Has this been shared? National Careers Service "Your Daughter's Future"...

being the only woman in the room / meeting does get tiring.

It does. A couple of weeks ago, I was in a meeting which was a normal work meeting (i.e. not a women's association one) - and there were more women than men. I think this is the first time I've been in a women-dominated meeting in just short of 20 years working in IT. It's something which shouldn't be at all remarkable - but it was.

It is not just getting girls / wish into Stem, it's making them want to stay. Like those girls doing A level physics, being the only woman in the room / meeting does get tiring.

I think we only have a few people at all working underground these days, but are women still barred from it, as they were by the 1842 Mines Act? I think there are a few mining engineers who are women in Germany who go underground, thinking back to my AS-level (which was only a few years ago, as I did it at evening classes.) But I'm not sure how much of the 1842 Act still stands.

Not that that's particularly relevant, but I can go on about the history of coal mining to almost the same extent I can talk about women in STEM careers.

I agree that boys (and men) in STEM is one of the biggest problems.

The biggest problem for girls in STEM jobs is boys in STEM jobs in my very extensive and bitter experience.

Well, as a member of a family which has had people die and be seriously injured in work place accidents, I'd say we'd want you to stop using that as a well worn trope, actually. So, now you know.

Not sure it's me that's turning hostile here either, maybe have a read of your posts before pressing the button?

Before trying to turn this into a hostile environment, you should try reading a little more carefully and you'll see it's all mine - sorry .

I wonder what the families of those that have died, been paralysed, seriously injured in work place accidents, would think of your assertions about well worn tropes?

Olivia, that was a quote from Dadwashere's post, which you said had good points. Perhaps whine at him about the old and well worn tropes of work place accidents and "erosion of male privilege"?

So the best thing to do is to go around schools and tell the girls that they need to stop what they're doing, and become a plumber or a brick layer !

Do you suppose that if we had exclusively all women: roof tarmacking crews, concrete layers, bulldozer drivers, loggers, steeplejacks, excavators of natural gas, sewage workers, building site labourers, road diggers, we'd get as-long-a queue of women as we have of men, taking it on themselves to do these sorts of back-breaking, brutal, filthy and dangerous jobs?

Baring in mind 93% of work place injuries and deaths (last time I looked) were men, do you think men would be out in the streets protesting about the erosion of 'male privilege'.

Good points Noble, it he also completely fails to address the fact that both mining and trades are effectively closed shops to women, mostly because while they are skilled manual labour, they don't require graduate qualifications and yet are handsomely remunerated. Whereas skilled manual labour that is traditionally viewed as 'women's work' such as caring isn't.

We might, as a society, hold a plumber and a childcare worker in equal esteem, however, their wage packets will make that esteem hollow.

Like others I think there should be more women in STEM, but I also think there should be more women in Mining (only 18%) and trades (only 2%)

No, I disagree. That's like saying there should be more men in cleaning because it's female dominated. What benefit to a woman is there of getting into mining? Is there a critical shortage of miners which needs addressing?

The benefits of getting more women into STEM are clear, both for the country (critical skills shortage) and for the women who do it (women who have two STEM A-levels can see their lifetime earnings increase by 33% over women who do not).

Excellent post DadWasHere Good points.

almondpudding

Thanks for the post, I agreed with elementofsurprise point and you addressed it really well. I too was good at STEM subjects at school but ultimately chose not to pursue them because they didn't have 'people' in them. I still love statistics and hope to do a part time degree in this for funsies. I point this out because I think statistics is one of the few STEM disciplines were people are in there from the get go. As you point out, I am wrong, all (or most) STEM subject have 'people in them' it's just they are not taught like that at school (or wasn't when I was there).

Anyway I just wanted to post to let you know that you helped me to think about this in a different way. Thank you.

I'm not missing your point. I've consistently addressed your arguments.

Yes, it is certainly the case that certain arts disciplines deal with compassion. But then so do certain science disciplines. I would certainly expect some computer scientists working with AI and robotics to have more academic expertise on the nature of compassion and empathy than say, someone studying the History of trade arrangements, because the former may be attempting to create something that can learn about and respond appropriately to human emotions while the latter may be analysing large scale systems.

Either way, I see no evidence that the huge increase over the last twenty years in students doing arts degrees has created a society that is more caring, compassionate or prone to sharing.

And all disciplines involve working with people.

Nobody has argued that arts disciplines are of less value. English Literature, History, Classics, Acting, Philosophy and so on are obviously vital and some people should pursue them. The issue is the numbers of girls not going into STEM, who may be doing arts degrees instead. Presumably you must agree that there must be some number of people who do STEM, and at some point, say if 99, 93 or whatever percent of people decided to do an arts degree, you'd agree we had a STEM shortage. I, and many others, including the government think we've already reached the point now where we have a STEM shortage.

To answer your question about why the low numbers of women in STEM will mean that women are left behind culturally, politically and economically...

We are a technological species. Technology had already been invented before our species evolved. We have never existed without using technology to interact with our environment and survive.

The technology we are using in our current society is highly complex and pervasive. Without an understanding of what it is, how it works, how it changes environments and societies and the ethical questions around that, people cannot contribute to discussion in an informed way about the political, cultural, social and economic future.

They will be left behind.

Except of course we're trying to stop that, for a start by increasing the amount of STEM girls are exposed to long before they get to 14 and start picking options. Because it is fundamental to democracy that everyone is educated about the world we live in.

I also note that various posters from science backgrounds are on here using a range of rational discussion skills and arguments which are the subject matter of the arts - particularly philosophy and politics. Because scientists understand that the arts matter and knowledge and skills from them must be developed post sixteen. But unfortunately, many people fail to develop much knowledge and skills of STEM post sixteen, and that needs to change.

Why does it matter that girls aren't choosing STEM degrees?

I would guess because some people make a distinction between equality of gender in a work force and empowerment via work in a particular field, vis 'women as a group will be left behind in economic, political, social and cultural spheres'... unless there are more of them in field X, Y and Z. Like others I think there should be more women in STEM, but I also think there should be more women in Mining (only 18%) and trades (only 2%). On the flip side there should be more men in caring and teaching roles... but that said the climate for male teachers has certainly deteriorated in the last 20 years, here male teachers now receive additional training to make them aware of the increasing probabilities of allegations of inappropriate conduct being brought against them by students, and how to position their conduct for maximum transparency.

Why does it matter that girls aren't choosing STEM degrees?

Because the country in general needs more people to study stem subjects as there is a skills shortage. As only a minority of people who work in stem are female, this is an obvious source of potential to fill the gaps.

Aside from that, a lot of stem jobs are more highly paid. If we are allowing bright girls to pursue different paths, they should be advised that they are probably losing future earnings by doing so before they find out for themselves that their degree in History isn't going to cut the mustard in a competitive jobs market.

almondpudding You seem to be repeatedly missing my point. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Why does it matter that girls aren't choosing STEM degrees? Why will this mean they are left behind (which is the original comment I was replying to)? It's because we don't value the subjects that girls are choosing, even though they have as much to offer. Maybe you disagree with that, but that was my point.

Also, I was good at STEM subjects in school - in particular chemistry. But I wated to work with people, with human interaction and emotions. I now study psychology. It's clearly more about humans and compassion and so on than maths or chemistry or whatever. It just is, that's not prejudice. And I am closely related to various STEM professionals so don't tell me I don't know anything about it.

I agree that we specialise too early. I did 4 A levels, which was considered a lot back then, because I wanted to continue with everything. As it was I managed to take a language as an extra to my science subjects, but would have loved to do more English lit, or history. Dd1 is having the same problem, she's having to drop subjects she enjoys and is good at because she's only allowed to choose 4, and she's using two of those on maths.

Dd2 is only 6, but she's absolutely in the middle of being moulded into a "proper" girl. When starting school she wanted dinosaur shoes, so she got them, from the boys section, within weeks she wouldn't wear them because other children told her they were just for boys. She's stopped wanting to wear trousers and dinosaur tops, because they're for boys, even though they were her natural choice before wider society told her they weren't. Now it's all glitter, ponies, fairies, etc.

Lots of subjects benefit from being interdisciplinary, and I definitely think we specialise too early.

There's a whole separate argument over whether we should make such a fuss about separating arts and sciences anyway, and whether we specialise too early in education. (Yes, IMO - I was always a good all-rounder and have degrees in history and computer science.)

You might also want to remember that business is an arts degree.

Elementofsurprise, I think you may be confusing two different things.

The vast majority of arts degrees have nothing to do with being an artist. It is certainly the case that Britain requires many artists in the sense of being technical/practical creative people.

But Arts degrees cover a huge number of disciplines that mostly are not about art!

On to your main point...

It is certainly the case that the world needs compassion, caring people who do stuff that is good for the mind/soul.

It is certainly the case that the world should not be all about money, business and power.

Neither of those things has any intrinsic connection to STEM or arts degrees.

Arts degrees are in no sense more connected to making the world more compassionate, caring, mentally healthy or spiritually balanced that STEM degrees are.

I think your posts are a pretty clear example of why girls need advice on STEM, because there are people like you making out that arts degrees are more about care, compassion and mental wellbeing than STEM subjects are, based on nothing more than your own prejudices.

I didn't ask a ToysRUs question, Olivia, so you must be squinting pretty hard to have read that in my points
But on the toysrus front, until boys are culturally indoctrinated that the pink aisles are banned, they are quite happy to roam them and select stuff. I really don't have the only toddler boy that pushes a pram round town and breast feeds a dolly quite happily. Or he did. Until he started school and was informed by his peer group that such behaviour was absolutely non-u and Ben 10 was the game of choice. Same the other way round - as EBear points out, women born in the 60s and 70s (before gendered marketing was a Thing) happily played with a much wider range of actual toys, and didn't need everything to be bathed in pink or sparkles to lure us in.
It's a good game for profit, but it's really polarizing gender roles further and cementing the binary from a really very young age - such that kids like my son (breastfeeding a doll and pushing a pram at 3) are more likely to be told he is trans and forced down a medicalised route (because there must be something wrong with boys that like girls things) than allowed to grow up developing his own preferences. You don't need to worry though - as I said, school sorted him out and informed him that wearing tutus and leotards was a bad thing. These days he has 'successfully' been moulded into a stereotypical teenage boy.

Thinking about the perceived necessity for an innate ability in contrast to hard work is v interesting. Dd1 is 16 and intending to pursue a career in genetic eng/ synbio, and I can already see this narrative at work. Ds1 is, frankly, a maths genius. He is also a lazy shite. Does not do homework. Ever. Dd1 consistently wipes the floor with him in terms of grades, leaving him in the dust. She has travelled internationally with her science team, and has been selected for a STEM/ entrepreneurial summer opportunity for high achieving youth, and is currently considering her uni choices (wide open with her grades). And yet, I still hear the differences in the way they are discussed (and do it myself). Dd1 is an exceptionally hard worker. Ds1 is a maths genius. Who do you think is going to be the most successful in the STEM field?

I should add that I am absolutely one of those arts/ soc grads. With an entry level office job at 45. (After leaving the military as a senior officer, I had spent sufficient time being bathed in the male point of view to hustle my arse back to uni to sit and pontificate on the experience for an MSc. There was a lot to pontificate on. It became immediately apparent on joining that it was tacitly accepted that any female cadets had only joined to get a husband.) But I'm an arts grad woman married to a male engineer. With my societally less important (and less paid) job playing second fiddle to his much more important (and much better paid) STEM career. Out of school, I passed my A levels with relative ease - he failed and retook them and scraped through. I cruised uni with a first. He scraped a 2:2 - having been accepted for a scholarship and being paid a full time wage to attend).

I love Dh to bits and pieces, but being a white heterosexual male hasn't done him any harm, really. And I can see ds1 following the same path. Doesn't need to put in any effort, and will land on his feet anyway as the narrative will see him right. It makes me worry less for him, but worry more for my girls. I'll support dd1 all the way, and hope that these cultural barriers to STEM diminish further in the next five years.

ToysRus question – Are you suggesting that little girls that love pretty, pink toys and clothes will end up too 'conditioned'' to choose to be engineers or quantity surveyors someday? Pink, sparkly toy shop aisles exist because when you give customers what they want you make a profit and that's what ToysRus are out to do. I completely reject the idea that they're engaged in some kind of secret, Orwellian programme to re-engineer the gender preferences of girls.

That is pretty much what happens. Lego introduced things like Lego Friends, because it means you need to have two lots of Lego if you have a boy and a girl, rather than just sharing it all, as we used to in the '70s. It's not done as an Orwellian thing, but just to make profit. The end results are the same though.

There are still plenty of messages out there that girls shouldn't be doing engineering or IT or physics or maths. There are plenty of employers (and sadly, teachers) whose attitudes wouldn't look out of place in the 1950s - there are examples above.

As for employers saying things like, 'well the girls will have to toughen up if they want to work in our industry, they'll get called much worse than that' - how come they are insisting the girls should toughen up, rather than thinking, hmm, we ought to look at changing the culture so it's not so hostile to girls (and any other group we are probably hostile to, i.e. anyone who's not white and heterosexual and male.) They are the biggest problem, and often don't realise, because a lot of diversity/unconscious bias/etc training is aimed primarily at those who suffer from the lack of diversity, not the ones who are going round in charge of recruiting and only choose people like themselves. I think it does currently take a particular strength of character to survive as a woman in a STEM field - but it shouldn't have to, and I will go on making sure things like datacentre signs warning against "men working behind doors" get changed, so any younger women have to deal with fewer little messages that say they don't really belong here.

A unisex, gender-neutral toy shop might sit nicely for the self appointed, gender-monitor adults amongst us, but I'm pretty certain very few children would care much for it.

And if toy shops had NEVER been gendered do you think your point would still stand?

What a silly point to make.