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

[Alexa Stott]

*puts on women's studies hat

Outside of cases where the team comes from an all girls school, girl scout troop. or another all girls organization, I actually disagree with having all girls teams. It was discussed in this thread about having two teams at the same school: one for girls and one for boys. I think this sends the message to young women that they can only succeed so long as they are segregated from the men.

It may seem like a good idea in that it would guarantee that the young women on the team would be able to fully participate. Though, as others pointed out when this thread was first started, it's almost like viewing being female as a handicap.

I think it's far more valuable to teach boys (and male mentors) on FIRST teams to value girls' input and to see them as equals than it is to remove girls from the equation entirely by putting them on a separate team. Girls should be in leadership positions based on meritt Segregating the genders just leads to further reinforcement of the that women cannot succeed in a male-dominated field.

Unfortunately, this is not FIRST's problem; it's a societal issue.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Alexa Stott

*puts on women's studies hat

Outside of cases where the team comes from an all girls school, girl scout troop. or another all girls organization, I actually disagree with having all girls teams. It was discussed in this thread about having two teams at the same school: one for girls and one for boys. I think this sends the message to young women that they can only succeed so long as they are segregated from the men.

It may seem like a good idea in that it would guarantee that the young women on the team would be able to fully participate. Though, as others pointed out when this thread was first started, it's almost like viewing being female as a handicap.

I think it's far more valuable to teach boys (and male mentors) on FIRST teams to value girls' input and to see them as equals than it is to remove girls from the equation entirely by putting them on a separate team. Girls should be in leadership positions based on meritt Segregating the genders just leads to further reinforcement of the that women cannot succeed in a male-dominated field.

Unfortunately, this is not FIRST's problem; it's a societal issue.

What if you have an all-boys and an all-girls team at a school, and the all-girls team consistently does better at the regionals (places higher, goes further in elims, or wins more trophies) than the all-boys teams? Would you worry that the boys might start thinking they can only succeed through segregation? Would you start to see having an all-boys team as a handicap?

It's not about "removing girls from the equation" (that's looking at it from a male-centric point of view). It's about attempting to provide the best environment possible for every student to both participate and succeed. If a team gets so large they want to split into two teams, how do you determine how to split it? In this case, splitting by gender may actually help to encourage even more female recruitment and participation.

I'll leave you with one parting thought... It's pretty much accepted as a given that schools will have all-girls and all-boys programs. Soccer, volleyball, and baseball/softball all come to mind almost instantly. Are we accepting that there is a gender-based difference in performance in these sports? Are we saying that the only way a female athlete can succeed is by only playing with and against other girls?