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

[IKE]

One of the things I love about FRC is that teams have the freedom to be run they way the team wants to be run. Teams frequently choose some direction that will both help and hinder them in some aspect. The all boy/girl teams are one of these choices. Having a single sex team has benefits, but it is also unrealistic for the working world (other than some very specific instances). I think you can make a comparison to a team deciding to CNC EVERY part versus a team that decides to HAND CRAFT every part. You will learn very different skill sets from both of those choices. Both skill sets are valuable, and both will allow you to be better and gain additional depth in the particular area. This depth though comes at a cost of breadth.

All girls teams (by choice) are a tool that can be used to promote involvement, just like FRC is a tool to promote STEM involvement. FRC takes the most fun and exciting elements of a technical career and lumps it into a fun competition.
Why remove the option of a tool? That would be as ridiculous as not allowing a perfectly good (an readily available) switch to be used in a minibot.
All "anything" (girl/boy/CNC/Hand Crafted/Plastic/Wood/...) teams should have an open discussion that their decision to go that direction will likely have some detractors, and they should be aware of the PROs/CONs of their choice.

********Women Rockstars************************
I am a bit surprised no one has mentioned Kyle Hughes in this thread. She is the team lead for 27 and a WFA winner. She has also been included in Kickoff videos and panels.
Kyle is definitely one of the "Rockstars" of FRC. http://www.teamrush27.net/whoweare/mentors.html

[carii99]

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. Our culture reinforces the stereotype of boys being mechanically superior and as a result, girls usually have less experience with tools.

I think the first part of this, the part about girls ending up being part of publicity is exactly right. While this weekend was my first ever competition I saw almost immediately that almost all of the scouts and mascots were female. I'm not saying there were no male mascots or scouts, I'm just saying that many of the scouts and mascots I saw were female.

As to the comment about girls believing that a boy's skills are superior that is exactly why my team is an all-girls team. The goal isn't to discriminate but to teach girls what they are capable of. The goal of FIRST is to convince kids that the STEM technologies are within reach and to inspire kids to find careers in those fields but unfortunately girls are still left wondering if there is really a place for them.

While I understand that these stereotypes are being shattered daily they still exist in many places. In my own experience my all boys robotics class (in school and separate from my team) has generally acted as if I am inferior despite my higher grade and experience level. My ideas are tested last, wrenches are taken from my grasp, and I have been informed-- in an way that may be interpreted as joking or serious depending on the student-- that I am a woman and therefore cannot drive. Having an all-girl's team makes those kind of actions obsolete. Instead girls are encouraged in all of their ideas and all of their actions.

Finally an all-girl's team caters to the girl. My team feels like more than a family. We have had some serious issues that have been worked out without the help of a mentor. Some of us have gone to each other when support couldn't be found in their own households. I don't have the experience to say if this isn't true in a coed team but I know that having such a tight bond has made me a happier person and raised doubts over whether I would want to switch to a coed team.

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by carii99

My team feels like more than a family.

I think you would find that on a co-ed team that has developed with integrity, kindness, and a focus on building a strong team. Not all teams have that intent or focus, whether they are co-ed or not, and it is their loss if they don't.

Perhaps the discussion really is centered about the maturity of a team and its ability to recognize the importance and value of teamwork and the opportunity to introduce all of the students and mentors to the importance of all of the aspects of the competition - none of which are gender specific.

I spoke with one of our mentors on the team about this thread. Her reaction was that this lack of women in engineering, sciences, and technological fields is all generational. Ms. Earnhart thinks that the experiences that she has had are vastly different than the experiences of my (and her mother's) generation. Doors have opened that were once closed and the windows of opportunity are clearly there. She also said something very interesting regarding the role models/egos part of this discussion. Earnhart looked around her as a child and realized that her role models were male - so she fashioned herself after those role models, using their attributes and strengths to help turn her dreams into reality, not letting the lack of female role models deter her in reaching for and obtaining her goals. Bill Nye the Science Guy was recognized for his knowledge and what he could teach her. I thought her insight and perspective was very interesting and I'm looking forward to having more discussions with her.

