interesting artical

Snowie

im not saying what im thinking but what are your opinions.

on this

artical?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/video-games/8366692/No-iPad-No-Xbox-And-you-call-yourself-a-grown-man.html


tho i will say id rather play my ps3 then wathc back to croention street east enders and holly oaks :rolleyes:

But thats ok

Count Duckula

I'm sick of this ****ing bull**** that permeates modern day society in the guise of "feminism", "gender-equality", "sociological studies on why men are such useless pigs and women infantile little people desperate to be owned by a man via marriage".

Men and women are less different than these so-called "experts" would have you believe. Gender roles are tosh, everyone knows they're tosh, and yet these commentators make millions of pounds telling everyone they're tosh whilst subtly reinforcing them.

Some women will like a man who is mature and confident. Some women will like a man who is fun and in touch with his youth. Some women will like women. What a person wants is not determined from their gender by some mystical higher power who can look down on the world and say "all men like this, and all women like this".

The sooner this culture stops bombarding us with gender-discriminatory tat, stops screaming that all women want to get married, that all men are horrible, that all women are more intelligent and better at raising kids, that all men make better leaders and like a good fight, the better. It's becoming a farce, and a dangerous one at that.

You tell enough young people that both genders do different things and they'll grow up believing it. We'll never grow out of our gender divisions because we're never being given the chance. If men and women and straights and gays and whites and blacks and Asians and hispanics and the old and the young really want people to stop seeing them in those rigid terms - and making assumptions and sweeping judgements accordingly - then they need to stop the media of this world lumping them into those groups and loudly pointing out their differences.

Some men like to play video games. So do some women. In other words, some people like to play video games and enjoy themselves. Get over it.

Sorry for the rant.

folan

im not sure what the article is about?

people who grew up enjoying something continued to enjoy it? Boys who grew up enjoying football still watched it and played it 20 years ago. thats not changed. Just whats available to enjoy has grown.

The same can be said for many things across the gender divide.

deirdre_dub

Right - let's take that article apart piece by piece!!!

First of all, there is the assertion that modern men are stuck in perpetual childhood. Eh, well, pretty much all the men I know are quite responsible adults, actually! I feel sorry for the author of the article if all his male friends are still children - it's about time he grew up!

Second, the assertion that women outdo men. Well, I know a few feminists who would disagree! (Though I guess that's a whole other can of worms! :rolleyes: ). OK, in some areas, yes, women outdo men, but in others, it is definitely not the case.

But what is astonishing is the assertion that the problem is your gadgets?! WTF is that about?!

Looks to me like the article says more about Michael Deacon than any of the other 3-billion-plus men on the planet.

Up-n-atom!

I'd agree that men have more of a licence to be immature at an older age (whether they are or not is another thing...) I know plenty of men in their early 30s that act at least 10 years younger, and I don't know if that would be tolerated as much in a woman of the same age - maybe it's my perception as I feel I'm quite immature but I'm a girl so I feel there's more pressure on me to grow up a bit moreso than if I was a guy. Saying that, maybe me acting a bit more mature wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing...

Either way, I don't think this percieved 'immaturity' has anything to do with video games - it's just a hobby, and I know plenty of female friends who are into gaming too. Hobbies like collecting train-sets and so on which are associated with 'children's toys' have existed for a long time.

And I don't believe women or men are fundamentally different - we're just socialised in different ways, and we don't always fit the gender stereotypes we're supposed to fit despite this. Some men and some women are very different from one another, while some are very similar; the same argument can be made within each gender as well.

Ebbs

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

I'd agree that men have more of a licence to be immature at an older age (whether they are or not is another thing...) I know plenty of men in their early 30s that act at least 10 years younger, and I don't know if that would be tolerated as much in a woman of the same age - maybe it's my perception as I feel I'm quite immature but I'm a girl so I feel there's more pressure on me to grow up a bit moreso than if I was a guy.

You claim you have pressure on you, but by who?

Parents, other women or men?

Geniunly interested in your answer, as I assume it wont be men.

pragmatic1

Count Duckula wrote: »

I'm sick of this ****ing bull**** that permeates modern day society in the guise of "feminism", "gender-equality", "sociological studies on why men are such useless pigs and women infantile little people desperate to be owned by a man via marriage".

