Females are inferior to males in the sciences?

Parents Forum
21

<ol>
<li><p>There's so much cultural dreck in the SAT and major-choice data that I don't think you can begin to draw conclusions about "innate" abilities from them. And, as others have noted, the terrain seems to be shifting. I know two young women who are math majors at Harvard, and they aren't the only ones; when I went to college, I doubt you could find two women math majors in the Ivy League.</p></li>
<li><p>But to jessiehl: The MIT major choices are random???? Women disproportionately like environmental stuff and earth science; men disproportionately like rockets? That doesn't seem random at all -- that seems like a cliche.</p></li>
<li><p>And what if there ARE innate differences? There could be significant innate differences on a statistical basis, and it would tell you nothing useful about any individual. It might mean that it would be unreasonable to expect that women would eventually constitite half of the tenured physics faculty at MIT or half of the physics Nobellists, but it wouldn't mean that Woman A or Woman B wasn't the greatest physicist of her generation. It is difficult, politically, to have a discussion of the possibility of intelligence-related differences that may be based on race or gender, but even if they exist their meaning is practically nothing. Cornell West and Helen Vendler are still going to be smarter than practically everyone, probably including Larry Summers (who is PLENTY smart).</p></li>
<li><p>My family: My wife and I are not science-oriented at all. She had typical (for our generation) female math anxiety; I just thought math and science were pretty pedestrian compared to literature. </p></li>
</ol>

<p>In early middle school, my daughter was the best math student in her grade; everything came easily and quickly to her; she was very fluent with concepts and understood their relationships. She was placed in an advanced math track, whereupon one bad teacher just killed her interest in math. Dead. (However, she limped her way through calculus in high school.) Her math SAT was 100 points below her verbal. She chose a college where she would have to take a fair number of math and science classes, but she pretty much hates every minute of them and blows them off. She has wanted to be a writer since she was 10. The single adjective that her friends would use to describe her (and I would agree) is "analytical".</p>

<p>My son (two years younger) has always done well in math and science. He was not initially advanced-tracked, but doubled up on math in 10th grade to catch up. He won the top prize in biochemistry at his school as an 11th grader; he chooses a math/science-heavy curriculum; his math SAT is 50 points higher than his verbal. (He actually said the following a few months ago, something I did not think it was possible ever to hear: "That's my easy exam day. I have math and physics.") We made a conscious decision early on to get support for his science-type interests -- more than his parents could provide -- so we hooked him up with a neighbor who is an academic biophysicist, and helped him get a volunteer position in a paleontology lab (where he has worked for 3 years now, loving it). But. As time goes on (and to the dismay of his science teachers), he is increasingly defining himself as a humanities person. A year ago, his significant extracurricular reading interest was Richard Dawkins; now it is Salman Rushdie. He dropped robotics because he wanted to be an officer of the Drama Club. He won a regional poetry prize, too (shocking everyone, since no one knew he wrote any). While he is still nowhere near as sophisticated a writer as his sister was at this age, all of a sudden he is a fluent and stylish writer.</p>

<p>Anyway, my point is that whatever "innate" abilities people have, they get put through a very complex social/familial wringer and emerge in very complex packages. SAT scores, and even major choices, are essentially snapshots in a long process. They are certainly valid data to describe something that exists, but they don't mean as much as people claim, and don't tell you where people come from or even where they're going.</p>

22

<p>It definitely deals with nature and nurture. Nature giving you a broad range of capabilities. Nurture determining what part of the range you fall within.
Also, males are thought of have better spatial reasoning abilities which could contribute to why more males go into fields such as engineering, science, and mathematics.</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
But to jessiehl: The MIT major choices are random???? Women disproportionately like environmental stuff and earth science; men disproportionately like rockets? That doesn't seem random at all -- that seems like a cliche.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The rockets part is a cliche, yes. But most people, if I ask them to guess what the two most female majors are at MIT, aren't close, even after several guesses. Most people are quite surprised that an engineering major would be the most female-heavy. And EAPS includes a lot of astronomy/astrophysics people as well as the geosciences people...and I would not have thought of astro as a cliche of female dominance.</p>

