As a female, am I inherently bad at "top tier" maths/physics?

[mathwonk]

I don't see anything in the Goldwater criteria that favors females:

"Students are evaluated on:

• Demonstrated potential for and commitment to a research career in mathematics, the natural sciences, or engineering. (The most compelling way to demonstrate commitment to and potential for a research career is to have research experience.)
• Outstanding academic performance."

Unlike many solicitations there is not even any statement that women, racial minorities and other underrepresented groups are especially urged to apply.
So although your department may (or may not) have considered gender in nominating you, the Goldwater committee presumably considered only merit in making the award, at least if they were doing their job properly. So congratulations to you. There are many reasons people do or do not announce things appropriately, such as incompetence, envy, or lack of thoughtfulness.

 

[Dishsoap]

I don't see anything in the Goldwater criteria that favors females:

"Students are evaluated on:

• Demonstrated potential for and commitment to a research career in mathematics, the natural sciences, or engineering. (The most compelling way to demonstrate commitment to and potential for a research career is to have research experience.)
• Outstanding academic performance."

Unlike many solicitations there is not even any statement that women, racial minorities and other underrepresented groups are especially urged to apply.
So although your department may (or may not) have considered gender in nominating you, the Goldwater committee presumably considered only merit in making the award, at least if they were doing their job properly. So congratulations to you. There are many reasons people do or do not announce things appropriately, such as incompetence, envy, or lack of thoughtfulness.

Certainly true, but many solicitations for graduate applications also say they don't favor people of particular genders/races/religions/sexualities, blah blah blah. But we all know that they do.

 

[ModusPwnd]

At my job we are explicitly told to interview any female that is remotely qualified. For a male to get an interview he has to be exceptional. I think this is wrong, but I smile and nod along with my peers when looking through resumes. People say females are at a disadvantage and their opinion is taken seriously. If my opinion differs from that then it is summarily dismissed due to my sex organs. Since I am anonymous here I can voice my opinion without repercussions. I never saw females discriminated against in undergrad, grad or in industry. I've seen professors bend over backwards to try to recruit and keep females in the physics program and in their research groups. Ultimately, I think this was self-serving and not in their female student's best interest. I have seen female and male professors that were worthy of being role models to either sex. I've seen scholarships for females only. I have seen white males passed over for research positions, scholarships and prestige in favor of females and minorities. Now in my profession I work in an engineering group that is mostly females. Nothing wrong with that, they do great and one of them is my mentor. Also, our boss's boss is a female. The new engineer just hired is a female.

I don't want to dismiss anybody else's experience, I'm sure that females have encountered unfair hardships based on their sex. I hope that the other perspective doesn't get dismissed out of the gate just because it doesn't fit the status quo. In the end, the vast majority of all beginning science students get pushed out of science at some time, whether they are male or female. I don't take it as a forgone conclusion that it is a bad thing. I sure won't be pushing my daughter into science or engineering.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

In addition to being married to a fabulous physicist, I've had the privilege of working with a whole bunch of great female scientists, engineers, and mathematicians over my career. I have probably co-authored more scholarly papers with female co-authors than any other physicist I know. I've also had a tremendous number of fantastic female students over the years. My observation is that very few young men are willing to work as hard as well-motivated young women.

We've also had the privilege of working with a couple home schooled young ladies these last two years, mentoring them in their science projects for ISEF-affiliated science fairs. Both young ladies won trips to the ISEF finals, won awards at the national level, and published papers. One project was a math-intensive project in fisheries science, and the other project was in applied mathematics. These young ladies are beautiful, confident, and powerful. No one doubted that they earned their awards, and they completely demolished their male competition at the regional and state levels.

Personally, I've long recognized my weaknesses in math and my limitations as a theorist. I compensated by learning to write computer programs and becoming something of a whiz at numerical analysis. I have a lot of tools in the numerical toolbox. I've also compensated by thinking like a biologist (hypothesis testing), with clever experimental designs, by reading volumes of literatire far exceeding most colleagues, and by inviting collaborators who offset my own weaknesses.

