- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux Journal: the Last Idiot's Club
|
|
Comments (55)
It's interesting
20 earlier comments in the full thread.
This whole story is such a bizarre mixed bag. It starts out with the author complaining about being hit on because she "knows Linux". It appears inconceivable to her that it can happen the other way too. Should I (male) be offended when a woman thinks I'm cool for knowing this stuff? I can assure you this has happened to me, and no, I was not the least bit offended. I was flattered.
Then we segue into the ad. Read the comments from the people who discussed the ad's meaning. Some women thought it was sympathising with women who couldn't get guys to "do it" to them. Others thought it blatantly obvious it was targetting men who couldn't get women to "do it" with them.
Segue into the graphic at the bottom of the ad. Some saw a mouth performing fellatio, while I saw cunnilingus.
What's the ad saying? Sex! Is using sex in advertising at all surprising or ground breaking? Hardly. Should we encourage or discourage the use of sex in advertising? Who cares? It's an ad! I don't read ads! The vendor's paying someone to say something for them. They're welcome to say anything they damned well please. It will have little to no effect on whether they get any of my money.
Tempest in a teapot? Waaaaaay! "Feminists" can see sexism in *anything*, just as teenage boys (and girls) can see sex in everything. Isn't this all just part of the human condition, and some people ought to find better hobbies to occupy their time?
Then we segue into the ad. Read the comments from the people who discussed the ad's meaning. Some women thought it was sympathising with women who couldn't get guys to "do it" to them. Others thought it blatantly obvious it was targetting men who couldn't get women to "do it" with them.
Segue into the graphic at the bottom of the ad. Some saw a mouth performing fellatio, while I saw cunnilingus.
What's the ad saying? Sex! Is using sex in advertising at all surprising or ground breaking? Hardly. Should we encourage or discourage the use of sex in advertising? Who cares? It's an ad! I don't read ads! The vendor's paying someone to say something for them. They're welcome to say anything they damned well please. It will have little to no effect on whether they get any of my money.
Tempest in a teapot? Waaaaaay! "Feminists" can see sexism in *anything*, just as teenage boys (and girls) can see sex in everything. Isn't this all just part of the human condition, and some people ought to find better hobbies to occupy their time?
> Isn't this all just part of the human condition, and some people ought to find better hobbies to occupy their time?
When correctly viewed, Everything is lewd! I can tell you stories about Peter Pan, And the Wizard of OZ? There's a dirty old man!
I thrill To any book like "Fanny Hill" And I suppose I always will If it is swill, and really fil...thy.
Who needs a hobby Like tennis or philately? I've got a hobby, Re-reading "Lady Chatterly"!
But now they're trying to take it all away, Unless we stand and hand in hand, We take a stand and fight for Freedom Of The Press! In other words,
SMUT! Ha! I love it. Ah the adventures of a slut! Oh I'm a market They can't glut I don't know what Compares with SMUT Hip Hip Hooray! Let's hear it for the Supreme Court! Don't let them take it awaaaaaaaaaaay!
When correctly viewed, Everything is lewd! I can tell you stories about Peter Pan, And the Wizard of OZ? There's a dirty old man!
I thrill To any book like "Fanny Hill" And I suppose I always will If it is swill, and really fil...thy.
Who needs a hobby Like tennis or philately? I've got a hobby, Re-reading "Lady Chatterly"!
But now they're trying to take it all away, Unless we stand and hand in hand, We take a stand and fight for Freedom Of The Press! In other words,
SMUT! Ha! I love it. Ah the adventures of a slut! Oh I'm a market They can't glut I don't know what Compares with SMUT Hip Hip Hooray! Let's hear it for the Supreme Court! Don't let them take it awaaaaaaaaaaay!
tqk, you're confused:
"This whole story is such a bizarre mixed bag. It starts out with the author complaining about being hit on because she "knows Linux"."
You're thinking of someone else, I didn't say anything like that.
The rest of your response is Predictable Reply #1: "You lil gals just shush and run along now, I don't see a problem so there isn't one." Right, it's all about you.
"This whole story is such a bizarre mixed bag. It starts out with the author complaining about being hit on because she "knows Linux"."
You're thinking of someone else, I didn't say anything like that.
The rest of your response is Predictable Reply #1: "You lil gals just shush and run along now, I don't see a problem so there isn't one." Right, it's all about you.
I agree that the ad is in poor taste, however I hate to say that the blog posts generated by this to date have only included part of the story. Truly the title could be 'The lack of objectivity in objection to objectification'. I see the blasting of men for objectifying women for sexual playthings, all well and good as far as the argument is taken.
I see no mention that this could not be accomplished if not for the fact that there are women that actively support the stereotype. Who willingly allow themselves to be held forth as the ultimate in sexual desire, who enjoy that status and sell it for all it's worth. There is the underlying assumption when only blaming men for the objectification that the woman herself was or is not intelligent enough to see the problem that she is fostering. This does a dis service to the argument as a whole. However it is not politically correct to hold the woman accountable for her actions, after all it is the guys problem that he is a lusting beast.
Women too are guilty of the same issue Carla has brought forth, however I have never once heard anyone reverse the argument. One only has to look as far as a 'womens magazine' to see this in action. After reading the posts I grabbed a copy of my wife's Womens Fitness magazine where in no time at all I find an article with a picture caption of a male doll taking a shot between the uprights by a foot in a high heeled shoe. Several pages as a matter of fact.
It takes two to tango, so in blaming only men for the initial issue it completely ignores the other half of the story. However I understand that it is not politically correct to turn cannibalistic when bringing the other sides failures to light. However in ignoring the cooperation in both directions of both genders for allowing such stereotypes to continue to exist Carla's initial article is only slightly better than the initial advertisement that spawned it. Better in that it brought the issue to harsh light, worse in that it took the same sexist attitude 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Thank you for the article and for bringing it into the light, and I agree with the sentiment in which you wrote it. I disagree however with the low level id brain analysis that allowed you to reach the point that you did. No offense meant, and if you will, a little tongue in cheek crass humor, it's the next morning and I still respect you.
I see no mention that this could not be accomplished if not for the fact that there are women that actively support the stereotype. Who willingly allow themselves to be held forth as the ultimate in sexual desire, who enjoy that status and sell it for all it's worth. There is the underlying assumption when only blaming men for the objectification that the woman herself was or is not intelligent enough to see the problem that she is fostering. This does a dis service to the argument as a whole. However it is not politically correct to hold the woman accountable for her actions, after all it is the guys problem that he is a lusting beast.
Women too are guilty of the same issue Carla has brought forth, however I have never once heard anyone reverse the argument. One only has to look as far as a 'womens magazine' to see this in action. After reading the posts I grabbed a copy of my wife's Womens Fitness magazine where in no time at all I find an article with a picture caption of a male doll taking a shot between the uprights by a foot in a high heeled shoe. Several pages as a matter of fact.
It takes two to tango, so in blaming only men for the initial issue it completely ignores the other half of the story. However I understand that it is not politically correct to turn cannibalistic when bringing the other sides failures to light. However in ignoring the cooperation in both directions of both genders for allowing such stereotypes to continue to exist Carla's initial article is only slightly better than the initial advertisement that spawned it. Better in that it brought the issue to harsh light, worse in that it took the same sexist attitude 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
Thank you for the article and for bringing it into the light, and I agree with the sentiment in which you wrote it. I disagree however with the low level id brain analysis that allowed you to reach the point that you did. No offense meant, and if you will, a little tongue in cheek crass humor, it's the next morning and I still respect you.
> it is not politically correct to turn cannibalistic
For the record, I used the word "cannibalistic" in another thread because I think that sometimes we quibble internally at the expense of missing the big picture. It was meant to apply to everyone posting in that thread, including myself. It was not meant to imply that we should hold ourselves to a lower standard.
In this case, I think the big picture is that it's about power. Women still earn a fraction of what men do for performing the same job. Most board rooms are still controlled by men. So every time there's an attempt at this kind of "humor", it comes off as a putdown.
For the record, I used the word "cannibalistic" in another thread because I think that sometimes we quibble internally at the expense of missing the big picture. It was meant to apply to everyone posting in that thread, including myself. It was not meant to imply that we should hold ourselves to a lower standard.
