I think they're missing probably the most important factor of "pretty privelege" by looking at it backwards - sure, there might be some biological reasons people associate attractiveness with...
I think they're missing probably the most important factor of "pretty privelege" by looking at it backwards - sure, there might be some biological reasons people associate attractiveness with trustworthiness, but I think a much bigger factor is the forgiveness factor.
In my personal, anecdotal experience, I don't think it's that people generally see a person they find attractive and think they are actually smarter or more trustworthy than others. From my observation I think it's that people are more likely to let personality flaws go or overlook them entirely because they want the pretty person to like them. So if you have an "ugly" person with a negative personality trait, say laziness, rudeness, or entitlement, people are generally more likely to be willing to cut back on their relationship with the person.
Basically I guess I'm saying I think the points in the article are legitimate, but they are looking at the problem from a macro lens when there's a significant amount of individual selfishness that applies as well. People want to be around pretty people, and they want to be liked by pretty people, so they give them more leeway to have complex personalities.
On the opposite side of this, I’m a woman that’s okay looking (is there a way to say that that doesn’t sound bad) and I’ve actually had conversations with friends about the opposite of this issue....
On the opposite side of this, I’m a woman that’s okay looking (is there a way to say that that doesn’t sound bad) and I’ve actually had conversations with friends about the opposite of this issue. I was sexually harassed from a very young age and still receive some harassment just for walking down the street (even during the middle of winter if anyone wants to ask what I was wearing). Friends that had a ‘glow up’ or notice a marked difference in how they’re treated when they’re made up compared to natural all day they were harassed less before the glow up or when they’re natural. People started shouting crude things at me from cars when I was 12/13, I’m not even in an area where this is a particular problem compared to lots of places
So while I do acknowledge that there are pros, there’s also some pretty big cons that I feel get dismissed when this topic comes up
Just to note, they actually do link to this indirectly in the article: Bolded part links here:...
Just to note, they actually do link to this indirectly in the article:
But Ho also pointed to how looking good sometimes has the opposite effect, especially for women. People might say, for example, that because a woman is so pretty, she must be shallow or not so smart.
But another disturbingly wrote, “I get catcalled / honked at a lot. I'm constantly worried about my safety. The other day I took a 15 minute walk and in that time I got honked at twice and a guy got out of his car at a red light to ask me if I needed a ride. It just makes me scared sometimes.”
Other women admitted they had experienced similar situations too, “Random guys on the street ask me if I want to grab a coffee or give them my number regularly.
“The negative side effect: creepy old men follow me or try to talk to me in public. They enter my personal space and I am scared.”
So I agree completely - there is a bit of a sexist slant to this article, in addition to the simplification of the issue I expounded on in my comment in this topic.
Yeah as someone who's perceived as a middling-to-unattractive fat woman, I think this issue is very conplex when applied to women. There are a fucking TON of situations where being skinny and/or...
Yeah as someone who's perceived as a middling-to-unattractive fat woman, I think this issue is very conplex when applied to women. There are a fucking TON of situations where being skinny and/or attractive do improve how you're treated, but I've been catcalled only maybe once or twice in my life? Way less than my more conventionally attractive friends. There are negatives to being seen as not attractive when women are so often valued solely based on their attractiveness, but there are definitely also some positives to that invisibility in some situations. But tbh in general I'm not super keen on how the article presents this issue, the angle is weird and oversimplified at best.
I agree-- I'm a woman who's pretty "normal" looking and honestly I've gained some weight in the past few years and since then I feel more comfortable going out alone because I know it's unlikely...
I agree-- I'm a woman who's pretty "normal" looking and honestly I've gained some weight in the past few years and since then I feel more comfortable going out alone because I know it's unlikely anyone will bother me.
I'm also in STEM and I'm pretty sure people I work with take me more seriously because they see me as "one of the guys" rather than a sex object. I'd hate to be a pretty girl in STEM. Even being a fat girl in STEM can be a bit much sometimes (some guys are into "thick" women and think that for some reason telling me this will accomplish something).
I do agree that Pretty Privilege exists, but I generally think its a lot more muddled then what the article suggests. Sure, it throws a quick reference to some of the potential problems....
I do agree that Pretty Privilege exists, but I generally think its a lot more muddled then what the article suggests. Sure, it throws a quick reference to some of the potential problems. Personally, the biggest advantage I've gotten from being attractive is that random people are generally nice to me. While that's a real advantage, its also not some crazy thing that I consider some massive perk. Hell, I genuinely had no idea I was considered attractive until about a year and half ago.
And I've had a fair number of weird and creepy shit from mostly women, but some men, that I now expect was at least partly from my apparent attractiveness.
So much trauma dumping from women I barely know; One time it was literally a total stranger walking up and just dumping on me
"Friends" being extremely dismissive of any problem; One time I complained about having 1 date in my life, and the "friend" that I was talking to said "Well, I am sure you'll go on a date this week". Ironically they were almost right, but I got stood up so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
People mistaking niceness for romantic interest and acting entitled to shit from me
General creepiness; One time I got text from an unknown number, that I assume was from a coworker who took it from the stupid company app, about them hunting me down and breaking down my door one day
But personally, I'd say one of the worst parts is that the vast majority refuse to listen about the problems because they want to protect their fantasy that being attractive is some magical thing that is all good and has no downsides.
I agree with others that the article takes a very macro approach to the topic. I feel like there's some nuance that's been overlooked, such as how this topic affects women, as others have said. As...
I agree with others that the article takes a very macro approach to the topic. I feel like there's some nuance that's been overlooked, such as how this topic affects women, as others have said. As a woman of color, there's never been any consistency in how people perceive me physically. Racism and prejudice plays a huge part in some instances/with certain people. Someone could find me very unattractive because of my race, as well as very attractive because of my race. Of course, there are also people who don't allow race to be a factor at all. But I mention all this to say the topic is a bit more complicated than the article reads.
This article seems seems to very pointedly ignore weight as part of the issue here -- even though one of their examples is of a guy getting treated better after losing some weight. The biggest...
This article seems seems to very pointedly ignore weight as part of the issue here -- even though one of their examples is of a guy getting treated better after losing some weight. The biggest affect on how people treat me based on my appearance has been when I lose or gain weight. I think it's telling that the article is unwilling to say "fat people are treated worse" when it spends so much time comparatively discussing symmetrical faces. Maybe because it ruins their evopsych angle, idk.
But ig I'm also a little grateful because I'm so used to reddit comment sections about anything related to fat people being absolutely vile. I've honestly hesitated to even post this comment because I've had so many bad experiences there, but hopefully tildes can be better about it.
I respect your enthusiasm, but I gotta be honest, this feels a little forced. Maybe there's a way for this group to make sense, but, the way you envision it (based on this and other posts where...
I respect your enthusiasm, but I gotta be honest, this feels a little forced.
Maybe there's a way for this group to make sense, but, the way you envision it (based on this and other posts where you made a reference to it), is so incredibly broad that an exceedingly large portion of Tildes could have a reason to belong in it. At the same time, all posts you made to support your case are perfectly at home in already existing groups.
I believe that this broadness is part of why this new group seems appealing (feels like a magic solution), but to me, this has the opposite effect. It would be like having an ~everything group. It is so broad it is implied. So why have it at all?
In this particular case, it would also rob valuable content from ~science with a #psychology tag, or, maybe, in the future, ~science.psychology.
History, sociology, anthropology, criminology, social science, political science, psychiatry... they are all about people. I would be sad if all of this content went to ~people. Doesn't feel right.
I very much disagree with ~people on a fundamental level. I don't disagree with the reasoning on why something must be done to address those needs, I just don't think ~people is a good idea. Your...
I very much disagree with ~people on a fundamental level. I don't disagree with the reasoning on why something must be done to address those needs, I just don't think ~people is a good idea.
Your explanation is totally reasonable. I just don't think that the examples you chose really support your point.
I agree. Out of the 5 items that @mundane_and_naive posted to support the case for a ~people group, I moved 3 of them to existing groups (~news, ~science, ~arts), and those moves didn't feel...
I just don't think that the examples you chose really support your point.
I agree. Out of the 5 items that @mundane_and_naive posted to support the case for a ~people group, I moved 3 of them to existing groups (~news, ~science, ~arts), and those moves didn't feel forced in any way. I would have moved another 1 to a ~socialscience group, if we had one (I see that mycketforvirrad has since moved it to ~science as the next best fit). The 5th one, that hasn't been moved from ~misc, is actually one that I'm not sure is suitable content for Tildes anyway.
So, regardless of whether one feels that a ~people group is necessary or beneficiary for Tildes (and, to be honest, I'm not sure about what I think of the idea)... these 5 items aren't making a case for its existence.
Also, I think that @mundane_and_naive would have done better to include these 5 posts in a comment in the thread where new groups are being discussed, where people can see them in that context, rather than posting them elsewhere on Tildes.
There are a couple of problems with getting that different type of discussion you wanted. First, you didn't post them to a ~people group, because obviously that group doesn't exist. So, you can't...
There are a couple of problems with getting that different type of discussion you wanted.
First, you didn't post them to a ~people group, because obviously that group doesn't exist. So, you can't demonstrate what kind of different discussion would have resulted in that ~people group.
Second, most Tilders are currently subscribed to most groups on Tildes. Look at the Groups Overview on this third-party statistics page. See how they all have nearly the same number of users. Most people get automatically subscribed to all groups and sub-groups when they sign up, and most people don't unsubscribe from most groups. That's what this post was about - Deimos is considering whether to ask everyone to choose the groups they subscribe to, which will make the userbase for each group more independent from each other group.
The current situation means the people in each group are pretty much all the same people as in all other groups. So, whether you post a topic in ~misc or ~science or ~news, it'll be shown to the same audience, and you'll get the same people making the same types of comments that they would if you posted it in any other group.
Also... You're right that you probably shouldn't have added those off-topic comments about your experiment. I've learned the hard way: anything you post in public can and will be used as a jumping-off point by other people for whatever discussions they feel like. Luckily, on Tildes, we have the 'Offtopic' label to push these off-topic discussions to the bottom of a thread.
If you wanted to use these items to support your case for a ~people group, you should have done as you said here: made a comment in that thread linking back to these topics you posted.
Essentially, ~people would change Tildes in a profound and fundamental way in one swoop and I believe it will invite a lot of bad along with a lot of good. Something like that can definitely...
Essentially, ~people would change Tildes in a profound and fundamental way in one swoop and I believe it will invite a lot of bad along with a lot of good. Something like that can definitely happen in the future, but it would essentially mean choosing to be an entirely different website and that seems extremely premature.
Because the shift from a paradigm of groups as categories for content to groups as categories for people is a profound and irreversible shift. I wrote about this at greater length here.
At the same time, I kinda like what Tildes is, and I'm not convinced that every single need should be met in the terms that it is requested. Not because I'm against these demands, but a website cannot be everything at the same time. We need time to meditate on these changes and ideas.
And do notice that the idea for this group emerged on a post asking for suggestions for short term changes. ~people most certainly does not feel short term. It would require a lot of changes other than simply creating the groups.
But maybe I'm wrong and it's actually okay, good, and super simple. I'm just a guy with free time.
Okay, I apologize for the extra comment but I forgot something important: I believe that it's not possible to make a good case for ~people with semi-random link posts because that's not what it...
Okay, I apologize for the extra comment but I forgot something important: I believe that it's not possible to make a good case for ~people with semi-random link posts because that's not what it would be about. ~people should be all about context. What you describe is essentially a big umbrella for specific ~talk groups interspersed with links that are very connected to people in an "identitary" subjective level. So what you wanna do is write about your own experiences and invite others to do the same.
See? Now I'm trying to help you get a group I disagree with ;)
Why would we want an incredibly broad, subjective category like that? This feels like something that can be completely addressed through tags without creating subjective identity silos.
Why would we want an incredibly broad, subjective category like that?
This feels like something that can be completely addressed through tags without creating subjective identity silos.
"Silos" is a strong word but I do believe that some kind of subjective identify safe space is required. That is a valid demand. I just don't know if ~people is the way to go, and, if it is, it...
"Silos" is a strong word but I do believe that some kind of subjective identify safe space is required. That is a valid demand. I just don't know if ~people is the way to go, and, if it is, it seems premature.
I'd be very careful to not convert a disagreement into a dismissal of subjective demands that are entirely welcome on Tilde's.
"Required" is also a strong word. There's nothing wrong with spaces for discussion. That hardly means it's necessary here any more than any other group or category — particularly at this point in...
"Required" is also a strong word.
There's nothing wrong with spaces for discussion. That hardly means it's necessary here any more than any other group or category — particularly at this point in the site's growth.
I could see there eventually being subgroups under ~talk for various communities.
I personally disagree. Safe spaces are necessary for many reasons, but usually those that need them are the ones that better communicate those needs. I choose to listen to them.
I personally disagree. Safe spaces are necessary for many reasons, but usually those that need them are the ones that better communicate those needs. I choose to listen to them.
Of course safe spaces are necessary. That is not at all the same thing as saying that they are necessary here. Decisions as to community organization — to say nothing of moderation philosophies...
Of course safe spaces are necessary.
That is not at all the same thing as saying that they are necessary here. Decisions as to community organization — to say nothing of moderation philosophies and resources — are rightly within the purview of every member to consider and discuss.
Why stop at ~people. How about ~intelligences, or ~consciousnesses? Then the aliens/extraterrestrials/non-human intelligences/AI overlords would have a place to post too! /noise
Why stop at ~people. How about ~intelligences, or ~consciousnesses? Then the aliens/extraterrestrials/non-human intelligences/AI overlords would have a place to post too!
Interestingly, I never experienced any of the advantages in life described in the article even though I am clearly an Adonis. So, obviously, this article is complete bullshit.
Interestingly, I never experienced any of the advantages in life described in the article even though I am clearly an Adonis. So, obviously, this article is complete bullshit.
I think they're missing probably the most important factor of "pretty privelege" by looking at it backwards - sure, there might be some biological reasons people associate attractiveness with trustworthiness, but I think a much bigger factor is the forgiveness factor.
In my personal, anecdotal experience, I don't think it's that people generally see a person they find attractive and think they are actually smarter or more trustworthy than others. From my observation I think it's that people are more likely to let personality flaws go or overlook them entirely because they want the pretty person to like them. So if you have an "ugly" person with a negative personality trait, say laziness, rudeness, or entitlement, people are generally more likely to be willing to cut back on their relationship with the person.
Basically I guess I'm saying I think the points in the article are legitimate, but they are looking at the problem from a macro lens when there's a significant amount of individual selfishness that applies as well. People want to be around pretty people, and they want to be liked by pretty people, so they give them more leeway to have complex personalities.
On the opposite side of this, I’m a woman that’s okay looking (is there a way to say that that doesn’t sound bad) and I’ve actually had conversations with friends about the opposite of this issue. I was sexually harassed from a very young age and still receive some harassment just for walking down the street (even during the middle of winter if anyone wants to ask what I was wearing). Friends that had a ‘glow up’ or notice a marked difference in how they’re treated when they’re made up compared to natural all day they were harassed less before the glow up or when they’re natural. People started shouting crude things at me from cars when I was 12/13, I’m not even in an area where this is a particular problem compared to lots of places
So while I do acknowledge that there are pros, there’s also some pretty big cons that I feel get dismissed when this topic comes up
Just to note, they actually do link to this indirectly in the article:
Bolded part links here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/women-too-beautiful-stereotype-prejudice-sexist-dating-workplace-a7555676.html
Which actually just pulls comments from this reddit thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/5lteef/women_who_are_conventionally_attractive_do_you/
So I agree completely - there is a bit of a sexist slant to this article, in addition to the simplification of the issue I expounded on in my comment in this topic.
Yeah as someone who's perceived as a middling-to-unattractive fat woman, I think this issue is very conplex when applied to women. There are a fucking TON of situations where being skinny and/or attractive do improve how you're treated, but I've been catcalled only maybe once or twice in my life? Way less than my more conventionally attractive friends. There are negatives to being seen as not attractive when women are so often valued solely based on their attractiveness, but there are definitely also some positives to that invisibility in some situations. But tbh in general I'm not super keen on how the article presents this issue, the angle is weird and oversimplified at best.
I agree-- I'm a woman who's pretty "normal" looking and honestly I've gained some weight in the past few years and since then I feel more comfortable going out alone because I know it's unlikely anyone will bother me.
I'm also in STEM and I'm pretty sure people I work with take me more seriously because they see me as "one of the guys" rather than a sex object. I'd hate to be a pretty girl in STEM. Even being a fat girl in STEM can be a bit much sometimes (some guys are into "thick" women and think that for some reason telling me this will accomplish something).
I do agree that Pretty Privilege exists, but I generally think its a lot more muddled then what the article suggests. Sure, it throws a quick reference to some of the potential problems. Personally, the biggest advantage I've gotten from being attractive is that random people are generally nice to me. While that's a real advantage, its also not some crazy thing that I consider some massive perk. Hell, I genuinely had no idea I was considered attractive until about a year and half ago.
And I've had a fair number of weird and creepy shit from mostly women, but some men, that I now expect was at least partly from my apparent attractiveness.
But personally, I'd say one of the worst parts is that the vast majority refuse to listen about the problems because they want to protect their fantasy that being attractive is some magical thing that is all good and has no downsides.
I agree with others that the article takes a very macro approach to the topic. I feel like there's some nuance that's been overlooked, such as how this topic affects women, as others have said. As a woman of color, there's never been any consistency in how people perceive me physically. Racism and prejudice plays a huge part in some instances/with certain people. Someone could find me very unattractive because of my race, as well as very attractive because of my race. Of course, there are also people who don't allow race to be a factor at all. But I mention all this to say the topic is a bit more complicated than the article reads.
This article seems seems to very pointedly ignore weight as part of the issue here -- even though one of their examples is of a guy getting treated better after losing some weight. The biggest affect on how people treat me based on my appearance has been when I lose or gain weight. I think it's telling that the article is unwilling to say "fat people are treated worse" when it spends so much time comparatively discussing symmetrical faces. Maybe because it ruins their evopsych angle, idk.
But ig I'm also a little grateful because I'm so used to reddit comment sections about anything related to fat people being absolutely vile. I've honestly hesitated to even post this comment because I've had so many bad experiences there, but hopefully tildes can be better about it.
I respect your enthusiasm, but I gotta be honest, this feels a little forced.
Maybe there's a way for this group to make sense, but, the way you envision it (based on this and other posts where you made a reference to it), is so incredibly broad that an exceedingly large portion of Tildes could have a reason to belong in it. At the same time, all posts you made to support your case are perfectly at home in already existing groups.
I believe that this broadness is part of why this new group seems appealing (feels like a magic solution), but to me, this has the opposite effect. It would be like having an ~everything group. It is so broad it is implied. So why have it at all?
In this particular case, it would also rob valuable content from ~science with a #psychology tag, or, maybe, in the future, ~science.psychology.
History, sociology, anthropology, criminology, social science, political science, psychiatry... they are all about people. I would be sad if all of this content went to ~people. Doesn't feel right.
I very much disagree with ~people on a fundamental level. I don't disagree with the reasoning on why something must be done to address those needs, I just don't think ~people is a good idea.
Your explanation is totally reasonable. I just don't think that the examples you chose really support your point.
I agree. Out of the 5 items that @mundane_and_naive posted to support the case for a ~people group, I moved 3 of them to existing groups (~news, ~science, ~arts), and those moves didn't feel forced in any way. I would have moved another 1 to a ~socialscience group, if we had one (I see that mycketforvirrad has since moved it to ~science as the next best fit). The 5th one, that hasn't been moved from ~misc, is actually one that I'm not sure is suitable content for Tildes anyway.
