Armor designs for females?

[Lemmy]

1. Its almost as if playing with such devices while working would be a huge distraction that would you get fired. its almost as if she brought it up as an excuse for why she put words in my mouth and I'm calling her on her bull, because it almost as if people have done that to excuse their behavior before while manipulating me and pushing my emotional buttons.

You didn't "call her on her bull"... You just disagreed vehemently with her. That doesn't make her argument BS.

2. By all means call the other person debating you childish, that will persuade people to agree with you. No wait it isn't working. Guess insults don't work for that after all. *Cough*Projecting*cough*

That's one word I'd use to describe denial of reality... So I used it. You'll notice I didn't call anyone "childish", only gave that description to a certain behavior. I didn't even say everyone who takes part in said behabehav is childish... Just like smart people can do dumb stuff, I'm sure mature people can be childish on occasion.

And why talk about this difference so much?

Uh... Because it's the subject being discussed? What did you expect? That people joining the discussion start talking about trains?

there are one armed people, paraplegics, and so on who I am sure are far more important in strength differentiation than male and female. unless your saying that women have a disability compared to men in terms of strength and need help to become as strong? like, is this a problem with such a serious difference that its worth pointing out? what is so important that women are unable to do a thing because of this? If your so concerned about this strength difference, what are the difficulties worth solving? what instances are they so weak
that its important to address this problem? in many jobs, from farms to factories, machines do most of the heavy lifting, sure soldiers need be fit, but much of military matters are handled by vehicles, cars, missiles, and the more important skills are proper aim and working as a unit., and sports? are not important to anything, they're entertainment, which I don't care about and don't do myself, so anyone with any sports skills are going to defeat me.

so is it relevant? No. might as well say men and women are equal. and thats what I'm gonna do. a one-armed man has more problems lifting things than a woman with two arms, I'd be more concerned about one-armed people.

Well... So?

Paraplegic people can lead a perfectly normal life and contribute just as much to society as any able-bodied person... That doesn't mean they're as physically capable as people with functional legs. Height also doesn't matter at all in 99% of activities... But if you tell short people they reach just as high (physically speaking) as tall people, I'll disagree. Not because I'm prejudiced against short people or intimidated by them... But simply because the statement isn't true. And the fact that ladders exist doesn't change that.

Certain physical and psychological traits are far more common in one sex or the other. This is due to both nurture AND nature.

That's the truth... So what?

[Max_Killjoy]

Why, I wonder, would male and females have different brain chemistry at all, if it has zero effect on their psychology? I remember an outspoken MTF transsexual by the name of Zinnia Jones remarked once that going on female hormones opened up "symphonies of emotions" for her. But more to the point:

I in my "essentialism" look towards the differences in the sexes with regards to their romantic relationships. It seems a "way they are" that most people look for their sexual complement, and I don't just mean in terms of physical shape. Finding someone romantically who is virtually identical psychologically might be initially thrilling, but must wear. The homosexual experience attests to this; there is an instability in couples who are too close psychologically. So, most heterosexual men, whatever their grumbles about the opposite sex, are attracted in large measure not merely to people with the right "jiggly bits" as if that were the last word in heterosexual attraction; they're attracted to a complementary personality that the female form is a metaphor for. Sort of like what you attempted to lampoon by linking to various tropes. Yes, women are in large measure attracted to power; men to beauty. Men want feminine women by and large, and the present, ongoing campaign to convince people that men and women are intrinsically psychologically identical, as by people such as yourself, brings ill.

Do you have anything to actually back up those statements, or are they just more self-reinforcing truisms garnered from men's rights garbage and pop-culture relationship-advice articles?

"Men are attracted to," "men want," "women are attracted to," "women want."

For someone who demands that other people's tastes be respected, you certainly seem to have a habit of treating anything that doesn't fit your narrative as nonexistent.

Stop telling people what to do. Including what art to make, print, and enjoy.

It's ironic that someone touting 1950s gender-truisms would make such a statement.

