Any girls that have dated...i need to talk to someone

[Kizyr]

1) As far as I can tell Kari is solely there to BE eye candy, with her bleached-red hair. (Pointless, right, Phyco? ) She's basically the equivalent of the girl who dresses provocatively to get attention, because her role is to draw that attention. Sure, she does stuff too, but it's pretty obvious by how she dresses that she's there to get fanboys to drool over how cute she is. And it works, obviously. (I miss Scotty, who actually knew what she was doing.)

No, I really gotta disagree there. Kari's really skilled when it comes to principles of physics and making accurate models, working with ballistics gel, or working with chemicals in general (particularly the episodes that deal with explosive substances--the exploding trousers and Confederate cannon ones were my favorite). I think it might've taken her between the second and third season to really settle into that, but she contributes as much--if not more--than folks like Grant or Tori. Scottie, meanwhile, contributes a lot from the mechanical engineering end.

Phyco, the reason women are less than delighted when you comment that makeup is pointless is that you're basically telling them that their efforts to make themselves look better are pointless and they should be stuck with whatever less attractive face they feel they have

That puts it a lot better than I could have. A lot of guys will give lip-service to the whole "oh you don't really need makeup" opinion, but, most of the time, it's a (transparent) attempt to come off as sounding compassionate and understanding. It doesn't work pretty much for the reasons you cited...

Saying that makeup doesn't matter is like me saying that I shouldn't bother shaving, combing my hair, or any other kind of self-grooming in the morning. If I come into work or meet with our clients and have disheveled hair and a three-day beard, I'm going to come off as very unconcerned not only with my appearance, but also the kind of impression I'm giving off.

It's one thing not to be overly concerned with what other people think, but there's no sense in taking that to extremes and using that as a justification not to take care of yourself.

It takes me, maybe, 30 minutes to an hour to get ready in the morning. A lot of women can get by and look quite fine spending just 15-30 minutes applying some makeup; it's about the same amount of time I spend, say, shaving or trimming my beard. KF

[meg]

kari started out as an intern anyway, didn't she? that she happened to also be cute and had good chemistry with the others, and a sense of humor is probably what kept her there (as they have had other female interns on the show. but you have to be USEFUL to be an intern).

however, i would say that most of the women on the G4 channel are just eyecandy.

nevermind MTV and all the rest.

the fact that we're even discussing this, however, supports that the double standard still exists. we--or at least, the stations--require our tv women to be cute in addition to being useful. guys aren't required to be cute.

i think tori's use is primarily "living test subject." did you catch the pirate special they did?

[Kizyr]

kari started out as an intern anyway, didn't she? that she happened to also be cute and had good chemistry with the others, and a sense of humor is probably what kept her there (as they have had other female interns on the show. but you have to be USEFUL to be an intern).

Yep. She was in the right place at the right time, and her good chemistry with everyone else kept her a regular on the show.

Now she's half the reason I watch it {^^}.

however, i would say that most of the women on the G4 channel are just eyecandy.

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=218

the fact that we're even discussing this, however, supports that the double standard still exists. we--or at least, the stations--require our tv women to be cute in addition to being useful. guys aren't required to be cute.

While that's true, it's more salient in your regular TV shows. Discovery Channel (and History, History International, and Discovery Science) don't run into that issue so much. With Mythbusters, I really think it's more so Kari's personality, with how much she gets along with the rest of the team, and how enthusiastic she is about the work, that keeps her there--if she were just cute but couldn't do anything useful, they wouldn't've kept her around.

Also, I think Grant's cute, too.

i think tori's use is primarily "living test subject." did you catch the pirate special they did?

Oh yeah; I loved that one! The Jamie-Adam rivalry that they play up is the other half of why I watch the show. But yeah, Tori's usually the guinea pig when they need one; though they used Kari in some circumstances--the vodka vs jellyfish sting test, and the water torture experiment, for instance (although the latter had 3 test subjects besides Kari). KF

[Alunissage]

Heheh, I thought that of everything I said that would probably get the most responses. To be fair, I haven't watched the show in a while and saw probably a random smattering of episodes rather than sequential. But I'd much rather see parts with the main folks than the interns. Inexperienced people giggling over how cool explosions are doesn't do it for me. Kari is part of why I stopped being interested in the show, though I'm not fond of the other interns either. It's probably not coincidence that it was her in the water torture and the driving while drunk/on cellphone experiments.

[Sonic#]

the fact that we're even discussing this, however, supports that the double standard still exists. we--or at least, the stations--require our tv women to be cute in addition to being useful. guys aren't required to be cute.

I agree - mostly. There is, however, also this sort of tendency for men in some shows.

Ty Pennington. Trading Spaces. There were certainly other carpenters... why pick him as the only one ever shown? Charisma, in the vein that Kizyr maintains in Kari? Yes, partially. I would also insist that it was because he was darn good looking (to certain people).

I don't think it's any secret that many positions on TV are chosen, at least partially, on the basis of a person's looks, a person's voice... something that has nothing to do with the quality of their work, but rather accentuates the quality (in the best case). Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw... both of those voices could easily haunt me in the night. Anderson Cooper, many other news anchors or reporters...

I suppose what I'm saying is that these people are chosen, not on skill, but personality, both physically and otherwise. (Kizyr's other half of why he likes watching Mythbusters.) And where sometimes a good voice or a handsome face is demanded of males in TV, for the female the demand becomes... cute. "Easy on the eyes." Of course the expectation is that they'll get along well with others and (in venues requiring abilities) they'll be able to get along with those tasks in characteristic charm.

So to point at a woman on TV and say, "Hey! That's misogynist!" is to point at gender expectations in general and say, "Hey, that's silly! Why are the expectations for her different?" and not to say, "Hey! Why does she have to be the only one with expectations?"

Phyco, the reason women are less than delighted when you comment that makeup is pointless is that you're basically telling them that their efforts to make themselves look better are pointless and they should be stuck with whatever less attractive face they feel they have, under-eye circles and blemishes and all.

I totally agree with you, but it hadn't occured to me like that. It's actually been something I've been pondering from a different direction... why guys don't wear make-up. Maybe I should learn how, for the shadow-eye days.

[Benevolent_Ghaleon]

EDIT: also, i must say this. One of the most attractive things a girl can do is NOT wear make-up. It shows confidence and some level of a lack of concern for the views of others.

Just a little note, since I'm not in the main conversation. You finding make up unattractive does not mean everyone does, and doesn't mean no one should wear it. I do believe it's overhyped (AKA the marketing ploy that one needs expensive product to "be pretty") but that doesn't mean it's inherently better to not wear it at all.

The problem here is that this subject is an opinionated matter. I understand how my opinions are simply that.

[Agawa]

EDIT: also, i must say this. One of the most attractive things a girl can do is NOT wear make-up. It shows confidence and some level of a lack of concern for the views of others.

Just a little note, since I'm not in the main conversation. You finding make up unattractive does not mean everyone does, and doesn't mean no one should wear it. I do believe it's overhyped (AKA the marketing ploy that one needs expensive product to "be pretty") but that doesn't mean it's inherently better to not wear it at all.

The problem here is that this subject is an opinionated matter. I understand how my opinions are simply that.

I got that, but there are different ways to point out one's opinion. However, the way you phrased it - that girls who don't wear make-up *are* more attractive, rather than you find girls who don't wear make-up more attractive. I know it probably seems like I'm being picky - and heck, I guess I am, but I did want to let you know.
It's not usually very important, but pointing out opinions based around others physical appearance can be touchy ground - it's almost like saying that "Blondes aren't pretty", rather than "I don't prefer blondes".

Either way, sorry for the tangent. Don't take that as too insulting either, please, I just wanted to point it out.

2) Phyco, the reason women are less than delighted when you comment that makeup is pointless is that you're basically telling them that their efforts to make themselves look better are pointless and they should be stuck with whatever less attractive face they feel they have, under-eye circles and blemishes and all. Not that that's why everyone wears makeup, but they do generally wear it to look better and even though it's not what you intend to say you're telling them that they failed and wasted their time... not a pleasant thing to hear even when a more pleasant sentiment of liking them as-is is underneath it.

Summed up beautifully, I must say.

[phyco126]

Well, I fail to understand a rather large grasp of why we (as a whole) should dress up pretty like, so I guess it's no surprise that I still can't gather why a woman would get mad at a guy trying to say she's beautiful with or without the make up on.

And I watch Mystbusters to watch mystbusters, great show.

[Alunissage]

Because "You're beautiful with or without makeup" is much different from "Makeup really doesn't do anything for you" or "Makeup is a waste of time" or "People look totally fake with makeup." In the first, you're complimenting someone (admittedly on their inborn traits for which they can take little or no credit, as they didn't select their genes), in the others you're criticizing what they're doing and making them feel they look as blah to you with makeup as they did to themselves without. See? That's what that sentiment defaults to in meaning. Not "You don't need makeup to look good" but "It's hopeless for you to even try to improve your appearance, [because you're homely no matter what]". People put makeup on to look a bit better. Telling them it doesn't matter suggests that a) they have poor judgment and b) it didn't work.

Though again, how much point is there, really, in complimenting someone on her natural beauty, a feature she's not responsible for? You may as well compliment them on the city they were born in, or their parents' income, or their last name; it's not like they had anything to do with creating that appearance. All you're really doing is acknowledging that there is inequality in the world; it's not really a compliment in the way that "good job!" and the like is. If someone's made some enhancement to their looks then at least it's their own taste and judgment and esthetics that's involved in working with what they were given. Just an angle to consider.

Oh, and thanks for the compliments on my phrasing, folks.

[ilovemyguitar]

Though again, how much point is there, really, in complimenting someone on her natural beauty, a feature she's not responsible for? You may as well compliment them on the city they were born in, or their parents' income, or their last name; it's not like they had anything to do with creating that appearance. All you're really doing is acknowledging that there is inequality in the world; it's not really a compliment in the way that "good job!" and the like is. If someone's made some enhancement to their looks then at least it's their own taste and judgment and esthetics that's involved in working with what they were given. Just an angle to consider.

It's human nature to want to be considered attractive. And, like it or not, our culture does put a premium on appearance as a large part of a person's general attractiveness. By complimenting a person's looks, you're telling them that they're a desirable person, which is something that I'd think anyone would enjoy hearing.

And besides, if a person gives you a compliment, it's generally because they're trying to be nice to you. If they don't know you too well, they can't say something like "hey, you've got an amazing sense of humor!" Even if you feel that a compliment you receive is baseless, it's a compliment nonetheless.

[Alunissage]

Yeah, I'm not denying that there's a function for compliments, just analyzing what it is we're really complimenting. There's also different types of compliments; I'd rather be complimented on my intelligence than my figure, despite being no more responsible for the one than the other, but "you have lovely eyes" is seen as a much more positive thing than "nice rack!"

Actually, when I think about it I'm not so sure about that first one. Hm. Need to think about this more.

[AbsoluteAlex]

I think that regardless of how we analyze how we compliment people, its just polite and makes people feel good about themselves. Someone may be having a bad day or something and you may have just made the difference in their day. Regardless of if it is something they can or cannot change, complimenting them lets them know that we have noticed something special about them. I would tend to think that anyone would want that.

[phyco126]

Ok, what about the girl you really love who puts too much make up on when she needs little more than a touch-up for whatever she is going to?

To me, it's like putting on a jacket when it's 100 degrees outside.

[meg]

if a girl puts on too much, you could scheme with her friends to get a make over that stresses "less is more."

or just outright say "i love the way you look, i wish you wouldn't cover it up so much in make up."

not every girl will get outraged over a misspoken compliment, and many view make up as an accesory. i wear very little, but will change my eye make up to match my clothes (work = eyeliner. goofing off= no eyeliner. fancy occasions = various colors of subtle eyeshadow + eyeliner). make up just feels like part of "dressing appropriately."

you say "going to"--is she going to work or some special occasion?

[phyco126]

going to = anything not formal, like a not a date or dinner.

[Rimmie]

Heh.

I think it's interesting to point out about now that we all have different opinions on females wearing make-up; maybe there is no right way to percieve it.

It takes me, maybe, 30 minutes to an hour to get ready in the morning. A lot of women can get by and look quite fine spending just 15-30 minutes applying some makeup; it's about the same amount of time I spend, say, shaving or trimming my beard. KF

And I have a few whiskers I think look pretty handsome on me, and I never spend time in the bathroom. Well, not in that fashion, anyway.

[phyco126]

Me neither, but then again, I don't exactly look like Orlando Bloom, or Viggo Mortenson (When he looked like Aragorn,) or Elijah Wood... or even Gollum for that matter. Hell, even that orc in scene 6, frame 279 looked a bit better than I do.

I'm going to go cry now.

*cries*

[Sonic#]

Ok, what about the girl you really love who puts too much make up on when she needs little more than a touch-up for whatever she is going to?

To me, it's like putting on a jacket when it's 100 degrees outside.

Why should she take your suggestion? You're the one that doesn't like make-up too much to begin with. You said it yourself.

Well, I fail to understand a rather large grasp of why we (as a whole) should dress up pretty like, so I guess it's no surprise that I still can't gather why a woman would get mad at a guy trying to say she's beautiful with or without the make up on.

Is there some assumption she's wearing the make-up for you? For the event? For herself? For nothing and everything at once?

I think it's comparable to telling my girlfriend that she can't cut her hair (hypothetically, of course). Oh, I can say a thousand little phrases in approval of her long hair, but I certainly can't order her to keep it, or say, "You shouldn't get that cut, I like it." (The shrill voice coming afterward, in my head, says, "I like it. It's mine. You're mine. Mine mine mine. You wear it for me.") She's got control of her own body. If it bothers me that much that she's altered herself, well... why would it? It shouldn't, if I'm there for the reasons I think I am.

