Why is the female crowd not attracted to STEM fields?

[Unity+]

I have seen a lot of news pertaining to the lack of female participants within the STEM fields, and I was wondering why this is. Am I making an unjustified generalization of females simply based on hyped news? Or is this a real problem? Are there any major factors involved in this trend?

[elfmotat]

Higher levels of prenatal testosterone is correlated with greater interest in mechanical systems in children. (See here.) Males have 2-3 times the fetal testosterone levels as females on average. I'd venture a guess that testosterone probably has a similar effect on the brain later in life.

Edited January 21, 2015 by elfmotat

[swansont]

The trend is real; physics, engineering and computer programming show large asymmetries in gender.

 

There's the issue of atmosphere created in some pockets of STEM, that are generally hostile to women (see e.g. gamergate)

[Strange]

Some of it may be cultural. When I worked in Singapore, the development teams were, as near as I could tell, about half male and half female. And when I worked in a UK university, pretty much all of the female science and engineering students were from the Middle East and Asia.

[elfmotat]

Some of it may be cultural. When I worked in Singapore, the development teams were, as near as I could tell, about half male and half female. And when I worked in a UK university, pretty much all of the female science and engineering students were from the Middle East and Asia.

 

The gender gap in STEM fields in developing countries is usually smaller than in most modern western countries. In countries where people are free to work in whatever fields they want, they will tend to choose careers they find fulfilling and interesting. In countries where money is an issue, people choose whatever pays well.

[iNow]

Culture. Self reinforcing bias. Women are treated as less capable in STEM and so act accordingly.

Fortunately, this historical trend seems to be shifting.

[elfmotat]

Culture. Self reinforcing bias. Women are treated as less capable in STEM and so act accordingly.

Fortunately, this historical trend seems to be shifting.

 

I don't think so. The gender gap in STEM is cross-cultural. If what you say is true one could expect to see significant deviation in different countries, but that's not what we find. The percentage of women in STEM hovers around 30% in nearly all developed countries. (See here.) When something is universal like that it's an indication of nature, not nurture. I don't think it's particularly bizarre that humans have sexually dimorphic interests.

[iNow]

Your source is not peer reviewed and is largely crap. It's sort of the equivalent of posting a high school term paper as evidence. To suggest this is primarily a genetic problem is to suggest in parallel that you are not informed enough in the topic to be taken seriously.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students <...> These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623121000.htm

 

"Studies that seek to answer why there are more men than women in STEM fields typically focus on women's interests and choices," said Professor Reuben. "This may be important, but our experiments show that another culprit of this phenomenon is that hiring managers possess an extraordinary level of gender bias when making decisions and filling positions, often times choosing the less qualified male over a superiorly qualified female."

 

In an experiment in which participants were hired to perform a mathematical task, both male and female managers were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman -- even when the managers had no information beyond a candidate's appearance and, therefore, gender.

Dr. Reuben continued: "The end result is not only a less diverse workforce and a male-dominated STEM field, but also a detriment to these companies for hiring the less-skilled person for the job."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/sexist-high-school-science_n_5234915.html

teachers often chalk boys’ skills in science class up to innate ability, while they see girls’ abilities as a result of hard work. Their research also found that science teachers spend up to almost 40 percent more time addressing male students in class.

 

“Teachers spent more time addressing boys than girls for the purpose of conveying basic content (43 percent more), moving the lesson along (17 percent more), elaborating on content (28 percent more), managing behavior (102 percent more), and discussing irrelevant material (92 percent more),” the book notes. “Notably, the variation we observed in how teachers interacted with their male and female students did not appear to be systematically related to teacher gender.”

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25243274

Almost half (49%) of state-funded mixed schools in England are "reinforcing gender stereotypes" in terms of the subjects students study at A-level.

 

This is according to a report published on Monday by the Institute of Physics (IoP).

 

It says these schools are failing to counter the idea that certain subjects are for girls and others are for boys.

[elfmotat]

Your source is not peer reviewed and is largely crap. It's sort of the equivalent of posting a high school term paper as evidence. To suggest this is primarily a genetic problem is to suggest in parallel that you are not informed enough in the topic to be taken seriously.

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623121000.htm

 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/sexist-high-school-science_n_5234915.html

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25243274

 

I was quoting the statistics in table 1, which are from the OECD.

 

Also notice that I didn't say sexism doesn't exist, or that there isn't room for improvement in education. I'm only pointing out that biology does play a factor, and that humans are a sexually dimorphic species.

[iNow]

Sexual dimorphism [math]\ne[/math] relevant or significant gender differences in innate STEM ability

Edited January 22, 2015 by iNow

[elfmotat]

Sexual dimorphism [math]\ne[/math] relevant or significant gender differences in innate STEM ability

 

You're strawman-ing me again. I didn't say it was relevant to ability -- I said it was relevant to level of interest. See post 2.

