Slashdot Mirror
Women Skip Math/Science Careers To Have Families
hessian notes a Cornell survey, published in the Psychological Bulletin, of 35 years of sociological studies that concludes that women tend to choose non-math-intensive fields for their careers not because they lack mathematical ability, but because they want flexibility to raise children or prefer less math-intensive fields of science. "'A major reason explaining why women are underrepresented not only in math-intensive fields but also in senior leadership positions in most fields is that many women choose to have children, and the timing of child rearing coincides with the most demanding periods of their career, such as trying to get tenure or working exorbitant hours to get promoted,' said lead author Stephen J. Ceci... The authors concluded that hormonal, brain, and other biological sex differences were not primary factors in explaining why women were underrepresented in science careers, and that studies on social and cultural effects were inconsistent and inconclusive. They also reported that although 'institutional barriers and discrimination exist, these influences still cannot explain why women are not entering or staying in STEM careers,' said Ceci."
Yeah, that's the problem, too many over-religious Christians in the scientific fields! You just can't keep Christians away from science!
Read it and weep.
This guy's the limit!
Doesn't a doc have to finish her residency? So, if she gets pregnant and takes maternity leave, she'll just have to come back and finish? I don't get how it reduces the quality of care.
In my own research, I was able to find many examples of women having babies when it was definitely not good for the man, for the society, or even for the woman.
When exactly is this true ? America has on average 2.1 children/woman, this is just barely enough (ie. more would be preferable).
In europe birthrates are so low that they are on track to eradicate European presence in Europe before 2150 (and make Europeans a minority in Europe by 2050).
Are you contending such a thing would be good for either Europe or Europeans ? We need more babies, not less. Much, much more. Most places in Europe would be well served by a doubling or tripling of the number of native babies.
Biology supersedes Maths?
Why is it a good thing? Is it bad for a woman to work? What about get an education? If she doesn't work why does she need to be educated? You haven't articulated your argument fully.
I was referring to the fact that its so one-sided. If a woman quits or takes a leave of absence to care for her children she's a good mother. If a man does it he's a 'couch slug'. Yes that's sexist but it does reflect the mainstream opinion more closely in my experience
Most feminists that I know do not differ in this preconception. That is, they're about as rigid and resistant to change as the conservatives are in this matter.
Sure, raising a family is a quite plausible explanation for the top positions, but does not explain why so few women begin the careers at all.
A girl is hardly planning to have a family when she enters undergraduate course. And, even so, less than 20% of the freshmen are women.
The reason is obvious: women don't like math. They don't have ability with math. I'm not saying "stupid bitches", they often do well in other fields, is just that their brain it's not suited to do math. Even amongst the few who enter, very few get it to the end. And don't tell me that people leave undergrad school to have children.
It is possible to have female brains that can do math? Of course! I have had two female teachers that were truly genius. But it isn't statistically likely.
It's that hard to acknowledge that there are biological differences between men and women? Next time feminists will be hunting down whoever who says that women have XX chromosomes instead of XY.
I was going to post as AC but fuck it. I'm too tired of this political correctness fashion.
entropy happens
I have read of extreme cases where a man can. The scenario basically follows a couple with a newborn in a remote area that was not modernized. The woman died somehow, and the baby wasn't old enough to ingest regular food.
Although many guys have joked about how they'd never leave home if they had girl boobs on them, I doubt any of them would ever want to lactate...
Unfortunately the system (I speak for the life sciences, not sure about the rest) is made so that only the outstanding people get funding. No funding == no work (and no pay, of course). This is what prompts the terrible "publish or perish" syndrome that also causes a lot of bad papers to be published (in bioinformatics, my own field, it's a disturbing trend), aside also lowering the life quality of the people involved.
Also, in my own experience, a part of the higher-ups doesn't have any kind of family, therefore they are actually oblivious to the fact that you may have something going on outside the laboratory. For example, I know of a female colleague who worked exactly sixty days, roughly 12 hours per day, without stopping a single day. And to the person who led her group, it was something perfectly normal to do.
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
* Japan: their isolationist mindset was dropped in the 1850s. Without a caste system they were able to rapidly form an educated middle class that integrated foreign ideas. Now they have one of the largest and most productive economies in the world.
Japan wasn't in an internal crisis, neither sociologically, economically or environmentally speaking. It was the USA who forced the japanese to open their economy to 'open' trade (only with the US though). Before that point Japan had, for example, issues an environmental reforesting campaign, that was highly successful (85 percent of Japan is covered with forest). After the US 'opening up' Japan developed - partly out of feelings of frustration and humiliation brought on by the US - into an aggressive bully in the region culminating into invading mainland China and declaring war on the US. Nobody knows how the Japanese would have developed, would they've been left alone in the 1850s, but at least it's fair to state that the US did wrong big time back then.
Not only that, but women have more of the innate ability to regulate and juggle all the things necessary for keeping a kid (or two, or three) fed, occupied, out of trouble, at school or sports practice or wherever, as well as the tons of other things she's got to do to keep the home life and kids' extracurricular activities going.
Unfortunately the facts don't back up that maternal superiority complex. Statistics are clear, if it's a choice between being raised by a father or raised by a mother - kids are better off with the father. Teen pregnancy, drop out rates, drug use - are all higher with single moms than with single dads.
What you describe is nothing more than the reality of one parent staying at home while the other works. What would change if the dad stayed home while the mom went to work? Nothing.
Here is an article on the study by the BBC. Google finds a lot of similar articles.
Centralization breaks the internet.
Ayn Rand had some qualms about that sort of thinking, but if you've paid attention, you'll notice her present-day fan club does not.