Making STEM a better place for women

[nerdrock101]

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

That's the problem with anecdotes right there. There is no reliability and no representation of both sides. Anecdotes only report the side of the person with axe to grind, however justified they are in said axe grinding. Someone who has had good experiences going to authority figures are less likely to express this, because they is no axe to grind.
I also see you've read my posts without context. Earlier, there was a user accusing me of writing the most damaging post she's seen in 15 years on this forum. Another tacitly called me a creep. They used rhetoric far more incendiary than you, so I've had to respond to separate points from the OP.

I did read the whole thread and saw what a few had said. I'm sorry that it happened since you're right, it does change how you approach the conversation and make your point.

You are right about anecdotes; it comes back to their definition. The anecdotes I have lived through color my opinions and you, yours. And that's okay and maybe we're meant to disagree about how is best to approach and react to these situations. But I hope you can understand where I'm coming from in my belief that making sure victims feel comfortable coming forward relies on trusting them over harrassers.

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by nerdrock101

I did read the whole thread and saw what a few had said. I'm sorry that it happened since you're right, it does change how you approach the conversation and make your point.

You are right about anecdotes; it comes back to their definition. The anecdotes I have lived through color my opinions and you, yours. And that's okay and maybe we're meant to disagree about how is best to approach and react to these situations. But I hope you can understand where I'm coming from in my belief that making sure victims feel comfortable coming forward relies on trusting them over harrassers.

Certainly. It seems the whole reason between our disagreement stems from the fact that we've seen different thing happen. I would say that we don't really disagree much on what to do, simply what is happening that is outside our control.
Other people seem to have other issues with me though, but you (and other reasonable posters) are not accountable for that.

[AmiableVariable]

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

Did I say that there should be disbelief that it was creepy? I said there should be neutrality.
I will phrase it better. Believe that she thought it was creepy, and believe that she wasn't unwarranted in doing thinking so.
Also believe that the offender did not mean to cause offense. Also realize that people come from entirely different backgrounds, and thus, creepy has a different meaning to other people. Lost in conversation here is the fact that castigating someone for behaving differently is one of the best ways to alienate someone from anything.

Putting aside the fact that the focus of the thread is how to make STEM more welcoming for *women*, not for those with an contextually inappropriate sense of what is creepy: I have yet to see anyone advocate outright castigation. Most of the suggestions have been preemptive education of social expectations, or bluntly pointing out the offense. Will this elicit embarrassment for the offender? Of course it will, regardless of how it is presented- they did something wrong and are being called out for it. It is natural to learn from these things, and intent does nothing to change the outcomes of these actions. This is very different from screaming and yelling at the poor innocent youth who unknowingly crossed some small line.

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

That's the problem with anecdotes right there. There is no reliability and no representation of both sides. Anecdotes only report the side of the person with axe to grind, however justified they are in said axe grinding.

Again, in the context of this conversation, there does not need to be equal representation of both sides. The OP asked how widespread these issues were, and how to help. All of these stories and anecdotes illustrate what we think the problem is, and what would help us. Just because you have not personally had these experiences does not make them misrepresentation: they are all very relevant to the conversation.

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by AmiableVariable

Putting aside the fact that the focus of the thread is how to make STEM more welcoming for *women*, not for those with an contextually inappropriate sense of what is creepy: I have yet to see anyone advocate outright castigation. Most of the suggestions have been preemptive education of social expectations, or bluntly pointing out the offense. Will this elicit embarrassment for the offender? Of course it will, regardless of how it is presented- they did something wrong and are being called out for it. It is natural to learn from these things, and intent does nothing to change the outcomes of these actions. This is very different from screaming and yelling at the poor innocent youth who unknowingly crossed some small line.



Again, in the context of this conversation, there does not need to be equal representation of both sides. The OP asked how widespread these issues were, and how to help. All of these stories and anecdotes illustrate what we think the problem is, and what would help us. Just because you have not personally had these experiences does not make them misrepresentation: they are all very relevant to the conversation.

That is the problem isn't it? Very rarely do we intend to castigate somebody, and yet, we can overreact. I've done it. Chances are you've done it. We've all done it. What I've tried to explain is that some people have been equivocating harassment with simply being awkward. Not everyone ITT, but some. Those are who I was addressing when saying that we should be careful when embarrassing people, particularly the young who are susceptible to self-esteem issues.

