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.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
This video is relevant:

https://youtu.be/WxYyxC7gftg

I really don't actually see how that context makes it any different, so she's talking about systemic sexism/racism/whateverisms and you have to point all of *that* out...

Still, not the worst thing she said on that particular stage. My favourite quote from here is the one where she says she wasn't always a feminist and might have once even uttered the words 'I'm for equality but I'm not a feminist' and then describes that as 'not a high point in her life'. To me that says the 'branding' of feminism is what's important to her, not the equality that she would say feminism is trying to achieve, and that tells me all I need to know about her ideology.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOmIIAact4s


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dyndraig wrote:
I wonder what the Gencon admins hoped to achieve with this, as far as I know she has no connections at all with the tabletop industry? Did they just wanna stir some controversy or was it ideologically driven?

I doubt they're actually gonna talk about her work on Betrayal at House on the Hill, I would expect she's gonna talk about her usual cultural critic stuff but directed at the tabletop industry, and I would suspect that the GenCon people weren't inviting her to stir up controversy, they probably just like her (ideology).

 jonolikespie wrote:
Still, not the worst thing she said on that particular stage. My favourite quote from here is the one where she says she wasn't always a feminist and might have once even uttered the words 'I'm for equality but I'm not a feminist' and then describes that as 'not a high point in her life'. To me that says the 'branding' of feminism is what's important to her, not the equality that she would say feminism is trying to achieve, and that tells me all I need to know about her ideology.

Disagree with this. The whole "equality not feminism" thing is almost always said by people opposed to equality, or at least in denial about what equality means. Feminism is simply an acknowledgement that we are starting from a position of inequality and need to actively work to achieve equality, and because of that inequality work is going to be focused more on improving things for women than for men. When people say "equality not feminism" what they really mean is something like "we let you have the right to vote, what more do you want". IOW, a bad assumption that because the law requires equality it must have been achieved and anyone asking for more needs to STFU and deal with what they have. It's not just about branding, it's about a very different mindset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
You know what's funny? 25-30 years ago, geeks were under attack by ideologues claiming that our games and hobbies were 'Satanic' or would would make us into school shooters. Back then, we got together and fought back.

That isn't a reasonable comparison at all. People united against the Jesus cults because their arguments were obviously completely detached from reality. It was nonsense on the same level as the crazy guy on the corner yelling about how the end is near, nothing but lies and ignorance. No reasonable and informed person could possibly believe the nonsense, so of course everyone united in opposition to it. People aren't uniting against Anita Sarkeesian because, while she isn't the best representative of her side, she does make some valid points and many of us agree with them. And it's pretty hard to find any energy to oppose someone when your feelings are "she makes some valid points, but I'm not giving her any money".

Do you really want this outrage mob of moral authoritarians coming for you, your group, or your hobby?

Do I care? The "mob" isn't doing anything to threaten my hobby. They aren't going to succeed in banning violent video games or whatever because too many people want those games, and money talks.

I don't care if you like Sargon of Akkad or his follwers, she sat on a panel and berated and demeaned an audience member.

What's your point? The fact that someone is an audience member doesn't make them immune to criticism or mockery. If someone in the audience started waving a Nazi flag I don't think anyone would believe that their "audience member" status gives them any immunity, or object to their removal from the audience. Clearly Sargon of Akkad is not a literal Nazi, but you're going to have to do a lot more than point out that he was occupying a chair in a particular room to establish that anything inappropriate happened.

 Peregrine wrote:
That isn't a reasonable comparison at all. People united against the Jesus cults because their arguments were obviously completely detached from reality. It was nonsense on the same level as the crazy guy on the corner yelling about how the end is near, nothing but lies and ignorance. No reasonable and informed person could possibly believe the nonsense, so of course everyone united in opposition to it. People aren't uniting against Anita Sarkeesian because, while she isn't the best representative of her side, she does make some valid points and many of us agree with them. And it's pretty hard to find any energy to oppose someone when your feelings are "she makes some valid points, but I'm not giving her any money".

What are some of her 'good points'? I'm fairly sure, "Don't be a sexist jerkoff" is a pretty standard belief. Just because we don't have a zero-sum solution to the occasional idiot doesn't mean we have an epidemic and we need a missionary from the Church of Feminism to lead us on the path to righteousness. If you need someone to tell you this, then you're an absolutely awful person and there is no way to redeem you.

 Peregrine wrote:
Do I care? The "mob" isn't doing anything to threaten my hobby. They aren't going to succeed in banning violent video games or whatever because too many people want those games, and money talks.

And video games, mind you, are far too wealthy and powerful as an industry for persons like her to hold any real sway over. RPG's, on the other hand, are more likely to be influenced. Recently, the creator of Roll20 (a video game for people to play tabletop RPG's, if you're not familiar- not to insult your knowledge)- has stated that groups of men-only will be banned, however women-only groups are still commonplace- all because a feminist (or at least a perceived feminist) got in his ear about this.

 Peregrine wrote:
What's your point? The fact that someone is an audience member doesn't make them immune to criticism or mockery. If someone in the audience started waving a Nazi flag I don't think anyone would believe that their "audience member" status gives them any immunity, or object to their removal from the audience. Clearly Sargon of Akkad is not a literal Nazi, but you're going to have to do a lot more than point out that he was occupying a chair in a particular room to establish that anything inappropriate happened.

"Waving a Nazi flag" and sitting somewhere quietly are two completely different things. The former, I'm pretty sure, is against the policy for both attendees and panelists. Berating and name-calling an audience member who was in no way attacking the panelist (in fact, their plan was 'go in and be quiet, say nothing' and that's what they were doing until she started insulting him).

Additionally, the rules for the panelists and participation in that forum are against specifically 'mockery'. There was no criticism, she just had a hissy-fit and started calling a paying audience member names. Had anyone not tied to the Church of Feminism done this, they'd be banned from this sort of thing.

So, your hand-waving of her toxic and inappropriate harassment is not going to hold water to any rational person.

I feel like this thread is a perfect example of why Anita Sarkeesian should not have been invited to GenCon.

Regardless of is she's divisive, the fact remains that she is.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
What are some of her 'good points'? I'm fairly sure, "Don't be a sexist jerkoff" is a pretty standard belief. Just because we don't have a zero-sum solution to the occasional idiot doesn't mean we have an epidemic and we need a missionary from the Church of Feminism to lead us on the path to righteousness. If you need someone to tell you this, then you're an absolutely awful person and there is no way to redeem you.

Starting off with "if you disagree with me you're an awful person and there's no way to redeem you" is certainly a productive way of having a conversation...

RPG's, on the other hand, are more likely to be influenced. Recently, the creator of Roll20 (a video game for people to play tabletop RPG's, if you're not familiar- not to insult your knowledge)- has stated that groups of men-only will be banned, however women-only groups are still commonplace- all because a feminist (or at least a perceived feminist) got in his ear about this.

First of all, who cares? Roll20 is a tiny part of RPGs, and public groups on Roll20 (as opposed to IRL friends using it for convenience) are an even tinier part. It doesn't matter what policies they have, nothing they do will have any meaningful impact on the RPG hobby. In fact, RPGs are probably the worst example of where we should be concerned about influence, as they have an existence almost entirely independent from any controlling authority. Once the rules are published that's all anyone needs to play, the author's politics become irrelevant. Even character/setting/etc elements that find their way into an RPG because of the creator's politics are easily avoided, and many RPG groups start every game by discarding any "official" setting material in favor of creating their own world and characters.

Second, it's not really that hard to understand why that policy exists. Women are often treated badly and have a legitimate purpose for having a group where they can play their game without having to worry about TFGs ruining it. Men don't face similar problems just because of their gender, so a men-only group is almost certainly run by whiny MRA-types who are doing it just to make a political statement. That doesn't necessarily mean that men-only groups need to be banned, but it's absurd to pretend that the two things are equivalent.

"Waving a Nazi flag" and sitting somewhere quietly are two completely different things.

Stop nitpicking the details of the description. Call it a metaphorical Nazi flag if you require it to be that literal. The point is that occupying a chair in the audience does not grant any special immunity, and you need to establish more than which chair a person was occupying before they get any sympathy for being attacked.

Berating and name-calling an audience member who was in no way attacking the panelist (in fact, their plan was 'go in and be quiet, say nothing' and that's what they were doing until she started insulting him).

Now you're moving the goalposts from "audience member" to "someone who is quietly observing". And you're ignoring the fact that Sargon of Akkad attacked her (and people like her) in the past, whether or not he was doing so at that particular moment. It's like punching someone in the face and then demanding that they not retaliate because at that exact moment you are no longer punching them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sim-Life wrote:
I feel like this thread is a perfect example of why Anita Sarkeesian should not have been invited to GenCon.

Regardless of is she's divisive, the fact remains that she is.

If you avoid anyone who is "divisive" then you end up with bland and uninteresting events because only the most boring speakers can participate. For example, by that standard GenCon should not invite anyone who works for GW because there is too much disagreement over 8th edition and it would be "divisive" to have that be a topic.

 Peregrine wrote:
Starting off with "if you disagree with me you're an awful person and there's no way to redeem you" is certainly a productive way of having a conversation...

Well, fortunately that's not what I said. And you're not really known for having 'productive conversations', but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. What I said is, "If you need to be told by someone else that sexist behavior is bad, then you're an awful person and there's no way to redeem you". I'll just assume you mis-read what I typed. Honest mistake, I'm sure.

 Peregrine wrote:
First of all, who cares?

Me, a paying customer who would like freedom of association in my online interactions. I'm not sure why you thought this was a question.

 Peregrine wrote:
Roll20 is a tiny part of RPGs, and public groups on Roll20 (as opposed to IRL friends using it for convenience) are an even tinier part. It doesn't matter what policies they have, nothing they do will have any meaningful impact on the RPG hobby. In fact, RPGs are probably the worst example of where we should be concerned about influence, as they have an existence almost entirely independent from any controlling authority. Once the rules are published that's all anyone needs to play, the author's politics become irrelevant. Even character/setting/etc elements that find their way into an RPG because of the creator's politics are easily avoided, and many RPG groups start every game by discarding any "official" setting material in favor of creating their own world and characters.

RPG's? Sure. But what about games with things like controlled tournament systems?

 Peregrine wrote:
Second, it's not really that hard to understand why that policy exists. Women are often treated badly and have a legitimate purpose for having a group where they can play their game without having to worry about TFGs ruining it. Men don't face similar problems just because of their gender, so a men-only group is almost certainly run by whiny MRA-types who are doing it just to make a political statement. That doesn't necessarily mean that men-only groups need to be banned, but it's absurd to pretend that the two things are equivalent.

People are often treated badly. Men are, in fact, treated badly as well. It's almost as if the internet has these things called 'trolls'.

And yes, the two things are 'equivalent'. We don't generalize when it's convenient for us. We treat people as equals. Human beings should be free to associate with anyone they choose without being punished. If I want to create a group and have only white male republicans in that group, I should be welcome to do so without Nosy Nanny coming in to take the toys away. This whole nonsense about 'women being treated badly' seems to fall apart when these online interactions have systems in place to report persons who are abusive.

Your generalizing of a 'men-only' group as 'whiny MRA types' is just about as valid as me saying that males who support women-only groups are usually guys pretending to be women online and closeted sexual predators. Do we want to play, "Let's make up generalizations?" Tell me what you think a black-only RPG group is, I'm dying to know.

 Peregrine wrote:
Stop nitpicking the details of the description. Call it a metaphorical Nazi flag if you require it to be that literal. The point is that occupying a chair in the audience does not grant any special immunity, and you need to establish more than which chair a person was occupying before they get any sympathy for being attacked.

Your example was one of a blatant inappropriate behavior, so don't blame me for nitpicking when you chose a very poor example that was completely unrelated to the events that took place. Unless you're under this delusion that certain specific people have invisible Nazi flags without any reason at all to suspect them of being Nazis. I don't know how your mind works, your ideas are generally inconsistent and always mold themselves in accordance with your specific side, rather than anything rational or reasonable.

And yes, as a paying audience member- you should NOT be harassed by someone on the stage. This is pretty fundamental, and you've got to be pretty far over the edge if you're thinking "Well it's okay when we do it!" Had it been the other way around, I am certain your statement would be far different. I don't know why this is difficult for you.

