Here Come the (Soft) Women!

John Tierney has a column in the NYTimes today trashing a new National Academy of Science report on gender discrimination in the sciences and engineering. I haven’t read anything about the report, so I dunno…I do find it hard to be worried about the number of women in the sciences and engineering because whenever I speak to a young woman in my field (engineering) and ask her about the gender ratio in her class, the answer is usually that it’s between 30/70 and 50/50 for females to males. In other words, much changed from a generation or so ago. Why aren’t there more tenured professors in the fields? Well, there’s the entrenched male-dominated ethos of the academic departments, including discrimination, no doubt. There’s the time factor, i.e., with some more years, the women will begin to overwhelm the remaining prejudices of the men and so make headway. And there’s the social inequity in support of rearing families, with the burden falling disporportionately on women, making it harder for them to advance, if they want to, in any career. Same old story, so I’m not sure there is any particular discrimination in this field.

What really irks me about the argument in the column isn’t even the proposition that women and men have sex-based differences in their intellectual proclivities. (I don’t know if this is so – it could be – but I don’t even find it interesting.) No, what bugs me is the unspoken bias that physics and engineering are the “hard” sciences, while medicine and biology are the “soft” sciences. Note that macho, unspoken assumption that elevates the hard above the soft, and by association the male above the female, so that, of course, women, when they do go technical, can’t quite hack it, statistically speaking that is. They all become medical researchers and biologists. (Of course, some of my best friends are lady physicists.)

Who says that physics is “hard” while biology is “soft?” I just don’t get it. Just because you open a textbook on quantum mechanics and see a flood of Greek symbols and in a biology text you might see some diagrams and lots of text doesn’t make one more rich in knowledge than the other. In fact, some might reverse the hierarchy. Let’s just remember that Charles Darwin’s ideas have done more to change the intellectual outlook of humanity than just about any other scientist, including the great Newton and Einstein.


One Response to Here Come the (Soft) Women!

  1. afrankangle says:

    Good post … and I would simply like to see more engineers, regardless of gender.

    In terms of science curricula, gotta think long ago (late 19th or early 20th century) … an educational report listed the necessary sciences as biology, chemistry, physics … alphabetical order … thus why they are traditionally taught in that order.

    Plus, at that time, not much biology was really known, and many of the foundations of the physical sciences were in place.

    The last 40-50 years has served as a biology explosion. So much so that biology is based in the foundations laid by both physics and chemistry … yet the traditional sequence generally remains … as well as the hard/soft stigma.

    Keep promoting and encouraging females to become engineers … it’s worth the effort.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: