Sexy sexism talk
-
I always picture yall as 8 year olds at their first athletic event, complaining that some of the lanes get a head start.
How do they dive into the middle of the pool?
-
Does everything in your life, including the population of every store you go to, match the gender and racial makeup of your country? No? RAGE
Not rage. Consider. There may be valid reasons for gender balance to be different in some places. But we were talking about movies. As a major cultural influence the messages they send have great impact so it's important to think about whether those messages are desirable.
Hey, let's make sure half of all major league sports players are women!
Thanks for the strawman.
-
How do they dive into the middle of the pool?
Well, if they're 8 year olds, presumably without the adult in charge's permission.
-
@FrostCat might know where I got that from.
I don't so I'm going to take it at face value and refer you to the part of the comment you're replying to that you left out. The very next sentence, in fact.
-
Bah, artificial balance is stupid.
The theory is approximately that the balance is currently not there because of history, not because of what the actual nature of people/society as a whole is, and thus forcing things a bit to shift things out of the self-reinforcing rut is justifiable. Or so the theory goes. Frankly, I'm not convinced that the arts needs to act on this nearly as much as other parts of society; televised pro sports are far more misogynist, for example.
The real problems probably come at the level of what gets funded and to what level, and which people get held up as role models, to whom and how. (Also, the preceding sentence doesn't just apply to the whole feminism thing: that's not the only problem area…)
-
I don't so I'm going to take it at face value and refer you to the part of the comment you're replying to that you left out. The very next sentence, in fact.
The No True Feminist, eh? You can imagine whatever you want. If that's all feminist means, then they won a long time ago and should shut the fuck up about feminism.
There are a few types of feminism in the US. The most common one boils down to two things:
- Vote Democrat
- Anything that promotes abortion
This is wrong and sometimes a little crazy. When you wander into academia, things get really weird. There, it's really about hating men and being lesbian. Interestingly, some of the most "transphobic" people are in this bloc, too.
Sure, you can say that these people aren't True Feminists, but they're the ones writing all the books and teaching all the Women's Studies courses that attempt to indoctrinate young impressionable women.
-
televised pro sports are far more misogynist, for example.
How so? Are they more racist, too?
-
The No True Feminist, eh?
Words have meanings. You can't just lump a bunch of different people in a group and then apply the label for that group to all the people who don't match it.
If that's all feminist means, then they won a long time ago and should shut the fuck up about feminism.
Legally, yes, women have had the same rights for a long time. Socially things still need to get better.
Vote Democrat
Anything that promotes abortionThis [categorisation] is wrong and
sometimes a little crlazy.When you wander into academia, things get really weird.
That probably goes for just about any area of academia. Except maybe engineering because it's hard to hide from reality when a bridge falls down. Even science has crazies.
Sure, you can say that these people aren't True Feminists, but they're the ones writing all the books and teaching all the Women's Studies courses that attempt to indoctrinate young impressionable women.
All of them? No, they're the crazy extremist nutbags that make the press all the time precisely because they're crazy nutbags. Genuine feminism has pretty wide-ranging support so it doesn't make news.
-
How so? Are they more racist, too?
Not really sure about that but they're definitely more homophobic.
-
Words have meanings. You can't just lump a bunch of different people in a group and then apply the label for that group to all the people who don't match it.
They all claim that label, and claim the others are impostors.
All of them? No, they're the crazy extremist nutbags that make the press all the time precisely because they're crazy nutbags.
I can see you are unfamiliar with modern women's studies curricula.
Genuine feminism has pretty wide-ranging support so it doesn't make news.
I agree as far as what you mean by "genuine feminism," and it shouldn't make news, just like "water is wet."
Not really sure about that but they're definitely more homophobic.
Are they? It doesn't seem to come up that much, relatively speaking, whereas the racism is most obvious and prevalent as all hell. Look at how many NBA players are black. That's some mighty disparate impact if ever there was any. Gay people are a tiny fraction of the population, especially compared to the variety of races.
-
Indeed -- my late grandfather spoke of being an extra himself (in Dances with Wolves, as he was a Civil War re-enactor at the time).
My grandfather did a lot of community theatre, and he would occasionally get calls to be an extra in this or that. He and my grandmother are in a restaurant scene in a very forgettable 70's remake of Miracle on 34th Street. My mother and I were visiting them when he got a call for an even more forgettable 70's sci-fi TV show — I don't even remember the name. All three of them were in it. I would have been, too, but I wasn't quite 18 at the time; I had the work permit required for a minor to get a job, but not the extra-super-duper-special permit required to work in the entertainment industry, so I just stood around all day and watched them shoot.
