I think this image illustrates a problem with our industry that would have made me think twice about becoming a programmer: I don't know about everyone else here, but I have a heck of a time getting any work done with the beautiful women perching themselves on my desk. I've tried everything, but they just keep roosting there.
British humor is quite different from American humor. This seems more in line with the company trying to be funny rather than the overtly sexist gesture it appears to be at first glance. Not saying it isn't sexist, but it seems like an attempt at humor which may be lost on those who aren't quite familiar with British humor.
Especially of that era. Carry On movies, On The Buses and all that. Doesn't necessarily make it right in the modern context but bawdy humour was absolutely the norm up into the 80s.
I watched the On The Buses movie a while ago and was actually taken aback by a scene near the intro where the two main characters basically restrain and grope a new female bus conductor. And that was the best selling British movie of 1971 and one for all the family..! :-)
I was similarly shocked by characters in their 40s ogling and catcalling at "girls" in school uniform (though clearly played by women in their 20s). This seems to be a norm of the era, and it goes so strongly against today's paedogeddon mores that even a gritty crime drama wouldn't have too much of it nowadays, let alone a family sitcom.
For those unfamiliar with the British School system: someone in a school uniform is definitely below 18-and-a-bit, and considering the nature of further education before the late 80s, would very likely have been below 16 (even more likely if female).
You're very kind in your characterization, I'm willing to spend my karma on a less euphemistic statement: leave it to Americans to get up in arms about perceived 'sexism' in an ad like this, especially keeping in mind the date on it. LOL at some of the comments below - 'misogyny'? Really?
Interesting to note how the (trigger warning: cisgendered heterosexual male) COBOL programmers get ladies with ease, yet the fancy modern (cisgendered heterosexual male) Ruby programmers have to resort to constantly showing how non-sexist they are in a vain attempt to attract the opposite sex.
I've talked to a few women in their 20s and 30s about this and their opinion was that guys who are always beating their chests about how they help women fight sexism in technology are probably doing it get into some warm panties.
My own observation has indicated that misogyny is still very common. What is new is more lip-service paid to the concept of inclusion, but the old attitudes are still there. Sure, corporate anti-sexual harassment rules have certainly curbed many of the symptoms: you don't see men in power pinching the secretary's ass anymore. But it hasn't seemed to have changed the thought process: i.e. that men in power view women as secretaries rather than as peers.
Also lack of hacker spirit and tendency to with fashion instead of thinking. It doesn't seem like an improvement to me, but I guess that's what happens when stuff goes mainstream.
In what way is it sexist - because the woman wears a mini skirt? Because it is suggested that it is worthwhile to attract women? Because the guy doesn't wear a mini skirt - and she likes him for his salary, not his looks? Because the ad doesn't mention her PhD in mathematics?
I think this is all blown very much out of proportions. Sexual attraction is a basic aspect of human life.
It's the implication that the woman is employed by the company to "welcome back" the programmer man, with a further implication that the "welcome" is sexual in nature. She is essentially cast as a prostitute. Specifically, NOT a programmer as well.
Yes, they do, that's the whole point. If they were showing something that only women could possibly do, it wouldn't be pushing a gender role.
Are you sure this is not really about being uptight about sexuality rather than gender issues?
I don't know what you mean by "this". Of you're asking me about the intentions of the people who are criticizing the ad, I'm sorry, but I forgot the mindreader at home.
How is it implied that she is not a programmer? I didn't see that at all. Also I didn't see that she is employed to "welcome men" in the ad. That is just feminist glasses making you see things like that. She could just be working there and be happy to get another capable colleague.
It's in the text. "More programmers to care for". The programmer in the text is male, not gender neutral. The picture shows a model performing intimate function (most would consider a hug and a touch on the chest intimate) on a male doing white-collar work.
Unless you are specifically set on splitting hairs, there isn't much to argue about here.
1. It can be inferred the photo illustrates "caring" for programmers, as accompanying text suggests.
2. The programmer mentioned in the text is male (mentioned once by name and then as "He is seen here welcomed back"). Welcoming back obviously consists of caressing his body, which supports point 1.
Now I make no statements about cultural circumstances, tradition, the zeitgeist of the 60s and so on. Just that sexism is objective concept denoting unequal treatment of genders, and this photo is steretoypically sexist; so much in fact that it's hopeless to even play No True Scotsman here.
As I said, it is an ad targeted at men, and I admit it plays to some stereotypes. However, I don't think from that it can be inferred that the message is "women are only useful as prostitutes". The message is simply "become a programmer and women will like you" - a message that would appeal to men. For women there would have to be another ad. Probably there wasn't one - I don't claim the 70ies weren't biased.
Probably at the time secretary was still a common job, and most of them were women. In that light maybe it also is less shocking - about as shocking as displaying a female teacher today.
> However, I don't think from that it can be inferred that the message is "women are only useful as prostitutes".
Nor do I. That would've been misogynistic, and my whole initial point was this ad is sexist but not misogynistic.
> Probably at the time secretary was still a common job, and most of them were women. In that light maybe it also is less shocking - about as shocking as displaying a female teacher today.
I disagree, a teacher caressing a student in a college ad would be out of place today (although there's a whole subgenre of porn about it).
"I disagree, a teacher caressing a student in a college ad would be out of place today"
Lol - I meant without the caressing. The caressing part is obviously over the top, which is typical for advertising. I don't think anybody responding to that app would expect to actually be caressed by women.
There are ads were people's clothes fly off because somebody chews a chewing gum. Of course the sexism police will think they are sexist, too, but I'd suggest it is also owed to the shortness of the spots. It's not easy to say "women/men will love you" in a few seconds without being ridiculous.
I'd just like to question the idea that showing a person as sexually attractive is demeaning or reducing that person to whatever. It's just one aspect of life.
