Mesa 11.2 Features For When It's Released Very Soon

[CapsAdmin]

Downplaying each side to "useless jobless stupid-ass lesbian" and "MRA's come out of the woodwork" will definitely not get you anywhere. I mean you can try for a few pages but most likely each side will just become even more polarized.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing why this is sexist. So far we have "it's objectifying" but how is it objectifying? Is it her clothing? Is it because she's holding a glass of champagne/wine? Is it the pose? Where do you draw the line? And why or when is objectifying bad? What if she was the one who chose the picture, had the idea or okay'd it?

The best you can do is pretend to know what people are thinking to prove your point and it's no wonder people get angry when you do that.

[mjog]

I'm genuinely interested in hearing why this is sexist. So far we have "it's objectifying" but how is it objectifying? Is it her clothing? Is it because she's holding a glass of champagne/wine? Is it the pose? Where do you draw the line? And why or when is objectifying bad? What if she was the one who chose the picture, had the idea or okay'd it?

Sorry, I thought that would have been pretty much self explanatory given it's a photo of a woman illustrating an article about a low-level software library on a tech web site. As such it is no different to the use of booth babes, or draping women over cars in ads. In this instance, a photo of a woman is standing in place for a photo of a graphics card, a source code snippet, a proper screenshot, or similar - the depiction of the person is literally standing in place of an object. The person has become interchangable with those inanimate objects. A textbook example, really. Dictionary definition stuff. Further, the person is not referenced in the article, reinforcing the fact that their only relevance to the article is how they appear in the photo - their importance has been reduced to just their appearance. Out of respect for Michael's wife, I won't go into it any further, but here's some more basic references if you are actually interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification and http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Objectification. Feel free to Google your own.

I'm going to leave the "And why or when is objectifying bad?" question to you since five minutes of research about objectification in general and the male gaze in particular will give you more than enough reasons why, if you really can't work out why sexism is bad.

Finally, Michael's wife may well be down with it, but that doesn't matter - it still perpetuates sexist attitudes and culture, as almost everyone else who replied to me in this thread amply demonstrates.

[brandonp]

I disagree with the notion that the "male gaze" objectifies women. Just because you find someone physically attractive doesn't inherently mean you want to "own" or "control" them. I've found that the only functional relationships in this world work with both physical attraction and emotional attraction. To the point, who cares if Micheal posts a picture of his wife? Most people move on because it isn't a huge deal.

Jeez, don't ruin the excitement for Mesa 11.2. I've been waiting a long time to try it on my Arch box.

[CapsAdmin]

Sorry, I thought that would have been pretty much self explanatory given it's a photo of a woman illustrating an article about a low-level software library on a tech web site. As such it is no different to the use of booth babes, or draping women over cars in ads. In this instance, a photo of a woman is standing in place for a photo of a graphics card, a source code snippet, a proper screenshot, or similar - the depiction of the person is literally standing in place of an object. The person has become interchangable with those inanimate objects. A textbook example, really. Dictionary definition stuff. Further, the person is not referenced in the article, reinforcing the fact that their only relevance to the article is how they appear in the photo - their importance has been reduced to just their appearance. Out of respect for Michael's wife, I won't go into it any further, but here's some more basic references if you are actually interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification and http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Objectification. Feel free to Google your own.

I'm going to leave the "And why or when is objectifying bad?" question to you since five minutes of research about objectification in general and the male gaze in particular will give you more than enough reasons why, if you really can't work out why sexism is bad.

Finally, Michael's wife may well be down with it, but that doesn't matter - it still perpetuates sexist attitudes and culture, as almost everyone else who replied to me in this thread amply demonstrates.

As I tried to say before with this kind of thinking any picture of a woman that is not 100% related to an article equals booth babe, which ironically downgrades all women to sex objects. Why can't she just be a person celebrating the release of mesa 11.2? There's been other articles here with unrelated pictures of people celebrating, it's just funny.

The "sexy lie test" is very subjective because what people find sexy is also very subjective. I'm not denying booth babes exist for a particular reason but it's very clear what booth babes are. I think the concept of booth babes is cheesy but I guess sex sells (a business doesn't care about peoples feelings if it works). And so again I ask what if women enjoy getting the attention from being booth babes? How is it different from cosplaying at an event to show off? There are people who love to cosplay at events for the attention and I don't see anything wrong with that.

