Drupal Event Apologizes For Giving Out Copies Of Playboy (drupalcamp.de) 251
An anonymous reader writes:
The organization team for a regional Drupal event apologized Thursday for distributing copies of Playboy to attendees. The magazines were distributed in welcome bags, according to a statement from the organizers of DrupalCamp Munich, and "were provided by Burda, a major German publisher, who also provided other technical magazines as part of their sponsorship. These magazines were approved for inclusion by the camp organizers.
"At the time, we thought it would be a good idea, as playboy.de was one of the first major Drupal 8 websites ever released. Upon reflection, this wasn't the best idea, and the magazines have been removed... It was a decision made in poor taste, and we regret it.
The inclusion of the magazine had attracted criticism on Twitter from both male and female developers, with one writing sarcastically, "Dunno about you, but I only read playboy.de for the Drupal code."
"At the time, we thought it would be a good idea, as playboy.de was one of the first major Drupal 8 websites ever released. Upon reflection, this wasn't the best idea, and the magazines have been removed... It was a decision made in poor taste, and we regret it.
The inclusion of the magazine had attracted criticism on Twitter from both male and female developers, with one writing sarcastically, "Dunno about you, but I only read playboy.de for the Drupal code."
Nobody wants to see nude women (Score:5, Funny)
That's why they included Playboy.
Why is this an issue? (Score:5, Informative)
Playboy no longer has pictorial spreads. They are basically a rich man's Maxim.
Re:Why is this an issue? (Score:4, Interesting)
Right now there is a naked woman on the front page of playboy.de. I think the ending of nude pictures only applies to the US edition.
Re: (Score:3)
Nudes have been removed from the magazine, not the website.
Rob
People need to chill (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Your non offensiveness is offensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, people need to chill out. When absolutely everything gets you offended, really your offendedness is meaningless.
Yeah, sure, but to be fair, I think the "offence" this time was over the inclusion of a rather non-descript magazine, whose main selling point was the vaguely pornographic pictures, to an audience, whose main interest is somewhat removed from idle chit-chat. Playboy's core customers have always been the stupid rich, who think Las Vegas is an exciting holiday destination, that middle-aged men in glittery suits singing Sinatra songs are the height of cool, and who think that smoking cigars is sophisticated. W
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is confusing. I see women every day who state they hate being objectified as sex objects and then show up with a mini skirt that shows the curvature of their ass and shoes with 7 inch heels. I'm almost 60 now and my urges no longer have the overwhelming power they did when I was 20. Still I thank God that women in my day didn't dress half as slutty as they do now or I'd have had problems for sure. The shit in Playboy today is tame by street standards.
Just wrong time and place (Score:2)
The same sort of fuss applies here.
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually really simple. They don't want you to treat them as sex objects. Don't want to be grabbed or leered at, want you to look at their face when talking to them, judge them by their work rather than the curvature of their arse etc.
In the same way, I prefer to be judged not by my receding hair line or expanding belly, or my disability, or any other irrelevant physical attribute. Judge my work on its merits.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If you don't want to be seen as a sex object why would you dress to draw attention to how sexy you are? Why a dress up to your ass and tits hanging out of a half buttoned blouse? That doesn't say "Look at my face" to me. I wouldn't think of approaching any of them, not in my wildest dreams. It's not old fat ass gray haired me they're trolling for.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that there has to be a reasonable limit.i just figured you were exaggerating a bit... Everywhere I have ever worked wouldn't have considered that appropriate attire.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, it was kept for the party scene.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing porn does demonstrate is the rapid and disturbing deterioration of dumb sluts, due to drugs and declining credit worth of fading youth leading to desperation and extremes of behaviour, slut as a term in this sense being used regardless of the sex of the individual, now being one of five possibilities ie born both, one or the other or changing from one to the other.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the big deal? (Score:4, Informative)
Playboy stopped having nude women in it like a year ago right?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Playboy stopped having nude women in it like a year ago right?
It's the principle. I'd feel a bit ripped off if I'd been promised a free copy of playboy and it didn't even have any naked women in it.
Pricipal Skinner quote (Score:3)
"The shapely female form has no place in Art!"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Playboy departed the nude photo market due to the vast and unending supply of photos and video of all manner of naked people doing sexual things which one can access via the Internet.
However, one can make a case that a good deal of the past content of Playboy was about objectifying women and to some extent the publication still is about that.
It was a dumb decision. Several people just weren't thinking. They're embarrassed now. They learned, and won't do it again.
Re: (Score:2)
The German version still seems to have nudity.
It's just odd that they didn't have realise it would be an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering casual nudity is common enough in Germany I wonder why you'd think that. It's not the US. I remember when there while serving in the US Air Force in the late 80's seeing topless or nude models in advertisements occasionally.
Re: (Score:2)
The German version still seems to have nudity.
You mean we're not actually sure its nudity? 8^0
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok with porn or not, that was genuinely stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Where was the, "Das ist eine wirklich schlechte Idee?", leadership from the conference organizers in Munich?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think SJW's need to grow up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. At the next event they should put Playgirl inside instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the real problem that they put there anything at all?
Re: (Score:2)
Personally think it was a dumb move to include porn, regardless of it being porn (it's still everyone's first though on seeing Playboy), but am curious were it Playgirl that had been an 'original website' would the furor been the same?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I need a chrome extension that, whenever it encounters "SJW", replaces it and everything that comes after it with "... never mind, I'm a moron."
Re: (Score:3)
I need a chrome extension that, whenever it encounters... never mind, I'm a moron."
Replaced that for you!
Re: (Score:3)
I need a chrome extension that, whenever it encounters... never mind, I'm a moron."
Replaced that for you!
We'll have moron that later.
Re: (Score:3)
I put "religious" in quotes since there are a lot of people who go around telling everyone how holy they are but if Jesus turned up they would call him a Commie and bang in the nails. The actual religious people who actually go around helping people probably couldn't care one way or another about issues of Playboy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ok with porn or not, that was genuinely stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is misogynistic in Playboy? You do know that women chose to act and chose to be in Playboy? And here I am, thinking we are living in a progressive society where women have full responsibility and control over their bodies. We are not in Saudi Arabia, are we?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
We are not in Saudi Arabia, are we?
Some of us are. I've no idea where you are.
Re:Ok with porn or not, that was genuinely stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
The Feminist message is that women need to be protected.
Re: (Score:3)
funny, women in porn and who do erotic photo shoots often say they feel empowered by doing so. Their body, their choice to display it and all that
Re: (Score:3)
This is true of course, but that's not the objection mainstream feminism has to Playboy.
The main objection is that it evaluates women on their looks, rather than their accomplishments or talents. It tries to be serious about it, which is just weird. Imagine if Time decided to throw in some nudes of Elon Musk, along side his interview... Airbrushed of course. Or if male actors did it to prove they were still hot enough to get roles at 30.
It's not puritanical, it's an issue with treating women differently and
Re: (Score:2)
This is true of course, but that's not the objection mainstream feminism has to Playboy.
The main objection is that it evaluates women on their looks, rather than their accomplishments or talents. It tries to be serious about it, which is just weird. Imagine if Time decided to throw in some nudes of Elon Musk, along side his interview... Airbrushed of course.
I could not care less. If Elon wants to expose his ding dong in Hong Kong, he can have at it. Keep away fmor Kids, and let women who want nothing to do with it alone, and its a big Meh.
Or if male actors did it to prove they were still hot enough to get roles at 30.
It's not puritanical, it's an issue with treating women differently and to a lesser extent using their bodies to sell magazines which perpetuates the idea that the female body is a commodity.
If I might, I'll give a try at an explanation. There are animals in the world where one of the genders is relatively plain, and the other is well adorned. In some of the birds, the female chooses her mate by their displays. The birds of paradise are a good example some of them are strikingly beautiful. And the all time king
Re: (Score:2)
eh, plenty of gay men will say women look like pile of ugly bloated marshmallows and that the lumpy bumpy male figure is where it's at. And plenty of straight women will say ditto even if your mom liked the female porn.
The particular type of feminist who whines about judging women on appearance seem to miss many woman love to show off what they have and want to have great appearance. In general, most women want to look fabulous, they spend a ton of money to do so. Face masks, lotions, hair care/trimming/
Re: (Score:3)
If Elon wants to expose his ding dong in Hong Kong, he can have at it.
That's completely missing the point. The issue is that it has become almost mandatory for women in some professions, and they can't avoid being judged by their bodies in others. We see it with politicians a lot, with the media often commenting more on their looks than on their policies.
Men are all lumpy and bumpy and seriously prone to protruding bellies, and the females are the beauties, with pretty nice symmetry, and normally much better looking faces.
I'm guessing you are not gay then.
Anyway, as I say, it's not some puritanical thing about nudity, it's the way that women's bodies are exploited or distract from their other qualities that feminists object to.
Re: (Score:2)
If Elon wants to expose his ding dong in Hong Kong, he can have at it.
That's completely missing the point. The issue is that it has become almost mandatory for women in some professions, and they can't avoid being judged by their bodies in others.
Sure, models and sexworkers. My wife, in the construction business world, always caught a lot of judgement ion the way she looks. Almost entirely from women, interestingly enough. But we aren't allowed to include women in this issue, the answer must be some problem that men are responsible for. So I'm not certain how that problem can be fixed.
Even at my work, an attractive and intelligent and competent woman was brutalized - by other women. This never occurred to me until I looked at my female coworker a
Re: (Score:2)
If course we can include women as part of the problem. That's why feminists trend to talk about it in terms of patriarchy. It includes women and acknowledges that they are often part of the problem, just like many women objected to suffrage and pretty much everything else.
Feminist porn is fine because the participants are genuinely willing (not pressured into it) and because the sex is respectful.
I don't like sex negative feminism either.
Re: (Score:2)
plenty of male actors and rock stars pose for glamour shots and show off their bodies in movies and photo shoots and concerts.
plenty of women actresses and porn actresses and models want to be evaluated based on their looks. they want to show off what they have and to be considered beautiful. they want to be a sex symbol / sex object ( and plenty of men in entertainment want exactly that too)
it is puritanical for certain types of feminists to try to complain about this.
Note I say certain types because t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the feminist position is that people shouldn't be violent to each other, and that quite a lot of porn is violent. Not in the beating sense, but ejaculating into someone's face (male or female) is kinda hard to frame as an act of respect... I mean, maybe for some people it is, but that's not generally why they do it in porn.
Beyond that objection, there is actually such a thing as feminist porn. Why wouldn't there be? Feminists enjoy sex as much as anyone.
Re: (Score:2)
ejaculating into someone's face (male or female) is kinda hard to frame as an act of respect... I mean, maybe for some people it is, but that's not generally why they do it in porn.
Agreed, it doesn't seem like an act of respect on the giver's part.
But I think it's an act of supplication, on the recipient's part. Which I suppose can be arousing in a sexual context between consensual partners.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the new alt-right thing? You can't call anything sexists because then you're saying women have to be protected which means you're undermining them?
I ask because I've seen this "thought" pop up a lot lately whenever some one suggests something is sexist.
Just a heads up, calling something or someone sexist doesn't equal, "women need to be protected". Thinking women shouldn't have to deal with sexism is not at all the same as thinking they can't handle themselves when confronted with it.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem comes when e.g. nude photographs are considered sexist, as it allegedly exploits women who thus have to be protected from, e.g. earning an income by posing for photographs.
I'm sure some gender studies professor can tell me six different ways in which this isn't undermining those women but if they had actual intelligence they'd be a professor in something academic, so I'll mostly ignore them anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd call them more inappropriate in a business context which is probably why they were pulled.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not a alt-right thing. Rather it's a general humanist thing, because many people are old enough to remember sexlib, or their parents were in it(though with us getting older -- it's sometimes the posters grandparents). The right? Right now it's in the humanist camp on this, women are women and have the right to do what they want. What many have a problem with are the radical feminists(3rd wave), sjws/snowflakes/etc screaming that women have to be protected because they're women. And the belief
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but that doesn't justify totalitarian culture policing for the sake of feelings.
Re:Ok with porn or not, that was genuinely stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm happy to have the US military protecting me from those things I cannot protect myself from. You know, actual threats.
I don't need anyone protecting me from photographs.
I don't need anyone protecting me from mean tweets.
I don't need anyone protecting my feelings.
Do you understand the difference? Everyone needs protection from superior firepower, but mature adults do, in fact, take all of the responsibility for their feelings, for their sense of being offended. If you claim someone needs their feelings protected, then you are, yes, claiming they are a child, or at least not a mature adult. It's not complimentary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
So, if someone secretly photographs you masturbating and posts it online, you're fine with that?
As long as they get my good side
But someone else may need protection from your mean tweets, and those of others. Cyberbullying has driven many people to suicide.
Two thoughts on that. One is that there had to be other issues for it to get to a suicidal state.
