>"Quite often one needs to take a more direct approach because these misogynistic policies are so ingrained that people actually believe them to be natural. "

I strongly agree with this. No one would dream to complain if the Louvre posts a male academic-led MOOC lecture about the Venus of Milo [0]. The pathology of this puritanism isn't harmless disagreement over which art is or isn't in "good taste"; it's the undercurrent of diminution of and disdain towards women, as Wu is very right to call out. The wild disparity between how censors classify male sculptors and woman sculptors is precisely how bigotry works -- tacit, implicit, unexamined. Men get the benefit of implicit respectability where women are suspect. Any constructive discussion about this will of course push sexists far outside their comfort zone.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKsdb8dq7fo ("La Vénus de Milo par Ludovic Laugier - Musée du Louvre")

> No one would dream to complain if the Louvre posts a male academic-led MOOC lecture about the Venus of Milo [0].

That video has 33k views and I didn’t see an ads so I’m not sure it’s even monetized anyway? What’s the point of the comparison?

> We like to scoff at Muslims and their backwards policies about women, and yet somehow Western societies are blind to their own

it's the american (or western?) exceptionalism at play - the bar is set to the _current_ western level, and muslim rules that the taliban abide by are seen as a lower level of civility (where civility is defined as _western social mores_).

Please don't mistake what I've said for whataboutism. The Muslim rules about women that the Taliban abide by are a lower level of civility. Full stop.

We've had similar disconnects between civilisations on other topics such as slavery, brigandry, serfdom, duels, witch trials, honor killings, torture, debtors prison, capital punishment and such, which improved and in some cases even disappeared as various peoples attained higher levels of civilisation.

That said, being "less bad" compared to some others isn't a laudable accomplishment. Honestly investigating your weak spots is an important aspect to growth.

>The Muslim rules about women that the Taliban abide by are a lower level of civility. Full stop.

And exactly what rules are those? If you're gonna call people less civilized at least have the decency to be specific. Muslims make up 25% of the world population and many Muslim women find modesty to be an empowering personal choice. I know many myself. The idea that they're brainwashed or uncivilized just echoes of the colonial mentality of "these brown people are uneducated and they need to learn to be like us". You're toeing the line as close to Islamophobia as possible while simultaneously acting as a women's rights champion.

It's so strange that men can disqualify women's voices in the name of feminism, like women with unpopular opinions aren't valid. I don't agree with the Taliban but without clarification it seems as though your just implying that people who believe modesty is a virtue in women are uncivilized. It's amazing that this kind of speech is acceptable, when we can all recognize similar criticisms coming from conservative voices as problematic

Those are the rules that emerge as a byproduct of history as it marches onward. When it comes to human rights, one can note that what is considered acceptable behavior towards a human changes in one direction only.

We don't go back towards saying that slavery is acceptable.

We don't go back towards saying that racism is acceptable.

We don't go back towards saying that executions are acceptable.

And we're also not going back towards saying that women have less say than men, that women must defer to men, that women should have less opportunity than men, that women should lose autonomy over their bodies, that women who are "immodest" should be punished, etc.

These uncivilised things are slowly weeded out while we as societies learn better ways to counter the baser instincts of our reptilian brains and (hopefully) eventually treat each other with the respect and dignity that are now even codified into a declaration of human rights (very civilised!)

So yes, anything that goes counter to that is uncivilised. I don't care who you are; these principles apply. And if you happen to be slower on the uptake, you'll be pitied by those who get there earlier.

So basically you skipped over everything I said and made a straw man of "modesty is equivocal to policing women and deciding they must have less opportunity to men". Like you literally cannot consider the subtleties of what some non western believe. Forcing women to believe what you do.. "for freedom" isn't feminist. This is just bigoted intolerant nonsense, and your righteous indignation doesn't make it okay. You would get kicked out of most western feminist groups for saying this stuff. Women aren't uncivilized because you think their views aren't worth discussing and because you cannot understand the difference between women valuing modesty and someone else mandating it. It's exactly the same type of paternalistic thinking that religious leaders use to tell women what to think and what they can't think

Madonna explicitly wanted to be seen that way and did not attempt to suggest otherwise.

