As a male scientist, I approve of this constant reaffirmation of my masculinity.
I dunno. “Man of science” has a really nice ring to it. (“Woman of Science” too.)
Come to Germany then.
German uses generic masculine grammatical gender and the state of Bavaria just banned the practice of “Gendern”, meaning use both forms (male and female).
So you’d have to be referred to as male pretty much always.
Nah, I’ll just stay in Austria. xD
They didn’t ban the usage of both forms, they banned the usage of new forms, that try to combine masculine and feminine into a gender-neutral form, in administrative texts.
So you’re a man of science
Can I feel your bicep?
Nice username btw. xD
Thank you
Sadly, no. My chest musculature is so enoumous that it completely envelops me. Kind of impractical in the lab sometimes, but that’s the things you do for more testosterone.
This is cool and all but I feel like “Woman of Science” was the obvious workaround to their problem.
It’s obvious because the woman “factoid” origin is completely made up and untrue.
Given the time she lived in, I guess she didn’t want to make it too obvious that she was a woman
Leave it to women, am I right?
a womanist doesn’t sound right
https://mybookjoy.com/2023/06/14/word-origins-is-scientist-a-womanly-word/
This person did a good write up of this claim
Spoiler alert. The social media “fact” is completely made up.
Behind many famous scientists there was a great woman whose work earned them the Nobel Prize.
This has to be bait or something. The fake fact aside, who would be against gendered professions and simultaneously advocating to gender a profession?
also, the term for it was literally in the post, man of science, so male scientist is basically male man of science
Not to be confused with the dude who read your Zoobooks and Nat Geo magazines while on his way to leave them in your mailbox.
The male mail man of science.
A bilingual person would to a certain extent. I’ve noticed a tendency of English-speaking societies to gradually eliminate the gender from professions, while the languages with grammatical gender, like Russian or German, tend to incorporate previously missing feminine suffixes to the words that previously were male-gendered only.
Though your question (a rhetorical one I guess) regards English only, I suppose, and then yes, the combination is weird.
edit: from what I gather, German is already content with the use of “-in” suffix, so not much change needed, except the push for the use of a “gender gap” or “gender asterisk” (Genderstern) for language to be more inclusive when using plurals [looks extremely clunky to me, but I get the spirit]. In Russian, however, even the suffixes meet significant resistance, both from society and, especially, government, to the point that feminitives are considered “LGBT propaganda”, and since “LGBT is an extremist organisation”, that is extremism apparently. Anyway, “gender gaps” (usually as underscores) are also used in more “left” (for lack of a better label) communities, but are absolutely not accepted and misunderstood be the wider audience.
Yeah there is a lot of discussion about it in Germany but generally lawyers, professors, and doctors had to fight for their feminine terminology to exist so any attempt to take it away now would be met with severe backlash.
Scientress*
That would imply that a make scientist would be a scientor, which sounds equally cool!
“Man of science” sounds so much cooler than “scientist”. Such a shame it’s not used anymore
I guess it could have been, “sciencist”. Glad it’s not.
I thought it was him, William Whewell, in response to an almost rant from Samuel Taylor Coleridge about “natural philosophers” (today’s scientists) not deserving to be called “philosophers”.
I just googled it and found:
Coleridge stood and insisted that men of science in the modern day should not be referred to as philosophers since they were typically digging, observing, mixing or electrifying—that is, they were empirical men of experimentation and not philosophers of ideas.
[…]
There was much grumbling among those in attendance, when Whewell masterfully suggested that in “analogy with artist we form scientist.” Curiously this almost perfect linguistic accommodation of workmanship and inspiration, of the artisanal and the contemplative, of the everyday and the universal –was not readily accepted.
Yeah, that was the story I’d heard.
Another source says:
Coleridge declared that although he was a true philosopher, the term philosopher should not be applied to the association’s members. William Whewell responded by coining the word scientist on the spot. He suggested
by analogy with artist, we may form scientist.
It’s funny because nobody remembers S. T. Coleridge as a philosopher but only as a poet. I’ve read that his philosophical writings were like an eccentric and almost immature version of German idealism. The thing that haunts me is that famous F. Schelling is well read but often misunderstood, so if they both were part of the romantic movement and they were both close to idealism, it could be that they both suffer the same fate.
Anyway, I digressed. That was the story I knew. Basically, a gatekeeping poet separated philosophers and natural philosophers.
It’s even curious because there are rumours about men like Coleridge being “half-mad”, and recently there have been studies on it. It would be ridiculous (just as history tends to be) if an old mad poet had divided these branches of knowledge on a fit of bad moods.
It’s Man of Science, not male scientist. It’s right there in the post.
Not even in the movie Oppenheimer they rise much the influence of Lisa Meitner
She was an average fighter, but she was a BRILLIANT scientist
Other scientist woman got famous in other context, like Mayim Bialik
One of her publications https://www.proquest.com/docview/304879069
I don’t really know if I would consider Mayim Bialik a “scientist”. She has a degree in neuroscience, but I don’t think just finishing a stem degree makes you a scientist for the rest of your life.
I have a medical degree, but I doubt any of my colleagues (outside of medical research) would be comfortable with utilizing the title.
Someone who hasn’t ever actually worked in their field of study, and only has two published papers…which to be honest, I didn’t even know was possible to complete a Phd while only having a single publication as a post graduate. The publishing requirements for graduate schools have become kinda insane, but your only major publication being your thesis is also kinda absurd. It wouldn’t surprise me if she received some special treatment due to her celeb status.
Also, someone with a research based degree who also is antivax is concerning. Not to mention the whole selfhelp podcast and the rabid Zionism…
Well, I just wanted to highlight the difficulties for women to make a name for themselves in science even today. I don’t know if Bialik could have become famous if she had remained a neuroscientist and obviously it has been easier for her to do so as an actress (ironically playing a neuroscientist in The Big Bang Theory), despite several publications.
Science and technology remains even today, unfairly, a domain of men, even though without women we would not even have Bluetooth or WiFi…
Science and technology remains even today, unfairly, a domain of men, even though without women we would not even have Bluetooth or WiFi…
Oh for sure, I didn’t mean to imply that there’s not massive amounts of inequities in stem. I just don’t know if she is the best example considering her lack of experience in the field.
My wife and I call ourselves scientits :)