[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Yep - because obviously, in order to make science and engineering attractive to women, it must first be translated into something they can relate to: haircare and beauty.

Big assumption that was IBM's strategy.

Women already in STEM fields were not impressed and took to Twitter. Some of the tweets are great.

They were not the target of the campaign.

Good on IBM for trying. Good on them for their swift response. Please do better next time - it does matter. Stop focusing on changing the content to make it relatable for women

How about stop changing the content because of criticism from a few . There's no way to make everyone happy.

and start making tech fields more welcoming of women in a way that doesn't make them feel like someone on an exchange trip from Venus.

Hmm... affirmative action. Sure, nobody could criticize that.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

"Hack a Heat Gun". In small print - if you don't have a heat gun, you can use a regular household hair dryer.

How does a heat gun, even when a hair dryer is suggested as an alternative, become a campaign based on "hair care and beauty"? That's a stretch, even for nitpickers.

Originally Posted by DanaC

An additional thought:

I wonder, what it was that drew in the women already working in STEM. What was it about physics, or engineering, or coding that got them so interested as girls? What was it about their learning environment that made them feel that was open to them, despite the barriers that companies like IBM are now trying to address?

Maybe IBM could consult with them. Find out what got them interested in science and technology and what made them as girls follow that path. That might inform a useful campaign. Unless, of course, were suggesting that those women were unlike other girls, because they were interested in science and technology.

I'd bet a lot of money the answer would be "I don't know", or more likely there was one person in their youth, Dad, older brother, teacher, Mr Wizard next door, who was always messing with stuff and took the time to explain what/why they were doing. That sparked her interest in science and wanting to emulate people she admired. Whatever, I'm 99% sure it was a person, not a corporate campaign.

But there are other drop off points throughout that are more problematic. When kids reach that age there's a drop off from STEM across the board.
~~~~~~
So, what is happening to those girls who were interested in those subjects, and who saw the value of scientific curiosity and then dropped away?

Peer pressure, wanting to fit in by having the same mindset and goals as the popular girls?

You won't get more girls by focussing on beauty products. There's a small chance you might get a different group of girls - but I very much doubt that a girl with no interest in scientific subjects, or engineering will change her mind because someone showed her how to hack a hairdryer. The girl who will be interested in hacking a hair dryer, was probably already into science and tech, rather than already being into harirdryers.

HEAT GUN, it's the critics who have twisted this into hairdryers and beauty.
OK, do you think the women in the PR department have any technical/mechanical background, and could suggest a better idea than a heat gun, or would object the adding the hairdryer footnote when somebody said kids aren't likely to have a heat gun even if they know what it is?

I know you're fully aware of the problems. I also know most women agree with some part of it, and others are happy with their life and don't get it at all. Think of the Republican women who have stated women shouldn't hold public office. IBM's campaign targeted a specific group, maybe too broad, maybe to narrow, I don't know. But I do know that if they get shit every time they try to do something good, they'll stop completely.