same stuff, different day

There are some unfortunate parallels in the stories we read about the "Woman Question" in Victorian-era England and the modern us. Sadly, no matter how many women are now attending college, a relatively small number are studying what is referred to as the "STEM" subjects: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. in fact, according to Newsweek, only 18 percent of college degrees in computer sciences are earned by the 50% of the population who are female, and make up only 25% of the workforce in the computer science and math professions (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/06/29/steming-the-tide.html). Where once women were taught to feel shamed by their interest in philosophy, theological studies, or sociology because "it was not thought proper for young ladies to study very conspicuously; and especially with pen in hand" female children are now subtlely told that maths and sciences are somehow masculine, and require an unattractive level of studiousness to excel in (Norton 1589). According to Inside Higher Ed's online blog, one major factor in this trend is because among women who intially plan to pursue higher degrees in these STEM subjects, many consider dropping out or re-considering and focusing on a lower degree "during their doctoral studies because of issues stemming from discouraging advisors, uncomfortable work environments, sexist attitudes and other gender biases" (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/11/08/stem).
This is signifigant because these are the same sort of problems women faced in the Victorian era when attemptng to fulfill their greatest potential, made only slightly newer by the passage of well over 150 years. No matter how equal we suppose ourselves to be, how modern our family lives, it seems still to be the female who must pay a heavy price for refusing to be circumspectly satisfied by staying quietly within the domestic sphere. The danger Martineau addresses on page 1589, that of being socially shunned if one does not seem to be conforming to the proper code of feminine acivity, is still a possibility. Anecdotally, professional women who happen to be mothers are not invited to socialize with "the mommy crowd." It seems a bit absurd. We might not expect high-achieving males to have a lot of buddies who are unemployed, but we as a society would definitely reward the high achieving men and (at least) socially punish the unproductive. Yet as a society we tend toward rewarding the "unproductive" female who stays home to care for her family as a good wife and mother, and socially penalize the high achieving female. Maybe in another 150-200 years this will change. I won't hold my breath, though.