Gender Discrimination (Employment) - Female Gender Bias

m8 on 12/02/2017 - 13:07
Last edited 12/02/2017 - 13:23 by 1 other user

My friend told me a story of during his job hunting days around a year ago.

He and 15 others (10 male, 5 female) were sitting outside going in for a panel based interview for engineering roles for a reputable engineering company. Before going into his interview, the HR manager walks into the room and tells them that they are ONLY looking for women in this role. The interview did its thing and obviously, only 4 out of the 5 females got the positions. To add salt, one of the successful applicants was a friend of my friend's and she didn't even know what the role was about (like ffs).

I understand the importance of gender diversity in the workplace (especially engineering workplaces) but doesn't this seem effed up? I mean, success in an interview should be based on competencies rather than what genitals you have. I hate the idea (with respect to this particular example) that having a phallus, my competencies are hindered. There are faculties in universities primarily associated to "Women in Engineering" where the after tertiary education they're set up for life regardless of competence. It's a lot more challenging and so much more competition for males in this field and it personally just ruffles my feathers.

Does anyone share this? Is this even legal?

Education & Work

Comments

      • em on 13/02/2017 - 21:36
        +1

        If you have 10 applicants for a position and five meet the requirements, you do not have to take the best of those five.

        Just because a doctor is a woman or person of colour does not mean that they failed to meet standards (although you sound incredibly biased and by your comment, maybe you think that no women or person of colour could become a doctor and only a white man could?)

        Your argument isn't logical.

    • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 11:11
      +2

      I find it priceless when a "straight" "white" "Australian" "male" is talking about bias. I am not sure how many of those checkboxes you tick (or your friend) but….

      I find it priceless that you think these groups can't be discriminated against and are willing to dismiss their stories and such discrimination out of hand. You talk about equality but your attitude is one of hatred.

      Being straight or white or male or Australian (whatever you take the later to mean) is no guarantee you've got it good.

      • misu p on 14/02/2017 - 13:08
        -1

        I will dismiss their stories all day long, no problem. Look at the OP, he heard from a friend that got discriminated against…. and he is appalled. I am sure that people that only have 2 of the 4 checkboxes can tell you probably one story every month first hand. If you check less probably every week.

        Also not sure what you read but I do not talk about equality, I actually believe some groups should be helped through affirmative action. I certainly do not talk about equality.

        "Being straight or white or male or Australian (whatever you take the later to mean) is no guarantee you've got it good."

        It is being straight AND white AND male AND Australian, not OR… you do not even understand the problem (and probably neither do I).

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 15:52
          +1

          Affirmative action is a cancer.

          • It does nothing to remove the underlying bias it attempts to address.
          • It adds new bias.
          • It weakens the group as much as the bias that it attempts to address did.
          • It adds new resentment.
          • It is just as wasteful of talent.
          • It puts people who aren't suited and aren't prepared into roles, without the support they need.
          • It weakens the group as a whole by weakening its parts.

          If you want to address sexism there are no shortcuts to ensuring that
          A) The best candidate for the job gets the job, without descrimination.
          B) The group that is under-represented is given the opportunity to become those best candidates.

          People seem less and less capable of following a logical train of thought anymore. That is why we're baking our planet and our politicians are circus clowns.

          You can dismiss what you like, but it doesn't change the facts, and it doesn't change reality.

  • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 15:58
    +3

    Amazing to see people howling about gender discrimination while neglecting to acknowledge the thousands of years it has happened to women for. It's very very difficult to explain privilege to the majority who have it.

  • try2bhelpful on 13/02/2017 - 16:05
    +3

    Reading these comments are just hilarious. You guys really feel threatened by women, don't you? This thread was all OK whilst you could indulge in a mutual admiration society of how you have been poorly treated and it your problems were all some bitch women's fault. Then I come in and throw a cat among the pigeons and you lose your minds. I've even been called a feminazi - you call a women that when you have thrown up the logical white flag. As much fun as this has been I do actually have other things to do with my life, so I will leave you to stew in your own juices boys. They say the ultimate revenge is to live well, and I intend to live very well. I know there are intelligent, supportive men out there, because I work with them everyday, and live with one incredibly special one. Adios boys I leave you to go nuts. I won't be replying, or even reading, anymore so go to town calling me what you want.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 16:39
      +6

      You will be fondly remembered as the author of this pearl:

      "I'm not bitter and not a blowhard"

    • Skramit on 13/02/2017 - 16:54
      +2

      Not threatened, just calling out hypocrites.

      You can't cry foul about gender discrimination in 2017, then discriminate based on gender. Lesson - that's called hypocrisy.

      Sorry it defeats your entire gender equality argument and hurts the feminist "movement" slightly. People see the hypocrisy and stupidity of gender quotas in government positions, or gender quotas for grad positions and they are not fooled.

      By all means, campaign for gender equality based on merit, I support that 100%. But anyone supporting fake equality based on quotas is a fool.

    • ozbjunkie on 13/02/2017 - 21:08
      +3

      Pity you've done the mic drop. I was looking forward to a reply to my issue with your gender shaming and assumption that "men are supposed to be strong".

      Feminists shouldn't be sexists really…

    • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 11:16
      +3

      I can tell you that I absolutely feel threatened.

      I feel threatened by the normalisation and codification of unfair practices in the world which make the world a worse place and hurt good people.

      I feel bad that instead of taking the opportuninty to make the world better, we would rather put down good en and raise up less competent women instead of taking steps to make sure the women are more competent.

      I feel horrible that we are doing absolutely nothing to address underlying anti-female bias and just adding anti-male bias.

      I feel threatened when the very language is changed to normalize ideas that do not hold up to rational scrutiny.

      I want a better world for both my daughter and my son.

      You're entitled to your opinion. But not to your own facts or reality. Adding hatred and bile to the world will never make it better.

  • Skramit on 13/02/2017 - 16:42
    +1

    It's not just gender. Reverse discrimination happens with skin colour too.

    Buzzfeed recently advertised a job for a black person only. http://www.mediaite.com/online/buzzfeed-canada-is-looking-fo… Can't remember the outcome but they either got sued or were forced to withdraw the ad. No doubt they still didn't hire a "white male".

    Blatant racism/sexism disguised as equality.

  • crazy94boy on 13/02/2017 - 17:25
    +2

    The same thing is happening in my field veterinary medicine where the field is largely female dominated (less than 20% of new graduates are male) and universities are starting to offer scholarships to men. People are kicking up a huge fuss about this, but I cant understand why everyone is okay with female only scholarships for women in engineering, or female only positions at metro trains, etc, etc and no one bats an eye lid

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydne…

  • prinsenhof on 13/02/2017 - 17:45
    +4

    Engineering is a different ball game. The industry in general has a very hard time attracting women because of the type of work. In order to get some diversity at all, they send a message to young females that if you choose engineering, not only will you have a job but you'll be able to automatically get any scholarship you want and have university paid for.

    Despite these benefits, its still hard to attract any.

    I'm very surprised there were 5 females. I'd bet 4 of them were males in skirts !!!

    • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 18:00

      That's ridiculous though. I don't see an issue with a male only profession if that where the case. The nursing/teaching/law industries don't offer men the same benefits.

      It's not exactly like women are mentally disadvantaged and therefore can't take engineering. They CHOOSE not to. Those taking it purely for the automatic job/scholarship etc are taking it for the wrong reasons and it's driving those out who have a true passion and the skills to be capable engineers.

      • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 18:39
        +1

        Why do they choose not to though?

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 18:43

          Honestly have no idea. Why are men more interested in mechanical things from a young age (like cars)? Is it tradition/culture or is it biological?

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 18:49
          +4

          @sp3ctr41: I loved cars and robots as a kid. My Mum couldn't handle it. She threw them out and bought me barbies. I loved pulling things apart and seeing how they worked, but that was heavily discouraged. When I did well in school my grandmother told me that I mustn't be 'too good' or I would never find a husband. By the time I reached high school, well that story had been written for me.

          Women are actively and effectively discouraged by thousands of years of culture, tradition, religion, family, and the media out of these roles. The effect is so overwhelmingly large, that the majority are blinded to it. And slowly it's being recognised and chipped away at, but it does take big measures like these to overcome that.

          I always laugh when I see people raging that the Muslim hijab is a symbol of oppression while having no issues with ads of women in bikinis selling lipstick.

          And furthermore there's a push the other way for men too. My husband now gets better paternity leave benefits than I do. The end result was that between us we were able to take a year off looking after our kid, one after the other. I think men have a right to part time work, flexibility, and paternity leave because they're not just built to work for 90% of their lives.

        • sp3ctr41 on 13/02/2017 - 19:00

          @MissG:

          I hope you ended up doing what you enjoy. I have the opposite experience. Me and my brothers where mechanically minded from a young age and my sister enjoyed nothing more than drawing, sculpting and knitting. Unless what we wanted to do was totally out of wack, parents wouldn't have said anything. The only thing they were concerned about was employability. So that limited us from going into things like art, history etc.

          My sister didn't end up pursuing drawing/designing as a profession as a result and ended up as a project manager. She still wonders every now and then whether she should have just studied graphic design anyway.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:05
          +1

          @sp3ctr41: I think human beings are all very indvidual and that trends in one way or another vary with the ages. There's a big shift in Western society over the last one hundred years which is still very much playing out.

        • Skramit on 13/02/2017 - 19:12
          -3

          @MissG:

          Women are actively and effectively discouraged by thousands of years of culture, tradition, religion, family, and the media out of these roles.

          Sorry but that is rubbish. If you posted that 20 years ago I'd agree. But the media and modern culture is so pro-woman power that situations like OP are now an issue. It's 2017 and you're still thinking like it was for you growing up - whenever that was.

          Kids these days - boys and girls are equally encouraged to follow their dreams in whatever field they want. Except of course in oppressive Muslim families where girls are forced to wear a burka and subjected to FGM. But that doesn't get reported by the media now does it.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:16

          @Skramit: Kids now, yes to an extent. But we're not talking about children now, we're talking about adults who are 20+. Who were born 20 years ago. So you agree.

          And if you think all that gender bias is just suddenly gone, go have a look at the Daily Mail. Go sit around the dinner table of a large proportion of Australian families.

        • Skramit on 13/02/2017 - 19:29

          @MissG:
          I can only speak from my experience in various large multi national companies where women were encouraged to get ahead and given roles I didn't personally think they were qualified for, to the point where I felt it was sexist against me. I never complained though. How could I?

          One company even boasted internally about the female to male ratio on the board like it was some badge of honor. Yey let's celebrate sexism! Who cares about white men right…..

          I simply think the gender pay gap is a myth and research in Aus would support that. Sure there are pockets of women passed over for jobs but IMO there's equal amounts of men or Asians or homosexuals passed over for jobs for gender or skin colour reasons or whatever. Singling women out as the only group with issues with jobs and wrong and paints the scenarios that we have now where white males are fair game.

          The issues are a small minority and not the majority. Most companies do the right thing and award jobs or promotions on merit.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:31
          +1

          @Skramit:

          The pay gap exists for many groups, I agree, but women are by far the largest and most contributory group to the tax base. I think if men had more opportunity to take paternity leave and go part time to do some child rearing, that gap would equalise.

          I don't support across the board quotas, I support them where there is manifest inequality driven by nepotism or working conditions. Like engineering.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:13
          +1

          @MissG:

          Quotas will not help unless you can produce enough competent female candidates. If you promote any woman that comes along you weaken the entire industry. Engineering is one that requires hard skills and is unforgiving. There is an absolute right and wrong, and it requires a good understanding of math and science.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:16

          @sp3ctr41:

          I tried quite hard to interest my daughter in math and science. It has taken a little but not as much as I like. She likes and does dancing 2 nights a week. She also does karate but not with the passion of her older brother. If I ever asked her to build Lego she'd find an excuse not to do it. Am I suppose to force her? She likes dolls. She doesn't like the mention of death or killing. She hasn't lived in a bubble so I can't say for sure but I don't think it's all nurture.

        • MessyG on 14/02/2017 - 21:25

          @syousef: I don't think a single man or woman can weaken an entire industry. I do think that no industry in the world would agree to something like this without good reasons. They've done the research. If you're not aware of their research, that's not their problem. What they're trying to do is get people who are good enough, they don't have to be the best, just good enough. The industry will then be able to support them far better than society, the government, or the university has ever done, and are confident they can get them up to scratch. Again, it might seem like a big risk if you don't know the decades of research that has gone into this, but it's really not, there's good data behind it.

          Your n=1 isn't good evidence. My daughter likes dancing too. You know what else women do? Change their minds a lot. And you don't need to force her to do anything, you just have to have high expectations - that if she wants to dance and all the rest of it, then she needs to get good marks in everything. If that's what you want for her. If mine 'struggles' with maths, then I will get her a tutor and bribe her until she doesn't anymore. Girls have to contend with stereotype threat, unconscious math teacher bias, all the shit that Barbie says about just being a girl, all the other kids parents who say girls aren't good at/don't like math, the TV, and absolute randoms everywhere saying it. It's almost a prerequisite to being female to say "I'm no good at maths". Not true. This is a good read:

          https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27cf/a31fe7ffe033117118ca29…

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 22:44

          @MissG:

          If you continually, consistently and systematically promote on anything other than merit, you do weaken the industry. You do it one person at a time.

          If you keep picking people who are "good enough, not the best, just good enough", you end up with an industry that can't compete with the best, which will come from another country and eat your lunch!

          And for pity sake stop commenting on my parenting you rude little person. What you are advising me to do, so condescendingly, is EXACTLY what I have told my daughter. She needs to do well at school and pick up her reading (she is in year 1) if she wants to do her ballet and musical theatre dance classes. For pity sake stop assuming that every male you meet is out to put down women because he doesn't agree with your ideas.

          You're not even being consistent or logical. In one breath you say "What they're trying to do is get people who are good enough, they don't have to be the best, just good enough" as if this is a worthy goal, and in the next breath you say "you just have to have high expectations - that if she wants to dance and all the rest of it, then she needs to get good marks in everything". Make up your mind? What do you want? Mediocrity or excellence!?!?!?!

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 08:05
          +1

          @syousef:

          I think you only see things in terms of mediocrity OR excellence and aren't appreciating that a person is capable of both. I want to see people given the oportunity to perform to their best of their ability - and if that means hiring someone who at a point in time is mediocre, and then encouraging them to excellence, then I'm not against it.

          I'm sorry I've angered you, it's not my intention. I'll agree to disagree, I don't think either of us have made any headway so I'll quit now.

        • Ughhh on 15/02/2017 - 10:38

          @MissG:

          He'll take anything you say that he is unable to understand as rude and as a personal attack on him, his parenting and his LEGOs.

    • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 18:38
      +2

      That message is delivered by a dedicated Women in Engineering Manager at UNSW. It's a full time job operating the cash splashing firehose for students born female.

      • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 18:42

        If the situation were reversed and a lucrative field was dominated by women, and that traditionally, men had been isolated out of it, and then collectively the government and the universities tried to make it easier for men to break into what had been an incredibly female dominated industry, would you still be complaining?

        If engineering were female dominated and they were doing this then yes, it would be blatant discrimination. But these are attempts to balance it, not dominate it. I can't imagine what it must be like being a man, and completely dominating entire high paid industries, it blows my mind that so many don't see a problem with it.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 18:58

          I am just reading about the male scholarship for Vet Sci and am 100% against it, and yes, I question the motives of any man applying.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:06

          @Frugal Rock: I think the mistake they've made in doing that is that they're just looking at the degree and not the industry as a whole. The gender balance is probably very different at the top of the field which is why at this point, creating a male only scholarship rings a bit hollow.

        • [Deactivated] on 13/02/2017 - 19:16

          @MissG:
          I think the defence would be that there is a rural farrier shortage and hand/leg strength is involved. I personally wouldn't put a gender restriction but would put some physical prerequisites on applicants, as both horse and farrier safety is risked.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:12
          +1

          Yes I would complain if men were being favoured purely on gender, with no consideration for experience or ability.

          No single man "dominates" any industry unless you're talking billionaire CEOs. I hold exactly one job.

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:23

          @MissG:

          If the industry is dominated by women, can you please tell me who exactly is discriminating to put men at the top?

        • MessyG on 14/02/2017 - 21:20
          +1

          @syousef: History. Men have dominated most fields up until roughly a hundred years ago. In the 70's, women were not even allowed bank accounts and home loans. Women have had jobs and the vote for a tiny fraction of history.

          And no single man dominates any industry, many men dominate many industries. Have a look at the gender balance in parliament, law, medicine. These fields may be equally represented at a university or junior level, but at the top, they are mostly men. This and many others. Women have been putting up with rampant, overt inequality for hundreds to thousands of years. And these new attempts to balance this out seem to met with cries of discrimination, when the goal isn't to dominate, it's to equalise. It's already unequal, the government, universities, and corporations are seeking to increase fairness. And like I said earlier, there is no perfect solution here. It's going to be painful. Societal change usually is. It's easy to sit at the top of your tower if you're the occupier of the tower and say only the best can come here, if traditionally, the best have been your kind, and that's who you're used to selecting, and all your measures of success come from one group.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 22:49

          @MissG:

          Thanks for the history lesson. But you haven't addressed what I've said at all. You're going to tar all men with the same brush because a handful of men dominate.

          If you were trying to balance opportunity I and many other men have no issues. If a woman beats a man out because she's better, then that's fine. What bizzare sick twisted perverted idea of fairness discards a person's ability to promote equal numbers by an attribute the individual cannot control?

          Again, I and most men are not at the top of any tower, thank you very bloody much. I did not stop you from opening a bank account. I did not try to block your right to vote. I wasn't even born till the mid 70s. What does it matter if the individuals that did that in the 70s had a penis? How the hell is that on me? You dare to sprout such rubbish and talk about fairness?

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 08:02

          @syousef:

          As I said in another post, men are not being punished. They're still hiring men. They're just setting aside some jobs for women. And not just any women, the best out of the pool who apply for the job so they're not discarding ability at all. They have had to do this because of what has happened in the past, and because the people who drove the past, are still driving from the top.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 12:17

          @MissG:

          Setting aside jobs for women when they are not as qualified, experienced, competent or suited to the job IS PUNISHING MEN. The men have to work harder to be considered and will be tossed aside for a less competent female if there is one who wants the job. If it was the other way around in industries that are female dominated there would be an uproar.

  • Mrgreenz on 13/02/2017 - 18:13
    +2

    Its a joke and only harbours inefficiency. Best candidate for the position at all times IMO.

    • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 18:38
      +2

      Best candidates coming from very uneven playing fields may look very very different. Again, unconscious privilege rears it's head.

      • Mrgreenz on 13/02/2017 - 19:33
        +6

        Playing field is irrelevent.

        Best candidate should get the job. Busting your ass for 5 years to be sidelined because of your gender and political correctness/ gender goals isn't fair.

        That is concious discrimination.

        • MessyG on 13/02/2017 - 19:35

          Playing field is only irrelevant if you're from the group with the best playing field.

          If you've been significantly disadvantaged because of your gender, and have worked just as hard, or even harder, just to get to the starting line, you deserve a shot. And bear in mind that they're not just hiring women to dominate, they're hiring to equalise. The best men are still getting hired. Just not for the job the OP's friend went for.

        • Mrgreenz on 13/02/2017 - 19:46
          +4

          Im pretty sure everyone goes through the same schools in Australia, has the opportunity to study the same fields.

          How do women have to work harder to get the same grade in schools?

          They do have a shot. Everyone who has the grades/experience that meet the requirement has a shot.

