Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, i never said that i did anything to build this country. I'm just letting you know that whoever did build this country is absolutely no reflection on you. You know...since you're here to lecture us on who you think built this place.
I understand who found this country, but they are just ONE of the many groups who BUILT this country. My ancestors weren't immigrants, nor were they white, but they damn sure helped build this country.
BTW...your birth in this country is just as "lucky" as mine is.
I agree with last sentence. I am lucky to be born here, I already said that, and didn't do anything to deserve my good fortune of birth.
Founders of America's government and independence were all white males. Fact.
The builders of America were mostly white and there were many other racial, ethnic, religious, nation groups who came later, by force or necessity. We can agree the country was built by many peoples, yet the majority of this country was always white European ancestry and still is of this group. The Left's constant drum beat to denigrate the country's white, male founders is the norm these days in public education. That is wrong. Others have also contributed to America, but to a much lesser extent. To say this isn't racist, it is our history.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 02-20-2017 at 06:20 PM..
I've had some terrible bosses. That's something that is expected in the engineering field. There are many intelligent people who move into management yet have poor people skills. This is true in a lot of professions, but especially true in the STEM fields since success in these fields has more to do with competency than personality.
It's also true that men cope with these work situations better. This is why more men work in high-stress professions than women do. The most dangerous jobs are overwhelmingly male. Women are more emotional than men and this is a big part of the reason that women don't do well in these fields.
Poor people skills is very different than being sexually harassed. But let's just go ahead and keep on going on this train where women are too fragile to do hard stuff like math. We have to deal with PMS.
There is an assumption that women leave technical roles due to child rearing or something. But in reality most women leave because of a crappy work environment with bad managers. Kids are a convenient excuse that allows everyone to part ways while saving face.
This is a first person account above, but the same thing bears out with formal surveys as well. The question is - why do the managers suck?
Don't be silly, men have to deal with the same crappy managers. The assumption is that women do not follow the same educational path as men, and as a result, there is a difference in what jobs they end up in. Fewer women in engineering classes means fewer women engineers. The simplest answer may just be the correct one here.
Don't be silly, men have to deal with the same crappy managers. The assumption is that women do not follow the same educational path as men, and as a result, there is a difference in what jobs they end up in. Fewer women in engineering classes means fewer women engineers. The simplest answer may just be the correct one here.
Of course - but the matter that we should aim to understand is why. And there are many reasons that many people have posited and studied (that have been discussed ad nauseam in this thread - I've posted a dozen, or so, posts myself, for instance).
Saying that there is a gender imbalance because...there's a gender imbalance...explains nothing. Other than the obvious (that there is a gender imbalance).
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 02-20-2017 at 06:11 PM..
Don't be silly, men have to deal with the same crappy managers. The assumption is that women do not follow the same educational path as men, and as a result, there is a difference in what jobs they end up in. Fewer women in engineering classes means fewer women engineers. The simplest answer may just be the correct one here.
The problem is women do not work in engineering even at the rate they graduate. So where do they go. We have had engineering classes of anywhere from 30-45% over the past 15 years. Why is engineering still 75% male? Where do they go?
And also bad manager means very different things for women. I have already posted on this thread that women are penalized for being too "aggressive" while male peers are praised. Women are promoted based on experience and not potential like men, making their career trajectory slower than their male peers.
And it is well documented, at least at new school tech companies, that there is an exclusionary bro culture that keeps women and people of color out.
But let's forget all that and just keep on blaming the lack of women in lack of interest. Interested women drop out because they get sick of fighting for crappy scraps when switching into other roles like product management and other roles still lay well and have less annoyances and hassles.
The problem is women do not work in engineering even at the rate they graduate. So where do they go. We have had engineering classes of anywhere from 30-45% over the past 15 years. Why is engineering still 75% male? Where do they go?
And also bad manager means very different things for women. I have already posted on this thread that women are penalized for being too "aggressive" while male peers are praised. Women are promoted based on experience and not potential like men, making their career trajectory slower than their male peers.
And it is well documented, at least at new school tech companies, that there is an exclusionary bro culture that keeps women and people of color out.
But let's forget all that and just keep on blaming the lack of women in lack of interest. Interested women drop out because they get sick of fighting for crappy scraps when switching into other roles like product management and other roles still lay well and have less annoyances and hassles.
A few good time anecdotes-
1. Moons ago a male manager did not credit me for my research. Even though I keep a notebook like all scientists do that can be checked at any time, that was signed by witness scientists (back before electronic notebooks!). Even though the work was published. smh.
2. I was penalized for being aggressive with a male colleague (someone from IT actually). I made a conscious decision that year to be assertive like a male friend/colleague hoping it would help my development. My friend is actually pretty aggressive/stern and it works for him. I would never take it too far, but I behaved and spoke matter of factly as he did/does. I made a matter of fact statement about this IT guy's unresponsiveness, failing to meet deadlines and the consequences of that, yadayada. It didn't go over well.
3. Ahhh with the promotions. My current manager let me know that my promotion before last was simply a long over due salary adjustment. She also sent me a ppt slide deck on language women should and should not use- being fully cognizant of the bias we have to navigate.
The problem is women do not work in engineering even at the rate they graduate. So where do they go. We have had engineering classes of anywhere from 30-45% over the past 15 years. Why is engineering still 75% male? Where do they go?
And also bad manager means very different things for women. I have already posted on this thread that women are penalized for being too "aggressive" while male peers are praised. Women are promoted based on experience and not potential like men, making their career trajectory slower than their male peers.
And it is well documented, at least at new school tech companies, that there is an exclusionary bro culture that keeps women and people of color out.
But let's forget all that and just keep on blaming the lack of women in lack of interest. Interested women drop out because they get sick of fighting for crappy scraps when switching into other roles like product management and other roles still lay well and have less annoyances and hassles.
Where did you get that number from? I have never seen the number that high, the highest I have seen reported is 12%.
The availability rate for females in EEO Census category Science, Engineering and Computer Professionals, is 23.6%.
Come on. I think you know full well that my argument is not about men and women being different, or thinking differently. It's the bias assumption exhibited over and over in this thread...the claims... that women innately lack aptitude/potential for success in maths/sciences.
Your link does not support these assertions. 1. they state differences in cognition do not contribute to differences in intelligence. 2. "In more gender-equal societies, "the male advantage in math virtually disappears" 3. The differences they do see, which you attribute to greater ability for STEM (they do not make this claim) fall at the tails of the distribution curve. So, even if you were correct, this write up does not support your assertion that men, as a group, have greater aptitude in maths/sciences as women, as a group. Men do not reside within the tails of their own distribution.
Did you actually read this link or only skim it? I don't think you are really reading my posts either.
You don't seem to understand the point.
Those at the right tail of the distribution curve are the ones who move into the STEM fields. Those in the middle aren't the ones who are inclined to go into this field. The majority of people, both men and women, don't have the aptitude to work in STEM. Men and women are very close in average IQ, but if you look at just those with IQs over 120, there is a disparity between men and women with a greater proportion of men being in the superior and gifted IQ range. This is the major reason that more men pursue STEM careers than women.
It's not that all men have a stronger aptitude than all women to work in STEM fields. It's that for those who do have the aptitude, there are more men than women. So if there are more men than women that have an aptitude for STEM, then it's a correct statement to say that men have a stronger aptitude for STEM than women.
I graduated with a degree in a male only field. I was one of three women in my class of 500 graduates in my field and near the top of my class, but started as a clerk at the company of my choice because women weren't hired except in clerical positions. After 6 months I was promoted to my field of study within the company. Within a few years I was a manager and later a senior manager.
The men in my company respected me because I was smart and good at my job. I was not an AA hire, but suspect I did benefit some from that policy. Without it, I probably wouldn't even have been hired as a clerk. I was promoted because I was good at my job NOT because I was female.
Last edited by texan2yankee; 02-20-2017 at 06:53 PM..
The problem is women do not work in engineering even at the rate they graduate. So where do they go. We have had engineering classes of anywhere from 30-45% over the past 15 years. Why is engineering still 75% male? Where do they go?
They go into a variety fields that they find more interesting, more rewarding or perhaps less demanding. Women with the brains to finish engineering degrees don't have much trouble getting hired to do pretty much whatever they want.
Quote:
And it is well documented, at least at new school tech companies, that there is an exclusionary bro culture that keeps women and people of color out.
So women, blacks and Hispanics are underrepresented in Silicon Valley because all those young uber-liberal tech entrepreneurs are actually horrible sexists and racists. Yeah, that must be it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
