Physics Men vs. Women in Physics Careers

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the underrepresentation of women in physics and explores whether this is due to inherent differences in abilities between genders or a lack of encouragement and societal support for women in the field. Some participants argue that men may have a natural advantage in analytical skills and mathematical ability, suggesting that even with equal training, women might not perform as well in physics-related challenges. Others counter that differences in learning styles, societal roles, and encouragement play significant roles in shaping interests and career paths, emphasizing that women often excel in other sciences like biology and chemistry due to differing educational approaches.Concerns are raised about the impact of social expectations and responsibilities, particularly regarding family and career balance, which may deter women from pursuing physics. The conversation also touches on the importance of presenting physics in a way that is more engaging for women and the need for supportive environments that encourage female participation in the field.
  • #91
"
jamesmo said:
I can't believe you missed the article. Though some differences were present early, those resolved at later timepoints. To remind you of the article:

R. U. Kidding, et.al., "Spatial reasoning of the male mind: Do men space out during the spring semister more than women?", Am. Jour. of Mandom, June, 2003 p 523-523.5.

Abstract: We observed 50 subjects (two cohorts: 25 male, 25 female) all in seniors at a 4 year college for behaviors that could be traced to the known condition of "graduation-pattern-spaciness". These behaviors include, staring out windows, sipping beers with friends, and spending excessive amount of time with other participates in the study, not of their study cohort. We coorrelated these with outdoor temperature, time to graduation, and major.

CONCLUSION: The males in the study did demonstrate a 25% higher "spaciness" in the earlier time groups (March and April, p< 0.05), however both cohorts (male and female) achieved a similar level of spaciness in May (p=0.3). The correlation in both cohorts with outdoor temperature was high (r=0.95). Physicists tended to be more vulnerable to the effects of graduation-pattern-spaciness.
"

What you have now presented hasn't previously appeared on this topic. I'd appreciate a link (url) to what you have presented. Also, a link(url) to "Am. Jour. of Mandom" would be helpful. (If this is a scientific journal then I am not familiar with it.) This also seems to be a type of trial study, which I surely don't consider it to be a scientifically peer-reviewed article. What you have presented from "Am. Jour. of Mandom" has little to do with your statement, "But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does."
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
ViewsofMars said:
""

What you have now presented hasn't previously appeared on this topic. I'd appreciate a link (url) to what you have presented. Also, a link(url) to "Am. Jour. of Mandom" would be helpful. This also seems to be a type of trial study, which I surely don't consider to be a scientifically peer-reviewed article. What you have presented from "Am. Jour. of Mandom" has little to do with your statement, "But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does."

The Am. Jour. of Mandom is one of several journals from the International Academy of Quackery. (www.iaq.org) Some of its other famous Journals are: Journal of Underwater Basketweaving, Amero-Franco Journal of Vino Therapy, and Crystal Therapy Review Letters.

Also, "But in all seriousness, yes the neurology research shows men are better at spatial reasoning, which may lend itself to the sciences better than a woman's brain does." wasn't my quote, I just happen to be a member of the IAQ and receive their journal.
 
  • #93
I call this my "Switch and Bait." :smile: Easy to catch two, jamesmo ('a member of the IAQ and recieve their journal' which he states is from 'the International Academy of Quackery') and infers that Ki Man msg. #82 pertains to an article that came from the Am. Jour. of Mandom which is from 'the International Academy of Quackery' which the link jamesmo provided indicates it is not 'the International Academy of Quackery' but the INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY for QUALITY.

My conclusion is the IAQ (the International Academy of Quackery) purposed by jamesmo is not a peer-reviewed science journal such as internationally known Science and Nature AND neither is the International Academy for Quality. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #94
Wow ladies and gentlemen...this thread has singlehandedly caused me to lose a great deal of respect for the quality of scientists who frequent these forums. I have never seen such a festering mess of anecdotal evidence, generalization, and unscientific gossip.

