Being female in physics is ridiculous.

[jgens]

Please, have you investigated that further before making that bold claim that it must be discrimination?

Depends on what counts as investigation. If you mean a scientific study on this exact situation or something of that nature, then of course not. But if that were your criteria, then you would also need to give up on the notion that affirmative action is definitely discriminatory against males. So what exactly constitutes "further investigation" here?

Where did I say men will always be overrepresented in sciences?

In post #27 you wrote "healthcare will always have more women and engineering-related courses will have more men." Perhaps you genuinely meant to restrict your statement solely to engineering and not more generally the sciences. In that case I do apologize for putting words in your mouth, but the sentiment still stands. So perhaps I should have written instead:

On the other hand, you did claim that men will always be overrepresented in engineering and I am asking for justification for that opinion. As of yet it has not been delivered. Unless you count some possibly misogynistic grumblings about feminism of course.

Is that better?

 

[jesse73]

Please, have you investigated that further before making that bold claim that it must be discrimination?

Think logically. Less than 2 generations ago there has been discrimination without a shadow of a doubt. Given that we know this effect was present 2 generations ago isn't it safe to assume it is still there until the data proves otherwise. This is especially true given how the indirect data like wages and employment rates are highly suggestive of it still being present in a less direct way.

If threw a dirty shirt in the hamper I wouldn't assume a month later that it is clean. You would assume it is in the state you left it (dirty) until it has been proven otherwise.

 

[Monique]

You didn't provide any evidence of such discrimination, the ratio not being close to 1:1 isn't evidence of discrimination.

Why should it be the case that every job should be balanced between men and women? The only thing that justifies it is an ideology, that says men and women should be equal in everything, an ideology that is spread by the feminist movement. Unfortunately that's not how reality is, you can't force reality to fit to your ideology of how things should be, that's just childish.

There are social studies show that gender discrimination does still exist, there have been several threads on this in the social sciences subforum.

 

[mfb]

No part of my argument is predicated on this claim. If you actually read the post I directed you towards (so hard right), instead of just pretending you know what it says, then you would already know this. Roughly 25% of math PhDs are women yet looking at schools like Harvard and UChicago reveals that fewer than 7% of senior faculty are women. To me that speaks to discrimination.

First, there are many reasons for this difference. Discrimination is one of them, but you can't just point to any difference and say "difference => discrimination!".

Second, don't forget time as an influence. We all agree that discrimination was significant in the past, and most current senior positions are occupied by people who got their PhDs some decades ago. What was the fraction of female PhDs back then?

Unfortunately reality is not this mystical fairy tail land where women in the STEM fields face no discrimination either. Pretending that is the case is simply ignorant.

The same is true for the other direction. What do we learn from that?

 

[jgens]

First, there are many reasons for this difference. Discrimination is one of them, but you can't just point to any difference and say "difference => discrimination!".

I agree with this. Which is why I did ask Tosh what was meant about "further investigation" because that is a legitimate question.

Second, don't forget time as an influence. We all agree that discrimination was significant in the past, and most current senior positions are occupied by people who got their PhDs some decades ago. What was the fraction of female PhDs back then?

I agree with this to a point. Both the schools I mentioned (Chicago and Harvard) turn over faculty quite quickly. In post #29 I estimated that roughly 50-75% of senior faculty at Chicago were hired in the last 10-15 years and that number completely ignores faculty that came and went during that time period. So they have ample hiring opportunity and bring in young talent for senior faculty positions with some frequency, yet only extraordinarily rarely are they women. As mentioned in one of my previous posts, the process for hiring new professors is no doubt complicated and there might not even be active discrimination against women here, but if the process itself disproportionately selects for qualified male candidates instead of qualified female candidates, then that is de facto discrimination.

The same is true for the other direction. What do we learn from that?

