Dude, Females Don't Like Your Videos

[thecontrolcentre]

I once knew a model wannabe though. She was a looker even without make-up.

[sjm]

Just so you know, google thinks I am 67 years old and female.

let me tell you a secret...








I'm not.

it does explain some of the weird ads I get served on YT though.

[skipscada]

Just so you know, google thinks I am 67 years old and female.

let me tell you a secret...








I'm not.

it does explain some of the weird ads I get served on YT though.

"I" can be any gender and any age since all members of my familiy basically share accounts for online services. The ads that pop up are a good indication of who used the PC last.

[DJ Warmonger]

Most of these gender lines are artificial. Created by culture. It's presumption as to what each group should or should not like/dislike, do/not do, etc. If you want to benefit from models of the gender marketing world, you have to promote those arbitrary presumptions about people.

I'm sorry, but gender inequalities existed before anyone even invented "marketing" and were much deeper than they are now.

I don't think that synths in particular are advertised towards males, making them more "manly" or what not. On the contary I don't think that a girl playing synth becomes less femine or "unsuitable".
Men on their own are simply more attracted to tech and look forward to gear they could amass in their cave. That's a result of million years of evolution hitting the outburst of new technologies and world changes.

[chk071]

I'm sorry, but gender inequalities existed before anyone event invented "marketing" and were much deeper than they are now.

Exactly. I know, it is pretty hip to pass on everything to society, and cultural influences, but that doesn't really hit the nail most of the time anyway. Especially as even cultural influences don't come from nowhere, just because "it has to be", or "it was always like that". That's too short-sighted.

And deep in HPC we are.

[sjm]

Just so you know, google thinks I am 67 years old and female.

let me tell you a secret...








I'm not.

it does explain some of the weird ads I get served on YT though.

"I" can be any gender and any age since all members of my familiy basically share accounts for online services. The ads that pop up are a good indication of who used the PC last.

I meant according to my google account details, but I know what you're getting at.

[dark water]

Wot a load of bollocks.

[aciddose]

All this talk of genders, stereotypes, culture and whatnot is I feel a whole lot of hand-waving in denial of the real fundamental factors at play which have an influence on these things.

I think it's really all far more simple than that. Speaking of a load of bullocks, we've got, you know, armadillos in our trousers. I mean, it's really quite frightening, the size.

And they run screaming.

[Jace-BeOS]

Men and women are different physiologically to a degree, but the culture vastly, and erroneously, exaggerates the functional behavioral differences. Hey, whatever; you're obeying your own cultural indoctrination by rejecting this and nothing I say will change that if you're not interested in seeing your own biases. Do some socio-anthropological and cultural studies, including deep investigations into how culture develops, why things become entrenched, etc... Or don't.

[thecontrolcentre]

Speaking of a load of bullocks, we've got, you know, armadillos in our trousers. I mean, it's really quite frightening, the size.

And they run screaming.

Bullocks don't have any bollocks ... the ones with bollocks are bulls.

[harryupbabble]

Me thinks the gender thingy is about brain plasticity. People mostly talk about brain plasticity in older (not necessarily super-old) people. But what about at, for example, three years old? Babies? Brains are shaped by parents and culture to be what they would become later. Does this mean that a female baby, via brain plasticity, can be shaped to have a male brain? Or vice versa? Wasn't David Bowie surrounded by females during his formative years? Or how about Robert Smith?

Steve, Google being so big, are you sure that the total "unsigned" people is huge enough to make the data so faulty? Are there actually still "lurky" people who don't have a YouTube account? And if so, is that number big enough to affect my 94/6 male/female viewership ratio? Assuming that 5 percent is the total number of people who falsified their gender... doesn't seem big enough to affect my "unbalanced" gender viewership ratio.

Besides I have this theory... when you buy a computer at the store or whatever... on the receipt is your name. Joan Smith, for example, is likely to be female, and that name is tied up to the serial number for that computer. It's harder to falsify your gender when you use a credit card to make purchases (assuming that most purchases are done with credit cards). Falsifying gender is against the law, right? Most people are less likely to be criminals and don't go around falsifying their gender. Maybe even on the internet the majority of people don't falsify their gender. I mean here at KVR for example, I doubt if even 5 percent of members have falsified their gender. Anyways, back to my point about offline purchases (and maybe include online purchases too), if other people (hackers, mega companies, Google) have access to the store's data they could connect your name to that particular computer that you bought? Not only that, maybe all computers have machine IDs and whenever your computer is connected to the internet... they know who purchased that computer? Maybe Google knows much much more than people think? Maybe Google knows more than the CIA?

Bollocks? Duck dung? Are you sure?

[harryupbabble]

Also, about gender falsification... if both genders are falsifying their gender then isn't there some kind of cancelling each other out happening? Let's say 5 percent of males falsified their gender and 5 percent of females falsified their gender... then isn't the final result void?

[chk071]

Men and women are different physiologically to a degree, but the culture vastly, and erroneously, exaggerates the functional behavioral differences. Hey, whatever; you're obeying your own cultural indoctrination by rejecting this and nothing I say will change that if you're not interested in seeing your own biases. Do some socio-anthropological and cultural studies, including deep investigations into how culture develops, why things become entrenched, etc... Or don't.

Lol... i think you have to learn a thing or too about social behavior too. Might start with being able to argue, and therefor accept other opinions on the matter too. You know, it's this kind of commanding behavior which our societies mainly suffer from, not the things the people with such commanding behavior as yours claim it suffers from. Maybe get back to the topic when you're willing to discuss the matter, instead of putting your foot down, and shouting "THAT IS SO, BECAUSE I SAY IT IS SO!".

[whyterabbyt]

Lol... i think you have to learn a thing or too about social behavior too. Might start with being able to argue, and therefor accept other opinions on the matter too. You know, it's this kind of commanding behavior which our societies mainly suffer from, not the things the people with such commanding behavior as yours claim it suffers from. Maybe get back to the topic when you're willing to discuss the matter, instead of putting your foot down, and shouting "THAT IS SO, BECAUSE I SAY IT IS SO!".

That's pure comedy gold.

[chk071]

Well, i'm happy to have contributed to your amusement, yet that doesn't change the fact that the statement i quoted is a pile of indoctrinated horse crap. Not a big surprise though, considering from which forum user it originated.