>> ^legacy0100:

Damn she's good. But alas, only if she could produce as much testosterone as boys will once they hit puberty... Nature is unfair.


Yeah it's great watching younger kids play sports together. I used to ref a pair of girls who would beg their coach to put them into a game with the boys, the coach finally relented. I only realized he didn't want to because they ended up scoring 6 goals between them making all the boys look like they were standing still, it was great. They weren't just skilled for girls, they were focused and seriously good.

Heck I was a really fast kid, but I remember the day a girl I knew beat me soundly in Jr. High. She beat all the boys.

This girl is WAY better than I ever was at football. Her parents taught her to wrap up better than most pros.

Damn she's good. But alas, only if she could produce as much testosterone as boys will once they hit puberty... Nature is unfair.

It's an interesting conversation, one I wish we could all have in person as typing is so cumbersome at times.

It's not only about the testosterone which guides the male libido (The penis has nothing to do with it - unless the entire process actually leads to sex - which it can - but most often it doesn't)

It IS, as Enoch points out, about attention. As long as the process of flashing the colourful feathers, gets the attention that is needed, then the individual is validated.

Just a glance or a stare can be enough to bolster a girls confidence (from a male, a female, a family member, a boss or whoever.) And if wearing the right shoes does the trick the validation is achieved. If wearing designer labels works, then validation is achieved. If being seen in a Lamborghini does the trick, then validation is achieved. Everyone has triggers. Sometimes they are emotional triggers brought on by personal trauma - sometimes they are learned triggers brought on by advertizing and society.

Male or female, Validation is all anyone ever wants. Those that have had constant validation in their lives, may not be a slave to the process. But in a society where advertisers constantly try to make us feel like we are not good enough so that they can create a market based on everyone's self image this is the way things work.

If it didn't work so well, they wouldn't do it. I work in advertising. I have been trained to find a way to sell things to people that they don't need. The problem is, I'm a cynic and I can't do it. So every time I have to do it, I find a way around it. That's why I now work at a college (a microcosm of political correctness where I don't have to sell stuff using sex - in fact we go out of our way not to)

So there are two sides to this equation:
1). There is the side where everyone seeks validation either emotionally, physically or by accomplishment.
2). And there is the side where advertising exploits our biological AND emotional needs to sell stuff.

Although they are two very different things, they form a symbiotic relationship and feed off each other.

I know that @bareboards2, you are trying to say, that this "advertising" needs to stop. And ideally, you are right. If you find a way to stop it all let us know. But I also know that this type of marketing is so targeted to our needs at the most basic levels, that this type of thing will never go away. Our personal needs, and desires need it too badly.

To try to explain all this is difficult - I trained for 6-years in art school to manipulate what people see and how to make them see what I want them to see. How to lead them and bring them to my way of thinking through visual media. Advertising is an attack and a science into your needs, sensibilities, emotions and psychological image of your self.

I expect the only way to battle media is through media - The person with the most media and money wins. (it's a propaganda war)

If you want to delve deeper into the psychology of it all - It's an in-depth study - here is a place to start. Start with John Berger's, "Ways of Seeing".
http://videosift.com/video/John-Berger-Art-Critic-interview
http://videosift.com/video/Ways-of-seeing-John-Berger (first episode of four)
http://videosift.com/video/WAYS-OF-SEEING-final-episode-vertising (final episode - Advertising).
The book starts with classical art and leads right up into modern advertising. Check Amazon for reviews.

Comedians always take on this unapologetic, uncompromising, take-it-or-leave-it attitude in order emit their confidence while delivering their lines. To them, showing weakness on stage means the death sentence because when the audience see your confidence dwindle, they no longer find your jokes funny.

It is a very aggressive medium. When comedians do well, they often say 'I killed it'. When they screw up, they say 'It bombed'. Everything is violent and super testosterone driven. The comedian on stage has to be in control, in domination mode, in for the kill. This is one of the reasons why there aren't that many female comics out there.

Some comedians are socially savvy enough to work in their confidence without putting down their audience too much, but for the large majority they believe in keeping the audience in check. Hence why they always would not let a heckler get away with it. It means the whole performance for them.

What's wrong with "hyper aggressive testosterone fueled noise"?

This is the equivalent of showing somebody who has never heard any rock music some Coldplay and Nickelback, and then asking them what the think of the genre. It saddens me that Skrillex and his ilk have abducted this word for their own brand of hyper aggressive testosterone fueled noise.

What we really have hear is "Elders react to Skrillex" and honestly their opinions don't really differ from a lot of 20yr olds

What a superb Tour de FAIL [despite the Blair Witch video stylings]. There must have been a mile wide testosterone slick mixed in with the combustible engine fluids after all was said and done =oO

Our family used to be filled with joy, now there's male testosterone.

Bang up party ... testosterone laden to be sure

Exactly. That's why I used the word "militant".>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
I think Aliens is a horrible movie, at least for that franchise. It's more about testosterone than it is about aliens. Too much militant bravado for my taste.

Should I remind you that almost everyone in that film was in the military...?

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:

I think Aliens is a horrible movie, at least for that franchise. It's more about testosterone than it is about aliens. Too much militant bravado for my taste.


Should I remind you that almost everyone in that film was in the military...?

I think Aliens is a horrible movie, at least for that franchise. It's more about testosterone than it is about aliens. Too much militant bravado for my taste.

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

Don had me spending my allowance on Mowtown and Stax 45's along with all the great rock n' Roll during the same time-Never got to see black folks showin' out before on television before the Soul Train started making regular stops-Where I lived it was usually on Sunday afternoon at about 4-5 pm, after Wide Woirld of Sports or right before another great Sunday favor4ite, The Lawrence Welk Show, which showcased some of the hottest white-bread talent ever to thrill the perennial, un-hip.

See, geeks in the old days children, listened to some really square shit. Don Ho.
Burl Ives or some Frankie Laine or Montavanni. Oh, and allll of someones parents had at least three soundtracks from some popular musical from the 60's in their musty collection, along with one or two lame folk records recorded BY white folks(coked-up) in America, for the same (Joe and Mary blow), kind of like you youngsters all do now , but with a much more socially acceptable veneer of status-quo wholesomeness(terminal squareness)-

Oh and Don Cornelius? What most folks never dreamed was how, before there was internet porn or white folks wandering into black churches for the music and hip-shakin', you were able to land the longest-running syndicated (35 seasons, 2nd only to Pat Robertson's, The 700 Club) weekly television show where a LARGE MAJORITY of the viewing audience were white males between the ages of 12 and 67, tuning in every week after getting pumped-up on testosterone to watch some fine-ass, booty-groovin', soul sisters command the nation with gyration.

Sad to know you couldn't take the pain any more Don-Watched your last broadcast back in the mid nineties. Amazing brother indeed. Almost never missed a show for ten years straight.

testosterone +/- untreated mood disorders +/- adrenalin + authority = this