Amazing: Why More Women Aren’t in Science and Engineering

By Daniel Miessler on May 26th, 2008: Tagged as Culture | Science | Women

women_it

My God. This reads like a f’ing Onion headline.

“Scientists Discover Women Aren’t in Science and Engineering Because They Don’t Want To Be“ 1

Now two new studies by economists and social scientists have reached a perhaps startling conclusion: An important part of the explanation for the gender gap, they are finding, are the preferences of women themselves. When it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women – highly qualified for the work – stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.

Wow, that’s monumental. Massive studies to figure out what people instinctively knew but didn’t want to talk about. The answer has been right in front of us since the gap has been there. All you have to do is ask real women.

The irony is that simply asking women, and having them tell you that they weren’t interested, doesn’t seem to be enough for the equalers. Their responses are discounted as if womens’ own desires couldn’t possibly be the primary factor.

Sir, I asked 1,000 women and most of them said they just didn’t want to do Calculus.” So the people with the agenda say, “You *asked* them? What the hell do they know? Dammit, go find the real reason they’re not in science.

Gee, that’s uplifting for women. Don’t trust them to tell you what they want for themselves just because the answers don’t seem right to you. Yay for giving women respect. Once again political correctness distorts the interpretation of reality.

Here, try this–I know this isn’t scientific but you’ll get the idea. How many women do you know? How many girls about to be women do you know? Great, now how many of them want to be computer scientists? How about mathematicians? Yeah, me too. Now extrapolate. Brilliant!

More from the article:

Rosenbloom and his colleagues used a standard personality-inventory test to measure people’s preferences for different kinds of work. In general, Rosenbloom’s study found, men and women who enjoyed the explicit manipulation of tools or machines were more likely to choose IT careers – and it was mostly men who scored high in this area. Meanwhile, people who enjoyed working with others were less likely to choose IT careers. Women, on average, were more likely to score high in this arena.

Personal preference, Rosenbloom and his group concluded, was the single largest determinative factor in whether women went into IT. They calculated that preference accounted for about two-thirds of the gender imbalance in the field. The study was published in November in the Journal of Economic Psychology.

Let’s try a simple explanation. Men and women are different and hence have different interests. But when women have the desire and drive to be in IT and other engineering-type vocations, they can excel at it to the point of making most men look silly — just like in any other field. The difference is just that there are less women with this particular drive than men.

And so what? They also have uteruses. Should we try and determine why? What malfunction caused men to be born without them?

Pretending we’re all the same isn’t going to make it so, no matter how much money we dump into that agenda. We’re different, and it’s a good thing. Accept that we’re all fundamentally equal according to the precepts of secular humanism and move on with life.:

Notes

1 [ The Freedom to Say "No" ]
2 And yes, I am aware of the arguments that society can be programming women to not want these things, but that’s a separate problem from why are they not in the fields. The answer to that question (or at least 2/3 of it) is that they don’t want to be. So if you want to find out why they don’t want to be, that’s fine, but don’t lose site of the fact that their desires are what are manifested in the numbers.

  • Carl M

    At the risk of sounding overly PC, I don’t think that the statement that women don’t choose to enter Science and Engineering fields at the same rates as men really tells the whole story.

    Until recently, society spelled out in subtle and not-so-subtle ways which jobs (and interests) were appropriate for males and which were appropriate for females. People were raised their entire lives in a setting that essentially brainwashed them into believing that certain jobs (really MOST jobs) were gender specific. One could have said in the 50′s. Gee .. why are more women nurses, teaching K-12, or staying at home and not looking at other options? ANSWER: Because they CHOOSE these lives. But, I hope you can see that this answer in the 50′s would not have really told the full story. We’ve certainly come a long way since then! But, does anyone doubt that there are still girls in high school making a choice between being “smart” or being “popular”? There are entire cultures with the same issue: doing well in school isn’t valued. If you asked people in those cultures why they are doing what they’re doing, they’ll say it was their choice. This answer isn’t telling the full story.

  • Carl M

    At the risk of sounding overly PC, I don’t think that the statement that women don’t choose to enter Science and Engineering fields at the same rates as men really tells the whole story.

    Until recently, society spelled out in subtle and not-so-subtle ways which jobs (and interests) were appropriate for males and which were appropriate for females. People were raised their entire lives in a setting that essentially brainwashed them into believing that certain jobs (really MOST jobs) were gender specific. One could have said in the 50′s. Gee .. why are more women nurses, teaching K-12, or staying at home and not looking at other options? ANSWER: Because they CHOOSE these lives. But, I hope you can see that this answer in the 50′s would not have really told the full story. We’ve certainly come a long way since then! But, does anyone doubt that there are still girls in high school making a choice between being “smart” or being “popular”? There are entire cultures with the same issue: doing well in school isn’t valued. If you asked people in those cultures why they are doing what they’re doing, they’ll say it was their choice. This answer isn’t telling the full story.

  • Carl M

    OK, I’ve read the article now. :)

    First of all, you should change your title. The article does NOT say that women aren’t going into science. It says that they’re making different choices in the TYPE of science they pursue.

