PunkAssBlog.com

Via.

The freedom to say ‘no’

Why aren’t there more women in science and engineering? Controversial new research suggests: They just aren’t interested.

Really, we’d much rather be changing poopy diapers, scrubbing toilets and providing “companionship” for room, board and an allowance. And that’s what choice feminism is all about!

…no, I’m not being fair. It’s just that the endless quest of total strangers to prove that I personally am either (a) some kind of genetic mutant freak or (b) living in a silent hell of self-suppression for the sake of the Feminist Agenda sometimes makes my teeth hurt.

Let’s cut to the chase in this article:

It begins by citing multiple older studies that point to a variety of reasons that women don’t more often choose or stay in science and technology jobs:

sexist companies, boy-friendly science and math classes, differences in aptitude.

It then goes on to cite two new studies (the aforementioned Controversial! Research!) that show that…could it be so…the biggest reason women are choosing to opt out of engineering and the “hard” sciences (chemistry and physics–not biology; biology used to be considered a hard science but ever since the majority of people studying it shifted to the female, it has been reclassified as a “soft” science) is because

they would simply rather do something else.

It blathers on some more about longer hours vs. economic opportunity, etc. etc., plus no less than four slyly worded references to the Grand Mysterie That Is Whether Or Not The Gurlz Is Born Different From The Boyz. It concludes, with a flourish, that

Sorting through the various factors is extremely challenging, all the researchers agree, and the issue is as complex as the individuals making each career decision. These findings on self-selection only open new areas of inquiry. They do suggest, however, that if the hard-fought battle for gender equality has indeed brought America to a point where women have the freedom to choose their career paths, then the end result may be surprising - and an equal-opportunity workforce may look a lot less equal than some had imagined.

(”Some” being those loudmouthed feminists, natch!)

One thing I always notice about these studies is how they ask everybody why and how and wherefore, except for one group. They never ask women who DO choose engineering or the “hard sciences” AND stay in the field why they didn’t, in fact, choose something else and why they didn’t, in fact, leave the field. They ask women who didn’t choose it; they ask women who chose it and then didn’t stay in it. On the rare occasions that they do ask, they don’t really analyze the responses; it tends to be a passing data point, no more.

They also don’t ask the mathematically skilled men who choose the “soft” sciences, why they chose THOSE, nor do they ask the men who chose the “hard” sciences or engineering and then left the field, why they do THAT. It’s almost like they can’t encompass those situations occuring, though I assure you that they do occur. But I can’t speak for those men, though I think their replies would be fascinating.

However, I can speak about the first group, the women.

I can’t say what the genetic differences between the genders are in terms of their effect upon natural aptitudes. However, I can say that we are probably never going to really be able to find out.

The article states:

women - highly qualified for the work - stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.

qualified women are significantly more likely to avoid physics and the other “hard” sciences in favor of work in medicine and biosciences.

lower numbers of women in IT careers weren’t explained by work-family pressures, since the study found computer careers made no greater time demands than those in the control group. Ability wasn’t the reason, since the women in both groups had substantial math backgrounds. 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.

the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth began following nearly 2,000 mathematically gifted adolescents, boys and girls, tracking their education and careers in ensuing decades. Math-precocious men were much more likely to go into engineering or physical sciences than women. Math-precocious women, by contrast, were more likely to go into careers in medicine, biological sciences, humanities, and social sciences.

men, relative to women, prefer to work with inorganic materials; women, in general, prefer to work with organic or living things. This gender disparity was apparent very early in life, and it continued to hold steady over the course of the participants’ careers.

Oh, wow, what was that, again..? Maybe men have an “inorganic” gene and women have an “organic” gene!!

I doubt it. Really. But I will tell you what they do have going on.

The study authors are correct in noting that this disparity exists, because it does, and that it is apparent very early in life, because it is.

Know how early sex stereotyping by parents begins? At birth.

You know why potty-training is so darn effective and long-lasting? Because you learned it before you can remember. Know what else girls learn before they can remember?

1. You are taught from the time you can move in a self-propelled fashion that everything is dangerous and is going to hurt you if you don’t stay away from it.
2. You are taught from the time you can comprehend speech that the most wonderful thing about you is how pretty you are.

Let’s examine these more closely.

