Women's Safe Space vs. Blank Space in STEM: A comparison between perspectives of Virginia Valian and Doreen Kimura on women's involvement in ...

FYS: Women, Science, and Society

    Women’s Safe Space vs.
    Blank Space in STEM:
    A comparison between perspectives of
    Virginia Valian and Doreen Kimura on
    women’s involvement in STEM fields

Lillie Izo
8-6-2015

Safe space—as defined and will be defined throughout this essay as a sound environment
in mind and body for all parties present—for women in the workplace, especially in STEM fields,
is limited. However, is it that society has a warped perception of this professed limitation placed
on women? Rather, society masks a fabrication of reverse gender discrimination, in attempt to
correct—or overcorrect—the past, as a fight for safe space. Included in the Book, Why Aren’t
More Women in Science, complied by Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci, Dr. Doreen
Kimura argues in her article, “‘Underrepresentation’ or Misrepresentation?” the latter opinion,
reasoning that the lack of women in STEM is more likely due to differing biological systems
between the sexes than societal factors, and society extends the issue by wrongfully passing over
qualified males in order to make a political statement. On the other hand, Dr. Virginia Valian
discusses quite the polarized argument in her article, “Women at the Top in Science—and
Elsewhere,” suggesting that women’s standardized tests scores versus men’s and lack of interest
in STEM from women are not valid points when, in fact, gender schemas constantly constrain
women on a regular basis and invade their safe space.

       While both authors mention talent, testing talent, interest, and forms of encouragement and
discouragement as topics of discussion, how the two women apply them to their arguments
highlights their perspectives on the question of why there aren’t more women in science. Dr.
Valian might say it is because of society’s innate instinct to assume women are inferior to men,
whereas Dr. Kimura might dispute it is the innate genetic make-up that determines women
superiority in some subjects and inferiority in other subjects, including science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics.       As I learn to recognize Kimura’s bold claim to differing
intelligence levels and ability specializations due to biological systems as valid and supported by
a substantial amount of data, I must agree with Valian’s statement that society is a major factor of
influence in women’s decisions to go into a STEM career.

       The idea of entity or incremental thinking holds steadfast as the core of Kimura’s and
Valian’s individual arguments concerning talent in males versus talent in females.            Talent
encompasses a broad spectrum of definitions. As explained in Valian’s article, there are two types
of theorists regarding the definition of talent and one being talented—incremental theorists and
entity theorists. Valian falls under the category of incremental theorists. She sees talent as
“malleable and capable of increasing” (Ceci, 28). In that vein, talent is not quantifiable; talent is

                                                 1

relative. That proposes the questions: Who can decide who is talented and who is not? How can
one decide? On the other hand, entity theorists, like Kimura, believe talent is “fixed and
unchanging” (Ceci, 28). Similarly, questions arise, such like: If natural-born talent exists, is
constant and quantifiable, how is it measured, tested, and calculated? Who decides how talent is
measured, tested, and calculated?

       Knowing these two opposing ideas of how to analyze talent, it is almost as if one must pick
a side and stick with it; one cannot be both an incremental and entity theorists for the two contradict
each other. However, Kimura may attest it is possible to have “incremental beliefs” about one
subject and “entity beliefs” about another.       Though, her argument it questionable.         When
comparing human cognitive sex differences in her research, Kimura reveals “both sexes benefit by
short-term intensive training on spatial tasks,” which are thought to be linked to the androgen
hormones and lean more towards male talent (Ceci, 41). Specifying “short-term,” she negates her
message by further saying “men’s and women’s scores do not converge” (Ceci, 41). For instance,
that’s like saying a man and a woman could be standing on a pier one afternoon watching a boat
come closer and sail out farther, and both people could be trained to estimate the distance they are
from that boat. Then, the next day the boat could be fifty yards away; the man says it is forty-five
yards away and the woman says it is seventy-five yards away, granted because she is a woman and
is lacking in androgen hormones. Thus, naturally she does not have the capability to say how far
away a boat is.

       As ridiculous as that may sound to me, nevertheless, in a study testing “spatial abilities
following prenatal androgen abnormality: targeting and mental rotations performance in
individuals with congenital adrenal hyperplasia” by the City University of London and UCLA,
results showed women who had CAH, a genetic disorder that causes overproduction of androgen
out performed women who did not have CAH; results were similar for men (Hines, et. al.).
Biological systems play a role in cognitive ability, but the way societal systems addresses these
roles can cause the issues of eradicating women’s safe space.

       In contrast, Valian prods at those issues caused by society, suggesting confidence plays a
major role in the definition of talent. Societal factors create and conserve confidence. She explains
“gender schemas are hypotheses about what is means to be male or female, hypotheses that all
people share, male and female alike. Schemas assign different psychological traits to males and

                                                  2

females” (Ceci, 32). Gender schemas can either help or hurt confidence, specifically in women,
since sensitivity is a gender schema that describes women! Inevitably, Valian argues, “gender
schemas skew our perceptions and evaluations of men and women, causing us to overrate men and
underrate women. Gender schemas affect judgments of people competence, ability, and worth”
(Ceci, 32). Since society overall believes in entity theory, that mindset can actually be demanding
to adolescents in a way that gets in the way of their confidence in self-improvement.