Reading back to post #28, for example, one can see I am obviously in agreement. There is a difference (to my knowledge) between discrimination men and women in STEM fields however. Whatever discrimination men face is usually artificial or, in other words, the result of affirmative action policies. Discrimination against women in these fields is more societally ingrained. There are social barriers women face even entering the fields and there are barriers in getting recognition and getting hired (whether by prejudice or flaw of process). Again which of these is worse probably depends largely on your perspective, but pretending discrimination is completely absent is ludicrous.

Edit: I am honestly disinterested in having this argument. Obviously Tosh and mfb should counter if they disagree with my points, just expect no response.

 

[Zarqon]

On the other hand, you did claim that men will always be overrepresented in engineering and I am asking for justification for that opinion. As of yet it has not been delivered. Unless you count some possibly misogynistic grumblings about feminism of course.

Let me try to answer that.

We know from statistics on personality types that there are clear differences in the personality type between men and women (note: large individual difference within each gender exists, but that does not prevent also average differences between genders from being present).

A good example is the 'T' variable in MBTI, i.e. a rational thinker type of person, which we know is a type that is heavily overrepresented in technical sciences like engineering/physics/mathematics. Statistics show that among men there are twice as many T as for women (see here for example).

This clearly explain why there would be an expected gender difference in the technical sciences even in a perfectly gender-unbiased society.

 

[Tosh5457]

Let me try to answer that.

We know from statistics on personality types that there are clear differences in the personality type between men and women (note: large individual difference within each gender exists, but that does not prevent also average differences between genders from being present).

A good example is the 'T' variable in MBTI, i.e. a rational thinker type of person, which we know is a type that is heavily overrepresented in technical sciences like engineering/physics/mathematics. Statistics show that among men there are twice as many T as for women (see here for example).

This clearly explain why there would be an expected gender difference in the technical sciences even in a perfectly gender-unbiased society.

Exactly.

Think logically. Less than 2 generations ago there has been discrimination without a shadow of a doubt. Given that we know this effect was present 2 generations ago isn't it safe to assume it is still there until the data proves otherwise. This is especially true given how the indirect data like wages and employment rates are highly suggestive of it still being present in a less direct way.

If threw a dirty shirt in the hamper I wouldn't assume a month later that it is clean. You would assume it is in the state you left it (dirty) until it has been proven otherwise.

You can't expect the ratios being close to 1:1 to say: Ok, there isn't discrimination anymore. You can wait and wait for that to happen in engineering and healthcare

 

[ZapperZ]

I have hesitated in participating in this thread, mainly because this topic HAS been discussed already a number of times. See, this one, for example

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=700359

First of all, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1. No one is advocating a 1:1 ratio of women to men in science/physics. In many of the issues I've read regarding women in science, I can't ever remember reading that this was the goal!

2. No one is arguing that men and women are the same! In fact, I would like to insist that, in many aspect beyond physiology, women and men SHOULD be different! This is not a bad thing, and in fact, it is a GOOD thing. If large groups of scientists from different parts of the world with different cultures, religions, social norms, etc. can work together and present various idea from different points of views, then having men and women who are different from each other is a strength! No one is trying to assimilate one into the other!

3. There aren't that many obvious, blatant discrimination anymore in many parts, and certainly, in the US and in many Western world, it is illegal to blatantly prevent a woman moving up the ladder in science just because she is a woman.

Now, having said all that, there ARE issues in the way science is done that hinders the progress and participation of women. These are not done on purpose, nor even done consciously. Since the practice of science and how it is done have been done throughout history by men, the system in place never accounts for the issues faced by women. In the link I gave above about a previous thread on this topic, there are several issues faced by women that are unique to them that aren't usually the burden of men in general.

One such example is family obligation. While this may not be that big of an issue in, say the US, women scientists in other parts of the world are faced with the social obligation of raising a family, regardless of her standing in the scientific world. A man can just pick up and go to attend a conference, a woman can't do that that easily. Still, if you read the account giving in the links in my post, you'll see that even women here in the US continue to feel that family obligation, that they do not have the same freedom as men to simply pick up and spend, say, 2 weeks at CERN during a run.

