Whip me, thrill me, make me clean the bathroom. :whip:

Like what? I looked up Mattel, they have several lines of toys who all have the exact same body type. This is a re-branding done by a woman for girls as action figures, of toys that were already designed for girls as the main target audience.
You could try to argue that the problem is deeper in that these are depicting characters that are designed for the male audience in the first place, and I'll point out that we both just complained that they don't do a very good job depicting those characters in the first place, and that they would look more heroic and strong if they did.
You could argue that the problem is that the executives and marketing and creative teams think this is what the female target audiance wants, and I'll use the starbucks action figure to point out that girls do have a choice of buying more athletic and stronger looking female character action figures, because this is the 2010s and the long tail is rule of law, and yet these aren't very successful or popular among girls, and in fact - judging by the response above - that is actually the one that appeals more to guys.

At that point you usually leave the argument and I try to go a bit meta - perhaps in this case make a point that this is to some extent generational difference, that you would have killed for a Starbucks but I never had a childhood in a world that didn't have Starbucks equivalents, which never actually gets any response not just from you but from nearly anyone - they are structured in a way that don't include clear talking points to jump board from, and I've more . Then I will try to break the silence with a mildly relevant joke or funny link. Probably this one:


Instead, you said you would have killed for a Starbucks character when you were a child. So there - get your inner child a Starbucks action figure.

Sorry, Sasha is the company that makes them.

The person it is a figure of is Katee Sackhoff playing a badass space fighter pilot - Lieutenant Starbucks:

Seriously, trace, I just wanted to know what the 'hmmm' indicated - I wasn't being snarky.

And that's why we can't have gender equality, because some women are too snarky and ruin it for the rest of them.

I didn't think you were, I figured you were on your toes an thinking I might be snarky. Which is not a horrible idea - I am on my toes wondering if the back of my head is going to be snarky at me too.
Honestly I wrote and deleted a few before not being sure which direction to go with - they all felt like they'd lead to dead ends convo cut offs, I was partially hoping you'd jump to a conclusion on what I meant and I was going to see where that went, but lacking that, a BSG starbucks action figure for your inner child seemed like a better dead end then the others.

There was this article "the art of conversation" of an interviewer who had years of talking to philosophers and artists and politicians and whatnot, can't remember his name, though I think he was british.
But I remember he had this really edifying view of it, you know the sort of format that brings something from just under the view into light, like a concept that is on the tip of your tongue but never ad a word getting verbalized into something you can work with and build upon?
His was like that, that there is a dynamic and an art to it, a game in which people take turns to make the rules as they as they go along, building a language within it...
And you see this all the time, in every conversation - imagine any conversation you ever heard, and now imagine hearing it for the first time without knowing who it is from. Think how many questions come to mind - What are the rules of the game? Are fallacies going to be the hammers? Are feelings and authenticity the legitimizing force? What is shared and assumed so easily it's never said? What is referenced outside as a show of common language - tropes or memes or bible verses or philosopher quotes or norse myths or tom and jerry episodes? Where is there friction? In the branches? in the basic foundations? in the direction they approach the shared foundation with? Where do the perspectives struggle to hear each other? What is it they each think they know the other doesn't? All of these are rules that unfold as it goes along, creating a fantastic and very unique game - and it can happen with anyone: From family where the dialogue might have rules so solidified and established they are part of you, to a stranger in the bus where a complete spontaneous game erupts. Remember in mofo? There used to be conversations that went on weeks, months, in a few cases years.

but dead ends... it might be civil, it might be agree to disagree and all that jazz and not letting conflicting opinions about one thing stop from making a doctor who joke later that day....

Listen to twaceur Dani, he knows what's best.

Gotham had a girl win a martial arts contest in a police academy.

Quote:

Sweden’s feminist foreign minister has dared to tell the truth about Saudi Arabia. What happens now concerns us all A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men [...] Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world’s ‘rich and varied ethical standards’ — standards so rich and varied, apparently, they include the flogging of bloggers and encouragement of paedophiles. Meanwhile, the Gulf Co-operation Council condemned her ‘unaccept-able interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’ - By Nick Cohen

I am curious to see what do you guys make of this.

Good for her (fixed link here), but it happened months ago, and not much came of it, so it looks like the author's fears were realized.

So... Do you largely agree with it? what do you think of it's point of view and interpretation?

I agree with her, and it's a pity she didn't get more support, but I can safely say that from outside the world of international diplomacy, where speaking precisely is more valued than speaking plainly.

But...

OMG, the fourth annual "Race of Gentlemen" invaded by women... and had fun. :D

An experiment for guys:

Go with another guy to a largely female or at least a mixed gendered social environment. Initially make sure you integrate into the conversation with them and that you two are generally welcomed.
Then when there's a pause, and quickly "check your messages" while starting a stopwatch app on your phone and then putting it back in your pocket. Ask the guy about a recent date he had and how it went.
Don't ask him about her looks. As he goes, ask for additional details about her behavior, her actions, and what she does in life, and continuously judging her about those with the assumption that your friend is looking for a long term partner, pick them apart and extrapolate out loud - what they means about her, about how well/badly she'd treat him, how happy she'd make him, and even what it would mean for your future household or what kind of a parent she'd be.
When the last women leaves the table in discomfort or disgust, stop the timer, and check the results. For a control - do the exact while focusing instead more on how she looks, how far she went and generally stay in line with basic dude questioning.


p.s.
IME the experiment takes 3-17 minutes. As far as the control, your battery will most likely die before you get to stop the stopwatch. A good few of them will feel quite comfortable joining in.