21–30 of 32 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it as contrasting between how she looks and what she actually is/does . Or in other words don't judge people by appearances - which is exactly the same message about the guy with the sign. He appears as jolly and inappropriate, but actually is anything but. It's basically the message of the entire essay - how people look is not how they are.
It also projects the author's obnoxious sexism onto the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of detail is the entire point of long-form journalism. It's not intended to be merely a quick, dry presentation of the facts. It's fine if that doesn't interest you, but don't complain that a dog sucks because it won't meow.
I can accept that some people prefer the style of long-form journalism. I just don't see how this detail adds to the story except to clue me in on the author's fetishes. What "entire point" necessitates learning that someone's outfit is consistent with sexy-librarian roleplay, and is that purpose best satisfied by long-form journalism?
As for what it adds to the story, I think a couple of other commenters have summarized it well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12466454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12467125
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can accept that some people prefer the style of long-form journalism. I just don't see how this detail adds to the story except to clue me in on the author's fetishes. What "entire point" necessitates learning that someone's outfit is consistent with sexy-librarian roleplay, and is that purpose best satisfied by long-form journalism?
It's purely descriptive. "Sexy librarian" is a very standard pop-culture image. Also, Kelly Caldwell is female--doesn't mean she can't be into ladies, obviously, but I think you're imagining her as a drooling straight guy. As for what it adds to the story, I think a couple of other commenters have summarized it well: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12466454 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12467125
On the one hand, you recognize all the subtle implications that are supposed to flow between the details ("dresses like a sexy librarian -> is prepared to handle inappropriate advances"), and praise how they liven the text, and how it is "the entire point" of the medium.
But on the other hand, you're acting like there's some iron law that says the "sexy librarian" description can't possibly sexualize someone, and it's unthinkable that anyone would make that connection, since after all, it has exactly one standard, official meaning, and the robotic readers would never connect it with anything else.
If long-form is all about building up the big picture, why are those implications not part of that picture?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read it as contrasting between how she looks and what she actually is/does . Or in other words don't judge people by appearances - which is exactly the same message about the guy with the sign. He appears as jolly and inappropriate, but actually is anything but. It's basically the message of the entire essay - how people look is not how they are.
It also projects the author's obnoxious sexism onto the subject.
If not, you're the sexist.
My second protest about posting clickbait titles. Please don't.
My second protest about posting clickbait titles. Please don't.
I don't really like the title either, but in this case it is the actual title from the source. Despite my reservations about the title, I think it was worth a read, and I upvoted it. Also, I'm not sure what a better title should be, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the submitter to think up a better one when submitting. In fact changing the title from the source is kind of frowned upon on this site.
My second protest about posting clickbait titles. Please don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really like the title either, but in this case it is the actual title from the source. Despite my reservations about the title, I think it was worth a read, and I upvoted it. Also, I'm not sure what a better title should be, and I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the submitter to think up a better one when submitting. In fact changing the title from the source is kind of frowned upon on this site.
> In fact changing the title from the source is kind of frowned upon on this site. I think it's perfectly acceptable to change clickbait headlines to simple factual ones. In this case something like, "First hand account of a case worker in the Salvation Army disaster recovery center following 9/11". Or even just the existing headline without the "The worst part was 6 months later".
Not only acceptable, but explicitly called for by https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
When we do change a title we try to use representative language from the article itself, rather than making up a completely new one. In the above case we've taken the linkbait bits out of the original title and reordered the result to make it grammatical.
"All of 5-foot-2 and dressed like a sexy librarian — snug blouse and pencil skirt — Maria usually counseled homeless patients at Bellevue Hospital, the institution famous (and infamous) for treating New York City's poorest and sickest." I do not understand why the author made this characterization. It seems to undermine their point.
I suspect that the author characterized the therapist's physical description in that particular way because it was relevant to the opening scene: the man's come on line was to define his 'PTSD' as 'post traumatic sex disorder'. The therapist's physical appearance and gender add explanatory context for her ability to predict the man's inappropriate behavior. And suggest why she was the target of the man's inappropriat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that the author characterized the therapist's physical description in that particular way because it was relevant to the opening scene: the man's come on line was to define his 'PTSD' as 'post traumatic sex disorder'. The therapist's physical appearance and gender add explanatory context for her ability to predict the man's inappropriate behavior. And suggest why she was the target of the man's inappropriat…
I think "sexy librarian" speaks volumes about American gender and social roles: In order to understand the phrase you first have to assume librarians are mostly female and aren't, on the whole, sexy. Then you need to understand what a librarian is assumed to be - probably someone who's interested in "smart stuff" in general, but not a specific field, and not in an outwardly focused way like a professor or a scientist…