Category Archives: women in science

Awesome Woman in STEM Highlight, Thanksgiving Edition: Mary G. Ross

In honor of both Thanksgiving Day in the US, and Native American Heritage Month, I thought I’d start a new series by kicking off with the first Native American woman engineer, Mary Golda Ross [1]. In 1958, she was a guest on the TV game show “What’s My Line?” where the panel failed to guess what she did for a living, though they got close, guessing that it had something to do with missiles [2]. At one point, one of the panel makes the comment that it’s not like she gets into the nose of these things, which, while technically true, probably steered him away from guessing that her mathematics background gave her the expertise to design them.

While her Native American heritage may have been downplayed at various points in her life, she credited it for her academic success, as her Cherokee upbringing stressed the importance of education for any sex [3]. Born in Oklahoma and the great-granddaughter of famous Cherokee Chief John Ross, Mary was identified as gifted from a young age and encouraged to pursue her education. She went on to receive a Bachelor’s degree in mathematics in 1920 and a Master’s degree in 1938. She taught mathematics in Oklahoma during the Great Depression and then, in 1942, joined the Aerodynamics and Structures department at the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation as an engineer. Eventually, she was one of the core group of engineers who started the Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., now Lockheed Martin. Her notable accomplishments include preliminary design work on orbital space systems and early manned space exploration missions.

She retired in the 1970s, but continued to work in engaging young Native American women and encourage them to pursue careers in the sciences and engineering after rediscovering her connection to her Cherokee heritage. In 2004, at the age of 96, Ross donned traditional Cherokee dress and participated in the opening ceremonies of the National Museum of the American Indian [4]. In 2008, she passed away, just shy of her 100th birthday. She left a large endowment to the NMAI. She showed her mathematical mind once more in requesting that the gift be given as an endowment, rather than a single large scholarship to maximize returns [5].

Women like Mary Ross were trailblazers, not just for women in STEM, whose impact reaches further back in history, but for women of color in STEM, whose role models may be fewer and further between. Her example and her work to encourage young Native American women serve as an inspiration for all who want to extend the diversity of STEM fields.

Advertisements
Tagged , ,

On Politics, Women in Science, and Being a White Woman in Science

There is a group who has gained some recognition recently, called 500 Women Scientists, which has published a pledge for all supporters of science and equality in the scientists to sign to show their support. I’ve signed it, along with over five thousand other people. And I recommend anyone else who supports science (woman or otherwise) sign the pledge.

But that is not what I’m here to talk about today. Because a new movement of equality founded and perpetuated largely by privileged white women has reminded me of another piece I read recently, one that has stayed with me longer, and one that I think deserves a larger voice. This piece, written by a black woman who has been through the trenches of graduate school, not just as a racial minority or as a woman, but as both, serves as a reminder that white feminism is not the only feminism and that white women are not just fighting for their representation in graduate school.

The author writes about her experience as the only woman of color in her mechanical engineering PhD program. The problem of not being able to find a woman to be your mentor? Well, you’re much less likely to find a woman of color. In fact, in my own graduate experience, I can’t remember one black student in my graduate class, and very few Latino students, plus a few South Asian. In fact, there was a black professor in our group who sent his white graduate student to a conference for Black and Hispanic Researchers as his representative because most of his students were white.

And while I would never want to minimize the struggles that face any minority group in STEM, it bears remembering that while my women colleagues may get together and think that things are getting better or not really notice that there’s any gender inequity in their research group, this is not the case for other minorities. The work still exists to be done and it needs to be inclusive. We need to commit ourselves to all diversity in STEM and not get lost in our specific struggle. I mean, if my undergraduate class thought I didn’t look like a physics grad student (and would say that to me face while I’m up there telling them how I’m going to be grading them), what would they have the nerve to say to someone who looks even more different than I do?

This is a bit of a short post for such an important subject. But that’s because it’s not really my topic to write about. Instead, I would welcome comments from those whose topic it is. Please educate me, and educate my readers, about what STEM is really like for all those who pursue it.

Tagged , , , ,

Women in Science Movie Club: Ghostbusters

A couple weeks ago, D and I had a nice day-off date. Among other things, we went to go see the new Ghostbusters movie. Of course, plenty of my friends have asked what I think of it, and the short answer is “Awesome,” but I thought I’d give a little more detailed review of the movie, particularly from a women-in-science perspective.

