On the back of package of Drupal the Card Game you will find the slogan “A perfect game for geeks to connect to non-geeks” written on an arrow connecting an image of Dries Buytaert and an image of a dancer of Knicker Kittens Burlesque Revue. On the Geek Feminism Blog, Liz Henry rethorically asked “Which one of these people is the ‘non-geek’?”. In the discussion that follows, she and Lampdevil make a very lucid argument about how the woman is used as a commodity in this particular case.
Of course this was not our intent, nor was it to show disrespect to women or offend anyone. The image was there just to contrast the geek. But, as Liz Henry wrote, “the base of the joke here is that geeks are men and that women are a commodity”. The only excuse I have is that we were naïve about these issues. But, as Lampdevil stated, “Ignorance of how an action could be interpreted doesn’t make the action itself harmless.” I cannot agree more, and that is the reason for the apology.
This incident shows with painful clarity the need to bring this issue into light. Liz Henry’s blog and the Timeline of incidents were definitely a wakeup call for me. Hopefully, it will make even more Drupallers think about these matters.
As a direct consequence of this incident, I will already today initiate work on creating a Gender Equality Plan for NodeOne.
Kommentarer
Thank you for this post, Thomas.
Thomas, thanks for listening and responding thoughtfully.
awesome response. awesome apology. awesome.
I understand that some people find this image disturbing. However, I don’t understand the “commodity” part. How can anyone look at that image and come to the conclusion that the woman is a commodity while the man is not a commodity? Please help me understand.
that is awesome, thomas! thanks for understanding.
i think this card game is a brilliant learning tool. i love using games in teaching. i’m keen to find ways to develop games for those at even a more beginning level of Drupal. but this card game is great!
@adam, i don’t know about commodity or not, since these aren’t “products for sale”- but maybe you can see my perspective… anything that sexualizes women in this context makes me feel sad and creeped out. imagine getting messages from men in the Drupal community of an overtly embarrassing and sexual nature. it’s depressing, saddening, and makes me feel really uncomfortable. i’m worried images like this promote that kind of attitude. it certainly is a way to de-motivate a large portion of the population from participating.
and we want to grow the community right? so diversity is really going to help that. at 10%, women are doing well in the drupal community, but we still feel a bit out numbered.
anyway, maybe they’ll work on a new slogan?
best wishes to nodeone! looks like alot of hard work went into that.
The thoughtful apology is just more evidence that Node One is a wonderful group of people. You were sorely missed here in SF! Hope to see you soon, Robert
@heather, I understand that part already and I totally agree with you.
It’s the commoditization part I don’t understand. Both Liz and NodeOne use the word commodity. I think that could be an insult to the woman in the picture and an insult to sexy women in general.
My interpretation and use of commoditization in this context, is as a term to express the look upon women (and men for that matter) as merely a replaceable object without regard of the personality.
At Wikipedia you can read more about Commodity, Commodification, and Sexual objectification.
Great explanation (to Adam), Thomas - and thanks for your thoughtful apology and the concrete action you’re taking.
I’d add the concept of the “grunch” to the mix, as I think it’s really helpful to understand. The story that spawned the term is here, but the short version is that it’s a reflection on the feeling someone gets of being intensely reminded of being an “other”, say by street harassment, sexist or racist “humor”, etc:
There it was—the sickening grunch as I landed involuntarily back in my body—and not my entire body, either, but specific parts of it. The conversation was ruined. I felt uncomfortable for being targeted.
It’s not a fun feeling :/
You all miss my point here. I think I understand the words commodity and commoditization pretty well. The word “grunch” was new to me in a sexual context, but I am well aware of that feeling. Here is the part (again) that I don’t understand:
How can anyone look at that image and come to the conclusion that the woman is a commodity while the man is not a commodity?
Yea, I’d agree with Adam: The woman is not a “commodity”, she’s simply a woman, one who happens to not be a geek.
I think the intent was to be silly & playful, and I think we can all agree that a burlesque dancer is less of a “geek” than a man who built an open-source content management system.
With that said, society at large DOES have a problem with stereotyping & pigeonholing people. It affects women dramatically, resulting in lower wages & less employment opportunities, so I am glad that Thomas is apologizing & explained, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say he is sexist or behaved in a sexist fashion. I think it says more about our culture that it was automatically assumed that he was a sexist by his choice of visual imagery.
I think it’s important to look at the future when we see things like this: does this mean that we can’t use an image of a woman to express someone who isn’t a geek ever? What type of image would have been acceptable? A buff dude with no shirt & a tan?
While I do think it’s important to be mindful & aware, and I even think it was important for people to criticize Thomas and his use of this image, I would say that he hasn’t been established as sexist, nor is his image by it’s existence inherently sexist. While there is a stereotype that women are not geeky, Thomas isn’t categorically saying that, and I think it’s way too much meaning to infer from one small image used (I presume) to add a little silly element to the back of a silly card game made up as a joke.
(I showed it to my relatively female co-workers who said it was “funny” & “clearly just a joke and not a realistic depiction of women”.)
I guess my point is that while I think it’s good to take notice of things like this, I think it’s a bit hyperbolic to jump to the conclusion that Thomas is sexist/this is sexist. I think it was clearly intended to be a light-hearted bit of silly, and I think, if we can’t accept people being silly & just making something they think is funny, we’re focusing on the wrong issues.
