interseXioning

True, Harvard's Lawrence Summers was a real meatball for making his remarks about intrinsic aptitude (though the media could have chosen to look at how discrimination had brought him to these conclusions, and didn't). But I found a lot of what he said was really valuable (and lost on the mass media, including the Washington Post) and could even partially explain the findings of the National Academies. In Summer's 2005 speech, he discusses the role of the family as one reason that women do not pursue (nor, perhaps are chosen for) high powered positions.

And the relatively few women who are in the highest ranking places are disproportionately either unmarried or without children, with the emphasis differing depending on just who you talk to.

He goes on with anecdotes and the behavior to which he alludes I have also witnessed:

To buttress conviction and theory with anecdote, a young woman who worked very closely with me at the Treasury and who has subsequently gone on to work at Google highly successfully, is a 1994 graduate of Harvard Business School. She reports that of her first year section, there were twenty-two women, of whom three are working full time at this point.

His speech really struck a chord in me. Though he never said it explicitly per se, as a woman I felt the implications were this: smart women often marry smart men and both make a lot of money. Most often, couples have children. Smart women also know that raising one's own children is, according to the evidence, the most sound parental strategy. And because they have smart husbands that make good money, they can afford (though it costs them professionally and perhaps even personally) to put their careers on hold (occasionally indefinitely) to raise their (hopefully wonderful) children.

This phenomenon raises several broad questions about ROI for women in society. More personally, I just felt that the investment (financially and timewise) I was making in my own education would ultimately lead to some really difficult decisions when I have children. I am grateful for these tough decisions but they are tough and they do very often lead to women temporarily leaving the workforce for, what we hope, is ultimately the betterment of society.

Having written a middle-grade biography of planetary astronomer Heidi Hammel in the "Women's Adventures in Science" series published by the Joseph Henry Press imprint of the National Academies Press (click my name for details), I have been more interested in this topic than the average man.

I haven't thought to check whether the ten profiled scientists have "girly" names, but here they are: Heidi, Diane, Inez, Nancy, Amy, Mimi, Marta, Cynthia, Adriana, and Shirley Ann. Not all of them are academics, but I think they all go after NSF and other government research grants.

Details of the series can be found at http://www.iwaswondering.org

(was = women's adventures in science)

As someone who struggled mightily in math and chemistry but eventually became a scientist (determination!), I think an individual's desire to study math/sciences has FAR more to do with the quality of early education than your name. I had a terrible math teacher and a great biology teacher- I grew up loving the biological sciences and hating anything that looked mathematic.

Far more frightening to me is the relative importance of "attractiveness" in success. Studies have demonstrated that attractive people are more successful in life, across the board (more money, better jobs, etc.). So regardless of a woman's name or level of intelligence it's her looks that determine how far she may purse her dreams.

I can think of a million ways that research money could be better spent. The bottom line is, it is not helpful and doesn't offer any real solutions to the problem of women being underrepresented in math, science, and engineering.

Sunnygrrl brings up an interesting question..

If preconceived notions color our judgment of others before we say or do anything, how much does outward appearance impact self-perception of our own abilities? In turn, are many of us influenced to such an extent in this manner that we fulfill the niche that we're 'expected' to?

I wonder..

If you consider the work that Virginia Valian has done on gender schemas, this study might actually fit in with it. For example, just _being_ female at all is enough for people to rate you as less competent or less likable even if all the evidence they have to go on is exactly the same as for a man. (See here.) I can imagine that people might respond differently to girls' names that they view as "less feminine" than those that seem more girly, because girly is not a positive attribute in our society.

What's disturbing to me about this is the recommendation of the researcher: not that we ought to attempt to create some sort of change in social attitudes, or even something minimal like make math and science teachers aware of the results of this study so they could try to consciously counteract their unconscious, reflexive reactions to certain kinds of names. No, the researcher thinks we should chastise parents for being so stupid as to name their children in the way they see fit. You know, by choosing names they like, or that have meaning to them, or that reflect their cultural heritage. Instead, we should all homogenize ourselves, and become a nation of Ashleys and Davids, lest we give offense or evoke sarcastic humor in a teacher or potential employer.