Second is that children are not taught how to deal with bullies these days. Actually, they never have, but the special snowflake self esteem culture has backfired badly. Even when I was bullied back in Junior High, the school was no help. So I ended up tking care of it myself one day.
But kids today have been given the idea that nothing bad should ever happen to them, and if
Re: (Score:2)
So, if someone secretly photographs you masturbating and posts it online, you're fine with that?
That seems like a non-sequitur, and I'm sure there's a tort in there somewhere, or a copyright claim, but I wouldn't care about being "objectified" or any such nonsense, and if it caused me no actual harm I wouldn't really care.
But someone else may need protection from your mean tweets, and those of others. Cyberbullying has driven many people to suicide.
Children might indeed need such protection. Children have indeed been driven to suicide by cyberbullying. Children need protection from many things adults don't.
The internet is one of the most potent kinds of 'firepower' we have ever seen. It can let someone inflict asymmetric and widespread harm to another's reputation from a device they can hold in their hand.
I think slander and libel laws are good things, but there's a difference between causing someone monetary damage and hurt
Re: (Score:3)
That would be a nice argument if there was some universal agreement on what is attractive. In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat. Some places like women who stretch their necks out. Others like their feet bound to the point that they can hardly walk. In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot? There is no single standard of beauty. You
Where most are too fat, thin is in. Where starving (Score:4, Interesting)
> . In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat.
Specifically, in cultures in which the majority of people are overweight, where obesity-related causes such as heart disease are the most common causes of death, thinner than average tends to be a) healthier and b) generally considered attractive. In cultures in which food is scarce and malnutrition is a widespread problem, being heavier than the average starving peon is a) healthier and b) generally considered attractive.
Some people enjoy an excess of whatever is physically good, as if their libido thinks "if some is good, more is better". A plentiful supply of milk is good for reproductive odds, some guys enjoy very large breasts (where medium is sufficient); if a lot of people are malnourished thicker is healthier, and to some people very thick is very attractive.
Fashions vary, but standards of what turns people on is more the same across cultures than is different. (Especially when you factor in that "healthier than average weight" is the criteria - that may be thicker or thinner, depending on if the average is obese or malnourished).
Re: (Score:2)
> . In some cultures, thin is attractive. In others, fat.
Specifically, in cultures in which the majority of people are overweight, where obesity-related causes such as heart disease are the most common causes of death, thinner than average tends to be a) healthier and b) generally considered attractive
Yet who is considered to be ultimate hot right now? Kim Kardashian, whom I considered to be about as sexy as a side of pork. But a fair number of guys like that look with enormous buttocks and a lot of fat. And that's okay, people like what they like. But it sure as hell isn't a one size fits all world.
What I'm waiting for is demands for ugly modles so that ugly women don't feel put out. I'll bet that is coming. Why not? If Barbie can cause a girl to become bulimic, and if slender models make normal wom
Re:They only show gorgeous women (Score:4, Interesting)
Attractiveness, for whatever reason, is de-facto an indicator of reproductive potential.
Re: (Score:2)
In summary:
GP: long, well thought out post illustrated with relevant examples.
You: YOUR RONG!111
Re: (Score:2)
OK genius, explain peacocks.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, sure. Humans are peacocks so that everything that applies to peacocks applies in exactly the same way to humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, no. Wide hips indicate that a woman is likely to be able to bare children more easily, and have more of them. Youthful looks indicate, well, youth, which means more years of fertility left and more chance of surviving childbirth.
Neither of those traits are universally accepted as attractive.
Think about this. In many parts of the world breasts are no big deal. Women go around topless all the time. It's particularly common in parts of Africa and South America. Men there don't have the breast fetis
Re: (Score:2)
See my reply to your sockpuppet.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have any, so you are going to have to specify who you replied to.
Re: (Score:2)
Attractiveness, for whatever reason, is de-facto an indicator of reproductive potential.
We gotta get to work then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But does that make the culture evil if one particular type of male or female is considered attractive?
Even then, people who complain about whatever it is tht is popular have zero inhibitions about persecuting those who might fit that definition naturally. Like my wife. Slender, tall, and could have been a model but went into business instead. The amound of sheer hatred she has recieved from these poor women who are destroyed by just seeing her has been quite impressive. But that's not the mainpoint of m
Re: (Score:2)
In Meiji era Japan, it was seen as attractive for women to paint their teeth black. Do you find that hot?
Yeah, actually, although it is might be an acquired taste. [pinimg.com] The whole color-scheme of the face probably needs to change.
I agree with your point though, what is thought of as attractive can change dramatically even within a few years.
Re: (Score:2)
Great. You bang the fat chicks and leave the others to us.
You do know a lot of guys like fat chicks don't you? I prefer mine tall, thin and long legged.
And your repetition of Cultural Marxist memes will be deeply appreciated by the fat chicks, while the others just prefer real men who are confident and have no problem nor illusions with the mating game being the jungle rules it actually is.
It really isn't cultural Marxism, it is women who have some serious issues and choose to consider men liking slender women as the source of those issues. Psychologists will tell us that people who have a ready target for their problem actually have a different source of the problem. It isn't men, it isn't tall slender women, it is an internal mental issue, not any political party affiliation.
Accept reality - your genes want to reproduce and while there is some cultural variation of beauty, signs of unhealthiness (away from average) are repulsive to anyone not sufficiently indoctrinated to the Cultural Marxist memes flooding the developed World.
I do think you are on
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that all sorts of chemicals, not just the famous pheromones, are detectable by the sexes. However, despite your gift of olfactory sensitivity, a lot of factors go into the mix of attraction - particularly for women, who seem to have a lot more complex set of desiderata when mating. This makes sense, given the level of commitment required on their part for the continuation of the species.
Well, I didn't say they thought I was worthy. Just giving a possibility for the diffrent attractions, and that they happen to line up in my case. I probably have the stability and monetary possessions that many like, but I'm not looking.
Quote>
With regard to the 'Cultural Marxism' bit. Many people don't comprehend this fully. The Cultural Marxists did not invent the feminists crazies, what they did do is notice that matched their agenda of Critical Theory and then handed a megaphone over.
And it is fa
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with MGTOW is that society needs to reproduce to survive.
Of course. Its other problem is is is mostly populated by bitter fucks.
As well, the decision to change one's focus in life from pursuing a couple arrangement and reproduction to other things is done on a personal level, not a social one. The grand experiment may indeed destroy our society, very slowly, as males drop out.
There are decent and realistic women out there. They just don't get any coverage.
Of course there are. Problem is, if you choose wrong, you are screwed. In the not fun way. Given the divorce rate, I fugure the odds of that are somewhat better than even (based on a plaus
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully they are smart enough to not sleep and reproduce with you.
Wouldn't that be a win/win situation for women then? If I was a young male, they wouldn't have to be smart enough, because I wouldn't even attempt to sleep with or attempt to reproduce, so I would not bother any woman one bit.
Getting women control of their bodies, safe abortions if needed, and cheap birth control normalized and easily available around the world is how the entire planet should slow down the plague of humans infecting the planet.
I was waiting for someone to try to change this from you say this, so you are that soundbite ideology.
Women should have all of that. My point is not that I would want any of that removed from the rights of women. This is just a risk/reward analysis - a prudent person does this. I di
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing. But giving it out at a professional event is misogynistic. I hope you can see the difference.
So if they gave out nekkid photo mags with men in them, it would mean that they hate everyone? These things are hard to figure out.
Better stick to war magazines with people killing people. That'll be okay, and not an expression of hatred.
Re: (Score:3)
Women read Playboy too (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you you some kind of anti-LGBT freak or victorian prude? Lots of women enjoy female nudity.
They should have included a copy of Playgirl magazine also, then it would have been even more equanimous. Taking out the magazine was the wrong thing to do.
Re: (Score:2)
They should have included a copy of Playgirl magazine also
I REALLY want something like this to happen one day. I wonder what the comments on that slashdot article would be like...
Re:Ok with porn or not, that was genuinely stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I love you for saying that. I've been interacting with too many people on here lately that desperately want to be offended.
Re: (Score:2)
What's with the "actual" before alt-righters and not SJW? I've had plenty of posts on slashdot lately where I've posted a comment about something sexists and rather than refute my points I've gotten knuckle draggers going "OH, SO WOMEN NEED PROTECTION, I THOUGHT THEY WERE EQUAL" when all I literally said was that something was sexist with absolutely no mention of needing to censor others or "protect women". Said comments seem to be the fashionable "wisdom" of the alt-right currently when confronted with any
Re: (Score:2)
The SJW faction may not be big in number, but they are concentrated in the student population, so they wield a lot of influence in the way universities are run.
Re:Fire up SJWs, make my day (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, simply enjoy [watching SJWs] froth about human traits. They've been trying to shame us all into suppressing them for too long.
