Updated March 18, 2018
Was it a good idea to have women technology CEOs and coders pose in their underwear as a form of empowerment? Dear Kate, a company that sells “performance underwear for high performing women” has been dealing with this question since pics of its latest advertising campaign (2014) showing women techies in their undergarments were first released.
Some are not pleased with the campaign such as Elissa Shevinsky, CEO of the startup Glimpse Labs and author of the Business Insider article “That’s It—I’m Finished Defending Sexism in Tech.” She stated in Time Magazine that “[women] posing in [their] underwear undermines the message that [women] aim to be taken seriously as a technologist.” She added “This ad is like a parody,” and concluded. “I’m struggling to believe it’s real.” Natalie Matthews of Elle Magazine seems to disagree stating that “[t]here’s certainly no reason we should freak out over tech professionals embracing their feminine, sexual side…”
Dear Kate Founder and CEO Julie Sygiel came up with the campaign idea to help launch its Ada Collection, named after Ada Lovelace, the world’s first computer programmer. Sygiel sees these ads as part of its continuing efforts to promote real women, in this instance women in the tech industry.
Sygiel told Time “I think a lot of traditional lingerie photo shoots depict women as simply standing there looking sexy. They’re not always in a position of power and control” hence the ads showing the women coding in a tech/work environment. “In our photo shoots it’s important to portray women who are active and ambitious. They’re not just standing around waiting for things to happen.”
That may be true, but it doesn’t negate the fact that women have had a tough time in the technology industry, let alone reaching managerial echelons in the field. In the past few months several tech giants such as Google, Apple and Facebook finally released their employee demographics in response to grumblings regarding the tech industry’s lack of gender and racial diversity. As was expected the majority of tech employees are white and male (see side charts; other charts available at Fortune Magazine).
Combine the gender disparity with the ongoing misogyny in the field, women techies rightfully feel as if they are overlooked, underestimated and sometimes mistreated by their male counterparts in the industry.
But are these ads the right way to raise the issue of the lack of women in the tech industry?
When I first saw the ads the words ’empowerment,’ ‘awesome,’ or ‘sexist’ didn’t come to mind. I was mildly flummoxed about why these women were posing in their underwear with laptops. I was immediately reminded of commercials where I’ve seen young women talking about how they’re taking college classes online while in their pajamas. However, my bewilderment regarding the campaign turned into incredulity once I saw the other ‘Dear Kate’ images (where the women techies were still in their undies) with block quotes in which the women pontificated on the tech industry. This is where the campaign went off the unintentional deep end.
How can the quotes or thoughts of these women be taken seriously when juxtaposed with them in their undies? Sadly, it actually makes them seem vapid – like listening to a not-so-bright beauty queen discuss world hunger – which is exactly the opposite of the goal of the campaign. It’s as if the ads were trying to do a two-for-one-deal in showing that women should be proud of their bodies no matter what shape or size and that there are women breaking barriers in the tech industry.
But the problem regarding women techies hasn’t been about their actual bodies, in a general sense, but about the small number of women employed in the industry or in leadership positions. Also, why do women have to take off their clothes to show that they’re comfortable about their bodies as a form of empowerment? No one is expecting tech CEOs or leaders such as Apple’s Tim Wise, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Google’s Larry Page, Twitter’s Dick Costolo or Amazon’s Jeff Bezos to drop down to their skivvies to show the tech industry that they are a force to be acknowledged and reckoned with.
Nevertheless, Matthew has a problem with the need or requirement that women should remove their sexuality from their professional lives. She says that the “idea that if women want to eliminate gender biases in STEM fields, they must first separate their sexual selves from their “serious,” professional ones” is a “double standard” that she views as “backward.”
Adda Birner, Founder of Skillcrush, and one of the women featured in the Dear Kate campaign, said to Time “I speak to a lot of women who ask, ‘Is it possible to be a woman in technology and be happy and like your work and not be sexually harassed every day?’ And showing more images of the women who are working in tech and love it and are kicking ass and taking names is a really good thing.”
Maybe we’re over-thinking Dear Kate’s ‘Women In Tech’ Ada Collection campaign in that it’s not about empowerment, sexism or exploitation. Maybe it’s just about showing women who happen to work in technology, looking comfortable in their underwear while working.
Sygiel seems to think so, stating to Elle “I believe women should be taken seriously regardless of what we are wearing, and this should hold true for all professions.”
What Matthews, Birnir and Sygiel have said sounds nice, but the fact that we’re still primarily discussing seeing these women in their undergarments, and not their professional accomplishments in the tech industry is telling. It’s just another example that women still have a ways to go when it comes to optics not being the determining factor in how they are viewed by men and women, no matter Dear Kate’s female empowerment intentions. Then again, the company is in the business of selling underwear so they may have accomplished their goal, if not anyone else’s, involved in this campaign.
