12 ms·

For those that are down voting, care to expand on why? Or perhaps explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant or less important when it comes to e

For those that are down voting, care to expand on why? Or perhaps explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant or less important when it comes to engineering: fat,skinny,tall,short,ugly,pretty , white,or black?

hnbroseph 10y ago
i can't downvote but: > I really don't see the importance of sex in relations to engineering that expression is too vague to really say anything about. there exist "minority groups" in various fields (such as "male nurses"), and said groups sometimes have distinct life experiences and insights as a result, including their relationship with the "majority group". > Or perhaps explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant or less important when it comes to engineering this seems non-sequitur or a strawman. the mere existence of "ask a female engineer" does not necessarily imply anything about other potential "ask a _ engineer" q&a's.
- crapolasplatter 10y ago
  "that expression is too vague to really say anything about" The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" hence I wanted more information about other non engineering characteristics such as her height,weight, color, height, etc. "this seems non-sequitur or a strawman" Its not a strawman it was a valid question , why did she only decide to single out her sex. Why not disclose her weight,height,color,etc?
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    > The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" non-sequitur. it's a q&a with a particular segment of individuals. if you're not interested in the experiences and insights of a segment of the workforce, you don't have to ask anything. however, asking about "the importance of sex in relations to engineering" requires explanation of what you mean by "importance" and "engineering". otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question. > Its not a strawman you said: "explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant". nobody said they were. > why did she only decide to single out her sex did you not even look at the link? even the first paragraph? there isn't a "she" who "decided to single out her sex". it's a content publisher/blog (?) that took questions and then posited them to a group of female engineers.
    - crapolasplatter 10y ago
      "otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question." Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. Why was it important to state being a female engineer in the title versus stating other non engineering characteristics such as height,weight,color,etc? what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same , nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex. surely a fat , short , ugly , female engineer would not have the same experience or struggles as a skinny,tall, pretty female engineer. Perhaps one finds it as a positive experience and as an advantage while the other has the exact opposite experience.
      - hnbroseph 10y ago
        > Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. it's not, because it's unclear, and i demonstrated why it's unclear. you refuse to clarify. "important" in what way? the mechanical exercise of job functions? individual qualia? cultural aspects? something else? "to engineering" in what way? the position requirements of a job? the industry economics? the workforce as a body of humans? the state of the art? social climate? this is what i mean - it's not immediately clear what you're asking, so any answer is dismissable. > versus stating other non engineering characteristics what is an "engineering characteristic"? > what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same there is no "value" in "stating they are female". it's a statement of fact. so, the question is unclear. you also haven't explained why the notion of "not all females are the same" implies anything about a so-called "value of stating they are female". > nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex "experience" isn't a fixed unary number. it's a manifold of many things. it's a trivially true observation that two individuals will have individual experiences of life. this says nothing of overlapping or commonality.
        crapolasplatter 10y ago
        I clarified, you are just BSing. Sometimes a question is a question. There is no value or purpose added by stating you are female in the title. Clearly all females don’t think alike or have the same experiences. There is nothing wrong with asking why was "Female" added to the title , but not other characteristics such as height,weight,age,color,weight, etc.
1q2w3e4r5t 10y ago
I didn't down-vote you, but my guess is that others have because you're missing the point and your comment contributes nothing. You write, "Why leave other important engineering characteristics out?" But no one is saying /only/ female engineers (or their perspectives) matter. They are not "leav[ing]" anything out. The creators of this think it will be beneficial to hear from female engineers. So that's what this is.
vacri 10y ago
You're welcome to start your own "ask a fat engineer" page. Other people don't have to cater their topics to your personal interests. Here, you can start an "ask a tall engineer" page with some comments from me: office chairs are too small and I have to shift posture constantly; communal desks are too low; and there's nowhere high enough to try a standing desk.
- crapolasplatter 10y ago
  Nice, why the hostility? Nobody said anything about catering . I was curious on the importance of defining the individual as female , but leaving other non engineering characteristics out?
  - vacri 10y ago
    > Nice, why the hostility? Because your original comment wasn't innocent or genuine, and you already know the answer to it. It's a comment that gets made every. single. time. something like this comes up, has been answered a million times before, and it's not worth pandering to.
    - crapolasplatter 10y ago
      Or maybe you can't justify the value of simply stating female in the topic heading. Or are you saying that all females have the same experience? if not perhaps you can explain what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same , nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex. surely a fat , short , ugly , female engineer would not have the same experience or struggles as a skinny,tall, pretty female engineer. Perhaps one finds it as a positive experience while the other has the exact opposite experience. Not all women and men are created equal and other factors such as looks,weight,height,color can make all the differences when it comes to experiences.Even among the same sex.
      - reitanqild 10y ago
        > Or maybe you can't justify the value of simply stating female in the topic heading. Stop it already: point is it should be OK for anyone to start any group they want but some are bound to be more interesting than others. You are starting to annoy even me and I'm definitely a non-"SJW". (although I do care and will sometimes make an effort to fix things, just not in a "SJW" style blame-society-and-all-white-men way)
clifanatic 10y ago
> For those that are down voting, care to expand on why? Because you're challenging the feminist manifesto.
MollyR 10y ago
Some research shows for women, the prettier you are the easier it is to get ahead maybe the halo effect ? For men there is research that shows the taller you are, the more money you get. The stuff you mentioned should probably be a separate conversion, but I do think there is probably overlap with the gender issue. Its not about just technical ability, but social and economic power through jobs.

hnbroseph 10y ago

i can't downvote but: > I really don't see the importance of sex in relations to engineering that expression is too vague to really say anything about. there exist "minority groups" in various fields (such as "male nurses"), and said groups sometimes have distinct life experiences and insights as a result, including their relationship with the "majority group". > Or perhaps explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant or less important when it comes to engineering this seems non-sequitur or a strawman. the mere existence of "ask a female engineer" does not necessarily imply anything about other potential "ask a _ engineer" q&a's.

crapolasplatter 10y ago
"that expression is too vague to really say anything about" The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" hence I wanted more information about other non engineering characteristics such as her height,weight, color, height, etc. "this seems non-sequitur or a strawman" Its not a strawman it was a valid question , why did she only decide to single out her sex. Why not disclose her weight,height,color,etc?
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  > The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" non-sequitur. it's a q&a with a particular segment of individuals. if you're not interested in the experiences and insights of a segment of the workforce, you don't have to ask anything. however, asking about "the importance of sex in relations to engineering" requires explanation of what you mean by "importance" and "engineering". otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question. > Its not a strawman you said: "explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant". nobody said they were. > why did she only decide to single out her sex did you not even look at the link? even the first paragraph? there isn't a "she" who "decided to single out her sex". it's a content publisher/blog (?) that took questions and then posited them to a group of female engineers.
  - crapolasplatter 10y ago
    "otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question." Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. Why was it important to state being a female engineer in the title versus stating other non engineering characteristics such as height,weight,color,etc? what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same , nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex. surely a fat , short , ugly , female engineer would not have the same experience or struggles as a skinny,tall, pretty female engineer. Perhaps one finds it as a positive experience and as an advantage while the other has the exact opposite experience.
    - hnbroseph 10y ago
      > Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. it's not, because it's unclear, and i demonstrated why it's unclear. you refuse to clarify. "important" in what way? the mechanical exercise of job functions? individual qualia? cultural aspects? something else? "to engineering" in what way? the position requirements of a job? the industry economics? the workforce as a body of humans? the state of the art? social climate? this is what i mean - it's not immediately clear what you're asking, so any answer is dismissable. > versus stating other non engineering characteristics what is an "engineering characteristic"? > what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same there is no "value" in "stating they are female". it's a statement of fact. so, the question is unclear. you also haven't explained why the notion of "not all females are the same" implies anything about a so-called "value of stating they are female". > nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex "experience" isn't a fixed unary number. it's a manifold of many things. it's a trivially true observation that two individuals will have individual experiences of life. this says nothing of overlapping or commonality.
      - crapolasplatter 10y ago
        I clarified, you are just BSing. Sometimes a question is a question. There is no value or purpose added by stating you are female in the title. Clearly all females don’t think alike or have the same experiences. There is nothing wrong with asking why was "Female" added to the title , but not other characteristics such as height,weight,age,color,weight, etc.

1q2w3e4r5t 10y ago

I didn't down-vote you, but my guess is that others have because you're missing the point and your comment contributes nothing. You write, "Why leave other important engineering characteristics out?" But no one is saying /only/ female engineers (or their perspectives) matter. They are not "leav[ing]" anything out. The creators of this think it will be beneficial to hear from female engineers. So that's what this is.

vacri 10y ago

You're welcome to start your own "ask a fat engineer" page. Other people don't have to cater their topics to your personal interests. Here, you can start an "ask a tall engineer" page with some comments from me: office chairs are too small and I have to shift posture constantly; communal desks are too low; and there's nowhere high enough to try a standing desk.

crapolasplatter 10y ago
Nice, why the hostility? Nobody said anything about catering . I was curious on the importance of defining the individual as female , but leaving other non engineering characteristics out?
- vacri 10y ago
  > Nice, why the hostility? Because your original comment wasn't innocent or genuine, and you already know the answer to it. It's a comment that gets made every. single. time. something like this comes up, has been answered a million times before, and it's not worth pandering to.
  - crapolasplatter 10y ago
    Or maybe you can't justify the value of simply stating female in the topic heading. Or are you saying that all females have the same experience? if not perhaps you can explain what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same , nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex. surely a fat , short , ugly , female engineer would not have the same experience or struggles as a skinny,tall, pretty female engineer. Perhaps one finds it as a positive experience while the other has the exact opposite experience. Not all women and men are created equal and other factors such as looks,weight,height,color can make all the differences when it comes to experiences.Even among the same sex.
    - reitanqild 10y ago
      > Or maybe you can't justify the value of simply stating female in the topic heading. Stop it already: point is it should be OK for anyone to start any group they want but some are bound to be more interesting than others. You are starting to annoy even me and I'm definitely a non-"SJW". (although I do care and will sometimes make an effort to fix things, just not in a "SJW" style blame-society-and-all-white-men way)

clifanatic 10y ago

> For those that are down voting, care to expand on why? Because you're challenging the feminist manifesto.

MollyR 10y ago

Some research shows for women, the prettier you are the easier it is to get ahead maybe the halo effect ? For men there is research that shows the taller you are, the more money you get. The stuff you mentioned should probably be a separate conversion, but I do think there is probably overlap with the gender issue. Its not about just technical ability, but social and economic power through jobs.