[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: IT screen goddesses

Erinn Clark wrote:
> * Vani Raja <vani@webchic.net> [2006:07:09 16:26 -0700]: 
>> On Jul 9, 2006, at 3:41 PM, Erinn Clark wrote:
>>> I think the deeper issue here is not necessarily that these women
>>> decided to pose for these pictures, but rather *why*.
>> I'd pose in a heartbeat. The short of it is that I have no doubts as  
>> to my own intelligence or skill as a developer and that frankly, I'm  
>> tired of being androgynous as a geek. Yes, I'm female and have a  
>> growing fondness for the color pink, but why should I have to hide  
>> that to be considered intelligent or worthy of the IT stereotype?
> I don't think you have to hide it. Ask anyone who knows me (including
> many people on this list) about my affection for the color pink. Being
> stereotypically feminine and being in IT are not mutually exclusive; I
> am still confused as to why posing half-naked is considered a sane
> and/or healthy way of exerting one's femininity. (And really, it is
> genuine confusion -- I cannot wrap my head around neither the theory nor
> execution of such.)
>> The producers point out that they're doing this in part to raise  
>> money for non-profits that encourage women in technology. 
> Yeah, and sex sells, so... :/

I don't actually think those pictures are selling based on sex.  True, a couple
of the women are not wearing much (though there is nothing I wouldn't let a
child look at), but most of them are fully dressed, and they are in a wide
variety of poses, some of which are sexually suggestive (eg Sonja) and some of
which are not (eg Maryse) [1].

I don't personally think this calendar is in anything like the same category as
hotbabe (to refer to a previous discussion about objectification of women), to
which I definitely objected.  I think it's great they they are demonstrating
that women in IT can be funny and creative as well as successful and intelligent
and geeky.



Reply to: