If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 7177597


(Mashable)   New European Commission ad, intended to make science more appealing to young women, instead makes science appealing to young men by suggesting science labs are like fashion shows with hot models in heels and lab goggles   ( mashable.com) divider line
    More: Spiffy, European Commission, sciences, lab coats, Mashable, brainwashing, goggles, laboratory, ethnic minorities  
•       •       •

1343 clicks;  Favorite

27 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2012-06-27 11:45:45 AM  
85% the women I've worked with in the science industry are bitter old hags. To be fair, this is medical laboratory, and not research science, but the point still stands.
 
2012-06-27 11:46:15 AM  
Smart women are hot. Smart women are also smart. Smart women don't date idiots. I am not so smrt. Poor me...
 
2012-06-27 12:07:37 PM  
Not even a week since the last article about this. Is someone testing this as a theory? Have we found any holes yet? I could check the models for you.

/June 22nd fark link to this same topic
 
2012-06-27 12:09:52 PM  
I work in biomedical research as a postdoc in an Ivy League university.

The majority of people in my lab (all but one other guy) are women. The PI is a woman. Most of the PIs in the department are women. The chair of the department is a woman. The dean of the medical college is a woman. I also completed my PhD in the same institution. A solid majority of incoming grad students into my program were women, every year since I've been here (2003-onward). All of my committee members were women.

I don't know, but from where I am sitting, it seems like something drastic needs to be done to recruit men to science. At least to my field (developmental genetics).
 
2012-06-27 12:19:23 PM  

Doc Daneeka: I work in biomedical research as a postdoc in an Ivy League university.

The majority of people in my lab (all but one other guy) are women. The PI is a woman. Most of the PIs in the department are women. The chair of the department is a woman. The dean of the medical college is a woman. I also completed my PhD in the same institution. A solid majority of incoming grad students into my program were women, every year since I've been here (2003-onward). All of my committee members were women.

I don't know, but from where I am sitting, it seems like something drastic needs to be done to recruit men to science. At least to my field (developmental genetics).


That is because all of those women are working to make men unnecessary for reproduction. You must sabotage all their work while you can!
 
2012-06-27 12:21:12 PM  
I'd say we're on the road to bucking the trend. In my post-graduate studies, about half of the students were women and half were men. The professors, however, were nearly all men but I expect that to change slower than the student demographic. Give it maybe 20-30 years and I'm guessing about half of professors will be women.
 
2012-06-27 12:42:02 PM  
Missed it the first time. That ad is amazing in its fail, and I just forwarded it to all the scienticians in my life.
 
2012-06-27 12:49:43 PM  
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size


You know, for all of these ads and campaigns to get women into science and math, you think this woman would be a bigger selling point.
 
2012-06-27 12:50:12 PM  

Doc Daneeka: I work in biomedical research as a postdoc in an Ivy League university.

The majority of people in my lab (all but one other guy) are women. The PI is a woman. Most of the PIs in the department are women. The chair of the department is a woman. The dean of the medical college is a woman. I also completed my PhD in the same institution. A solid majority of incoming grad students into my program were women, every year since I've been here (2003-onward). All of my committee members were women.

I don't know, but from where I am sitting, it seems like something drastic needs to be done to recruit men to science. At least to my field (developmental genetics).


From my experience anything related to biology/life sciences has seen the pendulum swing far towards women, however many STEM fields, physics, mathematics, engineering, computer science, etc are still heavily dominated by men.
 
2012-06-27 12:55:09 PM  

SquishyLizard: Doc Daneeka: I work in biomedical research as a postdoc in an Ivy League university.

The majority of people in my lab (all but one other guy) are women. The PI is a woman. Most of the PIs in the department are women. The chair of the department is a woman. The dean of the medical college is a woman. I also completed my PhD in the same institution. A solid majority of incoming grad students into my program were women, every year since I've been here (2003-onward). All of my committee members were women.

I don't know, but from where I am sitting, it seems like something drastic needs to be done to recruit men to science. At least to my field (developmental genetics).

From my experience anything related to biology/life sciences has seen the pendulum swing far towards women, however many STEM fields, physics, mathematics, engineering, computer science, etc are still heavily dominated by men.


True. However, there are a few women in my research lab (Mizzou's Eldercare and Rehabilitation Laboratory). I think one of them is American. The idea that "hey, you're hot, you don't have to put effort into anything" tends to influence the thinking of some females in the US, I think. The ones who are both attractive and smart in my department, generally (but not as a rule) are from the other parts of the world.
 
2012-06-27 01:43:04 PM  
I don't understand these recent trend in making every career have 50% representation. It just seems silly.
It was great that women were given the chance to be more than housewives, since many of them have
interesting contributions to make, but let it be a natural progression. None of this faux-outrage coming from
feminist groups that know their existence is linked to the oppression and they don't want to stop existing, so
they'll look for more and new ways of "oppression".

First it was "waah, women aren't allowed into the labs". Now that they are, it's "waaah, it's still not 50/50".

1.- Women and men have different abilities. Trying to deny that is downright criminal. I'm not saying "hur dur, all women suck at math."
Just that men have a tendency to perform better there. Yeah, any given woman can be as good or better than any given man. I'm talking about groups.

2.- Interest level. I'm not interested in being a lawyer, playing baseball, being a dancer, being a civil engineer, being a chemical engineer, etc. I'm interested in art and journalism and cooking and computers and astrophysics. If a girl is interested in those things, great. If she's not, no need to unintentionally(?) shame her by subtly saying that what she likes is worthless and only what men like is worthy of value.

3.- These idiotic quotas. The sex of a person SHOULD NOT determine their likelihood of getting a position. If you go with a 50/50 quota, then if you need 100 employees and 70 men are perfect candidates for this position, you're gonna lose them because 20 less apt women are going to take their place due to the quota and viceversa.

4.- I see this constant crying about "waah waaah computer science only has a 10% of females". Well, you don't see no one complaining about med school having a 68% of females, law school having a 72% and communication careers having a whooping 82% of females. Why don't we see programs to even the presence of males in those careers?

5.- This is just subtle sexism. "Traditionally" male careers are seen as more desirable or important than "traditionally" female careers, regardless of their actual importance. These initiatives don't realize they're just perpetuating the problem. Instead of propping up what women tend to do as just as important, they just want women to do what men do.

And please, save your "sexist" comments. I'm not heteronormative and I encourage my female friends/companions to do whatever they want in life. I treat them with respect and give them the place they deserve/have earned. LOL, not the kitchen, that's MY realm.
 
2012-06-27 02:16:49 PM  
I spent my M.Sc. (chemistry) surrounded by hot women who were smarter than me. My boss was accused to trying to correct the balance all by himself.

Several of my female friends from UofO are strong advocates of women in science. When I was job hunting, I found this institution and forwarded the link to them. It bills itself as a Women's University, and does not teach math or science. I died a little inside when I saw that.
 
2012-06-27 02:19:06 PM  
 
2012-06-27 02:21:13 PM  
Also a good acadademic article.
My Fair Physicist? Feminine Math and Science Role Models Demotivate Young Girls
Only available through a University (and JSTOR)
 
2012-06-27 02:38:11 PM  

rocky_howard: I don't understand these recent trend in making every career have 50% representation. It just seems silly.
It was great that women were given the chance to be more than housewives, since many of them have
interesting contributions to make, but let it be a natural progression. None of this faux-outrage coming from
feminist groups that know their existence is linked to the oppression and they don't want to stop existing, so
they'll look for more and new ways of "oppression".

First it was "waah, women aren't allowed into the labs". Now that they are, it's "waaah, it's still not 50/50".

1.- Women and men have different abilities. Trying to deny that is downright criminal. I'm not saying "hur dur, all women suck at math."
Just that men have a tendency to perform better there. Yeah, any given woman can be as good or better than any given man. I'm talking about groups.

2.- Interest level. I'm not interested in being a lawyer, playing baseball, being a dancer, being a civil engineer, being a chemical engineer, etc. I'm interested in art and journalism and cooking and computers and astrophysics. If a girl is interested in those things, great. If she's not, no need to unintentionally(?) shame her by subtly saying that what she likes is worthless and only what men like is worthy of value.

