for the sake of Our Collective Future
I attended a high school that specialized in a curriculum of science, math, and technology. Since our student population was pretty equally represented by both sexes, I never spent much time thinking about the role of women in these fields, which are considered high-skill and high-profile by many.
It wasn't until my high school friends began seeking summer jobs and internships that I was made aware of the institutional biases that still run strong in these fields. When discussing a female friend who got an internship at NASA, one of my male friends remarked that the deciding factor must have been her sex. "There are like no girls at NASA, so they must have wanted her really badly." Even to this day, when I lament the possibility of being unemployed out of college, the same male friends tell me that I should have studied computer science, since my identity as a female would distinguish me from the rest.
This personal anecdote is just one example out of many that show how women are underrepresented in leadership positions or high skill, high-profile, high-pay careers. However, employer bias is only one contributing factor to this discrepancy. While employers at, for instance, a high-tech company, may be more willing to hire males over females, the flip side is that they are failing to attract women in the first place.
Why might a smart, hard-working, and highly qualified woman not want to work in a prestigious field? One possible reason is the differentiation between treatment of male versus female employees by such employers. As much as we talk about workplace equality, we should really be aiming for workplace equity. Women and men are not the same, and to treat them as such is doing both a tremendous disservice. Employers need to recognize the distinct pressures placed on both genders by society's expectations of them, and adapt their treatment of both genders accordingly.
In particular, the pressures faced by women are antagonistic. One set of pressures says that women need to be involved in the home life, and the other set says that women need to seek independence and launch a successful career. With such pressures pulling women in opposite directions, it would take a superheroine to resist both. However, the idea of a superheroine, who through sheer willpower and determination can "have it all," is very much a myth, one that is harmful to the next generation of women entering the workforce. If we are made to believe that this ideal is achievable purely through our own efforts, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Once we hit an bump in the road to having it all, we start to question why: Am I not good enough? Did I not prepare myself well enough? Maybe I just can't handle it? The original mentality, one that seems so empowering and inspiring on the surface, is breaking down our self esteem and confidence.
In order to ensure that there is a place for women in high profile career fields, employers need to be willing to adapt. Flexibility is one of the most empowering opportunities that an employer can offer a woman. Flexibility puts the control back into the hands of women, and empowers them to make their own decisions regarding their work-life balance. In the case of high-tech companies, it seems only reasonable that the employer can utilize technology in order to maximize the flexibility that employees are given. Video-conferencing, virtual desktops, and online collaboration programs are just a few of the technologies that enable remote working, giving women the chance to spend more time at home while maintaining her presence in the workplace. Sure, these technologies do conjure up the vision of the "have it all" woman, but rather than place the responsibility on her, it is placed on the employer.
So, to my friends who say, "You should have gone into computer science, then you could work at Google or Facebook or Microsoft" I say, "Why should I want to work for them in the first place?"
It wasn't until my high school friends began seeking summer jobs and internships that I was made aware of the institutional biases that still run strong in these fields. When discussing a female friend who got an internship at NASA, one of my male friends remarked that the deciding factor must have been her sex. "There are like no girls at NASA, so they must have wanted her really badly." Even to this day, when I lament the possibility of being unemployed out of college, the same male friends tell me that I should have studied computer science, since my identity as a female would distinguish me from the rest.
This personal anecdote is just one example out of many that show how women are underrepresented in leadership positions or high skill, high-profile, high-pay careers. However, employer bias is only one contributing factor to this discrepancy. While employers at, for instance, a high-tech company, may be more willing to hire males over females, the flip side is that they are failing to attract women in the first place.
Why might a smart, hard-working, and highly qualified woman not want to work in a prestigious field? One possible reason is the differentiation between treatment of male versus female employees by such employers. As much as we talk about workplace equality, we should really be aiming for workplace equity. Women and men are not the same, and to treat them as such is doing both a tremendous disservice. Employers need to recognize the distinct pressures placed on both genders by society's expectations of them, and adapt their treatment of both genders accordingly.
In particular, the pressures faced by women are antagonistic. One set of pressures says that women need to be involved in the home life, and the other set says that women need to seek independence and launch a successful career. With such pressures pulling women in opposite directions, it would take a superheroine to resist both. However, the idea of a superheroine, who through sheer willpower and determination can "have it all," is very much a myth, one that is harmful to the next generation of women entering the workforce. If we are made to believe that this ideal is achievable purely through our own efforts, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Once we hit an bump in the road to having it all, we start to question why: Am I not good enough? Did I not prepare myself well enough? Maybe I just can't handle it? The original mentality, one that seems so empowering and inspiring on the surface, is breaking down our self esteem and confidence.
In order to ensure that there is a place for women in high profile career fields, employers need to be willing to adapt. Flexibility is one of the most empowering opportunities that an employer can offer a woman. Flexibility puts the control back into the hands of women, and empowers them to make their own decisions regarding their work-life balance. In the case of high-tech companies, it seems only reasonable that the employer can utilize technology in order to maximize the flexibility that employees are given. Video-conferencing, virtual desktops, and online collaboration programs are just a few of the technologies that enable remote working, giving women the chance to spend more time at home while maintaining her presence in the workplace. Sure, these technologies do conjure up the vision of the "have it all" woman, but rather than place the responsibility on her, it is placed on the employer.
So, to my friends who say, "You should have gone into computer science, then you could work at Google or Facebook or Microsoft" I say, "Why should I want to work for them in the first place?"