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.

No, lots of working class women are stay at home mothers because they are paid less than their partners and thus for financial reasons find themselves the one who has to relinquish paid work to look after children.

I went to a university open day with my child and attended a talk about the M Eng. in product design given by a professor of engineering .

He gave a string of examples of male graduates of the course , the prestigious companies ( Apple, other IT companies, high end car manufacturers ) they worked for and the glamourous products they had helped design.

He concluded with a mention of one female graduate - she worked for Lego and had helped design the box for a lego kit aimed at girls. Just in case we had missed the point, he explained in detail how there was a calendar on the front of the box and she had chosen the date to match her own wedding date.

Because that's what being a woman in engineering is all about , right ? Men design Apple watches and Mazaratis and women get to chose the date on a toy box.

I think parents are hugely responsible for lack of female representation in STEM. When I was in school 30 years ago many of my friends (and the brightest students) were discouraged from doing maths because it was "too hard". I have no doubt that with even a little encouragement they would have kept it up and excelled. I'm also sure it's still happening today.
A similar story to PricklyBall, my dd attended an after school computer class a few years ago. Out of 20 kids, only 2 were girls. These were 4 & 5 year olds so at that age it would have been primarly parents making the decision. The mindset of almost all the boys parents was that this was something their child would enjoy and benefit from, while almost all of the girls parents dismissed the opportunity. It's utterly depressing.
I am an engineer and have encountered sexism over the years, but would never have considered the environment hostile. I have had a rewarding career and would absolutely encourage girls to pursue STEM careers. Schools and wider society will play a part, but I believe the biggest influence will come from home.

Delta, if you were given a choice between doing this:

www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/15/jd-sports-warehouse-channel-4-kingsway-rochdale

..and staying at home with the kids, what would you choose?

Nope, no women working at JD Sports, they're all at home 'housekeeping'.

I'd choose going to work, as I am not cut out for staying at home with children. I have a career because I worked hard at school and my parents encouraged me, but I come from a shitty area of a large working class city.

But it is irrelevant to the topic of discussion, just like your point.

For a lot of women its not an either/or, John. But that is not what this thread is about. Start another one if you want to discuss a different topic. If you can make relevant contributions (as engineersthumb has) fine.

As a female physicist, I can't tell you how many women tell me how they were 'rubbish' at maths and physics at school, and with some pride (my usual answer is that I was crap at drama so that's why I'm not an actor). I also note that dads will strongly encourage their sons to tinker in the garage with them, coding is seen as very acceptable for boys (starting with Minecraft) as a hobby and so on. If a girl is persistent about an interest, parents may be more willing to support it, but unlikely to push the subject iyswim.
Mums tend to encourage girls to do things that they like, dads with sons - and it is at the level of the trips they choose for little ones, books bought, things they'll talk about with them rather than overt discouraging I think.

Delta people don't gain success just as a result of working hard. This is a capitalist lie. Some people lack the ability, or are ill, or are beset with all sorts of other problems that prevent them from 'succeeding' (which today means making lots of money at the expense of wider society, and a value many on the feminist 'left' have disappointingly embraced).

The point is that yes, if you are a middle-class woman then a career in a Start-Up is quite conceivably preferable to staying at home with the children (and I absolutely support a woman's right to that option)...

But is working at Macdonald's better than staying at home with the children? Very possibly not. Most arguments in favour of getting women out of the home and into the market fail to acknowledge that lots of the work people have to do is truly horrible - which is why I think poorer women are clinging on to their traditional role, simply because the alternative is worse.

I don't want to make assumptions about everyone on here - but I would venture not many of you are earning £10'000 a year. I am. It's horrible.

Here's a question.

Why is everyone talking about STEM rather than seeking to improve the lot of the poorest women in society? You'd think they'd take priority.

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.

Vet med and medicine Uni intakes are majority female, as they are the ones that get the top grades, and you need sciences for both so I don't think the comment above stacks up.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time John.

How about you accept that you don't get to dictate what we want to talk about? You'd think that might be a priority for women on a feminist board, on a website for mothers?

My personal experience...

Seachangeshell like you I was an A grade student that went into teaching. I was equally good at science subjects and arts but chose to study languages at A level and then at uni. I realised that it wasn't for me and switched to a geography degree but looking back I wish I'd taken the science further at school. I feel I would have had more options after uni. It may be that I just enjoyed arts subjects more at the time of choosing options but careers advice was non existent at my school and I really had no idea what kind of jobs/careers could follow on from science A levels and degrees.

In my professional role...
Training we've had at school suggests that children become less ego-centric at age 7. They start to look at where they fit in the family, school and wider society and start to care about what others think - which is why I think it's an important age at which to challenge gender roles and societal expectations. I teach younger children so not sure how much impact I have but I try my best to raise issues in staff training and challenge the children's day to day assumptions about what men and women can do. So much of the attitude comes from the parents (traditional white working class catchment with generally low aspirations) that it's hard for us to make a difference in a few hours a day.

