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.

If rich men didn't take a huge proportion of the pie for themselves, they'd be more to go around for everyone else, both men and women (but particularly women).

@NoLove - yes, ReinettePompadour said her DD found it boring and maybe if it was more exciting, girls would be more interested in it! Bizarre viewpoint IMO.

"Do you think, had you been a boy, you would have been encouraged to do something 'more' with your potential?"
A bit of anecdata. I was at a girls school, with all female teachers. As regards maths teachers, we had one maths teacher with a PhD, but she didn't even use her title. Why?

When I graduated from Part III at Cambridge, there were several other women from my college. All apart from me were doing something like teaching at a primary school. And this is after passing what Cambridge calls "the oldest and most famous mathematics examination in the world".

As a woman in a male-dominated STEM subject at a Russell group uni, I think this is another aspect of what I've said before -- women aren't allowed to be mediocre (unlike many of my male colleagues to be brutally honest!). And women themselves are so afraid of being mediocre they end up in careers such as above which they are frankly over-qualified for. Goes along with the belief that to do maths and science, you just have to have a 'natural' aptitude (hence the oft-repeated I was just no good at X, rather than I liked X and after effort and study became better at it).

The IOP:
www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/file_58200.pdf
A-Level figures. Interesting that maths and further maths overall numbers seem to have jumped, but the proportion of girls doing physics still seems stuck at where it was 25 years ago. Back when I was told it was a boys subject, and seems it still is..............

I haven't read the full thread but I'm response to the interesting question - do mothers put girls off because they know how sexist an environment it can be?

This is interesting. I'd love to research the difference between girls with mothers in or who have been in stem and girls whose mothers have no direct experience.

In my experience women in engineering DO promote it as a career to their daughters / young female relatives.

I tell people openly that academic science is a pretty crap career in many ways and particularly for families. Post-doc land is hell at a bad time for child bearing and families with two academic careers are hard to manage.

Bear with me, I'm just thinking out loud, but in some ways I think the issue is this recognition that there is an issue with women in STEM. If you are a girl going through school and you get exposed to the idea that there is a lack of women in STEM, or go to a special workshop trying to encourage girls into STEM it shows you that somehow STEM is a challenging career to break into, and perhaps they should just aim lower.

I think starting to address it in secondary school is way too late - what needs to happen is as far as possible making education gender neutral across all the school years, from teachers/practitioners to be hyper aware of the ideas about sex that they give out. The problem is that as adults who have also been socialised in the sexist way it is nigh on impossible to do.

That is bizarre DeltaG and as you say is just evidence that some children will find STEM boring and others will find it interesting. To say "girls" find it boring is ridiculous and quite clearly not the case (I know plenty who find a variety of STEM subjects fascinating).

If rich men didn't take a huge proportion of the pie for themselves, they'd be more to go around for everyone else, both men and women (but particularly women).

Yeah completely agree. So tax them (and the minority of rich women) to fuck and redistribute capitalism's profits into social programmes and employment schemes that benefit all the poor women and poor men. That is the only solution to the problem.

I mean, you can just try to the appeal to the better nature of the capitalist elite, but personally I think the state forcibly depriving the fuckers of their ill gotten gains is the way to go.

Are we agreed?

John, do you give a shit about poor women any other time, or just when you want to use them in your arguments against us nasty feminists?

If you really care about economic inequality for women, what are you doing to help? Other than berating us on a forum during a discussion of a different topic.

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.

Because unless you address the structural sexism in society women will still get the shitty end of the stick. Even if there is more money floating around, without addressing the sexism women would still have less than men.

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

The need for DV shelters would be reduced if men stopped beating up women, surely that would be better than just throwing money at patching up women. Interesting that you see childcare as something that benefits only/mainly women, another example of sexist conditioning.

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

It would be great if that happened, and no-one has said it shouldn't - the point is that women would still be paid less than men, have less than men.

I think starting to address it in secondary school is way too late

I agree with this. Ideas of what are appropriate interests/subjects/careers depending on whether you're a girl or boy are becoming ingrained at primary school (or even beforehand in some cases) so by the time of secondary school it's often too late, or far more difficult to challenge these notions. It has to start with eradicating gender in the sense of treating girls and boys so differently from birth and being gender neutral in teaching from primary school.

Upthread, someone mentioned nursing being seen as traditionally women's work. Given advances in medical science in recent years, I'd have thought at least some branches of nursing should count as STEM careers these days.

Not sure about girls being dissuaded from STEM as such, over half of my biology degree cohort were female, most are working in relevant jobs.
My problem was that I gave up work when I fell pregnant, flexible working hours just don't happen in my field. Relocation several times in the last few years has not helped either. Now looking at retraining.
If jobs were more flexible, hours more compatible with family life, maybe more women would be working in STEM.

ALL primary school teachers should have extensive unconscious bias training imo.
The IOPs programme concluded that there was little point in trying to attract girls into physics in a gender biased environment so are now working on a whole school approach to tackling gender biases.

www.iop.org/education/teacher/support/girls_physics/current-projects/page_63825.html

I think starting to address it in secondary school is way too late

Also totally agree. It needs to start from birth - or even before (many newborns are already welcomed into a pink princess nursery if they are female and a blue spaceship one if male).

I have a 19 month old DS and another on the way. I have gone out of my way to ensure his books and toys are a neutral as possible, but friends and relatives still buy 'traditional' toys and clothes and I don't have the heart to say anything (not to mention is would be rude!) as it's not done on purpose, it is just cultural conditioning.

John is not here to discuss the OP's posts. He is here to push an anti-capitalist agenda. Which is fine, but why not start your own thread John? There are many left-wing women on MN who would be happy to support your views and debate and some right wing and centrist women who would provide an alternative argument. There is no law against starting a new thread.

Because unless you address the structural sexism in society women will still get the shitty end of the stick. Even if there is more money floating around, without addressing the sexism women would still have less than men.

How else are you going to get more wealth to poor women than through some form of redistributionist state intervention?

The need for DV shelters would be reduced if men stopped beating up women, surely that would be better than just throwing money at patching up women. Interesting that you see childcare as something that benefits only/mainly women, another example of sexist conditioning.

Is that an argument against funding DV shelters?

Well, childcare does benefit women because, as feminists continually argue, they are the ones currently saddled with much of it. In providing childcare, the state would allow them to do less of it. Is that not a good thing?

It would be great if that happened, and no-one has said it shouldn't - the point is that women would still be paid less than men, have less than men.

Right, so the goal is what - that all men and women are paid exactly the same? That all women and women doing the same job are paid exactly the same? What?

In response to it being 'boring' for girls,

I think the poster who said 'boring' was referring specifically to 'tech' ie IT type things - her DD wants to be an engineer!

And there may be an element of truth in that. I write software - scientific software. Coding is the easy part, a means to an end, its the science which is (to me) exciting.

DD is going to be an engineer - she will doubtless write code but again as a means to an end. Code that controls a robot she's designed, hell yes.

Comp. sci in schools - at gcse there were 2 large sets at gcse. All girls, obviously. Even so, there was huge attrition at A level. She did Comp sci to AS but dropped it to focus on getting the grades she needed in physics and double maths. Those were essential - you don't get on the best MEng courses without them - whereas comp sci isn't, afaik a required subject for anything (not even comp sci degrees). They simply don't do enough subjects at A level for it to make sense for many to take CS.

One of my Dds is in a UTC Stem school which is actually full of girls. Probably more girls that boys. I've no idea what the influence is. The majority of the girls are from Muslim families so not sure if that is a factor or not.

...I'm assuming the goal is a roughly equal number of male and female low earners; a roughly equal number of male and female middle earners; and a roughly equal number of male and female high earners. Yes?

GentlemanJohn I will no longer b engaging with your posts on this thread. As a PP suggested perhaps you could start your own thread to discuss your ideas for the redistribution of wealth (which would be an interesting and worthwhile thread.

And there may be an element of truth in that. I write software - scientific software. Coding is the easy part, a means to an end, its the science which is (to me) exciting.

Perhaps the emphasis needs to be on realistic expectations of careers? All careers have boring bits and high points, and STEM is no different in that way, but isn't more boring than other careers.

I wonder if the way science is taught in regards to health and safety also has an impact? (I am NOT saying that health and safety inspection schools is a bad thing!) When DP was at school they got to play with mercury in their hands, when I was at school they did the chucking sodium in water thing. A chemistry lecturer I know is no longer allowed to explore things in lectures. Perhaps teaching needs to focus on exciting results as well as process?

Because I am an older Mumsnetter and my experience of getting into careers is many decades old, I feel STEM is in the position that many other careers were in the 1950s and 60s.

In my (all girls) school there was a definite push towards three careers for girls - teaching (for the 'academic'), nursing (for the caring types) and clerical for everyone else.

I was most unpopular and met teachers' disapproval for choosing journalism. I remember the reactions clearly - "not suitable for a woman", "dangerous", "women are too sensitive". And, yes, I did come up against some astonishing sexism.

Yet fast forward to the 80s and it was a well-known joke in the military that a war hadn't really started until Kate Adie arrived.

And of course there had always been the odd pioneering foreign or war correspondent like the redoubtable late Clare Hollingworth to make a mockery of teachers' attitudes.

So, perhaps STEM is working its way through the same attitudes that I encountered in the 60s.

If so it will get better very quickly.

The goal of this discussion is to discuss the issue of women in STEM with particular reference to 'tech' ie IT, and to the effects of parental influence.

If so it will get better very quickly.

I would love that to be true, but we seem to be slipping backwards in terms of the impact of gender on everything at that the moment

Physics is stuck, frankly, as regards A-level results. Computer science 20% at GCSE, 10% at A-level, and although CS degrees more likely to require classic maths and physics combos, indicates the low level of female interest. Interesting that biology more equal, and psychology -- a seemingly nice touchie-feelie girly science (given the magazine racks and the covers of Psychology and Psychology Today, just don't tell them about the people zapping rats in the Skinner boxes in the old days!).

I have to say, I can only recall meeting a single female IT technician at my uni...................

I have to say, I can only recall meeting a single female IT technician at my uni...................

My guess is that being encouraged towards gender stereotypical options affects those who are 'middling' (or lower) more. Back in the dark ages I was the only girl in my physics and chemistry A level sets, one other in double maths - between us we beat the boys. Some of whom were able, but many mediocre. Once doing chemistry at uni it was about 30% women.