not a new subject - women in electronics and computing?

Since you're soliciting postings "from women especially"... I'm a woman with a career in computers - a systems engineer, encompassing microarchitecture, firmware, operating systems, even the application layer.

First, a rant. For constructive comments, please skip to the next paragraph :). The comments in this thread so far pretty much sum up all I've heard/experienced as a female engineer in my life. It's the usual mix of disparagement (variations of the theme "a female engineer is only nominally a female"), and condescension ("a female engineer? how very brave").

I think there are certainly some barriers to entry for female engineers. The barriers are of two kinds: (1) the ones imposed on young girls/women by society etc., and (2) whatever innate lack of desire exists in the women themselves against engineering professions. Maybe (2) is not really "innate lack of desire", but also a result of nurture

- I really don't know if I can answer it one way or another yet. I think (1) is addressed best by the rise in prominence of skilled female engineers/scientists, who are actually brilliant at what they do. But, we must *carefully* avoid the trap of being "helped" along the way by undeserved promotions, and "you're so special" pats on the back. That only detracts from the overall goal of being recognized for skill, not for being a woman with some skill. Survival of the fittest :-).

As for addressing (2), the lack of desire in young women to become engineers, I think here's where we should look at the differences in motivating factors between girls and boys. So, the question is, what truly motivates a guy to become an engineer? And, if (1) didn't exist, would it also motivate women? If you show a girl the Golden Gate bridge, does she think "I wish I could build that?" or does she think "Hmm, I ought to get a guy to build that for me?". I think the best way to find out is to *ask* young girls what motivates them! You'll get the usual statistical distribution of motivating factors, but at least it's better than guessing ;). To avoid peer pressure, you ought to ask them to jot down their answers on a blank piece of paper, anonymously, and stick 'em in a box. And to be absolutely honest about their answers. Because it doesn't matter if a girl wants to build the Golden Gate bridge herself, or have one built for her. The end result is that she caused the bridge to be built.

I suspect that there are real biological explanations for (2), and that fewer girls than boys really want to be engineers, especially "hard" engineers who do circuit-level electronics design. But there should be no barriers (1) presented to the ones who *do* want to be engineers of any sort. Generalizations about sex, race, and nationality may have some statistical validity, but never justify prejudice against any individual; humans are just too diverse.

The problem seems to me to prevent the prejudices from excluding anyone with interest and talent, and to make "minorities" feel welcome and fairly treated in schools and in the profession.

My wife is a speech pathologist, and they make about as much money as engineers. But that profession is 96% female, an interesting mirror to the engineering situation.

John

That's the Larry Summers argument, I suppose. Which raises an interesting point - how do we tell the difference between (1) and (2)? The reason Larry Summer's speech was so decried by women was because it is probably too premature to ask the question (2) without first resolving (1). That is, if all barriers are eliminated, then one can ask the question about innate abilities.

I *strongly* agree with the following statement you made..

In fact, I think the above should be the *only* problem anyone interesting in "mentoring" young women into engineering careers should focus on. The *only* problem! Indeed, there should be no *need* to motivate any one demographic into any particular profession unless there is a shortage of people in that profession, or unless the field itself is seriously stunted because of a lack of "diversity". It's like saying we need more straight family men to be fashion designers.

That's the Larry Summers argument, I suppose. Which raises an interesting point - how do we tell the difference between (1) and (2)? The reason Larry Summer's speech was so decried by women was because it is probably too premature to ask the question (2) without first resolving (1). That is, if all barriers are eliminated, then one can ask the question about innate abilities.

I *strongly* agree with the following statement you made..

In fact, I think the above should be the *only* problem anyone interesting in "mentoring" young women into engineering careers should focus on. The *only* problem! Indeed, there should be no *need* to motivate any one demographic into any particular profession unless there is a shortage of people in that profession, or unless the field itself is seriously stunted because of a lack of "diversity". It's like saying we need more straight family men to be fashion designers.

I think that's true. I sure can't tell how much of a lack of interest is because "women aren't interested" and how much is because "women aren't interested because they've been told not to be interested".

I think some of the analogs in this thread have been there to indicate that the ability of women doesn't come into play. They can do intricate work and problem solve, but somehow it's contained mostly in "women's work".

Think of the traditional barriers against men raising children. It is very much a social thing, and so long as it doesn't belong to them, it's real easy to abdicate because "men don't know how to raise children". Yet, if it's not part of the culture, it is indeed quite hard to make that leap. They can never get good, which then makes women appear to be the best qualified for the task.

But once things start changing, then this is proven wrong, and there are role models for other men to follow.

Michael

[...]

I'd suggest that (1) is in reality a social side effect of (2). (2) simply doesn't need to be looked for or teased out, it's built in from birth and will reveal itself come what may, (be it man or woman). Despite what social scientists may like us to think, men and woman are actually different, being optimally designed to offer particular functions. This genetic hard wiring is sufficiently immutable, that (for example) whenever I listen to a male politician who is particularly articulate and oh so smooth talking, I know that deep, deep, deep down, I'm thinking of 'she-man', 'nancy boy', 'homosexual' (i.e. communication skills = woman) . It's horrible but no matter how hard I've tried to re-educate myself, the id still seeps through.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Wrong.

I tried to hold my tongue and be dimplomatic when the OP first broached the issue, but not any longer. The last statement the the paragraph above substantiates what some of us have been saying.

IT DOES MATTER.

Any "real" engineer who likes bridge-building will tell you that there is a strong, visceral satisfaction that comes from building bridges. This is not negotiable. I 100% refuse to call someone who is not a bridge engineer a bridge engineer. I will not do that for a man. I will not do that for a woman.

Also note: men like to kill people with devices we build. It gives us pleasure. When we are designing the control systems, we are thinking about optimal damage and maximal carnage.

Breast feed or build a missile that has high-end optics to makes sure the target is found and obliterated? I choose the latter. I cannot do the former if I tried.

Most of us do *not* prefer flowers and a gift card as a gift. Some of us would rather blow off some holidays, especially Valentine's day. Good grief!

And with regard to "collaborative projects:"

SOME OF US ARE SO UNINTERESTED IN THE SOCIAL ASPECT OF AN INHERENTLY SCIENTIFICALLY-ORIENTED PROJECT THAT THE THOUGHT OF "INTEGRATING" THAT ASPECT MAKES US WANT TO PUKE.

Now if you are talking about a project to feed children in Africa, where the pre-stated fundamental goal is to help people, then *that's* different. But for me, I am repeatedly disgusted when I see "researchers" doing what is supposed to be raw, fundamentally, scientifically-oriented research, earning +$100,000.00/year US, doing instead what could be characterized tele-hugging.

I also find it comical when woman says, "I don't know what I want. I like working with people."

Really? No sh*t!!! You like working with people? I never would have guessed that!

One reason I get so heated on this has to do with work. There were women working in a moderate technical capacity at my job. I knew that, when I needed something from a man, I would go and ask, and it would be done. If I had to yell at him, I would yell, and be done. With the women, not only did I not ever yell, but I noticed that, little things mattered. For example, I would get a far better response from one of the female employees if I would "make the morning connection" before talking shop. With the guys, I could get straight to business.

Anything that is said with regard to this topic is, by its very nature, subjective, and speculative, not in the sense that it causes reason for evaluation of statements, but in the sense that it cannot be "proven", like proving, say, Fermat's Little Theorem. What irritates me, however, is the dishonesty exhibited by women (and some others) when discussing this topic.

Women *know* themselves. They know their character. Selma Hayek certainly does. She made this statement and got major heat from feminist groups for saying it: ""And let me tell you something - all women are manipulative. It's in our instinct and it's very scary. All the feminists are going to kill me for saying this, but it's true."

I would argue that parts of womens brains are reserved for perceiving things that the average male does not. There are so many generalities that are, in general, applicable to women, that if I were to start typing now, I'd problably finish 9 hours later.

A BIT OF HISTORY:

When I was a young boy, male/female equality was in vogue. Children were constantly bombarded with statements like, "And men are no better than women. Women should have equal opportunity to...opportunity to abc.....xyz...." My (internal ) response too that was. "So. You said that 2 months ago. Why do they keep making a big deal about equality. We know. 50/50. Be fair to each other. We get it. We can do that now."

Then I grew up. I got to know a wide range of women, from many walks in life, from the lowest of the low who would rob you blind while you changed the tire on her car, to some who were wealthy and attended the most prestigious institutions who could do Smith Charts in her head without a Smith Chart. I have met and known closely: American, Chinese, Polish, Canadian, Serbo-Croatian, Bulgarian, Belgian, German, Dutch, English, Australian, French, Venezuelan, Mexican, Indian, Irish...and endless list. I have several sisters of my own. And by virtue of my parents profession, from the ages of 12-17, I was never more than 80 metres away from at least 40 girls, all from about 11-17 in age, all whose behavior I monitored on occasion as a nuclear physicist might monitor control rods in nuclear reactor. I watched them attentively. You cannot tell me that there are no inherent differences, or that the differences that exist are due to environment. At dinner I always knew how to get dessert from my sister. I'd walk toward her with my hand closed, as if to hold a spider, and the screaming would commence, she would leave the table, and there it was. If I had tried that with any of my brothers, I would have gotten smashed.

Women, in general, *do* have peculiar identifiable behavior patterns and desires, just as men do. It is hypocritical for women who know this to be true to imply otherwise. It is even more disparaging to imply, at least in 2006, that men or society is somehow the cause.

And finally, I feel sorry for all the good people in the academy who bend over backward to level the playing field. I feel sorry for all the scouts who go to top schools in Europe, Asia, and America trying to find the best candidates.

This topic is actually much broader than women in science. This topic is actually related to the Feminine Mystique, and for that matter, the Masculine Mystique. It is related to a simple question:

"What do women want?"

What motivates them?

1. Ever wonder why, if a man is cheating on his girlfriend, the girlfriend, upon catching him, will instinctively attack the other woman, regardless of whether it was the other woman's fault?

1. Ever wonder why girls start to exhibit "odd", seemingly inexplicable behavior around the age of 7 or 8. (Yes, boys do weird things too, but it is a different kind of weird.).

2. Ever wonder why a woman is more likely to be receptive to a man after she has been fed than before?

Do you watch the Discovery Channel at all?

I could add 100's to this list marking remarkable differences between men and women, including the fact that a man is attractice to the curve of a woman's breast as he sees the side of it while watching her from behind. Gee, I don't remember attending liking-the-curve-of-a-woman's-breast school. Maybe I was too young to remember when those classes were held. My sister and I, 2 years apart, had access to the same TV's, motors, magnets, essentially everything at home when we were small children. I played with the magnets and motors incessantly, and routinely took apart the television. She was so uninterested. This started at a very young age, before 5, so I know it is not nurture.

Since most of the people reading this are probably male, it stands to reason that we less able than the women here to pry into the minds of young women and figure out what they want. Why don't you do us all a favor? Since you are female, go ask these young women: "Tell me, really really tell me, exactly why is it that you prefer to go to that party where there are cute young boys instead of playing with your new

1GHz scope?"

Then come back and tell us.

I would be nice if you could ask women who would be characterized as female by a licensed endocrinologist/sexologist. [If I had a nickel for every time I learned that a woman compteting aggressively in a traditionally male-oriented sport revealed that she was not exactly heterosexual...as if you could not tell from her Titanium jaw-line, sizable frontal plate, muscular thighs, flat chest, and hips as so straight that they would rival a laser edge.]

P.S. In defense of my sister who is a neuroscientist having done work at Johns Hopkins, and other women like her, I concede that there *are* women who "go for the real deal." When she opens her mouth, that frilly-whatever-you-call it chatter about people and relations and connecting and all that poo is absent. Instead, I hear is a bunch of stuff about protein folding that I cannot understand. But that is the rule, not the exception. I have other women friends who are technically (no pun intended) scientists, but in fact, their work could more accurately be characterized as social science.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

No matter what anyone says, no baby is ever going to suck on my breast. Period. (pun intended)

;)

The people reading this thread who are not convinced that there are fundamental differences between men and women need to start paying attention to the bipeds walking among us or start watching more Discovery Channel.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

I think you misunderstood my point here.

Nobody said "call them both engineers". I said that in terms of the end result, it doesn't matter who built the bridge as long as it was built. So, women shouldn't feel that being an engineer is the only way to get a bridge built. That way, they can be honest about what they'd rather be - the engineer, or a puller of strings. Just ask that woman who had the Taj Mahal built for her. It was built by an architect, but no one remembers *his* name. Just her, heh. The irony.

