that – ironically – rely on science to shore up some of society’s most unscientific prejudices.

Here is a good discussion of another similarly dangerous issue, often based on flawed research and small studies being extrapolated to massive claims: the “black people are less intelligent than white people” argument. How do you feel about that one, Tom?

Tom, I know this is hard to believe, especially as I’m sure some of your best friends are women and I bet your girlfriend doesn’t think you’re sexist, but you’re seizing on the only potential reason of the bunch that totally absolves you from any responsibility for the lack of gender parity in math and science roles. And, m’friend, that’s sexist.

Of particular interest is this passage:
“In a 2007 study, girls reminded of the girls-are-spatially-challenged stereotype did worse on a test of spatial ability than those who were not, and brain imaging showed why: they had higher activity in the anterior cingulate, the site of negative emotions such as anger and sadness, and lower activity in high-order visual areas and complex working memory areas, found Maryjane Wraga of Smith College. Anxiety triggered by social forces had muted activity required for spatial reasoning. Scale that up to years of messages telling girls they’re intrinsically inferior and then try to argue that a hard-wired brain rather than the messages society sends explains the math gender gap.”

Interesting!

But on the other hand, I’ve also been in top science/math environments which are considered, if not perfect, more supportive than most. And the numbers were still way shy of 50%, particularly at the top levels. This could easily be due to previous societal issues limiting the number entering the field and/or situation. Or even due to a combination of societal and brain structure issues due to early brain development being shaped by how a kid is parented and influenced.

Johanna, we’ve not interacted professionally in math/sci, but based on what I do know of your background, I’m sure you’re in the top 1% of all people in such, as am I. And I’ve known and know women who are at the very top levels of such and are vastly better than I or just about any males in such. But empirically, there are a lot fewer women than men at those levels. And there are indications that brain structure makes a difference at those levels. And there are indications that types of brain structure can be more common among either males or females.

So is it a possible explanation of the numerical disparity? Seems to me it’s worth investigating to find out. It wouldn’t either disappoint me or thrill me for either it to turn out to be the case or if it turned out not to be the case. But it does bother me when folk go “Oh, that cannot be the case, and it’s wrong even to suggest that it might be, even though there are reasons to at least look at it, but my reasons for not doing so amount to ‘It’s wrong for it to possibly be like that’”. If anything, that’s anti-science. And I mean that about anything, not just the topic at hand.

And, just to make it very clear, I’m strongly against discrimination against women with strong math/science abilities and skills, and frankly I do wish there were a lot more of them.

Suggesting that ANY under-represented group does not have the innate ability to succeed in a field (based on extremely speculative hypotheses / fringe research) is just asinine, and works to discourage members of that group from bothering. It’s also incredibly irresponsible of a major university president who carries professional responsibility to educate the next generation of math scholars!

Sexism and racism are still enormously prevalent in many professions, even if you (as presumably a member of the dominant gender and race group) don’t see it.

So, yeah: it’s the glass ceiling, stupid.

[...] Comics Worth Reading, Johanna Draper Carlson talks to Kat and Mouse creator Alex de Campi about her book and the situation at Tokyopop. Also: The upcoming issues of Shonen Jump and Shojo [...]

As a woman who was once realized as top of the field in science and math, I can tell you, there’s nothing genetic about it — in my case, I got out of the field BECAUSE of the blatant sexism expressed by professors. And that includes the attitude you’re expressing here, as well as more obvious statements.

[...] [Profile] Alex de Campi Link: Johanna Draper Carlson [...]

Don’t get me wrong; I’ve known women in math and science who are at the top of their fields, but empirical evidence is that there are significantly fewer than general gender ratios would indicate. And there are brain differences which do have significant gender imbalance that may be related to math related skills, such as various autistic spectrum disorders which occur much more often in males than females.

So, if it’s the case you do need a particular brain structure to be Curie/Feynman/Einstein level, it may well be the case that, while still rare, it’s more common in males than females. Summers’ point was that we don’t know why there’s such a numerical disparity, and there are several possible causes which could be investigated, including genetic/brain structure. From what I can tell, he didn’t indicate that women who can be top of field should be discriminated against, just that we don’t know why such are relatively rare.

Meanwhile, some of their back catalogue is available as e-books in Japan. And, uh, Kindle, anyone?

I look forward to her next comic project. She’s a great writer.