 Peregrine wrote:
Now you're moving the goalposts from "audience member" to "someone who is quietly observing". And you're ignoring the fact that Sargon of Akkad attacked her (and people like her) in the past, whether or not he was doing so at that particular moment. It's like punching someone in the face and then demanding that they not retaliate because at that exact moment you are no longer punching them.

Do you understand that 'attacking' someone and 'criticizing their ideas' are two different things? If you're having trouble with this concept, I recommend you take a step back and do a little research. Ideas are not protected little things that no one can engage. If you can say he 'attacked' her, then by that very standards you attack quite a few people on this forum and should be shown the door, my good man.

 Peregrine wrote:
If you avoid anyone who is "divisive" then you end up with bland and uninteresting events because only the most boring speakers can participate. For example, by that standard GenCon should not invite anyone who works for GW because there is too much disagreement over 8th edition and it would be "divisive" to have that be a topic.

Which GW employee called a paying customer a 'Garbage Human being' and a 'Piece of gak'? I'm curious.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I'm fairly sure, "Don't be a sexist jerkoff" is a pretty standard belief.

I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.

 Ketara wrote:
I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.

And I don't know what country you're in, but if you lack decent human beings to deal with this behavior then you probably need to separate yourself from them or be a man and do something yourself. That's how these things usually get handled. Sorry you're surrounded by trash.

 Ketara wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

I'm fairly sure, "Don't be a sexist jerkoff" is a pretty standard belief.

I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.

its pretty standard in our country ...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.

And I don't know what country you're in, but if you lack decent human beings to deal with this behavior then you probably need to separate yourself from them or be a man and do something yourself. That's how these things usually get handled. Sorry you're surrounded by trash.

He's not, its not like that over here, as per usual there are a few cases and people try to blow it out of proportion to get attention... think its called virtue signaling?

Not saying this guy is doing that though.

The problem is when people can't agree in whats sexist and what isn't.

 Formosa wrote:
its pretty standard in our country ...

I doubt it's common in his country. This sort of behavior is rare, but people like to equate loathing someone like Anita Sarkeesian with 'hating women' and then make up "And everyone on the bus clapped" stories on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
The problem is when people can't agree in whats sexist and what isn't.

Moving the goalposts is a thing. There's a clear definition for 'sexism'. It's just 'too equal' for some people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
He's not, its not like that over here, as per usual there are a few cases and people try to blow it out of proportion to get attention... think its called virtue signaling?

Not saying this guy is doing that though.

I'm aware. I use Roll20 with a lot of people from the UK. I've also played with them in person. They're pretty chill.

It seems to me like the extremists are more common on the internet comments and message boards, rather than in actual gaming places. I've been playing since the 90's, and I've only met a few actual 'extremists'- and they were mentally ill, rather than hardcore believers or pigs.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I don't know what country you live in, but it must be a very nice place for that to be the case.

And I don't know what country you're in, but if you lack decent human beings to deal with this behavior then you probably need to separate yourself from them or be a man and do something yourself. That's how these things usually get handled. Sorry you're surrounded by trash.

It's the UK. Thanks to feminism, the general oppression of women has come a long way, but there's still the torrent of dick pics, over-sexualisation and objectification of women, gender pay gap, and so on. And that's just the overt stuff, you should hear some of the stuff men regularly say or send to girls when they're on anonymous message boards. People are often far braver in revealing their more disgusting opinions online than in person.

Sadly, my masculinity is clearly several Bear Gryll points too low to singlehandedly swoop in on a rope, battle the mongs who perpetrate this stuff, and save the damsels from the evil monsters of sexism, but you know. Only so many hours in the day if I want to be productive.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Me, a paying customer who would like freedom of association in my online interactions.

Too bad, because that's hilariously naive idealism. You don't have a right to freedom of association on someone else's (digital) property. Your ability to use their service is entirely up to them, and you can only choose to comply with their rules or go somewhere else. You never have had, and never will have, unlimited freedom of association anywhere online unless you build your own service and keep full control over it.

RPG's? Sure. But what about games with things like controlled tournament systems?

Well yes, that was kind of my point. You picked the weakest possible example for your argument, ignoring potentially stronger ones. But it's not my job to make your argument for you. Tournaments would obviously be at a bigger risk from poor choices by the organizing authorities, but you haven't shown that threat.

People are often treated badly. Men are, in fact, treated badly as well. It's almost as if the internet has these things called 'trolls'.

Sigh. That's not the point. Women are treated badly because they are women. Men are treated badly sometimes, but rarely because they are men. There is a vast difference between being subjected to an endless barrage of "TITS OR GTFO" and "MAKE ME A SANDWICH LOL" by TFGs and ordinary trolling (which women also have to deal with).

And yes, the two things are 'equivalent'. We don't generalize when it's convenient for us. We treat people as equals.

That is more wishful thinking. You can talk all you want about how nice it would be for things to be equal, but things aren't equal. And when you have a problem with unequal treatment the solution to that problem is likely not going to be equal.

Human beings should be free to associate with anyone they choose without being punished.

That's a nice theory. Feel free to start your own competitor to Roll20 and use that as your policy. Until then, if you want to use Roll20 then you play by their rules.

(And if you do start your competitor I suspect you'll quickly back off of that policy when it becomes apparent to you how difficult moderation becomes if you can't ban people/groups you don't want using your service.)

Your generalizing of a 'men-only' group as 'whiny MRA types' is just about as valid as me saying that males who support women-only groups are usually guys pretending to be women online and closeted sexual predators.

No, it isn't at all equivalent. One is a pretty accurate generalization, one is you making up random nonsense. The reasons people start women-only groups do not apply to men, because men don't experience the same kind of harassment and sexism that women do. Men don't need separate groups to avoid behavior that they are not commonly targeted by. So if you're making a "men only" group that fills a nonexistent need then it's time to look at the other motives. And the obvious one is the same one behind white history month and straight pride parades and such, creating a parody of legitimate groups for political reasons.

Your example was one of a blatant inappropriate behavior, so don't blame me for nitpicking when you chose a very poor example that was completely unrelated to the events that took place.

Again, you're missing the point (or deliberately ignoring it). Of course it was an example of inappropriate behavior, the point is that "audience member" is meaningless in determining if treatment of someone was appropriate. The actual standard is how they were behaving, both in the audience and elsewhere, not which chair they were occupying at the time they were attacked. You're the one who is trying to argue that occupying a chair in the audience is relevant, my example demonstrates that it isn't and that audience members can be justifiably attacked.

If you want to make a compelling argument about the events that took place then you need more than "he was sitting in a chair in this spot" as a defense of him as an innocent victim rather than a TFG who just wasn't doing anything TFG-ish at that exact moment. And you haven't done that.

If you can say he 'attacked' her, then by that very standards you attack quite a few people on this forum and should be shown the door, my good man.

I could say the same about you. The door is right here: DOOR.GIF

Which GW employee called a paying customer a 'Garbage Human being' and a 'Piece of gak'? I'm curious.

There you go again, making up straw man arguments. Nobody claimed that a GW employee did. The argument was that we shouldn't invite divisive people, not that we shouldn't invite people who said those particular things. GW employees are divisive in different ways, but they are still divisive and would be excluded under a "no divisive people" policy.

I doubt it's common in his country. This sort of behavior is rare, but people like to equate loathing someone like Anita Sarkeesian with 'hating women' and then make up "And everyone on the bus clapped" stories on the internet

.

Misunderstanding, me and him live in the same country and its NOT common here, not sure why he implied it was.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
its pretty standard in our country ...

I doubt it's common in his country. This sort of behavior is rare, but people like to equate loathing someone like Anita Sarkeesian with 'hating women' and then make up "And everyone on the bus clapped" stories on the internet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
The problem is when people can't agree in whats sexist and what isn't.

Moving the goalposts is a thing. There's a clear definition for 'sexism'. It's just 'too equal' for some people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
He's not, its not like that over here, as per usual there are a few cases and people try to blow it out of proportion to get attention... think its called virtue signaling?

Not saying this guy is doing that though.

I'm aware. I use Roll20 with a lot of people from the UK. I've also played with them in person. They're pretty chill.

