Points of Derailment: The Making of a Female Physicist
D. Elizabeth Pugel
Being a physicist is not simply an occupation, but a manner of living that carries with it a distinctive mindset. Physicists question, investigate and scrutinize all systems. This same scrutiny should be applied not only towards discussing the interactions of matter in nature, but to interactions between members of our field. We should address any problems in these interactions and determine the nature of these problems. It is through communication that we can come to an understanding of the dynamics within our field. In attacking problems, physicists look for the statistical anomalies and demand explanation for a state. The disproportionate number of men over women in physics is just such an anomaly, worthy of investigation and discussion.
Historically, the number of women in physics in the United States has been small. This fact continues to hold. Even today it occupies a visible position as a "problem" in physics since the answers behind this truth are neither obvious nor well-defined. Currently, 9% of the PhDs awarded in physics in the United States are presented to women[1]. Several articles in Physics Today, American Journal of Physics and other prominent physics journals have attempted to address this issue through statistics but have not been able to elucidate the distinct sociological deterrents for women. Thus, if we are to understand the roots of this dilemma, it seems that the use of statistics alone will not provide substantial insight.
As physicists, we are used to reams of data to characterize behaviors. In the study of the male-female asymmetry in physics, we need to acknowledge that there are few studies currently in existence that are capable of discussing in statistical detail the sociological aspects involved in the process of becoming a physicist. The inability to quantize this problem does not lessen its magnitude. We must scrutinize the education and socialization processes of physicists, to further pinpoint the mechanisms which result in such a small number of women in this field using the results of studies regarding women in science in general, extrapolating it to the field of physics. This paper will attempt to watch the progress of a young female physicist in the United States, from the day of her arrival in to the world, to her schooling, and and on through her entrance into bureaucratic world, attempting to pinpoint the times in her life where she may be derailed from her track to become a professional physicist.
A Preamble: The Motives Behind This Discussion
Many physicists have looked upon this issue as a "feminist issue" or perhaps have not even seen it as a problem[2]. Asymmetries in a physical system force us to question the mechanisms driving the imbalance. Asserting the number of women in physics as "a problem" and striving for a solution is no different from noticing a statistical anomaly in a physical system and searching for its cause. We cannot know that there exists a statistically "true" gender asymmetry until we have looked at all the possible events that may lead to an asymmetry and systematically ruled them out. We cannot simply write off this issue because we are unwilling to think about it or probe further. This would be contradictory to our nature as physicists.
At a time in which there are few positions available in physics, why is this asymmetry a concern? Why should we search for the causes of this asymmetry and seek solutions when it would simply encourage more people into an already saturated field? Times are tough in this field, but this does not justify ignoring this problem. Women as well as men should be entitled to partake in the challenge of physics and perhaps attempt to strive for one of its selective positions. The pursuit of intellectual sports should not be tainted by social mores, which sidle along with the anti-intellectualist stance of the majority in the United States. Rather, the pursuit of intellectual sports for men and women should be celebrated and encouraged. Thus, the search for the mechanisms and perhaps solutions attempts to create an equitable market indifferent to gender.
Finally, why even talk about this issue? It has been said that women stand to gain more if they simply struggle through the system, "get their papers" and achieve. Women, it seems, tend to suffer more than their male counterparts as they pass through the system, for reasons that I will try to address in this article. The point is that women should not have to struggle any more than men should. Physics is a competitive field, it holds no mercy for all those who attempt to become professionals. We must talk about the injustices that we incur in this struggle, not for catharsis alone, but to make our male counterparts aware that we see some problems unique to being different from the majority. Being a statue does not facilitate change. Change is the product of discussion and action.
It is hoped that this article will highlight some of the issues that may contribute to the asymmetry of women in physics and also stimulate constructive discussions.
I. Nature vs. Nurture: The Paradoxical Dichotomy
The first argument for the small number of women in physics rests in the most familiar differences between men and women: the tug-of-war between social and biological forces (nature vs. nurture). This tension has pulled at the potentiality for professional women since the advents of biology, evolution and psychology. Each one of these fields has used its methods to maintain the stereotypes of women, even if unintentionally. The nature vs. nurture issue is sensitive, requiring deep analysis not only into the results, but the methods used to achieve these results.
A. Nurture: Learning On Your Mother's Knee
The nurture-governed destiny to be a physicist (or any scientist) has been distilled by sociologists to four main issues: parental interaction, toy selection, and both child and adolescent interactions with peers.
The first of these socially defining experiences is parental interaction with the plastic mind of the very young child. From the day of birth, Mischel (1966)[3], noted that caregivers treat boys differently than girls.[4] Boys, even as infants are allowed to explore their environment by crawling and grasping, unlike girls, who spend less time independent of their parents or cradles. This is a perpetuation of the boy-child stereotype as "strong" and able to deal with the external environment alone as opposed to the girl-child as "frail" and needful of protection. Mischel's study further revealed that rewards and punishments are administered for specific behaviors which seem to perpetuate parents' gender stereotypes. This conditioning habituates children to react in an expected (read: stereotypical) manner. For example, toddler boys who are thought to be "strong" or "clever" will take on traditionally masculine attributes. Similarly, girls who are complimented as "cute" or "precious" will take on traditionally feminine attributes. Thus, parental expectations direct the child's notions of appropriate or inappropriate behaviors. These expectations set the stage for a life of pre-determined actions, where girls expect to become the passive object of adoration and boys become independent innovators.
It may seem far-fetched at first to believe that parents' expectations for their young child shape the course of his/her future career. The invocation of Melville Feynman's comment to his wife while she was pregnant with Richard Feynman should be sufficient evidence: "If he is a boy, he will be a scientist.[5]" Feynman's father, we are told, started to hone Richard's physical intuition early, showing him patterns in colors of floor tiles when Richard was a few months old and at a few years old providing simple explanations of fundamental physical phenomena, such as why balls roll to the back of a moving wagon. Feynman is an example of parental expectations shaping the course of a child's future.
Both great physicists such as Feynman and mere mortal physicists are shaped by their experiences as young children with toys and with their first friends in elementary school. Before school, young friends and toys are the outlets for personal expression. We see parental expectation for gender and the resulting future behaviors in the selection of toys.[6] It is claimed that toys such as blocks develop logical/spatial skills and dolls develop social skills. This is not so terrible an observation if we assume that the possibility to be a scientist is linked to the development of social as well as logical skills. Unfortunately, parents may falsely assume that the choice of dolls eliminates the possibility for logical thought, limiting their daughter's exposure to physics.
As a young woman enters elementary school, she is faced with not only the elements of parental gender expectations, but also those of new-found friends and teachers. Since the majority of elementary school young women may have already succumbed to parental selection rules for gender-specific behaviors, nontraditional young women, few in their beliefs, may face serious challenges to their belief structures from their new-found peers and teachers.
Female teachers tend to carry their own ideas about gender appropriate behavior. Some teachers come from a generation where science education was less emphasized for women or where their own fears of science limited their knowledge. In fact, the majority of K-8 teachers (predominantly women) suffer from insufficient science training or a fear of teaching science.[7] As a consequence, they may not be able to emphasize science in the elementary school classroom. If they do teach science, they may have difficulty serving as suitable female role models or in articulating that science is a viable career option for young women. Teachers, like parents, come to expect habituated, gender-specific behaviors. In a study by Ernest, most teachers expected male students to do better in mathematics, whereas they expected none of the female students to do better.[8]
As we progress to the middle and high school years, pressure to conform reaches its peak. Young women are enchanted by media images (in addition to peers and parents) to persist in their stereotypical femininity.[9] Granted, this is a problem for male scientists as well, due to the overwhelming anti-intellectual sentiment in this country towards science (the "nerd" phenomenon),[10] but it seems that many male physicists (i.e. Einstein, Oppenheimer) have achieved icon status within American popular culture and there are many more texts to be found which highlight a male scientist's career than a female scientist.
There are few female role models in our popular culture to encourage young women to pursue or maintain their interests in the sciences. When have you seen a female physicist on TV?[11] Those images are nonexistent compared to those of women as supermodels and seductresses. These common images of women are appealing to a female adolescent's natural interest in the opposite sex and thus lure her from a path of science. Guys[12] are conditioned to believe that smart girls are ugly. Girls, interested in guys play down their intelligence and act dumb for the sake of "the catch". To act smart would make girls social outcasts, "nerds". So, the young physicist is lost to the media and conformity.
