Written Evidence Submitted by Christian Voice

(DIV0034)

Christian Voice is a UK group concerned to bring a Christian perspective to current events, debates and policy in the light of Biblical truth.

The author, Stephen Green, is National Director of Christian Voice.

Question 1: The nature or extent to which women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities and those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are underrepresented in STEM in academia and industry;

1.1 In Men and things, women and people: a meta‑analysis of sex differences in interests, Rong Su et al. [2] concluded:

1.2 Results showed that men prefer working with things and women prefer working with people, producing a large effect size (d = 0.93) on the Things‑People dimension. Men showed stronger Realistic (d = 0.84) and Investigative (d = 0.26) interests, and women showed stronger Artistic (d = ‑0.35), Social (d = ‑0.68), and Conventional (d = ‑0.33) interests. Sex differences favoring men were also found for more specific measures of engineering (d = 1.11), science (d = 0.36), and mathematics (d = 0.34) interests. ... The present study suggests that interests may play a critical role in gendered occupational choices and gender disparity in the STEM fields.

1.3 Rong Su et al was one of the studies cited in Traditional Gender Role Beliefs and Career Attainment in STEM: A Gendered Story? by Anna‑Lena Dicke*, Nayssan Safavian and Jacquelynne S. Eccles of the School of Education, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States  [3]  In their Introduction they said:

1.4 There has been an increasing number of students aspiring to careers in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) in the last decade. The STEM workforce is also increasingly diversifying with respects to gender as female students outnumber male students in some STEM fields, such as biology, medicine, and chemistry (Beede et al., 2011). However, females are still underrepresented in engineering, computer science, and physical sciences (Chen and Ho, 2012). A multitude of reasons for the gender disparities in STEM participation have been investigated, including gender differences in attitudes and beliefs, such as the valuing of various STEM domains (Eccles et al., 1993; Ceci et al., 2014; Lauermann et al., 2015; Cheryan et al., 2017). One of the relevant underlying beliefs that might be driving gender differences in STEM participation are traditional gender role beliefs. These general beliefs about responsibilities and behaviors deemed appropriate for women and men (Eccles, 1987; Williams and Best, 1990) predict aspirations, choices, and occupational outcomes (Eccles et al., 1990). However, the long‑term impact of traditional gender role beliefs on STEM participation is less understood.

1.5 Careersmart.org.uk [4] has kindly listed 320 UK-based occupations each with their gender percentages, based on Working Futures 2020 statistics.  From the list, we learn that there are just 1,633 women working as Vehicle technicians, mechanics and electricians (0.81% of the total) compared with 199,877 men (99.19%).  0.95% of all Carpenters and joiners are women out of a 264,000 workforce while just over 1,000 women work as Welders (1.36%).

1.6 At the other end of the scale, 212,035 women (97.76% of the total) are Nursery nurses and assistants compared with 4,867 men (2.24%).  Women make up 96.39% of Legal secretaries, 95.55% of Medical secretaries and 95.19% of Personal assistants and other secretaries.  148,018 women were working as Childminders and related occupations (95.12%) compared with  7,600 men (4.88%).

1.7 The figures for science occupations are varied:

Occupation                                                                      Female workforce              Male workforce

Chemical scientists                                                          6,785 (21.04%)                25,467 (78.96%)

Physical scientists                                                          7,797 (26.24%)                21,922 (73.76%)

Biological scientists and biochemists              41,928 (39.65%)                63,829 (60.35%)

Social and humanities scientists                              10,928 (65.68%)                  5,711 (34.32%)

1.8 It appears women prefer social and humanities science with many also drawn to biology and biochemicals while men prefer physics and chemistry.

Question 2: The reasons why these groups are underrepresented;

2.1 Research shows that boys and girls do mathematics equally well.  In a post on the American Psychological Association website, entitled, Think again: Men and women share cognitive skills - Research debunks myths about cognitive difference. the author wrote:

2.2 The evidence has piled up for years. In 1990, Janet Shibley Hyde, PhD, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin, and colleagues published a groundbreaking meta‑analysis that compiled data from 100 different studies of math performance. Synthesizing data collected on more than 3 million participants between 1967 and 1987, the researchers found no large overall differences between boys and girls in math performance. Girls were slightly better at computation in elementary and middle school. In high school, boys showed a slight edge in problem solving, possibly because they took more science classes that emphasized those skills. But boys and girls understood math concepts equally well, and any gender differences actually narrowed over the years, belying the notion of a fixed or biological differentiating factor. [5]

2.3 The Rong Su study appeared to find innate difference between the sexes which pre-disposed men and women to different jobs and indeed roles in society.  Dicke et al are keen for the difference to be explained by traditional gender role beliefs.

