Nature or Nurture?
Why are few women in positions of leadership, science or arts?
I never liked the question of nature versus nurture because it always seemed like a false dichotomy. The answer is clearly that it is both. Fortunately, Hughson and Hughson (2004) agree, even while presenting the arguments for both sides.
In the case of most women, nature and nurture, heavy on the nurture, conspire to keep them from positions in leadership, science and the arts, as well as projects that are entrepreneurial. Culture is a powerful force that is often left unquestioned and unrecognized.
While Hughson and Hughson (2004) cite only four references in the section on gender differences and they leave the rest of the section up to their own speculation, or what they believe is common knowledge, their points are not necessarily wrong even if poorly supported. The pair basically say that the difference between men and women lie in culture though it could be argued that certain biologically driven character traits could also play a role.
In culture, Hughson and Hughson say that high achieving girls perceive themselves "as less attractive as potential marriage partners." The prevalent role of women in society is to be married and have children. So girls who get good grades may, later, scuttle their own achievements as they attempt to fit in to societies prescribed role for replenishing the species population.
Films like "Miss Representation" and "Killing Us Softly" take a long look at the way that media portrays women and why it is problematic for girls as they grow up. While these cultural mores are being exposed, they are also so ingrained in society so as to be almost invisible. Changing something as shortly formed as corporate culture is difficult; changing the culture of an entire society that has been around for centuries must be several times more difficult.
The biggest problem with relying on this information is that it aggregates all people into two types without considering that gender in any one individual will be found somewhere on a spectrum. Some women are really aggressive, in spite of a lack of testosterone, while some men are great nurturers.
Feldman in Ch. 9 of Sternberg's Handbook of Creativity (1999) may sum it up best when he lists all of the factors that can influence creativity and innovation in individuals. He also cites several studies that have called for scientists to consider multidimensional studies rather than to try to separate creativity into parts that cannot explain the whole of the subject.
Rather than ask whether things are nature or nurture, western scientific practices need to figure out how to become more holistic, maybe by integrating eastern ways of understanding the world into the academic studies that, at this point, result in partial answers that are misleading at best.
Women are no less capable than men at producing great works of creativity. They may lack opportunity and desire due to societal roles and expectations, or they may just lack recognition as their creative outlets are less recognized. Whatever the case may be, it is important for individual women to recognize that they have the opportunity to choose to develop their creativity. For those that do not feel like they have the opportunity, they must figure out how to take it from a culture that will not give it.
Feldman, D. H. (1999). The development of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of creativity, pp. 169-186 (Chapter 9). NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hughson N. I., & Hughson, R.T. (2004) Psychology of Creativity. Arizona: Amazing Books.