I agree that if a kid watched this video and assumed “this is what science looked like”, then of course, this gives a very limited view of scientists. But at the same time, I think the typical stereotype of a scientist — bald, male, geeky, bespectacled — isn’t helpful either. We need both, and everything in between.

I feel it’s a fair argument to call “popularizing in a Hollywood way” as “normalized.” That is the “normal” that the masses adore, whether we like it or not. Scientists might be respected, but we are still outliers and oddities to most people. We are not the norm.

Hopefully, some of you recognized the discussion I was seeking to evoke: What is feminine and what is sexist? Was this video latching on to ideals of femininity, or through sex appeal? And can gender identities truly be discussed without the context of the sexuality?

I ask this because the word “stereotype” was used a lot in discussing the trailer, and also because while some women saw it as sexist, others saw it simply as feminine.

So it begs to ask, what is precisely the “stereotype” being fostered?

One person’s ideal of femininity can be another’s idea of exploitation. This shifts with culture, social norms, and individual perspective.

For example, commenter Alex (http://younglandis.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/in-defense-of-sciencegirlthing/#comment-452) invited me to substitute “girl” with “black” or “gay” to see the point.

So let’s play on that prompt. Suppose someone puts out a teaser to attract urban youths to science — a teaser featuring the top young rappers today, in full bling rapping about science. Would that be racist, or niche marketing?

Or consider will.i.am’s “i am FIRST” campaign, which feature a teaser with Snoop Dogg, Steven Tyler, Miley Cyrus talking about their appreciation of science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYuOKb3gO7E). None are exactly stellar role models, and are representative of their respective Hollywood stereotypes, in costume and in persona. But they are viewed in a positive light here because they are using their celebrity to promote science.

Interestingly, Miley Cyrus is seen here saying (at the 0:29 mark), “Everyone in this room is going to laugh at me, because I’m going to talk about how cool science is, and that’s because I’m a nerd.”

Here is a teenage girl who definitely promotes a glamorous girly image and is scrutinized for her personal wardrobe choices. What if she were to produce a music video about science, in character?

And why was she compelled or invited to say that statement?

Now, it’ll probably be quite some time before someone from the advertising company fesses up to the real story behind their strategy (the E.U.’s public-relations factsheet aside). So let us for a moment pretend that they were wholesome folk genuinely trying to attract teenage girls to science.

With that in mind, let’s look at our three models in the #sciencegirlthing teaser.

Is their wardrobe sexualized or feminine? And at the 0:26 mark, where a girl curls her finger at the screen, is that a “come hither” to Dr. Microscope or “come join us” to the viewer? And indeed, the ad is full of fast cuts of nail polish, lipstick and mascara. What is the function of these cosmetic accoutrements?

Okay, enough with the rhetorical questions. The theme I want to dig at is – what are we really criticizing about this teaser? Is it simply displaying one glossy subset of Western femininity ideals that another subset dislikes, or is it truly disenfranchising all women through promotion of a demeaning stereotype?

Or perhaps addressing the issue in evolutionary biology parlance: as an item of clothing, are skirts functional adaptations? Why have they persisted in contemporary culture? Or have they exaptated into some other symbolic purpose?

The more people dig into #sciencegirlthing, I think we will all realize that we’re not dissecting one little ad, and we are no longer debating what ought to be the face of science in youth outreach.

I’m not a trained sociologist, but it seems to me that we’re really delving into broader, cultural issues that permeate society if not human identity itself. What is feminine, and what is masculine, and what of the range of human diversity in between? And if femininity is being defined, then what are the various accepted norms for girls versus women?

Again, I am participating in the discussion at risk of seeming to be blind to sexism and to the clear discomfort at #sciencegirlthing voiced by so many women, including friends and mentors I respect. But I mainly want to be sure that the science blogging community wields its growing power with prejudice, by fostering big-picture conversations instead of reactionary fire storms.

If we are tackling a complex debate, let’s recognize the real issues at hand, and give the discussion its due complexity and analysis.

We are, after all, scientists.