Yet Another Reason It's Hard for Women in Tech

By Cate Sevilla

They say that all *good* things come in threes, so I suppose here is our third reason why it's so hard for women in tech, courtesy of the folks at The Underwire, Wired's pop culture blog.

If this were some random blog that was looking for a bit of traffic and some link bait, I wouldn't care so much. There are a ridiculous amount of stupid blogs out there, and if I tried to write an angry blog post about whatever sexist crap they were spewing on any given day, I would give myself a heart attack.

However, this is Wired we're talking about here. WIRED. A magazine and publication that I highly respect. (Even despite that whole Julia Allison thing.)

And yet, here they are, sexualizing and objectifying "geeky" women in tech with their "Vote for the Sexiest Geeks of 2008" poll.

The truly great part, is that a lot of these women aren't actually geeky or have anything to do with technology, they just have tits.

Like "This Girl"...


"This Girl"

If you for some reason can't read the description of the scantily clad girl with glasses, allow me. It says:

"I don't' know her name or what she does or even if her legs extend beyond her knees. But just look at her."

Geek of the year! I mean, just look at her!

This past weekend, the wise NWJersyLIz on Twitter made the following tweet, which I found very wise. She said,

"I don't think just bc you use technology (Twitter, blog, podcast), love gadgets or have an iPhone, it makes you a geek. You need some skills"

Word to that, sister!

So, dear Underwired, having people like Scarlett Johansson and Rosario Dawson and people who have played a geek in a movie, or own a comic book or have a DS Lite or play WiiFit on the weekends sometimes if they're not too busy does not make them a geek, mmkay?


Such a Geek!

Your criteria for making it onto the Geek List is complete bullshit.

Seriously? Morena Baccarin? Summer Glau? Why not just vote on attractive women that you like to have sexual fantasies about who happen to also be in Sci-Fi movies or shows instead of trying to include actual geeks?


Such a Geek, Too!

Also, thanks for supporting your fellow women in tech, and for alienating the huge amount of women online that subscribe to your magazine and read your blogs online.

Can we not move beyond this fascination with women who are, like, pretty and smart and stuff?

Folks at the Underwire, if you don't get why this is so irritating, let me break it down for you.

1. It encourages belief in the stereotype that women cannot be both pretty and smart.

2. It encourages belief in the stereotype that men cannot be both pretty and smart.

3. It further promotes and ignites the sexualization and objectification of women in male dominated industries, specifically women in technology, and just women in general.

4. It puts even more unnecessary emphasis on people's looks and how sexy they are by rewarding people who are not only geeky, but the sexiest geeks. This, in turn, then further promotes the stereotype that you can only be truly successful or loved if you're super sexy or super attractive - especially for women.

So, a big, happy fucking Christmas to the folks at Wired and The Underwire! Thanks for all the support!

 

Big thanks to @girlonetrack and @jemimakiss for the heads up!

POSTED IN: TECH
Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:19 (GMT+00)
6 Responses
1.

Yet another reason to add to the "won't subscribe to WIRED in 2009" column on my Excel sheet.

Lamesauce.

K

Kate
Mon, 22-Dec-2008 17:55 GMT
2.

Totally agree. This kind of thing is exactly what I was criticizing in the gaming industry... the fascination and commercialization of the 'Girl Gamer'. It's even more aggravating when women themselves think they have to maintain these standards in order to gain 'respect' or recognition in the industry. (http://www.destructoid.com/and-the-gamers-who-play-them-girl-gamers-77302.phtml)

.tiff
Mon, 22-Dec-2008 23:22 GMT
3.

(frown)
i haven't seen the original release that ignited this particular article in response... but the argument in this article is poorly stated and poorly supported. as a woman, and as a woman in digital media arts, i find THIS article difficult and disturbing.

I linked to this article because I read the title: "Yet Another Reason It's Hard for Women in Tech", thinking that it would provide an enlightening, and objective, insight into numerous factors why it might be difficult for women in technology to find employment or advancement. I find the reality disappointing. It is not only highly emotional and subjective, but downright shallow and simple-minded.

If the formula for success in IT was all about being sexy and smart, I'd already have the job of my dreams. But I don't. If you have some sage insight to contribute about what REALLY matters, why don't you write about THAT? and leave the post-feminist rants to someone with half your brains and credentials.

loch
Tue, 23-Dec-2008 18:23 GMT
4.

Hmmmm…
I guess I would say I have a wide range of feelings about this article and its ensuing comments.

Mostly, the feelings are of confusion – I missed the part where being geeky means having some words on a shirt about Halo or quoting Star Wars. Perhaps a little nerdy?

Ask these girls to code a webpage or even do a data merge. Did they hear about twitter BEFORE Obama?

Answer these and many more questions and perhaps they'll be what I consider geeky. Tell them to do it couture and I might think they're f#*$ing fabulous.

Kyla
Wed, 24-Dec-2008 03:42 GMT
5.

1. A list entitled with "The Sexiest ..." tells you right up front that it has nothing to do with skill or talent. It is a list of looks, not brain power.

2. How can a list ecourage the belief that you can't be both smart and good looking? Have you met those women? I imagine that they are not all smart, but they are not all stupid either. Everyone on the list was picked for their looks alone, that was made abundantly clear from the title. Implying that the women featured on this list are more form than function witout corresponding evidience; now that is encouraging the belief that you can't be both smart and sexy. I have no idea who "that girl" is but the other two you featured have some decent cred. Aisha Taylor got her degree from Dartmouth. That's better credentials for smarts than I have. Rosario Dawson has plenty of geek cred from not only collecting non-mainstream comics, but making career choices to appease her inner geek (choosing to work with Kevin Smith?) Just because you are a geek, doesn't mean you are a smart person. Geek plus smart equals nerd. Of course, there is nothing saying that a nerd can't be hot too. A red headed librarian or lab researcher would be fun to meet.

3. Straight guys don't want to be "pretty." Handsome, striking, awe-inspiring, drool-worthy, impressive, good-looking, majestic, and athletic are a few examples of acceptable terms.

4. The objectification of an individual is only a problem when the individual does not want that type of attention. For example, I (and probably quite a few other guys) wouldn't mind being sexually objectified by a few dozen/thousand women every once in a while.

5. According to Mirriam Webster, there are three difinitions to the word geek.
a. a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usualy
includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
b. a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked
c. an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity


According to these difinitions, the people on this list fall under the third classification of a geek. They are liked, so they can't be difinition B. Also, I don't think they bite live animals either, so they aren't definition A. I'm betting that most (if not all) of the commenters as well as the author fall into the same classification of geek as the women on this list.

In conclusion, yes there is objectification going on here. However, it is largely a selection of people who have made a career choice to professionally objectify themselves so the rightous indignation has come off a little foul smelling. Seeing as how none of these women actually work in the tech industry, how do they and this list make things any worse for women in the field? They don't!

Kali4
Tue, 30-Dec-2008 17:40 GMT
6.

Loch -

"leave the post-feminist rants to someone with half your brains and credentials."

Wow! Thanks for contributing to the conversation. Real helpful.

Cate
Tue, 06-Jan-2009 15:45 GMT

Add Comment

Note: Your email address will be verified but will never be published on the site.

If you are a registered user, please Sign In.




The opinions expressed by the author and commenters are their own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of BitchBuzz or any employer or organisation. The aforementioned are not responsible for the accuracy of content published.

social feed

@BitchBuzz: The [Digital] Revolution Will Be Gendered - from @katelaity on BitchBuzz Tech http://t.co/5bkxZo0x
09 Feb @ 10:46 GMT

search



buzz we love

Bitchin' Lifestyle
Vikki Chowney
Bangs and a Bun
Vintage Patisserie
Pop Justice
The Other Woman
Pamflet
Gala Darling
Red Velvet
Shape What's to Come
Bird's Eye View
Gala Darling
Bake & Destroy
Kris Atomic
Mark Johns
Garfunkel & Oates
India Knight
Kate Nash
Erin Gibson
Sarah Lacy
Vegansaurus
The Boss of You
Meantime Brewery
Make and Do with Perri