Are you there, science? It's me.

[lettered]

I’ve always wanted to know everything about everything, and I’ve always loved the way everything connects to everything else. Except science.

Comments

[nianeyna]

As a woman studying in a very male-dominated field (computer science), I have a theory about the seriously skewed ratios. As I see it we have two main problems:

1) Social stigma. Women are "feeling." They're "nurturing." They have "intuition." They can't think critically, and anyway no guy wants to marry a woman who's smarter than he is, right? And on and on ad nauseum. Let me tell you, if everyone is telling you repeatedly that you can't do something, you really start to think you can't do it.

2) I'm not sure how to explain this. Okay - so I went to an all girls high school. And I took AP Computer Science. There were twelve girls in my class. There I was, learning to program, it was fun! I decided to major in it. I knew it would be male dominated, but hey, no big right? We're all there to learn, gender doesn't matter!

No.

When you're one of one or two women in a class of fifteen, twenty people, you are not a computer science major. You are a female computer science major. You are The Girl. It's not that anyone is creepy or

[kenaressa]

I didn't feel unwelcome when I was at University (Bio major)...maybe a bit outnumbered, but I'm smart enough that it didn't feel like an issue.

[nianeyna]

Hmmmm... I imagine individual experiences vary greatly. :) Also, bio has much higher percentage of women than cs, to my knowledge.

[kenaressa]

*nods* I agree with you there (both on the individual experiences and fewer women in cs than bio)

[kenaressa]

I've been interested in science since....forever I think. I majored in Biology in University, and now I'm a costume designer ^^;

I'm more interested in Biology on the macro level, instead of the micro and super micro levels that are/were becoming more and more cutting edge (and hence where all the jobs and research positions are...not too many new openings in systems level biology...at lease percentage wise).

And then I decided the art side of me was the one I really wanted to follow. ^____^ Biology and science is still a hobby of mine though!

[lettered]

As I said to nianeyna, I wish you guys had been at Third Place--elanid and jaded_grave and I had such an interesting conversation about this!

The opposite sort of happened to me. I was an English major and never interested in science, but now I work at the science center and love my job. I still plan on being a writer and am interested in many arty things, but I hope I can continue to work in science education (which is different than straight science, but still) for a long while.

[flake_sake]

Hm, I think it has a lot to do with the way we are brought up. I can't even count how often I heard that girls "had a hard time" with natural sciences and it was a self fulfilling prophesy for me. I sucked in math and physics when I was around 12 (while I was good as a child), but that changed when I got a good chemistry teacher, which is what I ended up studying. Interestingly enough physics there though on a much higher lever didn't bug me at all

[lettered]

I think women fall easier to the myth that everything there must be hard and complicated,

Really? That begs the question of why girls would believe that myth more than guys. It's not as though girls are stupider. Do we think we are? Or is it that so much of our history and culture is built on the myth that girls aren't as smart, so we assume we can't do smart things?

Because I was a star at math and science, and better at it than both my brothers and most people in school, I assumed that my complete and utter lack of interest in math and science had more to do with the myth that girls aren't interested in science, rather than the myth that they're not good at science. But I can't draw conclusions based on just me...

[flake_sake]

I can also only speak for myself, but from my experience with tutoring kids, in many cases boys tend to overestimate themselves, while girls underestimate themselves (that's of course not true for all, but it is a deffinitive tendency

[lettered]

Hee, yes, that comic has come up several times in the past week, since I've been talking about this!

My sister in law linked me to this: http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~taylor/WomenAndMathematics.ppt

which I recommend if you can dl/have powerpoint. It's about girls in math.

The problem is, I have trouble understanding the confidence issues, because I'm very self-confident (and downright arrogant, most the time). I used to go around talking about how great I was all the time. I stopped doing it when I hit puberty, and that really may have something to do with being a girl.

Anyway, the slideshow talks about studies in which girls didn't better on tests after being told the tests didn't matter, or that the tests were gender neutral. In general, the less threatening the tests seemed the better girls did on them. It even suggested that something as simple as checking a box stating your sex before a test might influence scores.

It's also

Delurking to say...

[anonymous]

This, this (women & physics powerpoint), and this (women & math powerpoint). Sorry about the powerpoints...

Sarah

Re: Delurking to say...

[lettered]

Thanks. I really liked the last one. The middle one didn't make sense to me. The first one is fun, but doesn't seem very informative. I'm sure you saw that xkcd comic . . .

I hope you are well!

[bigmamag]

This is a really thought-provoking article, but I probably have less of a clue than you do about this subject. I've always liked science, at least certain subjects. But I'm terrible at math and I couldn't give a flip about chemistry, physics, or a good portion of biology. I suppose I'm a girl stereotype because I'm good at the arts and I like theoretical science, like Schrodinger's cat and multiple dimensions, psychology, sociology, and almost all of astronomy.

As to your questions, I think a lot of it is bias, but then I also sort of think that women and men are built differently. Yes, women are able to be brilliant scientists and mathematicians and men can be amazing writers and artists, but I also think that for the most part, our brains are different. Women tend to understand the realm of feelings and men the realm of cold hard facts. That doesn't mean that ALL women and ALL men are like this or should be relegated to gender roles or should be stereotyped or stopped from reaching past a glass ceiling, but it does provide an

[lettered]

Women tend to understand the realm of feelings and men the realm of cold hard facts.

See, this was what I'm wondering about. Is this due to our brain chemistry, or is it due to over 5,000 years of women being told they need to take care of the children while men take care of cold hard facts like building houses and making sure there's enough food to eat? That could be a question of chicken and egg--perhaps the stereotype of women taking care of the kids happened not only due to childbirth, but women having evolved such that they're good at taking care of children (i.e. good with feelings).

[bigmamag]

I'm definitely for the evolution answer. Natural selection encouraged the genes needed for hearth and home because men married (clubbed and drug to their cave?) the women who had these desirable traits and women picked men who could take care of the family and were the strongest of their tribes. Explanation, but not a reason for discrimination. I tend to be positive about gender roles and the social attitude, because fifty years ago divorce was taboo and a woman in the workplace let alone in power was ridiculous. That's why I kind of loved Star Trek, even though it had moments of gender fail, because of Uhura and because of a throwaway line in Tomorrow Is Yesterday when the captain Christopher was all "a woman?" when he saw a woman in uniform and Kirk is all "crewman." Of course we're even more PC now by using "crew member", but for 1967? It was pretty big for the future to shrug about women in the military.