Claim: “The Vast Majority of Equal Hiring Only Targets Women and Is Very Selective and One Sided”

Accuracy Assessment: Largely True

The core claim is Largely True. The evidence confirms a significant and measurable asymmetry in equality programmes: there are dozens of well-funded government-backed and industry initiatives specifically targeting women into male-dominated, higher-paying, lower-physical-effort fields (STEM, tech, engineering, finance, construction management), while equivalent efforts to attract men into female-dominated fields such as teaching and nursing are far fewer, much more limited in scale, and largely ineffective. The teaching workforce in England is 76% female — a more extreme gender imbalance than most male-dominated STEM fields targeted by diversity programmes — yet no gender-specific recruitment campaign for men into teaching has been run by government. Wikipedia’s article on Men in Nursing explicitly notes: “Unlike the campaigns and groups set up to increase and promote women’s opportunities in medicine, surgery, engineering and computer science, there have been no comparable campaigns to increase the number of males in nursing.”

The second part of the claim — that even within “getting women into male jobs” programmes, only high-paying, low-physical-effort roles are targeted — is broadly accurate but overstated. Programmes for Women in Mining and Women in Construction do exist, but are minuscule in scale compared to STEM/tech programmes. No equivalent drive exists to get women into refuse collection (88.5% male), sewage treatment (94% male), HGV driving (99% male), or other physically demanding, lower-paying male-dominated occupations.

The claim slightly overstates the case by suggesting there are no programmes for men in female-dominated roles — some small-scale efforts have been made (a 2012 government “Primary Experience Programme” for male primary teachers; NHS recruitment campaigns featuring male nurses). However, these are dwarfed in scale, funding, and sustained commitment by the women-in-STEM ecosystem. The asymmetry is real, well-documented, and statistically unambiguous.

Key Claims at a Glance

Claim Breakdown

1. “Teaching is majority female with no serious effort to balance it”

✅ Largely True — the gender imbalance in teaching is extreme and sustained; government response is inadequate and not gender-specific

The UK teaching workforce is 76% female as of 2024/25 according to official Department for Education statistics. In primary schools, only 14% of teachers are male — a figure that has barely moved since 2016. According to BERA research, 24% of state-funded schools in England have no male classroom teacher at all.

Source: DfE School Workforce in England, 2023/24

Despite this extreme imbalance, the government’s response has been notably weak compared to STEM. A 2022 response to a Parliamentary Question confirmed that the DfE’s recruitment campaigns are “targeted at audiences of students, recent graduates, and potential career changers, regardless of their identity or background” — i.e., explicitly not gender-specific. The Men and Boys Coalition’s submission to Parliament stated bluntly: “The government does not seem concerned. It produces no research on the causes — and therefore has no actions and runs no specific male teaching recruitment campaigns.”

In April 2025, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson called for more male teachers (“Since 2010 the number of teachers has increased by 28,000 — but just 533 of those are men. That’s extraordinary.”) — but this acknowledgement of the problem has not been matched by dedicated programme funding comparable to women-in-STEM initiatives.

A 2012 “Primary Experience Programme” offered 1,000 male graduates school placement experience — the only documented gender-specific programme — but this was not sustained and teacher gender balance has not meaningfully improved.

Verdict: ✅ Largely True. The imbalance is real and extreme. Government response lacks the sustained, funded, gender-specific effort equivalent to women-in-STEM programmes.

2. “Numerous programs exist to get women into male-dominated professions”

✅ True — there is an extensive, well-funded, government-backed and industry-supported ecosystem specifically designed to recruit women into male-dominated higher-paying fields

The scale and organisation of women-in-STEM initiatives in the UK is significant:

Government-backed:

• WISE Campaign — major long-running initiative, government-supported, tracking progress on 1 million women in STEM (2019 milestone); women now 24% of core-STEM workforce
• Apprenticeships Diversity Champions Network — government programme offering advice to employers to attract more women into STEM apprenticeships
• Women STEM Returners — £150,000 government-funded (Kemi Badenoch, 2021) programme helping women return to STEM after career breaks
• British Council Women in STEM Scholarships — UK government-funded master’s scholarships for women from developing countries to study in UK
• “Your Life” campaign — industry and government joint initiative targeting 30% female apprenticeships in construction companies like Laing O’Rourke

Industry/third sector:

• Stemettes — targeting girls ages 5–25 into STEM
• Women’s Engineering Society (WES)
• Women in Technology
• TechWomen UK
• Coding Black Females
• Women in Mining UK (WIM UK)
• Women in Construction Hub
• Building Equality Group
• dozens more sector-specific groups

The Guardian summarised the situation in 2014: “Nearly 30 years ago the WISE Campaign was set up to inspire more girls to pursue science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM). Now more than half of all higher education institutions involved in teaching these subjects are members of Athena Swan.” This infrastructure has only expanded since.

Verdict: ✅ True. The scale is not in doubt — dozens of organisations, multiple government programmes, and sustained policy attention have focused on women in male-dominated STEM/tech roles.

3. “No equivalent programs to get men into female-dominated professions”

✅ Largely True — what exists is minimal compared to the women-in-STEM apparatus

Some attempts exist but are small-scale and largely unsuccessful:

Nursing (UK):

• NHS England ran a campaign (“We Are The NHS”) featuring male nurses, resulting in a 9% rise in 18-year-old male applicants (from 370 to 440) — trivial numbers
• British Journal of Nursing (2023): “A predicted rise in male nurse numbers has not materialised. The situation remains stubbornly in stasis, indicating that campaigns to recruit men have been unsuccessful.”
• Men remain ~10% of the nursing workforce globally — barely changed in 20 years despite nursing shortages
• Wikipedia: “Unlike the campaigns and groups set up to increase and promote women’s opportunities in medicine, surgery, engineering and computer science, there have been no comparable campaigns to increase the number of males in nursing.”

Teaching (UK):

• 2012 “Primary Experience Programme” — 1,000 placements, not sustained
• DfE campaigns are explicitly gender-neutral
• No equivalent of WISE, Stemettes, or Athena Swan exists for men in teaching
• Men and Boys Coalition (parliamentary submission): government “runs no specific male teaching recruitment campaigns”

The contrast is stark. Women-in-STEM has 30+ years of sustained investment, dozens of organisations, and government funding. Men-in-teaching/nursing has sporadic individual campaigns, no sustained infrastructure, and minimal funding.

Verdict: ✅ Largely True. A strict reading of “no programmes” overstates slightly — some exist — but the disproportion in scale, funding, and commitment is enormous and well-documented.

4. “Programs do not target physically demanding or dangerous male-dominated jobs”

✅ Largely True — niche programmes for women in construction/mining exist but are vastly smaller; completely absent for the most dangerous and lowest-paid male roles

Some programmes do exist for physically demanding sectors:

Women in Construction:

• Multiple initiatives exist (Women in Construction Hub, Building Equality Group, Breaking Barriers conference series)
• Government speeches have championed women in construction (e.g., “Championing women in the construction industry” 2014)
• However: women remain ~15% of UK construction workers, with 87% of those in office/admin roles — on-site trades are ~1% female

Women in Mining UK:

• WIM UK exists and runs the WIM100 (100 Global Inspirational Women in Mining) awards
• International Women in Mining (IWiM) advocacy organisation
• World Bank has supported women-in-mining research

What is absent:

• No initiatives to recruit women into refuse/waste collection (88.5% male, below-average wages)
• No initiatives to recruit women into sewage/water treatment (94%+ male)
• No initiatives to recruit women into HGV/freight driving (99% male)
• No initiatives to recruit women into commercial fishing, forestry, or roofing

The pattern is clear: programmes targeting physically demanding male roles tend to focus on skilled/professional roles within those industries (engineers in mining, project managers in construction), not the manual labour itself. There is zero documented effort to equalise bin collections or sewage treatment.

Verdict: ✅ Largely True. Women in Construction and Mining programmes exist but are marginal. The most physically demanding and lowest-paid male-dominated occupations receive no equality attention.

5. “Only high-paying, low-physical-effort jobs are targeted for equalising outcomes”

✅ Largely True — the overwhelming focus of equality programmes is on high-status, high-salary, low-physical-demand roles

The STEM fields targeted by women-in-STEM programmes are precisely the highest-paying occupations:

• Technology/computing: £45,000–£80,000+ average UK salaries
• Engineering: £35,000–£70,000+
• Finance: £40,000–£100,000+
• Management/boardroom: highest salaries of all

Compare with male-dominated occupations that receive no equality attention:

• Refuse collectors: £42,143 average (US); below average UK wages
• HGV drivers: average ~£35,000 UK
• Construction trades (on-site): £30,000–£40,000
• Agricultural workers: ~£25,000–£30,000

STEM Women itself acknowledges: “These sectors are also some of the most financially lucrative, meaning that the high-paying jobs within these fields are predominantly taken up by men, whilst lower paying jobs such as those in healthcare and education are dominated by women.” — yet the equality effort focuses on moving women into the lucrative sectors, not the low-paid ones.

The US government’s WANTO (Women in Apprenticeship and Non-Traditional Occupations) grants do cover some blue-collar roles, but the majority of federal and UK equality programme investment is in STEM/tech/finance.

Verdict: ✅ Largely True. The concentration of equality effort on high-paying roles is statistically evident. The observation is accurate that there are no programmes getting women into refuse collection or sewage treatment.

6. “If true equality was the goal, these schemes would be universal”

✅ Supported by evidence — the selectivity of programmes is inconsistent with equality as the stated goal

This is a logical inference from the data, but it is strongly supported:

1. Teaching is 76% female — yet attracts no gender-specific recruitment effort for men
2. Nursing is 88–90% female — yet “there have been no comparable campaigns” for men (Wikipedia)
3. Refuse collection is 88.5% male — no programmes exist to equalise it
4. Sewage treatment is 94%+ male — no programmes exist to equalise it
5. Meanwhile: computing (75% male), engineering (80%+ male), finance leadership (75%+ male) — all have extensive dedicated programmes

The claim that this selectivity reveals the real goal as getting women into desirable roles, rather than genuine equality, is logically coherent and consistent with the evidence. An academic literature exists exploring the “gender equality paradox” — that in countries with more gender equality, women actually cluster more into care/education roles and away from STEM, suggesting the imbalances partly reflect preferences, not systemic exclusion — which further complicates the equality framing of programmes targeting STEM specifically.

Verdict: ✅ Supported. The selectivity of programmes cannot be fully explained by equality as the primary goal. The pattern is consistent with a desire to get women into the most desirable (high-paying, high-status, low-physical-effort) male-dominated roles, while ignoring both female-dominated roles and low-desirability male-dominated roles.

Summary Table

Overall: Largely True — The claim accurately identifies a real and documented asymmetry in equality programmes. The focus on getting women into high-paying, male-dominated roles without equivalent effort to get men into female-dominated roles (or women into low-paying male roles) is well-evidenced. The claim slightly overstates by suggesting there are no programmes for men in female-dominated fields — some small-scale efforts exist — but the disproportion in scale, funding, and institutional commitment is substantial and unambiguous.

References

Primary Sources

1. School Workforce in England, Reporting Year 2023/24 — Department for Education Published: 6 June 2024 | Updated: 5 December 2024 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england/2023 Key finding: 76% of teachers are female; 14% of primary school teachers are male

2. Gender Diversity in the School Workforce Across the UK Home Nations — BERA Published: 2022 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.bera.ac.uk/blog/gender-diversity-in-the-school-workforce-across-the-uk-home-nations Key finding: Male secondary school teachers at record low 35%; 24% of state schools have no male classroom teacher

3. Government and Industry Join Forces to Help Get More Women and Girls in STEM — GOV.UK Published: 2014 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-and-industry-join-forces-to-help-get-more-women-and-girls-in-stem Key finding: Government and industry partnership explicitly targeting women and girls into STEM

4. New Government Drive to Get Women in STEM to Return to Work — Tech Monitor Published: 2021 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://techmonitor.ai/leadership/workforce/women-in-stem-initiative-uk-government Key finding: £150,000 government-funded Women STEM Returners programme (Kemi Badenoch)

5. 2019 Workforce Statistics: One Million Women in STEM in the UK — WISE Campaign Published: 2019 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/2019-workforce-statistics-one-million-women-in-stem-in-the-uk/ Key finding: 1 million women in core-STEM (24% of STEM workforce); programme of 30+ years

6. Men in Nursing — Wikipedia Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_in_nursing Key finding: “Unlike the campaigns and groups set up to increase and promote women’s opportunities in medicine, surgery, engineering and computer science, there have been no comparable campaigns to increase the number of males in nursing.”

7. How Do We Recruit Boys into Female-Dominated Professions? — The Guardian Published: 19 May 2014 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/may/19/widening-participation-student-experience-award Key finding: “While great efforts have been made to get girls interested in STEM subjects, little is done to encourage men into teaching and nursing”

8. Record Numbers of Men Teaching in Primary Schools — GOV.UK Published: 2012 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-numbers-of-men-teaching-in-primary-schools-but-more-still-needed Key finding: 2012 Primary Experience Programme — 1,000 places; not sustained

9. We Need More Male Teachers So British Boys Have Role Models, Says Minister — The Guardian Published: 3 April 2025 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/apr/03/bridget-phillipson-education-secretary-more-male-teachers-adolescence Key finding: “Since 2010 the number of teachers has increased by 28,000 — but just 533 of those are men. That’s extraordinary.”

10. Championing Women in the Construction Industry — GOV.UK Published: 2014 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/championing-women-in-the-construction-industry Key finding: Government and industry commitment to 30% female apprenticeships in construction; initiatives exist but construction remains 85% male

11. Women in Mining UK (WIM UK) Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.womeninmining.org.uk/ Key finding: Organisation exists to promote women in mining; smaller scale than STEM initiatives

12. Refuse & Recyclable Material Collectors — DataUSA (ACS/BLS 2023) Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://datausa.io/profile/soc/refuse-recyclable-material-collectors Key finding: 88.5% male, 11.5% female; average wage $42,143 (below national average); no equality programmes target this occupation

13. International Women’s Day 2023: Apprenticeships and T Levels Support Women in STEM — Education Hub Published: 2023 | Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/03/international-womens-day-2023-apprenticeships-t-levels-support-women-stem-careers/ Key finding: Government’s Apprenticeships Diversity Champions Network specifically targeted to attract more women into STEM roles

14. 40+ Key Female vs Male Education Statistics in the UK — FindTutors Accessed: 10 March 2026 URL: https://www.findtutors.co.uk/blog/female-male-education-statistics Key finding: 471,471 female teachers (76%); 171,637 male teachers (24%)

Evidence Files