My kind of girls!

[Mastermariner]

 

My kind of girls with my kind of shoes. Gov issues?

 

Master

[Mastermariner]

Bumping this old thread with these qt's, just a few decade's ago the idea of this happening in China  would been lol'ed at, the world is changing fast

 

Master

[Feathered_IV]

"This is Control, please back the aircraft into the hangar behind you..."

 

**bald guy suddenly ejects**

[unreasonable]

"This is Control, please back the aircraft into the hangar behind you..."

 

**bald guy suddenly ejects**

 

Now now.    I see the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer has got into trouble after being reported as saying that trains were now so easy to drive that even women could do it.....

[Finkeren]

People who make jokes about women drivers obviously never heard of Bertha Benz:

 

"In August 1888, without telling her husband and without permission of the authorities, Benz drove with her sons Richard and Eugen, thirteen and fifteen years old, in the newly constructed Patent Motorwagen automobile—from Mannheim to Pforzheim—becoming the first person to drive an automobile over a real distance.[1] Motorized drives before this historic trip were merely very short trial drives, returning to the point of origin, made with mechanical assistants. Following wagon tracks, this pioneering tour had a one-way distance of about 106 km (66 mi).[5][6]

 

Although the ostensible purpose of the trip was to visit her mother, Bertha Benz had other motives: to prove to her husband—who had failed to consider marketing his invention adequately—that the automobile they both heavily invested in would become a financial success once it was shown to be useful to the general public; and to give her husband the confidence that his constructions had a future.

She left Mannheim around dawn, solving numerous problems along the way.[8] Bertha demonstrated her significant technical capabilities on this journey.[9] With no fuel tank and only a 4.5-litre supply of petrol in the carburetor, she had to find ligroin, the petroleum solvent needed for the car to run. It was only available at apothecary shops, so she stopped in Wiesloch at the city pharmacy to purchase the fuel.[10] At the time petrol and other fuels could only be bought from chemists and so this is how the chemist in Wiesloch became the first fuel station in the world.[9]

 

She even cleaned a blocked fuel line with her hat pin and used her garter as isolation material.[9] A blacksmith had to help mend a chain at one point. When the wooden brakes began to fail Benz visited a cobbler to install leather, making the world's first pair of brake pads.[2] The thermosiphon system was employed to cool the engine, making water supply a big worry along the trip. The trio added water to their supply every time they stopped.[10] The car's two gears were not enough to surmount uphill inclines and Eugen and Richard often had to push the vehicle.[10] Benz reached Pforzheim somewhat after dusk, notifying her husband of her successful journey by telegram. She drove back to Mannheim several days later.

 

Along the way, several people were frightened by the automobile. Some even thought that two young boys and a woman on a hissing, thumping horseless carriage could only be the work of the Devil himself.[11] The novel trip received a great deal of publicity, as she had sought. The drive was a key event in the technical development of the automobile. The pioneering couple introduced several improvements after Bertha's experiences. She reported everything that had happened along the way and made important suggestions, such as the introduction of an additional gear for climbing hills and brake linings to improve brake-power. Her trip proved to the burgeoning automotive industry that test drives were essential to their business.[2][10]"

 

Men may have invented the car, but a woman invented driving.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Finkeren

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

but a woman invented driving.

 

[unreasonable]

Men may have invented the car, but a woman invented driving.

 

If so, it certainly was not Bertha Benz....

 

[Retnek]

Folks, reading this thread I resign any hope to once greet a single female virtual pilot here - and this forum already prides itself (himself) to be the grown-up community of seasoned virtual pilots. Not to envision what's going on at the arcade-gamers ... but looking at the usual suspicious here I get an idea why some nations are repeatedly domineered by an ironclad Prime Ministeress while others flourish under a mild and wise Chancellorette.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Folks, reading this thread I resign any hope to once greet a single female virtual pilot here

 

You got a point here, for all we know there is female pilots here, hiding behind a nick. And my experience as a admin in one forum was these admitting to be a woman got a lot of unwanted PM´s and attention, so much so that the admins had no idea how to handle it, since there where no names given.

