Defining Misogynism
- Thread starter Saviordd1
- Start date
So believing that modern feminism is fighting windmills in the name of gender equality while completely ignoring the other half of the equation is sexist? Count me in then.Jarimir said:
I'm sure most people who identify as feminists truly are for gender equality, but as (I think) someone in this very thread said, focusing on individual feminists can give a fairly distorted image.
With a tone like that there isn't much he could be saying without sounding petulant and sardonic.
There isn't something wrong with asking for something you want. However there is something wrong with trying to turn it into some kind of bigger social issue. Just like there isn't nothing wrong with me asking for more difficult games but it would be if i did so by claiming this casualisation is a sign of communistisation of gaming or some kind of other crap (the link being that easy games give everyone regardless of skills the same, you don't need efforts to complete it, etc. which can easily be linked with the whole ideology of giving everyone the same. I'll agree it's a retarded comparison and parallel to draw but than again, I don't do it, it's what people demanding more female centric AAA games do when they start using all those big words like "sexism, misogyny, objectification, the industry is an exclusive boys club, etc.".)Jarimir said:
It seems that people have a very hard time asking for female-centric AAA games without trying to appeal to guilt and abuse loaded words linked with RL social issues. Is it so hard to say "I want there to be more female protagonists because i'm tired of playing as a male protagonist or prefer to play as a female protagonist"? Does it really have to become "Games are sexist! Give us more more female protagonists god damn it!". I can sympathize with the former kind of argument but i will instantly dismiss the latter.
And define "more equal consideration"? What does it mean practically. And don't say "more female characters" or "less T&A". Prove me that in order to have more equal consideration something has to change. And to do that you'll have to prove me that the female Potential costumer base of AAA games is big enough to warrant such changes in order for that base to have more equal consideration.
Yeah, this is the worse type of jerkweed you can ever find, the intelligent type with a major chip on his shoulder that's aware of how spiteful he is but justifies it by playing himself out as a victim.
This is what super villains are made of
This is what super villains are made of
Somehow managed to make it through the entire video, though my jaw hurts now from the teeth grinding. I haven't watched any other videos to see if there was consistency, but there was something really strange about his mannerisms. Maybe like a cartoon villain of some sort without a hint of humor or sense of irony. In a way, I feel bad for the guy, his attitude plus his mannerisms and way of speaking remind me of a closeted gay fellow I knew in highschool, and he just hasn't realized yet hes in denial.
And he looks like a super-villain, too...Nomanslander said:Yeah, this is the worse type of jerkweed you can ever find, the intelligent type with a major chip on his shoulder that's aware of how spiteful he is but justifies it by playing himself out as a victim.
This is what super villains are made of
QUICK, we need for a benevolent geek to get in lab accident so s/he gains superpowers enabling her to combat this guy when he decides to go full mustace-twirling evil...
I don't place much credence on risk factors. They don't determine outcomes in and of themselves, and besides they're associated with everything we do anyway. If you let the omnipresent thread of harm influence your behavior you wouldn't be able to do anything but sit in a padded room all day, and even then you'd still be vulnerable to aneurysms and meteorites and house fires and choking to death. Statistically, you'd be more likely to slip, fall and die if you took a shower tomorrow morning. Welp, better never clean yourself again!Jarimir said:
It's important to remember that the worst thing anyone can do to you is going to happen to you anyway.
The emphasized portion implies you're emotionally invested in the welfare of others. That's a delirium I've escaped for whatever reason, and I don't think it's that selfishness is in vogue so much as I can clearly see the schism between individual and societal needs. I don't irrationally personalize my crimes and trespasses. Obviously everyone can't be that way otherwise we'd be back in the dark ages and I likely wouldn't even exist, but I'm already here now, and the dirty little secret is that the system is perfectly capable of playing host to "cheaters." Call me a parasite, a degenerate, a hypocrite, the fact is that I benefit more from taking than giving, and if I've got the opportunity to do that, I'd be a fool not to take it.
I'm just trying to follow your reasoning. Unless I missed a good chunk of this thread, that is what you're implying here; that criticizing feminism is inherently sexist.Jarimir said:
And I'm sorry, but this isn't a private conversation.
I watched the whole way through. It's really not something any person trying to be open-minded and fair wants to watch. Sure, you may agree on some points depending on your own personal experiences, but the main content of the video is really vile and just hateful in general.
Yes, I did read the whole post. Being 'a little bit sexist' and 'pretty sexist' hardly hold the same weight, however, possibly implying that being anti-feminism is being anti-women. If that's not your intention, then that's that I guess.Jarimir said:
'Sexist' is a dirty word. There are laws against it. It gets people fired. You using it in a benign manner doesn't change that, or other people's interpretation of it.Jarimir said:
Don't get me wrong though, I actually agree with you on this. Sexism shouldn't be the boogeyman it currently is. People don't all need to look, function and think the same to get along (though that does hold some appeal to me...), and to think that they should, or that they ever could, is absurd. Everybody has a skewed perspective on the world, and that's just something we have to live with. Trying to convert everyone to a single line of thinking is a fool's errand.
And with that said, someone, somewhere, will hate you for being gay, and no amount of campaigning or chestbeating will change that. Assholes will be assholes. The best you can do is make sure the system isn't rigged against you, as it certainly isn't rigged against the contemporary western woman. Gay rights on the other hand aren't quite there yet.
That's feminism VS. MRM in a nutshell. People taking personal anecdotes as proof of societal failings (like the gentleman in the video), and the radicals ruining it for everybody by making the opposition that much more vehement in their cause.Jarimir said:
There isn't going to be "equality" for as long as either one is throwing the victim card in the other's face.
Oh, I don't know. I get bored pretty easily. I think after a few hundred rounds with the same old girls I might start to want something a little different, in which case it might be a good idea to keep a few alternatives around.Jarimir said:
Unfortunately for you, that means you'll be having that corrective procedure.
If you know ahead of time, sure. But it's still always going to be better to eat your cake and have it, too. Besides, if your time is cut short it's not like you'll be missing much of anything anyway.
The idea of demanding proof that someone needs to demand proof seems extremely illogical. Our whole scientific method is based on the concept of demanding proof to back up claims. The need to prove your claims is necessary for the discussion to have any value. There is perhaps no inherent need to do it (i can't force you to). But if you cannot prove your claims your claims have no value. And since you're the one demanding change and making claims you're the one who needs to provide evidence.Jarimir said:
And that is also why i don't need to prove the costumer base is too small, the status quo is based on that idea. Being the one challenging the status quo the burden of proof lies on you. If you go to your boss telling him he needs to change his management style he'll ask you to prove him that there is a need to do so. And the idea that the ones who do not challenge the status quo be the ones who need to proof the status quo is the best way to continue is ludicrous. That would make it too easy for the challengers. The existence of the current status is in itself already evidence there must be something to it. It may not be correct, but that's up to you to prove.
And no this isn't part of the social issue. Unless you can prove me publishers/devs are sexists and purposely discriminating against female gamers (potential gamers) just because they're female.
And i know very well what some people think is "doing things right". There is no problem with people sharing their opinion on what they think makes a better game. We all do it. But the claim that when things are not being done right it must be some kind of social issue is ludicrous. It's not because games don't do things your way it's objectification, sexism, evidence of a boys club mentality, etc.