Jeans Versus Genes: the Ultimate Scientific Discourse

Well I LOVED this little brain match. Laughed, laughed, laughed. Keep in mind that there are a few foxy smarties out there though. Summer Rayne Oakes for instance...supermodel or entomologist? Yes. And did you know that both Ashton Kutcher and Eva Longoria have science degrees? Well, Ashton didn't finish is biochem engineering degree, BUT STILL! Keep up the fun...maybe a new SNL (Science Night Live).

Rather than turning the editors, the writers, and the readers into people on the defensive, shouldn't we be getting on their side and trying to help them redress the situation? There is no need to hurt feelings or draw further judgments. And if you already have converts who made a mistake, shouldn't you encourage them to improve rather than chase them away with a whip?

I'm only saying this because I consider myself a well-intentioned person, and if I ever make a error in judgment I would hope to be corrected without being made out to be a bad guy, and inspired to do better in the future.

Ultimately I believe we all want wonderful things for women in science. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here.

Humor is very hard, I think. This piece doesn't quite do it for me, I think because it's a bit broader than I prefer. I like either more subtle, wry, observant humor like George Saunders or else totally absurd stuff like Monty Python or Upright Citizens Brigade (search on YouTube for examples).

IMHO, I think this piece would be stronger if the two characters were specific individuals rather than stereotypes--even if they weren't meant to be stereotypes, it's an axiom of creative writing that whatever details you don't provide, the reader will fill in for you, and of course the details that are closest at hand are the shopworn stereotypes.

I think that this piece could work better if it took place in a specific setting and the characters had a particular reason to be speaking to each other. Here the conversation seems to occur for no particular reason. If the celebrity is so uninterested in what the geneticist is saying, why does the celebrity stick with the conversation as long as s/he does? What's in it for the celeb? What's in it for the scientist to keep talking to someone who's not really listening?

With more details, this could become a scene in which we could identify with what each of the characters wants, and then the humor would arise from how they each keep getting in the other's way. The main conflict has to be a real situation and not just the fact that these two people come from different worlds--that they come from different worlds can amplify the basic conflict in the scene, but I don't think on its own it's enough to base a scene on.

I think there are some fine lines here, but the piece needs more specificity to work without automatically raising the stereotype alarm.

(apparently your comments don't even allow font formatting tags and when it fails to post a comment with such it kicks no error message to the screen...can you fix that one way or another?)

As someone who is neither a professional scientist nor a model, I am bugged. First by the article and image and then, and more importantly, by the reaction to Zuska's comments. To wit:

"This is witty and cute. But I soooooooo don't like it. Why?
...

Inkling, I am so disappointed with you for printing this. Couldn't this have been done differently? The celebrity actually gets interested in the science? Or the scientist is hot and the celebrity remarks on it and the scientist uses that as a take off point to talk about the genes? The celebrity was male and the scientist was female? Any of a number of ways to challenge the stereotypes would have been helpful here. As it is, the stereotyping ruined all the fun for me."

A flurry of attacks on Zuska's comment followed, using words like "hammer" and "confrontation" and such. Oh my. Where is the hammer? The heaviness? The subtle confrontation? (whatever that is) Zuska is disappointed that you did not choose to reach beyond the obvious and easy stereotype and she even offers a few quick thoughts on how to not be so stereotypically sexist. And yet. Somehow she's the downer...not to mention the topic of the comments. tsk, tsk

"Zuska, we saw this one coming from far away."

...and yet, you let it happen. No wait, you **made** it happen.

"For what it's worth, we had two illustrations to pick from. One using a photo of a male scientist and one with a female working in the lab. Unfortunately, the latter just didn't work in the collage. It was too busy and made it hard to understand what was going on. We prioritized aesthetics over our feminist leanings and went with the one you see on the page.

So... do we get any points cause he's black?"

Um, no. But nice try. On second thought, tacky try. Un-fraking-believable tacky try. I can't believe you said that! [[subtext: I think women are vapid but I said the black guy (who is just like some of my best friends) isn't as stupid as a model...I must not be biased.]]

Honestly, I don't believe that you couldn't have come up with an image that didn't reinforce the stereotype you wrote into the text. Hell, I could and I don't have your access to imagery since I have no handy lab photos at all. Photoshop is your friend. That both the image and text have the same message seems to point to that being part of the actual message, not some accidental side effect.

I'm pretty much thinking that when you "prioritized aesthetics over our feminist leanings" you gave up any benefit of the doubt. I'm also guessing, without having read anything else you have written, that your feminist leanings are maybe not so strong. Being a man who writes this sort of column and all. (Plus you wrote, "Who knew Madonna could be so deep?" in a way that said you dismiss any depth she might have out of hand.) I went looking for other articles you have written, Dave, and found none here. Since that leaves this as the sole article on which to base my assessment of your so-called feminist leanings, I'd say they are pretty weak.

Okay, I decided that was unfair so I did a little link-chasing. Way more men than women represented in the sites you are obviously connected to. Except for the graphic artists for Terry, why didn't you ask one of them for help with the image for this? Or this: http://www.scq.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/contestweblarge.jpg
...one faceless/genderless person, one man (astronaut) and multiple women (in swim suits). Umm, sure.

Anyway, back to the current article. The sexism is not so "sub" to the text, and it is in no way sub in that image, and it does make it not-so-funny to more than a few people. The easy fallback to the same sort of stereotype that the anti-science folk use so often (men smart, women ditzy) is disappointing. Detect a theme? Disappointment in the lack of creative thought given to ways to NOT be same-old-sexist is not a thunderous hammer of confrontation being brought down on your delicate head. Being told to blow your professor for a grade is a hammer, and one more likely to happen to the woman you depict than to you. That is reality. This column reinforces the context that leads to that reality. (and may I tsk tsk again? You are the head of an academic department that, to judge by the picture on your site, has its own issues of balance in gender and ethnicity...can you really be so blithely unaware of what it is like for the two or three women in the dept?)

You are a scientist, I presume. You know how to control variables (gender references and imagery) and that choices are just that: choices, not accidents. You **chose** who was male and who was female. You **chose** the image. You chose the text. If you don't like the responses you get from people who pay attention to your **choices** change your **choices** .

One other thing. Hugh, if this is an "in joke" then what does that say about what the men in science think of the women in science? Nothing good it seems. Or maybe it says that the butt of the in joke is still the butt of the joke, in or not.

Then again, it's difficult to hear dissenting voices when comments never post and there's no indication of the problem...

Everyone has made good points here - the most important one being a reminder to think of the audience. Dave's funny piece is, after all, a bit of an in-joke. I imagine the editors believe it is counterbalanced by other decidedly populist stories (like global warming knickers).

That balance - between those inside and outside of science - is important to preserve, since Inkling has a lot more potential readers firmly on the outside. Zuska was trying to say that, I think, and shouldn't be chastised for being too heavy. Discouraging people from leaving honest comments is a bad idea - especially when we're all clearly friends here.

And as Inkling's readership grows, I'm sure we'll all have the chance to see some truly heavy comments. Ever read the letters to the editor in Time?

Firstly, I love the Inky Circus blog and congratulations on Inkling Magazine! It's great.

But I'm actually commenting, because basically, I agree with Zuska, though perhaps her initial post is worded more strongly than is warranted by a piece that was a) intended to be funny and b) intended to poke fun at celebrities rather than women. Not only the picture, but the text, suggest that a nerdy, male, scientist (addressed as "Mister") is trying tirelessly to enlighten a vacuous, female (talks about yoga, cosmetics and bulimia, which are typically associated far more with women than men), lay person about genetics. While this irritated me too, I did not think it was sufficiently serious to comment upon. I am writing because I think that Zuska's comments might be stronger than I deem necessary, but they certainly aren't without cause.

I love Timon's interpretation that the celebrity is Zoolander - perhaps if such a spin were put on the piece I would have found it funny. There are many things in the Magazine and on David's blog which I do find "astute, charming and funny" but this piece is not one of them. As a scientist I certainly have had a number of conversations with non-scientists which have parallels to what I think David was trying to harmlessly parody here. I do think the piece reinforces two types of stereotype which are completely out of synch with the stated goals of Inkling. Firstly, it subtly and clearly unintentionally, reinforces negative gender stereotypes about aptitudes for, interest in and comprehension of science. Secondly, it reinforces the idea the lay public is not interested in science; this regretfully is a stereotype which appears to be largely true. But Inkling is directed at the reader who fits neither stereotype, the predominately female lay person interested in science!

I'm not convinced the piece was well-tuned to that audience (any more than it is towards female scientists tired of gender stereotypes). Perhaps the female lay person is less sensitive to gender stereotyping in science, so she would not notice this- or perhaps she chose to follow a path other than science because of gender stereotyping and/or the mis-perception that science did not relate to her personal life.

I am very uncomfortable with censorship or telling anyone what they should or shouldn't write and am well aware that humour is subjective. I would suggest though, since I'm sure that Inkling is concerned with making women more comfortable in this arena and clearly David cares about getting the science message out there, that in the future, subverting gender stereotypes would be both more effective and funnier; David and Zoolander would definitely be an article I would be happier to read. (If you need a male celebrity which bizarre and unfounded ideas about science, you need look no further than Tom Cruise.) Such implicit sexism may seem harmless as no harm was intended; I don't believe it is harmless- check out the literature on "stereotype threat", an issue for both women and minorities in science, and a good subject for a RealPolitik article.

As a female scientist in a male-dominated field, I have had to face outright sexism as well as more insidious implicit sexism. I think subverting gender stereotypes is a powerful tool; I cannot tell you how grateful I felt when a Prof in a quantum field theory course described an observer as "she". This is a suggestion that the editors are free to make to their authors, and if you see gender stereotyping as an issue "from far away" in the future, you might want to consider making such a suggestion.

Perceived sexism in this post notwithstanding, there is a problem with celebrities misinforming the public about science... the UK charity, Sense About Science, is trying to combat this, as I discuss on my recent blog (forgive the obvious plug): http://flygal76.blogspot.com/2007/01/celebrities-and-science.html

I'm on the "heavy" side. Zuska, I mean, even if you have a point, to put it in your words, I "want" to agree with you, but the hammer which you use to smash people over the head with supposed subtext instead makes me "want" to smash something.

Subtext is not an objective truth. And I think it's clear from the comments that many people did not read the same gender stereotypes that you did ..which if you think about it..is sort of like a success in its own right!

The fact of the matter is, this piece is astute, charming and funny whether the geneticist is a man or a woman (or a monkey).

So if the subtext ruined it for you, then fine. But honestly, I still think it's freakin' hilarious. It's a charicature of conversations that we've all had at some point during our scientific lives and has rung true with many of my friends who are still in academia. To spoil the fun of that message with worries that we didn't rise to this grand opportunity to challenge stereotypes feels like you are missing the point.

But then again, I was raised and live in a family, community, education and workplace environment where women are supported, respected and treated equally. Maybe it is my privilege to find this funny.

Because, man, it's funny.

You know, I really _want_ to like this piece, if only because of the Oil of Olay riff. But in the end, I think it's just impossible to escape the subtext - especially given the photo, which so helpfully reinforces the subtext.

Hello again, Thanks Zuska for the continued commentary, and your points are well taken. I will be more conscious of such things in the future.

Still, I think the "lightening up" aspect merits more discussion. Whilst you are aggravated by it, it would be interesting to see whether others feel the existence of such a conceit is wrong. To be honest, I'm not so sure myself.

I guess there's two things at play here: those being (i) the issue of stereotyping itself, and (ii) the manner in which you broached the dialogue. It's great that we can engage in the first, but your tone does happen to be aggressive or "heavy" as someone noted.

Myself, I think that such confrontational stances (subtle though they may be) certainly have their place, but I'm also vary that they may actually do more to alienate folks with otherwise good intentions than contribute to a possible solution. And here, it happens to be used right out of the gate.

Anyway, what do others think? This is great, by the way. We have an interesting and worthy query to ponder. Who knew Madonna could be so deep?

Whoops, I pictured the geneticist all along to be a female. Shows you how close I read. But then again, being in computer science, I see genetics as a field with LOADS of women so perhaps I am the one making horrible assumptions here.

As someone who's been caught at a bar/party/family event in conversations like this, studying something as easy to explain as the cure for diarrhea sounds like a great idea!

To lighten the tone (me being an extremely cool scientist), I will regale you with a wondrous scientific fact:

Do you know that they found the cause for diarrhea?

It runs in the genes...

Huh. As I was reading this, I kinda pictured Derek Zoolander as the callous celebrity/model. (That would be before the "Have you ever wondered if there was more to life, other than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?" epiphany.) Actually, Zoolander is my go-to guy whenever there is call for a sort of vacuous model archetype. As to my go-to scientist archetype... I think of my wife.