Not being able to do all these, or not being able to do these as often, can have an affect on one's scientific career. Again, these are not something that are consciously done to prevent women from going further in science. It is just part of an established system that never had to consider the needs of women before. And recognizing that is the first step in trying to remedy the situation.

I'm not in the mood to force someone into science or to shove someone in who doesn't belong. However, I also feel that it is a shame if talented people, be it men or women, don't go into science, and especially physics, just because of other extraneous circumstances. It is especially sad if they are driven away simply because we didn't recognize the barriers we unconsciously put in front of them. It is a waste of potential talent!

To read my opinion about one of the latest statistical analysis of women faculty members done by the AIP, go here.

Zz.

 

[jgens]

I swore off participating further, but this example is so silly.

A good example is the 'T' variable in MBTI, i.e. a rational thinker type of person, which we know is a type that is heavily overrepresented in technical sciences like engineering/physics/mathematics.
Statistics show that among men there are twice as many T as for women (see here for example).

The first problem with the MBTI test is that "types" are roughly normally distributed i.e. they bunch up around the middle. So while the peak for men on the Feeling/Thinking scale is skewed more towards the "Thinking" end than for women, the sheer breakdown between number of men with the "Thinking" trait and number of women with the "Thinking" trait exacerbates the real difference.

The second issue here is that men and women are socialized to think about themselves differently. Since the test depends wholly on self-perception, and since women on the whole are societally taught they are less rational and more emotional (while men are taught the opposite), my concern is that the existing difference on the Feeling/Thinking scale is more a product of the status quo than an intrinsic personality difference.

This clearly explain why there would be an expected gender difference in the technical sciences even in a perfectly gender-unbiased society.

This is not so clear in my opinion. Certainly there are genuine personality differences between men and women (on average), but whether this particular test is good at detecting them is genuinely dubious.

 

[jesse73]

I have hesitated in participating in this thread, mainly because this topic HAS been discussed already a number of times. See, this one, for example

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=700359

First of all, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1. No one is advocating a 1:1 ratio of women to men in science/physics. In many of the issues I've read regarding women in science, I can't ever remember reading that this was the goal!

2. No one is arguing that men and women are the same! In fact, I would like to insist that, in many aspect beyond physiology, women and men SHOULD be different! This is not a bad thing, and in fact, it is a GOOD thing. If large groups of scientists from different parts of the world with different cultures, religions, social norms, etc. can work together and present various idea from different points of views, then having men and women who are different from each other is a strength! No one is trying to assimilate one into the other!

Agree especially with these 2 points

 

[StatGuy2000]

I swore off participating further, but this example is so silly.



The first problem with the MBTI test is that "types" are roughly normally distributed i.e. they bunch up around the middle. So while the peak for men on the Feeling/Thinking scale is skewed more towards the "Thinking" end than for women, the sheer breakdown between number of men with the "Thinking" trait and number of women with the "Thinking" trait exacerbates the real difference.

The second issue here is that men and women are socialized to think about themselves differently. Since the test depends wholly on self-perception, and since women on the whole are societally taught they are less rational and more emotional (while men are taught the opposite), my concern is that the existing difference on the Feeling/Thinking scale is more a product of the status quo than an intrinsic personality difference.



This is not so clear in my opinion. Certainly there are genuine personality differences between men and women (on average), but whether this particular test is good at detecting them is genuinely dubious.

I completely agree with all of the points raised by jgens. It is indeed true that the "types" as defined in the MBTI psychometric test are roughly normally distributed so you would expect to see considerable overlap between men and women on the different "types".

Further, tests based on self-perception as above are frequently subject to bias (in this case due to cultural norms), and thus validity and reliability of the test in detecting personality differences may well be suspect.

