The IEEE “The Institute” article Four New Female Fellows Make Their Mark on Robotics came out recently stating that this year was the highest number of women elevated to “Fellow” status in one year. If you’re not familiar with the IEEE Fellow program, it basically a process where senior members of the IEEE society are nominated, evaluated on their contributions, and voted on by the IEEE board of directors. It’s a pretty big deal from what I can tell (I’m currently only a student member).
The article features four really amazing women, all professors actually, doing work in robotics. Most, it seems, are mid-career and well-established. For one, it’s great to see women engineers being recognized and featured for their work. It’s good to know there are successful women paving the way.
Upon a closer look at the numbers, I was a little disappointed. Only 29 of 321 Fellows this year were women. That’s only 9%, and it’s the highest number of women thus far. This begs the question: “Why so low? Where are the women engineers?” This is a common theme on this blog, but at the same time I am baffled by why progress is so slow. It’s 2011, not the 1950s. Women are significantly more prominent in medicine, law, and business; why not engineering? I have many thoughts on this, but I’ll save that for future posts. My hope is that every year will be a record high number of women IEEE Fellows, and, someday, to add my name to that list. Got to represent! :P
When it comes to work, or even meeting new people in typical contexts, I’m usually at least okay thinking and responding on my feet and coming off as competent. But a few weeks ago, I was on a trip with a co-worker for a few days. We’d spent hours on end working together in small groups, we’d eaten at more Chili’s by the highway than you knew existed in Ohio (not recommended), and even discussed how much we loved our families driving through what felt like the end of the world in a blizzard in central Michigan.
We were well past the going over our career histories, our what-do-you-like/ not-like about the job rants. I felt pretty friendly, and way comfortable for being relatively new to the group — until the question came up: “So, have you been able to keep a relationship going through all the moving and travelling the last two years?”
“Uhh, what. I mean I know what. Maybe. I mean, not maybe. Not that I mean no. But no. But not like .. I mean, it’s possible for sure. But it doesn’t matter– what time is it… umm”
So since Day 1 at work, I’ve had this compulsion to keep my work-life very separate from my personal life. When I started, I was SUPER careful about sharing only the absolute minimum with my co-workers. It was never a question of lying, nor that I had anything that I had to be hiding — more a question of just wanting to keep my life cleanly compartmentalised.
This all really broke down when I moved to a new city for my second role. Not having prior friends or family in the new city really changed the equation here. I found myself initially trying to keep clean lines between my social and work life, but found them really blurring through my second and third rotations, as I really relied on my work network to make friends as well.
Terrifying at first — but I went out to dinner with the same people on weekends, worried about growing old unfulfilled after watching Up! with them, and went to insane Halloween parties at Madison with them as well. And now having moved again, while I know I won’t keep up with some of them past looking them up when I’m back in the same city again, I know that a select few of them I will keep in touch with for a long time coming, and have come to really value as friends.
But above all, even though I know now that letting people from work in on closer part of my life — on where my family is, what I do for fun, how I run away to Chicago so often to stay sane, and yes, how old I am — has worked out just fine, and perhaps even to my benefit in the past, come time for my fourth rotation, now in Los Angeles, I still find my guard back up, ready to snap back with an “old enough to know I don’t have to answer that” the second someone tries to find out about how old I am, or get closer in any way.
And I know from talking to my friends that I’m not entirely alone in this. Ann’s got her shoe story, and I reckon that the same feeling of holding up a pretense, of playing the part that people expect us to while keeping the fact that you wear heels and went to that Britney concert last night a secret – is all too familiar for quite a few of us. My thoughts starting out was that it’s already challenging enough to establish credibility being new, short-term, young and female. I want to let no more than that slip about me, if I can help it.
Over the (limited number of) years, I’ve come to understand that to an extent, I do have to share parts of my life with my co-workers, and create some level of a real relationship — I mean, these are the people I spend easily 50 hours a week around! I’d go insane if I didn’t!
And here’s the real kicker in my mind: that’s not it! Being aloof and a loner is only making the Old Boys Network stronger with every Happy Hour you skip!
Bottom line, my mother continues her streak of being right about everything, and it’s all about having a balance. Now I’m no expert claiming to dole out sound advice –and my mother’s not quite ready to blog yet — but, here are a few of the ways I’m learning to balance this.
Peace.
Alright alright — what’s with car companies and these periodic releases of cars that emphasize “woman-friendly” features?
The 2010 Chevy Equinox is one of these – as a brief article in Time explains, the Equinox has features that were designed with women in mind but are relatively subtle – many consumers may not even notice. The notable “woman-friendly” features include:
I think the change to the accelerator pedal tilt makes tons of sense and would genuinely help the transmit the force from the leg to the pedal without placing too much pressure on the fulcrum of the heel or ankle.
However, as reporter Alyssa Fetini points out in this video, they didn’t bother to change the brake pedal to match! I think its a legal/safety requirement that the brake pedal be closer to the driver than the accelerator, so perhaps there’s less flexibility in tilt angle for the brake pedal. But doesn’t it seem like the designers just went halfway in integrating this female-friendly feature?
As for the other Chevy improvements — I don’t wear rings and have no idea what they mean by a carved-out door panel. But its funny how all the press materials are careful to specify that the doors are carved out to keep diamond rings from rubbing. As we’re in the US and American cars have the steering wheel/driver’s seat on the left, it’s the left hand and the diamond ring on the left hand that is the concern being addressed by this “feature.” Sounds like a marketing spin as they realize their target customers are the soccer moms/yoga moms with the fatty rocks on their left ring fingers…
And finally – a big center console?! Awesome, sign me up! But I think everyone would find that useful for storage, not just women for their handbags. You could easily spin that feature for men as well – “lots of room to stow your man tools, readily accessible from the comfort of your driving seat.”
But the bigger question is — if you make a big deal about the three new special design features included in your product for women, what does it say about the rest of your products? That they were designed with only men in mind? And really, thinking about women and what they would want in a vehicle led to only these three features? Seems lame to me.
For a blast from the past, I’ll remind you of Volvo’s “Your Concept Car” (YCC) introduced in 2004. It made headlines for not only the “woman-friendly features” (they had at least 8, beating the 2010 Chevy Equinox by a longshot) but because it was designed by a team composed of predominately women. Never intended to be a true production model, the YCC was meant to be a symbol of Volvo’s forward thinking and efforts to include women from soup to nuts throughout the design process. Here’s a short list of their “woman-friendly” features:
Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, as the Chevy Equinox actually is mass produced, marketed, and solid to the general public whereas the Volvo YCC was meant to be just a concept.. “your concept.” The best and most popular ideas from the YCC were supposed to be integrated into the next rounds of Volvos — but I’m not if any ever made it. Or, if they did, they were not heralded as “woman-friendly.” And while the Volvo YCC female design team came up with many features meant to appeal to the needs of real women, the car still seems a bit… ridiculous? Are the most important things to me, as a female driver, really the easy clean paint finish and space for my ponytail?
Looking, as always, to the wisdom of Jezebel commenters to provide some perspective on what features women really want in cars: “How about a retractable vibrator attached to the steering column for those times when you’re stuck in traffic and bored to death?” or “At least it’s not a Dodge LaFemme. We’ve come that far.”
Indeed, we have :)
[Built for Blahniks: A Chevy for the High-Heels Crowd - Time] [A Gas Pedal Built for Stilettos - Time video] [Your Concept Car - Volvo press release] [Gizmag Review - Volvo Concept Car designed by women for women] [HowStuffWorks - How the Volvo Your Concept Car Works] [Chevy Builds Car for Carrie & Co - Jezebel]
I read this New York Times article recently on how there are still very few women in high tech entrepreneurship realm in Silicon Valley. The outright sexism described in the first part was frustrating, but not surprising. Both outright and subtle forms of sexism clearly do still happen in many workplaces and, generally, I find it very discouraging. However, reading this article, I felt oddly motivated and even inspired to start some sort of tech venture. This is even more weird for me because I have never really liked business. So, why the change?
I think it’s pretty apparent that I am a big promoter of increasing representation of women in engineering. One reason that women are often turned off by engineering is because engineering is perceived as being focused only on things and not on working with or helping people. Contrary to this perception, I see engineering as being one of the most important things to helping people improve their lives. Good engineering should look beyond just the technology and see how people interact with it and how it affects their lives. The understanding that engineering is a way to create positive change is clouded by misconceptions of the field.
It seems entrepreneurship faces a similar problem. My perception of business and entrepreneurship had always been that it was for self-important people that wanted to push their ideas and make it rich at any cost. I didn’t really see myself going in that direction because “making it big” wasn’t really a driving force for me. But, now that I’ve gotten to know the full breath of what entrepreneurship can mean, I realize that it can serve as the medium that brings new ideas and engineering advancements directly to people that want and need them. It can play in very well with the “do something to help people” factor that I think is important to many women.
Both engineering and entrepreneurship are disciplines that require idea generation and problem solving. Diversity (in all the dimensions you can think of) is a benefit for coming up with better ideas and solutions. So, it’s more than just unfortunate that there aren’t more women in these fields; there is a missing critical perspective. So, now, I’ll be a big promoter of increasing the number of women in engineering and entrepreneurship through fighting misconceptions of both fields. Guess I’ll start here: Make a difference! Change the world! Become an engineer and/or an entrepreneur!
The Leatherman Wave:
“Perfect for any job, adventure, or everyday task, the Wave multi-tool is an international best-seller,” their website copy reads. Indeed, I know engineers around the world who strap a Leatherman onto their belts every day and whip it out with no hesitation at robotics competitions, on the factory floor, in business meetings and design reviews, and even just to play with idly while bored. I’ve known some young men and women who use it as a badge of honor, a signifier of membership in the clan of engineers who need tools available at ALL TIMES, because honestly, who knows when you’ll need to strip wire, fix some eyeglasses, or diffuse a bomb to prevent a bus from blowing up if it goes less than 50 MPH (that’s right, Keanu used one in Speed – inspiring generations of would-be action heroes to spring for their own multi-tools, just in case?).
Engineering companies also frequently give away Leathermen as signs of appreciation and useful gifts – I got one, in fact, as part of celebration for hitting a project milestone and a special message from management saying “here’s another tool because you still have a long way to go.” At that time, I had been joking with my coworkers about how I needed a Leatherwoman instead of a Leatherman. Of course, if you google “leatherwoman” the hits are not for metal multi-tools…
Contrast this with the Tweezerman:
“Eyebrow experts have been going wild for our original, award winning Slant® for over 25 years. The perfectly aligned, hand-filed tips are slanted to grab every hair, every time with the smoothest, true precision.” Again, the website copy speaks glowingly of this tool’s unique capabilities and ultimate purpose in self-grooming. But I want to know – why did they call it the Tweezerman?
I admit, it’s a cute name that connotes images of a overall-clad helper here to save me from fuzzy and undefined brows (oh god!). Yet, its also a reminder of how I don’t default to an image of a woman in conjunction with functional tools, even when they are beauty-related products intended primarily for females. As one reviewer put it, “If only it was more accurately called Tweezerwoman: How many men pay 20 bucks to pull strands of hair out of their face one-by-one?” But would calling it the Tweezerwoman be appropriate? It sounds almost as awkward as Leatherwoman, but in addition it’s a reminder that I can (and have) pay someone, typically female, to wax/tweeze/groom my brows. Those are the real Tweezerwomen? Or I can purchase a Tweezerman and do it myself?
This connection between “man” and “tool” is deeply rooted (remember the days of Home Improvement and Tim Thomas’s grunting?)- so much so that even beauty “tools” including zebra-striped tweezers for women are constructed with a male identity. What would be an appropriate tool to reflect a feminine identity? Can you think of one? Why is it such a stretch?
In industrial engineering/product design, curves are often used and emphasized to bring out the more “feminine” nature of a given product or part — this is extreme and simplistic, but the curviest tools present in the local hardware store are either the french curve or the flexible curve:
Indeed, they are curvy and more feminine than say, a screwdriver, but if you picked one up would you think/say “I’m gonna use this girl to help me draw this curve” vs. “I’m gonna use this guy to define this edge”, etc.? Just a little thought experiment to evaluate your internal resistance/acceptance of how these tools can be gendered as well. Shows me the extent to which I think of tools as being male. Anyone care to comment on romance languages (spanish/french/etc.) and if the gender of tools in those languages is masculine or feminine?
And, not to get graphic here, but its worth mentioning in the spirit of electrical and cable connections with male/female ends that in engineering, female is associated with anything that has a hole, whereas male is attributed to anything with a protruding end. So, maybe the most feminine tool is actually the wire stripper:
“I’m just gonna use this here tool, this gal here with all the holes, to take the plastic jackets off of those wires.”
Ehhh? Ok, I’ll stop now. :)
[Leatherman Wave product description] [Animal Print Tweezerman Product description] [Review in Jacksonville Skirt of the Tweezerman] [French Curve Set - Graphics Direct] [Utrecht Art - Flexible Curve] [Crazy PC - Wire Strippers, Computer Accessories]
I’m fairly certain that this story of an initially normal social interaction would have turned out very different had I not been an engineer. Ah, the adventures of being a woman engineer:
A year or two ago, a big group of us (including the Steel Toed Stilettos crew) were going out on the town and our first stop was a pretty typical bar on one of the main streets. Priyanka and I were waiting by the bar to order some drinks and a guy at the bar starts to chat us up. He’s young, early 20s, about our age. He asks us if we’re students. We say, no, but we are recent graduates. We talk a bit more and mention that we are engineers. Usually, I get a kind of surprised reaction and sometimes an “oh, that sounds hard” or “that’s way too much math for me.” Sometimes, mentioning that I’m an engineer completely kills the conversation as it becomes apparent that the topics of interest we have in common is a big fat zero.
However, in this case, it turns out that this guy is also an engineer. This only steers the conversation towards nerdier topics. I start talking about some project I worked on that involved a microprocessor and somehow we arrive at him asking me, “So, how many microprocessors can you program?” Wait, are we having some sort of engineering pissing contest at a bar on a Friday night? Really? Apparently, the answer is yes, and if this is really happening, I’m throwing down. So, I answer: “At *least*… 7.” This was probably slightly exaggerated at the time and is definitely not true any more (I’m a little out of practice). His response: “Oh, I can probably program 3 or 4 microprocessors.”
Clearly, I have won this random microprocessor programming pissing contest which we have just engaged in. But, really, why and how did we get here? Was this guy trying to hit on us or just have a casual conversation? In either case, he failed terribly. At this point, Priyanka and I both realize how suddenly awkward the conversation has become and make our escape to join our friends at a table on the other side of the bar.
Moral of the story: If you’re trying to pick up engineering ladies, “How many microprocessors can you program?” or anything that initiates a kind of engineering pissing contest is most likely NOT an effective pick-up line. There’s nothing wrong with nerdy, but at least try to be a little creative. :P
Today, March 24, 2010 is the second annual Ada Lovelace Day - an international day of blogging to celebrate the achievements of women in technology and science.
Find out more at the main sponsoring site: www.findingada.com or follow #ald10 on twitter for the latest. Its currently a trending topic in the UK! Wooo! The target for 2010 was to have 3072 contributing bloggers… right now we’re a little short of 2000 participants so spread the word and write something if you are so moved.
For me, personally… in considering my “tech heroine” – its frankly a little confusing! Whenever I am tasked with coming up with a female role model or personal heroine, I first think of all the women I’ve worked with personally through the day-to-day grind. I have immense respect and admiration for many of these coworkers, supervisors, partners in crime. It is through them and their reality of working in engineering and making a difference every day by being themselves in each situation that I find truly motivational and inspiring. Though there are certainly still struggles, these women engineers are there – present – working – making a change – doing their thing. I dig it.
