This article’s purpose is to examine representations of women scientists in “B” horror movies. Portrayals of female scientists appearing in these films differ significantly from those in blockbuster films. This is because of three factors: (a) a greater freedom for controversial subject matter in low-budget movies, (b) filmmakers’ use of high media attention science and environmental issues to attract an audience, and (c) the influence of Western images that feminize nature and position science as a tool to control both women and nature. The analysis describes three resultant themes in the relationship between filmic women scientists and nature.
BouldM. (2002). Taking the dream girls apart: Molly, Eve VIII, Barb Wire. Femspec, 5(1), 18-36.
29.
BowerbankS. (2004). Speaking for nature: Women and ecologies of early modern England. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30.
BretonM. J. (1998). Women pioneers for the environment. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
31.
ColavitoJ. (2008). Knowing fear: Science, knowledge and the development of the horror genre. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
32.
FlickerE. (2003). Between brains and breasts—Women scientists in fiction film: On the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 307-318.
33.
FlickerE. (2008). Women scientists in mainstream film: Social role models—A contribution to the public understanding of science from the perspective of film sociology. In HuppaufB.WeingartP. (Eds.), Science images and popular images of the sciences (pp. 241-256). New York, NY: Routledge.
34.
FraylingC. (2005). Mad, bad and dangerous: The scientist and the cinema. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
FreelandC. (2000). The naked and the undead: Evil and the appeal of horror. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
36.
GlassyM. C. (1997). The biology of science fiction cinema. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
37.
GowatyP. A. (2003). Sexual natures: How feminism changed evolutionary biology. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 901-921.
38.
HarawayD. J. (1986). Primatology is politics by other means. In BleierR. (Ed.), Feminist approaches to science (pp. 77-118). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
39.
HarawayD. J. (1989). Primate visions: Gender, race, and nature in the world of modern science. New York, NY: Routledge.
40.
HarkI. R. (2004). Crazy like a prof: Mad science and the transgressions of the rational. In PomeranceM. (Ed.), Bad: Evil on screen (pp. 301-314). Albany: State University of New York Press.
41.
HasselH. (2008). The “babe scientist” phenomenon: The illusion of inclusion in 1990s American action films. In FerrisS.YoungM. (Eds.), Chick flicks: Contemporary women at the movies (pp. 190-203). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
HaynesR. (1994). From Faust to Strangelove. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
43.
HirdM. J. (2004). Sex, gender and science. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
IntemannK. (2010). 25 Years of feminist empiricism and standpoint theory: Where are we now?Hypatia, 25, 778-796.
45.
JonesR. A. (2001). Why can’t you scientists leave things alone? Science questioned in British films of the post-war period (1945-1970). Public Understanding of Science, 10, 365-382.
46.
JonesR. A. (2005). How many women scientists do you know?Endeavor, 29(2), 84-88.
47.
JonesR.BangertA. (2006). The CSI effect: Changing the face of science. Science Scope, 30(3), 38-42.
48.
KellerE. F. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7(3). Reprinted in KellerE. F.LonginoH. (Eds.). (1996). Feminism and science (pp. 28-40). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
MerchantC. (1996). Earthcare: Women and the environment. New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
MerzagoraM. (2010). Reflecting imaginaries: Science and society in the movies. In SmelikA. (Ed.), The scientific imaginary in visual culture (pp. 39-52). Goettingen, Germany: V&R Unipress.
52.
MuirJ. K. (2002). Horror films of the 1970s. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
53.
MulkayM. (1996). Frankenstein and the debate over embryo research. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 21, 157-176.
54.
NoonanB. (2005). Women scientists in fifties science fiction films. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
55.
PanesgrauP. (2008). Stereotypes and images of scientists in fiction films. In HuppaufB.WeingartP. (Eds.), Science images and popular images of the sciences (pp. 257-266). New York, NY: Routledge.
56.
PerkowitzS. (2007). Hollywood science: Movies, science and the end of the world. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
57.
RibalowM. Z. (1998, November/December). Script doctors. Sciences, 38, 26-31.
58.
RossiterM. (1998). Women scientists in America: Before affirmative action, 1940-1972 (Vol. 2). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
59.
SchiebingerL. (1991). The mind has no sex? Women in the origins of modern science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
SchiebingerL. (2003). Introduction: Feminism inside the sciences. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28, 859-866.
61.
SheffieldS. L. (2004). Women and science: Social impact and interaction. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
62.
SkalD. J. (1998). Screams of reason: Mad science and modern culture. New York, NY: Norton.
63.
SteinR. (2004). Introduction. In SteinR. (Ed.), New perspectives on environmental justice: Gender, sexuality and activism (pp. 1-17). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
64.
SteinkeJ. (1997). Portrait of a woman as a scientist: Breaking down barriers created by gender-role stereotypes. Public Understanding of Science, 6, 1-20.
65.
SteinkeJ. (1999). Women scientist role models on screen: A case study of Contact. Science Communication, 21, 111-136.
66.
SteinkeJ. (2005). Reinforcing cultural representations of gender and science: Portrayals of women scientists and engineers in popular films. Science Communication, 27, 27-63.
67.
SteinkeJ.LapinskiM. N.CrockerN.Zietsman-ThomasA.WilliamsY.EvergreenS. H.KuchibhotlaS. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children’s perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science Communication, 29, 35-64.
68.
SturgeonN. (2009). Environmentalism in popular culture. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
69.
ToumeyC. P. (1992). The moral character of mad scientists: A cultural critique of science. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17, 411-437.
70.
TudorA. (1989). Monsters and mad scientists: A cultural history of the horror movie. Cambridge, England: Basil Blackwell.
71.
UngerN. C. (2004). Women, sexuality and environmental justice in American history. In SteinR. (Ed.), New perspectives on environmental justice: Gender, sexuality and activism (pp. 45-60). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
72.
VerchickR. R. M. (2004). Feminist theory and environmental justice. In SteinR. (Ed.), New perspectives on environmental justice: Gender, sexuality and activism (pp. 63-77). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
WeingartP. (2008). The ambivalence towards new knowledge: Science in fiction film. In HuppaufB.WeingartP. (Eds.), Science images and popular images of the sciences (pp. 267-281). New York, NY: Routledge.
75.
ZukM. (2002). Sexual selections: What we can and can’t learn about sex from animals. Berkeley: University of California Press.
