tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/gender-stereotypical-jobs-16028/articlesGender stereotypical jobs – The Conversation2022-01-20T14:11:50Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1738202022-01-20T14:11:50Z2022-01-20T14:11:50ZLockdown saw couples share housework and childcare more evenly – but these changes didn’t last<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441683/original/file-20220120-17-1br4t7z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=265%2C88%2C4640%2C2810&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/father-two-toddlers-doing-housework-1080411470">Halfpoint/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It may feel like a common occurrence today, but if you cast your mind back to the first COVID lockdown, having whole families working and studying from home was a very unfamiliar situation. And it was one that had unfamiliar consequences.</p>
<p>For opposite-sex couples, lockdown disrupted the traditional gender division of household chores. In <a href="https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol45/43/default.htm">research</a> that my colleagues and I conducted, we found that having both partners at home saw men increase how much of the domestic burden they took on, so that women’s typically greater share decreased.</p>
<p>We discovered this by analysing data from <a href="https://www.understandingsociety.ac.uk/topic/covid-19">Understanding Society</a>, a big longitudinal household panel study – the largest of its kind. The study follows a sample of UK households, periodically asking them questions to see how their lives are changing. Between April 2020 and September 2021, its participants were asked to complete web surveys every few months specifically about the impact of the pandemic on their lives.</p>
<p>We looked at responses from people of working age who were in opposite-gender relationships that continued throughout this period of COVID surveying. This provided a final sample of just over 2,000 couples for us to analyse. Here’s what we discovered.</p>
<h2>Lockdown shocks</h2>
<p>The couples were asked about the gender division of housework during the first lockdown, and we then compared this with information collected from pre-lockdown surveys carried out during 2019. The couples were also asked whether those changes persisted when the first lockdown eased. On top of this, we also compared the changes experienced by those with no children at home and those with children of various ages.</p>
<p>What we saw was that overall, women’s share of housework fell from 65% pre-COVID to 60% during the first lockdown. So initially there was a moderate amount of gender rebalancing in the sharing of domestic work. However, by September 2020 the old gender divisions were being re-established. By this point, women were on average doing 62% of housework.</p>
<p>These changes coincided with changes in working behaviour. Overall, the findings showed that both men’s and women’s paid working hours reduced substantially in the spring of 2020 but had recovered by September.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman vacuuming a rug" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441687/original/file-20220120-17-jt9uka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441687/original/file-20220120-17-jt9uka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441687/original/file-20220120-17-jt9uka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441687/original/file-20220120-17-jt9uka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441687/original/file-20220120-17-jt9uka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441687/original/file-20220120-17-jt9uka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441687/original/file-20220120-17-jt9uka.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=504&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Despite some rebalancing, on average a sizeable majority of the domestic burden still fell on women.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/woman-cleaning-room-vacuum-cleaner-615026048">Olena Yakobchuk/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And during the spring lockdown, around a third of both male and female respondents were employed but working from home. However, this had fallen to just under a quarter by September. Similarly, around one in five women and one in seven men were furloughed in the spring, but this had dropped to fewer than one in 20 by September.</p>
<p>This seems to suggest that having both members of a couple at home, with less time committed to work, leads to the domestic burden being more evenly shared. </p>
<p>Having both family members spending more time at home also appears to have led to there being more housework to be done. Both men and women increased their weekly hours of domestic work during lockdown – from 12.5 to 15.5 for women and from 6.5 to 10 for men. Come September 2020, these figures had fallen again, though they remained above their pre-lockdown levels.</p>
<h2>Childcare burdens</h2>
<p>However, the rebalancing of work wasn’t consistent across the couples we looked at. The extent of the change depended on the number and age of the couple’s children.</p>
<p>When the respondents were split into three groups – those who had no children living at home, those who had children under the age of five and those who had older children – marked differences emerged.</p>
<p>For couples without children at home, women’s share of domestic labour fell during the spring and continued to fall after the summer. Though these women still did more domestic work than their partners, their input did not return to pre-COVID levels as 2020 progressed.</p>
<p>For those with children aged between six and 15, the drop in women’s share of housework had partially reversed by September, but it hadn’t fully bounced back. In the autumn they were still doing less than before the pandemic.</p>
<p>But for those with children under five, the drop in women’s share of housework had reversed completely by September. This was despite the initial drop in the spring having been greater for this group compared to the other two.</p>
<h2>Family dynamics</h2>
<p>So what do we make of this? In terms of family dynamics, the lockdown may have had more lasting effects for some families than for others. Fears that advances in gender equality could be reversed during the pandemic were more real for those with very young children, who were much less able to keep themselves busy with other tasks and whose children were not old enough to make use of online education.</p>
<p>One important reason for the division of labour changing during lockdown was men’s and women’s working hours. Women with young children tended to reduce their paid working hours more as the pandemic progressed in order to take on the increased burden of care that stemmed from schools and nurseries being closed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A grandfather and grandson walking outside" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441685/original/file-20220120-22-1bzstf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441685/original/file-20220120-22-1bzstf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441685/original/file-20220120-22-1bzstf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441685/original/file-20220120-22-1bzstf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441685/original/file-20220120-22-1bzstf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441685/original/file-20220120-22-1bzstf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441685/original/file-20220120-22-1bzstf4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Having family support nearby will have influenced how much childcare and housework couples did.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our study shows that changes to family life during the pandemic were nuanced, with different family set-ups resulting in different changes to the balance of housework and the rebalancing of work changing over time. Indeed, there may be further nuances that we’re yet to fully identify.</p>
<p>In the future, it would be good to look at whether extended family networks were able to alleviate the increased care burden for some families. We could also look at how the pandemic affected the mental health of women with and without children, and it would be useful to see whether different countries’ lockdowns affected families differently as well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/173820/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Susan Harkness receives funding from NORFACE, New Opportunities for Research Funding Agency Cooperation in Europe, a partnership of national research funding agencies in Europe dedicated to leading and developing opportunities for scientists in the area of social and behavioural sciences.</span></em></p>Working from home resulted in a rebalancing of housework and childcare responsibilities – but not all couples were affected evenly.Susan Harkness, Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Centre for Poverty and Social Justice, University of BristolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1722792021-11-24T13:41:51Z2021-11-24T13:41:51ZStereotypes about girls dissuade many from careers in computer science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/433194/original/file-20211122-27-gyvft9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=8%2C0%2C2986%2C2001&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Only about 1 in 5 computer scientists are women. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/project-mc2-mika-abdalla-victoria-vida-and-genneya-walton-news-photo/871499520?adppopup=true">Rachel Murray/Getty Images for MGA Entertainment</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Stereotypes about what boys and girls supposedly like aren’t hard to find.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/12/toys-are-more-divided-by-gender-now-than-they-were-50-years-ago/383556/">Toy advertisements</a> send signals that science and electronic toys are intended for boys rather than girls. Computer scientists and engineers on <a href="https://seejane.org/wp-content/uploads/portray-her-full-report.pdf">television shows and movies</a> are often white men, like the guys on “The Big Bang Theory.”</p>
