No doubt women are just as good as men at everything and worth the same pay.
If you wanted to create some kind of argument for the need of a patriarchy, a good place to look for the strongest evidence is in feminist doctrine.
The soft sexism of low expectations.
There are plenty of intelligent women out there, most of them just don’t want a career in engineering. Stop meddling with human nature!
Using this leftarded logic then, there should also be a similar ideological move to reduce the requirements for nursing degrees for men, so society can achieve ‘equality’ in that profession too.
Funny how the woke masses completely ignore the gender imbalances where women currently enjoy all the power. Let’s try family court and spousal-abuse support, just for starters.
Perhaps they’ll offer degrees in fashion engineering.
I have always wondered whatever happened to the people responsible for that. Probably nothing.
I remember the project engineer (a woman, natch, it was a women’s engineering firm) being interviewed before the mishap. She bragged that the difference between women engineers and men engineers is that they not only make things that work, they design things that look good. Well, obviously, they failed the first part.
It’s not so much about lowering the bar anymore. The bar has been thrown away.
One small step for women,
One giant leap for the ‘IDIOCRATISATION’ of engineering.
(Sound it out phonetically like we used to before newspeak and new math and neurosis of the masses)
The movie “Idiocracy” wasn’t a comedy-satire, it was a dire prediction that is coming true.
You never hear from the women who made the cut without the lowered expectation.
Feminists want the world to be “fair”. It ain’t and that’s a bitch.
Case in point is the female bus driver in Ottawa. People are dead and traumatized because the city of Ottawa put an incompetent behind the wheel of a double-decker bus. Every person involved with putting Aissatou Diallo in that seat should be charged with manslaughter.
It’s happening everywhere to everything. Race, identity and gender trump competency. And in the case of turdo la doo, stupid, shallow and cute helps.
‘
Watch for government hires of these loser women engineers. I suppose they can be trusted to design some public washrooms or perhaps traffic circles that are becoming more popular of late.
But no bridges! ….. ever
.
Plenty of bridges designed by men have fallen down too.
Entry standards are pretty arbitrary in most cases, who knows who will make a good engineer ? Allowing less qualified persons in is not a problem if you properly teach them. If you reduce the graduation standards as well, then there will be problems.
https://stittsvillecentral.ca/heres-why-the-hazeldean-bridge-sank-in-2011/
Stupid is as stupid does. Gender doesn’t apply.
The idiots at Genivar – now WSP – a K-bec company designed that bridge.
The worker bees all knew it wouldn’t work from the get go.
WSP does a lot of work on Parliament Hill for the Center Block rehab. Quelle surprise.
On the surface that argument sounds compelling.
For about 10 seconds.
BUT in this fatally woke PC world the graduation standards will necessarily fall. The same kind of “thinking” will obtain at the other end.
When I was an undergrad, women started enrolling in engineering in larger numbers. They were, however, expected to meet the same academic standards as the men and the ones that finally put on their iron rings did.
Engineering legislation and the laws of math and physics don’t care about whether the work is done by a man or a woman. It has to be done properly and safely because it’s a matter of public safety.
(UTS) Uterus U!
Can I get an engineering degree if I identify as a female who’s bad at math?
You betcha!
Oh jeez, Mark. You are opening up a can of worms, FFS!!!
I think Climate Barbi would have a tough time with math and engineering. She is a lawyer. That is probably because lawyers only use math when they are writing up your invoice. Then, they are very good at addition. But actual engineering and math?
I DON”T THINK SO !!!!!!
Climate Barbie has difficulty with the English language.
The average Canadian voter I assume would want to fly in an airplane with a competent credentialed pilot, or work in a building designed by qualified engineers and built to code.
Then they go to the polls and turf Harper for Trudeau.
Apparently running a nation only requires a name and nice hair.
So women get PMS points. What will trannies get? Buggery points?
Robert that’s a shity question
Robert of Ottawa: I love it!! Keep up the good work!
The idea that having a woman in the group, or “gender balance” will help you solve problems better has been falsified. A bunch of groups were made, problems assigned, and the winning groups were always those who had the single highest IQ person in them, regardless of gender or gender balance or some such.
What an utterly idiotic statement …
“We (women) ride in cars, we use public transport, we do all kinds of things,” she added. “If they are only being designed and engineered by one gender, then the requirements and needs of the other gender can get missed a bit.”
That’s akin to saying only a Kindergartner can properly design a Kindergarten classroom.
God save the people who have to drive in cars designed by this womxn engineer.
Kenji: EXACTLY!!
She’s an engineering academic. That pretty much says it all as to how much she knows about how engineering is actually done in the real world.
Keep this in mind: when I was an undergrad more than 40 years ago, most of my engineering professors either had direct industrial experience or worked closely with industry. Much of what I learned about how to conduct myself as an engineer was a result of what they taught me.
After I got my B. Sc., many university engineering departments started hiring their faculty direct out of school. Actually having worked in industry, particularly if it wasn’t in research and development, was considered detrimental to one’s career prospects. Nowadays, I doubt many professors ever worked in a design office, on a shop floor, or ever went out into the field and got themselves dirty.
Over half a century ago, my two sisters got a BA in Math and a BSEE, and had long careers in STEM fields.
,If the schools want capable women in STEM, they should find and recruit qualified women, instead of lowering their standards. Standards are there for a reason.
OldBruin: EXACTLY thanks for saying there are some women that are very smart. They will choose the job they want!!
I have had MANY women Doctors in whom’s hands I felt completely comfortable (no, not like that). Yes, there are LOADS of smart women. Including some who choose to stay at home and properly raise their children. Never in my lifetime, have I ever heard that “girls” cannot achieve the equal of men. Only in the gender and race pimping industry do we still need to “educate” everyone about “girl power”. Ugggh … please make it all go away, so we can just get on with it, already.
in whose hands.
Sorry, the mistake is just too glaring in an otherwise perfectly good post. It really is so simple, but “whom” may be the most improperly used word in English, both in commission and omission.
If you answer “he did”, then you say ask who did.
If you answer “to him”, then you ask to whom.
You feel comfortable in her hands. So it should be “in whose hands I feel comfortable.”
Just to make this NOT a grammar police post, I have worked with many women engineers, and liked or disliked each for the same reasons as for men engineers. Admittedly not anywhere near as much women as men, but as you said it may be their choice.
There is a funny story about a certain woman engineer I’d like to share, though. There was this program manager who was a terrible bully, and most underlings quaked in his presence. Well, he once tore into a design review given by this woman engineer, who proceeded to just break down and cry. That stopped him dead in his tracks, and he had no idea what to do, and just started to blubber. I smiled to myself and said that’s one way to do it. Now HE most likely disliked women in engineering.
Things like this are insulting to women who can qualify on their own merit. The problem is a bit more complicated than women can’t qualify so the standards must be lowered. There is enough women with strong math and science skills. The problem is that those women are also strong in non-STEM skills so they can choose any type of degree. Women also tend prefer working with people. So, women with strong math and science skills might prefer being a pediatrician or psychiatrist instead of an engineer.
When I was part of a group trying to convince girls to consider trades and industrial tech we had a similar problem. The girls would choose vet tech or care worker over blue collar work, despite better pay and benefits in the trades.
If universities are truly looking to recruit women engineers then target high schools and look for girls with high math/science grades and who are less feminine or on the autism spectrum. It’s the women who are outliers that tend to choose engineering, trades and industrial tech.
“Women also tend prefer working with people”
Most women engineers I’ve worked with fast-tracked into management, and quite successfully (and when it comes to “herding cats”, better that anyone else do it than me). In fact, that’s the general trajectory for most engineers, women and men. Engineering is often just a stepping stone. I don’t agree that science/math standards need to be lowered for women, yet that doesn’t seem very applicable to where their strengths lie and are needed anyway. YMMV.
Perhaps curricula have changed since, but I can’t think of many high school courses that supported and developed management skills as they pertain to career potential, except perhaps activities (like sports) that recognized characteristics such as team work, leadership, etc.
Yep, even within a male dominated job, women’s career path will differ.
The obsession to force fit people to produce the world progressives want is counterproductive. The more force progressives apply, the more political capital they lose. Just present opportunities and let people make their own choices. The Scandinavian Paradox shows that it’s not systemic discrimination but personal preference that creates gender imbalances in certain careers.
With experience, you can spot which women and girls would be intrested in nontraditional careers. They share certain personality characteristics and/or backgrounds (farmgirls, for example). They play hockey, rugby, football and other physical sports. It’s not rocket science to figure this out.
As the old Hungarian saying goes, “the fish stinks from the head”. The “progressive” glitterati believe in affirmative action applied to all human variants found in the (identity politics) crab bucket which pretty much amounts to everyone but white males. The Spawn is a master at such virtue signalling. His cabinet was chosen by vagina quota with no other criteria considered. It’s all premised on the vile path of chemical determinism.
No one can teach a love of learning but one can foster it.
Anyone who has ever taught knows that there are students who have an innate sense of curiosity, who can make, do and learn. Some students will do enough to get themselves by and that is it.
Forcing women to attend certain classes or watering the classes down is more than an educational or professional failure. It is a personal one. Reshaping things was tried in every communist country one can think of and it has never worked.
The same will happen here.
I was in engineering in the 70’s/80’s. Very few women, but all competent. Some got a clue where things were going to go career wise in their summer jobs where they were given a desk and told to arrive on time and leave on time. What they did in between was their business. (Gov’t contract diversity hires). On graduation they were all channeled to overpaid PR spots. Never did any engineering.
Sounds like rumours of diversity hires at Fort McMurray where certain numbers of people of an ethnic minority are on the payroll and draw a cheque but don’t show up. I don’t know whether it is true or not.
In conversation today I just found out that the Engineering Association in Manitoba is strongly considering a change from STEM courses to STEAM courses! The A of course is for Arts. Engineering applicants apparently have little idea how to write a report, technical or otherwise and this has to be added. Stunning.
FCOL, one should be able to write a coherent report by the time they graduate from high school.
Uh, no. I taught at a technical college for several years and many of my students came directly out of high school. Most of them couldn’t compose a comprehensible sentence or spell worth a hoot. I had endless fun marking their lab reports. (I used to joke that I graded them while half drunk. I would be sufficiently sober to still know what I was doing, but numb enough that I couldn’t have cared less.)
Lower entry standards are always followed by lower graduation standards. Equality of result is the goal.
My cousin’s granddaughter recently Aced her post-grad engineering course. I wonder what she thinks?
That no evidence or research was shown to support the assertion that led to the conclusion and then to the measure says it all.
In the late 70s the Canadian Forces wanted to get more women into field units, so they had a special program for Radio Operators, somewhat back in the lines. They got little or no response. The women were quite happy not being in the field.
Nobody wanted to go to the friggin field. The women got the coveted, high visibility career-wise base postings.
Oh well, you made your way, more women came into field units, and everywhere else, without any government edict.
It changed because society changed, in its own good time, but these SJWs think a snapshot of today can be “corrected” today, when common sense says this took a number of generations.
Then again socialists think there is some statist central heating CO2 global thermostat that coincidentally coincides with Marxism.
With our present education system perhaps common sense is the new superpower. I can cite no evidence for my claim.
Common sense is their kryptonite.
Oddly they haven’t lowered the standards for gynecology.
My brother-in-law (ex-air force) just had his hair cut by a lady who has graduated as a civil engineer at age 26. She put herself through engineering by cutting hair. Now she’s off to make real money. But the hair-cut was good. He still looks ugly but you can’t blame the hair-dresser.
Hope these ladies will be hired to design Gender Studies department buildings in Australia.
Why don’t they also lower the standards for incarceration to achieve gender balance?
From the comments:
// THIS will just provide a reason for actual discrimination in engineering that didn’t exist before.
Yep. Now every man will wonder if that woman over there actually made the cut or just missed it
but was allowed in anyway due to the lower requirements. //
Well those wonderers should just observe how well they do in the courses for their answer.
OR
as B A Deplorable Rupertslander puts it {above}
// They were, however, expected to meet the same academic standards as the men and the ones that finally put on their iron rings did.
Engineering legislation and the laws of math and physics don’t care about whether the work is done by a man or a woman. //
Amen.
Ultimately, the goal here is to devalue fields favoured by women. There are no government programs fostering interest in traditional women’s fields. It is very imbalanced.
Prolly a devious ‘Strailian plot to keep the Sheilas from emigrating to nother countries.
Makes foreigners question the veracity of their Uni degrees.
A diverse bridge is a happy bridge. Structural integrity? Its rude of you to ask.
I was in the area when that walkway collapsed. There was no mention of just who designed it at the time. It appeared that the crew working on it did something they should not have.
I am an engineer. I strongly suspected this was coming but I am still shocked to see it actually start to happen. End always justifies the means with the left. Always.
Cannot help but wonder where all this nonsense will ultimately lead. Many good points above.
No doubt women are just as good as men at everything and worth the same pay.
If you wanted to create some kind of argument for the need of a patriarchy, a good place to look for the strongest evidence is in feminist doctrine.
