Page 106 [106]
OCR
IZOLDA TAKÁCS: THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY the traditional stereotypes), and they consider themselves to be bearers of assumed female traits (from statements like: “we women tend to be more...”, “women don’t want that (to be leaders)”, “Women are not fit to lead...”, etc.). Gender stereotypes were denied by the 4th group (“classical equality”) the most, and - interestingly — the members of the “alternative” grouping do not identify the majority of known stereotypes as gender-specific. The recognition of these latter can already be seen in society, and can be explained by the phenomenon of norm violations, which tends to be more and more natural. (See above, Subject no. 17: “The young adults [...] find this old, traditional division as an object of ridicule”.) Ihe analysis has also allowed us to conclude that the interviewees find gender identity and subjective value judgement to be a less important aspect in the field of natural and technical sciences. Objectivity in a given field pushes the subject as a person — and thereby the issue of gender — into the background. This is why female scholars tend to accept the existing set of rules created by men more in these areas, and do not intend to change them, nor introduce the specific female identity or point of view onto the playing field. Their assimilation supports the status quo from a certain perspective, meaning they paradoxically maintain gender stereotypes by entering a male-dominated field. The phrase ‘female scholar’ had long been considered an oxymoron, the characteristics and roles defined and limited by gender were always arbitrarily attached to men and women. This is why the lack of footing in the academic field, the lack or fragmented nature of reinforcing norms — which has a determining presence to this day — has made the scientific self-articulation of women problematic in general. It is, however, apparent that the reasons behind the phenomenon have to be investigated from further aspects in order to get a clearer picture. The sample, on the other hand, showed that differences mainly originate from how and to what extent female scholars can identify with women as a social cluster (gender identity). This question revealed differences in spite of the similar background and level of education — which in many aspects is not dissimilar to what can be considered generally true for women in the society.
