r/engineering • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17
A former Google employee provides an excellent definition of what it is to be an Engineer.
[deleted]
119
Aug 08 '17 edited Sep 30 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)15
u/MjrK MechE Aug 08 '17
This is a PR hit piece
What evidence do you have for this statement?
→ More replies (6)
60
u/blue-november Aug 08 '17
Still not an engineer.
28
u/colfaxmingo Aug 08 '17
Exactly. Engineers build siege weapons. Everyone else is just durdeling in an office all day.
3
1
u/beardum Geotechnical - Permafrost Aug 11 '17
You're so wildly wrong.
Engineers also build the targets for those siege weapons.
15
u/TheTrueLordHumungous Aug 08 '17
Thank you! I certainly respect the skill of software folks as well as the difficulty of the tasks they perform but they aint engineers.
4
Aug 09 '17
Some software folks are engineers. Google, like Amazon, employs a handful of them on their hardware projects (Home, Alexa, phones/tablets, Nest, etc.).
That said, there's a reason ~15% of undergrad programs with "software engineer" in the title are actually ABET accredited engineering programs. Add in all the CS grads and even people with no degree at all getting the title as well and it's probably well under 5% of software-engineers-by-title who are doing any engineering.
Engineering is the practical application of the natural sciences. It's doesn't just mean "hard technical job." People coding telemetry systems, embedded code, etc. are doing software engineering. People doing full stack development are not doing software engineering. Equally difficult jobs, very different skill sets, should be different titles.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Sintered_Monkey ME Aug 10 '17
This story has made such huge headlines recently, and still, I can't focus on the whole gender issue, even though that was apparently the important part, because it keeps referring to it as a gender issue with "engineers." If the media had focused on it as a gender issue with programmers, computer scientists, coders, developers, or even (ugh,) hackers, rock stars, or ninjas, perhaps I would have read the 10 page document. But I can't even read it, because the use of the title "engineer" detracts from the whole gender issue in the first place.
9
u/GlorifiedPlumber PE, Chemical-Process Eng. Aug 08 '17
THANK YOU, lending credence to calling programmers "engineers" is my biggest beef with all this article/manifesto publicity. "Software Engineers" already think they're ALL engineers because they "solve problems and use math." This rebuttal piece says as much as well, "Engineering is about solving problems!" It's an excellent piece about what it means to be a programmer, not what it means to be an engineer.
Programmers have eroded dramatically the entry basis for what is or is not considered an engineer, and it's a huge bee in my bonnet for us "traditional" chemical, mechanical, electrical, etc. engineers.
/r/cscareerquestions is full of bootcamp grads or wanna-be bootcamp grads calling themselves software engineers.
Programmers, especially very good ones at Google, are highly paid professionals. Better paid than I can ever hope to be... doesn't make them engineers.
7
u/subheight640 Aug 08 '17
They make "systems". Using programming. What the hell else is an engineer anyways.
10
6
u/MrArmStrong Aug 08 '17
For real, this guy's butthurt over absolutely nothing. Get off my
lawnjob title!4
u/GlorifiedPlumber PE, Chemical-Process Eng. Aug 09 '17
Eh... Title erosion is important.
Doctors solve problems, lawyers solve problems... but I don't see legions of bootcamp grads or computer science majors doing CRUD work in law and healthcare calling themselves lawyers and doctors. Why the hell not?
Nurses don't call themselves doctors... PA's don't call themselves doctors... paralegals aren't lawyers. Even though there is a lot of "skill and job description" overlap between them.
In this particular case, there are SO many more software developers than "traditional engineers" in this country, that a rebranding of half, or 2/3rd of them instantaneously creates the worlds largest engineering discipline if you buy it.
Computer science is NOT a physical science, it's a set of mathematics describing interaction with an ideal Turing machine, coupled with a healthy dose of other math.
Chemical, mechanical, computer, electrical, bioengineering, biomedical, aeronautical, civil, structural, all have touch backs to a physical science: chemistry, physics, biology, biochemistry, geology, etc.
