[net.women] offensive ad in Byte

pgf@hou5g.UUCP (Paul Fox) (01/22/85)

a
	On pages 62 and 63 of the current (Jan. 85) issue of Byte 
	Magazine there is an advertisement for a magnetic tape 
	backup system for the IBM PC.  It pictures a smartly dressed 
	woman intently studying her computer screen.  The large
	character caption (and the beginning of the small text) read
	as follows:

		   "SHE'S TEMPORARY.
		    THE DAMAGE IS PERMANENT.

			One wrong key.
			The slightest slip.
			And your accounts receivable
		    are accounts irretrievable...
			...If you employ people and 
		    computers, you're vulnerable."

	Do other people out there find this offensive?  To me, the ad has
	three messages:
	    1)  Women who use computers are probably temporary secretaries.
	    2)  Women who are temporary secretaries are probably incompetent.
	    3)  Corollary to 2), those who aren't temporary secretaries
		probably don't make mistakes.
	
	Granted, human error is probably not usually considered among the 
	reasons for doing backups on your micro.  Power failures and system
	crashes are probably thought of more often.  But this seems a fairly
	rude way of emphasizing the possibility.
	
	I was surprised that a feminist friend of mine, a programmer who 
	once had a job as a secretary, didn't find the ad as offensive as 
	I did.  She mentioned that temporary clerks are often expected to 
	do very complex tasks with little or no training, and human error 
	is probable and expectable.  (She didn't, however, like the 
	insinuation that nobody else makes mistakes.)

	Anyone else have any feelings about this?
-- 
			Paul Fox, AT&T Information Systems, Holmdel NJ.
			  [ihnp4|vax135]!hou5g!pgf (201)834-3740

hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (01/25/85)

>From: pgf@hou5g.UUCP (Paul Fox)
>Subject: offensive ad in Byte  (maybe...)
>Message-ID: <502@hou5g.UUCP>
>
>                        One wrong key.
>                        The slightest slip.
>                        And your accounts receivable
>                    are accounts irretrievable...
>                        ...If you employ people and
>                    computers, you're vulnerable."
>
>        Do other people out there find this offensive?

If I were the publisher of the software in question I'd be  very  offended.
No  good  software package is that fragile.  Anyone who keeps critical data
on a system that fragile and doesn't keep backups deserves what  they  get,
no matter who was using it at the time.

-- 
==============================================================================
The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI                               If thy CRT offend thee, pluck
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.                      it out and cast it from thee.
Santa Monica, California  90405
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe

ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (01/27/85)

Paul Fox comments on a Byte ad:

> 	Do other people out there find this offensive?  To me, the ad has
> 	three messages:
> 	    1)  Women who use computers are probably temporary secretaries.
> 	    2)  Women who are temporary secretaries are probably incompetent.
> 	    3)  Corollary to 2), those who aren't temporary secretaries
> 		probably don't make mistakes.
> 	
>	...
>
> 	I was surprised that a feminist friend of mine, a programmer who 
> 	once had a job as a secretary, didn't find the ad as offensive as 
> 	I did.  She mentioned that temporary clerks are often expected to 
> 	do very complex tasks with little or no training, and human error 
> 	is probable and expectable.

I expect that the folks who placed the ad had the same idea in mind that
your friend saw.  However, I find it reasonable to infer the same other
points you do, particularly (1) and (2), from their presentation.  This
sort of second-order message is rampant in most advertising (if not
everywhere in our culture) and watching out for it is *most*
important.  If we accept these less-obviously presented messages then
we have essentially no chance of breaking the current pattern of
discrimination against women (or any other group, for that matter - the
patterns are fundamentally the same).

Recognizing this sort of message in an ad, or any other communication,
requires interest, some training (not formal, certainly), and a good
dose of cynicism.  One needs to look past the obvious content and
intent of the message to see what it's really saying.  If it reenforces
the status quo, even to the least degree, and that status is something
we want to change, then we must be aware of this reenforcement and work
even harder to make our changes.

I find it useful to *assume* that there is bad in advertising and try
to ferret out any good that happens to be there.  This at least helps
me to downplay any of the secondary messages.

-- 
Ed Gould		    mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed   +1 415 644 0146