Can Duke Nukem Become a Feminist Hero?

[Yoarastrophe]

I literally cannot see why Duke Nukem would be offensive to women, no matter how hard I try to look for my inner oversensitive feminist. Misogynistic? What? The way I see it, he's womankind's champion and protector. Didn't anyone see the trailer?

"They shouldn't have gone after our women."

 

[BeanDelphiki]

The reason I hate the word Feminist is that most you hear about and from anymore are not following the real tenants of the philosophy.

Protip: The voices in your head aren't real, bro.

Seriously, the number of self-identified "feminists" who genuinely hate men or consider women to be superior is such a tiny minority that most feminists I know believe them to be entirely mythological (having never met one). I myself have run across a few of these, but only because I tend to be masochistic enough to seek out wingnuts to argue with.

Since these women also tend to be flagrantly transphobic, as well as quite racist, classist and sometimes homophobic, they barely qualify as "feminists" in my book anyway.

I'm not blaming feminism in itself.

Except that you clearly are. Feminists would oppose disbelieving male victims and survivors.

And I'm sorry if a shelter which was meant to help male abuse victims did not help you. If it was geared toward women, however, they have obvious reasons for turning men away: abusers can use incredibly manipulative tactics to try to gain access to their victims to re-victimize them.

[a href="http://www.safe4all.org/resource-list/"]SAFE resource list.[/a]

 

[Weaver]

I think I generally like Randy Pitchford, but I get the distinct impression that he's really not that bright every time I see a press release from gearbox.

 

[(LK)]

I'm not sure he really grasps how broad the definition of misogyny can legitimately be, but then again a lot of people don't because it isn't necessarily intuitive.

You don't have to be actively prejudiced against women to be legitimately accused of misogyny. It's usually regarded as enough just to participate in attitudes or stereotypes that are bad for the image of women in society, even without advocating for them or thinking they're even valid.

Pretty much the only way Duke could dodge that bullet is if the games were a clear-cut parody of the crass way it portrays women and it isn't. It does veer into the absurd but it does so for plain entertainment, not parodic criticism.

I don't think the guy is in the wrong to have the attitude he does, he just isn't the sort of person who usually has to grapple with this issue and so has perhaps a naive opinion of the subject.

If he was less guarded and simply said "yes this character is misogynist and I support you if you want to use him as an example" I'd really have nothing critical to say at all, but I guess he can't be that critical of his company's own game on the record.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Seriously, the number of self-identified "feminists" who genuinely hate men or consider women to be superior is such a tiny minority that most feminists I know believe them to be entirely mythological (having never met one). I myself have run across a few of these, but only because I tend to be masochistic enough to seek out wingnuts to argue with.

Not sure I'd agree with that.

In any cause about elavating the rights of one group to those of another, there is always going to be alot of hostility to the group persecuting them, or at least holding privilege over them and refusing to relinquish it.

Though, that's as a broad class, collectively, not as individuals.

I'm not sure he really grasps how broad the definition of misogyny can legitimately be, but then again a lot of people don't because it isn't necessarily intuitive.

Well, prejudice isn't, really. Nobody says "them bloody Group X, they're just as good as we are, but I'm going to hate them anyway", they are convinced that Group X is legitimately less than they are, and deserves that kind of treatment. That's why people why endlessly claim not to be prejudiced, no matter how obvious it is to others that they are.

 

[BeanDelphiki]

Because some abusers are manipulative those of us that have suffered abuse at the hands of women should just tough it out and suffer? Seems a bit sexist to me.

What? The majority of women in a women's shelter will have been abused by men, and will often feel extremely unsafe around men at that point. Hence, they don't let men in. This isn't hard to understand.

 

[Terminal Blue]

What? The majority of women in a women's shelter will have been abused by men, and will often feel extremely unsafe around men at that point. Hence, they don't let men in. This isn't hard to understand.

That's true, actually.. well observed.

I've been into a women's shelter. My friend went into one for a while and had visited her as often as I could. Some of the things which had been done to the people in there by the men closest to them would literally turn your stomach. These are not just people who have been slapped once or twice, many of them have never had any kind of relationship with a man which wasn't in some way abusive to them.

I'm not a big or intimidating guy, and some of those women couldn't stand to be in the same room as me. I do think it would be pretty disruptive to the functioning of such a place to allow men in. Maybe that's strictly speaking not fair, but the point of the shelter is to provide some measure of safety, and if the women there didn't feel confident that it was safe then it would kind of ruin the point.

Sorry, but this is mostly silly. Please check out the developments in developmental psychology, behavior genetics, and epigenetics over about the last 40 years or so - genes determine the VAST majority of who and what we are.

I have. I'm unconvinced your summary is a very good one, or even terribly accurate to the majority of work in those fields - particularly developmental psychology. I've also kept up with the developments in psychology in general, in social history and sociology and in discourse analysis.

Don't believe every 'science' article printed by a tabloid newspaper.

 

[Terminal Blue]

But not providing services or support for men or providing them with a viable shelter is a symptom of the problem. As a fellow victim of abuse I completely sympathize with these women but in my personal experience (and according to data from a friend that used to help run a shelter) services are usually denied and restricted for men and the dominant attitude among the worker's is to assume the men are victimizers. By only addressing the needs of the female victims (though they may be the vast majority) these workers are being sexist.

In principle I very much agree, in practice I find it hard to imagine how the system would work differently. I don't think the 'problem' is the lack of provision, even if you did provide a shelter for men who had been victims of domestic violence would many men use it, even if they were put in that position?

In my opinion, it's a cultural problem which can't just be legislated away. You've been very quick to blame the workers and I can see why, but they are in many ways just acting out wider cultural expectations which most men will feel themselves, not some minority feminist agenda. They are just assuming (a very common assumption in our society) that as a man you do not need services and are fully capable of looking after yourself. In many situations that assumption would benefit you and harm women, and its those very kinds of assumptions which a feminist position is designed to question or deconstruct.

We use the word because it has acquired a degree of history and conceptual power. Also, because humanism already exists and many feminists are anti-humanist (or rather, critical of the assumptions of humanism), but a critique of the sex/gender system has the potential to benefit everyone. Maybe one day we will live in a world where we can accept men as equally 'weak' and thus afford them equal care, but some serious cultural reform needs to take place first. Uncritical attacks on 'feminism' in general won't help that cause.

By all means, attack individuals. Mary Daly could stand to have a few more nasty things said about her, but dismissing an incredibly broad and useful body of work because you find the name 'sexist' is missing the forest for the trees.

 

[BeanDelphiki]

Because some abusers are manipulative those of us that have suffered abuse at the hands of women should just tough it out and suffer? Seems a bit sexist to me.

What? The majority of women in a women's shelter will have been abused by men, and will often feel extremely unsafe around men at that point. Hence, they don't let men in. This isn't hard to understand.

But not providing services or support for men or providing them with a viable shelter is a symptom of the problem. As a fellow victim of abuse I completely sympathize with these women but in my personal experience (and according to data from a friend that used to help run a shelter) services are usually denied and restricted for men and the dominant attitude among the worker's is to assume the men are victimizers. By only addressing the needs of the female victims (though they may be the vast majority) these workers are being sexist.

The fact that women's shelter providers are forced to turn away abused men is not the fault of the women stuck in the system. It's the fault of abusive men. You are right to be angry at anyone who couldn't see past their assumptions and didn't try to direct you toward resources that could help you, even if they couldn't directly help you themselves. But not being able to admit you to the women's shelter is not sexism - that's a place designed to protect women. From abusive men, primarily.

While it's true that people in our society tend to unfairly assume that men cannot be abused and should be able to entirely look out for themselves, I think you are completely failing to grasp the other side of this: people running these shelters have no way of knowing if you are abusive or not. It isn't stamped on your forehead if you are innocent or not, and admitting you would be a MUCH greater potential danger to the women in the shelter than not doing so.

Not your fault. Not their fault. The fault of abusive men.

Your anger is misplaced. Blame the people who deserve to be blamed.

 

[inquisiti0n]

Feminists believe in equality between men and women, not superiority.

Yet there are still tons of feminists that want female superiority, funny how that works out. Hell, there's even a term for them. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_feminism]
Just because the dictionary defines feminism that way doesn't mean it can't be warped and misused in practice.

 

[Archemetis]

What is everyone talking about? Duke has Always been a feminist hero...

What?
It's true...

You've never heard the Duke go all one-man-army on the aliens because they stole all our hot dudes, have you?

 

[inquisiti0n]

In my defense in previous posts I have fully aknowledged that people claim to be feminists but distort the values. Much like Stalins communism compared to engels communism. If you mention communism to anyone they'll think of the twat with the massive tash.

But you're trying to dismiss those who misrepresent feminism as if they're outliers, which simply isn't true, certainly not in the personal experiences of many, including myself.

Point is, certain branches of feminism are revolved around misandry and focus on female superiority. Consequently, people will associate feminism with that sort of sexism, and they're not at all incorrect to make that association. Responding to someone's real life observations by bringing up the dictionary definition of feminism to then tell them they're wrong is just a weak argument.