quote:

---

Despite 4,000 years of contributions, many are unaware of pioneering women like Empress Shi Dun who invented paper, Florence Nightingale, the famous nurse but little known inventor of the pie chart, or Rosalind Franklin, whose contribution to understanding the helical structure of DNA took 50 years to acknowledge. Deepa Kandaswamy finds seven reasons why women in science and technology remain invisible.

---

full story

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: audra estrones ]

What has been observed, is that when girls are taught science and technology-based courses separately from boys, by women instructors, they do extremely well, they participate actively in class and maintain a level of interest and ambition in those areas. When taught these same subjects in gender-mixed classes, they do not fare nearly as well. Most become passive, and allow the boys to "take over". By the time they reach high school, most have already decided that science and technology fields are not for them.

I don't really like the idea of gender-separated education in the public school system, but we need to address the problem of the overwhelming imbalance of men to women in science and technology-related fields of work and study. And we need to address it right now. We can't wait for society at large to change.

(By this I'm referring to specifics, not to the general social conditions.)

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]

However, in my own field...well, at least in my research group, there are a lot of female graduate students and professors. AI and natural language processing seem to attract more girls than other research areas in CS, I think.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Mandos ]

http://www.linuxchix.org/

It's a group where women who are Linux geeks can hang out and those who aren't can learn to become Linux geeks. It offers courses to help get women started in such things as kernel hacking, which, like most code stuff, is very male-dominated. And, of course, just to get started with Linux stuff.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
My hypothesis is that they are actually becoming diluted. It used to be that the technically-minded girls were entering only one or two disciplines. ie, maybe biology and (for more applied stuff) CS and so on. But the same proportion of girls are now going into a larger range of more "masculine" fields (ie mech eng, etc)--but the number of girls isn't proportionately rising to counterbalance the dilution.

---

Our numbers indicate the same drop in female enrolment in concurrent degree programs like CS-Engineering, CS-Biology, CS-Law, where female enrolment has otherwise increased in non-concurrent Engineering, Biology and Law programs. Even so, women are vastly underrepresented in both undergraduate and graduate Engineering programs by a ratio of about 4:1 overall. Better than it used to be, but still a serious imbalance.

quote:

---

Women are emotional; technology is strictly logical. They don't go together.

---

quote:

---

Men are good at math and machines;

---

quote:

---

women have no clue.

---

quote:

---

Men are providers; women, nurturers.

---

quote:

---

Technical women are unattractive, arrogant and abnormal.

---

quote:

---

Women can't do it because they are made that way - the divine /evolution argument.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rebecca West:

... And it's bloody disturbing, considering that currently women occupy only 5% of tech jobs. And that number will shrink. Very alarming, considering that technology-related jobs will double over the next ten years. Who will be qualified to fill those jobs if we don't make a concerted effort to encourage girls to stay in math and science and move into tech jobs and careers? Men will, of course. And women will be left behind.

---

quote:

---

What has been observed, is that when girls are taught science and technology-based courses separately from boys, by women instructors, they do extremely well, they participate actively in class and maintain a level of interest and ambition in those areas. When taught these same subjects in gender-mixed classes, they do not fare nearly as well. Most become passive, and allow the boys to "take over". By the time they reach high school, most have already decided that science and technology fields are not for them.

---

Which is exactly why my daughter is at an all girls school. Of course the best math student is a girl, the best debater is a girl, the best ...

The unofficial school motto (which she proudly told me on her second day of school at age 5) "Girls go to college to get more knowledge but boys go to Jupiter to get more stupider. But that's cause girls are smarter than boys. Everyone knows that."

There are lots of reasons the "girls aren't good at ...." syndrome sets in, at least one of which is boys tend to be pushier in classroom settings and, even when they are not, teachers have a tendency to ask boys to answer first in any sort of tech subject (which includes maths and sciences).

[ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: abnormal ]

Girls aren't stupid. They know that careers in science and technology are very competitive; that you don't need to be out of the workforce for long to be hopelessly behind; that you need to work long, extremely gruelling hours to get anywhere. Most of them also want to have families someday and know that the primary burdens of housework and childrearing will probably fall on their shoulders, no matter what career they have. And they know that these two things are often incompatible. That, for instance, if they want to have children they probably will be out of the workforce for several months at least--and in science and technology this can be a problem if you want to advance. Or even keep current.

This isn't to say that other factors brought up here aren't also important. But IMO programs targetting 12-15 year olds will not solve a problem that is also created by other imbalances between the sexes in society.

