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

[TEntwistle]

As a mentor of an all-girls team (433), I have come to see the benefit to the girls with this arrangement. While it is clear that some girls on some teams excel in FIRST, it is clear that others are held back. Some never get involved because they do not think that they will be welcome. Some never reach to do more once on the team because there is already someone (a male) in that role, and some are actively discouraged from reaching out.

An example of the latter is a girl who was on our team several years ago. Mid-way through high school she transfered to another high school in the area and joined their robotics team. Despite her experience with our team, she was told that she could not use the power tools without supervision of the boys, could not design or drive. She was welcome to program and administrate. In my mind, that is what can happen when adolescent boys and adolescent girls mix in an area that has been historically the realm of the males. It also happens later in life, but that is another matter.

The real question for all teams out there is "How are you doing in making sure that girls have the same opportunity as the boys?" The sub-questions are "Is there equal representation amongst the membership of the team?" and "Do girls participate at equal levels in building, driving and all of the really fun parts?" If the answer to these questions is "No", then the answer to the main question is that "All-girls teams are not counterproductive". Yes, there are all-boys teams out there. There are some because they are from all-boys schools and some that just discourage girls from joining. The latter don't promote it because it only makes them look bad. The all-girls teams promote their uniqueness for several reasons. One is that they can catch the attention of other girls and show them that FIRST can be for them to. Another is to show their pride in being able to compete on an even playing field with the boys. Another is to show the boys that they can succeed. Later in life, these kids (as adults) will be making hiring decisions, and a boy who has seen the girls compete will be more open to hiring the female candidate than the one who has not, or more likely to work for that same woman.

Overall, the statistics for female participation in FIRST is poor compared to other areas of science (over 50% of medical students are female!). The rate of females in key roles on these teams is even worse. Other than the all-girls teams, does anybody know of any team where there are 2 girls as the first and second drivers? Until the perceptions of female particpation changes, this will never improve. The all-girls teams are just one way in which perceptions can be altered. What they need to be careful about is that they use their status as a way to get more girls involved (and at higher levels) and not use it as a crutch.

Our team hosted girlPOWER (an off season event) last fall and had 10 teams participate. There were a few things worth mentioning that demonstrate how powerful that was for promoting girls' involvement. One girl from a coed team showed up without a team, and joined a group of girls from other teams on the "orphan team" (another school had brought a practice robot). As lead driver, she was able to take that team far in the competition - something she may not have been able to do without this opportunity. An all-boys school team lent their robot to an all-girls school who had no team and let them compete. They are now looking into combining as a coed team or having the girls school develop an official separate team. Again, an opportunity they would never have had. Finally, there were young girls from middle schools in the region who came to the competition and saw first hand how much fun the kids were having. A few of these might end up in FIRST, but all of them saw how girls can succeed if they try.

[Molten]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

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!

My question is why the teams must be separated based on gender? Lets say a school has 2 teams, one historically all-boy and the other historically all-girl. Had I gone to this school, I would have probably fit in better with the all-girl team with respect to prior technical skills. I never learned machining or welding in high school because there were other guys that already could and were eager and waiting. Had I been on a team that had forced me to(as has been suggested the advantage of an all-girls team it) I would have learned these valuable skills. 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. I completely reject the notion that they should be separated on gender lines alone. That is where we are having a disagreement. Historical gender lines are becoming more and more fuzzy(which is good), as these lines blur we are going to really going to need a better way of sorting then gender.

In short, I completely agree that people without experience or that are perhaps more passive can benefit from being on a team without the more outright and experienced. I just disagree that this is always as simple as girl/boy. I've known girls that in my prior example would have fit in better with the all-boy team and I personally would have fit in better with the all-girl team. The line just isn't that clear anymore.

Jason

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Molten

My question is why the teams must be separated based on gender? Lets say a school has 2 teams, one historically all-boy and the other historically all-girl. Had I gone to this school, I would have probably fit in better with the all-girl team with respect to prior technical skills. I never learned machining or welding in high school because there were other guys that already could and were eager and waiting. Had I been on a team that had forced me to(as has been suggested the advantage of an all-girls team it) I would have learned these valuable skills. 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. I completely reject the notion that they should be separated on gender lines alone. That is where we are having a disagreement. Historical gender lines are becoming more and more fuzzy(which is good), as these lines blur we are going to really going to need a better way of sorting then gender.

