Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

micahaphone wrote:Chowder, why the immature pictures of scantily clad morbidly obese women? If you want to troll people with surprising and off-topic pictures, go to 4chan and leave us alone.

Fine.

I do it because it's 2AM and there is nothing to do. From now on, no Fat chicks. Unless the situation presents itself to me. Then, I shall consult with an advisor.

Anyway, I don't understand why women are repulsed by knuckle cracking.

Murray wrote:Women get equal rights in military forces... well in Australia anyway - they just can't be selected for special forces as the male body is more eligible for the job.

Actually, they're not allowed in any combat roles (though are still trained in weaponry), the main arguement being that again the male body is more eligible for the role. Though if I had to pick between giving a gun to an average guy and this chick, I'd go with her.

Melissia wrote:I'm not saying it's bad to take risk, I'm saying you're making it look easy and simple when it is not.

This is exactly the problem with many posts here. Most of those talking about "making a stand" aren't even 20, they've not got careers, hell they probably haven't even got jobs. It's ridiculous to hear their 'advice' on life which amounts to some sort of idealised fight for the greater good. Wait a good 5-10 years when they have a mortgage and a family and have an established career. Ask them then if they want to become a martyr for the cause and do something that carries a high probability of ending that career, ruining relations within that workplace or industry and costing them their job which is what is keeping a roof over their head and their family fed. Even if you 'win' against your employer you lose.

It's like people who whistleblow on the practices of some organisation. You know what happens to these people? They become heroes right? Wrong. Frequently they lose their jobs and never get employment in the same industry, they have to start over which is nigh impossible if you're middle-aged. It can financially ruin them and cost them their homes, and the stress and legal wrangles breaks up families, then they end up on meds for depression.

It's not about not wanting something bad enough, it's about not wanting to lose everything. Very little is placed before more than home and family. That's why people don't just walk out of boring god-awful jobs onto the dole queue, that's why even in bad jobs they keep their heads down instead of sticking their neck out to become a martyr. But maybe if your only job has been flipping burgers for 3 months you don't get that.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm not saying it's bad to take risk, I'm saying you're making it look easy and simple when it is not.

That's exactly the situation. Most of those talking about "making a stand" aren't even 20, they've not got careers, hell they probably haven't even got jobs. It's ridiculous to hear their 'advice' on life which amounts to some sort of idealised fight for the greater good. Wait a good 5-10 years when they have a mortgage and a family and have an established career. Ask them then if they want to become a martyr for the cause and do something that carries a high probability of ending that career, ruining relations within that workplace or industry and costing them their job which is what is keeping a roof over their head and their family fed. Even if you 'win' against your employer you lose. It's not about not wanting something bad enough, it's about not wanting to lose everything.

It's like people who whistleblow on the practices of some organisation. You know what happens to these people? They become heroes right? Wrong. Frequently they lose their jobs and never get employment in the same industry, they have to start over which is nigh impossible if you're middle-aged. It can financially ruin them and cost them their homes, and the stress and legal wrangles breaks up families, then they end up on meds for depression.

I'm not saying that it ends well, all I'm saying is that people have to take stands for better or worse if they want anything to change.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm not saying it's bad to take risk, I'm saying you're making it look easy and simple when it is not.

That's exactly the situation. Most of those talking about "making a stand" aren't even 20, they've not got careers, hell they probably haven't even got jobs. It's ridiculous to hear their 'advice' on life which amounts to some sort of idealised fight for the greater good. Wait a good 5-10 years when they have a mortgage and a family and have an established career. Ask them then if they want to become a martyr for the cause and do something that carries a high probability of ending that career, ruining relations within that workplace or industry and costing them their job which is what is keeping a roof over their head and their family fed. Even if you 'win' against your employer you lose. It's not about not wanting something bad enough, it's about not wanting to lose everything.

It's like people who whistleblow on the practices of some organisation. You know what happens to these people? They become heroes right? Wrong. Frequently they lose their jobs and never get employment in the same industry, they have to start over which is nigh impossible if you're middle-aged. It can financially ruin them and cost them their homes, and the stress and legal wrangles breaks up families, then they end up on meds for depression.

I'm not saying that it ends well, all I'm saying is that people have to take stands for better or worse if they want anything to change.

Quoted for emphasis. You don't need to be Ceasar to understand Ceasar.

There are risks involved, and there's a large chance that you could lose a lot. I'm not saying it's always the right choice--I got paid less when I was working at an oil company over the summer because of my major (I'm a fine arts major in new media), even though the work I did was just as good as those with different degrees, and I worked for two departments as opposed to one. However I am aware of my position in the company (as much as everyone there loved me, being a summer intern meant I could be thrown out easily) and thus have no business in complaining, because I will need the money after I graduate. I will end up returning this summer to the same job for the same pay, and once again, I'm incredibly thankful for the job and won't be complaining (it really is a good job).

I've made the decision that it's not worth my future well-being for the sake of a few extra dollars. Because of that, I'm in no position to complain about it.

Similar situation to fafnir, I was working in an office in Aylesbury during the summer on around 10 pounds an hour with standard 9 to 5 hours. There were plenty of chances of progression if I had accepted the offer of staying on with the company instead of going to college however I chose college because I am hoping it will reward me with higher paid and more enjoyable work in the long run.

I would think double standards, how they treat different people way differently (that counted?).

Sometimes thier inability to understand something obviously simple, such as how to use the remote control to switch to a channel they do not watch often.

Conservationist wrote:Sometimes thier inability to understand something obviously simple, such as how to use the remote control to switch to a channel they do not watch often.

Exactly. I can watch like 5 shows and 2 movies all at once if I've got the clicker in hand...

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Melissia wrote:I'm not saying it's bad to take risk, I'm saying you're making it look easy and simple when it is not.

This is exactly the problem with many posts here. Most of those talking about "making a stand" aren't even 20, they've not got careers, hell they probably haven't even got jobs. It's ridiculous to hear their 'advice' on life which amounts to some sort of idealised fight for the greater good. Wait a good 5-10 years when they have a mortgage and a family and have an established career. Ask them then if they want to become a martyr for the cause and do something that carries a high probability of ending that career, ruining relations within that workplace or industry and costing them their job which is what is keeping a roof over their head and their family fed. Even if you 'win' against your employer you lose.

It's like people who whistleblow on the practices of some organisation. You know what happens to these people? They become heroes right? Wrong. Frequently they lose their jobs and never get employment in the same industry, they have to start over which is nigh impossible if you're middle-aged. It can financially ruin them and cost them their homes, and the stress and legal wrangles breaks up families, then they end up on meds for depression.

It's not about not wanting something bad enough, it's about not wanting to lose everything. Very little is placed before more than home and family. That's why people don't just walk out of boring god-awful jobs onto the dole queue, that's why even in bad jobs they keep their heads down instead of sticking their neck out to become a martyr. But maybe if your only job has been flipping burgers for 3 months you don't get that.

Again, if the risk is worth it to you, you'll take it. If it isn't, you won't. You may or may not be successful. Thanks for stating the same thing other people have been while using the same attacks on credibility. I also like the auto-assumption that everyone has or wants a family.

chowderhead13 wrote:

micahaphone wrote:Chowder, why the immature pictures of scantily clad morbidly obese women? If you want to troll people with surprising and off-topic pictures, go to 4chan and leave us alone.

Fine.

I do it because it's 2AM and there is nothing to do. From now on, no Fat chicks. Unless the situation presents itself to me. Then, I shall consult with an advisor.

Anyway, I don't understand why women are repulsed by knuckle cracking.

Because its a disgusting noise?

This thread has, amazingly enough, managed to last long time.

Longer than I thought possible.

But now, it is generating a lot of Mod Alerts.

Stay on target...

Dunno, I know men who are repulsed by it too. Mostly (apparently) it sounds painful I guess.

I think it's gross personally. I just don't see a need to do it.

I do it constantly, though due to my totally fethed skeletal structure my joints tend to lock out and require clicking into place.

I have to "click" my jaw into place sometimes. It's really annoying and I'm hoping it doesn't screw me over later in life.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I also like the auto-assumption that everyone has or wants a family.

The majority of people do have some sort of family, whether it's married with kids or living with blood relatives or whatever else kind of weirdness people get themselves into. You're a little bit too high strung about this sort of thing, bro.

I was referring more to the mindset of "I go to college, have a straight relationship with kids and have a career" being considered something automatic.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I was referring more to the mindset of "I go to college, have a straight relationship with kids and have a career" being considered something automatic.

If that's aimed at me you're very wide of the mark of the sort of person I am or what expectation I have of others.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
I was referring more to the mindset of "I go to college, have a straight relationship with kids and have a career" being considered something automatic.

Well, while of course there are exceptions and other ways of living life, what you mentioned could be considered something of a norm, minus the college maybe. If I might cite the German Federal Institute for Statistics: At the age of 32, only roughly 20% to 30% of women are not married yet, with decreasing unmarried women at increasing age. Assuming that the majority of those marriages is heterosexual, you need an equivalent number of males for this statistic of 70 to 80 of 100 women to be married at that age to come true, which, as an end result, somehow shows that the aforementioned path in life is at least not a bad first guess.

Hoo boy... This thread...

I really don't think we're fully able to understand each other. Basically, we just got different sets of clockworks in our heads.


The differences, the sexes between, however, lays up to showing interest in eachother in attempt in doing so.
OTOH, stating things like "she's just acting that way because she's a woman" is generalising women, and is in my book lack of respect for the opposite sex.

There is, however, a list of things i don't understand about the opposite sex; women. But that being a fact doesn't change one other fact; trying to understand them/you.

Finally, being a man just makes it easier to understand other men, and you're much, much easier off with finishing a sentence with "you know what i mean" when trying to explain certain things to another man, than trying to explain it to a woman.
- But the point is, as first stated; We SIMPLY work differently on the mental state, but you still need to show respect, rather than just claiming that "she's just a woman".

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I was referring more to the mindset of "I go to college, have a straight relationship with kids and have a career" being considered something automatic.

If that's aimed at me you're very wide of the mark of the sort of person I am or what expectation I have of others.

I don't aim. I state exactly what I mean and I'm not passive-aggressive. It really was just a general statement.

@bill: I agree to the point that there actually are differences between the sexes. Some people (again, no one in particular) seem so opposed to men and women being different that if you claimed their were physiologically different they'd still try to argue

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:@bill: I agree to the point that there actually are differences between the sexes. Some people (again, no one in particular) seem so opposed to men and women being different that if you claimed their were physiologically different they'd still try to argue

Yup - pretty much... I just try not to bow to the "power of dividing" - not saying it's easy. What i often experience tends to confuse, however, is a whole different matter: personality. Women are as different to one another, as men are as different to one another.
- One are free to make up their own opinion. I can't change that. But it doesn't mean i agree, just from being of the same sex. If that makes people feel my statement are biased towards women, so be it. That is, yet again, their own free will.

ymmv

If you're referring to me, I never claimed men and women weren't different, just that neither gender is as different from the other as society tries to emphasize-- societal norms dramatically increase the difference in physical capability of men and women, for example. There is a larger difference between the average first world female and the average first world male, than there is between a physically fit female and a physically fit male.

I even added an effing disclaimer I wasn't aiming at anyone in particular.

If you're referring to me, I never claimed men and women weren't different, just that neither gender is as different from the other as society tries to emphasize-- societal norms dramatically increase the difference in physical capability of men and women, for example.

So they are different? I mean, the methodology of indoctrination into the cult of gender is irrelevant. At the end o the day, they're pretty different.

There is a larger difference between the average first world female and the average first world male, than there is between a physically fit female and a physically fit male.

Without qualifying what the first comparison means the second is confusing. There is a large difference between the relative muscle mass of a fit adult male and female in natural settings, the difference is then further exaggerated by perceived and natural social roles within human society. There is a baseline difference between metabolisms, height and weight, nutrition requirements, and general build between the two genders that places the male as larger and typically stronger then the female. Such gender differences are common in many species, and they aren't unpronounced in humans.

ShumaGorath wrote:

If you're referring to me, I never claimed men and women weren't different, just that neither gender is as different from the other as society tries to emphasize-- societal norms dramatically increase the difference in physical capability of men and women, for example.

So they are different? I mean, the methodology of indoctrination into the cult of gender is irrelevant. At the end o the day, they're pretty different.

The difference is in the lower single digit percent range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Without qualifying what the first comparison means the second is confusing. There is a large difference between the relative muscle mass of a fit adult male and female.

Not according to what the world's militaries (most notably Israel) are finding out.

Where've you been Shuma? This thread has been beckoning

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Where've you been Shuma? This thread has been beckoning

I don't like psuedoscience threads about girls with cooties on gaming forums. It just seems like a bad mix of lack of knowledge, hormones, and awkwardness.

The difference is in the lower single digit percent range.

How do you qualify social and psychological gender differences with a single percent number...? I would normally pounce on someone for that, but I'm a fresh comer here, so I'll give ya a chance to explain.

Not according to what the world's militaries (most notably Israel) are finding out.

If you've already done so I apologize, I'm new to this titanic thread. Please cite the statistics you are referencing.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I don't aim. I state exactly what I mean and I'm not passive-aggressive. It really was just a general statement.

But you were supporting the statement "I also like the auto-assumption that everyone has or wants a family." which was made directly to my post.

Most people with careers do have homes and families of one sort of another. I don't assume it applies to everyone or what form those families take, but the overall point is that I observe a lack of appreciation for the amount such a person stands to lose when suing or taking their employer to tribunal, however noble the action may seem.

ShumaGorath wrote:How do you qualify social and psychological gender differences with a single percent number...?

Excuse me while I go slam my face into my desk.



Okay, done. In case you weren't paying attention (you weren't apparently) and you couldn't figure it out yourself through the context (you couldn't apparently), I was referring to the physiological differences.

The psychological differences are certainly not quantified, but most of psychology outside of a few outliers (those with actual physical disorders) is as much if not more due to nurture as compared to nature. For example, the negative view society has on women who are physically fit (a physically strong woman is still often looked down upon in the more conservative areas of the world, such as here locally).