Picture
There’s definitely a time and a place for a video released as an attempt by the EU Commission to get more girls into science. The time for “Science: It’s A Girl Thing” a 53-second cringe featuring overly-sexualised minors strutting around in safety goggles and minidresses , salivating over how bubbling flasks and chemical formulas always lead to neon make-up is never, and the place is nowhere. By Naomi Elster

As one blogger put it "The EU Commission may as well have put a lipstick on a string, and filmed 18 year old models doing a belly crawl after it from the nail parlour (or wherever they would normally be) to the lab bench." I’ve never seen a video so ill-received – a barrage of response videos have appeared on YouTube, and Twitter and Facebook are awash with criticisms, from both official sources, such as Ben Goldacre (author of Bad Science), Nature (the most prestigious science journal), and most of my friends – fiercely intelligent female scientists who I have studied and worked with and learnt from are rightfully angry. As one friend put it “It’s nice to know Marie Curie slowly irradiated herself to death so we could watch a bunch of fashion models play with molecular models while not wearing lab coats.” (Marie Curie was the scientist who discovered radiation, paving the way for a number of important developments including chemotherapy).

The ad is inappropriate on a number of levels. A feminist friend once commented, "advertising is one of our worst enemies." She is correct, but we have the right to expect better from the taxpayer-funded EU Commission. The ad trivialises science and the important work that scientists do; it is insulting to women; and it is far too over-sexualised for something that the EU is aiming at minors (the target audience is 13-18 year old girls).

In advertising, women are by default stick-thin, scantily clad and without depth, intelligence or character. The women in “Science: It’s a Girl Thing!” fit the bill perfectly, but I would have expected better from the EU Commission, which should be trying to tackle negative stereotypes such as these. To make matters worse, the Commission defended the video, saying it wanted to "speak [women’s] language to get their attention." The language of women? The person or persons who devised this ad clearly have a blinding ignorance of science that is second only to their ignorance of women. "When I think woman, I think pink!" We are not simpletons and you cannot interest our entire gender in something by showing us lipstick.

The overtly sexist way in which women are used in advertising is bad enough. But for the EU to stoop to this where the women featured in this video are meant to be representatives of successful female scientists is an attack on women and gender equality, whether meant that way or not.

Science is hard work, and female researchers are intelligent and independent. We have degrees. Many of us have MSc's and the majority of female researchers have doctorates or are working towards them. We work hard to get answers to complicated problems. We mean business and do not spend our days giggling over lipstick and pulling ridiculous faces at chemical formulas, doing catwalk struts around the lab to coquettishly peer over our sunglasses at a male colleague. To take a group of women who have achieved success through their own hard work, on their own merits and their own terms and reduce them into anorexic sex kittens who gasp and giggle over colourful explosions and lipstick is appalling. Maybe it would be funny if gender equality in science were real, but it is not. I can only speak for biomedical science, but women outnumber men at every stage apart from at the most senior levels, which are still male-dominated. The problem is not that we need more women at entry level.

Commenting on the campaign the EU Commissioner for Research, Innovation and Science Máire Geoghegan-Quinn said, “We want to overturn clichés and show women and girls, and boys too, that science is not about old men in white coats".

Admirable sentiments, but to trivialise science with lipstick is extremely insulting to the female scientists – or, as we think of ourselves, “scientists” who do difficult and valuable work every day. I am investigating new ways to treat aggressive breast cancers that do not respond well to drugs. It’s an important project but I accept that it will be relatively thankless. When we are ill we will thank a doctor for prescribing a drug and thank a pharmacist for dispensing it whilst giving little thought to the team of scientists who worked tirelessly to develop and refine it. I’m happy to do it because I want cancer treatments to be better, but I would appreciate it if the EU would not release condescending ad campaigns that could be read as “female scientists only care about cosmetics.” The work we do is very important and this advertisement is positively insulting.

The focus must be on getting the right people into science rather than getting more people into science. I am very proud to be one of several researchers featured in a video made by the Irish Cancer Society late last year. Most of the featured researchers are female, and although we are not strutting our stuff in skimpy dresses and heels that would be positively dangerous in a lab, I think we look pretty good. But far more importantly, we know what we're talking about, care about our research, and we are doing work that is interesting and important. This is the kind of approach that the EU should be taking – showing that it is possible to be respected as a female researcher, and that you have a breadth of opportunities open to you to do interesting and important work, if that’s what you want from life.

If you want to get women into science, make a video about science. Don’t patronise my profession or my gender. Don’t use public money to pay for a video which not only over-sexualises young women, insults female scientists and alienates people to the point where the official video is removed just days after it is posted.

The EU Commission has removed the video, but between the way that women were portrayed, young women were over-sexualised, female scientists were positively ridiculed and public money was wasted on the video, the lack of even a public apology or any sign of abashment from the Commission is perhaps the real political story here.

Naomi Elster holds a 1st class Honours degree in Pharmacology and is currently researching for a PhD at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, supported by the Irish Cancer Society. She blogs at http://nothingmentionednothinggained.wordpress.com/


 
 
Picture
It is absolutely incongruous to champion TV3's late-night 'chatline' ads as signs of a new, sexually liberated era. By Clara Fischer.

Last week, Fine Gael TD Derek Keating called for the banning of late night adverts, shown on TV3, for what he described as “sexual entertainment services”. There appears to be some dispute about the exact nature of these advertisements, with ComReg purportedly calling the ads “chatline” or “partyline” services, rather than “sexual entertainment services”. Judging by the scantily clad women starring in these particular spots, though, that seems rather odd. Do women always chat and hold parties in their underwear? As a woman, this is news to me.

Keating went on to assert that they serve as a front for organised prostitution. This is a strong claim, and one Keating professes “given the information” he has. The question remains: what is that information, and is his claim true? The Government has dealt with the issue by referring the matter on to ComReg, the regulatory body for electronic communications; and Vincent Browne, whose show has become rather unfortunately embroiled in this debacle, has referred the matter on to the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland.

It is indeed regrettable that ads objectifying women are broadcast during and after a political programme that regularly tackles issues of inequality, including gender inequality, and that includes more women contributors than most. As a keen fan of the show, I’ve felt aggrieved at these ads myself, and have responded to the problem by switching channels. If TV3 believe that the practice of broadcasting objectifying images of women is financially lucrative, I wish to deny this, as it simply encourages politically conscious viewers to not tune in. For other advertisers keen to show off their products during and after a very popular programme, this is also a loss-making strategy, as their adverts will not be viewed once the offending ad has been aired.
Many readers, at this stage, will, like the company in question, assert that TV3’s ads are “entirely legal and popular”, or that criticism is “of another era”; after all, they’re just a bit of fun – but fun at whose expense? Research clearly shows us that women’s and girls’ exposure to sexually objectifying images entails harsh detrimental consequences in terms of physical and mental wellbeing. Depression, low self-esteem, eating disorders, and impaired cognitive ability result from the constant sexualisation women and girls now experience as a matter of course.

One study in a wider research report on girls’ sexualisation by the American Psychological Association vividly illustrated this point. Young women were asked to complete a mathematical test wearing either a swimsuit or a jumper. When asked to wear the swimsuit, women’s ability to complete the test was significantly impaired, while for the male test subjects no differences were found. The APA concluded that “thinking about the body and comparing it to sexualized cultural ideals disrupted mental capacity”, while “sexualization and objectification undermine confidence in and comfort with one’s own body”. Notably, such discomfort and its resultant outgrowths in terms of negative body image, feelings of inadequacy, and so forth, manifest themselves in girls “as well as in adult women”.

Given the evidence for the harmful effects of objectifying images, why should we still be subjected to them? Surely the State, the broadcaster, and the regulator have a responsibility to protect, or at least not to damage, the wellbeing of consumers of media. And yet, the ads were still being shown only last Tuesday evening shortly after 12 o’clock when this writer happened to turn on TV3.Would we be as tolerant of racist advertising being broadcast, and if not, then why are we so tolerant of sexist and objectifying advertising? The answer might lie in the common conflation of such ads with a kind of progressive, open-minded liberalism, which hides the financial drive to commodify women’s bodies behind high-handed claims to sexual freedom. As the lawyers for the company in question assert, criticisms of their adverts are from a bygone era, a relic of Ireland’s history of sexual repression.

While I am certain that few people want to return to an age where sexual mores were dictated by the Catholic Church, it is absolutely incongruous to champion such objectifying ads as signs of a new, sexually liberated era. Besides the fact that they are aired to make certain people a lot of money, they are expressive of a reductive interpretation of sexuality.

Rather than being progressive, such ads are regressive, as they limit more complex, joyful, desirous, pleasurable expressions of sexuality, while entrenching all of the negative effects women and girls experience as a result of objectification. Monolithic, reductive models of sexuality that are peddled for profit, and that are ultimately harmful to women and girls, are hardly the type of models the new, post-Catholic Consensus Ireland should aspire to and foster.

If the State truly has its citizens’ best interests at heart, then it must now take further steps with regard to these particular ads, and also with regard to any future advertising. We need a robust framework of regulation that views gender equality not as a side issue, to be addressed only when people complain, but as a central and desirable feature of our society.

Dr. Clara Fischer
Co-ordinator, Irish Feminist Network

Image top: From That swimsuit becomes you: Sex differences in self-objectification, restrained eating, and math performance (Fredrickson et. al, 1998).

Cross-posted from politico.ie, TUESDAY, 15 MAY 2012
http://politico.ie/social-issues/8557-objectifying-ads-a-sign-of-a-regressive-ireland-.html