Defining Misogynism

[Lionsfan]

I mean, is it really wrong that girl gamers want to be treated as equals to male gamers? Not to get all cliched and bring up race, but was it entitlement when black people didn't want blackface to be used in movies?

It depends on the line of argument used. I see so many different or contradictory concerns that it really isn't possible to use the term "girl gamers" when it comes to discussing changes.

1) Some people are unhappy with there being "sexy" female characters at all.
2) Some people are unhappy with there being too many "sexy" female characters, but not enough "non-sexy" female characters (The Triple A gaming market in general).
3)Some people are unhappy with "sexy" female characters, but only when they are nothing else (Rachel from Ninja Gaiden 2).
4) Some people are unhappy with some "sexy" female characters being in a game, but only if there is not a variety of other types of women in the game as well.

Issues 2,3 and 4 I'd say are perfectly valid concerns, but I would say point number 1 does come from a false sense of entitlement. As it normally comes from the line of argument that sexualising women in any shape or form is automatically bad.

That women don't like it, despite the fact that many women are perfectly okay with it. As is seen by the fact that there are so many cosplays of these characters and the voice actresses are clearly happily to be associated with a game that has them.

The kind of people who oppose "sexy" women games entirely are not all that common, but sometimes the arguments seem to bleed together, or people contradict themselves, which is where arguments quite often start.

Like boots said, I don't think I've ever seen Number 1, and about this part of your response:

Note: I did not say they demanded they don't exist, I said they are unhappy with them

the guy I was responding to, he was saying that more and more women are demanding that publishers bow down to their whims.

 

[Uhura]

1) Some people are unhappy with there being "sexy" female characters at all.
......
I would say point number 1 does come from a false sense of entitlement.

This part is confusing me. Why is merely being unhappy about it linked with a false sense of entitlement? I mean, if they are just unhappy about it but don't demand anything, why would they have a false sense of entitlement?

 

[Legion]

1) Some people are unhappy with there being "sexy" female characters at all.
......
I would say point number 1 does come from a false sense of entitlement.

This part is confusing me. Why is merely being unhappy about it linked with a false sense of entitlement? I mean, if they are just unhappy about it but don't demand anything, why would they have a false sense of entitlement?

Poor wording on my part I guess. I chose the word "unhappy" because a lot of other words would come across as loaded or judgemental.

I meant people acting as though they have the right to say that developers "should not" do X with their game. I don't mean people who are demanding they stop, I mean people who are suggesting that they are wrong to do what they want with their own product.

Criticism is fine. Saying that that it's bad that they exist, when they are quite easily avoidable, is quite another.

 

[Catrixa]

Huh. A dude met some bitchy women, then made a YouTube video on it, eh? Seems like a thing. You know, I've met some asshole men, too. I guess I can copy-paste my experience onto all men (except specific ones I like, because they are OK, obviously) and rant about it on YouTube for 15 minutes. I'm pretty sure I can find some sources no one has heard about and claim they're credible, too. And anything is a fact if you say "This is a FACT!" after it three times (it can't be any less, or people might question you). Also, it looks like all propaganda is true again. This is good to know, because coming up with opinions (wait, crap, these aren't opinions, these are facts, my bad) is easy when I don't have to think about them. Huh. How many viewers does this guy have? I think I've got a camera around here somewhere...

This made me smile =)

OT: it took me a good 3 minutes to realize this isn?t satire??
I mean the skull in the background , the armchair, the smoking ?? all this was missing is a bear skin rug.


anyway this should be required viewing for anyone who even thinks of talking to this guy ? Christ??.

(Or maybe this is just a brilliant piece of viral marketing for a new command and conquer game )

Thank you, I like making people smile !

...And if this is viral marketing for a new C&C... Day 1 purchase. I haven't played a game that had me clutching my sides laughing for hours in ages... Now I want to play Red Alert 2 again... (wonder where my disks went...)

 

[lacktheknack]

OT: A misogynist is anyone, man or woman, who is in a state of believing women to be inferior to men.

Misogyny is an attribute of any action, artistic expression, etc, that conforms to the mentality that women are inferior to men.

It's possible to perform misogynistic actions without being a misogynist.

For example, if you are trying to hire one person, and you receive an application from a man and a woman, then by hiring one, you are doomed to perform a misogynist or misandric action. Even if you select the male candidate because he has more experience and schooling, your selecting him was a misogynistic action, because it fits the mindset that women are worth less than men.

I'm not sure I get the point your trying to make there so I'm going to argue with what I percieve your point to be.

You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. You select the candidate with the most relavent experience and education for the job.
I don't understand what that has to do with misogyny. That decision isn't based in the idea that men are inherintly better than women but that the particular applicant was more qualified for the position.


An example of misogyny would be:
You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. Both are qualified for the position but you hire the man because you believe that the woman will not perform as well at the job as the man due to her gender.

The first example completely trivialises the actual issue of misogyny in the workplace and in the hiring process.

I hadn't thought about the trivialization aspect.

Dangit, there went my method of deflecting unfair claims of "YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST".

 

[SeanSeanston]

Seems to me that all too often...

1. If a man dislikes women, he is a misogynist.

2. If a man likes things about women and is attracted to some of them because he enjoys their company and finds them to be enjoyable people to be around or do things with, he is also a misogynist who is probably "objectifying" them, and has secret designs on raping them if only that pesky law would stop getting in the way (like virtually all men of all kinds who have ever lived, BTW, natch).

3. If a man ignores women, he is also a misogynist.

I really wish that was genuinely at odds with how it feels a lot of the time

Meanwhile, misandry is often not even treated as a real word. Oh well.

And to use that idea of job applicants to illustrate how it feels even better...

Situation 1: A company isn't hiring a lot of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is being SEXIST against women! It's not hiring them, because it doesn't think women can do a good job.

Situation 2: A company is hiring a disproportionately HIGH amount of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is clearly being sexist... because they're only being hired so they can be SEXUALLY HARASSED!

Seriously, I don't want to live on this planet anymore, as they say.

EDIT:

You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. You select the candidate with the most relavent experience and education for the job.
I don't understand what that has to do with misogyny. That decision isn't based in the idea that men are inherintly better than women but that the particular applicant was more qualified for the position.

Of course, the problem wouldn't even arise somewhere like Germany where if a man and a woman are competing for the same job and are equally qualified... it is ILLEGAL to hire the man -_-.

And in a country where there are more unemployed men than women.

GG, Feminism.

Wow, Western women sure do have few opportunities ¬_¬.

 

[aba1]

I was watching a few related videos out of curiosity and I thought this video hit some interesting points.

"Women can't hear what men haven't said." As much I support the hell out of this sentiment, I feel like a big problem is that men don't know how to articulate their side of things - see the "men's movement" and all their hate-mongering.

To be honest the only hateful feelings I have ever seen towards anything in the mens movements is towards feminism and to be fair many of the feminist ideologies out right hold back or stop many of the rights or prejudices men fight for/against, even still most just disagree with their ideologies which tend to range from womens issues first to only women matter. So no I wouldn't call them hate mongering at best frustrated with a very specific opposing ideology.

 

[itsthesheppy]

Do we really need five pages to come to a general consensus that this guy is a tool?

 

[aba1]

Note: I did not say they demanded they don't exist, I said they are unhappy with them. So actually, your reply could be considered a strawman, effectively as you are "attacking" a statement I never said. Although I am not going to make accusations as I am pretty sick of people using buzzwords as counter-arguments.

Oh, my mistake. Go un then, find examples of people who are unhappy that sexy girls exist in video games at all.

The accusations of Skullgirls being sexist is an example of it.

No, that's an example of people complaining about the design of characters in a single game. More importantly, it's a complaint about over-sexualization, not sexiness. Believe it or not, there's more to being "sexy" than upskirts and improbably massive boobs.

