Cindy's Take on Tech

283 Responses to “An Open Letter to Wired Magazine”

1. 

   Christina Gulla said:

   Nov 10, 10 at 4:52 pm

   Hahahaha, I LOVE this blog Cindy! Well done. You are a genius and I stand behind your decision 100%

2. 

   Charles Soto said:

   Nov 10, 10 at 5:03 pm

   Hey, that’s CLEAVEAGE, not BOOBAGE. There’s a difference. It’s not even SIDE BOOB.

   But, yeah. Wired? WTF? I broke up with Wired a long time ago. It became way too much about hipster douchebaggery than anything I’m interested in.

   Charles

3. 

   Laura Donnelly Gonzalez said:

   Nov 10, 10 at 6:21 pm

   Eloquent, to the point and right on. So sick of horny boys publicizing how threatened they are by the female cerebral. Here, here Cindus Maximus! They could have easily put a small, disappointing penis on the cover for a story on tissue engineering or augmentation, but oh no for some reason that’s pornographic, not two entire breasts with the nipple hidden.

4. 

   David Nolan said:

   Nov 10, 10 at 6:55 pm

   Well said. A breakup letter we should be writing to many of the publications out there. If only more folks would take a stand over the objectification of women. Cheers!

5. 

   Avery said:

   Nov 10, 10 at 7:12 pm

   Hey, they had a take on the best mascaras in the issue to balance things out!

   Kidding aside, nice take, Cindy. My roommate and I went back and forth on it. Yes, breasts are important to the story of tissue engineering. Hell, that’s the foundation of the story. But why not be bold and show other uses, other images? Why not show us the reconstructed breasts we’re told about instead of some idealistic set of, as you called them, “boobs?”

   Pretty obvious that sex sells, but in this case its just a sell out. Or a cop out.

6. 

   Kay said:

   Nov 11, 10 at 12:58 am

   Brava!

7. 

   Matt Doar said:

   Nov 11, 10 at 1:23 am

   Yes, it’s a bit desparate of them, isn’t it? I used to enjoy Wired when it had more tech in it, and not just fashionable tech-lite stories. A faded sort of glory.

8. 

   Brian said:

   Nov 11, 10 at 1:27 am

   Love your style of writing Cindy…..but I can’t really fault them. Everybody loves boobs.

9. 

   Chrissie Brodigan said:

   Nov 11, 10 at 1:34 am

   Cindy, You’re awesome. Ditto. Breakup complete from me too. Thanks for having the BALLS & boobs to write this.

   Hugs,
   CB

10. 

    Corey said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 1:53 am

    Great write Cindy, I can think of plenty of accomplished women in the tech world worthy of a Wired cover.

11. 

    Brittany said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 1:57 am

    Maybe it’s time for publications to allow readers to vote which story makes the cover before print. If readers demand it, it may work. Look at Betty White on SNL…

12. 

    Latj said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 2:09 am

    I hadnt noticed this before, thanks for pointing it out.

    You’re right to vote with your wallet and your post will convince others to do so.

    Unfortunately, most of the subscribers probably want the boobs on the cover- thats why they were put there in the first place. You dont need to change Wired, you need to change the minds of young males you are in charge of raising, teaching, etc.

13. 

    Len Feldman said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 2:09 am

    Between the gratuitously sexual covers and the sensationalistic ones (“The Web is Dead”, for example), Wired looks like it’s desperate for newsstand circulation. The journalists have left the building.

14. Around the Web: Flash-free, Facebook Engineering, & Wired’s Cover | Think Vitamin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 2:11 am

    [...] This took balls & boobs, kudos to Cindy Royal.  An Open Letter to Wired Magazine: We're Breaking Up (via my newest heroine [...]

15. 

    Daniel Stout said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 2:23 am

    Amazing! This would make a great study for a journal article, no? I’m stunned that you had to go back to 1996 for a positive, female cover. I haven’t subscribed to Wired in over a decade, but I had no idea it was so slanted. Thanks for sharing your insights.

    Wired is a Condé Nast title. If Vanity Fair can do a “Women of Hollywood” cover, which they’ve done multiple times, can’t Wired do a “Women of Technology” cover with articles to match? It seems long overdue.

16. 

    Brennan Novak said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 2:57 am

    WIRED of recent years seems to have very few covers that have people (male or female) on them at all- which makes sense as it’s a technology publication. But let’s look at the numbers. On the left is the number of people on covers / total covers. The last four years it has a percentage of 35% human to non cover ratio

    2010 (2 / 7)
    2009 (5 / 12)
    2008 (5 / 12)
    2007 (4 / 14)

    Pre 2007 you’ll notice a huge shift as the percentage of covers with people jumps dramatically to 63% human to non cover ratio

    2006 (10 / 12)
    2005 (6 /12)
    2004 (7 / 12)
    2003 (8 / 12)
    2002 (7 / 12)

    But here the trend dips back to what it is at about now 36% human to non cover ratio

    2001 (4 / 12)
    2000 (5 / 12)
    1999 (4 / 12)

    So why the shift in people to / non people covers? Perhaps a new creative director was hired or fired (perhaps because of his poor aesthetic sense). Perhaps it’s a financial thing- organizing photo shoots with celebrities costs considerably more money than using a stock images or creating graphics and since the print industry is in decline funds are less. Perhaps non-human covers sell better to WIRED’s demographic. Regardless of the reason the trend is featuring humans less and less and it would be a shame to stop reading a magazine that (except for this months publication) has seemed to shift it’s cover aesthetics.

    As an unbiased reader who does not subscribe to WIRED or any magazines, but does enjoy WIRED’s writing- I would hardly classify WIRED (based on their content) as misogynists who are exploiting female stereotypes to sell magazines. It’s a shame when someone intelligent such as yourself willingly limits & shields themselves from something that is quality (a magazine like WIRED), because they perceive one aspect of something (the intention of the covers) in a different light than it was intended by the creators.

    I live in Portland, OR and there are not that many women in technology. Most women I know (that are not in tech) have no interest in joining the tech scene or working in the tech sector, not because they feel it is gender dominated or they are discriminated against- they just have no interest with sitting behind computers for long periods of time. I sincerely wish there were more women in tech, but I highly doubt it is magazine’s like WIRED that are keeping them out.

17. 

    Kevin Leversee said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 2:58 am

    I get your point, but think your a bit off mark, I think your upset that they are not celebrating the female form, (and industry achievement) and you feel they are blatantly abusing the female form for sales. Celebrating the beauty of women with images of women is not detracting. Shapes, Tissues, Torso, hips, lips and the rest. Myth it is all the archetype of humanity and culture. The Coke symbol itself (bottle and glass) are female. Rather than get angry at thousands of years of evolution, archetypes (which in positive light empower women by celebrating their difference)you have focused on the fact that female leaders and accomplishments are not as celebrated but rather they are labeled sex objects only. I find this post a bit sad too because I see that your really trying to do something about it: ‘I went to the Web to solicit some input, and subsequently sent her an 11-page document of women doing interesting things with technology. I don’t think one of those ideas came to fruition on the pages of Wired.’ I mean whoa, you have a passionate interested person giving not only feedback but results of hard work too. Wait, maybe this is why the ‘BROADCAST LAW is loosing to Metcalfe/REED’S Law?’

18. 

    Javier Constanzo said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 3:52 am

    Nicely done. I agree with you 100%, and I’ve done the same with some magazines from Argentina (where I’m from) too.

19. 

    Colin Williams said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 3:58 am

    Their business is selling colorful paper with words on it. They aren’t moral navigators. And their ploy has actually worked in your favor because you get to piggy-back off of their brash cover. Wired moves magazines and hits their sales projections. You get readers and a bit of that validation you are seeking by running a personal blog. I get to comment on how silly it all is in my own little quest for validation in this world. Hooray all of us.

20. 

    Jonathan Lin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 4:44 am

    I had the same reaction as you, but please, give Italian Wired a chance. They have an amazing design sense, and the articles are great – just technical enough, but also on the cutting edge of culture and style.

    Even though I can’t read italian, I still buy the imported Italian Wired magazine at the marked up price.

    I can’t believe it carries the same name, but Italian Wired is a winner.

    http://mag.sky.it/mag/web_style/2009/03/05/wired_reazioni_in_rete.html

21. 

    Caitlin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 4:51 am

    It’s a real shame that Wired has not been featuring women on its covers or sufficiently in its content. But getting upset about the boobs cover? Meh. It didn’t even occur to me to be upset. It’s just a body part. I didn’t find anything insulting in it.

22. 

    Bart Lantz said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 4:54 am

    Great article, well said! I saw this cover at the bookstore and passed on buying it myself. I’d suggest the MIT Technology Review or something similar as a good industry magazine for your students instead.

23. 

    zakintosh said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:00 am

    Good job, Cindy. Congratulations. Wired WAS a great magazine … it’s still better than most other things though it has lesser charm than it had before. But WOMEN? Christ, this is awful and continues to happen. I am off the mag now but glance an issue or so once. That’s all I can do.

24. 

    peterme said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:23 am

    In 2003, I posted a “Wired Magazine Index”, a la Harpers:
    http://www.peterme.com/archives/000060.html

    Recognizable men: 69
    Recognizable women: 2 (Laurie Anderson and Sherry Turkle)
    Issue date of most recent recognizable woman: April 1996
    Recognizable African-American: 1 (John Lee. This doesn’t include the white OJ Simpson cover.)
    Issue date: December 1994
    Recognizable Asian: 2 (Jerry Yang, JenHsun Huang)
    Men used as models: 2 (May 94 and Nov 2002)
    Women used as models: 5 (Nov 97, Oct 98, Dec 99, May 2000, Nov 2002)
    Women shown mostly undressed: 4 (Nov 97, Oct 98, Dec 99, May 01 (yes, the last one is a drawing, I know))

    Most appearances: 5 — Bill Gates (followed by George Lucas, the Myst-producing Miller Brothers, and Neal Stephenson with 2 each)
    Bearded film directors: 3 (George Lucas, James Cameron, Steven Spielberg)
    Cyberpunk authors: 3 (Bruce Sterling, William Gibson, Neal Stephenson)

    Plus ça change, plus ça c’est la même chose.

25. 

    Ian Muir said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:28 am

    I both agree and disagree with you Cindy. I agree with you that Wired, like many tech publications, has made a variety of bad decisions in it’s portrayal of women. In you’re above examples, the woman with diamonds, the Manga and Jen from the office all fall into that category.

    However, I think you’ve taken several of these images out of context and made them seem far worse than they are.

    For Julia Alison, LonelyGirl15 and Uma, all three frequently rely on sexuality as part of their public persona.

    Martha and Sarah Silverman are portrayed in a similar manner to many of the men on the cover. Like Will Ferrel, Steve Carel and Alex Baldwin were all featured on the cover for comedic effect.

    Finally, while you may disagree with the choice of imagery for the cover of this month’s issue, it’s not irrelevant. You’re article makes it seem like some editor just picked something at random, but the featured article is about a machine for harvesting stem cells that was created by plastic surgeons to do breast enlargements.

    I agree that women are far too often objectified in almost every tech publication. It’s a problem that obviously needs to be addressed. However, the fact that you chose this particular cover to vent over shows that you may have already stopped reading Wired since it’s actually relevant to the content. (Also, there’s a far more graphic photo in the actual article.)

    Has Wired made the occasional bad decision? Yes. Are they some closed group of misogynistic curmudgeons? Probably not.

26. 

    Agatha Cole said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:35 am

    I couldn’t agree with you more. Thank you.

27. 

    Ivan said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:40 am

    Not to mention that more than half of the site is advertising. Data here: http://stegic.net/?p=31

28. 

    praxis22 said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:59 am

    yup, what Charles Soto #2 said. Long time gone. It used to be cutting edge tech, now it’s a lifestyle magazine. So it goes.

29. 

    Lainey said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 6:28 am

    @Kevin Leversee I think you’re missing the point. Cindy wasn’t saying the female form should not be celebrated, but rather that it’s misogynistic to only celebrate the female FORM. A one-off cover about women being sexy is probably to be expected from the publishing industry, it becomes a problem when the only time you see a female on a cover is when she’s being sexy.

    Because what that says is that the ONLY reason a female can command attention is because she’s hot (and/or famous). And when Wired will happily give cover space to a series of not hot males – Craig of Craigslist comes to mind – that’s a double standard. You’re not celebrating the female form thanks to evolution (though really, why is WIRED doing that out of all publications in the first place?), you’re willingly ignoring all the women in tech who aren’t lookers.

    That having been said, I’m not breaking up with Wired yet. Their cover editor may be a dick, but I have so much respect for many of their features writers. In that sense, Wired could be like the guy who is inherently feminist, even though he crinkles his nose at the word.

30. 

    Toon said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:16 am

    I stopped reading Wired between roughly 2001 and 2006, because it had turned into a shallow gadget magazine. I started reading it again on a monthly basis in 2006 and I’ve noticed that they’re trying to pull of a tricky balancing act. On the one side, they are trying to appeal to the overspending macho who likes his expensive toys and wants to appear sophisticated. On the other hand, they publish a lot of inspiring and in-depth technology journalism. The Caterina Fake article is a good example of how they approach these subjects without focusing on just the tech.
    And that’s why I’m still reading Wired.
    I don’t think any of the covers that you mention are problematic per se, but it is rather remarkable that this is the *only* way in which Wired puts women on its covers. Caterina Fake would indeed have been a much better cover choice than Will Ferrell and his white huskies. That was one of those short-attention-span douchebag pieces anyway.

31. 

    Just Me said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:35 am

    Great post, but some of these follow-up comments are making me incredibly dejected — full of well-meaning, intelligent people that don’t quite get it. Wired isn’t just a cultural bell-weather, it’s a culture maker and to absolve it of responsibility by saying that covers are driven by market forces is essentially saying that it’s okay to do whatever it takes to make money. As a publication in a position of influence they could make a difference in the way women in technology are viewed — and that’s the point, Latj. They are not innocent bystanders in a sexist culture, they’ve helped create it.

    Kevin: commodifying women as objects of sex is *not* empowering. In fact, it presents women’s bodies as things to be enjoyed by men. Look at where the power and the privilege is in that relationship. It takes the most personal thing in the world, your own physical being, and makes it about someone else. Believe me, as a gay woman I understand the beauty of a woman’s body but also as a woman in tech, when I’m in the workplace I want my empowerment to come from the skills I bring to the table, not the size of my boobs. That kind of empowerment is for after work, when I’m trying to pick up cute girls at the bar

    Look, I consider myself sex-positive and therefore am mostly fine with ethically produced porn. Sex has its place but when one of the foremost magazines in my *industry* uses covers like this, it sends a message that tech is men’s domain and that the role of women in tech are as objects to be enjoyed (even if it is as an object of beauty). *That* is what’s unacceptable.

32. 

    Michael Foukarakis said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:59 am

    It’s about tissue engineering, people. What do you suggest as an alternative image? Dr. House’s missing thigh? Get a grip.

33. 

    catur pw said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:22 am

    Wired should thing twice when choosing their cover page, those “boobs” cover maybe attract wired male readers, but for female readers may have another perceptions, I wonder what wired responding to this issue. By the way cindy.. Nice breaking letter you have here

34. 

    Michael Moncur said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:58 am

    I agree with your article 100%, except for the bit where you said Wired Magazine is awesome.

    It’s not. It’s terrible writing with sensational headlines feeling the pulse of where technology was going 8 months ago. It’s the Rolling Stone of tech journalism. Maybe Wired was great once, but that was long ago. Its current target audience is 14-year-old boys and bored executives at airports. Apparently this target audience is fond of boobs.

    If we all stop reading them, linking to their ridiculous articles, and subscribing, maybe they’ll go away.

    The good news is that I’m going to laugh my head off when I walk into Walmart and see Wired magazine covered with an “Adult Content” placard like Maxim or Cosmo…

35. 

    Sarah said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:22 am

    “How exactly are young women supposed to feel about their role in technology by looking at your magazine?”

    They need a MAGAZINE to tell them how to they’re supposed to feel about their own role in the world? Really?

36. Take a byte out of this | Samuel Peeps said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 10:23 am

    [...] Cindy Royal has decided to dump Wired like a unworthy boyfriend with an open and very funny letter here on her [...]

37. 

    Beverly Millson said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 10:35 am

    Cindy: I’m new to your blog and I’m happy to have found it.

    Kevin: That’s a good argument and I almost buy it, UNTIL I look at that damn booby cover again, and then we’re right back where we started.

    I don’t want to look at boobs when I’m thinking of tech and industrial design and global warming (or not).

    I wonder how author Sharon Begley feels about the way Wired opted to illustrate her story.

    MORE worrisome still is the fact that this regrettable cover follows a regrettable cover story, “The Web is Dead.” Is Wired really losing its touch? Where will we go for our cool tech info (besides Twitter, Slashdot, Engadget, Lifehacker, Boing Boing, Make, Scoble and thousands of other sources)?

38. 

    Al Brown said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 11:09 am

    Wired business practices made me drop them a long time ago. You can’t force or trick me into auto-renewing anything.

39. Overmatter « magCulture.com/blog said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 11:14 am

    [...] taken to task for its portrayal of [...]

40. 

    John said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 11:15 am

    Wired has jumped the shark.

41. 

    Patty said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 11:24 am

    Thank you! Great post!

42. 

    Jayne said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 11:28 am

    If you’re done with Wired, have you tried Ars Technica? It’s by no means identical, but it’s a tech publication, online, for free (ad supported, obv)

43. 

    Amy said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 12:31 pm

    Very well said! I enjoy Wired and I’m a woman and I want to be included!

    ▲ WOLF WHISTLE ▲

44. 

    Fiona Cherbak said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 12:43 pm

    The recent boob cover is on top of my stack of “most favorite” magazines in the living room. Each time I walk by, I flip it over, feeling, well, uncomfortable…later, my husband flips it back. Doesn’t this say a lot?

45. 

    Daniel said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 12:50 pm

    “Martha Stewart in 2007 doesn’t count, and neither does Sarah Silverman in 2008, because those were both just jokey, thematic covers.”

    Nice way to change the facts to fit your argument. Does humour rob them of their gender?

    And “come hither looks”? Are you serious? Were you also offended by Brad Pitt’s come-hitheriness last August?

    And are taking exception at Uma Thurman just for existing? How does that cover offend you exactly?

46. Around the Web: Flash-free, Facebook Engineering, & Wired’s Cover | Web Design Northamptonshire said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 1:02 pm

    [...] This took balls & boobs, kudos to Cindy Royal.  An Open Letter to Wired Magazine: We’re Breaking Up (via my newest heroine @cindyroyal) Please shoot me links to projects your working on or awesome [...]

47. 

    frances said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 1:15 pm

    … and this follows right after I read this (http://sixrevisions.com/infographics/web-designers-vs-web-developers-infographic/). somehow they can’t see the problem.

48. 

    Amber said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 1:23 pm

    Amen!

49. 

    Chris Anderson said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 1:33 pm

    Cindy,

    I’m the editor of Wired, and thank you for your post; I take your points. This is an issue we wrestle with all the time, and it reflects a combination of things, ranging from not enough high-profile women in the tech industry who are recognizable to sell a cover (every month we cover test a list of names to see which ones people know well enough to want to read about them), to your sense that if we go outside the tech industry for women that this somehow doesn’t count.

    First, I have to correct one point: this cover story was not about tissue engineering, it was about *breast* tissue engineering. Of all the covers with cleavage out there, it’s hard to find one more editorially justified than that.

    Second, this problem goes beyond women: we have trouble putting *people* on the cover. It’s the same reason: they have to sell, and what sells for us is either big ideas (sans people) or well-known, likable people with interesting things to say. The problem is that there aren’t enough geek celebrities, so we often end up going with celebrity geeks instead. Our Gates and Zuckerberg cover didn’t sell as well as our Will Ferrell cover. I’m glad we did both, but at the end of the day, we have to work on the newsstand to be a profitable business.

    But we do take risks with people we really admire. For instance, I’m a huge fan of Martha Stewart, both as a businessperson and media innovator, to say nothing of her presence in the DIY movement. So we put her on the cover, heading an issue focused on her passion, and included . I knew that it would’t sell well (it didn’t), but did it anyway, including a Q&A with her. But you don’t count that one, because it’s “jokey, thematic”.

    So when we put women on the cover, it must be only be for serious profiles? Okay, then I could use some help with suggestions. We love up-and-comers, but they don’t sell magazines if they don’t already have a relatively high profile and are leading a company people want to read about. For instance, Carol Bartz is a great CEO, but I just don’t think a “wither Yahoo” cover would work right now. I know this sounds like a chicken-and-egg situation, but the time is long gone since people needed magazine covers to become famous. Witness our Julia Allison cover, which was entirely about her accomplishments in self-promotion, which we applauded as a key 21st Century skill. But you don’t like that one because she has “come hither looks.”

    Finally, I’m glad you liked our feature on Caterina Fake, but do you really think it would have worked as a cover? Hunch is still a small startup, yet to prove itself, and Caterina left the company a couple months later. I think if we had put her on the cover, we would have been accused of hyping Hunch beyond its due in the first month, and then clueless the next month when she left.

    In other words, suggestions please!

50. 

    Don McArthur said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 3:03 pm

    In fact, I quit when those absurd “Your wristwatch is a reflection of your penis length.” ads took over the opening pages of the magazine.

    Here’s to standards!

51. Cindy’s Take on Tech» Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Wired Magazine « Amy G. Dala said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 3:12 pm

    [...] Cindy’s Take on Tech» Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Wired Magazine Come to think of it, the last time that a woman was featured on your cover, because she was being featured in the magazine for an actual accomplishment, was way back in 1996 via tech.cindyroyal.net [...]

52. 

    Anton said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 3:13 pm

    Hey everyone, relax! What’s the big deal about it? Wise up.

    OK, I realize you don’t like the coverpic because theoretically it’s been put there to pleasure men for whom the appearance is more important than what’s inside. But wait, don’t you step into the same puddle by judging Wired by its cover?

53. 

    AJ said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 3:17 pm

    great post, really nicely done.

54. 

    Wei Wang said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 3:29 pm

    A generally well-edited magazine may feel unfair towards fans’ abandonement: “I made so much good and you break up with me over one thing?” As you explained well that it was not one time but many times, and these many times already reflected enough the lack of imagination and independent opinion – somethings a creative industrial should have or learn. It’s not good enough if you just take the conventional, at the very least, try to distinguish bad taste conventional from good. There are ways presenting just female body with no face, more interetingly, in better taste and give real contribution to the title. I epecially salute to your “Well, I don’t read those magazines, and I don’t recommend those publications to my students”, I mean there are not enough acknowledgement – these magazines are money driven opportunists, feed the public with what they think the public wants which is not even what they want. It’s ok if they drain off their own heart in months after months of fashion changes, but they are making a huge impact on the quality of women’s lives. China, where I live, it only takes us 15 years to catch up that fashion train(biggest luxury consumption in the world),while all the other real good values of the west are all remain unheard of. To criticize the magazine, is to remind the people working and living their lives there, what it means to be in journalism, in fahion, in creativity, in technology-advancement? I agree, I would say just the same to Wired:” You are better than this.”

55. 

    Valentin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 4:36 pm

    Really? Why are we driven to sexually charged images in every aspect of our life? Role of women in tech and their portrayal on the cover of Wired magazine. Form of Wired cover vs. thought provoking content.

    And THIS was the deal-breaker for you? Here is the news flash for you- our own existence and evolution of only ALL species of animals (except protozoa) is driven by sex. Is it really so surprising for a smart person like you to notice that the fundamentals of our behavior are more or less explicitly shaped by sex drive? Learn some biology, combine with psychology and sociology, throw in some anthropology and you WILL see how absurd is your rant… Grow up and brush up on your science for change!

    Wired IS cutting edge, intelligent and worth respect for what they do in these times, including the choice and quality of the covers.

56. 

    Cindy Royal said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 4:42 pm

    Chris,

    Thank you for responding to my post. I am a great admirer of your work and discuss Free and The Long Tail as regular parts of my courses. Until now, I regularly recommended Wired as an important source of technology information to my students, as well as in other presentations that I am asked to give. Basically, “Reading Wired” has been the first point on just about any of my presentations on the slide titled “Keeping Up with Technology Trends.”

    As a professor in a journalism program, I certainly understand your challenges in selling magazines. However, it’s the pattern that has emerged that’s troublesome to me. Any one of the items I mentioned in isolation wouldn’t be a problem. I didn’t say that when you put women on the cover, it should ONLY be for serious profiles. But it would be nice if you dealt seriously with women occasionally. And, while I know it is difficult to find women in tech for covers or other coverage, you don’t have to objectify them or use them humorously almost every time you do manage to figure out a way to cover them.

    The article on tissue engineering took the breast reconstruction angle, which was an important part. But it wasn’t just about breast augmentation. It was also about the general health benefits that might be advanced from this research, according to the quote on the cover that probably no one read, “enhance the future of medicine.” You knew when you put a zoomed-in, headless pair of breasts on the cover you were going to get attention (both negative and positive). You made that particular choice knowing the magazine’s history with depicting women on the cover and inside the magazine, and you did it anyway.

    Your covers say a lot about what’s inside your magazine. And the pattern that I see that has emerged is that women are only valuable in tech as sex objects. If I didn’t think Wired was an important source of information about the culture of technology, I wouldn’t be bothered with this criticism. I wouldn’t care. But, as I said, I feel that you have the power to influence that culture, and you don’t seem interested in helping in this area.

    I’ll be happy to make some recommendations for women you should cover, but I did that in 2005, with 0 result. I don’t have time to do busy work for your organization, if it’s going to be ignored. It’s your job to seek out balanced coverage if you think it’s important to the topics you are covering. At least that’s what we teach in J-school.

    My interest in influencing the culture of technology comes from more than a decade teaching Web design and other online media courses, in classes that have a strong female representation. I see how women respond to and eventually love using technology and move into tech fields, when it is presented to them in a way that is meaningful and in a communications context. I just can’t continue to, in good conscience, recommend Wired to my students, when you continue to reinforce the stereotypes that I am trying to refute.

    I have received mostly positive responses to the article, on Twitter, Facebook and in comments on the post, and I appreciate anyone that has taken the time to make their views known on this topic.

    Cindy Royal

57. 

    Josh Romero said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:16 pm

    I actually take greater issue with the art-direction of the article itself. One small graphic illustration, but 2 full pages devoted to a nude model who presumably hasn’t had her tissue engineered. The cover is so stylized and oddly cropped, it looks more like a but from the distance- but I think Wired would argue they were being bold and brave. Also take note that the breasts feature was the only one this month written by a female writer.

58. 

    Jess said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:23 pm

    Hi Chris,

    I can think of a few.

    Helen Greiner, iRobot
    Limor Fried, Adafruit electronics
    Robin Chase, Zipcar
    Shafrira Goldwasser, RSA
    Shari Steele, EFF
    Natalie Jeremijenko, social robotics
    Mary Lou Jepsen, OLPC and Pixel Qi

    Thanks, Jess

59. 

    cindy frewen wuellner said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:24 pm

    Cindy: What message are women sending now? it’s more complicated than just one, and it evolves every decade. We do know when something diminishes our value, sidelines us from tech and creative power, and reverts to a 1960 – 70s sex object power. This cover reminds us that Wired isn’t catering to women. I wonder about the demographic mix of the readership? and if Wired thinks that a primarily all-men POV is desirable, healthy, balanced, or sustainable?

    Chris Anderson says rather defensely (Martha didn’t sell well, no good women) he wants help. Since the Wired magazine seems to be entirely run by men, let half of the magazine covers be selected by all-women juries. and see who’s covers sell more or if it changes the demographics of the readership. ok, maybe Chris doesnt really want help? it could be he thinks its just fine as it is. the only way to become more balanced and open is to be more balanced and open.

    Or maybe we expected too much, and thought Wired shone a bright light on the future when at least culturally, they are strictly rearview mirror.

    thanks for the excellent commentary, Cindy. here’s a slidedeck that echoes your thinking.
    Why Wired Loves the Ladies http://slidesha.re/bVgqX0

    best,
    Cindy @urbanverse

60. 

    Larisa said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:35 pm

    Very well put and thoughtful response. I too was put off by this cover.

    Most of those disagreeing here are rehashing arguments so much that it seems like they haven’t read your piece but are responding to some fantasy stereotyped response.

    As you say, clearly, the issue is that the vast majority of women on the cover appear to be there solely because of their bodies (or conformity with stereotypes of women). It’s not that no men ever appear on the cover with “come-hither” expressions (or naked/in sexualized images, though I can’t remember many of those), but that men do so among a variety of men on the cover for other reasons.

    the “sex sells” argument is especially silly. First, if market logic is the only thing going on, then if there is another kind of magazine that sells more than Wired, maybe Wired should stop being a tech mag and start being that kind of magazine. But no, Wired has to make decisions about what’s part of Wired all the time, and they can’t be only market decisions otherwise the content wouldn’t matter at all. So if Wired has to make decisions anyway, they might as well include what kind of audience and what kind of message they want to send.

    And the response from Wired appears well-meaning but also pretty standard in putting the responsibility away from themselves. Putting their money where their mouth is and hiring someone whose job it is do this, or assigning writers & editors to the task, would make more sense.

61. pinboard November 11, 2010 — arghh.net said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:37 pm

    [...] Cindy’s Take on Tech» Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Wired Magazine [...]

62. 

    Kevin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:39 pm

    I’ve been a Wired subscriber almost from the first issue — I generally read it cover to cover — and I found the cover kind of embarrassing. When I put the this issue down, I tend to place it face-down. Bummer.

    The bigger issue, though, is that you send your students to Wired to get tech news. Wired is pretty much Popular Science with better layout. Every story is a puff-piece about how this company solving this problem is going to completely change the world[*], and there’s pretty much never any followup. Ever.

    Wired has predicted 97 of the last 11 big things. No, make that five big things.

    Now, I obviously think that Wired is an amusing part of a balanced diet of tech publications, but I sure wouldn’t send folks there first as an introduction. They’d end up with whiplash — “But wait, last month you said that crowdsourcing was the most important idea of the last century, and this month it’s applications instead of the web!?”

    [*] The only notable exception to this puff-piece policy was the article on craigslist, which is a company that does things in a completely new way, really has changed the way we live, and has had a serious economic impact; for some reason Wired’s writer really seemed to hate on that. That’s a shame ’cause this organization has been more successful than most of the companies that the magazine has so breathlessly (and uncritically) promoted.

63. 

    Kat said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:44 pm

    I know how you feel, but in the end Wired is just a business, they know that naked women on a cover will get them moving from the stands. I hope your open letter will get them to reconsider, but they’re not a academic journal, they’re looking to sell ads and get to more readers. Looking sexist probably isn’t much of a concern.

64. 

    C. Koerner said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:56 pm

    If students get their tech news from Wired, they’re about 3 months behind everyone else. Teach your students how to grab a few choice RSS feeds and use some comparative analysis to the sources to define what is up-and-coming. Wired is tired.

65. 

    M. Mosher said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 5:57 pm

    I’ve broken up with Wired years ago, over the naked ex porn-star covered in diamonds cover (2nd top left thumbnail). I am sure you could come up with a clever tie-in there too. Advances in synthetic diamond growth = hot blonde with large fake boobs with Swarowski crystals glued on them – right Chris?

    Give us a break, Wired. Soft porn is soft porn, no matter what spin you put on it. That photo does not illustrate breast tissue reconstruction as you are trying to convince us.

66. 

    Maria said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 6:09 pm

    I have to agree with everything Cindy said. Seriously, WHY BOOBS? It’s obviously the old “sex sells” excuse. The way this image is used is offensive.

    When will they start putting beefcake parts on the cover?

67. 

    Laura said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 6:14 pm

    Chris,
    Not sure why you’d take a risk on Martha but not Carol. However, by saying you *did* take a risk with her, you negate some of the argument that you use tests on covers to see what works.
    It is a chicken and egg situation, so why not break that loop with a decision from leadership (you) that you will start including more accomplished women and people of color on your covers that include humans?
    You may not sell as well the initial effort, but I don’t think even you could predict what future issues would sell if Wired became a magazine people know as providing a more balanced depiction of the diversity in tech, reflecting more closely the actual demographics.
    Glad you posted this Cindy, and got the discussion going.
    Laura

68. Wired « Quasi.dot said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 6:42 pm

    [...] molti si lamentano della deriva di Wired in Italia non è che oltreoceano se la passino poi tanto meglio (sia detto con il dovuto [...]

69. 

    Jonathan said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 6:52 pm

    The Cover: Cindy Royal

    The Story: “Influencing the Culture of Technology: The ways we get heard and the impact of our chosen outlets.”

70. 

    jane stevens said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 6:56 pm

    It’s interesting that “Sex sells” popped up more than once in this thread. Depends on the sex, doesn’t it? So, even “sex sells” defines “sex” as a disembodied female part. Gotta say, to a lot of folks, sex isn’t female breasts. Here’s a funny story that illustrates how so many men are unconscious about the decisions they make on how women are depicted in the media: A Washington Post editor was showing me a drawing he’d asked the graphics department to do to illustrate a science article about prehistoric humans. The drawing pictured a man and a woman. They were outside in an open space, facing each other, and crouching over something (food, a tiny fire?) that lay between them on the ground. The man was bundled up in animal furs. The woman was naked from the waist up. I asked: “Isn’t she cold?” The editor looked at the drawing with new eyes, blushed, and blurted out: “My god, I didn’t notice. I’ll have the artist put some furs on her, too.”

71. links for 2010-11-11 : Bob Plankers, The Lone Sysadmin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:01 pm

    [...] Cindy's Take on Tech» Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Wired Magazine [del.icio.us] Excellent post on how Wired treats women. I can't disagree. In fact, Greg Ferro and I were commenting on this at VMworld in Copenhagen, the general crappy way the tech industry treats women. Never more evident than on a show floor, though there were a couple of booths at both VMworlds where the booth babes were smart, regular company employees. Probably why I have three Compellent t-shirts…  [...]

72. 

    toenolla said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:07 pm

    Leah Beuchley, cover story. Her work is finding new ways to engage women in DIY tech and, frankly, it’s just kind of rad.

    “Accomplishments in self-promotion”. HORK.

    Doing your own PR is a big deal and I applaud anyone who manages it, but reporting on self-promotion is a major journalistic gray area. Also, applauding women for their self-promotional skills instead of their actual accomplishments is SO beauty pageant.

73. 

    Chris said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:14 pm

    The Julia Allison cover & story was what made me stop subscribing to Wired. Not only a terrible cover, but an incredibly boring & navel gazing article that served no real purpose but to promote someone I could not care less about.

    Wired used to be great. Not so much anymore.

74. 

    Kristi Smith said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:23 pm

    Cindy- What a great letter! As a student in one of your web design classes I can attest to your support of Wired. You often used it to provide examples in class on how it is done right. As woman now working in the tech industry, I see powerful and intelligent women in leadership and executive roles not just in my company but others throughout the industry. I am also an avid subscriber to Wired based on your recommendation. It make me happy to see the editors responding to you and hopefully they truly take action this time and begin showing women in a positive light more often.

    Thank you for your letter!

