4 ms·

It's not just "some guy." It's Tom Anderson of mySpace fame, who Techcrunch is working hard to position as some kind of senior statesmen of social media. His ar

It's not just "some guy." It's Tom Anderson of mySpace fame, who Techcrunch is working hard to position as some kind of senior statesmen of social media. His articles are getting picked up by Techmeme and are pulling a lot of eyeballs lately. It's irresponsible and immature to attach that image to an article titled "Google is Sexy." If he were 19 years old and posting to Reddit, then yeah, whatever. Nobody would care. But I think anyone who's in any kind of leadership position should know a little better.

dpark 15y ago
It's still some guy. It doesn't matter that he founded MySpace. He didn't post it there, where it could be seen as a statement from the company. He didn't post it on Techcrunch. He posted it on what is basically a personal blog. If it's irresponsible and immature to attach the image, then shouldn't it simply be irresponsible and immature to call Google "sexy" at all? "Sexy" means inspiring the desire for sex.
- marquis 15y ago
  Why are you being defending a position that has clearly upset a number of people, instead of engaging in a debate? This is why so many minorities don't speak up: because we aren't listened to. Time and time again, the majority will defend the status-quo, it's perceived rightful position to impose its will. This entire thread could have simply been: - This makes me feel as if woman are objectified in computing as sexual entities before any other consideration. - I'm sorry you feel that way, what is it about the image in this context that bothers you? - My reply - You reply
  - dpark 15y ago
    > Why are you being defending a position that has clearly upset a number of people, instead of engaging in a debate? I am engaging in a debate. That's what it is when we hold opposing viewpoints and discuss them. It would not be a debate if I simply failed to defend my views. It would just be me surrendering to your opinion. I might just as well ask why you're defending a position that so many clearly disagree with. > This is why so many minorities don't speak up: because we aren't listened to. Time and time again, the majority will defend the status-quo, it's perceived rightful position to impose its will. Very clearly people are listening to you. I am listening. Listening does not require agreement. If you want to debate, then don't accuse others of not listening just because they don't simply bow to your views. > This entire thread could have simply been:- This makes me feel as if woman are objectified in computing as sexual entities before any other consideration.... That's hardly how you started the thread. You began with sarcasm and went straight to accusations of misogyny and then acted as if all the women posting were similarly offended. I have asked why you were offended. In response you compared the image to human trafficking and a culture of forced prostitution. Edit: Dropped the reference to child prostitution because that's apparently not the comparison you were trying to make.
- cowboyhero 15y ago
  He's a burgeoning pundit. Media, other leaders, and new people in the industry will take their cues from him. You ever hear the joke, "Hey, dpark, what do you call a black man who has a PhD from Harvard?" It's an awful punchline, with a little bit of a truism: The perception that, no matter how smart you are and how hard you work, there's a percentage out there that will view you as less than nothing. You don't count, your contributions don't count. Now, in that context, what kind of message do you think attaching that photo to a pundit's post about new media technology says to the 18 year old girl who's thinking about majoring in CS? But hey, fuck it, right? It's a harmless joke and we're taking this too seriously. She'd probably be happier going in marketing anyway.
  - dpark 15y ago
    Is he trying to position himself as a pundit? Is he telling people to follow his G+ account? Or is he simply posting stuff he finds interesting? If he's actively trying to position himself as a voice for the industry, that's different. If he's just posting stuff and people happen to read it, then I think he's done thing inappropriate. I also still find it bizarre that some people seem to believe that "sexy" implies "sexism" when it relates to women. Why is it that every time an attractive woman is shown, a small but loud group calls it sexism? Why are women not allowed to be sexy without it somehow oppressing them? No one screams "sexism" when men are portrayed as sexy. It's not sexism if a woman takes a photo with an attractive man. Why can't women be sexy?
    - cowboyhero 15y ago
      Context is key. It's about positioning people in an ornamental, demeaning way and calling it "good fun" and "humor." That is what makes it sexist, because is reduced to, literally, a pair of tits and under the greater context of "Google is Sexy." Nobody is arguing that just posting a pic of an attractive woman is sexist. I noticed you didn't answer my question, though: What message do you think this sends to potential CS coeds?
      - dpark 15y ago

dpark 15y ago

It's still some guy. It doesn't matter that he founded MySpace. He didn't post it there, where it could be seen as a statement from the company. He didn't post it on Techcrunch. He posted it on what is basically a personal blog. If it's irresponsible and immature to attach the image, then shouldn't it simply be irresponsible and immature to call Google "sexy" at all? "Sexy" means inspiring the desire for sex.

marquis 15y ago
Why are you being defending a position that has clearly upset a number of people, instead of engaging in a debate? This is why so many minorities don't speak up: because we aren't listened to. Time and time again, the majority will defend the status-quo, it's perceived rightful position to impose its will. This entire thread could have simply been: - This makes me feel as if woman are objectified in computing as sexual entities before any other consideration. - I'm sorry you feel that way, what is it about the image in this context that bothers you? - My reply - You reply
- dpark 15y ago
  > Why are you being defending a position that has clearly upset a number of people, instead of engaging in a debate? I am engaging in a debate. That's what it is when we hold opposing viewpoints and discuss them. It would not be a debate if I simply failed to defend my views. It would just be me surrendering to your opinion. I might just as well ask why you're defending a position that so many clearly disagree with. > This is why so many minorities don't speak up: because we aren't listened to. Time and time again, the majority will defend the status-quo, it's perceived rightful position to impose its will. Very clearly people are listening to you. I am listening. Listening does not require agreement. If you want to debate, then don't accuse others of not listening just because they don't simply bow to your views. > This entire thread could have simply been:- This makes me feel as if woman are objectified in computing as sexual entities before any other consideration.... That's hardly how you started the thread. You began with sarcasm and went straight to accusations of misogyny and then acted as if all the women posting were similarly offended. I have asked why you were offended. In response you compared the image to human trafficking and a culture of forced prostitution. Edit: Dropped the reference to child prostitution because that's apparently not the comparison you were trying to make.
cowboyhero 15y ago
He's a burgeoning pundit. Media, other leaders, and new people in the industry will take their cues from him. You ever hear the joke, "Hey, dpark, what do you call a black man who has a PhD from Harvard?" It's an awful punchline, with a little bit of a truism: The perception that, no matter how smart you are and how hard you work, there's a percentage out there that will view you as less than nothing. You don't count, your contributions don't count. Now, in that context, what kind of message do you think attaching that photo to a pundit's post about new media technology says to the 18 year old girl who's thinking about majoring in CS? But hey, fuck it, right? It's a harmless joke and we're taking this too seriously. She'd probably be happier going in marketing anyway.
- dpark 15y ago
  Is he trying to position himself as a pundit? Is he telling people to follow his G+ account? Or is he simply posting stuff he finds interesting? If he's actively trying to position himself as a voice for the industry, that's different. If he's just posting stuff and people happen to read it, then I think he's done thing inappropriate. I also still find it bizarre that some people seem to believe that "sexy" implies "sexism" when it relates to women. Why is it that every time an attractive woman is shown, a small but loud group calls it sexism? Why are women not allowed to be sexy without it somehow oppressing them? No one screams "sexism" when men are portrayed as sexy. It's not sexism if a woman takes a photo with an attractive man. Why can't women be sexy?
  - cowboyhero 15y ago
    Context is key. It's about positioning people in an ornamental, demeaning way and calling it "good fun" and "humor." That is what makes it sexist, because is reduced to, literally, a pair of tits and under the greater context of "Google is Sexy." Nobody is arguing that just posting a pic of an attractive woman is sexist. I noticed you didn't answer my question, though: What message do you think this sends to potential CS coeds?
    - dpark 15y ago