-
But we were talking about movies. As a major cultural influence the messages they send have great impact so it's important to think about whether those messages are desirable.
If you have a message, call Western Union.
— Commonly (mis)attributed to Samuel Goldwyn. Possibly by Oscar®-nominated screenwriter Moss Hart. Also attributed to Humphrey Bogart and Ernest Hemingway.
-
They all claim that label, and claim the others are impostors.
Crazy nutjobs can be ignored. Let's go to the dictionary:
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.
Look at how many NBA players are black
So I now refer you to another previous comment I made about there sometimes being good non-racist reasons for the racial composition of a group to be different to the national composition. The prevalence of black NBA players is due to performance. They have a genetic advantage. Maybe there's racism in there as well, I don't really know, but the racial composition isn't evidence of it.
Gay people are a tiny fraction of the population
It's hard to determine this for many reasons.
Let's say around 2-3%. That's not really "a tiny fraction". I don't know anything about sports, so I'll randomly choose Major League Baseball. How many Major League Baseball players are there?
What is the number of teams in MLB? - Answers
That's a kind of trick question. The reason is that there is an "active roster" and a "40 man roster". The 40 man roster on each team is what most folks point to as being how many players on each team. There are 32 teams, and 40 players on each team, that's 1280 pleayers in MLB.
About 1200 depending how you count. How many are gay? Holy shit, this surprises me because it's even fewer than I expected: There has only ever been one!
Why no gay players?
-
Thanks for the strawman.
That wasn't intended to be one. It was intended to be an example of why forcing gender balance isn't a good idea.
But if people think it is, they should explain why they aren't in favor of firing a bunch of female HR people and hiring men in the job until there's a balance, if they're not. Sauce for the goose and all.
-
I don't so I'm going to take it at face value and refer you to the part of the comment you're replying to that you left out.
It happens to be a person who's studying modern feminism and reporting on it.
The other RMS, right, @boomzilla?
-
televised pro sports are far more misogynist, for example.
I say, throw women into the NFL! And tell them not to complain if they can't keep up with the men.
For that matter, let's go ahead and let women in the combat specialties in the military. But if they can't meet the same physical standards as the men, too bad: they're the ones who are always telling us gender differences don't exist, so they should be able to do 20 chin-ups or whatever, right?
-
That's not really "a tiny fraction".
I think we can reasonably call one in fifty of whatever a tiny fraction, for most things. A one in fifty mixture of [your booze of choice] in water doesn't taste much like [your booze of choice], nor is it likely to have the usual effects when drunk.
-
-
I had an English teacher in college who always put in his syllabus a comment about wandering troglodytes occasionally putting up fake "class cancelled" notices on his classrooms. That was about the time that TSR or WotC (if the latter had bought the former) put out a CCG or maybe just a set of trading cards. I bought a few of them 'cos they looked cool, and when I got a troglodyte card I gave it to him.
-
firing
Nobody ever in the history of anything ever got fired just so an opposite-gendered person could be hired.
firing a bunch of female HR people and hiring men in the job until there's a balance
But the hiring part, maybe there's validity to your argument there, depending of course on what reasons there may be for any current gender imbalance. For example, I think it's a good idea to encourage more males to become teachers, and to spend money on that. Not to fire female teachers, outlaw hiring female teachers, not even to mandate what percentage of new hires should be male.
The other RMS, right, @boomzilla?
Roads and Maritime Services?
I say, throw women into the NFL! And tell them not to complain if they can't keep up with the men.
I say throw the men and the women to the lions. Fuck sports.
For that matter, let's go ahead and let women in the combat specialties in the military
They are currently excluded only from special forces in the Australian Army and that's expected to change in the next year or two. So... what's your point?
But if they can't meet the same physical standards as the men, too bad: they're the ones who are always telling us gender differences don't exist, so they should be able to do 20 chin-ups or whatever, right?
Nobody ever in the history of anything ever said gender differences don't exist. Why can't women be asked to do 20 chin-ups or whatever? I've never been able to but if I weren't a couple of years too old I could at least apply for special forces and be assessed on merit instead of gender or sex.
I think we can reasonably call one in fifty of whatever a tiny fraction, for most things
As always, it depends. 1 litre of water in 50 or even 100 litres of fuel will fuck up your day. I think people are important so even 1 in 50 is significant.
-
But the hiring part, maybe there's validity to your argument there, depending of course on what reasons there may be for any current gender imbalance.
I can tell you what it is. You might or might not believe me.
For example, I think it's a good idea to encourage more males to become teachers, and to spend money on that.
It would be a good idea, but it's not likely since men have been demonized so much. Many parents are afraid of male teachers.
Roads and Maritime Services?
Actually, I goofed in service of a joke. It's RSM, Robert Stacy McCain.
They are currently excluded only from special forces in the Australian Army and that's expected to change in the next year or two. So... what's your point?
I have no idea what the standards are in Australia. In the US, they cut the physical standards down drastically, and even then most women are unable to meet them to date.
If you were in combat, would you want the person next to you to be someone who couldn't drag you back into a foxhole because she wasn't strong enough? Or someone who left half her pack behind at base because she couldn't carry it? This is precisely where relaxing standards will eventually get someone.
Nobody ever in the history of anything ever said gender differences don't exist.
Oh, you naif, you're so funny! I'll be sure to let all the people who were shocked their boys turned the dolls they were given into toy guns.
Why can't women be asked to do 20 chin-ups or whatever?
They can be. But it turns out they can't. At least, the women who've tried to get into combat positions in the US couldn't.
I've never been able to but if I weren't a couple of years too old I could at least apply for special forces and be assessed on merit instead of gender or sex.
If you couldn't do that I wouldn't want to be next to you in a foxhole either. I can't do it now, because I'm 44, overweight and out of shape due to being lazy, but if I wanted to, I could get so I could in a few weeks, barring an unforeseen difficulty.
As always, it depends.
I believe that is why I wrote "for most things" and you even quoted it.
even 1 in 50 is significant.
Perhaps you are unaware, mathematically, what that word means. Hint: it doesn't mean "important" in this context.
-
@Homestar Runner said:
Making out with Marzipan is totally awesome!
Homestar is nothing but a total loser!
@Homestar Runner said:
Pom-Pom and Strong Bad are totally going out!
But Homestar can win the stupid competition!
@Homestar Runner said:
Kitchenette Strong Bad is making draconian marshmallow poink!
Oh! Hi, Simone!
-
But if they can't meet the same physical standards as
the meneveryone else is required to, too bad: they're the ones who are always telling us gender differences don't exist, so they should be able to do 20chinpull-ups or whatever, right?FTFY; tl;dr note at end ;-)
Among other things, yes.
Having been in the Navy myself, I can tell you that, although the number of women were relatively few and far between, those that were there kept up better than most of the men.
My wife has a female cousin that punches like a man and can hold her own against just about anyone. I'm sure given the proper training and assuming the talent and interest were there, she probably could have qualified on a pro football team in her prime.
None of this invalidates the original "if they can't meet the same physical standards as the men, too bad" statement, though I expanded it to ensure no one (e.g., transsexuals) gets omitted.
As an engineer, I look at is as: "You meet the standards, you're in." The only question left is the purpose for which the standards were created: are they sufficient and proper to accomplish the task at hand without going so far off the other end of the scale that you end up unnecessarily eliminating the otherwise qualified?
Application: The above should help resolve a controversial topic: should the ability to read and write be required in order to vote? Some say no, as it's racist (because it has been abused in the past - search literacy tests in this link). However, if the person given a voting ballot can't read it, how are they supposed to be able to choose the candidate(s) they want to vote for (in other words, how can they communicate their intentions)?
Administering tests requiring them to solve Calculus equations or do a doctoral thesis on the works of Shakespeare would be an obviously ridiculous standard, but I'd say a simple comprehension test of third-grade reading material with multiple-choice straightforward questions and answers would be more than sufficient.
As for the illiterates, bring someone who is literate to read the ballots and fill out the forms for them, and a third party election volunteer can ensure the forms are being filled out per the voter's decisions.
Case in point: In the last election, about 16,000 people (out of over 30k registered) in one Ward in Chicago voted for an Alderman. One Alderman won over the other by a mere 30 votes in the runoff, even though he came in second in the initial round. Assuming a 1% illiteracy rate, that's 160 votes that might have been miscommunicated due to the person punching the wrong ballot entry. (Don't even get me started over the confusion generated by the fact that the two Aldermen neck and neck in the running had the same first name, which is an argument against allowing stupid people to vote, a WTF in its own right and a rant reserved for a different thread entirely.)
Anyhow; this is how we elect our representatives in government in the USA? And we wonder why the system is a
?tl;dr: Don't let bigoted people set the rules in the first place, and we'll all be fine.
-
It would be a good idea, but it's not likely since men have been demonized so much. Many parents are afraid of male teachers.
That's exactly my point. Men have the legal right to become teachers but that doesn't mean equality has been achieved in that field.
If you were in combat, would you want the person next to you to be someone who couldn't drag you back into a foxhole because she wasn't strong enough?
I'd prefer not to be in combat in the first place.
This is precisely where relaxing standards will eventually get someone.
I don't know why you think "let women apply for combat roles" means "relaxing standards". It means "don't exclude women simply because they're women without even testing them".
Hint: it doesn't mean "important" in this context.
That's pretty much exactly what it means. We weren't speaking of mathematics so I'm not sure where you go that from. We were speaking of what fraction of a population of people has a certain characteristic.
-
Because who cares about generic characters? They could be martians.
Because people see movies, and it influences not just what you think in the movie theatre but, just a little bit, what you think of the world. You add up a lot of "just a little bit" and you have a significant effect. If movies usually portray, say, engineers as men, it makes people think that's normal, and it's very natural that would discourage some women from that path. I don't see why this is so controversial.Or said another way -- people of this opinion, like myself, don't think that we're saying people should artificially introduce women... we think that the status quo artificially favors men (in terms of numbers at least). At least to me, if it doesn't matter which you choose it would make sense to come out in equal parts. But that's not what happens.
Like take your NFL or MLB or military examples from later in the thread than this post. Sports are an area where it actually does usually make sense to have separate divisions, because there are actual physical differences1. That's a reason. It's precisely because sex is interchangable for a large number of characters in movies that at least I think that it's a compelling case.
1 I also suspect there are overall mental differences. However, in both of these cases I suspect that inter-sex differences are small compared to intra-sex variations. Something like this, for many metrics:
The thing is, when you're talking pro athletes or something, you're usually talking about the right end where the red curve is multiples of the green instead of (proportionally) slightly higher. So even though having separate divisions makes sense for pros, in general P(Alice is better than Bob at thing | Alice is female and Bob is male) is pretty close to 50-50.
Actually there's not a requirement for "mainish" in the test. Just any two women characters.
Well that makes my gamification idea above all the easier.
That's actually kind of the point: it's an incredibly weak test, and yet a remarkably large proportion of movies fail it. (Wikipedia says about half of contemporary movies.)I think the test is best viewed as an indicative score of the movie industry as a whole than a pass/fail for any specific movie.
This is definitely true. I think if it as sort of the BMI (in what it was developed for) of movie gender balance.My BMI is about 23.5. Aaron Rodger's is 28.9. Normal is 18.9--24.9 and overweight is 25.0--29.9. I think I know which of us is in better shape and, concussions aside, in better health. Rodger's doesn't indicate a problem in his case. But the average in the US is 27.82 according to the WHO; what's the chance that, on a population-wide scale, is healthy?
Similarly, I'm pretty sure Apollo 13 (one of my top couple favorite movies) doesn't meet the Bechdel test. But... this is basically OK, and to be expected. There was apparently one woman working for Mission Control during Apollo 13, and statistically speaking chances are it wasn't for Gene Kranz's team; and except for John Aaron and a few other glimpses, I think all of the controllers in the movie were from Kranz's team. It's a period film, and accurate to that period. But when every other movie fails the Bechdel test... that indicates a problem.
It would be a good idea, but it's not likely since men have been demonized so much. Many parents are afraid of male teachers.
I would posit that this wouldn't be nearly as true as it is if there were more male teachers in (1) reality and (2) media. (1) would obviously help more, but I strongly suspect (2) would help too.
-
If movies usually portray, say, engineers as men, it makes people think that's normal, and it's very natural that would discourage some women from that path.
You got it backwards - engineers in movies are men because movie producers think that's normal. They're not making up stereotypes, they're just reinforcing them.
-
You got it backwards - engineers in movies are men because movie producers think that's normal. They're not making up stereotypes, they're just reinforcing them.
Well, not exactly backwards, because as you say it's a positive feedback loop. But yes, I could have been more precise in my wording. ("it contributes to people thinking that's normal" instead of "it makes people think that's normal")
-
You're ignoring the fact that if people DIDN'T THINK SO IN THE FIRST PLACE, the movie producers WOULDN'T MAKE SUCH MOVIE AT ALL.
-
- The proportion of sex-generic characters that wind up as male anyway makes me think you're wrong.
- Even if you're right, I didn't ever say (or at least mean to say) that they started it, just that they're contributing. (Which even you acknowledged when you said they're "reinforcing" the stereotypes.) And contributing to a problem is still a problem.
-
If stereotype is 100% common, you can't make it even more common even if what you're doing is technically reinforcing this stereotype. Making a movie about powerful mages reinforces the stereotype that mages are powerful, but it has no impact on society because all people already think mages are powerful. Same with most global stereotypes (as opposed to local stereotypes, e.g. Poles think Americans don't know shit about geography - putting this specific stereotype in a movie would actually be wrong, as opposed to e.g. women being physically and emotionally weaker than men).
Take a look at this random screenshot:
How many male characters do you see here? How many female characters? Do you think I care? Do you think I would care if it was the other way around?
oN ˙ㄣ oN ˙Ɛ ɯǝɥʇ ɟo ll∀ ˙ᄅ ǝuoN ˙Ɩ :sɹǝʍsu∀
-
-
-
Crazy nutjobs can be ignored. Let's go to the dictionary:
Yeah, the dictionary is always up on what's going on in society.
The prevalence of black NBA players is due to performance. They have a genetic advantage. Maybe there's racism in there as well, I don't really know, but the racial composition isn't evidence of it.
What you said sounds no different than a lot of other things. I mean, the result shouldn't be surprising, since we effectively had a (shameful) several century breeding program for physically superior black people.
It's hard to determine this for many reasons.
I think you're going to need some extraordinary proof to show that sexual orientation is diverse as race (or what is commonly referred to as race, if you are the sort of crazy nutjob who thinks that doesn't exist).
Let's say around 2-3%. That's not really "a tiny fraction".
Ugh...now we're quibbling. I say it is.
-
It happens to be a person who's studying modern feminism and reporting on it.
Exactly. Reading prominent feminist authors so we don't have to.
The other RMS, right, @boomzilla?
Actually, RSM, but I get a little dyslexic on this count sometimes myself.
-
Yeah, the dictionary is always up on what's going on in society.
.. unless the Urban Dictionary is the one that Google chooses...
-
That's exactly my point. Men have the legal right to become teachers but that doesn't mean equality has been achieved in that field.
But what would mean "equality has been achieved?" Before we know that, we can't even know if it's something we want to achieve.
I don't know why you think "let women apply for combat roles" means "relaxing standards".
It's an observation, not a prediction.
We were speaking of what fraction of a population of people has a certain characteristic.
And we disagreed on how we described the fraction. You also dropped part of the comparison which makes it even more extreme, but that's not significant.
-
Because people see movies, and it influences not just what you think in the movie theatre but, just a little bit, what you think of the world. You add up a lot of "just a little bit" and you have a significant effect.
OTOH, if you are determined to force something other than what your audience wants to see, you'll run out of resources with which to make movies.
I agree with Andrew Breitbart, politics are downstream of culture. But it's a tricky thing to push either of those in a direction you want.
Like take your NFL or MLB or military examples from later in the thread than this post. Sports are an area where it actually does usually make sense to have separate divisions, because there are actual physical differences1.
The biggest historical case against this was Billy Jean King vs Bobby Riggs, where she beat him in a match. Evidence continues to pile up that he threw the match (starting with how obviously poorly he played). Women's athletics may be interesting, but in general can't compete directly against men.
-
But the average in the US is 27.82 according to the WHO; what's the chance that, on a population-wide scale, is healthy?
Our lifespan has increased with our BMI, so pretty good, historically speaking.
-
There are 3 types of modern feminist:
Feminists who are wrong
Feminists who are crazy
Feminists who are wrong and crazyWhen in doubt, they're probably #3.
Where do self-righteous indignation and condescension fit into this? I ask because of the particularly annoying type of modern feminist who defines feminism as "the radical notion that women are people". On the upside, when I hear that I know that I can safely ignore whatever that person has to say.
> Hey, let's make sure half of all major league sports players are women!
Thanks for the strawman.
It's not his fault your position is inconsistent.
Words have meanings. You can't just lump a bunch of different people in a group and then apply the label for that group to all the people who don't match it.
Someone didn't get the memo. Words having definite meanings was deprecated some time during the last century.
