Why don't more women pursue a career in Physics?

[Elbow_Patches]

Hello everyone,

 

I'm a Physics teacher in a secondary school and I'm doing a little research into why the number of females in Physics A level classes and undergraduate courses (only about 20%) is so low.

 

If I could please take 5-10 minutes of your time by asking you to fill out this survey:

 

https://www.quicksurveys.com/s/c6J3EnS

 

I also encourage you to pass the link around to anyone you think may be interested in giving their opinions.

 

It is anonymous and open to everyone, I just ask for your honest opinions. At this stage I will likely put out a second survey informed by the responses to this one, so if you'd like to suggest pertinent questions to be included or comments on the phrasing of the questions as they stand it would be appreciated.

 

Many thanks,

 

Elbow Patches

[Lord Antares]

I think the answer is as smiple as: they are not interested in it as much as men are. There is no other logical explanation.

 

Also, linking is disabled for you, a new member, as a form of spam protection. It is usually required that a discussion takes place on the forum itself.

[Elbow_Patches]

Hi Lord Antares,

 

Thanks for the response. Can people still see the address and copy+paste the link to complete the survey? If so I'd really appreciate you giving a detailed answer.

 

For instance, if it is that women are simply not as interested in it, I want to find out why not, how we could encourage them to be more interested, and whether or not that's important. Perhaps Physics just isn't for girls, perhaps it's to do with the way younger girls view Physics at school. The 20% I mentioned is for the UK and similar figures in the US, but that isn't the story across the globe. Societal factors certainly seem to come into play. I've tried to make the survey so that your opinions can be gathered and compared with others easily.

 

Many thanks,

 

EP

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Normally we do polls in another thread; I've copied the OP there
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72905-polls-surveys-and-tests/?p=985505

but this has the potential for useful discussion with it, so we can do that here

[StringJunky]

I did the survey. I think really, the women that are doing physics as their day job are the best people to get out there and talk to girls and encourage them to pursue that subject. Also, perhaps there could be some core themes in courses that are more likely to pique a girl's interest. I say 'girl', not 'woman' because it's probably pubescents (12+), at the latest, that a concerted policy wants aiming at, when career aspirations are still in flux, or only just dawning in child's mind, and education becomes a serious activity..

[swansont]

I'm a Physics teacher in a secondary school and I'm doing a little research into why the number of females in Physics A level classes and undergraduate courses (only about 20%) is so low.

 

One reason is that (from observation) they would rather be called women than females. (Sounds snarky but not meant as such). I've seen lots of discussion about all the little things that add to the friction of being a woman in STEM, and that's one of them.

 

There's a big issue of sexual harassment. I don't know that the fraction of physicist that engage in this practice is necessarily higher than in other fields, but since men comprise >80% of PhD's then that means the odds of encountering a harasser is higher by virtue of the existing gender imbalance.

 

Socialization is probably important. Girls are still encouraged to play with dolls and boys to play with blocks and build things. Women aren't encouraged as much as men, and are often actively discouraged. Girls are still told they aren't smart enough. They don't feel as capable even when they are.

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

[DrKrettin]

I did the survey too. I don't quite see why the disparity between the sexes is a problem.

[StringJunky]

I did the survey too. I don't quite see why the disparity between the sexes is a problem.

I've thought like this too but then I think; would it be better to socially engineer more women into the discipline, since they think slightly differently and may offer more possibilities of novel solutions to existing problems in physics and subjects where physics is applied?

Edited April 24, 2017 by StringJunky

[DrKrettin]

I've thought like this too but then I think; would it be better to socially engineer more women into the discipline, since they think slightly differently and may offer more possibilities of novel solutions to existing problems in physics and subjects where physics is applied?

 

Slightly differently? What a masterpiece of understatement combined with an ingenious positive suggestion.

[Phi for All]

Socialization is probably important. Girls are still encouraged to play with dolls and boys to play with blocks and build things. Women aren't encouraged as much as men, and are often actively discouraged. Girls are still told they aren't smart enough. They don't feel as capable even when they are.

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

 

It was pointed out to me recently that, being a tall, white male gives me much more advantage than I realize. I've started noticing that in public, when I show up in just about any situation (meeting in a conference room, turning a corner with my cart at the grocery, getting food at a party with a buffet table), there's a split second where others will look at me to see what I'm going to do. If I don't do anything, or mirror everyone else's behavior, nothing different happens. But if I choose to, this is the moment when I can take charge of the meeting and ram my ideas through, or push my cart in front of someone else with just a nod of my head, or reach across to help myself to whatever I want at the buffet even though others were there first.

 

These are little things, but many women have been taught to defer to me in all things just because I'm a tall, white male, and whatever I need to do takes precedence over whatever they had in mind. Now take a subject like science, where who you are should never be as important as what you know. It must seem highly hypocritical to women in science to be told that objectivity is all-important, and then be treated as less than their male counterparts. Science is a field where merit should decide most everything, yet we still have this masculine domination in many fields where it's counterproductive.

[DrKrettin]

 

These are little things, but many women have been taught to defer to me in all things just because I'm a tall, white male, and whatever I need to do takes precedence over whatever they had in mind.

 

"Many women"? Does this apply in a marital relationship (generally)?

[CharonY]

 

It was pointed out to me recently that, being a tall, white male gives me much more advantage than I realize. I've started noticing that in public, when I show up in just about any situation (meeting in a conference room, turning a corner with my cart at the grocery, getting food at a party with a buffet table), there's a split second where others will look at me to see what I'm going to do. If I don't do anything, or mirror everyone else's behavior, nothing different happens. But if I choose to, this is the moment when I can take charge of the meeting and ram my ideas through, or push my cart in front of someone else with just a nod of my head, or reach across to help myself to whatever I want at the buffet even though others were there first.

 

These are little things, but many women have been taught to defer to me in all things just because I'm a tall, white male, and whatever I need to do takes precedence over whatever they had in mind. Now take a subject like science, where who you are should never be as important as what you know. It must seem highly hypocritical to women in science to be told that objectivity is all-important, and then be treated as less than their male counterparts. Science is a field where merit should decide most everything, yet we still have this masculine domination in many fields where it's counterproductive.

 

Well, the thing is at the end of the day we are all humans and unfortunately we cannot expect people, including scientists, to be able to transcend that. It works somewhat if it is only about science (though even then bias can be apparent) but it gets really iffy when it comes into situation where evaluations are made (e.g. job interviews).

[Phi for All]

"Many women"? Does this apply in a marital relationship (generally)?

 

My wife is the one who pointed this out. It's been instilled from childhood, when dad would come home from work and mom would usually caution the kids to let him relax after a hard day. Placating dad and deferring to his wishes becomes the watchword, but of course the boys grow up to be the dads, and the girls grow up to be women who are rarely deferred to.

 

It may be improving as more families have two wage earners. The traditional role of the father as disciplinarian may be changing as well.

[StringJunky]

The problem with discussing this subject is that it always gets stuck on the effects and seeking evidence that it exists and, subsequently, never moves on to discuss possible paths to adjust the difference.

 

I agree with Dr Krettin: what's the problem? The 20% reflects the present general inclination of women towards this subject. The present system filters only for those women that that have a strong passion for the subject and not the in-betweeners as well, like it does men.

 

Two contradictory statements? No, because if you want to see more women in physics, do something about it and change the landscape so that interest may be fostered in them at an age where they are likely to be receptive.

[Raider5678]

 

My wife is the one who pointed this out. It's been instilled from childhood, when dad would come home from work and mom would usually caution the kids to let him relax after a hard day. Placating dad and deferring to his wishes becomes the watchword, but of course the boys grow up to be the dads, and the girls grow up to be women who are rarely deferred to.

 

It may be improving as more families have two wage earners. The traditional role of the father as disciplinarian may be changing as well.

Yes, but then you also have to note the mothers are teaching their daughters the same thing. I agree, it's stupid and sexist, but blaming it on the men isn't really the solution. A good portion of problems feminists complain about are caused by other women, or isn't just the mans fault. Although some are.

Also, the traditional role of the father as disciplinarian has already changed. The majority of child abuse and domestic abuse is on fault of the woman, and in my area the mother is usually the one that disciplines the child. At least it seems that way, as the mother often yells at the children rather then the father if the child is doing something wrong, so I can assume that at home it's probably likewise.

There's a big issue of sexual harassment. I don't know that the fraction of physicist that engage in this practice is necessarily higher than in other fields, but since men comprise >80% of PhD's then that means the odds of encountering a harasser is higher by virtue of the existing gender imbalance.

 

Socialization is probably important. Girls are still encouraged to play with dolls and boys to play with blocks and build things. Women aren't encouraged as much as men, and are often actively discouraged. Girls are still told they aren't smart enough. They don't feel as capable even when they are.

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

Sexual harassment is a big issue, agreed. If a man at an office says a woman looks good, she can complain that he was sexually harassing her and he could get in trouble. I've heard of this happening fairly often lately. Now I can understand comments like "Nice ass" and stuff like that, but just saying "Hi, you look good today" seems like a compliment that should be taken with good will rather then assume the person has bad intent. Likewise, women can sexually harass men just as well. If a woman keeps trying to make moves on a guy, how is that different from a guy trying to make moves on a woman constantly? The majority of men do not sexually harass women, and the majority of women do not harass men. The 80% discrepancy is the cause of the problem, not the result.

 

As for what girls and boys are taught at a young age, I disagree on your viewpoint. They are raised differently, granted, but there are pros and cons for each. Boys are raised often to not cry and to deal with things on their own. They're taught to be independent and to focus hard on getting things done and being productive. But there are cons, as emotional problems are often dismissed as them being sissies. Any sign that they're weak, and they're picked on at school. Growing up as a male is often a large amount of competition between each other to be the strongest, smartest, and the best overall.

As for girls, they're far more pampered as a kid. I'm not being sexist, it's true. Their emotional problems are far more catered to, if they get hurt they are taken care of rather then told to deal with it, and if someone is bullying them physically someone will almost always step in. In school, if a guy pushes another guy nobody could care less. If a guy pushes a girl, immediately at least 3 guys will take a step toward him. But while they're pampered, they're not pushed as hard to focus on things such as education, sports, or to get a job. They're taught to have proper manners and to be good and probably to play a musical instrument of some kind. But recently, they've also being taught more and more to be independent. This shows a slight shift in how they're raised, but it's not enough yet.

 

Evidence of the differences in how they're raised shows in the higher occurrence of suicide and depression in males. For every 1 female that commits suicide, 3.5 males commit suicide. Out of all suicides, 7/10 are white males(not sure if this matters or not, so I included it.) This almost had a nation men's day started to raise awareness about suicide rates in males, but feminists shut it down saying it was for sexist pigs and that the men were just sissies(sigh).

 

The difference I believe starts with how they're raised. But the question is how to raise them?

Should we stop pampering girls emotional needs and push them harder to do well in school, sports, and education?

Or should we start pampering guys and stop pushing them as hard to succeed?

 

If we don't pamper anybody, then everything is one massive competition where every weakness will drastically decrease your chance of success.

But if we pamper everybody, then the drive to succeed isn't as high. The motivation to get into things like physics is less, and they will settle more to just get jobs.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Raider5678

[Phi for All]

 

Yes, but then you also have to note the mothers are teaching their daughters the same thing. I agree, it's stupid and sexist, but blaming it on the men isn't really the solution.

 

Who offered to blame the men as a solution? Who blamed it on the men?

 

This behavior has been around at least since biblical times. Recognizing it is important, I think. Perpetuation of the behavior may be more human than gender oriented. We all tend to hold on to advantage.

