|
|
|
|
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/6/2009 10:46:58 AM | OP
Having been an academic for over 20 years, I can tell you that this is a problem -- not enough women, and some minorities, in Math, Science, Engineering, etc. Ironically, a good portion of the women in those fields are from countries other than the U.S., which is my base of operations. There are several federal and private grants out this year to try to remedy the situation -- so the problem has been recognized and is being dealt with.
On the bright side, female students in Math and Science point to a "significant" person who persuaded them to go into those fields, regardless of the fact that society tends to discourage them, as well as the fact that women in the hard sciences are somehow considered 'less feminine," however that term might be defined. We can all make a difference.
I don't believe that it's a genetic thing. Human minds are overwhelmingly alike across the sexes and races -- it's a matter of culture and their views of gender roles, I believe. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/6/2009 12:03:41 PM |
Message 6, psychology is most definitely NOT a hard science.
I know you think that--my question to you is WHY do YOU consider "soft" science less "important" than "hard" science? Or less difficult? Or less anything? Why point out that there is a difference between "soft" and "hard", other than to infer YOUR feeling that "hard" is superior?
The original question wasn't about "hard" versus "soft" sciences, anyway--the question was "science and math", and my original (and now twice repeated) contention stands: women are well-represented in "science and math", just not in the "science and math" that you think is "important". | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/6/2009 1:49:52 PM |
That wasn't the question. Science refers to a specific set of disciplines. Home economics, cooking, bra making and engineering in general, are not among them. That would be a different thread.
OK, so, good example, you have a man's question, women's answers, and men aren't liking the answers- The question, as I understood it, asked why more women aren't making a living in math and science fields.
Just as one can diddle and dabble in any field, one can get very serious in home economics and most certainly in engineering, requiring as many years' knowledge or experience as any field in hard science. Because the results are more forgiving these are "soft" sciences. I am speaking of intuitive sciences (which psychology is one) that are more attractive to the generally (scientifically proven) intuitive gender.
Engineering- I don't see why that is not a math/science field? Bra making, no, but bra design, yes. As a clothing designer, I used math, geometry, and factored in the percentage give of a particular fabric on the bias to shape it into clothing, particularly for high end formals. Because changing a size to fit the human body doesn't mean making the pattern larger or smaller, it means re-engineering to get the same look with a different shape. I didn't use more than algebra level math for this, but the question didn't specify "levels" or "hard" or "soft".
My point was to show that many women use math, (not just simple) and sciences in their hobbies and work/business, and they continue to contribute to the science world. Their education serves them well, whether they sought a degree in science, blended the education with other "phiolosphies", or have been largely self educated. They simply found careers which suited them and their lives better than those that are literally designed around men. She can beat herself up to become a geologist or molecular biologist (as my mother and sister did) only to find the fields require that a woman keep on fighting. That's tiring. | |
|
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/6/2009 7:58:11 PM | hereshecomesagain: "Saying girls want to apply their intuition to their work day and men want to apply their brute force of body or logic is also true. Science doesn't like intuition."
Science loves intuition. Theory formation is a creative process. Theories are NOT digests of data or logic. They are imaginative leaps that are put forward, THEN tested.
All the female graduate students we've put out in the last 10 years have all gotten jobs in their field.
"Chemistry was as easy as cooking to me. I was a natural cook. I'd change formulas with a little tweak here and there because I knew that room temperature and humidity and age of the product affected the outcome. No, that's bad, better to get a failed result by following the instructions to the letter."
You had some REALLY BAD science teachers. I take it this was in high school or college? At the graduate school level, any mentor would have loved to have you in his/her lab.
However, it is important to document the changes to the protocol. Remember, the protocol is a means of testing a hypothesis, not a means to get the "right" answer. Science works by falsifying and, if the protocol is correct but you get a "failed result", what you have done is FALSIFY the hypothesis you are testing. That's what science does. By your brief description, it sounds like you were considering what are called "confounding variables" or "underlying hypotheses" -- that temperature and humidity are going to affect the outcome. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/6/2009 8:58:04 PM | Engineering- I don't see why that is not a math/science field?
