Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

If Jane Cosmetics returns for 2015 onward, I was wondering (in light of some comments earlier in the thread) if it might be better to call them "makeup sessions" instead of "makeovers" to avoid perceived stigma (by some) that someone might need to be "madeover". Just a thought.

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

That's actually a good thought. :]

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

I am a boy. I am writing this wearing a hot pink Hollister shirt. Not all girls may like pink, but some boys do.

The interesting thing about stereotypes is they aren't inherently bad. Stereotypes had to come from somewhere, right? Stereotypes are shortcuts for you brain to try to classify a person based on how they look and their interests. Its like TvTropes for people

The issue arises when you hold onto those stereotypes and try to put people in a box. Why are we stereotyping people who like makeup as "not for FIRST"? Makeup is just like deodorant, except deodorant is kinda a necessity. Okay, that was a bad analogy. Makeup is like earrings. The point of clothes is not only for not being naked, but to express yourself and be confident.

TL;DR makeup is not evil

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

Some of the comments in this thread have gotten to me. There are a few people who, I feel, have the opinion that wearing makeup is bad. As someone with hundreds of dollars invested in my current makeup collection, this upsets me. I don't wear makeup because someone tells me I should. I wear it because I enjoy creating colors and patterns. It means that I still GET TO COLOR! On my face! AND I can show everyone what I did. Heck yeah! I enjoy finding out what colors/products work with my skin or learning how to do that cool makeup technique/style that I saw on Reddit or YouTube.



Sometimes, it provides a sense of normalcy to my life. I unexpectedly lost my dog last Thursday. My skill with makeup allowed me to make it look like I hadn't spent hours the night before crying so that I could go to work on Friday. My coworkers knew what happened and weren't expecting me in, but going to work made me feel normal, as did my makeup. Then again, other times it's just for fun. Hello rainbow eyelids for PRIDE events!

You don't have to like wearing makeup. You're well within your right. But please, don't make feel like less of a person, or someone unworthy of FIRST/STEM because I enjoy wearing it.

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

I'd like for folks to provide concrete examples from this thread where the text has given them the impression that people who wear makeup don't belong in FIRST, that people who wear makeup should feel bad about themselves, etc. I certainly don't intend to communicate either of those ideas in my criticism of the makeover booth or of Jane Cosmetics as a sponsor. It's important to me to be aware of when my language isn't being interpreted in the manner I intend because I would not want to drive away girls from participating inadvertently. I'm sure that others agree with me about that.

It's really pretty simple as I see things:
1 - FIRST wants to encourage more girls to be involved.
2 - FIRST engaged a successful businesswoman to become a sponsor. 2A - This woman has demonstrated success as a businessperson, but has no special knowledge of or expertise in methodologies for encouraging more girls to participate in STEM activities.
3 - This woman advocates for and presents a methodology that research by subject matter experts shows to be ineffective.

If I and others can find the findings of research in this area in a few moments of Google searches, it's a bit ludicrous to think that FIRST didn't bother or didn't care enough to see what the effect of this would be on its students before agreeing to it. I have no doubt that the intentions of everyone involved are noble -- but even the best intentions can't change the reality that this sort of method doesn't work. Full stop. The end.

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

I'm not sure about the certainty of your #3. Katie did point to research that came to the conclusion that using glamorized women as role models for STEM did not prove to be effective, but I am still not convinced that this research can be seen as the end all of the discussion.

My question remains: Does this research say that "girly" women who wear makeup should not be held up as STEM role models, or does it point to a more general societal issue of females being taught to judge other females at various ages because of various styles? I am more inclined to believe that it points to the second.

If we say, "There's no room in our program for a makeup industry," then it seems like we are also saying, "There's no room for girls who like makeup in FIRST." I find that unacceptable. There needs to be room for ALL females in our program.

If we showcase and preach acceptance of all females, regardless of makeup choices, fashion, culture, ethnicity, etc, then we can open the doors of STEM to more females. By having a makeup sponsor, offering the option for free makeup and hair sessions, I can only see how we are opening more doors.

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

I'm very late to this discussion and with somewhat trepidation I'm posting. At best the last term anyone would describe my personal appearance is "Metro-sexual" I often wake and look in the mirror and go "Umm PsychoSanta is back, time for a trim"

I am a believer in "You feel your best, you do your best". Around here you are rocking some serious weld joints that are class A, just beat down a Bridgeport Knee mill older than your dad to make a perfect part, got one of Ether's questions on CD right, have clothing on that makes you feel special, got your makeup working so that in the Sodium shop lights you don't look like the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown: you feel special, so tonight is going to be great. Kimmeh had a good post about this.

You are then happy and in your zone and cool things work.

I want roboteers to excel. If makeup makes that happen then I'm all behind the new Andy Mark "Kokomo Colors line" and the new "JVN Shine Down" product lines. But really behind Jane Cosmetics. I like the change from MakeOvers to Makeup. And I dread walking by to get told "Hey Foster, the Neanderthal uni-brow is so 200BC..... "

One thing about FRC is that it's multi-inclusive: Mechanical, electrical, programming, strategy, drive, spirit, finance, fundraising, program management, logistics, community relationships, robot outreach, etc.

Confident roboteers that feel good/proud about themselves make a great impression.

So I view the new sponsor line as a good thing, adds value in a different direction, brings new ideas in, brings new people in. An infusion of new ideas are good, otherwise we would still be rolling around in the corn.

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

Emphasis mine.


I second Carolyn's belief that it points to the second. I'm not inherently trying to discount the article by U of M, but like before, I want raise questions on how they presented the girls in the study. It sounds like the "student displaying feminine characteristics" might be similar, visually, to Elle Woods (Legally Blonde). I find it hard to believe that wouldn't turn many girls away from STEM. In order to be feminine and in STEM, I have to look like that? If you told me that in high school I would have been out of there faster than you can say "Pink dress". Yes she's feminine, (and successful at law), but in an over the top way. It's already triggering preconceived notions. The "gender-neutral" girl sounds more like how more girls self identify.

When I look at Mary Barra, I see a successful feminine woman. (If being the first female CEO of a major auto maker doesn't count as STEM success, then I don't know what does.) I see jewelry, makeup, scarves that serve little purpose than fashion, and clothes that flatter her. But wait. Her clothing seems to favor blacks and grays. Which clashes with our previous definition of feminine clothing needing to be pink. At least for me, she's relatable. She's human. And I'll confess, given that she's a graduate of my university, I may admire her more that others.

It sounds more human and less like a caricature of being feminine. Humans are remarkably complex creatures who don't fit into one label. And the study I'm citing targeted middle schoolers, who are already incredibly self-conscious and susceptible to influence.

By all means, if you can show me studies that don't seem to take the more extreme portrayals, I'm more than willing to look at them. But in the mean time, I'm still hesitantly cautious at best.


I am all for getting some eye shadow in "Official" FIRST Red and Blue shades. How do we make this happen?

Re: Jane Cosmetics at 2014 Championship
 

I don't agree. It looks to me like you're saying that something like "There's no room for a veterinary program" implies "There's no room for people who like animals." It's easy to disagree with the conclusion, but I don't think the conclusion follows from the premise.

There's room in FIRST for girls--or boys--who like makeup. FIRST might not actively encourage baking, but there's room in FIRST for people who like cooking. There's room for students who play music, write Twilight fanfic, participate in competitive dance, go fly fishing, and enjoy any number of non-technical activities.

Okay, maybe not the Twilight fanfic.