50 Years After Silent Spring, Sexism Persists in Science

What Women Really Think
Sept. 28 2012 2:44 PM

50 Years After Silent Spring, Sexism Persists in Science

Silent spring image

When Rachel Carson published Silent Spring 50 years ago this week, she kick-started the environmentalist movement. Her critics countered with their own lasting campaign against women in science. Those who disagreed with Carson’s findings about the dangers of agricultural pesticides dismissed her personally as “a spinster,” “hysterical,” and “an uninformed woman speaking of that which she did not know.” One reader’s letter published in The New Yorker said, “As for insects, isn’t it just like a woman to be scared to death of a few little bugs!”

Even support of Carson was lodged in sexist terms. In Linda Lear’s 1998 biography of Carson, she compiles the gendered praise of Carson’s earlier, less-controversial book, 1951’s The Sea Around Us. “I assume from the author’s knowledge that he must be a man,” one reader complimented. Her fellow science writers piled on, complaining that she had not printed a photograph of herself on the book’s jacket. “It would be pleasant to know what a woman looks like who can write about an exacting science with such beauty and precision,” Jonathan Norton Leonard wrote in his glowing New York Times review. Reporters rushed to uncover Carson’s appearance. They were pleased when they discovered her to be, as the New York Herald Tribune reported, “attractive,” thin, and blue-eyed. “You are such a surprise to me,” one editor told her. “I thought you would be a very large and forbidding woman.”


Today’s scientific critiques are rarely so obviously sexist. But the twin gendered responses to Carson’s work—one used to criticize, the other to praise—speak to tropes still wielded against women in science today. If we disagree with her scientific findings, we lean on the idea that women are irrational thinkers. If we accept her conclusions, we express surprise that one outlier has broken through the limitations of her gender—and we wonder if she isn’t a little bit like a man. In fact, feminized terms are still used to discredit scientific work, regardless of the gender of those conducting it. In Slate, Carson biographer William Souder noted that the current debate over climate change appears much like the one over pesticide use half a century earlier: “On one side of the environmental debate are the perceived soft-hearted scientists and those who would preserve the natural order,” he wrote. “(O)n the other are the hard pragmatists of industry and their friends in high places, the massed might of the establishment.” Science is still a fight between soft hearts versus mighty pragmatists, even if the battle is one largely waged by men.

And 50 years on, prominent female scientific figures like Carson remain rare. The ranks of women in scientific fields have improved markedly since Silent Spring’s publication, but that’s not saying much. In 1966, women made up just .9 percent of engineers, 3.4 percent of physicists, and 8.2 percent of chemists. By 2000, they comprised 10 percent of engineers, 14 percent of physicists, and 32 percent of chemists. Only in the field of biology have women achieved equity by the numbers. By 2006, women earned nearly 50 percent of doctorate degrees in biology and made up more than half of the workforce in that field. (Even in 1966, a third of biologists were women.) Today, women make up half of all medical students but only 4 percent of full professors of medicine.

The low representation of women in science is often dismissed as a product of women’s own interest or aptitude, but a new study by researchers at Yale University suggests that institutional sexism is a likely candidate. The study found that both male and female science professors—in fields from biology to physics—ranked female students lower than their male peers, even when their qualifications were identical. The average starting salary offered to the female candidate was $4,000 less than that offered to the man.

The Yale scientists told the New York Times that their results “probably reflected subconscious cultural influences rather than overt or deliberate discrimination.” Conscious or not, it’s often pretty obvious. Dr. Jo Handelsman, one Yale biology professor behind the study, said that many of her peers dismissed the work, guessing that “scientists would rise above” sexism “because they were trained to analyze objective data rationally.” Handelsman’s data disagreed.

Amanda Hess is a Slate staff writer. 


Frame Game

Hard Knocks

I was hit by a teacher in an East Texas public school. It taught me nothing.

Yes, Black Families Tend to Spank More. That Doesn’t Mean It’s Good for Black Kids.

Why Greenland’s “Dark Snow” Should Worry You

If You’re Outraged by the NFL, Follow This Satirical Blowhard on Twitter

The Best Way to Organize Your Fridge


The GOP’s Focus on Fake Problems

Why candidates like Scott Walker are building campaigns on drug tests for the poor and voter ID laws.

Sports Nut

Giving Up on Goodell

How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.

Iran and the U.S. Are Allies Against ISIS but Aren’t Ready to Admit It Yet

Farewell! Emily Bazelon on What She Will Miss About Slate.

  News & Politics
Sept. 16 2014 4:08 PM More Than Scottish Pride Scotland’s referendum isn’t about nationalism. It’s about a system that failed, and a new generation looking to take a chance on itself. 
Sept. 16 2014 4:16 PM The iPhone 6 Marks a Fresh Chance for Wireless Carriers to Kill Your Unlimited Data
The Eye
Sept. 16 2014 12:20 PM These Outdoor Cat Shelters Have More Style Than the Average Home
  Double X
The XX Factor
Sept. 15 2014 3:31 PM My Year As an Abortion Doula
  Slate Plus
Slate Plus Video
Sept. 16 2014 2:06 PM A Farewell From Emily Bazelon The former senior editor talks about her very first Slate pitch and says goodbye to the magazine.
Brow Beat
Sept. 16 2014 5:07 PM One Comedy Group Has the Perfect Idea for Ken Burns’ Next Project
Future Tense
Sept. 16 2014 1:48 PM Why We Need a Federal Robotics Commission
  Health & Science
Sept. 16 2014 4:09 PM It’s All Connected What links creativity, conspiracy theories, and delusions? A phenomenon called apophenia.
Sports Nut
Sept. 15 2014 9:05 PM Giving Up on Goodell How the NFL lost the trust of its most loyal reporters.