IT Million $ Babes!
Million $ Babes www.itmillion.com love it or hate it – Post Your comment(s) here.
22 january – we’re live and launched!
Million $ Babes www.itmillion.com love it or hate it – Post Your comment(s) here.
22 january – we’re live and launched!
Loading...
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in, and view the posts’ comments, there you will have the option to edit or delete them.
Mr WordPress - January 6, 2008 at 8:06 am
Love the idea behind the awards but AGAIN, why does it use such demeaning language to promote it? Million $ babes? It sounds like a strip club. The style of the website is also incredibly tasteless and unprofessional.
Always thought the calendar was a step in the wrong direction and this doesn’t help either.
mfcm - January 23, 2008 at 2:52 am
thanks for taking the time to comment. I flag our FAQ on this topic: The “IT’s Million $ Babes” name was chosen to confront and expose two critical errors in thinking — (1) that women can only be “babes” or (2) that to be taken seriously they have to deny acknowledgement of their femininity. These are merely two faces of the same fundamental error — an assumption that there is a dichotomy between career and self, work and person, mind and body.
The purpose behind the award is not only to honour women of accomplishment in the IT arena, and not only to provide positive role models that will encourage girls to seek out careers in IT — but also to show that one’s gender is neither a barrier to any career one wishes to choose, nor something to be denied or hidden.
No attempt to encourage girls and women into IT can work by evading reality, and the reality is that girls are female and do care about their femininity. One of the aims of the IT’s Million $ Babes Awards is to show girls that there needs be no conflict between what they are as a person and what they choose as a career. That they can be powerful executives, while remaining women who are as feminine as they wish to be.
Does a certain type of man look at all women as “babes”? – YES they do. Will denying the femininity of women in the workplace prevent this? – NO it will not. The proper response to such attitudes is the untouched contempt that should come naturally from any woman of self esteem who encounters it.
If these awards encourage wide-ranging debate of these issues, then we will consider them a complete success. As for whether the use of the term “babes” in the name is demeaning: the calibre of the women who have accepted the award is living proof that it is not.
I also add from a personal perspective: I, as an individual like to ‘poke’ the issue a little further and have taken responsibility for kicking off the ’slightly more controversial’, less traditional approaches – such as Screen Goddess IT calendar, IT’s Million $ Babes (and I have 3 others up my sleeve).
I KNOW to make a lasting impact we HAVE to reach beyond traditional audiences and methods – I also know by so doing it will create some ‘issues’ and reach some criticism – however I,like the screen goddesses and now the million $ babes believe so strongly in who we are and what we contribute and how fantastic a career in IT is I am prepared to stand by my values with pride in the face of controversy to achieve my objectives!
sad to hear site comments I kind of like it:-( bit then again proves diversity of thought is in the world.
itmillion - January 23, 2008 at 3:05 am
An interesting debate.
I’m all for anything that can send women up the ranks of IT. There is after all, a skills shortage going on and good money and opportunity in the industry.
However, as someone in a male dominated industry (in IT media) I feel sexualised enough. I’m sure that at any industry event, my sexual prowess is judged long before anything else I might have to offer.
I think it’s a cop-out to say we just have to accept this as part of life. No way – we should strive to one day be successful professionals, as opposed to being successful females who’ve ‘broken the glass ceiling.’
The calendar to me is a different argument – those women chose to be a part and I’m all for choice. But using the same ideologies in an awards programme is different as women who may not want to be presented this way have no choice if they wish to be recognised.
The award winners also happen to be at a glance, ‘attractive’ was this deliberate or a coincidence?
2Cents worth
2 cents worth - January 23, 2008 at 6:11 am
thanks 2cents worth. I agree re: IF any person was ‘forced’ into entering something that they felt uncomfortable with re: naming or perception. IN this instance though all winners are mature individuals who were aware of the award name prior to nomination – and who accept adult responsibility for their lives and involvements. They chose to be a part of this.
I’ll ask the winners to pop into this blog to post a comment or 2 to expand on this.
itmillion - January 23, 2008 at 6:41 am
I have carefully read the content on the ITmillion.com site, including the FAQs, and I am still vehemently opposed to the name “Million $ Babes” and the promotion of the sexual nature of these women over and above their IT and business prowess.
The term “Million Dollar Babes” has negative connotations as you can see here: Million Dollar Babes and Million Dollar Babes: Julia Roberts vs Cameron Diaz.
Moreover, if this was an award for men, we wouldn’t call them “Million $ Studs” would we?
If you honestly wanted to show that “one’s gender is not a barrier to any career one wishes to choose”, why not make the awards for both men and women, in equal numbers? Why not pay more respect to these high achieving women in the way you portray their great work?
This smacks of a media stunt more than a genuine attempt to improving the situation for women in IT and industry more broadly. Rather than confronting stereotypes and breaking down barriers this is perpetuating the problem. Very disappointing.
Jessica Enders - January 24, 2008 at 1:03 am
Hello Jessica – thanks for expressing your thoughts. some comments from me below.
re: the web references you provided – It is precisely those negative connotations that we wish to expose, examine and resist.
re: Studs – Why not? But practically, there is no need, because the issues faced by women are not faced by men, hence the whole debate.
re: Barrier. The phrase “not a barrier” was meant as “not a barrier per se” – obviously there are institutional barriers due to irrational or erroneous attitudes, hence the awards are specifically to encourage women by showing that women can succeed as well as men. It is often the women and their success that is invisible – this helps expose that.
re: publicity: I, the award innovator have a long and credible voluntary history of creating and running programs and projects for women and girls in IT groups. http://www.wit.org.au and http://www.awise.org.au It is that background and knowledge that contributed to the concept of this award.
