BruceVC

I have no idea whether that's true or not. I don't know how you can measure 'confidence' and I don't think it's confidence that's the entire problem. There's more to it. What you've described is a stereotype and can equally apply to a lot of males in that example. I think you may be confusing 'confidence' with applicants and 'prejudice' from employers which may be a reason why a female didn't get the job - but that is also a stereotype too. Either I'm not explaining my point properly or you are not understanding it. I'll try one more time. The issue is not that Fortune 500 companies don't hire enough females or promote females to leadership positions ( though this is a problem but not the purpose of this debate) the issue is some young girls when they want to be assertive are called "bossy" and this is a negative description that impacts how they feel about themselves. The result of this is these young girls when they become adults don't apply for certain jobs to try to do certain things in life because they have belief from there youth that they won't get them purely because they are female Its not necessarily prejudice from the company or the big corporation but the fact they lack confidence or they have been raised a certain way and have a perception around there role in society This for me is the most important point of the website and not the banning of the word "bossy"

What does that even mean. Achieve their full potential? I imagine not many people get to achieve their full potential in life, regardless if they're male or female. Okay let me explain it better because I see how that could be confusing. I'll give you a practical example, because the confidence of young girls is diminished through various reasons they aren't as likely as young boys to apply for certain jobs or think they could become a CEO of a fortune 500 company. This doesn't mean they would necessarily get the job if they applied, But they don't even think they have a chance. Yet men are more likely to apply for a particular job and not think they won't get the job because inherently this is a job that only a particular gender can do. I hope I have explained this properly

I don't know Malc, why don't you go to the website and confirm this? They do make some general comments like " young girls self-esteem drops 3.5 times more than a boys by high school" but it would be very difficult to give accurate statistics

Maybe they should have used the 'ban bossy' message as being something attributed to both boys and girls. Like don't be bossy, be a leader to both genders. That would have been a better message. And not single out one gender as being bossy (girls) and comparing it to leadership with another (boys) when they say the exact same thing. The fact is that they don't actually give an example of that same exact thing. It's deceptive hyperbole. But then I guess it would come across as another type of anti-bullying encouragement building site and drown in the hundreds of other anti-bullying encouragement building websites if it was aimed at both genders. Easier to aim it at one gender and get the emotional responses that it's received. I hear you but the reality is that generally there aren't any cases where young boys grow up thinking they don't have the ability to achieve there full potential. There is much more encouragement for young boys to become leaders of industry for example. So the campaign is aimed at young girls as this is where the confidence problem lies for a variety of reasons

Barti certain people say they are getting upset because they think this is a campaign to curtail there free speech and its ineffective. But the real reason is that they are tired of getting reminded about issues around gender inequality. But there wouldn't be all this awareness if there wasn't still a problem. Thats the way I see it But to be honest if someone of your generation can at least recognize that there aren't enough examples of people saying things about women like "she is a good leader" thats a positive step. And the objective of these types of campaigns is ultimately to raise awareness. So this is a victory even though it may seem like a minor statement from you

Honestly for me the purpose of the campaign is not about banning the actual word "bossy". Its about encouraging young girls to be confident and to be able to achieve anything in life. But the way the website is marketed and designed this message is misunderstood, all people see is that the website is suggesting " we ban the word bossy" and somehow that is going help with gender equality. I am normally happy to debate these types of issues by myself and I was prepared to explain this over and over again but when Hurlshot also didn't get it then I realized that this type of message using this type of mechanism would never achieve its purpose. Remember also bare in mind certain people on this website will always reject and joke about any discussion around topics like gender equality, I have come to accept that and its fine. But whatever the campaign or initiative is you have to have a message that your average person understands and is prepared to support. That is why I disengaged from this discussion

Its okay thanks

Mmnope, I see nothing weird about that question Yeah that seems normal to me, he's probably the dad of those of those guys that was drinking and slouching by the side of the road

Stupid question but don't you mean Chinese takeaway ?

Don't worry Squeakymeister I'm also completely dysfunctional in this type of creativity but its good fun to read all the posts

Someone who discriminates against facial charecteristics.

I don't know about you, but I enjoy the XP and loot from romance sidequests. Cut that out and I won't be able to mash spacebar fast enough. Seriously though, I mostly agree with you. The bluntness and lack of narrative coherence, to put it that way, is a necessary side effect of the format the romances are presented in. "Fast forward to the important moments" and skip the rest, but the result is going to feel half-assed, rushed and disconnected. But it's either that, a full-fledged relationship sim, or nothing. What I'm not so convinced is that the protagonist's ability to trigger a catharsis on teammates is silly or unrealistic. After all, in Bio games you are routinely beating impossible odds, so it's not so out there. Taking out a race of sentient machines possibly older than life on Earth and fixing the secret insecurities of the genetically perfect Princess Bitchface with a few clichéd phrases? About on the same level. a relationship sim is, we believe, unnecessary. no, there is a simple solution, albeit an unpalatable one-- make romance integral. romance that is actual part o' the main plot would diminish the ridiculousness o' achieving emotional breakthrough in a handful o' tangential romance encounters. developers coulds Potentially create a mature and meaningful romance if they would use the entire length and breath o' game... but again, while making integral and expanding romance would solve many problems, it is not something for which Gromnir would lobby. more bio romance? *shudder* forebear. as we noted earlier, the thing that makes bio romances endurable is the thing that most impedes any sorta meaningful improvement. bio romances is, thankfully, tangential and optional. makes romances integral only makes improvement possible, not likely. HA! Good Fun! "make romance integral. romance that is actual part o' the main plot" Gromnir I can honestly say that is one of the most unquestionably insightful and wise things I've heard on the Internet in ages. Brilliant suggestion

Wowzers Monte you're in a mood, but I can tell when I'm not wanted so I'll leave this thread alone and not give any MMO idea's

sociopaths "sociopaths"...Monte you should fit in perfectly there

Those are excellent points raised, its amazing that people still think the most relevant point about the crisis is "was Yanukovich illegally removed ". What he did during his reign of Ukraine seems irrelevant to them

I always find your opinion so interesting so thanks for the response but this looks like a classic BruceVC "we will have to agree to disagree" Do you still love me

Why the allergy to debate? This sort of "I'm entrenched in my views, you are entrenched in yours, let's be happy together in our pigheadedness" is fundamentally irrational and useless. It's a sad state of affairs when people have lost the ability to revise their views in light of evidence. Is your ego so inflated that you cannot even entertain the idea of "losing face" to a bunch of internets strangers? I don't know which is worse: that or the very notion that admitting that one's original pov may have been wrong is equated with "losing face". Heh. Oh 2133 your post made me laugh, I loved the pseudo psychoanalysis of my rationale..well said But you'll have to try much, much harder than that to get a negative response from me But you also misunderstand my motives. You and Zora are completely intransigent on certain topics to the point where I think you feel admitting you wrong somehow diminishes you, you've both proved that regularly. Its a waste of my time trying to convince you. There are other topics where people are more receptive to a different view. So I'll focus on those when I can

Are you aware of Survarium? After GSC folded, some of the devs went on to found Vostok Games... and that's what they are working on. Thanks for the link, I'll need to do some serious reading up on (and keeping track of) this game! I was aware GSC folded in rather odd circumstances, wasn't aware the devs went on to create a sequel though (also: istr GSC were talking about taking Stalker 2 to consoles before they folded, which seriously worried me). No, the main game plays very similarly to 2033. Some mechanics have been more streamlined (like stealth), but if you disliked 2033 you'll more than likely dislike LL. But one of the DLC has you actually go out from a fixed spot and collect artifacts. You have limited filters (for your gas mask)/ammo and you can't just stock up indefinitely because price goes up with every filter you already have on you (which is a bit dodgy from a purely logical point of view but it balances things nicely) and you get sent out to find entrances to the Great Library and collect artifacts on the way to be able to buy more filters/better gear (carry capacity is limited to 5 artifacts). You can also only save in the "base", so returning is both a necessary as well as a tactical consideration. There really isn't much loot to be found (outside of the artifacts), so new gear an weapons need to be bought (except for two exceptions that make sense from the story). Mutants do tend to drop ammo (which is a bit annoying), but is explained by them eating their victims whole (while they don't really drop a lot of ammo I didn't really have shortages either on normal difficulty, but it didn't take long for me to have enough cash that just buying the ammo wouldn't have been a real issue either). I thought they did a rather good job on making you actually feel like a vulnerable human in a pretty messed up environment (that said, aside from a few run-ins with Librarians I never died). I don't remember how long the DLC took me to finish (an hour or two I think), but a full game based on these mechanics would be pretty damn awesome in my book. I loved LL, I thought the game was spectacular. So I should enjoy the DLC as well

Depending on what class you are teaching! There is no room for anything but hard cold facts in a history class. Exactly, and there is no point not recognizing the facts around the role women have played historically in our societies

What was the issue with Lionheart? I have it on GOG but I haven't played it yet and there seem to be numerous complaints

Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... My ire is aimed at hang-wringing professors who would rather meta-game history and feminism than actually teach. Did it ever occur to you that maybe accurate representation of gender equality is part of the teaching process?

Very impressed with your poetic eloquence

Well, clearly. Crimea had voted to be independent at least twice previous, but not within the past 19 years up until their democratically elected President was illegally deposed, by those who'd lost the previous election, in a long planned operation, with outside help, after abrogating international agreements. They have zero reason to trust at all. Inviting the Russians in to protect them from oppression from Kiev- which had twice (now three times) disregarded their independence votes and has labelled their constitutionally valid parliament, the single concession made to the independence sentiment, as illegal- is an eminently sensible step. That they may now feel that instead of independence they need to be protected as an integral part of Russia is a consequence of Kiev's repeated actions, I'm afraid. Okay thanks for responding, you and I have fundamental different views on why Russia is involved in Crimea and we are never going to agree with each other. And thats fine as we are all entitled to our opinions , no point debating this particular issue further

Jill's point was that the women ARE documented, and that our failure to educate on them is a problem with us now, now recording them back then. So this statement is actually in agreement with her, though your hostile tone seems to indicate that you think you're refuting her statement.... Of course he is refuting what she is saying, in Monte's world there is no need for discssions around equality because women already have equal rights and recognition....thats as long as they don't disagree with him on any level ....

What do you mean, we South Africans don't have an accent..its all the other English nations that speak strangely