Tech’s Masculine Mystique in STEM

October 16, 2023

As Judith Butler argues that "Gender is not a noun, but a verb, an action, a performance". She contends that while it is important to recognise and respect diverse gender identities, it is also necessary to challenge the rigid gender norms and expectations that underlie gender-based oppression.

The following is a book review of the “Polity Reader in Gender Studies” (Chapter 19, 20), authored by Judy Wajcman. Through this book review, Important claims have been made with respect to the role of women in STEM. We hope we engage you through the very end, only to realise that mere statistics about lesser women in STEM fields don’t do justice to the gendered complexities this field encompasses. The following blog is Part 1 which deals with the gendered technology and its unavailability to deliver to a gender-inclusive society.

Technology as a Masculine Culture

The idea of technology as a masculine culture is a topic that has been explored by Judy Wajcman. It suggests that the development and use of technology are often associated with masculine values, and are dominated by men. This can have implications for how technology is designed, developed, and used, as well as for who has access to and control over technology. This dominance also reflects and reinforces patriarchal power structures in society.

The association between technology and masculinity can be traced back to historical gender roles, where men were often associated with work in industrial and technological fields, while women were relegated to domestic work and caregiving. This gendered division of labour has persisted, with men continuing to dominate in fields such as engineering, computer science, and other STEM-related fields.

Illustrations by Kagan McLeod for The Globe and Mail

The history of technology is often seen as a history of men, with men being credited with many of the most significant technological innovations throughout history. This has led to a view of technology as a masculine domain, with women being excluded from both the development and use of technology. This exclusion has been reinforced by the fact that the design of technology often reflects the values and interests of its designers, who are predominantly male.

Implications

The idea of technology as a masculine culture has significant implications. For example, it can lead to a lack of diversity in the development and use of technology, which can have negative consequences for women and other marginalised groups.

One example of technology designed with a bias towards men is voice recognition software. Research has shown that many voice recognition systems, including those used in popular virtual assistants like Siri and Alexa, have a harder time understanding the voices of women and people with higher-pitched voices. This is because the software was often developed and tested using male voices, which can lead to biases in the algorithms that make it harder for the software to accurately recognise and interpret the voices of people who do not fit the male norm.

Another example is the design of car safety features. For many years, car safety features were designed primarily with male drivers in mind, based on data about crash test dummies that were modelled after the male body. This led to a bias towards features that protect against injuries typically suffered by men, such as chest injuries, and a lack of consideration for injuries that are more common among women, such as neck injuries. It wasn’t until the 1990s that car manufacturers began to incorporate female-specific crash test dummies and to develop safety features that better account for the differences between male and female bodies.

It can also reinforce gender stereotypes and discrimination in society, as technological innovations are often seen as a reflection of the values and priorities of the dominant group. For example, the development of video games has traditionally been a male-dominated field, and many games have been designed with a focus on violence and aggression, which are often seen as masculine traits. This can reinforce the idea that violence and aggression are natural or desirable behaviours for men, while women are seen as passive or submissive.

Factors Leading to ‘masculine technology culture’

One of the key factors that contribute to the masculine culture of technology is the underrepresentation of women in the STEM fields. Women have historically been discouraged from pursuing careers in these fields, and even when they do, they often face discrimination and bias that can limit their opportunities for advancement. This has resulted in a lack of diversity in the technological workforce, which in turn can lead to a narrow range of perspectives and priorities being reflected in the development and use of technology.

Another factor is the way in which technology is marketed and advertised. Many technological products are marketed using images of men as the primary users, which can reinforce the idea that technology is a masculine domain. This can be particularly problematic in areas such as gaming, where women may feel excluded or marginalised by the dominant culture of the industry.

The idea is also ingrained in children from a very young age, and this can have lasting effects on their attitudes and beliefs about technology and gender. Children are exposed to a wide range of media and toys that often reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes, with boys being encouraged to play with toys that are associated with (STEM) fields, while girls are encouraged to play with toys that are associated with caregiving and domesticity. This early exposure to gendered messages about technology can shape children’s attitudes and beliefs about who is “good” at technology and who is not. Boys may come to see technology as a natural domain for their gender, while girls may feel discouraged from pursuing interests in STEM fields. This can have long-term effects on their educational and career choices, which explains the statistics on a global level.

We do interject though!

Why does gender differentiation continue to be prevalent in the field of technology even when it was expected that with the development of microeconomics and the decreasing importance of heavy industrial technology, gender stereotyping would diminish?

An engraving of Ada Lovelace, the first computer programmer

We agree with some of the author’s findings when she explains that the work-related culture is also a result of cultural processes. Deep-seated gender stereotypes and biases shape how people perceive and value certain kinds of work. There is enough evidence to support the idea that our culture has already defined computers as preeminently male machines.

Technology and engineering fields have traditionally been associated with masculinity as these fields require characteristics such as logic, reason, and competency that are generally attributed to males. While caregiving and service industries have been associated with femininity. These stereotypes influence educational and career choices, as well as workplace culture and policies. Technologies, like people, are already sex-typed when they enter the workplace. Women are apprehensive about engaging with a territory that in spite of being known to them is considered out of their bounds. Women in the tech industry frequently experience imposter syndrome because they think that they don’t belong or aren’t good enough. The long-standing dichotomy of rational vs emotional is still pervasive today and lends credence to the suggestion that women are just not as cut out to work in tech as men.

