Discussion on All-Girl events

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

Girls/women should be encouraged to pursue whatever field they want... just as boys/men should be encouraged. Since FIRST deals with STEM most, we should be encouraging girls/women and boys/men. Being cognizant of the fact that STEM fields are largely male-dominated, this may at times involve particularly encouraging girls/women... under the assumption that they're more likely to be discouraged by the male-dominated atmosphere. Really though, I think the bigger battle is probably in getting more female FRC students... by the time kids are in high school, they often already have a positive or negative impression of robotics, science, and math. This is where the academic system, toys targeted for boys vs girls, parenting, and younger programs like FLL really come in.

While I agree a large part of the battle is getting more female FRC students (specifically, more of them involved with build, as they seem to dominate some of the other areas of many, if not most, teams), and getting to them young is definitely helpful, it's way too easy to say "well, it's something FLL will solve for us". Teams can and should do a better job at recruiting females. I've seen 50-person teams, coming from 2000-student schools have no females in the pits at competition across multiple years. My team comes from a 300-student all-girls school, and we manage to get 20-30 students every year. If we can get 10% of the girls in our school involved, why can't mix-gendered teams?

My personal hypothesis is centered around the way teams recruit. Show a robot! Robotics is fun! Look at a video of a competition! All ways to help drum up interest... but ways that can easily be intimidating. Like it or not, growing up as a male is much different than growing up as a female. I witnessed it growing up - I played with Lego's, built model planes, helped my dad and grandfather build stuff, and did countless related stuff with Boy Scouts. My sister, on the other hand, had her easy bake oven, dolls and such. She never built anything. Many (most?) girls today get treated the same way, forced into those stereotypical gender activities. Sure, in the long run programs like FLL will help as they grow. But right now today, we should recognize one thing: robotics can be intimidating. Someone may have an interest, but look at it and say "I don't know how to do that", or "man, I wish I had gotten involved in FLL years ago so I could do that". We need to emphasize with our recruitment training. Emphasize that everyone who starts is a beginner that doesn't know anything, and the whole point of the team is to train you in the tools, give you the knowledge, and help you figure it out. Do whatever you can to lower that barrier to entry (especially since it's almost entirely a perceived barrier and not an actual one) and then to encourage people to keep on with it once they get in the door.

[Nathan Streeter]

Originally Posted by Katie_UPS

The problem with the "I want the best person for the job argument" is explained by Steven Smith:

(by the way, the whole post that I pulled from is really good and is worth a re-read especially for anyone who doesn't understand why affirmative action is a thing)

Thank you for linking Steven's post... I hadn't read it all, and I definitely think there's a lot of good stuff there. That said, it doesn't convince me of the benefit of affirmative action... largely because of this aspect that Steven mentions:

Originally Posted by Steven Smith

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.

Is the goal of affirmative action to reward people who have had to overcome more adversity due to negative stereotypes or is the goal of affirmative action to balance demographics?

I think there is value in "affirmative action" for the former, but not for the latter. Really though, I don't see how it can realistically be done for the former... it seems like to start you'd need to create some "Adversity Index" to determine who has had to overcome the most adversity (which would probably vary by region and profession)... and even then you'd still be generalizing. I believe that determining the degree that someone has overcome prejudice by their resume or college application is not possible without a variety of stereotyping and would prefer to 1) seek to prepare people of every single background for your profession and 2) hire the most capable individuals that result.

No one seems to be criticizing the underrepresentation of men in K and Pre-K Education, Dance, Hairdressing and Cosmetology, and Library work (among others). Should these areas use Affirmative Action campaigns? Why or why not?

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

While I agree a large part of the battle is getting more female FRC students (specifically, more of them involved with build, as they seem to dominate some of the other areas of many, if not most, teams), and getting to them young is definitely helpful, it's way too easy to say "well, it's something FLL will solve for us". Teams can and should do a better job at recruiting females....

I don't mean to imply that FLL solves this for FRC...