I never said peoples' experiences were invalid, I was saying that it is not perfect. When you represent both sides, you determine how widespread an issue is. The nature of the issue changes depending on perspective. Perspective is crucial.

[Vale]

Okay, so this post might be long and slightly ill timed.

To answer the OP's question though, as an Asian and cisgender girl without any disabilities (making sure to check my privilege first) within a school with a population that is mostly female, yes. Time and time again, there are micro aggressions and signs of harassment that me and my peers may sometimes feel, inside and outside of FIRST and STEM.

Of course, this is not all of the time, but it happens often enough that, at times, some of us may fear to the point where discerning "regular" flirting from harassment becomes difficult. At any point, if a female student (or any, for that matter) feels or appears to be uncomfortable or not consenting to the interaction, please do step in. The discomfort will linger, and may occupy our minds for years to come.

Even online, the feelings of insecurity through seeing the way that some people respond to real issues does interrupt my feeling of safety. I was hesitating responding to this thread due to some of the other responses to it.

Of course, my reactions and the next person's may vary, but this is often caused by our different filters and the way our identities have been formed by birth and environment. However, that does not make either party's less valid, if we have experienced the fundamentally similar events in different ways.

Thus, for a solution, others may have said this already, but awareness is a key to this. Sure, some people may refuse to change, but knowledge is, in fact, power. Making sure that your members know that preventing harassment and non-consenting situations is work for the approacher, and that it's okay for someone to step in if the victim does not appear in control of the situation. Also, by informing people of potential micro-aggressions they may be performing, they can learn from you to actively prevent these from occurring.

Finally, it's important to make sure that there is an available support system. Members should be able to trust people with their feelings during situations that may be uncomfortable in this manner. I think little things like this help make FIRST and STEM a bit friendlier place.

[popnbrown]

Re-emphasizing:

Originally Posted by popnbrown

Neutral action implies disbelief in that the act was not creepy. Whether you mean it or not. You (a general you, not you specifically) are that girl's mentor, the person who is there to support her, to teach her, to guide her. Not being absolutely supportive of her discomfort is not living up to your role as a mentor. Implication can mean everything

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

Did I say that there should be disbelief that it was creepy? I said there should be neutrality.

No you did not say that, nor did I say you said that. What I said (and I quoted and emphasized) is that you imply disbelief with neutrality, whether or not it is meant. But what is neutrality:

Believe that she thought it was creepy, and believe that she wasn't unwarranted in doing thinking so.

This I believe is not neutral, you're being pretty much on her side. So thank you for clarifying what you meant by neutral because we had different definitions.

Your approach, your potential solution, is more neutral and one I would take as well. But here's my follow-up question, would you the "offender" consider changing his/her behavior?

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

No you did not say that, nor did I say you said that. What I said (and I quoted and emphasized) is that you imply disbelief with neutrality, whether or not it is meant.

I am personally unable to see how neutrality implies disbelief. I guess you might think so, but that is beyond me.

This I believe is not neutral, you're being pretty much on her side. So thank you for clarifying what you meant by neutral because we had different definitions.

I would consider myself on both sides (neutral), considering that I also said that I believe the offender did not intend to make her uncomfortable.

Your approach, your potential solution, is more neutral and one I would take as well. But here's my follow-up question, would you the "offender" consider changing his/her behavior?

Yes, I would want them to change their behavior, if only around that particular person.

[AmiableVariable]

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

That is the problem isn't it? Very rarely do we intend to castigate somebody, and yet, we can overreact. I've done it. Chances are you've done it. We've all done it. What I've tried to explain is that some people have been equivocating harassment with simply being awkward. Not everyone ITT, but some. Those are who I was addressing when saying that we should be careful when embarrassing people, particularly the young who are susceptible to self-esteem issues.

I never said peoples' experiences were invalid, I was saying that it is not perfect. When you represent both sides, you determine how widespread an issue is. The nature of the issue changes depending on perspective. Perspective is crucial.

Awkwardness and harassment are two different things. I can be an extremely awkward person- and it is never pleasant to look around and see confused looks. I am defining harassment is when the actions are focused on another person or group and can be perceived as threatening or degrading. What are you using to define the difference between the two?

