The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[DanaC]

An additional thought:

I wonder, what it was that drew in the women already working in STEM. What was it about physics, or engineering, or coding that got them so interested as girls? What was it about their learning environment that made them feel that was open to them, despite the barriers that companies like IBM are now trying to address?

Maybe IBM could consult with them. Find out what got them interested in science and technology and what made them as girls follow that path. That might inform a useful campaign. Unless, of course, were suggesting that those women were unlike other girls, because they were interested in science and technology.

More research into why girls drop away might also be useful. Much of the research that has been done has looked at the jump between junior and senior as a natural drop-off point around puberty. That's useful - and the sudden importance of gender during puberty is likely to be a factor - with girls becoming far more focused on expressing their femininity than they would have been before puberty, the idea of 'boys' subjects and 'girls' subjects is likely to gain additional weight for some. But that doesn't have to become the trap that it is at the moment. If we demasculinise science then it should become less of an issue for young people focused on establishing their gender roles and identities.

But there are other drop off points throughout that are more problematic. When kids reach that age there's a drop off from STEM across the board. As soon as subjects become optional and it becomes possible to specialise people drop away, girls and boys. It's uneven at the moment, but that's changing. The drop off rate becomes more uneven as you progress through the higher levels of education and into industry. So, what is happening to those girls who were interested in those subjects, and who saw the value of scientific curiosity and then dropped away?

You won't get more girls by focussing on beauty products. There's a small chance you might get a different group of girls - but I very much doubt that a girl with no interest in scientific subjects, or engineering will change her mind because someone showed her how to hack a hairdryer. The girl who will be interested in hacking a hair dryer, was probably already into science and tech, rather than already being into harirdryers.

[Undertoad]

IBM's campaign, which asks women to re-engineer a hairdryer and share that idea on social media, aims to "blast away the negative effects of gender stereotyping and the unconscious biases that women in STEM face every day," the company said.

Just too subtle. Can't be subtle.

Well maybe there will be more women in STEM now that they've been all over-dramatic, humorless, and strident about it is presented.

That's the very stereotype of the feminist movement for 50 years but hey. Good luck with that! Me, I'm off to my job. It involves STEM.

[Clodfobble]

The very idea that we need to "do something" for, or to, or about girls actually perpetuates the lowered expectations.

What I think needs to happen--and I know I'm basically alone in this--is we need to encourage boys into teaching, nursing, etc. It's not "boys' jobs are automatically better, let's raise the girls to their standard," rather it's "all jobs are legitimate, make the boys (and everyone else) stop shitting on the jobs that have been traditionally done by women." At the same time, greater participation in these fields from men would drain off some of the questionable-to-downright-bad STEM guys, leaving more openings and demand for the talented STEM gals.

[Undertoad]

I originally picked my career because it involves working with machines instead of people. Nursing and teaching, I hear they require you to interact with others.

[DanaC]

It's not about being too subtle, it's about always falling into the same conceptual traps whenever male-dominated industries attempt to reach out to women.

I don't see they were over-dramatic. They posted mainly humourous and snarky comments about something that pissed them off a little : the same thing that has probably been pissing most of them off for many years - the constant assumption that female = interested primarily in beauty and fashion. They are the women at the coalface - they are the ones who've gone through a university education that was until quite recently unwelcoming of women (I've read about young women being catcalled by primarily male audiences whilst giving academic papers, or technical presentations, for example) and work in fields which still often favour their male colleagues as the 'serious' option for hiring, and routinely expect different things from women (such as offering different remuneration, funding levels and mentoring to a 'male' candidate than to a 'female' candidate when presented with identical resumes and research profiles).

When you look at some of the experiences of women in STEM fields, in which they are often assumed by visitors to be less senior than they are, and subject to comments about their looks and constant reminders by some male colleagues that they are different - the lazy stereotyping of women as primarily intrigued by matters relating to beauty and fashion might a) feel a little too on point and b) resonate with them as people who have far more insight into what might get girls and women interested in those subjects.

The campaign was a laudable attempt at redressing some of the imbalances but it was clumsy, inept and inadvertently feeding into, because it is informed by, the very stereotypes that are causing the problem in the first place.

Lots of people go on twitter to raise an issue, trend a hashtag, mock ineptness, have a laugh, or express frustration. You are dismissing these women as shrill and humourless, because they didn't just suck up the almost ubiquitous insults to women that underlie the tone of many of these campaigns, and give the company gold stars for a good effort. Because the tweets listed in that article are pretty good humoured for the most part. They are mainly jokes, a little snarky, but not particularly aggressive or nasty. As has become the norm, these days, the way to protest or disagree, or send a message is to make a funny tweet. There are some really fiery twitter storms - and this is not one of them. But hey - they are women rejecting and commenting on a misguided and not nearly well-enough researched campaign which yet again relies on the same old stereotypes - so obviously they are shrill and humourless.

Damn women eh? Keep shooting themselves in the foot by not accepting whatever progress gets thrown down from the top table without question. Keep undermining their cause by not smiling and saying thankyou and being generally gracious.


IBM are a big company. Campaigns like that go through many stages of design and approval. Is it too much to ask for someone in that chain to say - hey....you know what....this might actually play into the same lazy stereotypes about girls and science that has been so talked about lately, is it worth us maybe consulting with women in the industry to see what they think?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

What I think needs to happen--and I know I'm basically alone in this--is we need to encourage boys into teaching, nursing, etc. It's not "boys' jobs are automatically better, let's raise the girls to their standard," rather it's "all jobs are legitimate, make the boys (and everyone else) stop shitting on the jobs that have been traditionally done by women." At the same time, greater participation in these fields from men would drain off some of the questionable-to-downright-bad STEM guys, leaving more openings and demand for the talented STEM gals.

The best nurse I encountered when my FIL was in and out of the hospital a year ago was a dude. He was so compassionate. That guy rocked.

Oh, and teachers? No way would I ever be a teacher. That job is way too demanding. I don't have what it takes. My wife comes home every day, and the stories she tells. I wouldn't survive an hour.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The very idea that we need to "do something" for, or to, or about girls actually perpetuates the lowered expectations.

What I think needs to happen--and I know I'm basically alone in this--is we need to encourage boys into teaching, nursing, etc. It's not "boys' jobs are automatically better, let's raise the girls to their standard," rather it's "all jobs are legitimate, make the boys (and everyone else) stop shitting on the jobs that have been traditionally done by women." At the same time, greater participation in these fields from men would drain off some of the questionable-to-downright-bad STEM guys, leaving more openings and demand for the talented STEM gals.

I very much agree with this. I do think there needs to be a concerted effort to make STEM areas more conducive to female participation - but that's not about making science and tech more interesting for girls, it's about making the fields in which those things are studied less unwelcoming of them, by degendering them. Not by reinforcing gender stereotypes.

But the reason I want that to happen, isn't because science and tech jobs are better, or that male dominated industries are more important - even though they are remunerated and treated as such. It's because girls are just as able to follow those paths and just as likely to want to if the barriers are removed. It's great for the girls because they get to fulfil their potential without being streamed off in childhood to something that is simply considered more appropriate to their gender. And it is good for society, because it means we have a much wider pool of potential talent to draw from.

Absolutely the same thing applies to nursing, teaching and caring. It is fucking surreal that we as a society consider those jobs as somehow a lesser career choice, and that they pay so much less. Purely because they are fields that involve attributes we consider primarily female. When a job type changes from being considered mainly male, to mainly female, it drops down in respect and reward. Secretarial work is a classic example of that, as is teaching.

How many potentially awesome nurses and carers do we lose because boys get discouraged, directly or indirectly, from entering those fields. The further down the age scale you move, the more female dominated teaching becomes (though not, it has to be said when it comes to head teachers/principles and management). It is rewarded more as you move up into deeper subject teaching with older children - because teachers of young children get kind of dismissed a little as child carers - which is bizarre really. First - child caring is fucking hard work and requires a lot of mental agility, and second, teaching small children who aren't yours is not the same as babysitting - it requires years of training and learning about how to teach and manage a classroom, the psychology of learning and a host of other highly specialist skills and knowledge.

So we get a double-bind. Femaleness is once again the factor that devalues - and it sets the scene for further devaluation and segregation - whilst at the same time robbing boys of some of their opportunities to reach their potential and find success and fulfilment.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by glatt

The best nurse I encountered when my FIL was in and out of the hospital a year ago was a dude. He was so compassionate. That guy rocked.

Oh, and teachers? No way would I ever be a teacher. That job is way too demanding. I don't have what it takes. My wife comes home every day, and the stories she tells. I wouldn't survive an hour.

I couldn't teach children. It's my idea of hell. Young people, cool. I'll teach university students with delight. But kids? No.

I've known some awesome male nurses and carers. And I have knownguys working unfulfilling sales jobs that would probably have made fantastic nurses had that ever been presented to them as something other than an oddity when they were growing up.

You don't break down barriers by erecting a smaller fence made of the same wood.

[DanaC]

I got drawn back into this discussion, but I actually came in to post something else :P

Because then there are the times that I just think, oh ffs, get a grip. The IBM campaign was an own goal, because it was clumsy and could easily have been done so much better. A major player - one of THE major players in tech and they couldn't be bothered to get it right on a campaign for something they apparently consider very important.

And then there's this - where really, you have to ask, are they damned if they do and damned if they don't?

We just had the 'how many female characters are on the screen and how many good female roles are available in comparison to men' debate - indeed it is currently raging. One of the key players in big budget hollywood movie making tries to do something about that and seems to actually, largely, get the point and this is the response:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ioned-nonsense

Abrams’ assumption that in order for a movie to be female-friendly it has to have women in it is on the same spectrum as Wells’s claim that women won’t cope watching men clobber each other for a couple of hours.

No, it isn't. And no, that's not what he said. A male film-maker decides that, in an iconic sci-film film franchise, with a large cast of characters who have traditionally tended to be mostly male, having some of them be female, and those female characters not be gold bikin-clad, decorative rescue objectives, might make the film more appealing and enjoyable for female fans and allow that franchise to possibly occupy a similar cultural role amongst mothers and daughters as it has previously occupied for fathers and sons - and gets roasted.

Nowhere did he say, or even imply, that women only watch films with female characters. He did recognise the extreme imbalance, not just in the number of female to male characters, but in the level of agency those characters are given, and in how they are presented, that has always existed in the Star Wars franchise. There were always girls and women who liked Star Wars - and girls and women have always read/watched fiction with male protagonists and mainly male casts of characters - because otherwise we'd have about 30% of current fictional output to choose from. But actually - it is kind of nice to watch a movie, or read a book and have some good male and good female characters. It does get a bit wearisome, as a sci-fi fan, when all the good characters are guys and you can count the interesting female characters on one hand.

A film with a small and tight cast of characters that is all or mostly male, doesn't bother me - why would it? I get just as into that - I'm just as happy to associate into a male character as I am a female character, if it's well-rounded and engaging. But a film or show with a large cast of characters, unless it is set in the army or a male prison or something, that doesn't have some interesting and active female characters feels off. And if the female characters that are included just seem there for ornamentation or mission objective, or are always declawed or made powerless, undercut in some way, no matter how kick ass they seem to be, that gets a little stale.

I was into Star Wars as a little girl. We all were - kids, I mean. When it first came out, it wasn't a boy's film, it was a family adventure film. I went to see it with my mum, dad and big brother. My best friend, David, had all the models. Millenium Falcon and everything. Our little gang used to play Star Wars. I used to get really pissed off, because I always had to be Princess Leia. Because she was the only real female character, and whilst, at times I could be a boy, if we were playing army, for instance, none of the boys could be Princess Leia, because she was a girl. And as Leia, I mainly got rescued. I got to dance about doing toy fighting, but it always ended up with me waiting to be rescued. David was a bit of a stickler for the plot of Star Wars.

And that's my roundabout way of saying that I appreciate the effort with this new Star Wars, to do something a little better and have female characters who are relatable and exciting for the little girls who see it and play it with their friends.

[Beest]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

The very idea that we need to "do something" for, or to, or about girls actually perpetuates the lowered expectations.

What I think needs to happen--and I know I'm basically alone in this--is we need to encourage boys into teaching, nursing, etc. It's not "boys' jobs are automatically better, let's raise the girls to their standard," rather it's "all jobs are legitimate, make the boys (and everyone else) stop shitting on the jobs that have been traditionally done by women." At the same time, greater participation in these fields from men would drain off some of the questionable-to-downright-bad STEM guys, leaving more openings and demand for the talented STEM gals.

THIS Clodfobble nails it once again.

Each individual should be considered on their own merits and talents relative to the task.

