# Why don't more woemen study physics?



## tanstaafl28

I don't know either, but this article seems interesting.

_Despite efforts to get more women into science labs almost half of Britain's co-ed schools have no female students taking A-level physics. Are sexist attitudes still to blame – or is it a fear of being thought uncool? One London school is showing how it is possible to buck the trend
_
Why don't more girls study physics? | Education | The Observer

_Lack Of Female Physics Students Symptomatic Of Scientific Gender Gap_

Physics Gender Gap May Be Keeping Women From Joining The Field - Science News - redOrbit

What do you all think about this? 

(personally, I'm all for more geeky chicks!)


----------



## FlaviaGemina

I think it's because of the way it is taught. 
I don't mean to be sexist, but to "naturally" understand Physics you need a brain that is at least balanced, if not leaning towards the male side. 

At A-level, a lot is left to "natural talent". The purpose of A-levels isn't always to help pupils understand things, but to weed out those who don't have a "natural talent". I work as a TA and have worked with kids who take Physics and Maths at A-level. The lessons are very fast paced and not much time is spent on explaining anything. Some of the boys cope fine with this and just add their own explanations. Some of the girls, although otherwise intelligent and definitely more hardworking than the boys, struggle with this. I speak from experience here, because lots of the time I can perfectly understand the material and answer many of the practice questions when I study it on my own, but I can't follow the lessons at all. Conversely, the boys are very good at figuring things out in isolation on the spot, but they often don't retain them.

I'm not trying to say that ALL boys are naturally better at Physics than ALL girls. What I'm trying to say is that if you are a girl with a more female brain, you can still learn Physics but you might need more time or a different way to learn it. 
Unfortunately, the purpose of A-Levels in England is not to give everyone an equal chance to have a go at different subjects, it is to identify those who have a "natural talent" so you can chuck out the others and get good statistics. This has also got to do with the gap between GCSE and AS. For example, one of the maths teachers at my school said "If you've got an A* at GCSE, you'll still have to make a lot of effort to get an A* at A-level. If you got a B at GCSE, the best you can hope for is a D. Only people with natural talent can get an A*". 

This results in teachers only teaching the basics and then expecting pupils to solve advanced problems on their own and under severe time limits. I.e. rather than teaching all their pupils how to approach more advanced problems, this is left to chance and natural selection. In my opinion, even if someone doesn't have a "natural talent", they could still learn those methods from their teachers and more would be gained by that overall. 

This isn't a problem in other countries. E.g. in Germany, everyone is forced to take a Science at A-Level so that everyon has a chance to learn a broad variety of subjects. But it is not assumed that everyone must have a "natural talent" for it. Does this result in everyone in Germany being good at Science? Hell no, because not enough is done to make it accessible to everyone, but at least the purpose of it is to give everyone a chance, not to weed out the majority of pupils.


edit to add: About the gap between GCSE and A-Level. That's not the case in Germany. Most people get roughly the same kinds of marks throughout their school career because things build up on each other a bit more gradually than in England. (But that's just my personal impression, I haven't got any data to back it up.)


----------



## Dolorous Haze

In general boys are conditioned to like building and figuring things out from a young age, whereas girls are taught how to take care of baby dolls and make Barbie's hair look pretty. Of course, these gender roles are (thankfully) not as defined anymore and as a result the number of girls pursuing maths and science based subjects at third level is rapidly increasing. The moral of the story is : buy your daughters some Lego or Knex every once in a while instead of a grotesquely disproportionate Bratz doll.


----------



## skycloud86

FlaviaGemina said:


> I think it's because of the way it is taught.
> I don't mean to be sexist, but to "naturally" understand Physics you need a brain that is at least balanced, if not leaning towards the male side.


Not only are you being sexist, you're actually posting seriously about the "male side" of the brain. I suppose you mean the "logical" side, as obviously women aren't as logical as men. There are many women who can understand Physics perfectly, and many men who cannot.



> At A-level, a lot is left to "natural talent". The purpose of A-levels isn't always to help pupils understand things, but to weed out those who don't have a "natural talent". I work as a TA and have worked with kids who take Physics and Maths at A-level. The lessons are very fast paced and not much time is spent on explaining anything. Some of the boys cope fine with this and just add their own explanations. Some of the girls, although otherwise intelligent and definitely more hardworking than the boys, struggle with this. I speak from experience here, because lots of the time I can perfectly understand the material and answer many of the practice questions when I study it on my own, but I can't follow the lessons at all. Conversely, the boys are very good at figuring things out in isolation on the spot, but they often don't retain them.


And are all of the women like you, and all of the men different? You say some of the women, whilst you seem to assume that all men have this logical brain.



> I'm not trying to say that ALL boys are naturally better at Physics than ALL girls. What I'm trying to say is that if you are a girl with a more female brain, you can still learn Physics but you might need more time or a different way to learn it.


And guess what? It would be the same for men with a more "female" brain.


----------



## All in Twilight

Because she is a woman. (Think this one trough please before you react)


----------



## skycloud86

All in Twilight said:


> Because she is a woman. (Think this one trough please before you react)


Yes, just a rather depressed woman.


----------



## Perhaps

skycloud86 said:


> Yes, just a rather depressed woman.


After the first reply in this thread? So am I.

It's glorious and horrible in the way that it speaks for itself.


----------



## hela

FlaviaGemina said:


> I think it's because of the way it is taught.
> I don't mean to be sexist, but to "naturally" understand Physics you need a brain that is at least balanced, if not leaning towards the male side.
> 
> At A-level, a lot is left to "natural talent". The purpose of A-levels isn't always to help pupils understand things, but to weed out those who don't have a "natural talent". I work as a TA and have worked with kids who take Physics and Maths at A-level. The lessons are very fast paced and not much time is spent on explaining anything. Some of the boys cope fine with this and just add their own explanations. Some of the girls, although otherwise intelligent and definitely more hardworking than the boys, struggle with this. I speak from experience here, because lots of the time I can perfectly understand the material and answer many of the practice questions when I study it on my own, but I can't follow the lessons at all. Conversely, the boys are very good at figuring things out in isolation on the spot, but they often don't retain them.
> 
> I'm not trying to say that ALL boys are naturally better at Physics than ALL girls. What I'm trying to say is that if you are a girl with a more female brain, you can still learn Physics but you might need more time or a different way to learn it.
> Unfortunately, the purpose of A-Levels in England is not to give everyone an equal chance to have a go at different subjects, it is to identify those who have a "natural talent" so you can chuck out the others and get good statistics. This has also got to do with the gap between GCSE and AS. For example, one of the maths teachers at my school said "If you've got an A* at GCSE, you'll still have to make a lot of effort to get an A* at A-level. If you got a B at GCSE, the best you can hope for is a D. Only people with natural talent can get an A*".
> 
> This results in teachers only teaching the basics and then expecting pupils to solve advanced problems on their own and under severe time limits. I.e. rather than teaching all their pupils how to approach more advanced problems, this is left to chance and natural selection. In my opinion, even if someone doesn't have a "natural talent", they could still learn those methods from their teachers and more would be gained by that overall.
> 
> This isn't a problem in other countries. E.g. in Germany, everyone is forced to take a Science at A-Level so that everyon has a chance to learn a broad variety of subjects. But it is not assumed that everyone must have a "natural talent" for it. Does this result in everyone in Germany being good at Science? Hell no, because not enough is done to make it accessible to everyone, but at least the purpose of it is to give everyone a chance, not to weed out the majority of pupils.
> 
> 
> edit to add: About the gap between GCSE and A-Level. That's not the case in Germany. Most people get roughly the same kinds of marks throughout their school career because things build up on each other a bit more gradually than in England. (But that's just my personal impression, I haven't got any data to back it up.)


Could you go into what it means to have a "male" vs a "female" brain when it comes to physics? Please also explain what you mean when you say that women aren't suited to "fast-paced" lessons.


----------



## WindowLicker

There are many factors that might inhibit women from entering the science fields. Lets start with the environment. There is aparently an uneven amount of men and women, leading to some sort of competition. The first thing a guy would think is what @FlaviaGemina said, using the "women are not fit to work here" attack. Which is kinda repulsive, and probably wouldn't create a desireable workplace for a lot of women, seeing as how they'd end up some sort of target, whether they were qualified or not. So theres that. 
Secondly, last time I checked Physics jobs were mainly for professors, scientists, NASA, or areospace engineering jobs. Do you realize how hard those jobs are to come by, and the fact that theres little funding you're essentially gaining massive amounts of debts for a slim chance at a job with few sustainable rewards. Also lets add that most of them are being outsourced. So realistically, unless you've had a lifelong goal to contribute to science, are already well connected and rich enough to find funding for experiments, its probably not favorable to, say, all the other thousands of careers out there.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

I didn't say that women aren't suited to fast paced lesson. Or maybe I expressed myself ambiguously. Let me rephrase it:
A-level physics and maths lessons are too fast-paced for _most_ of the kids, whether they are boys or girls and some of the boys cope with it better on a short-term basis. These are also the same boys who are identified by the teachers as having a "natural talent". But seeing as there are hardly any girls in the classes anyway, the factor that explains this is probably their "natural talent" rather than their masculinity. And yes @_skycloud86_, it would be the same for men with a more "female" brain, which is why you see them struggling in these courses (if they take them at all).

I guess I see the problem the following way. Please note that I'm only referring to the situation in the UK because I know it first hand.

1. Girls are discouraged from taking Physics in the first place due to stereotypes etc., i.e. many of those girls who do have a "natural talent" do not even take the course.

2. Pupils of either sex are only encouraged to continue with a subject if they have a "natural talent". 

3. When pupils of either gender struggle, this is sometimes dismissed as lack of natural ability and rather than supporting them, they are advised not to continue with the course. 
In day to day class-room situations, many of the boys have it easier because boys are stereotypically encouraged to be more risk-taking. So they'll just blurt out things that are actually wrong, but this way the teacher notices there is problem and explains things better. 
Alternatively, they just answer the practice questions wrong and aren't very bothered about it and change their answers when the teacher goes over them. Girls are stereotypically encouraged to be more thourough, however and this is why it can take them longer to answer the questions and why the time allocated to answering them may be too short sometimes. (Of course, the same is true for less risk-taking boys, as well. This is something you can find in languages teaching as well: many boys are more willing to speak without preparation and aren't that stressed about grammatical correctness, while many girls take longer to prepare what they want to say because they want to write it down and make sure it's correct first.) @_hela_, this is what I meant when I said some boys cope bette with fast-paced lessons. I realize now that the way I phrased it makes it sound like they are mentally quicker or something. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned these learned behaviours in one breath with the other aspects I mentioned.

==> Here in the UK, girls are discouraged from taking Physics for stereotypical reasons, and if they do make it into those courses, they are also affected by the "natural talent" assumption in the same way that boys are.

I was only trying to put this into a wider perspective, specific to the UK situation, because one of the articles was about the UK. 
You see, over here politicians are constantly moaning that _not enough pupils of either gender _take sciences at A-level. 

What I'm trying to say is that part of the reason for that is A-level statistics and league tables are overemphasized here and those pupils (whether male or female) who would profit from a more personalized approach/ more in depth explanations/ more time to finish tasks etc. are discouraged from taking the courses in the first place. Add to that that girls are discouraged from it by stereotypes and they end up discriminated against even more than the boys, but here in the UK this is not exclusively a girls vs boys thing.

What I'm saying is, there are two different approaches to this whole thing:

1. Government expects more people of either gender to take sciences at A-Level for a well-rounded education. ---> Government makes science compulsory. ---> Officially, everyone has equal access to science lessons at A-Level. Whether they are any good at it depends on a mix of teacher's approach, individuals pupil's effort and individual pupil's "natural talent." Government can pat itself on the back because it has done its duty

2. Government expects everyone who takes science A-Levels to also be good at science. --> To make sure this happens, government can either provide funds to support those who don't have a "natural talent" better. In this case, there would be more people with science A-Level who aren't geniuses but are perfectly capable of following a method that they learned. Or the government can put pressure on teachers to only "produce" pupils with top marks and in the absence of funds this (quite naturally and understandably) leads to teachers concentrating their efforts on those with a "natural talent" (excluding pupils of either gender who lack such a 'natural talent').


P.S.: when I talked about the male and female brain I meant to say that certain skills are traditionally seen as more male and other skills as more female and that some researchers use the terms "male" and "female" or "masculine" and "feminine" to describe different brains. I only used these terms as a short-cut and I am very well aware that this is an oversimplification and I totally agree that men with a more "female" brain would need a different approach (and judging from the school were I work, you don't find many boys with a more "female" brain in Physics). Sorry to cause so much confusion. I didn't mean to be sexist, but I guess I'm slightly off-topic by relating this whole thing to other aspects of the UK education system that strike me as counterproductive.

*edit to add: *I guess what I'm advocating is the following approach: if a government thinks that a particular subject is really that important, they should just make it compulsory for everyone. That saves them wondering why a particular group of people isn't taking that subject. 

If it then turns out that a particular group of people does worse at that subject then another group, they can still address this problem. Theoretically, if all the girls with "natural talent" for Physics _had_ to take Physics at A-Level, they should do well at it without any further intervention, just like the boys with a "natural talent". Then efforts can be made to support those individuals of either gender without a "natural talent" to make the subject more accessible to them. I.e. Of course those girls who do have a "natural talent" for Physics should not be disproportionally excluded from it on account of stereotypes. But the easiest way to drag them to a Physics class is to make it compulsory for everyone. That's a lot easier than waiting for our whole society to change bit by bit. Once they've got their A-Levels (in Physics and a variety of other subjects, it is up to them whether they want to go on to also study Physics at university).


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Here's the statistics for some other A-Level subjects by gender in 2010:



[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/aug/19/a-levels-results-analysis-subject-school said:


> A level results 2010: the complete exam breakdown by subject, school, and sex. As a spreadsheet and visualised | News | guardian.co.uk[/url]]
> Performing/ Expressive Arts:
> 14.5% male 85.5% female
> Sociology 24.7% male 75.3% female
> Psychology 26.9% male 73.1% female


The list goes on. Why don't I hear the government complaining that not enough _boys_ are taking performing and expressive arts? Surely, if they are interested in equal opportunities more boys should be encouraged to take drama at A-Level and many boys who take maths due to gender stereotypes might be better off choosing drama. Ah but hang on.... that same goverment also complains that too many pupils choose so-called "easy" subjects and that that more pupils should choose science because that would be more useful for the UK economy. 
So, my question is: is the government really interested in gender equality in its own right or are they simultaneously pushing their economic agenda?

What's more, there aren't even enough jobs for science graduates (of either gender), so what would be gained by encouraging women to take a subject that leaves them unemployed? Equal rights to unemployment? 
Big Wide World: Do we really need more science graduates?


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

It's because men and women are different. They need to be taught different.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Hum, I've re-read the article about the UK (didn't read the other one).... and I've found several factors that contribute to this problem. I don't think we can just sum it up as "discrimination" etc. 
I'll highlight those aspects that I personally see as gender specific in red and those that I think are more general in green.

*1. Sexism in newspapers
*Newspaper reports commenting on female scientists' clothes and hair isn't specific to science. 
It happens to female athletes as well. It's a very unfortunate phenomenon, but the article makes it clear that this happens to female scientists in general, so why should this have an especially detrimental effect on girl studying physics? 
If ogling prevented women from studying science, that should deter just as many girls from studying Biology or Chemistry.

*2. Pressure from peer group
*The article does cite some ways in which girls can be discouraged from taking Physics in a _subtle_ way, and of course this needs to be addressed. 
However, the main factor for those girls seems to be their peer group, i.e. mainly other girls. And this peer group doesn't even bully them in any major way. 

*3. Physics is not perceived as cool and thus we need female role models for the girls.* 

ERhem... .how's about if we taught our children about personal choice? Who says they need to listen to their peer group when choosing their A-Level subjects? Why don't we teach children that their personal interests and their future are more important than the superficial approval of their peer group? 
Why not teach them that they can hang around with their friends who take English in/after their English class and with their other friends, who are taking Physics, in/after their Physics class? What makes them think they have to spend all day with one particular group of friends?
If we consider these kids old enough to choose A-Level subjects, why don't we also empower them to choose their friends more wisely or be more assertive?
I'm sure some boys miss out on taking dance at A-Level, because their peer group prefer to do BTEC sport or engineering etc., so that's not even something that only girls need to learn about. 

Also, how can this article simultaneously condemn the kind of sexism described in point "1." and demand "cool" female role models for girls? Some female scientists will look "feminine". This is totally irrelevant to their job. Some will look geeky or plain. Which is also irrelevant. 
But what do they require a "cool" female scientist to look like if, on the one hand, comments about the prettier ones are quite rightly considered irrelevant and sexist, but on the other hand the girls won't want to identify with the plain-looking ones?


*4. What's the connection between girls taking Physics at A-Level and girls becoming top-level Physicists?* 
It's indirect at best because the education system in the UK just doesn't work like that. There are any number of reasons why a boy/girl might take Physics at A-Level: 
- because they want to study medicine, and some unis do favour a Phyics A-Level over a Biology one

- because they need a thrid A-Level subject and Physics is seen as academically rigorous and many unis ask for Physics because of its academic rigour, even though the subject that the student want to take at uni is entirely unrelated to it Physics

- because they happen to be good at it and need good marks to be accepted by a top uni, but they don't intend to study Physics at uni


*5. A Level grades
*The article does not mention what marks pupils of either gender get at A-Level, so let's look at this page.
A-level results 2012: breakdown by subject, gender and region | News | guardian.co.uk 
To be accepted by any good uni, you need to have A* to B marks. Cs will do for some unis but not the better ones. As it turns out, the percentage of A* to B marks is a little higher for Chemistry. Pupils in England are ecouraged to choose their A-Levels based on such statistics. As in "80% of pupils got such and such a mark in this subject last year, so you should pick this subject based on statistic probability". 
Following this logic, pupils of either gender would be well-adviced to pick Chemistry instead of Physics. 

What's also clear from the marks is that a significant proportion of those pupils taking Physics do not reach the mark required by many unis and thus would not seem to have the kind of "natural talent" that at least some teachers describe as a requirement for doing well in Physics. Seeing as 80% of them are boys, many of the boys in those courses fall short of the "natural talent" that is required.

*6. Teaching method
*The improved teaching methods mentioned by the girls in the artilce aren't gender specific. Girls/boys with a "natural talent" for Physics, will be able to understand things even without many practicals (although the lessons would be boring). Girls/boys without a supergenious talent for Physics will profit from practicals. The girls in this article profited from a method that is not gender-specific per se, although they perceived it as such. No doubt, some of them would have had enough natural talent to understand the theory without practicals and some of them would not. 


*
TL;DR
What I think is mainly wrong with the English education system is that pupils are forced to specialize too early and this specilization makes it easier for gender-specific specialization to creep in.* *If both girls and boys were required to study a canon of compulsory subjects at A-Level, the stereotypes which still do prevail in society would not have such a strong influence on young people's life (because they would simply be prevented from choosing based on stereotypes).*


----------



## slender

it could also have to do with testosterone. put simply, women tend to have less of a competitive drive due to less testosterone. science and physics tend to have highly competitive worlds, in the sense of you having to defend your theories, attack others who you believe are wrong, etc...


----------



## skycloud86

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> It's because men and women are different. They need to be taught different.


Can you explain these differences?


----------



## Kormoran

It's difficult to fit the lab into the kitchen 

In all seriousness, could this possibly have something to do with interest? Women, at least where I live, seem to prefer medicine, psychology, and other such "people-related" professions, over engineering, physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc. where you're working elements and ideas and machines.

There was a show on television here a while back called _Hjernevask_, where gender differences were explored. Although the more publicized specialists (who based their arguments on opinions and politics) argued that gender roles were assigned by parents and society, other researchers (who based theirs on data from experiments) argued that it was at least in part biology. Evidence from observations showed that the boys always wanted to play with the cars and whatnot, and the girls with the dolls and such. I'll see if I can find a link to the show.

The show also hypothesised that in gender-egalitarian societies, people were free to explore their own interests, and therefore went their own way. It's also increasingly popular among women in their 30's now, well-educated women, who voluntarily become stay-at-home moms. And it should be said, that being a stay-at-home mom/dad is just as important (if not more so) to society than being a CEO.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cormo said:


> It's difficult to fit the lab into the kitchen
> 
> In all seriousness, could this possibly have something to do with interest? Women, at least where I live, seem to prefer medicine, psychology, and other such "people-related" professions, over engineering, physics, mathematics, chemistry, etc. where you're working elements and ideas and machines.
> 
> .


I do think it has to do with interest, but whether that interest is determined by biology or social conditioning may be a question that we will not be able to answer once and for all in the near future.
What's for sure is that once girls and boys are 16 years old, they have been exposed to social conditioning for such a long time, that any campaign like this will only scratch the surface.

Look at what these girls are concerned about: fitting in with their peer group. Well.. that's only human. But then on the other hand, throughout history there have always been female scientists (even in ancient Greece) and they got where they are by _rejecting_ the influence of their peer group. They did not set out to become a successful or cool _female_ scientist. Their interest in science was so compelling, that they ignored their peer group.
Or look at politicians like Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher. Did they aim to be successful politicians and fit in with other females at the same time? Angela Merkel doesn't make much of an effort to look fashionable, but she's successful as a politicians because she'll ruthlessly stab her male opponents in the back. She does get ridiculed for looking sloppy and not choosing the most flattering clothes, but she ignores it and has stuck to her style despite such comments.
Margaret Thatcher presentend herself as tough. Did she have to consciously _masculinize_ her behaviour in order to fit in with male politicians, or was she just a tough and ruthless person in her own right?

There is also a small number of men who work in hair and beauty. Have they got the approval of all the men who prefer sports, engineering, physics, medicine? No. Some men will not be bothered, others will say that men who work in hair and beauty are effeminate etc. 
Any individual who decides to work in a field that is considered unusual for their gender will be accepted by some members of their peer group and criticized by others. 
What about grown-up women who see it as their responsibility to cook the Christmas dinner (and then complain about how much work it is)? Why don't they just say "You know what, I can't be bothered."? Because they have identified the Christmas dinner as an important tradition in the first place, because everybody does it. They could just say "Let' go to MacDonald's" or they could tell their husband "If you want a Christmas dinner, cook it yourself!". But then they wouldn't fit in with other families. But again, that's their individual decision.

Some of the girls in that article also said, they need to see how Physics relates to everyday life. Fair enough. But how do you define whether something is relevant to your life? E.g. I know this female English teacher, who is a very good teacher and has good subject knowledge. However, outside lessons she likes to talk about these topics: her daughter, her family, her arguments with her female friends. Now, this teacher overheard some boys talking about Physics and shouted at them "Oh my God, stop going on about that. I don't see how they can even be interested in that. I couldn't study that, it's got nothing to do with my everyday life!" 
Well.... how would anyone persuade her to take an interest in Physics? Of course, it's got nothing to do with her life, because she has already decided that it doesn't. But how has English Literature got to do with anyone's life? How would you persuade a scientist to take an interest in Literature? The scientist would be equally justified to argue that Literature is irrelevant to their life. 

I do think girls are more encouraged than boys to follow this line of argument: Literature, Psychology etc. have to do with my life (because they have to do with people). Physics hasn't got to do with my life because it's about inanimate objects.
But at the point where they are 16 years old, it's too late to reverse that with any campaign that appeals to irrational argumetns about coolness or fitting in with everyone. You only end up going round in circles. 

