We know that women students and staff remain underrepresented in Higher Education STEM disciplines. Even in subjects where equivalent numbers of men and women participate, however, many women are still disadvantaged by everyday sexism. Our recent research found that women who study STEM subjects at undergraduate level in England were up to twice as likely as non-STEM students to have experienced sexism. The main perpetrators of this sexism were not university staff, however, but were men STEM degree students.
The undergrad boys in STEM I swear have never met a woman aside from their mothers. No, please don’t follow me home. Please don’t buy me food because I was next to you in line. Please don’t follow me into a store so you can buy me anything I’m purchasing. You are not invited into my conversation because you think I’m pretty, even if you just want to interrupt to tell me I’m pretty and you want to take me on a date. You are not allowed to hug me and hold me as long as you want just because you want to and it feels good for you, I didn’t want a hug and I didn’t know you. It isn’t cute for you to take things from me and play keep away because you are stronger and taller, it makes you a bully.
Teachers: please don’t ignore me when I try and participate or ask a question. I’ve gotten Cs with no explanation, no marks aside from the grade itself. When I check other’s work, theirs is written up with mistakes and they have a higher grade. Honestly that was just one teacher in an undergrad, the rest were pretty awesome, or at least not sexist.
My CS classes were 90% male, and every professor was male, too. They all genuinely enjoyed my participation, and it was the only environment where I wasn’t objectified or disrespected. Same with my coworkers (again 90% male) when I went into the FAANG workforce; the men were happy to see women excel in a previously male-only field.
The general public was a different story until recently. Women were thrilled, a disturbing number of men refused to listen to me.
It probably depends on the university. There are definitely dregs of “incel” culture that get in but they can’t socialize and are usually left alone. In the workforce, interviews stop them from getting much further then that.
I swear have never met a woman aside from their mothers
Are they less likely to behave this way after meeting you or is this sentence the essence of how you would react to their behavior?
(I haven’t done any of the things mentioned and they are inappropriate, but in retrospective think that maybe I should have, since being too polite and shy at the same time is apparently even less attractive, and reduces experience in communication, which is the only way one can learn to communicate.)
Just like there are lots of jerks and incels, there are lots of really nice shy guys that would make the world a better place by opening up a little more. Being brave at making contact is totally acceptable, and probably good for you, if you do it in a respectful manner. Actual nice guys should drown out the jerks that are self proclaimed nice guys by treating women, men and themselves with respect.
Should, yes. They don’t always. And there are still far more than enough guys (and people) who do nothing when they see women (or others) treated very poorly but men/boys. I sort of understand college and high school, everyone is exploring and unsure what’s ok, and observers may be entirely unsure what to do.
It’s pretty common for a bunch of people to see something bad happen and everyone think someone should do something without realizing they are someone who could do something.
The bystander effect is really common. I remember when I got first aid training, they told us that in an emergency, you have to tell a specific person to do something rather than ask “someone call an ambulance”.
I think bystander effect should be regularly discussed in schools so people will be aware of it. Getting people to automatically respond and do something and offer help is a pretty important step to making our society safer and healthier.
So you first said they try to do/offer to do something like walk you home, buy you something, etc. and you said you don’t want that. Now here you say you want them to do something, in particular when they see something bad happening (i think you meant when they see girl treated poorly by a boy/man). That seems kind of confusing.
If someone wants to try making friends, it’s reasonable for them to try and start a conversation. If the person they are pursuing isn’t interested, LEAVE THEM ALONE. CONSENT IS IMPORTANT.
If I’m screaming for help, if I’m being attacked, if I cannot defend myself, even if you see someone not respecting someone else’s consent, help the person who’s consent is not being respected. CONSENT IS IMPORTANT.
Hope this helps.
In real life what “respectful manner” is becomes a matter of whether another person (and their friends) likes you or not. Sometimes retroactive.
I don’t like this attribution of some kind of affinity to justice to “people” or “men” or “women” or whatever. “People” are a rather cruel and fallacious substance most of the time.
Also jerks and incels may be that not entirely through their own fault. There may be wrong upbringing, or some trauma, which others consciously or unconsciously trigger, or whatever else, humans are complex and putting labels in such a way is disgusting.
I always hope people learn from their experience. I have no idea if they learned anything after interacting with me or assumed I’m some crazy female.
