UPDATE: Apparently it was not clear to some people that the second “quote” below is a parody written by me, of the first quote written by someone else. I hope this clears it up.
You may want to advocate for gender equity in science and engineering. But you are just wasting your energy. Pat O’Hurley tells us so.
I’m simply saying that it is [foolish] to expect female engineering enrollment to be equal to men’s enrollment, if engineering is a field which is, statistically speaking, more attractive to men than to women.
This would be an insight gained from the following sort of deeply objective and scientific analysis:
There aren’t a lot of women in engineering. I personally believe this is because women just don’t like Teh Engineering. They don’t like engineering because engineering is for Teh Men. Engineering is for men because it is what men do. It is not for women because it is not what women do. There is Boy Stuff, and there is Girl Stuff. Engineering is Boy Stuff.
Maybe there are a few freakazoid women who like engineering, and possibly they may experience some minor amounts of discrimination AFTER they enter the field. But we don’t want to turn all nice nurturing women into freakazoids. Otherwise civilization would collapse. All the freakazoid women who might be interested in engineering are already in engineering. You can’t find any more of them.
These conclusions are reached through the sophisticated method of pulling numbers out of my ass. Women just don’t like engineering and there’s no need to think about why that might be, or to suspect that it has anything to do with the culture of engineering itself, or institutionalized sexism, or gender role socialization. It’s just part of women’s biology. You can’t fight nature.
And there you have it. I guess we can all relax and go out for a beer now, because Pat has figured out that women’s innate womanly natures prevent them from being interested in Boy Stuff.