For those who manage to survive the social aspects, high school holds an equally debilitating social threat: the teacher. It has been shown by Eccles and Jacobs[13] that teachers selectively call on boys rather than girls. To compound this problem, the socialization of boys in earlier stages tends to make boys more aggressive and confident in their capabilities. Adelman illustrated[14] that young men tend to believe that they excel in math and science as compared to young women even if their grades are lower. All of these notions continue to inhibit women as they enter into the undergraduate and graduate levels of education. This paints a dismal picture for the female physicist-in-training. Unless she is a female Feynman with eager teachers and is resilient under social pressures, our young physicist is unlikely to pass through secondary education unmarred by social pressures.
From the nurture aspect we expose three main fallacies, the first is that the development of social skills inhibits the ability to become a physicist. This claim neglects the very basis of physics: to communicate ideas regarding the natural world and validate or disprove these ideas via experimentation and peer-reviewing. The antiquated notion of a scientist working alone is one that exists in the minds of fiction writers and screenplays. As the interdependence of scientific groups rises and international collaboration becomes commonplace, communication is an essential skill. If the child-physicist is subject to play that encourages such behavior, she need not be turned away from physics.
The second fallacy is that social people do not possess the skills to be physicists. This is a corollary to the first fallacy. We often mistake intelligence as a trait that is associated with social maladaptation. Again, we dwell in the minds of the media image of the "nerd-scientist" whose colossal intellect results in an equal, but opposite magnitude of interpersonal skills. The presence of social capacity does not limit the logical skills of an individual.
This stereotype often causes male physicists to "write off" female physicists, who tend to be more social than the norm. We must realize that the mind is not polarized: development of one skill does not inhibit the development of another skill.
The third -and most disturbing- of fallacies is that since these differences exist, it should come as no surprise that women are minorities in physics. Social values are dynamic; they are reflective of the mores of the masses. To claim that women are not "geared" for physics because of social perception/conditioning is to believe in the status quo that has persisted for centuries. It is to believe that the techniques to raise and teach children cannot be changed. This is inherently false, assuming we survey childrearing techniques and pedagogical techniques in different cultures. To believe that nuturing is static is to continue to stratify women and men in the way that the lowered expectations of teachers or the pigeonholing of young women due to gender-specific roles has presented women. It is to maintain women as "the second sex."
Despite the fact that we have cleared the air regarding some of the fundamental social issues in the development of a female physicist, the struggle continues. We must now argue along the lines of reproduction and evolutionary biology.
B. Nature: Learning on Charles Darwin's Knee
" Nature herself perscribed to the woman her fucntion as mother and housewife and that laws of nature cannot be ignored...without grave damage which...would especially manifest itself in the next generation."
Max Planck, 1897[15]
Biology has been an oft-abused tool to deter women from entering into the intellectual world. For centuries, women were thought of as members of a "lesser species," incapable of surviving in the mental world of their male counterparts due to the effects of menstruation and the "inherent frailty of the female[16]". Women's "biologically determined[17]" roles as wife and mother were justified by scientific methods. The few women who managed to be physicists during the early ages of Victorian science in Europe, the golden age of Quantum Mechanics or even during the post-war era in the United States went unnoticed or were thought of as "men" or genetic aberrations. Biology was a science which spoke truths regarding the division of the sexes, not only physically, but in the intellectual realm. Thus, women were restricted from participation. Collectively, biologists went as far as to say that evolution delineated the intellectual roles of men and women. Even now, remnants of the abuse of biological theories remain in the guises of premenstrual syndrome theories and in misinterpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The issues of menstruation and reproduction were thought to negate the possibility of logical functioning. Thus, our young physicist, having survived the brutalities of socialization was forced to conclude by the tenets of her sister science, biology, that she was born into a life of emotional irrationality and fragility.
Back in the dark ages of biology, menstruation was thought to be a crippling, logic-dissolving state. Changes in hormones made women into a new being: an illogical, impulsive beast, hardly the logical, rational mind needed to be a physicist. She was physically weakened by the loss of blood, thus unable to work for long periods of time. Her only choice: to suffer the irrationality, her birthright.
Where are we now? Today there is still controversy about Premenstrual Syndrome. Medication has made painful menstruation and anemia due to blood loss a controllable fact of life, not a "condition" or a "crippling malady." Studies regarding hormonal fluctuations tend to agree that there is little correlation between drastic alterations in logical faculties and PMS.
