Girls sweep at Google Science Fair
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
On a related note, here's a NYT blog post that I saw recently that highlights the science fair winners' gender and just goes up in flames: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/girl-power-wins-at-... It ends by suggesting that Google hired Marissa Mayer and Susan Wojcicki because they would help recruit more women, which made me cringe, even though I know that the author probably didn't intend to make exactly that point.
Am I the only one who feels like, although men may 'dominate' the hard sciences, one of the reasons (among many others which I won't discuss) why girls may succeed at stages like this is because of the encouragement from a "girl power!" (perhaps, underdog?) mentality?
If boys won and went with "guy power!" they would simply be accused of being sexist or even misogynist rather than fair-minded, or intrinsically motivated.
Yes. First thing that popped into my head when I read that too.
EDIT: for context, I'm a child of the 90's, perhaps much different (or not) from some of you. I grew up in liberal(?) Silicon Valley. As a male, my entire life I've felt that girls were encouraged to succeed academically, received extra help, and greatly praised for their accomplishments, all because of a perceived societal disadvantage; whereas the boys were either expected to succeed, or largely disregarded because, hey what's the big deal? they're somehow at a huge advantage anyways.
in my high school graduating class, both the valedictorian and salutatorian were girls. and while I had guy friends who were equally brilliant, they never had the motivation or desire to succeed academically the way those girls (one of whom i was best friends with) were. to me it was striking to see brilliant young men and women, and the startling contrast in motivation and approaches to life (the guys were incredibly laid back, the girls were very much go-getters).
these are my personal observations, and as stated above, a personal feeling, fwiw (probably not much)
For example, do you think women are equally likely to be discriminated against on the basis of sex as men? Do you think they are equally likely to be abused domestically, or harassed on the street? Do you think men and women are equally likely to be the target of sexual harassment in the workplace? Do you think the two groups are equally likely to be raped?
I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them. And these are only explicit forms of discrimination. This does not account for latent discrimination, which is quite difficult to measure but probably exists more copiously than explicit discrimination.
I doubt the numbers will bear out in your favor on any of these points were we to check them.
So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses?
To clarify: I think it's important that women are represented in all professions (obviously software/tech is of specific concern) if only for the fact that diversity breeds innovation and discussion.
I mean, it'd be funny if it weren't true.
All the statistics you picked are typically associated with choices the individual in question made. Some of them are also associated with mental disorders. While it sucks that men are more susceptible to mental disease than women, that's not a form of discrimination. On the other hand, women that become a member of the statistical sets I picked do so in typical daily interaction with men. They don't have the option to not be around men, nor would it be reasonable to expect them to make that choice if it were available to them. There's no equivalence between your statistics and mine.
> So can we just agree that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses?
No, we cannot.
And after you've read that, please don't make the claim that there is no "real" discrimination against men.
"Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same."
Tell me then, how is it an innocent man's fault when society assumes he is a pedophile when he is simply playing with his kids at the park? Or why is criminal sentencing so much more severe for men than for women who have committed an equivalent crime?
I don't know where I read this, but my understanding is that criminals are the people most likely to be victims of violent crime. For example, 50% of all murder victims are black men under the age of 25, and that is often associated with gang-related violence. I don't have sources for any of this; I read it somewhere, but where I remember not. So absent some conflicting data I consider the typical violent crime one that received somewhat by choice -- it's often associated with some kind of violence or criminality the victim had previously done. One should not have the expectation of being involved in criminal activity and remaining completely safe from violence at the same time.
I realize that in a debate the burden of proof is on me at this point. But since this is not a formal debate and I don't believe there's much hope of convincing you, I'm going to shirk that duty for the time being.
> Who's more likely to be a grade school teacher?
Women, I think. Are you trying to say that being a grade school teacher is a matter of privilege? Because last I checked it's not exactly a super-desirable job on the social ladder.
> Who's more likely to be convicted (or for that matter: charged) with child molestation?
The same group that is more likely to perform child molestation. What's your point?
There are disadvantages (and advantages), sociologically speaking, for both genders. I'm not arguing that women are equally enabled at present (I don't think they are). As discrimination trends towards zero -- which I believe it is -- it's hard not to feel frustrated that cheer leading (pun not intended) is acceptable on one side but not the other.
(Note: I removed my questions in the edit because I didn't feel it was necessary for this to turn into a quid-pro-quo of discrimination reports)
I guess our fundamental difference is how much discrimination we believe remains. You seem to think the disparity is small, justifying your frustration with female solidarity. I think the it is still very large.
Most areas where men are at a broad disadvantage are caused by male tendencies acting against themselves, not by other groups discriminating against men (e.g. the violent crime issue, which is not caused by discrimination but by male violent tendencies). Fundamentally, I don't care as much when people are hoist on their own petard as when they hoist others on the same.
In the areas where men are being discriminated against, the discrimination can be very strong (e.g. custody battles). But these contexts are far narrower than the contexts in which women face discrimination, which are more easily described by listing out the few places women are safe from it. I surely agree that we should work to end discrimination against males where it exists, but I also think as a society it makes sense to address problems in the order of their magnitude (or perhaps, with effort proportional to magnitude).
I agree that compared to historical norms we are doing quite well, but we are far from the point where solidarity is not an important asset to females.
Biologically you can look at say men’s increased chance of baldness vs. PMS and think men have an advantage. But socially the cost / benefit analysis is harder to balance and harder to suggest that one side has a clear advantage because it comes down to how you weigh different parts of the equation.
Citation needed.
From what I've read, men who choose to contest custody, usually win. That's because he's likely making more money and is therefore in a better financial position to take care of the children.
Women usually get custody because men don't usually contest it. That's not to say that it doesn't come up. But men often trade the threat of a custody battle for other things in divorce proceedings.
P(male wins | male is richer) != P(male wins)
That said anyone quoting statistics should be able to back them up. I encountered the custody figure, along with a lot of other useful information about how the results of divorce are harder on women than men, in http://www.amazon.com/Price-Motherhood-Important-World-Value.... It is an interesting read, though not exactly the sort of thing you want your wife to encounter during her first pregnancy. (Which is how I learned about that book...)
"Despite changes in the law and social custom, custody arrangements remained remarkably stable over the past three decades. National estimates in the 1970's and 80's indicated that women had sole custody of the children approximately 85% of the time, and men retained sole custody 10% of the time, with the remaining 5% spread over a variety of custody arrangements, including grandparent, split or joint custody. More recent data sets indicate that father custody figures may be closer to 15%. " http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Child%20Custody%...
It goes further as said as joint custody became an option an increasing number of family's took that option. This suggestion a large scale imbalance where large numbers of men would like to have more custody but they are far less likely to get it.
Argument ad hominem much? I agree that the author has an axe to grind, but she backs her claims up with research.
And anecdotally her claims match my experience. I've seen a lot of friends/relatives/acquaintances get divorces, and from what I've seen the men generally want to see the kids some, but usually want the women to take the bulk of the child-raising work. Exact visitation arrangements get contested, but men seem more than happy to leave most of the work to the mom.
Perhaps the social safety net steps in for women before they are driven to violent crime?
On topic:
I wish both genders would quit moralizing and start negotiating already. I can only feel so guilty before I stop listening.
I can't think of any reason to believe this is the case, nor have you offered any evidence, so I'm going to tentatively reject this hypothesis.
> quit moralizing and start negotiating already . . .
I have no idea what you mean by this. "You guys stop discriminating against us in the workplace and we'll let you down easier when you proposition us on the street?" Something like that?
Re: your feelings of guilt: you probably don't need to feel guilty unless you are exploiting your privilege. Just being aware of it, not being a jerk, and not accepting it when other men act like jerks is all that's needed most of the time.
I have no idea what you mean by this. "You guys stop discriminating against us in the workplace and we'll let you down easier when you proposition us on the street?" Something like that?
Not quite so flippant, but more or less. Women have a lot of leverage, they're half the population after all. A more unabashedly self-interested agenda would be a breath of fresh air (and possibly more effective).
It'd be interesting to learn whether this is actually true. The public is blind to incidences of molestation committed by women, so as I understand it many occurrences go unreported or undiscovered.
However, due to differences in strength women are much less likely to be seriously injured or killed by domestic abuse by men than vice versa. On the other hand, battered men are less likely to receive help from society for various obvious reasons. We really have to work against domestic violence in general, rather than just "violence against women".
Outside of the home, though, almost all violence committed against strangers is done by men, whereas almost all the violence that women commit is some form of domestic abuse.
However, again, I agree that women often suffer discrimination in the workplace and suffer disproportionately from sexual harassment.
No, but maybe not the way you are thinking...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Rape_of_males_by...
It's a pervasive stereotype that it doesn't happen to men, but it's never addressed.
would you do that to a girl? a more balanced equality would not qualify arguments based on group membership.
*just making a point with the 'her', I'm sure he's a guy, too.
As a member of the privileged class, your perception that you are not privileged isn't taboo, it's just wrong.
Second, we can sure talk about specific environments. Talk to any white kid who grew up in a black neighborhood, they sure don't feel like they're better off for being white. And, yeah, that's bad. We should be doing something to help that kid. But his bad experience doesn't change the reality that when he leaves his neighborhood, when he goes to a job interview or to court or really just about, he is better off for being white.
So, sure. Girls are doing better than boys in school. The last entering freshmen class at my school was almost 2:1 female. Am I worried? Not really. Men still run the world.
We should be talking about how to help boys do better in school. We should also make sure we don't forget that women are an oppressed class, and that any solutions we try aren't contributing to the overall oppression of women.
Which probably means we should get women to do it.
I'm amused. Does it matter which is true if men aren't getting the education they need?
>Men still run the world.
Also an old, old statement that reveals why we need to get rid of gender as a real concept. How many men run the world? Not most of them. In what sense does it carry to include the homeless and the destitute who are men in the same group as those who rule?
>We should also make sure we don't forget that women are an oppressed class
HERE. Here it is. This is the error in your thinking.
All people are oppressed.
But when you start categorizing people into those who are Allowed To Be Recognized As Oppressed and those who are Oppressors By Association: They Have A Dick, you're making arbitrary distinctions that are inflexible and rigid.
There is not a single person on this earth who does not experience oppression. A person who does not belong to any of your protected classes will still be oppressed by your exclusion: or what, did you think it didn't count if _you_ oppressed someone based on what sort of person they were?
But I have to say, at this point I'm not sure what you want from me. I'm advocating for the rights of other people according to my personal idea of what's right. That women are outperforming men in school is worrying from an educational standpoint, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's the result of endemic, institutional sexism against men— unlike that which evidence suggests still exists towards women, which, while very much improved in the last decades, is still real and dangerous. If someone thinks that it's gone because of one metric in which women have surpassed men, then I'm going to speak out against that. I'm going to speak out against that pretty loudly.
I'd be saying the same thing if someone thought that Obama being President means that no one ever gets stopped and searched for DWB, or that gay marriage in New York means no one in high school is going to call someone else a faggot until they kill themselves. We've come a long, long way. We're not done.
(For productivity reasons, this'll be my last comment on the subject, but I'll read your response if there's one— Just wanted to say I dug the civil exchange of ideas. Stay cool.)
Even the people holding the strings are puppets.
>I haven't seen any evidence that it's the result of endemic, institutional sexism against men
Apathy is its own form of sexism, which is to say: if selecting based on sex indicates educational disparity, then sexism must exist somewhere in the system.
>(For productivity reasons, this'll be my last comment on the subject, but I'll read your response if there's one— Just wanted to say I dug the civil exchange of ideas. Stay cool.)
Same here--thanks to you as well! I especially appreciate that you qualify this as civil; I know I go for the throat sometimes, and sometimes I think HN wants us to be more polite than effective, if you follow.
You don't consider girls being encouraged to succeed by their teachers and society at large while boys are not (a common situation in schools today, and a stark contrast to as recently as 10-15 years ago) as "endemic, institutional sexism"?
