‘What if that aborted baby could have solved cancer?’ Well, what if the woman who had to carry the foetus and dedicate her life to rearing a child could have? The push for gender equity in education, in particular in STEMM subjects, is necessary because in not doing so we lose 50% of our potential progress in research. In recent history, the 'Women in STEM' movement has taken over the fight – but is it a hollow promise that allows for the misogyny that women still experience to be ignored?
In 2023, I attended a talk by a friend on the history of women in STEMM. She pointed out that out of the thirty-odd scientists mentioned in the OCR A Level physics textbook, none are women. In the Cambridge 2023 admissions cycle, the acceptances in STEMM subjects were split 61.3:38.7 male: female, with notable disparities in computer science (78.5:21.5), engineering (76.0:24.0) and mathematics (80.6:19.4). These statistics are clear, so what causes the ‘STEM gap’, the underrepresentation of women in these fields?
The term STEM stands for science, technology, engineering and maths. It was coined in 2001 by Judith A. Ramaley of the USA National Science Foundation and is now often extended to STEMM to include medicine. Historically, these areas have been difficult for women to permeate for several reasons. In 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act banned discrimination based on gender in education – this caused many of Cambridge's colleges to become mixed, as the University could no longer prioritise male students in admissions. Despite moves towards legal equality, culture also provides obstacles. Women have been pushed into the role of mother and wife for millennia, so choosing between education and career and the expected life path is difficult. For teenagers, science and maths are seen as inherently ‘nerdy’ subjects. From a young age, women are raised to have an innate understanding that they are first and foremost objects to be seen and not heard. Expressing enthusiasm in these ‘masculine’ subjects is not deemed attractive and thus it is harder for girls to break the mould, whereas boys can be unforgivably ‘nerdy’ without repercussion.
"Jokingly referred to as ‘women in PHLEGM (Philosophy, History, Languages, English literature, Geography, Music)’, women in humanities and the arts are ignored by the push into STEMM subjects"
The push for women in STEMM has had noticeable impacts. Key figures, such as Rosalind Franklin who discovered DNA and Dame Jocelyn Bell-Burnell who discovered pulsars, originally overlooked in favour of their male counterparts, have since been recognised, and Marie Curie is a household name. Statistics in A Level entries demonstrate increases in female participation in the sciences. Comparing 2010 with 2024, the percentage of female students who sat biology has increased from 19.7% to 25.8%. In chemistry, this was 12.7% to 19.2% and in physics, 3.9% to 5.6%. However, in several subjects, boys not only matched but bettered these increases. In computer science, the percentage of girls changed from 0.2% to 2.1%, but for boys this went from 2.7% to 11.6%, and further maths saw only 2.3% to 2.8% for girls, against 5.8% to 9.1% for boys. It is clear more needs to be done to close the STEMM gap.
However, there are also inherent flaws in the 'Women in STEM' movement, the most obvious being the lack of recognition of women in non-STEMM areas. Jokingly referred to as ‘women in PHLEGM (Philosophy, History, Languages, English literature, Geography, Music)’ by X user @eleanordotcomm, women in humanities and the arts are ignored by the push into STEMM subjects. Academia has been historically difficult for women to enter regardless of the subject, and it takes one look at the three out of 96 Academy Awards for Best Director awarded to women to understand that the gender gap pervades all careers.
"Computer science and coding were originally perceived as menial, secretarial tasks as in the mid-20th century the related occupations were filled by women"
It is also necessary to consider why STEMM is prioritised. Are male-dominated fields considered more important? They are definitely considered more difficult. Computer science and coding were originally perceived as menial, secretarial tasks when, in the mid-20th century, the related occupations were filled by women. During WW2, a machine called the ENIAC was developed to help calculate the trajectories of ballistics. Six women were hired to perform the calculations with the ENIAC and thus became the first modern software programmers in the USA. After the war, unlike in other job markets, these women kept their positions as men could not programme, and more women began to fill the field following the post-war boom in computing. Due to the high proportion of female programmers, the occupation was not well paid and these women lacked recognition for decades. Now that computer science is a male dominated field, the subject is often seen as one of the most difficult to pursue and is one of the highest paying for graduates.
As a reverse example, out of the three major sciences, biology has the highest proportion of women and as a result is seen as easier in comparison to the physical sciences. In medicine, this issue stands with doctors versus nurses. The BMA reported in 2022 that ‘being a doctor is intrinsically seen as a male role… leading to women doctors being undervalued’. As of November 2023, 89% of registered nurses in the UK were female, largely due to the stereotype of women as carers. Nursing is typically seen as an easier career path than becoming a doctor. The perception of these professions is damaging and leads to the mistreatment of women in all medical careers.
"another example of this rhetoric is ‘girl math’, an online trend that started in the summer of 2023 where women justify shopping purchases through price breakdowns and illogical conclusions"
The phrase ‘women in STEM’ has also become involved in misogynistic rhetoric. Often involved in jokes made by women, this specific example fits a larger pattern of downplaying achievements rather than being unforgivably intelligent at the risk of being seen as obnoxious or conceited. TikTok user @biologybren created the viral audio that states: ‘I am a woman in STEMM, Bunsen burner on’. Even if several videos using it are of women sharing their successes, the rest are filled with women joking about poor test scores, failures in labs, and aesthetics. The top video (as of December 2024) is about 3D printing sex toys.
Reminiscent of the ‘girlboss’ feminism of the 2010s, another example of this rhetoric is ‘girl math’. The online trend, which started in the summer of 2023, involves women justifying shopping purchases through price breakdowns and illogical conclusions: ‘I didn’t buy an overpriced coffee this morning, so I can buy something else for lunch at twice the price’. Jokes about apologising to Malala before skipping a lecture are not uncommon. Although in good humour, these are examples of rhetoric that is detrimental to the progress and acknowledgement of women in STEMM and education more broadly. They reinforce stereotypes that women are unintelligent and do not have the mental capacity to think of much beyond what shoes will go with their lab coat.
On the long quest for the pursuit of gender equity in education, things are improving but I believe we are hitting a cultural wall. There are steady increases in the number of young women entering STEMM fields, but more needs to happen to undo the ever-present narrative that we are underqualified to be here.
