Feminism discussion

[UNLEASH IT]

I saw people discussing feminism and the patriarchy concept in another thread which gave me the idea to start this. What are your opinions on feminism as an ideology? I support feminism, for the most part, though there are some things that I disagree with.

Edited September 16, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Moblin Major General]

Uh... yes? Why shouldn't women be considered equal to men? This is one of the best things about living in the West, regardless of gender or gender identity.

[Res]

I could honestly spend all day crafting a response to this topic and it still wouldn't be sufficient, but I'll start with this:

Uh... yes? Why shouldn't women be considered equal to men?

Pretty much.

Now, I understand there are 'waves' of feminism, I also understand that certain self-identified feminists are oppressive (your 'White Feminist (capital letters)' and TERFs are criticized for good reason). I understand that women of color often don't like to identify with the feminist label because historically the feminist movement in most of the western world has excluded non-white women.

But at its core, for me, I still identify as a feminist for the above reason. Because I certainly don't consider myself inferior to men.

(Also, since their names were once brought up in the political thread, I cannot stand Amy Schumer or Lena Dunham. They're two great examples of women who exemplify everything that's wrong with White Feminism).

[tuvarkz]

Honestly, I see no point in having a 'third wave' feminism in the first world anymore. Half of the stuff that is spouted out (Mainly the 1 in 4 (regarding sexual assaults in college) and the 77 cents to a dollar (the so called 'wage gap'), and the so alleged 'rape culture' without the which the whole movement as is would crumble down) is outright fake and taken from intentional misreading of the available information. There is a modicum of social barriers and minor stuff, but at the same time women enjoy benefits that men do not (such as lesser jail time for the same crimes).

The concept of equality between sexes is right (Except when it comes to the peak of physical potential), but as a movement, feminism should stop miring its sights at the first world and nitpicking (when they get very minor things right), and instead look in other places in the world where women are actually disadvantaged.

[Ken Masters]

*grabs popcorn*

Edited September 16, 2016 by 20XX

[Moblin Major General]

Honestly, I see no point in having a 'third wave' feminism in the first world anymore. Half of the stuff that is spouted out (Mainly the 1 in 4 (regarding sexual assaults in college) and the 77 cents to a dollar (the so called 'wage gap'), and the so alleged 'rape culture' without the which the whole movement as is would crumble down) is outright fake and taken from intentional misreading of the available information. There is a modicum of social barriers and minor stuff, but at the same time women enjoy benefits that men do not (such as lesser jail time for the same crimes).

The concept of equality between sexes is right (Except when it comes to the peak of physical potential), but as a movement, feminism should stop miring its sights at the first world and nitpicking (when they get very minor things right), and instead look in other places in the world where women are actually disadvantaged.

I admit that Eastern women, particularly Saudi and Chinese Women, need a feminist movement much more than the West does, but the wage gap still is a thing, even if rape culture is not.

[tuvarkz]

I admit that Eastern women, particularly Saudi and Chinese Women, need a feminist movement much more than the West does, but the wage gap still is a thing, even if rape culture is not.

The 'wage gap' is rather an earnings gap, and is mostly debunked through choice. From career choices to work hours, including overtime (which not only affects extra pay for the overtime but also likely to influence opinion on who gets promoted faster) largely reduce most of the alleged gap, and in young people, said gap is almost nonexistent. The last remaining percentages are easily explained by the fact that men are more prone to negotiate their salary. (Which, however, does very likely come from sex-based social conditioning)

And by reductio ad absurdum, assuming you could get away with paying women less, all companies would heavily favor hiring women to cut costs.

Edited September 16, 2016 by tuvarkz

[UNLEASH IT]

The 'wage gap' is rather an earnings gap, and is mostly debunked through choice. From career choices to work hours, including overtime (which not only affects extra pay for the overtime but also likely to influence opinion on who gets promoted faster) largely reduce most of the alleged gap, and in young people, said gap is almost nonexistent. The last remaining percentages are easily explained by the fact that men are more prone to negotiate their salary. (Which, however, does very likely come from sex-based social conditioning)

And by reductio ad absurdum, assuming you could get away with paying women less, all companies would heavily favor hiring women to cut costs.

Well, if this is true, that brings up another question. What exactly is keeping women from going into these high paying fields? Oh, I'm sorry, I read further through the article.

Edited September 16, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Balcerzak]

Any of a number of things. Desire to raise a family, more flexibility in hours/vacations, different career goals (often focused more on helping people than making things), etc. It's partly biology and partly social conditioning, but in the end self-chosen.

[tuvarkz]

Well, if this is true, that brings up another question. What exactly is keeping women from going into these high paying fields?

Individual choice and preferences? Nothing is barring access to women from doing any of these choices. As Balcerzak brings up, there is some degree of social conditioning to it, but at the end of the day those are choices made entirely by their own free will.

[Tryhard]

I'll preface this by saying that I've never seen an issue get so hostile and bitterly entrenched in so quick a time, so I'll try to speak nonemotionally. But I did state that I was not a feminist so I should probably say why.

Uh... yes? Why shouldn't women be considered equal to men? This is one of the best things about living in the West, regardless of gender or gender identity.

But at its core, for me, I still identify as a feminist for the above reason. Because I certainly don't consider myself inferior to men.

I'm confused about this choice. I've heard statements such as "you're either a feminist or you're a bigot, there is no in-between" before and that outlook is so simple, black and white and lacking nuance to me. I don't know what I would call myself, it would be something that affiliates itself with promoting the equality of men and women while not necessarily agreeing with feminist theory (I would say egalitarian, but I've also heard the argument that an egalitarian is also always a feminist, so I guess if you're defining it as that, perhaps not). You have to admit that feminism primarily looks at one gender, while thinking that doing so can fix the inequalities of both genders. People assume that equality has to mean feminism, which is not necessarily true. In fact, there was once a post on this forum claiming that women who are not feminists are 'dedicated to being subservient to men', and I found that very harmful, or the implication that they are being manipulated by men instead of acting of their own free will (that seems sexist itself, ironically). You can't just be passive aggressive to everyone that disagrees with you and expect them to come around to a concession on your views.

I'm also kinda confused by your assertion that it was because of women leaders, Feldmarschall Rommel. It isn't like that at all to me, because if Hillary gets elected, that isn't going to stop feminists from saying the patriarchy is alive and well. I'm not sure how that would affect it at all.

It is correct to say that history would have shown us that the patriarchy was an apt description on how the western world lived, you could make the case that it was like that 50 years ago, and I wouldn't be inclined to argue. After second wave feminism (which I mostly agree with, by the way) rose into popularity, I'm not really sure I can say that is the case anymore, however. And I'm not saying that because I don't think misogyny doesn't exist anymore, no, it's obvious that it does. A definition of patriarchy: "Patriarchy is a term used in feminism to describe the system of gender-based hierarchy in society which assigns most power to men, and assigns higher value to men, maleness, and "masculine traits". Feminism recognizes most of human society as patriarchal. Feminists work to end the perpetuation of patriarchy, deeming it oppressive for women and people of non-binary genders."

Now, I don't think misogyny from single people is an example of this. This has to be an institutional thing that specifically oppresses women, and I don't think women are oppressed in the western world. At least not to the extent that they are in developing countries, and even then I'm not sure about how to quantify oppression in the first place.

If it was truly about giving men the most advantages over women possible, then why would we not take male victims of rape or domestic violence seriously at all? Why do men not get treated fairly when it comes to child custody? Why would we give women less time for equivalent crimes? Why would breast cancer research receive much more money compared to testicular cancer research? Why do males right issues exist at all? Wouldn't a society that is patriarchal fully support male privilege over women?

Some feminists would claim that those male rights issues don't exist, and others would say that those are real, but the patriarchy means that they are harmful to men too. People say that this is because 'weaker' men are rooted out, but why would this distinction be made at all, if they are biologically male? While I admit this would be viable (not that I've really seen any great concern given by feminists to male rights issues, if I'm gonna be honest - and it's to be expected, they are focusing on women's issues.), why would men be disadvantaged at all in a society that is defined as patriarchy?

It seems more to me that the inequalities are relics of a previous system of patriarchy that I believe have been deconstructed to the point that women are having much more freedom about their careers and possibilities. And that's a great thing. However, we're still fighting some of the inequalities left (and I'm not going to sit here and say that there isn't more issues that are female over male), but I can't in clear conscience believe strictly that the patriarchy still exists with my current knowledge.

