Where Are All The Women In These New Space Companies?
Keith’s note: I just got this advertising email from Axiom Space titled “The Promise of Human Spaceflight for Investors” bragging about Axiom being featured in lots of high visibility magazines. The email is slick, with nice portraits of the Axiom team – the faces they apparently want investors, the public, and the news media to see. I am certain that everyone is highly skilled, etc. But as I scrolled down this very long email something struck me: its all 50-something males. After eight of their smiling faces scrolled by there was a single woman – at the bottom of the list. Eight males, one female. I guess this is the optics that Axiom Space wants to put forward for their vision of the future human spaceflight.
I asked Axiom about this. Amir Blackman replied “Other than the two founders, all team members are listed in alphabetical order. Gender is not a consideration in our hiring process. We are an equal opportunity employer and seek out team members based on their qualifications and experience.” Right. Like I said eight males, one female.
Here is a larger version of their email (I thought I’d give them some free PR).
Well, don’t forget Gwen Shotwell.
Why is it that she is the only woman people mention in these discussions. There should be many examples to cite.
Probably in industries that are far more likely to show actual profits. Ones that are not dependent on government contracts for their funding.
In small business govenment contracting having a woman CEO is a decided advantage and quite common, and in NASA civil service there are numerous women.
True, but after all the major aerospace firms get through taking their share of the pie you are only talking about a few hundred million dollars. By contrast Mary Kay made $3.7 billion last year and its just one of a number of firms started by women in the $5 trillion dollar retail industry.
So I see this as a result of two factors. First, women, as study after study has shown, are more rational investors than men. And start-ups are a combination of investing your money and time for an expected ROI.
Second, as Keith has repeatedly pointed out, the lack of women in the aerospace industry, which means a smaller pool to draw women space entrepreneurs from.
So …. only companies that sell makeup are best run by women?
I see it as a retail firm, but yes, it specializes in the beauty market segement. Startups are hard to do in any industry, and just as hard to run so when you start a firm you go where the opportunity and your passion is.
Now there is Sierra Nevada Corporation, a rare exception in aerospace, but it’s revenues are only a fraction of that of Mary Kay ($1.1 billion compared to $3.7 billion), but then space is a much smaller industry than even the beauty segement ($500 billion) of retailing is.
But the key point is individuals follow their passions when they select a career or start a business. And space appears to be of little interest to the majority of women for some unknown reason.
But just look in your area. Where are all the women space bloggers? Especially since a majority of blogs are run by women? Or even the women who post on space blogs? There are NO barriers and yet where are they? Why is there no interest in blogging about space?
And one other number to think about. I saw an info graphic at the NYT (I will find the link tomorrow) on the demographics of those who have reserved tickets on VG – 80% are men, only 20% are women. It’s difficult to argue that discrimination is at work there since anyone is free to buy a ticket.
The same goes for advocate groups. Why are there so few women members? Why don’t they join?
So the big question beyond the lack of women engineers is why so few women are interested in space in general? Even if there are still barriers to women entering STEM fields you would still expect there to be many more women space bloggers, advocates and yes, space tourists. Yet they are note worthy by their absence. Why?
It is something I have studied about since I started doing survey work on space policy years ago for my Ph.D. Why is there a gender gap in interest in space? Even the demographics of respondents are mostly men, although I make sure to balance the gender in the sample selected, and even though my co-author in the surveys I have published is a women with a business Ph.D. who ensures there is no gender basis in the questions. BTW she has a zero interest in space but a passion for doing survey research, especially in terms of advanced statistical analysis. She says has no interest because space is “boring”.
Our daughter has math skills, a good sense for mechanical things, etc., but she did not have a passion for engineering. She had science and tech interests, but they let her in the health care where about 40% of the managers are female – and much higher in some locales
It was the same for my twin daughters. Both are very good in math and were exposed to engineering and the space industry, including meeting astronauts, as kids but had zero interest. One is an accountant (CPA) with a Big Four firm the other an organizational psychologist specializing in designing and validating aptitude tests.
And I should mention they are personal risk takers having sky dived, rock climbed and scuba dived. However they are also very conservative with money and investing.
So women are OK in some jobs but not others?
I certainly agree there is a gender disparity in managment but I don’t think it is limited to or unusually prominent in the space arena, I think it is the case in many American industries.
Yes, it is not just limited to space. Part of it is that it takes 25-30 years to work up the chain to the corner office. Another is that the elite business schools where CEO’s come from still have a basis towards men in their enrollment. They especially need to work the problem.