The greatest weakness of any scientists is his/her predisposition to compartmentalization of science. I see here eminent physicists falling back upon anecdotal evidence instead of discussing the details of human sexual dimorphism. This is a field that is progressing rapidly, and there are many excellent authors who tackle this issue from a variety of perspectives: anthropology, evolutionary psychology, game theory, and many more.We aren't asking the right questions. We see a trend of females not excelling at the highest levels of academia. We also see a trend in females reading romance novels, and females becoming infatuated with actors/athletes/millionaires and other successful males. Conversely, we see men are obsessed with challenging activities such as science, politics, sport and finance. To validate these trends, controlled scientific trials are required; and believe me, they have been performed. The hypotheses that describe these phenomena exist, have a staggering amount of evidence supporting them, and are excellent predictors of future trends.

But then, as with any science that deals with humans, the results are deemed "controversial". This obviously means nothing to a scientist, for there are facts and there are explanations of facts. I shall not proceed further, and will let readers come to their own conclusions. I recommend Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype, followed by Matt Ridley's The Red Queen for starters.

I challenge all those readers interested in this topic to read the above two works, and go onto reading more detailed works if your curiosity is sparked. If not, you must understand that you are willingly choosing a path of scientific ignorance, and thus none of your arguments will hold a single grain of objectivity with which we can collaborate and discuss interesting hypotheses on the subject of human sexual dimorphism.
 
  • #95
"
FD3SA said:
We see a trend of females not excelling at the highest levels of academia. We also see a trend in females reading romance novels, and females becoming infatuated with actors/athletes/millionaires and other successful males. Conversely, we see men are obsessed with challenging activities such as science, politics, sport and finance. To validate these trends, controlled scientific trials are required; and believe me, they have been performed. The hypotheses that describe these phenomena exist, have a staggering amount of evidence supporting them, and are excellent predictors of future trends.
"

Hi FD3SA, welcome. :biggrin: Do you have any articles from a peer-reviewed journal that will support your claim? Clinical trials often reflect a small group of individuals. These trials continue on for years until a break-through occurs. I am not saying that scientific trials are worthless, but often I see a very small number of individuals involved then next you know it's being broadcast on the Internet that "all men and/or woman".:mad: A generalization is made which doesn't truly reflect the trial study of a small population.

"
FD3SA said:
We aren't asking the right questions. We see a trend of females not excelling at the highest levels of academia. We also see a trend in females reading romance novels, and females becoming infatuated with actors/athletes/millionaires and other successful males. Conversely, we see men are obsessed with challenging activities such as science, politics, sport and finance. To validate these trends, controlled scientific trials are required; and believe me, they have been performed. The hypotheses that describe these phenomena exist, have a staggering amount of evidence supporting them, and are excellent predictors of future trends.
"

How many females and males reside in the U.S.A.? How many females and males reside in the UK? How many females and males live on this planet?:biggrin: How many females did you "see" in the trend as you mention above? Was there a reason males were left out of the trial that you did see? Once again I ask, "Do you have any articles from a peer-reviewed journal that will support your claim?" I would like to see the results of these trials that resulted in a trend that you did see.
 
Last edited:
  • #96
ViewsofMars said:
Hi FD3SA, welcome. :biggrin: Do you have any articles from a peer-reviewed journal that will support your claim? Clinical trials often reflect a small group of individuals. These trials continue on for years until a break-through occurs. I am not saying that scientific trials are worthless, but often I see a very small number of individuals involved then next you know it's being broadcast on the Internet that "all men and/or woman".:mad: A generalization is made which doesn't truly reflect the trial study of a small population.

How many females and males reside in the U.S.A.? How many females and males reside in the UK? How many females and males live on this planet?:biggrin:

Hi ViewofMars,

I actually deleted a paragraph (for brevity's sake) that explained further what I meant when I spoke of hypothesis describing human sexual dimorphism. It went something along these lines:

When we speak anecdotally of male/female behaviour, we refer to very specific incidences (e.g. female mathematical ability). However, we must understanding that the current theory of human sexual dimorphism is nowhere near this level of sophistication and as such cannot make accurate predictions of how female neural plasticity lends itself to mathematical faculty (compared to males). I do not try to confer potential quantum states from the muffin model of the atom; I would beg of you not to do the same with human sexual dimorphism. Such discussions inevitably degrade into the realm of opinion, where anything goes and everything is "equally right". I would say the past six pages have thus far demonstrated this phenomena admirably.

