"a very small faction of the muslim religion that got media coverage" is all the sample for statistical evidence most of the American population has access to when it comes to the Islamic religion.
Exactly why I respond by debunking said stereotypes. Just because the sample was small doesn't make it any less worthwhile to introduce the person to a larger dataset. Your statement only reinforces the reasoning behind my response.
Finally, you claim that you can't know if I was being serious or not in my joke, given that you don't know me. I said you're both cats from Outer Space right after my joke. I rest my case.
Read what I said again. I didn't say I couldn't tell if you were serious, I said I couldn't tell whether or not you believed the stereotype as a "general" truth that applies to "most" women. I already said I realized you weren't being serious, but one can make a joke in jest and still believe that the stereotype on which they based it has validity. Without hearing the tone of your voice, or having prior information as to your personality and beliefs, it was impossible to determine. The same joke made now that we've spoken would, obviously, warrant a different response.
Having had some discussion with you now, I have some insight into what sort of person you are, and that data enables me to fully understand the intentions of your original joke, which were - to me - ambiguous at first. Discussing it further will neither make my initial response nor your initial joke any different, as they are both in the past, so perhaps we should accept that we each misunderstood the other's intentions, and move on.
I know you're just going to take this as me still not getting your point, but I'm going to have to disagree that stereotypes are based on "empirical statistical evidence." More often, they're based on false assumptions and assertions made by the media. Take, for example, the stereotype that all muslims hate America - that is so FAR from being based in empirical statistical evidence that it's not even funny. It's based on a very small faction of the muslim religion that got media coverage due to their actions. That's why I correct stereotypes, whether I get the joke or not, because people who make the jokes quite often seriously believe their stereotypes. And without knowing you, as you said yourself, I can't know whether you are making a joke of type 1 or type 2. Thus, I took the route of "just in case." (Even though I could tell you obviously weren't seriously questioning my gender with your post, there was no evidence whether or not you truly believed emoticons to be a "female" trait.)
Also, it's not always social change that renders a stereotype incorrect. Quite often - I would say more often than not - such stereotypes are incorrect from inception, as in the example above. However, if, after this point, you still disagree with my view, then I think we should just agree to disagree on this point. Further argument will go nowhere, and we're WILDLY off topic from the discussion, which was already wildly off topic from TFA.
You read too much into my post. I was being neither almighty nor defensive. Almighty would mean implying that I was smarter than entity x, or group x. It isn't almighty to be aware that my intelligence is higher than the average, as, I would imagine, are those of a good number of others who frequent slashdot. It takes a certain degree of logical-spacial intelligence to gain a strong affinity for technology. Then again, it's possible I'm overestimating slashdot.
At any rate, even if I *was* being defensive, which I wasn't, it certainly wouldn't have been over the comment that I'm a cat from outer space. I love cats. However, I hear so many stereotypes, perhaps it's merely a matter of instinct to quell them when I hear them, even in jokes. Jokes that rely on stereotypes (especially when those stereotypes are truly believed by a large number of people) fail to amuse me. (And there is a difference between "not amused" and "defensive" or "angry.")
I don't think it's an illusion. We don't do anything unless both of us are mutually in agreement on it. If one of us is opposed, we both throw it out. But that doesn't happen often - in the year since we started dating, we've yet to have an argument (knock on wood) or even a very strong disagreement (knock on wood again).
And I know what you mean about the way she dressed, but neither one of us is like that. We both have long hair, wear makeup, and wear a dress if we're going to something formal. My casual dress involves jeans more often than skirts, but I do wear skirts from time to time, and even when I'm not, my tops are very feminine - very rare is the case when I'm seen wearing a t-shirt. Just because I like technology doesn't necessarily mean I have any other stereotypically masculine traits. ^^ (My partner, by the way, also likes technology, but she's not as good at it as I am.)
Excuse me for that, I'm not quite up-to-date on my Latin. (The irony of "up-to-date" and "Latin" being used in the same sentence...)
So I made one spelling error. Trust me, it's a rare occurrence. ^^;
That's not true either.
Of course, now that I've said that, the Law of Inverse Sexual Attraction states that the number of people trying to "befriend" me must now increase exponentially.
The generation of random numbers is too important to be left to chance.