U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-25-2011, 02:05 PM
 
Location: La lune et les étoiles
17,414 posts, read 18,312,518 times
Reputation: 18593

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robhu View Post
I totaly agree about "misplaced priorities".
But most living things are either male or female. Including animals and humans. Nothing derogatory about it. Just the fact of nature. The "him's" are males, the "her's" are female. Whats the problem with calling them what they were born as and will forever be in their original natural state?
People who refer to women/girls/ladies as "females" are typically lower class and/or undereducated (or have adopted the lingo of the lower class and undereducated). The reference is dismissive, dehumanizing, is meant as a "slight" not a complement and is used only in one direction (ie men/boys/gentlemen do not refer to each other as "males")

What I find really sad is when other women/girls/ladies use the term "females" to refer to other women. SMH at that ignorance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-25-2011, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Alabama
1,068 posts, read 1,459,461 times
Reputation: 931
no conn is a white state
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 02:58 PM
 
8,021 posts, read 6,243,889 times
Reputation: 12004
Nothing new actually. People have been going crazy over Jordan's since I was in high school. And that was about ten years ago. I remember some of my friends use to sell candy so they can by a pair of the latest Jordan's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Wartrace,TN
5,292 posts, read 8,257,073 times
Reputation: 10391
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrEarth View Post
It's not Nike's fault that crazed consumers have no self-restraint. Of course the company is going to capitalize on these types of people who live to buy more overpriced crap they don't need. That is a problem with the consumer. If the consumer is not bright enough to figure out they are being manipulated like a little dancing puppet by corporations, then let them shell out their money for overpriced junk, and fight each other to the death for the new _____. Maybe one day they will realize the reality. Once everyone begins to see it, incidents such as these will no longer exist.
Of course it isn't Nike's fault that people are idiots. It IS Nike's fault for not RECOGNISING that people are idiots and not considering that fact when they released this product. If they planned their product launch with the proper availability their would be no incentive for people to "fight" for the limited quantity available. It is all about marketing hype and the limited availability was planned with the expected results.

You seem to have a very high opinion of people- that they will actually someday come to their senses..... I am of the opinion we will continue to strive for the lowest level of acceptable behavior with the bar being lowered as time passes.

I stand by my coment that Nike KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what the response to their limited release startegy would be and the resulting violence was a direct result of implementing this marketing strategy. Had they ensured an adequate supply to meet the anticipated demand this would not have happened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 03:53 PM
 
Location: BMORE!
7,257 posts, read 5,564,299 times
Reputation: 3265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wartrace View Post
Of course it isn't Nike's fault that people are idiots. It IS Nike's fault for not RECOGNISING that people are idiots and not considering that fact when they released this product. If they planned their product launch with the proper availability their would be no incentive for people to "fight" for the limited quantity available. It is all about marketing hype and the limited availability was planned with the expected results.

You seem to have a very high opinion of people- that they will actually someday come to their senses..... I am of the opinion we will continue to strive for the lowest level of acceptable behavior with the bar being lowered as time passes.

I stand by my coment that Nike KNEW or SHOULD HAVE KNOWN what the response to their limited release startegy would be and the resulting violence was a direct result of implementing this marketing strategy. Had they ensured an adequate supply to meet the anticipated demand this would not have happened.
So in essence, Nike lost out. If they knew this shoe was highly coveted and were going to sellout, they should have made enough so that everyone that wants a pair will get them....which will increase Nike's profits. The only minor drawback Nike would have is that the shoe will temporarily lose is exclusiveness. However, when they re-issue the shoe, it'll be sought after again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 04:50 PM
 
Location: CT
245 posts, read 418,105 times
Reputation: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by omigawd View Post
Don't they make them for girls/women? You would think with the "craze" over them, they would make them for everyone.

Oh well.


I don't know. I'm not a big sneaker fan. I've owned 4 Nikes in my life. 2 pairs of white ones, 1 pink high tops, and a set of purple ones with flowers on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 07:12 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,780 posts, read 28,649,346 times
Reputation: 14669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wartrace View Post
Is there any reason to believe that when you dangle a limited supply of product in front of any mob that wants it you will NOT see violence?
i think there absolutely is reason and anyone who conducts violence should be arrested and spend significant time in prison.

if a situation appears dangerous to you, then leave. dont start fighting and blame nike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 08:52 PM
 
Location: Virginia
7,895 posts, read 12,174,350 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
People who refer to women/girls/ladies as "females" are typically lower class and/or undereducated (or have adopted the lingo of the lower class and undereducated). The reference is dismissive, dehumanizing, is meant as a "slight" not a complement and is used only in one direction (ie men/boys/gentlemen do not refer to each other as "males")

What I find really sad is when other women/girls/ladies use the term "females" to refer to other women. SMH at that ignorance.
In post #19 of this thread below, you use the term "female" when referencing Newt Gingrich's lady staffers. Which are you? Lower class, undereducated, or both?

Looks like Obama is victory no matter which way you slice it.

"Conservative" is a relative term. Newt Gingrich considers himself "conservative" yet manages to keep tripping and falling into the vajajas of his female staffers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
2,117 posts, read 4,570,767 times
Reputation: 1522
Quote:
Originally Posted by calipoppy View Post
People who refer to women/girls/ladies as "females" are typically lower class and/or undereducated (or have adopted the lingo of the lower class and undereducated). The reference is dismissive, dehumanizing, is meant as a "slight" not a complement and is used only in one direction (ie men/boys/gentlemen do not refer to each other as "males")

What I find really sad is when other women/girls/ladies use the term "females" to refer to other women. SMH at that ignorance.
What evidence do you have to support your basis that the term female is used by lower class and undereducated people? Do you have a census? Collection of data?

Stating that the term is dismissive and dehumanizing is opinion, not fact--especially when it cannot be backed up by anything other than what you feel or think.

I think it's unfair of you to be rather smug and have such pompous and self-opinionated position on the "lower class" and "undereducated". In a way, you're dehumanizing those individuals. Oh, was I supposed to use people and not individuals? I guess I can say individual because they're lower class.

I do agree with you that it should never be used in normal, everyday life. I.e., "Look at those females over there", "She's a nice female"... way too scientific and academic (as opposed to 'lower class and undereducated'). Using the word female is not lower-class or undereducated as you say, but in a weird paradox (based on your assumptions), it seems to be more of a pompous, self-opinionated and sexist term (two or three characteristics that you may have). Use of female is depersonalizing, unbiased. "Female staffers" or "Female senators" [apposition/noun]. It's used in a general manner. "The females watched a movie" [noun only].

I'm in the military. "Female" is the proper term used in my profession--whether I am saying "One female type, five foot six, etc etc"... or "SSgt xxx is a female". It's used in an unbiased/non-personalization manner. I.e., if I described a 'suspect' it's individual. I describe the individual as male/female rather than "One woman, five foot six".

Last edited by td333; 12-25-2011 at 09:20 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-25-2011, 09:24 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque, New Mexico
2,117 posts, read 4,570,767 times
Reputation: 1522
OH and at least ya ain't being referred to as 'bird'.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top