Comment by Daniel_Newby | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Daniel_Newby | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Constant sexualization and stereotyping in advertising and other media create social expectations that many people aren't comfortable with."

Look, men get to use trillions of sperm cells, which means evolution has hard-wired their brains to be magnetically attracted to anything feminine. Advertising uses this not because it is "sexualized", but because men will buy toxic waste by the barrel if you draw nice titties on it.

Women only get to use a dozen or so egg cells, and each one is very risky and resource intensive, which means evolution has hard-wired their brains to be an always-on filter for genetic quality in prospective mates. This is naturally uncomfortable, and has been since before their monkey girl ancestors came down out of the trees.

"Yes, men are sexualized as well, but not to anywhere near the same degree, ..."

Watch an advertiser sell SUVs to women: they have a big, hulking, strong look and are advertised as serving and protecting the kids. That is the masculine face of advertising. (The latest American Subaru ads have it both ways, showing the kids growing up in the vehicle, ending with a cute teenage girl getting out of a car with a ... what is that thing on the hood? ... oh yes, the air port for the turbocharger.)

Your basic underlying thesis here is that we are all hard-wired lemmings, slaves to our biology, with limited capacity to adjust our behavior on the basis of reasoned morality.

I reject that thesis. We are not animals. Our evolutionary history does not dictate right and wrong.

We do have some choice (ok, barring the free wil debate, which is for more than I'd like to go into), but we are also largely effected by our cognitive and biological biases. For some easy to dive into examples, check out http://youarenotsosmart.com/. Don't take that name as an insult; it's a fascinating, well written, and yet easily digestible look at the myriad biases we all have. I think we have a lot less choice than we like to believe.

> we are also largely effected by our cognitive and biological biases

I agree completely that these biases exist. However, to use a programming term, our biases are implementation concerns.

Injustice doesn't somehow become otherwise simply because we are predisposed to it; our innate biases don't provide a valid excuse for inaction in the face of moral imperatives.

Certainly, I missed that part of your post and was focusing on the "we are not animals". I agree that we remain responsible for our actions even we are predisposed to them, but I think we are more influenced by our predispositions than people think.

The important takeaway I see is that regardless of wether advertising accurately taps some innate biologic differences between mean ad women in order to sell things effectively, it doesn't make it ok or right to do so. We should avoid it because it has fostered the negative elements of our society that the OP illustrated. We can shape the culture we live in for the better.

"... with limited capacity to adjust our behavior on the basis of reasoned morality."

We also have hard-wired general memory and reasoning faculties.

"We are not animals."

We are not base animals, to be sure. Neither are we angels of pure logic.

I'm not sure you understand me.

To illustrate with an extreme: If we happened to be hard-wired by evolution to be tremendously predisposed towards genocidal behavior, would that make any acts of genocide we commit morally acceptable behavior?

Halfway through my response to this, I realized that someone had already written it, and in a much more entertaining fashion. So I'll just point you to his post instead:

Three Worlds Collide, by Yudkowsky

http://lesswrong.com/lw/y5/the_babyeating_aliens_18/

"The most controversial story I’ve ever written. Starts with the baby-eating aliens and moves on from there."

Advertising uses this not because it is "sexualized", but because men will buy toxic waste by the barrel if you draw nice titties on it.

This statement makes no sense. Associating sex with non-sexual things is the definition of sexualization.

And I know why advertisers do it, it's not rocket surgery to figure it out. Their motivation doesn't change the fact that the action itself objectifies and degrades women (and to a lesser extent, men).

Watch an advertiser sell SUVs to women: they have a big, hulking, strong look and are advertised as serving and protecting the kids. That is the masculine face of advertising.

You quote me stating that men are sexualized, and respond by explaining how men are sexualized? What's your point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com