Engineering body calls emergency meeting over CEO’s comments about women

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,126
#61
Yes, preferring people to things is a very good quality for an engineer. All too often engineers enact solutions without balancing the human element to the solution. Having that value adds an extra dimension to the solution that is often overlooked.

I am not saying women need to be forced into it, I am saying certain biases and perceptions about the industry need to be removed because they exist on a false platform. Removing those perceptions may open the field to more women.
Do you even engineer bro?
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
6,586
#64
I don't see too many women on construction sites :( BRING IN THE WIMENZ!
Unfortunately the SAICE CEO's views are not isolated. I recall a meeting with the CEO of one the largest construction companies in South Africa. He had one female manager out of 149 managers. We presented a strategy on attraction and retention of female engineers. He said outright that he wouldn’t spend money for women to sit around and go "cluck cluck cluck" - that’s a direct quote.
https://www.fin24.com/Companies/Ind...-to-being-mistaken-for-a-secretary-20180808-2
 

Cius

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
5,134
#65
That is very wrong too. Again, what we need to aim at is equal opportunity and respect for all. Aiming at equal outcome, which is were 50% numbers are touted is not going to help equality. One of my sisters is an engineer working for a major engineering company. I encouraged her towards that career when she was unsure which way to go because I knew it suited her. I introduced her to one of the most dynamic lecturers I have ever worked with (an industrial engineering lecturer) and she fell in love with the career. She has recently been promoted, and is a great engineer. Another sister was passionate about physio and went that way, the other one accounting. We need to get over steriotypes, start respecting one another more, and allow people the freedom to chose the career that suits them the best. We also need to accept and respect their decisions.

Lastly, it would be great if we could get towards a situation were different jobs were not so unequally rewarded. In EU this is a lot better than here were a nurse is not paid so much less than an engineer for instance.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,614
#66
Yes, preferring people to things is a very good quality for an engineer. All too often engineers enact solutions without balancing the human element to the solution. Having that value adds an extra dimension to the solution that is often overlooked.
You don't want people who are good at engineering to set any sort of requirements for what you are calling "human elements". People who are good at engineering solve a set of requirements with maths and science. The human condition is not quantifiable. You cannot optimise what a person would feel about a structure using calculus. This is why the problem is outsourced to non-engineers like architects and UI designers who play a part in setting the requirements.

In terms of the actual engineering, I am struggling to see what the human element would be in finding the right amount of steel to put in a structure, or what the inductance should be of a circuit board should be such that it doesn't interfere with the filter you are building on said circuit board.

I am not saying women need to be forced into it, I am saying certain biases and perceptions about the industry need to be removed because they exist on a false platform. Removing those perceptions may open the field to more women.
In the most gender equal countries in the world, where the most has been done to remove bias and perception, the gender differences INCREASED. Which means that you have two options:
1) Remove bias and perceptions about the field, thus allowing woman the maximum choice and be happy about the result (which is what happened in Sweden and Denmark, where they decreased the proportion of woman in engineering).
2) Or you are unhappy with the gender differences in engineering and force woman to do stuff they don't want to.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,038
#68
You don't want people who are good at engineering to set any sort of requirements for what you are calling "human elements". People who are good at engineering solve a set of requirements with maths and science. The human condition is not quantifiable. You cannot optimise what a person would feel about a structure using calculus. This is why the problem is outsourced to non-engineers like architects and UI designers who play a part in setting the requirements.

In terms of the actual engineering, I am struggling to see what the human element would be in finding the right amount of steel to put in a structure, or what the inductance should be of a circuit board should be such that it doesn't interfere with the filter you are building on said circuit board.



In the most gender equal countries in the world, where the most has been done to remove bias and perception, the gender differences INCREASED. Which means that you have two options:
1) Remove bias and perceptions about the field, thus allowing woman the maximum choice and be happy about the result (which is what happened in Sweden and Denmark, where they decreased the proportion of woman in engineering).
2) Or you are unhappy with the gender differences in engineering and force woman to do stuff they don't want to.
I am talking from my perspective as a Civil Engineer.

Civil Engineering problems are two faceted - The science side of it - Math physics and so on. Then the human side of it. Now the solution The science side of things is absolute, i.e. no soft qualities will affect the amount of reinforcing required for a beam. Bang set standard.

