Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion Study on presenting feminine STEM role models

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-trouble-with-barbie-science

apparently just slapping some lipstick on a PhD doesn't cut it in inspiring girls to think they too could 'do science'.

maybe the models were too feminine? maybe they're feminine in ways that make them seem frivilous not just feminine?

what the heck is feminine, anyway?

No substitute for knowing real women doing real science. That's my take on it.

My DD hasn't ever had it cross her mind that girls might not be good at science/math, because it seems patently ridiculous given her understanding of the world. Her mom is a scientist, as are several of our female family friends.

Excellent! yeah, that does seem to be how it boils down per the article.
found this nice quote on wikipedia re: femininity...
"While the defining characteristics of femininity are not universally identical, some patterns exist. Gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are behaviors generally considered feminine."

I think I vomited in my mouth a little.

I have not yet talked to my 9yo son about whether there are sex differences in math and science ability, but scores for contests such as the AMC 8 or for talent search participants taking the SAT are broken down by sex, and he has noticed that there is a difference. Like father, like son .

So, Bostonian, have you told him that those differences have dramatically lessened over the past 20 years?

And see, my pragmatic child (also like her same-gender parent, I suppose) looks at that same data set and recognizes that there is an opportunity there... you know, since relative gender disparities from any set of causes means that those who do shine are facing less competition for opportunities. They are that much more desirable for not having a lot of peers following in those same footsteps.



She doesn't see "you can't because you're a girl," she sees "isn't it cool that you'll be that more more desirable by virtue of relative scarcity?"

Teens and tweens have very sensitive BS sensors. Engineer Barbie is bound to set it off. Barbie is just not an engineer, even with a pocket protector and slide rule in tow. (Ergh hate Barbie even did as a child.) Women in pencil skirts and high heels don't dance around labs juggling test tubes and lipstick tubes.

IMO the girls who reject the failed attempts to "feminize" STEM described in the article realize the images presented are completely fictional.

I work in a non-STEM male dominated field. I love to wear great clothes and shoes and look as good as I can (in a classy and professional way I hope.) Looking good gives you an edge. Looking like Barbie would be a major professional liability. One of the most talented women in my field wears no makeup and obviously throws on whatever is handy every day but she is deeply respected for her tremendous ability.

I hope that teen girls can learn to aspire beyond "girly" and find and use their best talents in a productive and satisfying way. Find a real woman who is accomplished and relatable in these fields like Ms. McKellar to make STEM seem more attainable. Trying to sell frothy fiction as reality won't work, especially with this audience.

If aversion of STEM is linked to an aversion of geeks (as the article implies), perhaps a lesson in tolerance ought to be on the menu. In my experience as a sort of chameleon who is able to fit in with just about any group, geeks are really good people. Also, there are definitely a substantial number of engineers who don't fit the geek stereotype in the first place.

Look, it's simple. If we want girls to enter STEM fields in greater numbers, we just need to emphasize the modeling opportunities.

Your succorance is noted, but as a male, I cannot offer you nurturance.