First of all, anyone who didn’t already know: they’ve gender-flipped the main characters of the movie. And in the process, they upset a lot of people on the internet. But in addition to responding in the movie itself to those who objected to women as Ghostbusters, they’ve also hit on some of the subtle ways in which women are marginalized in both science and stories about science. From the very beginning, Dr. Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) is a professor trying to get tenure at a highly-respected university. She’s pretty obsessed with her image, although that’s not really her fault, since her dean even makes an offhand comment “about her clothes.” While he doesn’t finish the comment, it’s definitely indicative of the things that male scientists don’t really worry about as much as the women.

From there, Gilbert reconnects with her old friend Dr. Abby Yates (Melissa McCarthy) and her colleague Dr. Jillian Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon), who are both much more at home with themselves and less concerned about what others think of them. Interestingly, they are still subject to the whims of a male college head, and end up kicked out of their labs as well. You just can’t win. From here, they set up their Ghostbusters agency and acquire a hot blond secretary (Chris Hemsworth), as well as a historically-brilliant former transit worker named Patty Tolan (Leslie Jones). Interestingly enough, despite her lack of formal scientific training, Tolan not only keeps the group informed about the historical significance of landmarks in the city, which proves vital to investigations, but also makes a scientific suggestion that turns out to impress the rest of the group.

I would say the best part about the movie is the way that the women are their own characters and only fall into stereotypes when they are calling out those stereotypes (such as Gilbert being uptight about her appearance). Holtz, in particular, was a masterful representation of an alternative science grrl — so much so that I wondered if the filmmakers gleaned more than just scientific knowledge and equipment from the labs of the science advisers they consulted. I’ve certainly known plenty of women like her in the lab, and love that they put her ambiguous self in this movie. That said, the other two scientist characters were excellent in their own ways, with Gilbert showing the neurosis of a woman obsessed with pleasing men in science, and Yates showing a woman so comfortable with herself that she doesn’t need to be anything more than herself. I found her a very calming influence in the cast.

But the most illuminating character would be Tolan, who plays the outside. The Penny to their Sheldons and Leonards. She’s the one that calls them on their rambling and exclusionary attitudes. She’s the one that points out the things that they didn’t see because they forgot that they don’t actually know everything. And that’s an important role in a movie about scientist. I’m glad she didn’t have to be a “hot blonde” to do it. I also found the complete gender flip, with the casting of a man in the role of the ditzy secretary, to be so faithful to the concept of the movie, and was impressed with how much fun Hemsworth seemed to be having playing the role.

While there are many more things I’d love to gush about this movie (like the fact that the bad guy was literally male privilege), I wouldn’t want to get into spoiler territory. Just know that it’s a great addition to the list of movies with strong positive representations of women in science. And that’s not a long list.

Tagged , , ,

How Men Can Help Women in STEM and Why They Need To

Last week I attended a conference, at which they had a special meeting on issues facing women in the sciences. It seems that a lot of STEM conferences have meetings like these, whether it’s a networking reception or a brainstorming session. And one of the results of this meeting was a fascinating conversation I had with two recent professors about the role of men in improving the experience of women in STEM fields. I was at lunch with a female professor and a male professor, basically swapping stories with the woman about insensitive comments we’ve gotten and discussing with the man what made them insensitive and what would have been a better thing to say.

The first thing that came up was the practice of pointing out “the only woman in the room.” The other woman and I swapped a few stories about having it pointed out to us that we were the only women in a class or seminar or room. The man was curious about what people should do in the situation where they notice someone is a minority. The answer? Don’t point out how someone is different. It doesn’t matter if they’re the only woman in the room or the only of any other underrepresented group. As I mentioned before, the blaring alarm of “You’re different, you’re different, you’re different” is going off in the head of pretty much anyone who’s at all an oddity in their environment. They already know they’re the only one of their group in the room. You’re not telling them something new, and you’re making them feel self-conscious.

The next thing that we discussed was how to refer to a group of women. The man asked if we were offended by being called “guys” in a mixed-gender group. We both said no, for us, but pointed out that it’s good to ask, and also that the one thing you want to avoid is calling females over the age of 18 “girls.” I am over 30. I am not a girl. And referring to me as a girl makes me feel like you’re diminishing me. The other woman agreed, with perhaps a bit more vehemence. While it’s an unfortunate truth that we live in a world where the English language requires the use of gendered words, at the very least try to avoid the ones that are diminutive or patronizing.

