Fred Morgan wrote:
Denise Lehtinen wrote:Personally, as a woman who did very well in my physics bachelor's degree (and is very good at math), I grumble at the implied stereotyping in that reference.
I think that is merely statistics, not stereotyping. And my daughter has a Phd in physics. It isn't saying women can't do math, it is saying they hate it. Why is perhaps another issue - perhaps cultural?
Has that daughter ever spoken to you about those people who Look at her Like she is a MARTIAN when she tells them she has done so well in physics? I had that
experience sometimes when I was a physics major. It is okay to be politely surprised -- we who stray off the beaten path take some pride in that deviance. (As part of my husband's search for treatment of his Lyme disease we visited a dentist in Maryland who happened to be a black man. I could tell from his reaction to my polite surprise that he had run into many of the same experiences as I have.)
I hate generalizations. One person in a category of people is a certain way and then you deduce everyone is going to be that very same way.
If the article said, "especially many women", then I would be okay with it. It does seem to be true that disproportionately many women don't like math -- some on purpose because they don't want to be deemed unfeminine. But as it is worded, it lumps all women into a type (in my view), and I hate that.
One of the moral principles I have been developing lately is the one where everybody is an individual. Nobody gets to be locked into a predetermined stereotype of them. (If after that they show some views in common with their type, well that is okay... that is their choice.)