An Open Letter to Wired Magazine
Dear Wired:
I feel like I’m in an abusive relationship with you. I love you. You’re charming, attractive and smart, everything I could ever want in a magazine. My heart skips a beat when I see a new issue in my mailbox. Most of the time, you’re harmless, and I tell everyone I know how awesome you are. But every now and then, you slip, and you make me feel very bad, make me question my judgment.
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. There was naked Pam from The Office in 2008 (you thought you were so clever with that acetate overlay – I mean, how else would you depict transparency?). In 2003, you had the nice lady covered in synthetic diamonds. There were the sexy manga ladies and LonelyGirl15 and Julia Allison with their come-hither looks. And Uma Thurman, she’s a lady, and she was on the cover… But wait, that was for a character she was playing in a film based on a Philip K. Dick novel.
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 when it was Sherry Turkle, the academic and author. And, the only other time was in 1994, when musician/author Laurie Anderson was featured. Because since then, I guess no women have done anything notable in technology unless it had to do with their bodies? Really?
Martha Stewart in 2007 doesn’t count, and neither does Sarah Silverman in 2008, because those were both just jokey, thematic covers.
It’s not like we haven’t talked about this. In the 1996 book Wired Women: Gender and New Realities in Cyberspace by Lynn Cherny and Elizabeth Reba Weise, the author Paulina Borsook details the woman problem in Wired in “The Memoirs of a Token: An Aging Berkeley Feminist Examines Wired.” That was 14 years ago! In 2005, I met one of your female editors, Rebecca Hurd, at SXSW. We had a nice chat, and she politely said that if I had any ideas about women that should be featured in Wired, I should send them to her. 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.
Things were looking up a couple months ago when you published that great article on Caterina Fake of Flickr and Hunch fame. That could have been a cover… Instead you went with Will Ferrell… If you don’t believe me, see for yourself. Go back through your covers over the years. How exactly are young women supposed to feel about their role in technology by looking at your magazine?
You can say that if I have a problem with your covers, then I probably shouldn’t read GQ, Esquire, Vanity Fair, Cosmo, Glamour or Rolling Stone or just about any other magazine on the planet. Well, I don’t read those magazines, and I don’t recommend those publications to my students, many of whom are female, as an important source of technology knowledge regarding trends and culture. You’re better than this. You don’t need to treat women in this light to sell magazines. You have the power to influence the ways that women envision their roles with technology. Instead, you’re not helping. Like Jon Stewart said (stealing his quote criticizing the now defunct TV show Crossfire), “You’re hurting America.”
So, I’m breaking up with you. As much as it pains me, really, deeply pains me, I can no longer stick around for this abuse. Had this been an isolated incident, a clever and provocative way to introduce an article, I might be able to forgive you and move on. But how many chances do I have to give you before you grow up? Or before I wise up? I’ve got the kids to think about…I’m doing this for them.
I still love you. I think I need you, and I’m not sure I can live without you. But you left me with no choice.
In sadness,
Cindy
Update 11/11/10: Chris Anderson, Editor of Wired, has taken the time to respond to this post. See his comments and my response in the Comments section. Now, we have taken the conversation to email, in which he has graciously offered to listen to ideas for improving the coverage of women in Wired. I am encouraged by his prompt response and this offer. If you have any suggestions for ways in which women can be more favorably covered in the pages of Wired, feel free to leave a comment or send me an email clroyal [at] gmail.com. Let’s use this as an opportunity to influence positive change.
11/11/10: BTW, I am approving comments on this post to keep things civil. So for the record, so far, I have approved all comments except for three, because of inappropriate language (like really mean name calling) or overt stupidity. It’s fine if you don’t agree with me, but I won’t be responding to most individual points. I appreciate the discourse that has been created around this topic.
And, one final point of clarification. By “breaking up” with Wired, my intent was to not renew my subscription and severely curtail my enthusiastic endorsement of Wired to students and others who attend presentations or just ask in general. Sometimes I describe my love/hate relationship with Wired to students, and I shouldn’t have to do that. When you describe a relationship with a person as love/hate, it is typically dysfunctional, and I have no room for that in my life.
11/12/10 Update: I did a Poynter chat on the topic today, joined by Nancy Miller the editor who worked on the tissue engineering image and story, and Rachel Sklar, editor at Mediaite. Click the link to replay the chat.
This post has now been reprinted at MsMagazine.com and Mediaite, with coverage and/or links to it on the Washington Post Blog, Nieman Journalism Lab, Huffington Post, All Things D and Slash Gear. And it was included as Ad Age’s Best Writing of the Week. The post received overwhelmingly favorable response, and even those who dissented were mostly civil, except for the comments on Huffington Post, which makes me wonder if those readers actually clicked through to read the entire article. I am extremely grateful for the discourse created around this topic.
283 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Wired Magazine”
Comments are closed.
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
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.
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
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.
@ 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
I have to admit, I was disappointed with this month’s Wired cover. It does smack of desperation.
“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.
@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.
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.
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.
Thanks so much for weighing in on this, Chris Dixon, and for clarifying Caterina’s current status at Hunch!
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.
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.
@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).
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.
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.
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.
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……
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.
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.
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.
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
Thank you for writing that Cindy.
Wired really needs to read it.
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.
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…
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
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!
Those that can, do.
Those that can’t, teach.
I expect no actionable suggestions.
Suggestions have been made, more to come. Whether or not anyone takes action on them is out of my hands.
Those are boobs? They look more like me from the back.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.