Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Stereotype threat: girls and chess

Well, I will just share my perspective as a very talented, female Millenial. I left a good career track in a STEM profession to be a SAHM and volunteer. This disappointed many people, including my parents, who felt that I was not "living up to my potential." I was also told things like, "Women should work."

I am sure some social scientist could come along and make the case that I am not "reaching my potential" because of "social or cultural forces." But if you ask me, I would say that I logically weighed my options, acted according to my own set of priorities (which may or may not be influenced by my gender), and I'm happier than ever.

I have a lot of admiration and gratitude for the work that female activists have done in the past generations. But maybe the pendulum has swung in the other direction, in some areas. Really, it is not a smart girl's duty to defy stereotypes any more than it is her duty to fulfill traditional gender roles.

Purely anecdotal, so take it for what it's worth, but I'm an HG male whose cognitive strength is spatial ability, and my DD's spatial abilities test higher than my own.

+1. And let's not forget that having fun and enjoying the game is part of it as well.

It's sort of amusing to think of chess as a sport, but there are many similarities. Ideally, you learn to persist, to win and lose gracefully, and to practice and refine your skills to achieve more success. IMO, children's chess should be somewhat similar to children's sports. It should be open to and fun for anyone who is interested, with the opportunity for better/more interested players to compete at higher levels. It shouldn't give off the vibe that it's only for genius children or boys or math whizzes. It's been shown to have some really great benefits, in fact, so making it more accessible to all children seems to be a win-win to me (and continuing to position it as a "boy genius" thing is concerning).

No, it's not--and I would never dream of requiring my DD to join the chess club. However, it's a little depressing to hear her talk about why she doesn't want to join it, and I do feel it's my responsibility to have that conversation so she gains a bit more of a nuanced understanding of her behavior and what it might reflect about the world at large. (I don't worry about my comments pressuring her unduly, as she is a wildly independent person.) She's a bright child. It's of interest to her, and it should be.

She has not joined the club, but she has stopped playing "silly chess" during class chess games.

I believe study authors have been trying their best to separate the genetic and social/cultural aspects of the gaps. Wasn't there a study recently posted to this forum indicating that the greater male variability in mathematics already existed in kindergarten? Hasn't it been shown that the female offspring of women with STEM jobs don't fair any better in math classes than their matched female peers?

As a poor boy who grew up in the 80's and 90's with little going for him but a rare ability in mathematics, I found the focus on female and minority performance disheartening. It's frustrating to see greater enthusiasm for someone you could best on your worst day than there is for you. The message ingrained in my head growing up was that my teachers, administrators, and society in general lamented the fact that I was better at math than my female and minority peers. Even though I grew up poor and came from a broken home, everyone would have been happier if the well-off girl with married parents could have bested me.

There is a pendulum here regarding the push for or against performance of underrepresented demographics. Unfortunately, there's really no way to tell exactly where the pendulum is. In my experience, there has been a significant push to help underrepresented demographics in their math performances, and this push has still failed to equalize results at the top. Ultramarina seems convinced that female students are still experiencing sexism against them, and extrapolates from the current trends that more equality is to come. I seem to recall that the latest research indicates that females peaked relative to males a while ago now, but maybe there will prove to be a resurgence.

I'm not posting this to be argumentative. It's an interesting subject to me, particularly as a father of both a son and a daughter. If they have equal talents, shouldn't those talents lead to equal excitement and equal opportunities? For my own part, it will. My daughter is 4 and I am already playing strategy games with her, and have exposed her to chess. I don't expect such parity outside of our home, however.

Ultramarina, ITA with everything you've said here. Definitely enjoyment is key; probably more important than proficiency in my book.

I don't remember this--but if it is the case, be aware that studies have also shown that parents (actually, specifically mothers) talk to and engage male toddlers more often on the subject of math than female toddlers. Male children are also given construction toys far more often than girls.

Actually, if we want to consider why boys might have an edge on girls when it comes to spatial skills, we might look to what toys we push on the two genders. There are studies showing that early exposure to simple building blocks is really important.

I don't think anyone has a duty to defy or fulfill traditional gender roles. People should make their own decisions based on their abilities on desires, not what someone else expects of them.

But...there's another side to the coin you've described. You make it sound so wonderful that you made a personal choice and you're so happy and it's all great. But what about the wider consequences?

It's well known that a lot of women enter graduate schools, professional schools, or jobs knowing or considering that they're going to leave the workforce when they have children. Unfortunately, this practice is so common, it leads to hiring managers getting cynical, as in, "She'll quit as soon as she has a baby." So maybe they don't want to hire or promote other women of childbearing age because of fears of making a bad investment. And then there is the question of the grad and professional schools allotting scarce places to women who, ultimately, won't be really using their educations.

Yes, I know that you can teach your kids and etc. etc. But that's not the same and it doesn't require a graduate or professional degree.

I understand that some people have NO CHOICE but to quit a job because something about the child demands it (e.g. health reasons). This is very different from deciding --- AFTER a lot of resources have been invested into you --- that you want to opt out. And I understand that people change their minds. But I think it's important for women in general to understand that every time a woman talks about how happy she is to have left the workforce after a lot of education, there are consequences for others. And the stereotypes we're talking about here are among them.

"Scarce places" in "grad and professional schools"???

Last time I checked we had quite an oversupply of Ph.D'.'s and J.D.'s.

Lower tier law schools, maybe. But places for science grad students are limited. So are places in med school, dental school, and pharmacy schools.