 

[ZapperZ]

This latest study examines the differences that led some women to choose one area of physical science over another, especially in comparison on why certain women will choose chemistry over physics, for example.

http://prst-per.aps.org/abstract/PRSTPER/v10/i1/e010104

The paper should be available for free.

Zz.

 

[AlephZero]

From ZZ's study, above:

Results indicate that females who have negative undergraduate chemistry experiences as well as higher grades and positive experiences in undergraduate physics are more likely to pursue a career in physics as opposed to chemistry.

Well, who would have guessed that? [/IRONY]

And why would you expect males to behave any differently (unless males make irrational decisions, of course).

 

[D H]

(unless males make irrational decisions, of course).

Of course not!

There's even a show on MTV dedicated almost exclusively to the entirely rational decisions made by teenage boys and young adult men. "Could something bad result if I jumped off this building? Who cares? YOLO!" You don't see many females on that show making such perfectly rational decisions.

[/sarcasm]

 

[Chronos]

There is one factor that probably impedes women's success more than any other - not just in science, but, in most career paths - and that is risk aversion. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...y-risk-taking-leads-to-success_n_3749425.html for discussion. Incidentally, the article was written by a woman.

 

[Pythagorean]

Interestingly, that article points out that the alleged tendency for women to not take risks is not biological, but a product of nurture. I perceive that as support of the idea that it's a man's world and we would need policy (or some other major social game changer) if the goal is to overcome the impedance to success for women.

On the other hand, I think a bigger impedance to people's success and ability to take risk is poverty. A woman born into a rich family has many more opportunities than a man born into poverty and can take many more risks exploring those opportunities.

 

[jesse73]

There is one factor that probably impedes women's success more than any other - not just in science, but, in most career paths - and that is risk aversion. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...y-risk-taking-leads-to-success_n_3749425.html for discussion. Incidentally, the article was written by a woman.

I am assuming you have taken a science course given that you are on this forum and appeal to your scientific sensibilities in pointing out that that article is an op-ed piece with no data outside of a few anecdotes from some female CEO's except for the the beginning of the second paragraph which contradicts your bolded statement.

But the idea that women are biologically risk-averse is a myth.

which link to these articles which claim that women don't take less risk than men especially when you account for leverage on that risk.
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2012/11/why-women-dont-take-risks-with-their-money/265224/
http://www.simmons.edu/overview/about/news/press/820.php

The huffinton post article seems to not do a great job of describing the articles it links which means that it is a good idea to actually read the articles or study it links to.

 

[jesse73]

From ZZ's study, above:Well, who would have guessed that? [/IRONY]

And why would you expect males to behave any differently (unless males make irrational decisions, of course).

Agree that paper isn't that insightful since their conclusion applies to anyone. They should of done the same thing for males and then compared but likely it would be the same thing so they wouldn't have much of a paper.

 

[Chronos]

I never said women were biologically risk aversive, so where is the perceived contradiction?

 

[ainster31]

First of all, let's be clear about a couple of things:

1. No one is advocating a 1:1 ratio of women to men in science/physics. In many of the issues I've read regarding women in science, I can't ever remember reading that this was the goal!

2. No one is arguing that men and women are the same! In fact, I would like to insist that, in many aspect beyond physiology, women and men SHOULD be different! This is not a bad thing, and in fact, it is a GOOD thing. If large groups of scientists from different parts of the world with different cultures, religions, social norms, etc. can work together and present various idea from different points of views, then having men and women who are different from each other is a strength! No one is trying to assimilate one into the other!

Do people actually agree with this or is this just your opinion? Maybe this is because I am from Canada and as a result of the political atmosphere in Canada, this is exactly what I hear people advocate. More than once, I've heard that the only difference between men and women are their genitals. I tell them that this isn't scientifically true and I get called sexist. Admittedly, it probably is my cognitive bias that makes me focus on the idiots.

