Still Lacking Female Engineers

If women don't like engineering, they could be conscripted....

That might solve the numbers problem, but probably wouldn't make anybody any happier.

Employing women to be discouraged as it creates unemployment problems to menfolk who normally earns and look after a woman (housewife) and kids. When a woman is given a job will she marry an unemployed man and look after him and kids? We should be rational in thinking, there is no point in going to moon if you can't manage human disasters. Women may be employed if there is no male applicant and in certain jobs like nursing, female doctors, teachers etc.

That view is wretchedly condescending, to say nothing of offensively stupid.

Priority should be for raising a good family. In divorce cases the majority of wives may be either employed or daughters of rich people.

Both parents should be engaged in raising a good family. A man's role is not confined or limited to providing the money. A woman's role is not confined or limited providing meals, clean house and clean clothes.

http://www.allwords.com/word-vituperous.html

OK, that's fine.

That's alright then.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vituperous

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080310212248AAX2zun

Absolutely. You've taken a step further back and considered the wider implications. I think a good deal of the birth rate issue is linked to the motherhood and career issue you state clearly.

Do men see her achievements as amazing? Or do they view her home commitments as a tool to be used to undermine her career?

Do men see her achievements as amazing? Or do they view her home commitments as a tool to be used to undermine her career?

I'm afraid I've seen both attitudes. Once upon a time, I had a little more prestige and authority in my engineering work. I was on a team (all male) that was reviewing applications for an internal promotion. One of the applicants was a very talented woman whom I knew from some training we had gone through together (she was Scottish, but don't hold that against her--the war was 700 years ago, Rose ). I was pushing hard for her, but the company VP on our team said, "I've heard she wants to have children in the next few years. It would be a waste to invest in her."

I challenged him, and pointed out that the male candidates we were considering were at similar stages of their lives and were likely to marry and/or have children in the next few years as well. The VP let me know that men do not take much time from work over such things, and that they never decide to put their careers on hold for a few years over such things. I countered that we really could not base our decision about an individual on a perception of some generic category to which she belongs. He said, "Watch me." I mentioned the incident to HR. The female HR manger told me, "Don't cross that man, you'll lose." Two weeks later I was demoted from engineering management to (egad) the lowly position of engineer.

On the flip side, I've had female clients in the counseling office who can enumerate an incredible list of accomplishments related to sustaining a household, maintaining a child in private school, achieving at work, and doing well in the community. Yet they believe they are lazy, inadequate, and being judged negatively, primarily by other women. Two favorite examples come to mind.

After hearing this story from one lady, I repeated back to her the list of accomplishments, commented about how extensive it was, and asked her what was missing that kept her from thinking she had accomplished enough. She let me know her husband, brother-in-law, and supervisor thought the same way. "Men just can't understand," she decided. (Two weeks later we had a pretty good breakthrough when she commented that she could see beauty in her sister that her sister could not see in herself. That opened the door to her considering that the "outsiders" who saw accomplishment in her might be seeing something she was missing.)

Another client, single mom who described a list of activity and accomplishment almost identical to the one of the aforementioned client, saw herself as a failure--both as a mother and in her work. I pulled out the old measure-generating question that counselors love to use, "If you were not a failure [her word] as a mother and a worker, what would you see in your life that would tell you?" She replied, "My boyfriend told me something like that. Even my son tells me I don't need to do anything more. Maybe I'm just crazy." We're past her thinking she might be crazy, but the point is that these ladies (I do not use the term loosely), are genuinely admired by men for their accomplishments.

In countries with less employment opportunities, giving jobs to women while keeping unemployed men at home is very dangerous as they will resort to violent acts like heavy drinking, drug trafficking, theft, robbery, gambling, protests against government, joining rebel groups and so on.

This is true across many different cultures. Substance abuse and violent crime rates are much higher among unemployed men than any other group. It's observed on all inhabited continents. The "explanation" offered by psychologists who believe they have to explain everything is that deriving one's identity and sense of self worth from work is typically a masculine trait. I have no idea why this is true, but it seems to be.

Rule #1 for engineers and scientists is: facts are facts, accept them at face value. It is hard! Explanations come later, much later, and with frequent twists and turns of the "present day" fads.

A now neutral example. A generation ago it was "known" that dinosaurs were cold blooded. Then a bearded hippie-looking smart aleck measured the footprints in Texas and concluded that only warm-blooded creatures can move that fast. Then somebody actually looked at bone cross sections, and saw birdlike warmblooded features. Was there no bones available before? Sure they were, but nobody thought to look. Now I see a program about Arctic dinosaurs.

What did change?. Surely not the dinosaurs. After all they are dead for some 100 million years. What changed is how we view them.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stick with the facts. Explanations come later, sometimes much later, influenced by current fads.

I have a suggestion:

Rather than massage the men's egos by suppressing the women, why don't we encourage the unemployed men to see their situation is a different light and to gain the sense of self-worth from home-making. If the term '"gender role-reversal" lost its meaning, that would be a major step forward for all of society and humankind.

As GKC said, this will mean a huge shift in societies values and opinions of what is valued. Metrics determine behaviour.

Yes, yes, I know this won't happen overnight, it can't be imposed, and we are, after all, our own worst enemies but a culture where all contributions are truly valued and where one's gender is irrelevant to one's role would be a better situation.

Bravo, well said.
Del

Too bad.

You violated rule #1 of engineering. Of accepting facts for what they are. I happened to be a man first, an engineer second. I also happened to grow up in a female only household by wartime necessity. They did what was necessary to survive, and I did fit in best I knew. So, do not pontificate to me about role reversal dreams. Some behaviours are malleable, but some are hardwired. Empires were won on that basis, and empires (and homelands) were lost, due sissification.

Too bad, for you.

You define yourself as being a man, first. How provincial and restrictive. Does that really define your world view?

Too bad.

The term 'human being' might have served you better.

Yes, I do define myself as a man, first.

First, for my mother, proudly.

Than, for my family, proudly.

Than, for my chosen country, proudly.

I stand by what I said.

What can you contribute?!?

I accept people's views. But, empty words?

Bully for you.

If it's "none of her business" why do you post on a site they are members of?

Then the best you've got is a string of insults

However I do agree with "Not my kind of woman". I suspect both would choose a bullet in the brain if it came down to your sexually available valuation benchmark.

Not that they would have much chance of hitting something so ancient and shriveled.

Signed

Sonny

Maybe attitudes such as his are more prevalent than would be believed, and that might account for the results of the UK survey cited in the OP.

Sorry, can't stay, gotta go clean the cave and catch and cook some fish for the other Neandertals.

If you read my first post in this thread, you will see that I know men and women are different...especially in their hardwiring. However, some women are wired such that they prefer "male" activities and some men so the prefer "female" activities.

**I'm talking careers / interests here, not sexually preferences. That's a whole different topic**

What I am saying is that "perfect" would be all girls who want to (and that may be c. 10%) can be engineers/pilots/racing drivers and all boys who want to (again may be c. 10%) can be nurses/teachers/secretaries. Mind you, any one living before the 19th century wouldn't understand that last one. Until the invention of the typewriter, all secretaries were male....

And after WWII, the women were returned to the home by propaganda, because the government understood the need to employ the returning soldiers/sailors/airmen. It was those women's grandchildren who started the major change in attitude (encouraged by their grandmothers who had tasted the freedom....?)

just mentioning

Deriving one's identity and sense of self worth from work is not a typically masculine trait. Men just have a bigger need to be told that they've done well, women just do what needs to be done and move on. The sense of self worth is internal...............................at least that's how it used to be.

DISCLAIMER: This is not a general statement about the mental health of women compared with men. It is just a note on the one symptom mentioned by kramarat. Please don't read anything else into the statement.

Our thoughts, beliefs, many personality traits, and many behaviors (i.e. primary phenomenological aspects of identity) are shaped socially through our verbally or behaviorally engaging others, evaluating their feedback (praise included) and adjusting accordingly. Both men and women shape themselves this way, and need such feedback for identity formation.

The need for positive feedback can become pathological and is featured in clinical personality disorders: especially Histrionic, Borderline, and Narcissistic. Of these three, Borderline and Histrionic are the most common, and they have a higher prevalence among women. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is more common among men than women. When you add up the numbers, a pathological need is more common in women than in men.

Personality traits are distinct from personality disorders.

and the point is...?

Yes, personality traits are distinct from personality disorders. Such traits can become pathological. Pnaban mentioned the fact that men are more likely to engage in maladaptive coping behaviors when unemployed. In such a case, the management technique for a temporarily deprived need is pathological. The problem pnaban mentioned has higher prevalence in men than in women. The point of the earlier post is that the problem kramarat mentioned is more prevalent in women than in men--just data at this point, though I am fascinated by the neuropsych behind it.

Kramarat suggested (if I read him correctly) that the "need for praise" (describable as a personality trait) was stronger in men than women. The implication was that it was a problem need for men (again, if I read him correctly). The data suggest that when this trait does becomes pathological (i.e. part of a disorder), it does so more often in women than in men. I thought this was relevant data to compare with kramarat's opinion. The prevalence of the three mentioned disorders combined is less than 7% of the total population, and most people really do handle their need for positive feedback without it becoming a problem.

As I mentioned, it is only one symptom. Others have a greater prevalence in men than in women, e.g. substance abuse and lack of anger management.

The point is there is data available to shape some of the semi-stereotypical opinions flying about.

People are tight social-order mammals. They need personal support from each other. Including the "massaging of the male ego" so artlessly pointed out by Rose. In my humble (neolithic by some, but who cares?) opinion, we are here to support each others. By DNA, by necessity, whatever. Separate and divided does not do on the long run. A man beaten down is a man beaten down. A woman, exactly the same. A child, is the same, maybe worse, with the promise to carry it over to the next generation. Are they to be viewed separately, or an integral part of the same family? What is the use having our elbows in each other's rib cage? Do you get any advantage out of it? Is it really worth it, to you that is?

I started out my life under Adolph's, then under Uncle Stalin's rule. They all worked on the divide and conquer rule. Good lessons. Why do you think, a present day political animal is using the same techniques?!? Divide and conquer. Eh, Rose, or anybody (not) thinking, in the same fashion.

The details expounded only matter in scholarly detail, not in principal.

The details really are important in principle. Finding the best techniques to help an individual who is "beaten down" or chosing what counseling techniques to emphasize in training is facilitated by the information that also happens to fuel scholarly discussion.

Yes, in study and in help. Yes.

The idea of a man (or a woman) free from the mindnumbing need of it, is strangely absent from the discussion. People free of that yoke, what a strange concept! And no, I am not dreaming. That is not my nature, without solid foundation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not knocking your profession. Bless you for all need you and you are helping.

Eh? yourself leveles.

Where in anything I've said here am I seeking to divide? My stance is quite the opposite, yet you have berated me for suggesting that the division of labour based on gender should be removed and all people should be allowed/enabled to follow the career path (and I include homemaker in that term) of their choice. (Obviously there are other economic constraints, but that it not the thrust of this thread).

With more people in roles they choose, surely we will be in a better position to support one another and there will be fewer opportunities for the likes of Adolf or Uncle Joe (or Pol Pot or...)?

There were 7 of us in a class of 70-odd mechanicals

Shouldn't it read 70 odd mechanicals?

The Sri Lankan entry reflects economic reality. You may not like it, you should not like it, but that does not change the fundamentals overnight. Teaching may be fine (after understanding), but meddling is really high-handed.

The British society IET is simple-minded, and simply tiresome. People gravitate toward professions that fit them. Public school teachers are almost exclusively female. Desirability is quite debatable. Nurses in delivery rooms and neonatal (baby) departments are exclusively female. Should we enforce a blind numerical quota there too? HELL NO!

So, maybe the IET should resolve to dissolve.

I concur with English Rose, whose opinion fits with mine seamlessly. Except the Scandinavian model as ideal. That is waaay off the bell curve for me. Nanny state is not for everybody, nor is it healthy.

So there.

The Sri Lankan entry reflects defective attitudinal reality, but not economic reality. Please do not confuse the two.

If attitude do not support survival or economy we should change it. Opportunities for employment for selected women from male-deprived families or with male having very low income should be given.

No one should dabble into these extraneous issues. Regardless of profession, women and men alike who are interested and qualified should be allowed to enter the profession, without inquiry into their family sex ratio, or incomes of other persons.

.....and many companies with a national or a global presence have recruitment policies that state it, whether or not the nation's employment laws encompass the concept or not.

If government adopts a policy of minimum one job per family either in the state or private sector, there will be less problems. Those who do not have educational qualifications could be trained on the job and a bank loan given to start his/her private business.

Now that's an idea that is worth discussion - as long as it is accepted that the one job is equally open to the man or the woman in the family, and that the resulting homemaker is treated with equal respect.

The Sri Lankan entry reflects the cultural reality of his time and place, and I acknowledge that. It is also the cultrural reality of the UK in the late 1800s. I am not advocating any external country meddles in the Sri Lankan (or any other country's <sigh>) culture, but that doesn't mean we can't debate the merits/demerits of each other's viewpoints.

Is it really the IET who are simpleminded, or the headline writers and/or journalists? Have you read the full IET report (I haven't but can try to get a copy via a member)?

Not sure I meant to imply the Scandanavian model ideal...just that it works [for them] and we all could learn something from it. I dare say Scandanavians could point out the flaws in the system to us!

The US and UK are more closely aligned in tending to avoid/denegrate a "nanny" state than some of our Europeans cousins. I think this is epitomised in the "an Englishman's castle" stereotype and the higher tendancy for US and UK people to own (not rent) houses rather than flats. (Yes there are lots of exceptions, this is a sweeping generalisation )

Seems like we're all agreed: the measurement tool is flawed and should be replaced!

It's a bit like saying, "we need equality in numbers of primary school teachers". The situation is almost completely reversed.

We should take into consideration all aspects like culture, percentage of unemployed men, type/ nature of job, customers or clients (adults, not students), CEO or boss etc. In one instance the MD asked a Project Manager "do you prefer girls?" when he did not like the new male well experienced engineer in preference to a young girl.

It would be illegal to ask such a question in a job interview situation in the UK.

In this instance the senior engineer belonged to minority community and the PM was a technician promoted as Supervisor then Engineer and later Manager. Some guys do not like experienced chaps as assistants due to embarassment caused by their good values.

That is a situation found all over, in all industries. The inexperienced higher rank resents or feels insecure (?) because of the greater knowledge and experience of the "junior", whilst the more experienced (and often older) lower rank is frustrated by having to teach the boss.

This doesn't happen in all cases - it depends on the attitudes of the people involved - but it is quite common.