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."

Comments

Less pressure

[Joebert]

My theory is that they do it because it's less stressfull to stay at home than it is to provide.

Cultural issues and Religion

[Zombie Ryushu]

The USA still has serious problems due to the undue influence of Christianity in the field of Science. Basically, an educated woman is a threat to the Christian Male power structure. So culturally, the US is threatened by educated women.

This just proves...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid bitches can't fight the need to go spread their legs everywhere and get pregnant.

Women are the weak link.

First step: Understand why women have babies.

[Futurepower(R)]

Outsourcing: "Why pay a north american a decent middle class wage when you can farm science, technology and engineering careers to lower wage countries?"

My understanding is that outsourcing is not working well. If the less successful, and therefore cheaper, societies were able to do science work well, they wouldn't be less successful, would they?

Outsourcing seems to work in the near term only. It was "useful" when a CEO wanted to show a short-term profit so that he or she could get a big bonus and retire or go somewhere else.

I sent a message to my bank. I got a nonsensical reply from a person with an Indian name. The reply was entirely a waste of time. Maybe the underlying purpose is anti-customer, to discourage people from questioning anything a bank does. That works only when the banks are in control of the government, which they seem to be.

Why do women have babies? Often women have babies even though they have little ability to take care of them. So the theorizing at Cornell is very limited. The first step would be to understand why women have babies.

Sociology research is rarely scientific. It's mostly wild guessing.

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.

you're intellectually dishonest

[circletimessquare]

women grow children in their bodies, then are biologically attached to children via breasts and natural and social proclivities for an extended time period afterwards

in other words, they ARE special, and they DO need some consideration for that contribution

but you wish to tell us that any consideration women ask for is unfair. so: they contribute more to child rearing biologically... but hey don't deserve any consideration for that?

biology is unfair. society is trying to correct that imbalance. doesn't that seem noble to you?

of course, you could respond to me by saying women should just choose children over careers, that society has no obligation to make special considerations for women, and that's that, end of story

ok, fine. but then it is you who are like the saudis: that any mental gifts a women possesses, any contributions she can make to the advancement of math or science should be forfeit, given up. this is what your position is telling us. just because she's the one with the womb

so i say it to you: why not give women, who bear children, special consideration for that? why not? really: what is the big deal with giving women special consideration for contributing more biologically to the growth of children? why are you so antagonistic to this idea? to allow them to have children AND pursue their mental gifts, and thereby potentially enrich the society you live in? what exactly is wrong with that goal?

why do you have this axe to grind that says women deserve no special treatment, when in fact, due to their much larger biological and social contribution to child rearing, they DO deserve special consideration for that?