We all know about the right-hand rule. Typically introduced in the first physics course you’ll ever take, it is a simplifying assumption that arises as a consequence of an arbitrarily-assigned 3-D coordinate system. We need to choose one direction as positive and one as negative, and using your right hand is a good way as any to enable universal consistency. (note: the right-hand rule is also important in electrical engineering to determine the direction of current flow and magnetic fields)

Here’s a couple images that typically are used to illustrate the right-hand rule:

<–From wikipedia

From ExploreLearning–>

What gender do these cartoony-hands look like they belong to?

At left – this hand looks relatively unisex, but decidedly unfeminine. The image on the right is definitely the hand of a cartoon man. Wearing a boring sweater that’s slightly poofy, to boot.

Now contrast this with this image, from interactive mathematics:

Does this look different?

Note the red nail polish that ostensibly says “woman” – does that affect your conscious thought process? What about the subconscious?

I have undertaken surveys of several common engineering textbooks to get a feeling for the images that are typically used within. Engineering texts like to show men doing things – rarely do they use women, even cartoon women, to illustrate a word problem or concept. A scan of a common Statics book (Bedford & Fowler, 3rd ed., 2002) reveals that over 600 pages of text, only 6 women are definitively pictured and the ratio of men to women displayed is over 10:1.

Clearly there is a discrepancy between the diversity of the images shown and the desired diversity in engineering. The demographics represented within engineering examples do matter – they affect how we internalize knowledge and create foundations for our understanding.

The right-hand rule is just one example of how male models are typical in engineering and science concept introductions. Another simplifying assumption, this time on the part of textbook authors and illustrators, to choose a thick wrist and stout nails as the default instead of anything distinctly feminine. I wonder sometimes – what if it was different? What if every time we were introduced to a new idea it was through a female body or feminine image? How different would it feel to learn from an example that looks like me?

Just as the assignment of positive/negative is fundamentally arbitrary, so is the use of male images as the standard models for engineering knowledge and information. While once this was a simplifying assumption as most engineering students were male, this is no longer the desired situation. It’s time to stop being lazy and going with the images that engineers have always used, the assumptions of normality that have always existed within the field. It’s time to make a change, to start now, to encourage new viewpoints and possibilities in engineering, math, and science!

In 2012, please consider the images and examples that represent engineering knowledge in your life. Are they affected by assumptions of males as the norm? Are you ready to challenge the assumptions that have been foundational in the engineering field? As the saying goes, “when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME” – let’s stop being asses, and instead be trailblazers in encouraging women into science, math, engineering, and technology. It’s about effing time!! =)