1. You are scolded vehemently for moving too near or attempting to touch anything that might hurt you. Things that might hurt you fall into many categories when you are younger, shrinking slowly but steadily as you grow older, but you notice that the louder and shinier and the more moving parts it possesses, the longer you are kept away from it.

This is naturally true for all babies, of course. But as boys grow from infancy to childhood, parents begin giving them things that are loud, shiny and having moving parts, as toys. The conditioning begins to erode. It erodes further if the father is handy around the house and car–these are chores that men perform still much more than women do–the boy child sees that its same-sex parent plays with these dangerous things and begins to see them as symbols of the greater status of age. The father is more likely to see his son as strong and coordinated enough to help and less likely to see his daughter as such, and that is in relatively “progressive” families. In more traditional families, the girl is even less likely to be allowed anywhere near those things.

What are girls given as toys? Dolls. Stuffed animals. Makeup kits. Art supplies. Soft, snuggly, pastel, motionless toys–if there is motion, it is gentle. What tasks are girls given around the house–what chores do they see their same-sex parent doing? Caring for the family indoors. Gardening outdoors. Babysitting. Living things, lots of them, and personal interactions–emotional harmony is their responsibility. The conditioning against loud, shiny moving objects is reinforced and a substitute goal to achieve the greater status of age is introduced.

What about when the girl is older, entering adolescence? She has been taught to fear pain, to avoid any and all physical confrontation; if she even plays sports, they are much more likely to be non-contact sports. What is added to the list of conditioned avoidance? Males, of course–males are what is going to hurt you most now. Being around a lot of males, alone, is VERY dangerous! And the underlying motiff is that if you get hurt playing with boys–boys’ games, boys’ toys, boys themselves–it is now your own fault. You have been warned all your life, after all. Best to stay away from large crowds of boys, big shiny loud moving things, and anything that might hurt you or cause you pain.

What’s safe? Taking care of other people and making them happy. Making living things grow and thrive. You like math and science? Focus them here; these are not dangerous and shameful if you fail or you get hurt.

2. As soon as you begin to understand speech, you process the nice things being said to you. “She’s so pretty!” (”sweet,” “adorable,” “darling!”) “She’s so good! So well-behaved!” But especially, cute. You hear all about your “lovely hair,” your “big gorgeous eyes,” your “perfect smile!” Boys, by age four, have stopped hearing about their physical beauty–now they are “strong!” “Brave!” “Tough!” For girls, it never stops.

Dirty things aren’t pretty, nor are things dressed in torn clothes, nor are bruises and cuts. They are not only not valued, they are swooped down upon and scolded.

What about when the girls are older, entering adolescence? If you thought it was bad before, it becomes unbelievable. Beauty and how to achieve it become an obsession. Clothes. Makeup. Hair. Do Boys Like You? Yes, if you are pretty. No, if you’re not, not in junior high school. And you see boys with scars, sometimes even facial scars, and it doesn’t detract from their popularity or attractiveness at all unless it is actually disfiguring. And if you are unfortunate enough to see a girl with facial scars, you can barely even stand to look at her, your pity and revulsion and terror are so great–because a girl with scars and bruises and cuts CANNOT be pretty and will in the case of scars NEVER be pretty, NEVER! You must never, ever get scars. Especially on your pretty, pretty face. Because your personal life will be a living hell if you’re unlucky, merely incredibly lonely if you aren’t. And what gives you scars..?

Big, shiny, loud things with moving parts. And violent contact with them, and with other people. You know. Male things.

Taking care of other people doesn’t interfere at all with looking pretty; as a matter of fact, the prettier you look, the better it works. It doesn’t interfere at all with growing things and studying them, either.

Yes, women are taking over the biosciences and the practice of medicine. Why? Because now they finally have an psychologically acceptable outlet for their brains and desire for cash and recognition that won’t chance damaging their looks. Because in those fields they are far less hampered by decades of avoiding mechanical and thermodynamic systems in the use of the equipment. And the equipment doesn’t trigger any of those now-unremembered but subconsciously fixed terrors of loud, shiny, noisy with big moving parts. And there are people to help and things to grow, bringing the now-unremembered but subconsciously programmed feelings of satisfaction and approval.

Next post: Women who actually do go into the “hard” sciences and engineering: how can we do it? and why do we persist?