I meant that this quote is extremely humiliating, especially to people for whom it’s true. It’s hard to learn from cruelty, even if it’s unintended.
From your perspective, what was cruel? I’m interested in how different people interpret the same scenarios. What would be a more constructive way to address the situation?
I assumed quite a few things. If I guessed correctly, then:
Telling somebody that they are not good enough to talk to because of not knowing how to do that is cruel because it gives them no escape, since they can’t change their past, and can’t catch on since you won’t talk to them.
A constructive way to address the situation would be telling them something more rude and direct, but also less humiliating, like “I didn’t ask you to do that”, “I wasn’t talking to you” or just telling them to fsck off. Just imagining what you’d say if it were a girl behaving this way and reacting accordingly.
That quote doesn’t simply lose gender roles in conversation, it uses them to say that the other side is inferior in that regard.
Telling somebody that they are not good enough to talk to because of not knowing how to do that is cruel because it gives them no escape
Not really… First, I don’t think they ever said that those people “weren’t good enough” to talk to. Those are your words.
But also, there is a very obvious “escape” when you’re ignorant or uneducated about something. It’s called learning.
I’m not even involved in a STEM job any longer but I still see tons of STEM employed men spewing manosphere bullshit all the time. I’m also starting to see more and more well educated, articulate women parroting it. These women also tend to be overwhelmingly conservative in their political positions, too. Especially well educated white women.
“Town square debates”, which anything like this is, tend to be driven by emotions and instincts. Those men may be better to their friends and acquaintances. Those women may too be parroting it simply because that position signals their belonging to some group.
My point is that being well-educated is less important here than it would seem, because it’s not about being correct.
In my experience the technology related fields are greater perpetrators than the base sciences. Though there is still an image problem for things like math (the not tech, engingeering or finance version) and a problem with people outside the field having sxcist expectations about those in it, I genuinely think the environment itself to be very inclusive.
Not to mention that gay STEM students are more likely to face homophobia. It was rampant at my uni. We could not keep any sort of gay-related posters up without them getting ripped off and trampled within hours. Which in retrospect is wild because there were so many of us, and more who came out years later. lol
Uh… aren’t gay people the only segment likely to face homophobia? Like, you can’t be homophobic to a straight person…
Can’t you? What about not having “girly” hobbies because that “makes you gay”? Or having to dress a certain way? I feel like straight people aren’t excluded from homophobia…
100%, when I was in middle school and highschool I was regularly called gay for not liking football, or not knowing random car facts, or not liking spicy food, and other stuff like that. It was much better in university, but it was in a different region so I can’t compare directly.
Interestingly, one of these bullies came out as gay 10 years later, which I find sad that someone had so much internalised self hatred that he had to project it outwards to feel better about himself.
I don’t know what middle/high schools are like today since I don’t know anyone in that age range, but I bet it’s much better now with today’s internet culture being much more queer positive.
Or much worse thanks to the redpill movement and andrew tate.
Damn, I forgot that pile of garbage existed.
I believe they were implying in STEM vs non-STEM
STEM students…
I was called gay long before I ever had a gay thought in my head (on account of being prepubescent).
When I was being brutalized by bullies, gay was a generic derisive, associating things with homosexuality, the way cuck (now a generic derisive) associates with cuckold fetishists.
“why aren’t heterosexuals subject to homophobia!?!?”
(ti’s a joke)
As a woman engineer, yeah we’re probably disproportionately responsible. I’m sure science and math have more sexism than say art, but biology has to treat women better than engineering I assume.
I’m a guy so I realize I don’t see or understand everything from women’s perspective, but I’m genuinely surprised by this. I’ve worked for decades at companies with mostly engineers and mostly men, and my experience is that engineers have on average much more progressive views than, say, my neighbors. My current company recently switched from a male to a female CEO and I haven’t even heard anyone mention her gender, much less express any negative views in connection to her gender. My previous employer also had a female CEO and it just wasn’t a thing on people’s mind. At my current employer we have anonymous surveys to find problems in the workplace, and there were exactly zero people who reported observing any sexist actions.
I’ve heard sexist remarks twice in 20 years, and both times I was so flabbergasted that I didn’t know what to do or say before the conversation had already moved on. So if I’m bad at speaking up when it happens, it’s only because I didn’t get enough practice.
