Girls in Engineering- Comic that explains it all

[JamesBrown]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

This was what I was concerned about. The engineering community pressuring (for want of a better term) women to go into engineering the same way they have traditionally been pressured away from it. Is it better to steer someone away from a career they might like or into a career they might not like? To me they are two sides of the same coin and neither side is very good.

For reference, I do think that we have a stereotype to change. I do think we need more women in engineering but I have some concerns about pressuring anyone to do something they may not enjoy.

I don't think any one is suggesting pressuring women to go into engineering.

The general sentiment of this thread and the point in opposition to the cartoon is that we (generally) don't introduce girls to engineering thinking the way we introduce boys to it. Obviously we don't want to pressure any one into any career. However I think that the question that needs to be addressed is "Why are a higher percentage of intelligent men becoming interested in engineering than their female counter parts."

It seems, in my limited experience that many girls just never think of being an Engineer. I think that engineering as a career needs to be promoted to both genders. Senior year in HS I visited with 5th grade classes with the D.A.R.E program, the students had a chance to interview us, one popular question is what do you want to be when you grow up. I said "An Engineer" very few students knew what an engineer was. Often kids will tell you that they want to do things engineers do (i.e. build robots, be an astronaut, build rockets) however you almost never hear the term Engineer. In other countries being an Engineer is as prestigious as being a doctor or a lawyer is here. I think that this lack of exposure is even worse for girls.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by Chris is me

On the same token, it is a lot easier to subtly and unconsciously pressure women into not pursing engineering than it is to do the opposite. In the limited context of a FIRST team, how many robotics team leaders honestly believe they do nothing to dissuade women from joining any build team, but still end up with male dominated subgroups, all of the women brushed aside into Chairman's or safety work?

I'm sure that very few believe it, but very few of them would admit to it. On a somewhat related note, I attended a mentor/leadership dinner last spring, with some very highly esteemed and reputable mentors (not just from my team). They were all very shocked when they found out that I was active on the build team, was a sub-group leader, and was due to be a team captain for the next year. I was very annoyed when, earlier during the dinner, they referred to their Chairman's team as "the girls".

I'm sure that I've stated this before, in this thread or another, but I place a huge chunk of the "blame" on the media and marketing personell, who seem to still be stuck in the age-old "women belong in the kitchen" mindset. While the media IS slowly changing, many young girls only see icons that are famous for their voice, their looks, or their performance on the screen. Many shows for young kids still portray women as secretaries and men as doctors and construction workers (nevermind engineers - children see so few of those anyways).

[gblake]

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

...
Over the past few years, I've heard the philosophy about not giving power to a word or a phrase. I don't buy it. If the suggestion is to listen to the phrase and then order the person who said it to go do something, then what messages are being encouraged/sent and - are they mixed messages? Why make the situation worse or add drama?

The suggestion is to stand the comment on its head and turn it into a light-hearted joke on whoever said it; instead of an attack on whoever heard it.

My point is that the situation is not required to be bad in the first place, so an assumption that there is drama to be added, or something bad to be made worse, seems unfounded. There are choices involved. The situation is only bad or dramatic if the person who hears the comment chooses to consider it important, and then chooses to react to it as an attack instead of as casual banter. That listener is in charge of their own reactions, not the speaker.

I certainly don't insist that anyone change their reactions, but I do encourage it.

Originally Posted by Cynette

"we can rob them of any power by embracing them"

I seem to hear this concept frequently by generations younger than me.

There you go again - Making generalizations and stereotyping me. Based on your avatar photo, I suspect that we are about the same age. Also, it appears that you, like I, learned to type back when putting two spaces at the ends of sentences was de rigueur.

Originally Posted by Cynette

I don't think it works. My daughter has taken several courses centered around various stereotypes in society and we have had this discussion several times. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok for members of the African-American community to use the "N" word on one another saying it robs that word of power by embracing it. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok for the "F" word to be used as a speech-filler saying it robs that word of power by embracing it. I still don't accept the idea that it is ok to tell ethnic jokes because humor robs those stereotypes of power by embracing them.

Each circumstance you describe is different from my suggestion in important ways.

• N word has not been converted into a penalty-free zone for everyone by those who stand to be the most offended by it. In my experience it is now used by both sides to divide us into groups, not to erase the boundaries between them.
• F word use is not on directly on topic. It doesn't involve a stereotype.
• Ethnic jokes - In my experience, again, because of how people choose to react to them, telling ethnic jokes still divides us. (However, just in case anyone is wondering, I enjoy a good joke about the Scottish).

Originally Posted by Cynette

And as tough of a skin as we develop and as much of a "you can't hurt me" attitude as we put on, those words confirming those stereotypes still tear us down.

It only directly hurts you if you let it. If you are letting it hurt you, then you have tried to put on a tough skin; but haven't actually succeed. Again, I'm not suggesting using a tough skin to protect yourself from something hurtful; I'm suggesting you can simply choose to ignore something unimportant - No tough skin required.

Originally Posted by Cynette

I don't think we should convert stereotypes into badges of honor, because most stereotypes are not honorable, but rather take the time to ask where the impression came from and try to provide examples of where the stereotype is not accurate.

Perhaps you are taking too a narrow view of stereotypes; one that imbues the word with a popular, but unnecessary and overly-negative connotation. But that's an opinion of mine, not a fact.

-----

I'm going to wrap up with this thought. Is "Nerd" a stereotyping, prejudicial word that no one in their right mind would want to embrace? Not now perhaps; but I think it once was.

Maybe now FIRST folks in particular are starting to wear it as a badge of honor. But... ask someone old enough to have been in high school 20-40 years ago to remember those days without using their rose-colored glasses. Think about the culture into which the original Revenge of the Nerds movie was released.

So, I still hold the opinion that the FRC Engineerds and similarly named teams have latched onto an attitude that will pay substantial dividends (but it's probably not an opinion I would die in the ditch for).

Blake
PS: The best revenge is living well.

[Kitmor]

Originally Posted by mikelowry

Gender stereotyping is the same as racial
Generally, women tend to be different than men. No one can dispute that. But individually, there is as much difference between members of the same sex as there is between members of opposite sexes. So much so, that the generality doesn't matter.

We dont need more women engineers. Saying that we do is just placing more emphasis on the generality that doesnt matter. We are making gender a factor when it shouldn't be. What we need is more engineers, wether they be women or men, or if they are black, white, asian, hispanic, or whatever, it doesn't matter.

I agree with you 100% on that. As a guy who is attending his first year of college this fall, I find the way people are going about support women in engineering quite disturbing. I have found that more than half of all the specifically engineering related scholarships available are for women only. Is this how we want to encourage women to go into engineering, especially bribe them? Do we want people studying engineering because they will not have to pay as much for school? Women and men are different, and while I do agree there are social pressures on women not to go into engineering, I don't see how these scholarships are doing anything to encourage interest in engineering.

I know I'll get some hate for this, but as a guy, at least from an education standpoint, I feel that we are considered less important than women because "Men can do whatever they want." And I believe this borders on reverse discrimination.

Just my opinion.
-Kit

[Chris is me]

Originally Posted by mikelowry

We dont need more women engineers. Saying that we do is just placing more emphasis on the generality that doesnt matter. We are making gender a factor when it shouldn't be. What we need is more engineers, wether they be women or men, or if they are black, white, asian, hispanic, or whatever, it doesn't matter.

Granted, there are cultural norms that dissuade women from becoming engineers, and anything that is stopping individual people, women OR men, from becoming what they want, whatever they want, needs to be stopped.

I agree with you conceptually, and ideally. In practice, it is far, far easier said than done to change those cultural norms than to encourage and to a small extent incentivise women engineers, especially when you consider how subtle and far reaching some of these norms can be. In the context of FRC, teams push girls aside completely unintentionally all the time. So while we're changing the culture, we might as well use a temporary solution that will encourage more people to pursue a path others have (inadvertently or otherwise) shied them away from.

I wouldn't say race and gender are the same in this context. Personally, I think in some instances, race-based encouragement for careers like engineering is much more of a band-aid solution to a problem, and scholarships / aid based on socioeconomic status would be more accurate. But that's far too complicated for the short post I want to make here.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by JamesBrown

This is a really interesting thread. I am currently working for Hasbro, one of the two major toy companies. Interestingly Hasbro dominates the Boy market, and Mattel controls the Girl market (almost entirely because of Barbie)

Starting with a couple of interesting facts. The boy market sells as many dolls as the girl market every year, we just call them action figures. However a huge number of robotic/animatronic toys are marketed towards girls, they are just wrapped in fur and made to look like animals.

I have a question for the women who have posted. There is no question that boys are more likely to buy engineering type toys than girls. I mean things like robot sets, Lego sets, etc. Why is this? Is there something in our culture that tells girls that building things is not feminine enough, or is it just marketing and branding? Lego's major branded kits are: Star Wars, Batman, SpongeBob SquarePants, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Spider-Man, Ben 10, Toy Story and Thomas the Tank Engine. Most of which are considered boy brands in the toy industry (Harry Potter and Toy Story are Unisex). This leads me to believe that the lack of attraction to the product is not the product itself but the branding. Girls are less likely to watch Star Wars or Ben 10. Do you think that if Lego branded a kit as My Little Pony or Barbie (Never going to happen since both licenses are owned by competitors), where you could build houses and such for theme play in those brands, girls would be more attracted to it? I know that in one case my cousin (5 year old girl) loves Star Wars and loves the Lego Star Wars sets. I don't think that she is tom-boyish in her toy preferences. I think she simply likes the Star Wars brand and likes Legos because they are essentially Unisex. It is worth noting that young children regardless of gender build with blocks, some how that is lost around school age. I think that the issue is simply branding and marketing of building toys for this age group.

Working on the same idea, since there is little media directed towards girls that prominently features robots do you think it is possible to disguise robots as something that culture pushes towards girls. For example, If a robot kit came with Fur that could be used to cover the creation would that be more appealing to girls? This would allow them to build there own pets, the animatronic pet market is already directed towards girls. This would allow the engineering play to be disguised as making pets, the same way that it is disguised for boy as making star wars characters (or Transformers or any other brand) then at an older age when the role play aspect is not as significant the higher level building kits (Mindstorms, Vex) could be marketed as Unisex.

This turned out longer than expected but I kind of got on a roll.

I also would like to note that to date, the two smartest, and most talented engineers I have met are both women (both chemical engineers).

As a preschool teacher, I see my four and five year olds playing with all sorts of different toys.

Currently, the girls are playing more with the LEGOS than the boys are...they're building houses and zoos and hotels. When the boys play with the LEGOs they tend to build houses, zoos, and robots and cages and lately jails.

Then the block area is open, I see the boys mostly playing there...it's usually a 4-0 or 3-1 ratio. When there ARE girls playing there, it's usually to build zoos and houses. When it's the boys, they build pirate ships, jails and zoos.

I have a set of Polly Pocket toys (about as close to Barbies as I'll allow in my classroom) and surprisingly it's been played with pretty equally the past two weeks by both the boys and the girls.

I also have a spare parts bin...made up of lots of FIRST Robotics leftovers: aluminum pieces, large bolts, chains, etc...both the boys AND the girls will play with these pretty equally, though the boys are more likely to create a rock band out of it, and the girls are more likely to set them up to create houses, zoos, etc...

So, from what I can see, it doesn't really matter what the toy is: the girls are going to play a more organized game with them (USUALLY)...for example: they'll set the house up and then pretend to be family members and play for an hour that way. The boys tend to be more hands on with their play (USUALLY): setting up a block somethingorother and then coming to tell me about it and show it off, then crash it all down to build something else.

When they play together, (which I encourage, but don't enforce) they tend to have a better combination of the play: the girls build different things than just houses and zoos, but the boys go along with their playing house and imaginary games for a bit. And then, what usually happens is the boys get bored, knock the house down, and the girls cry.

Now...all this happens without me ever encouraging them to play with one thing over another, or to play with specific people over other people. It just seems to be natural. My classroom is designed specifically to combat gender-sterotypes...and yet, they happen anyway. It could be that it's coming from home. It could be that boys and girls are different, and that's just how it is.

If I was in the toy company and wanted to reach as large a population as I could, I'd go with producing zoo animal stuff. It seems to be pretty neutral.

[mayde]

Wow.. it's so true.

Lucky for me my grandpa believed that all girls should have a good set of legos and be skilled with a hammer.

[JaneYoung]

Speaking as a woman who was a very shy quiet girl who had to embrace the changes her body went through - feeling rather like an alien in her own skin - and then working through all of the different attitudes and levels of tolerance in the math education side of things in junior high and high school and then again in the college education as a whole, I would say - embracing, adapting to, accepting, or rejecting change and opinions has been a pretty consistent way of life from the 50's up through now for me.

The teachers whose insistence that I embrace the status quo - were male teachers. So were many of the professors. One professor told me to give up, go home, get married, and make babies. At the same time, another professor (a woman) was raving about my abilities to comprehend and understand the nature of writers such as Maya Angelou in her book, I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings and Sylvia Plath's, The Bell Jar. And at the same, another male professor was making me work harder for an A in his class than I had ever worked for a grade, all while being treated with respect as a student in his classroom. 2 of the classes that I've mentioned impacted my education, life, and career choices in positive and memorable ways. One class impacted my personal life in ways that took years for me to come to peace with.

Embracing such statements as - chain is like a high maintenance woman - is not something I would have embraced in 1973 and it is not something I would embrace in 2010. I also don't plan to encourage girls and young women to embrace statements like that with regard to robotics, their futures, their professions, or with regard to life.

Jane

[RoboMom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/08tier.html

Some more interesting food for thought from the NY Times - Daring to Discuss Women in Science

[JamesCH95]

That is an excellent article, I can't wait to read the follow-on column.

Clearly there is some fundamental difference, but who knows if it's nature or nurture, there is evidence to support either argument.

[Zholl]

just a couple of thoughts:
I would definitely have to agree that women and men are hardwired very differently. we have studies that show that typically, women are very much right brained where men are left, however I would also say that has more impact on the methodology rather than the aptitude of either gender in a STEM field.

