Misrepresentations of Female Scientists in Movies Influence Gender Disparities

Misrepresentations of Female Scientists in Movies Influence Gender Disparities 

Related to Women Involved in Science

Walking into a science fiction theater, one rarely sees a female scientist as a main character. Some of the few women researchers in film include the supermodel shaped Dr. Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood (played by Kelly McGillis) who catches the eye of Maverick in “Top Gun” and frumpy Dr. Pamela Isley (through Uma Thurman’s acting) who others think is crazy in “Batman and Robin.”  Movies often misrepresent female scientists to the public in stereotypes ranging from drab and solitary to sexy and manipulative. These distorted film images differ from the attributes of real women who perform scientific investigations and often contribute to social consequences, such as girls who tend to be uninterested in pursuing science careers and difficulties faced by women scientists trying to advance their positions. Understanding the false stereotypes of fictional, on-screen female scientists and changing them into realistic images of women researchers in biology, chemistry, and physics, could help create opportunities for women involved in scientific investigations and prevent the continuation of gender inequities in science.

            The media depictions of women scientists impact public perceptions towards science and female researchers (Steinke et al. 4). Visual messages are the major source of information about science for the general population (Steinke et al. 4). Movies are especially important in spreading concepts related to science since they are more likely to contain characters with science careers than other public tools like books, television, and magazines (Steinke 30). Also, popular culture images involving science have a crucial influence during adolescence, and provide young people with information about gender roles, interactions between individuals of the opposite sex, and jobs in scientific research (Steinke 28). During this teenage time of development when media is important in shaping attitudes, many girls start to become disinterested in science (Steinke 29). Misinformation about women of science is often displayed and influences opinions about women in fields related to biology, chemistry, and physics.

Many films with scientific themes lack women researchers. According to sociologist Eva Flicker, 82% of scientists portrayed in the media are men (308). The unequal depiction of females in science prevents young girls from becoming interested in science (Kitzinger et al. 15). Similarly, women in science often view illustrations of women scientists as limited to certain fields, such as medicine and forensics (Kitzinger et al. 15). The deficiency of women scientists in movies may have an effect on the opinions of children. A study found that when young kids were asked to draw a scientist, none of the boys and only about half of the girls used a picture of a woman (Frayling, 219). From a young age, children are taught to mistakenly think that jobs in science are designated and appropriate only for men. There is a need to increase the visibility of women scientists, from a variety of disciplines ranging from ecology to astronomy, in movies to promote this area of study to young women.

When women scientists are shown in a few movies, they are often misrepresented or placed into stereotypical roles. In films, a woman researcher is often depicted as a lonely workaholic who spends all of her time on her experiments (Flicker 311). She is often viewed as unable to socially interact with others and unemotional (Kitzinger et al. 17). However, the woman can become more feminine and compatible throughout a movie with the help of a love affair or experimentation, while simultaneously losing her professional proficiency (Flicker 311). This image of a woman scientist who transitions into a pretty love-interest is seen in “Spellbound” with Ingrid Bergman as Dr. Constance Peterson who originally does not reciprocate a kiss but describes it as interesting behavior (Flicker 311).  In “Love Potion No. 9,” Sandra Bullock plays Dr. Diane Farrow, a nerdy and homely biochemist who becomes glamorous after drinking a potion in her laboratory (Flicker 311; Steinke 40). This characterization of female scientists makes people think that scientific knowledge and feminine traits are mutually exclusive (Flicker 311). The image reinforces discriminatory opinions that women should care more about their appearance and intimate relationships than studying science to pursue a research career.  

Female scientists in films can also be drab and manly (Kitzinger et al. 17). Many women scientists in films are given masculine attributes, including rough voices, male attire, and unhealthy habits (Flicker 311). In the movie “Andromeda Strain,” the character of Dr. Ruth Leavitt (displayed through the acting of Kate Reid) exhibited male traits through raspy speech, chain smoking, a domineering attitude, and a short haircut that could be seen on men (Flicker 311). Similarly, Dr. Diana Reddin (played by Emma Thompson) in “Junior” wears de-feminizing clothes like ugly brown sweaters, plain gray pants, and a long lab coat, making her appear mannish (Steinke 40). Making women scientists in films seem more masculine reinforces the perception of nature as feminine and science as a masculine tool to control the natural world (Jackson 50). Additionally, the characteristically male depictions influence how women scientists manage their appearance. Many female scientific researchers think that if they dress with femininity, then their colleagues will not take them seriously as credible scientists (Kitzinger et al. 17). Viewing female scientists as unusual nerds with masculine characteristics may also cause young girls to purposefully avoid a science career track (Long et al. 359). Forcing women scientists in movies to be masculine contributes to the biased view that science is more suitable for the minds of men.  

