I read articles like this, and I think to myself, "Damn, I'm glad I'm not one of those guys."
Then every time I see a photo of Marissa Mayer, I think, "Damn, she's hot." And then I hate myself for making that my first thought instead of something more equal like, "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch. But no, if it's a woman, my first thought is about her looks instead of... well, instead of anything else.
I'm really glad I don't have kids (yet), and in a lot of ways, I hope I don't have a daughter. I'd rather raise a son to treat women fairly and with respect than to have a daughter who has to live in a world where articles like this are written. But if I had a daughter... I'd do my best to help her be strong and confident, and to make her way successfully in a world where this kind of shit goes on.
>I think, "Damn, she's hot." And then I hate myself for making that my first thought
It's pretty much my first thought when I see any woman (and some men). I can't help it, it's the product of us being animals. Who cares. I don't feel guilty, and certainly don't hate myself for it.
Yeah, the problem is not that having those feelings, it's acting entitled to force those desires onto other people (in whatever form that may take) that's the issue.
Ha. I don't mean that I don't want a daughter... It's just that every time I think about having a daughter, I think about these issues, and it scares the shit out of me. Raising a son, I wouldn't have to worry that much about this stuff, and I could focus on helping him help make the world a better place, instead of worrying about whether my daughter is gonna get raped because she wore short shorts today. That make sense?
I really have no preference as far as kids go, it's just that when I read articles like this, the idea of having a daughter seems terrifying.
> Raising a son, I wouldn't have to worry that much about this stuff, and I could focus on helping him help make the world a better place, instead of worrying about whether my daughter is gonna get raped because she wore short shorts today.
I understand the comment you made (downthread) about parents being perhaps irrationally concerned about low-probability dangers to their kids, and totally understand: what I don't understand is why you'd be more afraid of your daughter being raped than your son. According to CDC data[1], the 12-month incidence of rape victimization for men is basically the same as for women. Given that the data doesn't support it, is it perhaps possible that your lopsided fear of rape is rooted in more sexism? A la, "Women are frail creatures that must be protected from all the dangers of the world", but "Men are independent, powerful shapers of their fate". I feel like an attitude like that is more of a concern to your hypothetical future daughter than any of the other concerns you've raised.
[1] pp 18-19: 12-month incidence of penetrative rape is 1.1% of women and the data is too noisy for men; non-penetrative rape is 5.3% for men and 5.6% for women.
> I really have no preference as far as kids go, it's just that when I read articles like this, the idea of having a daughter seems terrifying.
This is like the tech equivalent of suburbanites who never go to the city because of all the news reports of murders they see on the nightly news. These outlets take a serious but infrequent problem and exaggerate it into an epidemic for the eyeballs (and hence, ad revenue).
You are not wrong, but I would like to talk to a father who's NOT concerned about that stuff. Just because reality differs from my mental model does not mean that my brain will automatically say "Oh, the odds are overwhelmingly against this, I'll just ignore it." ;)
This is an example of useless guilt. Strive to blind yourself when there are consequences of your bias, otherwise acknowledge it. Beauty leaks into our perceptions of all other personal qualitative - both men and women are affected by it. Short of brain-modifcation, you will find it impossible to disregard beauty so don't feel guilty about it. And don't think "I'm glad I'm not one of those guys." Women are just as afflicted by "lookism" as Ted Chaing called it. Men and woman are people. People suck.
There are other biases like "force of personality bias", too, where we assume charisma is heavily correlated with correctness, which isn't necessarily true. In terms of solutions, things like blinded hiring and internal prediction markets might help mitigate these. However, if we are going to experience beauty and charm we have to accept the fact that these qualities will affect our opinions of those who possess them. There's no way around this without changing the nature of our perceptions of these phenomena, and thus the phenomena themselves.
I also think the same as you when I see a photo of Marissa Mayer. I don't think that's bad, it's just our instinct (and damn, she is hot). If our ancestors didn't have it we wouldn't be here. And by the way, women have this kind of thoughts when they see a hot man, too.
The problem is when people go from thoughts to words or even actions, and act as if we lived in prehistory instead of in a civilized society. Fortunately I think men behaving as disgustingly as in the article are a tiny minority. And unfortunately, that minority can still do a lot of damage. The duty of the rest of us is to not turn a blind eye to this. This kind of trolling cannot be permitted.
There's nothing wrong with registering the fact that someone attractive is attractive. Seriously, that's like waking up to blue skies and gentle breeze and saying "wow, what a nice day."
The trouble stars when a specific kind of odious and socially toxic person encounters an attractive person. The first thing they do is ignore the "person" and focus on "attractive" as though they were dealing with an inanimate object which can be owned, controlled, manipulated, and eventually discarded. Their response to the presence of the attractive person reflects their basic lack of regard for the other's humanity. These responses are both abusive in their own right, and - if unchecked - contributory to a culture in which the targets of this treatment are freely abused.
In other words, the problem isn't about your immediate, natural response. The problem depends on whether you're a respectable human or an contemptuous creep, and thus, how you respond. Needless to say, the assholes make themselves known pretty quickly. The problem gets out of hand when they're allowed to dominate a space or situation.
I don't know, I'm gay, and when I see a picture of Benedict Cumberbatch or Robert Downey Jr, I certainly don't think "Damn, he's accomplished and brilliant"; I think "Damn, he's hot!"
I don't think that judging attractiveness in itself automatically leads to poor judgement about the person. You find your partner attractive (hopefully) but that doesn't mean that you see ver as incompetent. The problem is when you you can't keep things separated I suppose.
> ... "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch.
That's weird. When I see them I think they are good (or at least interestingly) looking and have pleasant voices. I would never think of them as brilliant or accomplished (even though I know they are) because they do something I have no idea about. Just the same when I saw worlds best CEO, lawyer, window cleaner, bus driver, mercenary or whoever. I have no idea and I don't really care what it means to be brilliant and accomplished at those jobs. It might be horrible. It's just too alien for me.
When I see Marissa Mayer I have a mixed feelings. I notice she's attractive, and I'm happy this didn't get in a way of her reaching her goals. On the other hand I'm sad that most of the attention she get's from the media is just because she's an attractive woman. I'm also sad that I see a geek that transitioned to management which is always a loss of a good brain.
Could people who downvote me explain why and in what way my thoughts are damaged?
You got downvoted because you posted an honest description of your own state of mind in a feminism thread. It happens elsewhere as well, not just on HN. Eventually, you learn to just avoid participating in those conversations. Never mind downvoting for individual disagreement; on certain topics you will be downvoted for disturbing the acoustics of the echo chamber.
Mammalian brains are hard-wired to notice reproductively relevant physical features first. Retraining your brain to notice anything else is fighting against the thousands of generations of sexual selection that occurred before civilization was even invented. The major problem is that there are no outward physical signs of outstanding competence in your niche of economic specialization, so no effective competition to displace "Wow, that body looks like it would be great for assuring the survival and prosperity of my potential offspring."
You cannot wish it away. You can't guilt people into not doing it. It will simply continue as long as our brains are still subjected to the mind-altering chemicals that testicles and ovaries typically produce. You are not a bad person for thinking such things.
But, of course, now that civilization has been invented, and we have developed values beyond simple babymaking, it would be inappropriate to speak or act until well after you have engaged the areas of the brain responsible for either rationality or empathy for at least a few seconds first, and possibly both. The proportion of people who actually think before speaking or doing is still depressingly low, and that is why we see stories like this.
That only works for business management and financial services, and possibly politicians. A grandmaster potter and glazer is not going to look like that. A grandmaster soil bacteriologist is not going to look like that. A grandmaster oil painter is not going to look like that. The best butcher on the entire planet might not have a hundredth as much money as the most useless hotel heir.
Besides that, your house, car, and clothing does not leave an indelible and unfalsifiable mark on your outward appearance. Expensive decorations can be faked, borrowed, or stolen. Even if the balance of your bank account appeared as a birthmark across your forehead, ownership of resources is not always a sign of competence. Wealth can be inherited or acquired by chance.
Now, the first thought in your head when seeing someone might be "she's got huge... tracts of land!" But that will probably be because you live in a swamp.
An attempt at a more useful response than logfromblammo's "because feminism" answer.
There's a couple things that probably rate a down vote in some people's minds:
- "I would never think of them as brilliant or accomplished (even though I know they are) because they do something I have no idea about. Just the same when I saw worlds best CEO, lawyer, window cleaner, bus driver, mercenary or whoever. I have no idea and I don't really care what it means to be brilliant and accomplished at those jobs. It might be horrible. It's just too alien for me."
This honestly is kind of a weird stance to take. You don't think about anyone in any way other than aesthetics (look and voice) if their life experience doesn't completely match your own?
- "I'm also sad that I see a geek that transitioned to management which is always a loss of a good brain."
This is:
a. Pretty insulting to anyone who has gone into management, which is, believe it or not, sometimes something that does involve your brain.
b. Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas.
> b. Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas.
This is a blatant twisting of his words. Women are even less represented in tech management than they are in other tech roles, and throwing in a few roles that he didn't mention at all doesn't change the fact that the one role he _was_ talking about (management) contradicts your narrative 100%.
Higher level management, yes, they are. But it's fairly common to track women into middle management roles because they're "good with people" - and then write them off as not being engineers. There have been posts about that on HN not all that infrequently.
And hell, even if you don't want to consider that, it's not a blatant twisting of his words. She's the CEO of Yahoo. That's not a "waste of a good brain".
It is very much twisting his words. There's no argument that he seems rather anti-management, but your claim is that an anti-management bias is an insidious proxy for minimizing fields favored by women . I'm familiar with this argument and it's not invalid per se (usually you see it targeting things like literature majors in college or whatever), but claiming that he's using management as a proxy for "soft skills more associated with women" is ludicrous. He's saying mayer's position is a waste of a good brain because she's a manager, not because she's a woman.
> She's the CEO of Yahoo. That's not a "waste of a good brain".
How can you be sure? What a CEO of Yahoo can do? Hire some people, fire some people? Pick some project to develop and some to abandon? You could say that this has some value but you can't predict which project will turn out worthwhile. "Predictions are hard especially about the future." What's sure that there is one smart person less actually working on those projects.
This logic is also applicable to engineers. Everything an engineer could potentially do has value, but you can't predict which project will turn out to be worthwhile. And without someone smart managing them, I'd assert there's a higher probability of that, which wastes everyone's potential.
> An attempt at a more useful response than logfromblammo's "because feminism" answer.
Thank you.
> This honestly is kind of a weird stance to take.
Not so much of a stance. I'm just describing the way I feel.
> You don't think about anyone in any way other than aesthetics (look and voice) if their life experience doesn't completely match your own?
When I look at people and hear them say something that does not convey information relevant to me that's exactly what I'm thinking. How they look and sound. I never heard any of the mentioned actors saying anything relevant to me although in more private conversation I don't doubt they say things that would make me also think about what they said.
I'm just saying that I don't think of people as accomplished or brilliant in disciplines I have no idea of. I know they are by proxy of recognition of their peers. For example I know Brian Cranston is accomplished because Antony Hopkins sent him a congratulatory letter by his own initiative.
But knowing something and thinking/feeling/believing in something is not exactly the same.
> - "I'm also sad that I see a geek that transitioned to management which is always a loss of a good brain."
> This is:
> a. Pretty insulting to anyone who has gone into management, which is, believe it or not, sometimes something that does involve your brain.
Please note I didn't say "waste of a good brain". I don't think that management is brainless activity. I just think that best thing a men can do is to develop technology. Because it triggers advances in all the other aspects, most importantly in science, but also medicine, social interactions, wealth and everything worthwhile. So if you take a bright person who has a chance to push technology further and give him/her the task of dealing with politics instead then it's a loss in my book.
> Especially problematic as writing off management, HR and other "soft" fields as not as important as engineering is a common way to sideline the women who do make it into tech companies, as they are somewhat more common in those areas.
Bright engineer such as for example Bram Cohen can singlehandedly push technology further. I value very highly awesome project managers as they can join engineers together and direct the technological effort but anyone above this level is just not doing anything that counts for me as advancement of civilization. Similarly sideshows as HR, Legal, Accounting, Sales and such. You don't make progress but shoveling what you already have back and forth and consuming a little bit every time you do it.
If women tend to keep away from engineering that's just bad and I don't really want to comfort myself with the 'at least they are close to engineering'. I'd rather see them hack on technology because in my opinion that's the best use of any persons time.
> Then every time I see a photo of Marissa Mayer, I think, "Damn, she's hot." And then I hate myself for making that my first thought instead of something more equal like, "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch.
Are you really under the delusion that women do not react that way to an attractive man?
It cuts both ways though, doesn't it? Do women who see a photo of Robert Downey Jr see his acting career, his recovery from a drug rut, his philanthropy? Or do they see a hot guy?
> Then every time I see a photo of Marissa Mayer, I think, "Damn, she's hot." And then I hate myself for making that my first thought instead of something more equal like, "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch. But no, if it's a woman, my first thought is about her looks instead of... well, instead of anything else.
I wouldn't be so apologetic about it. I don't know your sexual orientation, but it's natural to not think of men as hot (or only think it as a second thought) when you're not sexually attracted to men.
You don't magically acknowledge Mayer's accomplishments and abilities better if you force yourself and others to not think of her attractiveness.
Just don't make someone's attractiveness their only accomplishment. It's easier said than done, but to illustrate, it's okay to think "Damn, she's hot" when you see a photo of a woman, but it's not okay to write a profile that focuses on her attractiveness and distracts from her other attributes; it's okay to think a man is hot, but it's not okay to tell your coworkers about it.
Be careful not to confuse systemic sexism with personal sexuality.
> Then every time I see a photo of Marissa Mayer, I think, "Damn, she's hot." And then I hate myself for making that my first thought instead of something more equal like, "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch.
My first thought about Robert Downey Jr is usually something about his hair or attire.
We're primed to study the physical appearance of others when we see them. I don't see any reason that it's bad to notice that someone is attractive, has a funny haircut, etc.
The key point is that it's just a thing, and to move on to more important things (such as they're accomplished, intelligent, etc) rather than dwelling on physical ones.
Insisting you not see that she's attractive seems as weird to me as just focusing on her being attractive.
You can't suppress feelings of attraction but you can control how those feelings influence general perception of that person. It's about realizing that that there is by no necessity correlation between features of a person. It is human to eagerly seek correlations that might not be there.
The issue is not whether or not you think Marissa Mayer is hot. People are attractive - that's alright.
It's whether or not your thoughts about Marissa Mayer stop at "Damn, she's hot" and don't acknowledge her (or any other woman) as anything other than pleasant set dressing for your life.
Then every time I see a photo of Marissa Mayer, I think, "Damn, she's hot." And then I hate myself for making that my first thought instead of something more equal like, "Damn, she's accomplished and brilliant" like I do when I see a photo of Robert Downey Jr or Idris Elba or Benedict Cumberbatch. But no, if it's a woman, my first thought is about her looks instead of... well, instead of anything else.
I'm really glad I don't have kids (yet), and in a lot of ways, I hope I don't have a daughter. I'd rather raise a son to treat women fairly and with respect than to have a daughter who has to live in a world where articles like this are written. But if I had a daughter... I'd do my best to help her be strong and confident, and to make her way successfully in a world where this kind of shit goes on.
So senseless. :(