Mattel on women
Robert A. G. Seely
One thing this thread makes clear is that there are lots of folk out there
who won't object to Mattel's message - even those who ought to know better
(IMO)... I had not originally planned to act on this, but now I reckon that
we (ie those who share the opinion that women-in-math bashing is not to be
encouraged) perhaps ought to make sure our view is recognised by Mattel -
and others - and so will send a polite but firm protest as the original
poster suggests. If you agree, maybe the time spent to that end is more
fruitful than another posting to this thread...
- rags
Cameron Randale Bass
if it *is* 'women-in-math bashing'. At most, it seems to me
'Barbie-in-math bashing', though I am completely sure with
her positive attitude that even Barbie can make it through
the required core courses.
I suggest you'd do more good by taking a job at a nearby middle
school and teaching the children some math. I want to warn you,
it is a tough job to do successfully...
dale bass
--
C. R. Bass cr...@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia (804) 924-7926
Bronis Vidugiris
)One thing this thread makes clear is that there are lots of folk out there
)who won't object to Mattel's message - even those who ought to know better
)(IMO)... I had not originally planned to act on this, but now I reckon that
)we (ie those who share the opinion that women-in-math bashing is not to be
)encouraged) perhaps ought to make sure our view is recognised by Mattel -
)and others - and so will send a polite but firm protest as the original
)poster suggests. If you agree, maybe the time spent to that end is more
)fruitful than another posting to this thread...
I've added some more lines to the newsgroup......
It seems to me that children (and even adults) are constantly bombarded with
various positive and negative messages like this - and not only on math.
Some are a lot more subtle and much more prevasive.
If you have kids, I think the best thing to do is to talk to them about
math, about what they like and what they want to do, rather than to worry
about what 'Barbie' says.
I do think it would be quite reasonable to listen to what your kid's Barbie
says, and seek a replacement for it if you don't like what it's saying
strongly enough - something strikes me as being a bit 'wrong' about
trying to 'censor' all Barbies everywhere.
I think it would be good for people who don't like what Barbie says about
Math to seek equivalent replacements from Mattel - I was surprised when I saw
quotes from them saying that they'd provide only lower-grade (non-talking)
replacements. It doesn't seem like a good way to build customer good will
to me. (My understanding is that not all Barbie's are programmed with the
same phrases - so only 1 in 25 or so of the talking versions are the
'Math Phobic' ones.)
If worst comes to worst - toss the Barbie and tell your kids that you're
doing it because *you* don't like hearing that message. I know that
personally I regretted not taking some 'hard' courses - in my case, though
they were humanities courses and not 'Math' courses which I always liked -
later on.
Steven E. Hoell
chess computer. Call it "Judit" or something.
Steve Hoell s...@neutron.physics.arizona.edu
Colin Mclarty
In a previous article, d...@peregrine.peregrine.com (Dean Inada) says:
>
>Censor? Hmm, I think I'll have to agree...
>We shouldn't let Mattel 'censor' the counter-view that
>hard subjects like math can be fulfilling and important
>by making Barbie deliver their 'Math Phobic' view exclusively.
>
Now this is really odd. Mattel says "math is tough",
and you see them as denying that "hard subjects like math can
be fulfilling and important"?
You AGREE with what they said--you agree math is tough. And
where did you hear them say "don't try tough things"? I didn't hear
it at all.
Another poster took the Mattell blurb as saying "math is
uncool". Which I also find odd. In fact, "tough" was slang for
"cool" a lot more recently than "cool" was.
I did help a girl get through third through fifth grade
math. She told me that addition facts are hard when you have to
carry. Now, I could have said "no they aren't" and then she could
could have chosen among three possiblities: she was stupid, I was
lying, I didn't know what I was talking about. What I did say was
"yeah, but you can do hard things" and by the time we got to
division flash cards she thought this stuff was a blast--she still
didn't want to stop playing to do it, but when homework time came
she'd start with math.
So I am honestly not sure. Maybe this blurb is a bad
thing. But you sure won't convince me by claiming that tough
things can't be cool. Nor will I believe that girls won't try
anything they hear is tough until you give me some specific
evidence.
Colin
Scott Brigham, corp
>
> I suggest you'd do more good by taking a job at a nearby middle
> school and teaching the children some math. I want to warn you,
> it is a tough job to do successfully...
YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!!! YOU FACIST OPPRESSOR ...
>
=========================
sco...@rosemount.com
Scott Brigham (AA0HU)
St. Paul, MN USA
=========================
joseph.r.moore
> I know that
>personally I regretted not taking some 'hard' courses - in my case, though
>they were humanities courses and not 'Math' courses which I always liked -
>later on.
I happen to be a jerk who insists that people of various groups may
be less likely to excel at something than people from other groups.
I do not limit this to physical activities like basketbal or gymnastics
or running fast, but also include academic studies.
I also believe that these inconsistencies are a good reason not to use
quotas for determining equity in jobs or classes. I don't believe that
membership to a group should exclude someone from consideration for
positions. I think each case should be dealt with individually, based
on the individuals ability and observed success.
I was an exceptional student (male) particularly in math, science, and
logic. My toughest undergrad courses were in Graphic Design. I was
required to take 2 fine arts courses and chose Graphic Design because
it seemed like the easiest one (as opposed to dance, life drawing, art
history, or watercolor.)
I have an 11 year old daughter who is an exceptional student. She excels
in all classes, perhaps science being her least favorite. Being in R&D,
I would love for her to choose to pursue a science. Perhaps medicine,
as she is a harder worker than I ever was, and I'm sure she would have
a good shot at success. She is not sure what she'd like to be, but if
she's as close in personality to me as she seems, she'd be unhappy in
anything but a mentally challenging position. Time will tell. I also
have an 8 year old son. He is bright and does fairly well in his classes,
but not nearly as well as my daughter. He asks very deep questions, gems
from topics we talked about days and weeks ago. Probing questions that
are not satisfied by short brush off answers. I think he'd make a great
scientist as well. A poster at work quotes Einstein as saying, "Despite
your difficulties with mathematics, I assure mine are much greater."
I'll encourage any honest career choice, though.
Joe Moore
Bronis Vidugiris
)In article <1992Oct6.2...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)>I do think it would be quite reasonable to listen to what your kid's Barbie
)>says, and seek a replacement for it if you don't like what it's saying
)>strongly enough - something strikes me as being a bit 'wrong' about
)>trying to 'censor' all Barbies everywhere.
)>
)Censor? Hmm, I think I'll have to agree...
)We shouldn't let Mattel 'censor' the counter-view that
)hard subjects like math can be fulfilling and important
)by making Barbie deliver their 'Math Phobic' view exclusively.
Hmm - you know, I would be more sympathetic to a view that did ask Mattel
to say some nice things about math than one which simply says 'Don't say
math is hard', which is really rather 'reactive'.
Unfortunately, though I really *do* like math, I'm having a hard time
imagining something that a 'Barbie' could reasonably say that would be
supportive of it :-( :-(.
'Math will make you rich'? Nope - besides it's not true. 'Math is very
useful for understanding science and the world'? Yep, but that's not a
Barbie sort of thing to say. 'Math will get you lots of boys/dates'? -
Nope, sorry :-). "Math is intellectually developing"? True, but from
Barbie? I suppose we could have her do a math-cheerleading song :-) :-)
[we acually had one of those at college - it went something like "Tangent,
secant, cosine, sine - 3.14159 e^x e^y e^-pi."] However, that does seem too
advanced for Barbie :-(.
Any ideas for nice things a 'Barbie' _could_ actually say about math? How
about some other dolls - I suppose it could maybe work for an astronaut doll.
Seems a bit far-out though.
Anyway, I think it'll take a really major effort to improve the view the
average person has of math and science in this country - merely 'coming down'
on Barbie isn't going to solve that problem.
Matthew Burke - grad student
Mattel should have Barbie say, "Sure Ken, I can show you how to do
this math problem."
Or something along those lines.
Matt
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Matthew M. Burke mbu...@eecs.wsu.edu %
% Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket? %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Bart Goddard
I think our opinions depend on how we imagine Barbie's quote. It makes
a difference whether she says "Ooooh! Math class is sooooooo haaaard!
(sqeak) (giggle)" (I don't type well in "Vallese") or if she peers
pointedly over the top of her very-intellectual-looking glasses, sits
forward and says, "Look, Football-breath, math class is tough", to the
dumb jock who wants to know why she's too busy to go to the pep rally
with him. Since I haven't actually seen this Barbie.....
bart
Stewart Schultz
b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>Any ideas for nice things a 'Barbie' _could_ actually say about math?
Anything not negative about math or science would be nice.
Math is fun! I like science class! I'm taking math this year.
I have science homework tonight. Math is interesting! Science
experiments are exciting!
Or how about: I like my computer! :)
Now, of Barbie's total repertoire of 200 phrases, we should be
careful to keep the number of math remarks down to about 1 or 2.
The last thing we want to do is turn Barbie into a nerd!
In Barbie Land, math class is just another event to get dressed up
for, after all.
-S. Schultz
---
NASA sent Barbie up in the Shuttle,
First they fixed her hair into a bubble! -- Ennui Busters
Eric Pepke
>imagining something that a 'Barbie' could reasonably say that would be
>supportive of it :-( :-(.
How about, "I can interpolate quaternions over the unit sphere maintaining
second order continuity and equal parametric distances better'n any white
het-boy"?
>'Math will get you lots of boys/dates'? -
>Nope, sorry :-).
I knew a math professor who had a poster up on his wall. It was a standard
easy-viewing beach scene with a bikini-clad woman running along the shoreline.
The text said something like, "Do you know why I like Bob? Because Bob
knows CALCULUS!"
>[we acually had one of those at college - it went something like "Tangent,
>secant, cosine, sine - 3.14159 e^x e^y e^-pi."] However, that does seem too
>advanced for Barbie :-(.
e^u du/dx
e^x dx
secant tangent cosine sine
3.14159
integral, square root, u dv,
slipstick, slide rule, MIT!
>Anyway, I think it'll take a really major effort to improve the view the
>average person has of math and science in this country - merely 'coming down'
>on Barbie isn't going to solve that problem.
I'm reading a book called _How Superstition Won and Science Lost_ by somebody
or other. He has an interesting thesis: During the 19th and early 20th
centuries, scientists frequently spent a lot of time popularizing science.
The scientific lecture was actually a rather common social event, at least
among middle- and upper-class types. At some point, scientists started to
turn away from popularizing science, at least partly because they thought
that the battle had mostly been won and they could get back to their real
work. By default, then, the job of popularizing science fell to newspapers
and the rest of "the Media," whose primary means of distributing information
(presenting short, sometimes unconnected assertions of events or facts with
little or no reference to the methodology by which the information was
determined) is precisely the means by which superstition is promulgated.
It's certainly not the complete story (i.e. it leaves out the effect of
the progressive reform of the primary and secondary school system), but it
is certainly worth thinking about.
Our local newspaper has started running a weekly "science page." Of course,
it's only a half page--the rest is devoted to advertising. Also, only about
25% of the stories are devoted to science; the rest are gee-whiz technology
or social issues of science. It is a measure of how bad it has become that
there are some who are compelled to consider this a promising development.
-EMP
Eric Pepke
anybody from physics or math is interested in the early education thereof,
he and/or she can put it back.
In article <1992Oct6.2...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
>
>If you have kids, I think the best thing to do is to talk to them about
>math, about what they like and what they want to do, rather than to worry
>about what 'Barbie' says.
I agree, and I'll raise you one.
Uncritical acceptance of the notion that a girl child will be primarily
influenced by cultural minutiae such as Barbie and needs to be protected
from such evil influences is probably the worst thing one can do to a child.
It tells the child this: "I am not going to consider the possiblity that
you have a brain, which (with my help) you can use to determine what you want
to think. Instead, I will protect you from all bad outside influences, and
you will simply ride through life. In the process, you will learn that the
best way of solving a problem is to get someone responsible to take away all
the bad stuff for you."
I don't know if it is cultural or innate, but there seems to be a tendency
in human beings for the PROTECT and TAKE OVER lights to come on a lot faster
when they see a girl being frustrated or challenged than a boy. Perhaps the
relative lack of women in mathematics is explainable completely by this. In
mathematics it always eventually comes down to you and the paper, and excessive
coddling doesn't prepare one for this experience.
It really doesn't take much time to sit down and talk to your child. My
father sat down and explained things to me in detail maybe a dozen times
a year. He did two things which are very important:
1) He did not talk down to me or assume that I could not understand
something he said, i.e., he did not protect me from confusion or
frustration.
2) He did not prevent me from taking the wrong path in an investigation
or experiment, i.e., he did not protect me from failure.
-EMP
Paul Roberts
>
>I think our opinions depend on how we imagine Barbie's quote. It makes
>a difference whether she says "Ooooh! Math class is sooooooo haaaard!
Quite right. Barbie may be being quoted quite out of context! Where are
those investigative journalists when we really need them?
Bronis Vidugiris
)In article <1992Oct7.1...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> b...@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
)
)>about some other dolls - I suppose it could maybe work for an astronaut doll.
)>Seems a bit far-out though.
)
)Are you serious? It's just as easy to think of good things for her
)to say as negative things. Surely she could say "I got an A on my math test"
)or "Geometry is fun, like a puzzle game"
)or " My math teacher says I'm the best student in her class."
Most people (regardless of gender) don't seem to think math is fun -
unfortunately (IMO).
Advertisers and toy manufacturers do tend to be fairly sensitive to what
people think, and try to say things that don't annoy anyone or seem
'strange'. I think there is enough anti-math prejudice in the world that
'Geometry is fun' would be seen as rather strange. Perhaps I'm wrong, but
I don't think so.
