The best article I've read on the backstory: https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5046
I'd never really thought about this, but I have a feeling that once I start looking for it I'm going to notice it everywhere. Great article.
Possibly unrelated, but I'm looking at Wu's Twitter (https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg), and this is something I struggle with. People should absolutely be allowed to dress how they please without fear of judgment. As the article says, "I do my best engineering when sitting half-naked at my desk." There's nothing wrong with that. But when a person or product deliberately cultivates a hypersexualized image in a field and setting that has nothing to do with sex, that's weird and off-putting to me. To swap the genders, I'd have no problem with a male engineer who does his best work half-naked at his desk at home and likes to do sexy cosplay sometimes, but it would be weird if that engineer's professional Twitter was topped with a dozen pics of him shirtless in leather pants--not "fake" or "inauthentic," just weird.
I realize I know nothing about Wu except a glance at her Twitter, so I apologize if I'm missing something.
> People should absolutely be allowed to dress how they please without fear of judgment. As the article says, "I do my best engineering when sitting half-naked at my desk." There's nothing wrong with that.
That's it. Full stop. There's nothing to add after that. You don't need to add "but..." and then state the exact opposite of that sentiment.
You find something weird about someone? Guess what -- we're all weird. Somebody out there probably finds something about you weird. But who gives a shit! Life's a lot better once you just get over it and accept people despite their weirdness. Or even better, because of their weirdness.
I'd add that what she's doing is not the healthiest role model for young girls growing up, given the issues with sexism in tech/professional industries.
Tech achievements aside, the flaunting of her breast implants is sad. In the unlikely case she has not had plastic surgery, she still seems to be asking people first to "check out my body" and then "btw, I make things too".
I would have the same problem with a man who got 6-pack implants and flaunted his abs with his tech profile. It's short-term shallowness, and undoes the achievements in her field. And so I won't be following what she does, and will now leave this discussion for others.
The "camera review" videos on her channel where she walks around with selfie stick pointing at her boobs. That's just poor taste click bait, not "expressing femininity". View count jumps above 1 million the less she wears, but at what cost?
I've no idea about the main story of apology, I just found this today and commenting on her channel and choice of brand promotion. This to me would easily cause lack of trust with whatever she does, simply because of her willingness to self-exploit for view count.
Here's a counterpoint: https://twitter.com/aphyr
I can't speak for all the harassment he may or may not have endured, but it's not on the same level as Wu. He makes fun of his weird pairing of interests in his featured photo. He doesn't have the CEO of a company and de facto leader of his professional association questioning his competence on Twitter. Whatever he's dealt with, it probably hasn't been "this is so offputting that I'm going to question the fact that you even exist."
Honestly, I had the same reaction as you. I don't think it's OK to question people like Naomi in this way, because I'm pretty sure I'm doing it unevenly. It's something I'm trying to figure out if I do elsewhere, and how to improve. This stuff is hard.
You're absolutely right, which is why I'm so conflicted about this. And in any case going from "your Twitter is kinda fetish-y" to "therefore you're a fake engineer" makes zero sense, yeah.
It is strange logic that shining a light on something supposedly reprehensible actually helps it. This 'I won't show you the thing I am criticizing but trust my description of it' shouldn't be accepted. It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
This is about a pattern I have seen, rather than any one specific thing. People criticizing something without giving a name or a link because it might give it exposure. If someone is criticizing something legitimately, then giving it exposure is precisely what they would want. The 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' should be called out when it happens.
I’m not asking anyone to trust my description. If anyone wants to read it for themselves, they should have little trouble finding it. I’m just not going to help them.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
Yet you do not show it. As I mentioned before It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
I didn't really want it to be about our comments. But this is where you have directed it. You talked about a specific think and didn't want to show it saying 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help', this is the logic I was specifically replying to. That is the logic people should reject, the other context has nothing to do with why I replied. Yet you are asking that talking about a generality or pattern I have noticed needs a link. They way you are arguing any statement that I make without a link makes me 'not practicing what I preach'. Your expectations of my post are massively higher than what I was criticizing, which I will repeat was the 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help' statement and the logic that comes from it. Your criticism also expected way more from my post than yours. The holding of ridiculous expectations someone with a different opinion to you is another pattern that should be criticized by the way.
But I did have something in mind actually when I mentioned the pattern. It may be slightly embarrassing that I came across this video while using the internet, but I will link to it.
'Propaganda Games - Ethical Game Design - Extra Credits' https://youtu.be/UP4_bMhZ4gA?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5BpAzGdNmfiwlBx...
They specifically didn't name the games they were describing used as far as I remember, using the 'I don't want to give them more exposure' line, and maybe not wanting to expose people to them (but hypocritically they can). Surely people can make up their own minds about things. The video also has a tone of voice to sound 'caring' and cute graphics to try and sucker people believe what they say and that they are 'good'. You bet I didn't like it.
I have been completely honest in my previous comment when I mentioned a pattern. I have been completely honest in this comment. You saying 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?' was completely unwarranted, I wasn't hiding anything or being dishonest, unlike your allusions.
I'm not hiding anything and I'm not being dishonest. The only difference between your comment and mine that I can see, as far as linking to sources, is the motivation behind it. And I don't see why my motivation of not wanting to provide further exposure to an unpleasant personal attack should be so much worse than your motivation of... well, I have no idea.
This is more misrepresentation. When I posted the first comment, I didn't want it to be about our comments. The reason I gave the reply was the utter misrepresentation of my comment. Your reply was clearly meant to deceive people. Especially when you said 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here?' and then pretty much asking to provide a link for each sentence I said. While I was just warning people about people saying that linking to something helps it. Surely it is just more evidence that people take into consideration.
Also you hyped up the harm that an article could cause, yet you had no trouble trying to discredit me, quite hypocritical really. Are you saying the article could cause harm because you believe it is convincing?
My motivation was very plain and transparent. It was to have have people notice the 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' logic be criticized for the harmful garbage it is.
Anyway if someone misrepresents what I said, I will sometimes reply.
At least people can see what was written instead of relying on hearsay.
Sure, it’s unusual, but not, I think, particularly suspicious. There are a lot of unusual people in tech.
Edit: I notice someone already gave the same example as me; oops.