This is for girls, that's for boys and never the twain shall meet.

This week I'm getting narked off about the whole for girls and for boys messages we seem to insist upon. It's everywhere, from the toys we buy children, to the activities we get kids involved in to the subjects we encourage them to do in later life. When will we stop? From such an early age we bombard children with messages that girls and boys like separate things and do separate things, it's improving but with books like "The Big Brilliant Colouring Book for Boys" and the "The Big Beautiful Colouring Book for Girls" out there and the march of gendered Lego kits, things haven't changed enough. 

So what's got this particular bee lodged in my bonnet this week? Firstly, its that Marvel have excluded Black Widow from sets in the Avengers: Age of Ultron toy line and from many other items of merchandise. Clearly, Marvel have dropped the ball here. You can't really say you're selling a set of the Avengers toys if one of the Avenger's isn't in it. It makes me wonder how they're going to merchandise Captain Marvel if they have so much trouble putting together items which have 1 woman and 6 men on it. As it stands Marvel and Disney haven't made a statement on their design choices, but why might they be so quick to exclude Black Widow from merchandise? The main answer that comes to mind is gendering of products. Girls don't like superheros, boys don't want 'girl things' therefore, lets not include Black Widow. There have been various anonymous tips suggesting that Disney think they got the female market covered with the princess line and that buying Marvel was specifically to get them a similar dominance in the male market. Erm, hello Disney, girls don't want, and shouldn't just have, princesses marketed to them. I'd say even more so given what the vast majority of their princesses say about what women should be. There are now direct appeals coming from Mark Ruffalo and Clark Gregg (the actors behind Bruce Banner and Agent Coulson) that Marvel and Disney really need to fix this problem. Will this help? Who knows, Disney are still defiantly quiet on the matter and it's likely they will continue to be, as this problem was also present in Guardians of the Galaxy merchandise where Gamora was excluded from a lot of items. Why didn't they learn from this? Especially when it's well known that women and girls are consuming Marvel media? 44% of people seeing Guardians in it's first week were female, so surely that's something you want to tap into.

Next, there's DC launching a re-branded set of female superheroes aimed at girls which will include a toy line and TV broadcasts. So this is a win, right? Someone is acknowledging that girls like superheroes too and are focusing on a female audience. That's fantastic! However, the thing that bugs me is how all the heroes (and villains) have been Disney Princessed up. When I first saw the production art I though they were just using one of the many fun pieces of Disney Princesses as Superheroes fan art. But they aren't. We get a set girls with of almost identical faces and teeny weeny waists yet again. Um... Why? Superheroes are idealised, I get this, but they can't they at least have different faces? Also, why just one show with an ensemble? We have superman and batman with their own TV lines in the DC world. Can't Wonder Woman and her compatriots stand on their own too? I'm also a bit bothered by the whole gendering of the show. I do asking myself why does it have to be just for girls and not for everyone. However, with the strong gendering of most superhero material to boys, maybe we need this one to start bringing in some balance?

I suppose all that we can do is hope that Marvel and Disney take a long hard look at what they're doing. I really hope Disney learn some lessons fast, otherwise I think we may be having this same problem again when Star Wars comes out. I also have my fingers crossed DC don't make a mess of their idea and that they don't go too far in girly-ing up the series. 

Does Scientific Accuracy Matter in Fiction?

Science can be found all over the place in fiction. From crime drama to the obvious science fiction, it pops up everywhere; but, does it matter if fiction is scientifically accurate? Validity and accuracy are funny things to apply to fiction as, well, it's not real. However, how does scientific accuracy effect story telling and what does it tell an audience?

The most obvious place to look at science in fiction is by looking at science fiction itself. Sci-fi is awash with amazing ideas of what might happen in the future, but it's also home to some things that are just draw droppingly bad too and can make you want to bang your head against a desk when you notice them.

One of the best examples of scientific accuracy in a story I can think of is Doctor Who's Weeping Angels. Why? The quantum lock. The thing that makes the Angels so terrifying (apart from the fact that they could be anywhere) is that they only move when you don't look at them. In the episode Blink the Angels are described as being quantum locked because there are many things in quantum physics that don't do certain things when you observe them. Those two words are a perfect descriptor for the Angels and is filled with science. For a general audience it sounds cool and opens the door for people to maybe explore what quantum is all about, which maybe, just maybe might encourage someone to pursue physics. However, for people who know what quantum theory is, that description is a stroke of genius. For me, it perfectly encapsulates the Angels in real quantum theory. Like electrons, when not being measured or watched they have a probability of being anywhere and everywhere, but once seen they suddenly become fixed in the most probable place. Its beautiful writing, complete with respect for science and I think its just wonderful.

