Introduction
Women in ancient times contributed to both arts and sciences: they initiated activities like bread making, innovation of knitting, and even midwifery. Londa Schielbinger acknowledges that the first time a woman, Christine de Pizan, wrote a book on women’s problems was in 1405. In addition, Alexandria had a woman mathematician who became the most loved lecturer. Unfortunately, she was killed after she became involved in political conflicts between the Neo-Platonist and the Christians. In modern times, the world’s academies of science were created over 300 years ago but the first woman to be admitted was only in the late 19th century (17-18). This and other disparities have served to seclude women from major scientific ventures. As opposed to the earlier 20th century, women today have made reasonable gains in sciences (US Government Accountability Office [GAO] 30). In this essay, we shall look at the challenges that women faced in physical sciences (such as engineering) before 1980.
The problems of Women in sciences
In the early 20th century, women suffered inequalities in science. Donna Ginther and Shulamit Kahn assert that women faced discrimination either in positions, awards, or even in admission to various prestigious levels in physical science and engineering. For example, fewer women occupied top posts in the US than men (4-6). There was discrimination in hierarchies. The belief that women were underdeveloped to occupy such posts as chief engineer or head of a biomedical faculty was common. Most Americans thought that very few women would voluntarily opt to be engineers. In this case, women served in lower positions even when they had equal qualifications to men (Long, Allison, and McGinnis 708-709).
Another reason for this disparity was the labeling of occupations. There was a rampant classification that women would remain at home and cook, keep houses tidy and care for children while men attend their work. This was based on the fact that women usually chose arts as opposed to sciences, and even if they chose sciences, they would avoid engineering and opt for biology or psychology (Rossiter 110). Men would advance their careers upon marriage while women would dwindle theirs in the same capacity. In this case, appointments were explained to be based on this choice of subjects. This culture seemed to set precedents that would weaken the ambitions of women who wanted to pursue scientific careers (Ginther and Kahn 4).
The race also played a big role in discrimination. In the early 70s, Schielbinger states that only 10% of black women could be absorbed in sciences, about 5% of Asians, and slightly more than 1% of American native women accessed top privileges. Thus women belonging to communities of immigrants from Europe had more privileges (23). The explanation given to such a situation was that women weakened progressively than men. Aside from the parties associated with racism, the general nature of women was deemed to be a limitation to productivity. Even though universities began in the 12th century, women were only admitted later in the 19th century in the US. Coincidentally, a Harvard doctor argued that women shouldn’t be allowed in universities because intellectual gains would affect their reproductive capability. In this case, women were also seen as tools for reproduction. Hence they would be denied access to education because it would have an impact on their procreation.
Men were progressively uneven leaders in sciences, politics, and business because society had already divided the two sexes. Sexual segregation was criminalized in 1960 after the civil rights movements but disparities continued. It has been argued that cultural roots like the duration of education and the care given to women played a role to sustain the inequalities. Admission of women in big offices did not always result in inequality. Most women were often excluded from communication channels thus weakening their creativity. Moreover, most women, having been raised in segregated environments lacked confidence. Hence they thought that they would only be subordinates. Men also believed that women had insufficient knowledge to be leaders (Preston 1447).
Women, perhaps based on their cultural roles of home caring were seen by men as unreliable. Their attention swung between work and house chores and they would always be unsettled, thinking about household tasks! In this case, women were relegated to domestic servants in a way that every other work shouldn’t have interfered with these responsibilities. Men on the other hand pursued fields that kept them engaged in their work till late because they were aware of who was caring for their homes (Long, Allison and McGinnis 713).
Women in Engineering
Major scientific societies were founded in the 17th century but the first woman mathematician to be admitted to the Paris Royal de Sciences was as recent as 1979. Physicist Yvonne Choquet-Bruhat was accepted because she was the wife of a member of the academy besides being a relation to a famous mathematician. This indicates that the number of women in scientific fields such as physics, mathematics, and engineering was still low even in the 20thn century.
In the US, the Society for Women Engineers [SWE] was formed to encourage women to take up engineering courses. This organization could inform people of the achievements already made by women in engineering fields and encourage those already in the field to pursue further education. Additionally, the organization could research the progress of women in engineering (SWE 3). Even then, the figures recorded in her biennial report about women enrolling in engineering were meager.
In the 1974 report for instance, among the figures collected, there were no fresh women pursuing mathematics and engineering physics from the colleges picked. However, the number of enrolments continued to rise in courses such as Biomedical, Aeronautical, and aerospace engineering. Other curricula with more women were Chemical and Electronic engineering. The least number of applicants was observed in Nuclear and Geological engineering courses (4-6). Although the number of applicants in the institutions picked could also be reduced by the wide choice of upcoming colleges, it was evident that the trait, of course, the selection was similar throughout the country.
One of the major reasons for the above selections was the circuitous process involved in studying engineering courses. Any student determined to study engineering would commit about eight years of her life perusing books. For instance, a General Engineering student would first be enrolled for a basic degree, which would take about 5 years; then she would be required to narrow her specialization by pursuing a field of her choice. We can hence learn that the structure of the curriculum was the greatest factor in influencing women’s choice in studies (Preston 1450). With the cultural requirements bequeathed to women, most bowed out of demanding engineering courses and opted for those which would guarantee the fulfillment of cultural roles.
In conclusion, we have seen that both men and women have contributed to science for a long time. However, the domination of men in society weakened women’s ability to make choices in science. Cultural duties were given to women, women’s lack of confidence and the general perception of their weakness served to limit their participation.
Works Cited
Ginther, Donna K, and Shulamit Kahn. “Does science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001.” Working Paper no. 12691. Department of Finance and Economics, Boston University. 2006.
Government Accountability Office. “Women’s participation in the Sciences has Increased, but Agencies Need to do more to Ensure Compliance with Title IX.”2004.
Long, J. Scott, Paul D. Allison, and Robert McGinnis. “Rank Advancement in Academic Careers: Sex Differences and the Effects of Productivity.” American Sociological Review 58.5 (1993): 703-722.
Preston, Anne E. “Why Have All the Women Gone? A Study of Exit from the Scienceand Engineering Professions.” American Economic Review 84.5 (1994): 1446-1462.
Schillinger, Londa. Does the Mind have no Sex? Women in the Origins of Modern Science. New York: Harvard Press. 1989.
Society of Women Engineers. “Report on Women Undergraduate Engineering Students. Biennial Survey 1959-1974. United Engineering Centre. New York. 1974.
Rossiter, Margaret. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore: John Hopkins University. 1982.