Je Suis Newsweek?*
January 30, 2015 3:01 PM Subscribe
The 5000 word cover story on "What Silicon Valley Thinks of Women" in Newsweek is getting a lot of attention, but mostly for the illustration on the cover, which very simply (or simplistically) depicts high-tech sexism, and which writers like Rachel Sklar and Alexia Tsotsis consider to be sexist itself.
Responding to Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast**, article author Nina Burleigh says "It’s provocative because it quite powerfully and accurately depicts the disgusting behavior and attitudes toward women that dozens of women in tech described to me and that tens of thousands more must navigate on a daily basis, to the detriment of their professional advancement."
Burleigh adds "It is unfortunate, shallow, and frankly, petty, that magazine cover critics seem more upset about an image than the actual behavior that permeates Silicon Valley culture."
Newsweek is apparently going for more 'provocative' covers, ever since its best-selling issue with a cover story on The Bible and the cover headline "So Misunderstood It's a Sin".
*JUST FOR THE RECORD, this post's title does not intend to suggest this cover is as 'provocative' or 'provoking' as the infamous Charlie Hebdo covers, nor that Newsweek editors should take precautions to avoid an attack by machine-gun-carrying feminists. It's just an analogy (and, yes a rather weak one) that you can expect any time a "controversial magazine cover" makes the news from now on.
** The Daily Beast did have the same owner as Newsweek during the latter's failed 'digital only' experiment, when it had no covers at all, but I digress.
Responding to Lloyd Grove of the Daily Beast**, article author Nina Burleigh says "It’s provocative because it quite powerfully and accurately depicts the disgusting behavior and attitudes toward women that dozens of women in tech described to me and that tens of thousands more must navigate on a daily basis, to the detriment of their professional advancement."
Burleigh adds "It is unfortunate, shallow, and frankly, petty, that magazine cover critics seem more upset about an image than the actual behavior that permeates Silicon Valley culture."
Newsweek is apparently going for more 'provocative' covers, ever since its best-selling issue with a cover story on The Bible and the cover headline "So Misunderstood It's a Sin".
*JUST FOR THE RECORD, this post's title does not intend to suggest this cover is as 'provocative' or 'provoking' as the infamous Charlie Hebdo covers, nor that Newsweek editors should take precautions to avoid an attack by machine-gun-carrying feminists. It's just an analogy (and, yes a rather weak one) that you can expect any time a "controversial magazine cover" makes the news from now on.
** The Daily Beast did have the same owner as Newsweek during the latter's failed 'digital only' experiment, when it had no covers at all, but I digress.
Just as if you find yourself penning a lengthy disclaimer about your magazine cover, it might be time to go with a different cover.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:10 PM on January 30, 2015 [22 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:10 PM on January 30, 2015 [22 favorites]
Newsweek is the rag that found some poor old man in the White Pages and claimed he was the creator of Bitcoin, then wrote an entire piece that's basically "we know this is bullshit but what are you gonna do?" as their glorious return to print.
By which I mean any attention paid to their desperate cash grab trolling is too much.
posted by effugas at 3:12 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
By which I mean any attention paid to their desperate cash grab trolling is too much.
posted by effugas at 3:12 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
It is a really dumb cover to apply to a difficult, complex systemic issue. They could have gone with glass ceilings or showing a giant pyramid filled with people with only a few women in the bottom levels, or something that speaks more towards the giant pervasive problem and instead they pull a goofy illustration that looks like it's from 1960s Mad Men. I agree, it's a dumb cover image.
posted by mathowie at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
posted by mathowie at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2015 [9 favorites]
If getting the story out there was their motivation I'd agree it's a dumb image to use. But given that they're being generally provocative lately I'm pretty sure that if this were chosen consciously it's doing its job admirably as a marketing ploy.
It's still sexist and dumb, and I think the more likely reason for it is they didn't realize it was sexist and dumb and illustrative of them being part of the problem in the first place.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:22 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's still sexist and dumb, and I think the more likely reason for it is they didn't realize it was sexist and dumb and illustrative of them being part of the problem in the first place.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 3:22 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I just wish articles like this had less complaining and more solutions. I don't think that attacking men in power is the way to get access to that power. Business requires people to build relationships based on trust. Being female complicates that process in a male dominated arena, but it seems to me that is still the path forward. And I rarely see anything that addresses how to do that effectively.
It's easy to complain. But complaining seems to not solve much, if anything, especially in the social sphere.
But thank you for posting this foop.
posted by Michele in California at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
It's easy to complain. But complaining seems to not solve much, if anything, especially in the social sphere.
But thank you for posting this foop.
posted by Michele in California at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
I like how in the picture the skirt is being lifted up by an abstract idea being controlled by a mysterious, unnamed, unseen force. Like, gee, we don't know who's doing this or why! It's a force of nature! It's just a thing that goes on.
The cover image is the thing you use to make people interested in the article. What this image is telling me is that the article is messy, the author and his editors don't understand the problem, and it's ultimately a pointless read.
posted by bleep at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [38 favorites]
The cover image is the thing you use to make people interested in the article. What this image is telling me is that the article is messy, the author and his editors don't understand the problem, and it's ultimately a pointless read.
posted by bleep at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [38 favorites]
The article has a solution. More women as Venture Capitalists. The solution is wealthier women.
posted by oceanjesse at 3:36 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 3:36 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
So: The key is in the safe.
Gotcha.
Thanks.
posted by Michele in California at 3:39 PM on January 30, 2015 [32 favorites]
Gotcha.
Thanks.
posted by Michele in California at 3:39 PM on January 30, 2015 [32 favorites]
The cover feels gross. I see enough sexist women-aren't-people imagery every single day-- packaging, billboards, commercials, movies. It can't die off fast enough. The only possible upside to this I can think of is if this gets the article read by the "bros" in question.
I'm not a journalist, but I'm not sure how well the article is written towards that readership. The cynic in me sees this as more of an attention-grabbing, fanning the controversy in bad faith, trendy type of journalism.
One problem with the male-dominated system is that top partners have almost never been exposed to women as professional peers. Their interaction with women is limited to their wives and daughters, and maybe executive assistants.
Cover aside, I think this was a good point.
posted by ana scoot at 3:42 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'm not a journalist, but I'm not sure how well the article is written towards that readership. The cynic in me sees this as more of an attention-grabbing, fanning the controversy in bad faith, trendy type of journalism.
One problem with the male-dominated system is that top partners have almost never been exposed to women as professional peers. Their interaction with women is limited to their wives and daughters, and maybe executive assistants.
Cover aside, I think this was a good point.
posted by ana scoot at 3:42 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
Most - not all - but most men in silicon valley have enough sense to not go around lifting up women's skirts. Sexism is a real problem but portraying it in such a base caricature lets men keep dismissing it by saying "I'm not touching anyone's butt!" When sexism is still very real even if slightly more subtle. I think it's a bad cover too. It detracts from an article that make several good points.
posted by GuyZero at 3:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [32 favorites]
posted by GuyZero at 3:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [32 favorites]
I'm guessing the article is OK. I have a book I want to get back to at the moment, though.
I would just like to add my vote to those who find Newsweek's cover inane, insulting, sexist, stupid, jejune, lazy, and an unbelievably bad choice on the part of professionals who get paid to make intelligent decisions regarding choosing the aesthetics and underlying implications of a magazine's cover image.
posted by kozad at 3:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I would just like to add my vote to those who find Newsweek's cover inane, insulting, sexist, stupid, jejune, lazy, and an unbelievably bad choice on the part of professionals who get paid to make intelligent decisions regarding choosing the aesthetics and underlying implications of a magazine's cover image.
posted by kozad at 3:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
It trivializes the subject by turning it into a cartoon, and although the concept is clever, the cleverness undermines the seriousness of the topic. Would Newsweek have published a story about pedophiles with this same graphic but with an illustration of a young girl?
posted by Enemy of Joy at 3:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Enemy of Joy at 3:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [6 favorites]
You know i was going to say something to the effect of "i wish we could talk about the article and not the stupid ass cover", and then i realized that's kinda the problem.
It's like the easiest out for people who don't want to talk about it to just shift to snarking about, which is why it's a shit cover.
posted by emptythought at 3:54 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
It's like the easiest out for people who don't want to talk about it to just shift to snarking about, which is why it's a shit cover.
posted by emptythought at 3:54 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
I like how in the picture the skirt is being lifted up by an abstract idea being controlled by a mysterious, unnamed, unseen force. Like, gee, we don't know who's doing this or why! It's a force of nature! It's just a thing that goes on.
The cover image is the thing you use to make people interested in the article. What this image is telling me is that the article is messy, the author and his editors don't understand the problem, and it's ultimately a pointless read.
It's not a mysterious, unnamed, unseen force. It's a mouse cursor. If you actually think that the mouse cursor on your computer screen is being moved by a mysterious force, then there are a lot of things we can explain to you. If you don't think that, though, this is a tremendously bad faith reading of the intent of this cover.
posted by IAmUnaware at 3:56 PM on January 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
The cover image is the thing you use to make people interested in the article. What this image is telling me is that the article is messy, the author and his editors don't understand the problem, and it's ultimately a pointless read.
It's not a mysterious, unnamed, unseen force. It's a mouse cursor. If you actually think that the mouse cursor on your computer screen is being moved by a mysterious force, then there are a lot of things we can explain to you. If you don't think that, though, this is a tremendously bad faith reading of the intent of this cover.
posted by IAmUnaware at 3:56 PM on January 30, 2015 [7 favorites]
Yes, obviously I believe that mouse cursors get moved by ghosts.
posted by bleep at 3:59 PM on January 30, 2015 [31 favorites]
posted by bleep at 3:59 PM on January 30, 2015 [31 favorites]
A thought experiment: Do you think someone would win in Pictionary if they got the word "sexism" and drew what is on the Newsweek cover? I don't think so. I think they'd get "sexual harassment" instead, which is a problem that exists but an entirely different thing than what they're describing about Silicon Valley, which is why it's a bad cover.
posted by mathowie at 4:02 PM on January 30, 2015 [71 favorites]
posted by mathowie at 4:02 PM on January 30, 2015 [71 favorites]
It's not a bad faith reading, it's just a reading. I went to college and I learned how to make readings. It's a thing people are allowed to do. If people don't like it, they are free to provide their own. If the author of the cover doesn't like it, he's free to make other stupid illustrations.
posted by bleep at 4:02 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by bleep at 4:02 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
The two things that jump out at me from the cover are: that the icon is so relatively big next to the woman in this image, and the implication that the existing members of the VC community overwhelmingly look at women as sex material. The cover seems relevant and provoking. You could have a bunch of guys pointing and mocking a woman struggling on a lower platform, but it wouldn’t have the same identification as tech. Another would be having the woman be in a suit, and shoving away the mouse icon who's just interested in her legs. I'm sorta lost as to what people would consider a good cover. Maybe they just don't want something so scathingly, sarcastically sexist on the un-admired Newsweek?
The relative size reminds me of the This American Life podcast FPP, in regards to the dismissive attitude when women even hint that there’s issues with existing culture. How easy it is for people to click and deliver a sexual/lethal threat to a woman that has trivially angered someone! Those work groups laughing about women? They remind me of antipathetic reaction to many, many cop homicides. People that break rules often do it for either money or morals. Yet, anything that does not work for the ones who already have a voice is condemned and considered drivel.
posted by halifix at 4:08 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
The relative size reminds me of the This American Life podcast FPP, in regards to the dismissive attitude when women even hint that there’s issues with existing culture. How easy it is for people to click and deliver a sexual/lethal threat to a woman that has trivially angered someone! Those work groups laughing about women? They remind me of antipathetic reaction to many, many cop homicides. People that break rules often do it for either money or morals. Yet, anything that does not work for the ones who already have a voice is condemned and considered drivel.
posted by halifix at 4:08 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Kind of what like Matt said, I think it's a great and provocative cover for a different subject than what the article is actually covering.
posted by Navelgazer at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Navelgazer at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Also, how was Newsweek's best-selling issue last month? Did the FAA ban Kindle?
posted by Navelgazer at 4:18 PM on January 30, 2015
posted by Navelgazer at 4:18 PM on January 30, 2015
I would rather read Newsweek's article about sexism than congeries of comment about whether Newsweek's cover is sexist. Despite being a feminist, I find the reams of debate and conflict bewildering and tiring. No, scrap that, I find it completely disengaging. It doesn't speak to anything remotely practical or useful.
posted by Thing at 4:22 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Thing at 4:22 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
What the artist thinks. Facebook discussion.
posted by Ideefixe at 4:24 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Ideefixe at 4:24 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
The cursor is representative of the number of clicks this cover will generate, posted to thousands of sites surviving on Google ad revenue.