75. 

    tim said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:28 pm

    While I sympathize with the sentiment of your post, I think there’s a disparity between your expectations of Wired magazine and reality. Wired’s patina of respectability has been wearing thin for a long time. Say what you will about its early days, that magazine no longer exists. The modern Wired is a sensationalist consumer-tech rag with the occasional glimmer of insight and prescience.

    Arguing they’re obligated to hold themselves to your moderately puritanical, dead-and-gone “Wired” standard at the expense of selling magazines is unproductive. Any concessions made to your criticism will be anchored by the bottom line — the bottom line of a magazine which caters to a very male-dominated consumer-tech culture. I’d love to hope for more from Wired, a brand which still carries weight, but their slide into irrelevance shows no signs of slowing.

76. 

    Rosemary Hook said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:31 pm

    The Editor’s response is defensive. If I understood him correctly, he’s actually trying to justify it by saying it’s “breast tissue engineering” instead of just “tissue engineering.”

    Tomato or /toh-mah-to/

    I would say that before you give them any “suggestions,” that they offer to pay you for your consultation time. There are enough people doing too much free work for companies already.

    The breasts weren’t “up and comers” and they still made it on the front over. But here’s the real question — whose doing the photography for this magazine? Why would they take a personality like Martha Stewart and position her as though she’s selling drapes on a tech magazine? Wake up WIRED. If you can’t sell a female mega media mogul to an intelligent audience, then it’s not an intelligent audience you’re targeting.

    Whew, glad I got that off my up and coming chest!

77. 

    Karl said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:35 pm

    I have he-boobies that look startlingly similar to the photo. How to you know it is not a man?

78. Wired « Other People's Ideas said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:37 pm

    [...] Cindy’s Take on Tech» Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Wired Magazine. [...]

79. 

    lilly said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:47 pm

    When I was a kid, I knew that technology and culture was my constant fascination and I dreamed of having Chris Anderson’s job. Yup, being editor of wired was the nerdy dream job of my 17-year old school news editor / web hacker self. I didn’t know about libertarianism then, I didn’t get that the technology isn’t always just marching us forward into awesome. I loved all the crazy possibilities Wired covered. I even subscribed.

    As the magazine mainstreamed around 2003 or so, it became clear it was becoming Details for gadget boys. Chris Anderson, cover sales doesn’t explain the constant use of japanese school girls and lady models as graphical elements in back pages. I vividly remember seeing the synthetic diamond lady cover on the newsstands and thinking, “screw this wired, I’m done with you.”

80. 

    Caitlin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:52 pm

    I still don’t understand why people are saying this cover is sexually charged. Yes, it’s a picture of cleavage but it’s a rather abstract one. I don’t find it sexual or erotic in the slightest. Are Americans just prudes?

    Also, it’s not an article on “tech and industrial design and global warming”. It’s an article on breast tissue engineering. I didn’t find the article that interesting personally but the image is certainly editorially justified.

    Could Wired do a better job of promoting women, especially women in tech? Almost certainly and yes, I’d like to see it. But I’m not sure that focusing on cover art is the answer, given that the covers are usually conceptual and rarely feature people at all (of either gender).

81. 

    Caitlin said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 7:53 pm

    @jane stevens Great story about the cavewoman art!

82. Blogger Breaks up With Wired Because of Boobs | The 315th Day of the Year said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:07 pm

    [...] You can read Royal’s blog post here. [...]

83. 

    Louise said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:08 pm

    @janestevens – this is a great example of the male heteronormative skew that so many teck/geek publications – and entertainment – take. I’m amused by this, as I know many gay male tech geeks, and they find these covers, at best, boring. At worst, they agree with Cindy’s take on the bias.

    The tech/geek world is large and varied – embrace it! We all have potential disposable income, and a thirst for tech commentary.

84. 

    James said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:08 pm

    Great commentary, Cindy. Spot on. Wired is in the Maxim category of gadget coverage, don’t go there for actual important stories, tech or info. The breast tissue engineering article actually surprised me for it’s content and how well written it was.

    Sex sells… but to whom? People who want to read about science and technology advances? Really?

85. 

    Priscilla Oppenheimer said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:42 pm

    Chris asked for suggestions of women to put on the cover. Here’s a list of women we wrote about for Ada Lovelace Day last year.

    http://findingada.com/list/

    Thanks for asking.

86. 

    Darren said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:51 pm

    There seems to be an incredible amount of naivete about the publishing industry and consumer marketing in this comment thread. Picking on “Wired” for an occasionally provocative cover is like blaming Costa Rica for climate change. They do contribute, but they’re better than most.

    Have the commmenters in this thread not looked at the dozens of magazines produced by and for women? One issue of “Cosmopolitan” inflicts greater crimes of sexism than the entire catalog of “Wired”. Your collective rage feels rather displaced.

    Finally, the argument that “sex sells” is an entirely legitimate one. It’s applied to every corner of our culture. Why? Because it’s effective.

87. 

    Bob Calder said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 8:52 pm

    I dropped my subscription when the approach and content got stale after Negroponet left, then started up again a couple of years ago when I realized it was good again. I’m more sensitive to the level of snark and I’m glad it dropped.

    I had my students read both Wired articles on Newmark just last week. He’s an anti-MarthaStewart and I expect if stories on both were in an issue and she won, I might shed a few tears on principle.

88. 

    JFS said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:09 pm

    Chris, here are about 50 suggestions for women who have done amazing things in technology: http://www.ncwit.org/heroes.

    These are just women who’ve been entrepreneurial. There are many, many more who do research, work inside large tech companies, or influence our lives in countless ways that we don’t know about in part because they don’t seek fame or self-promote. (Ask Clay Shirky about that.)

    I see your point that you don’t have a magazine to publish unless your covers can sell, but also agree with Cindy that you have, if not a responsibility, then at least an opportunity, to influence the public’s perception of women in tech.

    Like other women readers of Wired, I don’t subscribe to your magazine for the hairstyling tips or advice on how to please my man; I read it because you write so well about the intersection of technology with pop culture, politics, health, entertainment … technology is the BACKBONE of our lives and you capture this in meaningful ways, month after month. Please, just don’t make me embarrassed to be reading Wired “for the articles.”

89. 

    Carol Gallo said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:14 pm

    Do a piece on Ory Okolloh. She’s a total rock star. She speaks at things like TED and PopTech all the time. All about using tech, and the open source software she developed, to facilitate emergency response and social activism. She’d make a great story. I know people would pick up the magazine even if they never heard of her. (http://www.cp-africa.com/2010/08/24/cnn-african-voices-spotlight-ory-okolloh-cofounder-ushahidi/)

90. Wired Responds to the Boob Cover | Feminism and Science said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:16 pm

    [...] comes to women on their glossy front.  So good, in fact, that Wired editor Chris Anderson actually responded to it in the comments, and Cindy was able to reply.  It’s a lot of the same whining about not [...]

91. 

    Cindy Royal said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:19 pm

    Hi Kristi,
    Thank you so much for your comment. I love to hear from former students, and I realize the responsibility I have when making recommendations in class. If nothing else, this at least sheds some light on the topic for the moment, and hopefully begins to influence some change. Congrats to you on your career. I’d love to hear more about it! Email me when you have a chance.

92. 

    Carol Gallo said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:20 pm

    Darren. Agree totally about Cosmo. But just because something is effective doesn’t mean that everyone should roll over and accept it. There are plenty of efficient, effective things that are still wrong.

93. 

    Robert Palmer said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:27 pm

    I don’t read Wired often and I didn’t read this issue either. However, I have no issues with the cover or it’s presentation of women. In fact, I think that the “problem” may actually be in the mind of the viewers rather than in the mind of the magazine, so to speak.

    Yeah, boobs were probably chosen because they would sell magazines but women too have an interest in their own anatomy. I don’t know how many fashion and “women’s” magazines I’ve seen on shelves selling better ways to enhance this or that with boobs being right up at the top of the heap.

    And as far as the sensationalism of the story goes, there really isn’t any. The story which the cover is referring to is about tissue augmentation which would naturally encompass breast tissue augmentation. Unfortunate as it may be, plastic surgery is a multi-billion dollar business and it’s not going away. Technology is making that surgery easier, cheaper, safer, and more popular and Wired would have been remiss to ignore the connection.

    Could they have chose a different cover? Yes. Would it have sold as many copies? Probably not. Would it have galvanized the two warring parties? No.

    And after all, isn’t the exchange of information about getting polarized parties excited enough to continue the discourse?

    To “break up” with a publication (or any media outlet) because of a cover graphic (or even a history of cover graphics) is ridiculous unless those graphics push the limits of decency. I would argue that Cosmo has done that more times than Wired. Heck, National Geographic has probably done that more times than Wired.

94. 

    Greg said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:33 pm

    I consider female readers of Wired magazine bold, self-confident individuals who are comfortable in their own skin. In the case of this cover, with the tag line, “Who needs implants?” scrawled across a pair of photo-shopped breasts suggests to me that Wired is implying that natural actually isn’t good enough.

    “Enhancing medicine” is one thing, augmenting aesthetics to boost self-esteem in an already over-sexualized climate is another.

    I’m eagerly awaiting the article addressing the pressures women face in their respective realms and how to succeed and be empowered. You know, how to dress, what surgery will land your next job etc… *Sarcasm*

    A poor, cheap call for this issue, imo. Wired, I thought you were better than this.

95. 

    Hector said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:33 pm

    Damn – looks like VICE Mag is pissed about Wired ripping their cover off
    http://www.viceland.com/blogs/en/2010/11/11/wired-is-biting-our-shit/

96. 

    Nofunrich said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:39 pm

    Every month I look forward to my car mags, and Wired. My girls (11 & 8) enjoy looking at the cool cars in the car mags. I’ve been introducing technology to them using Wired. This issue was immediately turned face down and placed in my office. The “sexification” is bad enough on television, but parental control takes care of that. I am hopeful I don’t have to exercise parental control for my wired subscription.

    I, too, would like to see more women showcased so my daughters can see that not just the guys are geeks.

97. 

    Ron T Blechner said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:47 pm

    “We’re just giving people what they want to sell” is the same lame, pathetic excuse used by all sorts of media, old and new, to justify reinforcing bad stereotypes. If Wired actually reported on cutting edge tech instead of being a flavor-of-the-month magazine, they wouldn’t have to worry about readership.

98. 

    fernando said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:57 pm

    Let’s face it and be real. Wireds male readers comprise a significant majority of their readers. If all their female readers cancelled their subscription, and they published more covers like this one, they could attract more males than all the females they would ever lose.

    Furthermore men are visually driven. Sure, there might be some good articles about strong smart women but really, its only the visual appeal that drives male readers.

    Like it or not this does work. If you want a magazine that promotes women’s academic achievements etc… then look elsewhere.

    Get real.

99. 

    Megan Kamerick said:

    Nov 11, 10 at 9:57 pm

    Cindy

    Thank you for an insightful critique. This issue needs to be addressed loudly and often, especially if we want to ensure that the emerging media landscape doesn’t look like the old media landscape — predominantly male, predominantly white, etc.

    Megan Kamerick
    President, Journalism & Women Symposium

100. skin on leaves leaves on skin « homofilly said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:04 pm

     [...] Cindy Royal wrote an open letter to WIRED magazine. [...]

101. 

     Callie Lynn Bailey said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:12 pm

     my favorite wired woman article:
     Donna Haraway- You are Cyborg. But she wasn’t on the cover.
     http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.02/ffharaway_pr.html

102. 

     Harry said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:12 pm

     Priscilla Oppenheimer: Your list is compelling, but as I read down the list, very few names were familar and I can’t imagine many of them being recognizable to most people in a picture.

     I am sure that as a technologist and scientist I am remiss to not know the great acheivements of each person on the list, but at the same time, I am far more familiar with them than an average Wired reader.

103. 

     Andy said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:21 pm

     Cindy is 100% right. I have two daughters. And two sisters. And for that matter a mother and mother-in-law. What do I tell them when they see this magazine laying around? How do I explain to my two tech-savvy girls why body parts are highlighted on a techy mag?? How?? I just got my “please re-subscribe now” letter. I, along with Cindy, say no. I will not. I want to, but I can’t. I won’t. So long and thanks for the memories. Good and BAD.
     Andy

104. Meet the new mag. Same as the old mag. | Marthagarvey's Blog said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:26 pm

     [...] I know it’s more complex than that.   So glad professor Cindy Royal is willing to take it on. [...]

105. Whistling in the dark » Blog Archive » Recommended links – November 11, 2010 said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:39 pm

     [...] Cindy’s Take on Tech» Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Wired Magazine [...]

106. 

     Stacey0 said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:41 pm

     Must be great to be able publish an imaginary magazine in imaginary land where people buy without judging the cover.

     The fact that Wired still exists in perfect bound hard copy for your hands/eyes is a testament to Chris et al.

     I went broke listening to ‘focus groups’ that sound just like most of you. Put ‘real people’ on the cover, get politicians and social innovators. Sexy or startling covers SOLD, covers that fit the focus groups criterion FAIL.

107. 

     Crystal said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:43 pm

     @ Brian: “every body likes boobs” of course, that is not the point. Read the whole article, were you stuck just looking at the boobs? The point is that women are seldom recognized for their part in technology, then to “top off” the insult they only portray anything to do with females with only these kinds of articles. It has turned into objectification of women. If you have a daughter then you better start thinking about her future soon.

108. 

     Clyde Smith said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 10:52 pm

     Great work. Hope something comes of your dialogue with Wired. It will probably be short lived but, based on your evidence, just about anything would be an improvement in this area.

109. 

     Grover said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 11:22 pm

     While I’m not sure how I feel about the central premise of this post (I can see both sides of the discussion), dismissing Martha Stewart’s and Sarah Silverman’s covers as “jokey” and so they don’t count is absurd.

110. 

     heidi harman said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 11:23 pm

     W00t!
     Thanks for a well written blogpost that takes a clever angle at the problem.

     Alternatives:
     In Sweden, we founded GeekGirlMeetup.com, a conference for women by women, when we felt we needed more female rolemodels in internet, code and start-ups, and found ourselves being the only girls/women at tech-conferances. Today lifting women in the community, creating new role-models, networks and its growing organically in a way that we could not have foresene in Scandinavia. It is indeed a valid alternative as the world is un-complete, and findining a way to do something in a constructive, just like you did with your blogpost.

     http://www.arcticstartup.com/2009/10/15/geek-girl-meetup-gathers-100-women-to-talk-about-tech/
     http://www.heidiharman.com/geekgirlmeetup-summary/

     AND… WIRED: (friendly nudge)
     Yes please, more clever start-up women, female techies on the front page, thank you very much. (dare to lead the way)

111. 

     Robert G said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 11:24 pm

     You want women on the cover? How ’bout these: http://www.theroot.com/views/spelman-college-students-win-national-mobile-app-competition. They not only exemplify women who are contributing to technology, but they also show how people in your to target demographic can actually make a difference when they’re not playing video games or wanking it.

112. 

     Cosmo Girl said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 11:37 pm

     Like, I would totally go out with Darren, fernando, and Robert ’cause they understand the “reality” of female sexual roles — it’s been like that for forever so why change? It’s working for me and my boobs! Hey, do you guys have big watches?

     Oh, and uh Kevin and Greg. Don’t be so profound and analytical. That’s just not as sexy as telling me how many magazines my twins can sell.

113. 

     Steve Wilhelm said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 11:43 pm

     I have to admit, I was disappointed with this month’s Wired cover. It does smack of desperation.

114. 

     TheMadChild said:

     Nov 11, 10 at 11:59 pm

     “Michael Foukarakis said:
     Nov 11, 10 at 7:59 am

     It’s about tissue engineering, people. What do you suggest as an alternative image? Dr. House’s missing thigh? Get a grip.”

     Ok, so I see two glaring issues here:
     1) The cliche use of the female form as a standard to turn to when there are no more ideas. Sex may sell, but point-blank tit shots aren’t exactly creative.
     2) That the cover could have taken an entirely different focus with the same concept without alienating and objectifying women in technology.

     Cindy has a point with objectification here that is clear-cut. The image has been composed at a close-up with a straight angle without any characterizing features other than skin tone. This shot is meant to be risky because of content, but the treatment of the content (while some MIGHT mistake it for creativity) is frankly sexist for the simple fact that food is given more character in photography meant for covers or articles than this woman’s breasts. It is cheap because there is an illusion that the impersonal treatment of content is supposed to give a sense that by focusing only on the content (breasts) instead of the connotations of the image’s use that it means it isn’t sexist.

     I work in advertising. I’m not fooled, and I don’t utilize sex this way to sell product because truthfully if you have to resort to objectifying someone (model or readers) to sell a product, it’s probably not worth buying.

115. 

     Chris said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 12:00 am

     @toenolla: Awesome idea, Leah Buechley would be perfect for a cover story. She’s making great tech, is near the forefront of the Arduino movement, and is working on bringing more women into the field of electronics hobbyists (35% of Lilypad purchasers are female, much higher than 5% for plain Arduino).

     Cindy: thanks for the much-needed post, and for writing so well in your responses to Chris.

116. 

     Cindy Royal said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 12:03 am

     Grover,
     I said the Martha Stewart and Sarah Silverman covers didn’t count because I was talking about women who were featured on the cover of Wired because the accompanying articles had to do with their specific accomplishments or nature of their work, like Turkle or Anderson. Silverman did a comedic look at Why Things Suck and Stewart’s coverage was limited to a short Q&A that introduced the theme of the How To issue.

     Yes, they count as women. No, the cover stories they represented did not support the point I was trying to make. And even if they did count, we’d still be talking about a paltry representation of women in Wired throughout its history.

117. 

     chris dixon said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 12:15 am

     Re Chris Anderson’s comment on Caterina Fake. I’m her co-founder at Hunch. Personally, I think she is cover worthy for her non-Hunch accomplishments alone, regardless of the fact that Hunch is still a small, relatively early-stage startup. She is the cofounder of one of the most important web startups of the decade (Flickr), a wildly successful angel investor (e.g Etsy), and an all around leader and role model in the tech and business community.

     I’d also add that if you’d like to know about her current role at Hunch, I’d recommend reading her blog Caterina.net or her Quora response to inquiries about it (http://www.quora.com/Did-Caterina-Fake-quit-Hunch-and-if-so-why) and not sensationalistic press reports.

     Finally, my own two cents is that you underestimate the intelligence of your potential audience. Showing breasts and celebrities might get you short term sales, but hurts your magazine’s credibility and business in the long run.

118. 

     Cindy Royal said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 12:23 am

     Thanks so much for weighing in on this, Chris Dixon, and for clarifying Caterina’s current status at Hunch!

119. 

     Renee said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 12:41 am

     Wait, remind me again what notable contributions the chick covered in diamonds had done to for the tech field that made her “recognizable” enough to get her featured on the cover…? I’m confused.

120. 

     Christopher Corwin said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 2:36 am

     Seriously!?!? 100+ people took the time to complain about a magazine cover? Tear it off and get over it! Dont buy it, dont read it, change the freaking channel, keep your kids locked in a closet. Instead by writing a 10,000 word “Dear Editor” comment about something that is pointless just cancel. If it was my magazine I designed and I worked my fingers to the bone for I wouldn’t want little cry babies reading it anyway. My freedom to write and publish what I want means more than your petty problems.

121. Rupture gracieuse « Les aventures de Nausica_qc au gouv said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 3:23 am

     [...] Wired (un magazine américain spécialisé dans les technologies de l’information) à cause de l’image des femmes en couverture . Chris Anderson (Éditeur de Wired) répond dans les [...]

122. 

     Caitlin said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 3:27 am

     @Chris Anderson I’d love to see something on Ada Lovelace Day. I’m sure Suw Charman-Anderson would be pleased to tell you more about it. (Just google her or tweet her at @suw).

123. 

     Chris said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 4:57 am

     If you go back far enough (Mid to late 90s…) there is definitely a Wired issue about burning man with multiple bare breasts on the cover.

124. 

     WiredHatr said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:03 am

     I bought wired from issue # 2 until a couple of years ago. I stopped not because of the sexism but because of the stupidity. It’s like an idiocracy of apple/gadget fetishism now. The serious futurism is virtually gone, even the fascism lite. All it reads like now is yet another gadget mag.

125. Around the Web: Flash-free, Facebook Engineering, & Wired’s Cover | Feed2 said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:06 am

     [...] This took balls & boobs, kudos to Cindy Royal.  An Open Letter to Wired Magazine: We’re Breaking Up (via my newest heroine @cindyroyal) Please shoot me links to projects your working on or awesome [...]

126. 

     robin said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:07 am

     Thanks for your thoughts Cindy. I stopped reading Wired for a lot of reasons and I probably wouldn’t make that decision based upon one particular cover (though depending on content, I might), as it was definitely a cumulative thought process. I begin to notice the lack of representation of women in technology to the point that it almost seemed deliberate. I’m not asking Wired to become Ms. magazine, but it might be nice if there were more diversity represented in its pages. Granted, it’s been several years since I’ve picked up a Wired magazine, but this cover would not make me want to buy an issue. Provocative, yes, but not in a way that would make me want to read it.

127. 

     joe said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:43 am

     good riddance. you complain about a 1/2 boob shot, but then give the martha and silverman covers a pass. classic double standard. what is wrong with the cover and how is it degrading or insulting? I agree with Christopher Corwin’s comments as well……

128. Korta klipp – 12 November 2010 said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 6:32 am

     [...] Cindy’s Take on Tech» Blog Archive » An Open Letter to Wired Magazine [...]

129. 

     Geoff Livingston said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 6:33 am

     Cindy: Good post, and good on Chris for engaging in a dialog. Selling magazines and doing the right thing are not the same thing, at least today. We’ll see what happens.

130. 

     GeekGirl said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 7:42 am

     Boys! Girls! All you out there saying you love the boobs.
     I understand why we had boobs on the cover a long time ago.
     But in our internet-porn society we can “get boobs” whenever we want. Really. Ever tried watching them on a smartphone?
     Much better than looking at a cover, I promise.

131. Öppet bloggbrev från journalistprofessor om Wired Magazine | webbutbildning said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 7:48 am

     [...] med kritik mot tidningen Wireds omslag under åren och deras schablonisering av kvinnor: ”An Open Letter to Wired Magazine”, är ett bra exempel på hur professionella bloggar kan sätta igång en offentlig dialog [...]

132. La realpolitik della tetta - manteblog said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 7:51 am

     [...] Royal partendo dall’ultima copertina di Wired ha ricontrollato l’uso dell’immagine femminile nelle copertine del mensile americano fino ad oggi. Ed il [...]

133. An Open Letter to Wired Magazine | Cindy Royal | Voices | AllThingsD said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 8:07 am

     [...] Read the rest of this post on the original site Tagged: Voices, media, Cindy Royal, gender, magazine covers, magazines, Wired Magazine, women | permalink var SurphaceSettings = { url: "http://voices.allthingsd.com/20101112/an-open-letter-to-wired-magazine/", siteid: "atd" }; var _surphld = document.createElement("script"); _surphld.type = "text/javascript"; _surphld.src = "http://cdn11.surphace.com/rcwidget/loader.js"; (document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0] || document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0]).appendChild(_surphld); « Previous Post ord=Math.random()*10000000000000000; document.write(''); [...]

134. 

     KMB said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 8:12 am

     The cover reminded me of the Breast Cancer Awareness Month – it even had the pink lettering associated with BCAM – and I was surprised to see, that it’s not what’s discussed in the article.

135. 

     daSwede said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 9:47 am

     Kör hårt bruden !

     That was Swedish for “you go girl”. Yes, even in Sweden, we read your blog and agree with you. http://www.visitsweden.com

     I have nothing against boobs, on the contrary, I love boobs. I also like reading some of the articles in Wired magazine. But boobs have nothing to do with any of the subjects I expect in Wired magazine. If I want boobs I look elsewhere.

     BUT

     The thing, that really sets me off, is the way they handled this critisism from a reader.

     They should hire me to do the PR instead of whoever does it now, it’s not working. Hey, I’m a geek and a nerd but would do a better job.

     Stå upp för dina rättigheter, konsument kraft (Swedish again)

     /daSwede

136. 

     Jonas Boutani Werner said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 9:48 am

     Thank you for writing that Cindy.
     Wired really needs to read it.

137. 

     Jaci said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 11:07 am

     I mostly agree but as an artist I found many of the covers (mostly the one of the woman covered in diamonds) to be one of the more beautiful covers and pen of the many that I have kept. As an non-practicing/reformed woman in advertising, the reason I decided to change careers was because the empirical research for “what sells” made me sick. I could not participate in an industry that refuses to accept responsibility for a “chicken or the egg” situation regarding the widespread portrayal and usage of the female form to sell products. People may argue all they please about the media being responsible for the current state of gender conflict (internally and externally for young men and women) or the individual responsibility of parents and peers to correct the media influence but I decided I was NOT going to be part of the problem.
     I am very glad that you have called my attention to this because for once, I was asleep at the wheel and didn’t even realize “out loud” how biased and unbalanced Wired had become.
     I’m interested to find out how they rebound from this and I’ll hang in there to see what happens because from listening to Chris Anderson on the Nerdist podcast recently, he didn’t sound like a douche-bag…I think he’ll do the right thing.

138. 

     Jaci said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 11:18 am

     As an after-thought, if Wired really wanted to boost sales with a cover, they really should have gone with an “after” picture (I mean after they’ve healed, just scarred) of a mastectomy. Aside from the obvious media fluster surrounding an image like that on a cover, it could have shown us the positive in that article instead of focusing on the segmentation of the female form. Maybe Wired needs some new blood in their art department…

139. Fed up, Texas woman breaks up with WIRED | Journalism.co.uk Editors' Blog said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 11:52 am

     [...] In an open letter to Wired magazine published on her blog, Cindy Royal, an assistant professor at Texas State University in San Marcos who teaches web design and multimedia journalism, “breaks up” with the magazine: When I noticed this month’s issue in my mailbox, I approached it with the same breathless anticipation that I do every month. I didn’t even mind the naked picture of Jennifer Aniston on the GQ subscription insert. I mean, it’s just advertising. You’ve got to make a living, right? Then, I turned you over to see what fascinating topics I would be delighted by this month. Boobs. Right there on the cover. A pair of breasts, no head, no rest of body… just boobs. Sure it accompanied a story on tissue re-engineering, so what other possible way might you visually represent that, but with a pair of breasts? No other possible way? This isn’t the first time. We’ve been through this before. Your covers aren’t all that friendly to women on a regular basis, and that makes me sad. [...]

140. 

     Sara Halperin said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 11:58 am

     Cindy,

     This is awesome. I am not a buyer or reader of WIRED, at least not regularly, but count me out for becoming one until they fix this problem. I’m glad you got a response from someone at WIRED, but also incredibly impressed with your response back at him. They are making a mistake by not taking women seriously, especially now when they make up a majority of the workforce and could potentially be a majority of their readership. Again, I could be persuaded to be a buyer and reader of WIRED, but for precisely this issue, I have never been compelled.

     I just wanted to let you know that you have my full support and I am glad you brought so much attention to this issue.

     Sara

141. 

     Ken Walden said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 2:27 pm

     Let me just say thanks for writing the letter, and here’s at least one male who gets it. The long list of men and some women trying to excuse objectifying women here in the comments is rather depressing. Gotta love the Internet!

142. 

     @BeTweenie said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 2:42 pm

     Those that can, do.

     Those that can’t, teach.

     I expect no actionable suggestions.

143. 

     Cindy Royal said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 2:50 pm

     Suggestions have been made, more to come. Whether or not anyone takes action on them is out of my hands.

144. 

     joe the plumber said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 2:56 pm

     Those are boobs? They look more like me from the back.

145. 

     Laura said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 3:33 pm

     Was this the most compelling story in the issue this month, or was it selected because it made the most compelling cover? I’m curious.

146. 

     Noah Wolfe said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 3:34 pm

     Cindy,

     WIRED’s cover is a issue but the pages between the covers are glaringly absent of women as well. As a joke each month when WIRED shows up at my door I count the number of women pictured inside. (No data on hand here at work. Will try to post later). The number of pictured women in WIRED is very low each issue and usually more than doubles when advertising is included. Thank you for bringing attention to this issue.

     Chris,
     Granted geekdom and the tech world are a male dominated arenas. But I think a key approach that geeks and techies value is attacking a problem from multiple angles (http://www.xkcd.com/627/). More content on and about women (and female perspectives) would make WIRED a better magazine and more appealing to geeks everywhere.

     Noah

147. 

     Marisa said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 4:20 pm

     Fantasic, thank you for standing up to these superficial types of covers, for believing in women and for speaking to Wired in a way that isn’t petty but rather very uplifting.

148. 

     K.G. Schneider said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 4:27 pm

     Cindy, thank you for speaking truth to power. (Yes, a magazine such as Wired is powerful.) For too long Wired has gotten away with its “Beavis and Butthead Go To Silicon Valley” editorial stance.

     I’m amused at the people who tell you to just not read the magazine when you begin your post by stating that you are “breaking up” with Wired. Oh, and I’ve heard that before in so many contexts. Keep pushing for transformative change. Meanwhile, I’ll keep not buying Wired.

149. 

     Antje Wilsch said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:04 pm

     Cindy, as a woman who’s worked years in tech, I grudingly read Wired even as I felt they were trying to be the Maxim for techno geeks. When they put a certain micro-celeb on there as a token “women founder/tech” I stopped reading right then and there.

     I get into discussions about women in tech online quite frequently. And I have one thing to say to all of the male writers (bloggers, etc.) who say “don’t blame us, we tried to find you but no one responded” I have a list of female women in tech who’d be amazing stories/studies/speakers whatever. You have my contact information, use it. Stop hiding behind “blame the victim” excuse.

     Lots and lots of great stories, plenty of women in tech doing cool things, and guess what, not all of them are bitter b**** either!

     PS don’t have to drag out the same tired token female faces are paraded out at every event as speakers either.

150. Riot URLs: Gender and feminism in Philly’s tech scene (a Barcamp Philly proposal) | Maria T Sciarrino said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:15 pm

     [...] Between this and this, I have been thinking about putting together a discussion about the intersection between issues of gender, feminism, and the local tech scene. I never thought much about my own gender and using/making web stuff until I encountered people who asked me if I could “handle” HTML and CSS. Is this a prevalent issue? What are people doing locally to address this particular topic? What could we be doing better (if anything)? [...]

151. 

     Andrew said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:23 pm

     Cindy — thank you for taking the time to challenge Wired on its male-focused editorial culture. I am a male reader of Wired, and while I am also enthusiastic to receive a new copy in the mail, I am consistently struck by the way the articles, reviews, and choice of graphics tend to assume a male (and, in the way they represent women, hetero male) audience. The writers very often assume a particularly male perspective and a male audience. This may be demographically representative of the writers and of the audience in general — but this also becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. (Not to mention that even if the readership is predominantly male, there’s no reason to address the audience as if it is exclusively male.) Do I have to constantly think of myself as a *male* reader when I am reading a magazine about technology?

152. 

     Casey Zeman said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:35 pm

     Wired married into the concept that sex sells. Geeks like technology and hot chicks…and as much as this is a smart sales tactic for sales, it does diminish “Wired”‘s non commercial appeal. I have no problem with boobs for a cover and it seems like it had some relevance to the article, however does it always have to be about what sells?
     Maybe it does, maybe “Wired” doesn’t have the luxury of staying tech based main stream to continue to hold their existing audience. They have built up the reputation of the “cool” tech supplying info coming out. “Wired” is partially responsible for making comics(traditionally geeky) into the mainstream cool sector. Syfy is now cool. Technology is sleek and cool and Wired has helped to edify that. With that creation comes their responsibility to continue to satisfy that public.
     It is safe to say that their public has changed over the last decade or more.
     Of course technology audiences have also become YOUNGER and YOUNGER. With that being said “Wired” is trying to appeal to a younger audience (under 50) while still providing good and valuable content.

     Similar to Rolling Stones, they are now “hip-commercial”. So can they afford to hold out for ideals when they have to look at the bottom line—dollar signs?

     I actually have no stand on this issue as it is. I feel that if a magazine could thrive without commercial backing and advertising or unique and double-taking covers then that would mean that the general public’s attention span’s increased (and that would be a miracle)…faster cars, taller building yet we have more time to observe? I don’t think so.

     Believe me, I wish it was so…

     I personally would be all for expo’s of any successful tech entrepreneurs on the cover(Man or Woman). Doesn’t always have to be Brad Pitt for me personally. (unless Brad Pitt was flying a rocket and was sporting some super bad-ass sunglasses)

153. Wired Makes a Boob of Itself - SlashGear said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:38 pm

     [...] Royal has an interesting take on the whole topic, with more context on the history of Wired’s covers. In the comments to her blog post, Wired [...]

154. 

     Claire said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:40 pm

     Thank you for taking the time to point this out, Cindy, in a humorous, intelligent way. Sad to read comments of so many people who don’t get that objectification is not OK, no matter how much you love boobs, boobs sell, or whatever other excuse is provided.

155. 

     Rick Stevens said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:42 pm

     Fantastic critique, which seems lost on some of your audience.

     One thought that strikes me: Chris Anderson’s argument that “no one recognizes females in technology” displays an unfortunate circular rationale. If people don’t ALREADY recognize a person, Wired doesn’t see the importance of drawing attention to him/her? (And yet they DO draw attention to technologies that are relatively obscure.)

     That somehow reminds me of the Texas Higher Ed debate about history books: if we haven’t heard of a historical figure, it means we don’t need to learn about them.

     I don’t mean to bash Wired, but I think this argument/explanation on the part of Anderson displays the promotional bias inherent in magazines like Wired, a bias that emphasizes image over substance, popular opinion over rigorous investigation and groupthink over thoughtfulness.

     Don’t get me wrong, Wired has some great articles. But it just seems this particular editorial slant represents a shift from leading the culture to chasing the culture. And once you argue that you’re chasing the culture (and letting culture form your own editorial mores), it seems that opens the door for the “we’re not as bad as some” defense.

     Anyway, just thought I’d offer that thought. Might make for an interesting critical study somewhere down the road?

156. 

     Jean said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 5:52 pm

     You may find an answer on the Wired bio page: http://www.wired.com/about/press_bios/. There are many women working at Wired, but apparently only two are worthy of having featured bios. Women aren’t highly regarded at the magazine, so why should we expect that they be treated with respect on the cover?

157. 

     Carly said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 7:08 pm

     This is a really wonderful point. I’ve attended SXSW interactive twice as a speaker, and both times, I attended primarily panels addressing issues of gender, race, and feminism on the web and in gaming as those are the topics I care about most. The diversity of the speakers at these panels is a huge contrast to the perceived homogeneity of the industry. SXSWi could be more diverse as a whole, and while I do believe the organizers have diversity as a goal in inviting speakers and programming events, I don’t want to suggest that it’s perfect. However, what I do want to suggest is that Wired (and other tech publications and tech writers) could use the SXSWi schedule as a guidebook of knowledgeable people. It’s not that hard to find a woman to interview or profile, it’s not that hard to write about a woman-run company. It is easy to fall into the patterns of covering the same sector of the population over and over. What I would like to see from WIRED:

     a) More coverage of women, and specifically, more coverage of women who are accomplished in something other than being hot. There are a host of women academics who study and produce technology, and there are thousands of women doing interesting things in industry. Find them. Seek them out. Do not wait for them to come to you. It is not their job to come to you, and they have likely learned that doing so would not be productive.

     b) Coverage of prominent issues regarding racism and sexism in the tech world. Wired is in a position to help draw attention to inequalities and offer suggestions for correcting them. Do this. Cover interesting initiatives to get more women and racial and ethnic minorities involved in the tech community. Cover incidents that show why more are not already involved. You don’t have to turn into a political magazine, but you could at least help support those who are fighting these battles.

     c) Think about technology broadly. If you can’t find women working in the areas of technology the magazine most frequently covers, question that, and then go looking for areas of technology in which women are involved.

     d) Hire women writers, including women bloggers. I do not think women should be hired exclusively to write on “women’s issues” or even on women, as that leads to the old gender segregation of the newspaper by section. However, having more women contributing is a good step to take regardless.

