PDA

View Full Version : Very obvious double standard in fantasy gaming: Women vs. Men



Pages : [1] 2

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-01, 09:17 PM
I recently saw this advertisement:



http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/3279/adventurequesthypocrisy.png

Name the double standard!

Gillianren
2010-Mar-01, 09:19 PM
She's wearing an awful lot compared to some women I've seen in games/gaming ads. It's kind of frustrating.

Okay, really frustrating.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-01, 09:20 PM
He's already wearing more than she is.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-01, 09:23 PM
He's already wearing more than she is.

We have a winnar!!!

Ding Ding Ding

Your reward: Some unisex pants!

kleindoofy
2010-Mar-01, 09:23 PM
I wasn't aware that people who spend time with fantasy gaming knew the (realistic) difference between men and women. ;)

Glom
2010-Mar-01, 09:26 PM
I wasn't aware that people who spend time with fantasy gaming knew the (realistic) difference between men and women. ;)

Sure they do. Men are people they know. Women are people they wish they could know. It's like me... only without the fantasy gaming.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-01, 09:28 PM
I wasn't aware that people who spend time with fantasy gaming knew the (realistic) difference between men and women. ;)

As Gillian will probably tell you in a moment, there ARE women that are interested in fantasy games -- both online and offline. They're also growing into a rising number.

They are, however, usually put off by those very advertisements.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-01, 09:29 PM
It has always been that in American society. Scantily clad women are considered beautiful and sexy. Scantily clad men are very often considered either perverts or homosexuals.

go figure

Gillianren
2010-Mar-01, 09:31 PM
See, I know the difference. As does my best friend. As does, come to that, Gaby, who runs our local comic book/trading card/gaming store. And all those geeks? Know Gaby. My male friends know me--and yeah, not all of them have exacting knowledge of the unclothed female form from personal experience, but more than a few of them do. Some of us, more than people remember, from looking in the mirror. Heck, isn't one of the characters from Knights of the Dinner Table female?

I'm sure you were joking. To women, and doubtless a lot of men, those jokes are more frustrating than funny at this point. It was funny fifteen years ago, kind of. However, the market has changed, but by and large, the marketing hasn't.

Fazor
2010-Mar-01, 09:32 PM
If I remember correctly, in Age of Conan, the male fighter types remained fairly scantly clad. It's been a while though, and I played an assassin so I had the cool robes. ;)

mugaliens
2010-Mar-01, 10:24 PM
I don't see a double-standard at all. Both men and women in fantasy games are scantily clad, with 6% body fat, with key gender-specific traits accentuated to no end. And they're obviously black belts in every single martial art...

I think that's what's meant by "fantasy."

Moose
2010-Mar-01, 10:40 PM
It's why I approve heartily of heavily moddable RPGs, Elder Scrolls Oblivion being king among them. There are several mod artists who are keen on correcting that apparent deficiency.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-01, 11:13 PM
My boyfriend and I spend all of Sunday, computers side by side, playing an MMORPG. Neither of us are 13 and neither of us live in our parents basement. There, all stereotypes are obliviated.

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-01, 11:46 PM
Re the OP, the stereotype that women serve men or that women can pull tricks over on men?

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-01, 11:50 PM
Re the OP, the stereotype that women serve men or that women can pull tricks over on men?

No. The woman is more scantily clad than the man, who is acting severely surprised at being "naked", even though his boxer shorts are far larger than her own suit of armor.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-01, 11:54 PM
I don't see a double-standard at all. Both men and women in fantasy games are scantily clad

(Sigh. This is going to go nowhere, I can tell, but I might as well say this)

No. No they are not. Women are by far, far more hyper-sexualized by men.

Bayonetta, for instance, is a long-legged woman based almost entirely around her being very sexual, with her clothing being hair (so she goes naked when she uses "special abilities"), and sucks on lollipops in very sexy ways.

However, in a game by the same designer, Devil May Cry, Dante was well-dressed throughout most of the game, and as far as I know, never went naked. Except maybe somewhere towards the trippy ending, I think someone turned into a demon somewhere there, but that's different.

The majority of men in RPGs actually wear "cool" armor that cover the majority of their body. For instance, Neverwinter Nights cover art, the first game, showed men and women; all of the men were wearing full body armor, that looked highly functional. Every single woman was wearing a two-piece bathing suit that just happened to be made of steel.

I'm not the only one that notices this in Fantasy. If you're willing to turn a blind eye to it, you're free to do so, but claiming that there isn't a double standard is completely false.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-01, 11:56 PM
I've always found it interesting that in many cases women head into the locker room at the pool and come out in very brief bikinis while the men head into the locker room and come out in bathing suits that cover more than the cutoff shorts they walked in wearing.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-02, 12:02 AM
I just want to add that Dragon Age: Origins (also made by Bioware, like Neverwinter Nights, surprisingly...) was notable in not hyper-sexualizing women. I mean, yes, there were "romance" scenes in the game, but they were done pretty well.

The armor was functional for both men and women. While the women's version did tend to be form-fitting, it didn't expose so much skin as to make you wonder why the hell they were wearing it in the first place.

The leather armor did show a bit of the legs, but it did that equally for both men and women.

And you want to talk really hyper-sexualizing? Evony. The game itself doesn't involve any scantily clad women altogether and in fact has few really noticeable characters, but Evony 100% advertises itself purely using pictures looking at a woman's cleavage (and quite a few of them don't even look like Fantasy) women.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-02, 12:07 AM
The ad in the OP is a double standard, the trend of revealing clothing on idealized women is not.

Game designers are predominately het- men. They're just making what they want to see, and what sells.

Might as well complain that artists predominately sculpt, paint, photograph etc. women in the buff, but not men.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-02, 12:08 AM
The ad in the OP is a double standard, the trend of revealing clothing on idealized women is not.

Game designers are predominately het- men. They're just making what they want to see, and what sells.

Yet, according to every statistic I've seen, more and more female gamers are starting to enter the industry, enter P&P gaming, and generally show interest in games -- whether FPS, Fantasy, P&P, etc. The cliche that "gamers are mostly men" is becoming just that -- an outdated cliche, and one the industry needs to get its head around.

Furthermore, driving away potential female players by just showing hyper-sexualized ads and characters, and then saying "Look! We do it because it doesn't sell to women!" is a fallacy, and a pretty harmful one to the industry, if you use any logic on it.

mugaliens
2010-Mar-02, 12:16 AM
No. No they are not. Women are by far, far more hyper-sexualized by men.

Really! Look back at the OP. When's the last time you ever saw any guy with that musculature? Me? Never. Yet a couple of my recent dates are similarly proportioned to the girl. Yes, her face is quite non-human... The rest of her is quite normal, and non-hypersexualized.

As for female gamers, the last stat I saw said it was 40%.

ETA: Thirty-eight percent, as of two years ago (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17699).

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-02, 12:21 AM
I don't see a double-standard at all. Both men and women in fantasy games are scantily clad, with 6% body fat, with key gender-specific traits accentuated to no end. And they're obviously black belts in every single martial art...
A woman with 6% body fat is rather more extreme than a man with 6% body fat.

(Tho I doubt the average fantasy game heroine has anything as low as 6% body fat. For a start, many of them would appear to carry around several percent of their body weight in their chainmail bikini tops ...)

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-02, 12:25 AM
Reall! Look back at the OP. When's the last time you ever saw any guy with that musculature?

The "musculature" was not part of the issue. I notice you ignored the majority of what I said -- or the very large examples of Evony, Neverwinter Nights, and Bayonetta, all three extremely egregious and the latter two being quite popular examples. This comes as no surprise. I will not bother to respond to you anymore.


As for female gamers, the last stat I saw said it was 40%.

ETA: Thirty-eight percent, as of two years ago (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17699).

Yes, that is correct. That is a significant number -- nearly as many.

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-02, 01:00 AM
No. The woman is more scantily clad than the man, who is acting severely surprised at being "naked", even though his boxer shorts are far larger than her own suit of armor.Well, who wouldn't feel naked with his or her armor off. And how do we know that the armor he had been wearing wasn't hyper-sexualized Did they show a massive codpiece anywhere?


No. No they are not. Women are by far, far more hyper-sexualized by men.Blame nature for giving women certain anatomical features which are obvious sexual dimorphism characteristics.


However, in... Devil May Cry, Dante was well-dressed throughout most of the game, and as far as I know, never went naked.Perhaps hypersexualized isn't the right term. Perhaps it's hetero-conceptualization (a word I just made up). Scantily dressed women appeal to the majority of hetero men. However, what turns women on may not be scantily dressed men, but instead would be a well-dressed man or a man in uniform. Sometimes, there are differences between the sexes.


The majority of men in RPGs actually wear "cool" armor that cover the majority of their body. For instance, Neverwinter Nights cover art, the first game, showed men and women; all of the men were wearing full body armor, that looked highly functional. Every single woman was wearing a two-piece bathing suit that just happened to be made of steel.Do women want to see men in scantily clad suits of armor? Seriously, maybe they should depict men that way. As far as I can tell, the aforementioned style of ad may market to men who want to see themselves in all that armor and like to look at women in the sexy woman's armor; and it may market to women who like to look at men in all that armor and want to look like the women in the women's armor. As far as I know, a lot of marketing of sexiness is directed at women who want to picture themselves that way. Or as they used to say, "men want her, women want to be her".


...but claiming that there isn't a double standard is completely false. Maybe it is a double standard, but why care? Or perhaps it's just the same standard that's merely implemented differently due to actual differences in self-perception.

korjik
2010-Mar-02, 01:33 AM
How do we know that his pants arent just a steel codpiece?

Oh, wait, that would still be more clothes than she has.... :)

I dont often agree completely with Soluslupus, but yeah, more than a little of a double standard.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-02, 01:45 AM
Maybe it's more insulting to men, when all is said and done. The male side, who are supposed to be the "real" hardcore gamers need bait to draw them in. Call me weird but when I play WOW, I am playing the game, not looking at my character's butt (all my toons are male) so scantilly clad or not, I am really not noticing. Perhaps they just treat men as simpler beings then women.

Siguy
2010-Mar-02, 02:25 AM
I like the banner, it's obviously just a light-hearted parody of Evony's infamous campaign. Although it's a bit late; I'm pretty sure they've phased those ads out (or not; I've gotten Adblock Plus since)

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-02, 02:38 AM
I like the banner, it's obviously just a light-hearted parody of Evony's infamous campaign. Although it's a bit late; I'm pretty sure they've phased those ads out (or not; I've gotten Adblock Plus since)

No, they're still around.

I have to scroll past them fast when I'm on the internet in a public place. There's a time and place for that sort of thing, but the college library isn't it.

Delvo
2010-Mar-02, 02:41 AM
Maybe it's more insulting to men, when all is said and done."Maybe"? Of course it is.

There can't seriously be anybody trying to claim that there could possibly be anything else but that to the constant ubiquitous message from these games and all other corners of our culture, that women are good and desirable and men are disgusting unworthy creatures that need to be hidden from view... can there?

What else could be the whole point/issue/subject here?

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 03:38 AM
There can't seriously be anybody trying to claim that there could possibly be anything else but that to the constant ubiquitous message from these games and all other corners of our culture, that women are good and desirable and men are disgusting unworthy creatures that need to be hidden from view... can there?

Our bodies are good and desirable, provided we fit a certain physical appearance.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-02, 07:01 AM
Call me weird but when I play WOW, I am playing the game, not looking at my character's butt (all my toons are male) so scantilly clad or not, I am really not noticing.
Call me weird, I can't play male humans in WoW, their mincing gait is far too distracting when moving around.

korjik
2010-Mar-02, 07:52 AM
Maybe it's more insulting to men, when all is said and done. The male side, who are supposed to be the "real" hardcore gamers need bait to draw them in. Call me weird but when I play WOW, I am playing the game, not looking at my character's butt (all my toons are male) so scantilly clad or not, I am really not noticing. Perhaps they just treat men as simpler beings then women.

I doubt most men mind that insult all that much.

Heck this whole issue has been a joke in RPGs for a couple of decades. I have seen rules for increased defence when showing more skin more than a few times. Joke rules that point out the sillyness of costumes in fantasy.

Here is a joke about this that ran in Dragon magazine 28 years ago ('http://www.airshipentertainment.com/growfcomic.php?date=20070304')

korjik
2010-Mar-02, 07:53 AM
Maybe it's more insulting to men, when all is said and done. The male side, who are supposed to be the "real" hardcore gamers need bait to draw them in. Call me weird but when I play WOW, I am playing the game, not looking at my character's butt (all my toons are male) so scantilly clad or not, I am really not noticing. Perhaps they just treat men as simpler beings then women.

Why are they all male?

Paul Beardsley
2010-Mar-02, 07:58 AM
Perhaps hypersexualized isn't the right term. Perhaps it's hetero-conceptualization (a word I just made up). Scantily dressed women appeal to the majority of hetero men. However, what turns women on may not be scantily dressed men, but instead would be a well-dressed man or a man in uniform. Sometimes, there are differences between the sexes.

Do women want to see men in scantily clad suits of armor? Seriously, maybe they should depict men that way. As far as I can tell, the aforementioned style of ad may market to men who want to see themselves in all that armor and like to look at women in the sexy woman's armor; and it may market to women who like to look at men in all that armor and want to look like the women in the women's armor. As far as I know, a lot of marketing of sexiness is directed at women who want to picture themselves that way. Or as they used to say, "men want her, women want to be her".
I think there may be something in this. In general, men's minds and women's minds are not simple mirror-images of each other.

And we're talking about a world where being attacked with a sword results in you losing hit points.

Regarding the stat that 38% of players are now female: given that role playing fantasy was once a nearly-all-male domain, this suggests that somebody is doing something right. That's not to say there are no double standards, but I think it implies that they are not a terribly serious issue.

Elukka
2010-Mar-02, 08:40 AM
Um, I think what a bunch of you are missing is that the ad in the OP is a parody of the ridiculous Evony ads. :)

I'm less worried about gender stereotyping in games than I am about my suspension of disbelief. You can have scantily clad women without hurting a game (or movie or whatever), but it gets stupid when those scantily clad women are running around like that in combat.

Tog
2010-Mar-02, 08:44 AM
Why are they all male?

My guess would be "to avoid harassment". I play a mix of characters in City of Heroes. 50% are female, and I have been hit on many times in game by guys that assumed that I must be female AND that I must look like that in real life.

Then, when I mention that I'm male, the suggestion is made that I am playing a female character because I'm homosexual, though it's usually stated in a more colloquial way.

For better or worse, "I learned the internet" in an AOL chat room where I was often the only male in a room of a dozen. I learned how to deal with guys like that from a female perspective, and one of my characters has some chat binds that were meant especially to belittle the guys while maintaining the female persona.

She's probably an EULA violation though.

Back to the OP... When City was first in beta women had nipples. There was enough of feedback about the double standard that it was revoked before the game went live. On the boards, it is referred to as "The Great Nipple Nerf".

Now, the biggest difference between the genders comes down to the fact that there are three body types. Male, Female, and Huge. Huge are male by default, but the musculature is grossly exagerated. Many people have petitioned for a Huge Female frame.

When the body sliders went into effect, it gave players the ability to adjust specific parts of the body. For female toons, that meant the breast size could go from about a B to much bigger. When this feature first went live, it looked like a an escape from a freak show factory.

Also, the relevant Order of the Stick cartoon (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html). Panels 5 and 6.

mugaliens
2010-Mar-02, 09:01 AM
The "musculature" was not part of the issue.

The issue was "over-sexualization" as you put it, and musculature is a masculine sex characteristic, just as curvature is a feminine sex characteristic.


I notice you ignored the majority of what I said...

My perogative, though I did it for the simple reason I didn't find it relevant to the OP's point.


I will not bother to respond to you anymore.

Your perogative.

jokergirl
2010-Mar-02, 09:27 AM
My prerogative is to point out it's spelled "prerogative".

;)

closetgeek
2010-Mar-02, 01:37 PM
Why are they all male?


Tog
My guess would be "to avoid harassment". I play a mix of characters in City of Heroes. 50% are female, and I have been hit on many times in game by guys that assumed that I must be female AND that I must look like that in real life.

That did happen a lot. My first character was a female and I have learned, throughout the years, that there is something about the internet that makes people need to misbehave when dealing with the opposite gender. I also noticed that there was a certain level of sexism in the fact that upon learning that I was a girl, they would assume I was playing on someone else's toon and couldn't possibly know what I was doing (they were half right but that's not the point).

I wish I can say my decision to roll male toons was that deep, though. The real reason I abandoned my female toons was because the male emotes were funnier. I also only play undead for the same reason. The undead race has the funniest laugh and we do airguitar. There, I said it. I am that simple.

ETA I know plenty of guys who roll female Blood Elves because they get more free stuff so the pendulum does swing the other way.

Tog
2010-Mar-02, 01:59 PM
Last time a thread like this came up, I mentioned this, but there was a guy in City that had filled in his character back story profile to read:

"I'm a guy in real life. I rolled a female toon because if I'm gonna stare at a butt for 50 levels, I want it to be cute one."

Or something like that.

The one thing I noticed I was doing with my own characters was that the men ended up with masks or some other thing that obscured their faces. The women did not. That probably says something about me.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-02, 02:03 PM
Last time a thread like this came up, I mentioned this, but there was a guy in City that had filled in his character back story profile to read:

"I'm a guy in real life. I rolled a female toon because if I'm gonna stare at a butt for 50 levels, I want it to be cute one."

Or something like that.

The one thing I noticed I was doing with my own characters was that the men ended up with masks or some other thing that obscured their faces. The women did not. That probably says something about me.

Not sure what game you play but I know on WOW, showing your helm or not is optional. I never do because I tend to pick silly hair for my toons.

jokergirl
2010-Mar-02, 02:14 PM
I never really got that problem; but then I pretty exclusively play on RP servers, where the general tone is more mature (OK OK, except for the occasional N00b and the drama, oh the drama!).