What do you think about the Dear Kate underwear campaign? Below is a one-question survey to voice your opinion.
On August 5th the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) via the Department of Labor announced that there wasn’t much movement in the unemployment rate (from 9.2% to 9.1%) and in the number of unemployed persons (13.9 million) since April. However, 117,000 new jobs have been created since June with most of the job gains in health care, retail trade, manufacturing and mining. Not such great news.
Whenever the U.S. Department of Labor announces the nation’s quarterly unemployment rate I always double it. I believe my mathematical adjustment better reflects the country’s true unemployment status of its citizens.
The gathering of unemployment data has been incomplete and under-reported. In other words, the unemployment numbers are utter bullshit.
Who are they counting?
Every day I hear and read about people who have been unemployed for years; living on their savings to get by. I see obviously unemployed 20somethings roaming the malls or riding the metro. I’ve been in DC libraries in the afternoon where I see people between the ages of 30-60 using the library computers or personal laptops looking and applying for jobs. I talk to people who have family members who were laid-off from their $70K+ jobs who are now working part-time for $8/hour at some retail store. I know people who have been underemployed for almost four years and have been looking for full-time work for just as long. We see some of these people every day. Does the BLS see these people?!
If the BLS numbers were a true reflection of the nation’s jobless rate–which is probably closer to my suggested 19.2% instead of 9.1%– Americans would be stunned. They would also be very scared if they came across this tidbit on the BLS website which states that “UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed.”
The UI (unemployment insurance) is the number of people who apply for and receive unemployment benefits. The reason why this data isn’t a complete source because it doesn’t calculate a) unemployed people delaying to apply for unemployment benefits; b) those who are underemployed and 3) those who have exceeded their unemployment benefits and have given up looking for work. Most importantly, this data, unlike the unemployment rate isn’t collected monthly; normally it’s done quarterly or biannually.
Yet the the BLS numbers are used as the source for unemployment data; constantly reported as gospel. How can BLS data be reported as factual when its own website implies that some of its data is incomplete?
History of Unemployment Data
The BLS has been reporting the nation’s unemployment numbers for over 70 years since 1933 during the President Franklin Roosevelt’s Administration. These numbers are what keep the nation going. Financial decisions ranging from corporate investments to whether to buy a new home are sometimes determined by the reported unemployment rate.
The unemployment numbers are based on the Current Population Survey (CPS) a monthly survey conducted by the U.S. government that calculates the rate of unemployment in the United States. The survey does not interview every American which would be unwieldy, but a sample of the population. That sample amounts to 110,000 individuals (60,000 households) at least 15 years of age that are surveyed per month. The samples are grouped geographically so as to represent each state and the District of Columbia.
CPS is the largest survey conducted and claims that its numbers are right “90 out of 100 times” meaning that there count is probably off by “290,000 people.”
All these caveats and qualifications to their data, yet their unemployment numbers are still repeatedly cited as an economic bellwether.
It’s not only their data which is a tad suspect, but how it defines employment and unemployment is also food for thought.
Employed vs. Unemployed
According to the BLS website “People with jobs are employed. People who are jobless, looking for jobs, and available for work are unemployed. People who are neither employed nor unemployed are not in the labor force.”
Sounds simple enough, but labor statistics are not that clear-cut, though BLS’s data seems to suggest that it is.
BLS attempts to do its best to provide factual and erroneous-free data stating that its interviewers “do not decide the respondents’ labor force classification.” The BLS sites states that interviewers (U.S. Census workers) are instructed to “simply ask the questions in the prescribed way and record the answers.” Then “based on information collected in the survey and definitions programmed into the computer, individuals are then classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force.”
Let’s take a look at those definitions which help decide the nation’s unemployment rate:
- employed – The BLS numbers that contribute to the unemployment/employment rate doesn’t specify whether your employment is part-time or full-time. It doesn’t go into details about whether you’re job is a minimum wage job that you had to take because you were laid-off from your $60,000/year job. It doesn’t worry about the fact that your full-time job was switched to a part-time job with less money. It doesn’t account for the fact that your part-time hours were cut from 30 hours to 10 hours per week. As long as you are employed in some capacity, no matter how untenable or financially debilitating it is, the BLS considers you to be employed.
- employed/length of employment – The BLS will also classify you as being employed if you’ve worked at least 5 weeks during their quarterly reporting periods. In other words, as long as someone works at least 20 weeks out of a 52-week period they’re considered gainfully employed. Some of these people may actually be underemployed, but not according to BLS.
