Skip to main content

WTF, Internet?: Thanks for another terrible ‘hot women in tech’ list we did not ask for

stop it complexThe Web is an endless treasure trove of wonders. There’s so much good in here, and I could write endless love letters to the Internet and much of what’s inside it.

But then … well, then there’s this. Thanks, Complex, for spewing forth yet another “hottest women in tech” article. Really giving the world what it wants – nay, needs!

Related Videos

This particular hotgirlzwholuvthenetzomgz post should make me, and you, and anyone with two eyes, an Internet connection, and a heart want to shove pencils through their ears to end it all. But first, let me address the entire genre of listing pretty ladies whose interests lie anywhere from extremely to slightly outside the heteronormative scope.

These. Are. Trash. I’m sorry for doing the obvious here, but reason number one:

It should no longer be shocking that a person with ovaries and a nice-looking face also happens to be a developer, or an engineer, or a Web publisher, or a blogger, or the CEO of a tech company. Every time you point out that a pretty girl is doing something you didn’t think a pretty girl could do, a kitten dies. I swear to god, you are killing kittens. Think of the fields of dead kittens.

Reason number two: “in tech” is the dumbest qualifier ever. Everything is tech now, and every company a “tech” company. Everything has a Website and a social-media strategy and an app. Babies use iPads. For God’s sake, cats use iPads. It’s not a unique thing anymore to know a decent amount about tech, or have a job that is related to it. And to suggest that Playboy playmate Sara Jean Underwood is “in tech” because she used to host G4, while also putting her alongside Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg … please don’t make me finish this sentence. I can’t. I just won’t. I won’t do it. It wouldn’t surprise me if Complex included this girl in the round up with the following description:

girl and phone
This is some random babe we saw outside the Apple Store. She loves her iPhone and totally knows how to use it! She loves Instagram. Geek goddess, are we right?

So next, let’s get a “hottest cats in tech” piece going. It’s just as relevant. More actually. I nominate this:

This isn’t to say that many of these women don’t have knowledge of the digital and technical worlds above and beyond the general public. It’s just pointing out that the phrase “in tech” is vague and stupid and can devalue the legitimacy of any sort of list. Not that this one had any to begin with.

There are also some reasons why Complex’s list is particularly horrible. Even the guy that wrote it seems to know it’s a misogynistic piece of crap – here’s a nice wrap up of how he accepted the pitch for the $500 … fully knowing it was beneath anyone ever John McAfee him.

$500 well spent, Complex: Each photo is accompanied by approximately 19 to 50 words. Solid reporting.

The silver lining in all of this is that the Internet giveth, and the Internet taketh away: Behold, just a sampling of the virtual ass-kicking Complex is receiving from Twitter (and yes, the two women commenting are included in the list):

everyone hates complex

So are we clear? No more of this. Let’s just say lesson learned, hope Complex backdates the hell out of this article, and hold ourselves to just a slightly higher standard. 

Editors' Recommendations

WTF, Internet? Why do Twitter’s ‘verified’ users get nice things and we don’t?
wtf internet why do twitters verified users get nice things and we dont twitter

There are two types of people in this world: The verified and the unverified. Those lucky souls Twitter chooses to bestow that little blue mark upon are on a whole other level than us normals; they are those of the paid-to-tweet variety, those called "social-media experts" who fought their way to 25,000+ followers, those whose fame lands their tweets in weekly "celebrities say the darndest things!" round ups.
Just face it: They are the specials, and our hilarious and insightful Twitter musings will go unnoticed in their shadows. Now Twitter is giving them yet more power: The ability to ignore the rest of us!
We're like the ugly stepchildren Twitter has to love and shelter but only because the state says so.

"We're be rolling out the ability for verified users to go to their Connect tab on the Web and toggle between mentions in three categories," Twitter says. "All, filtered, and verified."
"Selecting 'Filtered' will show mentions based on an algorithm we use to filter out spam, and choosing 'Verified' means they'll only see mentions from other accounts."
Twitter says this new feature is being rolled out to its favorite children because they're involved in such a large number of conversations. Humblebrag much?. "Ooooh it's just soooo hard being soooo popular! Help me Twitter, help me! Save me from my adoring masses!"
I'm no Twitter celebrity, but I would appreciate this feature, thanks for not asking, Twitter. My measly 1,751 followers spam the bejesus out of me, too. I'd love a tool that filters this out so I don't waste time trying to decide if @hle0xor8er is a real person or if that link is B.S.
Unfortunately, I'm neither a celebrity nor a politician; I don't own a ridiculously cute pet or tweet pictures of my unmentionables. I'm not smart enough to ever make that timely parody account first and try as I have might, my hilarious pieces of repartee with Twitter elite have never landed me a spot in any "the best responses to ___" listicles. Thus, I - like so many of you - am banished to the dark corners of Twitter.
We're like the ugly stepchildren Twitter has to love and shelter but only because the state says so. We don't get any special treatment; we get the hand-me-downs, months after The Verifieds have enjoyed wearing them out.
Honestly, I don't even want that little blue check mark anymore - I just want the same treatment! Tear down this wall, Mr. Costolo, and give me a filter so I can ignore spammers, too! Because honestly, I don't have enough energy to care about getting 25,000 followers.
Furthermore - it's the principle of the thing! (Why yes, I did just indignantly stand straight up, pointing my index finger for emphasis - which is what anyone is required to do when saying, "It's the principle of the thing.") Twitter is constantly selling itself as the public square, where everyone is welcome to participate,true democratic discussion in action!
Now there's a caste system, because you just introduced a feature so that verified users can sit atop their towers and ignore our pleas for but 140 characters of their attention. Here's an idea: If you don't want your fans to have quick and easy text-based access to you ... don't get a Twitter account! Isn't that the entire idea? Do celebrities and notable figures need a mass public communication tool so that they can talk to each other? Go use Google+, I swear, no one will find you guys.
The Verified can keep their special privileges and Twitter, it's OK: You can, deep down, love them more. Fine, secretly give them little benefits (which I imagine are things like satin Twitter logo team jackets with their handles printed on the back and invitations to secret parties in Jack Dorsey's underwater castle), but don't publicly insult all of us by rolling out features to them first.
I will resort to whining: It's just not faaaaaaaaair.

