That study actually shows that almost nothing has changed in a quarter of a century.

They're referencing 1986-2016 at 72%, versus ~67% from 2010-2017, as a meaningful improvement. That supposedly meaningful improvement is almost entirely wiped out if you adjust just one of the recent outlier data points down to the average. Or alternatively, to show how little actual improvement there has been in a quarter century, drop the data off pre 1992, that 72% vs 67% improvement might even regress (someone want to test that?). That's pretty shaky ground for such a big claim.

Pretty ridiculous article premise given the data in question. There's obviously a lot more work to do on improving the gender stereotype problem the article is claiming has improved, particularly since it has somewhere between barely changed and not changed at all in decades.

This could just as easily mean that children simply don't see scientists anymore and have no idea what they look like.

For me scientists are certainly far far less visible than they used to be. It's all programmers now.

What would help would be correlating "draw a person", from the same child and seeing if a scientist varies from that.

Kids never saw scientists. I never saw a scientist when I was a kid. And I was a child fairly recently.

Most of the giant media-loved scientists have died at this point - Sagan, Feynman, Salk, Pavlov, etc, and are finally starting to drop out of public-rememberance.

The 20th century had a lot of movies featuring (fictional) scientists, like Dr. Strangelove and Men in Black, too.

They were represented quite a bit.

Neil deGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye are very big in pop culture. My daughter is 10 and came home singing "Bill Bill Bill Bill, Bill Nye the Science Guy" because her school still plays old episodes. NdT had a prime time series on a major network. I'm not gonna suggest they're "as big" as Sagan or Feynman was, but they're really big.

> Kids never saw scientists. I never saw a scientist when I was a kid. And I was a child fairly recently.

It wasn't always like that. If you were kid longer-ago, scientists were seen all the time.

Between what you and Mononokay wrote, I think my interpretation is the likely one. Kids are just drawing generic people, and not scientists specifically.

I saw one this morning at the bus stop. Long unkept gray hair, bulgy eyes, ankle-length labcoat, unconventionally late.

Well, more conventionally unconventionally late.

What about kids' doodles of mine workers, garbage collectors, soldiers killed in war, prisoners, and other undesirable fields?

I would guess they still draw mostly men. Or rather, I would guess they don't even draw them or think about them. I don't hear many calls for equality there.

This is interesting. I set out to argue that there are plenty of nasty, boring, unfulfilling jobs done by women for low wages (something that I think is inarguably true). But I note that your examples are mostly about physically hazardous jobs. So I did some googling, and found a statistic [1] that said that in 2015, 93% of US workplace fatalities were of men. So maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe the statistic changes if you look outside the industrialized nations. Anyone know?

[1] https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/how-come-nobod...

The idea is that women are severely underrepresented in STEM and that negatively influences their standard of life. It wouldn't make any sense to convince them they should be garbage collectors or miners in the same way as it makes little sense to ask men to become nurses. With STEM it's different: there are great advantages, both to women themselves and the society in general, if the proportions change.

But also, there are programmes to increase the number of women in mining and construction, and the number of men in nursing and teaching.

what a fit tho