Sailer posts on the extremely attractive Debbie Sterling, CEO of GoldieBlox, which the NY Times says sells toys to encourage your little princess to become a mechanical engineer.
Of course, as a commenter notes, GoldieBlox is ultimately far more concerned with selling toys to make money. As Steve observes,
Have you ever noticed that basically everything you are supposed to believe in these days -- feminism, diversity, etc. -- turns out in practice to just be another way for hot babes, rich guys, super salesmen, cunning financiers, telegenic self-promoters, and charismatic politicians to get even more money and power?That's a good macro observation, and I submit something is operating on the micro level as well. So many things high-profile women do strike me as just elaborate personal ads. Debbie Sterling is spending a Standford engineering education and some high-end fashion dollars demonstrating what a hot wife and fantastic mother she is. (She is apparently married, by the way.) Not that there's anything wrong with that. Practically all civilization is the result of men advertising what good provider-protectors they are.
Isn't the bottom line effect of feminism just to push women into the same zero-sum-oriented competitions that send men to earlier graves? Most girls won't grow up to be Debbie Sterling, just like most boys won't grow up to be Frank Lloyd Wright. In fact, most men would do great just settling for an ironworker's job on a Frank Lloyd Wright project. How many women are clamoring for that?
Feminism is really only oriented to women in the upper tiers of intelligence and attractiveness. Feminists don't mention, for example, that the realistic job option for most women is customer service for Team Sterling, or stuffing mail order boxes for Team Sterling. (Women hate working for women, by the way.) In another setting, what has feminism done for women's athletics? Now we've got rhythmic gymnastics, an entire "sport" for women to advertise their potential for elaborate lovemaking to Russian oligarchs.