|
On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible
This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there.
|
The funniest thing is, the notion of "gender" might disappear before we get to equal opportunities for men and women (not very likely though, I know :D).
Which would solve the problem altogether.
|
On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there.
By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread.
My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct.
It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion?
EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal?
|
On March 09 2015 01:05 travis wrote:
I really don't think the immature kids that talk to girl gamers like this are going after girl gamers. I think they are being dicks to everyone. Most guys, especially ones over 12, LOVE to have girls that play their games too.
In general this "defend girl gamers!" thing is ridiculous. Everyone has to deal with the shitty little immature trolls, not just girls.
The majority of this journalism on girl gamer equality is only a way for the producers of this content to make money. Which is why I didn't click the link.
That might be kind of true in a SC/SC2 duel setup after all, the adversary is the only target available, but in team games girls, as the rarities, do get quite a lot more focus. It was clearly true from my experience when I played Chivalry medieval warfare (not a girl game at all  )
|
On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal?
Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue.
|
On March 11 2015 19:15 maartendq wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 18:56 piegasm wrote:On March 11 2015 18:14 maartendq wrote:On March 11 2015 17:31 Darkwhite wrote:This is not about a single, flawed public personality. ![[image loading]](https://41.media.tumblr.com/eec27cb86a856d837fe65ac6bc87b0a8/tumblr_n1gjreCZqo1qkvwy3o1_500.jpg) Women do not hold political, economic and instututional power? I assume that image tries to be ironic, or is otherwise from a textbook from the 1950s or earlier (or somehow regards all women as saints who can't possibly discriminate against men in any conceivable way). Unless of course women only hold political, economic and institutional power when there is a perfect 50-50 balance between the number of men and women. Leaving aside the fact that many women probably do not really care about becoming the next CEOs or high-level politicians and would most likely prefer jobs that give them a nice balance between work and time with their families. Come to think of it, most men would actually prefer that as well, but regardless it is still an unwritten rule or expectation that men have to be main breadwinner, even in our modern western societies. Your argument here is self-refuting. As long as there is not at least a roughly 50/50 balance between men and women in positions of authority, then women, as a group, don't hold power. The ratio is FAR from 50/50 in the vast majority of fields. You can't look at a group of 50 people, point out that 4 or 5 of them are women, and act like that's equality. Secondly, you're admitting straight out that there's an unwritten rule that men are breadwinners while women concern themselves more with domestic stuff. That is sexism. That's expecting different things from people based on their gender for no reason. It's sexist by definition. Men are not inherently less capable at housework, nor are women more capable. Women are not inherently less capable leaders, nor are men more capable. We've just decided as a culture to funnel people in different directions based on superficial characteristics. There's no reason to keep doing it and any resistance to stopping it can't be called anything other than sexist. But men are inherently better and doing physically straining work, which is why, throughout human history except the past 75 years (or less even), women generally took care of the house and kids while men were out hunting, tilling the fields or working in factories. I do not see why this historical reality, which is something that is probably hardwired into our brain - considering it is a common phenomenon among practically all cultures around the world - is sexist. What is sexist, however, is denying women from leaving their homes and pursuing careers for themselves just because they are women.
A lot of archaeological and historical work done in the last few decades has shown that a lot of the beliefs in this post about gender roles throughout history aren't really true at all.
|
On March 11 2015 22:04 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal? Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue.
As should be obvious by the last page the discussion had gone a little further than simply harassment of women who plays games.
EDIT: You had several posts on the last page which did not directly pertain to harassment of women who play games. Less backseat moderating please.