     I subscribed to WIRED for 6 years or so, but I stopped for many of the same reasons mentioned here. I study video gaming and technology for my research, and while I enjoyed the magazine, it seemed too much like a boy’s club.

158. 

     Tyler Clark said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 7:29 pm

     I agree that the current cover is stupid and low brow, but I think that the critics are being a bit short-sited.

     First off, “Wired” doesn’t do personality covers–male or female–terribly often, and it’s usually celebrities (Will Ferrell, Jon Stewart, Steve Carell) when they do. Most of the men “don’t count” for the same reason why Martha Stewart and Sarah Silverman “don’t count”. The few men who are on the cover for their accomplishments are heavy hitting household names like Al Gore and Bill Gates (who didn’t sell).

     Also, all of the recommendations for female covers in the comments are simply ridiculous. It’s not about whether someone “deserves” to be on the cover. It’s not about whether she’s doing interesting things or has accomplished a lot. It’s about whether she’s a big name with newsstand appeal. I can’t believe that we’re actually criticizing “Wired” for choosing to put Will Ferrell on the cover instead of Caterina Fake! Believe it or not, “Wired” is actually trying to SELL magazines.

     I used to work for a magazine that regularly received very similar criticism. My response was always the same, “I would love to feature more women on the cover. Here are our criteria. Who would you recommend?” Invariably, people would recommend interesting, wonderful, unknown women.

     Magazines are continuing to die. “Wired” has to think about mass appeal covers. They don’t be able to do that with Ory Okolloh on the cover.

     That said … the boob cover was pretty stupid.

159. 

     kathryn said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 8:03 pm

     My issue is that, as a woman, it’s a statement that this magazine isn’t for me, it’s for men. As tech is for men.

     As a woman in technology, it makes me not want to have the magazine in my home, or renew a subscription. It’s not a picture, it’s a line in the sand.

     Kathryn

160. 

     Bridgette said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 8:31 pm

     Chris!
     I have a great idea! Since you’re trying to make Wired look like Maxim, I have a great idea.

     Since you can’t say “hot women in technology”, you can have a “Top 10 Hot Women who are Familiar with Technology”

     Hang with me here.
     To qualify, a woman must be able to tell the difference between an iPhone and a laptop. Now, obviously this will screen a lot of women out, as maybe a few dozen women use computers. But of those few, you could find a few attractive ones.

     Then the writers could ghostwrite their personal profiles. Like:

     Although Bridgette doesn’t use a computer personally, she describes tech guys as “hot” and like guys with “big devices in their pockets”.

     Turnoffs: Computer viruses!
     Turn-ons: Pictures of pretty flowers on the screen!

     I mean, if you lower the bar enough to include women, (and by women, I don’t mean those homely web-surfer-girls), you will have those Maxim readers eating out of your hand. That cover was a great start, and we look forward to any editorial excuse you can come up with to get a pole-dancing girl with hot pants on that cover.

     I got it! Talk about new synthetic fabrics!! A new filler to justify a pushup bra, synthetic hair, a breathable vinyl for the go-go boots. And there’s a factory in Venezuela- so bring in Ms. Venezuela. Think about the copies you’ll sell!

161. 

     jeff said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 8:56 pm

     please

     there are many more pressing issues to take a stance on

     pick your battles

162. 

     Elliott said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 9:07 pm

     So, pretty much everything’s been said pro and con here. I think this is a great topic for discussion. I like Cindy’s take, and appreciated reading Chris’s response.

     I will just add this: My girlfriend stole this copy from me to read the cover story while I nodded off on the plane.

     I do think the portrayal of women in media is a constant struggle. And I often time find myself arguing for both sides of the debate. In the end, I think there’s a middle ground – it’s okay to use sex to sell, but it’s also important to feature the great accomplishments of any man or woman without gimmicks. I don’t think it should ever be 100% in either direction.

     One of the things I’ve always enjoyed about Wired are its covers – they are often fascinating, and often gimmicky. But the content inside has always traditionally been the balance.

     I remember the baby on a photocopier, a heat-activated paper on the cover (by far my fav), brilliant line art, a fantastic computer generated images, and on and on. All very gimmicky – but appropriate in context with the content inside.

     I think this cover is no different, IMO. The magazine has at times pushed envelopes, and I’m all for that, as I feel they are responsible and respectful in doing so.

     But that’s just my take.

163. 

     Liz said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 11:02 pm

     Great post, this is exactly what blogs are for. I found seeing the cover at my news stand, sitting amongst general topic magazines, shocking and just makes me think less of Wired.

     Really, there are hundreds of men’s magazines with boobs on them, does Wired need to jump on that bandwagon? While its readers skew towards male, do they not care anything at all about their female readers? Apparently they do not care about offending them.

     Like you said, it is more disappointing than anything else. As The Bride said towards the end of Kill Bill, Vol. 2, “I knew you could. But I never thought you would. To me.” For shame, Wired.

164. Wired vs. Women: Too Much Objectification In Tech? - Techland - TIME.com said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 11:44 pm

     [...] days ago, Cindy Royal scolded Wired in a blog post that's been cheered around the Web many times over. An assistant professor at Texas State [...]

165. Chat Replay: Can You Judge Wired by its Covers (and Coverage) of Women & Tech? | Plant is Great said:

     Nov 12, 10 at 11:53 pm

     [...] an open letter to Wired this week, reader Cindy Royal criticized the magazine for featuring a cover image of a woman’s cleavage for a story about breast tissue [...]

166. 

     Charlotte-Anne Lucas said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 1:04 am

     Cindy -
     Magnificent.
     In my 35 years as a journalist — from reporter to business editor, to managing editor and content director, in print and online — I’ve managed to turn things as dreary as muni-bonds and as complex as derivatives into page one, fly-off-the-news-stand stories.
     I did that without resorting to lazy, pandering props such as images of boobs.
     If Chris Anderson isn’t interested in working that hard — or thinking with his brain — perhaps he should step aside and let a woman do the job.

167. 

     Mackenzie said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 1:11 am

     When I saw this Wired cover on the newsstand, I thought “OH FFS! Not again!” rolled my eyes, and walked away.

     I’ve had it up to here *points to area 6 inches above head* with the “Zomg lets use boobs to get people’s attention! We’re all either straight dudes or lesbians in the tech world, right???” crap I keep seeing in slides at conferences and in magazines.

168. 

     Violet Weed said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 1:22 am

     Oh for goddess sake! Lighten up! They are just boobs. hmmm. Actually they kinda look like MY boobs and I’m 62. (well they do! particularly if I take off my glasses and look at mine in the mirror… from a distance.) ;->
     I like Wired, always have, and I don’t mind if they want to inject a little sex into their mag… I wouldn’t mind a little injection of sex occasionally, but alas! those days are far behind me, like 25 years behind me. sigh.
     You are making a big deal out of nothing. Move on. Men are not the only ones who like to look at sexy body parts, why are you bothering to pretend that isn’t the truth! I love to look at young, healthy, ‘perky’ bodies… female or MALE. Doesn’t mean I want to boff ‘em. Sex is what makes youth great. Remembrance of sex is what makes old age tolerable.

169. 

     Olin Hyde said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 1:30 am

     Cindy:

     I empathize with your sentiments that women are not as recognized as often as warranted in the technology community in general (and Wired specifically).

     Some of my greatest mentors and teachers have been technicians that happened to be women. Others happened to be Mexican, Arab, gay, African American, whatever. The beauty of technology is that is does not care who you are or what you look like. It just wants to be fed with great ideas.

     But to pick on this Wired article is a misinterpretation of the the article (which was written by a woman) and the point (that human tissue can be regenerated). Biologically we are hard wired to find the opposite attract for what they have and we don’t. Breasts inclusive. Just as men being tall and muscular.

     Get over it and renew your subscription. Wired is still the best mag out there. Even if it is flawed.

     What else can you expect from a magazine by geeks, for geeks and about geeks than for them to make geeky missteps.

     Thanks for your thoughtful critique — even if I disagree, it is important to keep reminding the community that ~51% of the greatest minds in the world belong to… women.

     Olin Hyde

170. 

     Daniel Martínez said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 1:36 am

     I really dont see what is the problem. Women in technology have not created much new tech, so their contribution is their good looks. If I am wrong, please prove me wrong.
     This magazine is trying to appeal at the male nerd population, you know the ones that create new technology.

     Please get real and find something important to complain, like the mythical wage gap, or the imaginary glass ceiling.

171. 

     Mackenzie said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 2:02 am

     Darren:
     Yes, Cosmo is full of sexism, body-hating, go-broke-trying-to-be-perfect-but-it’ll-never-work crap. That’s why I’ve never bought a single copy of it! But I have bought Wired before, because it does sometimes have content worth reading.

172. 

     Mackenzie said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 2:36 am

     Daniel:
     Well let’s see, Flickr’s founder was mentioned above. There’s also Leah Culver of Pownce fame. Oh, Allison Randal, the Technical Architect for Ubuntu and Jane Silber, the CEO of Canonical. How about Mitchell Baker at Mozilla or Denise Paolucci, who created the wonderfully privacy-aware blogging platform, Dreamwidth?

     And that’s limiting it to a very short list of Free Software-related folks.

173. 

     Pär Larsson said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 3:12 am

     Ummmm… they gotta make money?

     How do you suggest they make oodles of cash for their investors/owners and make sure to be able to pay the salaries of the people that work at the magazine – if they don’t occasionally feature the kind of cover that’s going to grab people’s attention?

     Fact is, sex & violence sells. Your point is well taken, but it’s really more of a comment on society as a whole than on Wired.

     People trying to make money and keep the lights on at their place of business will never get criticized by me. Seems to me that this is ONE cover out of …how many since the last time they did a cover featuring a more or less gratuitous female shot?

     Storm in a tea cup. Get off your hobby horse. Chill out and have a little sympathy with the person who approved the cover – he’s gotta show the subscription and the magazine rack sales numbers to someone and justify his salary. Gonna be hard to do without grabbing people’s attention once in a while.

     Good luck doing his job. I’m thinking you’d be a lot less successful as a Wired Magazine editor than he is.

174. 

     WSS61 said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 4:55 am

     Dear Cindy,
     I support your position on this matter, for the sole sake of re-empowering the young woman of today. I’ve attempted to highlight the country’s “sexplotation” of both men and woman,and it’s relationship to alteration in body imagine, body dysmorphic disorder, depression, self abuse, and yes, suicide. The degree of young woman (and men) who just don’t “get it” is not only astounding, it’s incredulous! The lack of ordinary civility seems missing to a great degree in people today. You can forget empathy….that’s been gone for years! I give up. There’s really no hope, is there? The Corporations who make the big bucks over sluttification are winning. It’s going to get really ugly in about 20 years. Heard the term “Rode hard, and put away wet?” OUCH! My eyes…my eyes….I don’t want to look!

175. 

     Allison I. said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 5:17 am

     Hey, some dudes said we shouldn’t worry about stuff like this, so don’t worry about it, Cindy! These dudes know best.

     Thank you for your letter. You speak for a lot of us.

176. 

     Michael J. Carrasquillo said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 6:06 am

     FYI: I clicked through Huffpo, just so you know.

     Wired is not using a photo of breasts gratuitously to sell magazines in this case. In the New York City office work place, I see WAY more than this everyday. In my opinion, every woman angry about this cover, I’m sure, has shown the public more of their own cleavage just walking around in a Wal-Mart than what’s depicted on this cover.

     Look, think about other women…you may have been taken aback by this cover but many women out there, like my wife who just went through breast cancer, have been hoping and wishing for a natural alternative to breast implants but currently have to settle with the standard issue of saline or silicone. She wishes, more than anything in the world, to have her natural breast tissue back. This is a constant topic in our home and since I’m in the technology field, I read Wired. When I saw this I IMMEDIATELY thought I should read and share it with my wife; as I think it gives her hope for technical advancements of natural breast tissue reconstruction.

     I never once thought this article, or the photos, were ‘objectifying to women.’ In fact I just asked her if she at all cared about the cover or the content. All she said was, “Wow, that would be nice.” I know it’s not something you feel is helping inform people but the cover DID grab my attention and knowing Wired is a tech magazine I didn’t expect it to be a fluff story. I figured it had tech relevance.

     I understand that you would like to see more covers regarding the accomplishments of women in tech (outside the use of their bodies only), I get that, but this idea that everything in the media needs to be civil, moral and cerebral all the time—especially for women—is a little far fetched and unrealistic in this day & age.

177. 

     brenda said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 9:39 am

     Boobs? What’s the fuss? You have a subscription so you may as well receive this with a blank cover. They are not trying to get your attention.

     It’s all about you girl. Sounds like a teeny bit of self loathing …. Get over yourself!

178. 

     Karin said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 10:27 am

     I just wanted to say “thank you”. I have thought about and been annoyed by the portrayal of women in Wired for quite some time. I’ve wanted to say something about it, but you’ve done it better than I could and to a far greater audience.

179. 

     Karin said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 10:37 am

     Pär Larsson:

     The money making-argument is all well and good, or had been if it weren’t for the fact that Wired are now losing money because they objectify women. The gratuitous boob shot has cost them subscribers and recommendations to future subscribers.

     I don’t know if the people who were drawn in by it will make up for it. If they bought the issue because “sex sells”, they probably won’t stick around for the reading pleasure of Wired but rather buy a different type of magazine.

180. 

     Rickio Woods said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 11:01 am

     Dear Cindy,

     Chris Anderson’s self defense in his reply was more depressing than the truth in your articulate post.

     I too have witnessed the evolution of Wired magazine since issue#1. For me it’s early years reflected the “Stewart Brand” frontier spirit during the birth of the personal modem that opened the portal to the internet parallel universe. Monthly showcasing the next provocative idea, killer app, tech toy, cyber book or nano tech discovery by “up and comers” all the while elbowing the mainstream corporate cubicles out of the way. And always with an eye for pushing the norm in magazine design. The magazine trusted their instincts and their readers. The tail seemed longer back then.

     I guess the test list of names had less recognition than a pair of female breasts. That image is universal. And sells magazines. Ask Maxim. They know how to judge a magazine by it’s cover.

     I like the “big ideas sans people”idea over the cult of personality “geek celeb” face that I see on every other magazine cover. But according to your editorial focus group “up and comers” (I call them possible visionaries) don’t sell magazines. I guess your old patron saint in the early masthead – Marshall McLuhan, would be nixed because it’s the “company leaders” and “geek celebrities” your readers care to know about. You know, like a “great CEO” such as Carol Bartz. Really? That’s your example? Yikes! It’s like Wired aspiring to be the tech section of Newsweek magazine. There seems to be a short circuit at Wired these days.

     Wouldn’t it be cool if Rossetto and Metcalfe did an intervention like Jobs did at Apple?

181. 

     Beverly Choltco-Devlin said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 11:41 am

     Cindy (and Chris) As a breast cancer survivor of almost eight years who had a mastectomy, I am always eager to read about innovations in breast cancer treatment, and have to say that I was discomfited by the cover image. I also work in technology on a daily basis and testified before both houses of Congress in the early 1990s on the promise of the internet and the importance of equity of access to the information that the internet could provide. Perhaps a better cover image, if Wired truly wanted to show the true point of the story, would be to portray a woman who had a mastectomy whose breast had been reconstructed using this technology, (but of course that hasn’t happened yet). Or better yet how about a side by side image of a woman’s chest with the scars of the mastectomy alongside the image currently displayed to show what the promise that new technology would bring (that would be equally shocking but more meaningful, I dare say). Or better yet, how about a story on Jean Armour Polly, who, thanks to her efforts and vision in the early days of the development of the web, influenced a revolution. She has served on the Internet Society Board of Trustees (1993–1996)(was the first woman) and on the ICANN At-Large Advisory Council (ALAC) (2004–2006), as well as on the board of ICRA. She is also credited with coining the phrase Surfing the Internet in print (though she freely admits it had been floating around in the ether for a few months). I am subjected to the bias of men in technology frequently. The fact that I am not really that attractive adds to the problem. Just last week, I raised a question to a panel(comprised of all men) at a conference discussing emerging technologies. My question regarded the wisdom of particular investment made by a federal agency in a technology initiative that seemed to me to be a waste of money. I could tell by the body language of the men on the panel that, because I was a woman (and not pretty), my perspective should not be taken seriously and my question was dismissed without thought. What those men failed to realize is (wise or not) that project in that federal agency would never have been possible had it not been for my testimony before the Science and Technology Committee in 1993 which advocated for investment in the internet and the importance of public access. I knew they did not know who I was and this is part of the problem. Several people came up to me after the panel discussion to tell me they agreed with my assessment of the lack of wisdom of the investment and more importantly were appalled at the panel’s treatment of my question. Chris’s lame response above was that Wired struggles to put recognizable people on the cover. What he is not getting is the power of the media and especially magazines to CREATE recognition and an understanding of the role and power of women in technology. If they took a chance on Martha (who clearly does not need the marketing), why not take a chance on a woman who changed the course of technological history, like Jean Armour Polly and the other countless women mentioned above, to CREATE duly deserved respect and recognizability.

