Would you be shocked to hear that the readership of general-circulation science magazines is overwhelmingly white, male, and middle-aged? Probably not. Of course, you might comfort yourself with the thought that lack of interest in such magazines is programmed into the DNA of women, young people, and non-Caucasians, despite evidence that the relevant genetic information is apparently evolving awfully rapidly.
Would it surprise you to learn that overtly sexualized images of women cause tangible harm to adolescents and young women? Maybe it would. Not that there’s anything wrong with sexy images of people of any gender in appropriate contexts, but in the actual context in which children grow up in our culture, the way in which these images appear enacts a vastly disproportionate toll on young girls.
Are you at all taken aback by the cover of the latest catalogue for Edmund Optics, purveyor of scientific optical equipment?
The same image appeared in ads in Physics Today. Which, by the way, is not a biker magazine.
This sales pitch has caused a bit of consternation, including a lot of conversation on the AASWomen mailing list. But it’s not just those uppity wymyn who are upset. Geoffrey Marcy of Berkeley has written to the company to complain:
Dear Mr. Radojkovic and Mr. Delfino and Mr. Dover,
As representatives of Edmund Optics, I hope you will pass the following message to the appropriate management at Edmund Optics.
I just saw the images from the Edmund Optics catalog that show a woman in a tight red skirt lounging next to some optical devices, some with the caption, “Red Hot”. I hope Robert Edmund and the board of directors of Edmund can be alerted to this problem.
As a scientist and professor at UC Berkeley I am embarrassed on behalf of the many female science students coming along. I wonder what message such images of sex objects in your ads send to bright young scientists
of both genders.Moreover, after decades of overt discrimination against women in the physical sciences, including precluding their admission to the best universities and the denial of access to the world’s best telescopes, your ad represents a setback. It reminds us of a dark era of clear discrimination against women, a time that I’m sure Edmund Optics hopes is long gone. If so, you have made a very serious error that insults the scientific community.
As you can imagine, your ad has already generated extraordinary discussion in the scientific community, analogous to the discussion over the comments by Harvard’s president who implied that women might not have what it takes to be great scientists. In short, your company has left open the question of your equal and unbiased treatment of women in your company and in your contracts.
Sincerely,
Geoffrey Marcy
Professor of Astronomy, UC Berkeley
Elected Member, United States National Academy of Sciences
To which Bill Dover at Edmund replied, in a classic example of “not getting it”:
Hi Geoff,
Thank you for your feedback regarding the EO catalog and our recent cover. No need to be embarrassed for the many female science students coming along. Rather, encourage them to celebrate that another smart, young, and attractive female has joined the ranks of women in a technical field, which breaks the pattern of discrimination you describe. You see, the woman featured on the cover is a six-year employee of Edmund and our Trade Show Manager and Spokesperson. Over the years we’ve received numerous positive comments and she has proven herself to possess the needed technical and social ability to successfully coordinate our tradeshows that showcase our products.
The recent cover photo emphasized a new product launch by Edmund. Our Trade Show Manager coordinated the showcase of these products at Photonics West last month. Had you happened by our booth for a visit, you would have had the opportunity to meet and speak with her about our Kinematic mounts as well as receive additional technical information from two other smart, young, and attractive, female optical engineers present at the time. So that you know, this line of Kinematic Optical Mounts, Table Platforms, and Mechanical Accessories are technically situated to become the standard for optical positioning equipment in the marketplace. We are excited about the quality, features, and price of these products and know that they will be very difficult to compete with and we chose our Trade Show Manager to help commemorate their release.
Professor Geoff, please encourage ALL of your female students to join the technical, engineering, and science ranks. There are too many that fall prey to the stereotypical concepts of what a person should look like or dress like which keep them from significant contributions in our society. That said, we value the opinions of our customers and we evaluate the feedback in developing our future strategies. I appreciate the time you have taken to mention your concerns here. I hope you will take the opportunity to encourage your female students to meet our female optical engineers at Edmund Optics. I think they, and you, will be impressed with their ability to support and represent woman [sic] in engineering.
Best Regards,
Bill
As far as I can tell, he’s saying that “she” is smart (so smart that she doesn’t need a name, apparently), so it’s okay! This is America, so any talented and attractive young woman with an interest in engineering can grow up to be a Booth Babe. He forgot to mention that “Better Performance. Better Price.” is the kind of slogan that any female should be proud to be associated with!
Actually it’s not okay. We’re not going to see this any time soon:
A little parity goes a long way, though. I have a vision of the next catalog cover–it features a handsome young man, maybe in chinos or a nice pair of jeans, barefoot, shirt halfway unbuttoned, an alluring gleam in his eye. Maybe a caption like “Well Oiled Mounts.”
And even if we did, it still wouldn’t be okay. (Although it would be highly amusing.) These images don’t appear in a vacuum; as long as the way that women and men are put on display in a wider cultural context remains dramatically imbalanced, a little equal-opportunity cheesecake here and there isn’t going to fix things.
Feel free to email Bill Dover (wdover-at-edmundoptics.com) and VP of Marketing Marisa Edmund (medmund-at-edmundoptics.com) to let them know what you think. (Thanks to Chaz Shapiro for the pointer.)
Oops. Sensual pose.
It’s pure marketing genius! As this BBC article points out “Catching sight of a pretty woman really is enough to throw a man’s decision-making skills into disarray, a study suggests.” and “The men’s performance in the tests showed those who had been exposed to the “sexual cues” were more likely to accept an unfair offer than those who were not.” It just makes me wonder what kind of crappy optics these people are trying to push. You know that after half a pizza and a cigarette you’re going to take a good look at your new laser collimater and ask yourself “What was I thinking?”
Sean and Geoff, many thanks for the heads up. I have just sent off a mail to this Edmund Optics company letting them know that I am offended by this ad.
And it is really important to emphasize that it is NOT this woman’s outfit that I am protesting – this is not about workplace attire for me, in contrast with JoAnne – I personally have been at astrophysics talks with women speaking who were wearing very sexy outfits and I have no problem with that, I like to see the full spectrum of women in my field, not all of us hiding our bodies, even some doing a bit of flaunting – but my opinion on that is neither here nor there because that is not the point –
It is so rude to put a woman lying down with the words “Better Performance. Better Price.” underneath her. It is demoralizing, and it does make those of us who do dress in anything other than potato sacks feel a bit prostitutish. The editor totally missed the point and his reply to Geoff was obtuse and smarmy. I don’t want the girls I teach to see stuff like this, girls who are just learning about physics and basic optics. It is not conducive to making girls feel they could have a place in the field. It doesn’t make them (or me) feel like we ought to be at the eyepiece of that instrument, but at the focal point.
It’s wrong and it makes me very angry. I hope they pay attention to the mails they receive, and if there is any choice for me or friends of mine in buying optics instruments, you can bet that Edmund Optics will not get my business until they stop with the sexist advertising.
Regarding the “pure marketing genius” observation: My point of contention here is not the utilization of an attractive female scientist to gain the viewers attention, nor does it specifically have anything to do with her attire. I’ll be generous and just say that I suspect what they were attempting to do was gain the viewers attention by using an attractive woman in the ad. The problem relates to something the Edmund advertising group has failed to perceive.
What actually has occurred is in the process of composing the ad, they have re-contextualized its premise, from the scientific to the seamy.
As others have also implied, this has occurred through the choice of the model’s pose along with the selection and placement of the text. These editorial decisions reframe and therefore create a sexual context from what otherwise might have been a benign piece of advertising. The choice of a sexual advertising context might be deemed appropriate in other aspects of our culture but in highly technical fields which are attempting to demonstrate an interest in equal opportunity for women, it comes off as a slap in the face and a poor decision. I do not think this occurred by accident and as such, it casts the Edmund company in a poor light by suggesting that their corporate policies are insensitive to the problems of gender in the workplace.
Hmmm, I’m willing to bet that Edmund didn’t force this woman into posing for their magazine cover. No, she voluntarily decided to do this, astonishingly without first consulting the exalted National Academy of Sciences!
A woman would choose to do this?!?!?! She must have been brainwashed by those sexist pigs at Edmund. We need to protect her from herself and stop this sort of tragedy from happening again!!!
To Sean and the others: Your comments suggest that you think that this sort of advertising should be outlawed or heavily regulated. Please remember that modern science offends many people in America (myself not included–why do you think I read this blog?). I don’t think the policy of “ban whatever we find offensive” is a prudent one though, in light of the opinions that the majority of Americans hold. If you don’t like the way Edmund advertises, vote with your pocketbook and don’t buy any of ther equipment.
Doug, would you like to elaborate on how my comments “suggest” that this sort of advertising should be outlawed or heavily regulated? I’m… fascinated.
No one has stated that this woman was forced, nor that this should be banned.
You’re totally making up a straw man. Why?
The people commenting ARE voting with their pocketbooks, and discussing the reasons why.
I’m sure you can find someone, somewhere, who would suggest that she was brainwashed by the patriarchy and needs to be saved from herself, or that this should be banned, but it doesn’t appear to be happening here, and I’m puzzled by how you came to that conclusion.
Doug, I couldn’t agree more. For me, I could care less what is on the cover of Edmund Optics catalog (although I laughed out-loud when someone above suggested it was a phallic symbol…it’s an Diameter Optical Mount). I personally buy over $80K per year in optical components and I reach for the catalog often because I know THEY WILL HAVE IT, WHEN I NEED IT. The cover photo is immaterial! It seems the majority of the bloggers here are trying to invent an issue to support their own cause…ridiculous.
Good for you, genius. No one here even remotely suggested that that policy would be a prudent policy. So what’s the point of posting that statement, idiot?
Doug, you miss the point and I suspect you’re part of Edmund’s target audience.
The question here is not censorship, nor political correctness, it is about sensitivity.
I’m an artist, not a scientist, but from what I’ve read, the scientific community is interested in attracting bright young people into the field regardless of gender. The young women of today are more conscious of gender stereotyping issues than those of past generations. This type of advertising sends the wrong signal about the culture of a an occupational field they might be interested in. Obviously it must not be totally incorrect but it appears from the other comments here, that there is a growing sensitivity to this type of gender stereotyping and an interest of seeing it change. Intelligence and inquisitiveness are precious attributes worth seeking after regardless of gender.
Damon, thanks for explaining what the cover device is. You make a good point about the cover of the catalog being irrelevant when you need a piece of equipment, they have it.
So the relevant issue would be, what was the point of the cover in the first place?
I can’t agree more with the comments about how people are going to perceive the woman on the cover of this catalog: not as an intelligent capable woman but as a sex object.
It seems like women are victims of a double-edged sword. If we stay quiet and accept this even if it does offend us (it certainly offended me), we are adding fuel to the fire. This covers allows people to reaffirm their underlying biases: that women look better lying in front of the equipment selling it, rather than trying to use it. If we do voice our concerns about the message that it might be sending, we are immediately accused of being overly sensitive angry feminist-extremists (to take a page out of Bush’s book).
It’s sad that the loudest opinions were also from people who will never directly experience what it is like being a woman in such a male-dominated field.
I wonder if people read this article in the Washington Post: Goodbye to Girlhood which is related to the SEED article and evaluaes the effect of the sexualization of a female in the non-scientific community.
True, if you are looking for or trying to find something more than is presented. Maybe I’m naive but I don’t believe for a minute that anyone was knowingly trying to denigrate or belittle anyone or make any type of statement. I might fall in that “just don’t get it” catagory too. But then again, I don’t have a cause….other than buying what they are offering.
Looking at the catalog cover while I type here, I see an eye catching female next to a mechanical component. I don’t feel threatend or embarrassed by her appearance or by any words that are on the cover or by her lack of shoes. Nor am I compelled to buy anything because she is there. I do appreciate her appearance and find the picture nice. According to the earlier email, she is somehow involved with these parts. Given that, and the fact that she is not unattractive, maybe they thought it would make a good cover photo. I don’t have a problem with it.
I’m sure I’d never have paid the slightest attention to the Edmund Scientific catalog if they hadn’t put that picture on the front. In that sense, getting the blogosphere to put the picture up all over the web was marketing genius.
Well, I guess you americans are quite scared about anything which can have sexual implications, in optics catalogs or in children books for that matter 🙂
These reactions are really in the same universality class — and out of proportions.
Why don’t you react in the same way against pictures of violence in the media, pictures of death and despair, for example
here?
