Hacker News Reader

Comment by goldenkey | Hacker News Reader

I'm pretty sure the only reason this is getting so much funding is because the majority of computer science folk are horny men who are glossing over the dreamhouse attire / makeup / presentation put on in the video. "Hi I'm little Ruby and I wear polka-dots and pink lipstick, let me be your fantasy" That said, I did fund it, because I'm a horny coder and Linda is very sexy.

View on HN

Although you have a point, it does lie within the mix of others. There are horny men in every sector/industry but yes it is much noticeable in the IT and gaming sector. However this has a lot to do with the social settings, stereotypes and minority/majority issue. I remember once setting up an Xbox account for my gf and making her play a round of some game (she is not into gaming). I was amazed at how many friend request and messages she received in such a short period of time.

There are three types of people who funded this project:

1) People who were really interested in the book.

2) People who saw a woman and thought funding it would be right thing to encourage and lessen the gender divide.

3) People who saw a pretty girl and wanted to please.

I honestly don't believe the third type of people were responsible for the majority of funding. Why? Simple, most of them would have tried to get in touch with her by now and since its not a pleasant experience getting creepy messages from strangers, had it happened, it would have been mentioned on her blogpost.

The reasons why I din't fund?

I was turned off by the marketing video. She was being unnecessarily flirtatious/kiddish with the camera. Not even once did they show an actual kid in the whole video, let alone trying to get them to learn from it.

I din't have a need for the product, or it wasn't appealing enough to have it for my nephew and niece.

> Not even once did they show an actual kid in the whole video, let alone trying to get them to learn from it.

Many parents are extremely hesitant to put pictures of their children online. If you're concerned, ask about it – a testimonial, note, etc. might be more within her comfort zone.

>If you're concerned, ask about it – a testimonial, note, etc. might be more within her comfort zone.

I don't really care enough to ask(email) about it but it is really unusual to see a product targeted for children being marketed by a flirtatious woman (or mom?) instead of showing actual kids using it. I would find it similarly unusual if I were to see an ad on TV for a kid's toy without any kids in them.

She mentioned future kids. Perhaps she didn't want to exploit her friends kids for marketing purposes.

Still though, I'm curious if she's done any product-market fit?

The difference is that most of the TV ads you see are produced by media professionals with 6+-figure budgets. I thought the video was understandable for someone who isn't a professional video producer and is trying to get a project off the group on a shoe-string budget.

I won't even try to convince you not to be such a terrible sexist monster, but I will politely request that you:

1) Keep that shit to yourself

2) Don't attribute your perverse motives to others

I personally know 3 other people who contributed for the exact same reason. Not friends, but people I know personally.

I would distance myself from people who are that misogynist.

How is that a misogynist view though? Men aren't allowed to see women as attractive in the USA?

There is a huge difference between finding someone attractive and reducing them to nothing more than a sex object. Funding this because you're horny is disrespectful to everyone.

Imagine for a second that Lebron James were to create a Kickstarter for a cookbook he wanted to make, which was funded to the tune of $100,000. Obviously, much of this money would come from people who didn't really care about the superstar's take on the perfect omelette, but valued his athleticism enough that they wanted to support him in other endeavors. Is this reduction of James to nothing more than his basketball skills equally problematic? If not, what do you see as the difference that makes this latter example of objectification ok?

What a terrible analogy. It's not like Linda Liukas is a pin-up model trying to trade on her sexuality. She's an educator and illustrator who is trying to do something great.

Please, stop being so damn creepy and/or supporting people who are so damn creepy. This community doesn't have to be such a hostile place.

> It's not like Linda Liukas is a pin-up model trying to trade on her sexuality.

So, I get what you're trying to say, but this is a tough one. Because, Linda did play up as a flirtatious girly girl in the promo video. Seriously, just watch the video: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lindaliukas/hello-ruby - and imagine if it was a man doing all of those things. Very strange, right? She's not behaving like a mature adult, she's got her shoes on the sofa... she's sitting in a clearly uncomfortable way... and I have to sit through a video in which I have to watch her fix her cute shoes? Why? Why not feature some kids in a promo video doing kiddy things, if she was going for the kiddy vibe? The flirtatious vibe that she instead chose to force in that video was very unnecessary in my opinion. So, paradoxically, it's Linda that's reducing women to sexual objects if she feels she has to behave in that way in order to sell up some books.

If you think that is flirtatious and sexualized, you have some serious issues. That video is whimsical and a bit over-produced, but it evokes play, not foreplay.

Does someone need to be in a burqa and talk in a monotone to keep the creeps from being creepy? How narrow a range of expression do you want for women before you start to make their objectification their fault?

Thought experiment: you see a man, same age as Linda, doing all the things Linda is doing (squinting eyes, and then abruptly opening them and doing an affected laugh, fixing clothes, fixing cute socks, sitting on a sofa with legs bent and shoes sitting alongside, jumping up and down on the couch, etc.), what do you think of him?

If you're not picking up on the flirtatious undertones, if you have no problem with that kind of unprofessional presentation, it's not me who has some serious issues, it's you.

Also, I'd rather have my kids focus less on trying hard with clothes and looks and more on the more substantive things in life. The focus in that video simply should not have been on Linda and her awesome persona. But it was. I wish I didn't have to sit through Linda fixing her shoe-socks, but it was in the video, I watched it. It was peculiar.

Can't agree more. If people can't see what you're talking about, they're probably vulnerable to it. They're buying what that manipulative effort sells.

I totally find her gestures and the shots pretentious. I believe that's a part of her sales pitch but it didn't have to be, because the book idea is already good enough to sell.

Finding this video pretentious is one thing, but being upset at the video because you have converted a person into a sex object based on really sexist notions about play and child-like behaviors is a red flag. We have seem multiple commenter take that point of view on the video.

You are literally saying that you need to behave like a man to be taken seriously. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes, that is precisely and literally what I am saying. I'm saying that if women wish to be taken seriously they need to behave like men.

Thank you for this very constructive dialogue, I have developed so much insight in this exchange. You've clearly gone to great lengths to communicate thoughtfully and understand the true matter in this situation. Thank you.

Hopefully with time, this sexist/childish behavior towards women in tech will die, and we won't have to put up with it anymore.

Thank you for calling him out.

I think you're downplaying the fact that many people still view computer science with mystery, fear, and antagonism. Improving pointlessly negative cultural attitudes from a young age is a worthwhile venture, and I wish someone would do it with mathematics as well.

When I was maybe six years old or so, my mom was taking a calculus class, and had this book checked out from the library:

http://www.math.sjsu.edu/~swann/mcsqrd.html

I didn't understand the mathematics, but I thought the cartoon characters were delightful. They made me want to learn math, and I could hardly wait until getting to calculus myself, so I could actually understand the book.

An educational app for children's mathematics has been on my mind for years. But I always thought the market was too small. The success of this story is making me think about finally writing one, maybe less technical and more adventurous.

The funding level validates the kickstarter and the video not necessarily the topic. I totally support thoughtful, engaging intellectual children's apps. Build something small and see how well it sticks, iterate.

You probably should apply for a job at your local movie theatre, because you're impressively good at projecting.

Do you realize that this talks more about yourself than about other people?

I watched the entire video and not a single sexual thought came out out it, far from it, just the thought that it could be useful for my kids.

I found also very interesting how she frame adding publicity of her cause in HN as useful advice, because it is useful advice!!. I have a company on my own so I know a little about marketting.

Ugh. This video wasn't made for your male gaze. I can't believe you are sexualizing a video featuring a woman because its whimsical (well I can believe it, you sound like a tremendous asshole).

And this is why we can't have nice things. We wonder why we have such problems getting girls interested in coding?

The presentation and video was amazing. I immediately fell in love with her. She smiles non-stop. She jumps around with giddy excitement in a cute little dress. She's the perfect manic pixie dream girl trope. I want her to have all my babies.

What made you think that was worth sharing?

Don't be a creep.

People are subconsciously affected by sexual drives. Welcome to 1880. What's your point?

you are kidding right?

why is this even top comment.