<p>Policymakers, teachers and <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2002-11235-005">parents</a> sometimes subscribe to these stereotypes, too. They might <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00049">spread them to children</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-073115-103235">Efforts</a> to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html">combat these stereotypes</a> often focus on boys’ and girls’ abilities.</p>
<p>But as researchers who specialize in <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_UmfrM8AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">motivation</a>, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JmWiiRAAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">identity</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=5jrePlgAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">cognitive development</a>, we think society has largely overlooked another harmful stereotype. And that is the notion that girls are less interested than boys are in STEM.</p>
<p>In our peer-reviewed research – published in November 2021 in <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/48/e2100030118">Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a> – we found that these stereotypes about girls’ interest in science, technology, engineering and math – or lack thereof – are fairly widespread among young people today. We also found that these stereotypes actually have an effect on girls’ motivation and sense of belonging in computer science and engineering.</p>
<h2>Gains made</h2>
<p>Fields like math are <a href="https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321">close to having gender parity</a> – that is to say, roughly equal numbers of men and women – and <a href="https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321">women are actually overrepresented</a> in fields like biology among college graduates in the U.S.</p>
<p>Yet, the nation is still failing to diversify computer science and engineering. <a href="https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321">Only about 1 in 5</a> degrees in computer science and engineering go to women.</p>
<p>Our research shows that societal stereotypes linking these fields with boys and men act as a barrier that keeps girls and young women away. There have been many conversations about <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/magazine/why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-science.html">the harm caused</a> by <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1999/08/thin-ice-stereotype-threat-and-black-college-students/304663">stereotypes about natural talent</a>, which assert that men are better than women at STEM. But what might be even more detrimental for girls’ motivation are stereotypes that men are more interested than women in these activities and careers. These stereotypes may give girls the sense that they don’t belong.</p>
<h2>Probing children’s perceptions</h2>
<p>For our study, our first step was to document whether children and adolescents believe these societal stereotypes. We surveyed 2,277 youths in grades 1-12 in 2017 and 2019 about how interested they think girls and boys are in computer science and engineering. The majority of youths reported that boys were more likely than girls to be interested in these fields. Most youths – 63% – believed that girls are less interested than boys in engineering. Only 9% believed that girls are more interested than boys in engineering. These “interest stereotypes,” if you will, were endorsed by youths from diverse backgrounds, including Black, white, Asian and Hispanic youths.</p>
<p>They were endorsed by kids as early as age 6, in first grade. These beliefs about gendered interests were also more common than stereotypes about ability, that boys are more talented than girls at these fields.</p>
<p>We also discovered that these interest stereotypes were linked to worse outcomes for girls. The more that a typical girl in our study believed in these stereotypes favoring boys, the less motivated she was in computer science and engineering. This wasn’t the case for the typical boy. The more he believed in these stereotypes, the more motivated he was.</p>
<h2>Effects on motivation</h2>
<p>We also did two laboratory experiments using a gold-standard random-assignment design to see whether interest stereotypes have causal effects on motivation. We told children about two activities they could try. The only difference between the activities was that one activity – one that was randomly chosen – was linked to a stereotype that girls were less interested than boys in that activity. </p>
<p>The other activity was not linked to such a stereotype. If children preferred one activity over the other, we could infer that the stereotype caused a difference in their preferences. We found that interest stereotypes can actually cause girls’ lower motivation for computer science activities.</p>
<p>Only 35% of girls chose the stereotyped activity over the nonstereotyped activity. These stereotypes – which favored boys in this case – weren’t a problem for boys, who showed no preference. There was no gender gap when there was no stereotype – a gender gap only appeared when the activity was stereotyped.</p>
<h2>Dismantling stereotypes</h2>
<p>Why are interest stereotypes so powerful? Interest stereotypes may make girls assume: If boys like these fields more than girls, then I won’t like these fields either. They also send a clear signal about who belongs there. <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2015-37516-001">A sense of belonging matters a lot</a> for motivation, including young women in STEM fields like computer science and engineering. The lower the girls’ sense of belonging, the lower their interest.</p>
<p>But what if the stereotypes are true? On average, girls in the U.S. usually do report being less interested than boys in <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2015-37516-001">computer science</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072712475290">engineering</a>.</p>
<p>Whether or not these cultural stereotypes are currently true, we believe they can create a vicious cycle. Girls might miss out on opportunities because of an assumption that they are not interested or should not be interested in certain STEM fields. Unless adults deliberately send girls a different message about who belongs in computer science and engineering, we as a society discourage girls from trying these activities and discovering that they like them. </p>
<p>But the good news is that the lack of belonging that many girls feel in certain STEM feels is not permanent. On the contrary, we think it can be changed.</p>
<p>There are simple ways to send kids a different message about who likes to do computer science and engineering. Parents and other adults can check their assumptions about what toys to buy girls for their birthdays or holidays, or what summer camps they should attend. Girls can be shown examples of women like <a href="https://www.becauseofthemwecan.com/blogs/news/self-driving-startup-zoox-led-by-black-female-ceo-aicha-evans-is-purchased-by-amazon-for-1-2-billion">Aicha Evans</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEeTLopLkEo">Debbie Sterling</a> – women who are changing the world through technology and enjoying themselves while doing so.</p>
<p>It’s not enough for girls to realize that they can do computer science and engineering. In order to change the status quo, we think it’s necessary to spread the word that many girls actually want to do these things as well.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/172279/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Allison Master receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the U. S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute of Education Sciences, the U.S. Department of Education, or other funders. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew N. Meltzoff gratefully acknowledges receipt of funding from the National Science Foundation, the Bezos Family Foundation, and the Overdeck Family Foundation. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the funders.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sapna Cheryan receives funding from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences. The views expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent the views of these funders.</span></em></p>Could it be that girls aren’t pursuing jobs in computer science and engineering because society has told them that’s not what they want to do? Three scholars weigh in.Allison Master, Assistant Professor of Education, University of HoustonAndrew N. Meltzoff, Professor of Psychology, University of WashingtonSapna Cheryan, Professor of Psychology, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1156072019-04-29T13:26:25Z2019-04-29T13:26:25ZSex discrimination in British immigration law is likely to get worse after Brexit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271438/original/file-20190429-194630-l9vk7u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Yakobchuk Viacheslave/EPA</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The British government’s plans for migration control after Brexit may, if implemented, exacerbate existing sex discrimination in immigration law. My own <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0964663919839187">recent research</a> shows that men are significantly more likely than women to benefit from key migration opportunities – including the ability to work in the UK as skilled labour migrants. Not only do the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigration-rules">immigration rules</a> that distribute these opportunities disadvantage women, they may also unlawfully discriminate against them. It is these rules that the government plans to extend and build upon after Brexit. </p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-uks-future-skills-based-immigration-system/future-skills-based-immigration-system-executive-summary">white paper on immigration</a>, published in December 2018, the government promised to “reset the conversation on migration” after Brexit. It plans to achieve this by ending freedom of movement for EU citizens and replacing the current labour migration rules which apply to everyone else with a single, skills-based system. </p>
<p>This system would allow skilled and highly skilled migrants from EU and non-EU countries alike to work in the UK. Those considered low-skilled may be able to work in the UK for 12 months in a route for “temporary short-term workers”. Unlike the skilled workers whose migration the government seeks to encourage, the proposals seek to substantially limit the rights of short-term workers. These workers will not be able to extend their stay or remain here on a different basis. Nor will they be able to bring family members with them or make the UK their home.</p>
<p>Much <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/where-is-uk-labour-migration-policy-heading-after-brexit/">is still unknown</a> about how the system will work. But one question raised by the proposals is just how much of a “reset” of immigration law they represent.</p>
<h2>Migration hierarchies</h2>
<p>Non-EU migrants currently need permission to live and work in the UK. Yet, someone who seeks such permission does not receive a straightforward “yes” or “no” answer to their application. Instead, if they are successful, the Home Office will grant them one of a range of migration statuses which determines the length of time they may remain in the UK and for what purpose. It also determines what rights they have while in the country to be accompanied by their family, access welfare benefits and even open a bank account. </p>
<p>Different migration statuses bestow different bundles of rights – and obligations. Some are considerably more advantageous than others. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/tier-2-general">Skilled labour migrants</a>, for example, may work in the UK for up to five years, change employers, bring their families with them and potentially settle here. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/domestic-workers-in-a-private-household-visa">Domestic workers</a> have no such rights. They cannot change their employer – unless they have been trafficked – and they must leave the UK after just six months. So immigration law creates a status-based labour migration hierarchy which differentiates between labour migrants, advantaging some and disadvantaging others.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271443/original/file-20190429-194630-1qgbzz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271443/original/file-20190429-194630-1qgbzz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271443/original/file-20190429-194630-1qgbzz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271443/original/file-20190429-194630-1qgbzz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271443/original/file-20190429-194630-1qgbzz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271443/original/file-20190429-194630-1qgbzz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/271443/original/file-20190429-194630-1qgbzz8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Migration law establishes as status-based hierarchy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">By Kseniya Lanzarote/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0964663919839187">research</a>, I reviewed information on the distribution of different migration statuses taken from over a ten year period to see how these hierarchies affect women. I supplemented public Home Office <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immigration-statistics-quarterly-release%22%22">statistics</a> with data obtained by freedom of information request. </p>
<p>I found that certain key family and labour migration statuses are distributed differently to women and men – to the disadvantage of women. While three-quarters of those granted the advantageous status of “skilled” labour migrant are men, three-quarters of those granted the highly disadvantageous status of “domestic worker” are women. Nearly <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-september-2018/why-do-people-come-to-the-uk-4-for-family-reasons">three-quarters</a> of those granted the relatively disadvantageous status of “partner” are women. </p>
<p>In contrast to family migration, labour migration is <a href="https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/non-european-labour-migration-to-the-uk/">predominantly male</a> and men are more likely to be at the top of the labour migration hierarchy, as skilled migrants, than women. </p>
<h2>Stereotypes about ‘skills’</h2>
<p>The rules which distribute these migration statuses indirectly discriminate against women <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0964663919839187">because they are premised</a> on stereotypes. </p>
<p>Labour migration statuses are distributed on the basis of skill. Feminist analyses of the labour market have highlighted the sexed and gendered stereotypes that underlie the categorisations of certain types of work and worker as either <a href="http://compasanthology.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/McDowell_COMPASMigrationAnthology.pdf">low- or high-skilled</a>. Such analyses have also questioned the idea that a person’s “skill” can itself be determined objectively. </p>
<p>Such stereotypes, that women are particularly suited to undertake caring work for example, or that such work is <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/1394973?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">almost by definition</a>, low-skilled, affect almost every aspect of women’s participation in the job market. They are implicated in the <a href="https://gender-pay-gap.service.gov.uk/">gender pay gap</a>, and the <a href="http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/88/2/865.abstract">devaluation</a> in terms of pay and status of the work that women do, particularly <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000271629956100103">caring work</a>.</p>
<p>As Eleonore Kofman, professor of social policy at Middlesex University, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.80/1369183X.2013.745234">argues</a> the immigration rules that rank “skills” appear to be gender-neutral, but they actually privilege certain types of knowledge, and discount others, in a highly gendered way. I argue that they do so because because the rules that determine who is “skilled”, or not, or who is a “partner” – and what type of relationship this involves – are rooted in stereotypical understandings of women’s and men’s roles and abilities. </p>
<h2>Another kind of reset required</h2>
<p>Debates about labour migration post-Brexit <a href="https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/nhs-chiefs-warn-theresa-mays-14472112">are beginning</a> to consider the ability of the NHS and others to employ the staff they need if the proposals in the white paper are implemented. My research indicates that the consequences of these proposals could be more significant than is currently appreciated. The establishment of an even more segmented and hierarchical labour migration system which relies on stereotypes to differentiate between workers and which significantly disadvantages those it considers unskilled, is likely to have particularly negative consequences for women. </p>
<p>The ending of free movement will profoundly change the nature of migration to and from the UK. Just one of the potential consequences of this change, the replacement of EU law and the existing rules that enable non-EU labour migrants to work in the UK with a system which may reproduce and amplify those parts of the current system that disadvantage and discriminate against women, has yet to be fully explored. This is concerning not only for those whose right to remain in the UK is currently determined by British immigration law, but all those EU citizens who face being made subject to it following Britian’s departure from the EU.</p>
<p>A reset of British immigration law is required, but it’s not the one that the government is proposing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/115607/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This work was supported by an AHRC Doctoral Award (grant reference number AH/L503885/1). Catherine Briddick is a trustee of Asylum Welcome. </span></em></p>Why the government’s post-Brexit immigration proposals are particularly bad for women.Catherine Briddick, Martin James Departmental Lecturer in Gender and Forced Migration, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824792017-08-16T01:36:12Z2017-08-16T01:36:12ZDoes biology explain why men outnumber women in tech?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182132/original/file-20170815-6110-1og4pid.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=151%2C43%2C2897%2C2140&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Who's missing from this picture?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/lws/3263880963">Lawrence Sinclair</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s no secret that <a href="https://techcrunch.com/tag/diversity-report/">Silicon Valley employs</a> many <a href="http://money.cnn.com/interactive/technology/tech-diversity-data/">more men than women</a> <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/reports/hightech/">in tech jobs</a>. What’s much harder to agree on is why.</p>
<p>The recent <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/evzjww/here-are-the-citations-for-the-anti-diversity-manifesto-circulating-at-google">anti-diversity memo</a> by a now former Google engineer has pushed this topic into the spotlight. The writer argued there are ways to explain the gender gap in tech that don’t rely on bias and discrimination – specifically, biological sex differences. Setting aside how this assertion would affect questions about how to move toward greater equity in tech fields, how well does his wrap-up represent what researchers know about the science of sex and gender?</p>
<p>As a social scientist who’s been conducting psychological research about sex and gender for almost 50 years, I agree that biological differences between the sexes likely are part of the reason we see fewer women than men in the ranks of Silicon Valley’s tech workers. But the road between biology and employment is long and bumpy, and any causal connection does not rule out the relevance of nonbiological causes. Here’s what the research actually says.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182138/original/file-20170815-21358-10smx34.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is she a computer natural?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/zorgnetwerknederland/9423176668">Micah Sittig</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Are girls just born less suited for tech?</h2>