There are plenty of human traits that we suppress with laws. Traits like violence (which can cause injury or death), negligence (see violence), avarice (which can cause theft), and so on.
There are other human traits whose consequences do not rise to the level required to suppress with laws, but they are discouraged through social mores and codes of conduct. Traits like impatience (which causes people to butt into lines or disrupt public gatherings), gratification (which leads to people doing things that disturb others in their presence, like farting or smoking), and so on.
And there are other human traits that may be offensive to some, but we agree collectively to tolerate nonetheless. Traits like self-validation (which can lead to a talker trapping you in a conversation), or stubbornness (which limits what you can accomplish in a relationship with someone.)
Whether we decide to suppress, discourage, or tolerate a particular human trait comes down to what extent the exercise of that trait can cause harm to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. And have for hundreds of thousands of years.
But the so called SJWs seek new things to suppress — like the desire by males of the species to see the nubile females.
As well as the desire by the females to be seen...
Re: (Score:2)
In first-past-the-post politics you only need a minority of people to vote for you. In business you need to care about the majority.
Re: (Score:2)
In business you need to care about the majority.
Too bad many businesses are happier to cater to those screaming ctrl-leftists, and ignore those in the majority. Then again, with the gaming press it sure back fired on them. All those people who published the "gamers are dead" articles are no longer in the industry and the sites that pushed it all have had a significant drop in traffic and have yet to recover. Several of those sites lost so much traffic that they were killed by their parent company. One can also see this with "The Red Pill" documentary
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a bit off topic, but you used the word "misogynistic," which means "hatred of women."
Appreciation of beauty is not hatred. Lust is not hatred. Thinking of women as sexual beings is not hatred. The word "misogynist" is thrown around by feminists and social justice warriors in abundance, and they are all using it wrong.
It is true, there are men in the world that hate women, but it is not at all reasonable to lump in with them men who like looking at women naked (which is to say, all straight men).
The OP's point was about "how misogynistic web development environments are for women" -- not how pictures of beautiful women in magazines is purportedly misogynistic.
If I may risk presenting the feminists' argument, I think it is that porn is not necessarily misogynistic, but that it has the potential to foster a devaluation of women into a role of objects of sexual gratification. And that can encourage misogynistic thinking. Any feminists who are following this thread are welcome to correct me.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a tremendous variety in pornography. If a person keeps looking at the porn that devalues women, it is because that is the sort of porn they like and seek out.
Hand out Playboys at every tech conference... (Score:2, Troll)
...if it succeeds in keeping Social Justice Warriors away.
If it works there, then we can expand the process to science fiction conventions [battleswarmblog.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
wouldn't work now, when I was a kid we'd joke about people who only read Playboy for the articles, but now it only has the articles. Because erotic photography featuring the disgusting ugly protoplasm that is the nude female body is eviiiiiil !!!!!!
nice websites with the photos from the 1950s to now are out there, free. Your search engine of choice is your friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Erotic photography is also unprofitable. You can't compete with the internet, which has a lot more such photos and a near-zero distribution cost. Playboy today is a shadow of what it was. 800,000 issues in 2015, down from a peak of 7,100,000. Much of their income comes from just licensing out their logo.
Re: (Score:2)
that's a funny thing to say into a guy into porn from asia
Re:Hand out Playboys at every tech conference... (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't understand. This doesn't keep them away. It draws them in. Those who are always looking for something to be outraged over must seek out new sources for their outrage.
Playboy counts as a technical magazine? (Score:2)
From TFS:
"were provided by Burda, a major German publisher, who also provided other technical magazines as part of their sponsorship.
"other technical magazines" (Score:2)
"German publisher, who also provided other technical magazines"
There do seem to be some in the slashdot crowd for whom Playboy content would be considered technical information. Read and learn young code warrior! The world is a better place for men and for women when you grasp these principles.
Cheapskates (Score:2)
They could at least go the traditional route and hire scantily clad booth babes to piss people off. Women with huge breasts need jobs too, you know.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
There are going to be people that say things or publish things you find distasteful. If you don't like it don't partake in that activity/event/business/group/etc.
Are you under the impression that when people get offended they somehow have legal power to make you stop saying the offensive thing? They are fighting speech with speech. What mental gymnastics do you have to jump through to believe that people should be able to say the things you agree with but then when people don't like those things they are not allowed to argue back?