Kaleigh Nordby
3/13/09
BCUSP 114
Essay 3.2
Many women as far back as the 18th century have shown themselves more than capable
of participating in scientific careers. Madame Curie, Emilie Du Châtelet, Lise Meitner and
Henrietta Leavitt are only a few of the women who have made great contributions to the world
of science. Yet even though these women have done great things, women as a whole are still
underrepresented in the sciences. An example of this is easily seen in the University of
Washington Science Departments. In March of 2009 out of five major science areas (chemistry,
astronomy, botany, physics and geology) the University has had only one female chair
(astronomy). If one were to take a deeper look at the distribution of the staff one easily sees
that a large majority of professors are in fact male. Even now, in a major university, women are
greatly underrepresented in the sciences. But what is it that creates this gap in distribution?
Rather than biology, modern society and the rules it has created seem to be the reason for the
underrepresentation of women in science. All the major factors, such as, conditioning, selfimage, lack of education, time and funding are all connected to ideology, or society’s ideas, of
how women should be.
Women are underrepresented in the sciences due to the ideological effect of
conditioning. Young children, according to Roland Barthes essay “toys,” are conditioned from a
young age for roles that society sees as natural (Barthes 53). A young girl is given a doll in order
to prepare her for motherhood later on in life. One effect of this conditioning of young girls is
the underrepresentation of women in scientific fields. Paleontologist Barbie is an example of
this. The doll’s beauty and inaccurate portrayal of a woman scientist gives girls the false
impression that to be taken seriously in a career they must focus on their beauty. The
conditioning naturalizes women’s focus on appearance and so girls, without understanding
why, lean towards careers that have been shown to them as being their correct place, careers
which often are not related to science.
In addition to the conditioning of girls through cultural artifacts, such as dolls, the lack of
time is another factor that has lead to the underrepresentation of women in science. When a
man works all day he is seen as a provider but when a woman works all day she is seen as
neglecting her family. Linda B Buck, winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine,
even stated in a telephone interview “it is harder for women to do science, to mix a career, any
career, actually, and family, but I think that, in these days it is possible for women to
accomplish things, but maybe some women don’t realize that”(Nobelprize.org). Because
women, in society’s eyes, must balance family with a career they are often hesitant to take part
in a job that would take so much time. But even if a woman begins a career in science, like
Henrietta Leavitt, the pull of family obligation is still there. When Henrietta Leavitt’s father
passed away she was obligated to return home to help her aging mother (Johnson 42). Who
knows what Leavitt could have achieved if her time wasn’t so devoted to her family, but just
her work?
The effect time has had on the underrepresentation of women in sciences has been
large, but even more so, self-image has had a larger affect. Women view themselves as objects
to be seen, "The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns
herself into an object" (Berger 47). Even when a woman is portrayed as a scientist, as in the
1943 film Madame Curie, she is meant to be an object of beauty and glamour. Her beauty is
what is seen as important, even if it’s not. The self-image women have allowed society to
create for them is one of appearance, only skin deep. This idea is what hinders women in the
science; they focus so much on their looks, often times they forget to use their minds. They
objectify themselves and because of that they accept that society will do the same, forcing
themselves into the molds they’ve created.
In addition to self-image lack of access to money is another factor in the
underrepresentation of women in science. Without money, to conduct research, science would
not exist. All scientists, from the minor to the great, have had a means to money to further
their work. Women, however, didn’t even have access to their own money until recently. Only
in the last hundred years or so the law of coverture has finally vanished. But before that women
couldn’t control the spending of their money. This would mean that even if women had the
money to do science they would need a husband, father or a brother to agree to it. What would
have happened to Mme. Curie if her husband hadn’t “helped” her financially? Would she have
been able discover radium if her M. Curie hadn’t been a renowned scientist with institutional
funds? The chances are that she wouldn’t have been famous or known at all, just another
woman blending into the background of the world. Without money women, or anyone for that
matter, couldn’t do science. Women lacked the financial backing for so long that it became
natural for women to not to have the financial support to peruse science.
Though lack of money is a factor in the underrepresentation of women, the lack of
proper education may be a greater factor. For centuries it was rare for a girl to be educated
beyond her domesticate duties. Exceptions have always occurred, such as with Emilie Du
Châtelet, a brilliant mathematician and scientist who, in 1740, published Institutions of Physics
sparking a great controversy that would later on help lead to Einstein’s great discovery of 𝐸 =
𝑚𝑐 2 . Emilie Du Châtelet only succeeded in such advanced fields because her father and later
on husband were indulgent of her mathematical and scientific pursuits. But over all women
have been seriously disadvantaged in education. Many Ivy League colleges, such as Harvard,
didn’t allow women to enroll in them for many years. Such brilliant women, like Henrietta
Leavitt, never obtained a degree even though they did the amount of work that had they been
a man would have earned them a Bachelor of Arts degree (Johnson 27). Even though women
now have equal opportunity for schooling they must still battle the common stereotypes of girls
not being capable.
Even with schooling women are underrepresented in the sciences because they lack
proper positive role models. A study conducted between 1987 and 2000 by University of
Michigan stated when a girl has a proper role model in her life that spends time encouraging
her in math and science she does better in those subjects. “It's not an achievement issue, but it
seems to be a matter of influence" (Hamon 1). Girls and boys are directly affected by those
around them who are meant to influence their life decisions. But girls are the ones who are
often led to believe they are incapable of participating in certain fields, such as science. Role
models who are meant to encourage are constantly discouraging girls, “teachers and parents
guide girls, giving them advice about what courses to take, what careers to pursue. I still hear
anecdotes about guidance counselors steering girls away from engineering, telling them they
won’t be able to do the math” (Lewin 1). Clearly, a lack of proper role models has helped to
lead to the underrepresentation of women in science.
Ultimately what it comes down to in terms of access to scientific careers is that women
have been, and in many ways still are, disadvantaged. In a career that needs several mainthings, money, education, encouragement, self-image and confidence-women are denied many
of those. Even though studies continue to show that women are as capable as men
intellectually, society still holds fast to old ideals. Even today, relatively speaking, women’s time
is meant to be spent taking care of family, not pursuing a career is one of the ideals that is still
held on to. But the truth of the matter is women are as capable as men are to do science; great
minds like Mme. Curie and Henrietta Leavitt prove it. But it is society that first must change
before the women can be equally represented in science. Without that change, from both men
and women, women will always remain a step behind, when they belong beside instead.