Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
COUNTRIES WITH GREATER gender equality see a smaller proportion of women taking degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), a new study has found.
Dubbed the “gender equality paradox”, the research found that countries such as Albania and Algeria have a greater percentage of women amongst their STEM graduates than countries lauded for their high levels of gender equality, such as Finland, Norway and Sweden.
The researchers, from Leeds Beckett University and the University of Missouri, believe this might be because countries with less gender equality often have little welfare support, making the choice of a relatively high-paid STEM career more attractive.
The study, published in Psychological Science, also examined what motivates girls and boys to study STEM subjects, including overall ability, interest or enjoyment in the subject and whether science subjects were a personal academic strength.
Research method
The researchers used data on 475,000 teenagers across 67 countries or regions for the study.
They found that while boys’ and girls’ achievements in STEM subjects were broadly similar, science was more likely to be boys’ best subject. Girls, even with their ability in science equalled or excelled that of boys, were often likely to be better overall in reading comprehensions, which relates to higher ability in non-STEM subjects.
Girls also tended to register a lower interest in science subjects. These differences were near-universal across all the countries and regions studied.
Professor of psychology Gijsbert Stoet said this could explain some of the gender disparity in STEM participation.
“The further you get in secondary and then higher education, the more subjects you need to drop until you end with just one. We are inclined to choose what we are best at and also enjoy. This makes sense and matches common school advice.
So, even though girls can match boys in terms of how well they do at science and mathematics in school, if those aren’t their best subjects and they are less interested in them, then they’re less likely to choose to study something else.
Girls studying STEM
The researchers then looked at how many girls might be expected to choose to further study in STEM-based areas on these criteria.
They took the number of girls in each country who had the necessary ability in STEM, and for whom it was also their best subject, and compared this to the number of women graduating in STEM.
The results show that there is a disparity in all countries, but with the gap once again larger in more gender equal countries.
In the UK, 29% of STEM graduates are female, whereas 48% of UK girls might be expected to take those subjects based on science ability alone. This drops to 39% when both science ability and interest in the subject are taken into account.
“Although countries with greater gender equality tend to be those where women are actively encouraged to participate in STEM, they lose more girls from an academic STEM track who might otherwise choose it, based on their personal academic strengths,” Co-researcher professor David Geary said.
“Broader economic factors appear to contribute to the higher participation of women in STEM in countries with low gender equality and the lower participation in gender-equal countries.”
Countries with higher gender equality tend also to be welfare states, providing a high level of social security for their citizens, compared to those with lower gender equality which tend to have less secure and more difficult living conditions. Using the UNESCO overall life satisfaction figures as a proxy for economic opportunity and hardship, the researchers found that in more gender equal countries, overall life satisfaction was higher.
Professor Stoet said:
STEM careers are generally secure and well-paid but the risks of not following such a path can vary. In more affluent counties, where any choice of career feels relatively safe, women may feel able to make choices based on non-economic factors.
Conversely, in counties with fewer economic opportunities, or where employment might be precarious, a well-paid and relatively secure STEM career can be more attractive to women.
Despite extensive efforts to increase participation of women in STEM, levels have remained broadly stable for decades, but these findings could help target interventions to make them more effective, the researchers said.
“It’s important to take into account that girls are choosing not to study STEM for what they feel are valid reasons, so campaigns that target all girls may be a waste of energy and resources,” Professor Stoet said.
“If governments want to increase women’s participation in STEM, a more effective strategy might be to target the girls who are clearly being lost from the STEM pathway – those for whom science and maths are their best subjects and who enjoy it but still don’t choose it,” he said.
“If we can understand their motivations, then interventions can be designed to help them change their minds.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It’s pretty simple really. If someone doesn’t have an interest in certain subjects then they are not going to pursue a career that field,regardless of gender. If there is an imbalance of genders in certain professions then it is down to human nature,not inequality. Pushing for gender equality in professions means you don’t always get the best person suited for the job,which leaves me perplexed why some companies embrace it.
@Dj: but that doesn’t explain why stem careers are higher in other countries. This is a classical you reap what you sow. Feminists are militant and doing more damage to females than we realise
@Dj: stop the press! Scientists discover that men and women are different!!
@Dj: Have a look on you tube ar the channel 4 interview/interrogation of Jordan Peterson by an aggressive channel 4 journalist. She is the epitome of the close minded screeching feminist who cant understand the difference between equality of choice for gender and equality of outcome for gender. He swats away all her arguments with facts and research.
@kevin: Ya I saw that. It was ‘lovely stuff’ as Alan Partridge would say.
@Dj: Stop talking sense please.
@kevin: so what you are saying is…….
@Michael Powell: I’d imagine it has a lot to do with the unrelated factors of social pressure around career decisions. Students in wealthy western countries tend to choose fashionable college courses to fit in with their peers while in poorer countries they’re probably more focused on choosing something with a profitable career at the end of it.
I’d bet drop out rates or people graduating with degrees they never actually use in work are much higher in the western first world as well.
@Rochelle: for the most part I would agree except around the social pressures part. I would be more inclined to think that there is actually less social pressure for going into a high paid field so people can afford the luxury of choice.
@kevin: A brilliant performance by Peterson which exposed another brainless feminist idiot in a position in the media which is way above her level of competence.
@Dj: The Swedish ‘equality’ experiment is particularly embarrassing for feminists. Even when you give women every advantage and support if they choose a STEM career, they simply refuse, in droves to make the career choices feminists wish they would make. In fact, when all obstacles in life are removed, they become less inclined to choose a STEM career.
There are male tendencies and female tendencies. Scientific experiments have been carried out when assortments of children’s toys were placed around a playroom. The girls took to the dolls and teddy bears, while the boys gravitated towards model trucks and trains. In liberal secular Sweden women predominate in medicine and social work while most engineering and construction jobs are done by men. Females tend to be nurturers and males tend to be builders and labourers. It must be in the genes – and the muscles. I distrust gender-bender theory.
@Tap Solny: I believe the Labour Relations Board in the US has found him to be guilty of pushing sexist stereotypes.
What annoys me is he was actually trying to apply science to rectify the problem /find solutions to the low participation of women in the engineering field at Google by noting differences that could be worked on
@Garreth Byrne: I thought there was a study that when the child was dressed a certain way they were directed to a gender appropriate play / toy. This is subtle gender programming from an early age. The lack of role models could be a factor and the perceived points to work ratio of maths leaving cert. Directing girls to concentrate on achieving the highest possible points rather than risk failure. Girls are less risk adverse than boys.
@Melissa O’Callaghan: “girls are less risk adverse than boys”? Surely the reverse is true? Girls are more risk adverse.
@Tap Solny: I’ve never heard of James Damore’s research. Could you give a link?
@Niamh Breslin: they ruled on his complaint even though he’d withdrawn it and their ruling indicates they didn’t read or deliberately ignored his memo.
@Garreth Byrne: True and it is so obvious to everybody except feminists, but then they regard truth as a patriarchal conspiracy.
People choose the subjects they like rather than the subjects feminism wants them to choose?! WHAT?!?! I AM SHOCKED.
@Shannon Mcg: https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54
Jordan Peterson explains in it a nutshell to Cathy Newpeople.
@Shannon Mcg: Do explain why you believe the reason STEM participation is stronger in Albania than Sweden is because of feminism….
@Rochelle: because women in Albania face social pressures to go into STEM due to economic factors while in Sweden they can afford the luxury of choice due to social welfare supports? It’s not really feminism but economics. I think Shannon was trying to point out that feminism is insisting more women should study STEM while the research shows on average that they would rather choose not to.
@Derek Durkin:
Cathy ” Newpeople ” – brilliant…!!
.
or maybe, Cathy ” Postmodern person ” …??
.
Jordan Peterson could take every lefty liberal idiot on the planet to school,
.
Unfortunately, hallucinatory cognitive dissonance and the pink/rose-tinted glasses of socialism will ensure their perpetual ignorance.
.
The clear evidence of this is that Cathy Newman actually felt SHE was the one who prevailed in that debate.
@Jeffrey McMahon: Feminism insists on equal opportunity, not that women study subjects they’re uninterested in for the sake of balancing numbers.
Where are you getting the idea that women are being pressured into studying STEM?