Bah! I say UCLA psychology professor Albert Mehrabian needs to have his shoes puked on. He tells parents to be careful what they name their children, as if the mere naming were the only issue at hand. He's using his results to maintain and reinforce cultural biases. Bleah.

Ah...one of my strongest soapboxes...women and science.

First, one book I found very illuminating on the perceived societal prejudices of names (the theory that a name can determine or inhibit success in life) is "Freakonomics" by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/

In one chapter of the book, the authors compare and discuss the fate of children born with "black" names vs "white" names. They argue that the name is far less an indicator of success in life than socioeconomic status, parents' education level and the general environment in which a child develops. They build from an example where a father names two of his sons, Winner and Loser (yes, first names), and their respective fates are the opposite of what is assumed to become of them. There are many other good points made throughout the book.

I think the same conclusion could be drawn if investigators were to research the environment to which a woman develops an interest in science, as previously noted by Jennifer Jacquet and sunnygirl.

I find this topic very interesting, being a woman who intends to pursue a Ph.D. As someone who is fascinated with problem solving, I enjoy the challenge I have to deal with during my academic "downtime." I know how I choose to spend my time not pursuing scientific endeavors could cost me a job one day. So I must weigh my choices very carefully. It is the same challenge a woman scientist must consider if she choses to have children and spend more than a few weeks at home. There are creative ways to answer this bias, and by default change the status quo.

I think we can learn a lot about the struggle for women-in- science-rights from our predecessors. Undoubtedly there are many other examples, but I know of two I am inclined to share.

I had a professor, Dr Meg Lowman, who wrote a book documenting the perils of being a woman/mother in science (Life in the Treetops, Yale University Press, http://yalepress.yale.edu/YUPBOOKS/book.asp?isbn=0300078188). She lived in the Australian outback for 10 years, eventually returning to the states. She fought to include childcare in grants she applied for, the same way many day to day things are considered "standard." She incorporated her children into many of her international research endeavors and pushed to make it work. She's recently co-authored another book with her sons regarding their travels as youngsters.

Another pioneer for family in the scientific field I am aware of is Jane Lubchenco (Univeristy of Oregon). She shared part time professorship status with her husband during her childrearing years. When I've mentioned her ability to mesh the world of family and the world of academia, I've been brushed off (by women nonetheless), hearing "but she's a superstar in her field."

Arrgghh.

So, do only the "superstars" get to do it all? Or do these women just refuse to take no for an answer, further advancing their status as "superstars" in their respective fields? Either way, I see the challenge as both disturbing and exciting. I hope to be seen as one who refuses to take no for an answer and will hopefully be "mistaken" for a superstar in my future.

This topic reminds me of a debate that I read between Steven Pinker and Elizabeth Spelke, both eminent scientists in their own right and both heavily entrenched within the nativist school of thought. Where they seem to disagree is the importance of social factors in explaining why there is such a staggering gender gap within the so called 'hard sciences'. Pinker wants to suggest that the lack of women present in these areas is due to biological reasons. While there are things that on average women are better at, there are also things that they are worse at, and it would seem that the things they are worse at make it more difficult for women to be successful in areas such as physics and mathematics.

Spelke counters with the notion that social factors are far more important than any biological predispositions. She believes that there is some sort of bias against women when it comes to science. Interestingly enough, this bias is not restricted to men. In one study reported, where two versions of a resume were given out to professors of psychology, one 'fantastic' and one 'average' with half of them belonging to women (i.e. women's names) and the other half men, there was no gender bias in the fantastic group. Where there was a distinct bias was in the average group. 70% of subjects reported that they would hire the male names while only 45% said they would hire the female names. More importantly, the effect was equally strong among women and men.

What does this suggest? It suggests that if there is a societal bias against women in science, it is exactly that: a societal bias. My personal feelings on the matter are that we aren't far enough along to rule out this hypothesis. While there are undoubtedly areas where men perform better than women, there are also areas where women outperform men. Assuming that the former explains the lack of women in a certain subfield without any strong evidence that these areas are related to the field in question is premature at best. For now, I think we have to do everything we can to reduce this bias, and reevaluate the data when we have a clearer picture of the underlying mechanisms, and when the societal bias has been reduced (or even better: eliminated!).

For those of you who want to listen/read the debate, follow this link:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

Seems to me like you are arguing towards a larger point of our society's flight from personal responsibility.