I think they just needed to drum up subjects for the 6 piece series on women in technology. you gotta be part of a group! :\

I don't see anyone whining about girls beating the crap out of boys on English exams, the Verbal SAT, etc. Perhaps we need a government program to teach males that words are cool. (Actually, we don't need a government program for males or females.)

I'm a 'guy' that loves the English language...!

English Lit (modern) was my major. I don't remember any gender conflicts in class. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZilC3ldN...

Check this out.

very provocative and interesting...and some of those women could have been remarkable and chose not to be-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcVwkdkia...

This omission in the Supreme Court can be blamed upon our Presidents. They make the nominations, and there is no requirement that a Justice even has any legal background. The President could nominate anyone he thinks can get past Congress....

I have no problem with inform, but I do with enforce. That article might just inspire the next Dagny and She could have read it from your post. As long as it's not part of 10-289 I have no problem with it. Live and let live.

Also, the Justices on the Supreme Court:
Political science, english, or history. Not one with a scientific background and they rule on some of the most complex technological cases without understanding the underlying science or technology-and it shows in their decisions.

good points.
I disagree with fewer women in the workforce. the stats are it's almost equal.
http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-labo...
I agree with the lameness of the article. There was a series of 6 articles about women in technology and all looked like little cheerleading pieces, frankly embarrassing to women rather than, interesting.
on the attitude towards engineers, although not in the field personally, my husband is a EE/physicist and our business is patent law, so we deal with engineers daily. Look at how most inventors/engineers/scientists are portrayed in movies and books.
Our "rulers" are almost anti-science, rarely do you see an engineer as a legislator or judge or President (does Carter count? :P
HP, one of our premier engineering companies, selects an english major to be their CEO. Imagine selecting an engineer to be the head of Vogue or CBS.

Why must we do anything to influence another's career choice? How about just minding our own business and let people do what they want?

It bothers me when statistics are trotted out like "Only 25% of positions in STEM careers are held by women", and from there we conclude some societal problem exists, and we've got to find the solution. This reasoning of "low percentage participation = problem" is how we end up with colleges not admitting well-qualified students because they've got to meet their quota of statistical outlier applicants.

I don't see people thinking of engineers as glorified mechanics, myself. I'm in the field and so are my friends and associates. I would say society thinks of them as "smart", but don't really get WHAT they do.

That people think creativity has nothing to do with reason: good point here! I think when you ask someone for an example of creativity, they are going to be prone to give an example from ART, not STEM. There have been many clever solutions to problems in the STEM fields. The problem is you practically have to be in the STEM fields to "get" the beauty of the solution.

My own two cents on the reason for low participation on women in STEM...I don't have data to back this up but I suspect a major contributing factor is women have lower percentages across the board - in just about all fields - because there are fewer women in the workforce - period. I also think the thought of going to an engineering school or a job where the men outnumber the women 10:1 is a potential turnoff. How many male nurses and airline stewards do we see?