Itisi

The nebulous ramblings; grammatical & punctuational experiments of a girl born on the fifth of November

Category: Society

For Ada Lovelace Day: A thank you to Miss Vaughan

Today is Ada Lovelace Day, a (now) annual event when bloggers celebrate the the work of women in the fields of science and technology. When I decided to take part I thought long and hard about who I should write about – we’re now fortunate to have a growing number of notable female scientists and technology experts so it was difficult to single any one out. However, I decided I’d leave the famous women for somebody else, and devote my post to a woman few (if any) of you will have heard of, but whose knowledge of, and enthusiasm for all things scientific and technological had a significant influence on me, and I would hope many other girls.

When I was eight, I had the extreme good fortune to be placed in the class of Miss Vaughan, a woman I can only describe as decades ahead of her time. Miss Vaughan would have been unusual in any school in the 1970s, but even more so in a cosy Catholic primary school.

At a time when certain elements of the curriculum were still divided into subjects for boys – science, technology – and subjects for girls – home economics, needlework – this small, religious school in a market town had on it’s staff a woman who had completely broken down those stereotypes and become a qualified and talented science teacher. Even more remarkable, Miss Vaughan did not come from the privileged, British, upper/middle class background of women like Ada Lovelace; she came to this country from Trinidad – an immigrant – and initially trained as a nurse before moving into teaching. With hindsight, I suspect this may be the reason she was working in a backwater, rather than at a more prestigious institution.

Whatever the reason, we were lucky to have her, not just because of what she had done, but because she was one of those teachers whose positive influence on their pupils lasts long after they’ve moved on to another class.

Miss Vaughan’s enthusiasm for her subject was infectious; whether we were having a lesson about the lives of the tiny mayflies which skated around the surface of the class pond, or discussing the ethics of vivisection. She had the ability to break hugely complex subjects down into child-sized bites of information, thus making the inaccessible, accessible. But more relevant to this post: she never made any distinction between the female pupils and the male; she just assumed we all had the ability to learn and understand whatever she was teaching us. And she never dismissed a question, no matter how odd, or how silly it might sound, she would answer, and then encourage us to discuss the subject as a class.

The class discussions were probably a first taste of informed debate for most of us – we were only eight. Unusually, these were allowed to follow a natural course, we were never forced to stick to a narrow topic; if a subject veered off at a tangent we were encouraged to go wherever it led us. She insisted we ask questions, but more importantly, expected us to go further than the answers she gave us, and read and research to gain an even greater understanding.

Those were her qualities as a teacher generally, but as the teacher of girls she brought something extra that was quite unusual at the time. The words “you can’t do that because you are a girl”, would never have left her lips, I can’t imagine they would even have entered her head. To her a mind was a mind, and her actions and conduct left us in no doubt that, as far as she was concerned, there was nothing we couldn’t do if we set our minds to it. If we had any doubts about that, we only had to look at her, a woman who lived and breathed the supposedly male subject of science.

Fast forward to the 21st century, and the numbers of women working in science and technology have grown, but we are still outnumbered by men, and girls are still the minority in sci/tech courses at school and college. There are a number of reasons for this, but the lack of direct female role models is a big factor. Girls may hear about high profile women in these fields, but too few encounter real role models in the course of their education.

Speaking personally, having such a role model played a part in the self-belief that enabled me to go into a male dominated field – and in internet technology circles, men are still very much the majority! It’s true that things are moving in the right direction, the number of female science graduates is growing, more and more women are forging careers in technology, but it’s still not the 50/50 split it should be. I’m pretty sure the numbers would be far more even if every little girl encountered a Miss Vaughan, someone who has no time for the concept of male subjects and female subjects; someone who understands a child’s intelligence, talents and abilities are unique to them, and are not simply a product of their gender.

