alanschu

That sounds a lot like Carl Jung's hypothesis about the collective unconsciousness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious ). I still feel that much of how boys and girls express themselves and whatnot are socially constructed expectations. For instance, boys and girls both cry when hurt when young, but this behaviour is deemed unacceptable for boys at a very early stage, and they condition themselves not to cry when experiencing physical pain (or even emotional pain). I think the idea of men and women expressing themselves differently is also based upon the norms and mores of a society. A man will get ridiculed for expressing his feelings (I know, I have hahaha). It's my own confrimation bias, but I struggle to understand why anything physiological would affect such a social action. Can this psychological makeup be passed on? I'm not so sure. I tend to think Jung is a bit of a crackpot with this theory, and the unfortunate thing is that it's not a falsifiable one. As a result I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about it. EDIT: It seems the relationship between testosterone and aggression continues to be controversial. The general idea it seems, from some quick reading I did just now, that the presence of testosterone may result in an increased likelihood of aggressive behaviour, given the appropriate stimulus from the environment. However, there have been studies that have demonstrated that people with aggressive behaviour of a sample group exhibited less testosterone than the people lacking in aggression. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neur...eb1/csante.html http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8885586 (unfortunately just an abstract and old) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/46365/abstract (merging biological and social factors)

You certainly have NOT given that impression at all. You've done little but minimize the entire perspective, while contributing nothing but vague questions yourself. We can play the "what if there's more" game. But if you want to argue semantics and worse use some more, you'll notice I used the word "if." Then don't be a doofus and ridicule me asserting the possibility that I feel the only difference between men and women in physical strength, and then mention testosterone as if it's unrelated to the point I was making. Any person that might stroll into this thread, and read what you're writing, because I certainly do not want people reading it, and then interpreting your position as somehow being one that convinces people that the OTHER issues are in fact WRONG. Exhibit A: Climate Change. Quite frankly, I think you grossly understate the sociological and psychological effects on people. That's why I say it. History is overflowing with people that have tried to use genetics and biological explanations for why people should be undermined, held back, and restricted (or sometimes worse and outright exterminated and/or euthanized). You get people like Cesare Lombroso and the idea of the born criminal, and using his research to "prove" biological traits that lead to criminal behaviour, resulting in people discriminating against those that have those traits, even if they aren't a criminal. We are studying the issue. People have been studying what you're asking about for a long time. Who gives a **** if discrimination isn't even the primary culprit....it is something that can be changed, and it IS something that has shown conclusively to have powerful effects on human behaviour. Should we NOT research the human body more? Absolutely not, and I never made a claim. However, However, if there were significant differences in intellectual capability of men and women, I would be exceptionally surprised if we haven't actually found it yet. There IS ideas that men tend to be more logical and so forth, but that can't even escape the influence of society and how we raise boys and girls differently. I've never implied you're sexist. If anything I've implied that you have blinders on and are insisting on minimizing volumes of research that has been done because of some "well maybes." Posing hypothetical questions is nice and all...but ultimately what does it accomplish? You're wrong if you think you're the only person asking these questions. Should they be asked? Absolutely. But you cannot do it at the expensive of overlooking and ignoring the actual data that has been researched and analyzed. To me, it's like you have this mountain of data, such as twin studies, cultural analysis between cultures, analysis of the same culture over different times, and all that it says, and you've on a hunch decided "you know, I think it's more biological." They seem pretty ancillary (at best) to a discussion about how men and women tend to behave differently in my opinion. Look at your post on the first page, where you start talking about how you feel women tend to prefer feminine things, and then completely miss the point by making comments such as: "Should we despise a woman who decides that her family is more important than her career? ... Should we make fun of a girl who likes a frilly pink dress more than blue jeans?" If you feel that women are more likely to want to play with dolls, wear makeup, and tend to act more feminine based on their physiological make up, then that's your prerogative. I adamantly disagree. As for your questions, I do feel that sexual orientation is genetic. I could split hairs on transgender, since gender itself is a social construct, but I'll go with biological on that sense. People preferring blue or red or pink? I'm skeptical towards a biological predisposition to preferring certain wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum. But when twin studies show twins growing up separated in very different environments having such a profound effect on how they behave, I strongly favour nurture over nature when it comes to these types of scenarios. Why do you feel so strongly that it's biological? EDIT: (removed a block of text since it'd only contniue the bickering)

I don't. Steam is just another form of DRM, albeit a slightly more attractive one than most. I agree that Steam is just another form of DRM, but I think it is less attractive than most. Most games of the past few years have still used CD activation keys and I find those to be far more attractive as a form of DRM. I love the Steam one because when I reformat my computer getting all my Steam games back is uber-easy.

The strength is a byproduct of the testosterone, as testosterone is an anabolic steroid. I didn't spell put that connection because I didn't think it was necessary. I made an assumption that people here are intelligent enough to know what causes the increase in strength for men. Men aren't just "magically" stronger...they are stronger because their body facilitates the growth of muscle mass. By acknowledging the strength difference I implicitly acknowledged the role testosterone has (which is the physiological difference). And at no point did I ever state that the only "physiological difference" between men and women is physical strength. Since you decided to put words in my mouth, I am going to be a bit of an ass and clarify to you that physical strength itself, is not a "physiological difference." It's the byproduct of the difference in testosterone levels. First of all, you're comparing two different things. My "unclear" statement was about "gender roles" and the second statement was specifically about whether "women tend to drift towards different jobs" (emphasis added) These two things are NOT equivalent. I stand by my statement. I've seen lots of evidence and support for societal and psychological influences. I've seen little support for hormones telling girls to go play with dolls and to be all frilly and girly. I don't buy into the idea that women seek different types of employment based on their biological makeup because by doing so, I help people rationalize the systemic discrimination the exists in our society. The arguments that you're using are the same arguments that the male dominated labour unions of the industrial revolution used to keep women out, ensuring the status quo and continuing to undermine the opportunities available for women. I can't think of anything to suggest that the general division of labour in the paid market between men and women is better explained through biological means than some other means. Does a larger brain correlate with anything, outside of the fact that men tend to be larger, complete with larger skulls and hence more room for more brain matter? If brain size had anywhere near the impact in making a difference between men and women that physical strength does, we'd already have seen it because the strength one is THAT obvious. The correlation would be exceptionally strong. Instead, you're just throwing out "what ifs" that aren't supported by anything. It's a convenient way for people to ignore the perspectives that they don't want to believe, and you see this everywhere too. You'll get people on both sides of the climate change argument saying "well we don't understand exactly how things work" on BOTH sides of the argument to support BOTH ideas. Stop the cognitive dissonance that we experience, by rationalizing a different explanation. I don't just post for your pleasure I'm sorry to say. I just happen to disagree vehemently with your stance of "well despite all of the evidence and demonstrable differences between cultures that exist, the idea that men and women are physically different leads me to believe that this is why they drift towards the tasks and interests, in spite of demonstrable proof." Of course, it's easier that way. I mean, if it's all biological, then people can sleep soundly knowing that there's nothing they do about it. Because it's genetic that women just don't want to be doctors. It's a safe and easy way to remove cognitive dissonance. Even if you aren't sold it's the primary cause, you're just putting your head in the sand if you can't acknowledge that it's a significant cause.

I never accused you of sexism, and in my own post I commented on physical strength. I'm also not stupid enough to think that some women that are stronger than men means that it's not the general rule. However, I will not buy into the argument that men and women tend to drift towards different jobs based on biological difference (rather than social expectation). The physical strength argument doesn't break jobs down into men vs. women, but rather physically strong vs. physically weak. I am curious what other biological difference you feel contribute, and in what way.

That is true, but what effect that has our gender roles and whatnot is unclear. Estrogen doesn't make women like "girly" colours or want to play with dolls, or make the content being Suzy homemaker for their husband. The biggest thing the hormonal difference contributes, as far as I can tell, is physical strength. In this way weaker people will always be disadvantaged at jobs that require a high amount of physical strength. In this regard, all I have to say is "tough ****" to people that complain about it.

Hehe. I think I need a school first

This is grossly simplifying the problem. Women and men do not inherently prefer different types of activities (or any activity at all). There IS biological predispositions that can provide barriers (strength is the most obvious), but the desire to do certain things is, in fact, a social construct set in a sociological context. A sociological context is unique to a particular TIME in a culture (i.e. cultures are not static). Men and women in our culture tend to prefer different types of activities specifically because they are raised in different ways. This is specific to cultures. What is feminine/masculine may not be in a different culture. The Etoro tribe in New Guinea is particularly homosexual, and in fact considers the ingestion of male **** to be a necessary act for sexual maturity. I have a feeling you'd be hard pressed to convince young men in our society to start drinking ****. But in their society it's normal and accepted, so society functions. It's like this with any culture. Should we despise a woman who decides that her family is more important than her career? No, and no one is saying that. You do get some stupid ass feminists that get upset because they feel these people hurt their causes, but for the most part no one has any problem with people that choose that type of lifestyle. If our society had women okay with that type of role, and they all did that type of role, then there'd be no problem. The issue is that there is a problem with the role. And that's where the struggles and issues start to arise. There is systemic discrimination and it's so ingrained into our cultural psyche that it's so easy to overlook. Then you get people who say "well maybe women are just geared to be that type of individual." Of course, because it makes it easy and helps ensure the status quo. Should we make fun of a girl who likes a frilly pink dress more than blue jeans? Frankly, having been a teacher, I can say that I've known schoolgirls with a house full of brothers and a tomboy mom who prefer dresses to pants. The societal pressures on girls to dress like "girls" is FAR less than the societal pressures on boys to act like "boys." A girl wearing jeans and a masculine shirt is not going to suffer playground torture. A boy coming to school with a dollie (that is a doll without a weapon of some sort in its hand) is almost certainly going to draw comment from other boys. Not the nice comments, either. Of course. Now you see this as being a problem for boys though, right? Women are free to choose whatever, whereas little boys are not. The funny thing about this is that the main reason for this is our society's cultural heritage IS patriarchal, holding our standard male archetypes as ideals. Women are okay to act more like men, because the underlying desire to possess those traits is highly sought after. The idea that little boys would NOT want to embrace the idea of a man's man is SCARY to many people. It's seen as abnormal and people spend thousands of dollars investigating why their little boy would rather be feminine (this is where gender differs from sex) and do "girly" things. Male homosexuality is seen as more dysfunctional than female homosexuality. But there's still lines. Women that are perceived as promiscuous do get ostracized. Young men getting into physical altercations are seen as "boys being boys" but women getting into fights are more likely to actually be incarcerated for it. In fact, if they are seen as sexually promiscuous (aka sexually deviant), historically they are even MORE likely to receive harsh penalties in the legal system. But I digress. The systemic discrimination part of it is that many (I'd wager most) of the higher paying jobs have been dominated by men. You can, perhaps even rightly, state that it's because women have not been interested in these jobs. Taks briefly touches on this when discussing engineering, and it's true. Much of that is due to the gender roles that society placed on people. Women weren't expected to be professionals. However, this doesn't go back THAT far in history. In fact, prior to the industrial revolution, women were actually much more active in the marketplace. Women ended up getting most of the shaft with the industrial revolution, for really two reasons as far as I can tell. First, their jobs were often the ones replaced by machinery. This is unfortunately, and I don't really feel bad about it, in that I don't think it was a conspiracy to remove women from the work force. Not only were their jobs being replaced by the loom and whatnot, but the unfortunate situation that this equipment was in fact quite heavy did give men a leg up in using it. This is a form of "institutional discrimination" (nobody is meaning to be discriminatory, extra circumstances just make it so and there's not much that can be done about it aside from making equipment lighter...not an option back then). The unfortunate thing is that in many places, male dominated unions took up position in these occupations, and then restricted access for women. According to Joyce Burnett (Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution Britain), gender ideology did play key roles in restricting access for women in job that did not require strength, but were not subject to a competitive market (the white collar jobs). Tailoring, however, utilized women to undercut men labour union wage demands and ensured a competitive market. In Burnett's perspective (one that minimizes the influence of gender ideology), competitive labour markets helped women maintain employment in said markets. Another symptom of the era was that gender roles were being redefined. The ideal of the Victorian woman was a role that was seeing increased social status. This is where the cultural context is important. In this sense, with women seeking increased status by adopting the Victorian image for how a woman should behave. During this time, we saw women becoming less likely to enter the labor market because greater status could be obtained elsewhere. Not much of an issue for the time (a modern feminist would disagree, but she's looking at it in today's context), but it has led to "problems" for women in the job market the past century. It allowed men to become more entrenched in the labor market. This is getting long, but I'll fast forward to today. Thanks in part to WW2 and the competitive labour market, more women are in the workforce. However, the white collar jobs still have limited penetration by women. Much of this is from gender role expectation (women shouldn't be doctors, they should be nurses). This is why that annoying feminist that we all hate spouts forth all of her rhetoric about how women can do whatever they want. The discrimination is two fold as well. You DO have people that think that women are, in fact, inferior doctors. It's all a part of the gender ideology that men are doctors. As much as people hate it, this is the ideal behind affirmative action. Because if you put people in a situation where they have to be treated by a female doctor and things go well, the stereotypes will start to break down. Furthermore, people will start to SEE people in these professions, hold them to new ideals, and you'll start to see an increase in enrollment in these fields (such as what taks mentioned). But there are indeed still walls that are still up. It might not be a "global conspiracy" to keep down women, but there are people that resist the changes to the status quo (this is inevitable). Heck, I know in Canada the mere idea that a husband could rape his wife was laughed out of the House of Commons initially. It wasn't until I believe the 1980s that it actually got recognized that spousal rape can and does occur. The **** aspect of it for them is that, until recently, women were most likely to have to deal with the double shift. The "pink collar ghetto" meant that women were working in the workforce, and the primary workers at home. Fortunately this seems to be changing. But women don't just tend to gravitate to certain jobs. Societal expectations WILL make some jobs more appealing, because it's socially acceptable (nursing for instance has a huge barrier to MEN), but I just don't buy that through sheer coincidence, women tend to gravitate to lower level jobs that typically don't pay as well. Cultures change, and with them their gender roles.

Because you're confusing sex and gender.

I am calling OP on that whip!

Doesn't stuff like this border on slander? I am just wishing that there was indeed a way to shut them down haha.

It seems a bit early, but someone has decided to build a multi-story building in my neck of the woods. The only thing that could make sense is a hotel IMO.

Worked in the First World War, when 'Q' Ships where used against German submarines along the UK coastline. They were exactly as you describe - converted merchant vessels fitted with naval guns. A U-Boat tactic was to surface and threaten the merchantman with it's deckguns before torpedoing it. When they did the 'Q' Ship would open fire. Cheers MC Yes I know I believe they were also utilized in the second world war, but unrestricted submarine warfare made it less useful. Speaking of...I should load up Silent Hunter IV again...

Instead of a commerce raider, make a pirate raider. Disguise a warship as a merchant ship and have it go through the waters. Pirates will eventually attack it and...kaboom! Okay maybe it's just me...

This seems much ado about nothing. You like Avery and feel he's picked on unfairly. It's certainly not as funny as you make it out to be. Though I must say: who are you, as just a fan, to be able to tell the Dallas players that Avery wasn't indeed a distraction for their team? Seems like the pot calling the kettle black. By your own admission fans are stupid, so I'll just take your little tirade and roll my eyes, and post just this single post on it. You like to toss around words like "proof" and I know you're using Dallas' failure to make the playoffs as "proof" that Avery didn't have a negative impact on the team, in the same way that people used Dallas' improved record without Avery as proof that Avery was responsible. That's fine. Presenting it the way you did is rather...odd, however. I am however curious how many times you'll feel obliged to bring it up for the rest of this season (and beyond). As for proving your point...I'm surprised. It rarely seems as though you have one, and if so it seems rather obfuscated. Any proving of any point you may have had was completely by accident.

Outside of the "sidequests" Mass Effect was a lot of fun for me. Soldier using Assault Rifles by the way, which did pretty well for me. But hey, it's cool to hate. It's also cool to like KOTOR over Mass Effect, and even claim that the similarities that are in KOTOR are good, but when shown in Mass Effect, they are bad. Meh.

Dallas was in roughly last place when Avery was on their team, and right after he left the team they actually went on a run. Ignoring the fact that they were an injury riddled team this year, the link seems somewhat coincidental. Certainly not as funny as you seem to be making it out to be.

And Bananas need a bustling economy so we can import them!

Agreed. Could still be because it's new or something.

Sawyer is a tyrant.

Normally I would agree, but: what ad money though? Looking at the link, I don't really see any ads for anything other than their own products.

lol touche. It's the flavour of the minute for me

Psh, there's nothing for owners to do haha. Except encourage immigration

I don't know how much you can do. It's as passive as mybrute seems to be; even more passive than it I think haha. As for doing something, you added a person by visiting that link lol! Bizarre ideas for games though. And yes....it is indeed lame :lol

LOLZ http://allansville.myminicity.com/