Miscellaneous desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 6

Why is it Less Acceptable for Guys to Call Other Straight Guys Handsome than it is for Women to call Other Straight Women Pretty?

This is something that I've always wondered about. And Yes, this is a serious question. Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply that guys aka men, are reluctant to accept and agree (in public) that they find other men attractive. I am married, heterosexual, have 5 kids and 15 grandkids; I don't box or play other sports; I hug old friends when I see them, and I often say to my wife that a certain actor or celebrity of the male species is a good looking guy - and she may or may not agree. But she is in no way suspicious that I would rather climb into bed with him than with her. I think that this gay or straight construct is as socialogically important as facebook - in other words,it is totally unimportant. Let's live with it. After all, it's better than living in Syria. 82.41.229.241 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is simply more stigma attached to men being gay then women. As to "why" that is, there are probably many reasons but it all comes down to culture. In France for example, it's perfectly normal for men to kiss eachother's cheek when they greet and in some asian countries it's perfectly normal for male friends to hold hands. Vespine (talk) 00:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The construction of masculinity is amazingly fragile. One wrong word, one wrong move, one wrong idea — and insecure people start to get quite uptight. Fortunately it's not universal... but it's pretty common. At least the way it is constructed in the United States, where most men spend, say, an inordinate amount of time worrying about whether the guy in the toilet stall next to them might glance at their junk. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Western concepts of masculinity are typically claimed as being founded on dominance and superiority (some even claim sadism). The same sociologists claim that femininity is founded on submission and inferiority. Thinking that way, it would make complete sense that men would avoid giving complements to other men on features that a woman might like. By exposing his feminine side he would be becoming less of a man. If you are truly interested in the topic, there are many thousands of sociology papers on the concept of masculinity that you can find on Google Scholar, for instance. I did not find any papers specifically on the giving of complements, but there are many interesting reads in there. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Do not start a debate; please seek an internet forum instead'" is confusing? μηδείς (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're about to classify the entire study of masculinity, and perhaps the entire field of sociology for that matter, as "opinion", then this is not a request for debate. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is pretty much my view of the entire field of sociology, yes. Sociology, at least as practiced in US universities, appears to be a political theory masquerading as a science. --Trovatore (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, nevertheless, accepted as a legitimate area of study along with the other disciplines, and it has a formal standing that astrology, for example, will never have. It's subject to the same peer reviews and other thresholds that other disciplines must also satisfy. I've often challenged people on the Science ref desk who come out with categorical statements like "Such-and-such does not exist", on the basis that they personally do not believe it. Such incredibly shoddy demonstrations of the scientific method do not mean that I throw the baby out with the bathwater and reject all of science. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying that sociology cannot be a science. I am saying that, as currently practiced, it is a sham; a dishonest attempt by a rather specific political theory to paint itself as science. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the society, the culture, the time period, the sub-culture within that society, and the particular social context. These elements depend on the particular social construction of gender and sexuality in a place time space. There is a wide literature on gender and sexuality in human societies. If you are interested I would suggest you start with a University introduction to sociology, and a University introduction to Women's and Gender Studies. Popular theoretical constructions of how gender and sexuality work in the advanced western countries include concepts such as patriarchy, heteronormativity (related to Queer theories) and rights based "liberal" feminism. Often the universality of these concepts is challenged in general, or in particular by theorists of social structure who emphasise race or class more significantly. In the particular case of your speculation, men are probably general forbidden to compliment each other's fascade because of the construction of masculinity as active and the construction of the compliment as an action performed upon another; complimenting a man's appearance would force him into being the subject of the male gaze and thus limit his agency (and by implication, social potence). Gazing upon other men emasculates them (cf: the construction of imaginary violent rape amongst men who otherwise don't have sex with men—the prison rape turns you into a bitch). Being gazed upon unmans, much like women are unmanned by being gazed upon (along with other phenomena). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my unsigned comrade, I'd agree that much of the above is speculation; but, I am trying to speculate around the domain of the problem and give links to theoretical concepts or literatures that the OP might read. I don't think the problem of male heterosexual compliments has been much studied—I don't think it is one of the core problems of gender or queer studies; even for those students of gender and sexuality who focus on heterosexual masculinity. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could it simply be that most men don't know what an attractive man is whereas women are bombarded with what's "pretty" every day and therefore have a good idea of what that means? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It took me about 20 seconds with Google Scholar to turn up some good leads on research in the area of male-male compliments, namely by typing the phrase "male-male compliments" into Google scholar. The first few papers look promising, and I'm sure some tweaking could turn up even better results on research in the field. See here. --Jayron32 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And a little further digging turned up this reference titled "The ethnography of English compliments and compliment responses: A contrastive sketch" which deals exactly and thoroughly with the OPs question about the differences between males giving compliments to other males, verses female-female and male-female interactions. --Jayron32 05:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen two female friends break each others balls, nor have I ever seen two male friends compliment each others outfits. It goes beyond sexual thoughts, down to the large difference in how men act towards other men, and women towards other women, being that women generally give many more compliments than men do. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Women also have a reputation (probably not usually but surely occasionally deserved) for cattiness/bitchiness towards each other, a trait not normally associated with men. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been of the believe that modern history is a blip in the radar, and that we still act entirely on caveman mentality and instinct, as that dominated over a million years of our history. The half-century prevalence of homosexuality in main stream culture has had zero meaningful impact on our behaviours. Men do not want to place value in other men, for that lowers or reduces by comparison their own value. In prehistoric times, the alpha male would lead the group, mate with the women, and pass their seed to the next generation. The beta males would serve to gratify the women, but they wouldn't have the opportunity to procreate. So, clearly the advantage was in being the alpha male. To do this, you had to dominate, and not be a subordinate. If you put two sexually-active males of any species together, they will establish this pecking order through fighting, sparring, pinning, humping, or some other method of showing off their stuff. As humans, however, we've developed communication that allows us to establish this order through subconscious body language and cues. FOr this reason, men don't want to establish themselves as the subordinate male, complimenting the alpha; they want to be the alpha receiving those compliments. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be funny, but do you have a source for any of that (in particular the structure of prehistoric society)? It seems a lot like a "just-so story". AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially a summary of any introduction to sociology and anthropology course. I'm not reading these off a book or anything, just providing my knowledge based on what I've learned from several courses on the subject. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take Floydian's description of prehistoric society with a grain of salt. No quality sociology or anthropology course is going to offer such a hard and fast description on something that can only be inferred based on indirect observations. --Daniel 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Floydian seems to be thinking of, like, lions or something. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the above and below comments, you can very easily tell most wikipedians are men as they like to put each other down a lot. If wikipedia was mostly women you would likely see comments such as "that was a good answer" - something that has yet to ever occur on wikipedia. Canadian Spring (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to say yours was an example of those good answers of which you speak, but since your assertion can be easily shown to be complete bollocks, it would be quite wrong of me to compliment you. I'll just leave it at that. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bit catty are we? Canadian Spring (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm simply withholding the barnstar you might have earned had you spoken the truth. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Compliments used to be handed out routinely on the Ref Desks: User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award... but some people didn't like it. --Dweller (talk) 09:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on the context. A fine comment I heard recently is that men insult each other publicly, and don't mean it, and women compliment each other publicly, and don't mean it. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I missed the part where this rose above a request for debate. A shame the OP didn't ask for something with an objective answer, like how to decompose H2O2. μηδείς (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do I sign up as a foreign mercenary for the Free Syrian Army?

In case this makes a difference, I am a natural-born American citizen. Even though I scored 85 on the ASVAB, I couldn't join the Air Force due to anxiety issues.

That's why instead of serving our own military in an official capacity, I'd like to serve a different military in a differing capacity.

That is, if my life fails to pan out with my other plans, hence "fails" altogether somehow.

I can't go to the Syrian embassy in Washington, nor their regional consulates; they're still governed by the Al-Assad regime.

Is there a Free Syrian Army contact in America that I can speak to in order to get recruited?

Also, having successfully completed 144 credit-hours of college, I'd like to be paid a minimum of 10¢ per credit-hour succeeded, per hour, so $14.40/hour. Would the FSA be able to pay me that much? Also, do they provide sign-on bonuses to mercenaries?

I'd like to start with launching rockets from a distance, then graduate up to operating UCAVs that supporting nations give or sell to the FSA. Thanks. --70.179.170.114 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenaries can be quite well paid (significantly more than the figure you mention). However, organisations aiming to recruit mercenaries expect them to come with training. In the USA, such training is available to private citizens from what was formerly known as Blackwater, here. Blackwater may also be able to offer you employment (probably in places other than Syria) on completion of suitable training.

"Firing rockets" in the sense of the commonly available rocket-propelled grenade is not something that can usefully be done "from a distance", because they are not very accurate. Any firing position close enough to be useful, would also put you within easy range of rifles and automatic weapons used by the other side.

I don't know if the Free Syrian Army currently has access to drones, and it seems very unlikely they would provide training on-the-job for that (although other agencies might).

I'm sure the Syrian Free Army has representatives in the USA, just as the Libyan rebels had representatives in the UK during the fighting there. However, joining the Syrian Free Army directly might be hampered if you don't share their language or religion.

Finally, although I can't give medical advice, people with anxiety issues may not be well suited to be mercenaries. Good luck! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll echo some of what Demiurge said, but I'm going to be little harsher. The FSA will have zero interest hiring an untrained person with anxiety issues who doesn't speak Arabic and is apparently only interested in very low risk jobs. You may want to look into something like the French Foreign Legion, but you are likely to run into the same medical issues you did trying to join the USAF. --Daniel 18:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)Do they still have a '"Professional Adventurers" wanted' (or whatever it's called) section in Soldier Of Fortune magazine? Also, I'd imagine that the best way to become a mercenary would be to have already served in the military in some combat capacity already - and thus already come with the required skills. Realistically, no-one is going to hire the guy who collects toy soldiers, has read 'The Wild Geese' and 'The Dogs Of War' and now fancies killing his fellow man for pay (would you want him next to you on the battlefield?) unless they need someone to stand at the front and soak up bullets - or clear mines with a stick. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a serious question. Or is it? -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the OPs extensive history on the RD I would say it sort of is, although I doubt even if the responses had been more heartening the OP will have any more follow thru then their plenty of other ideas they've brought to the RD, including joining the Korean army. (Although most of their proposals seem to have been the sort which couldn't get encouraging responses.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Free Syrian Army pays its fighters. People join it because they support the cause. What money they have goes on food and ammunition. Also, the Air Force doesn't let people with anxiety issues join for a very good reason - being in a war zone tends to make even the calmest people a little anxious. Someone with existing anxiety issues wouldn't stand a chance. Also, you speak as though this is a plan for a future - the Free Syrian Army isn't going to exist for long. Either they'll win and disband (or become simply the Syrian Army) or they will get wiped out. --Tango (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's always talk about "foreign mercenaries" being involved, although how factual such talk is, I don't know. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to run UAVs, you should join the US or Israeli armed forces, since they have them. Being a US citizen, I assume that would be the easier route. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UK armed forces also operate UAVs, and there is a fair amount of news coverage about how their use is being rapidly widened to other organisations for various purposes. Maybe becoming an UAV expert first would be the best route. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But if the USAF bounced him out for psychological reasons they're not likely to let him fly a drone. Neither is the UK or the FFL. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, the use of drones is being rapidly expanded. For example, to police forces, environmental watchdogs, who knows what else. If he gets a job flying drones for some NGO monitoring deforestation, or something, he might then get a job flying drones for some U.S. police force, and he might then market himself to the U.S. military as someone with substantial expertise in flying drone and training others to fly drones, and all of a sudden, OMG he's in charge of an entire wing of drones over some new U.S. protectorate not very dissimilar to Syria! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I saw on the TV news last night, the Free Syrian Army is hardly a professional army offering comprehensive training (or pay). They seemed to young, inexperienceed ordinary people, motivated more by a hatred of the Al Assad regime than a desire for a bit of soldiery. What training there was, seemed to be "this is an AK-47, the magazine goes in here and the bullets come out of this end when you pull the trigger" and "this is an RPG launcher, the RPG goes here and the rest works just like an AK-47". I strongly suspect that they will take any help they can get so long as you can demonstrate a desire to fight for their cause. To do that, you will need to demonstrate that they can trust you not to shoot them all dead as soon as their backs are turned, and that will probably involve taking part in close action against the regime while under the watchful eye of someone else. It really is not the place for someone with anxiety issues and an inability to speak the language. UCAVs? - best just to forget about that part of your plan. Astronaut (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any American signing up is likely to be regarded with some suspicion. With Al-Qaida increasingly becoming involved, suspicion of American is likely to increase.[1] I can't tell how serious you are, but I think you should bear in mind the possibility of being shot as a suspected spy. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Manhattan Kansas! Given your interest in washlets, perhaps you should research Syrian anal hygiene practices before traveling there. -- 203.82.95.201 (talk) 14:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS2 COUNCIL

I could only find the slim version of the PlayStation 2 on sale at ebay. The average price for the site was about 45$. I want to sell my regular play station 2. How much would be the price of a Playstation 2 that is not "slim"? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.124.35 (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't search ebay very hard... [2]. --Tango (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]