In the dark ages, maternity excluded her from work and the lack of child-care banished her to the home, unable to work until her children were grown. Now, work during pregnancy is encouraged. The issue that remains in maternity is child care. Taking off large amounts of time to care for a child would certainly put our young physicist behind the rapid pace of research. Theorists might have it easier, since it may be possible to conduct work via phone or email. Also, both child care and maternity leave policies at most universities are progressing. Many universities & companies encourage maternity or paternity leaves and have established sites near or on site to provide child care. Thus, our young physicist can move forward with the knowledge that family life may be possible for her.
Despite the progess, she must challenge yet another great scientist, Charles Darwin, and his ideas regarding the evolution of social structures in our primate ancestry. The impact of evolutionary biology on social dynamics and thus, gender asymmetry in physics claimed to have been solved through the study of non-human primates. Studies of primate hierarchical structures led primatologists to extrapolate observed behaviors to human interactions and thus explain the existing differences between male and female structures. In particular, baboon studies have noted that the matriarchal systems are not structured on position and hierarchy, rather community. Chimpanzee studies indicate a bias in patriarchal systems towards a pecking order and an aggressive struggle for power.[18] These studies conclude that by associating in community, females do not thrive on competition and power, the staples of any burgeoning scientific field such as physics. thus, our ancestry dictates our destiny.
Primatologists have gone as far as ascribing deeper aspects of these social qualities to social human dynamics. They have made gross errors in the attempts to trace the nature of gender-specific behaviors and apply them to the current societal state. For example, the male, as the hierarchical leader, has no social commitments. He need not be present for the maintenance of the young. In fact, it is genetically advantageous for him to distribute his sperm to as multiple partners. He may do as he pleases, searching lands, conquering animals and women. Some claim this wandering-conquering behavior is the root of the stereotypical nature of the inquisitive, exploring male.
To continue along this line of reasoning, it is not advantageous for the female to stray from the den in which she is raising children. She is thus relegated to a life of childbirth and nurturance of new generations. Additionally, the apparent behavioral effects due to menstruation and pregnancy hindered her ability to think rationally at times. Thus, the desire in women to explore their environment is stifled in one fell swoop.
Critical thinking is necessary to evaluate the results of these studies. Many of these field-based primate studies were challenged and found to contain far too many errors to be considered seriously[19]. The leap between non-human primate and human social behavior is indeed a large one, one which more often than not is left to the subjective (and often imaginative) mind of the primatologist and sociologist.[20] The idea that acquired traits are heritable, created by the biologist Lamarck, is the challenge to Darwinian theory of evolution. In this theory, even social traits can be passed from generation to generation in an evolutionary sense, thus supporting from the beginning of primate existence, the nature of the asymmetry of women versus men in our field. Although Lamarckian theory is again in vogue, there is no evidence for the passage of social traits via conventional evolutionary means. Furthermore, the power of Darwinian theory diminishes the possibility for belief in Lamarckian theory. It is absurd to assume human social behaviors stem from non-human social behaviors by the sheer application of evolution in a Lamarckian guise. This is an abuse of scientific knowledge. An illuminating approach would be to explore human behaviors on a grand sociological scale.
So despite the claims of her forefathers, our young physicist survives the years of training only to enter into a bureaucracy that seems inherently biased with male "rules". She will be put to the test again...
II. A Gender-Biased Bureaucratic System: Who is the Favorite Child?
" A man can always command his time under the plea of business; a woman is not allowed any such excuse."
Mary Sommerville, 1780[21]
Our young physicist has suvived to achieve her PhD and is now deeply involved with "the system," organized Western bureaucracy. Perhaps she is seeking a postdoctoral position, tenure or an industry position. In all of these situations, she will encounter an organizational structure that maintains her work environment. In most of these situations, she'll notice that the members of those structures are predominantly male and that the policies which govern the structure tend to exclude the needs of women.
Sparse policy on maternity issues, child care as well as sexual harassment do little to promote women to senior positions[22]. It is true that the system is in a state of optimistic metamorphosis, but there is much to be done. With few support structures in place, it seems that the edifice of the bureaucratic/academic system implicitly favors those who have someone to care for children (if they exist), someone who is not pregnant, has no glass ceiling and is not different from the other members on the board: men.