;)

Tog
2010-Mar-02, 02:14 PM
City of Heroes. Costumes have nothing to do with stats, so you can look like anything at all. most of my males wear full helmets or masks or are non-human, while most of my females have unobstructed faces.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 02:20 PM
The one thing I noticed I was doing with my own characters was that the men ended up with masks or some other thing that obscured their faces. The women did not. That probably says something about me.
I hope not, 'caus I prefer to not have masks (helmets, in the games I play) for either gender. :think:

Usually if I get a cool new helmet I'll have it show for a while, but I prefer to see the character's faces.

And fwiw regarding gender, I always play male toons. I just can't play as a female, even if they are cooler for the rouge archetypes which I tend to prefer.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-02, 02:24 PM
City of Heroes. Costumes have nothing to do with stats, so you can look like anything at all. most of my males wear full helmets or masks or are non-human, while most of my females have unobstructed faces.

Oh, on WOW the stats are based on the gear you are wearing. Now I think I hide more out of shame since I am so behind the curve :cry:.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 02:31 PM
Oh, on WOW the stats are based on the gear you are wearing. Now I think I hide more out of shame since I am so behind the curve :cry:.
You are behind the curve? You should have heard all the slanderous insults people would give when I'd try to join up for an instance. :-P

I thought being a tank and a healer would be great because it makes you in demand. It was fun, but I hadn't thought about the fact that you get blamed for everything! Of course, I was originally a hunter. They were the WoW whipping-boys at the time.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-02, 02:34 PM
I'm rolling a warrior now and not for tanking, it's just the only undead I haven't made. Rome's mage was all blue a month ago. The new system they have for instances, he does 4 a night. He is completely epic'd out.

Tog
2010-Mar-02, 03:23 PM
Oh, on WOW the stats are based on the gear you are wearing.

That was the way Asheron's Call was. In City, the 7 foot tall 500 pound guy in full plate might be no more powerful the the 5 foot noting cheerleader. Heck, the plate guy may be a glass cannon (high damage, no mitigation). There is just no way to tell by looking.

Fazor, what I meant about the choice in head wear saying something about me was that I was covering up the faces of the guys, but not the women. This was in a system where the only consideration was aesthetics.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 03:33 PM
Fazor, what I meant about the choice in head wear saying something about me was that I was covering up the faces of the guys, but not the women. This was in a system where the only consideration was aesthetics.

I know, I was joking, but saying that aesthetically, I like to see both gender's faces. It has nothing to do with "attractiveness" though. I just don't see the point in customizing a character's face, only to have it hidden by the same helmet a hundred other people are running around in.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-02, 05:41 PM
And fwiw regarding gender, I always play male toons. I just can't play as a female, even if they are cooler for the rouge archetypes which I tend to prefer.
Men does tend to look silly with rouge.:)

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 05:57 PM
Men does tend to look silly with rouge.:)
I agree, but that doesn't stop them. Just watch the first few cuts of "American Idol" ;)

(Note: For health and sanity reasons, Fazor does not actually endorse watching 'American Idol' in any capacity)

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-02, 06:17 PM
I'm rolling a warrior now and not for tanking, it's just the only undead I haven't made. Rome's mage was all blue a month ago. The new system they have for instances, he does 4 a night. He is completely epic'd out.

In english?

The closest I ever came to playing an RPG was an hour with a friend explaining Twilight 2000 and me asking why it didn't resemble reality.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 06:25 PM
In english?

The closest I ever came to playing an RPG was an hour with a friend explaining Twilight 2000 and me asking why it didn't resemble reality.

I don't know that anyone's crafted a WoW-to-English dictionary yet. Sorry. :(

BigDon
2010-Mar-02, 06:30 PM
OMG! What a tragic injustice! An insult to thinking beings everywhere!

I'm going to have to ask my good friend, Miss Lynette Lee, to stop wasting her time and resources with the micro loan business and training programs that go and teach jewelry making and give start up monies to village women in South America, Africa and South East Asia so the don't have to resort to prostitution for survival. And have her look into this!

I mean c'mon! Cartoon characters are being misrepresented here! In a blatently sexist manner! Almost like, like adults were doing it! :whistle:



(:))

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 06:45 PM
OMG! What a tragic injustice! An insult to thinking beings everywhere!

I'm going to have to ask my good friend, Miss Lynette Lee, to stop wasting her time and resources with the micro loan business and training programs that go and teach jewelry making and give start up monies to village women in South America, Africa and South East Asia so the don't have to resort to prostitution for survival. And have her look into this!

I mean c'mon! Cartoon characters are being misrepresented here! In a blatently sexist manner! Almost like, like adults were doing it! :whistle:



(:))

Don . . . no. For starters, what about all those prostitutes? You think they're doing it because they think it's fun?

Look, what I did and most of you didn't was grow up as a geek girl. A parody this one may be, but the fact is, the thing it's allegedly parodying is (I've seen it) worse. We tend to talk a good game about being ourselves and so forth, but in this country, you're still expected to be yourself in a socially approved way. When I was a senior in high school, some of my male friends got me into Magic. So I went with them to the local gaming store.

I might as well have been on Mars.

Yes, it was still a pretty much all-male preserve. That was in part, I think, because it was expected to be. I still have one of my gaming books from those days, and it's pretty blatant. Men wear nice business suits or long trench coats or whatever in the illustrations, and women wear as little as possible. What's more, it was pretty clear that most of the guys assumed I was just there to impress somebody and wouldn't be coming back. (When I stopped, it was because I moved.) They didn't bother interacting with me for the most part. It was a fairly isolating experience.

Then on the other hand, there was how some of the girls at school reacted. In fact, they, too, figured I was just doing it to impress somebody, and that was if they could figure out why I was doing it at all. It's different, at least somewhat, now, but I suspect only for video games. I am inclined to doubt pen-and-paper roleplaying is any more acceptable for girls now than it was then, though I'm sure the image for males hasn't changed, either.

So why are we so much of the market now? Honestly, it may start from girls who were there to impress somebody--the GM's girlfriend!--and discovered that they actually liked it. Or girls who, like me, spent enormous amounts of time watching their boyfriends and male friends play video games. However, it certainly isn't because anybody thinks it's normal for girls to play. Even though numbers increasingly show that it is.

mugaliens
2010-Mar-02, 07:15 PM
My prerogative is to point out it's spelled "prerogative".

;)

Hey! Where'd my in-browser spell-check run off to? Used to work like a charm!

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 07:19 PM
Yes, it was still a pretty much all-male preserve. That was in part, I think, because it was expected to be. I still have one of my gaming books from those days, and it's pretty blatant. Men wear nice business suits or long trench coats or whatever in the illustrations, and women wear as little as possible.

You're right, that is pretty insulting. They might as well say a guy is only cool if he wears nice, designer clothes.

. . . oh.

But how about that? It really does go both ways. How many games have the hero being a 5'6", average looking, overweight guy wearing jeans and an old t-shirt?

The heroes are always tall and in shape and have better than average looks. I don't really find that insulting though. They're caricatures of "ideal" people. It's fantasy, what's wrong with that?

It's easy to point to the half naked woman and say it's sexism (and a lot of it is, don't get me wrong), but don't forget that the men tend to be unrealistic and sexualized and stereotyped too.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 07:47 PM
When the whole point of your group is to be cool and businesslike, a business suit is appropriate for the character. What the female from that group was wearing was not businesslike.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 07:50 PM
When the whole point of your group is to be cool and businesslike, a business suit is appropriate for the character. What the female from that group was wearing was not businesslike.

Well, depends on what the business is. :) I was joking about the suit though, but the physical appearance cliché holds just as true for men.

Though you could argue that anyone running around doing as much action fighting as those men and women probably would be in shape.

And at least the stereotypical ale-swigging dwarf character matches my physical build. :)

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-02, 07:57 PM
Though you could argue that anyone running around doing as much action fighting as those men and women probably would be in shape.

While still carrying a disproportionate amount of fat on the chest. ;)

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 08:03 PM
While still carrying a disproportionate amount of fat on the chest. ;)

Well, the only thing that ever seems to be available to drink is alcohol, and to eat is always bread or red meat. Not a nutritionist's dream diet, for sure. Bound to build up a little fat. :)

closetgeek
2010-Mar-02, 08:06 PM
I have to agree with you, Fazor. You could say it's the same reason there are far more gentleman's clubs than male reviews. Looking at barely dressed men is just not as commonly appealing to women as looking at barely dressed women is to men. I will be careful with that; I, personally, don't know any women who would prefer to sit in a club and watch oily men in speedos dance over going to a dance club and actually dance with well dress, nice smelling, men who are not being nice to you to get paid. I don't know a single male who doesn't know the name of the most popular exotic dancer club in the area. The female sex industry sells, the male sex industry may, but not enough. What happens when they actually do have a hyper-sexualized, scantilly clad male model? They become a punchline; look at Fabio.

http://www.bautforum.com/album.php?albumid=20&pictureid=1204
She looks sexy, he looks silly.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 08:07 PM
Well, depends on what the business is. :) I was joking about the suit though, but the physical appearance cliché holds just as true for men.

If you read as much fantasy as I do, you'll note that more men--far more men--are described as having "craggy" or "interesting" faces than women with similar descriptions. It also strikes me that both male and female characters, and drawings, are wish fulfillment for men. Women's standards of what being cool for a woman entails are pretty different from men's standards of what being cool for a woman entails. More clothing, for one.


Though you could argue that anyone running around doing as much action fighting as those men and women probably would be in shape.

Who can run in those shoes?


And at least the stereotypical ale-swigging dwarf character matches my physical build. :)

They don't make women in fantasy with my physical build.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-02, 08:13 PM
If you read as much fantasy as I do, you'll note that more men--far more men--are described as having "craggy" or "interesting" faces than women with similar descriptions. It also strikes me that both male and female characters, and drawings, are wish fulfillment for men. Women's standards of what being cool for a woman entails are pretty different from men's standards of what being cool for a woman entails. More clothing, for one.


That happens in books for women too, though. Women have different tastes and are often attracted to peculiar features.


Who can run in those shoes?

Can't argue that, I've asked the same question a thousand times.


They don't make women in fantasy with my physical build.

I used to be able to say the same thing but then the movie Planet Terror was release :p

Tog
2010-Mar-02, 08:18 PM
Regarding men and women in (female) strip clubs, My GF has the lead in total clubs visited. I'm not sure how many, but it's more than my zero. know the names of the clubs and the Utah specific restrictions, but the closest I've been to the inside of one is taking martial arts lessons with a woman that worked in one.

As for what women really want, I'll preface this by saying that my GF is not the typical woman when it comes to this. While she might got to a club with male strippers, she prefers hockey, but would be going to both for the exact same reasons.

For women in gaming, there are many threads in the City of Heroes forums where guys are asking the best way to draw their wives/GF's into the game. The number one suggestion by both men and women that play is the costume creator. Hook them on the "Virtual Barbie" and they will want to see more. Another facet that seems more common with women then men is the chat. A lot of women that play (and many men) will log in to just stand around and talk.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-02, 08:24 PM
Who can run in those shoes?
I know a woman who can run in high heels, but I also know she spent a lot of time training in order to do that.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 08:42 PM
It also strikes me that both male and female characters, and drawings, are wish fulfillment for men.

Very good point. I hadn't considered that, but would concede that the male hero looks tend to be more what men think they should look like, rather than what women are attracted too. Easy to miss, because often they overlap, but not always.

Hmm. On further inspection, I think you win.

. . . but of course if I had to vote, I'd vote to continue to have masses of scantly-clad unrealistically figured women. Sorry. :)

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 08:54 PM
I know a woman who can run in high heels, but I also know she spent a lot of time training in order to do that.

There's a great scene in the funny zombie episode of The X-Files where Mulder is talking to Garry Shandling in the foreground and Scully is running back and forth in the background, showing Tea Leoni how to run in the heels.


Very good point. I hadn't considered that, but would concede that the male hero looks tend to be more what men think they should look like, rather than what women are attracted too. Easy to miss, because often they overlap, but not always.

Most of the women I know are alarmed by rather than attracted to body-builder type muscles, though it's a relatively small sample.


Hmm. On further inspection, I think you win.

Not until it changes . . . .


. . . but of course if I had to vote, I'd vote to continue to have masses of scantly-clad unrealistically figured women. Sorry. :)

Doubtless.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-02, 08:56 PM
When the whole point of your group is to be cool and businesslike, a business suit is appropriate for the character. What the female from that group was wearing was not businesslike.

It's funny, I was going to point out how close the fantasy world was to the business world in this respect, but you've just done it for me by neatly summing up most offices in which I've worked.

I've had to have a quiet word with female staff several times when they've just gone too far down the route of, well, emphasising their sexuality through their dress, and there are plenty more who've flirted with crossing the line but not enough to merit a talk. I've not ever had to do the same with male staff. There has been a general trend that some of the women have tried to push the limits in terms of flesh on display, while the men have instead stuck with very sensible suits.

In this respect, women in fantasy games dressing like this is pretty well in fitting with how it is here in our world.


They don't make women in fantasy with my physical build.

It's fantasy, "they" make people to be exceptional physically, both the men and women.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 09:10 PM
Most of the women I know are alarmed by rather than attracted to body-builder type muscles, though it's a relatively small sample.


I'd say the same for most of the women I know (or, rather, know well enough to know that they don't find it attractive). Though I'd replace 'alarmed by' with 'repulsed by'. Tara included. But I do have a friend who's the exception to that rule, as she loves that. At least to an extent. As with anything, I'm sure even she doesn't like the extreme.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Mar-02, 09:21 PM
It's just occurred to me that fantasy and reality isn't so different. Come to my town of Havant on a Friday night any time of year - including winter - and you'll see young women out and about showing far more flesh than they're covering. Their choice.

The only difference is that these particular young women are unlikely to do well against dragons and orcs, should they make a surprise appearance.

nauthiz
2010-Mar-02, 09:24 PM
Very good point. I hadn't considered that, but would concede that the male hero looks tend to be more what men think they should look like, rather than what women are attracted too.

Honestly, I'd even be willing to entertain the idea that female hero looks tend to be more what men think they should be attracted to rather than what they are attracted to. It's like Pavlov's bell in chainmail undies.

Fazor
2010-Mar-02, 09:34 PM
Honestly, I'd even be willing to entertain the idea that female hero looks tend to be more what men think they should be attracted to rather than what they are attracted to. It's like Pavlov's bell in chainmail undies.

I'd say that the problem is the idea that that's the only look men are attracted to. I happily admit I find the portrayals quite pleasing (usually), but there's many women who don't look or dress like that who I find just as (or more) attractive.

And in reality, I'd honestly say personality is more important to begin with. But we're talking about fantasy here, so I don't find anything wrong with a little 'eye candy' ;)

But I fear I've played too large a role into devolving the conversation into one about attraction and less about the double-standard in the OP, so that's the last I'll say on the subject.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-02, 09:42 PM
It's just occurred to me that fantasy and reality isn't so different. Come to my town of Havant on a Friday night any time of year - including winter - and you'll see young women out and about showing far more flesh than they're covering. Their choice.

The only difference is that these particular young women are unlikely to do well against dragons and orcs, should they make a surprise appearance.

Same in Newcastle. The men are possibly in short sleeves, (although more normally in a long-sleeved top), and the women are in micro mini skirts and sleeveless crop tops (whatever the weather).

It's a rare situation where the men wear less than the women.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-02, 10:07 PM
Same in Newcastle. The men are possibly in short sleeves, (although more normally in a long-sleeved top), and the women are in micro mini skirts and sleeveless crop tops (whatever the weather).

It's a rare situation where the men wear less than the women.

It's the cultural emphasis on women's secondary sexual characteristics. We're supposed to dress that way. It's what men want. Certainly not our brains--smart girls don't get boys.

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-02, 10:12 PM
Perhaps the men can be restricted to exposing eye-slits in their helmets and the women could all weare burqas. There, problem solved.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-02, 10:30 PM
It's what men want. Certainly not our brains--smart girls don't get boys.

I can't agree with your contention that intelligent women are passed over by men. It's never been something that I've seen, and can't imagine any of my friends having partners who they did not feel able to have an intelligent conversation with.

What I have seen, sadly, is other women assuming that if a man has a slim, athletic and beautiful partner she must be a bimbo*, and I wonder how often this leads to the erroneous conclusion that men do not like brainy ladies.

So no, in my experience, men want intelligent and beautiful women, just as women, I assume, want intelligent and attractive men.

*I'm not claiming that you have made this error, but I'd be intrigued as to why you believe that we don't like intelligent women.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 12:12 AM
I can't agree with your contention that intelligent women are passed over by men. It's never been something that I've seen, and can't imagine any of my friends having partners who they did not feel able to have an intelligent conversation with.

Yes, I know. I couldn't stand being with a ditz, either. It's a horrible thought to me, and that's why it's never happened.

On the other hand, women do still get told that. I've had people here say they don't believe me, but they're always male. I have a friend who was essentially entirely raised that way. She's no dummy, but she's never developed her mind as well as she could have, because her mother brought her up to believe that boys don't like smart girls, and you should be in a relationship if at all possible. Shoot, I have a friend whose mother is a teacher who still grew up thinking that you shouldn't act too smart.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 03:26 AM
There're all sorts of odd opinions floating out there; just because they're passed onto the next generation doesn't mean they're true.

Given the choice of dating a woman who looks and acts like Marilyn Monroe*, or one who looks and acts like Janeane Garofalo, I'd take the bespectacled, raven-haired vixen.






*I've no idea what her true intelligence was.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 03:31 AM
There's all sorts of odd opinions floating out there; just because they're passed onto the next generation doesn't mean they're true.

That goes both ways.

However, when I look at movies, what happens when a film is about an "ugly" girl? Well, they take a "pretty" girl, give her braces, give her glasses, and then call her "ugly". That's Hollywood's version of "This is ugly"*.

http://jimbocyberdoc.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ugly_betty_161206.jpg

It's an "odd opinion", perhaps, but there's actual evidence out there for this kind of thing in the mass media. Whether that holds up to the individual is kind of a different thing.

Similarly, if there's lots of ads that say, "HEY! BOOBIES ARE HERE!", then obviously this is going to affect the audience for your ads.

I also want to add that it is not possible to get a statistically significant number for what people prefer here on the BAUT, since this group is necessarily self-selective. People that will join the BAUT will (generally) find intelligence a positive trait, and are more likely to hang around people that feel the same way. So anecdotal evidence of people here do not always match what is found in general in society.



*And women in business suits or have a sense of ambition are man-eaters and have unattractive personalities, and need a man to "teach her" to be effeminate. There's tons of examples here, but I can't remember any of the names, dangit.



EDIT: Relatedly. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_f3SZ5Tu916o/S4u4c6FtyTI/AAAAAAAAPVA/ac98pqppLlU/s1600-h/Snapshot+2010-03-01+07-51-20.jpg

(My friend from Singapore gives her view:


the two tropes for women in business suits: either they need to be taught how to be effeminate, or they secretly want to be raped and dominated

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RapeIsLove

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 03:54 AM
However, when I look at movies, what happens when a film is about an "ugly" girl? Well, they take a "pretty" girl, give her braces, give her glasses, and then call her "ugly". That's Hollywood's version of "This is ugly"*.

http://jimbocyberdoc.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ugly_betty_161206.jpg

It's an "odd opinion", perhaps, but there's actual evidence out there for this kind of thing in the mass media. Whether that holds up to the individual is kind of a different thing.

That's one example.

I give you Kaylee Frye, from Firefly. Find me someone who would say Jewel Staite in greasy overalls and ten pounds heavier isn't pretty.


Similarly, if there's lots of ads that say, "HEY! BOOBIES ARE HERE!", then obviously this is going to affect the audience for your ads.

Ornithologists, for sure.


I also want to add that it is not possible to get a statistically significant number for what people prefer here on the BAUT, since this group is necessarily self-selective. People that will join the BAUT will (generally) find intelligence a positive trait, and are more likely to hang around people that feel the same way. So anecdotal evidence of people here do not always match what is found in general in society.

That's true.

I submit that the general population of men does find intelligence in women attractive. It should be favored, from an evolutionary standpoint. What possible reason would men want stupid women?

Frat boys looking for easy ___ don't count.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 04:04 AM
That's one example.

I give you Kaylee Frye, from Firefly. Find me someone who would say Jewel Staite in greasy overalls and ten pounds heavier isn't pretty.

Well, the actress is attractive, whether in greasy overalls or in slutwear.

To be fair, though, Firefly was unusual on several levels. That's why it attracted so much attention -- and why the Fox Network was dubious about it. It was something new, and it introduced several things at once: It introduced lack of sound in space (which was uncommon for "action" scifi), characters and dialogue that would normally be seen as unacceptable (such as joking about stuffing Kaylee in the cargohold and duct taping her mouth), etc. I don't think it makes a great example for mass media.

Unusual movies/shows/etc. are just like using the BAUT's anecdotes to support a broader claim.

Also, I wasn't talking purely on the subject of weight. I don't know why you think I was. Your comment here seems to be a pure non sequitur.


That's true.

I submit that the general population of men does find intelligence in women attractive.

Then you have more ground to cover if you want to demonstrate this theory as true. Anecdotes alone will not be support.


It should be favored, from an evolutionary standpoint. What possible reason would men want stupid women?

Yet the media doesn't always seem to support this. Even if it is true, there seems to be an obvious dichotomy here from what you're saying, and what is accepted in mainstream fiction.

However, I saw a group of statistics once (I'll have to pull it up), wherein it was demonstrated that the more money a woman made than the man, or the more intelligent/educated the woman was than the man, the higher the likelihood of domestic abuse. I believe this was brought up in my Sociology class, either in my textbook or in a hand-out. If the former, I may still have it around here somewhere, if you want me to cite the source.

Women that are less intelligent/educated than the male are probably less likely to resist his dominance. Furthermore, if you go back far enough, mother/father pairings aren't necessarily the only way to run things; see stuff like harems and concubines. Often all that's necessary is for a woman to be able to bear a child. This isn't true in all cases, though, but that's the problem with generalizing too much. Society tends to shift and change, and it's not quite "Evolution says X, therefore it's always that way", which is **. Humans aren't as easy to categorize as that once you go past basic needs.

(Also, if what you claim was necessarily true, then education would have been provided to females as much as it was provided to males. It was not, for the majority of history, in the majority of societies; this isn't just in Western societies either. It is not quite as innate as you make it seem.)

Anyways, evolution isn't quite so crisp and clean. Does it favor the strongest? No, it favors the animals that survive and are capable of reproducing. Intelligence doesn't matter if there's output. Strength doesn't matter if you can avoid predation or competition. Intelligence in humans is unlikely to be some magically divined thing from Gaia or the earth goddess or whatever; it seems to have been a mistake, a side effect, and it just happened to work out. We still have the "lizard brain" though.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 04:11 AM
I give you Kaylee Frye, from Firefly. Find me someone who would say Jewel Staite in greasy overalls and ten pounds heavier isn't pretty.

I knew someone who thought Dizzy from the Starship Troopers movie was fat. And believe me, those people exist.


I submit that the general population of men does find intelligence in women attractive. It should be favored, from an evolutionary standpoint. What possible reason would men want stupid women?

I submit that the general history of humanity has indicated that men want women they can dominate. Intelligent women are (usually) hard to dominate. If your woman is strong and independent, how can you tell that their child has you as a father? (It's the same cultural impulse behind the obsession with feminine "purity.") Heck, even Elizabeth I had to emphasize that she had the "heart and stomach" of a king--and she herself wanted her female courtiers to be submissive. (Though she kind of wanted everyone to be submissive to her.) A little more recently, women were considered kind of diseased if they were interested in education.

Is that true now? Well, there is much to debate there, and I think we are broadly turning away from it. (Though I did have a male coworker flatly tell me once that he was intimidated by my intelligence, something he did not say to my intelligent male coworkers.) However, the last perhaps fifty or a hundred years are but a speck in human evolution.

Fazor
2010-Mar-03, 04:31 AM
Might be a generational thing. I've never felt that way, but my gods, you should have heard some of the men in my Academy class (the older ones).

We had been through more than half the training and were running one day, and since I was on pace with one of the other guys we were talking. He started complaining about all these women in the class (like, all 4 of them) and how they shouldn't be allowed to be there. I couldn't belive that, especially after being together as a class that long. You can't help but bond with the others. But no, he was genuinly [very upset] that women were "allowed" to participate!

I don't know a lot of guys (okay, I don't personally know any) my age that feel that way. Though I know there are some. It's just much less prevelant, at least in my experiences.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 04:35 AM
Yet the media doesn't always seem to support this. Even if it is true, there seems to be an obvious dichotomy here from what you're saying, and what is accepted in fiction.

I don't give much credence to the media. Their role is to make money by weaving faerie tales. They're the machine that created the 2012 lunacy, "reality" television, ghost-hunting shows. . .

Fiction is the key word, here. How much of what happens in the movies, sitcoms etc. matches up with reality?


However, I saw a group of statistics once (I'll have to pull it up), wherein it was demonstrated that the more money a woman made than the man, or the more intelligent/educated the woman was than the man, the higher the incident of domestic abuse. I believe this was brought up in my Sociology class, either in my textbook or in a hand-out. If the former, I may still have it around here somewhere, if you want me to cite the source.

I'd like a cite, yes. I'm curious as to who collected the data--they might not have been objective.

mugaliens
2010-Mar-03, 04:35 AM
I knew someone who thought Dizzy from the Starship Troopers movie was fat.

Wow. I thought Dina Myers was one of the cutest actresses at the time - just perfect. She's still cute!

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 04:38 AM
I don't give much credence to the media. Their role is to make money by weaving faerie tales. They're the machine that created the 2012 lunacy, "reality" television, ghost-hunting shows. . .

And people buy into them. Those things would not be shown if they wouldn't make ratings or make people money. I'm astonished you think this isn't so.

(Or do you think my "media" I meant "The news"? I didn't. I meant media as in, television, films, etc. There's a lot more out there than Firefly)


Fiction is the key word, here. How much of what happens in the movies, sitcoms etc. matches up with reality?

I notice you ignored the main point that women were uneducated through most societies in history. That did happen in the real world. Yes, that's right; outside of your computer screen.

And what happens in fiction does have an impact, or a grounding, in what people accept in general. For instance, there are people that do believe that there's sound in space, or that people will be thrown 20 feet back when shot with a pistol.

You're essentially arguing, "It's fiction! It can't possibly ever represent anything about the standards of the day!" As if Reefer Madness from the 1930s has the same relevance to society as Reefer Madness the musical.

I recommend you don't watch some older films. It'll probably be jarring for you. You might also not like to know that you can examine popular media of a time period to find out about the standards of that day... or how stories and myths can reflect a culture's viewpoints.


I'd like a cite, yes. I'm curious as to who collected the data--they might not have been objective.

When I find it, I'll give it to you.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 04:43 AM
If your woman is strong and independent, how can you tell that their child has you as a father?

Look at them? If no part of them resembles you, your parents, grandparents. . . they're probably not your kid.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 04:45 AM
Look at them? If no part of them resembles you, your parents, grandparents. . . they're probably not your kid.

Throughout much of Western History (such as renaissance Italy, or Greece), there was the belief that women that really thought about another man would "imprint" his features on their children. No need for genetic sharing.

What people actually believed back then and what you think they believed don't seem to match up.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 04:51 AM
Look at them? If no part of them resembles you, your parents, grandparents. . . they're probably not your kid.

I happen to resemble my dad a great deal. However, I know people who look spot-on like their mother's side of the family. What help is that? Even more interesting is the fact that, on her mantel, my mother has a picture of my dad and his sister. People who know our family have been known to look at it and ask when that picture of my Cousin Amanda was taken and who that is with her. And, indeed, there is a very strong resemblance between Aunt Susie and Cousin Amanda.

Yeah, except Cousin Amanda is on my mother's side of the family. No blood relation at all.

You're telling me you don't know anyone who looks entirely unlike their family? Elizabeth Tudor, who was suspected of not being her father's daughter, looked dead on like him. (The suspicion was more to do with their opinion of her mother than anything else.) Her half-sister, whose parentage no one doubted, looked a great deal more like her mother, not their father. "Looks like" is not a reliable test. Especially in a region where large amounts of the population had features like eye and hair colour in common.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 04:54 AM
Throughout much of Western History (such as renaissance Italy, or Greece), there was the belief that women that really thought about another man would "imprint" his features on their children. No need for genetic sharing.

What people actually believed back then and what you think they believed don't seem to match up.

Cite?

That never came up in my Sociology or Civ. classes.

Supposing it is true, what of China, India, Japan, Persia, Inca? The rest of the world's cultures across the ages, in other words.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:04 AM
Cite?

That never came up in my Sociology or Civ. classes.

Supposing it is true, what of China, India, Japan, Persia, Inca? The rest of the world's cultures across the ages, in other words.

I'm having difficulty finding online cites. And there's lots of things they don't bring up in Sociology or Civ classes. You really think they could cover every possible aspect of culture and belief? All my classes on Chinese history basically skimmed over lots of things (including how women were treated). However, if you must talk about other cultures like China, I can quite say that women were not well-educated in China compared to the men through much of its history (though that kind of depends on what ethnic culture you're looking at). Same with women in Japan. Persia? Well, I think you can go by One Thousand and One Nights for that: There's quite a few bits of misogyny and a general fear and mistrust of women cheating on their husbands. In fact, the primary focus of the story was a man who killed women because one cheated on him, and some of the first stories were about how women will cheat on you even if you keep them locked in a chest and you're a giant demon! That's kind of why harems were guarded by eunuchs, no? (Just to add, the woman actually threatened to awaken the giant demon if the men that unlocked her from the chest wouldn't HAVE SEX WITH HER RIGHT FRIKKIN' NOW)

Eunuchs were also used in the Chinese courts. In fact, to ensure your child will get some benefit with the courts, mothers would make their sons eunuchs. That's a hell of a thing to get thrust onto your resume.

Inca? That's outside of my studies, sorry.

There are Greek stories of women falling in love with statues, and producing children who resemble them. This belief was persisting in Renaissance Europe too.

Alas, Google is failing me, so I can't provide an online cite.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 05:07 AM
Supposing it is true, what of China, India, Japan, Persia, Inca? The rest of the world's cultures across the ages, in other words.

All of which were patrilineal. If you bother to look into history, protecting the male genes was a very important consideration. Women were locked away--still are, in some cultures. Because, okay, suppose the child is born and doesn't look enough like you for you to believe it's yours. First off, you'll still have supported the woman throughout the pregnancy. For another, I don't know how many newborns you've seen, but they don't much look like anybody. You can "put aside" your wife, and men did, but I doubt "the baby didn't look like me" was considered a legitimate cause in the Catholic Church (just to cite the example with which I am most familiar) for annulment.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:38 AM
Cite?

Well, not Greece or Renaissance Europe, but actually there's a bit from the Bible that mentions a form of imprinting for animals:


37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30&version=NIV

He made "spotted" flocks by imprinting on them "spots" on branches.

I'm asking for sources on the Greek and Renaissance Europe beliefs from the people who made the offline source I read.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 05:39 AM
And people buy into them. Those things would not be shown if they wouldn't make ratings or make people money. I'm astonished you think this isn't so.

I don't remember stating otherwise. Indeed, it would seem to logically follow, given what I typed.


I notice you ignored the main point that women were uneducated through most societies in history. That did happen in the real world. Yes, that's right; outside of your computer screen.

I didn't ignore it, it wasn't there when I clicked quote on the post. In any case, I'm fully aware that women didn't go onto higher education in centuries past.

This shouldn't come as a surprise, however.

What was the purpose of higher education in Pre-Enlightenment times? It was to create politicians and religious leaders; both were offices reserved (except for a few historical exceptions) for men.

Sexist? Yes, but that's patriarchy for you.


And what happens in fiction does have an impact, or a grounding, in what people accept in general. For instance, there are people that do believe that there's sound in space, or that people will be thrown 20 feet back when shot with a pistol.

No disagreement here.


You're essentially arguing, "It's fiction! It can't possibly ever represent anything about the standards of the day!" As if Reefer Madness from the 1930s has the same relevance to society as Reefer Madness the musical.

Reefer Madness was propaganda then.


I recommend you don't watch some older films. It'll probably be jarring for you. You might also not like to know that you can examine popular media of a time period to find out about the standards of that day... or how stories and myths can reflect a culture's viewpoints.

Particular reason you're insulting me?

You can examine stories and myths that reflect the message the patron who funded the art wanted. I doubt the Inferno, Aeneid etc. would've come to be if they didn't fulfill that.

Beowulf was a campfire story. Harmless fun.

It's not until the breakdown of absolute monarchy and the origin of freedom of speech that the real viewpoints of society at large can be discerned from fiction.

I noticed that fiction gets a whole lot less boring after that happens.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:52 AM
I didn't ignore it, it wasn't there when I clicked quote on the post. In any case, I'm fully aware that women didn't go onto higher education in centuries past.

This shouldn't come as a surprise, however.

What was the purpose of higher education in Pre-Enlightenment times? It was to create politicians and religious leaders; both were offices reserved (except for a few historical exceptions) for men.

Sexist? Yes, but that's patriarchy for you.

So wait. It's a given fact that men evolutionary like intelligent educated women... and is an indisputable fact that you need no real support for... except that in the vast majority of societies in history, that isn't seen?

That...

Dude, what?



Reefer Madness was propaganda then.
Reefer Madness was a direct result of the values of the people of the time. The Musical was also representative of the values of the people at the time, and is seen in how they mock the original film.

Are you purposefully ignoring this point?


Particular reason you're insulting me?

I'm just honestly astonished that you can't get this quite simple point. I'm honestly at the point of giving up.


You can examine stories and myths that reflect the message the patron who funded the art wanted. I doubt the Inferno, Aeneid etc. would've come to be if they didn't fulfill that.

Dante's Divine Comedy was not based on a patron. Dante wrote it himself; I can't find any information on any patron of Dante and what he wanted. Indeed, he annoyed quite a few political figures because he introduced them into the Comedy, notably living figures in the Inferno. In fact, he was condemned to perpetual exile.


Beowulf was a campfire story. Harmless fun. So it didn't reflect any of the values of the people at the time? There's no insight in how families worked at the time? Hrothgar, etc. were just figures that should be ignored? What about the big moral speech that Beowulf is given? (I'll have to look up details, but it's quite explicit)

There was a lot more to Beowulf than you read, I think. I'd also add that the vast majority of Beowulf was not actually translated, and most schools only teach the "fun bits".

The Song of Roland, even if it was historically inaccurate, did also reflect the values of the time, as well as the dislike of the Muslims and a curious fascination with beard-stroking...

There are Muslim and Indian texts that do much of the same thing.


It's not until the breakdown of absolute monarchy and the origin of freedom of speech that the real viewpoints of society at large can be discerned from fiction.

That's patently false. Gillian will tear this apart better than I can, I think.

I think you also underestimate just how much influence the powers that be had. For instance, much activity was based around the church, as seen in the historical book Peasant Fires by Hans Bohm. Yes, the locals didn't exactly 100% follow behind the church -- in fact, the Carnival was there to mock it (which the church allowed), and they kept pagan traditions (such as the Burning of the Wheel), but outside of Carnival, the Church was the place to convene. That was the place for festivals, the place where people would get educated, and had a deep impact on the mind of the people.

The actual revolution was not actually done in the name of pagan gods, but in the name of Mary, and as a protest against indulgences and hatred of the clergy, as well as perceived lower status (even though they actually had better status than before the Black Death, but memory tends to be limited).

I do think that we have a good insight of the public perception of the time. Of course, the ancient history writers would try to pin the blame on a friar (because no peasant could possibly have instigated something like this), but even THAT tells you something about how friars were perceived in comparison with the priests.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 06:14 AM
Well, not Greece or Renaissance Europe, but actually there's a bit from the Bible that mentions a form of imprinting for animals:



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+30&version=NIV

He made "spotted" flocks by imprinting on them "spots" on branches.

I'm asking for sources on the Greek and Renaissance Europe beliefs from the people who made the offline source I read.

Follow up:

http://www.articlesbase.com/pregnancy-articles/pregnant-woman-myths-and-superstitions-1473465.html

Also, Callipedie (callipaediae): art of having handsome children.

http://web2.bium.univ-paris5.fr/livanc/?p=104&cote=72026&do=page

I'm trying to find an English translation of the document.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 06:14 AM
I didn't ignore it, it wasn't there when I clicked quote on the post. In any case, I'm fully aware that women didn't go onto higher education in centuries past.

Were not allowed to. For heaven's sake, it wasn't until the twentieth century that even those few women allowed to attend Oxford University at all were able to actually get degrees after their studies.


This shouldn't come as a surprise, however.

What was the purpose of higher education in Pre-Enlightenment times? It was to create politicians and religious leaders; both were offices reserved (except for a few historical exceptions) for men.

Yes. Because women should shut up and stay in the kitchen. Intelligence was not wanted. Only men were capable of holding those positions--and on those rare occasions when women did, such as princesses inheriting thrones, the automatic assumption was that they would marry and let a man take over for them.


Sexist? Yes, but that's patriarchy for you.

Yes. It directly contradicts some of what you've said, too.


You can examine stories and myths that reflect the message the patron who funded the art wanted. I doubt the Inferno, Aeneid etc. would've come to be if they didn't fulfill that.

Doubt away, but you're wrong. Far fewer writers than you seem to think had patrons. Shakespeare didn't. Marlowe didn't. Dante didn't. Virgil wanted the Aeneid burned; it was published posthumously. Artists tended to, but in part, that's because you only have one copy of a painting or sculpture. You can keep spreading your writing. And at that, a lot of writers who did have patrons angered them in some way and lost patronage--and it's the work that angered the patron, as often as not, that survives.


Beowulf was a campfire story. Harmless fun.

Oh, dear.

If it has come down to us, it isn't a "campfire story" in the sense you seem to mean. It was shared for centuries before being written down, told and retold. In that sense, it isn't a good example of the attitudes and so forth of those who originally told it. Too much changed. However, you might be interested to know that serious scholars are examining it to look into the changing attitudes between Paganism and Christianity and how it affected the people and stories of the era.


It's not until the breakdown of absolute monarchy and the origin of freedom of speech that the real viewpoints of society at large can be discerned from fiction.

Wrong. Try reading Chaucer. Chaucer is just a bunch of stories that people were telling, many of which were very opposed to the authorities of the time. The Church is mocked. The nobility is mocked. We also know, from reading it, how Chaucer pronounced his words--we know what is supposed to rhyme and how it's supposed to scan. When they eat, we learn about what people of the era ate. Chaucer--who earned most of his living as a low-level political flunky--is a good source on the humour of the era. We learn a lot about people based on how Chaucer wrote, and doubtless future generations will learn a lot about us by looking at our popular works. No, they won't assume we're all sparkly vampires, but they will know that sparkly vampires appealed to people, how we traveled, that we traveled, and so forth.


I noticed that fiction gets a whole lot less boring after that happens.

I'm curious--when do you think this happened? And how much fiction from before then have you read?

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 06:32 AM
So wait. It's a given fact that men evolutionary like intelligent educated women... and is an indisputable fact that you need no real support for... except that in the vast majority of societies in history, that isn't seen?

That...

Dude, what?

I didn't say educated. I said intelligent. You don't have to go to college to be intelligent. I've met kids that are more intelligent than some college students. It's not knowledge, but the ability to think.

So, if they're not allowed to hold political or religious office, what reason would there be for ancient women to have higher education?
They'd have no use for knowing the workings of the law, or the finer points of theology.

There wasn't exactly a thriving culture of science and engineering going on.

Women did have the freedom to be literate in pre-modern societies, which was more than most men of the times accomplished.


Reefer Madness was a direct result of the values of the people of the time. The Musical was also representative of the values of the people at the time, and is seen in how they mock the original film.

Are you purposefully ignoring this point?

Reefer Madness was the direct result of the delusions (or downright lies) of its very in the minority creators. It was forgotten until decades later when it was realized to be comedy gold.

Doesn't sound to me like it represented anything about the culture at large.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 06:36 AM
Virgil wanted the Aeneid burned; it was published posthumously.

Just to support this, the Oddysey and Illiad did not exist because of a patron. Homer was recording what was oral history. Indeed, the first uses of written language was to record stories that were important to the Greeks at the time.

Claiming that this has no insight to their culture is ludicrous at best.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 06:41 AM
I didn't say educated. I said intelligent. You don't have to go to college to be intelligent. I've met kids that are more intelligent than some college students. It's not knowledge, but the ability to think.

So intelligence is wanted, but educated women aren't. Okay. They want intelligence but not women that have anything at all to do with their intelligence besides raise babies.

You're really going to have to work harder to support your assertion, you know. You know what "support" means? You keep asking me for cites, but all you do is assert, assert, assert, and you never admit when you're wrong.


So, if they're not allowed to hold political or religious office, what reason would there be for ancient women to have higher education?
They'd have no use for knowing the workings of the law, or the finer points of theology.

Or reading and writing?

Or painting? (Some of the most famous portraits of women close to the Enlightenment period were just that: Women expressing the individual ability to draw themselves without needing to institute anything else).

Furthermore, as women did gain an education post-Enlightenment and Industrial period, the more revolutionary they became. They demanded the right to vote, and were the first abolitionists and the first to go on strike.

Also, education was more than politics and theology, even pre-Enlightenment.


There wasn't exactly a thriving culture of science and engineering going on.

There's a lot more to medieval and pre-medieval life than you're letting on here.


Women did have the freedom to be literate in pre-modern societies, which was more than most men of the times accomplished.Wait, you're speaking very generically here. In all of pre-modern societies? Hell, in most pre-modern societies? In many pre-modern societies? In a few pre-modern societies, at certain periods of time? That latter one I can give you, but none of the others.

One of the most notable paintings of a woman found in Pompeii (I believe) was of a woman holding a quill. She knew how to read and write; but at the same time, she was also obviously a wealthy woman. Most women didn't know how to read and write, and those that did were quite notable, and were allowed by their parents because they money left over after sending their sons to learn. The average were not educated in that way; the men were taught to read and write.

Again, you make a claim that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Are you going to get tired of that yet?


Reefer Madness was the direct result of the delusions (or downright lies) of its very in the minority creators.

I think they were less a minority for a long period than you think. The Comics Code and the code against movies, for instance, got a lot of support, especially in the stores that refused to show them. Hell, the creator of Graham Crackers believed that things that tasted good were bad for you and led you to sin (though HE was definitely minority). Prohibition was not long ago. This was a perspective that existed at the time, a moral stance on entertainment, drugs, alcohol, and all sorts of fun things. Reefer Madness doesn't offer the whole picture, but to say that it offers no glimpse whatsoever is false.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that any one media source is representative of all of society.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 06:57 AM
Okay, I'm going to cut this short. This is SkepticJ's claim, and so he must support it, it's not up to me to tear it apart:

If your theory of evolutionary love of intelligence is self-evident, you must have strong support for it. If it's self-evident, you should have evidence for it. I do not need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right. I will await your answer and not respond to any further posts by you that is not dealing directly with this.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-03, 07:04 AM
Also, education was more than politics and theology, even pre-Enlightenment.

Not much. Some math, and lots of art.

It's hard to use blanket descriptions across multiple cultures and thousands of years, but in the arts women weren't quite so disenfranchised.

Sappho and Murasaki Shikibu come to mind. One wonders how many there were who have been lost to history--just think of what little art scraps we have from ancient men.


One of the most notable paintings of a woman found in Pompeii (I believe) was of a woman holding a quill. She knew how to read and write; but at the same time, she was also obviously a wealthy women. Most women didn't know how to read and write. The average were not educated in that way; the men were taught to read and write.

Average men were not taught to read and write.

IIRC, in the Roman Empire, about 10% of people were literate.

I didn't mean to imply that most women were literate, simply that it was an option if they could afford it. It wasn't taboo, in other words.


I think they were less a minority for a long period than you think. The Comics Code and the code against movies, for instance, got a lot of support, especially in the stores that refused to show them. Hell, the creator of Graham Crackers believed that things that tasted good were bad for you and led you to sin (though HE was definitely minority). Prohibition was not long ago. This was a perspective that existed at the time, a moral stance on entertainment, drugs, alcohol, and all sorts of fun things. Reefer Madness doesn't offer the whole picture, but to say that it offers no glimpse whatsoever is false.

Use of alcohol went up while Prohibition was enforced, too.

So much for codes and laws reflecting the attitudes of the public.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 07:07 AM
Okay, I'm going to cut this short. This is SkepticJ's claim, and so he must support it, it's not up to me to tear it apart:

If your theory of evolutionary love of intelligence is self-evident, you must have strong support for it. If it's self-evident, you should have evidence for it. I do not need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right. I will await your answer and not respond to any further posts by you that is not dealing directly with this.

I'm going to make an exception here.


Prohibition got enough support that it became law.

Use of alcohol went up while it was enforced, too.

So much for codes and laws reflecting the attitudes of the public.

And there are reasons for that. If one was actually interested in history and looking into the details, they could find out. I don't know where I said that codes and laws always reflect the attitudes of the public. If you're going to deal with my posts, please don't invent things that I didn't say as my position.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 07:37 AM
Does anyone else find it ironic that my statements are being ignored?

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 07:42 AM
Posts by SolusLupus on this page: 8

Posts by Gillianren on this page: 2 (not counting the last one).

Posts by SkepticJ on this page: 3 (not counting the first, as it's pertaining to the previous page).

Numbers of replies to SolusLupus: 3

Number of replies to Gillianren: 0

Direct questions made by Gillianren: More than or equal to 1.

Obviously, the answer is to post more!

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 09:00 AM
So intelligence is wanted, but educated women aren't. Okay. They want intelligence but not women that have anything at all to do with their intelligence besides raise babies.Non sequitur. Education and raising babies isn't the only things intelligence can be applied to, and from the evolutionary perspective the the former isn't even among the important ones.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 09:06 AM
Non sequitur. Education and raising babies isn't the only things intelligence can be applied to, and from the evolutionary perspective the the former isn't even among the important ones.

Please, demonstrate. List the things of which education has no use at all.

(Yet another person that ignores the meat of subjects just to focus on one particular point. Sigh. I'm about ready to give up on this thread).

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 09:10 AM
Yes. Because women should shut up and stay in the kitchen. Intelligence was not wanted.
All else equal, I'd rather have a smart woman making my food than a dumb one ...

It seems to me there's a continual confusion of intelligence and intellectualness/educatedness in this thread.

Only men were capable of holding those positions--and on those rare occasions when women did, such as princesses inheriting thrones, the automatic assumption was that they would marry and let a man take over for them.

A fairly obvious exception is abbesses and other religious leaders*. That said, it's significant that educational standards for abbesses were generally lower than for abbots (at least in Europe - not much familiar with monastic traditions in the rest of the world).


* That's "religious" as in living the religious life, not religious as in merely being Christian/Scientologist/whatever.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 09:21 AM
It seems to me there's a continual confusion of intelligence and intellectualness/educatedness in this thread.

Education is an obvious benefit to intelligence. If I'm intelligent, I can't make much use of it if I have no knowledge of geography, history, mathematics, or whatever else. It might have some use, but it's still very limited with limited data to go on. If you're a superior decision maker but only have one or two choices to make, that doesn't really aid you, does it?

And ultimately, it's almost a universal fact that women were not appreciated for being more intelligent or not performing specific duties.


A fairly obvious exception is abbesses and other religious leaders*. That said, it's significant that educational standards for abbesses were generally lower than for abbots (at least in Europe - not much familiar with monastic traditions in the rest of the world).

An abbess was specifically the head of an abbey of nuns. It's a woman leading other women. I guess that might still be significant. Ultimately, though, they do not hold any power of men.


* That's "religious" as in living the religious life, not religious as in merely being Christian/Scientologist/whatever.

Well, yes.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 09:22 AM
Please, demonstrate. List the things of which education has no use at all.
What? I didn't say anything about the usefulness of education.

Also, you're going to have to debate against the writings and experiences of people themselves where women were told to, essentially, "go back to the kitchen". If you want to ignore that reality, though, well, you should robably find somewhere else to go.
I don't ignore that reality, and I cannot imagine why you think it contradicts what I said. Please explain.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 09:24 AM
It's just difficult for me to accept "Men like intelligent women instinctively and self-evidently" when they refuse basic education for the same women.


I don't ignore that reality, and I cannot imagine why you think it contradicts what I said. Please explain.

So it's a non sequitur to mention "using intelligence for babies", but you yourself admit that the women were wanted "in the kitchen" and nowhere else.

Very well. I amend my previous statement:

Women's intelligence only being respected for raising babies and cooking.

There, happy?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-03, 09:36 AM
However, I saw a group of statistics once (I'll have to pull it up), wherein it was demonstrated that the more money a woman made than the man, or the more intelligent/educated the woman was than the man, the higher the likelihood of domestic abuse. I believe this was brought up in my Sociology class, either in my textbook or in a hand-out. If the former, I may still have it around here somewhere, if you want me to cite the source.
Abuse which way?

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 09:38 AM
Education is an obvious benefit to intelligence. If I'm intelligent, I can't make much use of it if I have no knowledge of geography, history, mathematics, or whatever else. It might have some use, but it's still very limited with limited data to go on. If you're a superior decision maker but only have one or two choices to make, that doesn't really aid you, does it?
It evidently aids enough - intelligence evolved in the absence of education.

And ultimately, it's almost a universal fact that women were not appreciated for being more intelligent or not performing specific duties.


I don't have the comparative anthropological knowledge to know if that's true, and to be perfectly frank I doubt you do either.

(If my inconsiderate father hadn't moved away and taken his books with him, I could'a given you cites for traditional "farmer's advice" from more than one culture stressing the importance of "wisdom" in a desirable bride (alongside beauty, wealth, etc). I don't know that to be a near-universal value either, but I have no particular reason to think it's less widespread than "smart girls dont' get boys", which attitude, certainly, I've also encountered.)

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 09:39 AM
Abuse which way?

As in, was it physical abuse, mental abuse, verbal abuse, etc.? I'm not sure. I'd have to find the statistics, and that's not likely to happen for at least days.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 09:42 AM
It's just difficult for me to accept "Men like intelligent women instinctively and self-evidently" when they refuse basic education for the same women.
I haven't made the assertion in quotes, have I?



So it's a non sequitur to mention "using intelligence for babies", but you yourself admit that the women were wanted "in the kitchen" and nowhere else.
I haven't said women are wanted only in the kitchen either.

Very well. I amend my previous statement:

Women's intelligence only being respected for raising babies and cooking.

There, happy?

No.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-03, 09:52 AM
Does anyone else find it ironic that my statements are being ignored?
Not really, the thread had gone into the "two people squabbling" mode some posters seem to prefer and people not in the squabble tend to be ignored when that happens.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-03, 09:53 AM
As in, was it physical abuse, mental abuse, verbal abuse, etc.? I'm not sure. I'd have to find the statistics, and that's not likely to happen for at least days.
As in, was it him or her who got abused?

It happens both ways you know.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 09:55 AM
I haven't made the assertion in quotes, have I?And yet, it was the assertion I was primarily dealing with. Go figure, huh?


I haven't said women are wanted only in the kitchen either.

Then stop being vague. Make your claim or don't. Don't just step into the middle of my posts and nitpick without paying attention to the details.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 09:55 AM
As in, was it him or her who got abused?

It happens both ways you know.

He was abusing her. I'm well aware it goes both ways. I wouldn't have brought it up if it was the other way around, would I?

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 10:18 AM
And yet, it was the assertion I was primarily dealing with. Go figure, huh?

It's perfectly possible for both an assertion and your arguments against same to be wrong.


Then stop being vague. Make your claim or don't. Don't just step into the middle of my posts and nitpick without paying attention to the details.

I've made multiple perfectly non-vague claims, such that education isn't necessary to make use of intelligence and that power and education wasn't universally considered inappropriate for women in pre-Enlightenment Europe.

I have not, it's true, presented a Grand Unified Theory of Male Appreciation of Female Intelligence, but I hardly need to in order to criticize others' candidates. (And I'm not going to present one either; I don't have the requisite anthropological background to formulate one I could have confidence in.)

Moose
2010-Mar-03, 10:44 AM
Moose is not entirely happy with some of the behavior he's seen in this thread (and in a few other threads lately). When one or more discussions are at "a hair under running-firefight-mode" for longer than an hour or two, Moose gets concerned. Particularly when the same names keep showing up.

Less-than-congenial behavior that makes Moose feel like he has to choose between monitoring threads for the eventual inevitable blowup and his increasing mountain of college-related work does not make Moose a happy moose. Particularly this week.

I will ask... once... that folks pay close attention to the tone they've been projecting lately, and consider if this posting style is a healthy way to maintain relationships within our community.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 10:52 AM
Moose is... Moose gets... makes Moose feel like

SolusLupus also talk in second person. :D


and his increasing mountain of college-related work does not make Moose a happy moose. Particularly this week.

Hah. I'm actually at the point where I'm pondering dropping all four of my classes. It's been heavily suggested that if I do this, though, I'll screw up my academics incredibly and can expect to pretty much be less likely to get a job.

Moose
2010-Mar-03, 11:26 AM
SolusLupus also talk in second person. :D

Third person. 2nd person perspective is "You discover you like carrot cake. What will you do; what will you do?" Think just about any Steve Jackson book.


Hah. I'm actually at the point where I'm pondering dropping all four of my classes. It's been heavily suggested that if I do this, though, I'll screw up my academics incredibly and can expect to pretty much be less likely to get a job.

Well, yes and no. Outside of my Education education, I've never been asked for my university transcript. A copy of my degree, sure, for government work, but never my transcript.

But yeah, "let fly all" might feel really good at the time, but it doesn't get you anywhere except Regretville.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 11:28 AM
A nit that's perhaps worth picking:


An abbess was specifically the head of an abbey of nuns. It's a woman leading other women. I guess that might still be significant. Ultimately, though, they do not hold any power of men.
She would hold power over lay dependents of the abbey, male and female.

Then there's the decidedly unsual case of the Bridgettines, with mixed-gender convents under the leadership of an abbess.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 03:35 PM
Third person. 2nd person perspective is "You discover you like carrot cake. What will you do; what will you do?" Think just about any Steve Jackson book.

I was tired. :(

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 03:36 PM
A nit that's perhaps worth picking:

She would hold power over lay dependents of the abbey, male and female.

Then there's the decidedly unsual case of the Bridgettines, with mixed-gender convents under the leadership of an abbess.

It still seems to be a limited example, to me. I mean, it's interesting, I'll admit. Just limited.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 03:38 PM
To return to a previous point:

http://www.birthingtales.org/text.php?id=17


5) The birth in 1517 of a child with the face of a frog

In Chapter 10, entitled ‘Example of monsters caused by the imagination’, Paré quotes the traditional belief that if a something a pregnant woman sees makes a strong impression on her imagination, the child will bears the physical mark of it. He cites an example dating back to 1517, in which a child was born with the face of a frog. This child was examined by a group of men whose testimony, according to Paré, was beyond reproach. Since he supplies an illustration to accompany the tale, he does not provide a detailed description; the image would allow readers to grasp the nature of the deformity at a glance.

Evidence that "imprinting" was even believed in 1517.

Of Mankind and On Monsters seems to go into more detail, but it's also in French, and I also can't find an English source for it.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 04:13 PM
It still seems to be a limited example, to me. I mean, it's interesting, I'll admit. Just limited.

Not sure what you mean by "limited" here. It's obviously true that the European monastic tradition did not (and still does not) give women equal chances of power and authority to men*, but when they did attain such, it was not necessarily more limited than a man's - a medieval abbess could exert the same, at some times and places extremely extensive, authority over tenant farmers as could an abbot or a lay aristocrat.


* The very fact that a Bridgettine abbess had male canons to boss around was based, in part, on patriarchal assumptions: it allowed the convent to have in-house competence for religious functions that only male ecclesiastics were considered able to carry out.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 04:27 PM
Yes, I know. I couldn't stand being with a ditz, either. It's a horrible thought to me, and that's why it's never happened.

On the other hand, women do still get told that. I've had people here say they don't believe me, but they're always male. I have a friend who was essentially entirely raised that way. She's no dummy, but she's never developed her mind as well as she could have, because her mother brought her up to believe that boys don't like smart girls, and you should be in a relationship if at all possible. Shoot, I have a friend whose mother is a teacher who still grew up thinking that you shouldn't act too smart.

It's a shame if women are being told this by other women, but it does not show that the belief is true.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 04:42 PM
It's just difficult for me to accept "Men like intelligent women instinctively and self-evidently" when they refuse basic education for the same women.

We don't, so this is an horrendous strawman argument.

We send all male and female children to school in our society, and have about the same numbers of each continuing to degree level. To give a blanket statement like the above is nonsensical.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 04:57 PM
We don't, so this is an horrendous strawman argument.

No, it was SkepticJ's claim.

Or do you not know what "strawman" means? Or "horrendous", for that matter? Because it seems you're more of stating that I'm wrong, not that I'm making a strawman. The two are different, and you would be well-equipped to learn the differences; if you're going to throw around terms, make sure you know what the definitions are. And even though you're accusing me of being wrong, it seems to be a gross misunderstanding of what I said, I think partly because you don't seem willing to actually read what was being said, and just picked one thing you felt you could pick apart.


We send all male and female children to school in our society, and have about the same numbers of each continuing to degree level. To give a blanket statement like the above is nonsensical.

Uhm, yes. I suppose you missed the point (given by other people) that the past 50 years to a century was a blink in the eye of history.

I guess you also missed the part where women had to fight pretty hard for it. I guess you haven't heard of the protests for suffrage, and the strikes that women instigated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls). What were they told? It wasn't, "We want women to be educated!" It was "Go back to the kitchen!" (I'm not saying all men were like that, but that was the community view; even other women argued that women's place was in the kitchen)

My point had directly to do with the majority of history's time and across cultures. China, Japan, Middle East (1001 Nights, again), early US, early to modern Europe (including Roman and Greek times), etc.

If you want to talk about the modern age, I can demonstrate places where women are not educated or free. I can demonstrate where women do not have basic control over whether or not they can bear a child in parts of Africa. So even in the modern times your claim isn't the universal truth.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 05:09 PM
Edited down to say...

That is all irrelevant (as well as needlessly insulting). You made a claim about the present, and I pointed out that you were wrong. Maybe you struggle with tenses, but if you meant to write about the past, you need to use something other than the present tense, in general.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:13 PM
Edited to say:


Edited down to say...

That is all irrelevant (as well a needlessly insulting). You made a claim about the present, and I pointed out that you were wrong. Maybe you struggle with tenses, but if you meant to write about the past, you need to use something other than the present tense, in general.

From the context of the argument, the responses, and generally what I had been arguing at length and in detail throughout nearly that entire page that's in plain sight, it was quite obvious what I was referring to. However, to satisfy you:


It's just difficult for me to accept "Men like intelligent women instinctively and self-evidently" when they refuse basic education for the same women throughout a good deal of history in societies across the world.

There. Solved. You may deny this, if you wish, but Gillian can cover England and early US history on this point, and I can cover much of China, I think.

Still wasn't a strawman, by the way, since I never claimed that anyone said what you claimed I did. Much less a horrendous strawman.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 05:20 PM
OK, kudos for admitting that you made a mistake, but, given that you did, you can hardly get so bent out of shape when someone responds to it.

You posted something wrong, I corrected you, and you decided to launch into a rant about how I must be ignorant of the history of the women's movement. That is not really a rational response.

Demanding that I respond not to what you wrote, but to what I should have known that you intended to write is just not going to fly, I'm afraid.

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-03, 05:21 PM
Perhaps I can bring this back to the OP.

Since women didn't get the education they needed, there were fewer of them in the trades. Thus, women who wanted to wear armor had to rely upon male blacksmiths/armourers for their gear, and these man made sexy plate armor for them. It was all they had to wear, so they wore it.

If you want that to change, I suggest you stop campaigning against orcs and go into the blacksmithing business.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:22 PM
OK, kudos for admitting that you made a mistake,
I was only "admitting" to "making a mistake" for your sake, so I'm just going to ignore the rest of your sentence.


You posted something wrong,
Sigh.

Just not worth it.

Just read my post as I meant it (I showed what I meant so you can stop going on about how "wrong" I am now) and stop claiming strawmen that don't exist and just move on, please?



Demanding that I respond not to what you wrote, but to what I should have known that you intended to write is just not going to fly, I'm afraid.

Yeah, so not responding to this one.

Hint: I was suggesting you read my posts.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-03, 05:24 PM
I would adjust that a bit to say that yes, many countries educate women, but the "we" who educates women even in these modern times isn't a universal inclusive "we" that includes everyone.

There are still many countries where women are denied the chance for higher education as well as basic human rights, and skirting the political no-no-line I'll say that one of the current day worst offenders whose behavior is utterly ignored is America's favorite bedfellow Saudi Arabia.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:30 PM
Because the topic interests me, and I'm getting a trickle-down effect of information:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book%3D7:chapte r%3D10

More on "Imprinting", this time a manuscript by Pliny the Elder.


These strong features of resemblance proceed, no doubt, from the imagination of the parents, over which we may reasonably believe that many casual circumstances have a very powerful influence; such, for instance, as the action of the eyes, the ears, or the memory, or impressions received at the moment of conception. A thought4 even, momentarily passing through the mind of either of the parents, may be supposed to produce a resemblance to one of them separately, or else to the two combined. Hence it is that the varieties are much more numerous in the appearance of man than in that of other animals; seeing that, in the former, the rapidity of the ideas, the quickness of the perception, and the varied powers of the intellect, tend to impress upon the features peculiar and diversified marks; while in the case of the other animals, the mind is immovable, and just the same in each and all individuals of the

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 05:31 PM
I was only "admitting" to "making a mistake" for your sake, so I'm just going to ignore the rest of your sentence.

For my sake? I'm so touched, that's really kind of you.


Just read my post as I meant

Or, to put it another way, "How dare you respond to what I actually typed and posted?"

As for the scare quotes above, I'll ignore your attempt to backpedal if that's OK with you?

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:32 PM
:rolleyes:

For someone that claims to want honest discourse, you really can't let this go. Claim I'm "backpedaling" if you wish. I don't care at this point; hey, if it makes you feel better, why not?

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 05:37 PM
So, back to the contention that men don't like intelligent women...

I still see no evidence that this is true. As I said above, I don't know anyone who I think feels this way, and all of the very intelligent women that I do know seem to have no problem with finding men, so why do people think otherwise?

Do the very beautiful, athletic and intelligent women think that it's true or is the belief more prevalent among those who do not fit the "classic beauty" mould?

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 05:41 PM
So, back to the contention that men don't like intelligent women...

Actually, I'd rather like to go back to the contention that men self-evidently like intelligent women, and it's necessarily true from evolution and has been true through the human race's time on Earth. If you're going to make a claim over the human race in such general terms and over its history, I think you'd have to give some support for it.

Though it was SkepticJ's claim, and I don't know if you support it yourself.

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-03, 05:51 PM
Because the topic interests me, and I'm getting a trickle-down effect of information:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.02.0137:book%3D7:chapte r%3D10

More on "Imprinting", this time a manuscript by Pliny the Elder.
These strong features of resemblance proceed, no doubt, from the imagination of the parents, over which we may reasonably believe that many casual circumstances have a very powerful influence; such, for instance, as the action of the eyes, the ears, or the memory, or impressions received at the moment of conception. A thought4 even, momentarily passing through the mind of either of the parents, may be supposed to produce a resemblance to one of them separately, or else to the two combined. Hence it is that the varieties are much more numerous in the appearance of man than in that of other animals; seeing that, in the former, the rapidity of the ideas, the quickness of the perception, and the varied powers of the intellect, tend to impress upon the features peculiar and diversified marks; while in the case of the other animals, the mind is immovable, and just the same in each and all individuals of the

That's quite an interesting belief system. I wonder... what are the chances that it came about from a woman who was trying to explain to her husband/his family/the village elders how she had a child that looks like someone else instead of the father. (Ignore the age of the child, let's assume the accusation appears when the child is old enough to obviously not look like the husband.) I'd say that shows intelligence in a woman, if she argued the idea so successfully that it became folk wisdom.

I think that men do like women who are intelligent, insofar as they are intelligent enough to stroke the man's ego and lie to him successfully enough to satisfy her own needs whither she will. As for submission and dominance, men also want intelligent women to dominate, because dominating weak-willed and stupid women isn't as satisfying.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-03, 05:57 PM
Does anyone else find it ironic that my statements are being ignored?
See, this time I'm the one being ignored because there's a two person fight going on.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 06:04 PM
Actually, I'd rather like to go back to the contention that men self-evidently like intelligent women, and it's necessarily true from evolution and has been true through the human race's time on Earth.

That statement can only really come from quite an extreme reading f what was posted, though, and so unless it's explicitly repeated, I'd say that no-one is defending it.

The only firm, definite, blanket statement on this issue is the one made on the other side, by Gillianren, that "smart girls don't get boys", which I suspect is not true, and which would certainly need some justification to be believed.

It implies that a beautiful, kind, woman, with a nice personality and a high IQ will be dropped in favour of a similar woman of low to average intelligence, and that's simply very hard to believe.

It's certainly possible that beauty is rated as more important than intelligence, but that is not the same thing at all. Just because we like women with a slim athletic build and a beautiful face, it does not follow that we are going to be turned away by a high IQ.

Does anyone have an example of that happening, of a classically beautiful and athletic woman being dropped or ignored because she was too clever?

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 06:08 PM
As for submission and dominance, men also want intelligent women to dominate, because dominating weak-willed and stupid women isn't as satisfying.

What's with all these posts painting men as monsters, without even a hint that you might be talking about only some, or a few men?

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 06:12 PM
See, this time I'm the one being ignored because there's a two person fight going on.

Well, I didn't respond to you because I felt that I dealt with your post already; notably, you said something very similar to something I myself said.

Compare:


I would adjust that a bit to say that yes, many countries educate women, but the "we" who educates women even in these modern times isn't a universal inclusive "we" that includes everyone.

There are still many countries where women are denied the chance for higher education as well as basic human rights, and skirting the political no-no-line I'll say that one of the current day worst offenders whose behavior is utterly ignored is America's favorite bedfellow Saudi Arabia.



If you want to talk about the modern age, I can demonstrate places where women are not educated or free. I can demonstrate where women do not have basic control over whether or not they can bear a child in parts of Africa. So even in the modern times your claim isn't the universal truth.

I felt that further commenting would be redundant. For what it's worth, I do agree with you, but I think that was also obvious.


That statement can only really come from quite an extreme reading f what was posted, though, and so unless it's explicitly repeated, I'd say that no-one is defending it.

Then the claim that evolution made men love intelligent women has been effectively retracted.

Thanks, I don't have much else to say on that particular subject then.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 06:15 PM
That's quite an interesting belief system. I wonder... what are the chances that it came about from a woman who was trying to explain to her husband/his family/the village elders how she had a child that looks like someone else instead of the father. (Ignore the age of the child, let's assume the accusation appears when the child is old enough to obviously not look like the husband.) I'd say that shows intelligence in a woman, if she argued the idea so successfully that it became folk wisdom.

Interesting theory. It also helps stroke the ego of the man: She just thought of this other guy, she didn't cheat with him after all, in secret, when the man wasn't watching, where he somehow missed all of this somehow...


I think that men do like women who are intelligent, insofar as they are intelligent enough to stroke the man's ego and lie to him successfully enough to satisfy her own needs whither she will. As for submission and dominance, men also want intelligent women to dominate, because dominating weak-willed and stupid women isn't as satisfying.

Heh. I wonder how often I can pull that up when it comes to stories. I do know of women coming onto men to "test" them for another man (The Green Knight comes as a nifty example of that).

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 06:32 PM
See, this time I'm the one being ignored because there's a two person fight going on.

I just thought it was funny given the obvious difference between me and Solus Lupus.


The only firm, definite, blanket statement on this issue is the one made on the other side, by Gillianren, that "smart girls don't get boys", which I suspect is not true, and which would certainly need some justification to be believed.

I don't think it's true, either, if that wasn't clear. At least not necessarily. My point is that it's what a lot of women, unto today, are being told. This was a response to the comment that women, when trying to be attractive, strip a lot of clothing. It's because we have been brought up to believe that it's what men want. We have been brought up to believe that our brains are not wanted--which is demonstrably true in certain cultures.


It implies that a beautiful, kind, woman, with a nice personality and a high IQ will be dropped in favour of a similar woman of low to average intelligence, and that's simply very hard to believe.

"Dropped" involves having been gone after in the first place. I have known men who, once they work out you're not a dingbat, stop talking to you. They aren't around you long enough to get into a relationship, which is, to me at least, what "dropped" implies.


It's certainly possible that beauty is rated as more important than intelligence, but that is not the same thing at all. Just because we like women with a slim athletic build and a beautiful face, it does not follow that we are going to be turned away by a high IQ.

You probably aren't. Most of the men in this thread probably aren't. Most of the men in this thread are a bad example of the average man.


Does anyone have an example of that happening, of a classically beautiful and athletic woman being dropped or ignored because she was too clever?

There are plenty of men who aren't interested in "athletic," either; women aren't particularly encouraged to do anything but aerobics and a few "girly" events like gymnastics. The thing is, though, any examples I have are just anecdotes, and you can believe or not believe them as you like. Most of the historical examples I might give are complicated by other factors--Elizabeth I never married and Mary Stuart married three times, but that had as much to do with societal differences as their relative intelligences, and Mary was no dummy, just really bad at handling the situation she was in and not very smart about men.

There's the interesting case of Lillian Moller Gilbreth, probably one of the most gifted engineers of the twentieth century and one of the pioneers of efficiency study. She is, however, best known as the mother from Cheaper by the Dozen. We know that her husband respected and admired her intelligence, but we also know that practically any story published about her talked about her kids, too, and emphasized that she was still a woman. In her children's first book about her, practically the only reference to how much she contributed to her husband's work (to the point that not a few people think she wrote several books attributed to him) was when she was supposed to be in the hospital for the birth of her (sixth?) child, and she came back early because "That fiend of a nurse stole my pencils." At the time, thinking by the mother was considered dangerous for the baby.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 06:42 PM
You probably aren't. Most of the men in this thread probably aren't. Most of the men in this thread are a bad example of the average man.

Which was also something I pointed out earlier (but went ignored, of course). The people in this thread are not representative of the whole, so talking about what "I" want is flawed. Furthermore, the more you move from the "I", the more your anecdotal claim starts to become questionable of any utility at all; because you don't read minds, and you don't look into people's lives 24/7. You don't see when a man loses interest in a girl because of her smarts, because you're paying attention to something/someone else, etc. Sure, you see a smart woman with a man, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you saw what her love life was like before that, or what it will be a few years in.

Of course, this questions validity of all anecdotes here. That's why I'm always annoyed how built on them so many arguments tend to be.


At the time, thinking by the mother was considered dangerous for the baby.

Another thing not mentioned in World Civ/History/Sociology classes? :D

Swift
2010-Mar-03, 06:47 PM
Moose is not entirely happy with some of the behavior he's seen in this thread (and in a few other threads lately). When one or more discussions are at "a hair under running-firefight-mode" for longer than an hour or two, Moose gets concerned. Particularly when the same names keep showing up.

Less-than-congenial behavior that makes Moose feel like he has to choose between monitoring threads for the eventual inevitable blowup and his increasing mountain of college-related work does not make Moose a happy moose. Particularly this week.

I will ask... once... that folks pay close attention to the tone they've been projecting lately, and consider if this posting style is a healthy way to maintain relationships within our community.
Moose isn't the only one concerned and we've been getting Reported Posts about it.

So I'll make it clearer: everyone is to knock off the snarky and confrontational comments now. You all know a lot better than that. If you are getting too worked up by the comments, then step away from the thread. Otherwise the next moderator interaction in this thread will involve infractions.

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-03, 07:28 PM
What's with all these posts painting men as monsters, without even a hint that you might be talking about only some, or a few men?

I never suggested that dominance made men monsters and it's not what I think, but here I am referencing what I've been told by women who are into that sort of thing and to my mind it rings true. Nor is it true that being submissive makes someone weak or stupid. For every man who is dominant there is probably a woman who wants a man who is dominant. Of course, this is not necessarily true for the population as a whole, and there are many degrees of dominance and submission. (I'm not talking about BDSM roleplay, but the social roles they are based upon.) There are also men who are submissive and woman who are dominant.

Consider this point. Roleplaying fantasy mythical wargames may tend to draw women who are dominant towards men who are dominant, which sets up a confrontation. Assuming SolusLupus is a woman, perhaps she has a dominating personality and wants virtual apparel to match. The creators of the game may be men with dominating personalities who want to appeal to women who are not as dominating. So, perhaps the answer is for more dominating women to create such fantasy mythic wargames that appeal to them, the virtual form of taking up blacksmithing to which I was referring.

NorthernBoy
2010-Mar-03, 07:28 PM
Then the claim that evolution made men love intelligent women has been effectively retracted.

Thanks, I don't have much else to say on that particular subject then.

As I neither made nor defended it, it's hard to see how my comment on it can be taken as a retraction.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 07:30 PM
Assuming SolusLupus is a woman . . . .

Incorrect assumption. I am; he is not.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 07:40 PM
As I neither made nor defended it, it's hard to see how my comment on it can be taken as a retraction.

Well, I'm more of operating on the fact that you're not defending it, and the person who made it has stopped posting for a few pages now. Hence the "effectively"; no point in discussing it when it's going unsupported.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-03, 07:45 PM
Assuming SolusLupus is a woman,


Incorrect assumption. I am; he is not.

I'm also single.

http://www.lotterypost.com/emoticons/Naughty.gif

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-03, 07:48 PM
Most of the historical examples I might give are complicated by other factors--Elizabeth I never married and Mary Stuart married three times, but that had as much to do with societal differences as their relative intelligences, and Mary was no dummy, just really bad at handling the situation she was in and not very smart about men.
Elizabeth I however was very smart about men, especially for seeing the value of Francis Walsingham.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 08:17 PM
Elizabeth I however was very smart about men, especially for seeing the value of Francis Walsingham.

She also had kind of a dark view about marital relationships, if you take her father into consideration. She'd also seen her sister's marriage pretty close up, and that wasn't good for her sister or England.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-03, 11:02 PM
You probably aren't. Most of the men in this thread probably aren't. Most of the men in this thread are a bad example of the average man.
Are you contending that the average man would, indeed, prefer a dumber woman over a smarter one if they were equal in beauty, social status, etc?

(If yes, please also say average among whom - all men ever, modern men, modern western men, or whatever.)

Gillianren
2010-Mar-03, 11:16 PM
Are you contending that the average man would, indeed, prefer a dumber woman over a smarter one if they were equal in beauty, social status, etc?

(If yes, please also say average among whom - all men ever, modern men, modern western men, or whatever.)

Based on my historical studies, which are mostly limited to the last couple of hundred years in the United States and the UK, it was expected that the man be the driving force in the family, and if the woman were seen to be more intelligent, it was something to look down on the man for. Now, that may not mean anything about the actual men themselves, but they were, after all, in a society where that was true.

What I meant, however, was that people here tend to be above average in intelligence and education, and they were likely raised in households which respect intelligence. This is not anything approaching universally true.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-04, 05:02 AM
Are you contending that the average man would, indeed, prefer a dumber woman over a smarter one if they were equal in beauty, social status, etc?

(If yes, please also say average among whom - all men ever, modern men, modern western men, or whatever.)
Oh my god, how many times have I found that guys were intimidated by the fact that I was of equal or greater intelligent than they were! I haven't checked very far through this thread, but if Paracelsus hasn't posted here someone should ask her about her experience.

sarongsong
2010-Mar-04, 08:25 AM
...if Paracelsus hasn't posted here...Nope, no Paracelsus here (http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=101428)...yet!

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-04, 05:19 PM
Incorrect assumption. I am; he is not.

I wasn't sure, due to the vehemence of the debate, which brings me to my next point. Some men feel it is important to defend women, often because they don't feel the women are capable of doing it themselves. A lot of female feminists I know don't like to be condescended to in that way. A male feminist isn't a man who stands up to protect women, but a man who treats them equally and lets them defend themselves, unless and until asked to intervene or otherwise render support.

If someone really wants something to change, they should go to the source of the issue (i.e. the game developer) and request a change, preferably to offer a choice, as forcing women to wear heavy armor is just as bad as forcing them to wear skimpy armor, since you're not giving them a choice. After all, this isn't much different than the harsh control of women in parts of the world that make them wear burqas and not go out without a male family member, since it's argued to be for their protection.

This is an extension of the Nice Guy Fallacy on dating sites, where a man thinks a woman should like him because he's a Nice Guy. In reality, nice guys tend to pigeonhole women into an ideal, whereas a "jerk" may seem bad, but tends to give a woman the chance to be herself.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Mar-04, 05:55 PM
I wasn't sure, due to the vehemence of the debate, which brings me to my next point. Some men feel it is important to defend women, often because they don't feel the women are capable of doing it themselves. A lot of female feminists I know don't like to be condescended to in that way. A male feminist isn't a man who stands up to protect women, but a man who treats them equally and lets them defend themselves, unless and until asked to intervene or otherwise render support.

If someone really wants something to change, they should go to the source of the issue (i.e. the game developer) and request a change, preferably to offer a choice, as forcing women to wear heavy armor is just as bad as forcing them to wear skimpy armor, since you're not giving them a choice. After all, this isn't much different than the harsh control of women in parts of the world that make them wear burqas and not go out without a male family member, since it's argued to be for their protection.

This is an extension of the Nice Guy Fallacy on dating sites, where a man thinks a woman should like him because he's a Nice Guy. In reality, nice guys tend to pigeonhole women into an ideal, whereas a "jerk" may seem bad, but tends to give a woman the chance to be herself.

This post is a classic example of why men who try to be decent just give up in disgust. Whatever they say, do or think will be interpreted in the worst possible light. I remember, quite some time ago, that men were being accused of not taking rape seriously. When they did take it seriously, a female column writer in a paper (I forget which) stated that men only take it seriously because they feel that "their property" is being harmed.

When one has no chance of winning, one doesn't bother to play - or one even loses on purpose.

Forcing women to wear heavy armour or skimpy outfits may be a bad thing, but these are fictional women in a fantasy scenario. We can assume that these women chose to dress like that, just as RL women dress as NorthernBoy and I described (noting that the climate is even colder where NorthernBoy lives than down here).

Incidentally there is no such thing as a "male feminist", but a man can be a "pro feminist".

Gillianren
2010-Mar-04, 06:05 PM
I wasn't sure, due to the vehemence of the debate, which brings me to my next point. Some men feel it is important to defend women, often because they don't feel the women are capable of doing it themselves. A lot of female feminists I know don't like to be condescended to in that way. A male feminist isn't a man who stands up to protect women, but a man who treats them equally and lets them defend themselves, unless and until asked to intervene or otherwise render support.

If I defended a man, would I be bringing him down? Or would I be complaining about an issue which bothered me? I don't consider it condescension. This is because, to me, the goal is not two separate but equal populations. Men and women will always be different, but that's no reason to make everything into men's issues and women's issues.


If someone really wants something to change, they should go to the source of the issue (i.e. the game developer) and request a change, preferably to offer a choice, as forcing women to wear heavy armor is just as bad as forcing them to wear skimpy armor, since you're not giving them a choice. After all, this isn't much different than the harsh control of women in parts of the world that make them wear burqas and not go out without a male family member, since it's argued to be for their protection.

When was putting fantasy women into chainmail bikinis ever said to be for their protection? Since the argument is for parity--if men are wearing heavy armour in your drawings, heavy armour for women--your burqa argument fails unless the men are wearing them, too. Yes, the heavy armour would be for their protection--against trolls and the like.


This is an extension of the Nice Guy Fallacy on dating sites, where a man thinks a woman should like him because he's a Nice Guy. In reality, nice guys tend to pigeonhole women into an ideal, whereas a "jerk" may seem bad, but tends to give a woman the chance to be herself.

Or perhaps he saw something which really bothered him and which he wanted to point out. Only women are allowed to be angry about unfair treatment of women? Ye Gods.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-04, 06:17 PM
I In reality, nice guys tend to pigeonhole women into an ideal, whereas a "jerk" may seem bad, but tends to give a woman the chance to be herself.
Gotta love it when men speak to the question of what women have on their mind. I have never viewed "nice guys" this way, and I know no women who would agree with this. {shakes head}

Perhaps there are women like this, but I doubt it. I think this is a cut-and-dried explanation for something that is much more complex.

Moose
2010-Mar-04, 08:10 PM
I wasn't sure, due to the vehemence of the debate, which brings me to my next point. Some men feel it is important to defend women, often because they don't feel the women are capable of doing it themselves.

Or, some men, like myself, feel it is important to defend people regardless of trivial arbitrary distinctions because, hey, it's nice to have backup sometimes, particularly when you're getting piled on undeservedly, and I might someday need a little support myself.

I'll back a woman against a man when the woman is right and the man won't budge. Same as I'll back the man if he's right and she won't budge. It's not that I think she can't solo her own defense, it's that she shouldn't have to. Right is right.

If you're reading too much into "my" motivations, I can't see how that's "my" failing or why it should in any way alter "my" position.

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-04, 08:17 PM
Interesting how fast moving this thread is. Never would have thought...:)

korjik
2010-Mar-04, 08:24 PM
Interesting how fast moving this thread is. Never would have thought...:)

me neither.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-04, 09:11 PM
Shamefully, I do not know enough about women's history make a valid claim but based on the little I do know; I am inclined to believe that throughout history, women had their place and it certainly was not scholarly. In more modern times, though, I question the validity that men are intimidated by intelligent women. Is it possible that the offense taken by a more intelligent woman a unisex reaction rather than sexism? Just in personal experience, any offense taken by being "put in my place" academically is non-gender biased. No one likes being outsmarted. The only people I know that aren't that particular when it comes to the IQ of a woman are more looking for an ornament than a healthy relationship.

As for being defended, well, as of recent times, I find myself wanting a more old fashion-style relationship. I can understand why some women don't but what I do find is, the ones that tend to show extra care when dealing with a woman; opening doors; ladies first; seem to also be the ones that don't hypersexualize them. That's based on limited (very limited) experience, though.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-04, 09:23 PM
Interesting how fast moving this thread is. Never would have thought...:)
Given previous exposure to threads discussing similar subjects, I'm not surprised.

We're basically going through exactly the same arguments on all sides that we saw in the "are women worse at math" thread a while ago.

Generalizing a lot, the men tend to think it's not a problem, likely because the biased sample of the members mean they tend to be from the segment that doesn't show the behavior or at least acknowledges it as wrong, while the women tend to see it as a problem because even though they are also selected, in real life they've been exposed to the attitude of all types of men including those who still have the old stereotypical negative views.

The situation isn't symmetric and thus will be seen differently.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-04, 09:53 PM
Okay, I'm going to cut this short. This is SkepticJ's claim, and so he must support it, it's not up to me to tear it apart:

If your theory of evolutionary love of intelligence is self-evident, you must have strong support for it. If it's self-evident, you should have evidence for it. I do not need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right. I will await your answer and not respond to any further posts by you that is not dealing directly with this.

I can't think of a way to prove it at the moment, so the claim is provisionally retracted.

As a nit-pick, if something is self-evident, it doesn't require evidence outside of itself.



If equal or greater intelligence in women isn't a neutral trait, shouldn't we expect there to be an IQ difference in the sexes?

You claimed that intelligence in women is correlated with domestic violence. That's a selection pressure right there.

We don't find that, though. Women are just as smart as men.



It's also being forgotten that patriarchy is a relatively recent social system. It's only been around since Sumerian times. It never came to some cultures.

Humans in our modern form have been kicking it for almost two hundred thousand years.

Ilya
2010-Mar-04, 11:37 PM
The majority of men in RPGs actually wear "cool" armor that cover the majority of their body. For instance, Neverwinter Nights cover art, the first game, showed men and women; all of the men were wearing full body armor, that looked highly functional. Every single woman was wearing a two-piece bathing suit that just happened to be made of steel.

I'm not the only one that notices this in Fantasy. If you're willing to turn a blind eye to it, you're free to do so, but claiming that there isn't a double standard is completely false.
FWIW, I play DDO (D&D Online), and all armor looks functional. Ludicrous chainmail bikinis do not exist, and leather armor such as my female ranger wears is rather form-hugging, but covers everything from neck guard to wrists. Spellcasters' robes are likewise completely covering.

Lest you think DDO designers are deliberately prudish, it is possible to take off your armor and run around in your underwear. But people rarely do, and certainly not in combat -- for obvious reasons. Here are some screenshots, including one with underwear:

http://www.ddo.com/news/876-valentines-day-screenshot-contest-winners

And my male rogue looks, if anything, more hypersexual than my female character -- at least in my opinion. Later I will post what both look like, so you can decide :)

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-05, 12:15 AM
If equal or greater intelligence in women isn't a neutral trait, shouldn't we expect there to be an IQ difference in the sexes?

You claimed that intelligence in women is correlated with domestic violence. That's a selection pressure right there.

We don't find that, though. Women are just as smart as men.
Please please please let's not get that discussion triggered again.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-05, 12:19 AM
Nope, no Paracelsus here (http://www.bautforum.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=101428)...yet!
http://www.bautforum.com/members/paracelsus.html
Perhaps not, but she does have a profile and 1,698 posts to her credit. Not bad for a nonexistent poster. :)

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-05, 12:20 AM
Please please please let's not get that discussion triggered again.
Trigger a discussion? This is in doubt?

Fazor
2010-Mar-05, 04:18 AM
This thread just reminded me of something. I'm certainly one that gets involved in these conversations; what people want, why people choose things they do, etc. Psychology, particularly group psychology, interests me.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter what people want, how people think, or what the "norm" is. I know what *I* care about, and that's all that matters to me.

No reason for me to get emotional or lose control over what anyone else thinks. It's good discussion, but it's not important to my life.

Anyway, carry on.

sarongsong
2010-Mar-05, 04:57 AM
...Not bad for a nonexistent poster...In this thread; which you expressed concern over.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-05, 05:12 AM
In this thread; which you expressed concern over.
oh. Sorry my mistake. I thought you were saying that there was not yet such a poster here.

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-05, 06:14 AM
Please please please let's not get that discussion triggered again.
Remember the Astrology and Women thread? :lol:

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-05, 07:15 AM
Or, some men, like myself, feel it is important to defend people regardless of trivial arbitrary distinctions because, hey, it's nice to have backup sometimes, particularly when you're getting piled on undeservedly, and I might someday need a little support myself.There's a difference between backing someone up and pre-empting them. I don't recall reading anything into "your" motives, since I was referring to SolusLupus (unless you're saying that that account is a sock-puppet of yours). Or do you mean to self-select yourself as a "nice guy" because you disagree with me (which makes little sense, since the point to which you respond is a separate argument from that).


Gotta love it when men speak to the question of what women have on their mind. I have never viewed "nice guys" this way, and I know no women who would agree with this. {shakes head}I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing, but I think we make the same point. It's the ones who assume they know what's right that do the pigeon-holing. I assume nothing.


If I defended a man, would I be bringing him down?It's possible, depending on how, when, where and why you do it, of course. Most guys don't like being accused of not being able to defend himself and needing a woman to do it for him. It's not the issue of defending, but pre-empting them by assuming someone can't defend themself. Perhaps that wasn't clear. Whether it's a man or a woman or the handicapped, people tend not to like to be mollycoddled.


When was putting fantasy women into chainmail bikinis ever said to be for their protection? Since the argument is for parity--if men are wearing heavy armour in your drawings, heavy armour for women--your burqa argument fails unless the men are wearing them, too. Yes, the heavy armour would be for their protection--against trolls and the like.I think you fail to follow the analogy. It is not man is to woman as bikini-armor is to burqa. The proper reading is forcing women to wear one set of apparel is akin to forcing women to wear another set of apparel. The issue of "protection" is not meant to be taken literally, but only as a turn of phrase on the proffered precept.


Only women are allowed to be angry about unfair treatment of women?You know, "fair" can mean equity as well as and in contrast to equality. It's up to you and other women to decide whether or not you want men putting words into the mouths of women.


Incidentally there is no such thing as a "male feminist", but a man can be a "pro feminist".Did you happen to google it? Whether you choose to use that term or not, it is in use.


This post is a classic example of why men who try to be decent just give up in disgust.Which kinda proves my point, since it sounds like you gave up because you wanted a clear and simple answer so that you would know the best way to behave in order to get the proper response from women. That sounds like pigeon-holing to me, for it should be about treating people as individuals, whether they are men or women.


We can assume that these women chose to dress like thatActually, I thought the whole thread was about how they weren't given a choice, as "my way or the highway" isn't much of a choice.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-05, 08:11 AM
It's possible, depending on how, when, where and why you do it, of course. Most guys don't like being accused of not being able to defend himself and needing a woman to do it for him. It's not the issue of defending, but pre-empting them by assuming someone can't defend themself. Perhaps that wasn't clear. Whether it's a man or a woman or the handicapped, people tend not to like to be mollycoddled.

