This week’s post is in response to Mike‘s request for a discussion about women in math and science careers. Mike said, “women in math and science careers – or how young girls meet or exceed the achievement of young boys in this area – but at a certain point, the % of girls in advanced classes drop off.”
He also asked what the reasons might be for “the lack of young men going to college… women outnumber men at most colleges… it is especially dramatic for minority groups.”
OK… well, I admittedly don’t know too much about this topic, so I had to do some research. I found a few great sites dedicated to women in math and science careers, some of which provided some stats that clearly show there are far more men than women in math and science – as well as far more whites than people of other races. This site shows stats for the top 50 schools in the US and the diversity in their math and science faculties. The highest % of women was to be found in the psychology department, at 60%. The lowest % of women were found in electrical engineering programs, at 6.5%, followed by physics at 6.6%, mechanical engineering at 6.7%, and math and statistics at 8.3%. These are teaching faculty. White people were most populous in these faculties, followed closely by those of Asian descent, then Black, then Hispanic. The measliest, saddest numbers showed the % of Native Americans teaching at universities. Another site gave some interesting facts about women and technology, for example that women tend toward classes on the low end of technology like data entry, that parents tend to buy computers for boy children rather than girl children, and that women’s participation in computer science programs at university is one of the few that have declined over time – despite the fact that women make up 56% of university students in total – scary when 75% of jobs require computer skills.
Does anyone remember a few months ago when Harvard University President Lawrence Summers made the wild claim that men perform better in high level math and science due to genetics? (Sexist jackass.) Well, Harvard psychology prof Elizabeth Spelke decided she would tackle his ridiculous claim with some actual research, and published a study in which she found there were NO differences between male and female babies, children, and adults in terms of cognitive capabilities and aptitude in mathematical and scientific reasoning. And, jumping on the band-wagon to rebut Dr. Spelke was Steven Pinker, noted cognitive scientist and fellow professor at Harvard in the field of language acquisition in children. (I’ve studied his work thrice in my philoosphy studies: in my cognitive science class, in my philosophy of mind class, and in my philosophy of language class. I did’nt find his work too bad to understand – unlike others I studied in those classes!) The two held a joint debate, outlined online at The Edge. It’s long, but the jist of it is that Pinker takes a “nature” line of argument and Spelke takes a “nurture” line of argument.
All of Pinker’s points about “biological” differences between men and women have, in my mind (and Spelke’s), a sociological explanation. For example, Pinker says that men have different motivations than do women: men are more motivated by status than by family. If you’ve been reading this blog for any length of time, you will probably be able to predict my response to that point – this has nothing to do with biology. Come on! Women are taught from childhood to care for other people, and men are taught that they must be providers. Is this difference in priorities really surprising?
In any case, my analysis of why there are fewer women in high-level math and science careers is that women are not encouraged and directed towards these classes from a rather early age, and not necessarily by their teachers, but by the world around them. We are bombarded with images of women and what kind of value they have to society, which basically amounts to looking pretty and having babies. Even when we are encouraged by teachers, and by parents, the message is loud and clear that women have a place and it doesn’t include a whole lot of abstract thinking, number-crunching, or laboratory experiments. We don’t have great images of women making important scientific discoveries, or building amazing structures that are feats of engineering, or solving notoriously difficult mathematical problems. We have images of starving blonde dummies whose main function in life is shopping and applying lip gloss while living off the money earned by a man. Even if a woman perseveres through these crappy societal images, and takes the higher-level math and science classes, she is likely to be in a very substantial minority in those classes, she is less likely to be hired after her education is completed, she will be paid less, and she is still subjected to societal pressures like being the primary care-giver for her family and putting her career on hold – which won’t be that difficult a choice since she is the only woman in her workplace and she earns WAY less money than her husband/partner.
I’m with Spelke. I don’t think there are significant statistical differences in the cognitive abilities of women and men. I do think there are significant differences in the ways men and women are encouraged to think. This is backed up by a study at U of Michigan, which suggests that women tend to choose careers based on their values more than on their skills.
Now, the second part of Mike’s question: why are there fewer men attending university than women?
Well, there are more women earning bachelor’s and master’s degrees, but there are more men earning PhD’s. (Could this be because when women get to PhD-age, they start having babies and abandon their studies?) This report puts things in perspective a bit – there isn’t exactly a crisis in boys’ education going on. Christina Hoff Sommers, a feminist philosopher, has suggested that society is encouraging greater aggression and less academia in boys. Maybe less boys are going on to post-secondary educations because they are getting recruited into the military right in their own high schools.
My last point is that girls and boys of non-white racial descent and those of disadvantaged economic means are not making it to university to study any subject. University is increasingly expensive, and student loans are harder to get. Scholarship programs are extremely competitive. Kids who grow up in economically depressed areas have poorer educational opportunities. And poverty is extremely racialized and feminized in all societies; in ours, the worst off are our Native populations, whom we generally treat disgracefully. This is a major problem that needs serious attention.
Mike, I hope you enjoyed this post, and thanks for the inspiration – it was a really interesting subject to look into!
thanks for the response…
as a father of two young daughters – both who are very capable in math/science – i want to do what i can to encourage them in whatever field they choose – to not feel limits…
as far as the second part of the question…if indeed it is simply that women are collectively doing better – well, there is not much to worry about – but i think it might go beyond that – at least to a degree – esp. when combined with racial factors…
that did appear to be a fascinating article – will ahve to read it in more detail
A big comment, but this is a big topic.
I think that this whole question is somewhat wrong. Statistics without a context or justified cause tell us nothing. And an a priori position that dismisses the biological basis of behaviour is flawed.
Firstly you are wrong when you doubt the genetic basis of behavioural differences between people. No one doubts that genetics is the major reason some are good at sport and some are not, for example, yet for some reason personality and intellectual strengths and weaknesses aren’t predominantly genetic?
Therefore, there are going to be some differences, on average, between different genetic groups of humans, including sex. (There are far more things that are the same of course! But we humans tend to get hung up on the differences.)
However, and this is an important point, we are talking about an overall group, as opposed to the individuals in the group. Some of the best physicists and mathematicians I’ve known are women (for example). We should allow, and encourage, all individuals to choose the life they want – that should be the question with every statistic – are you happy with you lot in life, and if not, why?
As a science teacher at an all girls’ Catholic school, I have never seen this, and I actually find this comment of yours a little offensive:
“Even when we are encouraged by teachers, and by parents, the message is loud and clear that women have a place and it doesn’t include a whole lot of abstract thinking, number-crunching, or laboratory experiments. We don’t have great images of women making important scientific discoveries, or building amazing structures that are feats of engineering, or solving notoriously difficult mathematical problems.”
I haven’t seen that in the co-ed schools I’ve taught in either, or in any curriculum document, or through university. It’s the exact opposite. (I’ve convinced many female students to stick with physics, even thought they are finding the going tough.) The series of mathematics textbooks used in our state are written by one of the female members of staff at my school!
But nonetheless, compared to a similar sized boys’ school, we do end up with smaller numbers of students continuing on to do higher level mathematics and physics, even though they are encouraged to do so. But why is that? Because they have the freedom to choose. – and that’s the ultimate victory of feminism.
Numbers tell us nothing without the context. All these statistics are meaningless unless they actually ask the people from which they are based on, if they are happy with their choice. That’s all that actually matters.
Eg, I’d bet that 99% of women who chose to stay at home and raise a child, instead of continuing on with a PhD, would say they had no regrets. I’m pretty safe in saying that as I’ve just had my first child, and everything after that moment becomes fairly insignificant. (Normally I’d wouldn’t make such an argument – special pleading – if you had my experience then you’d agree with me – but it’s true in this case.)
It’s important to be aware that nature couldn’t care less about our own political and philosophical leanings. Nature just is. But the way nature is can’t be used to justify the rightness or wrongness of an ethical position – the Naturalistic Fallacy – just because it is that way, doesn’t mean it ought to be. It is important, however, to be informed as much as humanly possible, on the way nature actually is, so we can make informed and realistic decisions.
Eg, you said this:
“I do think there are significant differences in the ways men and women are encouraged to think. This is backed up by a study at U of Michigan, which suggests that women tend to choose careers based on their values more than on their skills.”
That’s a non-sequitur. You are basing that on an a priori position. The actual study says that women tend to pick fields that are more people orientated. Given that women are biologically made to be the primary care giver (carries the foetus and has the breast milk), and therefore the most nurturing of the two sexes, this makes complete sense from a biological basis of behaviour POV. Moreover, the study points to how an understanding of this can be used to improve science/math pedagogy for girls.
The moral framework I’m using is that all individuals should be free to choose whatever course of study and/or job that best suits their interests and abilities.
For example, for the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a “gene” for maths. Let’s further assume that the “maths gene” is found in 50% of males and 25% of females. If we knew this for sure, then we could easily judge whether our society is truly equal or not. If these people could choose the course and job that suited their mathematical ability, we would expect courses and jobs that require some mathematical expertise to be made up of 1/3 women and 2/3rds men. (I got my “Maths gene” from my mother… a maths and biology teacher.)
If it turned out that it was 1/6th women to 5/6 men, then we’d have grounds for assuming (unfair) discrimination. If it was 50/50, we might think that the discrimination was going the other way. (We’d have to evaluate both further of course, before coming to any firm conclusion.)
The a priori assumption that men and woman are, on average, biologically identical (that the differences are sociological) is without a doubt flawed. There are differences in male and female foetuses, different hormones being released by the mother. http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(fsovi355ltzged55t2l05o45)/app/home/contribution.asp?referrer=parent&backto=issue,1,5;journal,24,59;linkingpublicationresults,1:107598,1 The brain is merely one of the physical organs on the body, and our thoughts just the 1st person experience of electrochemical brain activity. Of course this is governed, to a great extent, by genetics (and/or prenatal effects). Eg, this study into homosexuality looked at effect of birth order on male homosexuality, and it rules out social or environmental effects. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/06/27/genetic_link_to_being_gay_proposed/
But more than it being a faulty a priori assumption, it is a, harmful one – in that it keeps us focusing on groups. I think we all should start seeing sex less and less, and look at the individual. It might be that on average woman don’t like computers as much as men (for example), or that men tend to not be as verbal as women, but so what? As long as the individuals are free to make decisions that suit them, then our society is truly equal.
(BTW – all the above is not to say nurture doesn’t have an effect too. The fastest sprinters in the world have the genes, but they had to nurture that ability as well. But genetics kicks it all off and people then reinforce that socially. We need to accept this, understand it as best we can then move on. We’ll never get anywhere trying to make nature fit our human ideals. Our human ideals need to work with nature.)
As it’s feminism Friday – I want to unequivocally state my support of women – go girls go! And as I said, I’m doing my bit by teaching girls Science (Physics) and Maths. (The ones who go on are very keen and very switched on too, I might add.)
All the best.
HI Mike,
glad you liked the post. I would definitely recommend reading that article through at The Edge, I assume that is the one you were talking about. I kind of think you have a good benefit in terms of your concern about your daughters – because you don’t have sons. I don’t mean that to be an insult to your parenting, that you would favour your sons if you had them, not at all. But since you don’t have sons, there is not possiblity of raising them differently even on a subconscious level. Anything you want to do with your kids, you’ll do with them, and even if those things you want to do might be more traditionally “male-oriented”, your daughters will get that benefit. (Does that make sense? God, I hope I didn’t put my foot in my mouth! I’m really not trying to insult you, I hesitate even to post this part of my comment! Do you see what I”m getting at? I hope so!)
I agree, racial factors do play a big part in kids going on to university. But race affects both boys and girls – and is a double disadvantage for girls, who are already disadvantaged. Add in socio-economic factors, and it’s even worse. So the trend we have right now is more rich white girls going to university than rich white boys, while there are more black men and hispanic men going on than black and hispanic women. Native men and women, it seems, do not go on at all. In Canada anyway, I read a statistic a while back that it is much more likely that a Native man go to prison than finish high school. (I don’t have the numbers, sorry, but that’s the overall result.) That is disgraceful.
Hello.
I recently found your blog quite by chance, as I was reading “I Blame the Patriarchy ” and came across your comments and questions to Twisty, etc. I admire the way you presented and defended yourself on her board, because at times (although I haven’t been a Twisty reader for long) the backlash to new and/or disagreed with commenters can be harsh. Your poise and logic persuaded me to visit your blog, though, and it is an enjoyable read.
Your views on feminism are well thought-out and well presented, and they make me want to read more. I do not involve myself enough in feminist thinking, action or debate to label myself a feminist, but I do agree with most aspects of the movement. I’ve also been reading more and more feminist blogs. Your thoughts on feminism reflect mine, which is also why I enjoyed your query to Twisty about being aware of the patriarchy without feeling guilty of wearing skirts and lipstick — to paraphrase.
Keep up the good work.
Rachel
Hi Theo,
thanks for stopping by and commenting! I’m so glad to see you over here, as I enjoy your site very much.
OK, where to begin with your comment? There’s so much there to talk about. Everything you’ve stated was stated by Pinker in his debate with Spelke – and responded to by Spelke. check out that article, I think you’d enjoy it.
I’ll go point by point, I guess.
First, I don’t deny that there are biological differences between men and women. We obviously do have differences between male and female members of the species. What I do deny is that those differences are significant enough to explain the phenomenon of having such a huge gulf between men and women in the sciences. The differences are mainly physical, not so much cognitive – although there are differences in spatial ability, ability to mentally rotate an object, dexterity, etc. These differences are always balanced out – men are better at math problems with words, women are better at computing math problems. Etc. These differences are not significant enough to blame them for the problem we are talking about.
Secondly, we are indeed not talking about overlapping cases, where some women are better at certain tasks than some men. Some individuals have certain gifts the majority of the rest of us do not. Point accepted, but not terribly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Third, I think you misunderstood the comment I made that you quoted and said you found somewhat offensive. I don’t mean that somehow teachers who are encouraging their girl students in math and science are undermining them in some sort of devious way. I mean that overall, society is giving little girls messages about themselves that it is not giving little boys, and that permeates not necessarily the classroom, where I realize most teachers do their best to be as gender-neutral as possible, but the students’ lives outside the classroom. and that is where the “freedom to choose” comes into question. If there are constant societal messages and pressures to be a certain way and not be another certain way, and those pressures permeate everything you do, how free is a choice to follow along that path? Yes, some are free to choose differently, and that’s great, but it doesn’t follow that some are free to follow along. Saying that we have achieved equality because little girls are “Free” to “choose” the things that patriarchal society tells them to choose is in fact saying nothing at all.
Fourth, women who give up their work lives to raise children aren’t really permitted by society to say they aren’t happy with their “choice”. It is one of the most reviled things in society to not be happy as a mother. I think there are most definitely mothers out there who are not happy with their lot, but societal pressure does not permit them to say so. That’s not to say they don’t love their children. I’m just saying, the societal pressure for women to have and raise children is overwhelming, and it is not at all equal to the pressure placed on men. Further, once children are in the picture, the mother’s primary responsibility is to the children, based on the fact that those children came from her body. And any abdication of that responsibility is seen as one of the most fundamental sins one can commit. Witness Gaugin, who was celebrated for abandoning his wife and children to pursue his art. Witness Andrea what’s-her-name, who hated being a mother so much she killed her kids in the bathtub. Maybe if society allowed mothers to walk away from their children without blame, the way we allow fathers to, those kids would still be alive. (I know, this is a really controversial example, but, I’ll stick by it, I think.) Keeps women in check, that’s for sure.
Fifth, yes, nature just is. It is we humans who distort natural abilities into reasons to dominate and subjugate those who don’t have those same abilities – or even, in this case, those who DO have those same abilities, but have other natural differences.
Sixth, just because women have uteruses does not make them the more nurturing of the sexes. That attitude is the entire problem. What makes women the more nurturing of the sexes is that women are raised from an extremely young age to put other people first, to care about other people, to develop relationships, and to develop a moral framework based on an ethic of care. Men are taught to be independent, to put themselves first, to be brave and do “what’s right”, and to think about morality in terms of justice. This is one area where nurture is absolutely the winner. So, could we say that since men have penises, and penises are shaped like swords, they are more inclined to be violent? Ridiculous, right? having a uterus doesn’t make for a nurturing person, just like having a weapon tucked in your pants doesn’t make for a violent person. Perhaps the fact that little girls are given dolls and told they have to love them and take care of them, and that little boys are given toy soldiers and told to fight with their friends’ soldiers has something to do with it. check out my previous post, Women and Morality
Naturalistic arguments are dangerous in their own right, as evidenced by the Holocaust, by slavery, by “ethnic cleansing”, by the sterilization of the mentally challenged – all parts of our history. When we present the argument that it is only natural that some peole are the way they are, it leaves the door open for abuse of those people, as has been the case for women, for letting society off the hook for its part in oppression and for finding a way to “cure” whatever is deficient or poses a social problem in those people. Why are some people gay? who cares – why are some people straight! the more important question is, Why do we look for a gay gene? perhaps to let heterosexist parents off the hook, so they don’t think they did “something wrong”? To take the blame away from society for its treatment of gay people? To pity homosexuals, to say, “it’s not his fault he’s gay”? To find a way to reverse homosexuality, if you only take this injection of gene therapy at the cost of $600 a month? So long as our society values material things over people, our natural differnces will continue to be used as reasons for oppression.