And that’s basically the biggest thing that reasonable people can do to help any underrepresented group in STEM: be sensitive about the way language diminishes minority groups and try not to make people feel weird just for being who they are. And that means that the people in the majority need to make this effort. The people in the majority are the ones that those in the minority encounter on a daily basis and that reinforce the negative stuff, so it’s the people in the majority, particularly men, who can make the biggest difference in the environment. Simply by sitting down, asking questions, and really listening when we answered, that one man was able to walk away with a better understanding of how to encourage underrepresented groups in STEM. And that’s one more person trying, which is never a bad thing.

Tagged

Great News, Guys: Sexism in Science is Over!

Okay, maybe not.

A recent study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims that they found that their hiring experiment shows that professors consider women twice as desirable as men when choosing candidates to hire from a stack of applications. Their conclusion is that the current lack of women in STEM fields is therefore not due to inherent bias, but due to women self-selecting out of the field.

Except their study bears no resemblance to an actual faculty search.

Scientists have responded to this study with a mixture of skepticism and outright anger, and they’re justified in doing so. By claiming that there’s no bias against women in technical fields, the researchers are placing the blame for the underrepresentation of women in the sciences squarely on the shoulders of women. They’re basically telling women to “stop underrepresenting yourself.” And yet, almost any woman could tell you some anecdote about being assumed to have less knowledge than a male at a field in which she is just as qualified as the guys. My own anecdotes are well-documented.

This article, written by a friend of mine, outlines in exactly which ways the PNAS study gets it wrong when they claim to study actual hiring practices. And in-person interviews are hard to study because there is no real way to make up for biases. Without being able to see the candidate, there’s no evaluation of body language that makes in-person interviewing useful. The closest examples that take into account a holistic view of bias might come from anecdotal evidence of scientists who have transitioned genders at a midpoint in their careers, although bias against transgender individuals is a whole different level of bias.

This article about the study also raises another important point: is it really the perception of gender bias that keeps women from pursuing higher education jobs in STEM fields? I would argue, no, that if a woman chooses to leave a STEM field, it is generally because there is little accommodation for the disproportionate role a woman is supposed to take in raising a family, or else because of some personal negative experience. I mean, I knew that it was “weird” to be a woman in physics, but that didn’t make the field less attractive. It just gave me a bit of advanced warning so I wasn’t surprised the first time I got patronizing comments from a professor.

And that’s the biggest problem I have with this study. If you tell women that this bias doesn’t really exist, then what does that say when they actually experience it for themselves? Without knowledge of bias as an existing issue, women in science who then experience bias might just chalk it up to one bad apple or, worse yet, their own oversensitivity. And that, I think, is even more likely to cause women to leave a field that they would otherwise enjoy. If you can take sexist comments, recognize them for what they are, and say “Eh, haters gonna hate,” it’s easier to go on with your career. Without a perception of ingrained bias, each negative experience becomes personal, which is actually worse.

So rather than declaring bias over based on one poorly-designed study, perhaps we should be addressing the causes of the very real biases in the sciences, not just against women, but against anyone who doesn’t fit the traditional perception of the nerdy, white, cis-male scientist.

Tagged , , ,

On Casual Prejudice and Remembering People’s Names

My colleague recently sent an email to the wrong person because they had a similar south Asian name to the person to whom he meant to send the email. He asked me, “Is that racist?” And, honestly, the answer is yes, a little bit. No, it’s not the kind of racist that causes people bodily harm, but it is an example of the little annoyances of standing out in a primarily white, male environment.

For another example: I used to be assumed to be a secretary by people I contacted from my old job, and now that I work for a female scientist, I’m often assumed to be her before I have a chance to introduce myself. As in, people say “Oh, you must be [boss’ name]” before I even open my mouth to actually tell them who I am. It’s not a problem with which most of my male colleagues have to deal. And, yeah, it’s kind of annoying to have it pointed out that, hey, what are the odds there are two of you in a single physics group?!

The really sad part is that I have a really common female name, and my boss has a very uncommon name. I mean, also we’re totally different people and look different.

Seriously, stop.

Because that’s the crux of the problem: it points out a person’s otherness. Yes, people with non-Western names are used to people mispronouncing their names. They’re used to being asked if they’re from the same country or city as another person who looks vaguely similar. It just highlights to them that you are judging them first and foremost by what you see, and that you don’t have the ability to distinguish between different people who aren’t the same race (or gender?!) as you.

