It's been like that in sports, too, right? Everybody got after that Russian blond in tennis a few years ago ago here comes the name top of my tongue just asec fuckitgoogling Anna Kournikova, because apparently it's not cool to be famously good looking while you're doing something unless you're the best at it ever.

Takes awhile, but things improve. When I was a teenager, they finally had a woman driver in the Indy 500. Now there are several, only one of whom's known for her beauty. A few years ago ('08 maybe) there were three of them, and all three got taken out by the crashes of male drivers. None of 'em whined, nobody ever said anything about it. Maybe it's a silly metric from a particularly silly field of endeavor, but on that afternoon it felt like tremendous progress.

Ugh. Feminists are such douche knuckles. Seriously.

Let's switch this around. What GUY is going to object to a woman doing a "15 hottest male scientists!" list?

What gal is going to object to looking at it? (um... brains AND looks? rawr!)

So calling one of these women (sp?) "sexy" is an insult to them. So then the opposite must be a compliment. Hmmm....the non-attractive women of science would probably not fly either. The women of no particular evaluation when it comes to desirability?

I don't know.

So "sexy" is an insult? Does that mean female scientest are just longing for someone to call them butt ugly?

As a famous Danish philosopher once said "I have nothing against feminist as long as they are really hot".

As a women in the science and technology industry, I can tell you, I am still a woman and I like to be complimented on my looks and take pride in my appearance. I'm a firm believer in women's rights, but far from feminist. I think the women who are bitching (no pun intended) about this guy's post are being way over the top on this. Would they rather people stick to the stereotype that pretty females must be stupid? I mean, if you're blessed with looks, how can you possibly have brains, right????

Hi! I'm middle-aged! I have a report for our younger sisters: There will be a day your career –sooner than you'd like, we can promise you– when you will be judged entirely on your performance.

For today, you can bitch and weep and be theoretical and prissy and snooty about this as much as you want, and we'll all stand with limp dicks in our trousers to salute your steadfast adherence to i-dotted/t-crossed feminist principle.

But on that day, NO TEARS.

heh, speak for yourself cridster... that's why it's good lab tables are exactly that high. you can hide your interest.

So we should not look at women scientists for their beauty but for those contribution to science.

So in the same vein we should ignore the politics of Actors and Actresses, singers, and writers as they are not politicians. Tell them to shut and just do their plays, songs and movies.

The feminist lost me a long time ago when they didn't want men to treat women as sex objects so they protested men for looking at playboy etc...
And didn't say anything to the women who were presenting themselves as ... sex objects.

Feminist always get a speaker to come before the legislature when an automatic joint custody bill is before the legislature. They protest because you could be giving kids to an abuser.

Women actually abuse kids more- see Department of justice statistics.

The feminists think women can do no wrong. They think just because they were born a certain gender they are somehow devine.

If men are so bad why do women bother eating food men provide and using products manufactured by men.
I have no time for feminists until they give up everything provided to them by men.

Feminists are just opportunists in the very negative sense of the word.

I think Alonzo Fyfe's refutation of the sexism charges was the best, you can find it here, where he skewers almost every charge labelled against Lukeprog:

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=9542

What makes men think that women scientists are just waiting for men to notice their bodies instead of their accomplishments in the world? When men have careers and accomplishments no one makes a list of the hottest men in their field. It is an attempt to diminish the importance of those particular women and you know it. Have you ever seen a list of the hottest nobel peace prize winners? Men, some of you think at all times with your penis, that is why so many people are wasting their time right now writing about this...go masturbate and stop assessing women as if they belong to you.

Sherry, when there ARE some sexy male Nobel Prize winners, I'll be the first to take a look at that list. :D

I don't see women crying about People Magazine's Sexiest Man Alive issue. If feminists are really about EQUALITY (instead of what they're really about, getting ass-kissed by the planet) they'd be OMG UP IN ARMS that we're judging ANYONE by his or her looks. But no, it's only WOMEN.

Get over yourself. I like to look at a pretty girl as much as the next person, and if she's got a brain to boot, well, that's a bonus.

He's no atheist. He worships at the altar of Political Correctness.

What he should have said, was "You have the right to be offended."

There's also Tara Smith, Epidemiologist from the University of Iowa, who is attractive AND snarky.

Crid, a bunch of us had a discussion at Trackforum last May about how the female-driver angle in Indycars isn't getting a lot of media play any more. This is regarded by and large as a good thing -- instead of "female drivers", they are now just "drivers" -- although the loss of publicity does hurt a little.

What's so ironic and telling about this is that it's not the "15 Sexiest Scientists" complaining...it's all the women who didn't and never would make the cut. They're not mad about being "diminished"; they're threated because their more attractive colleagues are getting recognition for something they can't possibly compete with. It's the same as people with low SAT scores complaining that standardized testing is stupid; or someone with a really low salary saying that "money doesn't matter."

What's even funnier is that none of the women (in Amy's list at least) are THAT hot...apparently you don't have to be a Miss America runner-up to leverage your looks in the scientific world, you just have to do your hair, wear makeup, dress professionally and well, which you would THINK would be the minimum of looking professional regardless.

When I was a senior in high school I interned at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Lab and I got to go to a planetary science conference where I attended a breakfast for women in science. Almost all the women looked sloppy and disheveled which even at 17 I thought was SO unprofessional. They were brainstorming ways that women could be taken more seriously in their field, and I was so tempted to raise my hand and suggest that they should try getting their hair cut, wearing makeup, and forgoing the black pants with brown shoes. Interestingly enough, the women who were better dressed and more attractive seemed to command more respective and authority and "lead" the meeting, even within the group of feminist scientists.

So "sexy" is an insult? Does that mean female scientest are just longing for someone to call them butt ugly?

It means they don't want to be judged on their appearance, for good or for bad.

There was a BBC article about size 14 bombshell Christina Hendricks this morning in which it was celebrated that, in Ms. Hendricks, there is finally a healthy, sexy shape that's more realistic for women to strive toward. And of course here come the feminists: "Why should women be expected to strive for any shape?"

One of the feminist experts interviewed for the article at least recognizes the reality. She said, "I would prefer women not to be appraised as objects of appearance but rather on what they are able to do, but given the spread of BMI and weight [issues], having a realistic image of size 14 is at least more appropriate."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10760903

"There was a BBC article about size 14 bombshell Christina Hendricks this morning in which it was celebrated that, in Ms. Hendricks, there is finally a healthy, sexy shape that's more realistic for women to strive toward."

Christina Hendricks is NOT a size 14. MAYBE a UK size 14, which is the equivalent of a US size 10, but even then I doubt it-I'd place her more at a 6. Basically when you hear that the average American is size 14, that's more Nikki Blonsky than Christina Hendricks.

It is an attempt to diminish the importance of those particular women and you know it. Have you ever seen a list of the hottest nobel peace prize winners?

I think that you're projecting.

Women can be EXTREMELY hypocritical on this issue. Because if you're familiar with women's media: mags, tv, online etc.. you know that it's filled with exactly the same sorts of lists of men. Hot actors, politicians, firemen, underage 'lawn muffins', doctors, and yes even scientists.

What these women really want is to control what men feel. They want to shame men into finding them attractive. Its just a narcissistic fantasy that's legitimized by 'feminism'.

And lets be honest, women 'objectify' men more thoroughly than men objectify women. A guy can look at a hot attorney and recognize that she's more than a pretty face, but many women can't do the same for attractive men. The guy becomes a stock character is their fantasy world. I think that this is why many women react so strongly to this issue. They're projecting their own behavior on to men and find it offensive.

While I don't actually work in the field, it's been my experience, when reading about women in science and rarely talking to one, that women in the "Hard" sciences are less likely to be offended with being labeled sexy, while those in the "Soft" sciences are more likely to be.

Oh, yeah, I wanted to add - One of the very few Playboy issues I actually own is the "Women of MENSA" issue. Those women were happy to be portrayed as sexy (although, to be fair, most of the spreads of them were more modest than the average Playboy fare).

Joanne loves science, for the win! *sigh*

>>For today, you can bitch and weep and be theoretical and prissy and snooty about this as much as you want, and we'll all stand with limp dicks in our trousers to salute your steadfast adherence to i-dotted/t-crossed feminist principle.
But on that day>/i>, NO TEARS.

And if an aging lady scientist does weep a little on "that day," Crid - what might you do?

Gallantly offer to wipe away her delicate tears with your own hard-earned PhD diploma?

>>They were brainstorming ways that women could be taken more seriously in their field, and I was so tempted to raise my hand and suggest that they should try getting their hair cut, wearing makeup, and forgoing the black pants with brown shoes.

I am intrigued, Shannon!

You say you were 17 at the time, obviously full of vim & confident opinions, and you had THE perfect audience as an intern invitee at this women in science breakfast.

You say you were "so tempted" to air your lively thoughts about the woefully unprofessional grooming of the brainstorming females around you.

So - why on earth didn't you speak up?

> And if an aging lady scientist does weep a
> little on "that day," Crid - what might you do?

Mock her. Hurt her feelings. That kinda thing. Make an example of her to the young people standing around who might have randomly presumed, as children so often do, that there was something admirable about this-or-that adult.

> Gallantly offer to wipe away her delicate tears
> with your own hard-earned PhD diploma?

Your Eurotude is peeking out of your pants again.

Here in America, there's no royalty who're excused from the challenges that nature and economics bring to the human form. You wanna be a lady scientist, go be a lady scientist. If it turns out you aren't a good one, people might ask if it wouldn't have been better for you to have gone into the hospitality industry or food service or something like that. Women in THOSE fields have to deal with the implications of their sexuality on the job, too... But in recent years, they've been less inclined to insipidly whine about it like undersocialized bubble-children.

>>Here in America, there's no royalty who're excused from the challenges that nature and economics bring to the human form. You wanna be a lady scientist, go be a lady scientist. If it turns out you aren't a good one, people might ask if it wouldn't have been better for you to have gone into the hospitality industry or food service or something like that. Women in THOSE fields have to deal with the implications of their sexuality on the job, too... But in recent years, they've been less inclined to insipidly whine about it like undersocialized bubble-children.

Oh.

Does that mean you don't actually have a PhD yourself (to go with the "limp dick" you previously mentioned), Crid?

And if an aging lady scientist does weep a little on "that day," Crid - what might you do? Gallantly offer to wipe away her delicate tears with your own hard-earned PhD diploma?

I'm not Crid, but I'd say something like, there, there, don't take it so hard, but it's time to nut up.

Sauce. Goose. Gander.

Jody- Insulting someone's personal appearance would have been so incredibly rude. If I was a senior scientist speaking to a bunch of graduate students then maybe, but as a high school student with no credibility in the field-never.

Besides, I don't actually care if other women in the field want to undermine themselves by dressing like homeless people. It just makes me stand out in a good way (even though I'm not pursuing a scientific career anymore).

"What's so ironic and telling about this is that it's not the "15 Sexiest Scientists" complaining...it's all the women who didn't and never would make the cut. They're not mad about being "diminished"; they're threated because their more attractive colleagues are getting recognition for something they can't possibly compete with."

As a scientist, I'm compelled to point out that you have absolutely no evidence for the above, Shannon. Note that something like 90% of female scientists are married to male scientists (including me). We are generally not out there at bars trying to compete for the alpha males. We tend to be geeks and we marry geeks, so while physical attractiveness is always a factor, it ain't hard for an unattractive female scientist to find a mate.

Anecdotally, the women scientists I know who would be offended by this vs. the ones who would be amused have comparable levels of physical attractiveness. Also, like the guy who complained about his girlfriend being on the list, the most likely to be offended person in my department would be a man.

What makes men think that women scientists are just waiting for men to notice their bodies instead of their accomplishments in the world?

Err that would be:
Make up,
Ridiculously expensive hair cuts,
Even more ridiculously expensive eau d toilette.

But seriously - how can you have a list like this and not include:
Dr Helen Smith (Pathologist/Psychologist)
Amy Alkon (psychologist)

Smart women are sexier to smart, secure men.

y'know, I always thought women were kinda goofy for wanting to be treated like men with knockers instead of the women they are...

Because this gives them an edge.

A friend who is a Molecular Biologist jokingly told me that she didn't usually care how she looked, but when making a presentation, or trying to get a grant she dressed quite well...
and every man in the room hung on every word she said.

To her it was a competative advantage. One that she isn't afreaid to use. When asked why she didn't do it more often she said: "I have enough lovesick puppies chasing me anyway, I don't want to encourage them..."

Being smart is cool, being smart and beautiful? Double the threat. Dunno why women don't see it as a positive.

Astrobiologist Dr. Giovanna Tinetti is # 1 on my hot scientist list:

http://www.realscience.org.uk/2007/04/search-for-life-on-other-worlds_17.html

It's all just crocodile tears. If this guy had put together a list of sexy waitresses, the same women would be jumping on him for NOT making a list of sexy scientists.

Women get what they want by complaining and shaming men. That's all this is. I don't believe that they're actually offended.

"Being smart is cool, being smart and beautiful? Double the threat. Dunno why women don't see it as a positive."

Some do. I get many compliments on my appearance (not necessarily beautiful, but attractive and well-dressed) and I know it makes me more memorable. Then demonstrate your competency and you are doubly noticed.

I think what worries many women (besides the discomfort with the male sexual eye as everyone has already discussed) is that many academics are really catty and always looking for a reason to put down the work of others. I think many female scientists are afraid that they will be dismissed on the basis of their attractiveness. It's a false fear, however. The insecure will always find some excuse to criticize--you have to let it go.

And Giovanna didn't let her hotness get in the way of being the first to ever detect an organic compound in the atmosphere of a planet outside our solar system:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7301390.stm

If the wymyn offended by sexy scientists really never want men to notice their bodies & appearance, they can always convert to Islam, put on their burkas, and move to Waziristan. Of course, over there they couldn't be scientists. In fact, they'd get acid thrown in their faces for having any education at all. If everybody had a sense of perspective, there would be a lot less whining in the world.

Actually, I saw the other day that they were making a reality television show (Speed Channel perhaps?) on women Nascar drivers. Eh, I only catch glimpses of television when out at the bar or restaurant.

I think the major issue here is that people define "sexy" as different things. Men, in general, define sexy as gorgeous, beautiful, attractive, etc. Unfortunately, to some women, "sexy" is defined as basic as "wanting to have sex with."

Therefore, the man saying to the woman that she is sexy is thought of as a compliment on how well she looks. Some women though the image is more that the man wants to take her to the restroom and bend her over the sink and not all women find this an appealing thought.

> Oh.

Jody, I can tell you're wounded, and gosh I'd hate to be cruel, but we need to clear this up. What is the core argument you're making? I so badly don't want to put words in your mouth... But might it go something like this?:

Gosh, once a woman (a woman, mind you, a woman!) goes to the trouble of acquiring a sorta typical and mundane intellectual certification, everyone in the world is supposed to pretend that she's departed our sordid corporeal realm for a zone of ethereal, sexlessly sustainable robotic achievement, unencumbered by the fleshly burdens which have humbled every human being since the Dawn of Creation. It's a sisterhood thing.

'Cause if that's the argument you're making, it's pretty silly. To wit:

> Sauce. Goose. Gander.

Jody, you've never complained that male scientists might suffer from the animal appraisals they summon, unbidden, from those around them... Being short, or squeak-voiced, or bald and bespeckled. I mean, she's already thirty, what with a PhD and all, right? And if she's gonna get her Nobel, she'll be storming through the lab results all night long for quite awhile anyway, right? Her skin will soon have the pallor that Frank Zappa used to call a "studio tan"... And in a blink, she'll be forty, and she won't have to worry about all those pesky blogs trying to steal a glance down her blouse. Hang on, little sister, hang on!

> If this guy had put together a list of
> sexy waitresses, the same women would
> be jumping on him for NOT making a
> list of sexy scientists.

I resent you for saying that, 'cause I thought it last night and didn't. No really. Really, I did, and now I'm pissed. At you.

Let me paint a simple scenario that all men know to be accurate and would drive all ultra-feminists crazy:

Imagine a boardroom setting where an equal number of men & women were sitting, say 30 in total. All in attendance are either top business, science, or political leaders. All are at least 45 years old. So there are some big brains there and none are young spring chickens.

Imagine further that an intense discussion has been occurring for a few hours, where everyone has espoused their ideas and their ideas are excellent. Without a doubt, the men in the room would be very impressed with the intelligence of their female peers.

Now imagine an attractive young administrative assistant came in the room, perhaps looking something like this.

Without a doubt, all heterosexual men in the room would lose interest in the conversation at hand and instead stare intently at this beautiful lady. It's just a fact of life.

It doesn't mean that they disrespect or think less of their female colleagues. What it does mean is that they are MEN! It's just a natural part of our wiring.

As for the brains vs. beauty debate, all I can do is speak for myself. I've worked with all sorts of women in my life. Some have brains, some have beauty, some have both, and some have neither. The ones with no brains I prefer not to work with. The ones with brains I really enjoy working with. But if I'm not physically attracted to them then I place them in the "sister" category and forever after that's where they remain. The ultra-feminists feel that I should be able to fall in love with such women. Sorry, I can't. There has to be a definite "lust" component for that to happen. I suspect that most other men feel similarly.

I resent you for saying that, 'cause I thought it last night and didn't. No really. Really, I did, and now I'm pissed. At you.

Posted by: Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 27, 2010 10:40 AM
-----------------------

Get over it Crid! You old fogey!

;)

These same feminist whiners would be the first to say "Men feel threatened by smart women" were they to be dumped or rejected by men.

>>A friend who is a Molecular Biologist jokingly told me that she didn't usually care how she looked, but when making a presentation, or trying to get a grant she dressed quite well...
and every man in the room hung on every word she said.

SwissArmyD,
You do know that scientists don't apply for grants in person, right?

So it's better to be well-stacked with peer-reviewed papers, than...

The rest of us, the ones not doling out grant money, can choose whatever stacks we like, right?

>>The ultra-feminists feel that I should be able to fall in love with such women. Sorry, I can't. There has to be a definite "lust" component for that to happen. I suspect that most other men feel similarly.

Robert W. (Vancouver),

Which "ultra-feminists" are you talking about here?
I am not at all familiar with the theory you describe.

>>The rest of us, the ones not doling out grant money, can choose whatever stacks we like, right?

Up and at 'em, Crid!

(I reckoned if that old joke was good enough for Pamela Anderson's short-lived TV series - she played a bookstore employee - it was good enough for Amy's!)

Also, the thing you wrote about gals pushing 30 by the time they get that PhD?

I know one here in NY who is about to defend hers - and she'll get it - at 26! (Her identical twin sister is at the Juilliard).

Does the musical one get all fuckheaded when people talk about things besides her pretty notes?

>>Does the musical one get all fuckheaded when people talk about things besides her pretty notes?

Only when the person is a limp dick, Crid.

Whelp, call me delicate, call me overly-sensitive, but there's something boner-diminishing in these childlike, Captain Renault-ish expressions of surprise:

> I think folks are understandably shocked when
> you expose an area of ignorance regarding
> something most would consider to be so obvious

"Most", she said. Y'know, feminine nature is like that. When sheltered from the real world and the plainest feelings of other people, women are given to assume that everyone in the world coheres on some unspoken baseline of identity, one to which they imagine themselves to be better aligned. We don't. The "ignorance" isn't with "most folks" at all.

>>Whelp, call me delicate...

Heaven!

For a moment there, I thought you were riffing on the opening line of "Moby-Dick", Crid!

From "Call me Ishmamel"... to "Whelp! Call me delicate".

(Well, you brought up dicks first!)

Sorry for the typo - I was getting giddy!

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see any positives to showing the sexiness of a scientist. I think there's one big one. Pretty women are more often shown to be ditsy and unintelligent. In emphasizing the sexiness of some of the scientists, it would show that you aren't resigned to choosing between attractiveness and intelligence, that you can be successful and attractive.

Every year, CNN publishes their 50 Most Powerful women listing. There are very few attractive women in the bunch. If you compare that argument to others where "none of that type" are shown, like Blacks, Latinos, women, etc., then you could make an argument that sexy intelligent women are also oppressed and thus need to shine to show "they do exist".

"Which "ultra-feminists" are you talking about here?"

Amy's women with a mustache column would be a start. Any of Amy's columns that pertain to the shallowness of men. To which her response it a sound verbal slapping to the LW.

Christina Hendricks is a size 14, in the technical sense. Her bust would have to be a 14 which would be tailored at the waist and hips, otherwise she would look like a tent. So she has the bust of a typical size 14. It's a lot easier to take in than let out past the seam limits.

>>In emphasizing the sexiness of some of the scientists, it would show that you aren't resigned to choosing between attractiveness and intelligence, that you can be successful and attractive.

What do you have in mind to emphasize "the sexiness" of these clever women, Nikki G?

Licking a test tube suggestively?

Or posing in a fume cupboard with a wind machine mussing up their hair?

Something more classy, maybe?

heh, Jody, I didn't mean applying but in trying to convince for a grant. I could be wrong about how grants all work. I thought that it wasn't just an application but a process. I have heard it described that way before. :shrug: I also had a friend who became a programmer because he was tried of trying to get grant funding... so it didn't sound fun.

>>I thought that it wasn't just an application but a process.

It can be, SwissArmyD, but the process is writing the damn (crucial) things. And, yes, many boffins loathe it.

Um. The women id'ed as good-looking by Amy Alkon look like....well, scientists.

You wanna see good-looking take a dance class at Gold's Gym Hollywood. That's what I do--for the exercise, of course.

> she's a bit shy, and might feel uncomfortable
> being on the babe list (mainly because I don't
> think she thinks of herself that way).

That's cool! It's good of you to be sensitive to her feelings that way! People shouldn't be pestered, ya' knowuddimean?

I didn't follow your link again. Well, I did, but didn't read it closely. But apparently the Luke guy also made it clear that he really meant no harm, and didn't want to leave anyone feeling like that had maintain appearances for strangers that they didn't want to be bothered with....

Totally cool with that! Totally!

But a line like this—

> because you are often the farthest thing
> from ignorant in so many areas, I think folks
> are understandably shocked when you
> expose an area of ignorance regarding
> something most would consider
> to be so obvious.

—is drenched in high-school social positioning energies. It's all about condescension, making it clear to Luke (whoever he is) that he's already been constrained by more boundaries than his relationship with the commenter deserved anyway. I mean, "often the farthest thing from ignorant" is a description of admiration for a friend? Well, mee-yow!

The thing about that kind of stuff –and it's high school stuff that appears in EVERY fashionable community from Hollywood to Wall Street to the District of Columbia– is that when someone truly doesn't care, they don't bother to say they don't care. There were people in High School who didn't go to the prom, didn't vote for prom queen and king, and had a better weekend doing something else, socializing just as meaningfully with some other group. To be specifically excluded from the Big Dance would bring no sting at all: They're already on to something else. People who wouldn't care about being called attractive on blogs wouldn't be reading blogs where someone would call them attractive. Or not.

People shouldn't be pestered. But when such things are really not what your life's about, there's no room for great offense either way.

when someone truly doesn't care, they don't bother to say they don't care.

It's like those people who announce, in this comments section, that they're utterly disgusted, blah, blah, blah, and are never coming back.

They always come back.

I had a great time at my high school prom because I took my friend John Goodman. No expectation of fabulousness or romance...we just laughed and laughed all night long.

Dear Amy,

but is she a researcher?

Ah - I understand your distinction, but feel that it would be unfair should we fail acknowledge the people at the "coal face" of science.

If we were to be compiling such a list the proper etiquette would be to solicit nominations, validate with the nominees and then publish the results. Giving those nominated the chance to gracefully decline.

Manners were conceived at a time when most were armed to prevent all disputes becoming deathly confrontations.

No comment on your own nomination, or is that a given ;-)