EVE General Discussion

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.

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.

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 find this whole thread to be sexual harassment. Everyone here has been warned!

Next step will be to report this to management..

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.

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.

Kindly explain how sexism is not an inherently subjective concept.



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.



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



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).



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?

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.



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.



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.



That's an interesting conjecture, but a citation would be nice.

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.