Discover
/
Article

Women in physics: unnecessary, injurious and out of place?

FEB 01, 1980
Despite eight years of affirmative action more changes are necessary to create an atmosphere where women are equally accepted in the field of physics.
Vera Kistiakowsky

The subtitle for this article is taken from a Strindberg essay written at the end of the 19th century opposing the appointment of the mathematician, Sonia Kovalevsky, to a professorship at the University of Stockholm, in which he attempts to prove “as decidedly as that two and two make four, what a monstrosity is a woman who is a professor of mathematics, and how unnecessary, injurious and out of place she is”. It is certainly a much more extreme statement than anything likely to be voiced publicly today but it does vividly and tersely encapsulate many of the opinions that have been expressed to me in much more veiled and discursive form over the last ten years. Largely because of these continuing though muted attitudes I have accepted an invitation to write this article for PHYSICS TODAY. I will very briefly sketch the history of women’s participation in physics as a background to the current situation and then discuss some statistical information about women physicists in the recent past and present in the United States. It will come as no surprise that the percentage of physicists who are women is small and that their employment patterns are different from those of men. I will discuss the possible reasons for this situation. Finally, I will comment briefly on recent changes and what expectations one may have for the future.

This article is only available in PDF format

References

  1. 1. H. J. Mozans, Women in Science, Appleton (1913);
    reissued by MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1974).

  2. 2. G. Sarton, A History of Science, Harvard U. Cambridge, Mass. (1952).

  3. 3. L. M. Osen, Women in Mathematics, MIT, Cambridge, Mass. (1974).

  4. 4. E. T. James, Notable American Women 1607–1950, Harvard U., Cambridge, Mass. (1974).

  5. 5. F. Rudolph, The American College and University, Knopf, New York (1962).

  6. 6. M. W. Rossiter, American Scientist 62, 312 (1974).

  7. 7. APS Comm. Women in Physics, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. II, 17, 740 (1972).

  8. 8. D. M. Gilford, P. D. Syverson, “Summary Report [Year] Doctorate Recipients from US Universities,” Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1972 through 1978).

  9. 9. D. M. Gilford, J. Snyder, Women and Minority PhD’s in the late 1970’s: A Data Book, Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1977).

  10. 10. B. D. Maxfield, N. C. Ahern, A. W. Spisak, Science, Engineering, and Humanities Doctorates in the United States. 1977 profile, Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1978).

  11. 11. B. D. Maxfield, N. C. Ahern, A. W. Spisak, Employment Status of PhD Scientists and Engineers. 1973 and 1975, Nat. Acad. of Sci. (1976).

  12. 12. M. E. Law, J. Wittels, R. Clark, P. Jorgenson, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 21, 888 (1976).https://doi.org/BAPSA6

  13. 13. L. Tiger, New York Times Magazine, 25 October 1970, page 35.

  14. 14. E. E. Maccoby, C. N. Jacklin, The Psychology of Sex Differences, Stanford U., Stanford, Cal. (1974).

  15. 15. A. Kelly, Phys. Bull. 30, 108 (1979).https://doi.org/PHSBB4

  16. 16. M. J. Oates, S. Williamson, Signs, 795 (Summer, 1978).

  17. 17. M. E. Tidball, V. Kistiakowsky, Science 193, 646 (1976).https://doi.org/SCIEAS

  18. 18. S. Tobias, Overcoming Math Anxiety, Norton, New York (1978).

  19. 19. C. E. Max, “Opportunities for Women in Physics,” U. California Rad. Lab. Report UCRL‐80943 (1978).

  20. 20. J. Dash, A Life of One’s Own, Harper and Row, New York (1973).

  21. 21. L. R. Harmon, High School Ability Patterns, Nat, Acad. of Sci. (1965).

  22. 22. G. F. Schilling, M. K. Hunt, “Women in Science and Technology: US/USSR Comparisons,” Rand Paper Series P‐239, Santa Monica, Cal. (1974).

  23. 23. W. M. Mandel, Soviet Women, Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y. (1975).

  24. 24. J. A. Centra, Women, Men and the Doctorate, Educ. Testing Serv., Princeton, N.J. (1974).

  25. 25. J. R. Cole, S. Cole, Social Stratification in Science, U. Chicago, Chicago, Ill. (1973).

  26. 26. R. K. Merton, Science 159, 56 (1968).https://doi.org/SCIEAS

  27. 27. H. Zuckerman, Scientific Elite, Free Press, New York (1978).

More about the Authors

Vera Kistiakowsky. MIT.

Related content
/
Article
Figuring out how to communicate with the public can be overwhelming. Here’s some advice for getting started.
/
Article
Amid growing investment in planetary-scale climate intervention strategies that alter sunlight reflection, global communities deserve inclusive and accountable oversight of research.
/
Article
Although motivated by the fundamental exploration of the weirdness of the quantum world, the prizewinning experiments have led to a promising branch of quantum computing technology.
/
Article
As conventional lithium-ion battery technology approaches its theoretical limits, researchers are studying alternative architectures with solid electrolytes.
This Content Appeared In
pt-cover_1980_02.jpeg

Volume 33, Number 2

Get PT in your inbox

pt_newsletter_card_blue.png
PT The Week in Physics

A collection of PT's content from the previous week delivered every Monday.

pt_newsletter_card_darkblue.png
PT New Issue Alert

Be notified about the new issue with links to highlights and the full TOC.

pt_newsletter_card_pink.png
PT Webinars & White Papers

The latest webinars, white papers and other informational resources.

By signing up you agree to allow AIP to send you email newsletters. You further agree to our privacy policy and terms of service.