I recently saw this, and thought it fit exactly along the lines of what we had discussed when talking about women in Engineering. I hope GoldieBlox helps to change the way girls think of engineering. This also reminds me that talking about an issue is the first step to change but the actual action GoldieBlox has taken is a necessary step to change any social paradigm.
http://www.upworthy.com/if-3-little-girls-did-this-to-my-house-id-do-everything-i-could-to-get-them-full-rides-to-harvard-am2-8a
http://www.upworthy.com/if-3-little-girls-did-this-to-my-house-id-do-everything-i-could-to-get-them-full-rides-to-harvard-am2-8a
I especially love that they put it to the Beastie Boys song, "Girls." The original lyrics went, "Girls -- to do the dishes, Girls -- to clean up my room, Girls -- to do the laundry, Girls -- and in the bathroom" and in the new song are, "Girls -- who build a space ship, Girls-- who code a new app, Girls -- who grow up knowing / that they can engineer that."
ReplyDeleteI meant to post this (GoldieBlox, not this exact video) on the blog when we were talking about women in science. I'm so glad someone ultimately did!
ReplyDeleteWhat I find interesting (and productive) about GoldieBlox is the way that while their motto is "More than Just a Princess," they don’t dissuade traditionally feminine ideals or imagery from appearing with GoldieBlox. The first GoldieBlox commercial I ever saw was this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyTQDX-ItiM
About fifteen years ago I think I owned that exact leotard.
One thing that I’ve run into more than once and found frustrating in being a (very feminine) female scientist is the presumption that female scientists are tomboys. I think it’s important not just that girls have toys, books, etc. where girls are scientists and engineers, but also that girls have toys, books, etc. where pink and purple skirt clad girls are scientists and engineers as well as jeans and tee-shirt dress-hating girls.
I also think there’s a balancing act in play that GoldieBlox is doing a pretty nice job with. Entirely regardless of whether way kids play is cultural, biological, personal, or a mix, in 2013 in the U.S., most girls have and often are drawn to toys that are different than most boys’ toys. Turning a LEGO set pink, for example, does not automatically make it appeal to girls. Giving a building toy a story, though, brings it in line with other toys girls are more likely to be familiar with and makes it more approachable. (See #7 http://www.goldieblox.com/pages/faq).
Overall, I kind of wish I’d had GoldieBlox circa 2000. (As a matter of fact, I just bought one of their toys for my cousin’s sixth birthday; we’ll see how it comes out.)
The first time I saw this product was on the blog and now I can’t stop seeing it everywhere! I saw this article (http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/11/this-toy-probably-isnt-the-answer-to-the-women-in-science-disparity/281690/) on The Atlantic the other day that questions if toys are really going to have a meaningful impact on women in STEM. The author writes: “I am so excited for the study that tracks the girls who: Use this toy exclusively, avoid all heteronormative outside influences, somehow survive high school as proud math-lovers, and then go on to pick a college major. That will surely prove its effectiveness.”
ReplyDeleteYes, this toy is a step in the right direction, but I think there are more meaningful ways to influence girls. We should also be weary of putting too much emphasis on a toy because it could foster a false sense of accomplishment: “Look, girls are now playing with the “right” toys. We must be getting something right.” I strongly believe the most significant impacts come from role models and mentors. I definitely agree that opening public discussion around the issue and increasing awareness is the first step. But looking down the road, consider how much more impactful a human
presence is over a piece of plastic in really influencing someone’s life decisions.
On a slightly different note, the article cited another article (http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/stubborn-obstacles-whats-hindering-female-engineers/) about female engineers. I thought the article provided a unique perspective on this issue because it looked at the gender ratio in engineering across the world. For example, in the former USSR, 58% of engineers were women. This percentage has been declining since the collapse of the USSR and can be contributed to the “more acute conflict between family and professional life.” I really see this as the heart of the issue. The retention rate for women in engineering is low. Again, this goes back to establishing role models and professional networks. It doesn’t matter how many women choose STEM majors for college if they leave the profession so soon. This has a trickledown effect: without successful role models who have achieved a balance between work and personal life, women leave STEM fields or never join them to begin with.
I think I agree with you that we put too much emphasis on toys, Aya. I think toys are just an easy example to point to when we try to figure out why many little girls don't seem to want to grow up to be engineers. Especially with Goldie Blox, parents and other role models are probably much more influential than the toys themselves -- just having the kind of parent who would buy their child these kinds of toys is probably much more influential than the toys themselves.
DeleteHow children play actually speaks a lot to how they are being cultured. A lot of traditional girl toys emphasize different personality traits that girls "should" have according to our culture. Same with traditional boy toys. These personality traits often associated with masculinity are also emphasized in the way we are teaching math and science, so from a cultural standpoint, girls are cultured not to enjoy math or science as much. I do think having a strong role model also is a huge contributing factor in females pursing STEM fields, but even that shows how we culture our females to value relationships while males are cultured to value individuality.
DeleteIt's nice to see that they're making toys for girls that could have traditionally been geared more for boys, but we also need to start making games/toys/activities that were traditionally feminine available for boys. Culturally, girls can do anybody and boys can be boys. We can't fix the problem by only tackling half of it.
Brianne, I agree with you that children are very impressionable, but there's kind of this chicken and egg aspect. What makes a girl first interested in playing with dolls? Are girls cultured to more feminine qualities because of society, or does biological nature first pre-define the roles from which society is shaped? The vast majority of cultures emphasize stereotypical gender roles because they are derived from nature. Male and female brains are wired differently. This doesn't mean that one is more valuable than the other, just that they are different.
DeleteIn doing some research into this, I found that most women gravitating to STEM are going into the "softer" sciences such as life sciences. In fact, women have achieved parity in these fields. Why doesn't this seem to "count" as much?
I also found this article (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/11/20/project-based-learning-could-help-attract-and-retain-women-stem-study-suggests) about the impact of modifying a curriculum to more project-based learning and how that has been a more effective approach for women than men. What if rather than pushing girls to look away from their nature, we simply tailor education in STEM to better appeal to them?
I'd like to point out that you guys beat the NY Times article by a full two days -- get the news first on http://labtothepage.blogspot.com !
ReplyDelete