Girls In STEM

Forty percent of Black women are Onlys. The only woman in the room. The only Black person at the table. The only one who looks like them in the entire department. Double the rate of women overall. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐓𝐚𝐱™ Being the Only doesn't just feel isolating. It costs you money. Here's how: 51% of Black women who are Onlys report needing to provide more evidence of their competence than their colleagues. For men who are not Onlys? 13%. That's a 38-point gap in proof burden. Every time you re-explain your qualifications. Every time you over-document your decisions. Every time you CC three extra people to establish a paper trail because you know your word won't be enough. That's labor. Unpaid labor. 77% of Black women report "prove it again" bias — having to demonstrate competence over and over, while their white male counterparts get presumed capable from day one. And when you do succeed? They don't credit competence. They credit luck. Affirmative action. Help from someone else. Timing. Your wins don't compound in your file. They evaporate. So you prove it again. And again. And again. Meanwhile, Brad's first success is still paying dividends three promotions later. This is not a confidence gap. This is an extraction gap. The time you spend re-proving yourself is time you're not spending on visible, credited, compensated work. It's time stolen from the record that determines your raise. Your promotion. Your equity. They're not asking you to prove it again because they forgot. They're asking because the system is designed to make you work twice for half the credit. And half the credit means half the compensation. Document the proof burden. Track the hours. Name the pattern. Because the Only Tax isn't invisible. It's just unbilled. How many times have you had to prove something twice that Brad only had to prove once? Thank You; It's True™ #BlackWomensWealthLab #DocumentEverything #TheOnlyTax

The strongest predictor of whether a girl stays in STEM isn't her grades, her test scores, or even her interest level. It's whether she can look around the room and see someone who looks like her succeeding in it. That's one of the central findings from a recent deep dive in Psychology Today into the psychology behind why capable young women and girls leave science, technology, engineering, and math long before any real test of talent takes place. And it reframes the whole conversation. 🔬 Researchers call it "social identity threat," the concern that your group is devalued in a particular space. When women were placed in a STEM environment with a skewed men-to-women ratio, they showed measurably higher cognitive and physiological stress and reported a weaker sense of belonging. The men in the same study were completely unaffected. This "belonging uncertainty" disproportionately affects people from historically excluded groups and has been shown to predict both disengagement and lower achievement. 🧪 The flip side is just as striking. Exposure to female experts in STEM strengthened women's sense of identity in these fields, raised their self-confidence, and increased their motivation. Researchers describe this effect as a stereotype "inoculation," building genuine resistance to the subtle messages that say you don't belong here. 💡 Even the décor in a room sends signals. Studies show that swapping stereotypical objects in a computer science classroom, like sci-fi posters, for neutral ones raised women's interest to match that of their male peers. The perception that STEM is solitary, competitive, and offers little chance to collaborate or help others is itself enough to push people away, especially those who value working with and for others. So what can actually change things? The research points to five clear actions: ✨ Make role models visible, online and in person. ✨ Speak up against bias and re-credit women's contributions when they get talked over. ✨ Frame challenges as chances to grow, not tests of fixed ability. ✨ Audit the spaces you control: who is on the walls, how the work is described. ✨ Build peer communities and mentorship networks where women and girls aren't developing their skills in isolation. When an environment signals that you belong here, capability has room to follow. Read the full article in Psychology Today to learn more about the psychology behind women and girls in STEM! 👉 https://lnkd.in/eu_3HiXn #WomenInSTEM #GirlsInSTEM #STEMGems #GiveGirlsRoleModels 💜🩷💙💚 Role models are essential. For over a decade, STEM Gems has been putting girls in rooms with women who look like them and are thriving in STEM, because that visibility changes everything. If this resonates with you, consider supporting our work. Learn more about our decade of impact and donate to STEM Gems here: https://lnkd.in/ed-nJVsN

