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!

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?

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.

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:-)

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.

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.

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.

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:-)

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.

I’ll ask the winners to pop into this blog to post a comment or 2 to expand on this.