Why do some people think women suck at science and math?

In summary, the conversation revolves around the topic of women's abilities in science and math. Some people think that women are naturally less skilled in these subjects due to their supposed hardwired inclination towards childcare. However, others argue that this is not true and that women are just as capable in these fields. The conversation also touches upon societal pressures and stereotypes that may discourage girls from pursuing these subjects, despite their interest and ability. Ultimately, the group agrees that both men and women can excel in science and math, and that any apparent differences in ability may be due to a variety of factors rather than innate gender differences.
  • #71


DanP said:
What you said now doesn't bode well with your previous statement that males treat you like a tomboy or whatever.
At least she's not treated as a boy (I've gotten several comments to the tune of "you're female?!"/"you're not a girl"/etc.)

May I suggest that a large part of the problem is that due to our sexuality we noice things on women that we do not on men, though that doesn't mean they aren't there.

I think it's a simpler number game. Because there are so few women in STEM, they get a spotlight on 'em by default.

As for women "sucking" at science and math, there is some truth to that. Although the way it is proposed here is a little skewed. Women, in general, don't like science and math.
Disliking is cultural, and just about every study I've seen on raw ability says that once you factor out culture, ability is about equal. citation
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72


VikFloyd said:
Nah. I wear skirts and boots most of the time. Once I told this guy I like the idea of mechanical engineering and he was like, "Aren't you too cute for that? Girls should be doing something else." Let's just say I never called him back after that. I guess it's the people who I am around. Most girls in my school are studying something in the humanities.

Could be worse.

I know a blonde, female, younger-looking professor that teaches Calculus, Physics, and a few lower level electronics courses. In one of her Calc I classes, she walked into the classroom on the first day of class and was checking out the classroom. Evidently, one of the early arriving male students thought she was trying to figure out if she was in the right classroom or not because he piped up helpfully, "I don't think you want this classroom. This is Calculus."

She looked totally shocked. "Calculus?! Oh, my god! ... Oh, wait, thank you (with a smile). It would have been pretty embarrassing if I hadn't found my classroom since I'm supposed to be teaching Calculus this semester."

Always nice to make a vivid first impression with your professor. :smile:
 
  • #73


:smile:

Yeah, when I walk looking for my classes, most of the students around the corridors think I teach ENGLISH not physics! :biggrin::smile:

I know! :biggrin:
 
  • #74


ideasrule said:
What's your basis for this claim? Are you saying that the average man in the world has the same innate ability as the average woman? Considering the differences in brain structure and biochemistry between men and women, I'd be very shocked if the two averages were exactly the same.
I claim "I think...". What else do you need more than my claim?


ideasrule said:
I expect very strong selection pressures in favor of mutations that increase a man's ability to hunt, and very strong pressures that increase a woman's ability to raise children. Do you have any reason to expect that these selection pressures didn't change the brains of men and women? Time is certainly not an issue--humans have undergone evolution to the point of speciation, so there was plenty of opportunity for change.
I do not expect very strong selection pressures. My reason is that the brain is highly adaptive and can adapt to changes during the lifetime of a person. A woman still can learn to hunt.
 
  • #75


some people have a propensity to generalise things based on statistics.
 
Last edited:
  • #76


l-1j-cho said:
some people have a propensity to generalise things based on statistics.

Especially guys.
 
  • #77


BobG said:
Especially guys.

Double especially for guy statisticians.
 
  • #78


I ran into this forum where these people argued over whether or not women are good at science or math.

I think the problem here is you.

Try to think critically and assess how important an internet forum discussion is.

If someone being wrong on the internet gets your knickers in a bunch (and you need a mothers club meeting to assure your feelings and get your emotions in check), then you're in for a rude shock when you become a professional engineer.
 
  • #79


Zryn said:
I think the problem here is you.

Try to think critically and assess how important an internet forum discussion is.

If someone being wrong on the internet gets your knickers in a bunch (and you need a mothers club meeting to assure your feelings and get your emotions in check), then you're in for a rude shock when you become a professional engineer.

duty_calls.png
 
  • #80
Due to curiosity alone, I'm very interested in this topic, and a lot of the papers were very revealing. However, I see a lot more bad science than good papers.

Spontaneous Focusing on Numerosity Mathematical Skills of Young Children

This paper notes that no significant difference was found between male and female children. However, because it wasn't trying to detect this difference in the first place, and because it doesn't claim this result as one of its conclusions, the result holds no weight. If I watched a solar eclipse and noted that I couldn't see any shift in the positions of the surrounding stars, that can't be used as evidence against GR.

It annoys the hell out of me when people say that women are less smart than men. This is of course not true at all, as I've experienced many times personally.

Nobody is claiming that no woman can be smart, or that no man can be dumb. We're arguing about statistics, and your experiences don't count as a proper statistical study.

Math and Gender
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/math-and-gender

"One strand of evidence comes from a study at the University of Wisconsin, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which finds that the overall progress of women in society is a surprisingly good indicator of their performance at the highest math levels."

Well, no kidding. My overall progress in society is also a good indicator of my performance at the highest math levels. It's obvious that those at the top of society have more opportunities, more access to educational materials, and more free time to pursue interests. I don't think this sheds any light on innate ability. No matter how good or bad girls might inherently be at math, one would expect the number of girls who go into math to increase as gender equality increases.

Also, take a look at the graph at the bottom, and note the complete lack of correlation. I'd be willing to bet money that even randomly-produced data would tend to have higher correlation than this data.

Isn't it ironic that:

1) estrogen is associated with improved mental faculties:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1117161246.htm

And

2) testosterone kills neurons:
http://www.jbc.org/content/early/200...93200.full.pdf

It would be, except masculization of the brain is done by estrogen, not testosterone. Estrogen, a metabolite of testosterone, can't easily cross the blood-brain barrier while testosterone can. In males, testosterone crosses the blood-brain barrier and is metabolized into estrogen, specifically estradiol, which then carries out the chemical reactions involved in masculization.

As for the evolution argument, I think this is a joke.
If this refers to me, I'm not using evolution as an argument. It's perfectly OK to speculate about the evolutionary origins of gender differences, but no reputable scientist would tell you that evolution can predict gender differences not yet observed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81


D H said:
True, but still -- get over it. This is both a politically sensitive and a politically correct subject. Seeing loads of BS over such a topic is inevitable. What irks me is that saying that females are better at subject X is not only perfectly acceptable, it is patently obvious that this is true. OTOH, suggesting that males are better at subject Y is not only completely unacceptable, it is patently obvious that this is false.

So taking my own advice (get over it), rant off.There certainly are fewer females in mathematics, engineering, and the physical sciences than there re males. While attributing this disparity to cause is a bit problematic, certainly some of that disparity is cultural, and that is something that is curable.

The range of intellect of females in science and math span from should have switched majors all the way to genius, the same range of intellect as males in those fields. We should judge people in these fields by the quality of their protuberance that is above the neck. The protuberances below the neck are pretty much irrelevant.

I don't smoke enough pot or watch enough evening news to be politically correct, but still, I didn't get your point. Too many double and triple entendres to wrap my mind around, maybe.

Someone here posted a politically correct Phd cartoon on the pitfalls of being female in science and engineering. Pointy-headed Rubbish. I can think of about 3 rejoinders that would make nonsense of this feel-good cartoon, including one too pornographic to be drawn on this forum. The bottom line in career opportunity is that women are better positioned to obtain the same job over a man given equal education and skill because of their gender. The whining has paid-off in corporate discrimination favoring women over men. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But the squealing continues on the momentum generated of its success.
 
Last edited:
  • #82


drizzle said:
:smile:

Yeah, when I walk looking for my classes, most of the students around the corridors think I teach ENGLISH not physics! :biggrin::smile:

I know! :biggrin:

When I walk around the physics forums, I don't see you in physics class. Never. I only see you in the lounge. Maybe English is your thing.
 
Last edited:
  • #83


drizzle said:
:smile:

Yeah, when I walk looking for my classes, most of the students around the corridors think I teach ENGLISH not physics! :biggrin::smile:

I know! :biggrin:

How did you determined that ? You walked around on corridors asking "Hey, do I look like a English teacher or like a Physics one"?

It is just your theory of mind which came to the conclusion that most walking around ppl see you a certain way. Your perception of what others think about you might be blatantly false. Some might have confounded you with a English teacher, but that does not say anything about "most of the ppl walking on corridors"

What follows is not necessarily response to Drizzle's post, but I believe that ppl who complain that engineering or science makes them look goofy and asocial, are wrong. The determining factor is not the engineering , it is your behavior. Walks like a duck, quacks like duck, looks like a duck ... it's a duck.
 
  • #84


DanP said:
How did you determined that ? You walked around on corridors asking "Hey, do I look like a English teacher or like a Physics one"?

It is just your theory of mind which came to the conclusion that most walking around ppl see you a certain way. Your perception of what others think about you might be blatantly false. Some might have confounded you with a English teacher, but that does not say anything about "most of the ppl walking on corridors"

What follows is not necessarily response to Drizzle's post, but I believe that ppl who complain that engineering or science makes them look goofy and asocial, are wrong. The determining factor is not the engineering , it is your behavior. Walks like a duck, quacks like duck, looks like a duck ... it's a duck.

What are you doing? Didn't I give Drizzle a big enough challenge already? If you see someone down, do you kick them?
 
  • #85


Phrak said:
Didn't I give Drizzle a big enough challenge already?

Ask her, not me. I have no idea how much she looks like a challenge at what you said, or at what I said =)
 
  • #86


DanP said:
What follows is not necessarily response to Drizzle's post, but I believe that ppl who complain that engineering or science makes them look goofy and asocial, are wrong. The determining factor is not the engineering , it is your behavior. Walks like a duck, quacks like duck, looks like a duck ... it's a duck.

This is probably the most true statement made in the entire thread.

It's all about demeanor.
 
  • #87


You mean what I've heard is only my inner voices?! :bugeye:
 
  • #88


drizzle said:
You mean what I've heard is only my inner voices?! :bugeye:

If you refer to what I posted, I question your quantification of the phenomena. "Most ppl roaming the corridors"

Humans have a salience bias, they believe that they and their appearance are very salient in the eyes of "most" other ppl. Its well documented in social psychology. On streets, on the corridors of a university and so on. But the truth is, most humans don't give a dime of who you are and don't care so much about you. Believe it or not, most humans you come across during a day don't go around wasting their time questioning themselves "Is her the math teacher or the English teacher" They don't care.
 
  • #89


Phrak said:
[...] The bottom line in career opportunity is that women are better positioned to obtain the same job over a man given equal education and skill because of their gender. The whining has paid-off in corporate discrimination favoring women over men. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But the squealing continues on the momentum generated of its success.

Is this your opinion?
 
  • #90


Dembadon said:
Originally Posted by Phrak
[...] The bottom line in career opportunity is that women are better positioned to obtain the same job over a man given equal education and skill because of their gender. The whining has paid-off in corporate discrimination favoring women over men. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. But the squealing continues on the momentum generated of its success.

Is this your opinion?

I've experienced this as a reality. There are advantages to being a woman and a male dominated field.
 
  • #91


Dembadon said:
Is this your opinion?

I'm not the poster, but many universities and employers in STEM openly state that they have a policy of affirmative action towards women. That is, less qualified women are accepted while more qualified men are not. A good example is MIT, which retains a 50/50 gender ratio by accepting 29% of its female applicants and only 12% of its male applicants.
 
