3 ms·

"that expression is too vague to really say anything about" The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" hence I wanted more information about other non engineeri

"that expression is too vague to really say anything about" The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" hence I wanted more information about other non engineering characteristics such as her height,weight, color, height, etc. "this seems non-sequitur or a strawman" Its not a strawman it was a valid question , why did she only decide to single out her sex. Why not disclose her weight,height,color,etc?

hnbroseph 10y ago
> The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" non-sequitur. it's a q&a with a particular segment of individuals. if you're not interested in the experiences and insights of a segment of the workforce, you don't have to ask anything. however, asking about "the importance of sex in relations to engineering" requires explanation of what you mean by "importance" and "engineering". otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question. > Its not a strawman you said: "explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant". nobody said they were. > why did she only decide to single out her sex did you not even look at the link? even the first paragraph? there isn't a "she" who "decided to single out her sex". it's a content publisher/blog (?) that took questions and then posited them to a group of female engineers.
- crapolasplatter 10y ago
  "otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question." Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. Why was it important to state being a female engineer in the title versus stating other non engineering characteristics such as height,weight,color,etc? what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same , nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex. surely a fat , short , ugly , female engineer would not have the same experience or struggles as a skinny,tall, pretty female engineer. Perhaps one finds it as a positive experience and as an advantage while the other has the exact opposite experience.
  - hnbroseph 10y ago
    > Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. it's not, because it's unclear, and i demonstrated why it's unclear. you refuse to clarify. "important" in what way? the mechanical exercise of job functions? individual qualia? cultural aspects? something else? "to engineering" in what way? the position requirements of a job? the industry economics? the workforce as a body of humans? the state of the art? social climate? this is what i mean - it's not immediately clear what you're asking, so any answer is dismissable. > versus stating other non engineering characteristics what is an "engineering characteristic"? > what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same there is no "value" in "stating they are female". it's a statement of fact. so, the question is unclear. you also haven't explained why the notion of "not all females are the same" implies anything about a so-called "value of stating they are female". > nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex "experience" isn't a fixed unary number. it's a manifold of many things. it's a trivially true observation that two individuals will have individual experiences of life. this says nothing of overlapping or commonality.
    - crapolasplatter 10y ago
      I clarified, you are just BSing. Sometimes a question is a question. There is no value or purpose added by stating you are female in the title. Clearly all females don’t think alike or have the same experiences. There is nothing wrong with asking why was "Female" added to the title , but not other characteristics such as height,weight,age,color,weight, etc.
      - hnbroseph 10y ago
        there is no specific answer to such an open question, beyond minority genders have distinct experiences (like male nurses). you could just as well be asking why engineer was "added to the title" but not other characteristics.

hnbroseph 10y ago

> The same goes for "Ask a Female Engineer" non-sequitur. it's a q&a with a particular segment of individuals. if you're not interested in the experiences and insights of a segment of the workforce, you don't have to ask anything. however, asking about "the importance of sex in relations to engineering" requires explanation of what you mean by "importance" and "engineering". otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question. > Its not a strawman you said: "explain why the following characteristics are irrelevant". nobody said they were. > why did she only decide to single out her sex did you not even look at the link? even the first paragraph? there isn't a "she" who "decided to single out her sex". it's a content publisher/blog (?) that took questions and then posited them to a group of female engineers.

crapolasplatter 10y ago
"otherwise it's a bit of a weaselly question." Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. Why was it important to state being a female engineer in the title versus stating other non engineering characteristics such as height,weight,color,etc? what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same , nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex. surely a fat , short , ugly , female engineer would not have the same experience or struggles as a skinny,tall, pretty female engineer. Perhaps one finds it as a positive experience and as an advantage while the other has the exact opposite experience.
- hnbroseph 10y ago
  > Its not a weaselly question or a strawman. Its a fair and valid question. it's not, because it's unclear, and i demonstrated why it's unclear. you refuse to clarify. "important" in what way? the mechanical exercise of job functions? individual qualia? cultural aspects? something else? "to engineering" in what way? the position requirements of a job? the industry economics? the workforce as a body of humans? the state of the art? social climate? this is what i mean - it's not immediately clear what you're asking, so any answer is dismissable. > versus stating other non engineering characteristics what is an "engineering characteristic"? > what is the value of stating they are female when not all females are the same there is no "value" in "stating they are female". it's a statement of fact. so, the question is unclear. you also haven't explained why the notion of "not all females are the same" implies anything about a so-called "value of stating they are female". > nor do they automatically have the same experiences simply because of their sex "experience" isn't a fixed unary number. it's a manifold of many things. it's a trivially true observation that two individuals will have individual experiences of life. this says nothing of overlapping or commonality.
  - crapolasplatter 10y ago
    I clarified, you are just BSing. Sometimes a question is a question. There is no value or purpose added by stating you are female in the title. Clearly all females don’t think alike or have the same experiences. There is nothing wrong with asking why was "Female" added to the title , but not other characteristics such as height,weight,age,color,weight, etc.
    - hnbroseph 10y ago
      there is no specific answer to such an open question, beyond minority genders have distinct experiences (like male nurses). you could just as well be asking why engineer was "added to the title" but not other characteristics.