Chefelf.com Night Life: Brainy women face handicap in marriage stakes - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

Crappy News Forum

This is a REPLY ONLY form. Only Crappy News Moderators can post news topics here. Anyone is free to reply to the news topics. It's the Crappy News Forum, where everyone's a winner!

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Brainy women face handicap in marriage stakes Tuesday, January 11, 2005

#46 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 15 January 2005 - 02:48 AM

No reason for SUVs either

You have no idea how true that is. I've had profs go on for long periods of time on how useless and stupid SUV's are compared to any other car ever invented.


Working at a Video store in yale Town, I see all types of people. Since I deal them movies and change, I see their hands a lot. I noticed that the more wealthy (drive nice cars, rent lots of movies) ones who also wear business clothing and have that "go get em" demeanor, are infact single (no rings). I kid you not. I'm also not lying when I say that some of the most wealthy women in our store are strippers. We have about 10 or so strippers who are regular customers. Most of them have utrla rare miniture dogs which can cost 1000's. They buy, not rent, buy Dvd's every week. (instead of renting 3 movies, they'll buy 3 movies)

I'm not sure if any of that was relevant.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 15 January 2005 - 02:49 AM

Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#47 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 15 January 2005 - 03:45 PM

Hmm... strippers with overly priced dogs... Interesting.

Ben(OneWithStrange) - I've always thought that in relationships, you're made happy by making the other person happy. Again speaking from an utter lack of wisdom, I was so euphoric my brain stopped functioning just to have someone who I cared about during my brief (and ultimately bloody) bout with a relationship. I can't really describe it very well, but just the fact that I was making my girlfriend happy was enough. I didn't ask for anything in return; I didn't want anything in return. The point is that you each satisfy the other's needs... I guess that's what I'm trying to say. I don't know. Like I said, I don't know crap about this stuff.

Oh, maybe I read your post wrongly... Are you saying you don't like relationships because you're not helping enough people at once? That seems a little odd, especially for someone who's in the social work business. You're already apparently doing a whole lot for many people, what's wrong with helping yourself (and your girl/boyfriend) once in a while?

Did anything I said make sense? Can someone be more poignant and articulate than me on what I'm trying to say, if you understand it? Am I making any sort of good points here at all?
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#48 User is offline   OneWithStrange Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 17-September 04
  • Location:U.S.
  • Country:Germany

Posted 15 January 2005 - 07:34 PM

Slade,

I'm not in the Social Work career yet, I'm only educating myself for it (taking undergrad courses at my local college).

But yes, I see what you are saying. One is made happy by making other people happy, and that makes a lot of sense. However, I just overlook marriage because I believe life should be about sacrificing personal happiness to secure the happiness of as many people as possible, of those who need it most (doesn't mean I'm more intelligent than other people). I just think that everyone has so much potential, and it's just wasted when it's confined to making only two people happy (in a marriage). Unfortunately, I don't see having both as being an option.

-Ben (OneWithStrange)
0

#49 User is offline   SimeSublime Icon

  • Monkey Proof
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 6,619
  • Joined: 06-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 17 January 2005 - 07:22 AM

Don't forget Slade that a relationship can be a large commitment, which he probably feels detracts from time he could be spent helping others. It's like saying why nurse one person back to health when you can use the time to cure ten.
The Green Knight, SimeSublime the Puffinesque, liker of chips and hunter of gnomes.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
0

#50 User is offline   Laura Icon

  • Brother Redcloud
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:gnome habits
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 January 2005 - 11:43 AM

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
Except that from the start, this conversation was about the part of the study that had made conclusions about women.  No-one was talking about men.  Add to which the whole point of the study was to compare men with women.  So there is some reason to distinguish between the two.


So which is it-- is there no point in talking about men because the study was about women, or are we supposed to be talking about men because the study was about comparing women and men? You seem to be saying both here.

When I said "there is no reason to distinguish between the two," I was talking about gender and bio sex, not men and women.

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
And yeah, no reason for gender roles to exist, but they do.  No reason for SUVs either.  Can we at least have discussions about things that happen to exist in the world, regardless of whether they are constructed, or artifacts of the patriarchy? 


We can talk about gender roles, but we don't have to talk about them as if they are inevitable and monolithic. They are not inborn, they are taught, so they vary considerably based upon culture and family, and not everyone has the same idea about what they are. Therefore they're rather fuzzy things to use to make sweeping statements about The Nature of The Genders.

