Bake Pie or Equate Pi:

Do Women Leave Math Because of Natural Disinterest or Harmful Gender Stereotypes?

Ashley Stokes

ENG 111 - Dr. Toliver

2 December 2020

Missouri Southern State University

 Stokes 1

Ashley Stokes

Dr. Toliver

ENG 111

2 December 2020

Bake Pie or Equate Pi:

Do Women Leave Math Because of Natural Disinterest or Harmful Gender Stereotypes?

The call for more women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) has been

a pressing matter for educators for the past few decades, and while there has been success in

some areas, such as the medical and architectural fields, the number of women in math-based

fields is still substantially lower than that of men (Cheryan 186). Majors and subsequent careers

that require math above Calculus I are dominated by men. In 2019 Professor Bettina J. Casad,

PhD student Zachary W. Petzel, and PhD graduate Emily A. Ingalls from the Social Psychology

and Neuroscience Research Lab at the University of Missouri-St. Louis published the article “A

Model of Threatening Academic Environments Predicts Women STEM Majors’ Self-Esteem and

Engagement in STEM,” in which they claim women earn 42.8% of the awarded baccalaureate

degrees in mathematics, 39.6% in astronomy, 38.6% in Earth and atmospheric sciences, 19.8% in

engineering, 18.9% in physics, and 18% in computer science (1). Majors requiring practical

application of upper level mathematics have a skewed ratio of men to women (Casad et al. 1).

Additionally, a study done in 2015 by Jess Ellis from the Department of Mathematics at

Colorado State University (CSU), Bailey K. Fosdick from the Department of Statistics at CSU,

and Chris Rasmussen from the Department of Mathematics and Statistics at San Diego State

University showed that “while controlling for academic preparedness, career intentions, and

instruction, the odds of a woman being dissuaded from continuing in calculus is 1.5 times greater
 Stokes 2

than that for a man” (Ellis 2). Calculus is a necessary step into the STEM pathway and is often a

course which dissuades students from continuing to pursue a STEM field. By the time women

enter college they have been predisposed to be more likely to abandon the STEM field, but why

is that? “Fourth-grade boys and girls report similar rates of interest in science, by twelfth-grade

34% of women and 48% of men report such an interest,” meaning that at some point in between

fourth and twelfth grade women start to lose interest in science (Ellis et al. 4).

Jennifer Malan, a math teacher at Carl Junction High School, has been teaching for

nineteen years and stated that every year there are more boys than girls in her Calculus I class

(1). When questioned about the comparative ability and mathematical confidence of her students,

Malan remarked that she does not think about this and did not have a solid answer (1). When

pressed, all that could be specified was that girls tend to be more willing to study and boys are

more likely to display their confidence (Malan 1). The contrast between the two genders in their

classwork is only noticeable upon keen observation, but the details and reasoning for the

distinction are what lead to the continual dominating population of boys in these classes (Malan

1).

Part of this ratiocination stems from close-minded teachers in their sexist assumptions of

students' talent (Lu 1). Betty Lu, teenage advanced-math student, delivered a TED speech in

2019 entitled “The Gender Divide in Math: A Youth Perspective” in which she delineated her

trials and tribulations in math education (1). During this speech, Lu recounted her teacher’s

surprise at the passing of an advanced math test, narrating, “The teacher looked at me and asked

‘You pass that test?’ That moment I was stunned. My first intention to think if I had actually

violated some rules. I asked, ‘Why would I not?’ he looked at me with a puzzled expression and

replied ‘You're a girl’” (Lu 1). Lu then proceeded to divulge that her parents also alluded to her
 Stokes 3

gender being an obstacle to mathematical prowess, furthering Lu's concern that many of her

female classmates were being deceived into believing that succeeding in math was a statistical

improbability for them (Lu 1).

Women, on average, have less confidence in their mathematical abilities, are less likely to

pursue a math-heavy field, and yet have equal aptitude in the subject matter (Ellis et al. 2). If

lack of skill is not the foundation for this conundrum, then what is the explanation for an

overwhelming 71% of STEM degrees being completed by men (Ellis et al. 4)? This raises the

question, “Why are women less assured and interested in math?” And more importantly, is there

anything that can or even should be done to ameliorate this disturbing trend? If women possess

an innate desire to undertake work that more directly benefits others, there is nothing wrong with

women forsaking math to pursue medicine, teaching, or social work. However, women fleeing

math due to toxic stereotypes (mental representations of the group’s characteristics) in the STEM

field is an issue that must be corrected (Cheryan 185).