I really need to earn the right to down vote. That this nonsense appears so high up bothers me. I supported her campaign because I thought coding needs to be made more approachable and interesting to kids. Let's be honest, most kids have no idea what most professions do. I think just making people more familiar with programming is a great social goal.

Just upvote the rest instead. That's what I did. Eventually this shit will sink to the bottom.

I'm ready to bet that if she wasn't attractive, she wouldn't have gotten past the $10k milestone. In other words, by being "playful", flirtatious, she was using her looks to her advatange. To me this is manipulation.

You're also a dick.

He might be a dick but it's still a valid argument.

What, that the dominant/only reason men want more women in tech is to have sex with them? Really? Do people really think the bulk of the men in tech are that cynical?

We can be brutally honest and say that yes, having women who share our passions (and workplaces) would be good for the personal lives of many developers. But I don't think there's any advocate for more women in the industry who would see that as anything but a fringe benefit.

That isn't what was said. The video was extremely flirtatious. It had the same sexualized energy of a Disney movie about Tank Girl starring Bjork with the sound track by Blonde Redhead. It was way to over the top.

If you think that is flirtatious, you may want to recall rate yourself. I saw nothing more than positive nervous energy and passion about a project.

Um, I meant "recalibrate yourself"... terrible spelling.

> sexualized

I am so not seeing this.

> The video was extremely flirtatious.

No it wasn't. It is whimsical and youthful, which fits with the theme of making a book for children. Attributing that personality type with flirtation is disturbing and misogynistic.

> It had the same sexualized energy of a Disney movie about Tank Girl starring Bjork with the sound track by Blonde Redhead.

Projecting much?

> It was way to over the top.

I find your sexist crap over the top.

Hyperbole not projecting.

This video was a toned down version of SBV with a grown woman acting childish and coy, my hyperbolic statement tapped into other performers who utilize the same mechanic. It is not whimsical and youthful, it is offensive. She was selling herself rather than her art. I don't need to look at her knitted socks, watch her fluff her hair or jump on the damn couch. It is manipulative. Recognizing that manipulation is not sexist, on the contrary.

This video would have been way more mature if it showed children engaging with the content, rather than an artful selfie. We need to see how she explains ideas that lead children to a scientific mind.

> She was selling herself rather than her art. I don't need to look at her knitted socks, watch her fluff her hair or jump on the damn couch. It is manipulative. Recognizing that manipulation is not sexist, on the contrary.

Not only are you blaming the creator for your own sexualized interpretation of the kickstarter vid, but you claim that non-sexual behaviors are evidence of sexualized flirting.

> This video would have been way more mature if it showed children engaging with the content, rather than an artful selfie. We need to see how she explains ideas that lead children to a scientific mind.

Now you are considering her behavior in a video targeted towards parents and children to be inappropriate based on your highly inappropriate sexualization of normal behavior. The video aims to be fun, visual, and cutesy, not a come on for dudes.

> whimsical and youthful

Hah, yes. Honestly, if that woman's behavior is "sexual and flirtatious" then my son's kindergarten teacher is hitting on him (she puts on the same act around her students).

Yes, the video was as much about selling Liukas as a character and internet-celebrity as it was about selling her book. That's how marketing works. But anybody who sees it as "sexual" watches too much of the wrong kind of anime.

When that same kindergarten teacher behaves towards one of the male parents as to an infant then it's flirtatious. Certainly in Western society much behaviour which is considered fine with a child is inappropriate with an adult, and vice-versa of course.

If I bounce my friend's daughter on my knee and chat to her it's fine - if I bounce my (married) friend on my knee then it would be considered highly inappropriate in the same circumstance and an affront to my partner and hers. Same behaviour, the first is innocent; the second might be but would be assumed to be sexual or appear pseudo-sexual and so [in my country and circumstance] be considered wrong.

[I've not watched the video yet but am addressing the general case.]

> When that same kindergarten teacher behaves towards one of the male parents as to an infant then it's flirtatious.

The kickstarter video is not directed towards men specifically. A lot of posters seem to see it that the default audience is men and therefore her behavior is somehow flirting. Of course, the audience for kickstarter includes all type of people, including younger children.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com