.... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly,
either:

1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields.

2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.

ROLL!!!!!

John

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


wrote:


Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote:


... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have
declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even
see
a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am
crazy
and ask, "You are kidding, right?"

Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State
(CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD
in a specialized field of the biological sciences.


. . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL
who
was a neighborhood housewife . .


I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want to
"chat with someone around the world".

In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and don't
fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs!

There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, they
are probably no more of a minority than women's representation in
other technical fields. This would mean that any problem is shared
with those other technical fields, and not a Ham radio specific
problem.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly,
either:

1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields.

How you managed to twist Mike's words to come up with this interpretation is
amazing. He neither said nor implied anything of the sort.


2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.


He said nothing about barring women from technical fields. Again how you
managed to come up with this inverted interpretation is one of the mysteries
of the world. Women choose not to go into technical fields for their own
reasons. That includes hobby activities like ham radio.

ROLL!!!!!

John


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


wrote:


Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote:


... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all have
declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they even see
a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am crazy
and ask, "You are kidding, right?"

Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State
(CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired PhD
in a specialized field of the biological sciences.


. . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL who
was a neighborhood housewife . .


I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want to
"chat with someone around the world".

In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and don't
fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs!

There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority, they are
probably no more of a minority than women's representation in other
technical fields. This would mean that any problem is shared with those
other technical fields, and not a Ham radio specific problem.

- Mike KB3EIA -

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?

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly,
either:

1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields.

How you managed to twist Mike's words to come up with this
interpretation is amazing. He neither said nor implied anything of
the sort.


2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.


He said nothing about barring women from technical fields. Again how
you managed to come up with this inverted interpretation is one of the
mysteries of the world. Women choose not to go into technical fields
for their own reasons. That includes hobby activities like ham radio.

ROLL!!!!!

John


Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...


wrote:


Phil Kane wrote:

On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 17:21:00 -0700, John Smith wrote:


... all the women I have ever tried to interest in radio... all
have
declined doing anything towards getting a license... once they
even see
a key and a code practice oscillator they look at me as if I am
crazy
and ask, "You are kidding, right?"

Tell that to our friend Claire who is the NCS of the Beaver State
(CW) Traffic Net - high-speed CW. And she's no dummy - retired
PhD
in a specialized field of the biological sciences.


. . . then there was the legendary traffic handler Mae Burke W3CUL
who
was a neighborhood housewife . .


I can't imagine any person becoming a Ham because they simply want
to "chat with someone around the world".

In the first place most of my DX contacts are pretty terse, and
don't fulfill any "chatting needs". Not that I have chatting needs!

There certainly are women in Ham radio, and although a minority,
they are probably no more of a minority than women's representation
in other technical fields. This would mean that any problem is
shared with those other technical fields, and not a Ham radio
specific problem.

- Mike KB3EIA -

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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?

He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what isn't
there.


Just what is the reason he was claiming?


He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same factors that
cause women not to choose technical careers also cause them not to choose
technical hobbies. He has made no statement about what those factors may
be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee:

That maybe and it may NOT be... I go with the later, you are correct...

.... and, you guess is NO better than mine--if you call it anything other
than a guess or "sticking up for him"--I'll call you a liar...

John

"Dee Flint" wrote in message
...

"John Smith" wrote in message
...
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?

He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what
isn't there.


Just what is the reason he was claiming?


He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same factors
that cause women not to choose technical careers also cause them not
to choose technical hobbies. He has made no statement about what
those factors may be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

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?


He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what isn't
there.


Just what is the reason he was claiming?



He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same factors that
cause women not to choose technical careers also cause them not to choose
technical hobbies. He has made no statement about what those factors may
be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE


Wonder how many organizations that are mostly joined by women does
Johnny Smith belong to? Hey Johnnyboy, why don't you join the Red Hat
Society? You might just look good in a purple dress and red hat.

Buzzard Boy:

....

John

"Cmd Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

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?


He is not claiming anything of the sort. Once again you see what
isn't there.


Just what is the reason he was claiming?



He is not claiming any reason but simply stating that the same
factors that cause women not to choose technical careers also cause
them not to choose technical hobbies. He has made no statement about
what those factors may be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
Wonder how many organizations that are mostly joined by women does
Johnny Smith belong to? Hey Johnnyboy, why don't you join the Red Hat
Society? You might just look good in a purple dress and red hat.

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 -

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly,
either:

1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields.


How you managed to twist Mike's words to come up with this interpretation is
amazing. He neither said nor implied anything of the sort.


2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.



He said nothing about barring women from technical fields. Again how you
managed to come up with this inverted interpretation is one of the mysteries
of the world. Women choose not to go into technical fields for their own
reasons. That includes hobby activities like ham radio.

Thank you. I work with a number of female engineers, and they seem to
have no problem working with me. My opinion on the issue is based on
conversations with them. Especially one who bristles at being called a
"female" engineer. She says "Just call me an engineer, if you don't mind!"

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith" wrote in message
...

... oh, I love that argument!!! Let me see if I have it correctly,
either:

1) Women are too stupid for the technical fields.

Uh-Huh. You trump all of 'em in that game.

How you managed to twist Mike's words to come up with this interpretation is
amazing. He neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

2) We are no worse than any other technical field about baring women.



He said nothing about barring women from technical fields. Again how you
managed to come up with this inverted interpretation is one of the mysteries
of the world. Women choose not to go into technical fields for their own
reasons. That includes hobby activities like ham radio.

He's another Burke Dee, a male ditz/troll, he isn't worth the effort,
ignore the goofball.


Thank you. I work with a number of female engineers, and they seem to
have no problem working with me. My opinion on the issue is based on
conversations with them.

I smell an oddity here. Dee is an engineer who apparently works in
academia. You also work in academia and know some number of woman
engineers who are also in academia. I've been out here in the
commercial side for decades and per previous have had very few
encounters with woman engineers. Is it possible that the woman
engineers I don't see out here are operating in academia instead??
Would not surprise me a bit if that's the case.

Especially one who bristles at being called a
"female" engineer. She says "Just call me an engineer, if you don't mind!"

Oh crap . . been there, done that . . my middle daughter was an
over-the-edge NOW street warrior in her college days back when the
battle over abortions rights was in full bloom. I can't tell you how
much I enjoyed watching her in action on the six PM news. TWICE.

Of course she had "problems" with this male chauvinist pig. Finally got
down to me suggesting that instead of differentiating by the man/woman
thing we differtiate by using "X-Chromosone people" and "Y-Chromosone
people" instead. Only got me about ten seconds of peace before she
recovered and got all over me again.

sigh

- Mike KB3EIA -

w3rv