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

[Esotera]

As a guy, if laboratories were actually as fun as the one portrayed in that video, I'd already be searching for places to do a PhD. The video wasn't particularly good but it wasn't as bad as I thought it'd be.

 

[Kargathia]

On the plus side, this ad made me slightly more interested in makeup. It's a great advertisement for lipstick and shoes.

I have to wonder who thought this was OK? Like, a team made this ad. It terrifies me that a number of people sat down, read whatever concept information was available, and thought "Yup, this is a good way to go about making science appealing for women. Lipstick and strutting all around!"

Also: Check the comments, there's a pretty hilarious Eugenics argument goin' on.

Marketing logic: everything can be improved with enough sex appeal thrown in.

Really, to anyone even mildly involved with PR departments it comes as no surprise that they habitually have their head up their arses, and are by now convinced the world looks suspiciously much like their small intestines.

 

[1337mokro]

You can't, you can't know that because as you say women never started in a neutral position. So the neutral position is unknown. Instead of having the media tell women to be what the current culture perceive as feminine you are telling them not to be that kind of feminine, but instead to be your kind of feminine. I honestly have never in my life heard a woman who didn't want to do a science course give the reason "Because I am a woman and women belong in the kitchen or because the reactor isn't painted pink".

How about we first focus on perception of those professions and courses rather than start counter brainwashing people until we hit the tipping point where you are brainwashing them into doing things the way you perceive as being right.

This is exactly the problem. You're framing it perfectly for me, but you're inside it, so you can't see what I'm saying (apparently).

The "perception of those professions" is shaped very differently for men and women based on how society treats them from a very young age. The perception is crafted by exactly the "brainwashing" we're talking about, so you can't treat them like separate issues.

There is nothing about the sciences that turns away girls on a genetic or biological level, so that leaves the problem on a social level. And yeah, "personal preference" is largely shaped by social influences, so saying it's just that "some girls don't like science" is a non-answer.

This isn't about telling women to be one kind of feminine versus another kind. It's about acknowledging that the very idea of "women acting feminine" is almost entirely defined by a male-dominated cultural model that persists behind the scenes even today. It is a term that has no meaning, except that which we give it.

Women are, barring abnormalities, programmed genetically to identify with females of their species. And there are a select few behaviors to which women are instinctually programmed to gravitate -- the so-called "nurturing instinct" perhaps among them. But outside that, the specific behaviors we term masculine/feminine are based on the social status-quo.

The social programming that directs women away from science does so gently. It's not going to be as obvious as, "Ew! Science doesn't have pink things, gross!" Instead, it's going to work like any other social programming -- it's going to feel natural, because it's what she's used to. Society has told her girls like shopping, makeup, clothes, and mothering.

What you're calling "counter-brainwashing" is ridiculous. I'm talking about making a conscious effort to stop the current brainwashing. And it will require a conscious, positive effort to do it, because the brainwashing process is such an ingrained part of our culture. Things that we do without evening thinking (like associating pink with girls, which wasn't even a "thing" until the 1940's), we have to stop and think about them, because they have unintended consequences.

You want to make this some kind of "brainwashing in reverse" thing, when it's not. Our goal shouldn't be to "trick girls into liking science." Our goal should be making sure we're not accidentally tricking them into not liking it. That requires that we understand the mechanism that got us into this mess, and it requires that we behave in a way that is more conscious of it. And, to get the ball rolling, it means it can't hurt to work the other way just a little.

There are hallways that, while maybe we haven't closed them off to women, we've made them appear uninviting. We could simply open up the hallways and trust that maybe at some point they'll realize they're open now, but that's too passive to work in our cultural climate. But we also don't want to try to lure them down those hallways (that's the reverse brainwashing stuff). What we need to do is open up those hallways and then make sure girls know they're open, inviting, and worthwhile, whereas before they were made to seem otherwise.

Apparently your deeper into it than I am because you can't see the IMMENSE switch you made between your previous posts. You literally went from "We have to show them Science is a better choice" to "We have to make sure they aren't scared away from science by current media influence". You wanted to counter current media influences by making science more appealing and current day norms less appealing with the exact same methods as used by the media today. Now it's almost done a complete 180 (I'd say it's more of a 147) and you have gone to stopping the influence, rather than counteracting it with your own influence.

That is a DRASTIC leap. However once again. How will you do this? What is your plan for doing this? Adds saying science is cool and awesome? Adds saying that just because your a woman doesn't mean your not good at science? I think the grades in high school will reflect that well enough.

Show me a plan that will achieve the counteracting of current social standards set for women without misguiding them into a choice they never wanted nor by actively punishing those that feel perfectly fine being who they are and counteract this new social standard.

