Slashdot Mirror


Sexy Female Scientist Video Draws Fire

sciencehabit writes "A new video released by the The European Commission — ostensibly aimed at getting girls interested in science — is drawing widespred condemnation from around the web for its depiction of female scientists as sexy models strutting into the frame in high heels and short skirts. A male scientist watching them from behind his microscope doesn't seem to mind that none of them are wearing safe lab attire—he just pops his glasses on for a better look. The rest of the video is a mish-mash of heels, nail polish, lipstick, and sexily smoldering Erlenmeyer flasks, arbitrarily punctuated by girly giggles." The Commission denies that the video (since pulled) was a parody, but they've certainly set the bar high for anyone who wanted to make an actual parody.

404 comments

  1. Whats the problem by rossdee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whats wrong with sexy female scientists - they have them in movies.

    1. Re:Whats the problem by Golddess · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nothing. But seems like it'd do more to attract men to the field.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    2. Re:Whats the problem by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whats wrong with sexy female scientists - they have them in movies.

      Or, applying the term "scientist" more liberally, on the Mythbusters - Kari Byron - though technically, she's an artist. (Women, take your pick from the other hosts, I'm sticking with Kari.)

      More seriously, I know a few women scientists and I can confirm that in many, many cases, the old adage "Beauty * Brains = Constant" is false. Personally, I think smart girls are sexy - end of story.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Whats the problem by masternerdguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The main issue is that this video is not an accurate depiction of lab work. It's an idiotic thing that would have been a great 80s music video.

      --
      To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
    4. Re:Whats the problem by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 3

      Whats wrong with sexy female scientists - they have them in movies.

      Movies and real life are not necessarily the same thing, or remotely comparable.

      I'm not certain how my oldest daughter will react to this, even if it's presented in a neutral way. Pointing this video out to her without giving away my own views will be difficult, as it's so appalling. We'll find out tomorrow, and I'm not sure whether she'll laugh or snarl at it. Either way, I'll get an ear-full afterwards. BTW, she wants to be an astronaut, and is getting top marks in maths, physics, English, French and Russian to smooth her way (her first language is Finnish), and had completed senior high math while in junior high.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    5. Re:Whats the problem by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      An accurate depiction of lab work wouldn't attract anybody, simply because no advert could ever be long enough to capture the true nature of a science (or in fact, any) job.

      The problem is in trying to create a video at all. Ask female scientists why they got into science and create something that triggers those buttons in girls.
      Most likely female scientists didn't become scientists because they wanted to look at pretty colors in glass tubes all day.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Personally I think sexy girls are smart - end of story.

    7. Re:Whats the problem by tqk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Whats wrong with sexy female scientists - they have them in movies.

      My favourite person in the whole world is a female (computer) scientist, and it irks me no end that she has no interest in me of a sexual nature. Moan. Drat.

      Personally, I think smart girls are sexy - end of story.

      Personally, I think the only girls worth even considering are smart girls. You can have the rest. I won't miss the loss.

      OBSTRef: Seven of Nine (assimilate me already, damnit!), Jeri Ryan! Drool.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The music sucked ass.

    9. Re:Whats the problem by tqk · · Score: 1

      The main issue is that this video is not an accurate depiction of lab work. It's an idiotic thing that would have been a great 80s music video.

      It's a fricken PSA commercial, and a bad one at that. "Give us some glitz, then sprinkle some science on top, please."

      Ick. I'm not sure I'd consider it sexist, but I do consider it bad.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    10. Re:Whats the problem by tqk · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain how my oldest daughter will react to this, even if it's presented in a neutral way. Pointing this video out to her without giving away my own views will be difficult, as it's so appalling.

      Don't. Tell her about Marie Curie instead.

      It's not really all that appalling; just silly/stupid. It's not like you're watching Madonna or the Bieber, after all.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    11. Re:Whats the problem by Dekker3D · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd have to agree that Kari Byron both pulls off the "sexy" and "scientist" part better than these girls. And she's not even a scientist, nor trying (or at least this obviously) to be sexy.

    12. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amy Mainze from JPL, as a guest scientist on History Channel's "The Universe"

      Gorgeous and Brilliant

    13. Re:Whats the problem by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 1

      You mean besides the constant posing Kari Byron does?

    14. Re:Whats the problem by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      The main issue is that this video is not an accurate depiction of lab work. It's an idiotic thing that would have been a great 80s music video.

      But that video is an accurate depiction of the science of marketing. Sexist, misleading, uninformative, and attention grabbing (even if it is of the wrong reasons).

    15. Re:Whats the problem by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Still not as obvious as this. I stand by my point. Or perhaps I just haven't seen the episodes you have..

    16. Re:Whats the problem by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Summary is bad, as actual video is not what it says.
      And I have met much sexier scientists than that.

    17. Re:Whats the problem by timothy · · Score: 1

      Hey -- She shares my birthday! Funny discovery, thanks for the WP link ;)

      timothy

      --
      jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
    18. Re:Whats the problem by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      I'm not certain how my oldest daughter will react to this, even if it's presented in a neutral way. Pointing this video out to her without giving away my own views will be difficult, as it's so appalling.

      Don't. Tell her about Marie Curie instead.

      It's not really all that appalling; just silly/stupid. It's not like you're watching Madonna or the Bieber, after all.

      Yep. She has heroines as well as heroes. She's well aware of Marie Curie, Maria Goeppert-Mayer, Ingrid Daubechies and many others. The appalling thing is, this video was supposed to inspire females to become scientists, and was made on behalf of the European Commission. Now that really sucks.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    19. Re:Whats the problem by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's totally untrue. There's actually a small positive correlation between IQ and good looks. One hypothesis is both result from good genes. The other is that men attribute intelligence to pretty women. (See halo effect. We also imagine pretty women to be virtuous, witty and nice.)

    20. Re:Whats the problem by Johann+Lau · · Score: 0, Troll

      That's just what you like to think; seeing how non-submissive, intelligent women wouldn't even give you the time of the day.

      So don't you worry your useless head; just keep wanking and pouting from the cheap seats. Now there's a good boy.

    21. Re:Whats the problem by guises · · Score: 1

      Couldn't agree more.

    22. Re:Whats the problem by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Funny

      Completely agree. The video clearly depicts a beaker smouldering much moreso than any Erlenmeyer flask. How do you mess that up?!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    23. Re:Whats the problem by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Don't show her this video. It serves no purpose. This video only proves one thing: That the guys that made it don't have the first clue what science is all about.

      I can already imagine the big manager / politician saying to his underling: "Get me cool pictures of science"
      Underling: Uhhh, what?
      Cretin: You know, something beautiful that catches the eye...
      U: Uhhhh, like something that explodes with colors?
      C: Yeah, that's it! That and girls. Get me sexy girls too.
      U: Uhhh, ok boss. Whataver you say.
      U (leaving the room, to himself) God oh God... I need another job.

    24. Re:Whats the problem by Pro-feet · · Score: 4, Informative

      My wife is a sexy scientist. Really. She loves high heels and nail polish. And physics. Believe me, it's true.

    25. Re:Whats the problem by DesScorp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The main issue is that this video is not an accurate depiction of lab work. It's an idiotic thing that would have been a great 80s music video.

      The idiotic thing is the continuing quest to get more women in science and engineering, etc. Why no drive to get more male elementary school teachers, nurses, and secretaries? It would be just as stupid. Just because a field becomes more open to women doesn't mean that women necessarily want to be part of that field. There are always exceptions, but generally, different genders are attracted to different work. And this is why these campaigns are both silly and useless, noting more than an attempt to re-engineer human nature, which isn't really malleable.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    26. Re:Whats the problem by kikito · · Score: 1

      > simply because no advert could ever be long enough to capture the true nature of a science (or in fact, any) job.

      I would say that it's impossible to do *for the people that do ads*. I can think of 3 or 4 different ways of capturing the nature of science in 30 seconds or less.

      Trouble is, I know nothing about doing ads.

    27. Re:Whats the problem by EdIII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ick. I'm not sure I'd consider it sexist, but I do consider it bad.

      Ohhh, it's sexist.

      Using good looking models? Not so sexist. Using very well dressed good looking models? Well women scientists are still women. They can dress nice.

      Showing lab equipment, chemical equations, and elements interspersed with cosmetics in a flagrant advertising-douchy way as if that is the only way to keep the attention of women watching it, or to participate in science?

      Sexist. Most definitely.

    28. Re:Whats the problem by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they know what science is about, but considered any attempt to condense it into a short video that would meet their brief to be a futile effort. Most careers, presented honestly, look very unappealing. Science consists of many hours of stareing at screens, examining numbers and writing papers - at the end of which you have a very slim chance of making a major breakthrough and going down in history, and a much higher chance of one day having a newly discovered species of nematode named in your honor.

    29. Re:Whats the problem by jcr · · Score: 1

      Why no drive to get more male elementary school teachers, nurses, and secretaries? I

      As it happens, I have a cousin who's an elementary school teacher, and several school districts put some serious effort into recruiting him when he was starting out.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    30. Re:Whats the problem by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or, applying the term "scientist" more liberally, on the Mythbusters - Kari Byron - though technically, she's an artist. (Women, take your pick from the other hosts, I'm sticking with Kari.)

      horrible example. She's a film student they hired because she's pretty and they needed a pretty face on the show. BA in Film and Sculpture. Complete opposite of science. No science jobs, no science training, no interest in science, she's just a model.

      Jeri Ellsworth is a MUCH better example of a sexy female scientist. She invented the Commodore 64 emulator within a joystick, a popular toy that sold well on QVC and at Walmart. And check out these sexy photos of her soldering a circuit board.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    31. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know it was guys that made it? That's rather sexist of you.

    32. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mainzer. But I guess you were so taken with imagining what her tits look like that you didn't notice what her name was.

      Question: why does it matter if she's gorgeous? Is she a better scientist for it? Is her work more notable as a result? She's a remarkably intelligent scientist in her own right, and that's far more important to her scientific credibility than her cup size.

      Pairing "gorgeous" with "brilliant" is sort of like saying, "He's a great programmer. And has a horse cock!" They're two characteristics that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER, and drooling over a small handful of smart/pretty women only serves to underscore the sexist, borderline-misogynist, attitudes prevalent in the field.

      If you respect a woman's scientific work, there is no reason to bring her looks into it - it's irrelevant to the study of astronomy.

    33. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah, your'e right - nobody has even noticed a shortage of men in nursing, or tried to do anything about it!

      Gonna let you in on a little secret, friend: that attitude you just displayed? "Women aren't in these fields because they're simply NOT INTERESTED!" Yeah, that's called sexism.

      There is NO evidence to suggest that women can't (or don't want to) do math for biological reasons - i.e., as a result of their gender. In fact, it's been demonstrated that the purported "gender gap" in science and math performance is a myth. Your suggestion that lack of interest in science or math is somehow "inherent" to being a female is an extraordinary claim, and one for which you've offered no proof, much less extraordinary proof.

      But I agree with you: As long as there are sexists like you telling women to get back in the kitchen because math and science are just too hard for their poor widdle bwains, then yeah, these campaigns are silly and useless - because any intelligent woman will take one look at the line of bullshit you're trying to feed her, turn 180 degrees, and walk away.

    34. Re:Whats the problem by finity · · Score: 2

      Personally, I think smart girls are sexy - end of story.

      Yes. This. In the same way, dumb folks are a complete turnoff, I don't care how good you look.

      I've put this statement to the test.

    35. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the rest of us are unimaginative, could you elaborate on your 3 or 4 ways?

    36. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was a good depiction of what being a model is. Heck, just show the same 5 second clip on repeat so they get the drudgery of multiple takes.....

    37. Re:Whats the problem by tqk · · Score: 1

      Yep. She has heroines as well as heroes. She's well aware of Marie Curie, Maria Goeppert-Mayer

      I love that woman!

      Ingrid Daubechies

      Never heard of her. Thank you!

      ... and many others. The appalling thing is, this video was supposed to inspire females to become scientists, and was made on behalf of the European Commission. Now that really sucks.

      "They're just doing their best."

      I wish you were my dad. Hug your kid for me.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    38. Re:Whats the problem by VAElynx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But I agree with you: As long as there are sexists like you telling women to get back in the kitchen because math and science are just too hard for their poor widdle bwains, then yeah, these campaigns are silly and useless - because any intelligent woman will take one look at the line of bullshit you're trying to feed her, turn 180 degrees, and walk away.

      What wonderful strawman you are trying there.
      What he's arguing for isn't barring women from entering such professions, but that there's no need for specific recruitment. We don't need more female scientists, we need more good scientists regardless of gender. And I don't think that'll be achieved by asinine videos like this one.

      As for your extraordinary evidence, it's right there. They aren't choosing it, hence, they probably don't want to - same as a person who doesn't buy a hamburger doesn't want one.

    39. Re:Whats the problem by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Whats wrong with sexy female scientists - they have them in movies.

      related: only 22% of movie scientists are sexy women

      and oblig.

    40. Re:Whats the problem by fightinfilipino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how is the above post flamebait? it's the truth: sexism pervades scientific fields, just as it does nursing and teaching. these fields are societally seen as acceptable only for specific genders. we should be hiring based on whoever is best for the job. that's not what's happening in real life. in real life, society constantly tells us that women are not accepted in science, and that men are not accepted in nursing or teaching.

    41. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Wikipedia photo makes her look pretty damn dorky. I can state from having met her that she's a lot cuter than that.

    42. Re:Whats the problem by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

      Judging by your screen name, I can guess you have had a different view on things then many other Canadian or Americans have seen things transpire as they watched their peers from school rise to whatever it is they do now. I personally know a girl who I went to school with - she is gainfully employed after a bachelor of science, specialized in molecular biology and genetics. I remember a mix of male and female teachers and have no objection to my daughter being taught by a male. In Canada, we simply have few nurses because they all seem to go where there is money. Just remember, in real life, you are still society. I don't know about yours, but my daughter will be sucessfull in whatever she damn well wants to be.

      --
      120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
    43. Re:Whats the problem by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pairing "gorgeous" with "brilliant" is sort of like saying, "He's a great programmer. And has a horse cock!"

      You called?

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    44. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      did you not see her in maxim?

    45. Re:Whats the problem by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 2

      Sir, I envy you. Make her happy and never let her go.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    46. Re:Whats the problem by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      noting more than an attempt to re-engineer human nature, which isn't really malleable.

      Fatties were sexy at the turn of the century. Please explain.

    47. Re:Whats the problem by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      If a flunked math student can discover a theory of relativity [...]

      I hope you're not referring to Einstein, because he never flunked math. See http://physics.about.com/b/2007/09/19/physics-myth-month-einstein-failed-mathematics.htm and http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html.

      In fact, Einstein absolutely needed math to make the theory of Relativity.

      Also, calm down :)

    48. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pairing "gorgeous" with "brilliant" is sort of like saying, "He's a great programmer. And has a horse cock!" They're two characteristics that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ONE ANOTHER,

      You obviously have no idea how difficult it is to put in the requisite hours it takes to be a great programmer when women are constantly trying to get some of your horse cock.

    49. Re:Whats the problem by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

      BTW, she snarled...

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    50. Re:Whats the problem by interkin3tic · · Score: 4, Informative

      As the summary says, the video was pulled from the website. The video you're probably watching is not the one being discussed. I can't fathom who would be so dumb as to think that removing it from the website would be more effective than lying and saying it WAS a parody, even after saying it wasn't. Anyway, here's the real one. The summary was completely accurate.

      I'm suspicious that the whole thing is an overly complicated marketing ploy by some nail polish company, bribe some science commission to put an ad up. It could easily be a commercial for cosmetics.

    51. Re:Whats the problem by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Being a scientist doesn't quite depend on the degree you hold. It appears she does sort of scientific method on TV and gets paid to do it. That to me = professional scientist. I mean, I'm a scientist: it's not a very exclusive club. So don't suggest that simply because she doesn't hold a degree in science she can't do science.

      The producers of Mythbusters were indeed shamefull sellouts indeed if their hiring decision was based on looks, sure.

    52. Re:Whats the problem by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Fatties were sexy throughout all of human history except the last several decades.

      Skinny woman during most of history would be at a disadvantage at the first sing of food shortage. Also, if you are too small/narrow in the lower half of the body, as far as I understand, there is an increased chance of problems during child-birth. With no modern medicine around, again you are at a disadvantage. And I guess, with more than 80% of people being farmers back in the days a woman who can do this is desirable [http://www.demotivation.us/usa-vs.-russia-1249710.html]

      In fact, I read somewhere that for the first time in history the top 20% of society weights less than the bottom 20%. Fat meant rich and prosperous....

      Then, of course we have the ridiculous heights to which the ad industry brought the idea of a walking skeleton. I kid you not, I got scared by one such poster by H&M - the model (being way too skinny to boot) was definitely photoshoped even further!! It immediately put me in mind of a concentration camp. Revolting! I read somewhere that the hot girls of my childhood - Cindy Crawford and Elle Macpherson would not qualify today for being too chubby!?! WTF!!

    53. Re:Whats the problem by sirlark · · Score: 1

      Considering the intent behind the video, I think they're probably going in the right direction. They are marketing. They are trying to market science. There are billions of girls in the world who fall for far douchier bullshit adds about cosmetics/clothes/etc. Guys fall for similar crap, no arguments there, the products and style are just different, not the bullshit level. Going on past efforts, this approach would probably have seemed very likely to succeed. Also consider that the video was probably not produced by the EC itself, it was more likely outsourced to to some marketing firm with not a single scientist on staff, and they don't know how to market anything other lipstick to 14 year olds. I don't know what would have worked, but I can tell what wouldn't work... showing scientists doing their daily thing. Science is not a spectator sport. It doesn't generate interest except through participation. Does any of this make the video less sexist? No! Is the EC any less responsible? No! Will this video have any positive effect on the recruitment of women into science careers? Maybe...

    54. Re:Whats the problem by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Awesome! Quite the gal you got there; I hope if I ever have a daughter she'll be something like yours.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    55. Re:Whats the problem by Palamos · · Score: 1

      But not the ones that think they're smart but are not.

    56. Re:Whats the problem by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      Nothing wrong with being sexy and a scientist, but the video is just silly. It's like a thousand of other fashion commercials out there, except at the end they say "Science." I haven't known any scientists, but I went to school with and worked with many highly attractive engineers and programmers. And believe it or not, they're regular people just like us ugly people, with all the same problems and worries.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    57. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your use of a medical condition as an insult identifies you as a grade-A douchefuck.

    58. Re:Whats the problem by Palamos · · Score: 1

      But as the cost of conducting science increases year on year can we afford to have more objectivity go out of the window one week in four?

    59. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Kari was hired just to be a pretty face, she would have been prominently featured in her first episode. Instead, she was hired to be part of the build team and wasn't prominently featured until the second season. The fact that she doesn't have a science background is irrelevant to her success as a scientist, just as having a computer science background is irrelevnt to somebody's success as a programmer.

      In fact, having no prior interest in science makes her an excellent example, because the whole point of TFA was that they were trying to get girls interested in science. In other words, the audience is people who are not interested in science (like Kari before she was on the show).

      Jeri would have been a bad example because she was born with an interest in science. A typical girl might look at her and say, "She's a scientist because she was born that way. I wasn't born that way, so I can't be like her".

      dom

    60. Re:Whats the problem by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 2

      I'd have no problem with this if the females are actually scientists.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    61. Re:Whats the problem by martin-boundary · · Score: 2

      Useless! Science needs to attract more laboratory mice bent on taking over the world!

    62. Re:Whats the problem by crossmr · · Score: 1

      sexy? She's cute at best..

    63. Re:Whats the problem by Palamos · · Score: 1

      Wrong week perhaps?

    64. Re:Whats the problem by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Looking back at older episodes her shirts have become tighter... though I think that's mostly due to the producers.

    65. Re:Whats the problem by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      In interviews she regularly mentions that she is interested in the science they do.

      But indeed not a trained scientist; but that accounts for all of them. Though you don't have to be trained, to be able to work according to the scientific method, and that's what they do quite well.

    66. Re:Whats the problem by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      Sounds like she's both a scientist, and a woman. That doesn't sound too strange.

      And I do suppose that those high heels stay well away from the lab, possibly even from the complete workfloor.

      I wonder why scientists (both male and female) always have to be seen as nerdish and unworldly. Sure some are, but far from all.

    67. Re:Whats the problem by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That's an urban myth that came from people not understanding that there was a change in grading method at the time (eg. going from a score out of 5 for the maximum to a score where 7 is the maximum).

    68. Re:Whats the problem by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      Completely agree. The video clearly depicts a beaker smouldering

      She's right.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    69. Re:Whats the problem by Palamos · · Score: 1

      Sexy women in science are a great thing... domestic science while wearing a French maid's outfit.

    70. Re:Whats the problem by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Uhm what? I was being friendly.

      If you must know, I think death is too good for some people, and I don't mean that in a cute way. You bring the weapons, I bring the will to use them -- the only good pig is a dead pig :) They had their idiotic shit for millenia, it wasn't and isn't going anywhere -- now it's time to simply cut the derps off for good. There's billions of people and you can't save everybody. So fuck them, fuck you, and anyone who can stand your sight for longer than 10 seconds.

      Did that help at all?

    71. Re:Whats the problem by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      In fact, Einstein absolutely needed math to make the theory of Relativity.

      Yeah. His wife did it for him.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    72. Re:Whats the problem by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      So what? I mean, that's still a stereotype. What's the point about marketing science in first place. Did your wife decided to do physics because she can wear high heels and nail polish? Surely not. How should a marketing campaign try to attract more women in science? What is the main motivation of anyone doing real science? I specify real science because it seems many people even on /. are just confuse about airing a science show being science and doing actual science. By sticking on cosmetic stereotypes, I don't believe you will attract anyone, your wife included.

      The best marketing that could be done is to provide highly paid jobs with good working conditions and labs to scientists if you really want to attract people in science. For now, the money is in Wall Street and Hollywood. No wonder people prefer doing something else than science. Less efforts for higher rewards.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    73. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you mess that up?!

      It's a girl thing.

    74. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet Disney/Movies depict the evil people as ugly and the pretty people as good. So some subset of the people convert that into thinking ugly means evil and pretty means good. So it depends upon if your goal is to convince people to become evil scientists and engineers or good scientists and engineers. This is just an attempt to conform to a screwed up culture.

    75. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Showing lab equipment, chemical equations, and elements interspersed with cosmetics in a flagrant advertising-douchy way as if that is the only way to keep the attention of women watching it, or to participate in science?

      Sexist. Most definitely.

      It's true, however. Get over it.

    76. Re:Whats the problem by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't know if stupid stuff like this qualifies as science, but it does little to the sexiness argument.

    77. Re:Whats the problem by jhoegl · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that is the one I saw. There is no "short skirt girl" bending over and the male getting all excited.
      And yeah.. I have seen sexier scientists.
      Thanks for assuming.

    78. Re:Whats the problem by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      Most of science isn't lab work. In fact, for the work a serious scientist is likely to be doing most of the time, a short skirt and heels is just as appropriate as any other garment the scientist in question chooses to wear.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    79. Re:Whats the problem by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      [Citation needed]

      Please stop spreading this urban myth. "Fatties" have never been considered sexy. 'Very slightly more plump but still curvy', maybe, but there is a vast difference between that, and 'fatties'.

    80. Re:Whats the problem by WillDraven · · Score: 2

      More seriously, I know a few women scientists and I can confirm that in many, many cases, the old adage "Beauty * Brains = Constant" is false. Personally, I think smart girls are sexy - end of story.

      That's true enough, but unfortunately the few exceptions to "beautiful, intelligent, sane; pick two" that I've found are already taken. :-X

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    81. Re:Whats the problem by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      Let me completely destroy your "insightful" argument:

      1) I love it when people invoke "It's just human nature!" as some kind of support for their argument. There ain't no such thing as human nature - or, rather, I should say that human nature is literally anything that humans do, which makes it as a term completely meaningless. It's human nature to be like Ghandi, and it's human nature to be like Stalin, and it's human nature to be like everyone in between. What a useless term.

      2) You say that different genders are attracted to different work. Why? What basis is there for that attraction? Why shouldn't men be just as interested in how children are raised and educated, or in caring for the sick and infirm as women? Why shouldn't women be just as interested in advancing human knowledge as men? What's the origin of this difference? What empirical evidence is there to support some kind of biological argument that "they're just different" as opposed to it being a social construct past "well, most girls play with dolls and most boys play with guns"? Lay it out for me - after all, if it's so blindingly obvious and so incredibly important that it's "idiotic" to try and find proportional representation in various fields, you shouldn't have any problem creating a persuasive argument that relies on facts and evidence as opposed to stupid prejudices.

      3) Your argument that men aren't being recruited for teaching and nursing positions is factually incorrect. There is a very, very strong recruitment push for getting men into nursing and elementary school teaching, as well as many other fields that have traditionally been more heavily skewed to women. Trying to recruit more male secretaries is about the same as trying to recruit more female dishwashers in restaurants - it's a scut job that, with the advent of computers and relatively smart digital assistants, is usually staffed by people looking to get a toe-hold in an industry rather than a career. There are a few exceptions - special assistants to extremely highly placed executives certainly have interesting and challenging work (and quite a bit of power in their own right) but calling them "secretaries" is about the same as comparing the job of running a lemonade stand to the President of the United States.

      Now that I've pointed out why everything you said is wrong, here's why the opposite of what you said is important:

      1) If there is a massive disparity in gender, racial or ethnic representation in a field compared to the proportion in the general population, it could very well mean *gasp* that there are artificial barriers to entry for people under-represented, and why shouldn't we look for ways to remove those artificial barriers? In some cases, historically, those barriers were obvious (racial segregation, religious segregation going back into european history), and in some cases they were just as present but less obvious to those not experiencing them (institutional racism and sexism). Most men I work with don't like making mistakes, but they don't seem to feel as if they are representing literally every male on the planet and making all males look bad when they do make a mistake. I, on the other hand, have personally been told that I'm "pretty good at math, for a woman" and in another case that a potential employer was really nervous about hiring me because what if I get pregnant, like another woman he worked with did, or what if I'm moody, like his wife? I have to answer for the behavior of all women in those cases - I don't know why his wife is moody, but I would have had to answer for her if I wanted that job. (I didn't, and I explained that the reason for her moods was likely sitting across the desk from me).

      2) People with different backgrounds often come with very different ways of thinking about problems, and often what seems completely opaque to one person will be obvious and easily understood by another. I do research in public health and social and community psychology. I can assure you that a bunch of affluent, highly-educated,

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    82. Re:Whats the problem by cretog8 · · Score: 1

      I don't watch Mythbusters, so I have no opinion of Byron. But those pictures of Ellsworth working the circuit boards are HOT.

    83. Re:Whats the problem by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      The other is that men attribute intelligence to pretty women.

      Since when?

      I've never actually met a guy who thinks pretty women are intelligent.

      Of course, I've never actually met a guy who would NOTICE that a pretty woman was intelligent....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    84. Re:Whats the problem by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      It depends on your definition of "fatties". Many people today consider the women depicted in the paintings by Peter Paul Rubens to be "fatties". Those women represent what was considered sexy for most of history. I happen to still consider that to be sexy.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    85. Re:Whats the problem by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Oh, I see, this is one of those things where you have to really, really stretch the definitions of words.

    86. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary doesn't say anything about bending over or the male getting excited. It says they "strut into the frame in high heels and short skirts" and he "pops his glasses on for a better look" which is accurate.

      Maybe you should learn to actually RTFS before you say it's inaccurate.

    87. Re:Whats the problem by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      She does keep her high heels, but actually underdresses occasionally, since our work floor (CERN) is very male dominated. The underdressing is not because the men can't behave, it's all very professional here in that respect, but mostly because she wouldn't want worldly things like that to be in the way of what should matter at work: the science.

    88. Re:Whats the problem by Pro-feet · · Score: 1

      You're of course right. The reason she went into science had to do with the "real science" aspect, and with it providing an opportunity to develop and grow above the world she came from. There is really no need for stereotypes. Women in science are often really just regular women. Maybe they can use the selling argument that in science (in my experience at least) women are well respected, maybe more than in high-profile corporate environments.

    89. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am guessing that the intent of the video was to encourage girls/women already interested in science to NOT turn away from science it because of popularity/image issues. I think this video was targeted at high school girls and might be effective. The girls not motivated by popularity/image issues will just laugh and continue with their science passions. Some girls who were wavering because of image/popularity issues might be encouraged to continue with their science passion.

      I see no big problem with it.

    90. Re:Whats the problem by BeanThere · · Score: 2

      I know slashdotters are younger now but gosh, I was around at the turn of the century, it was only 12 years ago, and I promise you fatties weren't considered sexy then.

    91. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main issue is that this video is not an accurate depiction of lab work. It's an idiotic thing that would have been a great 80s music video.

      I like it. I think it does a good job promoting science careers to girls. Remember, that this is competing for the same demographic who watches shows like "Keeping Up with The Kardashians". The goal of this isn't to accurately portray Science. The goal is to decrease the stigma of science careers being uncool for girls. It seems pretty good for that.

    92. Re:Whats the problem by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Ask female scientists why they got into science and create something that triggers those buttons in girls.

      I imagine it's the same kinds of things that attract men to science, combined with a disregard for any prejudice they encounter along the way. I recently came across this rather impressive scientist at a conference, and here's here description of what got her into her field: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/about_us/scientists/caren_meyers.html

      When did your interest in chemistry begin?

      MEYERS: In high school I enjoyed math and chemistry. So in college, I thought chemical engineering might be an appropriate blend of those disciplines. As a sophomore in college, I took organic chemistry and loved it. I liked synthesis. I enjoyed thinking about how to construct molecules, and I really enjoyed the connection of organic chemistry to medicinal chemistry.

      When I was a junior in college, my father was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was taking a lot of very toxic drugs, and although they were considered state-of-the-art medicinesâ"cisplatin and adriamycinâ"they made him very sick.

      That intensified my interest in medicinal chemistry. A major goal of anti-cancer drug design is to improve the cytotoxic effects of drugs on cancer cells without making patients sick. My personal experience with cancer drove me to specialize in that area of science.

    93. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet she doesn't wear those heels in the lab, though!

    94. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't disagree, there are few men out there would would have an issue with someone saying "He's a great programmer. And has a horse cock!". The sexism and mysogony you refer to is more a general societal issue than a field of study issue. Scientists don't decide what the Hollywood face of scientists will be.

    95. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, since you didn't RTFA, you are just plain wrong, and the video they link is, in fact, the one under discussion. Just because it was removed from the official web site hardly means it has disappeared from the web.

    96. Re:Whats the problem by FrangoAssado · · Score: 1

      Yeah. His wife did it for him.

      It's almost like creating a theory that revolutionizes physics requires more math than what a non-math-genius physicist is comfortable with.

    97. Re:Whats the problem by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Science is probably the most isolating field. You have co-researchers who are totally off limits and... no one. No Clients, few meetings, few social events, no banquets etc. Regular pencil pushing has much more socialization, and human error type mistakes. ("Tom's so silly!" [I'm aware that it's a stereotype that women talk about social interactions more than men but I've found it true]).

      Few stories from work and few opportunities to meet people means it can be an isolating social area. Saying that attractive women will find stability there and have no problem attracting socialization seems to be the point of the commercial, not a bad attempt at the problem.

      This "problem" is a popular one with quasi scientists but has been researched scientifically. I'm sure they have a pretty good idea of what is keeping women from being interested in pursuing a career in science.

    98. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can see your username at the top, there's really no need to sign with it's initials.

      -AC

    99. Re:Whats the problem by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      There are billions of girls in the world who fall for far douchier bullshit adds about cosmetics/clothes/etc.

      Ah yes, the old bait and switch. Once those stupid girls have fallen for our bullshit and have chosen for a career in science it will already be too late for them! Muhahahaha!

      They're not buying anything, you know. This is about life choices and as a result, promoting careers in science should be promoting the wonder and curiosity that drives most scientists instead of 'look at how cool you could look as a scientist (but never really will) or all the cool stuff you could do for the world (but realistically will only contribute to the realization of that cool stuff)'. Ask the questions about the world that scientists ask themselves, show how asking those questions in the past have created awesome things now! The girls whose interests are sparked by this are the ones that will be good additions to the field of science and will not be steered away at the first sign of science appearing to be hard work instead of a means of being cool.

      Actual female scientist role models would probably help too, but it seems they're actually doing a slightly decent job at that: http://science-girl-thing.eu/profiles-of-women-in-science

    100. Re:Whats the problem by Lunzo · · Score: 1

      I think we do need gender specific recruitment. The argument goes a little something like this:
      1. 50% of the population is female.
      2. 50% of good scientists should also be female (assuming an even distribution).
      3. Much less than 50% of current scientists are female.
      Therefore there are women who would be good scientists that are not choosing to do science.

    101. Re:Whats the problem by Zanadou · · Score: 1

      That's true enough, but unfortunately the few exceptions to "beautiful, intelligent, sane; pick two" that I've found are already taken. :-X

      Just for comparison, here's the male version:

      Men: handsome, intelligent, rich, or heterosexual; pick any three.

    102. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my GF has a Ph.D, but she needs to be reassured about her looks too, just like most women.
      I don't think it's a bad thing to mix "beautiful" and "smart" in the same phrase about someone.
      Myself I'd feel pretty flattered if someone said something like that about me (well, my girlfriend does, but does that really count ?).

      Don't most of us want to have the best of both worlds ?

    103. Re:Whats the problem by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Summary is bad, as actual video is not what it says. And I have met much sexier scientists than that.

      Brooke Magnanti?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    104. Re:Whats the problem by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      That's true enough, but unfortunately the few exceptions to "beautiful, intelligent, sane; pick two" that I've found are already taken. :-X

      There is no such thing as a sane woman. Some are more so than others, but it is a universal constant.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    105. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My personal experience with academia has only ever seen inferior woman hired based on gender in the name of equal rights. I have never seen or heard of a professor who hired an inferior male because he did not want to hire a female.

      " in real life, society constantly tells us that women are not accepted in science"

      This is definately not the case in academia, however you cannot get past the point that the gender divisions in sciences will reflect the opinions of the general society. If a mother laughs at her daughter when she tells her that she wants to be a structural engineer, a mathematician or physicist, then that may just be one less eager student for one of those fields.

      The sad truths right now is just that there are 10 competent males for each competent female because there are 10 male students for each female student.

      The trend is upwards though in my country, and we've seen years with up to 20% females, yet it's proving hard to have a sustainable growth.

    106. Re:Whats the problem by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Fatties for the fashion industry, sure, they want a living mannequin. For straight males' tastes, they would be considered a bit on the chubby side today but not "fatties." It's not a radically different body shape, it's understandable that males' tastes could change that much to suit the environment (a little extra weight was good for surviving famines, these days it's anything but a survival aid).

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    107. Re:Whats the problem by Hankavelli · · Score: 1

      There is a positive correlation between IQ and success in life, and successful men are more desirable to women. So the most attractive women will most likely select partners who are successful and hence somewhat smarter than average. And thus they will tend to have daughters who are prettier and smarter than average. It seems like the dynamics of human match-making would support the hypothesis that genes for smarts and beauty would tend to correlate positively.

      Though I don't think that that has anything to do with the very real rarity of beautiful women scientists. I think the key factor is what economists refer to as opportunity cost. Quite simply, science is hard. Satisfying perhaps, but hard. If there are easier ways to get success and satisfaction in life, most people will take those alternative routes. Being a beautiful woman opens a great many doors in life. She could marry her pick of successful men. She would be a huge asset to any sales, service, or public relations team. Her odds of landing any given position in just about any field are much higher than those of someone who is not a beautiful woman.

      This opportunity differential runs deep. Consider the time one needs to spend studying to be a successful scientist. Most people must feel some temptation to go out and have fun and neglect their studies occasionally (even though achieving the highest levels in scientific research mean forgoing a lot of these sorts of things). But the typical nerdy dude doesn't have that many friends, there aren't attractive people regularly coming by and trying to take him fun places and have sex with him, if he goes to a party he probably feels like a nerd and stands around in the corner talking to the other nerdy dudes. A beautiful woman on the other hand is immediately befriended by everyone who isn't too intimidated by her, she's welcome at all the parties and has people inviting her to do cool fun things all the time, and when she does go out she's the center of attention and has to beat away the people trying to be nice to her with a stick.

      Even if she has just as much aptitude and inclination toward science as the nerdy dude, the beautiful woman would need to be an order of magnitude more dedicated to make it through the years of diligent effort needed to become a top notch scientist, due to all of the wonderful, fun, cool experiences she would have to forgo, experiences that were never even an option for the nerdy dude (or the homely girl).

    108. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was an unusual lack of David Lee Roth in the video.

    109. Re:Whats the problem by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      I know quite a few straight males who consider the women depicted by Peter Paul Rubens to be "fatties" (well, ok, I often question their sexuality, but they claim to be straight and some of them are married with kids). Personally, I prefer the women depicted by Peter Paul Rubens to the models in the Victoria's Secret catalog.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    110. Re:Whats the problem by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Seconded - treasure her - God knows most of us won't land something even close.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    111. Re:Whats the problem by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Can I rape and pillage before/during/after your actions? I think we'd make a great (non-sexual) couple.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    112. Re:Whats the problem by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      The other is that men attribute intelligence to pretty women.

      Since when?

      I've never actually met a guy who thinks pretty women are intelligent.

      Of course, I've never actually met a guy who would NOTICE that a pretty woman was intelligent....

      http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/I2011.pdf

    113. Re:Whats the problem by alexo · · Score: 1

      Jeri Ellsworth is a MUCH better example of a sexy female scientist. She invented the Commodore 64 emulator within a joystick, a popular toy that sold well on QVC and at Walmart.

      Which makes her an engineer, not a scientist.

    114. Re:Whats the problem by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      If you respect a woman's scientific work, there is no reason to bring her looks into it - it's irrelevant to the study of astronomy.

      The only times women have brought up astronomy with me, it was as a euphemism for having sex outdoors at night. Maybe that's just me, though.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    115. Re:Whats the problem by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      I happened to be with my 12 year old daughter when I saw the video. She's already well into the stage where getting her hair and makeup right is more important than having breakfast in the morning, so I think she fits the target demographic quite well. She thought it was one of the dumbest things she'd seen in a while.

      From my own point of view, it was readily apparent that no one involved in the creation of this video was:

      a) a scientist
      b) a woman

      Maybe it would have been possible to take this basic idea and do it well, but I have serious doubts.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    116. Re:Whats the problem by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      No, not "most definitely". Targeted towards women does not mean sexist.

      If it was targeting boys and has guns and monster trucks, would it still be sexist? Why?

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    117. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, this post (the whole thread in fact) is old by Slashdot standards. But this is the first post in my entire Slashdot anonymous coward observer life that makes me want to mod it up. Hmmm... congrats?

    118. Re:Whats the problem by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      We can see your username at the top, there's really no need to sign with it's initials.

      -AC

      I'm old, we used to sign things we wrote because we were proud we could spell.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    119. Re:Whats the problem by KingBenny · · Score: 0

      yea well, i hardly see how it could insult anyone, except maybe lagerfelds proverbial fat mom on the couch but i don't see how it would attract people with the right mindset either? unless they're just hoping for the medium chunk that got its degree by learning it all by head for months on end and still don't get it but would really be suitable for simple labrat work ? the scientific blue collar caste? what i wonder is how much this thing cost in tax euros, on the other hand i think i dont wanna know it

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    120. Re:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeri Ellsworth is a MUCH better example of a sexy female scientist. She invented the Commodore 64 emulator within a joystick, a popular toy that sold well on QVC and at Walmart.

      Which makes her an engineer, not a scientist.

      all engineers are scientists, but not all scientists are engineers

  2. Finally! by oakgrove · · Score: 5, Funny

    A story where everybody reads the article!

    --
    The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    1. Re:Finally! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      No, like Playboy, we're just looking at the pictures, despite what we may tell others.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re:Finally! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't just read the story. I 3D printed it.
      I'll... uhh... be right back. Loo break.

    3. Re:Finally! by Palamos · · Score: 1

      Article, what article?

  3. Umm by trifish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can imagine somebody was trying to address a number one concern of girls: It's not a sexy enough job! And I can't be sexy doing it, either.

    1. Re:Umm by Hentes · · Score: 1

      And why would we want girls whose number one concern is that in science?

    2. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      don't you know that is how all girls are, they want to look pretty and be sexy else they are not real girls. Just like all guys should be big strong types with fancy hair that play football or in a pop band.

      it is obvious that only guys in science is those who couldn't figure out how to play football, and the only girls are those who can't be pretty or sexy

      why waste time on suck losers they would never make it on a reality show...

    3. Re:Umm by next_ghost · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and the result looks like the parody of misogynistic beer ads from episode 2 of Your Face is a Saxophone.

    4. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because, if you don't, then you're a sexist and a misogynist and all the other terrible things that people say about you, because they dont' have a fucking dictionary and therefore can't look up what those words ACTUALLY mean.

    5. Re:Umm by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

      And why would we want girls whose number one concern is that in science?

      Because China is set to clean the EU's clock in a couple decades, so a bunch of people who think science is annoying and nerdy are afraid for their power. So they hired marketing people who think science is annoying and nerdy to try to convince girls to go into science. And that brings us to the present day.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Umm by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      I'd suggest that if that's the number one reason they found why girls aren't going into science, they're polling at too early a stage. That sounds like something I'd expect grade schoolers to say, not college graduates deciding whether to head to grad school, not college students picking a major... that's even more immature than I'd expect high-schoolers to be.

      When I was in grade school, I briefly didn't want to be a scientist because I thought it was too nerdy. I had an early interest in science that my parents managed to nurture despite not being interested themselves. The science teachers at my school were mostly terrible, and my classmates expressed a dim opinion of science. I got made fun of for watching Bill Nye.

      I probably would have come around on my own, peer pressure didn't keep me doing sports for very long, so I doubt it would have killed my interest in science. And anyway, I had an amazing junior high science teacher who really solidified my intentions to be a scientist.

    7. Re:Umm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because 50% !!!11

  4. Works for me .... by neiljt · · Score: 1

    ... And I'm not even a grrl!

  5. Well I was confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll be honest, until I saw the tagline at the end, I thought this was a makeup commercial.

    1. Re:Well I was confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yea, I thought it was trying to sell makeup to women in intellectual careers. Sort of a "you're smart, you can be hott too" thing.

      This thing is stupid, they should replace it with an ad where successful female scientists talk about whatever they are passionate about.

    2. Re:Well I was confused by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Real women geeking out?
      That's almost bordering on porn, right there! ... I'd watch it.

    3. Re:Well I was confused by Palamos · · Score: 1

      A good woman scientist should look like a make-up commercial!

    4. Re:Well I was confused by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of a fashion ad :-)

  6. Yes, I suppose that's true. by intellitech · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In the sense that people read Playboy magazine for the articles.

    --
    vos nescitis quicquam, nec cogitatis quia expedit nobis ut unus moriatur homo pro populo et non tota gens pereat.
    1. Re:Yes, I suppose that's true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playboy is so tame by today's porn standards that the last time I opened one, I really did spend most of the time with it reading the articles (after making sure the pictures were not enough to hold my attention, of course.) There was actually some pretty good writing in there.

    2. Re:Yes, I suppose that's true. by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 1

      There was actually some pretty good writing in there.

      This. There was some damn good writing in Playboy back in the day. They published long articles, stories, and interviews by prominent (and soon-to-be-prominent) writers and commentators, on subjects of genuine cultural significance.

      Nothing will convince you of the devolution of society more effectively than comparing a current issue of Playboy with one from the mid-1960s. I recommend against doing that unless you just want to spend the rest of the day depressed.

    3. Re:Yes, I suppose that's true. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some who read Playboy for the same reason they read National Geographic... to see all those exotic places that they'll never actually get to see in person.

  7. Only way to get the attention of young women by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    As long as we raise them to value glamour, we'll need to show them how science can be glamorous instead of nerdy.

    Any woman who doesn't mind that and is so inclined will become a scientist without any prodding. Indeed, you can't keep us away from it, same as the guys who are into it. They just don't have fashion holding them back.

  8. Well I was confused by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I'll be honest, until I saw the tagline, I thought this was a makeup commercial.

  9. Speaking as an objective male observer by arcite · · Score: 2

    I'm all for this. We need more sex in the workplace. A sexy work environment, is a productive work environment.

    1. Re:Speaking as an objective male observer by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      A sexy work environment, is a productive work environment.

      ...if you work at an artificial insemination clinic or are otherwise in need of more male bodily fluids, that is.

    2. Re:Speaking as an objective male observer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True. We'd all be better off if things were like Mad Men. And by all, I mean us guys. Not so much the women.

    3. Re:Speaking as an objective male observer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A sexy work environment, is a reproductive work environment."

      FTFY

    4. Re:Speaking as an objective male observer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A sexy work environment, is a reproductive work environment.

      There, FTFY

    5. Re:Speaking as an objective male observer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, sir, Captain Brannigan.

  10. an MTV video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ridiculous for taxpayer money to be spent on that. Hollywood, Mad Ave and their European counterparts know all about context shifting and will gladly take on this type of project with private funds.

    1. Re:an MTV video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I totally agree... they were obviously aiming for a dual-sponsored message.

      Science: it's a girl thing
      maybe she's born with it, maybe it's Maybelline

  11. force a woman spend 8 hours on those heels by emilper · · Score: 0

    while doing lab work ... and very soon you get a "mad female scientist"

    EU does not understand science ... after all, they funded the anti-GM clips with the "radioactive" sign instead of the "biohazard" sign on display.

  12. Re:How old is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's retro therefore hipsters love it.

  13. Oh God by MAXOMENOS · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This video is awful on so many levels.

    If you really want to close the gender gap, show girls the video of Ariel Waldman's talk at last year's OSCON. That..was awesome.

    1. Re:Oh God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      http://arielwaldman.com/2011/07/29/oscon/

    2. Re:Oh God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ummm she isn't a scientist. She is a hipster.

    3. Re:Oh God by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      If you really want to close the gender gap

      Start 'em early. If you raise your daughter on Disney Princess and Barbie, that's what will be instilled as their formative values. Do better, buy your daughter a ray gun.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Oh God by bosef1 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that was bad. Appearantly "science" consists primarily of makeup, safety goggles, obsolete multi-part distillation appratuses, and "math" on plexiglass marker board.

