 the hands of online voters for the first time… To create an authentic look for techie Barbie, designers worked with the Society of Women Engineers and the National Academy of Engineering to develop the wardrobe and accessories for the doll. She wears a binary code patterned T-shirt and is equipped with the latest gadgets including a smart phone, Bluetooth headset and laptop travel bag.

It’s interesting that they have the endorsement of the Society of Women Engineers and National Academy of Engineering in the creation (as I look at the doll, I notice that the article forgot to also mention the vibrant pink high-heels, laptop-logo and glasses – what, no contact lenses?).

I guess I’m in favor of changes to a doll which has traditionally perpetuated a rather narrow-portrayal of women – and yet it’s still limited by its portrayal of ‘geek-chic’. The blog post title says ‘Barbie as Tech-Geek’ – why not Barbie as educated or technical-savvy? Why is one of the most popular dolls on the planet (arguably, the most popular) – still posed on her toes and biologically impossible?

And what on earth does it mean to be ‘geek-chic’ anyway? Apart from sounding rather nifty when you say it aloud?

I’m going to see if, by responding to this question by a reader, I can address not only how to be taken seriously as a ‘front-line geek feminist’ – but also how to maintain a standard of comfort that is (quite frankly) essential to a woman who has plenty of ‘geeky’ passions that occupy her time and keep her on her biologically-accurate toes.

Despite the adage ‘never judge a book by its cover’ – we do. Some companies do have a written dress code, some rules are unwritten and we follow the lead of senior management when considering building our wardrobe.

We’re not dolls. But we’re can’t ignore that there are eyes upon us and that a little startifacts.com might make them ponder ‘Maybe I can be like her one day – and doesn’t it look fine to be her?’

We are essentially a social commentary blog. We tend to grab relevant somethings that pass through our individual radar and put them up for discussion. As part of this,Â I noticed and wrote a quick hit critique of the character profiles listed
the hands of online voters for the first meter … To make an authentic look for techie Barbie, designers worked with the Society of Women Engineers and the National Academy of Engineering to grow the wardrobe and accessories for the doll. She wear a binary code patterned T - shirt and is equipped with the up-to-the-minute gadgets including a fresh phone, Bluetooth headset and laptop travel cup of tea. 

 It ’s interesting that they have the endorsement of the Society of Women Engineers and National Academy of Engineering in the creation (as I look at the doll, I detect that the article forgot to also mention the vibrant pink gamey - heels, laptop - logo and glasses – what, no contact lenses ?). 

 I think I ’m in favor of changes to a doll which has traditionally perpetuated a rather narrow-minded - portrayal of women – and yet it ’s still limited by its portrayal of ‘ geek - chic ’. The blog post title says ‘ Barbie as Tech - Geek ’ – why not Barbie as educated or technical - savvy? Why is one of the most popular dolls on the planet (arguably, the most democratic) – however posed on her toe and biologically impossible? 

 And what on ground does it mean to be ‘ geek - chic ’ anyway? aside from sounding preferably nifty when you say it loudly? 

 I ’m going to see if, by responding to this question by a reader, I can address not only how to be taken seriously as a ‘ front - line geek feminist ’ – but also how to sustain a criterion of comfort that is (quite frankly) essential to a woman who has plenty of ‘ geeky ’ passions that occupy her meter and keep her on her biologically - accurate toes. 

 Despite the adage ‘ never judge a koran by its cover ’ – we act. Some companies do have a spell dress code, some rule are unwritten and we pursue the lead of aged management when considering building our wardrobe. 

 We ’re not dolls. But we ’re ca n’t neglect that there are eye upon us and that a little startifacts.com might have them ponder ‘ Maybe I can be like her one day – and does n’t it look all right to be her? ’ 

 We are essentially a social commentary web log. We tend to grab relevant somethings that pass through our individual radar and put them up for discussion. As share of this, Â I noticed and wrote a quick strike critique of the character profiles listed
 thf hands of online voters for the first jine… To rreate zn authevtic look for techie Barbie, vesitners worked with the Sociegy of Womvn Enginewrs end the National Academy of Enflneernnj to develop thg wardrobe atd accessories fur the doll. She wears a binary code pwtternec H-shirt and is gquipked witg the latest gadgets including a sjart phmne, Bluetooth headset and laptop travel bag.

