Feminist Professor Thinks "Rigor" is Evil

[mtdoc]

While I find her thesis fairly silly, she is after all an academic and that is what academics do:  They push the boundries of their chosen field.  Yes, I find it odd that an engineering professor chooses to try and push the boundry of engineering discourse in this direction - but there it is. 

The problem with this thread (and previous ones like it) is that there will never be any sort of balanced, reasonable discussion of any "feminist" perspective on a forum that is almost exclusively composed of male engineers.

Professor Riley is, like most SJWs,  an easy target.  Making her the EEVblog punching bag does, as another poster commented earlier, reflect poorly on this forum IMHO.

[TerraHertz]

And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?

We do. You do, we all want to discuss the contamination of engineering education with vacuous SJW-PC stuff like pretending 'rigor' is some kind of gender repressive man-splaining. This is the equivalent of teaching above-unity pseudo-science bullshit, as if it were true.

However I think I'm not the only one who is scratching their head at the moment, wondering how this can possibly be discussed in a non-political context. Maybe I'm just the only one abrasive enough to go ahead and point out political origins? I'm not trying to 'push the argument back on you', I'm asking you to clarify. Exactly where do you want this thread to go? I'd guessed you wanted it to die, and I'd help. Some videos that though informative, are extremely boring, amateurish and difficult to watch. Send everyone to sleep.
But no?

Maybe, you could comment on what you think about what she's doing, the likely effects on competence of engineering students who go through her courses, and what they should do about it. I'm eager to see that done in an a-political manner.

Some of those students may also wonder what the heck rubbish they are being taught and why, and google it. So this thread doesn't exist in a real-world consequences vacuum. What are you doing for them? What are the rest of us allowed to do?

[Howardlong]

Engineering is a vocational subject, and engineers choose engineering faculties to learn engineering. If I were paying for an engineering degree and spent the first year doing indoctrination classes and not engineering, I’d be demanding my money back and transferring. Hopefully you’d have done your homework up front and be already be aware of the course layout.

I remember having to do a mandatory year of examined business studies lectures during my EE degree, accounting for about 10% of the year’s marks. It was a complete waste of time, it taught me nothing of value, and little did I know then I’d be running my own company for almost my entire career. There was nothing in the business studies course that made me more employable or helped me otherwise in my career.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Already universities in the US with high profile SJW activities are seeing their enrolement dwindle significantly, I can only surmise that Purdue’s engineering faculty will also suffer once Riley’s pedagogy becomes embedded, if it isn’t already.

[tautech]

And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?

With a clickbait title like you used.......yeah right !

I read only your OP,  and didn't look back here for days.
Like where are any surprises on where this was heading but deeper understanding of WHY has been censored out. 



Thanks THz for links.

[GK]

You get the drift, you're not in for a set of lectures on the history of political thought from a college professor.

Did you really think that might not have been the case?

[engineerguy]

Whatever differing views people have, I think it's important to discuss these topics since they're directly related to the very discipline of engineering, and the more exposure they have, the more people can debate the ideas, and come to a conclusion where the strongest argument wins. Too many people these days are willing to self-silence, or worse, silence others, where they're too afraid to debate about something controversial for various reasons (political correctness being the main motivation), and this stifles the debate which leads to a lot of resentment. I think us engineers should be just as actively involved in such debates when it concerns our profession, otherwise someone else will be doing it for us and we may not like what they have to say.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Hate speech vidjeos deleted

[Cerebus]

You get the drift, you're not in for a set of lectures on the history of political thought from a college professor.

Did you really think that might not have been the case?

I had a probable outcome in mind but it would have been unfair to just assume without examination - people have surprised me in the past.

[Beamin]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

I would suck at those jobs. People need to realize men are good at one thing and women are not. But women are good at one thing that men aren't.

My place is in the home cooking and cleaning for my man who is hard at work all day and should be able to relax when he gets home or have sex when ever he wants it. Although I'm not afraid to fix the car as long as it doesn't mess up my nails. I don't see why women would want to go out and do those jobs when you are not as strong. I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

[Circlotron]

I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

And they claim to speak for 90%.

[james_s]

I don't think it's fair to generalize that men are good at one thing and women are good at other things, rather statistically men tend to prefer one set of things and women tend to prefer another set of things and that preference leads one to get good at whatever activity it is that they're interested in. Many people seem to interpret this as saying that ALL men like one set of things and ALL women like a different set of things, but in reality it's what you get when you examine a large random sample, not all individuals fit the statistics.

In my household I do all the cooking, dishes, maintenance and repair on the house and cars, and my partner does the laundry (I got banished from that after ruining a few of her shirts), the gardening/landscaping and decorating. We split the cleaning, shopping and other chores and we each have our separate hobbies. I have no real interest in quilting and she has no interest in building electronic widgets but that doesn't indicate lack of ability. I'm sure I could sew a quilt if I were interested in learning and I'm quite certain she could design a PCB layout or build a circuit if she wanted. In fact I suspect she'd be better at it than I am since she kicks my butt at practically every game and puzzle we own but it's not something that interests her. It works out well though because both of our hobbies involve the same general type of sitting around focusing on something so we tend to hang out together and work on our respective projects.

[Ampera]

The issue, I believe, is that some people aren't happy with that.

Some people try to define equality as exact equal treatment instead of balanced and fair treatment. It would be a problem if women were actively denied entry into STEM fields because of their gender, but this doesn't happen. What isn't sexist is women saying that they don't want to enter a STEM field, and then entering something else. As I said, this just seems to not be enough for all the SJWs with liberal arts degrees complaining about how there aren't more women in STEM fields, likely because most women in STEM fields realize that they had to put the pedal to the metal in terms of studying just like everybody else in academia.

I totally do not believe, and ontop, even if true, do not believe it helpful to believe that women and men are better or worse at academia (there are reasons for physical fields, however). It's all a matter of pools of able people and what they do with their lives. I know there are many female EE's that probably get paid way more and have way more experience and skill at their craft than a lot of male EE's under them, and it's the exact same situation the other way around. I believe the only thing that is upsetting here is the fact that this isn't good enough for people who can't eat their fruitloops without ensuring that there are equal amounts of each colour in the bowl.

[Howardlong]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

I would suck at those jobs. People need to realize men are good at one thing and women are not. But women are good at one thing that men aren't.

My place is in the home cooking and cleaning for my man who is hard at work all day and should be able to relax when he gets home or have sex when ever he wants it. Although I'm not afraid to fix the car as long as it doesn't mess up my nails. I don't see why women would want to go out and do those jobs when you are not as strong. I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

Be careful, some self-righteous soul will be around any moment and make patronising accusations of internal oppression, most likely that someone will be full of prescriptive answers for everything, but solutions for nothing.

[Beamin]

we need more women in coal mining, deep water fishing, soldiers and construction industries where they can experience heavy tools and vibrators. and err... men should bear child in their belly. yeah thanks to all of this overly obsessed intelligent individuals or commmunities that run against nature.

I would suck at those jobs. People need to realize men are good at one thing and women are not. But women are good at one thing that men aren't.

My place is in the home cooking and cleaning for my man who is hard at work all day and should be able to relax when he gets home or have sex when ever he wants it. Although I'm not afraid to fix the car as long as it doesn't mess up my nails. I don't see why women would want to go out and do those jobs when you are not as strong. I think its just 1% who sound like 50% because the internet gives them a voice.

Be careful, some self-righteous soul will be around any moment and make patronising accusations of internal oppression, most likely that someone will be full of prescriptive answers for everything, but solutions for nothing.

I used to always be the leader in my former life I didn't seek those roles I was put into them because no one else knew what to do since I was almost always smarter then the group usually much smarter. I hated it. I like much better being submissive to one person who I trust. #2 is where I belong or in the kitchen .I don't see what's wrong with the traditional roles. I like control when it's towards me not at others. If you don't like that then fine, find a sissy guy to go out with that you can control but when he cry's when he can't borrow your make up don't bitch. I can't stand when women "wear the pants" or hyphenate their last names. You want to keep your last name marry a woman or don't get married. "The wife would kill me if I bought that" grow a pair of balls; that's why she married you. Wives should check with their husbands not the other way around: I say that because you should be able to trust your husband 100%: and I know that he would make the same decision as me.

Also the women that want all of these rights also don't want to give up the privileges or accept the responsibility. If he gets the door for me and pays the bill he decides where we go out.

When I lose the control I feel free.

[Ampera]

I used to always be the leader in my former life I didn't seek those roles I was put into them because no one else knew what to do since I was almost always smarter then the group usually much smarter. I hated it. I like much better being submissive to one person who I trust. #2 is where I belong or in the kitchen .I don't see what's wrong with the traditional roles. I like control when it's towards me not at others. If you don't like that then fine, find a sissy guy to go out with that you can control but when he cry's when he can't borrow your make up don't bitch. I can't stand when women "wear the pants" or hyphenate their last names. You want to keep your last name marry a woman or don't get married. "The wife would kill me if I bought that" grow a pair of balls; that's why she married you. Wives should check with their husbands not the other way around: I say that because you should be able to trust your husband 100%: and I know that he would make the same decision as me.

Also the women that want all of these rights also don't want to give up the privileges or accept the responsibility. If he gets the door for me and pays the bill he decides where we go out.

When I lose the control I feel free.

The thing you do need to understand, and I'm not saying you don't, but I wish to be on the same page, is that these are all social constructs to at least a majority degree. As such, they are subject to change upon majority's wishes. I'm not saying that you shouldn't live your life as you state, in fact I know that many many men would not complain about being in your position. The issues with all of this arise with what people what to do. Belief in how yourself should be treated and how other should be treated are two different things. There is never any issue with wanting to be treated a specific way, and if you can find a pool, or even an individual to satisfy that desire, you have lived your life the way you want it.

The issue is  that some people don't want to live as, and I say this objectively and not as an insult, subordinates to men. You do appear to find that there is no middle ground here, and apologizes if I have poorly analyzed your statements, but I know many women, and if I was a women, I would have the same wishes, who don't wish to find a weak man to push around, although they do exist, but instead want to just exist in a relationship with equal action.

There are two YouTubers called Shoe0nHead and ArmouredSkeptic, who are currently engaged, and were dating for I believe a few years, and I've seen their interactions. They treat each other very equally, cracking jokes back and forth, collaborating in their same lines of work (heck, she is more successful than he is), but they also happen to maintain levels of femininity and masculinity among them. June doesn't dress like a guy, and Gregory doesn't dress like a woman. June giggles, and Gregory tends to get a bit more riled up (although they are both pretty rambunctious, they are actually a really nice couple).

My point is that a marriage can exist without a dominant figure. Nobody in this relationship is more controlling over the other. I do feel it is necessary to reiterate, everybody wishes to be treated differently, but the point I am trying to make, and the summary of my example, is that everybody wants to be treated how they want to be treated, and that, I believe, is the core of egalitarianism. Some people may not even find someone to treat them how they are wanted, but just to have this opinion on what they want to do with themselves and how they want to be treated is, I believe, the core of equal treatment.

[JayNi]

Fukin ell! This is absolute horseshit. I'm a Purdue Alumni, and disabled, and I was in the less 'vigorous' engineering program. It's called technology as in Electrical Engineering Technology. Circuit analysis is all done with algebra, no calculus until third year(I have an AS, So I never learned it). Only one problem with an EET degree, 'real' engineers think you're trash. I'm embarrassed you all associate the twat with Purdue now(and not Neil Armstrong). Maybe she's just been most listening to Millennials too much.

[Tomorokoshi]

The professor called out here has approaching zero impact in this industry. Her ideas won't go anywhere to drive the approach to education, engineering, or science. However, making a big deal out of it clearly leads to clicks, views, comments, and controversy; the lifeblood of media in general and modern internet-based forums in particular. It's just that sometimes the mess that spills out is difficult to clean out and control, even with Boraxo.

If rigor is important, then many of you in general, and Dave in particular, are missing the point. The lack of rigor has already permeated engineering so completely that it merits very little attention here, and goes unnoticed until pointed out, at which point it gets ignored anyway because of the near-complete lack of ability to do anything about it.

The key driver for lack of rigor throughout engineering is the control of engineering by management who use non-engineering methods to determine the course of the engineering process.

So what is this lack of "rigor" in this context? A few examples:

1. Scheduling by simplistic guessing.
2. Assumptions that external solutions work perfectly.
3. Assumptions that internal solutions are completely reusable.
4. Jumping to conclusions about the cause of the problem, which leads to...
5. Jumping to solutions for a problem, which only wastes time and money.
6. It can be debugged in the field.

How many more can you add to the list?

This makes its way to the real world where corporations allow mechanical engineers, MBAs, etc. to determine the complexity and scheduling of electrical and software projects. Lowly software and electrical engineers, who always seem to be asking for more money, time, and documentation, are dismissed and ridiculed because somehow they didn't internalize the factors that are actually important such as ROI and time to market.

The results of an engineering organization driven by management who neither understand nor value rigor are products that are incomplete, unsafe, unreliable, have flaws, have bugs, etc. Many problems you can attribute to a product derives from this.

