NEW
FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES TO UNDERSTAND GENDER GAPS IN STEM EDUCATION: A CASE OF
STUDY IN MÉXICO
NUEVAS PERSPECTIVAS FEMINISTAS PARA ENTENDER LAS BRECHAS DE GÉNERO EN
EDUCACIÓN CTIM: UN ESTUDIO DE CASO EN MÉXICO
Diana Alethia Guerrero-Hernández[1]
Karla Ramírez-Pulido[2]
Ana Cristina Cervantes-Arrioja[3]
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.32870/lv.v7i64.8328
Abstract
This paper addresses questions
related to gender inequalities, such as gender biases and stereotypes, in the
fields of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). This
article analyzes, from a gender perspective, some of the gender inequalities
present in STEM higher education in Mexico. It also examines briefly some biologicist narratives of gender gaps from the perspectives
of gender, philosophy, the history of natural sciences, and biology itself
(Guerrero Mc Manus, 2022). The main questions to be answered in this article
are focused on providing a possible response to the gender gaps in STEM areas
at Univdersidad Nacional Autónoma
de México (UNAM), as well as exploring possible ways of including women in
these areas, from a critical perspective. In this article, we propose how some
gender biases have negatively impacted Mexican public education policies and
hindered the presence of Mexican women in scientific fields. Our position is
grounded in philosophical and gender studies perspectives on science and
technology, as well as feminist epistemologies, primarily those of authors such
as Schiebinger (2004), Maffia
(2007), and hooks (2021), who recognize that these gender gaps stem from
processes of exclusion in classrooms from communities that are predominantly
masculinized and hegemonic. Finally, we present some of the situations that
have had to be dismantled to understand inequalities and gender gaps in STEM
fields, with the aim of highlighting some of the gender biases and
vulnerabilities to historically marginalized communities, such as women that
have been exposed in STEM fields in Mexico.
Keywords: Gender bias STEM, gender gaps STEM,
stereotypes gender STEM, gender roles at STEM, division of work STEM at Higher
Education Institutions
El presente
trabajo responde a las interrogantes relacionadas con las desigualdades de
género, como los sesgos y estereotipos de género presentes en las áreas de
Ciencia, Tecnología, Ingeniería y Matemáticas (CTIM). Este artículo analiza
desde una perspectiva de género algunas de las desigualdades de género
presentes en la educación a nivel superior CTIM en México. Esta propuesta
analiza algunas de las explicaciones biologicistas de las brechas de género
desde la perspectiva de género, de la filosofía y la historia de las ciencias
naturales, como desde la perspectiva de la propia biología (Guerrero Mc Manus,
2022). Las preguntas principales a resolver en este artículo están centradas en
dar una posible respuesta a las brechas de género en áreas CTIM en la UNAM, así
como el explorar las posibles vías de inclusión de mujeres relacionadas en
dichas áreas, desde una perspectiva crítica. En este artículo, proponemos que
algunos de los sesgos y estereotipos de género han estado presentes en los
discursos educativos, científicos e institucionales del contexto mexicano,
contribuyendo a naturalizar y justificar la exclusión de las mujeres de ciertos
espacios científicos. Nuestra postura se sustenta en perspectivas filosóficas y
de estudios de género sobre ciencia y tecnología, así como en epistemologías
feministas, principalmente de autoras como Schiebinger
(2004), Maffia (2007) y hooks
(2021), las cuales reconocen que tales brechas de género se deben a procesos de
exclusión en las aulas de comunidades, ya que son estas comunidades
principalmente masculinizadas y hegemónicas. Finalmente, se exponen algunas de
las situaciones que se han tenido que ir desmantelando para la comprensión de
las desigualdades y las brechas de género en las áreas CTIM, con el objetivo de
exponer algunas de los sesgos de género, y las vulnerabilidades a las que han
estado expuestas algunas comunidades históricamente vulneradas como las mujeres
en áreas CTIM en México.
Palabras clave: Sesgos
de género CTIM, brechas de género CTIM, estereotipos de género CTIM, roles de
género en CTIM, división del trabajo en CTIM en las Instituciones de Educación
Superior
Recepción: 09 de octubre de 2025 /Aceptación: 20 de mayo de 2026
In many societies, patriarchal
structures have existed for a long time. In these communities, women were
discriminated against being able to have medical care, legal and political
rights, education rights, and dignified employment, among others. In particular,
since childhood, gender inequalities have been perpetuated, in the form of
discrimination and lack of or limited opportunities, which has since generated
considerable gender biases for the development of women (Košir
& Lakshminarayanan, 2023). It is important to
mention that the concept of gender order is related to hegemonic masculinity,
which will also dominate over marginalized and subordinate masculinities.
Besides, the femininity category is given by the idea of “value”, i.e.
femininity is strongly related to the notion of compliance with subordination
and prioritizing the interests of men. Nevertheless, there are other types of
femininities but these are subversive and threaten the already established
relationship between man and woman. For example, lesbian relationships, women's
empowerment or authoritarianism (Ledman, et al.,
2021).
Robertoson et al.
(2022) argues that within organizations, gender inequality represents a complex
problem, and therefore it is very complicated to provide a unique solution.
