Sitriel

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Well, player wise, Bloody Bay is as close to an empty wasteland as you'll ever see

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Let's remove the mobs from Bloody Bay and make collecting Shivans a mere formality... Well, actually it already is, but at least there is a theoretical chance to fail.

Mobs are a method to make PvP more interesting... and to make the zones appear more believable. I wouldn't know why one of the zones should be an empty wasteland.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
I still do that now, some people say its wrong to be emotionally attached to your char, others say its the best and most realistic form of RP, myself i believe in the latter.

And i admit to the above, for sure, whether it means i'm a bad RP'er or not, i still enjoy it.

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO letting your own emotions influence your toon's does not make you a good or bad RPer. However, I think it's clever to give your toons some of your own characteristics and feelings as it is easier to 'awaken them to life' that way.
Many RPers get lost in stereotypes and false assumptions when they try to play a character they can't relate to which most often results in bad roleplay. I give each and every one of my characters (be it pen&amp;paper or online) some of my own characteristics. This way I can play a wide range of very different characters and still relate to all of them. I just have ro ask myself how I would react to a given situation and adjust the reaction according to the character I play.

Number 1.
Storm/Dark
I have to agree with Cynic: This will be a slot-eating monster and the damage will probably be not that good for all those consumed slots. Other than that it wold fit a magician somehow (although I would like storm/elec better for that 'elemental magic' touch).

Number 2.
Dark/Psychic
Dont't like the thought. Both Dark/ and /Psi are great sets in their own right, but each has sets that would compliment them a lot better. This toon would probably not be bad, but it's missing concept and synergy.

Number 3.
Illusion/Storm
Oh, I have a lvl50 Illu/Storm who is a mighty spirit with the power to control and summon lesser spirits. So, I think the magic theme is easily made plausible with these sets.
Illu/Storm is not that easy to play without making the tank cry, but all-in-all it's a very powerful combination.

Number 4.
Fire/storm
If you can somehow manage the huge endurance consumption this combination will actually be quite powerful. On top of that it will have a nice ring of versatile elemental magic (fire, water, air). I like the concept, but until you are loaded on sets you will suffer from lack of endurance.

Number 5.
Ice/storm
Yes, the endurance consumption will be similar to Fire/Storm, but for a different effect. You will have less damage, but the sheer amount of control should be awesome. Plus, Ice/ fits very well with weather summoning or air&amp;water magic.

Number 6.
Earth/storm.
Well, you will have some damage with this combination due to storm, but it will be less than with other primaries. On the other hand endurance will be more managable. Concept-wise I see this as a kind of 'mountain magician' since the peaks of mountains are places where the elements of earth, air and water meet like this.

If I wanted to build a 'magician' toon I would probably go for one of the mentioned controller builds and it's not unlikely that I would choose Illu/Storm if I didn't already have a lvl50 of that kind.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Ah and dont forget the endless Gimping of AT's powers. create an character. og i pvp or pve with teams.. Someone thinks its to powerfull because you killed him or an npc to easy. BAM !!! lets gimp it. Lets not think about the ways that are currently in the game that can stop a "powerfull move" or anything in that form. Nooo lets gimp it straight away.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, and don't forget the endless complaining about minor adjustments to some powers that are perceived as "gimping" a whole AT, because said power is not that über anymore. Create a FOTM character. OG I PvP or PvE with teams... Someone thinks it's gimped because the former "I win" button doesn't work anymore. BAM!!! Let's complain. Let's not think about ways that are currently in the game that can make the toon successful even without a cheap tactical nuclear missile at his disposal. Nooooo, let's complain straight away.

Well, it feels good to have said this.

Seriously, if you really feel that there has been major "gimping" since you started play one year ago you should perhaps come up with some examples, because although I have three servers nicely filled with toons of any AT not a single one has been gimped.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
- kin/elec: nice synergy for draining endurance while blocking recovery, handy hold.
- kin/nrg: lots of annoying knockback pushing back your Transfusion/Transference targets.

