Why do some people think women suck at science and math?

[mathwonk]

some people are bigoted insecure morons, with very little experience of the real world. (this is intended a an answer to the original question.)

 

[lurky]

Please don't comment on evolution if you don't know what you're talking about. Evolution most definitely does happen within one species, because mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift are constantly acting on the gene pool. Did you think that one species evolv

The rest of your post appears to be missing, so I'm not misquoting.

Anyway, I was picking a bone over the use of the word evolution where I thought the word adaptation should have been used, however upon checking some online sources (wikipedia was unfortunately all I could find in a hurry that mentioned specifically what I was looking for), adaptation was included with evolution and called an "evolutionary process," so OK, I retract the statement. I still don't think the argument is correct, though.

 

[Pythagorean]

Isn't it ironic that:

1) estrogen is associated with improved mental faculties:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101117161246.htm

And

2) testosterone kills neurons:
http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2006/06/27/jbc.M603193200.full.pdf

 

[pergradus]

At the low to medium end of things, I think women are equal with men in both science and math.

When you get to the really high levels though - people who are considered the best of the best, the type of people who go on to create entire new fields of science and mathematics... it seems to be completely dominated by men.

Does that mean men are superior? I don't know, but it seems like child bearing really does keep most women from achieving true greatness.

 

[chiro]

Personally I think its great to see more women in the sciences, engineering, and technology sectors.

I think there are a lot of elements at play here. The environmental factors as previous posters have pointed out are big. There's a lot of cultural issues with how math, science and technology are perceived and how they are encouraged to both developing males and females.

Certainly I remember when learning programming when I was young that programming was a thing "only for white pale nerds with glasses who played doom, had no hygiene and no social skills". It might be somewhat true still, but no doubt computers are no longer the domain of "Dungeons and Dragons" fans.

Also I think societal values have changed for the better. Half a decade ago, women were encouraged to (dare I say it), stay in the kitchen, do the ironing, and feed the children while Joe husband did the bread-winning and brought home the bacon.

Nowadays women are encouraged to have careers and ambitions outside of being a homemaker and many actually want them, which is why we the diversity and change that we see in the world today.

As for women becoming the best in some field, I think its doable, but I should point out that many people that are ahead of their time and change things often have a tendency to have certain mental prerequisites like being a workaholic, having obsessive tendencies, having some kind of mental 'disorder' whether that can include social withdrawal and isolation, perhaps some kind of eccentricity, and maybe something along the lines of paranoia, bipolar, schizophrenia, or high functioning autism. I'm not sure what the data says about how divided the population is with those traits but I'm going to make a conjecture that men have higher incidences of those traits than do women (only a conjecture!)

Of course not every person who does great things has this mental profile, but certainly when reflecting on the history of mathematics and its contributors, there certainly is some evidence of this being prevalent.

As for the evolution argument, I think this is a joke. The people that spout the "survival of the fittest" argument are missing the whole spectrum of activities that humans (and other living creatures) take part in. Why do people create things, play music, paint paintings, do charitable activities, have inner goals not revolving around survival? Although I've never actually seen an "axiomatic" definition of survival, I highly doubt that his "axiomatic" definition of survival traits includes anything I've just mentioned.

There are countless studies with many creatures including gorillas and dolphins that show the ability of creatures other than humans to demonstrate levels of empathy and actions that aren't strictly required for survival.

 

[Pythagorean]

The hardest working (and brightest) researchers at my institute are Chinese females.

 

[DanP]

As for the evolution argument, I think this is a joke. The people that spout the "survival of the fittest" argument are missing the whole spectrum of activities that humans (and other living creatures) take part in. Why do people create things, play music, paint paintings, do charitable activities, have inner goals not revolving around survival? Although I've never actually seen an "axiomatic" definition of survival, I highly doubt that his "axiomatic" definition of survival traits includes anything I've just mentioned.

There are countless studies with many creatures including gorillas and dolphins that show the ability of creatures other than humans to demonstrate levels of empathy and actions that aren't strictly required for survival.

This is because you don't understand evolution.

It is not and was never about "survival of the fittest". That's the biggest misconception one can have about evolution. It is about reproductive success, and replication of genes. And when you understand that, it becomes much easier to fathom why empathy, charity, even painting , creation of things may play a role in reproductive success.

 

[DanP]

A Double Standard for Women Engineers?
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/a-double-standard-for-women-engineers"

It is easy to understand why happens. This paper has a very interesting point of view on sex as female currency in society. It does worth a read.

Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchangein Heterosexual Interactions
Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs

http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

 

[VikFloyd]

"Most of the time when I talk to people and I tell them I’m in engineering, I can feel them treating me as one of ’those nerds,’ ” she says in an e-mail. ”When people think of engineers, they always think of something along the lines of, ’stay in their own cell, never go out to meet anyone, never do anything for fun, their life revolves around a computer….’ For a female engineer it is even worse."

That's actually true. Whenever I tell someone I am studying engineering people either treat me like a total recluse, call me a nerd, or even call me a tomboy

 

[Phrak]

I've never seen so much gender bending BS all in one place.

Men and women are different: fact.

Men's brains and women's brains are measurably different: fact.

If you are a woman, you can stop whining about discrimination. It doesn't exist on average, USA 2011. So if you can handle it, do it.

 

[Femme_physics]

It is easy to understand why happens. This paper has a very interesting point of view on sex as female currency in society. It does worth a read.

Sexual Economics: Sex as Female Resource for Social Exchangein Heterosexual Interactions
Roy F. Baumeister, Kathleen D. Vohs

http://www.csom.umn.edu/Assets/71503.pdf

Thanks for that link.

On the other hand I feel like saying "Duhhhh. No kidding".
It's like your parents telling you there's Santa and you eventually somehow realize there isn't. Everybody outgrows the notion that man and woman are equal in terms of relationship. I personally would much rather be a "seller" than a "buyer". i.e. I'm glad to be female. :)

Although in an old-fashioned society where women had little rights and had to adhere to modesty, say the middle ages...etc... might have been better to be a guy. Not sure...

 

[Femme_physics]

That's actually true. Whenever I tell someone I am studying engineering people either treat me like a total recluse, call me a nerd, or even call me a tomboy

LOL. I feel that a bit under the surface, but am never called that or treated differently than I usually am. Do you dress like a tomboy?

 

[DanP]

That's actually true. Whenever I tell someone I am studying engineering people either treat me like a total recluse, call me a nerd, or even call me a tomboy

Id like to offer you a different perspective. Maybe, just maybe, it is not engineering , it is the behavior. Think about it.

I know a women, late 30s , she is in math, teaches at a university, she has a body to die for, dresses impeccably and she has a great sense of fashion, socially open, she is well aware of her worth both professionally and as looks.

I never ever seen any male treat her like a nerd, total recluse or anything like that. If anything, most males would salivate after her.

 

[DanP]

I'm glad to be female. :)

.

That's the spirit, babe. Be proud of what you are !

 

[D H]

I've never seen so much gender bending BS all in one place.

True, but still -- get over it. This is both a politically sensitive and a politically correct subject. Seeing loads of BS over such a topic is inevitable. What irks me is that saying that females are better at subject X is not only perfectly acceptable, it is patently obvious that this is true. OTOH, suggesting that males are better at subject Y is not only completely unacceptable, it is patently obvious that this is false.

So taking my own advice (get over it), rant off.There certainly are fewer females in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences than there re males. While attributing this disparity to cause is a bit problematic, certainly some of that disparity is cultural, and that is something that is curable.

The range of intellect of females in science and math span from should have switched majors all the way to genius, the same range of intellect as males in those fields. We should judge people in these fields by the quality of their protuberance that is above the neck. The protuberances below the neck are pretty much irrelevant.

 

[DanP]

True, but still -- get over it. This is both a politically sensitive and a politically correct subject. Seeing loads of BS over such a topic is inevitable. What irks me is that saying that females are better at subject X is not only perfectly acceptable, it is patently obvious that this is true. OTOH, suggesting that males are better at subject Y is not only completely unacceptable, it is patently obvious that this is false.

