wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:
Phil Kane wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 17:01:18 -0700, wrote:



[sni]

My class of 33 at Penn (1976, Moore School of Electrical Engineering)
graduated 3 women - all specializing in computers. I don't think Towne
School graduated any female engineers that year.

Of course that's ancient history compared to today's ratios, but
it shows a starting point almost 30 years ago.


I will add some anecdotal comments to that. At my school we graduated
approx 200 engineers and about 10% were women.

[snip]
If I have it right you spent most of your career with the FCC, another
huge entity. Is it possible that women in engineering tend to
gravitate
in large numbers to major entities where fair employment
practices are
actually practiced and you've gotten involved with more of them than
I've ever managed to meet?

Perhaps not so much "gravitate" as in "are forced by circumstances"?

All of which is and has been changing. But it takes a long
time for such trends to make their way through the workforce.

Keep in mind that the majority of engineering jobs are at major entities in
major cities. Thus they will be more apt to be statistically
representative. In small companies and/or rural areas the numbers are going
to be skewed. I've worked at several companies where I was the only female
engineer out of a staff of from 5 to 10 engineers.

I've been in engineering for 30 years. I've seen virtually no
discrimination in this field as this country remains chronically short of
engineers. Oh there are spots in the country where it is difficult to find
a job and sometimes the economy slumps but that does not mean engineers are
not needed but that the companies make do with a short handed staff (been
there done that).

Instead I believe that women are more prone than men to select jobs more on
the perceived desireability of the job location. They are more prone to
select the office jobs rather than the plant jobs, thus placing themselves
at the headquarters and technical offices rather than the factories out in
the boonies and so on. Also there is a difference in what defines a
desireable location. A higher percentage of the men will look at a facility
in a rural location and say "now I can go fishing more often." There's
probably a whole raft of reasons having nothing to do with discrimination
that contribute to the disparity.

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:

Please continue to praise the military morse ops, ,
especially those of the USN. The USN is NOT a branch of the
military you were in. Indeed, you weren't in ANY branch of the
military. You "served in other ways."

The Amateur Radio Service is not something in which you are a
participant. Perhaps you served in other ways.

game, set, match!

Amateur radio newsgrouping IS a GAME to Kolonel Klunk.

The only thing SET is Klunk's way of thinking (inflexible).

There's no MATCH except the lighted one always carried
by Klunk to start another Flame War in here.

Other than that, "Game, Set, Match" are the titles of a
later trilogy by novelist Len Deighton based on a
fictional British intelligence service. [not Deighton's
best work]

I'll just put the PCTAs of the newsgroup in the category
of "no one can join amateur radio unless they are already
IN it..." oxymoronic "brotherhood" of self-righteous
radio poseurs "serving their country" through a HOBBY.

Go out and corner the market on helium for your "reach to
the fringes of outer space," Michael. That's better than
the megacubic feet of Hot Air vented by this "patriot"
who behaves like a miscast stereotype of a Kommandant in
a half-hour TV sitcom about POWs during WW2.

Seig Heil!!! :-)

On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's rule.




73, Leo

John Smith wrote:
Dee:

Michael's own words:
"There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, ..."

What does that mean--they are being held out by the old farts? The
women too want no-code?

Just what is the reason he was claiming?

"He" wasn't claiming anything at that point beyond that women are a
relative minority in Amateur radio.

If you want to join in a reasoned discussion about the paucity of women
in the technical fields, and some of the reasons why, we can do that.
But putting words in my mouth isn't a good way to get a reasoned
discussion going.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:


From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

snip


Seig Heil!!! :-)


Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's rule.

Yeah, those jerks always invoke Godwin when someone is compared to the
Nazi's. 8^)

I mean like, he was just sayin'!

- Mike KB3EIA -

Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's
rule.

"attempt"? Hardly!

Len used the following phrases in reference to K8MN:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07




"Kolonel Klunk"

"Klunk's way of thinking"

"the lighted one always carried by Klunk

"That's better than the megacubic feet of Hot Air vented by this
"patriot" who behaves like a miscast stereotype of a Kommandant in a
half-hour TV sitcom about POWs during WW2."


"Seig Heil!!! :-)"

If that isn't a clear Godwin example, nothing is.

Or do you think the one smiley makes all of Len's
verbiage somehow acceptable behavior?

73 de Jim, N2EY

From: Leo on Jun 18, 2:51 pm

On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:
From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07
Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
:-)
Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's rule.

Jimmie allus "invokes" Godwin...or parenting. So predictable.

Jimmie do parenting schtick again, no say how many he parent.

Big mystery. Tune in tomorrow for another chapter in the
slope opera, "As The Stomach Churns." Get ready for rumble.

On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's
rule.

"attempt"? Hardly!
snip

Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times
before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether Godwin's
impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not.

But it just had to be done, didn't it?

It's what you do! Point out the obvious, that is.

73 de Jim, N2EY

73, Leo

On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 19:33:20 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:


From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07


Dave Heil wrote:

wrote:

snip


Seig Heil!!! :-)


Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's rule.

Yeah, those jerks always invoke Godwin when someone is compared to the
Nazi's. 8^)

That's right - every time! Does absolutely no good, but it just has
to be done, I suppose.....

I think the comparison in question was to the bumbling TV 'Nazis' on
"Hogan's Heroes", not the 'real' ones - but hey, Godwin must be
appeased... And as usual, the OC was right there as predicted! :)

- Mike KB3EIA -

73, Leo

Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 17:30:57 -0700, wrote:

Leo wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 10:41:47 -0700, wrote:

From: Mike Coslo on Fri 17 Jun 2005 22:07

Dave Heil wrote:
wrote:
snip

Seig Heil!!! :-)

Next up, Jim will once again attempt to invoke Mr. Godwin's
rule.

"attempt"? Hardly!
snip

Attempt, definitely. Because, as has been demonstrated many times
before, the discusion will continue regardless of whether Godwin's
impotent rule has been 'invoked' or not.

The version of Godwin's rule that I use says that the person
who uses stoops to calling their opponent "Hitler", "Nazis"
or references to them, has lost the argument. That the discussion
continues is irrelevant. Len has lost the argument.

But it just had to be done, didn't it?

No, it didn't. But I did it anyway. Is there a problem with
that? Do you think Len's slurs are acceptable behavior?