But its hard to discuss the details of why some of those day-to-day real women are so amazing without getting too personal… hence I’ll turn my attention to the famous tech heroines from days past, whose achievements and discoveries have been steeped in time and are now celebrated for their usefulness and how they have affected society and cultural development. So many great examples of stunning women whose legacy has obvious impact to us today. Women like Ada Lovelace, of course, as well as Marie Curie, Grace Hopper, Rachel Carson – it’s awesome how easily these names roll out of my head, and how (relatively) well known and celebrated these women are today.
But seeing these women through the lens of history makes me feel a layer removed - celebrating their memory and legacy is sentimental, inspiring, and motivating – but not DIRECTLY. I don’t really know these women, and though biographical details abound its not the same as actually knowing and working with them.
So today, on Ada Lovelace Day, I will celebrate by working with women scientists, engineers, and inventors of the future – kids and students! These tech heroines are still in the early stages of formulating their ideas, directions, visions, and interests. That potential, that hope, I find endlessly inspiring. They can and will go anywhere, and I am happy to support them and watch as I can. Plus, its the last day to work on the robot with my team before our FIRST regional competition. FIRST regional competitions start in Los Angeles, Colorado, Hawaii, Boston, Long Island, Ohio, Oklahoma, Philadelphia, South Carolina, and Seattle all tomorrow – so what better way to celebrate today than by working and participating in the community of upcoming women scientists, engineers, technologists, and roboticists!
[Ada Lovelace Day - official site] [The Bigger Picture: Visual Archives and the Smithsonian - Publicity, Politics, and Physics] [Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing] [Bitch Magazine Blogs - the Biotic Woman Reading List] [Powell's Books - Voices for Green Choices #1 -Rachel Carson, Fighting Pesticides and Other Chemical Pollutants by Patricia Lantier] [usfirst.org - FIRST Robotics Competition Regional Events]
I am often confused by the use of “guy” as a generic term for an individual of either gender in some sort of engineering discipline. While working in industry, my manager once said to me “you’re an applications guy,” and my response was “no, I’m not a guy.” He clarified that he meant it in the general sense of person. To him, “applications guy” was a synonym for any applications engineer, so the fact that I was female didn’t play into the equation. It strikes me as odd that “I’m an applications guy” is an acceptable statement, but if I were to just say “I’m a guy,” I would get some very weird looks.
One of my professors also uses “guy” as a generic term. Granted, his first language is not English and he sometimes mixes up words, but his use of “guy” seems to be generally accepted. At first, I thought he was using “EE guy” or “physics guy” in examples assuming that they are by default male. But when he asked another female student in the class “are you materials guy?” I realized that he meant it in a gender ambiguous sense.
Somehow, the inherently gendered “guy” has become a gender ambiguous term, but I do not think it has lost all its male connotations. I know “you guys” is often used in a gender neutral sense and is generally accepted, but referring to one woman as a “guy” just seems awkward. So, what should be used instead? For engineers, this is not too difficult. The word “engineer” alone is gender neutral and fairly descriptive. So, “I’m an applications engineer” works fine or “I’m an EE” if we want to keep it short and cute. Even with scientists, “I’m a materials scientist” or “I’m materials” if you want to embody your entire field; both are understood. So, why waste extra words just to cause gender confusion?
I like to keep it short and simple: “I’m EE.”
Yeah, its true – did you know? Feb 18, 2010 is Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day. (And this whole week, Feb 14-20 is National Engineers Week – so celebrate accordingly!)
The National Engineers Week Foundation Website has tons of interesting resources and talking points regarding women and getting young women into engineering, including tips for engineers giving presentations at schools as well as helpful advice for parents curious about encouraging their children’s interest in math, science, and engineering.
