- Status
I feel like either apologizing on behalf of all men posting here, or just avoiding the comments of this site entirely.
Seriously guys, you sound 13 and ridiculous.
Seriously guys, you sound 13 and ridiculous.
[citation][nom]Swedish male 30y Biotech engineer[/nom]"Choosing" a profession that puts you in an objectified position, such as sex work, stripping, porn or booth-babe is hardly ever a consequence of "free will". Many of the (in this case) girls would probably proudly present their occupation as a result of their own preference. However, an established demand-and-supply chain, a culture of objectifying women, huge differences in what self-images are created when girls and boys are raised, a job-market skewed towards promoting men, all these aspects of society leaves the "free will" to be vastly filtered towards the underlying cultural themes. I'm amazed that the commenters so far lack this basic understanding of underlying rules in society today.. Not that these are unchangeable things of course, we're moving towards more equality of genders, but those of you who think that becoming a "booth babe" is just a matter of free choice and results in no harm should really begin questioning your views..[/citation]
Well said.
+1
Well said.
+1
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
Why?
We aren't...
OK so Germaine Greer got her panties in a twist, if they had such a beef about it they should complain about E3, Computex and every other tech expo in the world.
who cares. as long as there will be guys, there will be hot babes. as long as there will be hot babes, there's gonna be the jealous girls who don't have enough self confidence to see their opinion doesn't matter.
I know this is over a day old and probably not many will read it, but I feel it's important for posterity so people don't have an incredibly low opinion of Tom's readers if they go through the archive. The only rebuttals to the majority opinion of 'ugly women complaining LOL' have been on no higher intelletual level, with gems like "anorexic girl friend dude." Even if it is read and then LOL-ed at or thumbed down, I'd like to have some kind of coherant argument about this on the record. So,
The first bunch of comments, and their high 'up' ratings, provide a pretty sobering confirmation of what Intel's mistake intially demonstrated: that the people in the IT industry are 20-40 years behind the rest of the industrialized world in realizing that women are people too. Gender bias in recruiting and unequal pay for equal work continues unabated, and don't act like the dearth of women in IT is because "girls are bad at computers." There is no genetic evidence for this whatsoever--rather, science speaks exactly to the contrary. The differences between men and women where it would effect performance in this field are dwarfed so much by the differences between individuals as to become totally negligable. This is purely a societal issue, and one that is only reinforced by actions like intel's and opinions like those found here in the comments (yes, I have a grasp of "cultural anthropology," though I sincerely doubt you do, commenter who brought it up and immediately spewed psuedo/armchair evo psych and circa mid-1950s gender inequality assurances).
First off I'd like to dismiss all the ridiculous ad-hominim dismissals of this issue that "the only women complaining are fat and ugly LOL." If I were to return in kind, I'd say this industry is not known for the attractiveness of the men in it, either. In fact, it is often seen as a safe haven for ugly men who realize on some level that their lack of personal hygine and love of ponytails and "clever," unwashed t-shirts would be a severe hindrance anywhere else. I would additionally declare "These guys are only complaining about the complaint becuase they are worried that the booth babes will be taken away, thus removing the only chance they will ever have to come in real life contact with remotely attractive women LOL." Both of these are unrelated to the actual argument and are impossible accusations for me to prove, though, so I won't.
If I were to be an adult about it, I'd say that pointing out that the people complaining about injustice are the victims of that injustice is a pretty absurd, and totally invalid, way to combat their argument. If you went back in time to 1850 and participated in the Abolition debate, would you say 'the strong slaves who do their work and don't get whipped aren't complaining, these complainers are probably weak and lazy LOL'? Moreover, it's not even true. Take, for example, the woman now complaining because Citibank recently fired her from her banking job, that she was doing well, because she was too attractive and 'harming the office.' Attractive women's opportunities are damaged just as much by the perception of them as nothing more than babymakers/breasts on legs.
The issue at hand is not that women can find work as booth babes, or that "Feminists want a funless society." No-one is equating the practice to prostitution, as goes the strawmen that several of you have gleefully knocked down. Feminists simply want a society in which women have the same rights and privileges that men do. Yes, they are fine with a society where booth babes exist; they just think that it's in poor tatse of intel to display them at a professional convention to discuss the state of the industry (which, in the comedy that most people just totally missed, included a panel on women's place in IT). The babes weren't advertising or showing off a new product, they were sending the message "The place of women in this industry is to wear skimpy clothes and stand around these products which men have created." That is harmful. Brightening up a tourist area with scantily clad women is one thing, as was the meter maids' original directive. The tourist industry's job is to provide scantily clad, beautiful people of both genders, and it's a perfectly respectable job to choose to do. Presenting them at a professional industry convention is quite another. The purpose of IT is to produce products and services, and the booth babes' presence implied that the role for women in this process is no more than to look pretty next to it.
The arguments that "the booth babes enjoy it!" or "I know a geneticist that likes to dress up scantily!" (which, by the way, proves nothing as she does it as a hobby, representing herself, and not as a job, representing an industry. The latter is the problem at hand.) suffer from a problem of parts and the whole. Unless ALL women enjoy it (an argument as stupid as it is impossible to prove) this doesn't justify the message intel sent. What if a beautiful woman hates it when men stare at her, but has a passion for chip design? She would be handed a bikini and told that she gets money, the men get breasts, and "everyone wins." It doesn't seem to me like she does, there. Sure, no-one is 'holding a gun to their heads,' but their ability to compete in a workplace and in a job where they can wear real clothing is nonetheless hindered by the destructive gender preconceptions that the booth babes reinforce. I think it was especially telling when one commenter declared sagely that they "could be working as waitresses instead." That's right, folks. Not doctors, lawyers, or (heaven forbid) IT professionals or semiconductor engineers, but waitresses, because they're just women amirite? No, no, I'm fairly wrong right there.
In America, there are more women than men studying at college right now, and they are statistically more likely to graduate. Anywhere in the non-construction, non-manufacturing professional world of today, women's genetic makeup has little to no effect whatsoever on their ability to carry out a job's duties when compared to a similarly educated man. The only difference is the prejudices of the people in charge, and the trickle-down effect this has on young women's education choices. IT is losing the opportunities presented by over half of all bright, capable people entering college because why spend years in school to enter a horrible, mysoginistic sausagefest? This talent is going into industries that actually exist in the 21st century in terms of women's rights (ironic, isn't it, that the industry that devotes itself most to the cutting edge is so behind in this), and IT hiring managers are left having to choose a less competent man who will spend his time at work degrading women on Tom's comment pages because the more competant woman studied for, and is succeeding in, a different industry.
Intel made a mistake and they were right to apologize. Please understand that the human being you are arguing against is not a horrible, lesbian (as one commenter accused), ugly, jealous "femenazi" rampaging about burning bras and hankering after your genitals with a meat cleaver. If that is what you believe, it is really easy to dismiss the whole thing as a non-issue, return to your extensive pron collection and lust after the moment you'll next meet a booth babe in person. However, over here in the real world, she is a reasonable professional, representing millions of reasonable professionals who just want to be treated as such. They just don't want their entire gender portrayed at the level of advertising fluff at industry conventions, and to they don't want to have their arguments and their interests dismissed out of hand becuause of their physical appearance. They want to be hired equally and paid equally if they are equally competent and do equal work. Basically, they want to be people too. Is that so much to ask?
The first bunch of comments, and their high 'up' ratings, provide a pretty sobering confirmation of what Intel's mistake intially demonstrated: that the people in the IT industry are 20-40 years behind the rest of the industrialized world in realizing that women are people too. Gender bias in recruiting and unequal pay for equal work continues unabated, and don't act like the dearth of women in IT is because "girls are bad at computers." There is no genetic evidence for this whatsoever--rather, science speaks exactly to the contrary. The differences between men and women where it would effect performance in this field are dwarfed so much by the differences between individuals as to become totally negligable. This is purely a societal issue, and one that is only reinforced by actions like intel's and opinions like those found here in the comments (yes, I have a grasp of "cultural anthropology," though I sincerely doubt you do, commenter who brought it up and immediately spewed psuedo/armchair evo psych and circa mid-1950s gender inequality assurances).
First off I'd like to dismiss all the ridiculous ad-hominim dismissals of this issue that "the only women complaining are fat and ugly LOL." If I were to return in kind, I'd say this industry is not known for the attractiveness of the men in it, either. In fact, it is often seen as a safe haven for ugly men who realize on some level that their lack of personal hygine and love of ponytails and "clever," unwashed t-shirts would be a severe hindrance anywhere else. I would additionally declare "These guys are only complaining about the complaint becuase they are worried that the booth babes will be taken away, thus removing the only chance they will ever have to come in real life contact with remotely attractive women LOL." Both of these are unrelated to the actual argument and are impossible accusations for me to prove, though, so I won't.
