Ouch. Thanks for pointing out the omission bias on Reddit.
It’s me the programmer for a software dev, that sees a women in #1–8, these specialists. It doesn’t bother me a man sees other men in them. So-called, Limitation of the clarity propagates both genders and fears. There are marine biologists I had admired. But back then I was idealistic In formative years, I didn’t know any sushi chiefs and maybe you did.
Looking depend on the observer’s bias. Light is simply the shortest path in 3-space from mentor to student. Yet light is also the agency by which the beauty of the cosmos is revealed. Vectors have biasing.
I’m just a system programmer not a software engineer, in my academic limitation contra trade wisdom, I do imagine a women doing engineering when I think of “software engineer.” This is my own bias as a technician, which I was before transitioned [from IT to coding]. The projection is about what we don’t know. In the darkness of not knowing, we tend to sees a reflection of our own.
Thus this is why is because it’s easier to imagine her that way, form having majored in Electrical and Electronic Engineering in college, long before I started on IT. When I open up in those years to what my own feminism did to curtail boys*: I supposed practicing engineering is very different than doing tech, but not enough to make boys comes from a different planet entirely. Not everyone is an engineer, and someone only scratch the surfaces, in studying their digital remains in the labs of an academia. I supposed there are others who cannot likewise picture, men chiefs, man engineers, firemen, and “astronauts!??”
For us who are not good with *fabrications, how is it likely that one can picture what men specialist in technosci would be like vs. oneself as a woman in tech scaled exponentially by extrapolation?
She would be high and mighty in my mind, so she would looks like the rest of us (A scientist walk into a shop, he introduced himself to me and to my surprise he looked normal. All true). There is no need to stretch more creative muscles than necessary there.
It’s good that some women noticed there are fewer women scientists and engineers. There may be some misunderstandings by those laymen on Reddit. Technology isn’t science.
SO good question is how does being in “aerospace” (see article) suddenly change subjectivity to masculine? Did the masculine “he” form allows advantage or does the analogous “I” provide advantage, in engineering and design. For me it’s analogous because the the way the eye sees is outbound. “And that ‘I’ is a woman” and while I can’t understand what engineers are made of but sometimes I know who I am.
So, from one in a tech trade (I can only say for tech) then regardless of your own preoccupation with gender, then chances are it requires less imagination to picture those in engineering as women, no different than yourself.