But the arguments I see above just do not fly for me. Sure. On average girls and boys have equal ability in Maths but if you head out into the RHS you reach a point where high scoring boys outnumber high scoring girls. That is empirical fact and this gap has persisted despite oodles of encouragement to bring girls along.
Personally, I do not buy into college for all nor do I support forcing talented boys out of STEM so their places can be taken by less able girls in order to artificially impose gender parity in any given STEM discipline.
Perhaps there's a failure of imagination here.
Overall, "math talent" is and has been defined by men for a very long time. Highly capable tends to mean really good with a certain skill set, like solving problems quickly on competition exams. Or being able to
shut up and calculate and not waste time asking questions about why it works (google it). Perhaps this skill set is something men do well. Perhaps there are other skill sets in mathematics and physics that women do better at. Perhaps these skill sets would lead to new discoveries.
Now, at this point, I suspect that some readers are snorting and thinking, "Math is the most objective of all disciplines. It's obvious what's important."
To this I ask: important to who? And how is this defined?
Sure, shut up and calculate has led to amazing new technologies. But it hasn't led to a single revolutionary-type discovery that breaks the old model. It can't, because by definition it sticks to the existing model. New discoveries come from strange and mysterious places.
There are giant glaring holes in physics (and in math IMO) that won't be solved by keeping your gob shut and solving the differential equation. Yet we stick to this approach, reward its master craftsmen, and dismiss anyone else as lacking the requisite "talent."
Also, lots of things have been obvious, from the earth's position at the center of the universe to the fact that women can't be doctors or much of anything beyond nurses, teachers, and mothers ... or the eternality of [insert dead movement].
But you argue, "None of that stuff was based on empirical data! It was all based ignorance and prejudices!" To which I reply, how do you know that you aren't suffering from the same problem? And where is the empirical data showing that an approach to mathematics that rewards a certain skill and ability set is the
only way? Because, right now...it is the only skill set that will get you anywhere, as those who don't have it are "less able."
In general, when one group sets self-serving standards for X, it's dishonest to claim that people in another group don't qualify to do X. But it's a good tactic for maintaining position as the alpha group, which is a common human trait. Prejudice is eternal, and it's always easy to create another reason for why the other group isn't as good or is just plain wrong. Just ask the anti-vaxxers. They're experts at being ignorant (though they don't know it).
