A question for the ladies.

[Moonshadow]

Okey, so, my dad came into my room today and told me that he thinks I should clean it up, on the basis that I have a girlfriend and that even if she tells me that she doesn't care if it's messy, it actually means that she really does, and that I have to listen to what women aren't saying and basically become a mind reader and stuff.

I replied back that her room was messier than mine is (It seriously is, she won't let me in there because she's embarassed which I think is cute, nor will she let me help clean) and he said that doesn't matter, she still expects you to have a clean room, even if she doesn't.

Now, I thought this was pretty hilarious, but I kept quiet about it because I couldn't think up a decent arguement to prove this isn't the case to him.

Then I went and texted my girlfriend and told her all this, and she thought it was pretty funny, telling me that it may be standard female psychology, but she's not a standard female and thus doesn't subscribe to it, and that if she wanted me to know something, she'd tell me, not expect me to read her mind.

So, this got me thinking, is the mindset that you have to listen to what a woman isn't saying to know what she's asking just a product of 25 years ago, or is it still wildly prevalent today? If it's still the stereotype, well, why? It seems rather silly to me, playing all these mind games.

I mean, I'm sure there are just as many women out there who are like my girlfriend and say what they want instead of making you jump through hoops to find out, but by the same token, there must be a large amount of women who play mind games, and I'd be rather interested to hear opinions as to why this is so.

Thanks for your time!

[Coidzor]

You need your room clean enough that it won't be stressful for her to just be in it because you want her to y'know do things with you.

[Moonshadow]

It really isn't that bad though. There are just some books on the floor, and a basket full of washing to put away that I haven't got around to doing in forever, and a pile of dirty washing that I'm working my way through now. Compared to how my brothers room normally looks, this place is hospital fresh >.>

[TheLaughingMan]

It sounds like your father was just trying to get you to clean your room. Nothing to it.

[Moonshadow]

Forget the room cleaning! :smalltongue:

I'm more interested in why he thinks you have to listen to what girls aren't saying :smalltongue:

[TheLaughingMan]

Women are crazy.

Men are crazy.

Such is life.

[Serpentine]

Generally speaking, yeah, that's a load of bollocks. If it is true for an individual female (or male, for that matter), then it's her own fault if you go by what she said. Although at least shoving stuff into a pile when you have guests over is a good idea, anyway...
But there are some specific points where "if you have to ask I'm not telling" does, sort of, apply. For example, pretend I really like getting flowers, because it's a nice sign that my Other really cares about me and thinks about me and likes doing nice spontaneous things for me. If I have to flat-out ask for flowers, it defeats nearly the whole purpose of getting them, it just annulls all those reasons why it's special. So, instead, I might casually compliment a bunch at the store, or mention that a friend got some and how nice it was...
But yeah, generally, not an issue and if it is it shouldn't be.

[Don Julio Anejo]

Girls play mind games. Deal with it.

[shadowxknight]

Girls play mind games. Deal with it.

Dayum haha can I quote this.

I think the reverse-psycology usually go for things like "No, you don't have to buy me flowers." or "No, we don't have to do anything for my birthday."

[Serpentine]

Sexism five!

http://static.funnyjunk.com/gifs/1267528027_high_five_fail0.gif

[Coidzor]

Forget the room cleaning! :smalltongue:

I'm more interested in why he thinks you have to listen to what girls aren't saying :smalltongue:

:smallconfused: Sex. Duh. :smalltongue:

[Castaras]

Pretty much, we're a strange alien bunch of creatures that refuse to say what we mean and like to be picky about our boyfriends all the time and rule their lives completely.


Well, that's the view I hear a lot. Really, the most you have to "Read the lines between" with for girls is when they say "Yeah I'm fine", in a sorta sad voice, and they keep saying this when you persist with "You sure?" is that "Yeah, I'm not okay, but I'm not burdening you with this because I don't want to worry you/ it's none of your business / I like cake."

When it comes to experience that is. :smallsmile:

[Superglucose]

Sexism five!
Let's be fair, women do play mindgames. The Queen of Mindgames is a woman, in fact.

Hell, women play mindgames with me all the time. How else can I explain the way Corimon keeps passing me AKQ of hearts? :smallconfused: Hell, that blank space in your post was mindgames! I thought there was whitetext!

But without any jokes, if you see sexism in "Girls play mindgames" you're looking too hard. What you described with the hints? That's a mindgame. Saying one thing and meaning another? That's a mind game. Everyone does it, even girls. You will find what you want to find if you look hard enough.

[absolmorph]

Let's be fair, women do play mindgames. The Queen of Mindgames is a woman, in fact.
What else would expect the Queen of Mindgames to be? A man?

[Serpentine]

What you described with the hints? That's a mindgame. Saying one thing and meaning another? That's a mind game.

No, it wasn't :smallconfused: Not unless you include the entirety of human interaction as mindgames, in which case it's still sexist to single out women as playing them. As, for example:
But without any jokes, if you see sexism in "Girls play mindgames" you're looking too hard... Everyone does it, even girls. You will find what you want to find if you look hard enough.It's like saying that saying "black people like watermelon" isn't racist because everyone likes watermelon.

[Superglucose]

The King of the Goblins was a woman...

And since we're talking about women in this thread, singling out women doesn't have the even remotest possibility of being sexist.

[Serpentine]

See my edits, above, for my resounded disagreement.

[Dallas-Dakota]

Men say mindgames. Women say hints and being subtle.

:smalltongue:

[Superglucose]

By that logic I'm being sexist by not thinking that men are attractive.

[Serpentine]

Your analogy is inadequate. You are talking about a personal preference, not a statement of fact about others.

[Coidzor]

Well, that's the view I hear a lot. Really, the most you have to "Read the lines between" with for girls is when they say "Yeah I'm fine", in a sorta sad voice, and they keep saying this when you persist with "You sure?" is that "Yeah, I'm not okay, but I'm not burdening you with this because I don't want to worry you/ it's none of your business / I like cake."

When it comes to experience that is. :smallsmile:

Yes, this variety of girl you should hit with water balloons. Also, rubber chickens


I mean, there's an offchance Naoto's father was speaking from propriety, but, yeah. Who knows with dads.

[Serpentine]

I would like to point out that my boyfriend is far worse with that sort of thing than, as far as I'm aware, about any other female I know (with one possible exception).

[Coidzor]

I would like to point out that my boyfriend is far worse with that sort of thing than, as far as I'm aware, about any other female I know (with one possible exception).

Ok, so you should beat him with rubber chickens and water balloons then.

Also, we were talking about ladies, girls, and women. Not whatever you mean when you can't commit beyond "female." :smalltongue: And certainly not your boytoy.

[Serpentine]

Then he'll just go sulk even more :smallannoyed:

[Coidzor]

Then he'll just go sulk even more :smallannoyed:

Then you need a new one. I'm sure you'd have plenty of volunteers for blind dates to audition for the new one.

Superglucose: Um. I'm pretty sure David Bowie is not a woman. Especially since... er... his pants got separate billing for its performance.

[Serpentine]

Nah, it doesn't happen very often. I think it's usually "I'm grumpy about something but I know it's not something I should be grumpy at you about so I won't bring it up and if you ask I'll say "nothing" because there's no point talking about it because it's not a big deal so I'll just grump it out and then in a couple of hours we'll be back to normal."

[Coidzor]

Nah, it doesn't happen very often. I think it's usually "I'm grumpy about something but I know it's not something I should be grumpy at you about so I won't bring it up and if you ask I'll say "nothing" because there's no point talking about it because it's not a big deal so I'll just grump it out and then in a couple of hours we'll be back to normal."

Oh. See, here you made it seem like he couldn't take a single water balloon or rubber chickening. Which are like, incredibly common in Australia, I had thought. Sort of piddly things to sulk over when clearly that is a grossly inappropriate response.

Sounds mostly like you haven't housebroken him yet. Better get to work on that.

[Rawhide]

Ignoring the silly "mind games" notion, let me start by saying that even if she (or he in other cases) doesn't say they care, or indeed truly don't consciously care, subconsciously it makes a difference.

I'm not saying that you should have a room that is perfectly ordered and spotless, but you and she will feel much better, without even realising it, if you are greeted by a comfortably clean and tidy room.

His advice is wise, even if it was flavoured by an over the top stereotype that all women are a certain way.

[Lioness]

I think the reverse-psycology usually go for things like "No, you don't have to buy me flowers." or "No, we don't have to do anything for my birthday."

Well, the way I see it, when girls say that they leave out the white text.

"No, you don't have to buy me flowers, but I would love it if you did/it would make me feel special if you did"

For me it's a mix between wanting to feel special and not wanting to pressure him in to anything. But I don't do it very often, and only very occasionally, when I'm in a bad mood, do I actually mean "yes, I'd really like you to buy me flowers, and I'll be unhappy if you don't"

I'm not proud of it.

[Adumbration]

As a sidenote, if either one says anything about the flowers, the game is already lost.

Take that as you may.

[Dada]

I've discussed this with my girlfriend a couple of times. According to her, it's rarely mind games, most often it stems from the girl not wanting to be too demanding, not wanting to pressure the guy, and not wanting him to feel like he's forced to do something.

Also, yes, women do play mind games. So do guys. Learning to 'read between the lines' is very useful, even if you shouldn't be expected to do it.

[V'icternus]

First: The room. Now, even if they don't care, everybody prefers a clean room. But not too clean. If you're too much of an orderly neatfreak, it will freak people out. Male or female.

Second: The "mind games" thing. I can assure you that this is not true. I, personally, play more mind games than any female I know.
Or male I know.
...I'm just a mind games kind of guy.
And no (reasonable) person will fault you for doing as they say. If they say "no, don't bother with that", then you don't, they're not going to be angry about it.
This rumour spread because oftentimes people fail to take very obvious hints. For instance "it's not that important, don't worry about it" means "I really wanted this to happen and now I am sad". Women, it seems, must be more likely to use said subtle hints, though the above example came from me. And I swear, I'm male.

To the original poster: Your dad was just wrong. Can't fault him for it, billions of people are wrong every day. Maybe his own experience has led him to believe this, maybe he was kidding, maybe he just wanted you to clean your room and was using a mind-game, or maybe he heard what someone else had said and believed it. I wouldn't think too much about it.
...Well, I would, but you shouldn't.
To anyone wondering about people saying the opposite of what they mean: They don't, usually, unless it's incredibly obvious that they don't mean it, or they are willing to accept that you may take them at their word.

[Rawhide]

To anyone wondering about people saying the opposite of what they mean: They don't, usually, unless it's incredibly obvious that they don't mean it, or they are willing to accept that you may take them at their word.

I trusted a woman to mean what she said and not to say the opposite of what she meant. She didn't. We have unfortunately not spoken in a very long time.

Note, the above story refers to a female specifically because I am a straight male, the above could easily be true in the other direction for a straight female (or in all sorts of directions when other orientations and such are taken into account).

[Drascin]

And no (reasonable) person will fault you for doing as they say. If they say "no, don't bother with that", then you don't, they're not going to be angry about it.

Heh. I want to live where you live, dude. I generally find that "no, I'll do it, don't worry!" actually means "if it's absolutely necessary I'll do it but if you don't do it for me I'll complain forever behind your back to everyone about how much of an ass you are". This applies to both males and females. I've gotten called some pretty bad names for taking people at their word :smalltongue:. So either there's a shortage of such reasonable people around, or I'm just unlucky.

It's like that weird dance when several people go for dinner - if they say "no, I'll pay", you're not supposed to say "okay, thanks, next one's on me then", apparently. You have to fight for the right to pay right now, because that's apparently the polite thing to do.

People are funny things, sometimes.

[Aedilred]

Well, I thought I was doing fine listening to what my gf actually had to say, but it turned out I should have been listening to what she wasn't saying as well. At least she had the honesty to take responsibility for that when she broke up with me, and admitted it was her fault for not talking to me rather than my not listening. Still, though, the point stands. If I'd "listened" more, we'd probably still be together.

On the specific issue of cleaning your room, though, meh. Different people have different tolerances for mess. I do find, however, that mess is infinitely more tolerable when it's your own. My room is a tip, largely because I don't have enough storage space, but I can live with it even if it is frustrating from time to time. My ex's room, which was equally messy, I used to have much less tolerance for.

In general, if you're trying to make a good impression on someone visiting your room (and, although I don't know the specifics of the relationship with your gf; you should always be trying to some extent to make a good impression on your other half) it's best to keep it relatively tidy. Not overly tidy, mind; that can look a bit autistic/psychopathic. Just, you know, don't let papers, rubbish, laundry and so forth pile up all over the place.

[ChrisFortyTwo]

Seriously - get in the habit of tidying up. It will help you in the long run. Also, if your gf is not tidy, help her get in the habit of it. It may not bother either of you now, but as a happily married guy, I recognize that it's the little things that become big things. It took us quite a while to get in the habit of picking up after each other (we both have to sometimes), and there was a lot of tension, even though we were both untidy and ok with being untidy before getting married.

Now, marraige is probably a ways off for you (especially if you are still living at home), but when habits are built early, its much better.

[Trog]

Not a lady, but here goes anyway:

In regards to gifts or acts of cleanliness or any thoughtful thing, really: When in doubt, do the nice thing for the girl's (boy's) sake. It'll almost always win you points even if you were wrong and then you don't have to try to read her (his) mind. :smallwink:

That said, if a girl (or anyone for that matter) says the opposite of what she wants on purpose (usually to try and be nice or non-demanding or to "test" you or what-have-you... fill in your own reason here) then they shouldn't be surprised to get what they asked for. Sorry, but... duh. Ask for what you need. Nothing wrong with not asking or hinting, of course.. but don't say the exact opposite or you'll probably get it and have little right to complain afterward.

And, of course, set your own limits on what you will and will not do and make them clear. Just because the default nice thing is to do something for her everyone has their limits on what they can provide, achieve, etc.

[Asta Kask]

Generally speaking, yeah, that's a load of bollocks.

Yeah, you say that. But you're a female, so it's probably one of your devilish mindgames. :smallbiggrin:

I suspect that it is common among men and women, but it may be differently applied for the sexes. For instance, women are 'supposed' to be less sexually forward than men so it might be more common for them to say "do you want to go home and have some tea?" rather than "do you want to come home and have do the beast with two backs?*" And since guys are more, y'know, manly and stuff they may say "that's a huge spider" rather than "I hate spiders! Please remove the monster before I freak."

Just a speculation.

*this occasionally misfires. A woman at a disco asked a friend of mine this question. They went home to her, had tea and then he went home to his place. It didn't occur to him that "tea" does not always mean "tea" until the next day.

[Syka]

Naoto, my mom actually used the same line on me but for my boyfriend.

Her reasoning? It may not be fair, but in her experience guys still expect the women to clean up and stuff. So even though his room is always a mess, I should learn now to keep things neat. :smallsigh:


Meanwhile, Oz knows very well I'm not his mom. I won't clean up after him. I might bug him about somethings (wearing shorts with holes to his internship, despite how casual, is not good, etc), but I will clean to a level I am happy with. If it is not a level he is happy with, he can clean to that level. Basically- whichever one of us has the higher need for a neat house, I feel should be responsible for the cleaning. I have gotten far better at keeping stuff straight, but I can't remember to dust and crap for the life of me*.

As for games, meh. Both sexes play them. Not-Really-An-Ex started playing some later in our thing. Like, he specifically said he'd go see Transformers when he came up to visit the week after it came out. He came up and said "I'm really sorry, I forgot and already went to see it...but if you want to go we can." I pretty much figured that was code for "I don't want to see it again and I'm betting on you saying no, but I don't want to look like an ass."

We still went to see it. :smallwink: If someone says something, I take it at face value. If they expect me to read between the lines and think they mean the exact opposite, they're SOL.

I'll admit to sometimes using the "I'm OK" line when I'm not feeling OK. I've let Oz know that means, even if I'm not feeling OK, it's not something I need to talk about and I'll get over it quicker by not talking about it and if it's important, I WOULD talk about it. But that has all been verbally discussed, so he does know. I don't do games. If I say I'm OK, I expect someone to be like, "OK...*goes on with life*" Not "No, really. What's wrong?" That would just aggravate me.




*I don't feel this is unfair. I'm already going to be responsible for our financials (since I have a better grasp on it), as well as laundry (since I'm neurotic about not mixing colors and he could care less). Pretty much....if I'M the neurotic one, I see no reason to make him suffer for it, lol. If HE'S the neurotic one about something, I should similarly not suffer.

[Lioness]

I'm pretty shocking at the whole room clean thing.

BF always has a tidy room, partially because he's a bit of a neat freak, and partially because his mum bugs him if he doesn't keep it tidy. Occasionally I'll be at his house and he'll say "Sorry for the mess", and there will be maybe a book on the floor or a jacket draped over a chair.

My room is a whole lot messier, and I know it bugs him, so I generally keep my room shut when he's over my place (which isn't often). We're a fairly messy family, and his family is neat, so I'm sort of ashamed of our house. I do take pride in showing him when it's clean though, and he appreciates it.

[Serpentine]

My housemate makes his bed with hospital corners and everything.

Every day.

And there's never so much as a scrap of paper on his floor.

[Coidzor]

Naoto, my mom actually used the same line on me but for my boyfriend.

Her reasoning? It may not be fair, but in her experience guys still expect the women to clean up and stuff. So even though his room is always a mess, I should learn now to keep things neat. :smallsigh:


What, you didn't already know about that cultural expectation for your boudoir? :smallconfused:

Serps: Did you purposely look for someone with OCD, or did it just happen that way. How do they get on with you? Knife Fights at dawn over forgetting to instantly replace the roll of toilet paper on the holder?

Vicky: Just because you are an exception to the rule does not mean that we have formed a cultural stereotype of something without any basis. Like all stereotypes it is too broadly applied and treated as if it is universal to the topic it deals with rather than something that has a chance of occurring...

But, yeah, people and general rules and stereotypes don't work that way.

[Serpentine]

Actually, I put the loo paper on the roll more often than the others... And no, not at all. I was already the slob of the household, but now I look really bad :smallsigh: He doesn't seem to mind, anyway. At least, he says he doesn't mind :smallwink:
But nah, he's a friend since first year of uni. All his housemates suddenly declared their intent to move out, so he moved in with us.

[Coidzor]

All his housemates suddenly declared their intent to move out, so he moved in with us.

Uh oh...:smalleek: I hope he was unrelated...

[Serpentine]

Heh. One bought a unit (:smalleek:), and the other had a girlfriend moving into town. So yeah :smalltongue: And I'd lived with him before, in a residential village.