As International Women’s Day nears, we’ll see the usual corporate gestures—empowerment panels, social media campaigns, and carefully curated success stories. But let’s be honest: these feel-good initiatives rarely change what actually holds women back at work on the daily basis. Instead, I suggest focusing on something concrete, something I’ve seen have the biggest impact in my work with teams: the unspoken dynamics that shape psychological safety. 🚨Because psychological safety is not the same for everyone. Psychological safety is often defined as a shared belief that one can take risks without fear of negative consequences. But let’s unpack that—who actually feels safe enough to take those risks? 🔹 Speaking up costs more for women Confidence isn’t the issue—consequences are. Women learn early that being too direct can backfire. Assertiveness can be read as aggression, while careful phrasing can make them seem uncertain. Over time, this calculation becomes second nature: Is this worth the risk? 🔹 Mistakes are stickier When men fail, it’s seen as part of leadership growth. When women fail, it often reinforces lingering doubts about their competence. This means that women aren’t more risk-averse by nature—they’re just more aware of the cost. 🔹 Inclusion isn’t just about presence Being at the table doesn’t mean having an equal voice. Women often find themselves in a credibility loop—having to repeatedly prove their expertise before their ideas carry weight. Meanwhile, those who fit the traditional leadership mold are often trusted by default. 🔹 Emotional labor is the silent career detour Women in teams do an extraordinary amount of behind-the-scenes work—mediating conflicts, softening feedback, ensuring inclusion. The problem? This work isn’t visible in performance reviews or leadership selection criteria. It’s expected, but not rewarded. What companies can do beyond IWD symbolism: ✅ Stop measuring "confidence"—start measuring credibility gaps If some team members always need to “prove it” while others are trusted instantly, you have a credibility gap, not a confidence issue. Fix how ideas get heard, not how women present them. ✅ Make failure a learning moment for everyone Audit how mistakes are handled in your team. Are men encouraged to take bold moves while women are advised to be more careful? Change the narrative around risk. ✅ Track & reward emotional labor If women are consistently mentoring, resolving conflicts, or ensuring inclusion, this isn’t just “being helpful”—it’s leadership. Make it visible, valued, and part of promotion criteria. 💥 This IWD, let’s skip the celebration and start the correction. If your company is serious about making psychological safety equal for everyone, let’s do the real work. 📅 I’m now booking IWD sessions focused on improving team dynamics and creating workplaces where women don’t just survive, but thrive. Book your spot and let’s turn good intentions into lasting impact.

For International Women in Engineering Day (INWED) 2026, let's skip the stock photos of women engineers in hardhats. Instead, let's focus on the repeatable gap we keep finding. According to NSF/NCSES data, women with engineering degrees start ahead of men. Yet, 1-5 years after graduation, 53.4% of women are working in engineering roles, vs. 49.3% of men. This surprises so many people. Then the shift comes. By 11-15 years out? Only 26.8% of women are still in engineering. Men: 41%. Same degree. Same starting point. Different outcome. Here's what my six years of research with women of color in STEM shows about why: Early career, the rules are clear. Prove your technical skills. Master the work. Women do exactly that, often better than their peers. Then the rules change and nobody tells them. By mid-career, advancement stops being about what you can do and starts being about who sees you doing it. Executive exposure. Sponsorship. Office politics. Nearly 16% of mid-career women of color in my research identify politics, visibility, and sponsorship as their primary struggle, not competence, not capability. They worked hard for years following the rules, then the game shifted entirely. That gap between 53.4% and 26.8% isn't a pipeline problem. It's happening inside your firm, in promotion cycles and visibility decisions you control. If you're celebrating women engineers today, ask first: how many of the women you hired 10 years ago are still here, and in what roles? If you don't know the answer, that's worth a conversation. #INWED2026 #EngineeringIntelligence #MissingMiddle #AEC #WomeninEngineering

𝐌𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐧 “𝐟𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐲.” 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐭𝐨 “𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞” 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠. Every year, we applaud the small increase in women reaching the top. Every year, we expect real change. And yet, 10.4%? That’s not transformation—that’s stagnation. 𝐘𝐞𝐬, 𝐎𝐧𝐥𝐲 10.4% 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐞 500 𝐂𝐄𝐎𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐖𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐧 2025. 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐥𝐨𝐰? Because let’s be honest—this isn’t about competence, ambition, or a lack of qualified women. The real issue? 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧. Here’s what’s really happening: 🔹 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 “𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐭”: Bias Companies don’t just promote the best—they promote who feels right in the role. And too often, that “right” looks like every CEO before them—male. 🔹 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐲𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 “𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐅𝐢𝐭”: Women are expected to check every single box before being considered. Men? They’re promoted on potential, not perfection. 🔹 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐨𝐩: A woman in the C-suite often stands alone. No peer network, no old boys' club, no ready-made allies. Leadership can be isolating when you’re the only one like you in the room. 🔹 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐧’𝐭 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝—They Just Look Different Assertive men are seen as confident. Assertive women? “Difficult.” A decisive male leader is strong. A decisive female leader is “cold.” Men can “focus on strategy.” Women still have to “prove” they belong. And even when they break through? - More scrutiny—one mistake defines her. - More resistance—team members hesitate to follow. - More pressure—because failure is seen as a sign that “women weren’t ready.” We are being judged at every step, for every decision we make. If not internally, then externally, in every social setup. 𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐣𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐝𝐨𝐮𝐛𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 "𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟" 𝐭𝐨 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 "𝐃𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠" The System Isn’t Just Slow—It’s Flawed. We don’t need to “fix” women. We need to fix the biases, structures, and outdated leadership models that are still holding them back. So what needs to change? ✅ Promote women based on potential—just like men. ✅ Trust women leadership capabilities at work ✅ Build real support systems. 𝐃𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐧 8𝐭𝐡 𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐡, 𝐜𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐚𝐬 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐨𝐮𝐭.

To the woman starting in cybersecurity,  I write … Not as someone who has everything figured out, but as someone who understands that this field can sometimes feel different to navigate as a woman. Cybersecurity is exciting, challenging, and constantly evolving. But it is also a space where women are still under-represented. There are moments that many people outside the industry may never notice. Things that quietly shape your experience as you build your career. You may find yourself walking into spaces where you are the only woman in the room, and suddenly you’re very aware of it.  Sometimes that can bring a quiet pressure. The feeling that you need to prove you belong there.  That you have to be extra prepared before speaking up.  That asking a question might be judged more harshly than it would be for others. In those moments, it’s easy to become more aware of yourself…   And that can make it tempting to stay quiet. But here’s something important to remember… your presence in that room matters. There will also be moments where your confidence feels shaken.  Those moments happen to more people than you realise. Remember, confidence in cybersecurity isn’t something most people walk in with.  It is built gradually through learning, experimenting, solving problems, and finding your voice in conversations. You don’t need to have all the answers. What matters is curiosity, persistence, and the willingness to keep showing up. And each time you do, you make the path a little clearer for the women who will follow. So if you are thinking about starting a journey in cybersecurity, take that first step. And if you have already started, keep going even on days when it feels the hardest. The industry needs you… and there is absolutely a place for you in it. And one day, without even realising it, you become the woman another woman is looking up to in the room. I am rooting for you. Happy International Women’s Day.

The reality of being a woman in STEM in Hong Kong. Recently, my private Threads account was shared on Telegram here in Hong Kong, and I was doxxed. It happened after someone found out I was the only Hongkonger accepted by Google DeepMind through Google Summer of Code. After I confirmed the account was mine, the comments started pouring in. I got messages like: “Bitch, 1/4 of your achievements are because of your looks.” “Your research career is easier because you’re pretty. (So the PI treats you better.)” “Are you just trying to flex so people praise you?” “This isn’t impressive, you still work for someone and don’t even make much money.” This isn’t just about me, it reflects a bigger problem. It’s unfair to downplay someone’s work just because they’re a woman, or because they don’t match some narrow idea of success. In Hong Kong, where finance is often seen as the gold standard, people frequently judge worth by income or job title. If you're not rich or in a "powerful" position, they think your achievements don’t count. And as a woman in STEM, it’s especially frustrating. These comments ignore the time, effort, and dedication behind our work, and reduce it all to looks. This mindset is sadly common here. And honestly, it’s exhausting.

It's not the pipeline, It's the System. June 23rd is celebrated as 'International Women in Engineering Day" #INWED Sadly the harsh reality, engineering colleges in India produce the highest number of women in STEM graduates/engineers and many of them actually do make it to the workforce. The real challenge is their retention and progression. With 2+ decades in tech and now consulting for tech companies on their Gender Equity Strategy, I’ve seen this challenge firsthand. The issue isn’t talent availability, it’s systemic. In most households, a woman’s career is still seen as optional. That mindset and bias bleeds into workplaces, shaping how women are hired, retained, and promoted. So what can organisations do, 1. Relook at org culture and design. Are your systems, policies, and leadership norms built equitably to support who stays, rises and how. 2. Representation matters, especially in especially in mid and senior levels, invest in retention and have hiring goals across grades. 3. Move from gendered to gender neutral policies. Eg. Maternity to Parental Leave Policy that supports all care-givers. Reframe workplace policies from “women-centric benefits” to equitable caregiving support that normalise shared responsibility and reduce bias. 4. Women in Tech Returnee programs - I've seen immense success in these programs, that offer companies experienced tech talent with a little investment. #Vapasi from Thoughtworks, #Spring from Publicis Sapient are two examples 5. Conduct Stay Interviews, Not Exit Interviews. Understand why women leave and what it takes for them to stay and grow and act on the inputs. 3. A Clear Career Progression Path with mentorship and sponsorship - Bias in growth opportunity for #WIT is real, if there is no intentional support to overcome these bias, talent walks away. 4. I Need to See More Like Me! There is a lack of role models. Accelerated Women in tech leadership programs, fast-tracking the leadership journey of high potential women are some ways to address this. 5. Collective Ownership. Gender Diversity in tech is not a HR, leadership or DEI responsibility. Make it the very fabric of the org. to drive shared accountability. 6. Data is not just diagnostic, it's directional. It guides us on investments to be made, unseen bias and where and what needs to change, it's your mirror don't ignore it. #Inclusion is a organisational capability and leaders are it's torch bearers. Their actions, direction and decisions every single day, signal what truly matters. The Women in tech, talent pool exists. The question is, are you ready to retain, grow, and lead with them? #WomenInTech #WIT #GenderEquity #DiversityInTech Diversity Simplified Image description: A newspaper article titled “It’s Not the Pipeline, It’s the System” from Times of India, Bangalore edition which highlights the gender gap in engineering.

