It's really quite ridiculous, because if you watch some of her videos where she's doing a build, it's obvious she's doing all the cutting, soldering, drilling, etc
But more then that, if you watch videos where she is being interviewed talking about being a Maker (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcnChnrHwXg) she talks just like a real hacker. She uses the exact terminology and process you'd expect, knowing you're not an expert in something, but just scraping a whole bunch of different other projects that other people contributed and made tutorials on, and tweaking them and combining them to make it your own.
It's like this CEO didn't spend even 10 minutes watching her videos and just decided to believe a conspiracy theory.
The problem I have with this woman is that she actually demeans women. There is no way I would have my little girl watch her videos as a role model. The entire thing is plain stupid.
I would have exactly the same reaction if we were talking about a guy going around town in tight fitting speedo's doing technology projects and interviews. Ridiculous. Stupid. Demeaning.
I suspect that because she is a woman I am not allowed to object to her walking around nearly naked, nipples showing through nearly see-through clothing, nearly all of her ass out there to behold, etc. I, personally, find it disgusting and as far from role model behavior as one can get. I am not a prude by any measure.
She does nothing for women other than to propose that to be accepted in technology you have to walk around showing your tits and ass in a ridiculous outfit that paints you as a sex toy and, yes, know your shit too. I find that repugnant. Just as I would for a man who might behave behaving similarly.
Raise your hand if this is what you want to teach your little girls. Exactly.
She's not supposed to be a role model for you to show to your little girl, or took aesthetically comfortable for you, or to be an example of how women should or not be accepted in technology.
She is not yours - nor even other women's - servant.
Not everyone has to be a role model for your little kid.
I don't want my kid to hear people swearing, but I'm not going to slander Linus Torvalds for doing so. I'm not stupid enough to believe that just because someone is crass they can't possibly be a good maker/developer/engineer/etc.
The part you guys are missing in my comment is that I said this is the problem "I" have with this woman.
I am not trying to pass judgement for all of humanity here. If you are OK watching videos of a nearly naked woman playing with tech and think that's great for women and humanity, so be it. I happen to thing it's disgusting.
All I can speak for is myself. I see this person as a clown who demeans every single female engineer I have every worked with or hired. She might as well be doing soft porn videos and make more money, she ain't too far from that.
Because of that I can't respect what she is doing.
Do we really want to portray women in tech this way? Really?
At one end of the spectrum people are up in arms about politicians objectifying women (and worst) and meanwhile, on the tech side of things we are OK with a woman walking around with tits and ass hanging out there?
Is the tech community OK with women being portrayed this way? I am not. Definitely not. If you defend her you are defending the objectification of women. Which is shameful.
I look at it this way. I wouldn't recommend it, because society still discriminates against you based on how you look and dress. I mean, if you show up at a job interview with 98% of your body tattooed you're also going to face bias.
Conformity in a way increases opportunity. On the other hand, she's a transhumanist, so she probably believes all of these rules and customs are pretty primitive and totally changeable. I mean, who says you ever have to wear clothes if you're in a warm climate? Who says our genitals shouldn't be seen? These are all developed customs and specific to each society. She's deliberately breaking the mold and refusing to be shamed.
I'm ok with people portraying themselves however they want to portray themselves. I can make a rational argument for "playing it safe" and being conservative, then again, when you're 70 years old and lived a life of conformity, maybe you'll regret you didn't live life openly and flamboyantly like she does.
Why would anyone question that she is a real person? If you like her content, watch it. If you don't, leave. What's wrong with being an anonymous creator?
Because she doesn't fit your stereotype of what a maker looks like, and that challenge to your preconceptions can either be accepted or rejected. Some percentage of people will reject the challenge, and come to the conclusion that this person is not who they claim to be.
In short: sexism.
For further reading, see criticism of the "fake geek girl" meme.
I remember reading a study that posited low status men tended toward misogyny when they felt threatened by the skill of women they were competing against, and this was the first thing that came to mind as I was reading over this whole saga.
Most of the comments here reference the fact that her skill is self evident. He could easily have felt threatened by her technical skill, and the fact he couldn’t plainly see it as other commenters did adds credence to his own deficit of technical ability.
The fact that he maintained a sustained slander campaign when he ostensibly had other priorities implies he felt that ‘exposing’ her became important to him, again a trait of insecure, low status individuals.
Or so you would think, but as I recall her biggest detractors were SJWs complaining about how much skin she was showing. The whole idea of her being just a facade for some male engineer was driven by the feminist notion of "male gaze". By contrast, the "misogynistic nerd" crowd (Gamergaters and the like) were quite supportive of her.
I'm skeptical. All the high level summaries imply that most of the pre-Dougherty "fake" theories came from anonymous redditors. How do you know that was the "SJW" set?
It's a made up term. Titles are suppose to be specific. I made a nice dinner yesterday myself. Guess I'm a maker too(no recipe used,original as well!)
Since they are using "maker" to describe persons that are engineering electronics related work,why not just call themselves "electronics engineer"?
Edit: seems I stepped on toes with my comment,I don't know how else to react to a term like "maker". Could have been less sarcastic but I'll eat up the downvotes and maintain what small amount of common sense I have.
I think "maker"/DIY go hand in hand - and are probably most useful as umbrella terms for people who genuinely enjoy tinkering and enjoy experiencing learning and experimenting with new physical skills.
So, yeah, "DIY dinner" does sound a bit silly. But, as someone who has done amateur shoe modification - I would never call myself a cobbler. A maker? Sure.
I sympathize a bit with your criticism of the term, because I've thought long and hard about whether or not some new terminology is coined or supported by men when they get into a hobby which is traditionally practiced by women.
eg, "crafting" is a well established word, but seems avoided by men, and DIY is an easy substitute, eg "DIY foam halloween costume"
I first noticed this when I got a sewing machine, and started to frequent DIY camping gear/hammock forums. There's an obnoxious habit around those parts to not even call a sewing machine a sewing machine - it's a "thread injector." It drives me up the wall, it seems so blatantly sexist.