- unemployed – This number is based on those people who have filed and received unemployment benefits (UI). The emphasis should be on ‘filed’ because as far as BLS is concerned if you are unemployed and not receiving unemployment benefits then you’re not on their unemployment radar. Some of us know people who have been laid off from work whose unemployment benefits have run out and have been looking for employment for months, sometimes years. The BLS doesn’t have a classification for these individuals, but they are out there
- not in the labor force – This antiquated description is for those who are 16+ who have never held a job or looked for a job. People who have not worked or no longer work due to a disability. One of BLS’ examples mentioned on their site is named ‘Linda Coleman’ who is a homemaker who is “occupied with her normal household chores” and has “neither held a job nor looked for a job.” According to the Business Insider, teen participation rate in the workforce has been on the decline since the 1950s. As of January 2011 teens represent only 3% of the workforce though there are 74 million teens in the U.S. Surely the unemployment rate would increase if it had to account for an influx of fresh on-the-job market teens looking for work.
The job status for many Americans is not as clear-cut as it used to be, yet BLS still gathers its data based on the definition of employment that was established during the era of the FDR presidency and the Great Depression.
However, there has to be a way for BLS to track those people who no longer receive unemployment benefits, to find out about their employment status post-benefits. We need to know if these individuals have found a full-time position with comparable salary and if they’re underemployed or unemployed. If they’re still unemployed are they looking for work or have they taken a temporary or permanent break from job hunting?
Back to the 9.1% unemployment rate. It does paints a semi-rosy picture, even though several job prognosticators and economists see it as an arbiter of even more bad news to come. The fear is that if the nation hits double digits then we will be in worse shape, than expected. The fact is many Americans are already there, some have been experiencing the worse for quite some time.
Sophia Koropeckyj, a labor economist at Moody’s Analytics a credit analysis and financial management firm said, “Clearly, the 9.1 percent does not at all reflect what is going on” about the unemployment rate.
You can’t get much clearer than that. Too bad BLS’ data can’t do the same.
President Obama and Congress finally came to a compromise about the U.S. debt ceiling. Our country’s financial crisis was avoided by the raising the nation’s $14.3 trillion debt ceiling through 2012; cutting $2.4 trillion in expenses and establishing a special congressional committee to recommend long-term fiscal reforms
Excuse me for not doing cartwheels. Where the hell is the tax revenue? What about the damn Bush tax cuts that got us into this mess? Why the fuck do we need a super Congressional committee to discuss what has already been discussed and published last December by the White House’s National Commission On Fiscal Responsibility and Reform?
After all the political threats, PR tantrums and ‘my dick is bigger than yours’ action going on amongst the Democrats and Republicans – this is what they give us? I have the suspicion that this compromise had probably been mentioned before earlier, but was tossed aside as each party try to out-dude the other at the expense of the American public.
Now that the debt crisis is over (really?) the White House tells us that they will now concentrate on how to create more jobs. This should have been Obama’s number one priority after the 2008 election – not healthcare, but I digress.
How the hell are they going to create jobs when they have no additional revenue coming in? As we all know by now (except for the GOP) trickle down/supply-side economics (aka voodoo economics) does not work, so the Obama Administration can forget about the majority of the haves sharing their wealth. Those pesky Bush tax cuts keeps rearing its ugly head.
As for cutting expenses, it just means that the U.S. government will spend less money. Reducing expenses does not generate revenue, you simply spend less while trying to maintain the status quo. I guess this is America’s version of an austerity plan, though countries who have gone this route include significant tax increases. Most politicians see tax increases as political kryptonite to be avoided as much as possible.
I don’t have positive feelings about how well this is going to work out, but the U.S. will do its best. Unfortunately, this is no longer good enough anymore. I am so sick and tired of this bullshit. I am sick and tired of a lot of things.
I’m tired of politicians making decisions about our social programs as if they’re playing a game of chess instead of people’s well-being.
I’m tired of hearing faulty unemployment statistics which don’t truly report the number of people who are unemployed but no longer receive unemployment benefits or those who are underemployed or making significantly less due to cutbacks and lay-offs.
I’m tired of seeing seeing foreclosure signs and people getting kicked out of their homes while banks are reporting rosy quarterly profits.
I’m tired of the increasing cost of higher education because state and federal grants have been slashed forcing students to take out more loans while job opportunities are fewer and fewer.
I’m tired of wondering how much I will owe whenever I have a new prescription filled because my health insurance seems to cover less while I pay more.
I’m tired of seeing of wounded veterans with loss limbs due to never-ending wars in countries where our reasons for being there are still unclear.
Sometimes I feel that Americans have been run-down by the U.S. government. We’ve become cynical in that we mostly don’t expect government to do the right thing. Battling for change, to have your voice heard can be exhilarating, but it can also be exhausting.
Lately, I feel that’s what our government has been counting on so that it can go about its day.
It’s kind of hard to holler when you’re just too damn tired.
Bloomberg News said “[During a May 9th speech] House Speaker John Boehner, [gave] Wall Street leaders his prescriptions for growing the U.S. economy and reducing the nation’s debt [in which he] built his case on several assertions that are contradicted by market indicators and government reports.” Read more here.