[factotum]

Well, that's the view I hear a lot. Really, the most you have to "Read the lines between" with for girls is when they say "Yeah I'm fine", in a sorta sad voice, and they keep saying this when you persist with "You sure?" is that "Yeah, I'm not okay, but I'm not burdening you with this because I don't want to worry you/ it's none of your business / I like cake."


And therein lies the problem, because if we go and buy you a cake when you were actually in "It's none of your business" mode it'll look like we're trying to bribe you to get your secrets! :smallwink:

[Syka]

Coid, I know that societal expectation. Doesn't mean I'm going to adhere to it any more than any other societal expectation. :smallwink:

I can keep it fairly neat when I'm not under pressure (you can ALWAYS tell when I have a test coming up), but I'm not a clean freak. My bed is never made. OK...maybe it's been made, like, twice. If he wants a made bed, dusted every couple weeks, etc...we can maybe split it, but just because he wants doesn't mean I'll do it all. I'll help out, but there is no way it would be all "my job" just because I'm the chick.



Not that we'll have a problem with that. Like, we're already in agreement that whoever doesn't cook, does the dishes. Etc. Gender roles aren't really a big deal for us.

[Helanna]

Heh. I want to live where you live, dude. I generally find that "no, I'll do it, don't worry!" actually means "if it's absolutely necessary I'll do it but if you don't do it for me I'll complain forever behind your back to everyone about how much of an ass you are". This applies to both males and females. I've gotten called some pretty bad names for taking people at their word :smalltongue:. So either there's a shortage of such reasonable people around, or I'm just unlucky.

It's like that weird dance when several people go for dinner - if they say "no, I'll pay", you're not supposed to say "okay, thanks, next one's on me then", apparently. You have to fight for the right to pay right now, because that's apparently the polite thing to do.

People are funny things, sometimes.

That really bothers me, because I tend to get more upset when someone does do the exact opposite of what I ask them to. If I have someone over for dinner, and they offer to wash dishes and I say not to worry about it, and then they start doing the dishes anyway, it just bugs me. Not a lot - I do appreciate that they're trying to be nice - but still. If I wanted you to do dishes, I would have accepted your first offer.

[Drascin]

That really bothers me, because I tend to get more upset when someone does do the exact opposite of what I ask them to. If I have someone over for dinner, and they offer to wash dishes and I say not to worry about it, and then they start doing the dishes anyway, it just bugs me. Not a lot - I do appreciate that they're trying to be nice - but still. If I wanted you to do dishes, I would have accepted your first offer.

Yeah, it's annoying, isn't it? I mean, if I say "no, don't worry, I got this", I mean no, seriously, don't worry. If I really wanted your help, I'd have thanked you and accepted - you know, basic logical behaviour! But no, apparently you have to say no while meaning yes or something, to be polite, or at least people seem to assume this is so, and so the snake keeps biting its tail - people do things anyway because they assume you're just being polite, then people seeing that assume that even saying no they'll still get people to do stuff and bitch if it doesn't wor, which motivates people to... (goto 1)

And so, in the receiving end, if someone tells you no, you have to start guessing - does he really mean he doesn't need help, or is he just doing it because it's what's done? Argharble. Just speak up, dammit, it's not that hard :smalltongue:.

Still, have to say, it's nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks this fake modesty thing is extremely annoying - no matter which side you end up in :smallamused:.

[Cubey]

I hate reading between the lines, mind games and other crap like that. Whatever your reasoning, you should always say what you want directly rather than insinuate and hope the other person gets it.

In my experience, everyone does it. Male and female. Without even realizing it. This (http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1939#comic) would be much better.

[Marnath]

I'm a pretty literal person, mindgames go right over my head a lot of the time. Even when i do pick up on it, i usually make it a point to do what they asked for even if i'm certain they meant the opposite, because i'm obstinant like that. I try to always say what i mean but i run into trouble with people not picking up on my sarcasm 'cause i almost never change my tone of voice. As far as men vs. women doing mindgames, i know a lot more men than women who do that. But maybe i am just not as good at seeing it when they do it as opposed to men?

[Ostien]

There is a difference between "mindgames" and basic social interaction cues (read: the notion of mindgames is overblown and it is often a case of someone failing spectacularly at human interaction). Though the results of that fail can be quite lulzy :smallbiggrin:

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I'm no lady, but I know I'd much prefer anyone I'd be dating not to be a slob.

I have basically OCD for aesthetics. I hate random clutter and I was the kid who always had his room straightened up without being told. Books are an exception. Random books here and there is after my own heart.

Now my sister... she is the opposite. She leaves crap everywhere. Married now and expecting and can still barely get into her room.

Any woman who has a problem with clutter while being bad themselves can go packing, but that's just me :smallwink:

(I drive women crazy btw, because I'm perfectly capable of my own mind games :smallamused: )

[Xyk]

The premise of this thread infuriates me. It implies/states that women are more inclined to use mind games and such. It is these sorts of generalizations that tears the world apart.

I don't care if it is statistically far more likely for women to do these things, we are all one people. A pie chart is more suitable with one chunk being people who play these games and the other being people who don't. If it is not directly related to the XX chromosome, it's not something that women do; it's something that some people do. For the record, race is the same way.

:smallfurious:

[Dada]

The premise of this thread infuriates me. It implies/states that women are more inclined to use mind games and such. It is these sorts of generalizations that tears the world apart.

I don't think this thread is that bad. The OP asked 'is it correct that many females play mind games?' and 'if so, why?'. The only reason this thread is directed at females, the way I see it, is because the OP's questions stems from his own relationship with a female. Nowhere in the OP is it implied that females are more likely to play mindgames than men, or that it is any worse if it is done by a female. We have to fight generalizations, yes, but there are differences between men and womenm, and we don't want to turn any discussion of those into a taboo.



I don't care if it is statistically far more likely for women to do these things, we are all one people. A pie chart is more suitable with one chunk being people who play these games and the other being people who don't. If it is not directly related to the XX chromosome, it's not something that women do; it's something that some people do. For the record, race is the same way.

For the record, I completely agree with this.

[V'icternus]

I trusted a woman to mean what she said and not to say the opposite of what she meant. She didn't. We have unfortunately not spoken in a very long time.

Note, the above story refers to a female specifically because I am a straight male, the above could easily be true in the other direction for a straight female (or in all sorts of directions when other orientations and such are taken into account).

I like to think these people are the minority. It makes me feel more positive about people as a whole to imagine that most of them say what they mean. :smalltongue:
I may just be deluded.


Heh. I want to live where you live, dude. I generally find that "no, I'll do it, don't worry!" actually means "if it's absolutely necessary I'll do it but if you don't do it for me I'll complain forever behind your back to everyone about how much of an ass you are". This applies to both males and females. I've gotten called some pretty bad names for taking people at their word :smalltongue:. So either there's a shortage of such reasonable people around, or I'm just unlucky.

It's like that weird dance when several people go for dinner - if they say "no, I'll pay", you're not supposed to say "okay, thanks, next one's on me then", apparently. You have to fight for the right to pay right now, because that's apparently the polite thing to do.

People are funny things, sometimes.

You may just be unlucky. I've never met anyone so... contrary.

As for paying for food, whoever pays has the high ground. Fight to pay!

...Unless among friends, in which case they can pay for their own bloody food. :smalltongue:

Or, you know, short on cash. Then be sure to pay them back that same day, or otherwise as soon as possible! Money and people are not good mixes. Try not to get involved.

And yes, people are stange confusing things. I try to avoid them, myself.

[Devils_Advocate]

When it comes down to a choice between interacting with others in a way that will satisfy sincere people and frustrate insincere people, or otherwise interacting with others in a way that will frustrate sincere people and satisfy insincere people, I prefer the former. So, basically echoing what others have said, there.

Especially since you can't even satisfy all of the insincere people, just the ones whose thoughts you successfully guess.


include the entirety of human interaction as mindgames
Fun! (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20070530.html)


it's still sexist to single out women as playing them. As, for example:It's like saying that saying "black people like watermelon" isn't racist because everyone likes watermelon.
Serp, would you agree that using the terms "men" and "women" is, technically speaking, always sexist? If not, could you explain what you mean by "sexist"?

Do you intend the words "sexist" and "racist" pejoratively? If so, could you explain what it is about some forms of discrimination that you disapprove of?


Your analogy is inadequate. You are talking about a personal preference, not a statement of fact about others.
But attraction to women in particular provides a motivation to talk about women in particular. It is a reason why someone might be concerned about whether women play mind games, but not whether men play mind games.


For example, pretend I really like getting flowers, because it's a nice sign that my Other really cares about me and thinks about me and likes doing nice spontaneous things for me. If I have to flat-out ask for flowers, it defeats nearly the whole purpose of getting them, it just annulls all those reasons why it's special.
Hmmm. Could you explain a bit more about what that purpose and those reasons are? I'd much rather have someone who was happy to do what I ask than someone who tries to guess what I'd like. Asking whether there's anything that I'd like would also be acceptable, although personally, if I really wanted a friend's help I'd just ask if they'd like to help.


So, instead, I might casually compliment a bunch at the store, or mention that a friend got some and how nice it was...
Well, that suggests that you like having flowers, but not that you like getting them as gifts specifically. If I really wanted flowers, I'd just get some myself.

My birthday is coming up soon. I should probably tell my parents that I don't want them to get me anything, lest they get me things that I don't want. Things that nevertheless might be useful at some unknown point in the future, and which I might therefore reluctantly accept. Which would not be good, given that I do not, as a rule, ever get rid of anything.

My mother recently came over to my apartment and helped me to sort through and largely discard just piles of stuff that have built up over the years. A lot of it was just sitting in storage, unused and unlikely to ever be used. I appreciated her doing that, and said so. I no doubt would have continued to procrastinate on this task indefinitely without her assistance.

Unfortunately, she seems to feel that it is now time for me to acquire new possessions to fill up all of the nice space that we just freed up. Argh! Mother, can you not see that this would simply serve to gradually reverse the task we just completed? How is this not intuitively obvious to you, as it is to me? I already have all of the things that I want and need (which is not all that much)!

I've told them in the past that I don't want any gifts, but this has not been very effective. I really need to start more readily refusing presents. Once I make the decision to keep some non-consumable item in my home, I'm very unlikely to reverse that decision on my own, and I need to bear in mind the implications of that.

Ignoring the silly "mind games" notion, let me start by saying that even if she (or he in other cases) doesn't say they care, or indeed truly don't consciously care, subconsciously it makes a difference.
[Citation needed]


I'm not saying that you should have a room that is perfectly ordered and spotless, but you and she will feel much better, without even realising it, if you are greeted by a comfortably clean and tidy room.
So... they'll feel better about a clean room, but it may seem as though they don't? That hypothesis sounds rather conveniently unfalsifiable.


There is a difference between "mindgames" and basic social interaction cues (read: the notion of mindgames is overblown and it is often a case of someone failing spectacularly at human interaction). Though the results of that fail can be quite lulzy :smallbiggrin:
Well, if Person A attempts to communicate something to Person B by saying something different than what Person A intends to communicate, and Person B fails to infer what Person A was trying to communicate, then one of the parties involved is failing at human interaction, it's true.

And it's Person A. For all such cases.


The premise of this thread infuriates me. It implies/states that women are more inclined to use mind games and such. It is these sorts of generalizations that tears the world apart.

I don't care if it is statistically far more likely for women to do these things, we are all one people. A pie chart is more suitable with one chunk being people who play these games and the other being people who don't. If it is not directly related to the XX chromosome, it's not something that women do; it's something that some people do. For the record, race is the same way.

:smallfurious:
I don't think that we should attempt to remain ignorant of correlations between personal traits. I do think that statistical knowledge shouldn't be used to form stereotypes with which to make presumptions about individuals. (And that anecdotal evidence shouldn't be confused for statistical knowledge.)

[Rawhide]

[Citation needed]

Here's one. (http://www.tastyhuman.com/tidy-your-room-and-you-will-tidy-your-soul/)

It's also basic psychology.


So... they'll feel better about a clean room, but it may seem as though they don't? That hypothesis sounds rather conveniently unfalsifiable.

Have you ever taken an instant dislike to someone or some thing and not known why? Have you ever felt really uncomfortable and only realised much later that it was because of a smell, lighting conditions, sound/music, colour or other association? Have you ever purchased an item you didn't really need and not even realise it at the time? (http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/articles/articles-retail/retail-sales-strategies-manipulation-or-magic3653.html)

[Devils_Advocate]

Here's one. (http://www.tastyhuman.com/tidy-your-room-and-you-will-tidy-your-soul/)
So, the author's convinced that keeping a tidy room is helpful. It worked well for him. Some unspecified guy on a message board agrees. An unspecified issue of "COSMOS" reportedly says that unspecified (in this article) therapists link the frequencies of men doing housework and sex.

I find that all a bit dubious.


It's also basic psychology.
Huh, I took a psychology class in high school and I don't remember that. Then again, it's been a pretty long time.

I know that clutter can make me feel stressful, but of course that's anecdotal.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that keeping a clean room tends to be helpful, but I'm also skeptical of the implication that it's never harmless just to let it go. I'm also not really convinced either way yet.


Have you ever taken an instant dislike to someone or some thing and not known why? Have you ever felt really uncomfortable and only realised much later that it was because of a smell, lighting conditions, sound/music, colour or other association? Have you ever purchased an item you didn't really need and not even realise it at the time? (http://www.dynamicbusiness.com.au/articles/articles-retail/retail-sales-strategies-manipulation-or-magic3653.html)
Not to my recollection...

[The Extinguisher]

I know some people who can't function without a bit of mess. One of my friends almost got in trouble in an exam setting because she couldn't write the test without stuff on her desk. She'd get stressed out and panic.

But enough of this anecdotal stuff.

Basically, I find the whole "say the opposite of what you mean" thing absolutely stupid no matter whose doing it, guys or girls. And I've seen it happen from both sides. Communication should be the most important thing in a relationship. Without communication, it's not really a relationship. It's more like two people thrusting bodies and emotions at each other, which don't get me wrong isn't a bad thing by itself, but only when you try and disguise it under this idea of a "relationship"

However, it's not as bad as the "I have a problem with you but instead of telling you I'm going to tell everyone else we know and hope the problem goes away" idea.

[Serpentine]

:sigh: This is getting blown way out of proportion to make anyone expressing concern at dubious sentiments look like a rampaging Feminazi, again :sigh: Shall we have a look at what I was responding to in my very first mention of the word "sexism", not even my first post?
Girls play mind games. Deal with it.
Dayum haha can I quote this.

I think the reverse-psycology usually go for things like "No, you don't have to buy me flowers." or "No, we don't have to do anything for my birthday."That is sexism, pure and simple.
Serp, would you agree that using the terms "men" and "women" is, technically speaking, always sexist? If not, could you explain what you mean by "sexist"?No. In this context, smearing on women as fact blatant generalisation that could be applied to any subset of humanity.

Do you intend the words "sexist" and "racist" pejoratively? If so, could you explain what it is about some forms of discrimination that you disapprove of?Yes. If you have to ask, where have you been for the last 50 years? :smallconfused:

But attraction to women in particular provides a motivation to talk about women in particular. It is a reason why someone might be concerned about whether women play mind games, but not whether men play mind games.That doesn't change the fact that it is exactly as true to say "people play mind games". There is absolutely no reason to apply it exclusively to women.

Hmmm. Could you explain a bit more about what that purpose and those reasons are? I'd much rather have someone who was happy to do what I ask than someone who tries to guess what I'd like. Asking whether there's anything that I'd like would also be acceptable, although personally, if I really wanted a friend's help I'd just ask if they'd like to help.Didn't I already?
For example, pretend I really like getting flowers, because it's a nice sign that my Other really cares about me and thinks about me and likes doing nice spontaneous things for me.As an added bonus, it's a way of demonstrating to someone you care about just how much you know and understand them. Which is why it's usually so disappointing when I get presents from my dad :smallsigh: (I give him a list and he still gets it wrong :smallfrown: I think it's cuz he always gets them with his girlfriend, so I end up with things that someone who doesn't know me very well would get me).
It's the very fact you didn't ask but they did it anyway because it's a nice thing to do that makes it special, and by definition having to ask is beside the point. Moreover, it is absolutely not something exclusive to females. Maybe there is a trend for women to tend to have this sort of attachment to unsought spontaneous tokens of appreciation more than men do, but to say anything more solid than that is, as your [citation needed] suggests you might care, just plain unscientific.

edit: And by the by, there is an extremely big difference between "do what I want, not as I say" and hint-dropping.

[Xyk]

I don't think that we should attempt to remain ignorant of correlations between personal traits. I do think that statistical knowledge shouldn't be used to form stereotypes with which to make presumptions about individuals. (And that anecdotal evidence shouldn't be confused for statistical knowledge.)

Anecdotal evidence should never be used to make generalizations. Unless you saw every single woman on the planet do something, you cannot say that it's something women do. You can say that every woman you know does something (if that is the case).

I've used this example for a similar case involving racism:
Let's say you watch 200 <race/gender> murder innocent puppies. Does that mean that all <race/gender> are bad people? No. It means you've found 200 bad people who happen to be <race/gender>. In fact, it doesn't mean anything at all about the <race/gender>. Each and every member of the <race/gender> must be treated exactly the same as any other member of society.

To discriminate means to see a difference. Race is only skin deep. Gender goes as far as the XX chromosome takes it.

Every kind of discrimination is disapproved of. Saying women play mind games is the same as saying that men drink excessively and enjoy watching sports and that black people like fried chicken and that Canadians sacrifice chickens to their evil deities.

Words like "man" and "woman" should only be used when talking about romance, etc. IMHO. But it's a nasty habit that is extremely unlikely to fade in our lifetimes.

[The Extinguisher]

Words like "man" and "woman" should only be used when talking about romance, etc. IMHO. But it's a nasty habit that is extremely unlikely to fade in our lifetimes.

That's a little bit excessive. There are marked differences between males and female. Now they exist a little deeper than "sports and beer vs mind games and housework" but they are there.

I don't disagree with you so much as I think that this kind of thinking "there's absolutely no difference at all" can be pretty dangerous.

[Serpentine]

It is possible to discuss trends and tendencies without making "factual" generalisations.

[Xyk]

It is possible to discuss trends and tendencies without making "factual" generalisations.

I was a little angry when writing that. But when I am approached for the first time, I know I don't want to be treated like a white teenage american male in any way. I want to be treated like an individual whom they know nothing about. I don't want any trends or tendencies to be applied to me.

Edit: If absolute social equality is considered radical, then I am extremely disappointed.

Edit again for clarification of my point: I think there probably is a tendency for women as a group to act certain ways. I think it is probably because people expect them to. Ideally, people wouldn't expect anyone to do anything based solely on their race/gender and the stereotypes would go away and the tendencies would go away.

[Serpentine]

Sure, but if they're talking about you as the subset of "American teenage male" for the purposes of sociology, biology or statistics in general, it is both valid and reasonable for them to make predictions based on known trends and tendencies, and then take note of how you do or do not adhere to those and in turn insert them into the data to improve it. Though not necessarily that clinically...

edit: Regarding your edit, a notorious local letter-writer said that "human rights and social justice" are examples of "absurd politically correct diatribes" :smallsigh:

[The Extinguisher]

I was a little angry when writing that. But when I am approached for the first time, I know I don't want to be treated like a white teenage american male in any way. I want to be treated like an individual whom they know nothing about. I don't want any trends or tendencies to be applied to me.

Hey, so would I. Unfortunately, we don't actually work that way. We need some way of identifying people, because we know they aren't empty and nothing, but we also can't keep track of too many people (fun article related to the subject (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)) So we develop stereotypes based on trends and tendencies we observe so we can assign some level of humanity into people we meet without having to overload our social understanding.

It sucks, but we're not robots.

[Xyk]

Hey, so would I. Unfortunately, we don't actually work that way. We need some way of identifying people, because we know they aren't empty and nothing, but we also can't keep track of too many people (fun article related to the subject (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html)) So we develop stereotypes based on trends and tendencies we observe so we can assign some level of humanity into people we meet without having to overload our social understanding.

It sucks, but we're not robots.

I really dislike the "it sucks but that's the way it is" argument. I have a more optimistic outlook in that we can probably know and care about more than 150 people. That's just quitter talk.

[The Extinguisher]

I really dislike the "it sucks but that's the way it is" argument. I have a more optimistic outlook in that we can probably know and care about more than 150 people. That's just quitter talk.

So I'm a quitter. Big deal. I don't go out of my way to stereotype, and I'm not prejudice, but I can recognize the limitations of myself.

Of course, we're both doing exactly this to each other right now.



Edit: If absolute social equality is considered radical, then I am extremely disappointed.


Social equality can't exist. Different people have different skills and abilities and those need to be taken into account. Also, if everyone is always absolutely equal, whats the point in ever trying to achieve anything because you're still going to be absolutely equal and nothing is going to change.

[Serpentine]

You're confusing "equal" with "same", the same problem some "anti-feminists" have.

[Tiger Duck]

Maybe I'm making the same mistake, but Equal without the same is really hard.

[Serpentine]

No, it isn't. An apple and an orange are equal (equally fruity, equally popular, philosophically equal), but they're not the same. Men and women are (or should be) equal (equal rights, equally important, equally human, etc), but anyone who thinks they're the same needs to brush up on their biology. For example, men and women both need to have an equal chance of, say, becoming primary school teachers, but due to various factors that make men and women, as a whole, different, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be the same number of male and female primary school teachers.

[Rawhide]

There are much better "citations" out there on how keeping a tidy room, desk, office, home, whatever will improve your life. That one was just found in a few minutes.

I do not have time at the moment to do a thorough search and provide you with university accepted references. I realise that this weakens my position somewhat (i.e. "there are sources out there but I don't have time to find them!"), but I'm mentioning it now because maybe I will have time in the near future or maybe someone would like to help me out and find them for me, once found I can return to the discussion.

---

You are affected every day by your subconscious. You make instant decisions about how you expect a person to react based on their dress, race, gender, hairstyle, appearance, smell, demeanour. That is unavoidable. Certain sounds and smells are subconsciously associated with previous events. Ultrasonic sounds that you can't even hear can make you feel queasy or happy. There are even entire documentaries produced by the BBC that cover how music and scents can influence purchasing habits, not to mention all of the documentaries on how the mind works in general.

---

Note that requiring a certain amount of clutter to feel comfortable is not the same as mess. Some people have routines that make them feel comfortable, break the routine and they can begin to feel really stressed.

[The Extinguisher]

I agree with that. I think somewhere along the line someone misplaced a comma or two and we ended up with a complete misunderstanding because that's exactly what I was trying to say, for the most part.

Maybe I need to make my word choice gooder.

[Xyk]

So I'm a quitter. Big deal. I don't go out of my way to stereotype, and I'm not prejudice, but I can recognize the limitations of myself.

Of course, we're both doing exactly this to each other right now.



Social equality can't exist. Different people have different skills and abilities and those need to be taken into account. Also, if everyone is always absolutely equal, whats the point in ever trying to achieve anything because you're still going to be absolutely equal and nothing is going to change.

Social equality means treating strangers with the same respect that you would treat every other stranger. That's why I added the qualifier "social". Total sameness can't and shouldn't happen. I know nothing about you except what you post and the little blue circle thingy that says you're male. I can treat you based on what you post. Because you are an individual and posted these things by yourself. I cannot treat you based on your gender.

[Tiger Duck]

No, it isn't. An apple and an orange are equal (equally fruity, equally popular, philosophically equal), but they're not the same. Men and women are (or should be) equal (equal rights, equally important, equally human, etc), but anyone who thinks they're the same needs to brush up on their biology. For example, men and women both need to have an equal chance of, say, becoming primary school teachers, but due to various factors that make men and women, as a whole, different, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be the same number of male and female primary school teachers.

I was going to add the example of fruit, but decided against it. But now you've brought it up I'm just going to run with it.

Maybe apples and oranges are the same for you, but they aren't for everyone,

Imagine 3 peoples, one(A) that As a 2 apples and one orange, and his 2 friends. He wants to share it. so he gives one of his friends(B) the orange and the other one(C) and himself an apple. But now C is "angry" at A, he rather have an orange, because he likes them better. But B is happy with his orange so he doesn't want to trade. And A is confused why C is angry because he got an equal fruit.

[Serpentine]

:sigh:
The analogy had gone as far as it can. I'll just say that equality and sameness are very much different. To put it simplistically, equality is about potential, rights and treatment, sameness is about innate qualities. To put it in context, people who are saying that women are equal to men ARE NOT saying that women are the same as men. I would hope that that will clear up the matter with you.

[Xyk]

I was going to add the example of fruit, but decided against it. But now you've brought it up I'm just going to run with it.

Maybe apples and oranges are the same for you, but they aren't for everyone,

Imagine 3 peoples, one(A) that As a 2 apples and one orange, and his 2 friends. He wants to share it. so he gives one of his friends(B) the orange and the other one(C) and himself an apple. But now C is "angry" at A, he rather have an orange, because he likes them better. But B is happy with his orange so he doesn't want to trade. And A is confused why C is angry because he got an equal fruit.

That analogy does not translate to people. If you intend it to, that's terrible.

Edit: Serpentine got it right there ^

[Tiger Duck]

Well I think it does

Some peoples think that the opportunity to become fireperson and primary school teachers is equal.
So if one gender gets more of one than the other then thats fine.

but for some peoples they are not at all equal and think primary school teachers is a much better job, so they think men are at the disadvantage.

[Serpentine]

No, because the men and women have* the exact same opportunity (i.e. equal opportunity) to become primary school teachers and firefighters. However, there are certain innate differences^ between men and women that means that more men will want to become firefighters, and more women will want to become teachers.
If a fireman thinks he is at a disadvantage because he considers primary school teaching to be a "better" job, then he should either fight for better conditions for firefighters or get a teaching degree. It has absolutely nothing to do with the relative equality or sameness of men and women, and it certainly doesn't mean that "men have the disadvantage".
Subjective personal preference has nothing to do with equality, except in that equality will, in certain contexts, mean that everyone is equally able to achieve their subjective personal preference.

edit: Different tact, for good measure:

equal Pronunciation:/ˈiːkw(ə)l/
adjective
...
(includes definitions that are, indeed, synonymous to "same", but are not the definition used in this context)
2 (equal to) having the ability or resources to meet (a challenge):
the players proved equal to the task

noun
a person or thing that is the same as another in status or quality:
we all treat each other as equals
entertainment facilities without equal in the British Isles

Same Pronunciation:/seɪm/
adjective
(the same)
1 identical; not different; unchanged:
he's worked at the same place for quite a few years
I'm the same age as you are
the very same people who practised all the rules are now the most sceptical
[with clause] :
he put on the same costume that he had worn in Ottawa
(this/that same) referring to a person or thing just mentioned:
that same year I went to Boston
2 of an identical type:
they all wore the same clothes

pronoun
1 (the same) the same thing as something previously mentioned:
I'll resign and encourage everyone else to do the same
(chiefly in formal or legal use) the person or thing just mentioned:
put the tailboard up and secure same with a length of wire
2 people or things that are identical or share the same characteristics:
there are several brands and they're not all the same

adverb
similarly; in the same way:
treating women the same as men
he gave me five dollars, same as usual


*should have

^in terms of trends and tendencies

[Tiger Duck]

It has become unclear to me what we are disagreeing about, so I'll stop talking before I make anyone angry with me.


I was not saying men are at a disadvantage in general, I just still had "primary school teachers" copied and didn't felt like typing out fire-fighter again, because I can't write it correctly the first time and have to use the spell checker to correct it.