Inequalities are implicitly integrated into organizational structures and
norms, even when the organizations themselves are aware of allowing gender
neutrality. “Gender is present in the processes, practices, images and
ideologies, and distributions of power”, even when it is stated that all that
is needed is to have the necessary merits to obtain something in the
organization. Gender intersects with organizations, people, and their
relationships. One of these gender inequalities is analyzed in the article of Nikunen, and Lempiäinen, (Nikunen & Lempiäinen, 2020)
where the authors exposed one of these inequalities in academia, the mobility
situation related to women. In other words, it is often stereotyped that women
have less mobility than men. There are real troubles combining work and family
that impact women more than men. Women present a major facility to change their
domiciles during the junior phase of their career, because they have fewer
family responsibilities than in other stages of their life, for example when
they decide to marry or to have children. “Dual-career relationships, which are
more common among academic women than men, complicate participation in academic
mobility much more than single-career relationships” (Nikunen
& Lempiäinen, 2020, p. 558). The term
“dual-career relationships” refers to relationships found in academic fields
where women academics with full-time working couples and children were less
likely to take part in international research teamwork than male-academics in
analogous circumstances.
One
of the most important findings during the research of Nikunen
& Lempiäinen
(2020) is that some researchers choose in the first place their family,
i.e. “put family first” and put aside their academic career. “Their strategy is
resistance –a gendered strategy based on family values– and trust (and also
hope) that there will be career positions available without their being mobile”
(Nikunen & Lempiäinen, 2020,
p. 567). Nevertheless, other research mentions that the same strategy works
better for men than for women, as a result of their stronger network
connections. Furthermore, in the article “Gender inequality in academia from
the perspective of the dialogical self: beyond autonomous men and relational
women” (Ghaempanah and Khapova,
2023) the authors explore the main idea related to gender inequality,
specifically if this gender inequality still plays an opposite role in the
professional progression of women in academia and they founded three postulates
on gender inequality. The first postulate exposed that the first gender
inequality appears from the dialogues between self, organization and society.
The second postulate arises through the dialogue between self-theory and
attending to the multiplicity of “I positions” afford a deep refined
description of this gender inequality, exposing the dichotomy of “autonomous
men” and “relational women”. The third postulate is the friction in the
dialogical structure of the self, which is related to self-organization and
society, and is not related to the individualized psychological
characteristics. On the other hand, the World Health Organization asserts that
schooling level is an important marker of inequality, economic vulnerability
and propensity to violence (ONU Mujeres México, 2020;
WHO, 2021a, 2021b). In Mexico, only 17% of the youth population manages to
enter higher education (Animal Político, 2017).
Although, throughout history, women have gained access to higher education,
going from 27% of the student body in 1977 to 52% in 2020 (Morales, 1989),
there is a pronounced gender gap among careers that significantly affects their
future (García & Torres, 2022). In this way, most of the so-called STEM
careers (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) are masculinized
(García & Torres, 2022), and taking into account that on average they have
higher incomes than other bachelor's degrees, we can say that this
masculinization contributes significantly to the wage gap that is shown in our
country by gender (Avedaño et al., 2020). This gender
gap in STEM careers is expected to affect the economic future of women (Organización para la Cooperación
y el Desarrollo Económicos,
2016).
Due
to the last paragraph, a couple of questions have arisen over the past few
decades when observing these statistical inequalities: (a) What is the possible
reason for the gender gap in STEM areas at UNAM? And (b) how can we address
this inequality and work towards greater inclusion of other groups? These
questions constitute the core of this analysis.
Theoretical
Framework
Our position is grounded in feminist
epistemologies and philosophical studies of science and technology, aiming to
dismantle the natural sciences' discourses that argue for a “natural inequality”
between the sexes. This theoretical framework proposes that gender gaps in STEM
fields are not inevitable biological facts, but rather historically situated
phenomena that must be understood through the historization of their
construction within the Mexican context. Following authors such as Schiebinger (2004) and Maffia
(2007), we analyze how the institutionalization of modern science excluded
women by assigning values of objectivity and reason to a masculine ideal, while
displacing subjectivity to the realm of the feminine. Furthermore, we
incorporate the critiques of Ciccia (2022) and
Guerrero Mc Manus (2022) to denounce how biological determinism reduces complex
social and political phenomena to mere “effects of nature”, ignoring the power
dynamics that permeate university education and scientific training. Ultimately,
this framework seeks to visualize how gender biases and stereotypes circulated
within institutional discourses in Mexico, justifying exclusion and
naturalizing inequality in access to scientific culture.
Methodology.
To operationalize this perspective, the
methodology is structured in two analytical dimensions. First, it examines
contemporary and historical scientific discourses from the biologicist
natural sciences to identify the purported differences in capacities required
for scientific practice, which lead these discourses to interpret gender gaps
as a direct product of natural inequalities. Second, this section initiates a
dialogue between these biologicist explanations and
historical-social analysis. By examining specific instances where such
narratives permeated decision-making spaces in university education and
scientific training, we aim to historize the construction of gender gaps in
STEM in Mexico. We argue that it is essential to “look back at history” to understand
that these gaps are not inevitable biological facts, while also analyzing how biologicist explanations were constructed within the
natural sciences themselves.
Gender gaps
in the context of Mexico’s HEIs: case UNAM
In recent years, Mexico has gone
through a major crisis of gender violence that has had various manifestations
on different scales. The most striking indicator is the number of femicides.
Mexico ranks second in Latin America in absolute numbers and ninth in relative
numbers, i.e. 1.4 per 100,000 women (one hundred and thousand). The social
sciences have argued that the very high incidence of this crime is part of the
reinforcement of the social message that public space is not for women (Pich 2003, as cited in López 2020). This allows the
perpetuation of social orders, roles and stigmas based on gender.
