Discussion on All-Girl events

[FarmerJohn]

Originally Posted by Liam Fay

This is not about discriminating against young men to put young women on some sort of pedestal. This is not about pushing young men down, it's about raising young women up.

You are correct, however I believe the argument being made is that if that is the case, don't separate the workshops by gender. Both workshops are important topics, but to say that young women can only attend the "success" workshop and young men can only attend the "learn to fix your accidental bad behavior" workshop makes one push in the right direction and another push in the wrong direction.

Why not offer both workshops to everyone and encourage everyone to attend whichever one they choose, or even mix the two together into a single workshop? Either way by attending one of the workshops the participants will learn something valuable. I think that if a single workshop that covered career success in STEM fields as well as inclusion in STEM was offered, nobody would be complaining.

A final thought: It is no secret that a majority of the difficulties pushing young women away from STEM come from men, even unintentionally, and it is no secret that because of these difficulties entering the STEM fields can be daunting and deterring for many young women. But we forget that sometimes it can also be young women who accidentally make it difficult for other young women to enter the field, and likewise, sometimes young men see STEM as daunting and deterring. It may be a minority, but it still exists. Just as you can't fight hate with hate, you cannot fight gender roles with more gender roles. Inclusion and equality is the only way forwards.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Sure.


Unintentional and societal bias are a large reason as to why 92.2% of US mechanical engineers are male, and that the ratios are similarly out of whack in most other engineering fields.

I've attached two pictures that were derived from this data set, by which I mean, I ordered the jobs by Median income (lower income is on the top)


The second one, I snipped out only engineering.


Point is, percentage is really only half the question. Who cares if a certain group dominates employment in a sector which doesn't pay well such as Library Science?

[smitikshah]

If you want to fix something - do it.

As some statistics have pointed out (that were posted on the thread), most well paying engineering jobs are taken by males. As a woman I reflect upon my experiences and realize I didn't want to do a lot of things because the predominant male influence in the field. Just take an example of say Petroleum Engineering. I don't want to do it because I don't feel comfortable in the field with males unintentional bias against me (they aren't wrong for doing it - it's unintentional after all). Because of that I don't train to be a Petroleum Engineer. I could have been a great Petroleum Engineer that really could have changed the industry. But I refused to because of a culture that didn't harbor an environment for my learning and flourishing. So someone comes along and starts an initiate. "Females in Petroleum Engineering". It helps by fostering an environment I'd want to work in. The reason "Males in Petroleum Engineering" isn't an initiative is because the environment currently supports them in working. Why are you stopping potential females Petroleum Engineers from entering a field when you can fix a easily recognizable problem (unintentional bias)? So by saying "This one guy doesn't feel welcome as opposed to these 50 girls - we should forget about helping the 50 girls optimally". We can combine them but time and resources are an issue. So here is an idea: If you find that there is a problem with promoting Males in a certain field that you would like to see more males in, or if you think Males should also be pushed in FRC - then take your own initiatives to do so! Instead of complaining about how this event, that so many people put so much hard work, time, effort, and emotional costs into is worthless because it doesn't promote real equality - then make your own male counterpart event! In my opinion, people shouldn't so ruthlessly discredit so much work without proposing a realistic and serious alternative.

I'll end with a logic exercise that I used to do in elementary school.

Example.)

Major Premise: All humans breathe air.
Minor Premise: I breathe air.
Conclusion: I am a human.
Sound Logic.

Application:

Major Premise: All genders should be promoted in STEM.
Minor Premise: Females are a gender.
Conclusion: Females should be promoted in STEM.
Sound Logic.

Notice nowhere does this say males should not be promoted in STEM. Males should be promoted but this event is about promoting females. Nobody is trying to exchange promoting women in STEM for males in STEM.

Sorry about the rambling some posts on this thread really made me want to rant.

[Liam Fay]

Originally Posted by FarmerJohn

You are correct, however I believe the argument being made is that if that is the case, don't separate the workshops by gender. Both workshops are important topics, but to say that young women can only attend the "success" workshop and young men can only attend the "learn to fix your accidental bad behavior" workshop makes one push in the right direction and another push in the wrong direction.

