Are all girl FIRST team counterproductive to the philosophy of FIRST?

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by (paraphrasing)

Where are all the female rock stars?

Give a smart female the ego of a male counterpart and I think you'll find the rock star in FRC. I only say this because the very poignant female leader of my team pointed this out as something for me personally to improve so I don't intimidate any potential upcoming female engineers who show interest in joining our team. The process of working on my ego in that context has led me to believe that until a specific behavior is directly called out, I seriously doubt that any male (especially an adolescent) can empathize with females that have those types of hurdles to overcome. Ergo, I believe we need to celebrate the all-female teams as much, if not more than, co-ed or all-male teams.

After having done some of our own all-female research with FLL and [FVC] teams, we came to some conclusions which I'll adapt to the current metaphor. They weren't "rock stars" simply because none of them wanted to be rock stars. They wanted to succeed and it seemed to be an intrinsic quality they were after more than the competitive edge. However, there is another team, Einstein's Daughters (all-girl FTC team), who I would say are famous (in FTC) due to their consistency with success in a competitive environment. Perhaps someone could contact them to get their input?

[Seth Mallory]

The point of FIRST is to inspire students to learn. Different people work best in indifferent ways. That is the reason teams have different ways that they function. Our team is coed and some of our captains have been girls. Since all the students have to take the same training they all use the machine tools. Our school also has many girls on the local Girl Scouts team. I would like them on our team but if they want to be on the Girl Scouts team that is where they belong. At the regonals some of the teams the girls have minor rolls and do not work with the robot. When asked they respond that they do not work on the robot during build. Many of those girls would be better off on a all girls team just to get the chance to learn. Diffrent teams for diffrent folks.

[Seth Mallory]

Originally Posted by Seth Mallory

The point of FIRST is to inspire students to learn. Different people work best in indifferent ways. That is the reason teams have different ways that they function. Our team is coed and some of our captains have been girls. Since all the students have to take the same training they all use the machine tools. Our school also has many girls on the local Girl Scouts team. I would like them on our team but if they want to be on the Girl Scouts team that is where they belong. At the regonals some of the teams the girls have minor rolls and do not work with the robot. When asked they respond that they do not work on the robot during build. Many of those girls would be better off on a all girls team just to get the chance to learn. Diffrent teams for diffrent folks.

It has been two and half years since I posted on this topic. Last year our drive team was half female including the lead driver. This year we have a female team captain, 25% female members. and one third of our mentor staff is female and she is the lead mentor. We have female students in all of our groups and they are some of our best lathe and mill operators. The Girl Scouts still take many from our school since they take fresmen and GRT does not. The new girls each year have to compete to get on the team the same way the boys do. I still feel that if a girl would feel better on a all girls team then she shoud be on one. What ever inspires the students to learn is where they belong.

[Phcullen]

thank you for coming back. For myself it was interesting reading though everything again i think we had a pretty good discussion. i cant say that it has compleatly changed my view but it has been molded by a few of the posters. I would now say that all girl teams (again not attached to all girl schools/all girl organizations) are undesirable but necessary in completing the end goal of giving students the fill experience and opportunity that First has to offer. but i do dissagree with how FIRST or at least many people within FIRST talk about all girl teams as if they were over coming a handicap. hopefully in the past two years that i have not been involved this has changed. i think it would be intresting to hear from people again and from new people on what they have observed recently in FIRST and in higher education

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by JesseK

Give a smart female the ego of a male counterpart and I think you'll find the rock star in FRC.

Going through my mental Rolodex and nothing's clicking. There's bound to be some though.

Ya think?


Jane

[MrForbes]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

Going through my mental Rolodex and nothing's clicking. There's bound to be some though.

Ya think?

Karen (842) is up there in my book....

[Molten]

Final post to Jaine(if you'd like to discuss this further, I'll be happy to do so in PM because we are kind of starting to derail this thread into a person discussion):

"What's the use in labeling something "____ist" when it doesn't contribute to the oppression of a group?"

The point is using the appropriate word. I've yet to figure out what dictionary your using to define sexism. I've checked two online and neither have come with the implications that you make.

