From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Women in engineering ( help ..)
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 11:15:15 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <1992Sep8.163202.1289@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>In article <fknn_nr@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>Question:  Why is the pursuit of science/engineering/mathematics
>>considered to be a non-creative act?  I am confused over the phrase,
>>"dominating nature," in reference to engineering and why it is called
>>"men's" pursuit

>First off, I think the common perception among people who aren't involved
>in math/science/engineering fields *is* that they aren't creative.  I don't
>agree with the perception, but I hear it from my artsier friends all the time.

Oh, I most definitely agree...and the problem was, I was also a
theatre minor which meant I got no respect from anybody...the math
people thought I was a flake (do you know what it's like to have the
professor laugh at your choice of a minor?) and the theatre people felt
that I was unfeeling techno-nerd (I was prevented from taking advanced
acting courses at the university because I wasn't a major...there is
no written restriction upon the class, and the professors agreed that
I had the talent to be in the class, but they refused to allow me in
since I was "in the department.")

At any rate, it's a fairly common occurrence:  Derision of that which
people don't understand.

>As for the "dominating nature" I do think that's to some extent true of
>engineering.  It's also true of pretty much everything else people do, though -
>it's our ability to manipulate our environment that distinguishes us from
>animals.  (Although some cats I've known are quite remarkable at being able
>to manipulate their environments by manipulating the humans around them!)

Well...no.  Animals do, indeed, manipulate their environments...it's
just that we're better at it than they are.  There are wasps that
drill holes into solid rock in order to lay a trap for food.  There
are birds that use stones to provide greater leverage in breaking open
the shells of other birds' eggs.  Spiders spin webs.  Some crabs add
stones to their shells to make them more effective in hiding on the
bottom.  Bees build hives.

If a bird building a nest isn't "manipulating nature," then I don't
know what is.

>There's a theory (and not one I agree with) that holds women as being
>more in touch with nature.  In that context, the connection to engineering
>as masculine seems clear.

It is a cultural thing, as you say.  It seems more rooted in the
perception that men are active (go out and make the thing you want a
reality) and women are passive (wait for what you want to happen to
come to you.)  Thus, engineering, a very "active" discipline, would be
seen as masculine.

>Even if it were true, it would give women an advantage in many fields of
>engineering where the ability to see connections between seemingly disparate
>pieces of information is important.  The "holistic" sort of thinking that
>the sociobiologists consider feminine is essential to success in system
>dynamics, for example, and I've known both men and women who excelled in it.

Ummm...I'm not so sure that lateralisation implies a lack of
"holistic" thinking (I've just finished _The Dragons of Eden._)  Yes,
I know that you are casting aspersions at "left-brain/right-brain,"
but I don't quite agree with the "even if it were...."

>>Question:  Why is science/engineering considered abstract (math I can
>>easily see as being abstract, but I see nothing abstract about
>>designing a bridge)?

>I don't see engineering as abstract, but engineering is often regarded as
>a subset of math by nonengineers.

Well, in a certain sense, it is.  It is, essentially, "glorified"
physics (as my physics prof used to say) and physics is, essentially,
applied mathematics.  Engineering is more of getting from the world
around us to the mathematics behind it and back again in such a way as
to make something deemed "useful."

>  Certainly, the most common reason for
>women to keep out of several fields is inadequate math background.  I've
>been involved for a while now with an organization called Open Options, which
>tries to persuade high school children to continue studying math and science.
>It's astonishing how few of them (boys, as well as girls) don't realize
>that you need math to pursue their careers.

I recall seeing a page of a report showing the relationship between
mathematics and salary.  They found that for every level of
mathematics taken, salary increases (until the Ph.D. stage where it
declines, but I think that's more because the main reason to get a
Ph.D. in Mathematics is to become a professor...and they make less
money than the average engineer with a Master's in Applied Mathematics
as it relates to hydrostatic systems.)

And, for every year of mathematics training (starting at high school),
the number of students decreases by half.

But, interestingly, the number of Bachelor's degrees in Mathematics is
split evenly between men and women...at the Ph.D. level, it's 80-20.

>I do see that girls are often discouraged away from math.  I've heard many
>girls tell me that if they had trouble with math they were told it wasn't
>important.

From my end, I see an active discouragement of a general attitude when
it comes to females and math.

That is, females aren't expected to be able to do math, but if a boy
can't do it, that really isn't that much cause for concern, either.
She'll get told this; he'll just slip on into something else.

If a person says he can't read, people think that something should be
done...some even think the person is stupid.

If a person says he can't do math, everybody laughs and admits that
they can't understand it either.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men