Column: Gender and math: Look past the numbers
by Susan Holcomb | The Diamondback (University of Maryland)
Issue date: 12/10/08 Section: Opinion
(U-WIRE) — In a recent Newsweek article, science writer Sharon Begley provides ample statistics in an effort to refute the claim that men are naturally more mathematically gifted than women. She points out how the disparity between men's and women's measurable mathematical prowess varies drastically from country to country, implying that some cultural influence must be causing, or at least exacerbating, this disparity.
However, mid-article, she reaches a jarring conclusion: "Countries whose girls lag behind boys tend to see math as for nerds only, which drives away many U.S. girls (who are more sensitive to social status than boys)."
For an article whose sole purpose is to dispel the claim that a particular substantive difference exists between men and women, it is shocking to resolve the issue by so glibly referencing yet another allegedly substantive difference between the genders. Begley takes offense at the blanket statement that men are better at math than women, but then tosses out another blanket statement of her own when she says the disparity in mathematical achievement is due to the fact that women are more sensitive than men.
For the record, I agree with much of what Begley writes in this article. However, there are problems in the way she resolves her argument that appear all too often in the discussion of women in the sciences—problems that need to be addressed.
The main problem here is that the statistics showing lower mathematical achievement in women have to be accounted for. We are presented with two alternatives: Women are naturally worse at math, or they are more susceptible to social pressures that make them worse at math.
In either case, the woman mathematician seems to be doomed. The only difference is that in Begley's account, the woman can comfort herself with the lukewarm consolation that she can blame society for her lack of math skills.
As a result, there arises a tendency to view mathematically accomplished women as accomplished in spite of their femininity. This result is primarily what I take issue with. Whether one accepts Begley's view or the view she opposes, femininity is treated as a roadblock that must be overcome. In Begley's account, the woman must disregard her supposedly feminine social sensitivity; in the opposing account, she must overcome her purportedly natural inferiority.
However, mid-article, she reaches a jarring conclusion: "Countries whose girls lag behind boys tend to see math as for nerds only, which drives away many U.S. girls (who are more sensitive to social status than boys)."
For an article whose sole purpose is to dispel the claim that a particular substantive difference exists between men and women, it is shocking to resolve the issue by so glibly referencing yet another allegedly substantive difference between the genders. Begley takes offense at the blanket statement that men are better at math than women, but then tosses out another blanket statement of her own when she says the disparity in mathematical achievement is due to the fact that women are more sensitive than men.
For the record, I agree with much of what Begley writes in this article. However, there are problems in the way she resolves her argument that appear all too often in the discussion of women in the sciences—problems that need to be addressed.
The main problem here is that the statistics showing lower mathematical achievement in women have to be accounted for. We are presented with two alternatives: Women are naturally worse at math, or they are more susceptible to social pressures that make them worse at math.
In either case, the woman mathematician seems to be doomed. The only difference is that in Begley's account, the woman can comfort herself with the lukewarm consolation that she can blame society for her lack of math skills.
As a result, there arises a tendency to view mathematically accomplished women as accomplished in spite of their femininity. This result is primarily what I take issue with. Whether one accepts Begley's view or the view she opposes, femininity is treated as a roadblock that must be overcome. In Begley's account, the woman must disregard her supposedly feminine social sensitivity; in the opposing account, she must overcome her purportedly natural inferiority.
Be the first to comment on this story