Because engineering is not one of those fields. The sciences are math, physics and chemistry.
My point was to show that many women use math
First of all, what you are calling math is what I would call arithmetic. Second, that isn't even relevant, since using math is not the same as doing work in the field of mathematics.
I am speaking of intuitive sciences (which psychology is one) that are more attractive to the generally (scientifically proven) intuitive gender.
That's crap. If you had ever done any math or physics, you'd realize that a great deal of intuition is required. The difference is that in a hard science, you have to back up your intuition rigorously. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/6/2009 11:47:24 PM | Message 52...you are the one that brought up the subject of hard science, not me!
Psychology consists of theories invented by man. It is not founded upon any scientific laws or for that matter evidence based. It is plainly useful to some, i.e. psycho-therapy and suchlike, but how useful is purely a matter for subjective debate. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/7/2009 5:49:27 AM | I think all sciences are to satisfy the study of nature, just that hard sciences also satisfy strict procedural requirements which are lacking in some other fields. You wouldn't perform an intuitive version of neurosurgery for example, the stakes are just too high.
This is reflected by the equality of different camps in the "soft" scientific community. Entirely contradictory assertions will have equal representation due to a difficulty in qualifying strict procedure, but the stakes are relatively low.
I don't think anyone should take it personally. I've heard chemistry referred to as stamp collecting (not sure what that even means), and women don't exactly seem to find theoretical physicists overly exciting unless they're a Dean or drive a Ferrari. Most are stuck in engineering support, because there isn't really a huge economic demand for figuring out galaxies.
But here is a problem, when fewer women are into hard sciences as an interest, it's one less commonality to socialise with for men who are. I mean I've met women who were physically interested in me, but all we do together is stare at walls. And I'm not even formally educated. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/7/2009 12:36:50 PM | I think you only have to look at the history of education for women to find the answer.
Bearing in mind that up until less than 100 years ago, the majority of women were denied a formal education and totally discouraged from thinking for themselves, it's more likely to be a case of nurture rather than nature.
The changes that have taken place in the education of women are simply taking time to filter down through the generations... | |
|
rhodax
|
Joined: 6/11/2009
Msg: 60 | |
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/7/2009 1:59:22 PM | think you only have to look at the history of education for women to find the answer.
Bearing in mind that up until less than 100 years ago, the majority of women were denied a formal education and totally discouraged from thinking for themselves, it's more likely to be a case of nurture rather than nature.
The changes that have taken place in the education of women are simply taking time to filter down through the generations.
I totally agree with this statement above....We have come a long way baby! | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/7/2009 3:24:19 PM |
Psychology consists of theories invented by man. It is not founded upon any scientific laws or for that matter evidence based. It is plainly useful to some, i.e. psycho-therapy and suchlike, but how useful is purely a matter for subjective debate.
All "theories" are invented by man. And isn't that what this is, a subjective debate? I'm unclear what your point is.
So far, I have seen two men define "science" by a subjective standard. And that goes back to my original post, which was that it's a PR thing. Women who are scientists are seen as 'not scientists' by people who don't think what they do is science. Whatever! it's political, PR, however you'd like to say it. OP didn't define "science and math", so who are you to impart YOUR idea of it onto me, and then tell me I'm wrong, based n YOUR definition? | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/7/2009 4:01:27 PM |
Bearing in mind that up until less than 100 years ago, the majority of women were denied a formal education and totally discouraged from thinking for themselves, it's more likely to be a case of nurture rather than nature.
Elsie MacGill is an interesting study. She was born at the turn of the 20th century and went on to be the world's first female aeronautical engineer. She was accepted at a university at the undergrad level and then kicked out after a semester when the Dean realized he had allowed a woman in his engineering faculty. She persevered, ended up with a doctoral in engineering, designed planes and ran a plant that manufactured Hawker Hurricanes for the second world war.