Yes, I’m being hyperbolic. But it’s a real problem. Every time it happens, it’s an alarm going off, “you’re different, you’re different, you’re different,” in your head. It grates. As with the concept of “lighten up” in response to off-color jokes, it builds up. I promise you, your slip is not the first time this person has had to deal with this, even if you think it’s the first time you’ve made such a mistake. We notice the people who treat us like individuals, rather than a demographic group. But we’re going to be gracious and polite about it, because what else can we do?

Tagged , , , , ,

Women in Science in Science Fiction Theater: The Dum Dums by Glass Mind Theatre

So this isn’t really a theater review. Except it is. I recently had the chance to go up to Baltimore to see The Dum Dums, a play presented by Glass Mind Theatre at Gallery 788 in Baltimore. It’s a really fun show, but what struck me was the intense portrayal of the experience of being a woman in science. The play takes themes like toxic female competition, impostor’s syndrome, and depression and weaves it into a hilarious and touching show.

Better people than I have actually reviewed this show. Read this review for a pretty accurate idea of what I thought about it as well (although, do yourself a favor and don’t read past the second photo). The show opens with three astronauts embarking on a mission to Tau Ceti E. Right off, I have to give props to the playwright for actually choosing some real planets in the habitable zone of a known star. It lends gravitas to the struggle between the women on board the ship because it makes their training seem more real than fiction

The main characters are Captain Meghan Schill and Navigator Jennifer Traeger, along with Medic Debra Lambert, whose actor also plays a variety of other characters. Traeger embarks on the journey with a severe case of nerves and a horror that she’s made a terrible mistake with the star charts. The other two crewmates ensure her that she’s being silly and that she’s really brilliant. But it turns out, she’s right.

They end up on the wrong planet, hundreds of thousands of years off schedule. The portrayal of the ultimate impostor’s-syndrome-proved-right scenario struck me. It’s a feeling that I’ve struggled with (and I’m sure plenty of others have struggled with) and it was striking to see it up on stage. And yet, not until the end did anyone think to say to Traeger that this was her fault (a statement which is almost instantly regretted).

And yet, Traeger spends more of the stay on the wrong planet consumed with a kind of depressive lethargy that isn’t helped by the excessive gravity of a super-Earth. She flops around the ship, binge eating and binge watching reality shows on her tablet. The sheer honesty of the experience of depression is a far cry from the portrayal of scientists as nerds who have nerd tastes in all things. She watches reality shows about women catfighting at parties, not Star Trek. She is unapologetically “female” in her tastes, despite being an MIT graduate. There are so many more moments in the play that deal with depression, the main theme, that I would just say go see the show if you want to know more.

But the moment that spoke to me the most was a flashback when Traeger meets her future boyfriend in a bar. He’s asking what she does and she responds that she’s an astronaut. And then it comes. That line that I’ve gotten so many times before. “Oh, you must be so smart.” I literally rolled my eyes while sitting in my seat watching that. It’s just such a truth that I instantly identified with Traeger. And the guy in question ultimately proves himself unsuited to dating someone with a high-stress job.

All I can say is that The Dum Dums does a brilliant job of capturing the feeling of being a woman in science. There are also themes of both female competition and the commoditization of female competition. The portrayal of impostor’s syndrome and depression are among the most spot-on that I’ve ever seen. And Traeger is, if not likeable all the time, a very real character. I highly recommend you try to go see it before it closes in April. More information here: http://www.glassmindtheatre.com/season/the-dum-dums/

Tagged , , , ,

A Bone to Pick with Bones

So it’s no secret to anyone who knows me that one of my favorite genres of TV is the crime drama. Criminal Minds, Bones, and even good old Law and Order. I watch them in hotel rooms and at home, and I’ve recently discovered them on Netflix. Bones is actually one of my favorites. Despite the caricature-like portrayal of Dr. Brennan at times, I find it a great representation of diversity in science. But the episode I watched the other night gave me pause. I apologize for writing about an episode that’s a year and a half old, but it’s new to me.

In “The Lady on the List,” the intern Dr. Wells returns. Now, I have a problem with him in general because he’s a perfect representation of the idea on TV that all science-y people know all science. I guess it’s good that they at least try to make it apparent that his expertise in multiple scientific fields is unusual, but it still galls me that this perception exists. But that’s not the problem.

The problem is that he’s a belittling jerk. And he is pretty exclusively a belittling jerk to Brennan, Cam, and Angela. That is to say, the women. And they don’t really ever call him on it. Brennan seems to buy his “I’m smarter than you” attitude and tries harder to impress him. At one point, she almost puts him in his place by bristling at him complimenting her for figuring something out and then asking her on a date, but it was just that she doesn’t like him. Not that he’s belittling her as a scientist with way more experience in this field than he has. Angela is the best at dealing with him, quietly showing him that he’s misjudged her, but doesn’t press it when he attributes her skill to luck. Cam tries to get him to behave with “respect” but makes it more about rank.

And everyone makes it about him being “likeable,” not about that fact that, even given the chance, he doesn’t pull any of this crap on Hodgins. Kind of fishy, that.

I was the most disappointed with the portrayal of Cam’s character in this situation because she’s been outspoken about insidious prejudices before. In fact, earlier that same season, she gets indignant about her boyfriend getting pulled over for “driving while brown.” Good for her for calling that out. But when she’s faced with an intern who is profoundly rude, condescending, and interrupts his superiors (yes, people who are your boss are your superiors), she can only come up with lame comebacks about how he’s not likeable.

Now, don’t get me wrong, it’s nice to have the likeability burden foisted on a male character for once. But the punchline of the whole episode is that Dr. Wells ends up making friends with a computer program because it’s the only mind in the lab whose intelligence he respects. Apart from being a really lazy and stereotyping way of dealing with this character, this isn’t really a situation that demands humor.

This is a situation another entitled brat of a scientist who looks down on his female colleagues needs to be taught that that’s not okay, and it has nothing to do with whether or not someone wants to have a drink with you after work. It has to do with discounting the expertise of your colleagues, particularly those who actually have more expertise than you do. While this is a lesson that anyone, regardless of gender, must learn, it is particularly damaging in situations like this, where the male colleagues don’t get the kind of condescending attitude that the females see. Because we’re dealing with that sort of crap daily and don’t need yet another example of it. Particularly when it’s someone with whom we need to work to get things done.

Tagged , , ,

Why Gender Still Matters

Yesterday, I heard a news piece about how Marissa Mayer doesn’t think gender matters in the tech industry. Now, the pull quote in the segment didn’t really make it clear what she meant by that, but the news source where I heard it was presenting it as Mayer saying she didn’t think gender was an issue in the advancement of people in the tech industry. It called to mind this question sent to “Dear Prudence” a few weeks ago, where a woman was complaining about feminists in her workplace getting all upset when she said she didn’t experience any different treatment based on her gender. It might have been heartwarming except that the young woman asking the question titled her question “Excessive Feminists” and seemed to think that because she was too young to get passed over for senior positions and hadn’t had anyone make sexual overtures towards her that that meant she wasn’t treated differently because of her gender.

There was also a generally dismissive tone, as if she felt like these “excessive feminists” were making a big deal out of nothing to foster a false sense of camaraderie. Don’t even get me started on Prudence’s reply. The idea that a 20-something who hasn’t experienced what fits into her narrow definition of gender discrimination should not invalidate the other women as “obsessive grievance-mongering” feminists. And it’s almost funny how naively the writer brings up that there just happens to be “too few [female] candidates” without really reflecting on why that is. It’s like just because we’ve made progress in the treatment of women in the workplace, people think it’s fixed. It’s not like it’s the 60s anymore, right? You should be happy your boss doesn’t pinch your ass and call you a hot tomato, darling. And that’s the problem.

The problem is that women are constantly being told to lighten up when they experience something that leaves them with a bad taste in their mouths, professionally. I’ve found that, particularly in experimental science, people tend to being a little looser with the rules of professionalism. People will make off-color jokes in a lab that you wouldn’t make in an office setting, perhaps because the fact that we’re wearing jeans and a polo shirt makes this less of a professional setting than those suits in their corner offices. It’s not sexual advances, or even flirting, but it’s not appropriate.

But we are professionals. And it matters that what a male colleague might find hilarious a female colleague will file away in her mental file with a note that you find something deeply disturbing to her to be funny and maybe she wants to avoid being in a private, vulnerable situation with you. Or it matters that when you call your younger female colleague “sweetie,” you’re telling her you think of her as below you, in part because of her gender. Or when you say you’re “always happy to help out a pretty young girl,” you’re implying she’s less than capable or that you’re giving her special treatment that has nothing to do with the job you’re both hired to do.

Because the thing is that we’re getting this all the time. And it really hurts to get it from the people we respect and work with well. When someone I like makes a sexist comment without even knowing it, it just reminds me how far we have to go. It reminds me that even though I have a PhD in physics, if the people who know me make gendered assumptions about me, how am I ever going to get to a point where I’m not assumed to be the secretary by the sales rep at the company I’m contacting? Or how is that engineer who mansplains my own project’s requirements back to me (incorrectly) ever going to learn that that’s just not okay? And it grates.

