Maybe its just your school (or maybe you're out of the undergrad level?), but mine are mostly female too. Biochemistry is what I classify a hard bio (along with most of the mol bios), and those in my experience have lower guy: girl ratios, but mine have always been at least 1:1. Agree bout the social sciences and humanities though. I'm doing an anthro minor (honestly its like every one of those classes is a free 90%+), and the last one I was in, I think me, my friend and like 3 other dudes in a class of 30+.lotr rocks 0 said:
"Science: It's a Girl Thing" Says Controversial Ad
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
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.Dastardly said:
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.
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.
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".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.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!
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.)
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.
Taking into account that I don't see gender as strict "boy" and "girl" categorizations, I honestly do think "girls" are genetically predisposed towards liking generally female oriented things (to an extent). I'm not saying that they're programmed to like Polly Pocket, but a certain aesthetic or type of activity might be click better with a female brain than a male one. I'm a bit skeptical that past cultural trends that seem to flip our current once in their heads are evidence that our preferences are entirely culturally determined. Hell, cultural context counts for a lot too. Their motivations for wearing high heels and makeup likely weren't the same as woman's are now. Take a look at your typical effeminate male. These boys are often prone towards playing with girl toys and enjoying feminine activities. Now, again, you could say that these boys see girls playing with these toys in real life and on TV and are simply drawn to them because "it's what girls do" and that's the gender they better identify with, but I think it might be rooted more deeply than that, something on a base neurological level. Like I said, I think it's definitely partially culturally based (if not mostly or entirely), but I think it's also influenced by inherent preference and natural development. Colors have emotional properties to them that aren't necessarily culturally ingrained, after all. Also, like I said, we didn't really have TV when I was very young. or, at least, we had it, but we weren't allowed to watch it (we didn't get the video games till we were older). The only commercial exposure we got was going to the store. I just doubt that all of our preferences developed based on what little media exposure we had.Dastardly said:
Lol my social psych class had over a hundred people and I swear not more than 10-15 were guys... It was insane...NightHawk21 said:
But yeah, I think that the sciences are pretty much on an even footing in terms of girls and guys. A lot of the smartest people I know in the sciences are girls. I think a large number of them are going into nursing/med school though(from what I've seen, in fact my class apparently had a super high acceptance rate to med school) too so they're taking the science classes not to pursue a career in science but in nursing or medical. Which is fine but not quite the same.
Engineering I think is still largely male dominated, particularly my chem eng classes. One of my female chem eng friends actually had an interview for a job and the interviewer apparently asked her if she was afraid of getting dirty because she looked "clean" (as if you'd go to an interview looking messy) which struck me as pretty sexist, although chemical engineers (particularly the ones from this place) are often pretty socially awkward.
And nope, I'm still in undergrad... year 5 coming this fall... yay >_<
It's pretty fucking bad, but I have to admit I've replayed it six or seven times because the soundtrack is kinda nice.
A lot of women on the paternal side of the family went into life sciences. I've got a psychologist and a counselor on one side, both of which are female. My aunt runs a research program in Environmental Education.
Science can very well be a girl thing, but you won't help anyone's case by making ground-level research look like a space where you can strut your stuff in haute couture. Because, y'know, it's not. There is definitely nothing less sexy than an overworked researcher in work clothes, no matter the gender.
A lot of women on the paternal side of the family went into life sciences. I've got a psychologist and a counselor on one side, both of which are female. My aunt runs a research program in Environmental Education.
Science can very well be a girl thing, but you won't help anyone's case by making ground-level research look like a space where you can strut your stuff in haute couture. Because, y'know, it's not. There is definitely nothing less sexy than an overworked researcher in work clothes, no matter the gender.
I think that's giving the "subtext" a bit much credit, especially when you consider that these ads need to be targeting middle school girls (that's where a lot of this social shaping becomes cemented).mfeff said:
And if that is the general response, seeing how most YouTube ads spread by word of mouth, doesn't that speak to how fundamentally flawed the ad's premise is? (To be sure, the ad's premise is not "Girls can do science, too!" To my eye, the ad's premise is "Science can be girly, just like you!")
I think stereotypes exist as a matter of social convenience as much as they do personal convenience. And I think because of that we tend to use stereotypes as a method and context for communication... which causes us, over time, to overlook the implication that has.
Stereotypes can reach a certain scope and size at which they become self-replicating. Gender stereotypes are the oldest out there, and by far the biggest. The stereotypes shape how we speak to and about each other, and then the next generation learns it and carries it into the future... but often in an even more distilled way. Stereotype don't require direct support, they just require repetition. The stereotypes automatically get stronger with each iteration, if unchallenged.
