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.
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?
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)
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
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!
please
there are many more pressing issues to take a stance on
pick your battles
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
Thank you, Joe. That is my point EXACTLY.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Wow… Chris Anderson was on this? You must be a threat.
Wired hasn’t been worth reading since Conde Nast bought them after the dot-com meltdown. Get over it and go read something else.
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?
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.