9 ms·

Naomi (@sexycyborg) is a well known maker who happens to have a lot of risque maker projects and plenty of photos of her online would be scandalizing for more s

Naomi (@sexycyborg) is a well known maker who happens to have a lot of risque maker projects and plenty of photos of her online would be scandalizing for more socially conservative people. She has been blamed to be the face for a manufactured persona, to be generally incompetent at anything maker related, etc. The explanation for why she (and her "handler") would do that, is that they get hired to endorse products. Plenty of sexism, slutshaming, and circumstantial "evidence" (e.g. the comment about almost cutting her finger this one time) have been used against her. It is a generally disappointing story of slutshaming. Now a well known media persona in the maker community decided to entertain those allegations and ruined her reputation.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
The phrase "disappointing story of slutshaming" is biased, with the underlying implication being that "slutshaming" is a bad thing that hurts our country. I personally don't see how having social standards on how to interact socially and sexually is a bad thing. If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic.
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  You're not wrong, but it's a touchy subject and the word "slutshaming" polarizes people pretty effectively in the current year.
- tclancy 9y ago
  >To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic. That's just the point, you have a worldview and assume it is correct and should apply to everyone else. But no one worldview will encompass everyone's thoughts and feelings. Why should someone's fashion choices tell us anything about their technical ability? Was Einstein less trustworthy on the days he forgot his pants?
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    You're misunderstanding; it's not about the fashion telling us anything about their technical ability. That thing about Einstein is a complete non-sequitur. Here's a comment in this thread by deeg that outlines one of the issues with the fashion: > Our industry is (rightfully) going through a lot of self-examination on how we treat women as sex objects and here is a technically savvy woman projecting herself (among other things) as...a sex object. While it is certainly her right to do so it seems that a bit of push-back is expected (and potentially warranted). > That said, being called "fake" may be wrong. I have no knowledge one way or the other.
- roninb 9y ago
  I think the reason OP listed "sexism, slutshaming" separately is because they're separate issues. The downvotes are coming from your erroneous conflation of the two (and possibly being perceived as purposeful conflation to strawman the argument). That said, I think the slutshaming you pointed out is just as damaging as what's going on in Wu's case. Who gives a shit if @sexyengineer is wearing a speedo in all of his tutorials? The point is the information and if he's not sharing bad info I don't see the problem other than the fact that you and I have differences in taste. I.e., don't yuck in other people's yum :)
  - tree_of_item 9y ago
    Who gives a shit if he's wearing a speedo all the time? Who gives a shit if someone makes a private joke about dongles at a conference?? > I personally don't see how having social standards on how to interact socially and sexually is a bad thing. Did you really have a problem with this line from the post you replied to? Because if not, you can see what sort of issue someone might have here.
    - roninb 9y ago
      Don't have a problem with that phrase in a vacuum but in context of this discussion I find it highly problematic. Who decides the standard? Which standards actually matter? I guess I see information (esp with regards to video tutorials/demos) as agnostic. If you're reading a tutorial online, there's no telling whether the person who wrote it was completely naked while doing so. Does the information change simply because you thought they should at least throw a robe on before trying to share info? As long as she's sharing good info, I don't see why it matters what she's wearing. And no, I cannot see what issue other people have other than a difference in taste (which, again, has no bearing whatsoever on whether what she's sharing is factual and helpful or not...).
- krastanov 9y ago
  This is how answered to that same comment a few months ago: And if I promote myself as a Star Trek fan to bring attention to my engineering work, nerd-shaming is also in scope. Or a body-builder programmer shamed for being a "bro" by us nerds. Why do we need to shame each other about our quirks? (as long as those quirks do no harm, but as far as I know, Sexy Cyborg does not flaunt herself around kindergartens)
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > Why do we need to shame each other about our quirks? Everyone judges everyone else. If absolutely everyone just keeps to themselves and has their own standards of right and wrong, no sense of community ever has a chance of forming. I'm not saying OP is right or wrong, but I also don't think that social standards and expectations are 100% evil or harmful to society.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "If absolutely everyone just keeps to themselves and has their own standards of right and wrong, no sense of community ever has a chance of forming." Judgement of the personal lives of others does not have to be the cornerstone of a community, especially one that has nothing to do with the personality of others. How someone chooses to dress out of their own free will is completely unrelated to their interest in tech. What I find to be disappointing is when people who can't/won't see past looks. Yes, our first reaction is likely to be visual, but if a hacker can't recognise a fellow hacker just because they look different to what they expect, that's a real shame. When I look at a video like this, I don't just see an attractive woman, I see a hacker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBcZeElCxxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBcZeElCxxk
  - ambicapter 9y ago
    These aren't really her "quirks" are they? Its pretty much central her identity. Its in the name.
