Statistics and Gender Equality

This month saw the 2010 Engineering Leadership Conference run as a joint venture between Young Engineers Australia and the Centre of Engineering Leadership Management. I’m sure that plenty of blog articles on leadership will stem from it but I’d like to comment both on the usage of statistics and gender equality.

There was a presentation on equality by a speaker from the department of human rights. The majority of the presentation focused on gender equality, though not focussed on engineering. At the risk of misquoting, some shocking statistics were presented: females accounting for only 10% of CEOs, females accumulating half the lifetime income and superannuation, females in general earning less than males at every stage of their career.

All statistics need to be taken in context. I don’t know any employer who would honestly give a female a lower wage than a male or think a male more qualified. The spokesperson’s speech would have been more pertinent if it had focussed on figures relating specifically to engineering, though the same considerations of the statistics would need to be made.

 I propose the following explanations for this statistical inequality, based on my experience (admittedly as a male), many of which are relevant to engineers between the ages of 25 and 35.

1.    Men can’t have babies. Due to this we have cultural gender roles: mothers and bread winners. This difference is expanded on below.

2.    Many women may choose a salary package (or a career) that provides flexibility (in work hours before and after birth, in leave entitlements, etc.) over a larger salary, so as to cater for raising children, with most men taking salaries as the primary breadwinner. This may be one factor to account for lesser incomes.

3.    After leaving work with a new baby, many females take a very long time to return to work, if ever. With the compounding effect of superannuation, leaving work for an extended period at the start of a career puts a significant dent in retirement savings over a lifetime.

4.    Further to this, leaving work for significant periods, means that it can take time to get back into the swing of things and to gain the experience that other colleagues have since gained. All else being equal, if any two people go for a CEO job and both started their career 20 years ago, but one took 10 years off (to raise a family, or for any reason), the person with the greater time in industry is likely to win the job.  

 

The male domination of engineering is a function of what types of careers different genders are drawn to (think of engineering versus nursing), which is influenced by cultural stereotypes of what careers males and females are ‘supposed’ to undertake. A misconception, not discrimination. Why, as a society, we often have lower salaries for female dominated careers is a discussion beyond the scope of this forum, but perhaps consideration should be given to the point above on flexibility versus salary. I suspect that many of the above points will also apply to other industries.

 

It was questioned during the speech, whether we should legislate gender quotas on management boards (apparently they do somewhere in Europe). To me this flies in the face of the fight for equality. I want the best person for the position based on merit not the best person to who meets a gender balance target regardless of experience.

 

Employment in the engineering industry IS based on merit. The gender bias of our industry is a result of applicant choices, not discrimination. If someone (male or female) can demonstrate the required skills for a job, they are eligible and are in with a fighting chance. No government spokesperson with populace averaged figures is going to convince me otherwise.

 

The statistics would have us believe that our industry shuns females and at best won’t give them a fair go. The truth is far from this, even without government pressure. Let’s stay clear of gender based employment legislation: for equity’s sake.

Comments

[sand_girl]

*Many* studies have shown that, when controlled for by rank (i.e. the statistics are not dodgy), women have lower salaries than men.

I suggest you do some research and then append your blog above with a more educated overview. These issues are hugely important.

For example, some things that the gender-salary imbalance this has been attributed to include i) overall, women tend to not be as self-promoting as men, e.g. they take longer to request promotion than an equally qualified man does. ii) the way our workplaces are set up still exhibits many aspects that have been inherited from times when the workforce consisted solely of men. it suits men better than women in terms of the differences in they way men and women interact etc.

A report in the Australian Financial Review includes this comment:
"A 2002 report by Engineers Australia found that discrimination, harassment and paternalism were rife in engineering organisations, with 50 per cent of women reporting they had experienced them."
http://www.eng.uts.edu.au/EducationandOutreach/wie/AFR070305.htm

These are not focused on engineering, but I suggest you read these articles, they will be applicable to engineering too:
- 'Science and Gender' Editorial in Nature Immunology http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v11/n2/full/ni0210-99.html
- 'Gender imbalance in US geoscience academia' http://www.geo.cornell.edu/eas/PeoplePlaces/Faculty/mahowald/women/Nature%20Geosciences%20Feb%202008%20HR.pdf

[aimb52]

The conference presenter that was being referenced suggested that it should be legislated that employers hire and promote women on gender preference rather than merit. Legislation that enforces hiring on a basis other then merit and the needs of the business is discriminatory and inequitable as seen in a Canadian example (1). The conference presenter seemed to me to be suggesting that an inequality in representation means an inequity in the industry, an unwillingness to hire females, or discrimination forcing females out of the industry.

All statistics that have so far been mentioned are stating a gender inequality, not an gender inequity. The blog was not arguing that there was no inequality in representation, just that this was not an inequity. No female engineer I have spoken to (on this topic) has yet to quote personal experiences of inequity; they have just quoted studies or other people's experiences.

Statistics representing the unequal pay between genders (even at the same rank) do not demonstrate other benefits and employment flexibility that women may choose as part of future planning.

Statistics are 'dodgy' in my opinion. This blog is in opinion piece, however if I need to qualify that with a reference, try (2). I will take with a grain of salt any statistics quoted in support of an argument or by anyone who has an agenda to push.

As an example of statistics and context, I know 7 geoscientists and four of them are female. As such I find the referenced article on geosciences inequality interesting, as it does not reflect my experience of a gender balanced industry. Similarly I find studies on inequity in engineering interesting as it also does not reflect my experience. I work for a consultancy (mostly office work), so cannot speak for the site based settings which many examples in literature allude to.

Similarly I could state that as there has been only one opposing opinion commented on this blog, everyone else is in agreement. Statistics need to be read in context.

In terms of structure, in NSW it is legislated that everyone has the right to request shifting from full-time to part-time work, and no reason is required. However, quite equitably, employers are not required to grant the request if it doesn't fit within the business model. Just because some females (or males) may be looking for part time work in a given field, doesn't mean it will be available if it doesn't fit any company's business model.

(1) Ontario's Employment Equity Legislation: An Act Not to Follow, Saul Fridman, Agenda, Volume 2, Number 4, 1995, pg 455-466

(2) http://www.effectivemeetings.com/productivity/communication/statmanipulation.asp

[Another_Opinion]

As a young female engineer, I can honestly say that there is still in-equality in the engineering field. I don't want to have babies (my choice) but the expectation that I will have babies and that I will leave the company soon to have a family. So rather than supporting me, they have preferred to look at males as a better investment for the long term of the company. To gain promotions, I have had to leave companies to gain experience rather than staying long term as I would have liked to.

And when I say "I don't want them", time after time the male response is "just wait... you will eventually".

There is still a glass ceiling in engineering, it is much better than it has been but it does still exist. There is still some sexism within offices (small comments are made here and there) and it is worse on sites. Yes, it may be better than 20 years ago, but there is still more work to be done in my opinion.

[GPR - Ground Penetrating Radar]

In terms of structure, in NSW it is legislated that everyone has the right to request shifting from full-time to part-time work, and no reason is required.