Read more
WTF, Internet? Babies don’t need to define their ‘brand’ on Twitter
WTF Internet 09_08_2013 main

I will admit it: I'm one of them. Those negative, cynical people who are sick and tired of seeing their social feeds dominated by your damn baby. Unless I personally know said damn baby (my Godson gets a pass, as do select children whose parents I consider near and dear), I just don't care.
I tried to care. I tried really hard. But I rarely do.
I don't care that it was born, or that it had a first meal, or trip to the pumpkin patch, or haircut. But my generation grew up with Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at our disposal, just begging us to shareshareSHARE. Share it all! And parents take that invitation seriously.
To some extent, we all do. I overshare the things that are important to me and take up a significant amount of my time, too. That's why you see so many pictures of dogs and tailgating and beers on my Instagram.
It’s not babies’ faults their parents are attention-mongering sycophants.

Here's the difference: I realize how ridiculous it looks, and you should ignore it or make fun of it as you see fit. But if I make fun of the 18 identical photos of your infant, I'm the asshole. Sure, mock my Instagram of bottomless mimosa brunch! Please! But can I, in turn, pick on that picture where your kid sort of looks like a Gremlin? No? That's off limits? I call conflict of interest!
I know there's some backlash against the social media baby-hating trope - it's not babies' faults their parents are attention-mongering sycophants who can't keep their hands off their iPhone camera and haven't outgrown that crushing, all-consuming need for "Like" button reinforcement. It's not babies' faults that their folks just can't decide on one filter, so they decide on them all.
I can only barely withstand my feed being filled with status updates and photos of these babies, but at least these are the parents. My actual friends. People who are adults, that I speak to, and have a relationship with, are the ones who write and upload content.
But alas, the last remaining piece of sanity in the social-baby madness is flying out the door, because some jerkoffs (who are considered social media elite) are creating Twitter accounts for their infants.
And what do faux baby tweets... sound like, you ask?

Read more
WTF, Internet? Taking selfies where other people mourn means you’re doing it wrong
WTF Internet Selfies

It’s incredibly easy to hate on the selfie. It’s a ridiculous, narcissistic, attention-seeking display of self-adoration and America completely loves it. An upsettingly high number of the photos we’re taking and sharing via mobile devices are – surprise – of our dumb faces.
Now the occasional selfie indulgence is to be expected: You got a new haircut or new glasses or your Snapchat artistry couldn’t go unnoticed. But we’re quickly devolving into territory where everything is selfie-worthy: The “I’m in the driver’s seat!” selfie. The “I’m eating something!” selfie. The “it’s a Tuesday and I’m at my desk!” selfie.
There’s a damn time and a damn place, people. It’s not every waking moment, or even every fairly interesting waking moment.
And it’s certainly not at memorials.
An entire genre of “I’m at the memorial of an upsetting event that occurred in world history!” was unearthed this week and here’s hoping that we as humans will be shamed enough by these images to just stop it already.
A duckface at the Vietnam Memorial and throwing it up at Pearl Harbor are not by any stretch of the imagination OK. It’s like any sense of respect we had went out the window when we were handed phones with front-facing cameras.
“Wait… what’s this camera for?”
“That one’s so you can take pictures of yourself.”
“Wait… and what’s this app?”
“That’s called Instagram. It makes pictures look cool and people comment on them.”
And then suddenly, just like that, we became oblivious little monsters who need to document our faces in front of every-damn-thing – apparently including the Holocaust Memorial and Chernobyl. Or your grandma’s funeral. With your grandma – in her casket – in the back of the photo.
Not to get all TIME on you guys, but the level of depravity here is pretty astronomical. And it’s not just the fact that we’re (apparently) taking these selfies at wildly inappropriate places – that’s naturally going to happen when the percentage of photos we’re taking are of our faces is so high.  It's that we're not even registering the meaning of these places or events - that's all just the background to the main event! Those monuments and memorials and (seriously, gasp) caskets just happen to be there. Anne Frank who? This was her home? You don’t say – sorry I was busy trying to get a picture here, my face game is just really on today.
I don’t even think it’s that we’re at these incredibly important, historic places that motivates us to capture a selfie. Nope, it’s just your everyday, commonplace self-portrait. It was going to happen wherever you were, whether that was Starbucks or the Jefferson Memorial. Does it really matter?
Just go take a quick look at your Instagram profile. When you give it a once-over or glance at those changing tiles in the cover photo, do you just see yourself staring back? Does it look anything like this?
This makes it look like you never go anywhere worth taking a picture of, that you don't know anyone you'd want a photo of or with. What you’re essentially saying is “yes, yes my mug is more important than the Vietnam Memorial or my sister’s wedding.”
Because, I promise you, there was a meeting. We talked about it, and you just... you just need to stop.  

Read more