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

Very well said Mark, I agree totally.

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

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

Jim Kress wrote in message <368a74a8.0@news.povray.org>...
<snip>
>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.


I assume you mean "(increasingly)" here? :)
I also agree with the majority of your comments...

Let's try ending this thread soon though, this isn't exactly relevant to
POVRay.


Matt

Post a reply to this message

I agree.  We'll end (or at least I'll end my comments) the thread here.  I
just object to people making statements that are demonstrably incorrect.

Jim

BTW, I meant decreasing.  Just think of the enormous number of new Federal
regulations (thousands per year) that get spewn forth, all of which regulate
our lives tighter and tighter into the grip of the Federal bureaucracy.
It's depressing.  A friend of my wife's (from England) once pointed this out
when he was told we're the most free country on earth ...

Jim


Matthew Bennett wrote in message <368a8106.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Jim Kress wrote in message <368a74a8.0@news.povray.org>...
><snip>
>>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.
>
>
>I assume you mean "(increasingly)" here? :)
>I also agree with the majority of your comments...
>
>Let's try ending this thread soon though, this isn't exactly relevant to
>POVRay.
>
>
>Matt
>
>

Post a reply to this message

At the risk of being a bit of a hypocrite ;)

Jim Kress wrote in message <368a9701.0@news.povray.org>...
>I agree.  We'll end (or at least I'll end my comments) the thread here.  I
>just object to people making statements that are demonstrably incorrect.
>
>Jim
>
>BTW, I meant decreasing.  Just think of the enormous number of new Federal
>regulations (thousands per year) that get spewn forth, all of which
regulate
>our lives tighter and tighter into the grip of the Federal bureaucracy.
>It's depressing.  A friend of my wife's (from England) once pointed this
out
>when he was told we're the most free country on earth ...


Oh.. well, like your friend's wife, I'm also in/from England :)
Any new regulations I've heard of over here have never really struck me as
infringing my freedom.. just improving the way things are done - normally in
business.  The one exception I can think of is when the govt. banned beef on
the bone.. though this was only temporary, and I suppose they had a health
excuse (though not one I particularly agreed with though ;).  Anyway.. I
don't really know how our laws/regulations compare with yours, but I
certainly haven't seen anything to be depressed about myself :)


There. Sorry about that ;)

Just my 2 pence worth..


Matt

Post a reply to this message

To respond to several people at once (while selecting minute passages from
longer posts):

Matthew Bennett wrote:
....
> Let's try ending this thread soon though, this isn't exactly relevant to
> POVRay.

Jim Kress wrote:
>Sorry to disagree....

Lance Birch wrote:
>Very well said Mark, I agree totally.
...

tin### [at] tezcatcom wrote:
....
>I now promise to not post another note on this topic, no matter how many
>more times my name is mentioned and people who know nothing about me want
>to draw erroneous conclusions about my character and motivations.

thank you, Lance :) , I accept your apology, Jim-- I would reply at more
length but I wouldn't be saying much that I haven't said already, and
(Matthew, I agree) this isn't quite the place. Tina, I'm sorry that you feel
that you are under attack. (I hope none of you mind my using first names; it
seems clumsy to do otherwise.)
(Perhaps we could discuss how to appropriately render a scene featuring IT
personell... um, no, never mind.) I'll simply say that I understand that you
(Jim Kress) believe that "earlier, historical concerns about women in the
technical workforce have been addressed and are no longer significant." I
agree that progress has been made, by leaps and bounds, but I strongly doubt
that these concerns are no longer significant.
I also doubt that anyone meant to offend, etc. This issue is, perhaps, beyond,
or below or above or... at any rate, removed from both the original question
and this newsgroup. (Which (of course) is not to suggest that I let that
prevent me from posting.) Anyway, I said I was going to limit my reply here,
so I'll leave it at that.

-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message

Rereading my post, I realized that due to my poorly structured post, someone
could misinterpret the nature of the replies. The quote from Jim Kress's post
was not responding to Matthew Bennett's... I quoted people that way to clarify
what I was replying to, but not to summarize their posts entirely. I apologize
for any potential misunderstanding.

-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message

Hey Mark, you can use my first name as much as you want :-)  After all, I
checked the survey I'm running and it seems I'm tied with another person for
the youngest here :-)

So far I've received only 10 submitions though, so it may not be that
acurate...

Once again, for anyone reading who hasn't already done so, I'd appreciate it
if you went to
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/pov_quick_survey.html
and filled out the survey on age and sex of the people using POV-Ray.

Thanks!

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Who's the oldest?  Is it still Ken?

Jim

Post a reply to this message