I am a feminist....and this is hilarious.

[generals3]

Well, that's still assuming this attitude is actually prevalent outside of a few tumblr blogs. Whenever I've requested evidence, it's usually been either uninfluential bloggers or fringe extremists from the sixties.

I wouldn't call almost all leaders of prominent feminist organizations of a nation to be just "extremists from the sixties or tumblr blogs". If anything they are the face of feminism. Just like the leaders of parties are the face of said parties and the ideology they push. If all right wing party leaders were to make racist statements surely it would be normal for people to associate the ideology with racism and raise eyebrows at people who willingly identify under that ideology. (And that's also what's actually happening with regards to Extreme Right wingers, they're also not a hivemind, but yet they're still judged as such, and the reason why is because they identify to an ideology which has spread quite a few questionable ideas through its protagonists)

You know the way i see it is quite simple. Since the strong activists are pushing agenda X, if you don't agree with it, why the fuck identify as someone from said ideology? Ideologies change, the feminism of "We want equal rights" is long gone (mainly since such an activism has become irrelevant in most western nation). None of the people i know identify as feminists and none of them want women not to have equal rights and deserve fair treatment. It's clear it's no longer a "feminism thing", it's the norm. (doesn't mean everyone agrees with it mind you, but those who don't already have their label: "chauvinist", "misogynist", etc.)

 

[Silvanus]

I wouldn't call almost all leaders of prominent feminist organizations of a nation to be just "extremists from the sixties or tumblr blogs". If anything they are the face of feminism. Just like the leaders of parties are the face of said parties and the ideology they push. If all right wing party leaders were to make racist statements surely it would be normal for people to associate the ideology with racism and raise eyebrows at people who willingly identify under that ideology. (And that's also what's actually happening with regards to Extreme Right wingers, they're also not a hivemind, but yet they're still judged as such, and the reason why is because they identify to an ideology which has spread quite a few questionable ideas through its protagonists)

Is it genuinely pro-women sexism from these organisations and figures, though, or is it just focusing on women's issues-- because those are the ones the organisations and figures are dedicated to ameliorating?

Those two were conflated earlier.

You know the way i see it is quite simple. Since the strong activists are pushing agenda X, if you don't agree with it, why the fuck identify as someone from said ideology? Ideologies change, the feminism of "We want equal rights" is long gone (mainly since such an activism has become irrelevant in most western nation). None of the people i know identify as feminists and none of them want women not to have equal rights and deserve fair treatment. It's clear it's no longer a "feminism thing", it's the norm. (doesn't mean everyone agrees with it mind you, but those who don't already have their label: "chauvinist", "misogynist", etc.)

Almost everybody nominally supports gender equality, but pervasive attitudes and discrimination persist. For example, if somebody nominally supports gender equality but also denies there's any problem, then they're not helping.

 

[Neyon]

So.... violent videogames cause feminism?

 

[generals3]

I wouldn't call almost all leaders of prominent feminist organizations of a nation to be just "extremists from the sixties or tumblr blogs". If anything they are the face of feminism. Just like the leaders of parties are the face of said parties and the ideology they push. If all right wing party leaders were to make racist statements surely it would be normal for people to associate the ideology with racism and raise eyebrows at people who willingly identify under that ideology. (And that's also what's actually happening with regards to Extreme Right wingers, they're also not a hivemind, but yet they're still judged as such, and the reason why is because they identify to an ideology which has spread quite a few questionable ideas through its protagonists)

Is it genuinely pro-women sexism from these organisations and figures, though, or is it just focusing on women's issues-- because those are the ones the organisations and figures are dedicated to ameliorating?

I gave you the example of how before the elections they asked us to vote in a sexist fashion. I don't care how someone may twist it but asking us to vote as much as possible for women is sexism. Plain and simple. The gender is not relevant to someone's aptitude to govern a country. And asking for something like that in a country where the most popular politician is a woman makes it even more laughable.

Almost everybody nominally supports gender equality, but pervasive attitudes and discrimination persist. For example, if somebody nominally supports gender equality but also denies there's any problem, then they're not helping.

I don't know anyone who denies there's any problem. Although many do question whether it's as problematic as many feminist claims. Which is quite a legit concern considering the amount of dishonesty coming from the "top brass". Think of the whole "equal pay day" thingy. It's an extremely misleading "event" as it is based on the average yearly wage and not hourly. They claim a woman only starts earning her wage starting from day X. What they fail to take into account is that the days women work for their money (based on the equal pay day) contains less working hours than men's. Heck the hourly pay gap over here is 56% smaller than yearly pay gap. Yet they decided to use the yearly pay gap as a basis for this whole fraud. Pretending a problem is twice as large as it actually is, is not a good way to create trust. (And that's assuming no other factors outside gender affect the wage gap, so i'm being quite lenient here)

 

[lastcigarette]

This is my take on why there's so much anger towards feminists and minorities.

Since the beginning, white men have been in control of all aspects of life, but generation after generation we lose a little bit more power to control things. Women got the right to vote, we passed the civil rights act, gay marriage is becoming the law and so forth.

The same thing is happening with the gaming industry. What used to be mostly made up of young males, we now see more women and minority gamers and they're asking for representation in games and white men are lashing out because they're not being catered to like they used to. They feel feminists and non-whites are taking away their power and they're freaking out.

Women make up over 50% of the population and in 25-30 years non-whites are going to be the majority in America. White men see the writing on the wall and they're helpless to do anything about it. Women and non-whites are eventually going to be on equal footing, something white males have never experienced before, hence the anger.

I know what I've said will offend and anger some people, but progress is inevitable, anger and blame isn't going to change that.

No, just no.You want to know why some of us are angry? I fully realize there was and is inequality in several aspects of society when it comes to gender. I'm just tired of being told it's my fault. I personally didn't do it and I'm not going to take the blame for it. I will not accept responsibility for someone else's actions. The sins of the fathers is total BS.

 

[AkaDad]

This is my take on why there's so much anger towards feminists and minorities.

Since the beginning, white men have been in control of all aspects of life, but generation after generation we lose a little bit more power to control things. Women got the right to vote, we passed the civil rights act, gay marriage is becoming the law and so forth.

The same thing is happening with the gaming industry. What used to be mostly made up of young males, we now see more women and minority gamers and they're asking for representation in games and white men are lashing out because they're not being catered to like they used to. They feel feminists and non-whites are taking away their power and they're freaking out.

Women make up over 50% of the population and in 25-30 years non-whites are going to be the majority in America. White men see the writing on the wall and they're helpless to do anything about it. Women and non-whites are eventually going to be on equal footing, something white males have never experienced before, hence the anger.

I know what I've said will offend and anger some people, but progress is inevitable, anger and blame isn't going to change that.

No, just no.You want to know why some of us are angry? I fully realize there was and is inequality in several aspects of society when it comes to gender. I'm just tired of being told it's my fault. I personally didn't do it and I'm not going to take the blame for it. I will not accept responsibility for someone else's actions. The sins of the fathers is total BS.

People are asking an industry that happens to be run predominately by white men, for more diversity in video games. No one is writing laws forcing the video games industry to do anything. Gamers complained and it seems like the industry is listening, as we are starting to see more of it. Smart businesses adapt to changing demographics.

Has anyone ever said "I blame lastcigarette for the lack of diversity in gaming?" Unless, of course, if you're out there arguing against diversity, or that the industry should just cater to white males, then yes, people are going to give you a hard time.

White men during the ages didn't want to lose power, so they fought women's suffrage and civil rights. I'm talking about them, not you specifically. I'm a white man and I'm not certainly not blaming myself for sins of the past. You don't need to get all defensive and white knight the white race.

 

[Saltyk]

The loudest voice gets the most attention.

I don't have any problem with feminists that are reasonable. It's just when you find people that write nonsense like this [http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/], which I frankly consider a fine example of misogyny (yes, you read that right, misogyny) that I have a problem. Or some of those horrible feminists that Amazing Atheist seems to find that come up with crazy lists on how people "support rape" with a list so vague and extensive that virtually no man, and even some women, would be defined as such.

Effectively, those who use the guise of feminism to explain their own hatred of people and come up with insane ways to rationalize it and yet not be horrible people in their own twisted minds. "I'm not horrible, because that man is a rape supporter because he is Pro-Life."

However, don't quote these wackos and then when I tell you that they are a wacko, say that their work is satirical. Plenty of it isn't.

 

[Silvanus]

I gave you the example of how before the elections they asked us to vote in a sexist fashion. I don't care how someone may twist it but asking us to vote as much as possible for women is sexism. Plain and simple. The gender is not relevant to someone's aptitude to govern a country. And asking for something like that in a country where the most popular politician is a woman makes it even more laughable.

It's shortsighted to request that people vote on such factors alone, certainly. Still, there is something in the idea that greater political representation for groups who suffer discrimination can improve the situation.

I don't know anyone who denies there's any problem. Although many do question whether it's as problematic as many feminist claims. Which is quite a legit concern considering the amount of dishonesty coming from the "top brass". Think of the whole "equal pay day" thingy. It's an extremely misleading "event" as it is based on the average yearly wage and not hourly. They claim a woman only starts earning her wage starting from day X. What they fail to take into account is that the days women work for their money (based on the equal pay day) contains less working hours than men's. Heck the hourly pay gap over here is 56% smaller than yearly pay gap. Yet they decided to use the yearly pay gap as a basis for this whole fraud. Pretending a problem is twice as large as it actually is, is not a good way to create trust. (And that's assuming no other factors outside gender affect the wage gap, so i'm being quite lenient here)

Aye, that's questionable.

But it will still be a decision made by a fairly small number of people; we cannot extrapolate from that that the millions-broad, broadly-defined and loosely-affiliated (or non-affiliated) international movement can be lumped in together with them.

 

[generals3]

It's shortsighted to request that people vote on such factors alone, certainly. Still, there is something in the idea that greater political representation for groups who suffer discrimination can improve the situation.

Shouldn't we judge that based on what the politicians say/do/have in their program. To take an extreme example, who's gonna fight the better fight for equality: a progressive man who makes of sexism a big point in his agenda or some ultra-conservative woman who thinks women should wear burqa's in public?

Aye, that's questionable.

But it will still be a decision made by a fairly small number of people; we cannot extrapolate from that that the millions-broad, broadly-defined and loosely-affiliated (or non-affiliated) international movement can be lumped in together with them.

Sure, but this small number of people are the face of the movement (the face of feminism is clearly not your random internet forum poster #577856, it's those who push agendas in the media, political world, etc.). And nobody is being forced to be a part of it. If you do, knowing what the face looks like you're sending the message you agree with what they do/say.

 

[Silvanus]

Shouldn't we judge that based on what the politicians say/do/have in their program. To take an extreme example, who's gonna fight the better fight for equality: a progressive man who makes of sexism a big point in his agenda or some ultra-conservative woman who thinks women should wear burqa's in public?

The man.

But in that hypothetical situation, do you assume the organisations in question would endorse the women?

Sure, but this small number of people are the face of the movement (the face of feminism is clearly not your random internet forum poster #577856, it's those who push agendas in the media, political world, etc.). And nobody is being forced to be a part of it. If you do, knowing what the face looks like you're sending the message you agree with what they do/say.

Those figures represent the members of their organisations-- unaffiliated people are not guilty by association. It doesn't work that way for other descriptors ('atheist', 'agnostic', 'conservative', almost anything), so there's no reason to apply a double standard to feminists.

 

[Luciella]

So.... violent videogames cause feminism?

No, but from time to time you wonder what the developers were thinking.

Exhibit A (from Lords of Shadow 2):

It made me wonder, was it necesary to kill her with a rod through her mouth in a perfect "o" no blood involved?
I kind of see very clear the message here. It would have been perfect if the rod, idk went thro her eye, through her head and brains just painted the ground... Doing -that- was just over the top...

Sometimes, its just too much and makes me just stop playing altogether.

 

[generals3]

The man.

But in that hypothetical situation, do you assume the organisations in question would endorse the women?

If she'd exist yes. Because, and that's where it's magnificent, they endorsed all women in politics through their statement. If they would have called people to vote for certain parties or particular politicians because of their agenda, fine, makes sense. But no instead they went for the straight up sexist statement.

Those figures represent the members of their organisations-- unaffiliated people are not guilty by association. It doesn't work that way for other descriptors ('atheist', 'agnostic', 'conservative', almost anything), so there's no reason to apply a double standard to feminists.

They are if they willingly identify themselves as such. Or to be more precise it's quite normal people assume they agree until proven otherwise. Again, if the face of a certain movement is X and you don't agree with X, why call yourself as being part of said movement?

And none of your examples are actually comparable. Neither atheism nor agnosticism comes with an agenda, it's merely a word which describes ones lack of faith in God. It says just as much about someone as their skin color or color of their eyes. That's quite different to a word used to describe someone who identifies as being part of movement which pushes certain agendas. The conservative part is already closer however the word is much vaguer and not tied to actual activism and usually there are movements which may consider themselves conservative but have specific names and are tied to agendas. Like for instance "Republicans" in the US. It's like feminists are usually "progressives" ("progressive" being much vaguer). And if the face of the Republican movement is a rotten one and someone still decides to identify as one i'd assume they agree with the rotten face. So no double standard on my part.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

This is my take on why there's so much anger towards feminists and minorities.

Since the beginning, white men have been in control of all aspects of life, but generation after generation we lose a little bit more power to control things. Women got the right to vote, we passed the civil rights act, gay marriage is becoming the law and so forth.

The same thing is happening with the gaming industry. What used to be mostly made up of young males, we now see more women and minority gamers and they're asking for representation in games and white men are lashing out because they're not being catered to like they used to. They feel feminists and non-whites are taking away their power and they're freaking out.

Women make up over 50% of the population and in 25-30 years non-whites are going to be the majority in America. White men see the writing on the wall and they're helpless to do anything about it. Women and non-whites are eventually going to be on equal footing, something white males have never experienced before, hence the anger.

I know what I've said will offend and anger some people, but progress is inevitable, anger and blame isn't going to change that.

That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure how much truth is in this idea though.

As a straight white man, I've never really wielded any power. I was a Patrol Leader in the Scouts for a while, but that's not really power. Do I enjoy certain privileges due to my skin tone, Y chromosome and sexual orientation? Yes, though I really hate framing them as privileges, sounds more like I'm getting something good, rather than simply not being fucked over for accidentally being born straight, white and male. Do I have power? Oh hell no. I'm broke. I have no power. Just like the overwhelming majority of the planet has no real power. That lies in the hands of the super-rich (who mostly happen to be straight, white and male).

Perhaps the perception of power then? Perhaps the idea of one day joining the elite, who do have power, is where this stems from. As society opens up and becomes more equal a greater proportion of society gets the potential to become part of the elite, maybe the idea that they now have a smaller chance of making it into the ranks of the elite brings resentment to these people.

Maybe this is in some way an extension of the "games are being dumbed down" argument. Gamers are ALWAYS complaining about games trying to reach a broader audience, mostly because what this usually translates to is CoD-ifying a series, removing it's unique aspects and trying to take a slice of the shooter pie. Perhaps things like these have left some gamers so horribly afraid of change in gaming that they think attempts to make games more appealing to women will ultimately lead to lower quality games across the board. I don't know, I'm just musing here. Might be a partial influence on some members of the community.

Thinking about it, I can't think of any arguments a gamer has made to me for why feminism is bad for gaming, only ever arguments for feminism as an idea being bad based upon the actions of a minority of feminists.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes, though I really hate framing them as privileges, sounds more like I'm getting something good, rather than simply not being fucked over for accidentally being born straight, white and male.

Well...the distinction between the two is very vague (especially with zero sum games), a lot of the time it's very glass half full/empty.

 

[PuckFuppet]

So.... violent videogames cause feminism?

No, but from time to time you wonder what the developers were thinking.

Exhibit A (from Lords of Shadow 2):

It made me wonder, was it necesary to kill her with a rod through her mouth in a perfect "o" no blood involved?
I kind of see very clear the message here. It would have been perfect if the rod, idk went thro her eye, through her head and brains just painted the ground... Doing -that- was just over the top...

Sometimes, its just too much and makes me just stop playing altogether.

That's just plain lazy art design.

It doesn't seem to do anything for the scene, I looked up the context, and just exists for the quick hit so that people appropriately assume what the designer was intending to convey. No attempt to actually make it part of a story just "LOOK AT THIS! REACT TO IT!".

 

[Luciella]

That's just plain lazy art design.

It doesn't seem to do anything for the scene, I looked up the context, and just exists for the quick hit so that people appropriately assume what the designer was intending to convey. No attempt to actually make it part of a story just "LOOK AT THIS! REACT TO IT!".

Aeh... not really. The context is that Carmilla wanted to own Gabriel/Dracula(the protagonist)sexually, so he could go back to be the prince of darkness and forget his dead wife...
I tho question the "lazyness", as a graphic desginer myself who has done models, meshes, skeletons and some animations...it was quite a lot less trouble to just insert the rod in her eye, no blood included, than making it fit the mouth that way.
Every single thing you do as art/game takes a ton of time depending of the action and has to be planned before it.
For that part there had to be a script, a storyboard and a speedpaint. All of them revised over and over again, till the art director aproves it. Its a drag that reapeats itself and gets on every artist's nerves.

So, with so much work and tought, its hard to believe it was not intended, taking in account the skimpy clothings, boob animations and the first 4 bosses being all female "bitches" that needed to be put in their place.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Yes, though I really hate framing them as privileges, sounds more like I'm getting something good, rather than simply not being fucked over for accidentally being born straight, white and male.

Well...the distinction between the two is very vague (especially with zero sum games), a lot of the time it's very glass half full/empty.

It's not a zero-sum game, I don't see how that's relevant. You don't have to treat some people like shit to treat others well, you can treat everyone well.

The problem I and apparently many others have with framing it as white privilege, straight privilege or whatever privilege, is the way it's so flippantly used to dismiss our ideas or input into conversations. There's an awful lot of people within the apparently privileged groups that have to deal with all kinds of horrible shit, framing us as privileged not only makes people less interested in our issues, but creates an unnecessary tension between groups of people that want to help each other. I have been told too many times that my 'privilege' prevents me from being able to understand (or even once told that I am an enemy of feminism), despite actually showing great interest in understanding and wanting to help.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's not a zero-sum game, I don't see how that's relevant. You don't have to treat some people like shit to treat others well, you can treat everyone well.

Oh, society as a whole isn't, but certain elements are.

For example, the businesses reluctant to hire people that aren't white...that's directly benefiting the white people they do hire. In that case, not being discriminated against is a definite benefit.

The problem I and apparently many others have with framing it as white privilege, straight privilege or whatever privilege, is the way it's so flippantly used to dismiss our ideas or input into conversations. There's an awful lot of people within the apparently privileged groups that have to deal with all kinds of horrible shit, framing us as privileged not only makes people less interested in our issues, but creates an unnecessary tension between groups of people that want to help each other. I have been told too many times that my 'privilege' prevents me from being able to understand (or even once told that I am an enemy of feminism), despite actually showing great interest in understanding and wanting to help.

Well, privilege does limit the understanding a person can have of marginalisations they don't share, though people can work to overcome this to any extent. This applies equally to people who are themselves facing different oppressions.

Having a privilege in no ways means you won't suffer from various other oppressions, but that doesn't invalidate it.

 

[Silvanus]

If she'd exist yes. Because, and that's where it's magnificent, they endorsed all women in politics through their statement. If they would have called people to vote for certain parties or particular politicians because of their agenda, fine, makes sense. But no instead they went for the straight up sexist statement.

This sounds like quite an irrational assumption on your part, really.

I doubt the statement was to the effect that people should vote for women absolutely regardless of position. I imagine they omitted stating that it did not apply in absolutely every hypothetical, because they thought people would think that went without saying.

Similarly, if an organisation states that it is against violence, we do not extrapolate from that that the organisation is against pushing someone over to prevent a murder. We do not assume the extreme.

They are if they willingly identify themselves as such. Or to be more precise it's quite normal people assume they agree until proven otherwise. Again, if the face of a certain movement is X and you don't agree with X, why call yourself as being part of said movement?

And none of your examples are actually comparable. Neither atheism nor agnosticism comes with an agenda, it's merely a word which describes ones lack of faith in God. It says just as much about someone as their skin color or color of their eyes. That's quite different to a word used to describe someone who identifies as being part of movement which pushes certain agendas. The conservative part is already closer however the word is much vaguer and not tied to actual activism and usually there are movements which may consider themselves conservative but have specific names and are tied to agendas. Like for instance "Republicans" in the US. It's like feminists are usually "progressives" ("progressive" being much vaguer). And if the face of the Republican movement is a rotten one and someone still decides to identify as one i'd assume they agree with the rotten face. So no double standard on my part.

The republican party is a single organisation; feminism is not. As I said, members of an organisation may be held accountable somewhat for the actions of the organisation.

Who is it who says these figures are "the face" of feminism? The feminists I knew, in my British university, will (in all likelihood) never have heard of them. The same will be true of feminists in dozens of countries, and most feminists throughout the history of the movement.

 

[generals3]

It's not a zero-sum game, I don't see how that's relevant. You don't have to treat some people like shit to treat others well, you can treat everyone well.

The problem I and apparently many others have with framing it as white privilege, straight privilege or whatever privilege, is the way it's so flippantly used to dismiss our ideas or input into conversations. There's an awful lot of people within the apparently privileged groups that have to deal with all kinds of horrible shit, framing us as privileged not only makes people less interested in our issues, but creates an unnecessary tension between groups of people that want to help each other. I have been told too many times that my 'privilege' prevents me from being able to understand (or even once told that I am an enemy of feminism), despite actually showing great interest in understanding and wanting to help.

The issue i actually have with privilege, in particular when it comes to gender, is that it frames things in a black & white manner. And this while it clearly isn't. I mean, sure men earn more on the job, but they are also more likely to die on the job. Sure women are more likely to be raped, but men are more likely to be murdered. Heck women have longer lives than men in general. And sure women may be shamed for being sluts, but men get shamed for not being sluts. Sure women get assumed to be "fragile", but than men get assumed to be more violent/dangerous (not really a positive trait in our modern anti-violence society). And so on. It's quite clear that both genders come with advantages and disadvantages. Can we at that point really state one has it better off?