After some commentary watching two friends battle it out in Madden 2002:

Girl: "This is the difference between guys and girls."

Me: "Nah, this is the difference between football fans and non-football fans."

Girl: *chuckle* "This is the difference between guys and girls."

Does this kind of attitude drive anyone else up a fucking wall? The girl in question is intelligent- not in the literal rocket scientist, 200 IQ sense, but certainly above average. If called on this by a statement such as, "What the fuck, I know girls who like football," she would almost assuredly say that yes, some girls like football, but it's weird, or out of the ordinary, or whatever.

In other words, it doesn't fit the girl stereotype.

Seriously, if you think like this, fuck you, fuck you in the ear, and fuck you twice. I'm perfectly fucking aware most girls don't like football. It does not have a goddamn thing to do with the fact that they don't have a fucking penis. The girls I know that do like football, hockey, computers, or any other guy thing, are simply open-minded enough to find the joy in such things and don't give a fuck if it's not a girly thing to do.

It didn't end there, either. At least half a dozen times tonight, this girl and her friend said something to illustrate the differences between men and women, all stereotypical bullshit in the line of thinking that if the first 100 (wo)men I've met think this way, the 101st must too. Sure, (s)he might not, but I'm sure I'll find out eventually if that's the case.

BOXES ARE BAD. They're small, cramped, and quickly become dirty and smelly. As such, I'd rather not place anyone I've never even fucking met before into them, and it puts me at the end of my fucking rope when other people do it repeatedly.

Is anyone with me here? Jesus fucking christ.

Don't hold back, tell us how you really feel!

Anyway, stereotypes are annoying. Especially in movies.

Yep totally.

And in this case I would say it's crap. It's a very stubborn attitude, and it's about the control of the situation - who's wrong, who's right. She wants to define that. Just my opinion.

WRT Football! WTF? It's the only sport, apart from tennis, that I like to watch. Incredibly skillful. Indeed, I even bought tickets to the olympic semis. Great match. But I think I'm talking real football - which is what you guys probably call soccer. An entirely different thing than what you think of as football, if I'm not mistaken.

[This message has been edited by Tooth Fairy (edited 10-22-2002).]

Not totally different.. both have 11 guys on a side.. .....that's about it, though. Besides, they'd probably say the same thing about soccer, so I guess it doesn't matter.

Hey Tooth Fairy what do you reckon about footy and rugger? I don't really think chicks dig watching those two sports. And Spiffy did you chuckle at the last remark that the girl made? I did, maybe because I've been brain-washed already. So where do I sign up for the "getting fucked twice in the ear" thing?

There ARE differences between girls and boys. Big ones, physically and mentally. But it is awfully annoying to hear some girls (and guys) say what is a manly and weird thing to do and what is not. DAMMIT! Just accept it and shut up!

Football is like battle. What is there for femininity to like?

chicks i know don't like football because men are so "googlie-eyed" for it... yes, she said "googlie-eyed" .. it's football, not boobies.

nevertheless, i don't like football, i'm a dude, does it make me less manly to not like it?

quote:

---

Football is like battle. What is there for femininity to like?

---

Strapping young men in tight pants. Duh.


"Non-girly" things I like:

Politics

Video/Computer Games and RPGs

Iron Maiden

"Wrasslin'"

Iron Maiden are fucking great!

Football is not for girls. Sure some girls would like it because of certain circumstances in their upbringing (typically unnatural aberrations), but there is little about football that appeals to a woman in nature.

And they do tend to suck at video games, its a fact. Men developed better hand-eye coordination from hunting while women dug up roots and cleaned hides.

I knew that some people would focus on the football thing, even though that was the example and not the point.. guess I'm not completely dense..

Spirit, not all video games are FPS. I've been playing video RPGs for 12+ years. There's no super hand/eye coordination involved.

When you talk about women liking football being "unnatural", are you referring to them playing or watching football? There is a big difference, ya know. Many women love watching strapping young men duke it out in competitive sports. I can think up an instinctual biological theory for that if you can't figure it out.

