[rayiner]

Where this discussion gets confused is that it fails to recognize that there are actually two different issues and two different kinds of articles at issue. To make the discussion neutral, instead of women in science let's talk about startups. There are many (but at least two) kinds of articles about startups. Ones that focus on the technology, and ones that focus on the "human interest" angle. There are articles about Tesla that focus on the limitations of cameras-only versus LIDAR. And there are articles about how Tesla is racing against much bigger and established competitors like Toyota and Volkswagen. The latter kind of article is not a diminution of Tesla's technology, but rather one that focuses on an entirely different sort of topic that might interest readers for different reasons.

There is nothing illegitimate about these human interest articles. Succeeding as a women in a male-dominated profession in fact presents real and unique challenges that merit writing about, just as succeeding as a startup in a field dominated by entrenched incumbents presents challenges worth writing about. Where articles about "X in science" get in trouble is that (1) people care a lot more about the human interest angle than about the science; and (2) journalists aren't up front about what kind of article they are writing, or are themselves confused about what kind of article they are writing.

[gms7777]

I agree, and I think there is definitely space and a need for "women in science" articles, because there are topics that are of particular interest for women in science. The issue that the author is pointing out is that it seems like when it comes to female scientists, it seems like every article about female scientists is written from this "women in science" perspective.

[rayiner]

And I think that is a valid issue. But I think the real answer is, unfortunately, that people don't really care about science articles. The human interest angle is the only thing that sells ads.