Our young physicist must struggle once more to understand this system and either change it or suffer through it. To change the bureaucratic system while in the thick of it is a delicate task. It can put one's position at risk, stir up ill-feelings or stereotypical behavior in male colleagues, or worst of all, have no effect whatsoever. It seems then that it is best to change the system once one has made it to a higher position. Many women neglect this option and ignore the issue of bureaucratic bias in the physics academic (and other) realms. This is known as the "Queen Bee Syndrome" where women who have "survived" and have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling women or to change the system that they have struggled through.[23] These women who choose to struggle through in turn tacitly validate the "male" system. To do well in this system shows the male authorities that the system is hospitable to women, no change is required by the male authorities.
Change, however, is the essence of survival for women seeking arrival among the bureaucratic ranks. Often, in conjunction with struggling, there is a denial of one's femininity, known as internalized sexism.[24] To succeed, as stated earlier, is to avoid pregnancy, children and a glass ceiling. It is to avoid dressing feminine, associating with women, discussing issues regarding the state of women or being proud to be female. This is an early stage of the "Queen Bee Syndrome" and furthers isolation between women. The possibility of support and advice from other women is curtailed. Hence women who work through the male system are less likely to survive carrying any traits of "femaleness" are less willing to support other women and succumb to the "male" scheme of interaction. These traits are seen as survival methods to make it through the system, at least until the glass ceiling is hit.
The glass ceiling: full-time lecturer, associate professor, technician. A high percentage of professional women end up with these unlike their male counterparts who usually end up in full-professorships or in senior researcher positions.[25] Our young physicist's dreams of a full-professorship or senior scientist are dashed by a system which has decided that the traits of a woman do not make a full professor. Bureaucrats who follow such policies are living by the logic presented in the first section of this paper: woman as social being, incapable of the harsh competition inherent in the research venue, incapable of sole responsibility for a laboratory or research group.
Our young physicist is confused. She desires success in the bureaucracy. She wishes to punch through the glass ceiling, achieve tenure or a senior position, perhaps even have children. History had its unfortunate toll on organizations such as universities and corporations: they are male-dominated, with few considerations in place for women's and family issues. The existence of a glass-ceiling limits her ability to rise in the bureaucratic ranks. She wishes for change within the system for herself and for the women to follow. What can be done? She has perservered against the odds, it is our duty to analyze the reasoning behind such a system and save our young physicist!
Any growing system requires competition to survive. One must have the willingness to make some sacrifices and deal with their consequences, indifferent of gender. Denial of femininity, however, does not seem beneficial for the young physicist or for the system. These successful women, who have flown through the glass ceiling, must be immune to the "Queen Bee Syndrome" in order for progress to occur. They must be willing to talk with male counterparts about benefits for women and men during and after maternity, reasonable options for child-care and perhaps even a different mode of achieving tenure for women who choose to have children during that time. Since the system has been predominantly male, with male-based standards, it is time for it to be fair to all people. Policies that are gender-sensitive or gender free will be the policies that support our young physicist and her sisters of the future.
III. The Idealist Speaks Out: Gender-Free Thinking, The Present and Future
"Scientists ought to be interested in things, not people."
Marie Curie
"I believe that men and women's scientific aptitudes are exactly the same."
Irene Joliot-Curie
Looking to Marie & Irene Curie, our young physicist realizes that becoming a physicist should be about becoming a person: a bright, competitive innovator in touch with nature. This genderless approach, where we acknowledge people, not men or women, has been mentioned as a possible solution to the small number of women in physics. This is a lofty goal, one that requires generations of change in order to be fully operational. Right now, we are far from a gender-free society and must deal with the current conditions.
To live in today's society in terms of a genderless model would commit the flaw of internalized sexism. We must acknowledge, for now, that society still thinks in gender-stratified terms. Thus, using a genderless model with the standards and stereotypes that the majority holds would be devastating rather than helpful in promoting women to study physics.
Our young physicist is living in a time of transition, where her forefathers have realized the importance of supporting women and her foremothers have realized the poor logic used to keep her from pursuing her dreams. She lives in a time where people are starting to acknowledge that stereotyping at any stage from birth along the way of career development is neither helpful nor appreciated. People are beginning to comprehend that the pursuit of physics (but not the facts) may have socialized roots in gender, race or ethnicity[26], each aspect holds validity in the understanding of nature.
IV. We're Not Just Buzzing Around: Solutions to Promote Structural Change
Our young physicist cannot be a queen bee. It is simply not enough for her to discuss this issue. She must act upon her ideals and promote change at several possible levels.
