“Sexy” is a dirty word. That’s right – it’s one more that you can put next to “beautiful” on the naughty list.
World – meet Ubuntu maintainer Mackenzie Morgan. Mackenzie Morgan – meet world.
It has always rubbed me the wrong way when software is described as “sexy.” There is something about the context that just seems off. Well, I just got around to reading a book I’ve been intending to read since 2006, “Female Chauvinist Pigs” by Ariel Levy. It’s about how pop-culture & the media have managed to convince much of society that it is “empowering” for a woman to um…objectify herself quickly, before a man does (you can probably guess by my phrasing that I do not agree with the women who buy into this, and neither does the author).
This is an interesting use of the word “objectify” here because, apparently, in the universe from which Morgan came, inanimate objects are sexual. In fact, given her point of view, we can even safely conclude that sexuality is strictly reserved for describing electrical plugs or similar things. Otherwise, there is simply no logical way to draw the connection between figuratively ascribing sexual attractiveness to an object and metaphorically objectifying a sentient being. After all, that’s not exactly how our universe operates, and we all know well that it isn’t.
But that’s not all. Apparently, false dichomtomy is an acceptable form of logical reasoning in her alternate dimension:
“Feminist aside: the flipside of this is the implication that if a thing or person isn’t 'sexy,’ it’s worthless.”
So, now when something is deemed “unsexy”, it’s worthless, too? There are many, many activities in our world like cleaning public toilets and hog farming that are considered by many as “unsexy” in most if not all circumstances. So, given this argument, do all these individuals also invariably view hygenic environments or pork as “worthless”, given that such products or outcome simply would not have existed had people not participated in the relevant “unsexy” activities?
Worthless, according to Mackenzie
Seriously, though, I am extremely eager to learn the secret of cross-dimension travelling from Morgan. Sure such an exotic technology will revolutionize the way we see ourselves and the things around us. I don’t know what our future would be like as a result of this, but as long as I am breathing, I promise I’ll try not to call the technology “sexy” even when I feel a bit frisky about it.
Comments
Apparently women taking control of their sexuality shouldn’t be considered sexy. Especially around Linux.
Subjects involving debates such as “whether a non-prostitute is supposed to wear make-up” and “whether one is allowed to deem something sexually attractive” in 2011 are supposed to be comedy, not politics. There is simply nothing more disturbing that watching a bunch of presumably fully functional adults pandering about “freedom” and “openness” while utterly failing to grapse trivial social matters like this.
The almost total absence of women from LUGs and other wannabe-geekeries is surely the best argument yet that Women’s Liberation actually worked and that the fairer sex is, at last, taking control of their destiny.
Otherwise they’d just be darning socks for loons in basements, or cooking their cheetos for them, or something.
Now, there’s a horrible thought.
“The almost total absence of women from LUGs and other wannabe-geekeries is surely the best argument yet that Women’s Liberation actually worked and that the fairer sex is, at last, taking control of their destiny.”
Hell, I’ll even go as far as to giving them credits for thinking for themselves. Seriously, joining a bunch of lonely, sexually dysfunctional nerds on a mission to achieve sweet nothing? Of course, that’s unless you count “getting groped at open-source conventions” as a mission.
You must be signed in to leave comments.