<p>There is no direct causal evidence that biology causes the lack of women in tech jobs. But many, if not most, psychologists do give credence to the general idea that prenatal and early postnatal <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23832">exposure to hormones</a> such as testosterone and other androgens <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s13293-015-0022-1">affect human psychology</a>. In humans, testosterone is ordinarily elevated in males from about weeks eight to 24 of gestation and also during early postnatal development. </p>
<p>Ethical restraints obviously preclude experimenting on human fetuses and babies to understand the effects of this greater exposure of males to testosterone. Instead, researchers have studied individuals exposed to hormonal environments that are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022492106974">abnormal</a> because of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2007.05.015">unusual genetic conditions</a> or hormonally active drugs <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0923-z">prescribed to pregnant women</a>. Such studies have suggested that early androgen exposure does have masculinizing effects on girls’ juvenile play preferences and behavior, aggression, sexual orientation and gender identity and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.01.022">possibly on spatial ability</a> and responsiveness to cues that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0125">certain behaviors are culturally female-appropriate</a>.</p>
<p>Early hormonal exposure is only one part of a complex of biological processes that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jnr.23884">contribute to sexual differentiation</a>. Driven by both direct and roundabout messages from the X and Y chromosomes, the effects of these processes on human psychology are largely unknown, given the early stage of the relevant science.</p>
<p>Other studies inform the nature-nurture question by comparing the behaviors of boys and girls who are so young that socialization has not exerted its full influence.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33">Early sex differences emerge mainly</a> on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00254.x">broad dimensions of temperament</a>. One such dimension is what psychologists call “surgency”; it’s greater in boys and manifests in motor activity, impulsivity and experiencing pleasure from high-intensity activities. The other dimension is in what we term “effortful control”; it’s greater in girls and emerges in the self-regulatory skills of greater attention span, ability to focus and shift attention and inhibitory control. This aspect of temperament also includes greater perceptual sensitivity and experience of pleasure from low-intensity activities.</p>
<p>This research on temperament does suggest that nature instills some psychological sex differences. But scientists don’t fully understand the pathways from these aspects of child temperament to adult personality and abilities.</p>
<h2>Is there a gender divide on tech-relevant traits?</h2>
<p>Another approach to the women-in-tech question involves comparing the sexes on traits thought most relevant to participation in tech. In this case, it doesn’t matter whether these traits follow from nature or nurture. The usual suspects include mathematical and spatial abilities.</p>
<p>The sex difference in average mathematical ability that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2333-8504.1971.tb00807.x">once favored males</a> has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160364">disappeared in the general U.S. population</a>. There is also a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.09.003">decline in the preponderance of males</a> among the very top scorers on demanding math tests. Yet, males tend to score <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.011">higher on most tests of spatial abilities</a>, especially tests of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9215-x">mentally rotating three-dimensional objects</a>, and these skills appear to be <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016127">helpful in STEM fields</a>.</p>
<p>Of course people choose occupations based on their interests as well as their abilities. So the robust and large sex difference on measures of people-oriented versus thing-oriented interests deserves consideration.</p>
<p><a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017364">Research shows that</a>, in general, women are more interested in people compared with men, who are more interested in things. To the extent that tech occupations are concerned more with things than people, men would on average <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2015.09.007">be more attracted to them</a>. For example, positions such as computer systems engineer and network and database architect require extensive knowledge of electronics, mathematics, engineering principles and telecommunication systems. Success in such work is not as dependent on qualities such as social sensitivity and emotional intelligence as are positions in, for instance, early childhood education and retail sales.</p>
<p>Women and men also differ in their life goals, with women placing a higher priority than men on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868316642141">working with and helping people</a>. Jobs in STEM are in general not viewed as providing much opportunity to satisfy these life goals. But technology does offer specializations that prioritize social and community goals (such as designing healthcare systems) or reward social skills (for instance, optimizing the interaction of people with machines and information). Such positions may, on average, be <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025199">relatively appealing to women</a>. More generally, women’s overall <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057988">superiority on reading</a> <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1036833">and writing</a> as well as <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628191.006">social skills</a> <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017286">would advantage them</a> in many occupations.</p>
<p>Virtually all sex differences consist of overlapping distributions of women and men. For example, despite the quite large sex difference in average height, some women are taller than most men and some men are shorter than most women. Although psychological sex differences are statistically smaller than this height difference, some of the differences most relevant to tech are substantial, particularly interest in people versus things and spatial ability in mental rotations. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182136/original/file-20170815-26751-uke216.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Silicon Valley has been faulted for its ‘brogrammer’ culture, which can be unwelcoming to women.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/zorgnetwerknederland/9423176668">Zorgnetwerk Nederland</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>If not biology, then what are the causes?</h2>
<p>Given the absence of clear-cut evidence that tech-relevant abilities and interests flow mainly from biology, there’s plenty of room to consider socialization and gender stereotyping.</p>
<p>Because humans are born undeveloped, parents and others provide extensive socialization, generally intended to promote personality traits and skills they think will help offspring in their future adult roles. To the extent that women and men have different adult lives, caregivers tend to <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.2.267">promote sex-typical activities and interests</a> in children – dolls for girls, toy trucks for boys. Conventional socialization can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12569">set children on the route</a> to conventional career choices.</p>
<p>Even <a href="https://doi.org/10.1068/p3331">very young children</a> form <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-6383(94)90037-X">gender stereotypes</a> as <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037215">they observe women and men</a> enacting their society’s division of labor. They <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/1128709">automatically learn about gender</a> from what they see adults doing in the home and at work. Eventually, to explain the differences they see in what men and women do and how they do it, children draw the conclusion that the sexes to some extent have different underlying traits. Divided labor thus conveys the message that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1006/drev.1993.1007">males and females have different attributes</a>.</p>
<p>These <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066">gender stereotypes usually include</a> beliefs that women excel in qualities such as warmth and concern for others, which psychologists label as communal. Stereotypes also suggest men have higher levels of qualities such as assertiveness and dominance, which psychologists label as agentic. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001">These stereotypes are shared</a> in cultures and shape individuals’ <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7">gender identities as well as societal norms</a> about appropriate female and male behaviors.</p>
<p>Gender stereotypes set the stage for prejudice and discrimination directed toward those who deviate from gender norms. If, for example, people accept the stereotype that women are warm and emotional but not tough and rational, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199363643.013.7">gatekeepers may close out women</a> from many engineering and tech jobs, even those women who are atypical of their sex. In addition, women talented in tech may falter if they themselves <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00075.x">internalize societal stereotypes</a> about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-015-9375-x">women’s inferiority in tech-relevant attributes</a>. Also, women’s <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012702">anxiety that they may confirm</a> these negative stereotypes can <a href="https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446269930.n26">lower their actual performance</a>.</p>
