Profile of scratchedpaintjob

site just deletd my entire reply, gonna be shorter now

However the problem really rests with the term "many". Would 5% qualify as "many"? Because that's a small proportion, but would still be millions of people.

in mathmatics >32% is normal. the percentage is important

The claim that you can just look at culture, and see nature expressing itself automatically, doesn't hold up.

if the same pattern is about true across 1000 cultures far apart and through all times, its nature expressing itself. you said yourself that this isnt true for clothing...

Even if something is 'uncommon', that doesn't mean that it is invented, or 'unnatural', or provide any argument for why people should be prevented from doing whatever they choose to do, no matter how unusual we may find it.

you got me all wrong. im not preventing anyone from doing anything (hell, im a liberal) and so shouldnt anyone else, but unlike you im not screaming "opression" when they follow the most likely path

This is a classic demonstration of the 'is-ought' logical fallacy: the presumption that because something is a certain way, it *should* be that way.

if its a certain way for long enough, "is" becomes "ought" though genetics. and btw, if something is very off between "is" and "ought", a culture is inefficient and evolution stops that aswell

But this was the very point that The Machines videa addressed 0 not the incidence of women in combative gaming overall, but the difference in participation between RTS as a genre and the likes of FPS as a genre.

well, women are very scarce in every competetive scene. that is the interesting thing

And as for competition more generally, if you don't think there;s a huge amount of competition between women, you're missing the boat.

a competetive man could have many wives, a competetive women could still only have one man. therefore it is more important for a man to be competetive.
and ime, that is the case

I'm not at all ignorant of biology, thank you very much. hormones are not remotely complicated enough to constitute a "script"

for all the examples i gave, hormones and their interaction with the nerve cells is the "script"

Because it's quite easy for a given female baby to get a bigger testosterone dose than a male baby. If there were some sort of scale of testosterone response that determined enjoyment of ball sports, or whatever, then it would vary pretty widely across sex.

but that is only the case if the testosterone dose would vary so highly, that many women reach mens levels and many men reach womens level. can you point me to a specific paper that shows that? because everything i have seen so far on that shows that the opposite is the case. yes, these women exist, but they are relatively rare

Hahahaha..... really? But apparently, playing RTS's does? We've some instinctive drive to like or dislike RTS's, but not clothing? Hilarious.

i would argue that a videogame and the emotions and mechanics it uses have a lot more to do with how our brain works than the wavelength of some light particles. clothing is a lot more about what your friend/partner/neighbour/etc wears. and i mean, how long do we have those kind of clothes. 2500 years? that is nothing on a gene scale

But more to the point was that what was considered normal and "natural" for men and women CHANGES, which shows that in fact it was neither normal nor natural.

Why should your claims about what is normal and therefore natural be regarded as any more reliable? I certainly don't think they are.

how do you know that we have a biological trait for cloth? well, my point is that clothes may change often, but the role of men and woman has not changed in the last 10000? 100000? years and evolution is very slow on those timescales

(note, not exclusively female, you're taking the legend as if it were real)

my information was that some of the tribes were female dominated, others male. therefore female-dominated=amazons. if that is wrong, im sorry

Now, the Celts [...]

did you just go from: "celts have some similarities with the scythes" to "female warriors were usual thoughout whole europe". if it were that easy to argue...
female fighters were uncommon, whether for the romans, the egyptians, in the middle ages, the mayans, american cvil war, 10000bc.

There are several problems with your argument, the first of which is that you are going from the general to the specific. You can't go from such a broad generalisation to saying that this specific woman won't like a specific something.
... and yet apparently it is beyond your capacity to imagine that some of them might be interested in this game?

i never said that. if i did, point me to it. there is variety, of course. that is why we have more than 0% women playing this game...

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that I, or anyone, has argued that there are "no differences".

many people argue exactly that on a brain level

So even if it were true that the generalisation that MOST women may not be interested in this sort of thing holds, it;s not a sufficient explanation for the sheer scale of the polarisation we actually see.

how can you say that it is not a sufficient explanation? if you look at how many women like technical jobs or study something technical (=the mechanics of the game and pcs in general) and how many women like violence (high testosterone) and competetive nature (testosterone again), and then compare the amount of overlap with men, i would argue we come pretty close to the percentage that is shown here.

arse.... absurd claim

thank you very much for keeping this discussion mature, friendly and on-topic

and well, discussing the difference between men and women is a important aspect of the question, so steering clear of the difference is nice and all, but not helpfull for a real understanding.

One addendum tho - I don't think referencing SC2 player Scarlett as evidence of female RTS capability is so clever, considering that she is trans-gen.

The only female pro player in LoL LCS was a trans-gender aswell. very interesting ?pattern?!

Inconveniently for your argument, there's a lot of evidence that something else is going on. Repeated studies have shown that girls exhibit the same degree of interest in "hard" sciences as boys, at ages below 12-14. After that point, interest and participation in STEM topics declines rapidly. Most people interested in the topic don't believe that this is some sort of cosmic accident, seeing as it correlates so neatly with the onset of social pressures to conform to gender stereotypes.

woot? the onset starts at 12-14??? i dont know what "scientists" made that up, but the social pressure starts much earlier (the princess playing with barbies (age5), etc)
12-14 is rather the point where puberty hits, so hormones come into play. but of course, most genderstudy antiscientists dont like the word hormones or anything that has to do with biology=real science

HAHAHAHAHAHA this is what wehrbabbies actually believe!

After the 5 minute mark, if your rifle don't have double bar they are simply useless against infantry, Especially against the Ubermench grens.

well, first of all, i have played more allies than axis recently

second of all, even unupgraded rifleman are not "useless" against infantry

third of all, calling grens Übermenschen is probably the most ridiculous thing i have seen in a while

fourth, this coming from a player whose playercard link says "error 200" is just a bad joke

go troll someone else on the official forums

Voted yes for USF( good infantry, flanking feels good), Soviets ( many tech possibilities) and one ( haven't played them much recently, but they have pretty powerful units)

Voted no for ostheer ( unit survivability with random wipes) and ukf ( main infantry slow, vet3 bug makes it senseless to build more of them)

Got to disagree with butcher: both have very good doctrines!