182. 

     Lar said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 2:55 pm

     This isn’t a morality issue. This is about improving the perception of women and eliminating the heterosexual male gaze as the typical perspective available in media. Because other magazines are worse or because some women dress provocatively surely does not make this less of an issue. Also, to any men defending the cover–your justification reads as merely a defense of your male privilege. Objectifying women is not liberating, and that argument is stale. Please, save it. In an ideal world where women were not oppressed for their entire history, perhaps this cover would not be an issue. Context, folks.

     Love the letter. Bravo!

183. 

     Cindy Royal said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 3:35 pm

     Beverly,
     Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Your experience mirrors that of many women in tech, not being taken seriously for their contributions or ideas. Your quote regarding Chris Anderson’s response is right on. “What he is not getting is the power of the media and especially magazines to CREATE recognition and an understanding of the role and power of women in technology.” It’s Journalism 101, media have power and media organizations should work to provide balanced and fair coverage. There are publications who take that seriously, and those that don’t. I wish Wired considered itself the former and not the latter.

184. 

     Joe Shea said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 4:25 pm

     I read about this cover elsewhere and found it today through a link in Jim Romenesko’s column. I thought I was going to see one breat and a nipple. I had a beautiful Chinese girlfriend who was the victim of breast cancer, and she had one breast and a nipple, and where the other had been was an awesome mass of scar tissue from a radical mastectomy. Now, if I were editor of Wired and I wanted to tell an important story about breast cancer, I would have run a cover with one beautiful breast and nipple and when the cover folded out or was turned over, you would see the mass of scar tissue. Mei-Ling was her name, and she is still beautiful.

185. 

     Beverly Choltco-Devlin said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 6:27 pm

     Thank you, Joe. That is my point EXACTLY.

186. 

     Mary Celeste Kearney said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 6:34 pm

     You so rock, Cindy! Thank you for helping to expose this persistent problem w/ Wired.

     Now if only we could get other magazines (and newspapers, and advertisements, and music videos, and . . . ) to get on board and depict women with respect. I can’t believe it’s 2010, and women are still consistently represented first and foremost as sexy broads. Well, that is SOME women — after all, 95% or more of us don’t appear in mainstream media because we don’t fit norms for white, middle-class, heterosexual, able-bodied beauty.

     Thanks for inspiring us ladies to get off our butts and talk back (and that includes with our pocketbooks).

187. Wired vs. Women: Too Much Objectification In Tech? | Hitech stores said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 7:06 pm

     [...] days ago, Cindy Royal scolded Wired in a blog post that’s been cheered around the Web many times over. An assistant professor at Texas State [...]

188. 

     Niclas said:

     Nov 13, 10 at 8:29 pm

     I agree completely, it’s beneath the content of Wired to cheapen itself with a cover like this. As a married father with two young girls I don’t want to promote this kind of sexism, the rest of media already has that covered 100 times over.

189. 

     Cs said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 3:59 am

     Perhaps the discussion with the younger generation should not just be about sexism in the media but additionally, how some women knowingly choose to profit while being objectified.

190. Does my linkspam look big in this? (14th November, 2010) | Geek Feminism Blog said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 7:31 am

     [...] Cindy had something important to say to Wired magazine, so she wrote them a letter. [...]

191. 

     Humanist Geek said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 10:21 am

     ehgh… An amazing technological marvel forgotten in the crossfire of sexism.

     On November 10, I read the tissue engineering article online (http://tinyurl.com/2vb6zlw) and grew really excited about how the technology could become economically self-sustaining and could feed its expansion into all sorts of applications: huge skin grafts grown from small samples; custom transplant organs – lungs, kidneys, livers, etc. – replacing rejection-prone organs from donors dead, disabled, and alive; the manufacture of ivory, fur, and other poached goods; a climate-crisis-fighting revolution in food production that replaces the abominable, polluting, unsustainable, inhumane factory farms with an array of bioreactors producing beef, pork, chicken, and other meats; solving the overfishing problem by growing fish flesh in vitro; producting leather, silk, spider silk, bovine milk, human milk, and all sorts of other goods. The possibilities are endless.

     And then, a few days later, I found this post and the cover image it criticizes. Honestly, Wired could have used a different cover image, like one of the Celution system box that processes adipose (fat) tissue. http://tinyurl.com/wired-celution-box. Heck, they could’ve even used a different url for the article, http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/10/ff_futureofbreasts/all/1. Honestly? Future of breasts? No, human mammary organs are just one stepping stone on the way to a paradigm shift. (http://tinyurl.com/Biofab-Paradigm).

     Now to go on a related tangent.

     A vaguely related post about gender issues in the tech world is this reaction to Blizzard’s Real ID plan. In essence, people playing World of Warcraft, StarCraft II, and other Blizzard games would be forced to attach their real-life identity to their video game identity, which would have been particularly troublesome for female players. I say vaguely because it’s a criticism of a privacy-violating idea that uses the treatment of females in the gaming world in many of its arguments, whereas Royal’s post is a criticism of a bit of sexism, perceived or true, intentional or not. And I say related because it helps highlight the gender disparity in geek culture. That is, geek culture is womanizing. Just look at Iron Man 2 (or 1, for that matter). Or any of the Transformers movies. A Victoria’s Secret model is starring in a lead role in the sci-fi action movie Transformers 3 as Megan Fox’s replacement.

     And Wired, a geek’s magazine, is going to naturally reflect that. And that is why it needs to be adjusted.

     As an end note, I view sexuality and gender issues from a humanist and evolutionary standpoint and, as a result, favor equality and freedom. http://www.thehumanist.com/humanist/10_sept_oct/Voss.html and http://www.thehumanist.com/humanist/10_sept_oct/

     Here ends my rambling.

192. 

     Mark ML said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 12:57 pm

     A question just popped in my head…why is it that sexual objectification as a “marketing tool” only works one way? I mean, you would never see a womans’ magazine putting a penis on their front cover in hopes of selling more copies (it’d probably have the reverse effect).

     That said, I think Wired’s choice for this cover was more intended to give them the image of being edgy and titillating than it was to bait male readers. The image of the breasts is too close-up and cropped in such a way that it doesn’t really feel all that sexualized.

     At least to this male viewer, just seeing a random pair of breasts without a head attached or any knowledge of who they belong to, is not much of a turn-on. It’s not much different than looking at any other body part close-up.

193. 

     James said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 1:23 pm

     Wired, is a fashion magazine. Only it also has elements of Mad, Cracked, Maxim, Playboy (gadgets).

     You love it because you’re a dude, dude. And you hate it because it sensationalist.

194. 

     James said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 1:25 pm

     Wow… Chris Anderson was on this? You must be a threat.

195. Wired, women, what? said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 3:37 pm

     [...] Royal writes an open letter to Wired magazine. To summarise, it is a woman’s take on the problem Wired magazine seems to have with [...]

196. Wired – You’re Fired | PinkStinks: the campaign for real role models said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 7:58 pm

     [...] Didn’t get a response but was pleased to see that somebody did. Here’s the blog from Cindy Royal (with he infamous cover shot) and the response from Chris Anderson – the Editor of [...]

197. 

     Marco said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 8:55 pm

     Wired hasn’t been worth reading since Conde Nast bought them after the dot-com meltdown. Get over it and go read something else.

198. 178 – Return of the Aussie : Dogear Nation » Podcast said:

     Nov 14, 10 at 11:04 pm

     [...] Wired not appealing to women? (andypiperuk) [...]

199. 

     Nancy Garcia said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 12:06 am

     My art direction solution? Forget the youthful, Caucasian, android effect. Shoot some marble classic statues exposing “skin” with blue lighting for that artificial, metallic effect like the shimmering skin the published images showed. The point of the tissue research is to sculpt [or repair] bodies, right? And sculpture clearly objectifies the image, so the moral issue is side-stepped. Throw in tribal figurines or fertility figures if you want. Go for the National Geographic native effect if the goal is to be PG and not abstract [not really, just mention that for context and to point out the lack of age and race diversity pictured, since I didn't yet see those objections]. Perhaps if some of the marble figures pictured were also broken in spots, that could subliminally imply the need for repair that some of the future engineering applications would address . . . those not-pictured, scarred chests.

     @Chris Anderson . . . *I* associate Martha S. with kitsch and being a jailbird. The whole uber-housewife thing is so 90s. Sorry, I don’t mean to be snarky, just one data point.

     I feel neutral about whether media should lead or follow regarding molding opinion and tastes. Meanwhile, my impression has been that Wired’s appearance intends to grate — the hard-to-read, reverse-type page numbers being just one example. Being grating was part and parcel of the overall intended tone, from what I could tell, regardless of how prescient or not any of the stories were.

     Did the author have any suggestions for how it might be illustrated? Are news stand sales more important than subscriptions?

200. 

     Ann said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 12:30 am

     I dropped my subscription to Wired about five years ago (only a year after I first subscribed) because of the objectification of women in the advertising. It doesn’t really surprise me that it hasn’t improved.

201. 

     Pixie Healy said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 3:28 am

     Julia Allison worthy of a cover? The only thing she has succeeded in doing is put her tits out on the cover of Wired, while maintaining some ridiculous idea that she is “a brand” and that the inane drivel she writes passes for life-blogging or life-casting in any way shape or form.

     Constantly taking photos of herself in ridiculous outfits (dressing mostly like a junior prom reject or a 5 year old) making kissy faces at the camera and namedropping like she’s someone important bores and annoys me.

     Holding her up as an example of a successful woman in tech is moronic.

202. 

     CelinaMac said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 3:36 am

     Thanks for writing about how women are depicted in digital media and for calling out wired magazine. Years ago they were innovative and could be considered thought leaders and as you pointed out it was during these years that they covered topics that commercial magazines weren’t even interested in. Now sadly, they are just one of those commercial flesh magazines and tech flash sites.

     There is a presentation made by Tally Weiss on women in digital media that may interest you: http://www.slideshare.net/TrendsSpotting/what-it-takes-to-be-a-digital-woman-5621504

     Just wanted to say that young women who aspire to work in digital media or in journalism need to read more posts like yours and more models like you and Tally.

203. Wired, Heise und so. | [E]lektroJung[E] said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 7:41 am

     [...] Gefunden habe ich das bei Techland HIER. Auf der Wired-Seite schaut das SO aus. Ich heule gleich mal einen Wok voll, mit Kotze. Der kritische Blogpost einer amerikanischen Assistent-Professorin an einer amerikanischen Universität KLICK. [...]

204. socialmedia.net said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 8:51 am

     Women in Tech: The Link to the Future…

     Tweet Care In the last year I have been to three major conferences and numerous smaller gatherings and meetings. The one thing they have all had in common is that women were completely outnumbered by the men. The amount of women attending never exceede…

205. 

     Enrica Beccalli said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 12:31 pm

     very good article. You have my support. Enrica from Italy.

206. Wired? | Women's Views on News said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 2:10 pm

     [...] Read the blog post including a full catalogue of Wired’s offences here [...]

207. 

     George said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 5:51 pm

     I have been a reader of WIRED from year 1. Also other magazines, over the years. Many of which feature people, both male and female on their cover. Over the years WIRED has had few individuals on the cover. Whereas other magazines, well …. My point being, that the female form, has been and will continue to be used to sell everything, including magazines! That is a reality of sales: Sexy sells, ugly rarely does. A sex pair of boobs, or any part of the female anatomy, sells, even magazines aimed at women use women to sell magazines. My point being that WIRED uses it’s covers, like every other magazine, to get attention and sell the magazine. Sometimes, that means using women, or parts thereof. Is it objectification? Well, I think we differ there. Whether, women like it or not, it is a fact of business. Get over it, move on. To break up over a silly thing like that …. is just [silly]!

208. 

     White said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 6:49 pm

     While it is an interesting take, the “breaking up with Wired” is counter-productive and against your interests. Whereas, previously, you survived with too few covers that passed your acceptability-test, to… NONE. Your justification\rationalization ends up sounding more like “a fit of pique”.

     Your engaging more directly with Wired staff, however, is eminently more commendable.

209. 

     PJR427 said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 7:29 pm

     I actually quit reading “Wired” over a year ago because it began to feel too much like “People” or US Weekly” for the tech set. Not enough technology info and too much fluff about.

210. 

     Mindy said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 8:56 pm

     Wired is not getting my subscription renewal at the end of this year. I had noticed that the editors seem to think that their subscribers only consist of straight males.

     I had meant (and would still like to do) a statistical analysis of male to female presence in my year’s worth of magazines, but I do happen to have the July numbers present. For articles only (not including letters to the editor), there were 4 pictures or illustrations of women (where you could see at least part of their faces), 6 mentions of or quotes by women (two were only in the context of wife/mother of male geek), and 6 articles written by women. In contrast, there were 19 pictures or illustrations of men, 47 mentions of or quotes by men (individuals, not total number of quotes), and 23 articles written by men. And a man on the cover. That’s not counting the ads, which followed the same pattern or the nature of some of the mentions of women. It’s not just the covers.

211. 

     Matari said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 8:57 pm

     It is interesting that a lot of the comments by men dismiss women’s feelings about being presented with a pair of boobs on the front cover of a supposedly serious magazine about technology. Using ‘well it is just business’ to justify this is not acceptable – using women’s body parts to attract readers is reprehensible in so many ways and, as ever, completely incomprehensible to certain kinds of men – possibly those who consume pornography regularly and so a pair of boobs will seem very small beer in comparison. Fellas – it is not acceptable, it will never be acceptable, and the majority of women will not rest until our bodies are no longer used and abused for profit.

212. 

     Phoenix said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 9:58 pm

     Oh, Lord. I guess I understand being miffed (very slightly) by it, but I dunno that it requires a book-burning. It’s not as though Wired is the flagship journal of N.O.W. or anything, and it’s a propos of the contents. It’s not pr0n-y, nor is it the cover of a hot-rod rag. It’s cleavage. Something you can see in about half a million magazines a year, not to mention other media outlets, very few of which I’m guessing anybody complaining about this is willing to boycott on the basis of a handful of non-explicit covers. Any Lady Gaga fans complaining? How about rap fans? Hell, casual television viewers?
     The West is spoiled as hell if this is the most pressing issue it can think of to get bent out of shape about. Why not mistreatment of the Roma in Europe, murder rates in South Africa, neo-fascism on the rise across the globe, the fallout (and dropped ball) of the Pakistan floods, etc? This seems like incredibly small potatoes. Like, neutrino-sized potatoes.

213. 

     Cindy Royal said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 10:31 pm

     Chill Phoenix,
     I just said I wasn’t going to renew my subscription, didn’t lobby for a book burning. As I articulate in the next post, my reaction was more about the pattern of women represented in Wired, not this one photo.

214. 

     Rajeev said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 10:32 pm

     I was impressed with the research you provided to establish your points, which I agree with wholly, except in one area. However, ugh, did you have to refer to it as an abusive relationship repeatedly? I get it, we all use hyperbole to get our point across sometimes, but come on, just call it like it is without sensationalizing it to a disingenuous extreme. This is not abuse, this is a way to attract people to look and hopefully buy the magazine. Also, that we might be titillated by breasts or celebrities is not abusive or demeaning, it is normal. The greater issue that you are making is true. There needs to be more women on the cover of a magazine like Wired. Many women work in technology and more women are advanced degrees in many of these areas than men do. It is heartbreaking not seeing yourself represented equally as a woman or person of color or even a man in a non-traditional sense or role. It is as if you don’t exist. Making hay out of what is a glamor business is antiquated prudishness. In the end I would rather see a Will Ferral on the cover than Stephen Hawkings (though Hawkings is visually also quite compelling, so maybe some dude at Google would be a better example).

215. 

     Phoenix said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 11:03 pm

     @Cindy Royal: I was more referring to some of the over-the-top indignation happening in the comments. Uber-PCism is a real bummer for any number of reasons, but more so when it goes to waste on fairly innocuous, non-life-threatening issues; that’s all I was saying. I probably could’ve been clearer on that point.

216. 

     T. Marie said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 11:03 pm

     OMG people…why don’t you get this passionate about something that really matters?!? I mean you’re upset about some boobs on a magazine cover when there are homeless people probably living within a mile from your glass houses and children all over the world that are starving not to mention that need good homes. Just in the US alone we could stand to put some humanity and passion into the reality that is our world of poverty and suffering but yet you’re up in arms about some boobs on a magazine cover. Boobs that are totally related to the article IN the magazine. Give me a break and go use all that time you spent on your 11 page article on something that matters here and now. Make a difference in someone’s life who’s never even heard of Wired magazine instead of spending hours griping about something so trival in the big picture. Geesh.

     Oh and P.S. I’m a woman. I work in IT. Get over it.

217. 

     Lady in Red said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 11:27 pm

     I understand that you feel that women are not covered in a good light in Wired. However, I don’t have the same response to the magazine that you do. We can’t leave social responsibility and the promotion of women in the hands of ANY magazine or the media in general. We need to look to each other as a source of building one another up. Magazines are around for profit, not to promote a positive social self-conscience.

     Quite frankly, I think the lighting on the cover looked great and if lighting did that for me, I would walk around with lighting people in tow.

218. 

     Bill Stewart said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 11:40 pm

     Back in the early 90s, while I was still avoiding owning a TV, I happened to catch a cable news show about an upcoming new magazine called Wired, with Louis and Jane and Stewart Brand and Kevin Kelly talking about stuff that was cool and cutting-edge at the borders between tech and media and culture and garish typography and getting wired. I bought the first N years of it, I was even almost on one of the early covers. But since then….