At this point, rational arguments are needed (and these rational arguments apply to both genders), e.g.: Are you personally interested in this subject? If so, is anything preventing you from studying it? What's preventing you, your peer group? Well, ignore them then.
Do you wish to pursue a career as a researcher in this subject or do you want to study this subject just because you need a degree, but actually you plan to work in a different field later? Do you expect that you will earn a lot of money, if you study this subject? etc.

At this point in history, there are no legal obstacles preventing girls from studying Physics or boys from studying hair and beauty. In fact, if a teacher said to them that they can't study these subjects on account of their gender, the teacher would be sued and would lose the case. If certain people still choose to value "coolness", image or the approval of their peer group higher than their personal interests and legal rights..... well.... I'm not sure there's much anyone can do about that, especially if the adults in that society also model this line of thinking.

If you really wanted to get to the root of social conditioning, you'd have to start in nursing school and force/cajole/encourage etc. boys and girls to play with all kinds of different toys. But even then, the children would still be influenced by their parents' behaviour.


----------



## Cosmicsense

How the hell do people not know why? It's so damned obvious. I got news for you all. Male and female brains are structurally different. That's not sexism, that's truth. Women tend to excell in some things, but physics isn't one of them.

How can these PC tards think that accepting our differences is even close to sexism is beyond my comprehension. Freaking ridiculous.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cosmicsense said:


> How the hell do people not know why? It's so damned obvious. I got news for you all. Male and female brains are structurally different. That's not sexism, that's truth. Women tend to excell in some things, but physics isn't one of them.


But would you agree that these structural differences are only an average and that some women will have a brain that predisposes them for physics and some men have a brain that predisposes them for other things? As long as those people who are an exception to the average are not prevented from choosing a career on account of their outward appearance as "man" vs. "woman", I can agree with you.


----------



## Cosmicsense

@FlaviaGemina

Of course I agree. Tendency does not equate to an absolute direction or outcome in all instances. Interestingly, it's been found that homosexuals have the same structure as the opposite sex, for instance.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cosmicsense said:


> @_FlaviaGemina_
> 
> Of course I agree. Tendency does not equate to an absolute direction or outcome in all instances. Interestingly, it's been found that homosexuals have the same structure as the opposite sex, for instance.


On the other hand, there are scientists who argue that even the differences in brain structure are partly due to social conditioning, i.e. the more boys/girls are encouraged to use these specific skills, the more these skills will become engrained through practice and other skills will be neglected. Girl Brain, Boy Brain?: Scientific American
But if that's true, what is needed is early intervention, not campaigns for role models that are supposed to influence teenagers at a point where they are already used to neglecting the skills associated with the other gender.


----------



## Cosmicsense

I don't think social conditioning will enlarge the corpus collosum lol. Partially , sure, but enough to even bother mentioning?! I don't see the point.


----------



## Kormoran

Thank you for the swift reply, and the depth of it too.


FlaviaGemina said:


> I do think it has to do with interest, but whether that interest is determined by biology or social conditioning may be a question that we will not be able to answer once and for all in the near future.
> What's for sure is that once girls and boys are 16 years old, they have been exposed to social conditioning for such a long time, that any campaign like this will only scratch the surface.


Yes, but research suggest that this may have something to do with exposure to testosterone in the womb. A higher exposure to estrogen may cause a boy to develop the more "female" brain (a rather misleading and poor term, really. "Artistic" or "philosophical", perhaps?). Specific interests probably develop through social conditioning, but I the evidence suggest that this is influenced also by biology.



> Look at what these girls are concerned about: fitting in with their peer group. Well.. that's only human. But then on the other hand, throughout history there have always been female scientists (even in ancient Greece) and they got where they are by _rejecting_ the influence of their peer group. They did not set out to become a successful or cool _female_ scientist. Their interest in science was so compelling, that they ignored their peer group.


Social pressure influences boys too, you know. Some people break free of it, regardless of gender. I think it has more to do with the personality traits of the individual more than gender. Being a girl makes you weak no more than being a boy makes you strong, psychologically or emotionally.



> Or look at politicians like Angela Merkel or Margaret Thatcher. Did they aim to be successful politicians and fit in with other females at the same time? Angela Merkel doesn't make much of an effort to look fashionable, but she's successful as a politicians because she'll ruthlessly stab her male opponents in the back. She does get ridiculed for looking sloppy and not choosing the most flattering clothes, but she ignores it and has stuck to her style despite such comments.
> Margaret Thatcher presentend herself as tough. Did she have to consciously _masculinize_ her behaviour in order to fit in with male politicians, or was she just a tough and ruthless person in her own right?


Angela Merkel is, I believe, a physicist, and indeed a good example of someone who does not fit that traditional pattern. Thatcher, on the other hand, was somewhat masculine. From what I've heard, she's somewhat of a chauvinist pig. Christopher Hitchens, IIRC, once told a story about how she'd slapped him on arse and made some sexist, sexually suggestive remark. She was indeed the Iron Lady, but I don't know enough about her life to make any comment on whether she was influenced or whether it was biological. She does seem rather henpecking, though.

I think most any politician is backstabbing, but if you mean to suggest that backstabbing is a male trait, I find that very offensive. I'm a man, and I, along with most of my "brethren", find deceit and treason despicable, and to be branded with any of it highly dishonourable (yes, some of us still have a code of honour. This, I grant you, is through social conditioning).



> There is also a small number of men who work in hair and beauty. Have they got the approval of all the men who prefer sports, engineering, physics, medicine? No. Some men will not be bothered, others will say that men who work in hair and beauty are effeminate etc.


Traditionally, both barbers and hairdressers were male. Lewis Collins, for example, Bodie from The Professionals (I never liked Doyle's perm), was a hairdresser, as was Sylvester Stallone, I believe. As were tailors and dressmakers. Mind you, both of the mentioned individuals had other, more typically male, interests aswell.



> What about grown-up women who see it as their responsibility to cook the Christmas dinner (and then complain about how much work it is)? Why don't they just say "You know what, I can't be bothered."? Because they have identified the Christmas dinner as an important tradition in the first place, because everybody does it. They could just say "Let' go to MacDonald's" or they could tell their husband "If you want a Christmas dinner, cook it yourself!". But then they wouldn't fit in with other families. But again, that's their individual decision.


I've never experienced that myself, but I come from a family where all the women actually enjoy cooking. Most famous chefs, by the way, are men. If someone, male or female, doesn't like cooking, then most partners, male or female, would expect them to contribute in some other way. My mother enjoys cooking, but doesn't enjoy woodwork very much. My father doesn't mind cooking, but enjoys woodwork.



> Some of the girls in that article also said, they need to see how Physics relates to everyday life. Fair enough. But how do you define whether something is relevant to your life? E.g. I know this female English teacher, who is a very good teacher and has good subject knowledge. However, outside lessons she likes to talk about these topics: her daughter, her family, her arguments with her female friends. Now, this teacher overheard some boys talking about Physics and shouted at them "Oh my God, stop going on about that. I don't see how they can even be interested in that. I couldn't study that, it's got nothing to do with my everyday life!"
> Well.... how would anyone persuade her to take an interest in Physics? Of course, it's got nothing to do with her life, because she has already decided that it doesn't. But how has English Literature got to do with anyone's life? How would you persuade a scientist to take an interest in Literature? The scientist would be equally justified to argue that Literature is irrelevant to their life.


That's not a given. I just means that your friend is narrow-minded and childish. I heard that from fellow pupils at primary school. "Don't need maths". Rubbish. Utter, utter bullshit. Why can't people enjoy learning new things, even if it isn't directly applicable to what you imagine you'll be doing?

And I think the attitude your friend displays to other students (particularily academically interested students) is appalling. How dare she!



> I do think girls are more encouraged than boys to follow this line of argument: Literature, Psychology etc. have to do with my life (because they have to do with people). Physics hasn't got to do with my life because it's about inanimate objects.
> But at the point where they are 16 years old, it's too late to reverse that with any campaign that appeals to irrational argumetns about coolness or fitting in with everyone. You only end up going round in circles.


I'm not sure what you mean here, but physics is not about inanimate objects. A major part of basic physics are the laws of motion. Physics is part of those sciences that focus on everything around us, on us. Physics is interesting! Science is interesting! Literature, psychology, language, history, philosophy is interesting! Learning, and exploring is interesting.



> At this point, rational arguments are needed (and these rational arguments apply to both genders), e.g.: Are you personally interested in this subject? If so, is anything preventing you from studying it? What's preventing you, your peer group? Well, ignore them then.


In the Western world, we have reached a very high (not complete, though) level of gender egalitarianism. An 18-year old boy wanting to be a hair dresser, is unlikely to hang around with boys who disapprove of this. Logically, you don't hang around people who verbally, or especially physically, abuse you.



> At this point in history, there are no legal obstacles preventing girls from studying Physics or boys from studying hair and beauty. In fact, if a teacher said to them that they can't study these subjects on account of their gender, the teacher would be sued and would lose the case. If certain people still choose to value "coolness", image or the approval of their peer group higher than their personal interests and legal rights..... well.... I'm not sure there's much anyone can do about that, especially if the adults in that society also model this line of thinking.


I agree with you. I think one has to go ones own way, and not be fooled into following parents or role models out of gaining their approval. They can't approve of the fact that you went a different way, then they can fuck off, as far as I'm concerned.



> If you really wanted to get to the root of social conditioning, you'd have to start in nursing school and force/cajole/encourage etc. boys and girls to play with all kinds of different toys. But even then, the children would still be influenced by their parents' behaviour.


Or biology. Boys tend to be attracted to mechanical things that go fast, and make explosions. Girls tend to be attracted to toys that inspire a story or a scene. I remember from playschool; we played together regardless of gender, and yet still, today I like fighter jets and motorcycles.

Perhaps it is a combination between biology and MBTI? It's a hot topic for research, that's for sure.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cormo said:


> Perhaps it is a combination between biology and MBTI? It's a hot topic for research, that's for sure.


Indeed, that is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, MBTI is no more of an indicator for career suitability than anything else.
But for what it's worth, here's an example of a male ESFJ who I work with. He studied science, but wasn't happy with it. Then he studied physiotherapy. Now he's working as a teaching assistant helping children. Apart from that, he spends his time looking after his friends and he wishes to be highly valued as a person by his employers. I wonder what made him decide to study science in the first place? Was it because boys are encouraged to study science because it's a guy thing? But now he's unhappy with it because his personality makes him more interested in a more "caring" job? Maybe it's just a coincidence and has to do with his individual experience rather than his MBTI type. Who knows? But I do think it's time we started looking at individuals rather than broad categories.

Here's an idea: why not give all scientiests (or all professionals) a serial number under which they can publish their work? Give them an email address based on that serial number. When they apply for jobs, they can use the serial number instead of their name. Then send them interview questions by email so that they can answer them in writing. This way nobody will ever know their sex/gender until they've actually got the job. If employers still insist on having face-to-face conversations before hiring someone to see them interact socially, they can pick a short list of candidates based on their written replies and focus only on the social interaction in the interview. *crackpot idea*
LOL, I'm enjoying this discussion.


(About backstabbing, I didn't mean it's a typically male thing. I meant it's what many politicians do and the subculture of politics seems to encourage it. And that's why Merkel fits right in with them.)


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cormo said:


> That's not a given. I just means that your friend is narrow-minded and childish. I heard that from fellow pupils at primary school. "Don't need maths". Rubbish. Utter, utter bullshit. Why can't people enjoy learning new things, even if it isn't directly applicable to what you imagine you'll be doing?
> 
> And I think the attitude your friend displays to other students (particularily academically interested students) is appalling. How dare she!
> 
> 
> .


Exactly! But that's the crux of the whole English education system: pupils (of either gender) are not encouraged to study different subjects out of interest. Everything has to be useful in some way and of course anyone can find any number of arguments about how any subject is either useful or useless. This isn't so much of a problem in other countries, but if you asked me to identify the most important flaw of the English education system, it's this attitude. I believe that this whole attitude is way more detrimental and affects more pupils in lots of ways than anything to do with gender inequality does.


----------



## Kormoran

Here's the documentary I spoke of. Subtitled in English.


----------



## The Proof

...and yet some girls do, in fact, do science stuff

so maybe it's just that many people are not cut out to do science?

seems to me gender has jack to do with who does science


----------



## FlaviaGemina

The Proof said:


> ...and yet some girls do, in fact, do science stuff
> 
> *so maybe it's just that many people are not cut out to do science?
> 
> *seems to me gender has jack to do with who does science


Yes, and if you look at the statistics of A-Level results that I posted somewhere above, this is confirmed by the results. 
Many universities require pupils to to get an A* to B mark in their A-Level subjects. But nearly half (if I remember correctly) of A-Level Physics students get a C or worse. 80% of A-Level Physics students are boys. So maybe the way Physics is taught isn't appropriate to either gender. Or maybe it is appropriate and nothing can be done to make anyone better at Physics.


----------



## Kormoran

FlaviaGemina said:


> Indeed, that is a very interesting question. Unfortunately, MBTI is no more of an indicator for career suitability than anything else.
> But for what it's worth, here's an example of a male ESFJ who I work with. He studied science, but wasn't happy with it. Then he studied physiotherapy. Now he's working as a teaching assistant helping children. Apart from that, he spends his time looking after his friends and he wishes to be highly valued as a person by his employers. I wonder what made him decide to study science in the first place? Was it because boys are encouraged to study science because it's a guy thing? But now he's unhappy with it because his personality makes him more interested in a more "caring" job? Maybe it's just a coincidence and has to do with his individual experience rather than his MBTI type. Who knows? But I do think it's time we started looking at individuals rather than broad categories.


Yes, but equally it could mean that he simply wasn't sure. He may well have an interest in science, but throughout the course, discovered that he didn't want to work with it. Same with physiotherapy.
Most people end up working with something far different from what they trained in. I have a friend who has an MA in History. He works in IT.



> Here's an idea: why not give all scientiests (or all professionals) a serial number under which they can publish their work? Give them an email address based on that serial number. When they apply for jobs, they can use the serial number instead of their name. Then send them interview questions by email so that they can answer them in writing. This way nobody will ever know their sex/gender until they've actually got the job. If employers still insist on having face-to-face conversations before hiring someone to see them interact socially, they can pick a short list of candidates based on their written replies and focus only on the social interaction in the interview. *crackpot idea*
> LOL, I'm enjoying this discussion.


That has been considered as a means to combat racial favouritism aswell. How well it would work, I don't know. But I think it may better than quotas and such. That has a nasty tendency to be very unfair, for everyone involved.



> (About backstabbing, I didn't mean it's a typically male thing. I meant it's what many politicians do and the subculture of politics seems to encourage it. And that's why Merkel fits right in with them.)


Righto. No worries


----------



## Kormoran

FlaviaGemina said:


> Exactly! But that's the crux of the whole English education system: pupils (of either gender) are not encouraged to study different subjects out of interest. Everything has to be useful in some way and of course anyone can find any number of arguments about how any subject is either useful or useless. This isn't so much of a problem in other countries, but if you asked me to identify the most important flaw of the English education system, it's this attitude. I believe that this whole attitude is way more detrimental and affects more pupils in lots of ways than anything to do with gender inequality does.


But how do pupils find out what they're interested in if they're not introduced to anything? Besides, they need basic skills to progress further with their interests. This also ensures that people have a minimum of qualifications to do most any job, regardless of their specialty. There are skills that permeates all professions.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cormo said:


> That has been considered as a means to combat racial favouritism aswell. How well it would work, I don't know. But I think it may better than quotas and such. That has a nasty tendency to be very unfair, for everyone involved.


Cool, I didn't know that.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> It's because men and women are different. They need to be taught different.


differently*.

In what ways are men and women different? How and why should I be taught differently to my brothers?


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cormo said:


> But how do pupils find out what they're interested in if they're not introduced to anything? Besides, they need basic skills to progress further with their interests. This also ensures that people have a minimum of qualifications to do most any job, regardless of their specialty. There are skills that permeates all professions.


I know. But there are two tendencies throughout UK politics that are at cross purposes with each other:

1. The government and other agencies want to control the outcome of the education process by setting targets (e.g. the desired percentage of grades, the desired percentage of this, that and the other)
2. Individual choice is stressed and pupils are allowed to choose some options at a young age (science, maths and Egnlish are compulsory up to the age of 16, however)

This leads to the following situation: teachers and some campaigners have to encourage individual pupils to take a certain subject based on utility and it is left to the pupils to decide whether they accept that argument or not. This is when the pupils are 13 years old. Imagine it like this:
"You should study Spanish because employers ask for people with foreign languages!" --> "Yeah, but I'm gonna be a police officer and they don't ask for Spanish." / "Yeah, but the whole world speaks English anyway!"
"You should study Spanish because it broadens your horizon and opens up a whole new world to you." --> "Yeah, but I'm not gonna go to Spain anyway."
"You should study cooking because it teaches you about healthy eating and you can save money by cooking for yourself." --> "Don't care, I'll go to the chippie."
"You should work harder to get a better mark in English!" --> "Yeah, but my cousin says they pay you 1,000 pounds in the army. I don't need English."

These are the kinds of arguments that teachers are faced with every day. And you know what? I agree with the children, their arguments are entirely logical from their perspective.

Conversely, teachers dissuade pupils who haven't got good marks from choosing certain subjects. If the teacher allows a pupil with poor marks to continue studying a subject out of interest, that will affect the statistics and it will reflect negatively on the teacher. Within this system, the only logical thing for the teacher to do is to scare off these children to save his/her own arse.
So yes, pupils do get introduced to different subjects, but they can easily drop them based on a whim. They know that they can drop history, languages and many other subjects after the first three years of secondary school and never make an effort at all, saying "I'll drop it anyway."




@tanstaafl28 sorry I've totally derailed your thread now by discussing the whole English education system rather than just Physics. I hope some of the issues I brought up will seem relevant. If they don't I didn't do it to troll, but because they seemed relevant to me.


----------



## Kormoran

FlaviaGemina said:


> I know. But there are two tendencies throughout UK politics that are at cross purposes with each other:
> 
> 1. The government and other agencies want to control the outcome of the education process by setting targets (e.g. the desired percentage of grades, the desired percentage of this, that and the other)
> 2. Individual choice is stressed and pupils are allowed to choose some options at a young age (science, maths and Egnlish are compulsory up to the age of 16, however)


Same here in Norway. Politicians only think of the next election, unfortunately. But that's what they're like. Perhaps a very good case in favour of sortition.



> This leads to the following situation: teachers and some campaigners have to encourage individual pupils to take a certain subject based on utility and it is left to the pupils to decide whether they accept that argument or not. This is when the pupils are 13 years old. Imagine it like this:
> "You should study Spanish because employers ask for people with foreign languages!" --> "Yeah, but I'm gonna be a police officer and they don't ask for Spanish." / "Yeah, but the whole world speaks English anyway!"
> "You should study Spanish because it broadens your horizon and opens up a whole new world to you." --> "Yeah, but I'm not gonna go to Spain anyway."
> "You should study cooking because it teaches you about healthy eating and you can save money by cooking for yourself." --> "Don't care, I'll go to the chippie."
> "You should work harder to get a better mark in English!" --> "Yeah, but my cousin says they pay you 1,000 pounds in the army. I don't need English."
> 
> These are the kinds of arguments that teachers are faced with every day. And you know what? I agree with the children, their arguments are entirely logical from their perspective.
> 
> Conversely, teachers dissuade pupils who haven't got good marks from choosing certain subjects. If the teacher allows a pupil with poor marks to continue studying a subject out of interest, that will affect the statistics and it will reflect negatively on the teacher. Within this system, the only logical thing for the teacher to do is to scare off these children to save his/her own arse.
> So yes, pupils do get introduced to different subjects, but they can easily drop them based on a whim. They know that they can drop history, languages and many other subjects after the first three years of secondary school and never make an effort at all, saying "I'll drop it anyway."


Indeed. I agree with you. It's a perfect example of poor statistical practice; only focussing on the quantitative side, mostly because it's easy to calculate and draw conclusions from. But to be useful, it must be combined with, or ideally as a part of a, qualitative statistical survey. It is only then that you'll get the true answers you're looking far, and it is only then that you can draw the right conclusions and find solutions that benefit all parties. Unfortunately, that isn't what the political leadership is looking for. They're looking for cheap, easy solutions (ostensibly) to problems. Whatever comes after their terms are over is irrelevant. Shame, really.

Are you a teacher, by the way?


----------



## FlaviaGemina

Cormo said:


> Are you a teacher, by the way?


Trained to be a teacher, but working as a teaching assistant with kids with special needs.

Sortition sounds great to me. I didn't know it's called that. I think I'll sign off now. Thanks for an interesting debate.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

Dolorous Haze said:


> differently*.
> 
> In what ways are men and women different? How and why should I be taught differently to my brothers?


Different in the ways they learn things and different in things they are attracted to (like blocks vs. dolls) Like it or not, girls like dolls more than boys do and boys like blocks more than girls do. This isn't some conspiracy to force girls to be moms, girls are given dolls _because they like them_. Can girls like blocks and boys like dolls? Sure, but they'll probably play with them in different ways.

Honestly if a child didn't like a toy they wouldn't play with it. I know this turned into a reply about your previous post but that comic made me roll my eyes. 

So there aren't a lot of female physics majors...so what? Do we need female physics majors; is there a quota to fill? Maybe the answer is as simple as girls don't _want_ to be physics majors.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Different in the ways they learn things and different in things they are attracted to (like blocks vs. dolls) Like it or not, girls like dolls more than boys do and boys like blocks more than girls do. This isn't some conspiracy to force girls to be moms, girls are given dolls _because they like them_. Can girls like blocks and boys like dolls? Sure, but they'll probably play with them in different ways.
> 
> Honestly if a child didn't like a toy they wouldn't play with it. I know this turned into a reply about your previous post but that comic made me roll my eyes.
> 
> So there aren't a lot of female physics majors...so what? Do we need female physics majors; is there a quota to fill? Maybe the answer is as simple as girls don't _want_ to be physics majors.


Really? Is that why I used to shave Barbie's head and steal my brothers' Lego? Boys toys are much more fun. Most of my female friends used to love playing with boys toys and almost preferred their brother's toys to their own. Yet their parents and mine continued to buy dolls and kitchens because that was the "correct thing to buy".

And you still didn't answer how I should be taught differently to my brothers? Can I not handle the same material they can? Does my poor little female brain overheat when I think about anything more difficult than cute boys and cheesecake recipes? I guess I'l need a big stwong man like you to take care of me and protect me from the big, bad world? :sad:


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

Dolorous Haze said:


> Really? Is that why I used to shave Barbie's head and steal my brothers' Lego? Boys toys are much more fun. Most of my female friends used to love playing with boys toys and almost preferred their brother's toys to their own. Yet their parents and mine continued to buy dolls and kitchens because that was the "correct thing to buy".
> 
> And you still didn't answer how I should be taught differently to my brothers? Can I not handle the same material they can? Does my poor little female brain overheat when I think about anything more difficult than cute boys and cheesecake recipes? I guess I'l need a big stwong man like you to take care of me and protect me from the big, bad world? :sad:


Well, you liked that stuff, that's fine, but not really typical. I don't think parents should _force_ their kids to play with certain toys, obviously. What I meant by taught differently is that boys and girls learn differently in terms of demontration, audio/visual sorts of things, and the like. I don't really know what works for either gender the best off the top of my head, but that's what I was referring to. I know that there is a crisis going on in boys' education right now because the schools are generally teaching things that better suit a feminine way of learning.

And please, don't make me blush...


