An interesting addition to your proposed study would be this: in addition to other people, how often does the person covered push their appearance. This was my main objection to this lady, when you go to her web page, her modeling and vanity shots are predominant, e.g. this is how she chooses to represent herself. She may be thinking that this would be advantageous in a male dominated profession.
Heh, I didn't check out her site. It sounds obnoxious. (And I see from your other HN comments, we share a distaste for another cheeseball who flaunts his/her appearance, w/multiple "in action" shots all over his/her website, who I won't give further attention by typing his/her name :D).
But I'm simply objecting to you using the word discrimination, and suggesting an average looking guy would not get this piece written. I even covered the "citation please" angle (not that you said that, but so many people on HN abuse that construct as a way to discredit pretty reasonable ideas, without having to provide a citation themselves.)
I'll take your word that she's pushing her appearance, just not that it's responsible for her coverage.
And my "proposed study" tone was maybe too snarky, I apologize. (I try to avoid that), I just had to give you a hard time about using "discrimination" and "average looking guys" in the same posit. Are we on the same site, seeing the same stories that make the front page?! (Said in friendly tone, poking as much as fun at myself for reading, as HN for posting 99% of its content about/by average looking guys, usually comparing Android + iPhone.)
Comments
An interesting addition to your proposed study would be this: in addition to other people, how often does the person covered push their appearance. This was my main objection to this lady, when you go to her web page, her modeling and vanity shots are predominant, e.g. this is how she chooses to represent herself. She may be thinking that this would be advantageous in a male dominated profession.
Heh, I didn't check out her site. It sounds obnoxious. (And I see from your other HN comments, we share a distaste for another cheeseball who flaunts his/her appearance, w/multiple "in action" shots all over his/her website, who I won't give further attention by typing his/her name :D).
But I'm simply objecting to you using the word discrimination, and suggesting an average looking guy would not get this piece written. I even covered the "citation please" angle (not that you said that, but so many people on HN abuse that construct as a way to discredit pretty reasonable ideas, without having to provide a citation themselves.)
I'll take your word that she's pushing her appearance, just not that it's responsible for her coverage.
And my "proposed study" tone was maybe too snarky, I apologize. (I try to avoid that), I just had to give you a hard time about using "discrimination" and "average looking guys" in the same posit. Are we on the same site, seeing the same stories that make the front page?! (Said in friendly tone, poking as much as fun at myself for reading, as HN for posting 99% of its content about/by average looking guys, usually comparing Android + iPhone.)
I agree with you, "discrimination" was perhaps too strong, a subliminal preferance, perhaps?
BTW, this is by far the best/nicest response I got to one of my comments.