<p>It’s therefore not surprising that research provides <a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xPCQM6g7CQ0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&ots=XKHVbPVdIO&sig=L2ZncU0XyBEph7ujaLq4usXSmTY#v=onepage&q&f=false">evidence that women generally</a> have to <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036734">meet a higher standard</a> to attain jobs and recognition in fields that are culturally masculine and dominated by men. However, there is some recent evidence of <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/12062">preferential hiring of women in STEM</a> at U.S. research-intensive institutions. Qualified women who apply for such positions have a better chance of being interviewed and receiving offers than do male job candidates. <a href="https://theconversation.com/women-preferred-for-stem-professorships-as-long-as-theyre-equal-to-or-better-than-male-candidates-49411">Experimental simulation of hiring</a> of STEM faculty yielded similar findings.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182140/original/file-20170815-28398-au0sfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Any career depends on training and education that build on innate interest and talent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/24929786@N02/2367468669">Todd Ludwig</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why not both nature and nurture?</h2>
<p>Many pundits make the mistake of assuming that scientific evidence favoring sociocultural causes for the dearth of women in tech invalidates biological causes, or vice versa. These assumptions are far too simplistic because most complex human behaviors reflect some mix of nature and nurture. </p>
<p>And the discourse is further compromised as the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/technology/the-culture-wars-have-come-to-silicon-valley.html?_r=0">debate becomes</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-google-memo-isnt-the-interesting-part-of-the-story/2017/08/11/de3f8876-7ecb-11e7-9d08-b79f191668ed_story.html">more politicized</a>. Arguing for sociocultural causes seems the more progressive and politically correct stance today. Arguing for biological causes seems the more conservative and reactionary position. Fighting ideological wars distracts from figuring out what <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471">changes in organizational practices and cultures</a> would <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/opinion/silicon-valley-women-hiring-diversity.html">foster the inclusion of women in tech</a> and in the scientific workforce in general.</p>
<p>Politicizing such debates threatens scientific progress and doesn’t help unravel what a fair and diverse organization is and how to create one. Unfortunately, well-meaning efforts of organizations to <a href="https://theconversation.com/tech-companies-spend-big-money-on-bias-training-but-it-hasnt-improved-diversity-numbers-44411">promote diversity and inclusion</a> can be ineffective, often because they are too <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415596416">coercive and restrictive of managers’ autonomy</a>. The outrage in James Damore’s manifesto suggests that Google might want to take a close look at its diversity initiatives.</p>
<p>At any rate, neither nature-oriented nor nurture-oriented science can fully account for the underrepresentation of women in tech jobs. A coherent and open-minded stance acknowledges the possibility of both biological and social influences on career interests and competencies.</p>
<p>Regardless of whether nature or nurture is more powerful for explaining the lack of women in tech careers, people should guard against acting on the assumption of a gender binary. It makes more sense to treat individuals of both sexes as located somewhere on a continuum of masculine and feminine interests and abilities. Treating people as individuals rather than merely stereotyping them as male or female is difficult, given how quickly our automatic stereotypes kick in. But working toward this goal would foster equity and diversity in tech and other sectors of the economy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82479/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alice H. Eagly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Here’s what research actually says about differences between males and females – and the question of what’s innate and what’s acquired.Alice H. Eagly, Professor of Psychology; Faculty Fellow Institute for Policy Research; Professor of Management and Organizations, Northwestern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/813812017-07-24T23:12:29Z2017-07-24T23:12:29ZWhen women are surrogate mothers: Is that work?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179282/original/file-20170721-28519-kkoca0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In an ideal world of gender equality and recognition for women's work, surrogacy could perhaps be part of a paid, legitimate economy. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Camila Cordeiro on Unsplash)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A recent Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) <a href="http://cmajnews.com/2017/07/13/support-grows-for-paying-surrogates-cmaj-109-5444/">news article</a> reported that the <a href="https://cfas.ca/">Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society</a> (CFAS) has called for the federal government to reconsider the ban on payment for surrogacy in Canada. The article suggests that industry professionals and academics alike are coming around on compensation for surrogacy, with support growing all the time. </p>
<p>Although the CFAS statement was released in May, the CMAJ article reminds us that concerns about paying women for their reproductive labour are never far from the headlines. </p>
<p>In Canada, payment for surrogacy, egg donation and sperm donation is banned under the <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-13.4/">2004 Assisted Human Reproduction Act</a>. Under the Act, surrogates (like egg donors and sperm donors) can be reimbursed for receipted expenses. With a note from their doctor, surrogates can also receive some money for lost work-related income during pregnancy. </p>
<p>The Act states that this reimbursement of expenses must follow the relevant regulations. Until now, however, these regulations have never been drafted. After more than a decade, Health Canada is <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/programs/consultation-assisted-human-reproduction/document.html">now in the throes of making them</a>. This is occurring as <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/surrogacy-in-canada-should-give-us-cause-for-concern/article32091525/">surrogacy in Canada is expanding</a> to accommodate more and more people from countries where surrogacy is more expensive, harder to access or banned completely.</p>
<p>It is in this context that the CFAS (which is a part-medical association, part-industry organization representing the fertility industry and its doctors, lawyers, scientists and ethicists) has called for the government to reconsider the ban on payment.</p>
<h2>A profitable market</h2>
<p>It is important to know that the market in surrogacy in Canada is a profitable one. Doctors, lawyers and other professionals charge large fees for assisting intended parents and surrogates. </p>
<p>There are many perspectives on paying surrogates, and they differ even among the authors of this article. Some argue that it is only fair that women who act as surrogates be paid. It is easy to think that the hard work and sacrifice of being pregnant and giving birth for someone else deserves at least some reward. Others think that Canadian law should allow only for the reimbursement of expenses — to avoid commercialization. </p>
<h2>Why “compensation” and not “payment”?</h2>
<p>Regardless of these varying ideas, the word “compensation” raises red flags. Talking about payment for surrogacy as “compensation” — rather than as work — perpetuates class-related assumptions about who “good surrogates” should be. And about how surrogacy relates to other forms of gendered and reproductive labour. </p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179274/original/file-20170721-28492-aodhvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179274/original/file-20170721-28492-aodhvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179274/original/file-20170721-28492-aodhvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179274/original/file-20170721-28492-aodhvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179274/original/file-20170721-28492-aodhvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179274/original/file-20170721-28492-aodhvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179274/original/file-20170721-28492-aodhvy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The language of ‘compensation’ suggests that money is never a legitimate reason to become a surrogate.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>First, the language of “compensation” relies on underlying assumptions about who can, and should, be a surrogate. One of the many things that has worried critics in the past is that payment for surrogacy might lead to exploitation. The idea here is that money might serve as too great an incentive to participate, becoming women’s sole or primary motivation to be a surrogate.</p>
<p>This concern is based on the idea that compensation is something that is minimal, intended only to offset the time and risks involved in becoming a surrogate. This idea — <a href="https://www.amazon.ca/Clinical-Labor-Research-Bioeconomy-Experimental-ebook/dp/B00J59VN1M/ref=dp_kinw_strp_1">borrowed from clinical trials</a> with healthy volunteers — implies that by offering “compensation” we can recognize the challenges of participating without encouraging people to do it for the money. </p>
<p>In this way, payment is legitimate when people don’t need the money (but could use it) and potentially coercive when they do. </p>
<h2>Can’t poor women be good surrogates too?</h2>
<p>In the case of surrogacy, the rhetoric of “compensation” implies that poor women might be coerced or exploited, their consent unwitting. It implies that women with more economic resources can consent freely. </p>
