Countries with more gender equality have fewer female STEM grads

How do you define which countries have “more gender equality?” It seems like begging the question.

My family immigrated from Bangladesh to America. In most ways, obviously, America is a lot more equal. But my mom and her sisters have STEM degrees, and that wasn’t all that unusual for a wealthy Bangladeshi family at the time. Bangladeshis perceive STEM as important, and encourage both girls and boys to pursue it (even if they don’t expect girls to stay in the work force after they get married).

Raising a daughter in the US, my perception is that girls in America are taught about “princesses and fairies.” We impress upon boys the need to get practical education so they can support families but are more indulgent with girls. Last summer, I signed my then four-year old up for summer camp classes. There literally was classes for “princesses and fairies.” Of course I signed her up for “little engineers.” My daughter was quite upset to be the only girl in the class. That’s not innate. It’s somehing we’re choosing to do to our kids.

Engineering and Science careers are quite competitive with law and medicine. That's why these fields aren't filled with male AND female failed lawyers/doctors.

>Instead, as a group women have decided that the best way to make themselves more welcome in STEM - is to have more women in STEM. This will slowly correct the negatives by causing more individuals to come into contact with women and have to learn how to behave properly. But these same systemic issues prevent many women who would otherwise enter STEM from doing so. No one is claiming that a perfect 50/50 ratio is all we need and then "we're done, pack it up folks". Simply that making efforts to get women into tech is actually a good idea.

This doesn't make much sense if we assume that "It may very well be that men and women have different criteria".

According to what you wrote, the real problem is that women in STEM have "have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions".

For this, the desired solution would obviously be "better treatment of women in STEM" -- not, "more women in STEM".

Now, getting more women in STEM might indeed be ONE way to achieve "better treatment of women in STEM", but it's the wrong way to achieve that if more women don't really want to go into STEM. If we are willing to accept that

(a) women in STEM have "have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions".

(b) "It may very well be that men and women have different criteria" (and might be less inclined to go into STEM)

then we should just fix (a). Ensure that women in STEM are treated better -- WHATEVER their percentage of STEM jobs.

>Claiming that men and women just have different criteria, and thus the problem should be ignored entirely completely misses the point.

At the same time not entertaining the thought that - as the linked study shows - that women might not just have "different criteria" but like some STEM careers less (and not just the treatment they get while in STEM careers, but some STEM fields in general as fields) makes it a "thought crime" and stops searching for truth in favor of what's the fashionable ideology of the day.

Well Traders do have this barrow boy image medicine or law has a much higher "social" status in the UK and I bet the USA also

> As expected, this is the top comment

That's because it's a good comment.

> men and women have different criteria, but that is completely irrelevant

No, it's not at all irrelevant, because the fact that fewer women choose STEM fields has been used to design a narrative about the causes when the evidence does not actually support that narrative, and in fact the simplest explanation is simply that women prefer other fields, and therefore choose these fields unless other pressures override those preferences.

> Women in STEM complain that they have less job prospects and feel uncomfortable in their positions.

Citation needed. All we have are (a) individual stories, read anecdotes, not data on actual problems occurring and (b) hard statistical data on the distribution.

These two independent facts are woven together to create the narrative that (a) is systemic, for which there is no evidence and the cause of (b), for which there is also no evidence.

(I am assuming you mean either "all women" or "women in general", rather than "some women")

The only actual data I am aware of was a survey by the ACM a while back[1]. It showed few if any significant differences in job experience, socialization and attitudes between men and women.

The differences it did find were "supervisor support, career related", where women reported slightly higher support, and "comfort with technical language" and "confidence in technical skills" where men supported slightly higher levels (but still not huge).

Motivation for entering the profession were also largely the same, with men supporting slightly higher for "love of technology/computers" and women reporting slightly higher for "ease of entry into profession", "job security" and "flexible working hours".

And of course there's the Ceci/Williams study showing a 2:1 hiring advantage for women in STEM fields (academia).

>Women are interested.

Yes, some are. But not very many. In fact, most people in general aren't that interested in STEM, it's a minority occupation.

> Many that do are forced out for one reason or another

In a big survey, the biggest reasons for leaving were "spend more time with family", "lost interest", "no advancement" and "didn't like daily tasks".

Again: you are being duped by the narrative. Neither the science (see article) nor the other data back this narrative.

[1] https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2008/2/5453-women-and-men-in-...