Where I come from, the engineering fields are dominated by men but medical fields have a female majority. I wonder what’s the difference with medicine
Medicine is more aligned with the cultural idea of “what a woman should be/do”. Taking care of others, showing compassion and so on is regarded as more “feminine qualities” than “masculine”. Note this is not something I agree with, but I think it probably is part of the picture.
Anecdotally, the biological engineering department at my university has a much higher fraction of women than the rest of the college of engineering, while mechanical/aerospace has the lowest, so it varies even within engineering.
I’d recommend Acollierastro’s YouTube video about the rampant sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault in physics and astronomy. While engineering is certainly a big part of the equation, every hard science except biology is dominated by men and that definitely feeds all of these issues
They’re grouping non-binary people as female and pretending like this isn’t a problem for presenting a statistical analysis?
Who the fuck gave the go ahead for doing this research?
There should be separate reports on non-binary discrimination and female discrimination not combining the two and labeling them women. (in case you’re unaware, males and females can both be non-binary so grouping non binary people from either sex into “women” completely de-legitimizes the research)
Completely unprofessional.
They do include the effect size of including non-binary students when they write “(nb. Non-binary students account for 0.3% of this total)” etc. so the impact on the actual data is shown, if you’re concerned about the statistical analysis. It also does make sense to group them together in this context as they are both minorities in STEM. However the way the article is written makes it clear that including non-binary students was an afterthought; if it was clear in all the data and headings that the data is for both non-binary and female students with the interpretation that they are looking at just “students who aren’t men” then it would have been a lot better.
We cannot do effective corollary research if groups are not independently researched with their own data, a ‘minimum impact’ is still an impact, one which can be used to portray a larger or smaller effect than there is between the actual groups being compared against, especially when there’s a distinct call of ‘white males’ being a problem with no determination of class, culture or variance of religious vs non religious.
People are not blocks, they don’t vote as blocks they don’t work as blocks and they most assuredly do not behave as blocks. It’s important to specify, separate, and effectively research each group and sub group in order to determine the veracity rather than just applying a claim to a useful and popular current enemy, e.g. ‘white male’.
How is it unprofessional? It’s just a different data set, there’s nothing inherently professional or not about it.
Another way to say it would be “non-male” sexual discrimination. Which makes perfect sense given who are generally the target of that type of discrimination.
It’s just a statistic, dude. If you’re looking at it as something it isn’t, that’s on you.
Making wide claims on entire groups based on inferential data is inherently unprofessional. They didn’t stop at observing they’re making claims without evidence to back it up.
How one person feels about something does not automatically mean that someone was intentionally or even unintentionally hurting them.
That is the issue at heart here.
Non-binary people can experience sexism regardless of how they’re born though. Your suggestion that just acknowledging that non-binary people exist without being disrespectful means research should be ignored is making the researcher’s point for them.
Did you read what I wrote or just immediately respond the second I said ‘non binary’? Also the fact you’re making this statement also indicates you didn’t read the source material at all.
I said, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that they classified non binary people as women.
Your clear lack of reading comprehension is absolutely not my fault.
I said, in NO UNCERTAIN TERMS, that they classified non binary people as women.
Except no, they didn’t. I know this because we are having this conversation. They are grouped together in this statistic, but they make it very clear that they did that, and what % of the block were non-binary.
There’s nothing wrong with what they did. Nobody is trying to trick anyone, they are very transparent about including non-binary people (people who also experience discrimination).
I know you want so bad to be a victim, but men don’t experience sexual discrimination in STEM. Anyone in a STEM career can tell you that.
Ah, so you don’t actually care about the research, the statistics or the facts, you would prefer to try and turn this into a discussion about personal problems than facts.
I’ve no interest given you are likely not in a STEM education or profession and given your notes here, likely wouldn’t make it far even if you tried.
Objective interest and observation is vastly more important than the individual, and instead of approaching it from a statistical and facts based approach you’re attempting to twist what I’ve said into some kind of rhetorical attack on women.
I guess it would make you feel better to believe I’m a man that hates women, but, tragically for you, I have XX chromosomes so your incompetent attempt to present me as the problem in this scenario falls short, especially considering I have been in STEM for the past 20 years both as a student and now a professional academic.
Your personal problems with the materials are ultimately immaterial when compared to the concerns I laid out.
I assume next you’ll start going “the jews are keeping women down”? Or maybe “the patriarchy is the problem, lets ignore the fact women on average choose caring professions over STEM professions”.
