Let’s Change the Topic – Well-behaved women rarely make (scientific) history

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. Though 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.

Two main ideas are presented in Berenbaum’s and Resnick’s essay. The first is that hormones impact a person’s interest and behavior. Their 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 “if prenatal androgens contribute to human psychological sex differences, then females with CAH should tend to be psychologically more masculine and less feminine than a comparison group of females without CAH” (Berenbaum and Resnick 148). The use of the term “should” 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 “male-typical” activities, the data implies that there is a fixed idea of what is considered “male-typical” and “female-typical”. Berenbaum and Resnick came to the conclusion that “androgen continues to exert large effects on gender-typical activities beyond childhood” (150) because “in childhood, girls with CAH play more with boys’ toys and less with girls’ toys than do girls without CAH” (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 “typical” 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?

Berenbaum and Resnick admitted that “CAH is not a perfect experiment, and differences between females with and without CAH might be due to factors besides androgen” (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 “training of spatial skills is likely to have a bigger benefit than other interventions aimed at improving girls’ spatial abilities such as giving them boys’ toys” (154). This essay has not only confirmed my belief that environment affects career choices and opportunity but also helped me realize that “motivation, personality, and personal decisions also contribute to an individual’s advancement in her chosen profession” (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.

Resources:

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. (2007): 147-57. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.

Olivia Choe says:

November 15, 2015 at 12:41 am

Your blog that states “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..” is exactly how I feel. Sure, there may be a possibility that males are more wired with spatial ability advantages; HOWEVER, this does not mean talent is immutable. We just need to give females are more open environment that doesn’t restrict us. We should encourage females to take more science courses and tell them that effort prevails. Chapter 9 mentioned something about how London Taxi drivers use a certain part of their brain that is grown over the course of their years. This could be done for females as well. People are using “differences” as an excuse to label females as incapable.

Gabrielle Bennetti says:

November 15, 2015 at 2:23 pm

I like your introduction and how you change the topic. I think you did a good job evaluating the essay and evidence. I like how you questioned what normal behavior even is. It is weird to think about, but it is important when we discuss why women are underrepresented in science. Society and biases are a key part of answering both.

Chelsea Eareckson says:

November 15, 2015 at 11:51 pm

I agree! I wrote a very similar argument in my blog as well. I think you analyzed the essay accurately and question the author’s assumptions well. We need to start talking about how to fix the situation instead of what causes it!