"I'm not going to try to tell you that the things you have gone through weren't difficult or challenging, but as you admitted yourself -- what you've described hardly comes close to being representative of the kinds of institutionalized discrimination women face in engineering."

I wasn't referring to my experience being on par with a woman in the workplace but with girls joining a robotics team. And I assure you that my experiences went much farther then simply being mistakenly referred to as a lady. There were alot of things I went through that could be direct parallels to what is seen by the things girls have gone through.

"I'm not trying to be condescending, although I am sure my irritation is coming through in my posts. It's hard not to let some frustration rise to the surface when someone compares being accidentally called a "lady" in a high school marching band to the experience of a woman contending with the kind of discrimination that can ruin her career. This is the stuff of my life -- not some abstract theorem that I can discuss without any emotional involvement."

Some of the best advice I've been given on this forum comes from JaneYoung. She once said that she often takes a day or two before making a post to think the post over. She could tell you why better then I can, but I've tried to do that for anything that I feel so close to that I can't think objectively. Honestly if you can't discuss a topic without getting frustrated, you should wait for your anger to settle before posting. Honestly, you've had good points but your posts have been anything but professional.

"Big difference between the words of Dr. King and the things you said to me. Dr. King had visions of a dream world which did not yet (and still does not) exist. You tried to tell me that the dream has already arrived, when I know for a fact that it has not."

I'm not suggesting I am Dr. King. Far from it, I'd be happy to be a fraction of the man he was. I don't believe my words are all just a dream. Yes, it isn't everywhere yet. But there are places that have figured out how to have a co-ed environment without unchecked sexism. That is what exists today. I fully admit that I am strongly idealistic but that doesn't mean that what I see doesn't already partly exist.

Final note: I am not posting anymore responses directly to Jaine in this thread simply because this is meant to be a public forum rather then a conversation between two. I will gladly discuss things via PM if you wish Jaine.

Jason

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Molten

Final post to Jaine(if you'd like to discuss this further, I'll be happy to do so in PM because we are kind of starting to derail this thread into a person discussion):

"What's the use in labeling something "____ist" when it doesn't contribute to the oppression of a group?"

The point is using the appropriate word. I've yet to figure out what dictionary your using to define sexism. I've checked two online and neither have come with the implications that you make.

I don't think she was referring to the definition, but the current political connotation to the word. For example I received negative reputation for my comment, and the comment to poster left was "blatantly sexist".

I would like to apologize to anyone I offended with my comments, I just thought to even suggest being on an all woman's tea, would be because of or reflect a handicapped state was bothersome, and wanted to share my pro-female feelings.

By definition I am sexist, I would rather work with women than men, I don't think its a negative thing either.

And the all girls team that one chairman's at BAE a few year's back was an absolutely awesome story. One of my favorite chairman's announcements I've ever heard.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Molten

Final post to Jaine(if you'd like to discuss this further, I'll be happy to do so in PM because we are kind of starting to derail this thread into a person discussion):

I feel that our posts have been on topic, and therefore don't constitute a derail. I think a lot of people are interested in reading the back-and-forth, so I'm going to reply here.

The point is using the appropriate word. I've yet to figure out what dictionary your using to define sexism. I've checked two online and neither have come with the implications that you make.

The dictionary of experience.

Again, if something doesn't contribute to the oppression of a group, how can you call it "____ism"?

There are functional reasons for excluding certain people from groups that have nothing to do with actively discriminating against them. People with entry-level resumes are excluded from jobs which require extensive leadership experience. People who can't swim are excluded from lifeguarding. Non-athletic people are excluded from professional sports teams. People with low SAT scores are excluded from the Ivy League. Yet in these instances, no-one would say that actual discrimination is taking place against people with no job experience, no swimming ability, no athletic talent, or poor test-taking skills.

Likewise, excluding boys from an all-girls team is done for a practical reason: to give girls a leg up in a field which overwhelmingly favors male participation. If there were no functional need for all-girls teams (i.e. sexism against women in STEM didn't exist), then yeah -- having a gender-specific team would be sexist. But until that day comes, girls-only teams can serve an important role in bringing more women into STEM (as you can see through all of the positive testimonies here in this thread).

