At 6/2/13 03:09 AM, Ryanson wrote: Nice video. Good points.

True and pretty much every site on the Internet including this one back it up.

It's like this girl doesn't even realize that nature itself made women in a more submissive role than men. Sure, we are conscious beings and can reroute the surface of our biological drives to do what we will ourselves to as far as it allows us to, but the very fact that she is complaining about a video game in a world that is doing it blaatantly so, is what makes me think that whatever she is saying right now is full of ignorance.

Commented on your video, and here's one of the comments that I thought would be better here:

"Also, the major problem I have is, you act as the Damsel in Distress is the only trope that is over used in video games, yet seem to be blind by the other one that is even more common: The Manly Man doing Manly Things trope (yes, it is real).
It would be gender bias to suppose it's wrong to say a damsel in distress is negative to women while The manly Man doing Manly things is not harmful to men, or effective to our society."

If you want real change to a story line in gaming, it would be even more effective to change The Manly Man doing Manly Things trope than the Damsel in Distress trope. Hence, it is not the trope the problem, or the games: It is the game writers that are the problem.

At 6/11/13 08:44 PM, Revo357912 wrote: If you want real change to a story line in gaming, it would be even more effective to change The Manly Man doing Manly Things trope than the Damsel in Distress trope. Hence, it is not the trope the problem, or the games: It is the game writers that are the problem.

which is kinda Anita's whole point.

except a guy said it, so you can agree with it.

At 6/11/13 09:04 PM, bigbadron wrote:

At 6/11/13 08:44 PM, Revo357912 wrote: If you want real change to a story line in gaming, it would be even more effective to change The Manly Man doing Manly Things trope than the Damsel in Distress trope. Hence, it is not the trope the problem, or the games: It is the game writers that are the problem.

which is kinda Anita's whole point.

except a guy said it, so you can agree with it.

Okay, for the last fucking time, that is not Anita's whole point.
Nor am I saying to change the story line. Perhaps if you could actually read, it says "If you want real change.
Although I don't mind change, I don't think it's as important an issue in society or in video games in general.
I'd rather have more unique story lines than simply eliminating a trope.
For example, Braid is a damsel in distress game; however, it was nicely different when you find out you were

(spoiler warning)

the bad guy the whole time.
It's not the trope that's the problem as much as how it is used, and how many tropes are used, since one single trope does not make a game. Even the simplest of games has more than one trope, like Donkey Kong. although Mario is trying to save Pauline, he is also fighting a wild beast, and happens to be a man, thus being a separate trope as well.

Anita's whole point, however, is "Women should be given more prominent roles in games (make them manlier I guess, in her simple mind).
If that's the case, then all one has to do is pick a female or let games have a female option (Femshep).
But would simply playing as a female change the game drastically?
Neigh, would simply changing the gender in games change the story line?
Even if they were reversed genders, the game play would be the same.

Again, proving that the problem is not the Damsel in Distress trope, at all.

And as stated yet again before, Anita has a horrible gender bias, as never even mentions how many of the male characters in games are either regular nobodies and many get killed, while the women are princesses or some other important being.
If she wanted equality, you'd be killing both females and males in the games almost equally.
But to her, if there's even one woman harmed, despite there being perhaps another who is not and is a strong character, then it's automatically "Misogyny".

Well I'm sorry, I thought it was okay for someone who actually has a more educated opinion on a subject matter to be speaking about such a thing.

So go fuck off and stop trolling. At least Naronic brings a more intellectual argument to the table than "Oh, he hates women, nyeh".

i wouldn't let this nasty hoe within a hundred feet of my cock

one time in a chef boyardee commercial this little girl wanted chef boyardee and her dad said no

blatant patriarchal trope

At 6/11/13 09:31 PM, Revo357912 wrote: So go fuck off and stop trolling. At least Naronic brings a more intellectual argument to the table than "Oh, he hates women, nyeh".

aww, did my face value comment upset you? that's a shame.

it's also a shame that you continue to miss her point. she's not demanding that female characters be more prominent and manly, she would just like to see them not constantly used as plot devices. she (like me) wants the writers to be more creative, to not rely on someone's protective emotions to draw them into a story.

not to mention, this is just the beginning of this series. it's going to keep getting more and more in depth, and it probably won't all be negative. but that doesn't matter, because all you seem to want to hear is "I'M A FEMINIST AND GUYS ARE RUINING GAMES." you know, take it at face value.

