Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO), of which I’m a license-holding member, publishes a bi-monthly magazine called Engineering Dimensions. In the September/October 2010 issue, a letter to the magazine caught my attention. Since online access to the magazine is restricted to members, I’ll quote the reader’s feedback in its entirety below:
-President Seems to Support Discrimination-
I read with surprise and disappointment our newly elected president’s avowed intention of supporting the concept of sexual discrimination (“Women in leadership,” Engineering Dimensions, July/August 2010, p. 3). However, her suggestion that our profession should support sexual or any other type of discrimination greatly concerned me. This is antithetical to our long and proud history of objectivity, neutrality and fairness. In fact, it calls into question our claim to professional status.Her first sentence–”At a time when women represent only 10 per cent of all professional engineers in Canada, there is a ray of light in the effort to become a more inclusive profession”–clearly implies that we have been excluding women from our profession. In the more than 50 years I have been a member, I have no recollection of ever having witnessed one case of sexual discrimination with respect to employment, membership, or appointment to office in the association. Furthermore, having been on staff, I am confident if there had been, I would have heard of such a thing.
Like it or not, there are basic differences between the male brain and the female brain. This is the basic reason that there are more women in nursing than men, and there are more men in engineering than women. If there is any sexual discrimination in those professions it is due to the choice of training by those who subsequently apply for membership.
I encouraged my daughters to continue their education, but I made no effort to direct their choice. An example of how I influenced them can show this. When, as a teenager, one of my daughters learned about the Block Parent program, she came to me and said: “This sounds like a good idea, Dad. Why don’t you organize it here?”
My response was: “No, it’s your idea, so if you want it, you do it. I’ll support you.” I was very pleased, and not in the slightest surprised when she did it–entirely on her own. She subsequently chose her own course and subjects at university. If she had chosen engineering, I would have supported her, but she made an arts choice, and I supported her.
Discrimination on the basis of anything other than ability is immoral, even if it is, like some governmental programs, legal.
William W. Hastings, P.Eng., Aurora, ON
Let me start off by saying I’m not one to actively promote the participation of any group in any profession. Having said that, I find Mr. Hastings’ letter suffers from the very problem in which he denies exists in the field of engineering. There are so many holes in his arguments it’s hard to know where to begin. So why don’t we start at the beginning.
The first paragraph accuses PEO president, Diane Freeman, of supporting sexual discrimination based on her July/August 2010 message to the membership about women in engineering. Have a read of Ms. Freeman’s short piece yourself. I’d like to hear if you also find that she’s promoting sexual discrimination. I certainly didn’t come away with that impression.
The second paragraph tries to read something into the Ms. Freeman’s writing that I’m not sure is there. But what’s more disappointing is Mr. Hastings’s assertion that in his 50 years of being an engineer, he has never witnesses a single case of sexual discrimination. This may be true, but if he is using his own personal experience as an argument, then I’m afraid that Mr. Hastings may make for a very poor engineer. Or at least one with a very poor understanding of statistics. A single sample hardly makes for a statistical significant result while Ms. Freeman referred to a Harvard study that included surveys of many women engineers. Mr. Hastings further makes the ridiculous assertion that being on staff at his engineering firm, he is confident he would know if there was any sexual discrimination going on. Yes, I’m sure everyone, both perpetrators and victims, just love to broadcast these sensitive matters to every single colleague in the corporation. Amazing.
The third paragraph goes into the male/female brain difference theory. It’s true male and female brains are different, but Mr. Hastings says this difference is the basic reason for vastly different sex ratios in nursing and engineering. This oversimplifications allows sexual stereotypes to continue unchallenged and in Mr. Hastings case, allows him to believe that 95% women in nursing and 90% men in engineering is due primarily to brain structure. Having data this skewed in a particular job classification is akin to the margin of victory by which dictators win their “elections”. It should be viewed as a real curiosity. It would be nice if Mr. Hastings, as an engineer, looked at some scientific data before making such bold claims. Let me start by recommending an excellent article from The Economist on the differences between the sexes. The list of references for that article is especially rich.
We can also easily find fault with Mr. Hastings’ arguments by looking at counter-examples. People’s Daily Online, China’s government newspaper, reports that more than 1/3 of engineers in China are female. In the 1980′s, 58% of engineers in Russia were female although market reforms has since diminished those numbers to be on par with China.
Finally, Mr. Hastings closes his arguments with an irrelevant example of his daughter that veers off into, at best, the tangential. I’m sure others can make a better case than I against Mr. Hastings, but unfortunately, arguing with facts has rarely changed anyone’s mind. Furthermore, I’ve found Mr. Hastings’ attitudes to be more pervasive and entrenched in the industry than I had anticipated when first joining the workforce. But if your favourite engineering blog (Engineer Blogs, of course!) is anything to go by, those attitudes are slowly retiring along with their aging masters.
Subscribe By Email
Subscribe By Reader
Great reply. I’d only add that a person who does not feel the discrimination does not have the right to tell other people how they feel. William W. Hastings may have 50 years of engineering experience, but he sure doesn’t know much.
