Why Are There So Few Women in Science?

[Astronuc]

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.

It is not clear if the 'preference' or 'enjoyment' of math/science is inherent, or a product of the culture/environment in which students evolve. It is readily apparent that the big names in math and science are mostly male, so perhaps that may be a source of discouragement to women in early years of education. In my high school, the proportion of girls in my math and science classes was close to 50%, but slightly less, and they all planned to go to university and had similar aspirations to boys in the class. I'm not sure how exactly that proportion changed during university, since all of us generally went to different universities. In my university, the proportion of women in science and engineering classes was much lower ~10% or less.

In university, I did observer some level of discrimination, but overall, the faculty encouraged students. I only encountered high ranking faculty member who was apparently hostile to women and minorities in science and engineering. That was during the early 1980s. Similarly, I encountered students whose parents had not provided much encouragement in their education, but those were in the minority.

In the educational system, a teacher's expectation will affect how students perform. If a teacher expects less from girls than boys, that may adversely affect the performance (and subsequently preference) of girls in their academic programs.

When I was teaching in university, I encouraged all of the students that classes I taught, although there were a few cases where I encouraged some poorly performing students to pursue studies outside of engineering.

 

[Kholdstare]

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

Why can't a guy from US have different perspective?

The all seeing evo. I'm disappointed you would even question her abilities Gad.

I guess my writing style gave away.

In light of what's being discussed, it is important. Laws differ from country to country If he wishes to speak for a non US country, that perfectly fine, but since we are a US based forum, the US is the default unless corrected.

I keep tab of US culture through media and at least I'm aware of anti-discriminatory laws in US. I cannot tell whether they are implemented properly or not, though it seems that they are. The rest of my argument is based on philosophy. If this setting disqualifies me from writing for US perspective, its OK.

 

[Kholdstare]

If it's not seen here, or in kholdstare's profile, these posts should be deleted. It's the member's privacy, s/he has the right to share that piece of information or not.

Its OK. I'm actually from antarctica. Ask penguino, he can tell.

 

[Evo]

I keep tab of US culture through media and at least I'm aware of anti-discriminatory laws in US. I cannot tell whether they are implemented properly or not, though it seems that they are. The rest of my argument is based on philosophy. If this setting disqualifies me from writing for US perspective, its OK.

Actually I find that many non-US posters quite often have a better grasp.

Its OK. I'm actually from antarctica. Ask penguino, he can tell.

See, I knew it!

 

[HeLiXe]

I don't know how you missed this post.



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.

I did not skip over it at all and addressed it, this is your second response to me, but it conflicted with your initial response to me which is what caused me to address you in the first place. If you had said that upon further analysis you changed your stance, I would have easily understood and further discourse regarding this matter would have been unnecessary. Otherwise your statements were conflicting and I could not understand your stance.

 

[Kholdstare]

I did not skip over it at all and addressed it, this is your second response to me, but it conflicted with your initial response to me which is what caused me to address you in the first place. If you had said that upon further analysis you changed your stance, I would have easily understood and further discourse regarding this matter would have been unnecessary. Otherwise your statements were conflicting and I could not understand your stance.

I'm sorry that I had forgotten what I wrote in my first response, and was wrongly assuming it was the same thing as my second response which I corrected latter.

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.

But you never hilighted the fact that my second post contradicts with my first one and directly proceeded to criticize the first one. If your intention was not to address the first point, rather address the conflict, you could have said so in this post.

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.

 

[Kholdstare]

FYI, equal opportunity is nothing more than a concept in the United States either: faculty believe males are more competent when they judge identical applications.

That's really bad to hear.

But in this system the statistics goes either this way or that way [if you ignore the very low probability of these studies yielding exactly same result for male or female]. So, if whatever you do study will almost always point out discrimination or reverse discrimination, [from a purely logical point] what's the point of doing that?

It is not clear if the 'preference' or 'enjoyment' of math/science is inherent, or a product of the culture/environment in which students evolve. It is readily apparent that the big names in math and science are mostly male, so perhaps that may be a source of discouragement to women in early years of education. In my high school, the proportion of girls in my math and science classes was close to 50%, but slightly less, and they all planned to go to university and had similar aspirations to boys in the class. I'm not sure how exactly that proportion changed during university, since all of us generally went to different universities. In my university, the proportion of women in science and engineering classes was much lower ~10% or less.