 

[ZapperZ]

Do people actually agree with this or is this just your opinion? Maybe this is because I am from Canada and as a result of the political atmosphere in Canada, this is exactly what I hear people advocate. More than once, I've heard that the only difference between men and women are their genitals. I tell them that this isn't scientifically true and I get called sexist. Admittedly, it probably is my cognitive bias that makes me focus on the idiots.

I do not pay attention to talking heads and politicians. I pay attention to scholarly articles. So THOSE are what I refer to when I said that I have never heard or read any assertion that we have to have 1:1 male:female ratio on science. There's nothing to indicate that this is what the goal is. You are welcome to browse various journals and point out to me if this is false.

I have participated in many outreach programs, activities, and panel discussion on women in science. So I'm not just some Joe Schmoe off the street who simply has an uneducated opinion about this and decided to spew things off the top of my head.

Zz.

 

[ModusPwnd]

What ratio is the goal?

Or, what metric do we use to conclude we are "done" actively trying to allow or push women into science?

Certainly the ratio was the big thing that was always harped on to us when I was in school.

 

[ZapperZ]

What ratio is the goal?

I wouldn't know.

Or, what metric do we use to conclude we are "done" actively trying to allow or push women into science?

Certainly the ratio was the big thing that was always harped on to us when I was in school.

You were told that in school? Whatever for, and whatever could you have done?

In many studies, the performance of girls and boys in science are almost even, up to the beginning of college. this is not simply in the number of boys and girls in physics, but also in their ability to do physics. What most most who study this issue is concerned about is, what happened to cause a sharp drop-off by the end of the students' undergraduate years, and into graduate school, and why many women gave up their careers as physicists.

In other words, at least from my perspective, and from most of the effort that I've put into this, it is the issue of RETENTION. It is why I pointed out the issue of women having MORE pressures put on them in terms of leaving their families to be able to attend conferences, spend weeks at an experiment, etc.. etc. This is a HUGE issue in developing world where the role of women is still predominantly as the primary caregiver of the family. To me, if you cannot retain these girls that had originally selected to go into physics, then efforts to encourage more to study this field will be useless, because there's a good chance they'll leave the field before making it as a career.

Zz.

 

[ModusPwnd]

Yes, I was told that in both undergrad and grad school. I don't know what I could have done. That's why I said it was ridiculous and offensive in the second reply.

If retention is the issue, why does physics have a worse ratio than most other sciences? Most people, male or female, get pressured out of science at some point in their studies/career. The ratio of females to males not in or never in science is almost unity.

Beyond this, I'm not sure these women would in fact be better served if they did spend more time in the lab and less time with their family. To what end is having some unknown higher ratio of women in science a means? Is it for the benefit of them, is it for the benefit of society or is it simply an end unto itself?

I suppose the flip side could also be true. Many men could benefit from not having pressure to have a high flying career and would be better served interacting with their family than working on a career.

 

[ZapperZ]

If retention is the issue, why does physics have a worse ratio than most other sciences? Most people, male or female, get pressured out of science at some point in their studies/career. The ratio of females to males not in or never in science is almost unity.

But this is what people are trying to find out. There have been a few studies on this, trying to figure out at what point women abandon this field. From what I have read, it happens at different times and different stages. Why this is more severe in physics is what we are still trying to figure out. There are no easy answers, and I suspect, there aren't going to be any easy solutions either.

Beyond this, I'm not sure these women would in fact be better served if they did spend more time in the lab and less time with their family. To what end is having some unknown higher ratio of women in science a means? Is it for the benefit of them, is it for the benefit of society or is it simply an end unto itself?

It's a matter of opportunity and letting someone fulfill his/her potential. If someone decides that something isn't for them, then that's fine. However, if someone abandons something RELUCTANTLY, due to external pressures, then we need to figure out what they are, and whether something could be done. This is what most studies are trying to discover. Is there something INHERENT in the system that discourages, even unintentionally, women from continuing in physics?

http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/65/2/10.1063/PT.3.1439

We simply can't just wash our hands in face of such staggering statistics on something like this. And I'm not one who will back anything and everything that seem to show an apparent disparity in the number of women versus men in physics (read my blog entry that I highlighted earlier). The responsible thing is to figure out if there is something we can do to change this, to retain a larger number of female students who had already shown interest in pursuing a career in physics.

