Biological Fertilization Stereotype
Scientists portrayed the process of fertilization in metaphor of scientific myth. The sperms are dominated warriors invading and taking over an effortless, passive egg. Bonnie Spanier[1] coined the term hereditary inequality. [1]. In biological facts, females' eggs are independent and do not required the participation of sperms to reproduce. [2]Egg is chemically active sperm catcher. Even with scientific evidences, scientists continued to describe the roles of eggs and sperms in reproduction metaphorically unfair to the egg's major reproductive contribution. [June 1992 Issue 1]
Statistics of Women in Science
editThe statistics are used to provide an objective measure of the status of women in science. Originally, statistics were organized to show the disadvantages of women in science. As of now, the statistics are used to obseve the positive changes of employment opportunities and incomes for women in science. [2]
Margaret Rossiter, an American historian of science, offered three concepts to explain the reasons behind the data in statistics and how these reasons disadvantaged women in science industry. The first concept is hierarchical segregation.[3] This is a well-known phenomenom in society, that as one achieves the higher the level and rank of power and prestige, there are lesser population of females participation in such levels. The hierarchical differences point out that there are less women participations in stages of higher rank of either academic or industrial ladder. Based on data achieved in 1982, Women earn 54 percent of all bachelor's degrees in the United States, in which 50 percent of those in science.The source also indicated that the datas increased almost every year.[3]Recall the hierachical disparities, there are less women attendances at the graduate level, they earn 40 percent of all doctorates, in which 31 percent of those in science and engineering.
The second concept included in Rossiter's explaination of women in science statistic is territorial segregation.[4] The term refers to how women employment is often clustered in specific industry or category in scientific industry. The most common territorial employment was that women stayed at home or took employment in feminine field and men went out work. Although there are nearly half of the civilian work force contributed by women, women still fall on the majority of low-paid jobs or jobs that society considered feminine. Statistics show that 60 percent of white professional women are nurses, daycare workers, or schoolteachers. [5] Terriorial disparities in science are oftenly found between 1920s and 1930s, when different fields in science were divided between men and women. Men dominated the chemistry, medical sciences, and engineering, while women dominated the field of botany, zoology, and psychology. The field that the majority of women concentrated in are known as the "soft" sciences and have relatively low salaries.
Women tend to do not as well as men (int term of degree, rank, and salaries) in the fields that have been traditionally dominated by women, such as nursing. In 1991 women attributed 91 percent of the Ph.D's in nursing, and yet men held 4 percent of full professorships in nursing. Women had never earn 4 percent of full professorship in any field dominated by men. Women earned 9 percent of the Ph.D's in engineering but earned only 1 percent of full professors. Even in the fielf of psychology, where women earned the majority of Ph.D.'s, they did not attributed to the majority of high rank positions in such field.
Womens' lower status and salaries in scientific community are also reflected in the statistics. According to the datas provided in 1993, the median salaries of women scientists and engineers with doctoral degrees were 20 percent less than men's.[6] This data can be explained as there are less participation of women in highly rank scientific field and more of women majority in low-paid fields. However, even with men and women in the same scientific community field, women are typically paid 15-17 percent less than men.Noticed, beside the salary diferrences between genders, there is also salary differences between ethics. African-American women with more years of experiences earn 3.4 percent less than European-American women with similar skills.
Women besides from being positioned at lower status in science and engineer, they are also being poor representated in those fields as compared to their numbers in working population. Within 11 percent of African-American women in the workforce, only 3 percent are employed as scientists and engineers. Hispanics made up 8 percent of the total workers in the country, and yet only 3 percent of that number are scientists and engineers. Native Americans participation cannot be measured statistically because they rarely reached the standard scientist and engineers.
Women tend to earn less than men in all industries, including government and academia. Women are shown to be less likely to be hired in highest-paid positions. There are approximately 800 largest U.S. companies, and only 19 of the 4,000 position of high salary positions are taken by women. The data showed the differences in salaries, ranks, and overall success between the genders often included the reasons for the gap differences due to women lack of experience. According to the National Science Foundation research, after examining other factors such as age, experience, and education as the causes of why there is a gap in success between men and women, they concluded that discrimination is the only explanation for women's and minorities' poor positions and salaries.[7] The rate of women's professional achievement is increasing. In 1996, the salaries for women in professional fields increased drastically from 85 to 95 percent of men with similar skills and jobs. Young women between the age of 27 and 33 earned 98 percent, nearly as much as men. Overall in the total workforce of U.S., women make 74 (used to be 59 percent in 1970s) percent of the salaries that men earned. [8]
Motherhood
editSpartan law codified under Lycurgus expressed the importance of motherhood and child labor to the contribution of Spartan population. Motherhood and child labor were considered major duties in Spartan society, as equally compared to the duty of male warrior in Spartan army. Under the Spartan law, women who had died in child birth and men who died in serving their country were both equally deserved the right to the honor of having their names in-scripted on their gravestones.[9]
Spartan women were highly encouraged to produce many children, preferably males to increase Spartan's army population. They took pride in themselves for breeding a brave warrior. It is also the highest honor a Spartan woman can receive, being the mother of a popular warrior.[10]
- ^ Schiebinger, Londa (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science?. United States of America: First Harvard University Press. p. 146. ISBN 0-674-38113-0.
- ^ Schiebinger, Londa (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science?. United States of America: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674005449.
- ^ Hahm, J-o. Data on Women in S&E. From: Women, Minorities and Persons With Disabilities in Science and Engineering, NSF 2004
- ^ Londa, Schiebinger (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science. United States of America: First Harvard University Press. pp. 34–35. ISBN 0-674-38113-0.
- ^ http://sites.nationalacademies.org/xpedio/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_049211.pdf.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help) - ^ Schiebinger, Londa (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science?. United States of America: First Harvard University Express. p. 35. ISBN 0-674-38113-0.
- ^ Schiebinger, Londa (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science?. United States of America: First Harvard University Press. p. 37. ISBN 0-674-38113-0.
- ^ Schiebinger, Londa (2001). Has Feminism Changed Science?. United States of America: First Harvard University Press. pp. 33–37. ISBN 0-674-00544-9.
- ^ Lerne, Gerda (1986). The Creation of Patriarchy. New York: Oxford University Press.
- ^ Pomberoy, Sarah (2002). Spartan Women. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195130677.
Cite error: There are <ref group=June 1992 Issue> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=June 1992 Issue}} template (see the help page).