And in doing so she fought censors, TV networks, the FBI, you name it. She fought her whole life against this kind of bullshit. And now Naomi has taken up the fight too, and is probably discovering just how unnecessarily heavy a burden it is.
Honest question as they don’t seem the same. But maybe they are?
It's fighting against the stupid view that two lumps under your flesh are somehow evil and must be hidden away or punished somehow (but only if you're a woman), or that touching your crotch on television is an arrestable offence, or any other thing in that long list of stupidity.
It's about having rights over your own body, such that you can say "You don't like what you see? Well too bad, because it's my body and my right and you can't do a damn thing about it, nor do I have any obligation to explain myself."
It's primarily women who fight this battle because the rules are tilted far more against them. Most men can't even see the problem.
Here's an interesting thought experiment: A man gets breast implants and then goes around topless like he did before. Can you imagine the chaos that ensues? The legal questions? The social commentary about "decency"? The traumatized children? Can you see the hypocracy?
I’m curious if you are suggesting that is perfectly acceptable that, in a society that prohibits topless women from walking around, it would be perfectly acceptable for a man to implant breasts on himself and then walk around topless.
Because sex is bad, and tempting/teasing people is bad? - as some certain cultures say (but hardly bat an eye with portrayals of "fun" violence or tons of other issues).
I’m not talking about this particular video by the way, but more than likely the reactions to her other videos have affected how this particular video is judged, which is probably not fair.
What if she's like that anyway, and thus doesn't have to "try" and is correct in saying that?
Some women dress like that just fine on their own, enjoy enhacement surgery for certain parts and so on, and they don't have to do it for some audience...
This to me, is disingenuous. If I am attending a math lecture, I do not want to see my professor's abs (or balls or whatever) even if he was the most attractive man on the planet.
The problem (at least to me) is not that Naomi is wearing skimpy clothes. The problem is her channel has nothing to do with fashion (or women empowerment etc). It can be a completely fun and educative channel, instead there is more discussion about her clothes than the good stuff she makes and the good education she provides. All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized. All this unnecessary controversy can probably be shut down if she had two channels - one for fashion and one for electronics.
Having said all that, maybe we should grow up as a society and learn to not put so much thought into body parts. I get that viewpoint too.
Of course, she could hide it, but she just doesn't want to.
So? Why should people be compartmentalized, and not be allowed to feel and look sexy whne doing tech stuff?
That's the puritan dichotomy, where the body/sexual is bad, and should be kept inside marriage and procreation, or -as adjusted in more permitting puritans- to specially allocated sexy-time.
And, that said, the premise that her channel has nothing to do this is wrong.
Her intention is not to show how some technical stuff. It also isn't to show that women in general can too do some technical stuff.
It's to show how a sexy, sensual woman, a category often dismissed as bimbos, can also do technical stuff. And that technical stuff can be part of a fun and sexy thing, not just something that's relegated to bookish somber asexuality.
I mean, it's even in the channel's name...
>All the while claiming she is not trying to be sexualized.
She's not "trying", that's who she is.
Naomi Wu never claimed not to aim for sexualization. She talks about it pretty frankly. She uses the handle "sexycyborg". She's obviously aiming for sexualization.
But sometimes advertisers do not want to advertise on that type of content, and since it is their money, thats alright.
Like sure, go ahead. Make that type of content. But don't be surprised when advertisers don't want to buy ads on it.
I remember an earlier discussion on HN about Youtube demonetizing other content - videos about guns, I think. My thought then and now is that there are many advertisers on Youtube who would like their ad to run on "ForgottenWeapons shoots a pre-WWII anti-tank rifle" and many (probably not with a lot of overlap) who would like to advertise on "SexyCyborg builds a sexy mannequin". Large, conservative brands probably wouldn't, but Youtube is leaving money on the table if it caters exclusively to those.
You are sexually attracted to dressmakers dummies made out of 4mm cardboard?
However I do think that western culture is a bit on the prude side and has a strange double standard regarding nude or partially nude bodies depending on gender or its features. Sexualizing one type, while normalizing another.
I'd much rather children grow up knowing what the other gender looks like naked with that knowledge being delivered in some environment other than PornHub. It's insane -- I literally only knew about the female form from reading medical textbooks as a child and had never seen a naked woman until I was 19. Many women have no idea what their own anatomy is, because cultures have such a taboo about it. Yet on American cultural exports, love, breasts or bodies get an 18+ rating and explosions, shooting and murder get a prime-time action TV slot. I don't get it.
Everyone's naked under their clothes.
(1): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/06/john-dillerman...
Use whatever euphemism or descriptive word you want. The point here, is that advertisers do not want to be associated with whatever it is you want you call it.
Call it whatever you want, or use whatever euphemism. But at the end of the day, whatever word you use, the advertisers likely don't want to be associated with it.