Reflections on Gender Bias and Gendercide

In 1995, I graduated from the University of Evansville with a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering.  Less than 10% of my graduating class was female.  “The presence of women in fields of science, technology and innovation remains significantly lower than for men, even in some of the world’s wealthiest regions, according to new research” from Susan Elan (2012).  

At the time, I was pretty naïve and believed that technical skill and acumen would set me apart, allowing me to be judged not based on my gender but my merit.  In a research study by Yale, scientists were “presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school.  Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the ‘female’ applicants were rated significantly lower than the ‘males’ in competence, hire-abilty, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student” (Yurkiewcz, 2012).

Even when confronted with reams of data and the undeniable reality of gender bias on a daily basis, I still feel squeamish. Perhaps, we just aren’t building the right relationships?  Or, we aren’t cultivating the right skill sets?  Maybe, women are just intrinsically wired differently and thus unable to lead at the executive level?  One day, I hear women being told they are too aggressive and the next that they need to speak up more.  The messages are often mixed, extremely confusing and not at all helpful to steering our course.

Ben Waber’s data analytics firm, Sociometric Solutions, performed a study at a large call center using biometric sensors and email analysis.  He stated that “No differences in workplace performance or collaborative styles were observed at the company to support the idea that men and women perform or interact differently.  Nonetheless, women were disadvantaged when it came to winning promotions and reaching the upper echelons of management” (2014).  The study clearly shows that style is not a factor in disenfranchising women from key management positions.

 Unfortunately, many females are never even allowed an opportunity to contribute to society at large, aborted by their parents before they are full term.   According to a March 2012 issue of The Economist, there are three factors impacting this phenomenon: “the ancient preference for sons; a modern desire for small families; and ultrasound scanning and other technologies that identify the sex of a fetus.”  I can only assume that motivated reasoning is part of the issue in perpetuating gender stereotypes and thus devaluing women.  Research indicates that many people “respond to scientific or technical evidence in ways that justify their preexisting beliefs” (Mooney, 2011).   Additionally, individuals in countries with stronger religious influences that hold men in higher regard may use social desirability to style their beliefs in a manner that is more consistent with the  population at large. 

Common sense would seem to say that terminating pregnancy or limiting promotions based on gender is not positive for society as a whole, decreasing the diversity of thought and innovation.  In fact, studies show that organizations that have women in leadership positions do perform better.  “Encouraging gender diversity in your leadership pool means greater diversity of thought, which in turn, leads to improved problem solving and greater business benefits” (Cole).  “Organizations in the top 20 percent of financial performance counted 37 percent of their leaders as women” (Cole).

The evidence inexplicitly shows that there is a prevailing, negative bias for females in pretty much all parts of the world.  Even in developed countries, women represent a small percentage of leadership.  Beyond this, research indicates that countries and businesses that include the female contingent perform better.  As such, “…all countries need to raise the value of girls.  They should encourage female education; abolish laws and customs that prevent daughters from inheriting property; make examples of hospitals and clinics with impossible sex ratios; get women engaged in public life…” (The Economist, 2012).

  In particular, women need to value other women, promoting each other and countering motivated reasoning and social desirability. It is only by recognizing these limitations within our self that we can learn confidence and self-reliance.  It is paramount that women in my generation provide role models for others, both men and women.  We must believe in ourselves and not allow widespread bias to limit our desire and aspiration for success. The more we trust in ourselves and our fellow females, the more we demonstrate not just our value but our significance.  There are many challenges facing the modern world and we can only find meaningful solutions when everyone is involved, engaged and collaborative.

Christine 

References

(4-March-2014). Gendercide: The War on Baby Girls in The Economist.

Cole, Samantha (nd). Why The Most Successful Organizations Have Women and Millennials in Charge in The Future of Work.

Elan, Susan (1-October-2012).  Study: Women Encounter Inequality in Science & Technology Fields) in National Assessments and Benchmarking of Gender, Science, Technology and Innovation.

 
Mooney, Chris (18-April-2011). The Science of Why We don’t Believe in Science in Mother Jones.

Waber, Ben (30-January-2014). What Data Analytics Says About Gender Inequality in the Workplace. In Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

Yurkiewicz, Ilana (23-September-2012). Study Shows Gender Bias in Science is Real.  Here’s Why it Matters in Scientific American.