[iNow]

My comment is equally valid when one replaces the word "ability" with the word "interest." The thrust remains the same. Was not my intent to misrepresent you. Even taking your assertion at face value, you're still wrong, IMO.

[elfmotat]

My comment is equally valid when one replaces the word "ability" with the word "interest." The thrust remains the same. Was not my intent to misrepresent you. Even taking your assertion at face value, you're still wrong, IMO.

 

So I see you missed post 2. It's not a matter of opinion -- I presented evidence. If you have a problem with the link I cited in post #2 then explain why.

Edited January 22, 2015 by elfmotat

[iNow]

Interest in mechanical systems [math]\ne[/math] interest in STEM, nor does such an assertion negate the social barriers I've already evidenced above.

[elfmotat]

Interest in mechanical systems [math]\ne[/math] interest in STEM, nor does such an assertion negate the social barriers I've already evidenced above.

 

I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Are you intentionally being obtuse? Mechanical systems are a subcategory of science, technology, and engineering. I've already made explicit that I've never said sexism doesn't exist, or that social progress can't be made.

 

Do you have some sort of ideological basis for your refusal to acknowledge that human psychology is dimorphic? I've encountered radical feminists in the past who were unwilling to admit that sexual dimorphism even exists.

[iNow]

Mechanical systems are a subcategory of science, technology, and engineering.

And chemistry is a subcategory of physics. That doesn't mean people who are comparatively less interested in chemistry are de facto less interested in physics.

 

Do you have some sort of ideological basis for your refusal to acknowledge that human psychology is dimorphic?

Not ideological, but evidence based. Most of it is my training in human psychology, but I should point out that you're now moving the goalposts. We are talking about females and the frequency with which we see them today (or don't see them) in STEM roles, not psychological dimorphism in its various forms.

 

You've put forth your opinion that this is somehow biological. I've shared my position that such claims are absurd and that there exist far more parsimonious explanations, ones that are supported by evidence stronger than some term paper you found in Google.

 

The fact that I find your assertions misguided and wrong based on everything I've read, studied, and experienced does not ipso facto mean I am being obtuse, ideological, or radical... Feminist or otherwise.

Edited January 22, 2015 by iNow

[overtone]

In the Persian region, where rug weaving is or was a respected and highly paid endeavor, most weavers were men and males were thought to have higher natural ability and interest in sewing, weaving, etc.

 

In the Soviet Union, where doctors were not paid all that much more than anyone else, most doctors were women and women were thought to have more natural ability and interest in such work. Likewise with other obviously female jobs such as road construction.

 

In many cultures building houses is women's work - natural to them. Also field work in agriculture, and tending to domestic animals, is often women's work. They are naturally better at such things, see?

 

In the US, men are naturally more suited to high status verbal performance such as politics and rap and standup comedy, high status musical instruments such as piano and guitar, high status machinery such as cars and airplanes; women are naturally more suited to low status verbal performance such as poetry and conversation and schoolteaching, low status musical instruments such as flutes and harps, low status machinery such as sewing machines and household appliances.

 

By surprising coincidence, in all patriarchal societies women turn out to be naturally interested in and better suited to the lower paid and lower status work, and men have obvious natural ability and more interest in higher paid and higher status work. This can even change over time, so that women's naturally greater ability to play a woman's instrument such as the piano be overtaken by men's growing ability, just as the piano is technologically improved enough to become a lucrative concert performance instrument. Evolution!

Edited January 22, 2015 by overtone

[elfmotat]

And chemistry is a subcategory of physics. That doesn't mean people who are comparatively less interested in chemistry are de facto less interested in physics.

 

However interest in chemistry should serve as a better indicator of interest in physics than, say, a known interest in history. Just like early childhood interest in mechanical systems -- positively correlated with prenatal testosterone levels -- should serve as a better indicator of STEM interest than, say, early childhood interest in human faces -- negatively correlated with prenatal testosterone levels.

 

Not ideological, but evidence based. Most of it is my training in human psychology, but I should point out that you're now moving the goalposts.

 

I was asking out of curiosity, so that I'd have warning if I'm engaging in a pointless battle. It's no fun arguing with ideologues.

 

We are talking about females and the frequency with which we see them today (or don't see them) in STEM roles, not psychological dimorphism in its various forms.

 

The title of the thread is "Why is the female crowd..." I pointed out that at least some of it is almost certainly due to sexually dimorphic interests. If you have a problem with the studies I cited then explain why.

 

You've put forth your opinion that this is somehow biological. I've shared my position that such claims are absurd and that there exist far more parsimonious explanations, ones that are supported by evidence stronger than some term paper you found in Google.

 

Somehow biological, yes. Totally biological, no. Calling it absurd is not an argument. Longitudinal studies from Cambridge are not term papers.