The soft sexism of low expectations.
There are plenty of intelligent women out there, most of them just don’t want a career in engineering. Stop meddling with human nature!
Using this leftarded logic then, there should also be a similar ideological move to reduce the requirements for nursing degrees for men, so society can achieve ‘equality’ in that profession too.
Funny how the woke masses completely ignore the gender imbalances where women currently enjoy all the power. Let’s try family court and spousal-abuse support, just for starters.
Perhaps they’ll offer degrees in fashion engineering.
That kind of thinking has lead to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ucflj-MsJBI&feature=youtu.be
I have always wondered whatever happened to the people responsible for that. Probably nothing.
I remember the project engineer (a woman, natch, it was a women’s engineering firm) being interviewed before the mishap. She bragged that the difference between women engineers and men engineers is that they not only make things that work, they design things that look good. Well, obviously, they failed the first part.
It’s not so much about lowering the bar anymore. The bar has been thrown away.
One small step for women,
One giant leap for the ‘IDIOCRATISATION’ of engineering.
(Sound it out phonetically like we used to before newspeak and new math and neurosis of the masses)
The movie “Idiocracy” wasn’t a comedy-satire, it was a dire prediction that is coming true.
No, it was a documentary.
Well if this is any indication…
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2019/09/01/math-is-hard/#comments
Sorry wrong link…
https://thestatetimes.com/2018/03/30/female-headed-construction-and-the-collapse-of-fiu-bridge/
You never hear from the women who made the cut without the lowered expectation.
Feminists want the world to be “fair”. It ain’t and that’s a bitch.
Case in point is the female bus driver in Ottawa. People are dead and traumatized because the city of Ottawa put an incompetent behind the wheel of a double-decker bus. Every person involved with putting Aissatou Diallo in that seat should be charged with manslaughter.
It’s happening everywhere to everything. Race, identity and gender trump competency. And in the case of turdo la doo, stupid, shallow and cute helps.
‘
Watch for government hires of these loser women engineers. I suppose they can be trusted to design some public washrooms or perhaps traffic circles that are becoming more popular of late.
But no bridges! ….. ever
.
Plenty of bridges designed by men have fallen down too.
Entry standards are pretty arbitrary in most cases, who knows who will make a good engineer ? Allowing less qualified persons in is not a problem if you properly teach them. If you reduce the graduation standards as well, then there will be problems.
https://stittsvillecentral.ca/heres-why-the-hazeldean-bridge-sank-in-2011/
Stupid is as stupid does. Gender doesn’t apply.
The idiots at Genivar – now WSP – a K-bec company designed that bridge.
The worker bees all knew it wouldn’t work from the get go.
WSP does a lot of work on Parliament Hill for the Center Block rehab. Quelle surprise.
On the surface that argument sounds compelling.
For about 10 seconds.
BUT in this fatally woke PC world the graduation standards will necessarily fall. The same kind of “thinking” will obtain at the other end.
When I was an undergrad, women started enrolling in engineering in larger numbers. They were, however, expected to meet the same academic standards as the men and the ones that finally put on their iron rings did.
Engineering legislation and the laws of math and physics don’t care about whether the work is done by a man or a woman. It has to be done properly and safely because it’s a matter of public safety.
(UTS) Uterus U!
Can I get an engineering degree if I identify as a female who’s bad at math?
You betcha!
Oh jeez, Mark. You are opening up a can of worms, FFS!!!
I think Climate Barbi would have a tough time with math and engineering. She is a lawyer. That is probably because lawyers only use math when they are writing up your invoice. Then, they are very good at addition. But actual engineering and math?
I DON”T THINK SO !!!!!!
Climate Barbie has difficulty with the English language.
The average Canadian voter I assume would want to fly in an airplane with a competent credentialed pilot, or work in a building designed by qualified engineers and built to code.
Then they go to the polls and turf Harper for Trudeau.
Apparently running a nation only requires a name and nice hair.
So women get PMS points. What will trannies get? Buggery points?
Robert that’s a shity question
Robert of Ottawa: I love it!! Keep up the good work!
The idea that having a woman in the group, or “gender balance” will help you solve problems better has been falsified. A bunch of groups were made, problems assigned, and the winning groups were always those who had the single highest IQ person in them, regardless of gender or gender balance or some such.
What an utterly idiotic statement …
“We (women) ride in cars, we use public transport, we do all kinds of things,” she added. “If they are only being designed and engineered by one gender, then the requirements and needs of the other gender can get missed a bit.”
That’s akin to saying only a Kindergartner can properly design a Kindergarten classroom.
God save the people who have to drive in cars designed by this womxn engineer.
Kenji: EXACTLY!!
She’s an engineering academic. That pretty much says it all as to how much she knows about how engineering is actually done in the real world.
Keep this in mind: when I was an undergrad more than 40 years ago, most of my engineering professors either had direct industrial experience or worked closely with industry. Much of what I learned about how to conduct myself as an engineer was a result of what they taught me.
After I got my B. Sc., many university engineering departments started hiring their faculty direct out of school. Actually having worked in industry, particularly if it wasn’t in research and development, was considered detrimental to one’s career prospects. Nowadays, I doubt many professors ever worked in a design office, on a shop floor, or ever went out into the field and got themselves dirty.
Over half a century ago, my two sisters got a BA in Math and a BSEE, and had long careers in STEM fields.
,If the schools want capable women in STEM, they should find and recruit qualified women, instead of lowering their standards. Standards are there for a reason.
OldBruin: EXACTLY thanks for saying there are some women that are very smart. They will choose the job they want!!
I have had MANY women Doctors in whom’s hands I felt completely comfortable (no, not like that). Yes, there are LOADS of smart women. Including some who choose to stay at home and properly raise their children. Never in my lifetime, have I ever heard that “girls” cannot achieve the equal of men. Only in the gender and race pimping industry do we still need to “educate” everyone about “girl power”. Ugggh … please make it all go away, so we can just get on with it, already.
in whose hands.
Sorry, the mistake is just too glaring in an otherwise perfectly good post. It really is so simple, but “whom” may be the most improperly used word in English, both in commission and omission.
If you answer “he did”, then you say ask who did.
If you answer “to him”, then you ask to whom.
You feel comfortable in her hands. So it should be “in whose hands I feel comfortable.”
Just to make this NOT a grammar police post, I have worked with many women engineers, and liked or disliked each for the same reasons as for men engineers. Admittedly not anywhere near as much women as men, but as you said it may be their choice.
There is a funny story about a certain woman engineer I’d like to share, though. There was this program manager who was a terrible bully, and most underlings quaked in his presence. Well, he once tore into a design review given by this woman engineer, who proceeded to just break down and cry. That stopped him dead in his tracks, and he had no idea what to do, and just started to blubber. I smiled to myself and said that’s one way to do it. Now HE most likely disliked women in engineering.
Things like this are insulting to women who can qualify on their own merit. The problem is a bit more complicated than women can’t qualify so the standards must be lowered. There is enough women with strong math and science skills. The problem is that those women are also strong in non-STEM skills so they can choose any type of degree. Women also tend prefer working with people. So, women with strong math and science skills might prefer being a pediatrician or psychiatrist instead of an engineer.
When I was part of a group trying to convince girls to consider trades and industrial tech we had a similar problem. The girls would choose vet tech or care worker over blue collar work, despite better pay and benefits in the trades.
If universities are truly looking to recruit women engineers then target high schools and look for girls with high math/science grades and who are less feminine or on the autism spectrum. It’s the women who are outliers that tend to choose engineering, trades and industrial tech.
“Women also tend prefer working with people”
Most women engineers I’ve worked with fast-tracked into management, and quite successfully (and when it comes to “herding cats”, better that anyone else do it than me). In fact, that’s the general trajectory for most engineers, women and men. Engineering is often just a stepping stone. I don’t agree that science/math standards need to be lowered for women, yet that doesn’t seem very applicable to where their strengths lie and are needed anyway. YMMV.
Perhaps curricula have changed since, but I can’t think of many high school courses that supported and developed management skills as they pertain to career potential, except perhaps activities (like sports) that recognized characteristics such as team work, leadership, etc.
Yep, even within a male dominated job, women’s career path will differ.
The obsession to force fit people to produce the world progressives want is counterproductive. The more force progressives apply, the more political capital they lose. Just present opportunities and let people make their own choices. The Scandinavian Paradox shows that it’s not systemic discrimination but personal preference that creates gender imbalances in certain careers.
With experience, you can spot which women and girls would be intrested in nontraditional careers. They share certain personality characteristics and/or backgrounds (farmgirls, for example). They play hockey, rugby, football and other physical sports. It’s not rocket science to figure this out.