[swansont]

 

Sexual harassment is a big issue, agreed. If a man at an office says a woman looks good, she can complain that he was sexually harassing her and he could get in trouble. I've heard of this happening fairly often lately. Now I can understand comments like "Nice ass" and stuff like that, but just saying "Hi, you look good today" seems like a compliment that should be taken with good will rather then assume the person has bad intent. Likewise, women can sexually harass men just as well. If a woman keeps trying to make moves on a guy, how is that different from a guy trying to make moves on a woman constantly? The majority of men do not sexually harass women, and the majority of women do not harass men. The 80% discrepancy is the cause of the problem, not the result.

 

 

First of all, yes, women can harass me. It happens (IIRC from my training in the military it happens almost as often. Assault, not so much). "Hi, you look good today" is not the primary problem; the stories are much, much worse than that. (OTOH, how often do men tell other men that they look good? This is a symptom of the larger issue of gender equality)

 

It can't be both? If you have a 4:1 ratio of men to women, then a woman see a harasser 4x as often as if the ratio were 1:1, all else being equal. So now you have a feedback loop, potentially driving women out faster, continually keeping the numbers down. It ends up being both the cause of the problem, and the result.

[Raider5678]

 

Who offered to blame the men as a solution? Who blamed it on the men?

 

This behavior has been around at least since biblical times. Recognizing it is important, I think. Perpetuation of the behavior may be more human than gender oriented. We all tend to hold on to advantage.

You know, sometimes I don't see staying at home cleaning and doing laundry as hard as getting up and going to work everyday.

Just saying.

[Phi for All]

You know, sometimes I don't see staying at home cleaning and doing laundry as hard as getting up and going to work everyday.

Just saying.

 

Because you've somehow convinced yourself that's all it is, you big dumb brute.

[CharonY]

The problem with discussing this subject is that it always gets stuck on the effects and seeking evidence that it exists and, subsequently, never moves on to discuss possible paths to adjust the difference.

 

I agree with Dr Krettin: what's the problem? The 20% reflects the present general inclination of women towards this subject. The present system filters only for those women that that have a strong passion for the subject and not the in-betweeners as well, like it does men.

 

 

 

I think the issue is less that of physics as a specific example, but the overall inclination of women to go into careers that are traditionally less well paid or getting stuck at lower levels of hierarchies. These are large contributors to the wage gap. Traditionally, it has been considered less of a problem as one assumed that the majority of the income will come from the husband. This configuration assumes a financial dependency of the woman but is not well suited to modern worklife anymore.

 

The big issue now is that especially single-women are more likely to end in poverty than single men, for example (especially when raising children). So the next question would be whether it makes sense to foster more interest in topics that are likely to yield a better career. There is, of course the initial resistance in breaking into a field that is dominated by the other gender. Strangely, the opposite (i.e. men in female-dominated industries) seem to have less of an issue.

[Raider5678]

 

Because you've somehow convinced yourself that's all it is, you big dumb brute.

I didn't list everything, I know that.

[Lord Antares]

 

There's a big issue of sexual harassment. I don't know that the fraction of physicist that engage in this practice is necessarily higher than in other fields, but since men comprise >80% of PhD's then that means the odds of encountering a harasser is higher by virtue of the existing gender imbalance.

 

Socialization is probably important. Girls are still encouraged to play with dolls and boys to play with blocks and build things. Women aren't encouraged as much as men, and are often actively discouraged. Girls are still told they aren't smart enough. They don't feel as capable even when they are.

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

 

While you are correct in saying this, I doubt that's the reason why more women don't get into physics.

If you are a woman and very interested in physics, I seriously doubt you would dismiss your chance based on the fact that there might be a higher chance of you being harrassed than in some other discipline.

 

To me, it is clear that it's just that women aren't as interested in physics as men are.

 

I have noticed, based on a large enough sample of people, that women are generally more into ''life'', than secondary hobbies.

Think about almost any hobby there is:

 

In chess, there are substantially more men than women even though both have equal opportunity. In fact, women have MORE opportunity there than men do, yet they are still far less interested.

In video games, there are many more men than women. In some competitive (meaning, professional) scenes, there are NO women at all, even though they have equal opportunity.

Same with physics. You would think that with equal interest, we would have 50% of women here, but we clearly don't. Especially with a non-investive thing like a forum, this CLEARLY shows that women have a lesser interest in it than men do.