The other side of the argument is that by putting so much into research, development, and testing, the product would never get done, take too much money, etc. This false economy works only because the costs of not running an engineering organization properly are externalized to customers, warranty claims, unknown lost sales, unpaid overtime, and other such things.

So, sure, let's stir the pot and yank the chain by posting some random video. However, if you are going to do that under the guise of defending "rigor", at least drive the discussion to something realistic and productive, and that by the way, is an actual problem.

[JorgeRamos1]

this is what most of the feminist do

[Beamin]

I used to always be the leader in my former life I didn't seek those roles I was put into them because no one else knew what to do since I was almost always smarter then the group usually much smarter. I hated it. I like much better being submissive to one person who I trust. #2 is where I belong or in the kitchen .I don't see what's wrong with the traditional roles. I like control when it's towards me not at others. If you don't like that then fine, find a sissy guy to go out with that you can control but when he cry's when he can't borrow your make up don't bitch. I can't stand when women "wear the pants" or hyphenate their last names. You want to keep your last name marry a woman or don't get married. "The wife would kill me if I bought that" grow a pair of balls; that's why she married you. Wives should check with their husbands not the other way around: I say that because you should be able to trust your husband 100%: and I know that he would make the same decision as me.

Also the women that want all of these rights also don't want to give up the privileges or accept the responsibility. If he gets the door for me and pays the bill he decides where we go out.

When I lose the control I feel free.

The thing you do need to understand, and I'm not saying you don't, but I wish to be on the same page, is that these are all social constructs to at least a majority degree. As such, they are subject to change upon majority's wishes. I'm not saying that you shouldn't live your life as you state, in fact I know that many many men would not complain about being in your position. The issues with all of this arise with what people what to do. Belief in how yourself should be treated and how other should be treated are two different things. There is never any issue with wanting to be treated a specific way, and if you can find a pool, or even an individual to satisfy that desire, you have lived your life the way you want it.

The issue is  that some people don't want to live as, and I say this objectively and not as an insult, subordinates to men. You do appear to find that there is no middle ground here, and apologizes if I have poorly analyzed your statements, but I know many women, and if I was a women, I would have the same wishes, who don't wish to find a weak man to push around, although they do exist, but instead want to just exist in a relationship with equal action.

There are two YouTubers called Shoe0nHead and ArmouredSkeptic, who are currently engaged, and were dating for I believe a few years, and I've seen their interactions. They treat each other very equally, cracking jokes back and forth, collaborating in their same lines of work (heck, she is more successful than he is), but they also happen to maintain levels of femininity and masculinity among them. June doesn't dress like a guy, and Gregory doesn't dress like a woman. June giggles, and Gregory tends to get a bit more riled up (although they are both pretty rambunctious, they are actually a really nice couple).

My point is that a marriage can exist without a dominant figure. Nobody in this relationship is more controlling over the other. I do feel it is necessary to reiterate, everybody wishes to be treated differently, but the point I am trying to make, and the summary of my example, is that everybody wants to be treated how they want to be treated, and that, I believe, is the core of egalitarianism. Some people may not even find someone to treat them how they are wanted, but just to have this opinion on what they want to do with themselves and how they want to be treated is, I believe, the core of equal treatment.

Yes you are right. I think people should have the option of being what ever role they want. I was just saying that for me the roles are very clear and black and white. The reality is roles gender and sexuality is both set by our DNA but also fluid. I was born with XY chromosomes but my body didn't respond to androgens in the womb. Basically labels make things into a big mess but I wouldn't like it at all if I lived in a culture where male and female acted and dressed the same. I don't think I would hate wearing pants so much (figuratively and literally) if I didn't HAVE to as a kid.

Back to this women she makes people like me look bad because people are afraid to talk because of risk of offending or worse getting sued. She can read from the dictionary all she wants but she can't make any difference just seeking her 15 minutes of fame and make a buck while she is at it. In a year we will all forget about her only remembering when thunderfoot makes a video about it. (I like his science videos but I don't understand his obsession with feminists and that sarkasian girl who is not even that pretty).

STEM is a male dominated field and always will be. I always wonder why you don't see the reverse: why don't guys bitch that they can't get job as beauticians or maids? Because those jobs don't pay well I guess.

[EEVblog]

While I find her thesis fairly silly, she is after all an academic and that is what academics do:  They push the boundries of their chosen field.  Yes, I find it odd that an engineering professor chooses to try and push the boundry of engineering discourse in this direction - but there it is. 

The problem with this thread (and previous ones like it) is that there will never be any sort of balanced, reasonable discussion of any "feminist" perspective on a forum that is almost exclusively composed of male engineers.

You don't need to be a certain gender to have the (fairly obvious I would think) opinion that gender should have no place in the engineering curriculum. A subject that is already struggling with trying to teach the countless facets of engineering in the modern world.

Again, I ask people, what would you remove (or spend less time on) from an engineering degree in order to study this stuff?
Because you can't have both.
And why stop at teaching gender and feminist viewpoints in an engineer degree, why not teach politics as well for example?

[EEVblog]

And well, gee, I don't know, maybe I thought people want to discuss the issue of this related to engineering education perhaps?

With a clickbait title like you used.......yeah right !

The title is the exact title of the video in question.

[EEVblog]

Maybe, you could comment on what you think about what she's doing

I think she's pushing her agenda in a place were it doesn't belong. I like my engineering to be about engineering, not gender and feminism.

, the likely effects on competence of engineering students who go through her courses, and what they should do about it.

They (Purdue) should not give her any position of influence.
Spending time learning this stuff must be at the detriment to time spent on learning engineering.

What are you doing for them?

I'm telling them that stuff should have no place in an engineering degree and they should complain about it and/or leave for a university that doesn't want to teach that.

[Ampera]

For your latter statement as to why men aren't as upset that we can't get jobs as beauticians or maids etc. as easily. (Beamin) I believe the reason why most men don't want to is because gender roles are more strictly enforced for men. You can see this quite easily in things like social acceptance with dress. A man would get very very strange looks for wearing a dress walking down the street, possibly even to the point of being harassed or assaulted. A woman, on the other hand, could go anywhere from corset and massive hoop skirt, to full lumberjack and nobody would give it much of an issue.

A woman can be whatever she wants to be, and there are few jobs that are outright against women working in the field, whereas men don't tend to have the same privilege. I know people who would never hire a male babysitter, however they would have no objections to hiring a female engineer if they worked at a specific company. Not to sound like an MRA, because another reason why this is the case, is that men just happen to care about these issues less than women. It's only when some men are presented with complaints about female rights we do not believe are systematic problems do we sometimes bring up the likewise issue.

Another matter needs to be addressed here, however, and that is the difference between social freedoms and social power. Women have, and I do believe this, more social freedoms in the first world than man. They can get away with more, and aren't as often forced into specific positions or jobs, and are allowed to do what they want. Men, however, have more social power. We hold more positions in high paying fields, not because women aren't allowed to engage in them, it's just because the pool of willing women is too small for the group of active women in those fields to be as sizable.

I'm not saying sexism, discrimination, or oppression doesn't happen as described by anybody. The pool of people and situations are so massive, the odds of discrimination not happening are pretty low, but I believe the numbers of what happens on a regular basis is where people tend to get tripped up. This is my personal view, based on my perspective in the world. I give no sources cited because this is just what I think is true. Ultimately, a free world is not an equal world, because nobody is the same, but my criteria for true societal freedoms is to be able, no matter who you are or where you come from, to be able to do whatever you want, so long as you show the innate ability to develop the skills for it, and to not be restricted by other people when trying to do it.

I love you Dave, not in a personal way, but you're the YouTuber I spend the most attention on, and while I've tried to refrain from being political here, this is a hot topic backed by politics. I don't think you should get too mad at people for stepping outside the boundaries. Political discussion on this form, and heated debated in general, have always been something I quite like. People here have a tendency to not be stupid with how they treat other people, which is just a testament to the professional and mature community that you attracts and foster. Just my tuppence.

[EEVblog]

The professor called out here has approaching zero impact in this industry. Her ideas won't go anywhere to drive the approach to education, engineering, or science.

She is the "Head of the School of Engineering Education" at Prudue.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ENE/People/profile?resource_id=171338

Her ideas are stated aims of the school, she seems to call the shots, and given her title has every right to do so at that school.

[Beamin]

I like engineering, science, and data because IT DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK about your gender feelings or beliefs opinions or dogma. It's the antireligion or SJW.

 The 555 blinks regardless of who plugs in the power. Is my 555 timer culturally diverse because it plugs into brown resistors with rainbow stripes? Why aren't there more white components? I think white components are under represented and why do circuit boards always have FEMALE connector's soldered to them and wires go to MALE connectors? Don't even get me started on why all black floppy drives were considered slave drives compared to lightly colored internal hard drives when computers changed color in the 1990's. "DONGLES!" Referencing male genitals is offensive!