    They seem to have looked only at students who had demonstrated HIGH ability (so they weren’t looking at those who “chose” not to live up to their full potential). They found difference. Not surprising. But, I submit that the raw numbers of women in scientifically demanding fields is diminished for the reasons I expressed above.

  • Carl M

    OK, I’ve read the article now. :)

    First of all, you should change your title. The article does NOT say that women aren’t going into science. It says that they’re making different choices in the TYPE of science they pursue.

    They seem to have looked only at students who had demonstrated HIGH ability (so they weren’t looking at those who “chose” not to live up to their full potential). They found difference. Not surprising. But, I submit that the raw numbers of women in scientifically demanding fields is diminished for the reasons I expressed above.

  • Doris Beers

    The article is both right and stupid.

    As a woman who has worked in tech for close to 15 years, I can say that I completely understand why more women don’t enter the field or stay with it.

    Really, one does not need a heavily financed psychology or sociology study to figure it out. Just read the comments section of just about any topic on /. Tech is an infuriating and tedious environment, socially, for the vast majority of women. That any of us sticks around is testament to our love of the work.

    The situation has improved some over the last decade. But, still, if one is working in security, a good half the most useful sites are not only unsafe for work but also a major insult. One loses the willingness to be spat upon after a while. Being bright enough for the more challenging areas of tech and science also means being bright enought to do other things well and stop being demeaned.

  • Doris Beers

    The article is both right and stupid.

    As a woman who has worked in tech for close to 15 years, I can say that I completely understand why more women don’t enter the field or stay with it.

    Really, one does not need a heavily financed psychology or sociology study to figure it out. Just read the comments section of just about any topic on /. Tech is an infuriating and tedious environment, socially, for the vast majority of women. That any of us sticks around is testament to our love of the work.

    The situation has improved some over the last decade. But, still, if one is working in security, a good half the most useful sites are not only unsafe for work but also a major insult. One loses the willingness to be spat upon after a while. Being bright enough for the more challenging areas of tech and science also means being bright enought to do other things well and stop being demeaned.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Doris,

    Thanks for the comment. Can you be more specific about what you thought was wrong about the article? And that part you agreed with? Also, do you mean my post or the article I referenced?

    I really appreciate your perspective with that much time in the field.

    Thanks,

    -Daniel

  • http://dmiessler.com Daniel Miessler

    Doris,

    Thanks for the comment. Can you be more specific about what you thought was wrong about the article? And that part you agreed with? Also, do you mean my post or the article I referenced?

    I really appreciate your perspective with that much time in the field.

    Thanks,

    -Daniel

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Carl,

    I am not getting what you mean with my needing to change the article title. I think it’s pretty accurate given the findings of the studies.

    And could you clarify the distinction you made between the high performers and the mainstream? I am not seeing your argument clearly.

    Thanks,

    -Daniel

  • http://dmiessler.com Daniel Miessler

    Carl,

    I am not getting what you mean with my needing to change the article title. I think it’s pretty accurate given the findings of the studies.

    And could you clarify the distinction you made between the high performers and the mainstream? I am not seeing your argument clearly.

    Thanks,

    -Daniel

  • Doris Beers

    I was referring to the article itself. It has been discussed at some length on two of the women in tech lists I read.

    It is patently obvious that people choose, to the extent they are able, the work they prefer. That aspect of “why there are so few women in STEM” has been ignored to a large extent.

    My experience has been that the third or fourth time an intelligent, capable, hard-working woman watches the men around her guffaw over, say, a potential new date rape drug (take a gander at the comments on Schneier’s blog to the ocytocin research he quotes)she decides she can do better elsewhere. A colleague was recently faced with the choice of continuing to work on her doctorate in physics while trying to dodge the attentions of the aging groper the U would do nothing about. Even after he was accused repeatedly by underage undergrads. It is far simpler to find another field than to continue to work in one where you know you are either seen as prey or openly unwelcome.

    The women who were working in tech during the boom (and I do mean the dbas and sysadmins and product developers) went to other fields during the bust and have not come back. They can make as much money and don’t have to steel themselves to face the day.

    I have moved from hands-on tech to the slightly more pink-collared areas of audit and compliance simply because I got bored with the constant dominance games. I miss building things and fixing things, but I don’t miss the environment or having to prove that I know how to build things and fix things even though I am a girl. It is a real pleasure to lose the chip on my shoulder and present work with the expectation that it will be taken at face value.

    Information Security is a hard enough sell in any business (try talking security and privacy to the web 2.0 crowd)without overcoming the misogyn as well. And I have had it easier than many women I know. Those with a calmer temperament get passed over for jobs and promotions (one, recently, because “all the women we hired left to have kids and so will you”) knowing that a discrimination claim is likely to kill their career.

    If the men in the STEM world could stop worrying about whether they can bed their colleagues or how much a hooker costs in Palo Alto (why is this part of keeping up with VC funding, ValleyWag?), and just do their jobs, we might have better software to use. There would certainly be a lot more talented workers to choose from.

