From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 9 Sep 92 03:54:10 GMT
	<1992Sep7.154918.11940@panix.com>
	<1992Sep8.005135.4793@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>
Organization: Center for Biomolecular Simulation, Department of Chemistry,
	Columbia University

9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes:

>All the women programmers and project leaders I have known have been
>absolutely first rate. [...] Capable, and very smart.
>
>Now, I'm not sure why this is.  Is it because if a woman gets to that
>stage it's because she has to be shit hot (ie, 200% what a man can do),
>or is it that women naturally have a greater affinity for that kind of
>work?

(warning: long post follows)

*GENERALIZATION AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE DISCLAIMER*
The following comments are hunches of mine based on personal experience.
Comments about either gender are not meant to imply all members of that
gender share the characteristics in question.  I am well aware that it's
unlikely that all of these observations absolutely reflect the truth. 

(hmm, maybe I should save those lines for the future too, they would 
probably come in handy...)

	I doubt very much that women are naturally more gifted at 
programming.  I think there probably are biological differences between
men's and women's intelligence in various areas, but I don't have much
faith in the ability of psychology, etc. to sort out the biological truth
from the social conditioning, at this point in time, and I believe the 
differences are probably very slight.  
	My observation is that women in traditionally male-dominated 
fields, or fields which are generally perceived as somehow more appropriate
for men, face more scrutiny from both men and women than men do.  (The
same is probably true if you reverse the genders.)  Part of this effect
has to do with the fact that "different" people stand out in a group.  
Often, those applying the pressure are in fact supportive: they want some
absolute proof that women ARE just as good, or better, than the men around
them.  Ultraqualified women, if they make it through the wringer, get a lot
of credit (although there are a lot of blatant sexists out there who will
*never* be satisfied).  I asked the chairman of our dept. (at that time)
once why there was only one female prof. in the department, and among his
comments, he pointed out that the woman in question was "worth TWO professors"
(so why bother to hire another woman? I cynically thought).  
	On the other hand, women who are merely good, as opposed to great,
seem leave or be kicked out of these fields at a much greater rate than the 
men at equivalent skill and/or experience levels.  I think there are two 
broad categories of reasons for this.  The first is that these women are 
more vulnerable to sexism.  Because they can't "proove" that they're just 
fantastic, innuendos, subtle biases, or outright attacks are enough to knock 
them right out of the field.  It's some kind of a virgin/whore professional
standard, almost, and often I think even women apply it to other women without
realizing they are doing it.  If a woman makes some little mistake, it's 
tempting to isolate her, to emphasize that *other* women wouldn't be so stupid
as to make that dumb mistake, when if a man did it, everyone would let it blow
over because it wouldn't occur to anyone that he was doing something typical
of all men.  I can think of a couple of examples, but I'll leave them out
for brevity unless someone specifically asks.
	The second category of reasons lies in differences in women's
and men's reactions to the pressures they encounter.  An ex-boyfriend
of mine was an engineering major (and someone who would *never* describe
himself as a feminist, by the way), and he told me once that he thought
women at our college were underrepresented in engineering because they
dropped so easily.  If a man got a C in a required math class, he said,
he was likely to just shrug it off and assume it meant nothing.  If a
woman did, she would assume it meant she wasn't smart enough for the
field, and switch majors.  He actually seemed to conclude that this
was a denial of reality on the men's part, but I'm sure a lot of those
men did well in the end, and many of the women who had quit would have
done well too.
	Now, I don't think there's a biological reason men and women
respond differently to these pressures; I think it's due to cultural
effects.  Part of the problem is that these traditionally male-dominated 
fields have been designed to bring out the best in the average *man*.  
If it is generally true that a given requirement weeds out women 
disproportionately, the first thing to check is to see if there is any
outright sexism in how the men and women are being evaluated (which there
often is, but certainly not always).  If that's not the issue, one should
examine the requirement itself.  There are 3 possibilities, as I see it:

1) The requirement is necessary for that subject/job/major/etc.,  and
the problem should have been addressed earlier by women or their schools,
parents, workplaces, etc., but cannot be blamed on or helped by the people 
who set up the requirement.  Tough luck.
2) The requirement is traditional, but when examined closely, probably
is no longer useful to evaluate or train people.  (For a non-gender-related
example, my department no longer requires physical chemists to pass a
language exam, because it was a real pain for the foreign students to pass,
and it really isn't a necessary requirement to be a good researcher in
our field, according to the faculty.)
3) The requirement is necessary to meet in the end, but it is harder for
some people to meet it than others, and there is no purpose to screening
people out early if they can eventually meet it.  For example, if it were a
general problem that girls were steered away from high school higher math
classes, it would probably be possible for them and their colleges to make
up for this later, and directing efforts in this direction would help 
increase the number of qualified science/math majors, say.  On the other
hand, if a college required entering, uh, y'know, those new students,
to have already had calculus if they were to be considered for a science
major, a lot of women would be knocked out right there.  Note that this
is all a hypothetical, although I believe it is a reasonable example.
Another example: if two equally gifted and prepared students have different 
perceptions of their own abilities, and one is severely underconfident,
is there anything wrong with boosting that person's confidence somehow
so they're on equal terms?

	In my opinion, a lot (not all) of the debate about "less qualified" 
women taking positions from "more qualified" men does not account for the fact
that evaluations of "quality" are not stamped on our foreheads from God;
standards for "quality" deserve some close scrutiny themselves. 
	However, I do think a lot of women, including me, can learn
a lot from "typical men".  I see a real trend in feminism to believe that 
positive elements of "typical women" are either part of the nature
of women or due to our own hard work, while traditional negative aspects
of women's personalities are seen as wholly imposed by society.  Meanwhile,
negative characteristics of "typical men" are described as either natural 
to men or due to deliberate boorishness on their parts, and positive 
characteristics of "typical men" are supposed to be handed to them on a
silver platter by society.  (I don't think feminism is any worse about this
we-get-credit,you-don't stuff than any other movement or group, but I do
think it happens and, ideally, it shouldn't.)  Personally, I am well aware
that the men around me tend to be more confident than the women (e.g.), and I
admire that and try to learn from them.  Sure, they may have had those
traits socialized into them more than I did, just as I may have been taught
more about cooking.  But that doesn't mean any of us are beyond learning,
and where better to go for help than the people who already possess the
traits we admire?  (Before I start to sound like a transsexual, let me
stress that I much prefer some of my traditional-female qualities to the
corresponding generally male traits.)
	This could lead into comments about men's vs. women's attitudes 
about their appearances, but I will spare you...

--- Julie

-- 
I wonder why it is that when I plan a route too carefully it goes to pieces,
whereas if I blunder along in blissful ignorance aimed in a fancied direction
I get through with no trouble.
				--- John Steinbeck (Travels with Charley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism