Engineering/Science/Gender Equity
This category deals with gender equity in engineering and science education and in the workforce - issues of access, climate, and culture. This category also deals with feminist science theory and analyses being developed by those doing gender equity work in engineering & science. I discuss what might be missing from an adequate feminist theory of science and engineering, and what feminist insights might be missing from the "gender equity" analyses.


Need More Zuska? Read Here




CATEGORIES





BLOGROLL















Subscribe to "Engineering/Science/Gender Equity" in Radio UserLand.

Click to see the XML version of this web page.

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Friday, March 17, 2006
 

Okay, so last night I watched American Inventor.  Even though I have wailed and gnashed my teeth a-plenty about how so-called reality t.v. is fetid, mind-numbing foolishness.  But I watch Grey's Anatomy too, so who am I to act so high-minded?  (Oh Meredith, you don't really think Dr. McDreamy wants to be your friend, do you?) Plus, it's t.v.  It's not like it's sacred. 

Anyway, I watched AI and I plan to keep watching all season.  My intent last night was to find out the following:

  1. Would there be any real engineering-types on the judging panel?
  2. Would the real engineering-types they chose be white men and look like total dweebs thus reinforcing every negative sterotype in existence about the kinds of people who want to become engineering-types, or what happens to you after you become an engineering type?
  3. Would any of the contestants be women?
  4. Would any of the women contestants get approved to the next level, or would they all have been chosen to be on air for comic relief? 

Early on I discovered (1) yes, (2) most definitely yes, (3) yes, and (4) yes and not really.

Doug Hall may be an ace number 1 top inventor dude, but crikey, what little girl is going to want to grow up to look like him?  Or what little boy, for that matter?  One of the contestants was a 14-year-old boy whose name I do not remember.  He was completely earnest and totally sure of his inventive genius.  When Hall said he reminded him of himself at that age and said, "it's like looking in a mirror" you could see the horrified reaction on the kid's face...Seriously, couldn't Mr. Hall have hooked up with a style consultant just for the benefit of engineers all over the nation who suffer from sartorial stereotyping?  Some of us do look quite sharp.  Maybe if they had gotten a WOMAN inventor, the inventor would not have been a total dweeb.  (Please note I am not recommending the silicon-slutty fashion stylings of the Geek Gorgeous calendar.  Some other day I will take up the issue of women engineers and fashion in more depth...)  Well, it's not really Hall's fault.  I am so sure the producers looked for the dweebiest inventor guy they could find and then tried to make him look even dweebier.  

But what I really want to talk about is inventor Kathy Jacobs, who last night got a "yes" from ALL FOUR judges for her edible snow globe invention.  I would like to state here and now that as soon as I saw her edible snow globe kits I knew she had a winner, and you can ask Mr. Zuska if you don't believe me.  Those things rock.  Little kids all over America will be begging Mommy (and it will probably be mommy) to get one because they wanna make it, they do, really, really, can we, huh, can we, huh?  Just like those dreaded gingerbread house plans you have to cope with at Christmas time.  And, as one of the judges noted, the genius of her invention is also that it is consumable, so the consumer has to buy it over and over again...what marketer wouldn't love that????  I am cheering for Ms. Jacobs all the way through, and you are just mean if you don't, too.  Also you are a pig if you don't think she is a real inventor.  Just because it has to do with baking and with women's stuff, doesn't mean it's not an invention.  And it doesn't mean it wouldn't be hugely profitable.

So, to sum up:  we have a panel of three white males, one of which is a certified dweeb, and one white female for that mushy emotional female factor the audience loves (the camera often lingers on her eyes shining with tears when she is moved by a contestant....makes me wanna hurl).  The rich whites are choosing from the wretched refuse of our teeming shores a multiracial rainbow of contestants.  We can feel smug about the losers (really, the Bladder Buddy?  what were you thinking?) and benevolent toward our adopted winners, and we can all feel like it just goes to show you, anybody can succeed in America if they just try hard enough.

Even so, I really do hope Ms. Jacobs goes on to personal success.  And that they don't make too much more sport of her (like making her do her Dolly Parton bit during her pitch..."hey sweetie, can you just jump through this hoop now?  isn't she adorable?"  Bastards.)  Perhaps Ms. Jacobs can take heart from some of Dolly's wisdom:  "I hope people realize that there is a brain underneath the hair and a heart underneath the boobs."  And if that doesn't console..."I'm not offended by all the dumb blond jokes because I know I'm not dumb...and I also know I'm not blond."  Dolly is one rich lady, you know.  Three cheers, Kathy Jacobs!


3:43:01 PM    comment []


Click here to visit the Radio UserLand website. © Copyright 2006 Suzanne E. Franks.
Last update: 4/15/2006; 12:07:41 AM.
March 2006
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Feb   Apr