Women in STEM - who is at fault?

[EBearhug]

I was reading Computer Weekly's Focus paper on Men for women in tech.

It says it mentions parents heavily, which it does - and this is no bad thing, because I do think parents have quite some influence on what their children may decide to do for a career - I know quite a few people who went into the same or similar careers as their parents, and we all know of acting dynasties and so on. (And I suspect that me ending up in IT has quite a bit to do with it being something my parents knew nothing about.)

However...

"Industry experts suggest that dads rarely stand in the way of their daughters pursuing careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (Stem) as they want to believe their daughters can go on to achieve any desired career." (p5)

"But mothers are often cited as one of the reasons girls choose not to go into technology, as they often dissuade their daughters from pursuing a job in the technology industry, fearing it would not suit them." (p15)

So yay, mothers to blame again. But - do women have a clearer idea of how hostile an environment it can be? I think a lot of men just don't see any sexism. My manager has said there is no sexism, in response to me giving examples of minor sexist things which happen every day. I've had a few colleagues over the years who've outright said that they don't think that women can think logically or always react emotionally (I usually respond with examples of men who always react emotionally.) Plus of course, those who respond to surveys and give interviews to CW on diversity are probably pretty much self-selecting and are more likely to be the type who do recognise the issues and are aware of the various barriers.

I've spoken to male colleagues (most of my colleagues are male - I work as a unix sys admin,) about why they think there are so few women in IT - mostly, the response has been along the lines of, "well, it's IT, women don't want to do it." They don't see the problem, and they think it's a choice that's freely made. They've never been asked to think about why women make that choice, or if it's even a truly free choice - nor about how they might contribute to reasons why women choose not to enter tech careers.

I am all for getting more men involved in diversity - too often it's all about women in tech (or wider STEM) and the majority of men, who create the culture we work in simply by being the majority, aren't involved at all. I'm just feeling uncomfortable about it implying (or maybe I'm just being paranoid and inferring things which aren't there,) that men never stand in the way of girls entering IT, but women do.

And then I worry about whether I am doing enough to promote STEM; I know I do sometimes have doubts about it, because of the constant low-level sexism. I've never actively suggested anyone shouldn't suggest it, but equally, I have stepped back a bit from actively promoting it. I bet none of my male colleagues has the slightest worry about this...

I wondered what others thought.

But - do women have a clearer idea of how hostile an environment it can be?

Why would women in general think that let alone know it as a fact? (If it is a fact)

If there are few women going into STEM is it likely that women who say this would have any actual experience of what it is like working in these fields?

So far as IT my only involvement with IT as a career is with the office IT team (I mean obviously IT teams in offices, not the IT Crowd). I expect that applies to many people. It is just another job in the office. Why would anyone think that is a hostile environment?

So far as Maths- there were more female maths teachers than male at my school.

Engineering I know little about. I do however work with many female surveyors , agricultural advisors and land agents (the latter is not just another way of saying "estate agent" it involves knowing about land use and management, agriculture etc). All of these will need a science rather than an arts foundation.

If any mother is putting her daughter off pursuing any of these because she thinks they have a hostile environment she is misguided and doing her no favours.

I don't know

Here's a theory..
If you fix your future career or educational identity before puberty, you tend to stick with it through the getting off with opposite sex stage
Women tend to start awareness of this stage as options are being chosen Boys a bit later. Women change their career fix to fit more 'normal conversation' subjects, and do more arts

In short, if you choose after puberty there is an element of social approval of your subject choice, before then, less so.

I'm not trying to be contrary but in Primary 6 - 7/Secondary 1(aged 10 to 12 ) I really, really wanted to like science but it turned out I really, really was much better at Arts subjects.

Your theory doesn't explain why mothers are actively putting daughters off (if that is indeed the case)

I would think a large element of this phenomenon is that a lot of these women will themselves have been put of doing STEM subjects, in some cases overtly (there are posters on MN who had dismissive science teachers or careers advisors). But also simply because of not seeing 'people like us' doing those jobs.

I would expect (and certainly hope) that as more women do enter STEM fields each generation the numbers will ratchet up. I think most disciplines this is tending to happen, IT being an exception where its gone the wrong way.