@Moccy Fondoo: “The clear evidence of this is that Cathy Newman actually felt SHE was the one who prevailed in that debate.”
Why do the words ‘Comical Ali’ come to mind?
@Derek Durkin: he’s very very impressive. Thanks for sharing that link.
@Derek Durkin: cathy newpeople
@kevin: very good!
@Rochelle: from feminism
@Rochelle: everywhere, you only need to look at all the “Women in Tech” foundations, clubs and outreach campaigns. It has got to the point that if you are male and want to work for Microsoft, it is almost impossible as they have quotas
Maybe just maybe men and women on avaerge have different interests. I know it’s a mad idea that men and women might be a little different. Good God!!!!
@John Mc Grath: Careful!! The Feminazi Thought Control Gestapo will come for you and take you off to Room 101 for reprogramming.
And maybe FEWER not ‘less’ English graduates…
The reason why more girls and boys take STEM subjects in poorer countries is because those countries consider sciences degrees a lot more valuable, and it’s easier to find jobs. There’s more opportunities with an arts degree here than with an arts degree in other countries.
Also, when I was in secondary school, we had to drop a few subjects and choose a few for Junior Cert. I don’t even understand why was science (which covers biology, chemistry and physics) was even an option to drop just after 1st year! For example, we had to choose between music, history, science, geography, art and a few other. While ‘civil social political education’ was compulsory. I believe science should be compulsory until Junior Cert.
@Ania_on_coffee: It… is a necessary subject until Junior Cert? At least it was when I did my Junior Cert. It wasn’t until Leaving cert where I had the option not to do it.
@Shannon Mcg: yes it wasn’t a compulsory subject when I did my Junior Cert. I don’t know what the situation is now.
@Ania_on_coffee: you cannot be much older than me, so that is why I am confused. I did my Junior Cert in 2008.
@Shannon Mcg: I did mine in 2011. Maybe subject choice for JC depends on the school?
@Shannon Mcg: you’re confused because you don’t know your facts. Science was not compulsory in the junior cert..
@Shannon Mcg: English, Irish, Maths and CSPE are the only actual compulsory subjects but most schools make certain other subjects mandatory in their curriculum since it’s probably impractical to offer a choice for everything.
@Ania_on_coffee: Because science does not involve ideological brainwashing but ‘civil social political education’ does.
This echoes what Dr Jordan Peterson said when he mopped the floor with Cathy Newman a few weeks ago.
Sweden is drowning in a sea of radical feminism, the more a society strives to equalise the perceived gap between genders the larger the actual gap becomes, and a section of society will always be suppressed as a result. Gender is not a social contruct no matter what the identity politics crazies try to make people believe. They are turning our society into a cesspit where equality is a buzzword but the shallowness behind it is set to create more adversity.
Proves how correct Jordan Peterson was in the famous interview by Cathy Newman on Channel 4 where she tried to discredit him by using the strawman method. He destroyed her using facts as opposed to her blind ideological ignorance.
Secondary schools careers guidance for girls is a major problem. Mine tried to pursuade me to do general nursing based on the fact that I was good at biology. Completely ignored the fact I was also good at maths and physics, despite having terrible teachers since it’s a girls school and the classes are small for honours maths and physics so not much focus goes on them. I said I wanted to do engineering or science and was convinced not to do it. My school didnt do engineering, tech drawing or applied maths so how would I fair against the boys in my class in college, that was the argument of the careers guidance councellor. After my leaving I went to another carreers guidance place outside of school, where I was advised to do radiology, a step up from general nursing but still only focused on one of my strengths, biology. Why my maths an physics capabilities were being ignored I couldnt understand. It took me nearly a year after I completed my leaving to find the course I’m in now, Biomedical Engineering, where I get to use all my strengths. I’ll have a well paid job here in Ireland in medical device design/engineering after this instead of complaining about my wage in nursing for some time and then moving to another country for better pay. Glad I didn’t listen to the carreers guidance now. The guidance, influence and focus for girls in secondary school is a huge part of the problem.
@Jen Daly: Well said. Social conditioning into particular roles based on gender is very much still a problem in society at large, not just school councellors (who mostly seem useless and unqualified across the board).
