I was directed to an interesting article on why women are not and may never be as well represented in top science positions. The author, who works at a medical research institute in Cambridge cites studies that show that men have on average tendincies to have greater focus/obsession and forget about other people. Generally they are not that far away from being autistic. All these characteristics combined with agression and arrogance often take them higher up the scientific ladder (and others) compared to women, who think about things more broadly, are more empathetic and caring, and less aggressive. The latter has resulted in far more women pscychologists in the UK. Anyway, he says the female qualities should be more valued by recruiters/employers so that they don't count as a disadvantage to women. He also states that it seems that women are just as creative and original as men, which is a necessary ingredient for scientific breakthroughs.
There is evidence that indicates some of these differences are intrinsic to gender (though one finds male and female brains in both males and females) and we shouldn't be afraid of scientific studies that demonstrate this. It makes me think of the President of Harvard, who was severely harassed for stating in a speech that one of the possible reasons why there are less women in top science positions is due to intrinsic differences. This may be the case, but I think the biggest burden for women is the fact that women take on more social and family responsibilities than men, making it more difficult for them to work obsessively at the sacrifice of all else. Someone has to take on society's needs, it should be rewarded, not penalised. Work places really need to make it more friendly for mothers in particular. If all mothers refused to take on the responsibility they do, men would finally have to be less selfish in their pursuits.
5 comments:
strong stuff.
Larry Summers resigned as Harvard president after it became clear that his position was untenable.
There seem to be two quite distinct arguments here:
1. The strengths of women are undervalued and as a result women don't do as well as they should in business or science or whatever.
2. Women take on society's needs and should be rewarded for doing so, but aren't.
On the first argument:
Why are firms/universities stupidly shooting themselves in the foot like this? (Because it necessarily follows that if they are undervaluing women, they are doing worse than they could be doing i.e. making smaller profits, producing worse research etc.) Is it that they are irrational and just can't see the harm they are doing to themselves? Or have they taken a conscious decision that the pleasure they get out of discrimination is somehow more valuable what they are losing? These explanations seem unsatisfactory. In the long run, the firms/universities that do this would not survive the competition from those that choose not to handicap themselves in this way.
On the second argument:
There is a strong argument that people who produce valuable things for society should be rewarded. But what constitutes a benefit for society? Presumably someone who takes time out from work to raise children is getting something out of it for themselves. Why did they have children in the first place...was it for the good of society? And who should reward them? Why should the reward be provided by universities or private companies? Their purpose is to meet society's needs in other ways i.e. doing research, producing stuff etc. If they started paying people for cooking meals at home then they would be failing in their proper purpose. People who provide genuine benefits to society should be rewarded by society itself (i.e. by everyone, through taxes) not the particular institution they happen to work for.
gt, I think you make several assumptions about human beings which can be contested:
1) that employees necessarily care about the bigger picture and their organisation's overall well-being.
2) that even if the above was true, that they know what is best for their organisation
3) that employees/people are 100% rational and objective beings that have no preconceptions, biases, insecurities, personal interests, cultural heritages and societal pressures.
It is clear that discrimination has been rife throughout human history and especially in Apartheid SA where women weren't allowed to progress past level 8 in the government and were forced to resign every time they became pregnant! I won't even go into the obvious discrimanation against non-whites which benefited a small minority while causing massive long-term suffering and harm to this country. In my office, out of 22 managers at a particular level, 18 are white male and many of them aren't very good. This is bad for the organisation yet it still happened.
About children, yes I realise people have children (usually) because they want them. But if a couple chooses to have children, usually the mother takes most of the rearing responsibility which often causes strain on her career and can eventually cause her to choose her kids over career. This is not an easy choice and many women would be/are frustrated by the homely life. Almost every young professional women I know is very concerned about being torn between career and family. Young men just don't seem to worry about it. Women often feel like terrible people and mothers, if they allow personal interests to have the same value as family responsibilities. There is a lot of pressure from family and society to be a particular type of mother.
If women chose to take less responsibility, men would be forced to take more responsibility (unless they just refused, and again many mothers could not allow their kids to be neglected), meaning that both men and women would be equally less productive at work. Workplaces might then be forced to become more parenting-friendly places, making it easier for men and women to be good parents and productive at work.
In the end, children make the future so bringing them up well is for the benefit of society.
------------
disclaimer: I realise that the above contains many generalisations and that both good and bad, devoted and neglectful parents are found amongst mothers and fathers.
The article I refered to in my original blog indicated that academic environments are often very competitive, exlusionary and can be back-stabbing. The "feminine" style of doing things is more inclusionary, supportive and knowledge-sharing. One can speculate how the latter might benefit young academics, less confident individuals, and knowledge sharing which should benefit research.
----------
Honestly, I am still worried about gender stereotyping and the nature versus nurture argument. Are these gender differences real or not? Intrinsic or not?
I think it is important to add that I don't think women are being actively discriminated against in most work places. It's more that feminine characteristics are often undervalued or seen as weak, and don't get women to the top. Perhaps these "feminine" charactersitics will become less prominent with the younger generation. Work environments also do not necessarily meet the needs of women and mothers, not being condusive to happy, comfortable or balanced lives.
Post a Comment