To think young women should consider future income and career prospects when choosing their degree?

[strengthandhonor]

I post on a student forum and I see the same discussions again and again : boys talk about how much income and prospects a certain career will provide them with or what is the future of that industry while girls are all about following their passion and treat ''uni'' as a life experience with little or nothing to do with future employment prospects. No wonder the gender wage gap is still here and shows no sign of going away.

Countries like India, China and even Iran have far better results in getting girls into science, engineering and other lucrative degrees than say places like Sweden or Norway . So how can countries that year after year are trumpeted as the most gender equal societies on the planet have such awful outcomes especially when compared to medieval type patriarchies ? Why does reducing the social factors cause such imbalance in outcomes instead of equalizing them? What are we doing wrong as parents and as a society?

Battleax yy there's a reason for that . . .

You only have to look at the average MN post of unhappy women living in/near poverty, in poor housing and without any chance to get out of the situation.

Women should be looking for well paid careers that they are interested in to enable them to support themselves in the future. No one would encourage their children into jobs that are poorly paid. We all want our children to be more successful than ourselves - not living in squalor with a partner they can't leave children they can't feed and looking forward to old age without a pension.

Mmhmm

*We could ensure that as soon as they stop studying they have a forced marriage, that would keep them in education longer.

We could also have female only universities where it is normal for a female to study STEM.*

Or we could assume that the more we flatten the social factors the more biology starts to dictate what we want in life. For the same reasons the nordic countries are the most gender equal countries in the world, but not in the way cultural marxists envisioned them. No wonder they are the happiest places on Earth year after year.

When I went to uni 20+ years ago my course was probably split 60:40 males and females and the females were all very focussed on what area they wanted to work in after their degree. It wasn't seen as a life journey or anything like that.

In the era prior to that, growing up in the 70s and 80s there was barely any pink in the shops to choose. Hardly any pink clothes whatsoever. Hard to believe now! The whole "princess" thing exploded in the late 90s and early 2000s as the shops realised they could make so much more money from turning little girls into pink princesses.

Add that to the 90s "girl power" (but in a pop-star kind of way with lollipops, not an engineering manager kind of way) and a liberal "it's all about enjoying the journey not the destination"... whereas for boys/men, not a lot has changed at all. I think the girls/women are still a bit all over the place, so many mixed messages have been presented everywhere. On the one hand it's ok to make choices and if your choice is SAHM then that's great, on the other you should be striving for a career and you're letting the side down if it's not in a traditionally male-dominated area.... and you can do this whilst showing your best pout and side boob on Instagram but on the other hand women must not be objectified..

it must be very confusing picking a direction today.

Or we could assume that the more we flatten the social factors the more biology starts to dictate what we want in life.

AHHH, now I see what you're aiming at. No.

Yeah because it's a great balance when you can't afford to work because childcare is more than you make and your DH is a bit of a jerk but you can't really afford to leave

I think bringing girls up to be really choosy who they have children with and really clear about how to protect themselves financially (and the role marriage can play in this) would be a really good thing and no less effective than good careers advice. I'm always amazed at the lazy low lifes many perfectly nice, hardworking women will settle for.

"Do what you love" isn't really realistic though, is it? Does anyone grow up thinking "I really want to work in Currys", "I'd love work for McDonalds", "Housing Association receptionist is my calling!"? We need people to work in all these roles, but if everyone held out for something their passion, we'd have none of these. My DH wouldn't call his career his passion, but it pays the bills and the company offer him a good amount of flexibility/perks etc, so he's doing quite well for himself in the scheme of things.

AHHH, now I see what you're aiming at. No.

There is no need to be upset.

There is no need to be upset.

Why would I be upset?

Do what you love" isn't really realistic though, is it? Does anyone grow up thinking "I really want to work in Currys", "I'd love work for McDonalds", "Housing Association receptionist is my calling!"?

Well to an extent. Some people enjoy administrating, or interacting with the public, just as some enjoy cooking or caring for children. There's no reason why people shouldn't aim for those jobs and enjoy doing them if that's what their aptitudes and preferences dictate. The focus with some of those types of jobs needs to be on providing a living wage and designing the job roles well.

Did that even sound upset?

Op you seem to want to grind an ax..

And I had a quick glance at the title and thought it was a words of wisdom to the young type of thread!

Op you seem to want to grind an ax..

The OP is trying to trick us into saying that the reason young women don't focus on careers and money is because we all secretly want to be home with our babies.

Nope. No. Nadda.

Follow your dreams was my advice.
You are a long time providing for yourself/ family, you might as well do something you love.
I suppose it's not so easy if they don't have dreams, or ambitions.
Mine is only 14 but refusing to look at a plan B, even though people keep telling her the choices she has already.
She keeps saying she isn't getting married or having kids as it wouldn't be fair to put them through what her life will entail.

ginger - I think that's unfair. Some people have the courage to try and it doesn't work out or they get ill. I admit I'm using that last example because it's a reason I'm relieved I stayed in steady work - who knows when bizarre illness will strike?

but yes, the TV career people are struggling quite a bit now. content creation has been affected by reality TV and the fact that you can cobble together stuff for so little.

publishing - don't even get me started.

there's nothing wrong at all with aspiring to a job at Curry's - what I think that poster was saying is that no one dreams of that. I am really glad I took a realistic view of financial issues in my youth, it's been hugely beneficial.

To quote a PP:

Men and women have different joints, skeletons, muscles, hair, skin, chemical make up, metabolisms, hormones, behaviour, genes, reproductive systems, chromosomes, respiratory abilities etc but suggesting there's element of truth in different cognitive abilities has certain types of women positively frothing at the mouth.

Why is this idea so taboo on MN? It's basically the equivalent of saying ''Jehova'' in ''Life of Brian''.

I think looking at the usefulness of something that saddles yourself with huge debt is good advice for anyone.

I think there are valuable careers outside of STEM and well paid careers outside of STEM

Not all men do STEM but they still seem to earn more after children are born than women in whatever field they are in .

I think at degree level is not the point to tackle the 'missing women' from those subjects because I believe its a societal thing that starts very young and is about a larger society beliefs around 'girls not being good at maths and boys not being good at languages'

"Women now have choices. They can be married, not married, have a job, not have a job, be married with children, unmarried with children. Men have the same choice we've always had: work or prison."

What, someone has taken away the right to be married or to be unmarried from men? I must have missed the memo.

As for the original point, yes one should absolutely consider other aspects besides 'sounds interesting' when choosing a career. I have several friends who went to uni to study something they like, and are now stuck in miserable marriages simply because they can't afford to leave.

Ime some young people - both sexes - make clearly unwise decisions because they are uninformed and maybe we can also blame their as yet unfinished "sensible brain" bit.

Stem is a very mixed bag pay wise and we've chucked away large parts of our industries. There is often not a shortage of graduates but a shortage of desired experience. Getting experience and industry training is the key to rare roles that pay well. Ime of just one narrow sector..

Academic study is a luxury and there is only a certain amount of it society can sustain before people have to start doing something useful.

In the west we have a history of people engaged in academia for centuries who have made great achievements so it is celebrated in our culture.

University being rolled out widely has led to confusion over what its purpose is. Some people go because learning is an end in itself, some go as a form of professional training and many don't know why they are going.

Boys tend to go more for the earning potential as men are still expected to be providers whereas women aren't.

I don't think the confusion exists in many countries.The Soviets established universities to meet the needs of the economy and people went to train in their profession.

Less developed countries cannot afford for a large proportion of the population to spent years doing actives that aren't economically productive. Being able to do what you enjoy and not what puts food on the table isn't an option in other parts of the world.

University is too late.
My DD is one of only 2girls in her year doing Computer science.Triple science is dominated by boys.This is at GCSE level.The work to attract them needs to start much earlier.

*STEM is not a lucrative career. There seems to be an impression that it is for some reason. While it is flexible to some extent it is not family friendly. There is also no job security, it’s only ever 1 and 3 year contracts.

I worked in cancer research. Very few people have long careers, they get fed up with shite pay, long hours and at risk jobs. There seems to be a perception that we should work for the “honour” of it.*

I work in a cancer field (not academic research). I have a good salary, career prospects (currently Director), relative job security. I work long hours, but that's my choice. I like being successful. My degree was in Biology and I wouldn't swap it if I had my time over again.

So I don't agree that STEM is not a lucrative career. It can be. It won't be for everyone.

I’d rather my daughters did something they enjoy and are interested in.

Pardon fluent?

I was just pointing out what's mistaken about that silly Tim Allen quote and the rest of the post that came with it.