favourite yt comment so far:

This video is so bad that it broke YouTube. Look at the comments section! Intelligent, humane, decent commentary! On YOUTUBE!


(seriously, the comments are pretty right on)

Hook them with the fluff and then zap them with science.

The people doing the criticizing are not the target market. How do you get young girls to get interested in science? These girls are being overwhelmed with marketing from the fashion industry and it's working. Why not take a page from their book?

I agree, this fluff looks like crap to me as well. But to young teen girls, this is the bait, not the message. Get them in the door and then show them the "real case videos of real girls doing real science.

You can't expect to bait using stuff that looks-over-the-heads of your target. Young girls are not as headstrong as you'd think. They can be intimidated easy and very few have the self confidence to say, "Ya, I'm going to be a scientist, because I'm smarter than those guys."

Once you get them in the door and show them girls interacting in a scientific environment, girls their age, then they can start to believe, "Yes, I can do this too."

Sure, maybe a different team could have created a different video that may have intrigued them in a different way. but I think they had a specific game plan here.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by TheGenk.

...

Embed code does not appear to be valid - ignoring backup request by Lilithia.

*backup=[...snipped...]

Added alternate embed code for this video - backup requested by Lilithia.

Replaced video embed code with backup #5501 (supplied by member Lilithia) - embed replaced by member Lilithia.

*notdead

This dead video has been deemed functional; it must have been accidentally declared dead - declared notdead by Lilithia.

This video should be shown to women who are already in scientific careers so that they know how they should dress, look, and act. Am I right? Smart women should look stupid and pretty! They should care more about their appearance than their knowledge and quality of work! They should make more sandwiches! Stop pursuing a fulfilling career and get back to pleasing men!

wow..... girls should like science because science creates makeup.

A positive message delivered in the most condescending way possible.

So they took down the video after its condescending, patronising and stereotyping were justly pointed, but their channel is still there, with the following description (highlights added):

"Science is the basis for our make-up, fashion, music, and so much more. It inspires, enlightens and changes our world. So, what's stopping you from getting involved in science?


'Science: it's a girl thing!' is part of the 'Women in Research and Innovation' campaign which aims to encourage girls to develop an interest in science and to engage young women in scientific research careers.


Indeed, women remain largely under-represented in the science, technology and research fields in Europe, which constitutes a huge waste of talents.


'Science: it's a girl thing!' will challenge stereotypes around science and show girls that science can be a great opportunity for their future.


This pan-European campaign is an initiative of the European Commission's Directorate General for Research and Innovation."

F for eFF-ed up eFFort

@Sagemind

Dr Meghan Gray answers to that in this video (starts 5:39).

I'm sure Benni Benassi brought more women into the construction industry than this video will bring women into science.

So by the time this montage is done, women will have learned that H is the chemical symbol for the element Hydrogen. 91 more to go!

Thanks - That was a great interview.
I can see what they were trying to do and I can see what they ended up doing.



This (Whole thing) is a great study on advertising, human condition, public reaction and so on - I think they have learned something here. That in itself is a good thing. And it has gained some attention for the Youtube channel. Lets hope they can prosper from this.

http://www.youtube.com/user/sciencegirlthing

>> ^hpqp:

@Sagemind
Dr Meghan Gray answers to that in this video (starts 5:39).

She blinded me with sci.... err... fluffing clouds of cosmetics

What if the video makes a bunch of positive female scientist role models advertise their involvement in science? >> ^hpqp:

@Sagemind
Dr Meghan Gray answers to that in this video (starts 5:39).

Question: why do we need to promote science to women?

More broadly: why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?

What are we losing by not having female scientists?

Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to do a) what they're good at and b) what they're interested in and c) what is useful?

Note: I am not arguing against more women in science, I'm arguing against people doing jobs they're not suited for after being taken in by a slick marketing campaign.

Mmmkay. ??? Right?

You sure this wasn't made by The Onion??

This entire thing presupposes that makeup and materials are what make a woman beautiful.

Even if the commercial was successful in attracting more girls to science, it wouldn't do much to increase the number of women scientists. For the most part, the problem isn't that women aren't interested in the sciences, it's that there are obscene levels of attrition among females moving from undergrad, to grad school, to postdoctoral work, to assistant professor or industry positions, to tenured professor or high ranking industry positions. The gender disparity in some fields, such as engineering, is still great at the undergraduate level, but for science as a whole the bigger problem is that women who want to be scientists drop out before they reach the higher levels:
www.aauw.org/learn/research/upload/whysofew.pdf

So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?

I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.>> ^ChaosEngine:

Question: why do we need to promote science to women?
More broadly: why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?
What are we losing by not having female scientists?
Shouldn't we be trying to encourage people to do a) what they're good at and b) what they're interested in and c) what is useful?
Note: I am not arguing against more women in science, I'm arguing against people doing jobs they're not suited for after being taken in by a slick marketing campaign.

>> ^KnivesOut:

So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.

Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.

I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.

Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.

Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.