The first thing I thought upon encountering your list was, "Fresh templates for gaming plots!".

More's the pity.


~~~~

Certain physical and psychological traits are far more common in one sex or the other. This is due to both nurture AND nature.

The problem is that certain posters are exaggerating both the degree and the relevance of the small differences in that regard, and asserting that these differences, as inflated and exaggerated by the cultural feedback loop of expectations and pressures and perception bias, are "natural" and "proper" and "healthy".

They are then using that to argue that it's good and normal and desirable that artwork and fiction depict male characters such as to make them strong and active, and female characters as attractive and waiting to be acted upon.

But at least when it comes to the activity of those posters in this discussion, we've gotten past their smokescreen of "how dare judge other people's tastes?!" and "this is all symbolic!", and right down to the dirty heart of the matter.

[Dragonexx]

I find it amusing that some of the same people who were angrily citing "but it's fantasy!" to justify dysfunctional armor and impractical-for-situation clothing, and were reacting to trying for even the semblance of reality as just absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical and an infringement of their goodfuntimes...

...are now trying to cite "reality" (or rather their peculiar just-so version of it) and appeal to supposed "natural" and therefore "proper" gender roles as a defense of certain gender-divergent tropes in art and fiction.

I'm not one of those people. "It's fantasy!" means you can go all out and create the world you want to create. Even if women weren't historically warriors (which is bull****), you can totally make whatever gender roles you want or have no roles at all.

Also, where the **** is this thread going? I drop out for a while, and then comeback to find some completely weird (and kinda disturbing) arguements.

(for the record, I'm on the side of Do What Thou Wilt. I prefer aesthetically pleasing designs and rule of cool. But whatever. Have cheese/beefcake or don't or mix it or whatever if it's fun for you and your playgroup. D&D is flexible enough to do so.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm not one of those people. "It's fantasy!" means you can go all out and create the world you want to create. Even if women weren't historically warriors (which is bull****), you can totally make whatever gender roles you want or have no roles at all.

Also, where the **** is this thread going? I drop out for a while, and then comeback to find some completely weird (and kinda disturbing) arguements.

(for the record, I'm on the side of Do What Thou Wilt. I prefer aesthetically pleasing designs and rule of cool. But whatever. Have cheese/beefcake or don't or mix it or whatever if it's fun for you and your playgroup. D&D is flexible enough to do so.)

No, from what I've noticed here, I wouldn't put your arguments in that category... you seem to be genuinely in the "whatever you have fun with" category, and not using that as a smokescreen for something else.

Your "it's fantasy" appears honest, and doesn't do a 180 and appeal to a quasi-realism of 1950s/Victorian/Roman/Athenian gender mythology and pseudo-scientific bioessentialism as soon as it's challenged.

[Callos_DeTerran]

My stance?

I'm playing games with super powers, magic, many ton flying reptiles that breath fire, entities composed of raw evil and good, reincarnated shards of godlike power, starlight, laser swords, animal mutants after the apocalypse, and the ability to produce large explosions by flinging bat poop and wiggling your fingers.

What shape armor actually takes is completely irrelevant to me cause it doesn't matter. I make it look however I think fits the concept I have in mind. If that's a Hawaiian shirt and jorts, cool. If that's accurate heavy plate and kite shield, awesome. If its a chainmail bikini/spiked plate vodpiece, that's my choice.

Cause I don't give two damns about how 'realistic' something is in fantasy/super hero/sci-to games...I care about looking damn good.

[Max_Killjoy]

Women Have Always Fought

And so there have been women who've looked for armor, and they've worn armor that worked, not armor that made them look "feminine" or "pretty" -- unless that "armor" was just for show, and wasn't for fighting in at all.

[Floret]

Why, I wonder, would male and females have different brain chemistry at all, if it has zero effect on their psychology? I remember an outspoken MTF transsexual by the name of Zinnia Jones remarked once that going on female hormones opened up "symphonies of emotions" for her. But more to the point

Sure, hormones change the way you feel. Acting like this fundamentally changes your psychology into two distinct groups... is difficult, especially before the background of men and women both having (somewhat fluctuating, and differing from person to person) natural levels of testosterone and estrogen.
Drawing on the difference of trans people's emotions pre and post hormone therapy might also not be as representative as you'd like, their impressions will be severely coloured by their decrease in gender dysphoria, and not necessarily be the cause of immutable brain chemistry.

And, again, to reiterate: Whatever differences there are in the averages are far trumped by the amount of overlap between different male and female experiences, and should therefor not be treated as two non-interacting monoliths.

I in my "essentialism" look towards the differences in the sexes with regards to their romantic relationships. It seems a "way they are" that most people look for their sexual complement, and I don't just mean in terms of physical shape. Finding someone romantically who is virtually identical psychologically might be initially thrilling, but must wear. The homosexual experience attests to this; there is an instability in couples who are too close psychologically. So, most heterosexual men, whatever their grumbles about the opposite sex, are attracted in large measure not merely to people with the right "jiggly bits" as if that were the last word in heterosexual attraction; they're attracted to a complementary personality that the female form is a metaphor for. Sort of like what you attempted to lampoon by linking to various tropes. Yes, women are in large measure attracted to power; men to beauty. Men want feminine women by and large, and the present, ongoing campaign to convince people that men and women are intrinsically psychologically identical, as by people such as yourself, brings ill.

Can you... can you hear yourself talk?
..."The homosexual experience"? Couples that are similar to each other are bound to fail? Men and women are (near)-monolithic groups? "The female form is a metaphor for"...
...I shall join Max in his statement of "Sources, please", and will only add: This is not how, in my experience, the world, or well... anything, really, works.

The first thing I thought upon encountering your list was, "Fresh templates for gaming plots!".

If that is your reaction to a collection of the oldest and most sexist tropes in fiction, then I suggest that you both widen your horizon immensely (If they seem new to you, it at least suggests you haven't been exposed to much fiction at all), as well as take a long, hard look at yourself and your choices.

[Max_Killjoy]

My stance?

I'm playing games with super powers, magic, many ton flying reptiles that breath fire, entities composed of raw evil and good, reincarnated shards of godlike power, starlight, laser swords, animal mutants after the apocalypse, and the ability to produce large explosions by flinging bat poop and wiggling your fingers.

What shape armor actually takes is completely irrelevant to me cause it doesn't matter. I make it look however I think fits the concept I have in mind. If that's a Hawaiian shirt and jorts, cool. If that's accurate heavy plate and kite shield, awesome. If its a chainmail bikini/spiked plate vodpiece, that's my choice.

Cause I don't give two damns about how 'realistic' something is in fantasy/super hero/sci-to games...I care about looking damn good.

Cool.

Please understand that (at least for some of us) there's a space in there in which "looking good" and "looks like it could be real, and functional, and practical" are really close to matching sets. For some of us, it's hard to look at something that's clearly not functional, and think "that looks awesome", when what we're really thinking is "that looks like it's going to fail".

And it irks some of us when someone says "I don't care if it's 'realistic' as long as it looks awesome" with an implication, quite clear in the context, that verisimilitude can't be awesome and there's something wrong with caring about it. (I don't think that's where you're going, but it's where many who say similar things to what you said are going.)

And for some of us, the idea that one fantastic element must automatically open the door to all fantastic elements is utterly foreign to how and why we write, and build worlds, and play RPGs.

[Ashiel]

The only one who is dishonest here is you Ashiel,

Try again.

Max has been completely consistent

In being inconsistent.

and honest about his position,

Except when it's inconvenient.

while every time I talk to you, your evading everything you said in your post last time pretending as if you didn't say anything I don't agree with

Such as?

while apparently attacking his character and emotional buttons like you did me

