Dastardly said:
mfeff said:
I agree with this, though it is an advertisement and as such one would think that if one is offering goods and services that one would want to (on some level) appeal to those already in your camp of goods and services?
Not in a primary way. Your target are the people that you WANT. Your
customer service is what will keep customers, not your ads. They're not 'offering goods or services' here. They're trying to attract people to a field... with a commercial that showed
nothing about that field.
Instead, the ad says, "Here's what we think you are, what we think you like." And then it said nothing past that.
I agree completely. It was that notion in which I decided to look for the channel or the people that actually produced it. I did find that the constant revisit to the theme of "make-up" was interesting in and of itself, strictly from a visual communication perspective. I found it somewhat appealing in that without investigating the source, that I too was "making up" the context of the ad with respect to what it was pointing at.
Yes but in this sense it appears that the wife and I are being placed into a category that is inclusive of "potholing" the errors as a matter of perception. As I mentioned above it is an ad, not a peer reviewed paper, and it certainly does not show "science" being done. The actual channel does, and has a decidedly different tone.
But this ad doesn't connect people to that. And this is the flagship ad. This ad, in a subversive way, is telling girls to stay where they are. Even if all the other videos are encouraging them to step out, that message is lost on everyone who "listened to" the first ad.
Again I agree, though again I found that much of what the outrage was, was simply a parakeet of whatever the original source or pointer had already said about the piece before the viewer could examine the work... it struck me as a bit of the ole jury biasing. The Dr. for example only viewed the work after getting "tweets" about it. Was she already biased to support the claims of those tweets before drawing her own conclusions? Did "she, makeup the context?"
It has been my experience that attractive young woman in science heavy fields that do work around other women are often times thought of as being inferior, and producing a lower quality work. There are biases even "IN" the fields. This was something that I wanted to be clear about concerning the Dr. and her response.
I don't think it was supposed to demonstrate science as science, rather I found it to be subverting many stereotypes, which I may add is part-n-parcel of why the response to the ad has been so strong.
It didn't subvert a thing. It displayed them. In its presentation, it in fact
reinforced them. "Pretty girls have more fun -- even when pretending to do science!" That's the closest thing to a simple, straightforward message that video presents. The emphasis is on how pretty and hip the girls are.
Which sounds pretty gosh darn subjective, valid sure, but subjective nevertheless. Many people pretend to do science and pontificate on science as a matter of entertainment... ah the countless stories I could tell of being regaled by a neophyte on the subject of quantum mechanics. Though isn't that the make-up? Yeah sure it's a weak as water argument, it's certainly subjective; the ad could of been done better. Yet, I think it is the way that it is to "be" annoying. Wasn't there an article recently on the escapist pontificating about tractor beams?
Clearly the writer/copyist has no degree in such matters, yet there it is... entertainment. That article didn't "do or say" anything, nor did it have anything meaningful to offer to such investigations, if one couldn't copy and paste the original idea, there would be no idea. There would be no article, the writer (in this case) don't "do" science.
Back to the Dr. that was in the previous post, she was asked about 3/4 of the way through it by the interviewer if she was "failing the experiment before it had time to run", she waffled, and indirectly referenced a study (which she hadn't read) to support the claim that lipstick-lab doesn't work. This to me spoke quite clearly as to her own discomfort with the idea of the lipstick-lab persona. That is interesting in that I have found that women are extremely competitive between each other, and that this introduction of conflict into "her" work-space and field was in-and-of-itself, the core of "her" conflict with it.
Then again, maybe I am just reading into it... but that said, I tend to be "right" about these things... if even not entirely correct. Ask your wife... I'm curious!
She's not a fan of the video at all. To her, working as a nurse isn't glamorous or "fun" in the sense of what the video is presenting things. It's hard work, requires a lot of knowledge and training and on-the-spot thinking. It's problem-solving.
When it comes to combating stereotypes, we have to be careful that acknowledging them doesn't become defending them. You don't "shatter" things politely. I'm of the mind that if we're not
intentionally teaching kids the right things, we're
accidentally teaching them the wrong ones. This ad is guilty of the latter. It doesn't have the kind of intentionality a message like this
needs in order to be successful.
I might direct you up to my counter-example, a few posts above the one that responded to you. An example of acknowledging and then
subverting the stereotype.
(Incidentally, about this word "subvert." Too often, people get caught up on the "sub" part of this. The idea of "changing the system from within"
starts with "getting in." But if we stop there, we just reinforce the system -- like politicians who want to make big changes, but compromise to get elected... and then
stay compromised to stay elected.
The "-vert" portion (to turn) is where we get lost. You acknowledge the stereotype, but then you do something to turn it on its head -- or turning its "dark side" so the audience can finally see it. That's what this ad lacks.)
Of course we have differing opinions on the subject. Personally I "believe" that stereotypes exist as a matter of personal convenience and as a matter of personal fact. Age and experience allows the individual to mitigate those bias'es which were not based on sound data and updates those that are, however subjectively, to limits and notions of "to what extent".
I like that you have mentioned choosing battles, and have reinforced that idea with combating stereotypes. All I tend to offer is a notion of which ones are justified and which are not, the ones that are to what extent is it true and under what conditions. Stereotypes, to me, are good, just like greed is good. Like just about anything though, it is under what context.
I will add that science heavy fields are generally heavy on the work side, yet it is in that I find that many new students or those who are not students at all are often times divorced from the notion of "just how much" work is involved in the academic pursuit and mastery of the languages utilized. I "think" it is this disconnect that resonates with you and yours as much as it does.
However, I cannot say that "science" is hard, and that "science" is devoid of fun. To the contrary I find it quite entertaining, full of curiosity, and often times whimsical. I think to some degree (albeit not much) the ad visually communicates this. It does not really communicate the effort involved in becoming skilled at the work. Again, it's an ad and not a pill for a degree in science. Nor could such a thing really ever be.
Maybe if the ad went just a step further and portrayed a science behind beauty and sexuality, and that such things are not mere coincidences it would of come off a little more appealing... then again, didn't the discovery channel and the BBC already do series on this?
To this end I think the art of the ad fails, as it does not convincingly transmit it's message (if it actually had one), but it succeeds in generating a discussion... in fact, haven't you and I been here before?
Clearly the ad fails where the channel succeeds, which for me, is the rest of the story. I simply have a hard time seeing anything other than, it's o.k. to be a woman and like science to. In the same respect that it is o.k. that I hit the gym, swing a sword, work some math, and play the piano all in the same day. I suppose that there is something to the balance that is a theme of the channel, and a lack of balance in the video; which gives a sense of inconsistency with the message. I just think that it was intentional.