That's why I'm a little surprised at Mattel - though the kids certainly
might like hearing a doll say 'Math is hard', I'm surprised their marketing
department didn't realize that parents might not like it so much.
ljf
>It might be more of a public relations than a marketing mistake.
>I just saw a news report on the story, in which a Jean McKenzie
>(public relations, Mattel) was interviewed. She said that only
>one (1) doll had been returned so far. She may have been lying, er..
>misstating, but you'd think from all the outcry that hundreds
>or maybe a few thousand had been returned. The loudest critics
>seem to be the American Association of University Women (dunno if
>I got the name right), but they haven't hurt the sales any.
Part of that may come from the fact that, if the Barbie is returned,
the customer receives a non-talking Barbie (of less value).
David Dixon
Hi there. As much as I agree with this thread, it has no place on
sci.physics. Kindly take it elsewhere.
Dave
Robert Sheaffer
Math class IS hard. And I should be in a position to know, I majored in math.
I had to really "bust ass" once I became an upperclassman. If there
were any "easy math classes," you sure couldn't graduate in my major by
taking them.
When Ross Perot tells it like it is, everybody praises his candor. But when
Barbie does the same, people have a fit. I say that Barbie deserves
praise for calling a spade a spade, for ending all this facile talk
about "Suzie's gonna be a doctor, Debbie's gonna be an astronaut." Sure,
they CAN be those things, provided they're willing to BUST ASS to do
so, because Barbie is right.
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
where it will end."
- Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Eric Pepke
>In fairness, it might be noted that a lot of 20th century science is either
>counter-intuitive, or just difficult to understand. Einstein's mechanics of
>motion is less intuitive than Newton's, and molecular biology is less
>accessible than Darwin.
Ah, but the major part of this guy's thesis was that during the 19th and
early 20th centuries popularizers of science concentrated (in my view
correctly) on the methodology of science rather than on collections of facts.
If you have the methodology, you can always determine the state of research.
If you don't have the methodology, it doesn't matter how many facts you have
been fed; they all seem like magic.
-EMP
A. Lee Salomon
>careful to keep the number of math remarks down to about 1 or 2.
>The last thing we want to do is turn Barbie into a nerd!
>
>In Barbie Land, math class is just another event to get dressed up
>for, after all.
>
I was 4, and like to "dress up." As a result, on numerous occasions I
have to deal with students (which is OK, since they have the excuse of
youth) and professors (which is upsetting, since they educate the youth)
who assume I must be in the wrong class. Barbie is a nerd when she talks
about math. In order to remain attractive, she expresses her distress when
faced with the masculine subject. And if you don't think this is true,
why is it that men who come over to flirt with me will run away when I
tell them what I study? Imagine what the NAACP would have done had an
Afro-American Ken said, "Gee, math is tough!" I don't think the doll would
have lasted a week....
--
| Machines take me by surprise with | A. Lee Salomon |
| great frequency. - Alan Turing | sal...@seas.gwu.edu |
Wendy K. Caceres
>I don't know what all the fuss is about, folks. I think Barbie is right.
>Math class IS hard. And I should be in a position to know, I majored in math.
>I had to really "bust ass" once I became an upperclassman. If there
>were any "easy math classes," you sure couldn't graduate in my major by
>taking them.
>
the fuss is about
the fact that barbie does not say 'history is hard' or 'english is hard'
or 'home ec is hard', she says 'math is hard' which many of the folks
think is a phrase that reinforces the stereotype that girls can't do math
as well as boys.
math is not hard! i ought to know, i minored in math. and followed up
with a degree in engineering! i also have a degree in theater arts, and
i can tell you that for every student who had trouble passing College Algebra,
i also knew a student who couldn't write a sentence with both a noun and
a verb in it. i tutored in both subjects and taught high school in both
subjects and saw both boys and girls who were blown away by one or the other.
why does she have to say math is hard? math is not any harder than
anything else. what would everyone think if she said 'reading is hard'?
people are ashamed to admit that they cannot read, but say almost proudly
that they can't balance their checkbooks. granted -- barbie is trivial.
the effect she has on children is probably no greater than the effect of
letting them play with toy guns (one that my husband and i agonized over
by the way). but i don't accept the statement that math is hard.
wendy (no sig)
Mark A Stewart
> > One thing this thread makes clear is that there are lots of folk out
> > there who won't object to Mattel's message - even those who ought to
> > know better (IMO)... I had not originally planned to act on this,
> > but now I reckon that we (ie those who share the opinion that
> > women-in-math bashing is not to be encouraged) perhaps ought to make
> > sure our view is recognised by Mattel - and others - and so will send
> > a polite but firm protest as the original poster suggests. If you
> > agree, maybe the time spent to that end is more fruitful than another
> > posting to this thread...
>
> That's great, but there still remains a very big question
> if it *is* 'women-in-math bashing'. At most, it seems to me
> 'Barbie-in-math bashing', though I am completely sure with
> her positive attitude that even Barbie can make it through
> the required core courses.
>
> I suggest you'd do more good by taking a job at a nearby middle
> school and teaching the children some math. I want to warn you,
> it is a tough job to do successfully...
>
> dale bass
You seem to have missed the point, Barbie is a significant "Role
Model" for many young girls, viewed as being an ideal for women to
live up to. To present her as a bubble head incapable of understanding
mathematics implicitly reflects upon the capacities of women.
As for your second comment I spent a good deal of my under-graduate,
years tutoring high school students. A great portion of my effort was
devoted to correcting the phobic belief amongst young women that
mathematics was to hard for women, and particularly them. These young
ladies were far from dumb, indeed many of them exhibited a great deal
of talent, but years of subtle ( and overt ) abuse had convinced them
that they were incapable of doing mathematics.
Consequently I feel justified in registering my abhorances at Mattel's
thoughtless and insensitive action.
Mark Stewart
P.S. many of them had been told by high school teachers statements like
"I think girls are too dumb to do physics". Whilst there are assholes
willing to make such statements we must stand up to them.
Cameron Randale Bass
>In response to
>
>> > One thing this thread makes clear is that there are lots of folk out
>> > there who won't object to Mattel's message - even those who ought to
>> > know better (IMO)... I had not originally planned to act on this,
>> > but now I reckon that we (ie those who share the opinion that
>> > women-in-math bashing is not to be encouraged) perhaps ought to make
>> > sure our view is recognised by Mattel - and others - and so will send
>> > a polite but firm protest as the original poster suggests. If you
>> > agree, maybe the time spent to that end is more fruitful than another
>> > posting to this thread...
>>
>> That's great, but there still remains a very big question
>> if it *is* 'women-in-math bashing'. At most, it seems to me
>> 'Barbie-in-math bashing', though I am completely sure with
>> her positive attitude that even Barbie can make it through
>> the required core courses.
>>
>> I suggest you'd do more good by taking a job at a nearby middle
>> school and teaching the children some math. I want to warn you,
>> it is a tough job to do successfully...
>>
>> dale bass
>
> You seem to have missed the point, Barbie is a significant "Role
>Model" for many young girls, viewed as being an ideal for women to
>live up to. To present her as a bubble head incapable of understanding
>mathematics implicitly reflects upon the capacities of women.
Inanimate objects are greatly overrated 'role models'. Usually,
what mommy or daddy say and do are much more important.
James C. Hu
> Inanimate objects are greatly overrated 'role models'. Usually,
> what mommy or daddy say and do are much more important.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this sentiment. However,
stereotypes get reinforced, and this is a bad thing. I think a child
should be encouraged to learn. Having your doll tell you "Math is
hard" is not a very encouraging sentiment. It certainly doesn't help
foster a desire to learn math.
--
James C. Hu (j...@math.ksu.edu), 1804 Denholm Dr., Manhattan, KS 66502
I speak for me, the whole me, and nothing but for me. So help me me.
Richard S. Brice
> I do wish that high schools would require at least one TOUGH course in
> critical thinking: rules of evidence, misuse of data and statistics,
> basic errors of logic, etc.
>
With all due respect for the good intentions which probably motivated
this potential solution for some of our problems, I'm led to wonder
whether the author has ever studied queueing systems in which the
arrival rate is greater than the departure rate.
R. Brice
MCC Corp
Cameron Randale Bass
>cr...@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass) writes:
>> Inanimate objects are greatly overrated 'role models'. Usually,
>> what mommy or daddy say and do are much more important.
>
>I don't think anyone disagrees with this sentiment. However,
>stereotypes get reinforced, and this is a bad thing. I think a child
>should be encouraged to learn. Having your doll tell you "Math is
>hard" is not a very encouraging sentiment. It certainly doesn't help
>foster a desire to learn math.
Leaving aside the question of whether this particular doll is
impeding a desire to learn math, should dolls 'foster a desire
to learn math'? Is this a desirable attribute in a doll?
In any case, I suspect that the sales of such a doll would not
be stellar, for the simple reason that that is not the function of
dolls.
James C. Hu
>>... Having your doll tell you "Math is hard" is not a very
>>encouraging sentiment. It certainly doesn't help foster a desire to
>>learn math.
> Leaving aside the question of whether this particular doll is
> impeding a desire to learn math, should dolls 'foster a desire
> to learn math'? Is this a desirable attribute in a doll?
If were up to me, I don't think I would have a doll say anything at
all. Leave more for the child's imagination. But, if a doll says
anything at all, I certainly don't want it to say something that
creates the impression that a subject is too hard to learn.
> In any case, I suspect that the sales of such a doll would not
> be stellar, for the simple reason that that is not the function of
> dolls.
What function does telling children that math is hard serve?
Valerie Maslak
I had said:
>)Are you serious? It's just as easy to think of good things for her
>)to say as negative things. Surely she could say "I got an A on my math test"
>)or "Geometry is fun, like a puzzle game"
>)or " My math teacher says I'm the best student in her class."
>Most people (regardless of gender) don't seem to think math is fun -
>unfortunately (IMO).
I guess that makes me a real wierdo, but I LOVED geometry class.
The idea that you could start out with a few basic assumptions
and prove all sorts of amazing things with them was a real blast for
me. I LOVED it. You know this, and because this is true, then you
can prove that, and if you can prove that, then you can also prove
this and this....
Yep, I thought geometry was fun.
Valerie Maslak
Curt Gates
(Peter Chrzanowski) writes:
> I agree that the quality of science reporting, or even technology
> reporting, in newspapers is unbelievably bad, to the point where most, not > some, stories have at least one "howler" in them.
> If political reporters were as bad as science reporters they'd confuse
> events in Moscow, Kansas with events in Moscow, CIS.
Maybe when the sources of science information become articulate enough to
express themselves effectively, science reporters wont have to guess at
what their sources are trying to say. If people in science and technology
were more articulate, the growing numbers of tech writers would have to
find a new way to make a living.
> In fairness, it might be noted that a lot of 20th century science is
> either counter-intuitive, or just difficult to understand.
Worse, science and technology have become corporate, rather than
individual. In the 19th and early 20th century, there was a belief that a
person of limited finances, and working alone, could make worthwhile
discoveries, and even get rich in the process. And there was a lot of
truth to that. You can find that belief in 19th century copies to
Scientific American through early 20th century copies of Popular Science
and Popular Mechanics. Even the Scientific American of the 1950s had a
great column called the Amateur Scientist.
What this has to do with Barbie is that these publications tended to
describe science and technology as a male domain, often closely connected
with the military. If you want a real chill, look through some 1950s
issues of MIT s Technology Review.
Also associated with science and technology, and reaching a peak in the
50s, was an attitude of intellectual elitism and a desire to *exclude*
popular understanding. This elitism still exists, particularly in places
of higher education, which loops back to an observation I made earlier
about intellecutal elitism having an effect similar to sexual elitism.
Bronis Vidugiris
)I agree that it is a stigma and I wanted to retell a true story that happened
)to two female classmates of my husband when he was working on his undergraduate
)physics degree. The two women were in a club near the school and two guys came
)up and started to talk to them. When the guys asked what their major was the
)girls played hard to get and asked them to guess. One of them then piped up
)with "well you aren't nuclear physicists that's for sure." No they were into
)Quantum Physics. The ladies just walked away. :-)
)
)Karen
Note followups:
I have a roughly similar story from the male point of view. I knew a couple
of guys who liked the 'bar' social scene. They were fellow Electrical
Engineers, but whenever they talked to a woman at a bar, they always answered
that they were garbage truck drivers when asked what they did, to avoid
scaring them away before they had a chance to talk. (It also generated a
topic for conversation at the same time - i.e. "No, what do you really do?"
:-)).
Anyway, it's not like being an Engineer was a Cosmic Downer, but at least in
the bar scene it was enough of a negative where these guys felt that they
were better off doing what they were doing.
PS - eventually, these guys got tired of the egineering profession, and
went into technical sales.
DONNA CRAIL-RUGOTZKE
>Math class IS hard. And I should be in a position to know, I majored in math.
>I had to really "bust ass" once I became an upperclassman. If there
>were any "easy math classes," you sure couldn't graduate in my major by
>taking them.
Most of the children who play with Barbies are pre-teen girls, who
have yet to start talking more advanced math courses (i.e. Algebra, Geometry,
etc.). Many parents do not want their children to have pre-conceived
notions before starting these classes. If you think a class is going to
be hard, it probably will be. Also they don't want their children to
avoid taking classes because "they might be hard."
The other problem is that this toy is directed toward girls. Products
aimed at boys do not have messages like this. I have heard parents
complaining about not finding "positive" role models for their female
children. One of my history professors said that she changed the
gender of the characters in her kid's books just to provide
a female role model.
In 1988, I wrote my child psychology paper on male and female cartoon
characters. I found that most of the characters were male. The few
female cartoon characters that were shown, acted in a steroetypical manner.
One of the cartoons showed a female reporter getting upset about the wind
"messing-up"her hair. Hopefully, cartoons have improved since then.
