When I was a little girl, what I wanted to be when I grew up changed by the week.

I wanted to be a librarian because I loved books and libraries (probably the worst job in the world for someone as talkative as me); join the RAF because my elder sister dated a couple of corporals (second worst job; I don’t take orders well); and an air-traffic controller because an uncle worked in the Heathrow control tower (third worst job - I have the attention span of the current US president).

What all these jobs had in common was that I knew of them and could see people who did them. Perhaps I was unimaginative, but I was certainly not unusual. Most children “have a very narrow view of the world of work and their aspirations are limited to who they meet”, according to Elnaz Kashef, head of research for Education and Employers, which asked primary pupils to draw what they wanted to be when adults.

The results are fascinating. The top job among the more than 13,000 7- to 11-year-olds who took part was sportsman/woman and their favourite subject was mathematics. But analysing the figures by more deprived areas confirmed what we have suspected: children’s ambitions are hampered by socioeconomic status and lack of exposure to a variety of careers. So children in poorer areas chose mechanic over engineer and sales assistant over manager.

Gender stereotyping

Also worrying was how already at that tender age gender stereotyping had a firm grip over children and limited their options.

Not many of either sex want to do what I do now - journalism (0.1 per cent and more girls than boys) - and not many more want to be the people who can actually do something to change the future - politicians, at only 0.2 per cent, with more boys wanting to do it than girls.

That this is the case despite having a woman in charge of the country says a lot about their perceptions and what they see around them and on TV.

If we look through their eyes, how is the prime minister portrayed despite her importance? There is a constant search for her weaknesses (did she waver or was she strong and stable?), her emotional vulnerability (did she cry?) and a scrutiny of her appearance (how tired/ill does she look?) and her clothes (what was she wearing?).

Of course, Theresa May doesn’t help when she refers to “boy jobs and girl jobs” and has a cabinet reshuffle in which she gives in to two male ministers who want to stay in post but not to the female, with whom she holds firm.

And how was that woman portrayed in the weeks leading up to this? The briefings were of her irritating the PM with her “chitter-chatter” and her “patronising tone”.

That put the education secretary in her place. Forget any competence in the job, her tendency to talk too much in Cabinet meetings was a bigger threat to this country than the failure of the Brexit secretary to prepare us adequately for the biggest economic challenge we will face since the second world war or our bumbling buffoon of a foreign secretary who put a British citizen’s life at risk (I wonder what he wants to be when he grows up?).

So hello to Damian Hinds (grammar school, Altrincham; philosophy, politics and economics, University of Oxford; president of the Oxford Union) and goodbye Justine Greening (comprehensive school, Rotherham; business economics and accounting, University of Southampton).

Children, by all means dream and continue to draw yourself wonderful futures, but don’t forget that in 2018 where you come from and what sex you are still strongly determine who you become and how far you can go.

@AnnMroz