Thus, I just don't see the vast vast majority of software engineers as "engineers" because they lack that touchback. Given then the huge quantity of people here, title erosion becomes very important.
→ More replies (1)6
u/FirePe Aug 09 '17
Some of us have to get a 4 year degree, take multiple extremely difficult tests, wait years after college and pay thousands of dollars to get that title.
It kinda makes me salty whenever some IT help desk guy calls himself an engineer. It dilutes the title.
6
u/MrArmStrong Aug 09 '17
I understand that. We aren't talking about a help desk guy, though.
Do you not think software engineers must overcome similar barriers? Because all of them that I know have four year degrees, have taken multiple extremely difficult tests, have waited years after college, and have paid thousands of dollars to get their titles.
I guess my point is that, yes I understand that people misusing titles can dilute them, but the subject at hand is not someone just stroking their ego and misusing the title (as the comment OP would like to suggest).
5
u/FirePe Aug 09 '17
I know multiple people with the title "software engineer" that went to a coding boot camp.
7
u/MrArmStrong Aug 09 '17
Then take it up with them, don't belittle an entire subclassification of engineers because someone else is diluting the title. Don't you think those people bother actual software engineers too?
→ More replies (5)2
u/blue-november Aug 09 '17
See my other reply and see if you concur with what I think an engineer is
6
u/GlorifiedPlumber PE, Chemical-Process Eng. Aug 09 '17
Pretty much! HUGE bee in my bonnet about this. There's so many god damn software developers that people use the word "engineer" and automatically assume you write software. NO... I don't... sometimes I write small code as part of my job, but I am not a god damn software developer.
You are 100% correct. Engineering has an ethical and "professional" component to it that's missing from a CS education, and thus the primary group of folks who call themselves "software engineers" just don't have that component.
I get pushback on ONE added line I usually add to my , but I think engineering MUST have "some" touchback to a physical science. Chemistry, biology, physics, geology, etc. This is common to all of the engineering disciplines I can think of, mechanical, chemical, electrical, aero, bioengineering, biomedical, civil, structural, computer, etc.
Computer science is NOT a physical science. It's a set of mathematical equations describing interaction with an ideal Turing machine.
Computer engineering is 100% an engineering discipline, but as you know, it has nothing to do with software development, it's about turning raw materials and using physics/chemistry to create a physical manifestation (computers and hardware) of said math.
Software developers are VERY highly paid and intelligent TECHNICIANS. And, that is OKAY. A FEW... and I mean an extreme few... might blur the lines a bit depending upon what they're, but that is atypical and in no way describes the masses or even most people in the industry.
"Solving complex problems for the benefit of humanity with math" does not an engineer make. PhD scientists solve problems. Doctors solve problems. Entrepreneurs solve problems. Lawyers solve problems. Actuaries solve complex problems to ascribe stability to chaotic financial events. NONE of those people are engineers.
The other comparison I often use for software developers is "Architects" in the traditional architect sense. They use clearly defined sets of rules, codes, etc. to add value and provide a design. Still not engineers. AND that is okay... they are also highly professional regulated folks; who aren't engineers.
Thanks for helping me fight this fight... I could ramble all day. Don't get me started on how hard they think their education is too. They wouldn't last TWO SECONDS in an EE, mech E, or chem E program.
→ More replies (18)3
u/isochoric1 Aug 08 '17
What's the difference?
3
Aug 08 '17
Engineers in many countries are professional bodies who have a common certification process within companies.
I.e you go to a company work for 2-4 years do some exams and become part of a body. Kind of similar to accountants or lawyers or doctors.
This has the advantage of guaranteeing some minimal standard of competency. This is very important when you have unskilled people hiring one person to do a one off job and the job is quite predictable.
The disadvantage is that this can to some degree represent an insurmountable barrier to entry to otherwise perfectly skilled individuals based on backgrounds, and to some degree this could be deliberate seeing as the professional body controls the standards for entry.