Considering the recent concern over American children's math scores (as
compared with the Japanese), I surprised Mattel would try to market
this doll. I am also surprised that some politican is not using
Barbie to show how this country is going to "hell-in-a-hand-bag,"
since this is the year for bashing the media.
>
>When Ross Perot tells it like it is, everybody praises his candor. But when
>Barbie does the same, people have a fit. I say that Barbie deserves
>praise for calling a spade a spade, for ending all this facile talk
>about "Suzie's gonna be a doctor, Debbie's gonna be an astronaut." Sure,
>they CAN be those things, provided they're willing to BUST ASS to do
>so, because Barbie is right.
They may praise Perot, but how will they vote?
>
>--
>
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
>
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
>
Donna
cr...@nevada.edu
Cameron Randale Bass
>The other problem is that this toy is directed toward girls. Products
>aimed at boys do not have messages like this. I have heard parents
>complaining about not finding "positive" role models for their female
>children. One of my history professors said that she changed the
>gender of the characters in her kid's books just to provide
>a female role model.
Gee, is it just me? Why, pray tell, is the mother not a good
'role model'? Why does she feel inadequate to the task?
>Considering the recent concern over American children's math scores (as
>compared with the Japanese), I surprised Mattel would try to market
>this doll. I am also surprised that some politican is not using
>Barbie to show how this country is going to "hell-in-a-hand-bag,"
>since this is the year for bashing the media.
What about the recent lack of furor that we scored well above the
Japanese in reading and verbal skills on a recent battery of
test administered to elementary and middle school children?
Negative results and whining about them seem to be much more popular.
Leslie D Peters
--
**********************************************************************
* Les Peters (lpe...@marge.hq.af.mil): a small fish in a big pond, *
* but growing... *
**********************************************************************
RI...@cunyvm.bitnet
was a movie in which there were two rabbits, one white, one black, one male
and one female. At the end of the movie, the two get married. Now this movie
came out at a time when racial intermarriage was still illegal in some southern
states and there was an uproar. It finally ended when a state senator wryly
remarked: "this movie will HAVE to be banned. I don't want my daughter to
grow up and marry a rabbit!" Probably it IS silly for Mattel to have Barbie
say such a line as "Math is hard". But isn't the fuss about it also just a bit
silly?
Rohit Parikh
Dean E. Nelson
>I don't know what all the fuss is about, folks. I think Barbie is right.
>Math class IS hard. And I should be in a position to know, I majored in math.
>I had to really "bust ass" once I became an upperclassman. If there
>were any "easy math classes," you sure couldn't graduate in my major by
>taking them.
Then why doesn't she tell the whole truth like "Math class is tough, but I
can do it if I work hard"?
I don't think that the people who came up with this idea meant to be
subversive. I tend to believe it stems from a basic assumption born of
ignorance. They probably meant to have Barbie say things that young girls
could identify with. And they thought that young girls could identify with
math class being hard. Most likely that is because they found math class to
be hard. Well, not math exactly, just arithmetic (we *are* talking about
young children, and these young girls probably don't think "She's not
talking about our math class, but hers. I bet she's taking calculus or
algebraic topology, or one of those other tough classes"). I interpret this
to be less an attack on the values of young girls than the unfortunate
attitude of her marketers that have had a hard time with arithmetic.
Dean Nelson de...@lehigh.edu
Laura L. Walsh
>In 1988, I wrote my child psychology paper on male and female cartoon
>characters. I found that most of the characters were male. The few
>female cartoon characters that were shown, acted in a steroetypical manner.
>One of the cartoons showed a female reporter getting upset about the wind
>"messing-up"her hair. Hopefully, cartoons have improved since then.
A number of years ago, I noticed that most of the characters on Sesame
Street in which kids were really interested were male: Big Bird,
Bert, Ernie, Oscar, Mr. Snuffleupagus, the Count, Grover, etc. There
were attempts to get interest in female characters, such as Prairie
Dawn, but these seemed to just not work. I don't know if they ever
succeeded in adding interesting female characters, since my kids don't
watch TV. Interestingly, in Germany, I was told that Big Bird there
is considered to be female.
Laura
Anthony J Stieber
>Street in which kids were really interested were male: Big Bird,
>Bert, Ernie, Oscar, Mr. Snuffleupagus, the Count, Grover, etc. There
>watch TV. Interestingly, in Germany, I was told that Big Bird there
>is considered to be female.
I was never too sure about Big Bird's gender. Certainly
Snuffleupagus(sp?) seems to be male, and Big Bird had some sort of
relationship with him. Maybe they were gay? Grover seems pretty
androgynous to me, and there's evidence that Bert and Ernie are
lovers.