The human side of it is the interfacing with clients, labour, stakeholders and all other societal aspects. Also part of this is understanding how people need to build and use the element being designed. This is where those specific qualities are absolutely valuable. Hence, having an engineer in your team that values these aspects more naturally leads to a holistic solution incorporating many aspects that the pure maths and science mind overlooks.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
15,126
#69
I am talking from my perspective as a Civil Engineer.

Civil Engineering problems are two faceted - The science side of it - Math physics and so on. Then the human side of it. Now the solution The science side of things is absolute, i.e. no soft qualities will affect the amount of reinforcing required for a beam. Bang set standard.

The human side of it is the interfacing with clients, labour, stakeholders and all other societal aspects. Also part of this is understanding how people need to build and use the element being designed. This is where those specific qualities are absolutely valuable. Hence, having an engineer in your team that values these aspects more naturally leads to a holistic solution incorporating many aspects that the pure maths and science mind overlooks.
Sure those roles are valuable, but then they aren't engineering roles. They are other roles that complement the engineering function, like project management and customer engagement.

You can do customer engagement without having a civil engineering degree. In fact, a civil engineering degree is not even relevant to how well you can engage with customers. Sure, basic knowledge of the profession helps, but that is it.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,141
#71
I quite agree, however that comes with a caveat that you cannot expect a 50/50 distribution for every career choice.

That is not the premise that is being applied here. What is being applied is:
All high paying careers should have a 50/50 male/female distribution, if they don't it must be because of patriarchy.
Well... You cannot prove gender disparities based on choices of individuals and then proceed to link them to a system.
That choices are influenced by "factors" are undeniable, but the best remediation for that is educating about choices before choices are made. Make people aware of their options.

Educate individuals about the options available to them and the pro's and con's of each career.

At this point the discussion becomes much larger and individuals should be adult enough to realise that there may be unplanned for challenges should they go whichever route they choose.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,614
#72
Well... You cannot prove gender disparities based on choices of individuals and then proceed to link them to a system.
What do you mean by system?

That choices are influenced by "factors" are undeniable, but the best remediation for that is educating about choices before choices are made. Make people aware of their options.

Educate individuals about the options available to them and the pro's and con's of each career.
That is some paternalism right there. People are completely capable of making that decision already. Especially with the internet in everyone's pockets.

At this point the discussion becomes much larger and individuals should be adult enough to realise that there may be unplanned for challenges should they go whichever route they choose.
And part of that means that you shouldn't complain that in order to succeed at your career, you have so sacrifice something. Be it time for your family, your hobbies or your health.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
3,141
#74
What do you mean by system?
That is very specifically generalised as my statement holds true if the current favourite to hate patriarchy is replaced by a similar matriarchy/religion/government/cult.

I think the point at the end of the long discussion is, Men and Women have forgotten to talk to each other and more importantly listen to each other. We are a symbiotic species.
 

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
10,251
#76
Beautiful example where soft-bigotry of low expectation is applied on both ends of the spectrum.
 

buka001

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,038
#77
Sure those roles are valuable, but then they aren't engineering roles. They are other roles that complement the engineering function, like project management and customer engagement.

You can do customer engagement without having a civil engineering degree. In fact, a civil engineering degree is not even relevant to how well you can engage with customers. Sure, basic knowledge of the profession helps, but that is it.
In the Civil Engineering environment they are engineering roles. Walking around site with the clients engineering representative, carrying out inspections of works, discussing issues and working through solutions - Engineers do this. Not a sales rep.
 

HBee

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
1,724
#78
I fail to see offence in what he said. Sounds more like he was observing how it is from his vantage point and experience and asking a question based on that.
 

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
10,251
#79
I fail to see offence in what he said. Sounds more like he was observing how it is from his vantage point and experience and asking a question based on that.
He should have not said anything. Had he said that he supports the narrative that promotes more female engineers some or other libtard would have called his statement "typically patriarchal".
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,614
#80
That is very specifically generalised as my statement holds true if the current favourite to hate patriarchy is replaced by a similar matriarchy/religion/government/cult.
ah.

I think the point at the end of the long discussion is, Men and Women have forgotten to talk to each other and more importantly listen to each other. We are a symbiotic species.
I don't think that is the case at all. For one thing, there is too much fraternisation between men and woman to even consider that there is a breakdown in communication.
 
Top