Science jobs still presume the worker is married to a full-time homemaker. Women scientists tend to be married to men scientists, or other professional men who have jobs that demand similar hours.

When you factor in children and the additional discrimination women face in making tenure or getting higher-ranked positions, it's easier for the woman to drop out than the man, because she usually ends up with a lower-paid, lower-status position anyway. It's simple mathematics.

dont have kids, your choice, and problem solved.

I'm a 38 year old female chemist who works in industry, and for the most part, I think the job is fairly family-friendly. I think that's one thing that's changed over the last decade or so - as more male scientists have working wives, they've become more interested in family-friendly policies. (I see a lot of my male colleages taking at least a couple of weeks of paternity leave, leaving early to pick up kids, etc.) This is quite different from the situation in academia

However, at least in the pharma industry, there are a couple of factors that are going in the other direction. The industry has had a lot of major layoffs in the past decade or so, and there's a push to have more research at small biotech companies (which start up and go under at a rapid clip). This means there's a cycle of being laid off, changing jobs, being laid off again, a lot more often. And often, that means relocating. It's hard to find another science job in the same location as your old job (in a lot of places, there might only be one or two companies that hire chemists). There's an assumption that scientists should be willing to pick up and move every few years. Most of the women I've known who've left the industry have done so after they've been laid off a couple of times, and they just can't relocate again. (Husband has a good job, kids are in school, etc.) They can't find another science job where they live, they take another type of job "just for a while", and then they never go back. (One female-unfriendly aspect of science is that once you leave, you're considered "less serious" and it's very hard to get back in.)

There are other factors, but the cycle of layoff-relocate-layoff-relocat­e is one that I've run into a lot over the last few years, and it's hit a lot of my friends who are chemists. It's the number one reason I hear for women leaving the field.

By the way, I'm not sure it really matters anyway. For all of the hand-wringing over "Americans not studying science", scientists are not valued in the job market. (At least among chemists, unemployment is pretty high.) And more companies are moving research overseas. A woman who wants to study science should be worried about the job market more than anything else.

Linden:

1) You could be thankful that you have the choice to work in a fulfilling and challenging field without devoting your whole life to it. Many men don't feel they have that choice.

2) When more women stop thinking that their husbands must be at least as successful as themselves then they will more frequently have husbands who can play a supportive role.

3) What evidence do you have that women face more discrimination in making tenure or getting higher-ranked positions? To the extent that they don't secure these positions, the reasons are the ones you are already discussing. Lifestyle choices that no one forced these women to make.

4)Take a look at my posting below. There you will see an interesting statistic from The Economist. Black women with a graduate degree earn 30% more than white women with the same degree. One highly plausible explanation for this is that black women are less likely to be married to a rich man (or to be married at all), and thus have to behave in a way that maximizes their own earnings. In other words, they behave like men and get paid like men. If getting paid just like a man is the most important thing in the world to you, then behave like one.

kwheless,

Thanks for supplying real-world info. Don't your scenarios though generally apply equally to both genders?

For example, men with families would have the same difficulties in moving to new locales.

Hmm. What you remind me of, kuruman, is ANOTHER factor that not only is dismissed by women (as taught in this culture), but even MOCKED: Men are not appreciated for what they do.

I get this from you last sentence: "If getting paid just like a man is the most important thing in the world to you, then behave like one."

It seems many posters simply want MORE PAY for LESS WORK. Fine for them. I suggest they find someone who will pay it :)

Stevie:

I just think we have spent the last 40 years dissecting what it means to be a woman in Western society. I think the lives of men are entirely unexplored. No one bothers, least of all men themselves, to think about the experience of men. It is just laughably assumed to be better.

The XX-blog musings all, to one degree or another, paint men as the caricature you have brought up before; fat, cigar-smoking pigs sitting in private clubs and smacking waitresses on their asses. While this is the ultimate ideal of course (just kidding), the reality is that most men lead powerless and unfulfilling lives. Even the most enlightened among us still think we are judged by our careers and our breadwinning capability above all else. This is damaging and restrictive.

When and if there is ever any real societal sympathy or empathy for men, there will finally be an opportunity for real change.

Kuruman, this made me LMAO:

The XX-blog musings all, to one degree or another, paint men as the caricature you have brought up before; fat, cigar-smoking pigs sitting in private clubs and smacking waitresses on their asses. While this is the ultimate ideal of course (just kidding),

I agree that men are getting the short-end of the stick work-wise as well. In fact, I think my posts have explored that: "quality of life" should be for EVERYONE, not just for people with children. There are many things that we expect of men that are not right either.

But in this PC age, you're not allowed to discuss it, right?

Luckily, my husband and I are both "slackers" - I don't expect him to make enough so I can stay home and vice versa. We are hard-working, but not out of our mind workaholics. We like spending time together and with our kids, and so in that way, we have made our choices.

I just wish that choice didn't mean having to give up any hope of promotion or any hope of getting a decent paying job. Not obscene - just decent.

I don't like working for someone, giving them my all (and I have done this twice) - only to be screwed over for personal reasons having nothing to do with my work. At will employment really only benefits the employer in the end, since employees usually stay at jobs a lot longer than they should because of security. If it were so easy to find another job, then yeah, at will would be great for employees. But it's not that way. It benefits the employers only, IMHO.

Anyway, I do agree with your point of view in general, but I still have a healthy distrust for corporations, especially when they give bonuses to CEOs who are doing a bad job. It's hard to have respect for that.

StevieN:

kwheless,

Thanks for supplying real-world info. Don't your scenarios though generally apply equally to both genders?

For example, men with families would have the same difficulties in moving to new locales.

It does affect both genders, but it seems to affect women with families more. It's called the "two body problem" in academia, and it often seems to hit women harder. The husband often is the higher earner, so it's more of a problem for him to relocate for her job, especially if it happens several times. I think men in science are more likely to just pick up the family and move. That may be more a question of expectations.

However, to comment on some of the other responses on this article - most women I know who leave science aren't becoming stay-at-home moms. You can argue about whether that's good or bad, but most of these women are changing to other jobs, not staying home to be supported by their husbands. Changing jobs isn't a tragedy - I've thought about leaving science myself - but the women who leave science are losing the investment they made in their education - years in graduate school, experience in the lab, etc. It's not really a skill that carries over into other job fields.

There is still an expectation in science that if you are "really serious" about science, it will be your only priority. Industry has become more family friendly in terms of flex time, maternity leave, etc. But even in industry, you will probably find it very difficult to find another job if you worked in another field for a few years. It's considered a sign that you aren't really a "serious scientist". This also afffects both genders, but I think it hits women with families harder.

Thanks ladyK

I always enjoy your posts...they give me hope

Oh, and I don't blindly trust corporations either

Thank you. Nice to hear you don't blindly trust them either.

:)