Numbers and Narratives - Ideological obstacles

Ideological Obstacles on Women’s paths to mathematics

Prof. Paul Ernest, Exeter University, UK

There are a variety of ideological obstacles and obstructions on girls’, women’s, and others’ paths to success in mathematics. These include the following misconceptions.

1. Individualism –mathematics is learnt by oneself and researched individually

2. Competitive vs cooperative work. Maths learning and advancement benefit from individual competition.

3. ‘Great man’ theory – advances are made by individual geniuses (usually men) acting on their own without reference to those ‘on whose shoulders they stand’.

4. Binary assumption – you either have or don’t have mathematical ability. Mathematics is only accessible to a talented and gifted few

5. Effortlessness – for those with talent mathematics is effortless. Those who struggle don’t have ‘it’, leading to shame and the imposter syndrome

6. Objectivity of mathematics – it is a timeless and superhuman body of necessary knowledge. Any problems in encounters with mathematics are yours alone.

7. Neutrality and value-free nature of mathematics – it is a pure and abstract game set apart from human interests and values, beyond good and evil.

8. Achievement bias – boys and men achieve higher in mathematics than girls and women, and contradictory evidence is ignored.

9. There is a male or masculine mind – with separated values and cognition (Gilligan), systems thinking (Baron-Cohen) needed for success in mathematics

10. The masculinity of mathematics is exclusionary for girls and women, and is antithetical to femininity - (mathematics ≠ feminine).

This list is provisional, but these ideological assumptions are still widespread misconceptions throughout education and society. They disadvantage women and others including some ethnic minorities and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, while advantaging and privileging white middle class males. They uphold patriarchal structures and conceptions and are internalised by everyone, except those who manage to free themselves. For the privileged they are advantageous. But for woman and other minorities they are disadvantageous, eroding self-confidence and self-efficacy and inducing them to do the exclusionary work on and within themselves.

Afterthoughts

Paul Ernest offered a sharp critique of the cultural myths that continue to shape who belongs in mathematics. He outlined ten persistent misconceptions—such as the myth of the solitary genius and the belief in mathematics as neutral and value-free—that act as systemic barriers to inclusion.

These ideologies don’t just exclude; they are internalized, shaping how women and marginalized groups see themselves within mathematics. Ernest’s account resonated deeply with Numbers and Narratives, which similarly challenges exclusionary narratives by foregrounding memory, affect, and the lived experiences of those who have resisted dominant norms.

His emphasis on discourse and self-conception highlights that exclusion is not only structural but psychic and cultural. Addressing it requires more than reform—it demands a reimagining of what mathematics is, and who it is for.