 

Now as to why this is the case is another matter. You might argue that women are naturally wired to be focused more on their children and future as a protector and rational thinker as a way to ensure theirs and their children's survival. This is a wild guess but it might be so.

 

Also, I agree with DrKrettin that it is not an issue. If they have a lesser interest, let them have a lesser interest. You might even argue that prompting them to want to join studying physics would be a form of pressuring, even though this is far-fetched.

[Raider5678]

 

If you are a woman and very interested in physics, I seriously doubt you would dismiss your chance based on the fact that there might be a higher chance of you being harrassed than in some other discipline.

I agree.

[swansont]

While you are correct in saying this, I doubt that's the reason why more women don't get into physics.

If you are a woman and very interested in physics, I seriously doubt you would dismiss your chance based on the fact that there might be a higher chance of you being harrassed than in some other discipline.

Men not believing women when they say that they were sexually harassed is one of the realities of life. There are women out there who say that the left physics or astronomy because of sexual harassment. But go ahead and don't believe them. It's one reason they don't speak out on the matter. This kind of resistance ensures that it remains a problem.

 

https://broadly.vice.com/en_us/article/youre-targeted-sexually-how-female-astronomers-are-being-hounded-out-of-work

 

To me, it is clear that it's just that women aren't as interested in physics as men are.

Also one of the things I mentioned. Many are steered away from it, often from an early age. You probably aren't going to be interested in something if your parents and teachers and other influential people are telling you it's not the field for you, that girls don't do it and that you're not smart enough for it.

 

I have noticed, based on a large enough sample of people, that women are generally more into ''life'', than secondary hobbies.

Think about almost any hobby there is:

 

In chess, there are substantially more men than women even though both have equal opportunity. In fact, women have MORE opportunity there than men do, yet they are still far less interested.

In video games, there are many more men than women. In some competitive (meaning, professional) scenes, there are NO women at all, even though they have equal opportunity.

Same with physics. You would think that with equal interest, we would have 50% of women here, but we clearly don't. Especially with a non-investive thing like a forum, this CLEARLY shows that women have a lesser interest in it than men do.

There are just so many instances of women being verbally attacked just because they are women (in science and outside of science), in ways that men rarely are, that I dismiss such suggestions as being grossly misinformed/naive. You think being in a forum saves you from this? I've had a few rude comments thrown at me over the years, in my role as moderator, but they pale in comparison with the comments I've seen directed at a few of the women we've had on staff.

 

Surely you are familiar with the gamergate brouhaha. If you can't see the toxic culture there, even if perpetuated by a minority of people, there's no point in discussing this. Also the gender issues at Uber, as part of the broader tech community. (and no, I have no intention of discussing the details of either. The information is out there)

 

Now as to why this is the case is another matter. You might argue that women are naturally wired to be focused more on their children and future as a protector and rational thinker as a way to ensure theirs and their children's survival. This is a wild guess but it might be so.

It might be, but without any science to back it up it also might be the same kind of gender bias that's part of the aforementioned problems.

 

Also, I agree with DrKrettin that it is not an issue. If they have a lesser interest, let them have a lesser interest. You might even argue that prompting them to want to join studying physics would be a form of pressuring, even though this is far-fetched.

Having three people, all (probably) men, in this kind of agreement (and in contrast with information that's been presented) is another representation of the larger problem. "I can't imagine it being an issue, therefore it must not be" is a form of the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

[StringJunky]

Having three people, all (probably) men, in this kind of agreement (and in contrast with information that's been presented) is another representation of the larger problem. "I can't imagine it being an issue, therefore it must not be" is a form of the argument from personal incredulity fallacy.

I may be one of the three you mention but I've also put forward thoughts on engineering a change, if that's the consensus desire. Life is the way it is and if you want to change it you've got to change the ground conditions. I was rather hoping this discussion would be about solutions, but, as ever, it's just mutual wringing of hands.

 

Edited in missing words.

Edited April 24, 2017 by StringJunky