I am, in fact, both a woman and handicapped. I have no problems with the fact that someone who is male spotted something--which I had not seen--and pointed out that it raised a double standard. I'm not sure how you got the impression that he thought I couldn't defend myself. It was a thing he saw which annoyed him. When I saw it, it annoyed me. It's not as though he's a lone standard-bearer, here, crying out about a thing which only he thinks is degrading poor women. I think it does, too, and I'm not the only female here to feel that way. So we're on the same side, which I do tend to prefer.


I think you fail to follow the analogy. It is not man is to woman as bikini-armor is to burqa. The proper reading is forcing women to wear one set of apparel is akin to forcing women to wear another set of apparel. The issue of "protection" is not meant to be taken literally, but only as a turn of phrase on the proffered precept.

Except, you know, that we're not talking about actual women. If an actual woman wants to wear a chainmail bikini, well, I hope she has something on under it to prevent chafing. Because ow. But, in a fantasy combat setting, which is kind of what's under discussion, it doesn't make any sense for women to run around in something which offers no substantive protection against monster attacks. What's more, that's all the advertising industry and most of the source books portray when they're portraying women in these settings. It's not just, you know, the barmaids are wearing bodices laced so tightly they're unable to breathe. It's that all female characters, essentially, are wearing as little as possible. In almost all fantasy art.


You know, "fair" can mean equity as well as and in contrast to equality. It's up to you and other women to decide whether or not you want men putting words into the mouths of women.

Or if we think he is putting words in our mouths, which I don't think he is. You, by telling me I should be offended at his support, are.


Actually, I thought the whole thread was about how they weren't given a choice, as "my way or the highway" isn't much of a choice.

Did you miss how we're talking originally about illustrations, not real women? Illustrations, I should note, pretty much exclusively drawn by men and very seldom in consultation with any real women.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-05, 11:28 AM
Based on my historical studies, which are mostly limited to the last couple of hundred years in the United States and the UK, it was expected that the man be the driving force in the family, and if the woman were seen to be more intelligent, it was something to look down on the man for. Now, that may not mean anything about the actual men themselves, but they were, after all, in a society where that was true.
Thank you for the clarification.

Doesn't quite mesh with my own impressions - I've seen a fair lot of statements to the effect that female education is bad, or that female assertativeness is bad, but few to the effect that female intelligence as such is bad. But I'm no social historian, and the issue isn't one I've actively looked into.

(I do find it interesting, BTW, that you - and your sources? - seemingly equate being the more intelligent partner with being the driving force in the family. This far, life has not left me with the impression that intelligence is strongly correlated with assertativeness or dominant personality.)

Tog
2010-Mar-05, 11:39 AM
(I do find it interesting, BTW, that you - and your sources? - seemingly equate being the more intelligent partner with being the driving force in the family. This far, life has not left me with the impression that intelligence is strongly correlated with assertativeness or dominant personality.)

In my personal case, this is true. I'm more intelligent than my GF (though she's no slouch), but she's the more dominant in the relationship. She usually decides what we're doing, then it's up to me to make it actually happen.

For example: on move marathon days, she will pick three to five movies to see in the theater, then it's up to me to figure out the, number we can see, the order, and locations (and work in dinner) based on show times.

For vacations, she generally decides where we go and for how long, but I plan the routes.

gzhpcu
2010-Mar-05, 11:45 AM
In my personal case, this is true. I'm more intelligent than my GF (though she's no slouch), but she's the more dominant in the relationship. She usually decides what we're doing, then it's up to me to make it actually happen.

I always have the last word with my wife! .... "Yes, honey"..:)

Ilya
2010-Mar-05, 01:15 PM
FWIW, I play DDO (D&D Online), and all armor looks functional. Ludicrous chainmail bikinis do not exist, and leather armor such as my female ranger wears is rather form-hugging, but covers everything from neck guard to wrists. Spellcasters' robes are likewise completely covering.

Lest you think DDO designers are deliberately prudish, it is possible to take off your armor and run around in your underwear. But people rarely do, and certainly not in combat -- for obvious reasons. Here are some screenshots, including one with underwear:

http://www.ddo.com/news/876-valentines-day-screenshot-contest-winners

And my male rogue looks, if anything, more hypersexual than my female character -- at least in my opinion. Later I will post what both look like, so you can decide :)
Here:

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-05, 01:23 PM
Here:

I wouldn't describe either as sexualized.

Ilya
2010-Mar-05, 01:39 PM
I wouldn't describe either as sexualized.
Which is more or less my point in refuting this thread's OP.

Or at least providing a counterexample.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-05, 02:00 PM
In my personal case, this is true. I'm more intelligent than my GF (though she's no slouch), but she's the more dominant in the relationship. She usually decides what we're doing, then it's up to me to make it actually happen.

For example: on move marathon days, she will pick three to five movies to see in the theater, then it's up to me to figure out the, number we can see, the order, and locations (and work in dinner) based on show times.

For vacations, she generally decides where we go and for how long, but I plan the routes.

I don't like being the decision maker so when things go wrong, I can blame him :whistle:.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-05, 02:49 PM
Which is more or less my point in refuting this thread's OP.

Or at least providing a counterexample.

I'm not sure the OP is specific enough to permit of refutation, but if we take the implicit claim to be that women in fantasy artwork are more commonly sexualized than men in same (rather than the obviously false claim that they always are), that can't be refuted by posting a counterexample; one'd have to do statistics.

(Anyone feel like paying me to look at lots of pictures of scantily clad heroines?)

Paul Beardsley
2010-Mar-05, 05:11 PM
Which kinda proves my point, since it sounds like you gave up because you wanted a clear and simple answer so that you would know the best way to behave in order to get the proper response from women. That sounds like pigeon-holing to me, for it should be about treating people as individuals, whether they are men or women.

I think you need to accept that communication has broken down somewhere.

I never said I gave up, I said some men do give up.

I am not talking about how to get the proper response, I am talking about giving others due consideration.

The platitudes about pigeon-holing are irrelevant to my posts.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-05, 06:05 PM
Doesn't quite mesh with my own impressions - I've seen a fair lot of statements to the effect that female education is bad, or that female assertativeness is bad, but few to the effect that female intelligence as such is bad. But I'm no social historian, and the issue isn't one I've actively looked into.

I recently read a biography of Lillian Moller Gilbreth; I probably mentioned it in this thread alread. However, one of the reasons, according to that and other reading, that women weren't generally allowed to be educated was that it was a bad thing for them to think. Every single article about Gilbreth's work, essentially, included that she had twelve (eleven living) children, so we could all know she was a real woman. For heaven's sake, why would female education be bad if female intelligence weren't? Because there were only enough positions for men? But that argument only holds if you think men deserve to have them more. And if women are smart enough to get those jobs, they're smart enough to be discontented if they don't.


(I do find it interesting, BTW, that you - and your sources? - seemingly equate being the more intelligent partner with being the driving force in the family. This far, life has not left me with the impression that intelligence is strongly correlated with assertativeness or dominant personality.)

Until quite recently, the man in the relationship was supposed to be "better" than his wife in every way. Remember that, to Freud, one of the causes of homosexuality was a dominant mother; anything that made it look as though the husband weren't the driving force was bad. Now, Dr. Gilbreth was smarter, or at bare minimum far more educated, than her husband, but she kept quiet about it until after he died, because she didn't want to be seen as pushing herself forward. I mean, okay, they traded some on the fact that she was a doctor, but there was still the implication that he was still completely in charge, despite the fact that they looked on it as a partnership.

You see, I haven't studied this much in the specific--I'm not a sociologist--but if you study individual women in any detail, the background does rather spring into focus. Queen Victoria didn't want women to have the vote because she didn't think they were constitutionally (lowercase C) capable of it. It's interesting how female hereditary rulers were able to excuse themselves from such thoughts.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-05, 06:28 PM
It's interesting how female hereditary rulers were able to excuse themselves from such thoughts.
That isn't actually a contradiction, as she didn't get her position by being competent, but rather by being born.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-05, 06:50 PM
That isn't actually a contradiction, as she didn't get her position by being competent, but rather by being born.

Elizabeth I was capable of troubling her pretty little head over petty affairs of state because God intended her to rule, it's true. Though of course quite a lot of other people disagreed with that assessment.

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-05, 06:59 PM
I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing, but I think we make the same point. It's the ones who assume they know what's right that do the pigeon-holing. I assume nothing.

Actually I was disagreeing with you. This is not how women see the issue at all. I have never felt that nice guys pigeon-hole me at all. I do, however, avoid guys who are "jerks" like the plague. Any men out there who think jerks get more notice than nice guys are very wrong.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-05, 07:31 PM
For heaven's sake, why would female education be bad if female intelligence weren't?
Because it might distract them from being "real women", or because it threatens men's self-perception if women are given the chance to carry out men's jobs. (Well, an educated man's job - lots of educatees back in the 19C or so weren't too happy about the idea of educating lower-class men either, while a man in a job requiring physical strength rather than brains had little to fear from female education.)

Because there were only enough positions for men? But that argument only holds if you think men deserve to have them more.
Lots of men have thought precisely that. (This can probably be elevated to a sociological principle: if some range of positions is reserved for some group, members of that group will tend to believe only they deserve access to such positions.)

And if women are smart enough to get those jobs, they're smart enough to be discontented if they don't.

Well, sure, but so what? We happen to live in societies were female discontent at unequal opportunities has actually driven substantial change, but that's very much the exception in history.


Until quite recently, the man in the relationship was supposed to be "better" than his wife in every way.
True, but I don't see how it addresses my point. Did Freud think all those dominant mothers were necessarily smarter than their husbands? And if so, why?

As for Dr Gilbreth, I don't know anything about her, but from what you write, it seems rather like she was a counterexample to the supposed rule - she was the smarter partner, but not the dominant one, at least in public.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-05, 07:46 PM
Because it might distract them from being "real women", or because it threatens men's self-perception if women are given the chance to carry out men's jobs. (Well, an educated man's job - lots of educatees back in the 19C or so weren't too happy about the idea of educating lower-class men either, while a man in a job requiring physical strength rather than brains had little to fear from female education.)

Except lower-class men were equally likely to be opposed to anything approaching equality for women.


Lots of men have thought precisely that. (This can probably be elevated to a sociological principle: if some range of positions is reserved for some group, members of that group will tend to believe only they deserve access to such positions.)

Well, yes. Which in this group specifically excludes women.


Well, sure, but so what? We happen to live in societies were female discontent at unequal opportunities has actually driven substantial change, but that's very much the exception in history.

Yup. Mostly, they have been prevented from any means of expressing that discontent. When they tried, they were suppressed, often in pretty severe ways. See also Anne Hutchinson.


True, but I don't see how it addresses my point. Did Freud think all those dominant mothers were necessarily smarter than their husbands? And if so, why?

I think you're missing my point--any way in which a woman was visibly and obviously superior was considered domination.


As for Dr Gilbreth, I don't know anything about her, but from what you write, it seems rather like she was a counterexample to the supposed rule - she was the smarter partner, but not the dominant one, at least in public.

Because she had to be. Her husband died in 1924, and she lived until 1972--and she still claimed that he was pretty much single-handedly responsible for their earlier work. She had to emphasize her femininity for decades, because otherwise, she was considered unnatural. She was, from what I've read, one of the most brilliant engineers of the twentieth century, and she will go down in history as the mother from Cheaper by the Dozen. Wherein her contributions and intelligence are almost entirely downplayed.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-05, 07:53 PM
Except lower-class men were equally likely to be opposed to anything approaching equality for women.
Actually, they seem to be even more likely to oppose that notion.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-05, 08:23 PM
Except lower-class men were equally likely to be opposed to anything approaching equality for women.
"Except"? What you say is true but how does it constitute an exception to what I said?

(I suspect I'm somehow being overinterpreted - wouldn't be the first time in this thread. I'd put in disclaimers, but I can't predict how people will overinterpret me.)


I think you're missing my point--any way in which a woman was visibly and obviously superior was considered domination.
I indeed missed it. I submit you didn't express it very clearly the first time.

But it's a pretty good point.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-06, 03:49 AM
"Except"? What you say is true but how does it constitute an exception to what I said?

(I suspect I'm somehow being overinterpreted - wouldn't be the first time in this thread. I'd put in disclaimers, but I can't predict how people will overinterpret me.)

If it were just an issue of the women's taking upper-class men's jobs, the jobs for which you need an education and for which most men aren't qualified, either, the lower class men would have less reason to be concerned about upper class women's getting an education. The fact that they still were leans toward the idea that it wasn't "taking our jobs" that was the real problem.


I indeed missed it. I submit you didn't express it very clearly the first time.

But it's a pretty good point.

Yes, I can see how, when I said the man was supposed to be better than the woman in every way, you could miss that intelligence was included in that. The fact is, women weren't allowed to be educated because they weren't supposed to think, especially upper class women. The concept of "neurasthenia" was a general malaise in women, now pretty obviously just boredom, for which the cure was even less mental stimulation.

Ara Pacis
2010-Mar-06, 06:10 AM
I'm not sure how you got the impression that he thought I couldn't defend myself.I never received any such impression, nor did I suggest such, although I can see how you might conflate two separate arguments to arrive at that conclusion. Perhaps you confuse me for someone who makes assumptions about, say, women. I don't, each person is an individual and chooses how they feel about any particular issue. With regard to yes or no questions that divides a group into twos, the result is two groups. Thus, statements only apply to those for whom it applies. Congratulations, you're on one side. Guess what, there's another side. I've talked to woman who take the other side. Are you right or wrong? It's not my place to decide for you and frankly I don't care, but I am stating what I know and I don't think your opinion must override the opinions of other women I know. In other words, it's not my place to decide for them and it's not yours either. Ya know, men can be both feminists and anti-feminists, and so can women. I talk to many women who say their worst oppressors are other women.


Or if we think he is putting words in our mouths, which I don't think he is. You, by telling me I should be offended at his support, are.Re-read my prior statements. I have not said it, nor have I implied it, thus you probably inferred it, errantly. The proposition doesn't follow from the premises.



Actually, I thought the whole thread was about how they weren't given a choice, as "my way or the highway" isn't much of a choiceDid you miss how we're talking originally about illustrations, not real women? Illustrations, I should note, pretty much exclusively drawn by men and very seldom in consultation with any real women.The Original Poster (SolusLupus) finally ceased to play coy and elucidated his gripe about women's choices of armor in game design on post #16. The quote to which you reply is on topic.

sarongsong
2010-Mar-06, 06:23 AM
...Yes, I can see how, when I said the man was supposed to be better than the woman in every way, you could miss that intelligence was included in that. The fact is, women weren't allowed to be educated because they weren't supposed to think, especially upper class women...Clan mothers, in Native American societies, were "the power behind the scenes" and could 'dehorn' a chief or medicine man.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-06, 07:16 AM
The Original Poster (SolusLupus) finally ceased to play coy and elucidated his gripe about women's choices of armor in game design on post #16. The quote to which you reply is on topic.

*Sneezes*

*Sniff*

Bayonetta isn't real. She's graphically designed.

Evony was drawn/photographed.

I'm actually not sure where anywhere I said in post #16 could possibly have been taken as -- much less the whole thread -- "about how they weren't given a choice, as "my way or the highway" isn't much of a choice".

Also, "Play coy" indeed.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-06, 07:21 AM
There's a difference between backing someone up and pre-empting them. I don't recall reading anything into "your" motives, since I was referring to SolusLupus (unless you're saying that that account is a sock-puppet of yours).

Right, next time I see something I feel is worth pointing out, I'll just shut up and go away to satisfy Ara Pacis of the BAUT.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-06, 07:24 AM
Which is more or less my point in refuting this thread's OP.

Or at least providing a counterexample.

Providing an exception is "refuting"?

Didn't I already provide an example through Dragon Age: Origins? Sure, it had form-fitting armor, but it was still functional. They also appeared more or less the same between sexes.

But Bayonetta still exists. So does Evony. So does the picture I posted. So does a vast amount of artwork, games, and general styles found in P&P handbooks.

SolusLupus
2010-Mar-06, 07:34 AM
I can't think of a way to prove it at the moment, so the claim is provisionally retracted.

Right.


You claimed that intelligence in women is correlated with domestic violence. That's a selection pressure right there.

I claimed that one study demonstrated it. It would have been over a particular period of time in a particular place. At the very least, it is (or was) an attitude that exists/existed. Your argument is... actually, what was your argument? Something about how we innately like women with intelligence, so there's never discrimination going on there? Hell, I honestly forgot and have long since ceased to care about this part of the discussion.

Furthermore, if both the male and the female are passing down the genetics, why would it necessarily be true that the female would have to get dumber? In fact, if what you claim is true, women should be represented as being of higher intelligence; since, after all, you're claiming that women were distinctly prized for being more intelligent.

AndreasJ
2010-Mar-06, 07:58 AM
If it were just an issue of the women's taking upper-class men's jobs, the jobs for which you need an education and for which most men aren't qualified, either, the lower class men would have less reason to be concerned about upper class women's getting an education. The fact that they still were leans toward the idea that it wasn't "taking our jobs" that was the real problem.
I said it was a reason, not the reason, someone might think female education is bad without thinking female intelligence is bad.

(And really, I doubt most men of the lower classes in the 19C would have cared much if the universities had been open to women - most women they knew wouldn't have had access to higher education anyway.)




Yes, I can see how, when I said the man was supposed to be better than the woman in every way, you could miss that intelligence was included in that.
It's obvious that "superior in every way" includes intelligence. It's not obvious that being superior in one particular way (eg. intelligence) is automatically perceived as being also superior in another (eg. dominance).

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-06, 10:37 PM
I claimed that one study demonstrated it. It would have been over a particular period of time in a particular place. At the very least, it is (or was) an attitude that exists/existed.

Then it's not a human universal, is it?

Citing that statistic is like noting that some Muslim women are forced to wear burqas, and using that to argue that all women are kept down.