This bugs me a bit sometimes too. I never had a problem accepting that chicks seem much more socially adept than men. But when you say that there might be genetic differences between genders which are reflected in behavior, some would gladly tar and feather you.

 

[VikFloyd]

LOL. I feel that a bit under the surface, but am never called that or treated differently than I usually am. Do you dress like a tomboy?

Nah. I wear skirts and boots most of the time. Once I told this guy I like the idea of mechanical engineering and he was like, "Aren't you too cute for that? Girls should be doing something else." Let's just say I never called him back after that. I guess it's the people who I am around. Most girls in my school are studying something in the humanities.

 

[dacruick]

I actually had this conversation the other day. There are huge differences between male and female culture. How many women do you know that play chess? How many men do you know that knit? These cultural biases are deeply rooted into society, but as D H said, it is "curable". And I don't think anyone can make an argument that cultural standards aren't changing rapidly.

As for women "sucking" at science and math, there is some truth to that. Although the way it is proposed here is a little skewed. Women, in general, don't like science and math. Go to a physics, engineering, or math class in university and tell me how many women you see. I would be surprised to hear numbers above 15%. I know girls that are better than me at math, but I know many more girls who aren't.

Also, I'm in a co-op program at my university, which involves an alternating semester of school, then a semester of a job placement. There tends to be a lot of competition for the jobs that are out there. But I know for a fact that female engineers get scooped up really early in the interview process. I don't know why that is, but there seems to be a distinct advantage to being a minority gender in a field. So maybe Vik, just maybe, you want to take the vast burden of gender equality upon your own 2 shoulders.

 

[JDStupi]

To the poster who said "Women are on average less interested,creative,passionate etc"...May I suggest that a large part of the problem is that due to our sexuality we noice things on women that we do not on men, though that doesn't mean they aren't there. When you are in public, you may see a million fat or generally ugly guys, but you don't really notice them all that much. A fat and nasty girl however, you'll notice and be like "eww". Possibly you are looking for the perfect companion and getting distressed because the women are "only intereted in blahblahblah". You don't think men are the same way? I don't know where you are from, but the majority of my friends and people I know are interested in cars, jobs, and generally banal s**t. This may be people, or our society, not just women. Those are statements that sound as though they are borne of a sexually frustrated soul who is now laying judgements on women in a mysoginistic fashion.
Sure, you may talk about science with your friends, but what about when you aren't? You don't notice it because your talking aobut things you may naturally talk about, but a female might be like "Wtf are they talking about such stupid s**t for?"

Oh and the to the girl who didn't call the guy back because he said "Aren't you too cute for that? Girls should be doing something else" how come? Was he just joking? Flirting perhaps? Saying it with a wry smile on his face? It was most likely meant to be as a joke, complementing you, distinguishing you from the "stereotype" whether it is existent or non-existent. Lighten up. (This is under the presumption he didn't say it like a condescending d**k).

 

[DanP]

Nah. I wear skirts and boots most of the time. Once I told this guy I like the idea of mechanical engineering and he was like, "Aren't you too cute for that? Girls should be doing something else." Let's just say I never called him back after that. I guess it's the people who I am around. Most girls in my school are studying something in the humanities.

Ok, so what is it in the end ? Too cute for engineering, or engineering makes you look like an unattractive geek ? What you said now doesn't bode well with your previous statement that males treat you like a tomboy or whatever.

 

[story645]

What you said now doesn't bode well with your previous statement that males treat you like a tomboy or whatever.

At least she's not treated as a boy (I've gotten several comments to the tune of "you're female?!"/"you're not a girl"/etc.)

May I suggest that a large part of the problem is that due to our sexuality we noice things on women that we do not on men, though that doesn't mean they aren't there.

I think it's a simpler number game. Because there are so few women in STEM, they get a spotlight on 'em by default.

As for women "sucking" at science and math, there is some truth to that. Although the way it is proposed here is a little skewed. Women, in general, don't like science and math.

Disliking is cultural, and just about every study I've seen on raw ability says that once you factor out culture, ability is about equal. citation

 

[BobG]

Nah. I wear skirts and boots most of the time. Once I told this guy I like the idea of mechanical engineering and he was like, "Aren't you too cute for that? Girls should be doing something else." Let's just say I never called him back after that. I guess it's the people who I am around. Most girls in my school are studying something in the humanities.

Could be worse.

I know a blonde, female, younger-looking professor that teaches Calculus, Physics, and a few lower level electronics courses. In one of her Calc I classes, she walked into the classroom on the first day of class and was checking out the classroom. Evidently, one of the early arriving male students thought she was trying to figure out if she was in the right classroom or not because he piped up helpfully, "I don't think you want this classroom. This is Calculus."

She looked totally shocked. "Calculus?! Oh, my god! ... Oh, wait, thank you (with a smile). It would have been pretty embarrassing if I hadn't found my classroom since I'm supposed to be teaching Calculus this semester."

Always nice to make a vivid first impression with your professor.

 

[drizzle]

Yeah, when I walk looking for my classes, most of the students around the corridors think I teach ENGLISH not physics!

I know!

 

[Upisoft]

What's your basis for this claim? Are you saying that the average man in the world has the same innate ability as the average woman? Considering the differences in brain structure and biochemistry between men and women, I'd be very shocked if the two averages were exactly the same.

I claim "I think...". What else do you need more than my claim?

I expect very strong selection pressures in favor of mutations that increase a man's ability to hunt, and very strong pressures that increase a woman's ability to raise children. Do you have any reason to expect that these selection pressures didn't change the brains of men and women? Time is certainly not an issue--humans have undergone evolution to the point of speciation, so there was plenty of opportunity for change.

I do not expect very strong selection pressures. My reason is that the brain is highly adaptive and can adapt to changes during the lifetime of a person. A woman still can learn to hunt.

 

[l-1j-cho]

some people have a propensity to generalise things based on statistics.

 

[BobG]

some people have a propensity to generalise things based on statistics.

Especially guys.

 

[lisab]

Especially guys.

Double especially for guy statisticians.

 

[Zryn]

I ran into this forum where these people argued over whether or not women are good at science or math.

I think the problem here is you.

Try to think critically and assess how important an internet forum discussion is.

If someone being wrong on the internet gets your knickers in a bunch (and you need a mothers club meeting to assure your feelings and get your emotions in check), then you're in for a rude shock when you become a professional engineer.

 

[jhae2.718]

I think the problem here is you.

Try to think critically and assess how important an internet forum discussion is.

If someone being wrong on the internet gets your knickers in a bunch (and you need a mothers club meeting to assure your feelings and get your emotions in check), then you're in for a rude shock when you become a professional engineer.

 

[ideasrule]

Due to curiosity alone, I'm very interested in this topic, and a lot of the papers were very revealing. However, I see a lot more bad science than good papers.

Spontaneous Focusing on Numerosity Mathematical Skills of Young Children

This paper notes that no significant difference was found between male and female children. However, because it wasn't trying to detect this difference in the first place, and because it doesn't claim this result as one of its conclusions, the result holds no weight. If I watched a solar eclipse and noted that I couldn't see any shift in the positions of the surrounding stars, that can't be used as evidence against GR.

It annoys the hell out of me when people say that women are less smart than men. This is of course not true at all, as I've experienced many times personally.

Nobody is claiming that no woman can be smart, or that no man can be dumb. We're arguing about statistics, and your experiences don't count as a proper statistical study.

Math and Gender
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/math-and-gender

"One strand of evidence comes from a study at the University of Wisconsin, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which finds that the overall progress of women in society is a surprisingly good indicator of their performance at the highest math levels."

Well, no kidding. My overall progress in society is also a good indicator of my performance at the highest math levels. It's obvious that those at the top of society have more opportunities, more access to educational materials, and more free time to pursue interests. I don't think this sheds any light on innate ability. No matter how good or bad girls might inherently be at math, one would expect the number of girls who go into math to increase as gender equality increases.

Also, take a look at the graph at the bottom, and note the complete lack of correlation. I'd be willing to bet money that even randomly-produced data would tend to have higher correlation than this data.

Isn't it ironic that:

1) estrogen is associated with improved mental faculties:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1117161246.htm

And

2) testosterone kills neurons:
http://www.jbc.org/content/early/200...93200.full.pdf

It would be, except masculization of the brain is done by estrogen, not testosterone. Estrogen, a metabolite of testosterone, can't easily cross the blood-brain barrier while testosterone can. In males, testosterone crosses the blood-brain barrier and is metabolized into estrogen, specifically estradiol, which then carries out the chemical reactions involved in masculization.

As for the evolution argument, I think this is a joke.

If this refers to me, I'm not using evolution as an argument. It's perfectly OK to speculate about the evolutionary origins of gender differences, but no reputable scientist would tell you that evolution can predict gender differences not yet observed.

 

[Phrak]

True, but still -- get over it. This is both a politically sensitive and a politically correct subject. Seeing loads of BS over such a topic is inevitable. What irks me is that saying that females are better at subject X is not only perfectly acceptable, it is patently obvious that this is true. OTOH, suggesting that males are better at subject Y is not only completely unacceptable, it is patently obvious that this is false.

So taking my own advice (get over it), rant off.There certainly are fewer females in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences than there re males. While attributing this disparity to cause is a bit problematic, certainly some of that disparity is cultural, and that is something that is curable.

The range of intellect of females in science and math span from should have switched majors all the way to genius, the same range of intellect as males in those fields. We should judge people in these fields by the quality of their protuberance that is above the neck. The protuberances below the neck are pretty much irrelevant.

I don't smoke enough pot or watch enough evening news to be politically correct, but still, I didn't get your point. Too many double and triple entendres to wrap my mind around, maybe.

Someone here posted a politically correct Phd cartoon on the pitfalls of being female in science and engineering. Pointy-headed Rubbish. I can think of about 3 rejoinders that would make nonsense of this feel-good cartoon, including one too pornographic to be drawn on this forum. The bottom line in career opportunity is that women are better positioned to obtain the same job over a man given equal education and skill because of their gender. The whining has paid-off in corporate discrimination favoring women over men. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But the squealing continues on the momentum generated of its success.

 

[Phrak]

Yeah, when I walk looking for my classes, most of the students around the corridors think I teach ENGLISH not physics!

I know!

When I walk around the physics forums, I don't see you in physics class. Never. I only see you in the lounge. Maybe English is your thing.

 

[DanP]

Yeah, when I walk looking for my classes, most of the students around the corridors think I teach ENGLISH not physics!

I know!

How did you determined that ? You walked around on corridors asking "Hey, do I look like a English teacher or like a Physics one"?

It is just your theory of mind which came to the conclusion that most walking around ppl see you a certain way. Your perception of what others think about you might be blatantly false. Some might have confounded you with a English teacher, but that does not say anything about "most of the ppl walking on corridors"

What follows is not necessarily response to Drizzle's post, but I believe that ppl who complain that engineering or science makes them look goofy and asocial, are wrong. The determining factor is not the engineering , it is your behavior. Walks like a duck, quacks like duck, looks like a duck ... it's a duck.

 

[Phrak]

How did you determined that ? You walked around on corridors asking "Hey, do I look like a English teacher or like a Physics one"?

It is just your theory of mind which came to the conclusion that most walking around ppl see you a certain way. Your perception of what others think about you might be blatantly false. Some might have confounded you with a English teacher, but that does not say anything about "most of the ppl walking on corridors"

What follows is not necessarily response to Drizzle's post, but I believe that ppl who complain that engineering or science makes them look goofy and asocial, are wrong. The determining factor is not the engineering , it is your behavior. Walks like a duck, quacks like duck, looks like a duck ... it's a duck.

What are you doing? Didn't I give Drizzle a big enough challenge already? If you see someone down, do you kick them?

 

[DanP]

Didn't I give Drizzle a big enough challenge already?

Ask her, not me. I have no idea how much she looks like a challenge at what you said, or at what I said =)

 

[xxChrisxx]

What follows is not necessarily response to Drizzle's post, but I believe that ppl who complain that engineering or science makes them look goofy and asocial, are wrong. The determining factor is not the engineering , it is your behavior. Walks like a duck, quacks like duck, looks like a duck ... it's a duck.

This is probably the most true statement made in the entire thread.

It's all about demeanor.

 

[drizzle]

You mean what I've heard is only my inner voices?!

 

[DanP]

You mean what I've heard is only my inner voices?!

If you refer to what I posted, I question your quantification of the phenomena. "Most ppl roaming the corridors"

Humans have a salience bias, they believe that they and their appearance are very salient in the eyes of "most" other ppl. Its well documented in social psychology. On streets, on the corridors of a university and so on. But the truth is, most humans don't give a dime of who you are and don't care so much about you. Believe it or not, most humans you come across during a day don't go around wasting their time questioning themselves "Is her the math teacher or the English teacher" They don't care.

 

[Dembadon]

[...] The bottom line in career opportunity is that women are better positioned to obtain the same job over a man given equal education and skill because of their gender. The whining has paid-off in corporate discrimination favoring women over men. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But the squealing continues on the momentum generated of its success.

Is this your opinion?

 

[dacruick]

Originally Posted by Phrak
[...] The bottom line in career opportunity is that women are better positioned to obtain the same job over a man given equal education and skill because of their gender. The whining has paid-off in corporate discrimination favoring women over men. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But the squealing continues on the momentum generated of its success.

Is this your opinion?

I've experienced this as a reality. There are advantages to being a woman and a male dominated field.

 

[ideasrule]

Is this your opinion?

I'm not the poster, but many universities and employers in STEM openly state that they have a policy of affirmative action towards women. That is, less qualified women are accepted while more qualified men are not. A good example is MIT, which retains a 50/50 gender ratio by accepting 29% of its female applicants and only 12% of its male applicants.

 

[Dembadon]

I've experienced this as a reality. There are advantages to being a woman and a male dominated field.

I wouldn't argue against certain advantages, but I'm highly skeptical that they would substantiate Phrak's claim.

 

[Dembadon]

I'm not the poster, but many universities and employers in STEM openly state that they have a policy of affirmative action towards women. That is, less qualified women are accepted while more qualified men are not. A good example is MIT, which retains a 50/50 gender ratio by accepting 29% of its female applicants and only 12% of its male applicants.

I could've been more precise with my question. I'm not sure if he's restricting his claim to STEM or careers in general.

 

[#28]

Where I live women really are hardwired to be dumb. I do not have reason to believe that that is different in other places.

 

[drizzle]

If you refer to what I posted, I question your quantification of the phenomena. "Most ppl roaming the corridors"

Humans have a salience bias, they believe that they and their appearance are very salient in the eyes of "most" other ppl. Its well documented in social psychology. On streets, on the corridors of a university and so on. But the truth is, most humans don't give a dime of who you are and don't care so much about you. Believe it or not, most humans you come across during a day don't go around wasting their time questioning themselves "Is her the math teacher or the English teacher" They don't care.

So do I!
... What's this to the topic of this thread?...

 

[lisab]

Where I live women really are hardwired to be dumb. I do not have reason to believe that that is different in other places.

But if you have reason to believe the women where you live are hardwired to be dumb, you may have reason to believe just about anything.

 

[DanP]

So do I!

So do you ... what ? Don't care ? It's "neither do I". Phrak was wrong, you ain't an English teacher.

... What's this to the topic of this thread?...

Merely responses to your posts in this thread in which you outline your perception that most ppl see you as an English teacher.

 

[drizzle]

So do you ... what ? Don't care ? It's "neither do I". Phrak was wrong, you ain't an English teacher.

Can't disagree

Merely responses to your posts in this thread in which you outline your perception that most ppl see you as an English teacher.

It's you not me.

 

[DanP]

It's you not me.

Are you sure, darling ?

 

[drizzle]

I don't want to go through details, but I TALKED to some of those students and they share their thoughts. Now, what did you base YOUR perception on?