At 6/11/13 09:31 PM, Revo357912 wrote:
So go fuck off and stop trolling.

You first. There are lot of games where women are the most important while many men die...But what perspective are these games told from? And just like in Zelda, even if the women are oh so important, is their mission make-or-break according to if the male hero succeeds?

"HAVING A FEMALE WOULDN'T CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY." Derp alert, it's not the gameplay that's important, it's the player's reaction to it. It's important that females be given more prominent roles because women fucking play video games and deserve to see themselves as the hero of the story. Asshole.

At 6/12/13 02:43 AM, ChloBro wrote:

"HAVING A FEMALE WOULDN'T CHANGE THE GAMEPLAY." Derp alert, it's not the gameplay that's important, it's the player's reaction to it. It's important that females be given more prominent roles because women fucking play video games and deserve to see themselves as the hero of the story. Asshole.

It seems that defenders of Anita have different conclusions as to what she is saying. Perhaps this helps prove she is not being clear with what she is saying then, because as Bigbadron says in a post right before yours:

"it's also a shame that you continue to miss her point. she's not demanding that female characters be more prominent and manly, she would just like to see them not constantly used as plot devices. she (like me) wants the writers to be more creative, to not rely on someone's protective emotions to draw them into a story."

He's saying that the gameplay (which includes the story of course) is what's most important and that that is what Anita is trying to convey, while you say that there should be more women in games and that that is what Anita is trying to say.

And the funny part is, that you, ChloeBro, are saying that I am right and that what Anita wants is more women in video games, while Bigbadron says I am wrong and that what Anita wants is more creative writing.

I think this kinda shows that Anita is not that good of a representative for the issue if not even her supporters can agree on what her main point is.

At 6/12/13 01:57 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

At 6/12/13 02:43 AM, ChloBro wrote:

Anita is not that good of a representative for the issue if not even her supporters can agree on what her main point is.

Lmao.
All three of us are saying the same thing.
More prominent roles = not being a plot device = more creative writing.
Just...Idk, just stop.

At 6/12/13 01:57 PM, Revo357912 wrote: He's saying that the gameplay (which includes the story of course) is what's most important and that that is what Anita is trying to convey, while you say that there should be more women in games and that that is what Anita is trying to say.

that's not what i'm trying to say, mainly because story is not included in gameplay. why? because gameplay does not equal story. that's like blaming the actors for a terribly written movie, even though they acted it out perfectly. but please, continue to try and make up stuff to make your point.

And the funny part is, that you, ChloeBro, are saying that I am right and that what Anita wants is more women in video games, while Bigbadron says I am wrong and that what Anita wants is more creative writing.

like that. Anita doesn't want more female characters, per se, she wants more interesting female characters. like one that doesn't need to be saved, protected, or what have you. will that lead to more female characters? sure.

you know what wouldn't solve the problem? haphazardly throwing more women in a game, or having them save the guy. role reversal solves nothing. that's what i meant by "prominent," basing it on what you thought Anita wants.

I think this kinda shows that Anita is not that good of a representative for the issue if not even her supporters can agree on what her main point is.

no it doesn't, because if some other broad, it would still garner the same amount of misguided hate. you don't even know what she wants, because you don't listen to her. you're hearing what you want.

At 6/12/13 02:53 PM, Austerity wrote: That was difficult to sit through. Had to look away half the time to prevent her annoying ass face from being burned into my mind. Also, towards the end she straight up resorts to making shit up.

that's cute.

Bigbadron, tell me in precise mannerisms what Anita's point is. I may join in on this discussion with my own critique.

At 6/12/13 03:20 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Bigbadron, tell me in precise mannerisms what Anita's point is. I may join in on this discussion with my own critique.

what do you mean by "precise mannerisms?"

At 6/12/13 03:52 PM, bigbadron wrote:

At 6/12/13 03:20 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Bigbadron, tell me in precise mannerisms what Anita's point is. I may join in on this discussion with my own critique.

what do you mean by "precise mannerisms?"

I want you to critically assess what you've gathered based on what you've observed of Anita's viewpoints.

At 6/12/13 03:57 PM, infamoss wrote: Anita Dick

Translated: "I Need A Dick".

