Girls in Engineering- Comic that explains it all

[Katie_UPS]

I found a web-comic here (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1883), and wanted to share it with CD (I wish there were a better way that a new thread that isn't CD media). I chuckled at the humor, even though it has serious undertones (that make you think). Just wanted to share. :)

[The Cyborg]

I completely agree with the message that this comic is putting out there. I've always hated the stereotypes that people are put into just because they are born the way they are, male or female.

I was an oddball child who enjoyed Transformers and Dinosaurs more than Barbies and Ponies, but I've always tried to hide my interests from others in fear of being rejected because I like things that girls aren't really associated with.

This comic basically hits the nail on the head about how I feel on this subject. Thank you so much for sharing it with us. :)

[kstl99]

I always dislike it when McDonalds asks if you want a boy or girl toy with a Happy Meal. I always answer with the type of toy instead.

I have noticed after working in engineering for the past 15 to 20 years that it is quite true that there are very few females in engineering but I am encouraged that the percentage is so much higher in FIRST.

[Jack Jones]

I think the conclusion is based on a false premise. It’s not the toy that makes the boy. Have you ever seen what happens when you light a Barbie on fire, or strap her to a cherry bomb, or tie her to a railroad track? If you personify the doll and make it your friend, then you would be less likely to go into engineering than someone who sees it as a few ounces of plastic in a humanoid shape that’d make for an interesting projectile. It’s as simple as that.

If "society" expects all girls to be sugar and spice and all boys to be snakes and snails, then that’s their hang-up. If you buy into that, then the hang-up is yours.

[Cynette]

That is great! And it gives a hint that the problem is not in the selection of the toys, but in the explanation of what can be done with the toy.

I happen to like dolls. We are encouraging free play and the use of imagination by offering the doll as a doll, but maybe we need to be more focused in our suggestions. But not in the same focus as the current marketing of dolls, who have a specific career or purpose - mostly superficial. You don't have to get as far as torching the thing (Jack :mad: ), but since my brothers did routinely love to pull off their heads, I had the opportunities to learn how they were put together and what household items I could use to recreate the factory built system. How about designing clothes for them? That teaches spatial relations - how do you turn this flat piece of material into a three dimensional object that fits the doll. Sewing, especially following a pattern and the accompanying directions, is engineering technology at its finest! (And it comes in handy when building bumpers and assorted field components.)

One of the things I actually found most fascinating about the cartoon was that the ad in the sidebar was for Jenny Craig, reminding me that I could lose 20 lbs for $20. So now that the cartoon suggests why there are fewer "girl" engineers, the ad beats down once again on the self esteem - even Valerie Bertinelli can't be happy unless she is thin. And looks like Barbie. :rolleyes:

[IKE]

I was given and played with a Cabbage Patch Kid when I was younger. By 2nd grade, the guidance counselor had diagnosed me with "the knack". By that age, I knew I wanted to make the machines that made the toys. I am sure my dad wasn't thrilled that his son was playing with a doll, but he never told me otherwise. I did get to work on tractors more than my sisters, but that was only because I was more interested (both of them had to learn how to operate the tractors, bailers, mowers...). I am not saying marketing doesn't play into the genderfication of toys and thus careers, but I will say it isn't the only thing.

[Andrew Schreiber]

I think the conclusion is based on a false premise. It’s not the toy that makes the boy. Have you ever seen what happens when you light a Barbie on fire, or strap her to a cherry bomb, or tie her to a railroad track? If you personify the doll and make it your friend, then you would be less likely to go into engineering than someone who sees it as a few ounces of plastic in a humanoid shape that’d make for an interesting projectile. It’s as simple as that.

If "society" expects all girls to be sugar and spice and all boys to be snakes and snails, then that’s their hang-up. If you buy into that, then the hang-up is yours.

I have to agree with Mr. Jones here. I personally think at this point the divide is more based on perception than fact. Yes males dominate engineering fields but not because it is some big secret plot against women. I rarely hear a person saying that women are incapable of engineering (I say rarely because there ARE still people who think that but they are in the same boat as the people who think the world is flat). Women aren't in engineering in larger numbers because, in a lot of cases, they simply don't want to be. You don't hear people worrying about there not being enough male nurses*. What about female construction workers? Remember, there are distinct differences in how male and female brains are wired. I know it is great to think that everyone is created equal but it simply isn't true. Some people are simply not meant to be engineers. If they still decide they want to then more power to them but life would suck without the writers of the world.

I'm not saying women shouldn't be engineers, just saying that maybe there is a reason women don't go into engineering more.



*This is a stereotype and I have no numbers to back it up.

[JaneYoung]

Understanding that it is important to capture the idea very quickly in a comic, I almost feel that it is missing the point. It does achieve the goal of recognizing that the lack of diversity in the engineering field is a problem but – how it arrives to that goal feels dated and narrow.

The struggle for girls’ attention lies in the homes, the schools, the communities they grow up in, and in the media. The recognition and validation of the child’s worth and intelligence is at the heart of this. How many television shows center around the imagination and exploration of the child’s mind, curiosity, and creativity? How many shows showcase the opportunities to build, construct, design, or develop ideas and programs?

A girl doesn’t have to be a boy or think like a boy to be an engineer or scientist. She can be very capable of finding the balance between the analytical approach to problem solving and the nurturing tendency to want to improve and make things better. So can a boy. It doesn’t have to be either/or – it can be discovering, experimenting, encouraging some risk taking in finding solutions to problems and working with the results. Cynette provides an excellent example of this with working through challenges created by her brothers’ removal of her Barbie’s hair and with creating wardrobes.

I was a child who created play villages out of dirt, water, rocks and sticks. My favorite part was building levels of the village and making roads. Finding raw materials to create smooth roads that also provided an effect that was pleasing to the eye and showed attention to detail was what held my interest. My parents provided space, time, and freedom for that activity to occur, summer after summer. Sometimes, my brother would offer suggestions and assistance. We worked together on my villages, sometimes peacefully, sometimes with deep arguments regarding which way the road should turn and if we should dig into the side of the hill for more levels. Often, the arguments reached compromise or agreement and the building continued. Rarely did things come to a halt because of disagreements. My Barbies were safe and sound in their special suitcase with all of their lovely outfits that my mom made for them – ready for some playtime when I finished enjoying the freedom of building and designing villages outside. During high school and college, I found myself involved in building large props for musicals and plays, working as a light tech, and a sound tech while occasionally taking on acting roles in the various productions. I found the acting boring because I liked all of the equipment and how it made things work and look.

When my son got involved in a robotics team, it was one of the first programs for students that made a whole lot of sense to me, providing an opportunity to combine and develop many skills in many areas – not just the technical ones but areas of communication, marketing, and team building. Much like building a village involving lots of levels.

[JaneYoung]

The struggle for girls’ attention lies in the homes, the schools, the communities they grow up in, and in the media. The recognition and validation of the child’s worth and intelligence is at the heart of this. How many television shows center around the imagination and exploration of the child’s mind, curiosity, and creativity? How many shows showcase the opportunities to build, construct, design, or develop ideas and programs?


I'm going to quote myself here, please bear with me.

If you substitute exploration with the word, exploitation, then you are moving pretty close to the core of the images and demands that bombard society's senses hourly, non-stop, and rapid-fire, today. And therein lies a large part of our problem in a lot of areas. When learning, exploration, and adventure become a part of each child's daily life - then we will be moving in a direction that will ease our diversity dilemma and others.

Jane

[GaryVoshol]

My daughter can probably give you better insights, but I'll try.

She was on an all-girls FLL team starting about 10 years ago. They often heard comments like, "All girls?" "No boys?" "Where's the boys?" They were much too gracious to say, "Why, don't you think girls can do it?" BTW, they were invited to the World Festival pilot at Disney, and World Festivals at Houston and Atlanta. And they had a good answer to that last question: the boys were at home because their team dissolved after the first year, when they all "knew best" and they couldn't compromise.

In HS, she was able to go to several "Women in Engineering" events and camps. The ones she liked best were those that DID engineering; the ones she liked least were the ones that told girls they were powerful, they could do anything they set their minds to - because she knew all that. She didn't want to hear it again, she wanted to do things.

Susan Lawrence, an FRC regional director, has some very interesting stories about her mentor who was the first woman admitted to her engineering school. Thankfully we're far beyond that!

[gvarndell]

Girl toy...
Hhhm, looks the same as a boy toy to me :rolleyes:

[Mikell Taylor]

I don't disagree that the comic is a little simplistic (yet I am amused), and I won't call out anyone in particular, because I'm sure the sentiment is sadly widespread, but:

Saying that it's not about the toy, or that women "just don't want to be" in engineering, doesn't really cut it. There are demonstrative patterns of discouragement toward young girls who express interest in or talent for science, math, and engineering. I'm not sure I realized it in high school, but looking back on it with the perspective of four years of an engineering degree and four years in the industry, I'm a little shocked at how negatively -- albeit probably subconsciously -- people responded to my interest (thankfully I had some wonderfully supportive parents and FIRST mentors). A lot of this even occurred, I'm sad to say, within the context of FIRST events. And don't even get me started on the continued sexism and discouragement my female friends and I have encountered out here in "the real world".

Yes, there are lots of things you can do to explode Barbie instead of dress her up and cut her hair. But kids are given toys with the expectation that they will do a certain thing with them. That expectation is strong, and can really alter the way a kid behaves. If I blew up Barbie with a rocket launch kit, most parents wouldn't say "ah, a future pyrotechnic engineer!" and give me more Barbies and rockets. They'd take the rocket kit away from me since it would make me "violent" -- and girls don't do that, you know. The toys may be inherently genderless, but the reactions of those around you to how you play with them do shape your behavior.

Men and women do think differently. Lots of people think differently. We don't write off large percentages of the population because they have brown hair instead of blonde or they're different races or they're tall instead of short -- and hey, those are genetic and biological differences. Why write off women? Why not try to understand why there aren't more, and see how engineering could change -- probably for the better! -- through more and unique input from an underrepresented portion of the population?

Also keep in mind -- the generalization that "women just aren't predisposed to like engineering" can make those of us who DO love engineering feel like freaks. Do I have a more "male" brain? Am I less feminine? Or did I just happen to grow up under the right set of conditions that fostered a love and passion for science and technology? I like to think it's the latter, and that it's something I can pass on to other kids I mentor or, eventually, parent.

As you may guess I have very strong feelings on this topic. I don't want to prevent discussion -- discussion is good! -- but think hard about what you say and assume and how it affects the women you work with in FIRST, school, and your job.

[Mikell Taylor]

I hate to double post, but I wanted to address one other point:

I do think it's a shame there aren't more male nurses, and I don't think that's a genetic thing either -- I think it's how society responds to it. Remember that movie "Meet the Parents" that was full of LOL YOU'RE A MALE NURSE jokes? We can laugh at that, but switch that around and imagine a movie full of LOL YOU'RE A FEMALE ENGINEER? jokes. It'd be totally un-PC and frankly, the "male nurse" version should be too.

I think until we manage to reduce -- hell, eliminate -- the glaringly obvious prejudices and social factors from the equation, it's unfair and harmful to write it off as biological predisposition.

[Jack Jones]

Right – let’s just ignore everything we see and believe it’s the way people tell us it should be.

[joeweber]

The cartoon does hit upon the sentiment that has been driven into our society for years and will take years to change or reverse. It is not that a girl should or should not play with a doll or a boy should or should not play with a truck, it’s that a person should do what they enjoy doing with out pressure from society. The best way is to start now and do better now and in the future. We are aware of this in our meetings and make sure that boy’s do not push a girl off a project (trying to be in charge “let me show you how to do it”) or that a girl should not be quiet and let the boy do this. Our students learn from each other equally how to do things and if they forget than we have a demerit jar to remind them. It is easy to be sexist with out thinking and this can really hurt the team if it is allowed to continue, so you must be diligent and keep reminding all to be far to others on the team.

[JaneYoung]

Society will always apply pressure. That's a reality.
Another reality is that many of the mentors in FIRST are applying pressure, too:

to think.

Jane

[Karibou]

I agree with the comic as to the reason why there are fewer women engineers. Do I like it? No. Is it true? I think so, at least in part.

And it's only true for some cases - if I had been given Transformers and skateboards and Batmobiles and action figures as a kid, I probably would have still been dead set against engineering until I joined my team freshman year. I didn't become fascinated with the way things worked until that year. I never wanted to turn out like my mom, with an engineering degree. EVER. I hated math. H-a-t-e-d m-a-t-h. Why would I EVER want to do math for a living? That's not fun. Science is fun, math is not. I want to play my instrument and teach little kids how to read music.

I think that it depends a lot on the environment that the girls are raised in, as others have said before me. Two X chromosomes doesn't make us incapable of engineering, but it changes what is generally expected of us. It's really a not-so-obvious form of sexism that stems from the beginning of time, when the men did the hunting and the women cooked supper. Even after the civil rights movement, women were still looked down upon in society. But it's changing now, with so much more pressure on kids growing up to become scientists and so much more emphasis on education for everyone (despite the influence of pop culture, which isn't making a lot of effort to promote the idea of girls growing up to be anything but nurses and teenage "rock" stars, IMHO). This is something that will change gradually over time. McDonalds has already given up on the girl/boy toys...right? Maybe with the next generation we'll see more of a change. Maybe in 20 years, the 6-year-old girls will be encouraged to play with toy drums as well as making their dolls look pretty.

[Cynette]

I think that it depends a lot on the environment that the girls are raised in, as others have said before me.

The hard part is that in the realm of parenting we have not yet figured out the fail proof combination to make children turn out the way we imagined they will.

I have two brothers. All three of us ended up in some sort of engineering career. (Why am I an engineer? Because my HS guidance counselor told me I should become one. According to my classmates, that was the only good advice he ever gave anyone.) I am married to an engineer. I have two children, a son and a daughter. As a mother and an engineer, I used all available resources to make sure that my children were exposed to science and math and technology from the get-go. My son was known as Mr. Technology by his teachers in elementary school. My daughter was a dinosaur expert at age 2. Science and math were favorite subjects. The whole world was open to them; surely they would pick technical careers!

Nope. After a semester of computer science, my son decided that a culinary career appealed to him more. My daughter? Film and Media studies. What happened? For children the message that should come out above all is "you can be anything you want to be." That's what my kids took to heart.

Did I raise an male engineer? Did I raise a female engineer? No, and no. As parents we make lots of mistakes, but honestly, I don't think I did anything overwelmingly wrong when it came to providing them with toys and experiences that would help them determine their future careers. They are who they are. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that they turn out ok. And that when they are a little older, they will give me grandchildren and I can try to turn them into engineers. :rolleyes:

[gvarndell]

The hard part is that in the realm of parenting we have not yet figured out the fail proof combination to make children turn out the way we imagined they will.

I was leaning toward leaving this thread alone, but this statement changed my mind.

From a parent's perspective (since we're being blamed here) we should not be about molding our children into any particular vision we have for their future, other than to prepare them to be happy, law-abiding, and self-sufficient -- basically good citizens.

I raise my daughter in a way I hope will make her feel totally empowered and entitled to dismiss and reject any notion that her gender is a limiting factor in any endeavor she might choose to undertake.

More important (to me) than whether she ultimately becomes an engineer, a lawyer, a waitress, or a lady wrestler is that she must be unflinchingly intolerant of any pressure, from any source, to only do girl stuff.

When she was little, if she wanted a Barbie, she got one.
If she wanted a chemistry set, she got one.
If she wanted a 4-wheeler, she got one.

A couple years ago, at a family gathering, my son (he was nearly 4 then) saw that one of the little girls had a pink Barbie purse.
He wanted to play with it, but she wouldn't share.
So, I got in the car, went to Walmart and bought him one -- pinker than pink and loaded up with Barbie cell phone, makeup and stuff.
He's nearly 6 now and he still has it.
This last Mother's day, the family all went to Bob Evans (about 23 of us) for brunch and Georgie 'had to' take the purse with him.
Everyone in the family knows how I feel about gender stereotypes, so nobody said a word. :)
No comments that I might make him gay or effeminate, which is bull.
A few nearby patrons gave him odd looks -- as if their small-minded opinions matter :cool:

Our children have an inalienable right to be whatever they have the passion and drive to be.
As an engineer who is married to an engineer, I would love for Addi to become an engineer.
But I guarantee you, if she doesn't become an engineer, it won't be because she was born female.
And if my son grows up to become a chef or a fashion designer, it won't be because I bought him a Barbie purse when he was four. :D

[FIRSTgirl675]

I just saw this comic yesterday on an app for my iPod. I chuckled at it too.

As this has already been stated, it shows how our society really is and how its values are still stereotypical. Now that I am in robotics, I wish that I had been able to play with more building-type of toys as a kid. I absolutely LOVE working in the shop. In fact, my rookie year on the team I was the only female in the manufacturing portion of the team, and I took pride in that.

[Katie_UPS]

From a parent's perspective (since we're being blamed here)


No one is blaming parents (or at least not intentionally).

[gvarndell]

No one is blaming parents (or at least not intentionally).

Hhmm, then I must have missed the point of the cartoon and what it explains. :)

[JaneYoung]

Hhmm, then I must have missed the point of the cartoon and what it explains. :)

Outside influences should be considered. Children are exposed to a barrage of influences that don't start or stop with the parental role models. It is your assumption that the voice is the parent's.

It wasn't too long ago that I was told that I needed to learn to: cook, clean, iron, and sew; that those skills would be needed when I got married. When my father was dying with cancer, among his last thoughts and worries that he shared with his wife, my mother, was that she taught me everything I needed to know: cook, clean, iron, and sew. The influences and traditions of their generation were guiding them in their development of their parenting skills. Change occurred (as it occurred when they were children, only differently) bringing in opportunities for educational advancement, careers where there weren't any, options where none had been considered, and voices where there had been quiet near silence.

Part of becoming complacent with change is the laziness of assuming. Society assumes the work is done. The attitude of: change has occurred so what's all the fuss about? The fuss is about the depth of the changes that have been forged and are being made in current society's approaches and views. How much time, money, and effort is expended by the culture-shaping ever powerful media - on women who make a difference in helping our world and cultures become healthier, happier, and stronger, as opposed to how the time is spent demoralizing women, showcasing rape, violence, abuse, addiction, and shallowness? How much time is spent showing that women are inventors, engineers, rocket scientists, community advocates, and powerful role models? How many companies can showcase and brag about the talented and skilled women that they've hired - with professional credentials that will make jaws drop and eyes pop?

Society has to build thicker skills, roll up its sleeves, and get to work. Nothing should be assumed or taken for granted. There's a lot of work to do, including helping comics showcase girls and women as significant and important achievers and role models who make a difference and will continue to. Impact is awesome, especially productive and influential impact when used wisely and with purpose.

Jane

[Carolyn_Grace]

I'm fascinated by this comic, as it assumes that the roles are created because of outside influences, instead of how each child is themselves. It's taking a stance that the reason there are not as many women in engineering is because they are treated differently as children and given different toys, and while I realize this is the case in some situations still, I think that on a large scale this concept is going out of style, at least in the United States.

For example: I teach preschool, in an middle-upper class area in Michigan. My classroom is full of 4-5 year olds. We have quite the toy choices in our rooms, and we never tell the children what they can and cannot play with baised on their gender. And we never suggest to a child that they may like a specific toy, based on their gender. And yet, 90% of the time the boys play in the block area and the girls are in the art area.

Interestingly enough, the LEGOs seems to get the most play out of everything, from both boys and girls. The difference in their play: boys build rocket ships and robots and UFOs, while the girls build houses, hotels and zoos.

From my own experience: I grew up as big a "tomboy" as they come: running barefoot through the woods, jumping in puddles, building towers with scraps of wood and smashing them down to see what happens, playing baseball and kickball and football in the street. My parents gave me trucks for my birthdays along with My Little Ponies. And still, I grew up to be more of a literary person than a math person. Perhaps if I would have had a better math teacher in middle school the outcome would have been different, but maybe not.

I'm not sure we can point to any one thing that would make more girls consider engineering as a career...but FIRST is definitely a start. As another mentor on our team has said: it's okay if you graduate from our program and decide to persure a career outside science, math and technology...as long as you learned something and can handle tools and know how to figure things out without your spouse needing to handle it all for you.

[Dragon Princess]

You know, I was always given dolls as a kid. They all banded together and formed a congress, and poor Ken was banned from the doll house, and the females converted Barbies fantasy home into a work shop. They used it to fix Barbies air plane and cars.
They really should make more toys that aren't directed at just one gender, and people shouldn't force their ideals of what girls can do on children. It's really unfair.

[Mikell Taylor]

I don't think there's any individual to "blame", and I don't want to accuse anyone of bad parenting. There are tremendous social pressures to do many things when you raise kids, and gender roles are just part of it. Personally, if/when I become a parent, my goal will be to expose my kids to everything I can -- art, music, engineering, science, reading, whatever -- in a variety of ways to make sure they know what's open to them. Maybe my daughter(s) will still go in to nursing and my son(s) will still be engineers, but that's fine -- as long as I feel like I've given them all a fair chance to find something they love.

I remember at one point reading some pop sci article on gendered toys, and the article referenced a study where a variety of toys were given to chimpanzees to play with. Apparently the female chimpanzees, in addition to choosing dolls, regularly chose to play with "pink-colored kitchen toys." The article concluded that female apes (including humans) are biologically programmed to like these sorts of things. My question: how the hell does a chimpanzee know what kitchen tools are or do and since when would an ape consider cooking a role for either gender?

We don't know for sure whether it's all nature, all nurture, or somewhere in between. If it is nature, we can't change it. If it is nurture to any degree, we can influence it -- and why shouldn't we work to give everyone a shot at a fun, exciting, lucrative career like engineering and science?

[JaneYoung]

Chain is like a woman. High maintenance.

I just noticed that this quote has been spotlit from a technical thread here in CD. I'm saddened that it was included as one of the cons of chain in technical thread, that someone decided to spotlight it, and that one of the moderators decided to approve the spotlight.

Clearly, there is still work to do.

Yes, this type of thinking puts my knickers in a twist.

Jane

[Akash Rastogi]

I just noticed that this quote has been spotlit from a technical thread here in CD. I'm saddened that it was included as one of the cons of chain in technical thread, that someone decided to spotlight it, and that one of the moderators decided to approve the spotlight.

Clearly, there is still work to do.

Yes, this type of thinking puts my knickers in a twist.

Jane

?

Its just a joke.


.

[JaneYoung]

?

Its just a joke.


.

What is the purpose of the joke in relationship to the chain?

[Chris is me]

?

Its just a joke.


.

It also reinforces gender stereotypes and in general sets the change in the culture we're all pushing for exactly backward.

[princessnatalie]

It also reinforces gender stereotypes and in general sets the change in the culture we're all pushing for exactly backward.

Exactly.

I feel that despite all the hard work women put into FIRST and engineering, we will always be looked down upon, and its terrible.
There is more to every woman than just her looks. The girls on my team and I have cried because of the sterotypes that keep being forced on us no matter how hard we are trying to change them. Its 'jokes' like these that hurt the most, especially when they come from people in a community that is supposed to support engineering and technology in everyone.

The comic is interesting.
When I first saw it, I thought of Mary Wollstonecraft, who believed that the reason why women were constantly inferior to men was due to their lack of education. As a young child, I played with dolls. I am 15 and still play with dolls. I also grew up playing with my legos, and building stuff with my father. I sew alot, and I am a total 'girly girl'. But at the same time I want to be an engineer. I love science. The reason I do is because of my education. Outside influences at a young age obviously help shape people, however so does education. I think that even if I never built little trinkets with my father when I was four, and only played with dolls, I would still want to be an engineer. My eductation is what made me want that, not the toys I played with when I was four.

[Madison]

?

Its just a joke.


.

Oh, those crazy women!

The joke isn't funny.

I am not terribly shocked that it would be nominated for the spotlight, as the attitude it presents is as pervasive in FIRST as everywhere else.

I am baffled as to how or why it was approved and would like to see it removed immediately.

[JaneYoung]

One thing that I do when reading technical threads (and yes, NEMS read technical threads - I'll give some reasons in a minute... ) is to count the number of posts made by males and by females. If I don't know or can't tell the gender, I take a guess. Try it sometime and see what the ratios are. Do the same thing in the FIRST fora and Q&A. Excuses can be made but they will not be strong enough to hold water or to straighten/strengthen chain.

Reasons why a NEM (non-engineering mentor) reads technical threads:
- to broaden awareness and deepen understanding
- to send links to technical mentors and sub-teams in areas that I know the team is working in or thinking about
- to enjoy and deepen my respect for the engineers and technical mentors - and to also gain an appreciation for the curiosity, interest, and talent of the students

Those are just a few of the reasons that I read the threads as a NEM. As a woman who is a mentor, I read them to look at the ratio. I am also looking for engineers and technical mentors who are women. And sadly, I'm looking for jokes that cast women and girls in a light that is demeaning, degrading, rude, thoughtless, and old as the hills.

Jane

[gblake]

We can try to suppress comments like the high-maintenance one, or we can rob them of any power by embracing them, and by balancing them with a few reasons why men and chains are similar.

I, for one, prefer educating the stereotype sources by converting the stereotypes into badges of honor, instead of by castigating those who express them.

The next time a female FIRST participant is told that women are high-maintenance, I suggest that she agree, and then fulfill the stereotype by telling whoever uttered the comment to quickly fetch the tools that she needs to complete whatever useful job she is working on.

Blake
PS: Of course if the world were a black and white place, multi-dimensional conversations like this one would collapse into right and wrong and be pretty easily concluded. However, it ain't.

[Cheerleader1073]

Hey everyone, this is a good discussion! When you have time, sign up and bring it on over to the US FIRST Girls forums at www.usfirstgirls.org. (you don't have to be a girl to sign up, it's our ongoing initiative to figure out how to encourage more girls to join FIRST and be comfortable pursuing STEM majors)!

Thanks!

[Mikell Taylor]

You're absolutely right. Too many men will be distracted by women in the workplace if we let them in.

The answer, of course, is to hire exclusively women, who aren't distracted from their work by such idiocy.

[N7UJJ]

If you have not noticed, women in the united states only just got their voting rights in the last century, not what do you think about the transition for the society to accept women in the work force instead of being in the kitchen? A LONG TIME... Look, we humans have been around for thousands of years, and 1 century is a short time compared to thousands of years. Even now, its the man that is dominant in everything, marriage: the women inherit men's family name, men are stronger, therefore can do the hard duty work. Now to a CEO who would you rather hire, a man without monthly "problems" (I say problems because emotions can hugely affect your life and your relationships with your coworkers), men are mostly left brained, which is where majority of engineering and math and logic and other stuff are processed, the women are opposite, right brain dominant. Also imagine, would the productivity of the group go down if you start hiring beautiful women into your workspace? Now, if I was that guy, I would pay attention to the women not mah work (guys, you know that will happen). Sure I think its great for women to get jobs in the engineering field, but its just not "the woman's job".


In before flamage: I am just stating my opinions, sure they might sound rude or arrogant, but I think men now days are losing the chivalry

edit: there are some girls on our team, but the strange thing is that they were all working with wood and stuff, the "manly job" of a carpenter, they made the field and stuff, all the other guys were working on the robot, and the biggest irony is that our team has a history of "big and burly" men programming and not doing hardware... and the skinny guys do the hard ware. Kinda opposite of what you think

I am overwhelmed. I think I'll let Jane answer this one.

[princessnatalie]

If you have not noticed, women in the united states only just got their voting rights in the last century, not what do you think about the transition for the society to accept women in the work force instead of being in the kitchen? A LONG TIME... Look, we humans have been around for thousands of years, and 1 century is a short time compared to thousands of years. Even now, its the man that is dominant in everything, marriage: the women inherit men's family name, men are stronger, therefore can do the hard duty work. Now to a CEO who would you rather hire, a man without monthly "problems" (I say problems because emotions can hugely affect your life and your relationships with your coworkers), men are mostly left brained, which is where majority of engineering and math and logic and other stuff are processed, the women are opposite, right brain dominant. Also imagine, would the productivity of the group go down if you start hiring beautiful women into your workspace? Now, if I was that guy, I would pay attention to the women not mah work (guys, you know that will happen). Sure I think its great for women to get jobs in the engineering field, but its just not "the woman's job".


In before flamage: I am just stating my opinions, sure they might sound rude or arrogant, but I think men now days are losing the chivalry

edit: there are some girls on our team, but the strange thing is that they were all working with wood and stuff, the "manly job" of a carpenter, they made the field and stuff, all the other guys were working on the robot, and the biggest irony is that our team has a history of "big and burly" men programming and not doing hardware... and the skinny guys do the hard ware. Kinda opposite of what you think


edit: I find it pretty hot if the girl actually know WTF I am talking about, that is if they are attractive in the first place...

What makes engineering a mans job?
The fact that they are not driven by emotion?
The fact that they are left brained?
Women add creativity to a problem, and that is needed to solve any problem.

[davidthefat]

Hey, people take a very long time to adjust to changes, like African Americans, (no racist) just look, there are still so much hate for these wonderful people, not as much as like 50 years ago, but still present

[Mikell Taylor]

You know, David, I do want to respond to your post seriously, now that I've gotten my snark in.

You're right that it can take society a long time to change its opinion on things Society as a whole needs lots of things to happen before something becomes a cultural norm. But that doesn't mean individual people can't start thinking differently and progressively and helping this change along. In fact, it can make life a lot better for the people you interact with every day - like the women on your team.

So, since you were so willing to share with us all the reasons "society" isn't ready for women to be doing men's work, I ask you, what's preventing *you* from being okay with it, or thinking it's something perfectly normal and not unusual? What will it take for you to be able to stop saying "weird, the girls were doing the manly work" and just say "the girls were doing great work"?

[Karthik]

I've been trying to make my presence on Chief Delphi scarce, but at times like this I can't resist to toss in my two cents.

If you have not noticed, women in the united states only just got their voting rights in the last century, not what do you think about the transition for the society to accept women in the work force instead of being in the kitchen? A LONG TIME... Look, we humans have been around for thousands of years, and 1 century is a short time compared to thousands of years. Even now, its the man that is dominant in everything, marriage: the women inherit men's family name, men are stronger, therefore can do the hard duty work. Now to a CEO who would you rather hire, a man without monthly "problems" (I say problems because emotions can hugely affect your life and your relationships with your coworkers), men are mostly left brained, which is where majority of engineering and math and logic and other stuff are processed, the women are opposite, right brain dominant. Also imagine, would the productivity of the group go down if you start hiring beautiful women into your workspace? Now, if I was that guy, I would pay attention to the women not mah work (guys, you know that will happen). Sure I think its great for women to get jobs in the engineering field, but its just not "the woman's job".


In before flamage: I am just stating my opinions, sure they might sound rude or arrogant,

No, it's less about your opinions sounding rude or arrogant, but about them sounding completely idiotic. I'm overwhelmed by the amount of ignorance shown in one post. The sad thing is, the viewpoints of the poster are shared by many, but most are at least savvy enough to keep idiocy to themselves.

I'd do a point by point dissection of the inaccuracies and ignorance of the post, but that would only serve to give this poster more attention that he desperately craves.

[davidthefat]

I've been trying to make my presence on Chief Delphi scarce, but at times like this I can't resist to toss in my two cents.



No, it's less about your opinions sounding rude or arrogant, but about them sounding completely idiotic. I'm overwhelmed by the amount of ignorance shown in one post. The sad thing is, the viewpoints of the poster are shared by many, but most are at least savvy enough to keep idiocy to themselves.

I'd do a point by point dissection of the inaccuracies and ignorance of the post, but that would only serve to give this poster more attention that he desperately craves.

Now is it really bad for not conforming to society and saying what is "politically" correct?

edit: you know what really pisses me off? calling me an idiot for expressing my ideas and opinions, I think YOU are the ignorant one here buddy. Keep more open minded will ya? Just because I do not agree with the majority of the group does not mean I am neither ignorant or an idiot, sure arrogant I agree on. But never idiot or ignorant.

[Tom Line]

My 3 boys love their dolls, and I have no problems with them playing with them.

Of course, the dolls are wearing digital camo, driving M1's and SR-71's, and sport M-5's and AK's.

Does Barbie come in Desert-Camo with a Sniper Rifle? :D

[Rick TYler]

edit: you know what really pisses me off? calling me an idiot for expressing my ideas and opinions, I think YOU are the ignorant one here buddy.

In fact, Karthik did not call YOU an idiot, he expressed the incredibly wise and well-informed opinion that what you wrote was idiotic, an opinion with which I wholeheartedly concur.

[Karthik]

Now is it really bad for not conforming to society and saying what is "politically" correct?

edit: you know what really pisses me off? calling me an idiot for expressing my ideas and opinions, I think YOU are the ignorant one here buddy. Keep more open minded will ya? Just because I do not agree with the majority of the group does not mean I am neither ignorant or an idiot, sure arrogant I agree on. But never idiot or ignorant.

First off, let's get one thing clear, I am not your buddy.

No, I think I'm being fairly open minded here. I've seen enough of posts on these forums by you that are either factually incorrect, make no sense or are just offensive. If you don't think there's something ignorant and idiotic about saying that women shouldn't be CEOs because they menstruate monthly, or that companies shouldn't hire attractive women because they distract men, then you're the one who really needs to open his mind.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Now is it really bad for not conforming to society and saying what is "politically" correct?

edit: you know what really pisses me off? calling me an idiot for expressing my ideas and opinions, I think YOU are the ignorant one here buddy. Keep more open minded will ya? Just because I do not agree with the majority of the group does not mean I am neither ignorant or an idiot, sure arrogant I agree on. But never idiot or ignorant.

Move along folks, don't feed the troll...

[davidthefat]

In fact, Karthik did not call YOU an idiot, he expressed the incredibly wise and well-informed opinion that what you wrote was idiotic, an opinion with which I wholeheartedly concur.

So saying something someone does not agree with is pure idiocy? Then his opinion is pure idiocy too. Now that I say it, people are going to say its not true, so are you saying truth is relative or absolute?

[gblake]

...
In before flamage: I am just stating my opinions, sure they might sound rude or arrogant, but I think men now days are losing the chivalry
...No those opinions don't sound rude or agrrogant - They are purposefully rude. There is no "might" about it.

Writing or saying self-destructive things like your post below is no way to go through the rest of your life. Choose a better path. Many are available.

Blake

[Steve W]

Enough is enough. I am closing this thread for 24 hours and then will reopen. If the same discussion continues it will be closed for good.

[Rick TYler]

Women add creativity to a problem, and that is needed to solve any problem.

You want to avoid this sort of prejudice, which I believe is just as irrational as that you disagree with. I have not noticed than many have any special advantage in solving technical problems, just as I haven't noticed that women are not -- on the whole -- any more creative than men.

In general, overall, with great individual variation that swamps the central tendencies, women in the US seem to use a different approach to problem solving than men, but I haven't noticed that it is any better or worse.

I suggest focusing on the skills, abilities and personalities of individuals more than clumping them into groups. It's how I try to live and it works pretty well. There is nothing wrong to using pattern recognition ("prejudice") to scan your social environment. Humans have developed this to survive. If you think about it, "prejudice" is a subset of pattern-recognition that can keep you alive ("large creatures with sharp teeth could eat me," "hollow trees with no leaves can fall on me," "those strangers with pointy sticks might mean to hurt me," "that old person with bad skin, patchy hair, and no teeth might not be the best person with whom to make a family" and so on), but there is no reason to over-apply this, especially in a work environment. Pattern-recognition generates probabilities, not certainty. If you live by your prejudices, in the sense of "pre-judging" people, you will make a lot of mistakes and limit your experience.

[Steve W]

Thread has been re opened. Please be good.

[JaneYoung]

I am overwhelmed. I think I'll let Jane answer this one.

David has agreed to work on a little bit of a 'homework' assignment with me. It may take a little while so please be patient.

David, please refrain from posting in this thread (for now) and everyone who got caught up in the whole situation, please let's:
a. move on
b. use care while posting
c. refrain from getting this thread closed permanently

I, as much as anyone, enjoy and appreciate excellent discussions. We're strong enough as a community to discuss girls and women in the fields of science, technology, and engineering and the role that society plays in fueling our frustrations and/or lack of understanding.

Jane

P.S. Thank you for re-opening the thread, Steve.

[ajd]

We can try to suppress comments like the high-maintenance one, or we can rob them of any power by embracing them, and by balancing them with a few reasons why men and chains are similar.


The trouble with retaliation, in my opinion, is that it can cause more damage than it solves. We consider sexism (and many other forms of discrimination) "bad" because it demeans an entire group of people. Retaliating against one man's sexist comment by attacking men in general is very similar in effect to "retaliating" against one woman's "high-maintenanceness" by attacking women in general.

[Chris is me]

The trouble with retaliation, in my opinion, is that it can cause more damage than it solves. We consider sexism (and many other forms of discrimination) "bad" because it demeans an entire group of people. Retaliating against one man's sexist comment by attacking men in general is very similar in effect to "retaliating" against one woman's "high-maintenanceness" by attacking women in general.

I don't think anyone was attacking men in general for that comment though.

[Tom Line]

I'd like to introduce David to my wife some time.

She has a 4 year degree in Nursing, having paid her own way through college. She was on her college track team, and completed in shot-put and javelin as well. She cooks, plumbs, does electrical work and has, on several occasions, gone to the house next door to change his flat tire. She's better grounded and adjusted than I am, and is far better at raising our three boys than I am. While I am an engineer and she is not, when we took an IQ test she scored higher than I did.

I am in awe of her.

[gblake]

The trouble with retaliation, ... by attacking men in general is very similar in effect to "retaliating" against one woman's "high-maintenanceness" by attacking women in general.

We can try to suppress comments like the high-maintenance one, or we can rob them of any power by embracing them, and by balancing them with a few reasons why men and chains are similar.

I, for one, prefer educating the stereotype sources by converting the stereotypes into badges of honor, instead of by castigating those who express them.
...
ajd - Your reply makes me think that you missed my point.

I recommend getting past the point where posting a wry reason or two about why chain drives are like men would be retaliation. Retaliation implies that one group has allowed themselves to be hurt and now they are doing something that will hurt the original perpetrators.

You can't hurt me by comparing males to chains. I know that any comparison is simply irrelevant except in stand-up comedy and in the unavoidable human tendency to use simplifying stereotypes to create abstract mental-models of everything they encounter.

Using humor to shine a light on those stereotypes is often a useful way to bring them into our conscious thoughts and to defuse them.

I am encouraging all females to adopt a similar "you can't hurt me" attitude, to avoid getting mired in any attempts prevent such utterances, and to instead shoot right past the situation on their way to getting some real work done.

Given 15 minutes to devote either to the comment or to completing a good chain drive; I think spending the time on completing the drive train is the better short- and long-term choice.

The "high maintenance" phrase only has as much power as we give to it. I suggest giving it very little.

Blake

[JamesBrown]

This is a really interesting thread. I am currently working for Hasbro, one of the two major toy companies. Interestingly Hasbro dominates the Boy market, and Mattel controls the Girl market (almost entirely because of Barbie)

Starting with a couple of interesting facts. The boy market sells as many dolls as the girl market every year, we just call them action figures. However a huge number of robotic/animatronic toys are marketed towards girls, they are just wrapped in fur and made to look like animals.

I have a question for the women who have posted. There is no question that boys are more likely to buy engineering type toys than girls. I mean things like robot sets, Lego sets, etc. Why is this? Is there something in our culture that tells girls that building things is not feminine enough, or is it just marketing and branding? Lego's major branded kits are: Star Wars, Batman, SpongeBob SquarePants, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, Ben 10, Toy Story and Thomas the Tank Engine. Most of which are considered boy brands in the toy industry (Harry Potter and Toy Story are Unisex). This leads me to believe that the lack of attraction to the product is not the product itself but the branding. Girls are less likely to watch Star Wars or Ben 10. Do you think that if Lego branded a kit as My Little Pony or Barbie (Never going to happen since both licenses are owned by competitors), where you could build houses and such for theme play in those brands, girls would be more attracted to it? I know that in one case my cousin (5 year old girl) loves Star Wars and loves the Lego Star Wars sets. I don't think that she is tom-boyish in her toy preferences. I think she simply likes the Star Wars brand and likes Legos because they are essentially Unisex. It is worth noting that young children regardless of gender build with blocks, some how that is lost around school age. I think that the issue is simply branding and marketing of building toys for this age group.

Working on the same idea, since there is little media directed towards girls that prominently features robots do you think it is possible to disguise robots as something that culture pushes towards girls. For example, If a robot kit came with Fur that could be used to cover the creation would that be more appealing to girls? This would allow them to build there own pets, the animatronic pet market is already directed towards girls. This would allow the engineering play to be disguised as making pets, the same way that it is disguised for boy as making star wars characters (or Transformers or any other brand) then at an older age when the role play aspect is not as significant the higher level building kits (Mindstorms, Vex) could be marketed as Unisex.

This turned out longer than expected but I kind of got on a roll.

I also would like to note that to date, the two smartest, and most talented engineers I have met are both women (both chemical engineers).

[Cynette]

We can try to suppress comments like the high-maintenance one, or we can rob them of any power by embracing them, and by balancing them with a few reasons why men and chains are similar.

I, for one, prefer educating the stereotype sources by converting the stereotypes into badges of honor, instead of by castigating those who express them."we can rob them of any power by embracing them"

I seem to hear this concept frequently by generations younger than me. I don't think it works. My daughter has taken several courses centered around various stereotypes in society and we have had this discussion several times. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok for members of the African-American community to use the "N" word on one another saying it robs that word of power by embracing it. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok for the "F" word to be used as a speech-filler saying it robs that word of power by embracing it. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok to tell ethnic jokes because humor robs those stereotypes of power by embracing them.