Zz.

 

[ModusPwnd]

The responsible thing is to figure out if there is something we can do to change this, to retain a larger number of female students who had already shown interest in pursuing a career in physics.

This presumes that the answer to your preceding paragraph is already known and the verdict is guilty. If this were true, I would be onboard with your quote. But I don't see it as true. At the risk of being some "Joe Schmoe off the street who simply has an uneducated opinion about this and decided to spew things off the top of my head", I see women and men turn away from science to their own benefit. Science is a career oriented profession and that is not fulfilling to them and they are doing great after leaving. I don't think there is anything wrong with women being more family oriented than men. I don't think there is anything wrong with that if its biological, sociological or a combination of the both. Honestly, I'm a little jealous of that now that I am nearing middle age. I probably could have enjoyed fostering and being with family instead of shooting for a career.

I think the women often have the right idea. Family can easily be more important than a career.edit - I like your thoughts though, and appreciate them. They are better than the knee jerk guilt that I encountered so often in school.

 

[ZapperZ]

This presumes that the answer to your preceding paragraph is already known and the verdict is guilty. If this were true, I would be onboard with your quote. But I don't see it as true. At the risk of being some "Joe Schmoe off the street who simply has an uneducated opinion about this and decided to spew things off the top of my head", I see women and men turn away from science to their own benefit. Science is a career oriented profession and that is not fulfilling to them and they are doing great after leaving. I don't think there is anything wrong with women being more family oriented than men. I don't think there is anything wrong with that if its biological, sociological or a combination of the both. Honestly, I'm a little jealous of that now that I am nearing middle age. I probably could have enjoyed fostering and being with family instead of shooting for a career.

I think the women often have the right idea. Family can easily be more important than a career.

But this is not what I'm talking about. Read again what I've written so far. If someone decides that a career in physics isnt' for them, then this is NOT an issue, and this isn't what I'm concerned about.

However, there is a severe imbalance between women doing other sciences versus those in the physical science/engineering. Now you may argue that there's nothing "unusual" about this, but using your quote, this presumes that there isn't an inherent obstacle in the first place.

I will put it to you that there ARE indications that there are obstacles. While the evidence needs to be made more convincing, it is leaning more towards there having some issues with how the system is run. This is what many are trying to figure out. I still don't know if various researchers who study these problems have actually clarify enough to my satisfaction, but unlike you, I am seeing emerging evidence that the system may unintentionally discourages girls from not only continuing, but pursuing a career in physics.

This is different than changing one's mind and deciding to jump ship!

Zz.

 

[Chronos]

My earlier point is women are not inclined to take risks - which is vital in a highly competitive academic environment, like science. You are at a competitive disadvantage if perceived as risk aversive in most any career path. The history of science teaches us it does not belong to the timid. Academia demands people who are not fearful of making mistakes. It only objects to those who refuse to learn from them. The list of world class physicists who have blundered at some point in their career is endless. The list of those who never dared make a mistake - nonexistent.

 

[jesse73]

What ratio is the goal?

Or, what metric do we use to conclude we are "done" actively trying to allow or push women into science?

Certainly the ratio was the big thing that was always harped on to us when I was in school.

At least a not having a wage and employment gap for physics majors of both genders with same experience.

 

[sourlemon]

To diverge from the current discussion and answer samnorris question:

After applying for several REUs, the forums here seem to indicate that a lot of the spaces are reserved for women and minorities.

I don't know what to say about this. I tend to advocate and support programs that help people in financial hardship rather than base on gender.

My freshman year, I was first author on a paper that I was definitely not the driving force behind, because being able to list that a girl did that on an NSF proposal makes it more likely that my research group will get funding.

Wow, I feel bad for one who was driving this.

Two years ago, my university hired an incompetent female for a physics professor for the sake of diversit.This nonsense is ridiculous.

I agree with you that your university is taking this too far. If the reason they hire a female professor is to add diversity, that's just wrong. It is not fair for the other qualified applicant. It is harmful to the department and the students. Most of these students paid to be there. They shouldn't have to deal with bad teachers. The argument could be that they didn't know she was bad and they did fire her so at least that's a step forward.

Do you think it's best to mark "prefer not to respond" when applications ask for your gender, so that you are considered based on your ability? But then, you are probably less likely to get it, since you are probably not a minority. There really is no way to be fair.

I actually never thought about this. I would probably answer "prefer not to respond" because I want to be judge based on my work, not what gender or race I am.

I definitely don't have the answer on how to encourage more people to go into STEM fields. If someone does, please let me know.
I think it is important to have different ideas and opinions. I grew a lot last year because I had a mentor who is very different than me. That is not to say I will favor the minority or lower the standard for them. I think that would be an insult to them. Instead, I would probably do more outreach to schools with those minorities. I would encourage and provide support for them.

 

[D H]

Interestingly, that article points out that the alleged tendency for women to not take risks is not biological, but a product of nurture.

Yes the article does say that, but how do they know that this is the case? The "proof" offered in the cited article is a straw person argument. They cited an article that debunks the claim that all women are risk averse. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there is a gender-based difference with regard to those who aren't risk averse. Most people, men and women, are risk averse. There aren't that many who are willing to risk half their life savings on some risky venture that might result in a big payoff but also might result in losing everything.

Separating nature from nurture is not a simple task in general. It's even harder when looking at the long tails of some weirdly shaped probability distribution curve. Successful business leaders, physicists, and engineers don't come from anywhere near the peak of the distribution curve. They come from the long tails.

The topic at hand is how much of the underrepresentation of females in the hard sciences and physics-based engineering is attributable to gender bias, how much represents a self-perpetuating status quo that isn't quite as ugly as gender bias but nonetheless should be addressed, how much reflects some self-selected difference between the genders, and how much, if any, reflects an innate difference between the genders. The latter two categories apparently are off-limits as explanations for this underrepresentation.

 

[Pythagorean]

[...] straw person argument.

I don't disagree. My thoughts when I first heard women are risk adverse was actually biologically/evolutionary motivated. Women can only produce offspring once a year or so, they carry the prenatal offspring with them for a long time, take care of the vulnerable baby for a long time... it wouldn't be surprising if they weren't into taking risks as readily as males. But that was just my knee-jerk speculation.

 

[mheslep]

The woman's performance will quickly confirm if it was merit based.

Both performance *and* reputation matter.

 

[Evo]

Both performance *and* reputation matter.

What do you mean by "reputation" in this scenario? "The woman's "reputation" will quickly confirm if it (award) was merit based." ?

 

[jesse73]

My earlier point is women are not inclined to take risks - which is vital in a highly competitive academic environment, like science. You are at a competitive disadvantage if perceived as risk aversive in most any career path. The history of science teaches us it does not belong to the timid. Academia demands people who are not fearful of making mistakes. It only objects to those who refuse to learn from them. The list of world class physicists who have blundered at some point in their career is endless. The list of those who never dared make a mistake - nonexistent.

The links in the article you posted go against this notion. The second link basically says that women are as inclined to take risks as men when you account for the degree of leverage (women have less wealth therefore like any person with less wealth (male or female) they are less likely to gamble it all).

 

[mheslep]

What do you mean by "reputation" in this scenario? "The woman's "reputation" will quickly confirm if it (award) was merit based." ?

That which is suggested by the OP: that because she is a woman in this field she will be perceived as unqualified due to the "ridiculous" (her term) preferences given to women regardless of merit.