I can offer only anecdotal evidence, but I've often listened to several younger friends with university jobs in math and science talk -- fatalistically? -- about the glass ceilings they run into, especially if they aren't willing to focus single-mindedly on their work through their twenties.

quote:

---

This isn't to say that other factors brought up here aren't also important. But IMO programs targetting 12-15 year olds will not solve a problem that is also created by other imbalances between the sexes in society.

---

Outreach programs that seek to encourage girls to strive for careers in non-traditional areas don't just effect the students they target. Administrators and teachers participate as well. Through their participation, they learn as much as the girls do (many teachers and administrators are completely oblivious to serious gender-imbalance in their classrooms).

At the higher levels of education, you need enough female faculty to provide role models and support to young women in science and technology programs. Most of academia is still dominated by the most privileged sector of society - white men. They may be brilliant academics, stellar instructors and wonderful human beings (oh, c'mon, a few of them are ... aren't they?), but they do not reflect the changing demographic of students, and students need mentors as much as they need lecturers if they are to realize their goals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by athena_dreaming:

...
Girls aren't stupid. They know that careers in science and technology are very competitive; that you don't need to be out of the workforce for long to be hopelessly behind;...

I'm thinking, for example, of all those articles and books that have come out over the past several years (and sold rather well) about how women "can have it all but not all at once" and which advise women (and girls) to choose careers, education, jobs and fields which are "family-friendly" and will allow them flexible hours..."

---

Right now I'm a Software Engineering student at the University of Waterloo. Since Waterloo is one of the few universities with more males than females, "the ratio" (male to female students) has always been a hot topic of debate.

In my first year, there were 86 guys in my class and 18 girls (about a 5:1 ratio). This seems to be common among the computer-related engineering programs. Environmental and Civil are a little bit better. And Chemical Engineering (aka Fem Eng) is 50% women.

What was more disturbing than our male:female ratio in first year, was the number of females we've lost. After first year 15 students dropped out of our class (either failed or transferred programs), 10 of them girls. At this point there was some debate as to whether admission standards were lowered to let girls into our program, allegations which have been denied by the administration. I'm not sure this was the case. I think the problem might be more that the girls felt intimidation working in such a male-dominated program, especially with all the group work we have - it's tough to avoid that fact. Although, I should note the 8 girls we have left are doing excellent are among the top students in the class, both academically and extra-curricularly.

I think both the guys and girls both want to see the ratio move closer to parity. There just isn't as many females applying to these programs (although I've heard that overall the number of females heading to university is on the rise, while the number of males is dropping).

I've had many discussions about why females don't seem to be interested in the computer-related fields and I think it has to do with personal interest in computers. Girls just aren't as interested in computers. Whether that's something that is socially implanted at an early age, a genetic disposition of the female gender, or a problem with our education system is up for debate. I think a lot of it may have to do with the fact that more guys play computer games, as silly as that sounds. I know a lot of people in computer science and other computer-related fields are initially attracted to the area because of computer-gaming hobbies.

For me, the self-esteem issue is a biggie, and that's been the case for many of the women I've talked to, as well. It seems that many men don't doubt themselves the way that many women in the sciences do, for whatever reasons. Lacking the necessary self-confidence to put themselves forward can really hold back a science student. My last advisor was always telling me to be more agressive, to challenge him when I thought him wrong, etc. Good advice, in a sense, but it goes against a lifetime of training!

1) The ongoing perception that women don't "belong" in science or tech, for whatever reason; and,

2) The ongoing reality that women are made responsible for home care and childcare to a much greater extent than men are, which has significant impacts on a woman's career--and limits her choices if she does want a family.

I think the programs for younger women will have a wonderful impact on the first problem, but IMO, if we don't follow through to changes in the family then essentially we will have drawn a whole lot of women into a field where their full participation and success is not possible--and they'll leave--and we'll end up right back where we are now.

While I don't have any sources or stats for this particular field, I know that a similar dynamic is operating in other high-stress, high-demand careers, like law. While women do comprise 50% of law graduates, the jobs and employers selected by men and women are quite different. Men tend to end up in firms where long workweeks of 60-80 billable hours (or more) are the basic expectation, and where salaries, benefits, promotions and status are quite high. Women tend to end up as staff lawyers for companies or in government where hours are more limited and more flexible, demands are not quite so high, but salaries, recognition, promotion etc. are also not as good. As a result, even with lots of women in the field of law in school, female lawyers make less money and don't climb as far on the legal ladder as their male co-graduates.

And surveys and studies have shown that women choose those employers and careers deliberately because they know that the alternative--the law firm--is not compatible with their family goals or responsibilities. When women do go into the law firms, they find that if they want to leave to have children--even just for a few months--it has a permanent and negative impact on their careers; most of them will not have children.

One can see similar patterns among MBA grads, where women are again more likely to choose employers and jobs with fewer hours, less pay and less status in order to continue fulfilling the greater portion of the work around the home. When they do climb the corporate ladder, they're almost certain to be childless--75% of female executives have no children, compared to 25% of men.

If we continue to attack the problem only on one side, only by convincing people that yes, girls can do those jobs (and they can, of course), then we will ultimately fail. We also need to continue working to correct the imbalances in family responsibilities that limit women's chances for success once they graduate and begin to work in their chosen fields. This is not as amenable to program solutions, either in schools or out in society at large--we have to continue to work to change people's mindsets about "women's work" and housework so that men will take on a greater share of their responsibilities around the home.

As an aside, I think that if we ever actually succeed at this, those 80-hour/week jobs will have to disappear because *nobody* (or practically nobody) with any sort of home or family responsibilities will be able to work those kinds of hours. That 75% of male executives with children? Most of them have wives who do not work outside the home.

(Unfortunately this pattern is also self-perpetuating. Men choose the high-stress careers with higher pay, women choose lower-stress careers with lower-pay, thus when the couple go to have children it is easier on the family finances for the woman to stay home with the child/ren for a time, which further limits her career aspirations and promotional prospects, and so on. Definitely not an easy problem to solve.)

Mush: Thanks.

UWSofty: That may have something to do with the computers field, although as a female "gamer," I have to say, you know, we do exist. But hten you have to ask why do so many girls not play computer games?

But I also think that there is a deeper effect, not only that tech is seen as a "boy" thing, but that investigation and adventure as seen as "boy" things in general. I also think that the tendency to make tech "user-friendly" has paradoxically decreased the opportunities for participation in technology fields...but maybe that's for another thread.

As for gaming, I stopped playing video games after Mario Bros. Despite being male , I too am quite uninterested by massive weaponry, big pecs, and boobs in games. In fact, I think there would be a big market for thoughtful adventure games that might compare to an SF novel or something...but I guess games developers know where the SURE money is--it's risky to develop new markets.

My Mom, who works in CS, was telling me over the weekend that high-level CS employers such as Microsoft have changed their interviewing techniques to reflect the stress level of the working atmosphere at those companies. An example she brought up was: "You are sitting in a room, tied to a chair. I enter the room with a gun. I tell you that there are six chambers and two bullets. I put the gun to your head and pull the trigger. Then I spin the chambers and ask you, should I pull the trigger again or spin?" The entire purpose of the question is to select those candidates who are not phased by the question and who can thus, supposedly, handle the extremely high stress of working for MIcrosoft.

So I'm not sure that it's fair to say CS is lower stress than law and business. Especially after the tech bust of the past years, I would think that competition for jobs would be so fierce an employee would be in a much worse position re: negotiating for more humane working hours etc.

The fact is that unless the perception that girls "can't do science" is *growing* than it cannot explain why female participation in that field is *shrinking.* There is no reason for that perception to be growing. There is, however, every reason for women in those fields (and leaving them in droves) to be telling younger women, "It's a great job, I love what I do, but gods this is much much harder than anyone ever told me." There is every reason for girls to be influenced by seeing what their mothers and aunts do, and what it's like for them. There is every reason for girls to hear the siren call of employers in fields who have made concessions to a "work-life balance" like government, business and accounting--to go for training that will get them jobs with maternity benefit top-ups, leave to take care of family (doctor's visits etc.), flex-time, job-sharing, options to go part-time for a while, etc.--because, having seen their own mothers' need for those things due to their greater responsibility in the home, they feel they will need it too.

quote:

---

convince female scientists to only marry those who will guarantee in writing that they'll handle 50% of domestic duties.

---

I think that's one of the things that makes it so hard to fight. Something like a girl's perception of her technical prowess you can identify programs to combat. But the expectations of domestic duties, while to an extent societal, need to be changed in each relationship one by one. The participants are adults, not children in school, so you can't grab their attention for a few hours in an educational program.

Apparently there are academics designing programs for married couples to try to address this, but they're small and having mixed success. Still, I guess it's good to know that someone's out there plugging away at it.

* She who begins doing a household task regularly will find it presumed to be "her job" thenceforward. Breaking this presumption requires at least an hour of sit-down negotiation.

* In my experience, men have been quite willing to do a household task that is specifically requested of them, but less apt to pick up and do something simply because it requires doing. Women have been more likely to e.g. attack a sink full of dishes because it happens to be there.

* In short, it can help enormously to make explicit divisions of tasks, and to occasionally drop reminders like "While I do task A, would you do task B?" It's not nagging if it's coupled with a gentle reminder that you're holding up your end, here.

Edited to remove snarky attitude, with apologies.

[ 28 October 2003: Message edited by: April Follies ]