Even if there is a difference between brains of different sexes, you’re probably looking at some 60/40 split. NY times just had a book review of Cinderella ate my daughter. I haven’t read the book, but there might be a culprit for additional skewing. NanoGEARS is 10 months old and I’m scared shitless of the pink phase. Hopefully she’ll learn how to use a wood lathe by then.
I agree that the differences between the sexes means that there will be some natural skew to how men and women pick their professions. But if I can put it in engineering parlance, I believe culture is the 1st order effect while gender is the 2nd or 3rd order effect. Some of the references in The Economist article point to how innate differences between men and women can be compensated to a large degree through different ways of teaching. Whether that’s desirable is up to your own personal politics.
If a man was promoting less women (percentage wise) in the engineering workforce, would that be sexual discrimination? If so, how is promoting less men (percentage wise) not discrimination?
While I think Hasting may have brushed over and oversimplified a legitimate issue, I think Freeman went over the top in blaming a “hostile” work environment as a primary cause of women leaving the field while barely mentioning motherhood, except in a nearly negative light, lamenting that women disproportionately shoulder family responsibilities.
Is choosing to be a mom really any less valuable then choosing to be an engineer? And who is really to tell a person what to choose? I think it is important to educate young women (and men) about the possibilities of an engineering profession, but think some social engineering program (targeting specific percentages) is going too far.
The problem, in my observation, is that most women drop out because of the expectation that, because they are women, they are supposed to drop out and take care of the kids. The women whose husbands help with half of the housework and child-rearing are far less likely to drop out. Most women I know don’t want to drop out but feel like they are not being given any other option either because they cannot reduce hours at work or because they do not have a supportive spouse.
So it’s not that parenting is less valuable: it’s that a large number of women who are choosing that route may not be doing so willingly.
Hi Bill, thanks for your comment. Where did you read about promoting more women than men percentage-wise relative to their numbers in the engineering? Perhaps I missed something.
As for Ms. Freeman, she isn’t the one doing the blaming, either of a hostile work environment or of women shouldering family responsibilities. She’s simply quoting the results from a survey published in the Harvard Business Review. A preview of the survey report can be found here.
I’m generally not in favour of targeted percentages nor promoting anyone that isn’t the best job candidate. However, there are some percentages that are so skewed that it raises eyebrows. 95% women in nursing. 90% men in engineering (in Canada). If motherhood is an issue for engineers, it should be an issue for every single job category in the workforce. So why isn’t nursing dominated by men? Why isn’t secretarial administration dominated by men? In the US, percentage of female doctors went from 10% in the 1970′s to about 1/3 today. What’s different about engineering?
Comparing choosing of being a mom vs. being an engineer is similar to comparing apples and oranges, isn’t it? How about being a mom vs. being a dad? Engineering vs. … nursing/teaching (or what is considered as a “feminine” profession? To me this will be more logical comparison.
About some restrictions in the profession. I found here that there is a restriction for female being for example, a concrete tester (I know, it is not exactly an engineering position per say, but some internationally trained engineers or fresh grads could be seaking a possibilty to get foot into the door). And the reason of this certain restriction based on demand of heavy lifting for that position. The problem could be solved this way: at the site could be a position for non-qualified job including heavy lifting when necessary (and it does not have to be high-paid job), and a position for doing all analyses, calculations etc. – for someone with higher qualification (and yes, it could be a male or a female). This is just one little example.
The differences between nursing and engineering are likely due in large part to the support system. Ie, hours reductions, or extended times away from the job are really hard sells in engineering, as the tasks at hand are often sequential and non-fungible, more so in specialty areas than general.
In nursing, short of some specialties, its easier to shift work around to provide cover for reduced hours/absence… and it doesn’t take very long to get up to speed when you return. I think similar factors play out in the physician realm… the work is a lot less sequential.
Interesting hypothesis. But how does it really explain 95% of nursing is women? Flexibility in work hours repel men? Then what about physicians vs. nurses? Why is one predominately men and one way-way-way predominately women? It seems to me societal expectations is a large factor.
Hi Flux, I was referring to the call to a greater targeted percentage of female engineers. Attempts to meet such quotas invariably cause reverse discrimination, how can they not? I think this fear is in part what drove Hasting’s response, especially based on his last sentence.
I believe motherhood is an issue for women leaving the workforce for more than engineering, (see The Opt-Out Revolution-NYT). I would love to see more flexible hours for engineers to deal with family issues, but also have to be realistic in the fact that engineering may not lend itself to such positions as well as other professions, such as nursing, but hopefully telecommunication will help change that. There’s also the problem of age. Women returning to an engineering career after motherhood may face some age discrimination in an industry that seems to prefer young engineers. Not to mention, with a fast pace of change, taking a few years off (or more) can leave you behind the times.
