There was a rumor going around OSCON that there was a risque ad in some magazine at OSCON. Flipping through the Linux Journal (August 2007, Issue 160), I found the QSOL.com ad on page 5. It wasn't a just a bad joke.
Most of the ad is a woman's face lit and shot directly from the front. To the right of her face in large, bold letters is "Don't feel bad, Our [sic] servers won't go down on you either." In smaller type under that tag are two paragraphs, starting with "We've all known disappointment."
Despite being crass and misogynist, it's just stupid. I've tried to figure out what the tag really means. I know that the message is that the servers will have high uptime, but that's the opposite feeling of wanting oral sex and not getting it. It is a catchy line, and although I know nothing else about this company, I know I don't like them.
QSOL.com aren't the only misogynistic assholes here, though. Linux Journal didn't have to run the ad. I looked through the rest of the magazine to find pictures of other women, and only found women in the background of other ads which showed conference photos. This is a magazine that uses a picture in the bylines for people such as maddog and Doc Searls. The only prominent picture of any woman in the entire magazine is a reference to oral sex.
Way to go, assholes.
I had the same reaction you did. What a terrible ad.
Re:I Saw That This Morning
pudge on 2007-08-02T17:04:55
Yeah. Also not doing business with: GoDaddy.
That's pretty impressive. In about fifteen seconds they went from being a company I'd never heard of to a company that I would never do business with.
I suspect that wasn't the intention of the advert.
Re: "Our servers won't go down on you either."
davorg on 2007-08-02T08:21:11
Oh, and sales@qsol.com is the email address if you want to let them know how much you appreciated their advert.
Re:*shrug*
educated_foo on 2007-08-02T14:21:10
Dude, you're *so* getting flamed...For what it's worth, I agree that if people are offended by this, they should probably grow thicker skins. While the stereotypes aren't the same, I don't think a version of this ad with a handsome guy (even shirtless) would offend me. Interestingly, the phrase "to go down on" is used for both, and seems to usually apply to the male-goes-down version; see e.g. here. So someone with photoshop skillz could easily test this hypothesis.
Re:*shrug*
brian_d_foy on 2007-08-02T17:11:28
I'm not trying that hard to be offended. I heard about this ad from several people at OSCON who didn't like it and I thought it was a bad joke. I found the real ad, thought it was crass and don't want to quietly stand by while people continue to treat women like this, and I made this post.
Perhaps you disagree, and that's fine. You can disagree without an ad hominen attack, though.Re:*shrug*
Matts on 2007-08-02T17:22:58
I wasn't trying to attack you. I prefixed it with "I think" because that was just a thought. I'm open to being wrong, and apologize if I offended you.Re:*shrug*
brian_d_foy on 2007-08-02T17:50:22
The problem in these cases is that people don't realize the effect of the things they support or say. You say that didn't realize that your post was an attack on me. Is it possible that you also didn't think about the effect of the ad on other people? These things are problems precisely because people do them without considering what harm they might do.
Without thinking, you accepted the stereotype, endorsed its use, and then tried to undercut the person pointing it out. That is, of course, the exact process that gets a lot of organizations in trouble for sexual harrassment and hostile work environments.
I'm not offended by what you said about me. I don't expect everyone to agree with me and that's fine.
So, what's it going to be? Do you think your comment about me is acceptable if I'm not offended, but unacceptable if I am? Why the conditional apology? Do you only think it's wrong if someone tells you it was wrong? Do you regret the action or merely the effect of the action? Choose a side. That is, after all, the entire point of disagreeing with this ad.
Re:*shrug*
Matts on 2007-08-02T18:18:46
I see far too much political correctness in the world - fuck that. Stereotypes can be funny. See for example the comedy of David Chappelle.
I thought the ad was funny - poking fun at the geek stereotype. I believe it's *far* better to think the stereotype is funny than to worry about it being hurtful to either sex.
So I do accept the stereotype. And yes I did think about it, but feel free to throw ad-hominem attacks back at me - way to go.Re:*shrug*
pudge on 2007-08-02T18:29:35
I thought the ad was funny - poking fun at the geek stereotype. I believe it's *far* better to think the stereotype is funny than to worry about it being hurtful to either sex.The problem is, worrying or not, it IS hurtful. It's beyond mere political correctness. Getting respect as a woman, in this business in particular, is hard. And this sort of thing palpably makes it harder. It's a shame, but there it is.
What really makes me boggle is that if there had been some ad geared toward Christians in the magazine, we'd be seeing a huge outcry about it. How dare they alienate atheists! But alienating women? Eh, that's funny!
Re:*shrug*
zrusilla on 2007-08-06T20:30:31
I don't have to try. I don't conform to the stereotype. I'm female.
Female geeks are invisible enough as it is. It is beyond the pale for a tech company to run an ad that implies strongly that every member of my sex is only good for fucking and sucking. Absolutely unacceptable.Re:*shrug*
Matts on 2007-08-06T21:54:39
If I thought that were the case I'd vehemently agree. But I see nothing in the ad that implies such a strong correlation.Re:*shrug*
zrusilla on 2007-08-06T22:17:57
Hello Matts,
You may not see it, but that doesn't mean it's not there. When you set this little gem in its larger cultural setting, and view it through a woman's eyes, it seems a great deal more ominous.
Certainly the fact that this ad completely ignored the existence of women geeks is insulting, to say the least.Re:*shrug*
Matts on 2007-08-06T23:33:34
(It's just Matt btw - Matts is just a hangover from my slashdot login)
The ad is aimed at geeks with a sense of humour, male or female. Most female geeks I've met have a damn good one (you have to have one working with in such an environment). As such it doesn't ignore the presence of female geeks at all.