2.4 However, in an article in Parenting Science [6] Gwen Dewar Ph.D. draws on the literature to discover that boys choose and even ask for masculine toys.  She writes: In a study of American preschoolers (ages 2 to 5), Clyde Robinson and James Morris asked parents what their children had gotten for Christmas. Some gifts had been requested by the kids themselves. Other gifts were chosen solely by the parents. 

2.5 As it turns out, the toys the kids requested for themselves were more likely to be gender‑stereotyped (e.g., boys asked for "masculine" toys). When parents chose the toys, they tended to give gender‑neutral gifts, like art supplies, musical instruments, and educational toys (Robinson and Morris 1986). ...

2.6 In the Robinson and Morris study, it was mostly the boys who were requesting gender‑stereotyped toys.  At every age, about 75% of their requests were for boy toys.  But girls didn't show a similar preference for gender‑stereotyped toys until they were 5 years old.

2.7 Explaining the preferences made by boys, Dr Dewar reported: ... there is some evidence that males tend to prefer looking at mechanical motion rather than biological motion. In one experiment, researchers presented 12‑month old babies with videos of cars and faces. Male babies looked longer at images of moving cars. Girl babies looked longer at videos of moving faces (Lutchmaya and Baron‑Cohen 2002).

2.8 A 2008 study in Hormones and Behavior entitled Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children conducted by Janice M. Hassett, Erin R. Siebert and KimWallen showed the following, according to the abstract:

2.9 Sex differences in toy preferences in children are marked, with boys expressing stronger and more rigid toy preferences than girls, whose preferences are more flexible. Socialization processes, parents, or peers encouraging play with gender‑specific toys are thought to be the primary force shaping sex differences in toy preference. A contrast in view is that toy preferences reflect biologically‑determined preferences for specific activities facilitated by specific toys. Sex differences in juvenile activities, such as rough‑and‑tumble play, peer preferences, and infant interest, share similarities in humans and monkeys. Thus if activity preferences shape toy preferences, male and female monkeys may show toy preferences similar to those seen in boys and girls. We compared the interactions of 34 rhesus monkeys, living within a 135 monkey troop, with human wheeled toys and plush toys. Male monkeys, like boys, showed consistent and strong preferences for wheeled toys, while female monkeys, like girls, showed greater variability in preferences. Thus, the magnitude of preference for wheeled over plush toys differed significantly between males and females. The similarities to human findings demonstrate that such preferences can develop without explicit gendered socialization. We offer the hypothesis that toy preferences reflect hormonally influenced behavioral and cognitive biases which are sculpted by social processes into the sex differences seen in monkeys and humans.:  [7]

2.10 Being a Christian group we shall be interested to see if there is a spiritual dimension to this matter.  We shall also be keen to know what guidance or even commands Almighty God has given to society.  Lastly, we shall want to know if sex- or gender-roles are built into creation.  As our starting point, we read in the first book of the Bible:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (KJV)

2.11 So we see men and women made together in the image of God, but separated into male and female sexes.  In a discussion with a group of pharisees, as recorded by the evangelist Matthew, the Lord Jesus confirmed the point:

Matt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female...

2.12 Having created them male and female we notice the two sexes have very different characteristics and capabilities.  Some biologists might prefer to ascribe the differences to evolution, but they arrive at the same point: here we are as male and female, different and complementary.

2.13 So it arises that only women can bear and nurse children (we are not venturing down the path of transgenderism here) and only men can sire them.  It follows that women are far more likely than men to take time out of their career or even abandon it altogether, to raise a family.  Hormonal differences and the onset of puberty are for us also built into creation.  During puberty, the male hormone testosterone results in a larger frame, greater muscle density and a deeper voice in men than in women.

2.14 In sports, Kenenisa Bekele's 2008 Olympic record in the men's 5K event is a minute and a half faster than Vivian Cheruiyot's 2016 women's record.   In throwing events, men don't throw the discus quite as far as the women.  But the men's discus weighs twice as much as the womens.  The mens hammer and shot weigh sixteen pounds.  They throw them just farther than the women.  But the women's shot and hammer only weigh eight pounds thirteen ounces.  In the high jump and long jump, men are jumping 16% higher and 18.5% farther than women. [8]

Question 3: the implications of these groups being underrepresented in STEM roles in academia and industry;

3.1 The statistics from Working Futures 2020 kindly tabulated by Careersmart do show that virtually every occupation out of the 320 listed has some kind of gender imbalance.  We are not in any position to crunch numbers according to race or socioeconomic background. 

