I hate to sound sexist but.................

[Bronty]

Well. The way he expressed it maybe needed work but I'm sorry I don't have a problem with the general point that most women don't seem to care as much about preserving condition. Is it sexist to say more men like chicken beer and wings than women do? Is it sexist to say thT more women (at least in this part of the world ) are into yoga and Pilates than men? Generalizations aren't in and if themselves a terrible thing. It's just as sexist to pretend men and women aren't different in some ways - to pretend that there are no gender differences in the name of equality.

 

Well, people are different, aren't they? Many ingredients that go into that. We can all reflect on what those are without me being pedantic.

 

My view, for what it is worth? An enlightened society celebrates diversity in all it's guises. But show me a truly enlightened society.

 

I support two people at the moment undergoing gender reassignment. They are superficially men being oppressed by virtue of their inner identity, trying to live as women.

 

So I think equality isn't applied equally regardless of gender. It's a universal constant. Or it isn't present.

 

With great respect, the only thing in your post on which I would really want to offer an alternative perspective is your comment on generalizations.

 

I think they can indeed be terrible things, depending on who's making them.

 

 

 

You and esteemed David merryweather both win the "no shlit Sherlock" prize for today

 

Generalizations aren't a bad thing in and of themselves as I said. They have their uses when trying to draw conclusions about likely behaviours from a large population. They can be positive or negative depending on how they are applied and the fact that I even need to explain that is why this place is frustrating sometimes. A example of a good generalization would be the way that, where I live, those over 80 need to have vision checks to renew their drivers licenses. Ie the government is GENERALIZING that at that age your vision start to go. A perfectly reasonable and positive applied generalization for society that results in greater safety even for all.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Well. The way he expressed it maybe needed work but I'm sorry I don't have a problem with the general point that most women don't seem to care as much about preserving condition. Is it sexist to say more men like chicken beer and wings than women do? Is it sexist to say thT more women (at least in this part of the world ) are into yoga and Pilates than men? Generalizations aren't in and if themselves a terrible thing. It's just as sexist to pretend men and women aren't different in some ways - to pretend that there are no gender differences in the name of equality.

 

Generalization is just a polite way of stereotyping, so yes, dependent upon the context, it can be a form of sexism.

 

We live in a world where one size doesn't fit all and as a society should be mature enough to celebrate those differences without pointing them out as odd or exceptional behavior.

My

 

Explain to me, then, why this board has a ratio of males to females of about 100 to 1.

 

Is it true that the vast majority of members on these boards...whether CGC, NGC, or other...is male? Yes.

 

Is it true that the vast majority of members on most (all...?) comic boards are male? Yes.

 

Is it also a generalization that far more comic collectors are male? Yes.

 

Does that make it a stereotype? You decide.

 

Does that mean that there aren't "rule breakers" who don't fit the general mold? Obviously. Does that mean anyone is KEEPING those who are different from participating, if they want to? Maybe in their minds, but the days of overt exclusion, for the purpose solely of excluding general types is a thing of the past in the West.

 

It is simply not true that recognizing that men and women are DIFFERENT, and have DIFFERENT interests and abilities, is "sexism." We should recognize and CELEBRATE THAT DIVERSITY, rather than, in the name of not "offending" the easily offended, try and force everyone into a "one size fits all, everyone is exactly equal in every way conceivable, even though nature itself puts that to the lie" mentality. And sometimes, those differences ARE odd and exceptional, and it's not *necessarily* wrong in pointing it out.

 

Context, as always, is everything.

 

Tell me...is it sexist to have "women only" clubs....?

 

 

(For the record, David, I'm not being confrontational. We don't always agree, but I appreciate your willingness to engage in a courteous, above-board manner. )

[Bronty]

 

Tell me...is it sexist to have "women only" clubs....?

 

 

that reminds me of this

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Tell me...is it sexist to have "women only" clubs....?

 

 

that reminds me of this

 

 

But, you see, the argument goes that it's been "75 cents for men, and $1.00 for women, and we're only balancing past injustice."

 

Because, of course, "He was going to hit me, so I hit him back first."

 

Injustice is only abated when met with justice, not more injustice.

[Flex Mentallo]

Well. The way he expressed it maybe needed work but I'm sorry I don't have a problem with the general point that most women don't seem to care as much about preserving condition. Is it sexist to say more men like chicken beer and wings than women do? Is it sexist to say thT more women (at least in this part of the world ) are into yoga and Pilates than men? Generalizations aren't in and if themselves a terrible thing. It's just as sexist to pretend men and women aren't different in some ways - to pretend that there are no gender differences in the name of equality.

 

Well, people are different, aren't they? Many ingredients that go into that. We can all reflect on what those are without me being pedantic.

 

My view, for what it is worth? An enlightened society celebrates diversity in all it's guises. But show me a truly enlightened society.

 

I support two people at the moment undergoing gender reassignment. They are superficially men being oppressed by virtue of their inner identity, trying to live as women.

 

So I think equality isn't applied equally regardless of gender. It's a universal constant. Or it isn't present.

 

With great respect, the only thing in your post on which I would really want to offer an alternative perspective is your comment on generalizations.

 

I think they can indeed be terrible things, depending on who's making them.

 

 

 

You and esteemed David merryweather both win the "no shlit Sherlock" prize for today

 

Generalizations aren't a bad thing in and of themselves as I said. They have their uses when trying to draw conclusions about likely behaviours from a large population. They can be positive or negative depending on how they are applied and the fact that I even need to explain that is why this place is frustrating sometimes. A example of a good generalization would be the way that, where I live, those over 80 need to have vision checks to renew their drivers licenses. Ie the government is GENERALIZING that at that age your vision start to go. A perfectly reasonable and positive applied generalization for society that results in greater safety even for all.

 

A prize? I'm unphased.

 

Yes, it's an interesting point, worth exploring. I heard of a couple today who were refused the right to adopt because the husband is diabetic. Generally, people with diabetes statistically don't live as long. Is that the same generalization, rightly applied?

[Bronty]

Its just a muffin RMA.

 

I like to think it was attempting to be humorous, but the humor is just totally overshadowed by the irony

[Flex Mentallo]

 

Tell me...is it sexist to have "women only" clubs....?

 

 

that reminds me of this

 

 

That's hysterical.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Its just a muffin RMA.

 

I like to think it was attempting to be humorous, but the humor is just totally overshadowed by the irony

 

A muffin here, world domination there...it's tough being a supervillain...

 

 

The irony of the poster is staggering.

[Flex Mentallo]

Its just a muffin RMA.

 

I like to think it was attempting to be humorous, but the humor is just totally overshadowed by the irony

 

A muffin here, world domination there...it's tough being a supervillain...

 

 

The irony of the poster is staggering.

 

I've enjoyed both your posts.

 

 

[vaillant]

My view, for what it is worth? An enlightened society celebrates diversity in all it's guises. But show me a truly enlightened society.

 

 

Not at all, Michael. Diversity is not something good per se. It can just be as much good or bad as uniformity. A hypotetically "enlightened" society would not recognize just the value of an experience subjectively, but objectively as well.

 

Ah, and I prefered Alanna – I never thought you were a woman.

 

I miss Fay…

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Yes, it's an interesting point, worth exploring. I heard of a couple today who were refused the right to adopt because the husband is diabetic. Generally, people with diabetes statistically don't live as long. Is that the same generalization, rightly applied?

 

Everything should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Was that the sole and only reason they were refused? If so, there should be an appeal made.

 

That aside, the issue is really just about odds.

 

If you were to assemble, blindly, 100 people who collected comic books...what are the odds that the majority of them (50% + 1) would be male?

 

I'd bet on those odds.

 

If an average female is shipping out collectible comics, what are the odds that the item(s) will be shipped out in a manner that adequately protects it/them in transit? Better than those of an average male? Worse? The same?

 

Not considering individuals, simply going based on the odds. That's really the heart of Bo_Hogg's complaint. According to him, the odds are worse.

[vaillant]

Anyway, according to the OP questions, this is a coincidence, because I never had such problems.

It may just be that women into selling collectibles aren’t so accustumed to comics, at least by the standards you have in the USA today.

 

In fact, my friend which holds books for me just received a GA book shipped into a tube, and the seller is a man, only he does not usually deal in comics.

I asked him to ship the book "well protected" – he must have thought a tube was the best way to protect it!

[Flex Mentallo]

 

Yes, it's an interesting point, worth exploring. I heard of a couple today who were refused the right to adopt because the husband is diabetic. Generally, people with diabetes statistically don't live as long. Is that the same generalization, rightly applied?

 

Everything should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Was that the sole and only reason they were refused? If so, there should be an appeal made.

 

That aside, the issue is really just about odds.

 

If you were to assemble, blindly, 100 people who collected comic books...what are the odds that the majority of them (50% + 1) would be male?

 

I'd bet on those odds.

 

If an average female is shipping out collectible comics, what are the odds that the item(s) will be shipped out in a manner that adequately protects it/them in transit? Better than those of an average male? Worse? The same?

 

Not considering individuals, simply going based on the odds. That's really the heart of Bo_Hogg's complaint. According to him, the odds are worse.

 

Human behavior is statistically and individually predictable even when we think we exercise free will. We are highly suggestible and instinctively wish to follow the herd - generally speaking. That is, most of us do.

 

It's the willingness to debate it that matters to me.

 

I start to get interested when we talk about generalizations as if they are (admittedly oxymoronic) "general truths" - my phrase not Bronty's - or if you like, "safe if safely applied".

 

Rather like fireworks.

 

But are they vulnerable to solipsism? I think they are. Gender issues in contemporary western society are by no means simple. Hence the rising temperature in Bo's thread.

 

Is your head still in your hands Bronty?

 

 

[Flex Mentallo]

 

Yes, it's an interesting point, worth exploring. I heard of a couple today who were refused the right to adopt because the husband is diabetic. Generally, people with diabetes statistically don't live as long. Is that the same generalization, rightly applied?

 

Everything should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Was that the sole and only reason they were refused?.

 

Sorry, yes, a statistical probability was the origin of the policy applied to the decision. It had nothing to do, for example, with whether he would have been a caring father.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Yes, it's an interesting point, worth exploring. I heard of a couple today who were refused the right to adopt because the husband is diabetic. Generally, people with diabetes statistically don't live as long. Is that the same generalization, rightly applied?

 

Everything should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Was that the sole and only reason they were refused? If so, there should be an appeal made.

 

That aside, the issue is really just about odds.

 

If you were to assemble, blindly, 100 people who collected comic books...what are the odds that the majority of them (50% + 1) would be male?

 

I'd bet on those odds.

 

If an average female is shipping out collectible comics, what are the odds that the item(s) will be shipped out in a manner that adequately protects it/them in transit? Better than those of an average male? Worse? The same?

 

Not considering individuals, simply going based on the odds. That's really the heart of Bo_Hogg's complaint. According to him, the odds are worse.

 

Human behavior is statistically and individually predictable even when we think we exercise free will. We are highly suggestible and instinctively wish to follow the herd - generally speaking. That is, most of us do.

 

It's the willingness to debate it that matters to me.

 

I start to get interested when we talk about generalizations as if they are (admittedly oxymoronic) "general truths" - my phrase not Bronty's - or if you like, "safe if safely applied".

 

Rather like fireworks.

 

But are they vulnerable to solipsism? I think they are. Gender issues in contemporary western society are by no means simple. Hence the rising temperature in Bo's thread.

 

Is your head still in your hands Bronty?

 

 

That's a great post.

 

The real problem comes when individuals internalize a general statement, and erroneously think that it is aimed at, and applies to, them, solely because they happen to be a member of the human classification being discussed.

 

"(Insert human classification here) are (insert possibly negative characteristic here.)"

 

(Member of said classification): "Hey! I'm not (aforementioned possibly negative characteristic)!"

 

Right, and no one said he/she was (are only two gender pronouns still acceptable...?) They just pointed out something that might be generally true, but not true of everyone.

 

Separating the two ideas is difficult, if not impossible, for most.

[BB-Gun]

I love women and have a great amount of respect for them but I must say this: Every single time I buy a comic book or comic magazine from a woman on Ebay, there is something drastic wrong with it. Every time, all the time. I have NEVER EVER gotten a comic from a woman and it turned out ok. Never!!!!!!!!!!! And I don't know if I am buying from a woman until I get the package and see her name on the package. This has happened to me at least 20 times. I just got a Snap magazine with a Stuporman story from 1940 in the mail today and ALL the pages were separated from the spine!!!!!! The seller had a male Ebay name but on the package, her name was Eileen. Tricked again!

 

I am all for women in our hobby. I love to see women at conventions but I just want them to be more informed, especially if they are selling.

 

Many sellers on ebay are just con artists. They pretend they didn't know about the defect and people bid up an item that has limited value. Afterwards the excuse is "I didn't know, my goodness".

 

Ask more questions and you can probably cut back on the problem. The honest ones will post your comments and list the page numbers or defects when specifically asked. Good luck...I don't think it is a problem with women. It is a problem with both genders. You might allow women to swindle you more because you are trying to be a gentleman.

[RockMyAmadeus]

 

Yes, it's an interesting point, worth exploring. I heard of a couple today who were refused the right to adopt because the husband is diabetic. Generally, people with diabetes statistically don't live as long. Is that the same generalization, rightly applied?

 

Everything should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Was that the sole and only reason they were refused?.

 

Sorry, yes, a statistical probability was the origin of the policy applied to the decision. It had nothing to do, for example, with whether he would have been a caring father.

 

That's definitely a basis for appeal, then. For example: if the couple were independently wealthy, and were able to provide for the child even if the husband happened to pass away at some point statistically earlier than the average (just as a random example of how the appeal could be formed.)

 

Every decision, always, should be made on a case-by-case basis. Formulating policy...and worse, law...based on generalizations is a terribly unjust way to do things (which is why there should be LESS law, not more.)

 

It's one thing to discuss generalities...it's quite another to impose one's will on others based on them.

 

[Flex Mentallo]

I love women and have a great amount of respect for them but I must say this: Every single time I buy a comic book or comic magazine from a woman on Ebay, there is something drastic wrong with it. Every time, all the time. I have NEVER EVER gotten a comic from a woman and it turned out ok. Never!!!!!!!!!!! And I don't know if I am buying from a woman until I get the package and see her name on the package. This has happened to me at least 20 times. I just got a Snap magazine with a Stuporman story from 1940 in the mail today and ALL the pages were separated from the spine!!!!!! The seller had a male Ebay name but on the package, her name was Eileen. Tricked again!

 

I am all for women in our hobby. I love to see women at conventions but I just want them to be more informed, especially if they are selling.

 

Many sellers on ebay are just con artists. They pretend they didn't know about the defect and people bid up an item that has limited value. Afterwards the excuse is I didn't know, my goodness.

 

Ask more questions and you can probably cut back on the problem. The honest ones will post your comments and list the page numbers or defects when specifically asked. Good luck...I don't think it is a problem with woman. It is a problem with both genders. You might allow woman to swindle you more because you are trying to be a gentleman.

 

Here's more "no-sh*t-sherlocking -

 

Ebay has led to more people having the opportunity to sell goods worldwide. If -hypothetically - more women than men are doing so (for some reason), then the chances of buying a mis-graded comic book from a woman who knows nothing about collecting on Ebay may be statistically higher than from a man who also knows nothing about it. This might then create the impression that women cant grade accurately, or women understand the need to package well. Which might in turn play to latent assumptions about "gender characteristics." It does not follow from this that women cant grade. Most men cant either. Including some dealers unfortunately.

 

It's not the data that's at fault, but the interpretation may be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrBedrock]

Generally speaking, I like women. I also think that I can pack a box better than most women, though I have no solid proof to support that statement.

[Flex Mentallo]

Generally speaking, I like women. I also think that I can pack a box better than most women, though I have no solid proof to support that statement.

 

You can probably pack a box better than most men as well I would think.