Jane

[Lledargo]

Exclusive teams should not be allowed in anything, let alone FIRST, it is counter productive to society. Everyday people must work with others that are different genders, races and so on. Creating exclusive groups makes it harder for the people included in the groups to work in a diverse group. on top of that you are promoting the belief that different groups of humans should be separated from each other.

lastly you have the issue of double standards. If a team that was exclusively for boys was created, it would be called gender discrimination. Where as an exclusively girls team is called inspirational for doing the same thing.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Lledargo

Exclusive teams should not be allowed in anything, let alone FIRST, it is counter productive to society. Everyday people must work with others that are different genders, races and so on. Creating exclusive groups makes it harder for the people included in the groups to work in a diverse group. on top of that you are promoting the belief that different groups of humans should be separated from each other.

lastly you have the issue of double standards. If a team that was exclusively for boys was created, it would be called gender discrimination. Where as an exclusively girls team is called inspirational for doing the same thing.

What you say is definitely true, but I don't think it is something FIRST should try to govern. Once FIRST begins to govern teams it is a very slippery path. "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

I would prefer FIRST to remain separate from the politics of individual teams. Once a few bylaws are created, more are certain to come. The beautiful thing about FIRST is that it can be whatever you want it to be. Introduce bylaws for teams, and this will change very quickly.

[Abra Cadabra IV]

I have to say I'm really impressed by the discussion going on in this thread. It's hard for me to find something to say that hasn't already been said - but I'll do my best.

I'm a proud alumna of two teams - one all-girl, and one coed. (Made possible by doing FTC and FRC concurrently for three years - FTC #25 is a Girl Scout team with mostly female mentors and FRC #2429 was run by my high school.)

The biggest difference between the two teams was probably how they treated new students. The girl scout team made sure everyone had an equal opportunity to learn, ask questions, and participate. In contrast, on my high school team you had to be pretty assertive to ever do anything. We also never had more than four girls on the team (out of ~20 or so members), most of whom had very little previous experience with anything technical. It was really hard to speak up, and even harder to be taken seriously.

Being on an all-girls team did wonderful things for my confidence and inspired me to become an engineer. I honestly can't say things would be the same if I'd only joined the coed team. Without all-girl teams, how many people like me would miss out?

[caffel]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

In this case, the OP (original poster) created this thread. It takes time and effort to create a thread in ChiefDelphi. The topic that this OP is presenting also takes time and effort to think about and decide to create a thread about. (That's my opinion, of course - I realize that some people create threads without giving them much thought.) By using capitalization in the sentences and proper punctuation, the OP brings more credibility to the topic. It is a topic that I enjoy reading discussions about and I enjoy thoughtful posts regarding the topic of women in the fields of math, science, and engineering and girls on FRC/FTC/FLL/VEX/BEST teams that will help to increase the numbers of women in the fields of math, science, and engineering.

I hope this answered your question, Andrew. If not, let's take it to a private message.

Jane

By the way, what is your answer to OP's question:
Re: Are all girl FIRST team counterproductive to the philosophy of FIRST?

[JaneYoung]

Originally Posted by caffel

By the way, what is your answer to OP's question:
Re: Are all girl FIRST team counterproductive to the philosophy of FIRST?

My answer is: absolutely not.

There is a word that I value and place great emphasis on when mentoring teams and individuals: freedom. We have the freedom to develop as teams and as individuals. We have the freedom to grow. We have the freedom to mature into creative forces of genius, innovative, problem-solving, and dynamic influence that changes our world in small and large ways - for the better. If we remove the freedom and create cookie cutter molds that set very rigid boundaries and create monotonous patterns/designs - then we are being counterproductive - in my opinion. Let's allow the freedom to grow and develop to be encouraged. Let's see what the next 20 years brings.

My hope is that the alumni take what they've learned, nurtured by the philosophy, and inject it into the status quo - in their careers, their educational experiences, their management styles, their small and large businesses/corporations, their professional lifestyles. This would include opportunity for everyone to achieve and be successful, conducting business through the wisdom and merit of Gracious Professionalism and integrity.

Jane

[Lledargo]

Originally Posted by lineskier

What you say is definitely true, but I don't think it is something FIRST should try to govern. Once FIRST begins to govern teams it is a very slippery path. "The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

I would prefer FIRST to remain separate from the politics of individual teams. Once a few bylaws are created, more are certain to come. The beautiful thing about FIRST is that it can be whatever you want it to be. Introduce bylaws for teams, and this will change very quickly.