I'd also have to say that how you're raised has a significant impact on what a person is like. I realize that neither of us are girls, but my brother and I are pretty good examples of this. when I was little, my parents still had a good chunk of free time that they could spend with me. I also loved books, I loved learning things, and I was curious about everything. my parents had time to sit and read to me, and to help me with my various curiosities. when my brother reached the same age a few years later, he was much the same way, but our parents were working more and didn't have as much time for him as they had had for me. 10-12 years later, you can see the difference it's made. both of us are highly intelligent, but where I'm interested in robotics, and engineering, and all the related subjects, he's become much more of a "jock" type, doing things like MMA and hockey. despite this, he is able to pull off some of the most amazing feats of geo-spatial reasoning I've ever seen, so it's not a lack of mental ability that he's gone this way so much as the fact that his curiosity shifted to more physical past-times as something of an early developmental necessity. I'm certain that there are a lot of girls that find themselves similarly disinterested in math and science because of the way they are raised early on, whether it's because they're parents simply don't have time to help them look into they're curiosities as with my brother, or because their parents instead push them in the opposite direction. I know several girls that fit into that "ditsy cheerleader" stereotype, and it seems to be because their parents made the decision for them, and these girls eventually just grew to fit the mold.

on a more personal note, I find that the girls you typically find involved in FIRST or in other "nerd" activities are far more interesting and, as a result, attractive, then those that better fit mold of what society thinks I should (then again, my Asperger's sort of prevents me from thinking much like the neurotypical male, especially in these matters, so that probably plays into it quite a bit). these are the same young women I find myself trying to bring into FIRST, if they're not already, out of a desire to share this with them and a belief that they would enjoy the experience that comes with it.


I realize that these don't necessarily add much to the current discussion, they're just some thoughts I had while reading this discussion that I felt like sharing, so take them how you will

[Cheerleader1073]

Originally Posted by Zholl

just a couple of thoughts:
I would definitely have to agree that women and men are hardwired very differently. we have studies that show that typically, women are very much right brained where men are left, however I would also say that has more impact on the methodology rather than the aptitude of either gender in a STEM field.

I'd also have to say that how you're raised has a significant impact on what a person is like. I realize that neither of us are girls, but my brother and I are pretty good examples of this. when I was little, my parents still had a good chunk of free time that they could spend with me. I also loved books, I loved learning things, and I was curious about everything. my parents had time to sit and read to me, and to help me with my various curiosities. when my brother reached the same age a few years later, he was much the same way, but our parents were working more and didn't have as much time for him as they had had for me. 10-12 years later, you can see the difference it's made. both of us are highly intelligent, but where I'm interested in robotics, and engineering, and all the related subjects, he's become much more of a "jock" type, doing things like MMA and hockey. despite this, he is able to pull off some of the most amazing feats of geo-spatial reasoning I've ever seen, so it's not a lack of mental ability that he's gone this way so much as the fact that his curiosity shifted to more physical past-times as something of an early developmental necessity. I'm certain that there are a lot of girls that find themselves similarly disinterested in math and science because of the way they are raised early on, whether it's because they're parents simply don't have time to help them look into they're curiosities as with my brother, or because their parents instead push them in the opposite direction. I know several girls that fit into that "ditsy cheerleader" stereotype, and it seems to be because their parents made the decision for them, and these girls eventually just grew to fit the mold.

on a more personal note, I find that the girls you typically find involved in FIRST or in other "nerd" activities are far more interesting and, as a result, attractive, then those that better fit mold of what society thinks I should (then again, my Asperger's sort of prevents me from thinking much like the neurotypical male, especially in these matters, so that probably plays into it quite a bit). these are the same young women I find myself trying to bring into FIRST, if they're not already, out of a desire to share this with them and a belief that they would enjoy the experience that comes with it.


I realize that these don't necessarily add much to the current discussion, they're just some thoughts I had while reading this discussion that I felt like sharing, so take them how you will

I actually believe that what you have said here ties up everything in this discussion well. Thank you!

[IKE]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/science/08tier.html

Some more interesting food for thought from the NY Times - Daring to Discuss Women in Science

Very interesting article. I think that they are trying to look at the data a bit too quickly. Being 13 in 1991, I can tell you there was distinct differences in the attitudes while in school versus those in the years before me (I had cousins that went to school in the early 80s). Now we (late 70's kids) are at the age of having children. In 10-13 years, I would expect the 4:1 ratio to narrow to a 2:1, and then the generation after that, I wouldn't be surprised to see a balance.

[Mikell Taylor]

I really liked some of the responses to that NYT article here. (Especially Dr. Isis's.)

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by Mikell Taylor

I really liked some of the responses to that NYT article here. (Especially Dr. Isis's.)