It is revolutionary... in all the wrong ways... they just gave more ways to objectify women... it doens't matter how big their brain is... according to this campaign (or at least how this article promotes it) they are objects for our visual pleasure all the same
I think you hit the nail on the head there. They're all conventionally attractive, thus intelligence was clearly not the guiding factor in selection. So the message is that intelligence or advanced degrees are not all that important except as some kind of weird gold star -- it is still looks that count.
Ugh. The message I got was even if a woman has a PhD she can still be reduced to a visual spectacle. I feel sorry for the women in my lab who constantly face these pressures. I mean could you ever imagine a fashion line modelling male PhD students? If not why not? Is it because we men can be judged based on the merit of our work and don't have to worry about our appearance? I don't know, maybe I'm reading this wrong.
> I mean could you ever imagine a fashion line modelling male PhD students?
Yes, I very well could imagine this. Geek chic is very much a thing and this would probably play just fine.
I think about this the opposite way from you: Why should having a PhD change the pressures one faces around fashionability and body image? Are you suggesting that people with PhDs have earned the right to be exempt from social pressure by virtue of succeeding in a graduate program?
Choosing some arbitrary and largely fashion-orthogonal dimension to slice up the population seems like a very reasonable way to try and advertise fashion to a wider audience. If you are decrying that the media is pigeonholing women as being more fashion-sensitive, or that they are cherry-picking some expected body type out of their chosen demographic, then that is a separate and perhaps valid issue. But I don't read this as having any bearing on the value of a PhD, except as a way to market to an audience that cares about intelligence.
The luxury of being a man is that you can be rich enough (or smart enough, etc) that it doesn't matter if you're attractive. I'm not just talking about potential dating partners. Just compare the comments people make about Hilary Clinton's looks versus any male politician. Being attractive is a nice bonus for a man, but our society treats it as an absolute requirement for a woman.
Agree, only women without bachelor degrees should be allowed to be photographed wearing clothes in order to sell said clothes. PhD is supposed to make you ugly and unpresentable, shielding you from the evil eyes of other women who want to buy clothes. As for me, i only buy jeans that are worn by people with at least 3 PhDs. They make me smarter.
What, so your utopian world is an asexual, sexuality-less and sexualization-less world?
Do you think that's a realistic expectation for all of society? Much less an enjoyable one?
I, for one, thought this calendar came out very tasteful, while still maintaining a feminine (even a 'strong female') message. Nobody is 'reduced' and these aren't girls in bikinis.
Loosen up a little and have a more moderate viewpoint.
Spoiler - Men (nay, everyone) are judged on their appearances in every facet of life. Look at the numbers: tall and traditionally beautiful people, on average, go further in life, purely based on their appearances. It's just human nature. But we can be a more evolved and sophisticated society by balancing our urges with an appreciation of objective metrics, not looks.
> I mean could you ever imagine a fashion line modelling male PhD students?
Yeah, that would be ridiculous. The only thing I can imagine more unlikely would be something like, say, the world chess champion as a fashion model. [1] [2] [3]
Ah Betabrand. I still don't understand why there's a huge market for people who want to dress humorously.
They've somehow managed to make terrible a feature by labeling it funny. There's a difference between laughing with, and laughing at. Betabrand is on the wrong side of that line.
So, men are achievers based on their what they do in their field. Women on the other hand still have to be able to model and look sexy despite of their achievements.
There's no messaging here. It would be very easy to read way too much into this. I think it's refreshing, regardless of however many reasons people might come up with to be upset by it.
Some commenters are saying that it denigrates women with PhDs by objectifying their appearance, and others are saying that it fails because these are conventionally attractive women. Of course, if they had a broader mix of people then everyone would be up in arms about that too ("how dare they suggest that women with PhDs aren't just as beautiful as other women?!?").
All of these things are at least somewhat true, but I don't think it really matters.
This is a big lose/lose for whoever put the catalog together, because no matter what they do it will outrage somebody. I'll settle for not thinking too deeply about it and appreciating what they're doing, even if it's not the most revolutionary act in the history of gender relations, and even if it might seem hypocritical or cynical if you squint hard enough and look at it from just the right perspective.
