|
The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior?
The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole.
B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart.
B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced.
B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch.
Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
EDIT: (after reading that bullshit Male Privelege Checklist)
+ Show Spoiler +The fool (yes, absolute idiot) that superciliously wrote the "Male Privelege Checklist" has yet to realize what the word "analysis" means. They write stupid shit (no, I'm not just raging, it is shit) like, "If I'm male, I have male superheroes (which are default) to look up to," without for ONE SECOND considering why this is. Men are stronger, faster, better at sports - why, then, is it a surprise that superheroes, the manifestation of strength and knight-like gallantry (remember, all knights were men) are mostly men? This should be obvious, and it is...but not to the writer.
Anything else? "If I'm male, then the gods of my religion are portrayed as male."
Couple of reasons for this. Gods are the manifestation of protection, strength, justice, and security (kinda like superheroes, right?). The great kings (Hammurabi, Akbar) military leaders (Alexander, Caesar) philosophers (Plato, Aristotle) and protectors (the father of a family) were all MEN. Why, then, is it an "injustice" when the utter embodiment(s) of such characteristics were also men?
At an even more basic level, the people who wrote these books were scholars (men) advisers (in the case of the Bible) (men) or soul-searchers, philosophers, etc. Basically, they were men. Why, then, is it a surprise that the Gods, AKA main characters of these books, were also men?
Look at other shit this dumbass says. "If I'm a man, I can turn on the TV and see people of my own gender represented." That's because most of the people who are doing great (or terrible, think of Hitler) things - the entrepreneurs (Jobs and Gates) leaders (Obama, FDR, JFK, Eisenhower) and scientists (Craig Venter, Stephen Hawking) are fucking MEN. I've already addressed the fact that women have had less opportunities in the past in the material preceding, but why can't women (at least as scientists and inventors) succeed in the same capability?
"If I'm a man, I will probably be hired more easily for a job." That's not because men are men, that's because men are empirically better workers, more inventive, and more ambitious. Look at the CEO's of the top 100 tech companies, or any companies in fact. The fact that they're all men isn't a result of societal oppression (at least not here in the US), so why haven't women done better for themselves? Plenty of women had the SAME opportunities and education and parental background as men like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates, most better than Steve Jobs (who was a hobo for a while). Why haven't they invented more and done more? Because even when they were on the same level in society, they couldn't do it. This reasoning applies to every item on that checklist, basically; when/if you read that article, when you read every single rule, think, "Is this an arbitrary advantage? Or is it because of something that's been demonstrated over the ages?"
Because the person writing that shit certainly didn't.
|
I'll only quote bits and pieces of this
Disagree, she was recruited for her "skills and looks". People post threads like "nada's body". Wholeheartedly disagree. She is pretty cute btw.
My point was don't go spamming her inbox with love letters. Finding a girl good looking and harassing her are pretty different.
She represents herself and the ability for female gamers to compete.
I strongly disagree. She represents her own ability to compete. Everything else, the representation issue, is a stigma that comes from the community.
I also hold the door open for men and for children. I tend to hold it open for females more often, but there's nothing wrong with that.
If you don't treat a woman differently in this regard, its fine. Great. Holding doors is perhaps not the best example for my OP.
Show nested quote +- To tournament planners, try not to reinforce these clichés, in the sense trying to get more viewers by putting a pretty face on your stream. You might get positive feedback, but it does no good to women in ESports. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Streams are meant to entertain. Men enjoy seeing a female face mostly because esports is a giant sausage fest. There's nothing wrong with hiring male or female actors for entertainment purposes.
My point is that it is commercialising the female body. There are many cases in which the girl is hired just to feed the sausage fest. That is sexism. You wouldn't hire a man. I can accept it if it's doesn't deteriorate the image of gaming girls, but it does. When you see an interviewer that is female and knows nothing about the game, it creates a stigma.
EDIT: To the guy who posted just above me:
The course of nature creates inequalities. The question then is, should we maintain them, or try to recreate equality? The circumstances in which inequlity was created are't the same as they are in our modern society.
