Why Are There So Few Women in Science?

[Jow]

I know that science hasn't always been kind to women in the past but that seems to have changed. So why is it that there are so few women in the scientific community. I know it isn't extremely difficult to find a woman scientist, but compared to men the numbers are rather low (according to Forbes, in the US only 13% of physics PhDs are awarded to women). I am sure that there is still discrimination against women, but it seems to me that this should be significantly lower now as it used to be. What other major factors might there be which result in the fewer women scientists. I remember hearing somewhere that women don't go into science as much because it is harder to start a family due to the lack of stability in a science career and women don't want to wait until their late 30's to start having children. What do you think?

 

[encorp]

No really, in seriousness - In Canada I wouldn't say that is the case, it seems to me that so many more women are into it than men... at least from my perspective, I'm not really in the science field but have many family members are and they are all women.

 

[HeLiXe]

Well aside from the chauvinistic jokes from their peers and other annoyances...I think society encourages women to obtain careers in different fields such as business, medicine, social sciences, education, etc., and this in turn affects the decisions many women make when choosing a career.

 

[FalconOne]

Why are there so few men interested in elementary education? I guess men and women just have different preferences. Also, I don't know if it's completely true - I heard women sort of dominate biology.

I hate going to those horrible women in physics conferences that try to make me feel "special" about being a woman in physics. One that I went to basically said that I won't be as good at homework as the guys and that it will take me longer to understand the material, and that it's okay and that I should basically team up with other women to get my homework done. Maybe THAT'S why women don't want to be in physics - because other women tell them that they're going to be stupid and/or inferior.

 

[Astronuc]

I know that science hasn't always been kind to women in the past but that seems to have changed. So why is it that there are so few women in the scientific community. I know it isn't extremely difficult to find a woman scientist, but compared to men the numbers are rather low (according to Forbes, in the US only 13% of physics PhDs are awarded to women). I am sure that there is still discrimination against women, but it seems to me that this should be significantly lower now as it used to be. What other major factors might there be which result in the fewer women scientists.

Hopefully that is changing, albeit slowly. It's possible that many women were not ecouraged to go into math or science at an earlier age, which is unfortunate. That seems to have been case in the 1960s and earlier.

I remember hearing somewhere that women don't go into science as much because it is harder to start a family due to the lack of stability in a science career and women don't want to wait until their late 30's to start having children. What do you think?

It's a matter of finding the right partner/husband - easier said than done.

 

[berkeman]

Well aside from the chauvinistic jokes from their peers and other annoyances...

If anybody tries that where I work, they are fired for cause.

In my experience in Silicon Valley EE circles, women and men are very equivalent. And that's how I prefer it. I have also found our female engineering managers to be extremely talented and competent.

 

[Jow]

No really, in seriousness - In Canada I wouldn't say that is the case, it seems to me that so many more women are into it than men... at least from my perspective, I'm not really in the science field but have many family members are and they are all women.

I too am Canadian and though I think there are more women scientists here there are still very few.

 

[tahayassen]

I have also found our female engineering managers to be extremely talented and competent.

Great. More generalizations. Just we need for equity.

 

[Kholdstare]

Well aside from the chauvinistic jokes from their peers and other annoyances...I think society encourages women to obtain careers in different fields such as business, medicine, social sciences, education, etc., and this in turn affects the decisions many women make when choosing a career.

Today's society already encourages women more than men in science field (in overall sense). e.g. affirmative action, title IX etc. I also think (in today's world) people's carrier choice has little to do with what society expects out of them. Society can no longer influence a person's choice. A thorough personal cost-benefit analysis comes first.

Personally, I have no problem with few women in science OR few men in science, unless somebody is outright denied to pursue in that direction.

 

[Monique]

Today's society already encourages women more than men in science field (in overall sense). e.g. affirmative action, title IX etc.

I don't think so, I've experienced a strong negative bias towards women. I had 4 potential employers tell me that they weren't interested in females, while I think a person should always have more priority over a gender.

 

[berkeman]

Great. More generalizations. Just we need for equity.

