Frauen meiden mathematikintensive Studiengänge nicht weil sie diskriminiert werden, sondern weil sie es wollen

Über Pele Billing habe ich dieses Video zur Situation von Frauen in matheintesiven Fächern gefunden:

Aus dem Abstract zu der dazugehörenden Studie (Volltext hier):

Despite impressive employment gains in many fields of science, women remain underrepresented in fields requiring intensive use of mathematics. Here we discuss three potential explanations for women’s underrepresentation: (a) male–female mathematical and spatial ability gaps, (b) sex discrimination, and (c) sex differences in career preferences and lifestyle choices. Synthesizing findings from psychology, endocrinology, sociology, economics, and education leads to the conclusion that, among a combination of interrelated factors, preferences and choices—both freely made and constrained—are the most significant cause of women’s underrepresentation.

Es ist also nicht die Diskriminierung, sondern ihre Vorlieben und ihre Auswahl, die zu der Unterrepräsentation von Frauen in mathematischen Fächern führen.

Zur Diskriminierung:

A National Academy of Science task force found that, among new PhDs applying for tenure-track jobs, women were slightly more likely to be invited to interview than men, and there were no sex differences in job offers or resources:

For the most part, men and women faculty in science, engineering, and mathematics have enjoyed comparable opportunities within the university. . . . Women fared well in the hiring process at Research I institutions, which contradicts some commonly held perceptions of research universities. If women applied for positions at RI institutions, they had a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than male job candidates had. (Committee on Gender Differences, 2010, p. 5)

Others have a found a similar lack of discrimination. Ginther and Kahn (2006) analyzed promotion and pay data, noting that historic asymmetries favoring males disappeared by the early 2000s, with current asymmetries resulting from nongender factors. Others have also found that after controlling for structural variables such as status of the university, discipline, and presence of young children before tenure—all of which penalize women disproportionately—there is no evidence of discriminatory treatment, because men in the same circumstances fare equivalently. Again, these variables certainly disadvantage women more than men, but they result from choices made by women, and when women make other choices they fare equivalently to men

Und noch einmal in der Zusammenfassung:

The primary factor in women’s underrepresentation is choices both freely made and constrained by biology and society. Women choose at a young age not to pursue math-intensive careers; few adolescent girls express desires to be engineers or physicists, preferring instead to be medical doctors, veterinarians, biologists, psychologists, and lawyers. Females make this choice despite earning higher math and science grades than males throughout schooling. Although women earn a large portion of baccalaureate degrees in all fields of science, including mathematics, disproportionately fewer enter graduate school in these fields, preferring biology, social sciences, law, medicine, and the humanities—even when they possess math ability comparable to males. Of those who enter graduate school in math-intensive fields, more women than men drop out or change fields, and of those who complete doctorates, fewer women apply for tenure-track positions. Women drop out of scientific careers—especially math and physical sciences—after entering them as assistant professors at higher rates than men, and this remains true as women advance through the ranks. Although the reasons for this attrition are not well understood, it appears to have less to do with discrimination or ability than with fertility decisions and lifestyle choices, both freely made and constrained. The tenure structure in academe demands that women having children make their greatest intellectual contributions contemporaneously with their greatest physical and emotional achievements, a feat not expected of men. When women opt out of full-time careers to have and rear children, this is a choice—constrained by biology—that men are not required to make.

In genderfeministisch würde man dazu wohl sagen, dass sie die Geschlechternormen so verinnerlicht haben, dass sie gar keine freie Entscheidung mehr treffen können. Wären sie aber frei, dann würden sie andere Entscheidungen treffen und Karriere machen.

Allerdings ist Rechtsanwältin ja auch nicht gerade ein Beruf, der dem Rollenbild entspricht und der scheint diesen Schwierigkeiten in der Wahl nicht ausgesetzt zu sein. Eher scheint mir das verbindende Element zu sein, dass die Berufe, die Frauen lieber wählen, entweder sozial anspruchsvoller als der Job eines Mathematikers sind (zumindest in der Vorstellung) und man in allen Bereichen wesentlich mehr Emotionen einsetzen kann, sei es als Ärztin  bei der Pflege der Patienten, bei der Tierärztin beim Versorgen von Tieren oder als Rechtsanwältin bei der Unterstützung von Mandaten. Biologen fallen dabei etwas raus, haben aber auch wesentlich mehr mit Leben zu tun als der Beruf des Mathematikers.

Die Rücksichtnahme auf das Kinderkriegen erscheint mir auch nicht als etwas, was Frauen unbedingt durch ein Patriarchat aufgezwängt worden sein muss. Es ist biologisch recht leicht begründbar, aber auch logisch durchaus keine schlechte Entscheidung. Ich sehe nicht, dass man daraus eine zwingende Fremdbestimmung der Frauen durch Geschlechternormen folgern kann.

Interessant insoweit eben auch das Fehlen von Diskriminierung. Da fällt ein weiteres Stück Zwang weg.