     I don’t think I’ve bothered reading it more than a couple of times this millennium. Conde Nast turned it into sort of a travel magazine for the tech world, and other commenters said it’s since devolved into more like People or a fashion magazine. I’m fine with them juggling between putting pictures of shiny new gadgets on the cover vs shiny techie people. Putting boobs or celebrities on the cover because that sells other kinds of magazines is sort of losing the point.

     If they want to put people on the cover, I’d hope they’d put people who are doing cool and interesting stuff, and since some fraction of the people doing that are women, I hope Wired finds them and gives them the respect they deserve. Leah Buechley and the Italian Arduino gang are an obvious choice (even if the Lilypad and not the people end up getting the cover space), but there’s so much going on – will Wired be the place we read about it?

219. ‘wired’ [hearts] boobies « conversations of doom. said:

     Nov 15, 10 at 11:58 pm

     [...] hosted a lively discussion Friday over varying reactions to the recent cover of “Wired” magazine that featured a close-up shot of a woman’s breasts to promo a story on regenerative medicine. [...]

220. 

     Michelle Greer said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 12:00 am

     Wait, what?

     Chris Anderson’s response to this was, “Tell us what to write about?” Talk about skirting the issue.

     The issue isn’t just the lack of women on the cover. The issue is THERE ARE A COUPLE OF BOOBS ON THE COVER OF YOUR MAGAZINE. I’m actually more offended that the cover article is about breast augmentation. Can you imagine giving a 15 year old girl a subscription of Wired thinking it will get her interested in science, only to see that on the cover? Come on. Is it really that hard to sell magazines these days?

     He just strikes me as more desperate every day. I guess that’s what happens when you have the overhead of print to cover and your cooler, geekier counterparts Chris Pirillo, Gizmodo and TechMeme don’t.

221. Chris Hardie's Blog said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 2:24 am

     Should I unsubscribe from Wired magazine?…

     One of my most favorite magazines to read, and only one of two I subscribe to, is Wired.  They somehow manage to stay on the cutting edge of the tools, technologies and culture I am connected to as a technology consultant and web developer, and it’s a…

222. 

     Mary Fletcher Jones said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 3:19 am

     The cover was in poor taste and it makes me question the editorial direction at Wired. The article also had a strange word choice. In cancer recovery, the term is usually breast reconstruction, not augmentation. There is a difference between getting a boob job (augmentation) because you want larger breasts and repairing the damage (reconstruction) done by treatments for cancer — that’s why health insurance pays for one and not the other. This was a medically oriented article about an important topic that should have used medically oriented photographs, not faceless glamour models. It’s a real health issue for women and WIRED trivialized it with this choice of photos and cover. Thanks, Cindy, for speaking up.

223. 

     Jennifer Souza said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 3:34 am

     Bravo, Cindy. You nailed it on the head. And yikes, Chris. You are reflecting everything that women dislike about men- they just don’t get it.

224. 

     Monica Garcia said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 7:05 am

     Thank you for your post. You are a brilliant woman with an understanding of the ceiling images like these, as associated with technology, perpetuate for women hoping to enter the field. As a current student and hopeful ambassador of women (especially those of color) in the field, I am grateful you have raised this discourse from the shadows in a very powerful way. Props!

225. 

     Andrius Bentkus said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 10:48 am

     Yeah! What about the missing kitchen in the cover? Just kidding…
     You have made some valid points: the surrounding in a womans world in the modern western society won’t make her particular interested in technology because of this non stop social encouragement to become a Barby doll instead of an Engineer.

226. 

     Helen Huntingdon said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 12:14 pm

     Chris Anderson’s response is a standard whiny cop-out so often repeated that he might as well have sent a form letter. You point out the overwhelming evidence that his process is a trainwreck, and he demands that you do his job for him by providing him easy solutions that don’t require him to think, let alone take a critical look at the process he’s in charge of. And of course, when you did offer up one such don’t-make-the-poor-dear-think suggestion, he showed exactly what he’ll do with such suggestions; he shot it down on a trumped-up excuse that doesn’t reflect reality.

     As others have pointed out, he’s basically declared himself incompetent by invoking this kind of excuse. Perhaps the people at Wired should demand a better editor. Then maybe those of us who actually want useful information might start reading Wired again.

227. 

     Sarah S said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 2:20 pm

     Case in point:
     I had two plane trips within about 5 weeks of each other this year. At the airport for the first trip, I purchased the September issue of Wired with Elon Musk and a Tesla on the cover. I read the entire thing voraciously and seriously thought about subscribing to the hard copy version – quite a step for a person like me with zero magazine subscriptions and a hatred of paper waste.

     On the second trip, I looked eagerly for the new Wired at the newsstand, only to see the gratuitous breast cover image. I recoiled away from it instantly, thinking of reading it on the plane in close quarters with passengers wondering if it’s some kind of “adult” publication. That cover removed all thoughts of subscribing to Wired, and left me with serious misgivings about ever buying it at a newsstand again.

228. 

     texyak said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 3:44 pm

     All the men posting their kudos here are just trying to get laid. Men like boobs, period. Do you think men would complain if Wired featured an article on advances in male enhancement and depicted a wiener on the cover? Probably not. Women as a whole hate depictions of the female form because they’re taught from an early age to be critical of themselves. Don’t project your feelings of insecurity and self-loathing on everyone else. Wise up, get some therapy, and read something else if you don’t like the photo on the cover.

229. 

     Rebecca Cummings said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 4:06 pm

     Cindy, you’re my hero. Thanks for taking a public stand on something so important!

230. 

     Elaine said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 4:12 pm

     It is like anything good, it eventually sells out to commercialism. Like a good radio station, has tons of underground techno and house music…a year later, it’s all Top 10 hip-hop. Not to mention Firefly’s cancellation…God knows we all need another CSI remake on TV or another reality TV show. You have to stand firm for the truth and when the tide of superficiality and lies comes in, you have to anchor down. Good job, Cindy.

231. 

     Blair said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 4:17 pm

     Wow. Lots of great (and not so great) comments here. I’m a former student of Cindy’s, a woman, a feminist and a programmer. I also like boobs – I think they are pretty cool in general.

     But mostly this whole thing just makes me feel sorry for guys in the tech industry. First of all, it’s obvious by the covers that they are quite insecure about their own bodies and need to hide behind their (sometimes faux) intellectualism and push their own lacking ideals of beauty onto women, or parts of women as the case may be. To the point of jealousy and exclusion it seems, right girls?

     Not to mention the fact that they’ve got no fight in them. How hard is it for a guy to make the cover of Wired? Why it is practically guaranteed! It must feel awful for you guys who HAVEN’T been on the cover of Wired.

     And so what do all you guys do anyway? Hang around with other not-so-great-looking guys and talk about slightly more famous not-so-great-looking guys that are in a magazine that seems to be afraid of women. Hmmmm. Oh yeah, and then get butthurt and whiney when a smart and influential woman decides to calmly and rationally take her money and intelligence elsewhere. Emotional much? Maybe you guys have PMS this week or something.

     Bottom line is, if the editors of Wired can’t figure out that there ARE women in tech doing great things and think they need to crowdsource story ideas, then I feel bad for them too. It must hurt to constantly be chasing that elusive claim of being ‘on the cutting edge of technology’ when really you just need any random person reading this blog to figure out what the hell is going on in your own industry.

     Maybe you guys should hire the new logo design team from the Gap. That seemed to work out well.

232. 

     White said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 4:23 pm

     As an addendum to my earlier post, I am wondering why you RE-PRINTED the cover in question… Did you find that it supported your storyline better? Was it necessary?

233. 

     Cindy Royal said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 4:29 pm

     White,
     I used the images to demonstrate the pattern. I wasn’t offended by any one of them to the point that I couldn’t look at them. I think you can take a look at my post and get the general sense of how Wired has handled women in images over the years. And you can decide if that’s appropriate for a magazine that focuses on technology and culture. I made my decision.

234. 

     HrothgirOD said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 5:52 pm

     The UK edition didn’t have that cover…

235. 

     Whitney said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 5:55 pm

     I am curious to know if the boob cover really helped to boost magazine sales. Did it? I see that the Wired.com page has also used a “side-boob” image and wonder how those page-clicks are adding up. If people are spending and reading and subscribing like crazy because Wired continues its chauvinist representation of women, the question becomes how to balance income with respect. Are mostly horny men reading this magazine? I’m getting the impression that this publication isn’t aimed at my demographic – 20 something, technology loving, educated, professional who loves to spread buzz. Too bad. Whioh technology magazine should I read since Wired is only interested in people who are comfortable having a set of boobs, naked girl, jeweled girl, come-hither girl on their coffee table?

     You say the editor is listening up and asking for suggestions? How about starting by taking the boob picture off your homepage? An act of good faith which is as easy as a couple of clicks…

     Thanks for representing Cindy. My respect for you continues to grow.

236. 

     Jake E said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 6:07 pm

     I think wired is being sexist by not feeding the female gaze too. If they did this they’d sell more magazines by catching the androsexual eye at the news stand.

237. 

     Rajeev said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 6:34 pm

     People want to augment themselves often in superficial ways. Some shapes and images appeal to us even as they can make us feel inadequate. No one was demeaned here. People want a more perfect body, as subjective as that idea of perfect is. Have you ever read the short story “Day Million”? A examination of this. If anything the image on Wired is rather pedestrian; a second after seeing it I was thinking “imagine if it was a penis with that cover tag line?” Our primary sex organs are a visual taboo, which maybe a little childish on our part but it is the line that society has drawn. But then is good to keep somethings for yourself, too They are breasts and undoubtedly if this technology becomes viable people will be reshaping this and myriad other things about themselves, as they do now in apparently more invasive ways. True it could have been, I don’t know a finger regrowing (and this is another thing, coming up with ideas for a cover is not easy, what is easy is to say this doesn’t suit your taste), but most people will never lose a finger, while many people would want a more sexually appealing body, which again is normal, just like getting a haircut at the salon.

238. 

     Lewis Knight said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 6:51 pm

     I’m with Cindy on this! But I need to add: Your research might prove me wrong, but your readers are not all pimple-faced, teen-age male, geeks that are looing for sophmoric sexuality on your covers. Those that need that stimulation can find it elsewhere. Those of us (that I know) who read Wired are looing for the latest trends, technologies, socially media-deterministic items that make a difference in how we use media and digital applications to enhance our lives. I don’t need boobs to clutter up what is generally well written, smart and insightful articles about the things that truly interest me and bring me to Wired.

     Thanks For Considering Your Audience Just a Little Smarter in The Future!
     Lewis

239. 

     Julie Ruff said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 6:56 pm

     Wired’s response makes it pretty clear that their No. 1 priority is to sell magazines and maximize profit. Which is really just sad. What happened to journalistic integrity? Most people, I’m betting, completely missed the point of the story. I was hoping it would focus somewhat on how women who have survived breast cancer could benefit from tissue regeneration, as I have personal experience with that, but I couldn’t get past all the breasts. And neither could the writer of the story, who I did notice is a woman, because she spends the first few paragraphs talking about pictures of breasts.

     I tore off the cover and sent it back. We’re done, Wired. Don’t call me anymore.

240. 

     Jay said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 7:06 pm

     Ok, so I’m late to this due to all the press coverage which made me read your post. Unfortunately, your worthy cause (let’s go with: more coverage of women in Wired, making tech more interesting for women, not doing anything to turn off women from reading Wired) is totally nixed by your sorry reason for taking offense: a pair of breasts? Really?? I know a lot of women in tech and, while they all smile at this and note that “OMG I really live in a male-dominated space”, none of them takes offense. On the contrary, everyone immediately recognized how tissue re-engineering has an immediate correlation to breasts, especially after a month of Race For The Cure activities.
     On a different note, are you asking a magazine with probably 98% male readership to not increase their revenue by putting pretty women on their cover? I am a man, and when confronted with a magazine stand (say, at the airport), I am most likely to pick up one that has Uma Thurman or Julia Allison on it. If you mock me for that, you are trying to part ways with reality.
     So I conclude that you have some kind of personal issue that causes you to dislike pictures of pretty women (“Come hither poses”? Seriously??) and the naked body (probably men too, right?). So sorry, go complain to someone else, WIRED is better off with a clean break from you.

241. 

     cary-anne said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 7:22 pm

     Cindy, so glad you took this on. Your letter and research were impeccable. You perfectly describe the subtext that any woman in the technology industry is forced to deal with on a daily basis. As a full-time web designer and a woman, I often feel I have to overperform to be taken seriously. I already feel that if I’m presenting my ideas on site design to any audience that I need a man there to affirm that my ideas are valid. While I know that’s not true, I know that my audience does. Women are innovating in technology as much as men are, despite society’s “common knowledge” to the contrary. Magazines like Wired should be promoting women equally with men. If they can’t find women to write about, then they’re just not looking. There’s no excuse for glossing over the innovative work of the women who are working their hearts out to even be noticed while men get an automatic pass just because technology is a “man’s industry.”

242. Selling Sex or Just Stupidity? A Common Sense Plea to Chris Anderson — Michelle's Blog said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 7:31 pm

     [...] and not seeing much about women who impress men with their brains and not their bods, she was breaking up with Wired.By the way, I hate seeing this image on my blog but just wanted you to see how bad it is and why [...]

243. 

     C. Ewing said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 9:01 pm

     A very astute and balanced critique of a supposedly progressive publication. Anyone who thinks that Royal’s point is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the one picture of breasts hasn’t read her missive with enough care OR lacks the capacity to understand what the base problem is.

     The editor’s response, far from being a relief, actually brought to light more disturbing facts about Wired and/or the industries it represents:

     According to him, Wired’s readership is more interested in Will Farrell than a less widely known woman who nonetheless is more closely involved with and contributing to technology. Is it true that readers care about new technology and invention BUT NOT about the people actually behind it (especially if they have a vagina)??

     With all the talk about ‘celebrities’ and ‘recognizable people’ needed for Wired to be a profitable business, it brings a puzzling paradox to mind: How do deserving people in the tech world BECOME recognizable if publications like Wired pander to Hollywood worshippers and frat boys and relegate REAL players to the back seat? This seems like such a crass, cynical view of the readership’s intelligence and good faith that even I have trouble accepting it.

     It seems that the people at Wired need to seriously ask themselves this question: Is Wired, as their editor suggests, REALLY kept afloat by the occasional buyer who would pick up Will Farrell but leave Gates or Fake on the shelf? Wouldn’t it be better to earn the subscription of intelligent, tech-savvy people who have been waiting for an enlightened, professional, grown-up tech magazine… **but can’t find any??**

244. An Open Letter to Wired Magazine « Valerie Aurora said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 9:21 pm

     [...] An Open Letter to Wired Magazine [...]

245. Cindy Royal’s Open Letter to Wired | The ATX Web Show! said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 10:18 pm

     [...] at Texas State and familiar face in the Austin web community, wrote a blog post titled “An Open Letter to Wired Magazine“.  The well-formed breakup letter expresses Cindy’s lament over Wired’s latest [...]

246. 

     Matari said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 10:38 pm

     The boobs on the cover of Wired pale into insignificance when compared with a new advertising campaign by Suits Supply here: http://www.womensviewsonnews.org/wvon/2010/11/object-to-suit-supply-which-offers-pornography-along-with-its-suits/

     This campaign is so repugnant that I cannot believe that it is real – it really is unbelievable. In a store in the Westfield Shopping Centre (London) there are photos of a seated woman, legs apart, looking up while a man lifts her skirt and inspects her vagina as though he is sizing up a bag of potatoes. Other images include a man groping a woman’s naked breast and another of a man driving, reaching over to his female passengers crotch, presumably to perform a sexual act. The campaign is also featured on the company’s website. So the Wired cover is just the thin end of the wedge for those men who don’t get it.

247. wired magazine… | Hjgtaylor's Blog said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 10:53 pm

     [...] kind of torn between polarities with the recent Wired Magazine cover and the subsequent reaction by blogger Cindy Royal, who contributes a scathing post on Wired’s use of a woman’s cleavage on its cover to draw [...]

248. Science&Sex » Blog Archive » Breastesses On WIRED Magazine Cover…Again said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 11:12 pm

     [...] Read on here. [...]

249. 

     K. Rasmussen said:

     Nov 16, 10 at 11:18 pm

     Why do so many people always insist on playing the prude-card, as if it was about sex or nudity? It’s not, it’s about representation. Is it a cultural difference? I have never met a woman who was against sex or beauty, but I have met several who preferred it when women were treated and portrayed according to the subject they represented, like men are. So why is Cindy’s suggestion to have women depicted according to the subject (so images of women in a tech magazine become more tech related) so reprehensible? Male sexuality and body satisfaction doesn’t seem to have suffered by men getting represented that way, quite the contrary, so all the hostility directed at her and the other comments for supposedly being against sexuality seem hollow (and quite pathetic) to me.

250. 

     shanzam said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 12:02 am

     My sentiments exactly!
     When I saw this issue was in the mailbox I had a brief burst of excitement that immediately went to a deflated WTH response. I was so conflicted and still am. I left it on my counter and haven’t touched it since. Also, none of my housemates ( male and female ) have touched it either.

251. 

     Mitch said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 1:31 am

     Breasts are a part of the body that people frequently try to modify so seeing a PG rated picture of breasts on the cover of a magazine containing an article a on tissue engineering doesn’t seem so inappropriate.

     I know that some women are pretty, some women are smart, some women are both, and some women are neither but still have value as human beings. I like to look at pretty women and I like to read what smart women have to say.

     Graphic design is more about visual appeal than it is about ideology. Pretty women are visually appealing and seeing them on a cover of a magazine is not at all offensive to me. If I recall correctly Wired has had pictures of visually appealing men on the cover, too.