In university, I did observer some level of discrimination, but overall, the faculty encouraged students. I only encountered high ranking faculty member who was apparently hostile to women and minorities in science and engineering. That was during the early 1980s. Similarly, I encountered students whose parents had not provided much encouragement in their education, but those were in the minority.

In the educational system, a teacher's expectation will affect how students perform. If a teacher expects less from girls than boys, that may adversely affect the performance (and subsequently preference) of girls in their academic programs.

When I was teaching in university, I encouraged all of the students that classes I taught, although there were a few cases where I encouraged some poorly performing students to pursue studies outside of engineering.

I don't know how much role society play to encourage or influence students to go to science field in the US compared to other factors. However, my guess will be not much. In my case it was just my curiosity rather than social encouragement. [Actually I hate my current science job , but then again I'm also a lazy guy and love to do nothing at all ]

 

[HeLiXe]

I'm sorry that I had forgotten what I wrote in my first response, and was wrongly assuming it was the same thing as my second response which I corrected latter.

No probs

But you never hilighted the fact that my second post contradicts with my first one and directly proceeded to criticize the first one. If your intention was not to address the first point, rather address the conflict, you could have said so in this post.

I actually did highlight the contradiction immediately in this post...

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.

which is prior to the post you are indicating. If you are able to go back to this post you will see I put both conflicting statements side by side and said "ok...>_>" but I think the error here is that I did not consider you were not familiar with my expressions. This is a sort of colloquialism indicating confusion. Like this emoticon ""

 

[HeLiXe]

no no no ...it's like this emoticon I forgot we have this one here. Anyways sorry about that, I will try to be more clear in the future.

 

[Kholdstare]

I actually did highlight the contradiction immediately in this post...

Which was after this post.

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.

If you had highlighted the conflict in the above post, the confusion could be avoided.

no no no ...it's like this emoticon I forgot we have this one here. Anyways sorry about that, I will try to be more clear in the future.

It has nothing to do with the emoticon.

 

[lisab]

Let's get back to the topic, please.

 

[HeLiXe]

Which was after this post.



If you had highlighted the conflict in the above post, the confusion could be avoided.



It has nothing to do with the emoticon.

Kholdstare, really the fault lies with you not appropriately addressing your own conflicting statements.

Let's get back to the topic, please.

I agree, this is pointless and enduring and completely off topic.

Gad, when you said it has to do with personal choice, do you also believe that society has some influence on the choices we make?

 

[drizzle]

Gad, when you said it has to do with personal choice, do you also believe that society has some influence on the choices we make?

Well, I hate the stereotypical reasoning, especially when it comes to individual choices in/opinion about life matters. Every single one has a set of values/ethics/believes/etc is for sure influenced by culture/religion/person/animal/idea/etc. But in the end, what that person chooses or expresses is their own ideology and should never be related to 'one' of their backgrounds.

That's one. Another thing is that everyone is responsible for their choices. Do not blame it on circumstances.

 

[Monique]

Well, I hate the stereotypical reasoning, especially when it comes to individual choices in/opinion about life matters. Every single one has a set of values/ethics/believes/etc is for sure influenced by culture/religion/person/animal/idea/etc. But in the end, what that person chooses or expresses is their own ideology and should never be related to 'one' of their backgrounds.

That's one. Another thing is that everyone is responsible for their choices. Do not blame it on circumstances.

Up to a certain point yes, but environment does play an important role. You're formed as a child and depend on the school system and parents to guide you.

I've seen people get rejected for PhD-positions, because they acquired a technical degree (equivalent to a BSc) prior to their research BSc-MSc degree. Absolutely ridiculous, since the decision on the track a child follows is made when it's 11 years old (when children are placed in different groups, according to how well they performed on a test). Immediately people judge one as being of a lower class, become they consider themselves elite.

 

[Bacle2]

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?

You're sure there's still discrimination against women? Seriously? How so?

EDIT: just to make a general point: I am not questioning all the claims made just to be argumentative. The constant claims of discrimination create a climate in which one, as a male is seen as a cruel exploitator. This affects, among other things, public policy, and makes it harder to compete, and makes it harder to have a leveled playing field. So there are real consequences to making such claims. I'm not saying the claims are not valid, I'm just saying those making them should have the burden of proof, given the potential consequences.