In short, I completely agree that people without experience or that are perhaps more passive can benefit from being on a team without the more outright and experienced. I just disagree that this is always as simple as girl/boy. I've known girls that in my prior example would have fit in better with the all-boy team and I personally would have fit in better with the all-girl team. The line just isn't that clear anymore.

Jason

I know some schools have Varsity and Junior Varsity robotics teams for exactly this purpose, and that's great. All girls teams do, however, still have a place in FIRST. As Dean Kamen put it, FIRST's goal is "To transform our culture by creating a world where science and technology are celebrated and where young people dream of becoming science and technology leaders." Take a step back for a second, and look at how that applies not only to the members of a team, but also to all those we bring in off the streets to see our competitions. How is a Girl Scout troop inspired when they see 90% boys driving, and 90% boys working in the pits? Frankly, most of them look at that and, instead of coming away inspired towards science and technology, they come away thinking there's no place for them in this male-dominated culture. Only a very small minority will decide they want to fight that culture and try to change it.

That's where an all girls team plays a pivotal role in FIRST. As a team, it sets an example for all the fans, all the randoms off the street, all the Girl Scout troops. It shows all of those girls that there is a place for them - not only that, but it shows them that girls can do it just as well as boys can.

Now, these stats are a little old (it's the best I could find on Google)... only 20% of engineering undergrads in 2004 were Women. How do we fix that? How do we get more girls interested in Engineering? You can't solve that problem by influencing the female members of your team - for most teams the male/female ratio is just as bad as that statistic. You solve it by getting more girls to join a FIRST team. You solve it by inspiring even younger girls to want to be a part of the team. You do it by providing role models for those young girls. That is perhaps the most important thing an all girls team does. Inspiring that younger generation will increase female participation in all teams across the board. The day we see equal participation between males and females both in the pits and on the field is the day we'll no longer need all girls teams.

[bam-bam]

Isn't it the whole point (of exclusive-gender teams) to get girls interested in engineering? Isn't that the whole point of the POWER camp at IUPUI that comes to IRI every year?

[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.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by MamaSpoldi

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.

Actually, I was thinking that there are many powerful egos in FRC. There are great mentors with powerful egos. The trick is to control them (egos) and not let the egos control the mentors.

Post 101, JesseK's, is brilliant regarding this discussion about the ego. If a mentor with an incredible sense of self and ego can help to power a team to success and achievement while in control of the ego, it can be a magnificent journey. Why do high school and college students spend so much time and energy looking at the numbers in a variety of settings but always coming down to the elite teams leading the way in those numbers? What drove those teams to garner the wins and achievements? What was the power and the motivation? In some of those cases, we'll see the very strong, very healthy egos as part of the bigger picture. And, for many teams, the mentors have learned to harness the ego and turn it into a source of positive energy and inspiration. That is where a team that has access to this energy can have a lot going for it in ways that can be talked for years to come.

I'd also like to talk about the wisdom in post 100. This mentor, George Kantor, is helping the team explore their sense of self and to develop their ego and, in some ways, he is as surprised as anyone as to how amazing the discoveries are.

Fantastic posts by these two awesome mentors and what I'm actually talking about regarding the ego.

--
Jaine - I'm just now reading about my suggestion to think a while before posting that was made by Jason. I may send you guys a pm later after I've had some time to think about what I want to say. It's no biggie, it's just that I know both of you and I also know that historically, each of you loves an excellent and sometimes, heated discussion.

Jane

[Dancin103]

Originally Posted by MentorOfSteel

I am a (male) mentor on FIRST team 3504, Girls of Steel, a FIRST team composed of girls from all over the Pittsburgh area. This thread is timely for me. I undertook mentoring 3504 with many of the same reservations about all-girl teams that have been expressed in this thread. But my experiences over the past six or so months have convinced me that all-girls teams are a good thing and can play a real role in increasing the number of girls who decide to pursue technical careers.