[Serpentine]

Basically, it boils down to this: People who are saying men and women are equal are not saying that men and women are the same. Extinguisher was (I thought) saying that because people are not the same, that means there cannot be social equality. I was trying to explain that he is confusing "same" with "equal", and that social equality means everyone having the same rights and opportunities and being considered as the individuals they are instead of members of a stereotyped subset; it does not mean everyone has the exact same abilties, skills, careers and life stories. Also, with regard to:
Also, if everyone is always absolutely equal, whats the point in ever trying to achieve anything because you're still going to be absolutely equal and nothing is going to change.It means that two people working in the same job at the same level of competence will receive the same pay that they deserve, and that (at least ideally) everyone has equal opportunity to "achieve anything" if they want to, not that everyone wants to achieve the same things nor that they will.

[Tiger Duck]

I see, the point I was trying to make was that everyone should get the same chances or else they wouldn't get equal chances.

But that wasn't being disputed :smallannoyed: I must have misread something to think it was.

Glad you took the time to clear it up for me. :smallsmile:

[Serpentine]

Heh. Yeah, the problem is that "equal" and "same" can be used synonymous, but not in this particular context :smalltongue:

[Quincunx]

The question, stripped to its core, doesn't even deal with truth or falsehood, let alone who speaks it. It is: in a conflict, do I heed my parent or my lover? It doesn't much matter which one owns or lacks the vagina. We all have parents and many of us have lovers.

I've found that, when one of those parties is urging a course of action truly for the benefit of the other (and not just using the threat of the other as leverage, as original post shows, which is to be ignored), the lover->parent advice has been more usable than the parent->lover. Less conflict of interest, I suppose. Whether the intent is good or ill, though, you should probably look to your lover's expressed interests first.

[Coidzor]

The question, stripped to its core, doesn't even deal with truth or falsehood, let alone who speaks it. It is: in a conflict, do I heed my parent or my lover? It doesn't much matter which one owns or lacks the vagina. We all have parents and many of us have lovers.

I've found that, when one of those parties is urging a course of action truly for the benefit of the other (and not just using the threat of the other as leverage, as original post shows, which is to be ignored), the lover->parent advice has been more usable than the parent->lover. Less conflict of interest, I suppose. Whether the intent is good or ill, though, you should probably look to your lover's expressed interests first.

Of course, in this specific instance, it is very difficult to achieve a state of "This Room is TOO CLEAN," so it's not like erring on the side of caution/more work is especially disadvantageous. And if it requires an especial time investment to move it up a notch of cleanliness, well, that would indicate that it was dirty enough to justify cleaning.

mmm, crazy people logic, I love it when I haz it.

[Triaxx]

Stripped to it's core, the question illustrates that it's impossible to completely know the mind of another person. Is your Girlfriend screwing with you? Is your father? Does it matter? Possibly, Possibly, NO.

[Moonshadow]

Hey hey hey =/ I didn't think things would get so hostile :smallfrown:

I thought I was asking what I thought was a simple question in an effort to gain some understanding as to why this stereotype exists =/ I'm sorry to any and all people I offended by asking his.

But I also never said I subscribed to that particular worldview, I was just curious, thats all.

[Serpentine]

Nah, you were fine. There were just some... questionable follow-up posts.

[Asta Kask]

1) It is perfectly possible to compare apples and oranges. They are actually quite similar (http://improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html).

2) Serpentine, are you saying that what you want is equal opportunities, not necessarily equal outcomes? That if men and women have equal opportunity to become, e.g., firefighters it wouldn't bother you if the outcome wasn't 50-50?

3) Isn't this beginning to border on politics?

[Serpentine]

1. Yes, but they're not the same.
2. Everyone should have equal opportunities, but because people are different we won't necessarily have the same outcomes. In terms of occupations, it's unrealistic to expect that equal numbers of men and women would be interested in individual jobs, because there are various tendencies that make men and women, on the whole, different. But the people who do want a job more popular among the other sex should have exactly the same chance of succeeding in that job.
3. Not yet, as far as I can see. Noone's been talking about legislation or anything.

[Asta Kask]

But the people who do want a job more popular among the other sex should have exactly the same chance of succeeding in that job.

All other things being equal. So if we have a job that was dependent entirely on body length, men in general would have an advantage over women in general. But a man and a woman of the same length should have the same chance of succeeding. Is that what you mean?

I'm asking because there are a lot of subtle nuances here and I want to be clear that I understand what you're saying. So it's not (just) to be a PITA.

[Serpentine]

Yep, that's about it. It actually bothers me that the military has different physical requirements for men and women. Presumably the requirements are there for a reason, and if they're all doing the same job, don't the requirements still matter regardless of their bits? :smallconfused: By all means give different jobs different physical requirements as necessary, but it seems silly to base it on sex...

[Zar Peter]

3) Isn't this beginning to border on politics?

In Saudi Arabia definitely. :smalltongue:

To answer the question on topic (Which I believe wasn't about cleaning your room):

Yes, there are certain circumstances where I don't understand my wife, it's mostly when she asks me to do something when I have time for it but in reality she wants me to do it now. I believe there are scientific studies that woman are in general a bit less specific than man but I don't know exactly where to find them now.

[Erloas]

Well a lot of this is based on cultural conditioning rather then biological design. I think the culture of 50-80 years ago had women act less demanding, which lead to a lot more "wanting something done but saying it in such a way that its not clear how important it is to them" sort of things.
Since it is a cultural thing its going to change from one generation to the next and from one area of the world to another.


As for what the OP's dad actually meant, wasn't so much about mind games, as it is about expectations. In general people get cleaner as they get older. While some kids can be much cleaner then some adults, chances are a messy adult is still cleaner then they were as a kid, and a clean kid will probably be even more clean as an adult.
And when it comes to living on your own (not with your parents at least) you are responsible cleaning a lot more. Keeping your room clean isn't as much about having a clean room as it is about showing maturity and responsibility.

And it might not seem like that at this time to you or your girlfriend, but it will change some long term outlooks later. It might be "we're both messy, if we move in together we'll never see our floor again," or it might be "I have a hard enough time cleaning up after myself, its going to be even harder if I have to clean for someone else as well."

I'm not an overly clean person, but I make an effort to keep things at least reasonable, even if I do have a few "working messes" around. So while being clean isn't a high priority to me, I could still see it causing problems if the woman I ended up with didn't care at all about it. Its not a big issue, but its just one more thing to compound upon other issues that will be there as well.

[Worira]

You're confusing "equal" with "same", the same problem some "anti-feminists" have.

However, the person he's responding to is, in fact, stating that men and women are the same, rather than simply equal.

[Ostien]

One also has to look at the construction of desire as it relates to equality. If little boys are told and expected to adhere to a gender norm and little girls are told to adhere to another there will be differences of outcome sure, but also differences of opportunity. Those two groups will not be on equal footing when it comes to what they desire to do, what they feel that can pursue. They will have already been shaped in such a way that may foreclose certain decisions and desires. This can of course be broken and an individual can escape from their formations and alter their desire but that is difficult to break this socialization. Not impossible but difficult.

So when we discuss that men and women would be treated equally we have to take into account the various un-equal treatment children (as well as adults) received based on gender norms (which in turn currently rely heavily on sex based norms). Not all of that socialization may take but as far as trends go it is clear that it sticks for the majority of people and influences greatly their desires and decisions in life.

Thus, from a feminist perspective we should make sure that even from an early age we try hard not to corner children to a particular desire based on gender norms. This is not just limited to children but in broader social ways (such as the media) in which men and women are taught what to desire in order to be normal and accepted. This is both internalized by the individual as well as others which result in social pressure and perhaps discrimination which pushes people away even if they have that desire, they feel that desire is unacceptable (because it has been shown as such by others in positions of power that act as gatekeepers). A message of equality in what can be desired across sex and gender should be a goal.

Also, physical differences between women and women and men and men can be as varied as between men and women. There are scrawny guys that would not cut it as a firefighter and strong women who could shoulder two St. Bernard's out of a burning building (no idea why that was the example I went to but it is a funny image)... We should praise such variety and not place arbitrary limitations based on sex or gender (as well as not to conflate them). This does not mean the same outcome will be had in every facet of life, but there will be far greater equality in what people ("men", "women" or "other") feel they can pursue.

To clarify I am not saying men and women are the same. No two people are the same, and one especially cannot say groups of people as broad as "men" and "women" are the same. But they certainly can be treated as equal and allowed (both allowed by legal means as well as allowed by what is socially acceptable) to pursue what may interest them without regard to sex or gender identification.

EDIT: For the record, Asta Kask's point is well taken and I am in agreement with that. People should have an equal chance to succeed regardless. My point is just that we also need to take into consideration the social constraints that affect people based on sex or gender that reference statistical norms and the ways it enforces them. This reproduction of norms does not illuminate if they are the result of historical and systematic oppression and also how they can be changed or understood. Statistics without social context may explain what is but not why.
EDIT2:@Erloas agreed, social context and conditioning always needed :smallbiggrin:

[Asta Kask]

Also, physical differences between women and women and men and men can be as varied as between men and women. There are scrawny guys that would not cut it as a firefighter and strong women who could shoulder two St. Bernard's out of a burning building (no idea why that was the example I went to but it is a funny image)... We should praise such variety and not place arbitrary limitations based on sex or gender (as well as not to conflate them). This does not mean the same outcome will be had in every facet of life, but there will be far greater equality in what people ("men", "women" or "other") feel they can pursue.

That's not strictly true, though. Take the hypothetical profession given above which only depends on length. Since people are more likely to seek a profession where they excel, we can assume that most people in that profession will be tall.