In this case, I think the big picture is that it's about power. Women still earn a fraction of what men do for performing the same job. Most board rooms are still controlled by men. So every time there's an attempt at this kind of "humor", it comes off as a putdown.
I think I used the word properly here jrm. In this case to display that the image of a united front is preferential to publicly denouncing or verbally destroying a sub group that is contained inside the larger. In other words its better to not attack than it is to give the image of division.
Yep. I just didn't want you to think that I had directed that word at you.
When the ad ran before, the editor-in-chief was Marjorie Richardson. That ad led to her dismissal/resignation.
Is this picture an improvement?
http://bratgrrl.com/ljad.jpeg
Is that real or Gimped? (doncha hate how the word Photoshop has become a verb?)
>I see no mention that this could not be accomplished if not for the fact that there are women that actively support the stereotype.
Oh gee. Let's see...
The model in that ad shouldn't have taken the payday? Nothing about the picture was offensive. It is, in fact, a pretty picture of a pretty woman's face. I wonder if the model ever even read the text?
Oh gee. Let's see...
The model in that ad shouldn't have taken the payday? Nothing about the picture was offensive. It is, in fact, a pretty picture of a pretty woman's face. I wonder if the model ever even read the text?
@ TC, you could toss up a picture of Bill the cat, it still wont change the premise of my post.
@ Dino, it seems you make the assumption that she didn't. Supposing that she did not know, are you seriously suggesting that ignorance of ones own actions is a defense. Also saying that perhaps the model in question didn't read the text does not do the articles premise any good, it undercuts it. It implies that either she didn't care, thereby fostering the stereotype, or did read the text and didn't understand it.
Although all of that was pretty much laid out in the next few sentences which comprised that paragraph. Removing items from context is a poor debating tactic at best.
@ Dino, it seems you make the assumption that she didn't. Supposing that she did not know, are you seriously suggesting that ignorance of ones own actions is a defense. Also saying that perhaps the model in question didn't read the text does not do the articles premise any good, it undercuts it. It implies that either she didn't care, thereby fostering the stereotype, or did read the text and didn't understand it.
Although all of that was pretty much laid out in the next few sentences which comprised that paragraph. Removing items from context is a poor debating tactic at best.
> Supposing that she did not know, are you seriously suggesting that ignorance of ones own actions is a defense.
A defense? A defense to what? Gal came in for a photo shoot and got paid. That's what she does. It's what all models do. Did you see the photo on the ad? Nothing offensive about it. She may not even have posed for that ad specifically. A friend of mine is a former actor who's face has appeared in a number of magazine ads. In his case, they will sometimes use a pre-existing photo and he will collect royalties without even doing a shoot.
>It implies that either she didn't care, thereby fostering the stereotype, or did read the text and didn't understand it.
What it implies is that you don't know crap about the process of putting together an advertisement.
>Removing items from context is a poor debating tactic at best.
I'll remember that the next time I get into a debate. In the meantime, I think you need a cold shower.
A defense? A defense to what? Gal came in for a photo shoot and got paid. That's what she does. It's what all models do. Did you see the photo on the ad? Nothing offensive about it. She may not even have posed for that ad specifically. A friend of mine is a former actor who's face has appeared in a number of magazine ads. In his case, they will sometimes use a pre-existing photo and he will collect royalties without even doing a shoot.
>It implies that either she didn't care, thereby fostering the stereotype, or did read the text and didn't understand it.
What it implies is that you don't know crap about the process of putting together an advertisement.
>Removing items from context is a poor debating tactic at best.
I'll remember that the next time I get into a debate. In the meantime, I think you need a cold shower.
Azerthoth:
> ...are you seriously suggesting that ignorance of ones own actions is a defense.
In this case, Dino is absolutely correct, and you're wrong. As he noted, models provide their pictures for pay. As I understand it, once the picture is taken, most of them have little to no say in how it's used. The more prestigious models may be able to negotiate terms which allow them to specify such things, but most can't.
> ...are you seriously suggesting that ignorance of ones own actions is a defense.
