MOST READERS probably remember the hit '90s television show, "The Wonder Years." And most readers probably also remember the dream girl next door from the show, Winnie Cooper. Well, Winnie (known as Danica McKellar in real life) wants to be remembered for more than just her middle school years on a TV show. It may be surprising to discover that the actress has recently published a math textbook for girls entitled "Math Doesn't Suck." It turns out that McKellar is more than just an endearing actress but a mathematician as well -- one who is currently the only television actress in America to have coauthored a groundbreaking mathematical physics theorem.
Her new textbook seeks to draw more girls to math, a subject clearly dominated by men, as Newsweek magazine notes that only 28 percent of mathematicians and only 11 percent of engineers are women. Her textbook, however, takes a different approach to teaching math than most.
Designed like a magazine, her textbook is full of lip-gloss analogies, personality quizzes, and horoscopes in super girly graphics. There are also mini-biographies of beautiful female mathematicians and words of encouragement for girls when math can seem overwhelming. While all of these features make the textbook appear to be a positive tool for getting girls into math, they also talk down to girls who may not want to learn ratios based on the amount of lip-gloss they have. Playing into stereotypes of middle-school girls only perpetuates the idea that girls cannot learn math like boys do, and that is just as limiting as the stereotypes themselves.
McKellar was quoted in Newsweek saying, "When girls see the antics of Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan, they think that being fun and glamorous also means being dumb and irresponsible. But I want to show them that being smart is cool. Being good at math is cool. And not only that, it can help them get what they want out of life." McKellar is absolutely correct in believing that public figures like Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan are sending negative messages to young girls about what is means to be "hot" and "cool." It is not cool to be arrested for drunk driving, and it is certainly not cool to go to jail. But these celebrities are all over the media, and their influence on other girls is enormous. It is refreshing, then, to see an actress like McKellar send a positive message to girls about what it means to be smart and responsible in a society that doesn't seem to value either quality.
Her textbook has received top marks from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and many believe her alternative approach to teaching may finally get girls to love math. For many girls, however, this book may do more harm than good. Girls today are taking just as many AP classes as boys; girls are getting into the same top colleges as boys. And girls are working in fields like medicine and accounting -- just like the boys. A textbook based on shallow girly magazines seems like a step backward in many ways, as it implies that girls cannot learn math without some sort of "girl code." Using this "girl code," however, may further alienate girls who are already good at math from the girls that the textbook is approaching. Soon, it will become "uncool" to use the same textbook as the boys, just like it is probably "uncool" to not be into makeup and fashion. If a girl prefers to use the traditional textbook, then that means she must already be good at math and therefore, she is a nerd. A girly textbook cannot reverse centuries of conditioning about girls being bad at math. And math, in general, needs a makeover, as even boys who enjoy math are considered nerds.
I do not doubt that this new textbook will help some girls overcome their fear of math and discover that math can actually be a fun and rewarding subject. I also admire McKellar for presenting an alternative to the Lindsay Lohans of the world. My objection to the "Pretty in Pink" approach to teaching is simply that it once again separates the girls from the boys. Being smart in middle school will always be considered nerdy, and that idea isn't based on being a girl or a boy. I would rather see a textbook focus on the achievements of a wide array of smart, cool people than learn about math through some perky personality quiz. And I have a feeling most girls would probably prefer that too.
Lindsay Huggins's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at lhuggins@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PARTING SHOT: Does this even matter?
By Jacob Tisdale | 5 hours agoIndividuals and communities can use sports to inspire, to hold space, to heal, to break molds, to change narratives, to honor faith or to come home.
PARTING SHOT: Sometimes it’s okay to fake a smile
By Alexandra Holmes | YesterdayI surrounded myself with people who were so enthusiastic about the University and its potential, that after a while, it was impossible not to feel their passion and their convictions rub off on me.
PARTING SHOT: Girl, what did you expect?
By Cecy Juárez | 2 days agoAdvocate for yourself unabashedly, even and especially when you feel like you don’t belong.