<p>A couple of others: Chemical engineering is very female. Poli sci is very male. Business, civil engineering, and materials science & engineering are close to evenly split.</p>

24

<p>"I doubt you could find two women math majors in the Ivy League."</p>

<p>Well I knew the woman math major of Harvard class of 1975. There may have been others, I don't know. Though I do know that despite being the only woman in many of her classes her professors often couldn't remember her name. As for IQ being nature or nurture I recently read a review of the subject (this months Scientific American maybe?) When they correct twins raised apart studies for economic factors it turns out that while genetics seems to give a starting point nurture can account for almost 30 points! Wow! Actually rather heartening I think.</p>

25

<p>I would like to make a quick point that I also just made in the thread discussing the "boy crisis" in America... I think that part of the reason why women tend towards liberal arts, other than the usual social factors, is that they have an innate or culturally imposed desire to choose careers that help others- I know that's the case with me. Men, in my experience, tend to have a more selfish definition of success and therefore tend to go the math/science/business route and succeed there, though they may not have made as much of an impact on society. Therefore, I think it highly likely that if social awareness and understanding towards others was as stressed in boys' education as in girls' education, they would pursue more social fields, while encouraging girls to focus more on themselves would motivate more of them to move towards science, math and business.</p>

<p>See my whole post here <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2737642&postcount=202%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2737642&postcount=202&lt;/a> .</p>

26

<p>First of all, you should know that the "liberal arts" includes mathematics and the sciences. Perhaps you means humanities and social sciences majors, or non-technical, non-science, and non-business majors.</p>

<p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal%20arts%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal%20arts&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
other than the usual social factors,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What are those?</p>

<p>But with most of your characterization of "impact on society," I just can't agree, somethingnew. You seem to have a very narrow focus there. As if the development of technology (such as the computer) or new medications does not impact society? Must one be a social awareness activist to have an impact on society? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Therefore, I think it highly likely that if social awareness and understanding towards others was as stressed in boys' education as in girls' education, they would pursue more social fields, while encouraging girls to focus more on themselves would motivate more of them to move towards science, math and business.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Previously you said "innate or culturally imposed [aka social]," now it's clearly social. What are these two different educations one gets? Are they often given in the same place by the same teacher? Maybe biological differences, or social factors outside of education, or both determine this difference in education? Why is it that sciences and technological fields, as well as business (for some reason) are not "social field?"</p>

27

<p>Really somethingnew your post is quite false. I for example want to major in Chemical Engineering and go into research and development. I always dreamed of helping mankind by helping to develop something. So just because you want to major in engineering and sciences that doesn't mean you don't care about helping people.</p>

28

<p>First of all, sorry about the liberal arts mess up...I do know of that distinction and meant to say humanities.</p>

<p>By the usual social factors I was referring to the peer pressure and subtle pushes from parents that are widely accepted as leading women away from science. For example, girls will have trouble finding girlfriends who want to talk about building things while boys may find it easy.</p>

<p>Also, unfortunately, a career in sciences and technology is hardly ever directly applicable to the real world. Even if one's life work is tending towards developing a medicine or creating a new technology, many thousands of scientist go their whole lives without seeing their work affect anyone. A few are successful enough to see it, but the idea that you may be one of those few can't keep you motivated in the field for your whole life. There has to be some other motivation, and that is often the puzzle-like, logical steps that need to be taken to do good research. In other words, pursuing an ordinary career in science means that your primary motivation has to be a thirst for knowledge, rather than a desire to change the world, since most scientists are not lucky enough to do that.</p>

<p>However, as for those who choose careers like psychology or international relations, which women gravitate to more than they do to science (they were the fields I referred to as "social" fields)- their work impacts people every day. They help and work with other people directly and even if they cant change everyone's life, they do their best. They also thirst for knowledge, but it doesnt become their primary motivation, since their work is so rewarding.</p>

<p>It's for this reason that I say girls tend towards humanities more than men do.</p>

<p>As for the education differences between boys and girls, I mean the education that makes up their basic foundations- the education given by their parents and earliest influences. Boys are, in general, never protected as much or encouraged to be giving or caring as much as girls are. The "boys will be boys" mentality remains rampant among preschool and kindergarten teachers, while girls are always expected to follow rules. Even if boys and girls naturally gravitate towards different toys, that doesnt mean that those differences ought to be exacerbated by the way the children are brought up.</p>

<p>Science and technology, as well as business, are not social fields, or more correctly socially aware fields, because the focus is primarily on the gaining rather than giving. Gaining knowledge or profits or raises rather than giving to society what you can. That's the best way I can put it.</p>

29

<p>superwizard, I didnt mean that people who pursue science dont care about helping the world, I said that women tend to feel more fulfilled when they make a direct impact on other people while men can feel content in jobs where personal gain (which is far from being a bad thing) is the day to day goal.</p>

30

<p>Its ok I misread it :D My fault</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Also, unfortunately, a career in sciences and technology is hardly ever directly applicable to the real world.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A career? Perhaps you mean “major?” As much as I dislike the “fake” vs. “real world” distinction, is not a career in the real world?</p>

<p>
[quote]
many thousands of scientist go their whole lives without seeing their work affect anyone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And can this not be extended to so many others? I don’t understand how scientists are different in this sense than people in other fields.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In other words, pursuing an ordinary career in science means that your primary motivation has to be a thirst for knowledge, rather than a desire to change the world, since most scientists are not lucky enough to do that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is the problematic part. I don’t think you’ve proven anything.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, as for those who choose careers like psychology or international relations, which women gravitate to more than they do to science (they were the fields I referred to as "social" fields)- their work impacts people every day. They help and work with other people directly and even if they cant change everyone's life, they do their best. They also thirst for knowledge, but it doesnt become their primary motivation, since their work is so rewarding.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really think you’re confusing major and career. Or, if the distinction isn't important, maybe you can show why the difference isn't important? Of people who major in a subject, many people end up at a job at best only somewhat related to their major, while many end up in jobs distant to it or nowhere near it. And that includes those in vocational fields! This discussion also seems to exclude the many people in the US (and the world) who don’t go to college. Basically, we’re talking about a small segment of Americans, right? How many psychology majors go on to do something in the field of psychology? While many may use their knowledge in everyday life, the answer is that very few participate in the field. If using knowledge in everyday life constitutes participation to you, then fine, but what of the science majors? Do they not do the same thing (for whatever reason)? Should we also not take into account that many courses outside of one’s major are required at colleges? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Boys are, in general, never protected as much or encouraged to be giving or caring as much as girls are. The "boys will be boys" mentality remains rampant among preschool and kindergarten teachers, while girls are always expected to follow rules.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>maybe this is correct, but don’t you think it’s possible that girls, perhaps because of biological reasons, are better able to follow those directions and rules?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Science and technology, as well as business, are not social fields, or more correctly socially aware fields, because the focus is primarily on the gaining rather than giving. Gaining knowledge or profits or raises rather than giving to society what you can. That's the best way I can put it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So by social, you actually mean “humanitarian or activist,” and not anything close to social in the common interaction sense?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I said that women tend to feel more fulfilled when they make a direct impact on other people while men can feel content in jobs where personal gain (which is far from being a bad thing) is the day to day goal.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So personal gain does not include fulfillment? I would also add that the "men can feel" should be changed to "tend to" or "more often" to be more in line with your view- unless women are unable to be content in such positions. You're describing a trend, not an ability, but you use the description fit for an ability (not a trend).</p>

32

<br>


<br>

<p>I disagree. What you say may often be true of academic science, where you might end up conducting a 20-year study of tortoise ticks in the Galapagos Islands, but it is usually not true for industrial science -- where I work. </p>

<p>Research that I and my team have done and new products that we have developed have changed the way that medicine is practiced. Over a 25+ year career, I've seen this happen over and over again. And not just by my department or company. If you've been plugging away in the lab for years and years and never came up with anything that mattered, then either you've been extremely unlucky or you're not trying very hard. Scientific progress doesn't have to turn the world upside down in order to be significant and real. In industrial R&D, if the products you develop don't somehow make a difference in people's lives, your company will not be successful.</p>

