The Science on Women and Science

by Christina Hoff Sommers, Joshua Aronson (Contributor), Simon Baron-Cohen (Contributor)

Women have achieved or exceeded parity with men in most academic fields but continue to be outnumbered in the physical sciences, engineering, and math. For many equity activists, this imbalance constitutes a serious problem, even a "crisis," necessitating federal oversight to prevent gender bias in higher education and scientific industries. Congress, the Obama administration, and many science and education leaders are considering dramatic measures to improve women's prospects in the sciences. But what if claims of gender bias have been exaggerated? In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released "Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Promise of Women in Academic Science and Engineering," an influential study suggesting that women face a hostile environment in the laboratory. The NAS report dismissed the possibility that gender disparities in scientific fields might be attributable to biological differences and called for immediate remedial action in education, government, and business. This volume examines the research behind the NAS's claims and presents a more balanced analysis of the gender gap. Scientific research on the relationship between gender and vocation is complex, vibrant, and full of reasonable disagreements. Some scholars agree that discrimination is the best explanation for the current configuration of men and women in science, but others, perhaps a majority, suggest that biology and considered preference explain why men and women follow different career paths. The Science on Women and Science is a lively, readable, and balanced collection of articles by distinguished scholars from sides of an often-contentious debate.

Genres: Feminism, Psychology, Science, Womens, Gender, Sociology, Nonfiction

346 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Christina Marie Hoff Sommers is an American author and philosopher. Specializing in ethics, she is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Sommers is known for her critique of contemporary feminism. Her work includes the books Who Stole Feminism? (1994) and The War Against Boys (2000). She also hosts a video blog called The Factual Feminist.
Sommers' positions and writing have been characterized by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "equity feminism", a classical-liberal or libertarian feminist perspective holding that the main political role of feminism is to ensure that the right against coercive interference is not infringed. Sommers has contrasted equity feminism with what she terms victim feminism and gender feminism, arguing that modern feminist thought often contains an "irrational hostility to men" and possesses an "inability to take seriously the possibility that the sexes are equal but different". Several writers have described Sommers as anti-feminist.

Reviews

[Sandra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not a brilliant book, but it is a honest attempt to present the current (2009-ish) state of disagreements on women's participation in STEM fields. There is no lack of clashing ideologies, (un)certainties, politicking, accusations of bias and un-scientific-ness, data that are suspect, and studies that show both X and not-X (not same studies), frustration and hurt (research) feelings.

There are a few interesting new concepts I leaned about, such as the existence of "IQ fundamentalists" and test-industry association bias in the field of gender theory and research. Not to forget the elephant in the room, angry feminists with an agenda.

Stereotype Threat theory ended up making the most sense to me, possibly because it seemed to have most solid data behind it, tested through time and by diffent studies. It also seems (I say seems because after reading this book I no longer think anyone knows anything for sure) most solidly defensible from its detractors's criticism. And perhaps also due to the fact that it seems to prove that there is hope and that most performance gaps between genders and minorities can be not only explained but also remedied by (fairly simple) context fiddling and proper support and encouragement of the students. All this said, I'm still on the "biology (as in gender differences) is a strong push in a certain direction" team, not absolutely and not always but definitely as a significant factor.

Reading the book, I had to fight my own "as a women in a STEM field" opinions and prejudices, but as a woman in STEM, I think this is the best collection of contradictory opinions on the topic I've encountered so far. I'm a huge fan of Christina Hoff Sommers and her efforts to bring some sanity back into feminism.

[Graeme · Rating 5 out of 5]

As president of Harvard University, Lawrence Summers occupied the most prestigious and distinguished academic position in the world. In a speech in 2005, he suggested that the lower proportion of women in science and engineering, relative to men, could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end." A furor erupted, and he was forced to resign. His replacement was inevitably a woman.

Charles Murray writes in the conclusion to this book:

But by any quantitative indicator, young women who show scientific or math talent today are getting much more encouragement than they used to. That's good.
But I must also offer a warning. Earlier I argued that from the late 1960s through the end of the century, the academic mainstream in the social sciences embraced the equality premise. But so did the political mainstream. Virtually every social policy initiated since the late 1960s has reflected the assumption that all groups of people are cognitively indistinguishable. Since we observe very large group differences in the phenotype, the equality premise forces the conclusion that when we see inequalities, the only cause must be environmental disadvantages afflicting the group with the lower income, education, or social status. Everything that we associate with the phrase "politically correct" eventually comes back to the equality premise. In social policy, the statistical tests for uncovering job discrimination are based on the equality premise. Affirmative action in all its forms assumes there are no innate cognitive differences between any of the groups it seeks to help and everyone else.

Bringing down the president of Harvard signaled the ultimate victory for political correctness. Anyone, regardless of accomplishment or importance, could be deposed and ostracized with ranting, chanting, and innuendo, without resort to evidence, reason, or scientific thinking, even in the world's greatest university.

I remember thinking at the time that, in my opinion, Summers was absolutely correct in his contention, but that he should have held his tongue and bowed to the powerful forces of political correctness. What a lazy, gutless conclusion! I am ashamed.

In 2006, the deservedly eminent National Academy of Sciences published the report Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (2007). Its conclusions and recommendations are summarized here. The report was written by the Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, composed almost entirely of women. The Science on Women and Science demonstrates that the report is political rather than scientific, reciting familiar tropes. Joshua Aronson, in the chapter Low Numbers: Stereotypes and the Underrepresentation of Women in Math and Science, sums it up:

Although neither sneering nor shrill, the recent National Academy of Sciences report, Beyond Bias and Barriers: Fulfilling the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, is nonetheless a bit too confident about the barriers holding women back. Its central argument is that girls and women are impaired by both conscious and unconscious biases that stem from cultural notions about female inferiority in math and science, and by processes such as 'stereotype threat,' in which one's own performance and motivation are spoiled by worries about living down to the low expectations these cultural notions impose. Although it is clear that gender bias exists and that stereotype threat—which I will describe in detail in this chapter—can significantly impede intellectual performance and development, the confidence that they play a big role in holding women back is unwarranted. Despite the admirable intentions of the NAS report, its authors are simply too confident that biological differences are not involved and that bias is. If we are to be true to the scientific process, we need to be clear on the fact that we do not know to what extent bias, stereotype threat, and other social factors contribute to the low numbers of women in math and science. Nor can we be confident that these processes are not involved.

The editor, Christina Hoff Sommers, explains, "In arranging the conference and inviting the essays for this collection, my AEI [American Enterprise Institute] colleagues and I sought to find the best proponents of the various positions in the controversy." I love her closing statement in the Introduction:

As a philosophy professor and equity feminist in the classical liberal tradition, I am well aware of the long and sorry history of how alleged natural differences between men and women have been routinely and casually interpreted by men as proofs of their superiority to women. Often the claims of difference were absurd; but almost always, women paid a heavy price. It is understandable that today many women and men, keenly aware of that history, continue to react with suspicion to the suggestion that the sexes are in any significant way innately different. Nevertheless, the correction to the history of damaging bias is not more bad science. It is good science, clear thinking, and open, fair-minded discussion.

All of the authors are distinguished scientists and thinkers. They write extremely well, with logic and coherence. This volume should be on every thinking person's bookshelf, both as a warning against bad science and a demonstration of how it can be countered with reason and dignity. Unfortunately, we see headlines almost every day claiming that "women are underrepresented" in yet another field, based on nothing more than raw numbers. I firmly believe that the resentment of political correctness that helped propel Donald Trump to the White House is symptomatic of that very problem. People know bullshit when they see it.