It's not just "some guy." It's Tom Anderson of mySpace fame, who Techcrunch is working hard to position as some kind of senior statesmen of social media. His articles are getting picked up by Techmeme and are pulling a lot of eyeballs lately.
It's irresponsible and immature to attach that image to an article titled "Google is Sexy." If he were 19 years old and posting to Reddit, then yeah, whatever. Nobody would care. But I think anyone who's in any kind of leadership position should know a little better.
It's still some guy. It doesn't matter that he founded MySpace. He didn't post it there, where it could be seen as a statement from the company. He didn't post it on Techcrunch. He posted it on what is basically a personal blog.
If it's irresponsible and immature to attach the image, then shouldn't it simply be irresponsible and immature to call Google "sexy" at all? "Sexy" means inspiring the desire for sex.
He's a burgeoning pundit. Media, other leaders, and new people in the industry will take their cues from him.
You ever hear the joke, "Hey, dpark, what do you call a black man who has a PhD from Harvard?" It's an awful punchline, with a little bit of a truism: The perception that, no matter how smart you are and how hard you work, there's a percentage out there that will view you as less than nothing. You don't count, your contributions don't count.
Now, in that context, what kind of message do you think attaching that photo to a pundit's post about new media technology says to the 18 year old girl who's thinking about majoring in CS?
But hey, fuck it, right? It's a harmless joke and we're taking this too seriously. She'd probably be happier going in marketing anyway.
Is he trying to position himself as a pundit? Is he telling people to follow his G+ account? Or is he simply posting stuff he finds interesting? If he's actively trying to position himself as a voice for the industry, that's different. If he's just posting stuff and people happen to read it, then I think he's done thing inappropriate.
I also still find it bizarre that some people seem to believe that "sexy" implies "sexism" when it relates to women. Why is it that every time an attractive woman is shown, a small but loud group calls it sexism? Why are women not allowed to be sexy without it somehow oppressing them? No one screams "sexism" when men are portrayed as sexy. It's not sexism if a woman takes a photo with an attractive man. Why can't women be sexy?
> Context is key. It's about positioning people in an ornamental, demeaning way and calling it "good fun" and "humor."
> That is what makes it sexist, because is reduced to, literally, a pair of tits and under the greater context of "Google is Sexy."
So it's sexist against the woman but not the guys who are literally reduced to shirts that bear the Google logo?
That's my objection with the claim that this is sexist. If we claim that the woman is reduced to being a pair of breasts, then we must also claim that the men are reduced to being nothing but a couple of shirts. It's only through a biased interpretation that we can come to the conclusion that the woman is an object while the men are not. The mere fact that she's sexy should not mean she is an object.
It's only through our own biases that we can call this photo demeaning to women. Is it demeaning to men when Anthony Weiner's underwear photos are shown, or when David Beckham is photographed shirtless? Is it demeaning to men when women take pictures with attractive men or famous male athletes? If not, why the double standard? (Isn't unequal treatment the very definition of sexism?) And if so, then does "demeaning" have any meaning at all, besides reflecting a discomfort with human sexuality in general?
> Nobody is arguing that just posting a pic of an attractive woman is sexist.
It seems that the set of contexts in which Tom could post a picture of a woman showing cleavage without being called sexist is pretty small. Somehow I suspect that if his post had instead included a picture of a guy in a thong, no one would have called it sexist.
> I noticed you didn't answer my question, though: What message do you think this sends to potential CS coeds?
I don't think this sends a message to potential female CS students. The fact that one guy posted a picture shouldn't mean much, and I think a relatively small percentage of women would actually find this offensive. (How many women have posted cleavage shots of themselves to Facebook?) I also think that it's bizarre that anyone would hold Tom Anderson up as some sort of ambassador for the software industry.
By the way, coed means coeducational and refers to males and females educated together. It isn't a term for female students.
Why are you being defending a position that has clearly upset a number of people, instead of engaging in a debate? This is why so many minorities don't speak up: because we aren't listened to. Time and time again, the majority will defend the status-quo, it's perceived rightful position to impose its will.
This entire thread could have simply been:
- This makes me feel as if woman are objectified in computing as sexual entities before any other consideration.
- I'm sorry you feel that way, what is it about the image in this context that bothers you?
> Why are you being defending a position that has clearly upset a number of people, instead of engaging in a debate?
I am engaging in a debate. That's what it is when we hold opposing viewpoints and discuss them. It would not be a debate if I simply failed to defend my views. It would just be me surrendering to your opinion.
I might just as well ask why you're defending a position that so many clearly disagree with.
> This is why so many minorities don't speak up: because we aren't listened to. Time and time again, the majority will defend the status-quo, it's perceived rightful position to impose its will.
Very clearly people are listening to you. I am listening. Listening does not require agreement. If you want to debate, then don't accuse others of not listening just because they don't simply bow to your views.
> This entire thread could have simply been:- This makes me feel as if woman are objectified in computing as sexual entities before any other consideration....
That's hardly how you started the thread. You began with sarcasm and went straight to accusations of misogyny and then acted as if all the women posting were similarly offended.
I have asked why you were offended. In response you compared the image to human trafficking and a culture of forced prostitution.
Edit: Dropped the reference to child prostitution because that's apparently not the comparison you were trying to make.
It's irresponsible and immature to attach that image to an article titled "Google is Sexy." If he were 19 years old and posting to Reddit, then yeah, whatever. Nobody would care. But I think anyone who's in any kind of leadership position should know a little better.