Yeah, the people that supply the consumption are the real heroes. All we are here for is to satisfy their needs.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

--
"it\'s the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Yeah, engineers don't walk along the corridors of power. They just design them.

Yeah, engineers don't walk along the corridors of power. They just design them.

Ooops...my sincerest apologies.

I also read some of your other posts and realized that we essentially share the same views on this issue. Each person should do what s/he has a natural proclivity to do, and not what someone else expects him/her to do, just because that someone else feels that there should be more people of said type doing it, which you pointed out so eloquently with your analogy.

On the same subject, it might appear to some others reading my post

2-levels-up that I am sexist or misogynist. I am neither. In fact, I feel sorry for women. I know many women who would be considered "successful" by traditional male standards. They have money, fancy cars, and huge (empty) homes. I know that this is not what they want in their hearts. For many of them, the smallest thoughtful gesture, or worse, and blatant oversight, will put them off balance. In the end, after all the feminist hype and experimentation with sexual redefinition, when you're on your death bed, the only thing that really matter is whether you experienced in life what *you* wanted. It seems to me that many American women are traveling down a Road of Regret.

This "experimentation" is not without cost. I think the feminists should think about the stress it causes when they expect people (women) to do things they do not have a natural proclivity to do. The fact that Shaquille O'neal is a part-time policeman is a living lesson in social-order: he obviously doesn't need to be Sheriff for the money. He certainly doesn't have to do much to intimidate people. He chose to do that because he naturally feels that that is where he belongs. It actually stresses him out *less* to have two roles.

And with regard to women, this stress shows in so many ways. When I am on the aeroplane traveling between France and the US, I can always tell if a female sitting in the seat in front of me is French or American by her hair. French women tend to have hair that is thicker, fuller, show fewer indications of stress. American women tend to have hair that is frizzy, with many split ends, showing signs of unending abuse. They are often significantly more overweight than French women. Even the shape, in general is different. American women might have better teeth

- I am not sure why that is the case.

I think the stress has to do with the disparity in roles they play. When I am in the USA, I share the responsibilty of prearing the table, serving meals, etc. When I am in France, I might make the fire, and perhaps cook a bit of the meat, but the actual food preparation is always done by the women. Not only do they not complain, but if I wanted to help, it would be awkward. What is also strange is that they like it, and they like to watch the men eat!

But perhaps that is one of the benefits of socialism. If what I am saying is true, that women, in general, like to focus on caring for her family, then socialism would benefit them more. I am not certain, but i had a bit of evidence not long ago while having heated discussions on the patio at my friends's (male and female) house in Montferrier sur Lez. We discussed many topics - chemistry, aircraft, politics, war, the growing Muslim population in France. We yelled at eat other. Many of the women were non- or moderately-participative. When the subject came to socialism, and I, being a capatalist, started to criticize socialism as responsible for high unemployment, the women stopped everything and attacked me vigorously. They did have an opionion, especially on things that mattered to them.

It was only later that I made the connection that socialism promotes an environment that is far more hospitable to women than does capitalism,

*if* your primary concern is to take care of your family and not be rich, powerful, etc.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.." people, i.e. men or women act as they are programmed to act, (usually!) by society from birth onwards.

The problem being that you can't ignore the social aspects of design without seriously impairing your ability to design. Design is an emotional, intuitive process, and if it "makes you want to puke" then you are actively avoiding, or afraid of, what's actually going on. Robots can analyze things, but they can't design them.

Which brings up the issue of whether the presence of women on a design team would tend to open up the process to new perspectives. In the case of hard engineering, I suspect not; women tend to be collaborative, and new breaks come from mavericks.

John

What in the world makes you think that the AMA is not just another union?

--
 JosephKK
 Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
  --Schiller

Backup for that last.

--
 JosephKK
 Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
  --Schiller

If their job is collecting garbage, ok. If they are engineers, not ok. The difference is magnitude and scope of responsibility. Medicos deal with serious conseqences on a onesie twosie basis, engineers do it on thousands at a time basis.

--
 JosephKK
 Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens.  
  --Schiller

[snip]

[snip]

I didn't make myself very clear there. I meant retain the job title for the position.

By all means remove the bad employee from the job - in my experience, they usually get promoted into management. :-/

--
T

If it\'s not broken, don\'t fix it.