And as tough of a skin as we develop and as much of a "you can't hurt me" attitude as we put on, those words confirming those stereotypes still tear us down.

What I have learned from discussions with my daughter is that we all have prejudices. It's what we do about the prejudices that is a measure of our character.

I don't think we should convert sterotypes into badges of honor, because most stereotypes are not honorable, but rather take the time to ask where the impression came from and try to provide examples of where the stereotype is not accurate.

Girls in engineering (the topic of this thread) - I think it really comes down to sales and marketing. Girls can grow up to be anything they want. What is the engineering community doing to make a career in engineering the most attractive option for those young women ready to make a career decision?

James - I'll be interested to see what feedback you get. Maybe the lessons of a toy company can give us insight into marketing engineering to attract young women in the same way it attracts young men.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Girls in engineering (the topic of this thread) - I think it really comes down to sales and marketing. Girls can grow up to be anything they want. What is the engineering community doing to make a career in engineering the most attractive option for those young women ready to make a career decision?

Why is it the engineering community's job to attract young women to the field? Shouldn't we merely be presenting the facts to everyone and letting them make an informed decision?

[mikelowry]

Gender stereotyping is the same as racial stereotyping, in that it will never disappear until we make it a non-factor.

Generally, women tend to be different than men. No one can dispute that. But individually, there is as much difference between members of the same sex as there is between members of opposite sexes. So much so, that the generality doesn't matter.

We dont need more women engineers. Saying that we do is just placing more emphasis on the generality that doesnt matter. We are making gender a factor when it shouldn't be. What we need is more engineers, wether they be women or men, or if they are black, white, asian, hispanic, or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Granted, there are cultural norms that dissuade women from becoming engineers, and anything that is stopping individual people, women OR men, from becoming what they want, whatever they want, needs to be stopped.

[JamesBrown]

Why is it the engineering community's job to attract young women to the field? Shouldn't we merely be presenting the facts to everyone and letting them make an informed decision?

The engineering community should attempt to market it self to young women for the same reason marketing for any community or business should market itself to a new demographic. The group (young women in this case) has a resource (brain power) that is needed by the organization.

Just because the info that engineering is a beneficial and profitable field to get into is out there doesn't mean that the people we want to have see it are seeing it. Even the best products in the world don't market them selves.

[Alan Anderson]

Why is it the engineering community's job to attract young women to the field? Shouldn't we merely be presenting the facts to everyone and letting them make an informed decision?

It might not be the responsibility of "the engineering community", but it's definitely in the interests of of FIRST to attract everyone. If that means targeted marketing, that's what we should do.

The goal is to change the culture. We have a pretty good idea what we want to change it to. However, it's not counterproductive to recognize what we want to change it from. We need to apply forces in the right places and in the right directions to make the changes. If that means implicitly acknowledging that society in general seems to make unnecessary distinctions between boys and girls, so be it. Just leave those distinctions in the background and don't give them undue attention. They aren't a law of nature; they are a feature of the culture. If absolutely everybody acts as if they do not exist, eventually they won't.

[Mikell Taylor]

James, that's a really interesting question. Here are my thoughts.

I think it's less that kids want to buy gendered stuff than it is that well-meaning grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, and friends buy them for them. One of my coworkers had a daughter two years ago and he and his wife were determined to raise her without pink girliness; they bought all her clothes in non-pink colors, painted the nursery green, etc. But all their family and friends, who knew they were having a girl, bought her pink stuff. And of course they're not going to say no to gifts, or throw away perfectly good baby stuff, so this kid is wearing a lot more pink than her parents intended. At some point, will she notice that she and the other girls at preschool wear a lot of pink, and the boys wear a lot of blue, and make some conclusions about that?

As far as toys go, again, I think it has to do with outside influences. I was born around the time Cabbage Patch Kids first became popular, and my aunt was determined to get me one; my mother actually tried to convince her she didn't want me to have one. My aunt finally snuck one to me, because "I needed a doll." (My mom compromised by getting it a spacesuit outfit) I'm the oldest kid in my family, and my parents - including my mother, who was in the first class of female navigators in the Air National Guard, so she was very non-traditional - did a great job of getting me all kinds of scientific stuff to play with as a kid, but never engineering stuff -- they just didn't know about it, or what kind of toys future engineers should have. (Note that my parents DID want me to be an engineer; Mom wanted an astronaut in the family. No kidding.) I never owned my own set of LEGO. My younger brother was given LEGO by family members once he was old enough, and I kind of played with them then, but by that point -- when I was six or so -- I knew what toys I thought I liked best, so I played with and asked for those, not for the "boy" toys my brother was always given. I remember my (male) FIRST mentors being shocked that not a single girl on my team had a clue what an Erector Set was.

I was also heavily influenced by what my friends had. My best friend had a Polly Pocket? Well then obviously I must too! Granted, it sat unused in my closet for all but approximately ten minutes of my ownership of it, but I had to have it!

As a side note, I remember a commercial I saw a couple years ago -- might have been Hasbro, actually -- that showed this multi-purpose toy for boys. There were knobs and buttons and shapes and all these exciting things. The commercial actually said, "He can ride around, learn his shapes, and build things -- everything little boys need know!" or something to that effect. The equivalent girls' toy had a separate commercial I found online. There were no shapes to play with and the thing was painted pink. The commercial made no mentioned of girls needing to learn to play with shapes. That really struck me (and ticked me off, but that's a separate issue).

I'm sure there are plenty of natural influences; as I stated earlier in the thread, it's not that I believe men and women are identical and we all think the same way; we have different biological influences we're all programmed to respond to, and those trickle up to interactions in our society. But I think there's a lot of obvious socialization going on that tends to influence people one way or another, for better or for worse, and we need to understand that and how it may influence people away from opportunities everyone should have.

And I don't want to accuse parents and grandparents and whomever else of ruining kids or anything. I know everyone has the best of intentions in mind. I just think it's easy to fall into stereotypes when it's constantly being marketed to you, and it takes awareness and work to help people work outside those boxes.

[JaneYoung]

I have a question for the women who have posted. There is no question that boys are more likely to buy engineering type toys than girls. I mean things like robot sets, Lego sets, etc. Why is this? Is there something in our culture that tells girls that building things is not feminine enough, or is it just marketing and branding?

A lot of it is in the packaging and what the product is capable of. I'll give 2 examples that I've witnessed:

1. our team has developed a camp that we offer several times a year to children of different ages. This amounts to about 1/2 of day for the 'beginners'. They are in small groups and each group works with one of our students as their mentor. Last summer I was at one of the camps and took some photos and I kept returning to this one small group - all girls. That's just how it worked out. I noticed that they had taken the legos they were using and made a face on the floor - big large face - and I was concerned about the actual building and programming of the project but the mentor seemed fine. Later, I asked about it - one of the girls had just started moving the pieces around to create the face while they were still working on their robot. The group had that as well as a robot, plus one of the girls had programmed it to play Happy Birthday. When they left the camp, the girls skipped out of the shop - happy. They had had a very productive and a very fun day. And their mentor had given them the space and guidance they needed to have that.

2. We sold Hexbugs as one of our fundraisers. I worked the table a couple of times and I noticed that the boys would come up and say, 'cool' and go running off to find the adult with the money so they could show them. The girls would watch/observe and then ask, 'what does it do?'. The girls seemed to want the bugs to perform a task rather than just move. When told what they would do, the common movement that I saw was a shrug and they'd kind of slide away, still thinking. One of our parents is really great at explaining the different Hexbugs and what they were capable of doing and it appeared that many of the young girls wanted a small task involved. We sold to both, boys and girls, but the girls seemed to ask more questions.

Many children are problem solvers. I think that is one reason that puzzles are so fun. That said, I have seen parents decide that a problem can only be solved a certain way and tell the child how to do it, rather than present the problem to be solved (or the opportunity) and let the child/children go for it.

You also have to look at the part of the marketing that sets up the product to be sold and how that impacts the sales in the media and also in the aisles of the stores. The team was doing a demo in the lobby of the movie theater when Wall-E was showing. I was standing over by the area where families were lining their children up to drive one of our BEST robots. A little girl had been waiting very patiently with her mom and I was getting concerned that our batteries were just about out of power so I began talking with the little girl about what she liked about Wall-E. She immediately, without any hesitation, said, 'he has a toy like mine - a square.' She was around 4. The toy she had that her mother said she has almost worn out was a Rubik's Cube. Did she find that toy on the Barbie aisle in a toy store or was she (or the giver) in a different aisle or area?

Jane

Edit: Mikell, high five!

--
Regarding the high maintenance comment.
Many girls and women are not high maintenance, have never been, and will never be. It is frustrating to hear, read, and contend with that comment/mentality. If males seek a high maintenance image/icon/role model as their ideal of what a woman is, then they are only looking at a small subset of the diverse interests, skills, talents, and demands that are available to women. If young girls and women are looking at icons to emulate that fit within that mindset, they are often looking at a role model that works in the extremes.

Over the past few years, I've heard the philosophy about not giving power to a word or a phrase. I don't buy it. If the suggestion is to listen to the phrase and then order the person who said it to go do something, then what messages are being encouraged/sent and - are they mixed messages? Why make the situation worse or add drama?

[Andrew Schreiber]

If that means implicitly acknowledging that society in general seems to make unnecessary distinctions between boys and girls, so be it. Just leave those distinctions in the background and don't give them undue attention. They aren't a law of nature; they are a feature of the culture. If absolutely everybody acts as if they do not exist, eventually they won't.

This was what I was concerned about. The engineering community pressuring (for want of a better term) women to go into engineering the same way they have traditionally been pressured away from it. Is it better to steer someone away from a career they might like or into a career they might not like? To me they are two sides of the same coin and neither side is very good.

For reference, I do think that we have a stereotype to change. I do think we need more women in engineering but I have some concerns about pressuring anyone to do something they may not enjoy.

[JamesBrown]

2. We sold Hexbugs as one of our fundraisers. I worked the table a couple of times and I noticed that the boys would come up and say, 'cool' and go running off to find the adult with the money so they could show them. The girls would watch/observe and then ask, 'what does it do?'. The girls seemed to want the bugs to perform a task rather than just move. When told what they would do, the common movement that I saw was a shrug and they'd kind of slide away, still thinking. One of our parents is really great at explaining the different Hexbugs and what they were capable of doing and it appeared that many of the young girls wanted a small task involved.



This is an interesting observation. I am not really sure what to make of it though. What I find interesting about it is how it compares to Zhu Zhu pets. Which offer essentially the same play pattern as Hex Bugs but come in a more relate able wrapper (they look like hamsters). The Zhu Zhu pets were extremely popular with girls (and fairly popular with boys). I wonder how much of this (if any) relates to media. There is little media for girls that give them a reference for robotic bugs, however there is plenty that give them a reference for small animals.

[JaneYoung]

There is little media for girls that give them a reference for robotic bugs, however there is plenty that give them a reference for small animals.

Media manipulates. That is its job. It does it well.

That's why there is such a need for wise mentors in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and math.

Jane

P.S. When responsible media learns to help children explore the possibilities of thinking - then they will be working with the mentors and not in direct opposition.

[oddjob]

The stereotypes are there because they reflect actual circumstances. Until this generation, most females were stay at home mothers, and hence, young girls were given baby dolls to dress and toy kitchens to set appropriate expectations. Meanwhile, the boys had toy soldiers and cars so they could learn to fight in war and drive to work. As society changes, the stereotypes WILL change over time. Even so, on average, there are real measurable differences in brain development for males and females so what exactly is "equality"?

Obviously we are talking about most of the modern societies, not the parts of the world where women can't show their face in public, can't attend school, are forced into arranged marriages to bigamists, "honor" killings if they don't conform, etc.. That clash of civilizations has not been resolving itself peacefully, but keep hope alive and it's perfectly ok to judge one is better than the other.

[JamesCH95]

Both of my parents are PhD engineers. My mom is also PE, has a couple patents, and has won several awards related to her research. When I was 7 I told my mom "You know mom, boys can be engineers too" after the 3rd SWE conference I had been to. Clearly I do not have prejudices against women, let alone women in engineering.

I want to just share two anecdotal experiences:

In my senior design class we split into three teams to design machines that all had to perform a similar task. It just so happened that (in teams of five) there were no girls on one team, two girls on one team, and four girls on the third team. I know from observation that on the team with four girls, the girls spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about what to do and did not finish their project by the end of the semester. The team with 2 girls finished, but the machine broke on test day. The all-male team finished (barely) and their machine survived test day.

A contrasting story:

I also was a designer for my college's Chem-E car team. In that competition the team was roughly half-girls. They dominated both the design presentation, the safety presentation, and ran the pit and car preparation with an iron fist. In two years our team had a top-10 finish and were national champions with a nation safety award and national+regional design presentation awards.

My point with these two stories is that many people are biased by their own experiences. I know the single guy on the design team was totally fed up with all the girls on his design team that wasted a ton of time needlessly arguing, whereas I was incredibly proud of the girls on on the chem-e car team and would work with them again in a heartbeat.

Perspective is everything, and I think precious few people have had the unique perspective I grew up with. Don't get too worked up at male engineers who might have a slanted view on women in engineering, work to show them that they are wrong.

Also: don't argue with stupid, there are some things you can't fix. *don't feed the troll*

[Madison]

Both of my parents are PhD engineers. My mom is also PE, has a couple patents, and has won several awards related to her research. When I was 7 I told my mom "You know mom, boys can be engineers too" after the 3rd SWE conference I had been to. Clearly I do not have prejudices against women, let alone women in engineering.

I want to just share two anecdotal experiences:

In my senior design class we split into three teams to design machines that all had to perform a similar task. It just so happened that (in teams of five) there were no girls on one team, two girls on one team, and four girls on the third team. I know from observation that on the team with four girls, the girls spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about what to do and did not finish their project by the end of the semester. The team with 2 girls finished, but the machine broke on test day. The all-male team finished (barely) and their machine survived test day.

A contrasting story:

I also was a designer for my college's Chem-E car team. In that competition the team was roughly half-girls. They dominated both the design presentation, the safety presentation, and ran the pit and car preparation with an iron fist. In two years our team had a top-10 finish and were national champions with a nation safety award and national+regional design presentation awards.

My point with these two stories is that many people are biased by their own experiences. I know the single guy on the design team was totally fed up with all the girls on his design team that wasted a ton of time needlessly arguing, whereas I was incredibly proud of the girls on on the chem-e car team and would work with them again in a heartbeat.

Perspective is everything, and I think precious few people have had the unique perspective I grew up with. Don't get too worked up at male engineers who might have a slanted view on women in engineering, work to show them that they are wrong.

Also: don't argue with stupid, there are some things you can't fix. *don't feed the troll*

In my mind, these groups represent different mixes of people and personalities and the gender of the participants probably had little to do with how successful they were.

[rotolomi]

Now is it really bad for not conforming to society and saying what is "politically" correct?

edit: you know what really pisses me off? calling me an idiot for expressing my ideas and opinions, I think YOU are the ignorant one here buddy. Keep more open minded will ya? Just because I do not agree with the majority of the group does not mean I am neither ignorant or an idiot, sure arrogant I agree on. But never idiot or ignorant.

It's really quite funny that YOU are telling someone else to be more "open minded", when you're the one who isn't open to accepting women as engineers. No one here is trying to stop you from sharing your opinion, but what is trying to be said is that you need to create a respectable argument before you try and pass something off as intelligent fact. I think we all need a reminder that your opinion is not always the right one, and opinion is NEVER fact. Your opinion is not idiotic, nor are you. Your argument is idiotic and ignorant. "'Monthly problems' that hugely effect relationships between coworkers"? You clearly are not exposed to women often, it's not like we transform into a werewolf for a week every 30 days.
Now, no one's stopping you from sharing your opinion, and no one's stopping you from looking like an ignorant idiot as you attempt to back up your opinion with weak generalized assumptions. But no one will respect your opinion, and we will most certainly not respect you.

[JamesCH95]

In my mind, these groups represent different mixes of people and personalities and the gender of the participants probably had little to do with how successful they were.

I do not disagree with you, correlation does not mean causation. My point is that it is very easy to reach a different/incorrect conclusion if you only have half of a data set.

[MadeAtMidnight]

Changes in any field takes time, but over 50% of our last medical student class are female. :)

[Chris is me]

This was what I was concerned about. The engineering community pressuring (for want of a better term) women to go into engineering the same way they have traditionally been pressured away from it. Is it better to steer someone away from a career they might like or into a career they might not like? To me they are two sides of the same coin and neither side is very good.

For reference, I do think that we have a stereotype to change. I do think we need more women in engineering but I have some concerns about pressuring anyone to do something they may not enjoy.

On the same token, it is a lot easier to subtly and unconsciously pressure women into not pursing engineering than it is to do the opposite. In the limited context of a FIRST team, how many robotics team leaders honestly believe they do nothing to dissuade women from joining any build team, but still end up with male dominated subgroups, all of the women brushed aside into Chairman's or safety work?

[kjolana1124]

I don't have a long paragraph on the subject, nor a lot of time to read though all the posts (though I may in the future so I may be quoting old points :rolleyes: ) But I have two points about this:

A. People on the team have asked me why I was there because our shop doesn't have a kitchen. Even if it's a joke...really guys?

B. New music video I found today on the whole "celebrating female stupidity" point http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUz0g2yJ7Mw

[JamesBrown]

This was what I was concerned about. The engineering community pressuring (for want of a better term) women to go into engineering the same way they have traditionally been pressured away from it. Is it better to steer someone away from a career they might like or into a career they might not like? To me they are two sides of the same coin and neither side is very good.

For reference, I do think that we have a stereotype to change. I do think we need more women in engineering but I have some concerns about pressuring anyone to do something they may not enjoy.


I don't think any one is suggesting pressuring women to go into engineering.

The general sentiment of this thread and the point in opposition to the cartoon is that we (generally) don't introduce girls to engineering thinking the way we introduce boys to it. Obviously we don't want to pressure any one into any career. However I think that the question that needs to be addressed is "Why are a higher percentage of intelligent men becoming interested in engineering than their female counter parts."

It seems, in my limited experience that many girls just never think of being an Engineer. I think that engineering as a career needs to be promoted to both genders. Senior year in HS I visited with 5th grade classes with the D.A.R.E program, the students had a chance to interview us, one popular question is what do you want to be when you grow up. I said "An Engineer" very few students knew what an engineer was. Often kids will tell you that they want to do things engineers do (i.e. build robots, be an astronaut, build rockets) however you almost never hear the term Engineer. In other countries being an Engineer is as prestigious as being a doctor or a lawyer is here. I think that this lack of exposure is even worse for girls.

[Karibou]

On the same token, it is a lot easier to subtly and unconsciously pressure women into not pursing engineering than it is to do the opposite. In the limited context of a FIRST team, how many robotics team leaders honestly believe they do nothing to dissuade women from joining any build team, but still end up with male dominated subgroups, all of the women brushed aside into Chairman's or safety work?
I'm sure that very few believe it, but very few of them would admit to it. On a somewhat related note, I attended a mentor/leadership dinner last spring, with some very highly esteemed and reputable mentors (not just from my team). They were all very shocked when they found out that I was active on the build team, was a sub-group leader, and was due to be a team captain for the next year. I was very annoyed when, earlier during the dinner, they referred to their Chairman's team as "the girls".

I'm sure that I've stated this before, in this thread or another, but I place a huge chunk of the "blame" on the media and marketing personell, who seem to still be stuck in the age-old "women belong in the kitchen" mindset. While the media IS slowly changing, many young girls only see icons that are famous for their voice, their looks, or their performance on the screen. Many shows for young kids still portray women as secretaries and men as doctors and construction workers (nevermind engineers - children see so few of those anyways).

[gblake]

...
Over the past few years, I've heard the philosophy about not giving power to a word or a phrase. I don't buy it. If the suggestion is to listen to the phrase and then order the person who said it to go do something, then what messages are being encouraged/sent and - are they mixed messages? Why make the situation worse or add drama?
The suggestion is to stand the comment on its head and turn it into a light-hearted joke on whoever said it; instead of an attack on whoever heard it.

My point is that the situation is not required to be bad in the first place, so an assumption that there is drama to be added, or something bad to be made worse, seems unfounded. There are choices involved. The situation is only bad or dramatic if the person who hears the comment chooses to consider it important, and then chooses to react to it as an attack instead of as casual banter. That listener is in charge of their own reactions, not the speaker.

I certainly don't insist that anyone change their reactions, but I do encourage it.

"we can rob them of any power by embracing them"

I seem to hear this concept frequently by generations younger than me.
There you go again - Making generalizations and stereotyping me. ;) Based on your avatar photo, I suspect that we are about the same age. Also, it appears that you, like I, learned to type back when putting two spaces at the ends of sentences was de rigueur.

I don't think it works. My daughter has taken several courses centered around various stereotypes in society and we have had this discussion several times. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok for members of the African-American community to use the "N" word on one another saying it robs that word of power by embracing it. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok for the "F" word to be used as a speech-filler saying it robs that word of power by embracing it. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok to tell ethnic jokes because humor robs those stereotypes of power by embracing them.
Each circumstance you describe is different from my suggestion in important ways.

