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

AI STORIES

AI-generated stories have longer endings than human stories

My colleague Jessica Witte has just shared a preprint where she compared the emotional arcs of the stories we generated using gpt-4o-mini to those of human-authored (pre-2022) stories from the subreddit r/WritingPrompts, conveniently gathered in this dataset. She found a distinct difference in the endings of the LLM-generated stories: both […]

How to peer review a paper in 2026

Dorothy Bishop, a psychologist, wrote a useful list of what reviewers need to look out now that so many papers are bad science that looks good thanks to LLMs. Read her whole blog post, she explains it well, but here’s a brief version because I’m pretty sure we’ll be needing […]

“So what if it was ChatGPT? It *could* have been true!”

I recently read a good article on the different kinds of truth a language model operates with by Luke Mann, Liam Magee and Vanicka Arora, Truth Machines: Synthesizing Veracity in AI Language Models, but despite its lovely typology of truths (consensus, correspondence, coherence and pragmatic) it doesn’t help me with […]

AI STORIES

AI shimmer and sparkle

I have this hunch that sparkles and glow and shimmer are somehow a point in the latent spaces of LLMs that have more connections than you would expect. Perhaps their connotation to magic and to the unknown matches some of the mystique of genAI? Or perhaps these words are used […]

Don’t do a systematic review if you’re in the humanities

This paper is a great example of why you probably shouldn’t use a systematic literature review for a theoretical and conceptual research question like “How does artificial intelligence affect the perception of authenticity and aura in art?” However, if you’re looking for an annotated list of 48 recent articles about […]