Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me.

College students, especially women, demonstrated negativity toward math and science relative to arts and language on implicit measures. Group membership (being female), group identity (self female), and gender stereotypes (math male) were related to attitudes and identification with mathematics. Stronger implicit math male stereotypes corresponded with more negative implicit and explicit math attitudes for women but more positive attitudes for men. Associating the self with female and math with male made it difficult for women, even women who had selected math-intensive majors, to associate math with the self. These results point to the opportunities and constraints on personal preferences that derive from membership in social groups. When the New York Times interviewed the three living female descendants of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the focus was not on the indisputable mark she had left on American society but rather the effect she had had on her own family (Bumiller, 1998). The accomplishments of this housewife who organized the historic 1848 Seneca Falls convention to demand the right of women to vote were visible even in the careers of her own daughters and their daughters. The youngest of the women interviewed, also named Elizabeth and 13 years old at the time, said that she would like to be an engineer or an architect, following in the footsteps of her grandmother and great-grandmother. Although she showed cognizance of the hurdles that stood in the way of her ancestor’s battle for a simple equality, she was optimistic about the present, remarking that now “anything’s possible for anyone” (p. B6). The idea that anything ought to be possible for anyone is the foundation of many proclamations of equality, such as the constitutions of nations and their legal codes. Yet, as even a superficial historical glance reveals, demarcations of humans into social groups and their unequal access to resources have been the primary impetus for theory and action to achieve social justice. As psychologists, we are interested in the mechanisms by which aspirations for equality are undermined—not by a lack of legal protection but in the more basic social and mental processes that determine individual preferences and choices. The operation of such processes can be subversive—they appear to reflect a free and individually determined choice when in fact they reflect group membership, the strength of identity with the group, and beliefs about the capability of the group. In this article, we focus on the fundamental dichotomy of gender as we investigate preferences for mathematics (and science) versus the arts (and language). The covariation between gender and orientation toward math and science is well known: Men are assumed to be and demonstrated to be more inclined to participate