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.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I like to just stare at them all day long, objectifying them in a particularly gendered sort of way. I'm looking for a Lord of Slaanesh on Daemonic Mount so that I can oppress women even more.

That thing gets 6 2+ tiddy attacks vs. anything with the [GENDER EQUALITY] keyword!

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
Likewise. Our store simply doesn't allow nude models.

So, no DoK medusae or Diaz Demonettes?

They don't even really have like, nipples though. Just boob-shaped chest meat.

EDIT: I'm wrong about the Daemonettes. I've just not seen them before IRL. As far as the Medusae, I thought they wore tops.

They have nipples. I like to just stare at them all day long, objectifying them in a particularly gendered sort of way. I'm looking for a Lord of Slaanesh on Daemonic Mount so that I can oppress women even more. Once I get that and a Keeper of Secrets, my domination of the weaker sex will be complete.

Magnus has nipples. In fact he has THE nipples. The nipplehorns. He also has a belly button. Magnus model objectifies Daemon Prince Primarchs :(

Next two codexes are announced, along with AOS second edition updates and new information on Middle Earth = roughly ten pages.

A certain woman is an industry GOH at Gencon = almost forty pages.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Next two codexes are announced, along with AOS second edition updates and new information on Middle Earth = roughly ten pages.

A certain woman is an industry GOH at Gencon = almost forty pages.

You should post in those threads. Drum up some discussion. This thread has had lots of stuff to talk about. Right now, we’re discussing tactical nipples.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
Disciple swings, he misses, he proves Formosa correct again and the crowd goes miiiiiild

feminism
ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/Submit
noun
the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

EQUALITY OF THE SEXES, or are you gonna say the Oxford English Dictionary is wrong eh?

equality
ɪˈkwɒlɪti,iːˈkwɒlɪti/Submit
noun
1.
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

So that’s making both sexes equal, not men above woman’s and not woman’s above men, therefore by its very difintion feminism should promote men’s rights equally as it promotes woman’s, so again by its very definition.... disciple is not a feminist hahah

You do realize that women have a longer way to go to equality right? This is like showing up to a Black Lives Matter rally and saying "I agree, but don't All Lives Matter?". You're missing the point by quoting a dictionary. It even says right there "the advocacy of WOMEN'S rights on the ground of the equality"

Haha I knew you would try to argue with the LITERAL meaning of femisim, you continue to prove me right every time you open your mouth, you don’t even know the meaning of the thing you are professing to support.


Wanna hear a secret though .... lean closer .... I live with a feminist lesbian couple, they are in their late 50’s and easily the best people I’ve ever known, I known what a real feminist is from them, from their stories, they had a real fight, real issues to push against, being gay in Northern Ireland in the troubles is likely the biggest issue they faced... they are fething heroes and modern day “feminists” are pathetic shadows of these great pioneers, they are god damn inspirations!

And that is why I mock you, your not a feminist, your a bored man trying to look good in you’re peir group, you’ve likely never fought... really fought for anything in your life.

Yes I’m being harsh, but at least I’m being honest.

Really, first you go "are you going to say the Oxford English dictionary is wrong" and then you move to "the LITERAL meaning". Like you weren't just the guy using an actual dictionary and trying to claim it backed you up? I mean just wow, I have seen quite some dishonesty on Dakka, but this immediate and all too obvious pivot is really something.
But good for your anacdotal evidence I guess, I live with a feminist too so I guess that's that.

What’s wrong, upset I took the whole sentence into account rather than cherry picking like you.... awww ...bless, also upset I taught you want feminism means? Upset that it’s not what you think it is? For shame


I’m going to stop mocking you now, got to give other people a chance at it!

It literally says advocating women's rights at the start, not men and women, just women. Its sad that you conflate equalism with feminism though, it shows how far feminism still has to go. Are you really going to stand here and pretend we already have full equality?

Re reads post...

Hmmm me thinks one is seeing what one wants to see, I get comprehension isn’t your thing son, but your lack of ability to understand a clear statement is pretty impressive

Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.

Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.

 Formosa wrote:

Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.

The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.

One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.

Yes it is watch this.

The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.

That would make you correct, but!!!!

The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz

Do it for the CHILDREN!!!!!


Are those odds up at 65 to 20, yet?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.

The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.

One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.

It would be nice to know what that agenda was, because they don’t even seem to know themselves.

It does make me curious how many normal woman actually take them seriously though, I know that at the ground level here in the UK most woman don’t give a crap about modern feminism, they have real issues like Work, family, friends and the other distractions of life.. same as most
Men.

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.

Yes it is watch this.

The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.

That would make you correct, but!!!!