I appreciate you dropping by,
Please leave a comment, don’t be shy


Journalists who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones

Unless you live in a cave, you can’t have failed to miss the outrage surrounding Jan Moir’s pernicious Daily Mail ‘article’ about the death of Stephen Gately*. I’m not going to post a rebuttal this late in the day – that’s already been done to great effect elsewhere – but I do want to raise a point that occurred to me during the last few days.

For a long time now, some elements of the mainstream media (msm) have been quite dismissive of bloggers, not all, some journalists have embraced blogging, but there are still many who see it as some kind of poor relation at best. One of the biggest criticisms has been that bloggers are not regulated, and therefore lack the ethics of msm journos. Can they still realistically claim that when one of their own published a piece that was so full of vitriol and insinuation even other journalists attacked it**? And of course, it’s not just Jan Moir and the Daily Mail, many newspapers are really not worthy of the name because what they publish isn’t news, or even factual.

Earlier this week the Guardian published the results of it’s attempts to dupe tabloid editors into publishing completely fictitious stories about various well-known people. Have a look, it makes for interesting reading. There is a market for rumour, gossip and innuendo and these publications have absolutely no qualms about supplying it. Yet, the people who write this tripe would still call themselves journalists, and would still insist they operate according to some kind of ethical code. Ironically, journalists do have a code, they are expected to “inform, educate and enlighten”. How does puerile drivel about the sex lives of celebrities do that precisely? Am I missing something? Is it really so important that we know some celeb cries ‘I love stew and dumplings’ in the throes of passion?!

Obviously, I’m not suggesting the blogosphere is packed full of positive, mind-improving, factually correct missives. It isn’t. There is a reason bloggers have a reputation for snark and it’s often appropriate. It’s also true that many bloggers make no attempt to check sources, or do any background research. The difference is, bloggers don’t claim to hold any kind of moral highground. We know we are a loose collection of individuals with widely differing opinions and ethics. Somehow, we do find common ground, and we also tend to challenge anyone who is overtly offensive, not just occasionally, but often.

Over the weekend, I listened to a radio phone-in about the Moir drivel, and heard Matthew Parris (possibly playing devil’s advocate) say that although he found the article offensive***, he supported Moir’s right to publish it because journalists have to cover stories while they are still current. That is a fair point, or would be if this had been a news story, which it wasn’t. The article in question is full of conjecture and hypothesis; it dismisses medical fact and suggests Stephen’s family and the Spanish legal system are involved in some kind of cover-up. That is not news, it’s just sensationalism. Reporting his death was news; insulting a dead man before his family had chance to bury him is not. However, it does highlight the diabolical state of journalism both in the UK and elsewhere.

The idea that an opinion piece must be written just because a news story is ‘hot’ is very wrong. If Stephen Gately had been a politician who preached morality and family values, then yes, the circumstances of his death may have been relevant. But he wasn’t. He was a harmless individual who happened to make a living doing something that brought him to the attention of the public. Should that really mean he, or anyone else, is fair game for any journalist who can’t think of something informative, educational or enlightening to write? I really don’t think so.

There was a time when journalism was an honourable profession; journalists did believe in such silly, old fashioned ideas as common decency, and the wider implications of a story were taken into consideration before publication. The phrase ‘in the public interest’ is often used, but that works both ways. Sometimes, it’s better not to publish something because it has no real value, doesn’t alert the public to anything they should know about, and risks causing pain and offence to innocent people. All that has been forgotten in a desperate attempt to sell newspapers in an ever dwindling market.

And that brings me back to my first point: can journalists really say they are more ethical than bloggers when so many are willing to resort to downright unethical tactics to make money? I’d love to hear your thoughts!

* If you haven’t read the article, Google it, I’m not going to provide a link.

** That is quite unusual, journalists usually keep their criticisms private.

*** Before anyone accuses him of being some vicious right-wing media type, Mr Parris is gay, so I’m guessing would have been quite hurt by some of the ‘suggestions’ about his sexuality.

I appreciate you dropping by,
Please leave a comment, don’t be shy