How myths about the ‘female’ brain hold women back from pursing careers in science
The choosiness myth
Yet the myth keeps popping up, like whac-a-mole, in the form of a “female choosiness” argument. This was characterized bythe notorious Google memoin which Google engineer James Damore asserted that the biologically determined preferences of women meant that a gender-equal distribution in technology was unlikely. Women, he argued, prefer “people” to “things.”
But scientistshave challenged this idea. Just because women are more likely to be nurses than men, and men are more likely to be bus drivers than women, doesn’t necessarily mean that it is because they prefer either people or things. Women and men are encouraged to do different jobs by society from an early age. And women were long barred from jobs, such asbus driving in London.
Yet female choosiness continues to be used as an explanation for gender gaps in science. In 2018, two psychologists from the UKpublished a papercalled “The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education.” The paradox refers to the fact that women are more likely to be underrepresented in the sciences in countries that have the highest levels of gender equality.
The authors’ explanation for this was couched in two stages. One was that in the least gender-equal countries, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) jobs were better paid and so economic necessity drove the choices of both sexes. The second part of the explanation, backed up by some other scientists, was that in countries with better social and economic conditions, the“natural expression” of “innate differences”could emerge.
Having to acknowledge that there were no differences in performance on science subjects between males and females, a different form of the “cognitive capacity” myth has emerged in the last couple of years. Females are universally better at reading, so they are more likely to achieve a sense of gratification by choosing non-scientific subjects and careers.
As it happens, a fierce debate isnow raging in scientific circlesabout the paradox, particularly about the accuracy of the gender-equality measures used and the causal interpretation of the correlations found. This has forced the authors of the gender-equality paradox paper to issue a correction of their original data analysis – it turned out they had used a ratherunusual way to calculate sex differencesin STEM graduates. When using more standard approaches, such as looking at the difference between the percentage of STEM graduates who are female or male, one team of scientists said theycouldn’t replicate the results.
Many scientists argue that there’s still bias and discrimination against women in gender-equal countries, and that may be why they opt out of science careers. History shows that women played a large part in the development of different scientific disciplines. But, as science became more professionalized,women were deliberately excludedfrom scientific institutions, explicitly based on their innate deficits.
One would like to think that we have put all of that behind us. But the underlying narrative still pops up in various forms, most likely putting women off. There is evidence of powerful beliefs that great scientists are born and not made – and, more particularly,are born male.
This is despite the fact that research has shown that the concept of a “male” and “female” brainis flawed. The experiences you have can actually change the brain, including the stereotyping you face. If you are encouraged to read, your brain gets better at reading. What’s more, it has been shown that when people have negative thoughts about how well they will do on a task,they actually avoid it and perform worse.
Many factors related to success in science, including hiring and promotion, also show clear evidence of gender bias against women. In a large study of research reports in chemistry, female-led paperswere more likely to be rejectedby journals, and less likely to be cited.
Franklin no doubt had to deal with a lot of prejudice, with her role in discovering the structure of DNAgoing unacknowledgedfor a long time. It is heartbreaking that the message that science is not for women remains powerful a century after her birth.
This article is republished fromThe ConversationbyGina Rippon, Professor Emeritus of Cognitive NeuroImaging,Aston Universityunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.
Story byThe Conversation
An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.An independent news and commentary website produced by academics and journalists.
Get the TNW newsletter
Get the most important tech news in your inbox each week.
