I thought that it had been redeeming itself as a source of professional level equipment for serious professionals until I saw its tasteless selling of its products. Does the lovely lady’s qualities imply seriously better technical products? What kind of positive inference can I draw from your recent cover?

Edmund apparently does not have a professional attitude that professionals can respect. There are obviously better sources of cheesecake on the Web - - - unless of course that Edmund continues to pursue its quest for the bottom.

I have been buying from Edmund and suggesting it to others. I am, however, embarrassed to send folks to your cheesecake.

Please do better.

Dr. Norman N. Axelrod, President

Norman N. Axelrod Associates

Insteresting group here! She has been on the cover numerous times over the last 4-5 years. She has been in their print ads for magazines multiple times (full body shot wearing jeans + yellow button down shirt). It appears the cover did exactly what ALL the other covers have NEVER done in Edmunds past (make people take notice). I’m betting they sell more product Which is the bottom line.

He also recognised that women form a significant fraction of their customer base, and that they have alienated them with this campaign. He promised to change things in the future, and insisted that they recognise women scientists as valuable customers, and women optical engineers form 33% of their workforce with a technnical degree (and they value them highly also).

He also said that he valued the feedback he got from the community, as without it they would have gone on making the same mistake. So sometimes, working to change things does bring about change for the better!

While eye-rolling, this advert certainly shows such a product in better light than a line of text that says “XXX objectification only”.

I’m not a scientist, so I have no idea what sort of room exists for satire, but I always have extra sarcasm to contribute when needed.

Is this image also “overtly sexualized,” and thus (allegedly) liable to cause “tangible harm?”

Or is there still room in science for a little self-parody and satire?

It isn’t just driving away with the car. There is frequently sexism in the auto service department.

If there is a real problem here, it is of a more general nature: why do we live in a society where advertising is a form of deceit rather than an objective form of information about the products in question?

The add is, of course, silly and negative in this more general sense. But - fortunattely - I don’t believe that it is detrimental to young women joining the scientific community as professionals. Just think about cars and adds - women buy cars and drive them anyway.

As a former National Marketing Director I know that sex sells. I know that attractive women are particularly effective at drawing traffic to conference and trade show booths.

But catalogue covers and advertisements are not a booth at a trade show. Instead they are medium broadcast beyond the controlled confines of a limited-access environment, which impacts how the message is recieved.

There is no longer any excuse for ignorance to the fact that the constant barrage of sexualized imagery of females negatively impacts girls. The message they receive, and you need to understand this, is that how they look on the outside is of greater value than who they are on the inside. That message needs to be taken out back and shot!

Your cover and ad perpetuates that negative message, (notice you didn’t name the model or cite her accomplishments), making Edmunds Optics part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

I respectfully request that you choose to be part of the solution instead.

Thanks for elevating the level of awareness on this issue.

Anyway, I have never heard of voices raising for a better representativity of women in the window cleaning business. Why is that? Is it because the windows cleaners are stupid and science professors are smart? Should then the windows cleaners rebel against the way the society is looking at them? Is it fair that the society is looking at them like that?

I don’t know about window cleaning, but there certainly are people and organizations that work hard to encourage women to work in well-paying blue collar jobs, where they are often under-represented. e.g. http://www.new-nyc.org/

Possibly Lord Sidious just needs to look a little harder.

There was one interesting (though inapplicable) point brought up by D or B about the condescension of scientists towards the “ignorant masses”. I don’t think it has much bearing on this particular discussion because I think most scientists here have argued against the objectification of women as an issue they personally care about.

However, I do think an attitude of superiority wrt the general public exists and often harms the cause of science. I suppose it’s not a reliable measurement, but I’ve observed this from top physicists all the way down to lowly undergrads (and I’m probably not the only one). I can’t describe how many times I’ve seen scientists disparage topics and/or people not in science, and in particular, not in physics. Even the (mis)perception of such an attitude can discredit science in the eyes of the public, and can make it harder just to have reasonable discussions like these. Content isn’t everything; presentation matters.