When you describe what you do with a term (made up or not),that term should at the very least give your audience some idea of what you do.
Everyone is a maker. The point of a language is to communicate information,not to obscure it. Would it be a proper use of language if a programmer called himself a "writer"? After all he is writing. "programmer" or "software developer" is used to distinguish what type of writing he/she works with for a living.
Sorry if that offended you,but from my perspective,it just does not communicate the nature of their work efficiently.
"Maker" refers to an entire tinkering movement. The projects are often electronics-related, but not always. And in any case, a "maker" generally isn't performing "engineering" in anything but the loosest sense (kind of like the criticism of most "software engineers" not performing "engineering").
> Would it be a proper use of language if a programmer called himself a "writer"?
No, because that would be confusing; no one uses "writer" in that way without extra explanation. In contrast, "maker" is used to describe a tinkerer who builds designs and/or builds projects, often reusing ideas from other makers. It's "proper use of language" not because it makes sense, but because that's how people use it.
One of the things about "maker" is that in many ways it's a social descriptor - it almost means "someone who might read Make magazine". After all, it covers a huge variety of things. Someone who's into amateur electronics but is not a radio ham. Someone who dabbles in programming, does a bit of soldering, stitching, 3D printing, carpentry etc. Not someone who specialises in a particular craft. Also not an "artist" as traditionally construed (artist is itself a social descriptor), even though many of the pieces made could be considered art.
I'm not sure that "writer," or even "fiction writer," the job title shared by James Joyce and Stan Lee and William S. Burroughs and J.K. Rowling and Dr. Seuss and Toni Morrison and The Coen Brothers, is especially descriptive.
It doesn’t matter that it’s made up. What matters is that the word refers to a category of entities in the real world that it’s useful for us to be able to distinguish and refer to.
That’s a video of her being interviewed near the end she talks about why you can call yourself a maker to the host who feels he is a passive observer even though he has tinkered.
If you go to her channel, watch the build for her LED transparent bikini top for example. That can’t be faked by her husband, she demonstrates skills with the tools that many people on HN don’t even have.
Is she an electrical engineer? No, she’s a tinkerer, but what’s wrong with that?
A beautiful girl decides she wants to tinker, is into transhumanisn and body modification, uses her popularity to encourage other girls and women. Does it even matter if she has help?
I mean the guys on Mystbusters have a production staff too as do many YouTubers have collaborators.
Why do we only doubt Women’s ability or downplay it? Is it not real real because she’s attractive? Because an attractive woman couldn’t possibly be into hacking and making?
What does an engineer “look like”? What does a hacker “look like”?
Naomi already coded ruby under a male pseudonym for this very reason, to avoid gender discrimination.
If you're talking about the disparity in language skills spoken and written, that's not surprising, if you've worked with Chinese people. It's common to meet someone who is hard to understand when speaking but who can write very well indeed. I'm thinking specifically of Chinese fellow students I had in my Masters and my PhD.
I do the same for my reports. And that's simply because I want to deliver the best work possible, even if my customers would most likely be more than happy with the version that I would give them directly. Not having your stuff proofread when it is for public consumption is unprofessional.
I was a researcher, so it wasn important for the team to submit papers with good English in them. Doubly so for double blind submissions, where you want to mask that the paper is coming from china to avoid reviewer bias against chinese papers.
You're right and I remember reading that at some point, but to be honest I wouldn't have looked for an explanation if one was not provided.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am myself a migrant in an English-speaking country (a Greek living in the UK). I know first hand that there is a big difference between having been taught English as a foreign language, and actually using it to speak with native English speakers day-in and day-out.
My first years over here I had real trouble talking to people and making myself understood, or understanding them, although at the same time I was perfectly fine reading English literature and textbooks, participating in lectures and writing university assignments. I believe many foreign students (if not all of them) had the same issue.
There's an assumption that the way you speak a language reflects your general intellectual skills, but when it comes to non-native speakers it's just wrong. People taught a language as a foreign language acquire oral and written literacy skills in a different order and pace than native speakers. For instance- two friends of mine can read and write Japanese, but can't speak or understand it when spoken.
Basically, speech can be much harder than text for foreign speakers. So using the disparity between oral and written skills was already a very shaky piece of "evidence" in the original claim- even before reading Naomi Wu's explanation. It reminded me of classic conspiracy theorists looking at the shadows in pictures of the moon landings.
I wondered about that when I was in college. Had a fellow student who was from China and had pretty poor spoken skills, but I had to write something (I think it was a write-up of a circuit) with him (on an old Mac SE/30) and his written English was amazing. It was such a weird split and not that uncommon or confined to the Chinese as I later found out.
I think it comes down to reading a lot and absorbing that formalism, but not really speaking that way because, well, spoken English is a different bird.
It goes the other way too. I can read and write Chinese far better than I can speak it or listen to it in real time. If I have time to think, I can get grammar mostly correctly but if I have to do it on my feet I make many mistakes with tones and grammar.
I can read Dakotah ok, but I never could speak the language because I cannot really do the guttural without sounding idiotic. Had a boss who learned the language from her uncles, so she was teased by her aunts for "talking like a man". Reading is safer.
How so? That's interesting- how is speaking like a man or a woman different in Dakotah? Is it like in Japanese, where different first-person pronouns are used, or?
(er, not trying to make some political comment on gender roles etc, just genuinely interested to hear from a speaker. I guess I can just google it :)
There are some word differences and tone. I'm pretty poor at the difference since I'm not really a speaker (that whole guttural problem). If you look up Lakota, its basically the same difference since they are pretty close language wise.
On a side note, it is a pain in the butt to search for Dakota as opposed to Lakota on Google because it keeps giving Lakota pages. What a pain.
I think in general it's writing and reading that's easier- possibly because speech is a noisy channel, or maybe because when you're taught a language as a foreign language (at school that is) you get taught from texts and they also teach you a kind of "official" version that's not quite the version spoken by native speakers.
Like I say above, I had a big problem with that in my first couple of years in the UK. I once spent an hour having a conversation with a man from Glasgow. To this day, I have no idea what he was talking about. I didn't understand a word he was saying, so I just nodded along politely. I might have been agreeing to the need for the extermination of all sentient life or that the Earth is flat, for all I know.
I got better at it. I can now understand about 40% of what someone's saying in a Glaswegian accent. I love Scottish accents btw- probably more because I don't understand everything being said.
For reasons I cannot fathom you're reiterating the same type of suspicion that started the whole controversy, and that this apology seeks to address. Then you feel a need to share that unsubstantiated and damaging conspiracy with other people.
The apology include several reasons why this is wrong.
For a Chinese person living in China, her English is very good (compare to the English of the merchants in the same video). There are very few e.g. Americans living in the US with similarly good Chinese.
I've met Chinese people in China with accents that to me said "valley girl", I honestly thought they came from LA.
Far fewer Americans are taught Mandarin, and even fewer from an early enough age that they can master tones easily (I suspect that like Danish vowels you almost need to be born into it)
The tones themselves aren't hard (it's mainly just altering the pitch of the sounds you make in different ways); the pronunciation issues come from actual sounds that English speakers just don't make.
Yes, people who are highly motivated and go through months of intensive language immersion training followed by several years of immersive missionary work in a foreign country – where their full-time job and religious obligation is literally talking to strangers all day long – tend to learn the language quite well. Why would I be surprised about that?
What does that have to do with Wu? Presumably she never went through any similar experience, and her language skills have been largely driven by her own personal desire to communicate with foreigners rather than any structured program or religious duty. (I don’t know much about her, so maybe that’s wrong.)
Wu's major in college was English so it's not unexpected. I work with many Chinese engineers, my wife's Chinese. She spoke pretty good English when she arrived in the US 20 years ago, and her dad, who lived in China most of his life, also speaks good English, but was trained as an engineer.
I think the OP is correct that it is far more likely to find white collar mainland Chinese with a good command of English than it is to find a Westerner with a good command of Mandarin.
The reasons are really simple:
1) English is taught in school from a early age. In US schools, Mandarin usually wasn't an option until very recently, mostly Spanish, French, German, and Japanese were the standard choices.
2) English is the defacto international lingua franca. English speakers can live their whole life and not really have to learn another language to consume most of the world's published information and trade. However, Chinese speakers often need to know English to consume the output of other countries. If you need to need read an AI paper, it's most likely published in English, and unless the original authors were Chinese, they're not likely to have published a good translation.
Given the importance of the Chinese economy, I expect the next generation will change this asymmetry somewhat. Already many schools in California offer Mandarin immersion, and it seems even more common these days to see Australians who can speak good Mandarin.
What point are you trying to prove here? It's not like English is some magical language that no one can possibly learn well if they didn't grow up speaking it. Go to Europe and you'll find millions of people who aren't native English speakers but nevertheless speak it excellently.
In the grand scheme of things, being able to learn another language well does not beggar belief. In the context of this discussion, your comments are leaving a sour taste in my mouth. She's been questioned enough already.
I’m just saying her English seems quite a bit better than average.
(My wife is Chinese and has very good English, as do many of her friends. I by no means think Chinese people are generally incapable of learning English or anything.)
I thought my point was pretty obvious and simple.
There are sure a lot of people here with sticks up their butts.
Huh? Why is it a weird comment? The previous commenter said her English was bad. I think her English is quite impressively good! Kudos to her. It’s hard work to learn a foreign language to such proficiency.
She has better English than many foreigners I know who have been living in the US for >5 years, and better than the foreign language skills of many Americans I know who have lived overseas for that long.
Ya, I do also. But it isn’t weird, it hasn’t been for a long time. Likewise for Americans speaking great 大山 quality Chinese, not weird or unusual anymore.
It's still rare enough that 老外 speaking good Chinese gains you attention in Chinese media. Lots of Chinese TV contains foreign guests whose only skill is speaking Chinese, and if you travel to a tier-3 city or other area, speaking any level of Chinese can produce visible surprise and compliment in people. Imagine a US TV show that invited on Chinese natives for no other reason than they could speak passable English.
I'm pretty sure you know this. Yes, in Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, it is not uncommon. But go to a smaller city, and some people will treat you like a rare Panda. I was in 九寨沟 one time during 清明节 and a lot of out of town people were there on vacation, some of who had never met a 外国人 in person before, but after they heard me speaking, a lot of people kept coming up and asking to have a photo with me, offering too much praise for my terrible Mandarin, and intensely curious how I learned.
I'm glad to see so many people following in the footsteps of 大山， but we have a ways to go before the asymmetry is more balanced and a Westerner speaking Chinese is no longer surprising enough to be on a talent show.
I mentioned SLC for a good reason, and it has little to do with mainland China since they don’t allow missionaries. If you go to Taiwan, you’ll find, compared to the population, more foreigners speaking mandarin.
China has no problem finding foreigners who speak good Chinese like they did in the 90s. Likewise, they are a bit unnerved when the American ambassador speaks fluent mandarin like Huntsman did, or like various prime ministers of austrailia are ought to these days. They definitely exist, and if some random white (or black or Indian, etc...) guy/gal breaks out mandarin in some random context, well, it really isn’t amazing anymore.
If you visit a tier 88 city in china, the fact that you are a foreigner at all is amazing, this has little to do with your mandarin skills. Now hit the bath house with them and it’s double amazing.
It was my impression Huntsman spoke conversational Mandarin, but he wasn't fluent. Whenever he gives complicated speeches, he says a few sentences, and then transitions back to English.
Huntsman did is mission in Taiwan, so he probably was fluent at some point, well, with the standard southern accent. FYI, diplomats and leaders will typically use their official language regardless, even if they are fluent in their host country’s language. For example, the prime minister of Singapore is definitely fluent in mandarin, but always will use English for official communication.
I consider the issue with me resolved. This apology is more comprehensive and I have been promised tools with which I can repair my reputation here in China.
What a class act. Dougherty really did her dirty. It would be absolutely understandable if she didn't accept this apology. It's inspiring to see that she has, and is wanting to move forward amicably. She's comes out as the better person here. Bravo!