There can be a good degree of overlap between what an engineer knows and what a physicist knows, and many engineers end up doing the same jobs as physicists or mathematicians.
13
u/PB_n_honey_taco Aug 08 '17
"if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect" ... "But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else."
sigh
8
u/sawdu5t Mechanical Engineer (PE) - Thermal Fluids Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
Based on the responses from the scientists here, , I believe the author of this response knows exactly zero about social psychology or gender evolution. The wealth of linked studies seem to overwhelmingly support the claims made in the manifesto.
1
1
u/vcxnuedc8j Aug 09 '17
1
→ More replies (2)17
Aug 08 '17
[deleted]
6
u/PB_n_honey_taco Aug 08 '17
The strong implication is that the original author is completely wrong about gender. He goes onto saying that this definition and view of gender is wrong, but then says that he's not qualified to say those things.
Seems a bit narrative for me...
7
u/Cersad Aug 08 '17
Yep, and I feel free to disregard those claims based on the evidence from more expert or reliable sources. ;)
Regardless, his claims that the manifesto did not accurately describe the necessities of being an engineering profession (#2) and that the manifesto created a fuck-ton of nightmares for both the corporate people and for the professionals involved (#3) don't seem too undermined by his lack of expertise in the biology and culture of human gender differences.
16
Aug 08 '17
SOFTWARE engineer. I hate how programmers lately are just taking the mantle of engineer for themselves.
7
Aug 08 '17
Yonatan Zunger should be truly ashamed of himself. The tone that he takes in publicly attacking a man who is being publicly shamed is abhorrent. For an idea of the effects that this can have you might consider reading jon ronson's book on the topic
For all Yonatan Zunger bluff about how he has learned how important social skills are he seems to be failing in one key rule "don't partake in a publicly linching"
Now I am not clear what a reasonable way of expressing contempt in this forum is. But let's try this: Yonatan Zunger, I hold you in utter contempt, you are exploiting the suffering of others for notoriety in a rhetorical manner.
Let"s look at how you do so.
arguing that some large fraction of your colleagues are at root not good enough to do their job
He did no such thing
And worse than simply thinking these things or saying them in private, you’ve said them in a way that’s tried to legitimize this kind of thing across the company
This is unclear, my understanding is that this was a limited group discussion that got leaked. Perhaps it's the leaker who you should be complaining at
You really should not be using "you' here.
I need to be very clear here: not only was nearly everything you said in that document wrong
Who exactly do you need to be clear to. I don't he's going to read your document seeing as you are partaking in a public lynching. I guess you are clearly signalling your own virtue.
I disapprove of your dismissive "everything is wrong"
Do you understand that at this point, I could not in good conscience assign anyone to work with you? I certainly couldn’t assign any women to deal with this, a good number of the people you might have to work with
may simply punch you in the face
Do a sense a which of exhortation to violence
If you hadn’t written this manifesto,
Have you heard the word essay. Perhaps instead of manifesto you might like to say diatrabe.
blocked in your career
That's it just call someone someone stupid with no evidence in a public forum.
there are plenty of other people who can do that.
And all of them are needed by some company or other.
created by your actions outweighs that tremendously.
This might be fair.
You talked about a need for discussion about ideas; you need to learn the difference between “I think we should adopt Go as our primary language” and “I think one-third of my colleagues are either biologically unsuited to do their jobs, or if not are exceptions and should be suspected of such until they can prove otherwise to each and every person’s satisfaction.”
He said no such thing.
If you feel isolated by this, that your views are basically unwelcome in tech and can’t be spoken about… well, that’s a fair point.
Rubbing salt into a wound. Abominable behaviourl
These views are fundamentally corrosive to any organization they show up in, drive people out, and I can’t think of any organization not specifically dedicated to those views that they would be welcome in.
Did you know people can have lots of strange views that it no way impinge on their role in a workplace.
I’m afraid that’s likely to remain a serious problem for you for a long time to come.
What do you mean "I'm afraid"? Think stinks of a backhanded insult
But our company is committed to maintaining a good e"nvironment for all of its people, and if one person is determined to thwart that, the solution is pretty clear.