An attitude? More like they lose the argument because the women in question are better at arguing using reason and logic.


Your argument is... actually, what was your argument? Something about how we innately like women with intelligence, so there's never discrimination going on there? Hell, I honestly forgot and have long since ceased to care about this part of the discussion.

No. Simply that intelligence is a desired trait.

Then why mention it again?


Furthermore, if both the male and the female are passing down the genetics, why would it necessarily be true that the female would have to get dumber?

Because getting dumber would improve the odds of her genes being passed on--assuming that men don't like intelligence.

It's hard to have offspring when you're dead, or no one will mate with you.


In fact, if what you claim is true, women should be represented as being of higher intelligence; since, after all, you're claiming that women were distinctly prized for being more intelligent.

Surely women would prize intelligence in men, no?

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Mar-07, 01:47 AM
After all, this isn't much different than the harsh control of women in parts of the world that make them wear burqas and not go out without a male family member, since it's argued to be for their protection.

Uh, this isn't necessarily a form of male control control over women. There are many Islamic women who firmly believe that the burqa is an instrument for protecting them against the lustful attention of men. I'm not suggesting that there aren't Muslim men who believe that women should wear the burqa and I'm not suggesting that some of these men may harbor misogynistic feelings. However, as with so many ideas or beliefs, it is a oversimplification to suggest that all, or even most, Muslim women who wear the burqa do so because they are forced to.

The burqa is not a universal Islamic requirement, but rather part of some Islamic traditions. Just as some Jewish traditions require the yarmulke to be worn at all times while other Jewish traditions do not. The same is true of observing the Kashrut; Some Jewish traditions do while others don't.

I realize that this is a religious post, but the burqa is a religious garment worn as part of certain Islamic traditions and should be seen and discussed as such. To suggest that all women who wear the burqa are forced to is to foster a fundamental misunderstanding of Islam and its history and traditions.

Ilya
2010-Mar-23, 11:27 PM
Look, what I did and most of you didn't was grow up as a geek girl. A parody this one may be, but the fact is, the thing it's allegedly parodying is (I've seen it) worse. We tend to talk a good game about being ourselves and so forth, but in this country, you're still expected to be yourself in a socially approved way. When I was a senior in high school, some of my male friends got me into Magic. So I went with them to the local gaming store.

I might as well have been on Mars.

Yes, it was still a pretty much all-male preserve. That was in part, I think, because it was expected to be. I still have one of my gaming books from those days, and it's pretty blatant. Men wear nice business suits or long trench coats or whatever in the illustrations, and women wear as little as possible. What's more, it was pretty clear that most of the guys assumed I was just there to impress somebody and wouldn't be coming back. (When I stopped, it was because I moved.) They didn't bother interacting with me for the most part. It was a fairly isolating experience.

Then on the other hand, there was how some of the girls at school reacted. In fact, they, too, figured I was just doing it to impress somebody, and that was if they could figure out why I was doing it at all. It's different, at least somewhat, now, but I suspect only for video games. I am inclined to doubt pen-and-paper roleplaying is any more acceptable for girls now than it was then, though I'm sure the image for males hasn't changed, either.

So why are we so much of the market now? Honestly, it may start from girls who were there to impress somebody--the GM's girlfriend!--and discovered that they actually liked it. Or girls who, like me, spent enormous amounts of time watching their boyfriends and male friends play video games. However, it certainly isn't because anybody thinks it's normal for girls to play. Even though numbers increasingly show that it is.
Where and (dare I ask) when did all this happen to you?

I finished high school in 1983. Most kids who played D&D were guys, and I admit I do not know how the girls were regarded by "normal" girls, but I assure you all gamer guys treated them like queens. As is to be expected, given they were often the only girls who spoke to them :D None of us wanted an "all-male preserve". Even if we often got one.

In colleges I went to, what you described would have been completely out of place. Gamer girls were much more common than in high school (maybe 40% of all gamers I knew), and while none of them were "alpha babes", they were not social outcasts by any means.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-24, 12:23 AM
Where and (dare I ask) when did all this happen to you?

Pasadena, California, in the mid-'90s. I think Magic cards were in their fourth edition at the time.


I finished high school in 1983. Most kids who played D&D were guys, and I admit I do not know how the girls were regarded by "normal" girls, but I assure you all gamer guys treated them like queens. As is to be expected, given they were often the only girls who spoke to them :D None of us wanted an "all-male preserve". Even if we often got one.

Oh, the guys weren't rude. At least not except the ones who were determined to hit on you whether you wanted them to or not. But like a queen? No. Like a strange and mysterious creature from an unknown realm.


In colleges I went to, what you described would have been completely out of place. Gamer girls were much more common than in high school (maybe 40% of all gamers I knew), and while none of them were "alpha babes", they were not social outcasts by any means.

I didn't know any gamers pretty much at all in the community colleges I went to, and everyone is weird at my alma mater, just in different ways. I know that the anime club is regularly coordinated by a female, and I've known females who were prominent in the Gaming Guild, and my female best friend is in some prominent position in the Cam, the vampire LARP, which is about fifty-fifty. But like I said, everyone's weird at Evergreen.

Noclevername
2010-Mar-25, 01:38 PM
Half the fantasy of Fantasy is the sexy.

Yes, there is a double standard. And it's slow to accept change. So long as it's percieved that the majority of gamers are young male geeks, regardless of the reality, game makers will pander to that audience. The old men in suits who manage the advertising business are always behind the times-- just look at any TV ad for a household product or any food that needs to be cooked-- they show the woman as a hypercompetent Supermom while dumb ol' Dad is still ironing that same burn mark into his shirt that he was in the 1950's.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-25, 11:29 PM
On World of Warcraft, Warlocks get minions that they can summon. One of them, the one I always refuse to use, is the Succubus. To make it fair, they should have a choice of a Succubus or an Incubus. How awesome would that be to be able to summon Jude Law or what ever your taste may be?

Tog
2010-Mar-26, 07:13 AM
City of Heroes has a pet class called mastermind. You can summon 6 minions (3 low, 2 med, 1 high) which can be renamed and micromanaged, and can be made to speak dialog you type and perform the same emotes as the players. These commands can also be macroed. The devs have said flat out that there will never be a female minion due to the potential for inappropriate activity.

Having a female character with a horde of male minions is okay though.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-26, 05:42 PM
So, wait. Inappropriate activity only exists between men and women? Bwah? And a male player can't play a female character with male minions? Someone has not thought this through!

Tog
2010-Mar-26, 05:51 PM
Yeah. That's come up a time or two but the policy stands.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-26, 08:08 PM
That's funny, the female minion in WOW is as inappropriate as it gets. She's a full on Dominatrix (http://www.wowwiki.com/File:Demonology2.jpg). The only female in the pic (on the bottom right corner of the pic).

korjik
2010-Mar-26, 09:20 PM
Yeah. That's come up a time or two but the policy stands.

This kind of discrimination shall not stand!

korjik
2010-Mar-26, 09:21 PM
That's funny, the female minion in WOW is as inappropriate as it gets. She's a full on Dominatrix (http://www.wowwiki.com/File:Demonology2.jpg). The only female in the pic (on the bottom right corner of the pic).

I'm fine with this tho.

korjik
2010-Mar-26, 09:22 PM
:D

the thirty-second rule makes this joke a bit harder than you would think

sarongsong
2010-Mar-26, 11:13 PM
Final Fantasy XIII (http://www.amazon.com/Final-Fantasy-XIII-XXX/dp/images/B001EYUSJ4/ref=dp_image_1_0?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&img=0&color_name=1) game cover---seems to depend on which images are 'chosen' for
Very obvious double standard in fantasy gaming: Women vs. Men

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-26, 11:14 PM
Oh, the guys weren't rude. At least not except the ones who were determined to hit on you whether you wanted them to or not. But like a queen? No. Like a strange and mysterious creature from an unknown realm.

That's what women are to those sorts of men.

In the mid-90s, card RPGs weren't exactly mainstream, were they?

You being there was on par to going to a Shriners chapter of the socially inept. They didn't know how to handle you, so best just to ignore, instead of potentially saying something really stupid.

Tog
2010-Mar-27, 06:07 AM
That's funny, the female minion in WOW is as inappropriate as it gets. She's a full on Dominatrix (http://www.wowwiki.com/File:Demonology2.jpg). The only female in the pic (on the bottom right corner of the pic).

City has a villain named Dominatrix (http://cityofheroes.wikia.com/wiki/Dominatrix). She's the opposite version of Ms. Liberty, and has a similar outfit. Her "staff" are made up of themed foes, Servants, Trainers, and Ladies. All are in black leather with straps everywhere, and wield riding crops.

That's brought up in the debate as well, but the player base as learned what battles have a chance to be won. Female MM Pets isn't one that stands any reasonable chance, and most people accept that.

Elukka
2010-Mar-27, 04:22 PM
That's funny, the female minion in WOW is as inappropriate as it gets. She's a full on Dominatrix (http://www.wowwiki.com/File:Demonology2.jpg). The only female in the pic (on the bottom right corner of the pic).
It looks to me that two of those are half naked hypermasculine male demons. The horned one is just as naked as the succubus.
Either way, I don't see the problem. I can't see a succubus that isn't sexualized. Then it's not a succubus.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-27, 05:48 PM
The question is more "is there an equally sexualized incubus option?"

korjik
2010-Mar-27, 08:57 PM
The question is more "is there an equally sexualized incubus option?"

Does it have to be an incubus or just equally sexualized?

Elukka
2010-Mar-27, 09:56 PM
Does there have to be a direct male equivalent to every female 'character' and vice versa?

Gillianren
2010-Mar-27, 11:58 PM
Does it have to be an incubus or just equally sexualized?

Well, if it's a male counterpart--which there ought to be, if there are to be incubi or succubi at all--it does pretty much have to be an incubus, yes.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-28, 12:54 AM
Should there be Medusa and Siren male counterparts, if they exist in a given RPG?

Political correctness is all well and good, but when you get a female gladiator in a game set in ancient Rome, then it has veered into silly territory. Yes, this has happened.

Gillianren
2010-Mar-28, 06:46 AM
But incubi and succubi are of the same mythos. They have both always existed as long as either had. An incubus was, after all, a convenient explanation for an inconvenient pregnancy.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-28, 09:21 PM
But incubi and succubi are of the same mythos. They have both always existed as long as either had. An incubus was, after all, a convenient explanation for an inconvenient pregnancy.
I like Blish's idea of them being the same type of demon, first taking in the role of succubus to collect then incubus to deliver, itself having no gender and thus being able to imitate and perform as either.

In WoW it would have been interesting to have the option of choosing to bind either a succubus or an incubus for later summoning but as they would logically have to have different abilities it would be difficult to balance properly.

korjik
2010-Mar-28, 11:32 PM
Well, if it's a male counterpart--which there ought to be, if there are to be incubi or succubi at all--it does pretty much have to be an incubus, yes.

I more mean: Do you think that all the hypersexualized forms should have both male and female forms, or is it just the succubus, where there is an already well established counterpart?

HenrikOlsen
2010-Mar-28, 11:35 PM
So we should also have a female form felguard:D

Gillianren
2010-Mar-29, 01:37 AM
I more mean: Do you think that all the hypersexualized forms should have both male and female forms, or is it just the succubus, where there is an already well established counterpart?

The succubus is the only hypersexualized form that there's a real reason to have hypersexualized, though I'm not entirely sure why it's in the game at all. However, if you're going to have a succubus, it is indeed only appropriate to have its mythological counterpart.

SkepticJ
2010-Mar-29, 01:48 AM
...though I'm not entirely sure why it's in the game at all.

XYs.

closetgeek
2010-Mar-29, 03:55 PM
;)
It looks to me that two of those are half naked hypermasculine male demons. The horned one is just as naked as the succubus.
Either way, I don't see the problem. I can't see a succubus that isn't sexualized. Then it's not a succubus.

I think the thing with the horns coming out of it's face is just a different race (a Tauren). If a warlock can summon that, I must have missed that training. And as far as I know, they don't look like that in-game. None of my taurens ever came in a speedo with a belt :cry:. The succubus, however, is dressed exactly like that, and when she is summoned, she does a seductive laugh and cracks her whip.


So we should also have a female form felguard

Sure HenrikOlsen, but to be fair, I would like to see an imp in a bikini too ;).

Elukka
2010-Apr-08, 05:52 PM
I suppose I could bring some hope instead of controversy into the thread.
Women don't always fight in chainmail bikinis in every game. I think it's pretty neat and a hell of a lot more believable.

http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z113/Elucca/m3s.jpg

SkepticJ
2010-Apr-17, 04:42 AM
Okay, I'm going to cut this short. This is SkepticJ's claim, and so he must support it, it's not up to me to tear it apart:

If your theory of evolutionary love of intelligence is self-evident, you must have strong support for it. If it's self-evident, you should have evidence for it. I do not need to prove you wrong, you need to prove yourself right. I will await your answer and not respond to any further posts by you that is not dealing directly with this.

Ah, ha! Here we go. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_nadeshiko)

Excerpt of the relevant text: Also known as an ideal Japanese woman, it revolves around acting for the benefit of the family and following instructions or acting in the best interest of patriarchal authority figures. Virtues include: loyalty, domestic ability, wisdom, and humility.

What do you need for wisdom? Intelligence.

So you have a culture as sexist as ancient Nihon valuing intelligence in women. The ideal woman should be wise.

Gillianren
2010-Apr-17, 07:07 AM
Wisdom and intelligence are not synonymous. Haven't you ever read a fairy tale where the fool is the one saying things which sound wise?

mugaliens
2010-Apr-17, 08:54 AM
Wisdom and intelligence are not synonymous. Haven't you ever read a fairy tale where the fool is the one saying things which sound wise?

Haven't you ever read of reality where the wisdom and intelligence were synonomous?

mahesh
2010-Apr-17, 09:17 AM
Wisdom and intelligence are not synonymous... That's one of the main reasons, Gillian, I love the Serenity Prayer.
It plays an important part in my life, everyday.


My boyfriend and I spend all of Sunday, computers side by side, playing an MMORPG. Neither of us are 13 and neither of us live in our parents basement. There, all stereotypes are obliviated.
C/G, your inner child(ren) coming to the fore. Lovely.
Just curious, what is MMORPG?

TheHalcyonYear
2010-Apr-17, 08:38 PM
Haven't you ever read of reality where the wisdom and intelligence were synonomous?
Wisdom and intelligence synonymous?? Now there's a stretch!!

SkepticJ
2010-Apr-18, 05:52 AM
Wisdom and intelligence are not synonymous. Haven't you ever read a fairy tale where the fool is the one saying things which sound wise?

Of course they're not. Wisdom is the daughter of intelligence and experience.

No reasonable person could say they think wisdom is good, but not intelligence. That'd be like someone saying babies are ok, but that sex, it's right out.

I have not. In any case, fantasy is a genre unburdened with the hard facts of reality.

Gillianren
2010-Apr-18, 09:10 AM
Of course they're not. Wisdom is the daughter of intelligence and experience.

Yes, but often the appearance of wisdom is considered sufficient. See again those fairy tales I just mentioned.


No reasonable person could say they think wisdom is good, but not intelligence. That'd be like someone saying babies are ok, but that sex, it's right out.

Yes, no one would ever say that.


I have not. In any case, fantasy is a genre unburdened with the hard facts of reality.

Nonsense. Not the good stuff. The good stuff uses reality differently but doesn't change the basics of human nature. If you can't relate to someone, why bother with it?

SkepticJ
2010-Apr-18, 08:51 PM
Yes, but often the appearance of wisdom is considered sufficient. See again those fairy tales I just mentioned.

So, what are you arguing? That Nipponese men of yore didn't value real wisdom, only the semblance thereof?

Outside of fantasy--fiction--what good does that do?

If that is indeed your assertion, then the ball's in your court. You have to provide evidence that an entire culture was only affecting that they valued wise women.

Gillianren
2010-Apr-18, 11:16 PM
So, what are you arguing? That Nipponese men of yore didn't value real wisdom, only the semblance thereof?

Entirely possible.


Outside of fantasy--fiction--what good does that do?

Folk tradition, say instead. Which can say a great deal about the culture it comes from.


If that is indeed your assertion, then the ball's in your court. You have to provide evidence that an entire culture was only affecting that they valued wise women.

No, you must prove that intelligence and wisdom were considered the same thing. And that it has anything to do with the original starting point, of course--that it's somehow evidence of an evolutionary preference for intelligent women.

SkepticJ
2010-Apr-19, 03:34 AM
No, you must prove that intelligence and wisdom were considered the same thing. And that it has anything to do with the original starting point, of course--that it's somehow evidence of an evolutionary preference for intelligent women.

I don't see that I'm under that obligation, since I never said intelligence and wisdom were the same thing.

Why bother? You won't accept any evidence I might be able to find anyway. Hair splitting over wise vs. intelligent? Good lord. . .

Why not see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Wife,_Wise_Mother) for another example of intelligence in women being valued.

No, though, moral and intellectual skills doesn't really mean that, it means they simply appear to be that way. The mere appearance allows them to be a competent parent.

Then, of course, you have the women of ancient Sparta (http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/aegean/culture/womenofsparta.html). Can't wait to see how they don't count.

Gillianren
2010-Apr-19, 04:09 AM
Oh, for heaven's sake. Would you like me to list societies which don't value intelligence and so forth in women? You can't pick and choose like that; you have to accept all data. Since it clearly varies by society, society can obviously overrule any possible evolutionary component and therefore no society can be shown to be how evolution has "programmed" us.

SkepticJ
2010-Apr-19, 06:05 PM
Oh, for heaven's sake. Would you like me to list societies which don't value intelligence and so forth in women?

Yes, I welcome it. No neutral societies, only those with the attitude of, "We likes our women stoopid."


You can't pick and choose like that; you have to accept all data. Since it clearly varies by society, society can obviously overrule any possible evolutionary component and therefore no society can be shown to be how evolution has "programmed" us.

Fair enough.