[andi*pandi]

S,
Is it honest to insist your rhetorical insinuations were simple, idle curiosity? Benefit of doubt for your ingenuousness has expired.

You complained about the thread. Closing the thread would be a service to you, I think, more than anyone.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

If you have no curiosity as to why a public figure would engage in such a dramatic shift in personal appearance, in a way that made her appear a little odd, then it would probably have been better for you to skip the thread entirely.

No. On the contrary, threads that are based on false premises, false assumptions, and draw illogical conclusions are the threads that MOST appeal to me. I like to get involved in those kinds of threads because I hate to see the practice of logical debate so mishandled and I like to think I can help get such threads back on track using sound principles of logic in the topic under discussion.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

A person's appearance is always deliberate--they always choose how to appear--but it is not always done with the intent of making a deliberate statement about themselves.

I think this point needs to be addressed in more detail.

• Every action we take involves making a choice.
  (Unless we are children, adults with the mental faculties of a child, or under the required compulsion of some authority such as the military who can make "choices" for us.)
• Not all choices are made consciously, though.
  (Some things we do are habitual, but habitual acts are still choices even though we do not consciously decide to do that act each and every time we do it.)
• And not all conscious choices are made with the intent to have the choice be a deliberate statement about how we wish others to perceive us.
  (Such behavior--deliberately making choices based on how others would perceive us via said choices--would suggest an intense self-absorption bordering on narcissism in the person who behaved in such a way.)

Sometimes a cigar really is just a cigar.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You see to be in a state of denial of the length and breath of fashion for either gender, and that's without acknowledging it's fluidity.

I conceded that fashion is fluid. Maddow though went from decidedly feminine to consistently much more masculine. It's pretty clear this isn't just an example of fashion experimentation or her part, at this point. I'd suggest someone trying to convince people otherwise are the ones in denial.

You started posted again, didn't you?

I already conceded my status as "glutton for punishment"!

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by subego 

Are you saying it's been demonstrated she's different than the average woman who dresses masculinely?

The average women doesn't dress masculinely. Rachel didn't either until later in life. I was questioning why there was such a drastic change and if there was anything that influenced that change.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

And what most of us have pointed out is that your questions in this thread are of no logical merit.

Questioning a change, even a dramatic change, in a person's appearance over the course of 19 years--Assuming Rachel Maddow was 18 when her high school photo was taken--is ridiculous. People don't look the same over the course of their adult lives and to ask "questions" based on an assumption that they do (look the same over the course of their adult lives) is illogical and suggests willful ignorance by the person asking the question.

People don't always look the same, agreed. When we age, adjustments are made both by design and by nature.

One can appreciate the natural and normal changes humans go through as time progresses and how they personally choose fashion choices and their personal appearance, and still point out when someone makes a drastic change that would bring up rational questions as to motive.

We aren't talking about someone going from pleated front khaki pants to flat fronts, or simply just a change in the length of their hair. Maddow went from an average, all-over feminine look to an average, all-over masculine look and she's stayed that we for some time.

Heck, when someone does as little as change their hair color at my office, they are inundated by hundreds of questions regarding their choice. A women dyes her hair blond, her motives are questioned, for instance.

I'm pretty sure the average person wouldn't accept as credible the notion that Maddow's 180 degree turn is on par with the average changes and adjustments we make over time. It just doesn't really even get out of the starting gate, as far as an intelligent argument goes, IMO.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

I conceded that fashion is fluid. Maddow though went from decidedly feminine to consistently much more masculine. It's pretty clear this isn't just an example of fashion experimentation or her part, at this point. I'd suggest someone trying to convince people otherwise are the ones in denial.

So it's ok if a women dresses masculine so long as she doesn't do it consistently?

Of course, you're ignoring when this transition happened. Again.

[Wiskedjak]

perhaps the dramatic change for Maddow was a realization that she didn't have to abide by the fashion norms men try to enforce on women?

In other words, how she dressed when she was younger might not have been her choice.

you're ignoring an awful lot of possibilities in your quest to prove your theory.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

WRONG! You assume, continually, that a person's changes in personal appearance are a) fully deliberate and b) are intended to "reveal" something about said person's personality and how they wish to be perceived.

I assume no such thing. I never claimed any such thing either. It's quite possible for someone's choices in personal appearance to come from the subconscious, and still offer incite into what's going on in their head. It's also quite possible that a person unintentionally gives clues to their state-of-mind via their personal appearance choices as well. That doesn't change my argument.

Most psychological professionals will tell you that a great deal of information on someone's state of mind can be garnered by observations in someone's personal appearance. If you don't want to take my word for it, I can look up citations if you like.

Our chosen personal appearance CAN reveal "a lot about our personality and how we wish to be perceived" but does not necessarily have to "reveal a lot about our personality and how we wish to be perceived". In other words, a person's appearance is always deliberate--they always choose how to appear--but it is not always done with the intent of making a deliberate statement about themselves.

Doesn't always have to be deliberate, but drastic changes in one's personal appearance normally are a result of choice whether it's intended to make a "statement" or not. For instance, if someone WAS suffering from some kind of mental gender confusion, they might choose to dress and groom themselves in a way that emphasizes how they feel about their appearance, not caring about what "statement" it makes.

Again, my argument isn't based on any of the assumptions you've brought up.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

S,
Is it honest to insist your rhetorical insinuations were simple, idle curiosity? Benefit of doubt for your ingenuousness has expired.

You complained about the thread. Closing the thread would be a service to you, I think, more than anyone.

I complained about the lack of real effort in the thread. Keeping it open acts as a testament to others in this regard.

I also really don't think it's your obligation to either give or deny "benefit of the doubt" about my motives, which is really irrelevant to the subject. You can either choose to participate or not. Trying to shift the discussion in the direction of motives, or other personal areas, normally is a sure sign you've already failed to achieve whatever it is you could have otherwise added to the discussion.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So it's ok if a women dresses masculine so long as she doesn't do it consistently?

Of course, you're ignoring when this transition happened. Again.

I'm not judging it on whether it's "OK" or not. No one is suggesting that Maddow shouldn't do whatever she likes.

Is "when" it happened relevant to "why" It happened? If so, please share.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

perhaps the dramatic change for Maddow was a realization that she didn't have to abide by the fashion norms men try to enforce on women?

Possibly. The problem I have with that theory is that there are a multitude of "fluid" (as another posters put it) fashion choices Maddow could have chosen if she where simply trying to flounce the "rules" as they have been put to her.

In other words, how she dressed when she was younger might not have been her choice.

you're ignoring an awful lot of possibilities in your quest to prove your theory.

What is the theory I'm trying to prove? I'm pretty open to all the possible explanations, if they seem to make sense.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Possibly. The problem I have with that theory is that there are a multitude of "fluid" (as another posters put it) fashion choices Maddow could have chosen if she where simply trying to flounce the "rules" as they have been put to her.

You would have hated all of them. That's the whole point. You're the target demographic. If it doesn't make you uncomfortable, it's not working.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Trying to shift the discussion in the direction of motives, or other personal areas, normally is a sure sign you've already failed to achieve whatever it is you could have otherwise added to the discussion.

Your 'discussion' started out as a chance to take a cheap shot at a liberal you obviously dislike. I think Pandi did quite well exposing your motives on page one.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If your best criticism of a pundit, senator, or supreme court nominee, is that she is ugly, has cankles, is a lesbian, or is just plain not feminine enough for you, are you really debating the merits of the job, the person's intelligence, or their ideology? No. It's just childish insults.

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It's interesting that you think a girl who starves herself, dyes her hair, undergoes painful eyebrow waxing, and buys lipstick has good self-esteem but a girl who does not do these things must have a mental illness.

Page one my friend, page one and you were already done. What you are blathering on about now is anyone's guess.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The average women doesn't dress masculinely. Rachel didn't either until later in life. I was questioning why there was such a drastic change and if there was anything that influenced that change.

And how the **** are we supposed to know? Do you *not* see that it is a wild, wild, wild jump for you to come to conclusions on your own based on your gut feeling?