As an addendum to my previous post (Watch your nails on that keyboard, love) - well, I told you I’d written an e-mail to the Guardian. It got published in today’s Technology letters page.

Or, at least, some of it did.

I thought about letting this lie. I’d sent in my complaint, I’d blogged about the problem, I could ignore it and get over it, right? Well, wrong, because the editor of the Technology Guardian replied to my initial e-mail, and then several more times afterwards, and I ended up actually much more angry than I was initially. So let’s get this dirty washing out in the open, shall we?

Here’s the text of my initial e-mail:

Hiya,

I’m highly aware that I’m rapidly turning into my parents by writing letters to complain to newspapers, but what exactly was the thought process behind using the picture of the pink keyboard (see attached) on your article “How secure are your online passwords?”? ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/onlinepasswordssecurity)

There’s nothing gender-specific in the article itself, and the security concerns laid out are relevant to both genders. It’s not an article aimed particularly at women (apart from being written by one). So it’s completely incongruous. That’s before issues about gender stereotyping and sexism - women only use PINK technology, right? And of course the only thing they’d need to use the internet for would be to shop? - even enter the equation.

Seriously, what’s going on there?

Considering the Guardian has run articles on how there’s still sexism rampant in the IT industry (among other industries..), using that picture just … doesn’t make sense. It’s re-enforcing all sorts of negative attitudes towards women, which really isn’t what I’d expect from the Guardian, of all papers. The Daily Mail, maybe. But from the Guardian, that’s just disappointing.

On a more positive note, the article itself was great. It’s just a shame that you chose to present it like that.

I also saved the offending picture to my computer, for use both in a blog post here and to attach to my complaint e-mail, for clarity’s sake.

This is what I got in response:

Hi..

thanks for your email. Pink keyboard? Never noticed it, myself. Did the
hands have nail varnish on too? Nah. I think you’re reading too much into
it.

Anyhow, we’d like to use your letter, all or in part, as a letter; we’d
need a full name and post town, please.

We do try to put all the usable letters we receive online on the Technology
blog even if we cannot print them in the newspaper itself.

If you do not want your message published (we will not publish your email,
only a name and post town) please say so.

best
Charles Arthur, editor, Technology

“All or in part” registered - and you’ll notice it was only a part of the e-mail that was published. As did the incredibly dismissive “Nah” he threw in there. I considered refusing to allow the e-mail to be published, because … honestly, because I was a bit embarrassed about the first e-mail. I was angry when I wrote it, trying not to come off like Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells, but nonetheless furious about the use of that picture. In the end, though, I figured I’d take any platform I was given, and replied:

Morning,

Well, no, I don’t think I’m reading too much into it, though I do think that was a pretty rudely dismissive reply! Not had your coffee yet?

You’re welcome to use the letter if you like - Sarah Dobbs, London.

Again, notice the fact that, for whatever reason, I’m desperately trying not to sound as angry as I feel; I don’t want to make him defensive, and it’s entirely possible that the editor didn’t choose the picture anyway. But seriously - it’s not okay for an editor to reply to his readers like that, is it? Another response dropped into my inbox:

Hi Sarah..

As it happens, I had had my coffee. But now I’ve gone and looked at
the picture you’re complaining about. (I had thought you were
complaining about the printed picture, which hasn’t got a keyboard at
all, now I look again.)

OK, so - looking at the ALT text on that picture, it says
alt=”Teenager’s hands on computer keyboard” width=”460″ height=”276″
That is, someone chose the picture just based on a few keywords from
the article. It’s not thinking “let’s do something stereotypically
suggesting women can’t set up strong passwords” - which would be
atypical in the Guardian anyway - but instead “what image suggests
using a computer to do typing?”

So that’s how. But thanks for the location too.

best
Charles Arthur, Editor, Technology

So - he didn’t read my e-mail properly but sent me a rude reply anyway? It’s not getting any better, is it?

Because I just don’t know when to quit, I replied:

Hiya,

I’m sure no-one did set out to be offensive, but the thing is, it was offensive. I’m happy to believe that picture was used entirely out of thoughtlessness, but that doesn’t really make it any better. And in fairness, I attached the picture in question to my initial e-mail as well as including the link to the online article.

And again:

Hi..

not to belabour this too much, but..

On 10 Dec 2007, at 15:35, Sarah Dobbs wrote:
>
> I’m sure no-one did set out to be offensive, but the thing is, it
> was offensive.

I disagree. You perceived it as offensive. If it had shown a blonde
woman with a finger to her mouth looking dopey, now, that would have
been obviously offensive (though the dictionary defines that word as
“causing someone to feel deeply hurt or angry”), because it would have
made a target where none existed in the copy.

This really doesn’t fall into that category, I don’t think. There are
people who do have nails like that, and there was *absolutely nothing*
in the story to suggest that women are more prone to having weak
passwords than men, or vice versa.

If it had been a picture of big builder’s sausage fingers, should
every man have felt it was pointing at them as somehow being dim over
passwords? The article didn’t even suggest that people (men or women)
do passwords badly; only that there are now really good ways to break
those you think are good (such as using the word “abstruse” or
“onomatopeia” as a password, which would get broken pretty fast
despite seeming good enough).

> I’m happy to believe that picture was used entirely out of
> thoughtlessness, but that doesn’t really make it any better.

My (female) chief sub this week says “it was naff” - with which I
think I’d agree. But no more than that. Else we’re getting into
teddybear territory.

> And in fairness, I attached the picture in question to my initial e-
> mail as well as including the link to the online article.

You did, and I apologise. In clemency, I plead webmail - the picture
doesn’t show inline, so viewing it would have meant another click, and
I was trying to do it at speed.
best
Charles Arthur, Editor, Technology

I don’t know where to start. Dictionary definitions? (And ones that prove my point, at that?) Getting in a member of the supposedly offended group to prove that obviously no-one could be offended coz my friend says so? It’s such a standard, obvious response to any complaint of offence that it’s exhausting to contemplate going over all the same old, tired arguments all over again. Here’s my response:

I think you’re still missing the point, though. The woman in the picture’s not typing, she’s using a keyboard with only one labelled key - with a shopping trolley on it.

Notice that’s what was edited out of the letter they printed. We’ve been through all of this before. I like pink. But I don’t like being condescended to, and I don’t like the assumption that women will only use technology if and because it’s pink, and I don’t like being treated like I’m stupid. All those boxes got ticked, didn’t they? Mr Arthur’s counterexample actually isn’t a parallel; the equivalent would be printing a picture of a man using a blue keyboard with only one button - a button with a football on it, or maybe a pint of beer. That’s sexist, as is the pink keyboard picture.

And that’s the bottom line here.