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 it's all part of the same issue

No it isn't.

Getting women into STEM doesn't cost anyone any money, conveniently.

Improving the lives of working class women requires rich people to pay more tax.

Presumably your ideal would be the following:

All the senior executives at Fortune 500 companies gender split 50-50, with each receiving the same wage of 1.5 million a year. And men and women equally represented in care, retail and fast food, all receiving a wage of £15'000 a year. So an equal number of poor men and women at the bottom; and an equal number of rich men and women at the top, all getting paid the same within their class categories.

If that is the ideal, then just say.

If however, your aim is to improve the lot of all women, then this will require a distribution of wealth from the top to the bottom.

That is interesting OP!

My dad was very keen for me to into STEm, he dreamed of me being an engineer.

I was more interested in art and languages though. This was supported by my mum.

My dad taught me to code back in 1985

I wasted the support and opportunities in that area I can not really say why. I found languages a safer option, but why?

DS says there is not a single girl in his Computing gcse course. Again, why?

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

Of course it is, the class system in the UK is a disgrace. But this has nothing to do with the subject being discussed. Women are disproportionally over-represented in lower-paid positions and are thus more likely to be poor. Helping them access and remain in higher-paying and traditionally male industries (like STEM) is key in raising women out of poverty and financial hardship.

DS says there is not a single girl in his Computing gcse course. Again, why?

It's a very important issue. It's interesting computing is reasonably well taken up at girls' schools, and STEM subjects are very well taken up at girls' schools (Maths is one of the most taken A Levels in my year group). I know of another girls' school near where I live where computing is studied from Year 7 and the take up at GCSE is higher than it is at the boys' school my brothers go to. Yet, consistently, STEM subjects aren't being taken by girls at mixed schools (the opposite is also true of arts subjects with boys I believe, which are also well taken up at boys' schools). Children are being pushed towards certain subjects and made to feel some are for them depending on their sex at a young age.

Women are disproportionally over-represented in lower-paid positions and are thus more likely to be poor. Helping them access and remain in higher-paying and traditionally male industries (like STEM) is key in raising women out of poverty and financial hardship.

Well, there's a problem there because there are not enough STEM positions for all these women. Some of them are going to be left in "poverty and financial hardship". Some of them are going to have to clean hotel rooms and look after the elderly, even if we somehow manage to make those jobs more gender balanced so they're working alongside an equal number of men. There will, inevitably, be some women left in financial hardship because it is a truism that not everyone can fight their way to the top.

What happens to them?

This Gentlemanjohn is clearly on this thread purely to derail the discussion.

The idea of raising people out of poverty is a capitalist conceit. It requires poverty in order to work. There has to be a poverty out of which select individuals can be raised.

And there will always be lower-paid positions (many of which are lower-paid precisely because they are seen a 'women's work' - care, retail, etc.).

You are deliberately conflating two issues - the woeful wages of those at the bottom (many of whom are women), where governments and tax-payers are expected to subsidise private companies through tax credits, while their shareholders and executives (almost exclusively male) make millions, is a very worthwhile debate. But it is not the debate we are having here.

This thread is about the lack of women in STEM and why that is which Gentlemanjohn clearly has no interest in discussing nor does he care about it, merely here to ensure the thread is derailed.

I come from an extremely poor background. That I am now obstensibly middle class and am educated and reasonably financially secure does not mean I now only care about white middle class women's issues.

Again, walk/chew gum

Well, it does intersect with the debate; because you're saying some women should be raised out of poverty and others left in it, hence the prioritisation of STEM.

You're in the same breath saying "this economic system run by these evil private companies is socially unjust" and "we need to help some women to succeed in these evil private companies and forget about the women left at the bottom". You might be under the impression that they will become less venal just by virtue of having more women in them, but there is no reason for assuming this to be the case.

I come from an extremely poor background. That I am now obstensibly middle class and am educated and reasonably financially secure does not mean I now only care about white middle class women's issues.

It's not an issue of you or any other individual caring. How does you and I caring help poor people? It is an issue of wealth distribution and political economy.

I'm not saying that at all.

Look John, we get that despite your male privilege, you didn't amount to much and are bitter about that. But don't come here trying to make yourself feel better with your whataboutery by attempting to cast us as elitist.

What are you doing to help the plight of poor women, or in fact any women or any poor people? Nothing I'd wager. In that case STFU and piss off.

I posted that because you accused us of being concerned with only middle class women's issues. But I see that you want to slither about derailing the discussion and I'm bored with you now

My friend's mother came from a poor background, has a great career in STEM, gives talks to girls on careers in STEM, fights barriers to women joining the industry and supports a feminist WOC group who fight for some of the most vulnerable women in society, primarily WOC victims of domestic violence. This Gentlemanjohn decides he can judge all feminists and make snide comments to women on this board as if he knows anything about any of them. What an unpleasant individual.

Getting women into STEM doesn't cost anyone any money, conveniently.

It's not about money, it's about sexism.

Improving the lives of working class women requires rich people to pay more tax

For specifically working class women it is looking at the structural sexism that means that generally they are in these shitty, unappreciated, undervalued jobs.

All the senior executives at Fortune 500 companies gender split 50-50, with each receiving the same wage of 1.5 million a year. And men and women equally represented in care, retail and fast food, all receiving a wage of £15'000 a year. So an equal number of poor men and women at the bottom; and an equal number of rich men and women at the top, all getting paid the same within their class categories.

For me, yes, in terms of sexism that would be ideal (although slightly more women as they make up more of the population )

If however, your aim is to improve the lot of all women, then this will require a distribution of wealth from the top to the bottom.

But at the moment, that would primarily benefit men. What you are suggesting (redistribution of wealth) would improve the lives of everybody in the country, it's not something of specific benefit to .women

Look, whilst I suspect John is wrong on lots of things, the point he's making obviously intersects with the discussion at hand. As far as I can see, he's attempting to debate in good faith, and all he's getting is accusations of derailing, and abuse. Why not engage with the points he's making?

I'd like to add my own experience to this, as I think it's relevant.

My parents are/were both scientists, although my mum went into teaching when I was little due to my dad's job relocation and the family friendly hours (although not so much once she was working late every evening at home, but I digress). I therefore grew up thinking that being into science was 'normal', did triple science GCSE, and biology/ chemistry/ maths at A level followed by an M.Chem and a Ph.D.

However what I didn't have was confidence, or any idea of how the job market worked. I felt completely at a loss as to how to forge a career for myself after university. My lack of confidence, which was not helped by the male dominated, cocky attitudes of many people in my department, meant I couldn't see myself doing a post doc or getting into research- I felt if I didn't have the same amount of drive and confidence as all the men seemed to have, I wasn't good enough.

I literally had no idea about how to get into any other science based careers; my dad was no help as he'd worked for a government agency his whole career which was shut down just as I graduated, and he didn't really know anything about any other avenues. My uni careers service was shit for PhDs (or anything except big grad schemes really) and my department seemed to assume everyone wanted to be an academic.

In the end I got into a grad scheme and did something else entirely, which I'm ok with now, but I was bitter about not being a scientist for years, especially with all the rhetoric about needing more women in STEM. My supervisor's words would ring in my ears, 'If you're out of science for more than two years, you'll be out of date.'

Anyway, back to STEM......

In response to it being 'boring' for girls, well I don't really know where to start. All of the women/girls on this thread clearly don't think it's boring or else we wouldn't have pursued it. If a girl finds STEM boring, I'd say it is more to do with her own personal tastes or cultural influences than because STEM intrinsically 'boring for girls'.

Coming back to the BBC documentary - they found that when the gendered packaging was removed from toys, boys and girls enjoyed all the toys equally (they gave meccano-style stuff to the girls and a sewing kit project to the boys, in brown paper bags). So it's more to do with socialisation (and individual tastes) as to what boys/girls find boring or not, not sex.

I volunteer at a food bank, for what that's worth.

Here's another question: if you see a homeless man are you justified in assuming that 'despite his male privilege' he has failed to make something of himself - or 'amount' to much as you say? If you did, as you have done with me, then you're completely denying the economic structures which may have resulted in his poverty.

Much contemporary feminism is fiscally right-wing individualist if you scratch the surface. That's what I'm saying.

That might not be a problem if you are openly some sort of market libertarian; but if you are on the left then I am suggesting to you that there is a contradiction. Take it or leave it.

As far as I can see, he's attempting to debate in good faith, and all he's getting is accusations of derailing, and abuse.

This thread is about women in STEM, which he has no interest in discussing, and he's made unpleasant, patronising comments acting superior and dismissing feminists without knowing anything about the numerous issues feminists fight for.

I prioritise STEM, because I spend a substantial percentage of my waking hours thinking about it and because I work in it, it's an area where I might be able to make a difference. I started this thread in response to a particular paper I wasn't fully comfortable with, and I wanted to see what others think. None of this means I cannot also spend time and money and thought on women in poverty - nor cancer sufferers, nor vulnerable wildlife habitats. It just doesn't help anything to try and think about all those things at exactly the same time.

Still, if you've got all the answers, please don't let us stop you from going to fix everything.

In response to it being 'boring' for girls, well I don't really know where to start. All of the women/girls on this thread clearly don't think it's boring or else we wouldn't have pursued it. If a girl finds STEM boring, I'd say it is more to do with her own personal tastes or cultural influences than because STEM intrinsically 'boring for girls'.

Quite. Did someone say STEM was "boring" for girls? What a bizarre comment Odd how the take up of STEM subjects is so high at girls' schools, given that. Also the numerous women who've been such huge pioneers in STEM fields across generations clearly didn't find them "boring".

You don't need to justify why you started this thread EBearhug. It's a very interesting and important topic. Having women like yourself in STEM is a huge help for girls and women beginning their careers, though.

But at the moment, that would primarily benefit men. What you are suggesting (redistribution of wealth) would improve the lives of everybody in the country, it's not something of specific benefit to women

Why would it only benefit men? I don't follow. Why would, say, money for social housing only benefit men? If anything, it would allow the women stuck in the relationship with the arsehole who's knocking her about to get out and have her own place.

The money for DV shelters and childcare has to come from somewhere. And it has to come from rich people.

Furthermore, if it would improve the lives of everyone in the country, then it would benefit the lives of women. What is the problem with something improving the lives of both poor men and women at the same time? That's perverse.