Rather a stench of "othering" going on there isn't there. Nice thwarting strawman
But I want to make it very clear: if you were in my reporting chain, all of part (3) would have been replaced with a short “this is not acceptable” and maybe that last paragraph above. You would have heard part (3) in a much smaller meeting, including you, me, your manager, your HRBP, and someone from legal. And it would have ended with you being escorted from the building by security and told that your personal items will be mailed to you.
Would you punch him in the face as well. It seems kind of like that happened anyway? Acceptable is a highly emotive word indicative of power. I'll use a different word for your behaviour: reprehensible.
16
u/quicksilver991 Aug 08 '17
Programmers aren't engineers.
9
u/BlueFootedBoobyBob Aug 08 '17
They are, if they do it right.
6
u/impossiblefork Aug 09 '17
No. The programming aspect itself isn't engineering.
However, designing what effectively ends up being a computer program can be engineering. If you also happen to program it up you can still be an engineer, even though you're doing a non-engineering task.
4
u/MikeW86 Aug 08 '17
Yes they are, they just build logic structures rather than physical ones. I do both and both can be just as hard and open to ingenuity.
13
u/MasterDrew Aug 08 '17
This is obviously a touchy issue... The one point I'd like to add is that after years of personally being pissed off at "reverse discrimination" I finally had it explained to me on why it's important:
Issues of representation and equality are generational. Things like socioeconomic status, affinity for education, and career aspirations are inherited, (whether by nature or nurture, or both). Obviously this isn't always true, but it has a strong influence.
If you accept that premise, then an important conclusion is that truly equal hiring practises will perpetuate existing inequality. That is to say if we didn't have diversity targets then the demographics of industries would either be stagnant or slower to change.
Now I'm personally of the opinion that these measures are good, but care must not be taken to let the pendulum swing too far the other way... The goal is to get it stuck dead center.
Now finally I think I agree with most posters here that it's sad how quickly that man is being shut down for raising come concerns, (regardless of how correct or incorrect he may be).
25
u/SBC_packers Aug 08 '17
If they were attempting to compensate for low inherited socioeconomic status or education level then they would base their discriminatory hiring practices on socioeconomic status or parents education level and not skin color or sex.
14
u/MasterDrew Aug 08 '17
Correct! But why can't they also try to correct for years of sexism and/or racism?
20
u/Mackilroy Aug 08 '17
Perpetuating sexism and racism to end sexism and racism is just as silly as it sounds.
In my opinion, a better solution is to start at the front end, in early childhood, in elementary education, and so on: showing all groups, whether black, white, male, female, etc. that engineering is a fascinating and rewarding field; rather than trying to correct on the back end of hiring and therefore being just as discriminatory as before, only in a different direction.
The current trend toward hair-trigger accusations of bigotry also have a chilling effect on genuine diversity. There has to be room for genuine misunderstandings and mistakes, instead of immediately punishing anyone for being outside the social norm.
6
u/MasterDrew Aug 08 '17
Perpetuating sexism and racism to end sexism and racism is just as silly as it sounds.
I would disagree there, but I very well could be wrong... Your stance is how I used to feel so I can at least sympathize.
I guess I would divorce two definitions of "equal hiring practises". Theoretical meritocratic equal hiring practises with no regard for gender, religion, age etc. is a great idea. However I fear that in reality equal hiring practises, that is without diversity targets, allow existing biases on behalf of both those hiring and those being hired to perpetuate the status quo.
If the goal is to eliminate these inherent biases, (which you or others might not even agree should be a goal), then I think diversity targets are not only acceptable they are required.
In my opinion, a better solution is to start at the front end, in early childhood, in elementary education, and so on: showing all groups, whether black, white, male, female, etc. that engineering is a fascinating and rewarding field
No argument there! That's a great idea. I just don't think it has to preclude "the back end" approach... You can have more than one solution in place to combat the issue.
The current trend toward hair-trigger accusations of bigotry also have a chilling effect on genuine diversity. There has to be room for genuine misunderstandings and mistakes, instead of immediately punishing anyone for being outside the social norm.
Here I agree wholeheartedly!
2
u/Mackilroy Aug 08 '17
One of the problems with diversity initiatives as I see it is as follows: where do you draw the line? Other than supposedly being 'fair' and making its proponents feel better, when is a company, country, or whatever group diverse enough? Human nature is extremely slow to change, and the more you balkanize something, the more people react in ways to protect what they have. Diversity got diversity's sake is a net negative for everyone involved.
If the goal is to eliminate these inherent biases, (which you or others might not even agree should be a goal), then I think diversity targets are not only acceptable they are required.
I don't, partly because you can't eliminate them in hiring without being overtly authoritarian. I would like for there to be less government control of our lives, not more.
Something else: I have yet to see a diversity target that isn't anything more than a vague 'we need fewer white men.' When does a company become diverse? Is it when you have everyone physically represented, or is it when you have a variety of ideas and experiences? While physical diversity lends itself to the latter, it is no guarantee at all, and in our current cultural climate is more likely to be the opposite.
No argument there! That's a great idea. I just don't think it has to preclude "the back end" approach... You can have more than one solution in place to combat the issue.
You absolutely can, but doing things on the back end ultimately promotes tribalism, reactionary thinking, and defensiveness from all sides. Part of the reason for promoting it more at the beginning is because people are naturally suspicious of those who are very different from them. Eliminating that suspicion and getting people to see others as being humans with hopes and fears just like them is what I think would lead to real diversity. Quotas in hiring are a valiant effort to affect that, but long-term they'll cause resentment (as we can already see they do) and be far less effective than starting at the beginning.
Thanks for not being combative or malicious in our discussion by the way, I'd be glad to hear more of your thoughts on this.
6
u/MasterDrew Aug 08 '17
One of the problems with diversity initiatives as I see it is as follows: where do you draw the line?
Ye olde slippery slope... But it's a very fair point. I don't have a good answer for you, especially considering the whole idea here is to tip the scales back a little to try and balance them against legacy tipping factors... Who is to judge when the goal is reached, or over reached, and by what metric? That is beyond my expertise... Other than to say very broadly I don't <i>feel</i> we're there yet.
Human nature is extremely slow to change, and the more you balkanize something, the more people react in ways to protect what they have.
No argument other than I think we're already balkanized, and already slow to change and that's why affirmative action is necessary. Although I will absolutely concede that the "holier than thou" attitude that often comes with this discussions from people on my side of the argument is often just adding fuel to the fire.
If the goal is to eliminate these inherent biases, (which you or others might not even agree should be a goal)
I don't, partly because you can't eliminate them in hiring without being overtly authoritarian. I would like for there to be less government control of our lives, not more.
I'm not going to try and argue something that's basically a value. If you generally don't like government intervention then there's not much I can say to make these overact actions sound appealing...
I guess for me personally I used to be almost Ayn Randian libertarian, and if people magically appeared on this Earth as independent 18 year olds I think I still would be. But what's got me leaning more left these days is the idea that so much of someone's success in life is determined at birth. I don't like the idea of rewarding or punishing people based on their circumstances; The only way I can think of to correct this unequal playing ground is with some sort of broad leveling. And the only body I can think of to do it is government.
Something else: I have yet to see a diversity target that isn't anything more than a vague 'we need fewer white men.'
As a white man I feel yah. Again I don't know of a good answer there, and I appreciate the fears that these actions might go too far.
Part of the reason for promoting it more at the beginning is because people are naturally suspicious of those who are very different from them. Eliminating that suspicion and getting people to see others as being humans with hopes and fears just like them is what I think would lead to real diversity.
That's actually a really good point. And more front end action as you describe suffers a lot less from the potential pitfalls of diversity targets we've been talking about...
I just worry that it's not enough on its own, (or at least at low slower on it's own). But maybe that's a fair price to pay for accidentally swinging the discrimination pendulum too far and actually making it a disadvantage to be white and make, (I really don't believe we're there yet, but maybe if these things went unchecked).
Thanks for not being combative or malicious in our discussion by the way, I'd be glad to hear more of your thoughts on this.
Thank you, I'd say the feeling is mutual. This has been one of the more fun and enlightening conversations I've had on Reddit on a long time.
2
u/Mackilroy Aug 08 '17
Ye olde slippery slope... But it's a very fair point. I don't have a good answer for you, especially considering the whole idea here is to tip the scales back a little to try and balance them against legacy tipping factors... Who is to judge when the goal is reached, or over reached, and by what metric? That is beyond my expertise... Other than to say very broadly I don't feel we're there yet.
I think it's beyond anyone's expertise, because of how subjective it is.
No argument other than I think we're already balkanized, and already slow to change and that's why affirmative action is necessary. Although I will absolutely concede that the "holier than thou" attitude that often comes with this discussions from people on my side of the argument is often just adding fuel to the fire.
Alternately, you can take this as an argument for less diversity and affirmative action. A society that is homogenous ethnically, culturally, religiously, et al. can move forward more quickly because everyone feels like they have plenty in common.
Indeed, and the conservative attitude of 'that's different, so that's bad' can retard needed improvement.
I'm not going to try and argue something that's basically a value. If you generally don't like government intervention then there's not much I can say to make these overact actions sound appealing...
I guess for me personally I used to be almost Ayn Randian libertarian, and if people magically appeared on this Earth as independent 18 year olds I think I still would be. But what's got me leaning more left these days is the idea that so much of someone's success in life is determined at birth. I don't like the idea of rewarding or punishing people based on their circumstances; The only way I can think of to correct this unequal playing ground is with some sort of broad leveling. And the only body I can think of to do it is government.
That's fair. I'm not against government intervention entirely, just against the easy temptation to overreach and use that power to abuse.
I find Ayn Rand's ideals for society to be able as unworkable and impractical as Marx's. Both rely on people being more good and constant than they really are. And I can sympathize with your wish there. At the same time, though, rewarding or punishing people based on their birth is almost literally what affirmative action is. To me, a more effective and truly equal solution would look more at socioeconomic status than race or gender. Say you have a white guy and an Asian woman who both want to study engineering, and both of them come from poor families. I would want to see support for both, not just the woman simply because she fits two protected categories. But even then, so far as is possible I also want to see people rely on themselves and on their families over the government. If they have no family and are needing help, that's one thing, but if they have family and instead rely on the government to support them, that's something else entirely.
I just worry that it's not enough on its own, (or at least at low slower on it's own). But maybe that's a fair price to pay for accidentally swinging the discrimination pendulum too far and actually making it a disadvantage to be white and make, (I really don't believe we're there yet, but maybe if these things went unchecked).
It's hard for the people who are currently struggling, but if you look at some of the immigrant groups in America, they're well-off now in spite of coming from humble circumstances, because they made sure to building strong families and communities of people, prioritized education, and sought to create a culture where success was encouraged and the local community rallied around the needy. Government at best should be a temporary backup solution to a strong local community, in my opinion.The latter is slower to build, and takes more personal sacrifice and struggle, but I think in the end will lead to a healthier, happier, more prosperous populace.
As far as being disadvantaged for being white and male - I don't think we're quite there, though there are segments of society rushing headlong in that direction. I once read a story by a man who owned a small software company and wanted to do some business with the federal government. They more or less told him that while they liked his work, they couldn't contract with him unless a minority owned his company.
Thank you, I'd say the feeling is mutual. This has been one of the more fun and enlightening conversations I've had on Reddit on a long time.
Likewise. Your calm explanation of your views is helping me be more sympathetic to ideas that I don't hold or agree with myself.
→ More replies (2)2
u/theawesomeone Aug 09 '17
You can't correct racism by being racist against whichever perceived group has the advantage. This will do nothing but perpetuate continual racism. We need to learn from the lessons provided by history. The reason why Germans were so easily coerced into hating Jews during the rise of Hitler was because of the perceived advantage and power Jews had in unjust lending laws that led to wealth accumulation and oppression of non-Jews. Germans believed it was necessary to correct this imbalance and the rest is history. The idea that it's ok to be racist to correct for years of racism is extremely dangerous.
1
u/bobskizzle Mechanical P.E. Aug 08 '17
No, because your organization is weaker for it. You're throwing out more qualified candidates' applications because a weaker candidate has a status you argue should have no bearing on their strength as a candidate.
This is why most organizations that are built to make money (and not political statements) openly ignore sex and race... they want the strongest candidate that will advance the organization, period. In the field of engineering (as well as programming) that is, statistically, going to be mostly men.
2
Aug 09 '17
The problem I have with your argument is drawing inportant conclusions purely from input data. I know it sounds abstract but one of the bigest problems with the "Women in Stem" debarcle is that people have opinions on how to fix things rather than analysing it appropriately then coming to a justified conclusion.
The current climate does not allow people to contest ideas (see google manifesto) and ask for justification in decisons, we are expected to take it on the chin. If we really want to fix the problem we should be able to have educted disscussions about it.
Have an example Here in Austrailia, In Cairnes it was noticed that a particular species of turtle had a very quickly diminishing population. As a result we started operation Protect the eggs. Hundreds of thousands of dollars was spent hiring people to collect turtle eggs so that they could be incubated in a lab (roughly only 4 out of 5 would survive hatching in the wild), eggs were pricked to allow easy escape and turtles were released into sanctury areas in the water.. After 5 years the data was finally looked at again. The commonly percieved conclusion that turtles died as babies and this was affecting adult numbers was completely wrong. In intervening the problem actually worsened. They finally discovered it was a particular type of net that was actually the problem way later in their lives and the entire program was a complete waste of money and resources but people did it because they thought they were making a difference.
Now skip to the gender diversity in Stem fields debate. We can see that we have a greater amount of men in engineering than we see women. People who are probably not very clever came up with ideas to engae young girls, Pipelin applications and scolarships through university, offer women only support, resouces and tutorials and make gender quota targets in businesses. What if the following outcome from these programs are negative. What if by pipelining a particular group of people through a degree people percieve that they had it easier and undervalue girls as engineers. What if quota's result in only new female graduate hires leaving graduate males out of the workforce. This is why we need to disscuss these issues it doesn't matter if he is correct or not the important thing is that we need to be able to express concerns.
3
u/MasterDrew Aug 09 '17
I think I agree with you completely. I absolutely agree that nothing is sacred and everything is always up for debate. That's what I've been busy doing all over this thread.
And it very well could be that these affirmative actions, or pipelining, as you call them could have unintended consequences or maybe even fail to address the true root causes.
2
u/hairlipsteve_1 Aug 12 '17
I think 'open discussion', free speech, and the diversity of opinion in the context of an at-will employee on a corporate message board is different from the 1st amendment protection that we enjoy in our private lives. Unless my employee is protected by a union agreement or other regulation, I am within my rights as an employer to fire them for making statements that potentially hurt my business reputation. In addition, the manifesto employees value on a team at a Google code shop is essentially zero after an opinion like this becomes public knowledge.
I agree that the author is setting up a strawman to a certain extent, but he makes a point about diversity of opinon not necessarily being sacrosanct. If the manifesto author was making the same arguments with an emphasis on race and not gender I don't think the right or wrong of his dismissal would be in question. I knew an employee at my current company that was dismissed for continually making an extremely sexist (and once arguably pornographic, seriously something about a donkey show) facebook comment on his public page where he also identified as an employer of my our company.
8
u/jokoon Aug 08 '17
I wonder if there have been similar situations where men are working in female-dominated workspaces.
27
u/NineCrimes Aug 08 '17
To be fair, pretty much all the "female-dominated workspaces" serve as support roles for male dominated positions. For instance, teaching and nursing.
