I realize I'm a bit late, but I'd like to offer some
comments in response to a 2/15/00 New York Times Science
article entitled "For Women in Astronomy, a Glass Ceiling in
the Sky". In this article, two possible explanations for the
high attrition rate of women in astronomy from graduate
school, to postdoctoral positions, to faculty positions,
and, one might add, to ultimate inclusion in societies such
as the National Academy of Sciences, were put forth. One
explanation was that "the talent and desire just is not
there" and that "women are less prone to the intense, cut-
throat aggressiveness that usually marks the successful
research scientist or engineer". Another explanation was
that it is "a case of benign neglect, rather than overt
discrimination".

Personally, I don't find either of these explanations
sufficient. I am a middle-class and middle-aged (I hate to
admit that!) woman juggling an academic career with raising
3 children. I have an outrageous daily commute from the
suburbs of Chicago into the city, because I am concerned for
my children's safety and I want them to get a good public
education (I can't afford to put all 3 in the Chicago Lab
Schools). I work, take care of children, and commute. That's
what I do. That's ALL I do. If I'm lucky, I sleep a few
hours a night... (And I'm one of those "lucky" women who has
a spouse who takes an extremely active part both in
housework and in raising the children.) Once a person is
over 40, how long do you suppose it is possible to keep up
that kind of schedule without one's creativity, joy in what
they're doing, and overall physical health, suffering? I
would like to state the obvious here and make the connection
between the fundamental incompatibility between  academic
emphasis-on-quantity workaholism and family responsibilities
and values. I realize that my comments will not be
applicable to all women in science. Many have opted to not
have children, and some who do have children have sufficient
money to hire considerable help at home. But many of us
don't fall in either of those categories.

On the one hand there is the pervasive attitude I've
encountered in U.S. suburbia, that if you're a woman and
you're not devoting 100% of your time to your family, you're
a bad mother. The midwestern suburban community in which I
live might easily be mistaken for a rerun of a 1950s sitcom.
I am surrounded by "clones" of Ward and June Cleaver. It
bears a frightening similarity to the movies "Pleasantville"
and "The Stepford Wives". You get the picture. I will borrow
an unintentional description from a local police officer and
call it "Tidytown". In short, it is the most gender-
stereotyped and monocultural environment in which I've ever
lived, and yet I fear it reflects a very large portion of
U.S. suburbia. On occasion, I've vented my frustration over
certain attitudes I've encountered to my husband, to which
he invariably, and semi-jokingly, responds "we men are the
way you women have raised us". I must admit, he has a point.
In addition to the overwhelming preponderance of stay-at-
home moms whose biggest concerns outside of their families
appears to be whether their houses look as nice as other
houses on the block, essentially all of the elementary
school teachers, as well as most of the other school
officials, in "Tidytown" are women. Many of these women will
vociferously state they are "Mrs. Fill-In-Your-Husband's-
Name", and make no bones about their disdain for those of us
who happen to prefer a title that doesn't automatically
label us as so-and-so's-wife, but rather as individuals to
be valued as equal human beings.  I used to associate all of
these attitudes with "the older generation", and I naively
assumed that most of them would die out in time measured
from the civil rights and women's movements of the 1960s,
but the median age in "Tidytown" is well under 40!

On the other hand, there's the academic attitude that if
you're not committed to your career above your family and
producing at least 10 papers a year, you're a failure as a
scientist. I find both attitudes deplorable, and I can
easily understand the frustration and heartache experienced
by many female scientists who love their work and love their
families and are disgusted with living in a constant "damned
if you do, damned if you don't" state. Personally, I think
intelligent, well-educated people who choose to become
parents and take an active role in raising children to help
them become responsible, informed adults ought to be
COMMENDED for this choice, not CONDEMNED. And yet I've heard
many colleagues express disgust when a parent (mostly a
woman) expresses the desire to take some time off or seek
part-time work (if such really existed in the academic
community!) to become more involved in family issues. Lest I
be accused of "reverse sexism", let me mention that many men
are also no longer satisfied playing the role of the aloof
"Ward Cleaver", and are taking much  more active roles in
raising their children. Can men AND women who so choose be
successful academics and have family lives? I believe it is
possible, but only with some major changes in thinking about
gender roles in this country, as well as in the workaholic
mindset of the academic community. Quality of work need not
be sacrificed -- only quantity. Many European countries, for
example, have long held a more enlightened work ethic. But
as long as the only choices given are having a successful
academic career OR being a good parent, I, for one, am not
surprised at the high attrition rate of women in astronomy.
Nor would I be surprised to find out that many highly
talented male scientists start leaving the field for similar
reasons... There are only 24 hours in a day -- this holds
true regardless of how talented and committed you are!

Hoping to see some positive changes in my lifetime (but not
holding my breath),

Grace Wolf-Chase
grace@horta.uchicago.edu