I wish I could write more, but gots to work in the morning for the bossman, so I kept it brief.

 

[grigjd3]

Think they might have done better by simply showing real women in science? Maybe it's just me, but I find having good examples people finding success in what they do makes the prospect seem much more approachable. Of course, what do I know about careers in science? I've just got a meager PhD in Physics.

 

[rbstewart7263]

hilarious!

 

[Dastardly]

... Now it's almost done a complete 180 (I'd say it's more of a 147) and you have gone to stopping the influence, rather than counteracting it with your own influence.

That is a DRASTIC leap.

Sorry, but no. If that's how you've been reading and framing my position on the matter, it's fine for you to make a late adjustment, but let's not put that on me.

However once again. How will you do this? What is your plan for doing this? Adds saying science is cool and awesome? Adds saying that just because your a woman doesn't mean your not good at science? I think the grades in high school will reflect that well enough.

Show me a plan that will achieve the counteracting of current social standards set for women without misguiding them into a choice they never wanted nor by actively punishing those that feel perfectly fine being who they are and counteract this new social standard.

1. It's less about "advertising science," and more about making sure that our presentation of science isn't as male-centric. Why do most science-oriented toys have boys on the box? Why are most science-fiction shows about male protagonists (or unbelievably hot females obviously intended to draw male viewers)? That's where this stuff takes root.

People don't get into science because of science class. They get into it because of other things, perhaps only tangentially related to science, that pique their curiosity or interest. Shows and toys featuring spaceships and lasers make boys curious about spaceships and lasers, rather than this working the other way around (ie, We sell this to boys because it's "what boys like").

2. Advertising doesn't have to be directly manipulative. Most of what they do is raise awareness of a product. I don't watch a Kia commercial and decide I need another car. But the commercials make me aware of it, and the price information makes it clear that they're in my price range, so when I am making car decisions, I'll think about Kia as an option.

Now, why do Kia commercials get that reaction from me, but Lexus commercials don't? Because it's clear from the commercials that Lexus is waaaay outside my price range. And big ol' truck commercials don't register for me because they are directed toward folks with different needs and interests (For instance, why always a deep-voiced Southern gentleman narrating?)

The idea is that commercials make me aware of products by putting them in my context... or outside of it, thus letting me know it's "Not for me." But those commercials aren't making my choice for me.

We can apply this to science. Make girls and boys aware of science, but in ways that don't appeal more to one gender than the other. Become aware of the bias in the current vision of science in the minds of young people, as expressed through TV, cartoons, movies, toys, and eventually school.

Now, at first, our efforts are going to need to center on actively breaking the stereotype. We need to make people aware of this stereotype, so they see that the current wall is not naturally occurring. By that, some people who were held back by that wall will no longer be (and those who didn't care at all will continue not caring). We're not "luring" people, we're sending up a signal and letting them know it's there, and it might just be for them if they give it another look.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Im going to assume the marketing department that came up with the idea didn't have women on the staff.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!

I'll give them points for good intentions but take them away for poor execution. It looks more like a perfume ad than one encouraging females into science fields. I was expecting the end to go 'Hydrogen for women. The science of attraction from Davidoff.' The funniest thing about this is that the EU is probably one of the most bureaucratic organisation on the planet. I can only wonder is how many committees this ad went through and not one person though it might be a bad idea.

I not up to speed on the percentages of male and females working in varying scientific fields but from what I can gather its pretty even, with women sometimes outnumbering men. I never got the worry that certain genders are under represented in certain industries (I've worked in construction and studied surveying at university both largely male dominated but did have small amounts of females), certain areas of work appeal to either gender differently. As long as gender doesn't bar someone from pursuing a career then I see no problem with certain career paths having a higher percentage of a particular gender. What is more important is having people work in a field that they want to work in and are passionate about.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

This ad is the kind of unintentional hilarity. But if you REALLY want to get the most out of it, try imagining it as not aimed at stereotypical straight women, but instead stereotypical gay men...

 

[I.Muir]

Here I was thinking that women already were well situated into scientific fields without the aid of lipstick of all things. Just maybe not getting credit for their discoveries like the shape of the DNA double helix I think it was through x ray chromatography or something.