If being offended is the religion of Millennials, the Newsweek cover is this week's Piss Christ.
posted by four panels at 4:25 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
If being offended is the religion of Millennials, the Newsweek cover is this week's Piss Christ.
posted by four panels at 4:25 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I am going to derail this thread by admitting that I read the article. I didn't find it badly written. Some of these anecdotes in the article are incredibly disturbing.
...no?
Carry on.
posted by quiet earth at 4:26 PM on January 30, 2015 [15 favorites]
Early in her career, Roizen was working “on a company-defining deal”—involving, potentially, millions of dollars—with a major PC manufacturer. “The PC manufacturer’s senior vice president who had been instrumental in crafting the deal suggested he and I sign over dinner in San Francisco to celebrate,” Roizen has written. “When I arrived at the restaurant, I found it a bit awkward to be seated at a table for four yet to be in two seats right next to each other, but it was a French restaurant and that seemed to be the style, so down I sat. Wine was brought and toasts were made to our great future together. About halfway through the dinner, he told me he had also brought me a present, but it was under the table, and would I please give him my hand so he could give it to me. I gave him my hand, and he placed it in his unzipped pants.So that creep lost his job over sexual harassment, right? He was called out and attacked and shamed for his egregious behaviour, right?
“Yes,” she said. “This really happened.”
...no?
Carry on.
posted by quiet earth at 4:26 PM on January 30, 2015 [15 favorites]
5,000 words to answer a question like "What Silicon Valley Thinks of Women." How can they expand on "not much"? Unless, perhaps they're paraphrasing Exeter delivering Henry's answer to the Dauphin in Henry V.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 4:31 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
DAUPHIN:But even then, 5K is stretching it.
For the Dauphin,
I stand here for him: what to him from England?
EXETER:
Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 4:31 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I just came across a tweet with an edited animation of the cover that might interest people:
Linky
posted by Michele in California at 4:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [16 favorites]
Linky
posted by Michele in California at 4:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [16 favorites]
The picture accurately describes what many in the Valley think of women. It succeeds as art can by using a visual to bring forthan emotional response.
posted by humanfont at 4:39 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by humanfont at 4:39 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
I just wish articles like this had less complaining and more solutions.
Men in tech should act more like decent human beings and not like entitled human garbage, and if they can't stop acting like entitled human garbage, they should quit life. That is my solution to the problem of sexism in tech as described in the article.
When there is a problem that one party (loosely construed) can solve by just stopping to act negatively towards another party (loosely construed), it is just complete bullshit to refer to the aggrieved party pointing this out as "complaining".
Calling it "complaining" is incredibly insulting, small-minded, and frankly is exactly the kind of attitude that enables this sort of shit to go on.
I don't think that attacking men in power is the way to get access to that power.
Speaking out about abusive behavior, like the VC who put a female founders hand on his penis, is not "attacking men in power". What the christ.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 4:48 PM on January 30, 2015 [54 favorites]
Men in tech should act more like decent human beings and not like entitled human garbage, and if they can't stop acting like entitled human garbage, they should quit life. That is my solution to the problem of sexism in tech as described in the article.
When there is a problem that one party (loosely construed) can solve by just stopping to act negatively towards another party (loosely construed), it is just complete bullshit to refer to the aggrieved party pointing this out as "complaining".
Calling it "complaining" is incredibly insulting, small-minded, and frankly is exactly the kind of attitude that enables this sort of shit to go on.
I don't think that attacking men in power is the way to get access to that power.
Speaking out about abusive behavior, like the VC who put a female founders hand on his penis, is not "attacking men in power". What the christ.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 4:48 PM on January 30, 2015 [54 favorites]
Eh, my first reaction to this image was more of a "That's not Harley Quinn!" kind of thing, and less of an "I disagree vehemently with the ideological points this image is making" kind of thing. I just... that's NOT "women in tech". That's Betty Boop or some shit. Like who sat down and thought "What does a woman in STEM look like?" and answered with THAT drawing?
Either way, I haven't read the article but I'm like 78% sure its analysis boils down to "women should shut up already amirite". Also I'd bet money that there is a disingenuous quote in there from some concern troll stating either "I wouldn't want to be given an unfair advantage because I'm a woman" or "I find it flattering when my male coworkers hit on me at work."
posted by Sara C. at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Either way, I haven't read the article but I'm like 78% sure its analysis boils down to "women should shut up already amirite". Also I'd bet money that there is a disingenuous quote in there from some concern troll stating either "I wouldn't want to be given an unfair advantage because I'm a woman" or "I find it flattering when my male coworkers hit on me at work."
posted by Sara C. at 5:05 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
Either way, I haven't read the article but I'm like 78% sure its analysis boils down to "women should shut up already amirite". Also I'd bet money that there is a disingenuous quote in there from some concern troll stating either "I wouldn't want to be given an unfair advantage because I'm a woman" or "I find it flattering when my male coworkers hit on me at work."
Yeah, no. Have you even read this thread?
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 5:16 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yeah, no. Have you even read this thread?
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 5:16 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
Really, there's no counterpoint?
