by One need not look far, whether online or in books, to come to the conclusion that male contributions to the sciences have historically been valued far above similar contributions from women of the same fields. Even beyond this disparity in value, however, female contributors to science must work hard to permeate an intellectual culture which often actively dissuades female involvement, whether explicitly or implicitly. This results not only in successful female scientists gaining less recognition from their colleagues and the public, but in less female scientists being pushed to break these types of societally-ingrained boundaries. While such inequality is not limited to the realms of science and technology, I believe that the achievement-based culture of science aggravates traditional masculine and feminine gender roles in a way that exacerbates the issue.
In one study that I found in a government database, Virginia Valian explores the idea that gender schemas – or the different expectations society holds for each gender – can be a defining factor in female scientific success. Valian cites a number of experiments which all produced a similar conclusion: women must work harder to be seen as having the same abilities, accomplishments, and contributions as men. Women in the same positions as men will be less likely to be identified as leaders, women producing the same work as men will be less likely to be commended, etc., and the list goes on.
To further confirm my initial hypothesis, Valian references the “accumulation of advantage” as another key determinant of scientific success which disproportionately harms women in science. This concept centers around the fact that even very small differences in the treatment of men versus women in science can have serious impacts on a scientist’s future. Even small-scale instances of a woman receiving less credit than men, less information, or less public recognition can have lasting impacts upon her future positions and prominence in the world of science. And in a highly merit-based field such as that of most sciences, these small disadvantages “accumulate over time to result in underrepresentation at the top”.
Knowledge of these problems is not confined to academic studies, either. During a casual conversation with a female friend of mine majoring in STEM, my friend explained her feeling that women might traditionally be raised to be more gracious, submissive, and collaborative than men, who may be taught that ambition and leadership will pave the way to success. This echoes one of Valian’s claims that men could be seen as “capable of independent action” and women are regarded as more “communal”. This distinction would certainly come into play as far as science is concerned, with major scientific breakthroughs and discoveries carrying immense value throughout history; women may be looked down upon for being secretive or competitive regarding new scientific work, whereas men might well be praised for the exact same behaviors. My friend also added that during a chemistry course she was taking at Colby, she had never once heard her professor refer to a notable achievement from a female chemist. While this particular instance of male achievements being highlighted could perhaps be justified or explained away, it seems highly unlikely that my friend is the only STEM-majoring female who has noticed the disparity in gender recognition within their field. There may not be an easy way to reverse gender roles that have been ingrained in broader society, let alone science, for the vast majority of human history, but listening to those who have felt these impacts firsthand is a great place to start.
Additional source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44851/