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 complaint. But tweeting "please take it down, it's fucking gross." isn't really a great way to approach the situation. Don't get me wrong- the response was bad, too- Katz cc-ing Kane's employer later down the thread was a particularly bone-headed move.
The actual root sexism isn't the story here. It's a story about PR, or about making- and dealing with- complaints. Sanz's first reply actually admitted that the video needed to be replaced- if he'd rephrased it to something like "we've taken your views on board and we're going to talk about this in the office tomorrow" that might have been the end of it. But his response was vague and he took Kane's anger personally. Then it all spiraled out of control. I don't think the Geeklist guys are bad guys in the slightest, and I expect we'll see a reply from them soon.
EDIT: I meant "a bad thing [in the tech industry]" rather than an overall bad thing. Apologies for the misunderstanding that ensued.
>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.
> The actual root sexism isn't the story here. It's a story about PR, or about making- and dealing with- complaints.
Agreed. I'm kind of amazed how far it went. Regardless of if you think she was in the right or wrong in her arguments, Kane stayed reasonably on target with her comments while Sanz & co hung themselves.
At some point in time you have to throw a bucket of water on the situation instead of letting it turn into a wildfire. Even if it didn't necessarily start as a PR or customer support issue, it quickly became one, and you kind of have to recognize when that happens. Especially when you're talking about issues relating your company to people on something like twitter (i.e., a super public place where your words have some permanence and reach).
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.
> The actual root sexism isn't the story here. It's a story about PR, or about making- and dealing with- complaints.
I think it is, actually. This method of dealing with women who speak up - veiled threats, sniping about "tone," complaints that 'we're not being treated fairly!' - is the actual root sexism. It's not just a PR problem or a problem with complaints. The anger here focused directly and solely on the woman who made the complaint, in an ugly and crass way, and that qualifies as more inherently sexist than anything in the video.
You're right, the original sexism definitely isn't the story. But the way the geeklist guys handled it wasn't just bad PR. As Kane pointed out several times, the way they treated her was part of the same orthodoxy that gave rise to the sexism in the first place.
Threatening a woman for speaking out, repeatedly invoking one's "family", demanding politeness, etc., saying she's desperate for attention, all have overtones that aligned with the sexist narrative in an unfortunate way. When two men are accused of condoning sexism respond by trying to bully the woman who's complaining, that means something different than just bad PR.
Being right is no excuse for being bone-headed. Shanley Kane may have been right to point out that the video was a tad sexist, but she was totally bone-headed in how she went about it. Moreover, though she is well within her right to request the video be reviewed and perhaps dealt with, demanding it be taken down because it's "fucking gross" is far more unacceptable, to me, than the contents of the video.
What's next? Should I ask Shanley Kane to take her tweet down because I find it offensively stupid?
Exactly. You could make the argument that the video was mildly sexist (though no more so than the rest of the advertising industry), but to demand it be taken down because "it's fucking gross" is idiotic. I would have simply told her to get lost.
Morally, I don't know what a good argument against using scantily clad women as advertising objects is - historically, scantily clad women have been used in advertising for thousands of years, and I think that's kind of the object of that particular advertising, and in some instances (Axe body spray), it probably works.
There's a wide margin between booth babes and sexual harassment, and conflating the two leads to people getting the wrong idea about sexuality, where to draw the line, and modern feminism.
I don't think you'll ever be able to take the objectification of women out of society, and I don't know if it's necessary to try - we've seen women begin objectifying men in some capacity in the last seventy-five years or so, and I don't know if that's necessarily an unhealthy thing. Better to let that objectification be out in the open than keep it locked up in your head.
I am all against Godaddy, but ... using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing- we were hating GoDaddy for it long before SOPA
This is ridiculous - as is the argument in the original post. That an ad should be pulled because why the ads with a woman in her underwear dancing around to dupstep? is quite similar to the view that porn should be banned because it is toxic to marriages and relationships and a cause of misogyny and violence against women.
Both views represent a subjective, personal world view, presented by a person that goes around proclaiming superior morality of their values and trying to enforce it on others. Both have subjective value sets and act all outraged that not all people subscribe to these. One is the girl in the original post, the other Rick Santorum.
