Comments on: Should a Phone be Masculine or Feminine?

By: A Feminine Sympathy

A Feminine Sympathy — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 03:03:13 +0000

[…] Should a Phone be Masculine or Feminine? » Sociological Images Well, have some sympathy for the creative team. It was a tough assignment. The Android phones I've seen are strikingly awkward and ugly, not even considering the competition in Apple's perfect little haiku of a design (“A sleek round . […]

By: Are Developers the Target of Droid Ads? « Lady Geek

Are Developers the Target of Droid Ads? « Lady Geek — Mon, 19 Apr 2010 17:10:32 +0000

[…] Read the full breakdown on the anti-girls approach from this reader on Contexts.org, here’s a part of […]

By: Jake

Jake — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 11:31:12 +0000

Note that I said I was speaking on experience, based on what my female friends have told me, and that I was not speaking for all women. Geez.

By: pg

pg — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:17:52 +0000

Is there a name for that? When someone says “I’m not sexist, but [insert sexist statement here].” Because I sure see it a lot.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:56:31 +0000

You need to realize that Google did not put this commercial on the air, Verizon did. The Verizon Droid is not the first or only Android powered device. The T-Mobile G1 was the first one, and if you look at the advertising for that phone, it is not at all gender biased. Next is the T-Mobile MyTouch3G, also not at all gender biased. So before you go saying “Mission Accomplished, Google!” learn a little more about the company and you will see that it was not Google, but instead Verizon (and perhaps Motorola) that marketed this phone this way.

With that being said, you can’t really blame a male biased marketing platform on the Google Android operating system being adopted by more men than women, because the Droid is not the only Android based handset. Just an example, probably about 95% of my male friends love my Android powered phones because of the ability to root and load ROMs, and the high level of customization that comes along with those things, while most of my female friends say they don’t get it, and don’t want to get it, because they simply aren’t into that sort of techie stuff. Now I am in no way sexist, or trying to speak for all women here, but merely using my experience as an example. So like I stated before, it’s just a commercial, why get so worked up about it? Not everything in life is going to please everyone all the time. Get over it. :)

P.S. Maybe Verizon WANTED to appeal to men. Is there a law against that? I guess Ford, Chevy, Dodge, and all the other commercials of that sort will have to come down now too.

By: phio gistic

phio gistic — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 14:43:04 +0000

“It’s just a commercial. Who cares?”

This is actually a great case study of why we should care. The hyper-masculine, woman-mocking advertising for this phone has had a direct effect on who is buying them. Check this out:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/190250/android_the_boys_club_of_smartphones.html

“Google’s smartphone platform has attracted a disproportionate number of male users, according to a report released today. And lest you think the gender gap is universal to all smartphones, Apple’s iPhone actually proved to be quite female-friendly.”

So this advertising is working just as described. Mission Accomplished, Google!

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:32:17 +0000

It’s just a commercial. Who cares? If this makes you mad then you must hate Spike TV, with shows like MANswers. How can anyone care about a commercial this much? If you don’t like it… just change the channel when it comes on, and don’t buy a droid. It’s not that big of a deal. How about going do something instead of watching dumb ass TV and blogging about it? Man, some people just look way too into stuff. Just let it go and chill and have fun with your friends. :]

By: Verizon’s “Pretty” a Gender Bias Salvo | Ernesto Aguilar

Verizon’s “Pretty” a Gender Bias Salvo | Ernesto Aguilar — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 14:41:25 +0000

[…] Sociological Images posted about this ad too. AKPC_IDS += "1247,"; Share and […]

By: lisa

lisa — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:49:54 +0000

Thanks Keith,

I fixed it.

–SocImages

By: Keith Lea

Keith Lea — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:44:45 +0000

They took the video down but it’s available here at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bvcb6HXXAE

By: Craig

Craig — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:04:44 +0000

I mean, yeah, I’m not saying I _respect_ them. Who sells a product to Americans by associating it with SCUD Missiles? That’s just dumb. At least duct tape that racehorse to an F-16.

By: adilegian

adilegian — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:11:28 +0000

As a creative professional, I have sympathy for but also lack respect for the creative team. Solving a problem with easy and problematic ideas, to me, amounts to proving oneself a coward in the face of real challenges.

And this is assuming they cared enough to recognize sexism as a problem.

By: adilegian

adilegian — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 01:09:04 +0000

Bingo. Thanks Agawa.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 08:27:23 +0000

I understand where you’re coming from, but I still see those things as false and superficial social constructs of femininity, though. It’s the image of feminine “frivolity” or female inequality that many women (and men) have been trying to escape for centuries. Is it the perfect commercial? No, but I wouldn’t say those particular images definitively connote that masculinity is necessarily superior, rather I’d say that function is superior to form. And the supposition that male is function and female is form is definitely socially created. ;)

By: KJ

KJ — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 07:33:29 +0000

“We” aren’t portraying fashion and trendiness as feminine, the ad is. A Barbie beauty pageant is not an ambiguously gendered image. Neither is the “princess”. One might argue that we’re projecting masculinity onto the “positive” images in the ad, but the “negative” imagery is unquestionably female or feminized.