Comments on: Wired Makes a Boob of Itself

By: Johnnie

Johnnie — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:58:23 +0000

What the heck phillip? EVERY way the country has gotten better in the last 100 years has been due to progressive thinking… (with progressive defined as liberal politics) and every way it’s gotten worse has because of cutthroat pseudo socialist capitalsim (obviously defined as conservative politics).

Come on man… “EVERY WAY”? I completely understand that the right vs the left are polar opposites in their philosophy of how government should be run, but attempting to claim all the good for one side and all the bad for the other side, is a common propaganda technique and is not the way any thinking person can possibly approach a problem.

The real story of course, is that both sides have their positives and their negatives. When you start trying to claim unreasonable things, it just gets so hard to take you seriously.

The way our government is set up, neither party has been able to fully accomplish it’s goals… even when not in the majority, the minority party is usually able to block many of the plans of the majority. We saw it with the republicans blocking the democrats recently, and we saw it with the democrats blocking the republicans before that. Our government has unfortunately taken on many of the worst attributes of both sides, and it’s a common propaganda technique for each side to claim all that bad comes from the opposite political party. I’m just sad to see you using such an obviously irrational approach yourself.

By: Dhoti

Dhoti — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:16:34 +0000

It’s no longer 1890; unfortunately, progressive ideals haven’t kept up. Labor unions once made a positive contribution to the life of the American worker; now, they cripple industries, receive government bailouts, and threaten people at town hall meetings. Shall I go on?

Such a disingenuous admission. Of *course* you’d be willing to give up a meager share of your money — in exchange for a much larger share of those evil, rich pseudo-capitalists’ money. You’d be a fool not to take it — government redistribution means you net out ahead!

By: Philip Berne

Philip Berne — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:27:29 +0000

Every way our country has gotten better over the last 100 years has been due to progressive thinking. Every way our country has taken steps backwards has been because of cutthroat pseudo socialist capitalism (capitalism with government bailouts and tax loopholes for the wealthy). I have no problem with redistribution, even knowing that would mean cutting my own net worth, in favor of helping those less fortunate.

By: Dhoti

Dhoti — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 18:17:55 +0000

That’s because it *is* an insult — at least to those of us in the productive class. I highly doubt that your treasured “progressive pride” extends beyond the resource you assume the government can “redistribute” in your direction.

By: Philip Berne

Philip Berne — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:09:01 +0000

You say progressive like it’s an insult. I take pride in my progressive ideals.

By: palehorse

palehorse — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 17:05:09 +0000

/facepalm

What a complete load of paranoid, whiny, “progressive,” crap.

By: Philip Berne

Philip Berne — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:38:54 +0000

I wouldn’t say it is Wired’s job to recruit female scientists, but it does not run counter to their mission, either. Unfortunately, this might be a pattern of behavior from Wired. Check out the link from Cindy Royal I include in my column, or take a look at the history of Wired covers here: http://www.wired.com/wired/coverbrowser/. With few exceptions, as Chris Anderson, the magazine’s editor freely admits, Wired has a history of using women for their sexuality, while men are rarely featured the same way.

By: Philip Berne

Philip Berne — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:34:43 +0000

Well, I’ve never been accused of being a prude before, so I’m guessing I didn’t make my point clear enough. Actually, in my column I talk about, for example, a woman like Monica Bellucci posing in transparent clothing to sell magazine copies. My problem with the Wired cover was that it was incongruous to Wired’s goals. Is Wired a magazine selling female sexuality as titillation? The history of the magazine says it is not.

By: really k

really k — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:27:43 +0000

What we need is more prudes like you telling us that our bodies should make us feel bad. We should hate our bodies, hate seeing them naked in any form – even artistic, slightly suggestive ones.
Your suggestion that women be repelled by seeing cleavage is absurd. If you look around at American fashion today, you will see lots and lots of exposed cleavage and – oh no! – no women are horrified and running away.
Why should people be upset looking at the human body? Take a look at your own and come to grips with reality.

By: syb

syb — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:22:22 +0000

I have issues when women are depicted as bodies without faces. It is objectification, but it could just as easily be looked at from an artistic point of view to make the woman anonymous, to make her an everywoman, or to allow the female reader to project herself into that situation. I’m not saying that’s what happened here, I haven’t seen the Wired article yet (and can’t because I’m at work).
However, it is not Wired magazine’s job to recruit the next generation of female scientists with one issue of a magazine. Phil blows it way out of proportion. The magazine rack is a sea of sexual exploitation, female certainly, but male as well. I think we can cut Wired a break since this doesn’t appear to be a pattern of behavior, or else Phil would have trotted out other examples. Sex sells, Wired wanted a piece of the action. I can’t really blame them for taking a shot here. It’s a different story if they start using T&A consistently to sell a tech magazine, but we’re not there yet.

By: Johnnie

Johnnie — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:52:42 +0000

I’m going to post here.. just for a laugh.. because I agree with Phillip on this one, and we’ve been disagreeing on another one :)

That said, I’d want to add one thing… Masculine beauty and Feminine beauty are not the same things. Because of that, it’s not necessarily inconsistent to show a man’s head and a woman’s breasts. It can be due to bias, but it can also be very representative of what each gender finds attractive about the other… (Phillip doesn’t claim it is automatically biased… I’m just pointing it out since that type of circumstance is often discussed as symptomatic of gender issues).

By: Chris Davies

Chris Davies — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:09:26 +0000

“Demonisation”? I think you’re reading too much into it, frankly. As Philip says:

“If Anderson is so much more interested in selling sex and celebrity than coming up with a more compelling cover that doesn’t objectify and repel women, perhaps he’s working for the wrong rag?”

AFAIK Philip has no problem with the male sex drive. I read this as questioning why a magazine with Wired’s positioning in the market feels obliged to use relatively simplistic sex-sells tactics, which seems at odds with its target audience.

By: adriano

adriano — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 18:09:24 +0000

Grow a pair, and find something else to cry about.

By: Alexander Peckover

Alexander Peckover — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 17:56:06 +0000

Well, I know of one publication that’s losing a reader as of today and it’s not Wired.

The demonisation of the male sex drive has to stop. This article is nothing but pure misandry.