Men and women are less different than these so-called "experts" would have you believe. Gender roles are tosh, everyone knows they're tosh, and yet these commentators make millions of pounds telling everyone they're tosh whilst subtly reinforcing them.

Some women will like a man who is mature and confident. Some women will like a man who is fun and in touch with his youth. Some women will like women. What a person wants is not determined from their gender by some mystical higher power who can look down on the world and say "all men like this, and all women like this".

The sooner this culture stops bombarding us with gender-discriminatory tat, stops screaming that all women want to get married, that all men are horrible, that all women are more intelligent and better at raising kids, that all men make better leaders and like a good fight, the better. It's becoming a farce, and a dangerous one at that.

You tell enough young people that both genders do different things and they'll grow up believing it. We'll never grow out of our gender divisions because we're never being given the chance. If men and women and straights and gays and whites and blacks and Asians and hispanics and the old and the young really want people to stop seeing them in those rigid terms - and making assumptions and sweeping judgements accordingly - then they need to stop the media of this world lumping them into those groups and loudly pointing out their differences.

Some men like to play video games. So do some women. In other words, some people like to play video games and enjoy themselves. Get over it.

Sorry for the rant.

That was a quality rant.

--Kaiser--

folan wrote: »

im not sure what the article is about?

people who grew up enjoying something continued to enjoy it? Boys who grew up enjoying football still watched it and played it 20 years ago. thats not changed. Just whats available to enjoy has grown.

The same can be said for many things across the gender divide.

It's a poorly written article and no mistake, but I think the point was that many men will spend a lot of time playing computer games and this will displace typical manly pursuits like football, boxing, hiking etc....

To a certain extent I would agree, they don't make em like they used to

Up-n-atom!

Ebbs wrote: »

You claim you have pressure on you, but by who?

Parents, other women or men?

Geniunly interested in your answer, as I assume it wont be men.

Um, well I actually haven't noticed any particular pattern in the gender breakdown of this pressure, it comes in different forms from out-in-out blunt comments to more subtle disaproval. I wasn't trying to set up another 'war of the sexes', they seem to sprout up in every forum here. I made it clear that the pressure was something percieved by me and might just be my own personal opinion rather than a general thing.

Ebbs

Up-n-atom! wrote: »

Um, well I actually haven't noticed any particular pattern in the gender breakdown of this pressure, it comes in different forms from out-in-out blunt comments to more subtle disaproval. I wasn't trying to set up another 'war of the sexes', they seem to sprout up in every forum here. I made it clear that the pressure was something percieved by me and might just be my own personal opinion rather than a general thing.

Sorry, not the way I was trying to come across.

I just havnt personally noticed pressure on women to act mature from men. When I do see or hear about it, it always seems to be from parents trying to live through their children or from disapproving friends of the girl.

Never heard a women complaining about a man telling them to grow up, unless it was regarding weddings/children with a partner, which in my opinion is understandable.

PrincessLola

What would be the female equivalent of men loving toys and video games?
Seriously, I want to know..

Giselle

PrincessLola wrote: »

What would be the female equivalent of men loving toys and video games?
Seriously, I want to know..

Shoes and handbags?

SugarHigh

PrincessLola wrote: »

What would be the female equivalent of men loving toys and video games?
Seriously, I want to know..

Teddy bears and any sort of cutsie ****.

SugarHigh

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It's a poorly written article and no mistake, but I think the point was that many men will spend a lot of time playing computer games and this will displace typical manly pursuits like football, boxing, hiking etc....

To a certain extent I would agree, they don't make em like they used to

Those comparison pics are always retarded. What exactly is wrong with the guy on the right and didn't Sean Connery beat his wife?

Galvasean

I severely doubt men playing with gadgets and gizmos has anything to do with being 'outdone' by women. If you look at the current generation of men in first world countries they by and large have much more expendable income and free leisure time than the generation before them (and they over the generation before them). Free time+extra money = toy time!
Like Giselle said, many women go mad for handbags, shoes etc. and it's for the same reason that men play video games ec.

liah

PrincessLola wrote: »

What would be the female equivalent of men loving toys and video games?
Seriously, I want to know..

Toys (;)) and videogames tbh

Count Duckula

Why is buying shoes the female equivalent of men playing video games? I'd say the equivalent in women would be... playing video games.

Or do some people believe that women are inherently more interested in the bits of dead animal that they strap to their feet?