As a faculty member at Carnegie Mellon University's Robotics Institute, I have been involved in robotics research and education with students ranging from highschool to Ph.D. for the past ten years. I have seen first hand many of the negative dynamics that have been reported in this thread. There are small numbers of women in our classes. I have seen women who marginalize themselves to fit in better with their more aggressive male peers. Alternatively, I have seen women assert themselves and suffer socially for it. You can point to these symptoms as an indictment to society, or our educational system, or even my own poor skills as a teacher. But these are deep seated issues that have no immediate solution, or at least not one that I know of.

What I can say is this: the girls of 3504 are thriving in ways that I have never seen girls/women thrive in a co-educational setting. They are gaining confidence and taking on responsibilities that many of them would concede to the boys on a mixed-gender team. Sure, they will need to work with boys/men someday, but when they get there they will have the skills to go head to head with them and the confidence that goes along with it. I find it surprising that anyone can criticize my actions as "counterproductive". If you don't believe me, you are welcome to come help us mentor 3504 and see for yourself. Or better yet, start your own all-girls team.

I'll finish this post (my first ever on CD) with an attempt to provide some perspective that I have not yet seen in this thread: 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.

-George

George, what you are doing, teaching, and encouraging your students to do is fantastic. I have been involved in FIRST for the last 16 years of my life. It has only been in the past few years (ok maybe 8 or 9) that our team has been able to develop into a culture in which both guys and girls are working along side one another to create this great sense of knowledge and environment that you are talking about.

Your encouragement to girls and women to doing nothing but to strive an excel in what can still be considered a man's world is fantastic. You are an outstanding mentor and if you are in St. Louis, I would love to stop by and just say hello. Thank you for taking the time to teach these girls to follow their passions and thank you for showing them not to be afraid to "get in there" and take charge.

For my team personally, we are an even split, just about, of guys and girls. I believe the ratio is something like 14 girls to 16 guys. We also have a group of 5 officers that are the President, VP of Marketing, VP of Manufacturing, Secretary, and Treasurer. Three of these positions held are female and two are male. I am so proud of my students for the work they produce and the students that they are and will become.

Cass

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Jaine Perotti

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

X-ism does not mean oppressing based on X. It merely means making a distinction based on X. It isn't automatically a negative thing.

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.

What you've described here is exactly discrimination. You seem to be treating the word as if it is describing something unfair, and that's not what it means. It just means taking that attribute into account when deciding how to treat someone. Discrimination based on things other than ability or performance is often (not always) unfair, but discrimination based on how well one can do the job is perfectly appropriate.

I'm afraid that the mismatch between your personal definitions and the customary and "correct" definition is going to mess up most discussions you want to have on the topic, and that's a shame. People probably would agree with you wholeheartedly if you could find common vocabulary.

[Phcullen]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

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?

of my 3 years on a team i remember that on my first year there were 8 that i can remember that worked directly with the robot (7 on build 1 programmer). 4 of them (1 programmer and 2 end effector and 1 mobility captain) where on pit that year.

the following year we lost 3, 2 due to graduation 1 (who was team captain until that point) for personal reasons, but gained 2 more (1 worked hardware the other chose to work chairmans but still would help with build when she was free) leaving us with 7. that year 5 (1 mobility, 1 hardware, 3 end effector) of them were on pit.

my senor year on the team our only senior on build graduated the year before leaving us down 1 girl, but there was also 1 freshman girl that joined hardware that year bringing us again back to 6 (out of the 11 seniors on the team that year 5 of them were women). that year one of our build captain was a girl and there were 3-4 on pit (, 1 hardware, 2-3 end effector)

none were on flight for my three years on the team but of the 11 women I saw 5 of them take leadership rolls in out team
of the 10 that have already graduated
3-Virgina Tech (2 I know are studying engineering)
1-GMU( believe she is studying engineering)
1-JMU (not engineering)
1-CNU (politics)
1-WVU (music education)
1-RPI (mechanical engineering)
1-VCU*full ride* (chemical engineering)
1- unknown (programmer from my first year)

this year I know that both of our drivers and our human player are girls 2 of them are rookies

that is just our FRC build team our animation team this year was run by a girl who has been a predominant animator all three years she has been on the team and at the beginning of this year was the only nomination for team captain but refused so she could stay focussed on the teams animation. she was granted with the Dean's list award this year at the DC regional and next year will be studying chemistry at Cornell University

you would have to ask them how there experiences with FIRST and our team affected them

I'll leave you to determine if our team is a positive environment for women to try there hand in the STEM fields if you don't feel so then please speak up, I'm sure any suggestions you have would have the potential to benefit everybody. but try to be progressive

[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).

