Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

That is when you stop trying to be the interviewer, and start acting the interviewee when he stopped asking questions, he broke his professionalism on the subject and started lecturing.

I read this before, and yes it is what happened.

An interviewer asked a question that was more than bland PR speak?!

Blizzard halted the interviewer and asking a legitimate question is far from lecturing.

 Palindrome wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

That is when you stop trying to be the interviewer, and start acting the interviewee when he stopped asking questions, he broke his professionalism on the subject and started lecturing.

I read this before, and yes it is what happened.

An interviewer asked a question that was more than bland PR speak?!

Blizzard halted the interviewer and asking a legitimate question is far from lecturing.

RPS: But it’s not even about a message. The goal is to let people have fun in an environment where they can feel awesome without being weirded out or even objectified. This is a genre about empowerment. Why shouldn’t everyone feel empowered? That’s what it’s about at the end of the day: letting everyone have a fair chance to feel awesome.

A baited question with mostly lecture, I hope this isn't your example of legitimate.

And yes, when you start postulating a position in order to press your views that starts getting uncomfortable for someone who can't do anything about it. I mean sure you could go up to any salesmen and start browbeating them with loaded questions. What can they do besides hopefully avoid the topic so they won't end up fired because of not handling a loaded situation well?

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

A baited question with mostly lecture, I hope this isn't your example of legitimate.

I beg to differ.

 Palindrome wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

A baited question with mostly lecture, I hope this isn't your example of legitimate.

I beg to differ.

You beg to differ in your opinion with nothing behind it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Palindrome wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

A baited question with mostly lecture, I hope this isn't your example of legitimate.

I beg to differ.

You beg to differ in your opinion with nothing behind it.

we could do this all day but I really can't be bothered.

 Palindrome wrote:
An interviewer asked a question that was more than bland PR speak?!

Blizzard halted the interviewer and asking a legitimate question is far from lecturing.

While that's absolutely true, it's also, unfortunately, not what actually appears to have happened.

So are most of you people feminists?

 Lynata wrote:
Case in point, Sisters of Battle - why, oh why, do a perceived 50% of all fan art have them in high heels? Is it really just because of that ONE drawing from Blanche?

I've talked to people about this a few times, and it seems to be a "rule of cool" thing. Apparently some find high heels on SoBs to be cool looking and suitably over the top, enough so to ignore the ridiculousness of a soldier going to war dressed in high heels.

But hey, it's just fan art, not official art.

 MetalOxide wrote:
So are most of you people feminists?

Personally I am a humanist.

 MetalOxide wrote:
So are most of you people feminists?

I didn't know if I would consider myself a feminist but I do agree with their idea of equal treatment for both genders, I think I'm more accepting of feminist theory than most other guys so I could see people calling me as such.

I'd say that i support the Humanist view points alot. and i also think that we as humans are all equals.

For what the medias and entertainment decides to do in portraying women,men and cultures in general is all due to the sad fact that there is market for such things,the same goes for well political view points that are riding on the market where money is more important than the political view points and what one really think is right.

If you believe in equality for women, you're a feminist.

 MetalOxide wrote:
So are most of you people feminists?

I believe in treating everyone equally and judging people on their merits, rather than attempting to gain advantage or favor for particular genders, races, or classes, so no, I'm not a feminist.

Interesting... I wouldn't call myself a feminist as I don't know enough about the movement. All I believe in is treating everyone with respect and fairness.

nomotog wrote:
If you believe in equality for women, you're a feminist.

Surely believing in equality for all humans is not feminism, yet it means equality for women by definition. Equality for women and equality for humanity are different things, because to single out one gender is an inequality.

nomotog wrote:
If you believe in equality for women, you're a feminist.

I don't really think so. Technically you are correct but certain aspects and adherents of feminism are essentially reverse misogynists plus the name itself is quite exclusive. Even mainstream feminism can be exclusive (for example the daily 'Women's Hour' programme on BBC radio 4).

I certainly don't think of myself as a feminist and I think that the term has become outdated.