That's like saying that David Chappelle's humour insults "white trash" because it ignores their presence in the ghetto.
The ad is crass, there's no denying that. I just don't find it insultingly so.Re:*shrug*
pudge on 2007-08-07T00:23:23
The ad is aimed at geeks with a sense of humour, male or female. Most female geeks I've met have a damn good one (you have to have one working with in such an environment).It is a given that this ad offended a lot of people. They shouldn't not be offended (/me counts the negatives to make sure he got that right) just because it wasn't "aimed" at them. It's the other way around: the companies in question (both LJ and QSOL) should be prepared to accept the vitriol they caused by running the ad.That's like saying that David Chappelle's humour insults "white trash" because it ignores their presence in the ghetto.What you are saying is like saying the KKK can say whatever it wants to and no one should complain because their message is targetted at white supremacists, and not people who are offended by the KKK's message.The ad is crass, there's no denying that. I just don't find it insultingly so.Yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't offensive. It is, by definition, grossly offensive.
Re:*shrug*
Matts on 2007-08-07T01:13:11
Chris, the KKK produce a message of hate. Please lets not lower it to that level.Re:*shrug*
pudge on 2007-08-07T01:29:25
Chris, the KKK produce a message of hate. Please lets not lower it to that level.Let's make a deal: I won't make the message of this ad out to be more serious than you think, if you won't trivialize it to be less harmful than others think.
Re:*shrug*
Aristotle on 2007-08-06T23:28:15
Tell me about it. Let’s see: it assumes that…
- Straight male geeks never get laid.
- Female or gay male geeks do not exist.
- Sexualises women in general.
Basically the only group it does not directly insult are male non-geeks, which aren’t even the company’s clientele.
Quite a feat.
Re:*shrug*
runrig on 2007-08-08T06:00:20
Sorry Matt, I was going to side with you, but SWMBO tells me I should be offended, so I guess I'm offended. Though she didn't say if I should be offended myself, or on her behalf. I went checking through the local magazine racks to do some research on other things that should offend me, and I'm not sure if I should be offended at the skateboard magazine with an add that says "You know you want it" or the add in the gun magazine that says "Can you handle this big boy?", or the ad in the motorcycle magazine that says "Go strapless" (it was an ad for a vise for working on your motorcycle). I was going to be offended by an ad in another gun magazine for a "male enhancement" product, but I was too amused.
For some reason, I'm allowed to not be offended by the Swedish Bikini Team, but apparently, (years ago) the beer ad offended enough people that the commercial was pulled.
I didn’t even get as far as the gender thing. My first thought was to wonder since when it is a good idea to insinuate that your customers chose you because they are losers who can’t get a girl.
Basically they manage to offend both genders!
Talk about a winning strategy.
Re:you boys are about 25 years too late...
brian_d_foy on 2007-08-04T00:18:07
Wait until Pudge's children grow up. In a few years they'll be old enough for their concealed carry permits and I bet I know what they are getting for Christmas!Re:you boys are about 25 years too late...
hfb on 2007-08-04T00:31:52
If they're anything like Jen they won't need the 9mm. Pudge might need a shotgun by the door though.:) Re:you boys are about 25 years too late...
pudge on 2007-08-04T00:39:28
Tell me about it... Re:you boys are about 25 years too late...
n1vux on 2007-08-17T21:42:33
Belated Welcome back!
> you boys are about 25 years too late
This ad does feel more like 25 years old than 7.
Subtle misogyny (lack of female authors, lack of females in group photos) is the mode now.
The geek-stereotype is subtle, but not the misogyny, which is so blatant it compels comment. Perhaps it's intended as satire, or intended as inflammatory on the "no free press is bad press" theory. Or perhaps the ad flacks are laughing at the politically-correct geeks being offended at the crude misogyny and missing the anti-geek slam.
> but thanks for the support....
How gracious of you. Some of us "boys" have been quietly supportive of the feminist cause for 25 years (or more), but it doesn't hurt to express it once in a while, does it?
> I can't wait until all the baby girls the lot
> of you have had grow up and... suddenly make
> my occasional rages seem tame.:)
Now *you* are *too late*. From one whose progeny can already look me in the eye with her high heels on, you may rest assured that yes indeed, the New Rage already outdoes the old.
>... and the few who decide to be engineers ...
News flash -- they don't have to be engineers to rage. (Engineering rage is generaly more useful, granted, with possible exception of social-justice rage.)
I do hope there are more than a few engineers (of ALL genders) in the Gen Y & Gen Y++ generations -- it doesn't take an engineer to run a Macbook and iPod it seems, they can do COOL things without getting too geeky. I guess that's progress but... we'll still need engineer types too.
Seems plenty of people are upset by this.
Re:More blowback (pun probably not intended)
da on 2007-08-03T18:19:01
It's less encouraging than it sounds. Check the date on that article.Re:More blowback (pun probably not intended)
hfb on 2007-08-04T00:28:41
Yeah....seven years later it seems that ladies tech group sure did scare the piss out of those guys, no? Few things are more useless in this industry than an angry women's tech group and huffy geek dudes who still jerk off to porn in the back of the server room and feign offense at the idea that treating women in this business like shit is offensive.Re:More blowback (pun probably not intended)
chromatic on 2007-08-04T10:43:58
Finally, I can agree with you on something!
Re:errr
brian_d_foy on 2007-08-07T21:57:08
Yeah, Pair disabled the image pretty quickly because it got slashdotted/dug/whatevered. Maybe you can get that website to host the image themselves since it's no longer available from me. There is another website hosting it now, and I've updated the link in the original post.
