Disney sexies up Merida from Brave, parents upset about body image iss

[StrangeSox]

Im not sure you understand the argument anymore.

 

What you just showed is evidence that people judge regardless of media, etc. That it is natural for humans to judge our mates. I swear to god one of the captions was "That man is handsome"

 

Which just proves looks matter, no matter how Disney dresses up a princess.

 

(edit)

 

Yep minute 1:21

 

"That man is really handsome"

 

Yes, that was a mating gathering. I posted it to show that your claims that culture doesn't determine what us found to be attractive are nonsense.

[StrangeSox]

Well, I learned that if you disagree with SS, or don't find a particular issue as important as he does, you don't "get it" because you're a moron that lacks comprehension skills.

That's not my thesis but you are helping to prove it

[Soxbadger]

Yes, that was a mating gathering. I posted it to show that your claims that culture doesn't determine what us found to be attractive are nonsense.

 

Yet science agrees with me.

 

Strange.

 

Maybe its because your video proved nothing, and the men who were selected were likely more "symmetrical" and thus actually proving my point.

 

But that would require you to actually do the research and learn about biology/evolution, instead of just telling me about how no one ever judges men, and then posting a video of women judging men.

 

Science is bad!

[StrangeSox]

You just seemingly havent done enough research into this subject. Most scientists would agree that symmetry is preferred. You are arguing that fat/thin etc make beauty, which they dont. Symmetry does.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...y-symmetry.html

 

 

 

You just keep parroting that men arent judged by sexuality. What world do you live in?

 

But what do all these scientists know, you can properly spell, so you must be smarter than all of them.

 

OMG science, voodoo voodoo. lol

I haven't argued against there being some biological aspect, I've pointed out that there is a significant cultural aspect.

 

Why is natgeo a reliable source but not WHO

[southsideirish71]

Buster has jumped the shark. Disney Princesses, lmao.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Yet science agrees with me.

 

Strange.

 

Maybe its because your video proved nothing, and the men who were selected were likely more "symmetrical" and thus actually proving my point.

 

But that would require you to actually do the research and learn about biology/evolution, instead of just telling me about how no one ever judges men, and then posting a video of women judging men.

 

Science is bad!

So now you claim that the entirety of human sexual attraction can by boiled down to symmetry?

 

Given that you can't stop making false claims about what others are saying (women never judge men!), i think I'm done. When you're willing to be honest, let me know.

[Soxbadger]

I haven't argued against there being some biological aspect, I've pointed out that there is a significant cultural aspect.

 

Why is natgeo a reliable source but not WHO

 

The article you cited is an opinion piece. When I use the term gender, its neutral. Its used in the law constantly. When I say "What is the gender of the child" Im not asking if it wears a suit or a dress, Im asking is it a boy or a girl. Thats why it says "What do we mean" instead of "What is the actual definition of the word" they are trying to distinguish when in science there isnt one.

 

If I ask: What is the gender of that cat?

 

or

 

What is the sex of that cat?

 

I will get the exact same answer. There is no "well what do you mean by gender".

 

Here is a discovery show for further information on symmetry:

 

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-sh...of-symmetry.htm

 

The difference is, I wont link junk opinion pieces and try and prove that you dont know the definition of a word. That is just low brow tactics.

 

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender

 

Notice how every dictionary will equate gender and sex. Its just not worth arguing, because WHO is trying to change the word.

[Soxbadger]

So now you claim that the entirety of human sexual attraction can by boiled down to symmetry?

 

Given that you can't stop making false claims about what others are saying (women never judge men!), i think I'm done. When you're willing to be honest, let me know.

 

Im not claiming anything, Im not a scientist. Im just saying that there is a wealth of scientific information to suggest that human attractiveness is not some sort of media driven creation, but instead is a result of evolution and biology.

 

if you want to disagree with that, go ahead. But I would expect a little bit more research than you just repeating your opinion.

 

You know, maybe you could provide us with some evidence of your position. The only person who ha actually provided studies has been me.

 

Fancy that.

[StrangeSox]

The article you cited is an opinion piece.

 

No, it was a definitional page from the World Health Organization. It wasn't a "blog" and it wasn't an "opinion piece" any more than anything else on their site is. WHO is not exactly an ideological advocacy group, either.

 

 

[snip]

 

Notice how every dictionary will equate gender and sex. Its just not worth arguing, because WHO is trying to change the word.

 

How it's used in law and how it's used in everyday language or defined by dictionaries doesn't actually define the concept. It's commonly used interchangeably, but they represent two distinct things. Nor is it WHO who is trying to "change" the word. It's a concept that's been discussed and studied for decades in the literature. You're rejecting a pretty core part of social science out-of-hand, something you apparently weren't even aware of before this afternoon. And then citing dictionary definitions which include the definition WHO uses.

 

I'm also not sure how you square your beliefs that men and women truly are equal (and I believe you're earnest) while rejecting the concept of gender-as-social-construct. For example, gender in this society means stereotypically girls play with dolls and play "house" and are interested in barbie and other "girly" things while boys play with army men and get muddy. Unless there's some biological reason that girls would prefer dresses and dolls (there's not), then it must be an outcome of the cultural expectations they were raised with. That is what is meant by gender, and I don't see any reason other than that I'm arguing against you for you to just reject the whole idea.

[StrangeSox]

Im not claiming anything, Im not a scientist. Im just saying that there is a wealth of scientific information to suggest that human attractiveness is not some sort of media driven creation, but instead is a result of evolution and biology.

 

if you want to disagree with that, go ahead. But I would expect a little bit more research than you just repeating your opinion.

 

You know, maybe you could provide us with some evidence of your position. The only person who ha actually provided studies has been me.

 

Fancy that.

 

There's a wealth of information on the cultural aspects of sexuality. There's no scientific information to suggest that what we find attractive and appealing is simply a deterministic result of evolution and biology. There's some research that shows symmetry plays a part. That's it. You're making much, much broader claims based on that. Your claims that what we find attractive is pure biology would undermine the whole concept of aesthetics as well as advertising and marketing.

 

I'm repeating my opinion that's formed on at least some background reading on this topic. There's nothing wrong with not having read that stuff because it doesn't interest you, but you're immediately rejecting any new concepts without really knowing the first thing about them.

 

Why should I provide you with some studies? You've already dismissed WHO out-of-hand as a blog and an opinion advocacy group. You haven't displayed the least bit of openness to understanding (even if ultimately disagreeing with) different concepts in this thread. This isn't a legal battle where you need to try to undermine your opponent's position as much as possible while bolstering your own and papering over any weaknesses.

 

If you want some references to gender-as-a-social-construct, here:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&am...14&as_sdtp=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_constr...nder_difference

 

 

[iamshack]

No, it was a definitional page from the World Health Organization. It wasn't a "blog" and it wasn't an "opinion piece" any more than anything else on their site is. WHO is not exactly an ideological advocacy group, either.

 

 

 

 

How it's used in law and how it's used in everyday language or defined by dictionaries doesn't actually define the concept. It's commonly used interchangeably, but they represent two distinct things. Nor is it WHO who is trying to "change" the word. It's a concept that's been discussed and studied for decades in the literature. You're rejecting a pretty core part of social science out-of-hand, something you apparently weren't even aware of before this afternoon. And then citing dictionary definitions which include the definition WHO uses.

 

I'm also not sure how you square your beliefs that men and women truly are equal (and I believe you're earnest) while rejecting the concept of gender-as-social-construct. For example, gender in this society means stereotypically girls play with dolls and play "house" and are interested in barbie and other "girly" things while boys play with army men and get muddy. Unless there's some biological reason that girls would prefer dresses and dolls (there's not), then it must be an outcome of the cultural expectations they were raised with. That is what is meant by gender, and I don't see any reason other than that I'm arguing against you for you to just reject the whole idea.

Maybe not dolls or dresses, but certainly things which focus on roles involving childcaring and nurturing of a child would be biological.

[StrangeSox]

Im not even going to get into your word nonsense. Gender/Sex it really doesnt matter. They are interchangeable, citing a blog wont change the definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

 

a : sex

 

So I didn't realize how dishonest of a snip this was at first. The rest of the definition:

 

a : sex

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

 

WHO's definition:

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

 

Pretty much the same thing! I'm back to being done with you in this thread.

[StrangeSox]

Maybe not dolls or dresses, but certainly things which focus on roles involving childcaring and nurturing of a child would be biological.

Possibly, though I am going to venture a guess that cultural and anthropological research finds that this isn't a universal human trait. Will google later, leaving in a minute!

 

Edit: found this http://www.npr.org/2010/12/21/132231422/wi...-may-play-dolls

 

One group of chimps appears to have gendered play, but it's not seen in other chimp groups. That means it could very well be cultural even among other primates.

Edited May 14, 2013 by StrangeSox

[caulfield12]

[/b]

How on Earth is that progress? "Hey little girls, we don't want you to be princesses that show off their raisins. Instead, we want to completely cover you up. We don't want to see your body or face at all. Oh no, too tempting for the more important men in your life. Oh, and don't leave the house unless your man commands you to! Remember, that rock line could form at any minute!!!"

 

I'd rather girls were expected to look like hookers than woman who cover themselves from head to toe.

 

 

I've actually worked with quite a few Muslim women in my time teaching internationally.

 

All of them, when I've posed your same questions, have said they feel much more comfortable in this way.

 

It's their culture...they to a one all said they feel much more freedom, because they can be judged on their ideas and thoughts and leadership and it's easier to be friends with other women when you take out the competitiveness of women around the issue of beauty.

 

It's not about pleasing their husbands or hiding their bodies or being controlled, it's really the idea that all women should be treated equally based on their character/brains and not being ogled at like girls in bikinis at Spring Break 2013.

 

Can't you imagine if your wife was 2010 Playmate of the Year...how you would feel if men were whistling at her in the street for wearing anything the slightest bit revealing or "sexy"?

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Gender is cultural, not biological. Sex is biological. "Norm" is the social expectations, e.g. girls play with dolls and wear pink and like to play "house" while boys like to play with action figures and wear blue and play "army." A boy who plays with "girl" toys or a girl who is a "tomboy" are breaking gender norms.

 

 

So I didn't realize how dishonest of a snip this was at first. The rest of the definition:

 

a : sex

b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

 

WHO's definition:

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

 

Pretty much the same thing! I'm back to being done with you in this thread.

 

The only person being dishonest is you.

 

I never said that gender couldnt mean multiple things. you are the one that said gender is not scientific, which is wrong.

 

You can be done with me all you want, it wont make you right, you will continue to be wrong.

 

Next time if you are going to try and make up bulls*** lies, pick a weaker opponent. Because I never said "gender exclusively = sex" I merely said that A DEFINITION OF GENDER IS SCIENTIFIC.

 

Unlike you, I dont try and get fake internet points by saying my opponent 1) cant spell, 2) cant quote and 3) didnt use a word properly when they in fact did.

 

Nice try though, maybe next time.

 

(Edit)

 

And just because gender means "girls play with barbies" to you, doesnt mean that it does to me. When someone asks "What is the gender of this plant" Im not saying that the the female plant plays with barbies, Im saying that it is a female and thus has the female reproductive system.

 

The WHO article is discussing what some people may mean when they say "gender", its merely for discussion purposes. The definition of gender has multiple meanings, the only person who suggested otherwise, is you, who said "Gender is cultural, not biological."

 

Which as we know, is not true.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Gender is cultural, not biological.

 

 

http://books.google.com/books/about/Gender...id=pUo2T34ppKUC

 

How can flowers have a gender? Is it because male flowers play in the dirt and female flowers get dressed up in pretty dresses?

 

Maybe its which one cooks and cleans?

 

 

[Balta1701]

Just out of curiosity...has there been any post from an actual woman in this thread?

[caulfield12]

Just out of curiosity...has there been any post from an actual woman in this thread?

 

 

From the tenor of this thread, I can't imagine any woman not getting at least a little bit upset and not even bothering to interject with a response.

[mr_genius]

Too much TMNT as a child

 

Yup. He should probably sue them for what they did to him.

[Soxbadger]

From the tenor of this thread, I can't imagine any woman not getting at least a little bit upset and not even bothering to interject with a response.

 

lol

 

What?

 

Are you implying that women cant handle a heated debate?

 

(edit)

 

I cant even say the last time I saw a female post on this board, so it really was a throwaway comment from the start.

Edited May 15, 2013 by Soxbadger

[southsider2k5]

lol

 

What?

 

Are you implying that women cant handle a heated debate?

 

(edit)

 

I cant even say the last time I saw a female post on this board, so it really was a throwaway comment from the start.

 

There is at least one regular female poster on Soxtalk.

[Soxbadger]

I know, but the fact is this board is predominately male. Whether or not a woman posted has less to do with the subject matter and more to do with the gender composition of the message board.

 

Nothing more, nothing less.

[iamshack]

There is at least one regular female poster on Soxtalk.

Ahh, so the views of one woman would save all of our souls from burning?

[mr_genius]

Not nearly to the same extent women are. Damn near every woman in the public sphere has her looks commented on and brought up as a legitimate topic of discussion and that simply doesn't hold true for men.

 

lol. that's not true. do actually work with any women? they talk about what male co-workers look like all the time and judge them on their looks. for someone reason i think it's ingrained in our DNA somehow, both sexes judge the other strongly on looks. it is what it is. even i judge people on looks and i'm a genius.

Edited May 17, 2013 by mr_genius

[Kyyle23]

lol. that's not true. do actually work with any women? they talk about what guys look like all the time and judge them on their looks. for someone reason i think it's ingrained in our DNA somehow.

 

Soxtalk was considering sexy-ing up the Mr Genius profile, but due to an overwhelming negative response and the fact that it is scientifically impossible, decided against it.