History of Feminism
Related: About this forumLong-believed stereotype is shaken.
A few researchers at the University of Toronto and University of Arizona came up with an ingenious and simple little device: an audio recorder that turned itself on and off throughout the day. He had test subjects wear these, and the recorders would take little snippets of what the subjects were doing throughout the day.
http://www.npr.org/2012/07/12/156664337/stereotype-threat-why-women-quit-science-jobs
Most field studies in the social sciences rely on subjects self-reporting. However, that's been shown to be inaccurate and inadequate. So, he put many recorders on many subjects over periods of days, and found a two surprising things about gender.
We all think that women talk more than men. I mean, this belief is old, widespread, it cuts across cultures, it's not even regarded as a stereotype, it's regarded as truth.
The results in this experiment indicate there is absolutely no difference in the amount women and men talk. None. Neither sex is more silent nor more loquacious than the other. If this is true, and we thought such a solid assumption was true, it shows how distorted the rest of our assumptions about the world may be, while still swearing up and down that our perceptions match it.
If that's not enough for one experiment, it uncovered details of something of more practical importance: why do so many women drop out of science?
When male scientists talked to other scientists about their research, it energized them. But it was a different story for women.
"For women, the pattern was just the opposite, specifically in their conversations with male colleagues," Schmader said. "So the more women in their conversations with male colleagues were talking about research, the more disengaged they reported being in their work."
Disengagement predicts that someone is at risk of dropping out.
There was another sign of trouble.
When female scientists talked to other female scientists, they sounded perfectly competent. But when they talked to male colleagues, Mehl and Schmader found that they sounded less competent.
One obvious explanation was that the men were being nasty to their female colleagues and throwing them off their game. Mehl and Schmader checked the tapes.
"We don't have any evidence that there is anything that men are saying to make this happen," Schmader said.
But the audiotapes did provide a clue about what was going on. When the male and female scientists weren't talking about work, the women reported feeling more engaged.
For Mehl and Schmader, this was the smoking gun that an insidious psychological phenomenon called "stereotype threat" was at work. It could potentially explain the disparity between men and women pursuing science and math careers.
Steele and his colleagues found that when women were reminded even subtly of the stereotype that men were better than women at math, the performance of women in math tests measurably declined. Since the reduction in performance came about because women were threatened by the stereotype, the psychologists called the phenomenon "stereotype threat."
Stereotype threat isn't limited to women or ethnic minorities, Steele wrote elsewhere. "Everyone experiences stereotype threat. We are all members of some group about which negative stereotypes exist, from white males and Methodists to women and the elderly. And in a situation where one of those stereotypes applies a man talking to women about pay equity, for example, or an aging faculty member trying to remember a number sequence in the middle of a lecture we know that we may be judged by it."
Over the years, experiments have shown that stereotype threat affects performance in a wide variety of domains.
Note, if this is true, this doesn't take any chauvinism to drive women from science careers. All it takes is the smallest, inadvertent hint at the stereotype.
All this worrying is distracting. It uses up brainpower. The worst part?
"By merely worrying about that more, one ends up sounding more incompetent," Schmader said.
Worse, even if you consciously disbelieve the stereotype, it can still affect you:
These scientists are careful to emphasize, this is not the fault of women.
The problem isn't with women, Mehl said. The problem is with the stereotype.
The study suggests the gender disparity in science and technology may be, at least in part, the result of a vicious cycle.
I'd like to add a few of my conclusions: the collapse of patriarchal societies into something more egalitarian does not do away with established stereotypes. Women have been nominally equal for years, but the stereotypes have a life of their own in our collective unconscious mind afterward and are much tougher to eradicate than we think. Also, like computer viruses, they can stay resident without any conscious support or malice. Women have had the vote for almost a century. Yet, you wouldn't be able to tell by the makeup of our legislatures, or by many other things in our society.
Second, our perceptions often mislead us about reality and give a biased account. We could have some basic assumptions that seem very obvious, collectively held, and they're dead wrong. We need to rely more on objective methods to collect data, especially in the social sciences. Don't rely so much on what people say about their behavior. Find ways to observe what they actually do.
Third, remember sometimes your unconscious mind simply fucks with you, and our unconscious minds fuck with everybody else.
ismnotwasm
(42,008 posts)Women are vastly outnumbered on the sciences, I don't know that it's so much of a self fulfilling prophecy as non- support; in the science itself, in opportunities for recognition and advancement as well as old school sexism in non-support in child care and household care. As well as plain Los non school sexism.
