THERE’S a very annoying perception in society that women don’t “do” technology. Look at a picture of an app designer, a welder, an aircraft engineer or a rocket scientist, and you’re probably looking at a man.

That’s irritating, but I think it’s only half the problem. The other half is that we don’t ever think of women’s activities as technology, even when that’s exactly what they are.

“Technology”, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is the practical application of knowledge, especially in a particular area, and a manner of accomplishing a task especially using technical processes, methods, or knowledge. Men don’t have a monopoly on working out how to use the available tools to do something practical, either in current society or historically.

Ada Lovelace, whose work in the 19th century inspired the first modern computer, and whose life is celebrated every year on Ada Lovelace Day, which takes place next week, is a worthy role model. Yet there are so many more closer to home.

My Polish grandmother had a Singer treadle-powered machine, built into a small wooden table with decorative legs. I loved it because it was mechanical and you could see how it worked. I have it now, and I like it for the same reasons that I like massive steam engines. It’s ingenious. I know how to sew and I like making things out of fabric. That’s ingenious too. It was years before I realised that most of society put loving the mechanics and loving the sewing in different categories. Mechanics involves levers and wheels and gears, and everyone knows that’s technical. But sewing is associated with women, and so it mysteriously and quietly slides out from under the umbrella of technology and slinks off into obscurity.

Next time you’re doing your laundry or tidying your coat rack, have a proper look at how your clothes are made. This is technology in action. The cloth must be cut in the right orientation relative to its threads, so that it hangs and stretches correctly. Flat pieces of cloth must be fitted together to make an object that fits a three-dimensional moving person. Fabric can be joined together with different stitches that do different jobs. And then all that construction work is hidden away, so that it’s never the first thing you notice.

Labelling these practical activities as “male” or “female” is purely cultural. It’s got nothing to do with the skills necessary to do the job. As I saw the technical skills involved and not the cultural implications, I never worried about whether something was for “boys” or “girls”.

The women in history who made an impact in all-male fields were also typically in a position where they didn’t have to worry much about what other people thought. Ada Lovelace, the daughter of a famous poet and clever mother who went on to marry an earl, came from a privileged background that exposed her to the new mathematical ideas of the day.

She could do what she liked, so she did. My grandmother could sew and so can I, but I have also been free to pursue a career as a physicist, an opportunity she didn’t have as a woman in the 1940s.

If you look back through history, you’ll see that many of the tasks traditionally done by women are technological. Earlier this year, I had to learn how to arc weld while filming a BBC programme about the sun. The old-school professional welder in Arizona who taught me was astonished that I learned so quickly, and even more astonished when I explained that this was because it was almost exactly like icing a cake. The pose you adopt is the same (left hand closer to the nozzle, right elbow high up in the air), the method of controlling the speed of either icing or welding metal is the same (squeezing) and the overall aim is the same: depositing a thin stream of liquid in a controlled manner. One might involve slightly more molten metal at 3000C and slightly less sugar, but they’re essentially indistinguishable.

We don’t have such a large barrier to overcome here; we’ve got the track record to prove that we can do this. We just haven’t seen it that way. History is full of examples hidden in plain sight. It’s not just the female “computers” who did the calculations that helped break the Enigma code, or the seamstresses who made Nasa’s first spacesuits. Sewing, knitting, cooking and jewellery-making should logically be labelled as technology.

Did anyone else notice that the appearance of the male celebrity chef coincided with the appearance of kitchen mixers and blenders made of brushed steel? The machine is the same, but when you make it out of an industrial-looking material, it’s suddenly easier for a man to own the kitchen. This is about appearance, not substance. We all eat food. There’s no reason why one gender should be better than the other when it comes to preparing it.

It’s time to be honest about what technology is, and to give everyone the credit they deserve for working on all sorts of technological problems. It’s nurture and not nature that is preventing women from welding and men from icing cakes. We can’t afford to exclude either half the population from the tasks needed to make the world a better place.

But it’s OK, because we don’t have to. History tells us that both women and men are brilliant at technology. Ada Lovelace Day is a chance to look forward to a time when women are not held back by cultural prejudice but technical ability. So let’s all celebrate that, preferably by lifting a 3D printed cup filled with homemade elderberry wine. Cheers!

By arrangement with the Guardian