Gender-based
violence (GBV) is increasingly being recognized as a problem in schools,
colleges and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) worldwide (Anitha et. al., 2024). According to WHO (2020, 2021a, 2021b)
reports, young women and LGBTQ+ students between the ages of 15 and 24 are the
most at risk of suffering GBV globally. Data such as these are of utmost
importance for the present work, since our university community in school
education is mostly within this age range. The most documented types of GBV
experienced in this age range are sexual aggressions that may or may not be
perpetrated by their intimate partners or husbands. According to these reports,
the main risk factors are inequalities, with the highest rates concentrated in
low-income countries, which Mexico is part of (WHO, 2021). In addition, there
are other indicators of violence against women and vulnerable groups based on
their gender, such as low access to paid work and low levels of schooling,
among others (WHO, 2021a, 2021b). Taking into account the recognition given by
WHO to the level of schooling as an important marker of inequality, economic
vulnerability and propensity to violence (ONU Mujeres
México, 2020; WHO, 2021a, 2021b), it is necessary to recognize that in Mexico
only 17% of the youth population enter higher education (Animal Político, 2017), that is, there is a systemic manifestation
of violence that attacks the right to public education.
In
2020, the number of people who were part of the Human Resources Educated in
Science and Technology (RHCyTE) was 14.3 % million,
which represents an increase of 12% over the year of 2019. Of this total,
87.58% of people have undergraduate studies, 9.25% have graduate studies and
3.17% have technical studies. At the undergraduate level, there has been
an increase in the number of women graduates. This gap has been narrowing from
2014 to 2022 exceeding the percentage of the male population by more than 7% (Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México [UNAM], 2023) (See Table
1).
Table 1. Percentage disaggregated by gender
about graduates at the undergraduate level, 2014 to 2022.
|
Genders |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
|
Women |
50.1% |
50.0% |
50.3% |
50.7% |
51.1% |
51.7% |
52.6% |
53.6% |
53.8% |
|
Man |
49.9% |
50.0% |
49.7% |
49.3% |
48.9% |
48.3% |
47.4% |
46.4% |
46.2% |
Source:
table made by
the authors with data from UNAM, 2023.
Something similar happens at the master’s
level where from 2014 to 2022 an increase in the percentage of women who
graduated from this educational level is observed (see Table 2).
Table 2. Percentage disaggregated by gender
of graduates at the masters level, 2014 to 2022.
|
Genders |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
|
Women |
54.2% |
54.7% |
55.4% |
55.2% |
55.3% |
55.9% |
57.2% |
57.8% |
58.4% |
|
Man |
45.8% |
45.3% |
44.6% |
44.8% |
44.7% |
44.1% |
42.8% |
42.2% |
41.6% |
Source: table made by the authors with data from UNAM, 2023.
At the Ph.D. level, it is observed
that from 2014 to 2022 there are more female graduates than male.
Table 3. Percentage disaggregated by gender
of graduates at the doctoral level, 2014 to 2022.
|
Genders |
2014 |
2015 |
2016 |
2017 |
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
|
Women |
48.6% |
48.4% |
48.3% |
48.8% |
49.7% |
49.9% |
50.5% |
52% |
52.3% |
|
Men |
51.4% |
51.6% |
51.7% |
51.2% |
50.3% |
50.1% |
49.5% |
48.9% |
47.7% |
Source: table made by the authors with data from UNAM, 2023.
Although throughout history women
have gained access to university, from 27% of the student body in 1977 to 52%
in 2020 (Morales, 1989), there is a marked gender gap in careers that
significantly affects their future (García & Torres, 2022). Within the careers
offered at UNAM, we can appreciate this phenomenon, for example, in 2018 of its
166 careers in the school system, in 58 careers, more than 60% of the
population matriculated on these careers are trained by women, that is, there
is a process of feminization (Centro de Investigaciones
y Estudios de Género [CIEG], 2023; Coordinación
General de Planeación y Simplificación
de la Gestión Administrativa,
2023). This phenomenon is evident in Social Work degree programs, where the
percentage of women exceeds 80%; it is also present in Nursing and Obstetrics,
where women represent 73%; and in Psychology, where they account for 72% (Coordinación General de Planeación
y Simplificación de la Gestión
Administrativa, 2023). On the other hand, there are
male-dominated careers where less than 47% of the population is represented by
women (CIEG, 2023; Coordinación General de Planeación y Simplificación de la
Gestión Administrativa-UNAM,
2023). For example, (1) in the Faculty of Engineering, the percentage of women
is 25.9% while the percentage of men is 74.1%. (2) In the Faculty of Economics,
the percentage of women is 31.5% while the percentage of men is 68.5%, and (3)
in Applied Mathematics, the percentage of women is 18% while the percentage of
men is 82%. Therefore, we can observe gender biases where such careers are
masculinized. Likewise, it should be noted that as the academic career advances
and, with it, the possibilities of accessing resources and spaces of power and
decision-making, we observe that the process of masculinization continues to
operate. In addition, there is always the possibility of dropping out of
school, which may be due to a variety of factors, thus affecting the
possibility of entering the labor market in a negative way.
Regarding
paid academic work, at the international level, there is a noticeable
inequality that accumulates as there is an ascent to decision-making positions
and access to resources. There are some researches, such as the work of
Crimmins et al. (2023), Frederick et al. (2019), and Villa Lever (2018), that
has demonstrated that inequalities in higher education are reinforced by
overlapping social factors including race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status,
which create profound structural deprivation in both European and Mexican
contexts. While we acknowledge that an intersectional methodology is a
framework for addressing these intertwined asymmetries, this study focuses on
gender disparities at UNAM as a foundational step.