Saying "there is no reason for them to exist" is not the same as saying "they cannot be discussed." I imagine (though can't be bothered to double check) that whatever you said previously led me to believe that you were talking about gender roles as if they had to exist, so I said they didn't. I did NOT say "We can't talk about it anymore."

QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
It would be their mistake for going somewhere completely stupid, not yours for not saying enough words.


So basically you're calling me stupid.

I really did misinterpret what you said that one time, which I can no longer even remember, and I feel like you're continually accusing me of wilfully misinterpreting it or of being a big dummy. It was an honest mistake. Besides, I think I had a good point, whatever it was.


QUOTE (civilian_number_two @ Jan 15 2005, 02:03 AM)
In a less rigid society, we'd all be bisexual, right?  There would be no gender roles, people would just be people?  We could be attracted to minds rather than to bodies?


Why do you think that? I'm bisexual, but I don't buy into that whole "bisexuals are the best" bullshit. Bisexuals are have relationships with minds AND bodies too, but some of them are kind of pretentious and think that their attraction to both sexes is a freeminded rejection of sex-based attraction. Just because you rule out, say, women as potential romantic partners, because you are not attracted to them physically, doesn't mean your relationships with men are purely physical. No matter the sex of the people involved, romantic relationships are about sexual attraction AND intellectual compatibility and why are we even having this discussion? We've strayed from the topic at hand.

AN-yway.


Ben(OneWithStrange), why are having a relationship and doing social work mutually exclusive? I know social workers and future social workers who are in relationships, and I don't think it takes anything away from their studies or abilities. In fact, having a relationship can be beneficial to your work, because one's significant other can offer emotional support which can enable you to better perform your tasks.

Sure, you can't be on the job 24/7-- you need to set some time aside for your personal life-- but that's true whether you're married or single. If you devote yourself entirely to your job, you're likely to burn out rather quickly.
0

#51 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 17 January 2005 - 03:29 PM

Opener: yeah I do seem to be saying both ther. I'm not sure if that's out of context, and don't feel like scolling back. Maybe I picked a bad week to stop smoking crack.

Anyway, no Laura, I never said you were stupid. Find the bit where I said that (and it wouldn't be the bit you quoted), and I'll apologize. Or promise to.

And I don't think I made the claim that gender roles as they are make them inevitable, but don't you find it kinda nutz that whenever anyone makes a claim or a study about differences between men and women the PC reaction is always identical: "Men and women are perfectly equal, and gender roles are imposed!" Makes you wonder why the genders behave so measurably differnent. Must be social conditioning, right?

Maybe I agree: But now that we agree it's there, can we compare and study it? (NO! Men and women are identical and any differences are social conditioning!)

Or maybe I disagree: where is the evidence that men and women raised in a vacuum would not show differences in behaviour? Have we ever been able to raise scientifically significant numbers of men and women in social vacuums? (Pig!)

I don't think you're stupid Laura. Why would I think that? You're making reasoned points, you're writing in full lucid paragraphs, and by and large I agree with you. I just don't agree with you totally, and there we are. I would call stupid any leap from a comment about fuzzy cats to the claim that the writer meant to compare them not with other cats but with other fuzzy animals, stupid. So I didn't like your analogy, or its conclusion. Your argument in general however is compelling, even though I disagree with it. I don't have "typical" male behaviour, and I have seldom been involved with a woman who displayed "typical" female behaviour. All the same I do think there are differences, behaviourally, between men and women; I just don't believe we know what they are. As our culture evens out gender roles, and allows anyone to do more or less what he or she wants, I think we'll see. Well, not you and me, and not our grandchildren either. But some generation will see. You might say we'll see that everyone is the same under the gender mask; I say I doubt it.

And all that about bisexualism was just a crack at generic liberalism. I don't know the first thing about you. However I agree with everything you said about the politics of pretentious bisexuals. Yawn. I'm glad we found some middle ground!
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#52 User is offline   OneWithStrange Icon

  • New Cop
  • Group: Junior Members
  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 17-September 04
  • Location:U.S.
  • Country:Germany

Posted 17 January 2005 - 07:14 PM

Laura,

One can't honestly say that marriage (or any 'ideal' relationship) doesn't take up a lot of time. The constant reassurance, communication, compromises, worry, etc. It's enough to drive one mad. I find I have more time and get more things done when I'm not attached to anything else but the work. That's not to say I won't take out my own personal time, but I'd like it on my own terms. I can't control when a companion wants a bit of my time.

