Thank you for this wonderful post. I grew up in England (sorry!) in the 1980s and also remember that chemistry set. When I look for similar activity sets and toys for my two young girls, at the moment they all seem to be gendered around science experiments for perfume making or science experiments for girly magic and stuff like that, which just seems very strange. Thank you for highlighting why we need this to stop.
My daughters favourite set was a generic chemistry set.
When we first got it we tried all the experiments that came with it.
Then over the years she just like to get it out and mix random things in the house with it.
It also usually got a lot of use right after dying easter eggs. She would play with the dyes and mix them together. Now she is going to university to get a degree in bio chemistry.
I love this. That shift from “following the instructions” to experimenting freely is such an important moment.
I had a very similar experience with my own chemistry set. I quickly moved beyond the set experiments and started mixing kitchen ingredients, testing, observing, making sense of what happened. That kind of playful, self-directed curiosity stayed with me, and I went on to study and work in genetics & molecular biology.
It’s striking how often those early, informal experiments, AKA mess, are where scientific identity really begins. Not in doing it “right”, but in being allowed to explore.
Your daughter’s journey into biochemistry feels like a perfect continuation of that story.
Thank you for sharing this and no apology needed for England! 😊
What you describe is exactly the tension I was trying to surface. The activities themselves are not the problem; it’s the way they are framed as the version of science on offer. When curiosity is channelled into narrow, “normative”-gendered endpoints, it quietly limits what children imagine is possible for them next. It also signals to children what their gender expression “should” be like 🥺.
Your observation about shopping for your own daughters really matters. These decisions are being made now, in ordinary moments, long before anyone is thinking about subjects or careers. That’s why toys are such a powerful signal.
I’m really glad the piece resonated, thank you for sharing your experience.
This articl is incredibly insightful. The distinction between representation and epistemic access really hits different when you look at those toy timelines. I never thought about how "science for girls" kits traded complexity for aesthetics, but looking back at stuff I played with it makes total sence. The "inclusion without dilution" framing is something every designer should internalize.
Here's my experience: I grew up in the early 2000s and I remember so well how hard I desired a chemistry kit, or a lego set, but I never received those gifts. One year, I explicitly pointed at the lego set I wanted, it was a small space shuttle reproduction. On Christmas day, I had opened all my gifts and there was no shuttle in sight. Then came my brother's turn, and there it was! It turns out that after my parents gave my grandparents the gift to preprare, they had written the wrong name on the box. When I, in tears, said that was supposed to be my gift, my grandfather got angry and said "don't be avid! You got your gifts, this toy is for boys!". It might seem ridiculous, but the anger I felt is still boiling inside of me.
I'm now studying physics and I'm still catching up on the years-long conditioning caused by media and my environment, which have purposely deprived me of opportunities to develop scientific and mathematical thinking from a young age.
Unfortunately not all girls have the privilege or strength to go against the norms imposed on them. Initiatives like yours are exactly what is needed, so thank you for writing such an insightful piece!
I knew I'd enjoy this post and it delivered! It makes you wonder how many budding scientists were subconsciously influenced to not pursue their passion, from a young age. The only thing that gives me hope is that STEM seems more popular than ever (at least here in Boston, context matters). Now the next frontier, how to ensure there's more adoption of AI by women, and that AI isn't marketed in a way to exclude them. (And a topic that's still bouncing around in my brain, more women in AI companies)
There is so much research coming out it OECD and national HE in the UK and USA showing that women use AI less because they are anxious about breaking the rules and they are more likely to be seen as “cheats” or taking “shortcuts” than their male counterparts parts.
The terrifying truth is that AI is widening the gender inequality gap. We need to take action against this now as the impact downstream could be huge.
Thank you for this wonderful post. I grew up in England (sorry!) in the 1980s and also remember that chemistry set. When I look for similar activity sets and toys for my two young girls, at the moment they all seem to be gendered around science experiments for perfume making or science experiments for girly magic and stuff like that, which just seems very strange. Thank you for highlighting why we need this to stop.
My daughters favourite set was a generic chemistry set.
When we first got it we tried all the experiments that came with it.
Then over the years she just like to get it out and mix random things in the house with it.
It also usually got a lot of use right after dying easter eggs. She would play with the dyes and mix them together. Now she is going to university to get a degree in bio chemistry.
I love this. That shift from “following the instructions” to experimenting freely is such an important moment.
I had a very similar experience with my own chemistry set. I quickly moved beyond the set experiments and started mixing kitchen ingredients, testing, observing, making sense of what happened. That kind of playful, self-directed curiosity stayed with me, and I went on to study and work in genetics & molecular biology.
It’s striking how often those early, informal experiments, AKA mess, are where scientific identity really begins. Not in doing it “right”, but in being allowed to explore.
Your daughter’s journey into biochemistry feels like a perfect continuation of that story.
-- Jayne
Thank you for sharing this and no apology needed for England! 😊
What you describe is exactly the tension I was trying to surface. The activities themselves are not the problem; it’s the way they are framed as the version of science on offer. When curiosity is channelled into narrow, “normative”-gendered endpoints, it quietly limits what children imagine is possible for them next. It also signals to children what their gender expression “should” be like 🥺.
Your observation about shopping for your own daughters really matters. These decisions are being made now, in ordinary moments, long before anyone is thinking about subjects or careers. That’s why toys are such a powerful signal.
I’m really glad the piece resonated, thank you for sharing your experience.
This articl is incredibly insightful. The distinction between representation and epistemic access really hits different when you look at those toy timelines. I never thought about how "science for girls" kits traded complexity for aesthetics, but looking back at stuff I played with it makes total sence. The "inclusion without dilution" framing is something every designer should internalize.
Here's my experience: I grew up in the early 2000s and I remember so well how hard I desired a chemistry kit, or a lego set, but I never received those gifts. One year, I explicitly pointed at the lego set I wanted, it was a small space shuttle reproduction. On Christmas day, I had opened all my gifts and there was no shuttle in sight. Then came my brother's turn, and there it was! It turns out that after my parents gave my grandparents the gift to preprare, they had written the wrong name on the box. When I, in tears, said that was supposed to be my gift, my grandfather got angry and said "don't be avid! You got your gifts, this toy is for boys!". It might seem ridiculous, but the anger I felt is still boiling inside of me.
I'm now studying physics and I'm still catching up on the years-long conditioning caused by media and my environment, which have purposely deprived me of opportunities to develop scientific and mathematical thinking from a young age.
That is such a sad story. But incredible that you went against the norms you were being told! Thank you for sharing.
Unfortunately not all girls have the privilege or strength to go against the norms imposed on them. Initiatives like yours are exactly what is needed, so thank you for writing such an insightful piece!
Thank you so much. That really means a lot to me ✨
I knew I'd enjoy this post and it delivered! It makes you wonder how many budding scientists were subconsciously influenced to not pursue their passion, from a young age. The only thing that gives me hope is that STEM seems more popular than ever (at least here in Boston, context matters). Now the next frontier, how to ensure there's more adoption of AI by women, and that AI isn't marketed in a way to exclude them. (And a topic that's still bouncing around in my brain, more women in AI companies)
There is so much research coming out it OECD and national HE in the UK and USA showing that women use AI less because they are anxious about breaking the rules and they are more likely to be seen as “cheats” or taking “shortcuts” than their male counterparts parts.
The terrifying truth is that AI is widening the gender inequality gap. We need to take action against this now as the impact downstream could be huge.