注意：每空一词。
A recent study points out a so-called “gender-equality paradox(性别平等悖论)”: there are more women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) in countries with lower gender equality. Why do women make up 40 percent of engineering majors in Jordan, but only 34 percent in Sweden and 19 percent in the U.S.? The researchers suggest that women are just less interested in STEM, and when liberal Western countries let them choose freely, they freely choose different fields.
We disagree.
From cradle to classroom, a wealth of research shows that the environment has a major influence on girls' interest and ability in math and science. Early in school, teachers, unconscious prejudice push girls away from STEM. By their preteen years, girls outperform boys in science class and report equal interest in the subject, but parents think that science is harder and less interesting for their daughters than their sons, and these misunderstandings predict their children's career choices.
Later in life, women get less credit than men for the same math performance. When female STEM majors write to potential PhD advisors, they are less likely to get a response. When STEM professors review applications for research positions, they are less likely to hire “Jennifer” than “John,” even when both applications are otherwise identical—and if they do hire “Jennifer,” they pay her $4,000 less.
These findings make it clear that women in Western countries are not freely expressing their lack of “interest” in STEM. In fact, cultural attitudes and discrimination are shaping women's interests in a way that is anything but free, even in otherwise free countries.
“Gender-equality paradox” research misses those social factors because it relies on a broad measure of equality called the Gender Gap Index (GGI), which tracks indicators such as wage difference, government representation and health outcomes. These are important markers of progress, but if we want to explain something as complicated as gender representation in STEM, we have to look into people's heads.
Fortunately, we have ways to do that. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a well-validated tool for measuring how tightly two concepts are tied together in people's minds. The psychologist Brian Nosek and his colleagues analyzed over 500,000 responses to a version of the IAT that measures mental associations between men/women and science, and compared results from 34 countries. Across the world, people associated science more strongly with men than with women.
But surprisingly, these gendered associations were stronger in supposedly egalitarian (主张平等的) Sweden than they were in the U.S., and the most pro-female scores came from Jordan. We re-analyzed the study's data and found that the GGI's assessment of overall gender equality of a country has nothing to do with that country's scores on the science IAT.
That means the GGI fails to account for cultural attitudes toward women in science and the complicated mix of history and culture that forms those attitudes.
Comparison | A recent study | The author's idea |
Opinions | “Gender-equality paradox” from the personal reason that women are less interested in STEM. | The environment including cultural attitudes and discrimination is women's interests. |
Facts | with Jordan and Sweden, America had the least percentage of women majoring in engineering. | • Early in school: Girls perform than boys in science. • Later in life: Female STEM majors are more likely to be by potential PhD advisors. |
Tools | It is on GGI. | IAT how tightly two concepts are tied together in people's minds. |
Findings | Women in liberal Western countries tend to STEM. | • The GGFs assessment of overall gender equality is not to that country's scores on the science IAT. • The GGI can't people's cultural attitudes towards women in science, which are formed by a mix of history and culture. |