Once again, this is strictly about the modern western world. I have no argument in you claiming that women are oppressed in many less developed countries.

I admit that Eastern women, particularly Saudi and Chinese Women, need a feminist movement much more than the West does, but the wage gap still is a thing, even if rape culture is not.

The wage gap is overstated and cherry picked to give a exaggerated difference, though. It does still exist, and is still a problem that is gradually getting better, but it isn't 77 cents to the dollar. There was a case that for example, in the UK, women in the 22-29 (and 30-39) age bracket are actually being paid slightly more if this is still correct from late 2014.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30112814

I could have more to say and I would normally discuss it more but whenever I do say that I don't believe in the western modern patriarchy, I pretty much get passively aggressively blown off as if how dare that I question that it doesn't exist. That all said, I don't really have a problem with most feminists. I'm just not one myself, mainly because I don't agree with feminist ideas or theory. I don't agree with MRA's either, for the record.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Tryhard

[UNLEASH IT]

(Also, since their names were once brought up in the political thread, I cannot stand Amy Schumer or Lena Dunham. They're two great examples of women who exemplify everything that's wrong with White Feminism).

Personally, I don't believe that those two are feminists to begin with. They just hopped on the bandwagon to increase their exposure to make themselves more marketable.

[Rezzy]

Well, if this is true, that brings up another question. What exactly is keeping women from going into these high paying fields? Oh, I'm sorry, I read further through the article.

I'll post more when not on mobile, but from personal experience, I want to have time for my kids and raise a family. As a doctor, I could make a lot more, if I wanted to, but I'm willing to take less pay for more flexible hours and less being on call all the time.

[NJ7009]

Well, if this is true, that brings up another question. What exactly is keeping women from going into these high paying fields? Oh, I'm sorry, I read further through the article.

There is usually nothing necessarily keeping women out of these fields. However, there has been evidence to suggest that men are socialised towards the high paying careers. Men occupy the construction and housing industries. Women occupy teaching and childcare services. It it also interesting to note that while women are massively involved in teaching and the medical fields (often as nurses) men are often the ones at the top of the chain of command (like as a school principal, for example).

Honestly, I don't think much needs to be done. Society is already changing to grant females more rights than they once did and better equality will be achieved with time. The East, on the other hand, really needs this movement.

[Res]

The twist to the 'women dominate career fields with lower salaries' is that as an industry grows to become women-dominated, the pay drops, and vice versa.

Two big examples of this are computer programming and teaching. In the 1940s/50s, computer programming was a women-dominated field:

But as the century progressed and the field of computing became male-heavy, compensation and esteem both rose precipitously—despite the fact that the substance of the job remained similar.

Likewise, in the 1800s, teaching was dominated by men, and teachers were well-paid and highly respected. From the same article:

Catharine Beecher, a prominent 19th-century education advocate, touted the proposed savings to taxpayers as one of the benefits of hiring female teachers. Taxpayers certainly got a bargain: In 1905, male elementary teachers earned double what their female colleagues did.

Beecher, it turns out, foretold the future of the teaching field: It would go on to become a “feminine” and meagerly paid occupation. By 1900, teaching was an overwhelmingly female profession, though men would continue to dominate the leadership roles in the field of education. Now, 76 percent of public-school teachers are women—and teaching remains modestly paid compared to similar jobs.

(I originally read an article that had handy graphs for both those fields and many other career fields; sadly, google isn't helping me at present).

However, there's data from a comprehensive study quoted in the NY Times here.

A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.

The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige.

Other aspects are more nuanced; for example, why aren't more women these days choosing the higher paid careers? There are all kinds of reasons; a lot are hard to study/quantify, and you have to mostly rely on personal experiences here. I know working for tech companies in Silicon Valley that there is absolutely a toxic culture for women, here; again, I can't find the article I wished to share, but it gave a list of reasons how women are subtly forced out of the STEM field beginning at college level. Less attention paid to them by staff, feeling less supported, not gaining credit for their work, etc. On a personal level, I've absolutely witnessed women not being listened to or given a voice; I've watched them being judged on appearances (and been judged on appearances myself), etc.; all things that can erode confidence and lead to a drop-out of women employees, or a switch in career.

[tuvarkz]

Other aspects are more nuanced; for example, why aren't more women these days choosing the higher paid careers? There are all kinds of reasons; a lot are hard to study/quantify, and you have to mostly rely on personal experiences here. I know working for tech companies in Silicon Valley that there is absolutely a toxic culture for women, here; again, I can't find the article I wished to share, but it gave a list of reasons how women are subtly forced out of the STEM field beginning at college level. Less attention paid to them by staff, feeling less supported, not gaining credit for their work, etc. On a personal level, I've absolutely witnessed women not being listened to or given a voice; I've watched them being judged on appearances (and been judged on appearances myself), etc.; all things that can erode confidence and lead to a drop-out of women employees, or a switch in career.

Regarding feeling less supported though, it's important to bring up that social conditioning generally makes it so that women are generally more supported than men, which means that if professors at college pay equal attention, it's perfectly possible that women might feel less-payed-attention-to in comparison. And to be honest, STEM relies quite significantly on the capability to self-motivate IMO, a lot of the biggest discoveries/inventions have come up when the general thought of such things possibilities was considered impossible or outright idiotic.

[blah the Prussian]

I agree with the ideas of moderate feminism and I really see no reason why any reasonable person wouldn't. I also have a little thing I like to call Monarchist feminism which emphasizes the eldest child succeeding to the throne regardless of gender. Just about the one thing I disagree with moderate feminism about is the notion that defense attorneys questioning alleged rape victims if they're remembering events correctly is some horrible thing. The defense has the right to defend their client with all legal means. That's about it, though.

[Res]

Regarding feeling less supported though, it's important to bring up that social conditioning generally makes it so that women are generally more supported than men, which means that if professors at college pay equal attention, it's perfectly possible that women might feel less-payed-attention-to in comparison. And to be honest, STEM relies quite significantly on the capability to self-motivate IMO, a lot of the biggest discoveries/inventions have come up when the general thought of such things possibilities was considered impossible or outright idiotic.

Again, I'll continue to hunt for the article I read, because it highlighted the ways in which men are often supported; it certainly didn't read that it was open to interpretation and that the professor could actually be paying equal attention. There's also a difference between working independently and being self-motivated and having your voice and your confidence slowly eroded; that is to say, it's not that women employees are incapable of the former, but that they received unwanted outside influence, and they're also at risk of not even being credited (or having their participation hugely downplayed).

I mean, I'm a fairly independent worker; my boss is in the office for maybe 2-4 hours at the most per week, and she relies upon me to get the job done in her absence. I prefer to work in solitude, anyway, so that's fine by me. But when I have the CEO walk by my desk and talk about me right in front of me; when he mentions that he preferred my coworker because 'she had a pretty face', when he constantly questions what I'm doing and what my boss and other woman coworker are doing (yet he gave a raise to the man sleeping at his desk over there); that's distracting; it has zero to do with my work, and it doesn't exactly make for a happy atmosphere. I don't need support so much as I don't need ANTI-support.

Edit: And in a related note, just about every study performed on group conversations in educational and professional settings has proven that despite men heavily dominating the conversation, it's often perceived that the conversation is equal, or that women speak more. There's a few studies linked here.

Tryhard: I read your post, and I will reply to it at some point, but since you fired off a bunch of questions, I'll probably come back to it later when I have a little more time. I appreciate all you said and I hope I don't come across as dismissive.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Res

[Alertcircuit]

Not sure how real the wage gap is. The 77% statistic is not nearly detailed enough to be used definitively ever. I've seen people speculate the real gap is more like 90, but I haven't seen hard evidence on that. Unless more in depth studies are done, I think tougher legislation might cause problems down the line. It might just be a case-by-case issue.

Rape culture on the other hand is an entirely real and common problem. Not sure what the fix is for it other than just teaching people to be more respectful of boundaries. Maybe a more efficient reporting system?

On the flipside, alimony is dumb unless there are children involved or the ex-wife literally can't get a job within a certain window.

[Refa]

Women are cool. I mostly agree with Tryhard's posts (I'd say entirely but I kind of skimmed some sections TBH).

WRT the wage gap, even if it was .99 to a dollar (FTR, I'm pretty sure that in most cases it isn't .77 to a dollar), it would still be pretty dumb.

[Florete]

Damn, Tryhard totally stole my thunder. I pretty much am on board with everything he said.

While I most certainly follow what the literal definition of feminism is supposed to be, I do not identify as a feminist anymore. I don't like how a term that is supposed to be about equality so clearly biases one side over the other.

Inequality certainly still exists today and I respect the desire to extinguish it, but there are some things modern feminists don't take into account. So long as we have free choice, some inequality will always exist. Not necessarily because of social conditioning, but because, believe it or not, men and women are different. And some of those inequalities are disadvantageous to men, but people don't like to talk about that.

Oh, and the wage gap is total bullshit.

[Res]

I have a whole list of things to write on rape culture, which I'm currently trying to type up, but not sure if I'll get a chance to post today (I actually have to go do work, haha), so some brief responses before I come up with an essay:

If it was truly about giving men the most advantages over women possible, then why would we not take male victims of rape or domestic violence seriously at all? Why do men not get treated fairly when it comes to child custody? Why would we give women less time for equivalent crimes? Why would breast cancer research receive much more money compared to testicular cancer research? Why do males right issues exist at all? Wouldn't a society that is patriarchal fully support male privilege over women?

1. Like you said, feminism holds the definition of patriarchy as prioritizing men over women, including masculine traits. Given that rape is still often purported to be as a result of dressing scantily, of leading people on with flirtations, of people not being strong enough to fight back (this applies to DV, too) or to hold their legs closed (I've seen all the reasons given in the past week, including on two rape cases where the victims were 4 and 10 years old!), and that all these things are considered to be feminine traits, male victims of rape and domestic violence are ignored and dismissed (and usually by other men).

2. Child custody is a really tricky issue. First, there's the fact that women are more likely to pursue custody (or both parties agree that the woman should have custody). Secondly, women still are expected to take on the majority of child-raising duties (and therefore do), so as long as that persists, it may be in the best interest of the child to spend the majority of the time with the mother, as maintaining a consistent lifestyle for them is usually what's in the child's best interest. Thirdly, there are so many other factors affecting custody that are hard to report on and get turned into a he-said, she-said scenario. For example, I know there was a strong Fathers' Rights movement in the UK in the early 2000s that was spear-headed by a man who painted himself as quite the victim of the courts; his ex-wife spoke up and claimed he'd been physically abusive and deemed unfit; whom to believe? I've definitely heard reliable stories from both men and women who've felt they've been treated unfairly.

3. Testicular cancer vs. breast cancer; first of all, do you mean testicular cancer or prostrate cancer? Testicular cancer affects a much smaller number of men than breast cancer affects women, and survival rates are higher.

Usually the argument is prostrate cancer vs. breast cancer, as prostrate cancer rates are much more equivalent to breast cancer. There's a referenced rebuttal here, with the key point being: Breast cancer is far more highly prevalent in younger women than testicular/prostrate cancer is prevalent in younger men, and while it is no less sad, those men are at an increased risk from many other ailments.

(Side note: Breast cancer admittedly probably does receive more attention than it should compared to other cancers, including other cancers that affect women. There's the argument that it's because it's a 'sexy' cancer, as well as being a more visible cancer (quite literally speaking). Which, again, is a product of a patriarchal society).

4. No, a patriarchal society promotes masculine, not necessarily male, privilege over everyone.

Rape culture on the other hand is an entirely real and common problem. Not sure what the fix is for it other than just teaching people to be more respectful of boundaries. Maybe a more efficient reporting system?

There are several thoughts as to how to fix rape culture. Here are a few:

1. Better sex education. If you're a parent, one thing you'll likely hear is teach your kids the correct anatomical names. Penis, vulva, vagina. It helps to identify when a child is being sexually abused. Teaching a child about sex from an early age - and yes, there are age-appropriate ways, and it doesn't have to be explicit - can also help THEM identify when they're being sexually abused (not just as a child, but later in adulthood, too). This is a long, but worthy article written by a woman who married her rapist, because her closeted religious upbringing didn't allow her to identify what had happened as rape.

2. Teach consent. Teach young children consent. Don't force a child to hug or kiss in greeting. Even between a parent/child; as soon as your child can learn to talk, ask if you may hug or kiss them. My son's 17 months, he only has a few words, but he can shake his head no if you ask for a hug.

3. Believe victims. Give them the benefit of the doubt. Most victims of rape know their rapist; it's often a family member or friend. I've heard from so, so many people who were raped or molested as children that they're ostracized from family functions (often by their own mothers) because their family doesn't want to admit that a relative may be a rapist.

