Advertisement

Gender and Mathematics: Mythology and Misogyny

  • Mary Gray
Part of the New ICMI Study Series book series (NISS, volume 3)

Conclusion

The disadvantages faced by women in mathematics in career access and earning power are not accounted for by cognitive and psycho-social gender differences (Linn & Hyde, 1993). Thus the mythology does not explain the reality. Does the misogyny?

Keywords

American Mathematical Society Affirmative Action Mathematics Achievement Spatial Perception Woman Faculty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ahern, N. C., & Scott, E. L. (1981). Career outcomes in a matched sample of men and women Ph.D.’s: An analytical report. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  2. American Mathematical Society. (1991). Special issue: Women in mathematics. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 38(7), 701–754.Google Scholar
  3. AMS-IMS-MAA Data Committee. (1993). 1993 Annual AMS-IMS-MAA Survey. Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 40(9), 1164–1172.Google Scholar
  4. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Benbow, C., & Stanley, J. C. (1980). Sex differences in mathematical ability: Fact or artifact? Science, 210, 1262–1264.Google Scholar
  6. Bergmann, B. B., and Gray, M. W. (1975). Equality in retirement benefits. Civil Rights Digest, 8, 25–27.Google Scholar
  7. Chipman, S. F., Brush, L. R., & Wilson, D. M. (Eds.). (1985). Women and mathematics: Balancing the equation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Connor, K., & Vargyas, E. J. (1989). Gender bias in standardized testing. The Proceedings of a Hearing co-sponsored by the National Commission on Testing and Public Policy and the National Women’s Law Center. Washington, DC: National Commission on Testing and Public Policy.Google Scholar
  9. Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I.V.S., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics report card. Are we measuring up? Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  10. Dumarin, S. K. (1990). Teaching mathematics: A feminist prospective. In T. J. Cooney (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematics in the 1990s: 1990 Yearbook (pp. 144–151). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  11. Eccles, J. S., & Jacobs, J. E. (1986). Social forces shape math attitudes and performance. Signs, 11, 367–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fennema, E.(1974). Mathematics learning and the sexes: A review. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 5, 126–139.Google Scholar
  13. Fennema, E, & Leder, G. C. (Eds.). (1990). Mathematics and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1978). Sex-related differences in mathematics achievement, spatial visualization, and sociocultural factors. American Educational Research. Journal, 14, 51–71.Google Scholar
  15. Friedman, K. (1989). Mathematics and the gender gap: A meta-analysis of recent studies of sex differences in mathematical tasks. Review of Educational Research, 59, 185–213.Google Scholar
  16. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women—s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hanna, G. (1989). Mathematics achievement of girls and boys in grade eight: Results from twenty countries. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 20 (2), 225–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Helson, R. (1971). Women mathematicians and the creative personality. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 36, 210–220.Google Scholar
  20. Horner, M. S. (1972). Toward an understanding of achievement-related conflicts in women. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 157–175.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, A. Are women getting all the jobs? Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 41 (4), 286–287.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobs, J. E., & Eccles, J. S. (1985). Gender differences in math ability: The impact of media reports on parents. Educational Researcher, 14 (3), 20–25.Google Scholar
  23. Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Leggett, A. (1992). Barbie. AWM Newsletter, 22 (6), 12.Google Scholar
  25. Linn, M. C., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender, mathematics, and science. AWM Newsletter, 23 (3), 17–23; 23 (4), 14–17.Google Scholar
  26. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of gender differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56, 1479–1498.Google Scholar
  27. McCoy, L. P. (1994). Mathematical problem-solving processes of elementary male and female students. School Science and Mathematics, 94 (5), 266–270.Google Scholar
  28. National Center for Fair & Open Testing v. Educational Testing Service and College Entrace Examination Board (D.D.C. April 29, 1994).Google Scholar
  29. Pauldi, M. A., & Bauer, W. D. (1983). Goldberg revisited: What’s in an author’s name? Sex Roles, 9, 387–390.Google Scholar
  30. Perl, T. (1979). The Ladies’ Diary or Women’s Almanack 1704–1841. Historica Mathematica, 6 (1), 36–53.Google Scholar
  31. Peterson, P. L., & Fennema, E. (1985). Effective teaching, student engagement in classroom activities, and sex-related differences in learning mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 309–336.Google Scholar
  32. Ratner, M. (1993). Letter to the editor. AWM Newsletter, 23(5), 17.Google Scholar
  33. Robinson, A., & Katzman, J. (1986). Cracking the system. New York: Villard.Google Scholar
  34. Rosser, P. (1989). The SAT Gender Gap: Identifying the causes. Washington, DC: Center for Women Policy Studies.Google Scholar
  35. Rosser, S. V. (1990). Female-friendly science and applying women’s studies methods and theories to attract students. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  36. Selvin, Paul. (1992). Heroism is still the norm. Science, 255, 1382–1383.Google Scholar
  37. Sharif v. New York State Board of Education, 88 Civ. 8435 (JW) (S.D.N.Y. 1988).Google Scholar
  38. Sherman, J., & Fennema, E. (1977). Sex-related differences in spatial visualization, and affective factors. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 51–77.Google Scholar
  39. Stern, N. (1978). Age and achievement in mathematics: A case study in the sociology of science. Social Studies of Science, 8, 127–140.Google Scholar
  40. Tobias, S. (1978). Overcoming math anxiety. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  41. Uhlenbeck, K. (1993). Address to Department Chairs’ Colloquium of Joint Policy Board of Mathematical Sciences. Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
  42. Wilkinson, L., & Marrett, C. (Eds.). (1985). Gender influences in classroom interaction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Gray

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations