"Science: It's a Girl Thing" Says Controversial Ad

[Helen Jones]

If anyone wants to complain the sites contact page is here: http://science-girl-thing.eu/contact
I've sent an e-mail myself. Their facebook page is here: http://www.facebook.com/sciencegirlthing

Sadly they have made no comment I can find so far, I've received no response to my e-mail sent yesterday and there has been, as you can see, no apology or explanation from their site or facebook page. I honestly think they're trying to pretend it didn't happen by taking down the video and staying silent, don't let them.

A shame this article didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but I'm glad the case is gaining notoriety.

 

[Stripes]

I didnt realise there was a problem, in my college the sciences are populated mostly by women and they arent small departments in the place.

 

[1337mokro]

Actually. Science has been a girl thing for quite a while.

The average male to female ratio in the past three years of university has never been 50-50. The most equal it ever got was 40-60, for every man currently studying or working in a field of medicine, chemistry, biology or even physics, there are two or more women. The only field of science where I can see a clear male predominance is in mathematics, but even there it's only a slight advantage.

Really? I'm studying Chemistry, and there are easily more blokes than girls. I'd say about 80% of the people on the course are male, total sausage-fest.

Poor you. It might not be universal, but at least for as far as my experience goes is that in higher education the ratio is very weighted towards females. Might just be that one university though.

Maybe you should swim across the canal. Come for a visit here

 

[Amethyst Wind]

I honestly wasn't aware of any big divide in the sciences. Always seemed pretty open to everybody to me. I've never been in any busy lab and confused it for a Hotdog Haus or Taco Bell.

Spoiler

Hehe, crudeness is fun every now and then.

 

[Dastardly]

This ad could have been much better, but a lack of creativity, not sexism, is the perpetrator.

I can go with you to this place, but I still think it's on the same end of town. I don't think it's intentionally sexist, but the effects of ignorance can very easily mimic those of malice.

The very reason we tend to push women away from "real work" and toward such endeavors a shopping, cooking, and fashion is because we have constructed cultural attachments between women and those things. And rather than challenge those attachments, this ad played to them.

If anything, I think that kind of thing is worse than intentional sexism, because we still make excuses for it. It's still permissible to be "a little sexist," as long as it's not out of hatred but out of habit. That kind of sexism still has a backdoor into our subconscious, whereas most sensible people can identify and immediately ignore more direct, intentional sexism.

What's more, the "accidental sexists" are the ones that we should be seeking to convert in the first place. The intentional ones aren't going to listen, ever, so it's stupid of us to make so much of a fuss when they pop up. It's easy to see this as mountains-from-molehills, but it's actually choosing the battles that can be won and are thus worth fighting.

I understand needing to address the status quo in order to challenge it, but you need to be careful your ad doesn't celebrate it. Maybe something more along the lines of a young woman narrator saying,

"Why do people think of me wearing this stuff (Show woman putting on all sorts of makeup)... but never making it (Show woman working in lab)? Why is it 'normal' for me to do this (Show woman working on something complicated in kitchen)... but not this (Now in lab, maybe working on safer, more sustainable foods)? Why do I have to wear the little pink dress (clip of Marilyn Monroe) instead of the long white coat (dramatization of Marie Curie), and why am I expected to live on the cutting-edge of fashion (clip of random supermodels), when I can live on the cutting-edge of discovery (clip of female surgeons, astronauts, etc.)?

And then a series of match-cut shots of the young woman's face, starting with a frown in a little pink dress against a dimly-lit pink floral background, but gradually moving to a smile as she rotates faster and faster through various "science uniforms" against a brightly-lit science-equipment-filled background, and a green-screen of outer space, all under the voiceover, "When can I stop worrying what you think? When will you start watching what I can do?"

And then the tagline: Science - Look what I can do. Or something. And maybe the "I" is the little "woman" symbol from restroom doors, or the "O" in "do" is that Roman symbol for female. But, by God, nothing about it is pink.

There, 15 minutes of work, and I think we already have a less-accidentally-sexist ad. Yeah, you address the stereotypes... but then you either choose to sustain them, or to subvert them.

 

[TheAmazingHobo]

I am offended and outraged by the blatant falsehoods and pandering imagery in this video.

And I´m not talking about the girl stuff.
I´m talking about trying to make science look cool and fun.
It´s not.

If you want to convey an accurate picture of science, just put up a video of somebody slamming a door against his head for 10 minutes, while fighting of a pack of raptors with a glow-in-the-dark slinky and falling down a huge cliff on fire.
THAT would be an accurate description of what science is like.
Or maybe it isn´t. But I would still pay good money to see that video.

 

[FantomOmega]

just.... facepalm

so many facepalms

The only thing most girls I know are aware of science is the Formula on how to make money from men's wallet spontaneously disappear into some 5th dimension where only fashion exist

This piratically REEKS of quantum physics!

 

[bafrali]

Hmm that is an odd looking kit.... i mean lab.

C'mon it is just another commercial shit out by some talentless hack. What is its difference from the other lame as hell ads?

To clarify my stance, i too think it is utterly stupid but nothing too offensive

"One really souldn't worry about this sort of thing unless there is genuine hatred behind it" said once a wise guy

 

[mfeff]

If anyone wants to complain the sites contact page is here: http://science-girl-thing.eu/contact
I've sent an e-mail myself. Their facebook page is here: http://www.facebook.com/sciencegirlthing

Sadly they have made no comment I can find so far, I've received no response to my e-mail sent yesterday and there has been, as you can see, no apology or explanation from their site or facebook page. I honestly think they're trying to pretend it didn't happen by taking down the video and staying silent, don't let them.

A shame this article didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, but I'm glad the case is gaining notoriety.

Personally, I am disappointed they took the video down. In context of the other material on their channel (as I mentioned previous) it makes perfect sense.

As an observation I noticed three camps. Lay people (outside of the sciences), which are offended for whatever reason that "Science" is portrayed casually and flippantly. I suppose this is a fair assessment to an individual paradigm, but isn't that just it?

A personal paradigm.

The second are those who have claimed to be "scientist". Many of whom (which I watched videos of as well as read their blogs) spoke to some great extent about "stereotypes". This is interesting in that one may also infer that one who would dub oneself a "scientist" also tends to engender a set of preconceived notions as too "what that is", and "if they do or do not measure up" to a particular ideal in which they have set for themselves.

Again, a personal paradigm.

The third group, perhaps the rarest, are those people who didn't have an issue with it one way or another, or who took the time to investigate the other videos, content, or group responsible for the adverts creation. These people as I have noticed, are either involved in fields with a preponderance of scientific application but whom do not associate a personal sense of self with an "notion" of what "being" this or that "is".

Still a personal paradigm.

What the video does it does well, act as a litmus test for how "actualized" a person may be in the context of their work, scholastic endeavors, and most importantly the sense of a self free from "any" stereotype. Secondly it "gets" ones attention, which is seemingly the core element of "advertising".

The response to it seems universally "personal", which may beg a certain artistic value to the work outside of what one may consider to be "science of facts", but in it's defense it's an advert, not a peer reviewed paper. Originating from a mass communication department, not the physics department.

You just may be fit for science if you investigated the advert beyond the advert itself with a curiosity to discover it's purpose.

Considering this program has filmed over a dozen women, I would be interested in seeing their feedback as to what "they" think of the advertisement in the context of what they have said or done with the project. Although I may not need to as I suspect they fall into group three.

Think what you want, and write you letters... won't change anything. The whole thing is demonstrably "proto-typical" of the internet's capacity for jerking knees.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Frankly, this is insulting. A lab is not the place for sexying it up. All three of the women presented completely fail to follow safety guidelines for proper attire, And that's not even touching the rest of the terrible ad. Honestly, they'd be better served by showing men and women in lab coats, doing "science" that way, with a caption of "It's not just for men anymore", which is marginally better, or have a couple of modestly dressed girls at a nice bar get asked by charming, photogenic guys "what do you do?", where it cuts to a montage of them doing some actual work, with gloves, coats, the works (and making them look damn good), and replying definitively "oh, you know. Science." It would be better than this swill, for sure.

 

[Dastardly]

Of course I was being sarcastic. There is no point in making adds like these, why? Because if someone wants to study something they will do it, luring them into studying science will do nothing but give you more drop outs.

The scales will balance themselves with equal education and opportunity. You don't need stereotype enforcing adds to help with that.

I really have to disagree on this point. It's the 'if someone wants to' part.

The point of this whole thing is that our society has filters that are put in place pretty early on, and they direct even the youngest girls toward or away from certain endeavors (They do the same to boys, don't get me wrong). If you're caught up by this early on, and your parents grew up in the same system, and most people aren't consciously aware of it, then you'll grow up believing it's "your choice."

Think about kids raised by hardcore racists. I know plenty. The kids are just as sincere about it as their parents... but is it because they had experiences that shaped it? Is it because they made some conscious, informed choice? No, they were basically brainwashed by their environment.

So we need a bit of counter-programming. There are plenty of girls out there who don't even consider careers in science, and they believe sincerely (and falsely) that it's because that's "boy stuff."

Here's an experiment for you: When you're in that mostly-girl science class, take a quick poll as to how many of them are studying to be nurses instead of doctors, surgeons, chemists, engineers, and so on. Now, there's nothing wrong with nurses -- my wife's a nurse -- but that's one of those commonly-accepted "girl jobs" in science. We have to be careful not to settle for simply the illusion of progress.

(BTW: If a woman genuinely wants to do something, they should also not feel pressured out of it simply because it's a "stereotypical girl thing." This comment was simply pointing out that this path has long been "acceptable" for women, and not to indicate in any way that choosing to be a nurse is some kind of failure state.)

 

[Navvan]

Yea the video is horrible in a number of ways. Lets go through them.

1. The obvious sexist (presumably unintentional) approach to trying to appeal to the female demographic. I won't really bother explaining it as the ad strangles you with it.

2. Science isn't a tradition form of "fun" or "sexy". A certain type of person can find it fun and beautiful, but even most scientists don't fall into that category. Its quite possibly the hardest job on this planet depending on what you're researching. That is why its also the only job you can still be paid for while at the same time failing for years.

3. It just doesn't work. I simply don't think flashy shots of girls and those special effects (it wasn't science) won't lead to a single female deciding to go into a STEM field.

The spirit behind the piece was good, but you couldn't ask for worse execution.

Spoiler: Congratulations people who made this ad's script, some random guy on the internet did a better job in 15 minutes.

I understand needing to address the status quo in order to challenge it, but you need to be careful your ad doesn't celebrate it. Maybe something more along the lines of a young woman narrator saying,

"Why do people think of me wearing this stuff (Show woman putting on all sorts of makeup)... but never making it (Show woman working in lab)? Why is it 'normal' for me to do this (Show woman working on something complicated in kitchen)... but not this (Now in lab)? Why do I have to wear the little pink dress (clip of Marilyn Monroe) instead of the long white coat (dramatization of Marie Curie), and why am I expected to live on the cutting-edge of fashion (clip of random supermodels), when I can live on the cutting-edge of discovery (clip of female surgeons, astronauts, etc.)?

And then a series of match-cut shots of the young woman's face, starting with a frown in a little pink dress against a dimly-lit pink floral background, but gradually moving to a smile as she rotates faster and faster through various "science uniforms" against a brightly-lit science-equipment-filled background, and a green-screen of outer space, all under the voiceover, "When can I stop worrying what you think? When will you start watching what I can do?"

And then the tagline: Science - Look what I can do. Or something. And maybe the "I" is the little "woman" symbol from restroom doors, or the "O" in "do" is that Roman symbol for female. But, by God, nothing about it is pink.

There, 15 minutes of work, and I think we already have a less-accidentally-sexist ad. Yeah, you address the stereotypes... but then you either choose to sustain them, or to subvert them.

 

[mfeff]

Of course I was being sarcastic. There is no point in making adds like these, why? Because if someone wants to study something they will do it, luring them into studying science will do nothing but give you more drop outs.

The scales will balance themselves with equal education and opportunity. You don't need stereotype enforcing adds to help with that.

Eloquent as always Dastardly)

Though it appears that you and I are somewhat at odds as to the success of the advert. I for one liked it. Showed it to my wife before she went into the lab this morning and she liked it.

I am curious if you have had a chance to show it to your wife and solicited her response to it?

Briefly my wife concluded that if a person where already doing the things shown in the advert that ones response too the advert would either be null or severely nullified. That being said she does her hair and makeup before heading into the lab, and is quite "fetching" if I do say so myself.

Counter to this was a video response which I will embed here.


Clearly the professor here is concerned primarily with the stereotype aspect of the advert, but I find this overly biased in the context of "herself", in that she found nothing in the advert in which she could relate to on a personal level.

Is not that to part and parcel to the "brainwashing" of a society or culture in which she has come from which has in many ways, influenced her own bias, even as a "scientist".

I found the advert and context of the channel from which it came to constantly refer back to a sense of "self" as it relates to their work(s) in the scientific fields. The focus being on balance in life, without stereotypes at all.

Perhaps I myself have found some personal investment in the hooray of it all, as an engineer with long hair some tattoos... a love for anime and video games often times it is difficult to be taken seriously as a "man of science", based on my own physical projection to others. In that sense I find that I am able to "find" something in the stories of the "actual" channel that is quite relate-able. Emblematic of my own personal struggles with identity within the context of society.

Yet it is those, most well-meaning people, in which the greatest obstacles seem to arise. That I, or they, or however does not "fit" with "their" notions of what this or that "is", rather than those individuals updating their own internal reference, insist that I or others "change", relying on the insistence that I or others are fundamentally "in error". Better yet, when I speak and my "Southern Accent" becomes apparent... instantly, I am a fool based on nothing more than a frequency of my voice or particular dialect.

Then again, speaking from my own personal experience I only know "two" people in the real work-a-day world that could be academically (by definition) scientist. This allows me to conclude that the VAST majority of people weighing in on the subject are in-fact lay people exposing opinion. Although I mention that further up (sorta).

 

[Hawk of Battle]

I'm sorry, but I couldn't even get to the end of that video, I think my brain must've melted or something. I... just... what, I don't even... what?!

 

[Dastardly]

Clearly the professor here is concerned primarily with the stereotype aspect of the advert, but I find this overly biased in the context of "herself", in that she found nothing in the advert in which she could relate to on a personal level.

I apologize for the mega-snip, but I wanted to boil things down to what I feel is the most important point you've raised: the idea that this ad speaks to people who find something in it to which they can personally relate.

This professor couldn't, as you say, so she rejects the ad. Your wife, as a counterexample, could, so she enjoyed it. I'd offer that this is because that personal relation fills in many of the gaps the original ad leaves in a sense of true "context." If you have the prior experience to fill in the gaps, it happens automatically (Gestalt psychology!) and you don't notice the holes...

...but also, if you have that kind of personal experience, is this ad really targeting you?

The purpose of a campaign like this isn't to convince "Science Women" to stay in science. It's to attract new women to the sciences. With that in mind, most of your target audience is (by virtue of being your target audience) NOT going to have that fill-in-the-blanks context.

This kind of ad might have accidentally been made to "preach to the choir."

 

[axlryder]

I honestly think some people get way too up in arms when people connect stereotypical girl things with girls. I dunno, I always found that a bit ridiculous. My sister really loved Polly Pockets when we were little. No one told her to like it, heck my parents actively avoided buying her that stuff, but still her desire to get those sorts of things persisted when we went to the store, as did her enjoyment of the colors pink and purple (and other "girl stuff"). She also happened to hate Legos and action figures. Heck, she would often try and rope me into playing dress up with her, given her being the only girl (I luckily managed to avoid that particular activity). That said, she also loved to play video games and sports. She wasn't a prototypical girly girl. My brother, on the other hand, was a total "boy". He always tinkered with things and loved cars. Had little toy solider wars and whatnot. Again, no one encouraged him to do this stuff (we didn't even have a TV back then), he just liked it. Now that my sister is older (and been through college) she's decided she wants to be a homemaker. While I see it as a waste of a degree, no one told her to make that choice. That's just what she wants. ALL of my female coworkers in my current workplace wish they could do the same thing with the exception of one. I work with a fair few woman at the moment.

I only say all this because I've recently noticed some people condemning the idea of girls being portrayed in stereotypical female roles or portrayed as showing stereotypical female interests as being sexist. I partially disagree. I think that a fair few woman really do have these desires (some desires being more pervasive than others). Of course, whether or not real life reflections of those desires are a byproduct of "cultural norms" being ingrained into woman since childhood is up for debate (I don't think it's entirely one way or the other).

All that said, this add seems pretty fucking stupid. The tagline, the attitude, the strange infatuation with makeup. This seriously crosses into the realm of self-parody. I honestly think it's fairly harmless all around (given the amount of admonishment it has managed to garner), but still stupid. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, dunno. Though, as a side note, the style of it honestly seems more like an homage to those old 70's ads than a straight faced contemporary advert.

 

[Blend]

It's good to see sexism outside of the gaming community for once at least.

silver lining.

 

[Catrixa]

I'll be really honest, I thought this whole add was leading up to the scientific procedure behind some brand of makeup. I was waiting for a logo, or something. Huh.

Anyway, I think what they were going for was, "You don't have to stop being feminine to get into science! See, these ladies are doing it! The men can't even think straight while staring at their sexy pumps!" The problem is 1) due to some stereotypes, even women don't believe this could happen (a problem unto itself, but not the biggest problem with the ad: http://phys.org/news/2012-04-fair-physicist-feminine-math-science.html) and 2) the only thing women would want to be in a scientific field for is to make makeup. I feel like this ad would be passable if they just took out the shots of makeup and replaced them with cures for cancer, microchips, biodiesel, or something like that. Like, actually saying "Hey girls, you CAN follow society's unreasonable standards of beauty AND be a productive scientist!" Baby steps, marketers, not microsteps (or backwards ones >.>).