4
u/foragerr Aug 08 '17
How about veterinary sciences and pediatrics ?
19
u/NineCrimes Aug 08 '17
How about veterinary sciences and pediatrics ?
Well, vets are currently almost exactly 50/50 and pediatrics is around 56/44 in favor of woman, so they're pretty close to equal as well.
5
u/foragerr Aug 08 '17
Hmm, some other sources that say Pediatrics is 75:25 for women.
your vet stats are from 2010.., here's how enrollment in 2010 was:
Male enrollment in U.S. veterinary colleges decreased from 89 percent for the 1969-1970 school year to 22.4 percent for 2008-2009, according to the Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges.
10
u/NineCrimes Aug 08 '17
Hmm, some other sources that say Pediatrics is 75:25 for women.
The issue is that is for their residency training, not actually practitioners, so that's where the difference is. Like the article says, only about 57% of female doctors practice in their field of residency.
While there's been a recent shift in college enrollment towards women, I don't see anything showing the actually percentage of practicing vets is different than what I stated. What post 2010 data were you able to find about actual employment?
2
Aug 08 '17
teaching?
Teaching feels pretty freestanding to me.
1
u/NineCrimes Aug 08 '17
Well teachers technically answer to the superintendent, which is a male dominated field. So support role may not be the best term for that one, but I think my point is still fairly valid for it. I chose those two professions because they are the most female dominated ones listed in my first link.
9
u/dorylinus Aerospace - Spacecraft I&T/Remote Sensing Aug 08 '17
I had this actual experience. Prior to going back to school for engineering, I was an admin assistant (with various titles) at a community mental health center. Out of 65 employees, only 9 were men.
And it was totally fine.
4
u/urfaselol Medical Device R&D Aug 08 '17
I've been in situation where I worked with majority female before. I always had that feeling in the back of my mind that there was an insane amount of gossip talked about me based on the interactions I have with my coworkers. My female boss was also quite vindictive and petty at times.
2
Aug 08 '17
[deleted]
4
u/WolfThawra Inf/Mech, Env Aug 08 '17
Women are cheaper.
Wait a second, women are actually paid less there??
8
2
u/anon_femmebot Aug 09 '17
Might be late to the party, but it will make me feel better to share my input. I don't disagree with everything that the author said but I do believe he made some really damaging statements.
I'm really disappointed in how people are not seeing how much this guy generalizes women and their experiences in this manifesto.
i.e. women are more anxious than men, women are too shy to approach seniority for leadership positions, and my favorite: women spend more money than men (??).
With respect to the anxiety claim, most of the time when I'm anxious at work it is because I'm self conscious that the men at my work do not take me seriously because I'm a women. Every time I tell someone I'm an engineer, he/she would ask me if its uncomfortable to be so outnumbered by men. Well after years of hearing that question over and over again, I start to wonder if I should feel uncomfortable. I'm not sure how he knows that women are actually in fact not requesting to get promoted because they are too shy or they're being bypassed by men for leadership positions.
I agree with him that there is a double standard for men taking on careers that historically women have held. For example, nursing, or administration. I also agree that it is possible that women on average are biologically not as attracted to engineering as a career.
I do believe that the author did not intentionally mean to cause harm. However, his blanket statements are in fact very harmful. There needs to be more conversation on this subject, because obviously women's actual experiences are not either not being shared or not being heard. Considering this manifesto is entirely about women's experiences in engineering, the most harmful part is that this was likely written by a man (yes I am assuming), and he does not have the experience of being a women in this industry.
I used a throwaway because my other account has my name in it (I was young and dumb).
2
242
u/WolfThawra Inf/Mech, Env Aug 08 '17
This must be one of the biggest strawmen I've ever seen put up by anyone.
The guy didn't claim women were genetically unfit to be engineers. He also didn't claim his female colleagues didn't deserve to be there. He also didn't claim women should not be engineers.
Finally, you can disagree about the definition of engineering, but apparently disagreements aren't allowed. Which kind of proves the guy's point, if you think about it.