There's a strong correlation between being Mormon and having a stay-at-home wife/mother to begin with, isn't there? I wonder if a religion/MLM correlation would hold up across different religions. The only non-Christian example I can think of is that people into crystal healing seem to be super into the essential oil MLMs. But people I know who are super into buddhism never seem to do MLMs, for example.

I work in tech and I've worked for both the "brogrammer" type shops and the "Silicon Valley SJW hugbox" type shops and by far prefer the latter. That collaborative environment isn't just more pleasant to work for; a team is going to collectively get much better at their jobs and produce better work when people aren't focused on getting their slice of the pie, but instead just trying to bake more pies. When employees aren't worried about their coworkers edging them out for the next promotion, or during the next round of stack-ranked layoffs, they are much more willing to help their coworkers learn new things, and everyone has a slightly different area of expertise so everyone is always learning from each other. There's also no point to wasting time on backstabby office politics games so nobody does.

I think it's also really important to emphasize that this is traditional masculinity vs traditional femininity, not men versus women. At my current "feminine-style" shop, the culture was intentionally shaped this way by an almost-all-male executive team. I've also worked for women managers who had only ever seen the "brogrammer" side of industry and so they recreated that in their management, and the results were always just as miserable as when implemented by a man. The only people who will get left behind are the people who insist on being left behind, and there's no actual material reason that a bunch of working-class CNC guys couldn't run a more mutually-supportive CNC shop.

If someone doesn't believe that women belong in high-level roles, they'll try to find questions to ask whether or not there's a quota enforced. Usually the other thing they assume is that she slept her way up, so assuming you're a quota hire is pretty tame in comparison. As a woman who's had people assume that I'm a "diversity hire", the only thing you can really do is keep your head up and continue to excel at your job. The types of people who like to ask these kinds of questions usually either change their minds eventually or end up shooting themselves in the foot.

My father taught me the same thing as a kid. No idea if it's actually true but it's sad that it's even something that we could consider believable.

My father taught me the same thing as a kid. No idea if it's actually true but it's sad that it's even something that we could consider believable.

That URL/link difference usually happens when the article gets published under one title and then later gets updated. The link doesn't usually change to match the new title. So it looks like someone used the second title originally and then got a slap on the wrist from a higher-up and had to change it.

I just looked up the price of the prebutchered side of beef I bought (which includes a lot of steak and roasts and all that) versus the current price of ground beef and the side of beef was almost half the price per pound. Doesn't work if you're in an apartment and it might vary by location, but if you can buy in bulk from a farmer, you can stand to save some money.

It has a lot to do with how the figures are being painted. I don't think every nude painted by a man is necessarily sexual, but it does seem to be the majority of them that don't really have any point except to look at attractive naked women, and the artistic merits of pieces like that are pretty questionable even when the technique is good.

As for why to bother debating it beyond the model and the painter, that's because they're not the only one involved. If the model and painter got together to do the painting and then the artist immediately threw his work into a fire, or stuck it in the basement to rot, then sure. But what people are talking about is gallery space, pricing, and ultimately how much importance we want to give them in our cultural fabric. People like art because it evokes certain thoughts and emotions in the viewer. A painting of a perfect looking woman who is apparently nude except that her feet are naturally formed into a high-heel shape (Allen Jones, Backdrop) really does nothing for me, or I reckon for most other people. It literally looks like cartoon porn with a thin veneer of "art" put on top for plausible deniability. Checking out his other works certainly didn't change my mind. Personally I would have no interest in visiting or supporting a museum that thought this was good art. It's equivalent to a schoolboy drawing titties on his desk, except that this guy has developed a better technique. Unless it's jerkoff material, what's the point? And if it is jerkoff material, why would anyone care about it as art?

I read both articles and did the little quiz at the bottom. I have to agree with the second article that the "Women" series seriously misses the mark. Most of the male-painted nudes shown in the main article also didn't seem to have any purpose besides to look at slim, perfect-breasted women with minimal pubic hair, whereas many of the female-painted nudes were humanizing to the subject or otherwise carried a powerful message (Judy Chicago's especially). There were a couple that looked interesting painted by men, but if you're making something like Jansson Stegner's "Undressing" then of course people are going to think you're just doing it to be a pervert and objectify women. I think it's less a question of whether men can paint a female nude, but how often they bother to paint one with any artistic value.