The Gender Equality Checkpoint

[Undertoad]

The outrage is now very nearly self-feeding. In the near future we won't need the original campaign.

ETA. In the near future, we won't HAVE the original campaign. Companies will realize that, whatever they do and whatever they say, it will be wildly re-interpreted and then the re-interpretation wildly broadcast over all social media. Therefore they will not do anything at all. Women in STEM? Too controversial. Our official company policy is nothing. Way to go.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I agree, you can't say anything without offending someone, especially on the net where trolls are gleaning everything for something to pounce on.
I can envision them trying to come up with a campaign to persuade teen girls the sciences are cool, and trying to think of something mechanical/electrical most girls would be familiar/comfortable enough with to start envisioning other uses. The chick snapping she was too busy coding obviously was not the target, and foolish to think all girls are on her path.

What would you call it, constraints of the mother? These are the options my mother and her mother had so they must be mine. I guess this is where family encouragement works best, but if nobody in the family has broken out of the box, that's not likely to happen. World war II was the turning point for working women, maybe we need another world war.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The outrage is now very nearly self-feeding. In the near future we won't need the original campaign.

ETA. In the near future, we won't HAVE the original campaign. Companies will realize that, whatever they do and whatever they say, it will be wildly re-interpreted and then the re-interpretation wildly broadcast over all social media. Therefore they will not do anything at all. Women in STEM? Too controversial. Our official company policy is nothing. Way to go.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, maybe the major companies might start taking on board that when they do this stuff they need to be particularly thoughtful and careful. Is it really such a reach to suggest that maybe the 'girls like hairdressing and fashion so lets get them into science by making it about that' approach might be a bit of an own goal? This stuff been talked about ad nauseum in recent years, for example through the 'Let toys be toys' and 'let books be books' campaings, where science and tech toys in particular were a focus for concern.

It isn't like this stuff is not being talked about. Did nobody in those strategy meetings consider that wider discourse?

As I said, I think it's a really good thing that IBM wants to encourage girls to take up STEM subjects. But actually, what is needed is an approach that reaches children and draws them in and then doesn't put constant cultural and systemic roadblocks in the way of one gender.

Girls are studying STEM subjects in greater numbers than ever. The problem is that it doesn't translate to large numbers of women working in STEM fields, or women progressing to management and leadership in anything like equal numbers to men within those fields.

Look at a bunch of young children being taught about scientific concepts or engaging in physical experiments to learn about the world around them and you'll see no real difference in interest between girls and boys. Somewhere between those early explorations and work in the field the girls drop away. Even where a cohort has taken on higher study in large numbers, between that and Silicon valley, again the girls drop away.

It's the context that needs dealing with, not the content. What puts girls off STEM? All sorts of things, but cultural assumptions that girls naturally have a different set of interests to boys and that science and technology are primarily male, play a part. This campaign attempts to tackle the latter of those, whilst reinforcing the former.

What, in my opinion, would make for a much stronger approach would be to start breaking down those barriers between boys and girls. Because, actually, though we particularly want to encourage girls in order for them to make up a more equal proportion of those going into STEM - we also still need to encourage more boys to go into those fields. Rather than target it at girls, maybe target it at young people in a way that includes girls and boys equally. Or if you're going to particularly target girls, consider the varied interests and proclivities of the girls you're trying to reach.

As a one-off campaign, taken in isolation it's not such a big deal. In the real world, where it does not exist in a vacuum but as part of an ongoing cultural discourse it is. If the leaders of the STEM fields tried to bring more boys into their ranks and the only way they could ever think to reach them was through football, and if every book designed to reach out to boys, and every promotion attempting to draw boys into any subject automatically assumed they were football mad - they'd alienate almost as many boys as they drew in, probably more. If every industry and every field that ever wanted to bring in more boys always focussed on football. It would be ridiculous and reductive.

Is it true lots of girls like hair and make-up? Yep. So, is the way to reach girls through hair and make-up? No. Because girls, even girls who like looking pretty, have more than one interest in their lives. And lots of girls, aren't actually that interested in hair and beauty. It might be a factor in their lives - but it sits there with a bunch of other stuff. Some of which, quite remarkably, crosses over with the boys's interests.

There are lots of ways to reach girls that don't set them into a cultural and emotional silo from boys, subtly reinforcing the notion that girls are essentially different and that their lives revolve around their attractiveness.

It's no good having an overt message of inclusivity and welcome if the subtext reinforces the barriers you're trying to break down.