No it doesn't, not in any way whatsoever. Games are about telling interesting interactive stories and allowing the player to have fun with them. Historical accuracy is really low on the list of things that are necessary for a game to be fun. Pretty much the bottom of the list really.
Chivalry has no atmosphere with or without female characters . It's a gakky game anyway.
Yes, it does. From the slave pits of the Order to the slaughter of peasants. It is about the grittiness of medieval combat. It ruins historical accuracy and that means a lot to me in those games for atmosphere.
TedNugent wrote: "There are no girls on the internet" was a tongue-in-cheek ironic joke.
No, it was not. Denying that it was used as an excuse to abuse women does not make you correct.
You attempt to dismiss the issue by saying "stop taking it so seriously" only because you have no goddamned clue what the hell is going on. "Oh they're just joking" which is why they viciously attack for hours on end, making up lies and throwing every insult they can at you-- and do this non-stop for almost a fething decade.
If this is your idea of a "joke", then you are a very, VERY sick individual.
I still live by the "there are no women on the internet" . I assume everyone is male and therefore treat everyone the same. I don't fawn over people , act superior to people or dismiss people based on whatever gender they decide to advertise on the net.
It's a good system.
TedNugent wrote: So what battles did women participate in historically?
Most medieval wars, most wars prior to medieval times, both of the world wars, most of the wars after WWII.
Basically, just about every single war in human history had women participating as combatants. During the "War of the Roses", for example, there have been well-preserved historical records showing that women were part of the basic infantry, sometimes bringing their own weapons and other times coming with nothing and being provided weapons. Women participated in battle in both world wars, but it's especially noticeable in WWII where entire regiments of women participated in the Russian army, including famous sharpshooters and pilots, as well as women participating in the various resistance movements There were fighters amongst the Viet Cong and North Koreans, who were female as well, and women have been involved in combat (despite the supposed lack of "combat roles", the reality on the ground is that female soldiers have participated in combat) in every single major war the US has been involved in since the first invasion of Iraq-- and by now most modern military forces don't distinguish on gender, but rather on ability (which leads many to ask for highly talented female specialists as well as grunt soldiers). There have been numerous female leaders of armies, as well as noble warriors such as knights and samurai, as well, including leaders of entire nations that led their armies to war.
I'd actually ask you to bug Lynata about it more than me, however. I'm not a history buff. I find history to be boring unless it can be subverted and changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TedNugent wrote: You can have your Call of Doodies and your Mario Karts
What makes you think I play either?
It still accounts for only small amount of participants in the battle. I already covered if it was for a specific group or individual. If it is story driven, I am fine with it but if it is a common mechanic, it becomes a problem. A degree of realism is important in a medieval game to fully appreciate it.
No it doesn't. If more people want to play the female characters, let them. It's not an issue. Player choice is more important than a fake and half-assed dedication to "realism".
rockerbikie wrote: A degree of realism is important in a medieval game to fully appreciate it.
No it's not. Hell, fake realism like that which you supports usually just gets in the way of enjoyment.
It's a bizarre day when people continually argue that being historically accurate ruins historical accuracy.
It's percentage of participants that were female. We have issues with hit boxes, due to females being smaller, also females did not recieve military education most of the time in medieval Europe. If they were introduced in Medieval games like Chivarly, would their attacks feel awkward?
No it doesn't. If more people want to play the female characters, let them. It's not an issue. Player choice is more important than a fake and half-assed dedication to "realism".
rockerbikie wrote: A degree of realism is important in a medieval game to fully appreciate it.
No it's not. Hell, fake realism like that which you supports usually just gets in the way of enjoyment.
There are games like Tomb Raider, Metroid and Portal for that. I see it as ruining the atmosphere. It's the same reason GW won't let female marines in game. Realism and dedication to semi-realistic game is better than a gender choice. It's the core mechanics and the games atmosphere that is the problem.
Nothing more than a fake and unnecessary excuse. Men vary wildly in height, yet all the men are the same size in these games. There's no reason that they can't do the same for female characters.
rockerbikie wrote: also females did not recieve military education most of the time in medieval Europe.
Not relevant. Most soldiers didn't.
rockerbikie wrote: If they were introduced in Medieval games like Chivarly, would their attacks feel awkward?
Yes, but that's misleading. The attacks of male characters in Chivalry are also awkward.
I don't agree. Or care, really, given your inherently contradictory belief systems.
rockerbikie wrote: It's the same reason GW won't let female marines in game.
Don't. No. Do not open that can of worms. GW doesn't give a gak about realism.
rockerbikie wrote: Realism and dedication to semi-realistic game is better than a gender choice.
You're contradicting yourself here. Not that I believe for a second that you actually give a damn about realism anyway, but at least make a fething stand one way or the other.
Nothing more than a fake and unnecessary excuse. Men vary wildly in height, yet all the men are the same size in these games. There's no reason that they can't do the same for female characters.
rockerbikie wrote: also females did not recieve military education most of the time in medieval Europe.
Not relevant. Most soldiers didn't.
rockerbikie wrote: If they were introduced in Medieval games like Chivarly, would their attacks feel awkward?
Yes, but that's misleading. The attacks of male characters in Chivalry are also awkward.
I don't agree. Or care, really, given your inherently contradictory belief systems.
rockerbikie wrote: It's the same reason GW won't let female marines in game.
Don't. No. Do not open that can of worms. GW doesn't give a gak about realism.
rockerbikie wrote: Realism and dedication to semi-realistic game is better than a gender choice.
You're contradicting yourself here. Not that I believe for a second that you actually give a damn about realism anyway, but at least make a fething stand one way or the other.
Not really. I find the attacks satisfying. View it as a medieval tf 2. Also, in Chivarly there is no blacks. It is not racist. When I play FF X-2 there were no guys but I did not whinge.
So the historical inaccuracy of having disproportionately many female warriors is not okay, but the historical inaccuracy of there being no female warriors is okay?
If they want to have female warriors, go ahead, go nuts. I'm not about to make a snot nosed crowdfunded critique of it on Youtube.
The entire purpose of videogames is fantasy or wish fulfillment, roleplaying or just plain entertainment. I don't begrudge people wanting to fulfill their fantasies and to that extent I don't particularly fething care if someone wants to have an ample chested breastplate and a sword. I'm not going to roll in bed at night in agony. I don't know about the rest of you, though.
"Historical accuracy" in videogames. "Atmosphere."
Keep in mind that Agatha and the Mason Order are fictional factions with (on purpose) absolutely no basis in history or otherwise on the present reality, geographically or temporally. They are made up nations having made up battles.
Well, there's nothing to be concerned about on the basis that it's again, a fictional conflict.
But by comparison, I don't know why you would care that there are no women in the game. I also don't know why anyone would care if there were women in the game.
Again, the purpose of a game is functionally wish fulfillment/roleplaying/entertainment. I could see someone being annoyed if it wasn't fulfilling one of those goals by means of its not having their particular wish fulfillment fantasy being featured, but that is utter petulance. It's not your decision what a crowdfunded game, or a game financed with multiple tens of millions of dollars should have in it unless there is some compelling economic justification for that. I can't have my every arbitrary personal whim obeyed by the myriad industries of the world, that's why I have to listen to godawful music on the radio punctuated by obnoxious blathering and annoying advertisements. That's why television sucks. The market is governed by LCD (lowest common denominator). Get used to it. If you're not the average level IQ bro, chances are you're going to be unhappy in this world.
Find some like-minded people and craft a niche.
Edit, on that salient point,
Both Chivalry -and- the feminist critique of the "Damsel in distress trope" were crowdfunded thru Kickstarter. In which case I would say, if you have a problem with Chiv not having female character models, how about you take some of the cash that successfully crowdfunded that video and put it towards a female Chivalry with an all-you-can-eat Joan of Arc buffet of diversity-rich medieval combat?
TedNugent wrote: It's not your decision what a crowdfunded game, or a game financed with multiple tens of millions of dollars should have in it unless there is some compelling economic justification for that.
There is, most notably, the quickly growing market of female gamers.
But, given the industry's history, that will not be enough to actually make the industry take action.
The "free market", insomuch as it actually exists (it doesn't, but let's roll with it anyway for the sake of the discussion) fails all the time. It oversaturates and undersaturates markets all the time. It fails to take advantage of emerging markets and fails to notice when markets are shrinking. Insofar as it is a thing at all, it is inherently flawed and frequently doesn't work.
I mean hell, just look at our current economic situation.
Then write your wonderful, attentive, and beautiful Congressmen and explain to them in all the flowery detail you can muster the dire seriousness of this matter and the need for serious legislative action on the matter of tropes in videogames that are unsatisfying to women.
I am sure they will send you an immediate, tailored, and positive response indicating their sincere commitment to this important matter right before they get back to shoveling another bucketload of taxpayer dollars into a suitcase.
AN ADDENDUM:
The "free market" as you describe it, if it exists, should, in accordance with capitalist theory, eventually respond to the demands of this "growing female market" to which you allude. I've just indicated to you a powerful tool at your disposal for that purpose: Kickstarter, the same vehicle that successfully crowdfunded the feminist critique of the "Damsel in Distress trope" video.
But of course, the "free market" does not exist, at least not in the developed world, where public funding and infrastructure has been crucial to the development of private enterprise in virtually every sector of the economy. In fact, government intervention into the economy is rampant, and is typically imposed in order to insulate the economy from the effects of market dynamics rather than to emphasize critical areas of growth and development that need immediate attention, such as education, roads, scientific research, etcetera. They are dumping boatloads of cash, pulling out wads of dollars hand-over-fist to ensure that thieves and robber barons govern this great economic system. If they can create monopolies, they do it. If they can merge gigantic businesses together, they do it. If they can wipe clean balance sheets and sanction criminal fraud and theft, they do it.
TedNugent wrote: If they want to have female warriors, go ahead, go nuts. I'm not about to make a snot nosed crowdfunded critique of it on Youtube.
The entire purpose of videogames is fantasy or wish fulfillment, roleplaying or just plain entertainment. I don't begrudge people wanting to fulfill their fantasies and to that extent I don't particularly fething care if someone wants to have an ample chested breastplate and a sword. I'm not going to roll in bed at night in agony. I don't know about the rest of you, though.
"Historical accuracy" in videogames. "Atmosphere."
Keep in mind that Agatha and the Mason Order are fictional factions with (on purpose) absolutely no basis in history or otherwise on the present reality, geographically or temporally. They are made up nations having made up battles.
They are suppose to accurately be a depictation of medieval society. Also, don't take this the wrong way but what parts would fly off from the female body if they were present in chivarly?
rockerbikie wrote: When I play FF X-2 there were no guys but I did not whinge.
You attempt to use FFX-2 as a counter-example?
The thing is be mature about it. I won't be able to play male every game as you can't play female every game. You can't honestly expect a female option for every game.
rockerbikie wrote: The thing is be mature about it. I won't be able to play male every game as you can't play female every game. You can't honestly expect a female option for every game.
FFX-2 was nothing more than Japanese Fanservice: The Game, complete with lesbian bath parties and massages. Seriously, don't try to use that as a counter-example.
Also? I'm not asking every game to have a female option. Hell, I'd settle for 60:40 given the propensity for male writers to write male characters. Currently we don't even break 90:10.
The only parts you can sever in Chiv are: the lower leg at the knee, the arm at the shoulder joint, and the head at the neck.
I know, I've done it nearly every opportunity. I try as much as I can to turn my opponent into a "Black Knight," Monty Python style.
Also, Medieval combat is supposed to be, as referenced from their design goal, the best multiplayer melee combat game. It is heavily influenced by medieval combat, weapons, techniques, and equipment, as well as warfare tactics, but it is in no way an accurate depiction of any actual historical event, people, culture, nation, etcetera.
It is basically the most generic medieval fiction universe they could come up with.
rockerbikie wrote: The thing is be mature about it. I won't be able to play male every game as you can't play female every game. You can't honestly expect a female option for every game.
FFX-2 was nothing more than Japanese Fanservice: The Game, complete with lesbian bath parties and massages. Seriously, don't try to use that as a counter-example.
Also? I'm not asking every game to have a female option. Hell, I'd settle for 60:40 given the propensity for male writers to write male characters. Currently we don't even break 90:10.
Yeah, still games such as Metroid and Tomb Raider take fem leads. There are some things in life that are unfair, I struggle to find a decent straight up romance book with a male lead. A majority of romance books have female leads but I am softie sometimes so I like romances. I wish proportions could be meet in gender but it isn't, given the current majority of game designers being men.
rockerbikie wrote: Yeah, still games such as Metroid and Tomb Raider take fem leads.
The only two you can actually name, I see.
So you admit that your position is wrong and that there needs to be a change in the industry.
There needs to be a change that appeals to female demographics, like there are books movies etc. appealing to men, there should be some appealing just to women. There are just some games I would not enjoy seeing a fem character in like TF2 or Chivarly.
rockerbikie wrote: It if it was there would be random spawning of female character. A smalll chance. Not a choice.
No, that would be stupid, just like removing female characters entirely is also incredibly stupid.
No it is not.
That requires them to build, on a shoestring budget no less, 8 additional character models with suitable animations, wire frames, and hitboxes. It is not a matter of "decision" and the instant generation of content, in which case it might very well be in the game. It is a matter of decision plus implementation.
rockerbikie wrote: There has been no battle with a 50/50 split of male/females in a battlefield, not even close.
You say that like it matters. Or like I should care even.
Make up your mind. Are you for your skewed idea of historical accuracy or not? Some people enjoy the idea of realism. Your comment is a previous thread saying that you want a "custom" faction in a historical game prooves you have no caring of realism of any kind in the video game industry.
rockerbikie wrote: It if it was there would be random spawning of female character. A smalll chance. Not a choice.
No, that would be stupid, just like removing female characters entirely is also incredibly stupid.
No it is not.
That requires them to build, on a shoestring budget no less, 8 additional character models with suitable animations, wire frames, and hitboxes. It is not a matter of "decision" and the instant generation of content, in which case it might very well be in the game. It is a matter of decision plus implementation.
rockerbikie wrote: There has been no battle with a 50/50 split of male/females in a battlefield, not even close.
You say that like it matters. Or like I should care even.
Make up your mind. Are you for your skewed idea of historical accuracy or not?
I have said from the beginning that I don't give a damn about historical accuracy.
But then again, neither do you, you just like acting like you do.
Actually, I do. If you knew me, I nitpick historical movies, I play paradox games because they are historically accurate. There was a tiny amount of females soldiers throughout history to modern day but you just glance over it and provide very small exceptions.
No, you don't. You only care for your skewed, distorted interpretation of history, as evidenced by this thread.
If a truly realistic game came around you'd be gaking your pants in rage over how "unrealistic" it is.
No. Just no. There is a time in someone's argument that is so stupid, it is pointless arguing back. If you read other books other than females in history, you would understand females are less than 10% of combatants.
We are talking about games here, if there arent enough female characters about who aren't bad stereotypes , play a male one and find out how many of them are bad bruce willis knockoffs.
I like using female characters in games, always have, always will, but there is no way I'm demanding an industry change because it doesn't meet my specific specifications. It would be better not to read socio-political crap into everything.
We are talking about games here, if there arent enough female characters about who aren't bad stereotypes , play a male one and find out how many of them are bad bruce willis knockoffs.
I like using female characters in games, always have, always will, but there is no way I'm demanding an industry change because it doesn't meet my specific specifications. It would be better not to read socio-political crap into everything.
It is because she believes by fixing one side of equality, the other side will just magically disappear
We are talking about games here, if there arent enough female characters about who aren't bad stereotypes , play a male one and find out how many of them are bad bruce willis knockoffs.
I like using female characters in games, always have, always will, but there is no way I'm demanding an industry change because it doesn't meet my specific specifications. It would be better not to read socio-political crap into everything.
Specific? As specific as including 51% of the population of the planet? Call me crazy if you want but that doesn't seem highly specific to me.
... at least not as specific as including 49% of that population to the exclusion of the rest, and I'm pretty sure that if every character in these games was a woman then you'd be asking where the dudes were.
Hive fleet , I'm saying she is expecting the industry to change to HER specifications.
As i said i like using female characters in games, i wouldn't mind more. Personally if there were no guys in games i wouldn't give a crap. From this viewpoint I'm wondering why we need 51% inclusion of sprites/polygons , the gender of them doesn't mean much to me , I'm focussing on the character, not what gender they are.
