Stephen Black wrote:
> I'll say. Her references are 10-15 years out of-date. If this is
> the best the backlash can do, I think Dr. Sommers has little to
> worry about. Whatever the situation may once have been, Sommers
> makes a persuasive case that it is now boys, not girls, who need
> special help in the classroom.
I do think the question of why women are relatively unlikely to pursue
careers in science is an interesting one, though. The competing (though of
course not mutually exclusive) hypotheses seem to be:
1) Because of gender stereotyping, which results in their
elementary/secondary education teachers discouraging them from such
pursuits.
2) Because the actual practice of science is male-biased in its insistence
on "separate knowing".
3) Because women are (typically) more interested in other pursuits for
reasons other than a history of active discouragement of their interests in
science.
The third hypothesis seems to be the hardest to describe, I suppose because
(to paraphrase Earl Babbie), no-one ever got a grant to show that people do
a particular activity because they want to do that activity.
The second hypothesis is the favorite of the feminist epistemologists (I
believe that it may be the one championed by Evelyn Fox Keller, though I may
be confusing her with another of those epistemologists - I read quite a bit
of that stuff about 5 or 6 summers ago). If you're read my comments on TIPS,
you know that I believe hypothesis #2 to be essentially bullshit, not all
that different from requiring "creationism" to be taught in science courses.
It also seems to be a perfect example of the first hypothesis, as it makes
the argument that women aren't as good at (real) science as men are, and
suggests that they do something else (though it then wants to make that
something else legitimate by labeling it "science", something that simply
isn't going to help the student much when she tries to find someone to pay
her to do the work <g>).
The first and third hypotheses seem difficult if not impossible to
disentangle. However, I don't think it's at all ridiculous to suppose that
there is some native gender difference that manifests itself as a difference
in interest in scientific careers. My guess is that if there were none of
this particular stereotyping at all, we'd still find dramatic gender
differences in career interests (this cuts both ways: I also don't believe
that we'd suddenly find most of our male students saying "I chose X as my
major because I want to help people"). Remember, these differences don't
have to stem from gender differences in subject matter interests. They can
result from perfectly well-reasoned considerations of the practical issues
involved in particular careers, such as length and regularity of hours,
potential pay and benefits, amount of "people contact", amount of graduate
education required, etc.
It certainly wouldn't be very helpful to tell the incoming female students,
"well, you say you're not interested in science, but you really would be if
it weren't for the stereotyping". It's a shame if they are turned off from
science for bad reasons, but after 13 years of trying and usually failing to
get female students excited about science and research careers, I've come to
believe that it would be very arrogant of me to assume that their career
decisions aren't as legitimate as mine.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