 

[StatGuy2000]

At my job we are explicitly told to interview any female that is remotely qualified. For a male to get an interview he has to be exceptional. I think this is wrong, but I smile and nod along with my peers when looking through resumes. People say females are at a disadvantage and their opinion is taken seriously. If my opinion differs from that then it is summarily dismissed due to my sex organs. Since I am anonymous here I can voice my opinion without repercussions. I never saw females discriminated against in undergrad, grad or in industry. I've seen professors bend over backwards to try to recruit and keep females in the physics program and in their research groups. Ultimately, I think this was self-serving and not in their female student's best interest. I have seen female and male professors that were worthy of being role models to either sex. I've seen scholarships for females only. I have seen white males passed over for research positions, scholarships and prestige in favor of females and minorities. Now in my profession I work in an engineering group that is mostly females. Nothing wrong with that, they do great and one of them is my mentor. Also, our boss's boss is a female. The new engineer just hired is a female.

I don't want to dismiss anybody else's experience, I'm sure that females have encountered unfair hardships based on their sex. I hope that the other perspective doesn't get dismissed out of the gate just because it doesn't fit the status quo. In the end, the vast majority of all beginning science students get pushed out of science at some time, whether they are male or female. I don't take it as a forgone conclusion that it is a bad thing. I sure won't be pushing my daughter into science or engineering.

ModusPwnd, this may be somewhat orthogonal to the discussion in this thread, but let me ask you this: you said that you won't be pushing your daughter into science and engineering. What would you strongly encourage her to pursue instead (push being too strong a word)? Are there fields you would rather have her pursue instead of science or engineering? Same question if you have a son.

 

[gleem]

If anything, given the laws of supply and demand, she has tended to make more $ than men in equivalent positions. Most employers know they need to employ a certain number of women, and they tend to pay pretty well for them.

Really most ?? you have one data point. Why is there so much about lack equal treatment of women in the news. Why did the APS recently expressed its concern of the lack of women in physics.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_2.cfm

A few days ago I listened to a discussion regarding the unfair wage structure for women ( women make typically 85% of what men make). Part of the reason for this is the lack of salary negotiation ability of women. One member of this discussion runs a company to help women improve this skill. One participant an engineer related her story of successfully running a program expecting recognition (increased salary) for her accomplishment which did not occur. She left the company and she was replaced by several persons. It seems many companies are still in the stone age. The take home message here is that the rules are often different for women than men and that they need to learn to play the game better.

Could it be that some companies higher women because they are cheap labor?

So as an observer I do not see that everything is rosy for women.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Really most ?? you have one data point. Why is there so much about lack equal treatment of women in the news. Why did the APS recently expressed its concern of the lack of women in physics.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_2.cfm

A few days ago I listened to a discussion regarding the unfair wage structure for women ( women make typically 85% of what men make). Part of the reason for this is the lack of salary negotiation ability of women. One member of this discussion runs a company to help women improve this skill. One participant an engineer related her story of successfully running a program expecting recognition (increased salary) for her accomplishment which did not occur. She left the company and she was replaced by several persons. It seems many companies are still in the stone age. The take home message here is that the rules are often different for women than men and that they need to learn to play the game better.

Could it be that some companies higher women because they are cheap labor?

So as an observer I do not see that everything is rosy for women.

I wouldn't say that everything is rosy either for women or for men, but I would be slow to attribute all observed differences to some kind of ill intent or bias.

Had you read the thread carefully, you would realize that my observations are based on much more than one data point. Although I am only married to one woman (that's how it works), over a 30 year career in science and engineering, I have worked with a lot of women both as a colleague, as a subordinate, and as a supervisor, so I have seen many data points in addition to having inside application, interview, and negotiating experience from the dozens of job searches my wife has participated in.

From my viewpoint, the dearth of women in physics is mostly explained by the dearth of women earning PhDs in physics. This is true in the other physical sciences and in electrical and mechanical engineering also, and it can also be strongly correlated to the number of women earning BS degrees in those disciplines, and then, in turn, to the number of women seeking BS degrees in those disciplines. Therefore, the most effective focus needs to be toward attracting and retaining young women in the STEM disciplines in which they are underrepresented. The hurdles once a women has done well and earned a degree (with a combination of GPA, experience, and motivation) that will make her competitive in the job marketplace are relatively small by comparison.

From what I've seen, attracting and retaining women in STEM positions once they have earned an appropriate degree (with a competitive combination of GPA, experience, and motivation) often comes down to issues other than salary. Women tend to place higher values on things like time with their families and flexibility of work scheduling and locations than men do. These issues rarely make it hard for an employer to attract and retain men in STEM, but I've seen it over and over again make it more challenging for employers to attract and retain women in STEM. Another challenging fact (outside of the employer's control) is that women's spouses tend to be less flexible in making sacrifices in support of their wife's career than men's spouses are in making sacrifices in support of men's careers.

 

[CWatters]

I REALLY love physics and mathematics

Go for it. Anyone that has the chance to get paid to do what they enjoy would be mad to pass it up.

Consider joining..

https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/

 

[StatGuy2000]

To the OP:

If you really love physics and mathematics, I would definitely concur that you should go for it! I personally feel that no one (male or female, of any ethnic/racial/cultural background) is inherently good or bad at math/physics -- if you have the interest in those fields and the willingness to work hard and engage in good study habits, you can and will succeed.

Yes, there are still be individuals who may hold inherently sexist/racist biases (since science is an inherently human activity like any other, and scientists are not immune to the same jealousies, irrational beliefs or biases that afflict other people), but don't let that discourage or dissuade you from your passion or interests.

I wish you all the best!

 

[gleem]

I wouldn't say that everything is rosy either for women or for men, but I would be slow to attribute all observed differences to some kind of ill intent or bias.

But didn't you note lower down in your response that there is in fact biases against hiring or encouraging women for specific jobs? (perceived) higher values on family time, location etc. all of which might affect their performance or contribution to the organization compared to men?

I too have worked with women my entire professional career in all roles from teacher to subordinate to collegial to supervisor and respect and appreciate their abilities and contributions and thus deserving of equal consideration and treatment in any career choice based on accomplishments. I think women are overlooked not encourage because of biases conscious or not; Women must develop the belief in themselves and their abilities and be able to say I'm as good as any man. An companies have go to stop living in the nineteenth century and recognize their abilities and aspirations.

These biases begin early and continue

Please read Eileen Pollock article base on her book, “The Only Woman in the Room: Why Science Is Still a Boys’ Club.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html?_r=1

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Pointing to whatever biases there may be is not particularly helpful when encouraging a particular student. The focus on encouraging a particular student needs to be on the choices they need to make in order to succeed. Approaches which open the door to blame shifting rather than making decisions that are more likely to lead to demonstrated accomplishments are counterproductive. An individual student can only impact the decisions that are within their control.

Confounding one's actual experiences with pre-existing biases is also neither honest, productive, or valuable. Neither is perpetuating the myth that science is still a boys' club. The 100 or so female co-authors on my scholarly publications certainly do not believe science is a boys' club. As the first person in a large hispanic family to earn a degree in a STEM field, I chose not to ever believe the underrepresentation of a group would be a hindrance to me, and it hasn't. My wife has had the same experience as the first woman in her family to earn a degree in science.

You only lose when you believe the lies about the limitations, either external limitations or internal limitations.

The biggest hindrance to success in the physical sciences and engineering is the battle with the self in overcoming the difficulty of the material. It is an internal battle. The external battles are small by comparison.

 

[donpacino]

I REALLY love physics and mathematics, but sometimes i feel as if I'm biologically "handicapped" due to being female, especially at higher tier/university levels.

Part of the reason for this is the lack of salary negotiation ability of women.

Find what's common between these two statements.

 

[gleem]

It is to @Sophie Carmen's credit that she questioned the "feeling" that she was biologically handicapped with regards to math or physics. But we can ask why she had that feeling in the first place. She indicates success in her program so why all of a sudden should she feel handicapped. I for one do not feel it is an innate condition for if it where a natural condition why would she even question it.

The problem is that this is not a battle or war but an insidious social conditioning from an archaic attitude that women are not to be taken seriously and not strong enough to take care of themselves. Even as parents tell their daughter that there is no limit to want they can do or be they may yet inadvertently subconsciously guide them in a direction that they feel is more traditional and safer.

We can be hopeful that she is encouraged and emboldened to continue her education in physics from the responses that she has received from this forum.

There is much on the internet about women physicists. Four years ago the American Physical Society began a women physicist of the month recognition. Peruse their list of some 50 women who where chosen to date.

"Nominees to be profiled in this series should be a physicist who has had an impact on your life or career, both past and present, and/or whom you believe is worthy of recognition" http://www.aps.org/programs/women/scholarships/womanmonth/2015.cfm

or see Contributions of 20th Century Women to Physics

http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/

listing 83 women making significant contribution up to 1976..Since then many more might be recognized for similar achievements.

 

[mathwonk]

"Certainly true, but many solicitations for graduate applications also say they don't favor people of particular genders/races/religions/sexualities, blah blah blah. But we all know that they do."

I don't know any such thing. I served on the hiring and personnel committee for about 10 years, several times as head, and I ordinarily never paid any attention at all to any irrelevant criteria like gender or race. The main and overriding criterion was always strength in research and teaching. There were a couple of exceptions in years when we were specifically told by the administration to look especially for applications from underrepresented groups. This only meant that we tried hard to include such applicants in the pool, but being mathematically qualified was still necessary, and they were not guaranteed to be chosen from that pool since there was still a public vote. I myself opposed even this philosophy as I felt that strength alone should always be the criterion. And this preferential inclusion of candidates only happened twice in my career, in which hundreds of candidates were considered. In fact essentially all the times when we did hire members of underrepresented groups, the candidates were not targeted for that reason, they were just the best candidates available and made a good fit with our groups. The times when we did target we usually did not hire the targeted candidates.

The more common occurrence is for members of a specific research group, like geometers, to prefer a geometer over an analyst, and this preference takes priority over gender, as well as over strength in my experience. I.e. a group of geometers will often be more likely to think a geometry candidate is more qualified than an algebra candidate, even if the algebraists disagree and can make a good case. There are also people who will argue that if their area has not had a recent hire then the next hire should be in their area, even if a stronger candidate is available in a different area. This is the real struggle in hiring. In my experience most men would be delighted to hire a strong candidate in their own field, male or female doesn't matter. Of course this is just my opinion and experience, and there are certainly people whose behavior and rules are different from mine, but you should not and cannot reliably generalize about what everybody thinks or does in hiring or giving awards. Those of us who want the awards to be meaningful give them as best we can according to the stated criteria. In some settings to do otherwise is illegal, and it is always dishonest and unfair.

 

[mathwonk]

To be more candid, I admit to having violated these strict guidelines a few times early in my career, when asked to do so, and having come back to this positiion by learning my lesson on those occasions from the problems that arose. The simplest problem and most obvious, is that if you prefer someone for reasons not related to merit, that fact becomes clear to everyone, and it causes unhappiness among those other candidates who deserve equal or better treatment and did not receive it. When people feel treated unfairly, the ship does not sail smoothly.

 

[meldraft]

I'm in my fourth and final year of grad school in applied mathematics and software engineering. I have met and worked with many people, so here are my observations for my particular societal group of a few dozen people in science. I make no claim that these things are true in general, but they do seem to be true for the people I know:

- Obviously, I have never noticed any difference between my colleagues' intelligence which in any way correlates to their gender.
- People of different genders do tend to think in different ways, partly due to how our brains are wired, but mostly due to societal/cultural influence throughout our lives.
- For instance, many of my female colleagues can perform repetitive tasks with the patience and sheer perseverance of a Buddhist monk. For me this makes sense as millennia of evolution must have gifted women with stronger patience, otherwise half of our children in prehistoric times would never have made it past the first week.
- Many of my male colleagues are incredibly lazy when it comes to this stuff, so they try to write tools that do things automatically.
- Many of my female colleagues then actually get the false impression themselves that the males are smarter because they know how to write tools, assuming that they do it because they're just so smart that it's easy for them. This couldn't be more wrong; they bother to make the time to learn/write the tools because on average they tend to be more lazy than the females. Obviously, any female could do it if they chose to (and some of course do), but most don't because they feel that the alternative is viable for them because they have the patience for it (whereas men generally don't).

