I was organizing my Google home pages. I have many categorized pages, from science and international development, to blogs and anthropology. I decided to add another “tab”, as they call it, for women’s issues”.
I started the tab, and labeled it women. I inadvertently left their “I feel lucky” box checked. The six sites which showed up under women for my blocks were, Hot Blonds, Beautiful Naked Women, Jumping Elephants (real sex real people), The Best (private sexy personals) and so forth. Most sites were soft core porn. I had to redo it several times to get these relatively innocuous swimsuit photos.
Got to give it to them, an abundance of suggestions for women exist in Google if you leave the box checked. Continuous reloads give a totally new group every time. Unfortunately there doesn’t appear to be an accomplished scientist, medical doctor, lawyer, writer, poet, teacher, academic, entrepreneur, or even an academic among them. Even if there were, we’d wouldn’t know it. The women are nameless, they are just women.
This irritated me, so I tried it for men. The page for men looks like this…..
Google could cough up only two ideas for “men”. The main entry, the same one that appears over and over if you reload, is a head, or waist to head shot of a man, sometimes shirtless often not. There is only a rare classic “I’m a sexy boy” shot, you know, where the guys jeans are unsnapped, his zipper looks on the way down, and he is gazing at his hinterlands longingly. Otherwise the men are most always fully clothed, and unlike with any one of those sites which appear under “women”, there is a scroll down to a biography telling who the guy is, what he does for work, his claim to fame, if any, and other random information, things that let us know he is human, like his lifelong goals.
The other Google suggestion, as you can see, was a site of random little male head shots from some Flickr-like site..
Go figure.
I’ve been trying to demonstrate how men are different from women for years, and here’s a perfect example.
Supply & demand.
While the world will always stride to reach perfect political correctness, the basic neanderthal seed will always remain constant.
Fighting it, only leads to more demand, thus which is why we are where we are as a result. Horny guys huddled at computers to get their daily thirst, & fix of variety. Perhaps it’s a shame, from a woman’s perspective. Round & round.
.-= Bennet´s last blog ..Sell Some Crazy For The Hazy =-.
It’s more than a shame it is indicative of going backward.
Maybe try “chicks?”
.-= Doug´s last blog ..Ichor =-.
I don’t eat meat.
Chica?
.-= sauerkraut´s last blog ..Mock the Week: Brits take on American Healthcare Reform =-.
As the world goes, so does Google.
Maybe it’s not Google’s fault, maybe they show whoever pays them more.
.-= G´s last blog ..Old School Friday =-.
No it’s supply and demand. Like above.
I thought the purpose of I feel lucky was to get to the page you’re looking for–I almost never use the home page, so I’m not up on it. That if I put in “Cooper” “Wonderland” it would bring me here so I’m thoroughly confused
If it weren’t so hard to reach the founders of Google it would be very worth pointing out to them as it’s beyond insulting and I think they consider themselves male post feminists
Often I disagree with you on “sexual ad” type things but not this
Too many girls give up too quickly
.-= pia´s last blog ..I smelt the Pine Sol and found my future =-.
the “I feel lucky” button, will show you top results at random. So it is really user input that controls that. Google “learns” from its users, so the most clicked links will appear at the top, and therefore in the “I feel lucky” results. instead of getting upset with google, we should just click on and read more articles and pictures of successful and professional women!
Pia, it’s knowing when people search for women this is what they prefer that is irritating.
Jinx, exactly why it’s so disheartening.
That’s more of a statement about the state of women than anyone might think.
Does give you something to think about.
I understand why it happens though, google assumption would be based on where epople who look up women end up most if the time, and that would also be there preference.
Not saying it’s right, just the way it is.
.-= jake´s last blog ..After Labor Day =-.
“That’s more of a statement about the state of women than anyone might think.”
You’re right there.
I think that was your point right? That the majority of look-ups for women lead to those sites becuase that is the demand. The most viewed when searches for “women” reach their destination. It’s user controlled. That is the statement it makes, that google users are what they are. A reflection on the people who use it.
Later. I’m on lunch and trying out my new Blackberry. Love it.
.-= kait´s last blog ..My Mother Likes Their Clothing =-.
that was the point.
Reminds me of a Seinfeld bit. Something about women need to like the job of the guy they’re with, which is why men make up important-sounding names for the jobs they have. Men, on the other hand, if they are physically attracted to a woman, couldn’t care less about her job.
Of course, pretty much everything reminds me of something Seinfeld-related.
.-= Bone´s last blog ..Let the screaming commence =-.
I was too young for it really, and it didn’t play where i was growing up. I saw it in reruns for the first time and maybe by then it had lost something.
Very interesting, but not surprising. Google is a mirror showing us the depressing state we’re in. In some ways we’ve come a long way, baby, but then…there will always be this kind of demand. Good post.
You’re right Actonbell, it isn’t surprising, just a re-statement of the state.
Maybe one of those tee-shirts from the above page would help here.
It does reflect that the road to go is still long, and needs resurfacing.
this doesn’t surprise me at all Cooper!!!
.-= laketrees´s last blog ..A lovely surprise in the mail.. =-.