I don't understand your statement.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't think so, I've experienced a strong negative bias towards women. I had 4 potential employers tell me that they weren't interested in females, while I think a person should always have more priority over a gender.

This must have been in Holland, right? In the US you can't turn someone away based on gender, race, age, sexual preference, etc. (I'm sure it happens, but it would be obfuscated by some more rational sounding objection.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

I have a feeling women gravitate toward biology and chemistry while men are more attracted to physics and engineering. There are way more women in medicine (as doctors) than there used to be, and I think that is the first field where equality of numbers will be reached, if it hasn't been already. Biology and chemistry as such will be next, and physics, probably never.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I went into Mathematics for the women. I was misinformed.

 

[dipole]

What is wrong with accepting that women and men are different. I like that girls are different from me, and I from them. I would hate if women/men thought alike, had the same interests and were "equal" in all respects.

It's so silly to think just because science/math/engineer or whatever is less appealing to women, that that somehow makes them inferior to men. Even if they were inferior in those areas (which may or may not be true on average, but certainly doesn't seem true on an individual basis) that wouldn't make them inferior as humans.

I wish women, and men, would just accept who/what they are and stop trying to force themselves in other roles because they're so afraid of being confined by their own sex.

 

[Kholdstare]

I don't think so, I've experienced a strong negative bias towards women. I had 4 potential employers tell me that they weren't interested in females, while I think a person should always have more priority over a gender.

If you're denied the jobs soley based on your gender then definitely its wrong. However, I was talking about US in which no employer will dare to do that.

 

[Kholdstare]

I don't understand your statement.

tahayassen, brekeman's comment cannot be generalization. It might be true in his workforce. We can't know. Had he said "all female engineering managers to be extremely talented and competent" I'd call BS on that.

 

[Kholdstare]

I have a feeling women gravitate toward biology and chemistry while men are more attracted to physics and engineering.

That is the exact same argument used to rationalize affirmative action which is to achieve equality in number BUT ALSO establishes the argument as a "fact". In other words affirmative action destroys its own need. At least, that very social science argument is BS.

 

[Kholdstare]

I went into Mathematics for the women. I was misinformed.

I'm afraid of laughing on this joke. You should simply search for Mathematics.

 

[Kholdstare]

What is wrong with accepting that women and men are different. I like that girls are different from me, and I from them. I would hate if women/men thought alike, had the same interests and were "equal" in all respects.

It's so silly to think just because science/math/engineer or whatever is less appealing to women, that that somehow makes them inferior to men. Even if they were inferior in those areas (which may or may not be true on average, but certainly doesn't seem true on an individual basis) that wouldn't make them inferior as humans.

I wish women, and men, would just accept who/what they are and stop trying to force themselves in other roles because they're so afraid of being confined by their own sex.

+1 dipole.

Everyone is different and that should be respected and not forced to be changed. Science has been wrongly pedestalized/sensationalized too much.

 

[Monique]

This must have been in Holland, right? In the US you can't turn someone away based on gender, race, age, sexual preference, etc. (I'm sure it happens, but it would be obfuscated by some more rational sounding objection.)

In Holland that cannot be done either. They say one cannot select on those characteristics, but yes it happens and no they won't say they're doing it.

If you're denied the jobs soley based on your gender then definitely its wrong. However, I was talking about US in which no employer will dare to do that.

How will you know whether an employer is not doing that? In my case people were open enough to tell me, probably that's the difference. Actually I talked to my employer not too long ago on this issue and shared the story of not being invited for interviews because of my gender, then my employer confided that they understood the selection and that I was not supposed to be invited either! That actual selection stopped me from getting the job that I wanted, a male was selected who ended up not showing up for the job: talk about selecting someone motived and fitting...

 

[Kholdstare]

In Holland that cannot be done either. They say one cannot select on those characteristics, but yes it happens and no they won't say they're doing it. How will you know whether an employer is not doing that? In my case people were open enough to tell me, probably that's the difference. Actually I talked to my employer not too long ago on this issue and shared the story of not being invited for interviews because of my gender, then my employer confided that they understood the selection and that I was not supposed to be invited either! That actual selection stopped me from getting the job that I wanted, a male was selected who ended up not showing up for the job: talk about selecting someone motived and fitting...

How will you be so sure that the employer is doing that even if they tell you that's not the case? Will you still blame them if they actually denied you for proper reason? The problem here is not the gender discrimination, the problem here is the human ability of telling exceptionally good lies. As it has no solution, innocent until proven guilty seems less complicated solution than guilty until proven innocent.

However, in your case it was clearly bad and you deserve the job.

 

[Monique]

How will you be so sure that the employer is doing that even if they tell you that's not the case?

You can't be sure, even in my case when I heard first/second hand there was nothing I could do: there's no paper trail. My current employer ended up inviting me because of my strong recommendations and CV, as said others didn't even consider looking over my credentials.

Will you still blame them if they actually denied you for proper reason?

It would never have crossed my mind as an argument, if they hadn't told me I would've thought there either was no money or there was someone more qualified.

 

[HeLiXe]

If anybody tries that where I work, they are fired for cause.

In my experience in Silicon Valley EE circles, women and men are very equivalent. And that's how I prefer it. I have also found our female engineering managers to be extremely talented and competent.

Thanks for sharing this berkeman. I'm currently a student so my group of peers are students and there seems to be no checks and balances in regards to chauvinism.

Today's society already encourages women more than men in science field (in overall sense). e.g. affirmative action, title IX etc.

I think affirmative action was put in place to prevent discrimination and while it may guarantee placement of women in positions in science (academia or employment) it is not equivalent to the social encouragement of women to go into science. Affirmative actions spans across many more fields than science.

 

[Kholdstare]

Thanks for sharing this berkeman. I'm currently a student so my group of peers are students and there seems to be no checks and balances in regards to chauvinism.
I think affirmative action was put in place to prevent discrimination and while it may guarantee placement of women in positions in science (academia or employment) it is not equivalent to the social encouragement of women to go into science. Affirmative actions spans across many more fields than science.

Affirmative action have nothing to do with enabling women in science positions. It was there to bring the numbers to equal. Neither does it encourages women to go to science itself than anything else nor does it prevent discrimination against them. Rather it establishes a series of social myths.

 

[HeLiXe]

Today's society already encourages women more than men in science field (in overall sense). e.g. affirmative action, title IX etc.

Neither does it encourages women to go to science itself than anything else nor does it prevent discrimination against them. Rather it establishes a series of social myths.

ok... >_>

In any event I did not say it prevents discrimination against women, I said it was put in place to prevent discrimination and to guarantee placement of women in academics and employment...this by means of a quota. My original point is that it does not encourage women to go into science related fields, and in answering the OP I stated that society encourages women to seek careers in fields related to health, education, social sciences etc. I am not debating the benefits or travesties of affirmative action.

 

[Kholdstare]

ok... >_>

In any event I did not say it prevents discrimination against women, I said it was put in place to prevent discrimination and to guarantee placement of women in academics and employment...this by means of a quota. My original point is that it does not encourage women to go into science related fields, and in answering the OP I stated that society encourages women to seek careers in fields related to health, education, social sciences etc. I am not debating the benefits or travesties of affirmative action.

Your first line is confusing. When you say "it was put in place to prevent discrimination", don't you also mean "it prevents discrimination against women" ?

In today's US any kind of discrimination is not tolerated. In overall sense discrimination is non-existent now thanks to anti-discriminatory laws. Nobody can prevent woman from doing whatever she wants. So there's no point of affirmative action trying to guarantee placement of woman in academics and employment, as nobody's stopping them.

And doing so might make them go against their wish if in a hypothetical scenario less than n number of women wants to enter the field, [where the affirmative action requires at least n number of women enter the field].

 

[russ_watters]

Affirmative action have nothing to do with enabling women in science positions. It was there to bring the numbers to equal. Neither does it encourages women to go to science itself than anything else nor does it prevent discrimination against them. Rather it establishes a series of social myths.