<p>However, surrogates — like nurses, like teachers, like care workers — can participate for <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07078552.2016.1249125">both altruistic and economic reasons</a> at once. This is not to say that having a cadre of surrogates who are in it for money alone is desirable. But framing the work that surrogates do as “compensation” suggests that money is never a legitimate reason to partake. </p>
<p>It makes it impossible for women to participate who might, in fact, need the money.</p>
<h2>Surrogacy as gendered, intimate and reproductive labour</h2>
<p>Second, the word “compensation” distracts from the relationship between surrogacy and other forms of gendered, intimate and reproductive labour. Surrogacy produces real live people and this should not be overlooked. Surrogacy is of course different from the kinds of labour that midwives and nurses and caregivers do. </p>
<p>But recognising that <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dewb.12141/full">surrogacy is a form of work</a> draws attention to the broader spectrum of women’s work that exists at once inside and outside of well-regulated, well-valued work. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179272/original/file-20170721-28465-1uufydp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179272/original/file-20170721-28465-1uufydp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179272/original/file-20170721-28465-1uufydp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179272/original/file-20170721-28465-1uufydp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=438&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179272/original/file-20170721-28465-1uufydp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179272/original/file-20170721-28465-1uufydp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179272/original/file-20170721-28465-1uufydp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=551&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women work in the fields in this photographic reproduction of Jean-François Millet’s painting, Gleaners.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Wikamedia Commons)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In an ideal world, women’s equality would be uncontested. Reproductive labour in the home, in schools, in hospitals and daycares would be seen for the important work that it is. In this world, surrogacy could perhaps be part of a paid, legitimate economy. However, in a context where gendered and reproductive labour continue to be undervalued, surrogacy will likely be undervalued too. </p>
<p>As the CFAS urges Health Canada to move beyond the current regulatory process to consider compensation for surrogacy, we need to think carefully about what “compensation” is and does. </p>
<p>Speaking about “compensation” is a way of avoiding difficult conversations about payment to surrogates. If we are going to move forward, we will need to have those conversations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81381/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alana Cattapan has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Angela Cameron receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vanessa Gruben receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. </span></em></p>As the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society urges the government to consider “compensation” for surrogacy, we need to talk about the implications of this rhetoric for women.Alana Cattapan, Assistant Professor, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of SaskatchewanAngela Cameron, Associate Professor of Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaVanessa Gruben, Associate Professor of Law, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/647212016-09-26T01:31:32Z2016-09-26T01:31:32ZRemoving gender bias from algorithms<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136352/original/image-20160901-1048-12hkdog.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=509%2C732%2C4304%2C3827&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Can machine learning help us find – and reduce – gender bias?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-224879680/stock-vector-medical-graphic-design-vector-illustration.html">Doctor/nurse via shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Machine learning is ubiquitous in our daily lives. Every time we <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/apple-enhances-siri-still-trails-artificial-intelligence-race-n591786">talk to our smartphones</a>, search for images or <a href="http://www.eater.com/2015/2/24/8100527/luka-artificial-intelligence-restaurant-recommendations-sf-nyc-app">ask for restaurant recommendations</a>, we are interacting with machine learning algorithms. They take as input large amounts of raw data, like the entire text of an encyclopedia, or the entire archives of a newspaper, and analyze the information to extract patterns that might not be visible to human analysts. But when these large data sets include social bias, the <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06520.pdf">machines learn that too</a>.</p>
<p>A machine learning algorithm is like a newborn baby that has been given millions of books to read without being taught the alphabet or knowing any words or grammar. The power of this type of information processing is impressive, but there is a problem. When it takes in the text data, a computer observes relationships between words based on various factors, including how often they are used together.</p>
<p>We can test how well the word relationships are identified by using analogy puzzles. Suppose I ask the system to complete the analogy “He is to King as She is to X.” If the system comes back with “Queen,” then we would say it is successful, because it returns the same answer a human would.</p>
<p>Our research group trained the system on Google News articles, and then asked it to <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06520.pdf">complete a different analogy</a>: “Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to X.” The answer came back: “Homemaker.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=208&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/136351/original/image-20160901-1027-1kvim8d.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=261&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Examples of bias detected in machine learning word analysis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.06520.pdf">James Zou</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Investigating bias</h2>
<p>We used a <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781">common type of machine learning algorithm</a> to generate what are called “<a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.06571">word embeddings</a>.” Each English word is embedded, or assigned, to a point in space. Words that are semantically related are assigned to points that are close together in space. This type of embedding makes it easy for computer programs to quickly and efficiently identify word relationships.</p>
<p>After finding our computer programmer/homemaker result, we asked the system to automatically generate large numbers of “He is to X as She is to Y” analogies, completing both portions itself. It returned many common-sense analogies, like “He is to Brother as She is to Sister.” In analogy notation, which you may remember from your school days, we can write this as “he:brother::she:sister.” But it also came back with answers that reflect clear gender stereotypes, such as “he:doctor::she:nurse” and “he:architect::she:interior designer.” </p>
<p>The fact that the machine learning system started as the equivalent of a newborn baby is not just the strength that allows it to learn interesting patterns, but also the weakness that falls prey to these blatant gender stereotypes. The algorithm makes its decisions based on which words appear near each other frequently. If the source documents reflect gender bias – if they more often have the word “doctor” near the word “he” than near “she,” and the word “nurse” more commonly near “she” than “he” – then the algorithm learns those biases too.</p>
<h2>Making matters worse</h2>
<p>Not only can the algorithm reflect society’s biases – demonstrating how much those biases are contained in the input data – but the system can potentially amplify gender stereotypes. Suppose I search for “computer programmer” and the search program uses a gender-biased database that associates that term more closely with a man than a woman. </p>
<p>The search results could come back flawed by the bias. Because “John” as a male name is more closely related to “computer programmer” than the female name “Mary” in the biased data set, the search program could evaluate John’s website as more relevant to the search than Mary’s – even if the two websites are identical except for the names and gender pronouns. </p>
<p>It’s true that the biased data set could actually reflect factual reality – perhaps there are more “Johns” who are programmers than there are “Marys” – and the algorithms simply capture these biases. This does not absolve the responsibility of machine learning in combating potentially harmful stereotypes. The biased results would not just repeat but could even boost the statistical bias that most programmers are male, by moving the few female programmers lower in the search results. It’s useful and important to have an alternative that’s not biased.</p>
<h2>Removing the stereotypes</h2>
<p>If these biased algorithms are widely adopted, it could perpetuate, or even worsen, these damaging stereotypes. Fortunately, we have found a way to use the machine learning algorithm itself to reduce its own bias.</p>
<p>Our debiasing system uses real people to identify examples of the types of connections that are appropriate (brother/sister, king/queen) and those that should be removed. Then, using these human-generated distinctions, we quantified the degree to which gender was a factor in those word choices – as opposed to, say, family relationships or words relating to royalty.</p>
<p>Next we told our machine-learning algorithm to remove the gender factor from the connections in the embedding. This removes the biased stereotypes without reducing the overall usefulness of the embedding.</p>
