|
On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult.  So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning 
I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society.
This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
|
its a common known fact that a good looking girl automatically has some things made easier (not saying life is easy for them, ofc). Things like going to Las Vegas... I HATE going there, shit is too expensive, but girls love going there... WHY!? Because they get in everywhere for free, and are handed bottle service and a VIP table by many clubs because they want to flash around hot girls. Then on top of that, guys are fighting over who gets to buy them more drinks even they get them all for free anyways. That's just one example, but it applies everywhere. If you see a hot girl carrying something, don't you offer your help?
|
On July 16 2011 01:59 NorthernRiver wrote:
I completely agree with not enough females in E-sports is an issue. Now the reason for this is pretty obvious according to me. Take League of Legends for instance where all female champions are big breasted with cleavage, clearly in purpose of targeting a male audience. I wouldn't say this is the game developers fault though since this is what the community wants. Maybe if the community makes an effort to mature we can see a change, I hope we're at least going in the right direction.
On the subject of enormous cleavage, you'd be surprised how many women get breast implants, not to attract males, but to antagonize other women. Female culture has this ongoing battle between other females that is largely revealed in if you read a typical magazine targetted at a female audience. Everything in there is designed to make the reader feel self-conscious, inferior to the beautiful women they're looking at and give them ways to compete through advertisements for purchased products.
Women love competition no less than men do. They just tend to have a completely different target.
|
On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse.
Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males.
Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like:
"When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality"
Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor.
I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more
|
On July 16 2011 02:05 Eleaven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males. Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like: "When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor. I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more
I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment.
|
How do you think you can deserve a fanclub? By doing stuff for the community or by appealing to the community and having fans? The only requirement I can think of for getting a fanpage is having fans but that's apparently not true. Lindsey got fans because she is attractive, positive, funny and likable in general. In short she appeals to people and therefor she got fans. Those fans are not saying she is better, more important or deserve a fanpage more than people like day9 etc. Those fans are saying they are a fan of Lindsey and support her. Is there something wrong with that?
btw. Most of the pages on Lindsey's fanclub are people like you whining that she doesn't deserve a fanclub or only has fans because she is hot. I think that's really immature. People like her and want to support her in the hopes she becomes part of our community and becomes another SC2 player just like us. Is that wrong? Basically I think this thread is just a dumb whine about females getting more attention. Who cares?
Edit: and yes there is no gender equality because they are plainly not equal and not equally represented. That's just the way it is and I personally don't see the problem (in this case, females getting payed less for the same work isn't ok imo). Does it hurt you that she gets attention? Does it hurt the community? Personally I just think it's funny and hope she becomes part of the community so she can provide us with more comedy in the future.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 16 2011 02:06 Mordiford wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:05 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males. Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like: "When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor. I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment.
bullshit
There are less female street cleaners because it is a physical job and men have superior physics. There are far more female room cleaners than male room cleaners and male street cleaners combined for example.
And women aren't drafted (in those countries I know) to the military because they already lose career years because of pregnancy.
|
On July 15 2011 11:00 SonicTitan wrote:
Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it.
Could you please show me some studies that actually show results that links women's lack of competitive drive to their genetics? It seems to me that you're jumping to the conclusion that "genetics did it!" while it may as well be environmental factors. We all know it's extremely different to grow up as a girl compared to as a boy and some of us know that environmental differences causes psychological differences.
|
On July 16 2011 02:15 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:06 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 02:05 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males. Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like: "When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor. I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment. bullshit There are less female street cleaners because it is a physical job and men have superior physics. There are far more female room cleaners than male room cleaners and male street cleaners combined for example. And women aren't drafted (in those countries I know) to the military because they already lose career years because of pregnancy.
pushing a wheely-bin along and using a litter picker isn't exactly physical work in the same sense that male dominated competition/military/sports is, which women seem to want to be part of!
We could bring bin men into it too, but its superfluous! It's quite obvious the goal of modern feminism is not equality. It's to make sure girls are getting the absolute best treatment, and it doesn't seem to matter what the expense is on males (im specifically thinking about the education system)
|
On July 16 2011 02:15 Fenrax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:06 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 02:05 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 02:00 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:53 Eleaven wrote:On July 16 2011 01:44 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:39 Mordiford wrote:On July 16 2011 01:35 vetinari wrote:On July 16 2011 01:22 sailorferret wrote:
First, to say everyone is equal is not to say that we must tolerate every action. Rather to say that everyone is equal--or worthy of moral consideration--is to say that no one should be precluded a priori because of who they are. My understanding of equality is not that everyone is treated equally but that when we approach new people we take a position of assuming equality first.
Second, if everyone assumed others to be equal there wouldn't be rape or murder because to rape or murder someone requires the belief that they are not equal to you. We obviously can't fiat a world where rape or murder don't exist *regardless* of the exclusions we set up because it's inevitable. What we can change is our approach to how we deal with others.
Third, your example makes no sense in this context because we are talking about the inclusion of women in online gaming. If there are structures that are set up that people are unwilling to change to help promote women participating in e-sports it isn't because you're afraid they're murderers or rapists. Rather, what you are doing is saying that because it is ok to exclude rapists from society that it is ok to exclude anyone who you may not respect.--At least to the degree that taking initiatives to promote female participation are scoffed at for going against nature. ' Pretty reasonable, to treat people of different races/ethnicities as equals. I do think that women should be treated as "different but equal", for the good of both men and women. Because I maintain that men and women are different, and should be treated so. Differently. Not badly. You know, the old days of giving up your seat for women, women dressing modestly, men and women cleaning up their tongues when around the opposite sex and children, that sort of thing. The seems pretty absurd, tbh and is pretty getting far afield. Needless to say, I disagree. Crimes of passion and all. Hmm, we seem to be arguing at cross purposes. I am arguing that men and women are different, and that hence should be treated different (aka patriarchy. Frankly, I wouldn't want to have a daughter in this society. I'd feel almost helpless, being unable to protect her properly. I worry for my sister enough as it is.) I have no problems with girls only tournaments or encouraging girls to play starcraft. As for respect: I will repeat, it must be earned, and people should be encouraged to try to earn it. In a good society, you earn respect by being good, so it should not that difficult. So basically, you're in favor of more of a patriarchal society? Yes. If you wouldn't mind (maybe pm if you don't want to put it in the thread, perhaps its irrelevent) What do you think the advantages of a patriarchal society are, over an egalitarian? Personally i don't believe an egalitarian society is even remotely possible, even if it might be deemed desirable. Unfortunately the only surface information about patriarchy i've looked at is also tied to references of rape and abuse, and anti-feminism, which im pretty sure is NOT what your condoning I'm guessing he's referring to simple old fashioned attitudes towards gender and chivalry and all that jazz, basically around 1950's America or what not, a Pleasantville type society. This is at odds with the feminist movement regardless of what stance you take, but it doesn't necessitate the support of rape and abuse. Well that is what i'd imagine too, but i'd like to hear his opinion on it, personally i think feminism has recently cause more harm than good, demanding equality whilst trying to insinuate superiority over males. Another poster on TL summed up my feelings nicely once he said something like: "When women are campaigning to be included in the draft, or when female street cleaners are a common sight, then i'll accept they they only want equality" Whilst there's an awful lot of complaints about supposed glass ceilings, seem that there's also a very convenient ignoring of the glass floor. I fear this is going to lead more off topic if i carry on, so yeah if the guy finds the time to PM me, or feels his response is suitable for the thread i'd love to learn some more I absolutely agree, particularly in regards to your glass ceiling/glass floor comment. bullshit There are less female street cleaners because it is a physical job and men have superior physics. There are far more female room cleaners than male room cleaners and male street cleaners combined for example. And women aren't drafted (in those countries I know) to the military because they already lose career years because of pregnancy.
I referred specifically to the glass ceiling/floor comment for a reason. The point is simply that there are benefits to being a woman that men don't get, women hardly complain about them in their fight for "equality". It's essentially give us all the good but none of the bad.
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned a fireman's test, a male has a higher weight lifting requirement than a woman. It's a physical job, why would the woman be given a consideration unless she can perform at the same level physically? No one is going to drop 50 pounds because their rescuer is a woman, this isn't really equality. Also, I don't really see how a street cleaner is a more physical job than room cleaners unless you're referring specifically to a garbage man.
Taking this example back to Starcraft, a women won't complain about all the positive attention that comes from being a girl in the scene, but when the criticism rolls in, it's absolutely unacceptable. It goes both ways, you get more positive attention for being a girl, you get more negative attention for being a girl, particularly if you're getting more positive attention than males in your position would have.
|
Fenrax
United States5018 Posts
On July 16 2011 02:19 Mecker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 11:00 SonicTitan wrote:
Let's get your main point out of the way right now: though not stated as articulately as I would like, the first few posters have it right; the main reason you do not see women at the top of the e-sports competitive scene, or any other highly specialized competitive game involving a large amount of skill, is because women are genetically predisposed to be disinterested in competition. Yeah, I said it. Some elements of gender are genetically hardwired.
Sexism isn't the main reason women don't compete at high levels. Women just don't like to compete. That said, sexism does exist, and it goes BOTH ways, and BOTH sexes have a responsibility to stop it. Could you please show me some studies that actually show results that links women's lack of competitive drive to their genetics? It seems to me that you're jumping to the conclusion that "genetics did it!" while it may as well be environmental factors. We all know it's extremely different to grow up as a girl compared to as a boy and some of us know that environmental differences causes psychological differences.
There are no statistics on this. They would have a hard time explaining the professional
- Tennis
- swimming
- ice skating
- skying
- basketball
- insert any other sport
scene.
|
On July 16 2011 02:04 slappy wrote:
its a common known fact that a good looking girl automatically has some things made easier (not saying life is easy for them, ofc). Things like going to Las Vegas... I HATE going there, shit is too expensive, but girls love going there... WHY!? Because they get in everywhere for free, and are handed bottle service and a VIP table by many clubs because they want to flash around hot girls. Then on top of that, guys are fighting over who gets to buy them more drinks even they get them all for free anyways.
OH GOD this is Vegas in spades. If you're a man in Vegas don't ever expect to get girls unless you have hundreds of dollars to spend on them and a nice sharp suit to look the part of a man with money.
The clubs all offer free admission to women, but men have to pay exorbitant covers. You don't hear any girls complain at all. Welcome to post-feminism.
|
On July 16 2011 02:25 TheGiz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:04 slappy wrote:
its a common known fact that a good looking girl automatically has some things made easier (not saying life is easy for them, ofc). Things like going to Las Vegas... I HATE going there, shit is too expensive, but girls love going there... WHY!? Because they get in everywhere for free, and are handed bottle service and a VIP table by many clubs because they want to flash around hot girls. Then on top of that, guys are fighting over who gets to buy them more drinks even they get them all for free anyways. OH GOD this is Vegas in spades. If you're a man in Vegas don't ever expect to get girls unless you have hundreds of dollars to spend on them and a nice sharp suit to look the part of a man with money. The clubs all offer free admission to women, but men have to pay exorbitant covers. You don't hear any girls complain at all. Welcome to post-feminism.
That's not feminism at work, that's women's independence and the realization that they've got the goods that men are willing to pay a lot of money for.
|
United States22883 Posts
It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
|
On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote:
It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/
Feminism is about equality in their social, economic and political rights (whereas Women's Rights is about having some in the first place!). Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
|
So with such an objective advantage (money basically solves every single problem at a basic human needs level (food/water/shelter/heat) how is that equality?
Just seems like "yo, let us keep the advantages, but also we want an equal shot at everything you get too"
'Whats mine is mine, what's yours is mine' as they say.
@Fenrax
The type of argument you're posing would be answered with "Those sports are gender segregated" which absolutely plays into the hands of the people your trying to persuade.
You can't say "i wont be a bin man, but i will be a professional athlete" and claim you just want to be equal (as a gender, not an individual)
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 16 2011 02:31 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote:
It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/ Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine.
No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist.
If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else. A lot of third wave feminists would accept the strip club example.
EDIT: To be fair, I doubt most women know that much about feminism either.
|
@Jibba
The trouble with trying to define feminism is that there are so many branches, each with overlapping or conflicting goals. I presume the version we're talking about is the white middle class version, which has a complete different set of goals and "guidelines" compared to say the femnist movement in india, which seeks to eradicate the links between gender + race discrimination.
Until we actually define what we're discussing i fear we'll just go in circles
|
On July 16 2011 02:36 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 02:31 Bibdy wrote:On July 16 2011 02:29 Jibba wrote:
It is a form of feminism, actually. Most of you just don't know what feminism is. :/ Feminism is about their social, economic and political rights. Not exactly the same thing as independence (although it is kind of a biproduct) and realizing their bodies are a male-cash gold mine. No, it's not. First wave feminism was about political rights, second wave feminism was about social/economic understanding and third is post-constructionist. If you believe feminism is only about women, then you don't actually understand much about it. At this point it's more of a philosophy than anything else.
Is this the part where you try to argue what modern feminism SHOULD be about vs what the vast majority of so-called feminists believe, which goes in a complete tangent to the point I was making in the first place?
I'm not going to sit here and argue pointlessly over what feminism SHOULD be. A feminist culture that doesn't take into consideration men's issues is nothing but warped, but that's still the direction the movement is heading.
|
United States22883 Posts
On July 16 2011 02:37 Eleaven wrote:
@Jibba
The trouble with trying to define feminism is that there are so many branches, each with overlapping or conflicting goals. I presume the version we're talking about is the white middle class version, which has a complete different set of goals and "guidelines" compared to say the femnist movement in india, which seeks to eradicate the links between gender + race discrimination.
Until we actually define what we're discussing i fear we'll just go in circles
I agree, I'm just defending the term from being used that way.
Being open about sexuality and objectifying people isn't such a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
