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

[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 >.>).

 

[mad825]

I suppose it's like trying to get Running With Scissors advertising postal babes for the military.

 

[Quaxar]

Lifeguards: It's for girls
<youtube=9lAQQWpFN8I>

See? I can do EU ads too. How about some appreciation. Women In Research And Innovation initiative?

 

[mfeff]

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.

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?

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...

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.

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 is in this respect that I must insist that no couple minute video makes one a "scientist" or accomplished in the language and arts of the sciences. The channel is not particularly about science, but rather focuses on the personal perspectives of those women who are or are seeking degrees in the science fields. The ad supports the channel in that context. It's an opinion piece, for an opinion based site, transparently so.

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

I failed it initially due to this, I simply could not discern who, what, when, where, why the thing existed at all... I filed it under "artistic" and "unfathomably" due to laziness.

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.

The add divorced from it's channel (which it clearly is, as they have taken it down on their own site), is in context (from my perspective) to the videos on the channel. I cannot say one way or the other that as an advertisement without context, that it is selling "anything", other than the subversion of stereotypes... I found that to be the point. To pique interest, clearly the ad is professionally done, had some talent and money behind it... I guessed it was directed by a woman, it was. I checked out the channel, it's good. I think it worked, for "what it was".

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

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!

 

[jawakiller]

Haha, I laughed. I think the idea the creators are trying to present is that no matter how women act, men will always assume they want something inconsequential, like makeup. Oh, and women think a tube lipstick is synonymous with an "I".

Hence my initial reaction.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

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.

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.

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.)

 

[Baresark]

LoL, I don't know why people are so upset about this. People are so sensitive these days. And by people I mean a handful of pundits who's only job is to find things they object to. I'm not insulted at all as a man who loves science.

Here is the kicker... none of those women in that video are doing anything scientific.... so the video doesn't go far to match the slogan. It just shows women being attractive and the only shot in there that involves a person using a piece of scientific equipment is the guy behind the microscope... video is fail.

 

[s0p0g]

well, the ad wasn't a complete fail(ure) as it made me laugh about how... how... URGH it is

maybe it's time for something of an equivalent for us men, sorry, boys:
an ad for makeup; three well-trained men i mean boys enter a perfume shop, where the (stereo)typical saleswoman looks up from her glam-magazine; the men i mean boys then start a work-out at the shop, we see lots of slo-mo closups of dumbbels and the like
at then end: make-up - "it's a boy thing" and the U of make-up is a bent iron-bar or something. because men i mean boys like bent iron-bars.

aaah... always nice to see tax payer's money at work. i wonder how many bazillion ? that ad cost.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

But if this isn't from your parents, what do you feel are the origins of these preferences?

Do we believe that somehow girls are genetically predisposed to liking pink, or playing with Polly Pocket, or hating action figures (but loving fashion figures)? I'd hope not. Those items didn't exist during our evolution as a species. And not 100 years ago, pink was a man's color. And makeup and high heels were originally for men, 2-3 centuries back.

These preferences are socially constructed. How? I mean, your parents weren't telling her to like this stuff, as you've told us. I believe you, too. But you know who was?

Commericals.

What color is everything in the Polly Pocket universe? Pink. Who do we see in the commercials? Happy, laughing little girls. What gender is Polly? A girl.

How about Lego commercials? Blues. Lasers. Boys playing and having fun alongside other boys. Most of the Lego figurines? Male -- except for the few painted to "look female" by adding lipstick and "boobs."

We might not consciously pick up on this, but kids? They identify with same-gendered creatures, and are programmed to want to fit in with them. That means those commercials will quickly "program" a girl to want to fit in with those other girls... by enjoying Polly Pocket, and all the activities that Polly encourages. (Usually cooking, shopping, and nurturing)

If Lego were to create commercials about building robots, and show happy little girls playing with them, would it change much? No, probably not. That's just one company against a sea of social programming. But if everyone did it just once, you'd see a big shift in who is buying Legos.

ASIDE:

But here's why it would fail:

1. The company wouldn't make it robots. It would be pink horses the girls were building. Selling the same crap under a different label.

2. The company wouldn't do it at all, really, because "Girls don't like these things"... when the reason girls don't like them is because we don't sell it to them. Circular logic defending the status quo.

3. The company wouldn't want to alienate its "core audience" of young boys. Each ad they set aside for girls means one less for boys, and they just can't take that kind of financial risk.

 

[1337mokro]

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.)

All of them want to become doctors. It's kind of hard to study medicine and wanting to become a nurse, that's why you go and do the nursing education. I think you misinterpreted something here. Out of the 314 people in my year all studying to become doctors. 249 are women. In other words the grand majority.

It is of course true that culture and parenting plays a big role, which is why I said given equal opportunity and education. Parenting is part of education. An add is not going to change years of mental conditioning to become a neo-nazi. So it's sort of the question on should government spend tax payer money to lure women into science oriented professions when it will most likely result into the above add plus won't have much effect on those that actually need convincing.

Though, let's focus on other male dominated profession then shall we. How many women want to become Garbage men? I don't see adds running "Garbage Collecting. It's a girl thing". I don't see adds running for Road Kill Squad or Exterminator. I don't see many adds encouraging women to do more physical labour either. Ever seen an add for female lumberjacks? Or hide tanners? Fieldworkers, Construction, the list goes on.

The point is that no one Wants to do those jobs or those jobs require hard physical labour. Should we then counter program people out of thinking badly about those jobs or to program them into liking hard physical labour?

If you substitute one programming with another what's the point? Gender equality? What's the benefit of manipulating women into choosing professions? What do you achieve besides having more women doing that profession? What's the ultimate motive?

What about hairdressers? How many males are hairdressers or make-up artists? In fact how about we run adds to encourage men to become nurses! That's a good idea! That way we have more men doing those jobs and by having more men do those jobs we will achieve..... something?

How about old people! How many of those are actually working. Let's run adds saying "Science, it's a Geriatric thing!". I would love seeing a 99 year old woman perform cataract surgery. With her shaking hands edging ever closely to the patients eyes.

This entire thing just seems like a bad joke (of which I have made several). "Step 1: Run add, Step 2: Get more female applications, Step 3: ?, Step 4: Profit!"

Are we moving towards a Brave New World where mental programming determines which profession we will be in the future?

The only benefit I see is that this way companies and education boards don't get sued for not hiring enough women, something that is only happening because the law forces you to hire a set percentage of women.

(Notabene: I am in favour of equality on the work floor and the job opportunities given to everyone. I, however, am NOT in favour of propaganda works luring people into professions or forcing companies to hire people simply to meet quotas. That is the exact opposite of equality.

There are problems in the work place with paychecks, discrimination, sexism, etc. Those will not disappear just by hiring more women. You don't solve racism in between employees by hiring 50 Asians. You solve it by firing those that are the source and making legislation that punishes such activities.

Making adds that lure people into a profession based on gender or race or legislation that forces you to hire X amount of Z doesn't solve anything. All it does is make sure you were not hired for your skill but because of which set of reproductive organs you have.)

 

[Mikeyfell]

Huh?
Who's the target audience for this exactly?

And I'm not even talking about the "It's a girl thing" part.
Who would be enticed it to a carer in science by a commercial?
Getting a science degree doesn't seem like something you do on a whim.

I could follow if it was an ad for a specific university saying "Hey if you don't want to be the only girl in your science class come over here!"
But this is just sad.