{"id":98,"date":"2015-11-14T19:23:10","date_gmt":"2015-11-15T00:23:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/?p=98"},"modified":"2015-11-14T19:23:10","modified_gmt":"2015-11-15T00:23:10","slug":"lets-change-the-topic","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/2015\/11\/14\/lets-change-the-topic\/","title":{"rendered":"Let’s Change the Topic"},"content":{"rendered":"

So far, the topic of underrepresentation of women in science has been concentrated on ability and cognitive differences. These differences have made people uncomfortable and uneasy because they imply that women are born unable and this inability to succeed in STEM is fixed, because of you know, biology. Researchers Sheri A. Berenbaum and Susan Resnick attempt to change the topic and focus more on why these differences exist and how change can cause positive influences. \u00a0Though sexual differences do exist due to Biology, these differences are not inflexible and can vary due to a variety of factors. I find it more reasonable to suggest that social influences play a larger role in underrepresentation of sexes in all careers. <\/span><\/p>\n

Two main ideas are presented in Berenbaum\u2019s and Resnick\u2019s essay. The first is that hormones impact a person\u2019s interest and behavior. \u00a0Their second point is that prenatal androgen affects some trait related to career choice. They conducted studies on females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and suggested that \u201cif prenatal androgens contribute to human psychological sex differences, then females with CAH <\/span>should<\/span><\/i> tend to be psychologically more masculine and less feminine than a comparison group of females without CAH\u201d (Berenbaum and Resnick 148). The use of the term \u201cshould\u201d suggests ambiguity and skepticism. Though their research supported a difference in behavior of females with CAH compared to females without–in that females with CAH are more likely to engage in \u201cmale-typical\u201d activities, the data implies that there is a fixed idea of what is considered \u201cmale-typical\u201d and \u201cfemale-typical\u201d. \u00a0Berenbaum and Resnick came to the conclusion that \u201candrogen continues to exert large effects on gender-typical activities beyond childhood\u201d (150) because \u201cin childhood, girls with CAH play more with boys\u2019 toys and less with girls\u2019 toys than do girls without CAH\u201d (150) but this conclusion implies that there is a limit to what toys children of different genders should play with. I found myself questioning who decides what is normal behavior for males and females? Parents? Society? It is \u201ctypical\u201d to use blue as a symbol for male and pink as a symbol for female, baby dolls and barbies for girls and toy trucks and cars for boys but does that really mean that using these items and symbols in the reverse has any significance in the change in hormonal activity? Could it be that these changes occur solely because children with CAH know they are different so they behave in a way that psychologically reflects their biology?<\/span><\/p>\n

Berenbaum and Resnick admitted that \u201cCAH is not a perfect experiment, and differences between females with and without CAH might be due to factors besides androgen\u201d (151) such as the possibility that parents may unintentionally treat girls with CAH like boys because of their masculine external genitalia. Another approach is that androgen has effects on behavior through environment. Through a hypothetical situation, Berenbaum and Resnick illustrate how CAH could have an effect on a female’s interests in toys, activities, decisions, company she keeps and ability to perform spatial tasks and concludes that because of this, hormones can lead to career choice. It seems, with this example though, that environment influences career choice instead. If girls, in adolescence, think and feel comfortable with activities more typical of males, they will have opportunities to increase spatial ability, though Berenbaum and Resnick, believe that \u201ctraining of spatial skills is likely to have a bigger benefit than other interventions aimed at improving girls\u2019 spatial abilities such as giving them boys\u2019 toys\u201d (154). This essay has not only confirmed my belief that environment affects career choices and opportunity but also helped me realize that \u201cmotivation, personality, and personal decisions also contribute to an individual\u2019s advancement in her chosen profession\u201d (Berenbaum and Resnick 154). The question of how these differences and influences affect the underrepresentation of women still stands. Can we come to a conclusion that the positive environment and resources to allow women to succeed in male dominated fields are just not available? Or will the focus remain on whether women are mentally and physically able? I say we change the topic and focus on how we can improve representation rather than arguing who is wrong and right.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Resources:<\/p>\n

Berenbaum, Sheri A., and Susan Resnick. “The Seeds of Career Choices: Prenatal Sex Hormone Effects on Psychological Sex Differences.” Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence.<\/i> (2007): 147-57. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

So far, the topic of underrepresentation of women in science has been concentrated on ability and cognitive differences. These differences have made people uncomfortable and…<\/p>\n

Continue readingLet’s Change the Topic<\/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-98","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\/98","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=98"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/fyswns11\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}