Quite frankly, for a long time our team was just bad at all recruiting. Word of mouth was about it. When we had a strong representation of females, we tended to get more females... when we had a lower representation of females, we got an even higher proportion of males. We've been trying to get better at recruiting in general, and recruiting females in particular, but it's very much a work in progress for our team.

[PayneTrain]

47 people have posted in this thread.
4 of those people publicly identify themselves as not being males.

Edit, 48/4.

[Pauline Tasci]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

47 people have posted in this thread.
4 of those people publicly identify themselves as not being males.

preach.

A lot of the people commenting on this act like they know what women feel like in STEM.
You will NEVER understand what a woman has to go through to be respected in this community until you are in their shoes.
There is a reason why so little women comment on technical threads. We constantly need to prove ourselves, and our male counterparts do not.

So this is a call to women reading this thread, speak up, share your voice. Share your opinions, don't let others share it for you.

[Brian Maher]

Originally Posted by PayneTrain

47 people have posted in this thread.
4 of those people publicly identify themselves as not being males.

In a similar vein, I think it may be beneficial to hear from a student or alumna who has competed at such an event.

[wesbass23]

Originally Posted by Pauline Tasci

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.

If you are willing to share, can you tell us how these situations happened?
I am appalled that someone would be rude enough to say that to you, or even still thinks that way.

[smitikshah]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

No one seems to be criticizing the underrepresentation of men in K and Pre-K Education, Dance, Hairdressing and Cosmetology, and Library work (among others). Should these areas use Affirmative Action campaigns? Why or why not?

...

"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"."

"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!"

"So get upset about this! Do something about it! People are missing out on the opportunity to gain fulfilling employment right now, time is of the essence! Start a program to encourage male Kindergarten teachers, and eradicate the perception that men working with young children are automatically sexual predators! Create initiatives to remove sexist barriers to entry and cultural normalization of dirty, hands on work as "a man's job." But that sounds like work, and it's easier to complain about people actually taking these initiatives in other fields. It'd take real passion and concern for these issues, rather than only caring about them for the purposes of an internet argument in favor of the status quo..."

"Choosing to focus a discussion on a subset of a problem does not mean we immediately accept every other problem as "solved". You give the example of kindergarden teachers, I'll add to the example nurses. Nursing is a huge need and a growing field, one that historically men have not been involved in as heavily. I have friends that went into nursing, and there is a degree of "lulz, a male nurse" that is no more acceptable. If a woman wants to be a cement worker, or another physically grueling job, she should be able to. Similarly, there are a lot of other "grueling jobs" on the female side of it, though some perhaps more mentally/emotionally grueling."

"Of course there are efforts tat support men, male issues, and male membership in underrepresented fields (total or male minorities). They may not have visibility to you [this is a general "you"], or you may wish more existed or that they were more active. If so, I'm sure they'd welcome any help. It's the membership that determines how controversial, active, and effective any organization is. But these groups certainly can and very much do exist whether or not they're regularly mentioned on a robotics forum. As a quick first Google, there's American Assembly of Men in Nursing, American Men's Studies Association, Young Men's Initiative, 100 Black Men of America, the Men Teach nonprofit, and the Mankind Project, before I satisfied myself about the depth. There are also a massive number of male fraternal, social, and religious (not to mention sporting) organizations that support male career and life goals, as well as organizations that focus on male-dominant issues, such as Just Detention International. If there's one you'd like to see and don't, go for it. Every organization ever made was made by a person who felt that."

[teku14]

While this debate is going on, I couldn't help but remember an interesting study that I had found a few weeks ago.

Here is the link:

http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built...what-happened/

I felt that it was relevant to the debate at hand and urge everyone to consider the results that were found.

TLDR for those who didn't read, the real problem seems to be that women are more likely to give up at a given field after an attrition event, than men.

