Short essay exploring gender bias, pay gap, and stereotypes in context to engineering design and product development.

1. George Jenkins
University of Maryland, College Park
ENEE 200 – Engineering Ethics
Dr. Nicole Mogul
January 7, 2018
Masculinity, Femininity & Engineering
I find it extremely difficult to come to grasp that in the sophisticated and advanced society we
live in, the culture of female oppression in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields
are still present. The underlying matter and what I view as the root of the problem are those who blindly
follow the misperception that women and men are simply not meant to be good at the same things. This
culturally sustained and reinforced mindset which basically says women are not meant to go into STEM
related fields, or at least subsets of STEM, has been embedded into culture and is now considered the
normal. Our generation really needs to step up and actively take a part in combatting this problem. For
years and generations, there has never been a universal objective to urge and welcome women into the
STEM fields. The question I ask is, if not now, when will we ever? The time is now to break stereotypes
and start the initiative to make STEM career paths desirable to everyone. While having a welcoming
environment is one thing, the pay gap is another very serious matter. The “Is the Gender Pay Gap Real?”
video does a great job describing this. While four percent does not seem that much, that is still four
percent too much and over the course of a career means a net loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars
for a STEM worker. I would like to look at additional studies on this to see on average how does the
STEM pay gap compare to other careers and also what is actively happening to correct this. The
opposition say there are more factors than just gender for the gap. The excuses include variation in job
field densities, educational prestige, and working hours per week. While those are contributing factors,
many of which are culturally sustained, the fact of the matter is that there is still this marginal difference
based solely on gender which is just not fair. Employers view parental female applicants as being
susceptible to child related causes for missing work. This boils down to the cultural norm of men not
having the primary role in caretaking. Pollack’s article has the case studies of men and women of
identical qualifications where men are more likely to get hired and have a higher expected starting
salary. My point is that this gap is something that is not a natural phenomenon yet a culturally
manifested methodology which we formed and we continue to pass along from generation to
generation.
A central topic of normality was presented in all of the required materials. While I initially found
the “Savage Lovecast” audio extremely odd to be assigned with respect to this topic, by the end of the
introduction I understood the point. This point being that though normal is traditionally used to
represent what is vastly pronounced acceptable, normal is something that is always evolving and should
be considered a relative term. In the “Savage Lovecast” audio it turned out that the majority of people
fell into the group which was not considered normal. This draws the question of how can the majority of
people not be considered normal? This really connects with the gender issue in engineering. The field of
engineering has the appeal of being a masculine career path. It just seems normal for more men to go
into it because “it’s a guy thing” as Pollack put it. This is the same normal that has been around since the
early twentieth century in the era of traditional setting housewives. There is no reason why normal
today should be the normal of over one hundred years ago. Normal evolves and normal should be
relative. I wonder how we can change this. People and organizations have recently brought attention to
this matter and have been lobbying for women in STEM, but what will it ultimately take for men and

2. women to actual be equal in all aspects? I can definitely see similarities between this and the civil rights
movement, but the numbers are just not there yet for women in STEM. The other major difference is
there is no political or societal clash of men and women. I’m fairly certain most professionals don’t have
a passion for girls not being good at math. If everyone collectively made an effort to create a more
encouraging and inclusive atmosphere, I truly do think the outcome would be an increased diversity in
the STEM majors. This will take hard work and it will need to be established at an early age. I found it
very hypocritical that Pollack made “The Big Bang Theory” reference that “what remotely normal young
person would want to enter a field populated by misfits like Sheldon, Howard and Raj?” which I for one
grew up with the show and I have felt it would be so awesome to live that life. I guess I’m supposed to
consider myself not even remotely normal by that definition. Pollack then continues with, “And what
remotely normal young woman would want to imagine herself as dowdy, socially clueless Amy rather
than as stylish, bouncy, math-and-science-illiterate Penny?” which I see she is trying to make a point,
but at the same time is she trying to say it isn’t good or isn’t “normal” for some little girl to idolize
someone like Amy? The major flaw I see in her theory is her concept of normality. I personally agree
more with the “Savage Lovecast” definition. I don’t think that setting concrete guidelines of exactly what
normal is creates the welcoming, accepting field of STEM which is needed to solve the inclusion and pay
gap issues.
Engineering, much like my view of normality, is an evolving field. As new technologies and
innovations are introduced to the world, the role of an engineer and the responsibilities of an engineer
are ever changing. I think of where we are today and can’t possibly imagine where our society will be 50,
20, or even 5 years from now. Pollack would argue imagine that fantasy then think it could only get
better if more females where in the picture helping with the innovations. One of my favorite quotes
from the article is, “If society needs a certain number of scientists, Urry said, and you can look for those
scientists only among the males of the population, you are going to have to go much farther toward the
bottom of the barrel than if you also can search among the females in the population, especially the
females who are at the top of their barrel” which I think is absolutely true. Talent and genius are
independent of gender, race, religion, or sexual orientation. If men continue to dominate the STEM
fields, one could only imagine that the future would consisting of predominately masculine interests.
Our world needs diversity in order to create a future through the products and concepts engineers
develop that reflects not only what men think of or enjoy, but what everyone can enjoy. Without the
inclusion of feminine input today, how can we expect that the future is any more inclusive or accepting?
We are where we are today because of the past. More than just the products of the future having
feminine characteristics, an increase of women in STEM would allow for workplace practices and our
social systems to evolve. Future generations could one day grow up seeing that women and men are
both equally meant and capable of having and succeeding in STEM. I’m not saying that isn’t the case
now, but I do think growing up in modern society you don’t perceive this yet. So overall, I think this is a
very important issue and we are responsible to ensure STEM is a place for everyone.

3. Works Cited
Pollack, Eileen. “Why Are There Still So Few Women in Science?” The New York Times, The New York
Times, 3 Oct. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-
women-in-science.html?src=me&ref=general&_r=0.
Savage, Dan. “Savage Lovecast.” Episode #488 - With Seattle journalist Eli Sanders., 1 Mar. 2016,
www.savagelovecast.com/episodes/488#.WlLulqhKvIV.
Vlogbrothers. “Is the Gender Pay Gap Real?” YouTube, YouTube, 2 Feb. 2016,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=it0EYBBl5LI.