Sunday, January 16, 2005
Side note regarding the Mayer recap
I didn't want to make these part of my comments in the original post about the Marissa Mayer presentation because a) it's a separate, larger topic and b) the blogger isn't really responsible for some of the comments he gets on the post.
But I do have this little bit more to say:
We learn something interesting from reading the comments on this post (and this may be part of the reason I don't read comments very often):
Some people still think it's more relevant to comment on Mayer's appearance than on what she had to say. I did some soul-searching here. I occasionally comment on male hotness on my Personal Blog, although it's typically actors and musicians I'm drooling over. And I also often talk about "brain-crushes"...people who send my heart all a-flutter because of what they think and write and say.
I think if women in technology and business were not so often marginalized or discounted then the occasional comment on attractiveness wouldn't be so jarring. But it's still too much of the basic information provided about any woman in any discussion/press coverage etc. It just gets old. Every piece on a woman, no matter how serious, no matter how little her profession has to do with appearance, finds a way to mention her appearance at least once. I don't care about a woman's "sunny laugh" or "perfectly manicured nails" or "conservative, but feminine business suit." Really. Don't. Care.
Sure, it happens to a few men too...Brian Greene, hot physicist anyone?...and I guess I'd just appreciate equal opportunity objectification.
So, next time Steve Jobs gives his keynote, can we please talk about his form-fitting black turtlenecks and speculate on whether he's hitting the gym as often? Or can we call Steve Ballmer zaftig? How come a description of what the Google founders are wearing isn't part of every news piece we read?
Make these few minor adjustments, and I will get off my soapbox pronto.
But I do have this little bit more to say:
We learn something interesting from reading the comments on this post (and this may be part of the reason I don't read comments very often):
Some people still think it's more relevant to comment on Mayer's appearance than on what she had to say. I did some soul-searching here. I occasionally comment on male hotness on my Personal Blog, although it's typically actors and musicians I'm drooling over. And I also often talk about "brain-crushes"...people who send my heart all a-flutter because of what they think and write and say.
I think if women in technology and business were not so often marginalized or discounted then the occasional comment on attractiveness wouldn't be so jarring. But it's still too much of the basic information provided about any woman in any discussion/press coverage etc. It just gets old. Every piece on a woman, no matter how serious, no matter how little her profession has to do with appearance, finds a way to mention her appearance at least once. I don't care about a woman's "sunny laugh" or "perfectly manicured nails" or "conservative, but feminine business suit." Really. Don't. Care.
Sure, it happens to a few men too...Brian Greene, hot physicist anyone?...and I guess I'd just appreciate equal opportunity objectification.
So, next time Steve Jobs gives his keynote, can we please talk about his form-fitting black turtlenecks and speculate on whether he's hitting the gym as often? Or can we call Steve Ballmer zaftig? How come a description of what the Google founders are wearing isn't part of every news piece we read?
Make these few minor adjustments, and I will get off my soapbox pronto.
// posted by ElisaC @ 9:49 AM 
