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.

 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).

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 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.

Which is why we have this happening now:

http://www.themarysue.com/julia-pierson-secret-service/

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

@Harassment at Pax:

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.

Wow, taht post really went downhill with victim blaming.

 Melissia wrote:

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.

We found a victim, may we blame her?

 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?



we dont need feminists,

we dont need chauvenists,

we need humanists

I have already stated why feminist is considered a dirty word in this thread, but it got deleted and I got banned for it.

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.

 Melissia wrote:
It's also why you get things like this happening as well.

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.

As usual for this topic really.

easysauce wrote:
we dont need feminists,

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.

 Slarg232 wrote:
I have already stated why feminist is considered a dirty word in this thread

"Feminist" is a dirty word because people attempt to demonize the movement to make it easier to ignore.

Lying about the movement is a classic past-time of its opponents, even from the very start of the movement.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There's no victim blaming involved

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.

 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. 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.

 Melissia wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
I have already stated why feminist is considered a dirty word in this thread

"Feminist" is a dirty word because people attempt to demonize the movement to make it easier to ignore.

Lying about the movement is a classic past-time of its opponents, even from the very start of the movement.

 Sigvatr wrote:
There's no victim blaming involved

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.

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

easysauce wrote:

 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?



we dont need feminists,

we dont need chauvenists,

we need humanists

Thank you, person with common sense.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 rockerbikie wrote:
Thank you, person with common sense.

There's no "common sense" here, just rockerbikie making gak up again.

Feminism is not "female chauvinism".

 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.

 Slarg232 wrote:

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:
"You had it coming" did not mean "IT'S HER FAULT LOLOL"

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The problem is that a lot of women claim being feminists but are, in fact, female sexists striving for a matriarchy.

Oh look, Sigvatr is pulling "facts" out of thin air again.

What a shocker.

 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.

Sigvatr wrote:

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"

Actually, that is exactly what it means.

Pretty much.....

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.

melissa,

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.

Thats logical, and Melissa will invalidate that off as unimportant and stupid in 3....2....1....

 Ouze wrote:


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: Excellent post.

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.

It was never anything else.

Hmm, I was hoping that the meaning would involve horsies.

It's funny how historical revisionism has crept in to the conversation yet again.

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.