Engineering toys for girls

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 11:43:45 GMT -5 sb said:

Why would you have to lose your femininity to be an engineer in the first place?

What bothers me is the fact that people see what are really gender neutral toys as "boy" toys. You don't need to make a "girl" version! I'm glad this will maybe get parents to buy things that their kids will enjoy. But I think most little girls would have fun with normal building sets if they were put in front of them.

I completely agree. So, cool, we have a "girl" engineering toy. By default, that makes the other engineering toys "boy toys." So if a girl wants and loves this toy, great. But if she thinks the other engineering toys are for boys, will she then lose her interest in engineering? Will she assume the engineering profession is only for boys? Why the hell does "engineering" have to have anything to do with gender, period?

I am totally against the "pink ghetto," though, as I've stated before.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 12:32:48 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 19, 2012 11:43:45 GMT -5 sb said:

Why would you have to lose your femininity to be an engineer in the first place?

What bothers me is the fact that people see what are really gender neutral toys as "boy" toys. You don't need to make a "girl" version! I'm glad this will maybe get parents to buy things that their kids will enjoy. But I think most little girls would have fun with normal building sets if they were put in front of them.

I completely agree. So, cool, we have a "girl" engineering toy. By default, that makes the other engineering toys "boy toys." So if a girl wants and loves this toy, great. But if she thinks the other engineering toys are for boys, will she then lose her interest in engineering? Will she assume the engineering profession is only for boys? Why the hell does "engineering" have to have anything to do with gender, period?

I am totally against the "pink ghetto," though, as I've stated before.

have you read the other comments?
did you watch the video?

This is more than just a pink-painted Erector set. The use of the book - the story, the characters - honors the way girls learn as a way to hook them into being interested in engineering. The theory is that once they see how cool it is, then they branch out into mainstream engineering toys.

How is that the "pink ghetto"?

[terpsfan]

My almost 5 yo would definitely love this. By no doing of my own she prefers girly-themed things...when given the wide selection of choice of products she most likely will pick the one that is pink/purple/girl slanted vs the gender neutral. I don't automatically force her into the gender neutral choice because I want her to play with the thing and not be hung up on the appearance (For example, she picked the pink tee ball glove over the "brown" one). We aren't pushing her either way, she can pick what she wants. I like this product because as momi said, it's "storyline" is geared towards girls and typical "girl" interests. My 5 yo has no interest in cars/trucks/bulldozer/typical construction type stuff that you see a lot of these types of toys but to show her that there are other aspects and applications of engineering is a great idea!

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 12:36:14 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Sept 19, 2012 12:32:48 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I completely agree. So, cool, we have a "girl" engineering toy. By default, that makes the other engineering toys "boy toys." So if a girl wants and loves this toy, great. But if she thinks the other engineering toys are for boys, will she then lose her interest in engineering? Will she assume the engineering profession is only for boys? Why the hell does "engineering" have to have anything to do with gender, period?

I am totally against the "pink ghetto," though, as I've stated before.

have you read the other comments?
did you watch the video?

This is more than just a pink-painted Erector set. The use of the book - the story, the characters - honors the way girls learn as a way to hook them into being interested in engineering. The theory is that once they see how cool it is, then they branch out into mainstream engineering toys.

How is that the "pink ghetto"?

First, someone else mentioned that this does not look as complex of boy-marketed engineering toys. I know you put up a link in response to that, but I haven't looked at your link yet. However, looking at it, it reminds me of the new lego sets for girls we discussed a week or two ago, which are much more passive than regular sets.

Second, I do not think you can make the assumption that all girls learn in the same way. Some people are visual learners, some people are hands-on learners, some people retain more from reading, etc. While a higher percentage of some learners might be of a specific gender, I don't believe that can be extrapolated to ALL girls or boys. Do girls REALLY learn that way, or is that how marketers assume they "learn" - or, more likely, what they and their parents are designed to gravitate to? Girls are quieter than boys! Girls are more passive! Put a book with a cute story in there!

I think segregating toys into "boy" and "girl" period is a product of the pink ghetto. I can't think of a single toy that should be exclusively for either boys or girls.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 12:57:10 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 19, 2012 12:36:14 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

have you read the other comments?
did you watch the video?

This is more than just a pink-painted Erector set. The use of the book - the story, the characters - honors the way girls learn as a way to hook them into being interested in engineering. The theory is that once they see how cool it is, then they branch out into mainstream engineering toys.

How is that the "pink ghetto"?

First, someone else mentioned that this does not look as complex of boy-marketed engineering toys. I know you put up a link in response to that, but I haven't looked at your link yet. However, looking at it, it reminds me of the new lego sets for girls we discussed a week or two ago, which are much more passive than regular sets.

Second, I do not think you can make the assumption that all girls learn in the same way. Some people are visual learners, some people are hands-on learners, some people retain more from reading, etc. While a higher percentage of some learners might be of a specific gender, I don't believe that can be extrapolated to ALL girls or boys. Do girls REALLY learn that way, or is that how marketers assume they "learn" - or, more likely, what they and their parents are designed to gravitate to? Girls are quieter than boys! Girls are more passive! Put a book with a cute story in there!

I think segregating toys into "boy" and "girl" period is a product of the pink ghetto. I can't think of a single toy that should be exclusively for either boys or girls.

If you acknowledge that kids learn differently, can't you also acknowledge that some kids - - and studies have shown that they're more likely to be girls - - learn better through verbal acquisition and use of characters... and therefore, there should be toys for them, no?

And, if some kids love pink, and want pink ribbony toys, what's wrong with making sure that there are engineering toys for them, too?


I don't think anybody is saying that forcing little girls to use this toy, and never letting them have regular erector sets or legos is the way to go. What we're saying is that if you have one of those girlskids, girls OR boys, who would love this, what's wrong with it being available? ...with the hope that they'll move onto more mainstream stuff when the princess-girly-pink phase of their life ends.

Jeez. Why is it perfectly OK for little boys to play with dolls and wear dress up clothes, but the creation of a pink engineering toy is somehow "ghetto"-izing?



edited, because nobody said that this toy wasn't going to be sold to people without girls in their lives.

[mominatrix]

And there's quite a bit of research about the different learning styles of girls vs. boys. It's not just a marketing gimmick.

[mominatrix]

And on the "it's not as complex" bit... it's for the younger age of the "engineering toy" spectrum. Those toys tend to be more simple.

[gbck]

I was just reading about why the 'princess scientist' marketing is looking like crap.

jezebel.com/5941531/princess-scientist-trend-actually-discouraging-girls-from-pursuing-science

(dislike the concept, if it's not obvious

(less 'dislike the concept article linkage:
www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/10/princess-scientist_n_1871159.html
)

[runforrest]

I appreciate the thought behind it, I guess, but it still irks me a bit that it's all cutesy and such. I mean, I know it's a huge leap from this toy to college, but in engineering classes (and all classes, really), girls and boys are taught the exact same way - there is no distinction. I don't see the point in buying my daughter this specific toy when she could just the same play with Legos or other toys.

I get that the bigger issue is just fostering an interest in engineering in young girls, but I still don't like the approach. It's a bit off-putting to me that the ribbons and sewing spool thingies are used because they are what girls are used to using and seeing around the house.

Also, the kit is for girls ages 5-9. It seems really simplistic for that age range, IMO.

[mominatrix]

See, I'm down with encouraging girls any way we can. If it's wearing a tiara with a lab coat, so be it.

Another example I love: Danica McKellar's stuff.

Here's her website, called Math Doesn't Suck. www.mathdoesntsuck.com/



There's a reason why girls' interest in STEM-focused areas drops off around puberty, and it ain't biological... it's societal. So, why not create a girly-science movement?


ETA: Holy shit. I knew that Danica McKellar was a math advocate, I didn't know that she was as highly respected in the field as she is:

Best known for her roles on The Wonder Years and The West Wing, Danica McKellar is also a three-time New York Times bestselling author, internationally-recognized mathematician and advocate for math education. A summa cum laude graduate of UCLA with a degree in Mathematics, Danica has been honored in Britain's esteemed Journal of Physics and the New York Times for her work in mathematics, most notably for her role as co-author of a ground-breaking mathematical physics theorem which bears her name (The Chayes-McKellar-Winn Theorem).

Go Winnie!

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 13:06:07 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Sept 19, 2012 12:57:10 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

First, someone else mentioned that this does not look as complex of boy-marketed engineering toys. I know you put up a link in response to that, but I haven't looked at your link yet. However, looking at it, it reminds me of the new lego sets for girls we discussed a week or two ago, which are much more passive than regular sets.

Second, I do not think you can make the assumption that all girls learn in the same way. Some people are visual learners, some people are hands-on learners, some people retain more from reading, etc. While a higher percentage of some learners might be of a specific gender, I don't believe that can be extrapolated to ALL girls or boys. Do girls REALLY learn that way, or is that how marketers assume they "learn" - or, more likely, what they and their parents are designed to gravitate to? Girls are quieter than boys! Girls are more passive! Put a book with a cute story in there!

I think segregating toys into "boy" and "girl" period is a product of the pink ghetto. I can't think of a single toy that should be exclusively for either boys or girls.

If you acknowledge that kids learn differently, can't you also acknowledge that some kids - - and studies have shown that they're more likely to be girls - - learn better through verbal acquisition and use of characters... and therefore, there should be toys for them, no?

And, if some kids love pink, and want pink ribbony toys, what's wrong with making sure that there are engineering toys for them, too?


I don't think anybody is saying that forcing little girls to use this toy, and never letting them have regular erector sets or legos is the way to go. What we're saying is that if you have one of those girlskids, girls OR boys, who would love this, what's wrong with it being available? ...with the hope that they'll move onto more mainstream stuff when the princess-girly-pink phase of their life ends.

Jeez. Why is it perfectly OK for little boys to play with dolls and wear dress up clothes, but the creation of a pink engineering toy is somehow "ghetto"-izing?



edited, because nobody said that this toy wasn't going to be sold to people without girls in their lives.

Absolutely there should be toys for that style of learning. I just don't see why they have to be designed and marketed specifically to girls.

Absolutely toys should come in a variety of colors and styles. Personally, my favorite color is purple.

I understand the concept that pink/ribbony toys that appeal to girly girls might help to draw those kids into something like engineering concepts. I just stand on the side that believes that the message being sent is actually that ONLY this engineering toy is for you, little girl. Now go find some more girly toys to play with and leave the erector sets to the boys!

This isn't just an issue with creating and marketing pink/girly toys to girls. It's how "normal" toys like legos and erector sets are now being marketing to BOYS rather than all children, creating the illusion that normal = boy. The subset of pink = girl.

And I don't think "not letting" kids play with different toys is the answer. As long as toys are being designed like this (much more gender-specific than when I was a child), I'm going to see this as a problem. Yes, I would let my child pick whatever color toy they wanted. But I might inwardly sigh at the "pink princess" phase, knowing that the big bad marketers had gotten to my toddler. *shakes fist at corporate America*

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 13:33:54 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

See, I'm down with encouraging girls any way we can. If it's wearing a tiara with a lab coat, so be it.

Another example I love: Danica McKellar's stuff.

Here's her website, called Math Doesn't Suck. www.mathdoesntsuck.com/



There's a reason why girls' interest in STEM-focused areas drops off around puberty, and it ain't biological... it's societal. So, why not create a girly-science movement?

I AM a huge fan of Danica McKeller and her books. But I don't think it talks down to girls, just addressing things differently.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 13:37:48 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:33:54 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

See, I'm down with encouraging girls any way we can. If it's wearing a tiara with a lab coat, so be it.

Another example I love: Danica McKellar's stuff.

Here's her website, called Math Doesn't Suck. www.mathdoesntsuck.com/



There's a reason why girls' interest in STEM-focused areas drops off around puberty, and it ain't biological... it's societal. So, why not create a girly-science movement?

I AM a huge fan of Danica McKeller and her books. But I don't think it talks down to girls, just addressing things differently.

Now I'm confused.
If you're OK with Danica McKellar "addressing things differently" to middle school girls, what's wrong with "addressing things differently" to younger girls?

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 13:42:46 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:37:48 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

I AM a huge fan of Danica McKeller and her books. But I don't think it talks down to girls, just addressing things differently.

Now I'm confused.
If you're OK with Danica McKellar "addressing things differently" to middle school girls, what's wrong with "addressing things differently" to younger girls?

She's not using stereotypes - like the fact that girls love pink, obviously! or the fact that girls aren't as into "building" things as boys - just addressing girls specifically. "Hey, girls, this is for you, because it's important."

I also think there's a difference between a middle schooler making choices and a 5 year old making choices and how well they can think through things like external influence. As a 5 year old I would see a cool toy on TV and go into the kitchen and tell my mom I wanted it for Christmas. Of course, it was just because I had seen the commercial, and I'd forget about it by Christmas. But middle school? You're already planning what you want to do with your life - what courses to take in high school, possible college majors.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 14:04:22 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:42:46 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Now I'm confused.
If you're OK with Danica McKellar "addressing things differently" to middle school girls, what's wrong with "addressing things differently" to younger girls?

She's not using stereotypes - like the fact that girls love pink, obviously! or the fact that girls aren't as into "building" things as boys - just addressing girls specifically. "Hey, girls, this is for you, because it's important."

But she totally uses stereotypes. Her word problems are devised around what stereotypical girls are interested in. It's kind of the point.