Roman women loved watchin gladitorial battles apparently.... well, acording to the documentaries.

And i also dont see how iron maiden is a manly thing......

Reminds me of a Bad Religion song!

I s'pose I should note that I was referring to liking football in any aspect, be it watching, playing, or whatever.. not sure how anyone took it.

It should also be mentioned that last year, there were something like 2,800 girls playing high school football in America. It's only a small fraction of the total players, and the vast majority were placekickers, but I think it's safe to say they found something to like about the game. Otherwise, all those kickers would've just stuck to soccer.

They feel different and pioneering.

And Mouse, I would have thought youd hate the sight of 400 sweaty niggers talking ghetto and smacking each other.

rofl, I don't watch it. Not even the man in this house likes watching football . I just know that many girls do. We'll watch some mixed martial arts, though. I also like watching battle scenes and swordfighting in movies. Just because I wouldn't like taking part in an aggressive, competitive, "unfeminine" sport or warfare, doesn't mean I wouldn't enjoy watching it.

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 10-23-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by just.landed:
Hey Tooth Fairy what do you reckon about footy and rugger?

---

As I said, I love football (soccer), not especially keen on the US version. Rugby League is good, not so keen on Union, but I'll watch the finals.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Football is not for girls. Sure some girls would like it because of certain circumstances in their upbringing (typically unnatural aberrations), but there is little about football that appeals to a woman in nature.

And they do tend to suck at video games, its a fact. Men developed better hand-eye coordination from hunting while women dug up roots and cleaned hides.

---

1. Crap. Are you, or have you ever been a woman?

2. Also total crap. I whoop my neighbour's son's ass at PS2! Not to mention my hubby.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy McBang:
Is anyone with me here?

---

No. Stereotyping is a useful tool for pre-judging someone that you know nothing about. Ignoring life's observations, for the sake of being PC, is just plain dumb.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
RPGs

---

Rocket Propelled Grenades? yeah I'd say so.
___

And how about the new AFC West? Is that the division from hell or what? Four powerhouses (yes, I'm counting KC also) stepping all over each other for a playoff berth. Whoever wins that division is definitely a superbowl contender... if they survive the regular season.

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
No. Stereotyping is a useful tool for pre-judging someone that you know nothing about. Ignoring life's observations, for the sake of being PC, is just plain dumb.

---

To keep using the example at hand, if I meet a girl I've never met before, I'm aware there's a better chance she's not going to like football than she will. That's odds, not being PC. It's also a hell of a lot different than acting like it's not right for a girl or a guy to enjoy certain things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy McBang:
this girl and her friend said something to illustrate the differences between men and women, all stereotypical bullshit in the line of thinking that if the first 100 (wo)men I've met think this way, the 101st must too.

---

Then this is just probability too, rather than "stereotypical bullshit".

quote:

---

BOXES ARE BAD. ...As such, I'd rather not place anyone I've never even fucking met before into them, and it puts me at the end of my fucking rope when other people do it repeatedly.

---

Then this is wrong also, because the most probable descriptor for an unknown, is the best one.

I'm far too drunk to care.

And that I don't play video games...

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
Then this is just probability too, rather than "stereotypical bullshit".

---

No... alright, look at it this way. Let's say that it is known to be completely true that 90% of all women have a given character trait. Pretty high percentage, right? All it tells me is that if you take ten women at random, odds are nine of them will have that trait, and one won't.

Now, I meet some random female, and I know of this fact going in. I'm still not going to assume that she has this trait- all that will do is lead me to act as though she does, when in fact she may not. I'm not going to act like she doesn't like sports, or a particular sport, unless I find out she doesn't. I'm not going to act like she doesn't like video games unless I find out she doesn't.

That's called being open-minded, not PC. It's not like it's a life or death thing for me to have to know whether a girl likes football or not- I have time to find out.

We're online at the same time Spiffy!

'Cept I bet I'm more drunk thank you!

>>>>1. Crap. Are you, or have you ever been a woman?<<<<

Duh. Have you ever looked at people from a scope other than the one offered by contemporary idiot-box Hot-Topic assemblyline cookie-cutters?

>>>>2. Also total crap. I whoop my neighbour's son's ass at PS2! Not to mention my hubby.<<<<<

Which part is total crap? That men have better reflexes when dealing with spacial perception? Thats true. That men hunted, and needed to develop this sense above other things? Thats true. That women did not, and thus developed other senses more suited for gathering food? Thats true too. When you logically extend these facts to the modern world, you get girls that arent as good at video games, cant drive, and like to shop.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
>>>>1. Crap. Are you, or have you ever been a woman?<<<<

Duh. Have you ever looked at people from a scope other than the one offered by contemporary idiot-box Hot-Topic assemblyline cookie-cutters?

---

Erm, I've never looked at people within the scope that you've suggested, and you haven't answered my question.......

>>>>2. Also total crap. I whoop my neighbour's son's ass at PS2! Not to mention my hubby.<<<<<

Which part is total crap? That men have better reflexes when dealing with spacial perception? Thats true.

Please provide statistics.

That men hunted, and needed to develop this sense above other things? Thats true.

My response was quite obviously to the above.

That women did not, and thus developed other senses more suited for gathering food? Thats true too. When you logically extend these facts to the modern world, you get girls that arent as good at video games, cant drive, and like to shop.

You do? Would you like to provide the data that has concluded this information please?

[/b][/QUOTE]



[This message has been edited by Tooth Fairy (edited 10-24-2002).]

quote:

---

When you logically extend these facts to the modern world, you get girls that arent as good at video games, cant drive, and like to shop.

---

Then explain why insurance rates are higher for young men because men are more statistically likely to get into accidents.

Im sure everyone agrees that all stereotypical traits such as...males like football. Just represent the majority and not individuals as I am sure there are females whom appreciate similar past-times as males and vice-versa (Just look at gay/lesbian people).

Also women are on the whole less likely to crash cars because they drive slower than men because they are less confident behind the wheel. [this is just my worms eye veiw]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jumpunderaboat:
Im sure everyone agrees that all stereotypical traits such as...males like football. Just represent the majority and not individuals as I am sure there are females whom appreciate similar past-times as males and vice-versa (Just look at gay/lesbian people).

Also women are on the whole less likely to crash cars because they drive slower than men because they are less confident behind the wheel. [this is just my worms eye veiw]

---

Stereotypes exist because a majority of a some group of people exhibit certain inclinations. Those who rail against stereotyping people aren't usually claiming that these majorities don't exist; they're saying it's a bunch of crap to take that stereotype and apply it to everyone without giving individuals a chance to show that they may not have those inclinations.

As for driving, yeah, any insurance agent will tell you women get lower insurance because, by and large, they drive in a less risky manner. Most of the women I know don't drive fast. Some really aren't that confident in their own driving skills, but most of the time, it's a lack of confidence in everyone else on the road. Still gets 'em rates like I want, damnit..

Men have better depth perception, thats a fact. They also tend toward the show-off cock-waving faggot shit, which affects their driving. They still have better depth perception.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy McBang:
Those who rail against stereotyping people aren't usually claiming that these majorities don't exist; they're saying it's a bunch of crap to take that stereotype and apply it to everyone without giving individuals a chance to show that they may not have those inclinations.

---

If an individual can't get past a stereotype, and make his own observations in life, then he's just an unobservant loser who probably struggles with the basic mechanics of modern life anyway.

But in your example, the girl was making a general observation regarding the genders, and you dismissed it as ignorant. You even went so far as to throw a little cyber-shit-fit about it. And, you've done it in the past, on other topics.

quote:

---

Spiff:
At least half a dozen times tonight, this girl and her friend said something to illustrate the differences between men and women, all stereotypical bullshit in the line of thinking that if the first 100 (wo)men I've met think this way, the 101st must too.