Prove it. Go do some quoting. I'll wait. My posts are still here. I've consistently pointed out the inconsistencies in his reasoning. I've also called him out on his insulting authors, artists, and fans of aesthetics as ignorant and idiots for liking things differently than him. I don't have to attack his character because he does that himself.

As for your emotional buttons, you're projecting. I apologized because after thinking about it, I don't know what you've been through. I don't know you, I don't know why you reacted the way you did, or why you thought people disagreeing with you meant that they have some sort of ire towards you, but maybe it was connected.

so apparently both me and him notice the same pattern that your using in communication.

I'll make it really easy.
Pattern...
1. Ashiel: "Everyone either doesn't like it due to some offense to their moral preferences, or aesthetically".
2. Someone remarks that it's not personal morals nor aesthetics, it's about realism and that they'd all die if dressed like this.
3. Ashiel: "Here are plenty of adventurers in dangerous situations with swords and stuff in little to no armor. Why are they not a problem?"
3. Someone remarks that it's because they fit in the setting and don't mess with their personal immersion.
4. Ashiel: "Okay, so it's aesthetics then."
5. *MELTDOWN / IGNORE / BAD PERSON / SEXIST / IGNORANT / RAAAAAAGH*
6. Ashiel: "It's okay, you can like what you want and everyone else can like what they want. Everybody wins. It's all cool."
7. *Passive aggressive insults / strawmen / responses to things unsaid.*
8. Ashiel: "Still aesthetics. Also it's fantasy. We can have women suplexing ogres (and that's awesome)."
9. Repeat with something about sexist tropes and biology

oh and you claim to work on a 14 hour workday and yet your constantly posting in this thread. so. thats suspicious of how you got the time to argue on the internet throughout the day.

Hold up there, I'm gonna let you finish but...
This post right here from yesterday was posted as I left my home for work. It was posted at 2:28 AM. My very next post was at 2:21 PM, which was during a break, and I made one other post before I had to go back to work. No further posts were made until this one at 4:53 PM. My exchanges with you began at 8:18 PM (18 hours after my first post yesterday) and I was still posting in good spirits. As were the next several posts moving on through 9:04 PM. Your post that confused me was at 9:15 PM.

My response was at 9:38 PM, followed by my questioning the post that confused me exactly 1 minute later. Still, no hostility as of 9:47 PM when I continued to be consistent about defending people's right to enjoy what they will.

I didn't post again until 10:24 PM. At this point I have been up for more than 20 hours strait, including the 14 hour shift. I'm still trying to be positive, but the negativity and what felt like (though perhaps wasn't) you being unnecessarily antagonistic was beginning to get to me. I said we had a misunderstanding, accepted that you shat on my earlier attempts at an olive branch and decided that was fine, you got your own issues to deal with an it's no skin off my back if you wanna be a porcupine. Finally, at 10:47 PM, I had taken some time to think about it and thought that maybe you were acting the way you were because of some personal issues and your feelings were hurt. That was the last thing I posted, and a more direct attempt at extending an olive branch.

That's 21 hours from the point I got up that morning. All of the posting was done during my time over the course of the single day. Say what you will, but I want the record to be strait for everyone involved. I'm an honest person and I also respect my employers. I do not have time to post on forums while I'm working, which is one of the reasons my posting has been so much less frequent than it used to be (increased responsibilities at work). I'm off today, which is why I've been posting throughout the day, but I've also had to do things like go grocery shopping, cook, and spend time with my little brother.

and your still putting words in his mouth because I'm pretty sure your not stating Max's position, but a warped strawman parody of it.

Given that I quoted him when I was refuting him, I don't think so. I was making apples to apples comparisons. It's not even a complex comparison. He got mad and started flinging insults. I'll go back through the thread and perform a quote dump if you insist. As you can see, I'm not so arrogant as to consider myself above retracing pages deep through the thread.

[Ashiel]

Paraplegic people can lead a perfectly normal life and contribute just as much to society as any able-bodied person... That doesn't mean they're as physically capable as people with functional legs. Height also doesn't matter at all in 99% of activities... But if you tell short people they reach just as high (physically speaking) as tall people, I'll disagree. Not because I'm prejudiced against short people or intimidated by them... But simply because the statement isn't true. And the fact that ladders exist doesn't change that.