33

<p>In fact, I'm not confusing major and career, at least not consciously. All careers are in the real world, yes, but when you're bogged down with calculations and glassware problems and powerpoints every day for a long period of time, you lose touch with the social, economic, and political problems that plague the everyday lives of many people out there. Yes, many people do see their lives go by without affecting others with their jobs, but I'm arguing here that they tend to be people working in the fields of science, engineering, and business. A psychologist, an activist, a lobbyist, a nurse, a teacher...these are people who will see themselves making differences in many people's lives. So, here you see the difference- the first category, of science, engineering, and business, hardly ever directly affects the daily lives of many individuls directly, while the second type of career does in fact directly impact individuals. Women tend to be drawn to the second type of career for that reason, I contend, while men tend to be more easily satisfied with the second type. And, since often society praises the first type of career more, women are found to be less successful than men.</p>

<p>And yes, biological differences may play a role, as I said, but if you read the rest of my post you'd see that I clarified that statement- even if nature leads men and women to have different abilities in conforming to rules etc, nurture need not increase the differences. Women could bring out their wilder side and men could be a bit more law abiding.</p>

<p>By social I mean careers that work towards improving society, which is often where women interested in humanities end up (see the list above). And yes, personal gain does include fulfillment for those people who find it fulfilling. However, the societal measure of success, which is often related to the personal gain fields, does not properly measure, in my opinion, the level of success that people truly achieve. Sometimes, personal gain isnt really as successful and more giving fields are more so.</p>

<p>Finally, yes I am talking about college educated Americans because those are the ones who can take any sort of decent career in science to begin with. Since science is the focus of the thread, I decided to focus on those with college educations.</p>

34

<p>I quite like this last post- the style and argument seem clear. Bravo. :)

[quote]
Yes, many people do see their lives go by without affecting others with their jobs, but I'm arguing here that they tend to be people working in the fields of science, engineering, and business.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, perhaps you mean that for people in these fields, it is often true, or far more often true than in other fields? I would ask how many people work in these fields out of the population of America. I would think it is rather high if you include business, and fairly small without.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A psychologist, an activist, a lobbyist, a nurse, a teacher...these are people who will see themselves making differences in many people's lives.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A lobbyist? People actively working at the abstract level of national politics in D.C. or at some thinktank office, trying their best to influence the political elite and grassroots movements really doesn’t strike me as someone who “directly affects the daily lives of many individuals directly” or is in “touch with the social, economic, and political problems that plague the everyday lives of many people out there.” I would say the same of the activist, and I would say that psychologists ARE included in the category of scientist, and I’m not sure about nurse. Clinical psychologists (whom I assume you mean when you say psychologist, and I’m not sure what percentage of the total number of psychologists they comprise) must go to medical school. People who must go through medical school strike me as being essentially scientists. The definition of psychologist at dictionary.com has as one of its the definitions “a scientist trained in psychology.” Many scientists in academia are teachers . . . so are these excluded or included? </p>

<p><a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychologist%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/psychologist&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
So, here you see the difference- the first category, of science, engineering, and business, hardly ever directly affects the daily lives of many individuls directly, while the second type of career does in fact directly impact individuals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would contend that many businesses (and to a lesser extent engineers and scientists) do directly impact the lives of people, but I would talk about your definition of impact. If you mean positive social change, then the answer really does depend on what constitutes positive social change. You say that you disagree with what you see as the modern American definition, and reading what you see it to be, I can understand how you think a large number of people in science, engineering fields, and business do not satisfy you in that they are creating positive social change.</p>

<p>
[quote]
By social I mean careers that work towards improving society, which is often where women interested in humanities end up (see the list above).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think, if you want to claim that women interested in the humanities tend to end up in careers that work towards improving society (in your view of societal improvement), you should provide some evidence of one or more broad ranging surveys showing that.</p>