If I were to be an adult about it, I'd say that pointing out that the people complaining about injustice are the victims of that injustice is a pretty absurd, and totally invalid, way to combat their argument. If you went back in time to 1850 and participated in the Abolition debate, would you say 'the strong slaves who do their work and don't get whipped aren't complaining, these complainers are probably weak and lazy LOL'? Moreover, it's not even true. Take, for example, the woman now complaining because Citibank recently fired her from her banking job, that she was doing well, because she was too attractive and 'harming the office.' Attractive women's opportunities are damaged just as much by the perception of them as nothing more than babymakers/breasts on legs.
The issue at hand is not that women can find work as booth babes, or that "Feminists want a funless society." No-one is equating the practice to prostitution, as goes the strawmen that several of you have gleefully knocked down. Feminists simply want a society in which women have the same rights and privileges that men do. Yes, they are fine with a society where booth babes exist; they just think that it's in poor tatse of intel to display them at a professional convention to discuss the state of the industry (which, in the comedy that most people just totally missed, included a panel on women's place in IT). The babes weren't advertising or showing off a new product, they were sending the message "The place of women in this industry is to wear skimpy clothes and stand around these products which men have created." That is harmful. Brightening up a tourist area with scantily clad women is one thing, as was the meter maids' original directive. The tourist industry's job is to provide scantily clad, beautiful people of both genders, and it's a perfectly respectable job to choose to do. Presenting them at a professional industry convention is quite another. The purpose of IT is to produce products and services, and the booth babes' presence implied that the role for women in this process is no more than to look pretty next to it.
The arguments that "the booth babes enjoy it!" or "I know a geneticist that likes to dress up scantily!" (which, by the way, proves nothing as she does it as a hobby, representing herself, and not as a job, representing an industry. The latter is the problem at hand.) suffer from a problem of parts and the whole. Unless ALL women enjoy it (an argument as stupid as it is impossible to prove) this doesn't justify the message intel sent. What if a beautiful woman hates it when men stare at her, but has a passion for chip design? She would be handed a bikini and told that she gets money, the men get breasts, and "everyone wins." It doesn't seem to me like she does, there. Sure, no-one is 'holding a gun to their heads,' but their ability to compete in a workplace and in a job where they can wear real clothing is nonetheless hindered by the destructive gender preconceptions that the booth babes reinforce. I think it was especially telling when one commenter declared sagely that they "could be working as waitresses instead." That's right, folks. Not doctors, lawyers, or (heaven forbid) IT professionals or semiconductor engineers, but waitresses, because they're just women amirite? No, no, I'm fairly wrong right there.
In America, there are more women than men studying at college right now, and they are statistically more likely to graduate. Anywhere in the non-construction, non-manufacturing professional world of today, women's genetic makeup has little to no effect whatsoever on their ability to carry out a job's duties when compared to a similarly educated man. The only difference is the prejudices of the people in charge, and the trickle-down effect this has on young women's education choices. IT is losing the opportunities presented by over half of all bright, capable people entering college because why spend years in school to enter a horrible, mysoginistic sausagefest? This talent is going into industries that actually exist in the 21st century in terms of women's rights (ironic, isn't it, that the industry that devotes itself most to the cutting edge is so behind in this), and IT hiring managers are left having to choose a less competent man who will spend his time at work degrading women on Tom's comment pages because the more competant woman studied for, and is succeeding in, a different industry.
Intel made a mistake and they were right to apologize. Please understand that the human being you are arguing against is not a horrible, lesbian (as one commenter accused), ugly, jealous "femenazi" rampaging about burning bras and hankering after your genitals with a meat cleaver. If that is what you believe, it is really easy to dismiss the whole thing as a non-issue, return to your extensive pron collection and lust after the moment you'll next meet a booth babe in person. However, over here in the real world, she is a reasonable professional, representing millions of reasonable professionals who just want to be treated as such. They just don't want their entire gender portrayed at the level of advertising fluff at industry conventions, and to they don't want to have their arguments and their interests dismissed out of hand becuause of their physical appearance. They want to be hired equally and paid equally if they are equally competent and do equal work. Basically, they want to be people too. Is that so much to ask?
