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.
>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.
I was considering posting a comment along the lines of this. I decided not to, because I am somewhat terrified of discussing these topics in public, even behind the anonymity of an HN handle. There needs to be a way to talk about these things without people demonizing you for having a discussion. No, sexuality may not have anything to do with 'legitimacy', but I would think the same thing that the quoted parents said (re: the sexy male engineer). Why is that? I'm not sure. Certainly, you have the right to portray yourself in any light you see fit. But since engineering skill and sexuality have nothing to do with eachother, as we all agree afaict, then I don't see how its wrong to be skeptical when the two are presented together.
edit: to clarify, as Bunnie mentioned in his post, its often both more comfortable and completely appropriate to sit half-naked at your desk coding. But the next time Bunnie turns to social media to talk about something he's done, I don't expect to see a picture of him in his underwear next to the product.
> "I am somewhat terrified of discussing these topics in public, even behind the anonymity of an HN handle"
Thank you for facing your fears.
> "Why is that? I'm not sure. Certainly, you have the right to portray yourself in any light you see fit. But since engineering skill and sexuality have nothing to do with eachother, as we all agree afaict, then I don't see how its wrong to be skeptical when the two are presented together."
Let's be real, attractiveness doesn't hurt YouTube view counts. However, does the fact that not all of those views were motivated by the content being discussed call into question the validity of the content itself? In other words, if someone clicked on a SexyCyborg video because they found her attractive, but ended up enjoying the technical content, was the content effective?
What I'd be cautious of is promoting the idea that dressing a certain way was the only way to get ahead, but as long as people can get ahead based on their own effort, it doesn't seem like much of a problem. Clearly you think differently, and I would be interested in better understanding your point of view.
> "edit: to clarify, as Bunnie mentioned in his post, its often both more comfortable and completely appropriate to sit half-naked at your desk coding. But the next time Bunnie turns to social media to talk about something he's done, I don't expect to see a picture of him in his underwear next to the product."
It would be surprising, sure, but fundamentally I don't see what would be wrong about it.
To give a counter example, there's a high level player in the Street Fighter community called Poongko who's infamous for taking off his shirt whilst playing:
I'm not suggesting that this is an exact mirror for what we're talking about, as the context isn't sexual. The point I'm trying to make is that, even if a behaviour is unusual, it doesn't have to have negative connotations.
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.
If you were researching ideas in DIY tech fashion and wearables - and one blog was full of pics of a generic bay area brodude in a conference schwag tshirt and hoodie telling you how good his fashion ideas were going to look, and the other was Naomi's blog - which of those would you be more wary of?
There's a quite important reason why Paris and Milan fashion shows don't use middle aged white men like Dougherty to stroll down the runways showcasing this season's ideas.
> 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.
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.