The underrepresentation of women in engineering is something that impacts the everyday lives of women.
Everyone is aware of the obvious benefits of increasing the number of women in engineering (breaking stereotypes, increasing women in high paying professions etc.) but far too often in the discussions about underrepresentation of women in engineering, one of the biggest points is missed.
Engineers build the world around us. Engineering as a profession impacts your life on a daily basis and everyday you use countless things that were designed by an engineer.
Currently we are living in a world where most of our technology is designed by men. Increasing the role of women in engineering & technology is vital to shift towards a more female-friendly world (and no I'm not talking about pink everything!)
Engineering & technology are designed to make our lives easier and the innovations that have occured over the last 10 years are astounding. Imagine if more of that innovation could be harnessed to improve the lives of women and address needs that women have.
My hope, is to spread the message to young girls and young women that engineering is an important profession for impacting the world, the environment and the lives of women. I also want to let them know that they too fit the bill of "what an engineer looks like" because I think so often it is hard for young girls to imagine an engineer as anything other than a man, much less, to imagine themselves as an engineer.
This is why I've started the blog: This is what an Engineer looks like to increase visibility of women in engineering and showcase their stories.
So please, if you know of any girls in elementary school or high school please pass on the message and the blog!
Women in Engineering can change the world! (Also, check out Engineers without Borders for more great work being done by Engineers)
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Engineering & Feminism - Why it matters.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12692
thank you for the post. the lack of women in science fields is a very pressing feminist issue to me. some female classmates in medical school have told me there's nothing wrong with saying perhaps there's something "innate" about women's brains that makes them less apt for science. i don't see scientific basis for that at all.
1) women are underrepresented in almost all good jobs in the public sphere because of historical oppression. women weren't considered good writers or painters and they're even underrepresented in professional cooking! i remember someone posted a letter from Disney to his grandmother on Feministing which told her that Disney doesn't accept female cartoonists - they're only for secretarial jobs. the lack of women in science has to do with women being confined to the private sphere in all areas of life (except for sex work and cleaning).
2) some studies argue that women are less "spatially" oriented and therefore deficient in math. firstly, even studies done on children have to take into account how culture shapes the brain, let alone adults, whose mental abilities are shaped by they way they used their brains throughout life. secondly, so what it women are less "spatial?" only some areas of science require spatial understanding and it's something you can learn. i've always gotten A's in math and science and i can't play spatial sports to save my life!
3) standards for achievement have been set by men. even the IQ tests for certain ways of understanding things, some of which are cultural. even if women's brains were innately different from men's, women are only challenged in a scientific culture defined by men. which means there's an even bigger need for women to change the systems for themselves.
with all these cultural factors at every step of the analysis, is it anything but sexist to keep on saying perhaps there's something innately deficient about women's brains?
i guess i just wrote a long ass post on this myself!! but your post reminded me how much i hate hearing sexist views about women and math/science. i'm glad you're encouraging more women to consider engineering as a career. i don't think anyone needs a burning enthusiasm for engineering to be a decent engineer. majority of men in engineering aren't geniuses. women shouldn't be afraid to choose engineering using practicality and earning potential as reasons. of course i'm not saying anyone who doesn't like engineering should be forced to do it.
i've always gotten A's in math and science and i can't play spatial sports to save my life!
I think they mean things revolving around interacting with the physical world around you. When I think of spatial reasoning, I think of having to be able to rotate a complicated shape in my mind. Though, I'm sure a lot of that has to do with how girls and boys are encouraged to play when they're younger.
Yeah I often get really annoyed when people use that verbal skills vs. spatial reasoning argument. First of all, I highly doubt anyone who actually brings that up has actually read a research paper related to the subject. And second of all, just because something is statistically significant does not mean that it is indicative of important differences in the real world. If all men in a study scored slightly higher on a spatial reasoning test than all the women in the study the results would be considered statistically significant.
The article below was interesting, because they noticed that certain background factors, such as playing with construction toys correlated with how one scored on spatial reasoning tests. On average the women participants scored lower, but they were also less likely to have had childhood experiences that promote the development of spatial reasoning.
http://www.iwitts.com/html/011medina.pdf
So I think people need to stop trying to pinpoint gender differences and say 'this is the way it's supposed to be' and instead think about how we can educate all kids so that they develop skills and become confident in their abilities.
Yay! go engineers:) I sent your blog link to my female-engineers email list.
I think the problem with not having enough women in engineering comes from how the stereotype of "girls are not good at math" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As an engineer I know that my math skills are at least 50% confidence. this seems to be taken away from girls in junior high. and that's bad.
if we could do something about that I think we will see more women in engineering.
And it might be a collective self-fulfilling prophecy.
WNYC's Radio Lab did a podcast called "The Obama Effect". Based on some small studies, there is more and more evidence that achievement gaps in test taking do not necessarily reflect a gap in actual ability or talent. If you think about how much of our education revolves around standardized testing it's a pretty interesting find. The studies were small but they are reproducible.
In one study, math grad students were simply given a math test. Women consistently underperformed their male peers. When the grad students were instead given some qualifiers about the test, the outcome was different: Students were specifically told that there were no gender differences for the type of problems on the test (which was a lie because it was the same test given to the other group). The result? The performance gap between men and women subjects was eliminated.
The idea for the study came about when a researcher discovered different outcomes for black students depending on how the tests were described. One research used a test consisting of GRE questions. Another study used an IQ test.
For example, when black testers are told that the IQ test (the spatial one, with the least bias, I forget the name) is a puzzle, they perform the same as white students. When they were told that the test measured intelligence, blacks underperformed.
The beauty is that now researchers have been trying this all over the place even for physical challenges, such as a golf test: by simply qualifying the challenge as a measure of inherent athletic ability they were able to create underachievement in whites test takers with respect to blacks. When no qualifier was announced prior to the challenge, there was no difference between blacks and whites.
Fascinating. And considering how many times girls hear that they aren't good at math, or that blacks hear that they are poor achievers in school, this ideas become the default qualifiers in our heads.
I remember seeinga 20/20 special that did a piece on that study. It was interesting, but was a couple of years ago.
My father is a chemical engineer, and one of his best bosses, over 20 years ago now, was a woman. So, obviously, even when cultural pressure was higher than now (since my dad graduated from college in '84, she HAD to have been in high school in '70s to be my dad's boss in the mid '80s), women have managed to succeed at been damn good engineers (my dad has high standards for competence for everyone). So, let's send the message that women can be engineers! This is an awesome idea for a blog!
We do need to change society, though. In my very liberal college, a friend who is a woman and a chem major says she still has to be twice as good as the guys to get the same respect (good for her, she IS). She also dresses to downplay her femininity. This needs to change.
I goofed, my dad graduated in '80, and it was his first boss. He said she's been an engineer since 1960.
Hello Female engineering student here!
Its so ridiculous how underrepresented females are in Engineering this day in age. Even certain types of engineering are more "female-friendly". Most girls do biomedical, and chemical. My advisor was so "surprised" when I told him I wanted to major in Mechanical. Mechanical is about 11-15% female; and in my classes it shows. I am 1 of 4 girls in my Civil engineering class of about 70. I was 1 of 4 girls in my Physics class of about 70. I was the only female in my chemistry lab. And even when someone hears about a girl in engineering they automatically ask, "oh but shes ugly right?". I ended up joining Phi Sigma Rho, a sorority for female engineers. I love being around girls who shatter the stereotypes, we're hot, socialable AND good at math :)
My parents/ teachers never pushed me into it math growing up. Why is it that girls are supposed to be better at English and writing while males are expected to be better at math? They tried to convince my brother to goto an engineering college when I was the one who was taking higher level math classes all throughout high school. He ended up majoring in business at a community college.
Just today I was looking at Danica Kellers book "Math Doesnt Suck" and think im going to buy it just to support her :). Its a book that encourages females in middle school to tackle math and not be discouraged just because no one is guiding them in that direction. I think its terrific that shes trying to be a role model for young women, I wish I had this book at that age.
And oh yea, I was the first one finished with my mechanical engineering exam today. Deal with it boys!
Knee jerk reaction:
WOOOOOOOO. LADY ENGINEEEERRRSSS!
Now that I've gotten that out of the way...
I only know two ladies in my program! There are 3-4 others, but they're about to graduate so I never see them.
I never really got submitted to the "girls are bad at math!" shenanigans. My mom has her masters in math. I did experience a great deal of difficulty with it because of dyslexia though. I had to take all of the brush up courses when I got to college. I was amazed at the fact that I actually understood math for once! Aside from the douchebag old fashioned teachers, I love the work I do at school.
Here is your chance to DO something to help further females in Engineering or web technologies. California is about to pass a bill that will put me out of business. I am a housewife and I run a small business from my home. I also run the site www.retro-housewife.com.
My business generates revenue entirely through the performance marketing channel (online marketing), and this bill would destroy it overnight if it is passed. Not only that, it won't generate tax revenue because out of state companies will just terminate their affiliation with me, and countless others like me. You don't have to live in California to create a sale to somebody in California. In short, they don't need me, but I need them.
You may not like what I stand for or what I have to say on my site, but if you are really concerned with things like supporting technical professions for women, then you will fight this bill because this is one of the few professions out there where a woman can earn a decent living, run a business from home and be home for her kids and husband. That matters to women.
Retro Housewife
PS. The reason women don't make as much as men do - at least in tech fields, is because they don't ask for more money. Men ask. Women far less often. You gotta ask. And most women don't want to study math and science. Most men don't either for that matter but then they have families to support - theoretically at least. Finally, there are very few left wing CEOs running around. If I were to take a guess at the politics here, I wouldn't put my money on Republican Pro Business. This a site/group that claims to back women, in other words you lobby for women, but do you lobby for women in the areas that would actually help a woman become a CEO? That isn't a fight over abortion rights or crying discrimination at every turn. That sometimes includes making noise and crying foul about democratic bills that will hurt business.
"And most women don't want to study math and science. Most men don't either for that matter but then they have families to support - theoretically at least."
Wow, very impressive how you managed to put so many offensive comments and stereotypes in so little space.
So women don't want to study math and science? I guess you didn't read the previous comments on this post. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Men have families to support? Yeah, sure they do but you might be interested to learn that there are millions of women who are the sole support for themselves and their families.
Why are you trolling on this site? Obviously, you needed a venue to cry foul and make noise about bills that you perceive to be harmful to YOUR business.
"...this is one of the few professions out there where a woman can earn a decent living, run a business from home and be home for her kids and husband. That matters to women."
I'm a woman, and I wouldn't want to be "at home for [my] kids and husband." I don't even want kids, and I'm iffy on the husband bit. In a LTR, I would prefer to make at least as much as my partner, and I wouldn't at all mind being the breadwinner. Are you saying women like me don't exist or that we're somehow less womanly for feeling this way?
If you are not interested enough in math and science to have pursued a career in tech, how do you know why women don't make as much money? It's easy for you to say we're "crying discrimination" when you've never been there.
I love math and science. So do a lot of other women, and men, who go into math and science. If all one cares about is a fat paycheque, tech is not such a great to choose. First, there are fields that pay better for the same amount of education. Secondly (and I'm speaking mostly from a soft eng POV, though I'm sure this is true for other engineering disciplines), things become obsolete so quickly that you have to constantly keep up with new developments. Now, this is GREAT for people who love to keep on learning about their passion, but not so great for people who are just looking to polish off a degree in a well-paying discipline they can stand, then grind out enough hours to support a family.
It's obvious that you just posted here to bash feminism while promoting your site. While it could be argued that developing a complex site requires a similar mindset and knowledge level as designing a bridge or a robot, you are not a web developer. You are an entrepreneur who used basic HTML, or some WYSIWYG software, to quickly stitch together a platform for selling your stuff. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't even remotely related to engineering, beyond the basic formula of "woman earning money".
PS: Even if I wanted to help you, I have no idea what bill you're talking about. I might be at a disadvantage here, since I'm Canadian, but I bet I'm not the only one.
*...tech is not such a great field to choose...
"The reason women don't make as much as men do - at least in tech fields, is because they don't ask for more money. Men ask."
Women are less likely to get money even if they ask.
"You may not like what I stand for or what I have to say on my site, but if you are really concerned with things like supporting technical professions for women, then you will fight this bill because this is one of the few professions out there where a woman can earn a decent living, run a business from home and be home for her kids and husband. That matters to women."
I thought I had stumbled back to the 50s when I visited your site. You're right about one thing... I DON't like what you stand for.
I don't know anything about the bill other than what you said, so I don't know if it's something I should fight or not. However, I DO know that I don't support your views and it wouldn't bother me if YOUR website got shut down.
You're out of line when you say "... run a business from home and be home for her kids and husband. That matters to women." How dare you presume to speak for all women! Some women may want to stay home, but most these days don't. And we certainly don't want to go back to the days of "Father Knows best"!
That was supposed to be a reply to RetroHousewife's comment, obviously.
" it wouldn't bother me if YOUR website got shut down."
I agree. How stupid is s/he to come on a feminist website? It would be like a KKK visiting a racial awareness site and asking for help so they can mainatin the use of their hate-filled site.
Just stupid.
Apparently the little retro housewife is going to tell feminists how to be feminists? The sites motto is "putting pride back into being a housewife." Guess not.
"Something I think we often forget in today's feminist oriented world, is to really appreciate the guys; the fathers, husbands and friends that make it possible for us to be Retro Housewives in the first place!"
They always go criticising and bashing feminists but when they need support for a cause who do they come 'crying' to?
A Retro Housewife day:
6:00 - 7:00 Rise and Shine! I always put my kids to bed at 8:30, so they were early risers, which means that I was an early riser too! The first things to do when they wake up are:
Diaper change, clean clothes and off to the kitchen for breakfast.
Wash up in the kitchen, scoot the hubby out the door.
Play time for baby, light housework, then maybe a walk or trip to the park
Lunch around 12:30, then a story or something quiet, then...
1:00 - 3:00 NAP TIME! It is really important for everyone's sanity that little children have a regular nap. Mom should take at least an hour to read, watch TV or nap too! tbc.
What a BUSY (eye roll) day retro-housewife has. Naps for adults?
Don't knock naps. There's been several studies done showing that a nap helps improve performance on the job, I personally can't wait 'til I get to sleep on company time.
If youre getting your 8 hours thats not necessary. She doesnt have that busy of a day to need a nap. Powerful people all throughout the world dont need naps, but her days not as hectic filled for her to need them. Something screams l-a-z-y-b-o-n-e-s about the retro housefrau. Gawd, I hope you're not defending her/him.
This is a topic about engineering and women and she hijacks it, while ignorantly implying negativety about women to talk/beg/ask for help. Not gettin any.
Back on topic:
I'm a technical jounalism/business major and personally dont know any women majoring in engineering, but hope the field gets more representation by women engineers. Its pertinent that women shape that aspect of the world to incorporate 50% of the population into it. Would love to see more.
I haven't looked at Retrohousewife's site and I'm willing to bet that you're completely right about this particular instance. The poster is obviously a troll who has no reason to post on this thread.
However, I do take issue with you calling her lazybones. Women's labor has, both historically and presently, been devalued. That includes women's labor as housewives. Being a housewife is not an easy job- women cook, clean, take primary responsibility for children, and budget, among other things. Yes, most people do some of these things, but housewives are held to a higher standard because it is their sole responsibility. I'm not going to write a dissertation, because this thread isn't the place, but I would like to direct you and anyone else interested to two links:
1. A very patriarchal article from the 1950s which sounds about like your lazybones comment:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Bhao4MW_nbQC&pg=PA170&lpg=PA170&dq=%22women's+magazines%22+your+wife+has+an+easy+racket&source=bl&ots=8JZqXcbV4t&sig=fBkOt-vG1D0eBmchUyxJ2B331oU&hl=en&ei=9pLgSdDlDN2PmAfOztiBAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1
2. A recent study estimating the worth of a SAHM as &138,000 yearly- that's what it would cost to hire someone to do all of her tasks:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/RaiseKids/ThePriceOfAMom.aspx
The Bill is: California Bill 178.
