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.

 Amaya wrote:
Kate Winslet is flat out unattractive (imo)

Would not bang, huh?

 Manchu wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Kate Winslet is flat out unattractive (imo)

Would not bang, huh?

As I don't believe sex outside of marriage or a committed relationship is morally acceptable, the answer would be no. Not only to her, but to actresses I do find physically attractive.

Directly into the microphone, sir, that's right. Yes, we'll make sure your wife gets the tape.

Infidelity is obviously not at issue. "Would/would not bang" is a game played under "ideal" conditions. If you can imagine being in a position where whether you are sexually attracted to Kate Winslet actually matters, how is it so hard to further imagine that you're also not married in the scenario?

Some people!

There are men I would have relations with before I voluntarily touched Kate Winslet.

Personality aside, right? Seriously, this is Cracked #4 in a huge way.

Given that I do not know her personally the only thing I can comment on is her acting.

I don't see how saying she is unattractive is related to #4. I don't consider her decoration. How is this any different than saying I don't understand why women find a certain male actor to be attractive?

Leonardo Dicaprio for example. Don't get it...at all. He's an excellent actor though.

From tropes about women, to sexism, to misogyny to judging the physical appearance of women.

Who says Dakka doesn't do irony?

You didn't just say "she's unattractive."

 Amaya wrote:
There are men I would have relations with before I voluntarily touched Kate Winslet.

I judge everyone's appearance though. Hairstyle, facial structure, clothing, muscularity, muscular aesthitics, tattoos, piercings, etc.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
You didn't just say "she's unattractive."

 Amaya wrote:
There are men I would have relations with before I voluntarily touched Kate Winslet.

You requested further clarification.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I also don't think sexuality is black and white, as in you are hetero or homosexual. I don't consider myself bisexual. I would never engage in actual relations with a male, but I have no problem admiring one as being sexually attractive.

Apparently this means I look at everyone as decoration.

 Amaya wrote:
Apparently this means I look at everyone as decoration.

This is a really key point.

Again, as far as I can tell feminist critique is not some kind of scheme women dreamt up to subject men to guilt and manipulation. Rather, it is (or at least is a subset of) critical thinking about how people deal with each other. Women aren't the only people who are dehumanized through objectification. And men aren't the only ones who objectify.

And men aren't the only ones who objectify.

Twilight. The damsel in distress plot that just keeps distressing

I don't see how observations are dehumanizing unless you intentionally reduce individuals down to their appearance. Simply because I think someone is unattractive does not mean I make any assumptions about their intelligence, personality, or interests.

You're equating judging someone's appearance with dismissing all other traits. There is a difference between judging their appereance and judging them on their appearance.

Cracked #4 is stating that men are doing the latter to women.

I find Kate Winslet reasonably attractive.


That's all

I think you're engaging in critical thought. Outside of this context, the comments would not be differentiated in this specific way.

This is a great example of how being critical is not the same thing as prohibiting things or not enjoying things.

It is certainly possible to find a person physically attractive without objectifying them. The objectification that tends to get caught up with the experience of appraising physical attraction arises IMO from uncritical thought.

Apparently my opinions on sexuality and attractive males have frightened everyone away.

 Manchu wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I wasn't the one who started the conversation about numbers, if you'll recall. I simply asked what the acceptable ratio would be after you mentioned a numerical disparity.

It wasn't a conversation about numbers. I mentioned what should be an obvious disparity, you started in on ratios. When I directly asked you whether you meant it as a cap and trade solution -- i.e., if there are X non-objectified female characters how many objectified ones is the industry allowed -- you ignored the question. Care to answer it now?

I directly answered that question.

Could you post a link?

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, I do believe it as such. That's how it's been used by hate groups, and by misogynistic men throughout recent history.

It is the insult that the Men's Rights Movement has co-opted as its calling card. Frequently, not a single post goes by in MRM discussions in less moderated place without said bomb being dropped... and the target being a woman, often with a synonym for "stupid" before it, because these people do not believe that women are intelligent enough to deserve to be able to control our own lives.

