January 16, 2018, will not go down as British feminism’s finest hour. On the day that Cathy Newman launched her now world-famous act of self-immolation against Jordan Peterson, Labour MP Jess Phillips wrote an article that even by her standards was of quite astonishing vapidity on why women do not choose STEM subjects. It shed precisely no light on the issue.

As with so much of feminism, the ideological drive to get more women into STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is riven with hypocrisy. Feminists, Phillips included, rarely studied STEM subjects themselves – and boy, does it show – but demand that other women should do so. As always, this is the fault of the evil patriarchy, which puts endless barriers in women’s way. Often it is said that a given STEM subject is seen as too masculine. Cue demands that its image – and perhaps its actual culture – should be changed to be more female-friendly.


Now, there is nothing wrong at all in examining why certain groups are over- or under-represented in certain fields, and whether equality of opportunity could be improved. Perceptions really can be a barrier in some cases. For instance, perhaps the Hollywood image of the half-crazed, nerdy programmer, coding away 24/7 and living off pizza and intravenously delivered Coca-Cola does obscure the variety of roles IT can offer. A woman coder of my acquaintance once said, with great indignation, that her female friends regarded what she did as childish and unimportant.

However, was their prejudice really due to IT’s image or to the fact that women have different priorities from men? The refusal by feminists even to countenance the latter is actually profoundly misogynistic and has been a major cause in making both women and men very unhappy. Changing the image of STEM fields is fine if it better reflects the reality, but it is profoundly immoral if it is just female-friendly spin in order to increase sexual diversity: it risks alienating men from one of their last strongholds, at the same time selling a false prospectus to women and thus risking huge future problems with retention. Unsurprisingly, this is precisely what has happened in sectors such as construction that have tried to present a more female-friendly image – dropout rates increased, adding substantially to the industry’s costs.

Even worse are demands that the culture of the sector itself or its hiring should be forced to change in order to improve ‘diversity’. Again using IT as an example, the image of the nerd in his basement might be an extreme caricature, but like most stereotypes it also contains a grain of truth. The advances of IT are driven to a major degree by fanaticism; a huge voluntary army of coders and engineers create frameworks, libraries and applications which support a vast organic ecosystem and drive the sector’s constant revolutionary change. Dare I say it, but such single-minded obsession is more commonly found in men than women. Making the culture more female-friendly might also rob it of its dynamism. Britain’s stagnating economy cannot afford yet more ill-conceived experiments in social engineering driven by ignorant and emotionally led feminists such as Jess Phillips or Cathy Newman. If we really must improve the number of women in STEM, let us first demand that all feminists take courses in logic, thereby destroying the movement at a stroke: it would no doubt improve human happiness no end.

64 COMMENTS

  1. In Scandinavia they are arguably 20 years ahead of us down the ‘equality’ road.
    Yet even today, from Iceland to Finland, the clear majority of nurses are women and the clear majority of engineers are men. And yes they have quite a large national ‘pay gap’.
    Just last year the Norwegian Government set up a commission to investigate the under performance of working class boys.

    The shrieking of feminists in the UK and the USA may be at its highest but believe me that is because third wave radical Feminism is on the wane.

    • The pious, holier than thou, Swedes are currently suffering a heavy dose of reality.
      Trump was right , although they screeched at him.
      They aint screeching now.
      Lets hope they take Mats Persson back.

      • Cultures are made by the people. Once you tip the balance of those people and introduce too many who make a different culture, then Sweden is the result.
        Ditto for the rest of Europe.

        • Absolutely. The famously generous Swedish social security system relies on a labour participation rate of about 85% plus. Which is very high when you consider that includes men and women.
          Once that balance goes (and it is starting to) then Swedish society has some very big problems. They are importing a lot of tax payers with a strong work ethic.

      • Spot on. It will be fascinating to see how the Swedish Democrats (anti immigration) do in the elections later this year. They have been consistanly heading the polls for months. With almost daily, explosions and hand grenade attaches in Sweden now for weeks it will be a great test for that famous Swedish tolerance.

        • The so-called tolerance was never tested.
          Pompous aXXXXoles.
          Been to Sweden 4 times, they always knew best.

    • Iceland is doubling down on the ‘earnings gap’ as the ‘pay gap’ is losing traction and cannot be justified even by the most ardent feminists.
      It is the global warming to climate change moment for them.

  2. Isn’t this just following the normal pattern? I agree that students should have equal chance at all subjects, and now they do. No longer do we have boys only do woodwork/metal work, and girls go off to home economics. That’s a good thing as some girls are very talented in what is/was seen as just for boys, and vice versa. There are always exceptions to everything, but by and large carpentry is usually male dominated and not by any sinister patriarchal machinations, and ditto that for many other fields.

    So, that equality is now established, girls can if they choose to do almost anything they want, and are often encouraged to. So what’s the problem?
    Equality of opportunity does not seem to be what this is all about for some people.
    Equality of outcome is what seems to be the end goal, and probably even further than that. That is a completely different thing.

    Same old, same old as far as I can see, these types just want more and more, and with every whim pandered to, they come back for more.
    When will they understand that in most of these cases of women not being represented, it’s the women’s choice, we don’t care, we don’t all want to be top Professors, or politicians stomping trough the halls of power.
    Stop putting this pressure on our young girls, let them find what they are good at, and what they want to do.
    My Daughter goes to an excellent Grammar school, but this constant pressure and reminder that “girls you must be powerful” is just too much.

    • They would have to be powerful in a Feminist way, that is, not very subtle, and quite unlike a good manager.

  3. There are many reasons why they are pushing women into STEM occupations such as using women to out earn men as women don’t date down so there are no suitable men to partner off with, any means possible to disenfranchise men, weaken society by having less equipped people in skilled jobs and just general divide and conquer. But another significant reason for this push is so that men are not able to bond with men in the same occupation making them less likely to make friends and work cooperatively shares goals. The feminised workplace is not a happy place and when women take over, men are discriminated against, have less work offers and therefore less able to pay the rent and risk homelessness which is exploding in society. The idea is to make men lonely and atomised as they are doing with all people so they are no threat and are miserable. Everyday misandry as to be expected.

    • In my experience women are very discriminatory towards other women, in fact they can be downright bullying, and will ostracise another woman they feel a threat in any way to unbelievable levels.
      When men are in the work place alongside women, very often there can be the competition between certain females for the male attention. Woe betide the poor unsuspecting woman who may work well with her male colleagues, if she has female colleagues or Manager who have an unprofessional work ethic where male colleagues are concerned.
      When nature rears its head and a woman who thrives on male attention feels threatened then the work place can become very dangerous and unfair for women.

      • I think I am starting to see female discrimination against another female in my line of business. Its incredible really as until recently I was the whipping guy. I tried to get out of it by being rational and not wanting to cause an issue which was the wrong approach but by being very clear that I would not take any nonsense by very disapproving mannerisms, changed things immediately. It appears that this other woman is taking it now instead of me.

        Obviously this confusion is by design as it makes the workplace miserable for everyone and reminds me of this story about a female commander on a submarine that had an affair with a crew member making life uncomfortable for all, and in this case a threat to our nations defence. All by design of course.

        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/02/royal-navy-submarine-commander-removed-claim-inappropriate-relationship/

        The modus operandi seems to be:
        1. Suppress all knowledge of how men and women act among each other in the workplace
        2. Any problems are due to made up concepts such as sexism and partiarchy
        3. Men are discriminated against and lose their roles gradually and their
        4. Women are unwitting useful idiots to further this agenda
        5. Watch society crash and burn

      • My wife, who is an ex-nurse, said the largely female workplace was far worse than any mixed environment she worked in.

    • Jordan Peterson has said men challenge each other, not (necessarily) for power, but to test who can be trusted when the going gets tough.
      Feminism (and all the other victim group – isms) curtails that challenging.

  4. Can I recommend the book “why women can’t read maps & men don’t listen”? It really is worth a read explaining what the differences are between the sexes, and why there’s nothing we can do about it.
    If your brain is wired a certain way then no amount of attempting to pretend it isn’t is going to change anything.
    Attempting to force women into STEM subjects is like trying to knock a square peg into a round hole

    • When is a woman going to turn out for Cardiff or Arsenal.
      Which of them ranks alongside Handel or Mozart.

    • The problem is there are huge shades of IT, and the high paying ones are the ones that lean towards Comp Sci ; things like DBMS. Powerpointers and Web Designers are ten a penny.

  5. There are no more issues for feminism to solve. The rise of transvestism as a competing faction, is the result of the attempt being made to feminise the world by force, beyond getting equal individual rights for women.

    • I’d never looked at the sudden emergence and uprise in trans issues as being a by-product of ‘feminising the world by force’, but it makes sense.

      • Once somebody grasps the idea that force can be used to win privileges for one particular group, then a long line of groups will appear, all seeking to maximise their own positions. This is a folding of civilisation towards the worst and most primitive form of collectivism-tribalism. If only women had fought for universal individual rights as a principle, rather than partisan feminism, they would have accomplished so much more. Instead they have created the conditions for the destruction of individual rights for everyone.

  6. Women do STEM subjects, but only certain ones. They are over represented in medicine and veterinary science, because women are more interested than men in inter action with living beings. Equality of opportunity will not result in equality of outcome.

  7. If women wanted to take over the IT profession numerically (the family unfriendly parts of it would probably remain in the hands of men) they would have done it by now; they’ve flooded medicine and law with females, and those were equally male dominated professions a generation ago.

  8. I have a 14yo maths-whizz daughter, she ‘loves’ maths and I’m always interested in potential reasons why she’s like that and other girls are not. She’s on her comp school’s competitive maths team and when they go play in UKMT competitions etc. where, ignoring single-sex schools, she’s quite a rare female.

    There are a couple of interesting research papers discussing that amongst the better mathematicians, girls are more likely to be good at other subjects than boys so they have more choice of what to pursue at A-level and University. Daughter is a perfect example because she’s also a big-fish in the local pond for e.g. history, art & music. She has a very good friend in the maths classroom, a like-minded maths-whizz boy, who is more medicore in other subjects and doesn’t have all those extra strings to their bow.

    I don’t know what path my duaghter she’ll pick, but the boy will clearly pick STEM because they can’t feasibly pick anything else. That effect alone is enough to produce a significant imbalance between the sexes in STEM.

    If all this holds up, then one quite obvious potential solution is to **focus on the boys**, question why they’re not doing so well in other subjects and perhaps fix it, so they can choose paths besides STEM. Won’t happen of course and I’ll assume everyone knows why.

    • Funny that he’s so limited, art (although perhaps not as taught) and music are tightly related to maths, history not so much. But in any case, much good luck to your daughter, and her friend, as well. It’s always good to hear of good ones coming up.

      • Thank you. The joy of that pair is ‘pair’ because they’re lucky to have a like-minded friend for company. They obviously have other friends in a ~230 child cohort, but none share or understand their flair and enthusiasm for maths. Didn’t appreciate this until they met at the start of secondary, but that intellectual company is a very important and precious thing.

    • I think your observation is an accurate one. Boys tend to be more single-minded and once they really “take” to a subject, it can rapidly become all-consuming. But if they have no interest in any subject, then there is no force on earth that can make them switch on to it, even for a fraction. Whereas girls tend to be more all-rounders, even if they have particular preferences.

      I think this is connected to differential brain structures, but that is a complicated story.

      • Yes. There are a lot of hints about that via Baron-Cohen et al’s work on autism. I suspect that field may well shed some light on differences between the sexes in the wider population, especially around affinity for STEM.

  9. I don’t know of, see any, heard rumours of, barriers in UK universities put up to prevent the female of the species to studying sciency stuff. I heard that Oxford give them ‘extra’ time in exams though.

    FFS.

    • That isn’t a FFS. It’s perfectly sane & *everyone* gets the extra time.

      In terms of big 5 personality traits we know that (on average) girls are more Conscientious and Neurotic.Girls tend to be more cautious/methodical and boys more likely to take risks.

      An earlier post mentions my daughter and a boy who are both local outliers for maths.If you want someone who finishes slightly more quickly then pick the boy. If you want someone who makes fewer mistakes over time then pick my daughter. If you want a really good maths team then pick them both.

      If you want to pick the best mathematician then your best bet is to hop forward in a time-machine and see which one was most accomplished by the age of 30. Looking at slight differences in speed among people who are blistering fast compared to us mere mortals is a nonsense.

      • You know damn well what I am driving at and I am also quite sure that your daughter makes you rightfully proud and good on you and her.

        • Genuinely, no I don’t. You appeared to be criticising that Oxford story.

          I agree re. no barriers. What pleases me most about my daughter is not what she can do, but what she thinks and argues i.e. that girls generally have it easier than boys in her school-age world and suggestions that she is an oppressed victim are utterly ridiculous.

          • here’s a smidgen of what I perceive………

            When did equality become inequity and on down to iniquity?

            “Do you ever think that in our children’s lifetime that those two people looking at construction plans will ever be women?”

            Jess Phillips.

            No one is stopping ’em Jess, no one.

            But then, we live in a looking glass world, the true idiocracy, where people of true value are reviled and people with excruciatingly limited talent are rewarded with sums that would make Croesus blush. Recently a ridiculous lady resigned her outrageously overpaid bbc post because she wasn’t getting as much as the boys, poor darling how is she going to cope, certainly she can’t cope with the truth, she reads the news, she doesn’t make it nor is entitled to be it. Worse and to hear the metropolitan chatterati’s gnashing of teeth about poor her, cripes on a bike, cry wolf, cry blue murder, and cry babies more like.

            Often it is said that a given STEM subject is seen as too masculine. Cue demands that its image – and perhaps its actual culture – should be changed to be more female-friendly.

            Nail varnishing ‘time outs’ between field studies in slope failure and soil mechanics engineering?

            And then, modular courses where everything favours not the boys and still they won’t come…………..

            Now they extend exam times – just in case, call me a cynic but – why not get the examiners to sit the exams for ’em?

            The west is a social engineering laboratory, men are just there for show, all the battles have been won by the feministas, some men have decided that, to get on in life – to ‘trans’ and become like them.

            And still Jess Phillips complains – and we all know what it is: a confection in faux outrage.

            “and the road to hell is paved”………well they won’t do the actual paving but the ‘good intentions’ will be drawn up by guess who?

          • An awful lot of this will indeed look like fiddling while Rome burned. The important bit all should remember that the industrial revolution and the modern world built by the “west” was not some birthright of a particular complexion. While we mess about trying to pretend bridges can be built out of literary criticism and cars made from Art History in other parts of the world they realise that in fact it all took a lot of work and hefty dollops of science.
            Eventually , like eighteenth century Venice, we’ll be a theme park in hock to those less inclined to believe in something for nothing or that gambling, shopping and selling pop songs is an economic strategy.

      • Given that up to now male mathematicians have performed accurately enough to build the modern world around us, I find your generalisation rather biased towards your own offspring who just happens to be a girl.
        IQ bell curves do not define any one individual or their capabilities but in a population you will find they do predict who and how many you get in certain disciplines, so for every brilliant girl mathematician you will tend to have significantly more boy mathematicians.
        So hop forward in time machine and find where you had plenty of male mathematicians to service industry you now have a few girl mathematicians working part time and covering each others maternity leave and industries have gone elsewhere.

        • I’m not disputing the ‘girls are more normal, boys are more extreme’ take on the bell curve i.e. I expect to see and do see a greater proportion of boys at the top end.

  10. I am wondering If there is a Conservative Man website, as a lady I’d say it’s not
    correct if that were the case.

  11. I’m someone who has actually taught to A2 Level Computing, has a degree, and has worked in industry. There aren’t many of me.

    How I see it ; getting girls interested in Computing is not difficult. When I started years ago it was the usual class of 26 with 2 girls hiding at the back. It didn’t take much effort to get this to 60/40 ; not equal, but far closer.

    But this is at the lower levels ; up to about 16 in fact. Getting girls to do GCSE Computing was easy. Getting them to do A-Level was nigh on impossible.

    The reason is the fanaticism, or obsession, call it what you will. I see girls as perfectly able, but not usually willing to commit to the fanaticism involved ; to sort of build a relationship with a machine, to know how it works, how to make it fly, to spend hours tinkering with stuff.

    I think it’s to do with them being more social as a group. The reasons for this could be genetic, social or both.

    You may need the same commitment for (say) Art, but that doesn’t have the ‘intimacy with the machine’ bit.

    When I worked in industry last, it was on a floor with about 30 programmers, all of whom were male. Given the floor manager, and the people in charge of documentation, and testing were female, I don’t think there was an issue with not employing female programmers ; I think they didn’t apply.

  12. I studied engineering at a top London uni, this stuff has been going on for years. When I got to my fourth year we were given a choice of possible dissertation subjects including one entitled ‘Where are all the girls?’. I thought that it might actually be interesting to do research into why fewer girls chose to study STEM subjects at university and naively imagined that it might be research that somebody else could build on. Looking closer at the description it suggested that this research should be conducted using ‘critical feminist theory’. Confused, I arranged a meeting with the supervising academic so that she could explain what that meant exactly. She launched into an insane 10 minute diatribe about the patriarchy, LGBT rights and the evils of the British Empire. When I politely asked how any of those things were relevant to the female uptake of STEM subjects, she suggested that my male privilege had made me ignorant and that I should research something else for my dissertation. So I did.

    That was five years ago so it’s been going on for at least that long. Numerous engineering departments (including some Russell Group members) are now dropping their maths and physics requirements, hoping for higher female engagement. Much of it is being signed off by the lefty diversity/equality officers at professional institutions like the IET and ICE. This lowest common denominator rubbish has infected everything now.

    • Yes. Wasn’t it UCL who dropped maths A level as a requirement for their civil engineering course recently to attract more girls with arts backgrounds? Frightening. I needed good passes at maths and further maths thirty years ago to get onto the mech eng course at Nottingham, and they were needed to handle the coursework straight from the off.

      • Absolutely. My first year was spent learning and getting to grips with coding, fluid mechanics, structural mechanics and geotechnics right from the off. Those students at UCL are instead being given remedial maths and physics lessons to provide them with the fundamentals needed to understand the aforementioned subjects. This equality drive is counterproductive, and at £9000+ p/a for sixth form level teaching is dreadful value for money. It doesn’t surprise me that the drop out rate is creeping up.

      • It will be the same affirmative action story. They drop the entry requirements and students drop out because it is too hard so they drop the complexity of the course which becomes useless and closes down.

      • So, does this mean there’s a risk the next Humber Bridge could be collapse, killing hundreds, because of a design fault, so we can get more women into civil engineering?
        .

    • There have been efforts to encourage women to become engineers ever since the report by Monty Finniston on the state of the engineering profession in 1979. It is certainly a good idea to make school girls more aware of what engineers do and the importance of the profession, whether they wish to become engineers or not, because it is bad for society that women take all the benefits of engineering for granted.

      If they want to become engineers themselves that is fine but they should be made aware that they will need to study both mathematics and physics and preferably chemistry as well. Obviously if they have any intention of going in for chemical engineering they would need to study chemistry.

      People who want to lower standards in order to push an “equality” agenda are putting the country’s future prosperity at risk and potentially putting people’s health or even lives at stake if safety is compromised in bridges, forms of transport, chemical engineering plants etc.

      The people who are responsible for such compromises, and the university departments involved, should be named and shamed

    • Engineering, without any Maths or Science?
      Isn’t that Post-Modern Abstract Art, probably requiring Neo-Marxist input as well, so Post-Modern Neo-Marxists can explain what it would have been if it hadn’t broken, crashed or disintegrated?

  13. I heard that some stem courses that had gone out of their way to attract female students subsequently had to close as the drop out rate meant there were not enough students to continue.

      • I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that one to me. I’m not sufficiently down in the ‘hood with the bloods to comprehend.
        .

  14. In the UK don’t you call it STEAM? I read the feminist added the A for art so they could shuttle money from science into the humanities.

    Anyhow, here we have all of these girls who code programs paid for by the tax payers. Too bad if you are a boy who wants to learn how to code.

    • No. Adding Art, with its plethora of female students, would dilute the claim that women were being discriminated against. In much the same way, medicine (which is steadily becoming more and more feminised) is deliberately excluded from STEM (otherwise it becomes STEMM) in order to allow women to continue to be portrayed as victims.

      Remember, the whole aim of the game is victimhood and extra resources for females, guilt and blame for males.

Comments are closed.