This being said, the current theory of human sexual dimorphism does explain the majority of male/female behavioural predisposition as an extended phenotype that has conferred a selective advantage among successive generations. Thus, we can begin to guess why females are predisposed to certain behaviour (romance novels, successful men, etc.) and men to others (challenging pursuit). We have simply grounded our guesses in the existing realm of science, rather than whimsical circus of opinion.

Finally, I firmly admit that I have no firm scientific answer to questions like "are males predisposed to mathematical ability vs. females". But I do have some insight as to how males and females differ from an evolutionary perspective; this view lends itself to the formulation of some interesting hypothesis. I merely wish that I could discuss my hypothesis with an audience that views this problem objectively. The last six pages have left my curiosity in a dire thirst for objective discussion.
 
  • #97
FD3SA said:
Finally, I firmly admit that I have no firm scientific answer to questions like "are males predisposed to mathematical ability vs. females". But I do have some insight as to how males and females differ from an evolutionary perspective; this view lends itself to the formulation of some interesting hypothesis. I merely wish that I could discuss my hypothesis with an audience that views this problem objectively. The last six pages have left my curiosity in a dire thirst for objective discussion.

Hi FD3SA, thank you for your honesty. I suggest that you ask a Mentor for help. Hopefully, you might be able to discuss this on another forum. I for one would be interested in your comments. :smile: I did present a document sometime back that may be of help to you. I'll search for it. :smile:

I've found it! This is what I posted to Physics Forums > Other Sciences > Social Sciences - Topic: On the issue of kids not pursuing engineering/science/math these days.
Msg. 143

The National Science Board’s newly released SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICTORS 2010. It's 566 pages. ( I love to read.) Here are excerpts from a few chapters.
Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
7-4
Information Sources, Interest, and Involvement

Television and the Internet are the primary sources

Americans use for science and technology (S&T) information.
The Internet is the main source of information for learning about specific scientific issues such as global climate change or biotechnology.

-More Americans select television as their primary source of S&T information than any other medium.
-The Internet ranks second among sources of S&T information, and its margin over other sources is large and has been growing.
-Internet users do not always assume that online S&T information is accurate. About four out of five have checked on the reliability of information at least once.

Continuing a long-standing pattern, Americans consistently express high levels of interest in S&T in surveys. However, other indicators, such as the types of news they follow closely, suggest a lower level of interest.

-High levels of interest in S&T are part of a long-standing trend, with more than 80% of Americans reporting they were “very” or “moderately” interested in new scientific discoveries. But relative to other news topics, interest in S&T is not particularly high.

-As with many news topics, the percentage of Americans who say they follow “science and technology” news “closely” has declined over the last 10 years.

-Recent surveys in other countries, including South Korea, China, and much of Europe, indicate that the overall level of public interest in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” tends to be higher in the United States.

-Interest in “environmental pollution” or “the environment” is similarly high in the U.S., Europe, South Korea, and Brazil. About 9 in 10 respondents in each country expressed interest in this topic.

In 2008, a majority of Americans said they had visited an informal science institution such as a zoo or a natural history museum within the past year. This proportion is generally consistent with results from surveys conducted since 1979, but slightly lower than the proportion recorded in 2001.

-Americans with more formal education are much more likely to engage in informal science activities.
-Compared with the United States, visits to informal science institutions tend to be less common in Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil.

Public Knowledge About S&T

Many Americans do not give correct answers to questions about basic factual knowledge of science or the scientific inquiry process.
-Americans’ factual knowledge about science is positively related to their formal education level, income level, the number of science and math courses they have taken, and their verbal ability.
-People who score well on long-standing knowledge measures that test for information typically learned in school also appear to know more about new science related topics
such as nanotechnology.

Levels of factual knowledge of science in the United States are comparable to those in Europe and appear to be higher than in Japan, China, or Russia.
-In the United States, levels of factual knowledge of science have been stable; Europe shows evidence of recent improvement in factual knowledge of science.
-In European countries, China, and Korea demographic variations in factual knowledge are similar to those in the United States.