Certain physical and psychological traits are far more common in one sex or the other. This is due to both nurture AND nature.

That's the truth... So what?

Oh, Lemmy! Lemme show you a cool thing.
This guy's probably better at Street Fighter than 99% of the population and shows that you can do some amazing things if you try.

Inspirational.

[Lemmy]

Oh, Lemmy! Lemme show you a cool thing.
This guy's probably better at Street Fighter than 99% of the population and shows that you can do some amazing things if you try.

Inspirational.

Ah... Yes. Brollylegs is awesome! I've known of him for a while. I even met him once in... Some event... I don't really remember which one.

It always amazes me how he pulls some of the most complex and demanding combos that'd I wouldn't be capable of doing even if I had four hands.

[Ashiel]

Ah... Yes. Brollylegs is awesome! I've known of him for a while. I event met him once in... Some event... I don't really remember which one.

It always amazes me how he pulls some of the most complex and demanding combos that'd I wouldn't be capable of doing even if I had fout hands.

Man I'd love to be able to play GG vs a Marilith (before or after asking for all six hands in marriage). lol

[1337 b4k4]

Cool.
And it irks some of us when someone says "I don't care if it's 'realistic' as long as it looks awesome" with an implication, quite clear in the context, that verisimilitude can't be awesome and there's something wrong with caring about it. (I don't think that's where you're going, but it's where many who say similar things to what you said are going.)

Has anyone actually implied that realism can't be awesome in this thread? Because I certainly haven't (in fact, again pointing to what I said in the very first pages of this thread, one of my favorite D&D party images is completely "versimilitudious") and I can't recall anyone who has.

[Max_Killjoy]

Has anyone actually implied that realism can't be awesome in this thread? Because I certainly haven't (in fact, again pointing to what I said in the very first pages of this thread, one of my favorite D&D party images is completely "versimilitudious") and I can't recall anyone who has.

Yes, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I'll see if I can find the specific instances again... if they're not behind the ignore blocks.

[Lemmy]

Kinda funny see someone claiming others are being intolerant of their tastes... Not long after saying the other person's aesthetic tastes "only belong in spoofs, farces, and a certain sort of DeviantArt posting".

[Donnadogsoth]

Do you have anything to actually back up those statements, or are they just more self-reinforcing truisms garnered from men's rights garbage and pop-culture relationship-advice articles?

"Men are attracted to," "men want," "women are attracted to," "women want."

My paragraph was based on patent truths. I don't need a scientific paper for that. But fill me in:

Most heterosexual men are not attracted to female minds but only female bodies? And vice versa? Heterosexuality is therefore just a curious and superficial attraction to bodies—but why should that be essential? Heterosexuality must be literally a construct and so we are all naturally bisexual—or pansexual, attracted to water buffalo or cacti or whatever.

Men aren't attracted to femininity?--they want neuter or masculine women?

Women aren't attracted to manly strength?--they want neuter or weak men?

{And because this is the Internet I have to say, again, that I do not mean 100% of men or women are X, only here the majority of them, just as if I had said that men are taller than women.)

For someone who demands that other people's tastes be respected, you certainly seem to have a habit of treating anything that doesn't fit your narrative as nonexistent.

Narratives ≠ tastes. If you think narratives are a matter of taste, you should have no problem with mine, just as if you really believed that fantasy cheesecake was a matter of taste, you would have the dignity to heed the countervailing voices here and go on your way without continuing to be a hypercritical busybody.

Stop telling people what to do. Including what art to make, print, and enjoy.

It's ironic that someone touting 1950s gender-truisms would make such a statement.

You got me there! I do believe there are cases where we should tell people what to do. But fantasy art isn't one of them unless it becomes outright pornographic.

[Max_Killjoy]

My paragraph was based on patent truths. I don't need a scientific paper for that.

And there we have it, folks.

[Donnadogsoth]

Can you... can you hear yourself talk?
..."The homosexual experience"? Couples that are similar to each other are bound to fail? Men and women are (near)-monolithic groups? "The female form is a metaphor for"...
...I shall join Max in his statement of "Sources, please", and will only add: This is not how, in my experience, the world, or well... anything, really, works.

Can you? You seem to be affected by the vapours. You're telling me that your significant other's physical form doesn't serve as a metaphor for their mind? What planet are you on?

Do men and women have different brains?

Men and women have different brains in a variety of ways, including grey:white matter ratio, vulnerability to various drugs, and susceptibility to various diseases. You will dismiss this as fluff, the same way Max_Killjoy and others dismiss heterosexuality as fluff--just a superficial trait bearing no relationship to actual personality. But of course this makes no sense: if men and women are the same psychologically, and humans are more than rutting, mindless animals, then hetero- and homosexuality should be viewed as diseases and bisexuality should rule.

On the lighter side

But this is just pop culture irrelevancy, people like this are ignoramuses.

The sad case of David Reimer

Men's and women's brains are identical, right? So why would a man raised as a woman be so desperate to become a man? He should have been perfectly socialised and brainwashed into his assigned gender--but he wasn't! He felt this innate urge to become a man. It turned out badly, he suicided, and that's a shame, but the point remains: if "man" can be so compelling for a man raised as a woman to become, why should heterosexuality be any different? Why should it not be a case that heterosexuals are attracted to the whole package that is the opposite sex, both physical and mental?--which means those opposites must be psychologically different. If those differences weren't there, then the only explanation there could be for heterosexuality would be brainwashing!

If that is your reaction to a collection of the oldest and most sexist tropes in fiction, then I suggest that you both widen your horizon immensely (If they seem new to you, it at least suggests you haven't been exposed to much fiction at all), as well as take a long, hard look at yourself and your choices.

Got any reading suggestions?

[Donnadogsoth]

And there we have it, folks.

And your counter-evidence aside from a "nah ahh" about evolutionary psychology is...?

[Max_Killjoy]

Kinda funny see someone claiming others are being intolerant of their tastes... Not long after saying the other person's aesthetic tastes "only belong in spoofs, farces, and a certain sort of DeviantArt posting".

The exact post: Got a Real-World Weapon, Armor or Tactics Question? Mk. XXIII

The discussion there has nothing to do with "taste", and everything to do with exactly what's on the tin thread title.

And in that context, it's a bluntly factual comment. The sort of armor that was being asked about has zero place in a discussion of real functional armor.

[Max_Killjoy]

And your counter-evidence aside from a "nah ahh" about evolutionary psychology is...?

Asked and answered.

Plus, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim -- you made the claim and then flatly refused even the idea of giving any evidence, citing "patent truth" as your only support.

Turning around and demanding counter-evidence against your claim isn't exactly intellectually kosher.


Based on what you just told us --

My paragraph was based on patent truths. I don't need a scientific paper for that.

-- I doubt you'll take any of this seriously, but...

Spoiler

Show

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201412/how-valid-is-evolutionary-psychology
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/problems.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2005/08/cave_thinkers.html
https://psychologyinseattle.squarespace.com/a-critique-of-evolutionary-psychology/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/four-fallacies-of-pop-evolutionary-2012-12-07/
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/fallacy.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/10/ep-the-fundamental-failure-of-the-evolutionary-psychology-premise/

etc...

Can you? You seem to be affected by the vapours.

I see you've traded in your shovel for a backhoe, when what you might want to do instead is stop digging that hole you're already up to your neck in.

You seriously just accused a woman disagreeing with you of "having the vapours".

Men's and women's brains are identical, right?

How about directing your responses at things that people have actually said here, instead of against convenient stand-ins?

[2D8HP]

If anyone wants an opinion from the peanut gallery:

