Rejection of women in some work fields

Explanations for women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields of science often focus on sex discrimination in grant and manuscript reviewing, interviewing, and hiring. Claims that women scientists suffer discrimination in these arenas rest on a set of studies undergirding policies and programs aimed at remediation. More recent and robust empiricism, however, fails to support assertions of discrimination in these domains. To better understand women's underrepresentation in math-intensive fields and its causes, we reprise claims of discrimination and their evidentiary bases. Based on a review of the past 20 y of data, we suggest that some of these claims are no longer valid and, if uncritically accepted as current causes of women's lack of progress, can delay or prevent understanding of contemporary determinants of women's underrepresentation. We conclude that differential gendered outcomes in the real world result from differences in resources attributable to choices, whether free or constrained, and that such choices could be influenced and better informed through education if resources were so directed. Thus, the ongoing focus on sex discrimination in reviewing, interviewing, and hiring represents costly, misplaced effort: Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past, rather than in addressing meaningful limitations deterring women's participation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers today. Addressing today's causes of underrepresentation requires focusing on education and policy changes that will make institutions responsive to differing biological realities of the sexes. Finally, we suggest potential avenues of intervention to increase gender fairness that accord with current, as opposed to historical, findings.

physicists, chemists and biologists are likely to view a young male scientist more favorably than a woman with the same qualifications. Presented with identical summaries of the accomplishments of two imaginary applicants, professors at six major research institutions were significantly more willing to offer the man a job. If they did hire the woman, they set her salary, on average, nearly $4,000 lower than the man’s. Surprisingly, female scientists were as biased as their male counterparts.

A rejection letter written in 1938 to a young woman applying for a creative position at Walt Disney serves as a reminder of the casual nature of socially accepted discrimination against female workers. The letter states that "women do not do any of the creative work in connection with preparing the cartoons for the screen, as that work is performed entirely by young men. For this reason girls are not considered for the training school."

Americans widely believe that men have a better shot at leadership positions in business and politics, even as majorities say that men and women make equally good leaders. There is little consensus, however, on why women remain underrepresented in these fields.

About four-in-ten believe higher standards for women and lack of readiness by companies to hire women for top positions and by voters to elect women to higher office are major reasons that there aren’t more women in top leadership roles in business and politics. Other reasons, such as family responsibilities, inexperience, or women not being tough enough, are cited less frequently as significant barriers to female leadership.

The public expresses some skepticism about whether women will be able to overcome the obstacles that keep them out of top leadership positions, at least in business. About half (53%) don’t think women will achieve parity with men in top executive business positions in the foreseeable future; 44% say that as more women move into management roles, it’s only a matter of time before there are as many women as men in top corporate leadership positions.

In conclusion women may not be rejected in any work, womens can easily do things that mens do