U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-10-2012, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,662 posts, read 76,372,549 times
Reputation: 36232

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post




If that's what you use to justify posting links to pictures of teenagers and commenting on their attractiveness then go with it. Mate selection in nature is certainly relevant to evolutionary biology. Posting pictures and links to pictures of attractive women has about as much to do with a intellectual discussion of mate selection as posting pictures of topless women has to do with a discussion of infant nutrition.
I did nothing of the sort that would warrant your accusation. I only posted a link to a legitimate website for teen-aged girls in which an article likened a science prize winner to another beautiful and fashionable young woman. Which happened to be relevant to the topic already in progress, that associated female beauty with scientific-mindedness. I also observed that the other two science prize winners also met the test of attractiveness, irrespective of their age, and one doesn't need to be a pedophile to observe that. Attractive girls under 18 appear all over the place, including modeling in the WalMart flyers in the Sunday supplements, and nobody accuses the ad agencies of pedophilia for making marketing judgments regarding the attractiveness of teen-aged models. In fact, if I were an ad agency account exec, I would have probably considered signing Shree Bose to an endorsement contract for teenage fashions, and even marketing a product line bearing her name. It's how the world works in 2012, whether you like it or not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-10-2012, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,829 posts, read 4,944,987 times
Reputation: 4879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
First of all let me thank jtur88 for explaining and defending my apparently not so humorous rhetorical answer.

I have to disagree that this is comparable to football. Football is mainly appealing to men and football players are not ranked by men based on their attractiveness, but by their playing abilities. Whereas with science, which is also mainly appealing to men, the few women who are interested in science will be ranked by men not based solely on their scientific abilities, but their attractiveness. Now, if you had a bunch of female football fans, they would rank male football players based on attractiveness more than ability.

While it is true that even ugly women can be impregnated, this does not disprove the fact that men are more eager to impregnate attractive women than unattractive women. Thus, scientifically, a male geek would be more inclined to be attractive to attractive female scientists and post pictures of them on a website where he knows other male geeks would appreciate them. And that my friends is worthy of a Noble Prize.
I guess you don't see why actual women scientists don't like that they're almost immediately judged on their attractiveness? It's disheartening that this has been such a difficult concept to relate. Post pictures of all the attractive female scientists you want, just don't try to call it science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 03:46 PM
 
28,673 posts, read 41,214,087 times
Reputation: 37417
Has anyone seen that feather? It was here just a moment ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,829 posts, read 4,944,987 times
Reputation: 4879
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I did nothing of the sort that would warrant your accusation. I only posted a link to a legitimate website for teen-aged girls in which an article likened a science prize winner to another beautiful and fashionable young woman. Which happened to be relevant to the topic already in progress, that associated female beauty with scientific-mindedness. I also observed that the other two science prize winners also met the test of attractiveness, irrespective of their age, and one doesn't need to be a pedophile to observe that. Attractive girls under 18 appear all over the place, including modeling in the WalMart flyers in the Sunday supplements, and nobody accuses the ad agencies of pedophilia for making marketing judgments regarding the attractiveness of teen-aged models. In fact, if I were an ad agency account exec, I would have probably considered signing Shree Bose to an endorsement contract for teenage fashions, and even marketing a product line bearing her name. It's how the world works in 2012, whether you like it or not.
It's sad enough that teenage girls judge each other and themselves based on how attractive they are. The link was fine and your intentions were likely noble--it's just a shame that this is how young women are judged. I'm sure for every attractive 17 year old aspiring scientist there are half a dozen incredibly awkward ones. And when they see pretty female scientists being lauded for being pretty its sad.