I'm not sure about the "establishing social myths" part (not even sure what that means, but what AA does is fight discrimination with discrimination. That's why I'm against it. It is true that it has brought numbers up in a bunch of different areas, but I'm not sure it is really reflective of a net improvement in equality of opportunity. Two wrongs do not make a right.

 

[Astronuc]

What is wrong with accepting that women and men are different. I like that girls are different from me, and I from them. I would hate if women/men thought alike, had the same interests and were "equal" in all respects.

It's so silly to think just because science/math/engineer or whatever is less appealing to women, that that somehow makes them inferior to men. Even if they were inferior in those areas (which may or may not be true on average, but certainly doesn't seem true on an individual basis) that wouldn't make them inferior as humans.

I wish women, and men, would just accept who/what they are and stop trying to force themselves in other roles because they're so afraid of being confined by their own sex.

+1 dipole.

Everyone is different and that should be respected and not forced to be changed. Science has been wrongly pedestalized/sensationalized too much.

No one is advocating forcing anyone to change or pursue an academica program, e.g., STEM, involuntarily.

Affirmative action occurs at universities and business, but there is little or no influence in K-12.

This interest in math and science has to be cultivated during the K-12 years. It's a matter of encouraging those who demonstrate an interest, and preventing discouragement.

 

[Jow]

I think the reason there are fewer women has a lot to due with preference. Men, on the average, enjoy science a lot more than women. For example, I am in all honours classes in my school and you can definitely see the gender divide. More females in English and French, whereas more males in Math and in the Sciences. However, all of the females in my honours classes are very good at math and science (although the males in my honours classes [except English honours] aren't necessarily good at English). Anyway, my point is these females aren't in Math and Science honours not because they aren't good at it, but because they simply have less interest in it.

 

[russ_watters]

Affirmative action occurs at universities and business, but there is little or no influence in K-12.

This interest in math and science has to be cultivated during the K-12 years. It's a matter of encouraging those who demonstrate an interest, and preventing discouragement.

Indeed, but as said culture is tough to change and I think gender typing is probably more difficult than racial. My mom works in a nursery school and the kids just plain don't know what race is (which is pretty cool). But every kid knows the boy is the doctor and the girl is the nurse.

 

[Kholdstare]

I think the reason there are fewer women has a lot to due with preference. Men, on the average, enjoy science a lot more than women. For example, I am in all honours classes in my school and you can definitely see the gender divide. More females in English and French, whereas more males in Math and in the Sciences. However, all of the females in my honours classes are very good at math and science (although the males in my honours classes [except English honours] aren't necessarily good at English). Anyway, my point is these females aren't in Math and Science honours not because they aren't good at it, but because they simply have less interest in it.

No. You are wrong all woman has the exactly equal preference as Astronuc has pointed out.

 

[ZombieFeynman]

No. You are wrong all woman has the exactly equal preference as Astronuc has pointed out.

I think you and Jow are using the word preference differently.

 

[Kholdstare]

I'm not sure about the "establishing social myths" part (not even sure what that means, but what AA does is fight discrimination with discrimination. That's why I'm against it. It is true that it has brought numbers up in a bunch of different areas, but I'm not sure it is really reflective of a net improvement in equality of opportunity. Two wrongs do not make a right.

There are already laws defending equality of opportunity. The problem is with investigation. Take Monique's case for example.

In this case she was wrongfully denied. [If she had some evidence] she could bring this thing up in court and the matter would be solved [unsure abt holland].

Now let's assume another girl does not get the job and is also given a proper reason. She has no reason to doubt that they are lying unless the employer disclose it. Now let's further assume she brought a case against them claiming that the employer lied.

What do you think is the solution of all this? Affirmative action or Proper police/agent investigation.

 

[Kholdstare]

Anyway, my point is these females aren't in Math and Science honours not because they aren't good at it, but because they simply have less interest in it.

That proves nothing. Its an anecdote just like brekeman.

 

[Evo]

No. You are wrong all woman has the exactly equal preference as Astronuc has pointed out.

I believe you misunderstood what astro said, you should go back and re-read it. Affirmitive action is designed to make sure that there are similar number of minorites to majorities, regardless of if they are qualified.