Within
the analysis of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in Mexico, particularly at
UNAM, progress in the academic career in research is manifested by membership
and advancement in the ranks of the National System of Researchers granted by
the National Council of Humanities, Sciences and Technologies (CONAHCYT). The
SNI levels include: Candidate, Level I, Level II, Level III and Emeritus. In
2020, 4,992 members of the National System of Researchers (SNI) of the UNAM
were registered, of which 60% are men and 40% are women. At the Candidate level
men represent 54% and women 46%; at Level I men represent 56% and women 44%,
and Level II men have a representation of 62% and women 38%, Level III men
represent 74% and women only 26%. Thus, the so-called STEM careers (Science,
Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) are masculinized (García & Torres,
2022) and, taking into account that on average they have higher incomes than
other degrees, we can say that such masculinization contributes significantly
to the wage gap shown in our country by gender (Avedaño
et al., 2020). In many studies, there have been countless inequalities related
to gender. Although some fields such as Psychology and Biology have had a
greater participation of women and have been able to add gender perspective to
their academic programs. Nevertheless, there are other areas such as
Engineering, Physics and Computer Sciences that have a greater number of men in
their academic enrollment. These disparities are even more meaningful when
these fields of study intersect with historically vulnerable groups such as the
community of LatinAmerica-women and AfroAmerican-descendants’ women, who continue to be
underrepresented among undergraduate and graduate students (Frederick et al.,
2019).
Ottemo et al. (2021) describe in previous research related to
gender bias that these gender inequalities have been more evident in areas such
as Computer Engineering and Physics. Due to, STEM areas have justified these
gender biases based on masculine attributes. This gender gap in STEM careers is
expected to affect the economic future of women due to technological changes
and automatization that are predicted in the medium term in the labor market (Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos [OECD], 2018). As mentioned before, the level of
schooling is an important marker of inequality, economic vulnerability and
propensity to violence according to the World Health Organization (ONU Mujeres México, 2020; WHO, 2021a, 2021b), where gender as a
social organizer plays a fundamental role. Addressing this problem, the gender
gap in different spaces, particularly in STEM career training, implies paying
attention to access to training spaces, to conditions that challenge
inequality, the economic gap and the propensity to gender violence, among other
things. We must understand this to work within our context.
Unequal
access to resources and academic training spaces are consequences of gender
gaps in STEM. Universities must address this problem to build egalitarian
spaces. The analysis process is complex, as it involves a historical, political
and social context. Science has even served to legitimize such a process. This
work focuses on providing a review of biologicism
from a feminist perspective. Biologicist discourses
explain the gap as the effect of a biological reality placed in sexual
differences and operating in different biological loci, which
materializes in the behavior and cognitive capacities of women, thus
naturalizing a supposed sexual dimorphism that goes hand in hand with gender
roles (Blazquez, 2008; Blazquez
& Chapa, 2018; Ciccia 2022). To analyze the
problem described above, we consider that it is necessary to review the point
of view of feminist epistemologies, which is presented in the next pages.
Biologicism and feminist
epistemologies in STEM
There are numerous historical
analyses that address the ways in which the modern institutionalization of
science attempted to explain differentiated faculties by a dichotomous ideal of
sex as a starting point for the exclusion of women and non-hegemonic
subjectivities from formal scientific education and practice (Schiebinger, 2004; Maffia, 2007; Ciccia, 2022).
For
reasons of space, and delimiting some examples within Biology, we observe in
works ranging from the most important of Darwin (1968, 1981) to contemporary
works, biological explanations that support the above. With Darwin, starting in
the 19th century, biology began a particular way of approaching questions about
sex, sexuality and the socio-affective behavior of human beings. This
inaugurates an explanatory pattern that seeks to elaborate and answer the
questions of sex and sexuality from the biological point of view where, in
particular, it will seek to prioritize the role that natural selection and
sexual selection had in shaping alleged behavioral and intellectual sexual
differences between men and women (Cervantes, 2015; Guerrero, 2015).
One
of the most widespread claims regarding the alleged differences between men and
women and the underrepresentation and distribution of the latter in the
sciences is the myth of male mathematical-rational and female verbal-emotional
natures. Biological discourses have constantly emerged from biology that serve
a process of naturalization of inequality expressed in gender gaps; that is,
they constrain complex, social, political, historical and disputed phenomena to
mere effects of nature, and, in this case, of biology. They explain gender gaps
as the effects of biological realities placed on the basis of sexual
differences. According to this explanation, women are biologically less suited
to the sciences, particularly the STEM sciences. Some of the claims about these
alleged cognitive differences and intellectual abilities are summarized in the
following Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of the alleged
cognitive differences and intellectual abilities presented in different
bibliographies consulted.
|
Author(s) |
Publication’s
name |
Men
posture |
Women
posture |
|
Darwin
(1981) |
The Descent
of Man. |
Higher
mental faculties. Strong passions such as courage, bellicosity, increased
energy, ambition, selfishness. like
bravery, bellicosity, greater energy, ambition. |
Lower
mental faculties. Tender beings, unselfish, maternal, intuitive, with rapid
perception and imitation capacity. |
|
Benbow and
Stanley (1983) Benbow
(1988) |
Sex
differences in mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. (1983) Sex
differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents:
Their nature, effects, and possible causes. (1988) |
Greater
variability in intrinsic mathematical talent. |
Less
variability in intrinsic mathematical talent. |
|
Gaulin (1992) Tiwari M.
et al. (2023) |
Evolution
of sex difference in spatial ability. Wayfinding
Strategies and Sense of Direction in Local Environment: Exploring Gender
Differences. |
Greater spatial orientation in men. Males use route and orientation
strategies better than females depending upon context. |
Verbal
intelligence in girls. |
|
Kimura (1996,
2002) |
Sex,
sexual orientation and sex hormones influence human cognitive function. Sex
hormones influence human cognitive patterns. |
When
examining language spatial abilities and visual and tactile perceptual tasks,
boys do better than girls in most cases. The
cognitive systems of effective reasoning in mathematics are dominated by men.
|
Verbal
memory, quick perception. |
|
Szadvari &
Jaroslava
(2022) |
Sex
differences matter: males and females are equal but not the same. |
The
average male brain is designed to better connect sensory perception with
motor activity. |
The female brain is predisposed
to link analytical and intuitive processing. |
From the perspective of biologicism, biological causality, posited as a supposed
human nature, has been thought of as mechanisms that operate from different
biological loci (genetic, chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal and cerebral) that
materialize in sexual differences at the behavioral level and in cognitive
capacities between men and women.
In
this work, we propose that in the case of Mexico at UNAM that some biologicist narratives and deterministics
explanations circulated within discourses and public arguments through which
the exclusion of women from certain public, educational and scientific
institutions was justified and naturalized. We argue that the process of
excluding women from scientific education must be addressed as a complex
process dating back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, which includes the
use of gender stereotypes and the construction of supposed sexual differences
in arguments articulated with moral considerations, social expectations about
gender and biologically deterministic explanations.
Given
the studies such as González (2006), we know that scientific arguments were
offered by the educational authorities to limit the study of science (González,
2006) to women, at a time when science was being institutionalized in modern
universities and, specifically, in Mexican institutions. The questions and
debates among Mexican politicians revolved around the level of education that
was deemed appropriate for women. These discussions were often resolved based
on moral considerations, societal expectations regarding gender roles, and
purported intellectual disparities between men and women. This was grounded in
a sexual dichotomy that reinforced corresponding social distinctions.
Motherhood
played an important role in justifying the role of women in society, which made
it impossible for them to receive training in science. Thus, we can appreciate
debates about decision-making in Mexican educational models during the 19th
century as it follows: “I believe that if we reflect on the fact that these
girls must later become mothers, whose mission is very delicate because they
have to educate their children” (Debates del Congreso
Nacional, 1889, pp. 227-228; as cited in González, 2006, p. 781).
In
the same way, educational authorities such as Palavicini
(1910), official of the Secretariat of Public Instruction and Fine Arts, argued
in Problemas de la Educación
that women had a biology that made scientific thinking impossible, “their lower
intellectual capacity was due to the fact that their brains weighed less than
men's” (Palavacini, 1910; as cited in González, 2006,
p. 784).
In
early twentieth-century education magazines it was recommended that women
should not receive scientific training, because “the excess of scientific
intuition attacks women's organism [...] anemia and neurosis take hold of them
and the children they have are weak and puny” (El Magisterio
Nacional, 1905, pp 142-143). The above examples illustrate the use of
positivist scientific narratives with sexist undertones in Mexico in the early
20th century, particularly in the realm of political decision-making. During
that time, the idea that women lacked the biological capacity to participate in
politics or assume leadership roles due to alleged innate differences between
men and women was widespread. These beliefs, supported by positivist scientific
approaches, had a significant impact on policies and decisions that restricted
women's access to positions of power and participation in the public sphere. The situation started to change with
the international feminist resistance and mobilizations, particularly the
Mexican ones, by organizations, for example, the “Sociedad Protectora
de la Mujer”. Activists such as the teacher, writer,
poet and defender of women's rights, Correa (1853-1924), strongly questioned
that “nature” determined the conditions and capacity of women, “women have been
confined to a position of inferiority and dependence on men, by social, not
natural laws” (México Intelectual, 1903, p. 247, as
cited in González, 2006). In the same way, Correa wrote during a critical
moment of discussion regarding women's education in Mexico:
Do not let yourselves be influenced
by the traditional idea that science is harmful to women. Do not believe either
that there is a single branch of science that is impossible to learn, as long
as you want to study it, nor that it is possible to teach. (La Enseñanza Normal, 1905, p. 288, as cited in González, 2006)
Until the last decade of the 19th
century, women in Mexico and Latin America managed to obtain their first
university degrees. However, during the Mexican Porfiriato,
these achievements were exceptional, as the State had barely implemented
technical education programs aimed at lower-class women, with the goal of
integrating them into the industry. The only other educational option available
was training as teachers. The strong sexism of the time influenced the lack of
social acceptance for women to choose liberal careers such as Law or Medicine;
and, on less frequent occasions, they were allowed to study to become midwives
(Mata, 2017).
Although
Mexican women in the 20th century managed to access spaces of knowledge
production, it is crucial to note that explanations alluding to a supposed feminine
nature were never excluded from scientific discourse, just as political
interests and context were never omitted from scientific narratives. While the
context explaining the exclusion of women from universities is complex and
requires a detailed analysis in each country, it is essential in this work to
bring into view the circulation of sexist scientific narratives in the Mexican
context. Addressing this aspect could provide additional elements for
understanding current gaps in STEM fields in Mexico from a historically
situated feminist perspective.
Interdisciplinary counterpositions
with feminist epistemologies
Thanks to feminist analysis,
biological deterministic explanations are now recognized as untenable from both
the philosophy and history of natural sciences, as well as from biology itself
(Guerrero Mc Manus, 2022). In this work, we argue that such explanations are
insufficient for explaining gender gaps in STEM fields, particularly when these
gaps are approached as historically situated phenomena. What are the elements
of reflection that we propose from a feminist perspective for disassembling
biological determinism in understanding gender inequalities and gaps in STEM
areas within the Mexican context?
Maffía (2007) invites us to think that this type of explanation
played a process that prevented the participation of subalternate communities,
among them women, by impeding their participation in epistemic communities that
constructed and legitimized knowledge and by expelling qualities attributed to “the
feminine” in the epistemic space.
