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.

 MetalOxide wrote:
I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...

By itself, it is not.

When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.

Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.

If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".

 Melissia wrote:

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.

I did read them, why do you think I have not?

why get so upset over the fact that I see the extreme sexism within the so called "feminist" movement,

as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,

females have the right to be judged this way as well, even if not all feminists agree with each other, even if the "capital F feminists" are not your idea of feminism, they are part of that movement, they have changed the nature of the movement, like it or not.

so because I think the female centric movement is just as silly as a male centric movement, and would prefer a human-centric movement, you think I am ignoring you?

yes yes, i know what the dictionary definition of feminist is,

fem·i·nism
[fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
2.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women.
3.
feminine character.


feminism by definition is gender centric, and that is not what we need, that just swings the pendulum to another extreme, instead of finding a maintainable balance,


a true "feminist" as you see it, is actually a humanist


of course that doesnt stop the vast majority of so called "feminists" actually being socially acceptable forms of "female chauvinism" (this applies to MALE feminists as well) not that any of these "female chauvinists" see themselves as such,

besides that, by law, women have the exact same rights as men already, there is NO legal disparity between men and women. If feminism is about equality, and women and men are already equal, then what are these "feminist" doing?

and for every claim of "men make more $ for equal work" a counter of "men get harsher sentences for the same crimes" exists, so lets stick with legally entrenched rights instead of anecdotal perceived sexist social policies,


did you actually watch the video I posted melissa? I would like to hear your thoughts on that

easysauce wrote:
why get so upset over the fact that I see the extreme sexism within the so called "feminist" movement,

Because you act as if the extremists are all that exist.

You make up bullgak about how "the majority" of feminists are sexist against men.

 Melissia wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...

By itself, it is not.

When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.

Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.

If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".

I see your point. Also this idea that the hero must have sex with the damsel after saving her is a bit demeaning to men as well, suggesting that the only motivation for a man to save somebody is that there is sex in it for them. Once again it all comes down to stupid gender generalizations and the idea that sex sells.

 MetalOxide wrote:
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....

How is an evil villain supposed to get anywhere if they don't capture somebody important?

The idea of damsel in distress isn't sexist in itself the concern is that it's so overused that it becomes to be a woman is to be weak and submissive, that's the problem.

Yeah, I always thought that was kind of sad myself.

 Melissia wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...

By itself, it is not.

When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.

Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.

If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".

95% of the time, the role men are given, is that of the expendable "macho man" hero who sacrifices life and limb, for the much more important life of the "damsel"

that is the same problem, inherently tied to the "damsel"

you can not have a "damsel" sans "macho hero"

easysauce wrote:
that is the same problem

No, it's not.

The men are given the opportunity to do something. What they do matters. What they say and think matters. The women are given no chance to do anything at all. The female character has no agency in the matter, she has no say, she is just a pretty little object, a prize to be obtained and nothing more. She has no agency, and her desires are irrelevant.

This is the very definition of objectification.



Objectification of men exists, but while it is a problem it still remains nowhere near as prominent as objectification of women.

 Melissia wrote:

easysauce wrote:
why get so upset over the fact that I see the extreme sexism within the so called "feminist" movement,

Because you act as if the extremists are all that exist.

You make up bullgak about how "the majority" of feminists are sexist against men.

no no, I assert that the majority of "so called" feminists are sexist,

that is different from saying the majority of feminists are sexist,

there is a large group of people who claim to be "feminist" while not actually promoting the true ideology (hence the term, so called feminists)

and actual feminist, while being gender centric in their goal by definition, is not sexist by definition, nor am I implying they are sexist.


And I am not asserting these so called "feminists" are sexist against men, I am saying they are sexist. period. to both genders (heck to all four genders, but lets keep it simple for now)

easysauce wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 MetalOxide wrote:
I still don't get how being a damsel in distress is sexist...

By itself, it is not.

When the only role women are given 95% of the time is damsel, however, THEN it becomes a problem.

Being a damsel is the same as being an object. There's very litle difference between Princess Peach and the various artifacts that Indiana Jones tries to "rescue" from the villains he faces in his movies.

If women were put in an active, heroic role more often, the "damsel in distress" issue wouldn't have been brought up so much. Never mind the attitude that "he saved her now he gets to feth her, and she has no say in it".

95% of the time, the role men are given, is that of the expendable "macho man" hero who sacrifices life and limb, for the much more important life of the "damsel"

that is the same problem, inherently tied to the "damsel"

you can not have a "damsel" sans "macho hero"

And that is why I play RTS games, I hate the 'HURR DURR', shoot first question later, no real strategy at all, only care about sex and GUNZ, meathead hero.

I for one would like some more male heroes who are not portrayed as over-muscular incompetent fools and actually has to use some wits and knowledge to win the game.

 Melissia wrote:

easysauce wrote:
that is the same problem

No, it's not.

The men are given the opportunity to do something. What they do matters. What they say and think matters. The women are given no chance to do anything at all. The female character has no agency in the matter, she has no say, she is just a pretty little object, a prize to be obtained and nothing more. She has no agency, and her desires are irrelevant.

This is the very definition of objectification.



Objectification of men exists, but while it is a problem it still remains nowhere near as prominent as objectification of women.

I dont recall mario being given a choice to NOT save the princess, and NOT die multiple horrible deaths via goomba, falling, or drowning in sewer water.

WHAT a man or woman is FORCED to do, does not matter,

that they are forced to do anything IS

a man being forced to KILL and DIE to save someone
is no better or worse then a woman being forced to wait for rescue.


also... have you not played mario 2? princess is the best character in that game!

and Im pretty sure shes not saving herself!

and I recall saving about 100 MALE toad stools in mario, and only ONE female princess (shes always in another castle...)

[fixing typos]

 Melissia wrote:
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.

Yes, but that also has it's own set of problems. Speaking for myself, while I agree that if I look at a game I love I'm also very likely to be familiar with it, and so am uniquely equipped to dissect it with an eye to it's flaws, I'm also supremely disinclined to do so. Why would I want to focus on the parts of something I don't like? Won't I then be then inclined to love it less? And even if I were inclined to do a critique of something I'm emotionally compromised by, I have to think that such a critique would strongly lend itself to turd-polishing.

I think once you really tear into analyzing a movie or a game or whatever, it's really hard to feel any magic anymore. I think you kind of ruin it a little by doing so.

THat's really sad, sad weasel wording, easysauce. Suffice it to say, given your history of posts in this thread where all you'd ever talk about are how the majority of feminists are sexist, I don't buy a fething moment of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I think once you really tear into analyzing a movie or a game or whatever, it's really hard to feel any magic anymore. I think you kind of ruin it a little by doing so.

Oh, so you're pushing the Measuring the Marigolds idea, huh?

easysauce wrote:
as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,

The purpose of feminism isn't to "judge" anyone. This seems like it goes back to what Manchu was saying earlier, about feeling threatened/attacked even though that is explicitly not the point of the discussion.

We are all sexist - men, women, all of us, because we're brought up in a sexist culture and unintentionally absorb its ideas.

Guys, some feminists are extreme, they are not representative of the feminist community as a whole.
Similarly some male rights groups are hate groups, some aren't.
You cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Unfortunately alot of young women do not identify with feminists because of some of the extremeists, feminism needs to address this. I don't identify with male groups because of this as well.

You cannot judge a whole by a small part of it. You can simply look at their arguments neutrally.
In my view both groups have things to do, male groups need to do things like get equal paternity leave - it's both peoples child they should have equal time looking after it- andd also even out and reduce the bias of family courts.

Female groups need to get equal pay and change alot social attitudes. (feminism has more things to do but i think it has to be a more gradual thing like getting more female high up managers- you cannot legislate that)
What would help both is a lack of attacking others with emotive BS and being auto-hostile to other viewpoints. All they do when they do this is harm their own cause. It would probably if both groups could merge into one in order achieve their goals faster and gain more insight into others viewpoints, but that just is not going to happen.

In regard to cosplay/booth girls, these people do not deserve to have people being fethwits around them. There is no excuse for this kind of behavior. for those of you that think it's ok, think about this. If you were doing a similar convention, doing the same job and had people you don't consider possible sex partners doing these actions towards you (it's a bad example, but lets just say a whole group of gay men) would it not be incredibly uncomfortable and creepy. these girls are playing on gamers sexuality, the companies pay them for that, but it does not mean they deserve to have actions like this done to them. If you want to act like this go to a strip club where you wil get thrown out for it.

 Melissia wrote:
Oh, so you're pushing the Measuring the Marigolds idea, huh?

I've never seen that trope, but I guess that site is so overwhelming now that's common. But no - not exactly, my wording was imprecise. I get that you can know how to bake a pie, and still find it delicious. I also don't think people who do analysis are boring.

If you take, for example, The Matrix - there's a lot of philosophical discussion there. I don't get into it because philosophy's not my bag (baby) but I'm aware of it's existence. I'd disinclined to dig deeper into, say, Aliens because I'm afraid if I think into it and realize, for example, that the scene where Bishop reaches for Newt, you can tell he's standing in a hole to make it appear he's been cut in half - I'll never be able to not see it again. Every time I watch that movie again, instead of seeing Bishop reaching for Newt and feeling the emotional tension, I'm going to see Lance Henrikson covered in milk standing in a hole.

It also matters, probably, that most of the movies I enjoy are less then cerebral, so there is lots of gold to be dug in them thar hills, so to speak, if I wanted to find mistakes, and dumb ideas, and just plain stupidity. Eventually I'd start to realize I watch a lot of stupid movies, and then I'd start to wonder what sort of person watches such lowbrow entertainment. Is that not a logical evolution?

So what is it that separates the enlightened few from the brainwashed, sexist masses?

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

easysauce wrote:
as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,

The purpose of feminism isn't to "judge" anyone. This seems like it goes back to what Manchu was saying earlier, about feeling threatened/attacked even though that is explicitly not the point of the discussion.

We are all sexist - men, women, all of us, because we're brought up in a sexist culture and unintentionally absorb its ideas.

i never said the purpose was to judge people, please do not put words into my mouth.

and the only one being judged here is me, *(you did just call me sexist) true or not, its a judgement (hint, its not true)

simply because I will not accept that a situation that is sexist for both men, and women (damsel ID + Hero) is actually only sexist against women.

all I said was that true feminists, will be judged not only for their actions, but for the "so called feminists" actions as well.

just like Christians are judged not only on their individual churches actions, but on those of westboro baptist as well.

if I said westboro baptists were crazy gay haters, would you take that to mean I thought all Christians were crazy gay haters?

then why when I say that "so called feminists" or "capital F feminists" dont actually embody the ideals that their label would suggest,
I get accused of stating that ALL people who identify as feminists are sexist man haters?

not sure why my person is being attacked more vigorously then the ideas I present, nor the need for excessive swearing

No true feminist Scotsman would behave in such an extremist manner, eh?

 Ouze wrote:
It also matters, probably, that most of the movies I enjoy are less then cerebral, so there is lots of gold to be dug in them thar hills, so to speak, if I wanted to find mistakes, and dumb ideas, and just plain stupidity. Eventually I'd start to realize I watch a lot of stupid movies, and then I'd start to wonder what sort of person watches such lowbrow entertainment. Is that not a logical evolution?

It is, and yet it's not the ONLY evolution that one can have.

Embracing the stupid but fun nature of the movies is perfectly okay as well! I'm odd, perhaps, but even after I totally ripped in to how horribly bad that, say, the first Judge Dredd movie with Stallone was, I still found it enjoyable afterwards.

Probably BECAUSE it was so bad, but eh.

easysauce wrote:
and the only one being judged here is me

Everyone is being judged by what they do or do not do. The problem is not the judging itself, but judging someone via unfair or inconsistent standards. Such as how you bash the entire feminist movement for being sexist because of a very tiny minority of the movement having extreme viewpoints.

 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.

I have never claimed to have data, my opinion is that of my personal experiences with feminists.

 rockerbikie wrote:
I have never claimed to have data, my opinion is that of my personal experiences with feminists.

Yes, I am quite aware that you're making things up so that you can try to insult and dismiss the entire movement.

I'm glad you admit it, however.

 Melissia wrote:

 rockerbikie wrote:
I have never claimed to have data, my opinion is that of my personal experiences with feminists.

Yes, I am quite aware that you're making things up so that you can try to insult and dismiss the entire movement.

I'm glad you admit it, however.

Yes. Making things up. I can randomly make up radical feminists. I'm a communist so I support it but I disagree with some aspects of it, like with some games.

 rockerbikie wrote:
Yes. Making things up. I can randomly make up radical feminists.

Yes, you are.

The radicals exist. No one denies that. But you are attempting to claim that mainstream feminism believes everything that the radical groups argue, and that feminists as a whole support female superiority over men.

Directly contradictory to every single feminist in this thread and every single feminist article that has been linked to in this thread.



By focusing only on the extremists and ignoring all other points and issues, you are only proving me right, in the end-- since that kind of activity and demonization is exactly what I said has been happening all along.

easysauce wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

easysauce wrote:
as a man, I am judged by the actions of other men, even those I do not associate with,

The purpose of feminism isn't to "judge" anyone. This seems like it goes back to what Manchu was saying earlier, about feeling threatened/attacked even though that is explicitly not the point of the discussion.

We are all sexist - men, women, all of us, because we're brought up in a sexist culture and unintentionally absorb its ideas.

i never said the purpose was to judge people, please do not put words into my mouth.

and the only one being judged here is me, *(you did just call me sexist) true or not, its a judgement (hint, its not true)

Oh, you're not sexist?

That's cool. I am. I grew up and live in a culture that considers men more important than women. That can affect me in ways I can't predict, and some that I can from experience. Part of feminism is examining that cultural influence, trying to shake it where possible, and trying to figure out ways to make it a thing of the past.

 Melissia wrote:

easysauce wrote:
and the only one being judged here is me

Everyone is being judged by what they do or do not do. The problem is not the judging itself, but judging someone via unfair or inconsistent standards. Such as how you bash the entire feminist movement for being sexist because of a very tiny minority of the movement having extreme viewpoints.

please stop putting words in my mouth, why get so angry over semantics? its not worth it, relax, we probably agree on more then we'd disagree on.

when I talk about specific bad elements of a group,

that is not me "bashing" the movement, thats me "bashing" its bad apples. My only crime is acknowledging they exist, and that the majority of these bad apple are in fact bad...

so I dont know you are either reading into it wrong, but me saying the bad apples are bad, does not mean I am saying the good apples are bad as well.



If I cannot advocate that we have gender neutral humanist movement, where the male-ist+female-ist extremists are isolated on either end of the spectrum, and the sensible majority take up a large middle ground,

then what can I advocate?

 rockerbikie wrote:

 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.

I have never claimed to have data, my opinion is that of my personal experiences with feminists.

Didn't you say that Mel only has opinions and no facts earlier in the thread?

I can find the quote if you need me to.

Well, much like in the cases of radical islamics and kid diddling priests, I think that the misandrists that profess to be part of the feminist movement are sheltered from outside criticism by the larger group. It's not like radical/normal is a binary set of choices that everyone sees clearly - that misandrist might be very nice to women in the feminist movement, who then would be far more likely to see a questionable remark as an aberration. That's just human nature. I really don't think there are all that many dyed in the wool, full on man haters out there. Remember, women also benefit from the 'people act more like dicks on the internet' rule. If you think that every women who tweets something slightly misandristic is super serious about that, all the time - then you have to assume that every man who sent this sarkasian (sp?) chick death or rape threats actually want to murder or rape her. It's mostly just internet hyperbole.


And to address that earlier story, I don't think people should be fired for making dick jokes. I just wish we lived in a less litigious society, really.

easysauce wrote:
that is not me "bashing" the movement

I don't believe you for a moment, given your history in this thread.

If you'd be quiet about the extremists for even one moment maybe you'd realize none of them are posting in this thread-- so responding to every single post as if we're all extremists just makes you look like a bit of a jerk.

And that's all you do, rant endlessly about extremists as if that's all that exists-- ignoring the actual points brought up just so that you can try to talk about extremists once again. It's just another means by people like you to attempt to discredit the feminist movement. And I'm calling you out on it because I'm tired of this crap. It's stupid and it does nothing but distract from the real issues at hand.

Hell, it's like if there was a discussion on Christian charity and some jerk atheist came up and started talking about Westboro Baptist and just wouldn't shut up about it.