

An Open Letter to Wired Magazine: We're breaking up - tswicegood
http://tech.cindyroyal.net/?p=790

======
aresant
I think this is more a case of mistaken identity.

Where did Wired get all the journalistic cred that Cindy seems to be lamenting
the loss of?

I've been a reader for years, and it's essentially Maxim for geeks.

Add to that Wired readers are overwhelming male - 75% according to their
latest media kit:

<http://www.condenastmediakit.com/wir/circulation.cfm>

Conde Naste is in the business of making money with Wired, not journalism.

Or is that too cynical?

~~~
wooster
You might want to read the history of Wired magazine on Wikipedia. Early Wired
was a much different beast than the Wired magazine of today.

~~~
lhnn
Glanced through the wiki; I didn't see much about its amazing journalistic
past that sets it apart from today.

Wired is a geeky magazine with sensationalist headlines that nevertheless can
be interesting most months. Once again, a woman is complaining because a
magazine accurately targets its readers (though, even I was put off by the
almost desperate obvious baiting with this month's cover).

When I saw the 'boob' cover on TFA, before seeing the blog title, I knew it
was going to be a feminist complaining about how misogynist and mean geeks and
the geek ecosystem are.

P.S.: Misogyny is the hatred of women. Most geeks love women! Their lack of
presence in the IT world is what makes us surprised to find a competent female
in our field... there are so few competent IT people anyway, so the cross-
section of two minorities is rare.

~~~
crux_
> Most geeks love women!

Yet so few respect them.

~~~
makmanalp
Upvoted, and while I agree (assuming this is referring to male geeks), I feel
like most geeks don't respect _anyone_ till it's well earned and deserved.

~~~
jamaicahest
And why should we? Show me one craft where newbies are respected without
proving their skills and I'll reconsider. I personally would like to see more
women choosing careers in IT, not because we need something pretty to look at,
but because they want to be in IT. No healthy industry can be all but
exclusive to one gender.

~~~
locopati
Maybe you should offer respect because your perspective on the world is not
the only valid perspective. Maybe your perspective limits you from seeing
other aspects that could be worthy of respect.

~~~
natep
I think the two sides are talking about different things. Parent (and its GP,
etc) are talking about respecting someone as a person, and GP (and its GP,
etc) are about respecting someone's technical opinion on the relevant subject.
Not sure if I've interpreted them correctly, but if I have, I don't think
those ideas are mutually exclusive.

Now, do some people think they're just not respecting a newbie's technical
opinion but come across as/are actually disrespecting the person? Quite
possibly.

------
joelmichael
She makes a good case. I'm no die-hard feminist, but this strikes me as trying
to appeal to that most basic element of their mostly male readership at the
expense of their female readership.

Wired shouldn't be about that. Even though the whole magazine is kind of
campy, and more reminiscent of science fiction than any serious study, this
strikes me as more distasteful than funny or sexy. I don't want Wired to
become prudish, but they have an opportunity to lead by example here.

~~~
pragmatic
Why oh why, do most women focused magazines (which I see at the checkout
counter, etc) have attractive women on them (Cosmo, etc) in various stages of
undress?

~~~
joelmichael
I think that's a fair question. First of all, feminists typically decry Cosmo
just as quickly as they would these Wired covers. So you can't really argue
there is an inconsistency there; the fact of the matter is that not all women
are feminists, and not all women are Cosmo readers. The two don't usually
overlap.

But I'm not going to suggest there is anything wrong with Cosmo. The purpose
of Cosmo is to be a woman's magazine that focuses on various traditional
interests of women, including attracting men. Their covers reflect that. My
problem with Wired doing it is that it doesn't fit what Wired is about. Wired
represents the tech community in a sense, so I feel it reflects on me a bit
what they do. Historically, it's been a nearly all-male community, yes; but
most of us agree we'd like that to change, and getting rid of things like this
is not much of a sacrifice. Wired should be about cool tech stuff, and there's
no reason that premise should prefer one gender over the other.

