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.)
I just had a very positive phone conversation with Robert Edmund, the CEO of the company who put out this ad. He was very open to the criticism, and he understood what people were upset about, that putting out an advert targeting a male audience would continue to propagate stereotypes about gender in the technical fields. They will be changing their advertising strategy to portray women in a more professional light on their ad campaigns. They already have a new catalogue out which should arrive soon, and said that the change in their strategy should be evident there.
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!
That’s great news, Hiranya. Thanks for the update.
WOW!
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.
Edmund Scientific used to have a reputation as selling cheap products.
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
Oh my god. What an amazing find: People use sex appeal to sell things (even geeky optical things! ) I’m shocked and amazed.
Most of the comments seem to be about people condescending to people who don’t hold their beliefs about what a horrible, terrible, ATROCIOUS thing the aforementioned ad was. AND trying to educate people about just WHY they are so wrong (stupid, misinformed, etc, depending on the poster).
Folks, you have basically two choices here: a) would you want to live in a society where people are free to offend your delicate sensibilities with such an ad. or
b) would you prefer to live in a society where everyone agrees with your point of view and there can be no dissent (because, after all, you ARE right about this, and it’s oh so stupid of others to disagree with you. AND if they do, they must be re-educated to the TRUE PATH).
I choose a) obviously, and if people sometimes piss me off about how to advertise their products, I think I will live with that until the BIG RIP rather than go down the path to choosing b).
Geez, it’s no wonder this country elected Shrub, twice! Us TRUE THINKERS make such easy targets of ourselves.
h.