|
On January 08 2014 13:13 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2014 10:49 dark0dave wrote:On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote:
That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly.
The interview video is good though ^^ Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games. Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines.
You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line "Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now.
|
On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character.
What exactly makes you think that? Female characters for the most part in video games are actually always there just to drive the story ahead just like in movies/books. Of course there female leads in some games, but they seem to be an extreme minority. The whole criticism over video games seems to be over the fact that like you have stated it's male dominated, and why do you think that is exactly? It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
|
On January 08 2014 05:57 Dark_Chill wrote:
Alright, so, this thread has had a large number of opinions clashing. Still, one thing that really interested me was discussions on the job market and the general split in the sexes. Someone brought up the idea that in a capitalist society, this can't happen because the businesses hiring the superior workers would win out should women be superior workers held back by their sex. I'd like to slightly go against this statement.
For most companies you'd need a tremendous difference in skill or intelligence to really see one company dominate others. It's possible that going into a somewhat untapped employee pool would bring a new perspective which might help a company/business, but that really shouldn't be the case. It is entirely possible that men are being considered more for certain high position jobs and a higher percent female workforce would not give one company an edge over the other. You can, however, still argue that female individuals who are far more competent than other male individuals aren't getting the job due to sexism, but I find that's a really strange argument to make (employers in large companies I'd guess like money more than they like to make their workforce primarily male). So I do believe it's possible that sexism may be a final decider for two equally skilled or similarly skilled employees. A mandatory 50/50 split should make sense (AS LONG AS THERE ARE AN EQUAL NUMBER OF APPLICANTS. IF THERE AREN'T, THEN A SPLIT BASED ON THE APPLICANT POOLS SIZE IS MORE APPROPRIATE).
Look up Adrian Newey, the most successful race car engineer in the history of F1. He was heading the Williams and McLaren teams at their both respective primes, and when he left McLaren for Red Bull, they went from a lower mid range team to the undisputable nr 1. This guy clearly knows what he's doing, since he's been constantly at the forefront. Don't tell me that if you're not getting the best man or woman for the job, it doesn't matter in the end.
Businessmen does discriminate, probably a lot more than the rest of us, but they do it based on profitability. That's why jobs are being shipped over to China, because it's cheaper labour. Businessmen are even willing to move their organizations and abandon an experienced workforce, to train up another work force that is less educated, and needs a lot of investments, but who will get paid less in the end. Why don't businesses apply these same principles to women, I wonder? Supposedly their production per salary ratio is higher than men, so how come the businesses doesn't hire exclusively women? Could it maybe be that the salary gap is one big sham?
You're making the assumption that men and women are equally deserving as groups, which is clearly based on a idealistic fairytale. If you want fairness, you would have to look at education levels, prior performance and experience, among other things and it's silly to assume that both genders are performing of equal worth in all of those categories. Gender needs to be removed from the equation if you want equality and fairness. That's what I've said all along. The answer to equality is to remove all labels and to treat each person as an individual, rather than man or woman, black or white, rich or poor. When we let these labels guide our actions, we get easily swayed in favour of the group that is the underdog, and this creates a system of injustice, because we look at gender or race policies, rather than the actual specifics.
To make a less contrasting example, where there's no clear stronger category (asfaik), let's say that you need to hire a proportional amount of gays? How do you know that these 2-5%? people are equally deserving as the rest? Isn't it better to let the businesses decide this for themselves, rather than the government telling them that they are equal, just because it fits with their personal ideology. Ideologies are not based on facts, and that's why we shouldn't let feminism or other ideologies taint our governments. Affirmative actions has one purpose, and that is to lift up a certain label, (usually the ones proposing it belong to this label) at the expense of others, and at the expense of quality of work. Feminists wants more, but they don't want to do the work that is necessary, and so they complain and tell the government to give them their share, in the process, totally discrediting the hard work of their men colleagues, as well as their hard working fellow women, who now isn't being taken seriously anymore, because of the fact that the women who undeservedly got preferably treated now is showing how incompetent they are, and dragging the reputation of all women down in the process.