A recurring theory that women are naturally less gifted has been proposed and debunked

many times over (Rivers and Barnett 43). Although boys on average do better than girls on SAT

tests, there is not a significant difference between the genders in the success of students in math

courses, as shown in Figure 4.1

(Rivers and Barnett 54). In the

2011 book The Truth About Girls

and Boys : Challenging Toxic

Stereotypes About Our Children

written by Caryl Rivers and

Rosalind C. Barnett, professor of

 Stokes 4

journalism at Boston University and senior scientist at the Women's Studies Research Center at

Brandeis University, respectively, Rivers and Barnett address the history of the stereotypes

against women in math, the theories as to why men exceed women in math, and the supposed

truth of the unbalanced proportion of genders in math in the fourth chapter, entitled “Math

Wars.” Despite studies showing the equality of aptitude in math between the genders, Lawrence

Summers, former president of Harvard, proclaimed in 2005 that women do not have the innate

ability to do as well as men in science and math (Rivers and Barnett 44). In 2007, the

Washington Post published an article declaring that scientific evidence supported Summers’

claims, despite Summers admitting that he was incorrect in his infamous statement (Rivers and

Barnett 44). Public reinforcement of incorrect statistics has led to parents and teachers believing

that female students do not have the ability to do as well in STEM classes (Rivers and Barnett

45). Unsurprisingly, being told that women are genetically less inclined to be talented in math

causes women to have less self-confidence in math (Rivers and Barnett 45).

Women’s lack of confidence in their mathematical ability generates less resilient attitudes

when struggling in math courses. Jane C. Hu published an article in 2016 in The Atlantic entitled

“Why Are There So Few Women Mathematicians?”, in which she examines why the math fields

are dominated by men (1). Hu cites Shilad Sen, computer science professor at Macalester

College, in saying:

‘Women come into my introduction to computer science class and when they

don’t quite get something, they think, I don’t get this, it looks like everyone else is

getting this, I’m just not good at this,’ he notices. But men, he says, just figure

everyone else is equally stumped. ‘They think ‘I don’t get this, everyone else in

the class doesn’t get it either’’ (Hu 1).

 Stokes 5

Women assume that they are alone in their struggles, while men surmise the rest of the class

must be struggling as well (Hu 1). Although equal at adulthood, women tend to develop spatial

skills more slowly and verbal skills more quickly than men; the spatial skills required in math are

often easier for young boys, which leads young women to believe that they are inherently bad at

math as many comparatively struggle in childhood with a portion of the subject matter (Butler

54).

Conversely, Sapna Cheryan, professor of social psychology in the Department of

Psychology at the University of Washington, provides an alternative explanation for why women

pursue math-based fields less frequently in the article “Understanding the Paradox in

Math-Related Fields: Why Do Some Gender Gaps Remain While Others Do Not?” published in

the journal Sex Roles in 2012 (184). Cheryan suggests:

Women may preemptively choose careers that are seen as more compatible with

having a family. Men, on the other hand, whose careers tend not to be

compromised to the same extent by having a family may see pursuing a

math-related career and having a family as more compatible (Cheryan 186).

Furthermore, Cheryan proposes the reason women do still seek occupations which require long

hours (such as those in the medical field) is for the fulfillment of communal goals or the desire to

serve and take care of others (Cheryan 186). There is nothing wrong with aspiring to obtain a job

which makes raising a family easier or allows the opportunity to help others, but stereotypes tend

to exaggerate the degree to which STEM careers deviate from women’s ideals.

Imagine the archetype of a physicist. The first image that comes to mind might be of a

geeky, socially-awkward man who doesn’t know how to talk to girls. As a matter of fact, the

popular television show The Big Bang Theory features three of the four main guys, Leonard,
 Stokes 6

Sheldon, and Raj, as physicists who fit this exact description at the beginning of the show's

eleven-year run which ended in 2019 (Lorre 1). Media has ingrained gender stereotypes into the

connotation of certain professions. A study was performed in which undergraduate women had a

two-minute conversation with a computer science major who embodied current stereotypes by

sporting a shirt with the words “I code therefore I am” (Cheryan 185). Those women pronounced

they were less interested and assumed they would be less successful in the field than women who

spoke with a computer science major who did not personify the stereotype (Cheryan 185). The

same study revealed that the more stereotypically masculine items (such as Star Trek posters and

video games) are present in a classroom environment, the less likely women were to have a sense

of belonging, a confidence in their future success, or an interest in the field (Cheryan 185).

Cheryan concludes:

The more women perceived the stereotypical environment as masculine, the less

interested they were in it. Men’s interest and anticipated success were not

similarly compromised by exposure to computer science stereotypes. Stereotypes

of the people in math-related fields are particularly harmful for women because

they interfere with women’s sense of belonging in these fields and deter them

from pursuing these fields (Cheryan 185).

While there is a significant problem in stereotyping an entire field of work as feminine or

masculine, the most damaging stereotypes opposing women to STEM are long-held stigmas

assuming half of the population is worse at math with no sound scientific basis.

Stereotypes about women being inferior at math are like self-fulfilling prophecies: if you

tell women they will score worse than men on a math test, then women will do worse on that test

(Casad et al. 472). Casad and company reference a study done by S. J. Spencer, C. M. Steele, and
 Stokes 7

D. M. Quinn in which the researchers informed female participants that a math test tended to

illuminate gender differences, which produced diminished results on the test (Casad et al. 472).

When Spencer and company did not notify the women of differences in the results, the test

scores did not exhibit any gender differences (Casad et al. 472). Casad and company also reveal

that being aware of gender stigma boosts reports of gender stigma in one’s environment (Casad

et al. 472). So if knowing of gender stereotypes instigates fulfillment of those stereotypes, how

does society address toxic stigmas without harming those the stigmas reference?

Early childhood is the first introduction of gender stereotypes that generate initial interest

in subjects such as math and science. An article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education

in 2012 recognizes these original discrepancies between the genders by citing Karen D. Purcell,

founder and president of a Nevada based engineering-firm, in her statement, “boys are more

often given Erector sets and science sets as toys, which sparks an interest in these subjects”

(“Why” 4). If one searches “kids playing with Erector sets” or “kids playing with K’nex” (toys

which resemble gears, screws, and bolts) on Google Images, the results have about twice as

many boys in the pictures as girls. These toys, known to spark a love of building and

engineering, are marketed toward boys. Consequently, the girls who do happen to discover that

love for engineering, computer science, or some other math-based practice are “often

uncomfortable in the male-dominated climate they encounter” (“Why” 2). Before girls and boys

learn of all the options for future careers, prejudices have been planted as to what is more

feminine and what is more masculine.

Part of the reason gender stereotypes have continued after decades of society condemning

them is that many parents, teachers, and other role models seek to place the blame for these

stereotypes’ origin on others. Elizabeth Blair, education professor at Beloit College, along with
 Stokes 8

three colleagues from two universities and a STEM-based non-profit, interviewed undergraduate

STEM professors on their view of gender inequality in their fields in “Undergraduate

STEMInstructors’ Teacher Identities and Discourses on Student Gender Expression and Equity,”

published in the Journal of Engineering Education in 2017 (Blair et al. 27-28). One female

faculty member expressed she did not deserve censure for female students being less confident

and prepared in her classes as she could not control the teachings of these students in their first

eighteen years of life (Blair et al. 27). A male professor suggested that men acquire additional

preparation for entering STEM undergraduate programs due to increased exposure to

programming and open-ended math problems (Blair et al. 27). Both the female and the male

faculty members sought to limit their ability to influence female students as they believed the

effects of stereotypes were predisposed upon students before undergraduate teachings could

reach them. Without any level of a student’s education taking responsibility for the stereotypes

weaved throughout society, students are susceptible to believing the stigmas allotted against

them.

In conclusion, there is not a simple solution. A single law or project cannot equate the

number of males to females in STEM; but instead mindsets, stereotypes, and cultures must be

altered to provide women the same level of innate confidence in math as men receive in the

masses. The gender gap is not a universal issue; in Iceland and Thailand more girls than boys

scored in the top one percent in math performance, and in Indonesia and the United Kingdom

there were equal numbers of girls and boys in the top percentile (Rivers and Barnett 50). The

United States has one of the most lopsided ratios of girls to boys in the top one percent of math

performance (Rivers and Barnett 50). If other countries can eliminate the gender gap, so can the

United States; this is not an outcome that society needs to tolerate. However, knowing that
 Stokes 9

change needs to be made and taking action are two separate issues. What can be done to give

women equal opportunity in math?

One reason women desert math is that careers in the field often are perceived to have

long hours which would be difficult to manage in combination with having a family. If a

STEM-based company wishes to attract more women, the company must create an environment

where women do not fear losing their jobs or risking their opportunity for a promotion by having

kids. Women may be less interested in math, but this can never be known for certain with

barricades obstructing women’s pursuit of STEM careers. There is nothing wrong with choosing

a career that more directly positively impacts the lives of others, but yearning to serve the

community is not a gendered desire. The public must acknowledge that stereotypes exist and

become intentional in the way in which math is presented.

The world is denouncing the rampant sexism of previous centuries, but a single educator

or guardian can shatter the confidence of a student. There are scholarships, camps, and clubs for

women in STEM; but until the point is reached that these special programs aren’t necessary,

there is still a problem. Until there is a generation of young girls who have never had a joke

about being bad at math because of their gender directed at them, have never signed up for an

engineering class and realized they are the only girl, or have never questioned their ability to

succeed in math, there is still more work to be done.

Stereotypes are formed and advanced in a variety of ways. Faulty data studies during the

20th century promoted the repetition of incorrect statistics about women being naturally worse at

math (Rivers and Barnett 43). Public figures and professional articles broadcasted these

falsifications until the concepts were often accepted as general knowledge (Rivers and Barnett

43). The media produces other stereotypes of those in math-based occupations by depicting those
 Stokes 10

who are especially good at math as awkward and weird. Women often do not foresee themselves

being comfortable in an occupation with co-workers only having “nerdy” interests and bad

hygiene habits. Throughout childhood certain behaviors are taught to be more masculine or more

femine; and sometimes stereotypically masculine activities can foster a love for math, science, or

engineering. Every child who wishes to build towers, create slime, or fold paper planes should be

encouraged to do so.

Women, on average, have less confidence in math than men. Maybe this is due to

stereotypes; maybe early confidence in reading leads to less confidence in math; or maybe

women are less confident for a number of seemingly unpredictable factors (Ellis et al. 2). Often

confidence is found in what children are proficencent in, as many youths find their identities in

their talents. Perhaps young boys are more often told of their adroit math capabilities; or as girls

often develop verbal skills before boys, girls tend to find their identities in another subject,

abandoning math as an assumed “weak” subject (Butler 54). The fact of the matter is with so

many factors inducing women to flee STEM and have less confidence in math, a single

conclusion may not be drawn.

Why do women quit math? Are women less innately interested in arithmetic, algebra,

geometry, or calculus? Or are stereotypes dissuading women from pursuing their secret passions

of writing theorems and solving complex equations? The answer is likely a combination of the

two. As under 20% of the physics, computer science, and engineering bachelor degree graduates

are women, one might conclude that even with dramatic changes in culture, men could still have

the majority of STEM degrees (Casad et al. 1). However, stereotypes are present,and stigmas

against women in math still exist no matter how much society wishes to ignore them. Perhaps
 Stokes 11

without the presence of stereotypes men would still have a majority of math-based degrees; but

the author of this paper believes they would only have a slight majority, if any.

A world without stereotypes is hard to imagine as they are so deeply entrenched in our

society; but each day, every student, educator, parent, and friend can strive to question whether

these stereotypes are legitimate. Assume a subject is something anyone can understand and

master with enough effort. Ask students their favorite subjects without assuming what the answer

will be based on appearance or attitude. Purchase kids a variety of toys to discover what they

most enjoy instead of selecting the toys their gender is supposed to appreciate the most.

Encourage friends to follow their passions. Reshape mindsets; disregard stereotypes; change the

culture.
 Stokes 12

Works Cited

Blair, Elizabeth E., et al. “Undergraduate STEM Instructors’ Teacher Identities and Discourses

on Student Gender Expression and Equity.” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 106,

no. 1, Jan. 2017, pp. 14–43. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1002/jee.20157.

Butler, Kiera. “Of Two Minds.” Mother Jones, vol. 45, no. 2, Mar. 2020, pp. 50–57. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f6h&AN=141555068&site=eds-live.

Casad, Bettina J., et al. “A Model of Threatening Academic Environments Predicts Women

STEM Majors’ Self-Esteem and Engagement in STEM.” Sex Roles, vol. 80, no. 7/8, Apr.

2019, pp. 469–488. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0942-4.

Cheryan, Sapna. “Understanding the Paradox in Math-Related Fields: Why Do Some Gender

Gaps Remain While Others Do Not?” Sex Roles, vol. 66, no. 3–4, Feb. 2012, pp.

184–190. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0060-z.

Ellis, Jessica, et al. Women 1.5 Times More Likely to Leave STEM Pipeline After Calculus

Compared to Men: Lack of Mathematical Confidence a Potential Culprit. 2015.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157447.

Hu, Jane C. “Why Are There So Few Women Mathematicians?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media

Company, 8 Nov. 2016, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/math-women/

506417/. Accessed 28 Oct. 2020.

Lorre, Chuck and Bill Prady, creators. The Big Bang Theory. Warner Bros. Television and Chuck

Lorre Productions, 2019.

Lu, Betty. “The Gender Divide in Math: A Youth Perspective | Betty Lu |

TEDxYouth@Jingshan.” YouTube, uploaded by TEDx Talks, 25. Mar 2019,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDihZXg9RAE. Accessed 28 Oct. 2020.

 Stokes 13

Malan, Jennifer. Personal interview. 4 Nov. 2020.

Rivers, Caryl, and Rosalind C. Barnett. The Truth About Girls and Boys : Challenging Toxic

Stereotypes About Our Children. Columbia University Press, 2011. EBSCOhost,

search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=e095mww&AN=399885&site=eds-liv

e.

“Why STEM Fields Still Don’t Draw More Women.” Chronicle of Higher Education, vol. 58, 10

June 2012, p. 3. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&

AN=88819685&site=eds-live.