The new glass ceiling
by westwood
There is a new glass ceiling for women in science, and it isn’t what you would expect. This is a reprint of a piece of mine originally published in the Dal gazette, found here (without the cartoons or the emphasis, naturally).
_____
In today’s first grade classrooms, an impromptu survey of “What do you want to be when you grow up?” yields answers ranging from marine biologist, to hairdresser, to firefighter. If you asked the students if they want to earn a PhD in science, you would likely receive a chorus of blank stares.
This is not surprising; after all, only one (or less) student in a given Canadian elementary school is likely to earn a PhD in natural science or engineering (NSE). That one will almost certainly be a boy.
The National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) is Canada’s leading body for the funding and advancement of scientific research. Their recent report on the state of women in science reveals some troubling trends. Although the male/female ratio of Grade 12 and undergraduate students enrolled in NSE classes is roughly the same, only 37 per cent of Canada’s NSE undergrads and master’s students are women. Beyond this point, the drop is even sharper, with only a small percentage of female NSE doctoral or post-doctoral researchers.
Women are not underrepresented in university systems, but they are starkly absent in NSE professions and faculty positions. Women comprise only 20 per cent of the NSE labour force, although they earn 40 per cent of bachelor’s degrees in the field. Men heavily occupy management positions, whereas women tend to drift to other fields, such as social science and education.
This problem is even evident in universities, which often enforce liberal and equitable hiring policies. Of NSE faculty, only 19% are women, and they are mostly in the lower professorial ranks. As the report summarizes, “gender equality remains a distant possibility.”
The new glass ceiling is not inequitable hiring. In fact, women are hired preferentially over men to improve demographic diversity in many departments. The trouble is the lack of female applicants. This new glass ceiling is something more insidious than traditional sexism. It is a force that makes women feel they do not want, or are not able, to pursue NSE professions.
Programs to advance the role of women in science have been in place for more than a decade, and are experiencing success given the dramatic increases in female participation in these fields since the 1970s. At present levels of growth, though, it will be a great many more decades before we reach parity. Research has shown that whatever is causing this difference, it isn’t innate, as girls’ and boys’ abilities are very similar.
Many theories have been tossed about to explain the lack of women in NSE: stereotypes and negative opinions of women in “masculine” positions, boys having a more positive attitude towards science, lack of female role models in NSE, and conflicts between career and family, just to name a few. The vast body of literature on the issue, which even has an entire academic journal dedicated to it, is inconclusive.
The paradigms of sexism are changing, at least in academia. It is no longer the boys trying to keep the girls out of their club, but the girls who have little desire to come in. Women who choose NSE careers report higher levels of stress and perfectionism, and feel greater pressure to outperform their male peers. Perhaps the gender inequality in NSE is not enforced by men with power, but a product of wider and systemic flawed thinking about gender roles.
To those who would imply that sexism is a thing of the past, given equitable hiring practices, these recent results show that this is not the case. In Canada, women are able to do almost anything they want. The problem lies in a social structure that conditions what men and women want to be, right from the first grade. It is also in the nature of these professions themselves, which clearly do not accommodate what women want.
Whether we acknowledge it or not, there are still strong gender-based drivers behind career paths. The low presence of men in non-traditional professions, like nursing or public administration, attests to this. We need to do more than have equitable hiring practices and instead look carefully and critically at a social system that forces us to divide our career aspirations by gender in the first place.
____
What do you think are the reasons behind this? Also, did anyone else notice Canada’s new Action Plan ad that shows shows only non-traditional gender roles in professions, like female construction workers and male nurses? Seems (pleasantly) deliberate to me!
Filed under: feminism, science | 17 Comments
Tags: career, feminism, gender gap, NSERC, patriarchy, science, scientists
-
Recent Comments
As a woman in science pursuing a PhD this piece preached to my choir, so to speak. I’ve participated and organized numerous workshops on the topic in Canada and the States and I can say honestly all of the things you mention have been continually tossed about. There is one latent force; however, that I think is so insidious as you move up the research rungs as a woman in academia you won’t even realize it’s happening. Gradually, you’re outnumbered and your co-authors and compatriots gradually become primarily male. I find it crazy, but the amount of internal political conflict between females (higher up) is staggering. In other words, I see a great deal of cooperation and some conflict between males, but almost only conflicts between female colleagues. The amount of papers with leading female PIs as co-authors is dismal (at least in my field – as in – I have yet to read one). Whether this has to do with a certain “hazing” attitude minorities often feel toward their own: “I beat the system on my own and so should she”; or, something to do purely with the small amount of females to collaborate with – I have no idea. However, successful collaboration is key for success, especially today with science taking on and tackling bigger projects and problems. Sadly, I do also know from experience (anecdotally), most women PIs higher up that I have asked directly would rather concentrate on their own success than recount or remark on any discrimination they faced previously.
Thanks for your insight… especially about competition among females who do ‘make it’. I had wondered about that. I feel like it is understudied.
