Well written! It's a self-fulfilling prophecy in action.
The movie "Hidden Figures" (2016) was outstanding in its portrayal of three women, Katherine Johnson included, trying to succeed in the male-dominant environment that eschewed women in "their" chosen field of aerospace engineering in the 1960s.
Subtle messages can reverse subtle messages: put up several posters in schools that say girls are good at STEM and boys like to read fiction novels. It's a place to start.
Thank you! The poster idea reminds me of what Lego started doing a while back—removing gender stereotypes from their marketing so there are no distinct 'girl' or 'boy' products. Even subtle shifts like that can have a big impact over time.
I believe money was the motivation for Lego's decision. By removing gender-specific marketing they could make their products appeal to a wider audience. Now that progressiveness is less profitable, we are seeing a rollback of similar stunts, such as DEI.
I agree that psychology plays a big role in the achievement gap. But the world today is very different than it was in the 1960s. Now we have countless empowerment programs: "Girls who code", "She can STEM", targeted university outreach, scholarships, you name it. How many more millions do we need? Perhaps nature is difficult to undo.
I'll make a few anecdotal observations here. FWIW: I grew up in a military family, so went through a *lot* of schools - in my country (Australia) and in others (mostly in SE Asia and the USA).
1) While going through elementary (primary; grade) and high schools I found that the *most* pernicious approach to girls in maths classes was when someone said "this is hard". The response to boys was "tough luck, you have to do hard things" while the response to girls was (mostly) "don't you worry your pretty little head about it, then". FFS!
2) In my final years of high school I had an excellent teacher for the highest level of maths, who happened to be a woman (Mrs D: thank you). By then it was too late for that to matter much: girls who could and should have been in her class did not, by then, have the preparation to succeed or even meet the prerequisites. The preparation needed to start when they were much younger. (The class started with 3 girls and about 20 boys; finished 2yrs later with 1 girl and about a dozen boys.)
3) When I first started in an IT career, my peers were roughly 50:50 men and women. Most of us had started doing something else, then ended up in IT because we were attracted to it, and were good at it. Then, later, requirements to have an IT or related degree came into vogue. The number of women entering IT dropped precipitously! I don't think that had a thing to do with ability: it was the inhospitable (to women) nature of college/university IT courses that did it. I'm fairly sure that was from the students, not the academics.
4) Where I work now (a very technical area of a major bank) I have a lot of women colleagues who do very technical work. All of them (I think without exception) come from non-English-speaking backgrounds. IMO, women in the so-called Anglosphere seem driven away from STEM (or, at least, IT) careers in ways that women from outside (eg. China, SE and S Asia, Eastern Europe) are *not*.
I don't know if that's of any interest - but at least I've got that off my chest!
Thank you for sharing your observations! I was actually born and raised in Eastern Europe (Poland, to be exact), and I do feel that those limiting beliefs weren't as pronounced there—at least back then—as they often are here, in the West. I was also fortunate to grow up around women in STEM (including my own mother), though some of them still echoed the very stereotypes they were disproving through their work...
A while back you wondered where the Americans were, why weren't they protesting Mump's actions (M for Musk, ump for Trump). You got your wish. Over the weekend 5,000,000+ Americans protested across the country.
Compare a social movement, or almost anything, like a gov't agency, to a train locomotive: it leaves the station straining to gain momentum, rolls along out of the rail yard, picks up speed and eventually gains full-speed. Once the locomotive is at full-speed, it'll take two to five miles to come to a full stop. Slow to get going, long time to stop. The momentum has just begun. Get your popcorn--there will be more coming if things don't turn around.
It's not that they can't do STEM- it's just that outdated teaching methods are used that suggest they cannot or will not. There is a need for modern methods that better reflect the realities of the 21st century than the sexist past.
Outdated teaching methods, yes!!! The educational system was developed in the 19th century, mostly to train children for menial jobs -- girls for maids and boys for factory work. It's a tech world now and gone are the 19th century jobs, but the educational system has not changed.
Finland has the most successful educational program, IMO.
Past research has shown that boys are expected to act like girls in the classroom: sit still for the whole day with hands folded on a desk, yet boys need an extra recess time and need to get out of the their chairs and walk around the classroom. In other words, boys can't sit still and they are set up to fail in this way.
I went to a high school (American) football game. At half-time I was impressed with how the boys and girls acted. The boys were running all over the field, kicking, tackling, throwing the ball. The girls sat on a blanket and played with their dolls. This is ripe for another huge research project! Girls need to move, too, and they like to do what boys do but are told not to, and vv. for boys.
I think it’s another stereotype to imagine that it’s normal for girls (or really anyone else, for that matter) to sit still all day with their hands folded on their desks. Everyone needs freedom of movement (and stillness too of course). I am also highly suspicious of previous socialization (and possibly even priming by the researchers themselves in how this study was set up) coming into play with the disparity between the sport-playing boys and the girls sitting on blankets with dolls results in the study mentioned. There are many, many girls out there who would much prefer to be playing sports (or another unlisted option) and plenty of boys who wouldn’t want to.
And I agree with you. Girls only sit still because we're pleasers and compliant, whereas boys push the system -- that's another subtle socialization thingy. We're a mess ay.....
My now YA daughter used a distance learning program for high school during the pandemic…9th grade went so well that we stayed with it through graduation because the local public schools were awful (Arkansas 😵💫). All of her STEM teachers were brilliant women and not once was she told that any subject was too hard. She graduated with an unweighted 3.91 GPA and plans to study astrophysics in college. And she loved Hidden Figures ❤️. Representation matters, and mentoring by teachers matters. She also first asked me about studying astronomy 🪐 while watching Don’t Look Up (thank you Jennifer Lawrence for an outstanding performance).
I really appreciate the information you provide about this new study. It almost feels as if we're swimming in a swamp, a quagmire of stereotypes so old it's like trying to make headway through wet cement. Good to know there are still scientists still willing to try to get at the truth.
"However, the same could be said about the social forces dragging boys down in language-based skills. While girls are subtly — and not-so-subtly — steered away from maths, reading is still often seen as not ‘boyish’ enough of an activity."
Thank you for sharing this! Like you pointed out, it starts very young, even before primary school.
We know in early childhood education that playing with blocks helps grow children's early spatial and numerical skills, and yet "building" is seen as boy/male activity because it's associated with construction, perpetuating the STEM myth in children, parents, and teachers.
Consider this a survey of one, but I also think the way math is taught is far too abstract for a lot of people. I was terrible at algebra and algebra II/Trig, but excellent at geometry. Geometry is very visual and very logical. Similarly, I had no problem with the math required in Chemistry and Physics, because it was applied to something tangible. But translating a word problem into an equation? Forget it. We’ve got to do a better job of showing how the math applies to real world situations or concepts.
Why do math tests exist at all? These tests are not part of education, rather they are a primitive form of judgment, criticism, and social ranking. Alphas, betas, gammas. Grow up.
Because you need tests to know how well you know the subject. Children in many countries are essentially used as means to assess how well a school is performing (so that parents can choose a school, funding can be distributed etc.) which is perhaps what you mean? At an individual level though, you learn - and then you need to test your learning. That's how you progress.
Tests are illegitimate when students are not allowed to repeat the test. Many teachers and even professors claim it is “cheating” if students can repeat the test and get a higher grade, but it is learning not cheating. Unfortunately a large percentage of teachers are abusive towards students and have no interest in education. Unhealthy power games too often occur in classrooms and also in universities. Most commonly, schools create a psychologically damaging environment overall. A few schools are excellent.
LOL. Humans aren’t one thing or another. All of us are a unique combination. For instance, born female here; the day I walked into kindergarten, I could read, write, add/subtract. They tried to push me into the 2nd grade class.
