Pinkifying Science: Where it comes from and why it's ingrained

We've all seen efforts to market products to girls, and they all seem to look like this: paint it pink, give it a girly name, put some relatable pretty girls in the ads, and there you have it.

Case in point.

So it should come as no surprise to see the same approach applied to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math, in case you weren't sure and have just reached a point where it's gone on too long and you feel weird asking) advocacy. Efforts to tie girly things like cheerleading and makeup to STEM may cause me and other females knee-jerk reactions, but is it as ill-advised an approach as we think (and for the reasons we think)?

It seems that STEM education is in such a dire state that all approaches to advocacy involve some sort of "gloss". Sports, cute things, movies, explosions, etc. are being used to get kids (and adults) interested in STEM. If we unpack this approach, it seems like the more effective approaches scream, "hey, this thing you already like? THAT'S STEM!!!" 

So clearly the assumption is that girls like cheerleading and makeup. And while all us female scientists cry foul at that, because OBVIOUSLY you can like STEM and still keep all your female naughty bits without having cheerleaders tell you that you can, we should remember back to the points in our childhood where we wanted "the girl toy" from our McDonald's Happy Meals and wanted to be just like girly girl Jessica Wakefield from Sweet Valley High. All kids go through a period where they are trying to establish their gender identities, which may lead little girls to wear pink and little boys to join Pop Warner leagues. As stereotypical as it sounds, these kids might go for it and lean into these gender identities...because they think they should. Little boys think they SHOULD play football, have GI Joes, and hate the color pink. Little girls think they SHOULD wear frilly dresses, play with dolls, and only go to the pink aisle in the toy store. 

And therein lies the problem. Just go to any toy store and count the pink aisles. One, maybe two. Now count all the other aisles. Please bear with me while I extricate my eyebrows from my hairline. 

The problem that plagues STEM advocacy for girls is the same problem that plagues toy stores: reduced access. So while girls are stuck playing with "appropriate" toys, namely dolls, that encourage them to nurture and beautify, boys play with:

• action figures
• Nerf and other toy guns
• Legos and other building toys
• Transformers (anyone who says that they're the same thing as action figures is going to have a punch in the face, courtesy of me)
• Big Wheels and other vehicles
• etc.

But wait, you say, can't girls play with these things too (the same question applies to boys playing with dolls)? Of course, and they do, but chances are they're going to be discouraged by parents, peers, and in time they'll internalize all of that and start discouraging themselves, and go ahead and ask for that pink doll (I'm sorry, I never really had dolls, so I assume that's a thing.) The problem is sociiiiiiiiietyyyyyy, maaaaan. 

The same applies to STEM advocacy. OF COURSE girls and women can like sports, movies, explosions, video games, projectile weaponry (some of my favorite things, actually)...and STEM. STEM advocacy groups just need to increase female access to ALL narratives, to break down these SHOULDS that originate in childhood. Show us a woman who designs video games, builds weapons, crunches numbers for a pro sports team, etc. And at the same time, show us a man who's a nurse or social worker. No part of STEM is off limits to ANY gender. 

Except maybe dildo model. Is that STEM?