Interesting studies have been done on the "law of group polarization." Even in the absence of new information, a group simply repeating its case to each other over and over makes them more and more fervent (even dogmatic) about that belief. It's how cults work, and the "social norm" is just the world's largest, oldest, and most successful cult...
It doesn't show science as whimsical, though. In fact, take a quick look back through it and notice how rarely you see the women and the "science stuff" in the same shot. Really, it's just the girl writing on the clear board. The rest of the time, they're just posing and laughing and looking pretty together.
Also counter-productive. We already program young girls to constantly focus their attention on beauty and sexuality. How on earth could it be helpful to teach them to tie their career choices to that the way they are already expected to treat their social choices?
And I could open a burger joint that makes the best burgers in the known universe. But if the name of the restaurant is "Poop Burger," and I slap every customer on the face as they walk in the door, can I really complain if people aren't willing to give my burgers a shot on their own merit? First impressions count for a lot.
And in fact, that's what this is all about. We're simple creatures. And the world is so full of things. So, to stay sane, we develop "stereotypes" (or recognitions of patterns based on past, subjective experience used to make future predictions) to help us trim down the amount of stimuli we're having to filter through. We rely on them, and they become instinct. Because we're already programmed to work this way, that is precisely why first impressions are so bloody important.
To attempt to counteract stereotypes (often based on limited first impressions) without a recognition of the importance and implication of that first impression... well, you see my problem, I'm sure.
I thought that might be the case. And sure, there are behavioral "programs" in us due to our nature as animals. But I submit the case of inbreeding (hear me out):axlryder said:
The reason inbreeding is destructive, from a genetic standpoint, is that it increases the likelihood that a harmful recessive mutation will "meet up with" its matching allele from the other parent and actually be expressed. Basically, we're distilling the genetic code down and risk making any flaws that much more prominent.
If we espouse social constructs that reinforce small "genetic truths," we over-inflate their importance and we amplify any flaws in those "truths." When one considers that the entire point of "society" is to counteract the most basic impulses of our largely-selfish natures, it makes even less sense to give in so completely to the so-called "nature" of femininity or masculinity.
Entirely? No. Largely, though? Yes. Again, the original idea that fueled some of these stereotypes may have been rooted in nature -- in Hunter/Gatherer society, the men hunted and the women stayed at camp. But through that "social inbreeding" I've outlined above, that idea gets more and more distilled and "purified" over time until it is super-concentrated -- Woman belong in the kitchen, and in fact shouldn't get to vote, since we Men are doing the real work!
But seeing how some cultural trends can be flipped to their exact opposite, how is that not evidence that there is a major cultural influence on them? If it were genetic, it wouldn't see a complete reversal over such a comparatively short time.
Two separate issues. First, there's the issue of identity. Something neurological is causing that "effeminate male" to identify himself as female more than as male. That's the genetic part.
Now, why does he then adopt mannerisms, speech patterns, or color preferences that may be more identified with females? Because he identifies with females, and that's what current society is telling him females do/like. The impulse is genetic, but the behaviors are socially-derived.
For instance, why would a young "effeminate male" choose to wear make-up? It's not genetic or neurological, since make-up was originally developed for men (war paint, sure, but also the more Baroque-era powered face/rosy cheek look). The only reasonable answer is because that's what he sees girls doing today.
If that were the case, pink is more closely related to meat, blood, and danger. Or maybe sex. Either way, pink was not too long ago considered a manly color, while a soft blue was more feminine. Marketing alone changed that over time, until today we see it as almost natural or self-evident.
No, but you were exposed to other kids. And those other kids were exposed to that stuff, as well as still other kids who were. All of these things, regardless of how they are introduced, are reinforced socially.
But what is programming and what isn't programming. Is motherly instinct a programmed thing? Is the male joy of destruction also programmed? What should we influence and what should we leave alone? Should we take away all children born in the world and seclude them from outside influences raising them as if they were unisex? Never acknowledging the fact that they are different, that even without any outside influences they will still have separate preferences and character quirks?Dastardly said:
Like I said once we start talking about programming and counter programming we enter a Brave New World territory. A human is then viewed as either a Tabula Rasa who is entirely dependant on the input or as a culmination of natural tendencies strengthened by cultural and educational influences.
Yes a woman will less quickly choose Deep Sea Welder as a profession, why? Because it's a horrible job with long hours, high danger and physical exhaustion from spending hours underwater working with highly volatile equipment? Is that a bad thing? Is that something we need to address? Why do they choose it less than men?
Is it because of their biology? Because of how they think? How they are raised to think? What is the driving factor here? If we make all the diving suits pink and put pony stickers on it will women come running towards the job because it is now more stereotypically attractive to them?
Like you said we need to tell them why something else is better, what if they never wanted you to do that? That is exactly what I mean with "counter programming" you are just programming them to think something you think they should think. Because it's for their own good to think that.
