A doctoral candidate...

A doctoral candidate ... says she understands why women are less attracted to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) than men.  Her doctoral thesis is all about this phenomenon.  Here's an example section:

At first, the course purpose statement presents a view of knowledge as constructed by suggesting that there is a possibility that different conclusions can be drawn from the evidence by the choice to use “a” instead of “the” conclusion. However, the second sentence indicates that the techniques to analyze the evidence, once learned, are to be used instead of applied.  This indicates that the knowledge of the tools, as well as the tools themselves, are facts, and students will learn how to use the tools to find correct answers instead of becoming independent constructors of knowledge. This represents a conflict between active learning techniques and a view of knowledge as a static concept. While there is a recognition that students learn better through active learning techniques, the knowledge being learned is still viewed as factual and unchanging, further reinforcing the masculine nature of STEM education.

So, according to her, saying:

The answer to two plus two is four.

Is masculine, wrong-headed, and off-putting to women.  Instead we should say:

An answer to two plus two is four.

Because that's so much more sensitive, the answer might change over time, and it would make STEM more approachable for women.

There's much more babble of just this sort if you read the entire paper (it's not long, nor is it technical).

Somebody take this planet, please!