  - JimboOmega 9y ago
    Whenever you leverage things outside of a field to become well known/get recognition within a field, people are going to push back on it and call it inauthentic. Those other traits could be sex appeal, it could be celebrity in another area, it could be wealth, whatever. Of course having those other traits doesn't mean that you are necessarily incapable or inauthentic in that space. It doesn't "prove" anything. I doubt that Sexy Cyborg would be as well known without the sexual aspect, but fame doesn't correspond perfectly to competence either. To me it's leveraging those traits to gain recognition that stirs people up - which, with a name like "SexyCyborg", she's pretty clearly doing. I don't mind it myself, don't think it says anything about her competence on its own.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  What about Colin Furze and his ubiquitous 'safety tie'? People can keep a media persona AND be good at doing the things they talk about.
- moomin 9y ago
  Hey, I’d love to live in a world that operated the way you suggest. There’s actually a group of people who work towards that aim. They’re called (intersectional) feminists. You might find what they’re saying interesting.
- VLM 9y ago
  In the US "slutshaming" is part of the progressive stack so in a sense of unity, and voting on HN is often used to enforce political norms. So people who would downvote someone for using the N-word, for example, are attacking you to earn their good boy points because they're all in it together, etc. There are other interesting examples along your example of @sexyengineer. One is in the area of cooking your example has long existed where theoretically the genre is "cooking" but in practice there are two distinct types of shows, the shows were the woman is in a revealing cocktail dress or date night attire while cooking with fantastic hair and makeup and by cis hetro standards is extremely hot, while the cooking knowledge and recipes are on the level of "cooking" a pb&j sandwich, vs real "cooking" shows where an average looking person, often below average in appearance due to being an older experienced teacher, educate you about cooking. For a variety of TV formula risk minimization strategies there is in practice essentially no overlap. Online, without hollywood execs, things can get weird and cross over. This is actually very comical in the foodie world, there are well known sayings about cooking shows where you can tell within seconds what kind of show you're watching by either seeing a lacy lingerie bra or a (dirty) apron, although they're all categorized as "cooking" shows. Another interesting example is in woodworking there are real woodworking educational TV shows with average to below average older shop teacher type human bodies where you'll actually learn something, and there's one PBS woodworking show with a tall highly muscular male model from Boston who my wife finds very handsome but I've stopped watching because the carpentry content level is low. Its fundamentally a difference between people who are looking for a strong attractive personality perhaps with a theme they enjoy; essentially this is every pr0n movie plot, ever. Meanwhile there are people looking for content and information. Do you want to hang out with a beautiful and stylish woman in her kitchen for a half hour, or are you looking for the official USDA food safety heating temp in deg F for ground pork? There's nothing wrong with either in any moral or ethical sense, but you'll see lots of weird lashing out and anger from people who want/need one and get accidentally stuck with the other, and people REALLY freak out when there's trans content bridging the gap and its hard to tell from second to second whats titillating pr0n and what is a reference manual. There is likely an analogy for hard vs soft sci fi. One way of looking at it is we very poorly label and identify content in TV and online such that we lump personality and appearance shows in the same named genre. Is the setting of a carpenters workroom merely the background of a pr0n flick or is the carpentry the main point and the actor is merely there as voice talent? Its the same for cooking, and in this weird case, engineering.
- dec0dedab0de 9y ago
  If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic. The flaw in your logic is that sexuality has nothing to do with being "legitimate." Furthermore the tech in question is more about creativity than skill, the entire maker movement is about abstracting away the more difficult concepts into easier to use pieces.
  - TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
    > The flaw in your logic is that sexuality has nothing to do with being "legitimate." Yes it does. PR companies have the opinion that sex sells, so if someone in a technical conference is overtly oversexualized, that makes me suspicious of their true motives.
    - chillingeffect 9y ago
      Precisely this. In an empty, scientific world, the two would be uncorrelated. But in our late stage capitalist world, division of labor couples attractive models with money-making operations as a matter of routine. Who can guess whether this person, "Sexy Maker," has DIY cred? https://twitter.com/SexyMaker0630 https://twitter.com/SexyMaker0630
  - cc81 9y ago
    I think the argument is more that sex is often used to sell things so people are wary when it is used in what they see in an unrelated manner. If I'm out shopping for an online course and I see one presented by a woman in a bikini vs one that is fully dressed I would be way more wary of the bikini one. I would think its content was not good enough to stand on its own and therefore they resorted to trying to sell it with sex. Of course that does not give me the right to attack or make groundless accusations against the bikini course.
    - bigiain 9y ago
- panglott 9y ago
  Having sex or being sexy are not things that you should shame other people for. Sex is normal, and it's not right to punish women for not being virginal.
