I can't say that I 100% agree with Steven or Elizabeth. I think both bring up some valid points and both present evidence to support their view. I feel like it can be both yes and no. What Steven brings up about the extreme "nature" and "nurture" position makes sense. Based on some combination of biological differences women typically are more nurturing and men more about nature. So with this find as well as other findings he brings up, I can see that there is some evidence to say that yes there is a biological basis for gender differences in math and science. On the side with Liz I do feel like there are some environmental factors that lead towards this gender difference. I have studied this in other courses too and I recall reading about this in which a teacher was teaching math to some elementary students and when she would ask a question she tended to turn towards the boys in the room, leaving the girls to be ignored. I think that perhaps subconsciously teachers may do this and it leaves the girls in the classroom feeling inadequate therefore they become silenced and this can lead to why there are these differences. I'm not saying this is true for every teacher, but it has been studied and proven and I think that unless this changes this gender difference will continue.
I would have to say that I agree more with Liz however, I think that most of this gender difference comes from environmental factors. Maybe it might be because of the way women were designed that makes it more of a challenge for them to excel at these subjects but I don't think it causes this large of a divide, I think we have to go beyond that to really identify the problem and I believe that is because of the underrepresentation of women due to those environmental factors. For instance girls are taught at an early age that they should be domestic, their mothers teach them how to cook, clean and that's the knowledge they gain, only to be reinforced through the media, whereas men are typically taught to compete, and challenge themselves with help from their fathers and the media. So with these skills instilled at such a
young age it's hard for women to completely step out of that role and join the men. I think that the older they get they find out what their interests are and that interest may or may not be math and science, but I think because of those skills and knowledge learned at such young ages really is the reason why there is this gender difference.
Q1) If a girl was brought up with just a fatherly figure with perhaps a brother or two, would she have the same interest in math and science than if she was brought up by a mother?
Q2) If girls were showed the same amount of attention to math and science as boys did by their teachers would they show the same amount of interest, and if so would they be just as good, if not better at them?
I disputed Pinker's claims that differential treatment based on sex was nonexistent and so to answer your first question, I do believe that the way a child is raised can have a profound impact on their preferences. Mine did, without a doubt. I think that if a girl was raised by a father and older brother, and BOTH SHOWED HIGHER INTERESTS IN MATH AND SCIENCE HEAVY AREAS, then yes, she would in all likelihood show a greater interest in these areas. While she will be treated like a girl, she will be treated less so when raised by men as opposed to women. However, I do not think that increased attention by any one group of people, be it parents or teachers, will be the only influence in a child's preferences, particularly in career choice. The math and science fields are currently seen as "less feminine" to a certain extent. Mechanically inclined is just a masculine term in present society. Women will continue to be underrepresented in these areas until these stereotypical attitudes change over time, much the same way men will be underrepresented in "more feminine" careers, such as nursing.
ReplyDelete