<p>When that is done, we found that the machine learning algorithm no longer exhibits blatant gender stereotypes. We are investigating applying related ideas to remove other types of biases in the embedding, such as racial or cultural stereotypes.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64721/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James Zou does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Algorithms that learn from large data sets can pick up inherent social biases. That could perpetuate the biases, or even worsen them.James Zou, Assistant Professor of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/474462015-10-05T09:32:39Z2015-10-05T09:32:39ZWhat fewer women in STEM means for their mental health<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97109/original/image-20151002-23105-urwnr0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C885%2C3380%2C2514&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Being made to feel you don't belong in your chosen field is stressful.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-204331165/stock-photo-picture-of-woman-with-no-entry-sign.html">Woman image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><blockquote>
<p>“You’re in engineering!?! Wow, you must be super-smart…”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It has been over 10 years since I was a first-year engineering undergraduate student; but when I remember the time a fellow female student made this comment, I can still feel a visceral, bodily reaction: my muscles tense, my heart rate increases, my breath quickens.</p>
<p>Comments like these on the surface appear as compliments. But when unpacked, they reveal subversive attitudes about women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and math).</p>
<p>As I think back to this encounter, there are two aspects that stay with me. First was the surprised, skeptical tone of the other student’s voice that conveyed it was surprising and unusual (or, to put it more crudely, freakish) that I was in engineering. Second was the attitude that since I was in engineering, this could be explained only if there was something exceptional or outstanding (or, once again, freakish) about me. Women remain an underrepresented group in STEM. In Canada, women account for <a href="http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11874-eng.htm">23% of engineering graduates</a> and <a href="http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11874-eng.htm">30% of mathematics and computer graduates</a>. In the United States, women are <a href="http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/">12% of the engineering and 26% of the computing</a> workforce.</p>
<p>The reality is that STEM professions are most commonly male and it remains surprising when these professional roles are held by women. The large gender imbalance means that women may naturally feel they’re outsiders at school and at work. This situation is often uncomfortable and mentally demanding, when even just showing up and doing your job comes with constant social stresses and anxiety. Ironically, the difficulties that they (we) encounter often dissuade the next generation of women from joining us. It’s a self-reinforcing cycle that we need to break. </p>
<h2>Fight or flight, designed for quick response</h2>
<p>Because of their underrepresentation, women in STEM often regularly question their place in these professions. When things feel uncomfortable – like when I was confronted with that comment a decade ago – our brains can overinterpret the situation as an imminent threat. And there’s an evolutionary reason for that physical response.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.intechopen.com/books/new-insights-into-anxiety-disorders/an-evolutionary-perspective-on-anxiety-and-anxiety-disorders">Stress</a> is an adaptive response to perceived threats. It’s how the body <a href="http://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety/depression">reacts to these situations</a>. Anxiety is stress that lingers after the immediate threat is gone; it’s experienced as a feeling such as <a href="http://www.adaa.org/understanding-anxiety">embarrassment, fear or worry</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1312&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1312&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1312&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1649&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1649&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97084/original/image-20151002-23065-1yids01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1649&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fight-or-flight is a physiological response.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Fight_or_Flight_Response.jpg">Jvnkfood</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This stress response evolved in human beings to help us navigate a wild, dangerous and unpredictable world. When faced with imminent danger, like a pouncing tiger, our bodies have evolved an automatic reaction to help us react fast. Stress hormones are released, the heart beats harder and faster, breathing becomes rapid and muscles tense, ready for action. </p>
<p>This automatic response prepares our bodies for possible actions: <a href="http://cmhc.utexas.edu/stressrecess/Level_One/fof.html">fight or flight</a>! From the perspective of evolutionary adaptation, it’s in our best interests NOT to distinguish between life-threatening and non-life-threatening dangers. Act first, think later. In the African wilds in which early humans roamed, the consequence of underreacting could mean death.</p>
<h2>Good during lion attack, less good during daily life</h2>
<p>In modern life, we don’t have to worry much about attacks from lions, tigers or bears. But adaptive mechanisms are still very much a part of our brain’s biology.</p>
<p>The flight-or-flight response is intended to be short-term. The problem comes in when stress becomes a daily part of life, triggering a physiological response that’s actually detrimental to health over the long term. Repeated and long-term releases of the stress hormone cortisol cause <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2013.190">changes in brain structure</a> that leave individuals more susceptible to anxiety and mood disorders, including depression. When exposed to long-term stress, the brain structure called the <a href="http://sciencenordic.com/how-stress-can-cause-depression">hippocampus shrinks</a>, affecting one’s short-term memory and ability to learn.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97092/original/image-20151002-23065-mn8n11.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Subtle cues can make female students feel marginalized.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/worldbank/14108928496">World Bank Photo Collection</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Messages you don’t belong can be stressful</h2>
<p>These physical stress responses can unfortunately run at a constant low level of activation in people who are made to feel like they don’t belong or aren’t good enough – such as women in STEM. Social situations like my undergraduate encounter – and their ramifications – are a part of day-to-day life.</p>
<p>The effects of stress on women in STEM fields are often already obvious during their undergraduate studies. A study of women in engineering at the University of Waterloo has shown that female students tend to have <a href="http://www.educationaldatamining.org/EDM2013/papers/rn_paper_34.pdf">lower overall mental health</a>. Women in STEM fields are more likely to report <a href="http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/737382/abs/">higher levels of stress and anxiety</a> and <a href="http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2007/10/depression-in-t.html">higher incidences of depression</a>.</p>
<p>Sadly, the percentages of women working in these fields have remained stagnant for decades. In 1987, women represented <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/gender-inequality-in-the-sciences-its-still-very-present-in-canada/">20%</a> of the STEM workforce in Canada. In 2015, their numbers remain <a href="http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/gender-inequality-in-the-sciences-its-still-very-present-in-canada/">unchanged at 22%</a>. In the United States, the reality is very similar, with women representing <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_factsheet_2013_07232013.pdf">24%</a> of the workforce. Confrontational reactions like “You’re in engineering!?!” communicate the message that as a woman, one may not belong in the social group of engineering. The brain perceives these kinds of social interactions as threatening, dangerous and stressful.</p>
<p>The social cues that women may not belong in male-dominated STEM fields can often be subtle. For example, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0016239">researchers</a> have shown that the presence in labs of objects considered stereotypical of computer science, such as Star Trek and video game posters, are perceived as stereotypically masculine and can dissuade women from expressing interest in topics like computer programming.</p>
<p>Moreover, seemingly complimentary “Wow, you must be super-smart!” comments also communicate an even more troubling possibility that, in order to belong in this group (of men), as a woman, one must be exceptional. Women + Engineering = Super Smart.</p>
<p>But what if a female student is not exceptionally intelligent? What if she is only ordinarily smart? Or, even more troubling, what if she does not believe that she is smart at all? In her mind, she becomes a sheep in wolf’s clothing, an impostor who has tricked those around her into accepting her into a group where she does not belong. From the brain’s perspective, this is literally interpreted as being in the lion’s den.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/97093/original/image-20151002-13364-1rvke7w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=570&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women can flourish in STEM, but it can mean shutting out the noise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usaidasia/12628956494">USAID Asia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>STEM should welcome everyone</h2>
