It's interesting
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tracyanne Aug 16, 2007 9:42 PM EDT |
I just realised how little attention I actually pay to ads. I never even noticed the ad until I read this article. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 16, 2007 9:51 PM EDT |
I read very few magazines so I tend to take it all in. I saw the ad, read it, and said to myself.. "That's blatantly @#&$% sexist! If I was an Editor for LJ that wouldn't have gotten past me." I would quit my job over that, gladly. And then for some reason I felt sorry for them... Small Minded People.. |
| gus3 Aug 16, 2007 11:05 PM EDT |
A very similar ad cost Marjorie (last name forgotten) her LJ editor's job in 2000, just weeks after she berated in print the BSD Daemon Babes for strutting around in figure-emphasizing outfits at the expos. Ceren Ercen answered in a mailing list with a blithe, "who is she to tell me how to dress?" (I still have the photo of myself with the lovely Ms. Ercen. I hope she's having fun at whatever endeavors she currently pursues.) |
| jacog Aug 16, 2007 11:21 PM EDT |
I responded to the news item thus: And yet it's so common for technology-based businesses to be entirely dismissive about women. I have never seen a buff bare-chested male on the cover of T3 magazine. The puerile boys that seem to run the gaming industry are the same -- female characters in games are scantily clad and generally uninteresting. It's like it's just assumed the target audience is male. It's stupid though, because if you're going to alienate one group of people, then of course that group will not buy your product. They're creating their own truths in a way. (and I also flung about a few tactless insults, but uhm... hey, I had a bad week, so that's my excuse) |
| gus3 Aug 17, 2007 8:03 AM EDT |
What about Myst, Riven, Doom, Quake, Half-life? Do/did they feature scantily-clad women, or did they build their fan bases on mind puzzles and blowing things up? |
| DarrenR114 Aug 17, 2007 8:07 AM EDT |
Hmmmm.... So how many of you actually realise that the editorial staff has very little if any input on advertisements that are placed in their publications. The reason is simple: it helps insulate the writers from the advertisers. Was LJ the only publication that this advertisement appeared in? Not likely. Was the LJ staff responsible for creating this ad? Not likely. If you're going to gang up on an offensive group, at least go after the source of the problem and not just an ancilliary target. |
| tuxchick Aug 17, 2007 9:57 AM EDT |
Darren, where did you get the idea that the staff of LJ are excused from responsibility? So what if it appears in other publications or they didn't personally create it. They printed it. It's silly to assert that they somehow have no control over what goes into the magazine, because the LJ staff have complete control. Sure, it's a good idea to also inform the vendor who placed the ad that I think they're idiots. And I did. I've heard every nitpicking excuse there is at least a thousand times- don't waste your breath, you're not saying anything new. :) We all have to pick our battles. I can't clean up an entire industry all on my own, or cure all the bad attitudes in the world, so I do what I can. |
| Scott_Ruecker Aug 17, 2007 10:15 AM EDT |
I wouldn't be an Editor at a place where I had no input into the adverts. The ads in a magazine or any publication are reflective of the attitudes of the Editorial Staff, whether they like it or not. |
| jdixon Aug 17, 2007 10:45 AM EDT |
> ...where did you get the idea that the staff of LJ are excused from responsibility? He didn't say staff, TC. He said "editorial staff". What ads to accept is a management decision, not an editorial one. All Darren is saying is that you need to yell at the PHB's, not the editors and writers. |
| tuxchick Aug 17, 2007 10:53 AM EDT |
jdixon, it is true that when one wishes to deliver a scolding, it must be delivered to the appropriate parties. So where did you get the idea that I was contacting the wrong people, or giving the wrong contact information? And don't think there is some kind of Chinese wall between editorial staff and "other" in a small publication like Linux Journal. You can bet your sweet bippy that at least the editor-in-chief knows exactly what is going on every page, if not other editorial staff. There aren't any secrets in a small shop. And again, it's a copout- suppose a person writes to Editor Foo when Editor Foo is the wrong person to talk to. What's the responsible response- "go away, not my job"? I don't think so. |
| jdixon Aug 17, 2007 11:06 AM EDT |