Volt-aire, that was beautiful. Thank you. You totally restored my faith in the nerd community, you totally restored my faith in the tomshardware community, and you made my day much brighter! It was an absolute joy and pleasure to hear from a man who recognizes womens' complaints as real, and doesn't try to prove to us that are complaints are stupid and we are just being emotional. You are a true male ally to feminism!
A few things to ALL the readers, if I may:
1) Men are NOT qualified to speak about the sexism that faces women. Women face sexism and objectification every single day of their entire lives. Most men have never experienced this first hand. So men, sit down, shut up, stop taking over the discussion on WOMEN'S ISSUES. Just SHUT UP. You cannot say "microsoft is not being sexist" because you DO NOT KNOW what you are talking about. If the women who attended "women in IT" are offended by the sexism that they face, then Microsoft is sexist. Period. End of story.
Men try and make the stupid argument that women are so emotional and moronic, that we cannot possibly recognize sexism (even though we encounter it thousands of times more often than you men). We don't need to go the "Jury of Men" and try to PROVE, using MAN-LOGIC, that there actually IS sexism, and sexism is real. Which brings me to my next point,
2) Nobody cares what the men think. Stop thinking that people do. It doesn't matter that men like bikinis, and men like computers. This isn't about men. Shut up about men. This is about women, and the sexism they face. Again, men, you need to sit down and shut up, and STOP making this about you.
3) Nobody cares what men think because men are the REASON that sexism exists. This is like living in the 1850's and asking a white slave-owner "Well, some of the blacks think slavery is offensive...is it offensive, or are they just being over emotional??" If you ask the oppressor, they are ALWAYS going to say that they are not oppressive. Just like how white people always say they aren't racist, and heterosexual people always say they're not homophobic, and currently abled people always say they're not ableist, rich people always say they're not classist, etc. That's stupid and counterproductive. You should ALWAYS ask the people in the position of abuse.
If you're the type of reader of tom's hardware who respects women, and will assumes that women KNOW what they're talking about when they complain and will listen to women's righteous fury patiently and willing to learn from her, then please look at feministing.com You are not alone. There is a large online community of smart, brilliant women.
A few things to ALL the readers, if I may:
1) Men are NOT qualified to speak about the sexism that faces women. Women face sexism and objectification every single day of their entire lives. Most men have never experienced this first hand. So men, sit down, shut up, stop taking over the discussion on WOMEN'S ISSUES. Just SHUT UP. You cannot say "microsoft is not being sexist" because you DO NOT KNOW what you are talking about. If the women who attended "women in IT" are offended by the sexism that they face, then Microsoft is sexist. Period. End of story.
Men try and make the stupid argument that women are so emotional and moronic, that we cannot possibly recognize sexism (even though we encounter it thousands of times more often than you men). We don't need to go the "Jury of Men" and try to PROVE, using MAN-LOGIC, that there actually IS sexism, and sexism is real. Which brings me to my next point,
2) Nobody cares what the men think. Stop thinking that people do. It doesn't matter that men like bikinis, and men like computers. This isn't about men. Shut up about men. This is about women, and the sexism they face. Again, men, you need to sit down and shut up, and STOP making this about you.
3) Nobody cares what men think because men are the REASON that sexism exists. This is like living in the 1850's and asking a white slave-owner "Well, some of the blacks think slavery is offensive...is it offensive, or are they just being over emotional??" If you ask the oppressor, they are ALWAYS going to say that they are not oppressive. Just like how white people always say they aren't racist, and heterosexual people always say they're not homophobic, and currently abled people always say they're not ableist, rich people always say they're not classist, etc. That's stupid and counterproductive. You should ALWAYS ask the people in the position of abuse.
If you're the type of reader of tom's hardware who respects women, and will assumes that women KNOW what they're talking about when they complain and will listen to women's righteous fury patiently and willing to learn from her, then please look at feministing.com You are not alone. There is a large online community of smart, brilliant women.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News AMD says Intel's 'horrible product' is causing Ryzen 9 9800X3D shortages- Started by Admin
- Replies: 83
-
-
Question Just bought an USB Storage device and the device shows no media- Started by fasadasa
- Replies: 4
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Latest posts
-
-
-
Question New PC wont post with GPU plugged in - Please help this noob- Latest: dev_cyberpunk
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram