Hacker News Reader

Comment by maruhan2 | Hacker News Reader

Hmmmmm. This really doesn't seem much of a sexist problem to me. In my opinion, whether wanting to publish female pictures is sexist or not is very controversial. Sex sells, and attractive females gain more attention than attractive males.

The issue was the intimidation, which is arguably not related to sexism. A man with an unpopular opinion could have gotten similar intimidation.

View on HN

Well it doesn't have to be one or the other. It doesn't have to be either intimidation _or_ sexism. It can be both. She was being intimidated because she wasn't respected and seen as lesser. I'd say this part really ties in the sexism to the intimidation:

>an article carefully placed on my desk. I can’t remember the exact details, but it was about an outspoken woman getting her comeuppance.

> Sex sells, and attractive females gain more attention than attractive males.

Has this been demonstrated for different kinds of products in different contexts, for buyers of both sexes? Seems like a surprisingly broad assumption, though I am aware it is widely believed.

I know it can sell toothpaste to men and women (e.g. "Close Up", though I don't know if that is still on the market). I know that sexy men and women sell fashion to men and women respectively.

I know sexy outfits for some pop stars work well (and not for others).

But do, say, pictures of bikinis sell speed boats to everyone, or just to straight men?

"Star Trek" used a female voice for the Enterprise's computer because it "had been shown that people paid more attention to the female voice". The "people" who paid more attention were male fighter pilots in the 1960s.

These are good questions, and the 'experimenter' bias of the old theory (sexy women sell, sexy men don't) is evident: In this case, the conclusion was made by generations of mostly male newsrooms, run by almost all-male editors, looking at the photos taken by male photographers, of an event probably run by men, in a culture (sports) long dominated by men. This group shockingly concluded that attractive females would be more appealing.

It's a good example of why diverse groups are shown to produce better decisions. Some men might at times try to imagine what women prefer, and in male-run environments they might accommodate women when it's convenient and easy enough. Obviously, you will get different results if women speak for themselves, as normal, full participants, and if they have a seat at the table so that the implementation of their preferences isn't a matter of choice.

It doesn't matter if she was wrong[1]. Nobody should be prevented from expressing a wrong opinion unless it's harmful to coworkers, and intimidation by coworkers is never appropriate. For example, practically nobody would have endorsed veiled threats by coworkers against James Damore.

([1] - Arguably she was. In studies, women enjoy seeing pictures of women far more than men enjoy seeing pictures of men. In fact, some studies show that (even (some) straight) women prefer pictures of women to pictures of men.)

I read the article again. Your comment seems to assert that when she is arguing for a lower ratio of pictures of females in the coverage of the event, that she is "wrong" about it. I can only read the article that way if you assume that 1) the paper sold better because off that ratio and 2) whatever increases sales is ultimately the right thing to do. While I am not sure about 1) I am convinced that 2) is immoral, and will continue to lead to the discrimination against minorities.

I used "if she was wrong" as a way to say "even if everything you're saying is true, your conclusion does not follow from your premises". It's a counterfactual which I hoped would emphasize my rejection of the GP's argument specifically. I do think that she might be wrong, relative to a perspective where you want to increase sales, and while increasing sales at all costs is immoral, I don't think that any real moral achievements are made by "objectifying" men if it's not what readers want, because the whole point of objectification is giving readers what they want. What is immoral is the case where the perspectives of female readers are valued less than the perspectives of male readers in a publication which is supposedly for both men and women, but if, on average, men and women prefer pictures of women (which is my guess), taking advantage of that would not be immoral. However, it's also possible that the key assumption is false -- it mostly comes from a course in aesthetic psychology I took back in college, and my memory is a bit fuzzy.

Could you link to some of the studies you refer to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com