By Elena Garcia
In the April 8 issue of GLW, Rose McCann's column on single-sex classes raises the question whether it is desirable for women to participate more in the traditionally male-dominated job areas, and therefore to specialise in maths and sciences.
As a graduate of a single-sex school, as one fascinated by maths and pure sciences, and as someone building a successful career as the first female electrical contractor in either the Illawarra or the Bundaberg areas, I can speak from my own experience.
It is desirable for more women to participate in non-traditional job areas, in the logical sciences and engineering. Trades: electrical, carpentry, plumbing, metalwork. The building industry. Mathematical fields like computing. Technology.
Women in these areas are as competent as men — in fact, usually better, because of the pressure to prove yourself. Young women are interested in what I do — they just haven't seen women do it before, so haven't seriously considered it as an achievable job option.
Trade jobs in particular are well suited to women's needs: once you learn your skill, it is not dependent on a particular firm. You can take time out for maternity without ending your career. Contracting works well as a part-time job — without sabotaging career building. Set up your own business, or work in a cooperative with other tradeswomen, and you can work the hours you want. It's a flexible career. It has status. It earns good pay — once you can get an apprenticeship and finish it.
I protest against the artificial distinction between "maths and sciences" and "humanities, soft sciences and caring professions". Don't all sciences overlap? Surely pure research in physics, chemistry, maths, astronomy, makes discoveries that flow on to medicine, learning the way the mind works, learning how to cure humanity's ills?
Isn't it artificial to separate nurturing and technology? Isn't sheltering part of nurturing? Designing environments humans can live in and raise sane humans in? Engineering modern medicine? Isn't there a need to engineer modern technology into our environment? And isn't this the ultimate act of nurturing?
No sex has sole rights to pure science, to creativity and exploration, to mechanics and technology, invention, designing new ways to meet human needs. Was Marie Curie a man in drag?
Should we feel guilty because she used her genius to discover radium instead of, say, being a doctor and healing people? Didn't her discovery pave the way for nuclear medicine anyway?
To overcome the second-class status of women requires less sweeping generalisations and sex-stereotyping, especially from e models. Self-esteem and personal confidence may well bear on how well women do academically, but seeing other women do something "non-traditional" well makes that career seem much more of a practical option. Instead of debating whether Rosie the Riveter was a nurturer, we should be fighting for the right to freely choose our careers.