there are natural differences between people. Yes. But socialization should not be ignored, as you say at the end of your comment. I thought you were onto something there for a minute! But I think drawing too much attention to natural differences, and not enough to the ways society handles those differences, is faulty. After all, we can change the way society handles differences – but we can’t change natural differences. That is why I tend to focus most of my discussions on “nurture” rather than on “nature”. The only way we will ever know if women are not biologically as capable as men in math and science is if we were to remove all the social influences that say women are inferior in these areas and are not as capable and are better are relatinoships and should stick to that, and allow time to tell the story.
Finally, I want to bring up something that was not brought up in any of the articles I looked at for this piece. If we are so quick to point out biological reasons for why women are not represented in math/science programs and careers, what are our reasons for why those fields are overwhelmingly dominated by white people? It seems like it’s ok to say that women are biologically inferior in the fields of math and science, but the reasons why blacks, hispanics, asians, and natives are not equally represented is because of social inequalities. If we can use social arguments to explain why people of colour are not represented, why must we search for a biological reason to explain why women aren’t?
Hi Rachel,
thank you very much for your kind words. I really appreciate the support.
I think there are all kinds of ways to be a feminist. Twisty at I Blame the Patriarchy presents a very radical POV, and I applaud her for that. It’s so important to have radicals in any movement, because they are the ones who draw attention and get things done.
Don’t be hesitant to call yourself a feminist. You don’t have to be really radical, or an activist. I think the most basic tenet of feminism is simply that women should be treated equally, and we haven’t been, and that isn’t fair. All the rest comes out of that basic principle. So go ahead! Don’t be shy! Be proud to be a feminist, even if all you do is believe that all women deserve better.
Thanks again for coming by Rachel. I look forward to seeing you back. Comment anytime, please!
Thinking girl said “We are bombarded with images of women and what kind of value they have to society, which basically amounts to looking pretty and having babies.”
Yes, that is how certain aspects of society & media portray us. Esp. in my generation & previous ones. But, I think that is changing. Because women are standing up & saying, “Hey! I have a brain, I’ll use it if I choose.”
It would be nice if it was a purely people thing & not a race or gender thing.
Like Theo said “I think we all should start seeing sex less and less, and look at the individual.”
The thing is it hasn’t been that way. So to make it change now, us women have to be assertive, we have to push for it. There is a balance to be achived for sure. But it seems the pendulum has to swing the other direction before it can find the center(?I hope that makes sense).
& then you need the people who don’t allow you to become illogical & get lost in fallacys when your swinging left & right.
It’s all a balancing act, eh?
Hey LTart,
yes, things are changing, thanks to the work of feminists, largely feminist work from the 70s. Women of today are standing up and demanding their equal rights. Too bad this is having the effect of powerful men repeating the fallacies of yesterday louder and louder – like the Pres. of Harvard did in regards to thise post. I think in a way, feminism has worked to secure SOME rights for women, but it’s also served to strengthen misogyny and patriarchy. Sexism is still VERY mainstream – see Tucker Max, for example – but it is also quieter, sneakier than ever before. Same as racism – it’s not politically correct to come out and speak your prejudices anymore, so racists and sexists try to find “logical” arguments to support their prejudices instead. Hence cloaking the fact that women aren’t encouraged by society to pursue science and math careers in an argument that women just aren’t as smart as men – biologically speaking, of course.
It still sticks in my craw that Harvard Pres. didn’t point out the fact that blacks, hispanics, and natives aren’t represented in math and science either – just women. Because if he’s just using the statistics as evidence for his sexist claim, wouldn’t he also have to infer that blacks, hispanics, and natives aren’t as smart as white people, biologically? It’s not ok to be openly racist, but it is ok to be openly sexist. asshole. If we can acknowledge that social reasons prevent non-white racial groups from pursuing math and science, why isn’t the same true for women?
I like your pendulum analogy L>T. It’s true, the pendulum does have to swing across in order to come back to centre. For that to happen, women need to push really really hard from their side of the pendulum, and men have to stand back and let the pendulum swing without blocking it on their side. Good one!
lol – no i am not offended – my guess is if you wanted to insult me you could do it unambiguously….
anyhow, i think a fallacy of parenting in general is that one can treat their kids the same – even if they are the same gender… the kids are different people and i was not the same person when my second daughter was born as i was when my first daughter was born… and i don’t even think treating them the same would be good – kids with their distinct personalities respond to differnt things… for example – i joke with my daughters differently – i deal with issues with them differently -etc…
in that regard it is like being a teacher – what one student responds to might be different than what another – so the aim is to be fair, but not necessarily the same…
anyhow, as a parent of two daughters, it *is* amazing to see all the subtle gender biases – like going to mcdonalds – getting a happy meal and being asked if it is for a boy or girl so they can give me the right toy – i mean – tell me what the toys are and i’ll tell you which one my kid wants – or when a neighbor told my daughter that women aren’t doctors…which, of course, i corrected immediately… but what about all the influences that occur when we are not around to set the record straight – or other more subtle….
