Farewell - Sorry for having contributed to the unwanted attention, Allison. We think you're a phenomenal athlete and wish you the best of luck in your academic and athletic endeavors.posted by rajbot at 7:37 PM on May 30, 2007
The driver's toilet paper in Libertyville, Georgia, had been The Barring-gaffner of Bagnialto, or This Year's Masterpiece by Kilgore Trout.posted by ericost at 8:20 PM on May 30, 2007
The name of the planet where Trout's book took place was Bagnialto, and a "Barring-gaffner" there was a government official who spun a wheel of chance once a year. Citizens submitted works of art to the government, and these were given numbers, and then they were assigned cash values according to the Barring-gaffner's spins of the wheel. The viewpoint of character of the tale was not the Barring-gaffner, but a humble cobbler named Gooz. Gooz lived alone, and he painted a picture of his cat. It was the only picture he had ever painted. He took it to the Barring-gaffner, who numbered it and put it in a warehouse crammed with works of art.
The painting by Gooz had an unprecedented gush of luck on the wheel. It became worth eighteen thousand lambos, the equivalent of one billion dollars on Earth. The Barring-gaffner awarded Gooz a check for that amount, most of which was taken back at once by the tax collector. The picture was given a place of honor in the National Gallery, and people lined up for miles for a chance to see a painting worth a billion dollars.
Results indicated that more attractive men had higher starting salaries and they continued to earn more over time. For women, there was no effect of attractiveness for starting salaries, but more attractive women earned more later on in their jobs. By 1983, men were found to earn $2600 more on the average for each unit of attractiveness (on a 5-point scale) and women earned $2150 more.So unattractive men incur a greater proportional wage penalty than unattractive women, and attractive men incur a greater proportional wage benefit than attractive women. Male appearance has a greater effect on male wage outcome. This is not consistent with female appearance being a greater handicap in society than male appearance. Males face more appearance based discrimination.
Instructors who are viewed as better looking receive higher instructional ratings, with the impact of a move from the 10th to the 90th percentile of beauty being substantial. This impact exists within university departments and even within particular courses, and is larger for male than for female instructors.Again, male appearance is more important than female appearance on their rated job performance. This is not consistent with female appearance being a greater handicap in society than male appearance. Males face more appearance based discrimination.
It's sad to me that any men would ask us to accept this as their self-definition. Couldn't we reach for a more mature definition of male sexuality, one thatMade that clearer for your readers there. Listen, the trouser-snaked among us don’t sign up for how our bodies and our minds work when it comes to sexuality; any more than the boobied among us choose to disproportionately fall for self-confidence, not paying sufficient attention to whether the personality attached to that self-confidence is respectful and considerate. If you take a course of testosterone for six months and come back and make the same argument, I’ll listen to you, but as you express it there, you seem to be assuming a level of choice in this that I don’t think many men have.didn't encourage men to commodify images of women (largely in order to call other males' attention to their own heterosexuality)?is more or less female sexuality?
jesushchristonapogostick!!! This is not about male reactions to female bodies.Yes it is.
It's about sexual harassment.No it’s not. Anyway, that was a false dichotomy. I mean, the Olsen twins are actresses, not porn stars, and if this is sexual harassment, then so is a *lot* of material online about them.
‘the trouser-snaked among us don’t sign up for how our bodies and our minds work when it comes to sexuality;’Miko, you know, I might take you seriously if you addressed what I wrote in sum, instead of picking single sentences to contradict, outside of the context they were written in.
[cutting the second time you pasted the same thing]
This evolutionary argument about sexuality doesn't really hold water.
"Particularly surprising in light of some popular discussion (e.g., Wolf, 1991) is the absence of significantly larger penalties and premia, for women than for men. If anything, the evidence goes in the opposite direction. . . "In other words, every single study that looks at the relationship between appearance and attactiveness finds that men are discriminated against more on this basis (rightly or wrongly) than women. All the studies point in the same direction.
You can't tell someone who's receiving unwanted attention that the solution is to stay off the Internet. That's just not practical.It’s not practical for software developers like us, but how do you imagine (again) the Olsen twins and Lindsay Lohan deal with the problem?
Stokke had tired of constant phone calls, of relentless Internet attention, of interview requests from Boston to Brazil.At this point, the attention has invaded her regular life. She is now a bona-fide minor celebrity; pretending the fans aren't there is no longer a viable option. The interviews for the Post and Fox News are not so much meant to reduce the attention, I think, as to modify the attention so it's not so much "ZOMG HOTTNESS" and maybe more, "Look, an accomplished young pole vaulter (who's also very pretty, yes) with actual feelings, who would like to be treated with some respect." This is basically what she did two years ago with one website poster. How do you reach over 310,000 people on the Web and tell them to chill out? Take it to newspapers and cable news channels that can spread your message just as fast, in one day, as the Internet mob can. Not a terribly irrational decision, in my eyes.
[...]
The wave of attention has steamrolled Stokke and her family in Newport Beach, Calif. She is recognized -- and stared at -- in coffee shops. She locks her doors and tries not to leave the house alone.
"Particularly surprising in light of some popular discussion (e.g., Wolf, 1991) is the absence of significantly larger penalties and premia, for women than for men. If anything, the evidence goes in the opposite direction. . . "Aloysius Bear's brief but respectable primer is zipping right over your head, as is the irony that you think you are spotting "obvious flaws" that somehow snuck past the peer-reviewers of the top economics journals in the profession. If I am wrong, the authors of these studies, as well as the peer-reviewers, as well as the journals that published them, as well as the hundreds of other studies that have cited them are wrong too. If I am wrong for citing "tainted" sources (*wank* *wank*), I am at least in good company. A privilege the Creationists - and my evidenceless contenders here - do not share.
« Older After an abysmal, embarrasing attempt at collabora... | A celebratory and trippy US Bi... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It amazes me what can become an internet meme.
posted by jayder at 6:57 PM on May 30, 2007