In
the words of Schiebinger, they were part of a complex
historical process based on the exclusion of women, first, from university
spaces with the conformation of modern universities and second, with the
assignment of supposedly feminine characteristics as opposed to the values of
objectivity and reason necessary for the correct exercise of the sciences (Schiebinger, 2004). In this sense, rationality, logical
capacity, capacity for abstraction and ultimately, universality, the
possibility of access to objectivity was attributed to a masculine ideal; while
that which subtracted epistemic value for belonging to scientific communities,
such as sensitivity, singularity and ultimately, subjectivity, was attributed
to a feminine ideal. Both categories, dichotomous and mutually exclusive, Diana
Maffia established a relationship between women and
science as a forced conjunction of two categories historically defined (under
androcentric thinking) not to unite (Maffia, 2007).
In
more recent works such as “The invention of the sexes”, Ciccia
(2022) explains in a very schematic and clear way the ways in which the
dichotomization of sexed bodies, together with their assignment in cognitive
roles according to gender and under the view that the mind is located in the
brain, is understandable more as a result of a historical process in dispute of
powers than as an effect of given biological realities.
It
explains a historically mobile sexual difference that played a fundamental role
in the process of dichotomization of sexed bodies and in the assignment of
cognitive roles in an exclusive and hierarchical way, which in the eyes of
neuroscience, biology and the philosophy of cognitive sciences, would be
unsustainable. Ciccia recognizes the project of
modern science as a process where social dichotomy is projected onto bodies as
sexual dimorphism (Ciccia, 2022, p. 41). In this same
sense, the work of Richardson’s (2010) points out that androcentric biases and
the dominant forms of knowledge production put women at a disadvantage in the
sciences and philosophy. To which we would add that it is precisely the current
forms of these biases in their cis-hetero-sexist version that should be brought
to the explanation of the gender gaps in STEM when talking about the current
exclusion mechanisms at play within some scientific spaces both for women and
for people of gender diversity.
Richardson
(2010) presents the arduous path involved in establishing new ways of
establishing scientific explanations and promoting educational developments of
non-hegemonic communities. The inclusion of these communities is not enough,
for example, women's access to science does not imply the exercise of science
with a gender perspective or feminist science, which is necessary to establish
critical perspectives in the face of explanations that reiterate and justify
inequality.
The
elements of reflection that we propose from a feminist perspective to dismantle
biological determinism in understanding the gender gaps in STEM areas in Mexico
are primarily, though not exclusively, aimed at initiating reflection within
scientific communities where beliefs linked to stereotypes and gender roles
about the limited presence of women in these areas still prevail. This
perspective could have a positive impact on the processes of mentoring,
teaching, awareness, and training of all members of academic communities, and
additionally, catalyze the processes to incorporate the gender perspective in
STEM areas in a cross-cutting manner. These processes are still in the process
of consolidation, at least in Mexico.
Conclusions
This work presents different points
of view related to gender division jobs in science and the importance of gender
roles to explain these phenomena in STEM areas and in society in general. Those
are the first steps towards attention to analyze the problem related to gender
stereotypes, and gender bias, also to examine their direct and collateral
effects.
In
recent decades, the supposed biological and psychological differences between
men and women were defended as natural and inevitable, which shows the role
that science has played in the process of naturalization of gender inequalities
in STEM science education.
When explanations occur that
naturalize complex social conditions, the warnings from the philosopher Caponi can occur:
Naturalization can promote
conservative attitudes and can contribute to legitimizing the status quo, which
in addition to being undesirable and unfair, would also be unchangeable [...] to
the extent that naturalization can result in some form of legitimation,
critical thinking must always seek to distort what wants to impose itself as
ineluctable. (Caponi, 2018, p. 188)
In a critical sense, the
philosophical relevance of questions about gender and science, of the feminist
philosophy of science, goes beyond the identification and diagnosis of gender
bias in different areas of science and philosophy (Richardson, 2010). Its
usefulness must do, above all, with the approaches that are generated from
there, in addition to the original, inclusive and challenging questions about
science, and in this case, about the gender gaps that we find in technosciences.
In
this way, what is privileged in the feminist perspectives, and that we rescue
in this work, is the recognition of the existence of sociocultural and
historical processes and relevant social normative categories in the scientific
and university communities.
The
research argues that dismantling these biases is not just an academic exercise,
but a necessary step for social justice in Mexico. Some of the proposals, given
the context in STEM areas, are: (1) to eliminate the "occupational
division" (the idea that women are naturally better suited for care roles
and men for technical/STEM roles), women can access high-growth, higher-paying
sectors. Dismantling the bias that men are "naturally" more competent
in STEM helps ensure equal pay for equal work; (b) mitigating vulnerability to
violence in an academic environment, i.e. changing the "hegemonic
masculine" culture in STEM classrooms to reduce the symbolic and
structural violence that often pushes women out of these careers; (c) give
women more representation and leadership in these fields, the power dynamics
shift, making it harder for cultures of harassment or exclusion to persist, and
(d) adding gender perspective to our institutional public policy reforms to reglamentations, guides and protocols in Superior
Educational Institutions like the UNAM, to create support systems that treat
gender inequality as a structural problem to be solved, rather than an
inevitable biological fact.
The
exclusion processes can be varied, they can be understood as forms of exercise
of gender violence, as long as it is mediated and mediating hierarchical exercises
of power that constrain access to spaces, rights (such as education), and
resources of certain communities; while privileging others. Works such as that
of Cerroni & Simonella
(2012) and Ortman (2016) have shown that the
exclusion process can be an effect of symbolic violence in STEM areas. Mexican
feminist philosophers have already pointed out that the participation and
incorporation of women and, we will add, the new policies linked to a culture
of inclusion and diversity in STEM areas, occur simultaneously with different
forms of exclusion still present in academic circles, from education up to the
highest positions of power in the scientific structure (Blazquez,
2008; Cerroni and Simonella,
2012; Ortmann, 2016). In particular, discrimination
and gender bias have been important components in identifying the exclusion of
different vulnerable groups such as women, who have been assumed in the
different knowledge production spaces such as classrooms, laboratories,
seminars, etc. These forms of exclusions must be eliminated at all levels in
formal education, in particular in higher education spaces, including UNAM,
from where we have been doing our latest work. In the same way, it is extremely
important to establish the bases to teach with a gender perspective and with
feminist epistemologies in the field of biology and in general in STEM
sciences.
Feminist
epistemologies constitute critically relevant tools for addressing these
issues; however, we are aware of the need to incorporate intersectional analyses
into scientific education globally, but especially in countries like Mexico
(see “Future Work” section).
These
analyses can address previously identified issues such as the
underrepresentation of women from racial or ethnic minorities in STEM education,
which has been recognized as a fundamental problem in global scientific
education processes (Riegle-Crumb & King, 2010; Ong et al., 2011, as cited
in Frederick et al., 2019).
In
the scientific education provided by Mexican universities in general, and particularly
within the Faculty of Sciences at UNAM, research aimed at addressing the gender
gaps in STEM areas continues to be relevant for gender studies, especially when
it brings into view the historical, sociocultural and institutional levels of
analysis. Similarly, these processes still constitute a relatively unexplored
field and therefore hold great potential for future research that could also
benefit from a situated feminist perspective, capable of finely weaving
observations of problems that affect realities as diverse as those found in
Mexico.
Future work
The next step of this work is to
study the case of the Faculty of Sciences of the UNAM, in the interest of
identifying, naming, and finding some strategies to eliminate gender
inequalities, gender stereotypes, inequality salaries, and gender bias in
science areas, it should be able to attend and to eliminate all those forms of
gender violence in the Mexican context of Higher Education Institutions at the
undergraduate level: Science School at UNAM.
Building
upon the findings of the present study, we suggest that one of the future researches
formally could adopt an intersectional methodology. This shift will allow us to
investigate how gender gaps at UNAM are exacerbated by other factors such as
socioeconomic status, geographic origin, and ethnicity, providing a more
granular understanding of exclusion in Mexican STEM education. Besides, another
possible line of future research would be to conduct this same type of analysis
with members of the LGBTIQ+ community and compare the data obtained.
Furthermore, the research could be framed within a relational methodology to
identify other categories that could enrich this type of study.
Animal Político (2017). Educación Superior en México. https://www.animalpolitico.com/2017/09/educacion-superior-mexico-estudiantes-universidad-ocde/
Anitha,
S., Jordan A. & Chanamuto
N.
(2024). The politics of naming and construction: university policies on
gender-based violence in the UK. Gender and Education, 36(1),
86-103. https://hdl.handle.net/10779/lincoln.24876894
Avendaño, F., Chávez
I., Clark P., Cortés P. & Masse F. (2020). Las mujeres
no ganan lo mismo que los hombres. Centro de Investigación en Política
Pública.
https://imco.org.mx/las-mujeres-no-ganan-lo-mismo-que-los-hombres-2/
Benbow, C. (1988). Sex differences in mathematical
reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature,
effects, and possible causes. Behavioral and Brain sciences, 11(2),
169-183.
Benbow, C. & Stanley, J. (1983). Sex differences in
mathematical reasoning ability: More facts. Science, 222(4627),
1029-1031.
Blázquez, N. (2008). El retorno de las brujas. Incorporación,
aportaciones y críticas de las mujeres a la ciencia. Centro de
Investigaciones Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades, UNAM.
Blázquez, N. & Chapa, A. (2018).
Inclusión del análisis de género en la ciencia. Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México.
Caponi, G. (2018).
¿Qué quiere decir 'naturalizar'? Ludus
Vitalis, 26(50), 185-188. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6839074
Centro de
Investigaciones y Estudios de Género. (2023). Tendencias de Género:
Infografías. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. https://tendencias.cieg.unam.mx/boletin-20.html
Cerroni, A. & Simonella, Z. (2012). Ethos and symbolic violence among
women of science: An empirical study. Social Science
Information, 51(2), 165-182.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0539018412437102
Cervantes, A. (2015). Análisis
y crítica de la influencia de R.L. Trivers en la
propuesta biologicista de estética evolutiva de R. Thornhill
[Tesis de Maestría]. UNAM.
Ciccia, L. (2022). La invención de los sexos: Cómo la ciencia puso el
binarismo en nuestros cerebros y cómo los feminismos pueden ayudarnos a salir
de ahí. Siglo XXI Editores.
Coordinación General de Planeación y
Simplificación de la Gestión Administrativa (2023). Agenda Estadística 2023.
UNAM. https://www.planeacion.unam.mx/Agenda/2023/pdf/AgendaUNAM2023.pdf
Crimmins, G., Casey, S. & Tsouroufli
M. (2023).
Intersectional barriers to women’s advancement in higher education institutions
rewarded for their gender and equity plans. Gender and Education, 35(6-7),
653-670. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2023.2238737
Darwin, C. (1968). The Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection. Penguin.
Darwin, C. (1981). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to
Sex. Princeton University Press.
Frederick, A., Daniels, H. A., Grineski,
S. E. & Collins, T. W. (2019). ‘I’ve never felt like that inhibits anything’: the
gendered frameworks of Hispanic women college students in a STEM program. Gender
and Education, 32(5), 646-663. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1260429
García, P. & Torres, F. (2022). En México,
solo 3 de cada 10 profesionistas STEM son mujeres. Centro de Investigación
en Política Pública. https://imco.org.mx/en-mexico-solo-3-de-cada-10-profesionistas-stem-son-mujeres/
Gaulin, S. (1992). Evolution of sex
difference in spatial ability. American Journal of Physical
Anthropology, 35(15), 125-151.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.1330350606
Ghaempanah, B. a & Khapova, S. (2023). Gender inequality in
academia from the perspective of the dialogical self: beyond ‘autonomous men’and ‘relational women’. Gender and
Education, 35(6-7), 605-622. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2023.2242367
González, R. (2006).