Sorry to hop in on this I just thought it was worth noting that sexy is a state of being sexual while sexualization is the process. So while they are not the same thing they do apply in the same context. As in a sexualized person will be sexy and backwards a sexy person will be sexualized as they both are different states of the same thing and one leads to the other and backwards.

 

[Callate]

If those sexist actions/conceptions stem from contempt, hatred or anger at women or their status as fully realised human beings and/or their status as the equals of men, that's misogyny.

But ascribing those feelings as the motivation of those actions without some kind of evidence really isn't helpful. Reserving for oneself the right to describe actions as misogyny without any interest in the perpetrator's intention is more likely to close conversations than open them up. Too often it's getting used less as an accurate and helpful description than as a "<you/they> are wrong, I win" to end discussion before it begins or render something off the table before it even receives examination.

There is real misogyny out there, including in the culture in which I live and participate; I don't dispute that. There is also behavior that's ignorant, chauvinistic, and/or sexist without it being reasonable to describe it as "woman-hating"- which is what misogyny means. I genuinely think that if it keeps being used so broadly and indiscriminately, while it may be great for blog posts that seek only to preach to the choir, such conversations are going to exclude a great many of the people who could actually make things better.

 

[SeanSeanston]

To be honest the only hateful feelings I have ever seen towards anything in the mens movements is towards feminism and to be fair many of the feminist ideologies out right hold back or stop many of the rights or prejudices men fight for/against, even still most just disagree with their ideologies which tend to range from womens issues first to only women matter. So no I wouldn't call them hate mongering at best frustrated with a very specific opposing ideology.

Yeah, I think the problem is that if a man ever questions anything that's painted with the horse**** "gender equality" or "women's rights" tags, then he's automatically a "sexist" or "misogynist" (Why are they so quick to assume these things anyway? Do they secretly hate themselves and assume that other people also find women so easy to dislike?) no matter how much evidence he has or how much sense he's making.

Also it doesn't help that "gender equality" usually means making things better for women so that they're AT LEAST as good for women as for men, REGARDLESS.

It's almost like: "Why don't we talk about men's problems?"
"LOL, men don't have problems."
"Yes... that is kind of one of the problems I was referring to."

As though men's lives will always take care of themselves automatically no matter what. Which leads me to another contradiction of Feminism where it seems to suggest at the same time... that men and women are equally capable, except that women require lowered entry standards and tons of help (from men and only men) in order to compete with men. Ehhrmm... what in the Christ?

Another thing that bothers me is all of this congratulatory ****e for women who manage to do anything more complicated than tying their shoelaces. "Women in Business" and all this crap.
I'm sorry... you just told me that women could do things just as well as men... now you expect me to be impressed that a woman did something that millions of men do every day?
That just sounds insulting to women, not to mention unfair that it assumes things are so very easy for men and we're justified in highering our expectations for men.
Doesn't exactly seem to help, if people being seen equally is indeed one's goal... and I doubt it is the goal of many of these disingenuous wretches.

It's like men are meant to view women equally, AND pity them at the same time.

Not to mention how Feminists always seem to interpret things traditionally associated with women as being automatically terrible and worthless/shameful, with a woman's worth being determined by how similar to a traditional man she manages to be (without, obviously, the associated danger or lack of sympathy).
Hence why Men Only things are wrong (the men keeping the best stuff for themselves as usual), and Women Only things are perfectly fine because... Christ, who the **** would want that? It must be terrible: it's for women! -_-
(And/or the obvious alternative of pitying them and just letting them have their damn X, Y or Z)

This really "grinds my gears" as it were ¬_q

It's like they tell you all your life to treat people equally... then if you ever do apply the same standards to women as you do to men (within reason, even), YOU'RE the sexist. It's sexist to treat the sexes the same, all of a sudden.

I guess the main problem is that nobody cares about men... ESPECIALLY men. Or, you know, that the blatantly obvious double standards and sexism against men is just suppressed/ridiculed so people don't even honestly give it a chance. Maybe more women would care then, I dunno; some of the more prominent people involved with men's rights seem to be women.

