Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Stratis
"I saw males disparaging my teammates, and it generally came down to the fact that the girls, brilliant as they were, didn’t assert themselves as competent — yet they always cried sexism" - Article
Sexism in engineering certainly does exist, I've seen it. But perhaps more often it's a simple case of an individuals confidence and attitude going into a situation that defines the outcome... and when it comes to engineering, girls do tend to be more reserved and subservient while boys tend to be more outgoing and aggressive. I don't pretend to understand why that is or how we fix it, but it's important for everyone involved to recognize that we can improve if boys make an effort to be more inclusive and girls make an effort to be more assertive. It takes an effort from both sides to make it work, trying to address it from just one side won't solve the problem.
|
I understand what you're saying, but I'll argue that this interpretation misses something. I'll explain it by amending the article quote:
I saw males disparaging my teammates, and it generally came down to the fact that the girls, brilliant as they were, didn’t assert themselves as competent in ways that are expected within the male-based environment — yet they always cried sexism"
This is often a point of confusion in discussions of the -isms. The "majority" definition of an -ism tends to concentrate on individuals' perpetration of behaviors, which understandably returns an "I'm not -ist" from truthful and well-meaning majority individuals. However, the "minority" definition of an -ism considers the entire
structure of the majority system. Each group makes the definition based on what's important from their own perspective: either their own behaviors or the system that affects them, respectively.
Because of this difference, minority viewers see sexism in many instances where majority viewers do not--for instance in the above example. Neither of them is wrong. The majority stakeholders say "I'm not sexist, she just didn't abide by the norm [didn't assert herself--for instance by being "outgoing" and "aggressive"]." But the minority stakeholders say "what she did is objectively qualifying [she was demonstrably competent]. She just didn't demonstrate it in the way
you wanted her to--and the fact that she's "wrong" in that (and you're "right") is part of the problem."
There is of course outright sexism in STEM, and I've faced it. But I've also had this happen, with people judging me against norms of male behavior that have no substantive benefit in the situation. And it's not just males that do this; individual females are also susceptible to internalizing male standards of behavior after years of being immersed in them in STEM (and/or having the coercively thrust upon us). Women/girls can hold these norms against others and against themselves, with the latter particularly leading to painful emotional struggles (and/or quitting) for some of us.