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.)
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
Pingback: Productive Procrastination » Blog Archive » Edmund Scientific catalog causes controversy
#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.