Yet, women researchers are often portrayed as very young and not old enough to have the correct academic qualifications for their jobs in movies (Frayling 222). These female scientists tend to be illustrated as extremely beautiful and super sexy (Kitzinger et al. 18). They often wear tight outfits that show-off their physique, like the genetics researcher Susan Storm (a.k.a. Jessica Alba) in “The Fantastic Four” who wears a body-hugging suit that emphasizes her curvaceous regions. The nuclear physicist Dr. Christmas Jones (portrayed by Denise Richards) in “The World is Not Enough” dresses in a midriff bearing tank-top and hot-pants to disarm nuclear weapons (“Christmas Jones”). Depicting women scientists as very attractive places attention more on their looks than on their knowledge, making it seem like women scientists are less proficient compared to men. Similarly, in “Contact,” Jodie Foster as Dr. Ellie Arroway uses her feminine charm to get things she wants instead of persuading others with scientific data from her work (Kitzinger et al. 18). Forcing female scientist characters to be glamorous makes these scientific investigators attention-grabbing tools for male target audiences of science-fiction and adventure films rather than role models for women interested in science.  

Evil women scientists who use sexuality to manipulate others and are willing to perform corrupt procedures are typically seen by movie audiences (Flicker 313). An example is Dr. Susan Harris (displayed by Anitra Ford) in “Invasion of the Bee Girls,” a beautiful female entomologist who creates an army of attractive women to seduce and kill men (“Invasion of the Bee Girls”). Similarly, Dr. Susan McCallister (as shown by Saffron Burrows) in “Deep Blue Sea” steps over ethical lines and genetically modifies sharks to study Alzheimer’s disease (“Deep Blue Sea”; Frayling 223). These images of immoral women researchers contribute to negative opinions about science, and make it seem like women in the life and physical sciences are willing to break codes of principle in pursuit of their work.

Also, women scientists in films are usually relegated to supportive roles, such as the girlfriend to the main character (Kitzinger et al. 19). Dr. Ellie Sattler (acted by Laura Dern) in “Jurassic Park” aids Dr. Alan Grant in studying dinosaurs, and Betty Ross (played by Jennifer Connelly), assists Bruce Banner with physics experiments in the “Hulk.” Both characters are well-known images of female scientists as helpers. Gender inequalities are often represented in movies by placing men in charge of female researchers (Kitzinger et al. 19). Continuing to place female scientists in the role of assistants in films promotes a social belief that male scientists are superior to women in science careers. 

The distorted portrayals of women scientists impact the perception of young girls about female researchers and policies related to female scientific investigators. Many young women are discouraged from getting involved in science due to misrepresentations of women scientists in film (Kitzinger et al. 9). Statistics show that young women are less likely to choose to study science in high school and college compared to young men, even if they think they can succeed in scientific investigations (Kitzinger et al. 1; Buck, Leslie-Pelecky, and Kirby 1). This is caused by negative stereotypes of women scientists due to false portrayals of women researchers in films (Buck, Leslie-Pelecky, and Kirby 1). Middle-school aged girls who viewed themselves as feminine were observed to think of scientific endeavors as a male profession for nerdy, middle-aged men with  white lab coats, glasses, and beards (Steinke 36; Buck, Leslie-Pelecky, and Kirby 1). Perceptions about women in science from films makes girls think of science as a subject that they do not need to focus on in their academics (Steinke 36).

Most school age kids think a scientist is a middle-aged man with a white lab coat, glasses, and a beard who spends all of his time in a laboratory (Buck, Leslie-Pelecky, and Kirby 2). This image of individuals in science is very pervasive. It caused young kids in a study about science education to believe that women scientists visiting their classroom were teachers even though they described their careers in science research (Buck, Leslie-Pelecky, and Kirby 7). Typecasts of female scientists in movies prevent young girls from becoming interested in studying chemicals, biological mechanisms, and electrical circuits.

Correspondingly, women who major in a science often do not pursue careers in this field, which is shown by the low proportion of women in jobs related to science disciplines compared to the percentage of females in the U.S. population (Kitzinger et al. 1; Steinke et al. 3). Women make up 19.4% of workers in the science industry and comprise only 10% of academic professional positions in the sciences (Steinke 29; Flicker 308). The women who are involved in the science sector have a lower probability of getting promotions for senior positions and there is currently a gender hierarchy in academia (Kitzinger et al. 1; Flicker 308). For example, less than 6% of senior science faculty members in Higher Education institutions of Europe are women and only 23% of full professors of science in the U.S. are female (Kitzinger et al. 1; Flicker 308). Furthermore, women science faculty members have less influence than their male associates, have fewer opportunities for leadership roles in their departments, and advance at a slower rate (Cortina, Malley, and Stewart 47). Even when women reach higher ranks in science careers, they often do not have a greater sense of job satisfaction due to bad experiences related to gender discrimination (Cortina, Malley, and Stewart 55). Women in science face difficulties in achieving high status roles and equal opportunities for leadership, which correlates to media images that uphold the perspective of male scientists’ superiority over women laboratory investigators.

