51–60 of 298 posts
I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with wom…
Go to walmart please.
I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with wom…
Isn't the phrase "don't be a pussy" part of your culture? Has your culture got over with most cheerleaders being white, female and fit already?
The fact things have gotten better with time doesn't mean we are living the golden age of gender equality.
The only real reason why computer systems ask for gender information is so they can address you "properly". Some languages have neutral pronounds (their, them, etc) for that, others don't. If your users are using a language where this doesn't exist, tough luck for them. I'm sure every language at least has some kind of rule (ie "use male pronouns when in doubt") of dealing with these situations.
My Facebook profile at least has the option of not showing my gender, even if it doesn't let me select Other or NoneOfYourDamnedBusiness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly, gender should be represented as a user-chosen 32-bit value with separate R, G, B, and A channels, and conveniently represented as an 8-digit hexadecimal number. In this Portable Network Gender (PNG) system, the R channel is degree of traditional female gender; the B is degree of traditional male gender; the G is a catchall for other gender expressions (or perhaps a lookup table rather than a magnitude); the…
Jokes aside, I like to fit people into two numbers between 0 and 1, non-inclusive. The first, number A represents your gender identification, with 0 being ideally female and 1 ideally male (remember the scale is non inclusive of the bounds). The second number B represents the gender identification that you're attracted to. So, for example: Hetero male: A=0.8, B=0.2 Gay male: A 0.7 b 0.9, or a 0.8 b 0.7 It's a conveni…
Making gender one-dimensional is of course richer than using a boolean flag, but I think the problem is even more complicated than that.
EDIT: as gjm11 states, I'm wrong and your scale is indeed two dimensional, as in one might feel a (wo)man and be attracted to a (wo)man.
I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with wom…
Be careful with thinking that issues you think you have solved for yourself, or that you believe your friends have solved, are issues society or culture have solved. Isn't the phrase "don't be a pussy" part of your culture? Has your culture got over with most cheerleaders being white, female and fit already? The fact things have gotten better with time doesn't mean we are living the golden age of gender equality.
Has your culture gotten over most chippendales being male, well-endowed and fit?
There are people who enjoy sexuality and sensuality, I personally don't care that there are a segment of women who enjoy chippendales it doesn't threaten me as a man. If women want to enjoy that sort of thing they should be free to. I would expect that a woman would be able to view chippendales and then come to the office in the morning and not slap me on the ass, just as I would expect a man who watched cheerleaders at a football game to not slap women on the ass at the office.
There are going to be people who are going to look at me and think that I got to where I am in life simply by looking at the color of my skin and my gender. I'm much more interested in meeting those people who would rather know the content of my character. I know that in some circumstances I've probably benefitted greatly because of my gender, I also know very well the circumstances that have been detrimental to me because of my gender. I choose to take those detrimental gender biases and overcome them not worrying that I cannot simply because of my gender.
Life is not about the hand you were dealt, life is about how you played it. In all honesty anyone born in a G8 nation regardless of gender or race has been dealt a tremendous hand that is enviable to the better part of the world.
I don't get this trend at all. Something is wrong with priorities and perceived risk vs. real risk. It's pretty difficult to assault someone physically over the internet ( http://bash.org/?4281 ). On the other hand, woman broadcasts her gender when in public. Will x years from now we all be walking in some kind of uniform enclosures as to protect from anyone knowing if one is male or female? Also, in some languages n…
At first, that struck me as excessive, too, but on the other hand, I can't help but wonder how much of an effect language has on the way people think, and gender-specific pronouns are something that really reinforces the concept of "other".
There's no logical reason for encoding gender into the grammar of a language, particularly as opposed to some other construct that would be better at distinguishing between multiple subjects in the same passage.
Of course, I wouldn't go to the extent of forcing children to use non-standard language, but I can't disagree with the idea that we'd be better off switching to gender-neutral pronouns.
I'm just glad Google+ has an "other" option to begin with. Facebook lets you hide gender (which would be nice to have in google+), but they only offer male/female. Really, I'm more disgruntled that Google+ lets you put down your relationship status and types of relationships you're looking for, but no way to specify which genders if any you are interested in talking to. I've been mulling over removing that part from…
Why not only add female friends to their circles then?
I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with wom…
I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with wom…
That would be a great analogy if the sort of violence that takes place between men and women in society was remotely comparable to war, however until we start heavily arming everyone, organising them into regiments and having them deployed in tactical situations (and a whole bunch of other things which make physical strength massively less significant as a factor than it is in civilian situations) it's just nonsense.
> Also, keep in mind that a man is twice as likely to be assaulted as a woman so from a statistical perspective it is men who should be fearing for their safety as they post their gender online.
Yes, because statistics compiled from physical life situations such as bar fights are a useful gauge of on-line behaviour. By your reasoning we shouldn't worry about on-line safety of children because the statistics show they're almost never assaulted.
I agree with you that it's not the norm but that's not to say that it's not an issue. Given that there is absolutely no justifiable reason for it, a relatively small instance of it can be significant and worthy of mention. School shootings are statistically insignificant but you can't deny they say something important about society. Saying it "defines our culture" might be going over the top, but it's not a footnote either.
I take great offense to my culture being defined as "relentless treatment of women as objects teaches them that they are defined by the one thing that men around them want from them" Yes some people do that, but VERY few. It's as silly as thinking that all gay men speak with lisps, yes some do and those that do are very identifiable as likely gay. Yes there is always that guy in the bar that is inappropriate with wom…