I've been reading this blog for... years now, I guess. You guys always post fascinating images. But the commentary has gotten pretty poor lately. I saw that you got flack in the comments for the male flight attendant action figure you guys said was a pilot, but there's a similar problem here: the "disgusting science" kit has both a boy and a girl on the cover, and they're both reacting similarly to "gross things" on their body.

Like the image of the flight attendant action figures, there's interesting stuff going on with gender and how it's represented, but here it's not that girls are excluded from "disgusting science," but rather that there's an additional pink-ghetto project. You guys have posted before about how it's cool for girls to be tomboys, but not the reverse, etc etc, and this is in that vein. But the whole point of doing sociology by looking at images is that you actually LOOK at them, not just let your assumptions dictate what you see. This is sloppy, and it's not the first time.

wow, those so-called "science kits" for girls are really offensive, dismissive, and insulting. so girls can't be interested in "disgusting science"??? WTF? When I was a little girl, I was always interested in "disgusting" science and loved playing with science kids, insects, and other "gross" stuff.

but I don't remember if they sold these kinds of offensive "science kits" for little girls back in the early 1990s.

also, is it just me or have gender stereotyping for girls have gotten WORSE in the past decade since Britney Spears and Spice Girls? In the 1980s and 90s, girls were always encouraged to participate in sports, there were strong interesting girls on kiddie TV shows and movies, and there wasn't as much pink obsession. Sally Ride (the world's first female astronaut) was a major source of inspiration for many girls back then.

Today, it's the opposite. I see so much garbage targetted at girls that try to turn them into little princesses. Barf.

we need a Third Wave Feminist movement, STAT.

Ummm...rejuvenation for kids???

Scientific Explorer has a wide variety of kits that are targeted at all children. Just because two kits focus on the science behind beauty products (which do help introduce girls who like beauty products into the world of chemistry) does not mean that the brand is advocating some strange form of gender exclusion (unless you count the fact that the spa and makeup kits in a way exclude boys). At worst, it is creating the idea that girls are people, but some girls are "girly" girls.

The second set of images in particular made me cringe, because it feels like a before and after shot...geeky science girls use science to transform themselves into rock stars! Now no one has to know you're smart!

Ideally, a real "science of beauty products" kit would teach girls how useless most beauty products are!!

http://current.com/shows/infomania/89830244_sarah-haskins-in-target-women-skin-care.htm

Of course, I have a few potions that I swear by, but most beauty products do absolutely nothing for most women.

I don't really see a problem here. There's a boy AND girl on the "Disgusting Science" kit. And as for the other kits, it just shows that your stereotypical "girly girl" can be interested in the sciences. Girls on a perfume-making kit seems perfectly fine (just like there would be boys on a cologne-making kit, it's just practical).

I read the "cosmetic science" kits as potentially being an example of reproductive and resistant agency existing in paradoxical simultaneity. Emphasizing physical appearance is reproductive of orthodox femininity, while being interested in science is an example of resistance. In the "cosmetic science" kits, reproduction and resistance possibly seem to exist side-by-side.

What's more interesting, I think, is that the cosmetic kits induct kids into the same marketing language used on adults. Our skin always needs 'rejuvenation' and 'enhancement' from outside sources, apparently even as young as whatever age group these kits were intended for (elementary school/pre-teens?).

Girls just wanna blow things up!

Whatever happened to the days of mail-order make-your-own kits (battery, radio, clock, telescope, etc)? I have fond memories of perusing the Edmond Scientific catalog. The catalog certainly wasn't gendered as I recall - photos were of the apparatus, not of the user.

if you look at who continues in science at university (esp graduate programs), it is mostly male. while problematic, these kits may be a push from sciency people to get more girls interested in science.

sure it reifies gender norms, but I think something like this is a real attempt to push more girls into the sciences, since perfume and make-up are already part of their lives.

so socialization of girls is driving products that continue to socialize girls in the same way.

This bothers me less than some of the other things you've shone light on recently, like the sexualization of pubescent boys. I think I have to agree that it's just nice to see people trying different approaches to getting girls into science (though for me, I was happy just doing a Girl Scout-sponsored science program when I was in elementary school....then again, I've largely hated my science classes and am in the humanities and fine arts in college, so maybe it wasn't as effective as a perfumery kit might have been). Next they should publish cookbooks aimed at boys. And sewing kits! Though I don't know how you could swing that to a stereotypically masculine viewpoint.

I understand that people are bothered by the fact that the premises of the box design is that Girls are interested in "Beauty stuff" and boys (and to a lesser extent girls) in gross stuff. But if you look at the box for girls carefully you will see that the scientists are women too. So basically it's trying to meet girls where they are assumed to be (trapped in the world of glitter) to get them interested in science, not necessarily a bad endeavor. Taking stock of stereotypes is not evil.

