With The World Environment Day Conference.....

"Jack May" enscribed:

These meeting also prove one of my pet unproven theories that beautiful
women tend to be much smarter than average looking women.

You got a lot of pet, unproven theories. It's easier when you leave a paper trail, but not necessary.


--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Then again sometimes problems suddenly appear. In a job search this
spring we had 2 very well qualified female candidates who were among the
three we recommended for on site interviews. Suddenly the
administration decided that we should only consider candidates who had
already completed their degrees even though past practice and the add
said the requirement was that the degree be completed by the summer.
Suddenly the two female candidates weren't under consideration. Magic
how that happened.

That's where statistics come into play. If the company overall has fewer women than what can confidently be attributed to pure chance, that is evidence of gender discrimination, which is illegal in California. Doesn't require a smoking gun or paper trail or a sign Irish Need Not Apply. Their secret discrimination become visible, which is why they whine quotas and qualifications to divert attention from their failures as human beings.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Jack May wrote:
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...

Then again sometimes problems suddenly appear. In a job search this

spring we had 2 very well qualified female candidates who were among the
three we recommended for on site interviews. Suddenly the administration
decided that we should only consider candidates who had already completed
their degrees even though past practice and the add said the requirement
was that the degree be completed by the summer. Suddenly the two female
candidates weren't under consideration. Magic how that happened.


Since you are inside the company you should have been able to find out the
reasons. Why didn't you? I certainly ask questions if there is a glitch.

It is my decision to hire or not hire because the person will be working for
me on my project. If there is a problem it is me that has to be convinced
there is a problem.

Our glitches are usually from Government regulations rather than company
policies.

Are there no women working in the company, or without any information you
can only imply that there is discrimination against women?


There was no reason. The individual involved just wanted to get someone
else in the process.

I forgot to mention that the degree involved was a Ph.D. in Mathematics.

In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:

....

Are there no women working in the company, or without any information you
can only imply that there is discrimination against women?

I can tell you that in many industries there is defintely a double standard
regarding male and female engineers, but it typically favors the female over
the male.

I can tell you that many female engineers see this in a different
light. Indeed they may not be able to work the extended hours, travel
for extended periods of time on short notice, etc., and they find that
this is a career negative, i.e., fewer and smaller raises and
promotions. Also working part-time (either for short periods when
children are very young, or permanently) is not a good career move.
Thus science/engineering is not seen as a promising career field
for a woman who intends to have a family, and that is postulated as a
factor in the small and declining number who major in those subjects
in college.
--------------------------------------
I worked for a company that manufactured capital equipment for the
semiconductor and memory disk industries (CMP and planarization tools, wafer
edge polishers, cleaning equipment, etc.) and our engineering staff was
about 25% female. If you were a male, you were pretty much expected to work
50-60 hours per week, travel on short notice and support the customers. If
you were a female, you could pretty much get by on 40 hours/week and any
travel was of the "business meeting variety" (overnight trips, eat a nice
dinner, meet for a few hours, come home the next evening). I spent about 15
of the first 24 months on the road, and I never made an overseas trip with
more than 24 hours notice (the longest one lasted about 3 months).
Personally, I didn't mind the travel, as flying as a MAC crewmember in the
USAF had accustomed me to life on the road at an early age, and I enjoyed
having the chance to work and travel in Europe and Japan. However, when we
were busting our asses 60+ hours per week trying to install equipment,
develop processes, and bring customer's equipment online, I never ONCE saw a
woman engineer working alongside us. I didn't see women working late at
night in the R&D lab, or on weekends when we were trying to finish our
experiments for a report that was due the following Monday.

Women do not see a lot of them getting promoted, to manager or
otherwise. And I will have to say that I see an equal proportion of
male and female managers playing the kind of games you describe
(which I have heard referred to as "managing upwards"--or as "kiss
ass above and kick ass below").

I did see quite
a few women getting promoted to managerial positions, which created friction
since many of them never had the 'stick time' with either the equiment or
the customers, and simply did not understand the issues that those of us "in
the field" had to deal with. I also noted an interesting difference w/r/t
how issues with a subordinate were handled when there were conflicts in the
company. In my experience if a superior (director or executive level) has
some issue with an engineer or technician, the male managers were more
likely to put themselves on the line, hear out the subordinate, and stick
up for them or accept responsibility if they thought they were right, while
women were more concerned with pleasing their own superiors and
sacrificing/blaming them when expedient. One of our hardest working and
trustworthy engineers got burned by a female supervisor who had no idea what
he was up against because she had never "paid her dues" and had no
appreciation/empathy for his situation. Not a good way to maintain morale...

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
Then again sometimes problems suddenly appear. In a job search this
spring we had 2 very well qualified female candidates who were among the
three we recommended for on site interviews. Suddenly the
administration decided that we should only consider candidates who had
already completed their degrees even though past practice and the add
said the requirement was that the degree be completed by the summer.
Suddenly the two female candidates weren't under consideration. Magic
how that happened.

That's where statistics come into play. If the company overall has fewer
women than what can confidently be attributed to pure chance, that is
evidence of gender discrimination, which is illegal in California.

Or it's indicative that the women may not be qualified - you're in effect
pushing a "guilty unless proven otherwise" policy against businesses merely
because they don't hire at the same precentage you think they should...
..

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:

...

Are there no women working in the company, or without any information
you
can only imply that there is discrimination against women?

I can tell you that in many industries there is defintely a double
standard
regarding male and female engineers, but it typically favors the female
over
the male.

I can tell you that many female engineers see this in a different
light. Indeed they may not be able to work the extended hours, travel
for extended periods of time on short notice, etc., and they find that
this is a career negative, i.e., fewer and smaller raises and
promotions. Also working part-time (either for short periods when
children are very young, or permanently) is not a good career move.

If they wish to take that approach fine. However, I would prefer not to
listen to certain women whine about how there is some form of "glass
ceiling" when they are simply not willing to dedicate themselves to their
work to the same level that is expected from their male counterparts...

Thus science/engineering is not seen as a promising career field
for a woman who intends to have a family, and that is postulated as a
factor in the small and declining number who major in those subjects
in college.
--------------------------------------
I worked for a company that manufactured capital equipment for the
semiconductor and memory disk industries (CMP and planarization tools,
wafer
edge polishers, cleaning equipment, etc.) and our engineering staff was
about 25% female. If you were a male, you were pretty much expected to
work
50-60 hours per week, travel on short notice and support the customers.
If
you were a female, you could pretty much get by on 40 hours/week and any
travel was of the "business meeting variety" (overnight trips, eat a
nice
dinner, meet for a few hours, come home the next evening). I spent about
15
of the first 24 months on the road, and I never made an overseas trip
with
more than 24 hours notice (the longest one lasted about 3 months).
Personally, I didn't mind the travel, as flying as a MAC crewmember in
the
USAF had accustomed me to life on the road at an early age, and I
enjoyed
having the chance to work and travel in Europe and Japan. However, when
we
were busting our asses 60+ hours per week trying to install equipment,
develop processes, and bring customer's equipment online, I never ONCE
saw a
woman engineer working alongside us. I didn't see women working late at
night in the R&D lab, or on weekends when we were trying to finish our
experiments for a report that was due the following Monday.

Women do not see a lot of them getting promoted, to manager or
otherwise. And I will have to say that I see an equal proportion of
male and female managers playing the kind of games you describe
(which I have heard referred to as "managing upwards"--or as "kiss
ass above and kick ass below").

You may have a different demographic group. Between having a significant
percentage of our male engineers were ex-military as well as a company that
was 40% Japanese, we came from the school that with authority comes
responsibility, that loyalty works both ways, that you were ultimately
accountable for the performance of your subordinates, and that to blame your
subordinates w/o accepting some responsibility yourself was tacit admission
that you were not a leader. It wasn't perfect, but in many ways I prefer it
to the PC approach taken in a lot of companies these days...


I did see quite
a few women getting promoted to managerial positions, which created
friction
since many of them never had the 'stick time' with either the equiment
or
the customers, and simply did not understand the issues that those of us
"in
the field" had to deal with. I also noted an interesting difference
w/r/t
how issues with a subordinate were handled when there were conflicts in
the
company. In my experience if a superior (director or executive level)
has
some issue with an engineer or technician, the male managers were more
likely to put themselves on the line, hear out the subordinate, and
stick
up for them or accept responsibility if they thought they were right,
while
women were more concerned with pleasing their own superiors and
sacrificing/blaming them when expedient. One of our hardest working and
trustworthy engineers got burned by a female supervisor who had no idea
what
he was up against because she had never "paid her dues" and had no
appreciation/empathy for his situation. Not a good way to maintain
morale...

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Jack May" enscribed:

These meeting also prove one of my pet unproven theories that beautiful
women tend to be much smarter than average looking women.

You got a lot of pet, unproven theories. It's easier when you leave a
paper trail, but not necessary.

Most of what I say has some good evidence behind it. The difference is that
I have a very wide knowledge of things because of the work I do. Just
because someone is unfamiliar with a field does not make it unproven.

"Stan de SD" wrote in message
ink.net...

Or it's indicative that the women may not be qualified - you're in effect
pushing a "guilty unless proven otherwise" policy against businesses
merely
because they don't hire at the same precentage you think they should...

The difference in men and women at the extremes of competence is well
documented. Men and women tend to be roughly equal in many areas on
average but the ratio of men to women grow rapidly at the extreme
percentiles of many things like getting rich, high SAT scores, high IQ, and
many other attributes.

The unequal spread in the opposite direction with the percentile ratio of
men to women for extreme failure (bums), very low SAT scores, very low IQ,
being in prison, and so on. Women tend to be more average than men with a
smaller variation in capabilities.

A lower probability of extreme capabilities for women is a primary reason
for the so called glass ceiling. The higher level jobs require extremes of
capabilities. Being just better than average is not sufficient to get to
the highest levels.

There is also a well document problem with decision making for women caused
by the large number of connections between both halves of their brains
causing multiple views of a problem that are hard to resolve.

One theory that has been published in a reputable scientific magazine (I
think it was New Scientist). The theory says the difference are due to
normal correction of mutations on the X chromosome for XX (women)

With the XY chromosomes for men those mutations do not get corrected nearly
as often. Since lack of mutations tend to produce average capabilities and
surviving mutations tend to push capabilities higher or lower than average,
the lack of correction in men tends to give them a higher variation in both
good and bad capabilities.

There will be multiple mutation on an X chromosome, and the results will be
an accumulation of those multiple mutations, good or bad.

One joke passing around is that Silicon Valley is the valley of the mutants
where the mutations mainly went in the right direction.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

Or it's indicative that the women may not be qualified - you're in effect

And that ladies and gentlemen, is what bigotry is all about. Claiming a class of people is less qualified simple because they are in that class. Thank you for demonstrating how statistical evidence can root out the scum suckers.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

If they wish to take that approach fine. However, I would prefer not to
listen to certain women whine about how there is some form of "glass
ceiling" when they are simply not willing to dedicate themselves to their
work to the same level that is expected from their male counterparts...

So are there any limits to the demands an employer can make on the personal time of employees?

You may have a different demographic group. Between having a significant
percentage of our male engineers were ex-military as well as a company that
was 40% Japanese, we came from the school that with authority comes

You should check out what family life in Japan is like.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.