I'm a family law attorney with an MBA in Finance and a psychology degree, and I've watched this play out in the legal profession in a specific way. When I started practicing in the 90s, women were finally breaking into corporate and securities law--the "STEM-adjacent" specialties that involved complex financial modeling and tax structures. Family law? That got coded as "soft" law because it dealt with emotions and relationships, even though I'm analyzing business valuations, pension plans, and tax implications in every high-asset divorce. I've sat in continuing legal education seminars where family law attorneys--mostly women--are literally in different, smaller rooms than the corporate lawyers. We get charged less for our section memberships because the Bar assumes we bill less. The assumption is that emotional intelligence and financial analysis can't coexist in the same brain, which is absurd when you're dividing a medical practice or tracing separate property through decades of commingled accounts. The really insidious part is how it affected my clients. I have LGBTQ+ clients navigating surrogacy agreements that require contract law, constitutional law, medical ethics, and reproductive technology knowledge all at once. But because it's "family building" rather than "building software," the legal complexity gets completely dismissed. One client's employer offered full legal benefits for patent work but nothing for the equally complex process of establishing parental rights through assisted reproduction. What bothers me most is watching my daughter's generation get the message that analysis only counts if it's happening in a lab coat. I use the same financial forensics skills in my practice that I learned in my MBA, but when I tell people I do family law, I can see them mentally downgrade my intelligence in real time.
I came from managing Department of Justice IT projects where I held every ITIL certification available, then moved into plumbing during COVID. The shift showed me how the "women in STEM" label created this weird gatekeeping where my computer science background gets respect, but the moment I say I run a plumbing company, people's faces change. It's the same systems thinking, the same process optimization, the same technical problem-solving--I literally adapted ITIL frameworks to trade work--but suddenly it doesn't count because I'm working with pipes instead of servers. What really bothers me is how this plays out in hiring. When I'm recruiting technicians and mention our leadership training programs, I get women with strong mechanical aptitude who apologize for "not being good at math" or "not going to college." They've internalized that their hands-on problem-solving skills are worth less. Meanwhile, I'm teaching them water chemistry, pressure calculations, and system diagnostics that would qualify as applied science in any other context. One of our techs troubleshoots complex residential systems better than most engineers I worked with at DOJ, but she introduces herself as "just a plumber." The myth I'm constantly fighting is that county water is filtered--it's not, it's chemically treated, and Arlington water contains more chlorine than a swimming pool. When I explain the chemistry of water treatment and filtration systems to customers, I'm doing materials science education. But because I'm explaining it while installing a whole-home filter instead of publishing a paper, it gets dismissed as "sales talk" rather than technical expertise.
I've spent over five years managing a business center in Las Vegas, and I came from HR before that--so I've watched this dynamic play out from both sides. The STEM narrative has created this weird hierarchy where operational expertise gets dismissed if it doesn't involve code or lab work. Here's what I see daily: I manage complex systems for attorneys and executives--CRM platforms, compliance tracking for business licensing, coordinated workflows across virtual and physical office clients. It's technical work that requires serious problem-solving. But when people hear "Community Manager," they picture someone just answering phones and being friendly. The frustrating part is how this devalues the actual skill involved in converting leads, managing operations, and keeping everything compliant in a regulated environment. I transitioned from HR specifically because I wanted to apply strategic thinking to business operations, but there's this assumption that if you're not in STEM, you're not really solving hard problems. My attorney clients trust me with confidential information and business-critical operations, yet professionally, that expertise gets categorized as "soft skills." What bugs me most is seeing women in roles like mine doubt their own intelligence because we're constantly told the "real" innovation is happening elsewhere. I use sophisticated platforms like Follow Up Boss and Satellite Deskworks daily, but mentioning that doesn't carry the same weight as saying you code in Python--even though both require technical competency and directly impact revenue.
I've been in the fitness industry for 14+ years, and I've watched this play out in a really specific way with women's fitness spaces. When I started, the push was all about getting women into "serious" training--powerlifting, Olympic lifts, the stuff that looks more like engineering than dancing. Group fitness classes, especially formats like step and dance-based cardio that I've taught since 1995, suddenly got labeled as "not real training." Here's what that did at Results Fitness: We created a women's-only gym area because intimidation was keeping women out of the weight room. But then I'd hear comments from male members--and sometimes even female members who'd acceptd the "lift like a man" mentality--dismissing it as the "easy zone." Meanwhile, I'm programming BodyPump and CXWORX classes that require me to understand muscle physiology, progressive overload principles, and injury prevention just as much as any strength coach. The choreography and cueing I do in a 60-minute class involves the same biomechanical knowledge, but because it's set to music and done in a group, it gets treated like it's less legitimate. The weirdest part is watching how this affected our members' self-perception. I have clients who apologize for preferring kickboxing over deadlifts, like they're somehow failing at being a "serious" woman. One member told me she stopped mentioning her fitness routine at her tech job because her coworkers only respected the women doing CrossFit or marathon training--the stuff that sounds more "data-driven." She was getting incredible results with our interval and circuit classes, but felt embarrassed it wasn't quantifiable enough. What frustrates me most is that the skills I use--reading 30 different bodies in a room simultaneously, adapting cues on the fly, keeping people safe while motivated--require spatial reasoning and real-time problem-solving. But because it looks like performance rather than science, it gets categorized with the "soft" stuff that apparently doesn't require a brain.
I came from investment banking at Wells Fargo and BDT & MSD before founding GrowthFactor, and the difference in how people respond to "AI in retail" versus "finance" is stark. When I talk about our machine learning models that forecast retail revenue with 40% better accuracy than competitors, people nod politely. When I mention my banking background, suddenly I'm taken seriously in investor meetings--even though the technical complexity of what we built at GrowthFactor is objectively higher. Here's what bothers me: I work with retail real estate analysts who are primarily women, doing incredibly sophisticated spatial analysis, demographic modeling, and predictive forecasting. They're building custom KNN models and processing massive datasets from ESRI, Unacast, and Streetlight. But because it's in "retail" instead of "tech," VCs consistently undervalue their expertise. I've sat in funding meetings where investors drill me on the "tech" while barely engaging our lead analyst who actually built the forecasting engine. The STEM label created this hierarchy where certain applications of data science count more than others. Our analysts prevent million-dollar mistakes by predicting store performance--we've got 550 stores opened with 99.8% hitting revenue targets. That's applied mathematics with immediate business impact. But try explaining that retail site selection is computational geometry and machine learning, and watch how quickly people assume it's just "intuition" dressed up with dashboards. The irony is retail operations taught me more about real problem-solving than finance ever did. Working in my family's retail business from age 15, I learned that messy, human-centered problems require just as much rigor as anything in a lab. But good luck getting that recognized when your domain isn't considered "real STEM."
I came up through ICU, Medical-Surgical, Oncology, and Hospice before moving into nurse practitioner work and aesthetics--nobody ever talked about "women in STEM" in nursing because healthcare is *already* female-dominated. The weird part is how that gets dismissed. I've managed complex cardiac cases, titrated life-saving drips, and now optimize hormones and prescribe medications, but because it's nursing instead of engineering, people assume it's "softer" work. What bothers me is how the STEM label creates this hierarchy where computational skills get praised but biological sciences through a clinical lens get overlooked. I spent years in Hematology/Oncology understanding how the body responds at a cellular level to treatment, then applied that to aesthetic medicine and longevity optimization. That's science. But when I mention working in a med spa, I've had people visibly lose interest--like suddenly my 30+ years of clinical expertise doesn't count because the setting isn't a research lab. The push also ignores that many of us *chose* paths emphasizing human connection alongside technical skill. I didn't want to stare at data all day--I wanted to use scientific knowledge to directly impact someone's quality of life, whether that was end-of-life comfort or helping someone regain confidence through hormone balance. The "women in STEM" narrative made it feel like those priorities were somehow less valuable, when really they require just as much critical thinking plus emotional intelligence most traditional STEM fields don't even measure.
I've spent 15 years in digital marketing--a field that sits in this weird limbo where it's "technical enough" to require serious analytical chops but not "STEM enough" to get the same respect. I've scaled businesses from $1M to $200M in revenue using advanced data analytics, machine learning for campaign optimization, and predictive modeling that would make any data scientist proud. But the moment I say "Google Ads strategist" instead of "data scientist," I watch people's perception shift. Here's what really gets me: When we rebuilt Princess Bazaar's campaign structure, we used audience segmentation algorithms and conversion probability modeling to cut their CPC while increasing revenue. That's applied mathematics solving real business problems. But because it's wrapped in "marketing" rather than "engineering," it doesn't register as technical work to most people. I'm literally doing multivariate testing and statistical analysis daily, yet I've been talked over in meetings by junior developers who've never had to balance business outcomes with technical constraints. The STEM push created this false binary where you're either building rockets or you're not doing real technical work. What about the massive data infrastructure work required to track customer behavior across platforms? The AI integration we use to analyze market trends in real-time? I bridge sales, tech, and executive teams specifically because digital marketing requires understanding all three--but that cross-functional complexity gets dismissed as "soft skills" instead of recognized as systems thinking.
I've spent my career in radiologic technology continuing education, and I've watched this play out in a specific way: medical imaging gets weirdly excluded from the "women in STEM" conversation despite being heavily technical and requiring constant engagement with physics, radiation science, and emerging AI applications. We're about 75% women in radiology tech, yet nobody celebrates us as STEM professionals--we're just "healthcare workers." Here's what that costs us: When I'm negotiating with tech companies about AI integration in imaging education, I'm often treated as the "content person" while male developers are the "technical experts," even though I'm the one who has to understand how smart algorithms actually function in CT scanners and MRI machines. I've had to explain radiation physics and magnetic field safety protocols to engineers who assume I'm just organizing training logistics. The technical knowledge required to teach 1,500+ categories of imaging CE--from fluoroscopy physics to digital radiography systems--apparently doesn't count as STEM because it involves patient care. The real damage? Our salaries reflect it. Radiologic technologists require the same rigorous math and physics education as many engineering techs, plus state licensure and continuous certification, yet we earn 15-30% less than similarly educated roles that get labeled "technology" instead of "healthcare." When my team develops online testing systems and course algorithms, nobody calls us software developers--we're educators. Same work, different perception, different pay. The weirdest part is watching facilities hire "imaging informatics specialists" (usually men, usually higher paid) to do work that experienced rad techs have been doing for years, just because they come from IT backgrounds instead of clinical ones. We're told to stay current on AI and machine learning in medical imaging, but when we do, it still doesn't earn us a seat at the "STEM" table.
I run a digital marketing agency and came to this field after 30+ years in accounting and nonprofit financial management. What I've watched happen is that "women in STEM" became shorthand for "smart women," which left everyone else--including women running creative agencies, law practices, or retail businesses--feeling like their intelligence doesn't count. Here's what I see with my clients: I work with a lot of female attorneys, CPAs, and nonprofit leaders. The lawyers and accountants never mention feeling less respected as women, but my clients who run design firms or marketing agencies? They constantly tell me they feel like they have to prove they're "strategic thinkers" and not just "creative types." One client who owns a branding agency said a male vendor literally asked her if she "understood the technical side" of running a website--meanwhile she'd been coding landing pages for eight years. The weirdest part is I straddle both worlds because of my accounting background, and I've noticed people take me more seriously when I mention my finance experience than when I talk about the creative problem-solving that actually makes websites work. I'm a drummer who became an accountant who became a web designer--all of that requires pattern recognition and complex systems thinking. But only one of those gets the "oh, so you're analytical" response. What bothers me most is watching my female clients in creative fields add unnecessary "data-driven" language to their bios because they've internalized that creativity alone won't get them respect. They're already solving complex business problems daily, but they feel like it doesn't count unless it sounds like engineering.
I took over Environmental Equipment + Supply in 2018, and immediately ran into something I didn't expect: being celebrated for being a woman-owned business while simultaneously having my technical knowledge questioned on sales calls. I'd have clients ask to "speak to someone who knows the equipment" when I was literally explaining the chemical resistance specs on QED bladder pumps. The WBENC certification opened contract doors, but I've watched engineers assume my male technicians--who have the same 15 years experience--were more qualified to recommend between a Teflon vs polyethylene bladder for their specific sampling protocols. Here's what bothers me most: I get invited to "women in business" panels all the time, but rarely to the technical conferences where decisions about geophysical equipment standards actually happen. The same government contracts that require woman-owned vendors still route technical questions to male-owned competitors. We serve 500+ clients annually doing genuinely complex work--matching the right concrete scanner to rebar density requirements, configuring 12VDC pump systems for low-flow sampling compliance--but the "women-owned" label makes people see the business accomplishment instead of the environmental engineering expertise. The certification helps us compete, don't get me wrong. But I've had potential hires--women with environmental science degrees--tell me they specifically looked for non-woman-branded companies because they didn't want to be seen as getting an "easy" job. One said she worried a women-owned company would be less technically rigorous. She's now one of our best technicians on borehole camera systems, but that assumption cost us six months of her talent.