~~~
anamax
> Wired represents the tech community in a sense, so I feel it reflects on me
> a bit what they do.

Nope. Wired is an attempt to attract eyeballs to advertisements.

If you think that Wired represents you, great. If not, that's great too.
Either way, that's your decision, not wired's.

------
Female
I am a woman, and I subscribe to Wired, and my reaction when I opened my
mailbox and found that cover was "Oooh look, honey, boobies!" Quite literally.

I guess I should, as a caveat, mention that I'm very sex positive and not
entirely straight. But I personally believe that bodies aren't obscene, no
matter what context they're in. Even if that context is an attention-getting
cover on tissue engineering.

Trust me, that's a pretty good use of boobies.

~~~
boha
It's not a matter of obscenity. That is not the author's contention. She is
pointing out the disparity between covers featuring men and covers featuring
women: Men are presented as people--pioneers, leaders, innovators--but women
are presented as objects--sex symbols, characters, models.

Using an anonymous woman's chest makes the objectification even more
egregious.

Women in tech fight an uphill battle to be recognized for their
accomplishments and not just their gender identity. For the author to say that
a media mainstay (Wired) in the tech arena should be trying to _fight_ that
imbalance instead of aggravating it is justifiable and welcome.

~~~
sp4rki
Men make probably more then 90% of the middle to higher up positions in tech.
Women founders of startups make around 4% of the total founder pool.

What are people supposed to do? Invent important women in the tech industry
out of thin air? The important women make a name for themselves, and I'd argue
that the good ones have it better since it's easier to be acknowledge as an
important contributor as a woman, since there are so little of them. I'm sure
a great developer probably has a harder time getting some exposure, than a
women at the same level (a great woman developer, a woman that's just like 90%
of them won't get noticed, and neither will the men) and with the same
opportunities.

In my experience, great female developers are always a big deal. Everybody
loves them, and they get more exposure than their peers at the same level. The
one's that complain are the one's in the trenches complaining on why they have
to share a bathroom.

------
petercooper
As Dan Savage said, I'm glad to be a man because we seem less _complicated_
(though he was commenting on genitalia). If Wired had a picture of some guy's
schlong on the cover, I wouldn't, as a man, find it "unfriendly." I can't even
imagine how it feels to be so intimidated by pictures of other people. Stick
_goatse_ on a magazine and it probably wouldn't stop me buying it.

But any decision to stop reading Wired seems wise to me - it has its moments
but the odd issues I buy when traveling are packed with gimmicks and populist
dross. Pick up magazines like Communications of the ACM instead (sadly not at
airport stores) - no gimmicky covers or chesticles in sight there!

~~~
jamesaguilar
I'm sure you would feel differently if the average appreciation of your gender
was for its usefulness as a sex object, baby producer, and/or domestic slave.
You would not feel intimidated by your representation in this way because
there is such a constellation of social roles for men that are portrayed
regularly in the media and other venues. Things are certainly not as bad as
they once were for women, but a quick glance at sites like
<http://bechdeltest.com/> will make it clear that all is not well in the world
either.

Pardon me if my tone is a bit harsh, but honestly your comment comes off like
you think it's pejoratively "complicated" for this woman to recognize and
decry the objectification of her gender and its under-representation in a
widely circulated magazine. By contrast you seem to feel that men are
approbatively "simple" for not worrying about such things. The reality of
course is that there is simply less on this front for men to worry about and
this has nothing to do with one gender being complicated and the other simple.
Perhaps that was not your intent, although I have to tell you that if it was I
find it pretty offensive.

~~~
ja30278
I've never understood how it's possible to be offended on someone else's
behalf, particularly on a perpetual basis, as your tone leads me to believe
you must be.

Your pejorative reading of "complicated" is far out of proportion to the
original comment. Like it or not, gender differences extend beyond just having
different sex organs. Men and women differ in lots of ways, including in
typical emotional response. It's entirely reasonable to point out that women
may respond differently to visual depictions of nudity in the same way that
it's reasonable to point out that they tend to be less hairy.

~~~
jamesaguilar
> I've never understood how it's possible to be offended on someone else's
> behalf . . .

This may be true (that you don't understand), but I doubt it. If you have ever
taken a stance on the wellbeing of people other than yourself, particularly a
political stance, or if you have ever defended a friend or family member
against an accuser, or any number of other normal human social interactions,
then you do understand what it feels like, although perhaps to a different
degree than me in this case.

And, I also have to point out that whether you understand why I argue about
this has precisely nothing to do with the validity of my arguments.

> It's entirely reasonable to point out that women may respond differently to
> visual depictions of nudity

Only if it's backed up by evidence and relevant. It is neither in this case.
Observing that women are less hairy is a fact, provable, and does not play a
role in the argument at hand. Observing that women react differently to nudity
than men is wrong on two fronts. First, it may not even be true. Second, in
the context of a woman making a political statement about the depiction of her
gender, it is a rhetorical device based on a premise of unknown veracity whose
primary purpose is to discredit her beliefs to a male audience. It's a variant
of "women are irrational, so we don't need to listen to them," albeit less
transparently foolish.

~~~
IsaacL
I'm going to get offended on behalf of jamesaguilar. Why is he getting so many
downvotes? Comments shouldn't be downvoted because you disgaree with them,
they should be downvoted because they're thoughtless or unconstructive.

Since the above post was neither, I'm going to assume that some people need to
reread the below:

<http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html>

~~~
jamesaguilar
99% of the posts and comments here on HN have nothing to do with the readers
directly, or, if they do, have no moral connotation one way or another. This
does, and it's really uncomfortable to learn about the fact that you are part
of a privileged group. You see exactly how unbiased people can be about which
comments are worth reading when discussing this topic and others like it.
Historically, I've found the answer to be, "Not very."

------
mrduncan
_Things were looking up a couple months ago when you published that great
article on Caterina Fake of Flickr and Hunch fame. That could have been a
cover… Instead you went with Will Ferrell…_

Like it or not, a magazine with Caterina Fake on the cover just isn't going to
sell as well on news stands as one with Will Ferrell on the cover.

~~~
tingley
I'm not sure I buy this argument, because Wired consistently ignores it
regards to men. Like in 2005, when they put Blake Ross on the cover (issue
13.02). Or 2006, when Will Wright was on the cover (14.04). Or 2008, when they
featured Ray Ozzie (16.12) and Shai Agassi (16.09). Or Craig Newmark in 2009
(17.09). None of these people is particularly well-known outside of tech
circles.

I did not go back all the way in Wired's cover archive to verify Royal's claim
that no woman has been on the cover "for an actual accomplishment" since
Sherry Turkle in 1996. But that is that is a fairly damning data point,
assuming it is true.

~~~
achompas
Combined with another HNer's comment that 3/4ths of Wired's readership is
male...well, you're selling to male geeks. So putting Will Wright on the cover
of Wired is like putting Jon Hamm on the cover of GQ.

(can't believe I made this comparison...)

------
sudonim
Open question: Why do many women in technology make their gender the focus of
their work?

<http://cindyroyal.com/>

~~~
throwaway6857
Because they can't code. The ones that can just code don't need to constantly
raise the fact that they are women to distract everyone else from
incompetence.

When ever I hear "But, I'm a <insert victim group here>" I immediately assume
they have sour grapes about the lack of achievement in their life. Everyone
faces adversity, it's part of life, get on with it. The adversity you faced
probably didn't make you a better coder and thus I don't care. I'm not running
a welfare shop, if you want to sell you sob story go there. If you want to
work, then let me know.

Look at the woman who optimizes Facebook's CSS, the article isn't about how
she is a woman, it's about how to optimize your CSS. Why? Because she knows a
lot about CSS.

Guess what? She has no problem getting work or respect!

~~~
kragen
> Look at the woman who optimizes Facebook's CSS, ...Guess what? She has no
> problem getting work or respect!

Have you asked her? Something like half of the highly competent women I know
in tech have some real horror stories to share, mostly about not getting
respect. (When you don't get work, you usually don't know it even happened,
let alone why.)

~~~
forensic
Nobody gets respect.

Adam Carolla said it best.

When a white guy gets treated poorly, he assumes that the perp is an asshole.

When a woman gets treated badly, she assumes that the perp is a sexist. But
the perp is not. The perp is just as asshole. The world is full of assholes.
Ask any white guy.

------
OneWhoFrogs
Keep in mind those of us still in high school. My mom is the one who collects
the mail and the latest cover led to an awkward conversation.

It is wholly unnecessary for a technology publication to have that cover. At
the very least, they should have limited it the newsstands.

~~~
protomyth
My sympathy on that conversation, but I think calling Wired a technology
magazine might not be terribly true anymore. It is more a pop culture magazine
that happens to show tech.

------
alexophile
As a point of curiosity, I figured I'd go to Wired's website and search the
obvious choice: Marissa Mayer. She was the first female employee at Google and
is now their VP of Search Product and UX - easy on the eyes too.

As a fan of the magazine, I was pretty disappointed in the results: 3 articles
- none of which were in print (or meaningful.) Of those three, one[1] was
pretty procedural, but the other two[2][3] seemed downright dismissive of
someone who was the youngest person ever to make Fortune's list of "50 Most
Powerful Women in the World"

[1]<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/06/googles_marissa/>
[2]<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/04/marissa-mayer-t/>
[3]<http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/02/marissa-mayer-r/>

------
MarinaMartin
I read the first paragraph of this article and thought "this article is
clearly written by an angry female." Lo and behold, the author's name is
Cindy.

Go Wired magazine for choosing your covers based on what will sell and not
based on the loss of the five readers who might be offended by it. They can
read "Bitch" (which is somehow not an offensive name for a magazine if written
by feminists?). If Wired doesn't sell magazines, Wired doesn't exist.

~~~
crux_
To restate your first sentence: The author of the article (angry woman!)
earned your dismissal of any points it had to make?

 _golf clap_

------
Legion
A lot of comments to this article are about the declining quality of Wired
magazine.

So, that leads to the question: is there any other technology-centric print
media worth subscribing to instead?

~~~
daten
Communications of the ACM <http://cacm.acm.org/>

Linux Journal <http://www.linuxjournal.com/>

~~~
Legion
Is Linux Journal the stand-out Linux publication? I have never gotten around
to assessing them all, and if there's one that is head-and-shoulders above the
rest, I would love to subscribe to it.

But I am an experienced Linux user and don't want "how to install Ubuntu on
your PC alongside Windows" tutorials all the time. (Beginner articles are OK,
just as long as it's a part of the magazine and not the front-page focus).

------
jlees
Oh god. I hated this cover when I got it at work. Wired just didn't consider
its female readership at all with this cover.

------
gkoberger
I don't get Wired's strategy. It seems now they're doing anything for readers-
you can get a year subscription for $3.99 (if you find a good deal online),
and they go with controversial covers like naked women and proclamations that
"The Web Is Dead."

Why can't they charge a bit more for a subscription ($36/year is still only
$3/issue), and publish much higher quality content? I'd rather pay more for
quality than read what they currently mail out every month.

~~~
nkurz
Presuming this is a real question, it's a matter of economics. Magazines like
Wired make most of their money from advertising. They've judged, likely
correctly, that if they charge more for subscriptions, they will lose more
profit than they gain.

Magazines are closing down left and right. Wired is still in business because
they have resorted to cheap tricks like "sex sells". While I applaud
subscribers deciding they aren't going to put up with this any longer, I think
you'd be mistaken if you think they could make more money by doing anything
else.

------
mrduncan
Wired's cover browser goes back to 1993:
<http://www.wired.com/wired/coverbrowser/>

------
nkassis
I'm got to admit that for the first time I had to make extra effort to hide
the cover of my magazine while reading it in the subway.

I don't personally care about it one way or another but they sure can't say it
wasn't meant to be provocative.

------
mcantelon
People still care about Wired Magazine?

------
dotBen
I have wired magazine sent to me for free _(I'm actually not sure exactly how
that came about)_ and I'm this close to calling them up and just having them
stop the subscription all together - I barely even read the magazine, probably
spending less than 5 mins skimming through it before it goes into the trash or
the bathroom.

