Gender politics has now infected engineering as well.

[daqq]

I am sure many of us here lived through the cold war. In history classes we were told an awful lot about Nazi Germany, and rightly so. Almost nothing was formally taught about what had been going on the other side of the iron curtain, anything we picked up was what was picked up passively from the news. While we were aware of the lack of freedoms afforded to their citizens, it is only recently I’ve become aware that the authoritarian communist regimes to the East were as bad, if not worse in terms of genocide, but for some reason that wasn’t taught.

Huh, that's interesting. I had assumed that the western propaganda of the time had milked this like mad.

Anyway... If someone's saying that you should implement a position of a political officer/employee with broad powers that include hiring and firing, based on vaguely defined, broad and subjective criteria, who answers only to others in the same position, the nicest reasonable response to this should be to ignore him.

[Howardlong]

Huh, that's interesting. I had assumed that the western propaganda of the time had milked this like mad.

It was, passively on the news, but was not taught formally in schools. Certainly I remember Solzhenitsyn and the Gulag Archipelago being discussed on TV and Radio, and to a limited extent Mao Zedong, but it was never taught formally like Nazi Germany was. The roles of Mussolini and Franco were generally very much downplayed, probably rightly so in comparison to Hitler’s atrocities, he was always portrayed as the #1 despot by quite some degree.

Sadly the modern history of Eastern Europe just wasn’t taught formally in schools IME. Perhaps that has changed now, and perhaps this is different outside the UK. As I mentioned, it’s incredibly sad that nowadays some misguided people in the West think that communism is somehow good. The typical response is that all the evidence of failed communist regimes indicates that they just weren’t doing it right.

[magic]

Going around demanding stuff from people is a sure fire way to get yourself told to bugger off. You can't demand that people be nice to you, or say what you want them to say, or think what you want them to think, or act the way you want them to act.

Those sound like an arguments condoning racism.

How so?  I see nothing condoning racism in what Dave said.

On the basis that not being nice to other races or telling them to bugger off is considered racist by progressive liberals and flies in the face of their policies like forced desegregation and multiculturalism.
It's not illegal to refuse to help your neighbor, but if you do it to minority neighbors out of concern about them bringing in crime, devaluing your property or whatever then liberals will have a problem with that.
I believe it's a known issue.

I’ve become aware that the authoritarian communist regimes to the East were as bad, if not worse in terms of genocide, but for some reason that wasn’t taught.

Nowadays in some circles in the West, being a communist is worn as a badge of honour

I presume that's the reason; lots of Western so-called humanists have drank the kool-aid.
And of course Lenin and Pol Pot weren't real communists yet

[coppice]

I am sure many of us here lived through the cold war. In history classes we were told an awful lot about Nazi Germany, and rightly so. Almost nothing was formally taught about what had been going on the other side of the iron curtain, anything we picked up was what was picked up passively from the news. While we were aware of the lack of freedoms afforded to their citizens, it is only recently I’ve become aware that the authoritarian communist regimes to the East were as bad, if not worse in terms of genocide, but for some reason that wasn’t taught.

In my 1960s London schooling we learned nothing of modern history at all. We went from ancient times to Victorian times and stopped. However, we couldn't avoid knowing in great detail what happened in Nazi Germany and Eastern Europe in the 20th century. In the cold war the nature of the Soviet Union was in our faces every day in the news, current affairs, and historical documentaries. We knew about the Gulags, and the genocide. People like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn were in the news almost weekly. However, life was so tough for millions of working class people in Western Europe that many still thought the Eastern Europeans were having a better time of things.

[coppice]

And of course Lenin and Pol Pot weren't real communists yet

Since they didn't lead their countries to be organised into communes, they were, by definition, not communists. Equally, there has never been a genuine Marxist revolution. Marx greatly praised the benefits capitalism had brought in raising the dire standard of living of millions of people, but was convince that within the capitalist system lay the seeds of its own destruction. He believed the working class of the West European capitalist countries, like the Germany and UK he had directly experienced, would eventually revolt. What we actually saw were feudal societies, like Russia, rising up with a totally different dynamic.

I really hate the way things like this are mislabelled. Its just like the current authoritarian movement in the US trying to call itself liberal.

[magic]

I humbly propose that we call regimes like Stalin's or Mugabe's the Real Communism, as it's the only Communism the real world has seen so far, and leave the alleged Genuine Marxist Revolution in the realm of Imaginary Communism

within the capitalist system lay the seeds of its own destruction

Marxists are overly pessimistic, I think the capitalist system is actually fine by itself and capable of outliving the destruction of any society which takes it too religiously. There will never be a Genuine Marxist Revolution, you will be assimilated.

What we actually saw were feudal societies, like Russia, rising up with a totally different dynamic.

What we actually saw was coups by small cliques of irresponsible madmen with no genuine popular movement behind them, exploiting times of unrest to put everything on its head.

[jonovid]

the problem with communism is its evil. because it makes life miserable.
 the capitalist system is king.  capitalist system made it possible for communism & marxists to have a voice.
silicon valley made social media. because communism has no original ideas.  communism is about conformity.

[jhpadjustable]

the problem with communism is its evil. because it makes life miserable.
 the capitalist system is king.  capitalist system made it possible for communism & marxists to have a voice.
silicon valley made social media. because communism has no original ideas.  communism is about conformity.

Really now, this is 4chan-level trolling. This thread is a discussion of gender politics being driven BY the aristocratic bourgeoisie toward capitalist ends. I'm not actually sure that a sane discussion of comparative economics can be had in English what with so many people licking the boots of their betters so eagerly, for the mere chance that they might be wearing them someday.

[EEVblog]

Please stop the talk on communism et.al
Stay on topic.

[SerieZ]

Really now, this is 4chan-level trolling. This thread is a discussion of gender politics being driven BY the aristocratic bourgeoisie toward capitalist ends. I'm not actually sure that a sane discussion of comparative economics can be had in English what with so many people licking the boots of their betters so eagerly, for the mere chance that they might be wearing them someday.

For People like you even holding a Job is considered Bootlicking, unless of course it is done for the KGB Officer.
Sincerely, bugger off to some Socialist Utopia such as North Korea or grow up. Life is Competition.

The only difference between this and today’s Western cancel culture is that it’s not the state that’s doing it, not yet at any rate.

Is it not? State enforced quotas on arbitrary terms such as gender or race are a reality in many places. In Countries like Spain they have open censorship laws and openly sexist laws (against men).
Switzerland is rather free in this regard... still, yet even here there are topics forbidden by state from Speech and people just love to piss their freedoms away.

I believe Humanity is currently facing the thread of Individualism against Collectivism... and I know that I am not an Ant. 

[daqq]

Please stop the talk on communism et.al
Stay on topic.

My apologies. As a citizen of a country that has experienced:
- state approved and enforced ideologies
- political officers in companies with broad powers, firing (or worse) based on what you may have said, what someone you know may have said or what someone may have said about you
- a culture where you feared to open your mouth in case you said the wrong thing to the wrong person
- a system that preferred having the proper origin (working class preferred)

I felt I needed to emphasize the disturbing parallels. This was not meant as a study on comparative economy.

[Nominal Animal]

Well, what do you know, Windsmurf has another account "sambonator" which has been used to post in this thread as well.
Zero tolerance for that on this forum, both accounts now banned.

Windsmurf asked me to forward this:

Please thank Dave for having allowed me to be part of his wonderful forum. Its truly the best forum on the Internet for almost everything electronic.  And please thank everyone who participated with me in the debates.  I've learned and grown from everyone's perspectives that were posted.  My hope is that my posts might have, at least just a little bit, gotten people to think about trying to make this world a kinder, gentler, and loving place for everyone.

I do agree with that, although I seriously disagree with Windsmurfs opinions on what kinds of actions yield a gentler, loving place for everyone.

I decided to pass that along, because of what Windsmurf mentioned:

I did have 2 accounts on EEVBLOG.  I used Sambonator mostly to ask questions around my new electronics hobby, and Windsmurf for computer-related posts and also general chat.  I tried to keep them separated since I uderstood that my controversial public viewpoints might negatively affect the support I might receive asking electronics questions.  Every once in a while I posted accidentally in general chat while logged in as Sambonator.

You see, in real life, in the academic world, my opinions -- especially seeing meritocracy as the best approach, with Gender politics being a purely destructive mechanism considering the achieved results; and my inability to play social games and group-based policies, being the same blunt self in all situations  -- negatively affects the support I have.  I do not have the option of a second account.  I do have friends who disagree with me with some opinions more along Windsmurfs, but because politics is just politics, it has never stopped me from being friends with them.  Similarly, I've never let opinions block solving technical issues, and I do not see using separate accounts for different things as a working model.

Having an online pseudonym instead of using ones true name, like some members here do, is slightly different: for me, it is a tool I use to try and avoid not getting emotional about discussions and opinions, as it reminds me that everything others say to me or about me is based on my own output as Nominal Animal, and not from real-life observations on experience about my person.

[james_s]

I do not go to great lengths to conceal my identity here however it has occurred to me that I do need to be careful. Online posts can stick around for a very long time and these days can come back to haunt you if you are perceived to have or have had the "wrong" opinion on some matter. The world would be a better place with fewer authoritarian types IMHO.

[coppice]

I do not go to great lengths to conceal my identity here however it has occurred to me that I do need to be careful. Online posts can stick around for a very long time and these days can come back to haunt you if you are perceived to have or have had the "wrong" opinion on some matter. The world would be a better place with fewer authoritarian types IMHO.

Only the rich and retired can write with some freedom these days.

[DimitriP]

I do not go to great lengths to conceal my identity here however it has occurred to me that I do need to be careful. Online posts can stick around for a very long time and these days can come back to haunt you if you are perceived to have or have had the "wrong" opinion on some matter. The world would be a better place with fewer authoritarian types IMHO.

Only the rich and retired can write with some freedom these days.

Anonimity still works.

A "John Smith" for all practical purposes is anonymous.
With other less common names or ham radio callsigns, it's different. Might as well use your drivers' license as an avatar.
Posts do linger forever,  and you never know who is gonna try to dig up "dirt" on what down the road....

Only the brave are free.

[jhpadjustable]

I should never have invoked the imageboard that shall not be named, sigh... sorry I fed the trolls, Dave.

For People like you even holding a Job is considered Bootlicking, unless of course it is done for the KGB Officer.
Sincerely, bugger off to some Socialist Utopia such as North Korea or grow up. Life is Competition.

But today's politics of gender is all about the Individual and capitalizing on their personal brand™, as opposed to the Collective identity and comradeship of gender. Anyone can be any gender they try hard enough to be and can afford to buy, right? Whether those already accepted as members of that gender, often from birth, approve or not? I suppose the irony is lost on you.

I felt I needed to emphasize the disturbing parallels.

I'm glad you did. It's remarkable how the 19th century gave birth to so many dubious ideals. Out of respect for the topic, I will only name the most pertinent, the Victorian moral sensibilities, and footnote the Salem witch trials and other moral panics that come from time to time. If nothing else, we of a scientific and logical bent can recognize that an overweening nanny class who, having been freed from the need and bother to produce food, clothing, or shelter with their own hands, supposes some duty to "make their mark on the world" by delusional, idealistic, competitive moral dispensation, and then has the audacity to bill for the privilege, isn't unique to any economic or social system.

Only the brave are free.

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." -Kris Kristofferson

[Nominal Animal]

I refuse to be too careful.  Honest exchange of opinions (rather, the reasons behind those opinions, be it personal or scientific research) is vital for growth and learning.  The primus motor of my own life is solving problems and learning new, interesting things; and help others build robust, useful stuff.  I'm somewhat addicted to that, and pretty good at some of it, too.

It is funny how Gender politics keeps harping on how injust systems are and have been, and yet, in universities, ostensibly our highest places of learning, more conformity is required for one to participate, than has been in the past.  In fact, many of the brightest minds of the past (and their oddities and personal failures, like Albert Einstein being married to his cousin, or John Nash's paranoid schizophrenia), would be rejected from current academia.  Even the Soviet Union allowed extra latitude for leading scientists and engineers, because they saw their importance of their work, just appointing them KGB "chaperones" when traveling abroad.

As someone dealing with recurrent depressive disorder, removing obstacles and making life "easier" does not make anything better, and helps nobody.  It only gives warm fuzzy feeling to those who think they helped others, and lets them ignore the actual results.  People go to therapy not to "fix" problems, but to become stronger and able to overcome their problems.

I believe that using statistics as a basis for treating individuals differently based on their group membership -- the core of Gender politics and Social Justice -- is equivalent to coddling a person with mental issues, instead of helping them ovecome those issues via therapy and exercise (mental or physical, usually both).

Putting it in simple terms, the social justice and gender politics things mentioned in this thread, feel to me like substituting relaxing and calming medication to people who need to become stronger at overcoming obstacles to have a good, better life; and vilifying those who point out its completely negative effects in the long run.

[daqq]

It's remarkable how the 19th century gave birth to so many dubious ideals.

This was (still is) the product of the insane rise in the rate of change. Basically, in a century or two, more things have changed, more fundamental concepts in human society have changed, evolved, died and been created, than in the past, what, 4000 before that. Instead of slow, small, incremental changes in primitive, easily understood, localized technologies, you suddenly get massive, complex changes that remove jobs that have been around for millennia. This feeds back into society, which feeds back into other changes.

People have a natural tendency to want to organize things in a way that they feel would work better than the current model for everyone. Unfortunately, not all ideas (or ideals) are equal, and suddenly instead of, say, a society where everyone has everything they need and is happy, you get a mismanaged boondoggle of a state, where millions people die of hunger despite having some of the most fertile lands in the world.

Language evolves naturally, changing as the times require. This is a natural process. While we eventually may end up with more gender pronouns, the absolutely wrong way of going about it is enforcing this kind of behavior.

The same goes for society - enforcing (or ham-fisted encouraging) the involvement of a particular group by means of quotas, extra rights, extra benefits or just outright not hiring the other group will only create resentment, abuse and break the working thing they are trying to fix.