In your opinion is there any context where using the word witch is OK?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, I do believe it as such. That's how it's been used by hate groups, and by misogynistic men throughout recent history.

It is the insult that the Men's Rights Movement has co-opted as its calling card. Frequently, not a single post goes by in MRM discussions in less moderated place without said bomb being dropped... and the target being a woman, often with a synonym for "stupid" before it, because these people do not believe that women are intelligent enough to deserve to be able to control our own lives.

In your opinion is there any context where using the word witch is OK?

While watching Charmed? (hah, edited because I just saw what that autocorrected from, and it's still possibly true if you are talking about Shannon Doherty - what kind of monster doesn't get along with Alyssa Milano)

That said, I think a greater disservice has been done to relationships between men and women in the last hundred odd years by Hollywood than has been done by any other factor. The cracked article kind of touched on it, but it had a point that it was trying to make, and tried to stick close to comedy. But a lot of what it was getting at was that men and women expect the bs Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for a century or so - music plays, eyes meet, love happens, some lie you told comes out to aid a little flair, then you monologue at an airport so she/he forgives you and everything is roses for ever. That is infinitely more damaging to actual realistic and healthy relationships than any number of women being tied to proverbial train tracks. We have been (both genders) conditioned since before our brains actually work that love is easy, and great. And when we find out that isn't true, on some level it convinces us that either we are broken and wrong, or the other person/their whole damned gender is, depending on the circumstances.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yes, I do believe it as such. That's how it's been used by hate groups, and by misogynistic men throughout recent history.

It is the insult that the Men's Rights Movement has co-opted as its calling card. Frequently, not a single post goes by in MRM discussions in less moderated place without said bomb being dropped... and the target being a woman, often with a synonym for "stupid" before it, because these people do not believe that women are intelligent enough to deserve to be able to control our own lives.

In your opinion is there any context where using the word witch is OK?

While watching Charmed? (hah, edited because I just saw what that autocorrected from, and it's still possibly true if you are talking about Shannon Doherty - what kind of monster doesn't get along with Alyssa Milano)

That said, I think a greater disservice has been done to relationships between men and women in the last hundred odd years by Hollywood than has been done by any other factor. The cracked article kind of touched on it, but it had a point that it was trying to make, and tried to stick close to comedy. But a lot of what it was getting at was that men and women expect the bs Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for a century or so - music plays, eyes meet, love happens, some lie you told comes out to aid a little flair, then you monologue at an airport so she/he forgives you and everything is roses for ever. That is infinitely more damaging to actual realistic and healthy relationships than any number of women being tied to proverbial train tracks. We have been (both genders) conditioned since before our brains actually work that love is easy, and great. And when we find out that isn't true, on some level it convinces us that either we are broken and wrong, or the other person/their whole damned gender is, depending on the circumstances.

Yeah, I agree I think some Hollywood tropes can actually be quite damaging psychologically (like Disney princess movies teach girls to be submissive and let men be in control) and I also find it weird how so many Hollywood movies have "love at first sight" yet I don't know anyone who

believes in "love at first sight".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I find Kate Winslet reasonably attractive.


That's all

I like her face but am not a fan of her bod.

Hollywood's depiction of love isn't really that different than those of past centuries. It's more prolific now, and I do think that's having an effect but there is another one:

Women don't have to marry someone anymore. In the past there was always pressure from a woman's family to get married, especially if there weren't any sons. Her dowry could support her parents and siblings and she could care for her parents as they grew older. And once married, it was taboo to end a marriage even in cultures with measures intended to protect a woman from a husband who couldn't provide for her or abused her. Loyalty to other families for mutual security, children, etc. This is no longer true.

This extends a bit larger than gender relations per se, as it's also about obligations to children and a larger society, and Hollywood has had an effect in shifting the focus of marriage from practical to emotional, but society and changes within it have had an effect as well.

 Bromsy wrote:
That said, I think a greater disservice has been done to relationships between men and women in the last hundred odd years by Hollywood than has been done by any other factor. The cracked article kind of touched on it, but it had a point that it was trying to make, and tried to stick close to comedy. But a lot of what it was getting at was that men and women expect the bs Hollywood has been shoving down our throats for a century or so - music plays, eyes meet, love happens, some lie you told comes out to aid a little flair, then you monologue at an airport so she/he forgives you and everything is roses for ever. That is infinitely more damaging to actual realistic and healthy relationships than any number of women being tied to proverbial train tracks. We have been (both genders) conditioned since before our brains actually work that love is easy, and great. And when we find out that isn't true, on some level it convinces us that either we are broken and wrong, or the other person/their whole damned gender is, depending on the circumstances.

Lack of realism from one of the most fake and superficial places on earth? Surely you jest

I am unable to sleep because Hollywood conditioned me that a horribly burned man with a red sweater and a knife glove is going to kill me if I do.

Damn you Hollywood!

 Monster Rain wrote:
I am unable to sleep because Hollywood conditioned me that a horribly burned man with a red sweater and a knife glove is going to kill me if I do.

Damn you Hollywood!

We aren't supposed to talk about him! That's the only way to contain him.

Just watched the video... who would of thought that Popeye and Mario could be the root of women's disparities, Also I'll never look at King Kong the same way again... I never knew that a giant gorilla carrying a damsel in distress up the Empire State building could be so offensive.

"Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.

 Manchu wrote:
"Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.

Honestly the idea of damsel in distress isn't bad in itself it's just when it becomes so common that it becomes "to be feminine is is to be weak and helpless" then it is a problem, especially since it clashes with the North American values of being independent and self-sufficient

 Manchu wrote:
"Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.

So what if one simply chooses to interpret these early games as cheeky pop-culture references?

The case can certainly be made for that, I think. Also, the games were much more limited in their ability to build stories in-game, so using familiar tropes and themes certainly would have allowed a sort of "shorthand" to establish character motivation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
"Offensive" isn't the right word. The question isn't whether King Kong is a "bad" movie, bur rather how does that story portray women and how has that story affected the way women have been portrayed in video games.

Honestly the idea of damsel in distress isn't bad in itself it's just when it becomes so common that it becomes "to be feminine is is to be weak and helpless" then it is a problem, especially since it clashes with the North American values of being independent and self-sufficient

I think that's the major disconnect on the issue. The use of a trope is interpreted as misogynistic, or as a goofy way to motivate your little plumber to break bricks with his head.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I am unable to sleep because Hollywood conditioned me that a horribly burned man with a red sweater and a knife glove is going to kill me if I do.

Damn you Hollywood!

We aren't supposed to talk about him! That's the only way to contain him.

I also actively avoid summer camps and the state of Texas.

As a side note, I wonder, since video games with misogynistic tropes are negatively affecting society, if there is some merit to the idea that violence in video games should be examined as well.

And if not, why?

 Monster Rain wrote:
As a side note, I wonder, since video games with misogynistic tropes are negatively affecting society, if there is some merit to the idea that violence in video games should be examined as well.

And if not, why?

From what I understand it is unconfirmed that violence in media causes more aggression in society as the studies on the issue are all over the place with some showing strong correlation and others showing little to none at all.

Should probably mention that damsel in distress doesn't just exist in video games (oh right I said that pages ago).

I said on page 1 of the thread that I didn't see much point in being critical of an excuse plot. I think the thread has hashed out that the trend is worth discussing, even if the individual games themselves are not. Likwise, the idea that a violent game will drive someone to violence is a stupid concept (in the same way that I doubt playing Super Mario World ever made someone stand up and declare their eternal hatred for women). But it does say something about how violence is viewed in society and how we interpret it.