As the old Hungarian saying goes, “the fish stinks from the head”. The “progressive” glitterati believe in affirmative action applied to all human variants found in the (identity politics) crab bucket which pretty much amounts to everyone but white males. The Spawn is a master at such virtue signalling. His cabinet was chosen by vagina quota with no other criteria considered. It’s all premised on the vile path of chemical determinism.
No one can teach a love of learning but one can foster it.
Anyone who has ever taught knows that there are students who have an innate sense of curiosity, who can make, do and learn. Some students will do enough to get themselves by and that is it.
Forcing women to attend certain classes or watering the classes down is more than an educational or professional failure. It is a personal one. Reshaping things was tried in every communist country one can think of and it has never worked.
The same will happen here.
I was in engineering in the 70’s/80’s. Very few women, but all competent. Some got a clue where things were going to go career wise in their summer jobs where they were given a desk and told to arrive on time and leave on time. What they did in between was their business. (Gov’t contract diversity hires). On graduation they were all channeled to overpaid PR spots. Never did any engineering.
Sounds like rumours of diversity hires at Fort McMurray where certain numbers of people of an ethnic minority are on the payroll and draw a cheque but don’t show up. I don’t know whether it is true or not.
In conversation today I just found out that the Engineering Association in Manitoba is strongly considering a change from STEM courses to STEAM courses! The A of course is for Arts. Engineering applicants apparently have little idea how to write a report, technical or otherwise and this has to be added. Stunning.
FCOL, one should be able to write a coherent report by the time they graduate from high school.
Uh, no. I taught at a technical college for several years and many of my students came directly out of high school. Most of them couldn’t compose a comprehensible sentence or spell worth a hoot. I had endless fun marking their lab reports. (I used to joke that I graded them while half drunk. I would be sufficiently sober to still know what I was doing, but numb enough that I couldn’t have cared less.)
Lower entry standards are always followed by lower graduation standards. Equality of result is the goal.
My cousin’s granddaughter recently Aced her post-grad engineering course. I wonder what she thinks?
That no evidence or research was shown to support the assertion that led to the conclusion and then to the measure says it all.
In the late 70s the Canadian Forces wanted to get more women into field units, so they had a special program for Radio Operators, somewhat back in the lines. They got little or no response. The women were quite happy not being in the field.
Nobody wanted to go to the friggin field. The women got the coveted, high visibility career-wise base postings.
Oh well, you made your way, more women came into field units, and everywhere else, without any government edict.
It changed because society changed, in its own good time, but these SJWs think a snapshot of today can be “corrected” today, when common sense says this took a number of generations.
Then again socialists think there is some statist central heating CO2 global thermostat that coincidentally coincides with Marxism.
With our present education system perhaps common sense is the new superpower. I can cite no evidence for my claim.
Common sense is their kryptonite.
Oddly they haven’t lowered the standards for gynecology.
My brother-in-law (ex-air force) just had his hair cut by a lady who has graduated as a civil engineer at age 26. She put herself through engineering by cutting hair. Now she’s off to make real money. But the hair-cut was good. He still looks ugly but you can’t blame the hair-dresser.
Hope these ladies will be hired to design Gender Studies department buildings in Australia.
Why don’t they also lower the standards for incarceration to achieve gender balance?
From the comments:
// THIS will just provide a reason for actual discrimination in engineering that didn’t exist before.
Yep. Now every man will wonder if that woman over there actually made the cut or just missed it
but was allowed in anyway due to the lower requirements. //
Well those wonderers should just observe how well they do in the courses for their answer.
OR
as B A Deplorable Rupertslander puts it {above}
// They were, however, expected to meet the same academic standards as the men and the ones that finally put on their iron rings did.
Engineering legislation and the laws of math and physics don’t care about whether the work is done by a man or a woman. //
Amen.
Ultimately, the goal here is to devalue fields favoured by women. There are no government programs fostering interest in traditional women’s fields. It is very imbalanced.
Prolly a devious ‘Strailian plot to keep the Sheilas from emigrating to nother countries.
Makes foreigners question the veracity of their Uni degrees.
A diverse bridge is a happy bridge. Structural integrity? Its rude of you to ask.
I was in the area when that walkway collapsed. There was no mention of just who designed it at the time. It appeared that the crew working on it did something they should not have.
I am an engineer. I strongly suspected this was coming but I am still shocked to see it actually start to happen. End always justifies the means with the left. Always.
Cannot help but wonder where all this nonsense will ultimately lead. Many good points above.