N word has not been converted into a penalty-free zone for everyone by those who stand to be the most offended by it. In my experience it is now used by both sides to divide us into groups, not to erase the boundaries between them.
F word use is not on directly on topic. It doesn't involve a stereotype.
Ethnic jokes - In my experience, again, because of how people choose to react to them, telling ethnic jokes still divides us. (However, just in case anyone is wondering, I enjoy a good joke about the Scottish).

And as tough of a skin as we develop and as much of a "you can't hurt me" attitude as we put on, those words confirming those stereotypes still tear us down. It only directly hurts you if you let it. If you are letting it hurt you, then you have tried to put on a tough skin; but haven't actually succeed. Again, I'm not suggesting using a tough skin to protect yourself from something hurtful; I'm suggesting you can simply choose to ignore something unimportant - No tough skin required.

I don't think we should convert stereotypes into badges of honor, because most stereotypes are not honorable, but rather take the time to ask where the impression came from and try to provide examples of where the stereotype is not accurate. Perhaps you are taking too a narrow view of stereotypes; one that imbues the word with a popular, but unnecessary and overly-negative connotation. But that's an opinion of mine, not a fact.

-----

I'm going to wrap up with this thought. Is "Nerd" a stereotyping, prejudicial word that no one in their right mind would want to embrace? Not now perhaps; but I think it once was.

Maybe now FIRST folks in particular are starting to wear it as a badge of honor. But... ask someone old enough to have been in high school 20-40 years ago to remember those days without using their rose-colored glasses. Think about the culture into which the original Revenge of the Nerds movie was released.

So, I still hold the opinion that the FRC Engineerds and similarly named teams have latched onto an attitude that will pay substantial dividends (but it's probably not an opinion I would die in the ditch for).

Blake
PS: The best revenge is living well.

[Kitmor]

Gender stereotyping is the same as racial
Generally, women tend to be different than men. No one can dispute that. But individually, there is as much difference between members of the same sex as there is between members of opposite sexes. So much so, that the generality doesn't matter.

We dont need more women engineers. Saying that we do is just placing more emphasis on the generality that doesnt matter. We are making gender a factor when it shouldn't be. What we need is more engineers, wether they be women or men, or if they are black, white, asian, hispanic, or whatever, it doesn't matter.

I agree with you 100% on that. As a guy who is attending his first year of college this fall, I find the way people are going about support women in engineering quite disturbing. I have found that more than half of all the specifically engineering related scholarships available are for women only. Is this how we want to encourage women to go into engineering, especially bribe them? Do we want people studying engineering because they will not have to pay as much for school? Women and men are different, and while I do agree there are social pressures on women not to go into engineering, I don't see how these scholarships are doing anything to encourage interest in engineering.

I know I'll get some hate for this, but as a guy, at least from an education standpoint, I feel that we are considered less important than women because "Men can do whatever they want." And I believe this borders on reverse discrimination.

Just my opinion.
-Kit

[Chris is me]

We dont need more women engineers. Saying that we do is just placing more emphasis on the generality that doesnt matter. We are making gender a factor when it shouldn't be. What we need is more engineers, wether they be women or men, or if they are black, white, asian, hispanic, or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Granted, there are cultural norms that dissuade women from becoming engineers, and anything that is stopping individual people, women OR men, from becoming what they want, whatever they want, needs to be stopped.

I agree with you conceptually, and ideally. In practice, it is far, far easier said than done to change those cultural norms than to encourage and to a small extent incentivise women engineers, especially when you consider how subtle and far reaching some of these norms can be. In the context of FRC, teams push girls aside completely unintentionally all the time. So while we're changing the culture, we might as well use a temporary solution that will encourage more people to pursue a path others have (inadvertently or otherwise) shied them away from.

I wouldn't say race and gender are the same in this context. Personally, I think in some instances, race-based encouragement for careers like engineering is much more of a band-aid solution to a problem, and scholarships / aid based on socioeconomic status would be more accurate. But that's far too complicated for the short post I want to make here. :)

[Carolyn_Grace]

This is a really interesting thread. I am currently working for Hasbro, one of the two major toy companies. Interestingly Hasbro dominates the Boy market, and Mattel controls the Girl market (almost entirely because of Barbie)

Starting with a couple of interesting facts. The boy market sells as many dolls as the girl market every year, we just call them action figures. However a huge number of robotic/animatronic toys are marketed towards girls, they are just wrapped in fur and made to look like animals.

I have a question for the women who have posted. There is no question that boys are more likely to buy engineering type toys than girls. I mean things like robot sets, Lego sets, etc. Why is this? Is there something in our culture that tells girls that building things is not feminine enough, or is it just marketing and branding? Lego's major branded kits are: Star Wars, Batman, SpongeBob SquarePants, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, Ben 10, Toy Story and Thomas the Tank Engine. Most of which are considered boy brands in the toy industry (Harry Potter and Toy Story are Unisex). This leads me to believe that the lack of attraction to the product is not the product itself but the branding. Girls are less likely to watch Star Wars or Ben 10. Do you think that if Lego branded a kit as My Little Pony or Barbie (Never going to happen since both licenses are owned by competitors), where you could build houses and such for theme play in those brands, girls would be more attracted to it? I know that in one case my cousin (5 year old girl) loves Star Wars and loves the Lego Star Wars sets. I don't think that she is tom-boyish in her toy preferences. I think she simply likes the Star Wars brand and likes Legos because they are essentially Unisex. It is worth noting that young children regardless of gender build with blocks, some how that is lost around school age. I think that the issue is simply branding and marketing of building toys for this age group.

Working on the same idea, since there is little media directed towards girls that prominently features robots do you think it is possible to disguise robots as something that culture pushes towards girls. For example, If a robot kit came with Fur that could be used to cover the creation would that be more appealing to girls? This would allow them to build there own pets, the animatronic pet market is already directed towards girls. This would allow the engineering play to be disguised as making pets, the same way that it is disguised for boy as making star wars characters (or Transformers or any other brand) then at an older age when the role play aspect is not as significant the higher level building kits (Mindstorms, Vex) could be marketed as Unisex.

This turned out longer than expected but I kind of got on a roll.

I also would like to note that to date, the two smartest, and most talented engineers I have met are both women (both chemical engineers).

As a preschool teacher, I see my four and five year olds playing with all sorts of different toys.

Currently, the girls are playing more with the LEGOS than the boys are...they're building houses and zoos and hotels. When the boys play with the LEGOs they tend to build houses, zoos, and robots and cages and lately jails.

Then the block area is open, I see the boys mostly playing there...it's usually a 4-0 or 3-1 ratio. When there ARE girls playing there, it's usually to build zoos and houses. When it's the boys, they build pirate ships, jails and zoos.

I have a set of Polly Pocket toys (about as close to Barbies as I'll allow in my classroom) and surprisingly it's been played with pretty equally the past two weeks by both the boys and the girls.

I also have a spare parts bin...made up of lots of FIRST Robotics leftovers: aluminum pieces, large bolts, chains, etc...both the boys AND the girls will play with these pretty equally, though the boys are more likely to create a rock band out of it, and the girls are more likely to set them up to create houses, zoos, etc...

So, from what I can see, it doesn't really matter what the toy is: the girls are going to play a more organized game with them (USUALLY)...for example: they'll set the house up and then pretend to be family members and play for an hour that way. The boys tend to be more hands on with their play (USUALLY): setting up a block somethingorother and then coming to tell me about it and show it off, then crash it all down to build something else.

When they play together, (which I encourage, but don't enforce) they tend to have a better combination of the play: the girls build different things than just houses and zoos, but the boys go along with their playing house and imaginary games for a bit. And then, what usually happens is the boys get bored, knock the house down, and the girls cry.

Now...all this happens without me ever encouraging them to play with one thing over another, or to play with specific people over other people. It just seems to be natural. My classroom is designed specifically to combat gender-sterotypes...and yet, they happen anyway. It could be that it's coming from home. It could be that boys and girls are different, and that's just how it is.

If I was in the toy company and wanted to reach as large a population as I could, I'd go with producing zoo animal stuff. It seems to be pretty neutral.

[mayde]

Wow.. it's so true.

Lucky for me my grandpa believed that all girls should have a good set of legos and be skilled with a hammer.

[JaneYoung]

Speaking as a woman who was a very shy quiet girl who had to embrace the changes her body went through - feeling rather like an alien in her own skin - and then working through all of the different attitudes and levels of tolerance in the math education side of things in junior high and high school and then again in the college education as a whole, I would say - embracing, adapting to, accepting, or rejecting change and opinions has been a pretty consistent way of life from the 50's up through now for me.

The teachers whose insistence that I embrace the status quo - were male teachers. So were many of the professors. One professor told me to give up, go home, get married, and make babies. At the same time, another professor (a woman) was raving about my abilities to comprehend and understand the nature of writers such as Maya Angelou in her book, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings and Sylvia Plath's, The Bell Jar. And at the same, another male professor was making me work harder for an A in his class than I had ever worked for a grade, all while being treated with respect as a student in his classroom. 2 of the classes that I've mentioned impacted my education, life, and career choices in positive and memorable ways. One class impacted my personal life in ways that took years for me to come to peace with.

Embracing such statements as - chain is like a high maintenance woman - is not something I would have embraced in 1973 and it is not something I would embrace in 2010. I also don't plan to encourage girls and young women to embrace statements like that with regard to robotics, their futures, their professions, or with regard to life.

Jane

[RoboMom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/08tier.html

Some more interesting food for thought from the NY Times - Daring to Discuss Women in Science

[JamesCH95]

That is an excellent article, I can't wait to read the follow-on column.

Clearly there is some fundamental difference, but who knows if it's nature or nurture, there is evidence to support either argument.

[Zholl]

just a couple of thoughts:
I would definitely have to agree that women and men are hardwired very differently. we have studies that show that typically, women are very much right brained where men are left, however I would also say that has more impact on the methodology rather than the aptitude of either gender in a STEM field.