I don’t really think the dropout rate is a huge problem or that sexist male engineers are driving out women any more than sexist nurses are driving away men, it seems to be an issue with fewer women getting in in the first place. As for why less women start out in engineering or few men become nurses, I think it is a combination of biological and cultural issues, including some feedback between the two (e.g. women may be more natural nurturers, and so jobs that utilize that skill set -such as nursing- may be culturally seen as unmanly). In terms of biological reasons, I’m not talking about capabilities, but general preferences. I’m sure I could be trained to be more nurturing, but would still have likely 0 interest in being a nurse, as I’m sure my wife is capable of learning improved spatial visualization skills without making her want to be an engineer.
Assuming men and women are different, there is going to be some bell curve to the various career paths and bound to be some outliers, perhaps engineering and nursing are two of the extremes. If there world was free of cultural norms, I’m not sure what the natural difference in male/female engineers would be, but think guessing and pushing a target percentages is dangerous.
Hasting seemed to read Freeman’s article a bit defensively, and sort of had a knee jerk reaction. I don’t really think Freeman is really advocating discrimination or blaming sexist engineering men on the current state of affairs, but her message could have been a bit better written in a manner less likely to offend the likes of Hasting.
Some excellent points, Bill. I’ll have to disagree that targeting a percentage necessarily means reverse discrimination. Programs to help raise the interest of girls in engineering so more are in the pipeline and to help reduce discrimination in the workplace as to retain more women both can be done without any discrimination. As you suggested, corporations more sensitive to dealing with family issues is another way to retain women.
Reverse discrimination, or affirmative action as it’s usually referred to, also has its place in my opinion. I’ll make an analogy to endangered species that are close to extinction due to human activity. If left as is, extinction will be the result. If special protections are put in place, the population may recover, at which time the special protections can be removed. It’s a delicate line to walk, but it can work if (a big if) implemented properly.
Just had some fun (if you want to call it that) over at reddit looking at the ‘nice’ discussion this post generated. Since I’m too lazy to make a reddit account just to get slammed by a bunch of people who’s opinions don’t mean jack to me, I thought I would comment here.
I now have just over two decades of post-bachelor’s degree engineering experience under my belt. While I haven’t job-hopped much, the places I have worked were quite varied: a very large organization (DoD), a smaller company (~100) that later was swallowed up by a global corporation (~30,000), and (my current) quasi-academic position. In all three of these positions I have had ample opportunities to interact with other engineers, both internal and external to my place of employment.
Though women in engineering are few and far between, I have had some opportunity to work with women engineers. My first supervisor was a woman, and out of the dozen or so supervisors I have had I would rate her in the top third. And before you ask, this was not a case of moving into management because she couldn’t handle the technical work – she was just as good technically as the other engineers in the division.
I also worked on a fast-track project that had a woman as team lead. In addition to taking care of her portion of the project, she kept the rest of us on schedule and kept management off of our backs. This was not easy – DoD was going through a major series of layoffs, our project had money, and we were under tremendous pressure to add people to the project.
I’m now working in an environment where creativity, out-of-the-box thinking, and the ability to self-start / self-teach are necessities. There are about ten engineers in the group, spanning a wide range of ages and education. Only one of my colleagues is a woman, and she is working part time. Guess who is generating more patents…
Most of the engineers I have worked with I consider to be solid and dependable. I have had the good fortune to work with a couple that were so good they were scary. I have also had the misfortune to work with a few that were so bad I wanted to blacklist the institutions that let them graduate.
I would estimate that less than 5% of the engineers I have worked with were women. That may only amount to 15 or 20 women, but I think it says something that NOT ONE of the engineers that I consider to be substandard or lacking was a woman.
Everyone’s experience is different. Mine is a bit more varied. The first team lead I worked under was a woman, who was great. In the job after that, I worked with The Siren, someone who has some of the worst combinations mentioned in the reddit discussions — unmotivated, uncreative, unqualified, but a nice dresser. But I don’t hold her gender accountable for her own professional shortcomings. In fact, I hold my manager accountable for hiring her in the first place. The job after that I worked with a woman who was an average performer. So it runs the gamut, kinda like the guys I’ve worked with.
[...] now don’t get cocky! Over at Engineer Blogs my colleague Fluxor wrote a great post about women in engineering. And this is where you see the total disconnect of those that get it and those that don’t. [...]
Great thought-provoking piece (and commentry), touching on all the hot points of this topic:
*Quota-system controversy and the risk of basing opinions on statistics
*Fundamental differences between the sexes
*Social/ environmental factors that influece women choosing engineering
*Female engineer retention and drop-out rates
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with the article – I’ve read many articles pushing for more women in engineering , many which displayed the naive generalisations and statistic-driven opinions to which Hastings is referring, and this one seems pretty solid. It is fair and doesn’t make unsubstatiated assumptions.
I’ve dealt with this issue myself in a few posts on my blog http://engineerchic.me
particularly this one:
http://engineerchic.me/2011/08/27/transforming-the-image-of-engineering-part-1/
[...] Women, Engineering, and Perception [...]
обстригать волосы,не?? +фото) вся в раздумьях
zubashech.com