There are so many instances of disparity & sexism everyday, that I can’t help but feel like Thomas was a little singled out unfairly because he is accessible. The fact that he (unlike say anyone at Phillip Morris or any other large company which routinely tells a narrative in which women are objects via their coordinated marketing strategies) responded & apologized for any offense should be enough.
Just for clarity, I am not the designer of the packing (which in my opinion is brilliant except for the choice of image). I wrote this blog post to apologize on behalf of NodeOne.
oops, I meant “relatively geeky female co-workers”, not “relatively female co-workers”. They are definitively and not relatively female.
Thomas, thank you so very much for such a thoughtful post on behalf of NodeOne.
One reason I enjoyed DrupalCon SF so much is because there were so many smart women geeks in the room, at the podium and writing the code.
No other software conference has lines for the women’s room!
I never sensed that anyone was making assumptions based on appearance or gender.
That’s pretty rare and it is very significant.
Thomas wasn’t the single individual who came up with the idea for the game, how it was marketed or decided on the design of the package. Thomas made this apology in his role as managing director on behalf of the company and I as founding partner stand behind it as well.
We showed lack of judgment and a great deal of naïvety when we thought this was funny or harmless.
The problem with commoditization is that it causes segregation, injustices based on stereotypes and has stopped many bright individuals from realizing their true potential just because society didn’t think it was their place or right to do so. That is just wrong.
It is particularly serious in the world of IT and technology where many women are given less opportunities than men because many people are unable to look beyond a person’s gender. This is why the work Drupalchix does is so important!
Adam asked above why in this case the woman is a commodity and the guy is not. Liz Henry, in her blog post, didn’t say one was the commodity and the other wasn’t. I think both are commodities but that is not the only problem here.
It is the context that makes this imagery so harmful. None of us here would think that geeks and nerds are men by default. We have so many wonderful geeky people in the Drupal community, men and women.
However, the design and slogan here hint at the idea of geekiness as an inherently male characteristic. In a context where women need to fight to be accepted for their skills and potential, jokes like these are a setback.
Male geeks aren’t harmed by an image of Dries flexing his bicep. Female geeks however are harmed by this design because of the counter-position of male vs female in the design and they’re pigeon-holed into the non-geek category on the base of their gender alone. The sexual imagery strengthens the stereotype further.
Jacob, I was referring to this part of the blog comment by Liz…
“the base of the joke here is that geeks are men and that women are a commodity”
…and this text by Thomas:
“The package of Drupal the Card Game features an image that commoditizes women.”
Thank you for your apology, Thomas. The flip side of the box cast a shadow on an otherwise great idea.
I’m sorry that you guys couldn’t make it to DrupalCon.
Sorry, this is pretty ridiculous.
I have the same problem as Adam and NOBODY addressed it properly so far. I simply don’t understand it. The message was clear and by introducing this laughable “commodity”-construct seemingly all bets are off. Case closed. Evil sexism here.
My second problem is the statement: “Ignorance of how an action could be interpreted doesn’t make the action itself harmless.”
So basically anybody seeing something in such a far fetched way as sexiest (or racist or against religion and so on) is to judge over your statements and actions. You cannot even defend yourself because the “offended” person decided what is wrong or right. Not only does this statement (and the school of thought behind it) include the assessment that the “action” was sexiest but in addition it implicates that you are a bunch of stupid dimwits. By being openly sexiest OR by not noticing your sexism OR by ignoring the possible assessment of this design (in a typical “manly” way).
Glorious times. More of it.
There are loads of real sexism issues floating around but by jumping on non-issues like this nobody wins anything.
You could say it commoditizes this way:
Drupal the card game is a game heterosexual men play. The winners get laid.
We’re still talking about the card game, not Drupal or life in general, right?
+1
Ask yourself why that woman wants anything to do with that man, and vice-versa. The double-headed arrow is a nice try, but it’s for geeks (the male target audience, presented in daily uniform) to connect with non-geeks (in this case an attractive woman wearing a small amount of pink frilly male fantasy clothing), and not the converse. The “non-geek” is the grammatical object of the sentence, after a preposition. If you can’t see how it would be grunching, you might need a little of that riding crop. But it’s reasonable not to notice it in the media image - it was designed to appeal to you in a different way, for which you’re well-primed by the other media you consumed today.
Most burlesque and BDSM performers are most definitely geeks by the way, doubtless including the anonymously pictured dancer.
I just think the image was simply, poorly designed. Not much thought had gone into it and the easiest, cheapest road had been made. That’s all. I’m sure the Burlesque performer doesn’t feel like a commodity, I’m sure she feels empowered, but I still don’t think the message is communicated well.
Men pay women to dance in scanty clothing. Women do not pay men to walk around in geek work clothes.
As I am neither a woman nor a commodity and thus am unqualified to speak for or against the image of the fair maiden from the Knicker Kittens Burlesque Revue. I, however, more closely identify with “geek” and am deeply offended by your choice of selecting Dries Buytaert as the sterotypical geek. He it tall, fit (muscular, even), articulate and personable. These are qualities which I, as the overwhelming majority of DrupalCon attendees, lack. Henceforth, please consider selecting a short, bald, odoriferous, socially inept geek which better represents the typical community member.
If that is sexism then we can accuse Kitten Killers, the Drupal rock band… Their refrain: “I can be your module, you can be my theme” - sounds sexist, isn’t it? The “Module” appears to be male as gender while “Theme” seems to be feminine. For many developers, modules are more important components. Does this mean that women are less important than men?
Oh, God! This is pure madness… can’t you see? There is real sexism around us. Better focus on that…
Skriv ny kommentar