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/
Epilepsy warning

 

[mfeff]

-snip

these videos are a bit better than the one posted in the original post.

the video in the OP has the problem that the context of it can easily be misinterpreted.
it clearly tries to say that science and research in general is not a entirely man dominated domain and girls can have fun in it too.

but as it is now it seems to say: 'hey look! you can be a scientist too.
as a scientist you can dress like you like and dont have to compromise your feminity.
and as a scientist you can find new components for make up so you can look more fancy (for boys). isnt this great!'

they should had clearly left the lipstick (and all the makeup in general) and CSI like bullshit 'researching'(that is too much choreographed) out of the video. and it would had helped to depict the female scientist in work clothing (lab coats) rather than in dresses with high heels giving the male scientist the diva show.

Hey glad you found something to like in the channel of the people that produced the ad. As an aside I find it important to provide context when engaging in any discussion, especially a topic like this which has many people radically internalizing the images and knee jerking responses.

It's a short ad. I see some girls on a field trip. They piddle with science stuff. They find some interesting facts out that relate to their fashion. They exchange the gucci glasses for safety goggles. They are clearly not "scientist", nor does the ad infer that they are. At best they are neophyte students making a decision that may effect the rest of their lives.

The ad appears to be targeted at around 12-16 year old females.

The channel is consistent in it's themes...

Balance, tenacity, curiosity, self identity (determined by the one self), pursuit of your passions, positivism... each one of the stories presented on the channel are not particularly scripted personal accounts of women who engage in science academically/research, commercially, or who are simply getting started in a field. They are all opinions, and transparently so...

As someone involved in science, I dress as I like and do not compromise myself for others as a matter of professionalism. That said I "personally" don't care if your black, white, purple, male, female, other... or a xenomorph from LV-426 as long as you can do the work.

Interestingly and as I pointed out in other post, there where female scientist that did respond to the commercial itself (without doing any further investigation) clearly offering their opinion with a decided intellectual dishonesty I would expect from anyone that would wish to state that a:

"scientist is this... (insert expository mold - self identifying persona that I identify with)... and that this video is contrary to my own internalized stereotype".

That is a little sad on a couple counts...

For one... science and primarily mathematics are languages used to describe phenomena in such a way that the results may be verified by independent investigation.

Science by this simple definition is a tool. It's use a discipline. Nothing more and nothing less.

These are impartial disciplines open to anyone willing to put in the time to learn them and as such I found it reprehensible that so many people (talking over 100,000) had so much negative garbage to spew concerning these people, their mission, and their work without even BOTHERING to visit or look at ANY of their other content or seek context.

To put this into perspective the official channel "Science it's a girl thing" has a combined total video hit count that at this time, maybe get's close to 7,000 hits, with under 100 subscribers.

The video ad is mirrored by someone with a new account, and has over 130,000 hits; demonstrating a bandwagon effect that is simply absurd.

Everyone, including the escapist is turning a profit from it except the people who put in the work to actually make it. They took it down very quickly when the response was bad, apparently in good faith... only to have it pop up again and beaten up.

It's a fucking joke. (My opinion)

That said, my message... Welcome to the internet "Science, It's a girl thing".

Lesson: very few people give a shit about diversification, and prefer to have their uniformed stereotypes reinforced by both the lay and scientific/pseudo scientific community. Next time keep your ad up on your own page so you can at least drive hits to your content.

It's funny because it is in their response that I know women run "Science, It's a girl thing". The only thing more entertaining than a cat fat, is watching an educated cat fat.

 

[Odbarc]

How to get women in science?
...

...

...
Well, most women I know are cashiers or other kinds of minimum wage customer service types.
Most of the men I know are too, rather. But sometimes they're also managers.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Actually I think this ad is more sexist than plenty of crap I've seen in reality and media in, say, the last five years or so.

Besides, it's wrong on so many levels I'm still pretty much WTF squared. For something to go this wrong, it takes more than one douche and a coked up creative team.

 

[weirdee]

i just have to ask

how are these people getting paying jobs

 

[CaptainMarvelous]

Science is for women? This is news?

Marie Curie would like a f*cking word advertising execs

 

[TimeLord]

Wow. My taxes paid for this crap.

 

[Callum Foy]

I don't see why this is controversial, it's just hilarious.

 

[the abyss gazes also]

These are the sort of things that make me hate people. I mean, this isn't just one persons bad decision. Someone had to think this up. Then someone, possibly the same person, had to write the script. Someone had to okay the project. Someone had to fund it. So on and so on. And at no point in the process did someone say, "Hey, guys. This seems kind of stupid and shallow."

Eeesh.

 

[Something Amyss]

Want girls to get into Science?

Stop pushing Barbie down their throats when they are young and give them some Lego's or a Chemestry set.

Not actively discourage women as kids?

MADNESS!

 

[mental_looney]

Yeah as the first thing women think about when it comes to science is make up, which yes is all chemicals and sciency fun but really... facepalm