Part of it is because girls are, on average, better at arts subjects than boys are. So they tend to choose arts subjects more often as subjects are considered equal in the education system.

And then I worry about whether I am doing enough to promote STEM; I know I do sometimes have doubts about it, because of the constant low-level sexism

What "constant low - level sexism"?

I take it you are a teacher? Do you have any experience of the careers I mentioned? Agriculture, silviculture, land management, agri-econmics, surveying? These are all STEM careers.

It is doing girls no favours whatsoever to make blanket assumptions about "constant low - level sexism"

I've been in engineering a long time and have seen some real changes. Perhaps this is because I've been an an engineer in science focused organisations in recent years and that as the ratio of women in science tends to be higher there has been a higher number of women in my workplace. I've no doubt that sexism in the workplace does still exist but I'd suggest that nased on stories i hear from friends you are less likely to encounter it in STEM roles than you may find it in other more general areas such as accounts, law and advertising. I'm a man so appreciate that my view is observation rather than experience. My point is two fold, please don't be put off pursuing a STEM career as a women by the ratios, and also I think the sector is more mindful than others because of historical gender devices.

I wasn't put off science at school (all-girls'). I was just shit at science subjects and much better at languages. The jump between GCSE and A Level is huge; I got an A at Biology GCSE but only an E at A-Level.

Not really sonething that I have noticed. Where I come from you are pushed into medicine if you are good at STEM. If you are not good at STEM you get pushed into law. Most parents I know are more concerned with job stability/high wages than working conditions.

Lass, the OP is in IT - 'tech' seems to be different to many other STEM areas. Its the one which is notable for having gone from pretty equal participation to the most unequal.

I haven't read the individual articles yet, just the titles, but already I'm going "hmmm, yeah - I think I see the problem."

Any "diversity" initiative that focuses almost exclusively on the start of the pipeline instead of why women leave at a greater rate than men - is doing so because schoolgirls/junior employees are fundamentally not as ego challenging, just not the same kind of threat, as their bigger grown up sisters already in the field.

Fatally compromised. It's the same old bloody pattern again and again.

No, men don't have to "stand in the way" of little girls, because what they ALSO are NOT doing is fucking well standing in the way of misogynist colleagues and challenging the status quo and having hard conversations about all the myriad tiny things they benefit from that they'd need to actually do some hard work to change....so no worries boys, you'll get to feel good about hiring some junior females, but nothing will change because 5 years later they'll mysteriously all decide to move sideways into "non-technical" roles or entirely out, and senior roles will stay the same good old sausagefest.

The linked article makes absolutely no mention of mothers putting daughters off STEM subjects. In fact it references a study done by Accenture that interviewed 400 teachers, 54% of which said they'd experienced parents putting their daughters off STEM subjects. Not mothers, parents. Plus there's no indication of the scale of what teachers have witnessed. Was this ever in their teaching career, or just in the last year? How many students?

I have noticed that there is a general air of "why aren't there more girls choosing STEM subjects and careers, women are so under-represented..." and then go on to say it's a hostile and sexist environment.

Now if I was hearing that as a schoolgirl it would put me right off!

I wouldn't go into a school and say it can be hostile and sexist; for one thing, it depends a lot on the employer and even the department. But also, things will hopefully improve by the time people who are in school now make it into the workplace.

But equally, if we never talk about some of the workplace attitudes, no one's ever going to take actions to improve things, because no one will see there are problems.

And for background - I have worked in IT for a couple of decades, mostly, but not entirely, as a Unix sys admin. I am closely involved with STEM promotion for my company.

I grew up on a farm. I come from a farming background, many generations. Sister, cousins, uncle, godparents all involved with agriculture. So I do have some idea of what's involved. I also know people involved in various other STEM fields, but I thought that there were enough mentions of Computer Weekly, technology and IT for it to be clear that that was where my main focus was.

No, men don't have to "stand in the way" of little girls, because what they ALSO are NOT doing is fucking well standing in the way of misogynist colleagues and challenging the status quo and having hard conversations about all the myriad tiny things they benefit from that they'd need to actually do some hard work to change...

Yes, this. I think that's what I wasn't quite managing to get to in my thoughts.

But the first work they'd have to do is recognise it all, but they don't, so there's no problem, so there's no point putting any effort into fixing things they don't see is a problem.

and having hard conversations about all the myriad tiny things they benefit from that they'd need to actually do some hard work to change....

Like what? Give a concrete example.

I'm a senior manager in IT and part of an advisory group set up to get the senior leadership team to be more diverse (currently all white middle aged men) in both gender and race.

We've done a lot of work on unconsious bias, where men in IT will routinely recruit "people like them". We've been educating the SLT on how to be more conscious of this bias.

Our group was set up because the secretary (it's govt) told them to do it. I don't think they would be listening if they didn't have to. Why should they? They very much like the status quo.

I do feel I should be out at girls schools telling them about careers in IT and the options available to them though.

We've been educating the SLT on how to be more conscious of this bias.

Yes, my employer (big corporate) has been doing that. However, they have not yet trained less senior people (funding,) yet they're usually the ones who are actually interviewing for vacancies. I know people need to get on with a team, but when you hear, "they were good, but I didn't feel they'd fit with the team," that does tend to make me think, not a white man, then...

do women have a clearer idea of how hostile an environment it can be? I think a lot of men just don't see any sexism.

I agree with this and I admit it does put me off from encouraging my DD to pursue a STEM career. I'd much rather her be in a female dominated environment so at least she doesn't have that experience.

So far as IT my only involvement with IT as a career is with the office IT team (I mean obviously IT teams in offices, not the IT Crowd). I expect that applies to many people. It is just another job in the office. Why would anyone think that is a hostile environment?

We had an excellent female first liner at one job. As you know, that job involves rummaging under/behind desks. The number of times she was harrassed doing it was unbelievable. The amount of notice mangement/HR took was minimal (a few chats with the traders involved.. nothing really happened - traders make money, 19 year old first line techs easily replaced). She gave in and went to HR after sticking it out for a year.

I'm a developer. First day in a new job (used to be. I'm old, fat and senior now, so working with similarly old and senior people who either don't think like that or are better at hiding it) was like walking into a pond full of sharks - geeks testing you, 70% of the men (ie. of the room) deciding if you were fuckable, and giving it a go anyway (rare woman in IT, worth a try)

Yes, it can be hostile, and if not hostile, unpleasant and stressful.

they were good, but I didn't feel they'd fit with the team

I've done interviews a lot. I was in the room when the HR director really tried to shred a young woman I'd decided to hire for a development position - to the extent I stepped in and ended the interview. He was asking questions he'd not asked of any of the men - how she would cope etc. She was fresh from Uni, she'd interviewed really well, and she turned out to be an excellent developer and employee - I was so worried that the HR guy had scared her off (tears were starting in her eyes at the questioning!)

In another place, I'd interviewed a guy with a bad stutter (it was an interview, I'm sure it would have been less pronounced day to day), and again, judged him to be very good - he was dismissed as unsuitable straight away for the aforementioned 'fit' reasons in email, but from a conversation after, it was purely the stutter. I left that company soon after (for that and many other reasons) it was a large, well-known bank.

When I first started interviewing I went through some training (not on bias, but I think it should be a key part of it) on how to interview which was very valuable. In larger companies, there's just no reason for anyone to be performing interviews without training, and if that included bias training, if names were removed from CVs for the initial sweep etc. I think that would help.

I have had that happen to me on a training course doing a presentation, only female, only one who had aggressive comments interrupting me - apparently .inshould expect that to happen in a real situation! I was very young and didn't realise at first that it really wasn't me...

This is an interesting read - homes.cs.washington.edu/~lazowska/mit/

do women have a clearer idea of how hostile an environment it can be? I think a lot of men just don't see any sexism

I agree with this and I admit it does put me off from encouraging my DD to pursue a STEM career. I'd much rather her be in a female dominated environment so at least she doesn't have that experience

Again do you have real life experience of this or are you basing it on something you read in The Guardian women's section?

And does your real life experience extend to every career which requires a science foundation rather than arts?

And what do you mean by a female dominated environment? Teaching (fine career) a gunnery?