It seems to me like the extremists are more common on the internet comments and message boards, rather than in actual gaming places. I've been playing since the 90's, and I've only met a few actual 'extremists'- and they were mentally ill, rather than hardcore believers or pigs.

odd it cut off most of my reply, long story short, yep, thats my experience as well.

 Formosa wrote:

Misunderstanding, me and him live in the same country and its NOT common here, not sure why he implied it was.

Guv, you should hear some of the stories my girlfriend and other female friends have. You're very lucky not to be a sexually attractive young woman in some regards, because it means you get to be oblivious to it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Sigh. That's not the point. Women are treated badly because they are women. Men are treated badly sometimes, but rarely because they are men.

I guess you've missed the recent feminist backlash against cis white males? Gamers are treated badly because they are men. That's the entire point of Sarkeesian's videos. The male gaze is bad because it is male. Virtual violence is bad because it feeds into masculine desires. Damsels in distress are bad because it is a male power fantasy of saving/winning a princess through heroic (masculine) deeds. The one thing that ties together everything she has ever said about the game industry is that men are bad, doing men things is bad, gamers are men, gamers are bad because they are men.

 Ketara wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Misunderstanding, me and him live in the same country and its NOT common here, not sure why he implied it was.

My friend, you should hear some of the stories my girlfriend and other female friends have. You're very lucky not to be a sexually attractive young woman in some regards, because it means you get to be oblivious to it.

Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......

I hate the "my X/Y/Z had an experience once so that must be true" argument, it has as much credence as "but I cant be racist, i have a black friend"

 Sqorgar wrote:
I guess you've missed the recent feminist backlash against cis white males?

No such backlash exists. Some of us are annoyed at cis white men who think that any ishness they don't personally experience doesn't exist, or that any character in fiction who isn't a cis white man is taking something away from them, and there is certainly a lot of pointing out the privilege that cis white men have. But nobody (at least outside of irrelevant "some random person on tumblr" nonsense) is saying "you suck because you are a cis white man". Nobody is asking inappropriate questions about what's in their pants (and if it's "real") or insisting they offer a solution to white on white crime or yelling "GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN" at them in the same way that people treat transgender/non-white/female people.

Gamers are treated badly because they are men.

No they aren't. Female gamers are often treated badly in the same ways as male gamers, to the extent that gamers in general are treated badly at all. This isn't 1990 anymore, gaming is a mainstream thing. And there is certainly no male equivalent to the sexism that women get in the gaming community. If a person with a male-sounding voice joins a random FPS server they aren't going to expect to receive "DICK PICS NOW" or "I BET YOU ONLY PLAY BECAUSE YOUR GIRLFRIEND DOES" spam in the same way that women receive inappropriate comments.

The male gaze is bad because it is male.

No, that isn't anyone's point. The male gaze is bad because of how it is a near-universal thing. Men are the important part, women are the subject and entertainment for men. Most/all people objecting to the male gaze problem would be happy with equality in that, where the female gaze has equal prominence.

Damsels in distress are bad because it is a male power fantasy of saving/winning a princess through heroic (masculine) deeds.

Well yes, when your story treats half of your potential customers as irrelevant at best, and helpless objects to be rescued at worst, you're going to have objections to it. In fact, you're demonstrating the problem by making this argument. You're treating "gamer" and "male power fantasy" as synonymous, and assuming that criticism of that male power fantasy must be criticism of gamers.

 Formosa wrote:

Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......

Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!

You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.

I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.

 Ketara wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......

Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!

You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.

I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.

I reckon his evidence is about as good as yours (ie not very)

 Ketara wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......

Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!

You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.

I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.

Deleted because it's not on topic and I can't be arsed falling down the identity politics rabbit hole.

 Brunius wrote:

I reckon his evidence is about as good as yours (ie not very)

What? No, it's far better! Look at how he flawlessly demolished my lengthy and well footnoted critical discourse! I reckon what we have here is a budding genius in the offspring, and he should share that genius with as many women as possible. How else can they fully appreciate their newfound liberation from casual sexism if they don't know about it?

 Sim-Life wrote:
What rights are afforded to men that aren't to women in the UK?

Legal equality =/= actual equality. Merely making a law that says something is true doesn't guarantee that it is true.

Since 2000, I have been to 14 GenCons.

I have never gone to a panel featuring a Guest of Honor, I have never met a Guest of Honor, not have I ever given a feth about who the guest of honor is/was.

If this is upsetting to you, don’t go, I guess?

I will be attending to play new games, hang out with old friends, and stare unabashedly at hot cosplayer girl side boob.

 Ketara wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......

Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!

You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.

I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.

And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too

Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.

If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brunius wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Ah the "my friends/girlfriend" nonsense..... ok to counter your circumstantial evidence, here is some of my own, my twin sister has never had an issue, neither has my Mrs, nor nieces.... so by your reasoning they must all be munters because they have never had a problem......

Well that's that, you've convinced me with your solid argument and empirical evidential foundation!

You know, I think you should start a blog to disseminate your views. Call it, 'Why casual sexism towards women doesn't exist in my country' or something. You could explain to all the ladies who think they've been on the receiving end of it that it must be psychosomatic. You could even do advocacy stuff. You know, turn up at feminist events and tell them that it's all pointless, because equality of the sexes is now the social norm. Then they could go home and do more productive things.

I bet you'd be wildly popular, and all those girls would be really grateful to you for breaking things down in a simple fashion so that they can understand it.

I reckon his evidence is about as good as yours (ie not very)

That was kinda my point lol

 Formosa wrote:

And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too

Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously equal ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.

If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.

Mate, I was clearly talking crap. You are totally right, things have clearly gone the other way if anything. The fact that you would have previously treated people equally, and are now FORCED (probably by police showing up or something) to look at women differently is a clear sign that things are going too far the other way! On top of attending those feminist assemblies to tell them they can go home, you should start up an organisation for men's rights. I'll be the first subscriber. You could hold rallies on male oppression and everything.

 Ketara wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too

Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously equal ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.

If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.

...and are now FORCED (probably by police showing up or something)

The fact that you live in the UK and are making jokes about people being arrested for having opinions is pretty ironic.

 Ketara wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

And you too have convinced me with your substanceless comment on it too

Men and woman have some great banter between the two sexes and revel in the differences, then when someone like yourself comes in and starts whinging about "equality this and equality that".. you ruin the dynamic, its made situations that were equal previously equal ... not, now in a situation where I and others would treat a woman in an equal manner, we must infact treat them differently for fear of being called sexist.. or racist or some other BS "Ist" thats out there, people like you and peregrine have made my job much much harder and have infact HARMED the cause for equality within my industry.

If you are not one of those types I apologise in advance, but its the way you are coming across at the moment.

Mate, I was clearly talking crap. You are totally right, things have clearly gone the other way if anything. The fact that you would have previously treated people equally, and are now FORCED (probably by police showing up or something) to look at women differently is a clear sign that things are going too far the other way! On top of attending those feminist assemblies to tell them they can go home, you should start up an organisation for men's rights. I'll be the first subscriber. You could hold rallies on male oppression and everything.

Grade A trolling there Ketara

You keep trying to make this something else eh hahah, and yep you are clearly talking crap and now trying to muddy the waters with bad sarcasm, I am glad my first impression of you was correct.

You keep reaping the benefits off the back of people like me who actually actively do things about equality, while you just do it to "look good" in front of your piers and achieve nothing other than to muddy the waters, good job

Wait, are people here actually arguing that there is no sexism against women in society at large?

This stuff is pretty well documented. There are studies, literally hundreds of high profile cases in the media, and plenty of personal stories.

I supposed if your female friends and family have never shared any sexism with you, it could mean one of two things: 1) that you only know women that have had a completely different experience than most women, or 2) the women in your life have not shared their sexist experiences with you.

 Formosa wrote:

You keep reaping the benefits off the back of people like me who actually actively do things about equality,

Errrr...I don't understand? Surely if casual sexism is no longer the norm in the UK, there's no need to do anything about equality! Unless....you mean battling the evil forces of feminism to make men equal to women again! Is that how I'm 'reaping the benefit'?

I truly am lucky to have such stout defenders of the male gender around to fight my battles for me.

while you just do it to "look good" in front of your piers and achieve nothing other than to muddy the waters, good job

But Formosa! You're the only pier I want the good opinion of! Don't leave me alone here with those horrible virtue signalling man haters like Peregrine!