As an avid reader of Jezebel, I started with the Wired cover Freak Out reading and felt utterly confused in trying to form an opinion. After I read the "Effects of Sexually Explicit Media" poster I just got more confused. The poster presents a study that finds results proving strong correlations between media sexually objectifying women and male consumers' thoughts about women's intelligence. The poster monitors the effect of a man seeing "sexy" and "smart" side by side, and that effect is very negative for women's social progress and societal progress beyond sexism. But what worries me more is the effect of "sexy" and "smart" embodied by the same woman, or in other words, "smart" and "sexy" all in one instead of side by side. An example of this all in one, both "sexy" and "smart" is the engineer on the Wired Magazine cover. Applying the poster's conclusions to the Wired cover, do we think the effect would be the same - or perhaps intensified? Did the readers of Wired Magazine, who I would presume are mostly men, see the female engineer as less smart because she looks "sexy"? In the media, when powerful women like Hilary Clinton, Sonia Sotomayor, or Condoleeza Rice, look more feminine (nail polish, lipstick, high heels) does that lessen their image of intelligence?

And what does this study and reaction to the cover teach us smart women at Stanford? When we wear a fitted dress or a relatively low-cut top or decide to spice up the day with a bit of mascara, eyeliner, and lip gloss, are we detracting from the intelligence we have worked to gain from our male peers?