What if a girl really just does like pink, pretty clothes, baubles, shiny stuff and babies and all that stuff, but then an add comes around telling her how wrong it was for her to be that way and that she shouldn't like that stuff. Instead she should become a chemist. Because being a chemist is so much more awesome than becoming a florist or a botanist.
You told her it was so much better. Just like how the media tells her the other stuff is so much better.
There's the crucial problem, you are counteracting the media, by doing the exact same thing.
(Your MMO comparison is flawed though. The reason why WoW won't die is because of investments. People have invested time and considerable amounts of money into it, thus abandoning it is not a feasible option. Your comparison holds up better if you let's say want to entice a woman to study physics when she is now in her last year of Media Communication study. No matter your marketing it isn't going to happen because of investment of time and money.)
Unfortunately I do not know what the target demographic for the ad was envisioned to be. The thing was taken down so quick that the only way to view it is via mirrors... which are subject to being taken down if the channel files complaints... I would imagine.Dastardly said:
I do agree though, that the time frame you mentioned is critically important, though again as it has been my experience, even a couple days of discussion with a young woman as to what her scholastic options may be is not nearly sufficient to impact the final decision that the young girl may make. Oh and how I have tried... I am sure you have too, but there it is. Can't save em all? Lucky to even save one.
For me I found that the girls where not engaged in doing science, rather that they where discovering a science behind what they where already doing. I refer to the point where the sunglasses are shown and replaced with lab glasses at the end of the ad. It is in this sense that I interpreted the women as having of "changed" from classy-sassy to students of the science. Not necessarily that they were doing science "from the get-go". Hence the channel itself is the rest of the story. Very nearly every video discusses the challenges and unfailing curiosity required to pursue science at a high level, yet they don't forget who they are.
Maybe the video just fails to make that connection?
Looks like a segway into a discussion of cultural memes. Though with most of those discussions it is often times difficult to pin down just how strong or weak the meme is to the individual. Often they are deeply related to personal experiences, but sometimes not and are easily modified. In essence I simply posit that they are all modifiable, but may require more or less introspection on the part of the individual, so it can never really be said that if you do X you will feel Y about it. This seems supported by your exposition on replication, the more replication it took to get it there, the more counter-repetition it takes to uproot it.
The real trick is that people seem to like "feeling" about things, and are rather reluctant to let go of those feelings even if they are toxic to the self. It's all a part of the impetus for the act of repetition.
Another view and I agree. So in that I did pothole it. Good call. Although I did notice a couple points where the actresses express surprise after a quick shot of some "thing", which tended to convey to me that they where surprised to learn or discover for themselves some relationship between (lets say chemistry), and make-up. Then a cut to flirty happy fun times, "learning isn't so bad". Just my take on it though.
Unfortunately here is that many people choose career choices based on social choices or events in their respective past. Iv'e never met a psychologist that didn't have more than a passing interest in psychology for personal reasons, nor an educator. There is almost always a trigger involved somewhere.
Now yeah, it seems a little disjointed and "first world" to say, "I like makeup (tee-hee) so I went double majored in chemistry and biology to get that first rate job at Proctor and Gamble..." but there we go. That being said, I have been in the lab where they research makeup at P&G and it didn't look anything like this ad. I figured the action to be more of a student curriculum maybe even a field trip... but no info, make some up.
Well no of course not... but this video had no poop in it nor does it physically assault it's viewers. Neither does this advert...
Again, the Dr. (which I am referencing constantly) seemed preoccupied with the first impressions and the stereotypes as well. Clearly they are there, debate-ably is how they get there and how much influence they hold sway over an individual. In the Dr. case I would suppose quite a bit, so much so that she felt compelled to offer a nonsense study and posit it as a fact, without citing the reference or having of read it. It's opinion pawned off as fact to support a weak personal position that has little to do with the topic other than to shift the focus off herself.
I like what I saw, if for any reason that it did seem to push people outside of their comfort zones be it in the sciences or not. It's a great mirror in this sense.
Considering that the videos on said channel have a couple hundred hits per, with maybe a couple of em breaking the 1k mark... the ad isn't working (but they took it down so one has to do the work to find the actual channel). Now they are getting hammered with nonsense emails and post full of folks opinions. Which was probably not on the menu either. Hey, there we go though...
All in all it appears to be a misstep as it is out of sync with the channel itself. It's odd they chose to go with it as it was... but it's adventures in advertising I suppose. Someone somewhere thought it was a good idea and went with it. As it was said in a world where one trips over Kardashean rubbish, how is one to compete for that attention (which is the commodity in question)?
