I thought this was an interesting article. While it’s not saying anything new, this part stuck out as being a really nice explanation of the problems with getting women into STEM.
“STEM education and work are still treated as fields that girls might, if they are vocal enough and determined enough and exceptionally gifted, be permitted to share with males. They are treated as masculine pursuits, and females who succeed in them are expected to succeed on a very limited and very male set of terms.”
It’s written in response to this,
"Case in point: Cate Burlington’s appalling, hilarious recent “Things My Male Tech Colleagues Have Actually Said to Me, Annotated” –many of which are riffs on her final example, “You’re a girl, but you’re not, like, a girl-girl, y’know?”
This is one of the biggest things to counter, I think. It’s a bias I think many of us have. I realised I prided myself on being a tomboy growing up and my interest in science was probably an extension of that. I can’t imagine being a ‘typical’ girl who’s interested in fashion and pop culture and the like and feeling that STEM would be for me. Yet in the same way that excluding women and minorities means that dogmas are often never challenged (I’m reminded of a blog post I wrote about this very thing after it was revealed that there was a distinct bias in the biological study of genitalia towards male reproductive parts) excluding the full diversity of women surely means that other biases are not being challenged and other research areas are not being explored.