Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kahuna Burger" data-source="post: 968523" data-attributes="member: 8439">One, as pointed out earlier, the magazines words were actually "somewhat ineffectual". More to the point, with respect and the understanding that you may not be aware of your own tone (happens to me enough) you were not simply asking. Quotes from your orriginal post :"Poly tried to reinforce this suggestion with the cover art ...""It seems they are trying to turn human nature upside down. ""In this case, the stereotype is based on reality. ""Men want to be the protector, women the nurturers. Women want to be protected by the men they are romantically interested in. ""It is just saying that women are generally not attracted to men that are physically weaker than themselves (as indicated by their need to be rescued)."It is only in the final paragraph that you bothered to indicate that you were looking for any actual data from more than one woman (or perhaps from the women in Poly's target audience). The rest of your post was very strongly worded as the 'facts' of how (all) women and (all) men think, and as such was fairly insulting to a woman who does not conform to your assumptions.Even after a woman had posted to make it clear that there was AT LEAST one very real woman who did not fit your assumptions, and challenged the broad application of those assumptions, your response was this :"Randomling, there is a human nature - or more specifically, male and female nature. Scientists have recently discovered what wise men and women have known for centuries. That is, men and women are different. Their brains work differently."Combined with your earlier absolute comments, this is not an inquiry anymore, this is you telling us (including women) how woman DO and more importantly SHOULD think. It is insulting, especially with the comment about "wise" men and women having thought this way. (It is also guilty of a common misinterpretation of scientific results which makes me absolutely buggy as an experimental design/stats wonk.) Combining this with other posters who seem to interpret marketing to a modern audience as a plot to socially engineer impressionable youths with 'political correctness' (whatever that means this week <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> ) and I feel my response was not an escalation, but a honest reaction. If the overall tone of your postings was unintentional, I would love to start over and discuss what it is about gamers/geeks/fans that makes the 'women rescueing men' idea more acceptable than it might be to your coworker.Kahuna Burger</blockquote>

Verification