---

There ARE differences in men and women, and if you meet 100 of ANYTHING - all the same - then the 101st is likely to follow suit.

quote:

---

Spiff:
I'm not going to act like she doesn't like video games unless I find out she doesn't. That's called being open-minded, not PC.

---

No that's stupid. If you're going to buy her a surprise gift, and it's a video game instead of clothes, then you're not thinking.

You oppose stereotyping because you've been taught that it's bad, and close-minded; when in reality, it's pure objectivism. Being objective doesn't mean that you shouldn't search out the ones that exhibit some refreshing individuality, and then enjoy them when you find them.

If I buy her a surprise gift, I'm gonna wait until I know what she likes. That makes more sense than anything, doesn't it? I'm not counting giving a girl you've only known a week flowers or a teddy bear- that's giving a gift for the sake of giving a gift more than trying to get something she'll especially like.

Honestly, man, I think we see this more or less the same way. I just get miffed about it quicker.

Now that I have more than five minutes, allow me to clarify a few things.

I understand odds. I understand that you're likely to find certain personality characteristics in any given American woman, or man. I've never denied this. The reason I throw shit-fits is because many people act like it's some kind of inborn, genetic tag in the X and Y chromosomes (or skin pigmentation, or any other physical trait) that causes these differences, and it's not.

It all depends on what kids learn as they grow up- if it was based on something as simple as gender, people from different sides of the world would like more or less the same things. That's also why I specified American above- I'm willing to bet the average, say, French guy will expect somewhat different things from French women than an American man will from an American woman.

Also, in the example I gave, the words were only part of what set me off (and I should have said that earlier). The other thing is that she struck me as having an attitude such as, "Like a girl is going to like football?" Well.. yeah, it's definitely possible. I know hockey fans, baseball fans, you name it. Beats me why that should seem so incredibly odd.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spiffy McBang:
...many people act like it's some kind of inborn, genetic tag in the X and Y chromosomes (or skin pigmentation, or any other physical trait) that causes these differences, and it's not.

---

Yes it is. I saw a documentary earlier this week, about this very subject. Gender is determined in the womb, not in childhood. Who's to say that the 101st female; the one that likes football, isn't carrying some of the male instinct in her DNA?

A scientist, who published a much-followed study on the theory of nurture, was later discovered to be a Frankenstein. Some doctors still practice his theories, they interviewed one, who was talking about the fact that he was getting ready to perform a "gender reassignment" to a newborn because his "penis was too small for him to ever psychologically overcome."

It was fucking horrible. The only thing that kept me from completely demonizing that doctor, was the fact that the kid's idiot parents would have had to consent to the procedure, thereby relegating the doc to mere butcher.

edit: spelling

[This message has been edited by user X (edited 11-08-2002).]

Ok people, let see if this posts becuase last time I was here I had trouble with the forum.

If I lose anyone... umm.. sorry...

1) The whole conversation is mixing up probability with causal implication. That is, it is mixing up probability with infrence, or deduction with induction.

2) To explain:
Scientific theory states that if you have 1000000 white sheep, you may NOT assume all sheep are white. You have no proof of it. All it takes to PROVE (I use that in the technical sense) that `All Sheep Are White' is a FALSE statement is... exactly one black sheep.

Logically what you have been asserting is that:
[upside down A] Sheep, Sheep -> White
i.e. for all sheep, sheep implies its white

To use Spiffy's example:
"For all girls, liking football is false."
Unless you can prove that, then saying it is unnatural or any other rubbish like that is just.. rubbish.

3) The probability you are talking about is called prior probability. Prior probabilities PREDICT the future, they do not assert it. Once you know something (eg Spiffy's example girl likes football) the prior probabilities are irrlevant.They tell you nothing. [For the technical, this is the property of D-seperation... I have a paper mentioning it I can post but... you probably wouldn't like that].