So, regardless of whether one feels that a ~people group is necessary or beneficiary for Tildes (and, to be honest, I'm not sure about what I think of the idea)... these 5 items aren't making a case for its existence.
Also, I think that @mundane_and_naive would have done better to include these 5 posts in a comment in the thread where new groups are being discussed, where people can see them in that context, rather than posting them elsewhere on Tildes.
There are a couple of problems with getting that different type of discussion you wanted.
First, you didn't post them to a ~people group, because obviously that group doesn't exist. So, you can't demonstrate what kind of different discussion would have resulted in that ~people group.
Second, most Tilders are currently subscribed to most groups on Tildes. Look at the Groups Overview on this third-party statistics page. See how they all have nearly the same number of users. Most people get automatically subscribed to all groups and sub-groups when they sign up, and most people don't unsubscribe from most groups. That's what this post was about - Deimos is considering whether to ask everyone to choose the groups they subscribe to, which will make the userbase for each group more independent from each other group.
The current situation means the people in each group are pretty much all the same people as in all other groups. So, whether you post a topic in ~misc or ~science or ~news, it'll be shown to the same audience, and you'll get the same people making the same types of comments that they would if you posted it in any other group.
Also... You're right that you probably shouldn't have added those off-topic comments about your experiment. I've learned the hard way: anything you post in public can and will be used as a jumping-off point by other people for whatever discussions they feel like. Luckily, on Tildes, we have the 'Offtopic' label to push these off-topic discussions to the bottom of a thread.
If you wanted to use these items to support your case for a ~people group, you should have done as you said here: made a comment in that thread linking back to these topics you posted.
Essentially, ~people would change Tildes in a profound and fundamental way in one swoop and I believe it will invite a lot of bad along with a lot of good. Something like that can definitely happen in the future, but it would essentially mean choosing to be an entirely different website and that seems extremely premature.
Because the shift from a paradigm of groups as categories for content to groups as categories for people is a profound and irreversible shift. I wrote about this at greater length here.
At the same time, I kinda like what Tildes is, and I'm not convinced that every single need should be met in the terms that it is requested. Not because I'm against these demands, but a website cannot be everything at the same time. We need time to meditate on these changes and ideas.
And do notice that the idea for this group emerged on a post asking for suggestions for short term changes. ~people most certainly does not feel short term. It would require a lot of changes other than simply creating the groups.
But maybe I'm wrong and it's actually okay, good, and super simple. I'm just a guy with free time.
Okay, I apologize for the extra comment but I forgot something important: I believe that it's not possible to make a good case for ~people with semi-random link posts because that's not what it would be about. ~people should be all about context. What you describe is essentially a big umbrella for specific ~talk groups interspersed with links that are very connected to people in an "identitary" subjective level. So what you wanna do is write about your own experiences and invite others to do the same.
See? Now I'm trying to help you get a group I disagree with ;)
Why would we want an incredibly broad, subjective category like that?
This feels like something that can be completely addressed through tags without creating subjective identity silos.
"Silos" is a strong word but I do believe that some kind of subjective identify safe space is required. That is a valid demand. I just don't know if ~people is the way to go, and, if it is, it seems premature.
I'd be very careful to not convert a disagreement into a dismissal of subjective demands that are entirely welcome on Tilde's.
"Required" is also a strong word.
There's nothing wrong with spaces for discussion. That hardly means it's necessary here any more than any other group or category — particularly at this point in the site's growth.
I could see there eventually being subgroups under ~talk for various communities.
I personally disagree. Safe spaces are necessary for many reasons, but usually those that need them are the ones that better communicate those needs. I choose to listen to them.
Of course safe spaces are necessary.
That is not at all the same thing as saying that they are necessary here. Decisions as to community organization — to say nothing of moderation philosophies and resources — are rightly within the purview of every member to consider and discuss.
Why stop at ~people. How about ~intelligences, or ~consciousnesses? Then the aliens/extraterrestrials/non-human intelligences/AI overlords would have a place to post too!
/noise
Interestingly, I never experienced any of the advantages in life described in the article even though I am clearly an Adonis. So, obviously, this article is complete bullshit.