I'll give you an example, when affirmative action was put in place, my office was a good balance of whites and hispanics (TX), but no blacks lived in the area. So suddenly we had a quota of blacks to hire or be financially penalized, so we stopped hiring anyone but blacks. No blacks applied. So we went after black people, they failed the entrance test and couldn't be hired. Our employee numbers were dwindling since we were allowed to hire only blacks. So we waived the employment tests, they were given 3 or more months to complete a 2 week training course, most couldn't pass training. So, we hired them anyway so that we could start hiring people capable of doing the job. The ones that failed were on one side of the room where they'd gossip, paint their fingernails and read magazines. They were union, and affirmative action, couldn't be fired.

Now there were black people that did pass and did well.

I don't blame the black people, they came without a work ethic, without an education, victims of their place in society. In other words, you just can't stick a person without the desire or the knowledge into a job and expect them to succeed. We failed them.

Affirmative action (placing unquailified people into jobs) is not the answer, but fairness in hiring people of equal qualifications is.

 

[Kholdstare]

No. You are wrong all woman has the exactly equal preference as Astronuc has pointed out.

I'm sorry. I meant equal opportunity.

 

[HeLiXe]

Your first line is confusing. When you say "it was put in place to prevent discrimination", don't you also mean "it prevents discrimination against women" ?

No I do not

In today's US any kind of discrimination is not tolerated. In overall sense discrimination is non-existent now thanks to anti-discriminatory laws. Nobody can prevent woman from doing whatever she wants. So there's no point of affirmative action trying to guarantee placement of woman in academics and employment, as nobody's stopping them.

And doing so might make them go against their wish if in a hypothetical scenario less than n number of women wants to enter the field, [where the affirmative action requires at least n number of women enter the field].

What does any of this have to do with why there are so few women in science? Your initial response to my post referenced affirmative action as an aspect of society that encourages women more than men to get into science related fields. I fail to see how someone can choose to go through college and get a career in science related fields just so they can help an organization meet a quota.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I haven't noticed this with physics as much as math. In my special relativity class and advanced mechanics class there were an overwhelmingly large amount of girls but in my differential geometry class there wasn't even one (granted on the first day there was a girl but she dropped out the next day :[). My mom used to tell me how when she was doing her PhD in immunology her graduate biology classes would be filled with guys but nowadays you can easily find female majorities in many biology classes at various unis. I think we just need to give it time; demographics in science fields take time to change - this isn't a surprise.

 

[Kholdstare]

No I do not

What does any of this have to do with why there are so few women in science? Your initial response to my post referenced affirmative action as an aspect of society that encourages women more than men to get into science related fields. I fail to see how someone can choose to go through college and get a career in science related fields just so they can help an organization meet a quota.

I did not respond with it for OP's question. I did so to clarify that by legal procedures discrimination is already removed where you said "...put in place to prevent discrimination..." which imply somehow discrimination still exists.

I never said "affirmative action as an aspect of society that encourages women more than men to get into science related fields". Rather I said it fails to do so. Please re-read my previous posts.

 

[HeLiXe]

I never said "affirmative action as an aspect of society that encourages women more than men to get into science related fields". Rather I said it fails to do so. Please re-read my previous posts.

I said you referenced affirmative action as an aspect of society that encourages women more than men to get into science related fields...I was not quoting you in that context.

Today's society already encourages women more than men in science field (in overall sense). e.g. affirmative action, title IX etc.

^^This is the previous post that addressed my post and I responded to it. I cannot logically deduce from this statement that you are saying affirmative action fails to encourage women more than men to get into science related fields. Anyways I digress...all of this is really not addressing the OP and I'm not sure I'll be clear on what your stance is regarding the points of our discussion.

 

[FalconOne]

Self-imposed quotas are illegal. They technically can't exist.

It's technically illegal for an employer or school to take my military obligation into consideration when deciding if they are going to accept me. Unfortunately, one school told me that if I was seriously interested in their program, I would find a way to make it to their visit day. I have training for four months. I can't "find a way" to leave, lol. Anyway, I basically have come to accept that I'll be discriminated against. I'll probably get my doctorate, get married, become a mom, and never get hired. It's ok.