       Confidence truly is key. In a joint research collaboration between Columbia University
and Stanford University, two studies were conducted in which Study 1, including 373 seventh
graders, observed “an upward trajectory in grades over the two years of junior high school”
prompted by a belief in incremental theory, while “a belief that intelligence is fixed (entity theory)
predicted a flat trajectory” (Blackwell, et. al.). In Study 2, teaching incremental theory to the
seventh graders incited “positive change in classroom motivation” through a mediational model
and good grades, while the control group demonstrated “continuing downward trajectory in grades.
In their paper, “Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent
Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention,” Lisa Blackwell, Kali Trzesniewski, and
Carol Dweck conclude children are more than students. They have “mental ‘baggage’” that may
weigh them down, inhibit their learning, or hinder their success. At the same time, we know there
can be “real differences real differences between individuals in the speed of their intellectual
growth” which can reflect upon their motivation (Blackwell, et. al.). Incremental theory promotes
confidence, and hope that through hard work and dedication, one may become talented in that
subject and form an interest in that subject.

       While it’s optimistic to think that society will flip its switch and, all of a sudden, have this
infinite-potential approach, I think it’s too late for that. Why? Two words: standardized tests.
Society strains to quantitatively measure academic talent in standardized test scores. I believe
standardized test scores are the most polarizing, objective topic in the debate about women in
STEM. Valian declares test scores don’t show cross-sex differences in performances, rather cross-
national differences. And, the difference between nations is how they approach teaching and how
they address talent between genders. Valian compares the United States and Japan, describing
“the U.S. educational system as a whole acts like an entity theorist about math, whereas Japan’s
educational system acts like an incrementalist. Japan educators see math as a set of skills that can

                                                  3

be taught well or badly and that require effort on a student’s part” (Ceci, 29). Standardized tests
have their own science to them. Why welcome in more ambiguity when we can’t even understand
the social science behind the unknown difficulty of creating safe space for women in STEM while
shrinking the blank space?

       Welcoming women and women feeling welcome enough to go into STEM fields, which
are male-dominated, is just the tip of the iceberg. Sparking interest can be hard for higher level
education institutions, but retaining that interest proves to be even harder. Not only do they have
to go through the academic standardized tests, but also psychosocial tests. In a 2004 study on
“how males and females rated people who were described as being ‘assistant vice presidents’ in
an aircraft company, evaluators read background information about each person, the job, and the
company.” Results showed, equally qualified, competent women were passed up for their male
counterparts because they weren’t considered “likeable.” Those women who were seen not as
competent were, however, seen as likeable. Although, a lot has changed within the past decade.

       Kimbra’s enthusiastic take on gender equality, calling the present system reverse gender
discrimination, leads me to analyze this issue further. To quote, “hundreds of better qualified men
have been passed over … to raise the numbers of women in science” (Ceci, 44). Valian, while as
equally enthusiastic about gender equality, she avoids discussing our current status on gender
equality and rather focuses on the distant past. The tables have turned where STEM fields are
seeking out more women to hire than men, in order to correct—or over-correct—the past. In an
experiment conducted by the editors of this book themselves, “363 faculty members evaluated
possible equally qualified employees, which revealed a 2:1 preference for women by faculty of
both genders across both math-intensive and non–math-intensive fields” (Williams). Kimura
would say it is a disgrace, whereas Valian would say this move is long overdue. I say, we’re just
about to hit equilibrium, where equally qualified men and women are viewed justly through
nonbiased lens.

       Kimura and Valian represent polarized viewpoints concentrating on either the scientific
data or the sociological data; there is hardly any mixture. I propose there must be a happy-medium.
I believe we as a society must legitimize the differences between males’ and females’ biological
make-up, but learn each other’s weaknesses and cultivate strength. We can no longer leave one

                                                4

another in the dust. We can no longer sacrifice safe space in order to eliminate blank space, rather
promote safe space for women in STEM in order to fill the blank space.

                                               References

Blackwell, Lisa S., Kali H. Trzesniewski, and Carol Sorich Dweck. "Implicit Theories of
       Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study
       and an Intervention." Child Development 78.1 (2007): 246-63. Web. 5 Sept. 2015.

Ceci, Stephen J., and Wendy M. Williams, eds. Why Aren't There More Women In Science. 1st
       ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2007. Print.

Hines, M. et. al. "Spatial Abilities following Prenatal Androgen Abnormality: Targeting and
       Mental Rotations Performance in Individuals with Congenital Adrenal
       Hyperplasia." ScienceDirect. Elsevier, 5 Mar. 2003. Web. 5 Sept. 2015.

Williams, Wendy M., and Stephen J. Ceci. "National Hiring Experiments Reveal 2:1 Faculty
       Preference for Women on STEM Tenure Track."PNAS. PNAS, 5 Mar. 2015. Web. 5
       Sept. 2015.

                                                 5