~~~
sudonim
I somehow got rolling stone sent to me for free. I'd gladly trade... want to
make a website to swap free magazine subscriptions?

------
anamax
Magazine uses pretty women to try to attract some men - oh the horror.
(However, men as success objects is just fine, but I diagress....)

Look - wired doesn't "represent" anyone. It's a vehicle for attracting
eyeballs to advertisements. It isn't obligated to appeal to "you" for any
value of you.

------
brc
Ironi ally this edition was the first inane bought in years not because it had
boobs on the cover but despite that. I bought it for departure gAte reading
and had old ladies were staring at me like I was reading porn.

------
Tichy
If there were more women on the cover, she would probably complain that there
are too many women on the cover.

I looked at the cover browser and my superficial impression is that they don't
put people that often on the cover anyway, and even if they are male, they
also tend to be actors or jokes.

Thank you for the reading recommendation of "The Memoirs of a Token: An Aging
Berkeley Feminist Examines Wired." That sounds exactly like the thing I always
wanted to read.

------
kiba
So what if Wired Magazine have a gender imbalance over its lifetime. What's
the issue here?

Is it more about being offended that wired magazine don't offer equal coverage
to women entrepreneurs? Maybe there aren't just many tech entrepreneurs to
cover.

~~~
showerst
It's one thing to have an imbalance of sheer number, which may well be a
reflection of reality.

It's another thing entirely to make 90% of the women you _do_ depict into
sexbots. Putting ugly people on the covers doesn't sell magazines, but they
could at least make some effort to depict reality.

~~~
kiba
_Men_ like beautiful sexy women.

Sexbots? Who would think of women as a bunch of automation, unable to think
for herself, with no interests of her own, with no agenda of her own as sexy?
It is not.

~~~
crux_
If the picture of a body and not a person, "sexbot" seems an appropriate term.
Perhaps the distinction is too subtle for you?

------
aneth
I don't have much sympathy for the shameless use of breasts argument, as
that's just American prudery.

Having featured only a few women for actual accomplishments could be a real
problem - except that it can probably be at least somewhat explained with a
few observations: How many women did you see at Startup School this year? I'd
guess the number was under 5%. What percentage of successful tech
entrepreneurs you know are women? How many women are in YC? Based on these
number, women may be _over-represented_ for their digital accomplishments on
Wired covers.

I do hope that changes, I'm always happy to see women entrepreneurs, and
Startup School attendance is by no means a valid scientific study, but it does
give us some indication as to why so few women are featured.

~~~
jdp23
> I don't have much sympathy for the shameless use of breasts argument, as
> that's just American prudery.

Where's the prudery in Cindy's article?

> How many women did you see at Startup School this year? I'd guess the number
> was under 5% ... How many women are in YC? Based on these number, women may
> be over-represented for their digital accomplishments on Wired covers.

Actually no. Wired and YC both have < 10% women, far less than the broader
tech field -- or society as a whole.

~~~
aneth
> Where's the prudery in Cindy's article?

"Your covers aren’t all that friendly to women on a regular basis..."

This implies that showing women with a sexual bent is somehow "unfriendly" to
women, or that it limits them to being sexual objects, neither of which is
true, and both of which are products of our obsessions and shames regarding
sexuality.

> Actually no. Wired and YC both have < 10% women, far less than the broader
> tech field -- or society as a whole.

I have to assume you are trying to contradict me, although your statement
doesn't seem to. The proportion of women in tech is higher than the proportion
of women among tech _leaders_ , which is what I was referring to. This is
likely because women don't seem as likely to play the founder lottery.

------
sabat
For me, the silly covers are only part of the problem. The rest: (editor)
Chris Anderson's hyperbole. The web is dead! Everything will be free!

