This article implies that the correlation between gender-opportunity and representation in STEM is a causation.
Look at the chart in the article, look at the countries on each end of the opportunity spectrum. There are many obvious economic, societal, and cultural differences between the countries on one side and the other of that spectrum.
To take this correlation and use it to forward a sexist idea (that women PREFER
different, often worse-paying, fields and that's why there's less women, and thus we don't need to change anything in our industry's culture) is the reason I would downvote this article and the OP's comment.
Please don’t spread moral panic by labeling other people’s worldviews sexist. It does not sell your argument but only serves to polarize the debate.
I know a lot of women in tech who feel uncomfortable with all the special treatment they get — entire conferences dedicated to “women in tech.” I find the idea so patronizing, just like I would a “men in daycare” conference. It is an extension of coddling the incapable and meek servile woman. Get out of here.
It's not patronizing. We have, e.g., men in nursing conferences (https://www.aamn.org/2019-annual-conference). I don't find that patronizing as a man. It makes sense for a field where men are a minority.
I don't find the concept of a women in tech conference inherently patronizing, but having attended several of them I wish they had more technical talks and less focus on fluffier topics. I swear half the talks at the Grace Hopper conference (which is about women in COMPUTING, not just tech) in NYC this year were about diversity and inclusion, which is a worthy goal but not something I find particularly interesting in a conference lecture. There were probably 1/3 tech talks, 1/3 diversity and inclusion and 1/3 business-related when it's supposed to be a conference about computing. It just felt it was feeding into the negative stereotypes about women being unsuited for technical roles or not caring about tech itself but just the more social aspects. I came for the cool tech talks!
An earlier partner of mine went to such a conference. “Women in computing.” There was a show of hands who wanted to be a programmer etc; basically none did except my partner. She left feeling more of an outsider.
To take a perfectly rational conclusion and call it sexist is quite a deriding trick, isn’t it?
You’d need to try really hard to disprove different interest of men and women, as literature suggests differences from a very young age, even before those children have chances to meet their peers.
You’re just giving alternative explanations, which given the left side of the chart are much, much less likely. The economic argument also doesn’t make sense. STEM jobs may be among the highest paying ones, but certainly are not THE highest (not to mention the amount of effort compared to different high pay jobs).
You're taking an idea, that there are differences in preference between men and women and calling it sexist. Why is it sexist? Do you not think there are difference in preference between men and women? That perhaps the different levels of hormones would result in a difference in temperament? For example higher levels of testosterone leads to more risky and aggressive behavior.
Look at the chart in the article, look at the countries on each end of the opportunity spectrum. There are many obvious economic, societal, and cultural differences between the countries on one side and the other of that spectrum.
To take this correlation and use it to forward a sexist idea (that women PREFER different, often worse-paying, fields and that's why there's less women, and thus we don't need to change anything in our industry's culture) is the reason I would downvote this article and the OP's comment.