[ManicMechanic]

At the core of STEM is the desire to discover/create something cool, and that desire must take precedence over image, or it comes across as fake. Someone with an obvious passion for a scientific endeavor, and oh, by the way, they happen to be good-looking, too, works. But a video which demonstrates someone who has obviously expended their best, most serious time and effort into looking attractive, and oh, by the way, in their leftover time, they're into science, too, leaves a bad taste. This applies to both women and men, but especially so for women, because physical attractiveness has historically been emphasized for them.

Most STEM pursuits take time and effort that require sacrifice, and for many, it may require "looking bad" in one way or another. When my son was about 5, we went to a park with a group of moms and kids, and the kids began the day digging in the sand. After 5 - 10 minutes, all the kids but my son ran off to the play equipment. Mother after mother (thinking him anti-social) asked him, "Don't you want to join the other kids?" to which he answered, "No, thanks, I'm doing something." After 30 minutes, he gave a shout of excitement -- he had dug his way down to the water table, and was tunneling underneath the sand. Upon this discovery, all the other kids returned to this new "cool" activity. But whether the kids thought him cool or not, he would have preferred his solitary endeavor.

We cannot motivate kids to STEM with the carrot, "If you engage in STEM, you'll look cool." Rather we should entice them, "If you engage in STEM, you'll discover/create something cool, and what you discover/create is more fulfilling than how you look.

Regarding the U of M study, I think one component to the turnoff is spotlighting only the highest-achieving STEM women, without showing the range of STEM opportunities at the lower and middle levels. Many moons ago, I attended U of M and worked for 2 years at the Kresge Hearing Research lab there. It was obvious that my BSEE/MS BioE would be insufficient to continue working long-term in that capacity (I would really need a PhD), and the long hours (sometimes until 2 am) were not conducive to having the kind of family I wanted. I ended up getting a MA in math and have taught part-time at a junior college, while raising my family almost full-time. Still STEM, less prestigious, but more sustainable over the long haul for what I wanted to do. Some of my adult algebra students have told me, "I'd like to be a math teacher, like you" and are now teaching at the elementary and high school level. If they thought that being in STEM required getting an engineering degree, it might have scared them off.

I think it would be helpful to think of STEM in broader terms -- just as auto mechanics and computer technicians perform engineering/technical work, medical personnel, including the array of nursing and medical assisting jobs are science-based, and bringing them under the STEM umbrella makes the field more approachable, attainable, and familiar. Many of us know a mechanic, nurse, or high school science teacher that could inspire us to think, "I could do that," and they don't have to be "gender-locked."