Given the routine failure of less publicised attempts, does one attempt to improve the situation other than by deliberately generating controversy? And one does not confront stereotypes or break down barriers by accepting their basic premises: but by taking them by the horns. AND THIS does take it by the horns and pokes the issue – stimulating discussion and interest.
PS out of interest the most viewed FAQ on the site is “Where can I find more information on careers in IT”.
Jessica keep blogging and raising q’s – it’s thinking that helps define who we are:-)
itmillion - January 24, 2008 at 2:04 am
I still don’t see how using the term Million $ Babes and publishing a ‘pin up’ of award recipients ‘examines’ or ‘resists’ the connotations that are already well established. To many people it just looks like you are agreeing with that angle. Most people aren’t going to dig deep enough to expose the ‘debate’.
I would have problems with the term “Million $ Studs” too.
What’s at issue here is the sexualisation of skills that should have nothing to do with sex. It doesn’t matter if it’s women or men – neither should be treated like an object.
Lasting change is not going to be brought about by sensationalist tactics. This is particularly the case when those tactics will appear, to those that only give it a brief examination (i.e. most people) to perpetuate rather than combat the problem.
Jessica Enders - January 24, 2008 at 2:44 am
hello – points well made – comments below.
One of our hopes is that people do examine their own prejudices and look deeper, be inquisitive discover that facts of the businesses, the diverse offerings, diverse technologies – eg: from personality cloning, launching petitions, to jewellery, balancing the books, improving project performance and programming these IT’s Million $ Babes have carved niches into their chosen markets and excelled using a variety of Oracle, Linux, Apache, Php, (.)Net, Microsoft SQL, to web 2.0 social networking technologies.
They run multi million dollar technology businesses. They are all producers, who are passionate about what they do and why they do it. Our world needs producers – producers create not only wealth they create jobs, they build economies, they provide positive inputs for all.
The inaugural winners are a fabulous mixture or new web entrepreneurs, software developers and database management experts – a great cross blend typically representative of the industry. They range in age between 20’s and 40’s. The very nature of what they do and their success is what strikes at the heart of the ‘perceived babe’ image.
We are integrated human beings – we do not have a brain, body , personality separated – these women show that you CAN create and be a success (financially and happiness wise) and be a women. I think what ought to be examined is WHY do people have so much trouble with the word babe – we are taking that word and subverting it for our smart savvy success interpretation.
re: lasting change: there are entire encyclopedias on the topic of women and IT – eg: 2007 Encyclopedia on Gender and IT (where I have written one of the chapters) http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Gender-Information-Technology-Eileen/dp/1591408156 there are over 200 entries from around the globe looking at this issue – researchers and industry representatives.
The answer is not simple – there is a complex mix of contributing factors – the solution is not simple or one dimensional either. What we do know and does seem to be consistent across the globe is the overall perceived nerd image does negatively impact female perceptions. Million $ babes helps to adjust that inaccurate nerd image.
Thanks for digging deeper trying to get to the heart of the debate and explore the issues further.
Keep chatting
regards
Sonja the innovator of this initiative.
itmillion - January 24, 2008 at 3:21 am
> As for whether the use of the term “babe” in the name is demeaning:
> the calibre of the women who have accepted the award is living proof
> that it is not.
This is not a reasonable argument. Just because a few people aren’t
offended by me calling them “stupid idiots” doesn’t mean that it’s not
offensive for others. Same for the term “babes” and it being
demeaning.
Mikey - January 24, 2008 at 6:26 am
Hello Mikey this is not a full response just part – more to follow:-)
I paste here a comment by Dale Spender – about one of my earlier initiatives (Screen Goddess IT Calendar” as I believe it covers demeaning objectify:
Dale Spender an internationally renowned feminist, author of many many books on the topic and international presenter, comments on the calendar:
“Just loved the calendar! I think it is also about politics. Deconstructing the geeky image.
I also think there is an enormous amount of fun in it.
It’s really these women having the upper hand. Sending up the stereotype of IT and of eye candy.
Objectifying is something done to you.
Taking charge is manipulating that image and subverting it, that’s what they are doing.”
thanks for comment please do keep raising the issue until resolved:-)
itmillion - January 24, 2008 at 7:52 am
I’m not sure how your post relates to what I wrote. Are you staying that anyone who finds it demeaning should take charge and manipulate the situation to their advantage? How does that relate to proving that it’s not demeaning to some people in the first place (which was the original point)?
No doubt you can find people who think this is a good idea which has merits, but please acknowledge that there’s also some people who find it demeaning.
Mikey - January 27, 2008 at 11:47 pm
The comment about taking charge related more to addressing ‘objectify’ comments. Meaning objectify is something done to you – taking charge is your choice and you are in control as such there is not objectify or demeaning.
Sure some people consider the word babe demeaning in their context of the word and perception of what it implies. It is that dichotomy of thinking we are seeking to expose and have challenged – WHY is it demeaning? WHY do some people instantly assume that it is?? Why can’t a person be successful at business, happy in their personal life, be smart, and be a woman?
itmillion - January 28, 2008 at 12:10 am
Dear Sonja
If you read Mikey’s comments and mine carefully, you’ll see that we’re not objecting to the idea that a woman can be successful at business, happy in their personal life and smart.
WE’RE OBJECTING TO THE USE OF THE TERM BABE!
Jessica Enders - February 1, 2008 at 12:55 am