I cannot disagree with you, FIRST teams have a lot of liberty and that is a wonderful thing, however an exclusive team is counterproductive, and should be discouraged.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Lledargo

I cannot disagree with you, FIRST teams have a lot of liberty and that is a wonderful thing, however an exclusive team is counterproductive, and should be discouraged.

...based on what evidence?

[Yipyapper]

I, for one, think that all-girls exclusive teams are out to prove that just because there are no guys on the team, doesn't mean that they aren't capable of making a good robot or do anything special. Look at one of our partners for winning the west GTR, the "Where's Waldo" team 1547. They are all-girls. As for any other exclusive teams, they might be doing the same.

This is only an opinion.

[Yipyapper]

And also, the team that was all girls from 1547 are from Whitby, Ontario, which their school has another team that is both male and female egibile. This further reinforces that they are trying to tell people that girls can do the same as guys.

I'm not a feminist, just a guy that is trying to tell people what some people believe what they think is right.

[mwtidd]

Originally Posted by Lledargo

I cannot disagree with you, FIRST teams have a lot of liberty and that is a wonderful thing, however an exclusive team is counterproductive, and should be discouraged.

Also remember that when FIRST discourages or encourages something it is almost always viewed as FIRST law. I think this is why FIRST has been very particular on what is suggests is proper for FIRST teams. Anti-GP is the only thing I can think of that has been discouraged. By discouraging exclusive teams, you would essentially put anti-gp and exclusive teams on the same level. In FIRST you don't need a mandate for something to be viewed as law. Where there is a clear and blatant divide in the polls, meaning neither side is right, I think that the best thing FIRST can do is do nothing. I hope FIRST continues to stay away from an inter-organization political agenda.

I don't think the bigger issue is the rightness or wrongness of exclusive teams, but rather or not we want FIRST to begin ruling on what is and isn't ethical. We don't need parties in FIRST, they already make enough of a mess in the US.

[Lledargo]

Originally Posted by Madison

...based on what evidence?

The goal of FIRST is to inspire innovation, and teach students how to work in todays rapidly growing society. Exclusive teams only let people work with others of the same demographic, meaning they will not have to try as hard to learn to work with others that they may disagree with. which is not only counterproductive to the FIRST philosophy but to society in general.

Also Lineskier, you have a very good point. Many people do follow the FIRST guidelines as if they were law. I suppose I would like to see FIRST support social integration, but I can also see such a stance from FIRST causing many exclusive teams to disband which would be in itself counterproductive to the FIRST philosophy. I suppose that it is one of those lose-lose options.

Over all, as much as I support social integration, I support learning and intelligence more. I could not bare to see teams break up if FIRST started discouraging exclusive teams.

[Mikell Taylor]

You know, I really don't think it's FIRST's responsibility to make FRC teams look just like "the real world." Think about your co-ed team. It is made up of people in a specific school district, right? Chances are most of you are the same ethnicity, or the same socio-economic demographic, or all immigrants from the same country, or the same in any other number of characteristics. That's not always the case, true, but because schools are built around neighborhoods and neighborhoods tend to attract similar types of people, there's a really good chance your team doesn't look at all like "the real world."

FIRST as a program is designed to encourage and inspire students in a controlled environment. The problem they set out for you to tackle is achievable -- challenging, but achievable. Everyone is working with your best interest in mind. Everyone is trying hard to help you succeed and learn as much as you can. I can assure you that does not in any way resemble the real world of engineering. FIRST is structured to make it comfortable and easy for you to learn what you need to learn so that you are inspired to go tackle it in the unstructured, un-cushioned, much more intimidating "real world."

So while I appreciate the concern in this thread from all the men who are worried that women on all-girls teams will enter the engineering world as wilting flowers unable to suddenly deal with a co-ed environment, I don't think they have any more problem than you do going into college coursework with people richer than you who have had way more opportunities (and possibly more education), people poorer than you who haven't had the privileges and opportunities you have, people from different ethnic backgrounds and even different countries -- the list goes on. All an all-girls team does is offer female students who might otherwise be intimidated enough to be discouraged from STEM fields a chance to try something out in what feels like a safer, more supportive environment, to have a chance to build their confidence and emerge from the program willing and able to handle anything the "real world" can throw at them.

There are plenty of women in this thread who've said their co-ed team experiences made them the successful engineers they are today. There are plenty who have said the same thing about their all-girls team experience. There is no single answer. But I think it is clear that all-girls teams do play an important role in helping FIRST achieve their goals.