Yes, sexism is still alive and well, which is what makes me want to thrash about when I hear a young woman declare that she would never be a feminist, as if being a feminist is a horrible thing. Sorry, generational gap, I suppose.
My youngest is toying with becoming a nurse practitioner, so he spoke with someone in the field who told him that it’s not normally a field that men go into . . . Why??? Why could she just not talk about the ups and downs of the field.
Gender bias in career choices still abounds, and the glass ceiling has yet to be shattered.
(Great images, by the way: 3/4 of a penny, love it.)
What I wonder is this: who tainted the word ‘feminism’ to become something derogatory?
sorry for jumping in here – men tainted the word “feminist”, but implying that women who are “feminists” are “unlady-like”, unattractive and un-marriable.
also, poietes, i hope your youngest talks to more nurse practitioners – i know two who are men and the one i work with closely is awesome me and manly. he makes a great living and is incredible at what he does. he is also more highly educated than MDs, having had to earn a more advanced degree.
nurse practitioners rock and are truly the future of health care.
pardon my jumping in…
We’ve also recently gained the NSERC Chair for Women in Science & Engineering at the prairie region – and one of the people I’ve worked with on my masters (and a good friend) is going to be studying women in science for her PhD. It’ll be interesting to see where it progresses.
I worried about whether it’d be difficult to pursue graduate studies because I was a woman – but honestly? I’ve not experienced anything, maybe I work with a really good group of people (my committee is all men) – but I have not found any discrimination against me because I was a woman.
I don’t know whether it’s alive or not. I’ve received a lot of encouragement. in my department, there are a lot of women studying (soil science) at the Masters level, but I won’t deny – less at the PhD. I encourage anyone to go into science if they want to – man or woman.
Oooh, who is the new chair? And certainly, the geographical/environmental sciences and fields like zoology and animal behaviour are actually coming to be dominated by women.
Hey sorry for the late reply. Dr. Annemieke Farenhorst, she’s in Soil Science. The website for the NSERC chair is: https://cwse-prairies.ca/
As another thing to note, I was in a meeting for agricultural GHG research being conducted in Canada, and half the room was women
out of 20 or so people. I noticed it – and it made me glad!
The reasons are complex–like any social phenomena. Your article is very well written. I could go on and on–I used to teach this stuff.
I think a lot of it is social pressure for women to be in “male” professions and vice versa.Until cultures stop defining professions as “male” and “female”, we’ll have these issues. How we do that is as complicated as the problem you raise…
It’s too bad that an individual just can’t pursue a career choice without all these additional complications!
Even if the game is fixed, you can’t win if you don’t play. I suggest focusing on your chosen goal and doing your best to attain it.
It seems to me we all have several inner voices guiding us. Finding the true one can be a challenge with our rebellious self and societal echos reverberating in our heads. It takes focus and work.
I hope you are able to follow your dreams, Westwood!
How quotable of you!
This is fascinating, considering the stats we are bombarded with in the states about how women are starting to outnumber men in undergraduate and graduate programs (I don’t know the status of PhDs, but I imagine they are on a similar trajectory).
It makes a lot more sense to me that this is striated by field however. As an undergraduate in International Studies, are classrooms are usually about 50-50 men and women, and when I take cross-over anthropology classes, they are almost exclusively women. I hate to be one resorting to tired biological stereotypes, but I’ve always felt more “naturally gifted” at understanding concepts in the social sciences, and vice versa for a lot of my male friends. The social system, I’m sure, conditions us more-so to follow these roles, but left vs. right brain development probably does have something to do with the disparity in higher education. ((then again, i’m not a science person, so I’m not the best person to ask!)
PS: I’m sure there is very little info out there about this, but I wonder how these gender roles and issues play out for trans* people in higher ed?
That is an excellent question about trans* people in higher education… and I’m almost certain there is no good data for it, which is a terrible shame.
I think it starts in barbie doll culture.
excellent article, westwood, insightful and great read.
i don’t know…i once did this project about gifted children in my exceptional development class when earning my degree…one of things that was commented in one of the books i read was about gifted girls specifically and it noted that often girls who are gifted are encourage by educators, parents and peers to participate more in the arts rather than hard science, unfortunately, didn’t have any kind of reason…
There would be so, so much to say about this…
Yes, proudly claiming you’re NOT a feminist, in 2011, and especially if you’re woman, only says one thing: “I have no idea what feminism is”.
I read somewhere (was it Susan Pinker) that if you don’t find women “up there”, it’s actually because they choose not to.
I don’t know if I agree or disagree, but it’s another interesting hypothesis to explore.
there is also a trend, lately, for women already trained and/or working in a non traditional field (engineer, etc.) to quit and change lives altogether ex: starting a home based jewelry business).
Seems like women don’t enjoy themselves in those fields. But why?
I read in a French paper back in 2010 that companies led by women suffered less during the Great Depression following the Subprime crises, and have recovered faster.
Isn’t it sexist to assume that women make better leaders? On the other hands can we deny it if studies prove it to be true?
Great article, by the way!