I am sure I will take heat for this, but this US male has to disagree with much of mhazlem's post. Take a look at this article in the times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/science/15tier.html
Applying Title IX to science seems like it would be bad for a lot of fields, but I guess that’s what is required to take federal money. As long as they plan on enforcing Title IX in
psychology as well as physics, I think its all fair (see article). However, I am pretty sure that the government forcing Titile IX compliance in psychology (that is, cutting jobs for women in the field) would be severely protested. Not really sure what the argument would be, but someone will think of one.
On to her post.
mhazelm wrote:
That's obviously not the whole picture; from the evolutionary standpoint, I think women and men are fundamentally different in their thought patterns.
Careful now; that type of talk can get you into a lot of trouble. Ask Lawrence H. Summers. Before he was a key leader of Obama’s transition team, he had to resign as president of Harvard for suggesting that the thought patterns of men and women might be different. Dangerous territory to step into; no geneticist would dare touch that one with a ten foot pole. I am surprised no one took offense.
mhazelm wrote:
Also, society pushes these stereotypes on us constantly: pop music, reality TV shows, other TV series, many of them are all about women being seductresses, rather than smart women with depth. To a young person, I think the media often sends the message that we are valued (as women) when we have perfect, skinny, tan model bodies with perfect make-up, and we can attract men. There is often not much depth to this picture. I have never turned on my TV and seen a reality show about who can survive Jackson's E&M for the longest (hehehe), it's usually about who can "win the man", or look better.
This argument really irritates me. Do you think that it is not the same thing for men? The media sends the same message to men as women; perhaps not as strong to men, but it is there. Both my male and female friends who were scientists/engineers and attractive had no problem hooking up or getting a gf/bf. The ones that were not didn’t.
It is not cool, at any level of education, to be a physicist. Most people (men and women) do not find the subject very interesting. Moreover, most physicists do not make a lot of money, which, in my experience, is not a turn on for women.
Also, one of the hottest girls I have ever seen is an astrophysicist. Before astrophysics, she was a model. Is she a "role model" or part of the media’s attempt to force women to look beautiful?
mhazelm wrote:
So young women are not inclined to approach the sciences, because it isn't "cool" or "attractive" and society has taught them that this is what's important. It's a bit sad sometimes to think that we (women) fought for years to get the vote and for the ability to pursue careers, but that almost a century later, it's still all about attraction and being seductive, rather than having intellectual freedom... to me it doesn't seem that we've come so far from the 1930s and 40s yet, as a whole (many, many women have, of course, I'm just generalizing).
The New York Times article I posted says, "They [women] earn the majority of doctorates in both the life sciences and the social sciences". Care to rethink your statement?
Someone asked why biophysics has more women; this article explains that, as biology is a female dominated field, it makes sense that biophysics would be too. 70% of the psychology field is female; that is a huge discrepancy! It seems to me that women do have intellectual freedom in this country, but choose the life sciences instead of physics/engineering (from article, "Dr. Lubinski and Dr. Benbow concluded that adolescents’ interests and balance of abilities — not their sex — were the best predictors of whether they would choose an 'inorganic' career like physics".). Just wondering, does equality mean that women and men must be equally represented in every field? Is it okay that psychology is female dominated?
mhazelm wrote:
Also, another reason (I think) is physics the way that it is taught. Many, many studies have shown that women tend (on average) to think more verbally, men more visually. But the entire subject of physics has been dominated by men, and their teaching mechanisms, for years. So, who's to say that the methods of approaching the various subjects could be changed in a way that would be more stimulating to women? But it's hard to really say if there's a better way to approach the subject, or if it would make a tangible difference.
You are probably right with this. However, as I have just pointed out, physics is not alone in this problem. Maybe psychology works the same way in keeping men out. If the majority of students prefer a teaching style, than that’s the one they are going to go with.
mhazelm wrote:
It's also a bit daunting to think that you might have little support on issues like child-rearing, and also might have to wait a while longer (till after grad school, etc.) to start a family (not that we HAVE to wait...).
I will agree with your point about maternity leave; that was messed up. I some how doubt that most colleges are run this way, especially after she won the lawsuit. I know that the place I work at is very good about giving maternity leave. Just to throw this out there, what about the fathers? Clearly they do not go through the same physical/emotional strain of child birth, but most couples share the duties of taking care of the new baby. Men also want to spend time with their kids. They don’t need to be home all day, but perhaps allowing for a reduced work schedule would be nice for some time after child birth. Not that it matters; I feel like this type of "paternity leave" would be impossible to expect from any empolyer.
Two questions for everyone- a. what is the m/f ratio in your department (country would be helpful too, if you're international) and b. why do you think physics is still such a male-dominated field? (Astronomy is too, of course, but IRC it's 25% women whereas physics is closer to 20%.)
) But there does seem to be a mechanism at work that in a department with many women, women students feel comfortable and do well, and that in turn attract more women students. 
(Again, please don't hate me, I'm not advocating this method... it's just the easiest solution mathematically.)
I LOVE IT! I need that shirt!
