Red Hot Optics
Sean at 12:31 pm, February 21st, 2007Would you be shocked to hear that the readership of general-circulation science magazines is overwhelmingly white, male, and middle-aged? Probably not. Of course, you might comfort yourself with the thought that lack of interest in such magazines is programmed into the DNA of women, young people, and non-Caucasians, despite evidence that the relevant genetic information is apparently evolving awfully rapidly.
Would it surprise you to learn that overtly sexualized images of women cause tangible harm to adolescents and young women? Maybe it would. Not that there’s anything wrong with sexy images of people of any gender in appropriate contexts, but in the actual context in which children grow up in our culture, the way in which these images appear enacts a vastly disproportionate toll on young girls.
Are you at all taken aback by the cover of the latest catalogue for Edmund Optics, purveyor of scientific optical equipment?
The same image appeared in ads in Physics Today. Which, by the way, is not a biker magazine.
This sales pitch has caused a bit of consternation, including a lot of conversation on the AASWomen mailing list. But it’s not just those uppity wymyn who are upset. Geoffrey Marcy of Berkeley has written to the company to complain:
Dear Mr. Radojkovic and Mr. Delfino and Mr. Dover,
As representatives of Edmund Optics, I hope you will pass the following message to the appropriate management at Edmund Optics.
I just saw the images from the Edmund Optics catalog that show a woman in a tight red skirt lounging next to some optical devices, some with the caption, “Red Hot”. I hope Robert Edmund and the board of directors of Edmund can be alerted to this problem.
As a scientist and professor at UC Berkeley I am embarrassed on behalf of the many female science students coming along. I wonder what message such images of sex objects in your ads send to bright young scientists
of both genders.Moreover, after decades of overt discrimination against women in the physical sciences, including precluding their admission to the best universities and the denial of access to the world’s best telescopes, your ad represents a setback. It reminds us of a dark era of clear discrimination against women, a time that I’m sure Edmund Optics hopes is long gone. If so, you have made a very serious error that insults the scientific community.
As you can imagine, your ad has already generated extraordinary discussion in the scientific community, analogous to the discussion over the comments by Harvard’s president who implied that women might not have what it takes to be great scientists. In short, your company has left open the question of your equal and unbiased treatment of women in your company and in your contracts.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Marcy
Professor of Astronomy, UC Berkeley
Elected Member, United States National Academy of Sciences
To which Bill Dover at Edmund replied, in a classic example of “not getting it”:
Hi Geoff,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the EO catalog and our recent cover. No need to be embarrassed for the many female science students coming along. Rather, encourage them to celebrate that another smart, young, and attractive female has joined the ranks of women in a technical field, which breaks the pattern of discrimination you describe. You see, the woman featured on the cover is a six-year employee of Edmund and our Trade Show Manager and Spokesperson. Over the years we’ve received numerous positive comments and she has proven herself to possess the needed technical and social ability to successfully coordinate our tradeshows that showcase our products.
The recent cover photo emphasized a new product launch by Edmund. Our Trade Show Manager coordinated the showcase of these products at Photonics West last month. Had you happened by our booth for a visit, you would have had the opportunity to meet and speak with her about our Kinematic mounts as well as receive additional technical information from two other smart, young, and attractive, female optical engineers present at the time. So that you know, this line of Kinematic Optical Mounts, Table Platforms, and Mechanical Accessories are technically situated to become the standard for optical positioning equipment in the marketplace. We are excited about the quality, features, and price of these products and know that they will be very difficult to compete with and we chose our Trade Show Manager to help commemorate their release.
Professor Geoff, please encourage ALL of your female students to join the technical, engineering, and science ranks. There are too many that fall prey to the stereotypical concepts of what a person should look like or dress like which keep them from significant contributions in our society. That said, we value the opinions of our customers and we evaluate the feedback in developing our future strategies. I appreciate the time you have taken to mention your concerns here. I hope you will take the opportunity to encourage your female students to meet our female optical engineers at Edmund Optics. I think they, and you, will be impressed with their ability to support and represent woman [sic] in engineering.
Best Regards,
Bill
As far as I can tell, he’s saying that “she” is smart (so smart that she doesn’t need a name, apparently), so it’s okay! This is America, so any talented and attractive young woman with an interest in engineering can grow up to be a Booth Babe. He forgot to mention that “Better Performance. Better Price.” is the kind of slogan that any female should be proud to be associated with!
Actually it’s not okay. We’re not going to see this any time soon:
A little parity goes a long way, though. I have a vision of the next catalog cover–it features a handsome young man, maybe in chinos or a nice pair of jeans, barefoot, shirt halfway unbuttoned, an alluring gleam in his eye. Maybe a caption like “Well Oiled Mounts.”
And even if we did, it still wouldn’t be okay. (Although it would be highly amusing.) These images don’t appear in a vacuum; as long as the way that women and men are put on display in a wider cultural context remains dramatically imbalanced, a little equal-opportunity cheesecake here and there isn’t going to fix things.
Feel free to email Bill Dover (wdover-at-edmundoptics.com) and VP of Marketing Marisa Edmund (medmund-at-edmundoptics.com) to let them know what you think. (Thanks to Chaz Shapiro for the pointer.)
This reminds me of some ads for Swedish computer company Lap Power some ten years ago. Problem was that the sexy lady in question turned out to be the company’s vice president. When the dust had settled, it became clear that it is ok, at least in Sweden, to sell computers with scantily clad women, provided that they belong to the top management.
Have you checked this lady’s position within Edmund optics, or are you just assuming that short skirts and big boobs are incompatible with brains?
I like how he refers to Prof. Geoffrey Marcy as “Professor Geoff.”
Thomas Larsson:
Plus, the featured equipment also looks like a gun of some sort. They’re really
going after the Cracker Biker Scientist market…
In a (perhaps quixotic) attempt to make Edmund Optics realize the sexist absurdity of their cover, I’ve written a tongue-in-cheek letter asking Edmund to put male optics beefcake on next year’s cover.
Please co-sign the letter, and help make it funnier!
http://redhotletter.pbwiki.com/letter
password = redhot.
Cheers, The Astrodyke.
lol, Hot Chic!
Better performance, better price!
Well I guess if we are willing to pay for better performance in our cars & motorbikes …
Sorry, what was the advert for?
Ah, she’s the brains behind the trade shows!
Guy at trade show: “Do you come with the optics?”
Super-hot chick who is, by the way, very knowledgeable about the technical aspects of the product: “Oh, you! Tee hee!”
/Simpsons
About a year ago, I wandered by chance into a photographer’s art gallery near campus and the photographer begged me to model for him. I aquiesced, so there are now one or two photos of me hanging in his gallery. He says that whenever I get recognized it’s immediately dismissed, however, with a comment like “that must be just a model who looks like her. After all, she’s a physics major!”
