Google's "recommendation" thingy just recommended this image to me. I'm not quite sure why Google thinks I'm interested in seeing demeaning sexist content like this. The purported reason why I would be interested in this codswallop is that I visited both hp.com and google.com. Does Google think that people who use its own site and have some vague interest in HP computers are all sexist pigs?
You might want to work on fine-tuning that recommendations engine, Google.
It also somewhat bothers me that most of the people who have publicly tagged this in del.icio.us have categorized it under "funny", "humor", or both.
You might want to work on fine-tuning that recommendations engine, Google.
It also somewhat bothers me that most of the people who have publicly tagged this in del.icio.us have categorized it under "funny", "humor", or both.
They link it as funny, because as far as they're concerned, it is. It doesn't directly affect them. Sort of like how making fun of autistic kids might be funny to people who don't have an autistic family member.
ReplyDeleteI imagine people find it funny because the image is originally intended to promote the Xbox. It's a common complaint with videogame marketing.
ReplyDeleteKelly, I hate to be pedantic but the reason people have marked it as humourous/funny is that it is intended as a joke image. Now, because you object to it on political grounds you don't find it funny, but other people do. Can't answer as to why it was given to you in the first place though
ReplyDeleteThey find it funny because this is a picture of a myth, and the unplugged console just makes it more clear how fake it is. "Female gamers" are rare at best. The marketing person who took this picture probably would have had to look far and wide to find a group like this who would care if the box was plugged in or not. If you find that offensive, you should try going out into the real world and seeing how it is.
ReplyDeleteI get tired of people who confuse being offended by words and being offended by reality. Googling your advogato history, I see that you're also offended by the word journeyman:
>>> My test is simple. Take the sentence, "She is a x" where x is the term in question. If this sentence creates cognitive dissonance because the term x carries overtones of maleness, then the term is sexist. "She is a human" does not create cognitive dissonance, so it's ok. "She is a journeyman" does, so it's not. "Chairman" is a special case for me: while I think "chairman" is sexist, the alternatives are worse: a "chair" is an inanimate object, "chairperson" is just strange, and "chairwoman" draws attention to the sex of the person, which should not be an issue. So I tolerate "chairman" as being the least of the available evils. As more women rise to the level of chairman, I imagine eventually the term "chairman" will be reclaimed and will lose its male overtone, the way "freshman" has. But we're not there yet.
Well, you know what? The only way to reconcile this with your statements about "chairman" eventually being inoffensive is to realize that the cognitive dissonance of "she is a journeyman" is because you think there are few women for whom that sentence makes sense. For me, I've met very few women who I would call a "computer scientist", "programmer", or "hacker". Does that mean the words are sexist?
How about "serial killer"? That also has overtones of maleness. Surely we should find a term more inclusive of women? Decades of feminism couldn't have possibly failed to bridge the important serial killer gap, so it is language that is at fault.