Why not offer both workshops to everyone and encourage everyone to attend whichever one they choose, or even mix the two together into a single workshop? Either way by attending one of the workshops the participants will learn something valuable. I think that if a single workshop that covered career success in STEM fields as well as inclusion in STEM was offered, nobody would be complaining.

A final thought: It is no secret that a majority of the difficulties pushing young women away from STEM come from men, even unintentionally, and it is no secret that because of these difficulties entering the STEM fields can be daunting and deterring for many young women. But we forget that sometimes it can also be young women who accidentally make it difficult for other young women to enter the field, and likewise, sometimes young men see STEM as daunting and deterring. It may be a minority, but it still exists. Just as you can't fight hate with hate, you cannot fight gender roles with more gender roles. Inclusion and equality is the only way forwards.

I appreciate your point of view, and I agree with a lot of what you've said. I have a couple things to say, though.

While in theory, having workshops available to everyone gives twice the number of people valuable experience, it doesn't work out that way. I'm going to overstep my bounds as someone who is not a woman and say that often the presence of men would unintentionally cause these women to not feel as comfortable fully participating or sharing.

And sure, you make a good point about some women who make the STEM world hostile for other women. However, these women 1) are a minority of women in STEM and 2) would likely also benefit from workshops that encourage making STEM more hospitable towards women.

[FarmerJohn]

Originally Posted by Liam Fay

While in theory, having workshops available to everyone gives twice the number of people valuable experience, it doesn't work out that way. I'm going to overstep my bounds as someone who is not a woman and say that often the presence of men would unintentionally cause these women to not feel as comfortable fully participating or sharing.

If solely the presence of another gender makes someone feel uncomfortable, regardless of who they are, that's on them. You cannot say that just having a gender exist in an area is enough to rationalize discomfort. If you cannot speak your mind because another gender is present, that is not the fault of the other gender.

Now I would understand if, for a more specific hypothetical example, boys were in the girl's workshop and they started heckling girls or showing clear examples of bias or prejudice, then yes, it would make sense that others would feel uncomfortable. However to make the assumption that allowing boys to participate in the workshop would surely result in heckling and prejudice is prejudice in it of itself.

We use this program to inspire young adults to be mature and educated individuals who are better prepared for the real world than their peers outside the program. We cannot accomplish this if we use reverse discrimination to solve a problem of discrimination, and we certainly cannot accomplish it if we allow prejudiced assumptions to justify the mindset of irrational discomfort solely due to the presence of another gender.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by smitikshah

I'll end with a logic exercise that I used to do in elementary school.

Example.)

Major Premise: All humans breathe air.
Minor Premise: I breathe air.
Conclusion: I am a human.
Sound Logic.

Major Premise: All humans breathe air.
Minor Premise: My dog breathes air.
Conclusion: My dog is a human.


Some logic may not be as sound as you think. Remember, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

That said, boys are already promoted in STEM through our general societal expectations, while girls are not. So if we're going to change the culture and grow STEM, catering to girls on occasion is one very valid way of doing it.

[Hitchhiker 42]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Major Premise: All humans breathe air.
Minor Premise: My dog breathes air.
Conclusion: My dog is a human.


Some logic may not be as sound as you think. Remember, all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

That said, boys are already promoted in STEM through our general societal expectations, while girls are not. So if we're going to change the culture and grow STEM, catering to girls on occasion is one very valid way of doing it.

Not to get into semantics, but I think what was meant was:

Major Premise: All humans breathe air.
Minor Premise: I am a human.
Conclusion: I breathe air.

Beyond that, the second logic exercise was perfectly sound.

I personally think that it is fine for this event to take place. However, we should be promoting not only female leadership in STEM careers, but also female leadership interaction with males in STEM. While I'm not sure how it is best to do this, I'm certain that it'd be more beneficial to cater to female leadership interactions.

[smitikshah]

Originally Posted by Hitchhiker 42

Not to get into semantics, but I think what was meant was:

Major Premise: All humans breathe air.
Minor Premise: I am a human.
Conclusion: I breathe air.

Beyond that, the second logic exercise was perfectly sound.

I personally think that it is fine for this event to take place. However, we should be promoting not only female leadership in STEM careers, but also female leadership interaction with males in STEM. While I'm not sure how it is best to do this, I'm certain that it'd be more beneficial to cater to female leadership interactions.

Yes - thanks Mark. That's what I was supposed to write.

And I do agree with your second statement. While this event has its place, another opportunity could be to figure out a way to promote integration of females directly in male dominated environments.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by smitikshah

Yes - thanks Mark. That's what I was supposed to write.

And I do agree with your second statement. While this event has its place, another opportunity could be to figure out a way to promote integration of females directly in male dominated environments.

IMHO an event like this would be a lot better if instead of an all women drive team they did a 50/50 drive team. I also think if the end goal is to promote women in Engineering then promoting females in the pits is a good tactic.

A concern no one seems to have brought up yet is the fact that some small teams like ours don't have enough active females to field a drive team. For 10-25 person teams this could very well be the case.

Although I can't give my full opinions on this topic I will end with this. The engineering world is primarily male and will most likely be like this for at least our generation. First is about learning. Whether we like it or not a valid skill for females to learn if they want to pursue engineering is working with primarily men. I also feel an event like this may broadcast a wrong message to females. A message that the only way for them to gain an important positions is to get rid of all the males. That's the exact opposite direction we should be going in.

Lastly I had the convenience of being able to select my Co captain this year. Smiti at the time was not near the most dedicated member nor knew the most about Frc but what I saw was a competent person who would be the best at leading the team. Gender never played a factor and imo if shouldn't. The most competent person should be chosen and I believe was chosen.

[Pauline Tasci]

With this thread growing, I really wanted to share my point of view. Most of you know my opinion about all female events and mass medias obsession with women in STEM, but I thought I'd share it here.

I think there is a HUGE difference in regards to getting women involved in STEM, with showing them they are capable and striving to teach women spacial reasoning skills at a young age (we get dolls, boys get legos) which is why I love Debbie Sterling and her Goldiebloks program. FLL also strives to do the same. Getting ANYONE into STEM at a young age is the key. Showing little girls they are capable of the same skills is key.

I'd also like to point out how difficult it is to be a woman in STEM when STEM jobs and FRC have this strong male culture behind them. I am constantly told I shouldn't be doing this, that I'm in a man's field, and that I chose the wrong path. You know what sucks? When people see that you're a woman at an engineering company or team and assume you're not an engineer, assume you're doing media or outreach. Assuming you don't belong before speaking to you. And with all of that we also have to deal with CONSTANT harassment from our male colleagues, adults, and volunteers. We have to deal with people constantly hitting on us, making sexual advances, and blatant bullying because we're doing what makes us happy. No wonder so many women walk away from the STEM world after dealing with all of that.

But a lot of media just wants women to feel special without understanding the push for girls in STEM, and when you treat a woman special and superior for going through all we have to, people feel like they can underestimate us. How is someone not supposed to think I know less if I could get in with less? How are people supposed to think I am worth the same when I was worth different going into college?? I'm sure many women in FIRST can agree with me when I say, I want to earn things based on merit and not based on my anatomy. As for FIRST, at an educational POV, getting more women involved is great, I didn't know I wanted to be an engineer until FRC and was told I couldn't do it throughout the journey. But treating all women teams or teams with higher amounts of women as these "breakthroughs" make other teams who are majority male based on region seem like they don't matter. Some teams who are all female and perform less will constantly get coverage. So in an effort for media to not be sexist, they are sexist.

Theres a great silicon valley clip that sums up my feelings.

As this event itself, I see nothing wrong with encouraging women they can do something they've been told from a young age they can't. The same types of events are present in female dominated fields for men.

I think the key here is this event is showing women they are capable and that they have a role in our STEM world. I don't think this event at all is making it seem like as women we are better or superior. These are real issues a woman has to face everyday, I know I have to.

I'm super excited to see another event showing women they can do something they've been told they shouldn't!

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

A concern no one seems to have brought up yet is the fact that some small teams like ours don't have enough active females to field a drive team. For 10-25 person teams this could very well be the case.

What you said is a fact I am aware of and that was exactly why my daughter and I wanted to start an all-girls event a few years ago. I have heard from many teams who expressed that concern. It encourages the girls on the teams with low female percentages to ask their female friends to join and grow the team. We made exceptions for these teams the first time to let them "borrow" girls from other teams. When the girls saw there are many other girls on other teams who are so excited about FRC, it further encourages them. I have seen this worked.
In our first year, we had no girls on the team. The second there was one brave girl. Now it is about 1/3 of the team. Keep in mind this is with a no cut team policy and anybody can join. It is easy to make it 50/50 by cutting half of the boys on the team but that would be wrong and we will never do that. We encourage boys to go into STEM just as much as girls.

[Steven Smith]

Against my better judgement, and probably to little avail… I've written a lengthy reply to this post.

Regarding Reverse Discrimination

I would like to think I'm open minded enough to understand arguments on both sides of the coin.

For supporters of affirmative action to “move the needle”, whether by hiring, educating, or supporting historically underrepresented minorities in a given profession, the belief is that our current society still lacks fairness. While it might be technically correct to use the term “discrimination” to refer to any group/event that excludes a another group based on gender, such as males not being invited to an all-girls event, let’s zoom out a few hundred years to get a little context of what systemic, societal discrimination really is. In the US, we have been a country for nearly 250 years. For ~150 of those years, women were not allowed to even vote. For ~200 of those years, people of color were not allowed to vote, or there were unofficial policies inhibiting them from voting. In the 1800s, there were laws that said it was ILLEGAL to teach people of color to read or write. There still countries now where people are KILLED, fighting for the rights for women to just go to school. There are countries where people are KILLED for being gay. In recent history, there were policies that encouraged mass abortions/murder of female babies in preference of male children. Discrimination exists, and while thankfully it is far less damaging in the US today than it was 50-100 years ago, it does exist, and past echos are still felt.

This is not white guilt speaking, and I am not trying to blame today’s white males (of which I am one), for being discriminatory. However, I would hope that we can agree that one of the biggest contributors to a child’s success rate are their parents’ education level and income. Yes, there are plenty of examples of poor students from uneducated parents that buck statistics and become wildly successful, but on average, the system is in your favor if you are born to college educated parents, who by extension are more likely to have a higher income level. So if I had active discriminatory policies that forbid the education of a subset of people, and then tomorrow I allow it, while I am no longer actively discriminating against them, I have dropped them into a society that is stacked against them. If they are not educated, they are less likely to have the means to educate their children, and you get a trickle-down effect of that discrimination that will go away with time, but it does persist. Fifty years or one hundred years feels like SO MUCH TIME, so it is hard to fathom for some today that the effects remain, but you are really only talking about 2 to 4 generations.

Affirmative action policies are based around the idea that unless you truly believe that a woman, a racial/ethnic minority, and/or an LBGT+ person is born incapable of learning math, being an engineer, being active in politics, making as much money, etc when compared to a white/straight/male person… then there is no reason why the distribution of income/professions/etc should not reflect the racial/gender makeups of our country. Because it doesn’t, we should push some groups up (knowing full well that mathematically, we have to lower the % of the majority), to close that artificial gap.

I get why that feels so wrong, and I can appreciate the feeling of “reverse discrimination”. If you are up for a job, and are 5% more qualified on paper than another applicant, and hypothetically that applicant gets an edge “to meet a quota”... for the individuals in question it doesn’t matter… it just feels wrong. However, what if that 5% the slightly more qualified applicant had was because more opportunities afforded them, or they didn’t have to work through college and could study more because their parents could afford to pay for it, or any other number of reasons that have less to do with how “good” that individual is, and more to do with their parents and their society. Maybe their parents had two kids, and as the boy, they got all the attention, worked in their father’s shop, and was trained from a young age that “engineering was right for them”, while the girl got Barbie dolls and didn’t realize until later in life that she too really liked engineering and was perfectly capable of doing it as well, but had to play catch-up. Maybe the person that is 5% less qualified on paper has had to work harder to get there, and would make a better employee. Or maybe it’s all backwards and the (hypothetically white male) applicant was the poor one that worked their butt off, and the minority applicant actually had well off parents and got all the benefits plus an extra boost. All that said, it is a fact that these subtle (or less subtle) negative biases exist, and the purpose of affirmative action really just to match them with a positive bias.

The final thing I’ll say on reverse discrimination before a personal story is I also acknowledge that poor white males get the short end of this stick. I could fathom a poor white male feeling reverse discrimination because they feel like they are not receiving these “magic benefits” that people claim they get as a white male, while other groups are being lifted up around them through targeted attention. When I am out there as a mentor, trying to swing the needle in my own community, that extends to poorer students of all races/ethnicities/genders/etc.