The school facility difference is an interesting point as well for this country given how many schools are segregated. Girls schools rarely have facilities for Woodwork and Tech Drawing and Boys schools for Home Ec. Is it any wonder we see such an imbalance in college numbers for certain areas?
@Jen Daly: Well said, and I’m happy you’ve found the right course for you.
@Jen Daly: So taking into account the findings outlined in the article, in your view in countries w/ greater gender equality guidance councillors direct girls into stereotypical female careers whereas in countries with less gender equality, councillors encourage girls to break gender stereotypes – that doesn’t make much sense.
@Jen Daly: Good for you. You did what you had both aptitude and interest and are far more likely to be sucessful. Some options are not being presented to young people. We need more male teachers too.
@Damon16: where did she say anything about anything other than her own experience?
But but but but…….feminists argue that the lack of female students and graduates in STEM areas is due to the patriarchy?? I mean could it possibly be the case that feminists are wrong, that women are exercising their choice not to study these subjects and that it’s not all mens’ fault????? Possibly?????
There is absolutely no paradox here. This is what the Science predicts will happen when you increase gender equality. When girls and women have complete freedom of choice, they are choosing subjects that they are interested in. Much of this is dictated in their biological make-up and the simple reason that men and women are actually different.
For centuries, societies were founded on reason and the idea that we should expand “equality of opportunities” for all people. When you do this, people will make their own free choices.
Nowadays, “equality of outcome” is viewed as the new ideal. This basically states that all jobs should have a 50-50 outcome. However, the only way you can actually enforce a 50-50 outcome is to use government power to restrict people (both men and women) freedom of choice. For example, if a woman wants to become a doctor, you must tell her that she can’t. You must force her to become a scientist to ensure equality of outcome is achieved.
This is just one of the ways in which the Regressive Left has become confused. And when their “expected” outcome doesn’t come about naturally to fit their unscientific theories,they call it a paradox. I call it a lack of understanding in Science.
This has to be a man’s fault
Correlation is not the same as causation.
@Liam Byrne: go back to bed
@Keith Murdiff: eh he is correct.
Just goes to show that gender communism won’t work. Quick, find another victim group that we can ponder over and blame white men for.
Equality does not mean more women in any particular sector, it means women having the same opportunities as men…..Not being told which option they must take
The man hating feminist won’t like this
It is well established that women score, ON AVERAGE, higher on the cognitive ability of empathizing whereas men score higher, on average, in systematizing. This manifests in the people vs things disparity in occupational choices between men and women. Women tend to choose careers involving dealing with people e.g. medicine, law, teaching, nursing, social work, psychology etc. and men tend to choose careers involving working with things e.g. engineering, computer science, auto mechanic, plumbing etc. The more countries develop and embrace gender equality, the more choices that are open to women and consequently more women follow their interests. Hence less women in STEM. The people who state that the STEM field is systemically sexist or that society directs girls away from STEM fields on the basis of gender stereotypes have to answer this – why over the last number of years have girls began to dominate in college courses such as medicine, law, psychology, veterinary medicine etc. All these areas 40 years ago were overwhelmingly male, and were stereotypical male careers. Why hasn’t STEM changed in this way? The answer is that MOST women, if given a free choice, choose not to do STEM subjects.
@Damon16: YOU, are a pig! Wahmen need to be given 50% of all the money in the world because they deserve it for being wahmen because wahmen are half of the world and we must respect wahmen! I RESPECT WAHMEN!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHnfbGyoa6o
@Damon16: totally agree. It’s the oldest adage in the book…women prefer interacting with people…men prefer interacting with objects
@Kevin Tyrrell:
Harvard psychologist Elizabeth Spelke analyzed 1000′s of research studies with female and male infants from decades and she found there was no evidence that girl babies are more interested in people and boy babies are more interested in things.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/08de/4de6aaffc4d235e45cfa324fb36d5681dd6c.pdf
One of the very common,deep rooted gender myths is that women are nicer,kinder people than men.Even though most women are taught from the time they are born,to be kinder and caring to other people’s feelings,and they are rewarded and encouraged to be sensitive,and to cry and express emotions,and are given dolls to play with as little girls to practice to become nurturing mothers,and most men are totally taught to be the opposite and are punished and discouraged from being this way and are taught to be nothing like girls and women,and see them as nothing like themselves from the moment they are born, I can testify that a lot of women’s gender training didn’t stick. I have met so many nasty,and or cold and detached women everywhere, I had 2 nasty women doctors, I have had many nasty or cold detached nurses and medial assistants who have no business being in these professions that are supposed to be caring,cold unfeeling women on crisis lines including one who was a director, 3 nasty women apartment managers working at different times,and nasty women working in drug stores and super markets and several nast women hair dressers. I met quite a few physically and mentally abusive little girls who bullied me and other children at a day camp,and at elementary school.
