Have you heard about the Barbie book fiasco? I CAN BE A
COMPUTER ENGINEER by Susan Marenco (Random House, 2010) is a picture book about
Barbie's foray into computer engineering. Unfortunately, the story fell far,
far short of expectations.
Basically, Barbie is depicted as being unable to execute key
tasks associated with creating a video game, and must rely on two fellow male
students to complete her assignment:
"I'm only creating the design ideas," Barbie says,
laughing. "I'll need Steven's and Brian's help to turn it into a real
game!"
Barbie, I don't know why you're laughing. It's not funny.
Read the full rundown at Gizmodo: Barbie F*cks It
Up Again.
The
Internet fixes Barbie's 'I Can Be a Computer Engineer' picture book (via
The Verge) is essential reading because it demonstrates what the book could
have--should have--been.*
Kathleen Tuite put together a website called Feminist Hacker Barbie, which allows the public to rewrite the book. The results have been amazing.
Commenters at The Verge have pointed out the
book's wonky depiction of computer hardware. I wonder if the illustrator
would have taken more care had this been a book aimed at boys.
Mattel's Barbie has
since issued an apology, which is good, but frankly the damage has already
been done.
 |
| "Don't be shy--SFR is awesome!" |
If true, that perception is incorrect. Such readers are
making assumptions without examining all the facts.
Books like I CAN BE A COMPUTER ENGINEER guarantee that girls
will be conditioned to avoid science. Subsequently, as adults, they'll delegate
tasks like code writing to their male colleagues, presumably because men are
smarter than women. Science is a gender neutral subject, but I CAN BE A
COMPUTER ENGINEER reinforces that it still belongs to men. After all, only men have what
it takes to do real science, right?
Because of such conditioning, chances are astronomically high
that SFR, which is penned primarily by
women, will include accessible science fictional elements on a regular
basis. The genre has occasionally yielded and will continue to yield authors
with science backgrounds and degrees, some of whom will incorporate hard SF
elements into their stories. But many won't because of the toxic, ongoing
messages that women can't wrap their heads around science.
I'm perplexed as to why potential readers assume that
women-authored SFR doesn't feature accessible science. Why do they assume
female authors write SFR exactly like male authors write science fiction? After
all, girls are the target audience for books like I CAN BE A COMPUTER ENGINEER. Said books and other media have taught us well that women don't belong in science, or that women are better off writing and
reading about SFRs featuring non-hard sciences. IMHO that
conditioning has surfaced in this genre, with both positive and negative results.
I'd argue that what potential SFR (romance) readers evaluate
isn't the science content, but what kinds of romances are offered and if
there's enough of it in the stories. If the romance is done well and is well
integrated, they'll happily come along for the science ride.
On a more positive note, sci-fi romance creates a
space where women readers can safely explore a range of science fictional concepts that
have been typically closed to them. In the same way the Internet is telling
Barbie, "You can master computer engineering!" we can tell women
readers that they can master SFR. The science isn't the problem. The problem is the
negative messages we give to girls and women about it.
Do you have any suggestions about how we can describe SFR to potential woman romance readers in a way that demonstrates how much of the content is easy to understand?
Do you have any suggestions about how we can describe SFR to potential woman romance readers in a way that demonstrates how much of the content is easy to understand?
Joyfully yours,
Heather
*WarDoggeh forever!