Schooling, youth cultures, the family, and mass media all transmit meanings and values that identify masculinity with machines and technological competence. Gender socialisation begins early with boys being nudged down specific career paths and girls down others. Young boys are persistently encouraged to be enthralled by the robots, spaceships, and gadgets on display in huge franchises such as Star Wars and Batman, while girls tend to be offered princesses or other soft toys.

The introduction of micro-computers in schools creates subconscious biases that make girls believe a certain subject is ‘just for the boys’. It is primarily taught by a male teacher eliminating the scope of having a role model for girls to look up to. Studies of the classroom shows that teachers behave differently to girls and boys, they require different responses and different behaviour from them. Girls feel the need to display a set of behavioural patterns that are perceived as being feminine. Girls internalise the belief that boys possess something they lack – the difference is lived as inferiority.

Question is- How far does this inferiority go? Does it go beyond school, in the decisions we learn to make in our personal lives? Choosing leadership roles?

Household technologies are sharply gendered. Technologies of external household and car maintenance are traditionally the husbands’ sphere, while women primarily use the technologies of the kitchen and cleaning. How many times have we encountered the argument that men are better drivers than women…or for that matter, how many women do we find sporting the electrician cap in general.

Armor Comic – www.gamechatter.com; artist Irene Martini

Let’s take gaming as an example, women are still excluded today from mainstream games because current gameplay limits their options to customise their female characters in non-gendered, non-demeaning ways. In many popular hardcore games, there is only one choice of a player character. In most of these games, that male character is a male. In games that do offer female characters to play, women feel alienated by how the characters portray females as “damsels in distress’’ or “bikini babes”, while the male characters in the game still dominate the central positions. Not only are the female characters forced to wear “girlified and sexified” versions of this armour that show off clearly more skin than their male counterparts, but they also all have hyper-sexualized and unrealistic body types that cannot be altered by the female player, while the male characters are simply muscular, and not seen as sexual objects by the players. This lack of respectable representation of women in video games makes it hard for female gamers to make their presence known online and in the gaming world.

This gender socialisation later takes the form of discrimination in the workplace. In 2014, social psychologist Corinne Moss-Racusin experimented with measuring implicit gender bias against job applicants in STEM. The study found that scientists perceived a job candidate named John to be more competent than a candidate who had an identical resume but was named Jennifer. This negative bias towards women may be even more pronounced in face-to-face interviews.

Not only are women’s skills underestimated, but mothers are regularly discriminated against for requiring maternity leave or because employers don’t want to hire women who might someday leave to assume a carer’s role at home. A lack of parental leave can also drive mothers out of tech or discourage them from entering the field in the first place.

Examining the Belief that Cognitive Differences between Genders Explain Technical Performance Disparities: A Feminist Perspective

The next argument that we intend to analyse is whether cognitive differences are the reason why there is a huge accessibility gap in the technological field

The author finds the conventional ‘cognitive styles difference argument’ unconvincing. Here, we agree with her. The distinction between ‘hard players’ and ‘soft players’ attributed to different sexes based on psychological differences has been discredited in the past. The old sexual stereotype about women being too emotional, irrational, illogical, and inadept in mathematics have long been questioned.

The second line of argument that was prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s that working-class and black children were naturally suited to less abstract or more concrete forms of learning is anachronistic now. Turkle, in her assessment of the cognitive understanding of the distinction between sexes, has drawn a parallel with Claude Strauss’s distinction between Western science and the science of pre-literate societies.

‘The former is the science of the abstract, the latter is the science of concrete’.

While the hard master thinks in terms of global abstractions, the soft masterworks on a problem by arranging and rearranging these elements. Here, Turkle clearly emphasises that neither of these styles is superior, they are different. The problem here is not the style itself, but the differential value that is accorded to different styles. Computer expertise is defined as hard mastery, it is recognised as the only correct way to program. Soft mastery is culturally constructed as inferior. Till here we agree with Turkles’ argument, however, the author is right to have apprehensions regarding the connection of these cognitive styles to psychological sex differences. Here we should be careful not to fall into the trap of making broad generalisations about the cognitive abilities of an entire group of people based on their sex and gender. While the hard master thinks in terms of global abstractions, the soft masterworks on a problem by arranging and rearranging these elements. Here, Turkle clearly emphasises that neither of these styles is superior, they are different. The problem here is not the style itself, but the differential value that is accorded to different styles. Computer expertise is defined as hard mastery, it is recognised as the only correct way to program. Soft mastery is culturally constructed as inferior. Till here we agree with Turkles’ argument, however, the author is right to have apprehensions regarding the connection of these cognitive styles to psychological sex differences. Here we should be careful not to fall into the trap of making broad generalisations about the cognitive abilities of an entire group of people based on their sex and gender.

Although studies do find evidence of differences between the sexes, the variation within the sexes is more important than the differences between them.

To present differences in programming style as differences in individual psychology, as Turkle does, is to assume an individualised account of learning. In our experience, it is fair to say that learning does not take place in isolation. It emerges and thrives in the collective, social sphere. Turkle’s predominantly psychological rather than sociological framework leads her to neglect the historical and cultural context in which computing education takes place. The discrepancy in cognitive style can be seen as a consequence of major sexual inequalities of power.

Credits: NY Times

At this point, it is important for us to credit the contribution of female programmers of the 1940s and 1950s.

Back then, many women were engaged in programming, coding, and working as machine operators. (owing to the war.) It was because programming was initially viewed as tedious clerical work of low status that it was assigned to women. As the field started getting recognition, it came to be considered creative, intellectual, and demanding men’s work. Thus, depending on the circumstances, different cognitive styles may be characterised as ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ according to the power and status that attaches.