This Week's Picks

Happy Summer, everyone!

We're always talking about the under-representation of women in science. But what is fueling this gender imbalance? Marshall Shepherd, PhD, hones in on 5 Ways Society Sabotages Girls' Interest in Science and Math. I really loved this piece, but to summarize, we first have "Imagery." How are children molded by the toys and activities marketed to them? Real quick, do a Google search (I just did). No, really do it, it'll be eye-opening. What do you see when you search for "toys for girls"? The very first thing I see is a kitchen, followed by a makeup kit, and household appliances like a pink sewing machine, hair dryer, vacuum, and so on. What about "toys for boys"? Well, I see trucks, a tool box, dinosaurs, Legos -- toys that are designed to encourage curiosity about the natural world, cause-and-effect, logic, and critical thinking.  Think about how easy it is to internalize the messages children receive when boys have toys that are inherently tied to scientific endeavors while girls have toys that reinforce "traditional" gender roles in which they are charged with domestic duties. So, even from a young age, women are being implicitly told "science is not for you."

Building off of this internalization, Dr. Shepherd lists "self-fulfilling prophecy." So, you have this deeply ingrained idea that because you are a woman, science and math are just not your strong suit. So, why bother, if you're only going to fail? Going into science and math classes with this notion detrimentally affects women's performance in these applications, leading to this self-fulfilling prophecy. You already go in feeling defeated, so you don't apply yourself, leading to a poor outcome. Furthermore, how are you meant to overcome these feelings, if you have no mentorship for young women?

While it can be empowering to see women becoming more and more involved in STEM, once we're there, there is this invisible, but ever-present feeling of having to prove something. Women are underrepresented in science, and now you're a woman in science -- now it's your job to overcome any perceived stereotypes. Prove you're not like the "others!" All eyes are on you now, as you clearly speak and act on behalf of all women! Hopefully the sarcasm is coming through here, but consider this strange phenomenon of women doing their jobs in STEM and having people be surprised!  Lastly, are we conveying the value of STEM? Just like with the above mentioned marketing of toys to boys and girls, are we conveying the importance of science to underrepresented populations like women? How can we personalize STEM, make it applicable for everyone? Consider reading the full piece to see how this all ties together.

Here is an external example of the obstacles women face -- a recent study asserts that Male principal investigators (almost) don't publish with women in zoology and ecology. The paper explores the patterns in publishing between men and women scientists in these fields. While research groups led by women had 60% female co-authors, only 20% female co-authors were found when the research group was led by men. The authors of this analysis demonstrate that this is yet another possible way in which women do not continue in STEM fields.

In our effort to combat gender inequality in STEM, institutions are trying to find ways to settle this imbalance. But are these efforts genuine and fruitful? Or is this endeavor just becoming another item to "check off"? Charikleia Tzanakou asserts that this should not just be a matter of quantity, but quality. What kind of diversity can be found in women? What are these Unintended consequences of gender-equality plans?

Thanks for stopping by!