There's unsurprisingly a lot of science jargon thrown around in Star Trek, and sometimes it gets a little bit muddled. In the original series, the writers originally to use lithium as the Enterprise's power source, but their scientific advisor highlighted that as lithium is a known element with known properties (which didn't include powering warp drives), they should switch to using dilithium crystals, which don't exist. However, in a strange twist, Lithium-6 crystals are being tested as a possible fusion fuel source, which might just be used to power space ships in the future! So we move from a real phenomena to a made up one. Using Lithium to power a starship is bad science, and people will notice it. However, when you make up a new molecule, there's no science base for it. Therefore, this helps to encourage the audience to suspend their disbelief and go, "OK if you have dilithium, this is possible." Another great example of a made up science fudge in Star Trek is the transporter and it's most important component the Heisenberg Compensator. From what I can find the Heisenberg compensator is introduced in Next Generation because physics tells us that you can't know both the position and momentum matter with absolute accuracy, which is known as the Heisenberg Principle. Therefore, how could you transport people without seriously messing them up? Well all you need is a Heisenberg Compensator to remove this problem! How does it work? In the words of Trek Scientific advisor Michael Okuda "Very well thank you". So once again you go from certain sections of the audience going "Transporters? Hmm. How do you fix the Heisenberg uncertainty for that to work?", to "Oh, ok, they have a box which does a thing.", once again creating a suspension of disbelief. The key thing as to why these fixes an fudges work is research, particularly with the Heisenberg Compensator. The writers found ways to understand the world and what governs it, then were able to find reasons why the story breaks fundamental rules.

Now when is science portrayed really inaccurately in fiction? The most prominent example is the age old "I'll just increase the resolution for you" which appears all over fiction when the suspect has been caught on CCTV. It's just so stupid! You can't get information from nothing. What even more frustrating is an easy fix. CCTV cameras collect lots of information, so what if the investigators get a low resolution version of the video which can be sent to them really quickly? Then if they see something interesting they can just ask for a high resolution frame to be sent over! Ta daaaa! You get the number plate without conjuring it up from thin air. There's only one time when this kind of reality abuse just might be acceptable that I can think of, and then it's only just acceptable by a hair. The TV show was Alias (and awesome by the way), and it took them THREE DAYS to increase the resolution. Yep. 3 days, not seconds or minuteness, which in my mind is just about acceptable considering they were using CIA supercomputing and databases to reconstruct the image.

So does scientific correctness matter? Yes and no. When science in fiction is done right, its beautiful. When it's not it's awful. If what you want breaks the rules, make something up! It's simple and effective. There are very few situations when people won't accept it even in contemporary setting. It's really rewarding for a reader when you can can reference and adapt real science to suit something a plot point in a story. When that's not possible, making up a reason why you can break the rules can be just as good. Especially, if you can hint to the real science blocking your way. Either way, if science or technology has a large baring on a story and it doesn't work, it can kill it; especially when all it would have taken was the few moments to read that Wikipedia page in a bit more detail.

On Women in Science on the Box - The Grimm, The Bold and the Bang (Part 3)

Here we are at part 3 in this series of posts talking about representations of women in STEM on TV and film. I kicked things off by talking about Grimm and the good things it does (find that here) and continued by looking at Star Trek, Hannibal and others (that's here!), with some thoughts about what works and what doesn't in character representation.
Firstly, disclaimer time:

I have not done an extensive survey on all women in STEM in TV shows and films now and in the past. This is purely an observation from my perspective on some of the media I've consumed recently and also, a musing on what makes female characters in a STEM professions or related roles good or bad.

Now finally, we're going to talk about the biggest current program about (in a loose sense) scientists doing science things in science ways, The Big Bang Theory. I regularly watch Big Bang, after all if there's nothing else on the box E4 is a stalwart for showing How I Met Your Big Bang all day (How I Met Your Mother and The Big Bang Theory). But, the more I've thought about writing this post the more I've ummed and ahhed over what to say.  I do like Big Bang, but there are things in it that I'm not a fan of and I don't think it's just about how the show presents women in STEM, the men are not presented in a much better light by any stretch. However, there are certain things that are particularly grating that tend to revolve around the female characters. Now, I really like Amy and Bernadette, they are practicing scientists with PhDs in Neuroscience and Microbiology respectively, they have developed into key characters, but I feel that the show gives them a raw deal more often than the other characters. There are also other women in STEM in The Big Bang Theory, but I think Bernadette and Amy as main characters are where some of the issues with Big Bang really come to light.

