The hard part of helping survivors recover comes months later | Hacker News Reader

The hard part of helping survivors recover comes months later

vox.com

99 pointsdwaxe28 comments

Good article. Confronts the emotional reality of brutal trauma without being invalidating.

Just one critique: why does Maria have to be dressed like a "sexy librarian"? This risqué suggestion is jarring and out of character with the rest of the piece.

> why does Maria have to be dressed like a "sexy librarian"?

A quite liked the explanation suggested here[0] to the same question.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12466454

"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.

glad I'm not the only one.

That "sexy librarian" line jumped out at me as well. There seems to be an over arching quality of smugness to the author's writing style that doesn't really fit with the subject matter as a whole for me.

such is the content at vox.com

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.

Perhaps you're a little too invested to see the experience the mechanism properly?

The author is also female.

It's a woman. Still feel the same?

If not, you're the sexist.

Most long-form journalism wastes ink on useless, distracting information like this; that passage is only unique in that the junk doesn't usually veer so far into lecherous territory.

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?

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

I did; if that's your opinion, then it seems like you're trying to have it both ways:

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?

My mind always creates an image of a person I'm reading about. If there are no physical characteristics, it actually makes reading harder. Fiction writers generally know how to paint this picture (except for the very bad ones), but in journalism it's not a given.

So I'm glad that long-form non-fiction authors expend a few words on this. Height + "sexy librarian" is certainly not the most elegant formulation, but it's enough to avoid the frustrating blankness of an unbuilt narrative actor.

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 inappropriate behavior in the first place.

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 or an engineer. Then you need to imagine the appropriate age for this creature - not a young 20-something girl, and not 50 years old (like some of us). Nay, though she's a ripe, ripe blossom, she's been protected and kept clean (but perhaps a little dusty) until now by her love for books, her yester-decade choice of apparel, and those ubiquitous wide-lensed spectacles. Yes, she's been waiting for you all these years. In the stacks.

Her point. The author is a woman. That gives it s totally different resonance. It's a bit shallow, but I understand it.

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.

> 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".

I pretty frequently edit headlines when I submit links. In fact I think it would have been better if this submitter had in fact done so. I just think it's unreasonable in general to expect submitters to do this. It takes time and most submissions will never make it anywhere near the front page. If it does make it to the front page, and the title is egregious in some way, one of the mods may re-title it anyway.

> I think it's perfectly acceptable to change clickbait headlines to simple factual ones.

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.

The guidelines actually say "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait" [emphasis added]. So they do call for changing the title, but only to make it less misleading or linkbait.

The article explains in a relevant and technical way how and why the job of providing post-disaster services to people became harder after a few months. For example, funds for financial support of people left jobless and/or homeless were reduced and that the population seeking funds later tended to be people who had already exhausted their resources -- often based on an earlier belief that there were other people who were worse off. The 'second wave' was not just dealing with the psychological aftermath but were more likely to be in desperate financial condition.

The best way to protest a clickbait title is to suggest a better one. If you're just going to complain, you're probably just adding noise to the thread, especially since HN users and moderators systematically edit out the vast majority of clickbait already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com