In the regular state universities, where I teach, it’s about 50-50 in enrollment. But it’s not where the big firms go to hire management talent.
Maybe you should talk to Mary Barra about that, Kieth. Let us know what she says.
Looking at the other people listed, I’m not sure I’d call that a “new space” company. It’s a new company, and a space company, but the eight men are all claiming decades (17 to 35 years) of experience with the Shuttle and ISS programs. That sounds like a more “old space” group.
It also means that, if those are the sorts of people they wanted on their board, they limited themselves to the sorts of people who started in the aerospace field in the 1990s. That’s a decidedly less diverse group than the current generation of recent aerospace engineering graduates. It’s also worth noting that the woman on the list is one of two without much aerospace experience (she’s a lawyer.) So, she’s from a field which is significantly more diverse than aerospace.
This is the sort of thing I’d expect if the people involved weren’t even thinking about diversity. Unfortunately, this isn’t a problem that’s likely to solve itself. The first, or second, person from some group is in an awkward situation. That’s not just the first woman in a group of men. It also applies to ethnic minorities, being the only non-engineer, or, in the case of the early astronaut corps, the first civilian astronauts. That’s the sort of environment which can discourage people from the job. So the lack of diversity doesn’t cure itself. I’ve been told by a sociologist that about 30% representation is needed before this sort of thing stops being a problem.
And then will the next question will be: Where are all the non-Caucasian women? Or: Where are all the non-Caucasians? Can we please move beyond tribal representation percentage at Level X in Industry Y as a measure of anything and everything in this nation?
No, we can not. This has nothing to do with that tribal crap.
Not when that percentage implies a high probability of bias. If membership in a nine-person group were gender-neutral, then the odds of only having one woman in the group are 1.76%. That strikes me as unlikely, so there is almost certainly some sort of gender bias involved. Which is a problem. (Unless, as Dr. Matula’s comment suggested, the bias is on the part of women, avoiding risky ventures more than men. I’d want to see some real evidence of that, and this explains the statistics, before I’d be convinced.)
If it were three women out of nine people, that’s a 16.4% possibility without gender bias. I might buy that as a statistical fluke. But when we’re seeing the same pattern in multiple companies, it’s not one in nine, or three in nine, or whatever. 30 out of 100 would be odds of 23 in a million. So, even with 30% representation, we’re not looking at something that could be random chance.
The literature documenting risk aversion based on gender is substantial and consistent, especially regarding financial decisions.
journal.sjdm.org/jdm06016.pdf
Gender Differences in Risk Assessment: Why do Women Take Fewer Risks than Men?
The literature review in this paper is good as well as the discussion on page 60.
Recent research also shows it might have a biochemical basis, which would make sense from an evolutionary perspective.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.go…
Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone
This might help explain this set of troubling statistics, on the number of women that have pilot licenses despite many role models of women pilots.
https://www.wai.org/resourc…
https://www.womenofaviation…
The numbers really speak for themselves. Only 6.71% of pilots are women! It is even worst for mechanics, only 2.34 percent! Amazing!
These numbers don’t mean that we just give up, but it does illustrate the uphill battle to bring a gender balance in the aerospace industry. That is why I agree with Keith, it is a problem we need to keep working.
I’m pretty sure women are allowed to start their own companies. Then they can hire all the women they want. And the rest of you can stop the whining.
You are certainly part of the problem.
Thank you for speaking up. I work in tech startups which is another male dominated field that has to deal with this issue. But the solution, as people have found out through experience, is not to count gender ratios and use that as the measurement for success. We need to create environments that are equally welcoming and supportive of engineers regardless of their gender, and that is a problem that ultimately has fixes on generational timescales.
If anyone begins pushing the narrative that we need to enforce a 50/50 quota on conference committees, corporate leadership teams, or even across all jobs, it undermines the authority of those women who made it there and the legitimacy of whatever changes are enacted. Are we gender-equal because we fixed the underlying problems or because we had an HR mandate to hire protected classes, just to cover our asses, and the people who have influence are still mostly men? Hypothetically, we wouldn’t be able to know!
I don’t know what good it does to point out that some leadership team is mostly male, or some selection of conference speakers is mostly male, or a panel of experts is mostly male. These are senior engineers or business leaders with a whole career under their belt. Even in “New Space” I see a lot of gray hairs in those profile pictures. These people are the result of a career pipeline process that started for them in early education years ago. If we want the Axiom Space of 2075 to be gender equal, then we need to start making sure young girls are given the resources and encouragement they need, then that college girls are given the same opportunities for internships, that our corporate cultures aren’t favoring male-dominant traits in hiring or promotion, and that our industry is supportive of its up and coming women by avoiding non-inclusive events. Then we need as a society to solve the issue of woman having to choose between motherhood or career, which we can do by enabling equal and protected parental leave, better daycare support, and developing career advancement tracks that allow for time at home and flexible time in those early years without killing the career.
