Ability or opportunity? (blog 6)
Ability is not the sole factor responsible for women’s success in the fields of math and science. Other variables such as social environment, interests, and support system also count towards their success. I believe gender difference in cognition is less critical than gender difference in opportunities- opportunity to close the gender gap in cognition at a young age and opportunity to compete with men on a leveled playing field later in life.
There is a gender difference in cognitive ability, which is the first needed factor for success in math and physical sciences. Spatial ability is one of five pillars underlying mathematical reasoning (Dehaene, Izard, Pica, & Spelke, 2006; Feigenson, Dehaene, & Spelke, 2004; Newcombe & Hunttenlocher, 2000) so it is often used as a benchmark to gauge gender difference. In the article “Science, Sex, and Good Sense: Why women are underrepresented in some areas of science and math”, the authors discussed the effect of sex hormones on spatial ability. Females with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) tend to possess masculinized interests and specific cognitive ability. Some studies showed that females with CAH perform better on some spatial tests than those without CAH in childhood (Berenbaum, 2001; Hampso, Rovet, & Altmann, 1998; Hines et al. 2003; Resnick, Berenbaum, Gottesman, & Bouchard, 1986). However, the result assumes that females in their childhood are unaffected by the social and cultural environments and that any difference is due to the difference of androgen hormonal level. But since the environment can alter the brain’s architecture, as observed in cab drivers’ increased visual-spatial ability, spatial ability can be improved through learning and practice. Thus, the significance of the cognitive difference in contributing to women’s success in science can be lessened.
However, it seems that girls have fewer opportunities in their childhood to close the gender gap in spatial ability. In the article, females with CAH have a higher inclination towards masculine activities and they express interests in ‘masculine’ careers such as engineer, architect, and airline pilots. On the other hand, those without CAH lean towards ‘feminine’ careers. Higher interests lead to better learning, which in turn affect one’s career choices. From a young age, boys have an advantage over girls in choosing a career in math and science because they are expected to involve in masculine activities (i.e. computer games) that help to sharpen the skills needed for math and science such as spatial visualization. Also, we know that expectation from parents and teachers can affect girls’ performance in comparison to boys (Mondschein, Adolph, & Tamis-LeMonda, 2000). Parents often expect girls to play with feminine toys (Pasterski et al., 2005) that may not help them develop spatial ability as much as masculine toys such as video games, electronics, and sports. Although gender difference in cognition can be bridged with training and practice, the gender difference in parental expectations and early exposure already cause girls to lag behind boys in spatial ability at a young age.
Moreover, when entering the professional world, a pressure of work-family balance and stressful workplace add more variables to the equation, causing fewer females to consider math and science as a life-long pursuit. While men are expected, for sure, to be career-oriented and provider for the family, women who have a family need to spend additional time for childbearing and maternal leave. It is not to say that women have a heavier burden than men and that men do not care as much about family as women. However, a 2013 Pew Research Center survey found that 51% of working mothers said that it is harder for them to advance in their job as compared to only 16% of men. The workforce, in STEM and in other fields, is only getting more demanding, a reality that puts a pressure on employers to constantly keep up with the changing pace. But some family matters require time from women, as well as men, and the fear that taking time off will hinder career advancement only makes work-family appear as a trade-off. Thus, women tend to look for careers outside of STEM fields that give them flexibility for family (Halpern, 2007).
Additionally, not all work environments are constructed to be family-friendly towards women. An example is CERN- the European Organization for Nuclear Research. There are very few women scientists in the Physics world. Thus, work-hours and meetings are set up in a way to maximize efficiency considering that most staffs are male and there is also little pressure to build pre-schools for women scientists with children. These can be some reasons that female scientists find it challenging to work at CERN and most of them leave in their mid-career. There is a need to retain highly capable female scientists once they enter the fields by providing them with support systems.
To sum up, most females have unequal opportunities to catch up with males in terms of cognitive ability from a young age and to compete with them in the professional world because the work environment may not be family-friendly to females with children. There is much to be changed at a familial level and institutional level to encourage more girls into STEM fields. But the greatest change is in our own perception. Since when did we assign gender to intellectual endeavor such as Mathematics? In a society where even boundaries for physical genders are fading, shouldn’t we treat academic subjects on equal ground and respect each person as a gender-free individual who has the freedom to choose their own pursuit?
References:
Berenbaum, S. A., & Resnick, S. (2007). 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., 147-157. doi:10.1037/11546-012
Halpern, D. F. (2007). Science, Sex, and Good Sense: Why Women Are Underrepresented in Some Areas of Science and Math. Why Aren’t More Women in Science?: Top Researchers Debate the Evidence., 121-130. doi:10.1037/11546-010
Mondschein, E. R., Adolph, K. E., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2000). Gender bias in mothers’ expectations about infant crawling. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 306-316.
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. Why aren’t more women in science? Top gender researchers debate the evidence. Washington DC: APA Publications; 2006.
Pasterski, V. L, Geffner, M. E., Brain, C., Hindmarsh, P., Brook, C., &.Mines, M. (2005). Prenatal hormones and postnatal socialization by parents as determinants of male-typical toy play in girls with congenital adrenal hyperplasia. Child Development, 76, 264-278.
Pew Research Center. On Pay Gap, Millennial Women Near Parity – For Now. (2013, December 10). Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/12/11/on-pay-gap-millennial-women-near-parity-for-now/