Why do women have to "catch up eventually" in numbers in the STEM community (or any other, actually)? As far as I know, men do not seem to be catching up in nursing or child care any time soon. I do not think it's sexist to think that men and women (speaking in very general and broad terms) have different occupational interests.

@antrim -- that's bollocks. Can't say it in other words. Women clearly have enough interest to constitute about 50% of math undergraduates. But they only constitute about 15% of tenured math faculty. Clearly there is a lot of catching up to do.

@Antrim Because the imbalance was created, versus evolving naturally by choice. npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/357629765/… That being said, you're right to at least an extent - no career field will ever have a 50/50 split across the board in terms of gender diversification. PEOPLE have different interests, and a number of factors effect that. But what we're experiencing at this point in time is a drastic disparity between the headcounts, and it's comprised of more than just differing interests.

@Antrim It's not sexist to note that there exists a discrepancy in current occupation. It is sexist to suggest that it's entirely due to a difference in interests, due to people making real choices with fully equal opportunity, free of external sexist influences at every step along the way.

+1 to that great answer and to Antrim's comment. To Wolfgang: when you want to defend some statement that is disputed, it is not enough to just repeat the statement with the word "clearly" inserted in it. Jefromi: Antrim is nowhere suggesting that the discrepancy in current occupations is entirely due to difference in interests. He just says that not knowing whether there is one and how strong it is prevents us to know what the ideal proportion male/female in science, free of sexist influences, is: 50/50 or 90/10 or 10/90 or anything else.

@Joël Apologies, I should have left out the "entirely". However, the point still stands: it's sexist to see the existing discrepancy and deduce a difference in interests from it. (Also, I'd appreciate if you could have made that point without saying "learn to read.")

Feel free to continue discussing this in Academia Chat, but please do not use comments to discuss and debate.

@KB145: Thanks for a great answer, I wish I could accept more than one.

@KB145 That the imbalance has been "created" rather than having "evolved naturally by choice" is subjective at best. The article posted refers specifically to the US, while I wasn't, and this (huge gender disparity in certain fields) seems to be a trend affecting pretty much every developed country (in the same directions usually). Do you think that 80-90% of nurses being women in most developed countries means there's a created imbalance that needs to be overcome?

@KB145 A couple more things. I like that the article points to TV as an important factor in career choices. I don't think this is something that a hidden and malevolus sexist force is trying to stick down our throats every day, but just screenwriters adapting to audiences interests. As far as my experience, I was a CS undergraduate in a EU college. Out of 100-150 people, 5-10 of them were women. Only 2 graduated on time; best scores by far, were given awards and had no trouble getting a faculty position. One of them is my best friend. Where's the issue, and why does anything have to change?