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.
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.
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.
very good article. You have my support. Enrica from Italy.
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]!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
@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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cindy, you’re my hero. Thanks for taking a public stand on something so important!
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.
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.
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?
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.
The UK edition didn’t have that cover…
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.”
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??**
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.
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.
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.