But what would mean "equality has been achieved?" Before we know that, we can't even know if it's something we want to achieve.
That's crazytalk. Equality is an inherent good. Don't believe me? Just ask a progressive why he wants equality.
-
Where do self-righteous indignation and condescension fit into this? I ask because of the particularly annoying type of modern feminist who defines feminism as "the radical notion that women are people".
You're not sure? Then #3, of course. Proof: The self righteousness is a sign of teh crazy, and the "radical" part shows she's wrong. QED
That's crazytalk. Equality is an inherent good. Don't believe me? Just ask a progressive why he wants equality.
Of course. Not that he can usually define equality.
-
Having been in the Navy myself, I can tell you that, although the number of women were relatively few and far between, those that were there kept up better than most of the men.
I would imagine they'd be motivated to, so that doesn't seem like a surprise.
Men have the legal right to become teachers but that doesn't mean equality has been achieved in that field.
Oh dear. Actually the field has become unequal--equality has been unachieved.
I don't know why you think "let women apply for combat roles" means "relaxing standards". It means "don't exclude women simply because they're women without even testing them".
Let's see. The standard was "20 pull ups" as corrected above. No woman tested could meet that, so they reduced it to "3 pull ups" and most women couldn't meet that. If you don't see that as "relaxing standards" then I don't know what to say. Your irrelevant comment about not wanting to be in combat aside, you do not want people with no upper-body strength in front-line combat positions.
Or building houses, for that matter, probably.
We weren't speaking of mathematics
I guess you forgot about the fact that you brought up ratios of people in the population. That's math, last I checked.
-
That's actually kind of the point: it's an incredibly weak test, and yet a remarkably large proportion of movies fail it. (Wikipedia says about half of contemporary movies.)
Given how easy it would be to game, it probably says something that it hasn't been. Perhaps that something is "most people don't care", perhaps not.
-
Crazy nutjobs can be ignored.
No, they can't. Crazy nutjobs are by far the most vocal and most "active" right now, swamping out the non-crazy non-nutjobs who actually campaign for equality. Have you seen what the OCR is doing in colleges lately?
-
I would posit that this wouldn't be nearly as true as it is if there were more male teachers in (1) reality
Well, that's a fascinating theory except that there used to be a lot of male teachers. Paranoia chased them out.
-
Crazy nutjobs are by far the most vocal and most "active" right now, swamping out the non-crazy non-nutjobs who actually campaign for equality.
Actually, the really crazy nutjobs are fairly well hidden from most people, but they have a strong influence in important parts of the
indoctrinationeducation industry. The visible vocal crazy nutjobs are problematic too, though.Well, that's a fascinating theory except that there used to be a lot of male teachers. Paranoia chased them out.
My FIL theorizes that the rise of the male teacher was avoidance of the Vietnam era draft. He has a couple of cousins who did just that, so maybe his sample is biased, but I think it's plausible.
-
there has to be at least two women, that talk to each other, about something other than a man".
Why talk to each other. This is not even fair.
You're saying that Lucy wasn't protagonist enough, simply because she spent the majority of the time trying to get in contact with a male scientist?
Lara Croft. Nope, she talked to a man.
I mean, if you put that test to reality, it would undermine the achievements of many women.
It's a stupid litmus test.
One would think they'd be more concerned with a woman accomplishing something, rather than avoiding men.
-
Racism
Where the highest achievement is refusing to acknowledge another race.
Feminism.
Where the highest achievement is refusing to acknowledge another gender, only they got the name wrong.
-
Why talk to each other. This is not even fair.
The test suggests--or even says, maybe? I don't care enough about it to check--that people who write movies that can't past the test think women aren't important except as they relate to men.
I wonder how the person who made the test feels about chick flicks, heh.
-
Lara Croft. Nope, she talked to a man.
Yes, but if she also talked to a woman about something other than a man, she'd still pass the test.
-
Isn't that kinda sexist.
I'm sorry Lara, you're badassery and other achievements don't matter unless you find another woman to talk to, and not about a man.
But I really like men.
Nope. The feminists refuse to acknowledge a woman that can't find another woman to talk to.
Fuck, I don't need them. I did all this without their help. points to room full of dead men and broken magical constructs.
I'm sorry Laura, this is the political landscape now.
Well, then, I'll just go back to marketing to men. boobs get slightly bigger.
Demographics of sexual orientation - Wikipedia
