Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Don't dumb girls down

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 273 posts

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#61

Post by robertskmiles »

Tichy wrote: post #21
derrida wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Lots of studies show that pretty people get further in life." [citation needed]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prettier+people+get+further+in+life You know, by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". If I wasn't so desperate to procrastinate, I should just ignore you. Why waste energy to educate you if you are obviously not interested in learning?

Are you serious?

> by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion".

You're saying "I don't care for your random opinion you could have pulled out of your ass with no correspondence to the real world, please demonstrate that you didn't just make that up."

When you make a claim that you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. It's not hard, and it's sure as hell not anyone else's job. If you don't cite a source, people will reasonably assume that you have none, and disregard what you're saying. That's fine if you don't care, but I repeat, if you want to be taken seriously, cite your source.

That job is yours and yours alone, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, only you can cite your source because only you actually know what source you used.

Secondly, from a utilitarian efficiency perspective, if it takes X minutes to look up and post the source, then the total time spent when you cite your source is X, but if you don't, and everyone has to look it up themselves, the total time spent is X*n, where n is the number of people who read your post. For values of n greater than one, this is dumb. Do the sourcing once, to avoid duplication of effort.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#62

Post by knowtheory »

Tichy wrote: post #39
antihero wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's put it another way - if you teach a girl that her good looks are super super important, and she's bombarded with adverts telling her ways to improve, and images of people on TV that are portrayed vastly superior to her physically, then she is being set up to feel that no matter what she does, she's never good enough. Whilst us boys can "hit the gym" or "hit the books" and our manliness and success can exude, a…

Just by telling somebody they are pretty you are NOT endorsing the beauty industry and boob jobs. How about teaching people how to deal with the media and PR industry properly instead? By the way, there are beauty products targeted at men, too. Also, telling somebody they are pretty does NOT imply that you consider anorexic looks to be pretty. In fact, it might give that person a good feeling about herself which just…

I think you're missing the point.

The question is not whether you can appreciate someone's physical characteristics. The question is whether you should appreciate someone's physical characteristics first, foremost, and most importantly above all of their other characteristics.

The fact that there is a general rise in anorexia nervosa amongst all genders, is not to say that men in American society suffer equally with women (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anorexia_nervosa#Epidemiology ).

More over, the notion that complimenting someone on their appearance will some how coax them out of a psychiatric disorder is naïve at the very least, and destructively ignorant at worst.

Anorexia nervosa is about appearance. If you give an anorexic any indication about their physical appearance you are reinforcing their condition. Complements are taken as an indication that starving themselves (or purging in the case of bulimics) works, and that they must continue the behavior to continue to receive complements. Attempts to inform them that they look unattractive (even if it's due to the fact that they're starving themselves) will be taken as an indication that they have not sufficiently starved themselves into attractiveness. You can not logic a person out of an eating disorder. Psychiatric disorders can not be reasoned with, and attempting to do so really does just court disaster (would you attempt to reason with an alcoholic?).

I sincerely urge you to read up on psychiatric disorders and the way that they are managed, it's a really challenging subject, and common wisdom about them is usually incorrect.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#63

Post by [deleted] »

127 wrote: post #14
sgentle wrote: post #5

This reminds me of a story that I wish I could find again. It was in the Reader's Digest Young Peoples' Annual from sometime in the 60s. I read it in the 90s, so some of the advice ("don't go dutch too often") was truly perplexing, but this particular story was about a girl who played baseball. She always sat and watched the boys play baseball. One boy in particular caught her eye. He asked if she wanted to play and…

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

[deleted]

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#64

Post by vectorpush »

ErrantX wrote: post #49

I was musing on this the other day (beware; anecdote alert!). I went out for some drinks with a friend of mine from a long time ago - he is certainly not the sharpest of individuals, but a laugh and good fun in small doses (even if a lot of the jokes include farts :S). For some reason he is also constantly surrounded by very attractive women. I've seen him out and about before and thought "I'd like to have some of th…

I could recount similar anecdotes, I think there is a lot to be said for the way that women who put their intelligence on display are treated. A talented intelligent male with an ego is regarded as a condescending elitist genius, but the same traits ascribed to a female makes her an intolerable bitch.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#65

Post by Tichy »

robertskmiles wrote: post #61
Tichy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=prettier+people+get+further+in+life You know, by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". If I wasn't so desperate to procrastinate, I should just ignore you. Why waste energy to educate you if you are obviously not interested in learning?

Are you serious? > by saying "citation needed" what you actually say is "I don't really care for your opinion". You're saying "I don't care for your random opinion you could have pulled out of your ass with no correspondence to the real world, please demonstrate that you didn't just make that up." When you make a claim that you want to be taken seriously, cite your source. It's not hard, and it's sure as hell not any…

So is this the new standard for conversations in the age of the iPad? In any conversation, people will wildly touch their pads to get the sources to show off to their discussion partners? Doesn't make much sense to me... I consider HN a casual discussion, not a scientific discourse. I might snatch up some ideas - if they seem interesting, I can do research to learn more.

If your first reaction to whatever I say is "you pulled that out of your ass" then yes, I think you don't have much respect towards me and not much interest in what I have to say, and I don't feel inclined to waste energy to educate you. I am not asking you to believe me, merely to consider ("ponder") what I say. If you are not willing to do that, maybe you should talk to somebody else instead.

The point about efficiency is moot. A lot of people might already know the fact, and otherwise the first who expends the energy to do the research could just post it. On the other hand posting lots of sources could be irrelevant and a waste of time for the people who are already informed.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#66

Post by kamaal »

knowtheory wrote: post #57
kamaal wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C'mmon. I am thin, I can't call myself super good looking either. I am not very extrovert and not too much into sports. But I can't use this as a reason to be bad at other things. Present ability, hygiene , looking good, neat and clean matter to both the genders. But if a person is not very attractive by natural look, that is no reason to not perform well in life by personal choice . That is not a reason, not to work…

There is is a substantial difference. Society's sense of your worth, and as a result your sense of self-worth is not tied into those physical characteristics. This isn't a matter of how hard someone tries at life, this is a question on what basis society judges individuals by (and i should note, this is an emergent equilibrium. It's nudged this way and that, but now that it's driven by financial interests, it's hard…

I am not saying that looking good doesn't matter, sure it does. But it begins to truly matter only if you want it to.

The world is a tough place. Its difficult out there for the mild hearted. But that's the case with all the genders. When I was not allowed cricket for my school team, I didn't take that as male oppression or something that should dumb me down for ever. Although the common perception at that time was, if you played well you are more likely to get a girlfriend at that directly cor related to being smart. Its just that I was meant to do something else. Which I did eventually and did pretty well.

Today I have trouble getting a bride for marriage(here in India these things matter a lot). But I know deep down within me, I may not be a alpha male among the pack, not very muscular, smart good looking and physically active. But for the kind of hard work I put in I will be a lot more richer than the alpha males.

In fact this happens all the time, The society is sure responsible for these sort of perceptions. But they become the reality only if we want to.

Now to all girls who reject me to settle with a alpha male, when you discover a decade later I'm more financially rich. Please don't call that women's oppression. That just making wrong decisions and paying for it later.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#67

Post by Tichy »

knowtheory wrote: post #62
Tichy wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just by telling somebody they are pretty you are NOT endorsing the beauty industry and boob jobs. How about teaching people how to deal with the media and PR industry properly instead? By the way, there are beauty products targeted at men, too. Also, telling somebody they are pretty does NOT imply that you consider anorexic looks to be pretty. In fact, it might give that person a good feeling about herself which just…

I think you're missing the point. The question is not whether you can appreciate someone's physical characteristics. The question is whether you should appreciate someone's physical characteristics first , foremost , and most importantly above all of their other characteristics . The fact that there is a general rise in anorexia nervosa amongst all genders, is not to say that men in American society suffer equally wi…

If you want to go there... I don't think psychiatric disorders are being caused by the media or by being told "you are pretty" too often when you are a child.

By telling somebody they are pretty I am also not telling them that it's the "first, foremost, and most important above all of their other characteristics". You are creating a straw man here.

Of course I don't think telling somebody they are pretty will cure their disorders. But it can make somebody's day nevertheless.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#68

Post by ajuc »

hessenwolf wrote: post #26
ordinary wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you'd be doing people a favour by teaching them to accept things that won't make them happy. Do you think that people who don't worry about not being beautiful are less happy than people who do, considering that many (most?) people are not, in fact, beautiful? Do you think the world would be a worse place if more girls wanted to win the Nobel Peace Prize rather than America's Next Top Model?

Looking like a contestant for America's next top model is not really going to get a girl far in her career, though... Both men and women should care, in detail, about their aesthetics when at work. They should be healthy and fit, and, unless they are very sure they have the fashion sense to get away with interesting clothes, be conservatively and neatly dressed. Anything less smacks of imcompetence, poor organisation…

"lack of respect for others (who do have to suffer looking at you)"

If I suffer when I speak with people that don't agree with my beliefs - is it good enough reason for them to convert to my beliefs? How is it different than requiring people to respect you esthetical sense by complying with it?

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#69

Post by Egregore »

antihero wrote: post #19
erikb wrote: post #10

I often read such articles from women, but never from men. After looking deeply at myself and how the world around me acts, I feel that it is really true: Women ARE evaluated mostly by their looks. Women who look good, wear good clothes, have a good makeup, will get what they want much more easily then others. To some degree that is also true for men. It is just how the world IS. So instead of teaching girls about th…

Let's put it another way - if you teach a girl that her good looks are super super important, and she's bombarded with adverts telling her ways to improve, and images of people on TV that are portrayed vastly superior to her physically, then she is being set up to feel that no matter what she does, she's never good enough. Whilst us boys can "hit the gym" or "hit the books" and our manliness and success can exude, a…

What looking good means biologically? It's actually how men appreciate the health and fertility of the women - the healthier she is the prettier she will look for most men.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#70

Post by JonnieCache »

ErrantX wrote: post #42
_debug_ wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Her web site features her looks more than her books. (In case it changes : 80% of the space is occupied by a photo of hers, and 20% by textual content). Do as I say, not as I do.

This is not uncommon. Or, rather, whenever I see these self-help/express yourself better/empower yourself authors they all look very attractive and poised. Female and Male. Which annoys me. The advice in this case is good, and it doesn't feel entirely hypocritical because she admits an initial instinct to praise good looks that she has to suppress. But some of her other stuff seems less so (i.e. she is selling hersel…

"Or, rather, whenever I see these self-help/express yourself better/empower yourself authors they all look very attractive and poised. Female and Male."

This is simply a small exposure of society's big secret: ANYONE can look attractive, even stunning, given a professional hair stylist, wardrobe person, makeup artist, and photographed properly under proper lighting, and then photoshopped.

All those "beautiful" people on TV? Almost without exception, at home they look just like you or me.

BUT DON'T TELL ANYONE! Western capitalism might come crashing down around us ;)

Post reply on HN