Company Logo

Recently an article by Elaine McArdle in the Boston Globe reported the findings of two research studies on how gender might influence the choice of certain math- and science- related career paths. The Boston Globe article states that “When  it comes to certain math- and science-related jobs, substantial numbers of women - highly qualified for the work - stay out of those careers because they would simply rather do something else.”

Unfortunately, because the research did not take the obvious next step of concluding why women do not enter or stay in these jobs, there has been a misinterpretation in some circles that women leave these jobs for simply no reason at all.  If ever there was “proof” of the irrationality of women, leaving these solid high-paying jobs because we simply “choose to do something else” must be it. 

An example of how such limited research findings can be misused and abused is this blog post by Wall Street gossip site Dealbreaker.com, titled “Is Progress for Women on Wall Street Hopeless?”   The Dealbreaker post uses the Boston Globe article to conclude that the reason there are few women on Wall Street, especially in its senior ranks, is simply because we choose not to be there. The post states:   

“We're supposedly far beyond the days of rank harassment and sexism, yet women continue to underperform--earning less, leaving more and less frequently rising to the top of their banks and brokerages--when compared to men. This continues despite of some truly incredible efforts on the parts of Wall Street institutions to recruit, retain and promote women.”...“But two new studies of a similarly striking gender gap in the fields of math and science may have implications for Wall Street. The studies suggest that an important part of the explanation for the gender gap are the preferences of women themselves.”…

“The standard explanations are well-known. Persistent and perhaps subconscious discrimination, stigmatizing women with families, minimal family-leave policies and pressure from friends and family to be home more often are typically cited in discussion of the gender gap. More rarely raised--perhaps because just raising it can open you to discrimination lawsuits--is the possibility that the gender gap would persist regardless of outside impediments.”...

“Could it be that many women who leave Wall Street--or decline to show up there in the first place--are simply doing other things because they want to? The studies don't focus on Wall Street but the findings are, at least, suggestive. Many jobs on Wall Street are heavily dependent on mathematical ability, and the same self-selection that operates in the sciences could operate in finance.

The Dealbreaker post’s misogynist takeaway on the research would be ignorable if it weren’t for the fact that it is well-read by the very people who make it so difficult for women to stay in these Wall Street jobs to begin with.  Sadly, the way this post jumps to conclusions about the research shows that it’s actually being used to justify their own biases: 

Second, while it hides behind the studies’ findings to blame women themselves for the lack of women on Wall Street , Dealbreaker chose THIS photo of a Playboy cover in which a woman in a suit exposes her breasts to accompany it.  Given the post was written by DealBreaker’s editor-in-chief, most likely he had a choice in whether to use this particular photo to make his case. 

Third, the many colorful comments left by readers of the Dealmaker blog show that when able to hide behind the anonymity of comments, the level of sexism on Wall Street is on full display.

It’s a shame the media picked up on this research before the entire story was told in terms of discovering the details about why women avoid math- or science-related jobs. This is clearly the multi-billion dollar question, and publication without this conclusion seems premature. Hopefully the researchers did not seek out the media proactively with such limited findings - if they did, then they need better media training to get their points across, as misinterpretation can clearly fuel sexism however unintentional on the part of the researchers. ⁽¹⁾