Just before Christmas I received this leaflet in my pigeon hole at work, inviting me to apply for the Dutch "Veni, Vidi, Vici" science fellowship programme. I've posted an annotated, translated version here. With this targeted campaign, the Dutch research council NWO is trying to get more female applicants for the scheme. While applauding their commitment to attracting women into science careers, I can't help but wonder: what moron designed this damn thing? There are so many things wrong with this piece of cr paper, it's hard to know where to begin. But let's give it a shot.

First, some background. By all accounts, the Netherlands is a force to be reckoned with in science. Despite its diminutive size, the country scores consistently highly in international rankings of science (if you choose to believe these things). Thomson Reuters' most recent "Top 20" places it eighth in the world based on indexed citations in 10 years to 2009 - ahead of China. In my time in the country, I've been very impressed with the government's commitment to furthering science research, even in tough financial times.

But all is not well with Dutch gender balance in science research. Women are sorely absent from the research landscape. The European Commission's 2006 She Figures report tells us that in 2003 just 17% of researchers in the country across government, business and higher education sectors, are women, trailing behind every other EU country for which data were available. Of all highest-grade academics in the Netherlands, less than 10% are female. Given a decently average proportion of female PhD graduates (41% in 2003, compared with the EU average of 43%), that is one leaky pipeline.

The "Veni, Vidi, Vici" fellowship programme was set up in 2000 to attract top talent in all areas of science for innovational research at three career stages: early ("Veni"), mid-level ("Vidi") and senior ("Vici"). The scheme is well-funded to the tune of 150 million euros annually and the conditions are great. This year, the famed leaflet was sent to all female science PhDs the funding council has on its books to encourage us all to apply.

NWO's effort to reach out to its female scientists is entirely laudable. But the design and wording of the leaflet is so patronising that its effect is spectacularly counter-productive.

There's the slogan: "Pump your career". Shoes! Women must like shoes. And the cheery colours. Why the colours? Women with PhD's, like men with PhD's, are well capable of reading black-on-white text without losing attention or interest. We don't need the added visual stimulation.

The text is condescending in the extreme: "Be bold! Don't be scared by such qualities as "excellent"", together with a bit of a cv and proposal-writing 101: "why YOU?". What's with the exclamation marks? The whole thing is like an annoying cheerleader. We need more respect, less pompoms.

Finally, ah, the stilettos. Red patent peeptoe stilettoes: every scientist's favourite footwear for late nights in the lab. Are they kidding? Not only are they perpetuating the stereotyping that women have been battling against for decades in the workplace, they've managed to pick one of the icons most associated with the sexualisation of women in society. Shoes that in the popular imagination lead to one thing: the bedroom. What a message to send.

I'm aware that I sound like a humourless old lemon here, banging on about punctuation and colour, and taking offense at a pair of shoes. Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favour of a bit of fabulous footwear. I simply object to women being addressed as a population with such a clichéd chestnut - and such a sexually loaded one at that - in an equal opportunites context. And as a woman working every day in a male-dominated environment, defining the right place for sexuality is always a challenge. Adding more sexual imagery to the equation is just not helpful.

At a more basic level I'm irked by the fact that NWO is targeting only women with their campaign. Well-intended as they are, such campaigns risk making women feel like second class citizens in need of extra care and attention. And men can feel increasingly alienated by the overt courtship of female candidates in the job market. Moreover, women are not the only ones in need of flexibility at work because of care commitments or health. Men should have access to the same opportunities, or at least be provided with the same information.

I applaud the organisation's good intentions to attract female candidates to their fellowship scheme. I really do. But to send a glossy colourful leaflet with some kinky imagery to just 17% of the country's researchers is a seriously mixed signal. Women should get the same respect for their hard work, accomplishments and identities as men, and men should not be excluded from the debate on how to achieve a more equal and balanced workplace.

Read more about the Fellowships in English here or download the brochure. Go ahead and apply.