[/ QUOTE ]
This can't be stressed enough. While kin/elec has some of the nicer synergies in the game kin/nrg is one of the worst cases of synergy-avoidance and self-debuffing.
No surprise that kin/elec is better than kin/nrg for all purposes.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Begining to see it now, a so called 'Veteran' could of RP'd for 20 years and still be poor at it. A week old player to RP could be better than the player whos been doing it for 20 years. Or atleast has the potential to be, so really, how long you've been doing it hardly comes into it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. RP is mainly about imagination, creativity and social skills. You don't need experience in RP to have any of these. Those who have these attributes usually tend to be decent roleplayers. The rest comes naturally with the familiarity with the world you RP in.
The worst kind of RPer is the previously mentioned god-modder who just wants to cover his low self-esteem by pretending to be the greatest thing alive. His character is usually named after the devil himself or his pendant in some fantasy movie or video game or anything else with godlike powers and/or his backstory says something about being a direct subordinate and agent of said entities. He will never understand that others will not be awed by his mental masturbation.
Other bad RPers lack imagination or are too introverted to actually play their character. Some can be helped, others are hopeless.
And then there are those who pick up RP like they had been doing nothing else in their lives. They act and talk in a believable way for their characters, actually have believable characters and are generally fun to roleplay with.
So, there is no seniority in RP. You can be a newb roleplayer, some may even be n00b roleplayers, but being a 'veteran' is in itself absolutely worthless.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Thats all happend in 19 months, even though everything makes IC sense, is it wrong to change a char THAT much? I personally enjoy it, but i'm told that it breaks immersion for other players, i disagree, but i'd love to see what others think.

[/ QUOTE ]
Keeping a character 'alive' while re-creating the ingame toon with different powers is all fine with me. Actually I really love it when someone puts that much effort in his characters. I did something similar when electric brutes and dark stalkers were introduced. I had to try both and I didn't like the playstyle of two of my dearest toons (RP-wise), so I invented a story how these two (fortunately they are brothers) simultaneously acquired their new powers.
In my opinion it does not break immersion for other players when toons change that much. To the contrary: Imagine how alienated you would be at first if a friend/acquaintance of yours underwent such a drastic change. It would break other players' immersion if you told them that the previous Echo had never existed or something like that, but as it is it's perfectly fine.

*chuckle*
Yeah, sonic/thermal is also nice. I remember doing the first CoV respec as my sonic/kin teamed with friends playing fire/kin and sonic/thermal and a new guy playing his stone/dark brute. The thorn tree AV went down so fast that the CoT ambush arrived just as we were standing there with our freshly claimed respecs congratulating each other and jokingly asking ourselves why there had been no ambush.

I'd rather pair ice/ice and sonic/kin and shred the opposition to pieces, but that's basically a matter of playstyle.
However, I can't recommend fire/ for PvP purposes as its single target attack chain is quite lackluster with anything but /kin as a secondary (because you don't want Flares).
On the other hand /rad's debuff anchors are good, but the bad thing about that is that people know that and will run out of range to lose it or into a mob to get you aggro. Small arenas should be ok for /rad, but other battlefields may prove less advantageous.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
(PS. dont use moment of glory against Illu troller.. The end comes much quicker)

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't believe him. Do it! Doooooo it!

Aratron (illu troller)

Since you are already 40 I think the worst part is already behind you. During the past six to seven levels if you had compared your 'arresting' speed to that of a Fire/Rad for example you might have noticed that the Fire/Rad is somewhat faster since his primary set offers considerably more damgage potential (especially AoE) than Mind/, especially if you don't count damage done by confused mobs (or half of that damage to keep it in line with xp-per-time calculations). However, with Mind/ you are overloaded on control for a soloing hero which is why it's balanced that you do a little bit less damage. With all that control at your hands teams will usually have an easy time doing the damage you miss, leading to faster arrests and shorter downtimes (i.e. more xp per time).
During the 40ies and the acquisition of ancillary powers the damage gap might narrow a little bit (although less so since the devs nerfed controllers' ancillary pools), so soloing would again be an option if there weren't more AVs around than you can shake a mental stick at. (You already mentioned the pretorian arc which is a great example for that.) You don't want to miss this fun part. You can actually level through the 40ies playing little else but AV missions and as a controller you will be wanted for those missions. My Illu/Storm controller still thanks the pretorians and a bag full of other AVs for allowing him to level from 43 to 50 in a single day.

Sounds completely normal to me.
You will have fun.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
But if you are teaming so much, there is probably at least one who will say "don't use confuse you are stealing our XP".

[/ QUOTE ]
To which I usually answer quoting the movie Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: "Who taught you maths?" and leave if he insists (usually taking a sizeable chunk of the team with me to regroup) or arrange for him to be kicked. (I have had my share of morons pretending to be smart.)

And as an aside: You need no panic button with Confuse, because with it you are prepared. Even EBs are your best friends. (My Mind/Psi domi is the easiest EB-soloer imaginable. Almost never lost a single hp.) And it's funny as hell if you commence your attack on a spawn with an AV simultaneously with the AV turning on his minions.

And I have to agree that Mind/ controllers are very 'controlly' and probably more so than any other primary. It's a great set if played well, although in the late game I would seriously recommend teaming (at least as a controller) as you can't reach the damage potential of Fire/ or Illu/ (which I both like, too) and things might take too long to be worthwhile.

Oh, in that case sleep is still not even close to being Mind's greatest tool. Confusion, holds and fear are all in Mind's tool box and so much more powerful.
I see sleep as being useful during the early levels when you don't have access to your full arsenal yet, but later (and if you plan to ever team with anything AoE) it gets more and more obsolete except for some very rare occasions.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
I played with an amazing Ice/Psi' Dom' on Union last night. The build looks an amazing amount of fun play . I'm totally sold on rolling one.

[/ QUOTE ]
Oh, I think Ice/Psi should really be tons of fun. A friend of mine has built one after seeing my Mind/Psi as living proof that /Psi is not low damage (unless the enemy has high resistance which is seldom enough). If anything it's a late bloomer, but you can't tell me with a straight face that spamming Psychic Shockwave in the middle of an enemy spawn (powered by an infinite amount of endurance due to Drain Psyche) is low damage and Ice/ should have the right tools to keep enemies inside Shockwave range.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Brutes are for selfish people, Tankers for the teamplayers

[/ QUOTE ]
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrre!

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Keep in mind that other sets don't have Mind's greatest tool, Sleep which provide you a safe path.


[/ QUOTE ]
The AoE sleep is Mind's greatest tool? Oh, damn, I thought Mind's combination of confusion and fear was superiour by far, but I may be wrong... Perhaps it's just my unusual habit of collecting xp by actually defeating mobs.

*chuckles*
Oh, Dark Melee is really nice for a stalker mainly for three reasons:
- The -ToHit is a nice bonus. Nobody will complain about being hit less often.
- Touch of Fear... This is so damn useful. Even EBs can be made to tremble in fear while you have all the time in the world to regain some endurance, prepare for the next AS, read a book or whatever. Personally, I find some very sadistic pleasure in releasing Mako's Water Spout right after the opening AS and stacking Touches of Fear on the helpless Boss/EB before the real "fight" begins.
And I think I don't have to mention how useful fear is in PvP.
- Critting with Midnight Grasp is downright scary.
Clearly, anyone who says that stalkers' DM is weak should really do his homework. My Dark stalker defeats enemies with ease where my Claws stalker felt like he was scratching a brick wall with a sharpened carrot.

Is that so? In some very few cases I had the body vanish during the animation, but many more times when this bug hit me the corpse was there through the whole animation and vanished directly after falling back to the ground which by all means should be late enough to successfully extract the essence if it was not for transmission delay.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
(and if you have any plans on quoting John Grey, we'd better end this discussion right about now. I tend to become quite angry when I think about that stinking pile of doo-doo. The only other person even coming close to making me angry is Ayn Rand. Not much makes me actually angry)

[/ QUOTE ]
The assumption that I could want to quote someone like John Grey shows that you - despite your claim - don't understand what I am talking about and that you don't intend to change this since you seemingly want to think you already do, no matter what. This is getting quite annoying.
And if that alone would not suffice your statements show little reflexion and a very limited point of view. Your goals are noble, but your conclusions are fundamentally and obviously flawed (if you would care and actually take a look). You want to amputate an arm to get rid of a particularly nasty splinter in the hand. You may well realize one day that people, regardless of gender, don't want to have their arm amputated.
So, if it makes you happy, devote all your life to your cause while I rest assured that you will fail miserably. You will even achieve less than what might be possible to achieve, just because your loud-mouthed but flawed ideology appalls people that otherwise might have listened.
As a logical conclusion and to stop this thread from derailing any further I won't be listening anymore. I have had my share of propaganda. Thank you!

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
The thing is, there are a lot of things we are taught, which don't make sense. Most training is covert, as I'm sure you're aware.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sound like a nice phrase to pseudo-disprove anything. So, how would you imagine this "training" to look like when the result is the same for so many different cultures?
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Spare me men who behave like "men", and spare me women who behave like "women". I absolutely loathe the ridiculous gender roles assigned due to the biological gender.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you still need to learn a lot about the more subtle differences between men and women. You are talking about stereotypes.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
The one is just stating that it's a good thing that men and women are different, a statement that I would subscribe any day since I would not want to live in a dull world without that difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well then, there's the difference between us. I do. That would bring us one step closer to perfection.

[/ QUOTE ]
Most certainly not! That would bring us one step closer to being biorobots. Your statement would make sense if all but the anatomical differences between men and women were exclusively of social origin. In all other cases it would be a recipe for evolutionary and social stasis.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
I'm not saying women should behave "like men". I'm not saying men should behave like "men". I loathe both the masculine and feminine gender identities, and I want nothing to do with them. They're just another border between people. Tell people often enough that they "can't communicate" and it'll become true. We have thousands of years of training to be "different". We should, in stead of trying to create more "men" and "women", create more individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]
We should become aliens? Sorry, but I have to put it that way since the race you describe is clearly not mankind. Again, it would make sense if all but the anatomic differences were of social origin, but things being as they are it's just thinly veiled propaganda.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
You think a rude reaction to opening a door for someone is understandable?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, since it's tied togeather with archaic ideas about the "weaker sex", so-called "gentlemanism" and other sexist structures - frankly yes, it's understandable. See the big picture.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I see the big picture. So, how do you say I would profit from insulting someone opening the door even if he was a sexist?
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
It's an indignity to be forced to disprove false insinuations contracted by nothing but good behaviour.

[/ QUOTE ]
But continually being seen and implied to be the "weaker sex" isn't?

"Good behaviour" is a matter of perspective.


[/ QUOTE ]
Hardly. I am not talking about rules of etiquette. The way I hold a spoon certainly won't make the world a better place, but doing someone a favour, even if it's a small one like opening the door, should never provoke an insult unless the person in question wants to insinuate ulterior motives which is an insult in itself.
I can understand such a reaction if I slam the door shut right before a man approaching the door next and tell her something like "So, now that I have opened the door for you that you could have never opened with your weakling arms you can bear my children in return, wench!", but I have never tried this modus operandi. (Perhaps I should... )
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
"Feminism is the radical idea that women are people" is a nice example of rethorics, but unfortunately the message sent by feminists is a little bit different.

[/ QUOTE ]
Read a lot of feminist theory, about heternonormativity etc, have you? The point is that men are what women are compared to. Men (as in the social "men", not as in the physical gender) are what's "normal", the "default".

[/ QUOTE ]
So what? Would it be any better if it was the other way around? Or would you prefer being compared to bacteria or something equally genderless?
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
The difference between someone why says they ascribe to an ideology and one who doesn't, is that the one who doesn't isn't aware of his or her ideology. There's no such thing as "common sense".

[/ QUOTE ]
Not for the followers of ideologies at least, although that makes common sense quite uncommon. Nice rethoric phrases won't cover the fact that those who follow ideologies leave the thinking to others. Others don't require such help.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
On the other hand, several of my assumptions, like you being one of those who want to "celebrate" what I see as mostly socially constructed "differences" between genders.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, you on the other hand seem to "celebrate" total equality, something that can not be achieved without limiting freedom since those two concepts are mutually exclusive. I am not particularly fond of that, too.
And about the rest... Well, I have said before that you still argue like someone from the "purely social" faction which leads your whole reasoning ad absurdum.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
(And just so we're clear on the terminology: "Gender" is the socialized role; women wearing pink, makeup and high heals, being incomprahensible to men and "mysterious", etc etc. "Sex" is the biological gender. They influence eachother, absolutely - but historically speaking, what it means to be a "man" and a "woman" has changed a lot depending on social class, time in history, and culture)

[/ QUOTE ]
Just so we're clear on the terminology: What you call "socialized gender" is a mixture of bad taste, urban myth and superficial gender-stereotypes. Perhaps it's that difficult to understand you because from all the differences with social origin you seem to reduce your focus on these few things... actually you seem to reduce all differences apart from anatomy to these things. Don't you really see the rest?