These "cosmetic science" kits leave a particularly bad taste in my mouth. Although I try to avoid ranting on this site, I'd like to respond to some of the comments on this thread.

Greg D. : "So basically it’s trying to meet girls where they are assumed to be (trapped in the world of glitter) to get them interested in science, not necessarily a bad endeavor."

Why are girls assumed to be "trapped in a world of glitter?" I find the assumption that girls need something like cosmetics and glitter to lure them into science offensive and stereotypical.

Hannah: "I think I have to agree that it’s just nice to see people trying different approaches to getting girls into science."

Again, I really don't think girls need to have gendered products in order to get them interested in science. Why is this an automatic assumption?

Nakedthoughts: "Sure it reifies gender norms, but I think something like this is a real attempt to push more girls into the sciences, since perfume and make-up are already part of their lives."

What? Why are perfume and make-up automatically considered to be part of most young girls' lives? I think this says more about your stereotypes and belief system than it does about these kits.

These are some of the tackiest, craptastic products I've seen for girls in a while. Why are we struggling to justify it instead of forming a critique? I think it's because products like this reinforce the gendered assumption that girls won't be interested in science unless it's made "girly" through some means. Which I don't think is true, and I refuse to accept at face value.

There are so many other reasons why girls don't go into the sciences in college, few of which revolve around the fact that science kits for young girls don't feature enough make-up. For instance, the fact that there are already more men in science as teachers, making the field less approachable to women. Also, adults function with the notion that girls aren't interested in science, which affects the way girls are marketed to and treated. I think these products are an excellent example of gendered societal expectations and how they are perpetuated.

Polly:

"Why are girls assumed to be “trapped in a world of glitter?”

"I find the assumption that girls need something like cosmetics and glitter to lure them into science offensive and stereotypical."

"Why are we struggling to justify it instead of forming a critique?"

I don't think people see girls as "trapped", they see them as liking cosmetics. The fact that many girls like cosmetics and glitter is not a stereotype. It's a fact whether we like it or not.

From a normative perspective, liking cosmetics and glitter is not even the real problem. Gendering is not necessarily problematic. It is when gender expectations disproportionally impact one gender that it is problematic. In the case of appearance the burden is clearly on girls. There is no doubts about that.

My point had to do with what was really at stake here: How is science "sold" to children? What I did is try to understand (not justify) why the kit-maker did what they did. Now from a normative perspective, I at the same time applaud their (counter-stereotypical) effort to try to get girls interested in science and am critical of their perpetuation of other gender stereotypes.

You seem to forget that there was also a kit for boys that assumed that boys liked gross stuff, also a stereotypical an d not really positive assumption. In the end both kits contributed to reproduce stereotypical gender role, neither of which I found personally particularly positive. The fact that female gender stereotype have deeper, more concerning social impact was never in question here.

To conclude, I think we should try to discuss how hard and life sciences can be "sold" to kids (especially girls who are under represented in those fields) without perpetuating problematic gender stereotypes. To do so we are missing some information. Were there also non specifically gendered science-kit available in that store? Was there science-kits themed after Harry Potter, Twilight, Star Wars, Winnie The Poo ... ?

PS: As a preemptive strike, I'd like to point out that I am aware that all these popular characters/series also perpetuate gender stereotypes :-)

Toys are sold to adults as much as they are sold to children. Who is actually buying these kits? I could totaly imagine a hopeless grandma buying one of these perfume science kits and thinking that they are being just soooo modern by doing so!

To riff on Greg D's Q, How do we market science to children? The kits need to be understood in the context we find ourselves in where science is still stereotyped as a male activity, and childhood is still heavily gendered. In that context I find the kits to be an effort to make science appear to be a female activity as well and thus laudable. The company could just not have any products for girls at all. The message I read in the packaging is that a girl can be into science while still being interested in fasion. Yes, the assumption that girls should be interested in fashion is problematic, but that there are some is reality. It also serves to highlight the point that cosmetics are in fact products of science as well, something that younger children may not be aware of.

Yes, gendering certain things as male science, and certain things as female is problematic, but that is endemic in the whole industry, No? While I would much prefer the beauty kits to be non-gendered, how would that be done? Redressing the balance by having a male demonstrating the product as well? Depinking it? What do you think the repurcussions would be for the company to try and market a product, cosmetics, that is highly gender-marked as gender neutral. Most likely they would face consequences for doing something so bold.

I've seen perfume kits that are not gendered. In fact my son had one when he was young (around 5-7 I think). It was a perfectly good way to introduce measuring liquids and what the basis of perfumery was, but there wasn't much science in it.

Anyone interested in these kits might be interested in the work of Phil Bell & Leah Bricker. They (with several colleagues) have conducted long-term ethnographic studies that follow kids in and out of school to see how their knowledge and practices learned in one place are used (or not used) in other places. They have one case study of a girl who was very into these perfume sets, but saw no connection to the similar work she had been doing in science class at school.