Why would representation be an issue? You make it sound like there are no women at all in male-dominated fields, but the gender ratio lies around the 30% mark. So although they are not the majority, nobody will bat an eye that a mathematician or a physicist is a woman. If by representation you mean support, women have way more support than men in terms of funding and ease to get fixed positions.
And frankly I do not think young people are making career decisions based on representation. That's more of an academic's way to look at life.
I think most people don't consider identity politics when choosing a field. Anyway, equating "seeing themselves represented" to some shallow race and gender stuff reflects reality for very few.
I usually shy away from these conversations because of how politically toxic they are, and how easily people can twist and manipulate words to fit any meaning they want to ascribe.
But you've just echoed a sentiment that I've had for quite some time relating to the "representation matters" claims.
I grew up loving Star Trek. DS9 is one of my favourite of the series and I considered the character of Benjamin Sisko to be a huge role model and influence on me. I felt similar sentiment towards the characters Katherine Janeway and Seven of Nine on Voyager. Seven of Nine was particularly relatable to me as a nerdy outcast trying to fit in with "normal society." More recently, I felt a powerful attachment and kinship to the character of Elizabeth Harmon in The Queen's Gambit. To the point where I have never felt so personally represented by any fictional character in my life. The obsession, drive, ambition, social awkwardness, the anger issues, being ruthlessly self-critical and even the drug abuse (was stimulants for me as a teenager) were all characteristics that felt like they were taken directly from my own life.
But according to many, that shouldn't be possible because those characters have different skin pigmentation and genitals than me.
What a racist and sexist proposition that is. Almost as if ideas, character, personality and morals don't matter. We just need to go back to assuming those things based on little more than superficial irrelevancies.
>But according to many, that shouldn't be possible because those characters have different skin pigmentation and genitals than me.
[Citation needed]
I don't think you could find an example of even one feminist claiming that you can't find representation from people with different demographics to you. This is not what people are claiming when they say "representation matters". In fact, minorities are MUCH more likely to find representation outside their demographic, out of necessity if for no other reason.
What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them.
In other words: Yes, a black woman can empathize and relate to characters of any gender and race. But that's not a good argument that we shouldn't correct the underrepresentation of black women in media and STEM. It's also not an argument that black women won't be helped by seeing increased representation in media and STEM.
I'm assuming this is a good faith misunderstanding, but if it's not, it's a very good example of what you call "twist and manipulate words to fit any meaning they want to ascribe".
The problem with discourse today is that people don't listen to understand. They listen to react.
> What people are claiming (many from personal experience) is that a lack of representation in a given pursuit makes it harder for people to imagine those pursuits as something available to them.
Having gone back and re-read my comment, I have a difficult time seeing the distinction between your choice of words and how I expressed the sentiment.
To illustrate why: what does "relate to" or "empathize" mean if not to imagine yourself in the shoes of another?
I think where the disagreement might enter the picture is in the emphasis on systems and institutions. You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household.
When it comes to personal anecdotes, empirical data is always called for. I can [Citation Needed] your clarified statement of the claim just as easily as you can mine. These are just claims, at the end of the day. A claim that I find suspect because, to restate my position, if someone has a difficult time imagining themselves in the shoes of others because they see race and gender (even if it's a belief in societal systems rather than individually held prejudice), it is still a personal choice to see the world that way. And it's not a very good look on the person making that choice in my humble opinion.
It seems you're having trouble understanding my comment.
My [Citation needed] was for your assertion that "many" are making that claim.
I emphasized the difference between the two claims. Your version of the claim is that it's impossible to relate to characters of different demographics. The non-strawman version of the claim is that the how and when demographics are represented impacts people's perception of those demographics. If you want me to cite people claiming the above, I can. If you want me to cite evidence for the claim, I can also do that.
>You specifically used the words "available to." I've never looked at the world in terms of what is or isn't available to me. Not when it comes to how I choose to live my life. Maybe it's because I grew up in an era where we taught kids that they were capable of anything they put their mind to. I actually believed it. And I certainly never considered that I couldn't do something because of my race or gender. If I had then I wouldn't do so much cooking in my household.
For someone complaining about people not imaging themselves in the shoes of others, you're sure slow to imagine yourself in the shoes of others. Read some of the comments in this thread, and you'll find plenty of examples of people who never considered that they could do something, because of their race or gender. At least, until they saw examples of positive representation in media.
Have you considered that the reason other people had difficulty imagining themselves doing something when you didn't may be because of the different messages you received growing up rather than them being prejudical?
>it is still a personal choice to see the world that way
This isn't as relevant to my point, but I would absolutely argue this isn't true. If societal systems exist (as you seem to admit) that discriminate based on race and gender, is it a personal failing when those systems make you aware of your race and gender? Have you considered that the reason you are less aware of your race and gender than others may be due to the fact that your race and gender has had less impact on you than others' has on them?
What's the case? That people won't naturally come to the idea that they could do something unless they are "represented" in that field already? How does any new field form, then?
Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field?
I think there's a valid question of, do people want these jobs for the status of having them, or do they want these jobs because they have a deep passion for the subject itself? I presume that if it's the latter, then simple "representation" poses no barrier to those people. If it's the former, then I'm not at all bothered by their inability to chase status in a particular field.
> Or, is it the case that people are actively discouraged because they aren't "represented" in the field? If they can't overcome that challenge, then how are they going to make any real progress in the field?
The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study. Having to overcome both is certainly not fair to anyone.
> The challenges of fighting unethical social and political resistance to your inclusion in a community are distinct from the intellectual challenges of the associated field of study.
And, "representation" fixes this? I see the connection between the two, but I don't think it's direct.. and I think calls for "representation" step over this chasm entirely in the hopes that the solution will sort of just materialize.
I also think it is highly likely that focusing on this alone creates the opposite social pressures, pushing people into highly competitive landscapes filled with driven people just to serve as an undistinguished poster child who's meant to merely be a token of "representation in the field."
I don't think genuine "unethical social" or "political resistance" to inclusion is solved this way. Further, if there are these gate-keeping mechanisms in front of what should be pure meritorious pursuits, then all you might be doing is forcing those gatekeepers to put a different face on their lack of ethics rather than throwing them off the sciences entirely.
It's not so much that I disagree with it or think it's not a valid concern, I just think this sole focus on "inclusion" and "representation" is entirely half thought out will only serve to make the actual problem worse.