I think we all should behave like our wife look over our shoulder when it comes to this issue, because without knowing it, a innocent joke can be hurtful  

[unreasonable]

You got a point here, for all we know there is female pilots here, hiding behind a nick. And my experience as a admin in one forum was these admitting to be a woman got a lot of unwanted PM´s and attention, so much so that the admins had no idea how to handle it, since there where no names given.

I think we all should behave like our wife look over our shoulder when it comes to this issue, because without knowing it, a innocent joke can be hurtful  

 

I do not have a wife: will my mistress do?  She can drive well enough, but refuses to drive my Jag. Says it is too big for her.

[Lusekofte]

Your mistress will do fine, about the Jag, I agree with her if it ig for shopping, not if it is a lengthy one. Enjoy your car, man

[Finkeren]

Yeah, I think anyone who's tried to do the old "pretend you're a girl on the internet" knows exactly why we probably have a lot more females around here than we are aware of.

 

If I was a woman, I would hide behind a neutral nick too. It really sucks, and hopefully we can one day root out the worst of it, so people can just be themselves.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Finkeren

[ZachariasX]

Yeah, I think anyone who's tried to do the old "pretend you're a girl on the internet" knows exactly why we probably have a lot more females around here than we are aware of.

If I was a woman, I would hide behind a neutral nick too. It really sucks, and hopefully we can one day root out the worst of it, so people can just be themselves.

Looking at your avatar, are you getting a lot of love PM's, Fink?

[Finkeren]

Looking at your avatar, are you getting a lot of love PM's, Fink?

Nope, but I also explicitly state my gender in my profile.

 

Plus: Who would honestly try to hit on such an insufferable blabbermouth?

 

I have done "testing" on some other forums (including flight sim ones) and yeah, the struggle is real. From the unsolicited flirting over dickpix to downright threatening behavior.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Finkeren

[ZachariasX]

 

 

Nope, but I also explicitly state my gender in my profile.

This implies that those persons indeed read before they write. So there is at least some hope.

[Finkeren]

This implies that those persons indeed read before they write. So there is at least some hope.

It might also just be because I post so much here. I get the sense, that the more shy you seem, the harder they go for you.

 

But, honestly, I'm probably the wrong person to ask. An actual female on the Internet will have way more insight into how these guys function, I have only caught a glimpse.

[Finkeren]

your avatar and sensitivity makes me suspicious youre actually a woman

 

That would really be something wouldn't it? 

 

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm very much an XY kind of person (and not a good looking one either) - in fact I'm as cis-hetero-white-male-etc as they come.

 

Not sure I'd make for a very attractive woman either, at the very least you'd have to really be into body hair.

 

Not gonna take a selfie right now, but picture Euron Greyjoy as seen on Game of Thrones, if Pilou Asbæk had brown eyes, was taller, a bit chubbier and a good deal uglier:

 

Edited July 17, 2017 by Finkeren

[Finkeren]

Obviously as hetero-males, we think like that.

[Guest deleted@30725]

if i were a woman i would be lesbian

 

as a matter of fact id hate guys trying to score on me and i feel pleased by my male calmness of having to take a first step easy to avoid

 

No, you wouldn't because you'd be female.

[unreasonable]

Leaving lesbians on one side for a moment, a thought about this thread.  

 

It seems pretty clear to me that the OP both likes and admires women.  I do too, as it happens.

 

It is also clear, that many of us occasionally enjoy jokes that use stereotypical ideas about the sexes for their effect.  (Hint - just in case you are unaware of the fact, females do it too).

 

The hilarious video clip Custard posted is a classic of having your cake and eating it: it simultaneously mocks preconceived ideas about lady drivers while depending on us all having those ideas to work.

 

Finkeren's post about Betha Benz is a typical response, but unfortunately misses the point: just because you can find a counter example to a stereotype does not make a stereotyped view inaccurate as a generalization, nor does it make holding such a view irrational. The sexes really do behave differently in a variety of ways - on average.  The current propaganda drive to deny this simple fact has led in recent years to such nonsense as motor insurance companies being unable to make sensible decisions based on the facts due to EU sex discrimination rulings: lady drivers have fewer severe accidents (although many men would argue that they cause quite a few more through indecision) and therefore used to benefit from lower premiums.  This discrimination is now illegal, but still done indirectly - insurers now band premiums by jobs and know what proportion of each employment type is male and female.

 

So why the lady driver jokes if women are actually, on average, safer drivers than men?  Simply because they are more prone than men to a certain type of mistake such confusing left with right - at least that is true of my mother, sister and every girlfriend I have ever asked to map navigate in a car while I was driving. Men, in contrast, make the mistake of thinking their reflexes and skill are much greater than they actually are, leading to spectacular wipe-outs, often worthy of a Darwin award.  Having a Y chromosome will do that.

 

Given all that, I do not see anything here that is remotely comparable with the sort of personal trolling and hounding that has been mentioned.  

[Finkeren]

The "hilarious" video falls into the all too common trap of thinking that simply reproducing old stereotypes and bigotry somehow counts as good satire.

 

The thing about "having your cake and eating it too" is pretty accurate, but in my view, that's not a good thing. It allows some people to display bigotry under the guise of it being "satire" or "lampooning", while at the same time with a wink and a nudge letting people know, that they really do think like that.

 

To be effective satire, the joke has to bring something more than a simply reproduction of bigotry to the table. Some of Harry Enfields misogynistic segments actually do this (I'm not accusing Enfield of being a misogynist) but this is not one of them.

 

A recent example of what IMHO constitutes good satire about women is Cards Against Humanity releasing a pink edition of their game "for her" that is the same game but costs $5 more "because we're worth it" (the $5 actually goes to an organisation supporting progressive women in politics)

 

https://cardsagainsthumanityforher.com/

Edited July 18, 2017 by Finkeren

[Finkeren]

Given all that, I do not see anything here that is remotely comparable with the sort of personal trolling and hounding that has been mentioned.

Obviously not. It is a tiny minority of the online population that actually does that kind of stuff, and ot is generally not done out in the open exept in places like 4chan.

 

That doesn't mean that the rest of us can't work towards creating a welcoming environment for everyone, and yeah sometimes that can mean a certain degree of self-censorship (AKA "behaving oneself")

 

I'm not innocent in this regard. I have made many an inappropriate joke at the wrong time and at times suffered the consequences. I just think this is something that we need to be aware of.

[ZachariasX]

I'd say women do have a pontential for making better lruckers than men, see here:

 

But the thought of women handling the pump makes many (men) rather think of this:

 

As if that would be a bad thing. It is obviously not an exclusion criteria to become a cop:

 

One might wonder what would have been if the WAAF would have been issued squadrons of Spitfires or Lancasters.

 

Would they have done nose art in the style of their male peers and for example put a drawing of a Zac Efron style dude in Speedos on their ride, labeling it with something like "Mommys Darling"?

 

Would they also use "Drop your babies!" as official radio code to drop their external fuel tank? Or would they rather shout "Divorce!" instead?

 

Would women WAAF ground crew chalk "TRY THIS ONE EVA!" on a Grand Slam bomb? Or just make shure the bomb is clean before it is loaded?

 

 

All things best left unanswered.

[unreasonable]

The "hilarious" video falls into the all too common trap of thinking that simply reproducing old stereotypes and bigotry somehow counts as good satire.

 

The thing about "having your cake and eating it too" is pretty accurate, but in my view, that's not a good thing. It allows some people to display bigotry under the guise of it being "satire" or "lampooning", while at the same time with a wink and a nudge letting people know, that they really do think like that.

 

To be effective satire, the joke has to bring something more than a simply reproduction of bigotry to the table. Some of Harry Enfields misogynistic segments actually do this (I'm not accusing Enfield of being a misogynist) but this is not one of them.

 

A recent example of what IMHO constitutes good satire about women is Cards Against Humanity releasing a pink edition of their game "for her" that is the same game but costs $5 more "because we're worth it" (the $5 actually goes to an organisation supporting progressive women in politics)

 

https://cardsagainsthumanityforher.com/

 

The trouble is that unlike the Harry Enfield film, this "satire" is not, in my view, remotely funny.  Of course, what is funny, or simply good and interesting art in general, is not the same as what is morally improving. 

 

Naturally you are entitled to your own views about what is funny - but I am also entitled to my own views about what is morally improving. And for that matter, when being morally improving, what ever you might think that might be, is appropriate and proportional, or merely displays an intolerant, puritan desire to control other peoples' behaviour, as seems to be the case here.

Edited July 18, 2017 by unreasonable

[unreasonable]

Furthermore, as I outlined previously, holding stereotypes does not equal bigotry. I would outline the difference as follows:

 

Stereotypes are generalizations.  We all make generalizations: life would be impossible without them. When I am served a cup of coffee at a restaurant, I believe that it contains no rat poison, nor a fake bottom that will drop out spilling the coffee onto my trousers. I have a stereotypical idea of what being served a coffee in a restaurant involves. So far I have not been wrong about restaurant coffees. I have been wrong about delivered pizzas, though. Just occasionally they contain ground glass.

 

Some generalizations that we make are wrong, but the vast majority are a good basis on which to act, in the absence of more precise information about a particular case.

 

Bigotry, IMHO, is the inability or unwillingness to consider that a stereotype is wrong: either as a generalization, or in it's application in a particular case. Again this is different from being simply wrong.

 

It is entirely rational to believe in stereotypes, even if they sometimes lead to erroneous conclusions.  Indeed, people who claim that they do not are deluding themselves.  Not only that, but the vast majority of stereotypes that survive and prosper do so because they are true as generalizations.  

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Finkeren, on 18 Jul 2017 - 07:11, said:Finkeren, on 18 Jul 2017 - 07:11, said:Finkeren, on 18 Jul 2017 - 07:11, said: The "hilarious" video falls into the all too common trap of thinking that simply reproducing old stereotypes and bigotry somehow counts as good satire.

 

Politically correct nonsense has gone too far.

You have NY city librarians complaining how “whiteness” fatigues her. You have free speech being called “hate” speech because it doesn’t fit the narrative of Social Justice. You have identity politics running rampant where the “minority” tries to impose its will on the “majority.”

You have a system developing in education in the western world where 2+2 doesn’t equal 4.

 

Mocking certain religion can get you arrested and where certain religions have suddenly now become a “race,” and where cartoonists have been slaughtered because they had drawn a picture.

 

I love and respect women but western woman are probably now the most privileged human beings on the planet.  

 

 

Satire should be taken for what it is... satire.

 

1984 wasn't too far off the mark it was just about 33 years early.

 

 

 

Edited July 18, 2017 by 6./ZG26_Custard

[Finkeren]

That's the same old talking point that always comes up in this kind of debate, and quite frankly it's ridiculous. Of course people have the right to express their oppinion and nobody is trying to control other people's behavior. As far as I am concerned, people can post anything they want, within the rules of this forum, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. Part of creating a friendly environment is also knowing what not to say about or to certain people in certain situations. We do it in all other aspects of life, why not online?

[Finkeren]

And I'm not trying to paint myself as a saint here: I overstep just as much as the next person. I've been banned from forums for telling an Osama bin Laden joke on 9/11 and back when Ronald Reagan died I even got in trouble for simply saying, that I wasn't the least bit sorry.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

That's the same old talking point that always comes up in this kind of debate, and quite frankly it's ridiculous.

It’s also the same point that proponents of the Cult of SJW make (everything is sexist everything is misogynistic  and everything is homophobic)  When you have idiots saying things like Science is Sexist or biological sex isn’t “real” you know we have some seriously dangerous ideologs out there. That's not just ridiculous its also rather worrying.   

[unreasonable]

That's the same old talking point that always comes up in this kind of debate, and quite frankly it's ridiculous. Of course people have the right to express their oppinion and nobody is trying to control other people's behavior. As far as I am concerned, people can post anything they want, within the rules of this forum, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. Part of creating a friendly environment is also knowing what not to say about or to certain people in certain situations. We do it in all other aspects of life, why not online?

 

I think this distinction is also ridiculous.  Of course  saying that you "should not do X" is trying to control other peoples' behaviour. This is what normative means. 