Followups to alt.tv.muppets.
--
<-:(= Anthony Stieber ant...@csd4.csd.uwm.edu uwm!uwmcsd4!anthony
Cynthia Kandolf
>A number of years ago, I noticed that most of the characters on Sesame
>Street in which kids were really interested were male: Big Bird,
>Bert, Ernie, Oscar, Mr. Snuffleupagus, the Count, Grover, etc. There
>were attempts to get interest in female characters, such as Prairie
>Dawn, but these seemed to just not work. I don't know if they ever
>succeeded in adding interesting female characters, since my kids don't
>watch TV. Interestingly, in Germany, I was told that Big Bird there
>is considered to be female.
The Norwegian version doesn't use the same characters. At present -
it started up a year ago - there were two human characters and three
Muppets. The human characters are one woman, one man, and there are
two boy Muppets and one girl. With so few characters, none of them
really get to dominate. The kids i know seem to identify with the
girl Muppet (whose name escapes me at the moment) - she's the only one
who seems to be a kid, and see things from the same perspective as
them. I don't know if there's some deeper meaning behind this,
though, or if it's all just coincidence 8-)
-Cindy Kandolf
ci...@solan.unit.no
Trondheim, Norway
Robert Sheaffer
>compared with the Japanese), I surprised Mattel would try to market
>this doll. I am also surprised that some politican is not using
>Barbie to show how this country is going to "hell-in-a-hand-bag,"
>since this is the year for bashing the media.
Of course, differentiation of sex roles in Japan is much, MUCH stronger than
in the U.S.; the situation in Japan today remains what it was in the U.S.
in the 1950s. Yet despite all this bad, bad stereotyping, they somehow
still manage to score much higher in math than we do. So obviously, "sexual
stereotyping" is not the culprit in low math scores. And while I don't
have any numbers available on this now, I'd be willing to wager $10 that
Japanese women, who are the victims of such horrid oppression if
American feminists are to be believed, STILL score higher in math than
American women do.
--
Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
"Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
Paul Epstein
>In article <1992Oct15....@nevada.edu> cr...@nevada.edu (DONNA CRAIL-RUGOTZKE) writes:
>>
>Of course, differentiation of sex roles in Japan is much, MUCH stronger than
>in the U.S.; the situation in Japan today remains what it was in the U.S.
>in the 1950s. Yet despite all this bad, bad stereotyping, they somehow
>still manage to score much higher in math than we do. So obviously, "sexual
>stereotyping" is not the culprit in low math scores. And while I don't
>have any numbers available on this now, I'd be willing to wager $10 that
>Japanese women, who are the victims of such horrid oppression if
>American feminists are to be believed, STILL score higher in math than
>American women do.
>--
>
> Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - shea...@netcom.com
>
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics
The obvious flaw in the above argument is that is very plausible
that Japanese women would be even better at mathematics were it not
for the "sexual stereotyping."
The logical reasoning behind Sheaffer's remarks seem similar to the following
fallacious argument.
"Michael Chang rarely serves faster than 90m.p.h and yet he is one of the
greatest tennis players alive. It is clear therefore that being able to
serve 'cannonballs' at 120 m.p.h does not give a player any advantage."
Amy Gorin
>>Of course, differentiation of sex roles in Japan is much, MUCH stronger than
>>in the U.S.; the situation in Japan today remains what it was in the U.S.
>>in the 1950s. Yet despite all this bad, bad stereotyping, they somehow
>>still manage to score much higher in math than we do. So obviously, "sexual
>>stereotyping" is not the culprit in low math scores. And while I don't
>>have any numbers available on this now, I'd be willing to wager $10 that
>>Japanese women, who are the victims of such horrid oppression if
>>American feminists are to be believed, STILL score higher in math than
>>American women do.
> The obvious flaw in the above argument is that is very plausible
> that Japanese women would be even better at mathematics were it not
> for the "sexual stereotyping."
You've both missed a key point: Sexual stereotyping in Japan does
not include the stereotype that women are bad at math.
Housewives in Japan, in addition to doing "women's work" like cooking,
cleaning and emotional strokeing, also do "women's work" like managing
the family's budget and investments. It is common for a japanese
husband to hand over his entire paycheck to his wife, and recieve
an allowance in return. (I wish there were a status-neutral word for
"allowance"). Men are not expected to be better than women
at math -- if anything, the opposite is true.
It is astonishing how deeply ingrained american cultural assumptions
are. Even among those who are trying to free themselves of them.
-ringo
Dave Sixsmith
My daughter's favorite character is Prairie Dawn.
I dunno what this has got to do with physics.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dave Sixsmith | Disclaim, disclaim, disclaim, etc. |
| Bristol, England | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------