Did you know that honeybees can teach us a thing or two about computer science! Honeybees use a "waggle dance" to tell each other where to find flowers. This dance inspired the "Bee Algorithm" in AI, which helps computers solve complex problems by efficiently searching for the best solutions. It’s amazing how biology sparks engineering's hottest innovations—like self-cleaning surfaces and gecko-grip robots, and even fuel-efficient airplane designs inspired by shark skin! Despite being an engineering powerhouse, biology often gets labeled as "soft science," while engineering and technology are seen as "hard sciences" with a masculine connotation. These stereotypes contribute to why women are more prevalent in biology fields than in engineering and technology sectors. Why the gender gap? Stereotypes, lack of exposure, and unconscious biases in hiring. Women who do enter these fields often find themselves in male-dominated teams, making it challenging to voice their opinions and perspectives. How can we close the gap? ◈ Mentorship Programs: Initiatives like the Vigyan Jyoti Scheme by India DST, STEM for Girls by IBM, IEEE Women in Engineering and VigyanShaala International's Kalpana - She for STEM are crucial. These programs expose girls to female role models and mentors in engineering and technology, providing career intelligence and inspiration. ◈ Media Campaigns: We need campaigns that shift the narrative. Highlighting the career journeys and real-world impact of women in engineering and technology fields can combat stereotypes. Imagine seeing women building robots, designing video games, or leading engineering projects on mainstream media. ◈ Flexible Work Arrangements: Companies need to promote flexible work options like remote work, compressed workweeks, or staggered hours. This allows employees to manage personal commitments without sacrificing career goals. Companies like Automattic (WordPress), Dropbox, and Microsoft already allow such flexibility. ◈ Supportive Policies: Investing in on-site childcare facilities, robust parental leave policies, and employee resource groups (ERGs) focused on women in STEM can create a supportive environment that eases the burden of balancing work and family. Organizations like Intel Corporation and Accenture have already started taking these steps. ◈ Shift Focus: Instead of highlighting long hours as a badge of honor, companies should demonstrate their commitment to employee well-being and a sustainable work pace. What more can we do to level the playing field in STEM, ensuring everyone has the opportunity to excel? How can we ensure that women in tech are not just participants but leaders? Would love to know your thoughts and experiences! #WomenInSTEM #GenderEquality #DiversityInTech #STEMEducation #GenderEquity

Somewhere between 11 and 13, a lot of girls stop believing they are good at STEM. They don’t stop being curious. They don’t stop being capable. They don’t suddenly lose the part of themselves that loved building, mixing, coding, counting, designing, testing, collecting, asking why. What changes is the cost of staying interested. The social cost goes up. The confidence starts to drop. The world gets louder about what girls are supposed to like, be, want, and become. I wrote this piece because I have lived both sides of that story. As a girl, I loved math. When I told my high school guidance counsellor that, he suggested I become a math teacher. I listened. I eventually found my way back to what I loved: math, computer science, cryptography, and technology. But I wanted something different for my daughter. When she was seven, she coded in a princess dress. She built circuits, mixed kitchen-counter chemistry experiments, made endless LEGO worlds, soldered, designed, tinkered, and asked questions. She is 17 now, and this fall she is heading to her first-choice university to study biochemistry. That didn’t happen because I pushed her into STEM. It happened because we protected her permission to stay curious. In the piece, I write about the four things that helped her cross the STEM cliff without losing herself: Possibility. Identity. Contact. Permission. What she sees shapes what feels possible. What she does builds who she understands herself to be. Who she meets makes the path feel real. And what she hears about herself, specifically, gives her the courage to keep going. If you are raising a girl, teaching one, mentoring one, coaching one, or loving one through the years when the world gets loud, this one is for you. Start where she is. Support what she already loves. Protect her curiosity. Then let her take it from there. Full post is in the comments.