An Open Letter to Wired Magazine: We're breaking up

I think this is more a case of mistaken identity.<p>Where did Wired get all the journalistic cred that Cindy seems to be lamenting the loss of?<p>I've been a reader for years, and it's essentially Maxim for geeks.<p>Add to that Wired readers are overwhelming male - 75% according to their latest media kit:<p><a href="http://www.condenastmediakit.com/wir/circulation.cfm" rel="nofollow">http://www.condenastmediakit.com/wir/circulation.cfm</a><p>Conde Naste is in the business of making money with Wired, not journalism.<p>Or is that too cynical?

She makes a good case. I'm no die-hard feminist, but this strikes me as trying to appeal to that most basic element of their mostly male readership at the expense of their female readership.<p>Wired shouldn't be about that. Even though the whole magazine is kind of campy, and more reminiscent of science fiction than any serious study, this strikes me as more distasteful than funny or sexy. I don't want Wired to become prudish, but they have an opportunity to lead by example here.

I am a woman, and I subscribe to Wired, and my reaction when I opened my mailbox and found that cover was "Oooh look, honey, boobies!" Quite literally.<p>I guess I should, as a caveat, mention that I'm very sex positive and not entirely straight. But I personally believe that bodies aren't obscene, no matter what context they're in. Even if that context is an attention-getting cover on tissue engineering.<p>Trust me, that's a pretty good use of boobies.

As Dan Savage said, I'm glad to be a man because we seem less <i>complicated</i> (though he was commenting on genitalia). If Wired had a picture of some guy's schlong on the cover, I wouldn't, as a man, find it "unfriendly." I can't even imagine how it feels to be so intimidated by pictures of other people. Stick <i>goatse</i> on a magazine and it probably wouldn't stop me buying it.<p>But any decision to stop reading Wired seems wise to me - it has its moments but the odd issues I buy when traveling are packed with gimmicks and populist dross. Pick up magazines like Communications of the ACM instead (sadly not at airport stores) - no gimmicky covers or chesticles in sight there!

<i>Things were looking up a couple months ago when you published that great article on Caterina Fake of Flickr and Hunch fame. That could have been a cover… Instead you went with Will Ferrell…</i><p>Like it or not, a magazine with Caterina Fake on the cover just isn't going to sell as well on news stands as one with Will Ferrell on the cover.

Open question: Why do many women in technology make their gender the focus of their work?<p><a href="http://cindyroyal.com/" rel="nofollow">http://cindyroyal.com/</a>

Keep in mind those of us still in high school. My mom is the one who collects the mail and the latest cover led to an awkward conversation.<p>It is wholly unnecessary for a technology publication to have that cover. At the very least, they should have limited it the newsstands.

As a point of curiosity, I figured I'd go to Wired's website and search the obvious choice: Marissa Mayer. She was the first female employee at Google and is now their VP of Search Product and UX - easy on the eyes too.<p>As a fan of the magazine, I was pretty disappointed in the results: 3 articles - none of which were in print (or meaningful.) Of those three, one[1] was pretty procedural, but the other two[2][3] seemed downright dismissive of someone who was the youngest person ever to make Fortune's list of "50 Most Powerful Women in the World"<p>[1]<a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/06/googles_marissa/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2007/06/googles_marissa/</a> [2]<a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/04/marissa-mayer-t/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/04/marissa-mayer-t/</a> [3]<a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/02/marissa-mayer-r/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2008/02/marissa-mayer-r/</a>

I read the first paragraph of this article and thought "this article is clearly written by an angry female." Lo and behold, the author's name is Cindy.<p>Go Wired magazine for choosing your covers based on what will sell and not based on the loss of the five readers who might be offended by it. They can read "Bitch" (which is somehow not an offensive name for a magazine if written by feminists?). If Wired doesn't sell magazines, Wired doesn't exist.

A lot of comments to this article are about the declining quality of Wired magazine.<p>So, that leads to the question: is there any other technology-centric print media worth subscribing to instead?

Oh god. I hated this cover when I got it at work. Wired just didn't consider its female readership at all with this cover.

I don't get Wired's strategy. It seems now they're doing anything for readers- you can get a year subscription for $3.99 (if you find a good deal online), and they go with controversial covers like naked women and proclamations that "The Web Is Dead."<p>Why can't they charge a bit more for a subscription ($36/year is still only $3/issue), and publish much higher quality content? I'd rather pay more for quality than read what they currently mail out every month.

Wired's cover browser goes back to 1993: <a href="http://www.wired.com/wired/coverbrowser/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wired.com/wired/coverbrowser/</a>

I'm got to admit that for the first time I had to make extra effort to hide the cover of my magazine while reading it in the subway.<p>I don't personally care about it one way or another but they sure can't say it wasn't meant to be provocative.

People still care about Wired Magazine?

I have wired magazine sent to me for free <i>(I'm actually not sure exactly how that came about)</i> and I'm this close to calling them up and just having them stop the subscription all together - I barely even read the magazine, probably spending less than 5 mins skimming through it before it goes into the trash or the bathroom.

Magazine uses pretty women to try to attract some men - oh the horror. (However, men as success objects is just fine, but I diagress....)<p>Look - wired doesn't "represent" anyone. It's a vehicle for attracting eyeballs to advertisements. It isn't obligated to appeal to "you" for any value of you.

Ironi ally this edition was the first inane bought in years not because it had boobs on the cover but despite that. I bought it for departure gAte reading and had old ladies were staring at me like I was reading porn.

If there were more women on the cover, she would probably complain that there are too many women on the cover.<p>I looked at the cover browser and my superficial impression is that they don't put people that often on the cover anyway, and even if they are male, they also tend to be actors or jokes.<p>Thank you for the reading recommendation of "The Memoirs of a Token: An Aging Berkeley Feminist Examines Wired." That sounds exactly like the thing I always wanted to read.

So what if Wired Magazine have a gender imbalance over its lifetime. What's the issue here?<p>Is it more about being offended that wired magazine don't offer equal coverage to women entrepreneurs? Maybe there aren't just many tech entrepreneurs to cover.

I don't have much sympathy for the shameless use of breasts argument, as that's just American prudery.<p>Having featured only a few women for actual accomplishments could be a real problem - except that it can probably be at least somewhat explained with a few observations: How many women did you see at Startup School this year? I'd guess the number was under 5%. What percentage of successful tech entrepreneurs you know are women? How many women are in YC? Based on these number, women may be <i>over-represented</i> for their digital accomplishments on Wired covers.<p>I do hope that changes, I'm always happy to see women entrepreneurs, and Startup School attendance is by no means a valid scientific study, but it does give us some indication as to why so few women are featured.

For me, the silly covers are only part of the problem. The rest: (editor) Chris Anderson's hyperbole. The web is dead! Everything will be free!