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.

 Grundz wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

Yeah, that's it, it isn't just you repeating the same nonsense in every thread you have a chance to to turn the conversation back on yourself, It isn't that at all.

If you think Melissia's arguments are nonsense it would be better to show why by the use of facts.

Otherwise this sort of post just looks like a personal attack.

 Melissia wrote:
That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

Isn't that just the thing what you're trying to do right here?

I'm just stating that I think her logic is flawed on most areas and that she's overreacting on the smallest things. Her facts about the people playing these games are absolutely NOT right, to the point that it's just discriminating men.

You know, looking at the pages of carefully thought out discussions in this forum: what is the point we are trying to make?

Sarkeesian is a polarizing media person due to her methods and choice of subject matter.

I "give a gak" because the topics are valid BUT I can't help feeling she is manipulating my feelings on this matter to her own ends.

I tend to get a little unforgiving about that no matter what sex, race or sexual or religious leaning the person has.

I get a bit angry when I feel justified in my "dislike" for the person but still feel guilt because you never know if deep down I am some feminism hater and just trying to justify the hate.
Hehe, been a few jokes out there that the white male is to blame for all the injustice in the world so self-doubt and constant motivation analysis may be the only acceptable way to be.

She really is looking like a one trick pony to me, the point was made and hopefully she can find another entertaining way to leverage her agenda (whatever that truly may be).

Since we cannot get away from the "Zoe" topic though very different people, she does geek stuff, looking at historical works from her: seems like a cool person (she is borg! chipped!).
What freaky stuff people do in the bedroom and with whom really is not for me to judge.
She published software no matter how "bad" anyone may decide, it is a fine achievement.

The REAL topic is how the software release and review "systems" work and all the messy human interactions that happen for a huge variety of motivations.
Totalbiscuit I like as a reviewer and a rather outspoken member of the software / media industry and many of his viewpoints are helpful on this matter.

It is a funny thing trying to keep all things equal: if either of these people were men, would they even get 1/10th the attention to their achievements or what they have to say?

Sarkeesian needs to quit whining and start slapping the serious offenders with police investigation if what she saying/hinting is true or she can stuff her attention seeking posts.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Isn't that just the thing what you're trying to do right here?

No.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
I'm just stating that I think her logic is flawed

Without actually stating how it is flawed.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
and that she's overreacting on the smallest things

That you believe they are unimportant doesn't mean everyone agrees.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Her facts about the people playing these games are absolutely NOT right

Citation needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
I tend to get a little unforgiving about that no matter what sex, race or sexual or religious leaning the person has.

Unless it's a video which you agree with that's "manipulating [your] feelings", in which case you're okay with it.

 Talizvar wrote:
Sarkeesian needs to quit whining and start slapping the serious offenders with police investigation if what she saying/hinting is true or she can stuff her attention seeking posts.

... she posted two tweets about it. One saying she got a credible threat from a very creepy stalker posting about her, and the other saying she's safe now, and she reported it to the police. She hasn't really mentioned it since then.

So both your "she needs to stop whining" bit, and your "she needs to tell the police" bit have no basis in what actually happened, because she already did both of those.

 Melissia wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Then she shouldn't whine about this being used in games

Your argument does not follow any form of logic.

There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

This does not follow any form of logic either.

How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?

If he was actively trying to "silence" Anita, he wouldn't be talking about her here, he'd be sending her abusive messages, hate mail, trying to hack and bring down her websites etc.

NOBODY here is trying to silence Anita. Disagreeing with someone's views does not equal trying to silence them. If I truly wanted to silence Anita, I wouldn't waste time here talking about her where she's never going to see my comments. I'd go straight to the source.

in fact, there are NO views whatsoever that I want to silence, because everyone has the right to free speech in public. Whether Anita Sarkeesian, ultra Feminists, Islamic extremists, racists, sexists, Nazi holocaust deniers etc. It's always better to allow a person to speak, so that you may learn about their views and if necessary challenge them and rip them to shreds.

Bigotry should never be forced underground, it should be brought into the open.

Silencing someone's right to speak simply ensures that their views remain invisible and unchallenged .

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Then she shouldn't whine about this being used in games

Your argument does not follow any form of logic.

There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

This does not follow any form of logic either.

How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?

Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.

 Melissia wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
I tend to get a little unforgiving about that no matter what sex, race or sexual or religious leaning the person has.

Unless it's a video which you agree with that's "manipulating [your] feelings", in which case you're okay with it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Grundz wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

Yeah, that's it, it isn't just you repeating the same nonsense in every thread you have a chance to to turn the conversation back on yourself, It isn't that at all.

If you think Melissia's arguments are nonsense it would be better to show why by the use of facts.

Otherwise this sort of post just looks like a personal attack.

Maybe it is, since you cant prove an opinion with facts, lemme do a cursory forum search
how about bringing this feminist/woman power nonsense out of nowhere to try and drum up attention in:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/348083/2494276.page

a thread about COD
a thread about BF3
a thread about nosgoth

Thats just what I found on my first search, on just this subforum, in the first couple results, not every thread has to become a discussion about womens apparent plight or otherwise needs to turn every time I see one of these posts I imagine this: http://i987.photobucket.com/albums/ae360/ddrJulioZero/Girl_Gamers_by_FizTheAncient.png

It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.
"hey maybe every thread doesn't have to be steered towards you" - HOW DARE YOU! I AM VERY INTERESTING! I'LL HAVE YOUR STUFF DELETED! is pretty much how this goes.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Yeah, except people wearing red clothes =/= mysogyny. Claiming all non-important characters wear red shirts is way less of a "critical analysis" than claiming all games with this trope are mysogynistic.

You seem to be missing the point again. It is not about saying “These games are misogynistic”. It is about using games to show tropes that exists and are actually widespread. And then showing the problem with those tropes.
It is not one game being misogynistic, it is the prevalence of certain tropes being so. Very, very few games, when taken into a vacuum, could be considered misogynistic.

 jreilly89 wrote:
My point was if she can make wild claims without backing them up, so can I.

Yeah, okay. Nice to know.

 jreilly89 wrote:
b) I'm using it as comparison. I know it isn't what she claimed to do, but I'm using it as a comparable argument.

A comparable argument for what?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Tetris. Megaman. Bomberman. There are tons of classic games that refute this trope.

And tons that fits it. Ask a random person on the street to give you the most basic plot of old-school video game: go save the princess. Yeah, he is not going to give you the plot of Tetris or Bomberman, because there is none, or the plot of Megaman, because he does not even know the game exist. He is likely not going to give you the plot of Sonic either, even if he knows the game.
Why? Because even if neither the plot of Sonic, nor the plot of Megaman, nor the (non)plot of Tetris and Bomberman all do not have any damsel in distress, they do not have anything in common. Hence why even if only, say, only two out of every ten games (random numbers) include a damsel, we could still have the damsel as the most common trope in video game . That guy did not brought up “Save animals imprisoned into robots and big containers” because that is the plot of Sonic, and basically only Sonic. He will rather bring up something that is the plot of Mario, Zelda, and dozens of other games!
The other scenario that could come forward if “Alien are invading, kick them back to space”, I guess. But this feels less specific to video games.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Absolutely. But again, that includes CONTEXT. How do you know he was the first to die without context?

Uh? Because the person is telling you. If you do not trust her, just check it out. There is certainly no need to tell the whole story though.

 jreilly89 wrote:
Refusing to identify games that don't fit in nicely with her theory?

Okay, I want to make sure I understand you right. Your problem is that Anita has not mentioned that Tetris, Demolition Derby and Theme Hospital do not use the Damsel in Distress trope?

 jreilly89 wrote:
Guess what? Calling all men sexist makes you sexist.

Guess what? She never said that.

 jreilly89 wrote:
She claims developers are intentionally misogynystic

Can I have some first-hand reference here? Link to video and time?

 Crablezworth wrote:
Apparently all gamers are at fault, good to know.

You know, I do not identify with other gamers any more than I do identify with other moviegoers or music listener. Why do no one ever writes “Movie goers are X” and then have all the movie goers going berserk on him or her? Why do no one ever write about how music listeners are all anything?

 Grundz wrote:
It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.
"hey maybe every thread doesn't have to be steered towards you" - HOW DARE YOU! I AM VERY INTERESTING! I'LL HAVE YOUR STUFF DELETED! is pretty much how this goes.

The difficulty is we are tribal by nature.

No matter how carefully we just want to say "I do not particularly like you (specifically) as a person.", the recipient needs to find exterior reasons for the dislike because it just cannot be based on their own behavior (that would be too much ownership). Stranger still, others sometimes feel a need to rise to their defense as well.

The mental checklist kicks in: You must not like me because I am a: guy/girl/transgender, gay/bi/hetero, gamer/jock/newbie, soldier/lawyer/politician, virgin/sex-addict...

"Celebrities" are all the more interesting because you are always asking yourself why this turkey's opinion matters any more than mine and then you eventually come up with the answer that it isn't.

 Melissia wrote:
You're pointing out something that simply isn't hypocrisy and claiming that it is.

A woman's sexuality should be owned by the woman in question. That's an entirely different subject from the sexual depiction of fictional women by mostly male authors/artists/advertisers/etc.

There's no contradiction in owning your own sexuality while criticizing video games for sexist depiction of women.

Those characters do not exist, and as such the sexuality of such fictional woman in question is indeed owned by the male author.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Grundz wrote:
It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.
"hey maybe every thread doesn't have to be steered towards you" - HOW DARE YOU! I AM VERY INTERESTING! I'LL HAVE YOUR STUFF DELETED! is pretty much how this goes.

The difficulty is we are tribal by nature.

No matter how carefully we just want to say "I do not particularly like you (specifically) as a person.", the recipient needs to find exterior reasons for the dislike because it just cannot be based on their own behavior (that would be too much ownership). Stranger still, others sometimes feel a need to rise to their defense as well.

Hey look someone that gets it, you realize you are everything wrong with the world now, right?

 Grundz wrote:
the same people taking the bait into every thread

Like you?

If you don't want to read and/or respond to someone's posts then ... just don't. If you don't want to read and/or respond to posts discussing a certain aspect of a topic then ... just don't.

If you insist on reading and responding to stuff you don't want to read or respond to -- and I won't speculate on your motive for doing that -- and going on and on complaining about the people who post it, then (just as you yourself suspect) you are crossing the line into personal attack territory, which is clearly against our rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
this sort of post just looks like a personal attack.

 Grundz wrote:
Maybe it is

If you think what you are posting might be a personal attack then DO NOT POST IT.

This applies to every poster.

If (any of) you have further questions on this issue, please PM me or any other moderator rather than continuing to derail the thread with personal attacks.

 Melissia wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
She's being a gigantic hypocrite, especially about "Gender Signifiers".

No she isn't.

There's a very big difference between someone choosing to wear something of their own volition, and an author's choice on what a fictional character wears.

Let me see if I understand your argument. It's okay for a woman to dress in a sexualized fashion if she chooses to do so, but it is sexist if a man forces a woman to dress in a sexualized fashion, because the choice was taken away from her. Is that it? Because that makes sense.

What doesn't make sense is where you seem to be taking this argument: that it is sexist for the creator of a fictional character to decide how the fictional character (who I should stress does not exist and connot therefore make any choice of any kind) should dress.

Should game developers only allow women to design female characters? Would that make the problem better? Would that be sexist in and of itself? What happens when a female designer is told she has to design the strippers in the part of the game that involves a shoot-out in a strip club? If she puts them in G-strings and pasties, is she sexist? No? How about the male designer given the same instructions. He didn't write the game's script; he was just handed a sheet of instructions that says "design strippers for the strip club shoot-out scene". If he designs the strippers to look exactly like the hypothetical female designer would, is he wrong for denying the fictional characters their right to own their own sexuality?

If I'm wrong about what you're trying to say, then okay. It just looks to me like you're making an argument based on logic that can be taken to some crazy places, is all.

squidhills wrote:
What doesn't make sense is where you seem to be taking this argument: that it is sexist for the creator of a fictional character to decide how the fictional character (who I should stress does not exist and connot therefore make any choice of any kind) should dress.

You're attempting to make a strawman.

Pointing out that there is a trend of "make a male character and add a bow, instead of designing a female character", or a trend of "put every single female character in a chainmail bikini", and that this indicates an undercurrent of sexist thought, is not equivalent to what you just said.

 Melissia wrote:

squidhills wrote:
What doesn't make sense is where you seem to be taking this argument: that it is sexist for the creator of a fictional character to decide how the fictional character (who I should stress does not exist and connot therefore make any choice of any kind) should dress.

You're attempting to make a strawman.

Pointing out that there is a trend of "make a male character and add a bow, instead of designing a female character", or a trend of "put every single female character in a chainmail bikini", and that this indicates an undercurrent of sexist thought, is not equivalent to what you just said.

That is not what you said though;

A woman's sexuality should be owned by the woman in question. That's an entirely different subject from the sexual depiction of fictional women by mostly male authors/artists/advertisers/etc.

This implies that a fictional character can own anything, sexuality included. The simple truth is they cannot. I can write a book and give the character an apple, but without my word/will, that character simply does not have that apple.

It makes me God, and I'm going mad with VERY REAL POWAH!


Is it a problem that a female character has a chainmail bikini? Not inherently. Duke Nukem is (er.... was) an awesome game series that treats women like crap, nothing inherently wrong with that either; don't like it, don't buy it. The problem that a lot of people do but yet don't seem to realize is that currently almost all female characters wear chainmail bikinis.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
If she'd used the bare minimum of makeup and no jewellery, I would at least respect her for sticking to her principles.

I think you did not understand her “principles” actually. Or rather, her argument.
Let us put it that way: a bird does not wear clothes, or use make-up. A human do. So, usually, most representation of human do include clothes, and most representations of birds do not. It is normal to have your representations of humans wearing clothes. Nobody is arguing against it. However, if your representation of birds usually do not include clothes except for the female ones, all of them, and those are always gender signifiers, well, that is saying something. Basically that if one of your representation of a bird does not have any gender signifier, they are male, by default, and if they have the very special and very specific characteristic of being a female, you then feel the need to add something to show they are not the default.

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Seriously, from my perspective she doesn't understand gaming culture, at all.

Whaoh, gaming culture? What is that?

 Grundz wrote:
a thread about nosgoth

Just to point it out, the game actually has two female classes, so basically half of the human faction is female. And they are really not that much sexualized:

The vampires are all vampires.

 Grundz wrote:
It simply cannot be addressed without becoming a "personal attack" because the implication that the person is simply not interesting and injecting the same tired garbage and the same people taking the bait into every thread that I see the person post in must be a personal attack, it couldn't possibly be that we've all heard it before over and over and over and when everything is an OUTRAGE it kinds of takes the edge off of outrages.

Oh, so your problem is that Melissia would like to see more female character and mention it once in a while? I understand that might be unbearable, but as far as I can tell she has not done so here…

squidhills wrote:
What happens when a female designer is told she has to design the strippers in the part of the game that involves a shoot-out in a strip club?

Depends on your setting, but really, just make half the performers chippendale and done, problem solved.

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Then she shouldn't whine about this being used in games

Your argument does not follow any form of logic.

There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

This does not follow any form of logic either.

How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?

Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.

That's an ouright lie. I've never said that I want Anita to shut up. If anything, I want her to change her mind on the points and issues which I think she is wrong about, and I want her to be more honest in the way she goes about her work. There's already enough sexism in all media in general without Anita clouding and plagiarizing the issue by making gak up.

But for as long as she says and does things that I disagree with, I will continue to voice my disagreement no matter how times you try to paint me as a misogynistic troll trying to silence a Feminist. I don't believe in silencing view points I disagree with, I argue against them. I've been taken to task by moderators in the past for continuing to argue and debate instead of simply reporting offensive comments. I've never reported any of your comments as far as I can recall, despite finding several rude.

By your own logic, you are trying to silence me, by labelling almost everything I and others say as sexist. Clearly you'd like me to shut up.

It would actually be highly hilarious to go gunning through a chippendale strip club XD

 Melissia wrote:


Pointing out that there is a trend of "make a male character and add a bow, instead of designing a female character", or a trend of "put every single female character in a chainmail bikini", and that this indicates an undercurrent of sexist thought, is not equivalent to what you just said.

That's true, it's not equivalent to what I just said. But it's also not at all anything like what you said, either. You brought up women being able to "own" their sexuality through choice. That has nothing to do with the preponderance of digital women in chainmail bikinis. It is a statement about how when real-life women dress in scanty outfits, it's OK because they chose to do so. I was pointing out that you cannot apply that standard to video game characters, because fictional people cannot choose anything.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Then she shouldn't whine about this being used in games

Your argument does not follow any form of logic.

There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

This does not follow any form of logic either.

How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?

Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.

That's an ouright lie. I've never said that I want Anita to shut up

If you are unwilling to actually read the posts you're quoting-- all of it-- I don't really feel any obligation to respond to you. What I referred to when I made that statement is shown quite clearly in the top of the quote pyramid. Telling someone to "quit whining" is the same as telling them to shut up.

 Slarg232 wrote:
It would actually be highly hilarious to go gunning through a chippendale strip club XD

There's a stage in a Duke Nukem game where all the strippers in the club are male.


...and clones of Duke. It's kind of unsettling, actually.

To be clear: derailing this thread into a referendum on Melissia or any other user(s) is certainly against Rule Number Two and most likely will lead to violating Rule Number One. Please just drop it and get back on topic. Thanks.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 The Grumpy Eldar wrote:
Then she shouldn't whine about this being used in games

Your argument does not follow any form of logic.

There is nothing hypocritical or contradictory about owning one's own sexuality while also pointing out the problems with sexism in the video game industry. That you attempt to insult and silence her instead of speak about her actual points does not lend itself to a coherent argument.

This does not follow any form of logic either.

How the he'll do you equate talking about a public person in third person on the internet to attempting to silence her?

Claiming that a person should shut up because you don't like what they have to say is an attempt, however weak, to silence it. And that's what you said. And, in fact, that's what a great deal of the critics of Sarkesian have said, amongst other things far worse. That is why people try to make the "not a real gamer" argument-- to justify dismissing her argument and telling her to shut up without ever having to refute anything she said. They fail, but failure's inevitable.

That's an ouright lie. I've never said that I want Anita to shut up. If anything, I want her to change her mind on the points and issues which I think she is wrong about, and I want her to be more honest in the way she goes about her work. There's already enough sexism in all media in general without Anita clouding and plagiarizing the issue by making gak up.

But for as long as she says and does things that I disagree with, I will continue to voice my disagreement no matter how times you try to paint me as a misogynistic troll trying to silence a Feminist. I don't believe in silencing view points I disagree with, I argue against them. I've been taken to task by moderators in the past for continuing to argue and debate instead of simply reporting offensive comments. I've never reported any of your comments as far as I can recall, despite finding several rude.

By your own logic, you are trying to silence me, by labelling almost everything I and others say as sexist. Clearly you'd like me to shut up.

so much this

To show what it looks like from the other side, and how poorly thought out Anita's opinions are, thunderfoot actually made a point for once. I am not a background object to be stabbed! I am not disposable!

squidhills wrote:
[That's ture, it's not equivalent to what I just said. But it's also not at all anything like what you said, either

It most certainly is. We are discussing Anita Sarkesian's videos, and that was the argument that she made-- she spoke of trends, gave examples to prove her point,et cetera. Someone objected to her making that argument while she herself wore makeup...

... which you are now admitting was pointless to argue in the first place, because by your argument the two aren't linked anyway. It's not me that's being inconsistent, here.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

By your own logic, you are trying to silence me, by labelling almost everything I and others say as sexist. Clearly you'd like me to shut up.

I'm curious about something.

How much do you care about sexism, not just in games but broadly as an idea and phenomenon? How much time and in how much depth have you spent reading about, studying or discussing what sexism is and how it affects people? How much time have spent thinking or discussing how best to define sexism in various contexts? How much have you talked with other people about how they feel sexism affects them, what they think it is, and why they think it effects them the way it does? If so, have those people primarily been men or women?

To simplify, I guess what I"m asking here is how important is sexism to you generally, and how much time have you spent thinking about what it is and how to categorize its various manifestations?

EDIT: Anyone feel free to answer this, however I'm particularly interested in the answers of those expressing criticism or skepticism of feminism, particularly as it relates to feminist critiques of trends in gaming.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Eh. It just don't work without the loop earrings. The loop earrings are what brings it all together

What's with the trend of having borderline offensive splash images on the videos you use as arguments?

The one above implies 'feminists cry like babies' by combining that text and that image. How is that not rude?

 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the trend of having borderline offensive splash images on the videos you use as arguments?

The one above implies 'feminists cry like babies' by combining that text and that image. How is that not rude?

Stop trying to silence his opinion!

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
What's with the trend of having borderline offensive splash images on the videos you use as arguments?

The one above implies 'feminists cry like babies' by combining that text and that image. How is that not rude?

Stop trying to silence his opinion!

I am serious. The splash image is a key part of the first impression, and the first impression is the most important. If said image is an implied insult, what do you expect the reaction to be?