Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith

  • Mood:

Women, Success, and Statistics

This article discusses the dearth of female experts in science and chess:

The lack of female Einsteins is all down to numbers

Why are there so few female Einsteins? Many people share a belief that while women can do science, there are far fewer women than men at the very top of the science hierarchy because women just aren't as innately good at science as men. Others feel this view is wrong but cannot easily put their finger on why.

They should be able to now. There are few women at the top of science because there are so few women in science. It's simple statistics.



This makes me wonder about the success of women writing speculative fiction. It would be interesting to chart the numbers of women vs. men submitting manuscripts to speculative fiction magazines, the respective numbers of publications resulting from those efforts, and then the numbers of award winners ... and see if statistics alone can account for the differences in the latter two categories.
Tags: awards, gender studies, science, science fiction, writing
Subscribe

  • Goldenrod Gall Contents

    Apparently all kinds of things go on inside goldenrod galls, beyond the caterpillars who make them. Fascinating. I've seen the galls but haven't…

  • Science and Spirituality

    Here's an article about science and spirituality, sort of. It doesn't have a very wide view of either. Can you be scientific and spiritual? This…

  • Geniuses

    This article asks if geniuses are real. Gee thanks, assholes. It's not enough to be treated like a vending machine, now you want to play the erasure…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 6 comments
oldcharliebrown keeps gender stats on his blog, and douglascohen keeps some gender stats, and camillealexa has started to.

for more information (a journal recommendation)

corivax

December 24 2008, 07:37:37 UTC 12 years ago Edited:  December 24 2008, 07:39:50 UTC

For people who want more information on women in science, specifically the theory that there are more very smart men than very smart women, aquaeri, an evolutionary geneticist, has been writing a series of posts tackling it in detail under her hightail tag. Of course, if you click on the tag, you'll get them in backwards order.

Posts she has made so far:

Posts she still plans to write:

  • Development of male and female brains (in humans)
  • Some basics about evolution
  • Something about what the genes for science ability could possibly be
  • Something about human evolution
  • Something about sexual selection
  • Something about the possibility of sexual selection in humans


Probably more, too.

Since aquaeri has promised several more entries, you might as well friend her if you are interested in seeing them - a lot of the rest of her posts are about Australian flora and fauna, as described by a curious biologist, and who doesn't need that on their friends list? :) Her posts are definitely more science-heavy than the article linked to above, but followable by a patient layperson. She explains well, and if you have questions, she'd love to answer!

Science!
Ah, you got there before me.

The more I learn, the less I believe the 'innate genetical differences' theory.
*makes a note of these most useful-looking articles*

Deleted comment

Broad Universe is good, but so far they've only counted what the numbers of women writers are. I'm interested in a comparison between what the numbers are, and what statistics could account for. Suppose that for the number of women submitting manuscripts X, statistically, Y manuscripts should be accepted and Z should win awards. If those are close to the actual numbers, then discrimination is unlikely. But if the actual numbers are half of Y and a tenth of Z, then something other than statistics is influencing the low recognition of women, and discrimination is more likely.

>> It all goes back to Eve, doesn't it? <<

*shrug* Only for people who take the Bible too seriously.

We are the Other People.

Deleted comment

>> Why not count all of the MSS that women _didn't_ submit -- or all of the stories that never got written? <<

Because that data is less accessible and relevant. The part that concerns me is what happens after women start participating in the publishing industry. Some people have attempted submission/gender counts, though you're right that it's not easy.