3.- These idiotic quotas. The sex of a person SHOULD NOT determine their likelihood of getting a position. If you go with a 50/50 quota, then if you need 100 employees and 70 men are perfect candidates for this position, you're gonna lose them because 20 less apt women are going to take their place due to the quota and viceversa.

4.- I see this constant crying about "waah waaah computer science only has a 10% of females". Well, you don't see no one complaining about med school having a 68% of females, law school having a 72% and communication careers having a whooping 82% of females. Why don't we see programs to even the presence of males in those careers?

5.- This is just subtle sexism ...


Agreed. Strange how in the 70s-90s, you had a bunch of talk about how men had no distinct advantages over men... believing that men were better in some way was considered sexist. Now that you have studies showing women being better at communication, the discussion of how one sex is better than the other is suddenly acceptable.

Modern feminism isn't about equality. It's about supremacy.
 
2012-06-27 02:43:49 PM  
can we do something to dispel the myth that most people give a flying shiat about math and science?

MOST people use basic math (addition, subtraction, division). MOST people do NO science (that isn't cooking).

who cares?
 
Ant
2012-06-27 04:08:06 PM  

frepnog: can we do something to dispel the myth that most people give a flying shiat about math and science?

MOST people use basic math (addition, subtraction, division). MOST people do NO science (that isn't cooking).

who cares?


Then those people should refrain from voting on issues that concern subjects where knowledge in science is required in order to understand the issue.
 
2012-06-27 04:13:51 PM  

SquishyLizard: From my experience anything related to biology/life sciences has seen the pendulum swing far towards women, however many STEM fields, physics, mathematics, engineering, computer science, etc are still heavily dominated by men.


My CS classes were filled with women. Mostly older, Asian women, but, whatever . . .
 
2012-06-27 05:45:26 PM  

Marine1: Modern feminism isn't about equality. It's about supremacy.


i2.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2012-06-27 05:54:33 PM  

rocky_howard:
1.- Women and men have different abilities. Trying to deny that is downright criminal. I'm not saying "hur dur, all women suck at math."
Just that men have a tendency to perform better there. Yeah, any given woman can be as good or better than any given man. I'm talking about groups.


You're missing the point there. Yes, men and women have different abilities... The question is why do men and women have different abilities. Do men perform better in math because they have years and years of better math education and socialization encouraging their development in math, while women are told "girls suck at math"? Or do men perform better because of some innate difference due to increased levels of testosterone or the like?
Sexists will state that it's the latter, without any evidence, and will ignore any evidence regarding the former.

2.- Interest level. I'm not interested in being a lawyer, playing baseball, being a dancer, being a civil engineer, being a chemical engineer, etc. I'm interested in art and journalism and cooking and computers and astrophysics. If a girl is interested in those things, great. If she's not, no need to unintentionally(?) shame her by subtly saying that what she likes is worthless and only what men like is worthy of value.

No, we can look at what we, as a society, place economic value on. Do physicists make more than chemists? Do mechanical engineers make more than chemical engineers? Do "pink collar" fields uniformly earn less?

3.- These idiotic quotas. The sex of a person SHOULD NOT determine their likelihood of getting a position. If you go with a 50/50 quota, then if you need 100 employees and 70 men are perfect candidates for this position, you're gonna lose them because 20 less apt women are going to take their place due to the quota and viceversa.

Agreed, the sex of a person should not determine their likelihood of getting a position. So let's strike first names and genders from resumes and do initial interviews via internet chat.

4.- I see this constant crying about "waah waaah computer science only has a 10% of females". Well, you don't see no one complaining about med school having a 68% of females, law school having a 72% and communication careers having a whooping 82% of females. Why don't we see programs to even the presence of males in those careers?

Actually, we do see exactly that for medical school and law school, and you yourself are an example of someone complaining about it, so it's a bit disingenuous to say that no one does.
Second, communications is another example of those "pink collar" fields. You don't see* people complaining about the deficit of male secretaries or nurses, and in fact, people widely mock male nurses (See, e.g. "murses", Meet the Parents, etc.)... and those are also careers that pay worse than the equivalent white collar career.

5.- This is just subtle sexism. "Traditionally" male careers are seen as more desirable or important than "traditionally" female careers, regardless of their actual importance. These initiatives don't realize they're just perpetuating the problem. Instead of propping up what women tend to do as just as important, they just want women to do what men do.

"Traditionally" male careers are higher paid. But saying that more women should be in those fields is sexism? This is one of those "that you noticed my bigotry makes you the real bigot here" things, right?

And please, save your "sexist" comments. I'm not heteronormative and I encourage my female friends/companions to do whatever they want in life. I treat them with respect and give them the place they deserve/have earned. LOL, not the kitchen, that's MY realm.

Yes, you're sooo enlightened.
 
2012-06-27 06:00:02 PM  
Throughout the entire video, I was thinking to myself that it would be funny if one of those women said, "Science!" in a wispy voice.. Then it happened...

This is a train-wreck of a video. Want female engineers? Make your daughter work on her first vehicle like you would your son. Give her a basic lab set for Christmas instead of a Barbie. Take her out with you when you test out your new 4" lift on your Jeep.

"Oh but society makes her that way..." No. You're an idiot. Shut up. It's your fault your daughter is enrolling in beauty school for the second time in two years.
 
2012-06-27 06:14:31 PM  

rfronk: This is a train-wreck of a video. Want female engineers? Make your daughter work on her first vehicle like you would your son. Give her a basic lab set for Christmas instead of a Barbie. Take her out with you when you test out your new 4" lift on your Jeep.

"Oh but society genetics makes her that way..." No. You're an idiot. Shut up. It's your fault your daughter is enrolling in beauty school for the second time in two years.


FTFY. You're part of society, and if you give her a lab set instead of a Barbie, then yes, "society" is going to help make her an engineer.
The genetics argument, which is wrong, is that girls inherently want Barbies and love Disney princesses, and that socialization has no effect.
 
2012-06-27 06:34:10 PM  
My fiance is a lab rat, has a Phd, is a red head as well as being pretty damn hot.

No other point really...just bragging I guess. :o)
 
2012-06-27 06:47:57 PM  

Theaetetus: The genetics argument, which is wrong, is that girls inherently want Barbies and love Disney princesses, and that socialization has no effect.


I'm not saying that socialization doesn't play a major role in determining gender roles, but to say it is the sole determinant is a stretch. In the nature vs. nurture debate, I don't think you can come down completely on either side.

A 2008 study done on rhesus monkeys found that, given the choice, male monkeys displayed a strong preference for playing a stereotypical male toy (a toy truck) and female monkeys displayed a slight preference for a stereotypical female toy (a plush doll). The pattern of monkey preferences closely mirrored the pattern of human children.

Hassett, J., Siebert, E., & Wallen, K. (2008). Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children Hormones and Behavior, 54 (3), 359-364

ars.els-cdn.comView Full Size


And a 2010 study on chimpanzees found the juvenile female chimps spontaneously engaged in maternal, doll-type play, while male juveniles did not.

Kahlenberg, S., & Wrangham, R. (2010). Sex differences in chimpanzees' use of sticks as play objects resemble those of children Current Biology, 20 (24)

I think it would be difficult to argue that rhesus monkeys and chimps are shaped by human socialization cues, and therefore it would seem that biology is certainly a factor. I think it would be crazy to argue that biology doesn't influence behavior.
 
2012-06-27 06:56:00 PM  

Theaetetus: You're missing the point there. Yes, men and women have different abilities... The question is why do men and women have different abilities. Do men perform better in math because they have years and years of better math education and socialization encouraging their development in math, while women are told "girls suck at math"? Or do men perform better because of some innate difference due to increased levels of testosterone or the like?
Sexists will state that it's the latter, without any evidence, and will ignore any evidence regarding the former.


"Better math education"? Also, what our ancestors received has little bearing on our current capabilities. Or are you saying that because men from yesteryear received better math, current men are better, as if the accumulative years meant anything? Get real...
Each person's abilities are defined by their own learning experiences, not their ancestors... Knowledge is not a genetic trait.

No, we can look at what we, as a society, place economic value on. Do physicists make more than chemists? Do mechanical engineers make more than chemical engineers? Do "pink collar" fields uniformly earn less?

No. People don't choose their careers solely based on economic value. Also, what if they do? Kim Kardashian alone makes more than any scientist. If people want to take that route, then wheee, that's their prerogative. Obviously for a man would be impossible to be Kim Kardashian, so you end up with girls wanting to be her. But that doesn't mean guys then shrug and become the next Stephen Hawking, no, they try to be the next Kanye West or LeBron James.

Agreed, the sex of a person should not determine their likelihood of getting a position. So let's strike first names and genders from resumes and do initial interviews via internet chat.

Are you being facetious?

Actually, we do see exactly that for medical school and law school, and you yourself are an example of someone complaining about it, so it's a bit disingenuous to say that no one does.

That's dumb. I'm not complaining about women being the majority in those careers. I couldn't care less. I'm complaining about the lack of outrage about the same phenomenom happening in other places.

Second, communications is another example of those "pink collar" fields.

Not really. But hey, twist facts all you want.

You don't see* people complaining about the deficit of male secretaries or nurses, and in fact, people widely mock male nurses (See, e.g. "murses", Meet the Parents, etc.)... and those are also careers that pay worse than the equivalent white collar career.

That's just dumb too. "Nurses earn less than doctors, thus women earn less than men." There are just as many female doctors, if not more, than male ones...

"Traditionally" male careers are higher paid. But saying that more women should be in those fields is sexism? This is one of those "that you noticed my bigotry makes you the real bigot here" things, right?

Construction Worker, Police officer, Soldier, Fireman, Fisherman, etc are also "traditionally" male careers and those are among the lesser paid careers as well as being some of the most risky out there. Where are the programs to encourage women to do those? So, only the "safe" and potentially glamorous and well paid jobs that matter?

Yes, you're sooo enlightened.

Yes, I am.
 
2012-06-27 07:00:04 PM  

Doc Daneeka: And a 2010 study on chimpanzees found the juvenile female chimps spontaneously engaged in maternal, doll-type play, while male juveniles did not.

Kahlenberg, S., & Wrangham, R. (2010). Sex differences in chimpanzees' use of sticks as play objects resemble those of children Current Biology, 20 (24)

I think it would be difficult to argue that rhesus monkeys and chimps are shaped by human socialization cues, and therefore it would seem that biology is certainly a factor. I think it would be crazy to argue that biology doesn't influence behavior.


Exactly.

It's funny that someone argues that biology doesn't play a role in your capabilities depending on your sex and what you're expected to do, when biology provides women with the means to feed their babies because they are the ones expected to have them.
 
2012-06-27 09:09:05 PM  

Doc Daneeka: I'm not saying that socialization doesn't play a major role in determining gender roles, but to say it is the sole determinant is a stretch. In the nature vs. nurture debate, I don't think you can come down completely on either side.


1) Either I was unclear or you misunderstood by what I meant by the genetics argument - I meant the "100% nature" argument. So, yes, we're in agreement that both genetics and socialization have an effect.

2) That particular study isn't great support for nature, and even its authors have cautioned against the interpretation journalists have made.
First, the definition of "masculine" and "feminine" was biased to start with... What they really meant was "wheeled" or "plush". Yet, what is a baby carriage? It has wheels, it's certainly not plush... does that mean that girls who play with dolls in carriages are showing masculine traits? As the author noted: "Wallen cautions against over-interpreting the results. The plush and wheeled categories served as proxies for feminine and masculine, but other toy characteristics, such as size or colour, might explain the male's behaviour, he says."
In fact, a 2002 by Alexander and Hines showed that female monkeys prefer a doll and pot while males prefer a car and ball... but the "female" toys were all red, while the "male" toys were not. Later followup studies confirmed that color actually has a huge influence, with females preferring red balls over non-red ones. Essentially, a difference in the types of rods and cones in the eye may be the real cause of what is interpreted as a difference in brain structure.

Second, any time you're saying that one species use of play objects "resembles" those of children, you're getting into a heavily subjective interpretation.

Finally, the study itself has some questionable methodology... Where's the gender-neutral toy? Were male monkeys drawn to the "male" toy, or were they repulsed by the "female" toy? What about toys with both traits - i.e. a plush truck?
The very fact that toys were defined as masculine and feminine indicates that the study authors had a preconceived bias... and the study coincidentally confirmed it. That doesn't mean the study is invalid, but that a huge degree of skepticism is warranted before making any conclusions.
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report