In this case, Dino is absolutely correct, and you're wrong. As he noted, models provide their pictures for pay. As I understand it, once the picture is taken, most of them have little to no say in how it's used. The more prestigious models may be able to negotiate terms which allow them to specify such things, but most can't.
jacog, a friend of mine who is an absolute wizard with Photoshop created that image. The reaction to it has been interesting, from "ROFL" to "???" to "You can't do that, that's sick!"
I guess you could call it "the shoe on the other foot" test.
I guess you could call it "the shoe on the other foot" test.
> The reaction to it has been interesting...
I don't doubt it has been. :)
I don't find it any more objectionable than the original ad, FWIW.
I don't doubt it has been. :)
I don't find it any more objectionable than the original ad, FWIW.
Quoting:The reaction to it has been interesting, from "ROFL" to "???" to "You can't do that, that's sick!"
That may be because they read "going down" as a blow job, which would make this a gay ad instead of a the opposite of the original. If you want to create the opposite of the original I suggest you take the image that your friend make, but replace the slogan by something like:
"Don't feel bad. Our servers do stay up when you need them to."
or
"Don't feel bad. Our servers don't quit unexpectedly after a heavy load."
I'm sure the people here can come up with an even better slogan for an opposite ad.
Sander:
I think the appropriate phrase would be something on the order of "keep it up". Maybe with a mention of not needing Viagra just to make the point.
I think the appropriate phrase would be something on the order of "keep it up". Maybe with a mention of not needing Viagra just to make the point.
Well, never let it be said that I am totally unreasonable, just mostly. I'll cede the point on that, in the end its truly no skin off my nose. What was meant as a constructive critique seems to have instead been taken in the wrong light. Personally this is a topic that means two things to me and neither of them mentionable in polite company, I am however willing to discuss it as a mental excersize.
Your approach needs to change
A little harsh aren't you? By calling everybody at LJ idiot's you are just making the same mistake they are making by running an ad that is in very poor taste. I do see you changed it from "Idiot-Boys" club. At least your willing to admit that you made a mistake. Why not let LJ have the chance to correct their obvious mistake before you start the name calling.
BTW, how do you know there aren't any women subscribes to LJ? Are they really wondering about it? Obviously, by running such an ad they are not, so why even make the false claim.
(PS I do not subscribe to LJ)
BTW, how do you know there aren't any women subscribes to LJ? Are they really wondering about it? Obviously, by running such an ad they are not, so why even make the false claim.
(PS I do not subscribe to LJ)
> Why not let LJ have the chance to correct their obvious mistake before you start the name calling.
Because they printed the same ad 7 years ago, and haven't even figured out that "Our" shouldn't be capitalized. (If the shoe fits...)
Anyway, what approach would have been better? I don't know what else women could have done to explain it to us, and quite frankly, we're still acting like idiots.
Because they printed the same ad 7 years ago, and haven't even figured out that "Our" shouldn't be capitalized. (If the shoe fits...)
Anyway, what approach would have been better? I don't know what else women could have done to explain it to us, and quite frankly, we're still acting like idiots.
Pat, that's Predictable Reply #3: when someone complains, try to discredit them for speaking up. I know, girls are supposed to be nice. To make it easier to ignore us. Sorry, I don't believe in being easily ignored.
FYI, I wrote two emails to multiple staffers at Linux Journal last week, and have yet to receive a reply, and have raised the issue of their awful, negative portrayals of women in the past, all of which they dismissed with a token bit of insincere discussion.
FYI, I wrote two emails to multiple staffers at Linux Journal last week, and have yet to receive a reply, and have raised the issue of their awful, negative portrayals of women in the past, all of which they dismissed with a token bit of insincere discussion.
Quoting:Because they printed the same ad 7 years ago
Worse. They banned that ad 7 years ago. What short memory they have.
Interesting, I point out a better way to get your message across and you shout, "Help I'm being repressed." I'm not ignoring or calling you out because of your sex, either.
I'm calling you out because name calling is your typical approach to everything that you remotely disagree with. I want to help you get your message out in a manner so that everyone will listen. If you don't stop the name calling you are no better than those you would criticize.
Skip the name calling, focus on what is wrong with the ad, why it is misogynistic, and why it is such a big deal that they apologize publicly. Given the editor in chief, I doubt that latter part will happen, but I will laugh if he gets canned over this.
I'm calling you out because name calling is your typical approach to everything that you remotely disagree with. I want to help you get your message out in a manner so that everyone will listen. If you don't stop the name calling you are no better than those you would criticize.
Skip the name calling, focus on what is wrong with the ad, why it is misogynistic, and why it is such a big deal that they apologize publicly. Given the editor in chief, I doubt that latter part will happen, but I will laugh if he gets canned over this.
Hi Pat, ok I see your point. I call off the attack pups. Most of the time I would agree with you- in this case I don't. Could be I'm wrong; we shall see what happens.
pat,
The publication went through this once before. If they didn't learn anything, they deserve all the name-calling they get.
Those who do not know history...
The publication went through this once before. If they didn't learn anything, they deserve all the name-calling they get.
Those who do not know history...
Quoting:when someone complains, try to discredit them for speaking up.
tuxchick, your reply reminded me of How to Suppress Women's Writing by Joanna Russ. Required reading when I was in college, it can be found at http://www.amazon.com/Suppress-Womens-Writing-Joanna-Russ/dp...
Thought you might be interested, if you were not already aware of it.
> Could be I'm wrong;
Did I see those words coming from our own Carla?
Man!!!!!!!!!!!!! er, Being!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the exclusion of half the population, it was an old sexist habit. I will go flog myself.
Did I see those words coming from our own Carla?
Man!!!!!!!!!!!!! er, Being!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry for the exclusion of half the population, it was an old sexist habit. I will go flog myself.
Easy there, dino. "dood" has almost become gender-neutral, if you can bring yourself to actually say it.
>if you can bring yourself to actually say it.
I think my facial muscles are too old to form the sounds and am quite sure my fingers can't type it.
I think my facial muscles are too old to form the sounds and am quite sure my fingers can't type it.
dino, have you tried copy/paste? Here, I'll provide some templates:
Dude!
dood!
or, for the uber-l33t:
d00d!!!11one
Dude!
dood!
or, for the uber-l33t:
d00d!!!11one
Quoting:d00d!!!11one
You're missing a ~ in there :-)
d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d
Nope. can't dood it.
Nope. can't dood it.
Linux Journal's pattern of cruddy attitudes towards women
I wrote two blog posts detailing some of Linux Journal's lousy portrayals of women; the problem is much more pervasive than a single incredibly stupid ad. Which all by itself deserves the tempest of criticism it has generated, and as several people have noted, it ran in 2000, offended a whole lot of people, and LJ said they were sorry and promised never to run it again. So much for promises.
They've always run ads that portray women in insulting ways; this one is merely the prize winner.
The issue is more than just a single mometary lapse, er excuse me, two momentary lapses. It's a long history of portraying women in an awful, derogatory fashion. It's apparent readers aren't finding the second blog, which discusses the odious Mango Parfair and the unbelievably insulting 'Tech Tips with Gnull and Voyd', so here are both links:
http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/08/dear_linux_jour... http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/08/linux_journal_t...
I've contacted them several times over the years to talk about these issues and they never would take it seriously. Most times I didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. But they sure didn't waste any time cashing my subscription checks.
They've always run ads that portray women in insulting ways; this one is merely the prize winner.
The issue is more than just a single mometary lapse, er excuse me, two momentary lapses. It's a long history of portraying women in an awful, derogatory fashion. It's apparent readers aren't finding the second blog, which discusses the odious Mango Parfair and the unbelievably insulting 'Tech Tips with Gnull and Voyd', so here are both links:
http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/08/dear_linux_jour... http://www.oreillynet.com/linux/blog/2007/08/linux_journal_t...
I've contacted them several times over the years to talk about these issues and they never would take it seriously. Most times I didn't even get the courtesy of a reply. But they sure didn't waste any time cashing my subscription checks.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
"The ads in a magazine or any publication are reflective of the attitudes of the Editorial Staff, whether they like it or not."
I would say reflective of the publisher. Whether the editors like it or not.
Keep the humor in Linux