3.2 We would however make the obvious point that those from higher up the socioeconomic scale are more likely to go to university and that many of the STEM jobs complained about need a university degree.  The Select Committee observed: While there is comparatively less data on the socioeconomic background of the STEM workforce a 2014 Royal Society report found that it does have a strong effect on an individual's likelihood of entering the scientific workforce.

3.3 So the real challenge is that those from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to be found in higher education.  This reality has exercised politicians for decades and none appears to have fixed it. 

3.4 But then again, people in politics may be more inclined to see desk jobs, or lab jobs, as more worth having and doing than jobs on the factory floor or cleaning the streets.  The scripture says:

Eccl 3:13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

3.5 From that we conclude that all productive labour is of material and spiritual value and that snobbery should not influence this debate.

3.6 As to why women are under-represented, in other words, comprising less than 50% of the workforce, in 185 of the 320 occupations tabulated by Careersmart, we know there are difference between the sexes and even within them.  But why only 37.87% of the UKs 62,000 musicians appear to be women, who knows?

3.7 As for the implications of that of the gender imbalance among musicians, or the implications of (women) being underrepresented in STEM roles in academia and industry; we are struggling to see any. 

3.8 The Select Committee reported: The importance of diversity amongst the research community has been acknowledged by UK Research and Innovation's Chief Executive, Dame Ottoline Leyser, who said: high‑quality research and innovation needs diversity. You have to have people with different ideas and different backgrounds coming together to create the kind of environment where extraordinary things happen. 

3.9 However, that is merely an assertion.  Dame Ottoline, or at least the Select Committee, has not backed up that statement by quoting academic study.

3.10 That is hardly surprising, because the literature fails to come down heavily on one side or the other.  In The effects of diversity on business performance: Report of the diversity research network, March 2003, Thomas Kochan et al concluded: Few positive or negative direct effects of diversity on performance were observed. [9]

3.11 In Impact of Workplace Diversity, Elizabeth Foma of the University of Guam found many positive aspects to diversity along with negative parts.[10]

3.12 In fairness, it may be that in the advertising world, the nearest occupation Careersmart list to a 50/50 gender split, brain-storming sessions may come up with ideas.  Whether they are good ones the market will judge.  However, it is equally possible to look at innovations of the past and conclude that one individual moment of inspiration or genius can do more that any number of brainstorming sessions.  The advances created by I K Brunel, Alexander Fleming, Marconi, Morse and the Nobel prize-winner Marie Curie are celebrated to this day.

3.13 So if we cannot support a drive for encouraging more women into STEM subjects by the results of diversity, where does the drive come from?  What is it for?

3.14 The US website Builtbyme.com suggests: Women comprise about half of the world's population and we only have about half of the STEM professionals that we need. Thus, the answer to the shortage of STEM professionals is clear ‑ we need more women in STEM.  But that is a logical fallacy.  It the primary assumption is true, that the STEM workforce is at half-strength, the answer is to recruit more people. Only to recruit from one sex is to cut the available pool by half.  And if that one sex is less willing to enter this workforce, the gender blinkers of the second assumption, masquerading as a solution, will make the problem even worse. [11]

3.15 In any case, the US website AAUW (advocating for women and girls since 1881 and into the future!) says: Giving women equal opportunities to pursue ‑ and thrive in ‑ STEM careers helps narrow the gender pay gap, enhances women's economic security, ensures a diverse and talented STEM workforce and prevents biases in these fields and the products and services they produce. [12]  Is it only STEM careers that bring the first two alleged financial benefits?  How come a career in hospitality doesnt do that?  We have dealt with the diverse workforce argument above. 

3.16 But what about the argument that designs by men result in biases?  Or as builtbyme puts it: Despite making up half of the population, women's needs are rarely being taken into account. The world's been primarily designed by men for men.  We need an example, and builtbyme provide only one:  For example, scientists determined the average office temperature in the 1960s. They based it on the metabolic resting rate of an average male. Yet, in recent years, scientists found out that female metabolic rate isn't the same. In actuality, it's about 30% higher than that of males.  Because of that, the average office temperature is too cold for women. Thus, feeling uncomfortable at a workplace may result in women being less productive because their basic needs aren't adequately met.

3.17 Suggested ideal room temperatures vary between an 18-20 degC band and 20-22 degC.  And in yet another in-built difference between the sexes, the literature concludes women do indeed prefer it a bit warmer.  So who will gain control of the office thermostat?  Is there really no room for compromise?  (It could be argued that it is something of a luxury today to have a thermostat which can be turned up or down in any case.)

