George wrote:
> "Ray Gordon"  wrote in message
> news:4kzHd.1687$cx2.204{at}trndny03...
> >>>Actually, the most logical explanation for the difference is that
the
> >>>rewards for being a scientist are less appealing to women than
they are to
> >>>men.
> >>
> >> That doesn't explain the large differences in measured abilities.
> >
> > Actually it's as legit a hypothesis as what you posted.
> >
>
> And I agree with that assessment.  One possible way around that
dilema is to
> change the rewards to make these fields more appealing to women.  I
believe that
> it can be done without detracting from the appeal it has for men.
>
> >>>A much better study is that of chessplayers, because there are
absolutely no
> >>>barriers to females who want to advance, and those who do
(Polgars,
> >>
> >> Women in science and engineering have fewer
"barriers" than do
men.
> >
> > One of the flaws with achieving "diversity" through affirmative
action is that
> > the fewer incumbent females you have to start with (9-15 percent in

> > engineering), the lower the threshhold for achieving the
"goal" of
improving
> > it.  Once you get 15 percent females in engineering at a
university, that's
> > success.
>
> Which is why I say throw out all the quotas and let anyone who wants
to get a
> career get one.  If he/she is not up to snuff, help them get there.
If they
> cannot get up to snuff in a reasonable amount of time, boot them out.
But if
> they can get up to snuff, they will have accomplished something that
will stick
> to them for the rest of their lives, which they can then use to make
a
> contribution to society.  I did't know squat about math when I went
to college,
> but by starting at the lowest level and working my way up, I
completed 22 credit
> hours in college math, including calculus and linear algebra.  If
someone had
> told me before I took these courses that I could have accomplished
this, I would
> have said "no way".  So I say open the damned doors and let everyone
in who
> wants in and quit all the damned bickering about who should and
should not be
> allowed in.  But that's just my own damned opinion.



Maybe the biggest fact about women in engineering/science is hiding
in plain sight. I will break a taboo and say it out load.
Whether or not they are as gifted, whether or not they are
encouraged or discriminated against, they ARE NOT AS MOTIVATED as guys
to excel in certain fields. Of course there are exceptions, but by and
large they are not as obsessive and passionate about such careers. This
is tacitly admitted all around.
The perfect example of this is the interviews done with female
fighter pilots concerning why they should want to do this. They gave
their answers. But no one would bother to ask a 20 year old guy that
question. They would look at you funny if you did.
Women are admitted to Medical School nowadays in large numbers
because they have strong looking applications and they "Want to be a
Doctor" But in large numbers, much more than men, they practice a few
years and then decide they would rather do something else. And this
despite the fact that can afford help at home and part time positions
are more available than ever. Do they face difficulties? I doubt it
very much but even if somewhat true they give up without much of a
fight. The numbers are unambiguuous. Antecdotes are irrelevant.
Guys routinely hang onto their Medical careers despite every sort
of weather even past the point when they should hang it up.
If fewer women are fanatically involved with technology why pester
them about it? Why count their comparative lack of interest as being
someones fault?
In the end it does not matter what sort of abilities each gender
possesses in a situation of extreme requirement. If they would really
rather be doing something else, they will not arrive in equal numbers
at the top ranks.
Of course, if this simple notion can be ignored, feminists can rant
on for eternity about how evil men are robbing them of their birth
rights. Which of course is their favorite role in life - not to be
given up easily.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/19/05 6:34:51 PM ---