Apple, you hardly knew me. Why the iPad naming fiasco matters.

So, we ladyfolk finally got our own viral internet giggle yesterday when Apple really did name its new tablet computer the iPad. "iTampon" quickly became a hot trending topic on Twitter.

Even as the "Mac's-i-Pad" period jokes continue, a little bit of a backlash has begun ("really from all the noise we should just call it the i-bitch,") and people are also asking will period jokes will hurt the iPad?

I think the iPad name is a major mis-step for Apple, but not just because it's embarrassingly funny. For me the iPad naming fiasco pulls back the curtain on Apple Computer's branding and marketing and reveals it as another Silicon Valley boy's club.

I say this as a devoted Apple user. I got my first computer as a college freshman back in 1986, a "Macintosh 512K enhanced." I was in one of the first college cohorts in which just about everybody had a personal computer. And yes, there was a day when you could put "512K" and "enhanced" together and it made sense. (Take that, Fanboys, I've been using a Mac since some of you were in diapers, or, egads, before you were born.) Over those 23 years I have personally bought at least a half dozen desktop Macs, four laptops, two iPhones, and more generations of iPods than I can keep track of. I run my whole Mojo Mom media empire, from book authorship, to blogging and podcasting, on a Mac.

And all the while Apple's branding made me feel like I was part of something, "I'm a Mac," after all. And with their intuitive, elegant design, as Apple brought new products to life that I hadn't even known that I needed, but now can't imagine living without, I felt like Apple knew me, too. But now with their naming choice of the iPad and all it's testosterone-fueled cluelessness, it became immediately more noticeable how overwhelmingly male Apple computer is. Can you name one woman associated with Apple, as an employee or its image? Watch Apple's own near-orgasmically-fawning video promoting their new gadget. It's eight minutes of male developers talking about how awesome the iPad is.

So then we get thinking about the iPad and wonder, "Were there any women involved in its design process? Its naming or marketing?" And reporting comes out, such as Business Week (via Jezebel) saying that "women account for 40 percent of gadget spending..." and the inconvenient fact that Apple doesn't have any women in its top corporate positions.


I have spent a lot of time in the tech world socially (my husband is a computer guy) and professionally, when I was a freelancer writing the parenting and technology blog for CNET in 2007 and 2008. I appreciated that opportunity and I thought I did bring a different perspective to the conversation. Unfortunately, my opinion was not always appreciated. I received a lot of nasty, hurtful comments. I had not how realized how radical it would be to bring a mom's-eye view perspective to the tech world. Many libertarian, male commenters seemed to instantly view me as the enemy, someone who represented the "nanny state" that clashed with their worldview. I should have realized what a culture clash I was walking into. It's a shame that a wider diversity of opinions are not represented and respected on tech websites, as I did report on some interesting stories that other journalists may have overlooked, some of which made it to the main front page of CNET. (I should say CNET was great to work with. And I know there were people who liked what I wrote, but they tended to email me directly rather than leave a public comment.)

So, just as we women have an uncomfortable relation with public displays of pads, perhaps all the brouhaha also has a connection with how women feel overlooked and excluded from the world of high tech. I had been pretty happy with the illusion that Apple knew me. But now, while they can still win me over with their products, my decades-long relationship with the Apple mystique has evaporated in a flash--surely not what the Apple marketing department was hoping to accomplish with their sexy new product release.

Mojo Mom news roundup, from Baby Einstein to George Bush

There is so much news today that I am just going to write a roundup pointing you to the articles that I have open all over my computer screen.

• Baby Einstein videos don't make babies smarter. Did anyone ever really think they were anything more than a convenient distraction? Still, it's sad to learn that video-watching is correlated with decreased language acquisition. The effects may not be permanent but it's still discouraging. Learn more at NPR.org and Time.com.

• Preschoolers think food tastes better when it's served in a McDonald's wrapper. Even store-bought carrots. Tempting to try this at home when carrots are involved, but bad news in the long run.

• On a related note, I recommend the book Buy Buy Baby for an in-depth look at marketing to kids, including "educational" toys and the relationship between tots and brands. Check out this great Salon.com article for more background on the book. It seems to me that the "educational" mandate for toys has gotten even more intense over the past few years. Walking down the toy aisles at Target recently, it struck me that every baby toy had some sort of identified specific learning goal. There's no room for just plain playing any more.

• Depressing news on a different subject: women who express anger at work are seen as incompetent but men may well be admired for it. In a research study, angry men were assigned a higher than average salary and angry women were penalized. Yet another double standard. The researchers make a connection to Hillary Clinton and the delicate balance she must walk. I am a John Edwards supporter but I abhor the impossible standard of perfection that Senator Clinton is expected to maintain. On the Today Show this morning, the pundits basically proposed that in tonight's debate Clinton should allow herself to look a little dumb. I think it was couched in terms of "taking the risk of being spontaneous and less scripted" but it reminded me all too much of junior high when girls had to avoid looking too smart around boys.

Who thought that when a serious female candidate emerged for President her primary criticism would be that she's too competent and not personable enough? Where is the safe ground between too frosty, versus not tough enough to be Commander in Chief? It's definitely a narrow path that she's being asked to navigate. I definitely feel that the men have much more latitude, like George W. Bush whose "Gentleman's C's" GPA from Yale was no hindrance for a well-connected guy who was perceived as so gosh-darn "likeable."

Joe Klein addresses Clinton's challenges in his Time essay this week, "Hillary, the Bran-Muffin Candidate." Whatever one thinks about Clinton, there's not question in my mind that she is qualified to hold the office of President, and that is a great step forward for all women.