What's interesting about Elsie is that her mother was the first female judge in Canada and her father wasn't with them a lot of the time. Nellie McClung, one of the Canadian women who fought for us to have the vote, was one of Elsie's mother's friends. Elsie obviously grew up with a good influence from strong, independent women. Had she been born to a more traditional family at that time, she probably would not have even contemplated the career path that she took. So, yes, I do believe that nurture can play a role when a person's nature goes against the usual standards for the time.
However, I also think that women have a very strong biological urge to nurture their own family when one comes along and if their career gets in the way of that then they often choose their families. That's not all women of course, but I'm sure that there are enough that it would affect the proportions of women in certain fields. | |
|
rhodax
|
Joined: 6/11/2009
Msg: 64 | |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/8/2009 2:03:51 AM | While it's not math or science, I did have the opportunity to train several women in mechanical maintenance while in the Navy. This was in the 1980s before women were allowed to serve on regular force ships so they were all reservists. I found that every one of them were quick studies, receptive to the training, and very diligent in carrying out their duties regardless of the amount of grease and diesel fuel involved. At the same time there wasn't a single one that was "manly" in any way.
The men I trained weren't usually as easy to train nor as diligent in their duties as the women. All were quite adequate to the task but I think I'd rather have an engine room full of females when the missiles start flying. I left the Navy just before women went on active duty on ships so I didn't get to see first hand how well this worked.
About three years after I left the Navy my first ship, the Provider, docked in Vancouver at Canada place. I went down with some friends from work to have a look and sure enough some of my old wingers were still aboard. We went down to Station 8 (junior ranks bar) for some drinks and I met a lady named Sue, a Leading Seaman, who was doing the exact same job that I had before being posted ashore. We talked for a couple hours about how the ship was doing and nothing had really changed. It seemed almost surreal talking to this woman as a peer in a job that had only been done by men when I was on the ship. She sure knew her stuff though and showed me up on the systems knowledge front!
She was pretty hot and women in uniform are pretty yummy but I knew from experience to never get involved with a Sailor, they'll break your heart every time. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/8/2009 7:12:06 AM |
So far, I have seen two men define "science" by a subjective standard.
That problem is easily remedied. If you rank the disciplines according to the widely agreed upon classification of hard and soft sciences you get things like sociology at one end of the specrtrum and math and physics at the other end. There is then no question that as you move from the soft to hard sciences, that the number of women gradually decreases to almost non-existent. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/8/2009 11:47:07 AM | I think what renders a science soft is the lack of true experimental data. Questions that have endured for decades, like "nature vs nurture" could be resolved in short order with a few simple experiments. However, humane concerns preclude running destructive experiments on humans.
The degree of human interaction required of the discipline may be a large factor in the differences in the number of women in the hard sciences. The "soft" sciences like psychology and sociology have as their subject humans and /or their institutions.
The "hard " sciences usually require sometimes lengthy periods of individual, isolated effort. Men seem to be better able to tolerate this isolation. The much higher incidence of autism and similar disorders among men, with the related obsessive behaviors, points to a greater capacity to be productive under those circumstances. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/8/2009 12:10:59 PM | | women aren't more involved in math and science because they don't want to be involved in math and science. duh! i was watching oregon state university graduations a while back. there was a long line of female vets with virtually no males. then there was a long line of male engineers with virtually no females. angry feminists always blame male discrimination when women don't go into male-dominated fields but have no problem with the dearth of men in female-dominated fields. why aren't men encouraged to become teachers and social workers. why no affirmative action to give men their fair share. my brother is an electrical engineer who works with a couple female engineers. they are constantly telling him that it's the women that give them such a hard time about them being engineers, not the men. | |
|
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/9/2009 1:26:02 AM | well, first i have to say that women definitely hold their own in science, math, etc ...
however, i feel that honestly, most women are simply not interested in those fields.
when i was in college, studies have shown that men and women are generally "hardwired" to have certain interests (cf. the gender role studies back in the 60's where they tried to get boys to play with barbies and girls to play with construction toys and other role reversal situations). obviously this is not true for everyone, but i pretty much agree with the idea that it's just more or less who we are. men seem to be drawn to fields like construction and engineering (and related fields). it's not good, it's not bad--it just "is".
