Politically Correct and Expensive Hiring Of University Teachers

[jeremyrh]

I've only counted a handful of women on LuLa judging by their names.

Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?

[LesPalenik]

I've only counted a handful of women on LuLa judging by their names.

That is true for the active posters group, not necessarily for lurkers.
One of the differences between males and females is that most women try to avoid confrontation and rejection, so usually they refrain from posting. 

[elliot_n]

Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?

Exactly.

[LesPalenik]

I don't think that is a fair assessment. For any critical comment there would be several complimentary posts.

[32BT]

... Rather than play naturally in the same playground as the model, he has to invent a game for her to play in his.

The differences are entirely based on gender.

I don't see a male shooting 'em quite this way (attached pic by Deborah Turbeville.)

Rob

Which leads to the question whether a male photographer experiences the same difference when photographing a male model...?

[Robert Roaldi]

That is true for the active posters group, not necessarily for lurkers.
One of the differences between males and females is that most women try to avoid confrontation and rejection, so usually they refrain from posting.

You may have met a skewed sample of women.

[elliot_n]

I don't think that is a fair assessment. For any critical comment there would be several complimentary posts.

The reason women are absent from this forum is not because they are scared of being criticised, but because the forum is rife with everyday sexism — this thread being a case in point.

[Rob C]

Exactly.

"Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?"... Jeremyrh.

Who is doing this? The main thrust (dare I write that in today's climate?) is that men and women are not the same friggin' thing, and those who want to contest and force the issue are creating problems that don't exist outwith their insistence in creating them.

I speak not of plumbing, but of personality and general interest in differing subject matter.

Some, here, who complain about the perceived lack of engineers with skirts are just putting their social engineering politics where their mouths are. They don't want things to be as they are, having a far greater master plan that society must be forced into accepting, or be shamed, by means of artificially inseminated bullshit notions that conflate womanhood, maternity, fulfillment, instinct and career into one sorry, massively over-shrimped jambalaya.

What appears quite remarkable is that few here actually appear to have asked the women how they feel. As another poster pointed out, attained statistics depend on whom you ask, how you ask and a host of details that make general conclusions from research of doubtful merit. Were that not so, many more songs and movies would succeed, rather than the few that make it to heaven and back over generations. If you want reliable statistics of what constitutes working relationships - and what not - look at history: we have populated the Earth and made it fruitful doing it the old-fashioned way. And no, that has nothing to do with equal rights, which is an entirely separate issue and should never have been in doubt. Having different genders does no imply either has innate superiority: hell, most of the idiots I know are middle-aged white males. What is most certain - and obvious to anyone but those who will not see - is that the genders think differently. If you, as males, doubt that, then I'm afraid you have not been around enough women long enough to appreciate them for what they truly are: the salt of this Earth. But hey, some dick here will even read that as "condescension".

Rob

[LesPalenik]

Why would you choose to hang out somewhere that you are constantly belittled, told you are only good for housekeeping, etc.?

As Rob points out, there are indeed quite a few differences between men and women. One of them being that women are not such gearheads as men.
In the past, Kevin tried to bring women to this site and published several articles showing pictures of female photographers. Contrary to false accusations about belittling of women in this thread overwhelming majority of comments re: those articles or artist profiles were posts were congratulatory and highly favourable. Some of the comments came from female readers. Those articles and related discussion threads all available to read.

As to the differences in the interest in technical details between men and women, the following anecdote may serve as evidence.

A successful lawyer is telling his secretary about his new car. "I just bought a new two-tone BMW 550i. It has a  twin-turbocharged V8 with 445 hp and 480 lb-ft torque, ABS and driveline traction control, front and rear dual zone air conditioning, and an eight-speed automatic transmission." The secretary doesn't say much, so the lawyer asks her "And what kind of car do you drive?". "A white one" responds the lady.

I knew several such ladies, almost all of them driving white Corollas.

[jeremyrh]

A successful lawyer is telling his secretary about his new car.

And we assume that the secretary is female, right ?

[LesPalenik]

Exactly.

[jeremyrh]

Exactly.

Exactly. QED.

[James Clark]

Having different genders does no imply either has innate superiority: hell, most of the idiots I know are middle-aged white males. What is most certain - and obvious to anyone but those who will not see - is that the genders think differently.

That's not the issue.

The issue is when the next logical step is claimed to be that women (or men) are therefore less suited to certain opportunities, and that trying to balance this inequity is simply a desire to bow at the altar of "political correctness." 

Joe's bell curves are nicely illustrative, but they are addressing the argument at the extremes, where perhaps these innate differences DO manifest into distinct differences.   Thing is, extreme circumstances make for bad law, or something along those lines.  The vast majority of us operate in the middle by definition, where even the bell curve enthusiasts are forced to admit that the differences in application are minor.  So when there's an initiative to get more women into STEM, for example, it's not addressing the outliers at the end (no one would have denied Stephen Hawking a spot on the podium in the interest of gender diversity), but rather the middle positions where institutional issues make the ratio 90/10 instead of a natural 45/55 or whatever.

[jeremyrh]

Joe's bell curves are nicely illustrative, but they are addressing the argument at the extremes, where perhaps these innate differences DO manifest into distinct differences.   Thing is, extreme circumstances make for bad law, or something along those lines.  The vast majority of us operate in the middle by definition, where even the bell curve enthusiasts are forced to admit that the differences in application are minor.  So when there's an initiative to get more women into STEM, for example, it's not addressing the outliers at the end (no one would have denied Stephen Hawking a spot on the podium in the interest of gender diversity), but rather the middle positions where institutional issues make the ratio 90/10 instead of a natural 45/55 or whatever.

My thoughts too, but you expressed it better than I could.

[Alan Klein]

That's not the issue.

The issue is when the next logical step is claimed to be that women (or men) are therefore less suited to certain opportunities, and that trying to balance this inequity is simply a desire to bow at the altar of "political correctness." 

Joe's bell curves are nicely illustrative, but they are addressing the argument at the extremes, where perhaps these innate differences DO manifest into distinct differences.   Thing is, extreme circumstances make for bad law, or something along those lines.  The vast majority of us operate in the middle by definition, where even the bell curve enthusiasts are forced to admit that the differences in application are minor.  So when there's an initiative to get more women into STEM, for example, it's not addressing the outliers at the end (no one would have denied Stephen Hawking a spot on the podium in the interest of gender diversity), but rather the middle positions where institutional issues make the ratio 90/10 instead of a natural 45/55 or whatever.

Jim, don't you think that women hire more women when they're in the position of authority?  We tend to get along with people who are like us, same gender, background, culture, ethnicity,  language, status, wealth, etc.  I'm not saying that is right or wrong.  It's just that how it is. 

[LesPalenik]

Exactly. QED.

Jeremy, you may want to write this down somewhere, so we can save ourselves unnecessary interaction in the future.

I don't come to this forum to argue, score some points or trying to win any contretemps. When I post something, it's either because I find it interesting and potentially useful to others, or I want to interject some lighthearted fun. If you want to endlessly polemicise about inconsequential points, i'm sure you can find here more suitable adversaries.

[Alan Klein]

You have to have a sense of humor to appreciate satire.

[jeremyrh]

When I post something, it's either because I find it interesting and potentially useful to others, or I want to interject some lighthearted fun.

And into which category did you imagine that your 'secretary' anecdote fell?

[LesPalenik]

The issue is when the next logical step is claimed to be that women (or men) are therefore less suited to certain opportunities, and that trying to balance this inequity is simply a desire to bow at the altar of "political correctness." 

If any hiring or promotion is done on merit, a gender question is totally irrelevant. A recent case in point:

Christine Lagarde, the woman who rolled her eyes at Ivanka Trump, has been just nominated to become the first female head of the European Central Bank.
Ursula von der Leyen, previous German Defence Minister, just replaced Jean-Claude Juncker after the main front-runners were rejected.
No discrimination or appointment due to feminist demands, both ladies are extremely capable, having earned respect from both female and male voters.

[Alan Klein]

If any hiring or promotion is done on merit, a gender question is totally irrelevant. A recent case in point:

Christine Lagarde, the woman who rolled her eyes at Ivanka Trump, has been just nominated to become the first female head of the European Central Bank.
Ursula von der Leyen, previous German Defence Minister, just replaced Jean-Claude Juncker after the main front-runners were rejected.
No discrimination or appointment due to feminist demands, both ladies are extremely capable, having earned respect from both female and male voters.

I really think women are in their heyday.  Just look at the candidates for American president.  Harris, Warren, Gabbard, etc.  I think Americans at least have gotten over that males have to be president.  Hillary broke the glass ceiling.  But that raises a question.  Is it right now for women to vote for a woman candidate just because she's a woman? Or are we just continuing the same situation when men promoted men just because they were men?