|
On March 11 2015 12:37 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:19 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. The quote is: "There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." Now if you don't understand why this is not a given, I probably can't help you (with this, or with anything else, really). But let me explain. She makes an argument that has these 3 parts 1- Premise: Sexism = Prejudice + Power 2- Men have all the power (women have none) 3- Therefore, sexism against men is impossible because women cannot have power There are at least two problems 1- The premise does not refer to EVERY definition of sexism, in fact I don't know that any widely agreed upon definitions of sexism which necessarily require power (nor do they define what power is, but from my poli sci background (and just common sense really), power goes beyond "domination", which is my next point) 2- If we agree with the premise, then we have to consider that there are many forms of power. Power is not only complete domination - power can exist in the workspace, for instance (obviously). If a woman runs a business, she can exert her power (in that arena) and her prejudice, thus making her sexist against men. It may not be systemic sexism to the extent that the one women face, but it's sexism nonetheless. So no I don't agree that the notion of sexism, or racism, should always be from the majority to a minority. That's just a weird way to try to gain points in an argument, by preventing others from turning it back against them, by preventing nuances from being brought up. And God knows the people of the Internet don't deal in nuances. Nuances are too hard to some of these people. My point is, in the end, if we were to settle for a definition of the word "sexism" which only applied in the way which is suggested here, we'd definitely need a more neutral word to replace it, because "sexism" would've been hijacked by the proponents of a certain ideology, and would become tainted for any use by intellectuals. I agree that the comment is problematic in a context like Twitter, but more because Twitter is not the environment in which the theoretical basis for that claim can actually be explained. There are actually several theoretical approaches to sexism in which power is very clearly a central concern. A fairly readable example is C.J. Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag, and the additional literature is extensive. Jane Hill's [The Everyday Language of White Racism takes a similar approach to racism. Again, plenty of lit out there. "Power" is also an ambiguous term, but I think here it can be clarified. Yes, Hilary Clinton has more power than your average American man. But what we're interested in as social scientists is "how does being female affect Hilary Clinton's political, social, economic, and cultural power?" It is one thing to say, "Hilary Clinton is more powerful than I am," and another to say, "Hilary Clinton's power follows from the fact that she is female." The first is usually a given, the second is quite possibly false. In fact, one might suggest that Hilary Clinton is powerful despite the fact that she is female, a traditionally power-deprived social group. This leaves room for both sexism and powerful women. "Men are the dominant gender with power in society" is also misleading. It can easily be interpreted in the way that you did, which is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure it means something else: that while being a female is often not helpful when one seeks power, being a male often is. This doesn't mean that all men are powerful and all women are powerless. It just means being male often reduces barriers to power. When and how this happens tends to vary based on the context, which is one reason for why people focus their gender studies on specific areas and topics. [/i]
Responding to a post from a few pages back.
I agree with literally all of this and to my senses it certainly does not support the content of her tweet. Whatever definition you give to power, women can have it despite the fact that it's harder, so twisting the definition of sexism so it can only mean sexism toward a minority serves no purpose other than to win an argument by dismissing nuanced comments. If people were actually interested in an intellectual argument, this kind of hijacking of terms would not be accepted in a debate, because it is VERY CLEARLY being instrumentalized. And I've seen these kinds of attempts get shut down before. I myself am from a social sciences background and rigorous researchers would never ever stand for that.
And even if you support the cause of feminism, as I do - I'm very much an egalitarian - then you shouldn't accept a weak definition of sexism, because it undermines the debate and it undermines the entire discussion.
Which brings me back to my initial point: Yes there is a big problem, but this is not how you fight it. Much of this "sexism in games" thing, while partially true, is communicated in a vile way much of the time. In the end, it hasn't really opened a debate because it has just been mudslinging. This is the most reasonable debate I've ever seen on it and people are nonetheless very dogmatic here and blindly accept biased or prejudiced definitions of some concepts without a second thought because it supports their predispositions. This polarized mudslinging is not opening a debate, it's making everyone uneasy because no one is willing to actually talk. Everyone wants to checkmate their opponent before words can even be said, and that's why reasonable definitions of certain terms, so we can debate using the same words, are dismissed out of the gate.
Furthermore, people who'd like to bring some nuance to the debate are dismissed or considered MRA's or sexists for not outright agreeing with all the stuff that's been brought forward by credible and less credible feminist thinkers alike.
I love the feminists in my university because the ones I've spoken to about the subject of feminism are willing to discuss it. They're not so adversarial. And they're into social sciences above all. They're not publicists and activists (who I profoundly respect, but if your goal is to have a healthy intellectual debate, you're generally not getting it with them).
|
On March 11 2015 22:04 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal? Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue.
It always amazes me how any time a discussion about women's issues happens on this site its is co-opted by the same group of posters and moves to the most passive aggressive critique of feminism. And then when you try to get back on topic, the claims of straw-manning, fallacies and "not wanting civil discussion" rain down.
|
On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there.
Ok, while i agree there are fewer opportunities and theres some repression going on towards women (even among most "civilized" countries), do you even consider the "golden mean" not being 50:50? Whats the science behind this?
|
On March 11 2015 22:17 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 22:04 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal? Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue. As should be obvious by the last page the discussion had gone a little further than simply harassment of women who plays games. EDIT: You had several posts on the last page which did not directly pertain to harassment of women who play games. Less backseat moderating please.
I haven't posted in a while, so which posts are you talking about exactly?
I'm also amused by your immediately conclusion that I am backseat moderating. If I found anything worth moderating about your post I would have just reported you. What I am doing is asking for some context of your very broad and general question, rather than embark on a waste of time discussion matters at a high level of abstraction. Of course, that has been happening for the last few pages, so maybe as good forum manners we can move towards a more substantial disucssion.
|
On March 11 2015 22:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 22:04 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal? Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue. It always amazes me how any time a discussion about women's issues happens on this site its is co-opted by the same group of posters and moves to the most passive aggressive critique of feminism. And then when you try to get back on topic, the claims of straw-manning, fallacies and "not wanting civil discussion" rain down.
Do you seriously believe you have left a lot of room for civil discussion? My post was relevant, non-controversial, not passive aggressive, not a critique of feminism as a whole, and fairly simple to answer. You refused to do so, instead purposefully misinterpreted it and now complain that we are off-topic when both of you have played a much bigger part in driving the discussion in this thread to where it is then I have with my 1 post in the past 20 pages.
How about we move on? What would it take for you to consider a society truly equal?
|
On March 11 2015 23:06 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 22:55 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 22:04 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal? Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue. It always amazes me how any time a discussion about women's issues happens on this site its is co-opted by the same group of posters and moves to the most passive aggressive critique of feminism. And then when you try to get back on topic, the claims of straw-manning, fallacies and "not wanting civil discussion" rain down. Do you seriously believe you have left a lot of room for civil discussion? My post was relevant, non-controversial, not passive aggressive, not a critique of feminism as a whole, and fairly simple to answer. You refused to do so, instead purposefully misinterpreted it and now complain that we are off-topic when both of you have played a much bigger part in driving the discussion in this thread to where it is then I have with my 1 post in the past 20 pages. How about we move on? What would it take for you to consider a society truly equal?
I don't deal in overly broad, sweeping discussions about society, because I consider them to be very fruitless exercises that lead to watered down insights that mean little. I deal in specifics, like women being harassed in the game industry and hobby. That is a discussion I think some useful insight would come from.
|
On March 11 2015 23:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:06 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 22:55 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 22:04 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal? Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue. It always amazes me how any time a discussion about women's issues happens on this site its is co-opted by the same group of posters and moves to the most passive aggressive critique of feminism. And then when you try to get back on topic, the claims of straw-manning, fallacies and "not wanting civil discussion" rain down. Do you seriously believe you have left a lot of room for civil discussion? My post was relevant, non-controversial, not passive aggressive, not a critique of feminism as a whole, and fairly simple to answer. You refused to do so, instead purposefully misinterpreted it and now complain that we are off-topic when both of you have played a much bigger part in driving the discussion in this thread to where it is then I have with my 1 post in the past 20 pages. How about we move on? What would it take for you to consider a society truly equal? I don't deal in overly broad, sweeping discussions about society, because I consider them to be very fruitless exercises that lead to watered down insights that mean little. I deal in specifics, like women being harassed in the game industry and hobby.
I personally think it quite important to set the goalpost for our movement towards equality, but if that is how you feel, then so be it. A little ironic that we ended up here considering your first post on page 34.
|
On March 11 2015 23:14 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 23:10 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 23:06 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 22:55 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 22:04 levelping wrote:On March 11 2015 21:29 Ghostcom wrote:On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. By now you must have an entire field by straw-manning every single post in this thread. My post had nothing to do with whether or not a society as described in either of the two options currently existed, but which of the two we should strive for. Depending on which you chose you are working with entirely different assumptions - and it is clear that maartendq and piegasm work with different assumptions. ZenithM was by the way completely correct. It is hardly a controversial statement - it was an attempt to facilitate a better discussion as the base assumptions held are extremely important for such a discussion to be fruitful. Perhaps you could for once refrain from trying to straw-man and instead have a civil discussion? EDIT: I'm guessing you consider option 1 to be the one and true way for a society to be equal? Maybe you can elaborate how this ties in with harassment of women who play games, because I don't see how either definition makes the problem any less of an issue. It always amazes me how any time a discussion about women's issues happens on this site its is co-opted by the same group of posters and moves to the most passive aggressive critique of feminism. And then when you try to get back on topic, the claims of straw-manning, fallacies and "not wanting civil discussion" rain down. Do you seriously believe you have left a lot of room for civil discussion? My post was relevant, non-controversial, not passive aggressive, not a critique of feminism as a whole, and fairly simple to answer. You refused to do so, instead purposefully misinterpreted it and now complain that we are off-topic when both of you have played a much bigger part in driving the discussion in this thread to where it is then I have with my 1 post in the past 20 pages. How about we move on? What would it take for you to consider a society truly equal? I don't deal in overly broad, sweeping discussions about society, because I consider them to be very fruitless exercises that lead to watered down insights that mean little. I deal in specifics, like women being harassed in the game industry and hobby. I personally think it quite important to set the goalpost for our movement towards equality, but if that is how you feel, then so be it. A little ironic that we ended up here considering your first post on page 34.
My goal post is the same. Talking about harassment of women in video games is part of discussing equality. Its a big issue that cannot be tackled all at once.
|
so if you'd have a 50/50 split in whatever you want - power, opportunities, representation and so on - you think all harassment will stop?.
|
On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there.
Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system?
It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people.
|
On March 11 2015 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
so if you'd have a 50/50 split in whatever you want - power, opportunities, representation and so on - you think all harassment will stop?.
It will be mitigated for sure. Stopped, no, but mitigated. And the real serious harassment will be less common. This happens in all groups and societies where there is one dominated demographic that is slowly changing to become more diverse. There is harassment and bad behavior. Some groups deal with it better than others. But as there is better diversity in the group, there is less resistance to the changing ideas.
In short, change is hard and resistance is common. How willing people are to address the resistance and aggression is the real thing that needs to be worked on.
|
On March 11 2015 23:30 xM(Z wrote:
so if you'd have a 50/50 split in whatever you want - power, opportunities, representation and so on - you think all harassment will stop?.
Wouldn't you need the harassment to stop before you reach this hypothetical 50/50 split? How is can one group be equal to the other when it has to put up with harassment?
|
On March 11 2015 23:32 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 21:09 Plansix wrote:On March 11 2015 20:00 nasze_zrodlo wrote:
"hardcore online games (call of duty)" LMAO. call of duty is the most casual game possible This man is arguing the real argument that should be had. Which game is the most HARD CORE. On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote:
You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender. Exactly and since one gender is currently repressed and has fewer opportunities, there need to be laws, systems and awareness raised to fix that. Glad we finally got there. Which gender is that? The one underrepresented in government or the one massively overrepresented at the bottom rung of society, on the streets, committing suicide and discriminated against by both the law and the education system? It takes an imbecile to swallow the feminist narrative. There are benefits and negatives to being of either gender, both biological and societal, and it is a nonsense to say that women are objectively worse off than men or that this comparison even has any value/meaning. You've been writing nonsense from the beginning of this thread. Most people feel an obligation to protect women, and there's nothing wrong with this - it's a natural instinct - but mollycoddling is repulsive. People who have a problem with the way other people behave in online games have the option of muting/reporting those people.
Sorry bud, saying that women are worse off than men when talking biologically is indeed a nonsense, but when talking about men and women as societal groups it makes a lot of sense and has a very legit value. Just like a comparison between two societal groups almost always make sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jbfakesarkqu.png)
