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

[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