Gender+Science in toys: yay Lego!

I loved Legos when I was young. I'm a little critical of the fact that now everything is very expensive kits that seem more like model building (without the painting and gluing) than they are creative construction. I don't think they are all bad - I had some sort of undersea explorer kit that I build once and then combined with all of my other blocks.

Of course, there are Legos for girls. This is problematic when it send the message that girls can only play with things that are pink and cute (though many plain kits are labeled "for girls"). However, for families that are already in that mentality, it at least provides a more creative play opportunity than most of the "girl toys" out there.

So mega-points for Lego for introducing Olivia's Invention Workshop. It is an affordable accessory that is marketed towards girls with a focus on science/engineering. Microscope! Tools! Table vice! Maybe the kids playing with this will decide the next robot Olivia makes will be a giant Gundam. I would approve!

Gendered Science Kits

Remember the good ol' days of chemistry kits filled with things that could potentially be dangerous in any way whatsoever? I barely do. The only one I ever had like that was 2nd hand - probably originally from the 80s.

From my own experience trying to buy "educational" toys I have found that anything that isn't a videogame is considered educational. Toy trains and trucks? Professional Development. Nerf gun? Hand-eye coordination. Stuffed animals? Biology! I don't buy it.

Sadly, "science kits" have gone a bit downhill as well. I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with a slime kit or crystal growth kit, but there is too much "value added" plastic crap in these kits as an attempt to justify the high price tag. But it has gotten worse - these kits are becoming increasingly gendered.

Professor Janet D. Stemwedel at SciAm Blogs has an excellent series on this topic:

• Science Kits for Girls
• Some reasons gendered science kits may be counterproductive.
• Gendered science kits aren’t so great for boys either.
• How do we make room for pink microscopes? (More thoughts on gendered science kits.)

Dear Nature: I have this excellent paper on hypercube...

There was a recent piece (of sh$$) titled "Womanspace" in Nature (a highly prestigious journal) that was meant to be funny, but did it by making an extended "joke" at the expense of women. Both the fact that plenty of readers are female, and the fact that women aren't actually a character out of a 1950's sitcom. The best theory is that this was meant to get a lot of publicity for Nature, given the comments from Nature editors (initially) that they were surprised over the lack of outrage. The journal did publish critiques recently, but that doesn't "fix" what was done.

Many people have given this article its fair criticism, and I yield to their superior blogging skills. What I particularly like is that many have found constructive things to do... I only swore a lot and thought about slashing tires.

Hate misogyny in science? Here are some fun things to try:

• Occupy Nature! Kate Clancy's blog is through a subsidiary of Nature, but instead of abandoning her blog she has decided to use it to highlight other bigotry. Find other things to be angry about at Nature? Send them to her.
• Submit your own crap! Lab Lemming points out that this is a a call for submissions - anything and everything. This is similar to using "postage paid" envelopes from junk mail to return bricks to them.
• Submit followup articles on gayspace, blackspace, and jewspace.

Further critiques of the article

• Dr Isis
• Janet D. Stemwedel at SciAm
• Anne Jefferson, All-geo
• Christie Wilcox , SciAm

Smartphones: sexist?

It looks like I will be the one getting a new smartphone. I'm mostly overwhelmed by the options and features. I barely keep my current cell phone with me, and rarely actually have it on me to know if someone is calling. I've thought about not having a phone at all. So, a smartphone seems like a reasonable solution - I bet they are rubbish for actual calls. But have all sorts of games!

I went in to the Verizon store to look at them today. I realized why I think of them as being very redundant with a tablet... I don't think smartphones are any more portable than tablets. When I look at a smartphone, I see a device that will sit in my backpack all the time. Granted, my current phone normally does this. But sometimes... sometimes... it goes in my pocket. A smartphone will never do so. It is too damn big.

Are the tech companies to blame for this? No, it is just an unfortunate truth of women's fashion: pockets tend to be very small, if they exist at all. Specifically I am thinking of front pockets on jeans and slacks. A phone like the X2 or iPhone will not fit in the front pocket of the majority of my jeans. Could I get a cell phone holster? This was my solution back in the day, but I don't know if people use them anymore. I don't want to look geeky, right? A belt-holder for a cell phone is only a partial solution: it will work with chunky belts that are structural, not those skinny belts. Honestly, I've never figured out how to wear the skinny belts anyways.

Of course, there is then the problem of skirts and dresses and all of the fashion choices that don't have pockets or belt loops at all. I rarely have this problem, but if I dressed according to the Stanford Clinic dress code, I would. So when the people perceive that tech gadgets are predominantly a men's market, I believe that this is at least fashion driven. Not because the X2 doesn't come in pink, but because women in a business environment won't have as easy of a time carrying them around. If I accept I'll be hauling some sort of purse or briefcase around to carry my smartphone, I might as well just have a netbook or tablet.

So no, I don't think smartphones are sexist. They just aren't very compatible with women's business attire.

Med School (sexist) Softball!

I'm playing on the Radiation Oncology team in the Stanford Medical Center Co-Ed Softball league. It is lots of fun - I'm getting to meet many people from the medical side of the department who I haven't interacted with before. Also, I get to play softball and drink beer. It is a touch better than when I was in Junior High playing softball and drinking iced coffee. People are much nicer now than when I was in Junior High. I'm not a better softball player though. I might, in fact, be worse.

I can deal with being a bad softball player, because it is all about having fun, right? Unfortunately there is something severely limiting the fun I'm having, and it has nothing with my inability to throw/catch/hit. It turns out that the rules for Co-ed softball (which I first assumed were just for this league) are disturbingly sexist. I knew some of the "strange" rules coming in - the men and women are pitched different sized balls. But others I only learned at our first game last night. I was pretty pissed off and decided to make it a battle against the power-that-be who make the softball rules. Unfortunately, these are the "official" rules of the Amateur Softball Association. So my battle is going to be difficult.