4. Stop the victim blaming. Don't ask what the victim was wearing or why they didn't hold their legs closed.

On the flipside, alimony is dumb unless there are children involved or the ex-wife literally can't get a job within a certain window.

It's not only hard for older people to get a job if they've been out of the workplace for several years, but often the only jobs available are minimum wage (or low income). There's also emotional labor to consider; the other partner might not be where they are at in their career if they hadn't had a partner at home supporting them and most likely doing a larger proportion of the chores.

[Augestein]

Not sure how real the wage gap is. The 77% statistic is not nearly detailed enough to be used definitively ever. I've seen people speculate the real gap is more like 90, but I haven't seen hard evidence on that. Unless more in depth studies are done, I think tougher legislation might cause problems down the line. It might just be a case-by-case issue.

Rape culture on the other hand is an entirely real and common problem. Not sure what the fix is for it other than just teaching people to be more respectful of boundaries. Maybe a more efficient reporting system?

On the flipside, alimony is dumb unless there are children involved or the ex-wife literally can't get a job within a certain window.

It's as real as people initially claim though. It's a confirmation bias sort of thing where there are so many factors to indicate otherwise. The end result is that women in jobs make the around same amount as men, but women have a tendency to do things that would cause them to get promoted slower-- such as stay home with the family rather than continue to work. Even assuming that the sex attribute WAS true, race tends to hurt far more than one's sex. IE, a white woman is going to make more than a latina thus if you compare a latina to a white man, then there IS going to seem like a larger gap.

Depends on what side of the spectrum we are talking about, but this one is a pretty sensitive area in regards because it's just all around problematic.

Which still doesn't work, because that means that the ex-wife can intentionally botch interviews-- a phenomenon people will sometimes do to maintain unemployment benefits for instance.

[Rezzy]

That feeling when you get ignored in a thread about feminism...

My problem with the feminist label, is that while I agree with many things feminism believes in, it's such an umbrella term, that no one really agrees what its principles are. Plus, I don't want to be lumped in with misandrists who claim to like drinking male tears.

I think a lot of the problems are societal, and would would impossible to legislate away, but I think many of these will improve as time goes on. For example, there's a lot of underlying sexism in the medical field, that I've noticed during residency, and most of the attendings are male, but looking at my graduating class, about half the new doctors are female. Here's a table http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/medical-school-graduates-by-gender/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

Looking at the class photos of graduates from previous decades, it's more of a male majority.

I really strive for equality of both sexes. There's really discrimination against both in different ways. For a personal example, I had an attending say that it's irresponsible to get pregnant while a resident, which had me thinking that if we all waited until being done with residency, or eggs would have all shriveled up by then. There's also subtle things like some of the male residents being given the best surgical cases, then the girls getting blamed for being behind on cases. It's not fair, but I don't see an easy way to fix it, short of making sure the younger generation tries to be more egalitarian. Trying to pass a law would just lead to more paperwork and accomplish nothing.

I don't want people to think I'm trying to garner sympathy, though. Men have their own, different problems. Men make up an overwhelming majority of the homeless population, and women generally have an easier time finding support, with designated women's shelter, but no men's shelters. Men tend to take more risks, and as a result, men tend to end up at both the far right and far left sides of the bell curve.

To go with the whole wage gap thing. The most "successful" doctors, in terms of wealth, that I've worked with have been male. But they also work 100 hours a week, have terrible home lives, and are divorced. Maybe it's just my feminine mindset, but that's not what I wanted. I didn't become a doctor just to make money.

[Phoenix Wright]

Regarding feeling less supported though, it's important to bring up that social conditioning generally makes it so that women are generally more supported than men, which means that if professors at college pay equal attention, it's perfectly possible that women might feel less-payed-attention-to in comparison. And to be honest, STEM relies quite significantly on the capability to self-motivate IMO, a lot of the biggest discoveries/inventions have come up when the general thought of such things possibilities was considered impossible or outright idiotic.

undergrad stem does not.

there are certainly biological and physical aspects to certain fields having lots of dudes (and conversely certain fields having lots of chicks), but too often you'll find that women are treated differently. sexually harassed, talked down to, insulted, etc. it's a positive feedback loop that keeps women out.