employ is for the most part unaccepted by society in general, and men in particular. In turn, women have been associated with those things creative, such as writing, verbal communication, painting, and other attributes that supposedly lack as a requirement the possession of objectivity. This, too, has been for the most part accepted by society, again by men in particular. The notion that men are more prone to 'hard' scientific work by virtue of their objectivity, while women are more prone to 'soft' creative work by virtue of their subjectivity, is a product of the socialization process, which may have emanated from the beginning of humankind when men were the hunters and women, the gatherers.
Keller (1985, p. 76) contends, "The fact that the scientific population is, even now, a population that is overwhelmingly male, is itself a consequence rather than a cause of the attribution of masculinity to scientific thought." The notion that women are less objective then their male counterparts is deeply ingrained in humankind from birth through death. This dual standard, which acts to promote and sustain such divisiveness between the traits of the sexes and the sexes themselves, is so pervasive that it affects every aspect of human life. The socialization process, with which males and females alike are prepared for life, unjustly relegates the latter to positions that complement those of the former. That is, female children are socialized in accordance to adherence of the dual standard. They are taught by their parents, significant others, and the institutions within society to be submissive, conveniently incapable of existing without the opposite sex, less aspiring to the 'hard' professions and, consequently, to develop those skills and attributes denoting 'soft' work. In contrast, male children are taught to be assertive, if not aggressive, aspire to the 'hard' professions, and to develop those attributes that support and sustai...