Also apparently a lot of male gamer Youtubers are considered sexy, even though they don't have exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics like giant muscles, and I've never heard of them getting demonetized for it: https://ar.pinterest.com/madelineulatows/logan-paul-sexy/ https://ar.pinterest.com/ktatianalima203/rubius-sexy-3/
*This is a bad joke
One, you think nudity is in bodybuilding. It's not.
Two, you think the context of whatever Naomi is doing requires her to hang her nude bits out. It doesn't, that's her choice. It's also people's choice to not like it.
It has absolutely nothing to do with being sexy. I don't see Naomi as sexy at all as a heterosexual male. She just screams forced and faked. Those aren't sexy to me. They are sexual though.
It's all about being close to nudity for impractical reasons. Context matters and the definition of nudity matters.
Well no, nothing of the kind was occurring in the demonetized videos referenced in my post. I did not have more skin on display than any typical YouTuber might under the circumstances. It was a tank top and a halter top summer dress on a hot summer day in a tropical city. The issue was my shape inside those clothes- not the clothes themselves. That's what was interesting, YouTube's response to demonetizing the cardboard dress form made it clear my physical shape was the problem- not the degree of coverage or activity.
Even if you don't have the skills, it generally shouldn't matter what clothes you wear.
Like don't strap knives to your arms, and do wear a good mask, but generally we spend a lot of time policing other folk's bodies and attire, and for what?
Some signals are loud and drown out more complex ones. "Sex sells." The more those types of signals are tolerated or incentivized on a platform, the further it will be dominated by noise masking covert signals.
I once attended a round table discussion in a previous job. The topic was women and work. I'm male, and was a manager, and figured that if half my directs are women I should do what I can to listen and support them.
Anyways, the guest of honor proceeded to advise the 100+ female managers in the room to, among other things, "use their assets" to influence people in the organization. This was met with a stunned but approving clamor.
I felt embarrassed, as if I had accidentally crashed a private sleepover. The person sharing the advice had a proven track record. Why hang onto sexuality signals? Because they work.
This is actually a common meme:
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/fbwnd0/im_...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/ajthjb/thi...
https://www.quora.com/What-do-people-think-good-programmers-...
How developers dress really depends on the company and the culture there. E.g. in Germany in many of the conservative older companies, wearing a suite is mandatory, and esp also in all those consulting companies. Also in many of the privatized companies like Deutsche Post, Deutsche Bahn, etc. But then, in other more modern software companies, people would make fun of that.
The idea that you must adhere to some clothing dress code rules is really against the open-minded principles of software developers.
But if an individual just wear one themselves by choice, it's silly to judge them for that choice. Interviewing is hard, maybe they feel more confident in a suit.
I feel company culture should be less about someone's personal style/clothing/hobbies than if someone, for example, berates and yells at fellow employees who make a mistake or talks calmly through issues without treating others like they are the problem.
There are only specific cultural understandings, each of which almost always map poorly when applied cross culturally.
That’s just untrue and shows a misunderstanding of what conservatism is, which is about small gov and a return to the roots of said gov. While individual beliefs of how this should be achieved will very between the different nations, the general concept is the same.
From the little I understand, it's complex and dynamic and opaque to the point that current scholars and US government entities studying China have difficulty explaining it; I'm not even going to try.
What you wear when you're not trying to convince anyone of anything is your own business, but when you're actually trying to reach someone, maybe it's not asking too much to demonstrate some basic self awareness? If you're not willing to go that far then why should anyone listen to you?
I'd guess it stems from some feelings of insecurity.
So, yes, insecurity but primarily insecurity about losing power and control, by men. That's why we focus so much on what "she" wears but nobody gives two shits if I show up to work in flipflops, board shorts and a tank top. Why would they? I'm a dude.
Feminism has an extremely broad remit and it's all based on the idea that actual ideology routinely boxes in half of the population in some way or another. It's just a fact, and thus there is endless study that can be undertaken.
Men get made fun of for what they wear all the time. So, I don’t get this argument that no one cares what men wear because we all certainly do. See mens wardrobe options vs womens. Compare the two - look at what is normal for one and normal for another. You’ll see one has far more selection than the other.
I think another aspect is that men's fashion is inherently more limited - because - men are aware of the critiques and don't want to deal with it.
Interestingly enough, this probably applies to the people who were dismissing Obama on the basis of that tan suit as well.
It doesn't look like the stereotype of conformity from our parent's generation, so people don't acknowledge it for what it is. Or think that conflict between subcultures with a handful of mutually exclusive standards for conforming somehow nulls it out.
Has this ever been substantiated or verified publicly? Which industry are those and why?
But we do know that many companies do feel that way, which is why many companies try to create a "family friendly" image. And as Google has said themselves, why many don't want to be associated with "non family friendly" images
Well, I'd say it's a bit more than "almost nobody" [1], even if you discount trialers.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/social_issues-july-dec13...
Advertising itself is that. Sex sells, or at least everyone believes sex sells.
Signal put the warning in, of course, after she got enough white men to repeat her request. Until the right people reported the problem, the only response she got was Moxie blocking her and dismissing the issue. I don’t see how that isn’t an operational vulnerability a mile wide for Signal: security problems go ignored if people from the wrong demographic report them.
Her "skimpy outfits" are part of lesbian culture. One of the lesbian archetypes she enjoys being a part of entails her clothing choices and physique. I don't think that's any different than other cultures. Her content was never branded for children anyway, I don't understand what the issue Youtube has.
The crazy shit she's had said to her on social media makes me gobsmacked over and over again. You always hear people say they get these sorts of comments but she seems to get them a lot more, and a lot worse. It's really heartbreaking.
I've learned a lot from her, enjoy her videos, and yeah. This is just another example of how broken Youtube and Google are.
That's fucked up. Why would someone accuse anyone of being a fake, just because they didn't look a certain way? Detestable.
I respect her a ton for doing what she's doing, and if I remember correctly, she had to install a very elaborate and advanced security system at her home to feel safe.
Sad.
They made huge contributions to their Maker movement and gave me $9 Pro Micros, and I’m thankful of it, but I won’t forget that they always are like that.
I was once told in an interview for a statistician role that the questions were designed for male candidates and I shouldn't worry if I struggle with them. And this was a big FTSE 100 company.
So I would show up to job interviews in a basic black suit, and I liked the way I felt when I wore it. The old-school attitude about "Dress for Success" is just one more thing that's become retro and ironic these days.
From a European standpoint, the simpler explanation (in this particular case) is that the US tech scene is incredibly, fascinatingly prude. It feels like even HN users would rather post their DNA and a list of illegal drugs that helped them pass an exam before they'd talk about their sex lives, for better or for worse.
Also, though, it isn't really practical for her to get her breast implants removed just because woke "feminists" at Google and NPR are uncomfortable with the sexualization of women's bodies.
Despite a lot of popular youtubers giving off the vibe of being one-person shows, most employ production assistants and editors.
Besides, (old) Top Gear was one of the most beloved shows of all time, which constantly featured segments where the Clarkson-Hammond-May trio was implied to make various contraptions, which were clearly made by the production staff. Not once did I feel like that it detracted from the enjoyment.
So as long she puts out high quality content, no one should mind that what she does is 'movie magic' in part.
Hmm, visiting Tokyo (which is even better than watching videos) didn't make me change my opinions about high-density housing. Quite the opposite, in fact.
>so what? that's most of Instagram.
I don't like watching the same physical appearances on places where they belong like TV, Movies or Instagram.... so no that's not "normal". If you merge making erotic cakes and cake baking on YouTube, expect a lot of cake baking lovers to not want to watch. It's just logic.
It just feels forced and is an ugly stain on otherwise awesome videos. But I understand that others might enjoy it.
Reminds me of the guy uploading math videos to a porn site, technically we should rate his work based on the math problem solving and teaching skills but you would be a fool to not recognise the problem of it being only reachable by being on a porn site.
Perhaps there is a good balance that we can reach?
Should she be condemned for that? I don't think so. But the engineering feats alone will never be the focus as a consequence.
Another aspect as well is homogenising around the social mores of America by default which particularly in the aspects of sex and sexuality are deeply troubled.
Of course we do! I'm not into football, but several of my friends who are dislike him explicitly because of this.
Everyone knows sex sells, but some people (not only men) get upset when they see people promoting themselves with their own sexuality, especially when it's in an unrelated field.
I think Naomi is great, but I can see why some people get upset by the way she presents. I wonder how less attractive maker women feel about her, for example?
The question still stands to some extent though I think. Using 'sex' to sell yourself is accepted in music, film, fashion and so on, but perhaps not in technical fields, and, actually, as I think about it more, I'm starting to agree a little bit.