- EliRivers 9y ago
  You're prejudiced across two genders? Yes, that's much better.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    My high school cliques were the nerds and the band. Generally speaking, the nerds were not attractive people, maxing out at about a "6". Our group identity mostly came from our self-perceived intelligence, dedication, and skill. So when an obvious candidate for the dolls clique presents himself or herself as a nerd, I know I am not the only one who might question their "qualifications". The hot bodies had far better options for clique membership, so we tended to get paranoid whenever one showed up. What do they want from us? Why would they choose to hang out with us? Most people didn't like us, so we held our noses, lowered our standards, and made do with liking each other. Out in the real world, it turns out that being a nerd any time after 1970 can make you quite a lot of money from jobs that require knowledge of math, science, technology, and engineering: our presumed forte. Because of that money, one of the motives for hanging out with nerds could be to get at some of it. It's bad enough when the broheimer partyboys crash our con, but if the pro cosplayers and booth babes also turn out to be more than just eye candy, that means the nerdity wasn't about being smart, but was actually just being ugly, awkward losers with no social value. That hurts, psychologically. It might feel like every time we make something nice for ourselves, the beautiful people just strut right in and take it away from us. So yeah, I'm prejudiced too. It comes from a lifetime of the pretty and popular people being inhumanly rude to me and "my people". If you must insist on being born beautiful, at least do me the courtesy of making yourself morbidly obese, or giving yourself some disfiguring scars, before pretending to be an insider of my social caste. If you can't shim yourself down below a "7", you're just going to make us feel suspicious and uncomfortable.
    - ZenoArrow 9y ago
      > "It's bad enough when the broheimer partyboys crash our con, but if the pro cosplayers and booth babes also turn out to be more than just eye candy, that means the nerdity wasn't about being smart, but was actually just being ugly, awkward losers with no social value. That hurts, psychologically." Do you not see that the issue isn't really "them", but that it's rather about perceived self-worth? If others put you down and made you feel like you lacked social value, I'm sorry, I wouldn't wish that on anybody, but your perceived value is something you have some degree of control of, as it's up to you how you wish to view yourself. I fundamentally disagree with putting numbers on attractiveness, or even putting it on a scale, but let's say for the sake of argument that I'm not expecting a modelling contract any time soon. That doesn't mean I can't be friends with people who are "better" looking than me, or that I can't see them as my peers. If you've got something interesting to say, it's all good.
- Afforess 9y ago
  >If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. And you would be wrong to do so. You could call their fashion sense into doubt, but questioning their competency in unrelated areas is falling prey to the ad hominem fallacy. Picking one undesirable trait and generalizing outwards from that is the definition of ad hominem. @realsexycyborg might have a nontraditional taste in style but this literally has nothing to do with her skills as a maker or ability as an engineer. To conflate the two is bias and reflects the core problem here.
- ZenoArrow 9y ago
  > "If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question." What difference does it make? Do you feel offended if other men are seen as sexy? If you're concerned about painting someone as a role model, what do you find offensive about what @RealSexyCyborg is doing? Is being comfortable being sexy something bad? Is she sending a message that the only way to be a female maker is to emphasize your looks? Speaking personally, I'm a straight man, but if @sexyengineer ever shows up, I would have zero problems with that. If a male model or a female model shows an interest in engineering, good for them, if they decide to break conventions about what an engineer is supposed to look like, good for them.
- bambax 9y ago
  > If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question That's the flaw in your logic right here: rolling your eyes is one thing, call the legitimacy of people who don't conform to completely arbitrary (and historically and geographically moving) social norms is ANOTHER. You can roll your eyes all you want, that's your problem. You can even decide for yourself that you will not listen to people who don't dress according to some code -- your loss. But when you decide to project and impose your prejudice to the world then you become part of the problem.
- bigiain 9y ago
  Excuse me if I'm making an incorrect assumption here, but China is not your country, right? Naomi explains that the fashion she wears is while perhaps not "mainstream", at least fairly unremarkable in her culture - and she's got video of herself walking around in public that supports that claim. If _you_ are not capable of seeing and accepting other cultures, that's surely not Naomi's problem. It's no different from insisting your local library removes National Geographic magazines because they have images of cultures where breasts are not taboo. "Social standards" are fine, and while you and I probably disagree on what those standards should and shouldn't allow in our respective cultures, imposing _your_ opinions of social standards on a culture you've never even visited (again, apologies if I'm making a poor assumption there) is the height of self important superiority. And while I don't know where you're from, Doughtery's business runs out of Sebastopol - literally 50 miles away from where Folsom Street Fair is held every year. Tell me again how different his society's "social standards on how to interact socially and sexually" are from Naomi's?
- Eric_WVGG 9y ago
  Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being old is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being fat is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being ugly is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being black is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being slutty* is hurtful and wrong. How can you be so dense that you don’t see the common thread here. * by your definition, which is a whole other ball of bullshit
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - curtisblaine 9y ago
    Is calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being conservative hurtful and wrong?
    - Eric_WVGG 9y ago
      No. It’s possible to be conservative without being an asshole. You just keep your own opinion and mind your own business.
      - curtisblaine 9y ago
        So being conservative is OK as long as you don't say it?
