"In 2012, although male academic staff overwhelmingly dominated in the university's engineering faculty, the university's education department had..."

[hardyweineberg]

"In 2012, although male academic staff overwhelmingly dominated in the university's engineering faculty, the university's education department had disproportionately more females than males as academic personnel."

"80% of the academic staff in the engineering department was male, with only less than 20% being female."
Source: me


1) Did I use "dominate" and "disproportionately" naturally and grammatically?

2) For the 2nd sentence, is it grammatical to use "with" in that way? And if the answer is yes, please which grammar rule supports it?

 

[Tarheel]

If you want to state the facts without stating an opinion, you might say: "The engineering faculty is overwhelmingly male, and the education faculty is overwhelmingly female."
.
The use of the word "disproportionately" suggests that you think the proportions are wrong.

Try: "The faculty of the engineering department is 80% male and 20% female."

 

[teechar]

1) Did I use "dominate" and "disproportionately" naturally and grammatically?

Yes and yes.

2) For the 2nd sentence, is it grammatical to use "with" in that way? And if the answer is yes, please which grammar rule supports it?

I would have written "80% of the academic staff in the engineering department was were male, with and only less fewer than 20% being were female".

 

[tedmc]

"80% of the academic staff in the engineering department was male, with only less than 20% being female."

I think the use of "with" is not correct. "With" in the second part of the sentence implies that the 20% is part of the 80%, which does not make sense. Teechar's rewrite using "and" makes it clear that the two parts are separate statements.

 

[Tarheel]

@tedmc If 80% of the department was male, that leaves 20%. (There is no need for it to be more complicated than that.)

 

[emsr2d2]

If 80% of the engineering department's academic staff are male, the other 20% of that department's staff must be female, non-binary or gender fluid. Gender self-identification is something we have to consider these days.

 

[Tarheel]

No, it isn't.

 

[emsr2d2]

No, it isn't.

It is, especially when writing about gender ratios. People are no longer divided simply into male/female. You might not like it (I would say from your comment that you don't) but that doesn't mean it's not so.

 

[jutfrank]

There's no need to bring opinions about gender into this thread, or indeed anywhere on this forum. The issue of gender is a very divisive and controversial issue, and this isn't a good place to discuss it, unless it pertains directly to the use of language. Members apparently disagree on whether gender self-identification is "something we have to consider". I think we should leave it at that.

The chart that hardyweineberg is looking at here shows figures for males and females only.

 

[emsr2d2]

I wasn't trying to bring gender into it (and I haven't seen the chart that the OP was looking at). However, I disagree with Tarheel's claim that saying that 80% of the staff were male sufficed.

 

[5jj]

The issue of gender is a very divisive and controversial issue, and this isn't a good place to discuss it, unless it pertains directly to the use of language.

As emsr2d2 pointed out, it is relevant to this thread.

 

[jutfrank]

As emsr2d2 pointed out, it is relevant to this thread.

Let's leave it there, please. We don't need to argue about this.

 

[5jj]

Sorry, jutfrank, but in my opinion we do need to argue/discuss if a member appears to claim that gender self-identification is something we linguists do not have to consider these days.

 

[jutfrank]

Okay, I'm happy to argue this point, then, if you wish.

 

[emsr2d2]

It is a language point, though. We no longer use "he/she" as standard. We use "they" instead. Also, if people are creating a form or similar, with the question that used to be "What gender are you? Male/Female", they need to be aware that the question should now be worded something along the lines of "With which gender do you identify? Male/Female/Non-binary/Transgender/Other". (I've probably missed some relevant options.)

 

[jutfrank]

We no longer use "he/she" as standard. We use "they" instead.

I don't know why you think that. Both are still and have long been in common use.

Also, if people are creating a form or similar, with the question that used to be "What gender are you? Male/Female", they need to be aware that the question should now be worded something along the lines of "With which gender do you identify?

This is a matter of opinion, surely. I won't argue that it is often worded like that but whether it should be is still open to discussion. The use of should here betrays both a presumption that gender self-identification is acceptable and a belief about what is right/wrong, which is a political belief.

I don't mean to argue about the politics of the matter, but I will argue that dictating the use of language surrounding the issue of gender is politically motivated. Words like should and have to (post #6, to which Tarheel took offence) express a personal opinion of how one thinks others have an ethical duty to act. That has nothing to do with language. If we're talking about language, we're talking descriptively about what people say, not what they should say.

I'm guessing the chart referred to in the original post relates at least indirectly to the ongoing feminist discussion of the proportion of girls who go on to study and graduate in STEM subjects (particularly engineering, I think) versus non-STEM subjects at university. There's a ton of literature on this issue, both academic and non-academic. Here's a typical example of an article on a related subject published by the Harvard Business Review:

Why Do So Many Women Who Study Engineering Leave the Field?

Research shows that class projects and internships reinforce a masculine culture.

hbr.org

The language used throughout revolves around the disproportionate number of women/females versus men/males. At no point is there mention of other genders.

Here's a link to recent statistics from Engineering UK:

Useful Statistics | Women's Engineering Society

The following are some key pieces of data most often requested.

www.wes.org.uk

It is not atypical in discourse surrounding this issue to think solely in terms of binary genders (especially in feminist discourse)—a way of thinking that is natural for what I think is a large majority of the general population. I don't think the writer of the article linked above is deliberately making any kind of point by not mentioning any other genders, but is merely just thinking in the same binary way as most other people.

 

[5jj]

The use of should here belies both a presumption that gender self-identification is acceptable and a belief about what is right/wrong, which is a political belief.

In an increasing number of countries, gender self-identification is acceptable; it is even required in the eyes of the law.

I don't mean to argue about the politics of the matter, but I will argue that dictating the use of language surrounding the issue of gender is politically motivated. Words like should and have to (post #6, to which Tarheel took offence) express a personal opinion of how one thinks others have an ethical duty to act. That has nothing to do with language. If we're talking about language, we're talking descriptively about what people say, not what they should say.

I think you are confusing personal opinions (#1 below) with absolute requirements (2 and #3):

1. You must/should never end a sentence with a preposition.
2. You must never use the N-word of people of colour.
2. "... the question should now be worded something along the lines of "With which gender do you identify? Male/Female/Non-binary/Transgender/Other".

 

[jutfrank]

I think you are confusing personal opinions (#1 below) with absolute requirements (2 and #3):

1. You must/should never end a sentence with a preposition.
2. You must never use the N-word of people of colour.
3. "... the question should now be worded something along the lines of "With which gender do you identify? Male/Female/Non-binary/Transgender/Other".

Could you please clarify the difference? What do you mean by 'absolute requirements'? Aren't all three prescriptions?

 

[5jj]

#1 is a prescription/requirement imposed by somebody who has no authority to impose them and no power to enforce them.
#2 and #3 are requirements imposed by auothorities who can enforce it -courts, universities, press councils, etc.

 

[jutfrank]

In an increasing number of countries, gender self-identification is acceptable;

Oh, absolutely, yes, but not to everyone in those countries.

it is even required in the eyes of the law.

In some of those countries, yes. Still, the fact that it is a legal matter is a political issue. That's precisely what I mean—what counts as law is open to discussion in an open society. Here lies the controversy.