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 14:52:47 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Sept 19, 2012 14:04:22 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

She's not using stereotypes - like the fact that girls love pink, obviously! or the fact that girls aren't as into "building" things as boys - just addressing girls specifically. "Hey, girls, this is for you, because it's important."

But she totally uses stereotypes. Her word problems are devised around what stereotypical girls are interested in. It's kind of the point.

It talks about what girls are interested in, but she also mentions that girls need to learn math for certain types of awesome jobs, or to understand sports statistics. I think there's a fine line. I can't always recognize it, though, honestly.

[wawa]

Sept 19, 2012 16:10:38 GMT -5 mr+ms said:

Sept 19, 2012 13:33:54 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

There's a reason why girls' interest in STEM-focused areas drops off around puberty, and it ain't biological... it's societal. So, why not create a girly-science movement?

This is interesting to me because it hasn't been a part of my experience at all. I don't know if it's because I'm sort of a weirdo (completely possible), but when I was around that age there was no shame in being a nerd whether you were a guy or girl and the whole 'girls can do anything' message was part of the culture at that time.

Really, girls hide being smart in front of guys??? How did I miss this? Was I THAT uncool?

you know...I was dorky enough in high school that i never noticed it (i was the captain of our oceanography quiz bowl team after all. Yes really.) but in college it was INSANE. I went to a very dorky eliteish school which was adjacent to a good state school. My friends and I would drink at the bars on the state school campus, and we learned after the first few months that we had to lie about our school and our majors. 90% of guys would absolutely lose interest the SECOND we told them that we were an engineering major and two pre-med majors from the dork school up the hill.

Like one second heavy flirting, buying drinks, playing pool...and the next they had an urgent phone call and possibly had to take a shit. We started lying and saying we were sociology majors from the all-girls college in the area and then the guys would stick around.

ETA: There is no spelling requirement for an engineering degree, even at a dorky college. Oops.

[msmerymac]

Sept 19, 2012 16:23:00 GMT -5 wawa said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:10:38 GMT -5 mr+ms said:

This is interesting to me because it hasn't been a part of my experience at all. I don't know if it's because I'm sort of a weirdo (completely possible), but when I was around that age there was no shame in being a nerd whether you were a guy or girl and the whole 'girls can do anything' message was part of the culture at that time.

Really, girls hide being smart in front of guys??? How did I miss this? Was I THAT uncool?

(i was the captain of our oceanography quiz bowl team after all. Yes really.)

You had a quiz bowl team devoted to Oceanography? TOTES JEALOUS. My quiz bowl team was just general knowledge! Or were you just the oceanography specialist?

Anyway, it was also news to me that girls don't participate as much in class because they don't want boys to think they're "too smart." Middle school was so hellish in general that I highly doubt raising my hand in class contributed to my social ostracizing more than just being alive did, you know?

But I went to an all-girls high school and I noticed when I got there, I participated even MORE in class. Maybe it was kind of subliminal. Like when the teacher announced a project in 7th grade regular school, everyone would roll their eyes, so perhaps I contained my enthusiasm a little better? But in high school, it was very competitive. Lots of homework every night. Absolutely not dorky or unpopular to want to do well. People were stepping over each other to try to get into honors and AP classes.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 16:23:00 GMT -5 wawa said:

We started lying and saying we were sociology majors from the all-girls college in the area and then the guys would stick around.

As a graduate of a WOMENS' COLLEGE (not, in fact, a Girls' School) I'd just like to say, "hey, now, watch it there."

My experience of being a student at a womens' college was that guys liked us when they thought we were loose and trashy and male-starved, but if we didn't pay them the attention they thought they deserved, we were suddenly lesbian. No middle ground there at all.

[pinkeggs]

At first I was put off by it - I hate encouraging the pink-for-girls stereotypes - but then after I watched the video and explored the page a little, I began to think it might be cool.

I'm still not 100% sold on the "girliness" of it, but I might give it a try. (Of course, I am the mom of a 2 year old DD who has refused to take off her full Spiderman costume for 2 days lol)

[Deleted]

I detest the MAth doesn't suck book. it's just horrible. And ditzy. And gives bad messages. And over simplifies concepts. I threw it several times.

[mominatrix]

Sept 19, 2012 16:48:11 GMT -5 @irishbride said:

I detest the MAth doesn't suck book. it's just horrible. And ditzy. And gives bad messages. And over simplifies concepts. I threw it several times.

Can you go into this more? Because as a non-math person trying to raise kids who will be math people, it seems (seemed?) like a great vehicle.