The first thing that really gets my back up is the constant "Oh no, women aren't nerdy!" thing which is repeated throughout the show. From the ever present jokes about there being no girls in the comic book store to comments of, "Girls don't game." and "Girls don't play dungeons and dragons". The most annoying thing is whenever the girls (particularly Bernadette) get involved with this sort of stuff, they like it! But, the next to the episode we're right back to "Girls don't". One specific example that annoyed me recently was when Sheldon does a straw pole about which console to buy. Obviously Bernadette goes for the Wii because 'it's for casual gamers', but instead of subverting this by her listing all the great things about the Wii (Mario Kart, Zelda, Smash, Super Mario, I could go on) its just played for the "Oh no she doesn't know anything" laugh, which can only help perpetuate the 'Fake Geek Girl' myth which is very annoying.

My second gripe is the way Bernadette and Amy are presented in terms of dress and interests against Penny and the smart vs pretty dynamic the show seems to go for. In the show it always seems that women are presented as beautiful and sexy OR smart, but not both. Which is exceptionally silly seen as all the actors are Hollywood pretty. The show goes out of the way to make Amy and Bernadette less attractive than Penny, which gives the strong message that you can't be both pretty and successful in STEM. Moreover, they are characterised as odd and out of place with Penny, which isn't a) realistic or b) a great image for women in STEM. Conversely you can say the same about the Leonard, Sheldon, Raj and Howard, as they are presented as other to Penny and normal people. However, the kicker is that they seem to view Amy and Bernadette in the same way as the viewer, as 'other' and lesser than Penny, which lowers their status compared to the male leads.

What about the flip side to my niggles with Big Bang Theory? Well the show does now have female scientists as main characters and not just Penny, which is a positive. They have a lot of screen time, they do talk about their work and they are presented as being extremely good at what they do to a level equal with Raj Howard and Leonard. And, on that theme, none of the characters in STEM careers are presented a way that would make them good role models. Or are they? After all, Leonard gets the girl and Howard goes to space, so aren't those positives that come of their behaviour? Having said that, if the representations of STEM careers aren't great and the women get the worse end of the deal, does that mean much? It's a comedy after all and the jokes are all centred around nerd culture, so should I expect it to have positive messages about women in STEM, or people in STEM at all? Its not like I watch Brooklyn Nine Nine (the best new comedy since Not Going Out btw) and say, "Oh! That's what police officers do!", because well, they don't. However, I think some of the differences between Nine Nine and Big Bang are that Nine Nine seems to mainly joke about police show clichés, it has a diverse cast and really awesome characters on all sides (I point you here for more detail). I also get the feeling that the writing staff respect the characters, a weird thing to say, but I think it's true. Comparatively, I'd say the Big Bang writing staff have a lower level of respect for their characters, which then bleeds through into audience perception.

After all that, why do I watch The Big Bang Theory? Well, it's one of the only show's that touches on nerd culture (especially since The Fades got cancelled) and it's one of the few places that shows nerd culture without having people stuck in their parents' basements. It's amusing, it's easy viewing and it can be really good at times. Also, I do like a lot of the characters; Bernadette is brilliant and I hope one day she'll properly take Sheldon down, Amy is excellent and I want her to realise she's better than her relationship Sheldon and that she deserves more or I'd like to see a lot more development Amy and Sheldon's their relationship at a much greater pace.

The Big Bang Theory is a key show to think about as it has a lot of influence. In the US, last season was watched by an average of 19.96 million people! It's one of the only shows out right now to focus on science as a career and that has the potential to make it very influential. Do I think it's driving people. particularly women, away from science? Probably not. But, I do think it adds to the narrative of "things for boys" and "things for girls" being separate and the air of science not being for everyone. Yes. However, its great to know that although The Big Bang Theory might not be the most inspirational show ever, there are some really good examples of women (and men!) in science out and about on the TV now. This hasn't been an exhaustive look, but I think I've found that there are great characters working in STEM out there on the box and although there's not been a huge shift from past to present, general writing quality might just make the characters of today slightly better than those of the past. Let's hope the positive momentum continues and maybe, just maybe, the next generation of scientists might be inspired by things like Grimm, Bones and the odd re-run of Star Trek.

