Why can't a woman . . .

There is an infamous line in the play and film "My Fair Lady" where the main antagonist, the at-that-stage still misogynistic Professor Higgins, asks:

"Why can't a woman . . . be more like a man?"

It was a patronising, paternalistic remark that sums up many of the problems in society - and I'd like to touch now on how that applies to engineering.

My experience is that the engineering profession assumes people are happy to: 

• presume they know it all and are comfortable to arrogantly self-promote, speak over, or otherwise drown out others, and
  
• adopt the bias that all situations can only be validly viewed through the lens of their personal perspective. (I've recently read a very one sided specification, clearly written by someone with limited experience of engineering, that is a perfect illustration of that - and I'm also reading a few legal eagle bio's, one of which also is well marinated in that weakness.)

What complete and utter rubbish! 

In fact, liberating the engineering profession from that rubbish:

1. doesn't just remove the pressure on women to be inauthentic rather than bringing their whole self to work (which enables access to better communication and freedom from the trumpist errors of hubris for the profession), 
2. it also liberates MEN who do not fit - or do not WANT to fit - the male stereotype (as a simple example, consider men who are shy), and
   
3. furthermore, a healthier, reflective/self aware, and more mature engineering profession would develop a way to share ideas without having to be a trumpist-style braggart.
   Under that more effective scenario, it is also less likely that people would be defensive against criticism, resistant to change, or ideologically addicted to ideas/positions in order to defend their ego.

Such a change would benefit: 

(a) all people in engineering, no matter what their gender is, 

(b) the engineering profession, and 

(c) the society that the engineering profession is meant to be serving.

OK, so how do we get from here to there? Well, I suggest we begin by acknowledging that arrogance is a problem, that it needs to change, and start a two or three year long (at least) discussion.

Once we've done that - or, at least, got it under way, maybe academia can do the same. Maybe even other professions - including politics, and, ultimately, society itself will mature enough to realistically include the introverted, the shy, and the non-trumpist . . .