It’s a pleasure to read well-articulated and coherently conceived thoughts on encouraging young women in engineering! Check out the whole section on Girls, Women, and the Engineering Profession if you have the time, or just read this:
Remember
Three bullet points. Simple, right? Yet undeniably powerful. If we could truly convince the world of these three items, that would be PROGRESS! In the meantime, I’ll work on embodying them fully myself and convincing my colleagues (who frequently voice disagreement on the 1st point) of their truth.
May many young women be exposed to the not-so-radical notion that they can become happy engineers, scientists, and technologists today! :)
PS – with all of the corporate tie-ins on the National Engineers Week Foundation website, I almost wish they had forged a partnership with Mattel to announce the introduction of Computer Engineer Barbie on this day. Or do I? Looks like Barbie, in the meantime, has partnered with the US Government to “ignite a national movement to inspire girls” on April 22nd for Take Your Sons & Daughters to Work Day. Hmmm….
[National Engineers Week Foundation - Introduce a Girl to Engineering Day] [National Engineers Week Foundation Website] [Girls, Women, and the Engineering Profession] [Barbie.com - Computer Engineer Barbie]
With all the controversy surrounding the March 2010 cover of Vanity Fair, this article by Patricia Zohn on the female Walt Disney Inkers, Painters, and Animators of the 1930′s and 40′s has been overlooked. It’s a fascinating read in its own right, describing how women were the backbone of the studio, working 85 hour weeks to release Snow White (the first animated feature longer than an hour!) and other pioneering cartoons. She writes:
Much has been written about the prodigiously talented men who brought Snow White, Pinocchio, Fantasia, Bambi, and Dumbo to the screen. But if behind every good man stands a good woman, behind Walt Disney and his “boys”—the all-male assembly line—once stood 100…. ever nimble but never showy, their job was to make what the men did look good.
In many ways, it was a magical kingdom where they might be summoned to help lay down sound effects for a dancing elephant or a witch’s cackle, or fling their hands in the air with a pair of castanets to show how the female figure moved. All the while, they were inking and painting minor miracles that would become part of our collective visual consciousness: the curve of Mickey’s ears, the sympathetic lines of Goofy’s face, the flap of Dumbo’s trunk, the downy spots on Bambi’s back, or perhaps the most storied, the fairy dust that has endured as a symbol of enchantment, if only we wish hard enough.
The anecdotes and stories from these early women animators are strikingly similar to the stories of the early ENIAC programmers and the early female “computers” that made headlines when first revealed in 1997:
The ENIAC, the world’s first computer, was invented to calculate ballistics trajectories during World War II – a task that until then had been done by hand by a group of 80 female mathematicians. The six women who were chosen to make the ENIAC work toiled six-day weeks during the war, inventing the field of programming as they worked. But although they were skilled mathematicians and logicians, the women were classified as “sub-professionals” presumably due to their gender and as a cost-saving device, and never got the credit due to them for their groundbreaking work.
These two groups of influential and pioneering women were contemporaries in the 1940’s: a hundred female calculators on the East Coast, sequestered together crunching numbers on missile ballistics and trajectory while in Hollywood, hundreds of female inkers and painters lived a similarly invisible but impacting existence drawing the outlines and painting the foundation of our much-loved characters.
Both sets of stories are further linked by the lack of recognition these women received for their critical enabling work. At Disney, “though they had been the backbone of the film, hardly any of the junior staff were invited to Snow White’s star-studded premiere, at the Carthay Circle Theatre on December 21, 1937—and they hadn’t been able to afford the preview prices ($5.50 a ticket), either.” A 1938 rejection letter from Walt Disney Productions to a young female applying to the studio makes it clear that in that time, the women inkers and painters were not seen as creative artists. Instead, their work was described by management as simply tracing and filling in with paint according to directions. Furthermore, women were not allowed to proceed up the ranks to become animators since “preparing cartoons for the screen…that work is performed entirely by young men.” Somehow the management did not recognize inking and painting as necessary preparations to get the cartoons on the screen? Imagine if the efforts of these awesome women had been valued and their skills recognized – if, instead of crediting Walt Disney and his army of male animators, some of the talented female inkers and painters like Reidun “Rae” Medby or June Walker Patterson were given their due and equal billing for their supporting work.