Like a lot of junk today, it's slick, it's modern, it's artifice, but it is devoid of any substance, which puts in on par with the very things I would imagine it is trying to compete against.
Iv'e done a lot of referencing of the Dr. of Astronomy/Cosmology that I embedded, so I will embed another Dr. of Astrophysics from the channel... really what I want to look at is the tone difference between the two women, both Dr., both of whom are in the scientific field of cosmological research.
It's pretty significant... if I do say so myself.
Boiled down to the crucial point, for sake of brevity.1337mokro said:
I'm not saying anyone should tell girls that liking the stuff is wrong. I'm saying we need to be aware that tons and tons and tons of people are constantly telling her that not liking it is somehow wrong. Not in the "go to jail" sort of wrong, but in the "people will think you're weird" sort. (And to a lot of kids, that might as well be jail! We, as people, naturally want to be accepted by the people with whom we identify.)
It's not about programming girls not to like pink, or programming them to like science. It's about trying to remove the programming that, unintentionally, tells them to like pink and not like science.
What you're talking about is the danger of over-correcting the problem, but that's always a danger anywhere. If I'm in a car that's veering wildly to the left, the answer isn't to veer wildly to the right... but that doesn't mean I should completely ignore the steering wheel because it's the same wheel that got me into this mess. I need to take hold of that wheel and use it in a responsible, balanced way.
Just because the method of undoing the problem seems superficially similar doesn't mean it is bad or won't work. If someone is holding up a bank using a gun, we get them to stop by pointing a gun at them, too. If someone's body is ripped open by a bullet, sometimes we have to rip it open a little further to get the bullet out. What matters is why we're doing it, because that will already put a major check on how.
What I'm getting at here: We don't have a system in which a little girl starts from a neutral position and then chooses to head toward fashion or science as a primary interest. We start with a system that directs very, very young girls toward fashion... and then we present them with the choice, knowing full well which they'll choose... and then we use that as a defense by saying, "See? They keep choosing it, so who are we to challenge their preferences?"
(See also: self-fulfilling prophecy)
No, my MMO comparison stands, and your point upholds it. My point is that these companies can't "beat WoW at its own game," because WoW has had all this time to refine their game. You present me a game that gives me everything WoW gives me, and I'll tell you, "So? I'm already playing that game, and I've already got tons of time invested in it."
If you want someone to switch, the other option needs to be more enticing... but also enticing in a very different way that highlights why it is simultaneously 1) a good idea to move and 2) a less good idea to stay.
The only thing I find stupid about this ad is that the kind of female they want to attract to science wouldn't be much help. Vapid girls are attracted to the glamor they are falsely injecting into science through this ad. They most likely would get bored in a lab and start causing disruptions for the hell of it. Smart girls, on the other hand, probably already are in science, and don't care about the glamor of it.
agreed, it is in fact so self defeating that it would probably put it's target audience to sleepMike Kayatta said:
or make them remember they have an ebay bid to go place for more lipstick while internally thinking, yah! dumb guys we could science if we want to
at this point i don't know if it's just a creativity issue, it may just be a lack of choices in society to change your mind, especially when piers get in your way and it might take allot of personal strength to break free of the social programming holding you in place in life
so, i think people driven to do science do it and people driven to play barbie do it males and females alike
( there are plenty of male bodybuilders and swimwear models, even male belly-dancers nobody ever seems to think about that when considering gender roles and options you are almost never the only one doing whatever it is you want to do )
a completely new approach would be needed for any serious results
but i admit it might be beyond me to point it out
perhaps something involving a strong female scientist archetypes in children's tv or schools?
( and abandoning the idea that all scientists are evil geniuses hell bent on destroying the world and scantily clad heroes are all that can save it, of course )
or strong female role-models of any kind, i don't remember any growing up myself
there is of course the possibility that some people are simply too superficial to care
and/or the designers of the ad may simply want a girl scout badge for effort and might not be trying to change the world
oh well
This reminds me of that racist Boost Mobile commercial:
Racist Boost Mobile Commercial [ "http://youtu.be/-m-86Q6KF8k]
I'm not sure who would think that denigrating a race/sex will help them long term.
Racist Boost Mobile Commercial [ "http://youtu.be/-m-86Q6KF8k]
I'm not sure who would think that denigrating a race/sex will help them long term.
I'm not going to turn this into a whole big conversation, I'd rather do some more reading on the topic. What you've said is interesting, for sure. Perhaps the entire truth of the matter. But I forgot to mention that we lived in an Amish town (we weren't Amish though). We didn't play with the other kids, so it was pretty much just me, my sister and my brother. We were home schooled. That was it. We saw our cousins about once a year. Literally, we were some of the most sheltered kids I've known, that's why I drew this conclusion. Anyway, pleasure talking to you.Dastardly said: