11–20 of 99 posts
I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…
People should really stop trying to have serious conversations on twitter. Something about that website cranks people's IQs and maturity levels down to power-save mode, and nobody ever comes out looking good.
I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…
It's absolutely, unmistakably clear that this is a company whose culture is inherently and proudly sexist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing... Why is it a bad thing? Have you taken the time to talk to some of the women who appear in these ads? They may have a bigger problem with your labeling them as "advertising objects" than them appearing scantily-clad.
I think it's pretty hard to dispute that advertising modeling is objectification. The thing is, objectifying an individual who agrees to be objectified is not a bad thing. What is bad is generalized objectification. In other words, OK: that model is being used as an object for marketing clothing Not OK: women are objects that are fun to look at I can't really agree to the position that sexualized advertising is inher…
I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…
>I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing Nope. They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it and I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population to move product. In fact, I believe that's what advertising is. I see no difference between a woman in a bikini or a celebrity in an ad.
I don't know if this is going to be an unpopular post, but I don't think this is such a clearcut case of sexism as the API Jam/"Lighten Up" stuff we've seen recently. I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA. But I think that everyone in this story went about things the wrong way. Shanley Kane had a legitimate complai…
>I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing Nope. They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it and I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population to move product. In fact, I believe that's what advertising is. I see no difference between a woman in a bikini or a celebrity in an ad.
Right, that's the crux of it (and I should have pointed out that I meant a "bad thing in tech", rather than a bad thing overall). The problem is that this "segment of the population" excludes women.
Now, it's true that tech is very heavily male-dominated, but if we want to change that then we have to make anticipatory changes, rather than reactionary ones. We should have advertising that includes a larger segment of the population, rather than the one we have now.
P.S. Objectification is a kind of strange word. Human body is an object. It's physical, materialistic. Now, if there would be objectification of human soul (or whatever other thin layer) that where we would start to worry, but there isn't.
I really hope that everyone is as equally offended and quick to point out sexism for every advertisement, television show, and movie featuring a very fit, shirtless man doing a stereotypical "masculine" activity (construction work, heavy lifting, playing a sport, or fighting each other).
Edit: which is not to mean that the entire gender stereotyping thing doesn't hurt men — of course it does — but there's a world of difference between what it does to men and women.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing... Why is it a bad thing? Have you taken the time to talk to some of the women who appear in these ads? They may have a bigger problem with your labeling them as "advertising objects" than them appearing scantily-clad.
I would say that it's a bad thing because it offends women in the tech industry and makes them feel alienated- the root of this entire story. It's quite likely that the models in the ads have no objection to what's going on- clearly, they chose to get into the industry. But that's not really the point- there is such a thing as being aware of your environment, and the tech industry has started making real efforts to b…
Are you saying that they simply made the wrong ad for their tech audience(easier to agree with for a moment) or that they made some huge moral blunder(more difficult to agree with, also the argument by the lady who started the conv).