Girls Will Love Science If It’s Glittery And Has Makeup!

As a woman, aspiring scientist and a tomboy without an affinity for makeup, jewelry, and “shiny things”, this ad really irks me.

And as a female scientist who loves jewelry and occasionally wears heels and lipstick to the lab, it irks me too.  Science can be perceived as un-feminine, but videos of women dancing in the lab makes it seem like the lab needs to become more feminine and sexy for women to even want to come into it.

I’ve found the TV show Bones to be a really awesome delivery for the message that science is interesting and you don’t have to sacrifice your femininity to be a good scientist.  Sometimes Bones wears whatever she feels like that day, and sometimes she dresses up with a nice necklace and a dress, but everyday she gets her shit done and enjoys it.

This video is just over-the-top to the point where no one likes it.

Just for the record, I didn’t mean to imply that females (or even males) with an affinity for makeup & jewelry aren’t scientists! I was only thinking of myself 🙂

And of course I agree with all that you’ve said. 

Oh I didn’t think that at all!  I was just riding on your statement to say even the women who enjoy those things hate this ad.  It’s truly an awful ad. 

I think the reactions I’m seeing here are visceral, and not entirely rational. This is a good reason that we shouldn’t defund social science research (which looks at things like personal image in children, gender differences, and other important matters).

I’m no expert in this area, but I wonder how many of the commenters are? The  stereotypes that help define many girls are real. I’ve read studies that make the case these stem from both cultural and biological sources. I certainly don’t know that this advertising strategy isn’t going to be effective, or that any negative components of it outweigh the positive. And because I don’t know… nor do I think anybody knows… I’m prepared to look at this with something of an open mind. What I hope is that this actually gets approached scientifically, meaning somebody tries to really evaluate the successes and failures produced by the campaign.

One thing I’m pretty sure of: any reinforcement of [negative] stereotypes that this campaign might contribute to is trivial compared to the reinforcements found elsewhere in young girls’ environments. So this approach seems to me to have little risk associated with it, but possibly a very real chance of success.

Like that Barbie that said, “Math is Hard”.

Even when they’re 12 years old?

12-year-old girls aren’t women. They’re girls.

 “We can start from an indisputable fact: there is a gender disparity in the sciences.
There are simply more men than women in science and this difference
becomes even more pronounced in fields like mathematics, physics and
engineering.”

What about the disparity between number of college degrees granted?  Women make up almost 60% of college graduates – clearly young men are being discriminated against, right? 

Exactly.

I could easily see this as being appealing and interesting..  the colors.. visual..   etc..  capturing the eye of many and seeking them to understand the point..That is.. if I look at this from the perspective of the women/girls I know who would go for this.. 

 It’s not meant to teach them science.. it’s a marketing tool to capture interest..
Something I see this doing..  Science wrested from the stale..  and placed as something “cool”..  There are science books for preteens that teach chem lab through cosmetics..  It is interesting..  Not for all.. but for some..  NO need to disparage them or act like they don’t exist..  as if science could never be bubble gum fun..

Science will always be science..  but I could easily see this gives science a useful perspective …

Noticed that, did you? Seems to be going around lately.

This just goes to show the absurdity of the human nature denialism among our elites. A rational world wouldn’t consider women’s lack of interest in science a problem. We get better social outcomes when people specialize in doing the things which organically suit their passions and abilities, not in doing half-heartedly and incompetently what some central planners think they should do.

Whaaaaaat the bloody hell was that.

Honestly, the problem isn’t even that it appeals to girls through the use of glittery makeup and shiny colors. I don’t go in for that, but some do, so whatever. The problem is that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with science. It could have had the girls actually performing science, instead of scrawling things on a blackboard. The girls could have talked about what they like about science. It could have showed them actually working on projects. Instead . . . they dance and pose at the camera. WEIRDLY. It didn’t have a damn thing to do with actual science.

It’s not saying “Hey, science is pretty cool, it’s not just for guys and you can be a feminine scientist if you want”. It’s saying . . . well, it’s not saying anything. It’s just a bunch of random-ass clips spliced with pictures of girls dancing around. Frankly,  if it weren’t for the last 5 seconds, I would have thought it was an ad for an ENTIRELY different, very bizarre type of service.

 Lol, I think from now on, I’m going to post a “this isn’t about atheism” comment on every thread that’s not related to atheism.

Re: your last comment, that was my thought, too. For an ad which is purported to target science minded girls, it really has nothing to do with girls actually learning about or women participating in a meaningful way in science, and is much more like a weird tv ad for modeling cosmetics? Because all the 12 year old girls I know just love being treated as though they are image obsessed and shallow, and being talked down to by people who think they’re trying to relate to them. Because they love being told they can be anything they want to be so long as they’re also primarily sexy and available. Because they don’t get enough of that message from practically every other source in their lives already at the age of 12. Because headdesk.

Ugh. If ads have stupid awards, this will get the Oscar. 

At the end of my science presentations for kids, sometimes a girl will come up to me with extra questions after the Q and A. I always take the time to answer any kid who has extra questions. The girl is usually very curious and very earnest. After answering her questions as best I can,  I ask her if she’s interested in becoming a scientist. If she says yes, I look her right in the eye with an expression that says  I’m an adult who’s clearly taking her seriously.  I reply, “Good! If that’s what you want, then go for it, and don’t let anyone talk you out of it!  It can be a very satisfying walk of life.”  Often a look will come across her face that I’d call validation, affirmation, and empowerment. I glance up and her mother will have an expression of mostly gratitude and a little surprise.

Leaving scientists in my wake one individual, unique kid at a time.

You wear skirts, makeup, and jewelry to work in a lab?!?!  Is the lab inside a nightclub?

 First of all, I hardly think that liberal arts degrees should even really count (I kid, I’m double majoring in english currently).

Second, this “bias against men” that you speak of (I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here) is only present in places like this that are populated by feminists and other people who give a shit. Note that the job market and k-12 schools are not these places.

 Recent research in central Europe shows that girls are actually ahead of boys in science and math during their elementary school years.
This changes with puberty. The children do not need to be appealed to, the teachers of these subjects need to be ordered to treat male and female pupils as intelligent until proved incapable.
The actual bias comes from male math teachers and male science teachers, who are rude, sarcastic and put the girls down. 

Having had a number of arguments with teachers who laugh at the idea of female scientists and assume that any that there are have achieved their position through sexual rather than cognitive prowess, I feel that showing made up women dancing through a lab while a man does the actual work can only be harmful. 

I don’t think it’s a recent conclusion.  I was a Computer Science TA in the late 80/early90s and at more than one talk/conference heard that same thing- girls are equal to or better than boys in math/science  up until about 13/14, and then large numbers of girls don’t continue.

The actual bias comes from male math teachers and male science 

I highly suspect that female math and science teachers are just as biased.    This isn’t a male plot, it’s a societal dysfunction.  IMO anyway.

 It should be – I would not be surprised if the same pressure brought on girls at school to take up ‘left-brain’ activities; such as languages & arts, is not reflected in the pressure on boys to avoid these subjects.
Boys: Like art? Become an architect.
Girls: Like architecture? Become an artist.
 
Can one fire biased, bigoted or incompetent teachers in America?

 I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to accuse someone of bias or ill-intent when he has shown none at all. C Peterson is not advocating keeping women away from higher education or STEM fields, but rather arguing that this ad may be effective at its stated goal, even if it does reinforce stereotypes. I disagree with his evaluation I especially disagree with the invocation of biological differences as an explanation, for reasons a little too complex for a comments section. However I don’t see any wish to put women back in the kitchen” and your accusation that he wishes this is not only unfounded but, in my view, counter-productive.