I always find these comments interesting because they imply that there is no way a girl can be smart and pretty too, as they can only be noticed as intelligent when they are not attractive. This also leads me to the conclusion that there is no way anyone looking at that picture or going to the trade show is going to think “wow, she’s really smart!”
My children and I read this catalog for the articles and instrument specifications, not the pictures. If any of you nerds takes the trouble to OPEN the catalog, you will learn that the cover girl was bitten on the CERVIX by a friendly snake, and that is why she’s displayed here with Edmund’s GROITAL probe. Hope none of these words offends you, and please don’t judge a book by its cover.
I think I am with them on this one. We can’t simultaneously want more women in science and then insist they’re not allowed to look like and/or be women, they can only be androgynous look-alikes of men.
It’s hard for an attractive woman in science - I am glad she is turning that around and making it an advantage. That is true empowerment.
The following might go a long way towards explaining the phenomenon of “tangible harm” that our post-modern cultural iconographic media imagery is perpetrating.
Click on the film EVIDENCE BY GODFREY REGGIO: Reggio filmed a group of young children watching tv to create this film which is as shocking as it is sad
Anyone remember the Python issue of “Linux Journal?” The one that featured a naked guy (strategically posed so it would pass as PG or PG-13 at worst) on the cover? (I can find the contents here, http://www.linuxjournal.com/xstatic/articles/lj/0073/toc073/lstoc.html but not the cover.) As I recall, the letters about that cover were all over the map. One gentleman thought it appropriate to point out that the readership was 99 percent male so the magazine covers should only feature undressed women. Another said he was canceling his subscription because his kids shouldn’t be exposed to that kind of thing. I myself thought it was funny, but, of course, it was clear the guy was not for sale. (Just out playing the piano naked in a field to reference a scene from, well, you know, Monty Python.)
Well, I won’t be applying for a job at Edmunds Optics anytime soon.
For what it might be worth, I don’t know anyone who buys much (or anything!) from Edmund Optics.
Holy ass! I wrote a letter to them in early January in disgust, and told them that I wouldn’t be distributing their catalogue.
If any of my guys put that picture up in their cubes, I’d have an enormous problem with that.
It’s not about her being lovely, as she obviously is. She’d be lovely in a suit. Wearing shoes. It’s about the pose, which is a play on pinup girl calendars with the plunging neckline, short skirt, and barefoot model advertising RED HOT! optics.
And I say this as a woman sitting in a lab wearing a Bettie Page necklace. Um, just her face. Nothing with a whip or a cheetah. I adore pulp art.
Seriously. I don’t have any issues with what the model looks like, I have issues with the fact that they thought it was cute and clever to send out a pulp cover, and now won’t cop to the fact that pulp covers aren’t so much appropriate in this setting. It’s so completely assy of the company to pretend that wasn’t their intent.
I also got a crap response from Dover, and I just let it go.
Women scientists and engineers shouldn’t have to dress like nuns, but there is a certain standard for professional attire (for both sexes). And in my book this ad crosses that line.
I have seen a couple of women give scientific presentations dressed similarly as the model, er engineer, er booth babe, in this ad. Same hair, plunging neckline, and tight short skirt, but with shoes. I watched the men in the audience in these cases and none of them paid any attention to what the speaker, er science babe, was saying.
Allyson: “Seriously. I don’t have any issues with what the model looks like…”
Yeah, right.
JoAnne, I don’t know how women dress at Stanford but, judging from what I see around me, she’s very soberly dressed, not quite unlike a nun.
It’s all about sex(ist)
“Check out”- As in look at her.
“RED HOT” – as in “she’s red hot” wink wink.
“Better Performance” - Which? The model or the device?
“Better Price” - OK, she’s a cheep date?
Red skirt + red hot, = red dress = classic prostitute symbology.
I’m assuming that the scientific device is a male sex organ for a robot.
If I may make an empathetic projection, her expression suggests to me that she might be thinking “I can’t believe I’m doing this.”
If as mentioned previously, members of the scientific community “want more women in science”, then appreciate them as intellectual equals not as sexual objects. Maybe the next catalog should feature Joe Geek, barefoot, shirtless, tanned and buff like a Calvin Klein ad.
Uh, Bobby Dupee, I live in LA. I’ve spent enough time on sets to meet some of the most beautiful women in this hemisphere (Gina Torres!). Most of the women I know and see are gorgeous.
Also? I’m pretty freakin’ adorable myself. So can the ‘tude, love.
Hm. I wish I could edit. I hate when I take the bait.
Thanks George :). I tried to comment earlier but walked away because I didn’t want to post anything I would regret later. But I really did resent the implication that women should be happy to be *included* in science, even if they have to be *barefoot* to do so.
Thanks for blogging on this. I’m on that email list, and have been following it since Allyson first brought it to my attention.
I’m in one of the fields this company targets, and it’s a potential spark in a tinderbox of our workplace issues, sadly. We just had an ugly incident. The stuff that I’ve seen happen, or run into personally, in this field still shocks me. Hell, I had sexist bullshit thrown at me in an interview. Encouragement, or for that matter, exploitation, of that sort of climate is just unacceptable.
Women should be free to dress however they want. I don’t think that the model’s clothes would be especially inappropriate around the office.
The problem with the picture is that it uses sex to sell optical equipment, and does so by presenting the model as a sexualized object for the enjoyment of men. It doesn’t matter if the actual woman used for the picture is Marie Curie; that’s not the role she’s playing in this image.
If we want women to feel as welcome as men in the scientific workplace, we should treat them as scientists rather than sex objects, simple as that.
Sean, concerning #23, I had a similar, though more irate, post elsewhere. Exactly.
Anyone wonder where the inspiration for this cover came from? Mmm…I wonder. I guess it would have been fine. SIXTY YEARS AGO.
I’ll take the company’s word for it that she’s a smart woman. She’s obviously beautiful. I don’t think her clothes are inappropriate–other than the lack of shoes. That’s just ridiculous. Combine that with the sensually pose, the phallic equipment and the RED HOT text and you’ve got a sexually suggestive ad.
Which is inappropriate for the workplace.
Oops. Sensual pose.
It’s pure marketing genius! As this BBC article points out “Catching sight of a pretty woman really is enough to throw a man’s decision-making skills into disarray, a study suggests.” and “The men’s performance in the tests showed those who had been exposed to the “sexual cues” were more likely to accept an unfair offer than those who were not.” It just makes me wonder what kind of crappy optics these people are trying to push. You know that after half a pizza and a cigarette you’re going to take a good look at your new laser collimater and ask yourself “What was I thinking?”
Sean and Geoff, many thanks for the heads up. I have just sent off a mail to this Edmund Optics company letting them know that I am offended by this ad.
And it is really important to emphasize that it is NOT this woman’s outfit that I am protesting - this is not about workplace attire for me, in contrast with JoAnne - I personally have been at astrophysics talks with women speaking who were wearing very sexy outfits and I have no problem with that, I like to see the full spectrum of women in my field, not all of us hiding our bodies, even some doing a bit of flaunting - but my opinion on that is neither here nor there because that is not the point -
It is so rude to put a woman lying down with the words “Better Performance. Better Price.” underneath her. It is demoralizing, and it does make those of us who do dress in anything other than potato sacks feel a bit prostitutish. The editor totally missed the point and his reply to Geoff was obtuse and smarmy. I don’t want the girls I teach to see stuff like this, girls who are just learning about physics and basic optics. It is not conducive to making girls feel they could have a place in the field. It doesn’t make them (or me) feel like we ought to be at the eyepiece of that instrument, but at the focal point.
It’s wrong and it makes me very angry. I hope they pay attention to the mails they receive, and if there is any choice for me or friends of mine in buying optics instruments, you can bet that Edmund Optics will not get my business until they stop with the sexist advertising.
Regarding the “pure marketing genius” observation: My point of contention here is not the utilization of an attractive female scientist to gain the viewers attention, nor does it specifically have anything to do with her attire. I’ll be generous and just say that I suspect what they were attempting to do was gain the viewers attention by using an attractive woman in the ad. The problem relates to something the Edmund advertising group has failed to perceive.
What actually has occurred is in the process of composing the ad, they have re-contextualized its premise, from the scientific to the seamy.
As others have also implied, this has occurred through the choice of the model’s pose along with the selection and placement of the text. These editorial decisions reframe and therefore create a sexual context from what otherwise might have been a benign piece of advertising. The choice of a sexual advertising context might be deemed appropriate in other aspects of our culture but in highly technical fields which are attempting to demonstrate an interest in equal opportunity for women, it comes off as a slap in the face and a poor decision. I do not think this occurred by accident and as such, it casts the Edmund company in a poor light by suggesting that their corporate policies are insensitive to the problems of gender in the workplace.
Hmmm, I’m willing to bet that Edmund didn’t force this woman into posing for their magazine cover. No, she voluntarily decided to do this, astonishingly without first consulting the exalted National Academy of Sciences!
A woman would choose to do this?!?!?! She must have been brainwashed by those sexist pigs at Edmund. We need to protect her from herself and stop this sort of tragedy from happening again!!!
To Sean and the others: Your comments suggest that you think that this sort of advertising should be outlawed or heavily regulated. Please remember that modern science offends many people in America (myself not included–why do you think I read this blog?). I don’t think the policy of “ban whatever we find offensive” is a prudent one though, in light of the opinions that the majority of Americans hold. If you don’t like the way Edmund advertises, vote with your pocketbook and don’t buy any of ther equipment.
Doug, would you like to elaborate on how my comments “suggest” that this sort of advertising should be outlawed or heavily regulated? I’m… fascinated.
No one has stated that this woman was forced, nor that this should be banned.
You’re totally making up a straw man. Why?
The people commenting ARE voting with their pocketbooks, and discussing the reasons why.
I’m sure you can find someone, somewhere, who would suggest that she was brainwashed by the patriarchy and needs to be saved from herself, or that this should be banned, but it doesn’t appear to be happening here, and I’m puzzled by how you came to that conclusion.
Doug, I couldn’t agree more. For me, I could care less what is on the cover of Edmund Optics catalog (although I laughed out-loud when someone above suggested it was a phallic symbol…it’s an Diameter Optical Mount). I personally buy over $80K per year in optical components and I reach for the catalog often because I know THEY WILL HAVE IT, WHEN I NEED IT. The cover photo is immaterial! It seems the majority of the bloggers here are trying to invent an issue to support their own cause…ridiculous.
Good for you, genius. No one here even remotely suggested that that policy would be a prudent policy. So what’s the point of posting that statement, idiot?
Doug, you miss the point and I suspect you’re part of Edmund’s target audience.
The question here is not censorship, nor political correctness, it is about sensitivity.
I’m an artist, not a scientist, but from what I’ve read, the scientific community is interested in attracting bright young people into the field regardless of gender. The young women of today are more conscious of gender stereotyping issues than those of past generations. This type of advertising sends the wrong signal about the culture of a an occupational field they might be interested in. Obviously it must not be totally incorrect but it appears from the other comments here, that there is a growing sensitivity to this type of gender stereotyping and an interest of seeing it change. Intelligence and inquisitiveness are precious attributes worth seeking after regardless of gender.
Damon, thanks for explaining what the cover device is. You make a good point about the cover of the catalog being irrelevant when you need a piece of equipment, they have it.
So the relevant issue would be, what was the point of the cover in the first place?
I can’t agree more with the comments about how people are going to perceive the woman on the cover of this catalog: not as an intelligent capable woman but as a sex object.
It seems like women are victims of a double-edged sword. If we stay quiet and accept this even if it does offend us (it certainly offended me), we are adding fuel to the fire. This covers allows people to reaffirm their underlying biases: that women look better lying in front of the equipment selling it, rather than trying to use it. If we do voice our concerns about the message that it might be sending, we are immediately accused of being overly sensitive angry feminist-extremists (to take a page out of Bush’s book).
It’s sad that the loudest opinions were also from people who will never directly experience what it is like being a woman in such a male-dominated field.
I wonder if people read this article in the Washington Post: Goodbye to Girlhood which is related to the SEED article and evaluaes the effect of the sexualization of a female in the non-scientific community.
True, if you are looking for or trying to find something more than is presented. Maybe I’m naive but I don’t believe for a minute that anyone was knowingly trying to denigrate or belittle anyone or make any type of statement. I might fall in that “just don’t get it” catagory too. But then again, I don’t have a cause….other than buying what they are offering.
Looking at the catalog cover while I type here, I see an eye catching female next to a mechanical component. I don’t feel threatend or embarrassed by her appearance or by any words that are on the cover or by her lack of shoes. Nor am I compelled to buy anything because she is there. I do appreciate her appearance and find the picture nice. According to the earlier email, she is somehow involved with these parts. Given that, and the fact that she is not unattractive, maybe they thought it would make a good cover photo. I don’t have a problem with it.
I’m sure I’d never have paid the slightest attention to the Edmund Scientific catalog if they hadn’t put that picture on the front. In that sense, getting the blogosphere to put the picture up all over the web was marketing genius.
Well, I guess you americans are quite scared about anything which can have sexual implications, in optics catalogs or in children books for that matter
These reactions are really in the same universality class — and out of proportions.
Why don’t you react in the same way against pictures of violence in the media, pictures of death and despair, for example
here?
-Kasper
Sorry, broken link. A random example — from the war in Iraq — is the following:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/09/1094530764694.html?oneclick=true
-Kasper
kasper: I am not american, and I share your view that americans seem much more disturbed by images of sex than by images of violence. However, as a woman scientist I was horribly offended by this ad. Not because it’s sexy, but because it fits in, and thus reinforces, a very long line of sad stereotypes: stereotypes that gave me several unpleasant teenager-years, and against which I am desperately trying to shelter my growing daughter.
Sorry, there’s no way I can just laugh this off. I wouldn’t buy any product with a similar ad, and I would try to make sure my university doesn’t buy it either.
anonyma:
I can understand if your feelings have been hurt, but in the same vein, don’t you buy magazines with such pictures which I refer to? Don’t you ever (or did you ever) watch movies with violence as entertainment?
-Kasper
PS: I can tell you that my girlfriend was not in any way disturbed by this picture (but maybe it is because she both has the brains AND is very good looking
Edmund Optics & EyeCandy.
Anyway, you see, “you American” scientists are fighting against a culture in which marketing and good-looking women in various attire and postures are synonymous, so much so that most people can’t even see what is wrong. It isn’t going to be easy.
You have all totally missed the point: the girl in the photo is clearly only two inches high. You can see that from the size of the lens system beside her!
They obviously had to find someone suitably sized to demonstrate the tiny scaled precision engineering, and she is the only person available. Therefore, it isn’t deliberately sexy. If they had an old guy who was only two inches tall, he could have posed for the photo.
I’d also like to point out that the expert lighting and photography/lithography that they used gives the potential customer the wrong impression of just what the product looks like. Image the dissappointment when the excited astronomer or other technical researcher opens the box and instead of the beautifully illuminated and expertly positioned instrument we see on the cover of the catalogue, we see instead a cold lifeless arrangements of cylinders with a range of different textures and reflections nestled, strangled, by polyethylene bags and imprisoned in a stultifying styrofoam tigercage. It’s a bitter kind of awreness that leads me to believe that the instrument on the catalogue cover doesn’t come with a little fem-bot who can take care of the aesthetics as well as be my little friend in the workshop. Damn, those alchemists of old had a wide assortment of familiars and homunculi to assist in conjuring up the devil…why can’t we? Terry Pratchett for 3rd Assistant Boiler Inspector of the Gods!
I was pretty shocked by seeing this ad in Physics Today, and it brought back memories of my “Year In Industry” before university, where I was the only female in an office of engineers who had pin-up calendars prominently displayed on their walls. It was horribly uncomfortable to talk to them as equals knowing that they saw fit to display their objectification of women in the workplace.
The people who are wondering what is the big deal - get a clue. Its not the fact that there is a sexy woman in the picture people are upset about, its the context. This is an advert conceived by someone who sees their buyer as exclusively male. They are using a woman’s body to *sell* their product - they can’t conceive of a woman *buying* it. If you are a female physicist already feeling marginalized, or a female student hoping to become a physicist one day, adverts like this take a hit on your morale - little by little, but it adds up. These things collectively say that this is a boys’ club, and you can’t belong.
And to the people who posted that objections to the advert are motivated by jealousy and insecurity — seriously? You need to examine your assumptions that anyone objecting to this advert must be ugly. People are objecting because it directly hurts their workplace environment to have the mindset that lead to this advert propagated.
Kasper — this isn’t really about sex. It’s about *gender,* and that’s not at all the same thing.
I suppose I am coming on one of those sophomoric moments when you discover that everything is relative and that the majority of human activity is meaningless. That being said, it seems to me painfully obvious that the ad is inherently neutral, and whether it portrays women “as objects” or “as scientists” or whether the person involved volunteered, or if it will have a net negative or positive effect on the psyches of male/female scientists… is immaterial. We are all here seeing in this ad what we see in in ourselves, or how we want to view ourselves. There is no other reason to explain the ad hominem arguments being thrown about here.
That also being said, I would like to say that it is wonderful to be discussing this. It is a glaring sociological problem why women don’t flock to physics the way we would like them to, and it reflects anxieties we have about gender inequalities in our society that we pride ourselves on having eradicated. This is a thorny issue that will not be resolved over an inflammatory ad, but certainly something that should consider it.
I guess this post is meant to level the playing field, and render this discussion a little more civilized. At the least, I hope that the readers and commentators here can take a step outside themselves and appreciate how much they bring into the discussion, and why that appreciation is important.
Thanks for all the posts criticizing this blatantly sexist catalog cover, folks. Having gone to a liberal Ivy league school I thought it was just me overreacting…
However lame the ad. itself, my feeling was that the response to Marcy really put it over the top: by twisting his words to imply that Marcy thought that women who were plain of dress or appearanc, “Bill” seemed to be imagining that this cover would somehow encourage women to pursue technical careers. Which (I am willing to bet) was not what they were thinking when they designed it (especially with the “red hot” copy).
If this *was* their intention then they have done a terrible job of it — especially as some actual, real women have responded to this thread to say that they DO find this sort of thing objectionable and it DOES have a material impact on women in science. Perhaps this clown should talk to a few women in science who do not also depend on him for a paycheck.
“Gee, now that you mention it, it may not be that smart. We’re sorry and won’t do it again” would have been a good response. “It was post-modern irony: a self-satirizing tongue in cheek evocation of old fashioned advertisements where pretty women were always draped across the hood of cars. Surprised you smart professor-types didn’t spot it” would have been imaginative, if almost certainly untrue. But their idiotic response is simply contemptible.
Sorry some sort of editing glitch here. ” imply that Marcy thought that ONLY women who were plain of dress or appearance COULD SUCCEED IN SCIENCE”
The smartest woman I have ever met (and is a very good young physicist incidentally) talks and dresses like something out of ‘clueless’ and is quite attractive to boot.
I thought hte whole point of the pc movement was to lose the stereotypes. If someone wants to dress like that, and sees empirical evidence that such feminine attire boosts the sale of a product at the company she works in. Then good for her, its her proffessional perogative.
All the people complaining about it (b/c it promotes negative in their world view images) reminds me of something the crazy Christians might complain about. I find it so ironic how the ends can meet like that.
I love it when people congratulate themselves for knowing attractive women.
I would not have thought that the distinction between “blaming a woman for looking attractive” and “blaming a company for using overtly sexualized imagery to sell optical equipment” would have been all that subtle and hard to grasp. And yet, I am constantly surprised.
OMG! Using women to sell stuff! Stop the presses! Quick, let’s burn all the catalogs with models next to the sale items! Get real.
I mean its not like this is science porn. It’s a damn catalog of boring gear (and apparently the gear and girl are not to scale?). Personally, I’m all for adding beefcake to the next version, for the gay scientists if not the female scientists. How many models do you need to get a representative sample of the various scientist body types, male and female? One guy here suggested they should be doing real science in the photo instead of posing, as if anything about a photo shoot is real.
Sheesh. Everybody who thinks this is bad, go out and hire a woman to do something beside pose. That would be a lot better than complaining about something as worthless as a stupid catalog photo.
In terms of using ’sexy images of people of any gender in appropriate contexts’, I often find myself as a ’smart’ lady astronomer casually posing beside a telescope hand on thigh with a bit of cleavage and shoeless. It’s the only way I can get any work done!
I too am suprised at how many people missed the point.
Heh companies use models all the time to sell their stuff. Frankly its smart advertisement, as its a simple fact that it increases sales. The only reason this is newsworthy and has all the feminists up in a huff is b/c this time the model in question happens to work at the company. If you read the blogs about it, they are somehow blaming her for wanting to sell her product /boggle
Its completely absurd and just goes to show people will whine about anything.
There are plenty of things going wrong in capitalism, and this is a brilliant example. Companies hire a pro to come up with an ad that fulfils the purpose to cause attention, no more, no less. Now look at this post, and isn’t that exactly what they get? Does that help selling the product? I don’t think so. But to be honest, I belong to those people who have developed a complete blind spot for ads, even if they are 3×2 meter high, or hit me directly in the face. And if I take notice of one, you can rely on me to forget who made it. Ads that use photos of men or women for no other purpose than making a product ’sexier’ cause people to look. But, hey, you don’t want people to look, you want them to buy the stupid product.
That as a preface, imo the above ad isn’t worth getting upset about. The concern raised in the SEED article that sexed up women’s photos distort young girls self-perception is an important issue, but this ad hardly falls into the category of underweight, computer-retouched, artificial beauty. Okay, maybe it’s just because I’m European, but without this post I wouldn’t even have taken any notice of this.
Yeah, I guess if a women gives a talk in a tight dress, a considerable part of the audience will be kind of distracted. Well, if there were more women in the audience, I guess, more people would pay attention to the talk.
I’m continually amazed by how many dumbass people there are out there. I thought stupid comments were the domain only of youtube, but some commenters here have proven me wrong.
The original post is simple and clear: Using women as sex objects to sell science products undermines the fight for equality for women in science. This is a fairly self-evident observation to anyone who has been in science, but somehow that results in:
#10: Doesn’t realize that the “trade show manager and showperson” on the cover is merely a booth babe (see #7), not a scientist.
#19 and #54: Justify positions via “I have beautiful friends, I’m beautiful, etc.” Reminds me how whenever people make racist comments, they defend themselves by saying “But I have lots of black friends, I know all about black people!”
#30: See #32 for rebuttal.
#33: Misses the point of the whole post, and is apparently insensitive to any social issues because they do not involve “who has what, when”. Eerily resembles the stereotypical socially ignorant scientist.
#41, 42, 44: Any discussion on any topic is always a great segue to attack “you Americans”. After all, we Americans are ALL prudes who love violence and George Bush.
#56: Thinks that anything less than science porn is appropriate. Presumably also thinks that anything less than slavery doesn’t constitute racism.
Well, fortunately these responses were actually balanced out by some intelligent ones.
A more blatant example
http://thehathorlegacy.info/inappropriate-attire/
And another
http://www.msmusings.net/archives/2005/07/advertising_wee.html
FYI:
http://www.indiatogether.org/2006/jul/med-roles.htm
“Two major differences in female role portrayals were noted:
1. Some of the common stereotypical portrayals seem less prevalent in Indian ads. For example, unlike in British magazine ads, women in Indian magazine ads were more likely to be portrayed in “neutral/other” ways and less likely to be portrayed as sex objects. Women modelling for mobile phones, cars and two-wheelers, painkillers, and as protagonists carry neutral portrayals. Women were also less likely to be portrayed in “dependency” roles in Indian ads than in British ads. It is noteworthy that these results are similar to those found in two other Asian countries–Korea and Japan–where, again, females were less likely to be portrayed in very negative stereotypical ways than in western nations. As mentioned earlier, the religious and cultural differences between India and western nations may account for this finding.
2. The polarizing trend found in the West, i.e., a tendency to portray women in dependency and housewife roles and in nontraditional activities, career-oriented, and authority figure roles (in British magazine ads), was not found for India by Das’ study. ‘Polarizing’ means strong opposites where one woman is shown driving all alone in a car with an expression of confidence on her face juxtaposed against the image of a woman sensually posing for a cosmetic product or spouting forth the advantages of a health drink for children. In India, the trend seems to be to portray women less often as housewives or concerned with looks, but not more often in nontraditional, career-oriented, or authority figure roles. Instead, there seems to be an increase in neutral portrayals of women, due, in part, to the dramatic increase in the number of ads for such products.”
http://www.msmagazine.com/spring2005/nocomment.asp
Im glad both Sean and Eric missed the point w.r.g to post 54. I don’t know exactly *how* you read into it the way they do, but indeed they do. I was merely pointing out that stereotypes are stupid and used an example of a smart person who doesn’t fit the feminist profile, nothing more. /boggle
Anyway in this case the lefties appear to be promoting the premise that a smart woman cannot dress in a sexual or feminine manner b/c somehow that demeans the rest of them. I too am a European so perhaps I am missing something here, but frankly I see it as quite the opposite. I merely view it as a woman who has no qualms about her sexuality, and uses it to entice a certain audience for her own gain as well as that of her company. That to me is the very essence of empowering women. Not only does she use her god given looks, but she also breaks the stereotype that only dumb booth babes are given a position.
Its a small, completely common matter, that as usual is amplified way out of proportion by silly inconsistent idealogy.
Haelfix — the point (for me, at least) isn’t about what an individual woman chooses to do (as an employee or, specifically, as a model). The issue is that the optics company chose to use an exclusively *female* sexuality as its major selling point. It’s not that a woman can’t dress in a feminine manner. It’s that femininity, and sexuality, and barefootedness, have nothing to do with optics.
The ad is one thing. But the letter Prof. Marcy received back, trying to claim that by NOT putting women in sexually suggestive poses on the cover of catalogs, we’re actually PREVENTING young women from entering the scientific and technical fields, is truly insulting to our intelligence. That letter may claim that a woman’s intellect is what really matters, but the printed matter displays the opposite attitude.
@ Annie: If it is not about sex (in relation to gender, naturally) then why do you feel offended? And if it is only about gender, then why do you feel disturbed that a female is being used in an optics catalog? Because she is female? Would it be better if it was a guy - attractive or not?
-Kasper
Optics and a model have about as much in common as I don’t know, motorcycles and models. For one reason or another the latter is associated in popular culture, but the former isn’t. If outraged female motorcyclists complained on some other board, they would have logically the identical argument fundamentally.
As for the letter itself, I suspect the author was just pointing out that perhaps we might be scaring females away b/c our field is viewed as too stiff and formal. I have no opinion on that matter whatseover.