-Kasper
Sorry, broken link. A random example — from the war in Iraq — is the following:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/09/1094530764694.html?oneclick=true
-Kasper
kasper: I am not american, and I share your view that americans seem much more disturbed by images of sex than by images of violence. However, as a woman scientist I was horribly offended by this ad. Not because it’s sexy, but because it fits in, and thus reinforces, a very long line of sad stereotypes: stereotypes that gave me several unpleasant teenager-years, and against which I am desperately trying to shelter my growing daughter.
Sorry, there’s no way I can just laugh this off. I wouldn’t buy any product with a similar ad, and I would try to make sure my university doesn’t buy it either.
anonyma:
I can understand if your feelings have been hurt, but in the same vein, don’t you buy magazines with such pictures which I refer to? Don’t you ever (or did you ever) watch movies with violence as entertainment?
-Kasper
PS: I can tell you that my girlfriend was not in any way disturbed by this picture (but maybe it is because she both has the brains AND is very good looking 🙂
Edmund Optics & EyeCandy.
Anyway, you see, “you American” scientists are fighting against a culture in which marketing and good-looking women in various attire and postures are synonymous, so much so that most people can’t even see what is wrong. It isn’t going to be easy.
You have all totally missed the point: the girl in the photo is clearly only two inches high. You can see that from the size of the lens system beside her!
They obviously had to find someone suitably sized to demonstrate the tiny scaled precision engineering, and she is the only person available. Therefore, it isn’t deliberately sexy. If they had an old guy who was only two inches tall, he could have posed for the photo.
I’d also like to point out that the expert lighting and photography/lithography that they used gives the potential customer the wrong impression of just what the product looks like. Image the dissappointment when the excited astronomer or other technical researcher opens the box and instead of the beautifully illuminated and expertly positioned instrument we see on the cover of the catalogue, we see instead a cold lifeless arrangements of cylinders with a range of different textures and reflections nestled, strangled, by polyethylene bags and imprisoned in a stultifying styrofoam tigercage. It’s a bitter kind of awreness that leads me to believe that the instrument on the catalogue cover doesn’t come with a little fem-bot who can take care of the aesthetics as well as be my little friend in the workshop. Damn, those alchemists of old had a wide assortment of familiars and homunculi to assist in conjuring up the devil…why can’t we? Terry Pratchett for 3rd Assistant Boiler Inspector of the Gods!
I was pretty shocked by seeing this ad in Physics Today, and it brought back memories of my “Year In Industry” before university, where I was the only female in an office of engineers who had pin-up calendars prominently displayed on their walls. It was horribly uncomfortable to talk to them as equals knowing that they saw fit to display their objectification of women in the workplace.
The people who are wondering what is the big deal – get a clue. Its not the fact that there is a sexy woman in the picture people are upset about, its the context. This is an advert conceived by someone who sees their buyer as exclusively male. They are using a woman’s body to *sell* their product – they can’t conceive of a woman *buying* it. If you are a female physicist already feeling marginalized, or a female student hoping to become a physicist one day, adverts like this take a hit on your morale – little by little, but it adds up. These things collectively say that this is a boys’ club, and you can’t belong.
And to the people who posted that objections to the advert are motivated by jealousy and insecurity — seriously? You need to examine your assumptions that anyone objecting to this advert must be ugly. People are objecting because it directly hurts their workplace environment to have the mindset that lead to this advert propagated.
Kasper — this isn’t really about sex. It’s about *gender,* and that’s not at all the same thing.
I suppose I am coming on one of those sophomoric moments when you discover that everything is relative and that the majority of human activity is meaningless. That being said, it seems to me painfully obvious that the ad is inherently neutral, and whether it portrays women “as objects” or “as scientists” or whether the person involved volunteered, or if it will have a net negative or positive effect on the psyches of male/female scientists… is immaterial. We are all here seeing in this ad what we see in in ourselves, or how we want to view ourselves. There is no other reason to explain the ad hominem arguments being thrown about here.
That also being said, I would like to say that it is wonderful to be discussing this. It is a glaring sociological problem why women don’t flock to physics the way we would like them to, and it reflects anxieties we have about gender inequalities in our society that we pride ourselves on having eradicated. This is a thorny issue that will not be resolved over an inflammatory ad, but certainly something that should consider it.
I guess this post is meant to level the playing field, and render this discussion a little more civilized. At the least, I hope that the readers and commentators here can take a step outside themselves and appreciate how much they bring into the discussion, and why that appreciation is important.