XPost: rec.arts.sf.tv, rec.arts.tv
From: david@creeknet.com
Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article ,
> Bill Steele wrote:
>
> > In article
> > , Barry
> > Margolin wrote:
> >
> > > In article ,
> > > "David Cheatham" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > For either demographic, it's not enough JUST to put a pretty
> > > > > girl on the show, the subject matter still has to be
> > > > > entertaining to them. Boys might find Miley attractive, but
> > > > > they're not going to watch the show because it's about girly
> > > > > stuff (I've never actually seen it, but I assume dating and
> > > > > romance are common plot elements).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sci-fi and action has traditionally not had much of a female
> > > > > audience. Some of this may be because girls tend to be
> > > > > turned off by science, viewing it as a more male activity.
> > > > > But if you give a lead role to a woman, it breaks that
> > > > > stereotype. Now you have a show that can appeal to the wider
> > > > > demographic. Boys like it because it's sci-fi AND it has
> > > > > kick-ass babes, girls like it despite it being sci-fi BECAUSE
> > > > > it has kick-ass babes.
> > > >
> > > > This implies that men care more about the premise, whereas women
> > > > don't care about the premise as long as they can see some strong
> > > > women as characters. I don't know if that makes men or women
> > > > shallower.
> > >
> > > Women care about premises, too. But the premises that they tend
> > > to gravitate to are romantic, not action.
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is that if you have a show whose premise is not
> > > the type that a particular gender will consider, you can attract
> > > them by adding certain character types. So many women won't be
> > > immediately interested in a sci-fi action show, but if you put a
> > > woman in the lead lots of them will give it a try.
> > >
> > > And once they try it, they might like it. The problem is getting
> > > over initial biases, and creative packaging can accomplish that.
> >
> > A lot of this seems to be based on some old-fashioned ideas of
> > women's attitudes. It assumes little girls only play with dolls and
> > only dream of growing up to be wives and mothers. There surely is
> > still a lot of that still going around, but it's no longer
> > universal.
>
> I didn't say ONLY, I send "in general". It may not be PC to admit
> it, but there really are gender biases. Little girls tend to prefer
> to play with dolls, little boys with trucks. It's not universal,
> never has been, but that's the general tendency.
The way I say it: Men tend to solve problems physically. Women tend to
solve problems non-physically.
Note 'physically' is somewhat of a poor word. I would say 'logically',
but that implies women are illogical. Perhaps a way to say it is that
men tend to be linear problem solvers, whereas women are holistic
problem solvers.
This is why men prefer computer games where you fight your way to a
goal, whereas women perfer 'large overview' games like The Sims, where
you're just changing variables to make things better.
Women tend to get this 'holistic' problem solving pigeon-holed as
'social skills', as that's where they've been restricted to operate
until recent history, but there's no logical reason it couldn't apply
to, say, running a company, or designing a car.
And now I feel like I've implied that men solve problems with brute
force, but linear problem solving catches criminals, or diagnosis
computer bugs.
And, heck, a lot of times the actual steps are exactly the same. And,
just to be clear, both genders certainly *can* solve problems either
way, and it's all statistics and tendencies anyway. But there *is* a
difference.
Practical applications:
Men, when a woman comes to you with a social problem, do not attempt to
solve it. Agree with her, but do not attempt to present something she
could do. If you do, you are trying to fix the singular problem she
spoke of, whereas she's trying to complain about a whole situation that
she doesn't like, and will think your solution to a tiny part of the
problem she mentioned is stupid. (And she will think you even dumber
when she realizes that you don't grasp the entire situation, as she's
explained in detail over the past couple of weeks as you've tried to
listen, but couldn't really seem to care about all those people who are
doing things that aren't really important.)
Women, when a man can't articulate how he feels, be aware he only cares
about that if he *doesn't like* how he feels, at which point he'd try
to fix that. If he doesn't know, that means he considers that there is
no problem. That does not mean he does not have feelings. It means men
care about solvable problems, not abstract 'states the world is in'.
And I'm suddenly reminded of an old joke that's probably trying to be
sexist, but somehow manages to get the sexism entirely backwards:
The Army has just trained their first squad of female soldiers (Told
you it was old.), and pit them against a squad of male soldiers. The
task is to move a giant rock across a river.
The men start trying to figure out how to chop down trees and build
levers and whatnot.
The women just walk back up to the road and ask a handy road crew to
move the rock for them.
Haha, it is to laugh at the stupid women who...um...did it a lot
faster. But in a dumb way! Well, a smart way, but it didn't show how
good they solved physical problems, or something, and hence we shall
pretend they were dumb.
And before anyone thinks I'm saying men cannot think outside the box,
I'm saying, no, men and women have somewhat different boxes. In the
other direction, women, you'd be *amazed* how many of your social
problems would be solved with just directly confronting a jerkass, and
calling them such. Not 'violence', not even the threat of it, just say
'You're an asshole' to their face.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