Not dictating anything. Just pointing that the amount of feminist discourse dedicated to the concerns of economically privileged, middle-class women vastly dwarfs that addressing those of poor women, and thought people might like to reflect on why that might be.

Or not. Up to you.

There are women on another thread concerned about women in prison and getting told 'why does it concern you? you're not in prison.'
Whatever feminists talk about there will always be people (very often men) finding a reason why they should shut up. Funny that.

I'm not telling you to shut up. You can say what you like. I am just saying the disproportionate emphasis on individualised material success, corporate careerism, promotions, bonuses and elite education; and the scant focus on the plight of care assistants, abysmally paid hotel workers and sex trafficked migrants (all mostly women) is suspicious, in my view. The agenda seems to be very much one of getting individual women up into elite capitalist institutions by adopting the kind of winner-takes-all competitive ruthlessness than feminists used to reject as patriarchal.

If that's what you think feminism should be about, then fine; but if you position yourself on the left then it might be worthwhile to consider the possibility than feminism has become sneakily integrated into a capitalist narrative of careerist ambition self-interest while you weren't looking.

Ive asked DD about why she wouldn't work in the technology sector. Her response is that 'its boring and nothing special, doesn't everyone use technology nowadays?' So that's why my DD doesn't want to work in technology, nothing to do with it being sexist its just nothing special.

She wants to study Aeronautical Engineering and design/fix aeroplanes, boats, or motorbikes.

All her DT teachers are female, all her Science teachers are female and so are all but 1 maths teacher. There really isn't any obvious sexism in the school towards studying STEM subjects so anyone who thinks its a sexist working environment/career at DDs school will get that idea from other sources.

Maybe if technology was more exciting girls would be more interested in it. DDs friends all want to run their own businesses so they can do other stuff not just go to work day in, day out. Lots of STEM careers don't have very flexible working choices so modern students who want everything, a family, run a business, have progress and made to feel they make a difference just aren't going to choose those long unsociable hour career paths with difficult career progression.

I just can't see how you would know mothers were dissuading daughters, it sounds very anecdata to me

Where did I say I know that I know that?

Bear mentioned it as happening in her opening post.

PolkaDot provided an example of herself doing it.

I was steered away from STEM at school by the careers coach, and directed towards nursing, caring or the arts.
I gained a place at Cambridge which I was unable to accept. There were no grants or loans available unless my parents emancipated me, which they refused to do. I've spent my working life in badly paid caring and retail. There are loads of women in retail, mainly on the doing grunt work.
Fund your kids through university. Its so much harder to do it later on.

This is a really important conversation. Dont let anyone derail it.

@john - My mother is what you might have described as a 'poor woman'. When we were small, she used to work at the local fish & chip shop in the evenings when my Dad was home from work. My parents needed the money, but I remember my Mum commenting to a neighbour that she was glad of it to be able to get out of the house and away from the kids for a while.

The issue of social class is a red herring - working class women are disadvantaged in the workplace just as middle-class women are. Women are paid less across the board and this often means that women are not necessarily choosing to stay at home with children, they are forced to do so for financial reasons.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? I'm white and glad I'm not black as they are at a disadvantage overall in society. I don't need to be black to know or acknowledge that. Why as a man, are you not able to accept the truth that women are at a disadvantage, particularly in the workplace?

I am just saying the disproportionate emphasis on individualised material success, corporate careerism, promotions, bonuses and elite education; and the scant focus on the plight of care assistants, abysmally paid hotel workers and sex trafficked migrants (all mostly women)

But it's all part of the same issue Properly addressing the lack of women in stem,is part of the big picture that you speak of. The OP chose to focus on stem, but the issues / reasons are broadly similar in the examples you give.

Delta, do you think economic class is any consequence at all for anyone?

Delta, do you think economic class is any consequence at all for anyone

Of course it is But the OP was "women in stem" and not "economic class in stem"

Gentlemanjohn you know nothing about feminism, why anyone here is a feminist or the priorities of feminism. I became a feminist due to male violence against women and girls. My main priority is fighting this because of something experienced close to me. That doesn't mean I can't care about other issues. Who on Earth are you to cast aspersions on feminists? What are you doing to fight the male violence which kills women and girls due to their sex routinely? What ridiculous posts from you.

Also a career in STEM has helped take one of my friend's mothers from "one of the poorest women in society", parents came over from India with very little and worked numerous jobs, facing racism from as close by as their neighbours, to a highly successful woman who is in a position of great authority at her firm and gives talks at schools to girls on careers in STEM. She thinks the lack of women in STEM is a major issue - as it is.

Just pointing that the amount of feminist discourse dedicated to the concerns of economically privileged, middle-class women vastly dwarfs that addressing those of poor women, and thought people might like to reflect on why that might be.

Why don't you reflect on why you're on a feminist board making snide posts telling women what to be concerned with not challenging male violence.