35

<p><a href="ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat23.txt%5B/url%5D"&gt;ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat23.txt&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>This doesn't break up occupations into categories which are that specific, but it still shows a lot. Look at the categories of " sales and office occupations." That has an incredible amount of women. You think hundreds of thousands of them are in not-for-profits?</p>

36

<p>SN: First, I think that your basic premise --- that men are more likely to choose majors or careers based on personal gain and women are more likely to choose based on being able to make a positive impact on society -- is built on a foundation of sand, shifting and changing even as we type. Female students are catching up to and overtaking men in enrollment and degree attainment in all kinds of science-oriented fields, not to mention law and business. Did women become less altruistic or is it not the case that advancement in science or contributions from other fields (certain types of law, and ethical, entrepreneurial, job-creating businesses) do benefit society, whether accomplished by men or women? </p>

<p>In the past, when stereotypes and role models played a bigger role in what children decided they could be when they grew up, it's true that women who were lucky enough to go to college tended to go into the "helping professions." Partly because they were discouraged from pursuing the male-dominated fields and partly because they were drawn to those giving professions. And partly because there was the acknowledgement that a career was going to be interrupted by childbirth and child raising. The female-dominated professions have generally been regarded as easier to step out of for a period of time and then re-enter. Again, in the past, men were not being "selfish" when they chose more lucrative professions --- they were more likely than women to see themselves as someday being the head of household, the bread winner and provider. Making money mattered because it was much more likely years ago that the wife would stop or pause her own career once the couple became a family. In my parents' generation, people (okay, primarily men) took jobs not for "satisfaction" but to support their families and they held onto job security for dear life until they retired.
Employment today is much more insecure and changing, with both men and women taking pauses in their careers for either child raising or to change professions. I don't think any of the old stereotypes are in place anymore.</p>

37

<p>I just thought I would go back to the original post and make a point. Let me tell you a little about my daughter: She went through an outside math program that was in some ways a self-taught thing and finished calculus by 7th grade and continued with it by just adding more to what she had learned. She has always been at the top of her classes, including math and science. In 8th grade, she took algebra where she often would be explaining things to half her class. She even taught her algebra class for a week while her teacher was sick and for a few of those days the sub was a male. She has always helped lots of her friends with homework, esp. in math and science. The ones who ask her for help are all males. One of them even asked her if there was gravity in space this year. Earlier in the year they did all sorts of stuff with gravity since they were taking physical science. He was not kidding either. She received the only A all year in her geometry class. During that class, she often had to explain things to other students(usually male). This surprised me as she had never done geometry previous to this year as it was not part of the outside math program she was involved with. In my high school, I was not allowed to take drafting because I was a girl. They also did not think I was good in math. They were completely wrong because I was quite the opposite being very good in the subject. My daughter decided in 7th grade she wanted to take drafting because her school offered it and it sounded interesting. She was 1 of 3 girls in the class with maybe 16 or 17 boys. She received the only A, the other girls did very well in the class too. All three did better than most of the boys. My daughter usually had to help the boys in the class either by answering their questions or checking simple math calculations. I do not think it is fair to go off of the results of the SAT because it is not a simple matter of male vs. female. It has to do with the students' situation in life. The only way to compare results would be to take students living in the same lifestyle with similar parents and also taking things such as age into consideration. The basis for doing well on the test is not based on the nature of the gender but on the nurturing the student receives. To go to the issue on race, my daughter is also hispanic. I would also like to mention that you should not think my daughter a geek, or other terms you think of, because if she walked past you, you would not think this. Many people at her school do not even believe she gets the grades she receives. To add, my daughter knows many females who are exceptionally bright in math and science. If you were to look at the students(with similar life situations) in her classes, the females(granted, not all of them) tend to have the better grades and are more driven than the males(again, not all of them).</p>

