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.

 Orlanth wrote:
Blanket social ostracism is purportedly a social taboo in todays society, so it pays to ask yourself why people don't notice when it is happening right in front of their faces.

Well, I have a perfectly fine answer for your question: because it is not happening in front of our face. At least not to gamers.

 Orlanth wrote:
Its a simple logical chain.
1. Blanket ostacising of people groups is wrong, its generally considered 'bigoted', with a watchword of 'tolerance' to be highlighted as the opposite and desired societal virtue.
2. However casual blanket ostracism is propagated by certain groups, one of those groups is the womens magazines.
3. Why? We must assume that the writers of womens articles and womens magazines are equal opportunities aware, however they dont consider that tolerance applies in these cases.
4. Casual selective tolerance occurs because rights are selectively applied. In the case there the selective rights are sourced by feminism, which is because feminism at its core is a female empowerment movment rather than an absolute equal rights movement.

3. is basically the only place where you somehow link the article to feminism by virtue of it being written in a women's magazine, which is an extremely weird thing to do. Also weird assumption that women magazine are supposed to be shinning beacon of gender equality and general “social justice” stuff when they have shown time and time again that they are not.

 Orlanth wrote:
Also note that feminism also raises a (selective) banner against casual discrimination, a good example of this is the 'male dominated workforce' and similar memes.

Do you mean this kind of stupid meme? Yeah they are a real load of stupid self-confirmation un-researched crap.

 Orlanth wrote:
Whan they haver these types of articles will disappear.

Grossly misogynistic things still get published, what makes you think that if feminists were to “catch up on male discrimination” stupid articles against dating wargamers will disappear?
Also still confused about why you think this article is about men rather than about wargamers…

 Orlanth wrote:
This does mean that more people *here* should recognise that blanket ostracism of gamers is unfair and discriminatory and has no place in the mass media of a modern and progressive society.

So what you mean is “People here should call this article stupid”. What is happening is “Everyone here calls this article stupid”. I'm confused at why you want exactly…
That we call it stupid and sexist? Well, I'm pretty sure most people will agree with this, if only for the assumptions that wargamers only come in the male variety.
That we call it a feminist article? Ahah good luck with this, it obviously isn't.

 Orlanth wrote:
If the article was about 13 sinful things that a woman should recogjnise a man as unholy for, then you would have a solid argument to claim the discrimination is religious based.
However it isn't, its about actioning stereotypes, and blanket social judgement of people based on their hobby choices, with in a milieu of gender differences.

So, what you are saying is that if we switch the pretty neutral “games/date” with the clearly religious “unholy/sins” thing, it will be clearly religious. Do you somehow associate games and/or dating stuff with feminism in the same way that you associate holiness and sin with religion? If so, why on earth do you do that???

The only issue I can see with adults buying toys is that they can spawn a "collector's market" for a certain line, driving up prices to ridiculous levels.


But it is what it is.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 sebster wrote:
My Mum was more interested in checking to make sure this club was full of lurking paedophiles.

Well, this certainly paints an interesting picture of Sebs early home life

That may be the single worst typo of my life Possibly also my mother's life, because she probably just got put on some kind of government watchlist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Ok you two. It might be better of you looked at causality rather than just resort to making patronising remarks. I know what I was writing about. Do you?

Try and think about it. We live in an age where people are expected to show tolerance, however protection and tolerance are one sided.

1. What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?
2. What prevents them from seeing that this is wrong?

Know your argument? You don't even know what ostracise means. Now, noting that someone has used a word incorrectly is generally pedantry, but in this case your mistake in using ostracise is pretty much the entire crux of your argument. Because ostracise means excluding someone entirely from society, but here you've used the word to describe a woman telling other women they shouldn't date certain kinds of guys. One of these things is very different from the other.

And to understand how much your argument relies on this, consider replacing 'ostracise' with 'don't date'. With this, your very serious sounding sentences like "What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?" becomes "What empowers people to recommend people don't date people for shallow reasons?"

The first sentence sounds like a horrible thing being done by them damn feminists who are getting together to shut some people out of society. The second sounds like gakky dating advice, something that's existed since the inventions of dating and gakky advice, and something which has no political or cultural agenda, nor any relation to politics or changing culture, but is actually just the natural product of people having a tendency to give gak advice.

 sebster wrote:
And to understand how much your argument relies on this, consider replacing 'ostracise' with 'don't date'. With this, your very serious sounding sentences like "What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?" becomes "What empowers people to recommend people don't date people for shallow reasons?"

To be fair to Orlanth, “What empowers people to recommend people don't date people based on their skin color” would sound pretty bad.
But let's be serious for a second, how disconnected from real life struggle should one have to be toput on the same level the “discrimination” and “prejudice” that gamers face and the discrimination and prejudice that black people face? Like, WTF is that comparison really?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And to understand how much your argument relies on this, consider replacing 'ostracise' with 'don't date'. With this, your very serious sounding sentences like "What empowers people to flatly ostracise people for shallow reasons?" becomes "What empowers people to recommend people don't date people for shallow reasons?"

To be fair to Malus, “What empowers people to recommend people don't date people based on their skin color” would sound pretty bad.
But let's be serious for a second, how disconnected from real life struggle should one have to be toput on the same level the “discrimination” and “prejudice” that gamers face and the discrimination and prejudice that black people face? Like, WTF is that comparison really?

To be fair to Malus, that was Orlanth

I only raised the hilarious typo

My bad. Will edit.

So women should avoid me because I buy adult toys

funny... it always had the opposite effect



(for the naive, I'm deliberately misinterpreting the title)