Compared to the mid-1990s, Americans show a modest improvement in understanding the process of scientific inquiry in recent years.
-Americans’ understanding of scientific inquiry is strongly associated with their factual knowledge of science and level of education.
-Americans’ scores on questions measuring their understanding of the logic of experimentation and controlling variables do not differ by sex. In contrast, men tend to score higher than women on factual knowledge questions in the physical sciences.

Public Attitudes About S&T in General

Americans in all demographic groups consistently endorse the past achievements and future promise of S&T.
-In 2008, 68% of Americans said that the benefits of scientific research have strongly outweighed the harmful results, and only 10% said harmful results slightly or strongly outweighed the benefits.
-Nearly 9 in 10 Americans agree with the statement “because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation.”
-Americans also express some reservations about science. Nearly half of Americans agree that “science makes our way of life change too fast.”


7-15


International Comparisons
Using identical questions, recent surveys conducted in other countries indicate that the overall level of self-reported public interest in S&T is lower than in the United States. Between 75% and 80% of survey respondents in South Korea, China, and Europe said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” compared to 86% and 88% respectively of Americans in the 2008 GSS, respectively (appendix table 7-4) (KOFAC 2009; CRISP 2008; EC 2005).

Using slightly different questions, about three-quarters of Brazilians said they were “very interested” or “a little interested” in “science and technology” (MCT of Brazil 2006). In Malaysia, 58% of the respondents said they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in new technology” and 51% in the “latest inventions in science”
(MASTIC 2004).

In the 2005 European survey (called the 2005 “Eurobarometer”), there was considerable variation among different countries in self-reported interest in S&T-related issues, and the overall level of interest was down from the most recent survey in 1992. In both the United States and in Europe, men showed more interest in S&T than women. For more recent European data on interest in scientific research in general, see sidebar “Scientific Research in the Media in Europe.”5 Interest in environmental issues is similarly high in the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Brazil—about 9 in 10 respondents in each country or region expressed interest in this topic, although slight variations in survey terminology should be taken into account.6 In Malaysia, interest in
“environmental pollution” was lower (61% said they were
“interested” or “very interested” in this issue).

Like Americans, Europeans and Brazilians are more interested in medicine than in S&T in general. In the United States, nearly everyone was interested in new medical discoveries (94%) ; in Brazil, most people (91%) were interested in “medicine and health” issues. In Europe, South Korea, and China, interest in new medical discoveries seemed to be lower—between 77% and 83% said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in this issue. In Malaysia, 59% indicated they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in the field of medicine.”7
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf


The National Science Board’s newly released SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING INDICTORS 2010. It's 566 pages. ( I love to read.) Here are excerpts from a few chapters.
Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
7-4
Information Sources, Interest, and Involvement

Television and the Internet are the primary sources

Americans use for science and technology (S&T) information.
The Internet is the main source of information for learning about specific scientific issues such as global climate change or biotechnology.

-More Americans select television as their primary source of S&T information than any other medium.
-The Internet ranks second among sources of S&T information, and its margin over other sources is large and has been growing.
-Internet users do not always assume that online S&T information is accurate. About four out of five have checked on the reliability of information at least once.

Continuing a long-standing pattern, Americans consistently express high levels of interest in S&T in surveys. However, other indicators, such as the types of news they follow closely, suggest a lower level of interest.
-High levels of interest in S&T are part of a long-standing trend, with more than 80% of Americans reporting they were “very” or “moderately” interested in new scientific
discoveries. But relative to other news topics, interest in S&T is not particularly high.
-As with many news topics, the percentage of Americans who say they follow “science and technology” news “closely” has declined over the last 10 years.
-Recent surveys in other countries, including South Korea, China, and much of Europe, indicate that the overall level of public interest in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” tends to be higher in the United States.
-Interest in “environmental pollution” or “the environment” is similarly high in the U.S., Europe, South Korea, and Brazil. About 9 in 10 respondents in each country expressed interest in this topic.

In 2008, a majority of Americans said they had visited an informal science institution such as a zoo or a natural history museum within the past year. This proportion is generally consistent with results from surveys conducted since 1979, but slightly lower than the proportion recorded in 2001.
-Americans with more formal education are much more likely to engage in informal science activities.
-Compared with the United States, visits to informal science institutions tend to be less common in Europe, Japan, China, Russia, and Brazil.

Public Knowledge About S&T

Many Americans do not give correct answers to questions about basic factual knowledge of science or the scientific inquiry process.
-Americans’ factual knowledge about science is positively related to their formal education level, income level, the number of science and math courses they have taken, and their verbal ability.
-People who score well on long-standing knowledge measures that test for information typically learned in school also appear to know more about new science related topics
such as nanotechnology.

Levels of factual knowledge of science in the United States are comparable to those in Europe and appear to be higher than in Japan, China, or Russia.
-In the United States, levels of factual knowledge of science have been stable; Europe shows evidence of recent improvement in factual knowledge of science.
-In European countries, China, and Korea demographic variations in factual knowledge are similar to those in the United States.

Compared to the mid-1990s, Americans show a modest improvement in understanding the process of scientific inquiry in recent years.
-Americans’ understanding of scientific inquiry is strongly associated with their factual knowledge of science and level of education.
-Americans’ scores on questions measuring their understanding of the logic of experimentation and controlling variables do not differ by sex. In contrast, men tend to score higher than women on factual knowledge questions in the physical sciences.

Public Attitudes About S&T in General

Americans in all demographic groups consistently endorse the past achievements and future promise of S&T.
-In 2008, 68% of Americans said that the benefits of scientific research have strongly outweighed the harmful results, and only 10% said harmful results slightly or strongly outweighed the benefits.
-Nearly 9 in 10 Americans agree with the statement “because of science and technology, there will be more opportunities for the next generation.”
-Americans also express some reservations about science. Nearly half of Americans agree that “science makes our way of life change too fast.”


7-15

International Comparisons

Using identical questions, recent surveys conducted in other countries indicate that the overall level of self-reported public interest in S&T is lower than in the United States. Between 75% and 80% of survey respondents in South Korea, China, and Europe said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in “new scientific discoveries” and “use of new inventions and technologies” compared to 86% and 88% respectively of Americans in the 2008 GSS, respectively (appendix table 7-4) (KOFAC 2009; CRISP 2008; EC 2005).

Using slightly different questions, about three-quarters of Brazilians said they were “very interested” or “a little interested” in “science and technology” (MCT of Brazil 2006).
In Malaysia, 58% of the respondents said they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in new technology” and 51% in the “latest inventions in science”
(MASTIC 2004).

In the 2005 European survey (called the 2005 “Eurobarometer”), there was considerable variation among different countries in self-reported interest in S&T-related issues, and the overall level of interest was down from the most recent survey in 1992. In both the United States and in Europe, men showed more interest in S&T than women. For more recent European data on interest in scientific research in general, see sidebar “Scientific Research in the Media in Europe.”5 Interest in environmental issues is similarly high in the United States, Europe, South Korea, and Brazil—about 9 in 10 respondents in each country or region expressed interest in this topic, although slight variations in survey terminology should be taken into account.6 In Malaysia, interest in “environmental pollution” was lower (61% said they were “interested” or “very interested” in this issue).

Like Americans, Europeans and Brazilians are more interested in medicine than in S&T in general. In the United States, nearly everyone was interested in new medical discoveries (94%) ; in Brazil, most people (91%) were interested in “medicine and health” issues. In Europe, South Korea, and China, interest in new medical discoveries seemed to be lower—between 77% and 83% said they were “very” or “moderately” interested in this issue. In Malaysia, 59% indicated they were “interested” or “very interested” in the “latest inventions in the field of medicine.”7
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/seind10.pdf

Be sure to read within that pdf the following topics:
Chapter 1. Elementary and Secondary Mathematics and Science Chapter 2. Higher Education in Science and Engineering
Chapter 3. Science and Engineering Labor
Chapter 4. Research and Development: National Trends and International Linkages
Chapter 5. Academic Research and Development
Chapter 6. Industry, Technology, and the Global Marketplace
Chapter 7. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
Replies
19
Views
8K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
9K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K