Women and Innovation

TV3’s The Nation occasionally takes a crusading line as my essay concerning their item on child poverty and retirees of 14 June 2014 shows.  This time its subject was the lack of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  I do wish they could do this with greater consideration for issues that underpin the case as presented. 

Lisa Owen said in her introduction to this item some curious and unsupported statements.  “The lack of women in STEM is an ongoing problem.”  But what is the problem?  If women are half of the workforce as Ms Owen states, it is hardly one of employment.  There is no evidence that the industry, or the education for it, is hampered by the lack of women or that it would be enhanced by increased numbers of them.

Ms Owen continues by saying that women “outnumber men in gaining degrees and diplomas two to one.”  I will take her at her word that this is true, but surely that is a far, far greater problem than a low representation of women in a traditional male role?  It astonishes me that Ms Owen let that go without qualifying it.

She goes on to say, “Some say things are getting worse and that there are concerns it’s holding back innovation.”  The only evidence concerning innovation was anecdotal, provided by interviewee Dr Michelle Dickinson who said that the industry was “missing out on a massive amount of innovation” from not having more women involved.  Massive?  Really?  This is totally unsupportable hyperbole and while Dr Dickinson may wish it to be, this sort of comment shouldn’t have been included in a serious current affairs programme.

TV3’s The Nation occasionally takes a crusading line as my essay concerning their item on child poverty and retirees of 14 June 2014 shows.  This time its subject was the lack of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.  I do wish that this could be done with greater consideration for issues that underpin the case as presented. 

Lisa Owen said in her introduction to this item some curious and unsupported statements.  “The lack of women in STEM is an ongoing problem.”  But what is the problem?  If women are half of the workforce as Ms Owen states, it is hardly one of employment.  There is no evidence that the industry, or the education for it, is hampered by the lack of women or that it would be enhanced by increased numbers of them.

Ms Owen continues by saying that women “outnumber men in gaining degrees and diplomas two to one.”  I will take her at her word that this is true, but surely that is a far, far greater problem than a low representation of women in a traditional male role?  It astonishes me that Ms Owen let that go without qualifying it.

She goes on to say, “Some say things are getting worse and that there are concerns it’s holding back innovation.”  The only evidence concerning innovation was anecdotal, provided by interviewee Dr Michelle Dickinson who said that the industry was “missing out on a massive amount of innovation” from not having more women involved.  Massive?  Really?  This is totally unsupportable hyperbole and while Dr Dickinson may wish it to be, this sort of comment shouldn’t have been included in a serious current affairs programme.

Dr Dickinson gives just the one example of car airbags having been designed by men and thus responsible for the deaths of many women and children because it did not cater for the physiques of women and children.  I would suggest firstly, that it is car crashes that are responsible for killing people, and airbags in fact save lives.  Secondly, as a scientist Dr Dickinson should be aware of the evolutionary method of mechanical design and not criticise flaws in the early stages.  Thirdly, it is preposterous to assume that having women on the design team would have removed such flaws.

The ‘nature versus nurture’ debate is being superseded by doctrinaire political correctness which prevents the examination of these issues at a deeper level.  It masks the obvious fact that women’s physiology and psychology are focussed on reproduction, resulting in the self-referential empathy necessary for child-rearing and cultural continuity.  Men, excluded from this function by nature, focus more on mastery, competition, systematisation and accomplishment.  In the real world, ignored by The Nation, it is by virtue of these natural drives that the masculine side of human nature pushes the boundaries, innovates techniques, experiments, develops, and in the most precise definition of civilisation, continuously refines every aspect of it.  In contrast, women act as muse and prize, carrying out the most crucial act of all living species, reproduction, thus giving men’s functions perpetual significance.  Vive la différence. 

The Nation can be excused for eschewing profundity on the grounds of its target demographic.  All the same, some indication that the superficiality of cultural change is unable to shift human nature and that it has effects beyond its best intentions would be helpful.

Take, for example, employment.  Unless STEM careers increase (and there is no indication that more women means more jobs), The Nation’s crusade would replace men with women leading to greater male unemployment and increased demotivation.  Women’s greater empathy results in greater social involvement, as evinced by The Nation’s comment that women predominate in healthcare, retail and education (and not mentioned, child-raising), means the very nature of society will always require these roles for women.  Not so men, whose primary identity is provided by occupation and career.  Why does The Nation wish to penalise men in this manner by treating women as victims?  The Nation needs to be aware of the socially damaging forces it supports when it crusades in this manner.

Ignorance of consequences is a child-like attribute cured by experience.  Ignoring consequences, such as male joblessness, alienation and apathy, is a culpable route to chaos and is inexcusable. 

Treating women in this way, as victims who require special treatment, is symptomatic of the pervasive view that anyone who is not white and male is a victim of anyone who is white and male.  There are consequences of this world view that are too complex to describe adequately here, and are unlikely to be understood anyway except through the narratives of future historians.  But it does mean that much of what The Nation stands for is under severe threat. 

Mark my words