    Thanks for paying attention. My experience has been that a lot of STEM men, once they see what is happening, can understand the problem.

  • Doris Beers

    I was referring to the article itself. It has been discussed at some length on two of the women in tech lists I read.

    It is patently obvious that people choose, to the extent they are able, the work they prefer. That aspect of “why there are so few women in STEM” has been ignored to a large extent.

    My experience has been that the third or fourth time an intelligent, capable, hard-working woman watches the men around her guffaw over, say, a potential new date rape drug (take a gander at the comments on Schneier’s blog to the ocytocin research he quotes)she decides she can do better elsewhere. A colleague was recently faced with the choice of continuing to work on her doctorate in physics while trying to dodge the attentions of the aging groper the U would do nothing about. Even after he was accused repeatedly by underage undergrads. It is far simpler to find another field than to continue to work in one where you know you are either seen as prey or openly unwelcome.

    The women who were working in tech during the boom (and I do mean the dbas and sysadmins and product developers) went to other fields during the bust and have not come back. They can make as much money and don’t have to steel themselves to face the day.

    I have moved from hands-on tech to the slightly more pink-collared areas of audit and compliance simply because I got bored with the constant dominance games. I miss building things and fixing things, but I don’t miss the environment or having to prove that I know how to build things and fix things even though I am a girl. It is a real pleasure to lose the chip on my shoulder and present work with the expectation that it will be taken at face value.

    Information Security is a hard enough sell in any business (try talking security and privacy to the web 2.0 crowd)without overcoming the misogyn as well. And I have had it easier than many women I know. Those with a calmer temperament get passed over for jobs and promotions (one, recently, because “all the women we hired left to have kids and so will you”) knowing that a discrimination claim is likely to kill their career.

    If the men in the STEM world could stop worrying about whether they can bed their colleagues or how much a hooker costs in Palo Alto (why is this part of keeping up with VC funding, ValleyWag?), and just do their jobs, we might have better software to use. There would certainly be a lot more talented workers to choose from.

    Thanks for paying attention. My experience has been that a lot of STEM men, once they see what is happening, can understand the problem.

  • http://dmiessler.com/ Daniel Miessler

    Thank you, Doris, for your input. More to follow…

  • http://dmiessler.com Daniel Miessler

    Thank you, Doris, for your input. More to follow…

  • Carl M

    Two quotes from the article (which is talking about TWO studies):

    “One study of information-technology workers found that women’s own preferences are the single most important factor in that field’s dramatic gender imbalance.”

    This study apparently talked only about IT.

    “Another study followed 5,000 mathematically gifted students and found that qualified women are significantly more likely to avoid physics and the other “hard” sciences in favor of work in medicine and biosciences.”

    Medicine and biosciences are sciences. As a group, scientifically strong women make different choices than scientifically strong men. This doesn’t say that they aren’t choosing STEM fields.

    One of the studies indicates that fewer women choose IT careers (but doesn’t address whether they go into other STEM fields). The other study indicates that women choose different STEM fields — not that they aren’t in STEM fields at all.

    (Thus, I have an issue with your title.)

    As to your other question to me:

    As far as I can tell, both studies are looking ONLY at those men and women who demonstrated strength in STEM subjects. Neither one addresses the larger issue of why the number of women in this group is smaller (if in fact it is) than the number of men. I would maintain that THIS is the more important issue. If women (and minorities) are STILL being socialized away from STEM fields by the time they leave (or even ENTER) high school, then we are doing everyone a disservice. As Doris points out, there could well be a larger number of talented workers in STEM fields — and this could only help our society.

  • Carl M

    Two quotes from the article (which is talking about TWO studies):

    “One study of information-technology workers found that women’s own preferences are the single most important factor in that field’s dramatic gender imbalance.”

    This study apparently talked only about IT.

    “Another study followed 5,000 mathematically gifted students and found that qualified women are significantly more likely to avoid physics and the other “hard” sciences in favor of work in medicine and biosciences.”

    Medicine and biosciences are sciences. As a group, scientifically strong women make different choices than scientifically strong men. This doesn’t say that they aren’t choosing STEM fields.

    One of the studies indicates that fewer women choose IT careers (but doesn’t address whether they go into other STEM fields). The other study indicates that women choose different STEM fields — not that they aren’t in STEM fields at all.

    (Thus, I have an issue with your title.)

    As to your other question to me:

    As far as I can tell, both studies are looking ONLY at those men and women who demonstrated strength in STEM subjects. Neither one addresses the larger issue of why the number of women in this group is smaller (if in fact it is) than the number of men. I would maintain that THIS is the more important issue. If women (and minorities) are STILL being socialized away from STEM fields by the time they leave (or even ENTER) high school, then we are doing everyone a disservice. As Doris points out, there could well be a larger number of talented workers in STEM fields — and this could only help our society.


Top

Popular

Information Security / Technology

Politics

Philosophy & Religion

Technology & Science

Culture & Society

Miscellaneous

Arguments

Projects

Collections

Twitter

What I'm Reading

Favorite Books and Essays

Top Blog Categories

Inputs