Women in STEM ‘sole focus’ of gender imbalance debate

Ever stop to wonder why 'gender imbalance' has become the descriptor for what is, in effect, systematic, institutional sexism that makes itself manifest in the atrophying of women's long term careers viz-a-viz men's? Simple: gender imbalance directs the argument to a non-controversial (non-feminist) place in which 'the problem' is just a matter of representative numbers. More men in nursing. More women in STEM. No need to change things *too* much or to question too deeply what institutional practices and assumptions and workplace cultures do to sustain 'gender imbalance'. Sigh. What I struggle with is why this is not OBVIOUS to everyone else? Yours A Jaded Feminist Sociologist

As a male working in a Uni STEM environment, and a former school governor of a mixed school where ALL the Science teachers were female I'm aware that headline grabbing gender balance/bias is often wide of the mark. However having seen a very competent trainee male nurse publicly rubbished by two of his female lecturers who have a very strong anti male in 'their' profession bias, things do need to be addressed across the board. Too many times as a Trades Union rep I've dealt with issues of bias, not just gender, and been accused of being 'ist' when pointing out to my employers representatives that tokenism doesn't work, and that what they call 'positive discrimination' is actually negative discrimination, often affecting a much larger cross-section of people. Equality for ALL, in everything, needs a lot of effort and upsets those whose ideological beliefs sets them apart from others, all too frequently resulting in them playing the 'victim' card to stop any further discussion, let alone action. Is it any wonder the newly commercialised University sector so desperate for money has become totally hamstrung having become too reliant on overseas students? And yes I've seen the 'victim' card played by a male head of school, so HE could continue his misogynist tyranny, supported by a female (in)Human Resources manager!

Curious that any mention of structural disadvantage (so eloquently described by Peter Murphy, albeit badged as 'individual choice') gets automatically labelled 'radical feminist ideology'. Even more curious that 'radical feminist ideology' is seen to be a criticism. Apart from this rather weak form of critique, my original point was that the manner in which the debate has been framed, as 'gender imbalance' means that the solutions will only ever focus on the issue of numbers. In so doing, what is missed is a discussion of other aspects of disadvantage - or indeed whether 'equality' in this instance is 'just' a question of numbers. My tiredness is the result of a lack of sociological depth to the debate that we are having about how organisations operate and a lack of political understanding in the discussions that we are having about what sort of organisations we want to become. Precisely what does gender equity mean in a University? Equal numbers? Seems a tad superficial as an answer.