You want to focus on the gender first, go ahead. I think people get way to involved in this "gender war" bs.
We don't get too involved in it, it gets too involved in us. Part of what's cool about being in a privileged group is you get to pretend this stuff doesn't exist when you don't want it to, and do nonsense like call it "gender war bs" and "socio-political crap". We don't, because it follows us wherever we go within our culture, whether that's down the street or into the digital world of a game. Meanwhile, you get luxuries like being able to take for granted seeing people like you everywhere, being told that they are the best, that you are the best, that you can do anything, be anything, while we're getting reminded of this cultural baggage at every turn, even when we fire up a video game for some fun and relaxation.
Part of privilege is being able to pretend these things aren't real, because for you they don't have to be. Unfortunately, that isn't true for everyone.
Meh. Unless you have a strong narrative built up around an individual - such as games like the Witcher, Halo, Beyond Good and Evil or Tomb Raider, there really ought to be a choice on protagonist genders. The arguments against are kind of silly. I very rarely play female characters in RPGs, because it's harder to get my head around the character i'm trying to be. I can understand that from the other end. On the other hand, if it really is an issue of funding - like an indie game that can only produce a set number of models on their budget, I can understand that too.
But jesus Mel, if you are getting treated that poorly, why keep putting yourself in a toxic environment like that? Admittedly, the only games I really care enough about to hook up the old headphones and interact with people on are MMOs, and I've never seen crap like that in any of the ones I play. I presume there's something of a stan(d) your ground kind of thing, but still. I mean, I had a guy try to break a bottle over my head at a certain bar in germany once. So I left, and didn't go back.
Isn't that just another way of saying, "gaming is a boys club, so get out?"
I'm actually a bit stunned at some of the more recent opinions on this thread.
I would like to recommend "Mount & Blade: Warband" as that tries to strike a balance between playing as female characters and historical accuracy. - They actually do describe playing as a female is 'hard mode' but entirely possible.
If you want more female characters in video game games, or rather want anything specific in video games, be vocal.
Does anyone hear a huge uproar among gamers about a lack of female characters? I certainly don't and that's why nobody gives a damn. And rightfully so. It's a free market and if only very few people complain about the lack of female leads, nobodoy will care. The paying majority dictates what's on the market and what's not, nobody cares for any minorites with special wishes.
In regard to medieval-ish settings, it's just logical that men take the lead most of the time. In regards to phyisical strength, men are superior to women by nature. Period. Men are designed for physical activities - on average, of course. More muscle mass, higher reaction to adrenaline, more brut-ish set of mind etc.
And with games, the market just follows the leading culture in regards to literature etc. and, of course, history where most "heroes" were male. Don't go Joanne d' Arc on me, one example isn't enough to balance the vast majority of male examples out (plus she pussied out in the end as well and surrendered to her enemies).
The main reason why I, e.g. play female characters in WoW is because I got to look at a character for the entire time - and I prefer to look at a women than a man for purely asthetic reasons (and really, male pandas are just fat -_-). Vice versa for my gf, playing a male human.
Fun fact: 82% of ME players played male Shepherd. What does that tell to us? That 82% of all players played the male version using the male voice actor and at the same time, the entire voice acting done for female Shepherd was only effective for 18% of the community. Money well spent!
rockerbikie wrote: It is because she believes by fixing one side of equality, the other side will just magically disappear
I'm just going to quote what I posted earlier to contradict your blatantly ignorant and dismissive statement:
Melissia wrote: [...] I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).
A lot of people on this forum seem to have a large number of misconceptions about the movement, causing them to bring up things like "but men are affected too!", which is not only entirely missing the point but also little more than a distraction from the issue at hand. While I know that the term "patriarchy" will probably cause some eye-rolls from those with the most derision from the movement, I still feel the need to say it-- through deconstructing the patriarchy and making men and women treated more equal in all facets of media, life in general will become better for both genders.
Not that I expect you to give a damn about that when you can instead just say "she's a crazy feminist so let's just ignore her and attack a strawman instead".
And then people wonder why I often sound angry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: But jesus Mel, if you are getting treated that poorly, why keep putting yourself in a toxic environment like that?
Normally if I feel like I really don't want to deal with this crap, I use a gender-neutral or masculine name. I get treated much better when I masquerade as a man. So long as I don't use my mic anyway.
rockerbikie wrote: It is because she believes by fixing one side of equality, the other side will just magically disappear
I'm just going to quote what I posted earlier to contradict your blatantly ignorant and dismissive statement:
Melissia wrote: [...]
I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).
A lot of people on this forum seem to have a large number of misconceptions about the movement, causing them to bring up things like "but men are affected too!", which is not only entirely missing the point but also little more than a distraction from the issue at hand. While I know that the term "patriarchy" will probably cause some eye-rolls from those with the most derision from the movement, I still feel the need to say it-- through deconstructing the patriarchy and making men and women treated more equal in all facets of media, life in general will become better for both genders.
Not that I expect you to give a damn about that when you can instead just say "she's a crazy feminist so let's just ignore her and attack a strawman instead".
And then people wonder why I often sound angry.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: But jesus Mel, if you are getting treated that poorly, why keep putting yourself in a toxic environment like that?
Normally if I feel like I really don't want to deal with this crap, I use a gender-neutral or masculine name. I get treated much better when I masquerade as a man. So long as I don't use my mic anyway.
People such as Amazingatheist have made arguments against the feminist community with stats and a majority of feminists ignore it. You are not indicative of a majority of feminists. The Patriachy does not exist, it did 50 years ago. Men don't go sitting in chairs laughing manically thinking of new ways to subjugate females. Maybe universalist would be a better term than feminist.
Melissia wrote: ... which is the conclusion one comes to when one takes the data at face value instead of looking at the reason why the data is the way it is. If one sees that a movie has gone bad and sees a black lead in it, then assumes that all black leads will give poor returns on all movies in the future, it'd be a pretty stupid assumption, too-- and an assumption likely motivated by latent racism.
Both the historical and modern reasons for the disparity are fairly obvious, and I described them earlier.
Also, for the record, marketing that only gives you a dollar or less in return for every dollar spent is a very poor investment to begin with. Marketing is expected to return far more than that.
Yes, I'm aware that $1 spent in marketing should bring in more than $1 in return but I don't feel like turning this thread into MathHammer.
So looking at a financial statement and seeing that product X didn't sell as well = racism? Your argument is reaching the point of absurdity.
They don't just look at one product. They look at a number of them. They look at averages. They look at historical data and future predictions. When the facts on the ground support it, when a viable market is there the situation will change. Cultural attitudes etc. do not play as big a role as you would like to imagine in budgeting. Especially at a senior management level were all they are about is the projected $ return and whether they meet or exceed that.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: We don't get too involved in it, it gets too involved in us. Part of what's cool about being in a privileged group is you get to pretend this stuff doesn't exist when you don't want it to, and do nonsense like call it "gender war bs" and "socio-political crap". We don't, because it follows us wherever we go within our culture, whether that's down the street or into the digital world of a game. Meanwhile, you get luxuries like being able to take for granted seeing people like you everywhere, being told that they are the best, that you are the best, that you can do anything, be anything, while we're getting reminded of this cultural baggage at every turn, even when we fire up a video game for some fun and relaxation.
Part of privilege is being able to pretend these things aren't real, because for you they don't have to be. Unfortunately, that isn't true for everyone.
Your references to the benefits of being "mainstream patriarchal" are illuminating but patentedly untrue. Those types of things are given by your parents not through some kind of racial/gender factor.For the record my dad always told me what i couldn't do because he's a very cautious "look at it from all angles" guy , but his opinion does not have to form the basis for my outlook.
I don't understand the benefit of seeing people like me everywhere.
You do realise it is YOU who is dragging around all this baggage?
I could sit round blaming my life on genetics, but i don't, it's up to me to do what i want , not to blame someone else.
I think you have a very large chip on your shoulder and dropping it would be beneficial.'
For the record, i am into equal rights and anti discrimination, i just think it is counter productive to focus on the past all the time. I really hope that we sort out the final kinks very soon.
Equal rights should mean that, equal rights, equal pay, and no special bonuses for anyone (well ,except maybe free education for aborigines but that's a little different).
I was raise in a house with 2 rather strident feminists and i find all this blaming others to be very unlike the attitudes of my mother and sister in my formative years. They were very much "do it yourself" people and your post strikes me as "waiting for someone to fix it for you". I've worked with several women who were district managers for large supermarket chains in the 70's , and i think if they can do it in the 70s well surely people can do it now.
I actually prefer having people around me who aren't from the same socio-economic/racial background , I find them more engaging/interesting. My sister went to an international school, so from a very young age i was surrounded by japanese people. I don't see anything particularly great about anglo-australian society and particularly value the different viewpoints/food that other backgrounds bring. I make an effort in talking to people that whenever they bring up some racial bs i make an effort to try and show them a different viewpoint (but not Queenslanders most of them are beyond convincing ).
I particularly dislike this whole aNti-muslim thing atm , after reading half the koran (i'd like to read the whole thing in arabic one day) and several history books on the foundation and development of Islam, i find this "whole fear of different people" thing is founded on nothing but fear and as such is worthless. My boss is Islamic and quite frankly is the most moral person i have ever met, and he inspires me to be a better person.
Sigvatr wrote: If you want more female characters in video game games, or rather want anything specific in video games, be vocal.
So that you can be abused, reviled, shut down, attacked, insulted, and silenced. Then we can ask this question:
Sigvatr wrote: Does anyone hear a huge uproar among gamers about a lack of female characters?
And smugly retort, "I didn't think so."
Quite a system, that.
It's a fun trick. The other nice thing is that only one side of the discussion really has any skin in the game. It's a deeply personal matter (which makes it all the more absurd when people accuse one of "bringing politics where it doesn't belong") and by discussing it at all you open yourself up to be hurt.
Bullockist wrote: Your references to the benefits of being "mainstream patriarchal" are illuminating but patentedly untrue. Those types of things are given by your parents not through some kind of racial/gender factor.
Maybe it's unfair of me to cut your post down to this and quote myself, but hey:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Part of privilege is being able to pretend these things aren't real, because for you they don't have to be.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Because the civil rights movements across the world got results by being silent?
I'm not advocating silence. I'm explaining what happens when female gamers -- and even male gamers making similar points -- actually speak up about these issues. Sigvatr's post is another example of prejudice-reinforcing self-fulfilling prophecies. The assumption is that if there was a real need for change, that need would be widely vocalized. First off, there is an increasingly vocal acceptance that gender is an issue in video games. Second, it is met with massive hostility -- a pervasive attempt to dismiss it, shut it down, silence it, stamp it out. And that hostility isn't new. It's not that this is only now an issue. It's that the scales are starting to tip just a little in the big picture sense, probably thanks in large part to the internet, so that the existing hostility is no longer enough to silence people on this issue such that we can pretend it doesn't really exist.
Manchu wrote: I'm not advocating silence. I'm explaining what happens when female gamers -- and even male gamers making similar points -- actually speak up about these issues.
So people demanding change shouldn't be silent, but they also shouldn't be vocal in case of abuse?
Manchu wrote: Sigvatr's post is another example of prejudice-reinforcing self-fulfilling prophecies. The assumption is that if there was a real need for change, that need would be widely vocalized. First off, there is an increasingly vocal acceptance that gender is an issue in video games.
I'm sorry but this reads too much like another contradiction. You critiscise one post for saying that if there was a need for change that it would be voiced, and in the next sentence you say that it is being voiced.
Manchu wrote: Second, it is met with massive hostility -- a pervasive attempt to dismiss it, shut it down, silence it, stamp it out. And that hostility isn't new. It's not that this is only now an issue. It's that the scales are starting to tip just a little in the big picture sense, probably thanks in large part to the internet, so that the existing hostility is no longer enough to silence people on this issue such that we can pretend it doesn't really exist.
Yeah, wide spread hostility to the videos at the start of the thread from 4chan (the Internet Hate Machine) and other trolls who revel in getting a reaction for reaction's sake. Somewhat different to actual physical violence that was carried out during the civil rights era.
A pervasive attempt to silence and dismiss it, or people seeking other rational explanations other than "The Patriarchy did it"?
Also I'd like to note the "pervasive attempt" by Ms. Sarkeesian to shut down and silence debate on the issue herself by attempting to silence other perspectives on this issue herself
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So people demanding change shouldn't be silent, but they also shouldn't be vocal in case of abuse?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: You critiscise one post for saying that if there was a need for change that it would be voiced, and in the next sentence you say that it is being voiced.
Wow. Just wow. Is anyone else having this amount of trouble reading my posts? Okay, it's simple: A standard response to someone bringing up gender in video games is that it isn't really an issue at all. They say if it was an issue, you'd hear about it. This whole line of thought is ridiculous because the person making the argument is presently hearing about the issue they claim they never hear about. It's a shill tactic. It's meant to shut people up and at the same time turn shutting them up into evidence that they should have never spoken up in the first place.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Also I'd like to note the "pervasive attempt" by Ms. Sarkeesian to shut down and silence debate on the issue herself by attempting to silence other perspectives on this issue herself
You get another "wow" for that one. Turning off comments is not shutting down debate -- it's just moving it. There is a difference between telling someone "you cannot discuss that here" and "you are a stupid ugly slut and you should be raped for making this vid."
All in all, you don't seem to understand even the most basic dimensions of this discussion.
Manchu wrote: Wow. Just wow. Is anyone else having this amount of trouble reading my posts?...
You get another "wow" for that one...
All in all, you don't seem to understand even the most basic dimensions of this discussion.
I know better than to respond in kind, especially to a moderator. If your attitude is to condescend and patronise then I don't see any reason to respond to you further.
How could you respond in kind considering the amount of bad faith you have shown ITT? You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not actually read (or at least understand) the posts that you are responding to or even the stuff you yourself post.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I know better than to respond in kind, especially to a moderator. If your attitude is to condescend and patronise then I don't see any reason to respond to you further.
In the interests of keeping this civil, polite and not dragging the thread off topic you know where my PM button is
There's no need for a PM because this is on-topic. I posted a critique of the argument that gender is not an issue in video games and you twisted that into advocacy of people who think it's an issue remaining silent.
The reactionary response wants to get under and behind the points rather than respond to them. People would prefer the arguments didn't exist in the first place; crafting counterarguments, after all, acknowledges the existence of arguments. HiveFleetPlastic pointed out something very, very important along these lines earlier:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Part of what's cool about being in a privileged group is you get to pretend this stuff doesn't exist when you don't want it to
That might be the central power of privilege: to arbitrarily phase in and out of "existence" (for the purposes of discussion) certain realities.
To be fair, the central power of privilege also brings about it with being blamed for everything, and how certain groups seem to think that those in power cannot be discriminated against.
Being blamed for anything by marginalized, disempowered people amounts to nothing but a faint noise that is easily ignored. It cannot be ignored to the extent that said people become less marginalized and disempowered.
Manchu wrote: Being blamed for anything by marginalized, disempowered people amounts to nothing but a faint noise that is easily ignored. It cannot be ignored to the extent that said people become less marginalized and disempowered.
Can you repeat that in some different words?
I think I understand what you're saying, but for some reason I might be reading it wrong, and I want to make sure before I comment on it.
rockerbikie wrote: People such as Amazingatheist have made arguments against the feminist community with stats and a majority of feminists ignore it.
People like you have long since made gak up to try to demonize the feminist movement.
But that doesn't make your made-up gak suddenly stop being becoming nothing more than blatant lies.
And yes, I do mean the term "lie" here. You have been given numerous examples of feminists who argue that double standards hurt men as well. You have been given numerous examples of feminist ideals that would benefit men. But no, you ignore them-- and say "feminists are eeeeevil" because your entire argument can't stand on its own without that strawman to support it.
Hell it was the feminist movement that said "men don't always have to pay for dinner on a date; the woman can pay for it if she's better off, or hell, you can split it!". The feminist movement has also been among the bigger supporters of men getting paternal leave as well. Getting rid of double standards that devalue people because of their gender is the defining goal of the feminist movement. Where feminists vary, usually, is on how to enact said goal, and where to focus limited resources first.
Manchu wrote: How could you respond in kind considering the amount of bad faith you have shown ITT? You have repeatedly demonstrated that you do not actually read (or at least understand) the posts that you are responding to or even the stuff you yourself post.
This is the second time you've made this claim ITT.
I'm really just reading along at this point to enjoy the thread, but you're pretty quick to equate a genuine ( at least in my case and perceived by me from dreadclaw) disagreement with "bad faith" and whatnot.
Manchu wrote: Being blamed for anything by marginalized, disempowered people amounts to nothing but a faint noise that is easily ignored. It cannot be ignored to the extent that said people become less marginalized and disempowered.
Can you repeat that in some different words?
The complaints of the powerless cannot hurt the powerful.
Manchu wrote: Being blamed for anything by marginalized, disempowered people amounts to nothing but a faint noise that is easily ignored. It cannot be ignored to the extent that said people become less marginalized and disempowered.
Can you repeat that in some different words?
The complaints of the powerless cannot hurt the powerful.
Monster Rain wrote: you're pretty quick to equate a genuine ( at least in my case and perceived by me from dreadclaw) disagreement with "bad faith" and whatnot.
The instant case is not of disagreement but of misrepresentation. I explained how the "be vocal" argument really works. Dreadclaw accused me of inconsistently advocating people speak up and remain silent. His misrepresentation became bad faith when he re-asserted it after I clarified.
Manchu wrote: The complaints of the powerless cannot hurt the powerful.
It can actually
What you are describing is the powerless becoming more powerful.
So why can't the powerless become more powerful here?
Women can learn to program and make games, can they not? Sure, there are fewer of them then men in the industry, but that can not, should not, and would not prevent them from grouping up and making strong women characters.
Again, there are plenty of strong female characters in games ( I listed several of them last page).
^ Woah, I thought Remember Me was a more adventureish type game, similar to Heavy Rain or something boring. Seeing gameplay of that, might haveto keep a closer eye on it.
I like how he makes it clear that the most important thing isn't finding out who to blame but just acknowledging there's something wrong in the first place.
Slarg232 wrote: So why can't the powerless become more powerful here?
They can and are. That's why we're having this discussion. And that's why we're seeing the "be vocal" argument. It's a really desperate argument.
Agreed, the industry really does need a change. That Jimquisition vid is really only part of the problem. I can really only think of one game where there was a black protagonist (Outland on XBLA).
That's a topic for another thread, but it certainly is a problem. Something like 90+ percent of game and non-"chick flick" movie protagonists are white anglo-saxon protestant males, and the ones that aren't get less and less marketing funding the further they deviate from this norm. And even in "chick flicks", most of the girls are white anglo-saxon protestant females anyway. There's a huge problem with Hollywood's weird idea of "beauty", leading them to only promote women that look eerily similar to each other.
Fair enough, so I'll generalize the question a bit more;
What makes a "Strong Character, Female" (Which I'm going to assume is someone like Hammer from Fable II) over "Strong Female, Character", which is something like Samus (Pre-Other M, because let's face it, that was the biggest disgrace to a gaming icon since the Zelda Cartoon) or Kameo.
Well, for the sake of Samus, she wasn't really given much of a character before Other M (thank god, apparently). But I would believe part of her "strong" qualities come from that. No real special depth went into investigating her status as a woman, she just was.
I don't consider her a great example, simply because she doesn't really have any characterization. But I can see why people think of her as a decent one.
I think one character worth discussing concerning strong female characters would be The Boss from MGS3. Easily one of the best characters, let alone female characters, that I have seen in a videogame. She's distinctly feminine, but not in a way that is patronizing or subversive to her character. It's just an aspect of her identity, but not the aspect.
A female character who is well-rounded and interesting, instead of a flat, one-dimensional character intended for little more than fanservice.
Think about Oracle from the DC universe-- while sure she's a badass, she has a level of depth and personality, including both flaws and positive sides, that allows her to be interesting as a character, making people want to read about her, specifically, and what she is doing. Gail Simone's Birds of Prey series was quite good at giving all characters, male or female, a good level of depth.
This merely indicates that the female character is a badass. The two are neither mutually inclusive nor exclusive. But yes, Samus Aran was not a "strong character", she was a blank slate. What made Metroid interesting was what she was capable of doing, the enemies she faced, and the setting. Not her personality, which was never displayed (no, Other M doesn't count) to the player anyway aside from her caring about the last Metroid in Super Metroid.
So Samus is a Strong Female, but not a Strong Character, much in the same way Master Cheif is a Strong Male, but not a Strong Character as well (Since I know you haven't played much Halo, he's pretty much the same thing, barely talks and when he does he uses like three words).
So as a base for reference, what video game characters would you say are Strong Character, Female?
Fafnir, I'm not ignoring you, but I have no experiance with The Boss, so can't comment :(
The blank slate thing about Samus is interesting because the male gamer just displaced all his agency into the character par usual. And then the mask came off and it turned out to be a woman who now had all this agency. It was a very parlor-trick kind of take on gender in video games. Later, before Other M, Samus had grown into her own character and remained very strong. Not to say she was extremely well developed but neither is Boba Fett. With Other M, she was suddenly portrayed as weepy, petulant, and sort of stupid.
"Strong female characters" is sort of a weird turn of phrase, isn't it? I wouldn't place the bar very high at all - I'd say what's desirable are female characters who stand on their own rather than being defined by their relationship to someone. So, for instance, if you had a story where a character's identity was basically "love interest of hero X" then that would not be a strong character, but even if you flipped that around (so the female character is heroine X and the male character is love interest of heroine X) then that would be okay.
Also, keep in mind that "weak" characters existing isn't problematic in itself. Like any piece of culture, context is all-important.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: "Strong female characters" is sort of a weird turn of phrase, isn't it? I wouldn't place the bar very high at all - I'd say what's desirable are female characters who stand on their own rather than being defined by their relationship to someone.
You know, I booted up Kameo for the first time in years due to this thread, and found an old game idea I had where it WAS the male gets kidnapped (Right after proposing, no less) and she has to convince each of the Goddess' to assist her in avenging her fiance XD
Slarg232 wrote: I actually know a good handful of women who hate feminists for that.
I also know two or three who say they would rather not have a job, but "Thanks feminist movement!"
Me, holding a door open for a woman. She, yelling "Freaking chauvinist!", my gf "Be grateful for him holding the door open, bitch!". Love her.
Do not try to argue rationally with feminists. There are very, very few feminists that listen to reason but their number is extremely limited. In fact, most feminists just appear to be extremely sexist towards men, hating each and everyone of them, claming that there still is a patriarchy ruling the Western society (hint: that's bs) etc. That's why I have a problem with feminists and just can't take them seriously: those bad examples throw an extremely bad light at women actually interested in equality. Those women gotta struggle to be taken seriously because of the omni-present "I HATE MEN SO MUCH"-"feminists" that are just trying to get attention or are...frustrated for whatever reason.
...and really, everyone claiming that holding the door open is sexist behavior has serious mental issues and needs help.
If you are holding a door open because the person is a woman, that is sexist. That's what sexist means - discriminating based on sex. If you are just holding a door open because it's a person who is coming through the door and you opened it already then that's not sexist.
Feminists are people who believe men and women should be equal. If you agree men and women should be equal, congratulations, you are a feminist.
I'm not sure why Faith and Konoko are being brought up, but yes, they were very cool characters. I sort of have trouble saying if they're strong characters, female as neither of them gets, to my recollection, a great deal of fleshing out, so I guess whether they are or not depends on your definition. I love both of them, though.
On the first few pages of this thread, there was a James Cameron line about strong female characters and switching the pronouns.
The thinking I've been having is, while the results effectively the same, the sort of preferred end state is. A writer writes an action hero archetype character and then decides on the gender at the same time they start writing about things that may relate to the characters gender.
There's a comment (again it might be from this thread), about when they chose to genderflip Watson for Elementary, they said outright. "What we're going to have here is a bromance, except one of the bro's is a woman."
Compel wrote: Personally, I'm kinda glad Manchu is a mod, he's saying stuff right now that I'd want to be saying but would only do so passive-aggressively.
rockerbikie wrote: People such as Amazingatheist have made arguments against the feminist community with stats and a majority of feminists ignore it.
People like you have long since made gak up to try to demonize the feminist movement.
But that doesn't make your made-up gak suddenly stop being becoming nothing more than blatant lies.
And yes, I do mean the term "lie" here. You have been given numerous examples of feminists who argue that double standards hurt men as well. You have been given numerous examples of feminist ideals that would benefit men. But no, you ignore them-- and say "feminists are eeeeevil" because your entire argument can't stand on its own without that strawman to support it.
Hell it was the feminist movement that said "men don't always have to pay for dinner on a date; the woman can pay for it if she's better off, or hell, you can split it!". The feminist movement has also been among the bigger supporters of men getting paternal leave as well. Getting rid of double standards that devalue people because of their gender is the defining goal of the feminist movement. Where feminists vary, usually, is on how to enact said goal, and where to focus limited resources first.
Females get sentenced 40% less time in jail than men for equivalent crime. Male circumcision is ok but female is abhorrent. Which female circumcisiobion is but male circumcision is just as bad. Domestic violence against men is just as common as domestic violence against females but is not taken seriously by the media, by the police, by anyone. Men are not treated fairly for child custody when it comes to who makes child support payments and reproductive rights. Males can be drafted. Females can not be drafted. A lot of the social reasons like the paternial leave and males not paying(should be split) while not focusing on legal problems is leading to a majority of people asking "do you want a matriarchy?"
You have been given numerous examples of feminists who argue that double standards hurt men as well. You have been given numerous examples of feminist ideals that would benefit men. But no, you ignore them-- and say "feminists are eeeeevil" because your entire argument can't stand on its own without that strawman to support it.
rockerbikie wrote: Females get sentenced 40% less time in jail than men for equivalent crime. Male circumcision is ok but female is abhorrent. Which female circumcisiobion is but male circumcision is just as bad. Domestic violence against men is just as common as domestic violence against females but is not taken seriously by the media, by the police, by anyone. Men are not treated fairly for child custody when it comes to who makes child support payments and reproductive rights. Males can be drafted. Females can not be drafted.
If you had a point, it'd be irrelevant because these things ARE argued against by feminists. There have been numerous mentions of each and every one of these topics by feminist groups. I personally have argued for a draft to apply to everyone regardless of gender on this very fething forum.
You're acting no better than the white supremacist groups who talk about how the black man keeps the white man down. Your attempts to demonize the feminist movement are nonsensical, incoherent, and weak, incapable of standing on their own without this kind of obnoxious misinformation.
And you know what? Yeah, feminists focus on the problems that women have in society. Men ARE the privileged class. Men are the social group that has been in power since time immemorial, not women-- in government, in the media, in business, in education, in science. They have been for a very long time. If you're really angry about how "men are mistreated" as you claim, then you have only the patriarchy to blame for it. Don't blame feminism for it, feminists didn't cause the problems, we're just trying to solve them for the sake of a better future for everyone involved. But feminist organizations don't exist to serve men, just like the NAACP doesn't exist for the sake of the white man.
Every single one of those things you mentioned, without exception, is a piece of cultural baggage left over from older days, long before women began to have successes in trying to be considered as equal human beings to men.
So let's go down the list one by one:
First off, male circumcision is actually considered controversial. There have been numerous debates about it on this very forum. It's a holdover from older days, and both its benefits, drawbacks, and whether or not it should be done are all hotly debated. If you're that ignorant about the topic that you think that it's somehow NOT controversial, don't even bother talking about it.
Domestic violence against men is just as common as domestic violence against females
No, it's not.
[1]Women are seven to fourteen times more likely to be seriously physically abused by their partners than men. [2]Furthermore, three times as many women are murdered every year by intimate partners than men. Of women who are murdered a full one third are murdered by intimate partners. Of men who are murdered, only about four percent are murdered by intimate partners.
As for society not believing men when they are abused? Again, leftover cultural baggage. Congratulations, the patriarchal society that we live in is the very reason why you have something to complain about-- it's assumed that women are harmless by society and therefor the man shouldn't be abused by her.
It's stupid, I agree. But this is not something that is CAUSED by feminists. It's something that feminists are fighting against, because it also harms women by making women targets for abuse.
Men are not treated fairly for child custody when it comes to who makes child support payments and reproductive rights.
Leftover cultural baggage from an older time when men were assumed to be incapable of raising children. Men were breadwinners and women stayed at home raising the children, therefor if a man divorced the woman it was assumed that the woman would be unable to find proper work while still being able to raise the child. This is being changed, slowly, as time goes on.
Also, reproductive rights? You don't have any authority over what goes on in the woman's body . If you were carrying the foetus, THEN you'd have authority over it. That is all. If you want to talk about abortion, go to the off topic section. This avenue of discussion is over in this thread.
Males can be drafted. Females can not be drafted.
Leftover cultural baggage from a time when women were not allowed to be soldiers. It is very likely that this will be changed as time goes on, and more and more women serve in the military. With more rights, after all, comes more responsibility. A fact that women have been learning more and more, as we try to move up in the the worlds of politics, business, and so on.
And finally, Manchu has already stated that if you seriously want to start talking about the men's rights movement, start a new thread about it.
I read something interesting about NOLF the other day: They wanted to do it as a straight up serious spy shooter first with a James Bond expy, but were warned by MGM studios and Brocolli productions that if they did that, they'd be sued into oblivion for doing an unofficial James Bond game. So Monolith switched the protagonist from Sjames Bond to Cate Archer, made it less serious and a great pair of games were born. Contract J.A.C.K. does not count and we like to think it never happened by the way.
Gods, this is ridiculously funny. I like the fact that men causing more domestic violence than women is sexist - why use rational reasoning? We can just blame the evil, evil non-existing patriarchy for everything that goes wrong!
Mel's posts also ooze the self-rightneousness "feminists" speak of, claiming that their vision of the world is superior to those of every opposing mind. What gives feminist the right to speak for all women? Often when reading discussions on certain issues, every women who *dares* having a different opinion on certain issues gets looked down upon and is called a "man's pet / toy". That's not feminism, that's elitism. Snobbish elitism.
As I said above, a lot of feminists are not feminists, but sexists. Nobody with a sane mind would argue against feiminism thus equal rights for all sexes. A lot of feminists do not want gender equality, they want gender superiority in favor of women. That's a whole different thing. Those women want all the bonusses but want to leave the negative consequences behind. Men paying for child care? YEAH! Men suddenly having the same right to see / keep the child? NONONO. Again: that's sexism, not feminism.
Domestic violence vs. women? Bad bad bad! Domestic violence against men? Not our problem! Again: sexism, not feminism. Plus: women beat their children more than men do, 53,6% of child abusers were female as of ACF, 2012. Woops!
"Women get paid less than men! SEXISM!" The entire argument needs more thinking. If I could hire women for ~20% less wage, why wouldn't I hire women only? I'd increase my net profit by 20% of the previous wages! The problem are the gross overgeneralisations "feminists" and media make. They just average out salaries and then see the "gap" claming it to be a sexist fact. Don't mind that a lot of well-paying jobs are dominated by men because of mere interest and that there is a huge gap from e.g. engineering to retail average wages. SEXISM!!! MEN DOMINATE ENGINEERING! Bullcrap. Very few women enlist in engineering studies thus less women work in the area thus more men have a higher income in this part. Simple logic. There is no doubt about there still being a pay gap and that needs to be tackled, but it's far less serious than female sexists make it out to be.
...and there's stuff to go on and on and on.
As matter of fact, a lot of female sexist facts are not facts, but made up bullcrap they sell to the media. Feminism is a much needed movement that has led to a lot of good things and it needs further support - gender equality (!) should be a given.
What nobody needs are those hypocrits, calling themselves "feminists" despite being female sexists. Gender superiority should not be a thing but they want it to be one.
And you know what? Yeah, feminists focus on the problems that women have in society. Men ARE the privileged class. Men are the social group that has been in power since time immemorial, not women-- in government, in the media, in business, in education, in science.
[ ]
Sorry, there is considerable evidence that many human societies were matriarchal at some point. It may have been a long time ago, but using time immemorial is a misnomer, if we have evidence and research on it it is in memory. you say feminists are for equality then say feminists focus on the problems that women have in society, please make your mind up.
The main thing i'd like to see from feminists is consistency. I also reject being labelled a feminist , I'm for equality , not one part of a whole.The name feminism does not imply you are working for equality, but working for women only.
I do agree with sigvatr on one point, alot of feminists (particularly the ones that get airplay) are very disbarraging of men . Things would be so much better if the majority of people who want equality got airplay instead of the fringe idiots we seem to get because they are "easy soundbites".
Isn't that just attempting to sidestep the problem? There's people with... uncertain... motives in every group - most rational people don't hold up the Westboro church as the main example of Christianity.
One of the biggest issues, I'm thinking now, is by holding the fringe opinions on say, feminism as the majority feminist opinion does make it very easy to pretend there's no real problem at all.
When there most certainly is. Here's the latest example from the BBC.
Although, of course, reality is a bit more complicated than making a simple point but still, it's enough to say that there's certain something not right in technology.
Typical overreaction. It's ridiculous to get fired for such a minor issue. A grown-up, adult reaction would have been to confront the employees with your feelings about it, telling them that you are uncomfortable with it.
Taking this route merely proves that you are not able to deal with such things and, oh the irony, need a superior to even it out for you. That's sth. you should do if such a behavior continues.
Alas, the shitstorm she now gets is what was to be expected. You reap what you sow.
Just to play around with the idea behind it: what do you think would happen if a woman made a dick joke? Would you expect the reaction to be the same?
You certainly don't. Your post is so full of blatant lies and irrational hatred of feminists that it's really not worth responding to in detail. For example, you lied and said that I speak for all women, which is something that I never claimed. You lied and said that feminists are sexist using examples that contradicted what was posted by feminists before. And yet despite the constant logical fallacies you throw out, especially the constant use of strawman, you have the gall to try to claim that I am not using rational thinking here. How droll.
BrookM wrote: So Monolith switched the protagonist from Sjames Bond to Cate Archer, made it less serious and a great pair of games were born.
I think I remember that game. It was pretty fun, and it's sad that it hasn't gotten much attention.
Bullockist wrote: you say feminists are for equality then say feminists focus on the problems that women have in society, please make your mind up.
The two are not mutually exclusive, therefor there is no mind to make up.
As for consistency, you're seeing consistency right now. You're not looking for "consistency" at all, or you'd have noticed that most of the feminist arguments in this thread HAVE been very, very consistent all along.
Sigvatr wrote:There are very, very few feminists that listen to reason but their number is extremely limited. In fact, most feminists just appear to be extremely sexist towards men, hating each and everyone of them
Do you find it hard to paint miniatures? It looks like you only own a broad brush.
TedNugent wrote:I hold the door open for men.
Yeah, really, man - who doesn't do this? That's just good manners. Unless they are in the "grey zone" of 10-20 feet away, in which it would be awkward to stand there and make them run. But that's got nothing to do with their genitalia.
You know what I was thinking about the other day? Salt, the film. That had Angelina Jolie as an action star, and she was (attempting) to rescue her husband. That's pretty damn rare in movies - I suspect it might not have happened even in this movie; had the role not originally been intended for Tom Cruise.
EDIT: dammit, quote functionality, you made a monkey out of me for the last time
I'm "sexist towards men" for saying "society views women as weak and therefor dismisses female on male violence" and following up by saying "this is stupid and feminists are trying to solve this problem because it creates problems for both genders".
And then people wonder why the Men's Rights Movement is labeled as a hate group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: You know what I was thinking about the other day? Salt, the film. That had Angelina Jolie as an action star, and she was (attempting) to rescue her husband. That's pretty damn rare in movies - I suspect it might not have happened even in this movie; had the role not originally been intended for Tom Cruise.
You certainly don't. Your post is so full of blatant lies and irrational hatred of feminists that it's really not worth responding to in detail. For example, you lied and said that I speak for all women, which is something that I never claimed. You lied and said that feminists are sexist using examples that contradicted what was posted by feminists before. And yet despite the constant logical fallacies you throw out, especially the constant use of strawman, you have the gall to try to claim that I am not using rational thinking here. How droll.
I did not expect a proper answer of you. I have read, transcripted and taken part in far more than enough discussions with and about female sexists - you cannot argue rationally with them. They are not interested in rational discussions or anyone agreeing with them...I quote:
Some (wo)men just want to watch the world burn. [sic]
Actual feminists are a small minority that is worth listening to. It's amazing how much work and struggle they face in their work and it's sad that they get ignored by the media most of the time. It just doesn't sell as good as another prominent female sexist spreading their propaganda around.
Most of my post wasn't directly headed towards you, but if you do identify with it, then you're not a feminist, but a female sexist. Hands down. (no sexual pun intended).
Sigvatr wrote:There are very, very few feminists that listen to reason but their number is extremely limited. In fact, most feminists just appear to be extremely sexist towards men, hating each and everyone of them
Do you find it hard to paint miniatures? It looks like you only own a broad brush.
Your interest in my brush is...interesting. Sorry though, I'm already taken :(
I'm already highlighting the miniature here. "Feminist" is a general term that's misused most of the time. Actual feminists strive for gender equality whereas a lot of "feminists" pretend being feminists but are, in fact, female sexists striving for gender superiority. They are in a very comfortable position as even women speaking against them get talked down immediately.
It's the same for racism. Black -> White racism *does* exist, but if anyone brings it up, he's about to get shot down immediately. Not literally of course -_-
Sigvatr wrote: Actual feminists strive for gender equality whereas a lot of "feminists" pretend being feminists but are, in fact, female sexists striving for gender superiority.
No, that's just you making up gak about the feminist movement to demonize it so you have something to complain about.
Sigvatr wrote: They are not interested in rational discussions
I'm interested in a rational discussion.
Call me when you actually start one.
And no, you making up gak and lying about the feminist movement isn't rational.
Uh Mel? You and I just had a discussion in this very thread that was you flipping out because I used ONE WORD you didn't like and you posted something about OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND...... You get the point.
I mean, I know the mods deleted it, but it DID happen.....
Slarg232 wrote: Uh Mel? You and I just had a discussion in this very thread that was you flipping out because I used ONE WORD you didn't like
Yes, I've been under a lot of stress and not everything I have posted has been perfect. And I believe I apologized for my actions via PM at some point.
That does not excuse lying about feminists purely to insult the movement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Oni looked awesome, I wish I had a chance to play it.
I had it. It was quite fun, one of the first good third person shooters to include melee combat as a decent gameplay mechanic.
Remember Me looks like it functions on a very similar level as Oni actually, in terms of gameplay style.
Slarg232 wrote: Uh Mel? You and I just had a discussion in this very thread that was you flipping out because I used ONE WORD you didn't like
Yes, I've been under a lot of stress and not everything I have posted has been perfect. And I believe I apologized for my actions via PM at some point.
Don't think you did, but you don't have to. Water under the bridge and all that XD
To say that I myself wasn't being an ass, or insensative wouldn't be out of line either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote: Oni looked awesome, I wish I had a chance to play it.
I had it. It was quite fun, one of the first good third person shooters to include melee combat as a decent gameplay mechanic.
Remember Me looks like it functions on a very similar level as Oni actually, in terms of gameplay style.
I know, it looks awesome, but I'm skitish about Capcom being involved. They ain'ta beena too good as of late...
I'm still thinking about that case that the BBC mentioned.
I mean, clearly when working in an official capacity, you can't go and post some folks pictures online and say, "these dudes are sexist." So I honestly can't blame her company for letting her go, that in legal terms, I believe does open the company up to harassment suits, libel/slander and all other sorts of nastiness.
However.... That doesn't invalidate her point.
Additionally, it doesn't justify her being targeted by Anonymous and subjected to a great deal of harassment in return. That is pretty much mob justice and... not cool.
Additionally, the two guys really should know that they were also at a conference in a professional capacity and therefore should not have been, allegedly, making comments about "forking someones repo" etc. Save stuff like that for the pub afterwards, if you need to say it at all.
Actually looking at the tweet, the problem is entirely with attaching the photograph. If the comment had been genericised, eg.
Not cool, just heard two people making jokes about forking repos in a sexual way and 'big' dongles.
She'd have been well within her rights.
But instead, doing this ends up being something completely different and massively detracts from her point and ends up harming a load of stuff.
Yeah, she made some poor decisions. But at the same time, I do think that this sort of issue needs to be raised, and people DO need to have it pointed out when they're being douchbags. How to do that without legal liability and while respecting other peoples' privacy is an issue though.
Oni was a bit easy and the combat wasn't very deep. I don't know if that would be more apparent now than then. On the subject of sequels, I believe Take Two owns the rights to the game now.
The attacks on Adria Richards seem to be missing the point. The reason this stuff is an issue is context. If you are a guy and make a sexual joke in an industry that's historically and presently often been hostile to women then that invokes that entire history of hostility. Removed from that context it has less impact. If it was a woman making an equivalent joke it also lacks that impact because the industry does not have a history of hostility to men for it to invoke.
The core problem here is that hostility. Remove that hostility and the joke becomes what you want it to be - one joke in isolation with no other weight. Attacking people because you want your God-given straight white male right to say what you want, when you want, may address the issue of you (and I note this is a generalised you not aimed at anyone in this thread) wanting to have that right, but it doesn't help fix the problem of hostility towards women in IT that was the root cause of this.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, she made some poor decisions. But at the same time, I do think that this sort of issue needs to be raised, and people DO need to have it pointed out when they're being douchbags
I agree with the sentiment, but losing their jobs seemed a little excessive. No, actually it seemed a lot excessive, frankly. I have to say that find that Ms. Richards also lost her job frankly feels like justice to me... and certainly karma, if not justice.
No one came out covered in glory on this one, anyway.
*granted, I'm not privy to those guys' HR files. Perhaps they had a history of inappropriate humor, I suppose there is no reason to presume it was a first offense.
Also, I might be a little biased against Ms. Richards, as I am against anyone in IT who has any of the following phrases in their job title: guru, ninja, evangelist, maven, jedi.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, she made some poor decisions. But at the same time, I do think that this sort of issue needs to be raised, and people DO need to have it pointed out when they're being douchbags
I agree with the sentiment, but losing their jobs seemed a little excessive. No, actually it seemed a lot excessive, frankly. I have to say that find that Ms. Richards also lost her job frankly feels like justice to me... and certainly karma, if not justice.
No one came out covered in glory on this one, anyway.
*granted, I'm not privy to those guys' HR files. Perhaps they had a history of inappropriate humor, I suppose there is no reason to presume it was a first offense.
She didn't fire anyone. It is inappropriate to blame her for anyone being fired. That is the decision of their company, and we have no idea what circumstances surrounded that decision.
Indeed, she had no authority over their getting fired. What she did was report what they did, in a possibly inappropriate way, but still, that's all she did.
I’ve had an up-and-down relationship with Lara over the years. I played the first game, in fact [my] dad did and spoilt the bit with the T-Rex but it was still awesome. Then I felt she’d become reduced to a pair of boobs, a pair of pistols and a hair plait.
She became bigger than the games and was over-sexualised. I’m fairly used to that in games but it gave the impression that ‘ladies, this isn’t for you’ and yet she was very popular with female gamers.
The chance to get my hands on her, so to speak, gave me the chance to make a difference. — Rhianna Pratchett
From the head writer on Tomb Raider. While its executive producer is incredibly creepy, at least there's been SOME improvement in how such a prominent female lead character.
I admit that I've never been a fan of Tomb Raider, precisely because of this problem of sexualization, but I'm glad that they're taking it in a new, more interesting direction, and it makes me wonder if Sarkesian is going to mention or talk about the game in her future videos.
Rhianna Pratchett is cool! I sent her an email once to say I enjoyed Mirror's Edge - which she wrote for too - and she replied.
That said, my stance is cautious optimism, because I'm not confident that any given game developer will actually make a writer's ideas work in the game. They could lay out the best story ever, but then have it ruined by the rest of the development team. I don't think game developers as a class have much respect for the craft of writing.
To use Tomb Raider itself as an example, there's the whole thing about the gravitas of taking a human life, but Lara kills so many people during the game that you'd think they must have huge barns of them packed to the rafters hidden somewhere on the island because otherwise they wouldn't be able to fit. Mirror's Edge had similar problems - despite my enjoyment of the game, I think it discards much of the potential of the setting in the name of telling a simpler story, and most of that potential is relegated to background material.
I don't think game developers as a class have much respect for the craft of writing.
Well, in their defense, imo there's even less room in a video game for good writing than in a movie (and it doesn't help that most video games are interactive action movies at heart, so the mentality of it stacks). But yeah. At the very least, they don't seem to rank good writing all that highly. Most seem perfectly willing to settle with passable writing (and I use the word 'passable' loosely).
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: To use Tomb Raider itself as an example, there's the whole thing about the gravitas of taking a human life, but Lara kills so many people during the game that you'd think they must have huge barns of them packed to the rafters hidden somewhere on the island because otherwise they wouldn't be able to fit. Mirror's Edge had similar problems - despite my enjoyment of the game, I think it discards much of the potential of the setting in the name of telling a simpler story, and most of that potential is relegated to background material.
I would imagine after the initial shock of taking the first one, you could easily get over the fact of killing someone trying to kill you. Just an assumption, though.
As for the game itself, the writing was excellent, Lara's development was believable, Mathius (Main bad guy) was oddly sympathetic when you thought about it, though it boiled down to a rather generic qte/cutscene driven adventure third person shooter.
A very fun way to spend an afternoon, though.
Also, I find it funny that even with a female protagonist we still have a female damsel in distress XD
I don't think I agree that there is less room for good writing in a video game than a movie.
On the topic of Tomb Raider, it's a fun game and I like it, and more for the "experience" than the gameplay, which probably speaks well of the story. I just feel the story and gameplay are sometimes at odds rather than working in concert, and that's a problem, especially when it comes to the writer's ideas actually making it into the finished game. If it had been made as a book or movie I don't think that Lara would be stopping every ten minutes to kill a couple of dozen people, for instance. In fact, I think the killing a couple of dozen people every ten minutes is directly at odds with the story the game is trying to tell, yet there it is.
I don't think that's necessarily true. In a videogame you can stop and read a book. You can explore every nook and cranny of a world. You can experience the day to day life of a community or experience different cultural customs that may not be apparent in a movie world.
Movie is often just expressed as spectacle - who would forget the scene with the scimitar twirling Saracen, and Harrison Ford pulls out his revolver and shoots him? Does that explore the character or culture of the Saracen? Does that undermine the concept of a "Saracen" in western mythology? Does that tell an interesting story? No, but it's interesting to look at, and thereby it is considered the penultimate in cinema. One of the greatest scenes ever filmed, I'm sure many film critics would agree.
In fact, much of the film industry has been reduced to spectacle, going as far as to put a bunch of random action movie stars together in the same film - The Expendables.
Star Wars is one of the highest rated films of all time, and yet it is almost pure spectacle. The story is a dud. By contrast, would you say that it has inferior writing to Planescape: Torment?
It's not just a matter of length of entertainment but of budget and interceding concerns. I'll bet most of us will concur that making a good game the prim concern becomes good game play. That can mesh with the story, but assuming that a game's budget isn't infinite, while one can make a passable and working story, it's unlikely to be able to compare to that of a movie, where the story is essentially the prime concern (unless it's a B-movie or some such, but even then a TV series can go deeper, and a book even deeper).
What I'm referring to is the focus of the medium. I suppose good shouldn't be the word I used. It's more an issue of depth and complexity compared to other mediums, where a video game lacks the typical ability to focus on a story in the way others do. EDIT: There are of course games that screw with this like Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy, but I'm not sure I'd consider those to be a model for the future of gaming.
I wonder how many millions of dollars went towards the filming of the semi truck flipping in the second Batman movie?
Is it expensive to animate and build a character model and do all of the designing and rendering and bug squashing? Yes, of course, but rendering that truck flip in a videogame would be a snap. People have done nuttier stuff with map editors.
It's not even difficult to create a whole fantasy world - towns, shops, citizens, merchants, ports - once the initial toolkit is there, creative players can even take it and create hours upon hours of content.
The writer is only one person on the whole staff - a lot of established, big name companies will even hire on an established novelist or scriptwriter to write one of their games - it only takes one person to make that magic under writing the whole enterprise, contrasted to potentially dozens of team members, animators, actors, special effects, artists, directors, etcetera.
Movie is often just expressed as spectacle - who would forget the scene with the scimitar twirling Saracen, and Harrison Ford pulls out his revolver and shoots him? Does that explore the character or culture of the Saracen? Does that undermine the concept of a "Saracen" in western mythology? Does that tell an interesting story? No, but it's interesting to look at, and thereby it is considered the penultimate in cinema. One of the greatest scenes ever filmed, I'm sure many film critics would agree.
I quite often think too much about reality in movies which as your genius pointed out is quite silly. Thanks Mr Nugent , I appreciate the new perspective.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: To use Tomb Raider itself as an example, there's the whole thing about the gravitas of taking a human life, but Lara kills so many people during the game that you'd think they must have huge barns of them packed to the rafters hidden somewhere on the island because otherwise they wouldn't be able to fit. Mirror's Edge had similar problems - despite my enjoyment of the game, I think it discards much of the potential of the setting in the name of telling a simpler story, and most of that potential is relegated to background material.
I would imagine after the initial shock of taking the first one, you could easily get over the fact of killing someone trying to kill you. Just an assumption, though.
As for the game itself, the writing was excellent, Lara's development was believable, Mathius (Main bad guy) was oddly sympathetic when you thought about it, though it boiled down to a rather generic qte/cutscene driven adventure third person shooter.
A very fun way to spend an afternoon, though.
Also, I find it funny that even with a female protagonist we still have a female damsel in distress XD
Well, it certainly wasn't easy to balance the character and the game out. I don't think that it would have been fun to play a character that's starting to cry after every enemy he killed; but at the same time, they tried to display Lara as being vulnerable / shocked in the cut scenes. I think they got the balance just right - still a very action-packed game, but a nice focus on the character, making Lara more than just a polygon skeleton with big jugs. She went down in size, actually, iirc, in comparison to the previous game though the lack of boob-jiggle was weird...strongest bra ever. That's another thing, though, that always stirred me in the previous Tomb Raider games...if I was her, I'd have thought about decreasing my boobs. With all that climbing, running and fighting, I'd imagine some (at least) D-cups being quite annoying or even hinderous while searching for treasure.
The thing is, of course, that she got big honkers because (most) men like big bars. Men are genetically coded to pay attention to big boobies as they promise large fertility and since they cannot identify with a female lead, they can at least be drawn towards her by making her look attractive. Far from realistic of course, I mean, I wouldn't wear short pants either when going to slide, jump and run all over the globe. And we covered the breast size already. And the T-Rex (dafuq...).
Cate Archer was awesome. Strong female lead, sort of a female James Bond in an Austin Powers setting. Excellent game that aged well and is still playable. Again, huge knockers, but it fits to the Austin Powers theme.
Compel wrote: I'm still thinking about that case that the BBC mentioned.
I mean, clearly when working in an official capacity, you can't go and post some folks pictures online and say, "these dudes are sexist." So I honestly can't blame her company for letting her go, that in legal terms, I believe does open the company up to harassment suits, libel/slander and all other sorts of nastiness.
Hello. My name is Meagan Marie, and I’m a person. I’ve decided I’m going to start standing up for myself in order to be more frequently treated like one.
Something transpired at PAX this weekend that was a true eye opener. While hosting a Tomb Raider cosplay gathering, comprised of eight or so incredibly nice and talented young women, a member of the press asked if he could grab a quick interview. I said he’d need to ask them, not me, and they agreed. He squeezed into the group and posed a question. I couldn’t hear what he said over the hubbub of the show floor, but the confused and uncomfortable looks from the ladies indicated that it wasn’t what they expected, to say the least.
I moved in closer and inquired “Excuse me, what did you ask?” with a forced smile on my face, so to give him the benefit of the doubt. He laughed and didn’t respond, moving a few steps away as I repeated the question to the group of women. Turns out he’d probed what it felt like “knowing that none of the men in this room could please them in bed.” Yes, I’m aware it’s a poor adaptation of a gag told by a certain puppet dog with an affinity for insults. Lack of originally doesn’t excuse this behavior, however.
My anger flared upon hearing this, and for a moment I almost let it get the best of me. I attempted to calm myself down before walking towards him and the cameraman, and expressing that it was rude and unprofessional to assume that these young women were comfortable discussing sexual matters on camera. I intended to leave the conversation at that, but his subsequent response escalated matters quickly and clearly illustrated that this ran much deeper than a poor attempt at humor. He proceeded to tell me that “I was one of those oversensitive feminists” and that “the girls were dressing sexy, so they were asking for it.” Yes, he pulled the “cosplay is consent” card.
At this point, as he snaked off into the crowd muttering angrily at me, I was livid. Actually shaking a bit. It was inexcusable in my mind to treat the group of women in this manner, especially when I gathered them there to participate in an official capacity. I suppose I felt protective for this reason. As if I’d exposed them to an undesirable element of the convention. They united to celebrate their fandom, only to have an uncomfortable and unprofessional moment captured on film.
As I stated publicly this weekend, we escalated the issue to PAX and they responded with overwhelming concern and worked to ensure he wouldn’t bother anyone at the this or future PAX events. They handled the situation with flying colors.
But this encounter isn’t the crux of my blog. This blog is about what I came to realize as a result of the press member’s actions. And what I realized is this: When it comes to defending others, I’m fierce. I’m assertive. And I will hold my ground. One of the cosplayers tweeted me to praise my bravery and say they wish they had the courage to stand up too. The truth is my bravery doesn’t run that deep. When it comes to defending myself I’m a rug that is walked over repeatedly. This has to stop.
Similar behavior has been directed at me for years. Back in 2007 at my very first GDC, I was starry-eyed and overwhelmed to be in the midst of so many people I idolized. So when a drunken CEO of a then-startup pointed to my midsection and said “I want to have my babies in there,” I laughed. I did the same next year when another developer told me that he “didn’t recognize me with my clothes on” after meeting me the night prior at a formal event (to which I wore a cocktail dress). The trend continued for years, and I took it silently each and every time.
It got so bad that one of my Game Informer coworkers had to sit me down and convince me to file a complaint against a massive publisher, after one of their PR leads repeatedly commented about how much he “loved my tits” at a party. Each time I laughed it off and internalized my embarrassment, cementing a fixed smile on my face while fighting back tears. Why? Because I was afraid to rock the boat. I was afraid to perpetuate rumors that I was uptight, difficult, or had no sense of humor. I was afraid of what I’d heard being said about other women being said about me. So I would stick up for others, but never for myself. Sticking up for others was the right thing to do. I had to be careful not to stick my neck out too far, though.
I’m ashamed to admit my lack of courage has continued to this day. While on a press tour in Europe late last year I sat alone with an interviewer while he set up his camera. PR was talking to another member of the press just out of earshot. I asked the journalist what his readers would like to know about me first, per the introduction he outlined earlier. He responded nonchalantly, “Well, they’d really like to see you naked.” I was so shocked I didn’t even register what he said, and I defaulted to my uncomfortable chuckle and frozen smile. I conducted the interview as if nothing had happened. I should have walked out of the room then and there. I should have immediately reported it to PR. But I didn’t, because I was afraid.
And while these industry comments hurt the most, as they often do when coming from peers, I’ve got hope for change even if it is motivated by fear. In a social economy where one unprofessional tweet can ruin a career, I feel like the few unsavory industry personalities are becoming more aware of their words. My line in the sand doesn’t end there, though. I’m going to start holding commenters accountable for their actions too, even if I can only do so on my social spaces.
So here is the deal. I’m a person. I’m not just a “girl on the internet.” I am not comfortable with you remarking on my breasts. I am not comfortable with you implying that you’d like to have sex with me. And I don’t appreciate you rating my looks against my girlfriends in candid photos.
While I can’t stop these comments and questions from arising when they pop up on random blogs across the web, I can stand up and say that that I won’t accept being talked to in this manner anymore. I’m not simply going to ignore you; I’m going to call you out and tell you that you’re being inappropriate. Just because I have a public job and an equally public hobby doesn’t give you the right to ignore my comfort zone.
The situation this weekend at PAX made me question why I’m willing to stand up for others, but not myself. By allowing myself to be treated this way I’m perpetuating that this behavior is acceptable. And it isn’t. If I continue stand by silently, I might as well sit on the sidelines and watch while other young women endure what I have.
The treatment and representation of women in gaming has come to a head this past year, and I know some of you are tired of hearing about it. I’m tired of living it. I want to feel safe and valued as a member of this industry, whether I’m conducting an interview, talking to fans on a convention floor, or cosplaying. And I have a right to that.
I’m not afraid anymore. I’m angry.
[For those of you who have been so supportive these past years, both in the industry and out, please know this blog isn’t directed at you. I can’t imagine dedicating my life to anything other than video games. And that’s why I’m going to fight my hardest to leave it a better place.]
Melissia wrote: Yeah, she made some poor decisions. But at the same time, I do think that this sort of issue needs to be raised, and people DO need to have it pointed out when they're being douchbags. How to do that without legal liability and while respecting other peoples' privacy is an issue though.
Fun fact: 2 days before she got upset about those guys childish dick jokes she was posting dick jokes on her same twitter.
More seriously though... Straying into more grey / murky areas.
Speaking realistically and self-damningly, I do think there is a time and place for a certain bluntness.
Although there is blunt and staggeringly (insultingly) blunt.
Taking that article posted earlier.
I moved in closer and inquired “Excuse me, what did you ask?” with a forced smile on my face, so to give him the benefit of the doubt. He laughed and didn’t respond, moving a few steps away as I repeated the question to the group of women. Turns out he’d probed what it felt like “knowing that none of the men in this room could please them in bed.” Yes, I’m aware it’s a poor adaptation of a gag told by a certain puppet dog with an affinity for insults. Lack of originally doesn’t excuse this behavior, however.
My anger flared upon hearing this, and for a moment I almost let it get the best of me. I attempted to calm myself down before walking towards him and the cameraman, and expressing that it was rude and unprofessional to assume that these young women were comfortable discussing sexual matters on camera. I intended to leave the conversation at that, but his subsequent response escalated matters quickly and clearly illustrated that this ran much deeper than a poor attempt at humor. He proceeded to tell me that “I was one of those oversensitive feminists” and that “the girls were dressing sexy, so they were asking for it.” Yes, he pulled the “cosplay is consent” card.
I mean, obviously, noone working as a reporter should ask that question. And no reasonable guy would ask that too. But if we change the question slightly, it can cross into slightly uncomfortable territory for guys. I'm not trying to justify that reporter but it does beg the question, where is the line that a reasonable guy is allowed to feel/act/say when confronted with several very attractive girls dressed up as Lara Croft. Though I suppose this line of thinking is stretching into the off-topic, "mens rights" thread territory, which doesn't exist and quite frankly I'm a bit worried about what I'd read in there anyway...
Hitting on someone, which any nerd guy would do to a girl who can actually pull off a Lara Croft Cosplay, is totally different from "Hey, everyone else here sucks in bed."
There's a difference between being aroused/excited/joyous at seeing a number of girls scantily clad in various forms of cosplay... and saying "they're dressed like Lara Croft so that means I should get to have sex with them".
There's nothing wrong with something like "Wow, that cosplay looks great on you!". Don't get me wrong, I'm not immersed in cosplay culture, but as far as I know, complimenting a person's outfit and how good they look in it, as long as you try not to be creepy about it, is actually a good thing.
There IS, however, something wrong with saying, essentially, "you're dressed like a slut so I'm not going to treat you as a fellow human being" and belittling everyone around you, including the women you're talking to by treating them as nothing more than sex objects.
That guy was a smarmy donkey-cave who was trying to say "you should take a real man like me".
Ravenous D wrote: Oh I see, she can make dick jokes on twitter but when she over hears two men talking and making childish dick jokes to each other thats bad.
She was not making the jokes in an official capacity. They were.
It's a rather important distinction. You don't make sexual jokes while you're working (or representing your work place) and interacting with strangers.
Unless, of course, you're that comfortable with the people you work with.
And yeah, been dragged to some cosplay events in my area. Trust me, telling a cute girl that they pull off the cosplay better than the actual character will yeild great results
I dunno, I still think it's always better to leave it for after-hours conversation instead of on the clock stuff. Managers in my experience don't like it when they catch you chatting on the company's time.
Compared to some of the female servers I'm the very picture of chaste professionalism.
In my last job you could cut the sexual tension between staff with a knife. Nothing like watching married people (although not to each other) drool over each other, sit on one another's laps, discuss oral sex techniques or flirt at a loud volume all day. The only way to get a promotion there seemed to be sleeping with the right person, or being related to someone higher up.
Working in the techy world, I can't say I've ever noticed any sexual tension in the jobs I've been in, even in a workplace in a non techy area where I had random desk allocation fun. There are however occasionally inappropriate comments, as I assume in every workplace, though at least they tend to be inspecific.
Folk at work are far more concerned about Android Vs Apple.
Melissia wrote: That's a rather drastically different experience than I had. Very unprofessional.
Between that behavior, sitting on the phone all day and sending nasty Tweets/emails/text messages around they obviously had a very different opinion of professional sadly
I also work in IT, and definitely do not engage in sexually related banter with any of my co-workers (since at this place, you'd get fired for it pretty quick).
Melissia wrote: That's a rather drastically different experience than I had. Very unprofessional.
Between that behavior, sitting on the phone all day and sending nasty Tweets/emails/text messages around they obviously had a very different opinion of professional sadly
Yeah, that's the kind of behavior that's plaguing the Secret Service recently. At least nine Secret Service Officers have been "let go" for hiring prostitutes and getting drunk on the job.
Julia Pierson to be Named First Female Director of the American Secret Service
In something of breaking news this afternoon, the White House has announced that they will be announcing (I guess this only a little bit like putting out a trailer for your trailer) a new director of the Secret Service, to replace director Mark Sullivan, who announced his resignation last month. That new director will be Julia Pierson, currently the Secret Service’s chief of staff, and the promotion will make her the first woman in history to hold that position.
Says Sullivan:
I have known and worked with Julie for close to thirty years. She was an excellent Assistant Director and Chief of Staff, demonstrating sound judgment, leadership, character, and commitment to our Country, the men and women of the U.S. Secret Service and those we serve and protect. This is a historic and exciting time for the Secret Service and I know Julie will do an outstanding job.
The image of the Secret Service, who are tasked with investigating counterfeiting and fraud in addition to safeguarding the president and other current, former, and potential national leaders of the executive branch, has been darkened by scandal in the past year, after eleven agents were implicated in a successful effort to engage the services of several prostitutes in their hotel while on a Presidential trip to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Columbia. Before the end of April, nine Secret Service employees had resigned or retired, and some were reportedly being investigated for possible drug use while in the country, somewhat ironic given that one of the more contentious issues that the Summit covered was the feasibility of legalizing drugs currently targeted by the U.S. War on Drugs.
In reaction to the exposure of a harmful culture of “macho behavior,” change within the Service was called for, and rules were instated that regulate who can enter a Secret Service hotel room, as well as those that prohibit agents and personel from visiting “non-reputable establishments” and drinking alcohol less than ten hours before starting work. Whether or not Pierson has been tapped for promotion because her gender will be perceived as being at odds with a “macho” culture or not, it’s still a part of the Secret Service’s recent history that will be impossible for her to avoid. We wish her luck, and hope that her nomination does mean good and needed change for the Service.
TL;DR, because of unprofessional behavior in the Secret Service, we now have an Ellen Ripley lookalike as the director to try to clean up their act.
When you're being paid for your time, I find that it's always better to be professional. Leaves a better impression about you. This is double when you're at a seminar or convention.
Melissia wrote: Yeah, that's the kind of behavior that's plaguing the Secret Service recently. At least nine Secret Service Officers have been "let go" for hiring prostitutes and getting drunk on the job.
I can confirm that I have never been employed by the Secret Service But yeah, it gets tiring when you constantly bring it to the attention of higher ranking staff and it gets ignored because a) they're also doing it, and b) its their friends doing it too
It's not just her, video games conventions are hell-and beyond for hostesses, especialyl cosplay ones with an obvious cleavage. One of my gf's friends works for a big publisher at the Gamescom (biggst German video games convention, annual) and she usually ends the day with lots of gamers giggling at her, making arranged photos (be further away, hold hand just in front of the camera to make it look like you'd be cupping her breasts), air-humping behind her back etc. you know the deal.
I mean, those are video game "nerds", you know what I'm talking of, and if they just stick to that, she just smiles it away, but it still is pretty poor behavior and certainly doesn't make the job easier or and more welcomed. It's paid well though (really well actually) and she needs the money for going on vacation with her bf.
If you're getting harassed by official institutions, however, like press, it's a different thing and filing a complaint should always be done despite it likely going nowhere.
On the other hand - you know what you're up to if you take the job. You know what you will have to face and go through when applying for it. You know that you'll get mistreated eventually.
Yes, you will, most likely, not be comfortable about people saying "Heh, nice rack, babe!". It's not a nice thing to say to a stranger. But if you took the job or dress in a very clear matter (like really, some costumes are VERY borderline), you know what might happen and cannot act surprised. You had it coming. If you dress...openly, a lot of men will not act rationally, they will automatically assume you're open about sex as well. That's a false assumption, of course, most of the time, but it's an easy one to make and you know that a ot of men will make it.
If you cannot bear this, you must not apply for such a job. Period. You need a very thick skin for these jobs and it's not for everyone. Dressing like a video game sex icon and not thinking of what possible negative consequences might occur is naive.
easysauce wrote: however there are plenty of non sexist portrayals of women,
Not really. There's a few notable ones, yes, but not many compared to the overall gaming industry.
Hell, even Metroid devolved in to a sexist depiction of its female lead with Other M.
yes, but that is not my point,
my point is that there really are not that many good, non sexist stereotype, male characters either.
I am not trying to lessen the effect of sexism re women in video games,
I am trying to bring up that it portrays men in sexist ways all the time as well.
not just women,
and its not worse for them then guys,
and its not better either, they are not separate problems of male/female stereotypes, its just stereotypes.
every "damsel in distress" has a "macho man hero"
damsel syndrome is detrimental, and sexist to women, and actually to men as well as it messes up both the male and female perception of what a "true" female should be like.
macho man syndrome is detrimental, and sexist to men, and actually to women as well as it messes up both the male and female perception of what a "true" male should be like.
Fafnir wrote: It's actually kind of funny, in a way. I told my roomate/good friend that I was a feminist, and he looked upon that in a negative way.
The way we interpret "feminist" is kind of broken. Simply put, as a feminist, I feel that women should be open to the same rights, opportunities, and obligations as any man. I think that a lot of people in this current era would not have a problem agreeing with that. But for some reason, "feminist" becomes a dirty word.
feminist is a dirty word?
you mean its being treated just like the male counter part, chauvenist?
easysauce wrote: damsel syndrome is detrimental, and sexist to women, and actually to men as well as it messes up both the male and female perception of what a "true" female should be like.
macho man syndrome is detrimental, and sexist to men, and actually to women as well as it messes up both the male and female perception of what a "true" male should be like.
I know the thread is thirty something pages by now, but it's been mentioned numerous times.
Here's a few:
Melissia wrote: I would like you all to keep in mind that the feminist movement, as a general rule, has for a LONG time pushed that the double standards applied by society are harmful to both women AND men. Similarly, it is rather uncontroversial amongst feminist groups to say "people who subvert gender norms, male or female, shouldn't be ridiculed", or that, for example, men should be given paternity leave (to help ensure fathers will have time to spend with their children, and to reinforce the idea that mothers aren't assumed to be the only ones caring for the child).
A lot of people on this forum seem to have a large number of misconceptions about the movement, causing them to bring up things like "but men are affected too!", which is not only entirely missing the point but also little more than a distraction from the issue at hand. While I know that the term "patriarchy" will probably cause some eye-rolls from those with the most derision from the movement, I still feel the need to say it-- through deconstructing the patriarchy and making men and women treated more equal in all facets of media, life in general will become better for both genders.
Those actually in power, whose social status is higher than everyone else (IE males vs females and transpeople, straights vs non-heteronormative sexualities, whites vs non-whites, etc) honestly have less to complain about and thus tend to try to belittle others when they complain instead. That isn't to say that there is nothing for any of them to complain about (indeed, there ARE many complaints about how societal machismo harms men in many ways, for example), it is, rather, an observation of those who actually are motivated enough to organize the movements in question.
Melissia wrote: We only recently-- 1920-- gotten the right to vote. Our rise in the corporate and political world was even more recent, and is nowhere NEAR egalitarian. The American culture still places a much higher value on masculinity as opposed to femininity, and still values the input of men more than women. Hell, women only recently got the legal right to be considered combat troops, even though we've been actually participating in combat for more than a decade now. The double standards held to both women and men are harmful to both genders, and they still need to be broken down-- and the video game industry is no exception.
Anyone who thinks that the feminist movement is "asinine" is highly ignorant.
You're disagreeing with a position that doesn't exist.
Yes, we do. I've heard this nonsense claim before, and frankly, claiming that no one should ever focus their mental, financial, and emotional resources on a single topic is bizarre and fethed up.
Melissia wrote: Wow, taht post really went downhill with victim blaming.
There's no victim blaming involved or intended. The "bad guys", if you want to put it that way, are, as I stated already, the immature dudes with their snarky comments etc.
We got two different viewpoints.
You come from a very emotional point of view whereas I try to stay objective and be rational about it. Again, that's not a negative or positive thing. Different viewpoints.
I don't blame her for anything, I merely said that if you go for such a job, you have to expect the things I described. If you can't handle such situations, you picked the wrong job and should look for an alternative. Period.
I don't blame her for anything, I merely said that if you go for such a job, you have to expect the things I described. If you can't handle such situations, you picked the wrong job and should look for an alternative. Period.
Well, you see, while that is technically true. The big, massive point you're failing to make is...
She shouldn't have to expect the worst of that behaviour. She shouldn't have to handle those situations. No-one should.
Fafnir wrote: It's actually kind of funny, in a way. I told my roomate/good friend that I was a feminist, and he looked upon that in a negative way.
The way we interpret "feminist" is kind of broken. Simply put, as a feminist, I feel that women should be open to the same rights, opportunities, and obligations as any man. I think that a lot of people in this current era would not have a problem agreeing with that. But for some reason, "feminist" becomes a dirty word.
feminist is a dirty word?
you mean its being treated just like the male counter part, chauvenist?
Slarg232 wrote: No, Feminist is a dirty word because of the people whom are better described with another word are often mistooken for Feminists.
No.
It has been claimed, in this very thread, that all feminists are sexists, or man-haters, or lesbians, or nazis, and so on and so forth. That all feminists are extremists. The same lies that have been spread about the feminist movement for something along the lines of sixty to eighty years, if not longer for some of them.
But that's all the claims are. Exaggerations, insults, and just plain lies created out of an attempt to dismiss the movement.
Melissia wrote: Victim blaming is exactly what you have done.
In fact, you specifically said "You had it coming."-- IE you think they deserved those attitudes. You're blaming them.
Congratulations, victim-blamer.
Again, you're driven by emotion, not logical thinking. You're acting and thinking irrational. "You had it coming" did not mean "IT'S HER FAULT LOLOL" although that's what you seem to read. It means that this is exactly what she has to expect when taking the job. It's not the way she SHOULD be treated. Nobody disagree here. But it's the way she has to expect to be treated. It's a pity, but it's reality.
You live in your dream world but, sorry to burst your bubble, reality looks different. It's not a happy wonder land where everything is like you want it to be.
No, Feminist is a dirty word because of the people whom are better described with another word are often mistooken for Feminists.
But lets NOT get back into that again
The problem is that a lot of women claim being feminists but are, in fact, female sexists striving for a matriarchy. Now that we mostly got rid of patriarchic elements, they want to turn it around and implement a matriarchy. That's plain hypocrism, not more, not less. And in the end, those female sexists are the worst thing that could happen to actual feminists.
As someone else already said: what we need and what feminists strive for is gender equality. Feminists did and still do a lot of work to achieve that aim while female sexists claiming to be feminists do their very best to stop them.
Sigvatr wrote: I don't blame her for anything, I merely said that if you go for such a job, you have to expect the things I described.
This is how I felt reading your post:
You are, 100%, blaming her, You're saying that she should expect such behavior, thereby not only rationalizing such lousy behavior but putting the onus on her not to be offended because it comes with the territory. You've normalized harassment, and made her into the offender for breaking the accepted norm and being offended. She had it coming, she applied for the job!
In short, you're part of the problem with such an attitude.
The problem is that a lot of women claim being feminists but are, in fact, female sexists striving for a matriarchy. Now that we mostly got rid of patriarchic elements, they want to turn it around and implement a matriarchy. That's plain hypocrism, not more, not less. And in the end, those female sexists are the worst thing that could happen to actual feminists.
As someone else already said: what we need and what feminists strive for is gender equality. Feminists did and still do a lot of work to achieve that aim while female sexists claiming to be feminists do their very best to stop them.
Actually, a lot of women that are feminists ARE the ones we want, but the VOCAL MINORITY are the ones who feth everything up for them. Not the other way around.
Melissia wrote:
Sigvatr wrote: "You had it coming" did not mean "IT'S HER FAULT LOLOL"
The vocal minority of feminists are just like the vocal minority of Christians. They're loud but mostly irrelevant.
Do you allow the Westboro church to color your view of ALL of Christianity? I think most people, when you get right down to it, don't. I just wish they'd use the same thought processes about feminism. Because despite pointing out numerous times that feminists have argued for things which benefit people regardless of gender, we STILL have people claiming all feminists are extremist nutjobs who hate men.
my point is that it is widely accepted to be a femminist, and promotor of woman's rights,
it is uniformly detested, to be a chauvinist, a promotor of male rights.
to the point where the term chauvanist no longer means what it is supposed to mean (male feminism) a fate you seem to not want for the word femminism. Yet you seem to have no issue with the male counterpart for feminism being a dirty word.
If I claim to be a feminist, I am accepted, that is the ONLY acceptable "ist" position for me to admit to
if I claim to be a humanist, I am accused of being a chauvanist, mysonogyst, and other nasty words.
god forbid I identify as a chauvenist in its proper definition (IE promotor of mens rights)
Girls can join boys only sports teams, clubs (boy scouts, cubs, ect) because its unfair to have male only teams/clubs
boys are banned from girls teams, clubs, ect because its unfair to not have female only teams/clubs
its ok for a girl to play hockey, shes then an empowered woman! great I think everyone should do what they enjoy, without taking needless flak for it.
but if a guy wants to do gymnastics/ballet/ect his entire identity comes into question, hes derided as gay, wussy, ect
and if you stick up for that guy, you are now "that guy"
I wont even go into how its assumed that men get special priviliges /treatment just for being men
stating that "feminism" is not female chauvanism,
basically sums it up nicely,
why is your genders rights movement ok, but the males rights movement wrong?
its a double standard that does no one, of either gender, any favours.
chauvinism is not "mysonigystic chauvanism"
it is simply MALE feminism,
the male word has been corrupted in the same way you fear your word will be, yet you support the derogitory version of chavinism as a completly negative thing.
In short, you're part of the problem with such an attitude.
The "She had it coming" part was my fault then - bad formulation on my part, idioms etc. Replace it with "She knew what she was to expect" if that helps you understand what I meant to say.
Does a teacher walk into the classroom not expecting anyone to disturb class?
Does a police man get up in the morning and thinks "No crimes today!"?
Let's just look at what happened. She decided to go to a video games convention. She dressed as a video game sex icon. She knew what audience went to these conventions. She knew how that audience would react.
So...do I want to say that she has no right to be offended? Of course not. She *should* be offended because those people's behavior is not morally right. My point is that this is what she should have expected to happen in regards to how normal visitors would react. It's common behavior on conventions. Right? No. Common? Yes. She chose the job. She chose to get these reactions. It's simple as that. I don't walk into my classroom and call my pupil's parents because someone passed a paper during class or dared talking with his neighbor.
And as I also (sigh) stated in my previous posts, she did the right thing with filing a complaint against the press guy. It's a whole different thing if an official representator acts like this compared to your average "LOOK GUYS TITS" convention visitor.
She will not get hired again by anyone for future conventions, that's a given, but it certainly took courage to go public and rant about it. It's a good thing because her job is a downright gakky job and people need to know how gakky it is. But at the same time, as I also said (sigh...), she isn't the right person for the job. Period.
easysauce wrote: to the point where the term chauvanist no longer means what it is supposed to mean (male feminism)
Actually, the term "chauvinist" didn't even originate on gender issues.
The original definition of "chauvinist" was, essentially, a person who is a die-hard nationalist, or an extremist patriot-- someone who believed that their nation or political group was utterly superior. "Male chauvinism" is, by extension, a belief in the superiority of men over non-men.
I think I said it earlier in the thread, but the reason extreme feminist views get so much airtime - insofar as they exist, given a lot of what are presented as them are exaggerated, distorted or presented out of context - is because some people want to hear them. I don't think they have much volume to begin with.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I think I said it earlier in the thread, but the reason extreme feminist views get so much airtime - insofar as they exist, given a lot of what are presented as them are exaggerated, distorted or presented out of context - is because some people want to hear them. I don't think they have much volume to begin with.
It's because it's easier to ridicule extremists of the group than it is to have an actual argument with the more reasonable majority of the said group, plus media likes getting people emotional it sells.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: insofar as they exist, given a lot of what are presented as them are exaggerated, distorted or presented out of context - is because some people want to hear them.
Yeah, once you remove the straw men you might find that you don't have an argument at all or that your opponent is actually more clever than you thought.
On a more tangential note, Sigvatr's "You had it coming" fiasco ended up reminding me of an old classic musical:
Spoiler:
So at least one good thing came out of this conversation.
Anyway, easysauce, if you wish to talk about Masculism (and I won't get in to the problems there are with that term and how it's used here...), it really is best to make a new thread about it. But referring to it as "chauvinism" won't do you any favors. Chauvinism has always been a negative term.
Slarg232 wrote: No, Feminist is a dirty word because of the people whom are better described with another word are often mistooken for Feminists.
No.
It has been claimed, in this very thread, that all feminists are sexists, or man-haters, or lesbians, or nazis, and so on and so forth. That all feminists are extremists. The same lies that have been spread about the feminist movement for something along the lines of sixty to eighty years, if not longer for some of them.
But that's all the claims are. Exaggerations, insults, and just plain lies created out of an attempt to dismiss the movement.
There's no "common sense" here, just rockerbikie making gak up again.
Feminism is not "female chauvinism".
In your opinion. Social politics is a very opinion based thing. You should check out some of the Tumblr "feminists'. Some believe that males are inferior and males are a mutation or females are superior for other reasons. I bet you are going to deny it and just hide it. There are a small perecentage of feminists who want a matriarchy.
Watch this video:
Warning: misleading title. It's a reaction to extremist feminist.
2) There are a small amount of muslims that want to blow up the U.S. There are a small amount of Catholicsthat rape kids. Are all of them guilty of such crimes?
It has nothing to do with opinions, mine or anyone else's.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that "feminism" is not the same as "female chauvinism". "Feminism" is a social movement which advocates equal rights and respect for women throughout society. "Female chauvinism" is an attitude which believes that women, as a social group, are superior. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
A desire for equality does not require a desire for superiority. Your continued attempts to claim such just goes to show how little you actually know.
It has nothing to do with opinions, mine or anyone else's.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that "feminism" is not the same as "female chauvinism". "Feminism" is a social movement which advocates equal rights and respect for women throughout society. "Female chauvinism" is an attitude which believes that women, as a social group, are superior. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
A desire for equality does not require a desire for superiority. Your continued attempts to claim such just goes to show how little you actually know.
Like I mentioned before it's easier to fight straw men than to actually have a point (not you mel but rockerbiker).
It has nothing to do with opinions, mine or anyone else's.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that "feminism" is not the same as "female chauvinism". "Feminism" is a social movement which advocates equal rights and respect for women throughout society. "Female chauvinism" is an attitude which believes that women, as a social group, are superior. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
A desire for equality does not require a desire for superiority. Your continued attempts to claim such just goes to show how little you actually know.
What do you call those tumblr feminists who want a matriachy? Do they not count? Do they drag them in the closet and you attack the patriarchy?
It has nothing to do with opinions, mine or anyone else's.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that "feminism" is not the same as "female chauvinism". "Feminism" is a social movement which advocates equal rights and respect for women throughout society. "Female chauvinism" is an attitude which believes that women, as a social group, are superior. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
A desire for equality does not require a desire for superiority. Your continued attempts to claim such just goes to show how little you actually know.
Like I mentioned before it's easier to fight straw men than to actually have a point (not you mel but rockerbiker).
Yes, I'm clearly a staw man because I do not like the feminists that I have meet in real life which have claimed that females are superior and men have caused all wars. Yes, I am a straw man because I am clearly a Marxist-Leninist. It's each to their own, each to their ability. I am a humanist, I refuse to call myself a feminist. Does not mean I am "straw man" as you indicated? No.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Given feminism is explicitly the belief in equality between men and women, no, they would seem to not be feminists at all.
Feminists need to debate against those types of people. They need to distance themselves.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Given feminism is explicitly the belief in equality between men and women, no, they would seem to not be feminists at all.
Precisely. The problem is that said "female chauvinists" or "femeale sexists" pretend being feminists. Same goes for people like Melissia who simply come from an extremely emotional and irrational point of view, being dogmatics about their thing - it's one of the reasons why actual feminism struggles so much, denying reason works in public because people love agreeing with people who are emotional about what they do, but it absolutely fails in serious places such as politics. Nobody takes such people seriously, they get nodded off and smiled at.
rockerbikie wrote: What do you call those tumblr feminists who want a matriachy?
Extremists. Not that you've actually paid any attention, but I've called them that numerous times in this thread.
They are a vocal, extremist minority. Every group has them. There were and are Black, Hispanic, and Asian militant groups throughout the history of the civil rights movement-- but that does not mean that the message of more moderate and equality-focused groups like NAACP are lessened by their existence. There have been numerous ultra-conservative militant groups labeled domestic terrorists-- but that doesn't mean that the entire conservative movement is nothing more than a collection of domestic terrorists.
But of course, just like you are doing here, white supremacists have long since focused entirely on the tiny minority that makes up the extremist elements of the civil rights movement to try to demonize the rest of them.
rockerbikie wrote: Do they drag them in the closet and you attack the patriarchy?
This is just bizarre and you should feel shame for posting it.
easysauce wrote: this lady expresses what I am trying to sum up pretty well,
I see you didn't actually bother to read my response to your post then where it's it's already been fething mentioned time and time a-fething-gain.
Nope, that would be too easy to read the posts quoted for your sake.
easysauce wrote: this lady expresses what I am trying to sum up pretty well,
video
How dare you hire an actress and produce a video solely for the purpose of misleading the members of this forum!
Seriously though, that was a pretty interesting watch. I am kind of into the idea of male disposability, frankly. I think it has something to do with a fear of getting old. Better to die on a battlefield or be gored to death by a mammoth or something.
Sigvatr wrote: it's one of the reasons why actual feminism struggles so much, denying reason works in public because people love agreeing with people who are emotional about what they do, but it absolutely fails in serious places such as politics.
Wait, are you making an argument that in politics, rational logic is more successful then playing to emotions? Because I don't know how it works in Germany, but in 'Murica it's totally the other way around.
Sigvatr wrote: Same goes for people like Melissia who simply come from an extremely emotional and irrational point of view, being dogmatics about their thing - it's one of the reasons why actual feminism struggles so much, denying reason works in public because people love agreeing with people who are emotional about what they do, but it absolutely fails in serious places such as politics. Nobody takes such people seriously, they get nodded off and smiled at.
Okay, this is like the start of the thread where people were talking about how the woman in the video was a deranged radical feminist who hates men and then I watched the video and found she was perfectly reasonable. I haven't been around dakka for very long, but I haven't seen Melissia do anything like that.
I would also like to point out that if your argument is in Derailing for Dummies then you probably shouldn't be using it. "You're being too emotional" would be one of those "arguments."
It has nothing to do with opinions, mine or anyone else's.
It is a fact, not an opinion, that "feminism" is not the same as "female chauvinism". "Feminism" is a social movement which advocates equal rights and respect for women throughout society. "Female chauvinism" is an attitude which believes that women, as a social group, are superior. The two terms are mutually exclusive.
A desire for equality does not require a desire for superiority. Your continued attempts to claim such just goes to show how little you actually know.
Like I mentioned before it's easier to fight straw men than to actually have a point (not you mel but rockerbiker).
Yes, I'm clearly a staw man because I do not like the feminists that I have meet in real life which have claimed that females are superior and men have caused all wars. Yes, I am a straw man because I am clearly a Marxist-Leninist. It's each to their own, each to their ability. I am a humanist, I refuse to call myself a feminist. Does not mean I am "straw man" as you indicated? No.
Yeah, that's a bit snarky of me sorry about that I can get a little bitter sometimes but I also misused the term straw man as well.
Monster Rain wrote: What about when someone actually is being overly emotional though?
Unlike anecdotal argument, these ideas exist beyond some particular articulation. The feminist critique is not less meaningful because someone might state it poorly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: No, Rockerbikie is using a strawman argument here. You were correct.
Ad hominem isn't it? He's saying that he doesn't like feminism because he's met some feminists he doesn't like.
Manchu wrote: Ad hominem isn't it? He's saying that he doesn't like feminism because he's met some feminists he doesn't like.
I suppose? It could easily be both. He's attacking the feminist movement by using a misrepresentation, without actually bothering to respond to the actual movement itself.
Manchu wrote: Ad hominem isn't it? He's saying that he doesn't like feminism because he's met some feminists he doesn't like.
I suppose? It could easily be both. He's attacking the feminist movement by using a misrepresentation, without actually bothering to respond to the actual movement itself.
Could it be a hasty generalization, the fallacy of drawing a conclusion about a target group on the basis of too small a sample?
Well to get back on topic... since we've drifted so far from it...
Sarkesian's video is not misandrist in any way. As she says in her video, it is possible to be critical of games that you love. She loves the games she's talking about. She's a fan of them and she had a lot of fun playing them, again, as she said in her video. And really, who can criticize something better than someone who absolutely loves what they're criticizing? They understand the material better than someone who has never played it after all.
And those criticisms are not about how "ermagerd, ah haet dem menfolkz!", but rather, "there is a tendency in video games to portray women as objects instead of actors". Her video merely established that a problem existed, it did not point fingers.
I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist... I thought Mario was saving the princess to restore peace and harmony back to the kingdom....
People seem to forget that these princesses are captured in the first place because they bring peace and harmony which is the best attribute to have.
I wish that more males would be shown as bringing about peace and harmony instead of being portrayed as destructive brutes.
Even if you look at games like Infinite Undiscovery:
The main character is put in jail. Female character infiltrates in to bust him out, and opens his jail cell. Immediately gets captured and the main protagonist has to save her. Upon escaping from prison, she gets poisoned and must be carried (Yes, you can't attack or use items while carrying her in your arms) to the nearest town to get her healed.
MetalOxide wrote: I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...
By itself, it is not.
When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.
Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.
If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".
easysauce wrote: this lady expresses what I am trying to sum up pretty well,
I see you didn't actually bother to read my response to your post then where it's it's already been fething mentioned time and time a-fething-gain.
Nope, that would be too easy to read the posts quoted for your sake.
I did read them, why do you think I have not?
why get so upset over the fact that I see the extreme sexism within the so called "feminist" movement,
as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,
females have the right to be judged this way as well, even if not all feminists agree with each other, even if the "capital F feminists" are not your idea of feminism, they are part of that movement, they have changed the nature of the movement, like it or not.
so because I think the female centric movement is just as silly as a male centric movement, and would prefer a human-centric movement, you think I am ignoring you?
yes yes, i know what the dictionary definition of feminist is,
fem·i·nism
[fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3.
feminine character.
feminism by definition is gender centric, and that is not what we need, that just swings the pendulum to another extreme, instead of finding a maintainable balance,
a true "feminist" as you see it, is actually a humanist
of course that doesnt stop the vast majority of so called "feminists" actually being socially acceptable forms of "female chauvinism" (this applies to MALE feminists as well) not that any of these "female chauvinists" see themselves as such,
besides that, by law, women have the exact same rights as men already, there is NO legal disparity between men and women. If feminism is about equality, and women and men are already equal, then what are these "feminist" doing?
and for every claim of "men make more $ for equal work" a counter of "men get harsher sentences for the same crimes" exists, so lets stick with legally entrenched rights instead of anecdotal perceived sexist social policies,
did you actually watch the video I posted melissa? I would like to hear your thoughts on that
MetalOxide wrote: I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...
By itself, it is not.
When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.
Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.
If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".
I see your point. Also this idea that the hero must have sex with the damsel after saving her is a bit demeaning to men as well, suggesting that the only motivation for a man to save somebody is that there is sex in it for them. Once again it all comes down to stupid gender generalizations and the idea that sex sells.
MetalOxide wrote: I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist... I thought Mario was saving the princess to restore peace and harmony back to the kingdom....
How is an evil villain supposed to get anywhere if they don't capture somebody important?
The idea of damsel in distress isn't sexist in itself the concern is that it's so overused that it becomes to be a woman is to be weak and submissive, that's the problem.
MetalOxide wrote: I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...
By itself, it is not.
When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.
Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.
If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".
95% of the time, the role men are given, is that of the expendable "macho man" hero who sacrifices life and limb, for the much more important life of the "damsel"
that is the same problem, inherently tied to the "damsel"
The men are given the opportunity to do something. What they do matters. What they say and think matters. The women are given no chance to do anything at all. The female character has no agency in the matter, she has no say, she is just a pretty little object, a prize to be obtained and nothing more. She has no agency, and her desires are irrelevant.
This is the very definition of objectification.
Objectification of men exists, but while it is a problem it still remains nowhere near as prominent as objectification of women.
easysauce wrote: why get so upset over the fact that I see the extreme sexism within the so called "feminist" movement,
Because you act as if the extremists are all that exist.
You make up bullgak about how "the majority" of feminists are sexist against men.
no no, I assert that the majority of "so called" feminists are sexist,
that is different from saying the majority of feminists are sexist,
there is a large group of people who claim to be "feminist" while not actually promoting the true ideology (hence the term, so called feminists)
and actual feminist, while being gender centric in their goal by definition, is not sexist by definition, nor am I implying they are sexist.
And I am not asserting these so called "feminists" are sexist against men, I am saying they are sexist. period. to both genders (heck to all four genders, but lets keep it simple for now)
MetalOxide wrote: I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...
By itself, it is not.
When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.
Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.
If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".
95% of the time, the role men are given, is that of the expendable "macho man" hero who sacrifices life and limb, for the much more important life of the "damsel"
that is the same problem, inherently tied to the "damsel"
you can not have a "damsel" sans "macho hero"
And that is why I play RTS games, I hate the 'HURR DURR', shoot first question later, no real strategy at all, only care about sex and GUNZ, meathead hero.
I for one would like some more male heroes who are not portrayed as over-muscular incompetent fools and actually has to use some wits and knowledge to win the game.
The men are given the opportunity to do something. What they do matters. What they say and think matters. The women are given no chance to do anything at all. The female character has no agency in the matter, she has no say, she is just a pretty little object, a prize to be obtained and nothing more. She has no agency, and her desires are irrelevant.
This is the very definition of objectification.
Objectification of men exists, but while it is a problem it still remains nowhere near as prominent as objectification of women.
I dont recall mario being given a choice to NOT save the princess, and NOT die multiple horrible deaths via goomba, falling, or drowning in sewer water.
WHAT a man or woman is FORCED to do, does not matter,
that they are forced to do anything IS
a man being forced to KILL and DIE to save someone
is no better or worse then a woman being forced to wait for rescue.
also... have you not played mario 2? princess is the best character in that game!
and Im pretty sure shes not saving herself!
and I recall saving about 100 MALE toad stools in mario, and only ONE female princess (shes always in another castle...)
Melissia wrote: And really, who can criticize something better than someone who absolutely loves what they're criticizing? They understand the material better than someone who has never played it after all.
Yes, but that also has it's own set of problems. Speaking for myself, while I agree that if I look at a game I love I'm also very likely to be familiar with it, and so am uniquely equipped to dissect it with an eye to it's flaws, I'm also supremely disinclined to do so. Why would I want to focus on the parts of something I don't like? Won't I then be then inclined to love it less? And even if I were inclined to do a critique of something I'm emotionally compromised by, I have to think that such a critique would strongly lend itself to turd-polishing.
I think once you really tear into analyzing a movie or a game or whatever, it's really hard to feel any magic anymore. I think you kind of ruin it a little by doing so.
THat's really sad, sad weasel wording, easysauce. Suffice it to say, given your history of posts in this thread where all you'd ever talk about are how the majority of feminists are sexist, I don't buy a fething moment of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I think once you really tear into analyzing a movie or a game or whatever, it's really hard to feel any magic anymore. I think you kind of ruin it a little by doing so.
easysauce wrote: as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,
The purpose of feminism isn't to "judge" anyone. This seems like it goes back to what Manchu was saying earlier, about feeling threatened/attacked even though that is explicitly not the point of the discussion.
We are all sexist - men, women, all of us, because we're brought up in a sexist culture and unintentionally absorb its ideas.
Guys, some feminists are extreme, they are not representative of the feminist community as a whole.
Similarly some male rights groups are hate groups, some aren't.
You cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Unfortunately alot of young women do not identify with feminists because of some of the extremeists, feminism needs to address this. I don't identify with male groups because of this as well.
You cannot judge a whole by a small part of it. You can simply look at their arguments neutrally.
In my view both groups have things to do, male groups need to do things like get equal paternity leave - it's both peoples child they should have equal time looking after it- andd also even out and reduce the bias of family courts.
Female groups need to get equal pay and change alot social attitudes. (feminism has more things to do but i think it has to be a more gradual thing like getting more female high up managers- you cannot legislate that)
What would help both is a lack of attacking others with emotive BS and being auto-hostile to other viewpoints. All they do when they do this is harm their own cause. It would probably if both groups could merge into one in order achieve their goals faster and gain more insight into others viewpoints, but that just is not going to happen.
In regard to cosplay/booth girls, these people do not deserve to have people being fethwits around them. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. for those of you that think it's ok, think about this. If you were doing a similar convention, doing the same job and had people you don't consider possible sex partners doing these actions towards you (it's a bad example, but lets just say a whole group of gay men) would it not be incredibly uncomfortable and creepy. these girls are playing on gamers sexuality, the companies pay them for that, but it does not mean they deserve to have actions like this done to them. If you want to act like this go to a strip club where you wil get thrown out for it.
I've never seen that trope, but I guess that site is so overwhelming now that's common. But no - not exactly, my wording was imprecise. I get that you can know how to bake a pie, and still find it delicious. I also don't think people who do analysis are boring.
If you take, for example, The Matrix - there's a lot of philosophical discussion there. I don't get into it because philosophy's not my bag (baby) but I'm aware of it's existence. I'd disinclined to dig deeper into, say, Aliens because I'm afraid if I think into it and realize, for example, that the scene where Bishop reaches for Newt, you can tell he's standing in a hole to make it appear he's been cut in half - I'll never be able to not see it again. Every time I watch that movie again, instead of seeing Bishop reaching for Newt and feeling the emotional tension, I'm going to see Lance Henrikson covered in milk standing in a hole.
It also matters, probably, that most of the movies I enjoy are less then cerebral, so there is lots of gold to be dug in them thar hills, so to speak, if I wanted to find mistakes, and dumb ideas, and just plain stupidity. Eventually I'd start to realize I watch a lot of stupid movies, and then I'd start to wonder what sort of person watches such lowbrow entertainment. Is that not a logical evolution?
easysauce wrote: as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,
The purpose of feminism isn't to "judge" anyone. This seems like it goes back to what Manchu was saying earlier, about feeling threatened/attacked even though that is explicitly not the point of the discussion.
We are all sexist - men, women, all of us, because we're brought up in a sexist culture and unintentionally absorb its ideas.
i never said the purpose was to judge people, please do not put words into my mouth.
and the only one being judged here is me, *(you did just call me sexist) true or not, its a judgement (hint, its not true)
simply because I will not accept that a situation that is sexist for both men, and women (damsel ID + Hero) is actually only sexist against women.
all I said was that true feminists, will be judged not only for their actions, but for the "so called feminists" actions as well.
just like Christians are judged not only on their individual churches actions, but on those of westboro baptist as well.
if I said westboro baptists were crazy gay haters, would you take that to mean I thought all Christians were crazy gay haters?
then why when I say that "so called feminists" or "capital F feminists" dont actually embody the ideals that their label would suggest,
I get accused of stating that ALL people who identify as feminists are sexist man haters?
not sure why my person is being attacked more vigorously then the ideas I present, nor the need for excessive swearing
Ouze wrote: It also matters, probably, that most of the movies I enjoy are less then cerebral, so there is lots of gold to be dug in them thar hills, so to speak, if I wanted to find mistakes, and dumb ideas, and just plain stupidity. Eventually I'd start to realize I watch a lot of stupid movies, and then I'd start to wonder what sort of person watches such lowbrow entertainment. Is that not a logical evolution?
It is, and yet it's not the ONLY evolution that one can have.
Embracing the stupid but fun nature of the movies is perfectly okay as well! I'm odd, perhaps, but even after I totally ripped in to how horribly bad that, say, the first Judge Dredd movie with Stallone was, I still found it enjoyable afterwards.
Everyone is being judged by what they do or do not do. The problem is not the judging itself, but judging someone via unfair or inconsistent standards. Such as how you bash the entire feminist movement for being sexist because of a very tiny minority of the movement having extreme viewpoints.
Manchu wrote: Ad hominem isn't it? He's saying that he doesn't like feminism because he's met some feminists he doesn't like.
I suppose? It could easily be both. He's attacking the feminist movement by using a misrepresentation, without actually bothering to respond to the actual movement itself.
I have never claimed to have data, my opinion is that of my personal experiences with feminists.
rockerbikie wrote: I have never claimed to have data, my opinion is that of my personal experiences with feminists.
Yes, I am quite aware that you're making things up so that you can try to insult and dismiss the entire movement.
I'm glad you admit it, however.
Yes. Making things up. I can randomly make up radical feminists. I'm a communist so I support it but I disagree with some aspects of it, like with some games.
rockerbikie wrote: Yes. Making things up. I can randomly make up radical feminists.
Yes, you are.
The radicals exist. No one denies that. But you are attempting to claim that mainstream feminism believes everything that the radical groups argue, and that feminists as a whole support female superiority over men.
Directly contradictory to every single feminist in this thread and every single feminist article that has been linked to in this thread.
By focusing only on the extremists and ignoring all other points and issues, you are only proving me right, in the end-- since that kind of activity and demonization is exactly what I said has been happening all along.
easysauce wrote: as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,
The purpose of feminism isn't to "judge" anyone. This seems like it goes back to what Manchu was saying earlier, about feeling threatened/attacked even though that is explicitly not the point of the discussion.
We are all sexist - men, women, all of us, because we're brought up in a sexist culture and unintentionally absorb its ideas.
i never said the purpose was to judge people, please do not put words into my mouth.
and the only one being judged here is me, *(you did just call me sexist) true or not, its a judgement (hint, its not true)
Oh, you're not sexist?
That's cool. I am. I grew up and live in a culture that considers men more important than women. That can affect me in ways I can't predict, and some that I can from experience. Part of feminism is examining that cultural influence, trying to shake it where possible, and trying to figure out ways to make it a thing of the past.
Everyone is being judged by what they do or do not do. The problem is not the judging itself, but judging someone via unfair or inconsistent standards. Such as how you bash the entire feminist movement for being sexist because of a very tiny minority of the movement having extreme viewpoints.
please stop putting words in my mouth, why get so angry over semantics? its not worth it, relax, we probably agree on more then we'd disagree on.
when I talk about specific bad elements of a group,
that is not me "bashing" the movement, thats me "bashing" its bad apples. My only crime is acknowledging they exist, and that the majority of these bad apple are in fact bad...
so I dont know you are either reading into it wrong, but me saying the bad apples are bad, does not mean I am saying the good apples are bad as well.
If I cannot advocate that we have gender neutral humanist movement, where the male-ist+female-ist extremists are isolated on either end of the spectrum, and the sensible majority take up a large middle ground,
Manchu wrote: Ad hominem isn't it? He's saying that he doesn't like feminism because he's met some feminists he doesn't like.
I suppose? It could easily be both. He's attacking the feminist movement by using a misrepresentation, without actually bothering to respond to the actual movement itself.
I have never claimed to have data, my opinion is that of my personal experiences with feminists.
Didn't you say that Mel only has opinions and no facts earlier in the thread?
Well, much like in the cases of radical islamics and kid diddling priests, I think that the misandrists that profess to be part of the feminist movement are sheltered from outside criticism by the larger group. It's not like radical/normal is a binary set of choices that everyone sees clearly - that misandrist might be very nice to women in the feminist movement, who then would be far more likely to see a questionable remark as an aberration. That's just human nature. I really don't think there are all that many dyed in the wool, full on man haters out there. Remember, women also benefit from the 'people act more like dicks on the internet' rule. If you think that every women who tweets something slightly misandristic is super serious about that, all the time - then you have to assume that every man who sent this sarkasian (sp?) chick death or rape threats actually want to murder or rape her. It's mostly just internet hyperbole.
And to address that earlier story, I don't think people should be fired for making dick jokes. I just wish we lived in a less litigious society, really.
I don't believe you for a moment, given your history in this thread.
If you'd be quiet about the extremists for even one moment maybe you'd realize none of them are posting in this thread-- so responding to every single post as if we're all extremists just makes you look like a bit of a jerk.
And that's all you do, rant endlessly about extremists as if that's all that exists-- ignoring the actual points brought up just so that you can try to talk about extremists once again. It's just another means by people like you to attempt to discredit the feminist movement. And I'm calling you out on it because I'm tired of this crap. It's stupid and it does nothing but distract from the real issues at hand.
Hell, it's like if there was a discussion on Christian charity and some jerk atheist came up and started talking about Westboro Baptist and just wouldn't shut up about it.
I don't believe you for a moment, given your history in this thread.
If you'd be quiet about the extremists for even one moment maybe you'd realize none of them are posting in this thread-- so responding to every single post as if we're all extremists just makes you look like a bit of a jerk.
And that's all you do, rant endlessly about extremists as if that's all that exists-- ignoring the actual points brought up just so that you can try to talk about extremists once again. It's just another means by people like you to attempt to discredit the feminist movement. And I'm calling you out on it because I'm tired of this crap. It's stupid and it does nothing but distract from the real issues at hand.
Hell, it's like if there was a discussion on Christian charity and some jerk atheist came up and started talking about Westboro Baptist and just wouldn't shut up about it.
why you focus so much on insulting me, and go from "feth this" "feth that" to calling me "feminist basher" to flat out lying about what I am saying,
this isnt a debate, or a discussion, you are now just insulting me for no reason other then I disagree with you.
but like you said, I should just be "quiet" like a "good" boy and not speak my mind.
no double standards there,
I may not agree with you, but at least IM not swearing and insulting your character.
I have been polite and accommodating, and have not berated you with insults or falsely attributed words to you.
as if my goal is to discredit the "movement" , as if I could if I wanted to even... what was that about straw men? oh yeah fabricate the lie that I am anti feminist, may as well right?
that is some real paranoia, and it too bad you refuse to engage in a rational discussion that allows dissenting viewpoints from your own, as opposed to emotionally reacting and insulting me.
just because I disagree with you, I am an anti feminist...
right,
It gets really interesting at 6 minute + mark where her intent is pretty clear. Go to 7minutes 15 seconds and the evidence is right there with her own words.
And word of the wise, take a page out of Anita Saarkisians book and just ignore all comments from Melissa, unless you can use them to make money.
Here is Anita on national news playing the victim and plugging her kickstarter at the same time:
Melissias obvious die-hard trolling left aside, let's get back to the videos and less about being sexist.
Regarding the second video: the internet, home of lovely people. The reaction by the guy who made that beat-up game is just ridiculous.
Regarding the "Fat, Slutty" etc. homepage, this entire part of the video was slowed. Judging by what I heard from other players during LoL, my mom must have slept with more men that exist, I'd be dead for *hundreds* of times, I also get got death threats etc. Where's the difference in being called a "son of a birch" or "slat"? What's the difference in "I'll cut your duck off" or "show me your boobies"? It's not sexist, it's just an altered insult. Everyone, literally, everyone gets insulted in video games. Hell, I'ven been told to get raped as well -___-
The rest of the video standard news style, but overall, showed a good portrait of how "nice" people are on the internet for people who didn't know before. The problem, however, is not sexism, it's the general attitude of behavior.
...and wait, that woman makes games "specifically for women"? Which means...games like Halo aren't made for women? O_o
/e: The first video is interesting. inb4 Melissia calling the guy who made it sexist o/
On the other hand, though, keep in mind that it's her right to close comments, pull off videos or exclude certain interviews. And even if she uses the comments section as honey pots aka draw angry gamers in to prove her point - that's her right as well. If people would not make such posts, she would not have a point. But since they do, it's her choice to use them to her advantage.
Monster Rain wrote: So what is it that separates the enlightened few from the brainwashed, sexist masses?
Apparently it's a vagina
Well it's probably easier to recognize prejudice and discrimination if you're the victim, because you can just ignore it if you're not.
Yes, but there are plenty of women that aren't mad about super Mario brothers.
Why is that?
And I can't help but laugh at the railing against logical fallacies from someone who relies entirely on them in their trolling of this thread (ie no true Scotsman, ad hominem, and flat out misrepresentation).
Cheesecat wrote: Well it's probably easier to recognize prejudice and discrimination if you're the victim, because you can just ignore it if you're not.
Yes, but there are plenty of women that aren't mad about super Mario brothers.
I'm not sure this matters. What point are you getting at?
If me calling you out on what you've been doing this entire thread is insulting to you, maybe you should re-think what you've been doing.
I'm not asking you to shut up entirely. I just wish you'd stop talking as if the extremist portions of the group were anything other than the insignificantly small portion that they are.
Manchu wrote: Once again, men's rights issues are a separate topic that should be discussed in a separate thread.
Actually, no, they aren't. If you're talking about actual feminism, which means gender equality, you also have to consider the other side of the spectrum aka men's rights - else you can't talk about equality.
They are linked issues however it is not necessary to discuss the details of men's rights in order to discuss equality in terms of bringing women up to the same level.
Manchu wrote: Once again, men's rights issues are a separate topic that should be discussed in a separate thread.
Actually, no, they aren't. If you're talking about actual feminism, which means gender equality, you also have to consider the other side of the spectrum aka men's rights - else you can't talk about equality.
Actually, men's rights are not at issue here. As clearly exhibited ITT, that issue has been brought up repeatedly to derail the actual discussion, which is of portrayals of female characters in video games. The feminist critique to hand does not advocate anything one way or the other about men's rights. Please start a separate thread on that matter if you wish to discuss it. Final warning.
Cheesecat wrote: Well it's probably easier to recognize prejudice and discrimination if you're the victim, because you can just ignore it if you're not.
Yes, but there are plenty of women that aren't mad about super Mario brothers.
I'm not sure this matters. What point are you getting at?
There are women who don't care about the issue at hand in this thread.
I'm wondering how they are viewed by the Anita Sarkeesians of the world, since in many instances the type of person who feels that they are a member of a persecuted class , race, gender, etc tend to view members of their group that disagree with their extremist positions to be "sell outs" or "brainwashed" or an "Uncle Tom" or what have you. Generally there's some sort of feeling of exceptionalism in these people, and a feeling of superiority over those "sheeple" who haven't managed to escape the Matrix.
Not that I expect anyone to admit this here, even if it were the case. It's just something I was mulling over when I asked a few gamers who happen to be female what they thought of this issue and they thought, without exception, that the entire controversy is moronic. If I may clarify, the controversy over tropes was moronic. We all agreed that the trolling goes too far in these cases.
Monster Rain wrote: the type of person who feels that they are a member of a persecuted class , race, gender, etc tend to view members of their group that disagree with their extremist positions
I see what you did there: You're saying the position that someone is "a member of a persecuted class, race, gender, etc" is extremist. And this is reinforced/proven by the fact that not all women care about the portrayal of female characters in video games?
Monster Rain wrote: the type of person who feels that they are a member of a persecuted class , race, gender, etc tend to view members of their group that disagree with their extremist positions
I see what you did there: You're saying the position that someone is "a member of a persecuted class, race, gender, etc" is extremist. And this is reinforced/proven by the fact that not all women care about the portrayal of female characters in video games?
Not at all, dude.
Not everyone who thinks this is a problem is an extremist. I disagree with you somewhat, but I don't think you are an extremist. I'm referring only to people who fit that description, and not attempting to paint anyone with that brush who doesn't.
But with that said, why do you specifically think that some women don't find this an issue? Forget I even used the word "extremist".
Monster Rain wrote: But with that said, why do you specifically think that some women don't find this an issue?
I suspect it has more to do with case-by-case circumstances than any global issue. But to the extent that there is a global issue, I think it has to do with most people -- even people who enjoy playing video games -- not thinking that video games are very important in a cultural sense.
In regard to female leads in video games: does anyone still remember Beyond Good and Evil? It was an outstanding game with a strong female lead, actually the best I can think of right now.
Jade was neither a "Where is my hero who saves me?" nor a "I AM SO BADASS BROS" type of girl, she just seemed...average, natural. She did her best to save her friends, but not just to show that she's badass, she really seemed like a credible, complex character. I liked the game's message of there not being a single (wo)man being able to change things, but that a single person can make a change that inspires a lot of people. Oh, and no f-ing giant boobs -__-
I can only recommend the game to everyone, it's awesome.
Anita isn't an extremist...she just knows how to make a good profit.
Sigvatr wrote: Anita isn't an extremist...she just knows how to make a good profit.
I don't think she's any less sincere for hitting six figures on her KS. After all, the video is up. It's well thought out and clearly stated in argument, respectful in tone (in undoubted anticipation of tone argument), and has good production qualities. Besides, her voice exists in a market where profit and visibility are coterminous and certainly not mutually exclusive.
Sigvatr wrote: Anita isn't an extremist...she just knows how to make a good profit.
I don't think she's any less sincere for hitting six figures on her KS. After all, the video is up. It's well thought out and clearly stated in argument, respectful in tone (in undoubted anticipation of tone argument), and has good production qualities. Besides, her voice exists in a market where profit and visibility are coterminous and certainly not mutually exclusive.
I wasn't negative about it. She just markets her stuff well. Pull of videos that might backlash onto you, force all negative comments to be made in a single video, manually select comments on YouTube that contain sexual insults (to back up your points) etc. She literally turns gak(storm) into gold
The content of her videos are certainly debatable and she obviously skips a few points, but alas, that's how everyone argues. Her videos are good for people who did not read / hear about the issue a lot before, but then continue to do their own research. People who already researched info on the subject will get no new info - it's the same you already known presented by an attractive female host. I don't like her body language though, she appears to slightly act a lot.
You might say that's feminist marketing. If you can turn being called a slut whore who should die from rape into funding for your work raising the issue of pervasive misogyny then ... you're doing it right.
I'll bring up one reason some women "don't find it an issue": because there's immense pressure to "not find it an issue."
Actually I'd disagree (EDIT: Actually no, I agree, I just want to clarify what I think the pressure is). I'd think most women don't find it an issue because culturally, they are indoctrinated like most us into the ideal of what a woman is. They don't see a problem with it because our culture says there isn't one. Group think at work.
She has some holes in her argumentation, but that's just natural as, for the most part, video games is a commercial sector and has to produce for the target audience, which is, for the largest part, men and she comes from a very ethics-based background which cannot be fully applied to capitalism. Her points are well thought-out, no doubt, it's just that people should not expect or treat them like fully objective, dead-end arguments / points.
E.g. yes, she's called a slut, whore etc. but so is everyone who says anything about any controversial issue on any topic, not only video games. Anyone who ever played MOBAs knows what your average gamer has to face. You don't get flamed because you're a woman, you get flamed because you're an enemy in a competitive gaming enviroment. There's no difference between "I hope you get raped" and "I hope you get your duck cut off". It's just an expression of frustration / anger.
I think the same can be said about any serious consideration of video games so in this instance there is a compound pressure.
That's possible. I've certainly seen non-feminist critiques of video games, even very well thought-out and presented, get attacked furiously. In those cases, I suspect a lot of it comes down to some people having difficulty separating criticism of the things they like from themselves.
).
