The references to that study make my teeth hurt.
People in the same field, doing the same job get payed almost the same salary, regardless of what your social study/gender study says. - What DOES happen is that women are not very good at negotiating salaries, something we can blame on the good ole boogey man, or take personal responsibility for and thus change, rather than expect the man to just give us money to be NICE to us. We might also call it wage gap when we come back from our second maternity leave, and Gus, who started working the same year we did earns 20k more a year than us. We get mad and go to HQ, and argue we should have the same wage as Gus. But management asks us why, and we cant rationally argue why, because we admit; We did take time off for a baby not once but twice, we couldnt go to that school thing to advance our training because of baby, and we have worked almost 15 hours less weekly over the entire period of our employment at the firm, compared to Gus. - But, we call it a wage gap, and we blame it on Sexism, because!!!! its just so tempting to blame the bogeyman, than our own personal choices or failings.
As a woman in medical school, I have never experienced any good old fashion prejudice survive my behaviour contradicting the preconceptions people may have held. Never. I have experienced being disliked for who I am, and having it affect some social aspects of work related situations, where I didnt advance as fast as I'd like. I think many women in this day and age, are tempted to call such scenarios sexism, because its, I donnu, more palatable, with more tools at their disposal, than accepting they might not have been personally compatible with the team or the people leading it. The more agency you have, the more you believe in your ability to make things happen for yourself, the less you need to call everyone else the bogeyman, and the less likely you are to read a science study or gender study about sexism in STEM, and join the echochamber that comfortably explains away your personal failings.
It seems to me this study is also implying women do not have that power to change preconceptions if we meet them about our ability, eventhough many of us KNOW we do. That we are floundering in the winds of gender bias and just dont have the agency to affect our chances much. If Jessica had some huge Ovaries, she would have fought for a better salary, argued her reasons why, and insisted on mentoring oppertunities. That would have opened the study up to - what happens when Jessica challenges this constructed scenario with a behaviour that fits an ambitious young STEM scientist? - Im constantly surprised by other women telling me of those experiences, but never taking responsibility for feeling entitled to be seen, without actually showing their worth. Its like they want to sit demurely and prettily in the corner, but get mad when they are not expected to know as much as the people active up in the front row, and their grades/salaries reflect this selfimposed inactivity.
I dont believe your study shows STEM in general believes women are worse in math of science. Your study is very biased, relies on heavily biased gender studies, and pseudo-science, and if we were to believe this school of thought, we also have to believe there is such a thing as rape culture on campuses, because the same people tell us so. A rape culture that would make rape on american campus, more frequent than in the congo.
When it comes to strength. If strength is require to do a job and do a job well, to mesh in a team of other strong people, who will rely on you as a link in the chain, and you cannot be but a weak link in that chain. Then you shouldnt do that job. - Imagine you had a brother fighting in Afganisthan, and he is wounded, but his female partner, isnt strong enough to drag him the 30 meters required to reach the nearest ditch. - Had she been a man the strentgh test she'd have gone through to pass and join the marines, would mean that she had the power to save her partner. But because woman, politics and gender bullcrap, she is now in combat, with a partner she will never be able to help the way he can her. And he will rely on the other links in the chain, and she will never match his contribution, may even be partly the reason some of the other men die. - She will need a helping hand getting past obstacles like windows and walls, slowing her team down, but politics. So - this is what it means to have feel good politics interfere with common sense. To me, its women who believe the stuff they hear from gender studies, telling them it doesnt matter how their ambition affects other people its all about THEM, their RIGHTS - and screw reason and rationale. Anyone who tells them otherwise is a misogynist, or agent of the patriarchy.