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?
Yes, and I think the author is mistaken to make that conflation. To me it represents a willful blindness to your second issue. Yes, it would be great if our society was more gender-neutral, but it's not, and it never has been (in a historically relative sense, we've come quite a long way). I don't think we can just say "hey let's market toys to boys and girls equally and everything will just work itself out." Again, it's like sticking your fingers in your ears because you don't want to face the murkier, less tractable issues of human nature. The issue is real and it goes a lot deeper than gender norms promulgated by contemporary society.
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.
Comments
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?
Yes, and I think the author is mistaken to make that conflation. To me it represents a willful blindness to your second issue. Yes, it would be great if our society was more gender-neutral, but it's not, and it never has been (in a historically relative sense, we've come quite a long way). I don't think we can just say "hey let's market toys to boys and girls equally and everything will just work itself out." Again, it's like sticking your fingers in your ears because you don't want to face the murkier, less tractable issues of human nature. The issue is real and it goes a lot deeper than gender norms promulgated by contemporary society.
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.