Women in Engineering: The Economics of Gender - Term Paper Example

 Women in Engineering: The Economics of Gender and Its Impact on the Workplace INTRODUCTION Much has been written and analyzed about gender discrimination in the workplace. Recent statistics in some sections of the country have shown that for those under the age of thirty, equal pay for equal work has arrived and that gender discrimination is fading, which may or may not be true based on what types of work are being discussed and what portion of the female population is under study. What often has been overlooked by those complaining about gender discrimination in the workplace are the choices made by the complainants and opportunities to follow those choices. Regarding careers in engineering, for instance, “While women now comprise just over half of undergraduates nationwide, they remain excluded from or underrepresented in key nontraditional areas of study, such as engineering.”1 While it is true that fewer women enter and retain jobs in engineering, the factors leading to inequality in the workplace are varied, with many evolving from social, culture and gender biases as well as the failure of women themselves to take a more aggressive role in the workplace. BODY Current education statistics show and have shown for years that there is a great disparity between girls and boys when it comes to education in math and science. There has even been quite serious and critical discussions of whether teachers are preconditioned to focus on boys, their thinking being “girls are not interested” Much of this thought undoubtedly comes from the perceived behavior of girls in their teenage years as frivolous and more focused on the social aspects of their lives. Some of it, even worse, also comes from the notion that girls are simply not biologically set up to do well in science and math, and are therefore ignored and pushed toward other subjects more to their perceived skills. The statistics related to this are disturbing and a bit conflicting when analyzed. Gender differences in math and science grow as students approach secondary school. In third grade, girls think they are good in math in numbers equal to boys, but by high school, girls have begun to doubt strongly their confidence in math. Women receive only about 16% of undergraduate and 11% of doctorate degrees in engineering...2 The same information lists women’s involvement in the field of physical therapy to be relatively high--odd given that physical therapy requires a rigorous study of science and math, though granted perhaps not as rigorous as engineering. Still, the rate of movement into rather nontraditional fields, such as engineering, increased slightly in the 1980s and had managed an increase of only four percent by the 1990s, “with women's share of engineering degrees increased [ing] by only 2 percentage points during the same period.”3 Regarding engineering studetns at the university level, the situation seems not to improve much and the disregard and/or seriousness of women striving to attain their goal of working as engineers are thwarted even at this level. The Society of Women Engineers in a comprehensive review of the subject presents some startling and discouraging information about support for female students at the college level. Citing a“long running, institutional anti-women bias,” evidence from the society reveals that university programs designed to coordinate high level mentors with female students on the lower levels are far from working, and that “mentors typically spend as little as fifteen minutes a week reading and writing emails with protégés.” 4 It is true, however, that the number of women receiving advanced degrees has been rising incrementally. More disturbing is the fact that the same prejudices affecting attitudes among teachers at the lower and university level may very likely also affect attitudes about hiring women engineers. There is, apparently, a common attitude that biologically women do not have an equal ability in spatial skills that affects their ability to absorb information necessary to make good engineers. As Tamar Lewen notes in a New York Times article on March 22, 2010 quoting university research director, Catherine Hill, “We found a lot of small things can make a difference, like a course in spatial skills for women going into engineering." While Hill in her research appears to be promoting women in the field, when carefully analyzed her comment actually feeds into a notion expressed in the same article by then President of Harvard, Larry Summers, who, when commenting on the disparity between men and women in the field, said “...there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude” reinforced by “lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.” Hill in the same articles goes on, ““Even if there are biological factors in boys outnumbering girls, they are clearly not the whole story. There’s a real danger in assuming that innate differences are important in determining who will succeed...” One can only imagine how comments such as these may affect a human resource director in terms of hiring practices. It would seem that even if it occurs in a small number of cases, attitudes of male co-workers and employers in this context might see failures in certain female employees not otherwise perceived in male employees. When Hill quotes lesser factors involving socialization she open up another Pandora’s Box of possible factors involved in discrimination in the workplace. While the female engineer may be ultimately qualified, she is still “operating on male turf. Unlike professions such as medicine and law, both of which are much closer to gender parity, engineering remains"5 As Ranson quoting Judy Wajcman, 1996 in her article, "The Domestic Basis for the Managerial Career” points out, the entire career path is “archetypically masculine.” While the number of women entering the engineering field has increased somewhat over the years, they have not