Yes, she did. And she wanted the right to do it. She wanted the right to do with her body as she pleases, and the right to be seen as she pleases.

And in doing so she fought censors, TV networks, the FBI, you name it. She fought her whole life against this kind of bullshit. And now Naomi has taken up the fight too, and is probably discovering just how unnecessarily heavy a burden it is.

My point is different. Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization?

Honest question as they don’t seem the same. But maybe they are?

It's the same thing.

It's fighting against the stupid view that two lumps under your flesh are somehow evil and must be hidden away or punished somehow (but only if you're a woman), or that touching your crotch on television is an arrestable offence, or any other thing in that long list of stupidity.

It's about having rights over your own body, such that you can say "You don't like what you see? Well too bad, because it's my body and my right and you can't do a damn thing about it, nor do I have any obligation to explain myself."

It's primarily women who fight this battle because the rules are tilted far more against them. Most men can't even see the problem.

Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?

> Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?

I’m curious if you are suggesting that is perfectly acceptable that, in a society that prohibits topless women from walking around, it would be perfectly acceptable for a man to implant breasts on himself and then walk around topless.

That's what Facebook enforces, yes. "Male" chests are fine, "Female" chests are not.

> Is it the same fight? Is explicitly pushing boundaries because you want to be seen as sexualized and have the right to do so the same as trying to push those boundaries while claiming not to aim for sexualization?

Naomi Wu never claimed not to aim for sexualization. She talks about it pretty frankly. She uses the handle "sexycyborg". She's obviously aiming for sexualization.

Perhaps I’ve misinterpreted other comments that she’s made on the subject. It does feel like a lot of the debate is caused by miscommunication perhaps, or misleading intent.

Sexualization is in the eye of the beholder. In most cases, men. So men can’t keep it in their pants so women have to surgically reduce their breast sizes to accommodate some boundary of sexualization set by men?

You don't believe they're real, right?

She said she had implants. Do you think she can remove them without surgery?

Why she shouldn't have the right to be seen as sexualized if she wants to?

Because sex is bad, and tempting/teasing people is bad? - as some certain cultures say (but hardly bat an eye with portrayals of "fun" violence or tons of other issues).

She completely has that right. I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized.

I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.

>I think a lot of the controversy is an appearance of being disingenuous by claiming that she’s not trying to be sexualized

What if she's like that anyway, and thus doesn't have to "try" and is correct in saying that?

Some women dress like that just fine on their own, enjoy enhacement surgery for certain parts and so on, and they don't have to do it for some audience...

This is not about the body, this is more about the choices. For example if you’re going to wear practically a thong in a bunch of videos unrelated to something sexualized, and then claim you are not trying to make it sexualized, a lot of people will think that’s being disingenuous. Doesn’t even matter what the actual body type is, it’s a question of what people consider to be appropriate in relationship to what someone says they mean by their dress.

They can certainly do that, but then they need to be aware of how it appears. It’s all well and good to imagine a society where you never have to care what people think, but unfortunately neither men nor women live in that kind of society. People will draw conclusions from how you present yourself.

I remember getting a book on spirituality whose author is an attractive young woman. She had rather suggestive photos of herself throughout the book and the book's content had nothing to do with the photos (and it was wasting space, the book would have been a few pages shorter without the photos). The book itself was pretty good, but it was really annoying to see her photos everywhere. There is not one reason for suggestive photos and yet here we are.

This to me, is disingenuous. If I am attending a math lecture, I do not want to see my professor's abs (or balls or whatever) even if he was the most attractive man on the planet.

The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc). It can be a completely fun and educative channel, instead there is more discussion about her clothes than the good stuff she makes and the good education she provides. All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized. All this unnecessary controversy can probably be shut down if she had two channels - one for fashion and one for electronics.

Having said all that, maybe we should grow up as a society and learn to not put so much thought into body parts. I get that viewpoint too.

>The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc).

So? Why should people be compartmentalized, and not be allowed to feel and look sexy whne doing tech stuff?

That's the puritan dichotomy, where the body/sexual is bad, and should be kept inside marriage and procreation, or -as adjusted in more permitting puritans- to specially allocated sexy-time.

And, that said, the premise that her channel has nothing to do this is wrong.

Her intention is not to show how some technical stuff. It also isn't to show that women in general can too do some technical stuff.

It's to show how a sexy, sensual woman, a category often dismissed as bimbos, can also do technical stuff. And that technical stuff can be part of a fun and sexy thing, not just something that's relegated to bookish somber asexuality.

I mean, it's even in the channel's name...

>All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized.

She's not "trying", that's who she is.

Her appearance is part of her (sexual) identity: https://twitter.com/realsexycyborg/status/139660540781712998...

Of course, she could hide it, but she just doesn't want to.

Wow, that thread. Sexual identities have become very complicated.

I suspect they always were. Society just had an easier time pretending that they were not.

Ok, thats fine if she wants to do that type of content (if you don't like the words "sexual content" then make up a new word, because that's not the point).

But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright.

Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.

Except advertisers can’t make a choice to advertise on her channel through YouTube so this comparison misses the point.

It seems to me Youtube could solve the problem by providing advertisers fine-grained controls.

I remember an earlier discussion on HN about Youtube demonetizing other content - videos about guns, I think. My thought then and now is that there are many advertisers on Youtube who would like their ad to run on "ForgottenWeapons shoots a pre-WWII anti-tank rifle" and many (probably not with a lot of overlap) who would like to advertise on "SexyCyborg builds a sexy mannequin". Large, conservative brands probably wouldn't, but Youtube is leaving money on the table if it caters exclusively to those.

>Ok, thats fine if she wants to do sexual content.

You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?

A lot of people think that looking at flickering colorful lights on a planar surface can be sexually arousing. There are so many fetishes... ;)

However I do think that western culture is a bit on the prude side and has a strange double standard regarding nude or partially nude bodies depending on gender or its features. Sexualizing one type, while normalizing another.

Not Western culture. Anglophone culture. Vast swathes of European cultures are quite happy with nudity; I remember nude sunbathing in Amsterdam in the summer being very common and not at all sexual. Denmark recently found fame for Dillermand, literally translating as "willy man", an animated children's show about a man with a prehensile stripey penis (1). He gets into trouble using it inappropriately -- for example by putting petrol on a barbecue with it. Owch.

I'd much rather children grow up knowing what the other gender looks like naked with that knowledge being delivered in some environment other than PornHub. It's insane -- I literally only knew about the female form from reading medical textbooks as a child and had never seen a naked woman until I was 19. Many women have no idea what their own anatomy is, because cultures have such a taboo about it. Yet on American cultural exports, love, breasts or bodies get an 18+ rating and explosions, shooting and murder get a prime-time action TV slot. I don't get it.

Everyone's naked under their clothes.

(1): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/06/john-dillerman...

The point here, is what the advertisers want to spend their money on.

Use whatever euphemism or descriptive word you want. The point here, is that advertisers do not want to be associated with whatever it is you want you call it.

Yes, and for this, the content need to be triaged. Here the content is rated as containing depiction/drawings of nudity, and this is just a fact, advertisers are then free to buy or not.

Seems like he is not the only one: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-excess/201311/lov...

You'll have to ask the advertisers what they think on that.

Call it whatever you want, or use whatever euphemism. But at the end of the day, whatever word you use, the advertisers likely don't want to be associated with it.

Depends on what is painted on the cardboard.

They didn't block the content, they looked at it and classified the video (for advertisers) as containing depictions of adult nudity, which is technically correct.

Thank you, but this isn't for her; she doesn't need my help. This is for everyone else.