Maybe these older, smarter women feel the same way. I don't see why it was so hard to just ask them why they overlook marriage, instead of leaving it to us to argue about it wink.gif

-Ben (OneWithStrange)
0

#53 User is offline   Laura Icon

  • Brother Redcloud
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:gnome habits
  • Country:United States

Posted 17 January 2005 - 08:07 PM

I don't know, Ben, I think ideally, the rewards outweigh the troubles (or at least make them worth it). Of course, a relationship that's just a time suck without giving you anything in return isn't good for you, but not all relationships need to be like that.

So, Civ, where do YOU think the differences between men and women come from? I think it's largely social conditioning, but that doesn't mean that it's not there and that's not to say that you can't talk about it; it's just that one needs to be careful about categorizing people based on how they've been (presumably) socially categorized, since you can't be sure how that will affect everyone.

I suspected you didn't mean a word of that bisexual business, but I can't tell very well when you're being sarcastic, since we're in writing and I don't know you.
0

#54 User is offline   Jordan Icon

  • Tummy Friend
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3,161
  • Joined: 31-October 03
  • Location:Mars
  • Interests:I have none.
  • Country:Ethiopia

Posted 17 January 2005 - 08:52 PM

My three year old niece was attracted to the femine toys (dolls with dresses) rather than the more masculine ones (trucks). She had the option since my Sister had a baby shower and people bought Male, Female, and Uni-sexed clothes/toys. My niece turned out to be a girly girl. She loves dresses and is starting to do ballet and all that jazz.

I think Women are different than men. I think some women want to be men and some men want to be women. I don't think it's social conditioning. When did social conditioning first start? At the beggining there must have been a clean slate, no conditioning since nobody would no any better. They naturally progressed to certain places in society. I think it was at the beggining when both genders fell into their roles. I guess you could argue that men are strong and can force women to do whatever they want, but wouldn't that be natural too? I mean we're part of nature and the stronger ones make the rules. Shit, is that social conditioning? I don't know, I'm not smart.

-------

I don't think any one wants to marry a workaholic. I bet women, who have fairly high or moderate postitions in the work force, exhibit a higher degree of workahoicism. Just going through High School and Post-secondary, I can already safely say that the majority of women I knew, who did well in class, were either quasi or full blown prefectionists. They always had 20 coloured pens to take notes with, everything was so prim and neat. Then there was the smart guys who just showed up with a piece of paper and one pencil.


Nobody likes to marry a workaholic

More women are workaholics than men

Therefore Nobody wants to marry women. Lol. you get what I mean.

This post has been edited by Jordan: 17 January 2005 - 08:57 PM

Oh SMEG. What the smeggity smegs has smeggins done? He smeggin killed me. - Lister of Smeg, space bum
0

#55 User is offline   SimeSublime Icon

  • Monkey Proof
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 6,619
  • Joined: 06-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Perth, Western Australia
  • Country:Australia

Posted 18 January 2005 - 08:28 AM

QUOTE (Jordan @ Jan 18 2005, 09:52 AM)
Just going through High School and Post-secondary, I can already safely say that the majority of women I knew, who did well in class, were either quasi or full blown prefectionists.  They always had 20 coloured pens to take notes with, everything was so prim and neat.  Then there was the smart guys who just showed up with a piece of paper and one pencil.


I can vouch for this. We'd be sitting there in a lecture, and my friend will be highliting notes as she writes them in multiple colours. I'd be drawing a picture of Trogdor in the corner of the page tongue.gif

And in the case of Laura vs. Civ, I really really don't care. The debate reminds me of Kochanski's crap from the latter seasons of Red Dwarf, where she went about trying to ruin the crew.
The Green Knight, SimeSublime the Puffinesque, liker of chips and hunter of gnomes.
JM's official press secretary, scientific advisor, diplomat and apparent antagonist?
0

#56 User is offline   Laura Icon

  • Brother Redcloud
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:gnome habits
  • Country:United States

Posted 18 January 2005 - 11:25 AM

I'm going to ignore the pointed digs at me for the time being because I do think the thing about the toys is interesting too. I think most girls DO choose "girly" toys (same for boys and "boy toys"). Studies support this too. Even when the parents give them a choice, they tend to choose traditionally "gender appropriate" toys.

So do you think there's a "like pink" gene? (Or, I suppose a "hate pink" gene on the Y chromosome). Or, do you think there's a possibility that social conditioning is happening even when parents don't actively enforce it (through the media, peers, etc.)? Or that parents, even when they don't mean to, interpret their children's actions through the lens of gender appropriateness? Few things color a person's perception of you more than gender; it's there even when we don't mean it to be.

I'm not saying there's no biologic basis for differences between men and women, I'm just saying that social conditioning is huge, and you can't tell that it's going on. And almost any one of these very complex behaviors we see manifested can't possibly be the result of genetics alone.

Also, I never take notes in different colors, and I always draw pictures in the margins. Does that disprove your theory? No, it's only one counterexample. However, I think when you stop and think about it, you will find your sample sets are skewed. Let's say your hypothesis is "Most women take notes in different colors." You think back and you remember several girls in your classes who did so. However, there are undoubtedly tons of girls in your classes who didn't, but you didn't notice, because there was nothing remarkable about their note-taking. It didn't strike you. That doesn't mean it wasn't there.

Seriously, people. Let's step up the level of scientific rigor here. Don't just keep saying "Women are like this because all the women I know are like this." First of all, "all the women you know" is not a sufficient set in and of itself, and second of all, I seriously doubt that you are really including ALL the women you know-- only the ones who fit in with whatever theory you have.
0

#57 User is offline   Jen Icon

  • Mrs. Chefelf
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 408
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:The wilds of Spanish Canada in NYC
  • Interests:Being Chefelf's girlfriend has been an interest of mine for some time now. I also enjoy am interested in packing, unpacking, and organizing acres of cardboard boxes into a livable structure.
  • Country:Nothing Selected

Posted 18 January 2005 - 12:45 PM

Here's a new article to add fuel to the fire:

http://nytimes.com/2...artner=homepage

At an academic conference about diversity in the science and engineering workforce, the president of Harvard University stated that "innate differences" between men and women might be a reason that fewer women succeed in science and math careers. Speaking in a way designed to be provocative, he suiggested that perhaps one reason was that married women and women with children were less likely to wish to put in the long work weeks, 80 plus hours, that such careers might demand. He also reportedly said (in this AP story available on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2....ap/index.html) that he had given his daughter some trucks when she was little, and she played with them as if they were dolls, naming them "daddy truck" and "baby truck."

So what do we draw from this? The fact of the matter is that fewer women than men that I know are interested in science and math. If the test scores of high school students and the numbers of women and men who study these subjects in university is accurate, then the people I know are representative of the U.S. as a whole. So, maybe there is some truth the idea that women are biologically less interested in the subjects -- however, it could just be that women are discourgared from studying such fields, even if it's not done explicitly. Maybe the answer is a little from column A and a little from Column B, we don't know. But I think it DOES do a disservice to the women who ARE interested in math and science to be told outright, "Well, your gender is naturally less interested in this field," -- I doubt very much they appreciate the implication that they are "unwomanly"; I imagine they get enough of that message in pursuing the fields to begin with.

As far as the innate differences between boys and girls, well, I worked in a kindergarten, and at the age of five, in general, little boys and little girls act differently. They want to play with different toys, they relate to adults and to other children in different ways, and they are interested, by and large, in different things. In a different context, I have three younger cousins: the oldest two are boys, and they have a younger sister. In a lot of ways, they are very gender divided: when the oldest two were littler, no matter what game I tried to play with them became "playing guns" (bear in mind they are raised in gun control loving Canada, with a mother who didn't allow them to have actual gun toys). No matter what props they had at hand, they could be fashioned into a gun. THe littlest girl, on the other hand, made all the games "playing house," and no matter what props were to be found at hand, they could be turned into babies. However, she loves playing hockey, and is, in fact, on a hockey team that meets every week for practice and games, just like her middle brother. Their oldest brother, who has pointed many a gold club, Barbie, or notebook at me and said, "Let's play guns!" loves to dance, and takes lessons.

So who knows? I don't think the differences between the genders is a wholly social construct -- I think it does come out of real differences that have been codified by society at large. And that's not a good thing or a bad thing, it just is. But they are an abstraction, and as such, they don't apply to everyone within the category. Biology may be indicative, but it isn't determinative.
0

#58 User is offline   Slade Icon

  • Full of Bombs and/or Keys
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 8,626
  • Joined: 30-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:United States

Posted 18 January 2005 - 01:23 PM

Hear hear. We're a cross between nature and nurture.

And Civ - I don't think in a less strict society there would be more bisexuals. Sex is a biological imperative. I honestly can't help it that I am only physically attracted to females. I've pondered males (hell, I've even found a few attractive), but I'm simply not attracted to them. I agree that there are gender roles that we're supposed to fit into, this occurs in any society, but there are internal forces as well.
This space for rent. Inquire within.
0

#59 User is offline   Laura Icon

  • Brother Redcloud
  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 578
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Location:Boston
  • Interests:gnome habits
  • Country:United States

Posted 18 January 2005 - 01:47 PM

QUOTE (Slade @ Jan 18 2005, 01:23 PM)
Hear hear. We're a cross between nature and nurture.

And Civ - I don't think in a less strict society there would be more bisexuals. [etc]


I don't think Civ really meant that. He was trying to prove some sort of point or being sarcastic or something.

Second, yes, we are TOTALLY a cross between nature and nurture, in basically everything (not just gender differences). I think in terms of gender, there's a lot more socialization, or at least interplay of socialization and biology, than a lot of people think. Correlational studies don't account for third variables.

I've also been trying, in my bumbling way, to say what Jen said: biology isn't determinative. We can say "In general, women like bears," and we can have rock solid evidence to support that; but that still doesn't mean that all women likes bears, or that because you are a woman, you ought to like bears, or that if you don't like bears, that makes you any less of a woman. Correlational studies are descriptive, not prescriptive.

I've also been arguing that some of the conclusions being drawn about women may not have a biologic basis simply because there is no scientific indication that it's a difference that actually exists. We can SAY "In general, women like bears", and we can argue all night about whether it's nature or nurture that makes them that way, and come up with all kinds of elaborate theories about the adaptive nature of bear love, but we're not coming up with real information unless we have a reason to believe that our given is true. "I know lots of girls who do" is not sufficient.

As usual, I think my points got muddled by my attempts to express them all at once.
0

#60 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 18 January 2005 - 02:22 PM

hey, Laura: that's what I been saying all along. We show that something is more likely in a certain subset, that doesn't imply that anything lacking that trait does not belong in that subset. In most cases, esp sociological ones, it's the exceptions that makes the trait interesting. eg: "Most men have penises" = not interesting; "In Canada, most men were made sad by the hockey strike" = interesting, even if I personally didn't give a shit.

I don't know where the differences come from. I do believe like you that gender differences are afloat like a kind of background radiation, and that children pick up on them whether they are enforced or not. It is for this reason I always chuckle when insecure old Scotsmen whine on AM radio that "heterosexuals don't go about flaunting their behaviour in front of homosexuals!" That shit = Too funny. On the other hand, although I am not into most "male" activities or interests, most of the activities or interests I do have tend to define me as male. Had I never spoken of gender, or sexual attraction, ever in these forums, you'd know I was male by now. And I am not interested in a lot of the so-called "female" activities. And yes, I am good at math, and not so strong with language.

So yeah, bit of both piles. I wouldn't go blaming the whole thing on "conditioning." We are talking about beings that are not 100% intellectual, and that physically are quite different. There will be biologically imposed behavioural differences, I suspect, even if we don't know what they are. Sadly, we're not allowed to grow thousands of men and women in isolation and then see how they developed. Where do these differences come from? I don't know, but there are a load of crackpot theories worth looking at: body mass, levels of different hormones and chemicals, hand size, even brain weight. Take your pick; all I'm saying is, the differnces are there, and sociologists like to study them, and I say "why not?" It's a lot more interesting than always blaming social conditioning before insisting that any observation is necessarily sexist.


QUOTE
"I know lots of girls who do" is not sufficient.



Yeah, well obviously. I thought that this started with some kind of study, and I was saying, "I can see that in my own personal experience." But of course, we can just deny the study to begin with, and say it's incomplete or a total crock. I wouls like to think that the study was based on more than a load of guys talking about women they know, but worse studies have been run. For instance, I only know one girl who likes bears. However, I know loads of girls who like stuffed toys, and very few men who do. I would say that one is culturally-defined, but maybe it isn't. Discuss.


To All Concerned:

The crack about bisexualism: Not saying that Laura ever said it, but when I hear people argue that gender roles are culturally enforced*, and that otherwise men and women are behaviourally 100% equal in all ways, the suggestion that sexual attraction is more cultural than biological is never far behind. No dig on Laura, and not entirely sarcastic either. I was just trying to head it off at the pass. Sorry, Laura, if too much was made of it, and especially that you obviously never intended to go there.


*I live in Vancouver, the last city in the world still to take "political correctness" seriously, and you'd be surprised how often this topic actually comes up.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 18 January 2005 - 02:27 PM

"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

  • (5 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size