At 6/12/13 03:13 PM, bigbadron wrote:

that's not what i'm trying to say, mainly because story is not included in gameplay. why? because gameplay does not equal story. that's like blaming the actors for a terribly written movie, even though they acted it out perfectly. but please, continue to try and make up stuff to make your point.

Okay, this one is a misunderstanding, as to me game play includes the story line in it, since the story affects how the game is played (For example, in Shadows of the Damned, the story makes it so that it would work better as a brawler or shooter, not as a Bejeweled type puzzle game). So to clarify, when I said game play, I meant that too, sorry about the confusion.

And the funny part is, that you, ChloeBro, are saying that I am right and that what Anita wants is more women in video games, while Bigbadron says I am wrong and that what Anita wants is more creative writing.

like that. Anita doesn't want more female characters, per se, she wants more interesting female characters. like one that doesn't need to be saved, protected, or what have you. will that lead to more female characters? sure.

But ChloeBro, another Anita supporter, also thinks that the she is stating that there should be more female game characters.

you know what wouldn't solve the problem? haphazardly throwing more women in a game, or having them save the guy. role reversal solves nothing. that's what i meant by "prominent," basing it on what you thought Anita wants.

That's what I said earlier. But making a woman (or women) more prominent wouldn't change much either unless the actual story is changed, as in a game in which you don't try to save something.

I think this kinda shows that Anita is not that good of a representative for the issue if not even her supporters can agree on what her main point is.

no it doesn't, because if some other broad, it would still garner the same amount of misguided hate. you don't even know what she wants, because you don't listen to her. you're hearing what you want.

No, I mean it shows that she is not good at making her point nor being less bias, because both you and ChloeBro have different understandings of the same person you both support.

Also, it's not about the gender of the person, but what they are saying;
for example, I'm a supporter of Kitetales:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

Not only that, but she explains what I am trying to say much better than I, I admit.

At 6/12/13 04:06 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

:But ChloeBro, another Anita supporter, also thinks that the she is stating that there should be more female game characters.

I didn't say that once.

Also, Kitetales actually uses some good, fair Statistics, I really appreciate that.

At 6/12/13 04:13 PM, ChloBro wrote:

At 6/12/13 04:06 PM, Revo357912 wrote: But ChloeBro, another Anita supporter, also thinks that the she is stating that there should be more female game characters.

I didn't say that once.

"it's not the gameplay that's important, it's the player's reaction to it. It's important that females be given more prominent roles because women fucking play video games and deserve to see themselves as the hero of the story. Asshole."

For that to work, it would require more females.
Notice how when males are well developed, there's at least 100 more that are not. This is done in part to contrast how much more developed the male character is. To do that well with Females, the same would be needed; an increase in numbers of females.
It's like placing a diamond among lumps of coal vs placing many diamonds together.

And again, what you are saying, to make a woman see herself as a hero as well, is what I said earlier: for that to happen, all you have to do is add a "Choose your gender" option to the game, without even having to change the game itself at all except maybe a few gender reversals (maybe).

This is contrary to what Bigbadron is saying, which is to improve the story line over all.

Also, commentary from another feminist with a PhD, which also sums up some of the problems with Anita's work:

"I am a female feminist at Ph.D level in political science and
political philosophy, with a heavy background in sociology,
anthropology and history. I consider myself left-wing and a more than
well-seasoned gamer.

Sarkeesian isnâEUTMt that smart and quite frankly IâEUTMm eagerly awaiting
the time she will stop making most of her videos and talks. The very few
valid points she raises are overshadowed by poor argumentation and
distorted fact-finding in which her âEUoenegative-libertiedâEU egotistical
approach to feminism doesn't in nearly any way promote change or
awareness, but simply attention to her own selfish realm and
motivations. She is very poor at interconnecting arguments and subjects
of academia concisely, only preaching to the choir doing a hatchet job
heavily processed for the sake of her own argument and fame. A lot of
hot air, much like most of contemporary activism which is ironically
right-wing in its method (most of whom donâEUTMt realise they are slave to
this dialectic) that categorically fails to convey a rallying argument
to actually promote any evolution on the subjectâEU¦