Kinda feeling the inherent humor in this piece more than anything else.

What I am saying is, I want to enjoy my witty, irreverent science writing without having to "overlook" the inherent sexism. I certainly wouldn't ask my friends of color to enjoy a piece I wrote and please just overlook the inherent racism, because it's just a humor piece.

If it seems I'm holding you to a really high standard, I am. I don't want women to be the butt of anyone's joke just because, or primarily because, they are female. The conflation of celebrity and female here is just too strong. People don't laugh at male celebrities in this manner.

Anne and David: It wasn't the picture, so much, for me that did the stereotyping; it was the text. The text made clear that the scientist was a male (the celebrity calls him "Mister" at one point) and made clear that the celebrity was a female by having "her" obssessed with stereotypical female clothing and beauty products. David, I'm sure you didn't mean to offend, but that isn't the point. The point is that the piece reinforces negative stereotypes of both women and scientists - even though this was not your intent. You say it is "a humor piece after all" but this magazine is trying to reach a wide and popular audience - so it bothers me even more that in communicating with that audience, they are going to have their stereotypes about women and scientists reinforced and confirmed by yet one more thing they read. This isn't the only, or main, place where they are going to learn their stereotyping about women. But it's a missed opportunity to challenge those stereotypes. And it's definitely a contribution to reinforcing them.

It's incredibly aggravating to point out to someone the sexist beliefs one has to hold in order to find the humor in the sexist joke you've just been told, and then have that person tell you "it's just a joke. Lighten up."

I think this is less a comment about women, than, well, celebrities. Take this article from the Guardian (www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1981739,00.html), which debunked several celebrity science statements, including one from - you guessed it - Madonna:

Claim: "I mean, one of the biggest problems that exists right now in the world is nuclear waste ... that's something I've been involved with for a while with a group of scientists - finding a way to neutralise radiation."

Verdict: Nick Evans, environmental radiochemist, at Loughborough University: "Radioactivity cannot be 'neutralised', it can only be moved from one place to another until it decays away at its own rate. It comes in many different types: some last for billions of years, others decay away in a few minutes. There are no magical solutions.

Hi Zuska, Thanks for the comment and sorry to offend, but I guess when you write these things, you take them as they come (in this case, whilst watching a Madonna GAP ad). Plus, I happen to be a geneticist and happen to be male, and this is a humour piece after all.

Did I mean to offend? Not at all, and yet I can't help but feel like I (and maybe even Inkling) are being attacked here. Was that the purpose of your commentary, because if not, then maybe it's something to be mindful of in the future. I think it's one thing to be conscious and active in the equity department, but another to jump on a "spade" that is clearly just a "spade."

Zuska, we saw this one coming from far away. And I'm sorry to hear that you enjoyed the piece less for it.

For what it's worth, we had two illustrations to pick from. One using a photo of a male scientist and one with a female working in the lab. Unfortunately, the latter just didn't work in the collage. It was too busy and made it hard to understand what was going on. We prioritized aesthetics over our feminist leanings and went with the one you see on the page.

So... do we get any points cause he's black?

(But in all seriousness, 2.5% of the PhDs in Science & Engineering awarded in the US in 2005 went to African Americans, who make up 12.8% of the US population. That same year women, who make up 50.7% of the population, received 37.7% of such PhDs. So the stats tell us that our good doctor in the picture above might be fighting some potent stereotypes of his own)

This is witty and cute. But I soooooooo don't like it. Why?

Scientist: portrayed as staid, somewhat dull, definitely not attractive, MALE.

Celebrity: portrayed as ditzy, appearance-obsessed, gorgeous-but-dumb, uninterested in science, incapable of understanding science, FEMALE.

Does this reinforce any stereotypes you are familiar with?

Yeah. I thought so.

Inkling, I am so disappointed with you for printing this. Couldn't this have been done differently? The celebrity actually gets interested in the science? Or the scientist is hot and the celebrity remarks on it and the scientist uses that as a take off point to talk about the genes? The celebrity was male and the scientist was female? Any of a number of ways to challenge the stereotypes would have been helpful here. As it is, the stereotyping ruined all the fun for me.

Ha! Brilliant! I was thinking of writing something along the lines of the now oh so fashionable "skinny jeans" vs "skinny genes" myself, but couldn't come up with anything good.