Usually the way these articles shake out is that they open with anecdotes like that, then the dissenting side is presented (this is where the "I don't want to be treated equally" stuff comes in), and the author usually tries to end somewhere in the middle, by casting anecdotes like the one quoted upthread as disingenuous whining.
See also Is Feminism Dead (which, yes, is from Time and not Newsweek, but where women's issues are concerned their track records are identical).
posted by Sara C. at 5:28 PM on January 30, 2015
Usually the way these articles shake out is that they open with anecdotes like that, then the dissenting side is presented (this is where the "I don't want to be treated equally" stuff comes in), and the author usually tries to end somewhere in the middle, by casting anecdotes like the one quoted upthread as disingenuous whining.
See also Is Feminism Dead (which, yes, is from Time and not Newsweek, but where women's issues are concerned their track records are identical).
posted by Sara C. at 5:28 PM on January 30, 2015
I am far too privileged to form an opinion about this cover. Or this article.
posted by poe at 5:28 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by poe at 5:28 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
The article is reasonably okay, though it does read like a feature for people who've never thought or read about the problem before.
Meanwhile, the illustration misses the fact that the article is largely about women not being given a seat at the venture capital table—which is a serious and pervasive problem that goes well and beyond the issue of people playing grab-ass in the workplace.
A lot of people are gonna look at that cover, think "Yeah, sexual harassment is bad, got it," not read the article or buy the issue, and move on.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 5:32 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
Meanwhile, the illustration misses the fact that the article is largely about women not being given a seat at the venture capital table—which is a serious and pervasive problem that goes well and beyond the issue of people playing grab-ass in the workplace.
A lot of people are gonna look at that cover, think "Yeah, sexual harassment is bad, got it," not read the article or buy the issue, and move on.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 5:32 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
OK I skimmed and this article's concern troll section is all about how there aren't enough women in engineering programs/women quit for the mommy track. With a side of "I've never experienced this sexism you speak of". The conclusion isn't quite as dire as I thought but still lands on a sort of false sense of The Kids Are Alright. When actually, no, the kids aren't alright.
posted by Sara C. at 5:35 PM on January 30, 2015
posted by Sara C. at 5:35 PM on January 30, 2015
I'm not sure what all the griping is about. I think it is a great, eye-catching image that that draws attention to sexism. I'm trying to find fault with it and be all offended but I just can't.
posted by Foam Pants at 5:43 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Foam Pants at 5:43 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
which is a serious and pervasive problem that goes well and beyond the issue of people playing grab-ass in the workplace.
True, but as a cover I think it's meant to represent or symbolize the structural sexism that goes on. Just like that old political cartoon by Benjamin Franklin doesn't mean the British are going to actually cut up snakes if the colonies don't join together.
posted by FJT at 5:49 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
True, but as a cover I think it's meant to represent or symbolize the structural sexism that goes on. Just like that old political cartoon by Benjamin Franklin doesn't mean the British are going to actually cut up snakes if the colonies don't join together.
posted by FJT at 5:49 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
The cover symbolizes sexual harassment when it should symbolize structural sexism. It isn't a matter of the image being overly simplistic but of representing a separate issue entirely.
It's like taking Benjamin Franklin's message but replacing the chopped snake with Ouroboros because you thought that looked cooler.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 6:16 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
It's like taking Benjamin Franklin's message but replacing the chopped snake with Ouroboros because you thought that looked cooler.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 6:16 PM on January 30, 2015 [8 favorites]
Either way, I haven't read the article but I'm like 78% sure its analysis boils down to "women should shut up already amirite". Also I'd bet money that there is a disingenuous quote in there from some concern troll stating either "I wouldn't want to be given an unfair advantage because I'm a woman" or "I find it flattering when my male coworkers hit on me at work."
this is flagrant shitposting and i really wish people would quit doing this. if you want to take a dump on it, at least read it and take a dump on what they actually said.
i'm aware you engaged with it more a bit later, but this comment is still here forever.
posted by emptythought at 6:17 PM on January 30, 2015 [14 favorites]
this is flagrant shitposting and i really wish people would quit doing this. if you want to take a dump on it, at least read it and take a dump on what they actually said.
i'm aware you engaged with it more a bit later, but this comment is still here forever.
posted by emptythought at 6:17 PM on January 30, 2015 [14 favorites]
Oh no! Here forever?!
The bottom line is that Newsweek, Time, and the other major newsmagazines have a terrible track record when it comes to gender issues. It is always worth remembering this when any of said magazines put out a cover story about women's rights.
posted by Sara C. at 6:24 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
The bottom line is that Newsweek, Time, and the other major newsmagazines have a terrible track record when it comes to gender issues. It is always worth remembering this when any of said magazines put out a cover story about women's rights.
posted by Sara C. at 6:24 PM on January 30, 2015 [3 favorites]
The cover symbolizes sexual harassment when it should symbolize structural sexism. It isn't a matter of the image being overly simplistic but of representing a separate issue entirely.
I don't know if it's a "separate issue entirely". There is some overlap to structural sexism and sexual harassment. I'm not saying it was a great image or that it can't be misinterpreted.
On the other hand, Ben Franklin did label the parts of the snake, down to each colony. Maybe if the illustrator of the cover had a big arrow pointing at the mouse icon saying "Silicon Valley" and an arrow pointing at the woman saying "women", and then arrow pointing at the point where the mouse is tugging at the skirt saying "sexism", then there'd be no confusion.
posted by FJT at 6:24 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know if it's a "separate issue entirely". There is some overlap to structural sexism and sexual harassment. I'm not saying it was a great image or that it can't be misinterpreted.
On the other hand, Ben Franklin did label the parts of the snake, down to each colony. Maybe if the illustrator of the cover had a big arrow pointing at the mouse icon saying "Silicon Valley" and an arrow pointing at the woman saying "women", and then arrow pointing at the point where the mouse is tugging at the skirt saying "sexism", then there'd be no confusion.
posted by FJT at 6:24 PM on January 30, 2015 [1 favorite]
Again, it's not that the image is confusing. It's that it's about the wrong issue, even if a related one.
posted by evidenceofabsence at 6:29 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by evidenceofabsence at 6:29 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
i'm aware you engaged with it more a bit later, but this comment is still here forever.