âEU¦ other than âEUoehey, IâEUTMm Anita Sarkeesian, I talk a lot of processed
crap for my own fame for my already sold group, love me.âEU SheâEUTMs merely
rehashing some old findings, incorporating it all with her two cents
added on top as if she did all this great research. Her videos aren't
that much more elaborate than the âEUoere:âEU ones, itâEUTMs a bunch of look at
this, this and that. All she seems to possess are âEUoeobservational
skillsâEU, which are either lacking or misleading. When it comes to actual
analysis or solutions she falls flat. âEUoeLook how bad the people are,
thank me and love for what IâEUTMm showing you. Because thatâEUTMs what I do,
show things.âEU seems all very well to a certain crowd. If she wants to
have more impact, she needs to do better. Do I think a lot of people
have seen this rampant sexism before? No. I have but thatâEUTMs
besides the point. What I believe is that most consumers havenâEUTMt yes,
and beyond this attempt to raise alarms, I am sorry to say I believe
most wonâEUTMt care either. That, is the problem.

She lacks many other aspects of academia to come up with a proper
response. In Cambridge (where I go, although been at the LSE, UniKöln
and McGill beforehand) at higher levels she would get mauled with such
quality of work so far (and by the women too). Who else is doing a good
job in feminism right now? I have no idea. This type seems to be
popular, a more refined reactionary exercise of the feminism of old, yet
lacking clarity. As I said, it seems to underlyingly govern a near
totality of the activist / critical social movements in the western
world (see Tumblr activism), not realizing that the metaphysics of this
are generally responsible for the poor current state of the social
fabric they are combating / trying to raise awareness about. Sadly, to
your question as of now I canâEUTMt only say : I donâEUTMt know. Will it change
over time? Likely, albeit it would appear difficult. It is more
widespread that people expect or see. The types of liberties, which have
far more reaching than mere individual free will, are intrinsic with
society and thought at a particular time and will differ between
cultures. ItâEUTMs also a Hegelian thing, at its base, but it also ranges
from Hobbes to Sartre although the main concept and terms were coined by
Isaiah Berlin.

What if it makes CliffyB blog about gender? ThatâEUTMs good, but if no one
actually comes up with a more intricate assessment of the issue at hand
and elements of the industry do not possess a clearer view how things
were and how they should be (positive liberty approach), it will remain
incomplete with voices here and there from individuals in a debate that
wonâEUTMt do much more than ring a few bells and mobilise disparate groups
in and around themselves only (negative liberty). The former has higher
chances of success, albeit more âEUoedifficultâEU, the latter usually doesnâEUTMt
result in very much at all.

ThereâEUTMs only so much one can achieve with such approach. ItâEUTMs a flaw
in most activists minds making them believe that the second others will
see their point of view on a particular issue, the audience will
instantly be struck with epiphanies along with an already fully-fledged
out roadmap to addressing said issue. It doesnâEUTMt particularly care much
for the lectureesâEUTM disparities in ideology and knowledge and will suffer
from a lack of cohesion in the upcoming actions.

SheâEUTMs not being persuasive enough, nor thorough enough. Her methods
of analysis seem flawed and presents it in a manner that will influence
an insubstantial amount of individual apart from the choir being
preached to. And to be boring in a metaphysical way sheâEUTMs also chosen
the wrong approach. She's also clearly in it for herself.

(ps. read "metaphysics in the broader sense of it, like with a Derridian sense, no need to be too pedantic)"

At 6/12/13 03:55 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I want you to critically assess what you've gathered based on what you've observed of Anita's viewpoints.

from what i have gathered thus far:

based on part 1, they are often used as bait, or a goal, that the more powerful male character has to collect and save. even if the female character can take care of herself, she is made powerless to something only the male can overcome. now, i don't fully agree with her "all damsels are possessions of the protagonist" point, but is understandable. seeing as how it is a game, it's basically a fetch quest.

part 2 digs deeper into the females as goal idea by now victimizing them, mainly to get an emotion some the player. they hurt the female, possess her, or even kill her, and the player must get his revenge. here is where i disagree with her a bit. just because someone feels like they need to get revenge on the villain for hurting/killing/possessing the girl, doesn't mean it's automatically sexist. if i were to see someone hurting another, regardless of sex, i would do something to try and stop it. it's just human nature. what would make it sexist is if i only helped women. why? because a man should be able to take care of himself, and if he can't, then he isn't a man. now, it's not like male characters don't get captured or offed in video games, but it's usually not the main to the arc of the story. (take Minh's death in Gears Of War, he dies to draw emotion, but was just a casualty of the posed by the already threat.) but, for the sake of her argument, it's all still there to draw emotion and protect someone who is weaker, and if you fail to do so, the only answer is more violence.

now her bit about the mercy killing and domestic violence against women for there own good is a bit far-fetched, but seeing as how real life victims of abuse tend to not move on from a relationship because they feel "it's my fault he hit me," i can agree that it doesn't help.

with all that said, and from what she has released so far, i would gather she wants better writing, more empowered female characters that don't get hindered by something the male can overcome (not necessarily leads) and less emphasis on the same, male, emotional draws. these may have changed a little from when i previously posted because i just watched both parts and took notes along the way. in part 3 of the Damsels In Distress series, all those points could change, because she will be talking about empowered characters and role reversal. that's why i don't understand why everyone is flipping their shit. this is only 2 of 3 parts of 1 chapter of a 12 chapter series.

hell, my opinion of her could change after the 3rd part. i don't know until i see it though. i hope that is clear enough for you.

At 6/12/13 05:37 PM, bigbadron wrote:

At 6/12/13 03:55 PM, Insanctuary wrote: I want you to critically assess what you've gathered based on what you've observed of Anita's viewpoints.

from what i have gathered thus far:

Thank you, I do appreciate the time you've taken to bring me an opening into this discussion.

based on part 1, they are often used as bait, or a goal, that the more powerful male character has to collect and save. even if the female character can take care of herself, she is made powerless to something only the male can overcome. now, i don't fully agree with her "all damsels are possessions of the protagonist" point, but is understandable. seeing as how it is a game, it's basically a fetch quest.

Actually, I have a very good counter-argument for this that has not been stated in the entirety of this post. Anita's mistake is assuming that this is a "gender bias" related issue, however I contest that what is really going on behind the context of this cliche, is that women are systematically weaker than men (nobody can argue this, nature biologically built men with more horse power than women, with more mass, with more testosterone, which is only considering the basic differences between men and women), therefore the context of this is actually based on true events where the bad guy kidnaps the weaker links to get to the biggest link, so it seems like it's a male > female case, but it's certainly not, it's actually based on the fact that women are targeted next to children in nearly every case, while women saving men is extraordinarily rare!

part 2 digs deeper into the females as goal idea by now victimizing them, mainly to get an emotion some the player. they hurt the female, possess her, or even kill her, and the player must get his revenge. here is where i disagree with her a bit. just because someone feels like they need to get revenge on the villain for hurting/killing/possessing the girl, doesn't mean it's automatically sexist. if i were to see someone hurting another, regardless of sex, i would do something to try and stop it. it's just human nature. what would make it sexist is if i only helped women. why? because a man should be able to take care of himself, and if he can't, then he isn't a man. now, it's not like male characters don't get captured or offed in video games, but it's usually not the main to the arc of the story. (take Minh's death in Gears Of War, he dies to draw emotion, but was just a casualty of the posed by the already threat.) but, for the sake of her argument, it's all still there to draw emotion and protect someone who is weaker, and if you fail to do so, the only answer is more violence.

This also applies to what I've said thus far. This happens more often than not across the world throughout the entire history of mankind. This is a cliche for a reason.

now her bit about the mercy killing and domestic violence against women for there own good is a bit far-fetched, but seeing as how real life victims of abuse tend to not move on from a relationship because they feel "it's my fault he hit me," i can agree that it doesn't help.

The reason why women rationalize these things, is because the truth is much worse than the pain they are stricken with -- or atleast appears so to them.

with all that said, and from what she has released so far, i would gather she wants better writing, more empowered female characters that don't get hindered by something the male can overcome (not necessarily leads) and less emphasis on the same, male, emotional draws. these may have changed a little from when i previously posted because i just watched both parts and took notes along the way. in part 3 of the Damsels In Distress series, all those points could change, because she will be talking about empowered characters and role reversal. that's why i don't understand why everyone is flipping their shit. this is only 2 of 3 parts of 1 chapter of a 12 chapter series.