The Real Katie is right: it’s a million barbs. It’s like nettles or crumbs in the bed. Not always dangerous, but damned annoying. And cumulative. It gets to the point where you end up snapping at the person who you like and respect because they happened to be the most recent in a string of offenses. And, yes, you know they were “only joking,” but, no, you’re not going to “lighten up.” Sorry, not sorry.

Tagged , , , ,

The Jenn Does Science Holiday Gift Guide

Inspired by a friend’s recent Facebook post, I’ve decided to put together a holiday gift guide for those who want to buy a science-related gift for a young person in their life. But first I want to talk a little about “buying a gift to foster a love of science in girls.” A friend of mine has a very precocious daughter who he says has leanings towards an interest in science. He put out a call on Facebook asking for advice on a gift to nurture that proto-interest. And, obligingly, his friends linked to several pinkified science toys. Ugh. If you have any child in your life who has an interest in science, get that child a toy that focuses on a project, not the outer wrapping. You’re not going to “trick” a girl into becoming a scientist by making her think she’s playing with a princess toy. The idea that science has to be pink is part of the problem.

In fact, this ingrained idea that science toys are for boys is so pervasive that when I searched for “electrical engineering toys for kids,” Google automatically included “toys for boys” as an alternate search term. I’m sorry, but “for boys” is not an alternative spelling of “electrical engineering.” Just saying. Also, I will provide the caveat that I am not a parent, so I can’t say how appropriate these toys are for what ages, but I am a girl and I grew up to be a scientist, and I developed a strong aversion to the color pink before I was 10 years old. Pink tinker toys would not have impressed me. I was more interested in what a toy could do.

And that’s what I’m listing here: toys that do something. Toys that you are supposed to touch and manipulate, and maybe even break. Because breaking things is part of the exploratory process. Ask any scientist. One note: I’ve linked to Amazon for examples of my toy ideas, but feel free to search far and wide for something better. None of these links are affiliate links. I get nothing from any of this, financially.

Even though I’m not a biology-inclined person, one of my favorite toys growing up was my pocket microscope. It’s not terribly powerful, but it was fascinating to look at the world through a magnified objective. Skin was particularly cool, as were magazine photos (they’re made up of dots of color!).

I can’t show enough love for Toobers and Zots. Full disclosure: my uncle was one of the inventors responsible, so I got to play with some early versions. They’re not specifically scientific, but they foster creativity and exploration. You can build almost anything you want to play with, but you have to build it!

When I was a kid, I had a friend who had this little electric toy with a motor and a propeller. I spent hours messing around with the circuit, experimenting with reversing the polarity and arranging the parts in different configurations to make it move differently. While I couldn’t find that, I think an electronics toy would be great for a kid inclined to explore the way things work.

In addition to science, I also spend a fair amount of time in the kitchen. One of the earliest melding of these two activities came in the form of rock candy projects. But you can also get a crystal growing kit for activities that are a bit less sticky.

For the future architects and civil engineers, I’ve always been fascinated by 3D puzzles. They come in a variety of structures, and are incredibly challenging. And, hey, if you really, really need to get a princess-themed gift, you can get a 3D puzzle of Cinderella’s castle.

In a similar vein, I used to enjoy building models. Now, everyone thinks of model airplanes, and those have the added bonus of providing historical insight. But why not give your budding engineer a chance to build a model engine?

When I was a kid, I wanted to be a paleontologist. Didn’t everyone? I wasn’t just into dinosaurs, I wanted to learn everything about them. What they looked like, and how they are found. I had a velociraptor model kit that was a Jurassic Park tie-in, but I’ve since found the company Dinoworks, which has kits to explore paleontology at a variety of ages.

Along those same lines, as I got older, I decided I wanted to be an archaeologist. I was particularly interested in ancient Egypt. I had a learn-heiroglyphics kit and my parents made a special trip for my birthday to NYC to see the Temple of Dendur at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. So I’ve included an archaeology kit, for those who like to learn about old things and play in the dirt.

As you can see, there are plenty of gift options for the budding scientist, engineer, or social scientist that don’t resort to overly-pink items and that aren’t necessarily marketed to girls. Think of it as buying a toy for a child, not as buying a toy for a girl. You future academic will thank you for it.

Tagged , , , ,