I think it's disingenuous to chalk up the underrepresentation of women in the tech sector to merely self-selection. You really have to examine the structural issues that might cause women to select out of a well-paying, in demand career.
I'll use the legal field as an example because I think there is a lot the technology field can learn from it. Women had been allowed into law school and admitted into state bars since the turn of the century. However, as of 1960, 96% of law students were men. In the 1970s, law schools and law firms took affirmative steps to encourage women to join the profession. By the late 1990s, enrollment was almost even.
Today, 45% of law students are female as are about 45% of incoming associates at large law firms. 20% of firm partners are women, and about a third of newly-promoted partners are women. Neither law schools nor law firms take directed affirmative steps anymore to recruit women (beyond the usual affinity groups and the like). The gender equalization efforts were self-propagating. Once the field had a critical mass of women, women self-selected into the field at similar rates to men.
I think it's weak to assume that women just don't want to do engineering work. Would the number of women who wanted to go into engineering be as low today if there were a reasonable number of women already in the field? I don't think so.
Your premise is false. Law schools and law firms actively marketed themselves to women and actively tried to enroll or hire a certain number of women. Tech companies have never taken such measures. Heck, only the biggest companies een pay lip service to the idea of trying to recruit more women.
Comments
I think it's disingenuous to chalk up the underrepresentation of women in the tech sector to merely self-selection. You really have to examine the structural issues that might cause women to select out of a well-paying, in demand career.
I'll use the legal field as an example because I think there is a lot the technology field can learn from it. Women had been allowed into law school and admitted into state bars since the turn of the century. However, as of 1960, 96% of law students were men. In the 1970s, law schools and law firms took affirmative steps to encourage women to join the profession. By the late 1990s, enrollment was almost even.
Today, 45% of law students are female as are about 45% of incoming associates at large law firms. 20% of firm partners are women, and about a third of newly-promoted partners are women. Neither law schools nor law firms take directed affirmative steps anymore to recruit women (beyond the usual affinity groups and the like). The gender equalization efforts were self-propagating. Once the field had a critical mass of women, women self-selected into the field at similar rates to men.
I think it's weak to assume that women just don't want to do engineering work. Would the number of women who wanted to go into engineering be as low today if there were a reasonable number of women already in the field? I don't think so.
To get women into medicine, law, advertising, etc, it was sufficient to open the door.
Why is that insufficient in technology? What makes tech different from the other fields you mentioned?
(That lack of "affirmative steps" is not a good explanation, since the "affirmative steps" persist in tech even today.)
Your premise is false. Law schools and law firms actively marketed themselves to women and actively tried to enroll or hire a certain number of women. Tech companies have never taken such measures. Heck, only the biggest companies een pay lip service to the idea of trying to recruit more women.
Engineering schools and big engineering firms do the same.
I'd be very surprised if small (e.g. 5-10 person) law firms ever put any more effort into recruiting women than small tech firms.