Returning to her beginnings, she can raise her children (male and female) to be curious about the world. Knowledge has no gender-specific limitations. She can encourage their interests, be they physics or non-physics and insure an education that does not carry with it a gender-based bias. She can mentor middle, high school or college women to buffer their struggles and to provide a challenging intellectual environment. She can even argue for representation by the mass media, so that young physicists can find inspiration from her work or life.
In the bureaucracy, she can strive for equal standards for pay. Perhaps a shift in the age for tenure in women could be achieved. Child-care, maternity policies, standards for admitting and retaining female graduate students could all be addressed.
Our young physicist, aware of the struggles involved, can stay on course in pursuit her heart's desire, working within a system in transition and seeking to change not only her understanding of nature's interactions, but interactions among members in her field.
Acknowledgments:
The author sincerely acknowledges the countless hours of discussion with colleagues, faculty and friends. In particular, she would like to acknowledge the contentious stamina of Ben Mathiesen, Sharif Razzaque, and Jack & Rebecca Sadleir whose ideas and willingness to banter were invaluable in the creation of this paper.
- Button-Shafer, J."Guest Comment: Why so Few Women? American Journal of Physics, vol. 58, No. 1, January 1990, p 13-14.
- Wallace, J.L., What Really Keeps Women From Physics? (letter), Physics Today, September, 1993, p11-13. Zaziski, P. (private communication).
- Mischel, W. (1966). A Social Learning View of Sex Differences in Behavior . E.E. Maccoby (Ed.) The Development of Sex Differences, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- I use the terms boys and girls to denote male and female infants and toddlers. The terms young women/men will be used in the primary and secondary school classifications.
- Gleick, James ,Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, Pantheon Books, NY, 1992, p 25-26.
- Maccoby, E.E. (1966). Sex Differences in Intellectual Functioning, in E.E. Maccoby (Ed.) The Development of Sex Differences, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
- Weiss, I. (1993). Science and Mathematics Briefing Book (Vol. 4). Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
- Ernest, J. (1976). Mathematics and Sex. American Mathematics Monthly, 83, 595.
- American Association of University Women. (1991). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: B.M. Vetter.
- Wallace, J.L. (1993).What Really Keeps Women From Physics? (letter) Physics Today, September, 11-13.
- Based on WIPHYS newsgroup forum, October, 1996.
- I use the terms guys and girls to emphasize the stereotypical attitudes that come along with these colloquial terms.
- Eccles, J.S. & Jacobs, J.E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11, 367-380.
- Adelman, C. (1991). Women at thirtysomething: Paradoxes of attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Development.
- Krafft, F. (1978) Angew. Chem Int. Engl. Ed., 17, 826
- Delaney, J., M.J. Lupton et al (1976), The Curse: A Cultural History of Menstruation, New York:E.P. Dutton and Company, p40-48.
- Cayleff, S.E. , (1990), She Was Rendered Incapacitated by Menstrual Difficulties: Historical Perspectives on Perceived Intellectual and Physiological Impairment Among Menstruating Women, Menstrual Health in Women's Lives, A.J. Dan and L.L. Lewis (Eds.), Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
- Sperling, S.,(1996). Baboons with Briefcases: Feminism, Functionalism and Sociobiology in the Evolution of Primate Gender. Gender and Scientific Authority, B. Lassett, S.G. Kohlsted et al, (Eds.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Hyde, Meta-Analysis of Gender Differences, (1996), Gender and Scientific Authority, B. Lassett, S.G. Kohlsted et al (Eds.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
- Sperling, p. 373.
- Osen, L.M., (1974) Women in Mathematics, Cambridge, MA, and London, MIT Press.
- note: the author is aware that such issues as child-care, harassment and the glass ceiling are becoming more important to males and thus may carry with them similar problems. However, these are less likely to pose difficulties in career advancement of males.
- Mierson, Sheela and Chew, Francie, (1993),Dismantling Internalized Sexism, A Hand Up: Women Mentoring Women, D.C. Fort, et al, Washington, D.C.: Association for Women in Science.
- Ibid.
- Vetter, B.M. (Ed.) (1994) Professional Women and Minorities: A Total Human Resource Data Compendium (11th Edition), Washington, D.C.: Commission on Professionals in Science and Technology, Table 5.1.
- Fox Keller, Evelyn,(1996), Feminism and Science, Oxford, Eng: Oxford Series on Feminism in Science.
D. Elizabeth Pugel is a graduate student at the James Franck Institute, University of Chicago epugel@rainbow.uchicago.edu