Sexism in Technology

[Bob]

For a really fascinating read, try "Making Programming Masculine" - http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~nathanen/files/cbi-gender.pdf . Sort of a history of how IT started out female-dominated in the 1940s and became ever more a boysport over time.

[Arwen]

Originally Posted by NotAnAverageGuy

I guess I am rather odd when it comes to sexism, I personally do not see anything wrong with the ads for things, sex sells for alot of products and it works, people gobble up certain products simply because of what the ad has displayed.

But what about the male underwear models? Isn't that sexism too?

You do not see anything wrong with a woman in her underwear on a bed with a PSP game controller plugged into her belly telling the viewer to "dream of a better world"?

Can you not see the objectification of women in that? That women are simply sex toys to be plugged in and controlled? That a "better world" consists of controllable women who just want to be used?

It may also be sexist to show a man in his underwear but I challenge you to find one that will deliver the same message about being controlled and being an object as that particular one does.

[Selenay]

Originally Posted by PapaC

Would you like to know how fuckin happy I'll be if I ever work on internet phone support again, that I *won't* be asked on a date or offered flowers or ask if I'm married or have a boyfriend?

:glare:

Thanks Selly, really,.... pointing me to this thread didn't give me happy joy joy feelings

(but you knew that didn't you).

I would buy you flowers, but they'd be really manly ones, like...
I don't know.



These.


I beg your pardon, I never promised you a rose garden. . . .

[PapaC]

Thanks Selly, but I happen to love tulips.
of all colours.

I was born in a land full of tulips

Signed,

-the manly one

[NotAnAverageGuy]

Originally Posted by Arwen

You do not see anything wrong with a woman in her underwear on a bed with a PSP game controller plugged into her belly telling the viewer to "dream of a better world"?

Can you not see the objectification of women in that? That women are simply sex toys to be plugged in and controlled? That a "better world" consists of controllable women who just want to be used?

It may also be sexist to show a man in his underwear but I challenge you to find one that will deliver the same message about being controlled and being an object as that particular one does.

I see alot of things as wrong in many ads that do include both genders. All I am saying is that sexism runs rampant with both genders. MY opinion only. Not to be taken as said word.

[Medusa]

The sexism that runs rampant in both genders is different.

Women are most often portrayed in *violently* sexist ads. Check out the ads that Selly posted: Particularly the ones where one woman is chained to a bed (think: sex slave) and the other ad where the woman appears to have been shot in the head.

Women are also portrayed often as disjointed body parts. Random asses, breasts, mouths, legs, etc. And dont get me started on how often women are portrayed as sexual automatons (think the plug-in woman). I have often made comments about feeling like a "Stepford Pussy" when people value the body part over the person. This is reinforced daily in advertising.

[NJFemmie]

It's nearly impossible to find comparable ads depicting men in the same manner in which they depict women. If they are out there, they are scarce.
(Unless of course I am googling the wrong search terms).

[NotAnAverageGuy]

I googled, binged and such and didn't come up with anything and if they are out there is VERY VERY scarce and it's being hidden.

[Bob]

Here's a good start: http://www.genderads.com/Vio._Ag._Males.html

[Medusa]

Originally Posted by Bob

Here's a good start: http://www.genderads.com/Vio._Ag._Males.html

Interesting to note that a great number of the ads appear to be subjugating the power of men (i.e the stiletto in the back, the chains around the neck and being walked like dogs)

[NJFemmie]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Interesting to note that a great number of the ads appear to be subjugating the power of men (i.e the stiletto in the back, the chains around the neck and being walked like dogs)

Also interesting to note that you don't see these things as advertisements.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

Also interesting to note that you don't see these things as advertisements.

Er, they're all ads.

[NJFemmie]

Originally Posted by Bob

Er, they're all ads.

I've never seen them here. When I turn on my TV, or flip open a magazine - or drive past a billboard - I don't see ads like these. It's usually the other way around.

And ... when you consider the number of ads like these versus ads against women - again, it's far and few in between.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by NJFemmie

I've never seen them here. When I turn on my TV, or flip open a magazine - or drive past a billboard - I don't see ads like these. It's usually the other way around.

