Increasingly it makes sense to me that the workforce is segregated by gender.
There are, in fact, jobs where mostly women belong, and there are jobs where mostly men belong, and that's fine. It's outdated to think there are no differences between men and women. And once we accept there are differences, we need to study them instead of downplay them.
One of the most difficult parts of coming of age today is that there are no clear paths in the new topography of work. The terms quarterlife crisis and emerging adulthood have come to us as a result of the new scramble to figure out where to go in adult life. In order to create safe, compassionate, growth-oriented paths through adult life, we need to understand where women and men fit best.
I have taken a lot of shots at this topic before. Most notably, I've pointed out that women want to be with kids more than men do. That explains Pew's findings that most women want part-time jobs rather than full-time jobs after they have kids, but men do not.
But what about gender differences before there are kids? Where do men belong? Where do women belong? Here are three places women do not generally fit:
1. Highly competitive sales jobs are not for most women.
Most women are not happy when they are competing, rather than collaborating with their co-workers, whereas men love competition, according to a study from the University of Chicago. And research from the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that even in the case of men who are poor competitors or women who are strong competitors, the gender-based preferences for competition persist.
Women who achieve high levels of success played sports as kids and experienced huge satisfaction with winning. However women are less likely than men to choose competitive environments due to millions of years of evolution encouraging women to mitigate risks to protect themselves for their children. (Tons of studies support this, but my current favorite is from Anne Campbell, psychologist at Durham University in England.)
So who is a good fit for a career in sales? Richard Goldman, COO of Birkman International, a company that helps businesses make intelligent hires by using the Birkman Method for personality assessments, explains that collaborative, team-player types simply do not make good salespeople. When it comes to sales, though, the people who are the best fit for the high-level jobs are those who have an eat-what-you-kill mentality.
2. Men are better at very high-level math, science and engineering.
A 2008 survey of US universities by the National Science Foundation revealed that less than 30% of PhDs in the physical sciences were awarded to women. Higher up the ranks, women make up only about 10% of full professorships in physics-related disciplines. Yet a study from psychologists Stephen Ceci and Wendy Williams of Cornell University found no evidence of gender bias during the interview and hiring process for science positions.
Now that we have a few decades of data coming from girls who were encouraged to do math, we can say, with a decent amount of certainty, that the average girl is as good at math as the average boy. But in the world of hotshot math, women are outclassed.
One fundamental difference between the male and female brain is gray matter. And University of California at Irvine released solid data to explain why men are good at math.
"Evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior," said Richard Haier, professor of psychology who led the study.
"In general, men have approximately 6.5 times the amount of gray matter related to general intelligence than women, and women have nearly 10 times the amount of white matter related to intelligence than men. Gray matter represents information processing centers in the brain, and white matter represents the networking of—or connections between—these processing centers."
This chart, from Gene Expression, shows the difference in brain makeup.

Also, now that we have a slew of data about Asperger's syndrome, we can say that the people who are incredibly terrible with language (white matter) or incredibly gifted with mathematical thinking (gray matter) are usually boys. Boys, rather than girls, populate the two extreme ends of the bell curve.
So it should not be surprising or controversial that studies repeatedly find that there are large gender differences among extremely gifted math students. More boys are gifted.
Now the world starts making sense. This is why there are more men in math and science positions in universities. This is why the hot-shot companies in Silicon Valley are full of male engineers and not women. And this is why we need to stop complaining that science departments are boys clubs. It's not just the department—high end scientific thinking is a boys club.
3. Men are best suited for the insanely fast-paced startup arena.
More than 95% of venture capital goes to male-run startups. (To be clear, we are talking here about companies that plan to grow to more than $100 million in sales over five years and these companies court investors to achieve that.)
These startups are largely male, and the reason is that women are not interested in the crazy life that startup founders live. Women prefer lifestyle-focused companies where they can have better control over the intersection of their work life and personal life.
I laid out the argument in a post on TechCrunch, but, as you can imagine, it comes down to kids. Women want to spend more time with kids, and they have less desire to give up everything for their company. It would be great if you could do both, but when it comes to startups, you can't.
If you poll women who are CEOs of venture-backed startups as well as mothers, you will find that most women have either lost their marriage or their sanity while trying to run a startup and a family. Of course, no woman (besides me) will say this publicly because it will kill her career as an entrepreneur. One woman, (who has been lauded on TechCrunch for her startup), told me confidentially that she is getting a divorce and her husband thinks her drive is pathological. Which, frankly, is probably true, because much has been written about how most successful entrepreneurs are almost-but-not-quite crazy.
And Sara Lacy has explained the process whereby the boys-club startup founders perpetuate the boys club: if you get through it once, you can keep going, and helping other people to live out the crazy, family-unfriendly pipe-dreams of startup founders.
Many of you will want to tell me stories of the exceptions. I know. I'm one of them. I've driven myself and my ex-husband completely insane with my startup dramas, and I keep doing them. Each time I tell myself I will stay small. I will do a lifestyle business, and then I don't. I think too big and I take in outside funding.
But going into a field where you are the gender minority is very difficult. For one thing, people judge you more harshly, and you are more quickly to be deemed a failure. And it feels uncomfortable. Sure, it's fun to be the only woman in the room because you get a lot of attention, but on balance, Live Science reports that women are uncomfortable in a male-dominated setting.
One of the worst adages of feminism was "you can be anything." Because you can't. You can't be an iconoclast if you're not. And most of us are not. It's a lonely life. Why encourage it? Look at the paths that have a more sure footing. Look at the lives they create. If you like that life, give it a try.
When we look to create new paths for new careers, look at what real lives look like along the way. If you are 20 and you want to be the rare woman getting a PhD in math, ask yourself, are you really that different from all other people? And if you are 30 and you want to get funding for your startup, ask yourself if you truly are crazy enough to give up sanity for a company. Most of us look for more stable, surefooted ways to go through life. That's rational behavior.




The studies might contain findings that are relevant, on a biological level, for many people. But it is dangerous to reduce diversity by enforcing gender norms based on biological research.
Why? Because it's at that point where the research is no longer rooted in biology, but in social psychology. You are now talking the language of expectations, socialisation and norms.
When women and men are primed of their gender before taking a maths test, women perform worse than men. When they are not primed, they perform equally. That's the psychology of expectation right there.
Let's quit reinforcing it.
Posted by Kablaam on March 5, 2011 at 9:36 am | permalink |
Well said — thanks, Kablaam.
Penelope, this is fraught. Could we please talk by phone? I'm a social psychologist who could communicate with you better interactively (two-way phone call) rather than just sending one-way communications (writing). If you'd be willing to email me to suggest a time and to let me send you my phone number, I'd be grateful. And if you enjoy any of what we discuss, well, you're the writer!!
Let's spend less time telling people what they can or can't do, and more time encouraging those who can to continue, despite the overwhelming burdens, to strive to attain their goals.
Posted by csts on March 5, 2011 at 10:47 am | permalink |
Ehh… if you look at any social science research, it is based off of weak significant results. Read up on some Beatty & McCroskey, among many others, who bring up the notion that social sciences can only prove around 20% of the time, their theories hold up true while in hard sciences you have to be able to prove up to 80%… that makes a lot more sense, don't you think? When biological results are way more statistically significant than environmental or social variables, why discount it? Perhaps it makes people feel less in control of their own lives? At any rate, instead of looking at these things as though it's saying "men are better than women" or "women are better than men", it's really saying "men and women are different". Physiologically, biologically, they're different, it doesn't make one better than another.
Posted by W Church on March 7, 2011 at 9:06 am | permalink |
Perfect response Kablaam, completely true. I think the more important question is how do we develop so much grey matter in males (and so little white matter) and replicate that development in females. And conversely, how do we develop the growth of white matter in females and replicate that in males? I (a female) have always had exceptional math skills, but my mother (a doctor) was also good at math and tutored me very well growing up, so I was always well prepared in class. I would LOVE to follow a profession in math, but I didn't think I could help people with that skill as much as I could as a social worker (my chosen profession)– because I love working with people too. My mom is also in mental health (a child psychiatrist), which is an extremely interesting profession, considering the wide range of effects they are having on children and adults. However, I do believe that women and men have different preferences in terms of the types of jobs they want — competitive vs. helping. But ultimately gender does not determine whether you'll be successful at a job.
Posted by Jean on March 8, 2011 at 8:10 pm | permalink |
I eagerly await your post on high-powered, high-status jobs that men are not suited for and that women should be doing.
Posted by sam on March 5, 2011 at 9:46 am | permalink |
I think we confer high-power and status to people who are willing to give up their personal life for their career. So women are least likely to want these types of jobs.
On the other hand, looking at family medicine is very interesting. Women are better at it than men, because it takes listening, collaboration, and compassion. (Yes, it's a stereotype that women have these traits, but it's a true stereotype.) So, women started dominating the field and then, surprise, family medicine became one of the least prestigious areas of medicine. But women are happy there — the hours are flexible and the work is rewarding. So maybe it doesn't matter that women in family medicine are not in high-powered, prestigious jobs.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on March 5, 2011 at 9:53 am | permalink |
Err, No on #2.
I have no problem with the fact that the next Einstein, the next Newton, the next Perelman will all likely be men. And most STEM departments hiring go out of their way to not descriminate…. but that's not where the biggest barrier currently is.
Spend some time with ladies in their senior year of college who are grad school bound— I did a couple years ago. When it came to "fit", most of them spent a LARGE amount of time not worrying about the weather, or nearby apartments, or the workload, but the attitude toward women in the department, and if they could find an advisor who wasn't hostile toward women. Some rejected better schools to get better support. One friend, after one semester in the math department, switched to economics because the atmosphere wasn't poisonous there.
Most college math departments don't have to have geniuses teaching. In fact, it can seriously hurt the quality of teaching to have too many of them. MIT, sure. Community Colleges, or 4 year Undergrad-only institutions? The top 1% of thinkers may be very very male on average, but they aren't required, or even best, at getting material across. Requiring research is good, but it doesn't have to be groundbreaking in math to be useful to the student and school. The ways STEM departments suck for women usually don't make things better/nicer/whatever for men, they're generally just shitty for everyone.
Oh, and by the way, when it comes to gray vs white matter— higher mathematics would be hurt dramatically as a whole if not enough white matter were dedicated to it.
Posted by CosetTheTable on March 5, 2011 at 9:50 am | permalink |
Hi CosetTheTable,
I would firstly point out that you offer anecdotes where Penelope offers data. If you believe she is wrong, then perhaps you might point to some published research which supports your position or refutes hers.
Secondly, you state,
MIT, sure. Community Colleges, or 4 year Undergrad-only institutions? The top 1% of thinkers may be very very male on average, but they aren't required, or even best, at getting material across.
Penelope was making precisely this point, though the figure is probably larger than 1%. She was referring to high-level math and science. High-level mathematics is not taught in any undergraduate course of which I'm aware, even in Germany whose mathematics & exact science graduates are far, far above those of competing countries.
Thirdly, you state,
Oh, and by the way, when it comes to gray vs white matterâ higher mathematics would be hurt dramatically as a whole if not enough white matter were dedicated to it.
With respect, that comment makes very little sense, and I don't see how it could possibly be supported physiologically. It is clear from the research that male brains are better suited to higher level mathematics. You appear to be suggesting that without female brains higher mathematics would suffer. That is clearly not the case.
Again with respect, your post smacks of an attempt to justify a belief which you hold firmly in spite of available evidence.
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 7:41 pm | permalink |
Chris,
You keep complaining about commenters offering anecdotes, whilst ms. trunk is offering 'data'… Have you even read the studies she cites? Most of the peer-reviewed, journal published articles she cites to do not stand for the proposition for which she cites them. I'm not going to waste my time going through all of them, but since you seem to be interested in math, let's take ms. trunk's second argument:
"Men are better at very high-level math, science and engineering."
To support this notion she cites certain statistics: "less than 30% of PhDs in the physical sciences were awarded to women" & "Higher up the ranks, women make up only about 10% of full professorships in physics-related disciplines"
She then dismisses gender bias during the interview and hiring process as a possible cause based on the Ceci & Williams article (which is open access, so really, there's no excuse not to have read the entire study). If you read the rest of what ms. trunk wrote in support of her second argument, she devotes no other pixels to the causes of gender discrimination in phd programs, professorships etc. In other words, this is *the singe piece of evidence* she uses to dismiss all non-biological factors for inequality.
Now, let's turn to the article, I'll quote it
"Despite frequent assertions that women's current underrepresentation in math-intensive fields is caused by sex discrimination by grant agencies, journal reviewers, and search committees, the evidence shows women fare as well as men in hiring, funding, and publishing (given comparable resources). That women tend to occupy positions offering fewer resources is not due to women being bypassed in interviewing and hiring or being denied grants and journal publications because of their sex."
– ok, let's assume, arguendo, that the methodology of the article (which is more of a literature review than original research, but whatevs) is sound (it isn't but let's assume). And that grant agencies, journal reviewers, and search committees are gender blind. Those are the only three sources of gender discrimination you can think of? Really? What about graduate programs? Are advisors more hostile to women phd candidates? How about male graduate phd candidates – are they as supportive of their women colleagues as they are of their male colleagues? Are women phd candidate expected to carry a higher teaching load than men (and so are shortchanged research time)? How about undergrads – are they more hostile to female TAs than male TAs? ….Where's the data ruling out those causes for why less than 30% of phd's go to women (the statistic, you'll recall, ms. trunk cites at the beginning of her argument). ***
*** by now you may have read the article, and you may be saying, but what about the three factors the authors assert account for the gender disparity. those three factors? conjecture.
This type of shoddy reasoning and misrepresentation of the literature pervades ms. trunk's entire piece.
Posted by mattbc on March 6, 2011 at 12:22 am | permalink |
Others have pointed to the quality of the cited data- I'll speak to some of the other bits–
At post-secondary institutions in the US, generally one must have a masters or a PhD– or be supervised/advised by someone who does– in order to teach. Generally undergraduates find being taught by full professors (usually those with PhDs) to be preferable, or at least college rankings believe they do.
I am not arguing about the absolute edges of the bell curve and what any piece of research says about it, because one simply does not have to be in the top 2% of an undergraduate math major class to have what it takes to get a PhD in math. Yet women aren't there in the numbers they're there at earlier levels. Some of that is choice, some of it very well may be biology, but that's not the full story.
Oh, by the way, how are you defining "higher math"? Personally, I think it's once it's something publishable, and with REUs, most of my peer group ended up published….. So we're probably using a different definition.
Many parts of mathematics are about connections. Many times, the only way to solve a problem is to redefine it under a different discipline. Not only is it important, then, to have colleagues that know each other and interact, but it's also to have brains working on these problems that aren't just looking at it in a strictly linear fashion. Different problems take different skillsets, and yes, the more different minds math has working on questions, the more questions we'll get answers to.
Posted by CosetTheTable on March 6, 2011 at 12:46 am | permalink |
@mattbc,
"Have you even read the studies she cites?"
No, in fact I haven't, nor did I explicitly or implicitly claim that I had, or support the conclusions Penelope has drawn from them. I am also entirely unsurprised that research in this area is of unsatisfactory quality. If you read my posts, the only thing I have said is that people's individual experiences are not good responses to a post which cites data. You have critiqued the sources Penelope cited and found them wanting – great. I have no intention of challenging your argument, both because I don't want to expend the effort and because I suspect that you have a point. As I have pointed out to others here, I have not once said that I agreed with Penelope's position. I just find supposedly educated people contending that their personal experience negates cited data to be unsatisfactory. You'll notice that all of my comments are to this effect.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 3:22 am | permalink |
I realize that one of your beliefs is that everyone thinks they are more "special" or "unique" than they really are. And in many cases, I agree with you. But when we're talking about aptitude for specific careers I don't agree. There are trends, but each career is lived by an individual.
As suggested by my name, I'm a female engineer. And I'm a pretty damned good one. Part of that is due to the decidedly female traits I bring to the job:
1) Willingness to listen to another view of the problem.
2) Desire to ensure the solution is implemented quickly – which means I need to collaborate with other people who participate in that solution
3) Willingness to ask questions (ie – admit I don't know it all) to discover optimal solutions
4) Ability to multi-task. I can run complex calculations while listening in on con calls, or jot down an outline of a pending analysis while in another meeting (and it looks like I'm studiously taking notes about the topic at hand).
And the best part of all is when I visit customers, they seem disarmed or my gender confuses them just enough that they answer questions & give up information more readily than when men go in.
BTW – I travel to China to do business 4x/year and the gender difference does not hold up there. At least 50% of the engineers (and over 50% of their managers) are women. Our top performing sales engineers in China are all women. So if you go to a country where women aren't told from kindergarten on up that, "Wow, you're good at math – and that is so unusual for a little girl!" you will find that the women are outperforming the men and being rewarded for it.
Posted by EngineerChic on March 5, 2011 at 10:00 am | permalink |
I should mention – that just "being pretty damned good" didn't mean that I was automatically paid the same as my male coworkers. That took some work on my part – but it was well worth the effort.
There are few jobs where *just* mental aptitude guarantees success. Even the most brilliant engineers at our company don't have much influence unless they can also work with others. The smartest & most prickly people are generally avoided by upper management (and even their peers). I'm sure that suits them just fine, but it does limit their upward mobility.
Posted by EngineerChic on March 5, 2011 at 10:07 am | permalink |
I'm also a female engineer, and would add that when I started studying, male colleagues made it clear that I was going to be discriminated. I wasn't part of the "gang", and even though that didn't stop me from going ahead and getting my degree, other women might not be as willing to stay in a hostile environment like that, which I suspect would be even worse in a "very high level math" sort of environment.
Posted by Chris M. on March 6, 2011 at 9:30 am | permalink |
EngineerChic you're my kind of woman!
Posted by Carol on March 5, 2011 at 11:36 am | permalink |
Mine too!
Penelope is taking some biological studies and using them to make sweeping pronunciations about things that are much more complex than "just the simple facts" justify.
It's particularly annoying when she "whispers" it in a "and no one else will be bold enough to tell you but I am" sort of way.
Maybe other people would feel less comfortable making huge, sweeping generalizations based on a few facts and some western culture?
Not that there is nothing wrong with looking at data and asking questions or advancing possible hypotheses. But that's not what's taking place in this post. It's more about the bold, "clear-spoken" Penelope coming out with a controversial post, in my opinion. Unfortunately it seems to come across more like… (nevermind, no-one needs another Godwinism
Posted by Pen on March 5, 2011 at 2:21 pm | permalink |
@EngineerChic – that's because China is not a free country. In free countries, women are much less like to choose engineering as a career (because they have the choice).
Posted by GenerationXpert on March 5, 2011 at 5:20 pm | permalink |
Generation Xpert – why would you say that women would not choose engineering if they had a choice? Engineering is a great career in many respects – it gives you tools to creatively solve problems & test those solutions in real life (does this solution reduce the undesired harmonics, or not?). In a lot of ways it can be fun. And it's financially rewarding – not on the level of being a surgeon or maybe a lawyer, but it is a lot better pay than many other careers. I'm curious why you say women would not choose it?
Posted by EngineerChic on March 5, 2011 at 9:44 pm | permalink |
I've been to China, and worked with people coming over from Chinese colleges. This is what I've seen: people who are able to go to school (not everyone has access) can choose what career they like. I've seen Chinese students following amazing dreams – things that are difficult to pursue here. In colleges there you will find that paleontology is for paleontologists; and, engineering school is for engineers. Because of my interest in GIS, I have encountered a fair number of Chinese women who work on large scale water projects and desertification issues. No one had a gun to their head. They loved what they did, worked hard for it, and were, by the way, good at it.
I think the term "free country" is a very silly one. If by free you mean we have a free press in the US, or more personal freedoms, then yes, we enjoy more civil liberties – at least as long as people are willing to work to keep them. But if by "free", you think that people in other countries have no agency of their own, I'd tell you to get out of the house and meet some people from abroad.
Posted by It's like a stick in my eye. on March 16, 2011 at 5:14 pm | permalink |
@EngineerChic – that's because China is not a free country. In free countries, women are much more like to not choose engineering is as a career (because they can choose.) http://nineshift.typepad.com/weblog/2010/12/girls-in-stem-.html
Posted by GenerationXpert on March 5, 2011 at 5:22 pm | permalink |
@GenerationXpert:
Perhaps some engineering departments in the USA are much less likely to be welcoming to women, rather than women in China having no choice. My own personal experience with a state school in New Jersey, while working at Bell Labs: I called a professor in the EE school to inquire about a masters degree. He told me not to bother applying, women shouldn't go into EE. Needless to say, I didn't go there, I attended an Ivy League school.
Posted by Tori on March 6, 2011 at 3:45 pm | permalink |
What definition of "free" are you using that could possibly have any relevance to this discussion? Students do choose their university majors in China.
Posted by EKSwitaj on March 8, 2011 at 7:49 pm | permalink |
Hi EngineerChic,
Firstly, you make the mistake that it seems every other commenter is determined to make: you offer an anecdote in response to data. I took a pee half an hour ago, therefore everybody took a pee half an hour ago. :-S
Secondly, you state, "I'm an engineer". Well, "engineer" covers all manner of sins these days, so I'll assume you work in a traditional engineering discipline such as civil or mechanical engineering.
Let's suppose you work in mechanical engineering and you are involved with, say, CFD modelling. Cool. In what way is that "high level math"? Or perhaps you're in civil engineering, perhaps looking at structural elasticity. Cool. Would you call that "high level math"?
The reality is, the vast majority of engineers don't do any mathematics which could be called high level. Feel free to correct me, but even most advanced electrical engineers wouldn't have an idea about SPDEs on differentiable manifolds, even though they are one of the major areas of research in signals processing.
I'm sorry, but even if anecdotes were persuasive, yours would not be.
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 7:49 pm | permalink |
Hi Chris,
Your point about how engineers don't do "high level math" is well taken. And for the record, I am an electrical engineer. I work with Laplace and Fourier transforms often. That may not be high level math for you. I never said it was. Penelope stated: "Men are better at very high-level math, science and engineering."
And please recall, my anecdotal evidence was not only about my own life. It included the many engineers I've met in China, and my personal knowledge of our own staff of engineers in China. That is not hard research, but does include roughly 400 subjects (gauging from the stack of business cards in the box marked "China" on my desk).
Now about you – you sound a bit angry that anyone would doubt P's research. The tone of your writing is not what I'd expect from someone who's happy with their life & their choices. Tell me – are you an un-employed (or under-employed) man who's angry that the mean girls are taking too many of the good jobs?
Posted by EngineerChic on March 5, 2011 at 9:53 pm | permalink |
"Tell me â are you an un-employed (or under-employed) man who's angry that the mean girls are taking too many of the good jobs?"
Not that it's any of your business, but no, I'm not. Would it make me any less right if I were?
I got my PhD in Applied Mathematics at 22, my company (in which I held a 51% stake) was bought out two years ago for 32.4 million Euros, and I'm now head of R&D for our parent company making a 7-figure salary.
I didn't start the penis-measuring contest, you did.
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 11:43 pm | permalink |
And, for the record, I don't actually buy Penelope's research. This area is notoriously full of hokum. I just hate reactionaries who think that their personal experience negates research.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 12:32 am | permalink |
Well Chris, if everything you say is true … Then you are truly an aberration in life. I've found that most of the time when someone is hell-bent on telling another person that their personal choices are wrong, it is because that someone is unhappy with their own personal choices.
Also, if you relate to other people in your life the way that you relate to commenters on this page, then you are extremely unpleasant to be near & it is even MORE unlikely that you have been successful in your career. However, there are plenty of studies that show people tend to reveal their most judgmental & hateful side when they post online – the anonymity of a keyboard makes them feel bold & powerful. Perhaps …. you are a decent, considerate, thoughtful human being in real life. Perhaps you CAN have a discussion without being derisive toward people who have not attacked you. Present company excluded, since I DID insinuate you have a miserable little life of regret & anger – and yes, I did so in retaliation for your angry little insults toward so many smart women who are posting here. IOW – you can attack me all you want, I've earned it
But I don't think you are one of those "nice in real life, asshole online" people. Because here's the thing … the strongest man in the world doesn't go around pointing fingers and mocking people he thinks are relatively puny. He doesn't need to. Think about that the next time you try telling people how stupid they are in an attempt to make yourself feel better.
Posted by EngineerChic on March 6, 2011 at 9:33 am | permalink |
It's important not to forget that most medical research findings are wrong: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/
Posted by JM on March 5, 2011 at 10:02 am | permalink |
Most of the neurological "science" about sex differences is very, very sketchy. Not surprisingly, it tends to justify and support social norms. The 'argument from nature,' whether evolutionary or anatomical, has a long and general shameful history. It has been used to keep *name your socially oppressed group here* in their place with a patina of rational legitimacy. Just because it sounds like science, doesn't mean it's good science.
Check out Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences by Rebecca M. Jordan-Young and Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference by Cordelia Fine for some perspective.
Even if there were some universal statistical accuracy to the differences you point to, it would nevertheless be bad to segregate. You're not neurotypical: do you want to be segregated as a matter of POLICY? I'm not a typical woman: I've never had children and I've had a varied and unconventional career. I don't care to be told whom I'm supposed to hang out with professionally.
Posted by Pascale Soleil on March 5, 2011 at 10:10 am | permalink |
I never thought about it in terms of policy. You make me think about that — I guess I don't think segregation should be policy-based so much as self-segregation. I am thinking maybe there is too much emphasis on being different, not following the norms, etc. And maybe we've gone overboard and there is a lot to be said for the norms.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on March 5, 2011 at 10:30 am | permalink |
Wait – so now you are thinking there may be a lot of good in following social norms?
Tell me, when has that ever worked out for you?
Posted by EngineerChic on March 5, 2011 at 9:55 pm | permalink |
@EngineerChic: Agreed. I would like to hear Penelope's response.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 3:29 am | permalink |
There is already a huge degree of self-segregation by occupation – look to years of sociological research that show this phenomenon, or simply go to the bureau of labor statistics for any given year. You have stated nothing new in suggesting that this should (or could) be the case. Sure, people attempt to make "rational" decisions about their employment, given the influences they have had and whatever natural faculties they have been dealt. But to ignore social forces guiding men and women into the decisions they make and the realities of their situations is, frankly, strange given your penchant to discussing them regarding other topics (the miscarriage/abortion debate over your twitter post immediately comes to mind, among others). We know, for example, that status and power are quite structural – people with more power and status tend to act more agentically, and those without these legitimacies tend to act more communally (and there are interesting interactions with gender when it applies to the task at hand).
Instead, your post comes across as trying to make waves by implying there should be something more policy oriented (or concrete) about men's and women's job choices, and then claiming you hadn't thought of the implications of your words in hindsight. Big disappointment here.
Posted by KB on March 7, 2011 at 1:13 pm | permalink |
It's easy for you to tell other women to follow the norms while you get to be one of the special ones, a woman with a man's personality. My brain is nothing special–just a regular woman's brain–but I don't want to join the herd of dummies who would rather collaborate than compete. You make it sound so awful. I'd rather try to be a successful saleswoman, even if I fail miserably.
Posted by Jean on March 7, 2011 at 6:17 pm | permalink |
Are you really trying to suggest that women should be segregated out of math, science and engineering jobs? What's wrong with you? So what if the field is dominated by men. That doesn't mean that the women in that field don't belong there.
You even concede that you are one of those exceptions in a male dominated field. Are you suggesting that you should be removed from your field as well? If you believe so strongly in this principle perhaps you should be the first test case.
Posted by Elizabeth on March 5, 2011 at 10:27 am | permalink |
Are you really trying to suggest that women should be segregated out of math, science and engineering jobs? What's wrong with you?
This.
Posted by Cathy on March 5, 2011 at 1:24 pm | permalink |
Reading comprehension skills: you do not have them.
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 7:50 pm | permalink |
So remember guys: when you meet that adorable, bright-eyed young woman who wants to be a scientist, be sure to condescendingly pat her on the head and inform her that no matter what she does in science, she'll never be any good. Direct her to some nice, womanly books on English and teaching wittle kiddies, and tell her to put all that learning and physics knowledge out of her pretty little head.
Wow.
Posted by GAfish on March 6, 2011 at 1:01 am | permalink |
Title of the post: "The Workplace Should Be Segregated. Maybe." Title of the section about math, science and engineering: "2. Men are better at very high-level math, science and engineering." Third to last concluding paragraph: "But going into a field where you are the gender minority is very difficult. For one thing, people judge you more harshly, and you are more quickly to be deemed a failure. And it feels uncomfortable. Sure, it's fun to be the only woman in the room because you get a lot of attention, but on balance, Live Science reports that women are uncomfortable in a male-dominated setting." So what don't I comprehend again Chris? Please tell me because after all I am a woman and I need a man like you to guide me to the proper conclusion.
Posted by Elizabeth on March 6, 2011 at 2:31 pm | permalink |
As the CEO of a media and technology company of a decade and a half – once a startup – and a woman, congratulations on singlehandedly providing men with information to discriminate against us. My work is taught in 1000 business schools via textbooks and I speak regularly to women and girls at colleges and MBA programs about science and technology. There's no shortage of them. Incidentally I scored in the top 1% of the country in math as did other women I know. Yet here you are telling us that apparently we are no good at it. For shame. Maybe the cows on the farm have gotten to your brain, because if not, you would know that most studies are biased in one way, shape or another, whether through their funding or researcher. I always liked your pieces, albeit controversial, till now. This one is blatantly sexist, and there's nothing worse than a woman bringing down other women. Consider me unsubcribed. Too bad by the way, because my "failure" of a company has 3/4 of a million readers who trust me.
Posted by Anonymous on March 5, 2011 at 10:50 am | permalink |
Anonymous, thank-you, thank-you, thank-you. Well said (and well backed-up, I must add).
You rock.
Posted by Pen on March 5, 2011 at 2:24 pm | permalink |
I am cathy,from what I can read. It has been sad news and scam to everyone about Voodoo casters or so. But to me they are so real cause one worked for me not quite two weeks. I traveled down to where his shrine his and we both did the ritual and sacrifice. and now me and my ex are living very ok now.I don't know about you but Voodoo is real;love marriage,finance, job promotion ,lottery Voodoo,poker voodoo golf Voodoo,Law & Court case Spells,it's all he does. I used my money to purchase everything he used he never collected a dime from. He told me I can repay him anytime with anything from my heart. Now I don't know how to do that. If you can help or you need his help write him on nativedoctor101@live.com Thank you
Posted by cathy on May 4, 2011 at 2:31 am | permalink |
As with every other commenter here, you respond to data with anecdotes. Furthermore, being in the "top 1%" of your country for math doesn't make you good at it. In a country of 200 Million people, that puts you in the top 2 Million people. Good work, I guess? :-S
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 7:52 pm | permalink |
Chris, you are a one-note tune. Speaking anecdotally, of course.
Posted by PJayBee on March 5, 2011 at 11:18 pm | permalink |
Chris,
You seem to have a lot of time to correspond with others on this controversial topic.
You also seem to have a lot of emotional investment in your replies.
Perhaps you should hold your tongue a bit. Arguments that sound rational but support an emotional bias do not warrant that those arguments are automatically valid.
Yes personal experience does not constitute a scientific study but I likewise have seen many women do very well in mathematical fields.
Both my mother and sister are majored in mathematics. My sister's graduate degree is in pure mathematics.
I myself pursued an english degree. However I share a genetic similarity to both of them.
In any case Chris you seem too invested to actually offer a purely rational response that does not reek of emotional attachment to an outcome.
Posted by anonymous on March 6, 2011 at 2:52 am | permalink |
"You also seem to have a lot of emotional investment in your replies."
Point to one comment I've made that has even the vaguest hint of an emotional investment.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 2:56 am | permalink |
I have to agree with anonymous, Chris. There is a lot of vitriol in your comments. More than is warranted for this sort of discussion. I hear what you are saying that you "hate" people who respond to research with anecdotal evidence. However, there's a reason we have instinct and it's often a good clue as to why the results of research need to be reviewed. That is the emotional component many of us are responding to. If you really want a list of examples :
- even if anecdotes were persuasive, yours would not be.
- Reading comprehension skills: you do not have them.
- Furthermore, being in the "top 1%" of your country for math doesn't make you good at it. In a country of 200 Million people, that puts you in the top 2 Million people. Good work, I guess?
- Anecdote is not the singular of data. If you want your child to be good at science, this is a lesson you would do well to teach him or her.
- Your sarcasm is both witty and an excellent response to her comment. Well done. P.S. This is also sarcasm.
Posted by EngineerChic on March 6, 2011 at 9:42 am | permalink |
Penelope,
I've been reading you a while and you often have great insights, but this is just just giving up. It's Stockholm Syndrome.
Women are full and complete human beings. Yes, there are some differences, but the similarities overwhelm them. In every category you are talking about, the overlap in male and female abilities is incredibly high. On math scores, although within a culture, men tend to outscore women on exams, Japanese female high school students outscore American male high school students. So do you accept that we should be bringing in Japanese women to run our math departments. Or that American women can't do as well as Japanese women? If so, they can do better than American men.
The Ceci and Williams study that you are looking at does not support what you are saying. Men and women scientists have the same level of success WHEN GIVEN THE SAME RESOURCES. But women are not given the same resources as men. So, pretending that this resource deprivation is somehow a natural consequence of women's lesser abilities is just wishful thinking on your part.
Here are two good posts, by a PhD economist, about the problems with the Ceci and Williams studies:
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2011_02_20_archive.html#6690141082365103536
http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2011_02_20_archive.html#5731158804247003030
She has more, about why all those brain size studies and such don't mean much. For one thing, you get completely different answers when you use stereotypically male objects (i.e. blocks) vs female objects. In fact, tests of students in London found that the highest object rotation ability scores (often used to "prove" men are best at math and science) weren't the male engineers or math majors, but female fashion design students. And tests in prairie voles showed that male/female brain function differences were often serving to OFFSET other biological differences, leading to more similarity in male and female behavior, rather than less.
Here's a link to her series on the problems of sex brain difference studies: http://echidneofthesnakes.blogspot.com/2011_01_09_archive.html#5809342234743411023
If you want to go to the originals, the books discussed are Lise Eliot's Pink Brain, Blue Brain; Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender; and Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's Brainstorm:The Flaws in The Science of Sex Differences.
One of the real issues in all sorts of gender studies is that popularizers tend to grab onto some early study, ignoring the follow ups which reveal it's flaws. For instance the early studies saying children whose parents divorced were more likely to be depressed. Laters studies showed that the correlation was in fact that parents who were depressed were more likely to have depressed children. Whether or not the parent remained married or got divorced didn't change the likelihood of their child's suffering from depression. But you don't read about that in magazines, do you?
Posted by Mo on March 5, 2011 at 11:01 am | permalink |
I completely disagree with your assertions that men make better sales people. I am in the field of health care IT and software sales. I prefer to have a shark type (which can be a man or a woman) and a collaborator (again gender is irrelevant) on each deal. The deals in our sector are long term deal and relationships. If I only have sharks on a deal I find that we lose the customer's trust more easily, and thereby current and/or future sales. Maybe your assertions are true on short term, uncomplicated one time transactions, but certainly not in deals that are more like marriages than sales.
I also dislike assertions that rely on majority of people are like this, or that. Real success if for such a minority of people that sweeping generalizations about gender, color or religion are always wrong. Successful people almost always break the rules so generalizations are useless.
Posted by Gwenn on March 5, 2011 at 11:05 am | permalink |
Getting from newly-minted PhD to full professorship has very little to do with one's aptitude in the discipline, and everything to do with how good one is at being a professor. Being a professor is not about being highly skilled in ones discipline, unfortunately– it is about teaching, navigating funding hierarchies, fitting into the system.
Do not fool yourself into thinking that the best mathematicians are full professors of math. People outside academia are always under this illusion that those of us in it are part of a meritocracy…. HA! If only you could get a glimpse of how little talent and aptitude really matter.
Posted by Endie on March 5, 2011 at 11:22 am | permalink |
It's also really important to realize that the tenure clock and the biological clock tend to be running at the same time, so if women in math and science professorships feel any of the family pressures that Penelope talks about in her first and third sections, then that can be just as important in determining their success in becoming long-term professors in their fields as any brain differences.
Posted by Emily on March 5, 2011 at 2:34 pm | permalink |
Penelope, I've been reading your blogs (am not sure why, except that you have Asperger's), and I have a very basic question: What the hell is a start-up? Why do people keep creating them? When do they become lasting companies?
Frankly, relying on science to explain gender differences makes me uncomfortable. The neurobiology of autism is just at its beginning, so many of the studies are still sketchy. I would imagine the science of gender differences is also. And what about what's happening in China?
Me, I have a Bachelors, Master's and Doctorate in special education and autism. I built my career on intelligence and relationships. I know I can figure almost anything out, and I always knew I wanted change and challenge. Am I gifted in math? No. Was I socially directed to become a teacher? Yes. When I was a girl, girls with college degrees could be teachers or nurses….at least in my socio-economic class (working class). But I had a drive to be more than just a teacher for the rest of my life…as did two of my three sisters. Business? Not even an option at that time.
But I love what I do and have always been happy about it. It has led to a good life, with a marriage, kids, and career. Perhaps if I had been raised to consider going into business I'd be there now.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by Susan on March 5, 2011 at 11:26 am | permalink |
I was going to draft a long reply to this, but others have expressed my thoughts much more articulately that I would have. As the mother of a 13 year old who is gifted in science and math but not especially socially skilled, I read this post with rising blood pressure and will not be subjecting myself to her opinions in the future.
Posted by bettina pearl on March 5, 2011 at 11:34 am | permalink |
Anecdote is not the singular of data. If you want your child to be good at science, this is a lesson you would do well to teach him or her.
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 7:55 pm | permalink |
And yet I assure you that stamping down people won't actually make you more right. You are correct: the plural of anecdote is not data. However, you are in essence denying women the chance to do something they are curious about and may be good at based on studies influenced largely by stereotype threat, social expectations, and gender bias.
Come out and say it: You are a misogynist who doesn't want women to have any opportunities beyond the humanities because it breaks your stereotype, Mr. 7 figures.
Posted by GAfish on March 6, 2011 at 1:03 am | permalink |
Could you highlight for me the bit where I said women shouldn't do science? Even the bit where I said I agreed with Penelope's position would do.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 1:07 am | permalink |
Chris, exactly what stake do you have in proving Penelope right, here? You seem to be expending a lot of energy and angry-sounding words to knock down women who find fault with the points she makes.
You want hard data that cultural expectations matter far more than biological differences? Fine. Studies (particularly in the US) have consistently shown that when women are asked to identify their gender before taking a math test, they do markedly worse than men. When not asked to, they perform equally well, within a margin of error. The effect becomes more marked when women are told that the test is being given in order to measure their abilities against those of men: http://books.google.com/books?id=zgsvXQ4GbfkC&pg=PA175&dq=women+math+tests+identification+schmader&hl=en&ei=MD5zTeO0IYSitgfL8-z_BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Interestingly, other studies have shown that when a woman who projects an air of competence is administering a math test, women do better on it.
Posted by Louisa on March 6, 2011 at 1:59 am | permalink |
"You seem to be expending a lot of energy and angry-sounding words to knock down women who find fault with the points she makes."
Point to one angry-sounding sentence.
"Chris, exactly what stake do you have in proving Penelope right, here?"
Point to one comment where I said I agreed with Penelope.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 2:58 am | permalink |
Penelope you are good at stirring things up and that has value. You cite research, which people debate (and should) and that has value. But research and studies show that diversity really is, measurably GOOD. So what if there are gender differences – of course there are (vive la difference). We don't fully understand them, we absolutely must not use them to reinforce stereotypes that limit anyone (usually women) but nor should we deny them. Diversity is good. Being different is (and should be recognized by society as) good.
As for careers, the science is good, really good and will help people get into the right activity. The science of matching people and jobs won't discriminate by gender – use it, not advice and generalities.
Posted by Paul Basile on March 5, 2011 at 11:36 am | permalink |
@Paul, maybe you should read some of the recent articles on the extent of the sexual harassment that occurs in tech fields? If boys were subjected to that sort of constant, violating harassment and objectification, they probably would stay out of tech too.
Posted by mynameisbutters on March 7, 2011 at 4:06 pm | permalink |
Another great article. I like that, in this politically correct world, you have the courage to state that women and men are different.
I'm a software developer, and in my career and workplace, to even hear a female voice is a rare event, let along meeting an actual she-developer. And it allows to keep me focused while I'm at work, so I think to segregate the workplace is not a crazy idea.
Posted by Camilo Cuesta on March 5, 2011 at 11:36 am | permalink |
Translation: I can't control my hormones long enough to do real work, so I blame the ladies.
Posted by GAfish on March 6, 2011 at 1:04 am | permalink |
Wow. She-developer. That's…interesting. And people wonder why women feel intimidated about entering the male-dominated fields?
Posted by Louisa on March 6, 2011 at 2:01 am | permalink |
This is satire, right? You can't actually be arguing that women's voices are too "distracting" while you work and that, as a result, all women should be segregated from being software developers.
Posted by Elizabeth on March 6, 2011 at 2:40 pm | permalink |
I liked points (1) and (3), but feel strongly that you're not providing a full explanation for (2):
Why, exactly, do social problems have to have *simple* causes? Another way to make the world make sense is to study the problem and find that young women get their first computers several years later than young men (average is women at 18 and men at 16), and that this is old enough that the women might have already decided what they want to do with their life, or at least their college degree, and it's unlikely to involve something like computer programming. Does that have a biological cause?
You could further look at how women have less free time than men due to taking on more household tasks (regardless of whether they have children), which gives the men an advantage in doing recreational math or programming tasks that women don't have. Is that biological?
Finally, please take a look at this presentation:
http://www.slideshare.net/terriko/how-does-biology-explain-the-low-numbers-of-women-in-cs-hint-it-doesnt
.. which attempts to explain how it's not plausible that the paper's described difference in math ability could explain our observations about gender differences in industry.
Thanks!
- Chris, (computer scientist feeling sick of boys clubs).
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 12:07 pm | permalink |
A lot of commenters have said it better, but I find the idea of pre-determined jobs based on statistics (which are fluid, constantly contradictory and we really know so little) a very dangerous idea.
Like many other commenters I don't agree with this post.
The only place I'm happy there is distinct segregation of the sexes is in the loo.
Posted by J on March 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm | permalink |
Penelope's articles used to be about how to work the system. Lately, they seem to be about how to sit there and let the system fuck you while blaming yourself for not "adapting" (the Wisconsin unions article is perhaps even more extreme than this one). The "stockholm syndrome" comment was pretty apt. Penelope writes about backwards American trends as if they're universal truths. I hope she looks at the rest of the world, sees how things can be different, and starts using her influence to speak against our backward ways instead of cheerleading for them.
Posted by B on March 5, 2011 at 12:26 pm | permalink |
I love working at a startup. I like feeling that my job is really important and that I'm (close to being) important and I love business trips and sometimes even doing overtime. I can't imagine not doing this. I'm also glad I'm not the one in charge but I'm still young and learning, and I feel like I'm in the best position for me right now. I want a very successful career. I don't know if that means prestige but I don't want it to consume my whole life. In the past, I have made decisions based upon what I perceived to be prestigious. For example, in high school I was pushed to do an A level in Math rather than Business Studies, which I would have been much better at. And I was about to go into law for the same reason. I'm so glad I didn't.
Also, I love the shout out to Anne Campbell at Durham University because that's where I got my Masters from.
Posted by Harriet May on March 5, 2011 at 12:29 pm | permalink |
Let's say I want to create an elite boys club in the workplace, but I can't ban women because that might lead to lawsuits.
All I have to do is say, "I don't care what your skills are. I don't care how much you contribute. All you have to do to join my club is destroy your personal life."
This explains why so many professions are organized the way they are.
Posted by Brad on March 5, 2011 at 12:33 pm | permalink |
Brad,
Are you genuinely contending that certain roles are more demanding because of a deliberate attempt to create an "old boys club", rather than the profit motive?
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 3:03 am | permalink |
I am a female software developer, and keenly aware that programming languages are not purely made up of math, but also of language. To give you an edge, it is also beneficial to have a solid understanding of interface design and usability (hence understanding how humans use computers). The whole idea that men are better at high tech software development is an illusion based on common ignorance about how computer software is made and I am tired of people reinforcing it! I think it is just another "tool" that men w/ competitive-nature use to get ahead in their field. Hey, if you can keep women tricked into thinking they can't compete in the field so they never really try then you are wiping out a huge percentage of actual and potential competitors. I am not directing this comment so much to Penelope as I am to Camilo.
Posted by Starrie on March 5, 2011 at 12:39 pm | permalink |
I am a long time reader and this post really annoyed me – as a sucessful scientific researcher and a woman. And a woman without kids… guess I "don't exist" in the world of this post.
Then how does one explain that, in the fields of Chemistry, Biochemistry, Biology, and Molecular Biology, the amount of women getting B.S and higher degrees is greater than men?
There's enough "hot shot math" going around in those fields too, trust me.
Posted by K on March 5, 2011 at 12:48 pm | permalink |
This argument isn't about getting a BS — for a college degree, men and women are equally competent, and maybe women are more competent since there are so many more women than men graduating from college.
This argument is about PhD's in the sciences, mathematicians solving new equations, engineers that are so good that their company gets acquired just so they will go to the new company.
I think in the world of average performances, men and women perform the same in all these jobs. If you want to be absolutely great at what you do, you need to do something that you are made for.
(This, by the way, is why I couldn't get to the top ranks of the professional beach volleyball tour — I'm not competitive enough.)
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on March 5, 2011 at 2:06 pm | permalink |
There is a large gap between being "average" and "so great that a competitor will spend $3B to acquire the company you work for, just in order to acquire your talent."
Earlier in the comments Chris derisively said that being in the top 1% of the country's math skills meant you were just one of 2 million people, implying that the top 1% is not that special. But look at it another way – how "special" do you have to be in order to be happy & have an interesting career? Just being in the top 10% of performance within a company usually means:
1) Your pay is at least 30% higher than other people with equivalent education & years of experience
2) Your raises are 2x – 5x the size of others with equivalent education & experience
3) You have first pick of great projects & assignments
Seems to me that in order to be well rewarded (and have a better-than-average chance of career happiness) you just need to be in the top 10%. You don't have to be the absolute BEST mathematician, scientist, or engineer to have that career work out exceptionally well for you.
So if you are arguing that "Women are very unlikely to be the absolute best in these fields" I don't see how that leads you to say women should self-segregate out of those fields because they won't be happy.
Posted by EngineerChic on March 5, 2011 at 10:29 pm | permalink |
@EngineerChic I pointed it out derisively because it was a comment that deserved derision. For what it's worth, I am inclined to agree with your latest comment. This is a valid critique of Penelope's conclusion. Why didn't you lead with it rather than a variant of, "I'm a woman, and I'm not dumb, therefore you're wrong"?
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 1:17 am | permalink |
@ Chris, I appreciate your post! I got my first computer when I was 11 years old (1985) so maybe that explains why I got into this field! I can't imagine doing anything else for a living….
Posted by Starrie on March 5, 2011 at 12:50 pm | permalink |
This was my favorite post of yours so far. I'm a 33 yr old female and have been working in a male dominated industry (finance) since I graduated from college 11 years ago.
Not surprising, I wasn't least bit offended by any of your points because I've observed them in my career (since working with all men my entire career mostly), and well, they're all true from what I've seen.
I think you have 2 ways to live your life as a woman today:
1) remain bitter about being a woman (even though you wouldn't admit that you're bitter), fight your gender differences until you die, & never reach your full potential because you spent your life on a feminist crusade trying to change some things that just won't change
or….
2) leverage being a woman and dominate in any field because you're smart enough to pay attention to gender differences so you know how to navigate around them and get what you want. (Men don't get this part because their egos get in the way, especially in male dominated industries like finance).
I prefer the latter. Why spend your life always comparing yourself to men? Do you think Hillary Clinton festers over the fact that some men might be better at math than her? Probably not. Successful women don't fester & obsess over what men do better than them; they don't view men as a threat, they view them as peers and often use them to learn from when need be.
Lastly, the more women try to compare themselves to men in terms of who's better at what, the more it perpetuates the segregation. This is why I think "women only" clubs and groups are absurd….imagine if there were "men only" investment groups….oh man, bras would be burning.
Anyway, we're different, it's not who's better at what, we're just different.
Learn from people who are different than you are, it doesn't matter if they're male or female.
Posted by Kathryn C on March 5, 2011 at 12:53 pm | permalink |
Why, thank you. I hadn't realized there were only two choices. This is really going to simplify things. What a relief.
Posted by Pen on March 5, 2011 at 2:33 pm | permalink |
Your sarcasm is both witty and an excellent response to her comment. Well done.
P.S. This is also sarcasm.
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 7:58 pm | permalink |
@Chris, dude, harsh and unproductive. Pen helpfully pointed out the flaw in Kathryn's "two extremes are the only alternatives" theory.
Posted by mynameisbutters on March 7, 2011 at 4:15 pm | permalink |
Are you saying that women should only do what they are good at or that women should do something poorly and not care? Neither one of them is particularly flattering, though the first informs women that they must choose what they should disregard their desires in favor of the dictates of those pesky ovaries.
The problem with your logic is that if women have the perception of being terrible across the board, they will not be hired based on that perception. It becomes tautological: You are not good at science because you are a woman, which makes you bad at science. We, the company, don't want someone who is bad of science. So rather than take the time consuming process of evaluating you based on your merits, we're going to snap-judge you as inferior and delete your resume. It's the sex-based form of excluding names that sound "ethnic" because the people are supposedly more likely to be lower class thieves.
Replace, by the way, every instance of Woman with White Man and replace Man with Chinese Man. You'll have a few more people shifting uncomfortably in their chairs. There's a reason most of our engineering PhDs are from another country. Hint: It's not the fault of the women.
Posted by GAfish on March 6, 2011 at 1:12 am | permalink |
No.
Posted by brandi on March 19, 2011 at 2:50 am | permalink |
There are points in the article that I belive are being overlooked. Men and women are different and that is ok. Due to the differences; there are jobs, careers, and daily activities where men and women perform and respond differently. Due to these differences one can be happier or more engaged in one activity over another. I think she is saying do not force yourself into a career or life situation that you "can do", but find something you like and has meaning. I would rather see support for the individual in life choices that gives the individual an interesting, happy life or career. Nothing worse than being stuck doing something you "can do", but do not like or enjoy.
Posted by Ralph on March 5, 2011 at 1:03 pm | permalink |
@Ralph, just saw your comment. Could not agree more. This post is so interesting to me because many women got so PO-ed and interpreted this post as a male vs female thing….and it's really not. It's about noticing differences and making them work for you so you can create a great life for yourself. It's a victim mentality if you look at it the other way…and I'm not into that. Anyway….it's interesting. ok, think I've overstayed my welcome on this blog post, enough typing for me.
Posted by Kathryn C on March 5, 2011 at 1:11 pm | permalink |
Ralph,
What you are saying doesn't sound like what Penelope is advocating.
You: "People should figure out what they are good at, and enjoy, and pursue that."
Penelope: "Women are like this; men are like that. These "facts" should be used to determine what women and men do (and, by the way, the two genders should be segregated in those choices)."
I completely agree with your perspective, and could not be more appalled at Penelope's.
But then you are not writing for shock value.
Posted by Pen on March 5, 2011 at 2:36 pm | permalink |
I actually think Ralph is right on target. And I think too many times women are told they have to feel like they can do anything, but women don't *want* to do a lot of stuff. And then we feel like there's something wrong.
It's similar, actually, to men who feel no compunction to care for a baby and they feel bad about it.
I think we need to stop feeling bad about our differences. It's okay to talk about them. I just wish we could talk about them without everyone going nuts.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on March 5, 2011 at 4:43 pm | permalink |
I'm in engineering. My boss is a women. She is brilliant, kind person – and I enjoy working for her. However, she's an exception. Most women that I knew in my first year of school dropped out, or went into engineering fields where the math is less difficult (i.e. chemical engineering). Does that mean that women are less than men? Maybe some commentators are right in saying that unreflective people could use the above information to assert that. However, I do do not believe that women are my inferiors at all. I have been fortunate to work with many technically competent women. That being said, I DO believe that, on average, most women would not be HAPPY in this kind of work. And that's something to consider. Not to say that there won't be some exceptions (perhaps some of the women here)… but the rule is still there…
Posted by Mike on March 5, 2011 at 1:37 pm | permalink |
@Mike, but do you think they wouldn't be happy because of the discrimination, harassment, and total disregard for some of the biological realities of being a woman (childbearing and rearing) in many of these workplaces, or do you think they wouldn't be happy because they "just aren't good at" things like math or science? Because I think Penelope implies the latter, which is a rather shocking conclusion to be drawing from the studies that she cites.
Undoubtedly men and women (I don't happen to believe in the gender binary, but for the sake of brevity…) have differences, but we have such a poor understanding of what causes these differences that to recommend that we stop encouraging women to excel in certain fields is just terribly irresponsible.
Posted by mynameisbutters on March 7, 2011 at 4:27 pm | permalink |
Penelope,
Why this more than provocative post that incites such vehemence from most of your readers? What you propose is a solecism filled with anachronistic thinking. Each and every person, be they male or female, is unique. How can you make such blanket statements on gender based specious reasoning?
I disagree for many of the reasons already stated here. As a mother of two children, now grown, I am an entrepreneur and started my company 22 years ago when my children were young and I was a single parent, as my husband had died many years prior to that. I also had been, as you call it, an aggressive saleswoman, and a graphic designer among other careers.
Do you envision a world where only men can become doctors or lawyers? Are you saying women should only pursue team-work positions because they have little leadership abilities? Who can become artists then, by your logic? Everyone has to find their own path and find their own meaning, whatever it is that they wish to pursue. I am astounded by this article. What's gotten into you?
Posted by Cheryl Roshak on March 5, 2011 at 1:56 pm | permalink |
I agree with most everything other than the headlines. "The workplace should be segregated" propagates stereotypes and might discourage young women who don't fit those stereotypes.
I think it might be more useful to say that "Non-competitive people should not go into highly competitive jobs", "People who are poor at math and science should not go into science and math jobs", and "People who don't mind a fast-paced life shouldn't become entrepreneurs" and, "Oh, by the way, isn't it interesting that most women are not competitive, don't do well in science and math, and don't like a fast-paced lifestyle".
Posted by Howard on March 5, 2011 at 2:05 pm | permalink |
I'm glad Penelope responds to comments and sometimes revises her position (or better explains it). I earlier accused her of just towing the mainstream line, but now I see that she genuinely is trying to look out for women who may be about to unwittingly destroy their own careers.
I'd like to see a post in the future where Penelope tries to reconcile two of her biggest recurring pieces of advice: 1) "Don't overreach," and 2) "Always be an entrepreneur."
Posted by Ben on March 5, 2011 at 2:34 pm | permalink |
If this is Penelope "genuinely trying to look out for women," well… I guess we don't need anyone minding the pens full of useless stereotypes. They will be thriving under her care.
How about we all look out for ourselves, our friends, our co-workers, our families, and our neighbors, and try to help them have a happy, fulfilling life in whatever they find satisfying and are good at.
I really don't see the need for gender segregation here. If a particular person is not good at something, then they can pursue something else. Simple as that.
But then I guess I'm not really a woman. I mean, I look like one, and have the "equipment," but then, puzzlingly, am not married, don't have kids, like logic and mechanical things and other – ahem – "manly" pursuits.
Sure are a lot of exceptions here. Huh. Oh, wait, maybe….
Posted by Pen on March 5, 2011 at 2:43 pm | permalink |
Revising her position? I'm sure she's riding a bike at this moment, because she's quite good at backpedaling.
Posted by D on March 6, 2011 at 12:32 am | permalink |
Oh, blow me.
I'm a woman; I'm 49, straight as a string, no kids, and I never wanted any. I've had a good career in the physical sciences: NASA, the defense industry, and now I work at a government research lab that people fight tooth and claw to get into, where a good, solid half of our student researchers — and most of the really outstanding ones — are women. One of our two Presidential Early Career in Science and Engineering Award recipients is a woman. Women can do just fine in math and science if there's nobody with their head up their ass telling them that evolutionarily, they're not supposed to want that kind of thing. Here, play with your dolls and leave the Legos to the boys.
(BTW, quite a few of the women scientists I know *do* have kids and are good moms. So, it's not just us hormonal throwbacks who somehow weirdly ended up with female parts and the ability to add and subtract.)
Posted by Anne on March 5, 2011 at 2:48 pm | permalink |
"Oh, blow me.
I'm a woman"
Wait…. what?
Posted by Chris on March 5, 2011 at 8:09 pm | permalink |
(It's a figure of speech.)
Posted by Pen on March 5, 2011 at 10:30 pm | permalink |
Lrn2Strapon
Posted by GAfish on March 6, 2011 at 1:13 am | permalink |
Anne, That's a funny, passionate, convincing, Penelope-like reply. I'm not a scientist and so I lack your experience, but I did meet some amazingly bright, young, female Fulbrighter science grad students when on I was a Fulbrighter in Norway a few years ago. Fascinating projects involving robotics, field biology, and chemistry. My guess is they're halfway through their doctorates and female scientists will close the gaps over the next few decades.
Ron
Posted by Ron on March 5, 2011 at 3:20 pm | permalink |
I love how people that disagree say they aren't going to read your blog anymore.
That explains the Fox News Network.
Posted by Retired Syd on March 5, 2011 at 3:41 pm | permalink |
As a woman with a PhD in mathematics from a highly ranked school, I strongly disagree with point 2, and I'm angry that you're perpetuating poorly supported stereotypes. I have seen many incredibly mathematically gifted women drop out of PhD programs because they disliked the aggressive, competitive, un-supportive environment. This wasn't about aptitude for doing PhD level mathematics. I will agree with point 1 that women are more averse to intense competition, and I think this is a huge factor in their leaving math and physics departments (both of which tend to be very aggressive). It is not about ability. Another key factor in high-level mathematics is that women seem to have lower confidence about their abilities and often underestimate their skill.
Also, as another commenter already noted, the Ceci and Williams study only showed that women do a well as men when they are given the same resources. Futhermore, the study took a lot of data from the biological sciences and was misleading to say that its conclusions were equally applicable to math and physics.
Posted by r on March 5, 2011 at 3:47 pm | permalink |
"I have seen many incredibly mathematically gifted women drop out of PhD programs because they disliked the aggressive, competitive, un-supportive environment."
Would it not also be true to say that many men drop out for precisely those reasons? Universities with competitive programs are known to be brutal, even before doctoral research is begun. Cambridge's Part III's are but one example.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 3:13 am | permalink |
Hi Chris,
Yes, some men drop out for these reasons, but it seems to be a much smaller percentage. I just want to draw a distinction between aggressiveness and mathematical aptitude. Penelope is arguing that women lack both, but I think they just lack the agressiveness (although since you need both to make it in top programs, this holds them back).
I think that more women would be doing high level math if the atmosphere was more collaborative (and I don't think that this would have to limit the quality of the research). And yes, there would be more men doing math in this environment too, but I'm guessing the difference would be much more significant for women (especially if you assume Penelope's point in 1, that there are more aggressive men, and thus fewer un-aggressive men who are turned off by the current math environment).
Posted by r on March 6, 2011 at 9:14 am | permalink |
Penelope, please read this article and see if it helps shed some more light on why there are more men than women in the maths/sciences. There IS a gender bias – the same person was treated completely differently before and after a sex change operation:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/12/AR2006071201883.html
Posted by Heather on March 5, 2011 at 4:26 pm | permalink |
Also, maybe look into research that is actually research and not just a review:
Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (2007)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11741&page=1
To say that bias does not exist because you find one article that backs up your claim is ridiculous! I'm pretty sure you even did a post about bias in the way that recommendation letters are written for women which leads to lower hire rates for women in scientific fields. I can't find your article, but here is another that sums up the findings: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/10/letters
I'm pretty disappointed in this post and hope you do a bit more research before posting again about how women should stay in the kitchen!
Posted by Chickybeth on March 7, 2011 at 9:15 am | permalink |
What if we had a society where women didn't get married? They had kids who were raised collectively by the kin (see the Mosuo culture of South China). Would we still have these gender differences in who does startups, etc? In the Mosuo culture, women do all the startups, all the math and science, virtually all the competitive leadership. In that culture, men obey the women.
Are the results in these partial studies just by-products of our culture?
I'm always doubtful about sociology/psychology/biology research that overlaps with culture. Cause and effect is difficult to nail down. Moreover, human beings have a tendency toward confirmation bias (that is, to see proof of what we already believe). And most of all, too many of these types of theories in the past have been debunked.
The studies, theories, and conclusions you discuss here would only ever be used to "prove" that men deserve more income than women.
Posted by Nancy on March 5, 2011 at 4:31 pm | permalink |
This column is getting to be better than watching the nightly 'soaps'. Thank you for the light-hearted humor.
Posted by Bill on March 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm | permalink |
These differences are in fact true. And in education, it hurts smart boys more than smart girls.
I want to suggest this website to you: http://smartboysbadgrades.com/
Posted by GenerationXpert on March 5, 2011 at 5:17 pm | permalink |
Great. Love this comment. It's true that girls do better in school. School caters to the strengths of girls. If we could have an honest conversation about the respective strengths of each gender, we could probably do a lot to fix the workplace and fix schools. But people are too wrapped-up in talking about who is the exception to the rule, everyone is an individual, etc. The reality is that we are inherently social people, participating in institutions that require us to work as a group. So broad generalizations are essential for figuring out what will work for society as a whole.
Penelope
Posted by Penelope Trunk on March 5, 2011 at 7:23 pm | permalink |
Penelope,
Here is something I don't understand: You say you want to have an open dialogue about these things, and you agree with Ralph that what's important is that each person "find their bliss," so-to-speak, career-wise.
Then you write a blog post with a title that suggests that the genders be separated in the workplace (segregation.. hmmm), and suggest why you think you know which boxes each gender should be placed in.
Are you surprised that instead of having open dialogue people are starting out angry and defensive? I don't see how they couldn't?!
Posted by Pen on March 5, 2011 at 10:37 pm | permalink |
Like many others who responded here, I love your blog and your honesty, but I was pissed off by this article.
My message to the young women in my life (and I've got three nieces pursuing engineering degrees) is 'to thine own self be true'. Know yourself, know what you want and build out the life & career that supports it.
I'd prefer to see you discussing what is required in these fields, so young women AND men can make an informed decision about whether they want to pursue them and how to succeed if they do. The last thing any woman needs is another person telling why she can't be a success at something. No one is telling the men that they can't be successful fathers and child care providers.
Posted by Anonymous on March 5, 2011 at 5:55 pm | permalink |
Good points, Anonymous, but there ARE people out there telling us men that we can't be successful fathers and child care providers. The world is rife with the message that if we devote too much time to family and not enough to our career, we won't be good "providers." This is a huge issue for men but we just don't usually talk about it.
In fact, I'd say that articles like the one above actually IMPLY that men shouldn't bother with being good providers when they suggest women take up the less time-consuming jobs while men take up the more time-consuming ones. That's been the way things were for centuries, with the men at the office, or at war, or creating wealth from overseas colonies… while the women tend to their families. We all know that turned out great, so why don't we just go back to it?
Posted by Ben on March 5, 2011 at 6:04 pm | permalink |
Penelope also believes that men naturally aren't interested in babies and kids and that those who want to be actively involved in raising children are anomalies. She does not seem to agree that with different social structures, more men would also opt to take be on a "mommy career track."
Posted by Hazel on March 7, 2011 at 11:20 pm | permalink |
*When I said "articles like the one above actually IMPLY that men shouldn't bother with being good providers," by "providers," I meant "fathers." I realize there's been some linguistic confusion. You said "child care providers" and I knew exactly what you meant… but then I went and used "providers" to indicate someone who provides material wealth to the family without giving much else. Perhaps there's a better word out there for that role but I couldn't think of one.
Posted by Ben on March 5, 2011 at 6:07 pm | permalink |
Most engineering jobs are very good deals, lifestyle-wise. Very consistent amount of work, very steady, very regular (minus dot com bubbles, but that affects tons of careers). You're right about start-ups though.
Posted by Sarah on March 5, 2011 at 6:24 pm | permalink |
"How it is," yes. "How it can be," no. And let's differentiate between women and mothers, or wanna-be mothers. I have no difficulty wihyt your description of "how it is." For instance, a single doesn't-want-children female's white-matter driven capability to read people and relationships while texting a colleague and absorbing a just-in-time learning podcast are exactly what the globalized business world will demand. A man's (father or male, makes no difference) grey-matter driven propensity to silo single tasks, doing just one and "delegating" others to subordinates or suckers will eventually be revealed for the productivity drag that it truly is. The globalized 24/7 business environment of our future will provide the backdrop to reveal this difference.
Posted by Allison Majure on March 5, 2011 at 7:29 pm | permalink |
When discussing the bell curve statistic about boys at extreme ends, you completely ignored the science behind this. Intelligence is carried on the X chromosome. A boy can only get ONE X and it must come from his mother. Therefore, his intelligence is driven from 1 source.
Girls get an X from each parent, thus 2 X chromosomes carrying intellience. Then these 2 chromosome will tend to average eachother. This leads girls to tend towards a norm between the intelligence range of the 2 parents and/or their ancestors.
Boys will thus end up at extremes because they have no norming. If you get a really high intelligence X from your mother you are at the high end extreme. Also, if a mother had parents with very different intelligence levels, she might have one "average" IQ X and one "genius" X. Her sons are left with the luck of the draw.
An extreme for a girl requires 2 parents to each carry extreme intelligence on their X chromosomes. Men who marry trophy wives will pass their intelligence to their daughters only, dooming their sons to the intelligence of the "trophy".
To use information without knowing the science and mathematice behind why a event occurs is a disservice to your readers. It's not about girls being different, it's about science.
Posted by Gwyn on March 5, 2011 at 8:19 pm | permalink |
Gwyn – this is really interesting. And your explanation makes a lot of sense (assuming your facts are right, it's been many years since I took biology or physiology).
Posted by EngineerChic on March 5, 2011 at 10:09 pm | permalink |
I'm screenshotting Gwyn's post. Hopefully they someday have a contest for "most epic misunderstanding of genetics", and I can use Gwyn's post to win it.
Posted by Chris on March 6, 2011 at 1:13 am | permalink |
Please cite the studies which demonstrate that a gene or set of genes directly responsible for IQ are on the X chromosome. Thanks.
Posted by EKSwitaj on March 8, 2011 at 7:59 pm | permalink |
A lot of people said things much better than I ever could (what a horrible woman I make, so bad with communication), but I did want to point out that you appear to know next to nothing about Aspergers. Throwing that in discredited you completely in my eyes. What you said already made little sense, but when you get something like that so wrong, I figured the rest of this was way off base.
Posted by Ann on March 5, 2011 at 8:39 pm | permalink |
While in engineering school, I'd try to schedule a class or two in education department so I could meet girls. Statistically, my chances were much better there than in the physics lab.
Posted by Jason on March 5, 2011 at 9:59 pm | permalink |
While in engineering school (I'm a woman) I personally arranged for parties bringing together the Education, Psychology, Pedagogy departments and Electrical Engineering. Just so the boys would leave us few female colleagues alone (I had a boyfriend studying Business Administration at the time
.
Posted by Chris M. on March 6, 2011 at 11:03 am | permalink |
Penelope,
Have you seen this Slate article that references a study about how female math students in college have more confidence in their own abilities when taught by a female professor rather than a male professor?
http://www.slate.com/id/2286671/
How would this fit with your thoughts on gray matter vs. white matter? Have you seen anything that looks at female mathematicians and scientists that were taught primarliy by female professors? Do you think these top females could compete with top males? Or is your advice that the pool of females is so much smaller and that type of career would not help them reach their goals (either happiness or interestingness) or that they don't actually know what their goals are?
Love your writing,
Aaron Agte
Posted by Aaron on March 6, 2011 at 12:29 am | permalink |
Hi Penelope,
I would recommend The Gender Delusion by Cordelia Fine (it demonstrates why brain differences are not correlated to gender stereotypes).
Elaine
Posted by Elaine on March 6, 2011 at 3:26 am | permalink |
Penelope,
The title grabbed my eye for sure! However I'm not sure what you're trying to fix here.
You say that the workplace already is self-segregated, with men gravitating toward certain highly competitive fields in specific arenas. Then you clarified by saying that the workforce (probably) should not be segregated as a matter of public policy, but that individuals should sort themselves out, which they are apparently doing right now.
From the title of the post, I thought you felt there was something that needed to change. Unless you feel there is some social movement or government initiative that forces men and women into careers that they are intellectually and emotionally not suited for (and away from safe, compassionate channels), then the status quo is just fine – there is no problem.
Focusing on the very top percentage of achievers also skews the argument. Those folks will leave the rest of us in the dust always and they aren't probably going to comment on a career blog – they have no time. The vast majority of the workforce is made up of B and C students, and those are the ones who most often turn to people like you for career advice.
Are you just trying to explain the current situation in your blunt fashion? Then the title "Why The Workplace Remains Segregated to a Degree and Mostly at the Very Top End of Specific Fields where Most of You Will Never Venture" might be more apt.
Posted by Susan on March 6, 2011 at 6:19 am | permalink |
Just wanted to say, great questions!
Posted by Chris M. on March 6, 2011 at 10:58 am | permalink |
As much as it pains me to say this, I have to agree. I'm a female who works as a Sales Engineer for a tech company. I have been doing this work for 14 years, and I am starting to realize how much harder I have to try to understand the technology to the same depth as my peers (all men). I am also much less competitive than my male counterparts, with respect to the sales portion of my job. My approach is to offer exceptional customer service, with the thought process that they will continue to buy from the company that is there for them.
I am possibly considering a career change in the next few years for all the reasons you laid out. Perhaps stereotypes exist for a reason.
Posted by Kristin on March 6, 2011 at 6:22 am | permalink |
bring back the separation of the sexes…. all men's clubs all women's clubs… and an added bonus no goofy video post!
Posted by michael on March 6, 2011 at 7:44 am | permalink |
Great article! Could you please do a tangent to this article on women working for women bosses? Those difficulties and joys are pieces of the workplace framework that is different in a male dominated industry vs. A female dominated industry.
Cheers.
Posted by Brandy on March 6, 2011 at 9:17 am | permalink |
Didn't have the time to read all comments yet, so perhaps it's been already addressed, but there is a recent study (I think I read about it in The Economist?) that concludes that even thought the brain of men and women are indeed very different, that the physical difference does not have much influence in what either gender can achieve (including in high math).
Posted by Chris M. on March 6, 2011 at 9:59 am | permalink |
And one more thing — what makes a productive, innovative work environment is having people with all types of brains and interests and talents working together. Since when segregating people with similar skills made a good recipe for success?
Posted by Chris M. on March 6, 2011 at 10:00 am | permalink |
re: why does Chris want so badly to prove Penelope right?
Could have something to do with the tendency of people who feel powerless to latch on to those they perceive as powerful… ie Tea Party supporters who don't have health insurance, Glenn Beck fans, Nazis… it all comes from the same instinct: "Why try to solve my problems when I could just believe I'm connected to someone bigger than myself?"
Posted by B on March 6, 2011 at 10:04 am | permalink |
Assuming this hypothesis is true, where are the list of jobs that women are naturally better at?
Posted by Jennifer on March 6, 2011 at 11:25 am | permalink |
Penelope, this post really speaks to me and I think you're really on to something.
My experience as a woman in a man's environment is limited as I'm only 26, but for the past 9 years, I've been in the Military. I went to a service academy, majored in Marine Environmental Science and am currently serving on Active Duty. So, although my experience is limited in years, I consider it rich in quality.
My first tour was onboard a ship with a crew of 72. I was one of 4 women onboard.
On the ship, I realized, if the fundamental differences in the way women and men process information were recognized, studied and capitalized upon, we would vastly improve productivity in the workplace. Diversity isn't about differences in gender or color – real diversity is in the way people think, what shapes their world view. A woman that is "one of the boys" brings little diverse thought to the "old boys club."
Telling women to act like men to make it to the top of the man pyramid to blaze a path/make a statement for other women to do the same thing is just martyring generations of women that may be better fulfilled or achieve more elsewhere. Instead of feeling the pressure to be anything because we can, why not be what will bring us peace and fulfillment – what we are best suited for? It's not a limit – it's called maximizing your potential and using your gifts where they are appreciated/needed.
Penelope, you have truly found a good niche for yourself. From someone who is still trying to carve mine out, thanks for your posts.
Posted by Maureen on March 6, 2011 at 11:34 am | permalink |
Ha ha. The formula works for Penelope again: 1) think of the most outrageous statement that will anger and insult the most people possible, 2) look up some links to support it, and 3) make sure sex is included somewhere. What doesn't work anymore? Despite its undeniable entertainment value I can no longer read the blog of someone who promotes hurtful and ignorant stereotypes for her own gain.
Posted by Kelly on March 6, 2011 at 1:44 pm | permalink |
Men are *statistically* better in high end maths and sciences, and women are not as good *statistically* in high stress sales jobs.
*Why* would that have to lead to segregation in the workplace?
I'm female, I've got asperger, and I usually fail in networking with females. I suck in understanding between the lines, and it should be no surprise I have chosen careers that are in mostly male environment. IT, servers etc. When someone says something, I understand what they say, not what's between the lines, not what's left unsaid. Guess what? Women do that type of hidden communication much more than men.
What many of my male colleagues have said is that having at least one or two females in the team does miracles. Without that odd girl, the guys have similar social BS as women have, or so they say. I'm bad to comment on that, as I don't mind when I'm "forgotten", like once when a colleague started telling to other colleagues about his trip to a paid woman… after five minutes he remembered that I'm a girl.
I don't thrive in women only groups, whether it's work or social life. I've lived in shared houses for years, in different groups, with people from different places. The two worst housemate combinations I've ever had? Women only. With horror stories I still, after years, fail to forgive. If I'd ever go back to shared housing, I'd definitely go to a mixed house, or with guys only.
I think (or so a lot of people tell me to be the case) *statistically* a significant amount of women finds working wiht or living with other women to be less BS and stressing than being in a mixed group. That still doesn't make that all women prefer that. I'm way less stressed in mixed or guys only groups. I don't have to pretend to like or care about shoe shopping or gossip or cupcakes or romances or breeding or chick movies.
I'm glad I've never had to go to a gender segregated school. Even the idea of it makes me sick.
Posted by Anna on March 6, 2011 at 2:51 pm | permalink |
Whatever we are authentically called out to do personally, is I believe what is most important for an individual in their lifetime. Regardless of what others think is good for us or what's expected of us or others' notions of right or wrong, it helps if one consistently turns inward for their answers, even as one weighs others' advise/opinions. Thanks for the interesting post, Penelope. It was great reading. It is always helpful to be aware of different points of view (through the comments section as well) based on research or personal experience.
Posted by Shir. on March 6, 2011 at 2:55 pm | permalink |
You are getting old. And living in Cowtown is not helping you either.
Posted by X on March 6, 2011 at 6:24 pm | permalink |
Obviously you wrote this article for the traffic but you could have thrown your gender a bone and at least pretended you gave a shit about women's careers; you could have written it with an upward slant toward lifting women up instead of writing about all the things women can't do. (Where's the list of 15 best careers suited for the female brain? Where was that in your SEO terms or tag line?) Which, as I'm sure you know because you're not a total douchebag, is bullshit science anyway. As a previous commenter stated, that study is freely available in its entirety on the internet and has been roundly discredited and never replicated. Science not replicated is not science and someone supposedly as smart as you should know that and know better than to post it as factual and write an article around it. Seriously? Seriously? Seriously. You're just as bad as any of these criminally anecdotal commenters old Chris here is crucifying in the thread for telling their stories of companies full of female math and science PhD's.
Posted by me on March 6, 2011 at 8:49 pm | permalink |
Wonderful! I can just see all those single mothers saying, "I don't want to work full time at any job I'm qualified for and earn a full time salary. I just want to work at "woman's" job part time and live below the poverty line with my kids."
Posted by awiz8 on March 6, 2011 at 10:50 pm | permalink |
Thought provoking – the commentary even more than the post.
On the one hand, I agree that people should learn to seek out what they are gifted at, in order to succeed in both the workplace and life. It would be pointless, for instance, for me to attempt to be the next Olympic Ice Skater – no amount of training would fix my bad ankles and poor coordination!
And I also believe that the perception that women are not good at certain skills has its basis in some facts, though perhaps not in the same way this post assumes.
And I do believe that both biology and culture draw women who are mothers to sacrifice themselves in order to do what is best for their children (after all, how would the species survive without that instinct?), and that means that often after a woman has kids she will sacrifice her career, if she has a husband who can bring home enough for her to spend more time focusing on the children.
On the other hand, many of the points made in prior commentary are of utmost importance when considering such an inflammatory topic:
1) Sociology does not equal biology, and sometimes the lines cross too closely for us to know what is what.
There certainly are differences in the way men and women process information – biology has provided plenty of evidence for that. However, maybe that just means we need to teach it differently.
For example, I was never able to learn math from my father, who is gifted at it, but when I had a talented female teacher, the light "clicked" – and in my first bachelor's, which was for teaching English (a very "feminine" field), I took Calculus for fun. I found the women explained the math in a totally different way, and it made sense – and I aced all my higher level maths, even Probability and Statistics for Engineers, which I had to take when I got a second degree in Computer Science.
My layman's theory here is that while every person has different learning styles, perhaps the differences are stronger between the sexes. That means I am just as capable of higher level learning as my brother – as long as I figure out "how" I learn.
2) Sexism DOES exist in the workplace, and the academic, technical, and hard science arenas are some of the places where it is still most rampant.
I've experienced it from men who honestly didn't think they were sexist – but kept wanting to push me to help desk and documentation instead of programming and databases, because "that's where my talents were". It took encouragement from some women mentors and male professors for me to stay in the field, especially knowing that I have chosen a field where I will forever be one of very few women. I have had to fight for respect and acceptance – and I earned it based on ability alone. But the men in my field are automatically respected – it's just "assumed" they know what they are talking about.
3) It is dangerous – I would say even rather irresponsible – to throw around stereotypes (even if there is some foundation for them) that have the potential of holding someone back from their full potential. If women are less aggressive and confident in the workplace than men (this is a generalization that most could agree with, though as always there are exceptions.) then when a talented woman encounters an article such as this she may be discouraged, thinking perhaps her grandpa was right all along, and God did make us different, and maybe she really should be a kindergarton teacher or stay home with her babies and do laundry.
And that is dangerous, because it means we lose potential minds simply because they are fearful of pushing into the hard, cold, world of "men's" jobs.
4) Just because many woman want to stay home with their kids, doesn't mean all do. Women who don't have children don't have the need to sacrifice their careers, and they can push to the top of any ladder if they want to. Women who do have children want what is best for them. And in some cases, what is best for children is to work hard in a lucrative career. And sometimes what is best is to stay home and do laundry. Everyone's family looks a little different.
And woman who sacrifice their careers in the short term may fully plan on returning in the long run. And while it can be hard to "catch up" in the scientific and technical fields, it's certainly possible. Many women whose kids are grown have made the choice to return to school so they can launch or revive their career. It's not "either / or" and "having it all" doesn't mean having it all at the same time.
So in short:
True – there are differences, and they matter. BUT – caution in propagating stereotypes is wise, because they may be inaccurate and they may hold back someone with potential.
Posted by CE on March 6, 2011 at 11:32 pm | permalink |
I am waiting to hear you say you are running on a ticket for President.
Honestly, you scare me. I would like to see you alone and facing the world with your children living out of a car. Minimal education and feeding those two kids and having to pay half of your take home pay to some less than adequate day care that warehouses kids. Children coming home with bruises bites and lice.
A single mom, and not by choice, I raised 5 children by myself. 2 were ours, 3 were his. He dumped all of us as he had dreams. We, as a family, were dead weight to his imaginings. He left, and any hope of a normal family went out the door along with him.
My point.. Someone had to be the grown up and take responsibility for the young people. Keeping a roof over our head food on the table shoes and clothes on the bodies.
I worked 60 hours a week and went to school to finish my MSW. That hope of finishing school fell through the cracks when he walked out. He had his degree and a good lawyer. Our cars, house, money, and no cares.
Women are the ones who take responsibility for the family. Look at the statistic s only 4% of men raise children in a single parent home.
Women 96%.
A child is a sure way to poverty. And if you live on welfare, you are damned. If your child is ill and out of school, and you have to take time off to take care of them. You're a bad employee. If you can't feed the children the way the state thinks you should, you're an abusive parent.
For him, a family was a 10 second commitment and now for me, a life time.
He always said I took something serious that was poked at me in fun.
Posted by Jodi PCO on March 6, 2011 at 11:50 pm | permalink |
I find this whole post extremely insulting to women in general and the conclusions misguided and ill-founded. Especially as a female PhD in the Sciences (from Stanford) and a woman who has always been better at math than most of my male peers and as a mother of a female child with Asperger's. So many points you made are wrong and completely unfounded! Why on earth would you make blanket statements about what women can or cannot do?
Posted by Amy Moore on March 7, 2011 at 9:45 am | permalink |
Ok. So where is the part of this post that discusses where women do fit in? Or hopefully that's coming tomorrow?
Posted by Noel Rozny on March 7, 2011 at 10:35 am | permalink |
Penelope,
You are obviously very "brave" to address a "true stereotype" about women (as an entire GENDER) based on a couple of scientific studies.
Since you are so "brave," I challenge you to write a similar post about race, referencing scientific studies on the correlation of race to intelligence as noted in the book "The Bell Curve" by Harvard Psychologist Richard J. Herrnstein.
Let's see how brave you are about that.
Posted by A Mensa Member on March 7, 2011 at 11:08 am | permalink |
I'm getting a real "ick" from this blog lately, starting with the 30-year-old women post, and moving up from there. Correlation does not equal causation appears to have tripped you up, Penelope, and you are presenting political positions and social expectations as "truths." As a result, you have gone from subverting the power structure – a big factor in your appeal – to justifying everything about the way things are. It's not fun to read, and your comments are just poorly thought through.
Posted by Liz on March 7, 2011 at 11:27 am | permalink |
Didn't anybody watch PT's cartoon? She's just following her well-established formula. A post saying that the workplace should NOT be segregated would only appear on a sucky blog.
Posted by Brad on March 7, 2011 at 11:34 am | permalink |
Penelopem you are a little misguided today. I think you need to do a little more research on why there are so few women in science and math.
Posted by S.J.J on March 7, 2011 at 12:02 pm | permalink |
The established ways companies split up roles along gender lines ("men skills" and "women skills") is really just about paying some people (women) less to produce more overall. Why take care of your own phone calls and appointment scheduling (administrative assistants), your own employee issues (hr staff) or collaborative efforts (lower paid team members) when you can just hire a woman to do that work for you and at a bargain at that! As a result, the general pace of the organization increases and men make more money while doing less than they ever had to before.
Posted by emily on March 7, 2011 at 12:32 pm | permalink |
Penelope, articles like this aren't helpful to Millenials. Millenials are less concerned with gender norms, and this blog post sounds so…old-fashioned.
What WOULD be an interesting post: if you're a minority in any career (e.g a woman in a notoriously male and misogynistic field…or, a man in a traditionally female field), how do you build a fulfilling career? How do you stay true to your own unique vision?
Millenials want to be unique. This article says, "you can't be unique if you happen to born of a certain gender."
Not cool.
Posted by Avat.R Koo on March 7, 2011 at 12:42 pm | permalink |
Oh Penelope,
In short, shame on you. So many women in highly competitive working environments would agree with me here… and so many men as well! Your stats do not all directly relate or support your concept, nor are they invaluable compared to other stats that are produced that can easily combat what you are saying..such as this one here published by USA Today and the White house here http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/03/obama-report-women-lag-in-pay-gain-in-education/1.
. Shame on you…shame shame…I hope you learn an invaluable lesson from all this…and I hope it's the one you NEED to learn.
It's women and people like you who allow the social hierarchy where men abuse women to remain. Because of you things remain this way despite the fact that there are more women in the world than men and ALSO more women in the world with degrees in higher education then men…which means that JUST LIKE men, women can do WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO WITH THEIR OWN LIVES….and should ignore people like you who will prefer to keep them down and tell them otherwise….You should be seen and not heard…since you know you're a woman and all
Posted by Anonymous on March 7, 2011 at 1:07 pm | permalink |
If sex disparities at the tail end of the math spectrum are so important to the level of self segregation that should be occurring in some fields, why has there been an increasing female presence in most of these occupations over the past three or four decades as barriers to women's achievement have been more recognized and addressed in the public arena? Social trends are changing much faster than biology could keep up with. In addition, while there may be differences at the high tails, but the overlap between men and women in achievement of all sorts is much greater than that. The differences within men and within women are much greater than those between.
Posted by KB on March 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm | permalink |
I wish I'd never read this post. I'm currently trying to decide between scientific and business fields and this lends absolutely no insight into my dilemma. Please consider the possibility that the status quo is changing as women become more educated and more involved in math and science. I expected more than just a rehashing of tired, age-old stereotypes from this blog. I'd expect that a self-proclaimed exception-to-the-rule would be able to articulate the frustration that women face a little more than just saying "you're not in the boys club because you don't belong Here" that I hear from so many women who manage to make it in, rather than support. The sexism in boys' clubs is real, regardless of those at the highest end of the bell curve (which isn't even applicable in most science and engineering jobs).
Posted by Catherine on March 7, 2011 at 1:34 pm | permalink |
@Catherine – Figuring out how to change a tradition approach to problem solving in any field is a valuable career skill. What might have once been called sexism (and my comment above shows I'm dated myself) could really be just a resistance to change. It's our job not to be swayed into thinking that the anger that comes from that type of aversion to change is about us.
Posted by emily on March 7, 2011 at 2:16 pm | permalink |
Catherine,
If you like science and engineering, pursue it. A degree in one of these fields offers much more flexibility in your career than a business degree. There are many science and engineering graduates who are managers, directors, VP's, etc. as well as those working as engineers and scientists. However, you won't find many people with a business degree working as a scientist or engineer. A degree in a science or engineering field will give you the flexibility to do whatever you want.
Posted by Rich on March 8, 2011 at 9:56 pm | permalink |
Even though people are genetically programmed for certain tasks does not mean that they can't learn to do others. For example, women are naturally more verbal than men and more adept with language but there are many outstanding male writers.
Posted by Leslie on March 7, 2011 at 3:59 pm | permalink |
Oh God, you guys (no pun intended). She is just a mediocre (at best) blogger trying to drum up controversy to get more attention and readers on her blog. There isn't even a need for argument about this drivel. Everyone with half a brain knows this is an attention-getting mechanism by a silly blogger weakly supported by biased, faulty science. She is ridiculous.
Posted by A Mensa Member on March 7, 2011 at 4:33 pm | permalink |
Penelope,
first, congrats on steering the pot of controversy yet again! The issue of gender segregation is muddled in emotions, it'll take decades before we as a society will be able to discuss the science of it, such as the quantity and quality of white and gray brain matter, and the fairly obvious fact that women's heads tend to be smaller, yet work for longer.
Second, going to the heart of the matter. The next Newton and Einstein (or the first ones, for that matter) were not and will not be exactly ordinary or average men – or women. The CEOs, high-flying entrepreneurs, highest-pressure sales people are by no means average people, regardless of whether they are men or women.
Now, not every Math PhD aspires to be the next Decart, and high-pressure entrepreneurship is only high-pressure because other people in the community behave in a certain high-pressure way.
Women do not score as well as men in the very top of science and engineering because the scoring systems have been devised and tuned by men for men. The same is true for most competitive activities (with a possible exception of ballet dancing – there the scoring systems were devised by men for women).
The current system of work relationships has evolved in a world that did not include any women. That does not mean it's the only way for the world to be, or that it's the best way. But the only way it's going to evolve sooner rather than later is if the women – the weird ones, who thrive on competition and pressure and possess the almost-pathological drive – keep pressing on. And then maybe lots of men will be grateful that it's OK to not always eat what they killed.
Posted by Jane on March 7, 2011 at 5:24 pm | permalink |
Oh, Penelope. I greatly admire your pieces – honest, bold, personal, informative.
But this strikes of the same old limiting stereotypes I've heard for years. And you do more damage than good by perpetuating them.
So many commenters said it better than me. So I'll use their words to convey my thoughts:
"Most of the neurological "science" about sex differences is very, very sketchy. Not surprisingly, it tends to justify and support social norms."
"Congratulations on singlehandedly providing men with information to discriminate against us."
"But it is dangerous to reduce diversity by enforcing gender norms based on biological research.
Why? Because it's at that point where the research is no longer rooted in biology, but in social psychology. You are now talking the language of expectations, socialisation and norms."
This was a dangerous and limiting piece and I expect more from you. You should be able to see through the ruse of these "tests." You should also recognize how much we're working AGAINST the conditioning of generation upon generation – how can we possibly know what areas in which we excel as women when we're in a new and uncharted territory, still finding ourselves and feeling confident enough to even KNOW our interests?
Lastly, humankind is just too diverse to make these kind of vast assumptions. I have several male friends who want nothing more than to go home to their kids – more so than their wives (it's possible – I swear.)
I know many women who ashamedly tell me how they've NEVER wanted kids. I know men who are so creative, they can't balance a check book – their minds just don't work that way. I know MANY women who are fast and hard number crunchers. I live with a female geologist who is the forewoman for her team. And the list goes on and on….too much variety for this kind of generalizing.
And what does it get us anyway? Let's say all of these tests were 100% gospel accurate. Then what? Should I base my career choice on it? This article discourages, not guides, me.
I mean, of course, SOME women feel uncomfortable in male dominated work settings…who the hell wouldn't? That doesn't mean you don't adjust or find your voice eventually. In addition, perhaps women are more willing to ADMIT they feel uncomfortable. Discomfort should stop us?
Eck. These arguments have tired me out for years. Bottom line: I don't think they serve anyone. They're polarizing and limiting and stale. I'm very different than you and I'm a woman. In turn, I could be more like a man in certain regards. And the beat goes on.
Any sentence that starts with "Men are" or "Women are" instantly shuts me down. And for good reason. It's usually always sexism hidden under so-called "facts." It never makes me feel any good.
Posted by Beth Mann on March 7, 2011 at 5:25 pm | permalink |
If we just focus on the physical differences between male and female, (as your brain chart), we'll definitely come to a conclusion: women should accept the gap because of the body. But, what if we take a look at the different influences on mental and education when we are boys and girls? These kind of influences strengthen the gender gap, and have a solid impact on human evolution.
Posted by GoOctopus Job Search on March 7, 2011 at 9:16 pm | permalink |
Do I really have a "gap of the body"? How scary. Is it showing? Do I look fat in it?
Posted by It's like a stick in my eye. on March 10, 2011 at 11:52 pm | permalink |
My idea is simple.. women are more like men than other things or organisms in the world.
Posted by Aliza Paige on March 8, 2011 at 1:17 am | permalink |
Hi. So. I've only been reading this blog for a couple of weeks, and although it was clearly written by and for people not very similar to myself, I always found it interesting and insightful.
Then I read this post and felt sick.
I've only read half the comments here, but I'm so relieved to see that there are other people who found it problematic. It's enough to restore my faith in humanity, if not this blog.
Posted by Mara on March 8, 2011 at 9:43 am | permalink |
Not to sound like a "boys can't do text comprehension" or anything but if there are such vast differences between men's and women's white and gray matter then why is the average woman as capable of math as the average man?
Since that doesn't make any sense it must mean either that maybe 99% of men generally waste 5.5x of their 6.5x advantage in math-a-licious gray matter over women or… maybe something else is going on.
Based on the graceless quality and tone of the "congratulations" a friend of mine just got from her department head* after receiving the highest NSF score anyone in her hard-sciences department has gotten in a decade I think it might be something else.
The something else, incidentally, might be the conviction men have (doesn't matter if it's socialized or "genetic") that if they don't do better than women they'll never get sex.
You can't discount the effectiveness of that conviction, incidentally, or the grown-man-panic drive it can generate when a man's afraid he's going to be shown up by a woman.
Meanwhile women's worries about never getting sex run along pretty different lines (again whether it's socialized or genetic is kind of irrelevant.)
No one's asked me so far, but if someone did I'd say the difference in "…or I'll never get sex" accounts for far more of the differences in outcomes in science, in sales, and in startups than gray matter or "girls suck at math."
figleaf
*A far better rating, incidentally, than he's ever likely to see.
Posted by figleaf on March 8, 2011 at 11:16 am | permalink |
Here is an article that overlaps with this discussion.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/03/girls-and-science/
Posted by Becky on March 8, 2011 at 12:33 pm | permalink |
Why does it matter what 'most' men or women are good at? Why would a person study your generalizations to figure out what to do with their lives when they could simply base their decisions on what THEY THEMSELVES ARE GOOD AT – irrespective of social norms?
One of the odd things that I simply can't understand about our society (and you seem to buy into it more than most writers) is the need to abstract and analyze trends in the population not to understand anything about humanity, but rather to decide what an individual should do. I think young people should go out there and do what they want to do for a living, taking into account all forseeable consequences (e.g. whether or not a job is compatable with child-rearing) and weighing those without the prejudices of the rest of the workforce.
Posted by Leo on March 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm | permalink |
Honestly, I disagree with many points here. I am a woman who does not want kids and have no interest in kids whatsoever and I'm almost 33. Never played sports but I am VERY competitive and I also have a pretty big ego. I love winning and I love being the best and I like beating men at anything and everything. I actually find it offensive that people naturally assume all women don't like to compete and don't want kids. This is way too much stereotyping in this post…
Posted by Los Angeles Honda on March 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm | permalink |
No person, male or female should be excluded from trying to work in any field because "statistically" someone of another gender might be better at it. Success is not just about aptitude, it's also about drive and passion and doing what you love – and that depends on the individual.
Gender may have something to do with those too but the whole point of equality in the workplace is to prevent exclusion. Trying to force people into "rational" boxes that exclude others is ridiculous. Individuals should have the right to make their own decisions and if those decisions are based on statistics then it's a choice too. but sometimes you just fall into something that you love. I'm a female, and I work in a startup technology company where I'm old enough to be the mother of many of the people I work with – and I'm having the time of my life! Where would I be if the rigid, rational system you are positing was enforced?
If you are going to propose a system, try thinking about something that will benefit the individual – not force us into an artificial construct based on statistics.
S.
Posted by CostumeLady on March 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm | permalink |
"No person, male or female should be excluded from trying to work in any field because "statistically" someone of another gender might be better at it."
Exactly.
Posted by Lu on March 8, 2011 at 10:15 pm | permalink |
It probably helps if you're a first-born too. The point of the Women's movement was to open doors for the women who ARE the exceptions. And enough of us are exceptions to make that push for equality worthwhile. The problem in the past has been that connection-making and competition HAVEN'T been seen as equally valuable.
If I can't do the job, that's one thing. To exclude me from the job a priori simply based on gender is unfair and relegates me to a job that I may not be suited for. Don't suggest that two generations down we're going to have to do this all over again.
Posted by Angela DuBois on March 8, 2011 at 8:16 pm | permalink |
Penelope,
My opinion is none of this is gender based, it is all sociology based. Replace gender with race, is it race based? do you come to the same conclusion? I think the biggest problem I have is with the Title and the opening sentence.
Posted by Paul on March 8, 2011 at 9:29 pm | permalink |
I like this post, and I agree that people need to accept that there are differences in natural tendencies and abilities of men and women. That doesn't mean that there shouldn't be equal opportunities. I consider myself a feminist, but I also believe in innate gender qualities.
Posted by Annie@stronghealthyfit on March 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm | permalink |
Wow, I couldn't disagree more.
I am a talented computer programmer and I am getting my masters in Applied Mathematics. I am good at what I do and although I have decided a PhD is not for me — I easily could get one.
And you think I picked the wrong career — because I am female! I strongly disagree.
Posted by Maggie da Geek on March 8, 2011 at 10:01 pm | permalink |
My response is here: http://blackcatsandsmokeandmirrors.blogspot.com/2011/03/dont-tell-me-i-cant-go-there.html
Posted by Mimi on March 9, 2011 at 12:46 am | permalink |
I don't find this to be offensive, but I do think it is silly to limit oneself based on gender. If you want to be a mathematician, then go for it, and don't bother with the question of 'will I fit in'. If you let other people's opinions define what you want to be, you will not get very far. Do what you want and forget the rest.
That being said, there are other factors related to gender that might limit one's choices, eg. physical strength, dexterity. But if you can work with them or work around them–that is 'adapt'–then gender should not limit your choices. Here is an analogous example: I'm a legally blind research scientist and computer programmer. I wanted to be an astronaut. With good eyesight I might have made it, but you need to be a pilot first. Obviously, this is a limitation I cant' overcome. But I can certainly do my current job without major limitations. Gender is not something that should limit your choices.
Also, this post perpetuates a problem that has been observed in childhood education, that of 5th grade girls in general being just as capable or more capable in math than 5th grade boys, whereas by 10th grade the reverse is true. This is not innate; its a matter of teaching. You've commented on this yourself, so why perpetuate a fallacy?
Lastly, molding the workplace to accommodate one gender or the other is really unacceptable these days. The workplace has to accommodate both genders.
Joe
Posted by jwhite on March 9, 2011 at 1:04 pm | permalink |
Way to start trouble Penny. Contrarian premises do elicit intense dialogue. But I'm afraid that based on my observations, it's more a case of nurture than nature. In the West Indies where I'm originally from, females outstrip males in the STEM fields. Women are expected to have it all and to do it all, an interesting double standard, but generally they do live up to it – unless their social circumstances were too diminished to allow them to work/study their way out of them.
The double standard is there and accepted. No one expects a woman to be barefooted and pregnant, but everyone understands that pregnant and in a high stress, highly technical job often occurs.
Posted by Dale on March 9, 2011 at 3:02 pm | permalink |
I suppose you were hoping to get a reaction. What a load of crap. I suppose one person dropping out of your audience does not really matter you but I just wanted you to know that I enjoyed reading what you had to say for several months. I have absolutely no interest in anything further you have to say. I have unsubscribed and will no longer be supporting brazen careerist. This was insulting not just to men and women but to humanity.
Posted by thescrummistress on March 9, 2011 at 4:13 pm | permalink |
It drives me crazy that as a culture we aspire to be "gender neutral" in the workplace, but yet from birth we assign children gender specific clothing (pink or blue), toys (trucks for boys, dolls for girls), room decorations, etc. We assign a gender specific focus to children from birth, but later in life we say "you're free to be anything you want to be." I can understand why as a nation Americans confuse the world…we regularly blur the line between reality and aspiration, then we never pick a side.
Posted by Robert on March 10, 2011 at 4:35 pm | permalink |
Penelope,
I appreciate your candor, however, in this statement you have conflated women with mothers:
"…women want to be with kids more than men do. That explains Pew's findings that most women want part-time jobs rather than full-time jobs after they have kids…"
Pew's results that speak to this are based on a cohort of *mothers*.
This is a perfect example of social values clouding complex issues.
Imagine how this functions in the judgement of employers, employees, and coworkers, male and female alike?
Please devote more time to research on this topic and speak cautiously, because people are living the consequences of these ideas everyday. I personally don't agree with you in the broader sense of your argument, but beyond my personal opinion, I feel there is a need for stronger control of terminology here.
Things like gender (as opposed to sex) are extremely subjective in a society as large as ours, and there are great consequences to people who are fighting a tide a gender norms, because their dreams, or paychecks depend on it.
In additions, even though "woman" and "mother" are both engendered terms (although mother has a biological component), they are very different things in our culture.
It does a tremendous disservice to women to lump women and mothers together and present it as a study population.
Posted by Jennifer Mercede on March 10, 2011 at 6:01 pm | permalink |
After reading through some of the more argumentative dialogue in the comments, I'd like to make another point regarding the appropriateness of anecdotal information versus data generated by controlled studies.
What is in question here is a female's innate biological mathematical ability, and whether or not she is barking up the wrong hamburger trying to, break into the math sciences, be a paramedic, or sell toner, instead of sticking to a little part time job at the market.
The only one of these arenas I even feel should be dignified with a response is the one most people here seem concerned with – Math.
Obtaining a PhD, and then going on to secure a tenured position at a major research university is not a good indicator of someone's biological ability to do math. While they may not be independent variables, there are so many – I can't emphasize this enough – many many social variables that lead to the outcome of Math PhD > Awesome Job, as to make neither one a good proxy of the other. People have named a few that I can personally attest to.
* How well you were nurtured towards the goal in primary schools, secondary schools, JCs or undergraduate universities
* The funding you receive from your advisor
* The funding you receive from the department as a whole is a measure of their investment in you, the more invested they are, they more likely they are to continue investing.
* The funding given to competitive students in your cohort
(and this is the killer, because other faculty members will vehemently pull for their students and the department ranks you against these people)
* Whether you need to work outside of school, or
(if funded through a TAship) How your undergraduates assess you.
It follows that these things matter:
* How aggressively your advisor supports you
* Attitudes of the men in the department towards women AND
* Attitudes of other women in the department towards women!
* Attitudes of the entire the faculty towards you despite how great your advisor thinks you are. Sometimes coming from another theoretical camp can land people in hot water, so it helps to be savvy, have other grad students helping you, or have family with a PhD.
Getting that job also means:
How much you publish *during* grad school (which has everything to do with how much time you have)
How much extramural organizations want to give you money or accolade.
Are you one of the lucky people getting a stipend, with zero responsibilities except looking good (by going to conferences, getting introduced around, doing your research, and publishing)? This leads to how well networked you are in your field, and how many people are, in turn, willing to let you use data, cite you, give you co-authorship, and include you in their research.
In addition, working in non-empirical sciences, like math, which rely on theoretical ideas, means you can't generate your own data with hard work and self-determination, and then analyze and write-up said data. You need the strong support of others in your field.
Finally, believe it or not even the small things like, not going to department pizza parties and living in cheaper but farther neighborhoods can give the impression that you aren't on campus enough or that you are too overwhelmed to keep up.
Anecdotes have there place. It only takes one anecdote to suggest that the interpretation of so-called data might have another explanation or lurking variables and require a longer better look through a well designed lit review, and carefully designed studies. Where this topic is concerned, the people that matter have been saying just those things.
I can understand how Ms. Trunk came to her interpretation, but I can't support it, and neither do most social scientists.
Posted by Jennifer Mercede on March 10, 2011 at 7:29 pm | permalink |
This statement may at first sound plausible to someone who isn't already thinking critically about this but WOW:
"However women are less likely than men to choose competitive environments due to millions of years of evolution encouraging women to mitigate risks to protect themselves for their children. (Tons of studies support this, but my current favorite is from Anne Campbell, psychologist at Durham University in England.)"
There are so many things wrong with this statement I scarcely know where to start.
Lets take:
"… women are less likely than men to choose competitive environment…"
Trunk hasn't convinced me that women choose less competitive environments. The studies she cites show me that competitive environments lack women. It's also not stated whether women are not competing with men, other women, or both. Hmmm.
But let's take that as the premise: women don't like competition.
Somehow, 'competition' becomes …what? Hunting? Hunting large animals? This is perceived as competition because of the evolutionary anthropologist tendency to equate man-provided meat with evolutionary fitness. So women aren't competitive because they don't hunt giant things (which has not been shown one way or the other in the archaeological record) – and this is where it really gets good – "…due to millions of years of evolution [even better] encouraging …"
I can be relied on to get snarky when someone doesn't understand evolution or natural selection, but wants to use it in support of their ideas. Especially when those ideas tell me that women aren't wired to compete, they are great listeners, and they love love love Sex in the City.
I will start with that ol' devil evolution.
Evolution does not encourage. Evolution acts on the individual, not a society, it's passed through genes. Natural selection is probably what Trunk means, but again, this means that some genetic trait makes you more fit (even if it is a mutation) and the environment (whatever it happens to be at that time) favors you particular genetics. There is no goal of evolution: it cares not what you do.
The measure of fitness is the number of live fertile offspring you bare. According to Ev-psych peoples, in men, this is constrained by your ability to knock-up women. Different male strategies include child investment (caring for few kids well) or having loads of babies with many women and hoping lots of them live to carry on the tradition.
Females are [evolutionarily] constrained by food. There are lots of reasons to make a distinction between food – and large meat packages presumably provided by males. Isotopic studies and osteological ones show (depending on the culture) sometimes men had better access to meat than women. This might mean that they are getting peckish out on hunting trips and bring home what's left, or it might mean that men and women prepare and eat food in different spatial locations. In these situations, there is no reason to think that women are waiting on that gazelle they were promised. Supporting this, researchers have found instances where hunter-gatherer scheduling revolves around what women were bringing to the table, rather than the men. Women fed themselves and their children, and men's contribution you can be sure varied by place, time period, individual, season, the status of the prey population and the particular day. Ev-psych people will also tell you that building good baby brains depends on an a good omega3:6:9 ratio. So the gazelle is important, but so are fish.
The best way to see the difference between what Trunk suggests and what anthropologists suggest is this: each society has different strategies, and although evolutionary thinking attempts to explain why these are chosen or successful, no one group (or individual) need choose the same strategy.
Biological anthropologists have been at the question of why menopausal women live long in societies when they are no longer contributing to the fitness of males. This field is lousy with lots of really smart people not able to put a simple answer on it. The answer some say, has to do with the usefulness of women without children as child care personnel. Others say that you would then expect to see a greater survivorship of the grandchildren, which is not always the case. You could also argue that men were not the only ones determining the survival of women. But I am straying from the main point of irritation – "evolution".
The bottom line is that according to Trunk, individual women who didn't compete, had more children than those that did compete and were able to feed those children better than one's that did, so that their children went on to have children, but that these children were not competitive either because it was genetically passed down from mother to child – apparently only on the X gene, because then the male children would be up the river – or maybe she's saying they were. These women were also more attractive males who competed, because they didn't like their hunting skills being upstaged or some such thing – and that when they had children with these super competitive high-fiving hunter guys, the hot hunter genes were only passed on to the males.
If you read Campbell, it has more to do with "guilt receptors" than straight up alleles, but what she is arguing goes against other frankly more plausible, principles held high by other Ev-psych people. It all comes down to mate selection, and why Campbell thinks women behave differently (supposedly less promiscuously) than men. My take on it is that Campbell is not half done explaining her ideas – which will take better data than what I've seen and her entire career.
But then Trunk goes on to drop these doozies:
"…to mitigate risks [and] to protect themselves for their children."
For most of the 20th century, old fogey archaeologists made unsupported statements about hunter-gatherer women having too many child care responsibilities to do anything materially substantial, like chip away at flint and chase dragons. It isn't that they were wrong, per see, it is just that these leading theories were as yet, unsupported, and also biased. These were unsupported, in that, it was preposed as a likely scenario that suited an untested model and not considered further. It was biased, in that, male anthropologist weren't thinking a wink about what women might have been doing. It wasn't even put forward to explain any particular phenomena, simply the belief that gender roles were what archaeologist thought they were. This was used as a jumping off place for years. The model was this: clovis points were left by men roaming the globe after big things as evidenced by big bones, they killed these things off, so that's why we don't have them anymore,… and we aren't exactly sure where the women were at the time now that you mention it…
It is complicated by differential preservation. Baskets and plants do not often (although they can if you know where to look) survive the archaeological record.
As books like "Engendering Archaeology" were written, people started to design studies that could get at gender. The results of these vary by place and time and do not suit any one model of the division of labor. Most importantly, there is no reason to think that "evolution" was involved, egging things on from the sidelines.
People also found better ways to study hunter-gathers, as well as "gatherers". In general, all hunter-gatherer peoples mitigate risks. Not just the females. Risk mitigation is not just about avoiding getting run through by the tusk of a woolly mammoth. Large animals aren't just dangerous, they're highly mobile (also used to support why women are envisioned as having to stay put). Risk mitigation is also about chasing slower animals, making better hunting implements and going to the good spot to fish, because Frank had really good luck there last year – sticking with what works or finding something more reliable. A switch from rabbits to turtles is a form of risk mitigation and subsistence intensification. Also, for 99.9 percent of man's existence minimizing risk was about mobility. When times got tough, you moved on – and everyone went. It's all about trade-offs. The same could be said of a modern woman in a highly competitive male dominated field. She will do it when the benefits outweigh the water-cooler talk.
So it's not that people are saying that women hunted big things (that probably didn't happen very often at all. It is just that the picture is only beginning to unfold, and it isn't as simple as the one painted exclusively by the (predominately male) anthropologists of yesterday. Anthropologists and archaeologists of both sexes are contributing nicely to this on-going discussion. And whatever drives the division of labor, it isn't the result of "millions of years of evolution". But I'm not done.
Recapping Trunk:
Women are choosing not to compete
Competition is synonymous with danger
This choice is made because the X gene carries an allele that finds danger abhorrent.
This genetic change happened through evolution, by which she means selection, mutation or drift. And somehow wasn't passed to men.
Men like competition because hunting prowess (and the rush school kids get when they win at kickball) is genetic, but is somehow not passed on to the female offspring of males, unless they play modern sports – and win.
The conflation of evolution with selection makes me cringe, because evolution in the truest sense is not directional. However, statements like the one Trunk has made are often used to support the idea of progress, or that things have "evolved" that way because it's better and how it should be.
Lastly, we have this old tired statement:
"to protect themselves for their children."
People have used demographics, ethnographic studies of modern hunter-gathers, and archaeology and found that child care does not explain away the sexual division of labor in different societies throughout time.
Child care is often allotted to other people. Grandparents and siblings are studied in regards to this. A single woman can look after many children. In some societies women travel great distances in their foraging routines sometime with children and sometimes by using child care.
'Tons of studies'?
This is absolutely untrue. Tons of studies do not support any such thing. I will say that some die-hard people will take an old line that men did this and women did that. No one I would listen to is saying that genetic differences lie at the root of it. Not even the Ev-psych people, who would love to say as much.
I actually put much stock in Ev-psych, but I don't understand why researchers that deal with such hard evolutionary outcomes, such as reproductive endocrinology and population genetics, always insist on using non-metric shabby self-reproted online survey data from sex-addled undergraduates.
For a hilarious take on Campbell's particular brand of Ev-psych read this:
http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/07/18/girls-gone-guilty-evolutionary-psych-on-sex-2/
And since I'm at it, here are the Pew findings, which don't say any such thing:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/536/working-women
Finally I would like to point out that Bitchmagazine.com reports that women are making great strides in the field of competitive eating, so there: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/zero-summing-it-up-what-about-the-men
Cheers.
Posted by Its like a stick in my eye. on March 10, 2011 at 11:25 pm | permalink |
Oh, and happy Women's History Month.
Posted by Its like a stick in my eye. on March 10, 2011 at 11:50 pm | permalink |
I think men and women should be segregated in the workforce. If they were both sexes would get more work done because having people of the opposite sex in the same office is a distraction.
I have worked for four different organizations since graduating college and at every single one of them somebody was always sleeping with someone else in the office. The first place I worked the manager was having an adulterous affair with the married bookeeper that everyone in town including many of our customers knew about.
At the second place I worked my female supervisor was having an adulterous affair with the Chairman of the Board of Directors. At the third company I worked for the Manager was having an affair with this woman who worked in another department. She was in her mid 30s and married to an elderly guy who probably wasn't sexual anymore so she had a boyfriend at work. Her position in another department got deleted due to corporate downsizig so he fired my boss so that he could give his girlfriend my bosse's job.
At the last place I worked one of the employees in the office who was a blonde bombshell was having an affair with the much older manager of our office who was married to the daughter of one of the owners of the company. The manager's girlfriend rapidly rose through the ranks to become a partner in the firm. They had lunch together every day, went jogging together. The manager's wife (who was a beast) heard rumors sbout the affair so she prevailed on her daddy to get the CEO to transfer the blonde bombshell to an office overseas. It was just like some sick soap opera!
Posted by Rob on March 11, 2011 at 12:45 am | permalink |
Be that as it may, it isn't a reason to discriminate against women.
This article is largely about where women don't belong. Your comment is largely about male's who are in a position to deny someone a raise (or offer a promotion), misusing their power for advantage to them (sex). It's not only gross, it's illegal. Even consensual sleazy adulterous affairs have devastating consequences for the people who are financially responsible for the business, or the people who are caught in the cross-fire as you describe (sometimes this is also a female who won't put up with overtly sexual environments).
Laws are in place to protect people (in this case women) because more often then not, it doesn't serve them to have someone unethically conducting his business for the opportunity to flex his power – whether or not they participate. For this reason, when it is consensual, people are often asked to sign waivers, or cease the relationship. Alternatively, many people just get fired. And guess who it usually is? The boss with ethically problems, or the "blonde bombshell"?
Yet somehow, you and many people before you have managed to make it the women's problem. Women who aren't having affairs have a difficult enough time getting employment (especially when blog's like this one use a few unimpressive sounding studies to promote an unsupportable idea that women don't really want to work and aren't as serious about their careers. Ask yourself what jobs are open to people without having spent thousands of dollars in school of one type or another. Any job that provides some stability and you could live well on is a male dominated field.
Then there is the glass ceiling. Where I live I know hundreds of people (and I know them well enough to know their background) who work in the entertainment industry. The studios are particularly skewed. Men with no college degree have managed VP titles, and every person with "executive assistant" in their title is female. In all my years I've met one male Assistant to a female executive, and one male assistant in a marketing department, who had no direct supervisor. That guy made VP in less than five years of moving here from Athens, GA because he used to be in cool bands. ~70 percent of these executives are male. Many of these women have an equal or better education then their bosses (or peers in the case of the occasional female executive). In my opinion, they also work harder. And by the way, in twenty years of working around these very social people, I've never seen anyone sleeping their way to the middle as you describe.
Women who do manage the same jobs as men are on average paid less money for it.
My boyfriend told me the other day that he traded a shift with a female coworker in an extremely male dominated field. All the men breathed a sigh of relief, like they had been holding their gas in for years. When he refuses to do something that is outside the job description and very likely to get him hurt, they think he's being pragmatic. When she refuses the same task in the same circumstance, her capabilities are called into question.
There is only so much that the law can correct. Sexual harassment, pay disparities, sexism, hostile environments, double standards and exclusion are things that women deal with everyday. The law sets the tone and is used in the few instances when it might be wise to enforce. Most people know that law suits are rarely worth it and people who file them are often in a particularly vulnerable state to start one. I can think of a string of contract work that I had to walk away from because someone snuck up on me and started trying to massage my shoulders, or you realize that you boss has gotten stupid looking and starry eyed around you. I had Mr. ex-ray vision, the photographer who tried to use me as free divorce counseling. People who were verbally abusive in ways that a man would never in a million years speak to another man – and much worse very ugly and intolerable situations from men. It drove me back to school, and that has yet to produce different results.
Your comment and this article make it a woman's problem. Take some responsibility and worry about yourself and the job you do at work, not those pesky distracting female's around.
This blog bummed me out no end. Women, don't be part of the problem, don't propagate stereotypes and advocate sexism. And people, make those around you aware, this article shows they still need it.
Posted by It's like a stick in my eye. on March 11, 2011 at 1:18 pm | permalink |
Unfortunately, "distraction" is not a good enough reason to promote segregation efforts of any specialized group in the US. In the past, these types of arguments have been made about race, religion, sexual orientation (still ongoing), and people with disabilities, all to many heinous or undesirable repercussions. Regarding sex, follow the logic of segregated workplaces to their natural conclusion and we would end up supporting the completely separate worlds for men and women that (most of us) rightfully disdain when we see evidence of it in other countries. If workplaces are somehow "tainted" by mixed sex interaction, should churches, schools, clubs and other gathering places be likewise segregated?
In addition, the notion that work is divorced from intimacy, as well as the idea that there is somehow a separation of two with respect to economic intent, has been shown by many to be a false pretense (see Vivianna Zelizer's work on the topic, for example). To make claims that the workplace should or could somehow be separated from intimacy, even with segregated workplaces, is just not a reality.
Posted by KB on March 11, 2011 at 1:43 pm | permalink |
Yes, Rob, women are distracting to men and men are distracting to women.
People are distracting to people, frankly. But that is not a reason to build walls, or to make people wear body-length veils, or to send people to the back of the bus or another entrance, or….
ANY KIND OF SEGREGATION.
Penelope…you are…THE PROBLEM.
Posted by Mimi on March 11, 2011 at 3:02 pm | permalink |
I just wanted to add a few comments to this. I am a female electrician and and have been in this business for 20 years. overall I tend to agree with points in your post. The math thing i have a very different theory on.
I think the problem with women and math is one thing. women want to know the whys and hows and learn math methods the way they reson out everything else. Men on the other hand tend to just go with the flow they do it and dont want to anylize the math problem.
Also as far as working with mostly men goes you should understand all bets are off. there are no rules and men can be very cruel. If you work in the electrical industry make sure you really like what you are doing because if you dont you wont be there long. It has taken me a long time to understand how things work in a mans world.
as far as segragating goes i am against it. If a man cant deal with me on their turf then maybe he should just excuse himself from the situation altogether until they grow up to be a real man. If i can pull my wieght and i can complete tasks just as the men do then no one has any right to segregate me from what is the norm. it suggests i need special treatment. I earned my license fair and square and went through school just like all the other guys.
I was just recently fired from a multi-billion dollar company where i was a maintenance electrician. I can assure you that most of what you heard was probably a lie. Men who are insecure with themselves tend to make bold claims like that in hopes everyone will believe them.
Case and point? I was fired because i refused to screw my boss as it turns out this fabulous company just settled out of court ust 7 months ago with a woman that was fired 3 weeks after they hired me. her complaints as it turns out are almost the same as mine.
As a woman becomes seasoned and aquires a handle on working with men they begin to understand that there is a breed of man that will do anything to take a woman down any way they can. it is just a fact of being a feminist in a mans world. men who resort to rumors to shed a bad light on women are assholes and they tend to have no personal life of their own. they tend to also have no one to go out with because no one can stand to be around them. Why? they are ASSHOLES. I myself have learned to not let anyone get under my skin like that because this is the only way to piss someone like that off. Ignore them and you will see one pissed off loser.
now you might think im full of it for saying that because , after all i was fired. the place i worked at was a lot like your jobs you mention.
I am a very lucky woman. I had the smarts to record my boss sexually harrassing me. I have a lawyer and a pending investigation with BOLI.
In these situations where the office is all about one life to live you have a choice ignore the bullshit and take advantage of the situation or feed into it
Posted by Firefly on March 11, 2011 at 1:45 am | permalink |
P.S. looks like by reading a lot of the posts on here there is just one of those kind of men posting……….hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by Firefly on March 11, 2011 at 1:55 am | permalink |
Good luck Firefly. Those situations have a way of souring your outlook for a while and lawsuits can really be a drag, but if you stick it out, I hope it brings you the resolution you deserve. And it's nice to meet/read of a female electrician. That makes me smile, not from surprise, just from knowing what it takes to get there. I was into cars growing up, but I didn't love it enough to get to the finish line. Cheers.
Posted by It's like a stick in my eye. on March 14, 2011 at 3:08 pm | permalink |
You are right it sour things a bit.
Im going to tear this company to shreds in court any way i can to the full letter of the law, and they have broken a lot.
You should know there are a lot of men and women electricans that take pride in their work most act with integrity and professionalism.
It is sad to me that it only takes one company like this to give the trade a very sour name.
This company terrorized a woman to the point of having to take prescription drugs. she filed a complaint feb. 2010 and volentarily closed it in aug 2010. her complaints actually included that she was subjected to rumors that she had sexual relations with a dog. This is so far out of bounds i dont even know what to say. An interesting fun fact. the boss who terrorized this woman still works for the company.
The complaint can be found at pacer.gov do a search for Schnitzer Steel and all federal cases will come up.
This type of employer bevavior is unacceptable and wont be tolerated. At least not by me. Subjecting women to this type of behavior is illegal and cruel not to mention sickening.
thanks for your post
Posted by Firefly on March 14, 2011 at 3:47 pm | permalink |
Its occured to me that i really havent addressed the post at hand because ive have been busy distracting.
If you want my opinion which im gonna give like it or not.
My opinion is this: Based on my personal experiences working with men for 20 years the thought of segregation in the workplace is ridiculous. It further nurtures the vicitimization of minorities.
I would like to know if you know anything about history? Are you aware of the horrible results that heppened when black people were segregated? Are you aware of how many people died as a result of integrating black and white people into the same and equal people they should have always been treated? like human beings? It is a shameful thing what happened in this country for black people to be treated this way.Im white by the way so dont even go in the direction of im some black person who is angry.
Since you dont seem to have much of a background in history maybe you should take a class. Many people have died in all minority classifications as a result of segregation.
My highest education completed would be an associates degree Im not real brainy like you are. I do know one thing you lack common sense if your actually serious about what you have written. I personally think you wrote this as some kind of class project to see what kind of reaction you would get. For physcology maybe?
Posted by Firefly on March 15, 2011 at 11:31 am | permalink |
This is dumb.
I like science and math and often feel most in the "flow" or "zone" when thinking about technical problem solving. I work in a biotech and see these trends pretty widely.
I am bored with kids and while I think I would fight to protect my own, it's already pretty clear that I would go crazy if surrounded by them all the time, all day long.
I didn't play sports growing up, nor am super competitive but I do like to win. I see myself as a very average employee in a technical industry, and therefore, cannot see a basis for your arguments in choices or behaviors exhibited by myself or by my colleagues.
It doesn't seem like you have invested any time in any scientific education yourself (you already have enough comments above about the scientific rigor of the data you made a grab at). Goodness. Pick up a book and do some sums or subscribe to Scientific American for a couple of issues.
Posted by Mohita on March 16, 2011 at 6:40 pm | permalink |
I agree that they're are biological differences between women and men. But:
a. In this article you only point out areas where men have shown to lead [in studies]. What about areas where women have been shown to lead?
b. Why are you interested in reinforcing gender biases? What is there to gain in that?
I completely agree with Kablaam. Where "you are now talking the language of expectations, socialisation, and norms."
Posted by anna on March 20, 2011 at 9:25 am | permalink |
Your reasoning for #2 is at least mostly wrong. Academic science is a tough place (on average) for women for many of the reasons you mentioned above: It is intensely competitive and filled with personal rivalries, and it is an extremely unstable career (unless you get a tenure track position and also get tenure–which the vast majority of PhDs don't). The period in which scientists are often fighting tooth and claw to publish high-impact papers and land tenure-track positions is the same period in which many women are trying to reproduce. On top of the time demands, this is the same period in which incomes are very low, and young researchers must often move every few years to stay competitive.
It's not the gray matter, it's the culture. I obtained my PhD with an extremely successful female scientist and am not doing postdoctoral research with a male scientist. The male scientist admits very openly to being motivated by rivalries with other labs. My PhD adviser definitely had 'enemies'/competitors in her intense field, but I never saw evidence that she was motivated by anything other than the science. I've found that hanging out in an environment that emphasizes personal gain and competition is repugnant. (For the record, I'm the most competitive person I've ever met when it comes to computer and board games. I just think it's sick to let this kind of competitiveness drive scientific research in a field where lots of lives and $ are at stake.)
As you probably know, Penelope, stereotype threat undermines performance. I'd be really careful presenting research claiming significant, intrinsic differences between men and women in their capacity for quantitative analysis. Odds are that the threat that the findings might be true will create a far larger gap than might exist anyway. In my experience in a very mathematical/computational field, "intrinsic ability" matters very little, and strategy, hard work, and luck matter a lot more.
Posted by Quantitative female scientist on April 3, 2011 at 10:31 am | permalink |
Correction: "I am *now* doing postdoctoral research with a male scientist…"
Posted by Quantitative female scientist on April 3, 2011 at 10:32 am | permalink |
@ Quantitative female scientist,
I was until recently also a quantitative female scientist. And although I loved your post, I want to say one thing regarding this quote from you:
"The period in which scientists are often fighting tooth and claw to publish high-impact papers and land tenure-track positions is the same period in which many women are trying to reproduce."
There is a professor in my former department who specializes in demographics, fertility, and the dreaded Evolutionary Psychology (Michael Gurven, UCSB). I vividly remember his presentations on fertility, and the changes in fertility when viewed by different education classes. I have no immediate source to cite, but basically, academics are not reproducing to the same degree that the rest of the world is. For this reason, I would hesitate to extrapolate the already fuzzy idea (that there is a particular time that women are a) getting their PhDs, or b) having children -if at all), and apply that as a factor in any hardship that women in PhD programs might encounter.
During my time at school there, more men were having children than women, even though women were the bulk of the department. That is anecdotal, but I mention it to remind people that women are not the only ones taxed by the responsibilities of childcare in our society. Even something as simple as being kept awake by crying at night can make daily tasks impossible, and men have ears too.
I think women are more hurt by the stereotypes surrounding reproduction, than the actual act or responsibilities of reproduction. Stereotype: women have a harder time in grad school because they are also raising children. This leads to the idea that investing in female grad students is more risky – a dangerous idea. If they are having children, then yes, they probably have a harder time. But they could just as easily *not* be having children (which the data I've seen support) and also *men* having children have a harder time in grad school (which I have personally seen).
There are a number of plausible reasons why women have a harder time in grad school than men*. Combatting bias is one of them. I'm basing this statement on (archaeological) discipline specific research done by the NSF where lower incidence of women staying in academia after obtaining a PhD is explained by (sometimes demonstrable) bias, such as being more likely to get dissertation improvement money when lab work, rather than fieldwork is in the methods. Finally, in my experience discrimination/stereotyping is not limited to men. Women are often as guilty of sexism against other women as men are.
Having nothing to do with you:
I think this article is loaded with a lot of that. And I'm not impressed by P Trunk's addendum post where she clarifies her position on a woman's mean ability, using wonky proxy measures of getting (or ability to get?) a BS versus a PhD as an indicator of average STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math) abilities or excellent STEM potential respectively – which is just ridiculous.
Again, I loved you post. Especially, where you note that perceptions about intrinsic differences can lead to further disparities in success. I just wanted to underscore that along those lines, the women = mother thing is something we would all do well to consider separately. Where academics are concerned – the fertility stats are radically different – for both men and women.
*In an earlier post I listed the reasons think grad school success is a cultural, rather than biological issue here: http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2011/03/05/the-workplace-should-be-segregated-maybe/#comment-245252. In the interest of not repeating myself, I'll just say that these can be applied to possible explanations of gender disparities as well.
Best of luck in your post-doc.
Posted by Jennifer Mercede on April 11, 2011 at 10:12 pm | permalink |
I am late to the game here… you are so convinced about the innate differences: men are good at higher math (however you define it), and women want to have children after all that is what they are made for? Right? Not really, not right at all. And mathematically inclined women will not choose this work anyway because one should not go into work which is hard and uncomfortable? Do you think the higher math comes to all these superbly gifted men in their sleep? That they don't have to work hard for it? And indeed in many math and physics departments social skills are not high on the list of things one has to do… but this is a question of culture in these departments and not a question of a built-in lack of them. Math and social skills are not mutually exclusive, what drives the oddball behavior is that it is more accepted in many of the math and physics departments than in many other parts of life, it is a social microcosm. Girls and women should strive to go wherever they want to go, fine, if they want to become mothers and dedicate themselves to their family, equally fine if they want to go into math, science, engineering. Comparison of different countries shows quite clearly that math and science skills are equally distributed at least in the 99.5% of the often-cited Bell curve which has any relevance in real life.
Posted by teddybear12 on April 11, 2011 at 6:41 pm | permalink |
Summer is Ecco season across the world!
Ecco shoes natural motion technology supports these natural systems encouraging muscles and ligaments to strengthen whist encouraging runners to develop a more natural.The Ecco collection is made of Yak leather, http://www.eccodress.com
has a water repellent coating called ion-mask, has removable insoles for added comfort, has an anatomical shank system which stabilizes the foot without limiting the natural torsion and many many more features.
Ecco shoes collection is broken down into ecco golf, ecco terra and ecco sandals Run- which has sub categories of ecco A, B, and C dependent on individual fitness. See http://www.eccodress.com for more details to our page.
Posted by Ecco Casual on April 12, 2011 at 7:58 am | permalink |
Well said but I thought women are to be equal in all ways. But we all know like what you said, women are good at some things & men are good at others.
Posted by Adam on April 21, 2011 at 3:12 pm | permalink |
Please read Dr. Cordelia Fine's book "Delusions of Gender" – the title says it all. She conducted a thorough survey of the scientific literature on brain science. There are no differences in the male and female brains. Behaviour is learned.
Posted by Lory Manrique-Hyland on June 6, 2011 at 3:09 pm | permalink |
when the device is actually performed remaining in order to correct, that it's moncler jackets psychologically Moncler Coats rotated and balanced towards the moncler jackets for men up and down alignment from the personnel. Because kinesthetic students discover ideas moncler women jackets on sale through associating all of them along with acquainted designs
Posted by aaccddsuny on November 28, 2011 at 8:52 pm | permalink |
The only thing that men can be said to be better at than women is having a penis. Everything else is subjective to the individual. You forget that more men may be given the opportunity to perform at these jobs, where women are expected to birth and then take part time work, thus skewing the results.
Posted by Jennifer on January 15, 2012 at 9:02 am | permalink |
This post is old, but I felt compelled to comment. I am a female engineering school graduate who currently works as a Software Engineer.
I'm so glad my mom used to tell me "you can be anything." It definitely WAS NOT one of the worst adages of feminism as you say. Otherwise I wouldn't have had parental support when, after watching Jurassic Park when I was six, I walked around spelling deoxyribonucleic acid because I wanted to be a DNA scientist. Maybe my parents wouldn't have bought me a chemistry set. Maybe I wouldn't have taken all the highest level math and science classes my high school had to offer and scored the highest on standardized tests that my school had seen in 20 years.
Maybe I wouldn't have gotten a full college scholarship if I hadn't been told all along I was capable.
In most of my higher level Engineering classes, I was either the only female, or the only AMERICAN female.
In my very first programming class 30/200 of the students were girls. The next semester, 28 of those girls had switched over to the Arts and Sciences school. The boys didn't speak to me for the most part. If I wasn't a head strong loner, the environment would have been toxic for me.
I am the only female in my department where I work.
After living through the male dominated system, I have to say attitudes need adjusting. American society does not expect girls to be good at math and science. Young, malleable minds WILL INTERNALIZE THE IDEAS WE GIVE THEM. More people should be telling little girls "you can be anything."
Posted by Crystal on January 15, 2012 at 6:59 pm | permalink |