open letter to aspiring women scientists

[WillieWaggledagger]

this is so well expressed

so much of what she says is relevant beyond the STEM environment too

Like NotCitrus I am a civil servant and am frequently the only woman in the room. The sectors I deal with are very traditionally male. However there are more woman in the public sector scientific policy roles these days, so sometimes it's public sector female scientist vs male private sector ones. Loads of ex academic females in the public sector - better pay, hours and job security!

I think the letter paints a very negative picture and that has not been my experience as a female scientist over the last 20+ years. I'm in the pharmaceteutical industry and work with lots of female chemists and biologists. It's a fairly even male/female split. I've never heard a sexist comment (at work anyway), and my collegues are able to take up to a year maternity leave then pick up their careers where they left off. I'd say going part-time makes it difficult to climb further up the ladder but not totally impossible. Managers are understanding when people need to take time off with a sick child, or have a childcare problem - and both female and male staff do this in fairly equal measure. So for any aspiring female scientists reading this (or parents thereof) do not be put off!

I agree with the comment about applying for a job even if you only meet half the requirements though...

I was told recently I'm not a typical because I'm too high maintenance. Meaning I like clothes and shockingly wear make up. By a man obviously.

The more I think about it the more insulted I feel. It was very much implied that I couldn't be as good as a other women in the field because of this.

Ifpigscouldfly at high maintenance comment. Did you ask who exactly is maintaining you?

I have heard from women who won't dress femininely because they don't want to look even more out of place.

Can I derail the thread?
So, this applying even if you don't meet all the criteria...What happens when its the major one e.g. "were looking for a Mumsnet research scientist", and I've got everything they are after, except I only have a very little experience in MN. Apply? Or stupidity to consider it?

There are really massive differences between fields. I'm biological sciences / epidemiology / public health and we are majority female. I have heard anecdotally that the worst departments for female employment and promotion in my uni are history and politics...

No I didn't. I did say something along the lines that sometimes it's nice to challenge people stereotypes. He does know I'm good at my job. I couldn't give a shit about standing out. I do wear quite a bit of make up , heels etc plus I'm quite young and blonde. People usually realise I'm still good at what I do. So far.

Addictedtosugar- I would apply under those circumstances if I genuinely thought I could do the job. This is where the covering letter is so important, if you can get across that belief in the letter, I'd say absolutely go for it. The only time I've rolled my eyes at an application has been when people have applied with no relevant skills at all and then asked for feedback as to why they'd not been short listed.

That individual would have a shock at my work Ifpigscouldfly. Good response about stereotypes.

Agree with workshyfop, I work in the pharmaceutical field as well, for a CMO. Lots of women in meetings, lots of female managers, women on the board, good parental leave and most people return after maternity/paternity leave. I would never return to academic research (came here after my first postdoc).

I think in the promotion of STEM too much emphasis is put on academic research which I do not think is an attractive career. There's too many short term contracts, the expectation that every 3 years you should move on to another city or country to enhance your career, and too much presenteeism (as opposed to actually getting the job done). I think it might be easier to attract women into science if you say - look, if you work for a pharma company or an engineering company or as an actuary or whatever you will get a well paid stable job with good terms and conditions. I guess the trouble is the people who have time to promote STEM are academics who see the move into industry as a failure and so they don't promote it.

Looked for some stats for comparable numbers of jobs. The main high tech industries have the following number of jobs in the UK (2012 figures):

600,000 jobs in the chemical industry
737,000 jobs in the motor industry
558,000 jobs in the computing industry
440,000 in the oil and gas industry
250,000 in the electrical and electronics industry

In comparison there are 378,000 jobs in the university sector. We should be pushing private industry jobs much more than academic jobs.

But the numbers of women in those areas are tiny - I suspect many of us saying limited women in meetings work in these areas.
For example, I found figures for O&G of under 8% and this telelgraph article suggests at 4-5% of engineering graduates are women - but there is no reference for where the data came from.
Bio and Pharma, I can see being much more equal in split.

My point is that those industries are larger than academia so the discussion around getting women into STEM careers should focus on those jobs in industry with security and good conditions, not on the short term contracts in academia. If 4-5% of engineering graduates are women then there's lots of room for increased participation.