  • #92


dacruick said:
I've experienced this as a reality. There are advantages to being a woman and a male dominated field.

I wouldn't argue against certain advantages, but I'm highly skeptical that they would substantiate Phrak's claim.
 
  • #93


ideasrule said:
I'm not the poster, but many universities and employers in STEM openly state that they have a policy of affirmative action towards women. That is, less qualified women are accepted while more qualified men are not. A good example is MIT, which retains a 50/50 gender ratio by accepting 29% of its female applicants and only 12% of its male applicants.

I could've been more precise with my question. I'm not sure if he's restricting his claim to STEM or careers in general.
 
  • #94


Where I live women really are hardwired to be dumb. I do not have reason to believe that that is different in other places.
 
  • #95


DanP said:
If you refer to what I posted, I question your quantification of the phenomena. "Most ppl roaming the corridors"

Humans have a salience bias, they believe that they and their appearance are very salient in the eyes of "most" other ppl. Its well documented in social psychology. On streets, on the corridors of a university and so on. But the truth is, most humans don't give a dime of who you are and don't care so much about you. Believe it or not, most humans you come across during a day don't go around wasting their time questioning themselves "Is her the math teacher or the English teacher" They don't care.

So do I! :biggrin:
... What's this to the topic of this thread?... :biggrin:
 
  • #96


#28 said:
Where I live women really are hardwired to be dumb. I do not have reason to believe that that is different in other places.

But if you have reason to believe the women where you live are hardwired to be dumb, you may have reason to believe just about anything.
 
  • #97


drizzle said:
So do I! :biggrin:

So do you ... what ? Don't care ? It's "neither do I". Phrak was wrong, you ain't an English teacher.

drizzle said:
... What's this to the topic of this thread?... :biggrin:

Merely responses to your posts in this thread in which you outline your perception that most ppl see you as an English teacher.
 
Last edited:
  • #98


DanP said:
So do you ... what ? Don't care ? It's "neither do I". Phrak was wrong, you ain't an English teacher.

:smile: Can't disagree :smile:



Merely responses to your posts in this thread in which you outline your perception that most ppl see you as an English teacher.

It's you not me. :rolleyes:
 
  • #99


drizzle said:
It's you not me. :rolleyes:

Are you sure, darling ?
 
  • #100


I don't want to go through details, but I TALKED to some of those students and they share their thoughts. Now, what did you base YOUR perception on? :biggrin:
 
  • #101


drizzle said:
I don't want to go through details, but I TALKED to some of those students and they share their thoughts. Now, what did you base YOUR perception on? :biggrin:

My perception is that a scientist should know that "some ppl " does not mean "most of the students around the corridors".
 
  • #102


"I don't want to go through details" AND I don't care about what you think or what you're trying to prove. :wink:
 
  • #103


drizzle said:
"I don't want to go through details" AND I don't care about what you think or what you're trying to prove. :wink:

I don't expect you to care, darling.
 
  • #104


BobG said:
Especially guys.

agree, and they make stats seems like its scientifically proven.
 
  • #105


burkie.31 said:
agree, and they make stats seems like its scientifically proven.

If they're not scientifically proven, would they be stats?
 

Similar threads

Where to Pick Up Women In the Sciences?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Book Review: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men
Replies
19
Views
3K
Why Are There So Few Women in Science?
3
Replies
93
Views
16K
  • Poll
Poll: The Ratio of Men to Women in Your Math/Science Classes
Replies
21
Views
5K
Promoting Women in Science great, but what about the actual science?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Is It Insulting to Girls That There Are Fewer Women in Physics?
Replies
34
Views
5K
Name some science documentaries....
Replies
23
Views
2K
MHB Why do people criticize my love for math at 52 years old?
Replies
2
Views
1K
Why interacting with women leaves men cognitively impared
Replies
11
Views
7K
Dating economically dominant women
Replies
28
Views
9K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top