{"id":58,"date":"2015-09-11T17:00:04","date_gmt":"2015-09-11T21:00:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/?p=58"},"modified":"2015-09-11T15:48:39","modified_gmt":"2015-09-11T19:48:39","slug":"gender-biases-from-childhood-to-dynasty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/2015\/09\/11\/gender-biases-from-childhood-to-dynasty\/","title":{"rendered":"Gender Biases: From Childhood to Dynasty"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"images\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

(Photo by Paula Spencer at Parenthood)<\/p>\n

In chapter 4 of Why Aren\u2019t More Women in Math and Science, Elizabeth S. Spelke and Ariel D. Grace explore the topics of sex, math, and science and how each contribute to the disparity between men and women in math and science careers. They begin to challenge a reoccurring belief, such as the belief a previous researcher, Doreen Kimura, argued, that cognitive sex differences contribute to the fact that \u201cboys may be inherently more focused on objects, and girls on people\u201d (Spelke and Grace 57). This idea implies that, because women care more for emotions and people and men for objects, men are better suited for math and science careers. Research done by Spelke and Grace illustrates how, even as an infant, \u201cboth sexes engage both with objects and with people, and they learn about objects and people with equal success\u201d (Spelke and Grace 58). Many people unintentionally believe that boys care more for objects but in practice, one sees that the assumption is misguided.<\/p>\n

The more I read research papers and essays that argue men are more mathematically talented than women, I begin to realize that not many researchers define mathematical talent. The argument really all depends on what one perceives as \u201cgifted\u201d. What tasks can a person who is gifted perform? What is the significance of those tasks? Spelke and Grace helped me realize that there are no definite answers to these questions because math and science is so complex. To completely conquer the ideas in each subject it would require a lot of intellectual and scientific reasoning and no one possesses complete knowledge of everything there is to know about math and science. Spelke and Grace\u2019s research on the performance of young and older adults illuminate this idea that mathematical talent cannot be defined. In their research, they found that at a young age (2-4 years) there are no sex differences in primary mathematical abilities but as children get older, differences began to resurface. Girls showed better performance solving problems by algebraic rules and boys performed better with spatial reasoning. Data was also found that boys score higher on some versions of the SAT than females. If one was to stop asking question after finding such information, one would have the data to prove that males are better at mathematics. The problem is, according to Spelke and Grace, one cannot stop asking questions after such information. One has to go a step further and ask why. Why do males perform better on some <\/em>versions of the SAT? Are there other versions of the SAT that females perform better? What\u2019s the difference? Why do males and females perform better on one test and poorer on the other? What mathematic strategies do SATs test? Are SATs equally constructed with every strategy? These questions are important when conducting research because it leaves little room for bias. In fact, research done by Spelke and Grace revealed that \u201cby suitable choice of items, one could create a test favoring either gender\u201d (60). So would it be reasonable to base the argument that men perform better in math on test scores? I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n

So, if it\u2019s not mathematic talent, then what is it? Spelke and Grace present an argument that adults, specifically parents, unintentionally place gender biases on their children from birth. The results of their research show that parents overestimate the capability of their sons and in turn, underestimate the ability of their daughters. Spelke\u2019s and Grace\u2019s conclusion that \u201ca body of evidence suggests that males and females are perceived and evaluated differently from the moment of birth to the moment of tenure\u201d (64), leads me to believe that women are actually belittled and discouraged from birth. The origin of underrepresentation of women in math and science points to the mentality and beliefs of the people we look to for education. If a women is taught from birth by her parents, teachers, coaches, whoever, that she is less adequate than her male peers, she can either believe it or try to prove the opposite. Research done by Carol S. Dweck illustrates that \u201cfemales who believe in gifts might not only be more susceptible to setbacks, they might also be more susceptible to stereotypes\u201d (49) and it affects them for the rest of their life.<\/p>\n

But maybe men and women both have equal opportunities. Alternatively, it could be that the reason for less women in science is because women would rather have a personal life. Men and women may want the same things: hard work, impressive career, and a rich family life, but in the present day society, because the pressure on women is so heavy and it is extremely difficult to get a high position job as a female (Spelke and Grace 65). Maybe women see it as an ultimatum: career or family. In either case, one cannot find a problem to the solution until biases and gender inequalities no longer exist.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Resources Cited :<\/p>\n

Dweck, Carol S. “Is Math a Gift? Beliefs That Put Females at Risk.”\u00a0Why Aren’t More Women \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence.<\/em>\u00a0(2007): 47-55. Web.<\/p>\n

Spelke, Elizabeth S., and Ariel D. Grace. “Sex, Math, and Science.” Why Aren’t More Women \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence.<\/i> (2007): 57-67. Web.<\/p>\n

Spencer, Paula. “Boys vs. Girls: Who’s Harder to Raise.” Parenting<\/i>. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a02015.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  (Photo by Paula Spencer at Parenthood) In chapter 4 of Why Aren\u2019t More Women in Math and Science, Elizabeth S. Spelke and Ariel D.…<\/p>\n

Continue readingGender Biases: From Childhood to Dynasty<\/span><\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":2201,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2201"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}