I don't understand the need to belittle the housewife. There is nothing little about her. She has been the backbone of society since there has been a society. One of my main arguments has been that the traditional role a woman has played in society has not been given its due credit.
I have spent a lot of time in the newspaper archives reading about women and trying to develop a picture of my own about what their lives were like. I didn't find helpless insignificant people, I found unique, engaged women who organized themselves to fill the void in the holes of society.
I do not claim to speak for all women, my opinions are my own and have been forged based on my life experience. I am a reasonably intelligent person, and I am interested in this topic, so I would expect those who are as well to at least listen to what I have to say. I am interested in discussion, not insults. I apologize if I insulted you; besides being very good in math, I was born with an obnoxious streak. Sometimes it gets the better of me.
I don't expect to change your minds or how you lead your lives, I wouldn't presume to know better. At the same time, I know what has worked and what has not worked for me, and I started my site under the assumption that I may not be the only one who has come to this conclusion. I merely offer another perspective.
Now as to the California Bill 178. It won't shut me down, nor any other site. (Retro-Housewife is my fun site, not the moneymaker, anyway.) I also have the means to move my business elsewhere if I must. But there are a lot of people - men and women who are stuck in California and will be wiped out overnight. This bill puts a tax on out of state businesses if they make a sale in California which is referred from a website based in California. So, they will stop advertising on sites based in California. They will still make their sales. So, if you can't leave California, your business goes from whatever to $0 overnight. As it did in New York.
I came here to talk about this because there a lot of women who operate businesses like these, so I thought you may give a hoot.
RH
retro,
Ciao troll. Youre diverting the fucking discussion topic. Completely disrespectful.
If you are truly interested in discussion, I suggest you make a community post of your own rather than derail a completely unrelated thread. I personally agree with you that housewives are undervalued. I don't have any desire to be a housewife nor do I understand anyone who does, but that does not mean that housewives don't do an incredible amount of work. I think this community would be open to a discussion on the historical role of housewives and their place in modern society, if you were to make such a post *without* absurd stereotypes about women not liking math. However, I suspect discussion is not your actual purpose. *shrug*
While I'm not an engineer, I am a scientist with a PhD in chemistry who regularly works with engineers to solve R&D problems.
Something that has dawned on me since I graduated a few years ago is that I approach research science in an intuitive, creative way. Certainly I've got an analytical mind and training, but I'm motivated to do the chemistry that I do because it is beautiful and helps the world community (my focus has been energy science).
My point is this: In addition to narrowing the gender gap in sci/eng by convincing school children that math is not hard or useless, we can also describe the creativity used and positive social impact made by ethical scientists regardless of gender.
Female engineering student here. I've never had any problems in any of my classes. The professors make it very clear that the 'women don't belong here' attitude is unacceptible.
roughly a fifth to a third of my classmates(depending on the class) are women. My strength of matierials teacher joked that the modern male engineering student is lucky. He doesn't have to walk across campus to find a date any more. Every one laughed.
About 25% of women are strong on spatial ability. About 25% of engineering students in the US are women. It has been a while since I saw those numbers so they could have changed. I agree that ability can be affected by training, environment and expectations. However people tend to gravitate toward what they enjoy and are good at. If women are really excited about engineering, they will choose it.
Also, I wouldn't directly equate math ability with spatial ability. My husband was a math major but has no spatial ability. I am fairly good at math but am the only one in the house with any spatial ability.
