Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
You`ve shifted the collection of trends and stereotypes from absolutes to near-absolutes, acknowledging exceptions that you refer to as outliers, i.e. rare and highly unrepresentative anomalous results that you compare with things such as three-legged rhinos.
Some of the things you quote may not even be trends at all and may be trends in the opposite direction. Pain threshold for example - the prevailing evidence hasn`t yet been made to fit the currently popular sexist stereotype.
But I`ll be generous and use one of your examples that is definitely a strong trend - height.
To fit your revised argument, it would need to be very rare for a woman to be taller than a man. This is obviously not the case. Many millions of women are taller than many millions of men. It is nowhere near rare enough for your argument to hold up.
Your argument fails even using only one of your least bad examples.
on a ridiculous side note: lol old newspaper ads...
If it ever becomes common to unfairly group, stereotype and restrict rhinos on the basis of some trends to varying extents and some stuff that`s not even a trend, you`ll have a fair point.
You can dismiss my point as some pathetic obsession with grammar all you like, but it only makes you look bad. Even if sexist stereotyping didn`t exist, that would still be a risible line of argument.
On average 58% of a woman`s skeletal muscle mass is in the lower body, compared to 55% of men`s. Link to study.
If we`re still being utterly anal on language, I never actually compared them to men either. I could have been comparing them to male homing pigeons for all you know.
Yet you some how managed to get the inference. Should I start handing out cookies for garnering the basics of language from text? Jeez.
Why not apply it to it`s obvious conclusion instead of only halfway? Did I mean X, where you have deemed X "So preposterous I don`t even know why you`re saying it", no clearly not. I thought the outliers were stupid enough that they go without saying.
The easiest one being that I am aware of dwarfism and I`m aware of tall people. There is no one on earth who believes all women (including arguably children saying as we`re doing everything in absolutes) are shorter than all men.
Clearly not. That I have some modicum of respect for the intellectual capacity of IABers and figure, hey, I`ll just state my opinions and they`ll figure out the rest without my spoonfeeding.
STOP DISAPPOINTING ME.
A feminine trait is not necessarily possessed by all women. (Taken to such ridiculous extremes, not all women have a vagina due to accident, surgery, birth defects, etc. However it is possible to discuss a group based on a majority).
You don`t discuss a group on outliers, otherwise no object can possess traits. It`s gone out of the hands of mere language and into the realms of your personal philosophy.
Rhinos? You get some with 3 legs, no horn, small stature, dwarfism, gigantism, bone diseases, no eyes, one eye, toothless, etc.
Yet wikipedia is still happy to state Rhinos have "relatively small brains for mammals this size (400–600g)" without incurring the wrath of anthropologists everywhere.
Why bother even replying to me when you would be better served correcting every dictionary in the world in their usage of plurals?
That is so clearly wrong that I`m at a loss as to why you even tried to pass it off as absolutely proven fact. Men tend to have stronger leg muscles than women and that`s quite a strong tendency, so you`ve reversed the real trend and claimed it as an absolute.
What I would like is the absolute proof of absolute differences that you wrongly claimed existed.
I`m sure there are some studies that support popular contempory stereotypes, but I`m also sure that there are different studies that supported different popular contempory stereotypes in the past.
Also, there are conflicting results in contempory studies. Try pain threshold, for example. People try hard to gather evidence to prop up the currently popular stereotype that women (note: that means all women) have a higher pain threshold than men (note: that means all men), but they can`t even get a consistent trend. The prevailing evidence is that the trend is the other way, but it`s far from proof of even a trend, let alone an absolute.
I agree with your point, but you take it too far. I learned in junior high that during the Middle Ages larger women were preferred because it showed that they had enough food to eat and were healthier. But, in general, what makes a woman attractive will be generally the same. Weight and other characteristics may range up or down over generations, but the basic attractiveness is dictated by evolution, not culture.
Veet sucks. It gave me horrible alergies Â¬Â¬
i dunno if its just my luck but shaving doesnt make hair grow thicker in my experience
Don`t tell me it`s the physical differences you have the problem with... I gave plenty of trends. That makes them feminine traits. It doesn`t mean there aren`t a couple of bearded ladies hanging around a circus nearby, or the occasional tall women.
I think you`re not making the point you intend to make, because what you`ve done is to combine some trends and some untrue stereotypes and portrayed them all as absolutes, absolutely proven to be absolutely true.
That means you are doing a pretty good job of proving the very point you`re arguing against. You`re doing it much more than most, particularly by making false claims to authority.
Hard the believe that crap had been around since 1901.
I kinda liked my Sheeple -> Ewe/You pun... nobody else seemed to though. :(
Okay, thread over, Ball wins.
It IS a feminine/masculine thing; hair is masculine, with the most obvious example being beards. I like masculinity, just as many men like femininity. Unfortunately for women, the feminine look takes a LOT more maintenance.
Right now health (a nice body), plus a few standard feminine traits are revered (butt and boobs).
If we look at the Ancient Greeks, it was the same, however for them, health meant fat, which in turn is why all Greek nudes were much plumper than our current models.
Some African tribes prefer larger women because it is a sign of wealth and health (starving people are poor, fat people are rich), and therefore being attracted to fat women means your offspring are more likely to survive.
Old wives` tale.
Why would people look up the word "superfluous"?
They don`t have wider hips, bigger boobs, narrower shoulders, less body hair, less facial hair, stronger leg muscles, higher pain tolerance, different brain patterns, lower focus, higher water retention, different gait, better multitasking skills, a vagina, child bearing capabilities, less height, lower tolerance to alcohol, have different hormone levels, longer leg ratios, different finger ratios, different navigation habits, etc.
I only think that because of "society" and by "society" I mean every leading research organization in the world. Any of the above is demonstratable, measurable, objective, quantifiable fact, and impervious to social conditioning except on the grandest of conspirational scales. (The illuminati are shortening our women!)
I don`t know about sheeple, but you`re definately an ass.
Sweaty pit-hair is stuffy and disgusting.
Having less body hair is feminine. Guys are naturally attracted to females. (This is how we`ve survived as a species as opposed to just masturbating all the time).
Having less hair makes you seem more feminine and therefore more attractive.
Same reason guys have been shown to like wide (child bearing) hips, and big breasts.
Guys like it when female traits are exaggerrated.
HAH! Just kidding, all men got together one day and decided women should shave in random places for no reason. I`m thinking in 10 years time we`ll try telling them just to shave the left eyebrow and see if they still fall for it.
In fact, I`ll communicate the idea to my brethren using the radio antenna we all have in our penises.
Some of us may be sheeple, but we`re not as bad as ewe. ;)
The closer to hairless, the better. <3
Those that don`t follow them are called names by those that don`t know what they are.
Sheeple is a term describing people who follow what they are told without question, usually referring to religious extremists or those that think corporate media is completely innocent and tells the complete story all the time without bias.
Says the man who uses the term "sheeple."
What`s a sheeple?
AGAIN, if need be.
"Demanding that women shave certain parts of their bodies is just a taught/cultural thing. Shows how much of a sheeple you are. End of story."
Says the man who uses the term "sheeple."
Bahahhaaa. Thank you.
But from time to time I like to laugh at something other than stupidity.
"AH-MEN. french men, as a generalisation, are delicous.only second to dutch ahahha."
French people stink.
je vous-ame, megann_exoh
FAIL! You should have said "I bet none of you have actually seen anything but the BACK of a fleeing French guy before"...
THEN: a 5,000 word essay on the medical and sociological reasons behind a bodily function, the effects it can have on your own acceptance and standing in work, love and church, and a list of effective treatments.
NOW: A naked chick and the words "Smell Good and She`ll Fu** You Tonight"
"I bet none of you have actually seen a French guy before. I think I can find more hillbilly rednecks with hair in unholy places than French people."
AH-MEN. french men, as a generalisation, are delicous.only second to dutch ahahha.
and also, to the people who say `no hair below the neck`; who shaves their arms? :| thats proposterous.
I did that too. I was depilating my legs and didn`t think to stand with my legs apart while the cream dissolved the hair.
It is indeed not a good idea. Even if you don`t get chemical burns, you`ll probably get some really unpleasant itching for days. I did. "Please excuse me while I scratch my itchy scrotum" doesn`t go far towards making it polite :)
Why not? Humans grow body hair, which implies that it should be there. Removing it is a social thing, which doesn`t really have anything to do with how things should be.
Yes, though you might find it under the name Immac. The adverts aren`t like this one, though :)
It does nothing for smell, except that it smells harsh and nasty itself(*). It just removes hair, which it does pretty well. Don`t scratch your head while using it unless you`re bald.
* Ignore any references to pleasant scent on the product. They are not true. The stuff I used claimed to smell of roses, but in fact it smelled of harsh chemicals.
There is a little bit of truth in the ad, but only a little. Hair will make BO worse if the person doesn`t wash often enough. Maybe just due to the insulating effect, I don`t know.
You might try to sound smart....but have you ever heard of sweat? You know, the SMELLY stuff that gathers up a lot in your ARMPITS when you get too warm (Notice the keywords, that by the way don`t apply to bacteria).
Except for that bald, white spot where the hair used to be :/
All particularly smelly parts are parts where the sweat cannot evaporate so freely.
*falls to floor laughing hysterically*
but at least in older ads they know words like superfluous... how much you want to bet that at least half the people who looked at this had to go look up what that meant. Its a little sad how stupid we`re all getting