I wrote a very short note of complaint about this website Girls Science Kits. "Not impressed with Girls Science section. Patronising in Pink." I received this in reply-
Hi Jon
We acknowledge your response to our website. Yes, we do have a task to clarify why things look the way they are, and no we have not put the essence of the conversation below front and center of the website, which is absolutely what we need to do. Thankyou for reminding us. Grab a coffee ( or ...) and please allow us to explain.
The website is a bit complex. So maybe you did not have time to notice we have 21 products designed for a girl audience ( btw nearly all Cosmetic labs are organic chemistry and skin biology - not make up and absolutely not fashion.) , 6 for a boy audience and 17 more or less genderless. So that tells you we actually have a huge and feisty ball busting bunch of WILD girl scientists out there. The biggest girl following in all science kit providers we believe. Look a little deeper and you'll see that girls can make Bouncing Slime, rats gizzards and Flowery Fart Putty ( which is in the Perfume Kit!!) as preludes to their own fugues of inventiveness and creativity. We ask all the kids: girls and boys to take risks, be brave, believe their own experiences, question everything, create and share knowledge, test and test again. And the boys can make gorgeous Rainbow Icicle Trees, perfumed goo and more. In fact almost all the products are based on similar concepts, but we theme the stories and initial explorations differently, as sisters and brothers often want different kits. We'll come to that later.
So to the question, why Girls and Boys Sciences?
First : 'findability' . For our first 3 years, ( starting in 1997) all our kits were gender neutral. We used green background boxes, and 'genderless sprite characters' as art worked role models for Patience, Courage and Observational Skills on the boxes and booklets. The public that found the kits, loved them once they had used them.
But most buyers complained a) they did not know if the kits were 'for them'. Often meaning 'for boys or for girls'.
And b) why did we 'hide' the kits away!! The hiding was done by major retailers that had no easy-to-find place to put the kits. NOTE: About 60% of our kits were bought then by or for girls.
Thus we had parents and kids asking why we did not make it clear who the kits were for. And secondly, we had retailers not having a 'home' for the kits, pressing us to FLAG the kits for boys or for girls, so they can find a home.
Why not in the SCIENCE section? We are already there in speciality stores, but in larger practice that does not solve the issues above. Plus, our mission is to bring science to the kids and adults that would NOT visit the science section in speciality stores. Our mission is 85% bigger than the science section, it is to reach the unconverted kids who already 'hate' or are not interested in science. Marketing to the converted does nothing to convert! Thus we need to talk to boys and girls.
Patronising in Pink? Sorry Jon, we think this response is a little too mechanical but understandable. The Pink and Purple Arcade in big stores? WILD Girls have no trouble finding the kits there. They also know that the science inside is 'edgy and grungy'. The pink and purple is like the icon of a woman in a skirt signifying 'ladies toilet'. Rarely do jeans wearing extreme skydiving women complain about skirt-stereotyping in a mall toilet sign. Or a green light signifying go on a highway. But colour iconography and psychology is another science worthy of discussion.
Some hard line scientists ask why we do not use names such as 'Electrical science', or 'Bath Science' as more realstic and direct science names? This falls into our 'schoolishness' and science-centricity issue. We found that such an approach narrowed the appeal to the geeky and already converted ( BTW we are geeky and already converted). Plus it made the kits sound like school. Plus it misses out on our drive to introduce real invention and creativity into the science process for kids ( so sadly lacking in many school science classes). The majority of our buyers are regular mums uncles and aunties. William, why not dads do you ask? Hmmm - good question and it is a complex answer. About 85% of the adult public have negative feelings towards their science education (USA UK and Australian research). Particularly women who report they themselves had negative experiences in science classes but nevertheless realize scientific literacy is important for their own kids, and thus have very mixed feelings when buying a kit. We must use our messaging to help them get past those defences , plus deliver the exciting 'non schooly' experience promised inside.
Boys and girls missing out on each others experiences? As it happens, by flagging kits along gender lines, we can double our product variety! Yes, as we said, most of the Workshops, Labs and Factory kits have girl versions and boy versions. This is a practical, commercial win, plus a win for brothers and sisters as we can double the range of activities using the same 'ingredients' and same scientific concepts. But we do not duplicate the challenges - we create new ones. Girls still have more kits in the range than boys, but it is getting more even. Yes, boys do say 'yuck its for girls'. Girls tend not to say the opposite, so the WILD! world is bigger for girls so far. But read lower down before making conclusions.
Also , just for fun check New Scientist for gender based toy preferences in infant vervet monkeys.
also reported a while ago
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/tau-tca121002.php.
All our biological kits tend to be Green - gender neutral, and thus tend to be confined to small specialist shops.
In all our feedback over 15 years or so we have found WILD! Science boys and WILD! Science girls to be questioning, thoughtful, inquisitive, determined, limitless, courageous, and funny individuals. Not pink or blue! Far from the impressionable young minds we fear will be subverted by the implied hidden curriculum. The 'colours' and our adult-fears of stereotyping just did not stick, if they had any real meaning in the first place. A great deal of educational research has shown similar outcomes in intentional gender neutral educational environments compared to laissez faire environments. Ultimately, kids are smarter and less impressionable than we think. Even tho' at a young age they seem to have distinct preferences which we seem to reinforce. Evolutionary psychologists have a lot to say about this.
You may have guessed, we try to stay constantly abreast of scientific and educational research into gender and stereotyping issues. Our writers and advisors are all parents, including university method lecturers, zoologists, educational psychologists and front line researchers in both school and institutional learning and unstructured/natural learning. Our educational paradigm is ahead of the curve - contributing to research in authentic pedagogy, leading in constructivism etc.
Sadly the issue is being where kids can find us. We can follow a paradigm of proactive neutrality and thus become invisible and unsustainable. Great in schools with captive audiences, but not in mass market - yet.
We are guessing you haven't actually checked what is inside one of our products? Or seen the messages on the back of the box, or read one of the Inspiration booklets ( especially maybe the Cosmetic Science kits which inflamed your ire)? Please take a risk sometime, and see what's inside and try it yourself. We think you'd be surprised. And please see what your 15 year old daughter thinks. We hope you enjoy being the human guinea pig - its a quick way to a nobel prize these days.
Thanks Jon for your email, and it is a thrill to be able to respond to it. We suspect this may not completely satisfy your concerns. But it may at least explain why we do what we do. And yes, we never ignore critical inputs such as yours, to the contrary we value them immensely.
All the best,
The Team at WILD! Science