The reality is that anyone can be really smart and make “serious” contributions and they deserve to be taken seriously regardless of how they choose to dress or present themselves. We have chosen a certain definition of normality and we can choose to expand that to be more inclusive.
From what I’ve read about Naomi, she is interested in both the engineering and the social justice aspects of her work. She deserves to be taken seriously and not dismissed simply because of the way she looks.
(... And nobody should, his videos are great. Seriously if you haven't seen his stuff go check it out. But there's an obvious double standard if he's in and Wu is out).
I'm a white male, so it's relatively easy to convince people to take me seriously. That isn't a great situation, but noone expects me to downplay that to make things more fair.
She has a harder time being taken seriously (as evidenced by the MAKE story), but she's attractive which makes her videos more interesting. I don't think you can blame her for using advantages.
From what I've seen of her, she does seem to enjoy being dressed nicely, so I don't think she's only doing it to get views.
/s for anyone wondering, I can only hope someone is still using some dumb Lycos e-mail today.
Considering something like body dysmorphia (as an example) might help give someone benefit of doubt. I'm not going to pretend to understand exactly why someone feels that way.
Yes, it is something like that. But it's bullshit for me to dance around it and expect some sort of grace. I will say something.
There's a line between "never be the focus" and "we will erase you". This sort of thing is constant- but I'll give you a recent example-
NPR recently ran this story: https://www.npr.org/2021/10/25/1047691984/decades-after-poli...
About an American lady who needed some parts for her iron lung and how no one would help her. Only the thing is, they knew I already had: https://youtu.be/4VKZTmTP7oY
I'd fabricated the collars in Shenzhen, mailed the first batch, revised them and needed someone on the US side to to the final fitting. Martha told them this, a quick search told them this, hundreds of people told them this- did NPR revise the story to correct the omission of "oh by the way this problem we were talking about was solved by this female engineer". No of course not. I mean, it's NPR, you think they are going to get smut on their fingers writing about someone who looks like me? Never going to happen.
Then the Razer mask story, I was central to it and some outlets gave me credit: https://www.pcgamer.com/razer-rows-back-after-zephyr-face-ma...
Others like the Verge flatly refused to mention my involvement- even jumping through some pretty crazy hoops to avoid it: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/10/22876303/razer-zephyr-mas...
Again, hundreds of people called them out. But they did the math and decided that the stigma of mentioning someone who looked like me was worse.
That's just the last few months- this has been a constant for years. I fully Open Sourced the best selling 3D printer on the planet, have the first five Open Source Hardware Association certifications granted in China- which people said would never happen, have brought multiple Chinese companies into GPL compliance, I'm the only women to have brought a 3D printer to mass-market- a game changing design for small scale manufacturing- the list is long, but somehow, none of it is "appropriate" to cover- just because of how I look.
We're well beyond- "does my appearance detract from my work". Of course it does. We're at "does my appearance justify not just complete erasure of my work but constant attempts to deplatform and defund me" I don't think it does.
I hope you don’t get worn down by the bullshit, we need more people like you in the world.
Some people in the comments here have noted, that wearing anything that is more revealing than people are used to, might be seen as "fighting for the right to display yourself in whatever way you want" for women in general and see it as a positive thing. Whether that is interpreting too much into the action, I cannot say. On the other hand there are other people, who interpret it as means to attract more viewers, and does not add to the technical content.
So there are at least 2 contrary interpretations. Perhaps it could be named "polarizing". I would not say that this is "your fault" in any way. It is simply the state of our society currently and how we are being socialized. It can be improved. The human body is in itself nothing criminal. It is our interpretations of expression, that gives meaning. There will always be critics, who see it one way or another.
I did not know your channel before. I congratulate you for making some GPL happen. Good job on that! One thing I personally would value is, if you put emphasis on free (libre) software, when doing GPL and not name it merely open source. I think your content is interesting. I also like to see how it looks in Shenzhen, besides the technical aspects of the channel.
It’s not you, it’s not the advertisers, it’s them. It’s not fair play. The fair play aspect is particularly infuriating. So what if it’s their platform - just because they can set the standards as they please doesn’t make it right.
YouTube is a US corporation, and this action is un-American.
You think your successes would have been harder to achieve if you didn't advertise with sex appeal? You don't need to justify yourself for anything but you still sound like you feel the need to do so.
