Laura Micheletti Puaca. Searching for Scientific Womanpower: Technocratic Feminism and the Politics of National Security, 1940–1980. xiii + 261 pp., illus., bibl., index. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014. $34.95 (paper).

Abstract

Previous articleNext article FreeLaura Micheletti Puaca. Searching for Scientific Womanpower: Technocratic Feminism and the Politics of National Security, 1940–1980. xiii + 261 pp., illus., bibl., index. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2014. $34.95 (paper).Annette LykknesAnnette Lykknes Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreWomen’s employment history in the United States and elsewhere consists of different phases. While wartime generally gave women new opportunities, the positions were temporary, and women rarely received the same terms and conditions as their male counterparts. In Searching for Scientific Womanpower, Laura Micheletti Puaca presents and explores a new strategy to employ women in science and engineering and to achieve equity, rooted in World War II and the early Cold War era. Using this strategy, which Puaca calls “technocratic feminism,” the inhomogeneous group of feminist reformers invoked national security rhetoric and anxiety for sufficient manpower rather than explicitly fighting for women’s rights in society. Whether successful or not, technocratic feminism, Puaca argues, paved the way for future reforms.The book consists of an introduction, four main chapters, and an epilogue. The four chapters proceed chronologically, starting with World War II (Ch. 1) and the advocation for “scientific womanpower” to keep up government-sponsored defense research. This period saw an increase in women’s enrollment in engineering, special courses for women were established, and wartime programs made women feel accepted for a while—only to be set aside soon after the male veterans returned. Nevertheless, during the war, scientific womanpower was brought to the attention of government, industry, and education, and the efforts laid some groundwork for continued activity.Chapters 2 and 3 examine the challenges and opportunities of the emerging Cold War era and the period following the launch of the Soviet Sputnik in 1957, respectively. Scientific manpower and womanpower initiatives continued. More women studied engineering and were employed in science-related fields, but women were still marginalized. Puaca shows how women’s scientific societies, such as the women’s chemistry society Sigma Delta Epsilon and, in particular, the Society of Women Engineers, played an important part in technocratic feminism breaking down formal barriers to women’s education and employment.Was technocratic feminism a success, in Puaca’s analysis? While it did increase women’s participation in society, it did little to challenge women’s subordinate status. The examples provided show that much remained the same even in the 1970s and 1980s. Even though many more women were awarded Ph.D.’s, they still concentrated on typically feminine subjects, such as the biological sciences. Women were still greatly outnumbered by men, few were on the tenure track, and many were underemployed and underpaid.Central to Puaca’s analysis is the knowledge that technocratic feminism was and is, above all, a pragmatic approach to feminism. It is interesting to note that the main individuals portrayed in the book, among them Virginia Gildersleeve and Lillian Gilbreth, seem to have felt uncomfortable with a “feminist” label. Likewise, in the Soviet Sputnik era, the conflicting identities—between the Soviet ideal of a hard-working woman and the American ideal of a housewife—made technocratic feminists focus on women’s “utility” rather than their role in society, thus also avoiding the language of women’s rights. As demonstrated in chapter 4 (on science and the second wave), the change in climate with the unpopular Vietnam War and criticism against military science made technocratic feminism appear less attractive. Alongside the emergence of the second-wave movement, a shift in strategy toward women’s rights and equity can be detected, which coincided with the influx of young students and scientists/engineers who helped renew the old feminist organizations and establish new ones. However, technocratic feminism has endured, and reformers keep coming back to this strategy in periods or contexts where broad support for women’s rights is absent.Searching for Scientific Womanpower is a thoroughly researched book that draws on an impressive number of sources and fills a gap in the historiography of women’s employment, of feminist history, as well as of American postwar history. The book stands as a telling testimony that much is left to be done in achieving full equity between women and men in science and engineering. While we do get to know some of the women who were proponents of technocratic feminism I wish more of them had been included. Personal portraits make history more lively and interesting to read. Sometimes the reader is overloaded with details on organizations and meetings. That being said, Puaca’s account deserves a wide readership as it combines military science history with feminist history during World War II and in the postwar era and beyond. In my view, her most important contribution is that she convincingly demonstrates the continuity in the feminist movement predating second-wave feminism, thus making the efforts of the mid-twentieth century—“the missing wave” (Dorothy Sue Cobble, The Other Women’s Movement [Princeton, 2011])—more visible. Notes Annette Lykknes is Associate Professor of Chemistry Education at Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). She has published on women and collaborative couples in the sciences and is (co)author of the 100-year anniversary history of chemistry education at NTNU. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 108, Number 1March 2017 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/690930 © 2017 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.