Did any of the character's or TV shows make you interested in science? What do you think about The Big Bang Theory? Let me know in the comments!

On Women in Science on the Box - The Grimm, The Bold and The Bang (Part 2)

Last time I began this mini series talking about the representations of women in STEM in TV and film by talking about the positives I came across in Grimm (if you haven't already, you can read that here).
As with my first post the following disclaimer still applies:
I have not done an extensive survey on all women in STEM in TV shows and films now and in the past. This is purely an observation from my perspective on some of the media I've consumed recently and also, a musing on what makes female characters in a STEM professions or related roles good or bad.

So, let's begin to look backwards and sideways to find where the representations of women in STEM have come from and whether there is a sense of progression or regression.

I would be extremely remiss to look at this topic and not talk about a certain Star Trek series. Voyager had its television début in 1995 and it did something no other Trek incarnation had done before. It had a female captain. Not only did the USS Voyager have a female captain, it also had a female chief of engineering in B'Ellana Torres and what career path did Janeway take to get to the captain's chair? She was a Science Officer! And that's not all, when Seven of Nine is introduced she becomes the Astrometric's Officer. In short Voyager is a ship full of women in STEM, who are treated (for the most part) in the same way as the rest of the crew.  A much better look at the wonder of Voyager than I've written can be found here, it's a great read and made me feel oh so nostalgic for the days of Trek watching on BBC2 (except when it was swapped for live snooker). It wouldn't be fair to mention Star Trek's women in STEM without commenting on Deep Space Nine (where the protagonists boldly sat where people have sat before) which had Jadzia Dax, as scientific officer. However, I unfortunately don't really have much recollection of what sciencing Dax actually did... But, Voyager didn't appear in a vacuum. In 1997 Stargate SG1 began, featuring Captain Samantha Carter, astrophysicist and officer in the US Air Force. Unfortunately, she is SG-1's only female main character, which is a shame, but I suppose they at least made Sam a good one. This grouping of characters from sci-fi are, in my opinion, a positive set of representations. Ok, they may not be doing modern day science, but they show women in STEM at the forefront of knowledge and expertise on a new frontier. Not to mention all these TV shows aired in the nineties, which, when we're still talking about perceptions of what a scientist is, is both good and bad. On the one hand we have had a set of really positive images, but its looks like they haven't spread into the public conciousness, an interesting thing in itself. 

A genre where women in science are represented very well, is Crime Drama. From Silent Witness to Bones to Hannibal, both in the past and present there's a lot of female characters working in forensic sciences. Long running Silent Witness has featured a female pathologist in every season, beginning with Prof. Sam Ryan and continuing until today with Dr Nikki Alexander. I've only seen later seasons of Silent Witness, so I can only comment on Nikki, but she always came across to me as a touch on the lifeless side. She has work, but what else is there? On a similar theme we also have Bones, which has Dr Temperance 'Bones' Brennan as a forensic anthropologist. On the one had, Bones is the lead character, but she also falls victim to the classic tropes of social awkwardness and lack of empathy. However, in contrast the series also features Dr Cam Sayoran as the head of bone's research institute and fellow pathologist. For my money Cam is a must more positive example of women in STEM as she is feels more believable and real, but she I don't think she gets enough screen time to compete with the rest of the cast. Next, let's think about Hannibal, the dark crime thriller which features Prof. Alana Bloom, a professor of psychology and Special Agent Beverly Katz, a forensic investigator. Beverley is the focus of the three strong FBI forensics team followed in  Hannibal, and it's great to see that she is treated in the same way as her male counterparts. The flip side is that she doesn't get a lot of personal development compared to Alana, but from the screen time she does get, we see Beverley as brave, capable, clever and not afraid to take risks. Even though Nikki in Silent Witness and Cam in Bones have more screen time than Beverley, I'd struggle to write a list like that about them. Alana Bloom is one of my favourite characters in Hannibal full stop, but she's not very science-y. She's an academic but we don't really see her doing research, apart from occasionally when she interacts with Will Graham so its hard to really see her as a scientist, which I think is highly unfortunate, considering how well other aspects of her character are handled.