Also--it's an advertisement. Can't we promote egalitarianism without trying to criminalize male sexuality? Nobody would have complained if it was a male model doing the exact same commercial.
It's a story about sexism. The "PR" in this case is basically a "How to be Sexist" guide. They hit all the high points -- "looking for attention", "double standard", "I bought you drinks!", and, of course, threatening the woman's economic welfare.
It's absolutely, unmistakably clear that this is a company whose culture is inherently and proudly sexist.
This is slowly getting out of hand. I would even dare to speak of censorship.
Who cares what a random girl in a video is doing? Was she forced to appear in there? Then what's the problem? It's not even "fucking gross", it's just a couple of people giggling around being silly!
I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism. But maybe it's because I never cared for it. I did my job and was respected for it, just like everybody else. In this century YOU are responsible for the way you present yourself to others and that's how you will be judged. They will respect you (or not) because of what you do, how you do it, how professional you are, what you accomplish.... regardless of what you are.
How do you dare speak in such a sensible and understanding manner? Why don't you talk about the times where you met a jerk at your workplace and he was a jerk, and you were offended, so now every workplace ought to be filled with men full of lust because they are geeks so they have poor social skills (funny, cliches about geeks in the office are OK !). Anyway this is, of course, a joke and some of the things I have found in previous threads.
But seriously thank you for saying what other women in the office where I have been working in the past have said: there is generally no problem. I don't know where the people I have read were working, but seriously, if it's that horrible, switch jobs.
And about the thing getting out of hand, this is the internet, people circle jerk problems ad nauseum, and Hacker News is not an exception.
Sexism is a subset of stupidity and a great deal of the latter is shown here.
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).
This is not a legitimate counter-argument. The use of women in advertising, and our social treatment of women in general, has negatively affected most women's ability to be treated professionally and respectfully. The use of fit, shirtless men in advertising does little to hold men back in general.
Everyone certainly isn't, but feminists tend to feel that stereotypically gendered depictions of men are as wrong as those of women, if not always as damaging. It gets passed over in mainstream discussions, but it's definitely a good thing to talk about.
I am not equally offended because I don't feel that the sexualization of men in advertisements is equally offensive. The reason is simple: the sexualization of women comes from a male-fantasy prospective. The sexualization of men also comes from a male-fantasy prospective.
What does offend me are advertisements with the bumbling-husband archetype or similar man-without-a-woman stereotypes.
Edit: I should point out that I do think male sexualization is bad as it can promote poor body image, etc.
Are you trying to assert that a couple of half-naked women in an advertisement for no reason is analogous to a shirtless man in the context of a masculine activity during a film? I would love to see your reasoning because I believe the context dictates the offensiveness of the message.
Also I can detect the implication that somebody is a hypocrite if they do not sit there and correctly judge every single case of sexism that comes their way. Do you believe that ethical decisions are black-or-white and that you cannot judge one ethical decision unless you have the ability and time to judge them all?
Those poor objectified men. It must be horrible to be portrayed as powerful, capable, and striving for dominance.
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.
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.
It wasn't offensive for girls featured in the video (or why did they?), yet it's immediately offensive for some random stranger on the net who then proceeds to command its removal. If something is gross here, this is.
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.
When people talk about 'the objectification of women,' they're not talking about the dictionary definition of the word objectification. It's shorthand for sexual objectification.
>It wasn't offensive for girls featured in the video (or why did they?), yet it's immediately offensive for some random stranger on the net who then proceeds to command its removal. If something is gross here, this is.
Got to say, I agree. The advert doesn't appeal to me in the slightest - the sexuality is so in-your-face and over-the-top. It's pandering and almost condescending:
Look, a geeky guy hugging a model in panties! Buy our shirt, it has a website logo on it. Look, here's some boobs, here's some leg, you're a man in your twenties who works in tech, so this is what you want, right? So just give us the money already.
The advert has turned me OFF the product it was selling by being too overt. But that's just me.
What I find objectionable about this saga is Kane's rather entitled "I find this offensive, so it must be removed" attitude. The advert itself is not, in my mind, sexist. The idea that women need some kind of guardian angel who stops models from being shown in promotional videos - that I find offensive.
The most offensive part of this all is the idea that this is a good use of anyone's time. This has gone beyond any sort of discussion, it's now just a petty and childish argument you could expect to see on some low budget reality tv show, does this really need to be here?
I guess this is a good advertisement for Storify though.
I've watched the video ... if that is sexist, then what about this perfume commercial with a half naked Matthew M McConaughey? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL83sQG8fFA
Or all those commercials with half naked men aimed at selling male underwear to women (so their man will look just as good).
Is that sexism too? Why does nobody cry about that type of sexism?
Guess what I'm asking, in general, why is sexism towards women so horrible and sexism towards men is simply accepted as the way things are?
> why is sexism towards women so horrible and sexism towards men is simply accepted as the way things are?
Feminists are opposed to sexism towards men. The reason you hear a lot more about sexism towards women is that men are the dominant of the two genders, so sexism against us [men] holds us back a lot less. This is particularly true in tech: how many men would you guess have ever left the tech field due to sexism compared to how many women?
Also, another point: it's appropriate to use appearance to sell products, when those products are related to appearance or attractiveness. If you're marketing a product that's going to make people look and feel sexier, it's totally fine to demonstrate that by showing sexy people using that product.
Geekli.st is not a product that's meant to enhance your appearance, it's meant to enhance your career. So the women is in her underwear, why?
And in fact, in the ad, only the woman's appearance is deemed important. The man is wearing a t-shirt and shorts, while the woman is in her underwear. That contrast to me is the most obvious reason why this is sexist. The man is essentially dressed like a hacker, and the woman is dressed like eye candy.
The difference is that there's not a big Twitter argument (that I know of anyway) by people who are offended by the Matthew McConaughey commercial. If there was, Dolce and Gabbana would have to deal with it, just like Geeklist is having to deal with this one.
This is not exercise in defining objective rules about what "is" and "is not" sexist. Sexism is highly subjective, like most social topics. What matters is that a geek girl--supposedly the target audience for Geeklist--complained about a Geeklist video.
Complaints about brand are not uncommon. If you manage a well-known brand they WILL happen, and there are good and bad ways to handle them. Getting the hackles up, subtly threatening the employment relationship, whining about being polite, are all bad ways to handle it.
The difference is the societal context. Women are judged by and valued for their appearance (to the exclusion of other attributes) to an extent that men are not.
I appreciate rational talks on sexism and discussions -- but if I wanted to read articles with juvenile titles like "OH HAI SEXISM" and that deal with drama on twitter, I would go read TMZ.
Sanz should have realised that what he saw as her attacking him and his brand was actually a girl trying to get some social justice. If he removed his ego from the equation he would have understood that a thoughtful response and change in behaviour from him and his associates would have provided a PR win-win for him and a happy response from the women that his company may serve.
I literally can't believe he tried to play the victim card and to get her employer involved. Knowing how to handle yourself and how to represent your company under stress is very important.
There is a great opportunity for somebody to start an association of start-up founders that are female-friendly and get people to join. Creating a social contract to do the right thing would help people lead in the right direction without feeling criticised.
> Do women also find the fact that only women actors are used in cleaning commercials "fucking gross"?
I can't speak for women, but I do. I'm tired of men being portrayed in those commercials as buffoons who can't possibly manage household tasks, as well.
I must say, just two or three weeks ago Cracked linked me to another case of someone flipping the hell out inappropriately over a swear word. In this case, it was a 911 officer actually hanging up on a caller, multiple times, while her dad is having a seizure, because she was panicking and used the f-word. Then the officer actually went and arrested her for claimed offenses which weren't actually illegal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRKtWis69wk
So, look, guys. I know swear words are ugly and important and serious business, but we have to be careful that we don't immediately wear our Morality Crusader hats before we apply a little compassion. It's the same as trying to use the tools that you already have, rather than trying to roll your own implementation: don't roll your own until you absolutely have to.
[+] [-] untog|14 years ago|reply
Shanley Kane had a legitimate complaint. But tweeting "please take it down, it's fucking gross." isn't really a great way to approach the situation. Don't get me wrong- the response was bad, too- Katz cc-ing Kane's employer later down the thread was a particularly bone-headed move.
The actual root sexism isn't the story here. It's a story about PR, or about making- and dealing with- complaints. Sanz's first reply actually admitted that the video needed to be replaced- if he'd rephrased it to something like "we've taken your views on board and we're going to talk about this in the office tomorrow" that might have been the end of it. But his response was vague and he took Kane's anger personally. Then it all spiraled out of control. I don't think the Geeklist guys are bad guys in the slightest, and I expect we'll see a reply from them soon.
EDIT: I meant "a bad thing [in the tech industry]" rather than an overall bad thing. Apologies for the misunderstanding that ensued.
[+] [-] mhurron|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] noodle|14 years ago|reply
Agreed. I'm kind of amazed how far it went. Regardless of if you think she was in the right or wrong in her arguments, Kane stayed reasonably on target with her comments while Sanz & co hung themselves.
At some point in time you have to throw a bucket of water on the situation instead of letting it turn into a wildfire. Even if it didn't necessarily start as a PR or customer support issue, it quickly became one, and you kind of have to recognize when that happens. Especially when you're talking about issues relating your company to people on something like twitter (i.e., a super public place where your words have some permanence and reach).
[+] [-] badclient|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] koeselitz|14 years ago|reply
I think it is, actually. This method of dealing with women who speak up - veiled threats, sniping about "tone," complaints that 'we're not being treated fairly!' - is the actual root sexism. It's not just a PR problem or a problem with complaints. The anger here focused directly and solely on the woman who made the complaint, in an ugly and crass way, and that qualifies as more inherently sexist than anything in the video.
[+] [-] ForrestN|14 years ago|reply
Threatening a woman for speaking out, repeatedly invoking one's "family", demanding politeness, etc., saying she's desperate for attention, all have overtones that aligned with the sexist narrative in an unfortunate way. When two men are accused of condoning sexism respond by trying to bully the woman who's complaining, that means something different than just bad PR.
[+] [-] swombat|14 years ago|reply
What's next? Should I ask Shanley Kane to take her tweet down because I find it offensively stupid?
The answer is obviously no.
[+] [-] redthrowaway|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] debacle|14 years ago|reply
There's a wide margin between booth babes and sexual harassment, and conflating the two leads to people getting the wrong idea about sexuality, where to draw the line, and modern feminism.
I don't think you'll ever be able to take the objectification of women out of society, and I don't know if it's necessary to try - we've seen women begin objectifying men in some capacity in the last seventy-five years or so, and I don't know if that's necessarily an unhealthy thing. Better to let that objectification be out in the open than keep it locked up in your head.
[+] [-] stfu|14 years ago|reply
This is ridiculous - as is the argument in the original post. That an ad should be pulled because why the ads with a woman in her underwear dancing around to dupstep? is quite similar to the view that porn should be banned because it is toxic to marriages and relationships and a cause of misogyny and violence against women.
Both views represent a subjective, personal world view, presented by a person that goes around proclaiming superior morality of their values and trying to enforce it on others. Both have subjective value sets and act all outraged that not all people subscribe to these. One is the girl in the original post, the other Rick Santorum.
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] humblest_ever|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] nknight|14 years ago|reply
It's absolutely, unmistakably clear that this is a company whose culture is inherently and proudly sexist.
[+] [-] arien|14 years ago|reply
Who cares what a random girl in a video is doing? Was she forced to appear in there? Then what's the problem? It's not even "fucking gross", it's just a couple of people giggling around being silly!
I'm a girl and never felt objectified by bosses/colleagues in the tech world, nor suffered any kind of sexism. But maybe it's because I never cared for it. I did my job and was respected for it, just like everybody else. In this century YOU are responsible for the way you present yourself to others and that's how you will be judged. They will respect you (or not) because of what you do, how you do it, how professional you are, what you accomplish.... regardless of what you are.
[+] [-] victork2|14 years ago|reply
But seriously thank you for saying what other women in the office where I have been working in the past have said: there is generally no problem. I don't know where the people I have read were working, but seriously, if it's that horrible, switch jobs.
And about the thing getting out of hand, this is the internet, people circle jerk problems ad nauseum, and Hacker News is not an exception.
Sexism is a subset of stupidity and a great deal of the latter is shown here.
[+] [-] Pewpewarrows|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] japhyr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cushman|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aplusbi|14 years ago|reply
What does offend me are advertisements with the bumbling-husband archetype or similar man-without-a-woman stereotypes.
Edit: I should point out that I do think male sexualization is bad as it can promote poor body image, etc.
[+] [-] lhnz|14 years ago|reply
Also I can detect the implication that somebody is a hypocrite if they do not sit there and correctly judge every single case of sexism that comes their way. Do you believe that ethical decisions are black-or-white and that you cannot judge one ethical decision unless you have the ability and time to judge them all?
[+] [-] LaGrange|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mistercow|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingkilr|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fourmii|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] guard-of-terra|14 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] brettbender|14 years ago|reply
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification
[+] [-] jgroome|14 years ago|reply
Got to say, I agree. The advert doesn't appeal to me in the slightest - the sexuality is so in-your-face and over-the-top. It's pandering and almost condescending:
Look, a geeky guy hugging a model in panties! Buy our shirt, it has a website logo on it. Look, here's some boobs, here's some leg, you're a man in your twenties who works in tech, so this is what you want, right? So just give us the money already.
The advert has turned me OFF the product it was selling by being too overt. But that's just me.
What I find objectionable about this saga is Kane's rather entitled "I find this offensive, so it must be removed" attitude. The advert itself is not, in my mind, sexist. The idea that women need some kind of guardian angel who stops models from being shown in promotional videos - that I find offensive.
[+] [-] citricsquid|14 years ago|reply
I guess this is a good advertisement for Storify though.
[+] [-] Swizec|14 years ago|reply
Or all those commercials with half naked men aimed at selling male underwear to women (so their man will look just as good).
Is that sexism too? Why does nobody cry about that type of sexism?
Guess what I'm asking, in general, why is sexism towards women so horrible and sexism towards men is simply accepted as the way things are?
[+] [-] notJim|14 years ago|reply
Feminists are opposed to sexism towards men. The reason you hear a lot more about sexism towards women is that men are the dominant of the two genders, so sexism against us [men] holds us back a lot less. This is particularly true in tech: how many men would you guess have ever left the tech field due to sexism compared to how many women?
Also, another point: it's appropriate to use appearance to sell products, when those products are related to appearance or attractiveness. If you're marketing a product that's going to make people look and feel sexier, it's totally fine to demonstrate that by showing sexy people using that product.
Geekli.st is not a product that's meant to enhance your appearance, it's meant to enhance your career. So the women is in her underwear, why?
And in fact, in the ad, only the woman's appearance is deemed important. The man is wearing a t-shirt and shorts, while the woman is in her underwear. That contrast to me is the most obvious reason why this is sexist. The man is essentially dressed like a hacker, and the woman is dressed like eye candy.
[+] [-] snowwrestler|14 years ago|reply
This is not exercise in defining objective rules about what "is" and "is not" sexist. Sexism is highly subjective, like most social topics. What matters is that a geek girl--supposedly the target audience for Geeklist--complained about a Geeklist video.
Complaints about brand are not uncommon. If you manage a well-known brand they WILL happen, and there are good and bad ways to handle them. Getting the hackles up, subtly threatening the employment relationship, whining about being polite, are all bad ways to handle it.
[+] [-] bct|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aplusbi|14 years ago|reply
Geeklist is a social media startup marketed towards both genders.
[+] [-] eggbrain|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lhnz|14 years ago|reply
I literally can't believe he tried to play the victim card and to get her employer involved. Knowing how to handle yourself and how to represent your company under stress is very important.
There is a great opportunity for somebody to start an association of start-up founders that are female-friendly and get people to join. Creating a social contract to do the right thing would help people lead in the right direction without feeling criticised.
[+] [-] z_|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] envex|14 years ago|reply
Do women also find the fact that only women actors are used in cleaning commercials "fucking gross"?
[+] [-] ceejayoz|14 years ago|reply
I can't speak for women, but I do. I'm tired of men being portrayed in those commercials as buffoons who can't possibly manage household tasks, as well.
[+] [-] bct|14 years ago|reply
It's not gross in the same way, but yeah, that is a great example of sexism!
[+] [-] swah|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drostie|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] _b8r0|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tvon|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] keymone|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smacktoward|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bct|14 years ago|reply
Quoted for posterity.