The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
So you're pre-supposing that women are not good at science, because historically there have been fewer women scientists? Were there fewer women scientists because they are "not suited" for it, or because they have historically been discouraged from doing so?
I think you might want to introspect a little, you are suffering from exactly the type of sexism that this campaign is attempting to thwart.
Wow, you have so completely missed my point, it's not even funny.
I am not pre-supposing anything about women in science. I'm all for anyone in science, as long as they're good at it. Their gender is irrelevant.
Again, what do we gain from having more women in science? What do we gain from having more men? More asians? More short people? These things are completely orthogonal to the outcome; more capable, passionate scientists.
Put it this way. When I started working as a programmer, it was just around the time of the dot com bubble. Whereas before programming was seen as something geeky and uncool, all of a sudden it was the career to have. As a consequence, there were suddenly tonnes of people working in programming who a) didn't care about it and b) were terrible at it.
The people who are good at science and care about it will naturally find their way to it. What women certainly don't need is some patronising bullshit program like this.

>> ^KnivesOut:

What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?

Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".

>> ^KnivesOut:

The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?

You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.

That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.

I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.

>> ^KnivesOut:

I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.


I don't disagree with promoting science.

So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.

Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.


I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.

Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.
>> ^Unsung_Hero:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
>> ^KnivesOut:
What do we gain by having more people in science? How about more science?
Christ, would you please go back and read my post? I've already said I want "more capable, passionate scientists".
>> ^KnivesOut:
The point (that you're missing) is that by encouraging more people to be interested in science, we'll hopefully get more scientists, and at the very least, more smart people. How is that a bad thing?
You I doubt you'll get "more smart people". The percentage of "smart people" will stay the same as it roughly always has. You'll just get more mediocre people doing things they're not good at.
That said, more scientific literacy can't be a bad thing. But I'm not arguing against more people in science. I'm asking why we need more of insert-demograhpic-here in science. I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is. This kind of thing just feels like quota filling.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I've worked with plenty of those programmers that you describe, primarily people with dollar signs in their eyes. Sure, if you don't love it enough to read a C++ book while your wife is in labor (guilty) you may not be the kind of person I'd give the nod to in an interview. At the same time, I'm glad that the world has more programmers. Hell I'm glad the world has more bad programmers, because it makes us good ones look that much better when we clean up their messes.
I'm not. That's a pretty selfish attitude to be honest. I would rather see those people doing something they're good at, or at least something they like.
>> ^KnivesOut:
I'm not sure why you're upset about the idea of the world having a high proportion of smart people.

I don't disagree with promoting science.
So far, even if you agree with the goal and methodology, it's a complete fail. This wouldn't convince a single teenage girl that science is cool. The ones that think it's nerdy will have that confirmed to them by this desperate attempt to be cool and the ones that like science will be disgusted by this patronising bullshit.
Now if there are barriers to women in science, they should be removed.

I just wanted to be part of this extremely long quoted comment. Are we near the record yet!?

>> ^KnivesOut:

We'll get there. I'm sure @ChaosEngine will respond again, he's a last-word kind of guy.


Yes, but unlike you, I am able to use the mysterious key labelled "delete" to actually edit out the extraneous quotes.

>> ^KnivesOut:

Hey @ChaosEngine, I agree, the video is stupid, but I wasn't commenting on the video, I was commenting on your gender-bias'ed ideas about what careers suit which sex.
Male nurses? WTF AM I RIGHT.

Oh FFS. You are either deliberately misrepresenting my view or you're just really bad at comprehension.

I don't have any gender biased ideas about careers. That's my whole fucking point.
In case you missed it:
>> ^ChaosEngine:

I don't give a rats arse what their gender, race, orientation is.


I don't care if my scientist is female, my nurse is male or my mechanic is a cross-dressing splurg from omicron theta v, as long as they're good at their job. You are the one bringing gender politics into it. I am simply against trying to manipulate young women into a career they may not want. Once again, because I realise you'll misrepresent this: I am not against women scientists. I want women in science because they want to be in science, not because of some retarded ideology that says we must have a proportional representation of the population in every field.

It may be that more men are drawn to science, just as more women are drawn to teaching. No-one has answered my initial question: why is that such a bad thing?

For what it's worth ChaosEngine, KnivesOut's comments are pretty frustrating to read. One bad assumption after another, seeing things that are not there.

Anyhow, I also want to know if there are any good arguments for having an even male/female ratio in any profession. Is it possible that the best scientific community consists of an unequal distribution of the sexes? If so, wouldn't forcing an equilibrium be detrimental to scientific progress?

There's no question that social pressures and stereotypes are preventing great female minds from entering scientific professions. Professions should be gender neutral. Unfortunately, campaigns towards this end have no chance against what media teaches our youth every day.

I think those horny scientists could use some hot women in the workplace to spice things up.

I'm wathing the whole thing thinking 'But they're notPromoting science to women - this is an ad for make up".

But no.

@ChaosEngine no need to get pissy. God forbid someone disagree with you on the internet. Get over yourself.

@Mondo you're agreeing with me. Thanks.

>> ^KnivesOut:

@ChaosEngine no need to get pissy. God forbid someone disagree with you on the internet. Get over yourself.

Yeah, funny how I get annoyed when someone misrepresents my position and accuses me of being a misogynist.

As for people disagreeing with me on the internet, in general I welcome it. I've had plenty of interesting discussions here and elsewhere with people of radically different views than mine. The problem here was that instead of answering my question (which you still haven't) and engaging in a debate, you decided to accuse me of something I never even suggested.

Anyway, this has long ceased to be interesting or informative, so I'm done here. Apologies to everyone else for hijacking the thread.

@ChaosEngine you said "why do we need to promote any career/vocation that is traditionally single gender dominated to the other gender, e.g. nursing to males, engineering to females?"

Was that your question that I was supposed to answer? My answer is: that's a sexist question.

I know you fucking love bold type, so I thought that might help to get through.