Giselle

Count Duckula wrote: »

Why is buying shoes the female equivalent of men playing video games? I'd say the equivalent in women would be... playing video games.

Or do some people believe that women are inherently more interested in the bits of dead animal that they strap to their feet?

Its the popular stereotype, like men being blind deaf and dumb to the world around them when they have some electronic device in their hands.

Both stereotypes are insulting generalisations.

SugarHigh

Giselle wrote: »

Its the popular stereotype, like men being blind deaf and dumb to the world around them when they have some electronic device in their hands.

Both stereotypes are insulting generalisations.

How is either generalisation insulting?

Something isn't automatically insulting just because it's a generalisation. Both are pretty mundane generalisations that don't imply anything so why would you be insulted?

PrincessLola

Count Duckula wrote: »

Why is buying shoes the female equivalent of men playing video games? I'd say the equivalent in women would be... playing video games.

Or do some people believe that women are inherently more interested in the bits of dead animal that they strap to their feet?

Women tend to be more interested in shoes then men on average. Most sterotypes have a basis in reality, think about the people who buy fashion magazines, its mostly women and gay men. And there is nothing insulting about that, fashion is a fantastic thing to be interested in

Anyways, this article has got me thinking about gender representations in movies and tv; has anyone noticed how in a lot of movies the men are portrayed as childish man-children, while women are portrayed as the uptight responsible types? Now thats insulting to both genders.

Giselle

SugarHigh wrote: »

How is either generalisation insulting?

Something isn't automatically insulting just because it's a generalisation. Both are pretty mundane generalisations that don't imply anything so why would you be insulted?

I find the assumption that because I've got the right chromosomes I'm riveted by footwear insulting.

I would imagine that (some or most) men are irritated by the stereotype of them being less developed and mature because they own a playstation 3, but maybe you're one of the exceptions.

I wouldn't agree most stereotypes have a basis in reality either, although some do.

Count Duckula

And even if those stereotypes do have a basis in reality, that basis is skewed by a gender-driven culture that divides women and men neatly down the middle. Yes, the stereotype that women like shoes and men don't exists, and it exists because on average more women like shoes than men... but only because they grow up being told that women like shoes and men don't.

It's the same reason there are so few women engineers and scientists - the stereotypes of it being a man's world are enforced upon young girls to the extent that they feel they can't show an interest in chemistry, or mechanics, or maths.

The stereotypes are not reflections of something else - most of the time they're the cause. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and one we need to break free of if we ever hope to have true equality amongst the sexes.

SugarHigh

Giselle wrote: »

I find the assumption that because I've got the right chromosomes I'm riveted by footwear insulting.

I would imagine that (some or most) men are irritated by the stereotype of them being less developed and mature because they own a playstation 3, but maybe you're one of the exceptions.

I wouldn't agree most stereotypes have a basis in reality either, although some do.

Can you point out to me where anyone made the assumption that you personally are riveted by footwear?

I don't think you understand what a generalisation is.

SugarHigh

Count Duckula wrote: »

And even if those stereotypes do have a basis in reality, that basis is skewed by a gender-driven culture that divides women and men neatly down the middle. Yes, the stereotype that women like shoes and men don't exists, and it exists because on average more women like shoes than men... but only because they grow up being told that women like shoes and men don't.

It's the same reason there are so few women engineers and scientists - the stereotypes of it being a man's world are enforced upon young girls to the extent that they feel they can't show an interest in chemistry, or mechanics, or maths.

The stereotypes are not reflections of something else - most of the time they're the cause. It's a self-perpetuating cycle, and one we need to break free of if we ever hope to have true equality amongst the sexes.

How is different tastes between genders a sign of inequality?

So unless everything has a 50/50 split we are unequal?
Having a taste in video games does not give you higher status than someone with a taste in shoes.

No one makes up their own mind about what they like so who cares if gender is an influence? I really don't see why I should care that less women are interested in Science and less men are interested in social care.

Why should we try to manipulate their interests for some pointless goal of having 50/50 split of every interest?

If a woman grows up with an interest in Science there is absolutely nothing stopping her from getting involved in Science and she will in fact be given many advantages for simply being a woman. If however she doesn't have an interest in Science and instead becomes a beauty therapist why should we give a ****? She has made up her own mind as much as anyone else does. Of course her choice might have been influenced by gender, it would also be influenced by all the other societal factors that determine someones interests. I see no reason to try and prevent this. I don't see all the hysteria against gender roles there is no one forcing you to conform so if you do so you are obviously happy doing so.

The Corinthian

There are certain biological differences that affect behaviour between the genders. Reproduction is undoubtedly the greatest of these because it:

• Forces women to 'grow up' faster than men, because they have a far more limited window of time in which they can reproduce
• Women can get pregnant, thus this will affect promiscuity and resource priorities

Then there are the other obvious biological differences - physical and hormonal. Men are much stronger than women on average and more aggressive (due to higher levels of testosterone). Women have a menstrual cycle, and this affects behavior too.

Most, if not all of these biological differences should be viewed in the context of homo sapians being essentially hunting gathering primates - in our 300,000 year history, that's what we did for all but the last 10,000 years or so.

However, then there are environmental differences. Girls are given dolls and boys guns as children, traditionally - we are taught to behave differently; to be 'ladylike' or 'real men'. This brainwashing continues well into adulthood, between consumer advertising and the media (such as 'romantic comedies'). Seriously, otherwise why would it make sense that a man pay for a woman's dinner on a date? Or that women wear such ridiculous shoes that one would need to train in the circus to walk in them?

It's difficult to say which is more important between nurture or nature. My guess is that if you could eliminate all environmental effects, men would still be more 'masculine' due to biological reasons on average. I say on average, because for example, while men are stronger than women on average, this is not always the case.

As such, while eliminating environmental effects would not eliminate the differences completely, the lines would become far, far more blurred.

The Corinthian

SugarHigh wrote: »

So unless everything has a 50/50 split we are unequal?

While ideal, this 50/50 split is probably impractical. As I said in my previous post, even were we to eliminate environmentally (culturally) originated differences, biologically originated ones would remain. Otherwise we would, and should, have no differentiation between genders in sport, for example.

The problem with retaining 'slightly different rules' to account for these comes down to the following:

• How great are these 'natural' differences in reality?
• There would need to be a balance in the pros and cons that each gender has in these different rules.

Of the latter, I think men are increasingly getting the short end of the stick. Modern post-feminism has introduced the concept of 'having it all', which essentially means opening up roles previously monopolized by men, yet maintaining the monopoly on traditional female roles.

This is probably an untenable model in the long term, partially because the blatant bias already is experiencing a growing backlash, but also because in the Real World, you are ultimately constrained by the finite nature of time and resources.

PrincessLola

The Corinthian wrote: »

There are certain biological differences that affect behaviour between the genders. Reproduction is undoubtedly the greatest of these because it:

• Forces women to 'grow up' faster than men, because they have a far more limited window of time in which they can reproduce
• Women can get pregnant, thus this will affect promiscuity and resource priorities

Then there are the other obvious biological differences - physical and hormonal. Men are much stronger than women on average and more aggressive (due to higher levels of testosterone). Women have a menstrual cycle, and this affects behavior too.

Most, if not all of these biological differences should be viewed in the context of homo sapians being essentially hunting gathering primates - in our 300,000 year history, that's what we did for all but the last 10,000 years or so.

However, then there are environmental differences. Girls are given dolls and boys guns as children, traditionally - we are taught to behave differently; to be 'ladylike' or 'real men'. This brainwashing continues well into adulthood, between consumer advertising and the media (such as 'romantic comedies'). Seriously, otherwise why would it make sense that a man pay for a woman's dinner on a date? Or that women wear such ridiculous shoes that one would need to train in the circus to walk in them?

It's difficult to say which is more important between nurture or nature. My guess is that if you could eliminate all environmental effects, men would still be more 'masculine' due to biological reasons on average. I say on average, because for example, while men are stronger than women on average, this is not always the case.

As such, while eliminating environmental effects would not eliminate the differences completely, the lines would become far, far more blurred.

This.
Its hard to be a woman knowing your ability to have children will begin to deline around 35, when at that same age some men still view having children as some far off thing 'grown-ups' do. (I said some, not all).
Women, if they want babies, have to grow up faster and get their act together, whereas for men there's no particular rush.

The Corinthian

PrincessLola wrote: »

Women, if they want babies, have to grow up faster and get their act together, whereas for men there's no particular rush.

Well, yes and no. There is a caveat to that point, which is the traditional role of a man as a 'provider'.

