Why is there no equal ratio of men and women in science, especially in the top levels?
It is strange because student percentages show near equal female/male ratios in science. But after graduation apparently something goes wrong. A paper in PLoS January discusses possible causes for this inequality. In reaction I can only provide my point of view in the Netherlands, the point of view of someone who is so low on the career ladder that she still actually has both feet firmly on the ground. Glass ceiling? What glass ceiling?
To be perfectly honest, I would like nothing more than to ignore this problem. A career in science is hard enough, even if you are not a woman. I don't want to blame any set backs I may encounter to discrimination, and, short of a sex change, there is not a lot I can do about it anyway.
Several reasons have been put forward before, why women seem to lose out on the top positions in science:
Just this month a study was published on day care in the Netherlands. Day care is perceived by a majority of women as (too) expensive, for many of them it eats up a significant part of their salary. But that is not the main reason most of them only bring their children in for two days a week; they feel it is unfair on the children to be "dumped". Day care quality is
a big issue here, but if the general attitude is that you are a poor mother for "dumping" your kids in day care, what are you going to do? There are few harsher peer groups than the mommy mafia...
Accordingly, the Netherlands have very low numbers of full-time working women. According to research by the Dutch Statistics Bureau (
CBS), approximately 60% of all employers don't think it is possible to obtain a top position with a part time job. And in the majority of cases, it is the women who take a part time job, to raise the children. It is marvelous that they have the freedom to choose this, but when other options are less desirable (day care is very expensive and unfair on the child), is it true freedom of choice?
- discrimination and the glass ceiling
Personally I don't think I ever did or did not get a job because I am a woman. But I do encounter some attitudes at the workplace, that I wouldn't have if I were a guy. For example, I don't think many men have been asked in an official assessment, whether they want a career or a family (I have had that happen twice now... what, is it my age? tic-toc-tic-toc?? </Bridget Jones>). Obviously the men asking me this, did not think it possible to combine a 'serious' (whatever that may be) academic career with having a family,
when you are a woman. So we are back to square one. I have heard of more vicious examples of this type of attitude, though, fortunately, they are now rare.
- male/female differences in attitude
According to P. Lawrence, the author of the paper in PLoS, there is actually another reason that women don't make it, and that has to do with biased selection methods in academic jobs. Job tests, publishing rates, networks, these are all things that determine whether you get the job, and these all select for people with supposedly male characteristics, like salesmanship, pushiness (editorial selection of papers for publication), self-confidence, and aggression (tests). Lawrence seems to think that it is still taboo to say that men and women are different. He therefore goes on to elaborately cite a study by Simon Baron Cohen (Cambridge University) who analysed psychological differences between a 'male brain'
males on average are more predisposed to systemise, to analyse and to be forgetful of others [...] Males tend to think narrowly and obsess
and a 'female brain'
females on average are innately designed to empathise, to communicate, and to care for others [...] Females think broadly, taking into account balancing arguments
SBC says that 60% of males have a male brain, and 60% of females have a female brain. The remaining 40% in both sexes are equally divided to a 'balanced brain' and a female brain for males and male brain for females. Lawrence then cites other studies that show that even in newborns there is a difference in behaviour between boys and girls, and this can be expected as fetuses experience differences in the level of testosterone. So yes, women and men are different biologically and psychologically (we kind of knew that already though). But is this a thinly veiled attempt at showing that women just do not have what it takes to attain top positions? Or is he saying that women play the career game differently than men, and we need to change the rules to accommodate them?
The latter is what Lawrence argues, as a male/female mix would definitely benefit science and academia. Selection for academic jobs should focus on the scientific abilities of the candidate,
as well as on creativity, leadership and didactic capacities. Simply because these last factors are so important in the higher echelons of academia when leading research groups and departments, and supervising students and teaching become essential. Emphasising these characteristics instead of focusing on aggression and showmanship would level the playing field. Though I think these are good ideas, I am still not convinced that innate gender-personality related differences are the real cause of inequality in top level jobs. IMO, there are still too many real problems with combining a career in a demanding field like science with maternity. Until good quality, and affordable day care or after-school programs, become available, I don't think, self confident or not, that women have an equal chance in a field where it is expected that you work long hours and the boundaries between personal and professional life are blurred.
Baron-Cohen S (2003) The essential difference. Men, women and the extreme male brain. London: Allen Lane.
Lawrence PA (2006) Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science, PLoS Biology, 4 (1): e19.