This discussion about human diversity between male, female, abilities, etc. comes up some at a science blog I read, gnxp.com. I found it interesting one day when some of the women talked about how frustrating it is to spend so much time getting PhD's in sciences and have so much trouble getting back in after they have been home with their kids for x years. They really seemed to feel discriminated against when they tried to go back to work. I think some women might shy away from jobs that put a high penalty on time out for family. This type of soft discrimination is harder to fight, but I think it is really important for many women. I know several of my friends who have advanced degrees in math, science and technical fields who could not get back into their careers after an extended absence. Maybe colleges need to offer bridge programs to help women, or maybe women need to stay active in professional groups to kind of keep up while they are not working. I mean if your are 40 and have been out for 7-10 years. So what. You didn't become an idiot during that time. More importantly, you still have 20-25 years you could be working in your profession, that you could be contributing.
" I think some women might shy away from jobs that put a high penalty on time out for family. This type of soft discrimination is harder to fight, but I think it is really important for many women."
Good point. It is a form of soft discrimination.
you and several others seem to be sticking with the idea that it's all about individual preferences. This ignores how preferences are shaped by experience.
i.e. some women might like math/engineering but be steered away from it by their teachers, parents, larger society before they get there. Man others are steered away by their fellow students, teachers and others when they go to study engineering, and it continues afterwards when they work as engineers.
So, given the overwhelming testimony of the women who DID go into engineering in the past, who were met with tons of hostility... as well as those talking about it now..
why would you discount that in favor of vague, untestable statements that take as a given women's lack of desire for engineering? solve the hostility problems and the social pressure problems and THEN we'll know more, maybe, about what people innately want. but it's silly to rely on current statistics given the obvious existence of explicit and implicit social pressure.
"About 25% of women are strong on spatial ability. About 25% of engineering students in the US are women."
If your point here is "...so it seems to line up fairly evenly aside from factors that affect women's interests", that's not fair even if those numbers are true. The supposed correlation here is meaningless unless exactly 75% of men happen to be "strong" on spatial ability as well -- only in that case it would be adequate representation of women in engineering. 25% of women is still far more than 25% of engineering students.
Thanks! I'm not an engineer, but I can so relate to this as I have friends who are and they have talked about the sexism they find in the engineering world. I'm also a woman in a very-male-dominated field (classical music composition) so I can definitely relate to what you're saying!
I think that what you're doing to break down the glass ceiling in engineering is something that can benefit all women, regardless of whether they want to be engineers or not. I'd like to know how it goes, since I'm interested in helping to promote composition among girls and would like to know if you have any helpful strategies. :)
It seems like every field is male-dominated. I've noticed that pretty much every field I can possibly think of is male-dominated.
Not all of them are - such as secretarial work, elementary education, and nursing. These fields are traditionally dominated by women.
And there are degrees of it too. No offense, but your comment comes off as a little bit diminishing of mine and the OP's claim that our fields are particularly male-dominated even compared to others. There are not as many women who are doctors and lawyers as men, but there are still way more than there are women engineers or women composers. I think we need to examine just why this is the case in these particular fields - why so few women are drawn to them. (I have a theory for why so few women compared to men become composers, but I'd rather not share it yet.)
I did computer engineering and there were usually only 1,2 female students in the class if any (actually, most classes had none). The females that were present, however, always tended to be the most interesting and intelligent people in the class.
I definitely wouldn't make arguments dealing with a gender's innate ability without really, really solid data from multiple studies to back it up. I don't think it has anything to do with spatial ability or math skills, I think I'm going to have to support the interest argument.
There is a huge difference between the type of person who takes computer science versus something like education and psychology. One of them will spend their entire day sitting behind a computer dealing with numbers and lines of code while the other will spend their days talking and dealing with people. I think that, for whatever reason, complex interpersonal relationships, the stories, the emotions are much more appealing for most women and they seek out that kind of career.
That said, in the working world of programming, I notice all the female programmers tended to be foreign (Indian, Korean, etc.). So maybe culture does effect the kind of things men and women enjoy doing.
So here's a question: why did people choose their majors if they went to college? If you didn't do science or engineering, why not?
I know that I wish I had done something different because programming is slowly driving me crazy.