3.18 In The 'invisible' risks facing working women in France, by Cécile Andrzejewski of Le Monde Diplomatique published on 13th February 2018 there is another example from (Marie) Pezé, conducting studies on an asparagus farm.  A conveyor belt, initially set too high for women workers, was lowered to accommodate them.  The problem was solved. [13]

3.19 Unless we are very much mistaken, there is little evidence that the male majority in physical sciences and engineering is working to the detriment of women in the world at large.  So we return to the question.  Why are policy-makers, members of parliaments, journalists, the united great and good, so convinced that the percentage of women in STEM subjects and occupations is a problem which needs addressing with measures to make such jobs more attractive to women and girls?

3.20 The Science and Technology Select Committee itself has only come up with one reason, the diversity argument we considered above.  There must be something which is not being admitted in the debate.  We want to suggest that the something is a feminist irritation that the population at large appears to regard a large proportion of jobs as masculine jobs and feminine jobs.

So it is that without asking whether there is a problem but just assuming it, the Committee asks:

Question 4: What has been done to address underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM roles?;

4.1 Other respondents will no doubt point to measures they have already taken to try to persuade girls that science and engineering are cool things to do.  We remember the gifted astronomer and presenter Dr Maggie Aderin‑Pocock putting in some effort in recent years.

4.2 However, we would ask why only STEM jobs?  Has anyone moved to address underrepresentation of women in Refuse and salvage occupations where they form a mere 7.36% or the workforce?  Where is the pressure to bring the British armed forces up to an equal 50/50 split?  At the moment male NCOs and other ranks are 91.71% of the total.  Why is that not considered to be a problem?  Fewer than 9% of window cleaners are women and only 3.4% of glaziers.  Yet no-one mentions that gender imbalance as a problem.

Question 5:  What could and should be done by the UK Government, UK Research and Innovation, other funding bodies, industry and academia to address the issues identified?

5.1 We want to suggest to the Committee that gender imbalance does not matter and that nothing could or should be done.  In an advanced, modern economy, or any economy for that matter, it is of no consequence if people prefer certain jobs or even if they choose occupations according to some real or imagined gender profile.

We suggest that if certain people feel they are better suited to this occupation or that, then so long as the jobs are done and the economy rolls along, then only someone with an ideological dog in the fight could even see a problem.  The real challenge is not to persuade young people they ought to have a certain gifting, one their betters prefer, but to encourage them to discover and fulfill the gifting they have.

5.2 It follows firstly that when the State thinks it can decide that certain groups, or certain people, or certain cultural groups, are making the wrong choice of career, it is exceeding its authority.  Clumsy right-on attempts to dragoon girls into science and technology are bound to fail.  Offer careers advice by all means.  Ensure opportunities are open to all.  But try to address some supposed societal imbalance in the workforce?  Its arrogant and patronising and doomed to fail.

5.3 Secondly, that all the misplaced energy being put into trying to push girls toward STEM careers could be directed into making the entire United Kingdom more prosperous

5.4 Thirdly, that politicians, opinion-formers, those who sit on committees, would benefit from what the Bible calls humility and wisdom which, we read, comes from the fear of God.

Stephen Green, National Director, Christian Voice                                                        14th January 2022

References:

[1] https://committees.parliament.uk/call‑for‑evidence/635/?slug=diversity‑in‑stem

[2] Rong Su et al. Psychol Bull. 2009 Nov. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19883140/

[3] STEM: A Gendered Story? by Anna‑Lena Dicke*, Nayssan Safavian and Jacquelynne S. Eccles of the School of Education, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States  Front. Psychol., 08 May 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01053

[4] https://careersmart.org.uk/occupations/equality/which‑jobs‑do‑men‑and‑women‑do‑

occupational‑breakdown‑gender

[5] https://www.apa.org/topics/neuropsychology/men‑women‑cognitive‑skills

[6] https://parentingscience.com/girl‑toys‑and‑parenting/

[7] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/

[8] https://www.worldathletics.org/records/by‑category/olympic‑games‑records

[9] Human Resource Management 42(1):3 ‑ 21,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227663602_The_effects_of_diversity_on_business_performance_Report_of_the_diversity_research_network

[10] Rev. Integr. Bus. Econ. Res. Vol 3(1)

http://www.sibresearch.org/uploads/2/7/9/9/2799227/riber_sk14‑026_382‑390.pdf

[11] https://www.builtbyme.com/why‑we‑need‑more‑women‑in‑stem/

[12] https://www.aauw.org/resources/research/the‑stem‑gap/

[13] https://www.equaltimes.org/the‑invisible‑risks‑facing‑working?lang=en#.YeFSB7iE6Hu

(January 2022)