[ASD20]

Originally Posted by Nathan Streeter

No one seems to be criticizing the underrepresentation of men in K and Pre-K Education, Dance, Hairdressing and Cosmetology, and Library work (among others). Should these areas use Affirmative Action campaigns? Why or why not?

Not saying that that isn't a problem or that STEM diversity is not a problem, but the larger overarching problem is the gender pay gap. The reason people are pushing for more women (and more of everyone) in engineering is that engineering is one of the highest paid professions (Most of the other highest paid professions are also dominated by men). If salaries were swapped, then there probably would be a large push for men in hairdressing.

[smurfgirl]

Originally Posted by wesbass23

If you are willing to share, can you tell us how these situations happened?
I am appalled that someone would be rude enough to say that to you, or even still thinks that way.

Some people do still think this way. Overtly discriminatory comments are less common, but subtle discrimination is pretty frequent. Sometimes people aren't even aware that they have unconscious biases that play out as subtle discrimination.

I'm an MIT alum and I serve as an MIT Educational Counselor (I am an alumni volunteer who recruits for/promotes MIT, shares information/answers questions, and does interviews for prospective students). I can't tell you how many times I hear from students and parents that I am "lucky to be a girl because it must have been sooo easy for me to get in".

In my career and outside of work, and even in FIRST, people constantly express their surprise that I am a "real engineer" and that I'm "actually smart". I've gotten questions like "but you're a girl, you can't actually like this stuff?" multiple times. I've been repeatedly asked to do things like take notes, schedule meetings, and order food because "women are better at that kind of stuff". I've been excluded from meetings and important technical decisions where I am a stakeholder and have relevant expertise.

Most people I have worked with in school, at work, and in volunteer roles have been great. But discrimination and unconscious bias against women in the STEM fields is absolutely real.

[smitikshah]

Originally Posted by teku14

While this debate is going on, I couldn't help but remember an interesting study that I had found a few weeks ago.

Here is the link:

http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built...what-happened/

I felt that it was relevant to the debate at hand and urge everyone to consider the results that were found.

TLDR for those who didn't read, the real problem seems to be that women are more likely to give up at a given field after an attrition event, than men.

Thanks for sharing!

That is a very interesting study.

I did some super quick research to find more details about women retention rates in STEM overall and found this review.

For those that won't read it I'll highlight some points here:
The attrition of women in STEM has been extensively investigated and some major findings are:
1.) Qualitative studies indicate their decision to persist in STEM is influenced by the perception of self-efficacy
2.) Others factors affecting persistence are positive relationships with advisors, mentors, and interest in
STEM classes
3.) Women may need assistance to function in mixed-gender teams, especially when dominated men
4.)Women exhibit lower self-confidence than males even when academic preparation and performance are
equal or superior
5.) Professional role confidence is a critical factor in the persistence of women in STEM

"Self-confidence appears to be a key variable, with diverging self-confidence scores between those who persist and switchers. This disparity was not correlated with actual performance, as measured by GPA. Other barriers were: feelings of isolation, discouragement based upon grades, poor teaching, and unapproachable faculty."

"In examining gender-based difference several indicators point to a decline in the self confidence of women as they progress through STEM courses. Women tend to rate themselves as less capable problem solvers with fewer of them planning to continue to graduate school. While women seem to internalize failure and credit others with their success, males (particularly Caucasian) tend to do the opposite. "

The article goes on and on but basically keeps restating the fact of "women tend to value themselves less even though objectively they are of the same, if not then greater, caliber than their male counterparts."

The way to fix this, and encourage females to build their self confidence in certain fields of STEM that they might not be a 100% confident in. Because females feel bad about themselves after a small little failure in something they may not have been too confident to begin with.

Events like these that promote females to learn and fail/succeed in a comfortable environment where a lot of others are in the same boat help females realize that it's okay to fail, and they shouldn't take it to heart. It helps build a female's self worth.

Getting to be on drive team as coach this year (I do believe I genuinely earned the position), helped me learn to value myself and be more confident in my abilities. I can imagine that if for one day females got to be on a drive team and be more involved in the technical aspects of the program, it could boost their confidence and help retention rates later on. This event could help the next female who might develop a world changing program or invention build up the persistence they will need later on in life to keep doing what they are doing.

[Sperkowsky]

Originally Posted by smitikshah

Thanks for sharing!

That is a very interesting study.

I did some super quick research to find more details about women retention rates in STEM overall and found this review.
Getting to be on drive team as coach this year (I do believe I genuinely earned the position), helped me learn to value myself and be more confident in my abilities. I can imagine that if for one day females got to be on a drive team and be more involved in the technical aspects of the program, it could boost their confidence and help retention rates later on. This event could help the next female who might develop a world changing program or invention build up the persistence they will need later on in life to keep doing what they are doing.

To start you did earn it as the person who put you in that position I can assure you of that. You didn't earn that from the most hours or most knowledge you earned if because of competence.
But here's my question and this is for everyone would being on drive team feel the same if the only reason you were there was because no boys were allowed there?

[smitikshah]

Originally Posted by Sperkowsky

[W]ould being on drive team feel the same if the only reason you were there was because no boys were allowed there?

I'm sure a couple other people are wondering this as well, so this is an open message to all, and not just Sam

I don't care who was there as long as I got the experience I was able to communicate with other teams and strategize, as well as absorb a variety of technical knowledge from being in that atmosphere. I also learned leadership in a scenario. All these aspect would remain the same regardless of who else was around me.

The above is applicable to me, and I can only speak for myself. This is because I have learned how to cope and various techniques when I feel dominated in a male-based setting.

What would be different is level of comfort. I don't care if this is the right thing to say, but I feel more comfortable around those of the same gender as me. This fosters an environment for those who might not be comfortable in the traditional setting to build their skills in a comfortable way before thrown into the real world.

This skill building in this environment helps other females grow and could potentially increase female in STEM retention rates.

So, it's not about being able to get that "coveted" position by kicking out all males. The feeling of drive team was simply one that allowed me to build my skills, and if more females can build that skill in a non-traditional setting, I am all for it.

[Ed Law]

Originally Posted by BMSOTM

In a similar vein, I think it may be beneficial to hear from a student or alumna who has competed at such an event.

That is a good idea. I am aware of 5 such events.
girlPOWER by FRC team 433 in PA
Girls Generation by FRC team 1540 in OR
Girls Generation by FRC team 2046 in WA
Bloomfield Girls Robotics Competition by FRC team 2834,33,469,68 in MI
IndyRAGE(Robotics All Girls Event) by FRC team 234 in IN

I think it is a good idea to hear from the teams and the girls who attended these events. What did you like or not like about it? Did you get to try something (drive team, pit crew etc) that you didn't get a chance to during the regular season? What was your experience? Should these events continue?

[Drake Vargas]

Originally Posted by ASD20

Not saying that that isn't a problem or that STEM diversity is not a problem, but the larger overarching problem is the gender pay gap. The reason people are pushing for more women (and more of everyone) in engineering is that engineering is one of the highest paid professions (Most of the other highest paid professions are also dominated by men). If salaries were swapped, then there probably would be a large push for men in hairdressing.

The gender pay gap is a statistical myth for the exact reason you mentioned. Women traditionally take on lower paying jobs (Psychology, pediatrician, art vs math, cardiac surgery, orthopedic surgery) as well as take more time off for child rearing.

Pay gap exists, but only when you total up all the money earned by women and all the money earned by men- which is a deceitful way of looking at it.

A man in field X and a woman in field X will make the same amount provided they work the same number of hours at the same level of rigor.

I do agree that the reason there is a bigger push for women in engineering is because it pays more, simple as that. Nobody wants to be a garbage collector, so nobody is going to push for a man or woman to become one. However, the women that do go to college and graduate tend to pick majors that lead into lower paying fields.

Whether this is a result of some sort of systemic sexism, that's up for you to decide.