And ... when you consider the number of ads like these versus ads against women - again, it's far and few in between.

With all respect, whether YOU'VE seen them is merely anecdotal and, frankly, irrelevant to the question of whether violence against men is being depicted in advertising. It's rather the same argument that many people use to say sexism doesn't exist at all, simply because they've never seen it (somehow); I've heard women say they've never experienced it.

As for quantifying the number of ads that show women in misogynistic, violent poses versus that of men, your point is taken, of course. It doesn't excuse those that depict men in similar positions, nor does it make those ads less offensive and demeaning to all people.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by Medusa

Interesting to note that a great number of the ads appear to be subjugating the power of men (i.e the stiletto in the back, the chains around the neck and being walked like dogs)

So a question to all about these ads: do you consider these as a way of reclaiming some privilege or as something else?

[NJFemmie]

Originally Posted by Bob

With all respect, whether YOU'VE seen them is merely anecdotal and, frankly, irrelevant to the question of whether violence against men is being depicted in advertising. It's rather the same argument that many people use to say sexism doesn't exist at all, simply because they've never seen it (somehow); I've heard women say they've never experienced it.

As for quantifying the number of ads that show women in misogynistic, violent poses versus that of men, your point is taken, of course. It doesn't excuse those that depict men in similar positions, nor does it make those ads less offensive and demeaning to all people.

My point was that it is not as "mainstream" as violence against women. Of course I KNOW that violence against men exists - but it is not as "acceptable" or as "common" as that of the depiction of women. When I turn on my TV, I don't see some guys junk hanging out in a car ad - I'll see boobs. Lots of boobs. Boobs and ass. Boobs, ass and ... well you get the drift.

[MsDemeanor]

Originally Posted by Linus

So a question to all about these ads: do you consider these as a way of reclaiming some privilege or as something else?

I see some of them as playing to mens' sexual fantasies. The ads in the link that had both men and women tended toward mild/vanilla-ish BDSM. The overall levels of violence were quite mild compared to what one finds in the female ads from the same site.

linkyloo

Ads that feature blood and bodies (or body parts) aren't appropriate, not matter the sex of the model; those sorts of ads are far more common and mainstream, though, when the victim is female.

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by Medusa

YAY! I was hoping you would chime in!

I was wondering, Kellie, do you ever talk to someone on the phone with your job and when they meet you in person, they have a noticeable reaction to the fact that you arent in a skirt and heels?

It used to happen all the time. But now that I'm a higher profile person word has gotten out that I'm a dyke. And I'm visible on the web as well so people tend to Google me and aren't as obvious.

When I was working the phones years ago I used to get all sorts of BS. Before that I worked in video retail and regularly got hassled by guys who loved my voice and would call to ask about adult films, etc. Even had guys sending me flowers and other "gifts" completely unsolicited. Sigh.

My favorite personal experience was several years ago when I was working transfer support for a hosting company in New Mexico (by the way - working for a man I now employ!) and I was on a call with a "gentleman" who said "Honey, you don't know what you're talking about. Let me talk to a guy. Any guy." and I turned him over to my boss who politely listened and then said "Sir, let me have you speak to Kellie again - she's the expert in this area and can help you out." And I never had a problem with that customer again.

NotAnAverageGuy - I think you might be confusing using sex to sell with sexism. Yes, both men and women are used to sell products. The difference comes in when you look at the context.

It makes sense to see a man or a woman in underwear when that's what you're selling. If you're selling a domain name or web hosting please explain to me why tits and ass come into play?

[MsDemeanor]

Why is that so often when we talk about things like violence against women, someone says "you know, it happens to men once in a while too", and we find ourselves on the defensive? It's not prevalent, it's not widely accepted by society, and it's not a valid argument. I say enough of that bullshit!

[Waldo]

Originally Posted by MsDemeanor

Why is that so often when we talk about things like violence against women, someone says "you know, it happens to men once in a while too", and we find ourselves on the defensive? It's not prevalent, it's not widely accepted by society, and it's not a valid argument. I say enough of that bullshit!

The answer is simple, really. It's not pleasant but it's simple.