Concerns about the number of women in STEM are misplaced for three reasons

From Lies, Damned Lies, and STEM Statistics by Sean Welsh. Almost everything in postmodernist studies depends on manipulation of definitions and avoiding measuring empirical reality.

Welsh provides an interesting example of the rectifying the mainstream claim that women are discriminated against and unwelcome in STEM.

First he attacks the limited definition of STEM.

Concerns about the number of women in STEM are misplaced for three reasons. First, the definition of the “T” is STEM is narrow and arbitrary (a lie); second, the definition of the “S” in STEM is narrow, arbitrary, and flagrantly wrong (a damned lie); and, third, while the causal attribution of sexism to explain low numbers of women in STEM (narrowly defined) is undoubtedly true in particular cases, it is unconvincing as a general explanation of the relative low numbers of women in some broad fields of PhD study. Better explanations for these disparities are readily available.

One his main arguments is about what actually constitutes STEM. Using the more inclusive definition (which includes Health), he finds that there is no apparent disparity at all.

Click to enlarge.

There are plenty of avenues to attack his argument but I suspect he is broadly correct. The concern about female participation in STEM is much ado about nothing. Women are there but they make different choices than men in terms of fields. No need for all these special programs encouraging women into STEM when they are already there.