The Internet

[Kraco]

Considering employment, lots of workplaces wouldn't protest against clothing that hides the legs, just like men's typical trousers do. However, hiding your face with clothing would be even worse than sporting a huge taleban beard. Unless you are applying for an Antarctic expedition, wearing a balaclava to the job interview would be worse than not appearing at all.

This isn't by far as black and white as a hasty thinker would consider it.

[XanBcoo]

Naw, corporate america at the very least prefers the image of a clean shaven man over that of a mustached and bearded man. There are many positions where you are required to keep a clean shaven and neat appearance.

Cool. That's not at all what's being discussed. And even then, there is a clear choice (with little repercussion) being made to enter that position or not. There is no stigma against not taking a position where that is required.

There's definitely pressure social pressure for men to shave from the workplace in addition to whatever sexual pressure there is from women who do not like facial hair.

Roughly equal amounts of women prefer men shaven to unshaven. Vastly fewer men prefer women unshaven to shaven, to the point where body hair on women is stigmatized. This is what I meant. There's no choice until both are acceptable options.

I'm not saying whether it should be or not, but that's the reality of the situation.

[Kraco]

Roughly equal amounts of women prefer men shaven to unshaven. Vastly fewer men prefer women unshaven to shaven, to the point where body hair on women is stigmatized. This is what I meant. There's no choice until both are acceptable options.

Huh? Both are acceptable already if there are men in significant numbers not minding or preferring their woman's appendages natural. Or are you arguing about statistics here? You need 50-50 for it to be okay, or something? Is that even realistic all things considered, since hairless legs or a hairless face aren't everything men or women look for in their partners, so you wouldn't get 50% acceptance anyway, due to all the other filters.

[XanBcoo]

Huh? Both are acceptable already if there are men in significant numbers not minding or preferring their woman's appendages natural.

No, they are not. Like I said, I don't know what it's like in other countries but body hair on women, even arm hair, is heavily stigmatizing. And even when it is accepted, it's treated as a fetish. A subversion. The pressure comes from both men and other women.

No one's asking for exact percentages.

And I'm being typically American and basing this on US culture. I realize that elsewhere it might not be the same, which is a good thing.

[Ryllharu]

Naw, corporate america at the very least prefers the image of a clean shaven man over that of a mustached and bearded man. There are many positions where you are required to keep a clean shaven and neat appearance. There's definitely pressure social pressure for men to shave from the workplace in addition to whatever sexual pressure there is from women who do not like facial hair. As far as I know, women only face sexual pressure to shave their legs, and maybe peer pressure from other women.

Indeed. Any job where you might have to use a respirator requires a clean shaven face.

Dress codes are a flip side to this coin. Women typically get a much more relaxed dress code when it comes to "business casual" and "professional" requirements. Men are stuck with slacks, tucked-in polo shirts (if they're lucky) and tucked-in dress shirts for Business Casual and dress pants, shirt, tie, and jacket for Professional. Women in the workplace can get away with quit a bit more, many of which straddle the line of each dress code standard.

Roughly equal amounts of women prefer men shaven to unshaven. Vastly fewer men prefer women unshaven to shaven, to the point where body hair on women is stigmatized. This is what I meant. There's no choice until both are acceptable options.

Where do you find these equal amounts going for male facial hair? Chest hair is one thing that goes one way or the other, but women in my age demographic generally don't allow their boyfriends/husbands to keep a beard (at least for long).

[XanBcoo]

Man, I really don't know why it's hard to accept that men don't face the same social discrimination that women do. I didn't mean to start a derail, and I haven't said anything particularly radical, but I keep reading posts that are unnecessarily defensive...

Dress codes are a flip side to this coin. Women typically get a much more relaxed dress code when it comes to "business casual" and "professional" requirements. Men are stuck with slacks, tucked-in polo shirts (if they're lucky) and tucked-in dress shirts for Business Casual and dress pants, shirt, tie, and jacket for Professional. Women in the workplace can get away with quit a bit more, many of which straddle the line of each dress code standard.

Personally I'd love to give up my clearly defined and near-universally standard dress code in lieu of one that lends itself to interpretation, and therefor abuse and discrimination due to being either way too slutty or
not slutty enough.

Non-sarcastic response: Men have fewer dress code options which, at its worst, is a bit of a bore. It sucks but we're basically unaffected. Women have many dress code options but face a higher risk of discrimination and must always "straddle the line" amongst judgmental coworkers, peers, and customers. Yes, it is a system that can be abused by some women. It is also a system that is constantly abused by men.

At the expense of dressing relatively similarly every day, men forgo this abuse. I don't see which side of the coin is the negative one.

Where do you find these equal amounts going for male facial hair? Chest hair is one thing that goes one way or the other, but women in my age demographic generally don't allow their boyfriends/husbands to keep a beard (at least for long).

Actually, I was speaking 100% anecdotally, but after a few minutes of googling it seems that unshaven is consistently considered at least kind of attractive:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...-marriage.html

http://www.pajiba.com/seriously_rand...e-dont-lie.php

http://www.lsureveille.com/facial-ha...9#.TxiyKvni03g

89% in the 1970s.

You don't find numbers like that approving of non-shaven women. But that's not even my point. The point is that men don't face the same stigma for not shaving that women do.

I need to reread my posts and make sure I'm not coming off too uptight or something.

[Ryllharu]

For the record, you're not coming off too uptight, I'm more after the debate for its own sake.

Non-sarcastic response: Men have fewer dress code options which, at its worst, is a bit of a bore. It sucks but we're basically unaffected. Women have many dress code options but face a higher risk of discrimination and must always "straddle the line" amongst judgmental coworkers, peers, and customers. Yes, it is a system that can be abused by some women. It is also a system that is constantly abused by men.

"Can be" as opposed to "constantly"? That seems a bit unfair. I take it you've never experienced a female co-worker with a serious case of RIBS? (alternate link) Never been chastised for wearing jeans when a female co-worker gets away with substantially less appropriate attire? Not all discrimination is negative.

It sounds like a misogynistic joke, but I assure you, within male dominated industries like many of the STEM fields, it's a real phenomenon. There are simply things that female STEM employees can get away with because they are within the minority. Management also loves to fast-track them, to meet ultimately meaningless equal-opportunity metrics ("meaningless" entirely due to the 90%/10% demographics). I hesitate to state they face a higher rate of discrimination when they get that much more exposure to career development opportunities than their male peers.

Granted, not all of them are like that (more of the good kind than otherwise in my experience), but there is no question that there are some female STEM employees that love all the attention they get.

[Buffalobiian]

Just wanna add to what Ryll said.. It irks me too that the feminist movement has actually made them more powerful by making organisations fill quotas by providing equal or designated number of positions for each sex, rather than providing an equal opportunity instead.

I'm a little with what Xan is saying though. Unshaven women don't weird you out like an unshaven man does. It's not so much the fact that the leg is unshaven, but rather the mentality they possess to keep it unshaven (if they have such a mentality).

For example, the "natural" movement Sapphi mentioned.

"Forgetting to shave" nor "not bothering to shave in winter because it's covered up" is different.. like how no one gives a shit if I shaved or not on the weekend.

[Kraco]

Non-sarcastic response: Men have fewer dress code options which, at its worst, is a bit of a bore. It sucks but we're basically unaffected. Women have many dress code options but face a higher risk of discrimination and must always "straddle the line" amongst judgmental coworkers, peers, and customers. Yes, it is a system that can be abused by some women. It is also a system that is constantly abused by men.

At the expense of dressing relatively similarly every day, men forgo this abuse. I don't see which side of the coin is the negative one.

Let's apply this logic to the original case: Women have fewer shaving options, so at its worst it becomes a bore. Men have more, so they must spend time stressing over what kind of solution to find that suits themselves personally yet doesn't annoy the people around them, yet they see other, more daring or otherwise privileged men abuse it. At the expense of shaving similarly every day, women can entirely forgo the abuse.

[Sapphire]

How come hot women with unattractive men are more or less commonly seen, but I've never seen a hot man with an unattractive woman in my entire life?

[Buffalobiian]

There are 2 reasons:

-There are more attractive women than there are attractive men
-Men see looks as a prerequisite. They may or may not like a hot woman with a bitch-ass personality, but the hotness is still a crowd-control factor. Women tend to be more able to like a man for other qualities besides (or despite) his looks.

[Animeniax]

Denzel Washington's wife isn't hot, and he is widely accepted as the model of an attractive man. I could think of others, but it's 6am.

[rockmanj]

Here is an interesting exercise that is mentioned in a book I am reading. My results were...interesting, to say the least. I wonder what he would pick up if he studied how everyone on GW writes.

And I am not saying I am a "hot man", but I heard something weird when I broke up with my last gf. Almost all of my friends were flabbergasted that I was not with a better looking woman. Even she kind of said as much. And even though I don't see the big deal about Denzel, apparently his wife was a beauty queen or something in her youth.

[Buffalobiian]

My results are utterly bizarre to me. It rates many of my highs as being "healthy".. ??

-----------------

Overall, you wrote 219 words in the 5 minutes.

Generally, the more you write, the better. In this exercise, anything less than about 50 words is not too reliable.

Look at the table and compare your numbers with others who have done this task. In all cases, the higher the number, the more you used words associated with that particular category. The actual numbers refer to the percentage of all the words you wrote that were captured within each dimension. Based on very little evidence, one could imagine that your description of the bottle might mean something about you. This analysis is based on virtually no knowledge of you or of bottles in general. Take what is said with a grain of salt.

Words on the label: Verbal thinking. Me: 2.74. Average: 1.74 People who score high on this dimension tend to focus on the label and what the words actually say. They often report that the letters Oza and Ka referred to Ozarka and that "Thirst Quencher" could be seen on the blue background. Your score is about average. You probably mentioned a couple of the broad features of the words on the label but didn't dwell on them.

Colors and text: Visual sensitivity. Me: 2.28. Average: 3.74 Some people are particularly sensitive to colors and styles associated with writing. People who score high on the visual sensitivity dimension tend to write about colors of the text as well as the backgrounds. Your score on this dimension is below the average. You may be interested in what words say but not how they are presented. Graphic design may not be a wise career choice.

Bottle contents: Functional thinking. Me: 2.28. Average: 1.67 The purpose of a water bottle is to hold water. Duh. People who score high on this dimension focus on the bottle as a container of something. In other words, they are thinking about the function of the bottle. Your language use in describing the bottle suggests that you are someone who is in the healthy range of functional thinking. You can look at a picture of a water bottle and consider what is inside it. You don't dwell on it. You sound pretty healthy to me.

The bottle itself: Tactile sensitivity. Me: 3.65. Average: 2.91 Someone who is high in tactile sensitivity likes to touch things. They appreciate the surface, texture, and contours of objects and people. They have an appreciation of the dimensionality of objects. In describing the bottle, high scorers paid attention to the surface and contour of the bottle itself, perhaps thinking of it like a sculpture. Your writing suggests that you have a healthy appreciation of form. In looking at the bottle, you may have mentioned its surface structure, imagining how it would feel in your hands. You are a normal human being along this dimension.

Light and shadow: Contextual thinking. Me: 1.37. Average: 0.79 If you look closely at the picture of the bottle, you will see that the lighting casts a shadow on the table through the bottle. People who wrote about this tended to score highly on this dimension. As you can see in the table, your score indicates that you are in the normal range of contextual thinking. In your writing, you made reference to some features of the background surrounding the bottle. This is healthy in the sense that it suggests you can stand back and look at objects in a broader perspective.

Date/Time: 23 January 2012, 5:19 am

Your bottle description: I am presented with a picture containing a plastic bottle. The bottle is composed of clear, see-through plastic with a white cap. It looks like its capacity is around 600 millilitres. There is a red label that is around 10 centimetres in height that is wrapped around it. This sticker is set 5 centimetres below the bottle cap. The bottle cap, by the way is white. It also has a tamper seal underneath it, the typical tamper seals you commonly see on bottles. Facing roughly 25 degrees to the left on the bottle is a column of words that is orange in colour. The brand of the bottle seems to be Ozaka. The letters Oz are visible on the right of the bottle, while the ka is seen wrapped around on the left. The bottle contains a clear liquid. One should assume that it is water of some description. This water fills the bottle to roughly 40% of its capacity. The bottle is straight for its lower body, but tappers off bluntly to a point at the top. There are ridges on the bottle that look like waves. There is a light source on the bottle, which reflects as white on the contours on the top of the bottle, suggesting that the light source is a fluorescent light.