No, she did a basically content-free driveby to avoid having to admit that she shitposted.
The bottom line is that Newsweek, Time, and the other major newsmagazines have a terrible track record when it comes to gender issues. It is always worth remembering this when any of said magazines put out a cover story about women's rights.
And again!
The article is actually one of the better ones I've seen on the issue, just in the sense of actually talking about some of the more egregious shit that goes on all the time. The thing about the hand-on-the-penis and middle-aged sleazelord "falling in love" with his young "mentee", and then tossing her by the wayside when she doesn't put out: I'm aware of both those general scenarios happening to multiple different women, and worse things besides. Don't get me wrong, "bro culture" on it's own is infuriating and awful, but I haven't seen a lot of the discussion about sexism in the industry and VC culture specifically, which in some ways is even worse.
All the supposedly feminist objections to the cover thing seem to me like a big ol' distraction, by the kind of rich white "feminists" like Sheryl Sandberg who are, essentially, fighting for the right to be as awful and as self-important as rich white men.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 6:33 PM on January 30, 2015
No, she did a basically content-free driveby to avoid having to admit that she shitposted.
The bottom line is that Newsweek, Time, and the other major newsmagazines have a terrible track record when it comes to gender issues. It is always worth remembering this when any of said magazines put out a cover story about women's rights.
And again!
The article is actually one of the better ones I've seen on the issue, just in the sense of actually talking about some of the more egregious shit that goes on all the time. The thing about the hand-on-the-penis and middle-aged sleazelord "falling in love" with his young "mentee", and then tossing her by the wayside when she doesn't put out: I'm aware of both those general scenarios happening to multiple different women, and worse things besides. Don't get me wrong, "bro culture" on it's own is infuriating and awful, but I haven't seen a lot of the discussion about sexism in the industry and VC culture specifically, which in some ways is even worse.
All the supposedly feminist objections to the cover thing seem to me like a big ol' distraction, by the kind of rich white "feminists" like Sheryl Sandberg who are, essentially, fighting for the right to be as awful and as self-important as rich white men.
posted by The Master and Margarita Mix at 6:33 PM on January 30, 2015
my first impression of the ad was that it's a play on the coppertone ad, or more accurately, the million cheesecake pinup takes on the coppertone ad. i think it's pretty insulting and chosen for the clicks and conversation it would inspire - which really just furthers the whole idea of women complain too much about sexism (evidenced in this very thread, so i can only imagine the facebook conversations below this image). i honestly don't even think it's a good sexual harassment image because of the coppertone vibe - it's too much ironic sexism which is a pretty terrible way to discuss sexism.
i didn't read the article and i don't plan on it because i think there's plenty of great writing about sexism and tech that doesn't insult me first.
posted by nadawi at 6:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [10 favorites]
i didn't read the article and i don't plan on it because i think there's plenty of great writing about sexism and tech that doesn't insult me first.
posted by nadawi at 6:34 PM on January 30, 2015 [10 favorites]
I don't criticize the piece in order to negate the experiences of the women who are sharing their very true accounts of sexism in Silicon Valley. That couldn't be further from the truth. My problem is that this piece takes accounts like that and then surrounds them with nonsense so as to take the teeth out of real critique of the tech industry. The article absolves the men of Silicon Valley of any responsibility and suggests that the real issue is either systematic and thus impossible to change, or that it's actually women's fault.
posted by Sara C. at 6:49 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Sara C. at 6:49 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
My first thought was the same as Sara C.: who in tech dresses like that? Although, part of the reason for that is grounded in sexism. Fun story: I stopped wearing skirts and dresses while I worked in Silicon Valley because I got tired of answering questions like "are you the new marketing girl?" No, I'm an engineer, jackass. Never got asked that kind of thing while wearing sweats and a t-shirt, or even khakis and a button-down; less-feminine clothing kept it at bay.
My second thought was just, yuck.
i didn't read the article and i don't plan on it because i think there's plenty of great writing about sexism and tech that doesn't insult me first.
Right there with you.
posted by heisenberg at 6:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
My second thought was just, yuck.
i didn't read the article and i don't plan on it because i think there's plenty of great writing about sexism and tech that doesn't insult me first.
Right there with you.
posted by heisenberg at 6:53 PM on January 30, 2015 [4 favorites]
That's an awesome illustration. Just because they're making a very serious..POINT with that concept, it doesn't mean the image can't be sort of whimsical or even mildly tasteless.
posted by ReeMonster at 7:55 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by ReeMonster at 7:55 PM on January 30, 2015 [2 favorites]
I actually really quite like the image as applicable to the stated point. Her minimalist expression is trapped in this neutral area. She seems unhappy about the actions of the cursor, but she can't be visibly angry and she has no good way to respond. Her hands are busy with the computer/papers/whatever that is supposed to be the purpose, and this gross thing is coming up from behind her and being a weird asshole about her sexuality.
I can't even muster much irritation at the way she's dressed, since the article was about being in tech and trying to get venture capital which means meeting with these skeezy asshole dudes in nice restaurants and generally being as personable and charming as possible in an effort to get them to invest, which they then decide means they have free rein to sexually harass and molest her. It doesn't seem out of place to me to have a woman dressed up a bit as the image here, and it seems to actually strengthen the point that even if she's dressed nice, it is wildly inappropriate to take that as some kind of offer of open season for grabby hands or nasty comments.
It even fits well with the headline. What does Silicon Valley think of women? Basically that they're sexy, and that's fucked up.
