> (a) institutional sexism exists in our programmer culture, and (b) sexism is pervasive
I agree with these statements. I think that they needs to select different copy, in light of the sexism in our culture.
Here's what happens when you replace the word "developer" or "engineer" with the word "girl" in the sample copy:
Ridiculous Girls
Girls that cost $0110110001/hour. We invoice in Binary, Try Risk Free!
We Recruit Top Girls
And Bring Them To You Fast! $1800-$2800/wk. Try for 2 Weeks, Risk-Free.
I'm not sure about you, but to me, these ads feel like they could easily be selling sexual services if you don't look closely and notice the words "developer" and "engineer". It's the little things, like capitalizing words in the middle of the sentence, and the use of the term "risk-free", that throw off the heuristics I use to determine the legitimacy of this ad. Imagine if someone saw this ad while looking over your shoulder, didn't look very closely, and all they saw was a pretty face and "$1800-2800/wk".
I think that just asking to change the pictures is a terribly simplistic response, but it probably is enough to bypass the association with sex.
I think that this problem is symptomatic of how adult services have been advertising themselves on the Internet, and symptomatic of the sexism that is pervasive in programmer culture. The knee-jerk shutting down of the ads is probably due to the ads being flagged by viewers, and I think that this is going to be a problem until the culture changes (if it ever does).
One experiment I would have liked seeing (if it wasn't for the account being on the verge of being banned) is whether the ads are still offensive if the women were depicted wearing something that wasn't cut so low (like a suit or even a T-shirt). I know that in reality, many of us go to work in casual clothes, but I think it might have helped.
At some level, yes, but LinkedIn hasn't been particularly welcoming of those sorts of employees in the past (presumably because it makes some of their other customers squeamish).
Plus, there's the issue of whether people are working in the industry willingly (likely not), whether they are subject to violence (probably), and how much of the money you paid they will actually get to keep (very little). (It has been argued that legalization and regulation would solve these issues, but I have no idea if that's true or not.)
I agree with these statements. I think that they needs to select different copy, in light of the sexism in our culture.
Here's what happens when you replace the word "developer" or "engineer" with the word "girl" in the sample copy:
I'm not sure about you, but to me, these ads feel like they could easily be selling sexual services if you don't look closely and notice the words "developer" and "engineer". It's the little things, like capitalizing words in the middle of the sentence, and the use of the term "risk-free", that throw off the heuristics I use to determine the legitimacy of this ad. Imagine if someone saw this ad while looking over your shoulder, didn't look very closely, and all they saw was a pretty face and "$1800-2800/wk".I think that just asking to change the pictures is a terribly simplistic response, but it probably is enough to bypass the association with sex.
I think that this problem is symptomatic of how adult services have been advertising themselves on the Internet, and symptomatic of the sexism that is pervasive in programmer culture. The knee-jerk shutting down of the ads is probably due to the ads being flagged by viewers, and I think that this is going to be a problem until the culture changes (if it ever does).
One experiment I would have liked seeing (if it wasn't for the account being on the verge of being banned) is whether the ads are still offensive if the women were depicted wearing something that wasn't cut so low (like a suit or even a T-shirt). I know that in reality, many of us go to work in casual clothes, but I think it might have helped.