[magic]

But today's politics of gender is all about the Individual and capitalizing on their personal brand™, as opposed to the Collective identity and comradeship of gender. Anyone can be any gender they try hard enough to be and can afford to buy, right? Whether those already accepted as members of that gender, often from birth, approve or not? I suppose the irony is lost on you.

No, the people complaining about collectivist gender politics here refer to the campaign of pushing plain vanilla women into engineering, not gender benders. The latter are indeed individualist to the point they think they can individually decide what others think of them

[DimitriP]

You'd think in a field like engeneering you would use/employ the right   p e o p l e  insted of trying to make sure there is some sort of "equal representation" of whatever grouping of people exists.

It would be like designing a circuit and the "equal component opportunity" manager doesn't approve the design because the ratios of capacitors to resistors to inductors "is all out of wack" *

*Once that's is figured out, then pehaps all test points on the board must be equally distributed on the board real estate instead of being clustered in groups.... 

[james_s]

Well that's how an engineer views it, but the problem is that most of the people pushing this stuff are not engineers and know little if anything about engineering. They just see that engineers are generally well paid, and mostly men and run with it.

[imo]

Mr. Sigmund Freud would die from happiness while reading this thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud

[SiliconWizard]

Gender theory and gender politics would certainly have been Freud's delight.
 

[fourfathom]

You'd think in a field like engeneering you would use/employ the right   p e o p l e  insted of trying to make sure there is some sort of "equal representation" of whatever grouping of people exists.

But this illustrates one of the legitimate problems that can exist -- choosing the "right" people when we do all have unconscious (or conscious) biases.  We make assumptions about people's capabilities based on all sorts of factors, and we may not get it right.  This can create a barrier to entry.

And even if someone gets through this barrier, it's possible that we can create a hostile work environment by virtue of our culture, be it maleness, whiteness, "ableness", etc.

Notice that I said "can exist", "may not", and "possible".  These factors probably don't dominate "engineering culture", and it seems to me that many of the "hostile work environment" examples are to be expected in any job where there is a premium on cleverness, getting it right, and competing ideas.  Experience, track record and assertiveness are listened to, while the greenhorns need to prove themselves.  If you get it wrong you should expect to be called out on the carpet.  These rules apply (for a good reason) regardless of your sex or race.

I also think that quotas are generally bad, that there are biological differences between men and women, that the culture in which you were raised makes a difference, and that some people are naturally driven to be engineers (nature or nurture?  probably both).  Other people have no intrinsic interest in engineering / design / math / etc, and this is probably the major reason for the disparities of representation in engineering.

[Nominal Animal]

You'd think in a field like engeneering you would use/employ the right   p e o p l e  insted of trying to make sure there is some sort of "equal representation" of whatever grouping of people exists.

But this illustrates one of the legitimate problems that can exist -- choosing the "right" people when we do all have unconscious (or conscious) biases.  We make assumptions about people's capabilities based on all sorts of factors, and we may not get it right.  This can create a barrier to entry.

Yet, that has nothing specifically to do with gender or temperament, as it happens due to any personal attributes, physical or mental.

Personally, I've seen it happen especially obviously in a female-dominated office environment, where the administration/management was an instigator in forming cliques, which had a severe impact on the operation of said department.  Even the gender ombudsman stated, repeatedly, that the leadership of that department was sub-par; and it was at that point all female.  (It wasn't anti-male; just cliqued to the hilt, with no assigned responsibilities but changing by the whim or the leadership; and with little consideration to actual performance of anyone, instead being based purely on social interactions.)

So, what positive effect should one expect by enforcing "female-preferred" workplace culture?  It seems that would just swap one set of "implicit biases" for another, making no progress towards any kind of positive results.  Replacing crap with dung, in other words.

In my opinion, it is supervisors' responsibility to monitor the workplace culture, and ensure it maximizes long-term productivity.  This necessarily means that to retain domain knowledge, you want the workers to be interested and reasonably satisfied with their environment; to ensure you keep up to date, you want workers who are interested in the subject domain in general, with their temperament suited to the task; to ensure their knowledge stays relevant, you want them to have contact with others instead of turning inward and forming cliques (that also hinder internal communications and reduce efficiency); and to ensure you have the best workers for the pay you have, the workplace culture should be acceptable/preferred to those with the necessary skills.  Obviously, the supervisors' supervisors, management, should keep track on the supervisors' performance, as it directly affects the long-term profitability, and act accordingly.  Unfortunately, currently management is only considered in the current and possibly next quartals profits, as that is what affects their bonuses, and that's what they are interested in.

In other words, I do not think that the solution is in trying to manage the biases, but to look at real-world measurable effects, and adjust according to those.

Do not ask people what they think and believe, but measure how they are performing; including asking how happy/unhappy they are with their work and workplace culture, without asking what kind of workplace culture they'd prefer or what they'd like to change (because those do not matter, as there is no reason to believe their preferences actually lead to a better workplace).