Here are some more discussions quoted verbatim from YOYO Line group.
Michael: Kat, there is a sentence in kooper's topic, "my bone structure didn’t help me learn Latin conjugations any more in college than my boobs helped me master syntax in graduate school." What does this sentence mean?
Wen-han: per my understanding, it could mean her physical attractiveness didn't help achieve her academical success at all
Michael: Right, that is my understanding too, just to confirm with Kat
Luis: by the way, bone structure here might also mean appearance lo.. not body figure.. maybe
Tina: I know bone structure means appearance.
Kat: Hi Michael, it's good to see the article getting people going.
To understand how most articles are written for the American magazines / websites / blogs today we have to know two things first: 1) a humorous tone taken, especially with the closing line, is popular with the readers and editors alike; 2) the trend for even non-fiction or journalistic writing is to make it “personal.” Now, for this particular article, it's tricky to make fun of a finding on gender bias (since it's definitely a bad thing), or to share a personal experience when you're not really the worst “victim” in the context of the study.
But the author still wishes to take on the report and write about it, and that's okay. I just find issues with her insisting she didn't feel that she had gotten any advantage from being (or trying to be) attractive. It's a basic understanding of modern behavioral science that when doing research, the findings come from empirical evidence and representative sampling. Any “anecdotal experience,” no matter how true, personal, or moving, simply is not scientifically representative. The study has been peer-reviewed and published, and any disputes should come from another study through the same vigorous process. In short, the study has found that women like her benefit from being attractive in a society that rewards female beauty, regardless of whether she personally “felt” it or not.
To be fair, the author couldn't really just write about how “plain women get short changed” because: 1) it'd just be boring and cliched since it confirms a common assumption; 2) she's not ugly and can't really relate. So I guess she did what she could with the topic.
Kat: Hi Michael, I missed the question on the sentence. It means neither helped with her study, because she still needed to use her brain and put in hard work. On “bone structure”, it makes for nice features (like a tall nose and cheeks as most people prefer) or figure (like a tall frame or nice legs). She missed the point of the study, of course. She may have to do the work, but the grades she got were probably better than a less attractive student who accomplished the same work might have gotten.
Michael: Yes, i agree that she missed the point of the study, good point, haha, thanks. By the way. Kat, I thought she was being sarcastic when she said "whatever, at the end of the day, there are worse things a woman can be than cute and cum laude" I think I was wrong
Kat: The good expression to learn here is “any more than,” used to argue that something is as true or false as something else. Examples: “So far it seems unlikely that the Irish Name Effect will pay off for one Martin O’Malley, any more than it did for the new Mr. O’Brien, who dropped out of his race.” (New York Times) “Trump is not a genuine politician any more than James Bond is a real British agent.” (That's my line.
) She's trying to be funny, not sarcastic.