> So where did you get the idea that I was contacting the wrong people, or giving the wrong contact information? I didn't. I made no judgments as to who you were contacting. I was merely pointing that you had misconstrued what Darren had said. > You can bet your sweet bippy that at least the editor-in-chief knows exactly what is going on every page... Knows, yes. But does he have any say in the matter? Not knowing anything about how LJ works internally, I have no idea. > ...suppose a person writes to Editor Foo when Editor Foo is the wrong person to talk to. What's the responsible response- To forward it to the correct person, obviously. Oh, and complaining to the magazine and contacting the advertiser are absolutely the correct thing to do in such a case. I'm not disagreeing with your actions. |
| tuxchick Aug 17, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
Oh, then we mostly agree. Well OK then. :) This stuff just makes my blood boil. Growl. |
| Steven_Rosenber Aug 17, 2007 2:21 PM EDT |
As a newspaper employee in the editorial department, not in advertising, I can't believe there wasn't a giant uproar on the staff BEFORE that ad was printed. Way over the line. What I'd love to see: A U.S.-centric spin on Linux Format (i.e. a glossy publication aimed at the desktop user). |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 17, 2007 2:59 PM EDT |
You know what's even worse about all this: LJ ran the ad a few years ago as well, and it caught so much flak for it that they promised to ban the ad for good. See http://valleywag.com/tech/geeks-gone-wild/a-blowjob-ad-reapp... |
| dcparris Aug 17, 2007 3:08 PM EDT |
TC, you're so adorable when you're growling. The media typically refer to the division between advertising and editorial content as the wall "between church and state". They are supposed to be treated separately, at least in rags that claim to be independent. *Someone* in authority should have caught the ad and killed it. Whether an editor or the ad sales manager or the CEO, someone should have caught and killed it, you know, like a cat. |
| tracyanne Aug 17, 2007 4:55 PM EDT |
I've thought for a long time, ever since I worked for a marketing company in the late 90s, that marketing/advertising people were 1) out of touch with real people 2) arrogantly in their belief that they understand real people 3) falsely of the belief that they are artistic and really really cool |
| Abe Aug 17, 2007 5:59 PM EDT |
Quoting:marketing/advertising people ...... Do the things they do and get away with it because there is a sucker born every minute. That is a lot of suckers available for them to manipulate. |
| dinotrac Aug 17, 2007 6:35 PM EDT |
Abe - Yup. Their job is not to make you like them, or even to like their clients. Their job is to move product. Period. |
| gus3 Aug 18, 2007 12:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:Their job is not to make you like them, or even to like their clients. Their job is to move product. Period.But if we don't like their product, we can make it quite difficult for them to move it. |
| dinotrac Aug 18, 2007 1:55 AM EDT |
>we can make it quite difficult for them to move it. If product doesn't move, the message changes. |
| ColonelPanik Aug 18, 2007 3:32 PM EDT |
Scott_Ruecker said" "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 |
| tqk Aug 19, 2007 8:53 AM EDT |
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? |
| Bob_Robertson Aug 19, 2007 9:18 AM EDT |
> 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! |
| tuxchick Aug 19, 2007 10:03 AM EDT |
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. |
| azerthoth Aug 19, 2007 12:40 PM EDT |
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. |
| jrm Aug 19, 2007 1:52 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| azerthoth Aug 19, 2007 2:06 PM EDT |
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. |
| jrm Aug 19, 2007 2:13 PM EDT |
Yep. I just didn't want you to think that I had directed that word at you. |
| gus3 Aug 19, 2007 7:39 PM EDT |
When the ad ran before, the editor-in-chief was Marjorie Richardson. That ad led to her dismissal/resignation. |
| tuxchick Aug 19, 2007 10:22 PM EDT |
Is this picture an improvement? http://bratgrrl.com/ljad.jpeg |
| jacog Aug 20, 2007 12:07 AM EDT |
Is that real or Gimped? (doncha hate how the word Photoshop has become a verb?) |
| dinotrac Aug 20, 2007 5:41 AM EDT |
>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? |
| azerthoth Aug 20, 2007 6:23 AM EDT |
@ 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. |
| dinotrac Aug 20, 2007 6:30 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| jdixon Aug 20, 2007 7:18 AM EDT |
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. |
| tuxchick Aug 20, 2007 7:31 AM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Aug 20, 2007 7:39 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| Sander_Marechal Aug 20, 2007 7:41 AM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Aug 20, 2007 8:32 AM EDT |
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. |
| azerthoth Aug 20, 2007 10:13 AM EDT |
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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!