I think this boils down to sex negative vs sex positive femenism. I don't like labeling myself but I guess I'm more on the sex positive side.

[CapsAdmin]

Sorry, I thought that would have been pretty much self explanatory given it's a photo of a woman illustrating an article about a low-level software library on a tech web site. As such it is no different to the use of booth babes, or draping women over cars in ads. In this instance, a photo of a woman is standing in place for a photo of a graphics card, a source code snippet, a proper screenshot, or similar - the depiction of the person is literally standing in place of an object. The person has become interchangable with those inanimate objects. A textbook example, really. Dictionary definition stuff. Further, the person is not referenced in the article, reinforcing the fact that their only relevance to the article is how they appear in the photo - their importance has been reduced to just their appearance. Out of respect for Michael's wife, I won't go into it any further, but here's some more basic references if you are actually interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification and http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Objectification. Feel free to Google your own.

I'm going to leave the "And why or when is objectifying bad?" question to you since five minutes of research about objectification in general and the male gaze in particular will give you more than enough reasons why, if you really can't work out why sexism is bad.

The irony is that you are now conflating a picture of someone who appears to be celebrating the release of mesa 11.2 (because there have been pictures of others here that are celebrating the release of X software) with booth babes because she's a woman. The "sexy lie test" is very subject to interpretation because what people find attractive is also subjective. If you're looking for sexism you will find it using that list. I'm not saying booth babes don't exist for a particular reason but with booth babes it's very clear.

Finally, Michael's wife may well be down with it, but that doesn't matter - it still perpetuates sexist attitudes and culture, as almost everyone else who replied to me in this thread amply demonstrates.

While I think the concept of booth babes is silly I don't think it's right to tell women how they should present themselves. I think this boils down to sex positive vs sex negative femenism.

[Nille_kungen]

Sorry, I thought that would have been pretty much self explanatory given it's a photo of a woman illustrating an article about a low-level software library on a tech web site. As such it is no different to the use of booth babes, or draping women over cars in ads. In this instance, a photo of a woman is standing in place for a photo of a graphics card, a source code snippet, a proper screenshot, or similar - the depiction of the person is literally standing in place of an object. The person has become interchangable with those inanimate objects. A textbook example, really. Dictionary definition stuff. Further, the person is not referenced in the article, reinforcing the fact that their only relevance to the article is how they appear in the photo - their importance has been reduced to just their appearance. Out of respect for Michael's wife, I won't go into it any further, but here's some more basic references if you are actually interested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification and http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Objectification. Feel free to Google your own.

I'm going to leave the "And why or when is objectifying bad?" question to you since five minutes of research about objectification in general and the male gaze in particular will give you more than enough reasons why, if you really can't work out why sexism is bad.

Finally, Michael's wife may well be down with it, but that doesn't matter - it still perpetuates sexist attitudes and culture, as almost everyone else who replied to me in this thread amply demonstrates.

I think you make a big thing out of nothing but i will take some time to question your answer.
I find it sexism to apply that tech sites isn't for women and that a woman can't be exited over a new mesa release seems to me that you are full of prejudices against women in tech.
Why do you see women in photos as objects instead of tech interested persons that could be as exited as anyone else in mesas progress?
Is it possible that the objectification is in your head and views?
I think i read about this in Joseph Stalins manual from the old soviet union from the 1930's of how to control the people.

[GabrielYYZ]

Three pages arguing objectification but no one points out the genius in the first page that asked if Michael's wife was single... lol

[andre30correia]

still waiting for the final release

[Mez']

I've been waiting a long time to try it on my Arch box.

I bet you have.
I've been trying to install mesa-git (11.2/3) xorg-server-git (1.18) xf86-video-ati-git on my test machine with a yaourt axe for some time now, and I can't figure out how to make it past gdm.

[bridgman]

Three pages arguing objectification but no one points out the genius in the first page that asked if Michael's wife was single... lol

I was tempted (really really tempted) but I concluded that was a problem of timing not of reading comprehension...