I can remember a time in my life when I recoiled at the thought of affirmative action, but beliefs imprinted on me at a younger age keep shedding off as I grow up and see more of the world. I work a large, multinational company in the facilities engineering group. Our company as a whole is consistently ranked in all the lists as being supportive and inclusive of people of all backgrounds, but our particular group is still overwhelmingly white and male. I have heard first-hand people say things about women/minorities like “they were just promoted/hired to meet a quota”, as well as other disrespectful things. This sort of behavior is absolutely hostile, and I think keeps people out of the door, and chases out others that came in. I mention this in no way to try to criticize my company or the leaders' attempts to make a better workplace, but hopefully because others have seen similar issues and can relate.

As a hypothetical situation, as I’m not involved in recruiting and have no directly knowledge of the process, if my company said… hey Steven, go recruit new engineers… where am I going to go? Probably back to my alma mater’s engineering school, which is mostly white/male, because it is the comfortable choice. I know where I’m going, I know the people there to talk to, and it’s just easier. I’m also likely have a slight internal bias towards people “like me”, and probably be slightly more likely to hire a white man. I’d like to think in an individual situation, I’d have no bias, but I know it exists at some level. If all of our recruiters are white males because our group is all white males… guess who we are probably going to hire… more white males. If HR says we really need to consider hiring more women or minorities, at least we have a reason to fight that natural bias. Additionally, we could (and do) send more women/minorities as recruiters, to help neutralize the bias. If there were no affirmative action policies and we just let nature take its course, I truly believe the needle wouldn’t move. This isn’t an issue just because of a mismatch in statistics, it’s an issue because our group would be missing out on a diversity of people and opinions that make us stronger. If you only hire people that think like you and have the same background as you, you get an echo chamber effect.

Regarding Specific Events Targeting Women/Minorities/Etc

Here, I’ll apologize for a little more direct tone, because it really gets under my skin. I see the same argument drummed up every time a group of female/black/Hispanic/LBGT+/etc wants to form a group to talk about shared issues. “Well if they can have a group, why can’t I”. Why is it acceptable to have a Society of Women Engineers (as one example of many), but I can’t start a group called the Society of Male Engineers? The argument is just ridiculous to me. The reason why not, is because there is literally no other point other than spiteful retaliation against the idea of being excluded from something, or perhaps wanting to maintain the current lopsided gender statistics in engineering. SWE provides opportunities for young women to meet working professionals that are also female, to discuss shared experiences of women entering the engineering profession, and to promote diversity. Flipping this on its head to say we should have the same for men, simply so they don’t get their feelings hurt from being excluded is silly. We don’t need a special group to make it easier for men to be engineers, or to recognize the special hurdles than men suffer trying to be an engineer, or trying to find a male role model as an engineer. THIS DOESN’T MEAN, we shouldn’t support men who want to be engineers, groups like FIRST are already doing this, it just doesn’t mean we need a SME because we have a SWE, or an IndyRAGE for Men to "balance" IndyRAGE for Women.

That also doesn't mean because someone is a male, they don't struggle and don't need support. Maybe they come from a family of limited resources. Maybe they were abused as a child, had a parent that abused substances, or had no parents at all. Maybe they have a learning or physical disability. There are a million factors that generate a need for "extra support" and thankfully, a substantial number of great organizations that provide that support to all people, including males.

No one likes to feel excluded though, and I get it. The whole idea of not being “targeted” for generic support as a white male, and not being a part of the discussion, or invited to participate in the event could very well potentially hurt a boy’s feelings. To be blunt though, that is life, and you will be ok. You are no less likely to have a successful career in engineering because you were only invited to 99.5% of the FIRST events. This is not a slippery slope where some day only 25% of the events will allow men. If we were ever to reach the magical number of 50/50 split between men/women in engineering, the women are not going to take over and try to push it to 10/90 out of spite. Please just let it go and quit creating strawman/slippery slope arguments.