I don't even know their exact angle to be honest, they probably don't want to make the impression that sex appeal is a necessity for success in tech. But that is speculation. I understand the want to keep it "clean" but I hope you can appeal the demonetization.
Oh, not at all. It's a gender expression issue, some dysphoria problems, I will try to go into once I muster up the courage. I'm cis but have an...odd backstory. It's definitely counter productive to success in tech after a certain point.
>they probably don't want to make the impression that sex appeal is a necessity for success in tech.
It could be, but at the same time, many young women like being flamboyant, most unlike me outgrow it, but few 17 year olds aspire to the pant-suit. A passable IG "thot" doing tech isn't necessarily the bad influence people think it is. I think a healthy balance of role models will attract a healthy balance of candidates. I think saying "you have to be gender conforming within this narrow spectrum or look like this" is an absolute nightmare for, well basically everyone- men included.
I believe this too, although the currency on social media might be different. In a work environment many actually do it as a courtesy to people that do not sexualize themselves. There is an attention economy in the workplace too. Looks do give you a bonus in many cases until you leverage it. Then it is suddenly the worst sin. A bit hypocritical perhaps, but it might level the playing field a bit and it lets people keep focus.
There are probably few people that honestly condemn you if you forget your pants when coming into work, but it is still generally expected that you at least try to put them on. Not sure if there are any barriers yet to be broken down.
> A passable IG "thot" doing tech isn't necessarily the bad influence people think it is
I generally agree, although I would lie that I would not be disappointed if people rely on whatever "thots" do. Perhaps I am too conservative, but Instagram is a great argument for catholic girls boarding schools, even if everyone know they are the worst. I think there is a difference if you get recognition for your looks or for your skills and mixing can lead to trouble.
> aspire to the pant-suit
It changed a bit in recent years, but often it is pretty relaxed. I regard it as a boon that you often can immediately separate the engineer from the salesman. But the former has the choice at least.
Guess what - some people will judge, or even attack, just because she was a woman. Another example is Australia's political climate the past two days.
Naomi is a cool person, and she should be celebrated for doing cool things regardless of how she looks.
This is actually a common apologetic in defense of Burqas and similar objects of "modesty" for women.
The best explanation I've seen - and possibly the most important video on youtube - is "This Is Phil Fish"[1] by Innuendo Studios. It's not really about Phil Fish; it's about everyone who isn't Phil Fish acted when they decided he became "famous". In the past, being "on tv" or "in a band" or other traditional examples of fame required some amount of buying into fame. Becoming famous required media access that was controlled by gatekeepers. You had to work with those gatekeepers if you wanted to be "on tv" or whatever, and because you had to choose to participate, people often see the decision to become famous as also accepting some amount of responsibility to "act like famous people are supposed to act".
This internet fundamentally changed the mechanics of fame, because the internet IS media access. Now it is possible to become famous - to become a "celebrity" with a "responsibility" to act in a certain way - simply by being yourself in your normal everyday life.
That must be how I learned mine!
What kind of point is that really? Do you think they teach English especially well for CCP members or what? Or is it more along the lines that an attractive foreign female shouldn't be able to speak English well?
One of the useful things she's done is to put up lots of videos of her running around Shenzhen. There aren't enough ground-level videos of the working parts of Chinese cities. There's extensive coverage of Tokyo, by comparison. It's interesting to see the high-density housing blocks and street-level activity. (The "let's increase housing density" crowd from Strong Towns should watch those videos.) People who've met her report that she knows Shenzhen very well, down to the back alley level, where some unmarked door leads to an important factory. She's toured the electronics markets of Huaqiangbei. (I miss the days when Silicon Valley had electronics parts stores.)
She's done some nice technical work. Her main thing is 3D printing, and she came up with the first angled 3D printer that worked reliably. The print head moves in a plane 45 degrees from vertical, and the base surface is a belt, which advances the workpiece one layer at a time. So it can produce objects continuously, or very long objects if you add support rollers. Others had made prototypes of such machines, but the properties of the belt and print head are touchy to make that work right. She got it all working, and it's now a product, with her picture on the box.
At various times she's pushed on GPL compliance, mask quality, and other issues of interest to the tech community.
She wears skimpy outfits sometimes. So what? That's most of Instagram. Unlike most Instagrammers, Wu has something original to say. Sometimes with a biting wit. I gather that it's more biting in Cantonese.