At no point did I say the abuse and discrimination wasn’t there, I specifically noted that more research is required to figure out “why” it is there, and not pretend like it’s just “white men keeping women down”.
I understand nuance can be hard, but if you read enough books you’ll get it eventually, I promise.
Nobody asked about your chromosomes. Nobody cares. That shouldn’t matter if what you’re saying has value. That’s kinda the whole point of discussing sexism. For someone talking about rationality you’re acting like you’re allergic to hearing other people’s points. You instantly resort to ad hominem attacks, put words in other people’s mouths and spew the most toxic shit. It’s pretty sad that this garbage gets upvotes on this Lemmy. Get off your porn account and get some sleep.
There’s no need to be disrespectful to me. I read you. I read your source you linked. I read the original article. You’re the only one that said anything about grouping non-binary people as women. Did you read the article? Clearly the people voting you up and me down didn’t. Make something else up to get outraged about.
One truth about the modern media landscape: stories that pit groups against each other play well
If someone thinks that a claim of male on female sexism is an attack on men, that’s a them problem. If someone accuses me of sexism, I generally don’t go on the defensive immediately. Conscientious people ought to seek out ways they can improve themselves and not even unconsciously discriminate against their colleagues. Empathy is in rather short supply these days though.
ITT: disappointment. Cmon Lemmy. You’re better than this.
I’ve posted things on sexism in STEM before, so I can say: no, it is not. I almost didn’t post this precisely because of how bad the comments were to those posts. Hope foolishly sprung eternal.
Lemmy is a collection of mostly contrarians who feel superior, it really isn’t better than this for the most part.
You weren’t kidding…
I’m more shocked that the vote counts are humane
Girls suck at math (Obligatory XKCD.)
There can’t be many places in uni where women are outnumbered by men. It seems like that are taking a majority and trying to make out they are not the minority.
They aren’t talking about university as a whole. They aren’t talking about courses where men are massively outnumber by women. It seems they are using the one group of people where women come off worse than men to fit a narrative.
Either use the data from all the the university or not at all. Otherwise it’s data selection and biased.
Also the self reported sexism is very tiring because it in itself is biased. You hear it all the time something like Woman A : I get so much sexism of man A. He always talks over me.
Man b: yea man A is an arsehole. He talks over everyone, I don’t think he can help kt.
Yet you use that data and it looks like sexism because it is self reported. It’s not, I’ve noticed many women struggle in loud environments, that’s not sexism if she is treated the same as everyone else and just struggles with it.
This is the most “not all men” answer I could ever imagine. You literally got angry at the data, not because there’s sexism, but because there are other men who exist in other places who aren’t sexist.
It’s well-documented that women don’t go into STEM. When data explains why women don’t go into STEM, getting pissy because there are men who are in other fields who aren’t sexist completely misses the entire goddamned point.
I think he may have stumbled past a interesting point (his main point was kind of dumb)-
While I would say the STEM crowd is more susceptable to a certain kind of intellectual narcissism that allows shitty behavior, anyone doing this kind of study should hopefully be making an effort to address the idea that if like 1/6 of dudes are extra shitty then are the STEM students uniquely shitty or are they just normal shitty and the classroom breakdown just means that there’s like 50% more shitty dudes and half as many targets for their shittyness.
That said, I’d love to see the stats on law schools as they tend have the “bro-est bros”
It was, of course, nothing more than sexism, the especially virulent type espoused by male techies who sincerely believe that they are too smart to be sexists.
—Neal Stephenson
Or, hear me out, it’s just sexism.
So not worth studying? How do you address things like sexism without attempting to understand it? the tech bro sexism itself might be an overlap with incel culture which may be solveable in a variety of ways or religious sexism which could be harder for a public US institution to address.
IMO it also affects how many extra counselors you’d need to hire to expand tech degrees vs non tech degrees and whether maybe some kind of socializing class should be included in curriculum - this isn’t just some game, both the victims and perpetrators are real people who have to be accomodated/resocialized appropriately.
No it doesn’t.
I’m getting pissy that it’s always about women and women alone that are underrepresented.
If this data also included data on subjects where women outnumber men to the same rate then it would be interesting as a control. But seeing as they are just looking at data where women are already outnumbered it is manipulating the data to either get nothing or the result you want. It won’t for example show the result you don’t want.
The question is are people just sexist when they outnumber the other sex? We don’t know because it doesn’t get asked. Something needs to be done but what is unknown until you find out.
Girls quite possibly don’t enjoy stem as much as boys. That’s an entire possibility for men outnumbering women. But nevertheless there is a push to put more women into the only departments were they don’t already outnumber men. But there is never any push to put men into areas they are under represented. Like I said one sex might naturally enjoy something at a higher rate and that’s not a problem I don’t think, but with one exception. I think teachers should largely be evenly distributed. Especially in primary school there was 0 male teachers we could talk to or could help us with anything. I was lucky I had male role models that could teach me about being a guy at home and in afterschool clubs. But some kids don’t, they might not get a male role model until they are 13, then it might be too late.
Yep. I was right. You turned a conversation about “women are being harrassed” into how upset you are that we aren’t talking about problems men face. If you want to advocate for the problems men face, actually do that, instead of bitching when we are discussing problems women face.
Sorry I belive in equality and think the data should be for the whole population.
Science doesn’t work when you hope for a certain answer and select the data in a way to maximise that outcome.
Does the data explain why women don’t go into stem, or does it simply state what women in stem self-report?
Don’t go into stem, you can’t read data. And I say that while honestly not caring about your genitals.
Dismissing sexism within a particular group because it is disproportionately prevalent in that group is, frankly, treating that sexism as acceptable.
You can just as easily extend this approach until you either reach a group where it’s evened out, or is the entirety of humanity.
“It’s more prevalent in stem? No, you have to look at university students overall”
“It’s prevalent in university students overall? No, you have to look at all students”
“It’s prevalent in students as a whole? No, you have to look at everyone involved in education”
“It’s prevalent in education in general? No, you have to look at public services as a whole”
“It’s prevalent in public services as a whole? No, you have to look at all non-private entities”
“It’s prevalent across non-private entities? No, you have to look at all forms of work”
Woman A : I get so much sexism of man A. He always talks over me.
Man b: yea man A is an arsehole. He talks over everyone, I don’t think he can help kt.
https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/07/07/men-interrupting-women
deleted by creator
Such experiences included sexist microaggressions and stereotyping; such as questioning women’s academic legitimacy,
That’s the core of a STEM degree. You are constantly challenged about your conclusions. That’s not sexism, that’s how science works.
I think the issue here is that it’s the default kneejerk reaction to not take a woman’s observations or experiments as seriously as a man’s. Sexism can exist in many insidious forms that don’t necessarily need to be conscious decisions made by the perpetrator. Academic rigor is of course important, so it should stay as academic rigor and nothing more.
default kneejerk reaction to not take a woman’s observations or experiments as seriously as a man’s
The default kneejerk reaction in acidemia and high level engineering in general is to do just that. For example: “The fuq, you did not get superconductivity at room temperature.”
That’s not sexism…it’s healthy skepticism, and I think the root of all this. People get questioned in the field, hard…The good scientists and engineers put up with it, because it’s appropriate, and they can defend their data.
I get the point you’re trying to make, but I’ve seen enough healthy skepticism be misconstrued as sexism to be really skeptical of these results.
That’s not what they are talking about, and it’s super fucking obvious.
Other types of sexism include disbelief when a woman explains their experiences and baselessly denying evidence they present to support their claims.
Which proves my point. I question the data, I’m a sexist pig. It’s a hard field when your data is shaky.
It’s sexist if you don’t look further into the claims, instead just relying on your immediate assumptions about them being false.
If you immediately assume women are lying about experiencing sexism, and you don’t look into it further at all, and your reasoning is based solely on them being women as opposed to men, then yeah I’d say that’s pretty sexist. I’m not sure how someone could think otherwise.
I didn’t make any assumptions. By default, the statement made in the paper is not sexist.
By making assumptions, you bring in your bias and sexism. You just made 3 or 4 to justify your position
I’m curious if they asked the men if they’d experienced sexism too. Most stem subjects are predominantly female so this seems to be a study seeking an answer that suits a narrative.
STEM is dominated by men. Especially the workforce. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf23315/. About 50% of women that take STEM majors switch to non-STEM majors, while about 35% of males switch. This is a Yale source, though.
You’re being disingenuous. The study posted relates to sexism at university where stem subjects are predominantly female.
Workforce stats /= University stats which I think you’re aware.
Source? The Yale link above specifically mentions:
Nationally, women make up 57.3% of bachelor’s degree recipients but only 38.6% of STEM bachelor’s degree recipients.
Anecdotally, I was in a STEM-focused school and major over 20 years ago, and it was overwhelming male-dominated. One of my colleagues graduated less than 10 years ago, and her experience was not dissimilar. She had to deal with quite a bit of sexism too, unfortunately.
Your own damn link contradicts that bullshit stem bachelor degree stat.
I’d search for another but people shooting themselves in the foot amuses me to no end 😂
What are you even going on about? It literally says:
Women represent 57.3% of undergraduates but only 38.6% of STEM undergraduates
That means women are obtaining most of their degrees via non-STEM studies.
Women represent 52% of the college-educated workforce, but only 29% of the science and engineering workforce.
And that is reflected in the study’s figures for employment as well.
I’d search for another but people shooting themselves in the foot amuses me to know end
Well let’s look over the score here. Someone has provided two different links to back up their argument and you’ve provided… Oh look, none. You’re making claims and pointing out things that clearly do not exist or are anecdotal. Nothing you have done in the last three comments indicates to anyone that any of us should take anything you have to say with any kind of value.
So I guess you are amused to know [sic] end, but a point or logical argument you have not made. But hey if you thinking you took the W here and that keeps you quiet, then good job you totally owned everyone here. Amazing wordsmithing.
Your Yale link is nonsense as I think you’re aware. Your original link shows a closer stat to reality though it’s based on 2020 data - currently stem is predominantly female.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6759027/
Interesting; you have to dig past the usual misandry sites to find an impartial source but Pew research found 53% of stem graduates female in 2018 and rising.
You can also just check unis individually.
Well I mean, do you read the links you provide?
While women now account for 57% of bachelor’s degrees across fields and 50% of bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering broadly (including social and behavioral sciences), they account for only 38% of bachelor’s degrees in traditional STEM fields (i.e., engineering, mathematics, computer science, and physical sciences; Table 1).
There’s where your 50% comes from. And as you can see, your link also aligns with the 38.6% previously mentioned.
See? Now was that hard? See how once you explained yourself we could clear up the confusion you were having? Nothing wrong with that, easy to be confused by the various terms that are being tossed around.
Interesting; you have to dig past the usual misandry sites to find an impartial source but Pew research found 53% of stem graduates female in 2018 and rising
I mean, at this point you’re just cherry picking and not doing all that well with it. As indicated from, again YOUR source.
The gender dynamics in STEM degree attainment mirror many of those seen across STEM job clusters. For instance, women earned 85% of the bachelor’s degrees in health-related fields, but just 22% in engineering and 19% in computer science
That lines up with the whole thing I had mentioned here. You keep wishing otherwise, but you also keep providing evidence to the contrary.
So I mean at some point I guess you’ll read your own sources OR you won’t. But the sources you keep providing agree with the original statement that women are under represented in traditional STEM studies. So I mean you square that with yourself however you want.
Dude is crying about misandry. 🎻
50%
predominantly female
53%
Are you okay
Most stem subjects are predominantly female
Source?
That seems to say that there is a slight over-representation of women in STEM (degrees earned) overall but only because of a single subject/job-cluster, “health-related”, with a slight to very large under-representation in all others.
No “predominant” anywhere.(well maybe health-related)Yep, pretty much. Slightly more women in stem these days and rising.
Slightly to much less in traditional stem, and rising in some subjects/clusters, decreasing in some. I get that you have a hard time understanding that I pointed out that what you said was wrong, but you should admit to it too, instead of just posting another comment that is misleading.
What do you think that article says that agrees with you?
And how do you interpret this
44% is workforce stem. This article deals with university stats.
The relevant data is:
In STEM fields, the pipeline is leakiest in life science, psychology and social science fields, which are female-dominated at the undergraduate level — the female share of degree recipients in these fields was 58% at the doctoral level compared with 66% at the bachelor’s level in 2017. In contrast, the four fields with the lowest female shares among bachelor’s degrees recipients — geoscience, engineering, economics, and computer science — have higher female representation among PhD recipients (see here).
That’s not “all” or “most” STEM fields. It only is about
the very disciplines that… seem to attract large numbers of women at the entry level.
How disingenuous of you to cut out that important sentence, which is right before you began your quote.