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

X-ism does not mean oppressing based on X. It merely means making a distinction based on X. It isn't automatically a negative thing.



What you've described here is exactly discrimination. You seem to be treating the word as if it is describing something unfair, and that's not what it means. It just means taking that attribute into account when deciding how to treat someone. Discrimination based on things other than ability or performance is often (not always) unfair, but discrimination based on how well one can do the job is perfectly appropriate.

I'm afraid that the mismatch between your personal definitions and the customary and "correct" definition is going to mess up most discussions you want to have on the topic, and that's a shame. People probably would agree with you wholeheartedly if you could find common vocabulary.

I feel that most people attach some kind of negativity to the words "discrimination" and "sexism"... but I suppose not everyone will. When the claim was made that all-girls teams were "sexist" to men, I assumed the "sexism" was being considered unfair... otherwise why bring it up? You seem to want to remove the negative connotation from those words -- and that's fine if you want to define it that way for yourself. Just keep in mind that when I used those words, I meant for them to retain that connotation. My main point was simply to say that not ALL exclusion enforces cultural hegemony (is that a good enough word?).

So, to clarify: when I talk about sexism and discrimination, I'm referring to acts which contribute to a society-wide culture of oppression. Using my definition, is it sexist to exclude men from using the women's bathroom? Most people would probably say no because it serves a practical need for privacy. Is it sexist to exclude men from women's sports teams? Most people would probably say no, because the purpose is to make sure that the players have similar physiques/ability levels. Is it sexist to run an all-girls FIRST team? No it's not, because all-girls teams also serve a practical purpose -- to combat the problem of female underrepresentation in STEM fields. These restrictions aren't sexist to men, because men already have their own bathrooms and sports teams and (over)representation in STEM. The above examples exist not as manifestations of women wielding cultural advantage over men, but as practical solutions to problems.

--Jaine

ETA: I have gotten some feedback that this reply was too harsh-sounding. I really didn't intend for it to come across that way, I only meant to clarify what I meant to you and others. If I have sounded abrasive in some of my posts, I apologize; it's hard not to get defensive when it seems as if my experiences are being minimized and dismissed.

[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.

[Dmentor]

Originally Posted by Mikell Taylor

It is getting better. My mother was one of the first women allowed to be hired into a male-dominated environment (the Air National Guard) and she had it much worse than I did. My life is easy compared to what she went through.

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

Is it EASY to be a Female in Engineering?
...
3. Yes. Getting a job out of college IS easier as a girl.
...

I loved reading these comments.

My research colleague, mentor and friend retired from Lockheed-Martin (LM) a couple of years ago after almost forty years as a practicing engineer. After graduating with a doctorate in chemistry from Carnegie Mellon in the 1960s she was unable to find a job. After a long and fruitless search she went on to do her post-doctorate work at Harvard really out of frustration. She finally was able to find a job at IBM where it turned out that her work in theoretical chemistry could be applied to very early ballistic missile defense systems and she eventually migrated to the field of anti-submarine warfare localization and tracking. Over the years I have been blessed to learn amazing things from her. Her first-hand stories of prejudice and gender bias in the workplace were quite eye opening for me as a young engineer and ones that should never have to be relived.

Being a father of a twelve year old girl, I'd like to think that things are significantly different now (and in many ways they are); however, when I look at my department (which specializes in the development of acoustics, sonar signal processing, detection, estimation and tracking algorithms) today we only have 2 female engineers out of 16 (12.5%). Looking across my entire second line systems engineering organization, I see 23 female engineers out of 106 (22.7%) which is a little bit better but nothing to write home about. And when I look at recent and current LM fellows (which are the top 1% of LM engineers), I see that about 1.5% of them are female. While we may be making inroads, they are certainly slow coming in the most complex fields and particularly at the pinnacle of technical engineering.