Revenge of the Nerdette

Wow, so being a geek really doesn't mean smart! I already figured that out about the males, who though being able to process information, much like a stupid computer, still seem to feel real men don't have to care about attracting anyone or being kind, just getting their penis in someone, and now it turns out the female version still doesn't realize that wearing high heels attracts men because they're painful and unhealthy for women!

Congratulations to Dr. Panetta and the Nerd Girls! Having been a scientist, Founder of IEEE Woemn in Engineering, and active promoter of women in engineering, science and math for the past 30 years, I find the NERD Girls quite refreshing. Looks have nothing to do with brains -- It is marvelous that these young women can and do pursue all their interests one of which just happens to be technology intensive. What fantastic role models!

Dr. Jan Brown
JanBrown Consulting

Way to go! Having been a scientist, actively involved in IEEE and promoting women in science, math, and engineering for the last 30 years it is so refreshing to see the the nerd girls -- young women actively pursuing all of their interests which just happen to include technology focused career options. Dr. Panetta and the Nerd Girls are here to stay. What marvelous role models!

Dr. Jan Brown

I like the idea of "Nerd Girls." Being intelligent and successful does not mean that you must sacrifice your personal style or popularity. I wish that girls who are interested in math and science were not the exception. As a psychologist, I believe vehemently that combatting these stereotypes early on is important. Go Nerd Girls!

Dr. Patton
www.girlslikemath.com

Read from the standpoint of an analysis of conventionality, this article is insidious. On the one hand, it appeals to that particularly "american" fetish for maverick individualism - the notion that it's always "cool" not to conform to social stereotypes. On the other hand, it not so tacitly accepts one of the most widespread of social conventions, namely that to be gendered female means to necessarily be concerned by one's public physical appearance. In other words, the article's frisson, and its allure, surely, to its audience, lies in the breaking down of a timeworn social stereotype. There's always a nervous giddiness when we witness that phenomenon, because it reinforces other, more deeply (and mostly unconsciously) held values: the notion that american society is fluid and that individuals are "free" to pick and choose in the vast marketplace of lifestyle choices, the notion that with all that turmoil in the wild world of the lifestyle choice marketplace, there are certain constant immutables which happen to be based on biology. The current ideology of choice is that everything - even individual identity - is subject to the laws of consumer capitalism, where, as "free" agents, we can pick and choose even our own personal identities. Underpinning the potential chaos of this social order is a safe home base of biologically based destiny, which just so happens to express itself in the one traditional gender role which, according to the ideology, will never disappear, namely that of appearance-valuation.

http://www.quazen.com/Kids-and-Teens/People-and-Society/Mean-Girls-Societys-Creation.119493

I appreciate what this article is attempting to do - break the stereotype of nerdy women, saying that not all of them are as unattractive as we were all formerly lead to believe. But in highlighting their physical appearance, all it does is give men and young girls alike a new stereotype: women must be young, beautiful, and highly intelligent. All it has done is put more pressure on girls and given men higher expectations. The use of "girls" throughout this article, as another commenter has pointed out, is also a bit demeaning. These women are at least 18 years of age and therefore should be referred to as women. The entire article focuses on the positives of these nerdy women being attractive, but fails to mention the negatives. Women already face hardships going into "nerdy" fields (not just science, math, and engineering, but other male-dominated ones also, like history and philosophy), but attractive women in such fields (and in general) face a bit more. Personally, I've only completed one year of undergraduate studies in computer science thus far, and wouldn't classify myself as either ugly nor hot, and have already received comments of how I'm "not going to make it" with people not even knowing my grades are abilities, but based on my looks and girly personality. I've had a professor say at least one inappropriate comment to me, whom I promptly reported. The written version of this article mentions that young girls find no contradiction between being feminine and being nerdy. Which is why, in a computer science lecture class of 100, only roughly 8 are female, correct?

Why do you assume that girls are 'unlikely' nerds? I gather from your use of "coed" in the first sentence that you feel school is primarily men's business but women can join in. The 'traditional' role of woman as fashion crazed airheads is only a recent wish by marketers willing to slash girls self-esteem to sell shoes. But girls' real capabilities are not so easily squashed; don't be so surprised about it.

Comment: These female engineers from Tufts University appeared on IEEE.tv in 2008 April documenting their task of building a solar car. Check out Nerd Girls on IEEE.tv public access! http://www.ieee.tv

These female engineers from Tufts University appeared on IEEE.tv in 2008 April documenting their task of building a solar car. Check out Nerd Girls on IEEE.tv public access area! http://www.ieee.tv

This is great! I'm a junior Computer Science major at my school, but also a cheerleader and it gets tiring when people give you a blank stare when you put the two in a sentence! Glad to see I'm not the only one. I think in my year there are only 2 or 3 other women in the program.

The complaints about too much emphasis on sexuality in the article are merited. But it helps to keep in mind the purpose of the article, which is essentially a blast on the dumb blonde stereotype (i.e. that "blonde," really meaning "beautiful," does not imply "dumb").

Being a "nerd girl" myself, I was a little disappointed to see that this article put such emphasis on the seeming triumph that geeky girls can now be fashionable, too. It seems to me that being geeky is now becoming just another way to make a fashion statement. Even though getting over stereotypes is a good thing and I'm glad that things are changing, it also looks like being a geek is loosing some of its individualism. Our culture is far too fashion-consumed these days, and I'm sad to see that some smart, geeky girls are spending fussing over their clothes instead of coding.

The framing of the article is most unfortunate. It reinforces the dominant cultural paradigm that women's value is in their sexuality, not their brain power. The message comes across here loud and clear that women can be smart, but only if they are attractive. It also seems to imply that it is unusual for women to be smart and technologically savvy. I am disappointed by this coverage.

The framing of the article is most unfortunate. It reinforces the dominant cultural paradigm that women's value is in their sexuality, not their brain power. The message comes across here loud and clear that women can be smart, but only if they are attractive. It also seems to imply that it is unusual for women to be smart and technologically savvy. I am disappointed by this coverage.

Kudos to Newsweek for doing an article on women in technology but I have a few problems with this story. 1. Why did you feel compelled to throw "the Barbie" coin into the article? 2. Why did you have to sexualize women in the article - were their accomplishments just not good enough for the article. Would you have focused on men's sexuality if you were writing an article featuring men? Why is this article under "Culture" instead of "Technology?"

I need to point out how freakish it is to now-- yes, "allow" women to be smart but then still insist they be the conventional definition of hot. I suppose it is progress. Baby steps, but steps nonetheless. -amp

This article is taking 10 steps backward's just by calling these women "girls".

I hate that being geeky is cool now...It makes me not want to be a geek anymore. It's not like that's possible, but still...