I dunno. I'm male, so I guess it's not really my place to comment on whether or not the image was good. But it certainly seems germane to a lot of what was actually in the article (even if perhaps we'd rather the article have been more focused on subtler culture issues and less on the "Here's an anecdote about a guy going totally beyond the pale" angle.)
posted by Scattercat at 8:55 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
I can't even muster much irritation at the way she's dressed, since the article was about being in tech and trying to get venture capital which means meeting with these skeezy asshole dudes in nice restaurants and generally being as personable and charming as possible in an effort to get them to invest, which they then decide means they have free rein to sexually harass and molest her. It doesn't seem out of place to me to have a woman dressed up a bit as the image here, and it seems to actually strengthen the point that even if she's dressed nice, it is wildly inappropriate to take that as some kind of offer of open season for grabby hands or nasty comments.
It even fits well with the headline. What does Silicon Valley think of women? Basically that they're sexy, and that's fucked up.
I dunno. I'm male, so I guess it's not really my place to comment on whether or not the image was good. But it certainly seems germane to a lot of what was actually in the article (even if perhaps we'd rather the article have been more focused on subtler culture issues and less on the "Here's an anecdote about a guy going totally beyond the pale" angle.)
posted by Scattercat at 8:55 PM on January 30, 2015 [5 favorites]
four panels: If being offended is the religion of Millennials, the Newsweek cover is this week's Piss Christ.
It's not. Much fun as "lol young people are dumb amirite?" no doubt is, the whole dismissive offended-millenials thing is getting every bit as tired as the whole 'PC Nazi' thing did a decade or two before.
Scattercat: I actually really quite like the image as applicable to the stated point. Her minimalist expression is trapped in this neutral area. She seems unhappy about the actions of the cursor, but she can't be visibly angry and she has no good way to respond.
This is kind of part of the problem - the message should absolutely not be that "she can't be visibly angry and she has no good way to respond", that just furthers the issue. She can be visibly angry! And she can show that anger in response! Maybe she can even talk to other people about it, and stuff. Falling into the 'women are powerless' trap here is not the solution, though of course, it is difficult to tackle, and you are unlikely to create any serious consequences for anyone but yourself, but the way the system perpetuates is to use that probability to cause people to do nothing because hey, what'll you achieve? How a culture changes is by a bunch of people speaking out anyway and starting to grind out an alternative consensus, and then someone somewhere with relative power in the industry having enough courage to actually hold men responsible for their actions where their actions are reprehensible.
posted by Dysk at 1:29 AM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
It's not. Much fun as "lol young people are dumb amirite?" no doubt is, the whole dismissive offended-millenials thing is getting every bit as tired as the whole 'PC Nazi' thing did a decade or two before.
Scattercat: I actually really quite like the image as applicable to the stated point. Her minimalist expression is trapped in this neutral area. She seems unhappy about the actions of the cursor, but she can't be visibly angry and she has no good way to respond.
This is kind of part of the problem - the message should absolutely not be that "she can't be visibly angry and she has no good way to respond", that just furthers the issue. She can be visibly angry! And she can show that anger in response! Maybe she can even talk to other people about it, and stuff. Falling into the 'women are powerless' trap here is not the solution, though of course, it is difficult to tackle, and you are unlikely to create any serious consequences for anyone but yourself, but the way the system perpetuates is to use that probability to cause people to do nothing because hey, what'll you achieve? How a culture changes is by a bunch of people speaking out anyway and starting to grind out an alternative consensus, and then someone somewhere with relative power in the industry having enough courage to actually hold men responsible for their actions where their actions are reprehensible.
posted by Dysk at 1:29 AM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
Not to get crazy here but it is possible that the cover is good in some ways but bad in others and that the article is the same way, right? Just kidding that is impossible. Back to the barricades!
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:18 AM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Potomac Avenue at 3:18 AM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Potomac Avenue: even worse - I can be frustrated and angry about parts of the article but still be sort of glad exists and even think it's at least averag e quality!!! My emotional reaction can be mixed too!!
posted by R343L at 5:47 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by R343L at 5:47 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Glassbreakers is by definition “gender-gated,” thereby excluding 50 percent of potential users.
I'm going to guess that this would not be as big a deal for a product aimed solely at men.
posted by Slothrup at 6:27 AM on January 31, 2015
I'm going to guess that this would not be as big a deal for a product aimed solely at men.
posted by Slothrup at 6:27 AM on January 31, 2015
Potomac Avenue: even worse - I can be frustrated and angry about parts of the article but still be sort of glad exists and even think it's at least averag e quality!!! My emotional reaction can be mixed too!!
I think thats what I was saying too...Hi5! I was more talking about the people sniping at each other earlier in the thread about whether liking or disliking the cover (or reading the article at all) means you are unilaterally for or against the cause of fighting sexism in the tech world. Turning a nuanced debate into a purity test just seems like a waste of time imo.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:40 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
I think thats what I was saying too...Hi5! I was more talking about the people sniping at each other earlier in the thread about whether liking or disliking the cover (or reading the article at all) means you are unilaterally for or against the cause of fighting sexism in the tech world. Turning a nuanced debate into a purity test just seems like a waste of time imo.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:40 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
This summed it up for me:
"...female-run #startups produce a 31 percent higher return on investment than startups run by men."
Sounds great, right? But even when they try to give us a compliment, the men get to be men and the women are all females.
Calling us females is a taxonomy designation rather than a recognition of our personhood, and it reinforces men and their maleness as the default/norm.
This shit is so rampant and tiring and insidious and micro-aggression-crazy-making, that I just can't deal sometimes. I just don't want to be a part of this kingdom anymore.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 7:56 AM on January 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
"...female-run #startups produce a 31 percent higher return on investment than startups run by men."
Sounds great, right? But even when they try to give us a compliment, the men get to be men and the women are all females.
Calling us females is a taxonomy designation rather than a recognition of our personhood, and it reinforces men and their maleness as the default/norm.
This shit is so rampant and tiring and insidious and micro-aggression-crazy-making, that I just can't deal sometimes. I just don't want to be a part of this kingdom anymore.
posted by whimsicalnymph at 7:56 AM on January 31, 2015 [6 favorites]
Men in tech should act more like decent human beings and not like entitled human garbage, and if they can't stop acting like entitled human garbage, they should quit life. That is my solution to the problem of sexism in tech as described in the article.
