I am writing in response to the LISTSERV comments on the Women in Science
and
technology discussion. I preface this diatribe with the fact that I was
once
a computer scientist who went into upper management for a large subsidiary
of
Lockheed before walking away because I could no longer stand the covert
harassment. During the early part of my career, I was a firm believer that
access was enough. In fact, like many of my female colleagues, I remember
being adamantly opposed to preferential treatment toward women by corporate
policy because I felt it would single women out and make them seem less
attractive to companies. I remember the first days on the job during
affirmative action when men from the testing department actually snickered
as
I walked into the meeting. I was the "token" they had to hire. Forget the
fact that I was better educated as a computer scientist than they were, it
simply did not matter. Also, I learned very quickly that saying the S
(sexist) or F (feminist) words were career limiting and a sure sign you
would
get laid off in the next round. Companies would not openly fire women in
those days because they were afraid of being sued.
And women were convinced that they should not want to be perceived as
difficult to get along with, whiners and/or complainers. So, we kept our
heads down, worked twice as hard and relied on the few men who could help
us,
as women were not open allies in those days. Nancy Hopkins of MIT makes a
good point in that when we women were initially singled out, we believe
that
we are exempt, different and will be treated fairly. Somehow I was duped
into
believing that I was exempt and indeed things had and were changing. Then I
noticed the small things ... men who went to the loo together and came out
talking business as they were zipping up their pants. Marketing slides
portraying football players for the new young men who came in and were
being
mentored. In the meantime, I worked longer harder hours (alone) relying on
my
wits and talent to keep up.
I thought it had paid off as I had the opportunity to start my own
technical
group. Yet I learned very quickly that I could be promoted provided I
stayed
within my limited boundaries of being smart but not too smart, not directly
telling other male managers no, and learning not to ruffle feathers. I
watched other women get ahead through flattery, fawning comments and
smiling
and I was sickened and vowed I would never stoop that low. One time, I
remember asserting myself like one of the guys and the general manger got
up
screaming, red in the face, spittle flying, gone postal and told me off. I
sat terrified and dared not say a word. Had I been a man that would not
have
happened to me.
And then there was the time that I reported to a senior VP while one of my
managers made more money than I did. Again, the solution: keep my mouth
shut.
Not doing so would have gotten me laid off. I had to watch other women
professionals leave the company for one reason or another. Insults,
projects
taken away from them and general disrespect. All too often, women are asked
to work harder, longer and show more self-restraint than any man would ever
have to do. And we are rewarded at about 75% of the pay.
Since those days and a career change, I have been researching women in
science and technology for about 3 years. During my research discoveries, I
met a remarkable informant, a transgendered individual who was a male
engineer for 15 years with a large aerospace company. He speaks candidly as
a
woman who knows both sides of the story intimately. Her quote below
captures
one of our many conversations.
"I remember talking to a male professor and we were talking about Patty
Moss
at MIT. The first comment he had about Patty was, 'Boy, she is a real
looker.' So, that was interesting that we were talking about a woman in a
high-powered position in academia and the first comment out was how
attractive she was. I almost think that to be too attractive is a detriment
because men are more interested in looking at your legs than hearing what
you
have to say. And at the same time you almost hate to fall into that
stereotype of Marge the Plumber. You know, when you are completely one of
the
guys, and you look a bit more like them and sound a bit more like them, I
think in a way that helps as long as you don't try to assert yourself like
one of the guys."
Last year, I went to speak to the Society of Women Engineers at a major
West
Coast research university. I was heartbroken to hear the same stories
portraying the same feelings of subtle discrimination I had felt as a woman
in these classes almost 20 years earlier. Their frustration was palpable. I
also know from my research that the women who make it through engineering
are
the brightest and most confident girls -- in fact, even more so than their
BioSci counterparts. BTW -- this same research university had subsequently
received a $20 million grant to hire more women faculty. The grant has yet
to
come to fruition and is being fought over by male department heads who want
to divert the funds into other areas. Shortly thereafter, I did a panel
with
one women department head of chemical engineering who was reluctant to say
much about this situation. I spoke the words she wanted to as I tacitly
understood that for her to do so would be very career limiting. But I could
ee the look of agreement in her eyes and noted her nods.
What is my point? That to discuss access without talking about
transformation
and awareness simply sets the stage for more of the same -- only it is done
o with more subtlety, which is, in my opinion, more deadly. Simply, it is
more difficult to identify because sexist people will swear to a million
gods
that they have not got a problem. I particularly liked the piece submitted
by
Liz Purrington a few months ago talking about scrutinizing numbers and
carefully examining classrooms and playgrounds. We have to pay attention to
the fine print, so we don't get fooled by people's rhetoric.
We must address the public private issue of being a woman. According to the
latest World Bank statistics, women perform 2/3 of the world's labor, and
yet, we receive less than 10% of its assets in return. We are the first to
be
penalized in economic marginalization, economic downturns and divorces and
the last to be placed in the top positions in either government or
business.
We are still penalized for being the child bearers and take on the bulk of
the work and responsibility for our children. And when we do enter into
prestigious positions, we are most often still paid less than male
counterparts. If not sooner, then later.
And we have to oftentimes take these positions at the expense of family. I
have a professor friend who has statistically shown that women who have
children end up being tenured later and making less -- if they are ever
tenured at all. In my own research of women professors in science and
technology, they all suffered immensely during their children's early years
and talked openly about the struggle to just keep up -- let alone do
research.
And let's not forget the lessons from the Eastern Bloc countries. Women
were
a larger percentage of the scientists, but being a scientist had no
prestige.
Men's jobs in politics and government were seen as more important. And
women
rarely if ever in the former Soviet Republic and Balkan states ever reached
the highest levels of scientific management. Women were used as a work
force
commodity to supply important labor when needed and returned to their homes
in the 60's when the birth rates were declining. And whether they worked or
not, women were always expected to do the majority of the work in the home
in
those countries, and still are for the most part. And have you ever noticed
that when women attain a large portion of the jobs in a profession, the
perceived status of that profession often declines.
As a result of all my research, I firmly believe that access is a
short-sighted solution. If access were enough, then how can we explain the
drastic decline in women entering computing careers from the 1980s to the
1990s? Women had achieved critical mass, and in hindsight, it failed to
transform the institutions of higher education and the workplace.
Consequently women bailed out. And is the issue really one of getting women
involved in science and technology or economic access. If there is a glut
of
women scientists will we create another pink collar ghetto as in the
Eastern
Bloc. Women's jobs have always commanded less respect and lower pay.
And yet, gains have certainly been made. The gains that have been made and
continue to be made are those demanded by women who have continued not to
overlook the need for both access and transformation. Now, as a university
teacher, I always take the opportunity to introduce gender awareness into
my
classrooms and question the values of young men and women. I constantly
point
out the disparities that arise whenever I can -- nothing gets by me as I
believe that only by consistently addressing the problem at all levels
whether it be personal, cultural or institutional can these issues be
solved.
Best Regards,
Christina Vogt
GenderWatchers
genderwatchers@cs.com
PS -- I will be presenting in Havana in November on Women and Science and
Technology -- if you are interested in the premise of my speech, please
email
me at genderwatchers@cs.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Apr 12 2002 - 15:16:51 EDT