decisively. One of the most likely reasons put forth regarding this trend is the fear on the part of employers that female engineers, while they may be excellent in comparison to men hirees, are likely to leave to start families, or at the very least request take time off to have families. Whether this is discriminatory or not depends largely on who is asked. However, the reality is quite obvious. “Motherhood, it seems clear, is a significant watershed, and one that policymakers and others concerned about retaining women in engineering should take seriously. But the reasons why it is such a watershed--and hence what needs to be done to compensate for its effects—“may be more complicated than the conventional explanations about work and family balance suggest.”6 Just how complicated is suggested by questions about the notion that access to employment should be equal and gender neutral when it comes to women in currently male dominated occupations. This is a heady and difficult conversation considering what some believe to be a must have attitude that work, if one is hired, comes first—not exactly a modern interpretation in terms of gender equality in careers. To discuss whether motherhood should be a barrier to practical business concerns takes on the identity of a battle between the sexes, when, if analyzed, is more sociological, cultural and economic on most levels—as the name of a recent seminar held to discuss such issues humorously suggests: “Motherhood, The Elephant in the Laboratory.” More in the humorous vein came from an article in the Wall Street Journal by Ann Zimmerman, April 9, 2010 that discusses a contest where female careers were represented by the Barbie doll, and young women were asked to pick career choices. While anchorwoman came in first, it was surprising to note that “computer engineer Barbie” came in a close second. But this still doesn’t answer the question about how motherhood affects the choices and ultimately affects a woman engineer’s career opportunities in the workplace. If it is true that “Motherhood has historically been one of the most regulated but least supported social institutions”7. it is easy to see how professional women have added burden when it comes to workplace expectations. Accepting an ideal of motherhood forces a woman to “be all things,” often at the expense of something—another hammer to be used against professional women if they do not measure up. Mothers must now play many roles and if failing are held up as example of why women should not pursue careers that take too much time away from the family. It is a Catch 22 of the worst sort. Although Hey and Bradford are generally speaking of working class women here, the same pitfalls apply within business toward women professionals [engineers], for they are, like it or not, true or not, held to the standard of “Aspiring and competent mothers with careers and ‘successful’ children...”8 And what of the blatant and well publicized unequal pay and other inequality issues in the workplace. Could it have to do with the male expectation that, as explained above, women are primary caregivers and have little or no place in the professional engineering work environment? Perhaps. All of the information—projected or real—regarding the overall picture of women in the field, their numbers and cultural and business reasons why they have a difficult time in the workplace, is worth exploring. The defense of unequal pay in relationship to family values has become a controversial issue for many career women. As reported by Bill Singer in the Huffington Post article, August 30, 2010, there is an issue today in the workplace that did not exist before, one that certainly applies to women engineers as well as other professionals. It goes further than the issue of equal play or any perceived glass ceiling. Singer writes, “Among the more prominent is whether society should or can ask its female workforce to make economic sacrifices for giving birth and raising families...[or] more acutely, [does] society and the business community... have a shared interest in fostering healthy, stable families. As Singer suggests: Ultimately, equal pay would seem to be a matter of fair play, which I always thought was the bedrock of America's capitalism. An honest day's work for an honest day's pay....sometimes the "choice" to work at home or work part-time or on a flex schedule is not a voluntary option but one that is forced upon women. If we value families, then why is the economic burden of raising them always pressed upon women at the cost of fair pay and career opportunities? Whatever happened to the concept of shared sacrifice? Singer gives this example: Assume there are eight engineers employed by a company; there are six male engineers and two female engineers. All have identical qualifications and credentials. The six men are paid $50,000 per year and eligible for a 5 percent raise each year if their performance appraisal indicates satisfactory performance. The two women are paid $48,000 per year and are eligible for a 3 percent raise if their performance rating indicates superior performance. Granted, this is an egregious example of workplace discrimination but it helps paint a picture of discrimination and how it is perpetuated in business. In this case, the female engineers are clearly being treated differently, based on sex. This example violates several federal laws: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Beyond the economic inequities of the workplace, there are always the ever present incidents of sexual harassment, yes, even for female engineers. Given the number of complaints, examples undoubtedly exist [not often publicized based on the dearth of articles]. It is discrimination of possibly the worse sort when it escalates to behavior that is verbally and physically abusive. Many cases of employment discrimination allege a hostile work environment created when a victim is treated in such a way that makes it difficult or impossible