Sigh. I’m up to day 7 of Planet Jemma, which is supposed to be an interactive, serial web drama that’ll encourage teenaged girls to study physics. Instead it seems to be a relentless attempt to convince its audience that boys studying physics are dorks and that teaching assistants are male chauvinist pigs with pinups on their office walls, and that you’ll get your bum pinched and be laughed at. Here’s the (fictional!) teaching assistant’s website with his webcam shot of himself – you’ll see the first day’s version, but on day seven, the webcam image is of the teaching assistant grabbing Jemma’s bum. The only experiments you see done in this fictional physics department involve dipping bananas into liquid nitrogen and seeing how they come out frozen. I mean, come on, we did more challenging stuff than that in high school.

Jemma supposedly loves physics but we never see her writing lab reports, studying or working with any other physics students. She does show us very simplistic explanations of black holes and antimatter, explained in romance magazine terms. Apart from the silly comments about wishing boys in black holes, they seem so much simpler than the Carl Sagan explanations of astronomy that my little sister and I were thrilled with when we were nine or ten, that I can’t see how they can really be meant for fourteen year olds.

I totally loved Online Caroline, which was made by the same people who’ve created Planet Jemma. I’m less than enraptured by Planet Jemma, though. I cannot see how portraying male physics students as horrible, sexist pigs is going to encourage women to study physics. And it’s just a little too annoying that the two vaguely attractive men in the series are studying media and design. I imagine that’s what the creators of the show studied.

Mark Bernstein made a similar point last week, before I’d really gotten into reading Jemma’s story. Mark and I have the same basic idea, I think, though I think Jemma’s a first year undergrad, not a grad student, and I haven’t noticed her talking about clothes – actually her clothes are pretty good, not fussy but you know, regular. I think the problem with Planet Jemma isn’t so much the portrayal of Jemma herself (though she could do more work) but the stereotypical portrayal of the males at university. Maybe I’m naive and Norway’s simply better than many other countries in this respect, but honestly, pinups in university teacher’s offices? Is that realistic?


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

3 thoughts on “planet jemma

  1. nick

    Perhaps you can find a more progressive (and helpful) portrayal of women in physics here.

  2. Jill

    Ha! Well, at least the physics looks convincing. To a non-physicist, anyway 🙂

  3. mcb

    Yes, Planet Jemma was not nearly as good as Online Caroline. It lacked the complexity and sophistication and seemed to only touch on the surface of the topics it wanted to cover. I also thought the videos themselves were too long (but perhaps it was just that they were too boring. I still remember the shiver I got when Caroline’s partner appeared in the background of one of her “web cam” scenarios holding up a sign that contradicted what she was saying.) Online Caroline was suspenseful, I thought, in a way that Jemma wasn’t.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.