The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz

Its the advocacy of women's rights that both sexes should be equal. Feminism works from the understanding that this currently isn't the case but should be. If Feminism would champion both men and women's rights equally they would never attain equality as they will always stay a step behind. They aren't trying to raise women above men, they are working to get women to the same level as men, hence the advocating women's rights part. I mean what do you think "advocacy of women's rights" actually means in the context?

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
If you want to see and understand how males should look sexualised look at the male pinups from KDM.

Adam is doing something right with those models. I know my wife loves them. I’m quite fond of them myself.

Well they are blunt sexualised depictions of the male form, Adam was adamant he will not make male pinups until he found an artist to make proper male sexualised miniatures.

Now according to the logic sexualisation = bad (or worse) there should be an uproar, at least equal to the uproar female pinups got, but everybody seem to like them so double standards on the morality of sexualised human form?

Personally I like them they are quite well made and avoid been the caricatures people think "male power fantasy" is about.

More like they are appropriate minis for the range. If they just showed up in Warmachine or Frostgrave or something , people would be confused and some of them likely upset.

For many, sexualization is bad when it isn't appropriate, or when it is the only option in a market. If the only Imperial Guard minis available were a bunch of oiled-up guys in speedos, I'd be pretty peeved at that, too. Kind of like in real life, human sexuality is great when it doesn't surprise me at the hobby store. (Or in the grocery store, on the bus, etc.)

 Formosa wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.

The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.

One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.

It would be nice to know what that agenda was, because they don’t even seem to know themselves.

It does make me curious how many normal woman actually take them seriously though, I know that at the ground level here in the UK most woman don’t give a crap about modern feminism, they have real issues like Work, family, friends and the other distractions of life.. same as most
Men.

There's an interesting phenomenon that happens with people in that they have different perspectives of a topic depending on if you ask them about it broadly or about its characteristics, even though it's the same thing in the end.

Example: people in the US tend to be much less friendly of the ACA/Obamacare if you just ask, "Do you like Obamacare?" versus asking them, "Do you like [all components of the ACA separately]?" which they overwhelmingly approve of. I really suspect something like that is true of feminism: people will report less support if you ask them if they approve of feminism as a whole, but will overwhelmingly approve of its purpose/goals.

I imagine it's just a side effect of negative propaganda in both cases, but you never know.

Whilst I'm not attending GenCon so it's currently a non-issue for me I don't think from what I've seen that I would appreciate Anita Sarkeesian's input on Tabletop Gaming, or possibly any topic. She strikes me as the equivalent of a televangelist, pushing a particular message for revenue.

Now if the GenCon organizers wish to discuss the hobby through a feminist lens and want to invite one of the many talented RPG authors or board game designers who have tackled this in their work? Sure. There's relevance and informed, invested perspective which is what I feel I'd want from GenCon. I wouldn't be looking for an outside perspective round table discussion at this event as it seems to sort of defeat the celebration of the hobby, but I appreciate that all things can benefit from outside perspective from time to time.

Zond wrote:
Now if the GenCon organizers wish to discuss the hobby through a feminist lens and want to invite one of the many talented RPG authors or board game designers who have tackled this in their work? Sure. There's relevance and informed, invested perspective which is what I feel I'd want from GenCon. I wouldn't be looking for an outside perspective round table discussion at this event as it seems to sort of defeat the celebration of the hobby, but I appreciate that all things can benefit from outside perspective from time to time.

In the video game arena, Amy Henning (industry vet, wrote Uncharted) said that she didn’t see the sexism everybody was talking about, and that the rhetoric may actually driving women away from game development - and they crucified her. You can get banned on ResetEra for quoting her (sexism argumentation). If they won’t allow an actual, accomplished woman game designer to share her experience as a woman in the game industry, it’s about a specific narrative. Truth and relevance are immaterial.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.

Yes it is watch this.

The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.

That would make you correct, but!!!!

The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz

Its the advocacy of women's rights that both sexes should be equal. Feminism works from the understanding that this currently isn't the case but should be. If Feminism would champion both men and women's rights equally they would never attain equality as they will always stay a step behind. They aren't trying to raise women above men, they are working to get women to the same level as men, hence the advocating women's rights part. I mean what do you think "advocacy of women's rights" actually means in the context?

Aaaaaaaaaaaand wrong again, you have already stated it’s not about equality, therefore it must be about becoming superior, you have stated that it’s not about equality and are now saying it is, so which is it? See.. you can’t even remain consistent with yourself, never mind All the brands of modern feminism that are out there.


advocacy
ˈadvəkəsi/Submit
noun
1.
public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy.


Clearly doesn’t mean what you think it does, I don’t see broad public support for 3rd wave feminism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Feminism is defined as equality, EQUALITY, so treating both in an EQUAL manner, that’s NOT putting one before the other, if you don’t do that... your not a feminist, your a sexist.

The original feminist movements were equality movements campaigning for women rights, there is a strong case to be made about modern feminism to not be the same as the feminism of old.

One can argue that the main objectives of the proto feminism and original feminism movement have been achieved and a rough equality has been achieved, modern feminist fight more obscure and convoluted wars hence why they admit equality is not in their agenda.

It would be nice to know what that agenda was, because they don’t even seem to know themselves.

It does make me curious how many normal woman actually take them seriously though, I know that at the ground level here in the UK most woman don’t give a crap about modern feminism, they have real issues like Work, family, friends and the other distractions of life.. same as most
Men.

There's an interesting phenomenon that happens with people in that they have different perspectives of a topic depending on if you ask them about it broadly or about its characteristics, even though it's the same thing in the end.

Example: people in the US tend to be much less friendly of the ACA/Obamacare if you just ask, "Do you like Obamacare?" versus asking them, "Do you like [all components of the ACA separately]?" which they overwhelmingly approve of. I really suspect something like that is true of feminism: people will report less support if you ask them if they approve of feminism as a whole, but will overwhelmingly approve of its purpose/goals.

I imagine it's just a side effect of negative propaganda in both cases, but you never know.

That’s a very interesting point

There is also the case of approving the goals as understood by the commonly accepted version of the English language but disapproving the methods of reaching there or the language used means different things than the common definition by the language.

Do you approve equality between X and Z?
In the common language this means do you think X and Z should have the same rights?
It does not mean do you think X should give up some of its rights and be penalised on top of that to give Z an advantage in order to bridge a perceived historical inequality that at the moment does not exist.

One can support the question, but according to their understanding of the question, not the definition that is not explained to them.

DC Comics relaunching Vertigo, so woke, it enters self parody (even has a book written by Zoe Quinn!)
https://www.newsarama.com/40263-vertigo-relaunching-with-new-titles-socially-conscious-message.html

Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?

 Sqorgar wrote:
DC Comics relaunching Vertigo, so woke, it enters self parody (even has a book written by Zoe Quinn!)
https://www.newsarama.com/40263-vertigo-relaunching-with-new-titles-socially-conscious-message.html

Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?

Those sounds.... eh. The last one sounds amusing if only because it's Jesus and Christianity....

 Sqorgar wrote:
DC Comics relaunching Vertigo, so woke, it enters self parody (even has a book written by Zoe Quinn!)
https://www.newsarama.com/40263-vertigo-relaunching-with-new-titles-socially-conscious-message.html

Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?

I fail to see the problem here. You say "make new stuff, don't change the old stuff to match your politics" and now here they are making new stuff and you still aren't happy. Somehow creating entirely new comics counts as "destruction of nerd hobbies", as if the mere existence of left-wing politics means that everything you enjoy is dead.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
DC Comics relaunching Vertigo, so woke, it enters self parody (even has a book written by Zoe Quinn!)
https://www.newsarama.com/40263-vertigo-relaunching-with-new-titles-socially-conscious-message.html

Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?

I fail to see the problem here. You say "make new stuff, don't change the old stuff to match your politics" and now here they are making new stuff and you still aren't happy. Somehow creating entirely new comics counts as "destruction of nerd hobbies", as if the mere existence of left-wing politics means that everything you enjoy is dead.

I don't think that's what was meant Peregrine. I can see that they're pushing more of a left-wing view, and there is nothing wrong with that, but they do all have a trend of current politics. Again though, nothing wrong with that, as that's sort of how culture and comics work.

Some people may feel it is the beginning of some change, whether for good or ill though, and faulting them for it seems to only create more division. Which is sort of what this conversation has really become about, the division of those who do feel threatened by something changing the hobby in some way, and those who want a more progressive approach to it.

Does that make sense? Not being condescending, but genuinely curious if that clicks.

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Feminism isn't defined as equality, the dictionary you brought up literally states advocating women's rights, not both, women's on the basis of equality. If you want to blame someone for having bad reading comprehension you shouldn't pick a source that directly contradicts you.

Yes it is watch this.

The advocacy of woman’s rights. On the grounds of eqaulity of the sexes.

That would make you correct, but!!!!

The advocacy of woman’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes.

Wow, so when you look at the whole sentence, it’s almost like it’s saying that you have advocate woman’s rights based on equality of the sexes... but shucks, how can we do that if we are trying to raise woman above men or just put men down? Hmmm it’s Almost like you can’t... and if you do... your not a feminist.... well gee wizz

Its the advocacy of women's rights that both sexes should be equal. Feminism works from the understanding that this currently isn't the case but should be. If Feminism would champion both men and women's rights equally they would never attain equality as they will always stay a step behind. They aren't trying to raise women above men, they are working to get women to the same level as men, hence the advocating women's rights part. I mean what do you think "advocacy of women's rights" actually means in the context?

Aaaaaaaaaaaand wrong again, you have already stated it’s not about equality, therefore it must be about becoming superior, you have stated that it’s not about equality and are now saying it is, so which is it? See.. you can’t even remain consistent with yourself, never mind All the brands of modern feminism that are out there.


advocacy
ˈadvəkəsi/Submit
noun
1.
public support for or recommendation of a particular cause or policy.


Clearly doesn’t mean what you think it does, I don’t see broad public support for 3rd wave feminism.

Really, it says public support, that doesn't say anything about broad support. For example you can say public support for the death penalty is at an all time low, then it isn't broad, but you could still have death penalty advocates, because they publically support the death penalty.

And its not just about equality, its about championing women's rights to attain equality, the womens rights part is critical, its what makes feminism. Advocacy even says a "particular cause". Otherwise things like the civil rights movement, LGBTQ rights and feminism can all be tossed on the same heap of an 'equality' movement. The distinction matters. I don't know why it bothers you so much that feminism is mainly focused on women getting to parity? If you believe in the wage gap for example, you can't say I want this much extra for women and men equally, you just focus on extra for women alone to reach the pay level of men.

And no, those advocating for women being superior are not feminists, they are female supremacists in essence. That the internet has started to label those types of people as feminists is just to slander the whole group. Imagine if you were defnined by the craziest person saying they are on your team. Its just as problematic as what Sarkeesian is doing with polarizing. Both sides feed the extremes on either side while the middle really doesn't have all that much input. Take white supremacy for example, they use rethoric including all white people, but just cause they say I'm white like you (or a feminist like you in the overall thread) that doesn't mean you want them to be part of how the overall perception of how your group is determined or that their views actually align with the larger group.

 Peregrine wrote:
I fail to see the problem here. You say "make new stuff, don't change the old stuff to match your politics" and now here they are making new stuff and you still aren't happy. Somehow creating entirely new comics counts as "destruction of nerd hobbies", as if the mere existence of left-wing politics means that everything you enjoy is dead.

I don't think I've said that, but I guess I don't really oppose the sentiment. I'm really more of a "if you are going to put a message into a creative work, contextualize it within the work rather than just preach at people" guy, but if people do indeed like poor attempts at literature, I guess I'm more happy when they make their own than when they ruin stuff I love. This crap is going to sell like aids.

No, the destruction of the nerd hobby I'm talking about is the obvious agenda pushing that is going on with this announcement. Comicsdom is currently in the middle of the crap that happened with the game industry. The video game industry kind of succumbed to the agenda pushing, lots of people were pushed aside and "marginalized", but eventually, the industry realized that they can't sell that agenda. There's no money there and it was actively ruining franchises and killing developers. They've slowly started crawling out of it, but it's been a long road and there's still a lot of strife. For instance, the journalists have a lost a lot of power of the industry. Steam recently made a policy that they wouldn't police content, and the journalists are up in arms about it ("but nazis!") and nobody is buying it anymore.

Comics, though. They went through the early day of feminism-ization, and have proceed to the phase where they start calling their fans names and labeling them as alt-right nazis or whatever. There's already been a "ComicsGate" in which an anti-SJW YouTuber raised a lot of money to self publish a comic book, but some people didn't like this, threatened the publishing company and got them to drop the comic. And there's a specific narrative about how people don't want that alt-right crap and that it didn't sell or that comic stores wouldn't carry it. That narrative doesn't hold up to scrutiny, but as long as they control the narrative, nobody can question it (without a fight).

This Vertigo relaunch is going to be the next battleground. I mean, you don't hire Zoe Quinn for her talent. They even paired her up with the artist of Spider-Gwen - look up the epic twitter battle between Robbi Rodriguez and Frank Cho. Rodriguez went ape-ploppies after Cho drew a picture of Spider-Gwen in the Manara Spider Woman pose. Honestly, we'll be lucky if this is just a Ghostbusters 2016 situation where it does poorly and we a bunch of articles about how white men are keeping the women back. (See also: Star Wars has a white male fandom problem, and Marvel, and you know, everything). But with those two involved, there's no way things won't get petty.

I'm not saying, hey, look, here's how the comic industry has been ruined. I'm saying watch closely what happens next. Things are coming to head over there, and since a lot of you weren't around when the video game industry get getting woke and going broke, it's worth watching.

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 Nurglitch wrote:
"Sexism: prejudicial attitudes and discrimination against women on the basis of their sex. Sexism ranges from the individual to the institutional level and includes (a) beliefs, (b) behaviors, (c) use of language and (d) policies reflecting and conveying a pervasive view that women are inferior."
-- Linguist Phil Herbst

The usual, sexist response to this is Nigel Tufnel's "What's wrong with being sexy?" The answer, I think, is comparing On Our Backs to Playboy since they're both porn. Playboy pictorials depict women as being displayed for the viewer, and what are particular kind of male viewer wants to see (Penthouse picked up the slack in that department...). On Our Backs pictorials depicted lesbian couples as they wanted their relationship and sexuality to be seen.

Maybe a military analogy would help. There's overt 'shock and awe' sexism and there's 'british east india' sexism.

So sexism can only happen against women. I'm pretty sure I will give lots of credibility on "Linguist Phil Herbst".

I guess I'm the ignorant one here, I thought it was "misogyny=sexist/repressive against women". I guess then that would be a redundancy as you can't be sexist against males. I really need to reevaluate my life, especially with every generalization women have made against me over the years based on my sex/gender/whatever.


As far as Anita goes, if GenCon wanted to start a conversation about feminism, wouldn't this be the most extreme example they could go with?

 Just Tony wrote:

I guess I'm the ignorant one here, I thought it was "misogyny=sexist/repressive against women". I guess then that would be a redundancy as you can't be sexist against males. I really need to reevaluate my life, especially with every generalization women have made against me over the years based on my sex/gender/whatever.

Yes that is misogyny, hatred of women, but you already specify the against women part. At the other side misandry is also a word that means hatred of men.

I think it might be one of those underlying meaning kind of debates, on if you can call prejudice/hatred against men sexism specifically. Like saying one group can't be racist but only prejudiced against the other depending on which group has traditionally been more favoured in the country's institutions/society. I guess the debate on sexism or prejudice can also be approached from the historical power/advantage manner.

Its one of those wordplay 'tricks' of the general public thinking and understanding it to mean this, but the expert going "actually" on the precise wording. Most of the general public wouldn't care and use it interchangeably. So does the largest hobby community happen to be know a guy who knows a guy who knows this guy to ask

Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).

I mean, we know she sees everything as sexist, racist and homophobic, so why would you want to know her opinion on anything?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Problem is Anita is one of those "prejudice + power = [whatever]ism" people, so women cannot be sexist, only white people can be racist, and the word 'heterophobic' might as well not exist (granted, I'd wager that last one a lot more rare than the other two).

I mean, we know she sees everything as sexist, racist and homophobic, so why would you want to know her opinion on anything?

I don't know, as I said, I think her approach is very shallow and not something we couldn't think of ourselves in a 10 minute conversation. In part its kicking down open doors like "gaming is a male dominated community", which of course is a bit of a chicken or egg story, men have been playing games for a long time as a group and gaming became mainstream in the mind of the general public with mobile gaming. And then there is the blatantly polarizing painting with a broad brush. She was a two bit youtuber like thousands or even tens of thousands of others, now she is famous I guess would be the word? Or at least something of a cult-status in the community.

I'm fine with her expressing her opinion, I don't really care that much to hear it because she is a terrible advocate for the things she tries to discuss. But I assume she sells tickets through her rep. So maybe a different question would be, does the convention sell out every year or not? And how do those previous sales compare to those during the 'controversy'?

 Sqorgar wrote:
DC Comics relaunching Vertigo, so woke, it enters self parody (even has a book written by Zoe Quinn!)
https://www.newsarama.com/40263-vertigo-relaunching-with-new-titles-socially-conscious-message.html

Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?

What in the....

Are those real? That is a joke right?

Right?

Right?

Right?

 Togusa wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
DC Comics relaunching Vertigo, so woke, it enters self parody (even has a book written by Zoe Quinn!)
https://www.newsarama.com/40263-vertigo-relaunching-with-new-titles-socially-conscious-message.html

Comics have been the next target for a while now (they even have a ComicsGate). Watch what happens to them so you can see what tabletop has in store for the near future. Why argue about progressive destruction of nerd hobbies when you can watch it happen in real time?

What in the....

Are those real? That is a joke right?

Right?

Right?

Right?

I can't fathom any scenario where they sat in a meeting room, proposed these comics and actually thought they would ever sell.

You don't think people will want to read a comic about an undercover investigation into a white nationalist gang?