- pron 9y ago
  > If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic. The flaw in your reasoning is that it doesn't match reality. That example of the male engineer actually does exist (@aphyr), and he is (very justifiably!) well respected and not shamed. In general, the key to understanding sexism (and social dynamics in general) is that the question is not one of what-ifs, thought experiments, or spherical-cow sociology, but an empirical one about a real-world system. Whether people behave in the way you hypothesize or not is an empirical question, and, in this case your hypothesis is false.
Chris2048 9y ago
> It is a generally disappointing story of slutshaming. Just to bring up a tangent - remember this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/when-software-offends-the-pantyshot-package-controversy/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/when-software-offends-the-panty... My question is; is there a double standard wrt sexualised personal projects? There seems to be a contradiction in that sexual content by a man is seen as "hostile" or "unwelcoming" to women, but criticising a woman for producing sexual content is "slut-shaming"...
- krastanov 9y ago
  There is a difference between sexualizing yourself and sexualizing others. Especially when historically women have been sexualized without their consent which, while it happens, is a rarity for men.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    So, if a male commenter were to complement her on her sexy outfit, which category does that fall into? And who is harmed by a project called pantyshot? Or posters of sexualised fantasy/anime women in skimpy clothing?
deeg 9y ago
Our industry is (rightfully) going through a lot of self-examination on how we treat women as sex objects and here is a technically savvy woman projecting herself (among other things) as...a sex object. While it is certainly her right to do so it seems that a bit of push-back is expected (and potentially warranted). That said, being called "fake" may be wrong. I have no knowledge one way or the other.
- watwut 9y ago
  Being reduced to sex object and being sexy on top of being skilled etc are not the same tho. Nor should be. (I know there are some radfem who disagree with me on that point). It is precisely the "and since she is sexy then she must be bimbo" that is a problem and causes whole lot of negativity. Pushback here is people literally saying she is fake and can't be skilled. It is not complain about the decency nor double standard.
  - subroutine 9y ago
    Basically it seems like this girl is attractive and reasonably competent, and is using her sexiness to entice viewers to watch her maker videos. Then you have competent people who arnt sexy thinking - hey that's not fair, she is using an asset I don't have to gain viewership. So they feel compelled to point out the obvious. I feel like this is sort of like why the weather person is often an attractive girl. Sure maybe she doesnt have a phd in meteorology but she understands it well, and generally people would rather take the info from her than some fat guy mumbling about advanced meteorology. And so when this guy sees people flocking to get weather updates from her, rather than tuning into his youtube channel his instinct will be to say she is using sex to sell. When that happens I'm not sure what the appropriate response should be. I mean, here clearly this girl is using sexy videos, so it seems odd to be defensive about it. Maybe the response should be- "yeah, so? All that and I deliver informative content"
    - cwkoss 9y ago
      Naomi Wu wrote about why she dresses this way in her FAQ: "Beside personal taste, the other issue is my appearance is effective. Female Makers- or Women in Tech are rarely featured in Chinese news, it's just not something that gets much interest and there is no community of like-minded women I can look to. Sexy girls are still the delivery vector for nearly all messages in tech here. If I want to get my message out- that these new technical tools are accessible, and that there are well-paying jobs available for women that master them, I have to do so in a way that will actually reach my audience. I'm sure the high road is nice- but in China, no one will hear a word you say while you are on it." https://pastebin.com/V3474kYs https://pastebin.com/V3474kYs I don't see the harm in everyone doing as much as they can with the cards they are dealt. The alternative is a dystopia like Harrison Bergeron (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html)
tptacek 9y ago
No, that's not accurate. Dale Dougherty claimed publicly on his Twitter feed that Naomi Wu wasn't a real person, but rather multiple people manufacturing a persona. The subtext of the tweet is probably that Wu is a photogenic marketing spokesperson for the brand. It's not a cultural or moral critique. It's a grave, specific, and apparently entirely false one. We don't need to get wound up into a knot about sexual mores to recognize that nobody should have to defend themselves against false accusations that they're not even a real person.
- jbooth 9y ago
  Why not both? If she were a dude with an unfitted black tee, it seems a lot less likely that she'd be accused of being 'fake'.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Nobody should have to defend themselves against false accusations that they're not even a real person. This issue is simpler than the thread here makes it sound. I agree that there's probably an unpleasant subtext behind this guy's decision to wreck Naomi Wu's career. All I'm saying is, we don't have to reach that issue to see how reckless what he did was.
    - rpdillon 9y ago
      I've still never figured out if TJ Holowaychuk is a hive mind or not. I kind of suspect not, but the history is interesting! Context: https://medium.com/@kelas/how-is-tj-holowaychuk-so-insanely-productive-604818b4e9eb https://medium.com/@kelas/how-is-tj-holowaychuk-so-insanely-...
