5 ms·

>I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing Nope. They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it and

by mhurron 15y ago

>I think we can all agree that using scantily-clad women as advertising objects is a bad thing Nope. They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it and I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population to move product. In fact, I believe that's what advertising is. I see no difference between a woman in a bikini or a celebrity in an ad.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
untog 15y ago
I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population Right, that's the crux of it (and I should have pointed out that I meant a "bad thing in tech", rather than a bad thing overall). The problem is that this "segment of the population" excludes women. Now, it's true that tech is very heavily male-dominated, but if we want to change that then we have to make anticipatory changes, rather than reactionary ones. We should have advertising that includes a larger segment of the population, rather than the one we have now.
japhyr 15y ago
There is a higher moral ground than just what is legal, and what people are willing to do for money.
- megamark16 15y ago
  Agreed, and a lot of it has to do with the context. If your're selling swimsuits, then you hire models, have a photo shoot, and sell swimsuits. But in the technology industry, where a lot of people are working very hard to encourage more women to get involved, there's no place for this type of objectification of women. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
  - jemfinch 15y ago
    That's why we're all seeking to ban pornography, right?
    - megamark16 15y ago
      No. If you're selling pornography, you hire porn stars, make porn, and sell it. That's the adult entertainment industry. If you're selling "an achievement-based social portfolio builder...exclusively for developers, to build tangible credibility in the workplace..." maybe you don't hire a model to dance around without pants on. Maybe you do, maybe you don't care, but if your customers care then maybe you should too.
- mhurron 15y ago
  Your morality is not everyone's morality.
  - netshade 15y ago
    Are you saying this disqualifies his point because some people don't include equal treatment of women in their moral outlook? Or are you just stating a fact? If the former, then you are wrong. If the latter, I'm not sure what you're trying to add to the conversation.
- rorrr 15y ago
  This is not Iran. Women are allowed to dance around in underwear. And get paid for it. It was that model's choice. She was OK with it. If she's OK with, I'm OK with it.
- enord 15y ago
  There is nothing higher* about the moral ground. It usualy degenerates civil conversation to people taking mountains offense and guilt-by-association attacks. *'Higher' in this case interpreted as "more positive" or "more virtious".
chc 15y ago
Many people can't see any difference between a snippet of code from the Linux kernel allocator and a MySQL SELECT statement. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference, just that they aren't educated on the matter. Same deal here. Studies have shown substantial and harmful differences in how people respond to the two scenarios above.
bct 15y ago
"They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it" Ah, Hacker News, where all ethical questions boil down to "were they paid?" and "is it illegal?".
- ceol 15y ago
  Also, "define <word for which the definition is obvious>". If you can't write a mathematical proof of it, it doesn't exist, and any discussion of it will inevitably lead to a bunch of people arguing semantics. This site is one of my favorites, but when an article about sexism in the industry hits the front page, I do what I can to avoid the comments. The majority of the time, it will be things like * "I still have a problem with this notion that simply because women may be fun to look at, that they are objects."[0] * "I don't think you'll ever be able to take the objectification of women out of society, and I don't know if it's necessary to try - we've seen women begin objectifying men in some capacity in the last seventy-five years or so, and I don't know if that's necessarily an unhealthy thing. Better to let that objectification be out in the open than keep it locked up in your head."[1] * "I really hope that everyone is as equally offended and quick to point out sexism for every advertisement, television show, and movie featuring a very fit, shirtless man doing a stereotypical "masculine" activity"[2] [0]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740048 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740048 [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740090 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740090 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740003 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740003
dbuns 15y ago
+1 As long as consumers choose to us services that monetize primarily on ads, (Facebook, Google, et. Al), I say game on. I may not personally agree on a style basis, but focusing on the morality of a business model seems like a way better time sync than trying to get everyone to capitulate to your opinions.
- dlikhten 15y ago
  My point with all this is that you can advertise however you want. Naked women, women in bikinis, who cares. However if you do some blatant sexism and want to attract intelligent women into your ranks, or want to attract intelligent men who give a shit, you fail. Furthermore you can expect a PR backlash. And of course will try to justify yourself. The reason for this is obvious: they have NO INTENTION to take the video down, and will do anything they can to stop criticism. Classical Trolling. The appropriate response would have been: "We are sorry for this, and did not realize the sexism portrayed, we will begin work asap to move away from such advertising." That would have been the end of the conversation. And would have boosted their cred if anything.
  - eurleif 15y ago
    >will do anything they can to stop criticism. Classical Trolling. Trolls don't try to stop criticism. Trolls like upsetting people.