 

Furthermore, "creating a friendly environment" also means tolerating a range of views outside those that you may feel are right on.

 

This is not about you Fink - or about me, I hope. It is about the absurd degree of self censorship that we are now expected to exercise, even in what everyone knows is an almost totally blokeish  forum.  The ladies can make jokes about the inadequacy of penis size on their fashion forums, it does not bother me.   Why anyone would get their knickers in a twist about sketches from the BBC - one of the most PC TV channels in the world - is a mystery to me. 

[Finkeren]

There's a hell of a difference between trying to influence the behavior of others and trying to control it.

It’s also the same point that proponents of the Cult of SJW make (everything is sexist everything is misogynistic and everything is homophobic) When you have idiots saying things like Science is Sexist or biological sex isn’t “real” you know we have some seriously dangerous ideologs out there. That's not just ridiculous its also rather worrying.

You can find people who are taking things to ridiculous lengths on any side of a debate. What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

[unreasonable]

There's a hell of a difference between trying to influence the behavior of others and trying to control it.

 

It is a matter of degree, not of kind: both are about the deployment of incentives.

[Finkeren]

This is not about you Fink - or about me, I hope. It is about the absurd degree of self censorship that we are now expected to exercise, even in what everyone knows is an almost totally blokeish forum. The ladies can make jokes about the inadequacy of penis size on their fashion forums, it does not bother me. Why anyone would get their knickers in a twist about sketches from the BBC - one of the most PC TV channels in the world - is a mystery to me.

Of course it's not personal. We are just having a discussion here.

 

I do have a problem with the notion, that this is an "almost totally blokeish forum", I don't want it to be. I want the women on board as well, and I want them to feel welcome.

 

When I was a teenager, I was in a scale modeling club comprised mostly of grown men. It was a true "boys club", not a single woman there. It was not by choice, they really wanted women to join and sometimes they would bring wives, girlfriends etc and try to introduce them to the hobby. They all disappeared quickly, and nobody understood why. Problem was that most of them were being giant douches to the women, cracking one sexist joke after another and talking down to them like they were imbeciles. These weren't bad guys, they were just wholly unaware of how their behavior affected the women they brought in.

[Finkeren]

The problem is not threads like this or even videos like the one Custard posted (I personally thought it missed the mark, but that's just my oppinion)

 

The problem is, that we automatically assume that we're in a "boys club" and act accordingly without actually knowing how many women are around, who might be inclined to not participate or straight up leave because of it.

[unreasonable]

Re your story: that might all be true, but have you considered the alternative explanation, that women are just not that interested in making scale models? This should be testable, BTW, after all the vast majority of scale models must be built at home in some quiet workshop, garage or bedroom.  If women are interested in scale models, but put off by crude sexism at model clubs, it should be the case that a large proportion of scale models are purchased and constructed by women.   

 

I confess that I would be very surprised if that were the case.

 

I am perfectly OK with the phenomenon that forums - like other social institutions - often self segregate by sex.  There are good reasons why this happens, and it would be a grave mistake to think that is was just a product of misogyny.  There are plenty of forums where the vast majority of regulars are female: they just do not happen to be CFS forums.  

 

If females do frequent the forum, they will know in advance, due to the subject matter, that there will be the odd blokish joke. The sensible ones will just shrug it off, just as a sensible man would do the equivalent comments if he were to venture into a forum discussing, say, shoes or handbags.

 

Anyone who does behave in an outright trolly or stalking fashion should of course have their behaviour not influenced, but controlled. The trouble is that this thread is so far away from that threshold that just bringing up the subject seems to me to be a totally disproportionate and over-sensitive reflex. 

[Finkeren]

I don't think that there's a basis for parity between the genders in this kind of hobby, but I do think there is a basis to attract way more women than is currently the case. Lots of women are passionate gamers. I see no reason why they can't be flight simmers too, and in fact I think a lot of them are, we just don't see them on the forum.

 

I absolutely disagree, that women coming on this forum should just "shrug it off". If we want more women to join our ranks (which I hope most of us do) we should do our part to make them feel welcome.

 

If, on the other hand, you prefer self-segregation, that's fine by me, I just disagree.

[unreasonable]

If 777/1CGS had followed my advice, freely given years ago, to introduce a Dragon and Dragon-Rider module for RoF (or even now for BoX, it is not too late) - I do believe your wish would be satisfied, since it is certainly true that there are many females who enjoy fantasy games such as Elder Scrolls or WoW.  A huge missed opportunity.

 

It is not so much that I prefer self-segregation by sex: I just see it as a fact of life.  Consorting with the opposite sex, whether online or off, involves exposure to a quite different set of risks and rewards to hanging out with members of your own sex. Men and women are not - or not yet anyway - interchangeable parts. Some hobbies, professions and social contexts lend themselves to relatively easy mixing: other not.  This game is about - with statistically insignificant exceptions like the Night Witches - young men killing one another in big machines. The idea that many women would show the kind of interest that us regulars do seems improbable. 

 

While it may be important to make visiting women feel welcome, if indeed any significant number actually visit, which I very much doubt, it is also important that men feel welcome. And I do not mean only sensitive Millennials.

 

That means a certain level of toleration of crude male humour.  After all, Per Ardua ad Astra!

[Finkeren]

I think you are mistaken about the appeal of war games on women. Loads of women play games like Counter Strike despite it not having a single female playable character, and that game is all about dudes killing one another.

 

It's not like women shy away from the historical aspect either. A few weeks ago I was at a medieval fair here in Copenhagen. More women than men participated as reenactors and for the big, brawly reenactment of a viking battle about 1/3 of the fighters were women (disguised as men obviously)

 

Yet, when it comes to WW2-enthusiasts, women are conspicuously missing, and I don't think it's just about the topic. I think the WW2 community inadvertedly turns women away, and I think that's sad, especially because it was the first modern war (save for the Spanish Civil War) where women actually took part in the fighting in significant numbers.

[unreasonable]

I could be mistaken about the appeal of war games to women - although I was only referring to CFS I agree that I would tend to assume the same thing about war games or even strategy games more generally. Having said that, in some 50 years of being interested in wargames, war, weapons, tactics, uniforms, OOBs etc  I have very rarely met any women who shared - or would admit that they shared -  those interests.  Although many of them are interested in soldiers.

 

As for re-enactment, I have no experience, although I can see how the 'strong woman warrior' trope that is inescapable in modern fantasy series would encourage that kind of thing.  I can see the appeal to some women, just as putting on lingerie and hanging around on street corners feels liberating to some men: present company excluded, naturally.  But again, standing in the shield wall because you want to be a Viking is a bit different from standing in the shield wall because you want to snag a Viking. Are you sure you know which it is?

 

Why WW1-2 would be a harder sell for the girls is unclear to me. I suspect that it may be because the scale of the fighting was so vast as to make it very impersonal. My own observation taking females to movies is that they are excited by male violence, such as a hand to hand fight or a small battle where they can keep tabs on the character development, especially where there are men fighting over a woman. Portrayals of large battles, on the other hand, where the personalities get submerged seem to be bore them, while I am happily identifying the types of tanks, or thinking that the unit markings are from the wrong period.

 

So again, I ask myself where is the human interest that might appeal to the female brain?  I completely accept that there are quite a few who like to fly.  Controlling a large, powerful, throbbing aircraft is similar in many respects to controlling a horse, and the ladies love to get on a pony.  But getting vulched or team-killed in "Wings of Puberty" as  Feathered so brilliantly put it?  Playing SP with no RPG elements?   I just cannot see it. 

 

And it is not as though they are going to meet any fantastic men via the forum either, except for the two of us, and we are both taken.

[Finkeren]

I think you are overcomplicating things when trying to analyze the reasons why women might find interest in WW2 aviation. I think the women who are attracted to a sim like this are so for much the same reasons we as men are, it's just that those women make up a smaller percentage of the total female population.

 

While there are significant differences between a male and female psyche (on average) it's still a spectrum, not two completely seperate entities that function on different principles.

Edited July 18, 2017 by Finkeren