Quote:
Originally Posted by DareDad
You, FIRST or anyone is not defined by any one sponsor. I've seen efforts to boycott virtually every single founding sponsor of FIRST because each company violated someone's moral framework. If for instance, you go to Bing (because after all, Google is evil) and search "why should I boycott <sponsor>" I'm sure you'll get plenty of reasons why FIRST shouldn't have that company as a sponsor.
The perception that someone who wants to use cosmetics shouldn't be on a robotics team is as silly as saying someone who's on the volley ball team or hockey team or dances ballet cannot be on the robotics team because they couldn't be "geeky" enough.
Our love of science and technology is what brings us together. Let's just leave it at that an not start carving out exclusions.
Personally, I'm for more inclusion, let's ask the sugar beet farmers, the Emu ranchers, the P90X guys and the International Association of Hermits to sponsor FIRST as well.
|
As a guy who at least tries to be receptive to gender issues, this is where I have to sit on the topic.
Garnet Squadron was 50% girls this year, and was actually 100% so starting out (by coincidence, not by design). I didn't see or hear any big fuss from our girls one way or the other. When I walked by their booth, I didn't see any carnival-barker-esque tactics going on. It could be enjoyed or ignored* at will, and that felt fine to me (all I'm-not-a-girl biases known).
*Okay, so you couldn't ignore their sponsorship on Einstein--but that's no different from UTC or Qualcomm or any other sponsor there. Doesn't count.
To stir the pot among those with objections to Jane's presence as it was: Is there a scenario where a makeup brand
could have a presence at Championship that wouldn't draw your ire?