Would 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.