I like Danas comment about unfulfilled sales guys, similar thing in reverse

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yep - because obviously, in order to make science and engineering attractive to women, it must first be translated into something they can relate to: haircare and beauty.

Big assumption that was IBM's strategy.

Women already in STEM fields were not impressed and took to Twitter. Some of the tweets are great.

They were not the target of the campaign.

Good on IBM for trying. Good on them for their swift response. Please do better next time - it does matter. Stop focusing on changing the content to make it relatable for women

How about stop changing the content because of criticism from a few . There's no way to make everyone happy.

and start making tech fields more welcoming of women in a way that doesn't make them feel like someone on an exchange trip from Venus.

Hmm... affirmative action. Sure, nobody could criticize that.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"Hack a Heat Gun". In small print - if you don't have a heat gun, you can use a regular household hair dryer.

How does a heat gun, even when a hair dryer is suggested as an alternative, become a campaign based on "hair care and beauty"? That's a stretch, even for nitpickers.

Originally Posted by DanaC

An additional thought:

I wonder, what it was that drew in the women already working in STEM. What was it about physics, or engineering, or coding that got them so interested as girls? What was it about their learning environment that made them feel that was open to them, despite the barriers that companies like IBM are now trying to address?

Maybe IBM could consult with them. Find out what got them interested in science and technology and what made them as girls follow that path. That might inform a useful campaign. Unless, of course, were suggesting that those women were unlike other girls, because they were interested in science and technology.

I'd bet a lot of money the answer would be "I don't know", or more likely there was one person in their youth, Dad, older brother, teacher, Mr Wizard next door, who was always messing with stuff and took the time to explain what/why they were doing. That sparked her interest in science and wanting to emulate people she admired. Whatever, I'm 99% sure it was a person, not a corporate campaign.

But there are other drop off points throughout that are more problematic. When kids reach that age there's a drop off from STEM across the board.
~~~~~~
So, what is happening to those girls who were interested in those subjects, and who saw the value of scientific curiosity and then dropped away?

Peer pressure, wanting to fit in by having the same mindset and goals as the popular girls?

You won't get more girls by focussing on beauty products. There's a small chance you might get a different group of girls - but I very much doubt that a girl with no interest in scientific subjects, or engineering will change her mind because someone showed her how to hack a hairdryer. The girl who will be interested in hacking a hair dryer, was probably already into science and tech, rather than already being into harirdryers.

HEAT GUN, it's the critics who have twisted this into hairdryers and beauty.
OK, do you think the women in the PR department have any technical/mechanical background, and could suggest a better idea than a heat gun, or would object the adding the hairdryer footnote when somebody said kids aren't likely to have a heat gun even if they know what it is?

I know you're fully aware of the problems. I also know most women agree with some part of it, and others are happy with their life and don't get it at all. Think of the Republican women who have stated women shouldn't hold public office. IBM's campaign targeted a specific group, maybe too broad, maybe to narrow, I don't know. But I do know that if they get shit every time they try to do something good, they'll stop completely.

[Happy Monkey]

The heat gun was me, not IBM. I was suggesting a less haircare-oriented approach they could have taken.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

They were not the target of the campaign.

.

No, they were not. But, they may have some insight into the issue at hand.

The ad uses the hair dryer to make all kinds of empowering puns. The woman narrating talks about "blowing away the misconceptions" and "blasting through the bias."

"It's not what covers your cranium that counts," she says.

It's this all over again:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b08e945ff004c9

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK, thanks. That means nobody in PR thought it was sexist or hair care and beauty related.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

The heat gun was me, not IBM. I was suggesting a less haircare-oriented approach they could have taken.

Thanks for pointing that out. I had intended to respond to your post, because I thought it was excellent, but then I got distracted with other posts.

Why do companies/corporations so routinely get the tone wrong? With all of this stuff such a big part of cultural discourse right now, how did nobody at IBM think to query this? How was this not picked up? It's fucking obvious.

I do agree that it's unfortunate that their efforts have ended up with a backlash. It's a shame. But - sometimes, it isn't enough just to try, you actually need to get it right.

Now, I don't know, because I am not privy to how they came up with this campaign, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the main creative input into the specifics of what that advert would look like, were male. I also wonder, as many of the articles have, how many of the 25% of IBM management that are women had sight of the drawing boards and scripts before they made them.