The negative depictions of women scientists in films promote gender stereotypes that belittle the intelligence of women, portray females as unqualified for scientific research, attract attention to struggles involved in balancing a professional and a personal life, and depict women as distractions to male collaborators (Long et al. 359). It also endorses a message that was expressed by Larry Summers, the President of Harvard, that women biologically have less aptitude than males in science (Cortina, Malley, and Stewart 55). Changes need to be made in the presentation of women researchers in movies to alter negative public opinions about women scientists and help put an end to gender disparities in areas of biology, chemistry, and physics.

Screenplay writers, movie directors, and motion picture producers should work to improve the illustrations of female scientists in films. Current women scientists want female scientific investigators in movies to appear as “ordinary people,” clever, and talented; they want women researchers to be seen as more than just a pretty face on camera (Kitzinger et al. 19). Female scientists would like to see a variety of diverse representations of women scientists with different ethnicities, interests within science, strengths, careers, and families to signify multiple women researchers in the field (Kitzinger et al. 32). Many women investigators in science think that films should indicate that women can have a personal life and family, as well as perform science experiments for a living (Kitzinger et al. 34). Displaying women scientists working in teams and cooperating with others would allow young girls to learn that science is social (Kitzinger et al. 34). It would also help upper level administrators understand that women are integral members of scientific research groups (Kitzinger et al. 34). Changing the way women involved in science are shown in movies could alter the opinions of the general public about female scientists. This would likely lead to less gender discrimination in science through a higher number of young girls becoming interested in studying organic compounds, animal anatomy, and special relativity, as well as equal  opportunities for women researchers to advance to high levels in their careers.

Works Cited

Buck, Gayle A., Diandra Leslie-Pelecky, and Susan K. Kirby. “Bringing Female Scientists into

            the Elementary Classroom: Confronting the Strength of Elementary Students’

            Stereotypical Images of Scientists.” Journal of Elementary Science Education. 14.2

            (2002): 1-9. 5 April 2011. < http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/teachlearnfacpub/15/> 

“Christmas Jones.” Wikipedia. 2 March 2011. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 5 April 2011.

            <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_Jones>

Cortina, Lilia M., Janet Malley, and Abigail J. Stewart. “The Climate for Women in Academic

            Science: the Good, the Bad, and the Changeable.” Psychology of Women Quarterly. 30

(2006): 47-58. 5 April 2011. <http://www.dtm.ciw.edu/WomenBBR/WBBR-Settles.pdf>

 “Deep Blue Sea.” Wikipedia. 1 April 2011. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 4 April 2011.

            < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Blue_Sea>

Flicker, Eva. “Between Between Brains and Breasts-Women Scientists in Fiction Film: On 

The Marginalization and Sexualization of Scientific Competence.” Public Understanding of Science 12 (2003): 307-318. 3 Mar. 2011

< http://pus.sagepub.com/content/12/3/307.full.pdf+html>.

Frayling, Christopher. Mad, Bad, and Dangerous?: The Scientist and the Cinema. London:

Reaktion Books, 2005. 4 Apr. 2011. <http://books.google.com/books>. Path: Mad, Bad and Dangerous? The Scientist and the Cinema. 

“Invasion of the Bee Girls.” Wikipedia. 3 November 2010. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 4 Apr.

            2011. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_the_Bee_Girls>

Jackson, J. Kasi. “Gender, Mad Scientists, and Nanotechnology.” Spontaneous Generations. 2.1

(2008): 45-55. 5 April 2011.  <http://spontaneousgenerations.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/SpontaneousGenerations/article/viewFile/3516/1907>

Kitzinger, Jenny, Joan Haran, Mwenya Chimba, and Tammy Boyce. “Role Models in the

Media: An Exploration of Views and Experiences of Women in Science, Engineering, and Technology.” Cardiff School of Journalism, Media, and Cultural Studies (2008). 3 Mar. 2011 <http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/Kitzinger_Report_1.pdf >.

Long, Marilee, Jocelyn Steinke, Brooks Applegate, Maria Knight Lapinski, Marne J. Johnson,

            and Sayani Ghosh. “Portrayals of Male and Female Scientists in Television Programs

            Popular Among Middle School-Age Children.” Science Communication 32.3 (2010). 4

            April 2011 <http://scx.sagepub.com/content/32/3/356.full.pdf>

Steinke, Jocelyn. “Cultural Representations of Gender and Science: Portrayals of Female

Scientists and Engineers in Popular Films.” Science Communication 27.1 (2005). 4 Apr.

2011 < http://www.femtech.at/fileadmin/downloads/Wissen/Themen/Frauen_im_fiction-

Format/cultural_representations_of_gender_and_science.pdf> 

Steinke, Jocelyn, Marilee Long, Marne J. Johnson, and Sayani Ghosh. Gender Stereotypes of

            Scientist Characters in Television Programs Popular Among Middle School-Aged

            Children. Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass

Communication., Aug. 2008, Chicago. 4 Apr. 2011

<http://www.femtech.at/fileadmin/downloads/Wissen/Themen/Frauen_im_fiction-

Format/Gender_Stereotypes.pdf >