     I couldn’t care less what a magazine has on it’s cover, as long as it isn’t something like a racial caricature of a picture of mutilated kittens. The only thing the cover of a magazine says to me is “This is what their design staff thought would look good on the cover.”

252. 

     Amelia said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 3:39 am

     As a fellow tech woman, I totally agree with you Cindy. Great letter. But that’s not the reason for my comment. I am totally blown away by the amount of discussion this topic has generated. Period. This wasn’t a blog about “Dancing with the Stars” or “Lady Gaga”. It’s a smart conversation about the responsibilty (or irresponsibilty, in this case) of media in our society. Thanks, American public, for showing me that you give a damn!

253. “Show me the money!” | Tony Tung's Social Media Extravaganza said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 7:58 am

     [...] use of social media in fundraising. It was a very brief tangent (we spent more time talking about the cover of Wired), but I managed to take away a very important difference between social media used in overall [...]

254. 

     dunc said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 5:42 pm

     I know I’m late to this party, but geez. Take a quick look at the wired cover browser:
     http://www.wired.com/wired/coverbrowser/

     Just a moment while I get PISSED OFF that wired doesn’t feature SERIOUS MALE TECH GUYS on their cover. All they feature is comedians, actors. Can’t they do better?

     Bill gates doesn’t count because he’s not new, everyone knows him, there’s plenty of up and coming tech guys who would be completely relevant, but just look at this list from the past 4 years, when they put men on the cover its invariably (except when it’s not) a comedian or actor. What does that have to do with tech?

     Yeah, that’s irony. You’re “breaking up” with Wired over their covers? Really? 1 cover a year on average that features a woman/woman parts . Considering the adage that sex sells (because in case you missed it, it does), Wired is the very picture of restraint. Especially with an 80% male readership, at least 20% of whom are interested in sex! lol?

     alec baldwin – actor
     bill gates/zuckerberg – wow actual tech
     sergey brin/google/stylized pixelized head shot, very come-hither, oh sergey!

     truth about cancer/anonymous woman, sexualized
     brad pitt
     craig newmark/craigslist – tech!
     baby

     ray ozzie/microsoft – tech!
     julia allison – how to get famous, demonstrating how she got famous
     steve carrell comedian
     sara silverman comedian

     martha stewart
     heroes guy with a sword
     The Office woman
     comedian guy from the i’m a mac ads

255. 

     DaveBNYC said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 7:19 pm

     As the father of an 18 year old strong and intelligent woman who rather dislikes technology except when it works and is easy to use, and as a CTO-in-recovery, I had several reactions when I came to this blog from a link in huffingtonpost.com. I agree with Amelia that it’s great to see the general level of the discussion. These are important issues at the intersection of corporate capitalism, cultural values and the processes (and people) that support technological innovation. I let my Wired sub expire a year ago because I got tired of being a target for the plethora of high-end consumer gadget crap advertising that fill its pages, and its breathless adulation of people who take out more than they put in. Put a naked picture of Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds on the cover (or a fully clothed one of ladyada Limor Fried) and maybe I’ll re-up, as long as I can get it for less than a dollar an issue. Meanwhile if I hear of anything significant appearing in the magazine I’ll look for it on wired.com (Hey, especially now that the Audit Bureau of Circulations has allowed Wired to include its digital edition in its circulation numbers! -Click on *that*, iPad users, and don’t forget to click on the ads!). I understand that Wired’s market is rich male geeks and that sex sells to this market. What I don’t quite get is why anyone would expect Wired to take any cultural leadership supporting women in technology while the advertising is its real purpose and content, not the editorial text. If Chris Anderson wants to make the world a better place, he’ll have to leave his current job.

256. 

     Addie Broyles said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 7:23 pm

     The Feminist Kitchen approves. Thanks for standing up and saying something, Cindy.

257. 

     Pär Larsson said:

     Nov 17, 10 at 11:28 pm

     Karin (nice name btw, both my sister, my mom and grandma had/have it):

     “The money making-argument is all well and good, or had been if it weren’t for the fact that Wired are now losing money because they objectify women. The gratuitous boob shot has cost them subscribers and recommendations to future subscribers.

     I don’t know if the people who were drawn in by it will make up for it. If they bought the issue because “sex sells”, they probably won’t stick around for the reading pleasure of Wired but rather buy a different type of magazine.”

     I take issue with:
     “…the FACT that Wired are now losing money because they objectify women.”

     You don’t know that unless you have market research data to back it up. Your intuitive ‘feeling’ that this is the case is a sample size of exactly one. The people who reply to this post already have an axe to grind. The people who will increase their sales numbers due to this, won’t be posting on here. (…I personally don’t buy magazines, period. So leave me out of it.)

     “The gratuitous boob shot has cost them subscribers and recommendations…” – why, certainly, I’m fairly sure that’s true. How about – the opposite is also true? As in people now are more aware of the magazine, and find out the quality of writing inside it, and are more likely to buy subscriptions? Again – you confuse your own heated emotional response for an as-yet unquantifiable total market effect. Please understand that not all people think like you. Respect them and maybe they’ll respect you for your opinion.

     Blah blah “…probably won’t stick around…” – again, your opinion, while valid, is just an opinion. Neither you nor I have an idea how this is going to play out. Wired might die and go down in flames from a firestorm of female indignation – or go on to become the world’s most influential geek magazine, attracting hordes of Pulitzer-prize-winning journalists and investigative geekdom reporters while setting record subscriber numbers for years to come. Apparently some people in the Wired leadership think they’re better off going this way, and estimate the risk to be in their favour with this approach. I’m guessing they have more experience running Wired magazine than you have. I’m guessing they have more experience running ANY magazine and a finger more on the pulse of their readers than you. But that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong. Reasonable people might disagree.

     For more reasonableness see http://reasonablydoubtingnews.blogspot.com/

     Have a nice boob day! Don’t forget to save the boobs with “Barbells for Boobs!” and save the balls with “Movember”!

258. 

     Katie said:

     Nov 18, 10 at 6:01 am

     Glad to see so many women joining Cindy in her protest. Should you see overtly degrading, sexist imagery in political magazines or political blogs, vent your anger and frustration at http://www.nameitchangeit.org, founded by the Women’s Media Center & female political candidates from both parties.

259. Wired magazine breasts cover causes a stir among women | CisionUK said:

     Nov 18, 10 at 11:17 am

     [...] she decided to write an open letter to Wired in her blog, expressing her disappointment at the lack of photos of accomplished women in the field [...]

260. Fast Company Editor: ‘We want to have women represented on our covers’ | Studies.me said:

     Nov 18, 10 at 2:56 pm

     [...] women in tech is not as easy as it sounds. Wired Editor Chris Anderson argued that there are “not enough high-profile women in the tech industry who are recognizable to sell a cover. This problem goes beyond women: we have trouble putting ‘people’ on the [...]

261. SiliconANGLE — Blog — Selling Sex or Just Stupidity? A Common Sense Plea to Chris Anderson said:

     Nov 18, 10 at 6:01 pm

     [...] So Wired decided to publish this pair of breasts on their cover. After seeing it, Texas State’s Cindy Royal declared that after decades of reading Wired magazines and not seeing much about women who impress men with their brains and not their bods, she was breaking up with Wired. [...]

262. 

     Just me said:

     Nov 18, 10 at 6:25 pm

     Thank You for Taking a stand. Get it together, Wired! Women deserve better than this.

263. Friday Links: Nerds rally to support young StarWars fan | Inside the Nerdery said:

     Nov 19, 10 at 5:52 pm

     [...] An open letter to Wired regarding their coverage of women in tech. [...]

264. Magazine Travels | an examination of free will said:

     Nov 19, 10 at 11:16 pm

     [...] use the new copy of Wired since the last issue garnered such criticism. The magazine is delivered and taken from the mailbox. It must fit into my array of magazines [...]

265. 

     David said:

     Nov 20, 10 at 2:40 am

     What an effective cover. People are actually talking about WIRED again for the first time in years. That’s a remarkable achievement.

266. 

     JH said:

     Nov 22, 10 at 5:46 pm

     Well-put. I’m still keeping my subscription (WIRED’s one of my favorite magazines), but I’m getting annoyed at their treatment of women. I don’t agree with discounting Sarah Silverman/Martha Stewart, though–a fair number of men featured on the cover of WIRED are also there just for comedic theme issues. The rest of your critique is spot-on, though.

267. The Hopkinson Report » Episode 131: Dear Facebook, removing inappropriate photos does not have to be a witch hunt. said:

     Nov 23, 10 at 5:11 pm

     [...] Royal, who criticized the magazine for featuring a cover image of a woman’s cleavage for a story about breast tissue [...]

268. Mom Gives Wired Thumbs Down - CogDogBlog said:

     Nov 24, 10 at 5:49 am

     [...] while editor Chris Anderson has jumped in with rationalizing the decision, it comes off as “people in general don’t make good covers, so we take risks which are [...]

269. Cindy Royal Ends Her Relationship with Wired Magazine | LiftSEO said:

     Dec 01, 10 at 7:02 am

     [...] the full entry with a reply from Chris Anderson here and be sure to register to attend if you’d like to see Royal’s SXSW Interactive session in [...]

270. 

     phio gistic said:

     Dec 06, 10 at 1:13 am

     Oh I liked Wired once upon a time, too. I admit that I did a double-take when I saw the cover in question on a news stand at the airport. I supposed I should not have been surprised that, being a magazine about technology, it had a giant pair of naked disembodied breasts on it.

     As Chris Anderson points out, the article is indeed about using stem cells technology for breast augmentation. Since according to the article, breasts “aren’t very necessary” (except for selling magazines), they can be used to experiment with this new technology to rush it into mass-money-making status without all those pesky decades of research and regulation. As the article put it, using the new tech for breast surgery is “a strategic way to move the patented technology out of rats and into people as soon as possible.” That’s plenty creepy in itself.

271. My final #SMWork post « Torressports said:

     Dec 08, 10 at 10:14 pm

     [...] in large part because of my Social Media at work class. Cindy Royal (yes, the same Cindy Royal that famously broke up with Wired Magazine) has taught me many things that have allowed you to enjoy this blog. Here’s what this course [...]

272. 

     Alissa Clough said:

     Dec 14, 10 at 9:36 pm

     I noticed that, too. Not having seen Wired for a while, I was struck by how many of the ads were about new and interesting ways to shave, watches, or other forms of machismo, while the copy seemed to assume that I was male. At one point, I tried chiding myself that after all, razors were gadgets, too, but then…watches? Most people I know don’t even have *one* watch, since a cell phone works just as well…or else have a cheapie from Wal-Mart since there’s really no difference in timekeeping between an expensive battery watch and a $10 model.

     I realize that they’ve got to make their money somehow. I know that Mondo 2000 (a magazine I wholeheartedly respect) used to have at least one photo of nearly-naked ladies modeling “futuristic fashion” per issue. But the other tech magazines I deal with (Make is a good example) are excellent at showcasing the talents, not only of women, but small children, seniors, and all sorts of people who don’t happen to be wealthy, or live in San Francisco/New York. (I don’t like their Future Retirement Home either. To me, a really futuristic one wouldn’t have recognizable wheelchairs, people who look old, or, probably, an actual retirement. That brain in the jar is just mean.)

273. 2010: The Year of Whining About Women In Tech | ZDNet said:

     Dec 22, 10 at 7:53 pm

     [...] Same goes for (again, no disrespect) to New Media PhD holder and assistant Professor at Texas State Cindy Royal. In November she wrote an explosive blog post wherein she published a public break-up letter to Wired Magazine (US). [...]

274. 

     Stephanie said:

     Dec 23, 10 at 6:05 am

     Just wanted to point out the inconsistencies between explanations about why women aren’t featured in Wired:

     From the chat: nancymiller:
     Cindy: I want to address that we don’t cover high profile women in tech. The examples you give are of women who are veterans in tech culture: Whitman, Fiorina–even Marissa Mayer–are well covered by NY Times, Forbes etc. They may be well-known figures, but what is the story there? Our job at Wired is to find what’s new, what’s next, what’s compelling–and I don’t think those women really pass that litmus test.

     From Chris Anderson’s comment: So when we put women on the cover, it must be only be for serious profiles? Okay, then I could use some help with suggestions. We love up-and-comers, but they don’t sell magazines if they don’t already have a relatively high profile and are leading a company people want to read about.

275. 

     phio gistic said:

     Dec 27, 10 at 10:49 pm

     Great catch Stephanie. Maybe Wired just thinks women are boring, except for the occasional use as linkbait. Like breasts aren’t very important to the scientists in the article, except for their owners’ usefulness as a research pool that can be convinced to pay to be experimented on.

276. Why Tech Already Has Women (And Why They’re Better Than Arrington) | Geoff Livingston's Blog said:

     Dec 29, 10 at 5:01 pm

     [...] ignorant rant, followed verbally by the likes by Robert Scoble and Ms. Blue, as well as the visual use of boobs to sell copies of WIRED by Chris Anderson and [...]

277. Why Tech Already Has Women And They're Better Than Arrington | Danny Brown said:

     Dec 29, 10 at 5:03 pm

     [...] ignorant rant, followed verbally by the likes by Robert Scoble and Ms. Blue, as well as the visual use of boobs to sell copies of WIRED by Chris Anderson and [...]

278. 

     Ninja said:

     Dec 29, 10 at 9:56 pm

     And of course the boob article was written by a woman so that makes it all right. Right? Nope.

279. 

     Warven B. said:

     Jan 01, 11 at 2:48 am

     I love what you’re saying – with one exception. You said “You’re hurting America.”

     Americans think everything is about how it might affect America. For the rest of humanity, that is false. And this particular issue is *not* about America. It is about women and relations globally. Something that hurts women is not local to America.

     Other than that, right on!!

     Thanks!!

280. Erica Glasier: Oversocialized! » Blog Archive » Here’s one for Google: Wired is sexist. said:

     Jan 29, 11 at 5:14 am

     [...] the ultimate breakup letter to Wired has already been written, I’ll just let this could-be-mistaken-for-porn image stand as my [...]

281. can you hear the people sing? ugh. « Pop Culture Pirate. said:

     Mar 17, 11 at 8:52 pm

     [...] in November, Cindy Royal wrote an open letter to Wired criticizing their cover cleavage image for a story about tissue [...]

282. 

     Michele Buchanan said:

     Mar 19, 11 at 12:36 am

     Just read this article and replies.
     I’ve been doing tech since I was a kid. i grew up looking at my dad’s wiring diagrams. Later I taught computing, back in the 80s. When I was growing up, I thought tech was just about machinery and wires. No one taught me that cooking is tech- it’s about chemistry and physics. With that in mind, innovative chefs (many of whom are women, and many of whom are using chemical reactions as the basis for their work) could be on the cover of Wired. Later when I went to grad school, I was reintroduced to tech again through Professor Rayna Rapp. She’s doing amazing work in anthropology on reproduction, and has worked with medical doctors in the field. This might not be the tech of gadgetry, but it’s certainly interesting, even if it doesn’t involve hours in front of a computer. Instead, the time is spent in a lab.

     Technology is not just about machinery. Technology is found in kitchens, in non-office workplaces, in hospitals, everywhere. Women and men of all nationalities and colors are involved in tech- for instance, I’d love to see an article on how moving customer service centers to India is changing the roles of women in families, and moving India as a nation into the future. I don’t think wired has ever done an article on how Japanese office and tech culture has made some of the smartest women in that country pursue jobs outside the country, or how modern technology is changing the ways in which we imagine the future, when everything we though was ‘future’ now seems to be real. There’s never been an article on topics like hyperbolic crochet, in which crocheters (who are mostly women) are creating models of the fourth dimension in yarn. (wwwtheiff.org) Or, how about an article on how smartphones could possibly change the way we understand what constitutes knowledge and who has access to it (what’s interesting about smartphones is the access/knowledge gap between the poor and the less poor- libraries, which were once the great leveler, are disappearing).
     Many of these topics would lead towards white women and people of color being on the cover. Please don’t use the old saw on how ‘(female) sex sells’ to cover for a distinct lack of imagination.

283. GeekMom » Blog Archive » Wired Magazine’s Cover Features Its First Lady Engineer said:

     Mar 31, 11 at 1:02 pm

     [...] tech blogger Cindy Royal pointed out last November, Wired’s covers sometimes give its women readers pause, especially those of us whose kids tend to claim the magazine before it even makes it in the [...]

• Cindy’s Tweets

  • 4 hours ago
    RT @nytimes: Yahoo to Buy Tumblr for $1.1 Billion http://t.co/HtRKzNvBwF
  • 20 hours ago
    Could see the UT fireworks from my house. Congrats Longhorn Grads!
  • 20 hours ago
    @_caryanne happy graduation! Congrats!
  • 20 hours ago
    @ckanal two more! @jackiebaylon @tinaphan
  • 20 hours ago
    @ckanal I did not see @mairalg @rdmurphy or @michelleminkoff on your awesome list.

• Archives

  Select Month April 2013 January 2013 November 2012 October 2012 May 2012 April 2012 January 2012 December 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 June 2011 May 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 August 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008

• Tags

  3G AEJMC Andreessen Apple Aron Pilhofer austin community Digg facebook Facebook Connect Friend Connect Google Icahn iMac iPhone isoj journalism LinkedIn lively Maira Garcia Mass Comm Week mcweek Microsoft MySpace net neutrality newspaper industry New York Times ny times OJR ona ona08 PR Robert Niles Second Life SensibleTalk.com Social Media sxsw technology texas state Twitter TX State Web Design Wired WWDC Yahoo

• Links

  • Cindy Royal
  • Cindy's Twitter
  • Cindy's YouTube Channel
  • On That Note…
  • South By Texas State
  • South By Texas State YouTube channel
  • WebPubNET