Men are also affected by a biological clock, because ultimately we have to be able to attract a mate who can still reproduce. While this gives us more time than women, few are going to end up like Charlie Chaplin or Anthony Quinn and be able to father a child in our old age. This effectively caps our ability to have children in the vast majority of cases at about 45, unless we bring something to the table that makes up for our age.

Which brings us to the 'provider' issue. A study of dating sites a few years ago found that women most commonly lied about their ages, while men about their salaries - that should tell us something about how we tick, unfortunately.

And on that basis, men do have to 'grow up' to a great degree where it comes to that role. After all and in addition, it's not like we can opt to marry someone and become a homemaker if we don't like our current jobs.

Count Duckula

SugarHigh wrote: »

How is different tastes between genders a sign of inequality?

So unless everything has a 50/50 split we are unequal?
Having a taste in video games does not give you higher status than someone with a taste in shoes.

No one makes up their own mind about what they like so who cares if gender is an influence? I really don't see why I should care that less women are interested in Science and less men are interested in social care.

Why should we try to manipulate their interests for some pointless goal of having 50/50 split of every interest?

If a woman grows up with an interest in Science there is absolutely nothing stopping her from getting involved in Science and she will in fact be given many advantages for simply being a woman. If however she doesn't have an interest in Science and instead becomes a beauty therapist why should we give a ****? She has made up her own mind as much as anyone else does. Of course her choice might have been influenced by gender, it would also be influenced by all the other societal factors that determine someones interests. I see no reason to try and prevent this. I don't see all the hysteria against gender roles there is no one forcing you to conform so if you do so you are obviously happy doing so.

My point is that there's no reason why a woman should be more interested in shoes and a man more interested in video games. The reason they are is because that's the way society expects them to be - stereotypes impose upon people which in turn reinforces those stereotypes.

And besides, it is more serious than you let on. If whole swathes of women "aren't interested" in science or engineering owing to never being exposed to it as children (or even having it subconsciously reinforced that it's a man's realm of interest), then we as a people are losing out on a huge number of potential advancements that those women would contribute to.

Consider the car. Tinkering with cars is a man's pursuit, and yet the human race as a whole benefits from cars. Nearly all breakthroughs in the internal combustion engine have been made by men because it is men who do the thinking on the matter, and yet it is not only men who drive or benefit from it. An entire gender is essentially being prevented from contributing because it isn't viewed as a woman's place. I'm not saying those women are desperate to help but being turned away, but even as children they would know that it's not "their place". That it's a realm of interest of boys, not girls, and they should look elsewhere. In order to fit in, they might want to look elsewhere.

The Corinthian

Count Duckula wrote: »

My point is that there's no reason why a woman should be more interested in shoes and a man more interested in video games.

There is actually; most video games tend to be competitive or even combative - First Person Shooters being a case in points. As such they become a simulation of primitive hunting behaviour that males engaged in for millennia before the Neolithic Revolution.

Instead video games geared towards women are under represented in the market. However the success of games such as the Sims have increased female participation as they are better geared towards them.

Of course you are right to say that society has also shaped the way we view video games too, but I thought it important to highlight that there is an evolutionary aspect to it too.

Galvasean

Lots of my female friends are fashion concious, like shoes, matching handbags etc. They work in areas like teaching, biology, chemistry. They aren't beat down stereotypes. They are strong independent women, who just happen to like 'girly' things. Some of my female friends prefer video games and action movies and dress 'tomboyish', while coming from identical backgrounds to the more 'girly' girls. I don't think it's a case of the 'girly' ones simply conforming to stereotype. They just happen to like what they like. Woe betide anyone who should criticise them for choosing to like what they like I'll tell you that.

liah

The Corinthian wrote: »

There is actually; most video games tend to be competitive or even combative - First Person Shooters being a case in points. As such they become a simulation of primitive hunting behaviour that males engaged in for millennia before the Neolithic Revolution.

Instead video games geared towards women are under represented in the market. However the success of games such as the Sims have increased female participation as they are better geared towards them.

Of course you are right to say that society has also shaped the way we view video games too, but I thought it important to highlight that there is an evolutionary aspect to it too.

Hate to break it to you but I know a ridiculous amount of girls who would much rather have a MW2 session than play Sims. They're basically the only genre I play.

