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

[mfeff]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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!")

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Dastardly]

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.

Boiled down to the crucial point, for sake of brevity.

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)

(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.)

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.

 

[LadyDeadly]

Science is plenty interesting without giving it a pink paint job and a pair of pumps.

 

[Signa]

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.

 

[Tomwyr]

Women who are into science don't look like the ones in the video but like Amy Farrah Fowler, Ph.D.

 

[Scrustle]

Yeah that ad was stupid. The message seemed to be "science is sexy too! Just like the fashion industry!"

 

[The Lugz]

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

agreed, it is in fact so self defeating that it would probably put it's target audience to sleep
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

 

[Link Kadeshi]

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.

 

[axlryder]

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 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):

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.

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.

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.

Take a look at your typical effeminate male. These men 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", but I think it might be rooted more deeply than that, something on a base neurological level.

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.

Colors have emotional properties to them that aren't necessarily culturally ingrained, after all.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[LordFish]

My last company had a science lab, where they invented stuff, and like, smoke and funny smells, it was as awesome as it sounds!

Anyway, Yeh, we had 4 girls and 2 guys working there, so... Go them! (one of them was very pwetty)

 

[bloodydom666]

what was that?
wtf
dam!!!!! adds

 

[chadachada123]

First off: Why the hell does it matter that girls in general aren't as interested in science as boys? As long as girls that ARE interested and able to pursue science are not held back from it socially or legally, then there's no issue if girls just aren't into it as much.

Secondly: This ad is ridiculous and sexist as hell.

 

[deathninja]

And here I was thinking the £0 vs. £27,000 tuition fee was the incentive...

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

If this director had made a sports "themed" ad, trust me, that "I" would have been a baseball bat.

Well, that's kind of the problem. Baseball bats are completely contained within a sport, so you can use one as a synecdoche quite safely. Doing the same for makeup and women has Unfortunate Implications. A better analogy would be if they made a commercial aimed exclusively at men and used a blood-soaked sword (dripping blood too, of course) for the 'i' - because all men clearly enjoy violence and blood and stabby things.

Yeah, and that blood-soaked or weapon-shaped lettering happens all of the time (and is just as uninspired). I simply refuse to give the filmmaker of this spot enough credit to earnestly believe that he or she was trying to make "a statement". This is much more of a "you want us to make a video about girls and science? Okay, well girls sometimes wear makeup, and scientists sometimes write equations. Let's make an ad with makeup and equations!"

The problem is that when you deal with dull marketing producers, everything that comes out of them will be directly associative. This video was the composition of five people Family-Feuding what things people commonly associate with women. Whether or not makeup should be a go-to item for the thought of women is a different matter.

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

If they were making an add encouraging men to do science. The ad would have been about doing science and the I would have been a test tube.

Crazy! I know right?

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I watch Mythbusters frequently and I can tell you science it is NOT a "girl's thing".

It's a special effects thing. With equations. And logistics. And duct tape. And sulfur hexaflouride. And sometimes explosions. BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG explosions. That vaporize cement trucks.

Sometimes girls are involved, and that's always a good thing. Equality - I'm all in favor of that.

Ad is stupid...but, really...what do you expect nowadays? Give it the notoriety it deserves and move on!

Now, I'm going to be distracted by Moonlight Butterfly's avatar for awhile. It does science.

Captcha: smell that. Smells like......science!

 

[Eric Morales]

The road to Hades is paved with good intentions...

 

[ResonanceSD]

So, this may just me, but when I see this ad, I see a team of B-minus marketers trying to make science sexy, not women. Yes, the women enter with what's a "sexy stride," but when the lights come on, we're greeted with three conservatively-dressed women who begin performing experiments, not seduction. We don't see them cheekily butt-bump the guy out of his seat, and we don't see the man react with a "oh ma gosh, that there's women doing science things!" expression. If this video is guilty of anything, it's that sort of cheese-ball 90s marketing where any relevant topic must somehow directly come through in the copy, such as the lipstick as the "I". If this director had made a sports "themed" ad, trust me, that "I" would have been a baseball bat.

I work in marketing, this is the worst ad I've seen. This week. However it's only Monday, so that might well change. It draws attention to the women being hot, rather than the fact that science is interesting, and completely detracts from the fact that science is a professional career.

You show me a scientist who actually dresses like that at the office and I'll show you a cosplayer who decided to go for "sexy GLADoS" instead.

 

[Clearing the Eye]

Anyone else sick of hearing about women lately?

 

[michael87cn]

*watches the commercial*

*snorts into his drink at "Science! It's a girl thing!"*

*sits back and thinks of witty things to type*

That poor guy! They portrayed him so stereotypically

He looked like Bill Nye the Science Guy!

Science! It's a learning thing!

Hehe.

Why did I type in this format?

Oh well.

 

[Conn1496]

Seems like a good idea on paper, but so does "triple backflip on a pedal tricycle off a cliff through a ring of fire.".