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.

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.

Well, that's commonplace in many settings - for example, many conservative news outlets like to portray liberals as godless babykillers, and on the other end, present conservatives as heartless zealots. The world is a very complicated place, and you have to distrust anyone who tries to explain things as if they are simple, black and white issues.

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:

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.

[youtube]

 Melissia wrote:

 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".

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.

1) You've got nothing more than opinion as well.

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?

 rockerbikie wrote:
In your opinion.

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.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
In your opinion.

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).

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
In your opinion.

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?

Given feminism is explicitly the belief in equality between men and women, no, they would seem to not be feminists at all.

I for one would welcome our female overlords.

this lady expresses what I am trying to sum up pretty well,

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
In your opinion.

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:

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.

This, a thousand times.

 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:
The problem is that said "female chauvinists" or "femeale sexists" pretend being feminists.

You have provided no foundation for this characterization which is on its face offensive. Without such foundation this is simply flamebait.

Perhaps you had better stick to the ideas rather than talking about alleged characteristics of the people who hold them.

[delete: off topic]

 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."

What about when someone actually is being overly emotional though?

 rockerbikie wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
In your opinion.

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.

No, Rockerbikie is using a strawman argument here. You were correct.

 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.

 Melissia wrote:

 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?

That might be more accurate.

Although regardless of which logical fallacy, it's still a logical fallacy.

 Melissia wrote:
That might be more accurate.

Although regardless of which logical fallacy, it's still a logical fallacy.

Well, you can have more than one.

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.

All within the first hour of gameplay.