Sigvatr wrote: Getting back to the topic at hand and away from people having an e-peen shouting contest:
Another point that, so far I guess, hasn't been brought up yet is that this entire thing is a cry for help that falls upon deaf ears. That woman obviously has extremely severe psychological problems and is in dire need of professional help, but will not get it as she herself cannot realize it on her own and her story is welcomed by other psychologically conspicious women, re-inforcing her ill behavior.
Relevant. This article also got posted on r/warhammer. Apparently this lady tried to bully her way into a position as "Women's Ambassador to Gaming". How truthful this is idk, but the comment is posted below, followed by the Reddit link.
I saw this posted on the Warmachine subreddit as well, and there /u/GDnerd commented with a responce that one of the leads at Wyrd had posted on Facebook. Allow me to quote his post here.
One of the leads at Wyrd has responded to this on facebook. Apparently this tumblr user has been harassing them noOne of the leads at Wyrd has responded to this on facebook. Apparently this tumblr user has been harassing them nonstop seemingly trying to pressure them into hiring her as a "Women's Ambassador to Gaming".
"Yeah, I've read this, and we've seen the same thing from this individual last year when she expressed herself in our forums (you can easily find it if you really want to read through all that vitriol) and then took it upon herself to hound after my employees to demand a direct talk with myself, how I am responsible for stepping up to make certain the community at large (the whole of gaming and geek society, not just Malifaux) is policed, and to bring her on board to be the Woman's Ambassador to Gaming and to make certain that Wyrd is doing it right and proper as we're apparently misogynistic asses here. Considering that a large majority of the work force here is female, the males are outnumbered, I sort of kinda doubt we're all running around scratching our crotches and telling the ladies how they do it for us. Somewhere in there apparently threats have been issues to her in my name as well as the company's and supposedly that there are copious amounts of evidence that has been made available to the Canadian law authorities as well as the FBI (which apparently were soon to swoop down and confiscate our entire office computers and arrest us if I didn't take the time to take her Skype call). That never happened. We also never received any copies of said evidence so that we could follow up or ban individuals from this end. After multiple phone calls, e-mails, etc, etc, etc she and her circle of friends have been told to please do hand over any and all evidence to the authorities as we do not condone or tolerate any behavior of that matter, beyond that, all harassment calls without evidence beyond someones anger at the community could be directed to our on retainer lawyer who would love nothing more than to bill me for the privilege of telling folks legally what and where to go with it and to please bring forth legal evidence so that it can be sorted directly. To date that has never happened, and neither myself, the company or any individuals within it condone such behavior and if we did find someone of that ilk among us, it would be a rather large surprise, and a swift exit out the door to authorities. As this issue is almost a year old at this point and I've yet to see any evidence to date, nor been contacted by authorities in any manner, I can only assume that someone is wanting to stir the waters and get attention. I neither know this individual personally nor what has happened in their history, what I do know. is what she has tried to do to this company and community with zero evidence of any misbehavior from anyone at Wyrd."
It's on a closed FB group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/AWYRDPLACE/) otherwise I'd link directly to it.
As a long time wargamer (going on 15 years or so), I will easily admit that ~20% of the tabletop population have mild to severe social issues that can lead to all kinds of issues.
I personally have been threatened by someone who said they were tempted to stab me in the parking lot after hours because I fielded a model
he thought was "too good". Another tried to start a fight with me in the store because he got mad at me for whistling months before. I've seen people throw temper tantrums so intense that it gets other people to quit the game rather than have to interact with that person ever again.
And despite all that I cannot believe any of these stories. And shame on anyone who does.
I just found this post informative as an alternative side to OP's link.
Here's a permalink to the comment: https://redd.it/4dc2yq
jasper76 wrote: The truth is, I have no way of knowing if her assertions are 100% lies, 100% truth, or somewhere inbetween. And fortunately, I don't have to know. What I do think is that stores can and should do more to make gaming areas safer for women
We kind of do now as she elaborated on the style of writing as it being somewhere in between:
"I wrote the flashbacks the way I did so that people who have not survived these events can know how they alter you permanently," she said. "I wrote the flashbacks as I [continue to] experience them — as PTSD flashbacks that interrupt your life and erode your sense of safety and normalcy. I refuse to apologize for my trauma not meeting some donkey-cave's arbitrary credibility test. I was there. They weren't."
The accounts at least the way she has explained them didn't happen entirely as she portrayed them. The details are distorted as she compares it to a PTSD flashback which may have or even been perceived that way when they happened and could be completely different than the reality. That is unfortunately an issue with the way perception works, especially when remembering something years ago. She believes they are real and they happened that way, unfortunately without any real evidence it may not have actually happened that way. That is the crux of the whole thing.
Garland says she reported all the evidence she found of harassment to authorities, both anonymously through the anonymous reporting tip line for police, Crime Stoppers, and in person at her local police department, but never had enough evidence to prompt an investigation.
I dunno.
If I was going to claim any form of prejudice with the lady folk at the FLGS it would be by treating them far better than the guys.
They can be such a rarity that you would be a fool to hit them with any negativity never mind harassment.
You know, being inclusive because it is hard enough to get people out to play a game, never mind scaring them off by acting creepy.
Plus I think I would quickly "correct" anyone being a jerk.
I guess what I am looking for is the harassment prevalent in general society or is it especially so in the gamer community?
We all seem pretty preoccupied with rules so I figure we tend to behave better than most.
Heck, even when my friends and I get a game in at my place we don't drink, it just seems like something not to do while gaming.
The entire article is so much a rant it is like a Anita Sarkeesian video: there are valid and unfortunate points to be made but it seems rather one-sided, painting with a large brush, throwing baby out with the bathwater... you get the idea.
If even 20% of it is true it would still suck what this person went through.
Every instance of this garbage needed to be reported and witnesses identified, I really do not like bad behavior being rewarded.
So yeah, flinging around words like "terrorism" is like giving permission to be ignored: if you cannot let the facts speak for themselves people start thinking some lying is going on.
Tactical_Spam wrote: That was the assumption considering she didn't say "These are a bunch of anecdotes from various women who got sexually assaulted"
So that is just an assumption. Then say “I assume she meant it all happened to her", or something to that regard. Don't present it as a fact…
flamingkillamajig wrote: Well you are an extremist on the feminist side as anybody can see on your posts. You can generally tell who some are by not just people throwing women into everything but trying to exclude men from those things. I remember another person on this board that messed around with the male to female ratio of soldiers in xcom to have only female soldiers. Which is just as sexist as all males though I find it funny how hypocritical it can be that you think you're doing the right thing.
Basically where you can you have the all female factions.
Did you missed the joke? About playing trollbloods ?
flamingkillamajig wrote: Yes totally all white men in the current day and age that have been born 10-20 years ago should be crapped on for the injustices some people in their race and gender did a long time ago (like 50 or more years ago).
Statistically, the power is still mostly in white men's hands.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Hybrid while I in a sense insulted you indirectly because of your views and the army you play I did help you considerably by cheering you on in your search for a special lady in another thread. I find it odd how much you've come out to attack me in this thread.
Don't specifically hate you but your posts did aim at me pretty hard.
Sorry. I was not planning to aim at you specifically, I just browsed through the topics, quoted a few things I wanted to react to, removed a bunch because I saw a mod warning about getting off topic and did not even noticed most quotes were about you. I certainly did not want you to feel specifically targeted. I know I tend to get quite sarcastic and maybe overly antagonistic when debating, it is one of my flaw, but this in no way means that I hate you or anything. It just means we have different ideas on the subject. I would still buy you a beer and have pleasant chat if I met you in person.
Tabletop gaming is the gaming community's older but not necessarily wiser sibling. From Dungeons & Dragons to Munchkin, Magic: The Gathering, Settlers of Catan, and countless other "titles," board games, role-playing games, and card games have spawned an entire adjacent subculture of geekdom ranging from casual local game nights to intense convention tournaments.
The tabletop gaming community doesn't necessarily overlap with the massive, amorphous communities that make up online video game culture. Because of the separation between the two, tabletop gaming has largely sidestepped the discussions of misogyny and sexism that have contributed to the ongoing controversy surrounding the Gamergate movement.
Until now.
During the first weekend in April, a lengthy Tumblr post by Canadian tabletop gamer Emily Garland gained some traction within the tabletop community. Garland's post, "Tabletop Gaming has a White Male Terrorism Problem," is dated March 23, 2016, and blends commentary about geek culture's long history of harassment with a narrative of her own horrible experiences within her personal gaming circles.
Garland speaks of facing harassment from a young age, receiving death threats after winning a historic victory in a 2014 lawsuit involving sexual harassment at the game store she worked at, and being raped while attending a Canadian sci-fi convention. She starkly describes her experiences; her condemnation of what she identifies as the "white male terrorists" of the gaming community, as well as what she sees as tacit support for their views, is unequivocal:
Garland wrote:White male terrorism is the white underbelly of the gaming community, meant to terrify and disrupt the lives of those who threaten the status quo by race, gender, or sexuality. It succeeds because the majority of men in the community are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists. At best, these cowards ignore the problem. At worst, they join the terrorists in blaming their victims for the abuse. The point of online terrorism is that it is endless, omnipresent, and anonymous. I have no way of knowing whether the person with whom I’m gaming is safe or the person who wants to "slit [my] throat and feth the gash until [I] drown in cum". Knowing that the person sending those e-mails could be anyone and the community will not support me if/when I am attacked keeps myself and many others from the hobby.
The majority of gamers do not engage in online terrorism, but are instead complicit in lower levels of harassment. It is almost impossible to convince gamers that sexist and racist jokes are unacceptable and that they make others uncomfortable and drive people off. Indeed, raising this issue at all often results in threats and more terrorism.
Garland's post identifies three major areas of concern for women and genderqueer tabletop gamers:
There's the issue of sexual harassment and assault going unchecked and not being taken seriously by either individual gamers or law enforcement when it happens in gaming contexts.
There's the question of excluding women who complain about unfair or marginalizing treatment from the tabletop gaming community, instead of attempting to make the community more inclusive and willing to listen to them.
And there's the failure of the gaming industry as a whole — encompassing both video and tabletop gaming — to take major action in response to Gamergate, despite the international media attention the issue has received.
"If gamers didn’t think the harassment was justified or warranted, they would speak out against it," Garland writes. "That the community and industry as a whole choses to remain silent in the face of widespread public condemnation of its bigotry speaks volumes."
Since Garland's Tumblr post first picked up momentum, it has gained thousands of comments and hundreds of reblogs and shares on other social media platforms, provoking considerable discussion from all around the tabletop community.
So what prompted Garland to write the post to begin with?
Speaking to Vox by email, Garland explained that she wrote the Tumblr post partly as a response to ongoing harassment in the tabletop gaming community as a whole, and partly as a result of tensions within a specific tabletop gaming community — the one surrounding Malifaux, a horror/fantasy war game played using collectible, customizable miniatures. Garland describes Malifaux as "a lot like three-dimensional chess with magic powers."
After winning a harassment lawsuit against a gaming store in 2014, Garland told Vox she was "frozen out of one game store and harassed/threatened out of another." She began trying to discuss the issue of women's safety in the tabletop community on the forums for Malifaux's parent company, Wyrd, but said that just led to more harassment, this time from the Wyrd community.
Garland said she had tried to raise concerns within the Wyrd forums about a particular Malifaux player who frequently told sexist jokes and was moderated for describing winning games as "raping" other players. Meanwhile, among the Malifaux community generally, friction had been growing over several controversial female characters that had been added to the game. One of these characters, Nekima, raised concerns from many community members that her design was sexist due to her large breasts and skimpy costume.
Garland and many other fans of Malifaux were disappointed that so many of the game's new characters and models were either male or women who were overtly sexualized. Throw in a few other similar incidents, and tension in the forums was high.
Talking about harassment can lead to more harassment
The situation in the Wyrd forums reached a boiling point in July 2015 when Malifaux's co-creator, Nathan Caroland, created a "Soapbox Thread" to discuss the new characters and other issues that had created conflict in the community.
"Folks have derailed topic after topic over religion, sex, racism … you name it," Caroland wrote. "Here you go. The soapbox has been pulled out, step on up and voice your thoughts, concerns, gripes, major complaints or anything other that you feel you just have to get out of your system."
Responses were civil and ranged from a thoughtful discussion of inclusivity to a collection of boob jokes. Garland said she felt belittled: "My concerns and the concerns of other women were dismissed in favor of defense of sexual harassment, jokes about what breasts are really for, and accusations that I was lying about rape for fun and profit."
Members of the community argued that her complaints and reports of harassment had no place in "miniatures" tabletop games like Malifaux, and Caroland himself suggested that she take self-defense classes and start a ladies-only game club.
The conversation remained polite, but Garland said that ever since she posted in the soapbox thread, she'd been the target of ongoing harassment by fellow Malifaux players — which included a death threat sent anonymously through Tumblr but signed as though it came from Caroland. Her attempts to hash out the matter with Wyrd were unsuccessful — Garland alleges that Wyrd either ignored her emails or hung up on her when she called.
"All I wanted was confirmation that Wyrd was not behind the attacks and did in fact care about the safety of their female players," she said. "Rather than give me that, they refused to speak to me."
Meanwhile, the harassment continued until Garland says she reached a kind of "event horizon" in mid-March and decided to speak out in her Tumblr post.
When asked for comment, Wyrd spokesperson Kelly Brumley told Vox that while the company couldn't address specific allegations due to privacy concerns, "We can assure you that any employee engaged in such despicable acts as threats or harassment would not be tolerated. It is never acceptable behavior." Brumley continued:
As a company, Wyrd believes in the value of a safe and respectful community that actively fights against harassment and other actions that create a hostile environment ... We have a code of conduct for our community organizers that they must adhere to, as well as strict forum rules.
The company also responded tacitly to Garland's Tumblr post with a public post from Caroland noting that Wyrd "[does] not tolerate or condone any behavior that harasses, makes uncomfortable, insults, or otherwise diminishes another person." Coincidentally, it also released a few new previews of female characters that will be added to the game.
Finally, Wyrd sent Vox a screencap of a Facebook post published by Caroland on a private Wyrd Facebook community. In it, he characterizes Garland's forum discussions as "vitriol," alleges that she harangued him and his fellow employees, and denies that he or any employee sent her abuse:
As this issue is almost a year old at this point [July 2016] and I’ve yet to see any evidence to date, nor [have] been contacted by authorities in any manner, I can only assume that someone is wanting to stir the waters and get attention. I neither know this individual personally nor what has happened in their history, what I do know is what she has tried to do to this company and community with zero evidence of any misbehavior from anyone at Wyrd.
Garland says she reported all the evidence she found of harassment to authorities, both anonymously through the anonymous reporting tip line for police, Crime Stoppers, and in person at her local police department, but never had enough evidence to prompt an investigation. Her last post in the Wyrd/Malifaux forums was in July 2015, right before her exit from them. She noted that she had reported the harassment to authorities and that it was part of a disturbing pattern.
"I'm now 3/3 wargame communities where I have experienced direct, targeted harassment aimed at driving women out of the hobby," she says. "Are we going to accept that there's a problem?"
In addition to generating considerable discussion about the issue of sexism in tabletop gaming, Garland's Tumblr post has garnered dismissal from both sides of the gaming cultural divide — the socially progressive side pushing the culture to be more feminist, diverse, and inclusive, and the more socially conservative side that resists, in their view, extreme and unnecessary change.
Due to the dramatic way Garland describes her experience with harassment and assault, several social progressives who would otherwise be supportive have joined Garland's detractors in wondering if she's a troll. For instance, here is how she recounts her first experience in a game store:
Garland wrote:I am thirteen years old and in a game store for the first time. I examine their selection of dice and take them to the counter to pay.
"How old are you?" asks the balding, middle-aged man behind the counter.
"Thirteen."
"Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!" he chuckles in glee. The Warhammer 40K gamers at the table behind him take up the refrain. "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed! Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed!"
I run.
The question of whether Garland's account is believable has led to heated debate in reblogs of her post. Garland clarified that her intention in documenting these recollections was to evoke the experience of each incident.
"I wrote the flashbacks the way I did so that people who have not survived these events can know how they alter you permanently," she said. "I wrote the flashbacks as I [continue to] experience them — as PTSD flashbacks that interrupt your life and erode your sense of safety and normalcy. I refuse to apologize for my trauma not meeting some donkey-cave's arbitrary credibility test. I was there. They weren't."
While Garland's depiction of the events she describes may sound over the top to some, Garland emphasizes that that's kind of the whole point. After all, she was able to win her aforementioned lawsuit against the gaming store she used to frequent precisely because "the sexual harassment and misogyny in the gaming community is so normalized and so pervasive that … none of the gamers interviewed by the defense thought the sexual harassment was out of the ordinary. 'Old enough to bleed; old enough to breed' is tame in comparison."
Writing about the numerous doubts and subsequent dismissals that have been cast upon Garland's post because of her writing style, one outside observer concluded on Facebook that debates over Garland's dramatic presentation are derailing the issue at hand:
Facebook User wrote:Regardless of what the Tumblr writer has done, what they've said, none of that matters. The issue at hand, and the one that should have been the focus for all of the discussion taking place on my Facebook page and on Twitter, is that THESE EVENTS ARE HAPPENING.
It doesn't matter whether they happened to one person, or several, virtually every woman who games will be able to give you examples just like these, where they have been made to feel uncomfortable or even frightened in the company of people just like me.
Garland said she's been gaming since the age of 9, and that after her early game store harassment at age 13 she "relied on older friends for gaming supplies because it was open knowledge that it wasn't safe for a girl under 13 to go into a game store alone." She says she used to like video games but that she was "harassed out of that hobby in my early 20s."
Now nearly 30, Garland says she sees the same subcultural divide threatening tabletop gaming that has in recent years become a major issue in nearly every other geek subculture: the question of inclusivity and diversity.
"As gaming becomes more varied and available, there is a growing schism between decent people who want an inclusive hobby and jealous Kylo Rens angry that Rey gets a lightsaber too," Garland explained. "These 'orthodox' gamers are becoming more and more threatened that a hobby that previously catered entirely to them is becoming more diverse."
Garland's husband, Chris Taggart, who still participates in Wyrd's online forums, noted that Wyrd in particular has made important strides toward encouraging inclusivity and diversity, but that the problems faced by the tabletop gaming community are more widespread. "I think that is the thing about Wyrd," he told Vox. "They are the best miniatures company that I've found for [diverse] representation, but the people who play it are the same as those from any other tabletop game."
Despite the prominence of this cultural issue, Garland says that on the whole, the reaction she's seen to her Tumblr post has been "overwhelmingly positive, aside from the abuse." Perhaps surprisingly, she even credits "Gamergate and their high-profile harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, Zoë Quinn, and Brianna Wu" for "chang[ing] the way the law responds to threats and to gamers."
Garland told Vox that 2015 marked the first time she was able to talk to a police officer about gaming harassment incidents "without being insulted, threatened, or belittled." Her personal experiences with law enforcement include an incident described in her Tumblr post in which she called police to report being raped and police allegedly called her a drunk slut and hung up.
"I'm still really angry about that," Garland says, noting that her own experience, combined with incidents like the Jian Ghomeshi trial and the history of Canadian law enforcement and missing and murdered indigenous women, led Garland to conclude that police do "not view women as worth protecting." But she also thinks things are starting to change.
"While I'm very critical of the justice system in my post, police are getting better," she allows. "The officer I spoke to [after she reported the Malifaux forum incidents] treated me more like a domestic abuse survivor trying to leave a hostile situation than the victim of a crime, and I do not disagree with that response. Gaming communities can be insular and cult-like and I'm glad law enforcement is learning to work with women, even if it takes an infuriatingly long time."
Still, Garland made it clear that despite the slow steps forward in the larger culture, she's reached a breaking point regarding her own experiences of gaming harassment: "Abuse in the hobby is omnipresent and does not stop until we stand up, call it wrong, and FORCE it to end."
Regarding the response her Tumblr post has received, she added, "My life is the same whether I post [about] it or not. The only difference is that now everyone else going through this doesn't feel alone."
A persons ability to deal with stressful situations is completely different from anyone else. People can get PTSD from things as simple as being yelled at, and others can watch their friend explode in front of them from an IED and be relatively fine.
With that said, I think it a bit strange that she recollects someone saying "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed" as a PTSD induced flash back. Beyond that, I am aware that women tend to have a harder time in general life because of men cat calling and men typically being men, IE Rude and insensitive. Some things are generally rude and should never be said, other things are situational (I recall a story about a female computer programmer at a conference who had 2 male programmers shamed and kicked out because they made a joke about dongles within her earshot, and then the falling week made a comment herself on facecbook about the size of her friends penis, apparently its only ok for her to make dick jokes). And lastly we fall on the category of people being offended for the sake of being offended. While this women's stories typically don't fall into these categories because apparently shes been raped several times by gamers....in a game store....not sure how that happens exactly but ok.
Basically I doubt this woman's story, as is my right, if you believe she has had all these terrible things happen to her then that is your right as well. However, let me put this caveat in here, if she is in fact lying I hope she burns in hell, lying about PTSD is about as low as you can get, I have several friends who will never be the same because of the things they had to see and were exposed to.
Meanwhile, among the Malifaux community generally, friction had been growing over several controversial female characters that had been added to the game. One of these characters, Nekima, raised concerns from many community members that her design was sexist due to her large breasts and skimpy costume.
Well, there's only one acceptable solution to sexism isn't there?
Meanwhile, among the Malifaux community generally, friction had been growing over several controversial female characters that had been added to the game. One of these characters, Nekima, raised concerns from many community members that her design was sexist due to her large breasts and skimpy costume.
Well, there's only one acceptable solution to sexism isn't there?
What's funny is that avoids mentioning the rest of the Nephilim range. Male Nephilim tend to be dressed in loincloths, showing their ample beefcakeyness. Sure, they're demonic with horns, but so is Nekima. Surely she should have also mentioned the males as being sexist models towards men?
That tends to be a whole other can of worms. - EG, are the male models made for men to feel powerful, or is it a genuine attempt to go for the female gaze? - People would often use a certain Batman webcomic sketch at that point, but that's kind of only half the story.
The thing to remember is that, just as it's wrong to think of 'male gamers' as a homogeneous blob, it's wrong to think of women as the same. For example, both topless Thor in the Marvel films and the Stephen Amell doing a salmon ladder in Arrow are very much intentionally going for the "female gaze."
But that's not always the case, especially not when you go back and look at, for example, Arnold in 80's films. That is very much the traditional concept of the 'male power fantasy' that the Batman webcomic refers to.
It turns out life has this thing called nuance, huh. Which kinda makes things very difficult to resolve stuff when people instinctively want to make things into a black-and-white, for or against me issue. And things get more complicated when sometimes black-and-white issues (EG rape is bad) are enveloped into more grey discussions.
On top of that, sometimes you do need to keep in mind Obi-wan's words.
"Many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly upon a certain point of view."
Personally, I'm more inclined to what I call the 'Lost Girl' interpretation of sexiness in media. In that, it's actually okay to have sexiness, as long as it's mutual and fair. Sure, have sexy women, that maybe want to have guys feel attracted to them, as long as they want guys to feel attracted to them. And then, also have sexy guys, where women are actually asked what do they find sexy and have some of that in the same-ish proportion at the same time. While remembering that 50% of the population isn't a homogeneous group. A kinda good example of this is 'Supernatural' where the two male leads, as I've learned from the women in the office, have different physical appeals.
So, bringing this tangent back on topic. It's not just a case of, Wyrd "female succubus dressed revealingly which is ok because male demon is dressed revealingly." But it's a more nuanced, question.
You could go the way of, "no sexy models ever, male or female." Which is a common opinion.
Or, you could go the way of, "sure, have female models that are sexy designed by men to appeal to men. But why not include some women in the design process to design male models to appeal to women." Maybe give a few other variants too, if you want bonus points?
But then, maybe Wyrd have done that, I'm not one to say.
@Hybrid: So you were saying you were a troll? I guess I did miss that .
To an extent white men may have it better overall in some cases but that said things have gotten exponentially better for the other groups. Pretty sure if you guys complained as you did in any country outside the West and you'd be laughed at and persecuted. There are cases of sexism and racism in the world but by far the worst cases aren't in the West anymore. I mean we have to deal with different races and cultures almost constantly. Pretty sure you couldn't do anything without being called out.
Least you're not as bad as some people. I don't drink alcohol and never have. It astounds people but I get addicted to certain things and have seen enough people ruined by alcohol to be hesitant to drink. Also with how depressed I've been in the past it's a recipe for disaster. From your picture seeing you with dreads and hearing about how you're a vegetarian makes me want to tease that you're a filthy pot smoking hippie that complains that 'You can't own land man!' and you're always hungry for doritos ;P. Not that it's true but that is the stereotype you bring to mind.
------
I also want you guys to understand something. I have seen fairly extreme racism that you guys would truly be appalled by. My downstairs roommate is pretty much a neo-Nazi. It's less about little bits of evidence so much as a truckload (I tend not to try to jump to conclusions about racism and offensive material). Him saying he's racist on the phone, watching WWII stuff on Nazis, dressing as a Nazi and having a flag with a big skull on it with swastikas for pupils. Yeah he's the current roommate. That's not even the only bad thing about him. I go into more detail on him in the 'Roommate from H*ll' thread. Sadly he's a bad roommate in more ways than just that. I wish I could move out but the money just isn't there :(. Sadly his mom owns the place where we're at and through that he's one of those spoiled brats that could probably get away with being an awful person because mommy or daddy runs everything and in the case of a business puts them in charge.
I just think it foolish that women who dress to.....impress....get all bent out of shape when guys' eyes pop out their skull....and say they dress like that "for themselves".
jonolikespie wrote: At least one major convention recently has banned 'aggressive cleavage' and 'aggressive naval' for cosplayers, so yes they are trying.
Because in the name of progress and women's rights women need to be censored!
What exactly is an aggressive naval?
But seriously, imagine reading: At least one major convention recently has banned 'aggressive cleavage' and 'aggressive naval' for miniatures, so yes they are trying.
Because once you concede these things are harmful- or get it in your mind they are- what option other than banning do you have?
I don't think anyone ever specified, because if you specify what it is then people have a clear guide for what they are and are not allowed to do. Leaving it vague is better, because then you can censor at your own leisure.
Compel wrote: That tends to be a whole other can of worms. - EG, are the male models made for men to feel powerful, or is it a genuine attempt to go for the female gaze? - People would often use a certain Batman webcomic sketch at that point, but that's kind of only half the story.
The thing to remember is that, just as it's wrong to think of 'male gamers' as a homogeneous blob, it's wrong to think of women as the same. For example, both topless Thor in the Marvel films and the Stephen Amell doing a salmon ladder in Arrow are very much intentionally going for the "female gaze."
But that's not always the case, especially not when you go back and look at, for example, Arnold in 80's films. That is very much the traditional concept of the 'male power fantasy' that the Batman webcomic refers to.
It turns out life has this thing called nuance, huh. Which kinda makes things very difficult to resolve stuff when people instinctively want to make things into a black-and-white, for or against me issue. And things get more complicated when sometimes black-and-white issues (EG rape is bad) are enveloped into more grey discussions.
On top of that, sometimes you do need to keep in mind Obi-wan's words.
"Many of the truths we cling to, depend greatly upon a certain point of view."
Personally, I'm more inclined to what I call the 'Lost Girl' interpretation of sexiness in media. In that, it's actually okay to have sexiness, as long as it's mutual and fair. Sure, have sexy women, that maybe want to have guys feel attracted to them, as long as they want guys to feel attracted to them. And then, also have sexy guys, where women are actually asked what do they find sexy and have some of that in the same-ish proportion at the same time. While remembering that 50% of the population isn't a homogeneous group. A kinda good example of this is 'Supernatural' where the two male leads, as I've learned from the women in the office, have different physical appeals.
So, bringing this tangent back on topic. It's not just a case of, Wyrd "female succubus dressed revealingly which is ok because male demon is dressed revealingly." But it's a more nuanced, question.
You could go the way of, "no sexy models ever, male or female." Which is a common opinion.
Or, you could go the way of, "sure, have female models that are sexy designed by men to appeal to men. But why not include some women in the design process to design male models to appeal to women." Maybe give a few other variants too, if you want bonus points?
But then, maybe Wyrd have done that, I'm not one to say.
This is a great post.
I want to see more this.
Spoiler:
Compel wrote: It's not just a case of, Wyrd "female succubus dressed revealingly which is ok because male demon is dressed revealingly." But it's a more nuanced, question.
And less this.
Spoiler:
These days, I see far too much of the second (though not pointing fingers at anyone specific on Dakka).
I've almost never seen a person look a single cheesecake model, and declare it sexist. It might happen, but it's rare, and it's a dumb straw man.
What people tend to get annoyed with is the ratio of cheescake among female models. Most ranges have far fewer women, compared to men, and among the women, the majority tends to be sexualized. This happens for a lot of reasons, one of which is that most sculptors and art directors are male, and the other is that most model purchasers are male. People make what they like, and what they know will sell.
For what it's worth, GW is atually way ahead of the curve on this topic, with a fairly low cheesecake ratio in their various ranges. You can argue about "boob plate" with the Sisters, but they're still a fully armored female warrior range, which is uncommon now, but really rare in the late 90s.
flamingkillamajig wrote: @Hybrid: So you were saying you were a troll? I guess I did miss that .
I was giving you the perfect setup to make that joke. My trollbloods are mixed with mostly male because… well, I don't have any choice on this, it's PP ^^. They are modeled to look like Gunbjornn, my warlock (i.e. I only take models with guns or bombs, and I add some military caps and cigars to them, and paint them in shades of green…).
I don't see anything sexist about deciding to have all male or all female groups in games though. I had an all-male gang in Saint Row 2 because the “security” (people in military combat gear) option had only men, and I had an all-female gang in Saint Row 3…
If some character tickles your fancy, go for it.
flamingkillamajig wrote: To an extent white men may have it better overall in some cases but that said things have gotten exponentially better for the other groups.
Better than before, or better than for white men? In the first case I agree. In the second case I don't. And I don't think saying “Yeah, we reduced the gap, so now it is time to stop caring about the inequalities that still exists” is good.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Pretty sure if you guys complained as you did in any country outside the West and you'd be laughed at and persecuted.
I don't know, I have a Korean friends who would certainly agree. Or possibly disagree with the details, but certainly not with the intention…
flamingkillamajig wrote: I don't drink alcohol and never have. It astounds people but I get addicted to certain things and have seen enough people ruined by alcohol to be hesitant to drink. Also with how depressed I've been in the past it's a recipe for disaster. From your picture seeing you with dreads and hearing about how you're a vegetarian makes me want to tease that you're a filthy pot smoking hippie that complains that 'You can't own land man!' and you're always hungry for doritos ;P. Not that it's true but that is the stereotype you bring to mind.
I have short hair currently (there was a picture of me in that thread about finding someone), never had dreadlocks. When I had long hair, they were “natural” (i.e. a mess ^^). I never smoke (ever, no tobacco, no drugs, no nothing). I don't drink alcohol either. Well, I do drink very small quantities in social context where I am expected to, but nothing more than this.
I guess I am closer to the stereotype of the “HxC straight-edge guy” than the pot-smoking hippie .
TheMeanDM wrote: I just think it foolish that women who dress to.....impress....get all bent out of shape when guys' eyes pop out their skull....and say they dress like that "for themselves".
Actually, that's very simple to explain. Women like to look good for the psychological edge they get over other women the same way some guys hit the gym so they can make other men feel lesser rather than to impress the women. I believe it was Prehistoric UFO who said the best part about having huge arms is the look of envy on other men's faces. The same concept applies for women. Cosplayers want to one up each other, whether it's with more rugged Mando gear or more voluptuous Power Girl.
TheMeanDM wrote: I just think it foolish that women who dress to.....impress....get all bent out of shape when guys' eyes pop out their skull....and say they dress like that "for themselves".
Actually, that's very simple to explain. Women like to look good for the psychological edge they get over other women the same way some guys hit the gym so they can make other men feel lesser rather than to impress the women. I believe it was Prehistoric UFO who said the best part about having huge arms is the look of envy on other men's faces. The same concept applies for women. Cosplayers want to one up each other, whether it's with more rugged Mando gear or more voluptuous Power Girl.
This, in a nutshell. Did you know that men very often check out other men when seeing them, e.g. their butt / chest? Not because they're attracted by them, but because they want to compare themselves and see if they are on par or not.
TheMeanDM wrote: I just think it foolish that women who dress to.....impress....get all bent out of shape when guys' eyes pop out their skull....and say they dress like that "for themselves".
Actually, that's very simple to explain. Women like to look good for the psychological edge they get over other women the same way some guys hit the gym so they can make other men feel lesser rather than to impress the women. I believe it was Prehistoric UFO who said the best part about having huge arms is the look of envy on other men's faces. The same concept applies for women. Cosplayers want to one up each other, whether it's with more rugged Mando gear or more voluptuous Power Girl.
This, in a nutshell. Did you know that men very often check out other men when seeing them, e.g. their butt / chest? Not because they're attracted by them, but because they want to compare themselves and see if they are on par or not.
TheMeanDM wrote: I just think it foolish that women who dress to.....impress....get all bent out of shape when guys' eyes pop out their skull....and say they dress like that "for themselves".
Actually, that's very simple to explain. Women like to look good for the psychological edge they get over other women the same way some guys hit the gym so they can make other men feel lesser rather than to impress the women. I believe it was Prehistoric UFO who said the best part about having huge arms is the look of envy on other men's faces. The same concept applies for women. Cosplayers want to one up each other, whether it's with more rugged Mando gear or more voluptuous Power Girl.
This, in a nutshell. Did you know that men very often check out other men when seeing them, e.g. their butt / chest? Not because they're attracted by them, but because they want to compare themselves and see if they are on par or not.
It's almost like not all men and women act the same and the their motivations can vary from one individual to another.
As for the topic, either this one woman is the victim of chronic, systemic and institutional ostrization and abuse from multiple groups (including a corporation) while not being able to furbish any substantial evidence for said abuse or she is lying to get attention. And possibly a poltical career.
So female cosplayers go to events dressed in the minimum amount of clothing possible that won't get them arrested because they want to make other women jealous? Here I was thinking that it was more to do with being able to dress as slutty as possible just to yell at people who then look at them.
My buddy went to Comic con last year and took a picture of an amazing sign that apparently is common now at most of these types of events "Do not take pictures of COSPLAYERS without their consent". So now not only are you not allowed to make comments about the half nude female cosplayers your apparently not allowed to take pictures at these events because they don't want people to see them dressed like that?
anyway, back on topic. This happened in Canada and I know nothing about the laws in Canada, but in the US at least we have a thing called innocent until proven guilty, what this woman has done is made a lot of accusations at specific individuals and businesses and then proceeded to not provide any actual evidence to substantiate these claims. In the US if a company felt the need they could sue this young woman for defamation of character and more.
Would it be ok for me to walk into a starbucks and say that the barista behind the counter sexually assaulted me when I went to the bathroom and therefore they needed to make me the president of "White guys not being discriminated against or sexually assaulted while getting over priced crappy coffee"?
If you think that she should be allowed some kind of position at that company based upon her rant then by that same logic I should go make a blog and say I was sexually assaulted all over the place and start making bank.
If it makes you any happier before warhammer fantasy was murdered they had a crap ton of female characters and units. As I said before both undead factions had female characters (Isabella, neferata and that viper mummy queen) and VC also had a female unit (coven throne), all 3 elf factions also had women, lizardmen were asexual I think, ogres had an odd female character with a rolling pin (ogres were mostly for cheap and somewhat childish humor like fart miscasts), not sure if daemonettes count as female or hermaphroditic and last I can recall warriors of chaos had valkia the bloody as a character. As far as female representation goes that's actually quite a lot considering how few female players I see in the store. Today at the GW I saw a grand total of 1 woman in there and probably a good 15 guys and the woman was a mom that normally played with her son. Maybe it's different in different stores but in the GW store in Michigan near Rochester Hills that's exactly what happened today. In fact usually not many women come there though it sounded like one of the managers sharing time there was going to be female. Not sure how that makes me feel. Hopefully she's not the pretty variety (as that would cause untold awkwardness) but if she is she'll probably be taken. If she's not pretty I'd be more normal. I could totally see the business using an attractive nerdy girl to attract lots of nerdy male customers though. Dunno if she even knows about warhammer though. That said some girls are insanely knowledgeable on it.
As good as I am with jokes it helps when it just comes to me rather than having someone set it up for me I think. I'm not too thrilled about seeing a lot more women in xcom 2 as far as soldier recruits go. Maybe it's just my game or odd random chance but I seem to find the game has far more female soldiers than male ones whether as rookies to be recruited, hq soldier and staff recruitments or as rewards for missions. I suppose at the end of the day you can customize so it's whatever. I'd prefer a 50/50 split myself. In xcom 2 it'd make sense as this is guerilla warfare and realistically whoever can pick up a gun wields it so there is no formal training or people saying who can fight and who can't. That said a 70% or so female to male ratio is kind of odd. The engineers and scientists make less sense though. Scientists I can fully accept women in that field and I've seen girls super interested in biology and at times chemistry. My physics class seemed to have a decent split as far as I could tell. That said with engineers from what classes I've seen it's one of those classes in school where men just dominate the class by a ridiculous margin like 90/10 or 95/5. That said when I went to psychology women outnumbered the guys like 3 to 1. I'd also imagine girls are more artistically inclined. I remember one toonami contest where they'd show pieces of art and their creators and they commented something along the lines of 'There are so many girls sending in art. We'd like to see some from you guys as well.' Anyway as far as xcom 2 and enemy within went it was kind of a small gripe. The all female squad achievement in 'enemy unknown' was just crap. That said it'd never ruin the game for me and be a 'no buy'. Though I have considered it with GW after the death of warhammer fantasy and AoS fiasco that resulted in wargamers fighting amongst each other and GW alienating a chunk of their fans.
Oddly I find myself to like some characters that are black. In the starcraft universe I liked Tosh and Duran. Though Warfield was an awful general (as far as I can tell) you have to admit it takes balls of steel to sucker punch a hydralisk to death and when suffering from poison convince the doctor to cut off his arm and replace it with an arm cannon so he can be in the final fight. Lord knows I can never call in a sick day in good conscience after that.
I'd say women and black people have it considerably better than they used to. Do some problems exist? Maybe. Do white guys or even just guys have problems too? Yeah. I'm not even saying I want a guy problem to be fixed for every girl problem fixed. Even if it was a 7 girl problems for every 3 guy problems fixed it'd feel like more than the feminists tend to address and that bothers me. End of the day though equality is an odd thing. Should I be treated equal to somebody that's put out infinitely more effort than me? No not even a little. Personally I find personal experiences and hardships to be more telling of who has had it bad or who is privileged than a person's gender or race. My dad though sorta racist and a jerk lived in a mostly black neighborhood when he was young and they treated him like crap because he was white. I don't imagine his family had that much money and he ended up becoming an engineer and making a lot. My original point is this. Sure you have hardship but you can only blame people so much. Some might debate it but Jewish people have been crapped on repeatedly and yet they have done reasonably well. Perhaps many are white and it's easier but at the same time you can't cry about the hardships you've gone through. Sometimes the only way to really move past the hardships is to pick up the pieces and re-build. That's all you can really do. I mean I don't crap on Germans for what happened. My dad's side is german (or at least came to the usa about 100 years ago from there) and he married my mom which was Jewish. I don't want them to lie about what happened but I don't seriously blame them for what grand dad did because he was forced under threat of death to do so (well in some cases). However if they want to be neo-nazis you can bet I'm going to give em crap for that. If you want to be racist that annoys me but if you want to belong to a group that kills or has enslaved others then I get pissed.
I thought in japan they didn't like the idea of women working in any sort of job. If you have women's rights up to where we were in the 1920's or 1940's in japan in the 2010's then there is an issue. Funny things is it might be worse. I don't think they're beyond hitting their children including girls. Man the downstairs roommate had his ex over at one point and the night she became his ex her mom came over here because she didn't tell her mom she'd be here. Man she was mad and she called her stupid like a dozen or more times.
Speaking on how I look I should really make sure my personal hygiene is kept up before I go anywhere public esp. anywhere with women. It may help considerably.
But I suppose Bobtheinquisitor would know that better than I do?
Well, if you'll tell me why you dress in skimpy outfits for cosplay and then don't want to be ogled, I will happily learn something new.
My comments are based on what I've learned from my wife, her friends, coworkers who are into cosplay and women I've met at conventions. The people I know who are into various scenes that involve costuming or skimpy outfits have a variety of moods and motivations. Sometimes a woman dresses sexy because she does want to be ogled. Sometimes a woman dresses sexily because she wants to feel powerful. Also, the amount and quality of the ogling make a huge difference. My wife will be more comfortable with men ogling her when we are at a club rather than at, say, a comic book convention or even the beach. Context matters. And my comment was squarely aimed at explaining why a subset of women will dress in revealing outfits yet not enjoy being ogled by men. The context is that they are trying to nail the costume, not arouse men. Being the best at cosplay in a sexy costume, rather than trying to be the sexiest.
But as pointed out earlier (and with validity, I feel):
Many of the characrers chosen for cosplay are created by *men* who do so in such a manner because they find it *sexy* and because they know other men will find it *sexy* which will drive sales or create fans of said product.
So I think there is a cyclical argument here perhaps?
Female cosplayers choosing characters developed for their sex appeal but not expecting to be objectified as sexual seems either extremely naieve or extremely disingenuious.
When it comes to the oglying of female cosplayers. I have seen the same for male cosplayers. I have also read blog posting before talking about male cosplayers in a lot of these supposed "male power fanasties" get ogled or touch or harassed by women. To the point where one blogger I know that has a youtube channel said that she has had male cosplayers say they won't wear certain outfits because it attracts undo attention.
TheMeanDM wrote: But as pointed out earlier (and with validity, I feel):
Many of the characrers chosen for cosplay are created by *men* who do so in such a manner because they find it *sexy* and because they know other men will find it *sexy* which will drive sales or create fans of said product.
So I think there is a cyclical argument here perhaps?
Female cosplayers choosing characters developed for their sex appeal but not expecting to be objectified as sexual seems either extremely naieve or extremely disingenuious.
What people often forget though is that male sexual fantasies can also be female power fantasies. The same is true for the other way around.
So you could have a female characters that many men find sexy be really appealing to women. The women find the character appealing because they think she is a badass hero or whatnot.
flamingkillamajig wrote: If it makes you any happier before warhammer fantasy was murdered they had a crap ton of female characters and units. As I said before both undead factions had female characters (Isabella, neferata and that viper mummy queen) and VC also had a female unit (coven throne), all 3 elf factions also had women, lizardmen were asexual I think, ogres had an odd female character with a rolling pin (ogres were mostly for cheap and somewhat childish humor like fart miscasts), not sure if daemonettes count as female or hermaphroditic and last I can recall warriors of chaos had valkia the bloody as a character. As far as female representation goes that's actually quite a lot considering how few female players I see in the store. Today at the GW I saw a grand total of 1 woman in there and probably a good 15 guys and the woman was a mom that normally played with her son.
Well, first I already know the WFB universe well enough, thank you ^^. Second, if the miniatures are supposed to mirror the people in the store, there is WAY too many elves, orcs, dwarfs, undead, and other fantasy species .
flamingkillamajig wrote: it sounded like one of the managers sharing time there was going to be female. Not sure how that makes me feel. Hopefully she's not the pretty variety (as that would cause untold awkwardness)
Well, WFB is defunct anyway. The real question is “Does she knows about AOS?”, and the answer is yes, unless GW suddenly stopped caring about who it employs…
flamingkillamajig wrote: In xcom 2 it'd make sense as this is guerilla warfare and realistically whoever can pick up a gun wields it so there is no formal training or people saying who can fight and who can't.
I thought it was about some international super-elite task force .
flamingkillamajig wrote: I'm not even saying I want a guy problem to be fixed for every girl problem fixed. Even if it was a 7 girl problems for every 3 guy problems fixed it'd feel like more than the feminists tend to address and that bothers me.
So… if I am getting this right, you think addressing and fixing problem is bad if you don't do it “equally” among all demographics, or something? Like, if someone fixes one problem that affect, say, autistic people, but no-one, and then does not fix any other problem, it bothers you? I don't get it. Really.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Personally I find personal experiences and hardships to be more telling of who has had it bad or who is privileged than a person's gender or race.
The matter is not “Who have it worse?”, the matter is “How is society unfairly treating some demographics and how can we fix that”…
flamingkillamajig wrote: I thought in japan they didn't like the idea of women working in any sort of job. If you have women's rights up to where we were in the 1920's or 1940's in japan in the 2010's then there is an issue. Funny things is it might be worse. I don't think they're beyond hitting their children including girls. Man the downstairs roommate had his ex over at one point and the night she became his ex her mom came over here because she didn't tell her mom she'd be here. Man she was mad and she called her stupid like a dozen or more times.
Speaking on how I look I should really make sure my personal hygiene is kept up before I go anywhere public esp. anywhere with women. It may help considerably.
Hello, Dakkanauts. I mostly lurk around, these days. And almost never stray into the OT forums. But this thread has made me sad. Now, admittedly, I've not read all 12 pages of it, but I read the first two pages and the eleventh and twelfth pages, and as they didn't obviously alter in tone one whit, I felt it was safe to assume that the tone in between held very little variation, either.
So I wanted to make a short post and share one link. This comes from my decades of experience as a gamer, as a volunteer in the gaming community, as a game publisher and designer and - in my other life - as a Human Resources expert who deals with equalities legislation and diversity strategy for business on a daily basis.
A number of arguments have been presented that need to be squashed:
1. I've never seen this happen, so it must be very rare. I truly hope that this is rare. But that isn't a reason to ignore it as an issue. Given that the proportion of miniatures gamers who are female is very small, the number of those who experience sexual harassment will also be very small. But if there were less risk of sexual harassment or threats to safety, might not the proportion of female gamers be larger?
Given a small number of assaults and other negative incidents happening to a small number of people, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the proportion of gamer women who suffer harassment, threats or assaults by comparison to the proportion of gamer men who suffer similar experiences must be much higher. And that is, in my opinion, an unacceptable state of affairs.
Rarity is not an excuse for taking no action.
2. Other people have much bigger problems, so why should this be a priority? There will always be people with bigger problems. If you are spending all your time doing something about them, then good for you! But we are members of this community and enthusiasts for this hobby. We have a vested interest in making our hobby grow and in making is a safe and welcoming environment. So seeing as we've got an investment in the issue and - let's be honest - most of us are doing sod all about anything else more important, I think it's fair to say that there are good reasons why this should be a priority for us.
“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”
Eleanor Roosevelt, “In Our Hands” (1958 speech delivered on the tenth anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
3. This post is badly written and poorly evidenced, so it must be all lies.
Whether her account is wholly true, partially true or entirely fabricated is, actually, irrelevant. I have personally seen and heard behaviour over many years that I know that people would find offensive and intimidating. I chose not to speak out or challenge that behaviour at that time because it wasn't directed at me and I wasn't aware that anyone else was affected. But I've realized that by failing to challenge that behaviour, we condone it and allow it to become a habit and custom that creates an atmosphere from which women - amongst other groups - are implicitly excluded.
I, for one, intend to use what little influence I have to propose some practical changes that communities, clubs, stores and manufacturers may consider with a view to making our hobby safer, more welcoming and - therefore - larger.
Hello, Dakkanauts. I mostly lurk around, these days. And almost never stray into the OT forums. But this thread has made me sad. Now, admittedly, I've not read all 12 pages of it, but I read the first two pages and the eleventh and twelfth pages, and as they didn't obviously alter in tone one whit, I felt it was safe to assume that the tone in between held very little variation, either.
So I wanted to make a short post and share one link. This comes from my decades of experience as a gamer, as a volunteer in the gaming community, as a game publisher and designer and - in my other life - as a Human Resources expert who deals with equalities legislation and diversity strategy for business on a daily basis.
A number of arguments have been presented that need to be squashed:
1. I've never seen this happen, so it must be very rare. I truly hope that this is rare. But that isn't a reason to ignore it as an issue. Given that the proportion of miniatures gamers who are female is very small, the number of those who experience sexual harassment will also be very small. But if there were less risk of sexual harassment or threats to safety, might not the proportion of female gamers be larger?
Given a small number of assaults and other negative incidents happening to a small number of people, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the proportion of gamer women who suffer harassment, threats or assaults by comparison to the proportion of gamer men who suffer similar experiences must be much higher. And that is, in my opinion, an unacceptable state of affairs.
Rarity is not an excuse for taking no action.
2. Other people have much bigger problems, so why should this be a priority? There will always be people with bigger problems. If you are spending all your time doing something about them, then good for you! But we are members of this community and enthusiasts for this hobby. We have a vested interest in making our hobby grow and in making is a safe and welcoming environment. So seeing as we've got an investment in the issue and - let's be honest - most of us are doing sod all about anything else more important, I think it's fair to say that there are good reasons why this should be a priority for us.
“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home – so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerned citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.”
Eleanor Roosevelt, “In Our Hands” (1958 speech delivered on the tenth anniversary of
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights)
3. This post is badly written and poorly evidenced, so it must be all lies.
Whether her account is wholly true, partially true or entirely fabricated is, actually, irrelevant. I have personally seen and heard behaviour over many years that I know that people would find offensive and intimidating. I chose not to speak out or challenge that behaviour at that time because it wasn't directed at me and I wasn't aware that anyone else was affected. But I've realized that by failing to challenge that behaviour, we condone it and allow it to become a habit and custom that creates an atmosphere from which women - amongst other groups - are implicitly excluded.
I, for one, intend to use what little influence I have to propose some practical changes that communities, clubs, stores and manufacturers may consider with a view to making our hobby safer, more welcoming and - therefore - larger.
I think what you say is generally correct, save for one thing.
I personally cannot side with the woman in the OP. I did attempt to contact her and have discussion about some of the more crass and inflammatory matter in her article. She blocked me after my second message. If she was unwilling to talk, that's fine, but the fact she chose to insult me before blocking speaks volumes about how much I should care for her.
My second issue is a lack of proof. Yes, she may have horrible things done to her. Or not. Either outcome is just as likely, and without evidence, no change can be made.
Again, SemperMortis summed it up well - "Would it be ok for me to walk into a starbucks and say that the barista behind the counter sexually assaulted me when I went to the bathroom and therefore they needed to make me the president of "White guys not being discriminated against or sexually assaulted while getting over priced crappy coffee"? ".
f I had evidence, I'd be all on her side. Without it, I can't have an opinion, and her own actions in being incredibly rude have spoiled any sympathy I might have.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She blocked you because you're supposed to shut up, "Listen and Believe". Failing to take everything she says at face value is misogynist.
At first glance a statement like this seems silly.
I personally find it all too true no matter who it is that have a hidden agenda.
What can be sad is the person being genuine, is buried/outnumbered by the less altruistic folk: it tends to kill giving benefit of the doubt.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She blocked you because you're supposed to shut up, "Listen and Believe". Failing to take everything she says at face value is misogynist.
She actually posted something like this as well, I recall.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She blocked you because you're supposed to shut up, "Listen and Believe". Failing to take everything she says at face value is misogynist.
She actually posted something like this as well, I recall.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: She blocked you because you're supposed to shut up, "Listen and Believe". Failing to take everything she says at face value is misogynist.
She actually posted something like this as well, I recall.
Yes, she had a lot of of Anon comments speak negatively about something she said then proceeded to counter-argue them to which, her pions replied a bunch of times around the lines of "Yeah" or "Totally true."
1. I've never seen this happen, so it must be very rare. I truly hope that this is rare. But that isn't a reason to ignore it as an issue. Given that the proportion of miniatures gamers who are female is very small, the number of those who experience sexual harassment will also be very small. But if there were less risk of sexual harassment or threats to safety, might not the proportion of female gamers be larger?
Given a small number of assaults and other negative incidents happening to a small number of people, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the proportion of gamer women who suffer harassment, threats or assaults by comparison to the proportion of gamer men who suffer similar experiences must be much higher. And that is, in my opinion, an unacceptable state of affairs.
Rarity is not an excuse for taking no action.
Sorry it is not reasonable to conclude that. For instance the media narrative for online harassment is that is something that happens to women done by men. The problem is the data does not show that. It shows that it happens to both men and women and certain types of harassment is more likely to be experienced by men. However overall harassment is more likely to ocure to men. http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Peoples perceptions don't always match reality.
precinctomega wrote: 3. This post is badly written and poorly evidenced, so it must be all lies.
Whether her account is wholly true, partially true or entirely fabricated is, actually, irrelevant. I have personally seen and heard behaviour over many years that I know that people would find offensive and intimidating. I chose not to speak out or challenge that behaviour at that time because it wasn't directed at me and I wasn't aware that anyone else was affected. But I've realized that by failing to challenge that behaviour, we condone it and allow it to become a habit and custom that creates an atmosphere from which women - amongst other groups - are implicitly excluded.
No whether or not the account is true is relevant, and it is incredibly dangerous to claim otherwise. This is because there are real people involved in this case and there are real consequences for a company and individuals involved. Just because you have seen bad behavior before doesn't mean this alleged bad behavior is true or not. Arguing for change based on lies and falsehoods is how panics start which hurt real people. Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
Spider Jerusalem would like to have a word with you. And by that I mean shoot you in the bowels lol.
I'm just glad this women had the courage to go after miniature gamers, one of the toughest public facades to crack. With our already glowing public opinion, it must have been hard to dig deep and regurgitate a bunch of stereotypes and embellished information about of bunch socially awkward, but generally very inclusive people.
Clearly the nerdy White males rolling dice are the heart of misogyny in the World. Rap artists' use of women as props and status symbols is definitely way down the list, or any number of Islamic practices.
She truly went after the heart of the "terrorist" problem with her unverified and admittedly polished stories.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
How about linking an example of this?
Brian Banks was expelled from high school due to the accusations. The public defender, without considering the evidence talks the defendant into taking a plea bargain. He was told if he continued to hold on to his "illusion" of innocence and actually fight for a right of a fair trial, he could face up to 41 years. He took the plea bargain. The person that accused him even went further and sued the school for $1.5 million and won. 5 years later after befriending her on Facebook, she admitted to him it was a lie and he finally got it overturned. By that time he spent 5 years in prison, expelled from school, and basically had his career at that time taken away... this is from an accusation.
Blood Hawk wrote: Go read some articles online about the horrible situation for many men on college campuses in America who are falsely accused of rape who then get put through kangaroo courts where due process is thrown out the window.
How about linking an example of this?
Brian Banks was expelled from high school due to the accusations. The public defender, without considering the evidence talks the defendant into taking a plea bargain. He was told if he continued to hold on to his "illusion" of innocence and actually fight for a right of a fair trial, he could face up to 41 years. He took the plea bargain. The person that accused him even went further and sued the school for $1.5 million and won. 5 years later after befriending her on Facebook, she admitted to him it was a lie and he finally got it overturned. By that time he spent 5 years in prison, expelled from school, and basically had his career at that time taken away... this is from an accusation.
She should be fething jailed for that for at least double the sentence he served.
I'd sue her, her family and everyone involved in this to oblivion until they'd have to live on the verge of poverty for the end of their life, never getting a job again. What's the aftermath of that story?
I doubt she'll get any jail time for it. The Long Beach Unified School District sued her for $2 million to recoup the $1.5 million she received. The school district won a $2.6 million judgment against Gibson, which includes the $750,000 settlement initially paid to her along with attorney's fees, interest, and $1 million in punitive damages.
Now as crappy as that sounds, I do understand there are a lot of cases that go unpunished but unfortunately that tends to be because no one stepped forward. It is an example though that tends to happen on a regular basis, simply accusing someone (although supposedly innocent until proven guilty) for these types of crimes it tends to lean towards guilty until proven innocent. Even when exonerated the damage is done, people have lost jobs, friends, etc. That is why accusations without evidence tend to be scrutinized more. It doesn't help that media sensationalizes the information often leaning towards one side or even creating a different perception of events simply by the way they title their news stories. Since social media and online various 'news' places scoop media these days, which do an even bigger sensationalizing of the events.
Sigvatr wrote: I'd sue her, her family and everyone involved in this to oblivion until they'd have to live on the verge of poverty for the end of their life, never getting a job again. What's the aftermath of that story?
He basically has turned the other cheek at this point. He pursued his NFL career signed up with the Las Vegas Locomotives and then Atlanta Falcons later. Unfortunately I think too much time had passed and he essentially missed his moments with the 5 years spent in jail. He spoke at a 2014 NFL draft Rookie Symposium, then was hired on to join the NFL Department of Operations. He serves as a spokesperson for the California Innocent Project and is working on a documentary but he basically moved on with his life.
No one would probably blink an eye if he sued the School District for $1.5 million just as his accuser did. He definitely has a case and would most likely win. It just seems he wants to move on and overall be a spokesperson for people to stand up.
It could be theorized that the courts did him a disfavor because of the time spent. That is the the scary unknown part. If he had fought, despite the evidence, he still would have faced jail time... would it have been more? Would it have taken him longer to prove his innocence because he didn't have access to facebook to confront his accuser? That is ultimately what makes cases like this scary.
Well, if you'll tell me why you dress in skimpy outfits for cosplay and then don't want to be ogled, I will happily learn something new.
I don't, but if I would it would be because I like the outfit and nothing else. If you feel an outfit crosses over the magical border where ogling becomes absolutely fine and noncreepy, I honestly couldn't care less, because it still isn't.
I haven't seen it, so I don't believe her - Check.
What about male victims? - Check.
What about false accusations? - Check.
Some of them are asking for it and just get upset when men actually do it! - Check.
Stupid SJWs making stuff up on the internet - Check.
Well, now that we've covered all the points on the Dakka OT Social Justice Checklist, is it time to end the thread or no?
There is a genuine fear by guys that if a woman is willing to lie, she can destroy your life.
There is a genuine fear by women that guys would be willing to take advantage/abuse them and lie afterward.
This is why due process is so vital.
There are many circumstances where a person's gender appears to carry more weight: that should never be the case.
Best rule my dad ever told me: if a woman is passed out or asleep at a party: do not go near her, do not even look at her, anything you could do would be viewed badly even with the best of intentions.
Well, if you'll tell me why you dress in skimpy outfits for cosplay and then don't want to be ogled, I will happily learn something new.
I don't, but if I would it would be because I like the outfit and nothing else. If you feel an outfit crosses over the magical border where ogling becomes absolutely fine and noncreepy, I honestly couldn't care less, because it still isn't.
I really don't understand what your last sentence is about. I was specifically talking about female cosplayers who dress up in costumes that can be considered skimpy or sexy, but for reasons other than to entice men. This was in response to people saying they don't get why any women would dress up in a sexy costume if they do not want to be ogled and/or being ogled will offend them. I gave the reason I am familiar with. It seems like your argument with me is that there are other reasons..? Well, thanks for helping make my point, I guess. I am not giving any kind of a standard for a male viewer to measure acceptability for ogling, but rather relating the contexts I have heard from women that make a difference between being offended at being ogled and being less offended.
Hrm, If i'm wearing something that shows off most of my body, leaving very little to the imagination, I'm not going to imagine that people aren't going to ogle, or that they're somehow bad people for ogling, it's human nature to do so (no matter what gender), and is the reason why such outfits were designed for the characters the Cosplayers are representing in the first place if they're skimpy.
Could we poke at that "terrorism" label?
I would cite "lack of relevance" or a cry for attention like how they tell you to yell "fire" if being molested...
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, If i'm wearing something that shows off most of my body, leaving very little to the imagination, I'm not going to imagine that people aren't going to ogle, or that they're somehow bad people for ogling, it's human nature to do so (no matter what gender), and is the reason why such outfits were designed for the characters the Cosplayers are representing in the first place if they're skimpy.
No, this is completely false, just like saying 'Very covering outfits (like what I usually wear, though not covering to the degree of Muslim clothing) is designed specifically to not draw ogling.' (though the particular instance of Muslim clothing is designed for that purpose, it is also not representative of non-revealing clothing). Wearing something less covering can be because you simply like how the clothing looks, because it is very warm outside or because it is comfortable, not because you want to draw the gaze of those attracted to you. The suit I wear when I go down to the sea for a swim (which shows off literally the entire leg) is a great example of this - I can assure you any guy staring at me creepily at the beach would draw my displeasure despite the nature of what I wear. In the case of cosplayers, they simply seek to replicate the appearance of a chosen fictional character, and their success in that regard is the primary purpose.
Complete coverage is not the default state of clothing.
DutchWinsAll wrote: I'm just glad this women had the courage to go after miniature gamers, one of the toughest public facades to crack. With our already glowing public opinion, it must have been hard to dig deep and regurgitate a bunch of stereotypes and embellished information about of bunch socially awkward, but generally very inclusive people.
Clearly the nerdy White males rolling dice are the heart of misogyny in the World. Rap artists' use of women as props and status symbols is definitely way down the list, or any number of Islamic practices.
“Not me, not me, them! They are the bad guys! Me? I am just an helpless victim, a pure-hearted pariah shamefully defamed by bullies looking for a soft target”
In which world are gamers a more maligned group than rappers or Muslim?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I personally cannot side with the woman in the OP. I did attempt to contact her and have discussion about some of the more crass and inflammatory matter in her article. She blocked me after my second message. If she was unwilling to talk, that's fine, but the fact she chose to insult me before blocking speaks volumes about how much I should care for her.
I don't know what your messages where about. However, given how broadly her message was broadcasted, I can imagine she had to deal with tons of angry people and trolls that would be very annoying. Maybe you sounded somehow like a bunch of trolls she had to deal with and she reacted preemptively, assuming you would similarly turn into a troll?
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I personally cannot side with the woman in the OP. I did attempt to contact her and have discussion about some of the more crass and inflammatory matter in her article. She blocked me after my second message. If she was unwilling to talk, that's fine, but the fact she chose to insult me before blocking speaks volumes about how much I should care for her.
I don't know what your messages where about. However, given how broadly her message was broadcasted, I can imagine she had to deal with tons of angry people and trolls that would be very annoying. Maybe you sounded somehow like a bunch of trolls she had to deal with and she reacted preemptively, assuming you would similarly turn into a troll?
Believe it or not, Smudge isn't the trolling type. I can very well imagine that his message was well thought out and had a definitive purpose that did not include getting a rise out of the OP
There's another big thing happening today relating to geek culture and this sort of thing.
Admittedly it's not part of geek culture I'm really a part of, but someone else might be. - It's related to someone called Tony Turner, I think he's a youtube person, or something?
Compel wrote: There's another big thing happening today relating to geek culture and this sort of thing.
Admittedly it's not part of geek culture I'm really a part of, but someone else might be. - It's related to someone called Tony Turner, I think he's a youtube person, or something?
Talizvar wrote: ...or a cry for attention like how they tell you to yell "fire" if being molested...
Somehow I don't think that analogy works here.
Grasping at straws here is the problem.
My analogy I feel fits because I feel we are not being presented the real intent of what this person wants.
I have difficulty trying to find a point or a direction to go with the OP's issues-complaints.
A warning for others?
Revenge?
To vent?
If there is so much blame to heap on Wyrd, why insist on being made a rep to a company and "culture" labeled as "terrorists".
It feels so insincere in the offer to "fix" the problems.
Compel wrote: There's another big thing happening today relating to geek culture and this sort of thing.
Admittedly it's not part of geek culture I'm really a part of, but someone else might be. - It's related to someone called Tony Turner, I think he's a youtube person, or something?
Vaktathi wrote: Hrm, If i'm wearing something that shows off most of my body, leaving very little to the imagination, I'm not going to imagine that people aren't going to ogle, or that they're somehow bad people for ogling, it's human nature to do so (no matter what gender), and is the reason why such outfits were designed for the characters the Cosplayers are representing in the first place if they're skimpy.
No, this is completely false, just like saying 'Very covering outfits (like what I usually wear, though not covering to the degree of Muslim clothing) is designed specifically to not draw ogling.'
No, because very covering outfits have a wide variety of purposes. Skimpy cosplay outfits are, with very few exceptions, designed to highlight the physical attractiveness of the character, they are intended to draw that kind of attention by the designers who conceptualized the character.
If you dress up as the main character from Kill la Kill, and expect that nobody should ogle for instance, well, then you're being both deluded and missing a huge part of the ironic comedy of the show in that the characters are fully aware of how absurdly sexualized their outfits are, both male and female. Likewise, someone doing a Faye Valentine cosplay should be under no misconceptions about the outfit being intended to draw sexual attention, because it's designed to and used by the character to do just that to accomplish her goals. Such outfits were designed to draw the human eye to certain areas and highlight certain things.
Clothing sends signals and messages about who we are, what our mindset is, and what we're doing, like it or not. I get a very different reception if I walk into a store in my work attire with tie, chronometer, collared shirt, lace ups, and slacks, than if I walk in with my hang out attire of a t-shirt, cargo pants, and boots with a ratty sweater, and I'll get a *very* different reception yet again if I come in wearing nothing but a male C-String. I'm still the same person in every instance, but everyone's perception and reaction to me, regardless of gender, occupation, or station in life, is going to vary tremendously depending on which of those three outfits they see me in. I'm also not going to think that everyone else is wrong for treating me differently in each situation because I'm sending them different signals in each instance.
If I'm wearing biker leathers and assless chaps just because I like how they look on me, I'm also going to be fully aware of the kind of attention I'm going to draw and I'd be an idiot if I wasn't.
(though the particular instance of Muslim clothing is designed for that purpose, it is also not representative of non-revealing clothing). Wearing something less covering can be because you simply like how the clothing looks, because it is very warm outside or because it is comfortable, not because you want to draw the gaze of those attracted to you.
In some situations, yes, though context still matters. If we're talking about Cosplay outfits, there's a specific context there that can't be ignored, in that such outfits were inherently designed to draw sexual attention to the character. If you don't want sexual attention/ogling, don't dress up as a character that was intended to draw sexual attention, pick a different character. If you just like the outfit, great, but don't be so dumb as to ignore the context, go out in a very public place, and pretend everyone else is the bad guy when the reaction one gets is exactly what the character designers intended.
That said, I'm not defending people coming up and fondling someone in costume or stalking, but if we're just talking about elevator eyes/taking a picture/etc, well, expect that as a matter of course to some degree if you're wearing a skimpy outfit, regardless of gender.
The suit I wear when I go down to the sea for a swim (which shows off literally the entire leg) is a great example of this - I can assure you any guy staring at me creepily at the beach would draw my displeasure despite the nature of what I wear.
There's a couple of differences here in that at a place like that, just about *everyone* is going to be wearing something skimpier than what they'd normally wear, it's commonly accepted attire at a place like that regardless of age/gender/fitness/etc and has a directly functional reason for such (being in the water and swimming). That said, there's also some choice involved in what people wear there too that also sends signals, male or female. A dude wearing a speedo and a dude wearing board shorts+T-shirt are going to get different reactions from people, just as a woman wearing a one-piece is going to get different reactions than a woman wearing a string bikini. Clothing and coverage absolutely sends signals and attracts different kind of attention and should be understood by people when choosing what to wear.
Wearing a cosplay outfit at a con is also different than going to the beach. There is inherently has some attention-seeking to it, even if the character isn't sexualized in any way (e.g. a Klingon or Storm Trooper or whatever), you don't go to not get noticed. In my personal experience, having been to the San Diego comic-con more years of my life than not (though not in the last couple years since I don't live there anymore), and having dressed up in costume on several occasions and been part of that experience, a degree of attention seeking is absolutely inherent in that activity.
In the case of cosplayers, they simply seek to replicate the appearance of a chosen fictional character, and their success in that regard is the primary purpose.
Who, if wearing a skimpy outfight, was likely intentionally designed to be ogled at in the first place...
Complete coverage is not the default state of clothing.
I'm not saying it is, but there's also a difference between complete coverage and the "I'm just barely not getting cited for indecent exposure" outfits we commonly see from Cosplayers, and the latter sends some specific fundamental signals to other people, like it or not, and if someone is wearing something that is showing off and intentionally highlighting natural human sexual characteristics, and then gets mad when they go out in public to show off said outfit in a place where other get attention such an outfit was designed to attract, well, it's hard to be terribly sympathetic if the extent of what we're talking about is picture taking and elevator eyes.
So your point with all that is 'it's not weird to ogle them because they are replicating a character designed to be sexy.'
Because the character they are replicating exists only for their sexiness, right? Believe me, there are some characters in such outfits I could see myself cosplaying (Symmetra is a good example I will use here) but I do not see her sexiness as a factor, and - here is the big one - why would you see the sexiness as the reason people would choose to cosplay her, or the design behind her? There is much more to her character than your perceived sexual attraction and that you are forcing it into everyone's faces and telling it that is all there is to the character's design is their sexiness is pretty disturbing, honestly.
A good male counterpart in this example would be Hanzo (he is perceived by just about every female Overwatch player I have met as very attractive, including in his outfit design) but nobody would reduce someone cosplaying as him as 'he just wants to be ogled', and it's pretty offensive to do so - his perceived attractiveness is only a small sliver of why you might want to cosplay as him (he is cool as hell in general, for one!)
Everyone cosplays and wears what they want for different reasons. That is completely subjective to the person who puts on the outfit for whatever their reasons are. That doesn't mean that Person A wears it for the same reasons as Person B.
When someone looks at someone or something that is also subjective to the person viewing them. They will make their own decisions or opinions on why they are looking at someone, if they look at it.
These two point of views rarely happen on equal footing or are equal unless the person wearing something and the person looking know each other. Then they've actually communicated and talked about these things and about what they are comfortable with.. in most cases.
The issue is when strangers are involved. They will make their own subjective reasoning based on their own experiences and personalities. That will result in different reactions.
The reasons why someone chooses to cosplay someone or wears a certain outfit doesn't matter. However they also can't stop someone from looking at them in a manner they don't like when they are out in public. Not unless we're are going to start thought policing everyone. As long as they don't violate a person's rights by touching them without permission there is nothing wrong with someone having their own opinions. That should also mean they shouldn't antagonize or aggressively cat call someone either because now your crossing over into a harassment area. I know some people will claim freedom of speech and all... I'm not even going to pretend to justify that excuse but it does exist.
Ashiraya wrote: You are 100% legally permitted to ogle a cosplayer, Severance, (within reason) just as they 100% have the right to think you are a creep for doing so.
Just so we're clear, the right to be judgemental and negative exists both ways right? Severance would, hypothetically, be within his rights to hold any negative, condemning views on her behaviour, just as she is of his?
TheMeanDM wrote: So the SJW's need to go and shut down 99% of female cosplay because of the gratuitous T&A.
I will inspect their costumes. Just line up outside my hotel room inspection station.
I try to be fair and unbiased, try to see things from the exploited and the "ogled".
Then you write this...
I am just a cave-man... that was funny. I am utterly disillusioned now.
Men are dogs, do not trust them and always assume every third thought is about sex.
There, it is out now.
Run for your lives womenfolk.
My only advice is to be VERY clear you are not interested in our attentions or being ogled... we are cave men after all.
Ashiraya wrote: You are 100% legally permitted to ogle a cosplayer, Severance, (within reason) just as they 100% have the right to think you are a creep for doing so.
Just so we're clear, the right to be judgemental and negative exists both ways right? Severance would, hypothetically, be within his rights to hold any negative, condemning views on her behaviour, just as she is of his?
He can hold that opinion, of course. No opinion is in itself illegal to have.
That said, I'd argue his opinion would be wrong, but it's a free society...
Compel wrote: There's another big thing happening today relating to geek culture and this sort of thing.
Admittedly it's not part of geek culture I'm really a part of, but someone else might be. - It's related to someone called Tony Turner, I think he's a youtube person, or something?
Speaking of which, Jaclynn Glenn, another prominent Youtuber and an ex of Toby "Tobuscus" Turner, commented on the allegations and her own relationship with him.
Ashiraya wrote: So your point with all that is 'it's not weird to ogle them because they are replicating a character designed to be sexy.'
My point is, if you're going to dress like a character that has an intentionally highlighted sexual appearance, it's a bit silly to get offended when you draw sexual attention. I mean, if I go outside in my naughty nightwear to grab the morning paper, I'm going to expect that people may stare if they see me even if I'm not wearing it to look sexy for them.
Not that everyone *must* ogle them, I have no idea where you got that, but if you're going to be surprised an offended when it *does* happen, that's being a bit absurd.
At the risk of Godwin'ing the thread, if someone were to walk around in a Waffen-SS uniform simply because they think it looks cool, they're going to draw certain reactions from people even if those reactions are based on reasons totally unrelated to why they may be wearing the outfit, and they'd be stupid to be surprised or offended at the responses they get. Hell, if I were to cosplay as something akin to my Forum avatar, a DKoK Grenadier, I'd still be wary of getting Nazi reactions from people, and I'm not going to pretend that it wouldn't potentially happen or that everyone would be familiar with the character and know what it is and react accordingly.
Because the character they are replicating exists only for their sexiness, right?
I don't believe I said that. I said that, if cosplaying a character with a skimpy outfit, then sex appeal was a factor of the character's inherent design, and pretending that nobody should notice is ridiculous.
That is *not* the same as saying it's the only reason to replicate the character. Such characters need not be replicated only for their sexiness (though in some cases, yes, they absolutely are), but it *is* often a factor of such characters, and if you're going to go around trying to make it out like it's not something people are going react to in certain ways, that's being a bit absurd, especially from people who may have absolutely no idea who the character is and they just see someone walking by looking incredibly sexually attractive.
Believe me, there are some characters in such outfits I could see myself cosplaying (Symmetra is a good example I will use here) but I do not see her sexiness as a factor, and - here is the big one - why would you see the sexiness as the reason people would choose to cosplay her, or the design behind her?
I'm not saying it's the sole reason the character was designed or why someone would cosplay as said character, but pretending sex appeal wasn't a part of the design (with thigh-high, high heeled boots, form fitting clothing, and exposed thighs...that's not exactly practical fighting gear...) is silly, just like male characters get enhanced beefcake features like ginormous forearms and pectoral muscles and the like, and demanding everyone pretend it doesn't exist and that nobody should have what is ultimately a natural reaction to it, nor pay any attention to it is also...silly.
There is much more to her character than your perceived sexual attraction and that you are forcing it into everyone's faces and telling it that is all there is to the character's design is their sexiness is pretty disturbing, honestly.
Again, I don't think I said that...anywhere...
However, that notwithstanding, my point is that if you're going to dress in something sexy, even if it's not the point of dressing in that outfit, don't be surprised or angry when people like to look at sexy things, regardless of gender. Just like if I had the physique of an Adonis and went out running in short and without a shirt on, I'm not going to expect that the school mum in the window as I run by may not take an extended look...
A good male counterpart in this example would be Hanzo (he is perceived by just about every female Overwatch player I have met as very attractive, including in his outfit design) but nobody would reduce someone cosplaying as him as 'he just wants to be ogled', and it's pretty offensive to do so - his perceived attractiveness is only a small sliver of why you might want to cosplay as him (he is cool as hell in general, for one!)
See them in their own light.
I'm not saying that you can't do any of these things, but lets google this character here...
Ok, like I mentioned above, it's looks like a beefy dude with bare, highlighted arms and pecs. If I were blessed with such a physique and chose to cosplay as this character, I would realize that I'm likely to get certain reactions from some people, regardless of my intentions in dressing as them or their knowledge of the character, and expecting that I wouldn't be drawing some of that attention (again, assuming I possessed such a mythical physique ) would be silly.
Vaktathi wrote: However, that notwithstanding, my point is that if you're going to dress in something sexy, even if it's not the point of dressing in that outfit, don't be surprised or angry when people like to look at sexy things, regardless of gender. Just like if I had the physique of an Adonis and went out running in short and without a shirt on, I'm not going to expect that the school mum in the window as I run by may not take an extended look...
Since this is the foundation of your argument, let's explore it further.
Where do you draw the line for where an outfit, if worn, draws ogling that is perfectly respectable and not weird? Because I am going to go ahead and assume you agree that said kind of attention to someone wearing normal everyday office clothing would not be any of that.
Must it be designed with sexiness in mind (which you can't know for sure since in almost all cases you have not asked the designer, so it quickly walks into speculative territory, and devolves into 'if it is okay to ogle or not depends on how sexy I think it is')?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, just to ensure we are not having a meaningless discussion here:
As pointed out by EVERYONE'S BEST FRIEND who read this topic, we may not be thinking about 'ogling' in the same meaning.
There's 'staring inappropriately in a creepy manner' and 'looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'. I am talking about the former here, and I assumed everyone else was as well. If you are talking about the latter, then eh, that happens and is not big deal. But the former happens too, and is a lot more unpleasant to be subjected to.
Isn't the line between "looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'" and "staring inappropriately in a creepy manner" also a totally subjective line that's never going to be able to be pinned down in this discussion right alongside what counts as 'designed to be sexy' cloths?
Vaktathi wrote: However, that notwithstanding, my point is that if you're going to dress in something sexy, even if it's not the point of dressing in that outfit, don't be surprised or angry when people like to look at sexy things, regardless of gender. Just like if I had the physique of an Adonis and went out running in short and without a shirt on, I'm not going to expect that the school mum in the window as I run by may not take an extended look...
Since this is the foundation of your argument, let's explore it further.
Where do you draw the line for where an outfit, if worn, draws ogling that is perfectly respectable and not weird? Because I am going to go ahead and assume you agree that said kind of attention to someone wearing normal everyday office clothing would not be any of that.
Must it be designed with sexiness in mind (which you can't know for sure since in almost all cases you have not asked the designer, so it quickly walks into speculative territory)?
I'm somewhat inebriated currently so I apologize in advance if my thoughts seem scrambled currently.
There is no hard, quantifiable line in terms of % percentage of skin or whatnot (and even in US law regarding pornography, it's exceptionally vague to specify and famous case law basically says "I can't define it but I know it when I see it") and that can very from person to person, however there are a great number of things that can inform one as to what one should reasonably expect people might stare at.
Obviously, if someone is only barely avoiding a citation for indecent exposure and is almost completely naked, most everyone can agree that this character and cosplay is probably intended to attract sexual attention on some level and thus you may get some looks. Lets say another cosplayer in something like a Dana Scully office-outfit would probably not be, and in fact may not appear to many to be cosplaying at all but rather just very formally dressed and not terribly sexualized and thus it would probably be strange and weird for things like elevator eyes. For the sake of argument lets call those A and B respectively.
Now, if we've got something between A and B, say, a point C, where do we consider certain reactions and behavior like staring or elevator eyes to be not-unexpected (or whatever you want to call it)? Well, lets look at what defines these looks. A reveals more skin, more body outline, more body movement, and more body language than B. There is a lack of information in B. Certain parts of the body send different signals to other people and different genders find different things attractive. People interpret body information with a degree of sexual interest simply as a matter of course. When an outfit is designed to display things like skin and body outline in certain areas, that tells us different things. If a outfit is going out of its way to enhance and reveal areas of sexual interest (e.g. enhanced and exposed pecs & torso muscles on males, highlighted bus/cleavage or exposed thighs on females, exposed glutes on either), it's probably safe to assume some level of sexual attractiveness is intending to be portrayed. If you took the the Scully outfit, B, and dropped the neckline on the blouse by 3 or 4", hiked the skirt to the the mid-thigh, lost the coat, tossed in some 3" heels and pumped on a ton of makeup, well, we haven't turned C into A yet, but there's definitely some strong signals being sent regarding attention receptivity that B isn't sending. Alternatively we could say C is a different outfit, say one that covers almost all skin except the head and hands, but it's relatively form fitting. Well, in this case, ogling would probably be a bit weird regardless of gender, but if it's beyond just form fitting and is instead skin tight, hugging everything, and hiking up *everywhere*, well, that's conveying a fair bit more information and could probably be expected to draw sexual interest.
Is there an exact line? No, and that line would vary from person to person and situation to situation, but, in general, the more body information an outfit visually conveys, the more likely it is to be sexually attractive. It won't always be in every case, but is a pretty strong guideline. If you're playing a fighting game and the character is wearing a Gi, sweatpants and sandals, the character is probably not meant to be viewed sexually. If the character is male and is sporting exposed and extremely robust upper body musculature, or a female character with heels and exposed thighs/hips and shirt cutout specifically to display breast cleavage, well, they're probably intended to display some sex appeal.
So yeah, there's no easy answers, it's all judgement calls, but there's a ton of relatively common-sense stuff to inform that judgement. In the case of the two characters you mentioned previously, I would sat that without a doubt, these characters were intended to portray some sex appeal, Hanzo's naked archery chest-arm would be pointless in anything but the most ill-fitting of garments in terms of mobility advantage and revealing/unarmoring the most directly exposed part of your body to the enemy is a really poor idea. Likewise, Symmetras heels would be, well, an active hindrance to say the least in any sort of combat situation, and the skin tight, thigh revealing, bust highlight outfit she's sporting is probably not the most comfortable or practical of garments for any conceivable event that isn't intending to highlight sexualized body attributes. If I were cosplaying either of these characters (again, assuming I had such a physically perfect form ), I would not be surprised to get elevator eyes or a picture snapped.
EDIT:
Actually, just to ensure we are not having a meaningless discussion here:
As pointed out by EVERYONE'S BEST FRIEND who read this topic, we may not be thinking about 'ogling' in the same meaning.
There's 'staring inappropriately in a creepy manner' and 'looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'. I am talking about the former here, and I assumed everyone else was as well. If you are talking about the latter, then eh, that happens and is not big deal. But the former happens too, and is a lot more unpleasant to be subjected to.
Didn't see this until I already wrote the above. Not sure this narrowing helps things, I get where you are coming from, but even this line varies tremendously, as I've seen this vary wildly from person to person in real life, with the former being anything from as mild as a double-take or brief eye contact to some, to as extreme as only counting as such if accompanied by some sort of other action for others. So much is dependent on the context and outfit at hand, that it's another one of those "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it", much like considering something Overpowered or not
I haven't seen it, so I don't believe her - Check.
What about male victims? - Check.
What about false accusations? - Check.
Some of them are asking for it and just get upset when men actually do it! - Check.
Stupid SJWs making stuff up on the internet - Check.
Well, now that we've covered all the points on the Dakka OT Social Justice Checklist, is it time to end the thread or no?
After wading through this entire thread, I feel exhausted at the prospect of writing anything more detailed than a synopsis of my thoughts. The quoted post kind of summed up the whole experience of reading this.
My isolated experience of this type of thing is of socially awkward gamers making occasional inappropriate comments; but nothing more than cringe-worthy ones both to male and female gamers. It's usually followed by a realisation that I'm not amused and they don't attempt it again. Other than that, my negative experiences revolve around badly written codices, power creep and other gak we've all come to expect from some wargames. I did learn fairly early on though that I'm better off playing in a local club with like-minded people rather than settling for first I came across.
Stuff in the post may occur. I wouldn't be surprised by half of it - though some of it raises an eyebrow as I'm sure many of you would agree it's socially bizzare, un-provoked behaviour towards the far end of the unacceptable spectrum. Much of it seems on par with someone walking up to you on the highstreet and caressing your Brazil nuts, then enigmatically striding away.
I got in touch with a few gaming buddies from Winnipeg and got their thoughts.
I guess a positive is that all the various little groups are turning inwards and "asking is this really happening?" and doing an honest evaluation of the safety of their events.
The consensus though seems to be that people don't experience things like that. A couple game stores are owned by women and are formally stated LGBT* safe spaces. Trans gamers feel welcome.
Female gamers report the usual socially awkward guy stuff. Board game club members insist they are happy to bring their teenage daughters to events.
I suppose its possible for a city to have very safe bright and open spaces but have very negative things going on in the shadows and when no one is watching, but it does strike me as strange that one person has suffered so much in so many different places while other people who have been to those same places and interacted with the same store employees and event organizers did not.
You'd expect the distribution of events to not be all on one person from multiple perpetrators at different times and places. Like when sexual assault allegations come out of the wood work, its usually one source with multiple victims who eventually come forward rather than one person going to multiple institutions and being victimized at all of them. Maybe more allegations will come to light.
Talizvar wrote: Men are dogs, do not trust them and always assume every third thought is about sex.
No.
I am sorry, the interval can vary.
Is that what the "no" was about?
Or are you stating we have transcended the need to procreate or feel attraction to those who demonstrate good "genes"?
It all boils down to trying to behave ourselves, trying to pretend the interest is not there is foolish.
Yeah, but trolls can and sometimes do try to look like normal people for the first few messages, for extra impact.
Considering I've had my fair share of experience with Smudge, I think I would know just a little bit more of his behaviour. I heavily assume any message he sent was with good intentions and considering he only sent one message before getting insulted says the other party was not in the mood to discuss the topic, politely or not.
So after a very very brief search I grabbed these images. These are Cosplay girls at comic con and i think another event. They went to events dressed like this.
#1 looks like Mortal combat sort of. I am not familiar enough with the game to say they changed the outfits in any way, shape or form.
#2 is apparently a female spiderman? Im sorry but wearing the smallest shorts possible and a tiny white shirt with spider man on it is not Cosplay nor is it her trying to copy her favorite character this is a clear cut case of her dressing provocatively on purpose to draw attention to herself.
#3: I am not a super huge fan of Star Wars, but If i remember correctly Boba Fett was a male character who wore pants and a full length shirt covered up with body armor. So is this a women trying to replicate her favorite Star Wars character? maybe, is this her trying to make her character as sexy/slutty as possible to draw attention to herself? Definitely.
I am sorry but at some point your going to have to come to the realization that women that dress like these photos are not doing so because they are fans trying to imitate their favorite characters, they are trying to draw as much attention as possible by revealing as much of their skin as they can get away with.
THIS is probably a great example of actual fandom and appropriate cosplay.
Spoiler:
This is a girl Cosplaying as a male character because it is most likely her favorite character, and she nailed it perfectly.
Allow me to elaborate. No, men are not dogs. No, one should not assume that every third thought every man have is about sex. Furthermore, men are completely able to not act on their attraction to someone if they want to. Except maybe for a very few people with really deep issues I guess.
Furthermore, women are not dogs either. It would also be wrong to assume their every third thought is about sex, though they do think about sex and find some men attractive. And they are just as able to not act on their attraction to someone.
#1 looks like Mortal combat sort of. I am not familiar enough with the game to say they changed the outfits in any way, shape or form.
They didn't
Spoiler:
SemperMortis wrote: #2 is apparently a female spiderman? Im sorry but wearing the smallest shorts possible and a tiny white shirt with spider man on it is not Cosplay nor is it her trying to copy her favorite character this is a clear cut case of her dressing provocatively on purpose to draw attention to herself.
Pretty sure that is supposed to be spider mans girlfriend.
SemperMortis wrote: #3: I am not a super huge fan of Star Wars, but If i remember correctly Boba Fett was a male character who wore pants and a full length shirt covered up with body armor. So is this a women trying to replicate her favorite Star Wars character? maybe, is this her trying to make her character as sexy/slutty as possible to draw attention to herself? Definitely.
Something in cosplay I have seen is making "sexy" female versions of male characters. I am not familiar enough with cosplay to tell why exactly people do that.
SemperMortis wrote: I am sorry but at some point your going to have to come to the realization that women that dress like these photos are not doing so because they are fans trying to imitate their favorite characters, they are trying to draw as much attention as possible by revealing as much of their skin as they can get away with.
Ok there is a certain element of cosplay that is like an adult costume party on Halloween. Where normal everyday women will dress up in sexy outfits that they wouldn't normally wear. Maybe they are doing it for attention, maybe they are just doing it as form of self expression. A lot of these fictional characters are about playing into peoples fantasies at the end of the day.
SemperMortis wrote: THIS is probably a great example of actual fandom and appropriate cosplay.
Spoiler:
This is a girl Cosplaying as a male character because it is most likely her favorite character, and she nailed it perfectly.
The women in the first picture also nailed it as well.
So after a very very brief search I grabbed these images. These are Cosplay girls at comic con and i think another event. They went to events dressed like this.
#1 looks like Mortal combat sort of. I am not familiar enough with the game to say they changed the outfits in any way, shape or form.
#2 is apparently a female spiderman? Im sorry but wearing the smallest shorts possible and a tiny white shirt with spider man on it is not Cosplay nor is it her trying to copy her favorite character this is a clear cut case of her dressing provocatively on purpose to draw attention to herself.
#3: I am not a super huge fan of Star Wars, but If i remember correctly Boba Fett was a male character who wore pants and a full length shirt covered up with body armor. So is this a women trying to replicate her favorite Star Wars character? maybe, is this her trying to make her character as sexy/slutty as possible to draw attention to herself? Definitely.
I am sorry but at some point your going to have to come to the realization that women that dress like these photos are not doing so because they are fans trying to imitate their favorite characters, they are trying to draw as much attention as possible by revealing as much of their skin as they can get away with.
THIS is probably a great example of actual fandom and appropriate cosplay.
Spoiler:
This is a girl Cosplaying as a male character because it is most likely her favorite character, and she nailed it perfectly.
#1 No, that's pretty much spot on for Mortal Kombat. However, I think Jade and Mileena are dangerously close to being inappropriate in terms of loin cloth ratio.
#2 seems like a stretch, but not quite sure. That's not Mary Jane, or who I'd consider a good cosplay of Mary Jane.
#3 is actually cool. A little bit of sexiness, but a cool concept.
#3 is actually cool. A little bit of sexiness, but a cool concept.
"A little bit" is kind of a funny way to put it since she has a cleavage cutout, bare entire lower part of torso, tiny pants and a garter belt. Let's call it the kinksuit it actually is.
I haven't seen it, so I don't believe her - Check.
What about male victims? - Check.
What about false accusations? - Check.
Some of them are asking for it and just get upset when men actually do it! - Check.
Stupid SJWs making stuff up on the internet - Check.
Well, now that we've covered all the points on the Dakka OT Social Justice Checklist, is it time to end the thread or no?
After wading through this entire thread, I feel exhausted at the prospect of writing anything more detailed than a synopsis of my thoughts. The quoted post kind of summed up the whole experience of reading this.
My isolated experience of this type of thing is of socially awkward gamers making occasional inappropriate comments; but nothing more than cringe-worthy ones both to male and female gamers. It's usually followed by a realisation that I'm not amused and they don't attempt it again. Other than that, my negative experiences revolve around badly written codices, power creep and other gak we've all come to expect from some wargames. I did learn fairly early on though that I'm better off playing in a local club with like-minded people rather than settling for first I came across.
Stuff in the post may occur. I wouldn't be surprised by half of it - though some of it raises an eyebrow as I'm sure many of you would agree it's socially bizzare, un-provoked behaviour towards the far end of the unacceptable spectrum. Much of it seems on par with someone walking up to you on the highstreet and caressing your Brazil nuts, then enigmatically striding away.
But... is it guilty until proven innocent, or innocent until proven guilty? I can hardly remember anymore....
Something in cosplay I have seen is making "sexy" female versions of male characters. I am not familiar enough with cosplay to tell why exactly people do that.
Why?
A T T E N T I O N
Plain and simple.
They want people to look at them!
They *want* to show off their body!
It's *far* less about the character than it is about showing themselves off.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Goes for either gender "sexy-ing" up the character.
Automatically Appended Next Post: My contribution to the "nailed it" Cosplay.
(and for the record, I find this sexy in a way..part of the sexiness for me is in the face)
#3 is actually cool. A little bit of sexiness, but a cool concept.
"A little bit" is kind of a funny way to put it since she has a cleavage cutout, bare entire lower part of torso, tiny pants and a garter belt. Let's call it the kinksuit it actually is.
Excuse me, did you ignore #1? She's far more covered up than the Mortal Kombat girls.
jonolikespie wrote: Isn't the line between "looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'" and "staring inappropriately in a creepy manner" also a totally subjective line that's never going to be able to be pinned down in this discussion right alongside what counts as 'designed to be sexy' cloths?
When I was a builder I was involved in a construction project at the local university. There was an official "three second" rule regrading workers looking at female students and of course a strict "no cat-calling" policy.
This policy was known to both workers and students. It was definitely pinned down
Guys were removed from site after a student complained (not fired, just transferred to a different project).
I personally was cat-called at by a car full of girls. I thought it was hilarious and a little bit flattered, and got many congratulations from the guys when word went round the site.
jonolikespie wrote: Isn't the line between "looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'" and "staring inappropriately in a creepy manner" also a totally subjective line that's never going to be able to be pinned down in this discussion right alongside what counts as 'designed to be sexy' cloths?
When I was a builder I was involved in a construction project at the local university. There was an official "three second" rule regrading workers looking at female students and of course a strict "no cat-calling" policy.
This policy was known to both workers and students. It was definitely pinned down
Guys were removed from site after a student complained (not fired, just transferred to a different project).
I personally was cat-called at by a car full of girls. I thought it was hilarious and a little bit flattered, and got many congratulations from the guys when word went round the site.
To take this a bit further. If you're in doubt about the line or think someone particularly the person you might be looking at might disagree about where the line is: Just don't look. You're in control of your head, you're in control of your eyes and it's as easy too not look at someone as it is too look at them. It's as easy to leave people alone as it is to bother them and in general that's the best call.
It's important to remember that as a general rule:
You are aren't important
You are aren't interesting to anyone but yourself, your friends and your family.
Nobody wants your opinion.
Nobody wants your approval.
Nobody wants your attention.
Everybody is doing their own thing for their own reasons, largely for themselves. From what they eat to what they wear they're doing it for themselves or sometimes specific individuals they actually give a gak about.
The chances of your degrading somebody's day by sticking your self in it is less than your chances of improving it by doing so.
This is true generally, and doubly to triply so if you're just some random dude considering any potential interaction with just some random woman.
*You here is is general, not feeder an/dor jonolikespie specifically.
#3 is actually cool. A little bit of sexiness, but a cool concept.
"A little bit" is kind of a funny way to put it since she has a cleavage cutout, bare entire lower part of torso, tiny pants and a garter belt. Let's call it the kinksuit it actually is.
Excuse me, did you ignore #1? She's far more covered up than the Mortal Kombat girls.
The MK9 ones, anyway. Part of why I love MKX is because it is far more diverse - MK9 just had recolours/slight reskins of the same string bikini high heel model for almost all of the women, and MKX, well, does not.
See the new character Jacqueline Briggs.
Spoiler:
Or the new Mileena, who wears perhaps the most risque outfit in that game, but still is the female character I play the most (because she is COOL.)
Ashiraya wrote: You are 100% legally permitted to ogle a cosplayer, Severance, (within reason) just as they 100% have the right to think you are a creep for doing so.
I just wanted to be sure. There are mixed signals in the cosplay community as some believe that a person shouldn't be objectifying them. For the record I don't ogle cosplayers, but I have no issues at thinking someone is dressed sexily. I am however a quite a bit more tactful since I hang out with a good portion of them at various cons.
Ashiraya wrote: There's 'staring inappropriately in a creepy manner' and 'looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'.
Unfortunately given the circle of gamers, comic-cons, nerd and geek culture a good portion of people are socially awkward. It isn't meant to be an excuse but unfortunately there are quite a few people who don't even realize they are looking in a creepy manner. Keep in mind creepy is subjective to the person making the assumption. Not everyone knows how to properly look at someone without seemingly being creepy.
I look at cosplayers quite a lot as I've been part of that community for awhile. Before then however I am and always been a gamer first. There is a large influx of different crowds in the community. It no longer is about getting into the hobby because someone is a fan of something. There is a good portion of the community that is in cosplay for prop making, costuming, craftmanship and many more who have moved into modeling or youtube celebrity status. It is pretty much a college campus of everything from jocks, models, nerds and geeks which unfortunately creates some tension.
There are many instances where I have met up with friends, taken pictures and we are all goofing around. Our friends have been known at times to be friendly with each other but that tends to come from they are our friends. Unfortunately ongoers don't realize this and assume that it is ok to touch them or spank their ass. That is where the basis for "Cosplay is Not Consent" starts. It is often why we're in groups of people. I have often had to escort cosplayers back to their rooms to prevent issues from happening.
Escorting Zerina who was dressed up as Vanessa Vancleef or Alexstrasza to the hotel at PAX Prime, most of the time everyone was respectful. There will always be some people ogling and even a few cat calls. That is unfortunately part of the territory. There are times that they thought she wasn't wearing pants so where someone saw flesh/skin, it was actually nude dancer tights so she was completely covered. It doesn't mean that is right in terms of respectfulness, but these people don't know them so I wouldn't also expect them to have the same restraint. As long as they don't actually try to touch them, they are welcome to their thoughts, looks and free speech. The crux of free speech does mean that people can make situations uncomfortable for others.
#3 is actually cool. A little bit of sexiness, but a cool concept.
"A little bit" is kind of a funny way to put it since she has a cleavage cutout, bare entire lower part of torso, tiny pants and a garter belt. Let's call it the kinksuit it actually is.
Excuse me, did you ignore #1? She's far more covered up than the Mortal Kombat girls.
The MK9 ones, anyway. Part of why I love MKX is because it is far more diverse - MK9 just had recolours/slight reskins of the same string bikini high heel model for almost all of the women, and MKX, well, does not.
See the new character Jacqueline Briggs.
Spoiler:
Or the new Mileena, who wears perhaps the most risque outfit in that game, but still is the female character I play the most (because she is COOL.)
Spoiler:
To be fair, I was referring to the cosplay in pic #1, I have no problems with the MK costumes. Side note, I love Mileena's new look and Jacqui's costume
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I personally cannot side with the woman in the OP. I did attempt to contact her and have discussion about some of the more crass and inflammatory matter in her article. She blocked me after my second message. If she was unwilling to talk, that's fine, but the fact she chose to insult me before blocking speaks volumes about how much I should care for her.
I don't know what your messages where about. However, given how broadly her message was broadcasted, I can imagine she had to deal with tons of angry people and trolls that would be very annoying. Maybe you sounded somehow like a bunch of trolls she had to deal with and she reacted preemptively, assuming you would similarly turn into a troll?
This was precisely why I was concerned about messaging her. So, I made sure beforehand and checked with friends I knew in that particular domain of Tumblr (who would somewhat sympathise with every word she said) as to what I had said. They found no flaws whatsoever with what I had written. Not only that, but if she isn't prepared to give just a little time for someone whose identity/situation isn't 100% clear, I don't see why I should then have any sympathy for someone in the same situation.
It was done with the best etiquette, without leading questions, and remained completely neutral. But sure. White male gamer terrorists.
Yeah, but trolls can and sometimes do try to look like normal people for the first few messages, for extra impact.
But then, so is a non-troll. I don't see the point? If that's the issue, then why bother talking at all - everyone could be a troll waiting for that extra impact.
Surely we're advocating innocent before guilty here?
Again - this is by no means a confrontation. I'm just a little concerned that their first reaction was to be just as close-minded in her response as so many others were to here.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: So, I made sure beforehand and checked with friends I knew in that particular domain of Tumblr (who would somewhat sympathise with every word she said) as to what I had said. They found no flaws whatsoever with what I had written.
jonolikespie wrote: Isn't the line between "looking at someone and thinking 'wow, sexy'" and "staring inappropriately in a creepy manner" also a totally subjective line that's never going to be able to be pinned down in this discussion right alongside what counts as 'designed to be sexy' cloths?
When I was a builder I was involved in a construction project at the local university. There was an official "three second" rule regrading workers looking at female students and of course a strict "no cat-calling" policy.
This policy was known to both workers and students. It was definitely pinned down
Guys were removed from site after a student complained (not fired, just transferred to a different project).
I personally was cat-called at by a car full of girls. I thought it was hilarious and a little bit flattered, and got many congratulations from the guys when word went round the site.
To take this a bit further. If you're in doubt about the line or think someone particularly the person you might be looking at might disagree about where the line is: Just don't look. You're in control of your head, you're in control of your eyes and it's as easy too not look at someone as it is too look at them. It's as easy to leave people alone as it is to bother them and in general that's the best call.
It's important to remember that as a general rule:
You are aren't important
You are aren't interesting to anyone but yourself, your friends and your family.
Nobody wants your opinion.
Nobody wants your approval.
Nobody wants your attention.
Everybody is doing their own thing for their own reasons, largely for themselves. From what they eat to what they wear they're doing it for themselves or sometimes specific individuals they actually give a gak about.
The chances of your improving somebody's day by sticking your self in it is less than your chances of improving it by doing so.
This is true generally, and doubly to triply so if you're just some random dude considering any potential interaction with just some random woman.
*You here is is general, not feeder an/dor jonolikespie specifically.
Sorry, but I don't roll that way.
I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
Not only that, but if she isn't prepared to give just a little time for someone whose identity/situation isn't 100% clear, I don't see why I should then have any sympathy for someone in the same situation.
It was done with the best etiquette, without leading questions, and remained completely neutral.
Again - this is by no means a confrontation. I'm just a little concerned that their first reaction was to be just as close-minded in her response as so many others were to here.
That post was shared all over the place (meaning the whole internet, or at least parts where it could be relavent) so you are probably not the first person who contacted her about this in that manner (and there were probably many other and worse comments). Certain people like to couch their words carefully (often to just be able to say that they were not aggressive while deliberately trying to provoke others) so your very careful phrasing might just look like like somebody looking for more stuff to "work with".
Your perspective in this situation might be very different than hers too. Your one non-confrontational approach might be just another of who knows how many post (of varying quality and trollishness). It might be "just a little time" from your point of view but the same can't be guaranteed on the other side so what you see as the "first reaction" might be just another of many replies. Usually people who have a public persona and are accessible via e-mail tend to have a process to deal with this stuff and are also used to this to some degree. In this case one post blew up a bit for a person who most (or even all) of us have never heard of and who probably wasn't prepared for that amount of contact/mails.
You can hope that the other person is just sitting there all day answering everybody in a calm and collected manner and is willing to spend their time on each reply just for your singular benefit. That's not how it works for regular humans except if they are paid to do this (customer service, community management,…). This was a rather controversial post so I would assume that a good chunk of contacts were rather abusive. How about this as a reason for some sympathy?
Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.
TheMeanDM wrote: Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.
The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...
I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
I'm inclined to think the same, my rights don't end where your feelings begin. It's not illegal to look at someone, if I somehow offend someone well I'm sorry for that, but if you're attractive I'm going to look.
I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
I'm inclined to think the same, my rights don't end where your feelings begin. It's not illegal to look at someone, if I somehow offend someone well I'm sorry for that, but if you're attractive I'm going to look.
There's a difference between something being illegal and something being rude. I could, for example, hurl all manners of unplesant verbal abuse at you, but it'd not be illegal. That doesn't change the fact that I'd be an donkey-cave for doing so. Similarly, ogling someone is not illegal, but we expect people to have at least a modicum of self-control.
TheMeanDM wrote: Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.
The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...
Yeah, look at all the people in this thread refusing to have a dialogue! They've just immediately shut down any and all debate and insisted on shouting down their opponents.
Meanwhile, your side of the debate is a shining example of the ideal debater. Open to new ideas, willing to discuss them, capable of seeing other people's views, and definitely not dismissing the OP out of hand and basing all subsequent interactions from the premise that there is no issue whatsoever.
Personally, my experience in this debate has been brilliant. I *definitely* haven't seen *any* instances of people arguing in bad faith, or making assumptions about the people they're disagreeing with. I've had so. much. fun. in this thread.
Let's be honest, no one is going to change their minds here, including me. This isn't a debate, it's a brawl, as these gender topics always are. 15 pages, over 400 replies, over 11,000 views.
I believe you when you say you've had fun in this thread. You're getting something out of it. You wouldn't have clicked on it otherwise.
Let's be honest, no one is going to change their minds here, including me. This isn't a debate, it's a brawl, as these gender topics always are. 15 pages, over 400 replies, over 11,000 views.
I believe you when you say you've had fun in this thread. You're getting something out of it. You wouldn't have clicked on it otherwise.
No, I legitimately haven't enjoyed myself. This thread has made me the angriest I've been in the better part of a year, and lost me my quick reply. It has been a clusterfeth from beginning to end and it should have been killed 13 pages ago.
Goliath wrote: No, I legitimately haven't enjoyed myself. This thread has made me the angriest I've been in the better part of a year, and lost me my quick reply. It has been a clusterfeth from beginning to end and it should have been killed 13 pages ago.
Then please, walk away. If you're not getting anything from this thread, or feel it's doing you harm, why force that onto yourself?
I apologise if I've contributed to you feeling this way, if that's worth anything.
Goliath wrote: No, I legitimately haven't enjoyed myself. This thread has made me the angriest I've been in the better part of a year, and lost me my quick reply. It has been a clusterfeth from beginning to end and it should have been killed 13 pages ago.
Then please, walk away. If you're not getting anything from this thread, or feel it's doing you harm, why force that onto yourself?
I apologise if I've contributed to you feeling this way, if that's worth anything.
It wasn't you, it was the accusation that I don't believe it's possible for a drunk male to be taken advantage of a few pages ago. ("Hey! You don't believe it's possible for that thing that happened to you to happen to males!")
And I post in these in the vain hope that I might actually be able to convince people to be nicer to one another, as foolish as that may be.
#3 is actually cool. A little bit of sexiness, but a cool concept.
"A little bit" is kind of a funny way to put it since she has a cleavage cutout, bare entire lower part of torso, tiny pants and a garter belt. Let's call it the kinksuit it actually is.
Excuse me, did you ignore #1? She's far more covered up than the Mortal Kombat girls.
Yes, I ignored your comments on the first picture because there wasn't anything there for me to particularly disagree with. It looks like Mortal Kombat as far as I am aware. That the Boba Fett lady is only half naked instead of mostly naked doesn't stop referring to her outfit as "a little bit of sexiness" from being funny.
Goliath wrote: And I post in these in the vain hope that I might actually be able to convince people to be nicer to one another, as foolish as that may be.
This thread was in response to an article that framed the problem of unfair treatment of women in gaming spaces as terrorism.
People are tired of being called racist, sexist, bigots, whatever when they know they are not. To add terrorist... and then act surprised that the message is not well received?
TheMeanDM wrote: Chances are high, I feel, that it was not meant to be a two-way conversation. It was a statement and agenda intended to attack...with no intention of defense because that would require dialogue which I really do not think this person wanted.
The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...
Yeah, look at all the people in this thread refusing to have a dialogue! They've just immediately shut down any and all debate and insisted on shouting down their opponents.
Meanwhile, your side of the debate is a shining example of the ideal debater. Open to new ideas, willing to discuss them, capable of seeing other people's views, and definitely not dismissing the OP out of hand and basing all subsequent interactions from the premise that there is no issue whatsoever.
Personally, my experience in this debate has been brilliant. I *definitely* haven't seen *any* instances of people arguing in bad faith, or making assumptions about the people they're disagreeing with. I've had so. much. fun. in this thread.
so much.
Yeah sure, because you represent all/[i] "SJW's".
When people say that typical "SJW's" aren't interested in dialogue, they're talking about the people who actually do try to shut down debate and free speech, no platform people they disagree with, conduct hate campaigns etc. You're here, debating the issue, ergo you are by definition [i]not a typical "SJW". The fact that you behave yourself does not change the fact that the typical person " on your side" does not.
When people say that typical "SJW's" aren't interested in dialogue, they're talking about the people who actually do try to shut down debate and free speech, no platform people they disagree with, conduct hate campaigns etc. You're here, debating the issue, ergo you are by definition [i]not a typical "SJW". The fact that you behave yourself does not change the fact that the typical person " on your side" does not.
Here's the thing though. They aren't here.
In every single one of these threads you have one side attempting to argue against a group of people that isn't partaking in the discussion because they just don't exist on this forum. The other side then spends the entire thread debating with strawmen about what "SJW said X" or "Tumblr users would advocate Y", with the result that you get people on this forum (me, for example) being accused of holding legitimately hurtful positions because they have the temerity to disagree with the mob.
Are they a fringe outlier? Do they hold the majority opinion? Do they even exist outside of Tumblr and some university student unions? Who the feth cares? They're not taking part in this debate, so why are you people lowering yourselves to their level of discourse? If they're as bad as you advocate then you're dirtying yourself by sinking to their level when there are perfectly sane, rational people on here being driven away from discussions on this subject area due to the sheer vitriol that gets thrown in their general direction in an attempt to balance the SJWs.
Please. Make better posts. Because the level of anger and hatred in these discussions is driving intelligent, rational posters to either leave or start posting arguments that they are absolutely better than.
People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.
MattofWar wrote: People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.
Or perhaps people should take a long, hard look about what they "know".
MattofWar wrote: People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.
Or perhaps people should take a long, hard look about what they "know".
If a given individual can't know their own positions on things, how can we tell what their positions are?
They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they? Their racism and sexism must be unconscious and ingrained and beyond their ability to be aware of it.
Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male. That's how the sexism and racism shame game works.
MattofWar wrote: People should be angry about this article. It's calling peaceful members of the gaming community terrorists. People should be angry when they are accused to be being complicit in harassment when they are not. They should also get angry when they are accused of being racist or sexist when they know they are not.
So the response to someone using hyperbole to illustrate that there is a perceived problem in a community isn't to consider their point and look at whether there might be a problem, it is in fact to shout and get angry about them *daring* to insinuate that there might be a problem.
There is absolutely no problem and how dare she suggest that. I know exactly what she has experienced and she is 100% for sure lying about everything she wrote in that post because my experiences are universal and so I know with absolute certainty that no-one has ever experienced harassment in this community.
MattofWar wrote: If a given individual can't know their own positions on things, how can we tell what their positions are?
Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male.
They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they?
Oh hey, it's the lesser-spotted argument in bad faith! It's been a couple of days since I've seen one, but they seem to pop up in this thread fairly regularly for some reason. And you know the fun part? This is about five posts below my post about debating arguments that the people in this thread are actually making, rather than what some hypothetical SJW bogeyman from Tumblr might argue. Take a wild guess at which one you're doing.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: The fact that you behave yourself does not change the fact that the typical person " on your side" does not.
Apart from the fact that it takes an immature, not yet fully formed or fully capable mind (intellectually) to talk in "they" vs. "us" as if it was something binary, when there are clearly several "they"s and "us"s and probably lots of people who are members of both "they" and "us", depending on what adjectives you use to define them, and apart from making the (rather ridiculous) assumption that there is a cohesive, organized "they"[i.e. SJW]-movement, to begin with, at least in a sense that could move a sensible discussion forward, I find it a bit condescending (and hence ironic, coming from an ostensibly immature mind) to tell someone they behaved (well).
I know there ARE people who run around in SJW- t-shirts or who claim to be part of a "movement" but it is not the place of non-SJW-party members to titulate others as SJW, when clearly all they want to say "a-holes that want to spoil my pleasures by having a different opinion from mine".
As others have said before, sensible people should really know beforehand if they want to participate in a forum discussion, because a) it is THE INTERNET, b) it is the OT subforum, for FSM sake! and c) even if it was not, a lot of Dakkanites are literally teenagers or early twens.
Which I do not think is something bad per se, but having been a teenager and twen and having had lots of teenagers and twens as friends while being a teenager and twen, I think I am entitled to the observation that teenagers and to a lesser extent twens, especially males, usually know gak about gak and are biologically coded to see in black and white only, while deeming themselves to be the kings of the world and certainly more clever than their parents, teachers and other people with a lot more life experience (if anything, it is not like dumb people are forced to get smarter when they get older...).
- Not exactly the best prerequisites to contribute to a fruitful or positive discussion.
More fun, but do not expect to get enlightenment out of it!
I think the woman in the OP-quoted article sounded a bit over the top, almost as if there was something to the theory that certain people attract abuse (which would be a really sad thought). But I certainly did not feel attacked by it. She said basically, that the attitudes of a minor part of the gaming community toward women is horrible (sexual abuse, sexist opinions), and that a lot of of the rest do not care enough or as much as they should (if they were decent human beings). Wrapped in a lot of anger but a) it is the internet and b) if what she wrote was true, I would be angry, as well.
And if I am to take this thread as a representation of that community (with all the caveats this has to have) : Well, I tend to agree!
My experience of tabletop gaming is a totally different one, but then I am a male, the number of women in my gaming groups has never been higher than 1in4, we were always very happy to have them around - without resorting to groping, drugging or chanting stupid sexists things (more than once in a while and then not apologizing for it, at least).
And now I am old enough and mature enough to not hang around with immature a-holes in real life (more than I have to). That is reserved to the internet. Maybe I was just lucky that my two main occupations as a teenager were video games and girls, so rarely had to suffer from social situations where I was crowd-minded by other testosterone-driven teenage males into being a sheeple follower and being ashamed of it afterwards?
Goliath wrote: So the response to someone using hyperbole to illustrate that there is a perceived problem in a community isn't to consider their point and look at whether there might be a problem, it is in fact to shout and get angry about them *daring* to insinuate that there might be a problem.
No. I'm not getting angry that they dare to insinuate that their might be a problem. I'm getting angry at the constant accusations of sexism, racism and bigotry at the community as a whole. When someone commits a crime, those who share a skin color or gender with the criminal are not guilty by association. Neither are they complicit.
I am also angry when people intentionally shake the confidence of women in the process of reporting sexual assault. That's reprehensible. Most jurisdictions (including Winnipeg and Brandon where the author is saying these events took place) have a very rigid protocol for sexual assault complaints. They will make sure you are currently safe. Then direct you to the closest place where forensic evidence will be collected (by all female nurses). Investigators will meet you there and advise you on how the system will proceed.
I'm disgusted at the thought that someone might not report an assault because of articles like this one which presents doing so as a waste of time.
There is absolutely no problem and how dare she suggest that. I know exactly what she has experienced and she is 100% for sure lying about everything she wrote in that post because my experiences are universal and so I know with absolute certainty that no-one has ever experienced harassment in this community.
The appropriate response to hearing someone's tale of discrimination is not to "listen and believe." It's to weigh the actual words and come to your own conclusion. Do you honestly believe that a 13 year old girl went into a retail location and a group of men all chanted "old enough to bleed old enough to breed" and yet no one else who has gone to this store has had any such experience worth reporting? Why aren't the Winnipeg community pages blowing up with allegations? That's what happens when there is a real problem-- there are multiple victims and they come forward.
Another serious problem with the piece is that it makes allegations against specific companies and people from the safety of relative anonymity. No one can defend themselves. The pressganger for Winnipeg and Brandon was a specific person (two people actually, but only one was active) in 2007. There's just enough information that anyone in the local communities can figure out who she is talking about. She alleges they laughed off sexual assault that she experienced when it happened right in front of him. That is a specific person in a real gaming community (I have the two names of the two pressgangers in the area at the time). Now they have to prove a negative from almost 10 years ago or be thought of as a sexist who was complicit in a sexual assault?
Should I post their names so we can all shame them (or just the one who was active at the time) based on an unsubstantiated accusation of an incident from a decade ago?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Goliath wrote: Oh hey, it's the lesser-spotted argument in bad faith! It's been a couple of days since I've seen one, but they seem to pop up in this thread fairly regularly for some reason. And you know the fun part? This is about five posts below my post about debating arguments that the people in this thread are actually making, rather than what some hypothetical SJW bogeyman from Tumblr might argue. Take a wild guess at which one you're doing.
My response was in direct response to another poster's comment!WTF?! I quoted the exact post I was replying to in my post. Now who's showing bad faith?
The only legitimate response to the idea that you can be a racist or sexist and not know it is to ask how others know it. And this idea of ingrained or cultural racism and sexism always comes down to the same thing. Are you male? Ingrained cultural sexist. Are you white? Ingrained cultural racist.
Sorry, but I do know that I don't discriminate against people based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, relgion or anything else. I bet most of the people on Dakka know they are not bigots too.
oldravenman3025 wrote: I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
You misspelled uncomfortable. You don't give a damn how uncomfortable you might make people, you will not behave like a beta.
Hint: you can try chest-thumbing to accentuate your words, next time. Because that is definitely how you come out when you say how much you won't ever change your behavior to accommodate other peoples because that would be WEAK and UNMANLY.
oldravenman3025 wrote: If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
It is funny you mention the burka, because that is basically what any good Islamist apologist would say. “If you don't wear the veil, people will treat you like gak and will be justified in doing so”. At least those are not beta, am I right?
Kojiro wrote: The SJW movement is very interested in dialogue. That's why they accept invites to discussions, do unscripted interviews, come to debates, never no platform people and allow all sorts of comments and feedback on their work. Oh wait...
I think what you mean is “Some personalities are definitely not willing to engage with every angry random who decided that he is ENTITLED to have a debate even though there are literally hundreds of people with the very same opinion and arguments that are asking for the same, making having a discussion with each one something multiple people could have a full-time job doing”.
MattofWar wrote: They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they? Their racism and sexism must be unconscious and ingrained and beyond their ability to be aware of it.
Yeah. It's backed up by a lot of experiment.
Add an healthy dose of “there’s none so deaf as those who will not hear” in some case. If someone is extremely angry, and double down on how he is right to be angry, when someone suggests that he might be sexist, I am pretty sure he is not going to do a lot in term of introspection on the subject .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MattofWar wrote: Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male.
I accept all of that research. I just don't believe that anyone who is making an conscious attempt to treat everyone fairly should still be considered a racist or sexist because of an unconscious bias that exists on average. Sorry, but people can actually choose to be fair to others despite their unconscious baggage.
I know that I'm not a bigot. I know this because I am aware of unconscious bias and still act in a manner that is non discriminatory.
Everyone should look into their unconscious biases and then not treat others poorly. That way you can know you are not a sexist and it is unfair when someone lumps you in with those who sexually assault and calls you complicit with acts you did not commit.
People should be sick of constantly being called racist or sexist when they know they are not. And if we do come across someone who thinks they are not sexist but we think they are, instead of calling them a white terrorist, maybe we should share this google video with them so they can come to understand that there are unconscious issues to overcome.
MattofWar wrote: They certainly can't know their own thoughts, can they? Their racism and sexism must be unconscious and ingrained and beyond their ability to be aware of it.
Yeah. It's backed up by a lot of experiment.
Spoiler:
Add an healthy dose of “there’s none so deaf as those who will not hear” in some case. If someone is extremely angry, and double down on how he is right to be angry, when someone suggests that he might be sexist, I am pretty sure he is not going to do a lot in term of introspection on the subject .
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MattofWar wrote: Ironically it comes down to skin color and gender. We know people are racist if they are white and sexist if they are male.
Nope. Go to my video at 12:03 in the above video.
The whole unconscious biases means people are still racist is total BS. Racism and other forms of bigotry is all about peoples beliefs. Believing in something means that you accept the idea in your conscious mind. A person who does not belief in racism but has unconscious biases, like every person living btw, is not racist. The only way you can claim they are is if you move the goal posts and change the definition of the terms you are using.
Formal defintion of racism according to google:
racism
Spoiler:
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
noun: racism
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"
synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"
a religious conviction.
"Christian beliefs"
synonyms: ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More
doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo
"traditional beliefs"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"
Edit: If I say I believe in god. That means I have consciously accepted that idea. You can not unconsciously belief in god.
MattofWar wrote: Sorry, but people can actually choose to be fair to others despite their unconscious baggage.
They definitely can try. But the thing about unconscious bias is that, well, you don't notice it. And the more you are angry when people tell you you are being racist, or sexist, the less you are going to listen to them, and the easiest it will be for those unconscious bias to remain unnoticed.
Am I right on that?
Seems to me that you are very, very sensitive about being called racist or sexist (because it hurts your feelings) and that this can't help you to root out those unconscious bias.
You can't use unconscious actions/reactions as an excuse to castigate somebody. That's like being mad at somebody for blinking. If it's an unconscious ingrained response then the person isn't doing it deliberately or with any malicious intent. There will always be a certain amount of personal bias in each of us but that minimal ingrained subconscious bias isn't going to harm society, it's just an inherent part of human nature.
People should be held accountable for the actions they choose to take or abstain from taking not for ingrained subconscious responses. Macro reactions to subconscious micro biases is a disproportionate level of response.
Blood Hawk wrote: The whole unconscious biases means people are still racist is total BS. Racism and other forms of bigotry is all about peoples beliefs. Believing in something means that you accept the idea in your conscious mind. A person who does not belief in racism but has unconscious biases, like every person living btw, is not racist. The only way you can claim they are is if you move the goal posts and change the definition of the terms you are using.
Formal defintion of racism according to google:
Whoah! So you are not racist, you are just treating people differently because of their skin color! That means there is no problem and we should all be very happy and not change a thing!
Blood Hawk wrote: The whole unconscious biases means people are still racist is total BS. Racism and other forms of bigotry is all about peoples beliefs. Believing in something means that you accept the idea in your conscious mind. A person who does not belief in racism but has unconscious biases, like every person living btw, is not racist. The only way you can claim they are is if you move the goal posts and change the definition of the terms you are using.
Formal defintion of racism according to google:
Whoah! So you are not racist, you are just treating people differently because of their skin color! That means there is no problem and we should all be very happy and not change a thing!
Unconscious bias does not equal racist. Sorry but it is the truth. Also I never said there weren't problems.
MattofWar wrote: Sorry, but people can actually choose to be fair to others despite their unconscious baggage.
They definitely can try. But the thing about unconscious bias is that, well, you don't notice it. And the more you are angry when people tell you you are being racist, or sexist, the less you are going to listen to them, and the easiest it will be for those unconscious bias to remain unnoticed.
Am I right on that?
Seems to me that you are very, very sensitive about being called racist or sexist (because it hurts your feelings) and that this can't help you to root out those unconscious bias.
Just because somebody accuses you of being racist or sexist doesn't automatically mean that you are racist or sexist. It'sa subjective opinion about the perception of somebody's actions or speech. It's not an objectively quantifiable distinction. It's like a sense of humor, just because you don't think a joke somebody tells you is funny doesn't mean it's objectively not funny and the person who told you the joke is wrong to think it's funny.
There is one way I now realize I have been very stupid in this thread.
The original article was an hyperbolic attempt at getting attention. I gave the attention.
I'm committed to treating everyone equally. If that's not enough for some people I don't know what to tell you.
If anyone wants more people to be committed to equality, I would caution against the use of comparisons to terrorism and accusations of being complicit with crimes. It just polarizes the issue and gets people like me to argue against you when we really should be on the same side (treating everyone equally).
MattofWar wrote: There is one way I now realize I have been very stupid in this thread.
The original article was an hyperbolic attempt at getting attention. I gave the attention.
I'm committed to treating everyone equally. If that's not enough for some people I don't know what to tell you.
If anyone wants more people to be committed to equality, I would caution against the use of comparisons to terrorism and accusations of being complicit with crimes. It just polarizes the issue and gets people like me to argue against you when we really should be on the same side (treating everyone equally).
Don't forget the issues that the creators of a game aren't responsible for the actionstaken by people who choose to play the games the creators made and that one person's anecdotal evidence isn't evidence of a general problem encompassing thousands (millions?) of people across numerous nations and locations. I would not use my pleasant gaming experiences over the last few decades as evidence that everyone who plays table top games or board games is a fantastic person with terrific social skills. It's only evidence that the group I game with gets along with each other and complies with my subjective view of proper social etiquette. I have no idea what goes on with other gaming groups in other parts of the world and wouldn't presume to declare that those people would behave the same way as the people I game with simply because they all like to play similar games.
Blood Hawk wrote: Unconscious bias does not equal racist. Sorry but it is the truth.
As I previously wrote: you are not racist, you are just treating people differently because of their skin color! That means there is no problem and we should all be very happy and not change a thing!
Prestor Jon wrote: You can't use unconscious actions/reactions as an excuse to castigate somebody.
Ahahah, it seems that it is all some people care about in this thread. MEMEME! Don't say anything bad about ME! Don't talk about your problem because it could make ME look bad! It's all about ME!
Being treated unfairly due to some unconscious bias is a completely fair and justified reason to be angry. If that hurts your feeling because you did not meant to treat people unfairly, then… well, two advices. First, stop focusing on how you are a good person, start focusing on how you can become better. Second, stop taking everything personally, all the time.
MattofWar wrote: Sorry, but people can actually choose to be fair to others despite their unconscious baggage.
They definitely can try. But the thing about unconscious bias is that, well, you don't notice it. And the more you are angry when people tell you you are being racist, or sexist, the less you are going to listen to them, and the easiest it will be for those unconscious bias to remain unnoticed.
Am I right on that?
Seems to me that you are very, very sensitive about being called racist or sexist (because it hurts your feelings) and that this can't help you to root out those unconscious bias.
The reason I don't like people who are not racist being called racist and people who are not sexist being called sexist is that it harms the actual reduction of racism and sexism by pointing our attention to non-discriminatory acts. It also damages people's ability to actually recognize real acts of discrimination.
The other reason I don't like people who are not racist and sexist being called racist and sexist is because it is insulting and rude them. It's not fair to make false accusations. In fact, it's morally wrong to make false accusations.
Blood Hawk wrote: Unconscious bias does not equal racist. Sorry but it is the truth.
As I previously wrote: you are not racist, you are just treating people differently because of their skin color! That means there is no problem and we should all be very happy and not change a thing!
Prestor Jon wrote: You can't use unconscious actions/reactions as an excuse to castigate somebody.
Ahahah, it seems that it is all some people care about in this thread. MEMEME! Don't say anything bad about ME! Don't talk about your problem because it could make ME look bad! It's all about ME!
Being treated unfairly due to some unconscious bias is a completely fair and justified reason to be angry. If that hurts your feeling because you did not meant to treat people unfairly, then… well, two advices. First, stop focusing on how you are a good person, start focusing on how you can become better. Second, stop taking everything personally, all the time.
You seem to be operating under the impression that other people's subjective opinions should be used to force others to change their behavior. If a person isn't breaking the law and is behaving in a manner they deem appropriate then they are not beholden to anyone else's concepts of social conventions or standards of etiquette. I'll live my life as best I can in accordance to the standards of behavior I wish to uphold. If that leaves some people disappointed that's unfortunate for them but I'm not going to waste my time worrying about whether or not my every subconscious action is a triggering microaggression against somebody somewhere. It's an imperfect world full of imperfect people, all we can do is try our best to be at our best.
Blood Hawk wrote: Unconscious bias does not equal racist. Sorry but it is the truth.
As I previously wrote: you are not racist, you are just treating people differently because of their skin color! That means there is no problem and we should all be very happy and not change a thing!
Good demonstration of the toxic results of your position. Now you're accusing people of racism just because they disagree with you about the role of unconscious cultural factors in what should be categorized as racism.
Prestor Jon wrote: You can't use unconscious actions/reactions as an excuse to castigate somebody.
Ahahah, it seems that it is all some people care about in this thread. MEMEME! Don't say anything bad about ME! Don't talk about your problem because it could make ME look bad! It's all about ME!
People want to defend themselves and those who share their interests against false allegations of sexism and racism? That's just crazy...
Being treated unfairly due to some unconscious bias is a completely fair and justified reason to be angry. If that hurts your feeling because you did not meant to treat people unfairly, then… well, two advices. First, stop focusing on how you are a good person, start focusing on how you can become better. Second, stop taking everything personally, all the time.
This is just rich.
"You all have unconsious bias that makes you racist!"
"Dude, I'm not racist. I disagree about this unconscious bias equals racism/sexism thing."
"It's all "MEMEME" with you people! Stop taking everything so personally when you're called a racist"
You've gone off the rails.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: You seem to be operating under the impression that other people's subjective opinions should be used to force others to change their behavior.
This is what it is all about. Forcing people to comply with their will. And attempting to shame them when they don't agree.
Prestor Jon wrote: If a person isn't breaking the law and is behaving in a manner they deem appropriate then they are not beholden to anyone else's concepts of social conventions or standards of etiquette.
Yes. You are not beholden to any social convention. But then, please, please, please never again complain when someone points out gamers, or really any group you belong to, is made of people with seriously lacking social skills, or other similar complaints. Because you just gloated about it.
You are welcome to be a social troglodyte, just accept the consequences of people showing you the door of their own places because they are done with having to tolerate you gaking on their social conventions.
Yes. You are not beholden to any social convention. But then, please, please, please never again complain when someone points out gamers, or really any group you belong to, is made of people with seriously lacking social skills, or other similar complaints. Because you just gloated about it.
That would be inconsistent. He never said once that people should not complain, did he?
I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
oldravenman3025 wrote: I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
You misspelled uncomfortable. You don't give a damn how uncomfortable you might make people, you will not behave like a beta.
Hint: you can try chest-thumbing to accentuate your words, next time. Because that is definitely how you come out when you say how much you won't ever change your behavior to accommodate other peoples because that would be WEAK and UNMANLY.
oldravenman3025 wrote: If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
It is funny you mention the burka, because that is basically what any good Islamist apologist would say. “If you don't wear the veil, people will treat you like gak and will be justified in doing so”. At least those are not beta, am I right?
.
Considering that I never used that word, no I don't believe I misspelled it. You must be seeing things. I know France produces some of the best wine on planet Earth, but it might be a good idea to go light on it when posting.
I can say with 100% certainty, however, that either your reading comprehension is terrible, or you're playing the part of the good little radical twisting a point into something that it's not.
And no, I will not "accommodate" others concerning a behavior that's natural, and not harmful to others. That was the point. You must have missed the part about not being creepy about it. Being "offended" over something that is inherently harmless and natural isn't good enough reason in my book.
And yeah, I'm an alpha. And no, contrary to what post-modernist, neo-progressives might tell you, it doesn't involved the aforementioned "chest thumping". Nor does it involve treating women like crap. Being "manly" is about being confident, strong in character, not afraid to be "manly", a go-getter, and having pride and self respect. It's about fulfilling your obligations, as a man, to family, friends, and society. It's about having a strong sense of honor. All of which is not present in most betas I've run into, who obsess over "First World Problems", are self centered, self-absorbed, and are complete candy asses.
And when did I say anything about treating people like gak? Admiring a beautiful woman in public, as long as you are not a jerk about it, is not treating them like garbage. If anything, it's a high compliment. No, you're just reading into it. what you want it to be. Oh, and I love how you imply that I'm on the same level as the Taliban because I don't march lock-step with your views.(sarcasm.jpg) And you misspelled burqa, you culturally insensitive European imperialist devil. (sarcasm.jpg)
MattofWar wrote: Good demonstration of the toxic results of your position. Now you're accusing people of racism just because they disagree with you about the role of unconscious cultural factors in what should be categorized as racism.
Whatever happened to reading comprehension? How many time will people read me writing “you are not racist” and understand “you are racist”?
Yeah, he is not racist. Just look, he provided the formal definition. His whole deal, though, was that unconscious bias are not racism, even when those bias means treating people differently because of their skin color. And yeah, that is true, he proved it with his very nice formal definition. However, it just so happens I care more about the fact that treating people differently because of their skin color is unfair and bad than about if it is or is not racism according to his very nice, very cute formal definition.
Maybe because I care more about fixing unfair stuff than about whether or not someone said I was racist. But yeah, your priorities are cool too. Not.
I live by the time-tested rule "You can look, but don't touch". If I see an attractive female walking around about her business, I'm going to look and admire her attributes. As long as I don't ogle and drool, coming across as a serial killer looking for prey, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When you are in public, you can't stop people from checking you out. Period. I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
I love the Ferengi. But looking at women, and admiring their looks in a normal manner, isn't lecherous. Ogling and acting a stereotypical singles bar creep is, on the other hand.
oldravenman3025 wrote: I don't give a damn who you are or how "offended" you might be. I, myself, don't walk around staring at the ground like some scared beta in fear of offending somebody by my gaze.
You misspelled uncomfortable. You don't give a damn how uncomfortable you might make people, you will not behave like a beta.
Hint: you can try chest-thumbing to accentuate your words, next time. Because that is definitely how you come out when you say how much you won't ever change your behavior to accommodate other peoples because that would be WEAK and UNMANLY.
oldravenman3025 wrote: If you don't want the opposite sex (or same sex if you are homosexual) checking you out, and get horribly offended when they do, then wear a fething burqa or stay home. I don't care which.
It is funny you mention the burka, because that is basically what any good Islamist apologist would say. “If you don't wear the veil, people will treat you like gak and will be justified in doing so”. At least those are not beta, am I right?
.
Considering that I never used that word, no I don't believe I misspelled it. You must be seeing things. I know France produces some of the best wine on planet Earth, but it might be a good idea to go light on it when posting.
I can say with 100% certainty, however, that either your reading comprehension is terrible, or you're playing the part of the good little radical twisting a point into something that it's not.
And no, I will not "accommodate" others concerning a behavior that's natural, and not harmful to others. That was the point. You must have missed the part about not being creepy about it. Being "offended" over something that is inherently harmless and natural isn't good enough reason in my book.
And yeah, I'm an alpha. And no, contrary to what post-modernist, neo-progressives might tell you, it doesn't involved the aforementioned "chest thumping". Nor does it involve treating women like crap. Being "manly" is about being confident, strong in character, not afraid to be "manly", a go-getter, and having pride and self respect. It's about fulfilling your obligations, as a man, to family, friends, and society. It's about having a strong sense of honor. All of which is not present in most betas I've run into, who obsess over "First World Problems", are self centered, self-absorbed, and are complete candy asses.
And when did I say anything about treating people like gak? Admiring a beautiful woman in public, as long as you are not a jerk about it, is not treating them like garbage. If anything, it's a high compliment. No, you're just reading into it. what you want it to be. Oh, and I love how you imply that I'm on the same level as the Taliban because I don't march lock-step with your views.(sarcasm.jpg) And you misspelled burqa, you culturally insensitive European imperialist devil. (sarcasm.jpg)
I love the Ferengi. But looking at women, and admiring their looks in a normal manner, isn't lecherous. Ogling and acting a stereotypical singles bar creep is, on the other hand.
So would you say you're a nice guy that acts like a gentleman?
If you creep out the people you are looking at, you are being creepy. You are just too, uh, “strong in character” to notice it .
oldravenman3025 wrote: And no, contrary to what post-modernist, neo-progressives might tell you, it doesn't involved the aforementioned "chest thumping". Nor does it involve treating women like crap. Being "manly" is about being confident, strong in character, not afraid to be "manly", a go-getter, and having pride and self respect. It's about fulfilling your obligations, as a man, to family, friends, and society. It's about having a strong sense of honor. All of which is not present in most betas I've run into, who obsess over "First World Problems", are self centered, self-absorbed, and are complete candy asses.
I love the Ferengi. But looking at women, and admiring their looks in a normal manner, isn't lecherous. Ogling and acting a stereotypical singles bar creep is, on the other hand.
So would you say you're a nice guy that acts like a gentleman?
When it comes to the ladies, I believe in being a gentleman.
But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate them without being a creepy basement dweller about it.
Prestor Jon wrote: If a person isn't breaking the law and is behaving in a manner they deem appropriate then they are not beholden to anyone else's concepts of social conventions or standards of etiquette.
Yes. You are not beholden to any social convention. But then, please, please, please never again complain when someone points out gamers, or really any group you belong to, is made of people with seriously lacking social skills, or other similar complaints. Because you just gloated about it.
You are welcome to be a social troglodyte, just accept the consequences of people showing you the door of their own places because they are done with having to tolerate you gaking on their social conventions.
I usually ignore people who make sweeping generalizations, either positive or negative, about large diverse groups of people. Especially when such generalizations are based upon anecdotal evidence and subjective opinions. Whether or not you think "gamers" are misogynistic or sexist or racist or whatever has no bearing on how I choose to play games or with whom I choose to play those tabletop or board games. There may well be some bad apples in the bunch, but since I'm not responsible for those bad apples I'm not going to worry about them. Nor am I going to attempt to set myself up as the arbiter of what a "good gamer" should be and/or try to force others to conform to my personal opinions of behavior. If a person doesn't conduct himself or herself in a manner that makes me want to game with him/her then I won't and if a game store doesn't create an atmosphere I want to shop in then I won't give them my business. I always try to avoid being narrow minded and convinced that my personal opinion of something is the only correct view to hold. Literally everyone else in the world is different from me and they are all going to have their own opinions, beliefs and culture and that's going to lead to a host of minor differences that I try to look past and not hold against anyone or force them to change to suit me.
Is anyone in this thread making the argument that sexual harassment or sexual assault are acceptable or shouldn't be criminalized? Is anyone arguing that rudeness should be condoned?
I don't know the veracity of the claims made in the article in the OP but none of those behaviors would be tolerated by me if I witnessed them and in a majority of those situations the police should be called and reports filed. Since none of the people who committed those actions were me, I feel no responsiblity for them, although I do empathize with the woman who experienced them even if the events didn't transpire exactly as she wrote them. Those actions don't reflect negatively on me and my actions don't reflect on them, we're completely different people who just happen to have a tangential connection of being enthusiasts of a hobby.
Whatever happened to reading comprehension? How many time will people read me writing “you are not racist” and understand “you are racist”?
You accused him of treating people differently because of their skin color!
However, it just so happens I care more about the fact that treating people differently because of their skin color is unfair and bad than about if it is or is not racism according to his very nice, very cute formal definition.
See? You're just doing a rhetorical trick where you mockingly agree with his definition and then use your own criteria to call him a racist anyway (that is what you mean when you say he treats people differently based on skin color and that's bad, right?).
Maybe because I care more about fixing unfair stuff than about whether or not someone said I was racist. But yeah, your priorities are cool too. Not.
My priorities result in real change. When people are not falsely accused of bigotry they can be invited into participating in real equality. They can become part of the solution and not the enemy.
On the bright side out in the real world the SJW crap isn't tolerated. Nobody wants to work alongside someone pushing a hardline agenda. Work sucks enough as it is. All the older females I work with laugh at keyboard activists. Most of them are elected officials or run their respective offices, and think most women today don't know how good they've got it. Whitey McWhitewhite is struggling so hard just to make ends meet he doesn't have time for a secret agenda of oppression while he's paying alimony and child support.
MattofWar wrote: Good demonstration of the toxic results of your position. Now you're accusing people of racism just because they disagree with you about the role of unconscious cultural factors in what should be categorized as racism.
Whatever happened to reading comprehension? How many time will people read me writing “you are not racist” and understand “you are racist”?
Yeah, he is not racist. Just look, he provided the formal definition. His whole deal, though, was that unconscious bias are not racism, even when those bias means treating people differently because of their skin color. And yeah, that is true, he proved it with his very nice formal definition. However, it just so happens I care more about the fact that treating people differently because of their skin color is unfair and bad than about if it is or is not racism according to his very nice, very cute formal definition.
Maybe because I care more about fixing unfair stuff than about whether or not someone said I was racist. But yeah, your priorities are cool too. Not.
So your position is that everyone should train themselves so that their subconscious actions all meet your personal definition of "fair treatment"? That's an awful lot of judgment and authority you're assuming there. Your personal opinions on fairness are not universal truths, they are subjective personal opinions. If you seriously believe in trying to shame, cajole and coerce other people into adhering to your personal ideal of fair social conduct then you're wasting your time and setting yourself up for some unnecessary frustration and anger.
I think it's more likely that the person will be considered creepy or not based on whether or not they are found attractive. If the person finds the person looking at them and saying hi unattractive, they're creepy. If they are attractive, they're not. It's a form of discrimination against ugly people from unconscious cultural bias that you refuse to examine.
If you creep out the people you are looking at, you are being creepy. You are just too, uh, “strong in character” to notice it .
oldravenman3025 wrote: And no, contrary to what post-modernist, neo-progressives might tell you, it doesn't involved the aforementioned "chest thumping". Nor does it involve treating women like crap. Being "manly" is about being confident, strong in character, not afraid to be "manly", a go-getter, and having pride and self respect. It's about fulfilling your obligations, as a man, to family, friends, and society. It's about having a strong sense of honor. All of which is not present in most betas I've run into, who obsess over "First World Problems", are self centered, self-absorbed, and are complete candy asses.
If people complain, over and over and over again, about your “high compliments”, what does it tell about you, alpha man?
1. horsegak. There is a difference between the oversensitive recipient and an actual creep. If I don't act creepy about it, and they still get offended because I look at them, then that's their problem. They need to learn how to deal with being among the general public, and better recognize what is not offensive and what actually is.
There is no such thing as being "too strong in character". I'm beginning to suspect that you're trolling. Or you're twelve. Which is it?
2. Of course it's "cute" to people who don't have actual values. Forgetting good, honest values is part of the problem nowadays. Of course, being responsible and upright is a joke, and cramps your style, right?
3. It tells me that you are somebody who doesn't know your ass from a hole in the ground. And that you live in your own little ideal world.
This "alpha man" knows that there are jerks out there who deserve their comeuppance. This "alpha man" also knows that a lot of complaints of that nature are bs. When I was in college, people had complaints slapped on them if they did the least little thing that was considered "politically incorrect" and "insensitive". But that's the way people roll on campuses nowadays. Too bad a lot of them never grow up after they graduate, and join the rest of the Human race.
So, spare me the bs. It's so strong, I can almost smell it through my computer screen.
I think it's more likely that the person will be considered creepy or not based on whether or not they are found attractive. If the person finds the person looking at them and saying hi unattractive, they're creepy. If they are attractive, they're not. It's a form of discrimination against ugly people from unconscious cultural bias that you refuse to examine.
...and? The definition of harassment, being creepy or whatever you want to call it is that it's unwanted attention. There are many factors that go into if attention is wanted or not but certainly the nature of the person giving the attention is one of them. Following from that we can say it's also sensible that one of the factors that goes into how you perceive someone is how attractive they are. So it's plainly obvious that yes, given all other numerous factors being exactly equal an attractive person's behaviour is less likely to fall under the category of creepy or harassment.
It's not a bad thing, or unfair, or really "discriminatory" in the way that word commonly used. It's just an inherent part of those things being defined by the perceptions, boundaries and desires of the person being acted upon. There's nothing to "Examine" unless you want to throw out very concept of harassment specifically, and the idea that certain behaviours are more or less appropriate under certain social contexts more generally.
If you creep out the people you are looking at, you are being creepy. You are just too, uh, “strong in character” to notice it .
oldravenman3025 wrote: And no, contrary to what post-modernist, neo-progressives might tell you, it doesn't involved the aforementioned "chest thumping". Nor does it involve treating women like crap. Being "manly" is about being confident, strong in character, not afraid to be "manly", a go-getter, and having pride and self respect. It's about fulfilling your obligations, as a man, to family, friends, and society. It's about having a strong sense of honor. All of which is not present in most betas I've run into, who obsess over "First World Problems", are self centered, self-absorbed, and are complete candy asses.
If people complain, over and over and over again, about your “high compliments”, what does it tell about you, alpha man?
1. horsegak. There is a difference between the oversensitive recipient and an actual creep. If I don't act creepy about it, and they still get offended because I look at them, then that's their problem. They need to learn how to deal with being among the general public, and better recognize what is not offensive and what actually is.
There is no such thing as being "too strong in character". I'm beginning to suspect that you're trolling. Or you're twelve. Which is it?
2. Of course it's "cute" to people who don't have actual values. Forgetting good, honest values is part of the problem nowadays. Of course, being responsible and upright is a joke, and cramps your style, right?
3. It tells me that you are somebody who doesn't know your ass from a hole in the ground. And that you live in your own little ideal world.
This "alpha man" knows that there are jerks out there who deserve their comeuppance. This "alpha man" also knows that a lot of complaints of that nature are bs. When I was in college, people had complaints slapped on them if they did the least little thing that was considered "politically incorrect" and "insensitive". But that's the way people roll on campuses nowadays. Too bad a lot of them never grow up after they graduate, and join the rest of the Human race.
So, spare me the bs. It's so strong, I can almost smell it through my computer screen.
I was taught that it was impolite to stare and I still believe that and teach it to our children. You can tell at a glance what somebody looks like, there really isn't a compelling need to stare. I'm not blind, I can see girls at the gym every day and see how they look in their yoga pants the moment I glance at them. However, I would never actually stare at them or look at them to the extent that they can tell that I'm looking at them, that would be rude/creepy and isn't how I would want somebody to treat any of my family or friends. If you stare at somebody then that person has a valid reason to view you as being rude/creepy regardless of the intent on your part.
If I don't act creepy about it, and they still get offended because I look at them, then that's their problem.
Out of curiosity, how many people that are creepy think they are acting creepy? I would that vast majority don't think they are being creepy, but I don't know as I am not an expert on creeps, just crepes.
If you creep out the people you are looking at, you are being creepy. You are just too, uh, “strong in character” to notice it .
oldravenman3025 wrote: And no, contrary to what post-modernist, neo-progressives might tell you, it doesn't involved the aforementioned "chest thumping". Nor does it involve treating women like crap. Being "manly" is about being confident, strong in character, not afraid to be "manly", a go-getter, and having pride and self respect. It's about fulfilling your obligations, as a man, to family, friends, and society. It's about having a strong sense of honor. All of which is not present in most betas I've run into, who obsess over "First World Problems", are self centered, self-absorbed, and are complete candy asses.
If people complain, over and over and over again, about your “high compliments”, what does it tell about you, alpha man?
1. horsegak. There is a difference between the oversensitive recipient and an actual creep. If I don't act creepy about it, and they still get offended because I look at them, then that's their problem. They need to learn how to deal with being among the general public, and better recognize what is not offensive and what actually is.
There is no such thing as being "too strong in character". I'm beginning to suspect that you're trolling. Or you're twelve. Which is it?
2. Of course it's "cute" to people who don't have actual values. Forgetting good, honest values is part of the problem nowadays. Of course, being responsible and upright is a joke, and cramps your style, right?
3. It tells me that you are somebody who doesn't know your ass from a hole in the ground. And that you live in your own little ideal world.
This "alpha man" knows that there are jerks out there who deserve their comeuppance. This "alpha man" also knows that a lot of complaints of that nature are bs. When I was in college, people had complaints slapped on them if they did the least little thing that was considered "politically incorrect" and "insensitive". But that's the way people roll on campuses nowadays. Too bad a lot of them never grow up after they graduate, and join the rest of the Human race.
So, spare me the bs. It's so strong, I can almost smell it through my computer screen.
I was taught that it was impolite to stare and I still believe that and teach it to our children. You can tell at a glance what somebody looks like, there really isn't a compelling need to stare. I'm not blind, I can see girls at the gym every day and see how they look in their yoga pants the moment I glance at them. However, I would never actually stare at them or look at them to the extent that they can tell that I'm looking at them, that would be rude/creepy and isn't how I would want somebody to treat any of my family or friends. If you stare at somebody then that person has a valid reason to view you as being rude/creepy regardless of the intent on your part.
I don't don't take issue with any other part of your post.
Well, I equate "staring" with "ogling". And yes, that is creepy and rude, I agree.
But the point is that just looking and liking what you see isn't creepy or rude.
MattofWar wrote: Good demonstration of the toxic results of your position. Now you're accusing people of racism just because they disagree with you about the role of unconscious cultural factors in what should be categorized as racism.
Whatever happened to reading comprehension? How many time will people read me writing “you are not racist” and understand “you are racist”?
Yeah, he is not racist. Just look, he provided the formal definition. His whole deal, though, was that unconscious bias are not racism, even when those bias means treating people differently because of their skin color. And yeah, that is true, he proved it with his very nice formal definition. However, it just so happens I care more about the fact that treating people differently because of their skin color is unfair and bad than about if it is or is not racism according to his very nice, very cute formal definition.
Maybe because I care more about fixing unfair stuff than about whether or not someone said I was racist. But yeah, your priorities are cool too. Not.
And how do you know that I don't care about unconscious biases? How do you know what my motivations are here?
No offense you just seem to be grasping at straws.
If I don't act creepy about it, and they still get offended because I look at them, then that's their problem.
Out of curiosity, how many people that are creepy think they are acting creepy? I would that vast majority don't think they are being creepy, but I don't know as I am not an expert on creeps, just crepes.
Oh they so don't. Like my uncle. This is an actual exchange
Girl Behind Counter: Hi Can I take your order.
Me: I'll take the chicken combo with Mac & Cheese
My Uncle: Oh I dunno yet. That's a nice necklace you've got there
GBC: Thanks My Uncle: Did your boyfriend buy it for you. GBC: No my mom did...
My Uncle: Single, eh GBC: So what do you want to eat
My Uncle: I guess I'll get a chicken sandwhich.
GBC: Ok your number is 339.
My Uncle: Thanks cutie. Me: Oh come on, you were being a bit of a creeper there. You made her totally uncomfortable. My Uncle: No I was just being friendly.
I have two points to make one in LARP there is a large number of women in it almost even to men why is that different from the rest of geek culture. My hypothesis is LARPing is more so about interacting with others and playing a part.
My other point is as far as the "creep" label is used a big part of it is dose the woman who's the target find the man attractive. A short fat balding man dressed poorly will be labeled a creep for as little as a quick look yet a tall built man dressed in a suit can give a woman the death stare and have her respond with a smile.
...and? The definition of harassment, being creepy or whatever you want to call it is that it's unwanted attention.
My post there was largely a joke (though there is some truth in it). Since you replied seriously to it, I will be serious as well.
You're missing a key word from your definition of harassment. Continued. Harassment is continued unwanted attention. It is not incumbent on anyone to be able to read anyone else's mind to find out if their initial attention is unwanted. Unwanted is not enough, it has to be continued unwanted attention.
Also, it is not "harassment, being creepy or whatever." Harassment is a real thing with real legal and psychological ramifications. Being creepy is someone's opinion of another person and nothing more.
We have a huge list of rights in public spaces and a huge list of expectations that don't exist in public spaces. We should not take away a person's right to look at another or talk to another just because of a perceived shortfall in their physical appearance (the ones most likely to be targeted/bullied with labels of being creepy).
Oldmike wrote: My other point is as far as the "creep" label is used a big part of it is dose the woman who's the target find the man attractive. A short fat balding man dressed poorly will be labeled a creep for as little as a quick look yet a tall built man dressed in a suit can give a woman the death stare and have her respond with a smile.
50 shades would be an episode of criminal minds if the guy made minimum wage and lived in a trailer...
50 shades would be a criminal matter if you tried that in real life and the woman complained, regardless of social standing. Mr. Rich Guy can just afford a better lawyer....
?
.
.
.
