Ok, so it looks like this egregiously stupid ad for computer servers appeared in this month’s issue of the Linux Journal (who, until this is cleared up, won’t be getting a link from me… and I won’t even mention the vendors name.)

According to the author at OverDugg the company first ran the ad in the same magazine back in 2000 and, after the back-then blowup, promised not to run it again. The magazine’s website has still-snippy correspondence about the ad dated back in 2004. But as yet no other mention. While it’s not unheard of for the cultural unconscious to reopen old wounds there’s pretty strong evidence that the ad really did appear in this month’s issue. But it’s a little hard to confirm… at least late on a Friday afternoon. (Would you know where to lay hands on a recent issue of “Linux Journal? I rest my case.)

But no matter, the ad itself is just a perfect play on men’s lame, insecure belief that women are the “no-sex” class, a paradigm that for perhaps millennia and certainly for centuries has mercilessly tormented men even as it has been used to brutally oppress women.

Cara at Feministing, where I first saw the ad mentioned, ably points out its more egregious elements.

Let’s tick off the most offensive points. The misogyny is obvious, since the ad treats women explicitly and entirely like sexual objects. The themes of objectification and comparing women to machines continue throughout the smaller print with lines like “We’ve all known disappointment. And few things are more disappointing than undependable, expensive servers that don’t satisfy your needs.” Ah yes, it’s hard not to agree— it’s really frustrating when either uppity bitches or online servers won’t do whatever you say.

That’s the second problem. Not only are women nothing but sexual objects, but the print also implies that, like technology, women also sometimes fail to act “properly.” I think that we can all agree that there are certain standards we hold for how we want and expect our computers to behave. Apparently, QSOL has similarly rigid standards for women. The word “won’t” in the sentence “won’t go down on you” implies that, for some reason, the woman should go down on you.

To be honest, though, I think that by sticking with the more conventional theory of women as the “sex class” she actually misses even more egregiously sexist elements that emerge when you use the “no-sex” class paradigm. She gets close when she says the ad

... plays off of a stereotype that everyone knows— haha, guys who like computers are nerds, and nerds don’t get any sex— and yet whoever wrote it somehow forgot that it’s a negative stereotype about the company’s own customers.

Read the rest of Cara’s post, plus some really good commentary from readers, here.

But the bigger problem being played on in the ad isn’t that nerds don’t get any sex, and certainly not that “proper” women won’t “go down on you.” The real problem is that the ad means exactly what it says! Neither a properly configured computer nor (according to the stupid paradigm) will a “properly configured” woman will go down on you! That’s the problem. It’s the problem with the ad. It’s the problem with the “no-sex” paradigm: inside the paradigm women don’t naturally “go down” or have any other kind of sex. Not naturally. Not on their own. Under the stupid paradigm we’re supposed to have to hack women — reconfigure you away from your “default settings” — before you’ll agree to sex!

Insane? Yes. Repeatedly demonstrated, as in this advertisement? Sadly also yes.

Getting back to the ad it’s worth pointing out that a commenter to Cara’s Feministing post, Lucy Gillam, said

If the ad were aimed at women, the woman in the picture would have an exasperated expression….

Read Gillam’s comment here

Now if the ad were aimed at women it would still be sexist, of course (reverse sexist, yes, but still sexist) but while sexist at least the message itself would be affirming a positive (if you can’t count on men to stay up you can at least count on our machines to) as opposed to it’s current confirmation of a negative (our computers might do what you wish but you can count on attractive women like her not to do anything of the sort.)

Unless, of course, you have some way to hack through her defenses.

Sheesh! And here guys wonder why women are hard to understand! We keep treating you/them like equipment to be mastered or puzzles to be solved instead of like human beings to be communicated with… and then we wonder why you’re not interested in sex with us? And then we blame you?

“Doh!” “Heh!” “Indeed!” Some other kind of sardonic/sarcastic knowing-guy sound…

Guys, we gotta head to the exits on this stupid “no-sex” class paradigm. It’s obviously a totally raw deal for women. And even if, somehow, you didn’t care about that then it would still be a raw deal for us!