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

[DonRotolo]

Accidentally clicked "no", since the question posed by the poll is opposite that posed by the thread title.

[MikeE]

Short answer to the thread title: no, as long as there are similar opportunities for males (having to start a new team does not count as a "similar opportunity").

I was going to pepper this post with statistics from various US & European studies on gender balance in STEM education, and Engineering in particular, but they all show the same trend, so I'll just summarize.
While the percentage of women earning Bachelor degrees in Engineering has increased over the past 3 decades (roughly doubling), there is still a minority (~20%) female enrollment in Engineering degrees. However this is within a broader trend of a declining number of Engineering degrees awarded.
So perhaps, to poorly paraphrase the great Dave Lavery and others, we shouldn't be spending out time focusing on how to split the small pie we have in front of us, but on how to make the pie much bigger.

Mandatory class war comment.
One set of data I couldn't easily locate was a reliable analysis of socioeconomic status on STEM education. But I would hazard that a female from a wealthy family attending a private girls' school has significantly more likelihood of attending college and completing a STEM degree than almost any "privileged" white male from the other end of the socio-economic spectrum.

[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

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Molten

I didn't suggest once they'd linger to oppress men. Whats more, I've not once suggested they oppress men in the least. Just that they, in themselves, are a form of sexism as long as they have a gender requirement to be a part of the team.

If they aren't contributing to the oppression of men, especially in a broad societal sense, then they aren't sexist. What's the use in labeling something "____ist" when it doesn't contribute to the oppression of a group?

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".

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. You simply haven't had the experience of being discriminated against in a workplace where, for example, making a complaint about sexism/harassment by one of your superiors could cause you to get passed over for leadership positions and promotions, could ruin your reputation amongst colleagues, and could even cost you your job.*

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.

(I know I know, us silly laydeez and our craaazy emotions!!1!11 ) <-- just a joke, not trying to put words in your mouth

As you continually reference to my living in a dream world...Yes I dream big. So has most of the people who have had real impact in this world. Martin Luther King Jr is most famous for his "dream" speech. I imagine many people back then thought he lived in a dream world.

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.

-- Jaine

*not saying that this is the case in EVERY engineering job... there are many great companies for women to work, and a lot of supportive men out there. But these are real experiences that come from actual colleagues of mine... different workplaces can vary widely in their supportiveness/hostility, and sometimes the workplace dynamic doesn't end up being as supportive as it seemed initially.

[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....

[Akash Rastogi]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

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

Ya think?


Jane

Although I don't know many female mentors very well, I know a few current students who I have a great deal of respect for for the work they do on their teams:

Kara from 1189, Nikki from 2016, Stephanie from 1323 all come to mind.


And I have no idea how people can forget Kyle Hughes, mentor of 27, Team RUSH.

[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

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi

Although I don't know many female mentors very well, I know a few current students who I have a great deal of respect for for the work they do on their teams:

Kara from 1189, Nikki from 2016, Stephanie from 1323 all come to mind.


And I have no idea how people can forget Kyle Hughes, mentor of 27, Team RUSH.

I was focused on the "give a smart female the ego of a male counterpart and I think you'll find the rock star in FRC" part.

There are some powerful egos in the FRC community. Those egos may drive innovation and continue to raise the bar. They may do that by challenging each other and themselves. I can't seem to identify those egos in any women in FRC that I know, have met, or have heard of. What makes the ego? Can it be developed? Can it be transplanted or inspired?

But - keep the list of outstanding women/young women coming. It's awesome.

Jane

[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.

[Dancin103]

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.

Why must a strong leader have an ego? This part I'm curious about. The leaders we are all inspired by in FIRST, male or female, do not necessarily have this "ego complex" that is being suggested. Yes, ok most leaders have egos, but every strong mentor I can think of does not. My question is, again, why must a strong leader have an ego? To me, having ego is a bad thing, and if we are trying to get more women involved in mentoring FIRST teams, let them be all male, all female, or a co-ed team, why would we want them to pursue having a negative attribute.

I don't know, this one line really tripped me up. Just my $0.02.

Cass

[thefro526]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

Why must a strong leader have an ego? This part I'm curious about. The leaders we are all inspired by in FIRST, male or female, do not necessarily have this "ego complex" that is being suggested. Yes, ok most leaders have egos, but every strong mentor I can think of does not. My question is, again, why must a strong leader have an ego? To me, having ego is a bad thing, and if we are trying to get more women involved in mentoring FIRST teams, let them be all male, all female, or a co-ed team, why would we want them to pursue having a negative attribute.

I don't know, this one line really tripped me up. Just my $0.02.

Cass

Cass, an ego isn't always a bad thing.

I'm an avid believer that "you are what you think you are", so if you think you're a rock star mentor, then you act like rock star mentor and eventually you become a rockstar mentor. You don't necessarily need to have a bad ego, or one where you think that you're the best, you just need to believe in what you're able to do... Or something like that.

-Dustin.

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by thefro526

Cass, an ego isn't always a bad thing.

I'm an avid believer that "you are what you think you are", so if you think you're a rock star mentor, then you act like rock star mentor and eventually you become a rockstar mentor. You don't necessarily need to have a bad ego, or one where you think that you're the best, you just need to believe in what you're able to do... Or something like that.

-Dustin.

Dustin, I definitely agree with you here. I guess to me, hearing the word ego, always seems to strike as a negative thing.

Cass

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

Why must a strong leader have an ego? This part I'm curious about. The leaders we are all inspired by in FIRST, male or female, do not necessarily have this "ego complex" that is being suggested. Yes, ok most leaders have egos, but every strong mentor I can think of does not. My question is, again, why must a strong leader have an ego? To me, having ego is a bad thing, and if we are trying to get more women involved in mentoring FIRST teams, let them be all male, all female, or a co-ed team, why would we want them to pursue having a negative attribute.

I don't know, this one line really tripped me up. Just my $0.02.

Cass

There's a fine line between cockiness and confidence. Confidence is one of the major keys to success and happiness in life. As long as one can carefully stay on the right side of the line, staying confident while remaining humble, an ego can be quite beneficial.

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by Phcullen

t
Kims Robot... you seem to start blaming women who " give in to society and use their gender to more advantage than their brain." and yet you state earlier in your same set of answers that you certainly did take advantage of this with job interviews where you knew your gender was the only thing that made you more desirable to the potential employer. i am not accusing you of anything and nor should anyone else nobody would give up any advantage they had on there competition. just as they found a way to get payed without doing as much work there is clearly a problem but no one is going to remove quotas for employment or enrollment in fear of being accused that they are against equal opportunity.

Ok so you caught me, I stretched the truth a little to make a point (that likely happens). The truth is that employers look at more than GPA. They may consider gender. But I'm pretty certain what set my 3.3 above my 3.5 male counterparts was not my gender but my extensive leadership experience. I was MVP & a leader of my FIRST team in high school for 3 years. As a freshman I founded a FIRST team & was a member of the varsity ski team throughout college. I have tons of outreach & volunteerism on my resume. I worked on a student committee for the governor of CT, was a HOBY leader, held a job since I was 14, had 3 internships, on and on...

Honestly, I never asked any of my interviewers or employers if my gender had anything to do with it, as I had the confidence that my skillset and knowledge would set me apart, even if it was possible that my gender is what got me in the door. Frankly I dont care if it was my gender or that they liked the purple font I printed my name in. It gave me a chance to discuss my real potential.

My frustration with these girls that "use their gender instead of their brain" is that when they get into industry and start doing that, men in engineering start (understandably so) stereotyping all women into that category, so when they see a woman added to the team, they automatically assume that means that the men are going to have to do more work to compensate for the female. Or that men can end up assuming women got a promotion simply because of their gender, not because they worked insanely hard (I saw this happen after a female who "didnt work for it" got promoted). THAT is what bothers me. The women who create that name for those of us who have worked hard to get where we are, and use our brains. I believe that there is probably a much higher percentage of women who use their brains, but it only takes working with a few who don't and a not-so-open mind to create the stereotype when there are so few of us to begin with.

So I wont pretend to deny that my gender may have gotten me advantages to get my foot in the door, though I dont know that for a fact. I wouldnt say I deliberately "took advantage" of that, I think its just a possible fact that I would not refute. In reality, its likely my resume that got me where I was and am, but I know that companies are actively hunting for women & minorities that meet their needs, so I simply acknowledge the possibility.

Phcullen - I'm just curious, on your team, how many girls are on your pit crew? on your drive team? how many have YOU actively brought & encouraged into a technical role?

Originally Posted by MentorOfSteel

The world needs more engineers, this is one of the underlying tenets of FIRST. Girls represent a great, under-tapped pool of future engineering talent. We should be doing everything we can to encourage them and to give them safe places to learn how to stretch their engineering wings.

EXACTLY! Its already been said several times, but the dynamic with boys around is just SO much different. I've witnessed the strongest & most empowered girls back off or walk away from technical roles on a co-ed team because the boys would dismiss them or shove them aside. And often no amount of mentoring or even punishment will bring this dynamic back in balance. All-girls teams can be a way to allow those girls to stretch their wings as you say!

Originally Posted by Dancin103

Why must a strong leader have an ego? This part I'm curious about. The leaders we are all inspired by in FIRST, male or female, do not necessarily have this "ego complex" that is being suggested.
Cass

Cass - I believe this was a response to my wondering of why there are no female Rock Stars in FRC. I think this was a polite way of saying what sets the Rock Stars apart from all of the rest of the mentors we look up to individually on our teams is that the "Rock Stars" have egos that make them bold and out there. Ego is generally a negative term, but in this case, I think it makes sense and isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Rock Stars are proud of what their teams (and they) have accomplished, and they will come right out and say it. For many, their egos aren't the same as normal rock star style egos though. FIRST Rock Stars - true to the vision - will stop and help anyone that asks. They aren't too egotistical that helping those less advantaged is below them, in fact many reach out to others & other teams. But to me the ego comment is true. The FIRST Rock Stars are powerful figures, they are proud figures, they have loud voices, and often aren't afraid to speak their minds. I don't think the comment was meant that all FRC leaders have to have egos to be looked up to... its just what makes the household name. To bring it to a current example, I would guess 80% of America knows who Charlie Sheen is (he definitely has an ego). How many people know his costars names? I would admittedly have to look them up myself...

And really, this rings true in industry as well. I have only known one female at a Director level in my career... and she certainly had an ego. But females willing to have/use an ego like their male counterparts is few & far between. I forget the actual saying, but its something like "A man with an ego is considered a leader, a woman with an ego is considered a..." well you fill in the blank. And perhaps we need to change that.

P.S. Karthik answered this one better than I, but I didnt catch it as I was typing

[MamaSpoldi]

Originally Posted by Dancin103

Why must a strong leader have an ego? This part I'm curious about. The leaders we are all inspired by in FIRST, male or female, do not necessarily have this "ego complex" that is being suggested. Yes, ok most leaders have egos, but every strong mentor I can think of does not. My question is, again, why must a strong leader have an ego? To me, having ego is a bad thing, and if we are trying to get more women involved in mentoring FIRST teams, let them be all male, all female, or a co-ed team, why would we want them to pursue having a negative attribute.

I don't know, this one line really tripped me up. Just my $0.02.

Cass

I suspect Jane was indicating this as a distinction between some people's idea of a "Rock Star" and just a great mentor. Many feel that you have to be over the top and desire the spotlight to reach that status.

Originally Posted by Karthik

There's a fine line between cockiness and confidence. Confidence is one of the major keys to success and happiness in life. As long as one can carefully stay on the right side of the line, staying confident while remaining humble, and ego can be quite beneficial.

YES! Confidence without bravado. That is a goal all mentors should aspire to. Knowing what you know... and more importantly what you don't know. Being ready and open to share your knowledge and prepared to learn as well - because we all have things we can learn from working with others.

Mentoring at its best is a 2-way street.