      Heck, the Devo "Watch Us Work It" video had more real "science" and "engineering" in it
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCZcIrSAT7I

    5. Re:Oh God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This video is awful on so many levels.

      If you really want to close the gender gap, show girls the video of Ariel Waldman's talk at last year's OSCON. That..was awesome.

      Excellent tip -- thanks. Heck, watching her inspired me to hack some science and I'm a middle-aged man.

    6. Re:Oh God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or Rebecca Watson. Or Julia Gillard. Go girls!

    7. Re:Oh God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a scientist or even engineer. I don't see the video as remote helpful to get STEM professionals. Basically she talks about deconstructing the very basis of what science is. Yeah, let's put teddy bears in space because that's exactly what science is about. The fact of the matter is Ms. Waldman is just as bad as this "controversial" video in this sense of distorting and debasing STEM.

  14. What a Dumb Ad by orlanz · · Score: 0

    Just adding my voice to those that are already here. Seriously, 80's look with random high school symbols of science splashed over a lipstick commercial. I don't think the creators know what science is, nor that women are nothing like the bimbos shown in the video (nothing personal against the actors).

    Lets put it this way, the stereotypical women depicted in the video couldn't get past grade school math let along drop into science. The Ad ends with "It's a girl thing" but that is NOT what science is (for those close to high BP, it's not a guy thing either). Science is science, and the rest of the Ad is what society "appears" to want girls to be like. All the Ad did was support the negative later!

    Please, depending on the age group you are targeting, pay some experts in the field to get your message across like: Disney, Vogue, Glamour, Victoria Secret, or even Target! Don't buy rejected lipstick Ads on the cheap and throw a guy & some beakers into it.

    1. Re:What a Dumb Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lets put it this way, the stereotypical women depicted in the video couldn't get past grade school math let along drop into science.

      That one sentence disqualifies you from judging the video. Fuck off with your stereotyping, that attitude is precisely what the video tends to dispel. Many girls want to be attractive, even if they go into science, imagine that...

    2. Re:What a Dumb Ad by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Just adding my voice to those that are already here. Seriously, 80's look with random high school symbols of science splashed over a lipstick commercial. I don't think the creators know what science is, nor that women are nothing like the bimbos shown in the video (nothing personal against the actors).

      Lets put it this way, the stereotypical women depicted in the video couldn't get past grade school math let along drop into science. The Ad ends with "It's a girl thing" but that is NOT what science is (for those close to high BP, it's not a guy thing either). Science is science, and the rest of the Ad is what society "appears" to want girls to be like. All the Ad did was support the negative later!

      Please, depending on the age group you are targeting, pay some experts in the field to get your message across like: Disney, Vogue, Glamour, Victoria Secret, or even Target! Don't buy rejected lipstick Ads on the cheap and throw a guy & some beakers into it.

      I'll bite. "women are nothing like the bimbos shown", really? I've met women who do like to flaunt their sensuality in certain appropriate circumstance, much more so than what was displayed. Furthermore, "bimbos", really? Did they do anything approaching noncommittal sexual relations, or was that your imagination?

      Lipstick: Lots of science goes into making cosmetics. Who better to formulate cosmetic chemicals than those who typically wear them?

      Assumption that models are ignorant of "grade school math" & science: Oh, now you're just being even more of a completely sexist cheauvanistic douchbag. Five of the six models I've met were putting themselves through college with their looks, wouldn't you if you could? The sixth had a degree in art. They ALL have passed grade school level math & science -- who doesn't these days? (DAMN YOU'RE A DICK).

      I agree science isn't sexually discriminant, however, I disagree. Science IS a "Girl Thing", just as much as it is a "Guy Thing", it's non exclusive, ergo it's both.

      As one who uses a microscope, and wears glasses for farsightedness, ANYONE approaching me while examining a slide would warrant the donning of my glasses...

      Look, I agree the ad was over sexed a bit, but you're just an asshole. Fuck you.

    3. Re:What a Dumb Ad by tgv · · Score: 1

      Your preconceptions are quite horrible. Why wouldn't a pretty girl be able to pass grade school math? Quite a few of the PhDs I've met were pretty women. Perhaps a bit less glamorous than the ad, but not by miles.

      And the point of 'what society "appears" to want girls to be like' is lost on me. Girls WANT to be like that, at least a bit. It might be because of our society, although I doubt that explains it 100%, but that doesn't change the fact.

      So, while you lead the revolution that makes society impose less demands on female looks, let these girls choose a science career.

    4. Re:What a Dumb Ad by orlanz · · Score: 1

      I am going to respond to you cause the other guy was just simply uncivilized and doesn't merit one. You got me wrong. I know a few people who actually got out of research and IT consulting to pursue a career in modeling cause that paid more. Of course that also meant that they were very attractive. So pretty has little to nothing to do with smarts and education. I understand the concept well. As I stated, I had nothing against the actors, I meant it.

      I was criticizing the Ad. Ads are all about symbolism and stereotypes. And the vibe I got from the Ad was that of stereotypical 80's brightly colored comedy relief that tags along with the heroes in movies (think the reverse of Austin Powers, as it was making fun of the 80's hero and propped up the females) aka: 80's bimbo. My personal opinion was that, symbolically speaking, mixing what is an intellectual concept (beakers & lab) with an air head concept (lipstick, fashion, babes posing in various stances) was the wrong way to go. You may say equating beakers to intellect and lipstick to air head is wrong... and I completely agree. But that is what our society has equated them to be... just look at any recent movie... or even in the last 40 years. Even the tough heroines utilize lipstick and such to catch the bad guys off guard. Ask yourself what our society says & thinks about that symbol?

      I don't think girls want to make it their goal to become models. I think that is a concept that gets environmentally influenced on them conscientiously and sub-conscientiously from the minute they realize that there are "boys" and "girls". It's a reality that we face. My problem was that rather than utilizing that reality to show pretty & intellectual babes, they choose to go the "posing models" route. Which although not true, doesn't symbolically come off as "intellectual"... just for a lack of a better word... bimbos.

      On that point why was only a LAB taken as the symbol science? That is a very 80's boring, nerdy symbol. Why didn't they show astronomy, nanotechnology, or robotics? The message shouldn't have been, "Lipstick, poses, & pretty smiles work in a geeky lab too!" but rather "Women are just as beautiful and sexy _working_ in any of these fields!" (which is very true).

      So, I am not leading some revolution on society, I am just saying ... that was NOT the way to use society's symbolic representations. For me, the Ad almost felt satirical. If it wasn't for the source, I wouldn't have taken it seriously and have assumed as such. If you want girls to get interested in science... go ask Disney or Victoria Secret for advice. Those guys are experts in getting their customer's attention and guiding it which ever way they intend.

    5. Re:What a Dumb Ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you not have anything personal against the actors? If I was an actor I would have refused to take part in this or the other racist ad the EU produced (the one where they implied that unless the EU becomes a single country, it will get raped by nasty foreign men)

  15. Re:Token Black by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0, Troll

    It's the EU. Not big on immigrants. You're lucky to get even one minority.

  16. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why do people insist on closing the gender gap just for the sake of closing the gender gap? Is the goal to make more or better science come out of Europe? No, its just to have more female scientists, so that progressives can have a warm fuzzy feeling, but that will never happen, because someone who wants equality of result will never be satisfied.

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What have we learned from you? Never try.

      Yeah, right. No thanks. We're not necessarily wanting for equality of result. Some more equality of opportunity? That's a definite improvement, but that's not even necessarily the goal.

      Sometimes the goal is just as simple as not blindly supporting the unconscious discrimination that serves no real purpose but just exists because that's what stick-in-the-mud conservative nihilists insist is the natural way of things and must not be questioned.

      We get it, you are strut around proclaiming your arrogant realism is the way of things, and everybody else should just shut up and a be cynical like you.

      But since you're not persuadable, there's no point in discussing anything with you, so we'll just have to let you rant on your own.

      Wasting time trying to change the mind of a stone isn't a productive use of time.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While there may be some who would be content with closing the gender gap on general principle, for most of us the goal is not warm fuzzies, it really is more and better science. One of the problems we have is that since there are so few women in the sciences, it is very hard to attract new women, even if they have the aptitude. So, the woman who had the potential to be a brilliant bio-chemist goes off and gets a degree in French literature instead and we are down a brilliant bio-chemist. Will all of the women who are attracted by these kinds of efforts make significant scientific advancements? Of course not. Most of the men in the sciences won't either. However, if we can't attract new women to the sciences, we are, in essence, shutting out half of the population from whence these advances could come. This isn't the only reason to want to close the gender gap, but hopefully it will at least convince you that the efforts are not just some pointless progressive feel-good program.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We insist on closing it because there is no evidence to support the theory that biological differences make one gender or another better "suited" to certain roles.

      We insist on closing it because there is a constant drumbeat of warnings about how we don't have enough people earning qualifications for STEM careers in college graduating, and we're going to have massive shortfalls - yet somewhere approaching 50% of the population (depending on the field - some fields have higher participation rates than others, to be fair) simply isn't considering the idea of a STEM career.

      We insist because there simply is no gender gap in performance measurements that is NOT eliminated by equal access and participation in math and science programs - yet there is clearly something social or psychological causing perfectly capable women to focus on other careers instead.

      Maybe you should think about the biases your own post betrays, and consider whether or not maybe you're part of the problem, and the reason you think it's dumb is because you're going to have to rethink your attitudes and learn how to behave like a decent human being towards women in your workplace?

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Despite what you may think, scientific research is influenced by the gender of the researcher, however subtly. In many scientific fields, this does not matter. But in areas concerning human cognition and biological development, subtle and pervasive masculine bias distorts research priorities and scientific interpretations.

      While such distorting bias can be offset through conscientious and consistent review, the presence and action of female scientists can also help. Scientific endeavor has, as a matter of historical accident, been a slightly sexist, homophobic, and racist enterprise, similar to other areas of human endeavor. Representation can accelerate and cultivate the adoption of enlightened attitudes, hence the effort to encourage women to pursue scientific studies.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There already is equality of opportunity for women. No one will deny a woman a position or a chance to study science at university. Let's face it, women just aren't interested in science, and to say otherwise is basically saying that women are easily duped and so we have to convince them, like children, to do what's best for them. I had a good friend from Korea that was a math wizard, but she went into fashion rather than science or math because she liked it. So what? It's her life, she knows what's best for her.

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do people keep trying to free the slaves? Is the goal to get more cotton out of the plantations? No, it's just to have black people run around being free, so that progressives can have a warm fuzzy feeling. But that will never happen, because someone who wants equality will never be satisfied.

    7. Re:Why? by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Probably because a gender gap implies something is separating the two, and not necessarily inherent differences. If little girls are being told not to be scientists, and it sticks, we're losing about half the good ones.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who tells little girls not to be scientists?

  17. Original YouTube posting now made private? by Wootery · · Score: 5, Informative

    Judging by the 'tweets', what seems to be the original has been made 'private', i.e. taken-down. (I'm assuming that was the official YouTube posting - I can't find anything more official looking.)

    As well as the mirror linked in the summary, we have a Youtube mirror, and another non-Youtube mirror.

    Why would they bother? Do they really not realise that if you release something high-profile on the web, it's out for good?

    1. Re:Original YouTube posting now made private? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do they really not realise that if you release something high-profile on the web, it's out for good?

      "The European Commission". You're probably american if you're seriously asking this? They are bureaucrats, the web is something someone prints out for them to read.

    2. Re:Original YouTube posting now made private? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure they realize it, but it's a way of saying "we don't stand behind this anymore".

    3. Re:Original YouTube posting now made private? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 2

      Do they really not realise that if you release something high-profile on the web, it's out for good?

      Did the people responsible for that video not realise how the internet works? I'm gonna guess no.

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    4. Re:Original YouTube posting now made private? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i like how the youtube mirror was posted by a chick and a little over halfway through playing (~35s) they discretely popup a dislike balloon in the bottom left

    5. Re:Original YouTube posting now made private? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      I think you might be right -- it's quicker than writing a damage-control apology.

  18. Scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wasn't convinced that these girls were scientists until I saw the big H with HYDROGEN written underneath it. That's from the periodic table! That's science! Boy, I'm impressed with the get up and go attitude of the girls in this video. They aren't letting that stuck up man and his microscope dampen their drive to succeed! Who does he think he is anyway, all hunched over that scope, symbolically embodying patriarchy?! Where does he get off?

    1. Re:Scientists! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does he get off?

      A beaker?

  19. Re:How old is this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada is the land of America's past, not Europe. That video looks like the Wyld Styllyns future-world.

  20. epic myopia by Stem_Cell_Brad · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone want to recruit people who are easily influenced by superficial things into a profession where the superficial must to be ignored in order to gain new knowledge? Where the makers of the film hoping that people suddenly change their personalities when presented by the wonders of science?

    1. Re:epic myopia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better than these bitches picking up a religion and turning into even worse idiots than they already are.

  21. I don't know about American labs... by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't know about American labs, but this is how we roll in Europe. Especially, Biology labs...

    --
    This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  22. Re:How old is this? by JabberWokky · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you're unaware that the modern American chic is 80s and 90s dominated. I was at the Protoman concert last night (with unexpected guest Tenacious D), and everybody was there wearing 80s style clothing. Including my wife, who has a PhD in Chemistry, and does theoretical chemistry research at Vanderbilt.

    That said, while she was dressed up for the concert, she wears professional attire at work. In other words, science is a job like any other.

    However, having heard her rant about things like this, she'll probably be more amused at the "piles of random glassware, all with large amounts of colored chemicals, putting out visible fumes". Ever notice there's never a hood or tiny desk in these kinds of presentations?

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  23. First of all by mapkinase · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why does anybody want to advertise this way?

    Does science career needs THIS type or any type of advertising?

    People who go to science and people who science need to go into science, have completely different channels of getting into science, being highborn for example (science is one of the most hereditary professions in the world).

    Science does not need extra people, science does not need advertising.

    If science had a want in people, postdocs won't be living on meager 50K a year salary, grown 35 old men with beards and wives.

    Why don't European commission advertise food serving industry, the situation seems quite deplorable there?

    --
    I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    1. Re:First of all by Stem_Cell_Brad · · Score: 1

      I have no mod points, but +1

    2. Re:First of all by turgid · · Score: 2

      I looked at the video, and I actually thought it was ironic, a clever satire on the current state of popular culture.

      There is no way they were being serious. None.

    3. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a meager 50K a year salary

      You're out of touch.

    4. Re:First of all by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      50K a year salary is not "meager". FYI.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    5. Re:First of all by DirePickle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      50K a year is not a paltry sum, but it's a disappointing reward for ten years of higher education. The real problem, though, is that these are typically for one-two year appointments. Benefits are meager. There's no retirement plan. There's no room for advancement. In a year you will have to uproot your entire family to move somewhere else in the world.

    6. Re:First of all by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Compared to tuition it takes to become a postdoc, it is.

    7. Re:First of all by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      They don't want more people in science, they specifically want more women. It's an effort to eliminate the embarrassing gender gap, a relative need, than to supply an absolute need.

    8. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a crap video. It's nothing like I was expecting considering the uproar it is causing. And my eight-year-old daughter would love it.

    9. Re:First of all by mapkinase · · Score: 0, Troll

      Nobody wants women there, including women themselves, who can find much better prospects elsewhere, except the bureaucracy who needs to justify of existence of PC-ridden useless entities.

      Do you really think that Dorothy Hodgkin or her pupil, Margaret Thatcher, or recently knighted or damed, whatever that silly Monty Pythonesque title is, formidable Janet Thornton, needed advertisement?

      Screw the gap.

      Instead of defining what is this, this sacred entity, notion, that the army must die for, the same bureaucrats working on eliminating "gaps" in women, gays, all kind of useless PC-notions that only distract institutions from fulfilling their goals.

      In my 25 years working in different scientific laboratories, I have never seen any anti-women bias, in contrary, they got preferential treatment.

      Enough already. Pick some other PC-project to work on.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    10. Re:First of all by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      I lived on 27K in 1996 (postdocs don't get much more than 27K in 1996 dollars nowadays as well). Every month I was given a check and every month before getting that checked, I enjoyed an exclusive delicious damned banana diet. When my family needed extra $3K, I had to enter a testee program.

      Postdocs are extremely underpaid compared to their education.

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    11. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not science's problem the high commision wants to solve, it's the ideological issue of gender gap!

    12. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure is if you have a PhD.

    13. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former student of hard science, primarily physics, I have to agree (from Australia here). The government says it want science graduates, but really all it wants are basic engineers, medical doctors, and people to come up with better weaponry. There are very few decent civilian science jobs out there that are moving humanity forwards in knowledge and understanding at all -- let alone paid well. Hence, I am now in the area of IT (when I'd much rather be working in physics).

    14. Re:First of all by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where I live, 50K/annum is just a step or two away from the homeless shelter.

    15. Re:First of all by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2

      Why does anybody want to advertise this way?

      You have to remember what "way" do people advertise in the first place.

      Typically, they hire an advertising company. Such a company is typically staffed by half-manic artistic types, not skilled enough to for a solo career, but talented enough at faking to be able to impress executive who really haven't got a clue themselves. Thus you have the incompetent leading the blind.

      It goes without saying that almost everyone involved in this group is male and scientifically illiterate. Hence, throw in a requirement concerning both women and science, and you end up with this video: A shock production born of ignorance and probably contempt for both topics.

      The unfortunate thing is that no-one responsible for this will even be fired, and everyone involved got paid and will probably remain in the positions and/or be contracted again. Our society once again rewards failure, or at least tolerates it.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    16. Re:First of all by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      Well, grad school is generally a paid position in the sciences. The issue is that 6 years after graduation from college with more experience and training, that's not a great salary.

    17. Re:First of all by geogob · · Score: 1

      It's not the science that needs advertising, but rather the politicians. The same politicians that decided that there should be at least 50% girls in all science degrees and in scientific institutions.

    18. Re:First of all by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      They do this for the same reason why both men's and women's magazines have sexy women on the covers.

      I am not exactly sure what this reason is, however. Maybe because men design both?

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    19. Re:First of all by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      bq. both men's and women's magazines have sexy women on the covers .. because publishers want target audience to buy it. This target audience and people who want to do science have practically zero intersection. In fact, being a reader of "men's and women's magazines " would be a deterrent for any admission through the Gate of Science, if I were in fact at that Gate. I would make it a trick question: "have you seen a recent issue of Vanity Fair?", and after positive answer I would say: "Thank you for coming, we will call you".

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
  24. You know you want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Next stop - stirring more male interest in the nursing profession by making an ad with fast cars in a hospital.

    1. Re:You know you want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Nursing: When you don't have the smarts to be a real doctor."

    2. Re:You know you want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ambulances.

    3. Re:You know you want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See this guy?
      He owns this company.
      Which owns this company.
      Feeling sick?

    4. Re:You know you want to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Swallow this engine block and you'll feel all better?

    5. Re:You know you want to by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      "I live my life one hospital wing at a time..."

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  25. Amy Mainzer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amy Mainzer is the hottest scientist I've seen in a while. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6364814&mesg_id=6366161 I'd talk take her out to dinner and talk supernovas and quarks, and then take her home and do the Barbie-Ken thing.

  26. Whew. Thank goodness... by irving47 · · Score: 1

    I'm just glad that it was the Europeans that did this.
    Imagine what a Japanese one would have looked like. Probably too weird to compute. I'm thinking exploding android head like in I, Mudd.

    --
    I had a sucky sig.
    1. Re:Whew. Thank goodness... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 2

      Europeans can be just as bad...remember the performance art cake that was made in protest of female genital mutilation in Africa? You know, the one that screamed when you cut a piece? This is along those same lines.

    2. Re:Whew. Thank goodness... by cffrost · · Score: 1

      [R]emember the performance art cake that was made in protest of female genital mutilation in Africa? You know, the one that screamed when you cut a piece?

      The cake is alive?

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    3. Re:Whew. Thank goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed it is alive. Google "swedish cake" for video.

    4. Re:Whew. Thank goodness... by manwargi · · Score: 2
    5. Re:Whew. Thank goodness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the cake is a lie!

    6. Re:Whew. Thank goodness... by VAElynx · · Score: 1

      They might do better - for one, many manga anime series have badass female characters, Integra Hellsing comes to mind first.

  27. Sexist? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why did no one complain that they used a sexy male model for a scientist too?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Sexist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did no one complain that they used a sexy male model for a scientist too?

      Too gay. Science isn't gay.

    2. Re:Sexist? by artor3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There's a difference between using photogenic actors and actually sexualizing a character. If the male scientist had been performing his work in a Chippendale outfit, people would be more likely to complain. Except, of course, that treating men as sex objects is so uncommon that if they did it, it would have to be some sort of parody.

    3. Re:Sexist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably cause most of us didn't think him as sexy, just normal.

    4. Re:Sexist? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      They did sexualize him. Didn't you notice?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Science isn't gay.

      Actually, science is pretty gay, since science has lots of smart people and smart people tend to be gay.

      There is published evidence (sorry, paywall) of a moderately strong correlation between very high intelligence and homosexuality. That is, very smart people are significantly more likely to be gay than people of normal or even just somewhat high intelligence (the numbers I've seen are a factor of ~2-3). This "large tail" isn't enough to bring up the IQ of gay people as a full group since there aren't that many really smart people. The cause of this correlation is unclear (but also irrelevant to my point that science is pretty gay).

      Homosexuality has been associated with high intelligence for a long time apart from published research. I'm reminded of the movie Bedazzled where Brendan Frasier's character wishes to be smart and cultured ("isn't secular humanism yummy?") and the devil who grants the wish also makes him gay. I'm also reminded of Plato's Symposium, where he compared homosexuality to philosophy:

      "Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce."

      (Translation taken from here. It should be noted that Plato's views changed over time.)

      Finally, my personal anecdotal evidence agrees with the conclusion that STEM people are far more likely to be gay than average. My college was highly competitive and had almost exclusively STEM majors. My dorm had a huge number of gay people, something like 1 in 5 compared to the national average of something like 1 in 20. I myself am a very intelligent gay mathematician.

    6. Re:Sexist? by artor3 · · Score: 1

      He was on the screen for literally two seconds. He looks up from his microscope, sees the models walking in, puts on his glasses, and that's it. You could recut that same scene so that it was a random, properly attired coworker coming into the lab, remove the "sexy" music, and you'd have an ordinary day at the office. Sure, the guy's handsome, but that's not the same thing as being sexualized.

    7. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Oh, he was a sex object. He was far more than merely photogenic. Putting a guy that hot in that role makes it sexual. He was also extremely well-groomed--look at his hair and eyebrows--and he had sexy glasses on. His makeup gave him an extremely smooth face, which is one of the two main sexy male faces, the other being lots of stubble (cf. Ryan Reynolds).

      I can certainly imagine the difference here being too subtle for many straight guys. I certainly didn't analyze the women.

    8. Re:Sexist? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The reason he's on there is for girls to ogle at him.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Sexist? by twistofsin · · Score: 1

      There is a BIG (huge, whopping, massive gap) between "more likely" and "tend to."

    10. Re:Sexist? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but your hypothesis doesn't correspond to current research. Basically the current literature shows gay men score similarly to women in IQ tests.

      And certainly anecdotal results from a dorm are not meaningful. As a math major you should realize this.

    11. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I was unclear. The full sentence with the unwritten words was...

      smart people tend to be gay [more often than people in general]

      Still, I was quite clear about my meaning later in the post and I find your point rather pedantic.

    12. Re:Sexist? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Could there perhaps be an indirect link in social pressure? Gay people are also prone to social exclusion during adolescence, which might actually benefit their education by freeing up the time that would otherwise be spent in social activities or drive them to persue more academic careers rather than those their peers would consider cool like athletics.

    13. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but your criticism is exceedingly poor. I addressed your point already since I knew someone would bring it up. Quoting myself:

      This "large tail" isn't enough to bring up the IQ of gay people as a full group since there aren't that many really smart people.

      The tests you discuss (without citation) are probably from general population studies. I specifically talked about only the most intelligent people, which is a very different population. You also ignored my citation.

      As for anecdotal evidence, it is indeed meaningful. It is not conclusive, merely suggestive. I understand full well the variability of measured statistics depending on the sample, but ignoring anecdotal evidence is just as bad as relying on it too much. Several independent pieces of anecdotal evidence can combine to be conclusive--fundamentally that's what studies do, combine lots of anecdotes in a controlled way to reach a reliable conclusion.

    14. Re:Sexist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but you are completely wrong this minute. I experiencemented them as such never before, and have come to the conclusion that gays have higher IQs than heterosexuals.

    15. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      That's one of the explanations I've thought of. My current list of hypotheses (completely untested, mind you):
        * More studying from social exclusion during adolescence
        * Less emphasis on family starting during early adulthood
        * Some genetic, womb-environmental, or early childhood-environmental factor causing both increased intelligence and homosexuality
        * Increased acceptance of latent bisexuality amongst the intelligentsia, so smart bi people might have more sex with the same gender than dumb bi people
        * Some brain anomaly resulting in both male and female thought patterns amongst homosexuals
        * Increased focus on rationality early in life caused by sorting out one's sexuality and beliefs (homosexuals are far more likely to be atheist/agnostic, for instance)

      Causation is as always very difficult, and there are lots of good candidate explanations here. In my own case I lean towards the third and fifth points. But I really have no idea with respect to general trends. I may have forgotten some of my hypotheses since I don't keep a list.

    16. Re:Sexist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of gay mathematicians, today is Alan Turing's 100th birthday!

    17. Re:Sexist? by arose · · Score: 1

      Or that the "science" was just a bunch of cool looking reactions? The people expecting realism in any aspect of the video are mildly deluded.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    18. Re:Sexist? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      Actually, science is pretty gay, since science has lots of smart people and smart people tend to be gay.

      Everyone knows that everything and everyone in this world is either gay or stupid. Obviously, if something isn't stupid, then it must be gay. Science isn't stupid, it therefore must be gay (and you can check my math on that). Ironically enough, homosexuality is literally biologically stupid, and while no one would deny that girls are stupid, at the same time there are few things in this world more gay than young heterosexual women. Paradoxically, very smart people, by and large, are stupid and not gay, even the homosexual ones.

    19. Re:Sexist? by am+2k · · Score: 2

      One more:

      * Smarter circles are more tolerant, so more people are willing to declare themselves in public.

      In my country, there was a far-right gay politician who refused to declare himself (despite many people secretly knowing about it), because that would have been very bad for his career. Only after he killed himself in a DUI car accident after having visited a gay bar, his party officially admitted that he was bisexual.

    20. Re:Sexist? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's likely that this is not a single cause phenomenon, nor is it necessarily possible to distinguish cause from effect.
      People under stress tend to think more, be more creative, and act in more unconventional ways than those not stressed.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    21. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Hah, thanks for the laughs.

      I wanted to mention that homosexuality is not as "biologically stupid" as one might expect. A remarkably large number of gay/lesbian couples raise children*, and many of those are biological, though there's also an argument that adoptive parents benefit evolution of the whole species if not the parents in particular. Here's an article where the partnered lesbian author had a child with an also-partnered gay friend. Raising the kid is apparently mostly the mothers' job, but the guys do stuff too: "It's ironic to us that I'm legally classified as a single mom when our daughter has an abundance of parents."

      *See this report from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which is the mainstream American pediatrician's professional organization. It's slightly old; the data below is based on the 2000 census. Some relevant bits:

      * ...the number of same-gender unmarried-partner households was 594691 in 2000 [ed: significantly undercounted; probably higher today too]
      * Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children).
      * Six percent of same-gender couples are raising children who have been adopted compared with 5.1% of heterosexual married couples and 2.6% of unmarried heterosexual couples.
      * Although adoption is commonly thought to be the only way that gays and lesbians become parents, there are many paths to parenthood. Some have biological children from past heterosexual marital and nonmarital relationships, and some pursue surrogacy arrangements or undergo in vitro fertilization or alternative insemination with donor sperm.

      By the way, that report is extremely pro-gay marriage. Any time I hear a "think of the children" argument against gay marriage, I think of the pediatricians who studied the issue in depth and concluded that it is not only unharmful but indeed helpful to children to allow gay marriage.

    22. Re:Sexist? by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      Umm, I know whole lot of 'very intelligent' people, that aren't mathematicians or .. CS .. actually, most of them just have a high school, and they aren't gay. In fact, I don't know any gay people and I'm in IT for 11 years now.

      Saying that smart people tend to be gay is .. retarded. Sorry. With all the popularity gay people are getting in last 5-10 years, i would imagine they would even make skewed "gay people are smart people" type of research, that perhaps isn't too much off, but I bet you it don't take all variables in equation (and probably is done by gay researchers/scientists like yourself that cherish the idea). Sorry man not attacking you, I'm just allergic to bias.

      I know 20-30 "very intelligent" guys. Out of those 20, neither one of them is gay. Gay people are minority yes, but aren't 'special' in any way. Deal with it.

    23. Re:Sexist? by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      ...homosexuality is literally biologically stupid...

      And yet it is common throughout the animal kingdom. The fact of its persistence within a species, and prevalence across the kingdom suggests that it has real value to many species. I suppose you think that it is biologically stupid for humans to live past their normal reproductive period? The stupidity here lies in your bias.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    24. Re:Sexist? by tgv · · Score: 1

      Ok, 2 to 3 times? That research is probably as flawed as it can be. I've worked long enough at uni and research, and the number of gay people there is certainly not as high. The number of gays isn't even 5%. It's always overrated.

      The effect in such a study might come from environments where homosexuality is a taboo, and the only people answering such questions straight are the intelligent ones.

      And your other sources: a movie and Plato? You've got some catching up to do on authoritative citing.

    25. Re:Sexist? by catmistake · · Score: 1

      'Stupid' is a stupendously loose term, in that particular context intended to convey ironically its most literal form, i.e. illogical — regarding what is commonly known about the science of procreation cleverly described merely as biology.

    26. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      The studies were conducted in the US and the UK. Your alternative explanation is of course discussed in the paper:

      Another possibility is that more intelligent individuals, rather than being truly more
      homosexual in their sexual identity, expressed attraction, and sexual behaviour, are
      more likely openly to admit that they are homosexual than less intelligent individuals.
      [...]
      There is no way for me to discover whether respondents may be misrepresenting
      themselves in my data; just like any other user of these survey data, I am at the mercy
      of their recorded responses. However, if more intelligent individuals are indeed more
      likely openly to admit that they are homosexual, then one would think that more educated
      individuals are equally more likely to be so candid. This alternative hypothesis
      therefore cannot explain why education has a significantly negative association with
      homosexuality in Studies 1 and 3 and no association at all in Study 2.

      The best criticism of my argument I can think of is the link between intelligent homosexuals and scientists. I offered no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that smart gay people are approximately as likely as straight people to become scientists, and my main source says that homosexuality and education are sometimes negatively correlated. It goes on to say,

      ...why are education and homosexuality negatively associated?
      [...] One possibility is that the stress
      and stigma associated with being gay and coming out make it more difficult for gay
      children and adolescents to pursue higher education.

      This offers a possible explanation for our differing anecdotes. Perhaps the stress and stigma above has gotten better in recent years, so the education/homosexuality correlation is time-dependent. I note that Studies 1 and 3 used older data/people than Study 2. Or perhaps not; this is social science after all, and there are always more hypotheses to test.

