Jim Kress wrote:
>Sorry to disagree, but the statements by Tina are consistent with the
>current day feminists who refuse to acknowledge that earlier, historical

I am not going to get into this much further. I am going to say three
things.

1. I do not consider myself a "feminist", precisely because I don't like a
lot of the things that some very vocal feminists say and don't like being
lumped into the same category as them. My remarks were not politically
motivated. I am not even a liberal. Take my word, or don't.

2. I said "in my experience." I said "in my friends' experiences." I was
quite careful to point out it was purely personal and anecdotal
experience. Your experience differs. Have you considered that both sets
of experience might be valid? There are also regional differences,
size-of-company differences, etc. 

3. I stand by my original statement. I think that the answer to why has
social aspects that have to do with gender and technical hobbies/careers.
I don't know it's the only reason; it probably isn't -- things are rarely
that simple. But I'm sure it's part of it. I did not claim that no women
had technical jobs. I said they were underrepresented. In MY experience.
Having been the only woman of 8 people in a technical department. Having
been one of three women in a 20-person department. Having never been in a
technical department that was anything like half women, save the time I
was in a two-person department. In 10 years.

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.

Post a reply to this message