I'd also have to say that how you're raised has a significant impact on what a person is like. I realize that neither of us are girls, but my brother and I are pretty good examples of this. when I was little, my parents still had a good chunk of free time that they could spend with me. I also loved books, I loved learning things, and I was curious about everything. my parents had time to sit and read to me, and to help me with my various curiosities. when my brother reached the same age a few years later, he was much the same way, but our parents were working more and didn't have as much time for him as they had had for me. 10-12 years later, you can see the difference it's made. both of us are highly intelligent, but where I'm interested in robotics, and engineering, and all the related subjects, he's become much more of a "jock" type, doing things like MMA and hockey. despite this, he is able to pull off some of the most amazing feats of geo-spatial reasoning I've ever seen, so it's not a lack of mental ability that he's gone this way so much as the fact that his curiosity shifted to more physical past-times as something of an early developmental necessity. I'm certain that there are a lot of girls that find themselves similarly disinterested in math and science because of the way they are raised early on, whether it's because they're parents simply don't have time to help them look into they're curiosities as with my brother, or because their parents instead push them in the opposite direction. I know several girls that fit into that "ditsy cheerleader" stereotype, and it seems to be because their parents made the decision for them, and these girls eventually just grew to fit the mold.

on a more personal note, I find that the girls you typically find involved in FIRST or in other "nerd" activities are far more interesting and, as a result, attractive, then those that better fit mold of what society thinks I should (then again, my Asperger's sort of prevents me from thinking much like the neurotypical male, especially in these matters, so that probably plays into it quite a bit). these are the same young women I find myself trying to bring into FIRST, if they're not already, out of a desire to share this with them and a belief that they would enjoy the experience that comes with it.


I realize that these don't necessarily add much to the current discussion, they're just some thoughts I had while reading this discussion that I felt like sharing, so take them how you will

[Cheerleader1073]

just a couple of thoughts:
I would definitely have to agree that women and men are hardwired very differently. we have studies that show that typically, women are very much right brained where men are left, however I would also say that has more impact on the methodology rather than the aptitude of either gender in a STEM field.

I'd also have to say that how you're raised has a significant impact on what a person is like. I realize that neither of us are girls, but my brother and I are pretty good examples of this. when I was little, my parents still had a good chunk of free time that they could spend with me. I also loved books, I loved learning things, and I was curious about everything. my parents had time to sit and read to me, and to help me with my various curiosities. when my brother reached the same age a few years later, he was much the same way, but our parents were working more and didn't have as much time for him as they had had for me. 10-12 years later, you can see the difference it's made. both of us are highly intelligent, but where I'm interested in robotics, and engineering, and all the related subjects, he's become much more of a "jock" type, doing things like MMA and hockey. despite this, he is able to pull off some of the most amazing feats of geo-spatial reasoning I've ever seen, so it's not a lack of mental ability that he's gone this way so much as the fact that his curiosity shifted to more physical past-times as something of an early developmental necessity. I'm certain that there are a lot of girls that find themselves similarly disinterested in math and science because of the way they are raised early on, whether it's because they're parents simply don't have time to help them look into they're curiosities as with my brother, or because their parents instead push them in the opposite direction. I know several girls that fit into that "ditsy cheerleader" stereotype, and it seems to be because their parents made the decision for them, and these girls eventually just grew to fit the mold.

on a more personal note, I find that the girls you typically find involved in FIRST or in other "nerd" activities are far more interesting and, as a result, attractive, then those that better fit mold of what society thinks I should (then again, my Asperger's sort of prevents me from thinking much like the neurotypical male, especially in these matters, so that probably plays into it quite a bit). these are the same young women I find myself trying to bring into FIRST, if they're not already, out of a desire to share this with them and a belief that they would enjoy the experience that comes with it.


I realize that these don't necessarily add much to the current discussion, they're just some thoughts I had while reading this discussion that I felt like sharing, so take them how you will

I actually believe that what you have said here ties up everything in this discussion well. Thank you!

[IKE]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/08tier.html

Some more interesting food for thought from the NY Times - Daring to Discuss Women in Science

Very interesting article. I think that they are trying to look at the data a bit too quickly. Being 13 in 1991, I can tell you there was distinct differences in the attitudes while in school versus those in the years before me (I had cousins that went to school in the early 80s). Now we (late 70's kids) are at the age of having children. In 10-13 years, I would expect the 4:1 ratio to narrow to a 2:1, and then the generation after that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a balance.

[Mikell Taylor]

I really liked some of the responses to that NYT article here (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/11/women-scientists-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Bo ing%29). (Especially Dr. Isis's.)

[RoboMom]

I really liked some of the responses to that NYT article here (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/06/11/women-scientists-on.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+boingboing%2FiBag+%28Boing+Bo ing%29). (Especially Dr. Isis's.) :)

[JamesCH95]

I have personally experienced negative effects of this "hyper encouragement" to get women into engineering. I, and a friend of mine (who is a girl) both applied to the same engineering college. I had a better academic and extra-curricular record than she did (she agrees with this) yet she got accepted and I did not. This particular college strives to maintain a 50/50 m/f ratio, but I would bet that their applicant pool was no 50/50.

Do you (the royal you, referring to all of CD) think that it's okay for more qualified men to be denied opportunities so that a college can meet its 50/50 goal? Is there a point here that I'm missing? (This is not a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to be a smart-$@#$@#$@#.)

[Mikell Taylor]

I have a sneaking suspicion I know which college you're talking about.

Whether or not it is the college you're talking about, having been on the other side of it doing interviews and discussing applicants with the admission committee, I do know that college admissions are not a straightup matter of academic records and extracurriculars -- your essays, interviews, recommendations, etc play in a lot, especially in small college communities. So for you to compare resumes side by side and say "Well, it must have been because you're a girl" may be unfair.

That said, I know "affirmative action" *does* happen in many cases, whether it's college admission or hiring or nominating Supreme Court Justices. That's a much longer conversation to have that's not just limited to gender. I also think it's a different matter than "pressuring" girls into engineering -- one thing we saw in admission at my college was that the women who applied, while fewer, were far more self-selective than the men; they had, on average, higher test scores and GPAs and had often had a good deal of extracurricular involvement in science and engineering-related activities. If there was any pressuring going on, it had happened earlier than at the college admission level.

[RMiller]

I have personally experienced negative effects of this "hyper encouragement" to get women into engineering. I, and a friend of mine (who is a girl) both applied to the same engineering college. I had a better academic and extra-curricular record than she did (she agrees with this) yet she got accepted and I did not. This particular college strives to maintain a 50/50 m/f ratio, but I would bet that their applicant pool was no 50/50.

Do you (the royal you, referring to all of CD) think that it's okay for more qualified men to be denied opportunities so that a college can meet its 50/50 goal? Is there a point here that I'm missing? (This is not a rhetorical question and I'm not trying to be a smart-$@#$@#$@#.)

Were essays part of the application process? What about recommendations? What about interviews?

How your numbers (GPA, test score(s), classes taken, activities) look is not always everything (I admit, for many colleges, there is a GPA, class rank, or test score that gets you in the door, but this sounds like a more selective school).

[JamesCH95]

Both of you have good points that's it's not all about grades and extracurriculars. I did, however, get into The Cooper Union, which (that year) was about the most selective school in the country, with an 8% or 9% acceptance rate. Which, come to find out, has a more "blind" admissions process than many schools.

I will add that said school was the ONLY college, out of 6 or 7, that I was rejected from, including The Cooper Union, and Rose Hulman, two of the top 5 undergraduate colleges in the country, but neither of which have near a 50/50 m/f distribution. I would be amazed if one could find any other engineering college with a 50/50 split, I've never heard of another one.

Take it for what it's worth, an example of "affirmative action" or whatever you want to call it, I have no ax to grind, just sharing observations here.

[Carlee10]

Wow. Just read through this whole thread. And I agree/disagree with bits and pieces of what people here have said; so many that I think I'll just sum up my feelings without quoting people,to save some reading time.

My mom raised us no certain way. She read to my brother and I , sang songs, played word games, and did ABC's,shapes,colors,and numbers. I could read at 3. I taught my baby brother everything I learned each day in kindergarten, and he could read chapter books by kindergrten, too. We played with what we wanted to, dolls,tucks, or both. We shared alot, and played together.

Now,we both are on multiple acdemic teams. He's a great actor, and i just like to watch theater or work backstage. We both play instuments, but at opposite sides of the scale(flute/tuba). Im on robotics, and he likes speech. He comes up with ideas and writes great stories, but i love trying ideas and talking about them or trying them. We both read, but different things. He wants to be a vet or theatre major, where I'm going to school for engineering.

So. I think the best option when it comes to engineering/women/sterotypes/sexism/feminism is not to play into it all, but to just to embrace.....smart, if that makes sense to anyone. If you encourage boys and girls to be smart and be curious and to love knowledge, then they will choose what intellectually stimulates them, whether it's desinging clothes or buildings,acting or managing a design team. I feel like I could be happy having a great engineering career, or have a family(or both!)

All in all, I think it's up to the individual girl as to whether or not she wants to be super interested in STEM subjects and/or engineering.

0.02

[smurfgirl]

...one thing we saw in admission at my college was that the women who applied, while fewer, were far more self-selective than the men; they had, on average, higher test scores and GPAs and had often had a good deal of extracurricular involvement in science and engineering-related activities...

I've often heard suggestions that admissions staff (of various colleges/universities) accepts "less qualified" women and minorities in hopes of achieving diversity, and I usually say almost exactly the same thing about self-selection. Again, also remember that the college admissions process takes a lot of things into account beyond test scores, GPAs, and extracurriculars.

Also, this may not be fully related to the topic of the thread, but I'd like to share one of my experiences that has gotten me thinking a lot about various types of diversity recently. I'm currently doing research in the "Computer, Electronics, and Mechanics" department at a French university. I'm a young, American female in a department full of older French men. Sometimes, it seems like we're very different; our different workstyles and approaches to problem solving stem from a variety of factors. We understand each other's languages to varying degrees, and speak in a bizarre mixture of French and English. I thought math was the universal language, but it turns out that while I've learned the multi-variable calculus, differential equations, and linear algebra that I need to use in my project, the French implement it completely differently. Sometimes, their approach shines a new light on a problem for me. Other times, the way I learned is more convenient. Similarly, my view on how to express or solve a particular problem may be something that never dawned on my supervisors, or vice-versa. By working together and combining our different approaches to problem-solving, we've been able to create amazing results that we never would have seen individually. It's a good reminder that we're not that different; ultimately, we're united under the common goal of progress, by our desires to discover, to create, to innovate and to improve lives.

I've had similar experiences, though to a lesser degree, in the very diverse environment at MIT during my studies thus far. Regardless of whether my peers and I "only got in because we are _____", embracing our differences has resulted in amazing things that may not have ever come to be in a homogeneous environment, and I am grateful for that. Just some food for thought. :)

[Renee Becker-Blau]

Interestingly enough I've referenced this CD thread & the comic twice in the past week, once for class and once at a Girl Scout Robotics event where we talk about Women in Engineering.

Thanks for the link.

Renee