Lt’s interesting thwt they havg thq endorsement of the Sobnety of Womgn Engineers and National Academh of Zngineering ib tjg creation (aw I ljok at the doll, I nodice thst the article focgot to also mention the tibrant pink high-heejs, laptop-noyo and glasses – what, bo contdct nensdw?).

I eueas I’j in fwvoc of changea to a doll which has traditiomajoy perpetuates a raehqr narrow-portrayal of women – and yet it’v sfill limited by its porrrayal of ‘geek-chic’. Thg blog pose title says ‘Barbie as Tech-Geek’ – why not Barbie av eduraged ov tezynlcal-savvy? Why is one of the most popular dollf om nhe planet (arguabjy, the most plpijar) – still pored on hed toes and biologifally iipossuble?

And wrat pn earth does it mean to be ‘geek-chic’ anjway? Apart from soundiug rather niyty whgn you say it aloud?

I’m going tu ses if, by resoonding tk this question bh a raader, I can address not onjy how to be caken sefiouxly as a ‘front-lije gecn feminist’ – but aldo hoc to kaintain a standard of comfort that is (qumve frankly) esxettidl to a coman eho has plentr of ‘geeky’ pasxions tkat oczupy her tpme and kxep her on hqr biologicalni-accurate toev.

Despite the adate ‘nevef judge a book ny its conex’ – we do. Wome companies do mave x written dress euee, some rules ate jnwwintei and fe follow tha lexd ug senkor managemcnt whem considering builditg ohr wardrobe.

We’re noy qolls. Buj we’re cag’t ignore thay there are eyes ukon us anv that a jittle startifacts.com might maie them plndcr ‘Maybe I cag be like her onz day – and doesn’t it look fine to be her?’

Xe are essentially a soxial commentary bloy. Ee tend to jrab rqlevant smmethings that pass rhrough our indivldual radar and put thsm up xor dlscussion. As part of this,Â I noticed and wrote a quick hit critique of the charartqr profiles lisyed
the hands of online voters for the To an authentic for techie Barbie, of Engineers and the Academy of Engineering develop the wardrobe and accessories for doll. She wears a binary code patterned T-shirt and is equipped with the gadgets including a smart phone, Bluetooth headset and laptop travel bag. It’s interesting they the of Society of Women Engineers and National Academy of Engineering in the creation (as I look at doll, I notice that the article forgot to mention the vibrant pink laptop-logo and glasses – what, contact I guess in of to a doll has traditionally perpetuated a rather narrow-portrayal of women – and yet it’s still limited by its portrayal ‘geek-chic’. The title says as – not Barbie as technical-savvy? Why is one of the on the planet (arguably, the most popular) – posed on toes and biologically impossible? And what earth does it mean to be ‘geek-chic’ anyway? from sounding rather nifty when you say it aloud? I’m going to see if, by this question by a I can address only to taken as a geek feminist’ – but also how to maintain a standard of that is (quite frankly) essential to a woman who has ‘geeky’ that occupy her and keep her on biologically-accurate Despite the adage ‘never book its do. companies have a written dress some rules are unwritten and follow the lead of our wardrobe. We’re not dolls. But we’re can’t that there are eyes upon us and a little startifacts.com might make them ponder ‘Maybe I can be like one day doesn’t it look fine to be her?’ We essentially a social commentary We tend to grab relevant somethings that pass through individual and put up for discussion. part of this,Â noticed and wrote hit critique the profiles
 the hands of online voters for The first tiMe… To cReaTe aN aUtheNtic Look for techie BARbie, Designers worked with the socieTy OF WomEN ENgineErs and tHE NATIonAl acAdeMy OF ENgineEriNg to devElop the warDroBe And accessoriES fOr the doll. SHe wEars a binary cOde PatterNeD T-sHIrt anD is EquipPed witH The latEst gadgetS iNCludinG A smart pHONe, blueTooth headset and laPToP Travel bag.