38

<p>jazzymom: I wouldnt agree that the stereotypes associated with women and men taking jobs because of being principle breadwinner/homemaker has changed much at all. Though there are more married couples that take initiative to split job time and housework between them, I think the younger generation is taking a step backwards in time, especially regarding the role marriage and family plays in job selection. From my experience as a student, (I dont have a survey to back me up on this, but it becomes apparent after talking to female high school and college age students) for every girl who says she'll put her career first in life, there are 10 or more who say that when the time comes, children will be the first priority in their lives. Men are much more likely to say they dont want children and leave it at that. I think much of this is due to the mother scares that are always going on- stories of children on drugs and on the streets because of a lack of parental supervision. Tomorrow's mothers are already planning to be "good" and "attentive" mothers, and will choose their careers accordingly. Therefore, I think it's possible that these same reasons are causing women to take fewer high powered careers. And, although women are taking more science and engineering jobs, they often choose not to excel past what is expected of them so that they will have time for a personal life, a sacrifice men often dont make. For example, in the lab I work in, the women tend to leave around 5, or come in late and leave around 7, while the men will stay there well into the nights and will come in on weekends. Many of these men have children...who is taking care of them?</p>

<p>DRab, off to work, will post later. :D</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
Men, in my experience, tend to have a more selfish definition of success and therefore tend to go the math/science/business route and succeed there, though they may not have made as much of an impact on society.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I find it incredibly bizzare that you characterize math and science as selfish and lump them in with business. Science, especially academic science, attracts smart idealists above all else. Getting a PhD often takes 6+ years of hard work with low or no pay. In many fields PhD students make literally less than half of what they would have made had they gone into industry. Even after getting the degree the pay is usually not good enough to make up for the lost wages. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Even if one's life work is tending towards developing a medicine or creating a new technology, many thousands of scientist go their whole lives without seeing their work affect anyone.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I think this is just further proof of the selflessness of many scientists.</p>

<p>
[quote]
A few are successful enough to see it, but the idea that you may be one of those few can't keep you motivated in the field for your whole life. There has to be some other motivation, and that is often the puzzle-like, logical steps that need to be taken to do good research. In other words, pursuing an ordinary career in science means that your primary motivation has to be a thirst for knowledge, rather than a desire to change the world, since most scientists are not lucky enough to do that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>While it's true that many scientists enjoy the research process in much the same way a teacher might enjoy giving lectures, the goal and motivation of scientific research is not this enjoyment. On the contrary all but the most basic scientific research finds motivation in real world problems. Even in primarily theoretical fields, research is motivated by problems that arise in more applied fields. Scientists really want to solve problems and make a difference! </p>

<p>I think the primary difference between science and the fields you listed is that science is motivated by very big problems that are very hard to solve. For example, while a nurse might worry about how best to treat a particular person's disease and extend that person's life, a scientist would worry about finding a cure for that disease and saving many, many lives. Science from an individual scientist's perspective is in some sense just a high risk / high reward approach to helping and improving society. If anything, scientists are naively idealistic.</p>

40

<p>First, DRab and mmkb, I would like to clarify (as I should have done from the beginning) that by sciences I am referring to "hard sciences," meaning everything except biology, psychology, and the like, which women clearly excel at and have nearly equalled men in. </p>

<p>mmkb, I absolutely agree with you the scientists often have to be idealistic, and am not at all using "selfish" to mean anything negative- I consider myself a scientist as well! However, as much as the final goal of science research may be something applicable to the lives of others, the primary day to day goal that keeps researchers going is their thirst for knowledge, success, published papers and the like. They cannot get instant gratification for their desire to help others, while the "giving" fields can. I'm not saying that scientists are not out to help the world- I'm saying that that isnt their primary motivation.</p>

<p>coureur, thanks for pointing out the basic flaw in my argument. I agree that industry, especially in engineering, is much more based on the real world. But then again, 1) more women who have graduate degrees in hard sciences go on to industry than into academia and 2) the more "desirable," high paying, and "successful" jobs for those experienced in industry tend to be management jobs- again going into business, where men dominate.</p>

<p>DRab: when I say directly impacting the lives of others, I mean, when wrapping up a day of work, does the person say "today, i changed someone's life," or does the person say, "today, i got a lot of work done." I think women really want to say the former, while men, who may also want to say the former, can more often content themselves with the latter.</p>