Men in tech know things I would like to know. Women mostly don't know those things, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I have a Certificate in GIS. I participate on Hacker News. For a long time, it was a very hard row to hoe. Men either did not take me seriously, or men in power closed ranks and tried to shut me out or men publicly tried to hit on me. Some of the best case, most well-meaning men gave me condescending pats on the head or very ineffectively tried to come to my defense, which only made my problems there worse.
I have spent quite a lot of time trying to get past the problems I had with interacting there and I feel I am getting results. As far as I can tell, I am currently the highest ranked openly female member of the site. Two days ago, I hit 10k karma. I believe that makes me the only woman member with karma in the 5 digits. I am beginning to see in-roads in being talked with like a human being and I believe that the work I did has paved the way for better treatment of women generally on the site.
I don't happen to agree with you that men in tech should "quit life" -- based on your hostility, I assume you mean, commit suicide, but perhaps you mean quit participating in public life. -- because I would like access to what they know. I don't think wholesale loss of their knowledge benefits humanity. And I believe it is possible to figure out how to build bridges. It's something I have worked on a long time and I am seeing forward progress.
So I don't agree with you. I also don't much appreciate you pissing on me for not seeing things the same way you do.
posted by Michele in California at 11:34 AM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
Men in tech know things I would like to know. Women mostly don't know those things, or we wouldn't be having this discussion.
I have a Certificate in GIS. I participate on Hacker News. For a long time, it was a very hard row to hoe. Men either did not take me seriously, or men in power closed ranks and tried to shut me out or men publicly tried to hit on me. Some of the best case, most well-meaning men gave me condescending pats on the head or very ineffectively tried to come to my defense, which only made my problems there worse.
I have spent quite a lot of time trying to get past the problems I had with interacting there and I feel I am getting results. As far as I can tell, I am currently the highest ranked openly female member of the site. Two days ago, I hit 10k karma. I believe that makes me the only woman member with karma in the 5 digits. I am beginning to see in-roads in being talked with like a human being and I believe that the work I did has paved the way for better treatment of women generally on the site.
I don't happen to agree with you that men in tech should "quit life" -- based on your hostility, I assume you mean, commit suicide, but perhaps you mean quit participating in public life. -- because I would like access to what they know. I don't think wholesale loss of their knowledge benefits humanity. And I believe it is possible to figure out how to build bridges. It's something I have worked on a long time and I am seeing forward progress.
So I don't agree with you. I also don't much appreciate you pissing on me for not seeing things the same way you do.
posted by Michele in California at 11:34 AM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
The cover bothers me for a couple of reasons.
1. What is the pointer? I think people who are less bothered saw it as grabby hands. My first impression was "look at that cartoon representation of a penis!" and I think that massively steps up the insult/sexism quotient into rapey territory.
2. They made it into a cartoon so it's meant to be kind of a joke, but I think doing that is like ironic sexism on the Internet, which doesn't play well with me. Don't "pretend" to say awful sexist or racist things, because in doing so you are still saying those awful things. In this cover Newsweek is depicting the sexual harassment of this woman with nothing to show its actually wrong. The woman isn't even expressing annoyance at what's happening, because for some reason she has no face. Um. Wha?
3. As an added layer that is probably specific to me, this illustration reminded me of Kim Kasdashian's recent Paper magazine cover, a little -- the over the shoulder look (though eyeless!) from behind --- and that possible referencing just makes it worse.
posted by onlyconnect at 11:41 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
1. What is the pointer? I think people who are less bothered saw it as grabby hands. My first impression was "look at that cartoon representation of a penis!" and I think that massively steps up the insult/sexism quotient into rapey territory.
2. They made it into a cartoon so it's meant to be kind of a joke, but I think doing that is like ironic sexism on the Internet, which doesn't play well with me. Don't "pretend" to say awful sexist or racist things, because in doing so you are still saying those awful things. In this cover Newsweek is depicting the sexual harassment of this woman with nothing to show its actually wrong. The woman isn't even expressing annoyance at what's happening, because for some reason she has no face. Um. Wha?
3. As an added layer that is probably specific to me, this illustration reminded me of Kim Kasdashian's recent Paper magazine cover, a little -- the over the shoulder look (though eyeless!) from behind --- and that possible referencing just makes it worse.
posted by onlyconnect at 11:41 AM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's the eyelessness of the figure that disturbs me the most.
posted by Renoroc at 11:45 AM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Renoroc at 11:45 AM on January 31, 2015 [4 favorites]
As an added layer that is probably specific to me, this illustration reminded me of Kim Kasdashian's recent Paper magazine cover, a little -- the over the shoulder look (though eyeless!) from behind --- and that possible referencing just makes it worse.
Why?
posted by huguini at 11:50 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Why?
posted by huguini at 11:50 AM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Because (to me) it seems like Newsweek might be trying to appeal to (and make money off of) people's collective memories of a very popular soft pornish magazine cover (just how big IS the ass under that skirt, anyway?) when in fact they are actually addressing a serious subject.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:04 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by onlyconnect at 12:04 PM on January 31, 2015 [1 favorite]
Although on second thought, as someone suggested above, maybe that sort of thing would be a genius way to get actual brogrammers to read the article.
Maybe it would be worthwhile to start slicing a few frames of feminist messages into porn films so the ideas enter into people's subconscious without them quite knowing how they got there. Fight Club feminist anarchy.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:41 PM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
Maybe it would be worthwhile to start slicing a few frames of feminist messages into porn films so the ideas enter into people's subconscious without them quite knowing how they got there. Fight Club feminist anarchy.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:41 PM on January 31, 2015 [2 favorites]
I ignored the cover and read the article and wanted to do something, so I applied to join the mentoring community that was featured.
posted by nev at 12:53 PM on January 31, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by nev at 12:53 PM on January 31, 2015 [7 favorites]
I just wish articles like this had less complaining and more solutions.
I hear there are a couple entrepreneurs making an mentor program called "Glassbreakers" which will allow women to network and support each other in very sexist environments. Unfortunately, they're running into trouble with getting seed money, but who knows! Maybe women could support them by joining if it applies!