to perform her job duties. The likelihood of a women quitting in the fact of it is very great. A criticism of an article in the New York Times alleges “the article treats women's increased education and presence in the work force as a troubling modern development that has ironically left them vulnerable and made them threatening to men.”9 While a problem particularly in the workplace, the charge is obviously relevant to all of the issues previously discussed and particularly, from the psychological viewpoint, relevant to the problem of sex discrimination and harassment. The article of which Menkedick speaks concerns the topic of women who achieve high educational and professional status and their marriage goals. The article by Sam Roberts, New York Times, January 18, 2010 concludes with a quote from a professional woman. “You are confident, have good credit, own your own business, travel around the world and are self-sufficient. What man is going to want you?” Extrapolating from the situation, the notion that professional women are looking for husbands of equal academic and professional careers, while potential husbands are seeking women who earn more than they do is probably valid. Given this, the environment in the workplace can become, as imagined, extremely complex indeed. Reinforcing the statement, a woman quoted in the same article draws a fairly dim picture, saying “that men see you as high maintenance if you look like you don’t need anyone to take care of you.” Considering this attitude, and the “natural” need on the part of males to feel dominant over females, one can imagine how the extension of it might affect from a business interaction perspective, male attitudes and behaviors toward women with whom they work who they see as “high maintenance.” CONCLUSION So in conclusion what can we say about all this? What determinations can we make regarding the workplace as an environment conducive or not so for women engineers? When we look at statistics generally they seem to indicate a small margin of increase [though not earthshaking] in women entering engineering and achieving higher degrees. However, there is little sign of abating discriminatory attitudes toward girls and their ability to do as well in math and science as boys, despite the reality cited in the Wall Street Journal article by Carol Hymowitz, November 9, 2009 which insists that girls are generally better students than boys, but that "...the very traits that propel them to the head of the class -- diligence, organization, a keen ability to follow instructions and to discern what teachers want -- aren't enough to catapault them up the corporate ladder, and may even be holding them back [in the workplace]. Is it a matter of perception on the part of companies that keeps both hires and salaries for women lower? It may be so, yet the factors that lead to this are controllable, and it is there in the workplace that women must make their stand as professional engineers. “To make changes, women need mentors and to be careful to seek a workplace culture that recognizes and rewards their talents.” And for their own professional good must shake off what appears a biological need to please and adapt a more male and aggressive attitude as exemplified by Hymowitz in quoting Jacobson’s example of how women negotiate from a weakened position. “'I'm $125 an hour, but for you I'd charge $75, when the guy just says flatly that he charges $350." They must shake off the image that they are “the grinds” that got them the good grades in high school and show now the confidence in their abilities they so rightly deserve. There is no doubt that women are operating under certain disadvantages, but the same force of will that made them top students can also help them to overcome them and create an image of themselves as professionals deserving of their positions and as such, assets to the companies that employ them. Bibliography “Discrimination Against Women and Girls in Education.” The Leadership Conference, July 1, 1997 Hey,Valerie and Bradford, Simon. “Re-engineering Motherhood? Sure Start in the Community.” Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 7:1 (2006): 53-67. Accessed online Nov. 4, 2010 http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=7&issue=1&year=2006&article=6_Hey_CIEC_7_1_web Hymowitz, Carol. “Why Women Professionals Miss Great Opportunities.” Wall Street Journal, November 8, 2006. Accessed online Nov. 7, 2010 http://wie.engineering.ucdavis.edu/pages/articles/articles_opportunities.html Lehr, Donald. “Bias Against Women in Engineering and Science,” Sept. 27, 2006. Lewen, Tamar. “Bias Called Persistent Hurdle for Women in Sciences.” New York Times, March 22,2010. Accessed online Nov. 7, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/science/22women.html Menkedick, Sarah. “The New York Times Paints Successful Women As Threats To Men.” Women’s Rights, January 26, 2010. Accessed online Nov. 6, 2010 http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/the_new_york_times_paints_successful_women_as_threats_to_men Ranson, Gillian. "’One of the Boys’: Negotiations with Motherhood, as Prospect or Reality, among Women in Engineering,” 145+ (1). Accessed online Nov. 4, 2010 www.questia.com Roberts, Sam. “More Men Marrying Wealthier Women.” New York Times, Jan. 18, 2010. Accessed online Nov. 5, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/us/19marriage.html?_r=1&hpﾧ Singer, Bill. “Examining the Defense of Family Values and Unequal Pay for Women.” Huffington Post, November 9, 2010. Accessed online Nov. 7, 2010 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-singer/in-defense-of-family-valu_b_696805.html Wajcman,Judy. "The Domestic Basis for the Managerial Career” Sociological Review 44:4 (1996): 609-29. Zimmerman, Ann. “Revenge of the Nerds: How Barbie Got Her Geek On.” Wall Street Journal, April 9, 2010. Accessed online Nov. 7, 2010 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304198004575171791681002592.html Read More