Then, maybe, we’ll see some gray haired women in these investor-oriented profiles. But calling out Axiom Space on it now doesn’t actually do anything to fix the problem, and quite possibly just makes things worse.
WRT “I don’t know what good it does to point out that some leadership team is mostly male, or some selection of conference speakers is mostly male, or a panel of experts is mostly male.” In other words, ignore reality and do not point out problems, eh?
In what sense, and in what fields of human endeavor, is an asymmetry in outcomes a problem?
Your underlying assumption — that all outcomes would be equally balanced (or close to it) unless there’s discrimination — goes against built-in differences, physical and psychological, across the human species.
I’m all for equality of opportunity. But to insist on equality of outcomes is essentially a totalitarian view of humanity.
(And yes, I use a pseudonym because I work in an environment where heretics spouting crimethink are persecuted.)
No, I mean that this sort of public-shaming doesn’t fix the problem. It actually makes the situation worse.
“It actually makes the situation worse.” HUH?
You had an actual live female engineer (the only one I have seen here so far) comment up above; if you take a moment to read and think about what she wrote, you’ll understand how what you’re doing is making the problem worse.
I am not making this problem worse. But you seem to want to let it stay as it is and not talk about it.
I don’t agree. If we were talking about 40%/60% differences, I might. But when it’s under 20%, and as bad, if not worse, underrepresentation for other groups, I think that indicates a problem that’s worth pointing out. That prompts people to do something about it.
The “makes the situation worse” part is a result of _what_ people do about it. Cosmetic attempts to make the percentages match someone’s idea of what the should be are harmful. But there are real, helpful things people can do, and that probably wouldn’t happen without some prompting.
Tilly Shilling: Long ago as a student engineer I came across the story of the RAE Restrictor and it spoke to everything I love about engineering. It was a fast, elegant, solution to a complex problem, extemporized in the teeth of massive pressure. It came as a delightful surprise to me that the author of the solution was a woman. The surprise was nothing to do with latent sexism on my part but rather the knowledge of the era and domain she choose to excel in. That she had the ability not only to grasp the solution but to move it to realization, by bringing the necessary people along with her and close the loop. It was an inspirational story to me. I think we still need to have these conversations at some level. There were only two woman in my class of fifty engineers. Many of the current STEM figures do not speak to much of an improvement there. The women engineers I have worked with were at a better level on average than their male counterparts. It is an acknowledgement that they needed higher levels of motivation and application to pursue this career course than men. I wish it were not so. I wish I knew what the answer was. I always find myself cringing a little when I hear the casual name for the RAE restrictor and all the exemplar, schoolboy nonsense it encapsulates. We do have a way to go yet.
Well then why are women and minorities so woefully under represented in a field like aerospace? Are you suggesting that because they are women and minorities that they are less interested or capable? If so , then you are also part of the problem.
So you are saying women are less interested in space careers because there is a disproportionately small number of them working aerospace? So effect precedes cause?
I am not going to do your research for you. Use Google. Its not all that hard to find data on discrimination in the workplace, “SGTBillUSMC”
Why should we care?
Another part of the problem chimes in.
The evidence exists my anonymous friend. You are the one making the claims – you need to find the numbers to back them up – or find another website to troll.
I’m not upset. I’m just tired of people making claims behind fake names without any data to back up their claims.
Ah you are one of those people who use code language like “SJW”. Suggest you find another website to troll. Bye.
I get *one* female complaint and yet I have gotten multiple retweets, emails, and phone calls from women thanking me for this.
It’s very disappointing to see this kind of mentality on nasawatch.com. I thought this was a science-oriented site.
What next, will you start agitating for no white males in engineering, like the DNC does?
http://www.dailywire.com/ne…
Right – some guy named “Gearbox123” is upset about “no white males in engineering”. Arm wave enough? Sorry to disappoint you but there will be more – not less – discussions regarding equality of opportunity in the pursuit of science and engineering.
Is it equality of opportunity you’re after, or equality of results? Because those are two different things.
This would be a terrible forum for an extended debate and I don’t propose to have one here, but I do think you are confusing “everybody gets the same chance” with “everybody deserves the same reward.”
Yea, someone with a name like gearbox123 would say something like that.