Gender Directed Ambition – Well-behaved women rarely make (scientific) history

There is an underlying assumption that reveals the gender bias in society when one asks, “Is the underrepresentation of women in the sciences and math caused by sex differences in cognitive abilities?” Diane Halpern acknowledges that it presumes a deficiency in women in her essay. There is no evidence that one sex is “smarter” than the other and standardized intelligence tests show no overall sex difference. I believe society expresses these assumptions and directs women in a way that is different than men, leading women on a path away from these careers in math and science, which would explain why they are underrepresented.

Throughout Halpern’s essay, she emphasizes the significance of experience. This included a study that reveals the effect of the environment and experiences in altering brain structure. Taxi cab drivers had enlarged portions of their right posterior hippocampus compared to a control group, whose careers did not require as much use of spatial skills. There was a positive correlation between the size of this region that is activated during recall of complex routes and the years of experience in this career. Halpern reminds the audience that all cognitive abilities can improve with learning and practice, which is the reason schools are in place. This directs her essay to explanations that are not focused on cognitive ability.

One explanation she raises is that women are still thought to perform the majority of care taking in society and need flexible schedules to balance these responsibilities. This relates to a lecture on “Gender and Ambition” by Bonnie Marcus, who claimed there is a problem that workplace practices are more supportive of a typical male lifestyle that lacks these responsibilities. Marcus explained that employees are expected to be constantly available to work long hours, but this is an outdated standard that reflects a time before women were integrated into the workforce. She referenced a study by Bain & Company of men and women in a variety of companies over two years. The women’s aspirations plummeted by 60 percent and confidence by 50 percent, when their ambition was initially higher than that of men. After two years in the workforce, women felt that moving through the ranks to that high level position they initially aspired to achieve was now unattainable due to workplace practices directed towards men.

This leads me to believe that the environment has a greater influence on why women are lacking at the top of science and math fields. To address differences in cognitive ability, it is shown that men are favored for mental rotation tasks, but women can improve their skills with training, and this is not the only skill necessary to be successful in science and math professions. The ability to communicate well in writing has a large sex difference in favor of females (Hedges and Nowell, 1995) and is crucial for writing grants and research reports. This advantage is not rewarding women, so how could a mental rotation skill advantage be simply granting men the key to success in science and math professions. There needs to be a change in institutions so that they adjust to satisfy the needs of men and women throughout their life spans, so both have equal opportunities to be successful.

Chapter 9 of Why Aren’t More Women in Science?

https://hbr.org/2015/05/companies-drain-womens-ambition-after-only-2-years

Marcus, Bonnie. “Gender and Ambition” lecture held on November 10, 2015 in Jepson room 118

Charlotte says:

November 14, 2015 at 2:10 pm

I agree that the underrepresentation of women has more to do with social/environmental/cultural factors than it has to do with biology. There’s no evidence strong enough to prove that boys are smarter than girls. Though it’s true the brain’s wired differently for boys and girls, it doesn’t mean that one’s better than the other. They just choose different “routes” to get to the same “destination”. It might be tougher for women to enter the field due to gender stereotypes and all kinds of social pressure, but they are definitely capable. STEM needs women, a completely different mindset, to be able to achieve its full potential.

Shivani Patel says:

November 15, 2015 at 2:04 pm

I agree with you about your experience and environment argument! It brings us back to the point of whether nature or nurture is more important, and in this case, nurture is playing the bigger role. It is important to give both men and women the tools that they need to set themselves up for success. Overall, great job highlighting the importance of experience and environment in your blog, I think it was one of the most important things in this essay.

Rachel Tang says:

November 15, 2015 at 3:24 pm

I really enjoyed reading your blog post after reading so many essays talking about how the reason there are more men in the workforce is due to greater cognitive abilities inherently seen in men. Your blog post brings out many good points about how many of these authors must also look at the environment men and women are in and how difference companies foster an outdated environment that hinder women.

Lillie Izo says:

November 15, 2015 at 4:04 pm

Hi, Gabrielle! Loved your overarching argument that it is nurture rather than nature that factors more into this issue, I completely agree. Also, I appreciated you using the lecture held here as a supporting example, which really showed how relevant this issue still is today. These bias practices in a work environment toward men still occur to this day. Thank you for sharing!