Women in Media Debate at The London Press Club. L-R Kay Burley, Carla Buzasi, Anne McElvoy, Lisa Markwell 

Synopsis

In Underrepresentation or Misrepresentation, Kimura points out women’s lack of math ability as reason for their absence in math and science. Begin with irony to feminists, Kimura assails many social commonsense of women’s situation. After asserting there is difference between women and men in mathematic ability which is innate and hasn’t changed for a long time, he comes up with another viewpoint that such ability of math is to do with career choice, the combination of which is his main point. Along with several related parts about women’s less interest in science and girl’s low representation in doctorate as a lateral support, Kimura ended by putting forward a interesting alert: women have been overhired in scientific fields while men suffered academic discrimination.

Limitation of evidence and impatience to persuade

The essay sounds like a typical yet one-sided voice echoing in the debate about women’s absence of science. As to me, the biological difference is an unavoidable hard nut to crack for women. However, the voice itself may have some limitations as well. It seems to me that based on a more logical part about objective research about ability difference of two genders, author tries to collect nuances as many as possible to support men-ruling theory. There’s a very inappropriate example the author uses: women’s high representation of secretarial work reflect female’s better verbal capacity. Can we say that minorities have more finger dexterity so they undertook most labor works in US last century? Should the phenomenon make sense and be maintained? Also, author seems to try to find fault in women’s relatively high representation in biology to associate it with women’s superiority of language and inferiority of mathematics. I don’t know if it can satisfy author if women don’t gain high representation in all scientific fields. What will be the “reasonable” explanation if one day women’s representation in physics also increases? As for the last over-hire part, the way to describe the phenomenon is incomplete since it only mentions the hire ratio of women rather than the ratio of women to be hired as high position researcher.   Many female faculties may suffer from career indifference and don’t have chance for advance. “Forty years ago, women made up just three percent of full professors in science and engineering fields, a figure that inched up to ten percent sixteen years later, according to the NSF.”(Why Men Dominate Math and Science Fields, by Jeanna Bryner)

Ethical complex

Meanwhile, we are going to discuss something important in research: the ethical principles. Whether or not these papers about gender difference moral? As a very complex core, research ethical code requires scientists to report their paper accurately and honestly, which involves with how to report to avoid producing misleading information or offer support for potential discrimination. My psychology teacher has been refused to do a research based on pregnant women’s frequently forgetfulness because the research may bring potential information that pregnant is “stupid”. Also, “Study about people’s interpretation of information conveyed by different color of clothes may offer support that women be blamed for what they wear when assault happens.” Is the research about different IQ among races offering evidence for racist? Are so many informal researches displayed on television about different traits among “types” of people and races bringing bad influences to equality and supporting bias? Could scientists reject to do some research in spite of opportunities to publish articles as to avoid potential misrepresentation? I think the researches about gender differences are in such debate.

Conclusion

There are many studies about gender differences. I believe we shall see them with critical thinking, realizing the complication these issues involve with, trying to accept partly but not wholly. At the same time we shall dispute the misleading and distorted interpretation of such studies.