Its not because nature has been unfair to people in the past that we should be unfair to them in the present. I am clearly for more equality. If you're not, then the debate ends there.
|
"3/5 for a good effort but a message I completely disagree with.
One point you made was posts like this: "I'm glad female gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well she does"
Well what if it was:
"I'm glad American/White/Canadian/European/Foreign/Black/Arabic/etc gamers are making into Esports as well =D im excited to see how well they do"
I certainly would have no problem with that. The simple fact is, they are another minority group in the scene. And by being a minority, it's fair to expect people to see if you represent your minority group well. "
- When I play (sure bronze league, but anyway) I don't in any way represent anyone else than ME. I shouldn't be given the responsibility to represent women as a gender. Why? Because I can't do it. What I do does not reflect anybody elses talent or opinions.
If I would be so lucky to join a pro team, then I would represent the team, because that would be my job. It is not my job to make sure men around the world start thinking better about women in general. If men look down on us, then the problem is in their heads, and they can seek help, perhaps a therapist should be in place... I don't get paid for 8 or 10 hours of trying to make men realize women have brains too, not just boobs, butts and fake eyelashes.
"Your comments on chivalry honestly misrepresent the truth. I would certainly hold the door for a woman, not because I don't think they could do it themselves, but as a gesture of kindness."
- Yes, this is what I mean, why do you have a need to be extra kind to girls, when boys are just as good an deserves to be treated just as so? 
"There is discriminatory language for every minority group. It's something that you just have to learn to cope with. There's absolutely no reason to make a big deal out of it. Besides, if they can open doors on their own, why can't they deal with sexism?"
Because sexism is like rasism and nazism. Do you expect the jews from WW2 to have to deal with what they went through? Or black people during the slavery?
I say NO, because discriminating is always wrong, imho.
Being able to open a door is not the same thing as being discriminated for being born with a vagina. What did I do that was so wrong, that people stopped caring about who I was and only judging me for my body? Oh right, I have a uterus...??
I actually think we are better than that. Women. And men. Together, just think of what we could do for this world. But no. It's more important to fap... 
Jokes aside, this is a very interesting topic, and it makes me have to use my brains and not my mascara. Thanks for that
|
I agree with the factual parts, but not the opinions. Mainly because...
pretending something isn't an issue doesn't make it an issue. Women are different from men; that's not debatable. Why should we refrain from commenting on the difference?
Nobody goes into the thread about the blind gamer and say, "well, Boxer beat him anyway and we need to judge him based on his skill level, not who he is or his limitations." No, he's different, and we can treat the situation differently because of it. It's natural for us to find any departure from the norm interesting.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Why do you think she is bad for E-sports?Tossgirl never accomplished anything and as far as I know she was good for E-sports, STX marketted her pretty well.
|
On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote:
The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior?
The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole.
B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart.
B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced.
B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch.
Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
Wow... really?
|
On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior?
The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole.
B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart.
B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced.
B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch.
Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
There's some truth in what you argue (though I would say that the historical oppression of women is more due to a difference in temperament than a difference in ability). However, what I consider discrimination is not the blind denial of any overall differences between demographic groups, but rather the biased treatment of individuals based on how your stereotypes dictate they will be, e.g. "I see a woman carrying that large box. She is a woman, so she must be too weak to carry it. Therefore, I will go offer to take it for her."
|
On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote:
The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc.
Actually, it's a testament to the fact that everyone who goes on televised matches wears makeup, as is the case with most programs where people are well lit.
As to your other points, they're mostly misguided. Women are smaller than men, and weaker on average. But you haven't shown, nor have conclusive, repeatable experiments, that women are not as smart.
The difference, which is not what you suggest, is that evolutionarily men are always going to have more variation than women are, because it was only the strongest male or two in the herd that mated with all the women. Thus it's favorable for men to take a 10% chance of being really amazing and getting all the women and a 10% chance of really sucking, rather than taking a 100% chance of being mediocre and getting no women.
|
Oops missed this one!
On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote:
I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order:
- I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
- Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism  Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle.
- It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene.
Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3
|
On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote:Oops missed this one! Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote:
I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order: - I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one. - Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle. - It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene. Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3
Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes.
I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though).
|
On July 15 2011 06:24 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote:Oops missed this one! On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote:
I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order: - I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one. - Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle. - It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene. Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3 Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes. I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though).
Athletes in the olympics actually are representing their country, the country is the team they play for.
Just like Eve is representing SlayerS.
Roger Federer isn't representing fondue eaters. He's not representing people with curly hair.
|
Actually, I believe the reason why men wrote the bible etc is that men usually have a stronger physique, and can/could easily overpower women and scare them into obedience.
Also the fact that women carry and give birth to the baby obvoisly made men think that this is all we're good for, let them stay home with the kids.
Well. We can do both. Multitasking ftw! Raising kids, working, playing games... we can even carry home bags of food from the store, drive cars (most traffic accidents are caused by men, so ppl complaining about how women can't drive, being careful may save lives mmkay) and so on.
It is also interesting looking at the animals and comparing male/female. Some female animals kill their partner after sex, since the male is not needed anymore. What if this was true among humans today? Wouldn't it be awful? Yet it is okay to state that men are better at tactics and such in combat? How do you know, men solved that problem hundreds of years ago, by prohibiting women to be in the army, to work etc...
|
On July 15 2011 06:27 Malyce wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 06:24 darmousseh wrote:On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote:Oops missed this one! On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote:
I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order: - I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one. - Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle. - It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene. Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3 Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes. I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though). Athletes in the olympics actually are representing their country, the country is the team they play for. Just like Eve is representing SlayerS. Roger Federer isn't representing fondue eaters. He's not representing people with curly hair.
I have to disagree. Brian Wilson is definitely representing people with beards.
|
On July 15 2011 06:28 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 06:27 Malyce wrote:On July 15 2011 06:24 darmousseh wrote:On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote:Oops missed this one! On July 15 2011 06:06 deathly rat wrote:
I think OP is well intentioned but naive.
I agree that one way to test for gender equality is to flip it around and see if it makes sense. Would it make sense if a female member of TL said that she thought Boxer was really cute? Yes. I wouldn't consider that a sexist or derrogatory comment. It wouldn't imply any lack of Boxer's talent, or that the commentor was only treating him as an object.
On the other hand would it seem natural if a woman were to make a huge post on TL calling out all other females as sexists who are ignorant of their own inherant sexism? Would it seem natural for her to spout on about how hard it is for men to have to deal with a culture which judges them by their physical stature, and how unfair marital custody laws are? To me this would seem strange because men are perfectly capable of standing up for themselves. So are women.
Is it derrogatory to suggest that Huk is representing the foreign starcraft scene, even though he has certainly never asked to? Is it also derrogatory to say that this girl is representing female gamers in SC2? Why are these 2 things different?
Your post seems to be like that of a monk whipping himself because he knows he is a sinner, but could never be otherwise. You need to be confortable being a man, and don't hate yourself for it.
I'm perfectly comfortable being a man, no worries . Just to take up your arguments in order: - I can live with you posting "wa she's cute". I feel offended by "wa I'd do her". Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one. - Why can't I stand up for women? That's also sexism Let me stand up for women if I please to. It has nothing to do with me being a man, it's about principle. - It isn't derrogatory to say HuK represets the foreign scene. It's unfair for HuK. It's not at all different than when you say a girl is representing the SC2 scene. Again, I'm comfortable with my manhood, but thank you for worrying <3 Ask athletes when they are competing in the olympics whether or not they feel like they are representing their country. They do. Why else would slayers add her to their team? She's not super special as far as sc2 goes. I agree with the whole "I'd do her" statement being wrong, but the fact is, men are generally attracted to females and vice versa. so I don't see anything wrong with commentating about that. I have female friends who make comments like "Orlando bloom is cute", but I don't feel anything offensive when they say that (maybe a little jealous though). Athletes in the olympics actually are representing their country, the country is the team they play for. Just like Eve is representing SlayerS. Roger Federer isn't representing fondue eaters. He's not representing people with curly hair. I have to disagree. Brian Wilson is definitely representing people with beards.
Damn... Checkmate 
|
On July 15 2011 06:19 Malyce wrote:
Also I think that in sheer number, more men focus on women's looks than the opposite. There is an inequality there. Although not necessarily the most important one.
Hoo boy you're wrong about this one.
|
On July 15 2011 06:16 matjlav wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
The reason people are sexist is the same reason they are racist: there's simply undeniable FACT behind things we label thoughtless prejudice.
For example, you talk of a patriarchal society. Do you think that in 10,000 BC we just decided to flip a coin to decide who would be the dominant gender? Women have done less than men throughout the ages, and the current patriarchy is a consequence of this. Einstein, Newton, Hawking, Archimedes, Aristotle, Plato, Emerson, Hitler, Stalin, Gandhi...notice a trend here? The great philosophers are men. The great mathematicians and leaders and theorists and inventors have been, with very few exceptions, men. Why is this? Don't just talk about how women have had less opportunity - why do you think that women got (and in some places) get less educational opportunities? Do you think it was just decided one day? Do you think that one day, people just got together and rolled a dice and said, "OK, so women aren't as smart, let's exclude them?"
No. That's not how it happened.
Maybe it's because the Bible and other religious books paint women as evil or inferior?
The Bible was written by Constantinople's council, who were all men, because men make and have through the ages made for better military advisers and political leaders. Do you think this was some decision, some decree 10,000 years ago? I guess you could say that men are naturally stronger than women, and must have suppressed them. Why, then, is it so hard to agree that men are naturally smarter, more naturally ambitious? Especially when every shred of empirical evidence simply supports this.
Exceptions? Sure. Not all African Americans steal and shoot. At base level, they're exactly the same at us. I have no problem with African Americans, but I won't act blind so that I can get on a moral high-horse. Africa is a shit hole. I'll say it again, and if you deny it, you've blinded yourself. Civil wars, poverty, drought, debt, Africa's got it all. Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Biafra, Sierra Leone - don't try to deny it. Why is Africa a shithole? Is it because Africans are stupid, or overly selfish?
No, you say. It's because Western countries like Great Britain were able to take them over, colonize and oppress them, creating and instigating chaos. Why? Because Western countries had bigger armies? No. Home advantage? No. Western countries won because they had better technology, more weapons. The reason the West won out categorically over Africans is because Africa didn't invent, or evolve. They had (and still have) vast resources, more than enough to have made the guns and artillery that the British won with. The reason Africa is a shithole today can be directly linked to Western colonization, but the reason for that is because at base level, they couldn't compete.
What does this have to do with women in contemporary settings? Well, let's go analogize.
A: Africa is an empirical shithole.
B: Women have empirically failed to compete with men.
A: This is because the West tore Africa's governments apart.
B: This is because society is patriarchal, and oppresses women.
A: This is because Africa couldn't compete technologically - they weren't as advanced.
B: This is because women have completely failed to demonstrate an equal level of usefulness to men.
So, yes, the reason that men prove themselves better through the ages is because women are oppressed. But this oppression isn't the result of an arbitrary coin toss - as soon as we analyze the underlying reason for their treatment at societies' hands, we instantly see that, as Africa was inferior and couldn't produce the weapons to defend itself, women were inferior and couldn't prove that they should go to schools or lead armies.
Today, the greatest (yes, I mean it) country on this planet, the US of A, has yet to have had a female president. This is because people tend not to vote for women. This is because of an attitude that women are inferior, not gathered through a coin toss or a guess or mindless prejudice, but from a holistic impression made over generations.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Of course. There are women smarter and faster and stronger and better at starcraft than me, and there always will be. But there are stupid Asians, and unattractive Spaniards. There's always an exception to every general rule, but these exceptions don't prove the rule wrong. Time and gravity may be warped around a black hole, but that doesn't mean an apple won't fall off a tree and hit the ground later on Earth. You know what I mean.
Do women have other disadvantages? Of course. Women can be raped, men can't(well, not as easily). Women have periods which are painful (I think) and last for days, men have the occasional (and painless) wet dream. Women have to go through the pains of childbirth, men stand and watch.
Nobody denies that women are weaker and slower and have less advantages as far as reproduction go. Why, then, does everyone deny that women are, at face value, generally not as smart? I know that there are great and intelligent women. But look at the list of influential men I have given above. When you think genius, you don't think Marilyn von Savant, you think Einstein. When you think Dictator, you don't think Antoinette, you think Hitler. When you think Philanthropist, you might think Mother Teresa, but I assure you Gandhi will enter your mind first.
StarCraft is no different - the uncontested best girl in the world, TossGirl, has something like a 13% winrate among men. She can practice and think just as much. The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. No male on STX or any other team would be fielded as often or at all if they boasted the same atrocious win rate. Why is she? Because she looks good. Do you think that a male version of TossGirl would have any fans? Nothing's special about her play. The only reason you'd even say her name in the same sentence as a player like UpMagiC or ChoJJa, let alone Flash and Jaedong and oov and NaDa, is because she's a girl.
A final, empirical observation: the tech world. Big companies - Facebook, Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM...the list goes on - were all started by men. Nobody's stopping a woman from thinking of a new OS or dropping out to work on radical software. Why, then, do only men like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates think of these? Nobody's stopping women from composing revolutionary algorithms to irrevocably change the search world. Why, then, was it Sergey Brin and Larry Page who got there first?
There's some truth in what you argue (though I would say that the historical oppression of women is more due to a difference in temperament than a difference in ability). However, what I consider discrimination is not the blind denial of any overall differences between demographic groups, but rather the biased treatment of individuals based on how your stereotypes dictate they will be, e.g. "I see a woman carrying that large box. She is a woman, so she must be too weak to carry it. Therefore, I will go offer to take it for her."
Your last example is completely true. But look at this:
She is a woman, so she must be too weak to carry it. Therefore, I will go offer to take it for her.
I'm not trying to say this doesn't happen. But look at any Olympic weight lifting record, or hell, every day life. Men are stronger than women - the assumption that she must be too weak to carry it may not always be true, but it is most certainly based on constant and empirical observation. And in this case, women actually benefit from this stereotype.
|
It's nice that you took the time to think and write this out. But just one caveat: as a female who's almost always been in very male-dominated environments, it's almost frustrating when people try to be too PC. Don't ignore facts. Specifically addressing this point:
- Try to not make comments on how cute female gamers are. Sure I'd fly to Korea and live in a dumpster if SlayerS_Eve asked me out. Should I post it on a forum? Hell no (to whoever says I just did I say go eat a tree).
If you're surprised that the new SlayerS member is a girl, say so. I mean, I was surprised. (My reaction, verbatim: "whoooooooaaaaaa chick on slayerssssssss hurayyyyyyyyyyy.") And if you think she's cute, say that too. Since she hasn't played, what else are you supposed to say? Girls generally know that's the first thing a guy thinks, anyway. Her being a girl and her being cute do have bearing in the discussion, so do feel okay discussing it; just be tasteful about it. Consciously restraining yourself in these cases is a form of sexism unto itself, and it creates an artificial atmosphere that isn't really conducive to open discussion.
Sidenote: Ha, at this rate girl blogs will become a minority in favor of sexism blogs.
|
On July 15 2011 06:06 matjlav wrote:
I actually don't like the door-holding as an example of annoying chivalry. I think that most people tend to hold the door open for people behind them, both men and women.
What does annoy me is how if a woman is carrying a moderately heavy object (or even anything, really), a man is expected to take it for her. This is something that does directly imply inferiority no matter how you spin it. If it's something like she's carrying multiple things, then I'll ask if she wants me to take one or two of them (just like I would with anyone). If she asks or is visibly struggling, I'll take it off her hands. But immediately offering to carry it for her when she has no indication of needing your help? That's condescending as hell.
I've been sick of chivalry as a concept for a while. Though maybe it's partially because I'm not interested in women as sexual partners and thus don't feel a need to impress them with such things. Though, if I were, then I would definitely rather be with a woman who likes a guy who acknowledges that she is an independent and capable person than a woman who likes a guy who treats her like a delicate little damsel.
Men are biologically stronger than women. THAT is a fact of life. How is it condescending to offer to carry something that is heavy?
People say all this stuff about chivalry and crap. What about just being a generally helpful person to everyone? I would offer help to anyone that had to move heavy stuff. I would offer it MORE to women than men because women are generally weaker than men.
There's a difference between being a nice person and someone who is acknowledges someone as an independent and capable person. They are not mutually exclusive.
Asking "do you need help carrying something" is being considerate person. It should be offered regardless of gender, especially if the person looks like they are having difficulty.
As an overall aside I'm pretty sick of the whole gender equality issue. There ARE some fundamental differences between the physical, emotional, etc. reactions between the sexes and brushing them under the rug in favor of "equality" is pretty much stupid as all can be. Yes, there are some horrible people in this world who like to make sexist remarks, do sexist things, etc., but that doesn't mean that we should be aiming for equality for everyone is every aspect of life. That is just foolish. Treat others they way you would want to be treated. Honestly, who cares what gender, race, or whatever else they are.
|
Barack Obama becoming the President of the United States was a big deal to a lot of people, because he became the first black US president; for the same reason, like it or not, a lot of people will consider him to "represent the black community", and you can be sure that the next black presidential candidate will be compared to him.
Just like with race, Gender Equality does not mean the identity and differences of the genders need to be forcibly and artificially suppressed- it means we need to understand our differences, tolerate them, and treat each other with respect. I will cheer on SlayerS_Eve as a woman and as a progamer, for she is both.
|
On July 15 2011 06:18 lolsixtynine wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 06:07 djbhINDI wrote:
The fact that she comes to every game with great skin and makeup aren't a testament that she gets more crap than guys about looks - it's a demonstration that she, as a woman, can get by in the StarCraft world because she is a woman and looks pretty, etc. Actually, it's a testament to the fact that everyone who goes on televised matches wears makeup, as is the case with most programs where people are well lit. As to your other points, they're mostly misguided. Women are smaller than men, and weaker on average. But you haven't shown, nor have conclusive, repeatable experiments, that women are not as smart. The difference, which is not what you suggest, is that evolutionarily men are always going to have more variation than women are, because it was only the strongest male or two in the herd that mated with all the women. Thus it's favorable for men to take a 10% chance of being really amazing and getting all the women and a 10% chance of really sucking, rather than taking a 100% chance of being mediocre and getting no women.
I've got an experiment!
Let's leave the human race alone for 12,000 years and see what happens.
Oh, look. They've evolved into a patriarchal society where it's basically assumed that men are smarter, stronger, faster, more ambitious, and more intelligent. The technological and military and political and spiritual and philosophical and scientific leaders have for thousands of years been men. Oh, look! Men figured out nuclear fusion first. Oh, look! A man figured out black holes and string theory first. Oh, look! A man discovered the structure of an atom first. Oh, look! It was a man at the head of the Arabic and Greek and Roman empires during their reigns of dominance. [sarcasm]Wow, this experiment is really ambivalent on who is better at doing most everything.[/sarcasm]
There's a fucking experiment for you, and if that's not conclusive, you must not believe in gravity.
Actually, it's a testament to the fact that everyone who goes on televised matches wears makeup, as is the case with most programs where people are well lit.
Wow, you do a great job of ignoring the fact that no male progamer is nearly as beloved if they have such an abysmal win rate. Wow, you do a great job of ignoring the fact that the best female in the world at something gets her ass handed to her by mediocre males. I'm not saying TossGirl is bad at StarCraft, no, but I am saying that if she was a guy, she sure as hell wouldn't be on a progaming team or fielded, ever. Or have one fan, let alone fan clubs and TL dedications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
