tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post115193028456961084..comments2024-03-27T19:04:14.544-05:00Comments on The Absorbascon: Evil Woman!Scipiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16217376618860561999noreply@blogger.comBlogger100125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-25620727934291842512022-09-26T18:48:58.513-05:002022-09-26T18:48:58.513-05:00I hardly needed to read that to know that "Ro...I hardly needed to read that to know that "Roger Ebert was wrong".<br />Ebert's generalizations and their inaccuracies are irrelevant to the facts:<br /><br />The male criminal population vastly outnumbers the female criminal population.<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime<br /><br />Therefore depicting men and women as equally likely to be or become criminals is inaccurate and unrealistic. <br />Your own distress that this acknowledging this fact constitutes some sort of sexism or inequality is also irrelevant to the facts. Ignoring the truth doesn't change it.Scipiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112155718721908876noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-67433217505768195092015-06-20T11:45:22.078-05:002015-06-20T11:45:22.078-05:00https://culturallydisoriented.wordpress.com/2012/0...https://culturallydisoriented.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/an-open-letter-to-roger-ebert-or-women-are-not-better-than-men/<br /><br />Read this and be educated.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1156909959862363182006-08-29T22:52:00.000-05:002006-08-29T22:52:00.000-05:00lets put this in context of comic books because th...lets put this in context of comic books because that where it started<BR/><BR/>Also forget to factor in Women can be HELLA strong as a super hero. So that changes things when the strengh differnce not that much differn <BR/><BR/>Accept for SUPERMAN and Hulk being STRONGEST ONE THIER IS!! <BR/><BR/><BR/>Least there strong then most citezens and non super power criminals <BR/><BR/>That changes things a bit. Women commit less physical crimes cause there less physical. But there high up on the mental abuse.<BR/><BR/>Heck in comics even a Human woman can be skilled enough to beat the butts of regular men<BR/><BR/>And that not just cause a femnist<BR/><BR/>Skill OWNZ strengh in comics. Batman outpower guys 10 times his strengh. Let very few people complain in comics when men body slam someone who should be able to knock them out with a flick of a pinky. That ok cause the guy is skilled<BR/><BR/>But complain when a woman beat up a guy, even though it might be just as big as a skill differnce<BR/><BR/>Comics are not base on the real world. You got to factor in the rules and how having FLYING PEOPLE change the status of said worldAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153626979931602482006-07-22T22:56:00.000-05:002006-07-22T22:56:00.000-05:00I'm the latest "Anonymous", not out of sneakiness ...I'm the latest "Anonymous", not out of sneakiness or cowardice, but because I simply don't have a Blogger account. PLEASE PLEASE click on the link I left, and if you don't want to, here are some loverly excerpts from the essay it leads to, written by the brilliant Margaret Atwood:<BR/><BR/>"Were all heroines to be essentially spotless of soul – struggling against, fleeing from or done in by male oppression? Was the only plot to be The Perils of Pauline, with a lot of moustache-twirling villains but minus the rescuing hero? Did suffering prove you were good? (If so – think hard about this – wasn't it all for the best that women did so much of it?) <B>Did we face a situation in which women could do no wrong, but could only have wrong done to them? Were women being confined yet again to that alabaster pedestal so beloved of the Victorian age, when Woman as better-than-man gave men a license to be gleefully and enjoyably worse than women, while all the while proclaiming that they couldn't help it because it was their nature? Were women to be condemned to virtue for life, slaves in the salt-mines of goodness? How intolerable</B>. ...And there were certain new no-no's. For instance: <B>was it at all permissible, any more, to talk about women's will to power, because weren't women supposed by nature to be communal egalitarians? </B>Could one depict the scurvy behaviour often practised by women against one another, or by little girls against other little girls? Could one examine the Seven Deadly Sins in their female versions – to remind you, Pride, Anger, Lust, Envy, Avarice, Greed and Sloth – without being considered anti-feminist? Or was a mere mention of such things tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy, namely the male power-structure? Were we to have a warning hand clapped over our mouths, yet once again, to prevent us from saying the unsayable – though the unsayable had changed?"<BR/><BR/>"<B>Or, in another word – were men to get all the juicy parts?</B> Literature cannot do without bad behaviour, but was all the bad behaviour to be reserved for men? Was it to be all Iago and Mephistopheles, and were Jezebel and Medea and Medusa and Delilah and Regan and Goneril and spotty-handed Lady Macbeth and Rider Haggard's powerful superfemme fatale in She, and Tony Morrison's mean Sula, to be banished from view? I hope not. Women characters, arise! Take back the night! In particular, take back The Queen of the Night, from Mozart's Magic Flute. It's a great part, and due for revision."<BR/><BR/>"But <B>female bad characters can also act as keys to doors we need to open, and as mirrors in which we can see more than just a pretty face. They can be explorations of moral freedom – because everyone's choices are limited, and women's choices have been more limited than men's, but that doesn't mean women can't make choices</B>."<BR/><BR/>"Evil women are necessary in story traditions for two much more obvious reasons, of course. First, they exist in life, so why shouldn't they exist in literature? Second – which may be another way of saying the same thing – <B>women have more to them than virtue. They are fully dimensional human beings; they too have subterranean depths; why shouldn't their many-dimensionality be given literary expression?</B> And when it is, female readers do not automatically recoil in horror."<BR/><BR/>I'm convinced that NO ONE should be ALLOWED to read, write, or criticise female characters without reading that article from top to bottom at least a dozen times. And, to counter the smokescreen of anonimity, at msn.com, my email name is "apostasie."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153625165891062252006-07-22T22:26:00.000-05:002006-07-22T22:26:00.000-05:00read this VERY carefully: http://www.web.net/owtoa...read this VERY carefully: http://www.web.net/owtoad/vlness.html<BR/><BR/>then sit back and wait for mystique to beat the crap out of you using only three toes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153593724241666182006-07-22T13:42:00.000-05:002006-07-22T13:42:00.000-05:00There are female soldiers, female firefighters and...There are female soldiers, female firefighters and female police officers. How is it then unreasonable to expect that in a world of superheroes that there would be female superheroes? Especially considering that superheroes tend to be vigilantes so there wouldn't be any patriarchal bureaucracies to fight through.Tabbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04269989067312601867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153555903252291792006-07-22T03:11:00.000-05:002006-07-22T03:11:00.000-05:00Well, I suppose it's always nice to know my female...Well, I suppose it's always nice to know my female friends can rest easy; there's some great big hairy man who’s ready to tell them what they're all about. They should be grateful that this guy is willing to tell them how they think and feel- even if they don’t.<BR/><BR/>I really have to wonder how he would treat my ex-army, gun-nut, unspiritual, controlled sociopath friend. Would he insist that she's "unfemale?" Would he demand she get a hysterectomy or something, because she doesn't meet the stereotype of the "cooperative, rational, non-violent woman"? God forbid she actually be aggressive and uncompromising- that’s seriously not allowed for women. Isn’t it a pit that theory gets so messy when it hits reality?<BR/><BR/>As far as comics go, I tend to think that superheroes and villains are so out there that their hero- nature dominates everything else; they should be treated as singular individuals first and foremost. It's a really nasty double standard in that females in comics aren’t allowed to simply be characters; they have to be symbols of their gender before they are individuals. After all, it's bad enough to see that in real life.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153112210282137952006-07-16T23:56:00.000-05:002006-07-16T23:56:00.000-05:00Here's my take on the subject:Let's say the origin...Here's my take on the subject:<BR/><BR/>Let's say the original poster is right about everything he has mentioned (I disagree, but I'm hypothesizing here). We're going on the assumption that there aren't AS MANY violent females as males. That there aren't AS MANY heroic females as males.<BR/><BR/>But, that's hardly an excuse for not writing more engaging violent and/or heroic females into comics. Because what are superheroic comics anyway? They're stories based on extraordinary - albeit fictional - characters. Obviously, no comic writer wants to write about a boorish woman who cares only for the cream colored cardstock her wedding invitations are printed on or the woman whose only weakness is shoe shopping.<BR/><BR/>On the flipside, no comic writer wants to write about a male plumber who lives for 5:00 and the beer his wife will bring him when he gets home or the male Wall Street broker who cares only about the numbers and a bit of blow on the weekend. <BR/><BR/>While there might only be one Joan of Arc for every five Jesus Christs or one Lizzie Borden for every five John Wayne Gacys the fact remains that there still are Joan of Arcs and Lizzie Bordens. Why not write about them?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153050371199522572006-07-16T06:46:00.000-05:002006-07-16T06:46:00.000-05:00RE:I think I heard somewhere that women in the arm...RE:<BR/>I think I heard somewhere that women in the army are alot less likely go to the front lines then men<BR/><BR/>-yes. This is policy, not natural desire or anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153050213146538992006-07-16T06:43:00.000-05:002006-07-16T06:43:00.000-05:00RE:I would like to add that men are not the ones w...RE:<BR/><BR/>I would like to add that men are not the ones who paint their faces bright colours and wear jewelery to attract attention.<BR/><BR/>1)ok. you MUST have seen period films, where straight men wear jewels, makeup, wigs, highheels?? ringing a bell?<BR/>2)Metero sexual men sometimes wear "man" makeup.<BR/>3)what does a fancy car and rolex sound like to you? necessary? un-vain? please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153049990131104162006-07-16T06:39:00.000-05:002006-07-16T06:39:00.000-05:00RE:And if women are supposed to be smarter, why ar...RE:<BR/>And if women are supposed to be smarter, why are there more men in business and politics, and don't give me that "glass ceiling" crap. Men have more street smarts. Also, most scientists and engineers are male.<BR/><BR/>1)women+men=equally smart, under different social conditions, however<BR/>2)there is a glass ceiling. read some peer reviewed articles, theres lots.<BR/>3)men may have more street smarts. maybe not. thats learned. think about it.<BR/>4)yeah. think about socially appropriate jobs. Think about money restraints. If a condom breaks, who doesnt end up going to school? (Long-gone dad?Hmmmm...)<BR/>5)Try being in a profession like that in Iraq or some place where women CANT,good luck.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153049640388643442006-07-16T06:34:00.000-05:002006-07-16T06:34:00.000-05:00RE:"You're arguing that women are more thoughtful ...RE:<BR/>"You're arguing that women are more thoughtful and less capable of unthinking aggression"<BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing it. I'm stating it. As a fact. Which it is.<BR/><BR/>-Essentializing women and men does everyone a disservice. <BR/>-Taking "facts" out of context is like saying jello is good because I like it. Its useless and irrational.<BR/>-Women and men will behave in ways thats serve their interest. The end. <BR/>If its criminal, that is their interest, if its law abiding, there you go, it works. Its all very goals oriented.<BR/>-People make choices IN A FRAMEWORK not of their own choosing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1153005433841862142006-07-15T18:17:00.000-05:002006-07-15T18:17:00.000-05:00Anyone who thinks women are morally superior to me...Anyone who thinks women are morally superior to men and wouldn't be a superhero, etc., for that reason has not been paying attention. Look at real world examples such as Indira Gandhi, Beanzhir Bhutto or Margaret Thatcher. I wouldn't put a single one of them on any morality or ethics panel. Their governments were not superior to male-head-of-state governments and Thatcher was as quick to go to war as any man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152440515021044472006-07-09T05:21:00.000-05:002006-07-09T05:21:00.000-05:00Looks like someone's been drinking the feminist Ko...Looks like someone's been drinking the feminist Kool-Aid.<BR/><BR/>You people really need to stop politicizing comics. Thy're just stories written for entertainment.<BR/><BR/>"I have to agree with an earlier poster who said that comics have typically been drawn by men, who simply see the world from their points of view. And what a limited point of view it is!"<BR/><BR/>Give me a break! And Women are less limited how? <BR/><BR/>"Talk to women you know, we have so many more motivations than the men in our lives!"