Las mujeres y su formación científica en la ciudad de México: siglo XIX y
principios del XX. Revista mexicana de investigación educativa, 11(30)
771-795. https://ojs.rmie.mx/index.php/rmie/article/view/1267
Guerrero, D. (2015). Teoría
de la selección sexual y sus problemas epistemológicos: Un análisis desde la
interdisciplina y la totalidad [Tesis de licenciatura]. UNAM.
Guerrero Mc Manus, S. (2022).
Debates metafísicos en torno al sexo. In S. Guerrero Mc Manus & L. Ciccia (Coords.), Materialidades
semióticas: Ciencia y cuerpo sexuado. UNAM: Centro de Investigaciones
Interdisciplinarias en Ciencias y Humanidades.
hooks, b. (2021). Enseñar a transgredir: La educación como práctica de la libertad.
Capitán Swing Libros.
Kimura, D. (1996). Sex, sexual orientation and sex hormones influence
human cognitive function. Current opinion in neurobiology, 6(2),
259-263. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8725969/
Kimura, D. (2002). Sex hormones influence human cognitive pattern. Neuroendocrinology
Letters, 23(4), 67-77. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12496737/
Košir, S. & Lakshminarayanan, R. (2023). Do visual constructs in
social science textbooks evince gender stereotypes and bias? A case study from
India. Gender and Education, 35(1), 69-88.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2144626
Ledman, K., Nylund, M., Rönnlund, M. & Rosvall, P. (2021). Being and becoming a female student and worker in
gendered processes of vocational education and training. Gender and Education, 33(5),
514-530. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1815659
López, E. (2020).
También en la UNAM se cuecen habas: Una mirada a la violencia hacia las mujeres
universitarias a partir del caso de Lesvy Rivera
Osorio. Ichan Tecolotl,
236. https://ichan.ciesas.edu.mx/tambien-en-la-unam-se-cuecen-habas-una-mirada-a-la-violencia-hacia-las-mujeres-universitarias-a-partir-del-caso-de-lesvy-rivera-osorio/
Maffia, D. (2007).
Epistemología feminista: la subversión semiótica de las mujeres en la ciencia. Revista
venezolana de estudios de la mujer, 12(28), 63-98. http://ve.scielo.org/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1316-37012007000100005&lng=es&nrm=iso>
Mata, R. (2017).
Ingreso y presencia de las mujeres en la matrícula universitaria en México. Revista
de El Colegio de San Luis, 7(14), 281-306.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6068935
Morales, L. (1989). La
mujer en la educación superior en México. Universidad Futura, 1, 27-34.
Nikunen, M. & Lempiäinen, K. (2020). Gendered strategies of
mobility and academic career. Gender and Education, 32(4),
554-571. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1533917
ONU Mujeres México (2020). Autonomía
económica para salir de una situación de violencia. https://mexico.unwomen.org/es/noticias-y-eventos/articulos/2021/11/autonomia-economica-para-salir-de-una-situacion-de-violencia.
Organización
para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos. (2016). Innovating Education and
Educating for Innovation: The Power of Digital Technology and Skills. OECD Publishing.
Organización para la
Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos. (2018). Perspectivas de la OCDE
en Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación 2016 (Extractos). OCDE.
Ortmann, C. (2016). Exclusión y violencia simbólica en la experiencia educativa de
las estudiantes de ingeniería. Revista Interdisciplinaria de Estudios de
Género de El Colegio de México, 3(5), 187-209.
https://doi.org/10.24201/eg.v3i5.122
Ottemo, A., Gonsalves, A. J. & Danielsson, A. T. (2021). (Dis) embodied masculinity
and the meaning of (non) style in physics and computer engineering education. Gender and Education, 33(8),
1017-1032. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2021.1884197
Palavacini, F. (1910). Problemas de educación. Sempere y Compañía, Editores.
Richardson,
S. (2010). Feminist philosophy of science:
history, contributions, and challenges. Synthese, 177, 337-362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9791-6.
Robertson,
S., Zuniga, P., Christenson, H. & Young, J. (2022). Gender dynamics in high
school policy debate: propagating gender hierarchies in advocating “better”
futures. Gender and Education, 34(8), 1025-1040.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2022.2094348
Schiebinger, L. (2004). ¿Tiene sexo la mente?: las mujeres en los orígenes de la
ciencia moderna. Ediciones Cátedras.
Szadvari, I.,
Daniela O. & Jaroslava D. (2022). Sex differences matter:
males and females are equal but not the same. Physiol
Behav, 259, 1-9. 10.1016/j.physbeh.2022.114038
Tiwari, K., Sweta P., Vikash K., Tushar S. & Yogesh A. (2023). Wayfinding Strategies and
Sense of Direction in Local Environment: Exploring Gender Differences. Mind and Society, 12(03),
23-27. https://doi.org/10.56011/mind-mri-123-20233
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (2023). “Matrícula Nacional de
Licenciatura”. Explorador de datos de Estudio Comparativo de Universidades
Mexicanas (ExECUM3). Dirección General de Evaluación Institucional, UNAM.
Villa Lever, L. (2018).
University spaces, gender and position of social origin: intersection of
inequalities. Gender
and Education,
32(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1501004
World Health Organization (2021a). La violencia
contra la mujer. https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women.
World Health Organization. (2021b) La
violencia contra la mujer es omnipresente y devastadora: la sufren una de cada
tres mujeres. https://www.who.int/es/news/item/09-03-2021-devastatingly-pervasive-1-in-3-women-globally-experience-violence.