Thread by @celestelabedz

A few things I want to clear up about my #SciencePrincess post, since it’s getting so much attention: THREAD.

https://twitter.com/celestelabedz/status/1151343172796108800

I DON’T think all women scientists should be “girly”. I think anyone should be able to enjoy traditionally feminine things without judgement if they would like to. One’s ability as a scientist is TOTALLY independent of their enjoyment of traditionally “girly” things.

Traditionally masculine things should also be fine for anyone to enjoy, and are also independent of scientific ability. Historically, though, there’s been a LOT of masculine scientist role models celebrated in our culture, so I don’t feel obligated to add to that pile.

The boxes of stuff we label “masculine” and “feminine” are social constructs, and our culture often enforces them in harmful ways. Using language that follows them (like calling princesses “girly”) is convenient inside a cultural context, but not based on anything inherent.

I don’t mean to exclude boys or non-binary kids. They can absolutely be Science Princesses, and all the things that a Science Princess should aim for (curiosity, creativity, adventurousness, kindness, a great sense of style, etc.) are ALL things ANYONE can look up to!

There are biases in science WAY beyond gender. STEM was unfortunately built for those who are wealthy, white, male, straight, cisgendered, able-bodied, etc. People who don’t match multiple of those categories face biases that intersect, compound, and change.

One reason I posted this is that it would have helped me to see it when I was younger. I felt guilty about liking “girly” things in my teen years, since I felt “smart girls” somehow shouldn’t, and I judged others for it. I'm glad to have grown, and I'm still growing!

You can stop sending me the Edna Mode gif now. I get it.