Sorry to disagree, but the statements by Tina are consistent with the
current day feminists who refuse to acknowledge that earlier, historical
concerns about women in the technical workforce have been addressed and are
no longer significant.  After all, if they allowed that the problem was
resolved (or well on its way to being resolved), they'd have to find
something else to complain about or another, new 'societal travesty' to
stimulate funding for their advocacy groups (and by extension, their
employment).

Also, with respect to experience, I have worked in a variety of companies
(Ford, TRW, IBM, and a host of smaller companies) in a variety of positions
(from simple scientist and engineer to VP of Engineering, Director of
Technology Development, to simple Information Technology Consultant) in
locations spanning the globe from Japan to the US to Europe.  In these
capacities, I have worked with dozens of other companies to help develop and
enhance their technology and technical abilities to design, develop, and
manufacture world class computer based systems (and components).  I think
that breadth and depth of experience provides some unique and encompassing
insight into these concerns.  Insight that can't be swept away with a single
discarding sentence.

So, to reiterate, human females are now, will increasingly be, well
represented in technical fields.  There are no gender based limitations that
would restrict their ability to be successful.  The only limitations are
self inflicted, as they are in men, due to other interests or other
preferred activities that consume the bulk of their time (there are, of
course, only 24 hr in a day ...).  The fact that some people don't want to
be technical does not mean they can not be technical.  We do live in a
(decreasingly) free society where people's choices shouldn't (rationally) be
used to define societal deficiencies.

Jim


Mark Radosevich wrote in message <3689BE9D.A77B1799@randolph.spa.edu>...
>Jim Kress wrote:
>>
>> Treading carefully, here I go ...
>>
>> I disagree with the Social Engineering analysis presented by Tina.  My
>> experience, in Engineering and IT Consulting, is that this area of
endeavor
>> is well represented by many women.  I hire them and have for 20 some
years
>> (in companies large (e.g. Ford) and small (too many examples to count
...)).
>> As a matter of fact, my wife has a BSCE, BSEE, MSEE and is very active in
>> these areas.  The IT projects I currently manage are staffed at least by
50%
>> females or more.
>>
>> So ...
>>
>> I think some other comments made in this thread need to be re-examined in
>> the light of current reality and not colored by past prejudice or
opinions
>> or other politically motivated criteria that are inappropriate for
>> discussion here.
>>
>> Jim
>
>This topic does require a careful tread... :)
>
>I agree that this newsgroup isn't the place for prejudice or political
>opinions but I haven't seen anything inappropriate in this thread yet,
which
>was started by someone wondering why there seemed to be so few women using
POV-Ray.
>As for the current reality, contributors to this newsgroup seem to be
nearly
>all male, which suggests that Pov users are mostly male. I doubt that the
>current reality lends convincing evidence of an even (or mostly female)
gender
>balance in the 'hard' sciences, or in most technical fields, even noting
your
>experience. Obviously this doesn't mean that there are no counter-examples.
>There are female Pov artists, computer programmers, physicists, etc. But
>currently there tend to be fewer women in these areas as there are men.
>
>As for the mental differences (now that I've committed myself on this
topic) I
>suspect that they are minimal (although not nonexistent) and that society
is
>at fault more than genetics (everything's always society's fault!) for this
>gender imbalance.
>
>-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message