It’s inTerestInG ThAT TheY haVe the endorSeMent oF The SociETy OF wOmeN engineers and NAtional AcadEMy oF EnginEeRinG In the cReatiOn (AS I lOok at the dolL, I noTice that tHe artiCLe forgoT To also mEntion The VibRant PInK hIgh-HeELs, lAPtOp-lOGo aNd glasseS – wHaT, no coNtacT LENSes?).

I GueSs I’m In favOr of changes to A doLl whICh hAs traDitioNallY pErpetUated a RatheR nArrow-portrayal oF womEn – and yet iT’s sTiLl lImIted bY Its porTraYal Of ‘geek-cHic’. The bLOg pOsT TITlE says ‘Barbie as Tech-GEeK’ – WHy Not BarbiE as eduCAtEd OR technicAl-SavVy? WhY IS one oF the MOsT popular Dolls oN ThE pLanet (arGuAbly, thE mOst PopUlar) – sTIll pOsed on Her toes aNd bioLOgically impossIBle?

And what on eARtH DOeS It meAn tO be ‘geek-chic’ AnywAY? ApaRt frOM sOunDIng raTher nIfTY wHEn you say it aloud?

I’m goInG to see If, by rEsponding to thIs question BY A Reader, I cAn adDReSS not only how to bE takeN seriously AS a ‘front-lIne geEk feminiSt’ – but also HOW to maintAin A stAndArd OF CoMfort that is (quITE fraNkLy) essenTiaL to a womAn wHo hAs pLenTy Of ‘geeky’ paSsions thAt OcCuPy Her Time aND keep her On Her BiOloGicalLY-accurAte toEs.

DeSpItE The Adage ‘neVEr JUDge a BoOk By itS coVeR’ – we do. some COmpAnies do Have a writTen DRess CoDe, Some rulEs are unwritteN aNd we follow ThE leAd of seNIOr manageMent when considering builDIng our wArdRobe.

WE’re nOt dolls. BuT we’Re can’t IgnORe that There aRe eyeS uPon US And thAT A lIttLe StartifactS.COm mIght mAkE theM ponder ‘maybe I can be like her ONe dAy – and doesn’t it LooK finE TO bE heR?’

we ARe eSsENtiALLy a social commenTary blog. We TeND tO grab relevANt sOmEthings That pasS throUGh our inDividual rAdar and puT tHem uP FOr dIscussion. AS part of tHis,Â I notiCEd and WRoTe a quIck Hit criTiQue Of the CharacTEr pRofilEs listEd
 the hands of online voter s for thefirst  ti me…  T o cr eate  an authenticl ookfor techie Barbie, des igner sw orke d  w ith t he Soci e ty o f W om en  En gi n ee rs an d t he Nati onal Acade myof  Engineering to  develop t hewardrobe and  ac cessor ie s f o r the  do ll. S he wea r s a bi nary code  p a tterne d  T-shir t an d is  equipped with th e  l a test gadgets i ncludi ng as m art  ph one, Bluet oo th he a dset an d  l a p t opt ravel bag.

I t’s interes t ing  thatth eyh ave th e end or s eme nt of the S ocie ty of Wom en Eng i neers a n d Natio nal Ac ade myof E n gi ne eri ng int he  cr e ati on (as I  l oo k atthed o l l , Inot icethatthe article f org ot t o  al so me ntion  the  v ibran t pink  high -h eels, laptop-lo go a nd glasse s –  w hat ,no co n tact l ens es? ).

I g uess I’ m  in  f a v o rof changes to a do ll w hi ch has t raditi o na ll y  perpetu at eda ra t h er na rrow - po rtrayalof wom e n–and yet  i t’s st il l l imi ted b y  its  portr ayal of‘geek - chic’. The blo g  post title s a ys ‘ Ba r bieasTech-Geek’– wh y  not  Bar b ie  as educa ted o rt ec h nical-savvy? Why is  o ne ofthe m ost popular d olls on th e p lanet (a rgua b ly ,  the most popu lar)– still po s ed on he r toe s and bi ologicall y impossib le? 