Thought patterns like these can lead to a surprising amount of discrimination in any context, but especially in science, and the worst is when women become convinced that they are inferior. Convincing others about something is significantly easier than convincing yourself, so you should never believe that this is the case.

So, next time you compare yourself to your friends and you think that the males are somehow smarter, just remember that we might all be equal, but we do tend to think differently, both for biological and cultural reasons. This in no way means that any way is better than the other, but, depending on the context, it can create the illusion that someone is smarter. For what it's worth I have a very high IQ, and I know many girls who definitely have much more brainpower than I do ;)

 

[Student100]

- Many of my male colleagues are incredibly lazy when it comes to this stuff, so they try to write tools that do things automatically.
- Many of my female colleagues then actually get the false impression themselves that the males are smarter because they know how to write tools, assuming that they do it because they're just so smart that it's easy for them. This couldn't be more wrong; they bother to make the time to learn/write the tools because on average they tend to be more lazy than the females. Obviously, any female could do it if they chose to (and some of course do), but most don't because they feel that the alternative is viable for them because they have the patience for it (whereas men generally don't).

We had a saying, work smarter not harder. While I disagree with the majority of your subjective experiences, what is undoubtedly an incredibly small sample size, your example is basically illustrating what the OP is afraid of - she's biologically inferior because women can't develop tools to do repetitive tasks.

So, next time you compare yourself to your friends and you think that the males are somehow smarter, just remember that we might all be equal, but we do tend to think differently, both for biological and cultural reasons. This in no way means that any way is better than the other, but, depending on the context, it can create the illusion that someone is smarter. For what it's worth I have a very high IQ, and I know many girls who definitely have much more brainpower than I do ;)

IQ is a meaningless, arbitrarily number that says nothing about someones ability to do physics or math and is grossly taken out of context.

I feel the entire OP post was a thinly veiled troll post, and has garnered several pages of noise. If the OP were male with the same problems we might warn them that maybe they just don't have what it takes to be successful in physics. Maybe this OP, should she really believe what she's posted, just isn't capable of being successful in physics or math; all the while, rationalizing it away as some inherent flaw in her biology.

If you're really concerned there are people smarter than you, you might as well quit now. There are always people who're smarter, maybe in one area, maybe in more, but you're always going to encounter people who're better than you are at something. It's a biological thing, but it isn't related to gender.

 

[billy_joule]

"Certainly true, but many solicitations for graduate applications also say they don't favor people of particular genders/races/religions/sexualities, blah blah blah. But we all know that they do."

I don't know any such thing. I served on the hiring and personnel committee for about 10 years, several times as head, and I ordinarily never paid any attention at all to any irrelevant criteria like gender or race.

According to this study even women show bias against women:

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

This study met pretty much the same conclusion:
http://advance.cornell.edu/documents/ImpactofGender.pdf

 

[meldraft]

We had a saying, work smarter not harder. While I disagree with the majority of your subjective experiences, what is undoubtedly an incredibly small sample size, your example is basically illustrating what the OP is afraid of - she's biologically inferior because women can't develop tools to do repetitive tasks.

I'm not sure I managed to get the message across. What I'm trying to say is that I have observed exactly what the OP is describing: many of my female colleagues do feel like the males are more capable/smarter (which is obviously nonsense).

According to this study even women show bias against women:

This is what I'm talking about. Most men I know don't think women are less capable. Interestingly, most of the women I know, do, which is why I describe one of the mechanisms I have observed that leads them to this conclusion. It's not meant to be describing the norm, but I observe things like these around me all the time: people thinking someone else is smarter and then setting the bar really low for themselves because they feel that they're not "good enough". This is especially true form gender comparisons because we are conditioned from a very early age to think that way.

 

[Sophie Carmen]

I feel the entire OP post was a thinly veiled troll post, and has garnered several pages of noise. If the OP were male with the same problems we might warn them that maybe they just don't have what it takes to be successful in physics. Maybe this OP, should she really believe what she's posted, just isn't capable of being successful in physics or math; all the while, rationalizing it away as some inherent flaw in her biology.