I have had more than a few male doctors who were very nice warm people,and 2 male dentists like this,and a male nurse who was bald and very muscular who was very nice and friendly,he even made me laugh when he gave me a tetanus shot and he was so gentle I didn’t even feel it at all.At least when men are nasty and rotten they have an explanation because they were harshly trained into ”masculinity” their whole lives,but women don’t have that explanation to fall back on,because they have been harshly trained into ”femininity” all of their lives which involves being taught and rewarded for being caring and empathetic to people.People will still believe all of the gender myths even with all of the evidence to the contrary that they experience!
One of the reasons there are so many nasty women around is because of the woman-hating male dominated sick society we live in,and like many Jews in Nazi Germany,and many Black people in the white racist society were taught to unjustly hate themselves and each other,many women have been unjustly taught to hate themselves and each other too.Also because the truth is women are not that different from men by nature and ”nicer”,and also because 1,000′s of decades worth of psychological research studies by all different psychologists has found that the sexes are much more alike than different in almost all of their psychological traits,personality and behaviors and that they find small average differences between the sexes,many of which have gotten even smaller over decades, and most of the major differences are between*people* including empathy.
What isn’t being said is that the much touted pay gap follows the same pattern. Countries with lower gender equality have lower pay gaps. Countries with higher gender equality have higher pay gaps.
@Jeffrey McMahon: it also follows that higher leaving cert maths increases your lifetime pay potential.
@Melissa O’Callaghan: of course, the highest paid fields involve dealing with complex mathematics. Showing an aptitude for them through leaving cert is a gateway to those kinds of careers.
Shock and horror men and women are on average different and make different choices. When you create equality of opportunity for men and women the genders tend to diverge in the choices they make (with exceptions) with more women in certain professions and more men in other. There is nothing ‘sexist’ about gender imbalances whether it’s more female nurses than male ones or more male IT experts than female ones. Here’s an excellent documentary on the issue. https://youtu.be/p5LRdW8xw70
@AR Devine: Interesting. This guy is worth following, and he’s Irish too!
https://www.youtube.com/user/LACK78/videos
Men need to be left in charge because they are able for pressure. Women cry too much and never get anything done.
@Gearoid De Burca: What a total sexist woman-hating myth!
We should live like lobsters.
Stem stem stem stem. Never teachers teachers teachers.
@Johnhunky Dory: Its the curriculum and what is considered an achievement. It is an inter-generational problem based on peer review or the academic version of x-factor where the only way to get ahead is to try and please the reviewers hence a tedious status quo. Some people did try to alter the situation but invariably failed including the real Cosmos series by Von Humboldt as opposed to the empirical propagandist like Sagan -
“This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another– this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,–is not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate, in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard, either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions.” Von Homboldt ,Cosmos
@Gerald Kelleher: Have you an opinion on the study though?
@Keith Murdiff: If you take a wider historical perspective you will discover that there is one-size-fits-all way of understanding things so these studies are based on prejudices that have built up over the centuries and need a complete revisit to understand the need for different students who suffer from the lack of variety -
” There are different kinds of right understanding; some have right understanding in a certain order of things, and not in others, where they go astray. Some draw conclusions well from a few premises, and this displays an acute judgment.Others draw conclusions well where there are many premises.For example, the former easily learn hydrostatics, where the premises are few, but the conclusions are so fine that only the greatest acuteness can reach them.
And in spite of that these persons would perhaps not be great mathematicians, because mathematics contain a great number of premises, and there is perhaps a kind of intellect that can search with ease a few premises to the bottom, and cannot in the least penetrate those matters in which there are many premises.
There are then two kinds of intellect: the one able to penetrate acutely and deeply into the conclusions of given premises, and this is the precise intellect; the other able to comprehend a great number of premises without confusing them, and this is the mathematical intellect. The one has force and exactness, the other comprehension. Now the one quality can exist without the other; the intellect can be strong and narrow, and can also be comprehensive and weak.”
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm#SECTION_I
@Gerald Kelleher: But we also have to consider NASA and to a lesser extent Darwin.
Nothing will create a drive in a person like being told they can’t do something based on anything other than their ability and qualifications. That’s a small part of it too.
Why isn’t there a focus on encouraging more males to enter into third level education as opposed to encouraging more women into science subjects? There are already more women in third level education. Hmm, feminism and big business ie corporate tax. F’all to do with equality.
Secondary schools careers guidance for girls is a major problem. Mine tried to pursuade me to do general nursing based on the fact that I was good at biology. Completely ignored the fact I was also good at maths and physics, despite having terrible teachers since it’s a girls school and the classes are small for honours maths and physics so not much focus goes on them. I said I wanted to do engineering or science and was convinced not to do it. My school didnt do engineering, tech drawing or applied maths so how would I fair against the boys in my class in college, that was the argument of the careers guidance councellor. After my leaving I went to another carreers guidance place outside of school, where I was advised to do radiology, a step up from general nursing but still only focused on one of my strengths, biology. Why my maths an physics capabilities were being ignored I couldnt understand. It took me nearly a year after I completed my leaving to find the course I’m in now, Biomedical Engineering, where I get to use all my strengths. I’ll have a well paid job here in Ireland in medical device design/engineering after this instead of complaining about my wage in nursing for some time and then moving to another country for better pay. Glad I didn’t listen to the carreers guidance now. The guidance, influence and focus for girls in secondary school is a huge part of the problem.
@Jen Daly: And your experience is very common sadly,and this harsh gender training into sexist gender stereotypes and gender roles is in *everything* and *everywhere* from the moment it’s learned the baby is a girl or a boy.
99% of Midwives are female. Thats a lovely job. How about we force hospitals to hire 50% males. The irony is that the feminists pushing this rubbish don’t seem to understand basic statistics; an essential skill for anyone in “STEM”.
Why do we need more Women in STEM? I can’t understand the obsession, and it is all over LinkedIn as well.
If this obsession with “Gender Equality” is acutally real, then we should encourage Women into other industries that are Male dominitated e.g. Bricklaying (99% men), Electrical power-line workers (99.4% Men), Crane and Crane and tower operator/installers (99.2%) Bus and truck mechanics (99.2%) etc.
Also, to ensure that there is gender equality, we should support Men that are under-represented in other professions. E.g. Kindergaarden/Pre-school teachers (97.5% Women), Speech-language pathologists (97.5% Women) Dental Hygienists (97.1% Women).
Let Men and Women do what they want to do, anything else is tyrannical
So given the choice and ability, women don’t seem to choose STEM?
If this is true then who really wants more women in STEM and why do they want it to happen?
Could this agenda be driven by tech companies that want more techie supply than demand so that they can lower the cost of hiring overall?
Why is the ‘more women in STEM’ agenda mostly supported by very successful women who have themselves passed up on the opportunity of working in STEM and gone into HR or management positions in these same tech companies?
Are women in general smarter than these people might think?
Wow…another myth promoted by feminism busted wide open just like the gender pay gap…isn’t it just typical…facts and actual reality is proving modern feminism is an unholy storm of whining about how the tyrannical patriarchy is making women be nurses and not engineers or I.T. workers!!! Oh the nasty patriarchy…bold bold bold men!!!
So women don’t actually want to do STEM but are forced into it by economic circumstances in poorer counties? Sounds like sex work…
Women are just lazy and it’s actually a good thing that they aren’t wasting university spaces which are not supposed to be wasted on slob housewives.
@Seán O’Nilbud: Boys like you are more likely to be trolls than nice girls like my late sister.
will this make any difference to those who hold STEM equality as an article of faith.
if women dont want to do STEM they will have to be made do It
have your say