We may be referring to different degrees of embarrassment as well. What I am trying to refer to is the near inevitable embaressment that results when one is told, however kindly, that they crossed a social line. The only ways to reliably avoid this are to either not cross lines, or to not be informed when you do. I do agree that mentors and authority figures can and often should take the option to not publically shame someone when they try to redirect them, depending on the context. The student being bothered, however does not have this responsibility of extra care, as they already have no choice in getting tangled up in the matter.

[popnbrown]

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

I am personally unable to see how neutrality implies disbelief. I guess you might think so, but that is beyond me.

I think it depends on the definition of neutrality. My thought on neutral was you don't believe her, which you said is not your definition. So I think we're on the same page here.

If a student comes and says X is being "creepy", then you and I would both believe the student.

Yes, I would want them to change their behavior, if only around that particular person.

Doesn't ^ this show that you are not neutral in the "offender"'s side. You would request they do change their behavior, stating that the "offender" was not in the correct for that particular situation with that particular person.

[Liam Fay]

Originally Posted by MooreteP

Oh dear, I was hoping this aspect wouldn't cloud the thread, but here goes.

How do you handle room assignments on a field trip to a travel competition when students are openly LBGTQ?
We usually packed 4 students to a room (before districts).
When their sexual orientation would be taken into account, the math became more expensive.

This is a topic that I'm surprised to see very little on in CD. I don't think this is the right thread for it, but it's a topic I'd like to see discussed more, as there is certainly a foggy area when it comes to all things LGBTQ in FIRST - with all of the wonderful advocation for women in STEM and FIRST, LGBTQ people kind of get lost in the process.

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by AmiableVariable

Awkwardness and harassment are two different things. I can be an extremely awkward person- and it is never pleasant to look around and see confused looks. I am defining harassment is when the actions are focused on another person or group and can be perceived as threatening or degrading. What are you using to define the difference between the two?

We may be referring to different degrees of embarrassment as well. What I am trying to refer to is the near inevitable embaressment that results when one is told, however kindly, that they crossed a social line. The only ways to reliably avoid this are to either not cross lines, or to not be informed when you do. I do agree that mentors and authority figures can and often should take the option to not publically shame someone when they try to redirect them, depending on the context. The student being bothered, however does not have this responsibility of extra care, as they already have no choice in getting tangled up in the matter.

I define harassment as repeated and targeted, the way the law does. It is possible to still be creepy and have poor manners, but not harassing. Even if they have not been informed they are making someone uncomfortable by the person in question, you should still advise them that they could be making someone uncomfortable.

What I have been explaining is that one should not be embarrassed for something greater than what they actually did. I have been saying that multiple times now.

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by popnbrown

I think it depends on the definition of neutrality. My thought on neutral was you don't believe her, which you said is not your definition. So I think we're on the same page here.

If a student comes and says X is being "creepy", then you and I would both believe the student.



Doesn't ^ this show that you are not neutral in the "offender"'s side. You would request they do change their behavior, stating that the "offender" was not in the correct for that particular situation with that particular person.

My request has nothing to do with whether or not someone was wrong, but rather to avoid future conflict. If someone makes an unreasonable demand that someone change their behavior, it is still advised to act differently, no matter if it is unreasonable and an overreaction. Avoiding conflict you see.
If someone is grossly harassing or offensive, then it becomes a order to stop. I can't do anything myself, but I will bring it to the attention of the head coach.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

I define harassment as repeated and targeted, the way the law does.

How you define something is irrelevant to how you make someone else feel. Your intent does not matter to that person. How that person feels does matter to that person.

If someone feels creeped out or harassed by you, say you are sorry leave them alone. That's all there is to it.

And by "you" I mean the "guy" role in this thread. I'm guessing I quoted the most glaringly ignorant piece of your entire point, so my bad if this is too far out of context.

[Philip Arola]

Originally Posted by JesseK

How you define something is irrelevant to how you make someone else feel. Your intent does not matter to that person. How that person feels does matter to that person.

If someone feels creeped out or harassed by you, say you are sorry leave them alone. That's all there is to it.

And by "you" I mean the "guy" role in this thread. I'm guessing I quoted the most glaringly ignorant piece of your entire point, so my bad if this is too far out of context.

You conveniently left out the part where I said that just because it is not harassment does not mean it is a poor thing to do.

[JesseK]

Originally Posted by Philip Arola

You conveniently left out the part where I said that just because it is not harassment does not mean it is a poor thing to do.

Because it's irrelevant to my point. The point is, if someone feels harassed then you're harassing them.