Google is sexy now (Tom Anderson)
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
My internal dialogue: "Great, now I'm either going to keep my opinion to myself and move along, or speak out and be perceived as a hardlining feminist". Goddamn, do I hate unthinking misogyny sometimes, I'm completely sick of it and it's totally acceptable in a male-dominated forum where so many other forms of isms have been classified as inadmissable. Reading the comments was even more disturbing, as the scrolling arrays of men commenting on the +00+ interspersed with only a few disapprovals from the women strong enough to speak out about this in the public forum.
Oh, and if she's holding, say, a PhD from Harvard? Then she's a woman with a pair of tits and OMG she's also intelligent. Secondly - she's intelligent.
This is your bias. It's a picture from Halloween or a costume party. The woman is dressed as a nurse. The guys are dressed as geeks. Yes, she's supposed to be sexy (she chose to dress as a "sexy" nurse). I'm not sure how that's objectifying. She's an object because guys find her image attractive? What does that make the guys in the image? Not even objects?
If Tom's job were to try to correct the male/female imbalance of Google+, I would agree that the image is inappropriate. But that's not his job. It's neither his job nor his responsibility to curate his posts to try to never offend the easily-offended.
As for why women are reluctant to join Google+, I think it's got very little to do with the fact that it's "male-dominated" and a lot to do with the fact that most of them simply don't care about it. Their friends aren't there. The people who are there are 99% geeks. As it is now, there's simply little value to Google+ fr them.
I just viewed this as two guys taking a picture with an attractive woman, no different than viewing pictures I see on Facebook of my female friends taking pictures with attractive male athletes (famous and non).
There were quite a few women who commented and did not complain about the picture.
> Corina Newby - Google has always been sexy :)
> Lisa Bimmerz - Well, that's one way to spell "Google"! lol
> Corinne Maloney - I wouldn't consider myself a techie, but I've loved google since I started using it! :)
> Frederika Katuuk - this is sexy..lol
Some did complain, however:
> Diana McQueen - Wow. That a disgusting sexist image. If that's officially from Google, I'm terrible disappointed in them. There should be two women in lab coats standing next to a chiseled guy in a thong. Then maybe.
Of course, the image is disgusting but "a chiseled guy in a thong" would be okay...
I'm all in favor of making software engineering a friendly place for women, but this is not the way to do it. This is a post that someone made on their personal Google+ site. It was not a statement from Google. It was not a Google employee. It was not a conference speech. It was a guy who posted a sexy picture to accompany his thoughts on making Google "sexy". Would it be okay if he had also posted a picture of a guy in a thong?
Trying to tell guys that they can never enjoy sexy images is not the way to fix the gender inequality in the software field. That just breeds resentment.
https://plus.google.com/117378076401635777570/posts/AQ6Fp44B...
How can I, as a woman, read this story and then look back at Google+ and see this image?
When Anthony Weiner sends pictures of himself in his underwear, does it cause gender imbalances? Does it cause male objectification?
And on the comparison to prostitution: why are there prostitutes? Why do men go to prostitutes? Do you think any 7 year old girl says to her parents that she wants to grow up to be a prostitute? It's slavery that is allowed by society because woman are objects (in this context).
The woman in this picture chose to wear the outfit. She chose to take a picture with the guys.
> It become objectification when the media chose to focus on this as a sex issue and deem him unworthy of being in office.
Of course it was a sex issue. He sent nearly-naked photos to a woman he had phone-sex with. I fail to see how it's objectification, though. Why does sex imply objectification? Or does "objectification" just basically have no real meaning?
> And on the comparison to prostitution: why are there prostitutes? Why do men go to prostitutes? Do you think any 7 year old girl says to her parents that she wants to grow up to be a prostitute? It's slavery that is allowed by society because woman are objects (in this context).
There are prostitutes because there's a market for sex. People generally become prostitutes because they are in poverty. From this particular article, it sounds like the whole area remains a brothel because there's basically no way out for the women there. It's extremely tragic.
I frankly find it disgusting that you link attempt to link sexy outfits to forced prostitution and child prostitution. This is far more offensive than anything Tom Anderson posted.
>There are prostitutes because there's a market for sex
There is a market for sex because women have been legal chattel for centuries, wherein women are traded as objects primarily for the purposes of empowering a certain view of the world.