Anyway I hope this settles it.

a) Spiffy you are right, it is annoying.
b) The putting people in boxes thing is bad
c) The boxes comment was NOT implying anything (at all). It was a simple statement that people (taken as most people) do not like being put in boxes. As most people do not liek this, it's a reasonable a recomendation not to do it.

Magician stops being technical now.

If anyone wants a more mind numbing version... you need to ask a philosopher... the more senior, the more annoyed they'll get and the longer they'll talk!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Men have better depth perception, thats a fact. They also tend toward the show-off cock-waving faggot shit, which affects their driving. They still have better depth perception.

---

Sorry, just being pedantic...

1) "Men have..." no thats not a fact. What is a fact is that ON AVERAGE (and you can not forget that bit because its centeral to what the stats mean) a randomly sampled man will have better depth precision than a randomly sampled woman.
2) You other statement is likewise. A random man... etc. You get the idea.

The danger is to make a generalistion and then imply it is fact. This is what leads to stereo typing and why it was clasified as bad in the first place.

i.e.
A) African Americans steal things (true than many more at that period of time were theifs, but thats because they had little other chance of gettign food etc... the point is it is true and explained by the environement they were in)
B) Stealing is bad (well duh)
C) Therefore African Americans are bad
-- Enter stereo type, African American is bad and the closest African American near a crime is likely to have caused it ---
D) If something went missing in the house, it is naturally the African American who took it. (Even if this one has never before been suspected of anything and has given faithful service as a servant / slave.)
E)

Result D is due (almost entirely) to stereo typing. A stereo type is the difference between says it "is highly likely that... until we find evidence to the contrary" and saying "it is so and any evidence to the contrary is wrong and inadmisible".

"Men have better depth perception, thats a fact" was an example of this later use.

Ok I'll stop being pedantic now.
Spiffy, you got my e-mail address feel free to flame me... seeing as no one else an

sports console games suck more than driving on a computer without a steering wheel.

You're right, Spiffy, "BOXES ARE BAD": Stereotyping, and especially putting people in "BOXES" IS BAD". But people (even here on Totse) often put me in a "BOX" almost every time I post. They put me in the "slut"/"prostitute" BOX. They do it though they have never met me, and they do it only because of my gender (female), my age (23), my nationality (Filipina), and my profession (dancer/entertainer). They base it on "probabilities" that have nothing (necessarily) to do with me. In actuality, I could be what I am-- an independent,open-minded, undergraduate honor student (now graduate student), with speaking proficiency in 5 languages, as well as a purple sasher in KungFu, and a boarder and aggressive skater. It's just human nature to do what they do, and I'm used to it, because I understand why they do it. I think that people who put people in "BOXES" just think small, so they can't help doing it, and really can't change. So I never get mad at them, or let it bother me. I just banter back with them, and love them still. Maybe that's what you should do too, Spiffy---instead of letting it upset you. Love, Venus.

No it happens because you say you are a slut.

I was unaware that being 23 or Filipino had almost anything to do with how you are percieved sexually.

I personaly consider you adventureus, not a slut or other, nastier things.

How you live your life is none of our business, unless you let it be our business.

Personaly I don't care what your sexual practices are. The fact that you seem to have given up on love concerns me, but I have grudgingly decided that it is none of my business.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
it happens because you say you are a slut.

---

I think she relishes it. She used the word "box" five times in her post.

Thank you, Prometheus. And, UserX, the reason I used the word "BOX" is to relate my discussion to the keyword which Spiffy used in his opening post. Does thr word "BOX" have some vulgar or sexual meaning or significance to you that I'm not aware of? If so, I'm sorry I affended you or made your ears red. (hee hee). Love, Venus.

Box is a term that is not used too often, meaning a woman's crotch.

User X, grow up.

Prometheus: Thanks again. (I never heard "box" being that one before!) Love, Venus.