Evolutionary aspects only go so far, we're well able to think past defined gender roles at this stage and realize that people are people, regardless of gender. We're all our own person with our own likes and our own dislikes that aren't defined by our gender, and summarizing us all like that is pointless and inherently restrictive.

Give it 20 years and just as many girls will be into FPS as males, I'd nearly guarantee it. The numbers are already fairly big despite videogames being branded and advertised as 'male' activities from the outset. There's really no such thing as 'male' or 'female' activities. Just things that some people like and others don't.

SugarHigh

Count Duckula wrote: »

My point is that there's no reason why a woman should be more interested in shoes and a man more interested in video games. The reason they are is because that's the way society expects them to be - stereotypes impose upon people which in turn reinforces those stereotypes.

Chicken or the egg

And besides, it is more serious than you let on. If whole swathes of women "aren't interested" in science or engineering owing to never being exposed to it as children (or even having it subconsciously reinforced that it's a man's realm of interest), then we as a people are losing out on a huge number of potential advancements that those women would contribute to.

Non Scientific roles are still valuable to society, you are painting a picture of women being a dead wait up until emancipation which simply isn't true. Society is perfectly fine when only a minority chooses to be involved in Science because as you say those who aren't involved in Science will still gain the benefits of Science.

Consider the car. Tinkering with cars is a man's pursuit, and yet the human race as a whole benefits from cars. Nearly all breakthroughs in the internal combustion engine have been made by men because it is men who do the thinking on the matter, and yet it is not only men who drive or benefit from it. An entire gender is essentially being prevented from contributing because it isn't viewed as a woman's place. I'm not saying those women are desperate to help but being turned away, but even as children they would know that it's not "their place". That it's a realm of interest of boys, not girls, and they should look elsewhere. In order to fit in, they might want to look elsewhere.

An entire gender is not being prevented from contributing, there are women engineers you know. Those who choose not to be engineers are doing so out of their own free will.

I'm not saying those women are desperate to help but being turned away,

So you agree they aren't being prevented then?

but even as children they would know that it's not "their place". That it's a realm of interest of boys, not girls, and they should look elsewhere. In order to fit in, they might want to look elsewhere.

So someone not interested in cars doesn't get involved in the fixing or manufacturing of cars. We should give shít why exactly? I don't really care what their reasons are for not being interested in cars, we all follow gender cues and we always will. They have survived this long for a reason, they didn't happen by accident. Those who fit outside of their gender roles are free to do so and are not prevented so I really don't see it as a problem.

They are obviously doing something they have become interested in(for whatever reason). I don't see why we should try and manipulate the interests of women, how about they make up their own minds which you seem think they're incapable of doing. You basically want to manipulate women into Science for no other reason then you thinking having a 50/50 split in everything is somehow necessary.

PrincessLola

Galvasean wrote: »

Lots of my female friends are fashion concious, like shoes, matching handbags etc. They work in areas like teaching, biology, chemistry. They aren't beat down stereotypes. They are strong independent women, who just happen to like 'girly' things. Some of my female friends prefer video games and action movies and dress 'tomboyish', while coming from identical backgrounds to the more 'girly' girls. I don't think it's a case of the 'girly' ones simply conforming to stereotype. They just happen to like what they like. Woe betide anyone who should criticise them for choosing to like what they like I'll tell you that.

Yes. The women who sneer at 'girly' things are only reinforcing the notion that traditional masculinity>traditional femininity.
There is nothing inferior about liking the colour pink or shopping or fashion. It does not make you stupid or a doormat.
It reminds me of this quote from tv tropes:

"...while most reasonable people see women and men as equals, few (if any) dare to claim that femininity is masculinity's equal." —Julia Serano

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Hate to break it to you but I know a ridiculous amount of girls who would much rather have a MW2 session than play Sims. They're basically the only genre I play.

That doesn't really disprove what he said though. Still by far the most popular games amongst women are things like "The Sims", "Nintendogs" and Farmville all pretty much non-competitive.

Evolutionary aspects only go so far, we're well able to think past defined gender roles at this stage and realize that people are people, regardless of gender. We're all our own person with our own likes and our own dislikes that aren't defined by our gender, and summarizing us all like that is pointless and inherently restrictive.

People interest are very clearly influenced by their gender. It's not really possible to dispute this. Your interests are also influenced by your social class, location and age.

Give it 20 years and just as many girls will be into FPS as males, I'd nearly guarantee it. The numbers are already fairly big despite videogames being branded and advertised as 'male' activities from the outset. There's really no such thing as 'male' or 'female' activities. Just things that some people like and others don't.

Even if in 20's FPS games have an even gender split there will always be activities more favored by men and those more favored by women. If golf courses suddenly got filled up with women then the men would simply find something else to do.

The Corinthian

liah wrote: »

Hate to break it to you but I know a ridiculous amount of girls who would much rather have a MW2 session than play Sims. They're basically the only genre I play.

Commercially you would be the exception to the rule though.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

People interest are very clearly influenced by their gender. It's not really possible to dispute this. Your interests are also influenced by your social class, location and age.

I'd argue that the majority of distinct gender roles are due to subconscious social conditioning rather than legitimately having anything to do with your possession of a penis or vagina.

This is becoming more and more clear in our society, as the gender role lines are blurring far more openly than they have in quite some time. It's not at all uncommon to hear of a guy who loves clothes and a girl who loves sports. Would've been a bit odd a century ago, though. But times change, as do gender roles.

Kinda like how up until the '50s or so (don't quote me on the decade), blue was for girls and pink was for boys. Or the Amazons of however long ago.

Saying "well x's love of x is because she's a girl" is stupid when there's another guy who feels the same way. Everyone's individual and we're smart enough to realize that gender roles don't matter anymore and to think outside of them.

You seem to think that the world as it is now is the world as it always was, that or its largely patriarchal past has no impact on what's going on now, and that it will never be any different. I would have to disagree on each.

But I'm not going to bother with further argument with you.

liah

The Corinthian wrote: »

Commercially you would be the exception to the rule though.

My point is that these exceptions are becoming more and more common due to a general acceptance of the idea that everyone is an individual and not governed by their genitalia.

The Corinthian

liah wrote: »

My point is that these exceptions are becoming more and more common due to a general acceptance of the idea that everyone is an individual and not governed by their genitalia.

I don't disagree with you - please read my first post in this thread.

liah

The Corinthian wrote: »

I don't disagree with you - please read my first post in this thread.

Fair enough, must've missed it.

Galvasean

Interestingly, I've notied that toy shops no longer label things as 'boys toys (GI Joe, transformers etc.)' and 'girls toys (barbie, my Little Pony etc.)'. Step in the right direction I'd say. But at the same time I don't think we'll ever get a 50/50 split of boys or girls playing with GI Joe/Barbie. I'd say in time we'll be done with 'gender roles' to an extent, but people shouldn't interprate every last little thing not being divided directly down the middle as gender inequality or our upbringing system has somehow failed. I'd imagine things will continue to even out somewhat, but there will never be an equal amount of female builders or male midwifes.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

I'd argue that the majority of distinct gender roles are due to subconscious social conditioning rather than legitimately having anything to do with your possession of a penis or vagina.

If they don't have anything to do with my gender than how are they gender roles?

Subconscious social conditioning is decided in part by my gender. Young boys mimic mostly mimic men and young girls mostly mimic women.

This is becoming more and more clear in our society, as the gender role lines are blurring far more openly than they have in quite some time. It's not at all uncommon to hear of a guy who loves clothes and a girl who loves sports. Would've been a bit odd a century ago, though. But times change, as do gender roles.

I don't think it would have been that odd a century ago but yes maybe 20 years ago. Taste was more of a class thing before mass production. Gender based interests regularly change but that doesn't change the fact there are always interests that are more associated with a certain gender. Genders are equal but they will always be different and their tastes will reflect this.

Saying "well x's love of x is because she's a girl" is stupid when there's another guy who feels the same way. Everyone's individual and we're smart enough to realize that gender roles don't matter anymore and to think outside of them.

Why is ignoring gender roles seen as a smart thing to do? Do you honestly believe humans have no reason for following gender roles and it just came about and stuck around even though it didn't serve a purpose. That would be pretty strange thing to happen if it didn't serve purpose. I don't why you want to ignore gender differences so badly.

You seem to think that the world as it is now is the world as it always was, that or its largely patriarchal past has no impact on what's going on now, and that it will never be any different. I would have to disagree on each.

Our gender roles will change but we will always have gender roles.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

My point is that these exceptions are becoming more and more common due to a general acceptance of the idea that everyone is an individual and not governed by their genitalia.

I don't see how being affected by gender roles makes you less of an individual. Every single persons interests is affected by their gender. Interests don't just form out of no where they have to be influenced by something such as gender,wealth and family. If you were a male born in Liberia do you really think you would be anything like you are now?

Count Duckula

SugarHigh wrote: »

I don't see how being affected by gender roles makes you less of an individual. Every single persons interests is affected by their gender. Interests don't just form out of no where they have to be influenced by something such as gender,wealth and family. If you were a male born in Liberia do you really think you would be anything like you are now?

No one's denying that people's interests are influenced by their gender. Of course they are; this very thread proves that.

What some of us are arguing is that, ideally, gender would have very little influence on what people can or cannot enjoy. Seriously, I have far more in common with a girl who happens to like video games, fantasy fiction, lazing about and eating too much than I would a man who goes drinking every Friday, spends a fortune on his appearance and watches action films.

Snowie

PrincessLola wrote: »

What would be the female equivalent of men loving toys and video games?
Seriously, I want to know..

The wii its like an infectous deasese then they never get played :pac:

Giselle wrote: »

Shoes and handbags?

No I dont think thats the case I know plenty of women who online game..

Count Duckula wrote: »

Why is buying shoes the female equivalent of men playing video games? I'd say the equivalent in women would be... playing video games.

Or do some people believe that women are inherently more interested in the bits of dead animal that they strap to their feet?

I liek dead animals on my feet they look pretty :pac:

Galvasean wrote: »

Lots of my female friends are fashion concious, like shoes, matching handbags etc. They work in areas like teaching, biology, chemistry. They aren't beat down stereotypes. They are strong independent women, who just happen to like 'girly' things. Some of my female friends prefer video games and action movies and dress 'tomboyish', while coming from identical backgrounds to the more 'girly' girls. I don't think it's a case of the 'girly' ones simply conforming to stereotype. They just happen to like what they like. Woe betide anyone who should criticise them for choosing to like what they like I'll tell you that.

Over the years ive spent a lot of money on computer games .... Ive spent a lot on my senakers I dont mean in the sums of 80 euros I bye tough to find limited addtion ones that no one else has and thats why i buy them

I like exspenive things, i liek to know Im the only one with the kicks on my feet and if i saw some one with them on I'd be pissed..... I dont think you have to be "female" in order to want to look good.. If you wanna dress bad that's fine but to just aim that
at just women is highly sexist.

At the end of the day there are to types of men ones that a like to look good know they look good and those who are happy to dress in soem god awfull fasion and think they look good.

Maguined

Count Duckula wrote: »

No one's denying that people's interests are influenced by their gender. Of course they are; this very thread proves that.

What some of us are arguing is that, ideally, gender would have very little influence on what people can or cannot enjoy. Seriously, I have far more in common with a girl who happens to like video games, fantasy fiction, lazing about and eating too much than I would a man who goes drinking every Friday, spends a fortune on his appearance and watches action films.

Yes but nothing is stopping people from enjoying things outside their "normal" gender guidelines. You could argue social pressure but dealing with social pressure is part of being an individual. Any girl can enjoy a computer game and if she gets some stick about it from people that is something she can just brush off just as a man being really into fashion might get stick from his mates he can also equally brush it off.

boobar

There are some with the opinion that there comes an age when one is too old to play video games.

Have a look at this thread...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055918876

Some good observations made.

DublinWriter

Get the state of the beard on that journo...he looks like Jimmy Carr with facial pubes. Never trust a man who sports facial hard and/or has a cleverly folded hanky in his suit pocket.

I'm 41, I still play games when I get the chance. Lots of guys I know and work with who are the same age and older do the same.

Even John Hamm (plays Donald Draper in Mad Men) confessed to being an Angry Birds addict recently.

boobar

DublinWriter wrote: »

Get the state of the beard on that journo...he looks like Jimmy Carr with facial pubes. Never trust a man who sports facial hard and/or has a cleverly folded hanky in his suit pocket.

I'm 41, I still play games when I get the chance. Lots of guys I know and work with who are the same age and older do the same.

Even John Hamm (plays Donald Draper in Mad Men) confessed to being an Angry Birds addict recently.

I'm 40 later this year. Going to put the PS3 on the gift list....if it's good enough for Don Draper, it'll be good enough for me.