 

[SeanSeanston]

There is real misogyny out there, including in the culture in which I live and participate; I don't dispute that. There is also behavior that's ignorant, chauvinistic, and/or sexist without it being reasonable to describe it as "woman-hating"- which is what misogyny means. I genuinely think that if it keeps being used so broadly and indiscriminately, while it may be great for blog posts that seek only to preach to the choir, such conversations are going to exclude a great many of the people who could actually make things better.

Indeed... and I think it's important to keep things in perspective:

The mere fact that there IS misogyny, is not proof of some kind of mass society-wide problem.

If you think of just about any viewpoint possible, SOMEBODY almost certainly has it. It may be unfortunate... or it may even be an inevitable result of the diversity of human experience, which may be a good thing in certain amounts... but you're not going to eradicate any opinion whatsoever, nor is there any real need to.

Same for modern Feminism itself: if people just ignored the whackos, they wouldn't matter. Maybe they'd even say something now and then that would lead to an interesting thought.

 

[generals3]

I'm confused. Was that video in the OP a bad satyr or just a huge rant from someone who clearly has issues with women? I mean the nonsense he said was staggering. Kind of nonsense i'd expect in a comedy sketch.

 

[Lionsfan]

Seems to me that all too often...

1. If a man dislikes women, he is a misogynist.

2. If a man likes things about women and is attracted to some of them because he enjoys their company and finds them to be enjoyable people to be around or do things with, he is also a misogynist who is probably "objectifying" them, and has secret designs on raping them if only that pesky law would stop getting in the way (like virtually all men of all kinds who have ever lived, BTW, natch).

3. If a man ignores women, he is also a misogynist.

I really wish that was genuinely at odds with how it feels a lot of the time

Meanwhile, misandry is often not even treated as a real word. Oh well.

Oh hey Mr. Strawman argument, I haven't seen you around in a while.

I mean seriously dude, I don't think I have ever seen any examples of the 2nd and 3rd bit happen ever. And I don't think there is any proof of any of that stuff happening.

As far as the misandry stuff goes...well it doesn't really get taken all that seriously because a lot of the internet "examples" of misandry are this: http://vimeo.com/64941331


As far as this

And to use that idea of job applicants to illustrate how it feels even better...

Situation 1: A company isn't hiring a lot of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is being SEXIST against women! It's not hiring them, because it doesn't think women can do a good job.

Situation 2: A company is hiring a disproportionately HIGH amount of women.
Obvious conclusion: The company is clearly being sexist... because they're only being hired so they can be SEXUALLY HARASSED!

Seriously, I don't want to live on this planet anymore, as they say.

Even more strawman dude. I mean, you can't just list off these things without some sort of proof/evidence.

EDIT:

You are hiring for a job and have two applicants, a man and a woman. You select the candidate with the most relavent experience and education for the job.
I don't understand what that has to do with misogyny. That decision isn't based in the idea that men are inherintly better than women but that the particular applicant was more qualified for the position.

Of course, the problem wouldn't even arise somewhere like Germany where if a man and a woman are competing for the same job and are equally qualified... it is ILLEGAL to hire the man -_-.

And in a country where there are more unemployed men than women.

GG, Feminism.

Wow, Western women sure do have few opportunities ¬_¬.

I feel like a broken record here, but proof man. We needz it

 

[SeanSeanston]

I mean seriously dude, I don't think I have ever seen any examples of the 2nd and 3rd bit happen ever. And I don't think there is any proof of any of that stuff happening.

As for 2... you honestly think the motives of men are never questioned when they approach women? Or that the word "creeper" isn't thrown around rather liberally, at least on the interwebs?

As for 3... I notice someone mention it during the fallout of the whole Adria Richards affair. I honestly think he had a point regarding areas where men traditionally make up the majority, such as those conventions.
So much complaining from a certain group of women about how "sexist" the technology sector is, but they never seem happy.
If men start approaching women in these places... they're creeping. If men simply ignore them, they're sexist for not making women feel welcome enough (which apparently, they need in spades according to these people... it was Richards herself who suggested that girls might give up their entire career dreams because of... some old crap that didn't make sense but we all know the donglegate story).

As far as the misandry stuff goes...well it doesn't really get taken all that seriously because a lot of the internet "examples" of misandry are this: http://vimeo.com/64941331

Honestly, misandry's pretty obvious in the world unless people go around with their eyes closed.

Men tend to be sent to prison for longer than women are for the same crimes. There's a good one for a start.

Women are just as violent as men but only the domestic violence committed by men against women ever gets any real attention and men are painted as inherently violent and controlling, which is utter bollocks. Just one very good example of the kind of lies and misinterpretations that lead to general suspicion of men beyond what is reasonable.

Even more strawman dude. I mean, you can't just list off these things without some sort of proof/evidence.

It was an opinion of how things appear to me, based on my own observations.

But it IS completely true that if women aren't succeeding in a sector, it is automatically assumed that sexism is to blame and somehow... men become responsible for the actions of women when Feminists don't like what women are doing.

Hence, those absurd quotas for women (and usually ONLY women, because **** men anyway and it's not like women are good enough to ever make up the majority of boards of directors EVER... apparently).

I feel like a broken record here, but proof man. We needz it

Honestly... Google... 5 seconds. Not hard. I assume you're sitting at a computer.

From Wikipedia:
Article 3 of the German Basic Law provides for equal rights of all people regardless of sex, race or social background. There are programs stating that if men and women have equal qualifications, women have to be preferred for a job

Yes... discrimination based on sex is not allowed... except for where it is.

Here's France:
Additionally, following the Norwegian example, after 27 January 2014, women must represent at least 20% of board members in all stock exchange listed or state owned companies. After 27 January 2017, the proportion will increase to 40%. All male director nominations will be invalid as long as the condition is not met, and financial penalties may apply for other directors.[32]

Yep. Women must be given these high-ranking, highly-paid jobs whether they are qualified or not. **** having the best people for the job, gender neutrality and judging people on their actions and abilities... we're supposed to see gender again now.

But I see no quotas for women in highly dangerous jobs. The kind where men make up over 90% of fatalities. Or for women to make up more of the homeless. Or any form of affirmative action for men in the many areas where they fall behind.

I think it's ****ing disgusting, a complete affront to any notion of "gender equality" and everyone involved in such injustice should die in a fire, but that's just me.

Honestly, you'd swear that women did not already have every single chance that men do to be appointed to these jobs. And I see absolutely no suggestion of a 40% quota for men (though Norway, to its credit, at least implements this horse**** "fairly").
I mean what difference does it make if directors are 100% men or 100% female or anywhere in between? Christ, they're worse than children.

In conclusion: Job opportunities reduced for men, increased for women.

Also a good one is how women tennis players now make more at Wimbledon than men do.

They used to make more than men. Then they complained and now they make even more.

Apparently, it was unfair that women weren't paid the same as men for playing fewer sets at a lower standard and bringing in far less money (tickets to men's games cost more because there's more demand because it's a better standard of play).

Even worse: It's impractical for men to enter both the singles and doubles contests... but not for women due to the shorter games, so not only do women make more... they then have further opportunity to make EVEN MORE. And THAT was called "equality".
It would be funny if it wasn't so sickening on principle.

 

[generals3]

As you pointed out, most vagina's play's towards the "casual" gaming market. In fact that is where most of the female gamer's, and the market for female gamer's reside in.
Some examples:

I would rather stab myself in the eye with a rusty spork than play any of those games, mainly because apart from the Wii Fit they aren't marketed towards women, they're marketed towards little girls. Children. Show me a few examples of games marketed towards middle-aged women (who, incidentally, represent a larger portion of the gaming demographic than teenage boys) and then we'll talk.

Just because i felt this needed some light hearted misogynistic humor:

Spoiler

Reminds me of why i miss the M!LF, such an awesome Tv show going overboard in such an awesome way. But that's off topic.

I think it's actually quite difficult to pinpoint which games are being specifically targeted at women. However your typical triple A game probably never will. Based on some studies i've seen the interests of female gamers diverge from male gamers as in being less into violence, competitiveness and more into social interactions. And since triple A games often live on violence and/or competitiveness i doubt they'll ever go for the female audience.

 

[Darken12]

But ascribing those feelings as the motivation of those actions without some kind of evidence really isn't helpful. Reserving for oneself the right to describe actions as misogyny without any interest in the perpetrator's intention is more likely to close conversations than open them up. Too often it's getting used less as an accurate and helpful description than as a "<you/they> are wrong, I win" to end discussion before it begins or render something off the table before it even receives examination.

There is real misogyny out there, including in the culture in which I live and participate; I don't dispute that. There is also behavior that's ignorant, chauvinistic, and/or sexist without it being reasonable to describe it as "woman-hating"- which is what misogyny means. I genuinely think that if it keeps being used so broadly and indiscriminately, while it may be great for blog posts that seek only to preach to the choir, such conversations are going to exclude a great many of the people who could actually make things better.

You make good points and I would agree with you on an intellectual basis, but there is a tendency to dismiss sexist and misogynistic behaviour as "not a real problem and therefore not worth discussing or trying to fix." Calling out attention to the fact that this or that behaviour is harmful to women, for this or that reason, does a great deal of good towards getting people to actually take the matter seriously and not dismiss it as "boys will be boys" or "that's just how people are" and other similar excuses.

And the term "misogyny" does help with that. Pure, concentrated misogyny is actually rare. What's actually common (and what many feminists try to address) is a diluted, watered down version of misogyny that is so common as to be very excusable. And because it's so excusable, it needs to be addressed seriously to avoid people dismissing it (and therefore nothing ever changing).

 

[SeanSeanston]

You make good points and I would agree with you on an intellectual basis, but there is a tendency to dismiss sexist and misogynistic behaviour as "not a real problem and therefore not worth discussing or trying to fix." Calling out attention to the fact that this or that behaviour is harmful to women, for this or that reason, does a great deal of good towards getting people to actually take the matter seriously and not dismiss it as "boys will be boys" or "that's just how people are" and other similar excuses.

Except it really isn't the problem that some make it out to be.

Not to mention that it seems to suggest that women have some sort of special right to never be made uncomfortable by anyone ever.

Whereas making jokes about men isn't sexism, and sexual harassment of men doesn't exist by definition.

And the term "misogyny" does help with that. Pure, concentrated misogyny is actually rare. What's actually common (and what many feminists try to address) is a diluted, watered down version of misogyny that is so common as to be very excusable. And because it's so excusable, it needs to be addressed seriously to avoid people dismissing it (and therefore nothing ever changing).

But is it really, though?

Not nearly as common as misandry, I would think.

I think so much of it is in crazy women's heads, where they think that men are judging them harshly because they're women or judging all women based on their performance and they really aren't. Neither do men give a **** about women in powerful positions, that's just paranoia.

EDIT: Oh, but I'll tell you what WILL cause misogyny...

Those ****ing quotas.

People will be able to say "There's [woman's name], who only got the [job name] because she's a woman."...

...AND THEY'LL BE COMPLETELY CORRECT.

Expect to see a lot of this in future:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor_syndrome

Probably because of unqualified people being given important jobs because of underhanded political reasons, not their human abilities.

Honestly, is this even real life? Laws that state positions cannot be filled by giving them on the basis of merit? It's worse than Soviet Russia.

It's also another example of the fact that women will NEVER EVER in their lives experience actual institutionalized, state-supported sex discrimination like men now have to. Even on the extraordinarily small off-chance that they did... all they would have to do was complain and it would all be fixed instantly, as though their rights actually mattered, unlike the often much bigger problems of other people.