And yes, I understand that's the way the world is, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't say anything about it. You like science and you like pretty women and I have absolutely no problem with that, only the idea that posting pictures or links to pictures of pretty women scientists has anything at all to do with science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 04:21 PM
 
28,673 posts, read 41,214,087 times
Reputation: 37417
It has to do with science because they're scientists. Does the obvious always elude you or are you being intentionally obtuse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 06:10 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,662 posts, read 76,372,549 times
Reputation: 36232
OK, lets go back to my idea that an ad exec could market a Shree Bose line of teen girl gear. Let's take it a step further, and say that a percentage of the profits would be dedicated to Shree and her nomination of a team of scientists doing cancer research, which is the area in which her project was awarded the prize, and it goes viral. And then there is a significant breakthrough in cancer research, made possible by the fact that the general public responded more favorably to a pretty scientist, because she was pretty. (Actually, I love the idea, and if I were in a position to make it happen, I'd be running full speed ahead with it.)

Maybe, in a similar fashion, Hedy Lamarr's beauty-driven high profile visibility might have opened some doors for her to get her scientific ideas looked at by serious people. Which might not have happened if she was a cleaning lady who looked like Marjorie Main. Is any of this starting to work its way through your line of thinking yet?

Last edited by jtur88; 09-10-2012 at 06:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,829 posts, read 4,944,987 times
Reputation: 4879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tek_Freek View Post
It has to do with science because they're scientists. Does the obvious always elude you or are you being intentionally obtuse?
No need to get snippy. Talking about scientists isn't related to science. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 06:59 PM
 
Location: Westwood, MA
3,829 posts, read 4,944,987 times
Reputation: 4879
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
OK, lets go back to my idea that an ad exec could market a Shree Bose line of teen girl gear. Let's take it a step further, and say that a percentage of the profits would be dedicated to Shree and her nomination of a team of scientists doing cancer research, which is the area in which her project was awarded the prize, and it goes viral. And then there is a significant breakthrough in cancer research, made possible by the fact that the general public responded more favorably to a pretty scientist, because she was pretty. (Actually, I love the idea, and if I were in a position to make it happen, I'd be running full speed ahead with it.)

Maybe, in a similar fashion, Hedy Lamarr's beauty-driven high profile visibility might have opened some doors for her to get her scientific ideas looked at by serious people. Which might not have happened if she was a cleaning lady who looked like Marjorie Main. Is any of this starting to work its way through your line of thinking yet?
I think understand your point and mostly agree with what you're saying. I do think it's a stretch to argue the goodness of something from the good things that can from it, as you do above, as such an argument could be made for just about anything. I think you're just taking a pragmatic view while I'm taking an idealistic one. Life and everything is easier for pretty people, especially for women, and that's just the way things are so I should probably just deal with it. And in real life that's what I mostly do, but here there's not much cost to speaking up and saying that while that may be the way things are, it's not the way they should be.

Or maybe I'm just upset because I thought we were further along as a society than we are. I see progress coming in two waves. In the first wave the lesson is that being a woman good at science doesn't mean being unattractive to men. We can promote women in science by showing girls examples of women who are both intelligent and beautiful, of which there are clearly numerous examples, and more girls will enter science without fear of repulsing men. In the second wave, we remove this idea that being attractive to men should be a driving factor in how women choose to live their lives and it should not be the way that we judge a woman's worth (in science or in other endeavors, such as politics).

And yes, I know that women (and men) will always be measured on physical attractiveness when it comes to selecting a mate. And in that arena, it makes perfect sense. I didn't think was a dating or relationship forum, though, so I thought discussion of the physical attributes of scientists seemed inappropriate. Everyone else seems to think that it is, though, so note my objection and carry on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 07:06 PM
 
28,673 posts, read 41,214,087 times
Reputation: 37417
I'm still searching for that feather. Anybody pulled it out yet?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2012, 09:28 PM
 
15,922 posts, read 17,873,614 times
Reputation: 7647
Quote:
Originally Posted by jayrandom View Post
No need to get snippy. Talking about scientists isn't related to science. Ceci n'est pas une pipe.
Please read the TOS, it specifies posts are to be in English only.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top