I spent nearly 14 years as an engineer at Intel before opening my repair shop, and here's what nobody talks about: the "women in STEM" label made it impossible to admit I wanted to leave. When I'd mention feeling burned out or wanting to work directly with people, other women would look at me like I was betraying the cause. Like I owed it to future generations to stay miserable in a cubicle because we'd fought so hard to get there. The weirdest part is what happened after I left to do micro-soldering and circuit board repair--which is literally still engineering, just with my hands instead of a desk. I'd go to networking events and watch people's faces change when I said "repair shop owner" instead of "Intel engineer." Suddenly I wasn't a real example anymore. I've had women in tech groups tell me they wished they could "do something with people too" but said it like they were confessing a weakness. What actually bothers me most is how it taught women that technical skills only count in certain packages. I do advanced diagnostics and data recovery that most shops won't touch, but because I also sit with someone who's crying over lost family photos, the assumption is I'm running a "feel-good" business instead of a precision operation. The care part gets treated like it dilutes the technical part, when really they're both just intelligence showing up differently. I've had customers--women in tech--apologize for getting emotional during data recovery, like caring about their files makes them less credible in their field. That's the real damage: we created a hierarchy where empathy became evidence you're not serious enough.
I've spent 17+ years in project management and operations, and here's what nobody talks about: the "women in STEM" push accidentally created a respect hierarchy that devalues the complex problem-solving happening in fields like HVAC operations and facilities management. At Comfort Temp, I manage multi-million-dollar projects, steer complex compliance requirements, and optimize systems that literally keep people alive during Florida's brutal heat--but mention you work in trades or service industries and watch how fast people's eyes glaze over. The reality is I'm doing systems integration work daily. Coordinating 20+ apprentices through a 4-year technical program while managing cross-functional teams, vendor relationships, and 24/7 emergency operations requires the same analytical rigor as any tech role. We launched a CTE program with Alachua County schools and built training infrastructure from scratch. But because it's not coded or in a lab, it doesn't count as "real" problem-solving to most people. What frustrates me most is seeing brilliant technicians and operations managers--many of them women--dismissed because HVAC isn't "STEM enough." These people are troubleshooting thermodynamics, managing complex mechanical systems, and making split-second decisions that prevent carbon monoxide poisoning or heat stroke. Try explaining that facility operations is applied physics and strategic project management, and people still assume you're just scheduling appointments. The irony is that critical thinking and strategic execution in high-stakes, real-world environments taught me more about actual problem-solving than any classroom could. But the STEM label created this artificial barrier where certain applications of intelligence are valued while others--especially in traditionally blue-collar or service sectors--get written off entirely.
Vice President of Business Development at Element U.S. Space & Defense
Answered 3 months ago
I've spent 25 years in Test, Inspection, and Certification--a sector that's technically STEM but somehow doesn't get included in the glamorous "women in STEM" conversations. When I'm at industry conferences or advisory boards like the one I served on for Purdue, people seem surprised that materials science and manufacturing engineering systems aren't coding or biotech. It's like there's this hierarchy where certain STEM fields count more than others, and testing/certification work gets treated as support staff rather than the technical backbone keeping spacecraft and defense systems operational. Here's what actually happened in my career: I led the team that worked 24/7 on NASA's SLS program, helping keep the Artemis mission on schedule to put the first woman on the moon. We won NASA's Space Flight Awareness award--the first independent test lab ever to receive it. But when I mention my work, I still get asked if I'm in "project management" or "client relations." The assumption is that the actual testing--the environmental simulation, the insensitive munitions work, the EMI/EMC analysis--is being done by men in the back while I'm the woman managing relationships up front. The weirdest part is watching how this plays out with hiring and promotions in my sector. We have women with advanced degrees in engineering who are incredibly technically competent, but they get pigeonholed into business development or quality roles because that's where companies think "women in STEM" initiatives are fulfilled. Meanwhile, I chair the Nadcap Supplier Support Committee and lead proposal teams that require deep technical knowledge to even understand what we're bidding on--but that analytical work doesn't photograph well for diversity reports the way a woman in a lab coat does.
I've definitely run into that divide--this unspoken hierarchy where if you weren't buried in code or lab work, your brainpower somehow needed defending. I studied design alongside psychology, and there was always this subtle pressure to justify why those paths mattered, like creativity or understanding people didn't qualify as "real" rigor. It leaves you feeling like you have to prove you're serious, even when your work is demanding in its own way. What's strange is that the "women in STEM" banner is meant to be supportive, but it can end up narrowing the idea of what accomplishment looks like. I've always felt that creativity has its own logic to it. Designing anything--an interface, a space, an experience--means solving problems through shape, emotion, and context. So the sharp line that gets drawn between STEM and the arts has never made much sense to me. They're just different ways of thinking, neither one inherently more worthy than the other.