<p>So what can be done? If we are to increase the participation of women in STEM fields, we must make workplace and educational environments inclusive. In order to thrive, female students need to believe that they belong in technical professions, in both academia and the private sector.</p>
<p>The social marginalization caused by gender imbalances in STEM programs can be mitigated. Targeted <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037461">intervention programs</a> that foster social belonging and coping mechanisms to deal with stress and threat can help women develop skills to handle the mental challenges caused by gender inequality and help women integrate into their male-dominated environment.</p>
<p>Connecting female students with female professional <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/100/2/255/">role models</a> such as mentors or instructors has also been extremely effective at improving women’s self-concept and commitment to STEM.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"647190058928336896"}"></div></p>
<p>Finally, campaigns like the #Ilooklikeanengineer hashtag disrupt our common stereotyping of STEM professionals and help support a cultural shift.</p>
<p>The rates of female representation in STEM will not change overnight. It will probably be at least another generation before parity becomes an achievable target. But it’s through changing these attitudes and stereotypes that we will reduce some of the social stresses on women in these fields, helping women choose STEM as a career path, stay in these fields, and most importantly, remain healthy and happy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/47446/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Drake is affiliated with the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority. </span></em></p>Being underrepresented in science, technology, engineering and math means women can be made to feel they don’t belong, with long-term mental health consequences.Jennifer Drake, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/398672015-04-15T20:37:02Z2015-04-15T20:37:02ZGetting in early to avoid gender stereotyping careers<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77579/original/image-20150410-15265-qvbfyo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How many little girls do you see dressing up as builders or car mechanics?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/22326055@N06/8529550748">Flickr/theirhistory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>By pre-school children are already thinking about the career they will have when they grow up. It is <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2000-02490-003">also at this early stage</a> that they tend to rule out jobs that do not fit with their gender. </p>
<p><a href="http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ794872">Four-year-olds</a> have shown a strong gender bias towards jobs. Girls choose typically female occupations while boys tend to show interest in typically male occupations. Pre-schoolers seem reluctant to cross gender work roles.</p>
<p>To counter the impact of gender stereotypes on careers, many educators I’ve spoken to in my research say career-related learning should take place in early primary years. The concern is that by years 8-10 the subject and career choices of students were <a href="http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/684526/Abstracts-v2-gender-workshop-24.2.15.pdf">well and truly gender-segregated</a>.</p>
<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/sce.20479/abstract">Evidence gathered across 50 countries</a> showed that as a result of this gender segregation by year 10, far fewer girls pursue maths and science. The female students who do not complete advanced-level maths are unlikely to pursue the male-dominated science, technology, engineering, maths (STEM) post-school careers.</p>
<p>A ruling-out process occurs for boys too. Very few boys follow the typically female-dominated paths, such as social welfare, nursing and teaching. This leads to shortages of men in these key roles.</p>
<p>This early thinking in children about what is men’s work and what is women’s work <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12405137">likely comes from the roles</a> they see around them in their families, schools, books, toys and media. A quick stroll down a toy shop aisle provides abundant evidence that <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/apr/22/gendered-toys-stereotypes-boy-girl-segregation-equality">few toys for girls</a> show a non-traditional career connection.</p>
<h2>Free to choose their careers, but…</h2>
<p>The female students in my research said that they feel free to choose any career. But in digging deeper in interviews with them, it was clear that they were put off male-dominated careers, <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-are-the-female-tradies-32273">particularly in the trades</a>, because of gender stereotypes.</p>
<p>A female student captured the impact of gender stereotypes by saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t think they [girls] are doing what they want. They are more doing what society needs them to do, or suggests to them. Society is telling them […] boys do this, girls do that.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>High-achieving female students seem to be breaking through the gender barriers in the typically male-dominated professions more than their peers in vocational education pathways. The enrolment of female university students in engineering in Australia, for example, is around 15%, <a href="http://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/emag/news/female-enrolments">although it had reached 22% at UNSW</a>. However the enrolment of female apprentices and trainees in male-dominated vocational courses, such as electro-technology, automotive and engineering, and construction <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1301.0Main+Features1062012">sits under 5%</a>.</p>
<h2>Overcoming gender stereotypes matters to industry, the economy and young people</h2>
<p>Overcoming gender segregation in occupations matters to industry and to the economy. Low female workforce participation rates and segregation of women into existing female-dominated industries <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/Female__Participation_Update_27March2014.pdf">contribute to</a> labour market rigidity, sub-optimal productivity and economic inefficiency due to the under-utilisation of the skills of women. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/resources/education_training/Gender_Diversity_Review_White_Paper(2).PDF">Minerals Council of Australia</a> put up the “women wanted” sign to counter the upward pressure on labour costs due to skills shortages.</p>
<p>It matters to women who are determined to reduce the gender pay gap and improve economic opportunities for women.</p>
<p>It matters that men and boys also ought to be free to follow their interests and not be discouraged by lower status and wages attached to female-dominated occupations. </p>
<p>The average weekly earnings for female technicians and trade workers in Australia is $917, and $1304 for males. This represents a <a href="https://www.wgea.gov.au/sites/default/files/2014-03-04-Gender_Pay_Gap_factsheet_website.pdf">29.7% gender pay gap</a>.</p>
<h2>Current career development practice</h2>
<p>Career practice and theory in the <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/ngrf/effectiveguidance/improvingpractice/theory/women-ethnic/">UK</a> and <a href="http://www.security4women.org.au/wp-content/uploads/eS4W-Career-Exploration-Project-Report-20140615.pdf">Australia</a> have been criticised for not doing enough to challenge the influence of gender stereotypes.</p>
<p>Educators I interviewed said they wanted to do more in career interventions, but they were hampered by a lack of time and resources.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://education.gov.au/national-career-development-strategy">National Career Development Strategy</a> has been developed in Australia. It recognises that career development is life-long. But it needs to be better resourced to tackle the life-long consequences gender stereotypes have for kids at school.</p>
<p>To ensure national career strategies are more responsive to the needs of girls and women, the national women’s network, economicSecurity4Women, proposed that the federal government commission career guidance models specific to the needs of girls. </p>
<p>In the UK in 2007, a <a href="http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/182663/DFE-RR116.pdf">career-related learning project</a> for primary schools was introduced with one of its aims being “to inhibit stereotyped and self-limiting thinking” of careers. The program review reported some success:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Pupil survey results showed that over the course of the evaluation, Pathfinder pupils showed a greater decrease in stereotypical thinking and greater improvements in their perceptions of the effectiveness of career-related learning in their school than comparison pupils.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A <a href="https://www.teachers.org.uk/files/boys-things-revise-8875.pdf">guide for teachers</a> on how to challenge gender stereotypes through existing classroom activities without the need for new curricula and resources is being put to good use in the UK.</p>
<p>The NSW Department of Education and Communities continued to promote the case for career-related learning in primary schools at the Career Development Association of Australia’s National Conference in Perth last week.</p>
<p>Young people need to see they can be free to choose from the full range of careers - not the gendered range that has been cultivated in books, media, toys and magazines - and this kind of thinking needs to start from a young age.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39867/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karen Struthers is affiliated with the Australian Labor Party. She was a former State Government MP and Minister.</span></em></p>By pre-school children are already thinking about the career they will have when they grow up, and ruling out jobs that do not fit with their gender. We need to get in early to get rid of stereotypes.Karen Struthers, PhD student, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.