Katie, again, apologies -- I couldn't resist posting this.
There is a timely post today from The Conversation, "What makes some people self-censor while others speak out?"
Self-censorship expert Bar-Tal, an emeritus professor in the school of education at Tel Aviv University, wrote that there are three motivations why people don't speak out: "[a]s a defence [sic] mechanism for their in-group; out of fear; and to win rewards." The Conversation was writing about universities that are not speaking out, but it's relevant to Katie's post, too.
While reading the article, I thought about how, ironically, Ice-Age men sat motionless for long periods of time, waiting for the woolly mammoth to mosey by, while women were multi-tasking in and around the cave, chattering away, keeping kids from falling into the fire, and so on, yet today it's females who sit quietly and the men are frequently in motion. When were these traits reversed?
Were cave women out in the wild sitting in wait for a woolly mammoth, too? I think it's likely. Consider: before the Christian Era Celtic women were in battle, just as naked as the men, with limed hair and yelling their lungs out at the enemy.
Did early Christianity change the paradigm for women? After all, powerful early Church "fathers" erased women from the Bible unless they gave birth to a famous king's son or an inception was a miracle (read Elaine Pagel's just released book, "Miracles and Wonder" for the scoop on Jesus' miracle birth and how the birth narrative was rewritten by Matthew and Luke from Mark's account).
Churches, their preachers and parishioners, overlook that Paul congratulated a woman for how well she ran her church. And they overlook the odd insertion in a letter attributed to Paul, actually not written by him, that says a woman should not speak in church, she should wait until she gets home and ask her husband. The insertion is so obvious if people would just read what they're looking at--it's in plain to see.
How can we change the paradigm for a more egalitarian society? Do we want to or will it be beneficial? It may take a few centuries to play out, and in the end will we be any more whole?
Well written! It's a self-fulfilling prophecy in action.
The movie "Hidden Figures" (2016) was outstanding in its portrayal of three women, Katherine Johnson included, trying to succeed in the male-dominant environment that eschewed women in "their" chosen field of aerospace engineering in the 1960s.
Subtle messages can reverse subtle messages: put up several posters in schools that say girls are good at STEM and boys like to read fiction novels. It's a place to start.
Thank you! The poster idea reminds me of what Lego started doing a while back—removing gender stereotypes from their marketing so there are no distinct 'girl' or 'boy' products. Even subtle shifts like that can have a big impact over time.
I believe money was the motivation for Lego's decision. By removing gender-specific marketing they could make their products appeal to a wider audience. Now that progressiveness is less profitable, we are seeing a rollback of similar stunts, such as DEI.
I agree that psychology plays a big role in the achievement gap. But the world today is very different than it was in the 1960s. Now we have countless empowerment programs: "Girls who code", "She can STEM", targeted university outreach, scholarships, you name it. How many more millions do we need? Perhaps nature is difficult to undo.
I'll make a few anecdotal observations here. FWIW: I grew up in a military family, so went through a *lot* of schools - in my country (Australia) and in others (mostly in SE Asia and the USA).
1) While going through elementary (primary; grade) and high schools I found that the *most* pernicious approach to girls in maths classes was when someone said "this is hard". The response to boys was "tough luck, you have to do hard things" while the response to girls was (mostly) "don't you worry your pretty little head about it, then". FFS!
2) In my final years of high school I had an excellent teacher for the highest level of maths, who happened to be a woman (Mrs D: thank you). By then it was too late for that to matter much: girls who could and should have been in her class did not, by then, have the preparation to succeed or even meet the prerequisites. The preparation needed to start when they were much younger. (The class started with 3 girls and about 20 boys; finished 2yrs later with 1 girl and about a dozen boys.)
3) When I first started in an IT career, my peers were roughly 50:50 men and women. Most of us had started doing something else, then ended up in IT because we were attracted to it, and were good at it. Then, later, requirements to have an IT or related degree came into vogue. The number of women entering IT dropped precipitously! I don't think that had a thing to do with ability: it was the inhospitable (to women) nature of college/university IT courses that did it. I'm fairly sure that was from the students, not the academics.