this kind of relates to another study that was recently done where they concluded (i don't know how correctly, however), that divorce rates are higher in families with "house husbands" where the women work. the conclusion speculated the rate was higher because the wives don't respect the husbands due to stepping outside their expected roles.
as an unrelated side note (due to reading posts before mine): AP chem in HS sucked -- it was way too hard for me (molecular decomposition kicked my ass and we started that in the first week--not even the "welcome to chem, this is the periodic table"); but the "normal" chem class was way too dumbed down (where all we did was "this is our particular element for today, and here is today's practical--be amazed at the sparks")--i wish i could have started AP chem again after the first couple of months of "regular" chem. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/9/2009 3:06:33 AM | I found this one-pager on the issue:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218101438
Seems the number of women in science has been increasing and is almost the same as men, at least at enrollment. Here are a couple of pertinent sentences from the article:
More students than ever are pursuing graduate education in science and engineering (S&E) and those doing so represent a greater proportion of non-white ethnic groups and of women. ...The proportion of men to women among U.S. citizens and permanent residents was fairly close (52% to 48%). Among foreign students, however, there were almost two men for every woman (66% to 34%).
They don't indicate what type of science, so I can't say whether this would be true for every discipliine, but it does show that more women are showing an interest in science | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/9/2009 4:48:22 AM | RE Msg: 41 by CassaGo:
I once asked about centres for domestic violence for men. I was informed that there are a number of centres for domestic violence for women, but none for men, and none who would even treat some men. Out of curiosity, I looked up "domestic violence centers" online and looked at several of them--*all* help both men and women. So I call BS on your source whom you asked-- once.
So now this has become a discussion of how men are getting the short end of the stick in Western culture? ARGH How men are treated in Western culture, is a reflection of how women are treated in Western culture, and this affects the way women are treated in Western culture in things not normally considered by feminism, such as whether or not women WANT to work in maths and science.
RE Msg: 70 by novascotialass:
Seems the number of women in science has been increasing and is almost the same as men, at least at enrollment. That's been true for a long time. But that only changed when the educational system changed to one that favoured women. Women could easily be just as capable as men, and it's always been my belief that this was the case. But women only started doing better in schools in the UK, once the qualifications system was changed to one that women already did better in than men.
I noticed that a study was done years ago, that women were interviewed if they had a top job, and if so, why not, and the majority were saying that they didn't want a top job, because it would make it difficult to take time off to have a family. Women put their careers second to dating and children.
I suspect that like in schools, women will only start going more into maths and science as careers, once the work environment in professional maths and science has been changed to one that women like. If schools are anything to go by, then when that happens, you can expect that men will become an unequal minority.
That would not be gender equality. That would be gender inequality. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/9/2009 5:03:15 AM |
I noticed that a study was done years ago, that women were interviewed if they had a top job, and if so, why not, and the majority were saying that they didn't want a top job, because it would make it difficult to take time off to have a family. Women put their careers second to dating and children.
I think you're right that women still carry the heavier burden in child rearing when compared with men, resulting in women turning down promotions. I believe that's a combo of nature and nurture once again; however, to say that women put dating ahead of their career is more than a leap in logic and I statement that I highly disagree with. | |
|
| |
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:27:39 AM |
I think you're right that women still carry the heavier burden in child rearing when compared with men, resulting in women turning down promotions.
This isn't really true for academic careers which make up the bulk of scientific careers (at least in the hard sciences). Academic careers allow for a great deal of flexibility. There are few jobs which allow that much independence. | |
|
| Why aren't there more women involved in math and science?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:34:34 AM |
Because its damn boring
There is truth to this, frankly. Even though I show an aptitude, I have no interest (I don't know why--why do I like the color purple?). I will never want to re-build an old jalopy from scratch; I will never want to learn the stats of every baseball player, ever, who played in the majors and the Negro leagues; I will never want to play golf. And I would be danged good at any of those things.
And the child-rearing thing? What has that got to do with being in mathematics? I think if you stay home with the kids for three years it affects your promotions (and it should), but not your interests. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