      Now that the substance of my response is out of the way, I wanted to mention that I find your post annoying and essentially hypocritical. You call the research I cited "probably as flawed as it can be", a remarkably strong statement. To justify it you offered only an obvious criticism the paper discussed (certainly you didn't even glance at the conclusion section) and anecdotal evidence. You also offered no substantive criticism of my movie and Plato references, though of course they carry much, much less weight than the study anyway.

      Talking down to me was also not helpful. Perhaps I shouldn't have called myself "very intelligent". I suspect it made several people including you want to lash out. I was hoping it could be taken as the statement of fact that it is, but that is probably too much to ask for on the internet.

    27. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      By "smart people tend to be gay", I meant (and made clear two sentences later) that smart people tend to be gay more often than people in general tend to be gay, not something ridiculous like a majority of smart people are gay.

      Your reasoning is quite poor in several places, which makes me disinclined to believe you over the published study I linked. Specifically...
        * Your anecdotal evidence disagrees with the paper, so the paper that studied tens of thousands of people in two countries must be wrong.
        * You say gay people "aren't 'special' in any way" yet your anecdotal evidence supports the opposite conclusion--that gay people are less likely that you would expect to be "very intelligent", considering you know none when you'd expect to know 1-2.
        * You seem to believe in the utter equality of straight and gay people. This is of course inconsistent with you being "allergic to bias"--let the data speak for itself.
        * Gay is popular recently, which should motivate gay people to make spurious "gay people are smart people" research. Wouldn't a lack of popularity motivate that, and a surplus of popularity make it unnecessary?
        * Gay researchers/scientists are extremely susceptible to bias when studying gay issues. Change "gay" to "female" to see how silly this is; it would be preposterous to make female judges recuse themselves on abortion cases, for instance. The paper I cited discusses motivations briefly (I have no real idea if the researcher is gay; I suspect not):

      However, I emphasize that my
      findings have absolutely no practical importance. It is not like we can now use someone’s
      intelligence to assess their homosexuality accurately. My approach to science is
      decidedly basic, not applied (clinical or medical). I am entirely driven by the desire to
      discover knowledge, not by its potential applications or implications

      There is another paper (cited by this one; I can dig out the citation if you want...) where in the general population gay men's verbal scores beat straight men's, though lesbian's scores were lower than straight women's. What kind of crazy bias causes that?

        * I personally am incapable of avoiding bias here since I "cherish" the idea that highly intelligent people are gay more often than people in general. I admit I find this idea appealing, but the truth is the truth. I don't shy away from nasty statistics, like this one: 19% of American men who have sex with men have HIV/AIDS. I don't claim to understand *why* the intelligence correlation exists, just that it does. I also made no judgement on whether the effect was good or bad; I just said that "science is gay" in this specific sense.

      I also wanted to mention that I very much question your anecdotal evidence. If you know 20-30 "very intelligent" guys, you would presumably know well over 100 people, and you would expect something like 5 gay people in such a sample if it's at all representative, yet you "don't know any gay people". It's pretty easy to pass as straight, especially in a workplace context where it simply doesn't have to come up.

    28. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      The best biologically beneficial explanation I've heard for homosexual animal behavior is that it reduces aggression when you have a surplus of males in a group. Exclusive homosexuality is very rare (nonexistent?) in animals besides humans though, so animal and human homosexuality aren't particularly comparable, even ignoring the huge intellectual, emotional, and "romantic"/mating style differences. As an exclusively homosexual human, I do once in a while wonder what the difference is that makes exclusive homosexuality nonexistent among say bonobos but existent in me. Maybe there is a further biological benefit?

      My bet is actually on "biological accident". Humans got complicated mentally and sometimes some female wiring makes it into male brains and vice versa. Oh well.

    29. Re:Sexist? by tgv · · Score: 1

      Calling yourself very intelligent isn't helpful, indeed. Citing Plato is way over the top. It doesn't prove a thing. Plato lived 2400 years ago in a rather different culture, invented Atlantis and thought that ideals existed, so what relevance his opinion could have on the discussion is a mystery to me.

      And calling science gay doesn't help either. Science is absolutely neutral. Scientists, labs and departments are not, of course, but it just doesn't make sense.

      I couldn't access the article, btw, but there is absolutely no reason to trust it. Social studies are flawed, face it. It happened to be my field of work for some 20 years, and the estimation that 50% (Ioannidis) is flawed is benign. It's rather 95% flawed, 50% bogus. An evolutionary psychologist sets out to prove some hypothesis and succeeds. That's enough to make it suspicious.

      And the author is not entirely free of writing bogus articles, so it seems: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/05/23/the-data-are-in-regarding-satoshi-kanazawa/

    30. Re:Sexist? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Doesn't anybody notice that attempting to desexualize women, comprises the same goal underlying the promotion of Islamic female attire? Maybe the PC crowd would be happier if the women looked plain and wore nerdy glasses, as we now promote as some kind of alleged 'value goal' ... and yet, why stop there - maybe the PC crowd would be even happier if we solved the problem entirely by jumping straight to the burqa. I'm surprised they aren't pushing that yet, but watch for it soon ... the ultimate de-sexualization of females and the answer to all this alleged "sexism" "problem".

    31. Re:Sexist? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't think so, feminists tend to feel that they should be able to do whatever they want with their body, including walk around naked (think of all the bra-lessness in the 70s). They feel that dressing up like that is solely of the purpose to attract men sexually, and that women are something more than sexual objects, they should be united.

      Which leads to a funny quote I read yesterday in the newspaper, "this movie is anti-feminist, because it shows women fighting. Of course, women do fight, so the feminist movement is a failure."

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Sexist? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal evidence isn't even suggestive. It's just raw uncontrolled data points. You cannot draw inferences from it.

      Combining sets of anecdotal error doesn't give you a study. It gives you a larger set of uncontrolled data which is equally meaningless.

      Aggregating anecdotal data is NOT what studies do because such data is never controlled.

      Again, as a math major you should realize this.

    33. Re:Sexist? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Your citation is impossible for me to debate being behind a paywall. However others here have provided criticism.

      As far as IQ and brain structure it is well established that homosexual male brains are similar to women's brains.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_and_sexual_orientation

      There are 28 citations. Have fun.

    34. Re:Sexist? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      "and that women are something more than sexual objects"

      Um, that's essentially the same thing as I said .. the extremist reactions against so-called "objectification" have a logical consequence in the burqa, or our psychological equivalents of the burqa that already exist. And when modern feminists parade naked, even then it's with the aim of desexualization and de-objectification ... it is *specifically* non-sexual, they want to even desexualize nakedness (and they do a good job of that too) -- they even state that outright, very literally, e.g. listen carefully to this interview: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18447765

    35. Re:Sexist? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Here, I transcribed the relevant bits for you - it couldn't be clearer what the goal is:

      "Your protest in which you bare your breasts in public, you take your clothes off, why do you do that?"

      "... we create a new opinion of nudity, a new opinion of women's nakedness ... we try to attract [people] to our idea, to our message" "... it is small revolution, we changed opinion about women, we created a new icon of women, she's not slave now ... she's a fighter .. yes she's still naked, but she's a fighter, she is angry, and first time, nudity of women is not controlled by man, as in sex industry, fashion industry, during our protest we are controlling our nudity by ourselves"

      "Reclaimed it"

      "We get back, we take back our nudity to women's hands, this is the message, this is the idea, this is our strategy, why we do that"

      The picture also demonstrates it clearly - she's nude, but it's ugly and horrible. In reality, what they are doing is, in my view, very harmful ... I think this is a major part of why we have such high divorce rates nowadays. Because women have been conditioned to feel ashamed to regard themselves as feminine, sexual, sensual beings (by things like this very slashdot topic decrying women being "sexy", and things like the recent Asus 'sexist tweet scandal'). It is also why, though there's a lot of porn in the US of A, the approach to sex and porn is one of strict mental compartmentalization. It's unsexy and creates unfulfilling sex lives etc. in marriage, not to mention women deliberately dressing plain and drab, and the effect that has on marriages. Western women are already wearing the psychological equivalents of the burqa.

    36. Re:Sexist? by BeanThere · · Score: 1

      Actually, let me put it in much simpler terms to understand: Who would you prefer as a wife, miss "angry and desexualized" who looks at you with scorn every time you look at her with lust because you are "objectifying" her? Or someone like Marilyn Monroe who embraces and enjoys her sexuality as just an enjoyable part of being a woman?

    37. Re:Sexist? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Oh, the burqa is kind of different, the purpose there is to not turn men on. It is completely opposite, because with the burqa, the fault belongs to the women, whereas with feminism, the fault belongs to the men.

      Whatever, it's all a bunch of insanity.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    38. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I cited Plato because he came from a vastly different environment than my other example, which was a B-movie from 12 years ago. Your criticism of Plato's relevance (as seems to be your pattern) is shallow. Certainly he got lots wrong, and many of his ideas were by today's standards just stupid, but that doesn't invalidate everything he said.

      At the risk of repeating past mistakes, I am objectively very intelligent as measured on various tests and as supported by lots of anecdotal evidence. It's a statement of fact, nothing more; I'm not implying I can't make mistakes or am smarter than everyone else or something silly like that. I'm just saying I would fall in the highest intelligence category in the studies analyzed by the paper I linked.

      I called science "gay" only as hyperbole, which several people found to be funny, as it was intended. I made my meaning clear shortly thereafter. Your semantic quibble is probably just because you don't like me and/or disagree with me on other issues.

      I'm aware of Ioannidis's paper. He focused on biomedical research (though generalized his results) and repeatedly decried small sample sizes, large numbers of tests, and bias. The paper I linked uses three large data sets from two countries and does not appear to have been fishing for statistical significance by testing many things. I am unable to comment on bias in this case.

      That you say "there is absolutely no reason to trust" the paper without reading it is remarkable. (I also find it strange that you don't have journal access after so long in research, but oh well.) As near as I can tell, you concluded solely based on your personal anecdotal evidence that the paper couldn't possibly be correct, justified that belief with an appeal to general inaccuracies in social science research, and then finally after some prodding actually looked into the paper and its author. From there you found a highly critical blog post about another blog post. My link was published. That's not to say Kanazawa is a particularly great source, just that your criticism is imperfect.

      I'm sorry, but I can't imagine you were very good in your field with such superficial analyses. Maybe you used to take more care. I would like to mention that I'm not actually certain about my conclusion either (note my criticism of my own argument). I haven't found Kanazawa's results replicated elsewhere, though they are quite new, and my personal anecdotes are merely suggestive. In retrospect I should have been clearer about this originally; I fell prey to the desire to express very strong opinions (as you may have) simply to be heard online.

    39. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      I didn't debate the truth of your statement on homosexual male brains, just its relevance. Again, I was discussing only the most intelligent people. Most of the citations on the Wikipedia article are irrelevant here, though I did take the time to glance through this one. The subjects were not differentiated based on intelligence and were indeed taken from the general population in that respect, as I suggested. There was no attempt at figuring out what fraction of each population was highly intelligent, for instance (and the sample sizes were miniscule anyway; the studies my citation relied on had tens of thousands of participants).

      As for others providing criticism of my citation, actually only one person provided any sort of criticism of it, and they admitted not being able to read it. I was actually hoping for an informed social scientist's opinion on the article, especially considering I wasn't able to find similar results (though it is quite new).

    40. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal evidence isn't even suggestive. It's just raw uncontrolled data points. You cannot draw inferences from it.

      I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this point. Anecdotal evidence is generally agreed to be suggestive. You cited Wikipedia in your other reply, so I will too:

      Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence.

      (Source.)

      These assorted definitions agree (I've only quoted pieces):

      * cannot prove anything in themselves but sometimes provide leads for useful research
      * tend to support a conclusion of discrimination
      * can be useful to generate hypotheses
      * Often construed to prove nothing, because life would be much easier if it did (see wishful thinking). [I must say this is an odd definition]
      * Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence
      * evidence that has not been confirmed by controlled scientific methods

      It can suggest the truth, but it is certainly unreliable. It can support inferences such as, "maybe X occurs with Y". It cannot support inferences such as "X occurs with Y" (though my citation did that duty in my original post; I only offered anecdotal evidence because my main evidence was behind a paywall).

      Aggregating anecdotal data is NOT what studies do because such data is never controlled.

      Actually, you are partly right. It seems most of the definitions of anecdotal evidence explicitly disallow data taken from controlled experiments, though some are more general and do not include this requirement. I was working with the more general definition. For instance, I would call a single individual's survey results taken in isolation anecdotal evidence even if they came from a controlled study. In that sense my statements were true.

      Again, as a math major you should realize this.

      That is a mildly annoying rhetorical device. You were incorrect (such data is sometimes controlled, depending on who you ask, and I'm not the only one), but even if you were correct, one should only expect an applied math major to necessarily have knowledge in this area. My major was essentially pure.

    41. Re:Sexist? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Add in stress enforcing the creation of coping mechanisms which often require intellect, especially a traumatic childhood related with bad parenting which is also correlated with homosexuality - my therapist told me once it's a wonder I'm not homosexual - I score 120+ points on tests.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    42. Re:Sexist? by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I believe current evidence suggests (male) homosexuality is mildly genetic and largely early-environmental, eg. in the womb, but there might be some early childhood effects--it's always so hard to sort these things out. FWIW in my own case I had no childhood trauma of note until well after I was already attracted to guys and not attracted to girls, and even then it wasn't particularly bad compared to what many people go through.

  28. Right.. by Haedrian · · Score: 2

    Because after we fill girls' head with garbage about needing to be tall and thin, needing to wear high heels and makeup and the rest of it; getting them to follow celebrities who do the above... THIS is a problem.

    Baby steps.

    I'm sure every single girl wants to look like an unattractive female scientist wearing a labcoat and geeky safety equipment and looking plain. Especially after the garbage everyone else is throwing into their head.

  29. huh by bs0d3 · · Score: 1

    that video i just watched just had 3 bimbos who werent sexy in the place of 3 sexy girls in miniskirts

  30. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cool music

  31. This is nothing! by rbh42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Please take a look at how things work in Denmark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ8_81Qy9kg&feature=BFa&list=UU3B_-v8-6-_6Px0FwBcLTrw Not at all related to the subject but also funny - and from just across the lawn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOzwpMs-5bM&feature=BFa&list=UU3B_-v8-6-_6Px0FwBcLTrw

    1. Re:This is nothing! by saratchandra · · Score: 1

      Please take a look at how things work in Denmark: Video

      Wow, did not see that coming.

    2. Re:This is nothing! by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Danes have a real gift for filming, from Dogme 95 to that second video you posted. Thanks for sharing. :o)

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
    3. Re:This is nothing! by antdude · · Score: 1

      Those are very long URLs. :P

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  32. Turnabout is fair play by mfnickster · · Score: 1

    Well, why not? The advertising industry has been using the trappings of science for decades to push their wares. Why shouldn't science do the same back to them?

    --
    "Slow down, Cowboy! It has been 3 years, 7 months and 26 days since you last successfully posted a comment."
    1. Re:Turnabout is fair play by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 2

      Because it's a recruiting ad. And we really don't want the average scientist to be as smart as the average consumer.

  33. There are some REAL problems in the world. by morkalg · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not to sound like a hippy... but there are large portions of this planet where life is cheap, blood soaks the streets, children are forced into war AND people starve to death. How about we look at those real problems first before we get our panties in a bunch over something so trivial?

    1. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was supposed to be funny, don't get your panties in a bunch.

    2. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by hackula · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We can walk and chew gum at the same time. This fallacy is a classic though, so maybe we can just call this argument "vintage".

    3. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why we could use more women in positions of research and power. And for that, we need to stop treating them like shit among other things, and also stop casually dismissing low lifes like you excusing it with a bullshit bluff like that one. You are obsolete and overstayed your welcome, how's that for a response.

    4. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit should be treated like shit.

    5. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Exactly. That's why you little fuck post anonymously, don't you.

      And then there is your mother. What a brave woman, what a risk she took, and look what it got her. Here's hoping you have siblings.

    6. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 1

      Empowering more women with more education will go a long way in solving many of the problems you described. This PSA is a direct strike against solving such woes.

    7. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "How about we look at those real problems first before we get our panties in a bunch over something so trivial?"

      Because when we get involved in trying to break up the locals fun, they kill our folks in addition to each other!

      I've been watching the global circus for decades, and now I not only don't care about the vermin going hacky-stabby on each other, it amuses me and I view them with bottomless contempt.

      If YOU want to intervene, join Doctors Without Borders or some other group with huge balls and no sense.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by VAElynx · · Score: 1

      Because women in power are so much better than men... like Margaret Thatcher. Right.

    9. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      Did I say "all women are always better than any other man"? No? Then what's your point, Sherlock Mc Brain?

    10. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by VAElynx · · Score: 1

      That's exactly why we could use more women in positions of research and power.

      This response to the OP implies that you think the world's problems with shit leadership would magically go away if only those in the seats of power lacked a Y chromosome. Which is equally bullshit, just slightly less blatant than the above strawman, Dr. Gluteus Watson.

    11. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Palamos · · Score: 1

      It's not better educated women that does the good, it's the change in the mindset of the men around them that gets them to agree that educating women, a) is not a bad thing - possibly even a basic human right, and b) could actually be beneficial to everyone; now that's where the good comes from. You can have women as highly educated as you choose but if they don't have an equal stage then it's for nothing.

    12. Re:There are some REAL problems in the world. by Palamos · · Score: 1

      Yes let's look at the real problems, my girlfriend has been in the bathroom for two hours and hasn't even started my breakfast yet! Thankfully I was able to make myself a coffee but that was some time ago and now there's washing-up to do. Will it ever end?

  34. Re:Token Black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to remember a youtube video of a black haired british girl screaming about how there were too many minorities in her country.

  35. Horrible by JeremyGNJ · · Score: 4, Funny

    What a horrible bunch of stereotypes and role models for young girls. Everyone know that to be smart you have to bug ugly or fat.

  36. Just show them Abby in NCIS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Targeting the wrong market..... awesome as the video is

    1. Re:Just show them Abby in NCIS by cffrost · · Score: 1

      Forensic "science"... isn't.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  37. Where is this video? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    For Science.

  38. I knew girls who loved science by sandytaru · · Score: 2

    I was one of them. When I was 12 I wanted to get a PhD in astrophysics and work for NASA. It wasn't the lack of sexy in science that made me change majors in undergrad, it was calc based physics at 8AM my first semester of college, followed by honors calculus with theory at noon. Bad scheduling on the part of the university did far more to kill my interest in STEM than the lack of female mentoring. I'd probably have had my PhD in physics just in time for NASA to start shutting down if it wasn't for my inadequate alarm clock!

    --
    Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    1. Re:I knew girls who loved science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weak like you have no place in science. If you can't handle undergrad classes scheduled 4 hours apart from each other then there is no way you would survive grad school.

    2. Re:I knew girls who loved science by pnot · · Score: 2

      Functioning alarm clocks are pretty cheap. Acquiring one might have constituted a sensible investment in your career.

    3. Re:I knew girls who loved science by twistofsin · · Score: 1

      Right. I was going to be the next Einstein, I just couldn't be bothered to get up in the morning. I'm really sorry but your excuse for not pursuing science further is shallow and hollow.

    4. Re:I knew girls who loved science by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 0

      My freshman physics was at 8AM with lectures on Tues Thurs and Saturday. I ended up with an engineering PhD.

      In some ways having the early Saturday AM lecture was great. It quickly separated the serious students from those who were lacking commitment.

      The lectures were great, too. The professor won a Nobel a few years after I took his course.

    5. Re:I knew girls who loved science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found that an alarm clock can't trump the body's own clock. I know people who can get up early, and go to bed early. Myself, I can't make regular trips to bed before midnight, and usually I end up awake past 2. I get awake by 10 though, so it's not like I'm especially over-sleeping. Sure there's people that can do 6 hours or less, but I don't feel ashamed by not being one of them.

    6. Re:I knew girls who loved science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe, just maybe, not every student exhibits commitment the same way. You sound no different from someone who claims that shiny boots and twirling rifles is the way to measure commitment to the army.

    7. Re:I knew girls who loved science by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      The problem with the noon class is that it was right after lunch, and I get sleepy after I eat. I'm a night owl and a night learner. Had my classes been at 6PM and 10PM, I'd have done a lot better.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    8. Re:I knew girls who loved science by sandytaru · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm taking night classes while I get my master's in Internet programming, and doing a lot better. People doing well at 8AM classes doesn't show serious commitment so much as it shows people whose circadian clocks function on what is accepted as the "proper" schedule. Now that I'm not a stupid freshman, I can get up at 7AM pretty regularly, but it was almost impossible for me when I was 18. (That was also due to iron deficiency anemia, but it took another 8 months for me to be diagnosed with that when I finally went to the doctor about not being able to get up, even with the alarm.)

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    9. Re:I knew girls who loved science by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      My current alarm clock is a fancy "sunrise" clock that gets lighter over the course of 30 minutes and then starts spamming me with gentle birdsong for 15 minutes before the actual alarm goes off. It's the only thing I've ever found that works, and it wasn't cheap.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    10. Re:I knew girls who loved science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd probably have had my PhD in physics just in time for NASA to start shutting down if it wasn't for my inadequate alarm clock!

      I'll be honest here, this says more to me about your lack of motivation to get that PhD than anything else.

    11. Re:I knew girls who loved science by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Be serious, what are most Ph.D. in astrophysics are doing these days? Internet programming. So, why doing a Ph.D. to end up doing Internet programming? Here is the roots of the lack of motivation doing a Ph.D. You can cut six years in your academic background, gain six years in salary and ending doing exactly the same thing.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    12. Re:I knew girls who loved science by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      DSPS sufferers need a lobby more than women or the LGBT faction... Amen brother.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    13. Re:I knew girls who loved science by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, I was doing better just after I recovered from jet lag after a week in Japan. For a few weeks, I became quite exhausted right at 11PM and woke up at 6:30 AM without even trying. In the last week or two, however, I've been wide awake until well after midnight. Flipping my sleep schedule upside down and back again over the course of two weeks was a temporary therapy, and I'm sad the results were not permanent.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    14. Re:I knew girls who loved science by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Any grass-roots orgs you know?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  39. An Actual - Real - Female Scientist Responds by ryanisflyboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3eZQHwGQE0&feature=g-u-u

    I agree with Dr. Meghan Gray. She is spot on.

    For those not familiar with Brady (the interviewer and editor of the videos), don't take too much offense. He commonly takes an antagonistic view to help draw out a more in-depth response.

    1. Re:An Actual - Real - Female Scientist Responds by zyzko · · Score: 1

      What would be productive (if we assume that you have to market something to girls that makes them "hot") is to show Dr. Gray in the ads, the interviewer is not really mean but (as he himself says) plays the devils advocate and Dr. Gray very nicely and in a warm way shoots down every attempt - and that makes her easily approachable and "hot" in my book. Intelligence is where the sexy is.

    2. Re:An Actual - Real - Female Scientist Responds by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      He commonly takes an antagonistic view to help draw out a more in-depth response.

      Some people use the term "devil's advocate." I use the term "asshole."

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    3. Re:An Actual - Real - Female Scientist Responds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I didn't come here and read the /. comments.

      I literally feel sick to my stomach. :(

    4. Re:An Actual - Real - Female Scientist Responds by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      Are you in PR?

  40. take it easy by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    is drawing widespred condemnation from around the web for its depiction of female scientists as sexy models strutting into the frame in high heels and short skirts.

    "Condemnation"? Isn't that a bit strong for what at most deserves a "that's silly"?

    We have completely devalued outrage to the point where it has almost no meaning left at all.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:take it easy by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      Our outrage is devalued because it's mostly completely false. The only real emotion we have left is apathy.

      I would write more, but fuck it.

    2. Re:take it easy by twistofsin · · Score: 1

      I agree. This video isn't insulting, it's just silly.

    3. Re:take it easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TL;D

  41. So back in High School, the teacher asked us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To each draw a scientist.

    I think all but two or three people drew men, mostly in labcoats, often with beards. One person drew a non-lab coated marine biologist, another drew a woman in a lab coat.

    I drew an alien. When asked about the Gender, whether it was male or female, I said it wasn't relevant.

  42. Sexist and misandric to even make it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The fact that it ended up accidentally sexist towards woman was I guess an accident, but the entire idea that it's worthwhile spending money to attract a gender demographic to a certain kind of job is fucked up and sexist anyway. You want the best possible scientist, right? Not the best possible female scientist?

  43. Wrong gender by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

    Because he was hot. It's like they screwed up and made an ad appealing to men instead of women. They should have had a bunch of attractive male scientists strutting around a pretty but not-too-pretty female scientist.

  44. This is the right way to do it by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1

    Don't make a big deal about gender, just matter of factly show that there are women out there doing interesting jobs like this: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/index.cfm?all_videos&id=960#fragment-5

    Related: exciting video, "Challenges of Getting to Mars: Curiosity's Seven Minutes of Terror": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqdoXwLBT8

  45. Hots For The Smarts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better video, from the guitar master Richard Thompson:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axa0_gh6NYk

  46. Because only ugly women can become scientists by Snaller · · Score: 0

    Thanks for informing us of that Slashdot!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  47. Here's my question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Was the alien wearing a lab coat?

  48. Girls are smart ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    academic science is just a bad career choice in so many ways.
    http://philip.greenspun.com/careers/women-in-science

  49. Missed the point entirely by rebot777 · · Score: 1

    What would have been nice was if the advert had women talking about cool and interesting things they'd done with science. Science is usually a means to end I.E. solves a problem or provides understanding. Lab work is the grunt part. Nobody shows off programming with sexy videos of people typing away on their IDE, they show of the results like fancy web pages and cool applications. That is how you generate interest. This director should get in contact with Maybelline...

    1. Re:Missed the point entirely by Johann+Lau · · Score: 1

      What would have been nice was if the advert had women talking about cool and interesting things they'd done with science.

      http://highvisibilityproject.org/

      It's not science, but coding.. but hey, even better, right?

    2. Re:Missed the point entirely by zyzko · · Score: 1

      I think the director was in contact with Maybelline and this is scrapes of what was rejected by them as a lipstick-ad.

      Luckily we live in a social media world and youtube is is full of rebuttal videos in response to this made by both male and female scientists, students and marketing people who point out very clearly what is wrong with this approach. The sad part is that we (the European taxpayers) paid for this facepalm.

  50. Female stereo type what about the male! by Digital+G · · Score: 1

    I mean common, the video clearly shows that for every 3 female scientists theres only ONE Male scientist. I mean common, we all know the glass ceiling for male scientists exists AND they now the have to stereo type that they are all ruggedly hansom males with chiseled jaws? I mean how much more sexist can you get?

    On the other hand if we do expect to live past the impending nuclear doomsday, we must bring this ratio up to a more prodigious ratio of 10 to 1. to facilitate the proper breeding rate to bring back that to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years. And of course the females would all need to be selected on factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills....

    Just Sayin....

    --

    End Transmission....
  51. Great Commercial by tambu · · Score: 1

    I swear this is just someone launching a new line of makeup. I mean the colors, the beakers, the models classic Makeup stuff. Don't let that little blip at the end fool you.

  52. Non-Flash version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone have a mirror of the video that does not require Adobe Flash?

  53. Satisfaction by havana9 · · Score: 1

    Presto! Someo calls Benny Benassi to make a suitable music for this video!

  54. I'm an American biology student... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps I should study abroad?

    1. Re:I'm an American biology student... by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 0

      France, but learn the language first (or be an extrovert enough to pick it up quick). They can speak English but don't like to use it in the lab because they assume Americans are only coming here for the cultural experience and aren't generally especially accommodating if you plan to go back to the US (i.e., won't help your career like American labs do with the Chinese and other Asians).

      But chicks in lab coats and high heels are hot IMHO. Also, with regard to the national institute I'm at, I tell people I haven't seen this many pregnant women since high school, but that's probably because they're getting to a certain age. :P

      But seriously, other places may be different, but from an American POV the reason European countries are happy to help your study abroad is because they want to poach the smart people from other parts of the world like America has been traditionally good at. It's not because of some idealistic reasoning that improving the wolrd science improves everyone -- they have a big horse in the race (themself). I.e., they want you to stay if you're good enough. That's OK with me in principle, but it's hard to know what you're getting into until you're here.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    2. Re:I'm an American biology student... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Also, with regard to the national institute I'm at, I tell people I haven't seen this many pregnant women since high school, but that's probably because they're getting to a certain age.

      I'm not sure if that says something about your institute... or something about your high school.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:I'm an American biology student... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you call them broads, they probably won't let you study them...

    4. Re:I'm an American biology student... by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      That was kind of the joke. In fact, I only knew 1 or two girls in high school (that I know) have kids, while lots of girls work at my current institute have been pregnant (and often wearing high heels in labcoats, WTF?). This is in stark contrast to undergraduate college where I NEVER saw a pregnant student. Those women always seemed focused on getting that degree at that stage in life and were also not as irresponsible as the high schoolers.

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
  55. The guy by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

    Why did no one complain that they used a sexy male model for a scientist too?

    Why should a sexy male be offensive? What makes this video offensive isn't directly related to who is or isn't physically attractive.

    The truly offensive aspect of the video is the assumption that the only concept women respond to is fashion commercials. The inclusion of attractive men is common in ads for women's products, and is part of the overall stereotype demonstrated by this commercial.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:The guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >implying that women do not respond extremely well to this kind of commercial

      [citation needed]

  56. Something should be done about such videos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a scientist, I think such videos could indeed be harmful: younger guys who are yet to choose their profession, don't be fooled, my experience tells me it's all ugly girls around the academia for the most part

  57. Isn't this ad really saying ... by Misagon · · Score: 1

    "Hey boys, there are hot girls in science!" ? ....

    --
    "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  58. Pretty girls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They almost never become scientists

    1. Re:Pretty girls by voltorb · · Score: 1

      I can confirm this based on real life experience that spans 10 years and 4 countries

  59. Recruiting girls? by PPH · · Score: 1

    Major FAIL!

    This looks like its going to interest guys more than anything. Want to attract women into science? Get some Abercrombie & Fitch male models in lab coats into your promotional videos.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  60. I've known some HOT PhD Candidates. by darkonc · · Score: 2
    I worked in a university Biochemistry lab many years ago, and some of the girls in the labs on our floor were HOT. One was a page 3 girl -- and she wasn't even the hottest girl on the floor.

    Now, they did wear proper 'lab' gear when at work, but outside of the lab, they wore whatever they wanted .. and if they wanted to look hot ... they did.

    If you want a video of hot female scientists, just find some, do some real interviews with them and splice the pieces together. Not only will you have hot babes talking about science, you'll probably have something that real girls will listen to.

    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  61. Conclusion: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science: It's not a girl thing

  62. A better video by xvent · · Score: 0

    A better video to inspire people to do science is here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsDHzBk8P9Y Probably doesn't work on girls though.

  63. I didn't see any sexy girls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just three girls with alittle bit of fashion and high heels going on. Seriously, I've seen hotter girls walking down the street here in Tokyo. What's the big deal? It's not like they were Victoria's secret models

  64. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sexist or not, this video isn't helped by the fact that it utterly sucks.

