Letters to the Editor
-
All teenagers are, as LC puts it, "superficial" and lack "innate curiousity".
That's why an approach like the one in Danica's book should be embraced, not heaped upon with scorn.
Teenagers are weird creatures: half child, half adult, just trying to be accepted, assaulted by hormones and inexplicable body changes that happen too fast or too slow... The pretty ones trying to be taken seriously. The serious ones just trying to have a social life. Not one of them, no matter their "station" (i.e., geek, jock, princess) are happy with where they are. Bravo to teachers like "farnsworth" who are doing the grunt work on this one (A math rap? Wow! How much behind-the-back crap do you get for that?)!
If we wait until they were sufficiently non-materialistic and superficial (as I'm sure Linear Chaos was when he was 13) they're already too far behind and well on their way to that Communications degree. And, LC, I have to disagree that video games are the way to reach most 13-year-old girls. Just trust me when I say it isn't.
"Perhaps it is not the the girls that need to realize that math is "cool", but their families and society as a whole for that matter." Easier said than done, my friend, and certainly not in time to compete with the Chinese or Indians. Best to work with what you've got presently.
-
I would have been insulted by the tone of this book.
But I was not normal. OK, I was a total f word nerd, OK? But arguably, it's the girls who have bought (pun intended) into the girly stereotype who need a book like this most. So I wouldn't have read it. Who cares? I already loved math. It's for girls who think they don't, or who think that being a girl means you shouldn't use your brain. Not for cranky old crones or cranky young nerds. (Yes, I am raising my hand.)
-
Frankly...
I read the Broadsheet for the comments more than the original posts. I especially enjoy women's comments here.
-
Arrrrgh
I think one of the previous posts mentioned there being a shortage of logic these days.
If you didn't notice, we live in a society where quite a few people believe plan B=abortion, stem cell=baby, and global warming=hoax. Unfortunately, a lot of those people are in politics, and the people that vote for them are either too uninformed or just intellectually lazy to vote against them. Our own president prefers to present the image of the dimwitted everyguy, and people voted for him for that. I've often felt that there's a major anti-intellectual undercurrent going on these days. It's like all of those people from high school, guys and girls alike, who shunned anyone who used a four-syllable word are all grown up and running the country now.
If anyone wants to do something to stop young people from hopping on the intellectual backslide that is high school in America, more power to them. Leave Winnie Cooper alone!
-
Usually I agree with Broadsheet...
But this time I don't. I'm reminded of an old Designing Women episode (yes, I'm pulling that out. Shut up!) in which the Women take a bunch of Girl Scouts camping. Mary Jo and Julia want the girls to be all rugged, like boys, and the blonde chick who replaced Suzanne wants to let them do stuff they're interested in, i.e. makeup and pedicures. And for some reason, I remember that she says something to the effect of, "Instead of getting them to be as good as boys, why don't you let them be as good as women?"
In other words, I think this post is buying into another kind of stereotype, the one in which anything considered "feminine," i.e. makeup and cooking, is bad. I haven't read the book, but I think it's great that Danica McKellar is trying to reach out to girls in their own language instead of pretending they're something they aren't in an effort to be (unproductively) PC. Why should we dissuade girls from being interested in shopping or cooking? I'm sure Alice Waters needs to know a great deal about math, chemistry, horticulture, etc., in order to be a successful businesswoman and, oh yeah, chef. Just a for instance.
-
Shopping or Baseball
When I was a student, a large percentage of the word problems in my math textbooks involved sports. Baseball, football, basketball, on and on and on. Not that girls can't enjoy sports, but I found the endless sports metaphors offputting. It made it seem like the only reason you needed math was to be a jock.
I haven't read McKellar's book, but I would have loved to see math problems that involved subjects that interested me, instead of the endless fascination with footballs and baseballs and basketballs. Is a problem that asks you to calculate the number of servings a recipe will make any more or less "frivolous" than a problem that asks how many home runs a player makes in a season? Why is one considered "normal" while the other is considered "inane"? Probably because the male authors of the textbooks think baseball is a worthy endeavor, while cooking or shopping is "too girly".
By the way, I actually liked math and ended up becoming a scientist, but it was in spite of the way math was taught to me, not because of it.
-
Right idea wrong approach?
As a female electrical engineer, I think I know what Danica is trying to accomplish. Because I am attractive and femine, when I tell people that I am an engineer, more often than not their first response is, "You don't look like an engineer." People really seem to equate math with masulinity. Danica is trying to let girls know that they don't have to be "butch" to pursue a math related career. This really does need to be conveyed to young girls. We will never close the wage gap if women continue to shun math/science professions. Perhaps Ms. McKellar's book did not articulate this well but I applaud her attempt.
-
Anything that gets more girls interested in math and science is a good thing!
If Danica McKellar's book gets more girls interested in mathematics and science, then it's a good thing. If it doesn't, then I hope she will try something else.
I think the purpose of this book is to get girls to see beyond the stereotype that mathematics and femininity do not go together. Girls who are insulted by the notions of femininity in this book probably do not already subscribe to that stereotype. The book is not aimed at them.