    - Bromskloss 9y ago
      > Nobody should have to defend themselves against false accusations that they're not even a real person. Do you mean the accusation that someone is playing a role for marketing purposes, and is not actually like the image portrayed? Why is that such an inconceivable accusation? Why should nobody have to defend herself against that?

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago

The phrase "disappointing story of slutshaming" is biased, with the underlying implication being that "slutshaming" is a bad thing that hurts our country. I personally don't see how having social standards on how to interact socially and sexually is a bad thing. If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic.

tree_of_item 9y ago
You're not wrong, but it's a touchy subject and the word "slutshaming" polarizes people pretty effectively in the current year.
tclancy 9y ago
>To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic. That's just the point, you have a worldview and assume it is correct and should apply to everyone else. But no one worldview will encompass everyone's thoughts and feelings. Why should someone's fashion choices tell us anything about their technical ability? Was Einstein less trustworthy on the days he forgot his pants?
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  You're misunderstanding; it's not about the fashion telling us anything about their technical ability. That thing about Einstein is a complete non-sequitur. Here's a comment in this thread by deeg that outlines one of the issues with the fashion: > Our industry is (rightfully) going through a lot of self-examination on how we treat women as sex objects and here is a technically savvy woman projecting herself (among other things) as...a sex object. While it is certainly her right to do so it seems that a bit of push-back is expected (and potentially warranted). > That said, being called "fake" may be wrong. I have no knowledge one way or the other.
roninb 9y ago
I think the reason OP listed "sexism, slutshaming" separately is because they're separate issues. The downvotes are coming from your erroneous conflation of the two (and possibly being perceived as purposeful conflation to strawman the argument). That said, I think the slutshaming you pointed out is just as damaging as what's going on in Wu's case. Who gives a shit if @sexyengineer is wearing a speedo in all of his tutorials? The point is the information and if he's not sharing bad info I don't see the problem other than the fact that you and I have differences in taste. I.e., don't yuck in other people's yum :)
- tree_of_item 9y ago
  Who gives a shit if he's wearing a speedo all the time? Who gives a shit if someone makes a private joke about dongles at a conference?? > I personally don't see how having social standards on how to interact socially and sexually is a bad thing. Did you really have a problem with this line from the post you replied to? Because if not, you can see what sort of issue someone might have here.
  - roninb 9y ago
    Don't have a problem with that phrase in a vacuum but in context of this discussion I find it highly problematic. Who decides the standard? Which standards actually matter? I guess I see information (esp with regards to video tutorials/demos) as agnostic. If you're reading a tutorial online, there's no telling whether the person who wrote it was completely naked while doing so. Does the information change simply because you thought they should at least throw a robe on before trying to share info? As long as she's sharing good info, I don't see why it matters what she's wearing. And no, I cannot see what issue other people have other than a difference in taste (which, again, has no bearing whatsoever on whether what she's sharing is factual and helpful or not...).
krastanov 9y ago
This is how answered to that same comment a few months ago: And if I promote myself as a Star Trek fan to bring attention to my engineering work, nerd-shaming is also in scope. Or a body-builder programmer shamed for being a "bro" by us nerds. Why do we need to shame each other about our quirks? (as long as those quirks do no harm, but as far as I know, Sexy Cyborg does not flaunt herself around kindergartens)
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > Why do we need to shame each other about our quirks? Everyone judges everyone else. If absolutely everyone just keeps to themselves and has their own standards of right and wrong, no sense of community ever has a chance of forming. I'm not saying OP is right or wrong, but I also don't think that social standards and expectations are 100% evil or harmful to society.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "If absolutely everyone just keeps to themselves and has their own standards of right and wrong, no sense of community ever has a chance of forming." Judgement of the personal lives of others does not have to be the cornerstone of a community, especially one that has nothing to do with the personality of others. How someone chooses to dress out of their own free will is completely unrelated to their interest in tech. What I find to be disappointing is when people who can't/won't see past looks. Yes, our first reaction is likely to be visual, but if a hacker can't recognise a fellow hacker just because they look different to what they expect, that's a real shame. When I look at a video like this, I don't just see an attractive woman, I see a hacker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBcZeElCxxk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBcZeElCxxk
- ambicapter 9y ago
  These aren't really her "quirks" are they? Its pretty much central her identity. Its in the name.
- JimboOmega 9y ago
  Whenever you leverage things outside of a field to become well known/get recognition within a field, people are going to push back on it and call it inauthentic. Those other traits could be sex appeal, it could be celebrity in another area, it could be wealth, whatever. Of course having those other traits doesn't mean that you are necessarily incapable or inauthentic in that space. It doesn't "prove" anything. I doubt that Sexy Cyborg would be as well known without the sexual aspect, but fame doesn't correspond perfectly to competence either. To me it's leveraging those traits to gain recognition that stirs people up - which, with a name like "SexyCyborg", she's pretty clearly doing. I don't mind it myself, don't think it says anything about her competence on its own.
leggomylibro 9y ago
What about Colin Furze and his ubiquitous 'safety tie'? People can keep a media persona AND be good at doing the things they talk about.
moomin 9y ago
Hey, I’d love to live in a world that operated the way you suggest. There’s actually a group of people who work towards that aim. They’re called (intersectional) feminists. You might find what they’re saying interesting.
VLM 9y ago
In the US "slutshaming" is part of the progressive stack so in a sense of unity, and voting on HN is often used to enforce political norms. So people who would downvote someone for using the N-word, for example, are attacking you to earn their good boy points because they're all in it together, etc. There are other interesting examples along your example of @sexyengineer. One is in the area of cooking your example has long existed where theoretically the genre is "cooking" but in practice there are two distinct types of shows, the shows were the woman is in a revealing cocktail dress or date night attire while cooking with fantastic hair and makeup and by cis hetro standards is extremely hot, while the cooking knowledge and recipes are on the level of "cooking" a pb&j sandwich, vs real "cooking" shows where an average looking person, often below average in appearance due to being an older experienced teacher, educate you about cooking. For a variety of TV formula risk minimization strategies there is in practice essentially no overlap. Online, without hollywood execs, things can get weird and cross over. This is actually very comical in the foodie world, there are well known sayings about cooking shows where you can tell within seconds what kind of show you're watching by either seeing a lacy lingerie bra or a (dirty) apron, although they're all categorized as "cooking" shows. Another interesting example is in woodworking there are real woodworking educational TV shows with average to below average older shop teacher type human bodies where you'll actually learn something, and there's one PBS woodworking show with a tall highly muscular male model from Boston who my wife finds very handsome but I've stopped watching because the carpentry content level is low. Its fundamentally a difference between people who are looking for a strong attractive personality perhaps with a theme they enjoy; essentially this is every pr0n movie plot, ever. Meanwhile there are people looking for content and information. Do you want to hang out with a beautiful and stylish woman in her kitchen for a half hour, or are you looking for the official USDA food safety heating temp in deg F for ground pork? There's nothing wrong with either in any moral or ethical sense, but you'll see lots of weird lashing out and anger from people who want/need one and get accidentally stuck with the other, and people REALLY freak out when there's trans content bridging the gap and its hard to tell from second to second whats titillating pr0n and what is a reference manual. There is likely an analogy for hard vs soft sci fi. One way of looking at it is we very poorly label and identify content in TV and online such that we lump personality and appearance shows in the same named genre. Is the setting of a carpenters workroom merely the background of a pr0n flick or is the carpentry the main point and the actor is merely there as voice talent? Its the same for cooking, and in this weird case, engineering.
dec0dedab0de 9y ago
If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. Edit: To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic. The flaw in your logic is that sexuality has nothing to do with being "legitimate." Furthermore the tech in question is more about creativity than skill, the entire maker movement is about abstracting away the more difficult concepts into easier to use pieces.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  > The flaw in your logic is that sexuality has nothing to do with being "legitimate." Yes it does. PR companies have the opinion that sex sells, so if someone in a technical conference is overtly oversexualized, that makes me suspicious of their true motives.
  - chillingeffect 9y ago
    Precisely this. In an empty, scientific world, the two would be uncorrelated. But in our late stage capitalist world, division of labor couples attractive models with money-making operations as a matter of routine. Who can guess whether this person, "Sexy Maker," has DIY cred? https://twitter.com/SexyMaker0630 https://twitter.com/SexyMaker0630
- cc81 9y ago
  I think the argument is more that sex is often used to sell things so people are wary when it is used in what they see in an unrelated manner. If I'm out shopping for an online course and I see one presented by a woman in a bikini vs one that is fully dressed I would be way more wary of the bikini one. I would think its content was not good enough to stand on its own and therefore they resorted to trying to sell it with sex. Of course that does not give me the right to attack or make groundless accusations against the bikini course.
  - bigiain 9y ago
panglott 9y ago
Having sex or being sexy are not things that you should shame other people for. Sex is normal, and it's not right to punish women for not being virginal.
EliRivers 9y ago
You're prejudiced across two genders? Yes, that's much better.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  My high school cliques were the nerds and the band. Generally speaking, the nerds were not attractive people, maxing out at about a "6". Our group identity mostly came from our self-perceived intelligence, dedication, and skill. So when an obvious candidate for the dolls clique presents himself or herself as a nerd, I know I am not the only one who might question their "qualifications". The hot bodies had far better options for clique membership, so we tended to get paranoid whenever one showed up. What do they want from us? Why would they choose to hang out with us? Most people didn't like us, so we held our noses, lowered our standards, and made do with liking each other. Out in the real world, it turns out that being a nerd any time after 1970 can make you quite a lot of money from jobs that require knowledge of math, science, technology, and engineering: our presumed forte. Because of that money, one of the motives for hanging out with nerds could be to get at some of it. It's bad enough when the broheimer partyboys crash our con, but if the pro cosplayers and booth babes also turn out to be more than just eye candy, that means the nerdity wasn't about being smart, but was actually just being ugly, awkward losers with no social value. That hurts, psychologically. It might feel like every time we make something nice for ourselves, the beautiful people just strut right in and take it away from us. So yeah, I'm prejudiced too. It comes from a lifetime of the pretty and popular people being inhumanly rude to me and "my people". If you must insist on being born beautiful, at least do me the courtesy of making yourself morbidly obese, or giving yourself some disfiguring scars, before pretending to be an insider of my social caste. If you can't shim yourself down below a "7", you're just going to make us feel suspicious and uncomfortable.
  - ZenoArrow 9y ago
    > "It's bad enough when the broheimer partyboys crash our con, but if the pro cosplayers and booth babes also turn out to be more than just eye candy, that means the nerdity wasn't about being smart, but was actually just being ugly, awkward losers with no social value. That hurts, psychologically." Do you not see that the issue isn't really "them", but that it's rather about perceived self-worth? If others put you down and made you feel like you lacked social value, I'm sorry, I wouldn't wish that on anybody, but your perceived value is something you have some degree of control of, as it's up to you how you wish to view yourself. I fundamentally disagree with putting numbers on attractiveness, or even putting it on a scale, but let's say for the sake of argument that I'm not expecting a modelling contract any time soon. That doesn't mean I can't be friends with people who are "better" looking than me, or that I can't see them as my peers. If you've got something interesting to say, it's all good.
Afforess 9y ago
>If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. And you would be wrong to do so. You could call their fashion sense into doubt, but questioning their competency in unrelated areas is falling prey to the ad hominem fallacy. Picking one undesirable trait and generalizing outwards from that is the definition of ad hominem. @realsexycyborg might have a nontraditional taste in style but this literally has nothing to do with her skills as a maker or ability as an engineer. To conflate the two is bias and reflects the core problem here.
ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question." What difference does it make? Do you feel offended if other men are seen as sexy? If you're concerned about painting someone as a role model, what do you find offensive about what @RealSexyCyborg is doing? Is being comfortable being sexy something bad? Is she sending a message that the only way to be a female maker is to emphasize your looks? Speaking personally, I'm a straight man, but if @sexyengineer ever shows up, I would have zero problems with that. If a male model or a female model shows an interest in engineering, good for them, if they decide to break conventions about what an engineer is supposed to look like, good for them.
bambax 9y ago
> If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question That's the flaw in your logic right here: rolling your eyes is one thing, call the legitimacy of people who don't conform to completely arbitrary (and historically and geographically moving) social norms is ANOTHER. You can roll your eyes all you want, that's your problem. You can even decide for yourself that you will not listen to people who don't dress according to some code -- your loss. But when you decide to project and impose your prejudice to the world then you become part of the problem.
bigiain 9y ago
Excuse me if I'm making an incorrect assumption here, but China is not your country, right? Naomi explains that the fashion she wears is while perhaps not "mainstream", at least fairly unremarkable in her culture - and she's got video of herself walking around in public that supports that claim. If _you_ are not capable of seeing and accepting other cultures, that's surely not Naomi's problem. It's no different from insisting your local library removes National Geographic magazines because they have images of cultures where breasts are not taboo. "Social standards" are fine, and while you and I probably disagree on what those standards should and shouldn't allow in our respective cultures, imposing _your_ opinions of social standards on a culture you've never even visited (again, apologies if I'm making a poor assumption there) is the height of self important superiority. And while I don't know where you're from, Doughtery's business runs out of Sebastopol - literally 50 miles away from where Folsom Street Fair is held every year. Tell me again how different his society's "social standards on how to interact socially and sexually" are from Naomi's?
Eric_WVGG 9y ago
Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being old is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being fat is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being ugly is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being black is hurtful and wrong. Calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being slutty* is hurtful and wrong. How can you be so dense that you don’t see the common thread here. * by your definition, which is a whole other ball of bullshit
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- curtisblaine 9y ago
  Is calling someone’s legitimacy into question for being conservative hurtful and wrong?
  - Eric_WVGG 9y ago
    No. It’s possible to be conservative without being an asshole. You just keep your own opinion and mind your own business.
    - curtisblaine 9y ago
      So being conservative is OK as long as you don't say it?
pron 9y ago
> If a ripped 6'4" male model called himself @sexyengineer and posted pictures of him building things shirtless, I would roll my eyes and call his legitimacy into question. Doing the same to a woman isn't some sexist conspiracy. To those downvoting me, can you please explain? I don't see the flaw in my logic. The flaw in your reasoning is that it doesn't match reality. That example of the male engineer actually does exist (@aphyr), and he is (very justifiably!) well respected and not shamed. In general, the key to understanding sexism (and social dynamics in general) is that the question is not one of what-ifs, thought experiments, or spherical-cow sociology, but an empirical one about a real-world system. Whether people behave in the way you hypothesize or not is an empirical question, and, in this case your hypothesis is false.

Chris2048 9y ago

> It is a generally disappointing story of slutshaming. Just to bring up a tangent - remember this: http://www.zdnet.com/article/when-software-offends-the-pantyshot-package-controversy/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/when-software-offends-the-panty... My question is; is there a double standard wrt sexualised personal projects? There seems to be a contradiction in that sexual content by a man is seen as "hostile" or "unwelcoming" to women, but criticising a woman for producing sexual content is "slut-shaming"...

krastanov 9y ago
There is a difference between sexualizing yourself and sexualizing others. Especially when historically women have been sexualized without their consent which, while it happens, is a rarity for men.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  So, if a male commenter were to complement her on her sexy outfit, which category does that fall into? And who is harmed by a project called pantyshot? Or posters of sexualised fantasy/anime women in skimpy clothing?

deeg 9y ago

Our industry is (rightfully) going through a lot of self-examination on how we treat women as sex objects and here is a technically savvy woman projecting herself (among other things) as...a sex object. While it is certainly her right to do so it seems that a bit of push-back is expected (and potentially warranted). That said, being called "fake" may be wrong. I have no knowledge one way or the other.

watwut 9y ago
Being reduced to sex object and being sexy on top of being skilled etc are not the same tho. Nor should be. (I know there are some radfem who disagree with me on that point). It is precisely the "and since she is sexy then she must be bimbo" that is a problem and causes whole lot of negativity. Pushback here is people literally saying she is fake and can't be skilled. It is not complain about the decency nor double standard.
- subroutine 9y ago
  Basically it seems like this girl is attractive and reasonably competent, and is using her sexiness to entice viewers to watch her maker videos. Then you have competent people who arnt sexy thinking - hey that's not fair, she is using an asset I don't have to gain viewership. So they feel compelled to point out the obvious. I feel like this is sort of like why the weather person is often an attractive girl. Sure maybe she doesnt have a phd in meteorology but she understands it well, and generally people would rather take the info from her than some fat guy mumbling about advanced meteorology. And so when this guy sees people flocking to get weather updates from her, rather than tuning into his youtube channel his instinct will be to say she is using sex to sell. When that happens I'm not sure what the appropriate response should be. I mean, here clearly this girl is using sexy videos, so it seems odd to be defensive about it. Maybe the response should be- "yeah, so? All that and I deliver informative content"
  - cwkoss 9y ago
    Naomi Wu wrote about why she dresses this way in her FAQ: "Beside personal taste, the other issue is my appearance is effective. Female Makers- or Women in Tech are rarely featured in Chinese news, it's just not something that gets much interest and there is no community of like-minded women I can look to. Sexy girls are still the delivery vector for nearly all messages in tech here. If I want to get my message out- that these new technical tools are accessible, and that there are well-paying jobs available for women that master them, I have to do so in a way that will actually reach my audience. I'm sure the high road is nice- but in China, no one will hear a word you say while you are on it." https://pastebin.com/V3474kYs https://pastebin.com/V3474kYs I don't see the harm in everyone doing as much as they can with the cards they are dealt. The alternative is a dystopia like Harrison Bergeron (http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html)

tptacek 9y ago

No, that's not accurate. Dale Dougherty claimed publicly on his Twitter feed that Naomi Wu wasn't a real person, but rather multiple people manufacturing a persona. The subtext of the tweet is probably that Wu is a photogenic marketing spokesperson for the brand. It's not a cultural or moral critique. It's a grave, specific, and apparently entirely false one. We don't need to get wound up into a knot about sexual mores to recognize that nobody should have to defend themselves against false accusations that they're not even a real person.

jbooth 9y ago
Why not both? If she were a dude with an unfitted black tee, it seems a lot less likely that she'd be accused of being 'fake'.
- tptacek 9y ago
  Nobody should have to defend themselves against false accusations that they're not even a real person. This issue is simpler than the thread here makes it sound. I agree that there's probably an unpleasant subtext behind this guy's decision to wreck Naomi Wu's career. All I'm saying is, we don't have to reach that issue to see how reckless what he did was.
  - rpdillon 9y ago
    I've still never figured out if TJ Holowaychuk is a hive mind or not. I kind of suspect not, but the history is interesting! Context: https://medium.com/@kelas/how-is-tj-holowaychuk-so-insanely-productive-604818b4e9eb https://medium.com/@kelas/how-is-tj-holowaychuk-so-insanely-...
  - Bromskloss 9y ago
    > Nobody should have to defend themselves against false accusations that they're not even a real person. Do you mean the accusation that someone is playing a role for marketing purposes, and is not actually like the image portrayed? Why is that such an inconceivable accusation? Why should nobody have to defend herself against that?