Gender Equality and Women Workforce in the Field of Science

Rossiter argues that the exclusion of women from the scientific handle was directly related to the age-old belief in their determine as homemakers. She surveys the evidence to argue that approximately of the women's traditional employers during the decades spark advance up to the 1970s, such as women's colleges, teachers colleges, and colleges of home economics, began closing their doors to women during the forties (Rossiter xv). One of the reasons for women's exclusion was tied to marriage, for the antinepotism rules were reinstated on most campuses afterwards World War II (Rossiter xv). However, even single women were excluded or overlooked during hiring for fear that they might later get married (Rossiter xv). For many years, men and women had little consciousness that these attitudes and practices might comprise discrimination (Rossiter xvi). Generally, everyone assumed that, although women were "present in science, they were at scoop up invisible and at worst an embarrassment" (Rossiter xvi). They were in no way regarded as a significant and influential fr exertion of the field.

Two landmark imports occurred in early 1970 that would effect convert in the general perception about women's role in science. The first was the "Ph.D glut," where, as a result of reduced financial support of science budgets, major pre- and post-doctoral programs were dismantled (Rossiter 373). Hiring went down, and, of course, women were the first to be touch because no command prohibited sex discrimination at

the nation's academic institutions (Rossiter 374). Congress had exempted colleges and universities from all legislation on civil and women's rights, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Rossiter 374).

The second event occurred in January 1970 when the "Ph.D glut" was making news. Bernice Sandler filed a lawsuit against the University of atomic number 101 charging sexual discrimination in its hiring practices (Rossiter 374). Eventually, her lawsuit included 250 colleges and universities (Rossiter 375). The most immediate result of the lawsuit was that the universities did create affirmative-action plans to fend make the action. Their implementation, however, left much to be desired.

Finally, in March 1972, as a result of women's agitation, Congress passed the Equal Employment prospect Act of 1972 (Rossiter 376). The Act dropped the portion of Title VII which had at a time exempted all educational institutions from equal employment opportunity laws (Rossiter 375). Rossiter notes that this action promised, even seemed to guarantee, broad ramifications for women's careers in science and engineering, but its profuse implementation would require many battles in the years frontwards (Rossiter 382).

Rossiter, Margaret. Women Scientists In America: Before Affirmative Action 1940-1972. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins U P, 1995.

They are unfamiliar with the connections shared by their colleagues and may timber alienated. For example, the working conditions reported as inhibiting female engineers' productivity and retarding the outgrowth of their full potential were generally tied to the relationship between their gender and their perceived ability to do their job. Paternalism, sexual harassment, and the pressures associated with peers' allegations of sneak discrimination were some of the problems cited by the Research Council (22). Other issues, such as the perception of polar standards of judging men and women and misunderstandings because of different styles of c
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.