----------



## Dolorous Haze

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Well, you liked that stuff, that's fine, but not really typical. I don't think parents should _force_ their kids to play with certain toys, obviously. What I meant by taught differently is that boys and girls learn differently in terms of demontration, audio/visual sorts of things, and the like. I don't really know what works for either gender the best off the top of my head, but that's what I was referring to. I know that there is a crisis going on in boys' education right now because the schools are generally teaching things that better suit a feminine way of learning.
> 
> And please, don't make me blush...


There is a crisis in boys school because girls are catching and beating them in subjects that boys were traditionally good at. Some people just can't handle the fact that girls are on the same level as boys. In Ireland, the whole way in which prospective medical students get into college was changed because "Not enough boys were getting in to university to study medicine." They changed it and there's still a higher number of girls studying to be doctors. 

There is no one "set-way" an entire gender of people learn. Everyone has preferred learning methods, but it's not determined by your gender.


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

Dolorous Haze said:


> There is a crisis in boys school because girls are catching and beating them in subjects that boys were traditionally good at. Some people just can't handle the fact that girls are on the same level as boys. In Ireland, the whole way in which prospective medical students get into college was changed because "Not enough boys were getting in to university to study medicine." They changed it and there's still a higher number of girls studying to be doctors.
> 
> There is no one "set-way" an entire gender of people learn. Everyone has preferred learning methods, but it's not determined by your gender.


Of course you can't just split people into two groups and teach them solely on that. But you can't deny that because of these fundamental differences in the way male and female brains work, that accommodations should be made in teaching boys a more masculine way of learning and girls a more feminine way.

And education is not a race. Girls aren't supposed to be "beating" boys in learning things or vice versa.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> And education is not a race. Girls aren't supposed to be "beating" boys in learning things or vice versa.


I know it shouldn't be a race. Which is why girls keeping up with or doing slightly better than boys should not be seen as a "crisis".


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

Dolorous Haze said:


> I know it shouldn't be a race. Which is why girls keeping up with or doing slightly better than boys should not be seen as a "crisis".


It's not so much that girls doing better than boys is the problem, it's that the boys aren't keeping up with the girls. If one sex is outperforming the other consistently then there's something wrong going on.


----------



## Dolorous Haze

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> It's not so much that girls doing better than boys is the problem, it's that the boys aren't keeping up with the girls.* If one sex is outperforming the other consistently then there's something wrong going on*.


Like the way in which boys are outperforming girls in physics? Hmmm....


----------



## La Li Lu Le Lo

Dolorous Haze said:


> Like the way in which boys are outperforming girls in physics? Hmmm....


I meant more across the board than in a particular category.


----------



## Fern

That first article really made me smile.
Physics was my favorite science class in highschool. I have a very strong memory of my teacher stopping mid-lecture when he made eye contact with me and commenting on the glimmer in my eyes... Haha, no wonder everyone called me a "geek" back then 

EDIT: But to _*try *_to answer your question, I personally am not going into the sciences because I prefer applying my research to more creative areas like the arts as well as working in other production aspects. I just find it more fulfilling, *and *it satisfies my love for history, story-telling, human nature, and visual aesthetics simultaneously. 
I never saw math or science as a career path for myself but simply another fascinating aspect of my world to be explored! I'm taking college level physics next semester (I'm talking about next fall. I already have my entire Autumn mapped out) and I'm freshly excited.


----------



## WickerDeer

I am going to risk being ignorant here (but fortunately I'm very used to that risk).

But girls do learn a different skill set as children. Boys learn to suppress their emotions and to work with toys that are goal oriented and objective.

Girls learn to be quiet, and pay attention to others' emotions. We learn to socialize more--to deal with our emotions and others'. We get baby dolls to play with while boys are allowed to take risks and build stuff.

So it makes sense that girls would be doing better in school because school is very much about harmonizing with the teacher and finding out what they want. School is very much about being quiet and being non-disruptive and understanding the viewpoint of the teacher (and the theorists being studied).

During the summer before fourth grade I found my mom's college physics book. It was big and fat and made for non-physics majors. I loved it and I read several of the chapters, and then I began writing concepts on note cards so that I could practice and learn them like flashcards. But, of course, I didn't have enough background in math to understand the formulas, just the basic concepts like force, waves, the electromagnetic spectrum, inertia, friction etc. I seriously wanted to teach myself the whole book, but I didn't end up learning all of it. However, no one pushed me in that direction. Everyone in my family was focused on how skilled I was at art, so they always gifted me with art supplies and asked me to do things like arrange flowers or draw portraits for them.

I still wouldn't have gone into physics even if I were to have gone into a science (I studied English). I did meet a female physics major and I was so excited, but she confided to me that she was considering changing majors because she felt like all they did were formulas and she was more interested in applying theory. 
So, I think that physics is a really specialized field and that it is not for most people, but that some women who are fitted to physics probably drop out of that track because they have developed other skills that can be utilized in more obvious ways than studying physics. Also, I can imagine that it must be uncomfortable to be only one of a handful of girls in your male-dominated discipline.

Just as boys get spit out of school because they don't master being harmonious and invisible like girls do, girls probably get filtered into other disciplines that focus on their childhood skill set, which is nurturing and seeking harmony. (not saying all girls excel at harmony and nurturing, but I think that girls are taught that more).

Edit: Actually, I think I began reading that Physics book in the summer before fifth grade, because that's when we moved. 

And also, I would say that girls are taught to submit (or harmonize with)to authority more than boys are so that would explain why girls outdo boys in school. That and, like I said, girls are taught to be more invisible (from my upbringing).


----------



## Epherion

FlaviaGemina said:


> (About backstabbing, I didn't mean it's a typically male thing. I meant it's what many politicians do and the subculture of politics seems to encourage it. *And that's why Merkel fits right in with them.*)










What do you have against Merkel(Savior of the EU)?


----------



## Mr. Meepers

I think a lot of it has to do with how we are raised ... "boys do this, girls do that", "this is for boys and that is for girls", "boys are gonna grow up to be like daddy and girls are gonna grow up to be like mommy", ... This gives children different experiences and also develops their brains differently. ... And, it seems to me, a lot of these "studies" that say that there are statistically significant difference between men and women in knowledge in ___ areas, also show that the percentile differences are kind of small ... and individuals have a lot of variance, so I don't think skill set alone could explain why there are not a lot of women in science.

I also want to mention that physics is not as hard as how the material is taught in classes and I think classes and a public perception of mathematics can discourage a lot of people from physics (btw, I do have a degree in physics)

That being said, physics is a male dominated field which can scare some women because it might look like a "men's club". ... The other think is boys are encouraged to do science more than girls, I think. And girls are made to feel inferior at math (and boys are made to feel inferior with language skills).


* *





_Gender Brain Myth #3: Men are naturally better at math_

_But perhaps the most damning myth, which has even been espoused by a former president of Harvard, is that men are innately better at math and women are naturally better at verbal tasks. The logic is that gendered differences in math and verbal scores on standardized tests must result from intrinsic, biological differences in the brains of women and men. According to Parvizi, this logic is flawed: “Differences seen in cognitive tests do not necessarily provide direct evidence that those differences are in fact innate.” _

_If not inherent abilities, what can explain the differences in test scores? Evidence shows that test scores are not immune to social factors. Extensive empirical research on stereotype threat has demonstrated that if a person is exposed to a negative stereotype about a group to which they belong (e.g. women, Asians, African-Americans), they will then perform worse on tasks related to the stereotype. A striking example comes from a study on Asian-American women. When reminded of being Asian (which invokes stereotypes of high math ability) they scored higher than the control group (which was not reminded of their race or gender) on a math test. However, when Asian-American women were reminded of being female (which invokes stereotypes of poor math performance), they scored lower on the math test than the control group. _

_In this manner, social factors can greatly influence test performance. “Consequently, we are not in a position to draw any conclusions regarding sex differences in the brain and their relationship to differential cognitive abilities,” concluded Parvizi, “as we have yet to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that there are indeed real differences in ability.”_

- Stanford neuroscientist tackles myths about the brain




...
...
...

So I was in a Borders this one time, just before it was going out of business (okay, I was at Borders a lot) and I go over to the magazine section to look for the science magazines and I don't see them. ... Eventually I see the "Men's Interests" section and every section had three sub-sections. ... The top two subsections seemed to be kind of dirty (at least at a glance) and made me feel very uncomfortable to stand there where people can see me near those magazines (it was like people repellent lol). The bottom subsection was the sciences subsection where all the science magazines were. Now, to me, placing those magazines in the "Men's Interest" section would be a way to discourage women from buying them (whether they realized it or not). ... Now, I was pissed. I mean science is NOT a men's interest - It is a HUMAN interest and, in a democracy where science greatly influences society, science should be encouraged to all people. Not to mention that the institutions of science have been trying to encourage more women to become scientists for years and that was like a slap in the face. And I thought it was insulting to both science and women's intelligence ... So as someone who believes in equal treatment and as a physicist I was pissed. 


* *





A physicist is defined as anyone who has a physics degree. Why is this the definition? Because these people have a common set of experiences. Because other disciplines define their constituents in this manner. Because these people are a critical group for academics and future research. And, most importantly, because these are the only people that laugh at jokes involving a priest, a rabbi, and a quantum mechanic.

- Careers Using Physics






So, I believe our societies are the biggest reason why there are not a lot of women in physics


----------



## Siggy

@MrMeepers When I was a kid it was like that [ read 60's-70's here ] I remember in elementary school, one of my teachers had the class do a decoupage project. Well the girls were given pictures of ballerinas. I was like "huh". I hid in the corner and never did the project . I was more interested in ichthyology at the time. 

I took 2 physics classes in college aced both lol


----------



## DMack

I don't have the stats in front of me and google failed me. But I do seem to remember that Male NTs outnumber female NTs by nearly 3 to 1. Could be wrong, but I thought that was the case.

High level physics is full of INTJs and INTPs, which have greater male populations. I have a friend who is a female working on her masters in Physics, so it's not unheard of. There have been several illustrious females in physics historically. So I think it has more to do with NT gender distribution than gender itself.

So maybe the real question is why are there more male NTs than female?


----------



## Mr. Meepers

DMack said:


> I don't have the stats in front of me and google failed me. But I do seem to remember that Male NTs outnumber female NTs by nearly 3 to 1. Could be wrong, but I thought that was the case.
> 
> High level physics is full of INTJs and INTPs, which have greater male populations. I have a friend who is a female working on her masters in Physics, so it's not unheard of. There have been several illustrious females in physics historically. So I think it has more to do with NT gender distribution than gender itself.
> 
> So maybe the real question is why are there more male NTs than female?


I'm pretty sure I am an INFP and I studied physics 

Anyway, when I was an undergrad in Physics, there was only 1 or 2 female(s) to 12 males in my year lol (If my memory is correct, there was two and one switched majors) ... I'm not sure what the distribution is overall (over all colleges), but I doubt it is around 3 (males) to 1 (female) (... but I could be wrong)

And I do agree with the question of why much more males *type *as NT compared to females might also be a factor too. But I don't the male to female ratio for physics students is anywhere near the male to female ratio of NTs. And I don't think we should discount that there is probably a sizable portion of non-NT MBTI types (such as NFs where women *type* as more than men)


I just found this article from 2008 ... It is pretty interesting:
Data show extent of sexism in physics : Nature News


----------



## tanstaafl28

FlaviaGemina said:


> @_tanstaafl28_ sorry I've totally derailed your thread now by discussing the whole English education system rather than just Physics. I hope some of the issues I brought up will seem relevant. If they don't I didn't do it to troll, but because they seemed relevant to me.


No please do go on. I was on holiday. In America, I knew one woman in my undergrad who was a physics education major, we had a lot of classes together. I knew a few computer science majors who were women, but that's about it when it comes to women in science.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Aw hell, I just noticed I typoed the title...


----------



## Stelmaria

Given that there are more physics graduates than jobs, maybe it is because women are more aware of the job prospects? :wink:


----------



## Dashing

Gotta love woemen.


----------



## countrygirl90

Don,t know about others but physics and chemistry were one of my favorite subjects in high school .I guess it also depends on the type of teacher that teaches the respective subject ,if He/She is good at teaching ,then it doesn,t matter whether its a boy or girl ,everybody will enjoy learning and knowing the subject more deeply .I remember we had a chauvinistic professor for maths at college in first year ,who always thought of girl students of his class as dumb human beings and many times used to make remark on how less intelligent they are ,it used to infuriate me a lot but we cannot backtalk to our teachers so I had to suppress my feelings .I felt lucky when I got to my second year and we no more had his classes assigned to us .Later I got to know that nobody liked him because of his bad attitude and behavior .


----------



## Raichu

Personally, I love physics. I think it's really interesting. I'm just nowhere near studious or motivated enough to study it seriously. Also, I feel like all the science related careers not only require 2,000 years of college, but are also dead boring. 

The idea of being a high school science teacher is quite tempting, though.

Anyway, I think half the reason might just be that there are already so many more guys than girls. I mean, I wouldn't wanna study something where I knew all my classmates in all my classes would all be guys.


----------



## Falling Leaves

Well, I regret not doing physics A-level. I hated it at GCSE, didn't apply myself and found the experiments entirely arbitrary and boring (one we dropped a ball and measured how far it bounced :dry. In truth, I would have been damn good at it. 

It wasn't as bad an ICT, where we were solely taught how to *gasp* use each of the Microsoft Office programs in turn. Seriously, my education fucking sucked sometimes. 

If it's any consolation, in my A-level English class there were about 12 girls and 1 boy.


----------



## fihe

supposedly women have more trouble understanding scientific and mathematical concepts than men do (and physics has a lot of math). I can't speak for all women, but I was never great in math in school, and I liked science but would have trouble understanding it once it got rather complex. I'm currently taking a beginning calculus class online and it's challenging for me.

I actually never took physics in high school. I was supposed to in my senior year, after chemistry, but I instead took AP Biology, which I wouldn't have been able to get into had I not been granted a waiver. I did badly in that class because it required a lot of reading that I soon stopped doing, because I couldn't concentrate at home and didn't think to go to the library to read -_- I did try taking a physics course online, but dropped it because it was very difficult for me to understand. but then again, I didn't take proper notes on what I had learned, so that's probably a big reason why. I really need to use a notebook instead of typing minimal notes into a word processor.


----------



## Thalassa

Dunno. Two of my sisters were Biology majors; two of us are science people and two of us are artsy people (my other sister actually majored in Fine Art before withdrawing from college and is a talented visual artist).

I don't know why more women don't study physics. My sisters are more into the hands on, earthy aspects of science I think. My ESFJ sister is a natural scientist, loving plants and animals and nature and having interest in genetics, while my other sister is probably an ESFP (she says ENFP but I don't know...I guess she could be...her addictive personality and inability to remember her childhood before age 8 could very well point to Jung's Neurosis via inferior Si) and is more interested in botany and medicine, specifically being a midwife.

I can't see either of them being a serious physicist. The ESFJ more than the ExFP, though. 

I think "math people" are more likely to be men, and "language people" are more likely to be women; I would guess that's the reason.


----------



## tanstaafl28

How did I manage to fat finger the thread title?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy

I hope they don't study physics; in fact, I hope most people don't study physics or math. Why? They are very acadamic disciplines. I think people need to be honest with themselves when thinking of physics/math CAREERS vs. EDUCATION. 

A physics/math/chemistry education is readily obtainable by someone of above-average intelligence; however, seeing as these are academic fields, one needs a PhD to do real science. Here is where above-average IQ is not going to cut it. You need to have ORIGINAL research that is PEER-REVIEWED as significant to a field. You really need to be sub-genius or genius in these fields because they get extremely abstract and competitive. Second, and the most exclusionary criteria (because let's face it--a lot of people choosing to study these fields are sub-genius) is a willingness to make half of what an engineer would make with 3-4x the education. 

I much rather women (and all people of above-average intelligence) go into engineering, where a 115-120ish IQ can bank them 70k+ to start.


----------