          Why are they hiring to equalise? There is no need to equlise. Fact is men in general have a greater intrest in engneering than women, hence a greater number of men end up in engineering fields.

          Hiring to equalise would take many jobs from more able men.

          Also the vast majority that are losing out are 20yr olds fresh out of uni.

        • beatwixkid on 13/02/2017 - 20:42

          @Mrgreenz: Out of curiosity, are you a female and do you have any daughters?

        • Mrgreenz on 13/02/2017 - 20:49

          @beatwixkid:

          No and no

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:07

          @beatwixkid:

          I have a daughter. I want the very best for her. And I would be mortified if she was put into a position she wasn't capable of doing well. It's not good for her. If she hasn't gotten to the point where she can beat out the male on merit in her chosen area when the time comes, I won't be blaming the men that beat her out. If on the other hand she's more capable and is overlooked I'll be fuming!

        • syousef on 13/02/2017 - 21:10
          +3

          @MissG:

          You absolutely don't deserve a shot for trying hard.

          I've tried hard to sing all my life and I still sound like a drowning cat, much to my own dismay. I wouldn't expect someone to put me out on stage at the Horden just because I tried!

          Ability matters!

        • beatwixkid on 14/02/2017 - 00:31
          +5

          I feel it is idealistic to think that females have an equal start in life.

          Having fellow female doctors/surgeons passed over for barely competent males is the standard for certain areas in medicine - explicitly for their child-bearing qualities.

          My female petroleum and chemical engineering friends, the only females in their class, had to switch out of their courses because of bullying of a sexist nature - these are pretty down to earth, resilient women as well.

          I'm not having a whinge, just giving a few examples of how having a uterus does make a big difference. It's really just something women have accepted (until now).

          Unfortunately, not every young girl has the luxury of having "educated" parents who can actively foster interest in science, IT and maths. There are still so many girls who don't get the chance to explore and are told to be good and play with their dolls.

          While extra curricular activities named "Science for Girls" makes me cringe, it is great at introducing a subject which girls may have never been encouraged to try.

          While I've never heard of a formal affirmative action case for being g male/female, it is a practical way of addressing inequities. I have seen first hand Indigenous kids get special ATSI mentoring and scholarships, then get into med school and graduate to become fully fledged doctors. This has the trickle on effect on other ATSI kids who would not even have thought of medicine as an actual achievable thing!

          Hopefully by the time my daughter grows up, affirmative action is no longer get needed.

          I can see the injustice in OP's example, but it really disappoints me to see how the diplomatic female voices in this forum who are trying to have a civil discussion (and others like this in OzB) get shouted down by the overwhelming male majority.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 05:18
          +2

          @beatwixkid:
          Diplomacy in this context is merely veiled passive aggression and disingenuous. You either want discrimination or not. Who cares if it's delivered politely on a platter, you have simply asserted contentious discriminatory affirmative action as a given, and your disappointment in people happening to support equality is condescending and patronising. Of course you are disappointed in people who disagree with your 2 tier self-serving favouritism. There is no nobility in wrapping everything up in insincere saccharin, when your underlying support is for discrimination and inequality. If you have so much animosity towards men that you believe they are beneath you, then have the spine to boycott their work, discoveries and inventions rather than mustering feigned and uncommitted forlorn disappointment.

        • MessyG on 14/02/2017 - 21:28

          @Mrgreenz: What's the source of your fact? It sounds suspiciously like an outdated opinion.

          And no, not everyone has the same opportunity to study the same fields, not by a long shot, even today, in 2017. It blows me away that your average Australian has no concept of the many disadvantages faced by so many people in school.

          If you want to update your opinion with fact, I suggest getting up to speed to with research. Facts happen when a hypothesis is proven, and consensus is achieved by independent and unrelated parties. Here's some good reading on the issue.

          https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/27cf/a31fe7ffe033117118ca29…

        • MessyG on 14/02/2017 - 21:29

          @syousef:

          That is absolutely not what I am saying. I am saying that if you can see how disadvantaged a person has been, and you can see how far they've come with hard work, and recognise that the distance travelled, while not of the top marks on paper, is still further than the person whose had a lot of support and no disadvantage, THEN, you deserve a shot.

        • MessyG on 14/02/2017 - 21:33

          @Frugal Rock:

          Mate have you ever read anything you've written out loud? You should try it sometime.

          I see none of what you have written in beatwixxkid's post. You do not support equality. If you did you wouldn't be banging on about how you 'have no respect' for women in engineering. Your falseness couched in righteous attack is beautifully displayed in this post and frankly if you truly believed in equality, you'd be suggesting better ways to achieve it because, right now, it aint equal.

          But keep up your views, I'll enjoy reading them in 50 years as a great example of someone on the wrong side of history.

        • syousef on 14/02/2017 - 22:35
          +1

          @MissG:

          Life isn't fair. The reality is that ability matters. You deserve a shot if you're the best for the job. What opportunities you've had doesn't matter at that point. If you want to fix the sexism that led to a lack of opportunity or results then that is what you should fix. You shouldn't try to prop up the person who can't do the work because they had potential or had it hard. Give them a shot to be good enough to stand up on their own merit, then get the hell out of the way of people who have earnt it instead of blocking them because of their gender.

        • [Deactivated] on 14/02/2017 - 23:41
          +2

          @MissG:
          If you knew your Women in Engineering history, you'd actually know we're already about 25 years along and very little has changed. 10s of millions of dollars have been spent promoting engineering and computer sciences to women, countless scholarships and industry awards, but engineering still comes down to interest and passion, and in the cold light of day, men enjoy engineering more, and do it happily in their spare time. You cannot compete with that. Do you really see women overclocking their graphic calculators or decapping and reverse engineering the Capcom CX4 chip in their spare time? Do you read the STM VL53L0X time of flight sensor spec sheet because you enjoy it? Ever put together a 64 node N64 PCB cluster for fun? In 50 years time, technology will still be male dominated for the simple reason that we like it. Have a look at the All Japan Micromouse contest. Is that overwhelmingly dominated by men due to an oppressive patriarchy, or the fact that guys like electronics and mechatronics to the point of obsession.

          Hand on heart, the last three computer programming accomplishments I considered cool that were attributed to female names turned out to be (separate) transexuals born male. Please consider the un-PC scientific possibility that the male brain is just better at programming. Some academics think it's due to male brains having also designed the chip architecture and languages.

        • Mrgreenz on 15/02/2017 - 06:16

          @MissG:

          You post a irrelevent study about competition in math. What do you propose to remedy that situation. Maybe single student schools? Maybe test free schools, where competition is eliminated and at the end end of the year is grades are given by the roll of a dice. Or maybe we just throw merit out of the window and select candidates based on gender to keep it fair.

          I got my source from blind freddy, I could post the number of undergrads by gender in any university in any country or the number of engineers by gender in any engineering field in any country. But it would be a waste of my time because you would discount in under some guise of the patriarchy making it that way.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 07:55

          @Frugal Rock:

          Yep, sure "because men like it more". I'm not going to break your programming anytime soon.

          This isn't about political correctness, this is about where the research is. The research is against everything you are saying. The difference is that your experience is very different which is unsurprising - everyone you went to university with grew up in a different time to now. There's a huge push for female coders now, and a huge amount of women jumping into it.

          But like I said, I'm not going to change your mind.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 07:59

          @Mrgreenz:

          I'm not against merit. This isn't even about the patriarchy, that's just been a function of historical necessity which is now no longer relevant. The situation is already being remedied, I don't need to do anything about it.

          I said in a previous post that quota's isn't a perfect solution, but no one has done in anything better in this country. In the US, there is a huge, and effective movement getting women into STEM activities, they have embraced it and promoted it and funded it, and surprise surprise, women are running to it in droves. No such push has happened in Australia due to the epic disbelief by most of our society (by men and women) that women would want to do such a thing. It's been left to corporates who actually know where the evidence is to do something about it.

          The ability is there, unfortunately for many reasons the drive has not been.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 08:00

          @syousef:

          I believe that's exactly what the corporates have been doing - giving people a shot to be good enough. If they're not, they can fire them.

          And men aren't being blocked! They're still hiring men, they're just putting aside some positions for women. If the effect is that the men they DO hire are more concentrated based on ability then you should be happy.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 09:49
          +1

          @MissG:
          Maybe you should count the number of TEDx talks still dedicated to brainwashing girls into STEM. Feminists hate facts and details. Please point me to an electrical engineering, programming or rendering forum that is so overrun by your adorable female dawn. If what you are saying is true, there wouldn't be Women in Engineering managers and scholarships just for being female. It's a female trait to need positvity and validation, but in the sciences you are going to need to deal with boring or inconvenient reality.

          Saying "There's a huge push for female coders now, and a huge amount of women jumping into it." Nice. Compared to when? The dotcom bubble circa 2000? The second boom around 2006? Those were the days when Village Ten online was paying $4000 a day for javascript programmers on the Scape project that never even launched, but you say now is boomtime as a nebulous bluff. Your posts seem distinctly lacking in detail. Please do feel free to start name dropping, as it really just looks like you've never significantly worked in the industry.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 09:51

          @Frugal Rock: Like I said, I'm not going to change your mind, and certainly not on here.

        • Mrgreenz on 15/02/2017 - 10:17

          @MissG:

          I'm not suprised its effective. I probably would have been a Neurosurgeon if you guaranteed me a job as one and gave me a scholarship.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 11:55

          @MissG:

          I am not against giving the best candidate a shot. I am against overlooking the best candidate, male or female, because they have the wrong genitals.

          If the effect is that the men they DO hire are more concentrated based on ability then you should be happy.

          Wow. That makes no sense whatsoever! I don't know if you're being intentionally glib, putting spin on it, or you're just really bad at accounting of human resources. Sure you pick the creame of the crop for the male half, but then of the remaining pool, you ignore some men and hire women, even if the men are in fact better, and I'm suppose to be happy that they are "more concentrated". Um no. You would have hired those men in the "more concentrated" group anyway. All that you've done is throw out some of the men who are better than some of the women, based soley on gender. The net effect is weakening.

          Your arguments have to be rational and correct before I accept them.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 12:08
          +1

          @Frugal Rock:

          I would want to make sure that women aren't discounted for that stereotype - that "they're not interested" - either.

          There have been women who have been both interested and brilliant. Marie Curie is the example most people know but the list is quite large - Emmy Noether, who helped with General Relativity despite prejudices (David Hilbert and Felix Klein couldn't hire a woman as a professor at University of Göttingen, so they hired her as a course instructor http://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-important-mathematician-youv…). Many more stories out there - Rosalind Franklin contributed to discovering DNA but didn't share in the Nobel prize with James Watson, Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins. Ada Lovelace worked on Charles Babbage's mechanical computer known as the "Babbage Analytical Engine". Vera Rubin whose work on predicted motion of stars within galaxies led to what we know as "dark matter" will never get the Nobel prize.

          Sexism is wasteful regardless of the gender it's directed at. I want it all gone. If women who are interested in science are rare, that's a shame and so be it. If women are blocked out of science and math due to the stereotype that's not on.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 12:22

          @MissG:

          Why do you think men are also hugely involved in computer hacking crimes and related incarceration? Do you think there is an age-old patriarchal conspiracy favouring male hackers to excel. Privilege, entitlement and nepotism there also?

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 12:50

          @Mrgreenz: That I can absolutely believe. You'd be amongst friends.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 12:54

          @Frugal Rock:

          When I was a young 'un I went into an IRC room named #cisco for some homework help. I was told to stop pretending to be female to get help (amongst other choice things). If you can't see why women aren't highly represented there then you're incredibly blind. And be careful with your facts there, hackers tend not to identify their gender.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 13:04

          @MissG:
          Yeah, I'm going to stick by my statement:

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_computer_criminals

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 13:17

          @Frugal Rock: Well done for spectacularly missing my point.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 13:22

          @syousef: I was being glib and you don't need to accept my arguments at all. Especially if they don't fit your version of rational and correct. They're perfectly rational, they just don't fit with your schema of the world. And to reiterate for the thousandth time, I know this is not a perfect solution, I would much prefer it if there was a greater pool of women to pick from and I suspect the current generation of kids will be it - but the 20-50 year old female pool just isn't there for a myriad of reasons. Is this the right solution? Probably not. Will it get more women into engineering roles and thus able to mentor more women through? Yes. And as those numbers swell, there'll be a higher quality pool to select from. But these constant arguments that girls just aren't interested in maths and building computers is so unbelievably incorrect, based on the well-researched evidence now, that it's those people, who hold those attitudes, standing in the way of quality.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 13:39

          @MissG:
          Which computer chip architecture would you say is your technical specialty? What are your thoughts on the rise and fall of the Transmeta Crusoe and VLIW?

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 13:47

          @Frugal Rock: None. I went to medical school instead.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 14:15

          Marla, you big tourist.

          Then where did your statement "There's a huge push for female coders now" come from? Please don't tell me Karlie Kloss.

        • ddab568 on 15/02/2017 - 15:21
          +1

          @Frugal Rock: You actually think the average programmer, male or female, would be clued into the elitist garbage you seem to think is 'basic' comp sci?

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 16:04
          +1

          @ddab568:
          They were used to stratify the committed from the involved/concerned. Denting your pride was serendipitous.

        • ddab568 on 15/02/2017 - 16:25
          +2

          @Frugal Rock: Yeah, extremely dented. You're so smart! Fancy words and you know about all this amazing niche technology. I might even start using complex sentence generator so I can look like a smartie on a bargain site :)

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 16:38

          @ddab568:
          That would be lexiphanic!

        • Syn88 on 15/02/2017 - 17:17
          +2

          @ddab568:
          Agree. When I hire software developers I give them coding problems and see if they can solve it. Simples.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 17:18
          -1

          @MissG:

          Men make the same arguments to justify discriminating against women. "It's not a perfect world" and "I don't have a perfect solution" can justify any twisted view. It can justify not hiring a woman because she may get pregnant. It can justify boys clubs with their increased competition that then discriminate against women. It's not a good way to think. I maintain it's not rational.

          If you want to make the world fairer, don't try to do it in half measures. That won't work.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 18:18

          @syousef: I don't know how many times I have to repeat myself, I agree with you, it's not a perfect solution. But like I said, corporations wouldn't be exposing themselves to the level of risk you seem to think is happening. They've done their homework, they know where the evidence is, it's a well educated and calculated risk.

          And frankly, neither you or I can truly predict the outcome. I'll meet you back here in 20 years and we'll see.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 18:20

          @Frugal Rock:

          Not my job to undo your ignorance. If you're not aware / not understanding of what is happening now, I can't change that.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:24
          -1

          @MissG:

          People say the same about climate change. The result in 50 years will be a total disaster.

          Some guiding principles apply here: 2 wrongs don't make a right.

          I won't repeat any more. I don't think you're listening.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 18:25

          @syousef: Right back at you. I have far higher hopes for these measures than I do for climate change because I've read the research .

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:33
          -1

          @MissG:

          The world doesn't work that way. Denying reality is never the basis for achieving anything. Regardless of how much "research" you claim you've read. "It's not a perfect world so i'm okay with this bit of unfairness to fix things" just adds unfairness to the world. These measures you insist are your salvation are actually as toxic as the crap we're spewing into the atmosphere.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 18:40

          @syousef:

          I'm denying your reality. Your reality is based strongly in opinion, and not in peer-reviewed fact. You are the one denying this could work, without having any real knowledge of where the evidence is. Perhaps it would be a better idea to do a literature review of this subject before forming these opinions.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:43
          +1

          @MissG:

          You have presented no evidence whatsoever that a quota based system decreases injustice. You've presented no evidence 2 wrongs make a right, or that 2 lots of injustice cancel. What's worse you've stated things to be true that can't be true and that I can disprove and have disproved by simple reasoning. Go on present your evidence. I bet I can tear it to shreds because it isn't reality based

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 18:44

          @syousef: Is it really up to me to provide you with evidence on a subject that I've read widely on and you have not, but are swearing blind you are right on? I don't think so. Find the evidence yourself and tear it to shreds. I've read it, you haven't.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:46
          +1

          @MissG:

          Yes it is. If you make the extraordinary claim that being unfair to people is going to make a fairer world the onus is on you to prove it. You won't even tell me what evidence to read, which means I cannot read it and I can't refute what you have supposedly read. In all honesty if this is how you conduct your scientific inquiry don't preach at others about science and peer review.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 18:52

          @syousef:

          Sorry but I'm not going to cherrypick a bunch of articles that support my argument so you can tear them apart. You need to consider the body of evidence, not a bunch of individual papers. And no I am not going to tell you what evidence to read, but since you require such hand-holding, I've created a very simple Google scholar search for you to start you off, which frankly is more than I should have done.

          https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=female+quotas+engine…

          It's not very hard.

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 18:56
          +1

          @MissG:

          I'm not going to select a bunch of random articles only to have you tell me I cherry picked and I don't have the right ones. Sorry but if you won't present evidence, your argument doesn't stand up. It has nothing to do with having my hand held. You claim to have evidence but won't present it. No amount of condescension ("hand-holding" indeed) or hand waving is going to change the fact that you can't or won't present that evidence. This is not how the scientific method works and if you think it is, you have no idea what you are talking about. Scientific method means your evidence has to stand up to scrutiny.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:03

          @syousef:

          How about you present me with your evidence that it WONT work then if we're going to play this game. You have demonstrated absolutely no factual basis for your argument. None whatsoever. I've already had to prove the existence of stereotype threat and the fact that there is so much bias against women in maths. Aren't you curious? Don't you want to see if your own argument is true? Why aren't you looking? Why are you demanding a random on an internet forum do it for you?

          You can select any articles you want, I'm not going to tell you they're wrong. It's easy to choose articles in support of your argument, it's harder to read articles that are against it and it takes a lot of time, I do not have time to list them all for you. They are quite easy to find. That whole first page of the Google Scholar search presents some very interesting perspectives. When you've read them all, come back to me and tell me your opinion is still the same. But again, I'm not doing this for you, your inquiry should be your own. I've formed my opinion based on the papers I've read (and there's been a lot), I've pointed you in a direction without any bias in my query terms, which has given you an unbiased list with which to form your own opinion.

          What have you done other than tell me I'm wrong and get angry at every turn?

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 19:07
          +1

          @MissG:
          "a subject that I've read widely on".

          Do you have many leather-bound books?

        • syousef on 15/02/2017 - 19:09
          +1

          @MissG:

          I have given you solid reasons why it will not work. You have given me nothing.

          I can't refute an argument if you hide your evidence.

          As for examples of positive discrimination.
          - Take a look at the creation of the country of Israel for a start. How stable is the middle east now that you've displaced one set of people to make a mends for the holocaust? Is it all better now decades later?
          - I have friends of the family who and a colleague at work who have escaped the anti-white backlash after Apartheid in South Africa. The friends of the family couldn't get their children into schools for pity sake.

          You are wrong. I am "angry" because you insist on adding more injustice to the world.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:10

          @Frugal Rock:

          Classic.

        • MessyG on 15/02/2017 - 19:13

          @syousef:

          I can't refute your arguments without your evidence either.

          But okay, if you want to do this, let's start with this paper. Here is the abstract:

          https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2465902

          Here is the full text:

          http://econ.au.dk/fileadmin/Economics_Business/Research/Semi…

          Why you cannot do this for yourself is absolutely beyond me.

        • [Deactivated] on 15/02/2017 - 19:21

          @MissG:

          Have you had a look at the lack of gender diversity at the top of Australian universities? It is interesting that the chancellors and vice-chancellors are happy rejecting male students while not applying the same standard to themselves.

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_universit…

          The statistical chances of zero female C-VC pairs. It's pretty funny.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join