Hi all,
I am de-lurking for a moment because I just had to respond to this statement
from Cat:
I think that alot of these women, like me, did not realize the
first time aroung that CS interested them. They gained confidence in
their jobs, and realized where they wanted to go.
This is exact
At 09:05 AM 01/06/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>
>As for gender-based discrimination, I have to say that I personally haven't
>encountered it here in so obvious a way than described in previous posts.
>We actually have a higher than average ratio of female IT staff. I have
>also been lucky enough to fi
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Simon Britnell wrote:
> The prime justification I have seen for demographics shifting basically
> boils down to "There should be more women in my field because if there
> were, there would be less sexism".
You have the cart/horse wrong: IF there were more women in my field, i
On Wed, 5 Jan 2000, Simon Britnell wrote:
> I see deirdre is having her 5 minutes of fame :)
Thanks for noticing. :)
> Thanks for the effort. I don't know about anyone else, but the DeCSS
> case is important to me.
Me too.
> http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg010400.htm
>You have the cart/horse wrong: IF there were more women in my field, >it
>would be a demonstration that there is less sexism. Less sexism >is good,
>ergo more women in underrepresented fields is a good thing.
But isn't the whole point that the fields have to be attractive to more
women? Cur
J B wrote:
> Currently, if a woman wants to be in any field, and is of the proper
> mindset, there is nothing that will keep her out...not sexism,
Really You mean if a guy is sexist, doesn't take women seriously, and
doesn't hire them for top positions, women can get in anyway? Hmmm...
Maybe not at that particular company, and granted, that is a problem, but,
honsetly, would you want to work under those conditions? I know that I
would not. And yes, those issues need to be addressedthat is what I
mean by making the field more atractive...in part making the pointy-haired
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, Caitlyn Martin wrote:
> J B wrote:
>
> > Currently, if a woman wants to be in any field, and is of the proper
> > mindset, there is nothing that will keep her out...not sexism,
>
> Really You mean if a guy is sexist, doesn't take women seriously, and
> doesn't hire them
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 22:04:48 GMT, "J B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Currently, if a woman wants to be in any field, and is of the proper
>mindset, there is nothing that will keep her out...not sexism, not
>low pay, not anythingdetermination, willpower and strength...
And this is why we've had
At 10:04 PM 01/06/2000 GMT, you wrote:
>
>Currently, if a woman wants to be in any field, and is of the proper
>mindset, there is nothing that will keep her out...not sexism, not low pay,
>not anythingdetermination, willpower and strength... Granted, those are
>all (to me) good traits
Tell me when a suitable candidate has run for president?
If a female ran for president, and was either the most qualified or had the
best stand on the issues, I would vote for her. Is rascism the reason we
have never had a black president? Or an oriental president?
Okay...calm down, there is
J B wrote:
> But isn't the whole point that the fields have to be attractive to more
> women? Currently, if a woman wants to be in any field, and is of the proper
> mindset, there is nothing that will keep her out...not sexism, not low pay,
> not anything
Bull--!
Unless 'the proper mindset
J B wrote:
>
> Maybe not at that particular company, and granted, that is a problem, but,
> honsetly, would you want to work under those conditions? I know that I
> would not.
Those conditions exist, and sometimes they're all that's available in a given
(geographic) area.
> And yes, those iss
Hi,
I'm coming into this discussion on the late side, but one
of the things I see keeping women out of tech is the nature of the
tech companies. I had this discussion years ago with a female
co-worker several times over the past few years.
The traits listed as 'needed' for succ
On Thu, 06 Jan 2000 23:43:06 GMT, "J B" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>Tell me when a suitable candidate has run for president?
They don't run because they know they don't have a prayer -- and
because the people you have to convince to back you if you even want
to run don't want to support them. Re
Kelly Lynn Martin wrote:
> >Tell me when a suitable candidate has run for president?
>
> They don't run because they know they don't have a prayer -- and
> because the people you have to convince to back you if you even want
> to run don't want to support them. Remember, you need 2% to get
> ma
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000 17:04:05 -0800, "Linda Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The traits listed as 'needed' for success at my company used to
>state things like 'be a recognized leader in your field', 'willingness
>to take risk' (losers quietly discarded), etc. I'm sure it is
>mostly social
17 matches
Mail list logo
