[jdthedisciple]

> A supermodel who is gifted with the gift of looks, beauty etc is also in the same category of “natural” talent but sure doesn’t get the same celebration as a prodigy in maths or science

We living on the same planet?

Pretty sure the supermodel gets infinitely more attention and certainly makes orders of magnitudes more money than some math prodigy, at least on mine.

[globular-toast]

There is an inequality between the sexes here. A female model does indeed get more attention and money based purely on the genes they didn't have to work for. It's not the case for men, though. Men also have to actually deliver something, whether it's being a performer like an actor, singer, footballer etc, or winning the Field's medal which you don't just get for being quite good at maths when you're 8. Trying to think of men who are famous just for genetics is quite hard. I guess like Orlando Bloom or the members of K-pop bands and whatnot, but they still have to perform and can't just prance around in fancy clothes and call it a day. In the case of Tao, if he had just decided to do something else or not accomplished anything you'd never have heard of him. Men always have to work for it. Women often don't, and if they try it doesn't work. It's the source of a lot of disgruntlement between the sexes, but probably a "grass is always greener" thing.

[rkomorn]

> based purely on the genes they didn't have to work for

Modeling is notorious for its negative impact on models' health.

They absolutely work for it, and in one of the most toxic work environments.

[jdthedisciple]

All I can say is before you assess the inequality of outcomes across the sexes, perhaps consider the differences in their inherent qualities to begin with.

[masfuerte]

David Gandy merely lolls in his pants.

[sleepyams]

I think Terrence Tao makes at least 600k at UCLA. Not too bad if you ask me.

[itemize123]

he would make 10 times more if he's a supermodel of same caliber.