Haelfix, I’ve provided other examples, the one discussed here is somewhere in that continuum. I assume you find none of those examples troublesome? (because when you did, you’d understand why people find the Edmund optics example troublesome, even if you thought that the Edmund optics example was at the mild end of the range).
The problem with the stereotyping in this ad is that the ad is clearly designed to target men. Yes, beautiful women are great for advertisement. But typically they are best at selling to men. As such, Edmund Optics is essentially making a statement that the astronomers to whom they want to sell are men. Yes, you can say this is nothing more than a statement of the status of astronomers as being primarily male.
The problem is that the physics community in general has held a rather discriminatory attitude towards women for quite some time now. That needs to change. And a company selling scientific equipment stating in pictures that they are selling to men, well, that’s just reinforcing discrimination and making the field more hostile for women.
When I was scanning the comments I misread “Healfix” as “Healpix” and was very disappointed in the algorithm!
Jason, thank you. I don’t know how many times the point you made so clearly needs to be repeated before some of these people commenting on here get it.
Haelfix said (#65):
Im glad both Sean and Eric missed the point w.r.g to post 54. I don’t know exactly *how* you read into it the way they do, but indeed they do. I was merely pointing out that stereotypes are stupid and used an example of a smart person who doesn’t fit the feminist profile, nothing more. /boggle
It’s odd that in one post you suggest that stereotypes are stupid, and in another post (e.g., #58) point out that this kind of advertising is absolutely common in certain areas, but don’t make the connection. You’re right that this sort of ad is very common. It is, in point of fact, a stereotype (a rather tedious one).
It’s a visual stereotype dating back to at least the 1930s (as evidenced by the WW2 airplane paintings LisaP linked to). It’s also a visual stereotype associated with, e.g., advertising cars at trade shows, which is what prompts people to refer to her as a “booth babe”. (You can see the stereotype at work in this very thread: attractive and attractively dressed young woman in a sensual pose next to a piece of high-tech equipment, no pretense that she’s actually using it = well, she must be a booth babe.)
It’s also an implicit social stereotype, because it repeats the message that the connection between women and scientific/engineering technology is purely decorative. The reality is that when ads of this type have male models in them, they are shown as users of the equipment. They’re often stereotypes as well (e.g., wearing lab coats and maybe glasses to let you know they’re Real Scientists and Real Engineers), but the fact that they outnumber “technical” women in these ads, and the fact that they don’t appear in sexy, purely decorative roles, simply reinforces the stereotype.
Anyway in this case the lefties appear to be promoting the premise that a smart woman cannot dress in a sexual or feminine manner b/c somehow that demeans the rest of them. I too am a European so perhaps I am missing something here, but frankly I see it as quite the opposite. I merely view it as a woman who has no qualms about her sexuality, and uses it to entice a certain audience for her own gain as well as that of her company. That to me is the very essence of empowering women. Not only does she use her god given looks, but she also breaks the stereotype that only dumb booth babes are given a position.
Ignore what Bill Dover of Edmund says about the cover model — that’s not part of the ad. The catalog cover does not say, anywhere, “This is our really very smart and accomplished Trade Show Manager.” In the ad itself, there are no clues to her identity, profession, technical savvy, or intelligence. There’s no reason to conclude that she’s smart, because she’s not shown doing anything that might signify her intelligence. She’s not doing anything at all except posing in a stereotyped fashion. (The fact that she and the equipment are not to scale simply reinforces the implication that she has nothing to do with actually using it.)
Beautiful cover.
Kasper (67) — because this is yet another example of gender being *conflated* with sex. The ad is sexual not only because of the pose but because of the wording, the subtle implications (which other commenters have elaborated on better than I could), the gender of the model — in other words, a gender is being used to signify sex. Femininity is inherently sexual and inherently not scientific, logical, intellectual, whatever you want, in the type of worldview that is generally portrayed in marketing materials and across media. In general, the sexuality of advertisements is not nearly as damaging as the inherent bias in such advertisements, which equates the *possession* of female secondary sex characteristics with the *use* of them. The debate about “sexy” ads is sort of out of the range of what I’m trying to get across. It’s not prudery about sex that is getting people fed up. It’s the way that one gender is consistently being reduced to nothing but sexual potential.
So what you’re saying in #67, but I would change the emphasis: It is disturbing that a female is being *used* to sell optics. Because “a” female is not being used — a stereotype of “female-ness” is. Remember that ads like this don’t happen in a vacuum. The folks at Edmund didn’t wake up one morning and realize that focusing on their best & brightest would be a great direction in which to take the campaign. Every single such image that is produced within the marketing world is produced in the *language* of marketing — and that pose is all about that language. Peter just described this very well. The pose and the wording in the ad are *designed* to be interpreted the way that we are all interpreting them. That’s why it’s a total straw man argument to claim that we would be fine with it if it were a male model. Why on Earth would it ever be a male model? That’s not part of the language. And it certainly won’t be unless and until major changes are made for women in science.
Jason is right on: this ad perpetuates the idea that women do not belong in astronomy, they belong in a reclining position.
A slight amendment/addendum to my previous post:
I noted that stereotyped images like the Edmund catalog cover reinforce “the message that the connection between women and scientific/engineering technology is purely decorative.”
Perhaps this something more specifically confined to physics, and maybe some areas of engineering and industry. For example, a cursory search of four recent issues of Nature suggests that makers of medical (research) technology may have moved on: there were no “booth babe” ads, and the lab-coated “researchers” in the ads were about half male, half female.
I’ve occasionally thought that there was something oddly stodgy and backwards about ads in places like Physics Today, in that they have a kind of awkward, 1950s–1970s sensibility and style, mostly oblivious to more modern trends. (Look at the wording, layout, and typography of the Edmund catalog: aside from the year at the top and the web address at the bottom, what evidence is there that is isn’t a catalog from thirty years ago?) When it comes to things like graphic design and advertising copy, this is just kind of curious and (sadly) amusing; when it comes to stereotypical images like the Edmund catalog — and Dover’s cheerfully clueless response — it also suggests that, at the very least, companies like Edmunds are stuck in some kind of time warp.
I take offense at my characterization:
Science porn is appropriate, slavery is not. The Edmund catalog has a long history as science porn and has never enslaved anyone. Conflating these issues is disingenuous.
Clearly, using the sultry model, regardless of her relationship with the product, instead of a guy in a suit, was a questionable choice by the editors of the catalog. However, if they consider any publicity to be good publicity, then they clearly chose the correct course of action. If not, then heads will presumably roll.
All of this discussion really is about the fact that there are people out there treating people poorly; women, minorities, dogs, employees, comment writers, everyone. We’ve all encountered mean and petty people, and they are the people who deserve the ridicule that’s being thrown around more than those poor slobs at Edmund, who were merely trying to make their catalog look better.
