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.)
ohh, broken record and Annie, can I be friends with you too?
I had too much stuff to do to be involved in this discussion (and thought it would be hitting my head against a wall anyways), but it would be really nice to talk to other people about things like that offline.
Sean, please put me in touch with ier too 🙂 Cheers.
I feel like I’m Oprah or something. But I’m not giving away any cars!
Thank you, Sean!
@broken record
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.
Well, you’ve asked if if ‘my response is rational’, I said no of course it is not. What I apparently unsuccessfully tried to communicate was what probably was the intention of the ad’s design. I’m not saying I would have done that (in fact, I wouldn’t cause I find it rather boring and uninspired). An ad that is designed to catch your eye hardly ever aims at your ‘rational’ thinking, that’s the whole problem, no? Rationally seen, why do you need anything in an ad except facts? I can put the question back to you and ask you if it’s rational to be offended by a photo with two women smiling at each other? If you weren’t talking about abstract differences between men and women, I was, and I just meant to throw into the discussion that this very likely has influenced the design. I kind of agree with some stuff (definitely not all) that D wrote about: it’s unsurprising that tactics that have been used for the rest of the society show up in academics – that’s what I meant with my remark about capitalism. Academics is not a decoupled system.
I kind of understand if some of you say, well but this is where I work, and this is what I protect. I just wanted to add my opinion, that is: not offended. If you think there’s a majority of young women who are offended, well, I find it hard to believe, but what do I know about American girls?
And I’m off coz I don’t think this is a major factor to get more women into physics, honestly.
A nice weekend to all of you,
B.
B: I did not grow up in this culture. It took me a long while to realize just what problems American girls in physics face that I never had to deal with, because I was never made to feel growing up as that I was any different from boys when it came to pursuing my love of math and science. Well, they are. And the intent behind an advert may be very different from what you consider normal. If you live in this culture, you may come to feel that you cannot decouple from it either.
Did you look at the modified ad with David Duchovony, B? Do you feel this is an ad directed to you? Now imagine working in a field were you are the only guy, and somehow people make it constantly clear that you don’t belong there, whether they tell you directly or with more subtle things. And then you get an ad like that. Don’t you understand that this could possible increase the feeling that you don’t belong because it might not be directed at you?
And please people, stop the “americans are so oversensitive and prudish” comments, I think it is very good to have discussions about these things and trying to make physics more inclusive.
First of all, I was not at all shocked by the photo. Should I fell ashamed? Am I sick? Should I be put away?
More seriously, I can understand that it might hurt some people but so do many other things. How do you think an American Muslim must feel when he sees that the American president swears with the hand on the bible? Your own blog seems to imply that religious people are dumb, so do you think they are hurt by that or not?
If you’re all moral and pure, how is it OK to hurt some people and not others? I heard people urging you not to buy optics from this firm. How is that different from Muslim integrists urging fellow muslims not to buy Danish products?
As I said, I can understand that some people might be hurt but I’m very concerned by where this political correctness might lead. Imagine that hundreds of groups begin asserting they rights to a world without a certain behaviour, without a certain word, etc. How should this work? Should we grant them all their wishes and if no, why not? What if the wishes are contradictory? What should we do then? So you see, it’s a complicated problem.
I have heard numerous times voices calling for a better representativity of women in sciences. Should we also call for a better representativity of all other minorities? How about religious people, should they be represented and if no, why not? If they’re refused are they entitled to feel excluded?
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?
In the end, I would suggest you read this very short story (a couple a paragraphs) by Asimov and see what you think. I hope it will make you understand that your perspective of things is not necessarily the best there is. I hope you will be humbler after that…
In the comment above I forgot to properly close a tag. Only the word very was supposed to be in boldface. It’s because there’s no preview available. Sorry!
I’m afraid that’s right, Lord S. Finally someone understands what our blog is all about: convicting sick (but humble!) people such as yourself of thought crimes, so that we can lock them up and put them away, creating a politically correct paradise in which no harmful words are ever uttered.
Except about religious people. And window cleaners. Morons, all of them!
Yes, what’s with the “oh, those Americans” type comments? Sure, if you’re living/working somewhere else where none of those problems exist, you can just ignore it and nothing would be different. But if you are working here, and have an attitude of dismissing problems just because they are problems of American girls, you are not going to get very far. Because you see, it’s still the American culture you are living in, set up in the same way that caused those girls that you dismissed problems in the first place. It’s not suddenly going to change for you because you are from Europe or whereever, although you may feel you are very enlightened about something those American girls aren’t.
Annie, broken record, ier, et al: Thanks for fighting the good fight. I think you’ve thoroughly rebutted most arguments against, so I’ll save my head for other brick walls.
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.
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.
Dear comic variable,
I’m very happy to read that after all those centuries the spirit of our Holy Inquisition lives on .
I am just as horrified as you are by the sight of that Luciferian optical creature.
Writing about that evil witch is all very well, but when will you progressives, o my worthy followers, actually start to actually burn people?
Yours impatiently,
Torquemada.
Here’s the email I sent EO, subject line “Sex Sells”:
Thanks for elevating the level of awareness on this issue.
I would take this question through a different angle. Why would any bright, young female (or male, by the way) (astro)physicist pay any attention to advertising adds? Should we be paying attention to adds, or should we rather decide critically which products we want to buy/consume on the basis of their intrinsic qualities and our personal interests? Just ignore the adds.
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.
#144: You make good points. However it’s much easier to change advertising culture than change key concepts of capitalism. Car adverts are a good example – at least in this country, advertisers have cottoned onto the fact that women buy cars, and therefore they are not advertised just to heterosexual men anymore. The only recent car ad I remember which was blatantly using sex to sell was one with a nude Claudia Schiffer. But even she was showing *driving* the car, not draped as an accessory across it.
I’m all for using a little sex appeal to increase interest in sciene. Perhaps instead of having the model lounging in front of a blwon up version of the equiopment they could have actually had the model/employee holding in a little more realistic scenario…say standing up in a lab holding the equipment in the palm of her hand or something. To me it’s as much an example of tacky styling in the ad as it is poor taste. I’ll keep an eye out for the swimsuit edition and/or the sexiest men in science calendar.
Just think about cars and adds – women buy cars and drive them anyway.
It isn’t just driving away with the car. There is frequently sexism in the auto service department.
I wonder what the complainers would say about the famed first image on the world wide web — a promo shot for Les Horribles Cernettes?
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?
This complainer would let you know that the whistling sound you hear is the point, flying past your head.
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.
Red hot unitary evolution
Pingback: Role of Women in Science? at Nonoscience
Pingback: Belated Carnival Post
Has anyone considered the possibility that this ad is simply an oblique statement that their telescopes are incapable of handling any eyepiece with a magnification other than three?
While eye-rolling, this advert certainly shows such a product in better light than a line of text that says “XXX objectification only”.