4) Where I work now (a very technical area of a major bank) I have a lot of women colleagues who do very technical work. All of them (I think without exception) come from non-English-speaking backgrounds. IMO, women in the so-called Anglosphere seem driven away from STEM (or, at least, IT) careers in ways that women from outside (eg. China, SE and S Asia, Eastern Europe) are *not*.
I don't know if that's of any interest - but at least I've got that off my chest!
Thank you for sharing your observations! I was actually born and raised in Eastern Europe (Poland, to be exact), and I do feel that those limiting beliefs weren't as pronounced there—at least back then—as they often are here, in the West. I was also fortunate to grow up around women in STEM (including my own mother), though some of them still echoed the very stereotypes they were disproving through their work...
PS - Katie:
A while back you wondered where the Americans were, why weren't they protesting Mump's actions (M for Musk, ump for Trump). You got your wish. Over the weekend 5,000,000+ Americans protested across the country.
Compare a social movement, or almost anything, like a gov't agency, to a train locomotive: it leaves the station straining to gain momentum, rolls along out of the rail yard, picks up speed and eventually gains full-speed. Once the locomotive is at full-speed, it'll take two to five miles to come to a full stop. Slow to get going, long time to stop. The momentum has just begun. Get your popcorn--there will be more coming if things don't turn around.
It's not that they can't do STEM- it's just that outdated teaching methods are used that suggest they cannot or will not. There is a need for modern methods that better reflect the realities of the 21st century than the sexist past.
Outdated teaching methods, yes!!! The educational system was developed in the 19th century, mostly to train children for menial jobs -- girls for maids and boys for factory work. It's a tech world now and gone are the 19th century jobs, but the educational system has not changed.
Finland has the most successful educational program, IMO.
Past research has shown that boys are expected to act like girls in the classroom: sit still for the whole day with hands folded on a desk, yet boys need an extra recess time and need to get out of the their chairs and walk around the classroom. In other words, boys can't sit still and they are set up to fail in this way.
I went to a high school (American) football game. At half-time I was impressed with how the boys and girls acted. The boys were running all over the field, kicking, tackling, throwing the ball. The girls sat on a blanket and played with their dolls. This is ripe for another huge research project! Girls need to move, too, and they like to do what boys do but are told not to, and vv. for boys.
I think it’s another stereotype to imagine that it’s normal for girls (or really anyone else, for that matter) to sit still all day with their hands folded on their desks. Everyone needs freedom of movement (and stillness too of course). I am also highly suspicious of previous socialization (and possibly even priming by the researchers themselves in how this study was set up) coming into play with the disparity between the sport-playing boys and the girls sitting on blankets with dolls results in the study mentioned. There are many, many girls out there who would much prefer to be playing sports (or another unlisted option) and plenty of boys who wouldn’t want to.
That's what I was saying ... the study mentioned in Katie's post did not include this -- it's my proposal for another study.
Ah yes yes! I reread it and i see now. Sorry about that. I still stand behind the first part of my comment about desks!
And I agree with you. Girls only sit still because we're pleasers and compliant, whereas boys push the system -- that's another subtle socialization thingy. We're a mess ay.....
💯
My now YA daughter used a distance learning program for high school during the pandemic…9th grade went so well that we stayed with it through graduation because the local public schools were awful (Arkansas 😵💫). All of her STEM teachers were brilliant women and not once was she told that any subject was too hard. She graduated with an unweighted 3.91 GPA and plans to study astrophysics in college. And she loved Hidden Figures ❤️. Representation matters, and mentoring by teachers matters. She also first asked me about studying astronomy 🪐 while watching Don’t Look Up (thank you Jennifer Lawrence for an outstanding performance).
What a lovely story! Wishing your daughter all the best on her astrophysics journey!