"He is seen here being welcomed back", in an overtly provocative pose. "More programmers to care for", indicating that this is her duty in the company, to "care" for the programmers.
And it doesn't matter if it was meant to be parsed that way. No, the add doesn't outright say "We hire prostitutes to suck your dick at your desk." It doesn't have to say that. But it is being parsed that way by a large number of people. From the looks of this thread, you are in the minority of people who think it is not that way. So what is the difference if it was or was not meant to make a female viewer feel like she is not as important as her male coworkers? The effect is the same. Even if you are right, it is STILL sexist for being so fundamentally inconsiderate.
It's not about being feminist. It's about being humane. There shouldn't even be a term called "feminist", the default should be to treat women as having equal status as men. It shouldn't be a revelation in need of a special name to believe that.
And the fact that you can't see it means you're prone to it as well, and probably towards other groups of people beyond just "women". It's the fallacy of the super-villain: nobody thinks they themselves are the bad guy. Bad behavior is a matter of habit and attitude and prejudice is a matter of lack of respect.
Sexism doesn't end with banning sexually overt behavior in the office. Sexism isn't even about sex any more than racism is about slavery. I would even go so far as to say that a man who talks over a woman in a meeting, but listens intently while another man is talking, is more sexist than a man who flirts with the women in the office. It's about power, and using ones power to give favor to some and deny favor to some others, for no reason other than "they aren't like me".
My point is that the issue is completely blown out of proportion. I consent that this ad is targeted at men, so it shows things that appeal to men (not the least women being attracted to them). Would you say that in itself is a problem?
I think it is ridiculous to make that out to be a problem, because it would imply that no ads would be allowed to target men or women specifically.
If you show me that there are no ads trying to entice women into computing it is an entirely different matter (and presumably you would find few such ads in the 70ies - I don't claim they weren't biased). But dissecting a single ad doesn't make sense. Or rather, it doesn't make sense to deny the existence of sexual attraction and desire.
I'm sure you can find lots of ads where women do x (whatever, use some perfume, drive some car, whatever), and as a result men carry them on their shoulders or buy them a house, or whatever appealed to women at the time (maybe also men stripping for them, no idea). That would be "sexist" in the same way, except that it is ridiculous to complain about that because the desire to be attractive to the opposite sex simply is a fundamental part of human existence.
No it wouldn't have looked weird. That is just the typically baseless claim feminists insert into their arguments.
There are lots of ads that claim product x makes women more attractive to men.
I could agree that it would have looked weird in the sense that most ads look weird. Most ads are completely ridiculous. To get worked up about them is somewhat useless. Their weirdness is also probably a function of their shortness, though.
Doesn't look weird to you ... who are what? A female programmer tired of endless stereotypes in ads? Or a male who is tired of worrying about sexism and wants the discussion to go away?
So my vote doesn't count? What qualifies you make such a general claim?
I believe you that it bothers some people (for whatever reason - too much feminist indoctrination might play a part in some people). However, I don't think we can or should eliminate everything that bothers anybody from society, and reduce public life to the lowest common denominator.
A definition of sexism : "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex"
Is there a stereotype that women are the toy/reward for a man doing a good job? Then that picture conforms to the definition of sexism given above.
Its not about voting or your view vs mine or feminism. Its about statistics and trends.
I don't know anything about common denominators, but if there is a trend toward reducing women in print media to objects, then it's worth trying to counter that trend somehow.
I look forward to the day that nobody thinks twice about silly pictures, because they are set in a balanced culture of healthy representations in the media, fair hiring and reward based on skills.
Are we there? I'd rather ask a woman trying to get ahead in business, than a guy tired of the discussion. In fact I don't think the average guy knows squat about where we are in this cultural evolution, as comments above make quite clear.
"A definition of sexism : "behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex""
That's just plain silly. So anything that suggests any gender in a person is sexism? Good luck with that.
"Is there a stereotype that women are the toy/reward for a man doing a good job?"
Women liking a man in general is something men want, likewise vice versa men liking a women is something women want. Therefore both things are being used in advertising. If an ad is targeted at men it will often show women liking the man, if an ad is tarted at women it will show men liking a woman.
Do you believe there have never been any ads showing how a man falls for a woman?
Do you believe it is sexist to assume men like being liked by women and vice versa?
Do you believe in general wanting to impress the opposite sex is negligible as a motivational factor in people wanting to do a good job?
Women in print media are necessarily objects - they are blots of ink printed on a 2d page.
The "women as objects" discussion also needs to be questioned. What does it even mean? Men shouldn't be allowed to be attracted to the female physique? Before having sex, they should require women to pass an IQ test and recite the names of all American presidents?
Funny enough the other day there was a post about a guy complaining about guys hooting for Marie Curie. Unless he thinks they were into her grey hair, apparently being attracted to brains also is not OK. I suppose wanting sex in general is not OK because it objectifies people.
"In fact I don't think the average guy knows squat about where we are in this cultural evolution"
I believe you don't really understand what is going on. You and the feminists are actually fighting to rob women of their privileges. Good job! (Hint: children)
I guess this has nothing to do with improvements in IT. The society as a whole has changed. Back in the 70s there were severe inequalities not only between sexes. When you look at IT I guess the improvements are even severely behind many other modern areas of work.
On the other hand, perhaps this kind of ads should motivate girls to be attracted to programmers: stable and well remunerated jobs. I've not written "programming", right! Check: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MejkH61o_U
"doing/buying/applying x raises your attractivity to the opposite sex" is really the most basic advertising message ever. Is that really a problem (more than advertising in general)? Why/how?
I get that this ad is targeted at men - but that in itself can not seriously be made out to be a problem either? Should all ads/messages/stories/games/movies be unisex?
