lady_maria

If you actually look at at the graphs, they all show a pretty significant and stead drop over the decades.

if you actually read my comment, I've already mentioned its decline. maybe you need a refresher. :)

means at least 87% of the population don't hold this view.

thanks. believe it or not, I do know how percentages work. But at no point did I claim that most of the population feels this way.

A group of people doesn't have to be a majority to be statistically significant. If 13% of people suddenly woke up with arms growing from the tops of their heads, you'd be noticng them all the damn time, unless you're a recluse.

This absolutely has a real-world effect on who is voted into office, especially when you also consider which demographics vote. And consequently, less exposure to women in politics in office = a slower rate of acceptance of them.

Not to mention, again, the rise of conservatism that is certainly not helping the matter.

So while my experience is ancedotal, this shows

Yeah so as I mentioned, I've had a different experience. Are you a woman? Do you frequently seek out discussions about/research on/history of women? gender studies? inequality?

Because otherwise, there's no wonder why you haven't experienced what I have.

Your experience doesn't show anything. Neither does mine, because anecdotes are not, nor ever will be, valid evidence of anything useful in discussions about social or political issues.

Your life experiences don't necessarily reflect those of everyone else, FYI. I've seen and heard this or some other "women are too emotional/illogical/irrational/cryptic/ect too many times.

There are relatively recent studies/surveys, like this one (PDF) that suggest that a pretty significant portion of the population still feel women are too emotional to be in politics. 13% as of 2019 in that one.

While I'd think—or at least hope—that this is still going down overall, the rise in conservativism is definitely slowing the decline.

Are there exceptions? Absolutely.

Exceptions imply that these roles are not strictly inherent to animal (including human) behavior. If colonizing countries weren't all patriarchal, I'm sure we would've seen many more exceptions.

These exceptions exist for a reason, whether or not they fit your personal worldview.

But for most of the existence of the human species, it was just like that - males were taking care of food and protection, while females were doing the "safer" jobs, like childcare of gathering.

This is just a bad argument, and has been used to justify all kinds of awful things. why would the fact that humans have always done things a certain way imply that that's a good thing? Is slavery a good thing? rape? colonization? genocide?

Rigid gender roles have only truly served half of the human population. Even so, men have also suffered in other ways because of them. Why shouldn't we work to better everyone's lives, in as many ways as we can manage?

Yes, biology is complex, but the case of humans is rather clear-cut.

This is demonstrably false. Biologists have known as much for... quite a while. Please consider informing yourself before making claims about important topics.

do you have an old cell phone? (or, don't underestimate freecycle!) You could put it under your bed or something, so it's closer to the sound, and leave it recording. Maybe turn up the mic's sensitivity. Portable charge banks are helpful if you have one.

I don't necessarily believe that this trait is inherent to humankind; instead, I think it's a product of cultures that value things like power and hyperindividualism.

I do believe that there will always be (insecure) people who seek some level of power and/or wealth without regard for others. Whether or not they succeed would—I assume—depend on how that society views authority/skepticism/community/ect; if allowed, that would nudge society a little bit in that direction. And so on.

Sadly, , some governments and corporations have spent millenia aquiring and wielding their vast power and wealth to cripple and exploit other societies that they can benefit from without too much pushback. Which obviously ravages those cultures, too, and often by design.

So... it's a little hard to know for certain what is truly in our nature.

sure, some people would, but the opinions of the kinds of people who'd be judgemental over something as trivial as a goddamn pillow really aren't worth much imo.

Firstly, a disclaimer...while I shouldn't really have to say this given the language I've used, I will anyway: I am by no means talking about ALL men.

The problem is that this is not an unfounded stereotype, made evident by the fact that the discrepancy between how household and childcare tasks are divided between partners (heterosexual, at least) is still a significant and prevalent issue.

Subconsciously or otherwise, this sadly rings true with a lot of men, who, at least in part, want—and sometimes expect—a woman who will adopt every role a mother would take. That is, taking care of most of the chores/household management/childcare duties, and without protest. Even when, say, both of them work full-time jobs.

Too many of these men either 1. do not know how to do simple household tasks (and are not unlikely to have adopted learned helplessness as a result), 2. deliberately delay or fuck up chores to get their partner to get frustrated and give up on asking for help altogether, or 3. simply don't notice how much more work their partner is doing than they are.

I acknowledge that a lot of boys aren't taught how to cook do chores as much as girls are, and those who haven't been were failed by the adults in their life in that regard. It's not a valid excuse once you're an adult, though.

yeah, I've been wondering how much I should be sharing about my political opinions now... and a little concerned about my 15+ years of social media history.

this is really cool!

I hope you don't mind some hyper-detailed constructive criticism :) I don't know how to use Blender, but I'm good with faces and watched a loooot of Supernatural back in the day.

• while the bridge of Jensen's nose is pretty narrow, his lower nostrils are quite a bit wider than that, and the tip of his nose is a little more upturned.
• his nose is also more angular. I'd take a look at multiple pictures of him with various different kinds of lighting to see it more easily, but here's a good one:

-cheekbones are also more angular and (I think?) protrude slightly more in front. hard to explain. I think this pic shows it more clearly though

• cheekbones are also too wide
• lips are slightly too wide, too, and the upper vermilion border is more rounded/doesn't "swoop down" like that, so to speak. you got the pout down, though. lol
• his face shorter than that; there's too much space between the bottom of his nose/lips and lips/chin.
• I also want to say that his chin is slightly wider than that.

hope at least one of these things helps!

do you have nothing better to do than to complain over and over and over again about the posts of a single user?

the block button exists for a reason, if it upsets you this much.

I started 6, but so far I've only completed the first level. I feel like I'm letting our beloved Miyazaki down. 😔

one day I'll play it for real.