San Francisco Women With PhDs Featured as Models for Spring Collection
time.com
time.com
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...
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 =)".
Objectifying women yet again, is all I see here.
Shame on the editors
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.