Women are increasingly in positions of authority across industries. If you are an geology firm submitting bids to a government agency headed by a woman then it is a good idea to at least include a woman in your presentation. Some men are more comfortable around woman.what's the big difference that gender makes in scientific research or engineering? industry & science need them female scientists for what? for sexual service to male scientists in the lab?
In design, half of the world's consumers are women. It makes sense to have them assist design for obvious reasons.
I realize that all too many of you posture but deep down are intimidated by women but the above should be obvious. Seems the Dallas Mavericks fanbase has a few of those types and you guys try so hard to appear otherwise that it makes it obvious.
alphas
In order for insults to be effective you have to relate them to something other's can see. Your blind flailing just makes you look childish and butthurt.
It's nobody's fault that you are dumb. You don't need to be so upset by it.
Maybe go find some pics of complete stranger's homes or brush up on your creationist science?
Or how about you bump your autobiography thread regaling us with your views on the poor and minorities. I bet if you tried you could find some good eugenics books.
Autodidacts Unite!!!
Another shocking area I recently found out that has gone to a quota system is state game wardens. Their new classes have to exactly reflect the demographics of the state by gender and race. This is really counter productive IMHO. Game wardens in Texas have a broader law enforcement mandate than virtually any other law enforcement agency and they frequently operate alone dozens of miles from any potential backup and almost 100% of the time they are dealing with multiple armed males. Crazy . You KNOW they are rejecting highly qualified male applicants in favor of desperately filling that female mandate with whoever they can convince to apply..
lots of begged questions there, and no sources linked to substantiate any of your claims, CC . . .
one does however arrive at political talking points much the quicker presenting facts as valid and reasoning as already concluded, when in fact no investigation into either has taken place.
hunch, half familiarity and prejudice get presented as fully sufficient, which, to the speaker, they little doubt are . . .
I really don't give a whether you believe me or not.
Then how are they numb?
Seems to me they can encourage more female enrollment without emposing an artificial limit on male enrollment. When I was in engineering school, there were only a few female students, but I doubt it was because there were too many male students.
you don't seem to care whether anyone else does either, so I won't take that personally.
Everything can't always be linked on the internet. Doesn't mean it's not true.
Not to say the game wardens weren't a good old boy network back twenty years ago but they are applying federal affirmative action guidelines to them now and it required a pendulum swing in hiring quotas.
Some things you just know because you know the people that know.
FWIW Blacks are still under-represented in hiring because they just can't hire any. The few that want to go into that line of work can jump right to the Feds and make more money with better benefits.
oh, I'll just take your word for it then.Everything can't always be linked on the internet. Doesn't mean it's not true.
hard to believe there's nothing that can be linked from the internet to support what you say, but it's understandable you prefer the argument from authority over backing up your own claims. laziness rulz.
It's understandable that you just want to be an argumentative this morning.
I had to get a rag to wipe the dumb off my computer from having clicked on that.
Made up phony outrage over a non-existant plan.
Libertarian conspiracy theory, based on... nothing. Nada. Zip.
This is what the fuss is about:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...lity-and-oppor
Nothing in there about imposing any "male science enrollment" quotas, and the best I could find, no one was proposing such.
The only person saying this was possible, or intended was the author of the op-ed blog, who provided no subtantiating evidence of this claim. I thumbed through the links in the article, and NONE of it indicated the current administration was considering ins uting such quotas.
All I saw was a bunch of out of context quote mining, and hand-wringing.
I can't say for certain the Obama administration isn't contemplating something dumb like that, but none of the linked articles actually provided any proof of the claim other than vague generalities either.
You KNOW 9-11 had to be an inside job.
Just don't ask me to provide evidence of it...
guess you got nothing besides anecdote to back up what you say.
which is fine. forum needs big bull ters. keeps things lively.
Yeah i was reading it and saw nothing about hard caps or even soft caps. i know without question that the engineering community is trying to attract more women and schools and firms are recruiting hard.
I know some girls that while able to do the work are hardly prodigies and they are getting offers from firms for $80k or more right out the gate with absolutely no experience.
This is not government either. This is market demand as these firms are under no legal obligation to give any more than equal consideration. The problem is this:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/tab2-10.pdf
A 5:1 man to woman ratio in enrollment. It's pretty sad watching those that fear women wring their hands over this situation.
Quotas are stupid, but no women in tech/science is a problem. The government should give incentives (scholarships&subsidies) to address the problem.
You are a reallyyyyyyyy dense ing idiot. Let me help you out. Nobody has a problem with women being in stem..but to impose quota's is what I have a problem with. Let the best people who apply in, end of discussion. There just aren't as many women as men who are interested in STEM..nothing wrong with that. I can promise you the reason that there are currently so many more men isn't anything to do with discrimination, as others have said women who actually want in have no problem.
Fuzzy lumpkins is a sexist bigot who doesn't think women can compete.
I am in 100% agreement with you on that.
Men and women are simply different. Neither is better than the other. Just different.
I think it's sad that anyone thinks men and women should have the same desires.
Nobody is talking about imposing quotas.
The only people even saying it is a possibility, are people who have full motive to lie, i.e. more fearmongering for readers/ratings/fame.
Quotas in enrollment are stupid.
The only thing being proposed that could be proven is that colleges are encouraged to remove any barriers that might be hindering female enrollment.
Do you have a problem with that?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote