Feminists next target; Battlefield 1.

[Neverhoodian]

Wait, so people WANT to see depictions of women getting shot, gassed, bombed, bayoneted, and crushed under tank treads all in the name of imperialism and nationalism gone awry? Who are the misogynists here?

Yes there were exceptions, but statistically speaking practically all front line soldiers in WWI were male. Men are traditionally utilized for this role because we're far more expendable (sorry, fellas), and one would be hard pressed to find a conflict that illustrated this better than the meat grinder that was WWI.

Spoiler

There's so much wrong with this that I don't even know where to begin. The short of it is that both of your observations are incredibly wrong and that video is complete biotruth bullshit.

First of all, if you actually paid attention to what feminists said, then while yes, many oppose things like war, they oppose it for everyone, and hold the belief that if there's going to be war anyway, men and women should be serving equally. And yes, that means dying equally.

Second, the myth of the "expendable" male has absolutely no place in modern society, and is mostly perpetuated by people of a certain ideology in order to peddle their sexist trash. America hasn't been in danger of losing half of its population of men or women in a very, very long time, and women aren't literally only good for making babies.

Men weren't the primary soldiers in World War 1 because, "lol it doesn't matter if guys die!" Men were the soldiers in WW1 because highly "masculine" societies stated that women were incapable of fighting, and would distract their fellow soldiers with their "feminine wiles" and cause dissent among the ranks.

First off, "biotruth..." that's a new one for me. According to the oh-so-scientific Urban Dictionary, it's defined as "A term usually used in leftist circles to derisively refer to someone who uses their misunderstood notions of human biology and/or evolutionary psychology to justify their heinous, ignorant, and/or bigoted views."

I wasn't trying to pigeonhole the genders into a "women MUST do this and men MUST do that" scenario based on biology. I recognize traits can very greatly from person to person. For instance, while males have a reputation for greater upper body strength, I'm sure there are tons of women out there who would absolutely destroy my flabby white ass in a test of said strength (and I'm fine with that). I'm merely presenting an explanation for why certain careers have until recently been dominated by a certain gender.

Society tends to structure itself on what it deems is best for the collective whole (or if you're more cynically-minded, best for the ruling elite) rather than the individual. Thus, it has a history of encouraging certain genders to perform tasks that it feels best suits their respective traits. Sometimes it's to entice them into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do...like, say, instilling a strong sense of patriotism/nationalism in someone to go wage war, kill fellow human beings and possibly die themselves hundreds of miles from home. It's not always the smart or correct choice, but it's been the status quo for most of our species' history. And as we know, old habits are hard to break; hence the whole "men are more expendable, thus they do the more dangerous jobs" bit.

You don't have to agree with what I say, but please don't dismiss me out of hand as wrong-headed and sexist because of it.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

While being able to select gender would skew the game towards historical innacuracy, it is a fallacy to say that no women fought in the war. Most wars fought throughout history have had some female participation, be it covert or not

 

[Something Amyss]

Speaking as a feminist, I said I wasn't going to buy Battlefield 1 when they announced they weren't going to add female soldiers; someone called me 'fucked in the head'.

Listen, and listen very well, if a product does not provide me with what I want I won't buy it. Simple as fucking that.

Remember when people used to tell you "don't like it, don't buy it?"

Now, apparently, that's "fucked in the head."

But...that was literally how she started. She was kind of a nobody, then she posted a relatively modest kickstater that trolls and anti-feminists found, and started harassing her trying to get her to take it down. What happened instead was she got a lot of attention from it, a lot of support, an overfunded to bloated proportions kickstarter and a pretty significant position on the conversation. It was the trolls that caused that. It's always been the people who hated her that gave her such a powerful voice.

In fact, Critical Miss already kinda did a comic on exactly that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comicsandcosplay/comics/critical-miss/14708-God-Emperor-Sarkeesian].

And Jim Sterling has now done two videos on this. Anita is famous because she was so severely attacked. Minor internet critics don't normally make national or international news. When something as trivial as a 6K crowdfunding attempt leads to something as disproportionate as what she got, however...that's going to get attention.

It amazed me how surprised people were that this response was viewed by general society in a negative light.

What? Threatening to kill and rape people for planning to criticise my hobby is generally frowned upon? What madness is this?

And as we know, old habits are hard to break; hence the whole "men are more expendable, thus they do the more dangerous jobs" bit.

You don't have to agree with what I say, but please don't dismiss me out of hand as wrong-headed and sexist because of it.

I can't be bothered for an in-depth reply, but those two lines don't work well together.

 

[shrekfan246]

First off, "biotruth..." that's a new one for me. According to the oh-so-scientific Urban Dictionary, it's defined as "A term usually used in leftist circles to derisively refer to someone who uses their misunderstood notions of human biology and/or evolutionary psychology to justify their heinous, ignorant, and/or bigoted views."

Leave it to the internet to reduce everything to "those damn lefties!"

I wasn't trying to pigeonhole the genders into a "women MUST do this and men MUST do that" scenario based on biology. I recognize traits can very greatly from person to person. For instance, while males have a reputation for greater upper body strength, I'm sure there are tons of women out there who would absolutely destroy my flabby white ass in a test of said strength (and I'm fine with that). I'm merely presenting an explanation for why certain careers have until recently been dominated by a certain gender.

Counter reason: They've been dominated by a certain gender because society, up until recently (and even somewhat including recently), has been really bloody sexist.

I'm gonna throw out another "leftist" term here, just to warn you- there's a thing feminists refer to as "the patriarchy". Whenever it gets brought up, anti-feminists looove to get very defensive and make wild claims about how, actually, women run the world, and they've somehow chosen to be treated as second-class citizens, and they love men who rape because they're actually all just scared little girls who need a big, strong, manly man to put them in their place. This is a tangent, sorry.

Society tends to structure itself on what it deems is best for the collective whole (or if you're more cynically-minded, best for the ruling elite) rather than the individual. Thus, it has a history of encouraging certain genders to perform tasks that it feels best suits their respective traits. Sometimes it's to entice them into doing something they wouldn't ordinarily do...like, say, instilling a strong sense of patriotism/nationalism in someone to go wage war, kill fellow human beings and possibly die themselves hundreds of miles from home. It's not always the smart or correct choice, but it's been the status quo for most of our species' history. And as we know, old habits are hard to break; hence the whole "men are more expendable, thus they do the more dangerous jobs" bit.

Anyway, the point is that society is and has been largely structured by ignorant, arrogant old men with incredibly bigoted views, so maybe it's not always the best idea to defer to what society deems proper or acceptable. Again, "the expendable male" is really only something that could even begin to have relevance in very low-tech, tribal societies, so while it's a convenient explanation for people to make, it doesn't actually mean a single thing for any Western civilization since... what... the Roman Empire? Maybe even earlier?

You don't have to agree with what I say, but please don't dismiss me out of hand as wrong-headed and sexist because of it.

Not saying you're sexist, just that maybe you should vet the channels you follow/the information you get a bit more carefully. At the risk of revealing myself to be the awful lefty I am if I haven't already, those tend to be talking points for hard-right talking heads who really want to pander to angry guys on the internet, and all of it's basically complete trash. I mean, really, "women can get addicted to the hormone release of breastfeeding"? Fuck, man, there literally isn't a single study I could find with a cursory look that said anything even remotely close to that. There were a few forum posts that posited that maybe they liked breastfeeding a bit more than they should, but (and this seems pretty legit considering my own personal experiences too) by and large most women just seem to do it because, you know, they have to? (I mean, there are alternatives, but most people still go au naturel.) And he presents it as if it's hard fact without even a single citation to support his claim.

EDIT: I realize I'm leaving myself open to a bunch of people going, "oh, but where's your PROOF that the patriarchy exists!?!?!" with that last line, but honestly, if you live under the impression that women have all of the power in society then it's really too much effort for me to try refuting your beliefs, because nothing I could cite would be good enough in the first place.

 

[sumanoskae]

So, the point of this thread is to speculate as to weather or not "Feminists" will collectively approve of the lack of female soldiers in Battlefield 1? I have an eloquent and thorough response to this question;

To be frank, I don't care what this or that nebulous collection of vaguely related people say about anything; the validity of an argument is determined by the argument itself, not it's source. And I would remind you that, as far as I can tell, nobody has said shit about shit about this. You're complaining about how other people are complaining before anyone has actually complained!

And I'm not too concerned with female soldiers in Battlefield 1 anyway; nobody in any of these fucking games ever has any meaningful characterization, so they won't help or hinder the cause equality, nor will they impact my experience of the game.

Honestly the only emotion I can summon in response to this news is irritation that anyone considered this incidental detail important enough to comment on!

 

[maninahat]

Out of any curiosity, has there been any feminist "outrage" about female characters that get hurt or killed in video games when said female character is an active combatant?

Don't think I've seen any.

Put simply. Yeah they pulled women from Battlefield....mostly? But technically there is still a female character in the game, so this is a 6-page thread argument over....what? WW1 accuracy?

This is a six page thread about hypothetical outrage that hypothetical feminists might hypothetically have in the hypothetical future based on the feminist caricature of Anita Sarkeesian living rent free in the OP's head.

Oh good, nothing out of the ordinary at the escapist then.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Plenty of women risked their lives and limbs on the battlefield. I wrote this in the other thread, but I wouldn't mind a segue chapter featuring female spies, nurses, or firefighters (somebody else suggested this one) who did a hell of a lot for the frontline situations they were place in. What other potential game where you can showcase some badass nuns running into a burning building to save soldiers during a raid.

Edith Cavell saved countless hundreds by her ownsome (and in some cases, on both sides), helping to smuggle out Allied troops out of occupied Belgium into the Netherlands and providing healthcare to soldiers on both sides of the fence. She was executed for her efforts solely because she was a woman and not uniformed. The excuse given that they couldn't appear to be soft on women who helped the enemy elude detection or capture.

If she had been a registered combatant in a uniform, she might have even been saved. The price tag for a woman involving herself in combat was significantly higher than most enlisted men. Frankly, it seems in poor taste to simply strike out the idea that women didn't participate. Just because you couldn't wear a uniform (with all the protections that that afforded a soldier) didn't mean women didn't serve in crucial elements of frontline roles.

In much the same way COD games typically have a segue in an aerial scene of some sort, I could totally see a few chapters or a storyline dedicated showing women as spies, as smugglers, as nurses, as firefighters, as mechanics ... it would also be historically accurate and in many cases of true heroism such as Edith Cavell, it represents a far more poignant fact that women didn't come out of the war unscathed.

Frankly, doing a smuggling run getting soldiers out of occupied Belgium seems like a pretty badass chapter to me. Bit of an impressive battlefield record ..., you went into a warzone, saved hundreds of people from a massive occupation force, eluding an army that will execute you regardless if you fight or surrender. That is thrilling and historically accurate depiction of women on the frontline.

 

[StatusNil]

First off, "biotruth..." that's a new one for me. According to the oh-so-scientific Urban Dictionary, it's defined as "A term usually used in leftist circles to derisively refer to someone who uses their misunderstood notions of human biology and/or evolutionary psychology to justify their heinous, ignorant, and/or bigoted views."

Eh, it's more of an extreme cultural determinist term, used in identity-political circles, rather than simply generally leftist ones. The edgier ones may style it as "Biotroof" for extra mockery. It's just a sneering dismissal of any consideration of biology informing culture, rather than it being entirely arbitrary. The people who espouse this view are typically ones who took all those "Cultural Studies" classes in college and were convinced that they offered the definitive insight into humanity, thus making them formally qualified to adopt an air of haughty superiority. And I should know, I did that stuff too.

My advice to the general public is to treat the appearance of that term as you would someone whipping out an E-meter and offering to "audit" you.

 

[Necrozius]

I find it a bit ridiculous that they left out female combatants in a game that is already taking liberties with historical accuracy (no French presence? USA are the big damn heroes? WTF??).

In the end, this isn't a historical drama: it's a video game. Not serious business (although WWI WAS serious business). Who cares if players can choose to be a woman?

 

[Sonmi]

Honestly, people complaining about the presence/absence of women soldiers in the game at all is baffling, there are way more glaring issues with the game, if you ask me.

The lack of French and Russian soldiers is inexcusable, Serbs and Bulgarians as well, and everyone using automatic SMGs is simply absurd. The Russians, Serbs, and Bulgarians not being represented could be excused by the game not covering the Eastern Front, but for fuck's sake, why aren't the French in the base game?!

Honestly holding out for a more complete Verdun-like game, and at this point, I'm not expecting Battlefield 1 to be that game.

 

[Fallow]

Seems fine either way. There were very, very few female soldiers in WW1, so excluding them for historical accuracy is perfectly fine.

On the other hand, why care about realism? It makes no sense, do you have to press X to use the bathroom? Do you need to repeatedly mash Y to wipe your bum? No? Then apparently realism isn't absolute, but rather a scale between what's fun and what's real. And if female soldiers are "fun" then why not include them?

Personally, I care little either way. If I were the dev, I'd say screw it and skip the women since it saves me a bunch of time and money (models, textures, MoCap, VO, internet outrage, and finally a Sarkenstein video of why female soldiers are misogyny) that I could spend on stuff that's actually important to me.

Also, fuck EA for whatever reason is convenient.

EDIT: Just found an article [http://techraptor.net/content/battlefield-1s-lack-women-actually-matter] on the topic from TechRaptor.

 

[Jack Action]

Plenty of women risked their lives and limbs on the battlefield. I wrote this in the other thread, but I wouldn't mind a segue chapter featuring female spies, nurses, or firefighters (somebody else suggested this one) who did a hell of a lot for the frontline situations they were place in. What other potential game where you can showcase some badass nuns running into a burning building to save soldiers during a raid.

Edith Cavell saved countless hundreds by her ownsome (and in some cases, on both sides), helping to smuggle out Allied troops out of occupied Belgium into the Netherlands and providing healthcare to soldiers on both sides of the fence. She was executed for her efforts solely because she was a woman and not uniformed. The excuse given that they couldn't appear to be soft on women who helped the enemy elude detection or capture.

If she had been a registered combatant in a uniform, she might have even been saved. The price tag for a woman involving herself in combat was significantly higher than most enlisted men. Frankly, it seems in poor taste to simply strike out the idea that women didn't participate. Just because you couldn't wear a uniform (with all the protections that that afforded a soldier) didn't mean women didn't serve in crucial elements of frontline roles.

In much the same way COD games typically have a segue in an aerial scene of some sort, I could totally see a few chapters or a storyline dedicated showing women as spies, as smugglers, as nurses, as firefighters, as mechanics ... it would also be historically accurate and in many cases of true heroism such as Edith Cavell, it represents a far more poignant fact that women didn't come out of the war unscathed.

Frankly, doing a smuggling run getting soldiers out of occupied Belgium seems like a pretty badass chapter to me. Bit of an impressive battlefield record ..., you went into a warzone, saved hundreds of people from a massive occupation force, eluding an army that will execute you regardless if you fight or surrender. That is thrilling and historically accurate depiction of women on the frontline.

...yeah, going by the Wiki page she was shot for treason, because she helped enemy soldiers and draft-dodgers escape, (both of which were illegal), not because she didn't wear an uniform (which she did). And despite being a woman, not BECAUSE she was a woman.

Why flat-out lie about this? Pretty obvious to anyone that the woman was a hero anyway. And speaking of lying, she didn't save those lives "by her ownsome," she was part of a network with someone important enough at the top to get all the men false papers.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

EA said they were going with a historic look at the timeline. Sure, if you're going that route then Yes, no women should be present in the front lines. Sure, some unofficially served dressed as men to get into the military.But this came at great social and financial cost, because if they were spotted they would be sent back home. They would have been ostracized and never collect a veterans pension for serving. This was true with BG,US,GER,AUS,FRAN,ITLY because of pre-established laws over the listing of the opposite sex.

To avoid this in future games again, I think women need to be forced in the US and other nations to be placed in the national lottery for the draft, If not already. So that in the future, political correct people can play games about them being drafted and forced into a horrific conflict on the front lines were they did not have a choice. That would itself would be true Equality;Yet, i don't hear those certain very vocal people pushing for a right to be drafted in the US.

That's because you aren't looking. See, this very issue was brought up in congress and looked set to come out of committee and up for an actual vote. Senate: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/280767-senate-set-for-showdown-over-women-in-the-draft
House: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/05/17/ndaa-house-women-draft-stripped/84481376/

Now, unless I've hit a wormhole on the way home from work, Conservative Republicans aren't normally the ones you'd use the term "feminist" for. Of course, just about everybody is calling this a theoretical excersize, given the last draft was in the 70's and the Pentagon has no interest in reviving it. Honestly, most of those "vocal voices" you're leaving terminally vague are probably arguing to end selective service as a whole.

Just to be clear, nothing has actually happened, right?

You are correct. We've gone 5 pages arguing about a thing that's merely predicted to happen.

Am I just out of my mind to ask... WHY?!?!?!

... Two minute hate?

 

[RedRockRun]

Don't put women in a game: Feminists complain about unequal representation.

Put women in games: Feminists complain about violence against women.

Moral of the story: Feminists complain. Ignore their dumb asses.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

...yeah, going by the Wiki page she was shot for treason, because she helped enemy soldiers and draft-dodgers escape, (both of which were illegal), not because she didn't wear an uniform (which she did). And despite being a woman, not BECAUSE she was a woman.

Why flat-out lie about this? Pretty obvious to anyone that the woman was a hero anyway. And speaking of lying, she didn't save those lives "by her ownsome," she was part of a network with someone important enough at the top to get all the men false papers.

A: For starters, Cavell helped thousands through her network ... she personally assisted up to about 200. Sheltering them in her home, using the hospital she worked at to falsify various papers and funnel them into safehouses she managed with the assistance of financiers. She was shot beside one of her accomplices, but that doesn't negate the work that she personally did in aiding, and personally helping soldiers navigate their way to the border, much less the wider underground branches she worked within.

B: Secondly, she was never in the uniform of any military organization. Infact, the Zimmerman rebuttal to the press affords as such that if she were a woman, and in uniform, that she would have been taken prisoner. As that's exactly what happened in the East. Some Russian soldiers were taken prisoner, regardless of their sex, because they were in uniform.

The result was so convincing, and the circumstances were so clear, that no war court in the world could have given any other verdict, for it was not concerned with a single emotional deed of one person, but a well-thought-out plot, with many far-reaching ramifications, which for nine months succeeded in doing valuable service to our enemies to the great detriment of our armies.

Countless Belgian, French, and English soldiers are again fighting in the ranks of the Allies who owe their escape to the activities of the band now found guilty, whose head was the Cavell woman. Only the utmost sternness could do away with such activities under the very nose of our authorities, and a Government which in such case does not resort to the sternest measures sins against its most elementary duties toward the safety of its own army.

All those convicted were thoroughly aware of the nature of their acts. The court particularly weighed this point with care, letting off several of the accused because they were in doubt as to whether they knew that their actions were punishable. Those condemned knew what they were doing, for numerous public proclamations had pointed out the fact that aiding enemies' armies was punishable with death.

I know that the motives of the condemned were not base; that they acted from patriotism; but in war one must be prepared to seal one's patriotism with blood whether one faces the enemy in battle or otherwise in the interest of one's cause does deeds which justly bring after them the death penalty.

Among our Russian prisoners are several young girls who fought against us in soldiers' uniforms. Had one of these girls fallen no one would have accused us of barbarity against women. Why, now, when another woman has met the death to which she knowingly exposed herself, as did her comrades in battle?

There are moments in the life of nations where consideration for the existence of the individual is a crime against all. Such a moment was here. It was necessary once for all to put an end to the activity of our enemies, regardless of their motives; therefore the death penalty was executed so as to frighten off all those who, counting on preferential treatment for their sex, take part in undertakings punishable by death.

Were special consideration shown to women we should open the door wide to such activities on the part of women, who are often more clever in such matters than the cleverest male spy. The man who is in a position of responsibility must do that, but, unconcerned about the world's judgment, he must often follow the difficult path of duty.

If, despite these considerations, it is now being discussed whether mercy shall be shown the rest of those convicted, and if the life which they have forfeited under recognized law is given back to them, you can deduce from that how earnestly we are striving to bring our feelings of humanity in accord with the commandments of stern duty.

She's not the only spy to be executed. But pretending like making an example out of her was outside their agenda is provably false.

 

[Erttheking]

Put women in games: Feminists complain about violence against women.

Uh...no.

You put a depowered, sexualized woman in a game and then have her get brutalized THEN feminists complain. Let me ask you. When was the last time a woman was an active combatant in a game, got killed, and people complained?

 

[Jack Action]

A: For starters, Cavell helped thousands through her network ... she personally assisted up to about 200. Sheltering them in her home, using the hospital she worked at to falsify various papers and funnel them into safehouses she managed with the assistance of financiers. She was shot beside one of her accomplices, but that doesn't negate the work that she personally did in aiding, and personally helping soldiers navigate their way to the border, much less the wider underground branches she worked within.

I don't remember saying she didn't do anything, or that she wasn't a hero. Also, using her position in the hospital to help enemy soldiers was exactly why she was shot, because it negated the protection offered by the fact that she was medical personnel.

B: Secondly, she was never in the uniform of any military organization. Infact, the Zimmerman rebuttal to the press affords as such that if she were a woman, and in uniform, that she would have been taken prisoner. As that's exactly what happened in the East. Some Russian soldiers were taken prisoner, regardless of their sex, because they were in uniform.

...no, she wasn't wearing a military uniform, she was wearing a medical uniform. Which granted universal protection, as long as it wasn't used to say, smuggle draft-dodgers out of the country. What she did was the equivalent of using an ambulance to retreat troops instead of tending to the wounded.

The result was so convincing, and the circumstances were so clear, that no war court in the world could have given any other verdict, for it was not concerned with a single emotional deed of one person, but a well-thought-out plot, with many far-reaching ramifications, which for nine months succeeded in doing valuable service to our enemies to the great detriment of our armies.

Countless Belgian, French, and English soldiers are again fighting in the ranks of the Allies who owe their escape to the activities of the band now found guilty, whose head was the Cavell woman. Only the utmost sternness could do away with such activities under the very nose of our authorities, and a Government which in such case does not resort to the sternest measures sins against its most elementary duties toward the safety of its own army.

All those convicted were thoroughly aware of the nature of their acts. The court particularly weighed this point with care, letting off several of the accused because they were in doubt as to whether they knew that their actions were punishable. Those condemned knew what they were doing, for numerous public proclamations had pointed out the fact that aiding enemies' armies was punishable with death.

I know that the motives of the condemned were not base; that they acted from patriotism; but in war one must be prepared to seal one's patriotism with blood whether one faces the enemy in battle or otherwise in the interest of one's cause does deeds which justly bring after them the death penalty.

Among our Russian prisoners are several young girls who fought against us in soldiers' uniforms. Had one of these girls fallen no one would have accused us of barbarity against women. Why, now, when another woman has met the death to which she knowingly exposed herself, as did her comrades in battle?

There are moments in the life of nations where consideration for the existence of the individual is a crime against all. Such a moment was here. It was necessary once for all to put an end to the activity of our enemies, regardless of their motives; therefore the death penalty was executed so as to frighten off all those who, counting on preferential treatment for their sex, take part in undertakings punishable by death.

Were special consideration shown to women we should open the door wide to such activities on the part of women, who are often more clever in such matters than the cleverest male spy. The man who is in a position of responsibility must do that, but, unconcerned about the world's judgment, he must often follow the difficult path of duty.

If, despite these considerations, it is now being discussed whether mercy shall be shown the rest of those convicted, and if the life which they have forfeited under recognized law is given back to them, you can deduce from that how earnestly we are striving to bring our feelings of humanity in accord with the commandments of stern duty.

[/quote]

The difference here being: wearing a military uniform while in combat against other uniformed soldiers. Cavell did no such thing.

I'm not arguing she's a hero, what I'm doing is pointing out that she was executed because according to the law, what she did was illegal. If she HAD been wearing a military uniform, she wouldn't have been able to smuggle the men out of the country.