Have you seen the GoldieBlox commercial, which took the web by a storm? Possibly the most successful children-oriented viral video on the internet this year, GoldieBlox & the Rube Goldberg “Princess Machine” has been eagerly shared from the Facebook pages of top institutions like U.C. Berkeley and Stanford University, and of the countless moms on the lookout for their young daughters’ future. You can watch the video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIGyVa5Xftw. I don’t agree with the product and am by no means trying to market it. In fact, if you keep reading you will see my arguments against it. I am showing the video because I want to encourage your thought and discussion on the subject, which is an important one concerning a future in engineering for millions of little girls.
If you’ve seen the video, did you like it? Did you share it? Did it give you ideas for Christmas presents this holiday season and perhaps, rethink what little girls should get to play with? Despite its massive popularity and apparent marketing success, despite its positive, commendable message of supporting and preparing girls for a future in engineering… I’d like to address some issues I have with this “GoldieBlox craze”.
How will this help little girls get into BCIT School of Construction? (image from GoldieBlox)
GoldieBlox is a toy company founded by a woman, a Stanford engineering grad (and MBA) championing for the “future engineering aptitude” of little girls. Her company makes and markets special toys claimed to help little girls develop engineering-related skills starting early in life… versus conventional “pink aisle toys” that she claims do NOT and may have even contributed to massive set-backs in the childhood development of such skills in girls.
The founder gave a TED talk about the personal stories and the grand ideas that shaped her company, and it was very inspiring (watch it here). I actually find the founder’s speech much more commendable than the pink-tastic Rube Goldberg “Princess Machine” marketing video I so reluctantly mentioned earlier.*
In her TED talk, Debbie Sterling points out that conventional “girls’ toys” in the “pink aisle—” mostly dolls, glittery play-make-up kits and tea-sets, are inadequate “learning toys.” In fact, if girls are limited to only these types of toys, they may grow up to become women who shun math, physics, science and engineering. Even if girls choose a future in science and engineering, an “obvious lack” of childhood engineering-toys and construction-play-things causes young women to enter the field disadvantaged and less competitive than young men who grew up playing with LEGO, Transformers, building-kits and toolboxes starting from as early as toddler-hood.
Advertising statements taken from the toy company’s website read: “For the past 100 years, toys have inspired our boys to be thinkers, builders and inventors. Our girls deserve more,” and “More than just a princess.” (http://www.youtube.com/goldieblox)
Seductive, catchy and convincing as these concepts and slogans may be, and although I am supportive of the original intent behind all this (more girls should be encouraged to explore the field of science/engineering!), I must be frank and say that I am very troubled by the company’s solution and some of their claims.
A Goldieblox toy set (web source).
*Aside: I am actually suspicious and disappointed with the “Princess Machine” showcased in the popular video because it doesn’t look real to me, meaning that I don’t think the girls really made it nor am I convinced that it would work as shown. I thought it could be FAR better-engineered… it looks like it will get stuck at every stage. Girls deserve a much better Rube Goldberg machine to represent their potential. If it weren’t for this reason, I would probably be more proactive in sharing the video.