Well, if the dead body would indeed despawn during the animation and - as a logical result - not be there anymore when it's finished you actually had a point.
But, with things being as they are, the body is still there, goes through the rez animation and nothing happens. That's quite unsatisfying.
The same goes for Transfusion and Transference: People don't really have health bars, you know?
That means even if one person contracts a lethal injury he is not dead on the spot... scientist will perhaps never come to a conclusion how to discern the exact moment of death since dying is more like an ongoing process than an on/off-switch. On top of that heroes don't even kill their opponents.
You argue a little bit like the server argues. "You want what? Sorry, no can do, sir. It's already gone." - "But I can still..." - "You must be mistaken, sir. There is nothing." - Flash of bright red light.
This game is not about obeying the server, but to create a living comic world on the side of the client. And as long as my PC tells me that there is a dead body to exploit I expect to be able to exploit a dead body, especially if I am able to execute everything necesserary to do so, not some deus ex machina telling me indirectly that I must have had some kind of hallucination.

Arial 11

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
In most cases I would suggest a healthy mixture of both. I really don't know why you would deny any biological influence in this matter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't deny the existance of some biological influence, I just deem it too small to influence how we treat people (or how we raise children).

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I wouldn't rate those influences separately at all, because they are so strongly intertwined that it is really difficult to tell them apart. There are some things that are clearly of biological nature and some that are clearly of social nature, but those extremes are really a minority. So, in an argument it's possible for both sides to 'claim' a majority of some kind, but this is always omitting a part of the truth, something I am not particularly fond of.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
How do you know they haven't been trained to react differently to the same stimulus?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because it makes no sense in a modern setting. For example the sense of orientation: Women's orientation is highly adapted to limited areas while men's orientation is highly adapted to longer travels, just because of the way it works. Learned in a modern setting this would be a very strange and highly unlikely coincidence, but back in prehistoric times this specialization was a key to survival given the distinct roles of men and women back then.
In modern society this gives women an edge for some activities while it's a drawback for others. However, that's still a very long way from telling a woman how her sense of orientation should work and what she should do with it. It's just a given fact the majority of people has to live with, nothing more, nothing less.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Even if they are somewhat biologically defined - so what? Is that a reason to continue doing the things we've always done? Is mankind a static species? Hardly.

There are theories, certainly. But there are pretty credible theories on both sides. I simply chose a side based on the favorable outcome - and that is the maximation of the realization of each individual's potential. And I don't think that'll happen until we do away with the socialized gender (not the biological one).

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course these biological predispositions are by no means a reason for promoting a 'static species'. To the contrary: Change is good as change has made us what we are today after all. But that doesn't say that every proposed change is necessarily a good idea despite the high goals.
I don't choose a side based on the favourable outcome. In fact, I don't choose a side at all. This would be the same as leaving the thinking to others which would be an incredibly stupid thing to do in my case. I don't care about ideology. Ideology makes blind. Always. And why should I choose between theories when they are not mutually exclusive? I don't like limiting myself like that.
The realization of the maximum potential of the individual is a very personal thing. Some might tell you that it's necessary to eliminate the socialized gender, but, frankly, that's rubbish as that would be same as healing glaucoma by removing the eyes. All we need to get rid off is the restrictions that are associated with it. Away with that truckload of "should" and "shouldn't", but spare me women who behave like men.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
A lot of people are doing funny faces and going "let men be men and women be women" and continue claiming such nonsense as it's natural for women to have low-status jobs, less pay for the same amount of work, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a long way from "let men be men and women be women" and claiming that women are meant to have inferior jobs.
The one is just stating that it's a good thing that men and women are different, a statement that I would subscribe any day since I would not want to live in a dull world without that difference. (And no, again I am not talking about anatomy... although that's certainly a point. )
The other is putting a price tag on a gender and saying that one is worth less than the other. I think I have made it clear that I can't sympathize with that.
Sure, realizing that something is different is a prereqisite to claiming that this something is worth more or less, but the same is not true vice versa. And saying that two things are not different when they clearly are, just because the difference could be used by the ideological opposite doesn't make one more believable.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Sad, but understandable. Now, if the standard in sociaety would be to open doors for everyone (regardless of gender), it would be a different matter. My female friends have had similar reactions to my behaviour (I, too, am a door-opener) but have grown accustomed to it as they've seen me open doors for men and women alike.

[/ QUOTE ]
You think a rude reaction to opening a door for someone is understandable? Well, I most certainly don't tend to answer a favour with rudeness, just because I want to insinuate some bad motives behind the favour done. How would that help me? It's an indignity to be forced to disprove false insinuations contracted by nothing but good behaviour.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
I just believe those "predispositions" are more vagie and more easily overcome than generally percieved in the general debate. I see no merit in being limited by our biology unneccessarily.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is just what I said. Having a head start in one activity doesn't force you to pursue that activity. And there are more than enough examples of well-paid jobs where man and women handle things differently, but achieve similar results.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
As someone said, "feminism is the radical idea that women are people". As long as you're with me on not treating men and women differently, not paying them differently, not encouraging them differently, and not bringing them up differently - then we're on the same track.

[/ QUOTE ]"Feminism is the radical idea that women are people" is a nice example of rethorics, but unfortunately the message sent by feminists is a little bit different. Like I mentioned above, damn ideologies. The moment you adopt an ideology you should be able to hear your IQ plummet down.
And I treat all people differently based on the individual which has very little to do with gender or any other superficial criterion. Well, there are special 'treatments' that are gender-exclusive for me, but I don't think I can be blamed.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Well, I might very well have misunderstood you completely. Most likely due to an overreaction based on your usage the kind of arguments made by people whose conservative opinions I kind of loathe.

There's a difference between agreeing there might be biological differences, and allowing those differences to influence how you treat people. Social and biological gender. Dig?

(And I do hope you understand that I'm not trying to offend you or anyone you care about. If I have, please accept my deepest apologies.)

[/ QUOTE ]
No offence taken. Sometimes one hears a keyword and the associations and assumptions take over, right or wrong. That's why we are talking about it: to not be ruled by false assumptions.

[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
Sure, a statistical analysis will show that most women have "caretaker" jobs (or that the majority of violence is cause by people with dark skin) but statistics don't explain anything. Statistics don't show why women generally have caretaker jobs - nature or nurture?

[/ QUOTE ]
In most cases I would suggest a healthy mixture of both. I really don't know why you would deny any biological influence in this matter.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
"How brains and modes of perception" work is very much something we don't have the faintest clue about. There are as many theories on the workings of the human mind as there are psychiatric philosophers, and more.

[/ QUOTE ]
True, we don't understand everything yet, but I think it's a little bit of a stretch to call our knowledge "not the faintest clue". It seems your information is a little bit dated. You can show in experiments how differently the sense of orientation of men and women works, how men's perception "favours" different things than women's and even that different regions of their brains react to the exact same stimulus. Most of these things can not be explained in the least by modern socialization (and it would even less explain why these differences persist in many cultures with little semblance to ours), but would make incredibly much sense if they would have been "learned" in prehistoric times leading to an adapted evolution. Rashly dismissing those theories because there is no final proof strikes me as somewhat naive.
[/color]<blockquote><font class="small">Antwort auf:[/color]<hr />
However, I value these differences and think sexist blabber is basically a waste of energy, be it to talk a away these differences or to keep a particular person "in their role".

[/ QUOTE ]
Personally, I simply see how people who would work very well in particular societal roles are kept from those roles simply based on how they were raised and taught that their genders "should" behave. I've also met more than enough caretaker men and mechanic women to take any biologistic theory with a big fat grain of salt.

[/ QUOTE ]
As you may have noticed the things you "simply see" are exactly those things I called a waste of energy. If it eases you I can assure you that these things get more and more uncommon where I live. Unfortunately, this has also some more unpleasant side effects (due to over-zealous feminist preaching) as some people get a bit oversensitive to perceived sexist behaviour. I, for example, consider it good manners to open the door for a lady (or anybody else who passes the same door I am about to pass or have just passed) and I am quite irritated if this is answered by a rude remark by a woman who sees this as sexist behaviour. Very sad!
And I would never doubt that there are caretaker men and mechanic women. Being predisposed towards something (as I said) is not the same as not being able to do something else and as already mentioned there are always mavericks (which has nothing to do with job statistics). Why would you suggest that biology draws a distinct line between things like male and female or any other biological phenomenon? If your sources tell you something like that you should clearly take their advice with a big fat grain of salt.