by mhurron 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

untog 15y ago

I fail to see anything wrong with targeting perceived likes of a segment of the population Right, that's the crux of it (and I should have pointed out that I meant a "bad thing in tech", rather than a bad thing overall). The problem is that this "segment of the population" excludes women. Now, it's true that tech is very heavily male-dominated, but if we want to change that then we have to make anticipatory changes, rather than reactionary ones. We should have advertising that includes a larger segment of the population, rather than the one we have now.

japhyr 15y ago

There is a higher moral ground than just what is legal, and what people are willing to do for money.

megamark16 15y ago
Agreed, and a lot of it has to do with the context. If your're selling swimsuits, then you hire models, have a photo shoot, and sell swimsuits. But in the technology industry, where a lot of people are working very hard to encourage more women to get involved, there's no place for this type of objectification of women. We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.
- jemfinch 15y ago
  That's why we're all seeking to ban pornography, right?
  - megamark16 15y ago
    No. If you're selling pornography, you hire porn stars, make porn, and sell it. That's the adult entertainment industry. If you're selling "an achievement-based social portfolio builder...exclusively for developers, to build tangible credibility in the workplace..." maybe you don't hire a model to dance around without pants on. Maybe you do, maybe you don't care, but if your customers care then maybe you should too.
mhurron 15y ago
Your morality is not everyone's morality.
- netshade 15y ago
  Are you saying this disqualifies his point because some people don't include equal treatment of women in their moral outlook? Or are you just stating a fact? If the former, then you are wrong. If the latter, I'm not sure what you're trying to add to the conversation.
rorrr 15y ago
This is not Iran. Women are allowed to dance around in underwear. And get paid for it. It was that model's choice. She was OK with it. If she's OK with, I'm OK with it.
enord 15y ago
There is nothing higher* about the moral ground. It usualy degenerates civil conversation to people taking mountains offense and guilt-by-association attacks. *'Higher' in this case interpreted as "more positive" or "more virtious".

chc 15y ago

Many people can't see any difference between a snippet of code from the Linux kernel allocator and a MySQL SELECT statement. That doesn't mean there isn't a difference, just that they aren't educated on the matter. Same deal here. Studies have shown substantial and harmful differences in how people respond to the two scenarios above.

bct 15y ago

"They're paid for it, there is nothing illegal about it" Ah, Hacker News, where all ethical questions boil down to "were they paid?" and "is it illegal?".

ceol 15y ago
Also, "define <word for which the definition is obvious>". If you can't write a mathematical proof of it, it doesn't exist, and any discussion of it will inevitably lead to a bunch of people arguing semantics. This site is one of my favorites, but when an article about sexism in the industry hits the front page, I do what I can to avoid the comments. The majority of the time, it will be things like * "I still have a problem with this notion that simply because women may be fun to look at, that they are objects."[0] * "I don't think you'll ever be able to take the objectification of women out of society, and I don't know if it's necessary to try - we've seen women begin objectifying men in some capacity in the last seventy-five years or so, and I don't know if that's necessarily an unhealthy thing. Better to let that objectification be out in the open than keep it locked up in your head."[1] * "I really hope that everyone is as equally offended and quick to point out sexism for every advertisement, television show, and movie featuring a very fit, shirtless man doing a stereotypical "masculine" activity"[2] [0]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740048 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740048 [1]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740090 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740090 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740003 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3740003

dbuns 15y ago

+1 As long as consumers choose to us services that monetize primarily on ads, (Facebook, Google, et. Al), I say game on. I may not personally agree on a style basis, but focusing on the morality of a business model seems like a way better time sync than trying to get everyone to capitulate to your opinions.

dlikhten 15y ago
My point with all this is that you can advertise however you want. Naked women, women in bikinis, who cares. However if you do some blatant sexism and want to attract intelligent women into your ranks, or want to attract intelligent men who give a shit, you fail. Furthermore you can expect a PR backlash. And of course will try to justify yourself. The reason for this is obvious: they have NO INTENTION to take the video down, and will do anything they can to stop criticism. Classical Trolling. The appropriate response would have been: "We are sorry for this, and did not realize the sexism portrayed, we will begin work asap to move away from such advertising." That would have been the end of the conversation. And would have boosted their cred if anything.
- eurleif 15y ago
  >will do anything they can to stop criticism. Classical Trolling. Trolls don't try to stop criticism. Trolls like upsetting people.