It's like the whole racist thing; every movie I watch almost has to have this one random mixed ethnicity into the group, that it's even more irritating when they try to make it look not "racist". The same goes for having a female as the warrior just because we think there's not enough of it, not because a female fits the role of this particular project in mind! When we force things to make thing slook better; it only makes it look fucking worse.

hell, my opinion of her could change after the 3rd part. i don't know until i see it though. i hope that is clear enough for you.

This discussion was too easy. >:(

Thank you Insanctuary for bringing up the scientific points I completely forgot about.

Also should be mentioned is how there is a reason the majority of gamers are male:
Males seek things like action and adventure and challenge because of the increased testosterone; games are just a modern outlet for what used to be duels and sword fights.

At 6/12/13 04:06 PM, Revo357912 wrote: Okay, this one is a misunderstanding, as to me game play includes the story line in it, since the story affects how the game is played (For example, in Shadows of the Damned, the story makes it so that it would work better as a brawler or shooter, not as a Bejeweled type puzzle game). So to clarify, when I said game play, I meant that too, sorry about the confusion.

that's why design and story are separate.

But ChloeBro, another Anita supporter, also thinks that the she is stating that there should be more female game characters.

just because you support someone, doesn't mean you know what they want. i am basing my assumptions of what she has said. ChloeBro is probably doing the same. also, she didn't say more female characters. i'll get to that in a bit.

That's what I said earlier. But making a woman (or women) more prominent wouldn't change much either unless the actual story is changed, as in a game in which you don't try to save something.

i don't even know how to respond to this, because i don't even know what you're trying to say.

No, I mean it shows that she is not good at making her point nor being less bias, because both you and ChloeBro have different understandings of the same person you both support.

because we are not Anita. we don't know exactly what she wants, just like you don't know what i want, and i don't know what you want. on top of that, Anita is far from done with all this. as i said in my post to Insanctuary, she hasn't finished talking yet. there is still another part to this one chapter.

Also, it's not about the gender of the person, but what they are saying;
for example, I'm a supporter of Kitetales:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJihi5rB_Ek

Not only that, but she explains what I am trying to say much better than I, I admit.

but some of her points are clouded with nostalgia. i would go through video and point out some of the flaws in her logic (like i did with Anita's), but i can't sit and watch another video at the moment.

At 6/12/13 04:20 PM, Revo357912 wrote:

At 6/12/13 04:13 PM, ChloBro wrote:

At 6/12/13 04:06 PM, Revo357912 wrote: But ChloeBro, another Anita supporter, also thinks that the she is stating that there should be more female game characters.

I didn't say that once.

"it's not the gameplay that's important, it's the player's reaction to it. It's important that females be given more prominent roles because women fucking play video games and deserve to see themselves as the hero of the story. Asshole."

For that to work, it would require more females.

no it doesn't. all it requires is different writing.

Notice how when males are well developed, there's at least 100 more that are not. This is done in part to contrast how much more developed the male character is. To do that well with Females, the same would be needed; an increase in numbers of females.
It's like placing a diamond among lumps of coal vs placing many diamonds together.

so, men cannot be compared to women. to make a character stand out, they can only be compared to their same sex? how are you not being sexist right now?

And again, what you are saying, to make a woman see herself as a hero as well, is what I said earlier: for that to happen, all you have to do is add a "Choose your gender" option to the game, without even having to change the game itself at all except maybe a few gender reversals (maybe).

if it were that easy, we would probably see more games outside of RPGs doing it. most developers want to tell a specific story. for them to make a gender change work, they have to sacrifice the story. it would take more than just a gender swap.

This is contrary to what Bigbadron is saying, which is to improve the story line over all.

not really, because women are part of the story. better story, better developed characters.

Can someone post a summary of the argument so far so that I can respond

At 6/12/13 05:55 PM, Insanctuary wrote: This discussion was too easy. >:(

so i wrote all that just so you could say "men > women. case closed."

good, now i know to never read your posts ever again.

At 6/12/13 06:22 PM, naronic wrote: Can someone post a summary of the argument so far so that I can respond

Revo357912 continues to miss the point and misconstrues what everyone says, and Insanctuary has nothing to offer other than women are weaker than men.

At 6/12/13 06:26 PM, bigbadron wrote: so i wrote all that just so you could say "men > women. case closed."

good, now i know to never read your posts ever again.

Don't even try it, bub. I destroyed this entire discussion with one simple fact that EVERYONE looked over. Get @ me.