 

The fact that I find your assertions misguided and wrong based on everything I've read, studied, and experienced does not ipso facto mean I am being obtuse, ideological, or radical... Feminist or otherwise.

 

That's not an argument either.

 

 

By surprising coincidence, in all patriarchal societies women turn out to be naturally interested in... lower paid and lower status work, and men have... more interest in higher paid and higher status work.

 

The same trend continues into gender-egalitarian countries, and the gap has been at a roughly stable percentage for the past 30-odd years. I cut out the parts about "natural ability," because every study I've ever seen has indicated no significant gender difference in average math/science ability. Ability is not interest. I can be a talented author without wanting to major in English.

 

Related:

Edited January 22, 2015 by elfmotat

[overtone]

 

 

By surprising coincidence, in all patriarchal societies women turn out to be naturally interested in... lower paid and lower status work, and men have... more interest in higher paid and higher status work.

The same trend continues into gender-egalitarian countries,

You have examples of gender-egalitarian countries with strong STEM educational infrastructure?

[Strange]

 

The gender gap in STEM fields in developing countries is usually smaller than in most modern western countries.

 

Singapore was my primary example. Not exactly a "developing country".

[elfmotat]

You have examples of gender-egalitarian countries with strong STEM educational infrastructure?

 

Norway, Sweden, Denmark?

 

Singapore was my primary example. Not exactly a "developing country".

True. I suppose my reply was irrelevant.

[overtone]

 

 

You have examples of gender-egalitarian countries with strong STEM educational infrastructure?

Norway, Sweden, Denmark?

Patriarchal. The Viking legacy of mother/daughter inheritance of property and consequent civil liberties as well as other freedom of action for women tends to obscure it, but notice (for example) that the early educational systems and related social orders in those countries were established by the Roman Catholic Church. Their flags feature the Christian cross.

[elfmotat]

Patriarchal.

 

This should be good.

 

The Viking legacy of mother/daughter inheritance of property and consequent civil liberties as well as other freedom of action for women tends to obscure it,

 

Yeah, I'd say so.

 

but notice (for example) that the early educational systems and related social orders in those countries were established by the Roman Catholic Church. Their flags feature the Christian cross.

 

Wow, that's pretty bad. The injustice!

[Danijel Gorupec]

I must admit that I tend to lean toward elfmotat side somewhat: lack of interest from female side. The magnitude of this difference is so big that I would be surprised (and sad) if it is only cultural... Because if it is only cultural, then our western society must be deeply rotten and dishonest (possibly not that much more 'civilized' than, say, fundamentalist Taliban society where such gender-role differences are openly forced).

 

Anyone with some slight interest in science can join discussions here on SFN. Many posters here do not work in science field, but still consider this forum as a great way to spend some free time. However there are only very few female posters. The female crowd prefers other ways to spend free time... Okay, I know many of you will argue that women are "culturally convinced" that SFN is not a place for a decent lady. But this is a scary thought, don't you think? SFN is just an innocent thing - why would our society prevent women to join some innocent, unimportant discussion if interested in it?

 

Therefore, this 'patriarchal conspiracy' theory does not seem like a likely explanation to me. It is just too complex, IMO. I see two other possible reasons:

- women do not like to fight with men in fields where men are very passionate about. This is why women choose to just move away.

- or, women just do not have that much interest in STEM as men do.

In both cases, it seems to me, that the difference is, at least in part, biologically determined.

 

(BTW, I noticed in my country, there is large increase in numbers of girls taking STEM courses in universities. This happened gradually over last 10 years. One might argue that finally our society is generating equal opportunities for both sexes and so finally girls are 'allowed' to study what are they really interested in... However I found no much increase in STEM-forums discussion by those STEM-girls. Makes me wonder what is the real reason so many girls join STEM courses - is it because this is what really interests them, or is it because of increased status, salary and probability to find a job.)

[CharonY]

 

is it because this is what really interests them, or is it because of increased status, salary and probability to find a job.

 

How is it different from males? It is not that everyone chose the degree solely because of interest. This is an example of unintentional misogyny, where one attributes different motives to females but does not examine the same for males.

 

Perception is a huge part in this. Look at biology. It is as complicated as a natural science can get, yet you see often over 50% female enrolment. However, take a look at the faculty. There it is again male dominated. There is a strong cultural influence in this whole matter. For example, in scientist couples who work in different areas it is not unusual that the woman gets asked why she does not join her husband to support him. And that is even if her track record is stronger than his. The male is almost never asked the same.

 

On the higher hiring rank there are also a number of other aspects that I found that makes it harder for females to succeed, including the type of networks (but that is probably outside of the discussion).

 

Thus in areas with predominantly male leadership there are also unintentional misogyny that may extend throughout the ranks that may further discourage women to enter the field. And note, this is in academia, an area with is traditionally a more progressive institution.