We scanned this from a computing magazine from 1970
twitter.com
twitter.com
I vote we get rid of your desk.
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..! :-)
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).
Almost makes me want to learn COBOL.
I wonder when people will start whining about how sexist keywords in programming languages are.
However there were quite a few phallic references, e.g. sizeof, extends, long.
Oops.
I think this is all blown very much out of proportions. Sexual attraction is a basic aspect of human life.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
No doubt the ad is targeted at men, but that alone doesn't make it sexist.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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".
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.
Are you sure this is not really about being uptight about sexuality rather than gender issues?
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.
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
Sadly, booth-babes prove you right.
Actually a smidge on the high side, particularly for anywhere north of Birmingham.
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?
;-)