Someone else brought up the idea that if sexism wasn't around (loose summary), then you'd expect to see a natural 50/50 split. If you didn't, then biological reasons should account for the difference. Makes sense. So then the argument follows that this possible biological difference can influence the situation while social biases are present. Neurochemical and biological differences certainly say it's possible, but from what I understand, the degree of differences shouldn't be that big in abilities. Physique-wise, a woman working out to the same degree as a man won't be incredibly far behind the man in terms of strength, which is why saying the average woman is weaker than the average man by a good degree is pretty stupid to chock up to biology. Men tend to work out more than women on average, and casually going to the gym or even taking gym classes more seriously in school is not that uncommon, whereas less importance is placed on physical fitness for women (past a certain extent, of course). The reason for this whole paragraph of text is to say that there may be a reason for women not being represented well in job requiring physical labor outside of biology, and takes much more from a social aspect. The reason this is important is because despite this, there isn't any mandatory 50/50 split for service individuals in companies requiring good amounts of physical fitness. So, the 50/50 rule isn't applied evenly to all professions.
You make the assumption that because it might be a social aspect, it has to be a social aspect, and that it has to be a negative and artificial aspect. This is typical feminist thinking. They believe that society has made women into the failure that they are (by their standards, not by mine), so they will look for anything, something that seems to fit in with their belief, but without being able to prove the connection. They see men and women as competitors, but any reasonable human being knows that we are not supposed to be. We are complementary, with our own sets of unique strengths and flaws. That doesn't have to mean that we need clear definitions of men's work and women's work. I don't know that answer, noone does, and I don't think it's worth finding out either. Instead, we need to stop controlling ppl's lives and allow men to make the decisions that their biology wants them to. Same thing with women.
You need to realize that even if there's social differences, and differences in how we make our decisions, this too may be traced back to biology (rather than learnt behaviour). In fact, look up that norwegian documentary, where it was shown in studies that women in western societies are a lot more attracted to the female stereotypical jobs, aka lesser jobs, as defined by feminists, compared to countries where there's been no women's movements. Freedom seems to create inequality? That makes no sense, and the more logical explanation would be that the western women knows how well they get treated by the government, so they don't bother as much about making money. This seems to be by far the biggest reason why men earn more salary on avg, not because women are inferior, but because they generally make poor career choices (in terms of salary).
|
On January 09 2014 09:16 almart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character. It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
According to who? Have you conducted any research on the human brain or on gender hormones? Why must there be an answer other than biology? Video games is a very recent concept, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that society have artificially created a male bias in this specific example.
|
On January 09 2014 07:26 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2014 13:13 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 07 2014 10:49 dark0dave wrote:On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote:
That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly.
The interview video is good though ^^ Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games. Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines. You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line " Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now.
I used the phrasing that I did out of convenience to avoid a massive post like the one that follows. Oh well, I guess now that you think I'm ignorant, I'm going to need to provide an elaboration of the points I've made. So here goes:
I never saw an issue until people got uppity, which, I'll be happy to admit, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means I wasn't seeing it. I guess my main point was that feminists rarely talk enough about stuff that really matters and is direct proof of discrimination (issues on par with something like no maternity leave). Instead, feminists will often point at vague, very indirect issues that could be EASILY explained away or proven to be examples of hypocrisy on the part of feminists. I mean seriously, I could throw out five perfectly plausible alternate explanations or moral justifications for the perceived inadequacy of female characters in video games. I could do this without spending any real mental effort whatsoever.
Whether my refutations are right or wrong is irrelevant to the point at hand, though. The problem is that I can give plausible alternate explanations and moral justifications with great ease. People like me, people who genuinely aren't sexist and have seen far more overly-zealous feminist fanatics than real issues, find it all too easy to dismiss feminists in general, even though there are very real, very obvious issues that feminists just ignore and let fade away from the public eye. THAT is my main point here. There are actually women in America who get immediately fired for giving birth, and in one instance the company that fired one of these women used her story in a video to basically threaten and indoctrinate all new incoming workers. Her segment in the video ended with something along the lines of "Remember folks, don't be Caroline!"
If you want to convince people that feminism isn't all about making up dumb problems, you tell them the real issues. You tell them the things that ruin lives, the things that can't be justified, no matter how hard one tries. Once you've gotten them to recognize that there is an actual problem, you can then bring up more debatable stuff, like the status of female characters in video games.
And trust me, I am all but incapable of sexism and racism. I know it seems like bullshit, especially to someone who has no idea just what kind of brain I've got operating inside my head, but this is something that is pretty much completely, 100% true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those kinds of... rather spectacular lapses in self-awareness and intellect are just not something I'm capable of outside of very rare/unique circumstances on par with major head injuries or years living a high-stress lifestyle that leaves me no time to think.
Finally, I acknowledge that I have a strong emotional bias on feminist issues due to the reasons I gave at the end of the second paragraph of this message. I tend to not take stances, because I consistently and routinely underestimate the sheer stupidity my fellow man is capable of.
|
On January 09 2014 09:16 almart wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character. What exactly makes you think that? Female characters for the most part in video games are actually always there just to drive the story ahead just like in movies/books. Of course there female leads in some games, but they seem to be an extreme minority. The whole criticism over video games seems to be over the fact that like you have stated it's male dominated, and why do you think that is exactly? It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it.
I don't agree that there is a lack of strong female characters in videogames, the blizzard and mass effect universes have plenty for example, as does almost every other RPG universe, and they also almost always allow you to pick gender. And I do think the disparity in numbers between male and female gamers in video games can largely be explained by inherent differences in average preferences, and I certainly don't think a lack of female characters has anything to do with the difference.
|
On January 09 2014 11:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 07:26 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 08 2014 13:13 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 07 2014 10:49 dark0dave wrote:On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote:
That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly.
The interview video is good though ^^ Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games. Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines. You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line " Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now. I used the phrasing that I did out of convenience to avoid a massive post like the one that follows. Oh well, I guess now that you think I'm ignorant, I'm going to need to provide an elaboration of the points I've made. So here goes: I never saw an issue until people got uppity, which, I'll be happy to admit, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means I wasn't seeing it. I guess my main point was that feminists rarely talk enough about stuff that really matters and is direct proof of discrimination (issues on par with something like no maternity leave). Instead, feminists will often point at vague, very indirect issues that could be EASILY explained away or proven to be examples of hypocrisy on the part of feminists. I mean seriously, I could throw out five perfectly plausible alternate explanations or moral justifications for the perceived inadequacy of female characters in video games. I could do this without spending any real mental effort whatsoever. Whether my refutations are right or wrong is irrelevant to the point at hand, though. The problem is that I can give plausible alternate explanations and moral justifications with great ease. People like me, people who genuinely aren't sexist and have seen far more overly-zealous feminist fanatics than real issues, find it all to easy to dismiss feminists in general, even though there are very real, very obvious issues that feminists just ignore and let fade away from the public eye. THAT is my main point here. There are actually women in America who get immediately fired for giving birth, and in one instance the company that fired one of these women used her story in a video to basically threaten and indoctrinate all new incoming workers. Her segment in the video ended with something along the lines of "Remember folks, don't be Caroline!" If you want to convince people that feminism isn't all about making up dumb problems, you tell them the real issues. You tell them the things that ruin lives, the things that can't be justified, no matter how hard one tries. Once you've gotten them to recognize that there is an actual problem, you can then bring up more debatable stuff, like the status of female characters in video games. And trust me, I am all but incapable of sexism and racism. I know it seems like bullshit, especially to someone who has no idea just what kind of brain I've got operating inside my head, but this is something that is pretty much completely, 100% true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those kinds of... rather spectacular lapses in self-awareness and intellect are just not something I'm capable of outside of very rare/unique circumstances on par with major head injuries or years living a high-stress lifestyle that leaves me no time to think. Finally, I acknowledge that I have a strong emotional bias on feminist issues due to the reasons I gave at the end of the second paragraph of this message. I tend to not take stances, because I consistently and routinely underestimate the sheer stupidity my fellow man is capable of.
Of course maternity issues are raised. But just because the status of women in Middle Eastern societies is horrendous does not preclude anyone from raising any issues in Western society. Similarly, just because companies behave terribly does not preclude other issues that are being raised. It's a nonsensical criticism that tries to silence, rather than consider. The hostile environment facing women in IT is very well documented for example. Things like the Stubenville rape case are being justified, the perpetrators were supported by the local community. If you're going to ask feminists to stick to the "uncontroversial" stuff, you've just zoned out progress entirely on many fronts. Progress is always going to be made at the edge of the status quo, while not all change is progress, you underestimate how controversial your "uncontroversial" issues are.
I'm not sure why that company isn't facing a lawsuit that will burn it to the ground. Perhaps it has to do with American law and the social stance that profit is king. Regardless, why should that, or similar cases prevent us from discussing this issue on TL, a gaming forum? It's the social sciences, if you're waiting for a degree of uncertainty similar to mathematics, you're never going to get it. Consider also that it's easier to defend the status quo than it is to examine it. You've already agreed that Anita Sarkeesian's backlash was crazy, where do you suppose it comes from and why did it happen? Does that not signal of deeper issues within the gaming communities and that she was simply the lightning rod?
I'm not attacking you, but the reason you should leave that brain out is because it's completely unverifiable. State your stance, argue your viewpoint, but claiming unverifiable objective perspective isn't the best way to engage in discussion.
On January 09 2014 10:10 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 09:16 almart wrote:On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character. It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it. According to who? Have you conducted any research on the human brain or on gender hormones? Why must there be an answer other than biology? Video games is a very recent concept, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that society have artificially created a male bias in this specific example.
Because biology is a non-answer. Everything is biology, depending on how you define it. If you want to make the claim that maleness inherently makes video games more attractive, you've got to substantiate such a claim. Because what you're driving at is that there is some heritable biological factor (genetics, epi, whatever) that made video games more attractive to males specifically.
|
An interesting little read http://www.polygon.com/features/2013/12/2/5143856/no-girls-allowed. Being ancient I've watched most of this happen. My first memory ever being my dad bringing an IBM PC jr home in 1984 when I was 2, I've always been around computers and games. Though my mom would never let us get a console, we ALWAYS had a computer. My little sister grew up with them and she enjoyed video games growing up (granted me and my brother didn't want her to play because we wanted to). Most of the girls I knew growing up who had any access to video games liked to play them. But at some point the whole thing sort of shifted into a boys play games, girls don't situation. I don't know, even though I was alive for this whole games go from family fun to boys only club marketing I never much paid attention to it. Kind of interesting to go back and see some of the stuff, though a lot of it is very cringe worthy.
|
On January 09 2014 20:29 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 10:10 L1ghtning wrote:On January 09 2014 09:16 almart wrote:On January 09 2014 05:30 Crushinator wrote:
I don't understand, aren't there a ton of strong female characters in video games? (including a whole bunch of lead characters) I would think the proportion is greater in video games than in other story driven media, which is quite impressive for an industry that has a very male consumer base. The female characters in video games are almost always there for a reason of their own, rather than in movies and books where the female characters much more often are just there to develop the male lead's character. It's not like males are just born to love video games over females there is clearly something more to it. According to who? Have you conducted any research on the human brain or on gender hormones? Why must there be an answer other than biology? Video games is a very recent concept, so I don't see how you can make the assumption that society have artificially created a male bias in this specific example. Because biology is a non-answer. Everything is biology, depending on how you define it. If you want to make the claim that maleness inherently makes video games more attractive, you've got to substantiate such a claim. Because what you're driving at is that there is some heritable biological factor (genetics, epi, whatever) that made video games more attractive to males specifically.
I've not seen any studies on video games, but I've seen similar studies that shows that boys and girls make different choices, in a stereotypical fashion, and I'm talking about children at the toddler level, ie where they couldn't have possibly been "corrupted" by society. I don't think saying that men are more interested in games, purely because of biology is very far-fetched. Rather, it's the logical conclusion, although ofc, this is a area that haven't really been studied in depth to make a 100% secure assumption.
Anyway, you're wrong when you say that we need to prove that men are more interested in games. It's the feminists who have a problem with this, not the rest of society. So it's up to the feminists to prove that the male bias in games is unnatural and destructive. They need to prove that boys are more interested to games, because of societal pressure/corruption or whatever, rather than biology. Don't expect us to buy into your theories, when you can't back it up with science.
|
I've always found the notion that "Men and Women have the same mind before one is corrupted by society," to be equally as poisonous as "Men are better then Women."
Both are generalisations, the first is scientifically untrue, unless brain architecture is irrelevant, and the latter is impossible to measure outside of "Men are stronger then Women," which with technology being what it is should be completely irrelevant.
While I very much believe in an equal opportunity society, I have serious problems with the belief that however many thousands of years of evolution hasn't created a difference between the genders, and that those differences can't account towards the vast discrepancies in various occupations. It seems to be just as intellectually dishonest to believe that everything is as it should be, or that all of the differences in society are caused by the patriarchy.
|
On January 09 2014 23:03 bo1b wrote:
I've always found the notion that "Men and Women have the same mind before one is corrupted by society," to be equally as poisonous as "Men are better then Women."
Both are generalisations, the first is scientifically untrue, unless brain architecture is irrelevant, and the latter is impossible to measure outside of "Men are stronger then Women," which with technology being what it is should be completely irrelevant.
While I very much believe in an equal opportunity society, I have serious problems with the belief that however many thousands of years of evolution hasn't created a difference between the genders, and that those differences can't account towards the vast discrepancies in various occupations. It seems to be just as intellectually dishonest to believe that everything is as it should be, or that all of the differences in society are caused by the patriarchy.
Feminism has no regard for reality
Stuff like hormones and different reproductive organs do not make people different in their wants and needs according to them
|
I'm with the feminists.
It has nothing to do with genes that females have to fight hard for each drop of blood, whereas males just sit on their asses and eat the sweet nectar that they feel is owed to them just by merit of their gender.
We were talking about mosquitoes, right?
|
On January 09 2014 20:29 hummingbird23 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2014 11:21 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 09 2014 07:26 hummingbird23 wrote:On January 08 2014 13:13 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:On January 07 2014 10:49 dark0dave wrote:On November 15 2013 23:09 Zealos wrote:
That was some of the biggest pile of rubbish I've ever heard. Please just post it on the MRA reddit, where men like to complain about how hard they have it, instead of leaving it sitting on a forum that I read regularly.
The interview video is good though ^^ Hear hear, however there are issues for the male community. That being said sexism against women is still rampent. If you doubt this, look for any strong female characters in video games. Indirect evidence of the issue is usually bad for making a point, especially when citing information from a industry that has good reason to design games for men: they make up most of the consumer base, especially for the less casual products. As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism, I never really cared about the lack of strong female characters. Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games. Perhaps a better way to make your point would be to cite the flame Anita Sarkeesian got. No matter your opinion about her video series, people got really pissed and they really crossed too many lines. You should probably not say things like "As a guy who is almost incapable of things like sexism and racism". Not many people believe they themselves are racist or sexist, but somehow, it happens on a large scale. For example, your next line " Just didn't give a shit until some people got uppity and said that if there aren't tons girls in games, the games are sexist and they turn the guys playing them into sexists, at which point I got uppity because they're fucking with my games." reveals that you're almost completely wrong about the arguments being used here and are also completely blind about your privilege. You didn't "give a shit" because you're the demographic that isn't primarily facing this problem. A white driver in the States might also say "I don't see a problem with police pulling me over.", therefore all is fine and it's a post-racial America now. I used the phrasing that I did out of convenience to avoid a massive post like the one that follows. Oh well, I guess now that you think I'm ignorant, I'm going to need to provide an elaboration of the points I've made. So here goes: I never saw an issue until people got uppity, which, I'll be happy to admit, doesn't mean there isn't a problem, it just means I wasn't seeing it. I guess my main point was that feminists rarely talk enough about stuff that really matters and is direct proof of discrimination (issues on par with something like no maternity leave). Instead, feminists will often point at vague, very indirect issues that could be EASILY explained away or proven to be examples of hypocrisy on the part of feminists. I mean seriously, I could throw out five perfectly plausible alternate explanations or moral justifications for the perceived inadequacy of female characters in video games. I could do this without spending any real mental effort whatsoever. Whether my refutations are right or wrong is irrelevant to the point at hand, though. The problem is that I can give plausible alternate explanations and moral justifications with great ease. People like me, people who genuinely aren't sexist and have seen far more overly-zealous feminist fanatics than real issues, find it all to easy to dismiss feminists in general, even though there are very real, very obvious issues that feminists just ignore and let fade away from the public eye. THAT is my main point here. There are actually women in America who get immediately fired for giving birth, and in one instance the company that fired one of these women used her story in a video to basically threaten and indoctrinate all new incoming workers. Her segment in the video ended with something along the lines of "Remember folks, don't be Caroline!" If you want to convince people that feminism isn't all about making up dumb problems, you tell them the real issues. You tell them the things that ruin lives, the things that can't be justified, no matter how hard one tries. Once you've gotten them to recognize that there is an actual problem, you can then bring up more debatable stuff, like the status of female characters in video games. And trust me, I am all but incapable of sexism and racism. I know it seems like bullshit, especially to someone who has no idea just what kind of brain I've got operating inside my head, but this is something that is pretty much completely, 100% true, beyond a shadow of a doubt. Those kinds of... rather spectacular lapses in self-awareness and intellect are just not something I'm capable of outside of very rare/unique circumstances on par with major head injuries or years living a high-stress lifestyle that leaves me no time to think. Finally, I acknowledge that I have a strong emotional bias on feminist issues due to the reasons I gave at the end of the second paragraph of this message. I tend to not take stances, because I consistently and routinely underestimate the sheer stupidity my fellow man is capable of. Of course maternity issues are raised. But just because the status of women in Middle Eastern societies is horrendous does not preclude anyone from raising any issues in Western society. Similarly, just because companies behave terribly does not preclude other issues that are being raised. It's a nonsensical criticism that tries to silence, rather than consider. The hostile environment facing women in IT is very well documented for example. Things like the Stubenville rape case are being justified, the perpetrators were supported by the local community. If you're going to ask feminists to stick to the "uncontroversial" stuff, you've just zoned out progress entirely on many fronts. Progress is always going to be made at the edge of the status quo, while not all change is progress, you underestimate how controversial your "uncontroversial" issues are. I'm not sure why that company isn't facing a lawsuit that will burn it to the ground. Perhaps it has to do with American law and the social stance that profit is king. Regardless, why should that, or similar cases prevent us from discussing this issue on TL, a gaming forum? It's the social sciences, if you're waiting for a degree of uncertainty similar to mathematics, you're never going to get it. Consider also that it's easier to defend the status quo than it is to examine it. You've already agreed that Anita Sarkeesian's backlash was crazy, where do you suppose it comes from and why did it happen? Does that not signal of deeper issues within the gaming communities and that she was simply the lightning rod? I'm not attacking you, but the reason you should leave that brain out is because it's completely unverifiable. State your stance, argue your viewpoint, but claiming unverifiable objective perspective isn't the best way to engage in discussion.
You evidently don't understand the context of our conversation. I don't think I've stated any of my real views on feminist debate topics at any point during this conversation. I was responding to a post that pointed to the lack of "strong female characters in video games" as conclusive evidence that sexism is still rampant. I was offering critique on how to convince others that sexism is still very common. My point is that it is not effective evidence, for reasons I outlined, it is not an effective argument, for reasons I outlined, and it is especially ineffective at convincing people who are not already on your side.
Also, the whole "not sexist, probably never will be" thing was brought up because it is part of why people like me would react very poorly to people citing the shortage of strong female video game characters as proof or even remotely good evidence of sexism. The complete argument for that, for context: + Show Spoiler +As a sheltered person who is not sexist and does not possesses the mental faults necessary to be sexist, I cannot comprehend how someone could be sexist and never saw anything close to sexism in person. As a result, it is all to easy for me (and people like me) to project my thought processes onto others, and when combined with the fact that I have seen far more feminist zealotry than real issues, it makes citing poor arguments a completely awful tool for convincing people like me that sexism is a real, large scale issue in modern western society.
If you want to convince people, you start with evidence or an argument that is good enough that they cannot help but cede your point. You don't put out an argument that can be completely (and effortlessly) torn to shreds at least 10 different ways.
|
On November 18 2013 12:23 Wombat_NI wrote:
Never before can I recall an ideal damaged so horribly among the minds of many by the flagrant misuse of the term by supposed adherents as feminism.
I proposed in another thread that a rebrand is in order, by and large I stick to that.
Just thought it needed to be observed that this feminism is nowhere close to taking this title:
Christianity
Islam
Hinduism
Buddhism (occasionally listed as an exception by folks unwilling to be made aware of any history of China or Japan)
Sikhism
Judaism
(really most religions with good ideals but followers who diverge from them. Several, including Christianity and Judaism, also have harsh words in the sacred texts for those that lose sight of the greater things and get bogged down in the stuff that causes these problems)
Democracy (see the crap the US pulled in the Cold War)
Socialism (see USA)
Abolitionism (Africa 19th century imperialism anyone?)
Liberalism (associated in many places with oppressive imperialism)
Absurdism (I blame any and all two-bit artists trying to be avant garde)
...
Yes, feminism has an image problem. But really any ideology with grand ideals does. Because people become extremists, taking things to their illogical conclusions. Because people don't live up to their ideals. Because people get super heated, and use inflammatory language or attacks. Because people don't accept compromises, insisting on getting it all, or getting nothing. Because people who believe in something worth fighting for do bad things to fight for it... and, often as not, harm the very thing they were trying to protect.
|
Feminism is a toxic ideology these days, they rotate around in unfalisfiable claims to justify their agenda.
Feminism these days is not about equal rights, they already got them. It is about demonizing men and taking advantage of todays progressive society.
The problem feminism has is that they are rotating in their ideology and the gradually accept the most extreme point of view within their group. This happened many time, alway the most extreme point of view will be accepted by the majoritiy of feminists. They also stick to people like adria richards that failed on so many levels, a healthy community would not do this. They would get rid of such persons and wouldnt stick up for them.
But i think people will realize this more and more. Right now there is a trend were people that once identified with this movement will abandon it since they realized there is nothing good left in it.
Everyone has to think critical about feminism and everyone has to do ones part to bring it down or bring it back to sanity.
|
Women don't have equal rights in practice. You're right in that part of the feminist movement is garbage but there are still issues.
|
This thread is giving me a superiority complex :')
|
On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote:
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept.
Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 12 2014 12:16 Sokrates wrote:
Feminism is a toxic ideology these days, they rotate around in unfalisfiable claims to justify their agenda.
Feminism these days is not about equal rights, they already got thIt is about demonizing men and taking advantage of todays progressive society.
The problem feminism has is that they are rotating in their ideology and the gradually accept the most extreme point of view within their group. This happened many time, alway the most extreme point of view will be accepted by the majoritiy of feminists. They also stick to people like adria richards that failed on so many levels, a healthy community would not do this. They would get rid of such persons and wouldnt stick up for them.
But i think people will realize this more and more. Right now there is a trend were people that once identified with this movement will abandon it since they realized there is nothing good left in it.
Everyone has to think critical about feminism and everyone has to do ones part to bring it down or bring it back to sanity.
This is akin to saying Destiny represents most gamers. I don't think you've done much critical thinking of your own.
Fuck, if everyone just read some basic mother fucking Foucault half the stupid arguments in this thread wouldn't exist.
The way that society and culture are built is usually non overt and unintentional, but that doesn't make it harmless. That's what Sarkeesian has stressed in all her videos. Portraying only passive or expendable female characters is probably not malicious or intentionally sexist - rather it's a product of the designer's own influences and the work will go on to subtly influence future culture. It's the same shit that crafts ideas on "how to be a man" which are also damaging and hurtful.
|
United States42522 Posts
On January 13 2014 03:34 Fencar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2013 22:42 yamato77 wrote:
If you believe that men and women should be treated equally, you're a feminist, it's as simple as that. How you want to go about making them equal, well, that's where the problems occur.
I'm glad to see most people can understand this concept. Why should believing in equality between the sexes be labeled "feminist" instead of something like "gender equality"?
Because they got there first because nobody else was showing any interest in the field. Might as well ask why anything is called anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
