
The Only Way To Get Girls into STEM (Boys Too) - peterb
http://www.spydergrrl.com/2014/06/the-only-way-to-get-girls-into-stem.html
======
Spooky23
You need to make it part of play. Make it fun.

Computers were fun to me because I played games and was motivated to maximize
the meager capabilities of my IBM XT, and wanted to cheat in games. So I
learned all sorts of things there.

In computer class, there was no exploration, no fun. Oregon Trail was cool,
but didn't capture the imagination.

I hated Math in school for many years, but my grandfather tutored me. Then I
discovered puzzles and how to apply math to problems that had some relevance
to me.

~~~
ilovecomputers
This is exactly why Google' "Made with Code" campaign is so good:
[https://www.madewithcode.com/](https://www.madewithcode.com/)

Look at the message, it is about how computers are fun and empowering. Even
with this general message, they still market to girls by simply showing how
women and girls are involved with coding. The target of the campaign is girls,
but the message is universal that girls don't feel like outsiders and even
boys can tag along.

------
return0
I don't think that's it. The differences in percentages between men and women
in STEM are just too big to attribute them to "early conditioning" anymore,
esp. after so many years of campaining [1]. Either men are masochists and
choose jobs that are "not fun", or men find STEM more fun than women. I
believe, at least in Europe, there is no lack of exposure to STEM subjects.

The idea of interwoving them sounds a little bit silly: a sci-fi text will
bore a student who is literature-oriented in the same way that a mathematical
model of romance will sound cheesy to a math nerd.

1\. [http://techpageone.dell.com/business/study-women-stem-
career...](http://techpageone.dell.com/business/study-women-stem-
careers/#.U6m4Nfna58E)

~~~
SolarNet
Years of campaigning means nothing if society hasn't notably changed as a
result. It really is our entertainment, half of all television shows for
children show men (boys) being innately superior in intelligence [1]. Even
worse, there are no children's shows with primary female genius characters
(they are all male), and when they do show up as non-primary characters their
intelligence is often overshadowed by their feminine attributes.

It's even worse in teen TV, where the smart female characters are more often
portrayed as being love interests for male characters over being smart.

And lets not even get into the rampant sexism in most mainstream video games
(and their communities), even more important for software engineering and
computer science since modding/making/playing video games seems to be a common
factor for many male entrants, and relatively uncommon among female entrants
to the field (at least in my recent but anecdotal experience).

This all leads to a situation where computers, engineering, science, and math
are more often seen as male disciplines. We may have cleaned up a lot of
blatant sexism, especially in modern workplaces, but our media is still
teaching our children gender bias, often with a detrimental effect for both
genders (for example decreasing college rates for males, how many male teen
characters care about getting into college, have their shit together, etc).

[1]
[http://www.truechild.org/PageDisplay.asp?p1=6656](http://www.truechild.org/PageDisplay.asp?p1=6656)

~~~
return0
> Years of campaigning means nothing if society hasn't notably changed as a
> result

It may mean that what the campaign thinks is right is not what people want. It
doesn't help that social sciences research on the subject is kind of taboo.

~~~
SolarNet
Fair enough. But towards the original point, dismissing a solution to a
problem because of the relevant campaigning, and not the relevant changes
seems like a pretty poor argument. Additionally, you could also take my
statement as meaning, "if the campaigning isn't succeeding, perhaps trying to
change the message will help". Which, encouraging STEM for all children, would
be a new message that would also likely increase the number of women in STEM
(eventually). This is actually a pretty common shift in the "women in STEM"
movements as of late.

As a counter argument: There has been lots of campaigning on fixing the
problem of limited numbers of women in STEM, but relatively few changes to the
media portrayal of women in STEM or education of children to fix the problem.
Perhaps more importantly, a vast number of STEM fields are in high demand, and
our education system seems to be poorly equipped at encouraging students (in
general) to enter (any) STEM field. So perhaps we can hit two birds with one
stone and change how we teach STEM to be a more integral part of school, like
the original post suggested with a relatively provocative title.

------
bsdetector
I have a controversial view of this. That is, why are so many men forced or
pressured to go into a STEM career? This is the exact same question, just
framed from the perspective that there are plenty of other jobs that pay well
enough and are easier.

Computer science for instance is sitting behind a desk all day every day more
or less constantly using your brain and concentrating. This is kind of a bad
choice of occupation even though it appeals to some and has some upsides.

We know from the "pay gap" that women's lower pay is balanced by fewer hours,
shorter commute, better environment, and other benefits of that kind; there's
essentially no actual discrimination for the same work. This makes me wonder
whether women are choosing this result, or whether men are steered away from
working easier, less well-paying jobs.

It could be that women aren't going into STEM in equal numbers simply because
they have subjectively better choices available. If that's the case, then
programs to equalize the numbers will doubly discriminate against men by being
forced into it in the first place and then getting less compensation in the
second.

------
doctorfoo
It really all starts with Lego IMO. Give all children male/female a box of
Lego on their first birthday. Either they'll take to it or they won't. Problem
solved!

~~~
angersock
You're going to have a lot of kids choking on legos...

~~~
doctorfoo
An important life lesson, surely?

Actually, I remember now, before Lego I had some large wooden bricks. Building
towers and bridges was pretty neat. Playing physics based puzzle games is
still great fun!

------
Pxtl
I don't think Lego can be blamed for Lego Friends. They made gender-neutral
lego toys for years and years, and never made the kind of spectacular traction
they got with girls through Lego Friends.

~~~
detcader
A LEGO block is sex-neutral, but the decades of marketing and LEGO character
pieces certainly were not. LEGO can't take all the blame, given that many
parents probably didn't buy LEGOs for their daughters given their own
internalized stereotypes, but it could have recognized that this was a
phenomenon and aggressively worked to include girls in their "neutral" toys.

As usual, the actual problem is deeper than symtomatic entities like LEGO. We
will see the end of this issue when we see the end of the world's obsession
with sex and sex stereotypes.

------
detcader
_Our society markets cultural gender references to the extent that we instill
into girls a dislike of “traditionally male” interests from early on._

So could one say that we _do_ need to focus on girls, to the extent that we
recognize the socialization they receive in a society where gender roles are a
thing? I agree with the article in general -- though I don't see anything
wrong with programs for girls who have already found themselves teenaged and
without the resources to get the necessary programming/STEM experience, and/or
being uncomfortable around teenage boys in a field that the boys have been
taught is their turf.

The media should promote some more female STEM role models. It would make up
for the years of degredation and exclusion of women in STEM on TV, in the
movies, etc -- especially in kid's media, where girls and women are usually
token side-characters when they aren't princesses (see reelgirl.com for
thorough documentation). It'll never happen, of course, despite that it would
hurt no one, because the necessary critical thinking, along with the knowledge
of women's history, to keep ourselves from shouting "gender bias!!!" at
anything helping women succeed, is absent.

~~~
jmromer
I wonder if anyone has done a longitudinal study of children raised in
environments where they were strongly incentivized (to put it mildly) to favor
activities that we typically see taken up by members of the opposite sex. No
IRB would approve this nowadays, but maybe someone started one back in the
day?

Even without such a study it should be intuitive that steering neurotypical
(in the broad sense) boys toward typically female preferences and activities,
and vice versa, will end up being cruel along some margin.

(Just as it's certainly cruel for an atypical girl to be forced into typically
female behaviors and preferences, which is what you're describing.)

The question is, where's the margin?

~~~
detcader
NYU sociologist Emily Kane's book The Gender Trap documents the closest we'll
probably get to a study that explores that notion, in this century. I highly
recommend it [http://nyupress.org/books/book-
details.aspx?bookId=11234](http://nyupress.org/books/book-
details.aspx?bookId=11234)

The synopses of the book that are on the internet don't inform of the degree
to which it's an actual _study_ by a sociologist; it's not a pop-parenting
book.

~~~
jmromer
Thanks for the tip! I'll check it out.

Given our ignorance, though, and the likelihood that along some margin or
another this becomes a zero-sum game between the atypical and the typical, I'd
rather see a little less swashbuckling from the more aggressive advocates of
undoing gender expectations. Much of this looks like surgery by sledgehammer
to me.

~~~
detcader
"Gender expectations" (in other words, gender) are killing and hurting women
and always have. Gender needs to go, ASAP. Instead of getting all theory-of-
oppression on you, here's some real examples I think about when I think about
why.

[http://phonaesthetica.com/2014/02/21/heres-how-it-
ends/](http://phonaesthetica.com/2014/02/21/heres-how-it-ends/)

[http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-i...](http://sodisarmingdarling.tumblr.com/post/34106027759/what-
its-like-being-a-teen-girl)

[http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-
havent-b...](http://www.metafilter.com/121190/teenage-girls-they-havent-been-
living-theyve-been-performing)

[http://www.bbc.com/news/education-25138455](http://www.bbc.com/news/education-25138455)

[http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-
blog/2014/jan...](http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-
blog/2014/jan/10/little-girls-deserve-better-toys-sexism)

[http://www.salon.com/2014/04/14/report_many_girls_view_sexua...](http://www.salon.com/2014/04/14/report_many_girls_view_sexual_assault_as_normal_behavior/)

~~~
jmromer
You're thinking in partial equilibrium. I've no doubt that many women suffer
under the yoke of gender expectations that are at odds with their biology. So
do men. And even now, somewhere, there are women who suffer because of gender
expectations you'd no doubt be in favor seeing made the norm.

But a world in which your vision ("Gender needs to go" == " _your_ conception
of gender norms needs to go") is realized is one where many more suffer
similarly oppressive expectations. And anywhere in between we're making
tradeoffs that are costly to someone on some margin.

Somewhat relatedly: "Theor[ies] of oppression" would be all the more
compelling if the humanists and sociologists who peddle them for a living
bothered (or had the training) to think in terms of general equilibria.

~~~
detcader
I have never heard of "training [] to think in terms of general equilibria".
Where does one acquire such training? Is there a YouTube channel for that?

Men benefit directly from how women suffer under gender. Did you read any of
the articles? The only reason any of that occurs is for the benefit of the men
in the society. The demand is for girls/women to "make themselves sexy," sexy
being defined as appealing to straight men's sexuality. The idea of
"oppression" has always implied an _oppressor class_ \-- attempting to revise
the idea as to not include you and I in the class is only expected, though.
"Sociologists"? Try Marx.

I don't "favor" any gender expectations. I don't know what you're referring
to. The worldwide conception of gender, facets of which is illustrated by the
articles, needs to go -- you can read what this would be like in the short
essay "Imagining a World without Gender" by Judith Lorber [1].

[1] [http://paste.pound-
python.org/show/QGJwDfVVulEjLTdEmdmU/](http://paste.pound-
python.org/show/QGJwDfVVulEjLTdEmdmU/)

------
collyw
I really don't see the need to get more women in tech. Its obvious from school
age that it just doesn't interest them as much. You never hear of the need to
get more male nurses, or primary teachers and that is generally not viewed as
a problem.

Edit: I stand corrected, apparently there are big movements to get males into
the professions I mentioned. Just that I never heard about these movements.

~~~
tomp
Personally, I don't see any reason to get _anyone_ into _anyone_. Ideally,
people should choose what they want to do, whatever interests them. I chose
computers because I couldn't get away from them when I was young, and they
interested me more than most other things (sports, history, friends, ...). I
see no reason why people should be _asked_ to get into STEM. Should they have
the opportunity? Of course! Fortunately, social perceptions about geeks are
changing, thanks to shows like Big Bang Theory and because of fortunes made
with technology (Facebook, Google, ...). But someone who is not passionate
about being a programmer/scientist and is only in it for the money, will in
average be less successful in it that someone who's passionate about it.

~~~
thegeomaster
I agree with the gist of your comment, especially the clause that someone
who's not passionate about a field shouldn't be forced into that field.
However, I'd like to address some other points.

>I chose computers because [...] they interested me more than most other
things (sports, history, friends, ...)

This sounds very sad to me. How do you mean that computers interested you more
than friends? I don't see how anyone could come to say this.

>social perceptions about geeks are changing, thanks to shows like Big Bang
Theory

I think TBBT is doing more harm than good to the "geek culture", whatever you
want to call the "geek culture". What it's doing is enforce and rehash the
stupid "nerd stereotypes" of the old, but somehow present it as "being cool".
The world doesn't need that. All cultures need less poseurs, not more.

I didn't think I'd ever cite Maddox on HN, but I agree with him spot on. Take
a look:
[http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd](http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=youre_not_a_nerd)

~~~
lsc
>This sounds very sad to me. How do you mean that computers interested you
more than friends? I don't see how anyone could come to say this.

"Your values are different from mine, and that is sad, because my values are
better than your values."

~~~
thegeomaster
I said that it "sounds sad to me". You escalated it pretty quickly into "my
values are better than your values". Did you even read that one-line comment
you just cited?

And I'm not talking about casual acquaintances, nor superficial "friendships".
I'm talking about real, deep friendships with other human beings. The human
race is a social species. This means that it is in our very nature to spend
time with other humans and develop bonds with them. Being without friends i.e.
lonely can even be detrimental to your physical health [1][2]. Kids at various
ages react largely positively to close interaction with other kids [3]. Lack
of friendship was also shown correlated with other life problems and behaviors
[4].

This is not an issue of being introvert or extrovert. Saying that "computers
interest you more than friends" just sounds very cruel and uncaring of others.
It is in our nature to empathize with other humans: extreme lack of empathy is
often understood as one of the primary symptoms and grounds fro diagnosis of
psychopathy [5]. Of course, not to say anything close of the parent comment,
but if you really do care about computers more than you do about your friends
(and, I assume, implicitly about other human beings), it is maybe wise to
think about why is that the case.

[1]:
[http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/conditions/07/27/moh.heal...](http://edition.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/conditions/07/27/moh.healthmag.lonely.heart/index.html?_s=PM:HEALTH)

[2]: [http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/study-
dont...](http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/study-dont-be-
lonely-its-bad-for-you/267375/)

[3]:
[http://www.aboutourkids.org/articles/do_kids_need_friends](http://www.aboutourkids.org/articles/do_kids_need_friends)

[4]: [http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-importance-of-
friendship/000...](http://psychcentral.com/lib/the-importance-of-
friendship/0001381)

[5]:
[http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/j...](http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/journals/pspi/psychopathy.html)

~~~
lsc
> I said that it "sounds sad to me". You escalated it pretty quickly into "my
> values are better than your values". Did you even read that one-line comment
> you just cited?

Yes.

Did you read the rest of your comment? you go on to cite a bunch of sources
supporting your assertion that you should value friends above all else; then
you go on to imply that people who have different values may be psychopaths.

~~~
thegeomaster
I didn't imply that people who have different values are better or worse than
each other. I said that, according to a source which is cited on the Wikipedia
page for the topic of psychopathy, lack of empathy is often associated with
the diagnosis of psychopathy. Lack of empathy doesn't translate directly into
lack of dear friends, but my bet is that it's very deeply intertwined.

I still never implied that my values are better. Psychopaths, for example,
often believe that their values and views of life are fine, and that the rest
of the world is wrong. I can never say whether it's the psychopaths or the
non-psychopaths who get it right. (Without rigorous testing, I can actually
not reliably claim I am not a psychopath. For one, my empathy scores are
moderately lower than male average.) If most of the world agrees that
psychopathy should be treated, and the psychopaths say that it shouldn't, then
it still doesn't mean that it ultimately has to be treated. I know this sounds
like a ridiculous point, but no values can ever be said to be "better" than
other values, because "good" is simply so ill-defined in that context. I'm not
saying that the OP of the comment is a psychopath, far from it. What I am
saying is that our nature instructs us to be empathic and care for our friends
and family, and it's not clear to me what I would have to believe and feel to
conclude that I care about computers more than I do about my friends.

~~~
lsc
>I still never implied that my values are better.

Only if you seriously think you can use the psychopath diagnosis without
judgment. I suppose that is possible? but it's pretty unlikely.

Even if you are using it in a value-neutral way (and I don't believe you are)
you are making a huge jump. For example, some people try to de-prioritize
friendships because they have been badly hurt by friends in the past; this is
far more likely to happen to a deeply empathetic person.

------
eroo
There are two problems that too often seem to be conflated as a single issue:
(1) we need more STEM students/workers, because they will build the future,
and (2) there is persistent discrimination (notably sexism) in some of the
sub-specialties that can't be tolerated.

Is there a reason to suspect that tackling both of these at the same time
(e.g., demographic specific initiatives) yields significant benefit over
alternatives?

~~~
forgottenpass
_Is there a reason to suspect that tackling both of these at the same time
(e.g., demographic specific initiatives) yields significant benefit over
alternatives?_

If you treat a field as gendered in your recruiting of kids, the sum of your
efforts may ultimately balance the scales more than they're self-defeating.
But don't think for a moment kids are stupid enough to hear a gender-specific,
or gender-targeted introduction/recruitment to some field and not walk away
with some notion that a field is "for" a specific gender, or that one is
"better" at it than another.

------
paxtonab
I think focusing on children is the right way to tackle this issue. Per the
author's point she works in an environment with an equal mix of male/female.
Teaching kids from an early age that their gender doesn't limit the career
they pursue will make this more the norm than not.

~~~
numo16
> Teaching kids from an early age that their gender doesn't limit the career
> they pursue will make this more the norm than not.

I believe this is one of the main issues. We tell kids they can "be whatever
you want to be", and then look at a girl funny when she wants to be an
engineer or make fun of a boy for wanting to be a nurse. Society has ingrained
certain ideas into what a person in a given career looks like that people are
deterred (consciously or subconsciously) from that career if they don't fit
the norm.

For example, what is the first image that pop's into your head when you think
of a nurse? This seems to be one of the fields that has been pushed so hard
into a female career in our societal consciousness, that an entire genre of
porn exists around this single occupation (I want my male naughty nurse
Halloween costume, damn it!).

It's at a point where societal norms would need to be broken down from the
ground up, with regards to gender roles and careers, starting with kids.