[Xelbair]

score 1.28 / 1.74
Words on the label: Verbal thinking. People who score high on this dimension tend to focus on the label and what the words actually say. They often report that the letters Oza and Ka referred to Ozarka and that "Thirst Quencher" could be seen on the blue background. Your score is about average. You probably mentioned a couple of the broad features of the words on the label but didn't dwell on them.

score 5.13 / 3.74
Colors and text: Visual sensitivity. Some people are particularly sensitive to colors and styles associated with writing. People who score high on the visual sensitivity dimension tend to write about colors of the text as well as the backgrounds. Your score on this dimension is close to the average. You are drawn to colors and have a passing interest in layout and design.

score 3.85 / 1.67
Bottle contents: Functional thinking. The purpose of a water bottle is to hold water. Duh. People who score high on this dimension focus on the bottle as a container of something. In other words, they are thinking about the function of the bottle. Your language use in describing the bottle suggests that you are someone who thinks about the functions of objects. When you looked at the picture, your eyes probably wandered to the contents of the bottle. Most people didn't do this. Perhaps you have deep philosophical thoughts. Perhaps you are an aspiring engineer. Perhaps you are thirsty.

score 3.85 / 2.91
The bottle itself: Tactile sensitivity. Someone who is high in tactile sensitivity likes to touch things. They appreciate the surface, texture, and contours of objects and people. They have an appreciation of the dimensionality of objects. In describing the bottle, high scorers paid attention to the surface and contour of the bottle itself, perhaps thinking of it like a sculpture. Your writing suggests that you have a healthy appreciation of form. In looking at the bottle, you may have mentioned its surface structure, imagining how it would feel in your hands. You are a normal human being along this dimension.

score 5.13 / 0.79
Light and shadow: Contextual thinking. If you look closely at the picture of the bottle, you will see that the lighting casts a shadow on the table through the bottle. People who wrote about this tended to score highly on this dimension. As you can see in the table, your score indicates that you are in the normal range of contextual thinking. In your writing, you made reference to some features of the background surrounding the bottle. This is healthy in the sense that it suggests you can stand back and look at objects in a broader perspective.

Date/Time: 23 January 2012, 9:47 am

Your bottle description: Plastic transparent bottle is standing near the wall, in the middle of the picture and light is coming from the right. The bottle is half filled with water, has red label with white name on it. We can't see the name fully because label is pointed with the contents data towards us. cap of the bottle is white and made of plastic. Wall behind the bottle is grayish with slight shade of yellow, while the ground is white.


written in approx 1min20s
i would describe dimensions of it but there was no other reference object i could use to relatively describe the distance/height

[Archangel]

Words on the label: Verbal thinking
1.01 / 1.74
Colors and text: Visual sensitivity
5.88 / 3.74
Bottle contents: Functional thinking
11.76 / 1.67
The bottle itself: Tactile sensitivity
11.76 / 2.91
Light and shadow: Contextual thinking
2.30 / 0.79

Cool test.

[David75]

Visual Dimension	Your data	The average response
Words on the label: Verbal thinking	2.15	1.74
Colors and text: Visual sensitivity	6.45	3.74
Bottle contents: Functional thinking	2.15	1.67
The bottle itself: Tactile sensitivity	4.30	2.91
Light and shadow: Contextual thinking	3.23	0.79

[rockmanj]

Ironically, I lost my results, but I remember most of them. My verbal was 2.19, Colors and text, 2.45, Functional thinking, 0.55, Tactile, 2.9, light and shadow 3.5

[darkshadow]

Interesting I guess...

-----------------

Overall, you wrote 159 words in the 5 minutes.



Words on the label: Verbal thinking. Me: 2.52. Average: 1.74
Your score is about average. You probably mentioned a couple of the broad features of the words on the label but didn't dwell on them.

Colors and text: Visual sensitivity. Me: 5.03. Average: 3.74
Your score on this dimension is close to the average. You are drawn to colors and have a passing interest in layout and design.

Bottle contents: Functional thinking. Me: 1.26. Average: 1.67
Your language use in describing the bottle suggests that you are someone who is in the healthy range of functional thinking. You can look at a picture of a water bottle and consider what is inside it. You don't dwell on it. You sound pretty healthy to me.

The bottle itself: Tactile sensitivity. Me: 3.14. Average: 2.91
Your writing suggests that you have a healthy appreciation of form. In looking at the bottle, you may have mentioned its surface structure, imagining how it would feel in your hands. You are a normal human being along this dimension.

Light and shadow: Contextual thinking. Me: 0.11. Average: 0.79
In your writing, you made reference to some features of the background surrounding the bottle. This is healthy in the sense that it suggests you can stand back and look at objects in a broader perspective.

Date/Time: 23 January 2012, 3:17 pm

Your bottle description: Imagine a standard soda bottle with a couple of indentations on it. So it's a bottle that is not smooth, but with a bit of texture feeling when touching it. The bottle is also clear; you can see through it and it has no colour, it is just simply translucent. Also the cap on the bottle is white. The bottle is also made out of plastic, not glass. Now for the label, the base colour of the label is red and the text on the side describing the ingredients and such is yellow. It's logo consists of the brandname in big stylised white letters and a picture of a drawn landscape nicely cut of at the top by a circular outline. Below the brandname there is a yellow ribbon with black lettering that has a tagline inside. Also on the bottle label is a blue flag on the top left outside of the logo which gives even more information.

[Sapphire]

This test sounds like a load of crap, it kept saying "I'm healthy".

It is a clear water bottle of average size. The plastic outer edges offers a crinkled exterior. Light shines off of the upper portion of the bottle, from the unscrewed white cap to the red label on the upper portion of the bottle. On the red label is white lettering of "oz" on one side, and "ka" on the other side. It is about 10 percent full of water. The plastic off the water bottle is soft and pliable, making a slight crinkle noise if one were to hold and finish the bottle. The label on the bottle is placed oddly, causing the bottle to appear slanted as it sits upon the table. yellow lettering is condensed on to the middle of the red label. the white cap on the top has ridged edges to help with unscrewing the bottle for a tasty filtered treat. the bottle probably weighs about 900 grams in weight.

-

So I cheated the system.




Words on the label: Verbal thinking. People who score high on this dimension tend to focus on the label and what the words actually say. They often report that the letters Oza and Ka referred to Ozarka and that "Thirst Quencher" could be seen on the blue background. Your score is lower than average. Your not mentioning the specific words or letters on the label may mean that you aren't particularly interested in words themselves. If you noticed the words but didn't write about them, you may be someone who doesn't need to discuss the obvious.

Colors and text: Visual sensitivity. Some people are particularly sensitive to colors and styles associated with writing. People who score high on the visual sensitivity dimension tend to write about colors of the text as well as the backgrounds. Your score on this dimension is below the average. You may be interested in what words say but not how they are presented. Graphic design may not be a wise career choice.

Bottle contents: Functional thinking. The purpose of a water bottle is to hold water. Duh. People who score high on this dimension focus on the bottle as a container of something. In other words, they are thinking about the function of the bottle. Your language use in describing the bottle suggests that you are not someone who automatically thinks of the function of an object. At least when it comes to looking at water bottles. I'm going out on a limb here, but I don't think engineering is a good profession for you.

The bottle itself: Tactile sensitivity. Someone who is high in tactile sensitivity likes to touch things. They appreciate the surface, texture, and contours of objects and people. They have an appreciation of the dimensionality of objects. In describing the bottle, high scorers paid attention to the surface and contour of the bottle itself, perhaps thinking of it like a sculpture. Your writing suggests a distinct lack of interest in the form of the bottle itself. Extending this reasoning a bit, you don't automatically imagine how an object feels. Touch is not your dominant sense. I just can't see you as a sculptor, a painter of still lifes, or a postmodern architect.

Light and shadow: Contextual thinking. If you look closely at the picture of the bottle, you will see that the lighting casts a shadow on the table through the bottle. People who wrote about this tended to score highly on this dimension. As you can see in the table, your score indicates that you are in the normal range of contextual thinking. In your writing, you made reference to some features of the background surrounding the bottle. This is healthy in the sense that it suggests you can stand back and look at objects in a broader perspective.

Date/Time: 23 January 2012, 6:32 pm

Your bottle description: It is a motherfucking bottle with water in it, man! A water bottle. That's what a water bottle is. It has water in it. Fine, I'll explain. Water is H2o. That is the molecular formula. It is dihydrogen monoxide. When you are in a chemistry lab they don't call it dihydrogen monoxide though they call it water. Isn't it weird that they call it water instead of something all scientific? Does this essay want me to answer like a scientist? There are only so many things that I can say that are science about this water bottle. Okay, screw science. I don't even know why I'm doing this. Is this test legit? When is it five minutes? I think it would take me five seconds to drink this water like a motherfucker. Does this test care about curse words? I hope not. Oh my god hurry up five minutes you are taking forever! Doesn't water last forever? I bet it gets all nasty if it gets polluted. Than you get nasty things like mold. I bet that water has mold in it. Gross, man. Isn't this product placement?