I have wondered if there isn't something inherent to lighting among the math, visual, and physical aspects that just makes the discipline more appealing to males than females.
I agree, but "can" is different than "desire". I don't question ability only interest. Consider the military. I dont think the same perecentage of females want to be soldiers as males.
Why? If you don't find out why, then you might make the mistake of confusing the effects of
bias and discrimination for the kind of natural diversity that a healthy society should value and protect.
I’m not aware of anyone offering evidence of sex-based differences in visual or physical ability or interest that would relate to the kind of work we’re talking about, but the math question has been studied quite a lot. Most research seems to indicate no significant difference between females and males in aptitude or interest, outside of significant social factors. There is one frequently cited outlier study of infants (theoretically un-socialized) and a resulting
book from early 2000s, and it has been in my estimation roundly delegitimized for poor design,
bias and shallow analysis. Other studies and broader reviews of research have concluded that systematizing traits don’t necessarily even correlate with math achievement, and only marginally with sex, while empathizing does correlate negatively with math achievement and interest by adding anxiety from stereotype threat (social awareness of stereotypes). Brains are tricky, and what seems like a logical link (like systematizing and math) isn't always true.
So what’s left is socialization, and that means we’ve got a decision to make about whether that socialization is a positive part of our cultural identity or not:
Empirically and biologically, evidence I’m aware of points to females as a group being better at empathizing than males as a group, but also points to huge variations within those groups - i.e. time to quit generalizing about women vs men. Generalizing nevertheless, the conclusions of studies measuring sex-based difference in systematizing is that there is zero to marginal difference, and even where there is a difference between individuals’ systematizing abilities, it may have zero bearing on achievement or interest in math. So the only good reason for a smart and informed person to stick with a sex-based (biological) explanation for the pronounced female/male disparity in this area would be if that person were a bigot. Is ignorance or bigotry a positive part of our identity?
In social justice terms, it is again important to go back to
broad empirical data. In these sorts of parity issues there is often talk of a “pipeline” problem, and that can
enable the perpetuation of disadvantage. It tends to be the case that powerful people (who are usually men) are just looking in the wrong pipe and don’t care to try a different one, but when challenged will
throw up their hands and say they simply can't find anyone who doesn't look and think like them. As far as I can tell the pipeline is fine up until women try to ascend within the profession. I’ve had better than half women in both academic programs I’ve taught in (HS and undergrad) and similar when I was a student. At least as much as the men, they’ve been both capable and driven. Individuals’ experiences vary though, like mine versus Bill’s. So look at broader data. I have some bookmarks in a browser somewhere, but you all can go do the work yourselves too. I don’t have all day. The numbers clearly show that women have interest and aptitude roughly on
par with men but that opportunities for women fall away as the work gets more lucrative and prestigious. That’s the
point central to this article, and I’m surprised that Bill glossed over it en route to the question of interest. Kathy Perkins notes that “It’s gotten a little better, but it’s still pretty bad given that about half of the MFA programs in lighting [comprise] women.” Perhaps that's a casual observation rather than a research-based finding, or perhaps not, but it would be ridiculous to expect her to be off by, what, about 40%? There's more after that. The bottom
line has two parts. First, there is a fair amount of evidence that women’s interest and achievement is harmed more than men’s by baseless stereotypes that discourage their participation. Second, qualified women are nevertheless asking to participate roughly on
par with qualified men but they aren’t given equal professional opportunities. Does this sound like a positive part of our cultural identity?
It’s a standard conservative position in “the culture wars” that progressives want to suppress benign difference in the name of equality, and that’ll erode the “free minds, free markets, free people” concept of liberty. Let’s be vigilant against that gratuitous homogenization, but also recognize that this type of criticism is a time-tested tool for the maintenance of privilege and disadvantage. It can get pretty despicable pretty quickly if we don’t think and research our way past that.
).