Also, Dale has some of my respect for realizing what he did was wrong and then reevaluating and trying to make up for it. He could have possibly chosen to let the chaos settle and not apologize. I guess we all make mistakes sometimes. Good that he owned up.
There is a funny kind of contradiction going on here.
On the one hand, men in the tech community have been told it's never OK to use/share/endorse images of attractive women with "lots of skin", in any work or tech-community context, because it objectifies women, makes them uncomfortable, and pushes them away from the tech industry.
On the other hand, men should respect how women present themselves, and welcome them into the tech community. Still, this doesn't save you if a moral busybody walks behind you when you're looking at this twitter profile - it's very conceivable that a guy could get in trouble or ostracized for "ogling scantily-clad women".
Hell, surely you remember the two guys at pycon 4 years ago, some woman behind them heard one tell a (rather tame) "dongle" joke to the other, generated outrage on twitter, got them fired, etc.
In this modern era where moral outrage is more in fashion than ever (in recent memory anyway), the only winning move is not to play.
I am a woman. I think she ought to tone it down a bit. I blogged about that.
Edit: ironically this comment was being ignored as long as I had the disclaimer in it that I am routinely accused of victim blaming for trying to empower women. I removed it because I also get constantly accused of making things about me. The second it was removed,
a personal attack in violation of the guidelines was posted as a reply and now my comment has been downvoted.
Here is the blogpost in question in case anyone wants to read it instead of knee-jerk assuming I am just some sexually uptight prude:
I think there is a concern in our society that both men and women tend to spend an inordinate amount of time judging and commenting on the appearance, tone, and other superficial characteristics of women. If we're to make effective progress as a society we need to be very careful about this.
My reading of awesomepantsm's comment is that it conveys the idea that it doesn't matter what any of us think about what someone is wearing, we should be concerned with the thoughts they are expressing.
I never saw your post in the original form, only in the shortest version and then with the most recent edit. I found your blog post on my own, and I see it's much more nuanced than your comment here (I suppose that's to be expected).
Your blog post seems to indicate that you wouldn't dress like that. Fair enough, the rationale you describe is illuminating. But how does that extend to a normative expectation on the behavior of another? That's what I think is problematic.
I wouldn't dress that way because I am 52 and I don't look like that. If you've got it, flaunt it. If I looked like that, I might be doing exactly the same thing.
But the main point of my post is this: years of trying to get meaty engagement on HN has taught me that men will tend to see me through the lens of sex first and foremost. It has proven to be counterproductive to either expect men to never think of me that way, or to actively encourage that focus or cooperate with other people framing me as primarily or solely a sex object.
It was written in hopes of helping women think about how to effectively navigate a man's world. It has nothing to do with suggesting a normative anything.
I am saying that a woman's sexuality is hers to do with as she pleases. In my experience, that is an extremely radical position. Lots of men would like women to be more free to say yes to them. That doesn't mean they like it when someone like me says "They are free to use it any damn way they so choose, your agenda to fuck them be damned."
As stated in the blog post, if I were her, I would tone down the internet stuff to be less in your face blatantly sexual in terms of framing of photos while continuing to dress exactly the same way.
It is a position of "I can dress any damn way I want for my own pleasure, no I am not your whore."
It is her body. Some pictures currently frame it as a toy for any internet stranger. I would stop doing that one thing. That's it.
I am not telling her what to do. My blog post makes it as clear as I know how that I am using her as an example to elucidate a thought process.
My initial comment here was really more to express sympathy for people saying "I am male and it is inherently problematic for me to look at her work or share her work because of the images of her that are associated with it." I think that is a completely valid concern and it is one of the reasons I work at trying to make sure I do my best to present myself in a fashion that doesn't raise such questions.
I am sure I don't always get it right, but I try to be mindful of the fact that if I want to be taken seriously and do business with men, it is easier for them to talk to me, make introductions and share my work if they don't have to explain that, no, I am not a hooker, not their illicit lover, and they aren't interested in my writing for its salacious nature. Men in positions of power often need to meet a test of no appearance of impropriety. Some men simply are not going to open doors for me if they have any reason to feel that it will lead to talk. That is the reality I am dealing with. Getting on a soap box about how it shouldn't matter how I look does not strike me as an effective approach to the problem in question.
People are often talking about abstract ideals when they talk about sexism. I am usually speaking of a pragmatic approach that has some hope of actually working in the real word. I am not holding my breath waiting for some ideal world to arrive. I need to eat in the here and now.
You have a history of posting unsubstantive comments here. Could you please not do it again? We ban accounts that clearly have no intention of following the guidelines.
I didn't downvote but the page is perfectly SFW. There's skin on display but no more than in, say, a one-piece swimsuit ad (on average- there's four or five pictures).
There's no inappropriate body parts on display. I'd feel safe to show this to my boss, though my boss's mother would probably disaprove.
I agree these may be uncomfortable for some. But they're definitely SFW.
I'm ok with some things being uncomfortable. We got past the idea that women can wear trousers to work. We can get past this as well. Some progress can be uncomfortable.
Poor analogy. A calendar is obviously your choice of decoration that your colleagues will see every day. The calendar's content is on you.
Visiting a Twitter page for a few seconds in your browser and the background happens to show the woman in a bikini, is absolutely not the same as your choice of calendar. There is no nudity anyway, it's 100% legal and we see similar images in the street, shop windows, billboards, TV, everywhere.
Well, Dale Dougherty just saved his career. He was going to lose this one. Naomi Wu has taken on challenges before and built things in front of an audience. Dale Dougherty is a publishing guy from print media. He acts like he's the head of the "maker movement", but he himself isn't a "maker". Unlike Jim Newton, the former head of TechShop, who is really into tools. He could have become a negative-value asset to Make Magazine and the Maker Faire operation.
Make Magazine is dated, anyway. It's a print publication. Instructables is the go-to site for how to make things. That's now run by Autodesk, which encourages hobbyist use of Autodesk software in hopes that some amateurs will become pros and buy more Autodesk software.
