5 ms·

"As it was probably thought that secret writing would not appeal to girls, the coding/decoding facilities were omitted from the manual". Back in elementary, my

"As it was probably thought that secret writing would not appeal to girls, the coding/decoding facilities were omitted from the manual". Back in elementary, my friends and I had an entire word replacement bank to talk about crushes, teachers, etc. in code. Later on, we would constantly make new pigpen ciphers. Isn't it a stereotype that girls love secrets? Toys aimed toward girls have been steadily improving. I have noticed a great rise particularly in STEM-focused toys and I am excited (and jealous) to see with what the next generation will grow up.

saagarjha 8y ago
As a male who is considerably above the recommended age for toys like these, I'm curious what your opinion is on the toys I see in most department stores. To me, they seem to be putting lipstick on a pig: you have things like "engineer Barbie" or "mix your own chemicals lip balm" that involve combining the two packets provided in the box (oh, and designing your own lab coat!). I guess it might raise awareness in girls that STEM is something that they could do, but I don't think it's doing a particularly good job at portraying it. Thoughts?
- andai 8y ago
  "But dad I want to play with Barbie!" --"Not until you break the cipher!"
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  It does sound a lot like STEM-washing (cf. greenwashing).
- vidarh 8y ago
  A lot of STEM toys have been dumbed down to the extreme irrespective of gender. Growing up in the 80's there was a lot of ads for e.g. chemistry sets that at least allowed for some proper experiments advertised even in comics books targeting relatively small children (I grew up in Norway; I remember ads like that even from comics like Donald Duck & Co which mostly targeted pre-teens), but I instead got handed my dads set from when he was growing up in the 60's, with full set of suitable glass ware, and the books he had, which outlined full sets of experiments "for young boys" that included making gunpowder and assorted proper fireworks, and stuff that included (genuine) warnings of what to avoid to prevent the experiment from exploding. Nothing outrageously dangerous, but some of them were the kind of things you might expect the teacher to demonstrate in a high-school science class with appropriate care and safety equipment, rather than the kind of stuff you'd even in the 80's expect a hobby chemistry set to actively encourage the way the 60's books did. And indeed, my main limiting factor in carrying out many of the experiments was that in the intervening years it had become a lot harder to buy a lot of the chemicals listed without being 18 or buying via a business. Though there were still other fun things to do with them. For example, I did find it very amusing when I managed to add a layer of lead to one of my moms silver spoons via electrolysis (the books did have appropriate warnings, so I did know that continuing to use said spoon afterwards would not have been a particularly good idea; but not sufficient warnings to make me consider that perhaps I shouldn't have used the silverware) - my mom was less amused. Move forward to today, and the 80's children's chemistry sets looks fantastic compared to most of the stuff on sale.
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    > A lot of STEM toys have been dumbed down to the extreme irrespective of gender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_La...
mmjaa 8y ago
Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism. Lots of girls enjoy learning new and interesting things to do with math and science, and crypto is an especially great way to introduce kids to abstract thinking. Not to mention there's the whole "if you remove the feature, how will they ever learn about it" factor .. just plain sexist, imho. A better, more "pro-girl" approach would be to include the feature and let girls figure out for themselves, if they like it. Also, the boys who might play with these same toys.
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  > Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism. It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se; rather it probably was a business call made by people who suspected that while some percentage of girls would like that feature, a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy. These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product. Their assumptions might be rooted in sexism, but I suspect that most of their frame of reference consists of simply knowing how parents and relatives view these products, their sexist attitudes included. That is to say, if these people suspect that a significant percentage parents want to stimulate exact thinking and problem solving skills in their girls, they will translate that to market decisions (which is slowly happening now).
  - pluma 8y ago
    It's sexism in the systems sense, not in the personal bigotry sense. The fun thing about sexism (and racism, etc) in the systems sense is that the intentions can be neutral or even positive yet the outcome can still be sexist (or racist, etc). Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.
    - antt 8y ago
      >Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions. Complaining that for profit companies maximize profit makes about as much sense as complaining great white sharks eat meat. Both do what they were evolved for, both die rather quickly if they don't. Perhaps we shouldn't put great white sharks in petting zoos. Perhaps we shouldn't put our children's well being into the hands of for profit companies.
vidarh 8y ago
Indeed it seems weird - search Amazon for "secret diary" and you'll find a whole lot of products aimed almost exclusively at girls. I think the question is whether it was seemed to "cross over" into "spy gear" - while secret diaries are very much a "girly" toy category, spy gear is very much focused at boys.
- dole 8y ago
  In 2016, Mattel/Barbie ran (or still runs?) a "Barbie Spy Squad" series of toys and merchandising complete with movie and McDonald's promos, so while rather late (and obv better than never), the toy manufacturers are at least aware of the market segment.
msl09 8y ago
Yeah a coworker told me she had developed a super sophisticated encryption technique to write in her diary because her brother would keep decrypting it lol
GuB-42 8y ago
I don't think it is the intended idea but the fact that the coding/decoding facilities are not in the manual but still on the device actually make it even more exciting. It has a secret feature for writing secrets, you can't get more secret than that. Nowadays, adding a not-so-secret feature could be used to generate buzz.
bluefox 8y ago
According to David Kahn's The Codebreakers, the Kama Sutra lists secret writing as one of the 64 arts that women should know and practice.
jedimastert 8y ago
> Toys aimed toward girls have been steadily improving. I have noticed a great rise particularly in STEM-focused toys and I am excited (and jealous) to see with what the next generation will grow up. My daughter just turned 1, and I'm super duper excited to see this as well. And if we can't find the kind of toy we want, we'll make it.

saagarjha 8y ago

As a male who is considerably above the recommended age for toys like these, I'm curious what your opinion is on the toys I see in most department stores. To me, they seem to be putting lipstick on a pig: you have things like "engineer Barbie" or "mix your own chemicals lip balm" that involve combining the two packets provided in the box (oh, and designing your own lab coat!). I guess it might raise awareness in girls that STEM is something that they could do, but I don't think it's doing a particularly good job at portraying it. Thoughts?

andai 8y ago
"But dad I want to play with Barbie!" --"Not until you break the cipher!"
Freak_NL 8y ago
It does sound a lot like STEM-washing (cf. greenwashing).
vidarh 8y ago
A lot of STEM toys have been dumbed down to the extreme irrespective of gender. Growing up in the 80's there was a lot of ads for e.g. chemistry sets that at least allowed for some proper experiments advertised even in comics books targeting relatively small children (I grew up in Norway; I remember ads like that even from comics like Donald Duck & Co which mostly targeted pre-teens), but I instead got handed my dads set from when he was growing up in the 60's, with full set of suitable glass ware, and the books he had, which outlined full sets of experiments "for young boys" that included making gunpowder and assorted proper fireworks, and stuff that included (genuine) warnings of what to avoid to prevent the experiment from exploding. Nothing outrageously dangerous, but some of them were the kind of things you might expect the teacher to demonstrate in a high-school science class with appropriate care and safety equipment, rather than the kind of stuff you'd even in the 80's expect a hobby chemistry set to actively encourage the way the 60's books did. And indeed, my main limiting factor in carrying out many of the experiments was that in the intervening years it had become a lot harder to buy a lot of the chemicals listed without being 18 or buying via a business. Though there were still other fun things to do with them. For example, I did find it very amusing when I managed to add a layer of lead to one of my moms silver spoons via electrolysis (the books did have appropriate warnings, so I did know that continuing to use said spoon afterwards would not have been a particularly good idea; but not sufficient warnings to make me consider that perhaps I shouldn't have used the silverware) - my mom was less amused. Move forward to today, and the 80's children's chemistry sets looks fantastic compared to most of the stuff on sale.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  > A lot of STEM toys have been dumbed down to the extreme irrespective of gender. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_Laboratory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_U-238_Atomic_Energy_La...

mmjaa 8y ago

Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism. Lots of girls enjoy learning new and interesting things to do with math and science, and crypto is an especially great way to introduce kids to abstract thinking. Not to mention there's the whole "if you remove the feature, how will they ever learn about it" factor .. just plain sexist, imho. A better, more "pro-girl" approach would be to include the feature and let girls figure out for themselves, if they like it. Also, the boys who might play with these same toys.

Freak_NL 8y ago
> Yeah, I personally think this feature-removal is just plain sexism. It probably had nothing to do with sexism per se; rather it probably was a business call made by people who suspected that while some percentage of girls would like that feature, a certain percentage of parents wouldn't find that feature appropriate or scary or simply not something they would consider as suitable for a toy. These people are paid to know their target demographic and to make choices that maximize profit for any given product. Their assumptions might be rooted in sexism, but I suspect that most of their frame of reference consists of simply knowing how parents and relatives view these products, their sexist attitudes included. That is to say, if these people suspect that a significant percentage parents want to stimulate exact thinking and problem solving skills in their girls, they will translate that to market decisions (which is slowly happening now).
- pluma 8y ago
  It's sexism in the systems sense, not in the personal bigotry sense. The fun thing about sexism (and racism, etc) in the systems sense is that the intentions can be neutral or even positive yet the outcome can still be sexist (or racist, etc). Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions.
  - antt 8y ago
    >Maximising profit is not a neutral decision even if it has neutral intentions. Complaining that for profit companies maximize profit makes about as much sense as complaining great white sharks eat meat. Both do what they were evolved for, both die rather quickly if they don't. Perhaps we shouldn't put great white sharks in petting zoos. Perhaps we shouldn't put our children's well being into the hands of for profit companies.

vidarh 8y ago

Indeed it seems weird - search Amazon for "secret diary" and you'll find a whole lot of products aimed almost exclusively at girls. I think the question is whether it was seemed to "cross over" into "spy gear" - while secret diaries are very much a "girly" toy category, spy gear is very much focused at boys.

dole 8y ago
In 2016, Mattel/Barbie ran (or still runs?) a "Barbie Spy Squad" series of toys and merchandising complete with movie and McDonald's promos, so while rather late (and obv better than never), the toy manufacturers are at least aware of the market segment.

msl09 8y ago

Yeah a coworker told me she had developed a super sophisticated encryption technique to write in her diary because her brother would keep decrypting it lol

GuB-42 8y ago

I don't think it is the intended idea but the fact that the coding/decoding facilities are not in the manual but still on the device actually make it even more exciting. It has a secret feature for writing secrets, you can't get more secret than that. Nowadays, adding a not-so-secret feature could be used to generate buzz.

bluefox 8y ago

According to David Kahn's The Codebreakers, the Kama Sutra lists secret writing as one of the 64 arts that women should know and practice.

jedimastert 8y ago

> Toys aimed toward girls have been steadily improving. I have noticed a great rise particularly in STEM-focused toys and I am excited (and jealous) to see with what the next generation will grow up. My daughter just turned 1, and I'm super duper excited to see this as well. And if we can't find the kind of toy we want, we'll make it.