Your judgements are based on when the nature has already been learned, a cycle repeated by parents teaching their own judgements to their children. All this does is prove my point, the others who judged you were already indoctrinated.
The assumptions required to believe that, is incalculable. That every parent, in every nation, throughout every age in all of human history, every single one, passed on this particular teaching? That takes more faith, than I have. If you believe that, fine. But there is no evidence to support such a claim. So the people who were taught to be open minded, did the opposite, and that's "indoctrination"? They did the opposite of what they were taught. That's 'indoctrination' in your book. This post is showing me that you are not very rational in your line of thinking....
no faith required, just logically thinking. We teach our children things without even realizing we are teaching them, they learn from our body language and from things we say and do. As a parent everything you say or do influences your children, a comment about a female will be picked up by a child (if they are present) continue to use the same type of comments and that enforces the stereotype in the child The profile of cognitive abilities, beliefs, ethical values, coping defenses, and salient emotional moods that characterizes each child at each developmental stage is the result of diverse influences operating in complex ways. Most students of human development agree that the most important determinants of the different profiles include 1) the inherited physiologic patterns that are called temperamental qualities, 2) parental practices and personality, 3) quality of schools attended, 4) relationships with peers, 5) ordinal position in the family, and, finally, 6) the historical era in which late childhood and early adolescence are spent. - http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/104/Supplement_1/164.full.pdf Parents do influence their children, as do their peers .. were those who went against the open minded ideals doing so due to peer pressure .. look all I am suggesting is that IF parents can attempt to remove the influences of stereotyping then it might, just might become a thing of the past.
Right..... again, you are claiming that this particular teaching is being passed on, completely unconsciously by every parent, from every country, from every culture, throughout all human history? That somehow our body language is teaching them "Make fun of people who don't look like you at school". Really? Man, you must have some AMAZING body language. Again, this is a faith based belief system. Yes, there are some parents, some.... that possibly have passed on some aspects of them. You are telling me, that you know for a fact that ALL parents, from ALL cultures of the earth, from ALL human history have passed this along? No. I'm sorry, you can't prove that, or even support that claim. That's faith, not fact. You are making a point, I never questioned. Do parents, or peer, influence children? Well no duh. Of course they do. But *YOU* are the one suggesting that all judging is not natural, but learned. That's not a supportable position. With or without influence.... people judge. Again, there are influences, and parents and peer do influence. But don't tell me that every single individual on the face of the planet, only judges because someone somewhere, said something, that suddenly made them judgmental. Give me a break. That is simply not a supportable position. Nice theory. I don't have enough faith to believe that, and you can't provide anything to support it. Or at least you haven't yet, and I certainly haven't found anything to support that myself.
stereotypes also probably exist because they helped are ancestors survive. For example, if you were alive 10,000 years ago and one day a big brown hairy animal with huge teeth ate your best friend you'd probably be wise to avoid other big brown hairy animals with big teeth in the future. Similarly, if one day one of your friends was beaten and robbed by someone wearing saggy pants, a red bandana, who has tattoos, and is a certain skin tone you'd probably be wise to avoid someone similar in the future. Does it mean that someone wearing saggy pants, a red bandana, who has tattoos, and is a certain skin tone is always going to beat and rob you-No. But if it happened before, there's a better chance it's going to happen again.
so labeling women by their skirt length is now "helping" us to "survive" or stopping the chance of us being eaten by "big brown hairy" animals with big teeth
no but labeling women who wear short skirts and have tattoos may be adventatious if a man was burned by a woman who wore short skirts and had tattoos in the past I have to add a caveat. I dig women who wear short skirts and have tattoos, so I would judge women like that too, positively
as they say no risk, no reward. That man who reacts to his preconceived ideas may just have overlooked the most perfect match for him. Though I will point out that tattoos were not mentioned in my comment.
The sexier a woman dresses the better IMO, but I'm the least jealous guy I know. It probably has to do with the fact that I am attractive, I'm smart, I'm athletic and I'm creative.As a result, I'm not insecure at all-lol If I'm with a woman and she gets a lot of male attention it doesn't bother me at all
The perfect match for some of these guys is clearly, other guys. As one of them put it, More and more men agree, except it is women we don't need. Believe it, we suuuure dont need that kind of, uh, guys. Dr, Darwin, take them away!
I think no one has the right to judge women by what they wear! Judging anyone before knowing him/her, I think, might happen out of jealousy or fear.
The only thing this person can do is make personal attacks. She can't defend her beliefs because all her beliefs are based on lies.
Explain how it is misogynistic. It makes no sense to describe the post that way. - - - Updated - - - Yes I have when short skirts were the current fashion trend. Have met many women who dress that way and stick to one guy.
somewhat.... but if I'm hiring for a position... first impressions onus is on the person being interviewed... not the interviewER
yep, and there are usually more qualified applicants than positions for lower level. If someone wants to darwin themselves, let them. its a bit like with competitive grants, where they have elaborate requirements for the title page. a quick glance tells them if the rest of it even gets read.
yep... I said on this thread, that I appreciate when people don't dresss up for interviews in my field. It's just 1 more point I get over them. And when there is another applicaant with about the same qualifications as myself.... that 1 point is important