Naomi Wu's videos are often funny. She has a wry sense of humor. She converted a 3D printer into a wearable device worn on her back. It runs off batteries and prints as she rides the subway and walks through malls. The manufacturer for which she did that can now show that their unusual device is really robust.
When it doesn't work, she's honest about it. She did an evaluation of a 3D printer / CNC mill / laser printer combo. The thing is an X-Y-Z platform with changeable tool heads. It wouldn't home consistently, and Wu gave it a very negative review.
She has some nice techniques. At one point, she needed to punch a hole through a nylon covered foam pad, so she could put a bolt through. She heated up a screwdriver with a butane torch and pushed it through the pad, leaving a clean hole.
> When a man harnesses the efforts of a team, they call him a CEO and give him a bonus. But when a woman harnesses the efforts of a team, she gets accused of being a persona and a front.
I'd never really thought about this, but I have a feeling that once I start looking for it I'm going to notice it everywhere. Great article.
I second that this was such a great read. I am normally pissed with diversity articles because it looks like they are complaining. I won't say complaining is wrong but it just isn't fun to read. On the other hand, bunny broke the whole issue so well. Amazing read.
I've only skimmed it so I may be missing something, but what did Dale Dougherty actually say about Naomi Wu? All I'm seeing is "Dale Doughtery tweeted a single line questioning Naomi Wu’s authenticity."
Possibly unrelated, but I'm looking at Wu's Twitter (https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg), and this is something I struggle with. People should absolutely be allowed to dress how they please without fear of judgment. As the article says, "I do my best engineering when sitting half-naked at my desk." There's nothing wrong with that. But when a person or product deliberately cultivates a hypersexualized image in a field and setting that has nothing to do with sex, that's weird and off-putting to me. To swap the genders, I'd have no problem with a male engineer who does his best work half-naked at his desk at home and likes to do sexy cosplay sometimes, but it would be weird if that engineer's professional Twitter was topped with a dozen pics of him shirtless in leather pants--not "fake" or "inauthentic," just weird.
I realize I know nothing about Wu except a glance at her Twitter, so I apologize if I'm missing something.
I didn't downvote you, but I think you may be getting downvotes because of the sentence that begins with "But."
> People should absolutely be allowed to dress how they please without fear of judgment. As the article says, "I do my best engineering when sitting half-naked at my desk." There's nothing wrong with that.
That's it. Full stop. There's nothing to add after that. You don't need to add "but..." and then state the exact opposite of that sentiment.
You find something weird about someone? Guess what -- we're all weird. Somebody out there probably finds something about you weird. But who gives a shit! Life's a lot better once you just get over it and accept people despite their weirdness. Or even better, because of their weirdness.
I'd add that what she's doing is not the healthiest role model for young girls growing up, given the issues with sexism in tech/professional industries.
Tech achievements aside, the flaunting of her breast implants is sad. In the unlikely case she has not had plastic surgery, she still seems to be asking people first to "check out my body" and then "btw, I make things too".
I would have the same problem with a man who got 6-pack implants and flaunted his abs with his tech profile. It's short-term shallowness, and undoes the achievements in her field. And so I won't be following what she does, and will now leave this discussion for others.
Why is it sad? I think that its refreshing to see a woman be fearless in expressing her femininity / sexuality AND her interest / expertise in tech. They're not mutually exclusive. A woman saying "check out my body, I'm sexy" shouldn't disqualify the "btw I make things." The tone of your comment is along the lines of "she was asking for it" :\
There's nothing fearless or feminine about implants.
The "camera review" videos on her channel where she walks around with selfie stick pointing at her boobs. That's just poor taste click bait, not "expressing femininity". View count jumps above 1 million the less she wears, but at what cost?
I've no idea about the main story of apology, I just found this today and commenting on her channel and choice of brand promotion. This to me would easily cause lack of trust with whatever she does, simply because of her willingness to self-exploit for view count.
Telling someone what they do or don’t “need to add” when they are respectfully sharing their personal experience doesn’t sound like acceptance to me. I can only imagine how much better your life can still get.
I don't think, "questionable opinions about other people's choices which don't affect you at all," count as personal experience. Unless by "personal experience," we mean, "all possible utterances."
Phasma’s post acknowledges that the opinion is questionable by comparing it to an ideal (that her appearance/presentation shouldn’t matter), and calling that disparity “something I struggle with.” That was my interpretation of the post, anyway. Re-reading it now, I still see it the same way. If you do not, then clearly we will interpret the responses to the post differently as well.
I'll upvote, because we're all on a journey here. But that weird and offputting feeling a feeling that, more often than not, comes up when we're talking about women. Only women. And that's the problem.
I can't speak for all the harassment he may or may not have endured, but it's not on the same level as Wu. He makes fun of his weird pairing of interests in his featured photo. He doesn't have the CEO of a company and de facto leader of his professional association questioning his competence on Twitter. Whatever he's dealt with, it probably hasn't been "this is so offputting that I'm going to question the fact that you even exist."
Honestly, I had the same reaction as you. I don't think it's OK to question people like Naomi in this way, because I'm pretty sure I'm doing it unevenly. It's something I'm trying to figure out if I do elsewhere, and how to improve. This stuff is hard.
> But that weird and offputting feeling a feeling that, more often than not, comes up when we're talking about women. Only women. And that's the problem.
You're absolutely right, which is why I'm so conflicted about this. And in any case going from "your Twitter is kinda fetish-y" to "therefore you're a fake engineer" makes zero sense, yeah.
Which would - if applied fairly - call into question the credentials of the 20+ thousand or so Bay Area engineers who go to Burningman every year... "I saw a photo of you with a girl wearing only body paint and a guy behind her smoking weed. You can't possibly be a credible Rust developer..."
A rather obvious male example would be the Jensen guy, whose Twitter often contains a good few photos that some might raise an eyebrow at (including leather!): https://mobile.twitter.com/aphyr
Sure, it’s unusual, but not, I think, particularly suspicious. There are a lot of unusual people in tech.
Edit: I notice someone already gave the same example as me; oops.
He wrote a long blog post going into great detail about how she’s not a real person and the lady in the photos and videos is just a model, with all the work being done by a man behind the scenes. I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help, but I’m sure you can find it if you look.
Why not link to primary evidence? How can someone make an informed decision without seeing it?
It is strange logic that shining a light on something supposedly reprehensible actually helps it. This 'I won't show you the thing I am criticizing but trust my description of it' shouldn't be accepted. It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
This is about a pattern I have seen, rather than any one specific thing. People criticizing something without giving a name or a link because it might give it exposure. If someone is criticizing something legitimately, then giving it exposure is precisely what they would want. The 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' should be called out when it happens.
I don’t want to give it any PageRank juice and I don’t want to call any more attention to it than is needed to explain it. This isn’t some controversial political literature, it’s a hurtful personal attack on someone who doesn’t deserve it.
I’m not asking anyone to trust my description. If anyone wants to read it for themselves, they should have little trouble finding it. I’m just not going to help them.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
Per another comment, though, it sounds like you're misremembering things, and that he actually wrote no such thing. I'd really love a link to know what the hell we're all talking about here. Hearsay is notoriously unreliable.
This isn’t some controversial political literature, it’s a hurtful personal attack on someone who doesn’t deserve it.
Yet you do not show it. As I mentioned before It seems like someone won't show what they are talking about is afraid that people may come to a different conclusion then they did.
Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?
I didn't really want it to be about our comments. But this is where you have directed it. You talked about a specific think and didn't want to show it saying 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help', this is the logic I was specifically replying to. That is the logic people should reject, the other context has nothing to do with why I replied. Yet you are asking that talking about a generality or pattern I have noticed needs a link. They way you are arguing any statement that I make without a link makes me 'not practicing what I preach'. Your expectations of my post are massively higher than what I was criticizing, which I will repeat was the 'I won’t link to it, because it doesn’t need that kind of help' statement and the logic that comes from it. Your criticism also expected way more from my post than yours. The holding of ridiculous expectations someone with a different opinion to you is another pattern that should be criticized by the way.
But I did have something in mind actually when I mentioned the pattern. It may be slightly embarrassing that I came across this video while using the internet, but I will link to it.
They specifically didn't name the games they were describing used as far as I remember, using the 'I don't want to give them more exposure' line, and maybe not wanting to expose people to them (but hypocritically they can). Surely people can make up their own minds about things. The video also has a tone of voice to sound 'caring' and cute graphics to try and sucker people believe what they say and that they are 'good'. You bet I didn't like it.
I have been completely honest in my previous comment when I mentioned a pattern. I have been completely honest in this comment. You saying 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here? You say you see a pattern yet you don’t provide any links. Are we just supposed to trust your description of it?' was completely unwarranted, I wasn't hiding anything or being dishonest, unlike your allusions.
You didn't want this to be about our comments, yet you replied to my comment to criticize it? That's nonsense, unless you really meant to say "I didn't really want it to be about my comment."
I'm not hiding anything and I'm not being dishonest. The only difference between your comment and mine that I can see, as far as linking to sources, is the motivation behind it. And I don't see why my motivation of not wanting to provide further exposure to an unpleasant personal attack should be so much worse than your motivation of... well, I have no idea.
You didn't want this to be about our comments, yet you replied to my comment to criticize it? That's nonsense, unless you really meant to say "I didn't really want it to be about my comment."
This is more misrepresentation. When I posted the first comment, I didn't want it to be about our comments. The reason I gave the reply was the utter misrepresentation of my comment. Your reply was clearly meant to deceive people. Especially when you said 'Shouldn’t you practice what you preach here?' and then pretty much asking to provide a link for each sentence I said. While I was just warning people about people saying that linking to something helps it. Surely it is just more evidence that people take into consideration.
Also you hyped up the harm that an article could cause, yet you had no trouble trying to discredit me, quite hypocritical really. Are you saying the article could cause harm because you believe it is convincing?
My motivation was very plain and transparent. It was to have have people notice the 'trust my description but I won't show it to you' logic be criticized for the harmful garbage it is.
Anyway if someone misrepresents what I said, I will sometimes reply.
That was a real dick move by Dale. All you have to do is watch a couple of Naomi's videos and you can see she is not a fraud. She is comfortable and competent with all the tools she uses in her videos and not just in a studio setting either but out and about she will hack on something.
I am glad Dale has apologised as it was long overdue IMHO. I'm not sure I could be so forgiving as Naomi is though. For 2 weeks her reputation has been trashed.
Yeah - 2 weeks which I strongly suspect Dale spent arguing "What? I didn't do anything wrong!" while legal and PR tried desperately to convince him to publish an apology...
He gets no credit from me for a 2 week late apology that's helpfully published with an accompanying Chinese translation. There's no sense of personal acknowledgement of wrongdoing here, just a corporate response to a paying-customer backlash.
his first one was just a generic, "i'm sorry if i offended anyone" after he publicized a conspiracy theory about naomi.
then it was revealed that andrew huang (who worked a lot on reverse engineering the original xbox), was asked in private by dale if naomi was real, and andrew vouched for her. yet he chose to go with the conspiracy theory story instead.
this is a, "i better do this or my ass will be fired" deal. the original story was never posted on hackernews (that i recall) but if she didn't continue to fight for her reputation this dale would have just let this blow over.
English original: I specifically apologize for the tactless use of quotes around “her” in a tweet of mine that was offensive to Naomi and all women.
Chinese translation: 我还要特别为我那句不得体的在“her”加双引号的暗示她是变性人言论抱歉，这不仅冒犯到Naomi而且对其他女性来说也是不公平的。
Chinese translated back to English: I am especially sorry for my tactless use of quotes around "her", alluding to that she is transsexual, which is not only offensive to Naomi but also unfair to other women.
That's a good find. Topics related to political correctness are often mistranslated due to cultural differences; western-style political correctness isn't really a "thing" in China.
Twitter's a fucking trashfire these days. Be an openly public Nazi? Oh no, we'll remove your blue verified tick! Use Twotter to send rape and death-threats? "No contravention of Twitter community guidelines..." Tell a nazi who threatens to kill you to fuck off? Get your account suspended... I feel Dale and Jack are from the same cult...
I am super happy to see this response from Dale. I was horrified at what he posted, as it sounds completely out of character of him from what I know of him. Glad to see him own it and move onwards and upwards. I hope that this fixes Naomi's situation.
He turns his personal flaws into a collective bias. His first paragraph tries to shift responsibility from the individual to a larger category of people.
> "...the negative impact of my tweets was amplified by the fact that I, a white, Western, male CEO of a key company in the Maker community, publicly questioned a young, female, self-employed Chinese maker."
He's not trying to make the whole group responsible for his mistake, he is trying to highlight that white western males are powerful over marginalized groups and hold unconscious biases both collectively and individually. When someone with large white western male following sends racist/misogynist/whateverist signals, those signals are easily amplified and overpowering to whatever marginalized person/group is on the receiving end. So no, the entire group did not make that mistake. But it is every group members responsibility to understand these power dynamics and educate/change both themselves and their peers to not abuse this power be it on purpose or unconsciously.
When a member of the group looks at a situation like this they need to reflect on if they are guilty at all and (regardless of if they are) how they can help change the culture. Your comment on "shifting responsibility" is not productive in that regard and only comes off as defensive. Not trying to say you're a white western dude possibly guilty of abusing power dynamics over marginalized groups, but something to keep in mind.
Also read this[0] blog, much more eloquent and detailed than my response here.
This seems to be a rare case of a woman turning a stumbling block into a career stepping stone. Given the amendments being made, I hope future press for Ms. Wu on HN is for her work, not her gender, wardrobe or being slandered.
Firstly, the public apology was required, she's clearly a maker and was wrongly accused of being a front person.
>my response reflected my unconscious biases; and the negative impact of my tweets was amplified by the fact that I, a white, Western, male CEO of a key company in the Maker community, publicly questioned a young, female, self-employed Chinese maker.
Fair point about unconscious bias. It's difficult as we are creatures of habit and purposely always look for patterns, mostly to our advantage but sometimes to our disadvantage. It's tough. I have seen countless times though that gender based unconscious bias is present in reality, more times than not against males - although rarely reported (schools, Universities and work places).
The next point about how being a CEO for a company in a large engineering community and then publicly discrediting another person is massively impacting on the person being attacked. In general it seems to be that the more powerful your voice, the more you should think about what you say. Even then, powerless individuals can quickly be amplified for the purpose of being attacked or held up as a leader of some opinion.
The next part grates. What has the combination of "white", "Western" and "male" got to do with the apology? Would the CEO's voice be any less effective if it was from an equally positioned black, African female? I would hope not. I think this could equally have been any other person of this power apologizing for doing little to no research. How did we get into the position where people are apologizing for features they are unable to control, somehow meaning they can or can't take part in some opinion/discussion? I bet the answer to that can't be made without discriminating.
And looking at the actions being taken in response, it doesn't make much sense:
>* With permission from Naomi, we will feature Naomi and her work on the cover of the next issue of Make: along with a full-length story about her work.
>* We will invite her and help her obtain a VISA to a USA Maker Faire in 2018, covering her travel and expenses.
>* We will be publishing a diversity audit of Make: as a company and our properties, and will be setting goals to drive progress on these issues.
>* We will be assembling advisory boards to work with our Maker Faire organizers to ensure our events are representative of our entire community. We will invite Naomi to be part of any advisory board for events in China.
Why is there now going to be a diversity audit of Make? What happened to question the diversity of Make and how does that prevent this public discrediting from occurring again? Surely a way more effective preventative measure would be to just turn off the CEO's Twitter account and stop any one person representative of Make from having unfiltered access to large audiences.
On the other hand, featuring her work is a good gesture to counteract the incorrect public statement made. The advisory board position is over the top and again, seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the Make community when it was the actions of the CEO.
Nowhere in the piece does he apologize for being a white, western, male. You are arguing against or being grated by a straw man that's not there, he didn't do that.
He did say that "the negative impact of my tweets was amplified" by his social position, including being a white, western, male. I guess you disagree that this amplified the negative impact of those tweets? And this disagreement about assessment of negative impact bothers you for some reason?
He also, I agree, suggests, by the 'actions' they are taking that this social position probably made it more likely for him to have made this mistake. I guess you disagree? And are inflamed by this disagreement for some reason? Except you did write "fair point" about unconscious bias going on here.
>Nowhere in the piece does he apologize for being a white, western, male. You are arguing against or being grated by a straw man that's not there, he didn't do that.
>He did say that "the negative impact of my tweets was amplified" by his social position, including being a white, western, male. I guess you disagree that this amplified the negative impact of those tweets? And this disagreement about assessment of negative impact bothers you for some reason?
Being white, Western and male is an attribute, not a social position. There's not a single social thing Dale can do that changes those attributes, unlike being rich and a CEO. Saying those seems to imply (from my perspective) that those attributes are in some way connected to his behaviour or his power. Put another way, there wouldn't be a scenario where if Dale was a black and female I would be saying "well, this could have been a whole lot worse if she was white and male".
The reason this bothers me is because the next time something bad happens in Silicon Valley and they happen to be white and male (which is likely given the overall demographic), they get grouped together and raise this general feeling that white men are an evil group of people.
>Except you did write "fair point" about unconscious bias going on here.
Everybody has unconscious bias, or at least everybody with a functioning brain. If I say "banana", almost guaranteed you think of something yellow, because we make assumptions to reduce the amount of information that needs to be interpreted about an idea. It's often difficult to work against. It's also not a property of just white, Western males either. It's shared throughout the world as an evolutionary advantage.
>I'm not quite sure what is irritating you so.
I know it's only a small thing, but it adds up over time towards this negativity that's building up in various media channels for or against different demographics.
Being white, Western, and male are totally social positions. That's why they matter, in a way an 'attribute' like your shirt size doesn't. Because our society is literally structured around them.
Still not something you can do individually to change them, not something to apologize for being, not something to feel guilty about it. But something to be aware of? For sure.
Disagreeing that being white, western (when talking to/about China) and male amplified the negative impact of the tweets is to pretend society is different than it is. It's not one's _fault_ one is in that social position, but it _is_ a social position, and it matters.
This may be a stretch, but being an SF reader, it's helpful to imagine an SF story about, say, aliens that take over the earth and set things up so they're in charge. Remember the 80s show 'V'? That's pretty much what's really going on, except not with aliens. Doesn't mean the aliens in V had to feel guilty for being aliens, and they couldn't change being aliens. But some of the acted against the other aliens plans to steal all the earths water and eat the humans, others for them, and others just went along with it. But pretending things weren't set up to give aliens power over humans wouldn't have helped anyone (well, except power-hungry aliens).
> What has the combination of "white", "Western" and "male" got to do with the apology? Would the CEO's voice be any less effective if it was from an equally positioned black, African female? I would hope not.
I think it’s him trying to give context; “I’m the majority sort of person in this industry, so I have unexamined biases which came into play here”, that sort of thing.
As I understand it, him posting his little conspiracy theory came hot on the heels of Wu criticising his organisation, which helps explain the rest of it. He’s essentially admitting that they have a problem, and saying that they’ll try to fix it.
>I think it’s him trying to give context; “I’m the majority sort of person in this industry, so I have unexamined biases which came into play here”, that sort of thing.
Seems like discrimination in itself. "I am white and male therefore I am biased". Besides, he can own his own problems.
>As I understand it, him posting his little conspiracy theory came hot on the heels of Wu criticising his organisation, which helps explain the rest of it.
Yeah, the other comment said - I wasn't aware of that at the time. Dale was in the wrong anyway, CEOs shouldn't be shit-posting.
>He’s essentially admitting that they have a problem, and saying that they’ll try to fix it.
It's not clear to me it's that "they" have a problem from what I've read so far, just a claim that they have a problem.
Besides, the "problem" as I understand it is supposedly about representation? Representation of physical makeup doesn't equal representation of ideas. I would want to see proof that this has lead to a bias past the idiocy of the CEO.
I assume the diversity audit was in response to the backstory where Naomi criticised Make for not having even token local or female representation at Makerfaire Shenzhen, criticism which immediately preceded Dales dummy spit retaliation.
Which, as I wrote that, I realised is probably also what the "western white male CEO" bit is probably about - you can't criticise them - they'll retaliate just like they used to in 4chan and junior school... Kalanik will hire PIs to gather dirt on you if you criticise him, Dougherty will destroy your maker reputation and career.
>not having even token local or female representation
Assuming you mean exactly what you say and I'm not being overly pedantic, I think token representation is not a great concept in itself. Equal opportunity vs equal outcome, if either is unequal for any reason then only one is achievable.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for helping people access resources they otherwise wouldn't have access to. But later down the time line, when they go to apply for a position, it should be done without race or sex.
>Naomi criticised Make for not having even token local or female representation at Makerfaire Shenzhen, criticism which immediately preceded Dales dummy spit retaliation.
I wasn't aware of the back story, but a lack of female representation does not equate to lack representation in general. I'm not defending Dale though, regardless it was a bad move on his part.
>you can't criticise them
On the contrary, I think white, rich males are easier to criticize than ever given the current social stirrings (in the West at least). I think all of them try to get dirt on their attacker, it's just these guys were caught and called out for it.
> Would the CEO's voice be any less effective if it was from an equally positioned black, African female?
In China (probably elsewhere too, but China is the relevant place here), apparently yes. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5046 touches on some of the dynamic there; the "Western" bit is definitely key.
>In China (probably elsewhere too, but China is the relevant place here), apparently yes. https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=5046 touches on some of the dynamic there; the "Western" bit is definitely key.
The part about China listening more to foreign voices with the "Guanxi Bias" - very much on the edge about that. I've noticed a trend towards nationalism in China (and worryingly all over the world), so the fact that they chose the voice of a foreign person over that of "one of their own" might point to the Reddit thread being convincing, even if only a minor investigation is required to debunk it.
Unless there's inherent racism in China, a black, African female of the same position should have had the same power, fulfilling the role of "foreign person".
But the main point was really about attributing these unwanted characteristics specifically to white, Western men as opposed to Dale taking that responsibility on himself. Regardless of background, he is in a position of power (however you want to attribute that to him) and he made a mistake.
I agree with your main point that the main issue here is personal responsibility and personal power, and that any group memberships are only relevant insofar as they affect that.
> I've noticed a trend towards nationalism in China
Sure. That sort of thing is not incompatible with perceiving other countries as "systematically better". In fact, one common form nationalism has taken (not just in China) is "those other people are currently ahead of us, but we will overtake them and then we will be ahead".
As far as I can tell, racism is just not something the ruling party cares about much, and they spend all their thought-and-speech-policing efforts on the things they _do_ care about (like their own survival). For similar reasons, racism was rampant in the Soviet Union and is rampant in Russia now.
Add to that that most Chinese have no personal experience with someone who looks "black", so all they have to go on are stereotypes, and it would be pretty surprising to _not_ have racism be prevalent in the culture.
Glad he apologized and offered to right what he wronged. I hope Naomi accepts the apology as well. That said,unless you were personally wronged by this man,please let it go and consider this whole drama history. I wish either party didn't make this about a struggle between genders and classes. Guy acted like a jerk and apologized,something any one of us can do(regardless of gender,skin color or nationality)
But more then that, if you watch videos where she is being interviewed talking about being a Maker (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcnChnrHwXg) she talks just like a real hacker. She uses the exact terminology and process you'd expect, knowing you're not an expert in something, but just scraping a whole bunch of different other projects that other people contributed and made tutorials on, and tweaking them and combining them to make it your own.
It's like this CEO didn't spend even 10 minutes watching her videos and just decided to believe a conspiracy theory.