 

[Monique]

The constant claims of discrimination create a climate in which one, as a male is seen as a cruel exploitator.

Females discriminate to the same level as males, see the study I cited (and that matches my experience as well).

The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student.

To get back to the question "why are there so few women in science": I work in a hospital and do biomedical research, an industry where females are generally well-represented. There is a program for the development and management of talents, so that postdocs are prepped for a junior principle investigator predicate. This program is very selective and application is only considered after recommendation by the group leader and with the approval of the head of a department, among other limitations.

I found out today that in the hospital there were 30 people selected, of which 2 females. Really, how is that possible?

 

[Monique]

because they are human too, and they know their hormones will get in a tizzy.

Yeah, assuming they were all males?

 

[Choppy]

To get back to the question "why are there so few women in science": I work in a hospital and do biomedical research, an industry where females are generally well-represented. There is a program for the development and management of talents, so that postdocs are prepped for a junior principle investigator predicate. This program is very selective and application is only considered after recommendation by the group leader and with the approval of the head of a department, among other limitations.

I found out today that in the hospital there were 30 people selected, of which 2 females. Really, how is that possible?

Do you know what the sex ratio was in the applicant pool?

 

[Monique]

Do you know what the sex ratio was in the applicant pool?

I know for sure that far more than 6% of postdocs is female, I was planning to check whether there are any official hospital demographics known.

 

[Monique]

Do you know what the sex ratio was in the applicant pool?

Ok, so I looked it up. I don't have the exact number, since only people within three years after receiving their PhD qualify.. but let's have a look at what the gender ratio is among PhD students:

MD/PhDs-students = 60% female,
PhD-students = 46% female.

Scientific personnel (postdocs, but may include technicians) is 39% female. Professors is 15%.

 

[Kholdstare]

Found this article on the web.

http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/why-can2019t-a-woman-be-more-like-a-man

 

[jim hardy]

I have to think they're not encouraged toward "stuff" when very small.

I encouraged my daughters to help work on cars, fix their bicycles and things around the house. They both turned out quite handy.
At age fourteen, after a family project of fixing the brakes on brother's car, my eldest proudly announced to Mom: "We relined all four wheels and i only broke one naii ! "

In movie "My Cousin Vinny" Marisa Tomei plays a girl who saves the day with her extraordinary knowledge of car mechanics.
Interesting , how the writers used that character for iconclastic value.

I think we have certain cultural expectations of little girls and unwittingly program them away from science.

my two cents

 

[ChristinaJ]

Maybe it's something to do with women not wanting to work in places that are so dominated by men. I work in a place that has a smaller number of women than the US women in science average. Though I probably would have taken it, if I had known this before I took employment I would certainly have considered it as a factor in accepting the position.

cj

Also take a look at this short film on the subject from Edinburgh university http://sciwomen.tumblr.com/ and, ladies, I would really like to know about your science https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=704763

 

[WannabeNewton]

Women are too soft and caring. They're mothers, instinctively maternal beings. I don't support women taking up roles designed for men. Men lead, woman and children FOLLOW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU3Gg0RE14Y

 

[Evo]

Don't feed the trolls and _strongarm_ is a troll.

 

[Aero51]

Why do so few men go into child care?

 

[Enigman]

Why do so few men go into child care?

Cause we are wimps? Any man who isn't totally crazy is scared of changing diapers...
:beer:
Mr.E

 

[drizzle]

... How would you answer the OP question , Mr. E?

 

[leroyjenkens]

Cause we are wimps? Any man who isn't totally crazy is scared of changing diapers...
:beer:
Mr.E

I have a weak stomach for some things and not others. I just watched video of a bull giving a guy a facelift with his horn, and it didn't give me any ill feeling whatsoever. But if you show me a video of a poopie diaper, I won't be able to eat for the rest of the day.

Why do so few men go into child care?

I think it's a combination of two things. 1) Men generally don't like taking care of children. They'll do it, but women seem to actually derive joy from it. And 2) People tend to not trust men with their children. Women tend to not trust men period. Every bulletin I see at school for a female student looking for a roommate, they 100% of the time, from what I've seen, specify only female applicants.

 

[Aero51]

Isnt it interesting how the converse with men can be answered so easily, but no so with women?