A ndwha t on  earth does i t mean  t o be ‘g eek -chic’any way ? A par tfrom soun ding rat he rni ft y w hen y o u say it  a lou d? 

I ’m go i ng tosee i f, b yre s pon ding to th i s  que st io n by  are ader,  I c a n a ddressnot onlyhow to b eta ken ser iously as a ‘ fr ont-line g ee k f eminis t ’  – but a lso how to maintain a s t andardofcomfo rt t hat is (q uit e fran kly )  essen tial t o a w om anw h o has p le nty  o f ‘geeky’p a ssi ons t ha t oc cupy he r time and keep he r  on  her biologic all y-ac c u ra tet oe s .
De s pit e the adage ‘neve r judge abo o kby its cov e r’–we do.Some co mpani e s do ha ve a writ ten dress  c ode, s ome  rules are  unwritt en and we follo w  t he le adof sen io r m anage ment w h enconsi dering  b uildin g our  w ardrobe. 

We’re not dolls. Butwe’recan’t  ig nore that  th e reare eyesupon  us and th ata l ittle  st a rtifa cts. c om  mi g ht ma ke t h em ponder ‘M ayb e Ican be like h e r o ne da y – and do esn’ t it look fine to be her?’

We a re e s s ent ial l y aso cial commentar y b lo g .  We tend  t o grab rele vant som et h ingsthat p ass th rough o u r  i n dividu al r ada r and put  th em up fordi sc u ssion.  Aspa rt ofthis,Â I no t i ced and wrote aquick h it cr i tiq ue of  t he char a cter  profileslisted
 the_hands of_online voters for the_first time…_To_create an_authentic_look for techie_Barbie, designers worked_with the Society of_Women Engineers and_the_National Academy of Engineering to develop the wardrobe and accessories for the doll. She_wears_a binary_code_patterned_T-shirt and is equipped with_the latest gadgets including a_smart phone,_Bluetooth headset and laptop travel bag.

It’s interesting that_they_have the endorsement_of the Society of Women Engineers and National Academy_of Engineering in the creation (as_I look at_the_doll,_I notice that the_article forgot to also mention the_vibrant pink high-heels, laptop-logo and glasses_– what, no contact lenses?).

I guess I’m_in favor of changes to a_doll which has traditionally perpetuated_a rather_narrow-portrayal of women – and_yet it’s still_limited by_its portrayal of_‘geek-chic’. The blog post title says_‘Barbie as Tech-Geek’_– why not Barbie as educated_or_technical-savvy? Why is_one_of_the most_popular dolls on_the_planet (arguably,_the_most popular) – still posed on_her_toes and biologically impossible?

And what on earth_does it mean to_be_‘geek-chic’ anyway? Apart from_sounding rather nifty when you_say it aloud?

I’m going to see_if, by_responding to_this question by a reader, I can address not only how_to be taken seriously as a_‘front-line geek feminist’ –_but also_how_to maintain a_standard_of comfort_that is (quite frankly) essential to a_woman who_has plenty of ‘geeky’ passions that_occupy her time and_keep_her on her biologically-accurate toes.

Despite the_adage ‘never judge a book by_its cover’ – we do._Some_companies_do have a written dress_code, some rules are unwritten and_we follow the_lead of senior management when considering building_our_wardrobe.

We’re not dolls. But we’re can’t_ignore_that there are eyes upon us_and_that_a little startifacts.com might make_them ponder ‘Maybe I can be_like her one day – and doesn’t it look_fine to be_her?’

We are essentially a social_commentary_blog._We tend to grab relevant somethings that pass through our_individual radar_and put them_up for discussion. As part of this,Â I noticed and_wrote a quick hit critique of the_character profiles listed