I wasn't referring to my experience being on par with a woman in the workplace but with girls joining a robotics team.

You said:
"I completely admit that I don't have to deal with this every day of my life as women in professional engineering do. I have however had "real-world experience trying to contend with discrimination".

...in direct response to my post about how discrimination against women in engineering firms is not always dealt with as swiftly and effectively as a lot of people think it is. I suggested that perhaps you didn't have the relevant experience with workplace discrimination to fully understand why it's still a problem (granted, I was a bit abrasive about it), and you countered with your marching band example. We were clearly talking about your perception of workplace justice. (Not to say that the things girls can experience when joining a male-dominated robotics team can't closely mirror what happens in the real world... those experiences can be just as challenging and intense.)

I do sympathize with your experiences as a male in a female-dominated environment -- guys absolutely do face a lot of unfair pressure/stereotyping about what it means to be a man. On the other hand, you have to recognize that those challenges don't really affect men on the same scale that they affect women (possibly because a lot of the male stereotypes have to do with being aggressive and assertive... i.e. taking charge and getting what you want). To use your example, I don't think the lack of male participation in marching bands is a widespread societal problem (like the lack of female participation in STEM is). Almost all women in STEM have a story they can share about their discrimination... but I doubt the same holds true for men in marching bands.

But there are places that have figured out how to have a co-ed environment without unchecked sexism. That is what exists today. I fully admit that I am strongly idealistic but that doesn't mean that what I see doesn't already partly exist.

I didn't say that there weren't ANY workplaces in which the environment/colleagues were supportive of women. See the footnote on my last post. What I did say is that prejudice in the workplace DOES still present a significant barrier for women in the field. You appeared to dismiss that problem as insignificant.

Some of the best advice I've been given on this forum comes from JaneYoung. She once said that she often takes a day or two before making a post to think the post over. She could tell you why better then I can, but I've tried to do that for anything that I feel so close to that I can't think objectively. Honestly if you can't discuss a topic without getting frustrated, you should wait for your anger to settle before posting. Honestly, you've had good points but your posts have been anything but professional.

Jane can speak for herself on this matter if she so chooses. I will admit that she often has a cooler head than I... if only I possessed her restraint...

Seriously though, I don't see why someone's frustration over a topic should invalidate their contributions to a discussion about it. Some issues will never stop making people feel frustrated, because it will always be a part of their lives. If anything, being personally affected by an issue gives you more objectivity, because you fully understand it's personal ramifications.

I did use some strong wording, and if I could have gotten my point across in a less harsh way -- I'm sorry. But I'm not sure why anything I've said would be considered unprofessional -- I haven't called anybody names, and I've backed up my arguments with clear reasoning and personal experience.

--Jaine

[N7UJJ]

“I know some schools have Varsity and Junior Varsity robotics teams for exactly this purpose, and that's great.” If this is a proposal for an all boys/ all girls team it will result with the girls in the JV team, which is a “lesser” team. Guess which team gets the greater resources and opportunities.

Girls in the U.S. are bombarded daily on what is feminine, attractive, desirable. Watch TV programming and commercials with a critical eye. Look through a “girls” magazine and check out the ads and articles. Girls today are pressured to be skinny, wear makeup, be fashionable, be popular, take care of everyone and attract guys. Don’t really see much on using tools, being mechanically clever, increasing math skills, etc. I think we all would object to overt sexism, but it is the constant, insistent, cultural push that is inflicted on girls that is the hardest to counteract. It will take a real “change the culture” movement to modify advertising and programming in the media.

Has anyone seen a coed team that had 4females on a drive team? Have you ever seen 4 male drivers on a coed team? We may strongly object to a proposal to have a “all girls” team because it seems sexist, but don’t we, in fact, had de facto sexism which greatly favors males?

Generally, girls in the U.S. are raised differently than boys and the FIRST robotics competition inadvertently favors those brought up in the boy culture. Boys wind up on the construction and driving teams while girls are more likely involved in fund raising publicity. It is not necessarily because boys push them away, but because girls are more socially aware and are more willing to do what is best for the team. If a girl believes that a boy’s skills with tools are superior to hers, she is more likely to back off from the pit crew for the good of the team. Our culture reinforces the stereotype of boys being mechanically superior and as a result, girls usually have less experience with tools.

An all girls team is one approach to rectifying the de facto segregation of women. The best electrician is a girl, the best designer is a woman, the best pilot is a female. Also the person who breaks the most things is a female. The team clown is a girl. The girls can choose any role(s) they desire without the subtle sexist pressure that exists in a coed team.

BTW, it does not mean a school has to field a female team. Team 842 was going to go to 3 regionals and the championship but was faced with the problem with having students miss too much class time. That was the year when we decided to have only the girls go to one of the regional competitions. (read here) It was far cheaper than forming a separate team and had very positive results for the girls and the boys and the mentors. That one competition had a very positive effect. Just about all the girls wound up in engineering and are graduating with their degrees.

Anyway, we need more females in FIRST and engineering. To do so, we have to counter our national culture that persistently, subtly dissuades girls from the "manly experiences" in robotics, engineering, physical sciences, etc. An all-girls team allows girls to experience FIRST with out a lot of the inadvertent sexist baggage that can inhibit their exploring engineering.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by N7UJJ

“I know some schools have Varsity and Junior Varsity robotics teams for exactly this purpose, and that's great.” If this is a proposal for an all boys/ all girls team it will result with the girls in the JV team, which is a “lesser” team. Guess which team gets the greater resources and opportunities.

Please re-read my post and the post I was replying to - that wasn't what I was suggesting at all. The post I was replying to was suggesting that, rather than having an all girls team and an all boys team, there should be a team for those with experience and dedication, and a team for those just getting started. That's the role Varsity and JV teams fill for those schools fortunate enough to have the interest and funding for two teams. The JV team acts as a learning area, a chance for new students to gain skills. The Varsity team assumes students already are knowledgeable and have the skills needed to succeed. That part of my statement wasn't about boys versus girls - It's about how schools and teams can create an atmosphere of learning and appropriately bring all students up to speed.

I thought I had clearly separated that portion from the concept of what all girls teams bring to the table. It wasn't about putting the all girls team on the backburner as a JV team - it's about bringing them into the spotlight. Ask anyone in Minnesota about the Robettes, and there's two things you'll hear: They're an all girls team, and they have consistently built great robots that have earned them finalist medals every year at 10,000 Lakes. We aren't a secondary team. We aren't a JV where you can shove girls who don't know how to use power tools. We're one of the premier teams in Minnesota and proof that, in this arena, girls can do just as well as boys.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by eagle33199

Ask anyone in Minnesota about the Robettes, and there's two things you'll hear: They're an all girls team, and they have consistently built great robots that have earned them finalist medals every year at 10,000 Lakes. We aren't a secondary team. We aren't a JV where you can shove girls who don't know how to use power tools. We're one of the premier teams in Minnesota and proof that, in this arena, girls can do just as well as boys.

When this thread was first posted it made me think about how I had thought about and described the Robettes to others, something I had never really paid attention to. I was glad to find out that I was thinking of and describing them as a great FRC team that happened to be all girls and not an all girls team that managed to be successful at FRC.

I would go as far as to suggest that 2177 has been the best team in Minnesota, robot wise, over the last 5 years (as a whole, not each year individually).

[Siri]

Originally Posted by N7UJJ

Has anyone seen a coed team that had 4females on a drive team? Have you ever seen 4 male drivers on a coed team?

We've fielded a 4-girl drive team on occasion (and have done 3-1 or 2-2 for 3+ years). I remember an once MC pointed out that our entire alliance had only girls behind the glass. Every other match I saw that day: all guys.

I can definitely see the benefit of all-girls teams. I'm not convinced there aren't any significant losses, but I know I was one of those rookies who didn't really get taught anything her first season. I just sort of stumbled around with ratchets and sockets in my pocket too intimidated to ask the difference and/or unable to find someone who appeared patient enough.
This wasn't a girl thing on the team's side: we've always--though not intentionally--had at least one female captain (including me) and usually have a near-even split in mechanical. (Then again, that captain was basically the only one who was really patient with me at the beginning.) But on my side, yeah, I was intimidated.

I got over it eventually, but I still see girls suffer through it every day in college. Incidentally, the alumnae from our team tend to hold their own very well in college engineering. I don't know if this is solely because it changes us fundamentally or because coed teams (especially without structured rookie training) just self-select girls who will. It's probably a little of both, but I do know that I wouldn't be the person I am today without that experience.

Originally Posted by Molten

I completely agree with the notion that there could be room for 2 teams in the right area. One that has prior experience and is more assertive, and others that are more passive or lack the experience.

This is an interesting concept. I'm not sure what I think of it. Would it have been a whole lot easier as a rookie to have someone actually teach me what the heck a nylock nut was, or give me feedback on how I was doing? Oh yeah, and I've worked on that as a mentor. But would I have wanted to work with just new students? Probably not. I feel like it would have taken a lot of the inspiration out of it. Maybe this is just based on my FIRST experience (characterized by not being directly "taught" much of anything, from welding and design to tax forms and project management), but I liked learning by watching/working with veteran members and mentors.

[Ogehsim]

Originally Posted by N7UJJ

Boys wind up on the construction and driving teams while girls are more likely involved in fund raising publicity. It is not necessarily because boys push them away, but because girls are more socially aware and are more willing to do what is best for the team. If a girl believes that a boy’s skills with tools are superior to hers, she is more likely to back off from the pit crew for the good of the team.

This corresponds with my own experience. I joined the team to build. I was encouraged to join the team by a middle school (male) tech teacher who helped me design and build my own hoverboard as an independent project.

However, between the fact that there were a large number of freshmen, young and inexperienced leadership, and a sudden gap in parent support as many of the most dedicated left with their graduating students within about 2 years, there was a gap. The gap namely being the entire side the team's existence that wasn't the robot.

No one else was volunteering, so I did. And that's what I did my entire time on the team. I have never contributed to any part that ever made it on to our robot - which was my entire reason for joining the team. I remember a crushing moment in freshman year after competition season, when the robot was sitting in my tech class and I realized I had not touched a single part on the robot, and I had learned absolutely nothing about building, designing, or anything else that goes into making a robot.

I have had bitter outbursts about my lack of a technical experience on the team to my friends, but I believed (and still do) in the mission of FIRST and in spreading it, so I organized the demos, and wrote the Chairman's, and ran recruitment, and did outreach to elementary schools willingly because no one else was going to do it and it needed to get done. I don't regret doing any of this, but now being at college with so many other FIRST alumni and they'll talk gear ratios and transmissions and other things and they go right over my head. I feel like I'm playing catch-up in my engineering classes. They'll shy away too when I mention what I did on my team. They'll be like "Oh, that's.... nice..." and then leave as fast it's polite to, as if I am not a "real" FIRST student.

I remember one incident my freshman year, I was helping to make a prototype with a mentor (just cutting and drilling some wood someone else had pre-marked). An older boy came and started helping us, and started slowly taking over my jobs, and relegating me to holding boards as he drilled and such. Eventually I was left watching. And then I was ordered to go somewhere else and find something else to do. The mentor was right there the whole time.

I agree, all-girl FIRST teams could prove extraordinarily beneficial to their members. In FIRST there is no way to dumb down the rules and the challenges, like what has happened as our district's all-girl technology classes. But I agree too that making a huge issue of girl vs. boy may only serve to perpetuate the inequalities. There's not really a right answer.

Really, all I want to say, is for all the mentors: do not ever let another student push someone away who is trying to learn. I'm sure 99.99% of you don't. But it happens. And the only way to fix it is to make people aware.

[lightsandmusik]

I think that each team serves to a certain area or group. i.e. My school serves to Mira Costa and Redondo Union High Schools. However, we do have a couple of home-schooled kids as well as another boy from a neighboring school. The all boy or all girl teams usually serve to the scout scout troop, or the single sex school. I know that Loyola(all male) and Marlborough(all female) got together to make one team. So really, they aren't doing anything wrong. They built a team in a certain environment and that is who the team is serving.

(sorry if it didn't make any sense. I'm not the most eloquent writer)