Thank you 🥰
I really appreciate the information you provide about this new study. It almost feels as if we're swimming in a swamp, a quagmire of stereotypes so old it's like trying to make headway through wet cement. Good to know there are still scientists still willing to try to get at the truth.
Swamp is definitely a fitting metaphor. Thank you, glad you appreciated it!
"However, the same could be said about the social forces dragging boys down in language-based skills. While girls are subtly — and not-so-subtly — steered away from maths, reading is still often seen as not ‘boyish’ enough of an activity."
Thank you for sharing this! Like you pointed out, it starts very young, even before primary school.
We know in early childhood education that playing with blocks helps grow children's early spatial and numerical skills, and yet "building" is seen as boy/male activity because it's associated with construction, perpetuating the STEM myth in children, parents, and teachers.
Consider this a survey of one, but I also think the way math is taught is far too abstract for a lot of people. I was terrible at algebra and algebra II/Trig, but excellent at geometry. Geometry is very visual and very logical. Similarly, I had no problem with the math required in Chemistry and Physics, because it was applied to something tangible. But translating a word problem into an equation? Forget it. We’ve got to do a better job of showing how the math applies to real world situations or concepts.
Why do math tests exist at all? These tests are not part of education, rather they are a primitive form of judgment, criticism, and social ranking. Alphas, betas, gammas. Grow up.
Because you need tests to know how well you know the subject. Children in many countries are essentially used as means to assess how well a school is performing (so that parents can choose a school, funding can be distributed etc.) which is perhaps what you mean? At an individual level though, you learn - and then you need to test your learning. That's how you progress.
Tests are illegitimate when students are not allowed to repeat the test. Many teachers and even professors claim it is “cheating” if students can repeat the test and get a higher grade, but it is learning not cheating. Unfortunately a large percentage of teachers are abusive towards students and have no interest in education. Unhealthy power games too often occur in classrooms and also in universities. Most commonly, schools create a psychologically damaging environment overall. A few schools are excellent.
LOL. Humans aren’t one thing or another. All of us are a unique combination. For instance, born female here; the day I walked into kindergarten, I could read, write, add/subtract. They tried to push me into the 2nd grade class.
Katie, again, apologies -- I couldn't resist posting this.
There is a timely post today from The Conversation, "What makes some people self-censor while others speak out?"
Self-censorship expert Bar-Tal, an emeritus professor in the school of education at Tel Aviv University, wrote that there are three motivations why people don't speak out: "[a]s a defence [sic] mechanism for their in-group; out of fear; and to win rewards." The Conversation was writing about universities that are not speaking out, but it's relevant to Katie's post, too.
While reading the article, I thought about how, ironically, Ice-Age men sat motionless for long periods of time, waiting for the woolly mammoth to mosey by, while women were multi-tasking in and around the cave, chattering away, keeping kids from falling into the fire, and so on, yet today it's females who sit quietly and the men are frequently in motion. When were these traits reversed?
Were cave women out in the wild sitting in wait for a woolly mammoth, too? I think it's likely. Consider: before the Christian Era Celtic women were in battle, just as naked as the men, with limed hair and yelling their lungs out at the enemy.
Did early Christianity change the paradigm for women? After all, powerful early Church "fathers" erased women from the Bible unless they gave birth to a famous king's son or an inception was a miracle (read Elaine Pagel's just released book, "Miracles and Wonder" for the scoop on Jesus' miracle birth and how the birth narrative was rewritten by Matthew and Luke from Mark's account).
Churches, their preachers and parishioners, overlook that Paul congratulated a woman for how well she ran her church. And they overlook the odd insertion in a letter attributed to Paul, actually not written by him, that says a woman should not speak in church, she should wait until she gets home and ask her husband. The insertion is so obvious if people would just read what they're looking at--it's in plain to see.
How can we change the paradigm for a more egalitarian society? Do we want to or will it be beneficial? It may take a few centuries to play out, and in the end will we be any more whole?