My father believes that women should not be allowed to be protagonists in games, be they tabletop or video games, because women are so inferior to men in every way that it would break suspension of belief to have them be the equal of male protagonists, and a game would be both un-fun and unfair if there were such massive differences associated with gender.

So yeah, these ideas (which I do not agree with at all for the record) seem to be pretty strong in the older generation.

Eh, I wouldn't lump entire generations into anything like that. I know lots of folks that are 80 and younger who would disagree.

As someone who plays female characters exclusively, I'd probably wreck his verisimilitude pretty hard at the gaming table.

In my experience it's young men (in their 30's) who seem to me to be more likely to be mouthy exclusionary misogynists.

The first two people I knew who were old enough to vote (in 1979) and played D&D were women, and they were most definitely not "hangers on", they knew their stuff! I still remember them explaining the difference between character level, and dungeon level to me. Yes they were more boys than girls playing the game in the 1970's and 80's, but I have no recollection of anyone idiotic enough to think that was a good thing, leave this member of the older generation (I'm 49) out of that mess please!

[scalyfreak]

You seriously just accused a woman disagreeing with you of "having the vapours".

It does provide a legitimate reason to dismiss everything that woman says. Or at the very least conclude that what she says is a result of that difference in brain chemistry that makes us prefer to be passive, afraid of getting even the tiniest bit dirty, and so very challenged when it comes to math and other difficult things that require a sharp intellect and the ability to concentrate. (Do we have an eye-rolling emoji here?)

Donnadogsoth live in a very different world than the rest of us, I think. I find myself rapidly tired of being forced to visit it every time he states his opinions as if they are facts, so I'll leave it to you and others to try and explain to him that just because you disagree with everything he says doesn't mean you're the ones who are wrong.

[Donnadogsoth]

Asked and answered.

That being your cornucopian list of anti-evo-psych resources, I suppose.

Plus, the burden of proof is on the party making the claim -- you made the claim and then flatly refused even the idea of giving any evidence, citing "patent truth" as your only support.

Turning around and demanding counter-evidence against your claim isn't exactly intellectually kosher.

You are willing to ignore the fact that in terms of replenishing the tribe after war deaths it makes no demographic sense to get mothers killed on the battlefield alongside fathers. That's a patent fact that doesn't require a shred of scientific evidence. And when it comes to burden of proof, I'd say that anyone who wants to overturn 6,000 years of recorded history and culture documenting humans acting as though they were neuropsychologically different according to sex--all the wisdom of the ages--is the one suffering the burden of proof.

Based on what you just told us -- -- I doubt you'll take any of this seriously, but...

Spoiler

Show

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/out-the-darkness/201412/how-valid-is-evolutionary-psychology
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/problems.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2005/08/cave_thinkers.html
https://psychologyinseattle.squarespace.com/a-critique-of-evolutionary-psychology/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/four-fallacies-of-pop-evolutionary-2012-12-07/
http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/fallacy.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/10/ep-the-fundamental-failure-of-the-evolutionary-psychology-premise/

etc...

Interesting, I'll take a look at it, thank you.

I see you've traded in your shovel for a backhoe, when what you might want to do instead is stop digging that hole you're already up to your neck in.

You seriously just accused a woman disagreeing with you of "having the vapours".

Floret is a woman? I am gender-neutral in my ripostes to people who...challenge me...to see...if I can hear myself talk.

How about directing your responses at things that people have actually said here, instead of against convenient stand-ins?

Your implication is that male and female brains are identical, or so close as to make no significant psychological difference.

[Max_Killjoy]

It does provide a legitimate reason to dismiss everything that woman says. Or at the very least conclude that what she says is a result of that difference in brain chemistry that makes us prefer to be passive, afraid of getting even the tiniest bit dirty, and so very challenged when it comes to math and other difficult things that require a sharp intellect and the ability to concentrate. (Do we have an eye-rolling emoji here?)

I hope I didn't presume anything when I made that statement you quoted, I just realized I was going by the avatar and not a symbol underneath, combined with reacting to the outlandish comment I was seeing... hopefully I didn't blunder.

Donnadogsoth live in a very different world than the rest of us, I think. I find myself rapidly tired of being forced to visit it every time he states his opinions as if they are facts, so I'll leave it to you and others to try and explain to him that just because you disagree with everything he says doesn't mean you're the ones who are wrong.

The temptation is there to keep him talking because of the damage he does to his own position every time he posts.

[Ashiel]

Your implication is that male and female brains are identical, or so close as to make no significant psychological difference.

It would be nice if they were, since then it would stand to reason that there'd be no difference. Fence sitting gets old after a while, 'cause it starts to hurt.

[Max_Killjoy]

That being your cornucopian list of anti-evo-psych resources, I suppose.

Just a link to a summary of all the ways that evolutionary psychology is flawed... you appear to have missed it.

You are willing to ignore the fact that in terms of replenishing the tribe after war deaths it makes no demographic sense to get mothers killed on the battlefield alongside fathers. That's a patent fact that doesn't require a shred of scientific evidence. And when it comes to burden of proof, I'd say that anyone who wants to overturn 6,000 years of recorded history and culture documenting humans acting as though they were neuropsychologically different according to sex--all the wisdom of the ages--is the one suffering the burden of proof.

You don't even see all the unfounded assumptions and unquestioned tautologies and self-reinforcing platitudes buried in that paragraph, do you? Your position is based on myths and pop-history. Even your nonsense about "replenishing the tribe" ignores so much of what's actually known about warfare going back to that 6000 year mark you cite. The keep stating with confidence that this is a "neuropsychological" issue while ignoring any possibility of cultural factors or reinforcement -- when the actual science points to a far more complex interplay between nature and nurture that you're allowing for.

In other words... history doesn't say what what you claim it does. Neither does the archaeology, or the anthropology, or the neuroscience. What you keep claiming sounds not like the science, but like a mashup of pop-science and fringe hokum.


And deeper than that, you keep referring to women as "mothers" and "wives" and "damsels"... and nothing else. There's this undercurrent of "women exist to make babies" in each of your comments.

Your implication is that male and female brains are identical, or so close as to make no significant psychological difference.

That's your eager inference.

The direct statement made by multiple people is that the range of variability in human brains/minds overwhelms the gender-linked mean variations in human brains/minds.

[Mike_G]

OK, I'm just posting to say chill out.

This has gotten waaaay too nasty, and I think we went off topic a while ago.

There are some people here I genuinely like and respect, and some I'm kinda stunned by. I think some of the attacks are getting unfair and bordering on abusive. Particularly the attacks on Ashiel, who has consistently voiced an opinion that I can understand even when I disagree with parts of it. I don't think Max has been as incionsistent as he's being accused of either.

The sexism that reared its ugly head over the last few pages is shocking to me in this day and age.

[Lord Raziere]

Make that three along with Mike and scalyfreak. I've made my point and I'm getting out, I'm not going to waste time arguing with people when its not worth it and some people seem to be determined to harp on these things for no reason.

[Ashiel]

OK, I'm just posting to say chill out.

This has gotten waaaay too nasty, and I think we went off topic a while ago.

There are some people here I genuinely like and respect, and some I'm kinda stunned by. I think some of the attacks are getting unfair and bordering on abusive. Particularly the attacks on Ashiel, who has consistently voiced an opinion that I can understand even when I disagree with parts of it. I don't think Max has been as incionsistent as he's being accused of either.

The sexism that reared its ugly head over the last few pages is shocking to me in this day and age.

Yeah, seems to be the wise thing. There are probably greener pastures. I realized I wasn't long for this thread after my response to Lord Raziere but was checking back mostly to see her response. In any case, I appreciate the support. On an unrelated note, I absolutely adore your avatar. I can't help but laugh every time I see it.