[3pt14159]

Before you write a comment about why women are or aren't enrolled in STEM fields, please read the Wikipedia article on it. Every time someone says a generalization like "they just choose safer employment" or "high status something, something" without first reviewing a summary of the body of research into the matter, it's kinda pointless. It's like someone saying "here's why I think computers crash" but they've never read a book on HTML.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields

[nitrogen]

You wouldn't read a book on HTML to know why computers crash. A book on advanced C, maybe.

[3pt14159]

You kinda missed the point. Someone reading a book on html night stumble upon a kinda sorta correct response.

[schrodinger]

Thanks, I found that to be a really good summary of a lot of possible explanations.

[Mz]

Much to my surprise, it doesn't seem to say anything really meaty about the role women play in terms of bearing and rearing children. Surprisingly, the header "Biological explanations" talks about spatial ability, not reproduction. Having read quite a lot about women's issues in order to figure out where my own life went wrong, I think failure to mention the burden women bear in this regard and how it impacts their careers is a substantial oversight.

[mason240]

Given the politics of any gender-issue related topic on Wikipedia, there is little reason to bother reading it, much less use it as an appeal to authority.