Or you haven't seen any evidence that this difference in societal attitudes is causative in better female school performance?
I can accept the latter, though there is in fact experimental data that suggests that boys do better with more encouragement...
>privileged groups have historically tended to perceive equality well before disadvantaged groups (and its true emergence).
... is that disadvantaged groups tend to perceive equality after its true emergence. Please disentangle the current context (gender) from this discussion so we may examine a power struggle in the abstract--which is to say, I am _not_ commenting on whether or not gender equality has 'emerged' because such a question is a) too detailed, and b) probably way too ambiguous, because equality is not well defined. (and c) true gender equality, at least from my perspective, require an abolition of gender using lgbtq viewpoints)
Groups act in their self-interest. Privileged groups are required to act as if they do not--equivalently, they are asked to place disadvantaged groups within their 'self'--equivalently, their sense of identity is dissolute.
Thus (to bring the discussion back in context) my statement was not about 'correctness' or 'taboo,' but the fact that the conflict is _over_ what is 'correct' and 'taboo.' There is a vague discomfort in this topic with the idea of 'girl power.' The wave is beginning to build in the other direction. But those who stray too far, to identify with their group, are shot down by the taboo. (Incidentally, I was not trying to toe that line, merely trying to comment on the line's existence.)
We are not in stasis. At some point the wave will have crashed and those 'privileged' with 'unprivileged' status will lose that privilege, and those 'unprivileged' with 'privileged' status will as well.
Finally, I consider myself 'queer.' Examine which 'status' that accords my viewpoint, since you are readily prepared to ascribe membership to classes based on viewpoints.
But since you mention yourself, sure, let's talk that— What would you make of a heterosexual, cisgendered man saying that he doesn't really think people with non-standard gender identities are discriminated against?
Again, that's not a taboo thing to say. He's not speaking from bigotry, just ignorance. He has no reason to know or care whether discrimination is going on or not. That's privilege.
That's the hallmark of privilege. It's taken for granted. We're just "them". The wealthy, the white, the straight, the cisgendered, the male— we don't need identity, not in this country, not today. We don't need marches or flags or bumper stickers. Every day is our day.
And so of course we feel worried by a phrase like "Girl Power" or "Gay Pride" because, not knowing real discrimination, we think that's what it looks like. So I just stopped by to say, you know... No.
So now that I'm a member of an "unprivileged" viewpoint, I'm granted the privilege of determining what constitutes ignorance and privilege in other people--you granted it directly by asking me. In this way you are propagating the inequality of privilege.
It is enough for me that a viewpoint is wrong; I do not need to associate it with a group. (Or at least, I do my best.)
We are in a war over privilege and who has it: the honest attempt is to balance out the economic and societal privilege with privilege in discourse, privilege in judgment, who has a 'right' to feel a certain way. The dishonest attempt is where selfish action leads those who have power to hold onto it.
In a theater of discourse as muddled as the internet, as cacophonous as our cities and streets, the combat is about shutting down viewpoints, which is _not about who is right_.
Privilege is not a coherent, sane, or consistent concept. I work as a programmer, and am privileged financially as a result. Should I give up this privilege when the simple fact is _society needs programmers?_ By having privilege do I forfeit the right to be proud of my career? Is there a net privilege quantity that I possess? The only determinative answer I have to these questions is the last one, and it is a solid 'No,' because _each privilege I supposedly possess/lack acts along a different axes_, and sometimes a privilege or lack thereof provides benefits and consequences simultaneously.
Discrimination, likewise, is not a coherent, sane, or consistent concept. "Knowing real discrimination"--you reference an absolute concept that is actually based on your personal evaluation of what constitutes real discrimination. There is no real discrimination or fake discrimination: all discrimination is discrimination. Some of it is valid: no one is complaining that Stanford doesn't let in people without graduating middle school. Some of it is invalid: the Westboro nuts are morons. Some of it cannot be helped: despite all the progress of feminism, some women just want to get married and submit to their husband, and we are left with no course but to respect that choice. (I respect it: do you?) And some of it we _recognize_ as technically 'unfair' but are hoping to mitigate larger effects: affirmative action.
The OP is making a comment about the wider sea. You didn't really provide any evidence to counter his large-scale commentary except for (implicitly) denying his group any privilege to _even contemplate_ the wider sea.
That's the problem with these sorts of discussion: someone can say "We're moving towards equality pretty well, overall" and be attacked with "There is still discrimination X." Both statements evaluate as true, so a fight starts anyway, plus it gets tied up into people's identity (that is something you did _explicitly_, in fact) so people get pissed off.
For what it's worth, here's my take: the demographic shift for males in the US is broadly towards lower education and employment. Additionally the heterosexual relationship has an altered power balance: forces in the legal system that were discriminatory against women have been targeted for elimination for the past however many years, while _not_ being targeted for men. How much discriminatory cruft remains from our hetero-normative past?
It is almost a given that social forces move too far, take too much, and then have to balance out. There are very few conservative revolutions, very few careful idealists. So how _unlikely_ is it that we have not moved past a point, or will very soon, where the equal status of men and women is ambiguous? Arguably the point of equality is _at _ the point in time where equality is ambiguous, because otherwise there wouldn't be much to argue about! (At the very least we can use this to provide lower and upper bounds, eh?)
Your knee-jerk reaction, "No," may very soon be out of date.
So now that I'm a member of an "unprivileged" viewpoint, I'm granted the privilege of determining what constitutes ignorance and privilege in other people--you granted it directly by asking me.
You misunderstand. I don't want you to make a determination because you are a member of the oppressed class; I know the answer, and if you had agreed with the hypothetical man's opinion I would have said that you are wrong as well. Discrimination can be documented objectively.
I was trying to illustrate that members of the oppressed class are always more acutely aware of their oppression than oppressors are, it's just natural. Likewise, with my farcical "shot in the dark"— of course it wasn't a shot in the dark, I was playing the odds. If we suppose that women are oppressed, then someone who doesn't believe women are oppressed is likely not a woman.
For what it's worth, I do agree with the statement that "We're moving towards equality pretty well, overall"— so much so that I wouldn't have put down too much money on ricefield being a dude, because I do actually know quite a few women who don't believe that there is meaningful gender inequality anymore. They are universally in my age group or younger, in high school or college, from middle-class families, and white.
They do in fact live in an environment where sexism is mostly about silly things. Now, I think that's awesome. But they're wrong.
Anyway, to take this all back around: The privileged tend not to recognize that they are privileged. It doesn't make you a bad person, it's just not something people notice. (It's still unclear to me if this is something you disagree with?)
If you want an analogy which doubles as an example: In a relationship, when the man thinks he and his partner share housework roughly equally, the woman tends to think that she is doing much more housework than the men. Statistically speaking, the woman in this case is objectively right; the man is likely doing much less than his share of the housework. He just doesn't realize it. If you ask me, it behooves a man not to rely on his perception of how much housework he is doing, because he knows that that perception is likely to be skewed. (Note that I'm not saying couples should necessarily share housework equally; these are men who want to, and think they are, but are not.)
So, likewise, the only thing I'm trying to say here is that if you find yourself thinking, "Hmm, that previously oppressed group seems pretty equal now" that your next thought should be "but then on the other hand I wouldn't expect to notice latent discrimination if it does exist, so maybe I should look into it a little bit closer." Not because you don't get the right to say things are equal if they are; just because they probably aren't.
I believe this is because you're still focused on the content/intent of your post, and I'm focused on the effect of your post.
>I know the answer
Then you're only asking it to affirm your own opinion, _assuming_ that I will agree with you.
All of what you're saying about oppression and likelihood and ignorance is true. That doesn't mean that you aren't _in effect_ assigning out rights to grievance based on your classification of what sort of person is an oppressed group.
Examples: 1. When working together on homework, guys would almost never accept corrections from women, even when they were right. They would accept the same corrections from guys. 2. If a guy got help from another guy, he would mention it when talking to a third person e.g. "Steven said that the way to think about this is...". If a guy got help from a girl, he would almost never mention it.
Not sure if i ever got that sense. I've had some really good female project partners and/or study mates. But I can see how some guys might feel emasculated from being helped by a girl.
Let's say, for example, that we have a country like Fiji where XC skiing is rare. But a university student from Fiji he takes up the sport. He ends up representing his country in the 1988 Olympics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiji_at_the_1988_Winter_Olympic...
Now, if he were to go on and actually win an Olympic medal, is it wrong of us to say, "Wow, that's amazing considering he's from a country that traditionally doesn't do very well in Winter sports?" Are we treating him like a hot house flower to celebrate the fact that he skiis and he's from Fiji?
Do we think Fijians have some sort of character defect if they need to be encouraged to try this sport that for decades has been dominated by people who aren't very much like them at all?
My claim is that this is similar to the case of the girls. We have plenty of uncontested evidence that women can be fine scientists. What is missing is a track record of girls winning science fairs, much less sweeping them.
I don't think it's amazing for a woman or a girl to be accomplished in math/science, that's my point. It happens all the time.
I know of no reason why a Fijian should or shouldn't be competitive in XC skiing, and I don't care to speculate as to whether there is some intrinsic genetic, cultural, or just plain lack of convenient access to snow reason why Fijians haven't won any medals yet, but if it were to happen, it would be unusual.
It might not be amazing that a Fijian should be an accomplished skiier, but it would be amazing to win a medal when there has been a long history of them not winning medals.
Back to the girls. There have been many great woman scientists. True. Have there been as many girls winning science fair competitions? How many times have the top three places all been male? How many times have the top three places all been female?
I think it's safe to be amazed or delighted at this result without saying anything about whether there are or have been woman scientists, or whether women ought to be or are accomplished scientists. It is enough for me that this result is amazing.
The possibility that 2/3 of the girls in question were from the Indian subcontinent doesn't spur me to greater creativity.
Yes, but unfairly. I think the exclamation was one of surprise, not putting down boys. It would be hard to tell, without being there.
The more alarming quote was Cerf's "I was secretly very pleased to see that happen." The obvious corollary is that he would have been secretly less pleased if boys had won. Does that indicate he has lesser expectations for women? Would his (probably) sub-conscious bias actually hurt girls perceptions of themselves in the long run?
Reminds me of the Reddit thread for a women-only programming event that received some backlash: http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/h0fe0/pyladies_...
Another alarming interpretation is that he was secretly pleased that the girls had won, but would have been openly pleased if boys had won :-)
In high school, my all-girl team won the state science league twice, and I finished first individually. Did we take pride and inspiration in the fact that we'd beaten all the boys in the state? Absolutely! Were we truly at an advantage when it came to math and science education? I never felt like it, and I knew a lot of bright girls who internalized the "girls aren't supposed to be good at this" message in ways that affected their education and career choices. Sometimes a little girl power is just what helps you to keep going in the face of subtle or overt discouragement from the people around you.
how many bright men are internalizing messages detrimental to their education and career choices? maybe a little guy power would help them keep going in the face of subtle etc.
However, we should get rid of majoritarian shame/guilt, of course.
It is impossible for you to know how many of those events were because of sexism, or how many were because of general incompetence on the part of your elders. I, as a boy, experienced everything you did, but would never have attributed it to sexism because boys are never taught to do that.
I've known brilliant, moderately smart, and downright stupid women. None of the brilliant ones complain about stereotyping. (They may talk about wishing there were more women in their field, but that is different.) These women simply go about being brilliant. It's only the one's who think they are better than they actually are who "get their panties in a bun". This is a convenient scapegoat that unqualified men simply don't have.
That said, I hope I'm misinterpreting the tone of your comment. I too would like to encourage more women to be technical. But the way to do that is to focus on the good things, not the drawbacks. Talk about Marie Curie in exactly the same way that you would talk about Einstein. By emphasizing the obstacles she/you had to overcome, you're downplaying her/your actual achievements.
The way to get more women in technical fields is to highlight their success, not dwell on their obstacles.