Interesting article thank you
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)The researchers couldn't see the body language. Maybe there's something to be found if they had pictures as well as audio, or maybe other researchers reviewing this will find evidence of the good ol' boy system, but so far, no what they see is that simple fear of the stereotype is enough to put women at a disadvantage and push many of them out.
You're welcome.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when talking about how the women sounded competent talking to other women, less talking to men. another so well ingrained that might effect. women less desirable if as smart, smarter than men and is there a little self censorship unaware to sound less efficient. just a thought.
the myth on men being more visual was a questionnaire in the 80's. men and women answered as expected and became a scientific fact. when hooking up the brain in '09 study, they found not only were women as visually stimulated they were more so in their fluidity of sexuality getting as turned on with woman on woman, man on man, woman on man. men only got turnd on by their personal sexual preference.
now that alone would suggested societal conditioning of the male gender being boxed in their sexual preference and women allowed more freedom in this area of sexuality.
http://sexuality.about.com/b/2006/06/19/new-brain-research-challenges-the-myth-that-men-are-more-visual-than-women.htm
It is considered an almost forgone conclusion across research disciplines, among pop psychologists of all stripes, and in the general population that men are more visual than women when it comes to the way they get turned on. Men, were told, are visually aroused, whereas women just need a good sense of humor, and possibly a strong jaw, and they're on board.
This misguided, but pervasive belief can be linked to a host of other gender stereotypes which are further complicated by sexual politics and differences in social power. So arguments which should be challenged, such as the fact that men leer more than women do, that they objectify womens bodies more than women do mens bodies, and that they just cant stop watching porn, are explained as somehow being related to a mix of genetics, patriarchy, and simple mindedness.
Challenging these ideas can be a monumental task. Researcher bias being what it is, science rarely offers support for these "counter-intuitive" ideas. What's worse, when research does start to complicate matters, the media, and even smart bloggers who should know better, distort the findings beyond recognition.
Nonetheless, a recent study published in the journal Brain Research is offering the first preliminary but important evidence to dispel the age old myth that visual imagery is more important to men than it is to women. And it's worth considering without hyperbole.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)(Sorry I haven't answered for a while. I had deadlines to meet.)
You're right about men being more visual. It might be a myth, then again, we don't know yet.
This particular study doesn't yet disprove the stereotypes of talkative women and silent men, but it does bring it into serious question. If it turns out that men and women talk equally as much, the next question would be why our conscious perceptions have been universally so wrong?
I, too, was very interested in this study, but didn't think of what it meant about challenging a stereotype. I only paid attention to the difference it implied between the two sexes and sexual orientation.
But your take is interesting, because you point at the comparable arousal as meaning that a male stereotype of being more visual is wrong, but when it shows men are more stereotypical about sexual orientation, you think it must demonstrate that society imposed it on men. So, even though it challenges one stereotype but supports another one, you choose to believe the evidence of one and deny the evidence of the other. What, you don't think there's social pressure on women to be strictly heterosexual?
Nevertheless, I wouldn't take this experiment as being definitive. At most, it's indicative and requires more study.
First, these were women who volunteered to have a device inserted in or strapped to their vagina while watching pornography. No matter their stated sexual orientation, that automatically biases the study. The results you see should not be mistaken for the baseline norm.
Second, arousal was measured by blood flow to the genitals. Now, that's an objective measure of one principle physical manifestation of arousal, but it doesn't answer the question, how did the women consciously experience it? Did they or would they describe themselves as aroused? Perhaps their physical response was unconscious and perhaps consciously many of them were experiencing disgust. Was it aroused in terms of being "turned on" or was it more like the bothered part of "hot and bothered?" In my experience, women aren't pleasured by arousal that goes nowhere. In fact, it's unpleasant. And it that way, they are on average different from men.
Sorry, given women's normal response to porn in the real world, what's going on here has to be more complicated.
However, I don't think you or your source is right on your interpretation: I think it's accurate that most men are absolutely set about their sexual orientation, and I think that part of it has nothing to do with socialization.
As for being visually aroused, I actually that doesn't come from any experiment, I think that comes from the sex industry which provides a lot of purely visual entertainment. Perhaps it's just that men train themselves to visually go from arousal to orgasm. However, most sex workers will swear to you that it's soldered in.