Worldwide attention, especially from females, turned to Marissa Mayer when she announced in early September 2015 that she only took 2-week maternity leave. Young women startled at her decision because the short leave is unusual for women after giving birth and partly because people wondered what examples Marissa Mayer is setting for aspiring young females out there. “Must we give up family life for professional life?” Whether or not the leave is “abnormal”, I think Mayer is the person who knows best. What the concerns and online comments imply is the gender perception ingrained in our society. Females are still expected to attend to family matters more than males. Such perception is described in the article “Sex, Math and Science” by Spelke and Grace as biological motives. I believe that men and women are equally capable of achieving in math and science and in other fields. The authors in the article expressed similar belief by proving that there is no difference in mathematical abilities between the two genders. They suggested that cause for the low representation is due to gender bias and discrimination. Although I agree with the authors on some points, there are a few assumptions underlying their arguments that I hardly came to terms with.
In the article “Sex, Math, and Science”, Spelke and Grace disproved the common perception that there are biological sex differences in cognitive ability that make men more cognitively suited for careers in math and science. First, they showed research conducted on infants that the two genders engaged with both objects and people and that neither sex engaged with objects more systematically. Thus, neither sex is more object-oriented, or systematic, a quality that math and the sciences rest on. Here, the authors are making an assumption that similar pattern does not change and that the two genders do not diverge in terms of their inclination toward object or people as the two infants grow up. The authors mentioned that young boys and girls do not show gender differences, and similar conclusion holds true throughout development (Hyde, 2006). However, it is noteworthy that in the research by Hyde, gender similarities did not encompass systemizing-empathizing disparity. According to the author’s discussion in the later part of the article, females and males face gender bias in their family and work places. It is possible that gender bias will stir females to become more people oriented, or empathizers, and encourage males to embrace their quality of systemizers. According to results of a research that measured empathizing and systemizing with a large US population who are non-students (Daniel B. Wright, Elin M. Skagerberg, 2012), 5% of males were empathizers while 23% of females are and 27% of males were systemizers while 6% of females were. Therefore, it is not conclusive that females and males do not show disparity in inclination toward systemizing and empathizing throughout the course of life.
The authors also showed that males are not naturally better at mathematics, which is frequently evaluated based on SAT- Math test score but SAT-M is proved to systematically under-predict the performance of females so test score is not an accurate measure. Spelke and Grace were especially thorough in their approach in their approach as they defined mathematical talent in terms of five core systems. Females and males show no difference in their ability in each of these five systems. Also, according to a large-scale research mentioned in the article, males and females of equal educational background master new math materials equally well, score equal grades in math classes and earn equal number of bachelor degrees in mathematics. Thus, there is little evidence that females are inferior to males in terms of mathematical abilities and that cognitive sex differences cannot be held accountable for the low representation of females in math and science. The authors are making an assumption that there is no difference in intellectual aptitude given the non-existing difference in mathematical ability. As mentioned in the article that there is equal number of females and males majoring in mathematics and that female and males are equally likely to major in science (Lubinski & Benbow, 1992; Lubinski, Webb, Morelock & Benbow, 2001). However, according to the most recent data in The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1990 through Fall 2006, only 15% of females are likely to major in science as compared to 30% of males although the number of mathematics majors is equivalent for both sexes. It is noteworthy that the number of males majoring in physics and engineering is significantly higher than that of females and the reverse happens when it comes to biology majors. There could be some traits in females that steer them towards biology majors and males towards engineering. Perhaps, physics and engineering require more ability to reason systematically which males display more often than females (Daniel B. Wright, Elin M. Skagerberg, 2012). Thus, I believe we are unable to conclude whether there is truly gender differences in cognitive abilities.
If we assume that there is indeed no gender difference, gender bias can be the determining factor as to why few women choose to pursue careers in math and science. As the authors discussed in the article, females face gender bias from birth till adulthood when they enter professional world. Female professionals are automatically underestimated in terms of competency and achievement as compared to their counterparts. From the reactions of the masses to Marissa Mayer’s decision on her maternity leave, we could see that high-achieving female professionals are under scrutiny. It causes excessive pressure on young aspiring women who have to work harder to prove their ability, the same concern expressed by the authors.
I think the more we try to prove that there is no gender difference and that women and men are equally capable, the more we are brought to an awareness that differences obstinately exist. Perhaps we should turn our attention to differences between individuals, not between genders, and respect individual choices. Marissa Mayer’s decision to take 2-week maternity leave is due to her different priority. If we were in Mayer’s shoes, we would make the same decision. Or would we?
References:
Spelke, E. S. G& AD. Sex, math, and science. In: Williams CS & W Why aren’t more women in science? Top gender researchers debate the evidence. Washington DC: APA Publications; 2006.
Wright DB, Skagerberg EM (2012) Measuring Empathizing and Systemizing with a Large US Sample. PLoS ONE 7(2): e31661. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031661
Hyde, J.S. (2005). The Gender Similarities Hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581-592.
Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology. Data derived from Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles, The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1990 through Fall 2006, www.gseis.ucla.edu/heri/heri.htm.
Fairchild, C. (2015, September 02). How Marissa Mayer’s Maternity Decision Affects Young Women—Whether She Likes It Or Not. Retrieved from http://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-marissa-mayers-maternity-leave-decision-affects-young-women-fairhchild
Be First to Comment