 Palindrome wrote:

nomotog wrote:
If you believe in equality for women, you're a feminist.

I don't really think so. Technically you are correct but certain aspects and adherents of feminism are essentially reverse misogynists plus the name itself is quite exclusive. Even mainstream feminism can be exclusive (for example the daily 'Women's Hour' programme on BBC radio 4).

I certainly don't think of myself as a feminist and I think that the term has become outdated.

Misandrist, there is no 'Reverse Misogynist" there is an actual term for it.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Misandrist, there is no 'Reverse Misogynist" there is an actual term for it.

Same difference.

Seaward wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
So are most of you people feminists?

I believe in treating everyone equally and judging people on their merits, rather than attempting to gain advantage or favor for particular genders, races, or classes, so no, I'm not a feminist.

Feminist. Treating everyone equally includes treating women equally. Your a feminist.

MetalOxide wrote:Interesting... I wouldn't call myself a feminist as I don't know enough about the movement. All I believe in is treating everyone with respect and fairness.

Feminist. Everyone includes women, so you believe women should be treated equally. Your also a Feminist.

4oursword wrote:

nomotog wrote:
If you believe in equality for women, you're a feminist.

Surely believing in equality for all humans is not feminism, yet it means equality for women by definition. Equality for women and equality for humanity are different things, because to single out one gender is an inequality.

Feminist. Equality for all humans means you believe equality for women because women are humans too.

Palindrome wrote:

nomotog wrote:
If you believe in equality for women, you're a feminist.

I don't really think so. Technically you are correct but certain aspects and adherents of feminism are essentially reverse misogynists plus the name itself is quite exclusive. Even mainstream feminism can be exclusive (for example the daily 'Women's Hour' programme on BBC radio 4).

I certainly don't think of myself as a feminist and I think that the term has become outdated.

Revers misogynist aren't feminists. They are misandrist. I can understand not agreeing with every method or observation made by every feminist, but that isn't the same as not being feminist.

nomotog wrote:
Feminist. Treating everyone equally includes treating women equally. Your a feminist.

I just explained to you why I'm not. I don't favor all the special treatment that feminists advocate for. Thus, not a feminist.

 Seaward wrote:

nomotog wrote:
Feminist. Treating everyone equally includes treating women equally. Your a feminist.

I just explained to you why I'm not. I don't favor all the special treatment that feminists advocate for. Thus, not a feminist.

You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

nomotog wrote:
You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

It's not a binary choice. It isn't, "You either want women to be subservient to men, or you're a feminist." Framing it falsely in that manner might give you a sense of satisfaction, but it's far from the reality of the situation. If all feminists wanted was parity, there wouldn't be much about their methods to disagree with.

 Seaward wrote:

nomotog wrote:
You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

It's not a binary choice. It isn't, "You either want women to be subservient to men, or you're a feminist." Framing it falsely in that manner might give you a sense of satisfaction, but it's far from the reality of the situation. If all feminists wanted was parity, there wouldn't be much about their methods to disagree with.

Oh your right actually. It's not as binary as I said. If your not a feminist, then you don't believe in equally of women, but that comes in a few forms. You can consider men second class citizens. The definition of feminist is some who believes in equality for women. If you believe in equality for women, you are feminist.

Think of it like, how the Westboro Baptist Church shouldn't be taken as the example to define Christians.

nomotog wrote:

MetalOxide wrote:Interesting... I wouldn't call myself a feminist as I don't know enough about the movement. All I believe in is treating everyone with respect and fairness.

Feminist. Everyone includes women, so you believe women should be treated equally. Your also a Feminist.

I'm not a feminist. Feminists believe that there is a big oppressive patriarchy that must be dismantled to benefit both men and women achieving equality whereas I believe that equality can be achieved through mutual respect and fairness and that the patriarchy is a boogey-man conjured up by racical-feminists. People who say 'feminism is equality' are just as bad as those who say 'anti racism is anti white'.

nomotog wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

nomotog wrote:
You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

It's not a binary choice. It isn't, "You either want women to be subservient to men, or you're a feminist." Framing it falsely in that manner might give you a sense of satisfaction, but it's far from the reality of the situation. If all feminists wanted was parity, there wouldn't be much about their methods to disagree with.

Oh your right actually. It's not as binary as I said. If your not a feminist, then you don't believe in equally of women, but that comes in a few forms. You can consider men second class citizens. The definition of feminist is some who believes in equality for women. If you believe in equality for women, you are feminist.

Unless you happen to be part of the Sect of Feminism that believes Women should replace men in all forms of government, conquer men, and generally have unequal rights.

Feminists have many people within it's group afterall.

Of course all of it's groups have Extremists..Though Feminists seem to embrace some sectors of it compared to most. It's why many Women and Men don't want to be called Feminists even as they fight for Equality, finding the label tarnished by the extremists and vocal group.

MetalOxide wrote:

nomotog wrote:

MetalOxide wrote:Interesting... I wouldn't call myself a feminist as I don't know enough about the movement. All I believe in is treating everyone with respect and fairness.

Feminist. Everyone includes women, so you believe women should be treated equally. Your also a Feminist.

I'm not a feminist. Feminists believe that there is a big oppressive patriarchy that must be dismantled to benefit both men and women achieving equality whereas I believe that equality can be achieved through mutual respect and fairness and that the patriarchy is a boogey-man conjured up by racical-feminists. People who say 'feminism is equality' are just as bad as those who say 'anti racism is anti white'.

You disagree with the perception of the world, but still agree with the idea that women should be treated equally. Your a feminist. You don't have to believe ever thing every feminist says to be a feminist. If you don't think there is a patriarchy, that doesn't stop you from being a feminist. Deepening on your evidence, you could be wrong in your worldview, but I am not going to evaluate which world view is the correct one.

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

nomotog wrote:
You can disagree with the methods, but unless you want women to be subservient to men you are a feminist. Do you believe women should be second class citizens?

It's not a binary choice. It isn't, "You either want women to be subservient to men, or you're a feminist." Framing it falsely in that manner might give you a sense of satisfaction, but it's far from the reality of the situation. If all feminists wanted was parity, there wouldn't be much about their methods to disagree with.

Oh your right actually. It's not as binary as I said. If your not a feminist, then you don't believe in equally of women, but that comes in a few forms. You can consider men second class citizens. The definition of feminist is some who believes in equality for women. If you believe in equality for women, you are feminist.

Unless you happen to be part of the Sect of Feminism that believes Women should replace men in all forms of government, conquer men, and generally have unequal rights.

Feminists have many people within it's group afterall.

Of course all of it's groups have Extremists..Though Feminists seem to embrace some sectors of it compared to most.

I wouldn't call women who want to rule men feminist. If you don't believe in equal rights, your not a feminist.

(OK that is not entirely true. There are arguments that one can make about equality Vs equal rights Vs equal consideration, but it's such a wwee dee distinction that I really don't want to get into it.)

I wouldn't call women who want to rule men feminist. If you don't believe in equal rights, your not a feminist.

Except that goes under "No True Scotsmen"

And even the basic definition of Feminism suggests less then what you suggest

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.[1][2] This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women

A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women.

Superiority isn't equality.

It's not a case of the "No True Scotsmen" . In that, your redefining the definition to meaningless. I am not doing that. I'm keeping the same definition. A feminist believes in equality for women. The definition of feminist isn't someone who calls themselves feminist.

The quote you linked says equality of women Zebio not the superiority of women. By your very definition that you posted someone who wants women to have more rights than men is not a feminist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Palindrome wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

That is when you stop trying to be the interviewer, and start acting the interviewee when he stopped asking questions, he broke his professionalism on the subject and started lecturing.

I read this before, and yes it is what happened.

An interviewer asked a question that was more than bland PR speak?!

Blizzard halted the interviewer and asking a legitimate question is far from lecturing.

"News is something somebody doesn't want printed; all else is advertising" - George Orwell

That quote pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter.

During the interview he actually acted like a journalist for a bit and not just an advertiser feeding them easy questions.