RSGB: Gender equality a long way off.

Yes, I know.  There has been quite a lot about the RSGB again recently.

I make no excuses for keeping a constant eye on what the RSGB does and looks like, not least because it is the sole representative body for amateur radio in the UK.

Gender equality within my household is good.  We are four people, two males, two females, and the gender proportion of those involved in radio is exactly half.

This seems to be way better than how the hobby appears in public, as presented by the RSGB.  What does that look like?  Well, the society itself can provide exact numbers on membership, and sometimes does.  But people like me have to go on what is presented in public, and use that as a guide to how the hobby appears to the outside world.

Here is an analysis, very simple, admittedly, of the proportion of men and women appearing in images on the RSGB's Facebook page (accessed 25/5/2018), and in the pages of RadCom, the RSGB's monthly magazine.  You can click on the image to make the text clearer:

It's pretty obvious that there's a serious and consistent lack of female representation and/or participation in amateur radio.  We have to be slightly cautious about these figures, because images are not neutral (someone decides when to take them, what they include, etc.) and the selection of images for publication is similarly prone to potential bias (an editor or article writer may like images of men, but not women).

In general terms, we can take these numbers to conclude that there is something that strongly inhibits female participation in amateur radio.  I am not exactly sure what that is.  But it is a clear message to the RSGB, in these times of vocal campaigns for gender equality, that it is failing to make the hobby attractive to females.

If you are female and would like to jet-off on a sponsored DXpedition to some far-flung Pacific atoll, you can pretty much forget it.  The strongest gender bias was in the 'HF' section of RadCom, where none of the photos included anything other than white, middle aged men (18 men, 0 women).

The gender inequality (RSGB website, accessed 25/5/2018) is also very strong at the society's Board level - 10 men, one woman, significantly lower (at 9% female) than the proportion of females appearing in images.

Worse than this, within the same analysis of both image sets, the proportion of people that appeared to be of an ethnic background other than white Caucasian was precisely zero.

According to the Office for National Statistics, the 2011 census showed 14% of the UK population identified as something other than white.

At board level, there is no non-white presence at all.

Overall, it is a regrettable and worrying fact for UK amateur radio, at least as far as its representatives and portrayal in public is concerned, that women have little place in the hobby, and those of non-white identity with no place at all.

Does such a gender bias matter?  Of course it does.

It is simply unacceptable to be somehow, no matter how inadvertently, inhibiting females from taking part in an enjoyable, self-improving, educational hobby.  You can only justify this sort of thing if you want to cling on to believing that females are incapable of participating in and benefitting from a technical hobby like this. 

Sadly, there are some people who really do think this way and I would suggest it is they, not females, who should have no place in radio.  They are the kind of people who tend also to argue that the hobby 'is not meant for children'.  My daughter passed her exam aged just 11 years.  She is a good operator - much better than the 'older' people who tune up, shout abuse and cause QRM on the bands.  Age is not the determinant of participation, but interest and a willingness to learn.

We need to look at those numbers, accept them, and start making an effort to present a much more balanced image of radio in public. We need to actively silence as irrelevant those who argue for prejudice and bias to continue.

Some will complain this is positive selection, and indeed it is.  But we are already, wrongly,  positively selecting - for males - by very many, complex means that relate to upbringing, society and expectations.  That needs to change, urgently.