As a female grad student in astronomy I find this ad highly offensive. It is obviously directed towards male customers only. Does Edmund not even consider me a possible part of their customer base? This actually reminds me of the time that I went to the copy room to pick up a paper that I had just printed. A male faculty member (unknown to me) asked if I was “fixing the printer” and “could I make some xeroxes for him”. He had mistakenly assumed that I was a new member of the adminstrative staff instead of one of the new graduate students. These kind of stereotypes just remind me over and over again that a lot of people, deep in their hearts (or in some cases not so deep), don’t think that I belong in astronomy. Its scary to think that one day these same people are going to be reviewing my job applications.
I highly recommend taking 5 minutes to read this clever, insightful photo essay on women’s poses in advertising.
Especially recommended for those of you who don’t understand why many women and men find the Red Hot cover annoying, or at the least, embarassing for Edmund.
Peter’s point (#76) is excellent– in Science & Nature, ads show serious scientists (male and female) intently using the advertised equipment, presumably to make great discoveries. Which is what you’re supposed to be thinking when you’re shopping for optics. Not, “Wow, garbanzos!”
# 70 The problem with the stereotyping in this ad is that the ad is clearly designed to target men.
Not true. If an ad’s photo is to be accompanied by a person (and it’s not a priory a product that’s designed only for one gender) women go better for both, men and women. I’m sorry I don’t have a reference at hand, but it’s known that women like to look at women better than men at men. So, even if the target group is 50/50, you’d pick a women. In lack of a reference, you’ll have to endure my opinion. I’d find a photo with a man lying in front of that camera totally wacky. Unless the photo’s main focus is on the person itself, I find woman just more pleasant to look at.
Though some of the above comments indicate otherwise, I still find it hard to believe that the average female student who’s used to see far worse ads would be offended by seeing this photo. (Though the company should have made it more clear who the women is, I think.)
But what’s actually more interesting is the question how that ad looks like on the desk of her male supervisor?
#70: A barefoot woman lying sensuously next to phallic equipment, with the words “Red Hot” blaring next to it is aimed 50-50 at both men and women? You really think that?
B, the guy who made that catalog cover was not thinking “What would maximize the pleasure of looking at the cover for men and women alike?” Trust me on this. He was thinking “Guys like hot chicks. Let’s put a hot chick on the cover of our catalog so that guys will pick it up.” It’s one more component of the message that the role of women is to look pretty (and barefoot!), not to take data.
Plus, even if it were true that these ads are aimed at men and women 50/50:
“I’d find a photo with a man lying in front of that camera totally wacky.”
That doesn’t strike you as . . . wacky itself? Did you look at the link in #79? If WOMEN can be aimed at both men and women, but MEN can’t, that says something important.
Look, if they’d featured a cute little fuzzy bunny, it would have been inappropriate. Harmless, but inappropriate. We would’ve cocked our heads in bewilderment but moved on.What Edmund’s did was use female sexuality to sell optics. Again, inappropriate. However, as many people in the field have stated, it is not harmless in context. Some of us have dealt with really crappy behavior and climates because we are female and that’s just crap. This just perpetuates that.
I’m not sure if Sean read the all the CSWA (Comittee for the Status of Women in Astronomy) emails, but there was an aside of one of the male collegues expressing discomfort at the “booth babe” culture at various trade shows and confs. This isn’t isolated to us godamned feminists. Hell, CSWA exists because it isn’t an isolated problem.
C’mon, people. Defend your peers. Think about them.
Astrodyke, thanks for the link!
Note to the folks at Edmund…
Intelligence is an aphrodisiac with persistence.
Capitalism and sexism, deeply entangled in a mutually beneficial symbiosis, preying exclusively on human beings.
I just wanted to say thank-you to all the thoughtful comments that have been written on this page. Your eloquent rebuttals to the many “misguided” figures have turned this thread into something uplifting to read instead of just one more battle that I am tired of having to fight.
My first thought on seeing the image was, “Why did Sean photoshop a hot babe onto the cover of an optics catalog”? The objections of sexism aside (although I do agree with them), it’s pretty damn poor composition.
@80. Yes, it might be true that women prefer other women in ads. I (female grad student) would also prefer an ad that shows a woman, if this woman is depicted as a capable, professional scientist actually using this equipment, I think this would be really inclusive and aimed at both women and men. But this is not what is done here, here they have a sexualised image of a woman, which for me is offensive and excludes me as a customer.
Imagine an ad with a man using this equipment. maybe with a labcoat, depicted as a scientist. This would just be a normal, relativelly gender neutral ad. Now imagine the same ad with a good-looking guy, wearing only a deeply cut jeans, lying reclined and barefoot next to the equipment, in a suggestive pose below the title “red hot”. This would not so much appear to be aimed at hetero men, would it? Would you really feel like they want you as a customer?
Why is it so surprising that women have the same feelings?
@81,82
? With #80 I meant to say whoever came up with this ad was counting: men would like it, women wouldn’t mind. If there’s a person to be in that ad, better it’s a women. I’m not saying that was a very intelligent decision.
She’s attractive, and she looks self-confident, well-dressed, and actually like a real women. Besides this I have to say, she looks rather bored and her smile is unconvincing. I just don’t find this photo offending, and as to the equipment - Well. Come on.
@ Annie # 83
No, it doesn’t strike me as wacky.
I made a poorly photoshopped Red Hot of David Duchovony, lounging in the same sort of way, wearing the same amount of clothing.
Oops. Bad link.
Red Hot Mulder
[...] A current catalog for an optics company has caused a stir by featuring a woman in a tight red skirt on the cover. [...]
#91: I highly recommend the links in #79 if you want to get some deeper understanding of why others (men and women) find this image offensive in the context its presented, and of your own very… illogical?… response that you would find a man lounging in a come-hither pose next to equipment wacky, but not when a woman is presented in such a way. I don’t mean to say something upsetting, but am merely asking you to evaluate if your response is rational, or whether it is based on a lifetime of cultural innoculation to a certain presentation of men vs women in the media.
This advert is not worth waging WWIII over, but it matters to a lot of people that the attitude that lead to this advert becomes a thing of the past. Its not an isolated thing, and it drives women away from physics and makes the life of women that are tenacious enough to keep going that much more difficult. I would be delighted to know that you have never suffered from this attitude, but you have to understand that you would have been very lucky not to, and others have not been so lucky. And we are not going to keep quiet about it and let these things ride.
PS: I have to say if one found “Red Hot Mulder” lounging next to equipment wacky and incongruous, but not so the anonymous “Trade Show Manager”, one would need to re-examine some very deep assumptions.
#95 — Thank you for saying what I was trying to say much, much better than I was! I especially agree with the idea that this is just part of an overall attitude that would be better off as a thing of the past. It may seem unreasonable to be upset by a single ad, but we know that ads like this don’t just come into being all on their own.
#80/91, I truly do have trouble understanding why a woman lying down in an advertisement is “pleasant” and a man (in the same pose, but also important in the same context) would be “wacky.” I mean, it’s not true women actually spend more time lying down than men do. It’s not true that women in our culture traditionally spend a chunk of time reclining while barefoot, while men don’t. Then why is it true in advertising? Even if one doesn’t want to say that it’s “offensive,” it is, to me, definitely wacky.
It does strike me as wacky. Have you ever looked at cosmopolitan. Its quite evident that even women enjoy seeing highly sexualized pictures of other women in their own magazines. Women are the “sexual” sex as feminists have said. But this isn’t just something men believe in, women believe in it too and women perpetuate it. And what is wrong with that. So what if women are associated with sex. Men are associated with violence and perversion. I don’t see what is inherently wrong with difference and with inequality. Also I don’t understand the idea of equality. NO TWO THINGS ARE EQUAL. Equality is a highly constrained, rigid and a very artificial human social construct. It is the worst idea humans have come up with and it has already resulted in the deaths of 100 million people. You would think that after that much death and destruction people would maybe begin to rethink the idea. The whole concept of equality is a stupid. It has never made sense. People like Sean just assume it makes sense. And fundamentally inequality is less arbitrary and is more “free” than equality since there are far more ways for two things to be unequal than there are for them to be equal. So what if women are the sexualized sex. I don’t see anything inherently wrong with that. After all sex is fun and pleasurable. Work isn’t.
hi broken record,
I don’t mean to say something upsetting, but am merely asking you to evaluate if your response is rational, or whether it is based on a lifetime of cultural innoculation to a certain presentation of men vs women in the media.
Of course my response it not rational, I’m just looking at a photo and tell you what I like or don’t like about it. Men just are not women, they don’t look like women, they don’t move like women, from a designer’s point of view, you use their photos differently then you’d use a woman’s photo. Besides genetic imprints that probably cause me to prefer men in ’stronger’ poses and seriously looking, women are in various regards softer and more playful. This of course has also to do with culture and tradition, and of course this was also known to the-guy-who-made-the-ad, who probably didn’t ask for your rational response. Take a simpler issue, color of clothing in photos for ads. You tell me, you’d take the same palette for men as for women? Is it sexist to use pink for a women, because you wouldn’t for a men? If I had used a men’s photo for the ad, he’d have been standing next to the phallic equipment, probably wearing a dark suit and a light shirt without a tie. No jewellery.
But the point I wanted to make is : do we need to have a problem with that? I just think we should embrace the differences, what’s that got to do with anybody being a good scientist?
Besides this, here’s another perspective on Men don’t like to look at men
Best,
B.
Yes, this is a discouraging ad. Yes it objectifies women. Yes it stereotypes blatantly. However, I look at this thread and for the most part all I can see is a bunch of overwrought scientists acting like smug elitists. How is this ad worse than using women to sell beer or cars or perfume or toaster ovens? Certainly we don’t see anything like this much of an outcry over any of those things.
The implication seems to be that optical equipment, unlike those more mundane goods, is bought by Intelligent and Very Very Sensitive Scientists Like Us, and therefore ads should reflect the elevated nature of their target audience (Us!) by being suave, socially conscious and intellectually stimulating.
What this ad shows is that you can market to scientists the same way you market to everyone else. As such, there is not that much reason to get this worked up over this ad, unless you also spend your days constantly apoplectic over Budweiser campaigns. Basically, we need to get over ourselves; we are not that special. We are a part of society, and shouldn’t pretend otherwise. People “so lofty they sound as if they shit marble” aren’t a step in that direction.
#97: I agree that the context is everything. For example, I just happened to see an advert for beach holidays in Cyprus, where a gorgeous woman in a bikini is shown wading in the ocean in a tranquil, paradisical landscape. I don’t find it objectionable in the least, and it may in fact prompt me to go there on holiday, and be like the woman in the picture and experience the tranquility. The advert does not exclude men *or* women from seeing themselves as customers for the product being advertised. The context of the Red Hot advert on the other hand is definitely not conducive to a female seeing herself as a customer.
Why oh why did Edmund Optics have to play up the “sex” aspect when they could have made a more colorful catalog cover by photographing the new optical equipment against a backdrop of red chili peppers? They wouldn’t have had to change the copy, and it could have been a lot more whimsical besides. I suspect a lack of imagination over there.
B: you are not answering the question that I am asking. I am not talking in abstract about differences between men and women. If the culture you grew up in causes you to see that advert and immediately think that it is aimed as you as a customer, that’s great for you. Not everyone sees it that way, and I pointed you to a link to help show you why they feel that way.
D: Thanks so much for the lecture on why the world is so bad that its hopeless to try and change my small corner of it for the better, and how feeling that way means I need to get over myself. I am glad I have never and will never listen to people like you, because if I did, I wouldn’t have achieved anything that I have.
D — I can’t spend all my time being apoplectic about Budweiser ads. I just can’t. The best I can do in the case of Budweiser and Cosmopolitan and perfume is to try to be true to myself, and make the best purchasing choices for myself and my little family that I feel I can. But some people *are* upset about the portrayal of women (and sex) in the media in general, and they are working to change things. We all have to choose our own battles.
This, however, is my area. I am not a woman working for Budweiser, struggling to be thought of as a ‘real’ beer drinker, or a perfume model longing for a refreshing new pose. I am a member of the astronomical community. I am a potential customer of Edmund Optics. I am a person who has the potential to change things for women in astronomy, or to be a part of the change that I hope we’ll see as my generation ages into tenure. To say that I shouldn’t be saddened by a portrayal of an attitude that *actually has a detrimental effect on me,* personally, isn’t fair. And as always, the argument that, “We have no solutions to problems A, B, C and D, so why are you whining about X, Y and Z?” doesn’t really fly.
I also think it’s worth pointing out that at least *some* people commenting here aren’t as upset about the ad as they are about the flat-out denial that the ad is using sex to sell.
Are we a special community? Well, certainly, if you want to count the fact that our demographics have a really twisted relationship to the demographics of the population as a whole.
broken record - if you had read my post without, um, frothing at the mouth, you might have noticed that I decried the extent of our response, not the nature or the content of it. My point was not “resistance is futile” or “abandon hope all ye who open technical catalogs” so much as:
a. let’s not insist that scientific ads must, as a matter of principle, adhere to higher standards than refrigerator ads. (I have no quarrel with the notion that, as the primary market for optical lenses, we have more impact on that market than on the market for refrigerators.) Roughly speaking, we don’t *deserve* as a matter of entitlement better than people who aren’t scientists.
b. don’t get so disproportionately worked up - this happens. Believe it or not, there actually are bigger problems, for women and otherwise, around. We sound like babies whining over lollipops.