For the record: many organisations specializing in trafficking relief admit that women are equally, if in some cases more at fault, in forcing other women into the prostitution market. I am in no way attempting to blame men for a difficult, millennia-long problem, I just refuse to accept the status-quo while it causes genuine and significant damage.
Why are we still discussing this? There are few people in western nations who believe that human trafficking of any kind is acceptable, nor would many say that inherited prostitution is acceptable. These issues are very much removed from the question of whether showing a woman's cleavage is sexist, or misogynist, or objectifies women. A woman showing cleavage in a photo is related to human sex trafficking in the same way that a man doing manual labor is related to slavery.
It's hard for me to understand why you can't see the ridiculousness of this. Even if you believe that the use of the picture was inappropriate or sexist, it is unrelated to human sex trafficking.
This comes up all the time when people call out sexism and it is not a valid rebuttal.
Just because someone is a woman does not mean they are an expert in recognizing sexism. Women tend to have more experience with sexism than men, but many deny some or all kinds of sexism, many block it out (often a useful and necessary defense mechanism), many have not spent much time learning about sexism, and many are purveyors of sexism themselves.
In addition, the more sexist the subculture, the more it tends to A) attract women who are more sexist, and B) filter out women who are more adversely affected by sexism/lack strong sexism defense mechanisms.
"But [my wife/my girlfriend/group of women X] didn't think it was sexist" doesn't necessarily say anything conclusive about whether it is actually sexist. If you are looking for an expert opinion, seek out the opinion of someone who has spent time learning about how sexism works. Your wife/girlfriend/group of women X may or may not be in that category. There are more women than men in that group, but having a vagina does not gain you instant entry.
It's a perfectly valid rebuttal to someone who tries to make claims about women as a whole. Marquis made a comment about "disapprovals from the women strong enough to speak out". The implication there is that all women are offended and only the strong ones dare to speak out. Clearly it is not true that all women were offended. Many (most?) of the women who commented did not complain, and several commented positively about the picture.
> "But [my wife/my girlfriend/group of women X] didn't think it was sexist" doesn't necessarily say anything conclusive about whether it is actually sexist. If you are looking for an expert opinion, seek out the opinion of someone who has spent time learning about how sexism works. Your wife/girlfriend/group of women X may or may not be in that category. There are more women than men in that group, but having a vagina does not gain you instant entry.
This is a candy-coated way of saying that we must listen to those most zealous about sexism. We can't listen to the average woman or the opinion of most women. No, we have to listen to those obsessed with finding sexism, even if that means they find it in places it doesn't really exist.
Why must sexy always be synonymous with sexist? These are two different things. Lack of sexism does not imply a lack of sexual interest (nor vice versa).
There are people who have cancer, people who treat cancer, and people who do cancer research, and there is a time and a place to listen to each. The same for sexism. If you're mindful of this you'll be fine.
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.
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.
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?
- My reply
- You reply
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.
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.
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?
That is what makes it sexist, because is reduced to, literally, a pair of tits and under the greater context of "Google is Sexy."
Nobody is arguing that just posting a pic of an attractive woman is sexist.
I noticed you didn't answer my question, though: What message do you think this sends to potential CS coeds?
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.
I clicked the link, saw the photo, blinked in disbelief and closed the window without reading Tom's article.
So awesome that the guys get to be the nerds while the woman is literally nothing more than an ornament, existing solely to fill out Google's logo.
I mean, seriously? That's the kind of cheap "humor" that I expect out of strip club signage.
(For the record, even though it shouldn't matter: I'm a guy)
Why is the woman nothing but an ornament to fill out the logo while the guys are not? The guys' are literally dressed to fill out the logo.
I think most of this Google+ noise is just fanboys who are glad to have something new. I'm all for competition but Google+, to me, is not very impressive at all.
I'll use whatever tool those people I mentioned above are using... because that's all that really matters.
Is this creep speak for "Google is receiving more positive esteem from random members of society due to its recent emphasis on slight aesthetic improvements across its product line?"
Because of Google+, they're starting to become a "media darling" once again, and they look better even if the eyes of some bloggers that love Apple. I think we'll see a more positive tone overall on the web about Google from now on.