StarCraft = Sexist? Some feminists just go too far - Page 13

On May 17 2009 22:14 DwmC_Foefen wrote:


I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them.
b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men.

And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles).

On May 17 2009 22:25 keV. wrote:
The fact is: Blizzard does not give a fuck. The object was to make a game that people will buy. They have clearly thrown enough balance of male and female characters to not stir the raging hormones of feminists everywhere.

In terms heroes, in both the Warcraft and Starcraft universes, there is definitely depth to each character and their growth in the story. What one could use for a basis on a "Blizzard is sexist" paper another could argue is an intriguing plot device.

Units in both games: peons, grunts, marines, medics, etc. Are INTENTIONALLY shallow, and thus flawed. (or in this case, portrayed "sexistly").

Grasping at straws is EXACTLY what the author is doing.

I can't believe people believe she has a good point. You are trying to use your brain too hard to comprehend what anyone should be able to see is a terrible piece of literature.

On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote:
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.

On May 17 2009 22:45 Jibba wrote:

You're not using your brain hard enough. Not all discrimination is consciously done.

On May 17 2009 22:50 keV. wrote:


It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.

On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote:
By dismissing their claims without understanding them, you're perpetrating their status as an Other. I don't think you've considered that from their perspective, it could be a reasonable claim. And the pay equity thing is a completely different problem, but it's generally not like what people describe. In most jobs, equally qualified women do not earn 76% of men's salaries, or else companies would be filled with women instead of men.

No. Different animals have different cultures, and that's the guiding idea behind feminism. Culture shapes behavior and roles more than anything else. There may be certain traits like strength which tend to give more power to males in the wild, but there are some female dominant animals and even among male dominant ones, females often do more of the work.

For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture.

On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:


Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.

On May 17 2009 22:56 keV. wrote:



Of course not all discrimination is consciously done, and if that's the case then how can a blizzard dev be expected to realize what they are doing?

I think they do a pretty good job of throwing in powerful and admirable female characters in both universes, When I use the term "Grasping at straws" what I am implying is that the author is cherry picking. In order to make a statement like "This game is sexist" you have to take the entire game in question into consideration, if anyone read the whole article, it is clear that the author does not do that. So their entire thesis holds zero weight.

If you had a business of 100 people, 50 black and 50 white, where all the black people worked in accounting and all the white people worked in research, this would be like writing a paper on either individual side being racist. Its silly and worthless.

On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote:
The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique.

On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.

On May 17 2009 23:11 keV. wrote:


Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence.

On May 17 2009 23:14 Jibba wrote:

I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl.

On May 17 2009 21:50 no_comprender wrote:
maybe women are supposed to be submissive to men, i'll say this: i don't know any hot girls who give a fuck about feminism....

in fact you will find that intelligent and well adjusted girls will admit to things like women make worse leaders on average due to emotional instability compared to men, and other little "woman issues" that can get in the way of being a good leader or effective employee, as well as different priorities and a lesser sense of company loyalty than men.

of course that's not to say we should judge women on an individual level, but things like 50:50 men/women CEOs is not a realistic outcome. there's huge advantage to being tall in leadership positions too, something like 90% of CEOs are over average height for example, and the USA presidents list supports data like that. i haven't seen much publicity from short people complaining about height inequality cos it'd come across as bitter short man syndrome but we have to respect womens feminism complaints? same thing with good looking people too, it's a huge employment advantage. imo it just so happens that men tend to possess traits that we are instinctually drawn to respect and obey, in addition to tending to be more focussed and driven to succeed

i think many feminists are striving male ideals of power and achievement when at a fundamental level women don't necessarily have the same drive for those things that men do. the whole equality movement just comes of as forced to me because i just don't think we're wired that way fundamentally. of course if they keep forcing it down our throats for a few 100 years it'll become reality but don't pretend that equality is the fundamental truth and somehow men are pigheadedly pushing women down

On May 17 2009 23:14 cz wrote:


I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim.

I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated".

On May 17 2009 23:17 keV. wrote:


Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence.

On May 17 2009 23:18 cz wrote:


I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence).

On May 17 2009 23:21 keV. wrote:


Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology.

On May 17 2009 23:10 cz wrote:


I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.

Also, "animals have different cultures". What?