You can suggest, but you can't really call what she needs.

And I don't look like any movie star, but I don't have to. I look like me, a combination of arbitrary genetic determinations (thanks for pointing that out Alun) and environmental determinants and certain choices. It's better to be liked for what I have control over. Yes, I'm tall. So? Oh? You think I'm nice? Well let's go to the coffee shop, my treat!

[serphnx]

I'd much rather have the option to be incompetent and get by on looks, rather than be forced to succeed based entirely on merit. Where you see a double standard, I see a huge advantage.

Take two men of equal skill. Who gets the job? It's a toss up, we don't know. Neither has an advantage over the other, or at least, attractiveness probably doesn't come into play (or so the argument goes, generally male news casters can't be ugly though).

Now take an attractive woman and a man of equal skill. Who gets the job? Almost always the woman.

Now let's look at an unattractive woman and a man of equal skill. Who gets the job? The argument is that the man will always get the job. I don't think I agree with this, but I'll leave it alone and say it does happen.

How about man with greater skill vs man of lower skill? The greater skill man wins you'd think.

How about man of greater skill vs woman of lesser skill, but the woman is attractive? More often than not, actually, the woman manages to win out.

And now here's the source of complaint: attractive woman vs unattractive woman of greater skill. Attractive woman probable wins here too.

Where's the double standard though? Attractive women just seem to ALWAYS win, it doesn't matter if they're competing with men or other women. I've known and heard of women putting themselves through medical school as strippers. Obviously they're intelligent enough to become doctors, but they realize that stripping is easier and more lucrative than whatever jobs their peers are doing. I've known a few really smart women that came to the realization that they'd rather not work hard at anything (and they're right, it's not worth it) and just get by on their looks instead. Are they complaining that they are judged by their looks? Heck no, they love it, they know that it's just a ridiculously huge advantage in their favor.

Society doesn't "judge" you by your looks, but society sure favors you if you're attractive. There are two ways to prevent yourself from being judged by looks. One is to not make it an issue, by refusing to use makeup and the like and forcing people to take you seriously as a person, and the other is to take advantage of the benefit of being attractive and using makeup and such to get you to that level. Just as those medical students COULD have chosen NOT to be strippers, females in general can CHOOSE not to be judged by their looks. For the most part, women don't like making that choice though, because succeeding on just your merits is really, really hard.

[Alunissage]

I just read that post to my husband and his first comment was "That guy needs to stop reading 4chan so much."

There are a number of weird things here. First, I don't think it can be so clearly established at all that an attractive woman of whatever skill will win out over a man. It totally depends on who is doing the hiring, and I really don't think we're at a point where men are not more generally favored than women in the job market. Of course, it also very clearly depends on the job. But before you start throwing out words like "almost always" you should dig up statistics and studies, because it's just not convincing.

Second, I think your assertion that refusing to make oneself attractive forces people to take one seriously as a person is totally off base. One can't "force" that. There are always people who will dismiss other people on whatever pretext they wish, including that of not being attractive. Of course, this could also be put in the light of "she doesn't even have the self-respect to make herself look decent, or the judgment to know what's appropriate grooming in this business" or whatever. (There are probably still businesses that require their female employees to wear high heels, but that's probably not phrased as "shoes to show off their legs to best advantage".)

And how can you not call hiring an attractive but unskilled woman over a skilled but less attractive woman a double standard? If skill is what is required for the job, then that's what should be used as a basis for hiring. I note you did not consider attractive unskilled man vs unattractive skilled man, because you factored out attractiveness for men in your first comparison. But that's the whole point of the double standard -- that attractiveness is a factor for assessing women but not men. And it's only a "huge advantage" to the women considered attractive, but you know, all the makeup in the world won't turn an endomorph into an ectomorph. Where did you get the insane idea that any woman can choose to be attractive and thus gain the option of getting by on that instead of competence? You're saying that rather than changing standards to not take beauty into consideration where it's not relevant, the beautiful should just enjoy their advantages, while the unbeautiful should just force people to selectively overcome that standard and pay attention to them based on merit, and if they don't it's their own problem. Huh?

Lastly, your implication that women choose to complain about double standards rather than working "really, really hard" to succeed by merit is pretty offensive. You know that old cliche that women have to work twice as hard as men to be thought half as good? Well, women DO work hard. And yet all that hard work can be ignored by an older hiring manager who sticks to his early-established ideas that men should be hired over women, or a younger hiring manager who'd rather have eye candy than competence, especially if the latter is a threat. Of course, that's kind of what discrimination lawsuits are about.