But i took it to be a lighhearted stab at stereotypes - that nerdy girls are somehow "frumpy", or "unattractive".
I mean, we're meant to be all for getting girls into STEM - and you can argue till you're blue in the face about how "looks shouldn't matter", and "girls shouldn't care about makeup/shoes/clothes - but seriously?
Aren't we just being sexist, but painted a different colour?
If girls like those things - and I think it's fairly obvious from our society they do - then maybe we can show them that yeah, they can be "female" - and also super-smart. You don't need to pick one over the other.
I used to say to my wife "Err, you don't have to wear makeup for me, you know? I mean, it doesn't enhance performance physiologically." And her reply? "I'm not doing it for you, silly. Btw, did you know you're emotionally stunted =)".
17 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 46.9 ms ] threadShame on the editors
Yes, I very well could imagine this. Geek chic is very much a thing and this would probably play just fine.
I think about this the opposite way from you: Why should having a PhD change the pressures one faces around fashionability and body image? Are you suggesting that people with PhDs have earned the right to be exempt from social pressure by virtue of succeeding in a graduate program?
Choosing some arbitrary and largely fashion-orthogonal dimension to slice up the population seems like a very reasonable way to try and advertise fashion to a wider audience. If you are decrying that the media is pigeonholing women as being more fashion-sensitive, or that they are cherry-picking some expected body type out of their chosen demographic, then that is a separate and perhaps valid issue. But I don't read this as having any bearing on the value of a PhD, except as a way to market to an audience that cares about intelligence.
Do you think that's a realistic expectation for all of society? Much less an enjoyable one?
I, for one, thought this calendar came out very tasteful, while still maintaining a feminine (even a 'strong female') message. Nobody is 'reduced' and these aren't girls in bikinis.
Loosen up a little and have a more moderate viewpoint.
Spoiler - Men (nay, everyone) are judged on their appearances in every facet of life. Look at the numbers: tall and traditionally beautiful people, on average, go further in life, purely based on their appearances. It's just human nature. But we can be a more evolved and sophisticated society by balancing our urges with an appreciation of objective metrics, not looks.
Yeah, that would be ridiculous. The only thing I can imagine more unlikely would be something like, say, the world chess champion as a fashion model. [1] [2] [3]
[1] http://en.chessbase.com/post/magnus-carlsen-s-new-career-fas...
[2] https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.282813624995.33321...
[3] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2562821/Magnus-Car...
They've somehow managed to make terrible a feature by labeling it funny. There's a difference between laughing with, and laughing at. Betabrand is on the wrong side of that line.
Objectifying women yet again, is all I see here.
Some commenters are saying that it denigrates women with PhDs by objectifying their appearance, and others are saying that it fails because these are conventionally attractive women. Of course, if they had a broader mix of people then everyone would be up in arms about that too ("how dare they suggest that women with PhDs aren't just as beautiful as other women?!?").
All of these things are at least somewhat true, but I don't think it really matters.
This is a big lose/lose for whoever put the catalog together, because no matter what they do it will outrage somebody. I'll settle for not thinking too deeply about it and appreciating what they're doing, even if it's not the most revolutionary act in the history of gender relations, and even if it might seem hypocritical or cynical if you squint hard enough and look at it from just the right perspective.
But i took it to be a lighhearted stab at stereotypes - that nerdy girls are somehow "frumpy", or "unattractive".
I mean, we're meant to be all for getting girls into STEM - and you can argue till you're blue in the face about how "looks shouldn't matter", and "girls shouldn't care about makeup/shoes/clothes - but seriously?
Aren't we just being sexist, but painted a different colour?
If girls like those things - and I think it's fairly obvious from our society they do - then maybe we can show them that yeah, they can be "female" - and also super-smart. You don't need to pick one over the other.
I used to say to my wife "Err, you don't have to wear makeup for me, you know? I mean, it doesn't enhance performance physiologically." And her reply? "I'm not doing it for you, silly. Btw, did you know you're emotionally stunted =)".