This may be a new series. As we enter the Winter Solstice Holiday season, it seems worth while to offer up a series – maybe – of commentaries on aspects of the holidays.
The nattering this morning is about an article [Link] from the Daily Mail entitled “How boys’ toys ‘are putting girls off tech jobs’: Just 11% of Christmas presents linked to science and maths are listed as suitable for girls.” I can’t argue too much with the thesis since I am rather befuddled at the genderism here. Is there an algorithm to distinguish boys’ and girls’ STEM toys? Are they color coded? Or is the advertising prevarication of the toy indicative?
I do know that Sturgeon’s Rule seems to apply here. I continually review STEM toys and am of the opinion that 0.9 of them are CRAP! Not fit for any child. They either lack any teachable substance or are manifestly unengaging or worthless. In particular the sense of risk and repeatability is vacuously absent.
Most of what I see are one-time use toys which are almost certain to be failures because the whole idea is that the toy should require some effort and failure-learning. So either these lack the failure component or are only effective for the small fraction who do things right the first time.
And the parents are so Bog that they don;t understand the absence of A. C. Gilbert and the American Basic Science Club.
One more paving stone in the road to third world nationhood.