Meanwhile on the East Coast, the female programmers were completely excluded from the official military record of the ENIAC story. Never introduced, acknowledged, or mentioned in any history, they were forgotten until the mid 1980′s when a curious female computer scientist named Kathy Kleiman began asking who the women in the photographs with the ENIAC were. As the story goes, everyone just assumed that the women were just models posed in front of the machine to make it look good – they were “refrigerator ladies.” Its amazing that in forty years, programming went from a lowly position performed exclusively by sub-professional female clerks to a discipline in which female participation was assumed to be only as decoration and adornment to the machines themselves.
The ENIAC women were inducted into the Women in Technology International (WITI) Hall of Fame in 1997 as a late but formal recognition of their work. As Anna van Raaphorst-Johnson, a director of WITI, then explained to Wired Magazine, “Somebody else stood up and took credit at the time, and no one looked back. It’s a typical problem in a male-dominated industry. And there’s still a lot of frustration with men taking credit for women’s ideas – it doesn’t seem to have changed much over the last 50 years.”
With the story of the female inkers and painters behind Walt Disney’s magic just now coming to light, I wonder how many other stories like this exist in our collective history. Certainly Mickey, Minnie, and Donald are among the most ubiquitous cultural icons in Western society – it’s astounding that the women who outlined and defined these characters were not given full credit until now. I know that computer science has a sizable history of women achievements and innovations being ignored, now I’m adding Disney animation to that list – but what else? In the last 50, 60 years, how many stories of women’s work have gone untold or claimed by someone else?
And now – how is this still happening? From my personal experience working and living in a Chinese factory, I know that all of the products we use, the clothes we wear, the reality we experience – is all created by the literal handiwork of countless women workers. From the labor of their fingertips, their backs, their steady hands and unwavering eyes come all of our daily essentials. Within engineering, manufacturing is never presented as a gendered issue – but sociologists, anthropologists, and journalists often write books on the impact and significance of women as the primary wage-earners in factories. Through their work, these women in manufacturing are shaping the world, yet the focus and recognition is always on the predominately male designers and engineers. Will this change in the next sixty years? Next time you go shopping and pick up a sweater or a gadget, will you think a woman made this or a man designed this?
But perhaps a better parallel from women’s work of days past to present can be found in the fields of biological physics, biomechanics, and bioengineering. These areas tend to be considered low science by those in the mainstream “pure” fields of physics and engineering, and as a result, discoveries in these “softer” fields are not as respected or lauded as findings in theoretical physics or classical mechanics. Is it a coincidence or a cause that higher percentages of women can be found in these fields? Is this how the past tendency to ignore the valuable work conducted by women is manifesting itself in our present day? In sixty years, if the discoveries in biological physics have led to fundamental innovations that change the way people live their lives – who will take the credit? Will history recognize the talented and brilliant women who thrive in the field, or will history continue the pattern of overlooking them in favor of the men traditionally considered to be leaders?
The only way to be sure is to start recognizing and publicizing the work of women in math, science, and engineering. Tell your stories NOW or who knows, you may need to wait some sixty years like the ENIAC programmers and Disney inkers and painters to finally be recognized for your contributions.
[Vanity Fair: Patricia Zohn's Coloring the Kingdom] [Flickr: Disney Rejection Letter, 1938] via [Sociological Images: Disney Rejection Letter, 1938] [WIRED: Women Proto-Programmers Get their Just Reward] [The Journal of the American Ordnance Association, 1961: The ENIAC Story] [WITI Hall of Fame: The ENIAC Programmers] [Journal of Technology and Culture: When Computers Were Women] [Sociological Images: Burtynsky - Factory Work In China] [Amazon: Assembling Women - The Feminization of Global Manufacturing by Teri L. Caraway] [Amazon: Juki Girls, Good Girls - Gender and Cultural Politics in Sri Lanka's Global Garment Industry by Caitrin Lynch] [Amazon: Factory Girls - From Village to City in a Changing China by Leslie T. Chang]