I live in a woman-dominated field but I might apply just because.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:30 PM on January 31, 2015
I hear there are a couple entrepreneurs making an mentor program called "Glassbreakers" which will allow women to network and support each other in very sexist environments. Unfortunately, they're running into trouble with getting seed money, but who knows! Maybe women could support them by joining if it applies!
I live in a woman-dominated field but I might apply just because.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:30 PM on January 31, 2015
Given that the vast majority of money and power is held by men, I have my doubts that anything called "Glassbreakers" will prove to be an effective path forward. It takes an openly hostile position towards men -- the very men you need to build bridges with if you have any hope of getting anywhere.
But good luck to you and to them. I sincerely hope I am in error and they and many women benefit from the business model in question.
posted by Michele in California at 1:47 PM on January 31, 2015
But good luck to you and to them. I sincerely hope I am in error and they and many women benefit from the business model in question.
posted by Michele in California at 1:47 PM on January 31, 2015
I have to disagree that "openly hostile" is a good way to describe a program that simply excludes men. It's called Glassbreakers not Nutbreakers.
posted by bleep at 1:59 PM on January 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
posted by bleep at 1:59 PM on January 31, 2015 [14 favorites]
Although on second thought, as someone suggested above, maybe that sort of thing would be a genius way to get actual brogrammers to read the article.
I think this gets right to heart of what bothers me so much about the image.
I'm tired of the idea that the world is for men, and I'm just a sexy decoration in it.
This cover says, to me, "This magazine is not for you!" In that, I suppose it's doing a good job of communicating that I shouldn't bother reading the article, because it's not aimed at women or people who are fighting for women's equality or even people who are respectful of women or see us as more than just sex toys. But, you know, I'd rather have a piece in Newsweek that is for those groups of people, rather than just an image warning me not to bother.
posted by Sara C. at 2:13 PM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
I think this gets right to heart of what bothers me so much about the image.
I'm tired of the idea that the world is for men, and I'm just a sexy decoration in it.
This cover says, to me, "This magazine is not for you!" In that, I suppose it's doing a good job of communicating that I shouldn't bother reading the article, because it's not aimed at women or people who are fighting for women's equality or even people who are respectful of women or see us as more than just sex toys. But, you know, I'd rather have a piece in Newsweek that is for those groups of people, rather than just an image warning me not to bother.
posted by Sara C. at 2:13 PM on January 31, 2015 [5 favorites]
And no tone-deaf, milquetoast article on gender and technology would be complete without Vivek Wadwha, Life Coach™ and Super Ally™, placing the blame squarely on the women themselves:
BLAMING
WOMEN
FOR
SEXISM
Sit down, man.
posted by Coda at 2:15 PM on January 31, 2015 [19 favorites]
Carey’s unease about asking for money doesn’t surprise Vivek Wadhwa, a Silicon Valley investor, diversity coach and author of Innovating Women. Wadhwa says shaky self-confidence is one of the chief things holding women back. It’s not just about the money, though. Wadhwa says women not only are reluctant to overstate their accomplishments and goals; they habitually understate them. “Often I have to say to them, Why are you underselling?” he says. “When I coach women, I tell them how wonderful they are. Women won’t make the ridiculous projections about their companies that the guys will. They won’t say the really stupid thing the nerds do. They are a lot more realistic and practical and humble.”STOP
BLAMING
WOMEN
FOR
SEXISM
Sit down, man.
posted by Coda at 2:15 PM on January 31, 2015 [19 favorites]
I have to disagree that "openly hostile" is a good way to describe a program that simply excludes men. It's called Glassbreakers not Nutbreakers.
Ugh yea. I'm really really super 500% tired of the whole "excluding men is a gigantic affront!" thing, yea. It's way too reddity/MRAish for me to not roll my eyes. It just makes me think of the worst kind of dudes crashing in to women centric spaces because how can this conversation happen without their opinion being heard?
Something isn't doomed to fail because it excludes men. Plenty of things exclude, tacitly or not, women. I really hate this doomsaying "you can't exclude us, you'll regret it!" shit about dudes. Things can work perfectly fine without us, and some stuff should probably be done without us anyways.
posted by emptythought at 5:51 PM on January 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
Ugh yea. I'm really really super 500% tired of the whole "excluding men is a gigantic affront!" thing, yea. It's way too reddity/MRAish for me to not roll my eyes. It just makes me think of the worst kind of dudes crashing in to women centric spaces because how can this conversation happen without their opinion being heard?
Something isn't doomed to fail because it excludes men. Plenty of things exclude, tacitly or not, women. I really hate this doomsaying "you can't exclude us, you'll regret it!" shit about dudes. Things can work perfectly fine without us, and some stuff should probably be done without us anyways.
posted by emptythought at 5:51 PM on January 31, 2015 [12 favorites]
excluding men is a gigantic affront
Just for the record, that is not what I said or meant.
posted by Michele in California at 2:04 PM on February 1, 2015
Just for the record, that is not what I said or meant.
posted by Michele in California at 2:04 PM on February 1, 2015
Here is a fairly thorough takedown of Vivek Wadhwa by Amelia Greenhall.
posted by mhum at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by mhum at 1:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Saudi Arabia Holds All Male Women’s Rights Conference
posted by jeffburdges at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 2:47 PM on February 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Ok, yeah, Vivek is self-promoting asshole in denial.
Just read Alexia Tsotsis's article, linked in Amelia's piece, about the cover. Still conflicted about my opinion. But then I am male and fortunate to not have a visceral reaction to the cover.
posted by halifix at 7:07 PM on February 4, 2015
Just read Alexia Tsotsis's article, linked in Amelia's piece, about the cover. Still conflicted about my opinion. But then I am male and fortunate to not have a visceral reaction to the cover.
posted by halifix at 7:07 PM on February 4, 2015
« Older A modern war story | “Writing is not a linear process. It’s all work.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by evidenceofabsence at 3:08 PM on January 30, 2015 [57 favorites]