anyhow, i *do* agree that one needs to consider the individual more than the gender… i mean *even* if, say, women are biologically predisposed to be better in one field and men to be better at another, one never knows what the case is for any individual… since any such predispositions could only be made in a colective sense – they are of no value for any individual…
i mean, tall folks are predisposed to being better basketball players – but one can’t assume that any given person is a good basketball player or any short person is not…
my one education professor used to joke cause her husband is asian and the stereotype is that asians are great at math – and since he wasn’t, some would think there is something wrong with him… a case of how even what one might call a “positive” stereotype, can actually be detrimental to an individual…
so as far as the nature/nuture debate – i think to a degree, it is meaningless – people are clearly strongly influenced by both factors – to what degree – who knows and who cares… people are individuals – with individual attributes and abilities – and as such, ought to be treated as individuals…
p.s. this topic =- and the whole nature/nurture bit reminds me of the research of carol dweck whose book was used as a text in my ed psych class…
her research focuses on one’s theory about intelligence effects achievement…
to summarize – and simplify – there are generally two views of intelligence (and of course, the can be combined, etc…)
that intelligence is a characteristic of a person – like eye color – i,e, relatively unchanging – this is called the entity view…
second view: that intelligence is a malleable characteristic – like, say weight – that can be changed based on what one does..
roughly corresponds to nature/nurture…
so while many people don’t view it as black and white like that – most people lean one way or another….
here is what she found: those that believed in intelligence as malleable and not a fixed characteristic achieved better…
it kind of goes like this – lets say we have two smart people – person 1 believes in the entity theory, person b the malleable theory… give them each a problem they can’t solve…person a will say -well, guess i am not that smart after all – or, well, i may be smart, but not smart enough to do that…
person b, on the other hand will think – well, i can’t solve it now, but if i try something different, work harder,etc…maybe i can solve it… they don’t take setbacks as hard – cause they view intelligence not as an unchanging entity, but as malleable, so they can get past them…
took me a while to *get* dweck – i resisted her theories for a long time – took a while, i guess, to work them into my existing mental schema (to use the cognitive terms…)
but the beauty of what dweck’s research shows is subtle – and deep… she is not out to *prove* which theory of intelligence is correct… she merely sees what effect a person’s own theory about what intelligence is will effect their achievement… and of course, what one gets is a self-fulfilling prophecy – for those who believe intelligence is fixed, it is! for those who believe it is malleable, it is too!…in other words, the perception is the reality…
i think, to a large degree, in retrospect, that is why i debated so vigorously for the notion of free choice… whether a chocie is free or not is something that could be debated endlessly – but i feel that to act as though our choices are completely free is the most beneficial strategy….
now, what does this have to do with the original post…i’m not sure – maybe you or dweck can put it in context – lol…what i think it means is that for all people – regardless of gender, race, etc…we ought to cultivate an attitude of an infinitude of possibilities – while, of course, working hard on a societal level to make those opportunities and possibilities real for all….
Hey Mike,
glad you took no offense to what I was trying to say! And yes, I think you’re right to say that individuals are the thing, and that we *should* be trying to not treat all people the same, but to treat everyone as unique. I think only then will we really have equality! However, OTOH, since we’re not there yet as a society, we need strength in numbers to at least fight for a general level of equality between various groups. That’s why I think the nature/nurture debate is important. The way things are now, we make judgments about people based on their natural states, and ignore the role that nurture plays, for the most part. But the nurturing is what can – and must – change!
Your last comment, about the individual beliefs people hold as to intelligence being fixed or malleable – brilliant! and a good point, I think, about free will. I’ve been rolling that one around in my brain for quite a while now.
thanks – but the brilliance is dweck’s not mine…
l>t, teacher lady who’s name I forgot – You think society is lifting the pressure to be pretty, saxy, skinny, and nothing more? Have you seen a commercial for “tab” lately? I think the pressure’s just changing, coming in different ways.
Those commercials really piss me off.
Thinking_girl… I do believe I agree. I’m sure I’ll have more to say later, but right now, I’m stuck in front of the ac, and my fingers are going numb.
starry; yes you are right. previous generations were more into the homemaker aspect of ‘womanhood’ the womans place is in the home, etc…
Todays pressure on women doesn’t always demand that, but they do put on the pressure to fit their idea of a ‘perfect’ woman.
What I was pointing out was, women are more aware of them selves as individuals as thinking girl says, “Women of today are standing up and demanding their equal rights.”
Also, as she points out, thanks to feminists who have cheered us along the way.
Although my brothers were interested in math and physics and treated me well even when I veered away–please don’t underestimate the cockiness and lack of inclusion shown towards women and girls by male scientists, teachers and professors. Science often seems closed to “mere outsiders” and far removed from life.
Women may shy away from overly aggressive “mentors” (whether they do so on nature or nurture theories) and may go towards learning experiences they find more open to them or fields they see as having more effect on real people.
Lastly, successful women are not always mentoring other women who come behind them. Because women have the same stereotypes within them that men do (again, whether nature or nurture), it is a myth that the presence of women ensures equal access and treatment for other women.
On the nurture side: In the past, a woman in science or physics was most likely “hazed” in school, employment or research, because she was the only woman. The reward for overcoming or ignoring “indignities,” is that she becomes powerful in her role as the rare female. She then has the power to also be non-inclusionary to newcomers. She may feel, herself, more comfortable with men, and hire them or mentor them, yet be rougher on females (such as expecting them to “serve” in traditional roles in the office or lab), and so on.
I have had much personal experience with physicists (one a very prominent female) more interested in wielding the power of their own domains. Meanwhile, smart minds, who may not be as aggressive, are getting passed over and the so-called leaders are falling further behind “real life.”
sister,
thanks for sharing. I think this is a really good point – once women overcome the obstacles to studying math and science and technology, they must then overcome a whole new array of obstacles that come from within the fields themselves.
I am currently doing a degree in maths myself. At Bath there are actually quite a large amount of women doing the course, although I think the ratio is still in favour of men. Certainly on inidividual cases it is nonsense to say that women cannot do mathematics- a friend of a friend was, last year, doing her final year of mathematics, and in fact created her own module which she got marked by a lecturer independently. You meet some frighteningly good mathematicians of both genders along the way…..
Whether there is a genetic difference… hmm. There might be, although whether it would be in favour of men may well be questionable. I find it unlikely that women and men are exactly biologically equal, but whether the differences, with culture stripped away, are significant, is another question.
hoping the html works….
When my son who is now 19 was very young, I saw young boys – playing independently – on their bikes – roaming (5-12 year olds) and similar. I also saw young girls watching over younger children from a very early age.
Observing young children I saw differences between most boys and most girls. Boys generally played very differently from girls.
Some of it is environmental – parents, tv, videos etc. – now boys play video games and girls do so to a much lesser degree.
My sense is that societally we take biological differences and we push things further and further apart – for no reason besides homophobia and fears of differences.
Girls can do good in science and math – of course they can and do. I suspect though that as they get into teenagerdom – for many the pressures push them away – though thankfully there is some change here.
In universities in the US at least – there continue to be tenure battles relating to gender – University of California –
Berkeley – had it not that many years ago in the math department.
In academia – connnections – mentors and similar make a lot of difference and men often are more comfortable with other men.
Good writing – thanks!
TG – Thanks for your reply, and here’s a reply to some of your points. I’d say if we actually had time to chat about it our views properly, we would be quite similar overall (even though we have different theoretical frameworks).
I’m glad you clarified one of your comments with this:
“I mean that overall, society is giving little girls messages about themselves that it is not giving little boys, and that permeates not necessarily the classroom, where I realize most teachers do their best to be as gender-neutral as possible, but the students’ lives outside the classroom. and that is where the “freedom to choose” comes into question.”
I take back my (admittedly disingenuous) offence.
From the little I know, it’s now a given that genetics gives a predisposition wrt personality traits and then these traits are reinforced by human interaction. But this reinforcement can only happen if the trait is there in the first place. Eg, I had a predisposition for mathematics. I was then exposed to mathematics. Due to this predisposition, I liked it, so wanted to continually to be exposed. This reinforced and built upon the predisposition. Whereas both my siblings did not have the predisposition (a brother and a sister), so even though they had the same exposure, they didn’t go on to study mathematic at a high level at school as I did.
A comment on male and female personalities (on average of course). Men have more testosterone, women oestrogen. These hormones are responsible for our reproductive differences including personalities. Take extra testosterone – get more “male”. Take oestrogen – get more “female”. My point about linking to the “gay gene” was that it is a good demonstration of ruling out “nurture” for a pretty major “personality trait”. If homosexuality is not due to rough-housing with older brothers, but prenatal testosterone levels, then what other traits are predominantly biological? A better way of putting it, what traits aren’t? As to why do we look for a gay gene? Scientists, in general, are just curious. We want to know what’s what.
Your statement before this: “Why are some people gay? who cares – why are some people straight!”, unless it’s offhand, leads me to believe you haven’t thought about this whole topic from the evolutionary perspective (which you must do if you want to be right)? Ie., people are straight because that’s the only way to have offspring! If you don’t hook up with the opposite sex, you don’t reproduce. That’s why homosexuality is interesting. If there is a genetic basis, then there should be an evolutionary advantage (or at least no significant disadvantage) in homosexuality. BTW, heaps of animal species are bisexual – they’ll do it with anything – which probably means that homosexuality is just an offshoot off extreme sexuality. Those that do it the most have the most offspring, and sperm is cheap to make, so a male “wasting” it with another male doesn’t cause any evolutionary disadvantage (unless a female was sitting by, forlornly watching).
I recommend to all interested, to read Matt Ridley’s “The Red Queen” (linked below), and any other books you can get on human evolution. Psychology and sociology that ignores evolution is fundamentally flawed. We are animals, and I think we tend to think otherwise too often for our own good. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140245480/102-2773211-9819321?v=glance&n=283155
Briefly – It is because women have uteri and breasts that they are the more nurturing. That’s how human evolution has worked. Children of women who weren’t genetically predisposed to be nurturing wouldn’t be as likely to survive as children of women who were genetically predisposed to be nurturing. If the man stayed at home, then there’d be no meat to eat. So children of men who went and hunted meat would have access to protein – they’d be more likely to survive and reproduce. Hunting takes aggression – males who are genetically predisposed to be more aggressive get the meat. You were close with your penis point, however, men are not aggressive because of penises – testosterone is produced in the testicles!
Our species is only just stopped being in hunter-gatherer tribal groups (10000 years ago). Our brains are designed through evolution over hundreds of thousands of years. Men who are physically stronger and can get away with using aggression to gain power will increase their chances of survival and reproduction. Women had to take a different route – using social skill and cunning to manipulate their way to power, and thus increase their chances of survival and reproduction. Men who have a “gene” which make them protect their female partners and children are most likely to have that gene continue down throughout generations. The same goes for women who have the “nurturing gene”. Genes “mix”, so men and women have both characteristics to a degree, but one more than the other, on average. Look at all other primate species – exactly the same. We are just hairless apes that can speak.
Plenty more could be said, but with such a big topic, little headway is made in such a forum (in that it takes far too long and points are often rushed). However, the important point I made before is that people should be free to choose what they want to do. So one final point, on this point of yours:
“Yes, some are free to choose differently, and that’s great, but it doesn’t follow that some are free to follow along. Saying that we have achieved equality because little girls are “Free” to “choose” the things that patriarchal society tells them to choose is in fact saying nothing at all.”
What’s the problem? By that I mean, how is that different to girls being told by feminists they ought to become rocket scientists or engineers? And why aren’t feminists encouraging women to become construction workers? And what about men? Which sex has the worst and most dangerous jobs – soldiers, police officers, prison guards…
Social determinism via social engineers, or biological determinism via genes? If you try to fight your genes (your nature), you’ll never be happy. (Of course, I don’t actually believe in free will – an entirely different can of worms, too big a can to open up here – not that I have a choice in whether I do bring it up or believe it (or not) though…)
It’s been fun, but now that I’ve thrown that hand-grenade into the discussion (gulp), I’ll pusillanimously run away…
“Those that do it the most have the most offspring, and sperm is cheap to make, so a male “wasting” it with another male doesn’t cause any evolutionary disadvantage (unless a female was sitting by, forlornly watching).”
lol….
theo,
welcome back.
I agree with your point that the presdisposition for a certain thing – in this case, mathematical and scientific reasoning – must be there in the first place, and then it is reinforced or not. The problem is, that for women, it is not reinforced by society. I’ll use myself as an example. Up until grade 10, I was a star student in science and math. I was a good student all around, in fact, and there were subjects I preferred (mostly music and art and languages), but I did do quite well in science and math. Then I had a teacher in grade ten who was a real sexist asshole. I did everything I could do to do well in his class, but he picked on me a lot in class, didn’t mark my work fairly, and at one point actually called me a mean-spirited name in class in front of the other students. That was the last science class I took. That was also the last class he taught at that school, once my parents and I made a formal complaint to the principal, with several friends from that class coming to my defense. Since I wasn’t taking science classes anymore – primarily because I wasn’t encouraged to do so, and was encouraged in other areas – I also dropped out of advanced math classes. I did very well in academic math, and in all my other courses, but I was convinced that I just couldn’t “do” math or science – despite doing very well in both subjects for several years before. Not taking sciences severely limited what I could go on to study in university – not that I’m unhappy with what I’m studying, but the point is, because I was not encouraged, I did not pursue math and science, which turned into could not.
enough about me…
sexuality as a personality trait. Interesting. For some reason, I don’t think of sexuality that way. I’ll have to think about that.
Yes, of course, I was being flippant when I said “why are some people straight”. My point is that I don’t think it is at all important to “figure out” why people are gay or straight. I think what we need to figure out is why it is that we are so intent as a society on discriminating against homosexual and bisexual people. I don’t think we need to search for a biological reason for everything, especially when there are sociological ones readily available. After all, a homosexual is just as capable of reproduction as a heterosexual. Lots of people have sex outside of their sexual preferences for lots of reasons – social reasons.
I don’t think many women are sitting by forlornly watching men waste their sperm on one another. If that were the case, ever masturbatory ejaculation would also be mourned. Women have better things to do. Homosexuality is more a threat to masculinity than to femininity.
I have trouble with adding everything we do as humans up to mere biological impulses and hormones. I think, as complex as biology is, that humans are still much more complex than that, as are other mammals, who also develop societies of their own. Are societies in place only to serve biological requirements? I wonder. If so, where is my place in society, since I have no intentino of ever reproducing? Is my purpose only to serve my biological needs, like food and water and generally continuing my life? or could it be that my purpose is more than mere survival, more than mere reproduction?
women may be able to nourish babies with their bodies, but society is the one that has deemed that less important than hunting meat. Couldn’t it be that women were exempted from dangerous things like hunting wild animals because they were once revered for being able to bring about the miracle of life? What about societies in which women did do the hunting, and the warmaking? Why has women’s work been devalued so? And why is it that now we are not a hunter/gatherer society, women are still encourged to be nurturing – even if it’s against their desires, against their goals, against their personalities?
last point: you said “What’s the problem? By that I mean, how is that different to girls being told by feminists they ought to become rocket scientists or engineers? And why aren’t feminists encouraging women to become construction workers? And what about men? Which sex has the worst and most dangerous jobs – soldiers, police officers, prison guards…”
first of all, there are female soldiers, police officers, and prison guards, as well as firefighters, construction workers, miners, shippers/receivers, business executives, and even presidents. Women can do anything men can do.
I don’t think feminists are discouraging women from becoming construction workers. I think feminists are encouraging women to gain social and economic status in whatever way they can.
Secondly, the common claim that feminists just want women to want what we feminists want them to want. Well, not quite. Feminists want women to want what THEY want, really and truly want (not what ANYONE else wants them to want, including patriarchy), and we want them to be able to achieve it. Feminists want women to be free from patriarchy, and patriarchy wants to control everything that women do. It’s different when feminists encourage girls to become rocket scientists and engineers because feminists are not encouraging women to become patriarchal slaves. Patriarchy encourages women to be oppressed, to be weak, to be dumb, to be silent, to be submissive, to be whores, to be objects, to be powerless. There is a *BIG* difference between what feminists encourage women to become and what patriarchy encourages women to become.
I want to say, I’ve been reading your blog for a while and it’s very fascinating. I don’t add anything usually, because I often totally agree with you, but it’s wonderful to read something that takes issues of society, presents them clearly, and invites positive and healthy debate. You don’t see that very often. Thanks Thinking Girl!!!
