newearthling
Senior Member
AS a woman, I totally disagree. lolIn the Flare article, they quote the former deputy editor of the Star as saying
I don't think he's entirely wrong. I don't doubt that people are more willing to engage with strangers who are attractive, I don't think anyone would deny such a claim. This particular stranger just happens to be smart as a whip and works for a newspaper, so being able to get people to open up helps her do her job.
Creepy comments are creepy but I don't think acknowledging that she is young and attractive in general somehow detracts from her very real accomplishments in academia and in industry.
Everyone who has been following this knows that Doolittle would have been an impressive person even if she was born a genderless amorphous blob, but it doesn't really hurt anyone to acknowledge that she's pretty.
There is always waaaaay too much emphasis on looks for girls and then women. If RD's physical appearance had a direct influence on the developments, then it would be relevant to acknowledge so. Perhaps the line about getting people to open up easier is appropriate. But in general, women's looks are mentioned far too often when that information is not relevant.
Are Daniel Dale's looks mentioned every time he was the subject of a story? Perhaps it was mentioned once, in that he was much skinnier than Ford. But not every time that story was reported.
If RD is an impressive person because of her intelligence and work ethic etc, then let that stand on its own.