If you’re the kind of person who believes women are not quite as smart as men, then there is seemingly plenty of evidence to back up your claim.
History features far fewer women in positions of influence and leadership. The stories of modern science rarely feature women at the forefront.
Our literary canon is filled with the writings of colourful men. Internationally renowned artists, whose works can fetch millions of dollars, are often men. Great philanthropists, entrepreneurs, politicians, pioneers and activists – all are predominantly men. In our popular consciousness, these categories feature few women.
But this is not proof that men are just simply smarter and more talented than women. It is rather proof that on top of the historical fact that a whole group has been deprived of opportunity, that deprivation is now exacerbated by claiming that the reason for the lack of achievement is a lack of ability.
This week, for the first time, a woman won the prestigious Fields Medal for Mathematics, which has been dubbed the “Nobel Prize” for mathematics. Maryam Mirzakhani, an Iranian maths professor at Stanford University in California, is the first woman to win since the prize was established 80 years ago.
Every week, brings news of a female first. These are not one-offs, but occur with increasing regularity. In the imaginable future perhaps such wins will not even be noteworthy. The obvious will finally be accepted: women have the capability and competence in all fields.
The president of the International Mathematical Union (IMU) that awarded the prize – and who also happens to be its first female president – explains why this history of supposed absence exists: “At the IMU we believe that mathematical talent is spread randomly and uniformly over the Earth – it is just opportunity that is not.”
It is exactly within this issue of opportunity that the history of women’s absence of achievement lies. When biology and social structures meant women were confined to the home, there was simply no opportunity for them to engage in the concentrated study or public activity required. Even in wealthier circles, education for women was considered an asset only to secure a good marriage.
Circles of influence and mentoring were closed clubs for men with women excluded from the kind of patronage and support they needed to excel, or simply just not allowed to be present. Even today, a male bias often persists in what we deem “good”.
For example, when it comes to books, there are more female authors, but male authors dominate literary prizes. Women’s writing is deemed just for women, men’s writing for both genders. And it’s worth remembering that often there were women in times past who made huge advancements, but many are simply forgotten by history.
With more and more women coming to prominence in the fields of science, maths, politics, business, literature, arts and public activism (the list is long) we need to start putting to rest once and for all the lingering idea that women do not have capabilities in such spheres.
Female winners like this week’s medallist make for wonderful news. They normalise the fact that women are just as capable of achievement, all they need is to be given the opportunity.
Shelina Zahra Janmohamed is the author of Love in a Headscarf and blogs at www.spirit21.co.uk
