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.

Pretty sure Ash wasn't saying that. He's saying that a lot of current feminists are actual Cultural Marxists using feminism as a friendly disguise.

"Some of them aren't really feminists they don't follow any of the theology or principals of any of the feminist thinkers and follow the marxist ideas"

-Asherian Command

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I didn't see any mentioning of Theology there.

You didn't?

 Asherian Command wrote:
Some of them aren't really feminists they don't follow any of the theology or principals of any of the feminist thinkers and follow the marxist ideas.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Pretty sure Ash wasn't saying that. He's saying that a lot of current feminists are actual Cultural Marxists using feminism as a friendly disguise.

If that's the nonsense he's spewing this week, it doesn't really change my "what the hell" reaction.

Well I'm blind, I read it as ideology.
I shall now be known as the mole-man.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
IDK about Melissia but in my view as a middle-aged, middle-class, white man, feminism has an image problem among anti-feminist juvenile male white video game players. I don't see why that is something feminists should deign to address.

Oh man, absolutely and equivocally not, its why I have been making this point since we started on the topic, because like most pleasant well-meaning secular people I am a supporter of complete equality for women, and feminism has a fething awful reputation. Saying "Oh we don't need to address it because the only people who have a negative opinion are spotty teenagers" is really a terrible road to go down, its the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears.

Just Google "negative opinion of feminism" and see what results you get. Its not just juvenile white males, its everybody.

What about this one http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/

Were not talking about white teenagers that live in trailer parks, female undergrads have a negative opinion of bloody feminism!

Its pretty much exactly what I have said from the off, particularly

Avoid rhetoric or actions that reinforce the stereotype of the angry activist. Realize that if people find you off-putting, they’re not going to listen to your message.

Feminism has a rap it does not deserve, and I genuinely feel it should be addressed because most women and men I know definitely roll their eyes and reactive negatively towards feminism. The same can be said of many other things I agree with. Animal rights, atheism, climate change, gay right. I agree with and support all of those positions, and yet all of those groups have a bad fething rap because people take gak too far.

I don't know exactly what the solution is, but as I have suggested, not acting as militant may be a good place to start, and not just regarding feminism.

A lot of those things you listed have a bad rap because a group of people are ideologically invested in giving them a bad rap, and often have the ear of our media circuit, rather htan necessarily anything any of them have actually done.

Gay rights, for example. You wouldn't believe half the gak that politicians here in Texas say about it... and all because they are politically invested in opposing gay marriage, they continue to make up lies about it for the sake of justifying their opposition.

 Melissia wrote:
Wait, what.

What the hell, Asherian Command? If you have a point, your convoluted grammatical mess of a post failed to make it.

Yeah I wrote the wrong word. Whoops. It was suppose to say Ideology. Not Theology. My bad.

You honestly are trying to claim that someone isn't REALLY a feminist unless they believe in Marxism?

What?

No I am saying some feminists are saying that. Not me. I said "Some of them aren't really feminists they don't follow any of the ideology or its principals of any of the feminist thinkers, but instead follow marxist ideas. "

That was what I meant to say. There are some women who 'identify' as 'feminists' who do use the ideas of feminism in a militant way. Got it?

If not, do not insult me. Thank you.

If that's the nonsense he's spewing this week, it doesn't really change my "what the hell" reaction.

Well, in all honesty it is what is going on. There are divisions in Feminism that are quite interesting.

 Melissia wrote:
A lot of those things you listed have a bad rap because a group of people are ideologically invested in giving them a bad rap, and often have the ear of our media circuit.

True enough Mel, but it doesn't mean what I have said isn't true does it? Whatever the reason, its harming the movement. You and I have had this out so there's no need to go over it anymore, I was just pointing out how wrong KKs thinking was, it clearly isn't just a tiny minority of teenage white kids with a negative opinion of... well.. equality! Its a fething gak load of people. The fact that anybody has a problem with something as just as bloody equality shows that there is a real issue to address here right?

Now, we disagree because you think that education is the answer, and I'm cynical because I think people are dumb and don't like getting educated. We both want the same thing, we just have different views about how to achieve it. I think my idea sounds like it will yield better results, combining education with a new approach, which entails not coming across as being pedantic. If feminists picked their battles better, I'm not saying that the small things don't matter, plenty of conversations with you have convinced me that they do, but we don't live in an ideal world, and I'm saying that the masses clearly react badly to the little things, so we should go after things that really and overtly are genuinely offensive to anybody with a brain, and let the little things take care of themselves when the big things have been nailed on.

I honestly think that making a big fuss over things that the masses (rightly or wrongly, and both men and women) find to be pedantic or nit-picky holds back the cause of equality. It makes women say "I dont need feminism" when what they should be saying is "this movement is important and I agree with it"

I still don't see the point of your post, Asherian Command. That there are feminists whom are also communists isn't really a surprise. There are also feminists whom are intensely capitalist (in fact, I have one of them as a professor, she's perhaps even best described as devoutly capitalist). Also feminists whom take no strong stance either way on economic matters. There really isn't much of a point to your argument. Just because someone is both a feminist and a communist doesn't somehow make them no longer a feminist. That's like saying "you can't be both a gamer and a 40k player".

The militant versus moderate debate has raged for ages and happens in all movements. Its easy to see both sides. And the term feminist took a beating in the last 20 years by a concentrated attack. There has been many discussions on if the term is salvageable. I appreciate the problem when a term that was created was twisted and wrestled away from you.

While there has been improvements, it is a continuous battle.
Edit:
And Mattym, that argument has been also going on awhile. Like it was stated, "who chose what is important?" Feminism is not a united movement. And there has been an organised push against it. I remember when I first heard the term femanazi: I didn't take it seriously and didn't think anyone would take it seriously. Wowser, I was wrong.

 Melissia wrote:
I still don't see the point of your post, Asherian Command. That there are feminists whom are also communists isn't really a surprise. There are also feminists whom are intensely capitalist (in fact, I have one of them as a professor, she's perhaps even best described as devoutly capitalist). Also feminists whom take no strong stance either way on economic matters. There really isn't much of a point to your argument. Just because someone is both a feminist and a communist doesn't somehow make them no longer a feminist. That's like saying "you can't be both a gamer and a 40k player".

Well that is not what I am saying they say they are feminists but then they do and say another thing. Instead of practicing the ideals of feminism they think it is an invite club only, and that only those who ascribe themselves to cultural marxism and social marxism are the only 'true' feminists I make fun of them by saying no they aren't feminists because they say they are. But in practice they are not. You can't be a christian and say I don't believe in god at the same time. It doesn't really work. You need to have the ideology and know at least some of the thinkers.'

The militant versus moderate debate has raged for ages and happens in all movements. Its easy to see both sides. And the term feminist took a beating in the last 20 years by a concentrated attack. There has been many discussions on if the term is salvageable. I appreciate the problem when a term that was created was twisted and wrestled away from you.

While there has been improvements, it is a continuous battle.

No Doubt. There will always be that battle in Feminism.

But the Gaming has the largest concentration of Cultural Marxists because they think it is easy to work in. Look up Atheism Plus. For some hardcore laughs.

 mattyrm wrote:
If feminists picked their battles better

You haven't actually answered my question here....

 Melissia wrote:
So who gets to define "visibly fething awful" to you, Matty?

Do only straight white men who hate feminists get to define it?

Well? Who does?

The "little things" you mention are intrinsically tied to the "big things". The fact that women make 15-18% less money than men is intrinsically tied to the fact that both men and women devalue what women do. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that being male is default, while being female is different. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that masculinity is superior to femininity. Which, itself, is tied in to homophobia. Which in and of itself is tied to the ide aof male dominance and female submission. Which in and of itself is tied to the idea of male supremacy. Which in and of itself is tied to the fact that society as a whole devalues what women do. And so on and so on and so forth.

The "little things" HAVE to be fought if the big things are to be defeated. Otherwise all you're doing is trying shovel water out of a leaking ship.

 mattyrm wrote:
I honestly think that making a big fuss over things that the masses (rightly or wrongly, and both men and women) find to be pedantic or nit-picky holds back the cause of equality.

To use a more extreme example, a few generations ago, people opposing segregation were said to be nit-picky. "Oh, they're equal but separate, stop complaining!"

If you honestly believe most people are dumb, why do you respect their opinions so much?

Some of that I can agree with. But still some of it is BS there are tons of games were female characters are hero/villain (though the usually have fantastic bodies but then again haven't seen a CoD with a overweight male) Honestly being harrassaed on online gaming suck but just mute people I guess I dont know im conflicted with some of there points but i do understand what they are trying to get at...

"Nothing is more badass then treating women with respect!"-- Mr. Torgue

 zombiekila707 wrote:
Some of that I can agree with. But still some of it is BS there are tons of games were female characters are hero/villain (though the usually have fantastic bodies but then again haven't seen a CoD with a overweight male) Honestly being harrassaed on online gaming suck but just mute people I guess I dont know im conflicted with some of there points but i do understand what they are trying to get at...

"Nothing is more badass then treating women with respect!"-- Mr. Torgue

Your avatar is... unique. Where does Mr. Torgue come from?

 zombiekila707 wrote:
there are tons of games were female characters are hero/villain

No, there really aren't, especially not in games produced by big developers.

VorpalBunny did a count in another thread: the top 100 games of 2013 had Batman protagonists than female protagonists.

 AdeptSister wrote:
VorpalBunny did a count in another thread: the top 100 games of 2013 had Batman protagonists than female protagonists.

Yeah, I remember that. It was really damn depressing.

 AdeptSister wrote:
VorpalBunny did a count in another thread: the top 100 games of 2013 had Batman protagonists than female protagonists.

And?

Characters should flow naturally from the stories being told. I've said it a dozen times: We don't need more women, and we don't need less women. We need exactly as many women as works with the stories being told. This applies to men as well.

And that's half of it. The other half is demographics, which cannot be ignored. If there's a reason why X amount of games have male protagonists vs Y for women, it's probably got a lot to do with what sells and a lot less to do with "inherent misogyny" or "toxic masculinity" or whatever other tripe Sarkeesian/McIntosh are pushing this week to get money. Capitalism is pretty simple when you boil it down - if something sold really well, they'd do it.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Characters should flow naturally from the stories being told.

A nice fantasy, but not one that actually exists in modern gaming. Characters, right now in big name developers anyway, instead flow from focus testing which excludes women from participating in the focus tests. You're assuming a meritocracy without any evidence of a meritocracy existing.

And people disagree that the status quo should remain the status quo.

Thinking on it I can't actually recall even 1 game I've played where the primary villain is a woman. Maybe a handful of female monsters like say mother brain, but I can't think of any women in the sense of being both female and vaguely human-like. Lots of 2nd fiddles and more than few that are part of villainous teams but like no female BBEGs.

 AdeptSister wrote:
And people disagree that the status quo should remain the status quo.

Yes, Cultural Marxists who, by the very definition of who they are, disagree with capitalist values.

--- OR ---

Why? Give a good reason why the status quo should be changed. For tokenisitic "inclusiveness". Women play a lot of games and already make a significant part of the gaming community. For the most part they play vastly different styles of games to males, and there's nothing wrong with that. They have made the choice to play the games that they want to play (usually casual, mobile and social games), and thus game makers make games marketed to that specific demographic. So, again, what's wrong with that?

I'm not sure whats worse.

Reading the Dakka Video game forums and seeing threads like this over and over.

or Reading the news lately and how everything is motivated by Racism now.


Good times.

 Melissia wrote:
A nice fantasy, but not one that actually exists in modern gaming. Characters, right now in big name developers anyway, instead flow from focus testing which excludes women from participating in the focus tests. You're assuming a meritocracy without any evidence of a meritocracy existing.

That's overly cynical and I'd like some proof of it please.

And I'm not assuming a meritocracy. I'm talking about story and narrative.

Then again, why am I even arguing with you? You believe that giving every game a character creation screen that allows you to pick gender would suddenly improve any game that has it, completely gaking on the idea that certain narratives are better told with male protagonists and others with female protagonists. Men and women are not interchangeable.

 Chongara wrote:
Thinking on it I can't actually recall even 1 game I've played where the primary villain is a woman. Maybe a handful of female monsters like say mother brain, but I can't think of any women in the sense of being both female and vaguely human-like. Lots of 2nd fiddles and more than few that are part of villainous teams but like no female BBEGs.

Sofia Lamb from Bioshock 2?
Does SHODAN count?

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
Thinking on it I can't actually recall even 1 game I've played where the primary villain is a woman. Maybe a handful of female monsters like say mother brain, but I can't think of any women in the sense of being both female and vaguely human-like. Lots of 2nd fiddles and more than few that are part of villainous teams but like no female BBEGs.

Bioshock 2?

Maybe. I've never played any of the bioshock games. I'm hardly claiming my experience is exhaustive. However for most of my life games were my primary form of entertainment. I've played tons, it says something that I can't think of any like women that are also the big bad. You'd think I'd have blundered into at least one in some 20-odd years.

EDIT:

Sofia Lamb from Bioshock 2?
Does SHODAN count?

Not familiar with these examples. However if we're asking what counts I'd set the metrics along these lines:

-The character is in control of, or is themselves the primary force the player is working against for the majority of the game.
-The character is not a monster, robot, computer, or vague disembodied natural force. I guess you could count a ghost if it was a woman's ghost.
-The character is present in some capacity for a meaningful part of the game. They're not a giant space flea from nowhere that shows up with no explanation at the very end.
-They're a villain not an anti-hero, sometimes-ally or temporary protagonist on a regular basis.
-The protagonist "wins" or the story reaches a climax in the form of some conflict with the character in question.

Tons and tons and tons of men from games I've played pass those metrics pretty easily.

EDIT: I think Ultimecia from Final Fantasy 8 would probably qualify. It's been so long since I've played that I forget how involved she was in the plot before the final dungeon. I'll count it. That's one. Keep wracking my brain see if I can remember any others.

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
If feminists picked their battles better

You haven't actually answered my question here....

 Melissia wrote:
So who gets to define "visibly fething awful" to you, Matty?

Do only straight white men who hate feminists get to define it?

Well? Who does?

The "little things" you mention are intrinsically tied to the "big things". The fact that women make 15-18% less money than men is intrinsically tied to the fact that both men and women devalue what women do. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that being male is default, while being female is different. Which, itself, is tied to the idea that masculinity is superior to femininity. Which, itself, is tied in to homophobia. Which in and of itself is tied to the ide aof male dominance and female submission. Which in and of itself is tied to the idea of male supremacy. Which in and of itself is tied to the fact that society as a whole devalues what women do. And so on and so on and so forth.

The "little things" HAVE to be fought if the big things are to be defeated. Otherwise all you're doing is trying shovel water out of a leaking ship.

 mattyrm wrote:
I honestly think that making a big fuss over things that the masses (rightly or wrongly, and both men and women) find to be pedantic or nit-picky holds back the cause of equality.

To use a more extreme example, a few generations ago, people opposing segregation were said to be nit-picky. "Oh, they're equal but separate, stop complaining!"

If you honestly believe most people are dumb, why do you respect their opinions so much?

That's an easy one, I don't respect their opinion but I have to sway them if I want to get gak done. Look how many moron politicians there are, in both the U.S. and U.K. there are a large number that think fluoride really does feth you up, they haven't bothered to do their research (it doesn't) but they pass measures to ban it because they are pig-ignorant. If you want gak to happen, you need to aim at winning over the masses and the people that make the rules, regardless for whether you have any respect for them or not.

Don't you ever stop to wonder how many American politicians sigh and roll their eyes when they hear the words "feminism"? I bet there are a gak ton of them, especially all the old Republican types. gak, haven't the likes of Bachman and Palin actually mouthed off about feminism? I'm pretty sure they will have done. These are the people you need to win over if you want gak doing, bloody politicians. Perhaps if such a big deal wasn't made over things that give them ammunition, then we wouldn't have a ton of gak for brains bureaucrats bashing something as just and noble as equality for women in the year 2014. Don't you see the point I am making? I agree with you, I can see how the small things matter, but plenty of people cant, and giving them ammunition is a poor idea.

To answer your question, I suppose I would have to say that an actual "leader" would be a good thing. I was discussing the Occupy movement with a mate and we sorta discussed the whole leadership thing. Basically they made loads of good points, and people were with them, but they just sorta.. fizzled out because nobody was a figurehead. They didn't have a Martin Luther King, so they slowly died a death. I think people need leadership, it may grate naturally with libertarians, because by definition people that are feminists or socialists seem to lean away from being "told what to do" but at the end of the day, it seems like the time-honored way of having your grievances genuinely listened too seems to involve having a figurehead.

So, I dunno.. maybe we DO need a "feminist-prime" to sit at the top and say "you know what, maybe our time would be better spent doing X, Y and Z today"

Perhaps it's because I am a military guy with a love for the monarchy, but like I always say, someone has to be in charge if you want to get anything done, it might as well be someone you like. I am good at following orders if they seem like smart ones, I certainly dont mind the idea of someone being in charge because all of this "freedom" talk everyone loves over here (as if the rich, corrupt, slimy politicians actually do work for us!) is all a grand nonsense.

Anyway, You are smart, and don't hate men, I nominate you for the role of supreme leader.

 mattyrm wrote:
To answer your question, I suppose I would have to say that an actual "leader" would be a good thing.

Feminism, as it exists right now, focuses a great deal about giving women more freedom and control over our own lives, which sadly we still don't have, or at least hte freedoms we do have aren't very well respected. Feminism having a "leader" would be rather hypocritical of this.

To put it another way, having each individual feminist able to focus on where they feel they can make the biggest impact, or where they feel most strongly, is a great deal of the point of the current generation of feminism. The common goal of equality is there, but each person's voice is their own, not some echo of a "Grand Arch-Feminist"-- with the goal being that the best, most coherent ideas will rise to the top. A marketplace of ideas, and goals, and efforts, and struggles, hopefully adding to one another and reinforcing each other perhaps, but still distinctly separate.

To be authoritarian like you suggest would probably just be replacing patriarchy with matriarchy, and in spite of what some people on this forum believes, most feminists don't want that.

 AdeptSister wrote:
VorpalBunny did a count in another thread: the top 100 games of 2013 had Batman protagonists than female protagonists.

Yep - 2 games with female protagonists, vs 51 with male protagonists

Tomb Raider & Beyond Two Souls vs DmC, Sleeping Dogs, Max Payne, God of War, GTA 5, Batman, Batman, Batman, Batman. . . etc

It DOES include Sport games however, which bumps up the male only numbers, but I don't think they should be excluded. Daniel Vavra did with his count of top 2014 games recently, which I didn't agree with.

Now I'm slowly doing it for all games from 2011-2013, as well as a few other factors like genre. It's going to take a while. 40% done

Current stats for the 2011-13 cohort:
Male protagonists: 57%
Female: 5%
Both genders: 27%
N/a: 11%

HOWEVER so far 77% of games do not feature the traditional Damsel in Distress trope. I'm not kidding, I'm tracking that too

**Forgot to add - I attach no theory to my counts of male/female protagonists. Could be that's what sells, could be that's what devs want to make, I don't know.

Sports games could easily include female sports stars in them if they wanted to, the devs don't want to, however.

I mean if you can have a sports game where the Detroit Lions have a chance to win the superbowl, it's not much harder of a stretch of believability to have the most impressive three IWFL teams cross over in to an NFL video game.