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

[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.

 

[Sight Unseen]

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.

In fact the male female ratio is so disproportionally geared towards females that I am the only male in a group of 12 who are currently doing an internship at a local company. We need a Science it's a guy thing add. With the I being a penis!



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 don't know where your stats are coming from, but that's not really the case from any of the classes I've been in. I'm in biochemistry and chemical engineering and the classes seem to be a majority guys (especially the engineering classes.) And while there are still a fair number of women in my classes, it's still probably 60:40 men and maybe even 70:30 in my engineering classes.

The social sciences are a different story... I enrolled in a social psych class and I swear 90% of the class were girls.

 

[Dastardly]

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?

I think so, yes. In the US at least, the last generation of parents raised their kids to look down on "blue collar" work... and now that so many "white collar" graduates are unable to find jobs in their field, those same parents wonder why their kid won't take those blue collar jobs. We need to remind people that it's those jobs that make the other jobs possible -- see how well a hospital can run without orderlies or janitors or repairmen. But this is another issue.

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?

I agree that it accomplishes nothing to "manipulate women into choosing a profession." Especially when we're using the existing stereotype to do the manipulation. It's trading one problem for another of equal weight.

But there is a point to some kind of campaign that encourages women to consider science. The issue isn't that we're "programming" them to choose it. It's that we've already programmed them not to. Not intentionally, I don't believe, but we have.

So we need to make a conscious, affirmative effort to undo some of that programming. We don't do it by drawing numbers, but by drawing interest. (And no, people in power, they are not the same.)

To me, the first step is to help young girls ask, "Why isn't anyone encouraging me to be a doctor or physicist or something? Why is everything pink and makeup and clothes and babies? Why does the media treat me like I'm not capable of these things, and why have I been believing them?"

To get someone to move, you can't just make the destination more enticing. You have to show them why it's better than where they are... and you don't do that by making the destination look like where they are. (Another aside, this is why MMOs that try to "kill WoW" can never pull it off.)

 

[Elate]

So, this may just me, but when I see this ad, I see a team of B-minus marketers trying to make science sexy

I don't understand. How can you make science more sexy?

OT: Yeah this is pretty hilarious, it's like the people that make those "games for girls", like Barbie Super Pony Adventure or something, got assigned to make such an ad, and this was the result.

 

[NightHawk21]

Its funny, cause as a university student studying biology there is at least a 1:1 ratio of women to men (with the reality probably being closer to 1.5-2:1), but the ratio varies as you specialize in different areas in biology (My ecology class for instance had a lot more girls in comparison to guys), but I don't think I've had a bio class where the average was lower than 1:1.

As for the ad. Its dumb. I'm not offended (I've long stopped being offended by almost anything, especially by people's stupidity), but it looks like the guy "scientist" is doing work and someone let in some stupid super models who are just making a gigantic mess. On top of if the OP explanation (and to a lesser extent the final message scene) wasn't there I would've though this was some sort of fashion line that was trying to go for a smart academic vibe, since half of the footage like like standard fashion stock footage.

 

[RustlessPotato]

It's not even offensive. It's just dumb.

" I know what we can do, Let's make an Add that's almost as random as Perfume Adds, but we'll add sciency stuff like "Hydrogen" and a "Board" ! "

" I think there's something missing."

" We'll put 3 hot chicks in it ! "

" GENIUS !"

I'm not even sure who and what the add is for.

 

[lacktheknack]

And here I was, thinking that science-girls looked normal, like Marie Curie.

<img width=250>http://anjouclothing.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/marie-curie.jpg

Thanks for fixing my faulty ideas, ad!

 

[Brutal Peanut]

Oh-my-gawd. Lipstick and models! MUST BE FOR ME! But that scenario must be 100% accurate. If it isn't, just forget it. I'll just go right back to drinking cocktails, non-stop shopping for expensive shit, and getting botox during the day. Ah, female activities, how you soothe me.

 

[Dastardly]

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 >.>).

Fantastic article in your link, there. As a teacher in those age groups, I can see that kind of thing happening. And if we're not careful, we can reinforce the problems because we're not paying attention to how it's received... and often the students don't realize they're seeing it that way, either!

To me, this points out an even bigger issue, though -- as the article states, many girls see the issue as having to choose between "being feminine (in the media-touted sense)" or "being successful in STEM fields." And if that's how they are framing it, there's not much we can do about that... however, we can recognize that the bigger problem is that many of the girls view the former as preferable to the latter.

They see more value in being socially successful than being professionally or personally successful (or they firmly believe socially successful is personally successful). And that's because we have to create special advertisements to showcase successful "Science Women," but they can't turn on the TV or radio without tripping over a goddamned Kardashian.

The bigger problem is in the media we expose them to that creates and reinforces the current social stereotypes. And how we expose them to it from an extremely early age.

 

[shadyh8er]

Marie Curie is rolling in her grave.