🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4eo_Oby00WB9N4dnYR@andrew.cmu.edu> gr1c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Greg Howard Rhodes) writes:
>
>C. R. Bass writes:
>>
>>     If y'all feel it necessary to 'do something' about the paucity of
>>     women in the physical sciences, then go to the middle schools
>>     and *teach* math to them in an interesting and wonderful way.  
>>
>>     However, don't be mislead into thinking that overall numbers
>>     of mathematicians will change unless the profession pays as 
>>     well as medicine or law.  There seem to be plenty of women in
>>     those demanding fields. 
>>
>>     Also, for most, law school and medical school are tough.
>>
>>                               dale bass
>>-- 
>>C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
>>Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
>>University of Virginia
>>Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
>
>Just wanted to say that I think that really missed the point here. The
>problem is NOT just that there aren't more women in the field of
>mathematics, the problem is that there aren't more women in
>math or science related fields, such as: physics, chemistry, computer
>science, computer engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical,
>aerospace, materials, etc, etc, etc... 

     Have you ever been in a Computer Science department?
     There seem to be plenty of women floating around.

     And why exactly do you feel that the lower proportion of
     women compared to the total population is a 'problem'?
     Which skilled worker do you wish to force out of these
     non-booming professions to accommodate a higher percentage
     of women to satisfy our social engineering quotas?

     And on what scale is this a problem?  Should we make sure
     every company has an equitable distribution?  Should we make
     sure every plant has an equitable distribution?  Should
     we make sure every cubicle has an equitable distribution.

     It seems to me that this 'problem' is the same as the 'problem'
     that we've had for the last 20 years in that there 'aren't enough'
     engineers and scientists.   It is only a problem, if women are
     being forced out because they are women.  I don't think Barbie
     has a hand in this, though.  She seems to have grasped the 
     essence of math.  She's now ready for engineering.

>So what you are saying is that women are more money-grubbing than men?
>Only when "the profession pays as well as medicine or law" will there
>be more women in math and science??!? Clue hammer for you, Dale.

     No, I was implying that they're smarter. 

     And it is widely-thought that there are many more true masochists and 
     other sexual deviates among men.  Only a masochist would expend the kind 
     of effort most of us have expended in pursuit of education when one could 
     become a highly-paid well-respected doctor with a similar expenditure
     of effort.

     And this was one possible 'fix' for the 'problem'.  Women, in general,
     seem to be perfectly able to deal with complex scientific problems
     in the medical field.  I suspect that they would be more than
     willing to do so in other fields as well if they were more
     remunerative.   

     If the assertion is that 'we stinking men' (TM) or 'society' (TM)
     are keeping women from the physical sciences and mathematics, then
     the existence of large numbers of women in the medical profession 
     seems to invalidate the assertion.  After all, if we wanted to 
     keep women from doing something, the high-paying stuff would probably
     be the stuff to keep them away from.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926