He has respectfully presented a set of arguments. If you disagree with them, feel free to counter with your own. Save your sarcastic snaps for the actual trolls, not for the polite dissenters.

You live in a world where this combo exists only in nightclubs? Where is it, I want to move there! I’m fed up with hearing that skirts, makeup and jewellery is a minimum effort equivalent to shaving for men.

I agree with Claudia’s post. Rather than try to be stereotypical, we should just show people of both genders participating in science in the commercials aimed at students. We can try to come up with similar strategies to help more girls into the sciences and more boys into college in general.

hmmm… maybe we should have men get pregnant too so that women shouldn’t have to…

it seems to me that you simply have a problem with evolution and the fact that women and men are simply not the same… I’m sorry that we are not all hermaphrodites, you’re just gonna have to deal with that…

I would totally support your idea but unfortunately it requires a world where the absolute only reason for not doing something is that you don’t like it rather than social pressure, stereotypes, gender roles etc. If you’re lucky enough to live in a place where this is possible then that’s awesome but it needs to be universal.

I have BS in chemistry, I did undergraduate research at my small home institution where the majority of my peers in science were women – but only 2 of my chemistry professors were female and one of them left after my freshman year (and Bio was our major science track, my graduating class had I think 6 BS in Chem and a BA). When I graduated there was one female professor of the 7 in the department. My research group was small – 4 of us total, 3 women and 1 man. In this environment I felt comfortable (it was my home institution and I had known my adviser for 2 years previously) – but I did have male peers in classes (Especially when I skipped up to Physical Chemistry as a sophomore and doubled up on organic at the same time) who I read as feeling threatened by my being there.

I also did research at the University of Minnesota in a summer science program – I was one of two woman in my 15+ person research group (other  a post-doc from Korea). I felt very much like an outsider as a young woman. I remember once commenting on one of my research groups HNMR analysis showing him that his assessment of the structure could be different than what he predicted based on the shifting and coupling of the spectra – and he generally dismissed it in a way that I have never seen anyone do before – and deferred to the analysis of his male peers (Even though I turned out to be RIGHT).

I love science, and I left largely due to the fact that I didn’t want to spend my time in labs where I would be treated like an idiot because I am a woman.

 Your question is on point. Who were they targeting with this ad? Girls who are already interested in science…? Or maybe it was actually targeted at the other 99% of the population. As an advertiser, if I’m trying to sell something, my target audience is hardly THOSE WHO ALREADY OWN IT.

Once again, Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal is apropos:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1962

As the mother of 3 daughters, I appreciate that. Thank you. 

This is exactly right!  Weinersmith always has excellent insight and makes them neat little lols.

Science isn’t feminine, but it’s not masculine either.  Science should be accessible to all genders and shouldn’t be part of what defines your femininity/masculinity.

We shouldn’t be making math and science pink and sparkly, we should be emphasizing that gender shouldn’t be a dominate influence in your interest in math and science. 

It’s one thing to make STEM seem sexy, and another to make it seem gendered.

I’m all for approaching this problem as scientifically as possible. As an educator, I read quite a few papers in good scientific journals (like Science) about new ways of understanding how people think, what drives motivation, how learning works, and lots of other interesting stuff. Social science is really on the verge of becoming a true science, and that has exciting consequences for society. Of course, this happens just as Crank and some of his dim-bulb buddies in Congress seek to remove all NSF funding from the social sciences in the U.S.!

There are limited studies, of varying quality, looking at problems like the one under discussion here. Even with adequate funding, it’s going to be a while until any sort of consensus develops about effective methodologies. In the meantime, however, we know that the advertising industry has developed some very effective ways of reaching and influencing people. Better we should use some of these approaches to possibly push girls towards STEM than to sell sugary breakfast cereal, IMO. A simple campaign like this serves as a harmless experiment, if nothing else. I don’t think it will push anybody away from science, or reinforce any stereotypes. It might actually work as intended, and should at least provide a few data points for researchers who study these sorts of things formally.

This is just a PSA… not some massive shift in focus of the education community!

I don’t know that I can call pandering to gendered stereotypes original thinking, though. I do know that when I was younger I got very tired of my interests being pinkified, Barbied and glitterized whenever someone noticed that girls were paying attention, or wanted girls to pay attention.

There’s probably a million other ways to get the attention of 12 year old girls. Making something pink and glittery and promoting gendered stereotypes is the easiest for advertisers, maybe, but is it really the most effective?

1. Using is the same as reinforcing.
2. Stereotypes are not necessary rooted in truth in any way. For example, women not being as smart as men is an unsupported stereotype as far as I’m aware. Most Irish aren’t alcoholics, most muslims aren’t usually terrorists, etc.

I really don’t understand how a visceral reaction to an advertisement isn’t a completely valid and important.  This ad makes me feel in my gut like girls are being pandered to.  Like look girls, science is cool, it’s pink and has make up!  It’s like an ad to encourage young men to go into nursing that features sweaty guys chopping wood and drinking beer cut with footage of bandages and gurneys.

The way you try to hook someone into what your selling matters.  This is insulting.  I don’t care if it works, it’s the opposite of the way we want to encourage women to explore their STEM interests. 

 No, i didn’t. I actually didn’t “imply” anything. I sat flat out what I had to say.

Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not “advocating stereotypes”.

You’re advocating the use of stereotypes, which is practically the same. 

No, using is certainly not the same as reinforcing. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with stereotypes- in many cases they accurately represent key characteristics of some population. They can be very useful- as long as they are reasonably accurate, and as long as whoever is using them remembers that they apply to a population, not individuals.

In my experience, this particular stereotype of girls that age is accurate. That is, a significant percentage of girls could be attracted to this sort of imagery. So using that particular stereotype in designing an advertisement that targets that audience is completely rational. It does not reinforce that sort of thinking in that audience.

To argue against advocating the use of stereotypes makes no sense, and flies in the face of reality.

Also, I’m just curious, what do you think of advertisements that send the message to women that they can only be sexy if they’re incredibly skinny? Do you likes those ads?

My point is it doesn’t matter that it’s not targeted at me. 

It’s not an empowering message to anyone.  Regardless of whether or not it works, it is not a positive way to convey the message that you can be feminine and a scientist.  We should not want to recruit girls into STEM fields using this method, even if it does work, which I doubt it does.

I don’t know if you’re just fighting for lols, but it bothers me that you’re not listening to the responses of women who were at one point the target audience of this ad.  I was at one time a teenager girl who wasn’t sure if I was smart enough to do science.  This ad would have felt patronizing to me, not make me feel like yeah!  Science is for me!

No, I was not jazzed about science as a girl.

This ad does more harm than good for the perception of women in science.

The views you have expressed, and which we’re up-voted by many people, are ignoring the input of women who do have insight into why this is bad. That women scientists views are being dismissed as not relevant because we’re adults and alread scientists is incredibly insulting. As women in STEM we have an interest in how women in STEM are perceived and defending this video that degrades us is maddening.

How is that? Biblically immoral, educated, liberal, intellectuals? I’d say that stereotype is accurate. It describes the majority of atheists I know.

In the case of those who have a problem with atheists, it isn’t so much that their stereotype is wrong, but rather that they consider its elements to be negatives, while we consider them to be positives.

It is offensive in your opinion. If you can’t make your lips or fingers say that, you do not understand rational discourse, and there’s no point in further discussion.

You are addressing matters of opinion and value, not fact. My original response suggested that this is something that can properly be addressed in a fact-based way, yet you dismiss that with “DOES NOT MATTER”. That is irrational and unscientific.

Neil deGrasse Tyson just tweeted this, along with his preferred alternative https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BI2m3QoaS8