I can guarantee to you that I am (unfortunately) NOT trolling.I am genuinely curious about the supposed differences(I hear of them very frequently) regarding the male and female brain, especially when concerning scientific/mathematical skills. I also do not struggle in my maths/physics classes, at all. I do not feel inferior to any of my male classmates intellectually, I took my AS levels last year, receiving A*s in Maths,Further Maths and Physics,also a B in biology,which definitely interests me less. Regardless of this, I fear that if I decide to study mathematics/physics at university/higher levels, these supposed differences that make the female brain inferior, may hold me back intellectually.

 

[Student100]

I can guarantee to you that I am (unfortunately) NOT trolling.I am genuinely curious about the supposed differences(I hear of them very frequently) regarding the male and female brain, especially when concerning scientific/mathematical skills. I also do not struggle in my maths/physics classes, at all. I do not feel inferior to any of my male classmates intellectually, I took my AS levels last year, receiving A*s in Maths,Further Maths and Physics,also a B in biology,which definitely interests me less. Regardless of this, I fear that if I decide to study mathematics/physics at university/higher levels, these supposed differences that make the female brain inferior, may hold me back intellectually.

So you're doing well but you think your anatomy might hold you back? What kind of backwards logic is that?

Anything you might have heard or read applies on averages between the genders, or is just blatantly wrong and doesn't apply at all. If you're doing well enough to earn good marks in your studies you should be smart enough to realize that you aren't going to be held back by some perceived biological difference - especially when none is evident in relation to your peers.

If you can't overcome the feeling, when you have evidence (your grades) to the contrary, it might be a good idea to seek counseling from a professional.

 

[Intraverno]

I can guarantee to you that I am (unfortunately) NOT trolling.I am genuinely curious about the supposed differences(I hear of them very frequently) regarding the male and female brain, especially when concerning scientific/mathematical skills. I also do not struggle in my maths/physics classes, at all. I do not feel inferior to any of my male classmates intellectually, I took my AS levels last year, receiving A*s in Maths,Further Maths and Physics,also a B in biology,which definitely interests me less. Regardless of this, I fear that if I decide to study mathematics/physics at university/higher levels, these supposed differences that make the female brain inferior, may hold me back intellectually.

The only, ONLY trend in differences in brain composition between males and females is that due to more testosterone in early brain development males are slightly more likely to be at either extreme in intelligence, either a super genius or incredibly dumb. One being male or female has absolutely no impact on your ability to be a good physicist. None at all.

 

[symbolipoint]

Being absolutely sure about intelligence qualities between the "two" genders is not possible, but here is what I have seen so far:

Usually very few women college or university students in my classes or location were Math or Physics majors, but the ones who were, were very intelligent and seemed to not have any noticeable personality problems. They knew what they were doing, did not seem shy or timid, and earned good grades.

Very few women teachers or professors taught Math or Physics, but the ones who were my teachers generally were organized, spoke well, were very intelligent, understood their subject extremely well and demonstrated this just as well (although I myself did not always understand it), and generally had no noticeable personality problems nor disturbances. They were just as good in instructive quality as the male ones, and they knew what they were doing.

EDITED: I forgot to include the word, "women".

 

[gleem]

The main issue between men and women is not intelligence but behavior. If one is doing well in their academic endeavors the only thing that can keep them from succeeding is themselves. You cannot change intelligence but you can change behavior.

Men typically overestimate their abilities that causes them to act quickly and confidently making them appear that they are totally in command. Women on the other hand underestimate their abilities, are tentative, hold back actions making them look less competent and thus less competitive. Men and women are not playing by the same rules.

Scenario : Research director wants someone to solve a problem in the lab. A male student boldly steps forward and announces that he will undertake the challenge even though he may not have a clue as to how to approach the problem yet. He sees the opportunity to impress his RD and believes he can solve the problem. A female student. must convince herself that she can solve the problem before she commits to volunteering. And she has also be brought up to be courteous and is less assertive. What is she to assume but that the male student is smarter. really?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/women-at-work-a-guide-for-men-1418418595

 

[billy_joule]

According to this study even women show bias against women:

This is what I'm talking about. Most men I know don't think women are less capable.

I'm not sure why you quoted me? Your experience does not align with the research I linked to.

 

[mpresic]

I had Dr. Dorothy Maharam Stone teach me a course in Differential Equations given by the Mathematics Department. She is a prominent American Mathematician. (You can look her up) She was as good or better than any other teacher I had for Mathematics.

 

[meldraft]

I'm not sure why you quoted me? Your experience does not align with the research I linked to.

I wasn't quoting the links, just that sentence; my personal experience of women in science is that they are sometimes biased against women, including themselves :)

 

[jack476]

I can guarantee to you that I am (unfortunately) NOT trolling.I am genuinely curious about the supposed differences(I hear of them very frequently) regarding the male and female brain, especially when concerning scientific/mathematical skills. I also do not struggle in my maths/physics classes, at all. I do not feel inferior to any of my male classmates intellectually, I took my AS levels last year, receiving A*s in Maths,Further Maths and Physics,also a B in biology,which definitely interests me less. Regardless of this, I fear that if I decide to study mathematics/physics at university/higher levels, these supposed differences that make the female brain inferior, may hold me back intellectually.

Think of it this way. Any difference between the male and female brain would be a product of evolution, right?

It is true that there were slight differences in role between males and females as a result of sexual dimorphism. Men were taller and stronger and therefore more inclined to hunt, women were capable of nursing children and so spent more time watching after them. These were of course results of evolutionary pressure and sexual selection. So, what evolutionary pressures or sexual selection forces in prehistoric humans would have resulted in men being better at math? How would being able to write proofs improve a man's ability to club mammoths over the head? Where on Earth has anyone ever heard of programming and computer skills making a man more sexually appealing?

The fact is that there is no appreciable difference in natural ability in STEM-related disciplines between men and women because math, science, computing, etc are not natural activities and therefore would not have been a source of evolutionary pressure.

There are some specific cognitive differences, but they don't generalize. For instance, men consistently outperform women at spatial, visualization, and sound recognition tasks (which begs the question of why there are more women getting degrees in music and visual arts than men, if things are supposed to be solely down to biology), and women consistently have denser grey matter in the Brocca's areas (related to language processing). When you present different pictures and videos to male and female infants, boys are more likely to have their eyes drawn towards straight lines, geometric shapes, and "mechanical" motion, whereas girls are more likely to be drawn to look at disorganized "organic" movement and rounder, less well-defined shapes.

But in practice, those differences are very narrow and attempting to use them to make broad statements about social trends is ad hoc reasoning and begging the question. Any conclusive differences in mathematical ability, or with STEM skills in general, between men and women are insignificant because math is an activity that involves a huge range of cognitive processes that are based in areas throughout the entire brain, so any advantages in specific cognitive skills would not generalize to overall mathematical skill. It becomes even more of a moot point after you factor in the effect of neuroplasticity, the ways in which the brain changes with experience and training, because that makes it impossible to distinguish whether brain differences are due to differing experiences in education (which would be a social factor) or innate predisposition, and it also means that training could easily undo whatever innate differences may exist.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Where on Earth has anyone ever heard of programming and computer skills making a man more sexually appealing?

Maybe that's where I went wrong. Someone should have told me sooner!

 

[radium]

You shouldn't base your decision to pursue physics on your gender as there are a ton of women today and in the past who are truly extraordinary physicists at the top of their field. For example, Lisa Randall is one of, if not the most cited theoretical physicists in the world. Vera Rubin was one of the first people to find convincing evidence of dark matter. Deborah Jin was one of the Reuters citation laureates this year predicting the winner of the Nobel prize.

One of the reasons you don't hear more about women in physics these days is they don't have the same political connections as men. This is likely the reason there hasn't been a female Nobel prize winner in over fifty years, even though there are many women who have done Nobel prize worthy work.

The academic environment in physics has really become a lot more supportive of women in the past fifteen years or so. There are both men and women who are really passionate about improving the situation. My department once had a reputation for being a very hostile environment for women, but I find it to be the exact opposite.