I would think the hacker community should be welcoming to a bit more girl power & I for one welcome our new double x chromosome overlords :)
I hope those those who needed a reminder about the capabilities of girls or women see this news.
However, (and I realize this will be controversial) imo this result doesn't contradict the general notion that girls (in mainstream American culture) are discouraged (by societal and cultural pressures) from engaging in science and engineering. Two of the three girls are Indian-American and these girls presumably don't face the same pressures that most other American girls face.
For that matter, I think that women in countries like India, China, Russia etc. are much more represented in science and engineering (in their countries) than native-born women in the US.
edit: can we get a reddit-style "context" option? I want to link her to this comment, and display the two parent comments; if I just link to the 'grandparent', who knows where Scriptor's reply will end up.
If I want to show someone this comment (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2783390) and the two parent replies, there's no way to do that. I can link to the grandparent, but what if the parent comment is downvoted in the meanwhile? It would show up at the very bottom.
I am Pavel's mom who was born and raised in USSR. I don't think that being an engineer was the only route for a woman to become educated - women could become doctors or teachers as well. As a matter of fact there were more female doctors and teachers than male. Accountant degree was also very popular and obtainable among women. I think that credo may be right - it is societal and cultural pressure that prevent girls from going into these fields.
Women in developing countries face the same problem as the women in the US on top of facing the problems that are unique to these countries.
I somehow find this quote to be rather unfortunate. I know he meant it in a good way, but it makes it seem as though the general public needs to be reminded that women aren't less intelligent than men. Perhaps for many that reminder may be required, but I guess the fact that we need such a reminder saddens me. I would have preferred something like that not be mentioned. Or perhaps I would prefer that it need not be pointed out at all.
I'm not sure where or who, exactly, but there are people who think that only men go into science. It's unfortunate, but apparently, this really is necessary.
So, this work was either given to her, or she worked her *ss off to get there.
When I was in high school I wanted to get into video games badly. I found someone at the local EA office, got to meet him, got introduced around, and even got his mentorship on a few projects. All of this, I think, based on the notion that I'm a smart-lookin' 16 year-old student.
Try getting that with just a phone call when you're out of school and in your 20s and 30s.
Basically, each day we would leave school a couple hours early and head to the university lab where we would work. The projects were often a part of or a very small version of projects that the lab was already involved in. So at the end of our research we got to talk about the super amazing project we had worked on and generally looked like amazing geniuses, when in fact we were more or less tagging along and doing some semi-advanced lab tech work.
This is the problem I have with science fairs as "competitions". It is completely impossible to disentangle the contributions of the student from the opportunities given by their environment, so if you just judge the end result, of course the kids who happen to have access to university labs are going to get results that are miles beyond what a kid working in his parents' garage can accomplish. But that has, IMHO, very little to do with the individual. (Not to mention that kids whose parents are university faculty or similar, and thus generally pretty well off in society, will disproportionately get these chances.)
I stopped volunteering as a judge for the Santa Cruz science fair because I got so fed up with this bias.
Original study: https://sites.google.com/site/ampkandcisplatinresistance/
Doesn't seem to have been published yet, but presumably it will be.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1582-4934.2009....
It still remains to be seen how doing more of something (or being more successful at something) in high school translates to being successful at that endeavor later in life. Time will tell!
As an Asian immigrant, and I knew plenty of Asian women who did superbly in high school - student council, extracurriculars, excellent academics, etc etc... who had the rug pulled from under them as soon as they graduated.
Some of them made it into prestigious universities far from home - but weren't allowed to go, since "girls shouldn't be too far from family"... whereas dudes can, apparently. A few (thankfully not many) were dissuaded from going into lucrative fields since it "wouldn't leave time for children later" or would make it "unlikely to find a good husband" (in Asian circles this usually means stability and a fat paycheck).
It would not surprise me if, among all the reasons why women are held back in society, their own parents are a huge cause.
I got my spark for science and engineering when I was a kid by building legos, making electric circuits from a construction kit and learning the baby steps of programming with qbasic.
Glad to see I was mistaken :)