[Deleted]

I read both that one, and the algebra one, a year ago. So I don't remember the specific examples, but it's very very very watered down math. There were even several times that I disagreed with how she presented the concepts ( she used tricks, not concepts). And the examples were very very superficial and ditzy.

Overall, the cognitive level of the books is very low.


If you want a good math tool for at home,i recommend Family Math. It has things to do as a family that are great.

[mominatrix]

Cool.

Honestly, I'm kind of more worried about math than anything else in my kids' education. It's an area where I feel like I could have done really well, but... well... it didn't work for me.

One of the reasons why I'm as in love with B's school as I am is because they're using Singapore Math (instead of the Everyday Math that is the regular city school curriculum). From what I know of the differences, it's going to work out much much better.

...but, then again, it's hard to guesstimate these things when you really haven't seen the stuff side by side.

[Deleted]

Yeah my knowledge of elementary math is limited,I admit. Especially with the new in styles. I'm lost lol!

[Doc_Lobster]

I am also a lady engineer.

What ate group is this targeted to? I would have liked this a lot when I was under 7.

[Deleted]

My mom is not a pink frou frou person. I'm pretty sure that until I was old enough to have some modicum of control over what my mother bought me, it was fairly gender neutral. She once told me her favorite thing to dress me in was little tee shirts and overalls.

But I craaaaaaaaaved the girly.

I can't help but think my interests would have been vastly different had things like legos, kinects, etc appealed to the frou frou side of me and then weaseled their way in otherwise. I mean I enjoy sewing which is a frou frou pursuit, yes but my favorite aspects of it are not the girly ones so IDK.

[Deleted]

Sept 19, 2012 13:33:54 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

There's a reason why girls' interest in STEM-focused areas drops off around puberty, and it ain't biological... it's societal. So, why not create a girly-science movement?

[/quote]
But if it's societal how is this going to help? If a girl's family doesn't think she should become an engineer, then how is this going to help? I've had very different experiences than some of the other engineers here. There was one female I worked with who wore a lot of jewellery and the guys just didn't take her seriously. It is rare for me to work on a job where I wear anything other than steel cap boots. The encouraging thing for me is seeing a lot more female's in trade positions, one factory i was in had 50% female apprentice electricians, so how do we get it so this is acceptable? Or are the majority of females just not interested?

[Deleted]

I think we see less girls in math type positions for a variety of reasons.

1) Society. Girls are pushed towards "girly" jobs and Engineering/math doesn't fit that. And then the girls who do stick with it are sometimes pushed out by the "boys club" that already exists in some of those fields.
2) Confidence. Math becomes abstract, and therefore complex, in middle school. That is when girls are struggling with confidence. In many cases, this is where we lose girls' interest in math because they give up.
3) Honestly? In some cases, I think its because girls are taught they can be anything they want but boys are pushed to make money and be providers. So jobs that typically are good wage earners are filled with boys while girls are pushed to pick a dream and run with it...or similar messages about saving the world and working for non profits (but most boys are not given that message).

I have many many more theories. but my point is there is not just ONE cause. There are many.

[wawa]

Sept 19, 2012 16:40:41 GMT -5 mominatrix said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:23:00 GMT -5 wawa said:

We started lying and saying we were sociology majors from the all-girls college in the area and then the guys would stick around.

As a graduate of a WOMENS' COLLEGE (not, in fact, a Girls' School) I'd just like to say, "hey, now, watch it there."

My experience of being a student at a womens' college was that guys liked us when they thought we were loose and trashy and male-starved, but if we didn't pay them the attention they thought they deserved, we were suddenly lesbian. No middle ground there at all.

Sorry...women's college. And yes, while playing pool and wheedling free drinks at the campus bar we were very much playing the "loose, trashy and male-starved" role. There were actually two women's colleges in close proximity to our school - one had a reputation for being a bunch of party sluts, the other for being boring lesbians. Which never made since to me since I grew up surrounding by fun partying lesbians who all dated each other, but hey, stereotypes rarely make actual sense. We claimed membership at the "fun" one.

msmerymac - Yup. We had a regular quiz bowl team (which I was also on) and a National Ocean Science Bowl team, which I led.

The AP physics teacher was a career changer who had his PhD in oceanography and had worked in the field for 5 or so years before switching into teaching. He approached me to see if I would head up a team and recruit enough people to compete. My friends being the dorky types they were, I of course said yes. We met once a week after school so he could teach us the material, and then off to the regional compeitition we went. We got our asses HANDED to us. Out in the 2nd round. Most of the schools we were going up against were science charter schools or had actual school time instruction.