Archive for June, 2007

Strong women are a problem, apparently

June 8th, 2007 by Sam

My excellent friend Friar Yid has a terrific skewering of Pat Boone’s latest sexist and moronic column on WorldNetDaily. (I won’t link directly to either of those since I don’t want to be seen raising idiots’ Google rankings—if you care, you can find links and lengthy excerpts on the Friar’s blog.) In a nutshell, the erstwhile rock singer Boone claims that strong women only exist by contrast with men who are weaker than usual:

Consider the women, in our day, who have become the heads of state in India, Pakistan, Israel and Great Britain. Question: Is it likely that these very accomplished and brilliant women would have attained these positions if there had been men in evidence who seemed equally or perhaps even better qualified? … Don’t get all defensive, ladies; hear me out. I’m praising and complimenting you here. Thank God for you!

It wouldn’t be worth commenting on this (except with great humor and brilliance, as is Friar Yid’s wont) except for the fact that lots of people take crap like this seriously and those of us with an ounce of sense are left to flail our arms wildly and wonder: What the hell?

Commence wild arm-flailing on the count of three. Ready? One…

Ludditism: An Equal-Oportunity Pastime

June 7th, 2007 by Kate

This article in the NYTimes is an infuriating example of exactly what to do to discourage women from caring about technology.

Ms. Duarte represents a growing number of women who are embracing consumer electronics just as the technologies are reaching out to embrace them. Behind this quiet revolution are engineers and designers who are bringing a more feminine sensibility to products historically shaped by masculine tastes, habits and requirements.

Only a few years ago, feminizing a consumer electronic product meant little more than creating a pink or pastel version of the same black or silvery item coveted by men. And, some retailers note, that kind of marketing still goes on. But feminizing technology is more about a product’s fundamentals, often expressed in its ease of use.

Where does this persistent belief that technology needs to be “feminized” in order to be successfully marketed to women come from? I’m not entirely familiar with the marketing data that makes manufacturers so obsessed with gender, but surely there’s a little merit to the idea that if you update a product’s features and design so that it’s easier and more efficient to use, the resulting increase in sales has less to do with women preferring “simpler” technology than better product design. Ghettoizing women by making special technology products “for her” will never be the right way to “encourage” women to use computers, if we need encouragement at all.

Luddites abound in both genders. I work in tech support at my college, and see equal numbers of male and female techno-terrified professors. Among students, there are rather fewer who are unfamiliar with the technology in use around them, but an equal number of men and women ask for help formatting their papers and printing out homework assignments. Granted, this is evidence from personal experience, never a statistical source to be trusted absolutely— but what is it that so convinces people that women are afraid of technology?

I do remember hearing from friends— and occasionally teachers— during elementary and high school that it was “weird” for me to be interested in computers, or to play online games.[1] When I was in fifth grade, we first got a computer powerful enough to connect to the internet (a Mac G3). I excitedly told my teacher all about how neat the new computer was one day while walking with our class to the school buses, only to hear her reply, “I’m really not all that interested in your new computer— I’d rather hear about your craft projects.”

I hope we don’t still so emphatically tell girls that computers aren’t interesting or appropriate for them. Indeed, evidence points to girls being just as interested in technology and the internet as boys— take another article from yesterday’s NYTimes, for example. Some online playgrounds for kids are as much as 96% female now, belying the tired old tripe that girls “just aren’t as interested” in computers.

This may seem trivial to producers of technology products, software, and web apps whose work isn’t directly linked to the “interactive online doll” movement. Yet these programs are creating interest among girls in computers and the web, and ensuring that children who grow up in the middle class in this generation will be technologically literate.[2] When women are making half of all technology purchases in twenty years, it won’t be because manufacturers have finally hit on the right shade of pink with the perfect glitter-coated single-button interface for every gadget and software app, it’ll be because technology is central to work, play, and every aspect of life for the new generation.

Manufacturers should be making the user interface changes described in the NYTimes’ piece— smart televisions that turn on when a DVD is inserted into an attached player, or gadgets whose size doesn’t overwhelm their usefulness, or consumer electronics that interface easily with everyone’s laptop are wonderful additions to the plethora of technological devices available today. They’re great additions because they’re designed well and appeal to a variety of consumers, though, not because women are any more likely to be the Luddites adopting them than men. Instead of “feminizing” technology by making it “simpler” for women, we should be simplifying technology with the goal of making it easier for everyone to use, and ensuring that girls and boys alike grow up interested in tech.

Edited To Add: Today (6/12/07) I came across an excellent blog post at Shrub.com tangentially related to this article. Go read it, and the rest of the Shrub blog.


[1] I was an avid player of MUDs in middle and high school, particularly the RPI variety. Someday I’ll get around to writing a post about how gender seems to play out in many MUD environments. Back to where you were.

[2] The growing disparity in technological literacy between the “middle” class and those in poverty is a troubling one, and further disadvantages those already held back from full economic success. However, the problems of technology and poverty— and the accompanying issue of technological literacy and race— is a can of worms for a different post. Back to where you were.

Comment Spam Blitz!

June 1st, 2007 by Madeline

If you posted a comment to this site in, oh, the past two months, it was probably marked as spam and deleted.

This is because Your Badass Blog Owners decided that finals were more important than, yknow, comment moderation, and came back to find that 2,031 comments had been posted, at least 99.9% of which were about Xanax.

As the thought of reading 2,031 spam comments to find the one non-spam one made us want to pop a Xanax, we made the decision to just throw ‘em out and start anew.

Free Yourself From Your Corporate Masters

June 1st, 2007 by Madeline

So, I’ve been thinking about making a series of posts on the subject of abandoning the beauty industry. Jumping, like a rat from a sinking ship. Sending them the one-fingered salute as one rides off into the distance.

It took me a long time to come to the point where I even recognized that I needed to purge the beauty industry from my life. I’m still not done with the process (makeup sits, waiting for use, in my cabinet; sometimes I look at myself in the mirror and think today is a day when I need lipstick real, real bad; more than half my shoes are heels) but I’ve taken some steps. Do I need to explain why I’ve taken them? Underweight models, eating pounds and pounds of toxic chemicals in makeup over your lifetime, the “benefits” of never letting your skin breathe. The belief that without expensive toiletries you aren’t fit to be seen in the world. Makeup, the grand apology for your face — your face.

When are men asked to apologize for their own face?

And then I went into my cupboard and looked at all the crap that was sitting around. Why do I need medicated lotions and potions? Sure, I’ve had pimples, but who doesn’t? Does that really mean I have an “acne problem”? No, no, no. So why do I spend money on it? Because Neutrogena puts out ad campaigns wherein pretty white models splash water on their perfectly made-up faces? I guess. That’s a stupid reason to buy something.

And what about my hair? What is it about hair that makes regular soap not work? Seriously; I want to know. Why doesn’t soap suffice to clean hair anymore? I’m happy to use shampoo if it’s going to make a difference, and I know for a fact that shampoo makes my hair feel better than Dr. Bronner’s, but why? Is there some special reason that shampoo requires so many more long chemical names in its ingredients list than plain old natural soap does?

So next time: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb, AKA “You mean that despite the fact that the beauty industry has been trying to convince me that oil is BAD EVIL BAD, I can actually use it to wash my face?” and an examination of a few bullshit PR campaigns regarding makeup + makeup remover.