Why Aren’t More Men in Secretarial Fields?

Doreen Kimura opens her essay Underrepresentation or Misrepresentation with the idea that men and women are both unequally represented in certain fields, so as most people assume with men, this just means there is a “lesser talent or interest.” She provides evidence of the sex differences to explain that men and women are favored for particular tasks, and then considers the extent to which they account for differences in representation. She also identifies a problem in offering opportunities exclusively to women and ignoring a possibly better qualified male. She acknowledges that “not discriminating on the basis of sex is a double-edged sword,” but it may be better to accept the varying representation than to push for equality and risk the integrity of programs.

Kimura offers examples of cognitive differences of how men are favored for spatial tasks, mechanical reasoning, and throwing accuracy, while women are preferred for verbal memory and object memory location. Based on these, she asserts that the varying distribution of talents influences the the distribution of genders in different fields.

While these talents may contribute to career choice, I think to say a woman’s aptitude for finger dexterity and verbal memory gave her advantages in secretarial work is unnecessary. I would attribute that to the long tradition of women in secretarial work due to the minimal career opportunities for women up until a few decades ago. When Kimura says “there are men who will make outstanding secretaries,” I feel like she has lost sight of the problem. I have never heard a single complaint about gender discrimination in the secretarial field in terms of underrepresentation of men, while women over here are trying to dissociate themselves from the insignificant secretary stereotype. I appreciate the perspective that some unequal representation is natural, but I still think it is a big deal that she simply tries to diminish.

(forbes.com The Invisible Threat to Women Raising Venture Capital)

One point she made towards the end of her essay stood out to me. Kimura’s claim that “scholarships or grants exclusively to women in disciplines that women are not drawn to in essence bribes them to enter fields they may never excel in nor enjoy,” reminded me of conversations I have had with my dad. He always dreamed I would become an engineer or pursue another STEM field because he thought it would guarantee a job for me. During college tours, the discussion would turn into these horror stories about graduates with a degree unable to acquire a job because the competition in popular fields was so dense. He was aware of the lack of women in engineering and thought I would be better off seeking a degree and career there no matter my interests. It took a lot of threats from my mom to get him to drop the topic because she saw the pressure to do something I had absolutely no interest in would upset me. I truly feel I do not have what it takes to be an engineer and I actually hate math. If I am under qualified and inserted into a job I hate, no one benefits.

This essay offered a bit of an opposing argument to the first essay that tried to reach more middle ground, but to me, it came across as belittling a situation that is very prevalent and should be addressed further. While deliberately discriminating in favor of women is not a good solution, it still has the right idea: more women should be in math and science.