I think the main thing that has crossed my mind while writing this post is that its important to think about how everyone in STEM roles is represented, not just women. So far I've looked at a lot of good examples of female representation, where many of my examples also have some great male characters in STEM careers too, with Bones, Stargate, Hannibal and Silent Witness being pretty good in these respects. However, I think where things fall down, is where characters are scientist first, human second. That's something that particularly comes to my mind some of the Crime Drama's I've talked about; they are full of character's defined by their jobs, which isn't very reflective of real life. I think it's also becoming clear that the best characters, like those in Grimm, are those who have more to them then their work. On the whole I think there is a growing trend towards writing scientists with lives, but I also don't think it would be fair to say that women in STEM career's were 100% poorly represented in the past especially when we have the greatness of Voyager to look back on. However, I think there is room for improvement in how all STEM professionals are represented in the media and it's that shift away from mindless stereotyping for major and minor characters which might just be on the rise.

Next time we get to the big one. We're looking at The Big Bang Theory... This could get very interesting.

Nine Worlds Geekfest 2014

I'm now back at work after an awesome weekend (and following week off) at Nine Worlds geekfest. What is a geekfest? You may ask. We'll you're about to find out. A geekfest is a celebration (unsurprisingly) of all things geeky, from Doctor Who to SF and Fantasy books, from Steampunk and Science. It's actually quite hard to explain the scope of the event from the number of different tracks to the different activities you could do. Listen to an academic presentation, go see a panel of great authors be quizzed on genre fiction, get your books signed by said authors, learn to (I kid you not) water dance from the First Sword of Bravos (What do we say to people who don't get that reference? Not today), see a science comedy show, take part in a writing workshop, join in a LARP, dance away the night to a Queen tribute band and so, so much more. Whatever your choice of geekery (except boardgames this year *sad face*) Nine Worlds probably had something there for you. They even had a program item to do with (bubble) football.

As this post waxes lyrical, follow the link below to read more about my adventures.

Weekly Round-up Monday 11th August

When you read this I'll have just finished having an incredibly geeky weekend at Nine Worlds Geekfest in Heathrow. If you want to know more about my convention adventures you're in luck as I'll be bringing you my Nine Worlds convention diary next week. However, today it's time for a weekly round-up and in honour of Nine Worlds I'm going to be looking at some of the conventions coming up soon which you should be looking at going to.

1. Loncon 3 (World Con)
   On Thursday World Con, the world science fiction convention, comes to London in the form of Loncon3. Loncon will be celebrating all kinds of science fiction and fantasy works from TV to tabletop board gaming with a strong focus on literature. Some highlights include George RR Martin and Robin Hobb's readings and panels. Attendees will never be stuck for something to do that's for sure.
2. Sheffield Film and Comic Con
   The first ever Sheffield Film and Comic Con will be taking place later this month at the Sheffield Arena! So far guests include Burn Gorman, Eve Myles, Paul McGann and John Rhys Davis to name but a few. As it's so close to home for me it would be rude not to go and I wouldn't be taking full advantage if I didn't use it as a fantastic shopping opportunity either!
3. MCM Expo
   I've never been to an MCM Expo, something which I'm planning to change in the next year. MCM run a pretty packed program of conventions all over the country, so there's bound to be one relatively close by (normal venues include Manchester, London and Birmingham). The only downside is that guests are often not announced to the last minute so you don't always know who you're going to be seeing.
4. Nine Worlds 2015
   Should you be going next year? Definitely! Ok maybe wait until you read my diary,  (I'm writing this before the convention so you never know, it might not have been good this year) but then get your tickets booked at the super early bird rate. Nine Worlds is one of the more expensive conventions on this list, but it is also one of the ones with the most to do, so it all balances out.

And finally, it's slightly old news by now, but the season 8 premier of Doctor Who will be streaming to cinema's around the country, along with bonus content and a live Q and A from London's Leicester Square Odeon. Also, tickets are now on sale for the Doctor Who Symphonic Spectacular, a concert celebrating the music of Doctor Who, conducted by the amazing Ben Foster, which should be coming to an Arena near you.

Currently Reading The Lies of Locke Lamora by Scott Lynch, so I'm behind the times, but I'm very much enjoying catching up on this excellent book. If you like Brent Weeks or GRRM you'll love this!
Currently Playing Dungeons and Dragons 5E, I may not have known what to expect at first, but I really love 5E so far and I can't wait to get my hands on the players handbook later this week. If you want to get into Dungeons and Dragons and don't know where to start the D&D Starter Set is a great place to begin your quest.