  65. whoa, may not work with girls... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but this will attract guys to science, clearly

  66. "Science: It's a girl thing." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Science: It's a girl thing."

    Sounds matriarchal to me and rather anti-male to boot. Face facts people. Most women and men have no interest in science as a career. That the scientific workforce is primarily male reflects another reality - not many women want a career in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Too bad the video has been removed; I was thinking "Weird Science" from the 1980s would have been appropriate.

    1. Re:"Science: It's a girl thing." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you're matriarchal, it's all okay. In Europe many talented men are turned down in favor of less capable women because of quotas. There are many laws favoring women in many countries. If you're sexist in favor of women, it's all okay and nobody mentions equality. If your actions imply any male-favoring (even though this is not what you mean), you'll be smited down.

  67. Sex Sells by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm by no means a fan of the advertisement, I'm not against the idea of using superficial means to attract more candidates into the scientific fields.
    Sex, power and money sell. As much as I'd like to believe that people get into the medical field for the purity of saving lives, I know it not to be true. Many pursue medicine for the image and the money. Granted many are washed out in the process but some do make it through. Same with business, law, politics etc. Obviously this path to get younger people interested in science is very superficial, but what's wrong with that? Does it offend your idealistic values of "the love of science"? Superficial gets the foot in the door. For example in dating, while I'm not saying it's right, looks are what many people judge potential dates by...at first. Then the person gets to know them and maybe they discover that there's a real connection. Maybe younger people won't get into science for the "correct" reasons if this is the route you take to sell it, but maybe some of those same people will discover a true love for science. Also, maybe this path will alleviate societal pressures of not entering into science because it isn't "cool". As a scientist, I'd say let the experiment run it's course and then come to a conclusion.

  68. Clash of values by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The video seems to say: "You can be a hyper-feminine glamour model with high heels, and a scientist!" But a lot of current "real" scientists hate that first part, and perhaps a number of female scientists rejected that sort of thing having any value and got into the field of science instead because the values there suited them better.

    A lot of people that place value on that first part do NOT get along with those who place value in the second part (regardless of gender).

    Having one's field invaded (in TV-land or real life) by people whose values differ so significantly from yours must be very unfun. Would science be "better" off if it was more accessible to the "non-purists"? That's unclear and subjective to boot.

  69. Let's examine what the video was meant to do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it trying to get women interested in Science?, no. It is trying to get women who are already interested in science to overcome their fear of the nerd stereotype. Scientists, quite frankly, have a horrible social reputation, and THAT is what this video is trying fight against.

  70. FAIL - this is how it should be done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't showcase hot girls with the expectations of attracting other hot girls to work in labs...

    No no no; you need to show a lab with the likes of TONY STARK and BRUCE BANNER (RUFFALO‘s depiction) on a floating fortress exchanging witty and playful banter attempting to create a heuristic tracking algorithm that will eventually be used to pinpoint a self sustaining, gamma ray emitting alien artifact.

  71. A great example is veterinary medicine by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2

    Time was, the only "acceptable" professions for women were teachers and nurses. Hence part of the reason they still dominate there. However since we've gotten over that, one area women have flocked to is veterinary medicine. My vet (a fairly sizable animal hospital) is ALL women. All the vets, all the vet techs, all the receptionists, everyone.

    This isn't because there's some massive push to get women in to it, it is because they want to do it. My mother's theory is that it is the nurturing nature of the work that appeals to many women, combined with being fairly well paid and skilled. For that matter, mom would have very much liked to be a vet, had it been an option to her (her parents were very much the "You can be whatever you want, a nurse or a teacher," type).

    1. Re:A great example is veterinary medicine by am+2k · · Score: 0

      Having talked to a female soon-to-be-vet, my personal guess is that it's mostly the cute little kitties and horses they flock to.

    2. Re:A great example is veterinary medicine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's pretty patronizing and stupid. A vet has to do a great many unpleasant things to animals up to and including euthanasia of horribly injured animals. No one gets into veterinary medicine with the expectation of "omg kitties!"

  72. Copy of the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A copy of the video is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

    Just so you can see it's every bit as bad as the summary says.

    (Posting anon to avoid karma-whoring)

    1. Re:Copy of the video by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      A copy of the video is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

      Just so you can see it's every bit as bad as the summary says.

      Worse even. I couldn't eff-in believe it. I honestly think a direct attempt at parody would likely be less grotesque than this dreck, since the creator would feel the need to make it looking some thing like science to sell the material. The only way you can top this is to go Rule 34 on it.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    2. Re:Copy of the video by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      I think it's quite cute... Much better than what they have not on that site anyway,

      Why do people get so upset over sexy science students? - I mean they are there after all. Just go to any university campus and check out the science faculties. You will find everything from nerds, over plan and common looking kids to cute and sexy girls.

      Nothing wrong with using a bit of eye candy to attract and get the message listened to.

      On a personal note, back in the late 80's when I was studying physics at the University of Copenhagen, one of the TAs at the Niels Bohr Institute helping us do research was sexy beyond comprehension. She could have stepped out of Playboy's take on our video here. She was always in high heels, pantyhose/stockings and a short skirt under her labcoat, and she had the cutest dollface with just the right amount of makeup. That was just her style and she's AFAIK at CERN these days, doing High Energy Physics with their super colliders. She's in her late 50s now of course but I'm sure she still looks good.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    3. Re:Copy of the video by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      A copy of the video is available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA

      Just so you can see it's every bit as bad as the summary says.

      Agreed. The only way it could be worse is to go Rule 34 on it.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  73. But they are real! by cvtan · · Score: 1

    There are beautiful female scientists! See Neri Oxman: http://science.slashdot.org/index2.pl?fhfilter=Neri+Oxman

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  74. Tacky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If all lab assistants looked like this, we'd have science Hooters instead of science tutors. Thumbs down.

  75. My favorite sexy female scientist... by cretog8 · · Score: 1

    ...just opened up a dead LCD monitor, and replaced 4 capacitors, and it's good as new. That was HOT (in the figurative and literal sense, since there was soldering involved). She wasn't wearing heels or make-up while doing it, however. And it wasn't really science, I guess, since the electronics is a bit of a sideline for her, but anyway...

    There's nothing wrong with sexy scientists, but if you're trying to show sexy scientists, you should try to show how doing the "STEM" (wow, I hate that abbreviation) is sexy itself.

  76. What's Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's wrong with idealizing and glamorizing a profession? I swear to god some of my fellow techies are too goddamn left brained for their own good. Stimulate something other than your quest for knowledge and you might get why this advertisement is fine the way it is.

  77. about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is wrong with adding sex appeal to science? Pop culture has put it in everything else, would you rather the kids think science is only for the ugly girls?

  78. Bringing (f)Ire by Sir+Realist · · Score: 1

    I saw the video of pinkness the other day, and I thought that it completely failed to sensibly attract girls to science, and made a mockery of science itself.

    Then I saw Prometheus that night. In retrospect, the science in that promo clip wasn't _that_ bad...

  79. What if they wanted to start an argument? by raque · · Score: 1

    Looking at the video and some of the responses I just keep thinking that if they just wanted to start a buzz they succeeded. If you want someone to notice something they have to notice it. It is now noticed. Exactly what it says is nowhere near as important as imbedding the idea in the mind. Time and again it has been shown that annoying ads work as well as pleasant ones.

    They have linked the two ideas: Girls, and sexy girls at that, and Science, and cut through and differentiated the issue. We are arguing a very different issue then we were yesterday. That is a good thing.

  80. Remember it well by Palamos · · Score: 1

    Yep, that's how I remember science lessons!

  81. Re:Token Black by Palamos · · Score: 1

    I didn't see any immigrants, as far as I could tell they all look European to me.

  82. 'A male scientist watching them from behind' by harduser · · Score: 0

    This quote from the featured article is not accurate as well as this one: 'none of them are wearing safe lab attire' - they do put safety goggles on at the end.

  83. Pamela Stephenson by dbIII · · Score: 2

    Pamela Stephenson - in the "Not the Nine O'Clock News" comedy series, one of the Superman movies and for many years a psychologist and author. She may be married to Billy Connelly but that's a relevant as Richard Dawkins being married to Lalla Ward (2nd Romana in Dr Who).

  84. Grow up by gef7 · · Score: 1

    It seems that on the other side of the pond you still can not invite a female colleague for dinner without having the fear of it being called sexual harassment, call a black guy black, a Phillipino Phillipino and so on. Lately, a video mixing a science subject and high heels is a no-go zone. Whatever! (and yes my gf agrees, so this is not an isolated one-man view). So, attempt to suspect there might even be good intentions, some times. Give it a try.

  85. how machist & non creative a Science video can by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this video remind me so much like this one
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmEvPZUdAVI

  86. seriously ? by Tom · · Score: 1

    Disclaimer preface: I'm all for gender equality, I'm against feminism (which started out right, then took a wrong turn somewhere and by now is pure discrimination against men).

    So with that in mind, I fail to see what the fuss is all about. Sure there may be better ways, then again this is marketing, advertisement. You can probably find more offensive stuff in every evening ad break on TV if you want to.

    Many girls agree with me when we talk about it, few admit it on the Internet or somewhere else they can be quoted, but it is not automatically disrespectful to display women as sexy, you know? In fact, objectively speaking, lots of women go to great lengths to be seen as sexy, from make up to choice of clothes and beyond.

    Does that have anything to do with science? Nope. But it does have to do with women. If women want to be sexy (and anyone who claims otherwise ought to have a really good explanation for the profits of the make up, beauty magazine and fashion industries), and you want to get them interested in science, one of the things you need to do is remove the "unsexy" tag. Science is neutral, but scientists can be sexy. Heck, some of the femal scientists with YouTube responses are quite sexy. That doesn't make them one bit less competent as scientists.

    I personally belief that the real issue is not with the people who see the sexy human being as well as the scientist, but those very people who are so critical and whose basic argument boils down to the claim that you can't be both sexy and a scientist.

    Lots of careers are associated with things that only related marginally if at all. Rockstars are as often associated with groupies, drugs and trashed hotel rooms as with musical skills. Athletes, both male and female, are often admired for their bodies as much as for their records. Politicians are associated with almost everything except the dull bureaucratic and negotiation work they actually do. And let's not even get me started on medical doctors in movies and literature.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  87. Viewing the other way 'round by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably we're missing the point. The video is not in favour of a statement ("science girls are pretty"), it's AGAINST one: "science girls are homely girls that do science because they can't do girlysh things" (Velma in Scooby-Doo).

    Of course, you don't fight a wrong idea with another wrong idea... ;-)

  88. aren't "dorky" girls already in "science" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that they are trying to appeal to so called "girly girls". I mean to say that the type of girl who would otherwise be interested in science but holds back b/c "girls don't do science". I mean, we do go to great lengths to point out the differences between men and women. Wasn't an essay portion added to SATs b/c "girls don't do as well in science and math"? That's certainly the reason I heard. That said, it would have been better if they focused less on scientist Barbie and maybe featured some actual "sexy scientists".

  89. Wut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For me to care about this at all, the "hot female scientists" have to actually be "hot females".

  90. Screensaver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They even have a screensaver ....

  91. Excessive prudeness is not cool. by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    I watched the video, I showed it to my sister too, and one of my colleagues who is a reserch scientist with a phd and a woman. Neither of them, or me found the video shocking, or sexist, mostly our general opinion was that it's funny. That's it. Who found this overly sexist or codnemnable just should get a reality check. My sisters reaction to these opinions was that they probably come from prude americans - and she does live in the U.S. so go figure :D

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  92. This is good... by Wierdy1024 · · Score: 1

    I see nothing wrong with this.

    It's not so different from a good number of music videos, and those are seen as fine by most young guys and girls alike. Considering who this is targeted at, it seems all good to me!

    Does the video advertise to guys more than gals? Perhaps, but it certainly addresses the feeling that science isn't sexy enough amongst the younger generations...

  93. Link to the video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a link to the video:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFvh9zbjYeE

  94. Sexy Scientists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always found intelligence far sexier than the typical cliche bubble-headed big-breasted bimbo...come to think, I rather dislike the later.

  95. What's the problem here? by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    It's too much to ask of young girls- and this is who this is aimed at- to forgo and deny their innate aspirations to be seen as sexually desirable in all major social contexts in which they may meet a suitable mate, such as their careers.

    Men have exactly the same thing with CSI and NUMB#RS and Lie To Me the new Sherlock Holmes etc etc where a deliberate attempt to portray them as BOTH highly intelligent, even intellectual, and sexually powerful and desirable.

    We like to pretend we're not sexual in certain contexts, but we're really one horny species, always on the make, always with the radar going.

    So this is saying in a way that's too clumsy for some adults- hey girls, being smart is not about giving up your desirability to the opposite (or same) sex. You can have it all! As well they should.

    Adults who are getting shitty pants over this need to develop a more realistic model of who and what human beings are, how they conduct themselves and what their persistent, ubiquitous and biologically compelling concerns really are.

  96. It's a good ad strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the ad hits the nail on the head. It doesn't turn off anyone who was going to choose science anyway and it might just have attracted others who otherwise would just ply their brains in some other demanding career. Railing against this "girl thing" approach actually works to perpetuate a sterotype that keeps many young women from considering -- much less pursuing -- a career in the sciences. Like it or not, the popular view is that science is different; it's for unibrow geeks who don't express their feminity (or masculinity, for guys) when, in fact, these are traits of empowerment! The combination of "beauty+brains" (or "hunkiness+brains") will get you farther than just "brains" -- guaranteed. Advertising sexuality works in any other mileau, so why not science? Most young people, no matter how brainy, want to be cool and attractive. Decrying this catchy ad just serves to reinforce the message that only dorks choose science.

  97. Looks good by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Nice contemporary video to promote women in science.

  98. What are they advertising again? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    IMHO, it looks like a pretty standard ad for a cosmetics company. Minus the context, I'd have no idea they were trying to pitch science as a career choice for women. That being said, I think the real issue is more about changing the stereotype that all scientists are socially retarded (can I say that?) nerds. Science itself needs to be made more appealing to a culture that throws tons of money and undeserved fame at people like those on The Jersey Shore. By elevating people like that to stardom, you make more people want to be like them. Personally, I'd like to see competitions like FIRST have huge cash awards and slots on the talk show circuit. Treat the winners like rockstars and you will draw more people to science and engineering.

  99. Why even bother taking "Affirmative Action"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure it'd be nice to see more women in science, since of course it would improve the scenery, and maybe also the chances of dating for many nerds.

    But other than for the sake of sex itself, what valid reason exists to intentionally market a field to one sex over the other?

  100. 8am monday morning calculus sucks. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    While not a girl I had same issue. Why do universities do that anyway? Is it intentional, or do Arts professors just not like to get up early either?

    I mean you could draw a line correlation between how "sciency" a course was and how early the class was (and what day it was on). Seemed like all my Maths were Monday morning, early, after the binge drinking weekend. 8am for Calc, though stats not being as serious was at 10am. Meanwhile all my arts friends were sleeping in til noon for their nice afternoon and evening classes. I think the ONLY science class I had in the evening was Astronomy, and you know that's just cause they HAD to!

  101. Sexy isn't necessarily sexist. by code+monkey+Scare! · · Score: 1

    Sexy isn't necessarily sexist. This isn't really either.

    Video still available at:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g032MPrSjFA
    and
    http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/06/25/the-e-u-s-breathtakingly-awful-science-video/

  102. Another video by alexo · · Score: 1
  103. ReRe: Whats the problem.:Whats the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep Rossdee, especially Noomi Rapace in Promethius.