<BR/><BR/>Oh bullshit. Motivation depends on the individual. And having more motivation<BR/><BR/>I find it funny that in same post you whine and bitch about how women are generalized in comics, but then you go and generalize about how evil and dumb men are! Talk about double standards!<BR/><BR/>I got news for ya pal, women can be just as violent as men! Most cases of females abusing their spouse or significant other aren't reported though, because the men are often ashamed to admit that they get beat by a girl. Mothers abuse their children, lesbians ab use their partners, etc...<BR/><BR/>http://www.fathersforlife.org/fv/fv2.htm<BR/><BR/>The best evidence you can come up with is a single University study! Give me a break. You can take any cross-selection of Americans and tweak the questions and results to get whatever results you want. More often then not, these studies are the product of a search for funding, not a search for knowledge, so the so-called "scientific" results are usually fit to predetermined outcomes that reflect popular thought. The more research supports a popular idea, the more funding!<BR/><BR/>Let's look at some of your more dubious statements. Wait, I don't have too. David J. already debunked most of your inane points while you ignored the debunking and insulted him for having the gall to post an opposing opinion on your precious blog. How very "open-minded" of you<BR/><BR/>"Men have saviour complexes, Women don't"<BR/><BR/>Women have Maternal Instict, Men don't. And how can Women be inherently good if they won't protect others when given the power to do so?<BR/><BR/>"Self-aggrandizing theatrics"<BR/><BR/>How many men have worn swans to a red carpet ceremony? How many men are on the beaches of Cannes in less than a g-string shouting "All cameras on me"? How many movies-of-the-week have been made about Men with Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy?<BR/><BR/>There is a difference between not wanting attention and living in a society that ignores your efforts and insists that you be meek and demure. Given an outlet, Women are even more vainglorious than Men. <I>I would like to add that men are not the ones who paint their faces bright colours and wear jewelery to attract attention.</I><BR/><BR/>"Men are more aggressive"<BR/><BR/>There are more Men in prison for violent crime, that's innarguable. But when women *do* commit a violent crime, they have "Battered Woman Syndrome" and "feared for my life" to fall back on. (And how many Men are going to file a police report claiming - admitting - that they were beaten up by a Woman?) Also, when Women do commit violence, they tend to use quiter means. (See "meek and demure" above.) The weapon of choice for Women serial killers is poison, not guns. (It is easier to clean up afterwards, and you know who is going to have to do that.) If we prosecuted all the "suspicious deaths" as aggressively as we did drive-bys - and didn;t excuse them just for being woemn if they are caught - I have no doubt that the fraction of Women in prison would rise dramatically. (Though I will admit, probably still not to parity.)<BR/><BR/>"Women are smarter"<BR/><BR/>OK, got me there. (Hi, dear.)<BR/><BR/>Seriously, Women seem smarter because these days we equate smarts with with the bookish geek and stupidity with the schoolyard bully. Intellect with quiet contemplation and idiocy with immediate action. Yes, Women don't commit bank robberies because they know they will get caught. But they know this not because they are smart enough to consider the odds, but because they are meek and demure enough to believe society when it tells them they can't succeed. It may be better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool rather than speak and prove it, but ultimately it doesn;t make you any smarter.<BR/><BR/>And finally, the basis of all your arguments, "Women are better than that":<BR/><BR/>It sounds so nice doesn't it? I mean, it can't be bigotry, because you come to praise Women, not to enslave them. That's exactly the same type of thinking that says all Native Americans are Noble Savages and all Black Men Can Jump. Which is even worse, because it limits the options of minorities even more than "They can do nothing". And it's pleasent facade and passive voice make it even harder to stand dagainst than someone actively burning a cross on your lawn. It's the "Benign Neglect" of the Political Left."<BR/><BR/>I actually agree with you that women and men are different, espicially in that their bad behaviour shows up in different ways. Let's consider some of these negative traits, shall we? Women are more vain, gossippy, and vindictive than men. Women are also more likely to make judgemens based on their feelings. Given the opportunity, women will be as violent as any man. It's jsut that on a regular basis, thier evil manifests in different ways.<BR/><BR/>You'll probably just ignore this as it doesn't fit your liberal dogma, ironic since you condemmned "zealots" in an earlier post about "Action Philosophers".<BR/><BR/><BR/>And if women are supposed to be smarter, why are there more men in business and politics, and don't give me that "glass ceiling" crap. Men have more street smarts. Also, most scientists and engineers are male.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152204614900020902006-07-06T11:50:00.000-05:002006-07-06T11:50:00.000-05:00I don't know but, I'm thinkin', 'You can realistic...I don't know but, I'm thinkin', 'You can realistically wrap your brain around the idea of some man flying through the air in some red tights or shooting lasers out of his eyes and disentergrating metal, but you can't even conceive of a female villan?' Sounds kinda sexist to me. <BR/>I have to agree with an earlier poster who said that comics have typically been drawn by men, who simply see the world from their points of view. And what a limited point of view it is! <BR/>Talk to women you know, we have so many more motivations than the men in our lives! And yes, on a quasi-realistic level, the female super hero/villain won't be as physically strong as their male counterparts, however, their mental powers can be as great and greater. <BR/>The women in comic books like 'Birds of Prey' allow girls/women to project ourselves into the fantasy world of comics as well. Why should we always be looking to the men as our 'super' heroes? In films, we often root for the bad guy, because that's who we want to be. We want to be able to raise a middle finger up to the system. It feels good to give Bush the bird, knowhati'msayin? Why can't it be a woman flippin' the bird? Think 'Thelma and Louise' or 'Set It Off'. Women loved these movies! We got to see ourselves bucking the system.<BR/>All I'm sayin' is that this is a fantasy world anyway, why can't the girls come play too?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15248084153585783484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152135614738308682006-07-05T16:40:00.000-05:002006-07-05T16:40:00.000-05:00Here's the thing, Isaac, it is an oppressive argum...Here's the thing, Isaac, it is an oppressive argument because he's arguing that female superheros and villains are unbelievable to him while a number of us want to see them so we can project ourselves into the story.Ragnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152128573238123372006-07-05T14:42:00.000-05:002006-07-05T14:42:00.000-05:00I guess, but the argument seems to be that because...I guess, but the argument seems to be that because some see female superheroes or villains as less plausible than men this is a precident for oppressing women who don't fit in, something I don't buy into. There are other studies, I think I heard somewhere that women in the army are alot less likely go to the front lines then men. This doesn't make women less brave, it just means that women are less likely to intentionally put themselves in danger, and that when reading fiction I find it easier to buy into a male superhero. I don't have anything against the idea of strong women in costumes fighting crime or taking over the world, I just think that really only happens in fantasy.<BR/><BR/>Ok, I've probably been offencive by accident, I'll stop now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152124281802843332006-07-05T13:31:00.000-05:002006-07-05T13:31:00.000-05:00Women abuse their children. Women in Lesbian relat...Women abuse their children. Women in Lesbian relationships are also the victims of abuse from their partner. Women start and get into fights with other women. Women also hit their husbands/boyfriends as well. Women experience road rage. More often then not, women simply aren't arrested for these acts of violence. <BR/><BR/>When given the oppurtunity, women will be as violent, as evil, and as stupid as men. Just as men can be good, nourishing, and caring.<BR/><BR/>After all, it isn't safe approaching a female wild animal, is it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152106615099210042006-07-05T08:36:00.000-05:002006-07-05T08:36:00.000-05:00Why Most Published Research Findings Are Falsehttp...Why Most Published Research Findings Are False<BR/><BR/>http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=11737441&postID=115193028456961084&isPopup=true<BR/><BR/>Corollary 1: The smaller the studies conducted in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. <BR/><BR/>Corollary 2: The smaller the effect sizes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.<BR/><BR/>Corollary 3: The greater the number and the lesser the selection of tested relationships in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.<BR/><BR/>Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.<BR/><BR/>Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. <BR/><BR/>Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true. <BR/><BR/>It seems like the study that Ragnell seems to want would involve/break some of these Corollaries as well.<BR/><BR/>It's been an interesting discussion none the less.Hate Filled Posterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00965492342916144479noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152091373270841392006-07-05T04:22:00.000-05:002006-07-05T04:22:00.000-05:00Wow this is one hell of a thread. I have to cast m...Wow this is one hell of a thread. I have to cast my vote in with the dissenters, however.<BR/><BR/>Especially when it comes to that article about the UPenn study as a basis for the claim that aggression is innate in men and not in women. I highly suggest that you read my article on <A HREF="http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-07-05_324" REL="nofollow">Embracing Your Inner Skeptic</A> which discusses why it's not a good idea to use one interpretation of a single study with a small sampling size as evidence that a cultural bias has been "proven" by science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152087441627492512006-07-05T03:17:00.000-05:002006-07-05T03:17:00.000-05:00Isaac -- 116 right-handed people who all live in t...Isaac -- 116 right-handed people who all live in the same area are a good enough cross-section of humanity to base these generalizations on?<BR/><BR/>And how do you know class, which indicates health and diet and upbringing during the crucial formative years doesn't affect the structure of a human mind? How do you know age wouldn't have an affect? Who's to say that the area is always larger in women? Suppose that it's larger in women are one age, but larger in men when older? What if the hypothesis is totally disproven when a different age group is studied? What if adolescent boys have a larger tissue area than adolescent girls? What then? We only know they were under 50. We don't know how wide a variety we got, or the differences at the age. The study itself is not even linked in that article.<BR/><BR/>How do you know race doesn't play a factor? How do you know what plays a factor? We don't have the variables there. We don't have a followup, we don't have corroboration. We have a mere 116 people based on the theory that "larger tissue area = more control," and we have nothing that even theorizes about what causes the larger tissue in the female subjects. Our brains aren't born fully developed, you know.<BR/><BR/><I>And although people have already said similar things here and the topic is getting old, I'd like to add that I don't see the major objections to Scipio's post. Culturally conditioned or biological, why should women be more/as violent? There isn't motivation, they aren't encouraged (in general) and aren't as physically capable (again, in general).</I><BR/><BR/>As for the major objections -- I have 3: <BR/><BR/>1) In the Victorian Age a number of extremely stupid things were said about a woman's place in the world based on scientific hypotheses that were eventually proven wrong. This is an article citing a single study, and please note the words "possible" and "our belief" and other such quantifiers, placed there to carefully point out that this is not exactly Holy Writ we're discussing here. They aren't finished researching, they weren't in 2002, it's too early to be basing assumptions on this study.<BR/><BR/>2) People who base general assumptions about other people on single scientific studies rarely know anything about the <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" REL="nofollow">Scientific Method</A>. Any scientist worth their salt is a skeptic, particularly at the early stages and especially when it supports conventional wisdom -- because the researchers are most likely to be biased in favor of conventional wisdom.<BR/><BR/>3) Even when seemingly justifiable generalizations are made, too often they are presented as universal fact. This, in turn, used to tell women who do not fall under the generalization that they are "unnatural."<BR/><BR/>While you may argue Scipio did not present the argument as universal fact in his original post, please note that he was using it to support the idea that the female characters seemed unnatural to him. How do you suppose a woman who sees that idea and regularly identifies with characters such as Manhunter or Power Girl, aggressive and violent female characters, would react? They'd take it as a personal attack.<BR/><BR/>That's not to say all of the comments here are acceptable, some of them indicate a severe need for psychological help -- but I am saying that this idea, this idea that a character that rings true to many female readers yet doesn't ring true to other readers because "that's not how women behave" needs to be challenged. Because obviously these characters are speaking to some of us.<BR/><BR/>Scipio -- No offense, man, but you missed widely on this one.Ragnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152085543187528122006-07-05T02:45:00.000-05:002006-07-05T02:45:00.000-05:00As a counter-point, you can't make this up, either...As a counter-point, you can't make this up, either:<BR/>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9469-dodging-punishment-may-be-its-own-reward.html<BR/><BR/>How about a flipside to your argument: If men are too "hot-headed," violent, aggressive, and prone to jackassery, as you claim, would you argue men shouldn't be involved in, say, government and diplomacy? Being "more likely to be narrow-minded or short-sighted" would be a liability, you'd think.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152081698249191612006-07-05T01:41:00.000-05:002006-07-05T01:41:00.000-05:00Ragnel, how closely have you read the article? Yo...Ragnel, how closely have you read the article? You ask; <BR/><BR/>"How many people participated? What age were the participants? What races? What social backgrounds? How many men vs how many women?" It says;<BR/> <BR/>"The Gurs' study measured the ratio of orbital to amygdala volume in a sample of 116 right-handed, healthy adults younger than 50 years of age; 57 subjects were male and 59 were female."<BR/><BR/>True, it doesn't mention class or race, but I doubt either effects the size of a part of the brain. As for "what about social conditioning?", that's not relevant to the article, it's only saying that there is a physical difference between the part of a brain that causes aggression; <BR/><BR/>"Once the scientists adjusted their measurements to allow for the difference between men and women in physical size, they found that the women's brains had a significantly higher volume of orbital frontal cortex in proportion to amygdala volume than did the brains of the men."<BR/><BR/>And although people have already said similar things here and the topic is getting old, I'd like to add that I don't see the major objections to Scipio's post. Culturally conditioned or biological, why should women be more/as violent? There isn't motivation, they aren't encouraged (in general) and aren't as physically capable (again, in general).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152074291931021852006-07-04T23:38:00.000-05:002006-07-04T23:38:00.000-05:00Fascinating study, Scipio! But I see no link to t...Fascinating study, Scipio! But I see no link to the details.<BR/><BR/>How many people participated? What age were the participants? What races? What social backgrounds? How many men vs how many women?<BR/><BR/>Are there other parts of the brain that can compensate for this particular part?<BR/><BR/>Is this a section of the brain determined by biological hardwiring alone, or can it be influenced to develop differently at an early age?<BR/>If it is the second answer, can the early social conditioning given to a little girl have nutured this area of the brain? What about the social conditioning given to boys? Is it possible that our cultural mores are causing early harm to young developing male minds?<BR/><BR/>How many times has this hypothesis been tested? Just once? Twice? Numerous times over several years? Or is this just one study, likely to be overturned by the next study as so many scientific studies are overturned?<BR/><BR/>How biased were the researchers? Was it a blind comparison or did they know before they accumulated the results which scan belonged to which person? Or which group? Or which gender?Ragnellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00373059673228550524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11737441.post-1152071277809943092006-07-04T22:47:00.000-05:002006-07-04T22:47:00.000-05:00http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?46...<A>http://www.upenn.edu/researchatpenn/article.php?461&sci</A><BR/><BR/>I really don't make this stuff up, ya know!Scipiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16217376618860561999noreply@blogger.com