My little sister, who is in eighth grade, came to me with physics homework. I helped her, and I asked her why her grades aren't so good. "Good grades are for boys." Yikes! And then my parents say that she probably won't go to college, so they are grooming her for sports and having her take "easy classes" in high school. It might be a cultural thing. My grandma is more worried about me getting married than me graduating college. I'm 23 and unmarried - how horrible!

Anyway, those might be reasons why women don't go into science. Almost all my high school friends are stay-at-home moms, for instance.

 

[Kholdstare]

I said you referenced affirmative action as an aspect of society that encourages women more than men to get into science related fields...I was not quoting you in that context.

^^This is the previous post that addressed my post and I responded to it. I cannot logically deduce from this statement that you are saying affirmative action fails to encourage women more than men to get into science related fields. Anyways I digress...all of this is really not addressing the OP and I'm not sure I'll be clear on what your stance is regarding the points of our discussion.

I don't know how you missed this post.

Affirmative action have nothing to do with enabling women in science positions. It was there to bring the numbers to equal. Neither does it encourages women to go to science itself than anything else nor does it prevent discrimination against them. Rather it establishes a series of social myths.

In my first post I naively wrote it encourages. However, with further analysis I saw that false and changed my stance. I fail to see why you skipped all that and argued me over my initial response.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I'm 23 and unmarried - how horrible!

Anyway, those might be reasons why women don't go into science. Almost all my high school friends are stay-at-home moms, for instance.

23 and unmarried how dare you young lady! I do agree with you that the school environment and the family environment play a role in all that. I recently graduated from an all science and math high school and almost all of my female friends chose either biological engineering, computer engineering, computer science (the majority), or some other form of engineering for their major. In my family, I have a female cousin about to graduate high school and her parents gladly support her wanting to go into astrophysics and want her to stay away from marriage as long as possible (as do my parents with respect to me). So yeah I agree that one's family values and priorities as well as the female culture in schools play big roles but the times they are a changin' .

 

[Kholdstare]

Self-imposed quotas are illegal. They technically can't exist.

It's technically illegal for an employer or school to take my military obligation into consideration when deciding if they are going to accept me. Unfortunately, one school told me that if I was seriously interested in their program, I would find a way to make it to their visit day. I have training for four months. I can't "find a way" to leave, lol. Anyway, I basically have come to accept that I'll be discriminated against. I'll probably get my doctorate, get married, become a mom, and never get hired. It's ok.

My little sister, who is in eighth grade, came to me with physics homework. I helped her, and I asked her why her grades aren't so good. "Good grades are for boys." Yikes! And then my parents say that she probably won't go to college, so they are grooming her for sports and having her take "easy classes" in high school. It might be a cultural thing. My grandma is more worried about me getting married than me graduating college. I'm 23 and unmarried - how horrible!

Anyway, those might be reasons why women don't go into science. Almost all my high school friends are stay-at-home moms, for instance.

FalconOne, I'm just curious. Which country are you from?

 

[lisab]

FalconOne, I'm just curious. Which country are you from?

I think since this topic is bound to have a strong cultural influence, giving your country of origin would be helpful for all participants -- totally optional, of course. But it would provide some context.

 

[drizzle]

I think since this topic is bound to have a strong cultural influence, giving your country of origin would be helpful for all participants -- totally optional, of course. But it would provide some context.

For real, Lisa?


Edit: Just to elaborate more on my.. point [], I think it's a personal option to be whatever they want to be. No need to blame surroundings, and one should be responsible of her/his choices.

 

[FalconOne]

I'm in the US, but my grandparents came from Poland! I just live in a really rural area. Verizon Wireless doesn't service us, I am on dial up, etc.

Also, out of a high school class of almost 150, only 20 of us went to college. Not all of us graduated.

 

[Evo]

And kholdstare is not from the US, which is why he/she has an odd perspective.

 

[drizzle]

And kholdstare is not from the US, which is why he/she has an odd perspective.

How do you know?