The other group is the parents, and the same thing applies. The encouragement of female engineers is not at the expense of boys. Your child is no less likely to be supported in their pursuit of engineering because they were not invited at an all-girls event. You don’t need to claim that mentors are uplifting girls at the expense of boys. This is all a knee-jerk reaction and a slippery slope argument towards a future that simply doesn’t exist. In fact, if you and/or your student would embrace it, you would probably find that future companies would very much rather hire a male student that embraces diversity and supports events like IndyRAGE, than a student that sulks because they weren’t invited to the party. Teaching your students to be graceful, civil, and supportive in a situation where they don’t necessarily agree is probably more important than forcing your way into the event out of some principle.

The comments about gender dynamics on teams are real in my limited experience as a mentor. I’m not an expert, but I can absolutely support the idea some students are more prone to take charge and lead and others are perhaps equally capable, but less confident to try their abilities. I think as a mentor, it is important to put all of my students in a situation where they feel more comfortable stretching their wings. It could be confirmation bias, but I would say I see this problem more-so with the girls in the club, as well as with younger members. Events like IndyRAGE in my mind are no different than having an FTC starter team that “excludes” 11th/12th grade members so the 9th/10th grade students can take a greater leadership role. It is simply carving out extra space for more people to grow, and sometimes to carve out that space you have to remove the existing natural leaders to find new hidden leaders. This doesn’t have to be to the detriment of the existing leaders, they can continue to stretch their wings in the regular FRC season, it just creates a little separate growing space for other people to reach their potential. Once again, I think any attitudes of “well I should be allowed to compete in IndyRAGE”… or “I don’t care it is a 9th/10th grade FTC team, I should be allowed to be on it”… are just knee-jerk reactions to feeling excluded.

At any rate, I apologize for the essay. I sometimes like to write for the benefit of myself, reminding myself what I believe… as much as sharing it with others. For anyone who happened to make it through it all, hopefully it was worth your time.

[ThaddeusMaximus]

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

Discrimination is discrimination. To exclude a group based upon their sex, sexual orientation, culture or religion is discrimination. This is a sexist discriminating event. Further, it may actually be negative in the goal the organizers are trying to address. This is my point of view.

The girls have to learn how to play with the boys and the boys have to learn how to play with the girls. After over a decade of working with diverse FRC team I can say this is very very hard. Every one is focusing on the girls. We need to also focus on the boys. They need to learn how to play nicely with the girls and take this forward in to the work place in the future. The girls also have to learn how to integrate into a team with boys on it. It all starts with respect. Respect, respect, respect.

Our team will not participate in a sexist event.


Go ahead and Flame me. I have my flame resistant suit on.

*slow clap* (Bolding is mine.)

Spout all theory y'all want, but we're engineers, and we know that theory doesn't hold up in the real world and we must deal with it. The best way is to practice. The worst thing to do to a budding engineer is to give them a false sense of what reality is. I have never coddled, and will never coddle my students- whether it's about discrimination, workload, etc.

(This is about the direction I feel FIRST is going in in general. I feel there's too much hype and superficiality and quite frankly, disconnect from industry in general...)

Someone mentioned that so many females leave STEM fields after joining. Even if bucking up female involvement is a goal, is false advertising somehow NOT hampering retention?

Personally, I just want more freaking great engineers. I don't care what they look like.

[Drake Vargas]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Sure.

I apologize for the giant image, but I think it's worth posting.

Unintentional and societal bias are a large reason as to why 92.2% of US mechanical engineers are male, and that the ratios are similarly out of whack in most other engineering fields.

Karthik, everyone seems to be up in arms about the lack of female representation in engineering. In my opinion, that ostracizes men more than anything else. The very graph you posted shows fields with almost no males, and nobody seems to be upset that there aren't more male kindergarent teachers. At the same time, I don't see anyone complaining that men almost completely fill the most grueling jobs on this list. This isn't a very good argument for "equality".

[Drake Vargas]

Originally Posted by smitikshah

For example. just today, all the "bros" (as they like to call themselves) made plans to go out for a lab team lunch, and I was the only one that wasn't invited.

There is nothing wrong with this situation. Really, this isn't going against any law or infringing on any of your rights. This is a group of men going out to have fun, it is fully within their right to choose who they want to hang out with. Do you honestly think you have the same definition of fun as them? Both guys and gals like hanging out with people most similar to them, there is nothing wrong with that.