When two bell curves partly overlap, the farther out along the tail you go, the larger the discrepancies between the groups. For example, men on average are taller than women, and the discrepancy is greater for more extreme values. At a height of five foot ten, men outnumber women by a ratio of thirty to one; at a height of six feet, men outnumber women by a ratio of two thousand to one.

So even though many women are taller than many men, when you look at professions where there is a great advantage to be tall, you should expect men to massively outnumber women. There are quite a few men out there who are taller than six feet, after all. And mutatis mutandis for professions where shortness is favored.

[Glad_Vampyre]

I agree with Erloas on the fact that its more about a clean room. Its definately a responsibility and maturity issue when it comes to womens use of reverse psychology.

I mean if we come out and say I don't think your mature enough or responsible you guys get hurt in the sore spot. And we dont want to do that to you because then we argue with you for an hour. (sometimes more)

So giving you the second chance with reverse psychology works in your benefit because I know guys hate to fight with their significant other just as much as girls do.

I hope that made since....

[Ostien]

@Asta Kask: right, but what I was saying there can be tall women and short men and in that case tall women would excel better then the short men would. So for a profession like firefighter a strong woman would be better then a weak man, hypothetically. We should not ignore this possibility based on statistical norms based on height or strength, there are many exceptions to the physical norm that should be accepted socially. That was all my point was in that paragraph. Again not equality of result but equality of opportunity for those who are fit for the position regardless of sex or gender. I'm saying that even a tall woman may be deterred socially from a "tall" profession if it is also seen as a "male" profession. I'm speaking of the exceptions to purely physical statistics. So say there is a physical statistic that slants to men such as height. Fine. But when a tall woman shows up she should not be excused because she is a woman and not fitting with the trope of tall man and short woman (My point is that this happens, ask a tall woman and she'll certainly have a lot to say about either being pushed out of say a "tall sport" even though she was just as good as a male counterpart or that just because she is tall she is somehow less of a woman and should be more "lady-like" to offset that, thus socially shamed away). That is all I am saying. Again I keep having to stress I'm not saying equality of result but of opportunity for the exceptions.

So for something like strength there is a stigma against say "the muscle woman" and because of that women may not feel it would be acceptable for them to pursue a profession based on those physical aspects because of the social norms against it. That should be altered and there should be more equality in what is socially acceptable for anyone to pursue. There is the social component in my argument. It is encouraged for men to work out and be strong, not true for women and thus an imbalance of opportunity based on the acceptability of women who work out (I was in a strength and conditioning class in high school and saw the discrimination and determent first hand, but have seen some who resisted that social stigma and decided to focus on weight lifting rather then cardio, but they did pay a social price for their defiance). Example, usually whenever a strong women appears on a TV show she is treated like a freak for comic enjoyment but a male character who is similarly strong is seen as acceptable and even praised and something to strive to for all men.

I really don't see where we disagree that much. I'm just focusing less on physical aspects that cannot change that much such as height for either more mailable physical traits such as strength or very mailable social traits and norms such as being more direct and vocal, leadership skills, being more nurturing etc. No one should be told that they cannot desire something based on sex or gender because there are so many exceptions and also if we lift social stigma barriers then more people that have had less access/opportunity to shape themselves in such a way may have more access and opportunity in fields that have traditionally been sexist. This is changing (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/07/23/strong-women/), yes, but there is still a long way to go (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/07/22/weve-come-a-long-way-baby/).

[Asta Kask]

I think we agree on the goals, yes. I would also like to see a society where the contents of one's pants do not help or hinder. As to how we get there, that's probably a question for another forum...

[Ostien]

Agreed, this tangent is far and away from OP's post and perhaps is getting too political and I'd rather not shut down another thread because of that.

[Nameless]

Actually, it’s probably better that your room is messy. Seeing as she’s embarrassed about her room being messy, if she goes into your room and it’s also messy it might make her a little more relaxed about hers.
But I actually notice that my female friends rooms tend to be far messier then my male friends rooms.
Not that I can say much for my room though. e.o
Anyway, I think it’s just a stereotype that men all live in a mess and never bother to clean up while women are all tidy and live in spotless homes. While I know people that fit those stereotypes quite well, I also see plenty of the opposite.

Yay being back on topic.

[Xyk]

Nah, you were fine. There were just some... questionable follow-up posts.

Heh. My bad. :smallredface:

I had to go to sleep then but my point is that men and women should be treated the same, regardless of biological differences. Using the firefighter example, we want the best candidates for the job, regardless of gender. Gender should be thrown out as an issue when determining any job. If it turns out that men get more of those jobs, so be it. The people who are now firefighters happen to be mostly men. Gender is a non-issue.

To answer the OP, there is no reason to expect that she will not say what she wants just because she is a woman. That said, it might be nice to do it anyways for your dad's sake and on the off chance your girlfriend might like it.

[Coidzor]

Actually, it’s probably better that your room is messy. Seeing as she’s embarrassed about her room being messy, if she goes into your room and it’s also messy it might make her a little more relaxed about hers.
True, but probably needs a balance. I mean, unless she just thrives on mess, is probably nice to have a space that is always open to her that is a bit of a zone of reprieve from it all.

I know once my parents decided that they were more concerned about hoarding broken baby carriages that no one else wanted from my dead grandparents' house than about keeping a sane and organized household, that I was damn thankful for every visit I had to my girlfriend at the time's house which actually made sense and didn't make me want to burn the house down in order to get rid of all of the junk.


Anyway, I think it’s just a stereotype that men all live in a mess and never bother to clean up while women are all tidy and live in spotless homes. While I know people that fit those stereotypes quite well, I also see plenty of the opposite.

Actually, funnily enough, yeah. Almost every girl dorm room I went into was as messy or messier than the guys rooms I went into. Whereas amongst the guys, I encountered several individuals who actually spent an effort in keeping things tidy and organized so they could find their stuff. Or at least they wanted to shiv their roomie for being a slob and trashing their efforts to be semi-clean and decent.

[Marnath]

Stuff people say about equality vs. sameness

I'm a CHOO-CHOO train, WHooo whoooooo!!!!!
O.o

[Serpentine]

:confused:
What?

I'm one of the female slobs. Live with two guys, and I'm by far the messiest of both. I kinda wonder if one of them isn't somewhat OCD, though... I dunno, he's probably just neat.
That said, I do like everything to have its place, even if it rarely is in it. I occasionally go into big cleaning binges, and it is really... uncomfortable to pick up an object and not have anywhere to put it.

[Jack Squat]

Yep, that's about it. It actually bothers me that the military has different physical requirements for men and women. Presumably the requirements are there for a reason, and if they're all doing the same job, don't the requirements still matter regardless of their bits? :smallconfused: By all means give different jobs different physical requirements as necessary, but it seems silly to base it on sex...

To my understanding, the reason is biological. To put it simply, women aren't capable of near the same upper body strength as men are. Therefore, a woman is physically fit if capable of doing less push-ups than a man of similar age (the APFT states that a 17-21 y/o male scores 100 if he does 71 pushups in 2 minutes, a female scores 100 if she does 42). Sit-ups are the same, and there is a stark difference in the 2-mile running times (where just to pass, a male has to run about as fast as a female does to get a score of 100). This one makes less sense using gender as a guide, though remembering my track days, the women ran slower than the guys on average (with the faster women being about the same as the average speed of males).


I did see a study where the IDF did a co-ed training, and the women showed a significant improvement in aerobic improvement, though I believe they still lagged behind some - and there was still a significant difference in the upper-body abilities.

TL;DR version, the military is more focused on requiring it's members to be physically fit, rather than being fit enough to do their jobs, and there is a difference in abilities between where a man is considered "fit" and where a woman is.

[Serpentine]

So... They take men and women of equal* fitness, but the means of determining that level of fitness is different for each sex?

...

Does that make sense?

*"same" :smalltongue:

[Helanna]

Yeah, when we did fitness testing in gym, the guys always had to do waaaay more than the girls. It was really almost insulting. I mean, a difference, sure, but it's a bunch of high school kids. Gender did NOT account for the massive differences in scores.

It was also really annoying when stuff was based on gender even when it didn't make any sense. For example, the long jump. An A for the guys was somewhere around 6 or 7 feet (maybe?) while it was around 4 or 5 feet for the girls (If I'm remembering that at all correctly, which I may not be.) The point is, that's pretty much based on height, not gender. :smallmad: When you're barely reaching five feet in height, it really doesn't matter whether you're a boy or a girl, you're not getting an A.

[Jack Squat]

So... They take men and women of equal* fitness, but the means of determining that level of fitness is different for each sex?

...

Does that make sense?

*"same" :smalltongue:

That's about as concisely as it can be put, yeah.


Yeah, when we did fitness testing in gym, the guys always had to do waaaay more than the girls. It was really almost insulting. I mean, a difference, sure, but it's a bunch of high school kids. Gender did NOT account for the massive differences in scores.

Remembering when I was in high school (saying that makes me feel old), there was quite a difference in physical abilities between your average not-overweight male and your average not-overweight female. Now, this may be due to that the guys tended to be decently physical in their off-time (semi-rural area of the county) and the girls tended to want to remain dainty because of popular culture.

That being said, when I was in high school, even being really skinny and weak (as opposed to my current plain-old skinny and weak) I could still do more pull-ups than my mom, who's been a fitness instructor for about 20 years. Again, using the APFT as a guide, core/lower-body workouts should be about the same, but guys seem to have the advantage in upper-body strength and endurance.


It was also really annoying when stuff was based on gender even when it didn't make any sense. For example, the long jump. An A for the guys was somewhere around 6 or 7 feet (maybe?) while it was around 4 or 5 feet for the girls (If I'm remembering that at all correctly, which I may not be.) The point is, that's pretty much based on height, not gender. :smallmad: When you're barely reaching five feet in height, it really doesn't matter whether you're a boy or a girl, you're not getting an A.

Long jump actually has more to do with explosive energy potential than height. I'm not sure of the gender differences regarding it (if there are any), so I can't really comment further on this.

[Coidzor]

So... They take men and women of equal* fitness, but the means of determining that level of fitness is different for each sex?

Does that make sense?

Relative fitness, not objective fitness. Or rather, not objective physical ability, since what is fitness, when you really think about it.

[Serpentine]

But if fitness levels are necessary for military work, why don't the same requirements apply for men and women, if they're doing the same jobs? If they're required to carry X amount of gear, why are men required to be able to carry X+a amount (which makes sense), but women only need to be able to carry X+a-b amount? Aren't they carrying the same loads?
In other words: Presumably objective fitness is necessary for the job, so surely subjective has nothing to do with anything.

[Xyk]

But if fitness levels are necessary for military work, why don't the same requirements apply for men and women, if they're doing the same jobs? If they're required to carry X amount of gear, why are men required to be able to carry X+a amount (which makes sense), but women only need to be able to carry X+a-b amount? Aren't they carrying the same loads?
In other words: Presumably objective fitness is necessary for the job, so surely subjective has nothing to do with anything.

I agree with this. We shouldn't change the necessities of jobs. When dealing with sexes and races, these things have to be totally objective.

[The Extinguisher]

But if fitness levels are necessary for military work, why don't the same requirements apply for men and women, if they're doing the same jobs? If they're required to carry X amount of gear, why are men required to be able to carry X+a amount (which makes sense), but women only need to be able to carry X+a-b amount? Aren't they carrying the same loads?
In other words: Presumably objective fitness is necessary for the job, so surely subjective has nothing to do with anything.

I don't think it's so much that they need people to be at X level of fitness, rather that they need people to be generally fit, and "being fit" means different things for men and women.

[Raistlin1040]

Let's say you have to be able to bench press 150 pounds to get into the army, flat. I can't do that, but I'm not Army-level of fitness. I don't know many girls who can bench that much, but some of those that can't are still extraordinarily fit. If we put one requirement for everything, we wind up with one of two problems. Either A) Alienate prospective female soldiers by expecting them to bench press 150 (these numbers are all made up, so I don't know if they actually make sense, so my apologies), or B) lower the amount of weight needed, and let in guys like me who can maybe only do around 100-120.

I am not an endurance runner. I am totally a short distance sprinter type. I have an 8 minute mile at the best of times, but I can run a quarter mile in a little over a minute if I'm not expected to run three more. Running isn't the best example, since it's a little more gender equal, but let's say this. Let's assume a "fit" guy should be able to run a seven minute mile, and a "fit" girl should be able to run an eight minute mile. Sure, a fit girl and I can run the same amount on a track, but in a situation where we need to run more than a mile, over difficult terrain, would you rather have someone whose body has been prepared to handle it, or someone who is barely scraping by? Yes, the time we run might be the same, but the fact that the girl is as fast as someone who is naturally faster and more muscular means that her body is probably a lot more physically fit.

TL:DR I'd rather take an above-average girl than an average guy, even if they have the same statistics when it comes to fitness testing. The girl is going to be in better shape, most likely.

[Serpentine]

I don't think it's so much that they need people to be at X level of fitness, rather that they need people to be generally fit, and "being fit" means different things for men and women.That's what I thought, but then Coidzor said otherwise so I sought more clarification. So which is it?
Raist: So what I said before is about right, then?

So... They take men and women of equal fitness, but the means of determining that level of fitness is different for each sex?

...

Does that make sense?

[Raistlin1040]

I missed that post somehow. Huh. Yeah, that's about the gist of it as I understand it.

[Marnath]

But if fitness levels are necessary for military work, why don't the same requirements apply for men and women, if they're doing the same jobs? If they're required to carry X amount of gear, why are men required to be able to carry X+a amount (which makes sense), but women only need to be able to carry X+a-b amount? Aren't they carrying the same loads?
In other words: Presumably objective fitness is necessary for the job, so surely subjective has nothing to do with anything.

You're assuming that anything the military does is logical. In the U.S.A. at least, women may not serve on the front lines, some BS about men seeing a wounded female would be emotional and put themselves in danger to save her...lolwut? Thats different than what they'd do for a male comrade how exactly?

That and the utterly ridiculous Don't ask don't tell law, which is just plain flat out discrimination. Sending a person home who wants more than anything to serve is dumb. If there's really going to be a problem with people being uncomfortable with being in the same barracks as a homosexual, it's the bigot who needs to get a talking to, not the poor guy/girl who just wants to serve their country.

[Don Julio Anejo]

To the above:

1. Real reason females can't serve on the front lines is that it opens too much room for abuse, especially from their immediate CO's. For example, there was an episode of Lie to Me where a sergeant pretty much forced a female soldier into sleeping with him by implying she wouldn't have to drive lead in the convoy (the most dangerous position as roadside bombs usually strike the lead vehicle).

2. As for homosexuals, the problem is, a lot of people aren't comfortable with things like communal showers. Much less communal showers when you know the guy next to you wants to stick his *you know what* in your *you know where*. Hell, I love gay people (in a platonic way, I just find them really fun to hang out with), but no way I would be comfortable in a situation like that (I've *never* taken a communal shower even with straight people who will try their very best not to look your way).

The whole thing is kind of like letting a guy shower and stare in a women's bathroom. Sure, he may not be interested in you personally, but it's still uncomfortable.

If the army did allow that, much less people would join it. Like it or not, the army exists to fight, not to care about people's feelings. Fewer recruits when already a lot of people don't want to join it isn't in their best interests.

And besides, they do let in gay people. It's just that there is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[Marnath]

Ok, 1. i can see. But the answer is to put in place ways of preventing that, not to stop women from serving on the front lines. It's hardly like they don't already get abused where they serve now..

For 2., stop and realize that that already happens, but you don't hear about anyone getting assaulted in the shower. You know why? Gay people are no more likely to be psychotic rapists than anyone else. Not to mention that just because they're into guys doesn't mean that all they can think about is sex. I don't know what to tell you about being uncomfortable in the shower with other guys, aside from the fact that that's just how it is there. Private showers are a luxury you don't get.

*edit and the don't ask don't tell law IS discrimination, you don't have a law for kicking straight people out of the army if they talk about being straight.

[Zovc]

Just putting this out there:

She's embarrassed of how messy her room is. Therefore, she is conscious of how messy rooms are.

Food for thought.

[Marnath]

Just putting this out there:

She's embarrassed of how messy her room is. Therefore, she is conscious of how messy rooms are.

Food for thought.

Oh right, the actual topic of this thread. Yeah, i'm thinking that we started talking ourselves into circles about that a page or two ago. Probably no more point to beating the horse more.

[Don Julio Anejo]

For 2., stop and realize that that already happens, but you don't hear about anyone getting assaulted in the shower. You know why? Gay people are no more likely to be psychotic rapists than anyone else. Not to mention that just because they're into guys doesn't mean that all they can think about is sex. I don't know what to tell you about being uncomfortable in the shower with other guys, aside from the fact that that's just how it is there. Private showers are a luxury you don't get.

*edit and the don't ask don't tell law IS discrimination, you don't have a law for kicking straight people out of the army if they talk about being straight.
Then perhaps we should let men, including old perverts who drive vans and hand out candy to little kids, into women's changing rooms on the grounds that it's discrimination not to. After all, it's discrimination, it's not like they're going to rape someone. See what I'm getting at? Or are _my_ feelings suddenly less important than someone else's and I'm a bigot, racist and homophobe because I don't want someone staring at my, uhm, privates in a sexual and leering manner?

Ok, 1. i can see. But the answer is to put in place ways of preventing that, not to stop women from serving on the front lines. It's hardly like they don't already get abused where they serve now..
In situations like this it would be one person's word against another from a legal standpoint and the victim often too traumatized to report abuse from a psychological standpoint. Done the other way it would be a convenient way to get rid of a soldier you who's done the evil deed of looking at you the wrong way or even starting a witchhunt reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition where all you had to do was report someone to get them burned at the stake.

Neither situation does much for combat effectiveness of a unit, which is frankly the only thing the army really needs to care about. After all, the army is there to fight, not care about people's feelings.

[Coidzor]

Serps: 1. look at what Raist said. He said it with more words and such, pretty much.

2. Also, no, male and female soldiers are not doing the same jobs in regards to combat and operations. When they are, the situation has already deteriorated into being outside the purview of command.

[Serpentine]

Uh, guys... Both off-topic and political there, methinks.

[Xyk]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

[Jack Squat]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

While a good quote from Franklin, what does that have to do with this thread?

[Marnath]

While a good quote from Franklin, what does that have to do with this thread?

I'm thinking nothing. At this point we've strayed so far from the OP's topic that we may as well move this to a new thread.

[Xyk]

While a good quote from Franklin, what does that have to do with this thread?

It was a response to the gays in the military thing. Everyone knows this is a different thread now. :smallcool:

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Locked for review re: Inappropriate Topics.