bovarchist wrote: ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
Dumb skeptic gets owned - politely, and with data - in her comments section.
t’s graduation season and I recently went to Tucson to attend my brother’s graduation from the civil engineering program at the University of Arizona...However, at his college graduation ceremony I noticed something particularly disturbing. There were 32 undergraduates obtaining their civil engineering bachelor degrees and another 18 getting either a masters or PhD. All of these students were men.
Let me repeat that: The University of Arizona awarded 50 students degrees in civil engineering this year and not one went to a woman.
The rest of the post goes on with similar anecdata, and complete lack of thoughtful or statistical analysis.
The very first comment, while presumably written in support and sympathy, blows the author's point out of the water:
Wow, that’s terrible. I graduated a few years ago with a degree in Structural Engineering, and about 1/3 of us were women.
So, anecdata immediately makes the score Patriarchy 1 : 1 Progress.
A person called Corey Henderson makes a very long, very serious, very well-constructed comment which should have Jamie weeping onto the Starbucks table she presumably inhabits 8 hours a day in lieu of actual work. Too long to quote, go read it.
gawd, that article needs 'trigger warning' on it.
Let's go down the list. It's her teacher's fault for not encouraging her, it's the boys' fault for giving her a hard time, it's the university's fault for not actively recruiting women, it's society's fault for not supplying her with role models...did I leave anything out? So many people stopped her from becoming an engineer!
What does she think...that men never face obstacles in pursuing their goals? It's a hard world for everybody, and yes, some may have it easier than others, but if you can't even handle being discouraged by high school boys, how on earth do you expect to ever succeed at anything?
U of T may have lost an engineer, but feminism has gained a martyr.
Skipping over the toxicty from marilove & Will: a couple of posters there add info that could be useful to the discussion if only there were a "discussion" to be had. There's lots of effort at the university level to encourage women to go into engineering (including extra funds used for this effort), so the small # of women who are, at that point
, interested have lots of options, with lots of competition between the schools to entice them. Whatever issue exists starts much earlier.
And now I'm trying to recall where it was I saw an article linked - was it here, a while back? - about how women who are strong in math & science tend
to have stronger skills in other areas ("verbal" in testing parlance, I think) than men who are strong in math & science; the women therefore have a broader range of options for fields to go into. Women also tend
to be more likely to go into professions seen as social and "helping" (not that engineering isn't) - whether that's cultural or biological is another matter. (Cue Steersman citing Pinker?)
(FWIW, my background includes science degrees from a mostly-male, mostly-math-and-science college & graduate program, and my spouse is a prof in an engineering program x 20+ years that has ongoing efforts to attract women students & faculty.)
Claiming right to blasphemy on basis of freedom to speech, but restricting other speech, is special pleading. Atheists of all people should recognize that freedom of speech means nothing w/o freedom to offend, however uncomfortable that sometimes is.