Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Article: Princeton's Woman Problem

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...ons-women-take-second-place-on-campus/2/

A comment:
"This is the exact same reason why I elected to attend a Seven Sisters school even though I'd been accepted to several Ivy Leagues. Despite the fact that they are now coed, there is still a large remnant of that "boys club" mentality among the males at the Ivy Leagues (especially those who are legacy students). It would have been too easy to sit back and let them take over. At Mount Holyoke we ran everything-- from the newspaper to the clubs to the sports teams--and gained valuable leadership experience in the process. Today I'm a college professor, and when I observe the interactions that take place between the male and female students on my campus, I thank my lucky stars that I went to a women's college."

This article (and all the associated articles) has left me stunned. I would love to hear from someone who has recently gone to one of these ivy league schools or has had a child enrolled at one.

Why is it "stunning" that fewer women than men at Princeton are in leadership positions? It matches the pattern in the outside world. Steven Goldberg wrote a book "Why Men Rule" that explains why.

That book is, as the sub-title states, a theory, and is neither objective, nor good science.

From http://academic.udayton.edu/PeggyDesAutels/Final_sex_diff.pdf
"Goldberg appeals to neuro-endocrinological evidence to argue that men are biologically destined to dominate while women are biologically destined to hold the more nurturing and less dominant roles in society...the purportedly scientific conclusions drawn in his book are used to bolster strong political agendas. These agendas promote "traditional" social and family structures in which men hold the positions of power and heterosexual men marry and dominate heterosexual women."

Bostonian - I was going to make the same point about the wider societal differences.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?pagewanted=print

I don't think this is a problem that is specific to Princeton. It's still a male-dominated world in many arenas, and co-ed colleges are no exception. Not only are roles such as leadership positions different for men and women in college, but career ambitions for men and women differ. More women are expecting to leave their careers for child-rearing responsibilities. This trend was reported in the New York Times study in 2005.

I work in a male-dominated profession. I don't think that will change in my lifetime. Women in my profession make less money, on average, and don't achieve the prominent positions in the profession. I'm not surprised the eating clubs at Princeton don't have many women in power - neither do the presidents of academies in my profession, either.

Maybe the trends reported in these studies are a result of those of us now in the trenches, who thought we could achieve professional equality, and who have told our daughters to be a little less ambitious. I certainly have.

But--I would argue that this isn't purely determined by biology, but by society. Countries like Norway are ahead in terms of women in leadership roles because they have policies for family leave, child care, and work to change gender-based stereotypes which are a major barrier to women�s participation in decision-making. It is one thing for women to recognize that given current circumstances, it would be very difficult to be a CEO and a mother and to choose to be a little less ambitious. It is another thing to say it is determined by biology.

Yes.

And I say that as someone who was reasonably successful navigating in that male-dominated world because I understood the underpinnings and unwritten rules that govern it and realized early on that I could sail in those waters only if I learned to live by those rules, too.

That doesn't mean that those things are NOT real barriers to success for many women, either-- or that the correlation says ANYTHING about 'causation' in terms of gender-based biology.

Becoming a parent changed how my colleagues and students viewed me in ways that my DH wasn't subject to. He and I were both amazed at that transformation-- and not a little appalled, actually. He was annoyed beyond words that he wasn't ALLOWED to be 'nurturing' and 'attentive' in the way that I was expected to be.


He was a "professor" and always, ALWAYS "DOCTOR Howler."

Me? Often "Misses Howler" from the same students and even other faculty and administrators... and "Oh, you're a teacher" from the same neighbors/acquaintances that classified my DH as a professor.

I earned less than him-- which, incidentally, was eventually the cause of a massive class-action lawsuit, but anyway...

It was fairly surreal. I truly thought that that sort of pervasive gender bias and hostile work environment was a relic of my MOTHER's generation.

Little did I know...

Also-- we didn't adopt the current rather 'traditional' system of a single wage-earner because we WANTED to do things this way.

No.

We needed a parent home full time due to our child having special needs. Ergo, which of us should stay home?

The one with the inferior EARNING POWER.

My degree and expertise is every bit as marketable as DH's. But he makes about 15% more than I do, and the gap, of course, widens each year because of his additional industrial experience, which I lack.

My point is that our initial choice there was a result of the income disparity.

Bostonian, I swear, sometimes I want to reply "Don't feed the trolls" when you post. Please, try talking TO people here in shades of grey, instead of AT people in black and white. So for example, try summarizing the ideas in the book instead of assuming or implying that we're all ignorant idiots for not having read it, accepted our lots in life, and moved on to the next question.

Most problems involving human beings are multi-faceted. Yes, men are stronger and more aggressive and this explains a lot about why certain societal patterns have developed. But it doesn't explain why men deliberately exclude women during hiring or whenever. It also doesn't explain why countries like Norway, Iceland, and Canada have made a lot of progress toward gender equality. And there's no guarantee that just because Einstein was a man, the next big ideas in theoretical physics will come from a man, too.

I think it also helps to stand up for yourself and teach your kids to do the same. Many times in my life, I have managed to get what I wanted (be it getting elected to some small office in school or getting more money at work) by noting "How come no one is electing a GIRL?? or "Pay me more. I've earned it."

Val

Heheh...

Val's conclusion reminds me of a (female) colleague's undergraduate research poster at (bigname university's chemistry department, one of the top 20 in the US)...

She deliberately selected a VERY feminine, floral paper for her backing/framing paper on her panels, and a wildly frivolous, definitely "girly" PINK-PINK-PINK for her posterboard.

It was definitely a gender prod. She admitted that she did it to draw attention. As in; "I'm a girl and I'm a scientist. Deal with that and take me seriously, or admit you're a misogynist at heart. HA."

It worked, too; at least in terms of her sense of deep satisfaction. LOL.