Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Compartmentalize, or you'll get 20 lashes! (unless you're into that sort of thing)
Recently I was interviewed by a graduate student who was working on a thesis about representations of female sexual empowerment in popular culture. Much of our conversation centered on women's usage of the internet. One of the first questions she asked me was whether I thought there was still a stigma against women being openly sexual online. After stumbling over my words because I couldn't get the "yes" out fast enough, I gave her an example that shows just how much of a problem this is. I go to a lot of conferences, unconferences, and all variety of social media-oriented events. Frankly, I'm feeling a little conferenced out at this point. Anyway, at each of these events I go to, there's almost always a panel or session or discussion group focused on the question of how to "present yourself" online – usually framed in a business context. And even if there isn't a session nominally devoted to this topic, it ends up coming up sooner or later. It's obligatory, just like the incessant "bloggers vs. journalists" debate.
These discussions can get quite heated, with people becoming very earnest about not wanting to look "unprofessional" online. Women in particular tend to get very worked up about it (which isn't surprising; there are expectations placed on us that men won't ever experience). Without fail, the ultimate example of "unprofessional" is always something sexual. Someone will be ranting about the presentation of their professional demeanor online and attracting new clients and blah blah blah, and it's only a matter of time before they make an offhand remark like, "So, I'm not going to go around posting naked pictures or anything!" Such comments are usually received with much laughter and nodding in agreement.
So, YES, if one's sexuality is the ultimate representation of what it means to be unprofessional, then absolutely we have a problem here.
Don't think the situation is quite as dire as I'm making it out to be? I'll give you just a few more things to chew on.
A few weeks ago we completed a new, thoroughly awesome press release for Sex 2.0, and I circulated it to several local news outlets. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which is the major newspaper in town, bounced my email; as it turns out, newstips@ajc.com's spam filter automatically rejects any message with the word "sex" in it. Anything vaguely sexual isn't newsworthy, I guess.
I emailed a potential wifi sponsor for Sex 2.0 and didn't hear back for several days; when I did hear back, the person explained that my email had gotten caught in a "wildly undersexed spam filter" (complete with winky-smiley emoticon). Also, they turned down the sponsorship because the company was "probably too prudish."
Comments from Figleaf and Kochanie of the thought-provoking blog Real Adult Sex always get marked as spam by Akismet. Before I upgraded to the latest version of WordPress, I had the Akismet With Local Whitelist plug-in, and it was a lifesaver in this regard. Unfortunately it's not compatible with the new version.
Viviane, proprietress of the popular sex blog Viviane's Sex Carnival, had her MySpace profile unceremoniously deleted simply for having a text link to her blog.
While we're pointing fingers at MySpace, how about this weird message, which comes up when you click the link to The Sensual Vegan's web site from their MySpace profile (click to enlarge):
Here is the "very naughty" page in question (shockingly offensive, I know):
Meanwhile, MySpace's own homepage is just fine and dandy:
The Sensual Vegan situation is a perfect example of what Lux Alptraum was talking about in her recent Boinkology post, The Pink Ghetto: The Mainstream Media, the Madonna, and the Whore:
The media is all too happy to cover sex when it's sensationalistic, when there's a scandal, when they can cluck their tongues about what this world is coming to while simultaneously showing us Paris Hilton's goodies for our masturbatory pleasure.
Bring on your sex toy busts, your celebrity sex tapes, your teen sex scandals: the media will eat it up and serve it back to us on a platter.
But try discussing sex in a healthy, rational way: try talking about sexuality in a rational, intelligent matter, giving the topic the sensitivity and insight it deserves. Suddenly you're perverted, you're sick, you're unmarketable. (emphasis mine)
It's exactly this frustration that led me to organize Sex 2.0 in the first place. After a particularly maddening incarnation of this debate at SoCon07 (in a session entitled "Women and Blogging"), I resolved that I would not keep having this 101-level conversation over and over again.
We have to keep chipping away at these arbitrary walls that define what constitutes "professional" and what doesn't. Being an eternal optimist (sometimes to a fault), I can't not believe that social media will help us transcend the bullshit stereotypes we've been dealing with all our lives. But it's not going to do it on its own; that's where the "social" part comes in, after all.
Oh, and one last thing. For those of you headed to SXSW this week, be sure to check out these panels:
Comments
95
Subscribe to commentssomeguyrunningMar 12th 2008 8:18AM
AT FRED
Frd, I did not ask you to provide statistical evidnce that " voluntary actions start with voluntary thought".
I asked you to prov that a correlation exists between so called "sloppynesss in physical environment" and so called "sloppyness in mental environment". I even left you with the liberty of handling definitions yourself.
And, evn with such a liberrty, you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever.
This very fact itself is evidence that you, Freddy Thompson, are indeed a blowhard and a liar.
Shame on you, sir
AT ALEX
Did Samedi tell you if there are spellcheckers for Java cellphone browsers?
Fred ThompsonMar 16th 2008 8:27PM
Again: Demand on your part does not create requirement on my part. Actions start with thought. The human mind optimizes to repeat thoughts which lead to repeat actions. Otherwise, rote methods and repeat exposures would not be effective.
I really wasn't going to come back here except yet another sloppy undisciplined adult male-type person provided such poetic proof: Eliot Spitzer.
Oh, and let's not forget client #6 from that atheist/Muslim nation Great Britain: The Duke of Windsor.
someguyrunningMar 17th 2008 1:40PM
Wow, you are back! So...
Again: Freddy-boy, I do not seek proof to basic psychological/philosophical concepts, to which you try to revert when cornered.
Mr. weasel, you claimed there is "correlation" between two features in human population. So you must present STATISTICAL proof of correlation in question.
And, Freddy, you can chat all you want about the ways human mind optimizes itself, but this chit chat CAN NOT save you from need to back specific claims with SPECIFIC evidence.
And your chit chat will not make you less of a liar and less of a weasel when you repeatedly fail to provide a sigle byte of the "actuarial evidence" you claimed to have.
As for your poetic evidence (why does every weasel consider himself a poet nowadays?), no amount of hypocrite politicos can prove a single bit of your argument.
YOU FAIL AT SPITZERING.
Also, you:
FAIL AT POETRY ;)
FAIL AT ARGUMENT (PROOF, ANYONE?)
Your futile jab at Great Britain also failed.
And I bet a hundred dollars you fail at life, poor internet liar Freddy.
PS: I wonder, will you comeback to make some more laughable attempts at derailing argument towards Spitzer/philosophy/whatever-else-you-didnt-claim-to-have-evidence-for?
Or will you finally behave like a man and accept that you lost this argument?
Fred ThompsonMar 17th 2008 9:12PM
No, you can keep your money. It's not enough to be worth my time and you're not that stable a personality, anyhow.
I just like to tweak you. You're the type of person who always has to have the last word, aren't you?
someguyrunningMar 18th 2008 1:23AM
"No, you can keep your money. It's not enough to be worth my time and you're not that stable a personality, anyhow."
Cheap move, pal.
"I just like to tweak you. You're the type of person who always has to have the last word, aren't you?"
I just like to poke you and see if you come back for more.
Are you still trying to weasel out your ruined point without giving any proof, or are you just coming back to amuse me?
Fred ThompsonMar 19th 2008 4:57AM
This descended into Argument Clinic a long time ago.
You answered my second question, you can't stand for someone else to have the last word.
Twit.
someguyrunningMar 19th 2008 7:04AM
"This descended into Argument Clinic a long time ago."
It ws there from since you showd up. man.
"You answered my second question, you can't stand for someone else to have the last word."
LOL WUT? You make evn less sense than usual... Arent you the one who said he will abandon this thread like 2 tims?
Anyways, I am glad you came back to amuse me with some more of your unfounded rhetorical nonsens
Youre funny Fred. You lost this argument like solong ago, and you keep coming back in effort to retlitate.
You only capitalize on your failure, Freddy-boy.
"Twit"
Is that your signature, dude?
P.S.: Sorry fr typos. Posting from celphone, again.
AlexMar 19th 2008 1:40PM
Well, well, well...
I stopped by to see if my favorite BA Fred Thompson has any knee-jerk reactions to Teh Spitzergate, and what do I see?
A knee-jerk reaction to Spitzergate, by no one but Freddy! What a surprise!
Dear Fred, a peculiar anecdote is rarely considered "proof". In fact, quoting "spitzergate" as "poetic proof" is a severe case of Anecdotal evidence, and don't you try to hide behind "poetic" :)). So once again, you fail at proving your point http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-bird-window-fail.jpg
On the other hand, you succeed at demonstrating what "logical fallacies" are all about.
The amount of fallacies in your "arguments" here is mind boggling. After reading this discussion all over again I noticed that you even managed to create hybrids between different kinds of fallacious arguments: when, in comment #8 you suggested your readers to "ask any headhunter" in order to verify that "Gen X Americans most certainly ARE highly unprofessional", you managed to bring two fallacies in one same place. This statement of yours was, most definitely ipse dixit (Appeal to authority fallacy), but, at the same time, it had some characteristics of "attempt to shift burden of proof" (you don't even quote the "authorities" in question, but instead you tell your readers to go and ask those authoritative figures, thus shifting the burden of whatever little proof there might be in a quote by J Random headhunter).
Fred, your performance in spewing fallacious statements is quite astounding. Show us MOAR :)
And, dear sir, it appears you have made 3 (THREE!) posts after your "final adieu" in comment #79. I wonder if you also suffer from inability to allow anyone else to have last word.
Why is it important for YOU to have the last word? Dear sir, you failed to defend your claims, you got beaten with your very own "actuarial evidence" (or rather lack of it) and your side of argument collapsed on you... Will having last word help you out?
But I am pretty sure Fred Thompson will return here to make some more unsupported claims.
Dear sir, I wonder if next time you show up you will proceed to recite that fundie joke about how important it is for the survival of "TEH CIVILIZSHUN" to uphold the so-called "traditional family values" in spite of that they are evidently obsolete and irreversibly decayed, lest we be consumed by four pedestrians of Carpocalypse :)
Oh, wait a moment... You have already entertained us with this this anecdote in comment #76, didn't you? By the way, you never clarified what "sexual energy" is from scientific POV and how to measure it... Or will such explanation ruin your joke, Fred?
AlexMar 19th 2008 1:39PM
Well, well, well...
I stopped by to see if my favorite BA Fred Thompson has any knee-jerk reactions to Teh Spitzergate, and what do I see?
A knee-jerk reaction to Spitzergate, by no one but Freddy! What a surprise!
Dear Fred, a peculiar anecdote is rarely considered "proof". In fact, quoting "spitzergate" as "poetic proof" is a severe case of Anecdotal evidence, and don't you try to hide behind "poetic" :)). So once again, you fail at proving your point http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/funny-pictures-bird-window-fail.jpg
On the other hand, you succeed at demonstrating what "logical fallacies" are all about.
The amount of fallacies in your "arguments" here is mind boggling. After reading this discussion all over again I noticed that you even managed to create hybrids between different kinds of fallacious arguments: when, in comment #8 you suggested your readers to "ask any headhunter" in order to verify that "Gen X Americans most certainly ARE highly unprofessional", you managed to bring two fallacies in one same place. This statement of yours was, most definitely ipse dixit (Appeal to authority fallacy), but, at the same time, it had some characteristics of "attempt to shift burden of proof" (you don't even quote the "authorities" in question, but instead you tell your readers to go and ask those authoritative figures, thus shifting the burden of whatever little proof there might be in a quote by J Random headhunter).
Fred, your performance in spewing fallacious statements is quite astounding. Show us MOAR :)
And, dear sir, it appears you have made 3 (THREE!) posts after your "final adieu" in comment #79. I wonder if you also suffer from inability to allow anyone else to have last word.
Why is it important for YOU to have the last word? Dear sir, you failed to defend your claims, you got beaten with your very own "actuarial evidence" (or rather lack of it) and your side of argument collapsed on you... Will having last word help you out?
But I am pretty sure Fred Thompson will return here to make some more unsupported claims.
Dear sir, I wonder if next time you show up you will proceed to recite that fundie joke about how important it is for the survival of "TEH CIVILIZSHUN" to uphold the so-called "traditional family values" in spite of that they are evidently obsolete and irreversibly decayed, lest we be consumed by four pedestrians of Carpocalypse :)
Oh, wait a moment... You have already entertained us with this this anecdote in comment #76, didn't you? By the way, you never clarified what "sexual energy" is from scientific POV and how to measure it... Or will such explanation ruin your joke, Fred?
AlexMar 19th 2008 1:43PM
00000000ps, double-post. Sorry, Amber.
@someguy
No, I do not possess the sacred knowledge of decent spell checkers for cellphones.
Fred ThompsonMar 20th 2008 12:03AM
"Why is it important for YOU to have the last word?"
Neither one of you understands that comment. Predictable...actuarily.
AlexMar 20th 2008 3:32AM
So, Freddy, you did return.
This time,sadly, without new jokes.
However, you make a new unfounded claim: "Neither one of you understands that comment". And, as it is always with your unfounded claims, you insinuate that you possess some superior knowledge on the subject.
Would you kindly clarify your point, Fred?
P.S.: I am beginning to love this, Fred, please, entertain me more.
someguyrunningMar 20th 2008 5:03PM
So, Fred is back.
As usual, Fred is just a fake.
As usual, Fred has no point whatsoever
As usual, just the same old hollow rhetoric.
My oh my!
Freddy, dear, give us some better illustrations to those "ingenious ideas" of yours, and then don't forget to give us SOLID evidence.
And don't ya try derail the argument by regurgitating generic philosophical concepts.
Or, well, just go on entertaining me. I am having so much fun poking you.
NikkiMar 20th 2008 9:53PM
At this point it's so far gone here I dont know why I am bothering at all, but I read this comment and just literally laughed out loud:
"If I show up somewhere on a loud harley with a do-rag, full leathers and a scruffy beard, people are going to think that I'm a biker, and associate me with bikers."
Funnily enough, I work with a guy like this, and when he shows up, I think that he's a QA guy, because that's actually his job. I show up here every day with partially pink hair, four earrings in one ear and three in the other, and a big fat brain between my ears, and people think I'm a Project Manager, because I work somewhere that being "a professional" means "doing your job well." If you showed up here in a suit and screwed your shit up, you would be fired.
MakennaApr 24th 2008 7:03PM
First, props to Amber for an articulate and thought-provoking blog.
Second, Fred Thompson, with all due respect, you are incredibly simple-minded. While I do not disagree with your comment that "Outward appearance indicates the mental state of the individual," I'm wondering where you went off the deep end with that. You seem to treat "professionalism" as though it is a testament to the mental stability and capabilities of a person. Just because I get ink doesn't mean I'm no longer a functional or responsible member of society, nor does it negate any educational or professional background I may have.
Granted, you are not alone in your attitudes of writing off the body-modified of society, but that doesn't make it right.
Amber, to answer your question of "why," I only have my own theories.
We live in a society that is still remarkably Puritan in fundamental beliefs, and part of that whole Puritan bit is a huge aversion to anything remotely sexual. Even if the hypothetical nudity is not intended as some sort of pornography, it's beyond the scope of mild-mannered, demure women. And that makes people uncomfortable. Even if it has nothing at all to do with the professional life of the individual in question.
A perfect example (and probably why I appreciated this so much)?
I'm a university student who is currently double-majoring with honors. I have intentions to attend law school after my undergrad work. I have consistently held down a job since I was fourteen years old. I'd consider myself a fairly mature and responsible individual.
But I'm also currently a Suicide Girls Hopeful (I have to get my first photo set approved to be official). I have a variety of body modification, all of it entirely PG. Many people find out about either or both and some come after me about how SG is "porn" (because nakedness of any sort/BOOBZ=PORN. There's no nudity of any sort in art.) and opinions of me change.
I'm entirely aware of how my choice to engage in art, be it body mod or Suicide Girls, could potentially affect my "professional" career. But I refuse to play into society's irrational belief that those two facets of who I am are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps if enough people start speaking up the way you have, we (as a society) can push past the absurd stigma. After all, sex is how we all got here.