In regard to your first reply to my question, I asked if it was a problem that women weren't going to stem fields if they didn't want to be, and you responded as though I had insinuated there was no problem with women who were interested being denied entrance into stem fields. That would obviously be a problem, I'm sorry if I was somehow unclear.

With regard to your second paragraph, it makes more sense to me that many women with a real interest in science would choose not to go into stem fields because of the inherently antisocial nature of the person who spends long hours devoting themselves to solitary strenuous difficult pursuits. This is not to say that men choose to go into the Stem fields, while women do not, rather that perhaps the social disposability of men compared to women leaves far more males with few friends and social obligations, who then turn to STEM to occupy the bulk of their lives. In other words, these people would be considered nerds or outcasts, and if you believe women are the keepers of sex and men are its seekers (most of the anyway, by way of a biological imperative), then it follows that women's inherently more active social lives tend to help them easily maintain a higher social status than that of males from a similar socioeconomic background. A cultural makeover, no matter how false, making science jobs seem glamorous, (more than 99% of these jobs are not glamorous), and making scientists seem cool, and now women want to culturally colonize this landscape long left abandoned to the meek among us. And, to be clear, I think that's probably a very good thing. Further, let's be unambiguous about how and why women are diverted from their desired path in the STEM fields by asking those who have been to respond directly, rather than speculating on our own.

With regard to raising children without gendering them leading to equality in industries; men have an evolutionary disposability greater than that of women. To have a hundred offspring, only one male is needed, but 100 females are needed. Because the number of males and females is pretty equal, for 100 females, there would exist 100 males, and so, 99 males are disposable in this scenario. The males compete with each other for the right to mate, and the ones who win this right from the females do so because they offer some sort of utilitarian value which presumably provides an alternative to the female having to take on the unwanted tasks traditionally, historically, and evolutionarily, left to the disposable male.

With regard to your third paragraph, the main deterrent to interested people entering STEM fields seems to be an economic and class issue. A woman with money could literally choose to go into STEM fields while a woman without money could literally not make that same choice.

To;dr: I am pro women in STEM fields and I think it would be nice if more women (and everyone else) who want that career path were able to have access to it free from sexism, racism, ageism, ableism, and financial incumbrance.