These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Female Character "Attributes"

First post
Author
Eurydia Vespasian
Storm Hunters
#161 - 2013-07-29 16:52:49 UTC
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
But this would lead us back to the topic. Would female players playing a male character create it in their imagination of beauty... and from where comes this imagination ... and is it likewise stereotype like that from the men ... ? There was one reply about that.


oh, so that's what this thread is supposed to be about? well, then. let me answer that.

yes. if i designed a male character i would make it as appealing to my tastes as possible. absolutely. do i think media plays a role in what's considered attractive? certainly. i find some celebrities, like colin farrell or dustin clare to be remarkably attractive men. do i consider this "stereotype" to be the standard to which all men should be held to? ha! if only! i know that's not the case nor do i expect it to be.

additionally, i'll add that i think the pressure on men to conform to these "standards" or "stereotypes" of appearance are significantly less dramatic than what women have to deal with. in much of the "first" world, we are bombarded from a very early age by these pressures. i'm not trying to downplay the pressures men are exposed to...i just believe that we women feel the brunt of success or failure in upholding those "stereotypes" more keenly.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#162 - 2013-07-29 17:30:56 UTC
Quote:
additionally, i'll add that i think the pressure on men to conform to these "standards" or "stereotypes" of appearance are significantly less dramatic than what women have to deal with. in much of the "first" world, we are bombarded from a very early age by these pressures. i'm not trying to downplay the pressures men are exposed to...i just believe that we women feel the brunt of success or failure in upholding those "stereotypes" more keenly.


I'd propose that, given the tendency of only one gender to really engage in the kind of group mindset and social pressure that such things require, that this problem is neither created nor enforced by men at all.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Shizu Eisenkreuz
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#163 - 2013-07-29 17:38:38 UTC
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
Man - rational, logical. Women - emphatic, emotional.


WTF is this bullshit?
You keep dropping these atrocious walls of text about your oh-so-deep opinions about boobs and feminism and, after eight pages, you come up with this?

My 90 years old grandfather would provide me way less obvious and trite stereotypes.
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#164 - 2013-07-29 17:53:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Shinomiya
Shizu Eisenkreuz wrote:
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
Man - rational, logical. Women - emphatic, emotional.


WTF is this bullshit?
You keep dropping these atrocious walls of text about your oh-so-deep opinions about boobs and feminism and, after eight pages, you come up with this?

My 90 years old grandfather would provide me way less obvious and trite stereotypes.


This is proven by various biological and psychological sciences and I wanted to add this aspect to the discussion. The assessment of my opinion lies in our hands if you think you need to do it. I only gave my opinion based on my knowledge and experience and how understands it. If you find it "atrocious", okay. It is your right. Add something constructive to the conversation or let it be if you cannot.
Shizu Eisenkreuz
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#165 - 2013-07-29 18:29:13 UTC
Link me some of these 'various biological and psychological sciences'. Reliable sources.

Also, there is very little room for constructive debate with someone who literally reasons by stereotypes.
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#166 - 2013-07-29 18:36:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Shinomiya
Shizu Eisenkreuz wrote:
Link me some of these 'various biological and psychological sciences'. Reliable sources.

Also, there is very little room for constructive debate with someone who literally reasons by stereotypes.


I do not collect all things I read or hear. Proof me the opposite of what I am said.

Where have I used stereotypes?
Kyt Thrace
Lightspeed Enterprises
Goonswarm Federation
#167 - 2013-07-29 18:42:03 UTC
I find this whole thread to be sexual harassment. Everyone here has been warned!

Next step will be to report this to management..

R.I.P. Vile Rat

Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#168 - 2013-07-29 18:59:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Shinomiya
Kyt Thrace wrote:
I find this whole thread to be sexual harassment. Everyone here has been warned!

Next step will be to report this to management..


Please. With all due respect for your opinion. Stay realistic. Nobody was sexual harassed. This is a digital discussion forum with no physical presence. This gives us enough distance to eachother.
Shizu Eisenkreuz
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#169 - 2013-07-29 19:00:53 UTC
Aya Shinomiya wrote:


I do not collect all things I read or hear. Proof me the opposite of what I am said.

Where have I used stereotypes?


I don't have to proof anything. You started the whole parade.

Pretty much your entire thought process through this thread is made of stereotypes, from the starting fit of bigotism in the OP, to the final "male=rational vs female=emotional" gross generalization.

Final reply from me on the topic. You are way too boring and predictable to warrant future replies.
Marlene Dakenek
Devid Ventures
#170 - 2013-07-29 19:06:32 UTC
Shizu Eisenkreuz wrote:
Aya Shinomiya wrote:


I do not collect all things I read or hear. Proof me the opposite of what I am said.