Hey Jess,
thanks for commenting! I’m glad you came out of the woodwork – comment anytime, you don’t have to disagree to comment(although it does make for some fun discussions)!
besides the fact that any genetic predisposition can either be nurtured or squelched by one’s environment, there are vast differences in individuals…
each individual has a unique combination of environmental influences and biological influences – this makes any generalizing ill-advised…
that’s one thing that bothers me in this discussion – too many sweeping statements are made that disregard individuality
I agree with TG when she says that “women may be able to nourish babies with their bodies, but society is the one that has deemed that less important than hunting meat.”
Ever read Mowat’s Never Cry Wolf? In it, he’s studying a wolf “family”: two parents, two cubs, and another (male) wolf. When the cubs are weaned, guess who goes out hunting: the parents, leaving the other wolf to baby-sit. No problem there with a female going hunting. So much for nature.
“Hunting takes aggression” Ever had a female dog? When they have to, they can be pretty aggressive, moreso than males.
“We are just hairless apes that can speak” and that speaking makes all the difference, because it leads to complex society…
Mike: I don’t mean to exclude a discussion of individuality, but individuality can’t be realized unless people are seen as more than just a member of an oppressed group. We need to remove the stigmas attached to group membership, and knock down arguments that support those stigmas, before individuality can really shine – I think. (Besides, you’re the one who framed the question in terms of group status!
) But seriously, individuality is very important, and I think the end goal is achieving a society in which individuals are seen as complex and celebrated for it, rather than as a collection of genetic characteristics like sex organs and skin colour. But I think we have a long road ahead of us before we can reach that point, and focussing on individuality at the expense of oppression, which is group-based, is premature.
Marc Andre,
good point – language does indeed create much complexity and adds a dimension to discussions of biology that distinguishes humans from other animals. Thanks for bringing that up.
If you’re in the USA, I think you’re mistaken; black women are significantly more likely to go to college than black men. (I’m not sure which country you’re writing from, so this may not be relevant.)
Theo, it’s not true that all hunter-gatherer groups use “men hunt, women stay with the kids and gather” formulations. Some hunter-gatherer groups did that, but others practiced community hunting, in which large groups – including women and children – made noise and walk in long lines to drive prey into traps and/or nets. It’s just as effective a food-gathering strategy as the “men go hunt meat” strategy you mistakenly believe was universal.
The main flaw in your view of evolution is that you ignore the extreme plasticity humans have evolved. Humans aren’t genetically programmed to hunt one way or another; instead, we’re genetically programmed to adapt ourselves to whatever environment we find ourselves in. In some cases, that means that hunter-gatherer groups will act in the extremely stereotyped way you describe; but in other cases, both hunting and nurturing tasks are far more shared than you acknowledge.
The story you’re telling is that humans are stuck with pre-programmed ways of behaving according to gender because of evolution. But the truth isn’t that simplistic. Although evolution certainly made humans what we are, evolution doesn’t lock us into rigid behaviors; on the contrary, evolution has made us the most adaptable creatures in the entire animal kingdom, able to alter our behavior hugely depending on the environment around us (including our social environment).
Also, primate life is more varied – and more dependent on environment – than you seem to realize.
Regarding homosexuality and evolution, there’s still a lot of debate and questioning going on about this in the scientific community, so anyone who says they have a definite answer is probably foolish. But here’s a very interesting article on the subject.
Finally, a rather scattershot but still interesting article criticizing the more extreme pronouncements of the evolutionary psychology movement, and presenting an overview of scientific criticisms of the movement.
Hi Ampersand,
wow, thanks for coming by to comment! welcome!
Great, thanks for the links. that paper about homosexuality in animals and the questions it raises for Darwin’s theory of sex selection is really interesting.
there is simply no questioning that we are social creatures. no matter what our biological history is, evolution is in itself proof of the fluidity and adaptability of humans to our environment. The fact that humans have evolved to the point we have – and that we are finding ways to evolve beyond biology and into cyborgs by combining our flesh with technology – goes to show that we are not married to or contstrained by our genetic history by any stretch. And therefore, biological arguments that support gender inequalities are really quite empty. Thanks for bringing up that very important point.
Your discussion reminded me of Dr. Susan Calvin from the I Robot stories written by Isaac Asimov. She is a ‘robopsychologist’ – a combination of the math/science and the psychology that you speak of in your post. She was created by Asimov in the 1940′s, so he was likely ahead of his time.
Hi, I like this discussion. Very interesting. I thought I would draw your attention to a recent article in Nature vol 422 no 7099 (July 13, 2006) pg 133. In this article a female-male transexual discusses her experience in higher math education, and then his experience with the same. I think it offers a unique perspective. Unfortunately, you need to access it through a subscription (Dal university offers one). Here is the summary from the nature website:
“Does gender matter? p133
The suggestion that women are not advancing in science because of innate inability is being taken seriously by some high-profile academics. Ben A. Barres explains what is wrong with the hypothesis.”
Phil Plasma, don’t you find it rather interesting (and pertinant to this discussion) that when Holywood made the film version Dr. Susan Calvin (clearly a she) became a he?
Hi Meredith,
thanks for dropping by, and for your comments. I will take a look at that article when I have a bit more time, it sounds very interesting. Thanks for the heads-up!
On a related note:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/12/skinner.htm
[...] from the original post at Thinking [...]
[...] going back to the discussion of what it’s like to be woman in a “hard science” field – i think that the blog against sexism day post at adventures in ethics and science summed up matters beautifully, and “women in science: the clash of cultures” by londa schiebinger brings up most of the essential points. [later edit: thinking girl has also written about what might be some reasons why there are less women in math/sciences.] [...]