Where have I used stereotypes?


I don't have to proof anything. You started the whole parade.

Pretty much your entire thought process through this thread is made of stereotypes, from the starting fit of bigotism in the OP, to the final "male=rational vs female=emotional" gross generalization.

Final reply from me on the topic. You are way too boring and predictable to warrant future replies.



I'm sorry you can't accept scientifically proven facts. Is it so hard to accept that there are mental and physical differences between sexes?
voetius
Grundrisse
#171 - 2013-07-29 19:10:54 UTC
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
Shizu Eisenkreuz wrote:
Link me some of these 'various biological and psychological sciences'. Reliable sources.

Also, there is very little room for constructive debate with someone who literally reasons by stereotypes.


I do not collect all things I read or hear. Proof me the opposite of what I am said.

Where have I used stereotypes?


You made the claim, it's reasonable for someone to ask that you supply the sources to support the said claim.
Meytal
Doomheim
#172 - 2013-07-29 19:12:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Meytal
I once heard a poem that is appropriate for this thread:

Roses are ****
Violets are ****
I like ****
**** **** ****

(why it blanks out all but one occurrance of the word eludes me)
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#173 - 2013-07-29 19:18:59 UTC
voetius wrote:
Aya Shinomiya wrote:
Shizu Eisenkreuz wrote:
Link me some of these 'various biological and psychological sciences'. Reliable sources.

Also, there is very little room for constructive debate with someone who literally reasons by stereotypes.


I do not collect all things I read or hear. Proof me the opposite of what I am said.

Where have I used stereotypes?


You made the claim, it's reasonable for someone to ask that you supply the sources to support the said claim.


Of course. And normally I do so. But I thought this is know in some form. I heard and read it long ago. I must search again for some reliable sources.
Aya Shinomiya
Promethean Ascension
#174 - 2013-07-29 19:21:30 UTC
Meytal wrote:
I once heard a poem that is appropriate for this thread:

Roses are ****
Violets are ****
I like ****
**** **** ****

(why it blanks out all but one occurrance of the word eludes me)


Fortunately we have Google. Blink
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#175 - 2013-07-29 19:37:25 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
By basing those definitions on the premise that the topic is subjective and bias without justifying what makes it so, makes the premise false and therefore, the definitions are irrelevant. The topic is not subjective, the paper is utter rubbish.


Kindly explain how sexism is not an inherently subjective concept.

Quote:
the myriad of studies that already exist using more substantial methodology that present results to the contrary.


If you have studies with contradictory results, by all means reference them. It sounds an awful lot like you think no one else looking for the correlation means it doesn't exist.

Quote:
That's all well and good for people that have access to the databases where that information is stored, but when you only link to an abstract without providing some discussion of the paper and just establishing the conclusions with nothing in between, you are not making a case worthy of discussion.


Take that up with a prosecutors of Aaron Swartz; I'm not here to make you cliff's notes.

Quote:
I didn't misquote you, I copied and pasted your words directly, and even provided a link to where it can be found. This is your second obvious lie, and your intentions to save face rather than man up and concede on one small point are becoming more and more obvious. I have no stomach for intellectual dishonesty.


No? You misquoted me twice; once satirically (which I don't mind so much), but you also subtlely reworded my position - ie

"Psychology is very influenced by philosophy and bias" [me]

vs.

"psychology is based in philosophy and bias" [you referencing me]

I consider the difference important and I'd appreciate it if you were more careful in the future (assuming it wasn't malicious).

Quote:
"More formal fields" is a laugh coming from you. You've demonstrated the kind of scientific illiteracy and ignorance and/or denial of discussion I expect from a Playboy Playmate by the name of Jenny McCarthy, or her idiot ex Jim Carrey. Your first failure is that you think psychology is a field unto itself. There are many fields of psychological science, and it is far from a 'soft' science. It's actually a common trait of creatards to dismiss psychology as a 'soft science', but there isn't a real scientist on the face of the planet that dismisses it so easily. There are certainly fields of psychology in their infancy, but don't think for one second they haven't garnered considerable scientific interest. In fact, biologists have worked very closely with psychological researchers on a number of occasions to make some incredible findings.


See, this is what makes your rambling hard to read; it has nothing to do with word count. Why would I know random celebrities? (let alone be able to place their characteristics into your argument). Your irrational hatred of random people and groups is also confusing; what do creationists have to do with Psychology being officially defined as a soft science? Why do you take so much offense at the term "soft science"? Perhaps you're only familiar with the stigma an not the definition?
Eurydia Vespasian
Storm Hunters
#176 - 2013-07-29 19:59:52 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
additionally, i'll add that i think the pressure on men to conform to these "standards" or "stereotypes" of appearance are significantly less dramatic than what women have to deal with. in much of the "first" world, we are bombarded from a very early age by these pressures. i'm not trying to downplay the pressures men are exposed to...i just believe that we women feel the brunt of success or failure in upholding those "stereotypes" more keenly.


I'd propose that, given the tendency of only one gender to really engage in the kind of group mindset and social pressure that such things require, that this problem is neither created nor enforced by men at all.


weeeelll. i don't know about that. strictly speaking.

i'd say that the problem is enforced and even encouraged by money, marketing and profit. now, overwhelmingly, which gender is traditionally involved/has stakes in and concerned the most with those three things? i'm not saying the perceptions, desires and preferences of men are the complete driving force behind this...but...it is my opinion that they are certainly...contributing factors.
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#177 - 2013-07-29 20:08:33 UTC
Remiel Pollard wrote:
Here's what confuses me the most, though. Everything else you claimed was fine, and supported by plenty of research. I'm only pointing out one claim you made that was fallacious, and you're throwing a tantrum about it. What's wrong with, "Oh, well, I guess I'd better check it out then," at the very least. I don't even expect you to admit you were wrong, or concede defeat, I'm not trying to compete, just establish the facts. You seem to be having trouble with accepting the facts, and I wouldn't have a problem with that, but using the excuse that I'm rambling is offensive, especially considering the irony you show in such an incoherent defence with zero merit of a single point of contention.


I'd be happy to "check it out" if you gave me something to check out. Your objection seems rooted in your dislike of their definitions (which is invalid - thus the defense). If you could point out something in their sexism determining questions that had an unintended influence on the results - ie "On a scale of 1 to 10, how much do you like big boobs?" - you'd have a point. Unfortunately, your reasoning seems more along the lines of - "Authors are raging femnazis so you must disregard everything they said."

Your rambling has nothing to do with it; I was just hoping that you'd opt for a bit more brevity and logic if I let you know.

Quote:
And then, you go and claim you're a scientist, as if an argument from authority will do the trick? Mate, I'm a science writer, I do this **** for a living and I don't get my material from the Australian Science Media Centre (which isn't a terrible resource for less scientifically literate journalists, like those just starting out), I get it from the scientists and the journals. I'm telling you now, if you are a scientist, then whoever gave you your PhD was drunk. Anyway, I wouldn't care if you were a hairdresser, the fact is, you still got most of what you said right. I'm talking about one little thing you got wrong. And you're kicking up a stink as if I insulted your mother.


I mentioned I was a scientists in offhanded jest at someone's incomprehensible logical leap; you're the one fixated on it, not me. Your insistence that something be published in Nature, on the other hand, is very much an appeal to authority. I guess being a "science writer" would explain your complex. Let's be honest, "science writing" gets us all funding, but it does nothing but hurt the scientific method.

Quote:
the article is titled with and filled with assertions that male thinking is oppressive by nature, and that there is no exception. This is the premise on which its arguments are based, and they have not justified the premise. This is the primary reason why that article is just terrible, and along with its citations, suggests a radical feminist agenda. If you're going to base your conclusions on that, go for it. Fortunately, for the rest of us, your assertions, and your opinion, are not supported by the facts, so we can continue to enjoy life and learn from it while you carry on about sexism and the false notion that it is the cause of anything.


Wow... you're reading it wrong. "Men’s Oppressive Beliefs" - ie how they scored on a survey meant to rank "oppressive beliefs", "Predict Their Breast Size Preferences in Women" - ie is correlated to breast size preference. If you think "predict" means causation or that a statistical correlation means there are no exceptions, I guess we have deeper problems in our attempt to communicate.

Quote:
It can certainly determine what men or women might CLAIM to be attractive for the sake of social acceptance, but that is as far is it goes.


That's an interesting conjecture, but a citation would be nice.
FOl2TY8
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#178 - 2013-07-29 20:11:27 UTC
Women are the real sexists, men are the real victims.
De'Veldrin
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#179 - 2013-07-29 20:11:53 UTC
The truth is both genders suck pretty much equally. Now, can some mod come along and lock this thread before it gets even more out of control.

De'Veldrin's Corollary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null.

FOl2TY8
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#180 - 2013-07-29 20:13:34 UTC
No, women control the world. Haven't you heard the saying "behind every great man is a woman?" That's proof right there.