I don't get it. Violence, good. Sex, NO NO NO WE CANT HAVE THAT!!!

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,583
3,539
118
ManutheBloodedge said:
Sure, but I object to the idea that changing things for the better means less options instead of more. All her work and philosophy suggests she wants no sexually designed women in games and would abolish these if she could. (Quote Anita: "Sex doesnt sell. Sexism sells.") Basically, I disagree with her idea of "better". I don't like neither shooters in general not the macho archetype that is often portrayed in them, but I wouldn't want them gone, not even the games who have them to change, just some variety. I know people like these kinds of games, so I wouldn't want to deprive them of them. And after all, even I found one or two shooters I like.
To sum it up, "I don't like it so it shouldn't exist or there should be less of it" is a deeply self-centered view, and I would prefer something like "I don't like it, what can I play instead?"
Ah, but it is "less" or "proportionally less"? I don't see much more complaining about trends, the very title "Tropes vs women" is about common themes, not the existence of lone examples.

I agree that arguing about the existence of sexist elements is very different than the dominance of them.

ManutheBloodedge said:
The problem with that is that when you are looking for evidence for a point instead of using evidence to get to a point, you will always find some, even if the examples are not really sighnificant or have to be constructed. (which she did. A lot.) Her starting point should be "Are Video Games sexist?", not "Video Games are sexist, how can I prove that?". Because here we have an underlying sense of "I can't be wrong, my assumption can not be incorrect", while a real reaseacher always have to have the very real possibility in mind that at any time, he could be wrong. A lot of great inventions have been made accidentally by people with a different goal, but an open mind.

Now regarding your example, of course I would look for her mistakes in that case, because you specifically asked me for examples of them. If you would ask me "Is she right or not?" and I would only present you her constructed arguments and not the points she made that are valid, then we'd have the same problem.
Well, yes, but I'm not seeing any reason to assume that she hasn't sat down and thought about this at some length before coming up with the video series. In any case, isn't she talking about examples of sexism and how sexism works in teh industry, not researching whether or not this is an issue?

ManutheBloodedge said:
Ok, I agree with you here, but my point was that the worldview chosen to convey ist not deliberately sexist. I meant that no one sits down with the goal to create a intentional sexist Video Game, and the industry is often treated like they do.
I think that's based on a misunderstanding there, criticisms of the industry usually aren't about people sitting down and deciding to be sexist, it's about repeated mistakes in this area. The expectation is that the industry can be better, which isn't going to be the case if the sexism was intentional.

OTOH, sometimes there are fairly blatant examples, but it's not like gaming is unique in that.

ManutheBloodedge said:
No one decides "I am gonna be a dick today", at least I hope so. Dickishness is always defined by other people, I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make is that most of the described behavior in the comic is not accepted as normal by the biggest part of society, it is considered rude, not part of the norm.
Dunno about that, in theory much of it isn't seen as being wrong, but not seriously so. You get phrases like "boys will be boys", "can't take a joke" and so on. Plenty of people will recognise it as wrong in the abstract, but excuse it in practice.

ManutheBloodedge said:
Expect for manspreading. Manspreading as a concept is pure, unadultered bullshit and creating problems where there are none.
Eh, it was taken from the New York rail systems campaign (IIRC) as an example of a mentality, not a serious issue in of itself.
 

beastro

New member
Jan 6, 2012
564
0
0
People who have an issue over this don't get North Americans as a whole are very private about sexual matters and don't like it flaunted, it has no relation to what they think of it behind close doors.

They are also, people of action despite being fairly insular, which is why you have so much of the cliche of have the reluctant hero going off to fight evil.

Sex, on the other hand, is something which is looked on as sacred and not to be bandied about in a casual manner.

Taken it to their extremes they are a problem, but it in and of itself they are something I strongly agree with.

tl;dr American history is that of "murder good, sex bad" and it hasn't really begun to turn around until the past few decades.
Except it isn't to the extreme you present it as and that is reflected in the very conflicted and decisive reactions Americans have always had with regard to things like war. Not only have Americans always had an issue with war and the military, but they and militarization were always looked on as dark aspects of the Old World that they left behind when they left Europe.

Violence is progress, and perhaps no better symbol of that is a frontiersman with a rifle
And again your view is skewing it in ways that it was never taken as.

The Frontierman is one of freedom and self-reliance, someone who sticks to their own business and is willing to protect it while trying to interfere in others unless provoked. The frontier is taken as a place where everyone can have their own little space and not trample on others in contrast to Europe in centuries past which was small cage filled with too many animals shoved into it.

In the end your post is more a reflection of your own perception of your country than one with a basis in how your country has historically viewed itself with regard to violence and sexual matters.

4455 said:
This is an easy one. You can glorify killing because it's been done millions of times over in order to "save the day". You will never have a movie where someone has to have sex to save lives.
That's a flippant way of saying that committing violence is viewed as a regrettable necessity that shouldn't be enjoyed that sits the heart of historical American views of things like the military and war.

WWII and modern American views of the military and soldiers are the aberration in a country which as historically looked on them with only lightly veiled contempt and suspicion.

Most Americans (and Westerners as a whole) won't have to do something like that, so they vicarious and enjoyably presented view of violence, while when it comes to sex, that is something they all do and do so their domain away from prying eyes.

Rebel_Raven said:
Because violence is easier to get than sex, and violence solves more problems! Sex causes problems! Sex requires way more effort than punching someone! Hate's a delicious drug that's way easier than getting sex!

Nah, prolly not it.
Nice to see people going to the other extreme and trivializing the opposite side in such a way.

Makes you wonder what the youth of centuries down the line will think of our perceptions and more.

Things change, yet they remain the same.
 

ManutheBloodedge

New member
Feb 7, 2016
149
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Ah, but it is "less" or "proportionally less"? I don't see much more complaining about trends, the very title "Tropes vs women" is about common themes, not the existence of lone examples.

I agree that arguing about the existence of sexist elements is very different than the dominance of them.
Even it it were proportionally less, there are two ways to achieve that: increase the "good" or decrease the "bad". And given the emphasis Anita places on the latter in her work, I have no doubt that is the action she wants to take, and I object to that. And my whole problem with her (apart from the shoddy reserach, fabrication and lies) is that she argues for a dominance, not an existence. Because this hyperbole evidently causes strong reactions from people, which renders a healthy discussion we need to have about this subject impossible.



thaluikhain said:
Well, yes, but I'm not seeing any reason to assume that she hasn't sat down and thought about this at some length before coming up with the video series. In any case, isn't she talking about examples of sexism and how sexism works in teh industry, not researching whether or not this is an issue?
Why would she be talking about it if she didn't think it was an issue? I am not doubting that she sat down and thought about stuff, a lot of her examples needed some serious work to fit her topic after all. On the surface, yes, she is talking about that, but again, because she has decided beforehand that it is a serious issue, she presents mostly fabricated evidence to blow the topic up to proportions it doesn't need to be. But looking deeper, she is mainly talking about the effect the sexism she portrays has, and this is another main problem with her work. Especially here she just tells what she thinks about the topic, and presents this as scientific fact. Her main thesis is still: sexism in Video Games causes real like sexism, and that is not supported scientifically in any way. If she would only present (correct) examples of sexism in the industry without ascribing it this massive underlying negative affect it has, I would not object her work, I would applaud it.

thaluikhain said:
ManutheBloodedge said:
No one decides "I am gonna be a dick today", at least I hope so. Dickishness is always defined by other people, I agree with you there. The point I was trying to make is that most of the described behavior in the comic is not accepted as normal by the biggest part of society, it is considered rude, not part of the norm.
Dunno about that, in theory much of it isn't seen as being wrong, but not seriously so. You get phrases like "boys will be boys", "can't take a joke" and so on. Plenty of people will recognise it as wrong in the abstract, but excuse it in practice.

ManutheBloodedge said:
Expect for manspreading. Manspreading as a concept is pure, unadultered bullshit and creating problems where there are none.
Eh, it was taken from the New York rail systems campaign (IIRC) as an example of a mentality, not a serious issue in of itself.
Yeah, but the way it was presented suggested that it wasn't even wrong in absract, but the norm everbody expects to happen.
And sadly, there are enough people who argue seriously against manspreading, and at the same time support a womans right to wear whatever she wants or go topless if she so desires. Double standards is all I'm saying.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,583
3,539
118
ManutheBloodedge said:
Even it it were proportionally less, there are two ways to achieve that: increase the "good" or decrease the "bad". And given the emphasis Anita places on the latter in her work, I have no doubt that is the action she wants to take, and I object to that. And my whole problem with her (apart from the shoddy reserach, fabrication and lies) is that she argues for a dominance, not an existence. Because this hyperbole evidently causes strong reactions from people, which renders a healthy discussion we need to have about this subject impossible.
Not seeing that myself, but ok.

ManutheBloodedge said:
Why would she be talking about it if she didn't think it was an issue? I am not doubting that she sat down and thought about stuff, a lot of her examples needed some serious work to fit her topic after all. On the surface, yes, she is talking about that, but again, because she has decided beforehand that it is a serious issue, she presents mostly fabricated evidence to blow the topic up to proportions it doesn't need to be. But looking deeper, she is mainly talking about the effect the sexism she portrays has, and this is another main problem with her work. Especially here she just tells what she thinks about the topic, and presents this as scientific fact. Her main thesis is still: sexism in Video Games causes real like sexism, and that is not supported scientifically in any way. If she would only present (correct) examples of sexism in the industry without ascribing it this massive underlying negative affect it has, I would not object her work, I would applaud it.
Fair enough.

ManutheBloodedge said:
Yeah, but the way it was presented suggested that it wasn't even wrong in absract, but the norm everbody expects to happen.
I don't see how those two are mutually exclusive, though it takes a little doublethink.

ManutheBloodedge said:
And sadly, there are enough people who argue seriously against manspreading, and at the same time support a womans right to wear whatever she wants or go topless if she so desires. Double standards is all I'm saying.
Taking up to much space is not quite the same as wearing what you choose, though.
 

ManutheBloodedge

New member
Feb 7, 2016
149
0
0
thaluikhain said:
ManutheBloodedge said:
Yeah, but the way it was presented suggested that it wasn't even wrong in absract, but the norm everbody expects to happen.
I don't see how those two are mutually exclusive, though it takes a little doublethink.
Fair enough.

thaluikhain said:
ManutheBloodedge said:
And sadly, there are enough people who argue seriously against manspreading, and at the same time support a womans right to wear whatever she wants or go topless if she so desires. Double standards is all I'm saying.
Taking up to much space is not quite the same as wearing what you choose, though.
One, there are enough feminists declaring it a sexist display of male genitalia and a power act, and two, I don't see any posters shaming fat people for taking up more than one seat.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,583
3,539
118
ManutheBloodedge said:
One, there are enough feminists declaring it a sexist display of male genitalia and a power act, and two, I don't see any posters shaming fat people for taking up more than one seat.
A power act, yes (in that people choose to take up more space than they need), but not seen anything about displaying genitals.

Shaming fat people for taking up more space is shaming fat people for existing. It's not the same as positioning one's body to take up more space than in another position. And while usually not on posters, that sort of shaming of fat people isn't uncommon.
 

ManutheBloodedge

New member
Feb 7, 2016
149
0
0
thaluikhain said:
ManutheBloodedge said:
One, there are enough feminists declaring it a sexist display of male genitalia and a power act, and two, I don't see any posters shaming fat people for taking up more than one seat.
A power act, yes (in that people choose to take up more space than they need), but not seen anything about displaying genitals.

Shaming fat people for taking up more space is shaming fat people for existing. It's not the same as positioning one's body to take up more space than in another position. And while usually not on posters, that sort of shaming of fat people isn't uncommon.
When I say power act, the way feminists use it means something akin to believing everyone who does it thinking: "Ha ha! I am gonna deliberately spread my legs AS FAR AS POSSIBLE to prevent women to sit where they want and force then to stare at my crotch. That will learn them!"

i.E. exercising the power men have over women in society in the subway train.

Look, I have nothing against sitting appropiatly, it is the percieved deliberatness of the issue I don't agree with. If someone takes up too much place, you can tell him to scoop over and let you sit too, and when he/she disagrees, he/she is a jerk. There is no need to make this a gender issue, no need for posters, and all the fuss reaches levels where it becomes as ridiculus as the fat people comparison.
 

renegade7

New member
Feb 9, 2011
2,046
0
0
Zhukov said:
Because media depictions of violence are usually fanciful and rather divorced from reality whereas sex, even Hollywood sex, is closer to what people experience in their actual lives and thus hits closer to home?

Or to put it another way, I'm pretty sure if a TV station started broadcasting footage of actual clearly visible murder it would make people just as upset as a stray penis. After all, there's a reason those militant execution videos are always cut out before any actual blood is spilled.

I 'unno.

I generally just default to blaming thousands of years of more-or-less puritanical religion for society's assorted sexual hangups. Then again, I default to blaming religion when I stub my toe too, so I could be full of shit.
I think this is it. Comparatively few people experience violence in their lives so the subject of violence remains entirely one of fantasy. On the other hand, virtually all people will have some kind of sexual experiences in their lives, so it's easier to make comedy out of.

And really, you just can't make an epic final confrontation with the hero's arch-enemy a sex scene and have it be taken seriously.

Also, the violence in media is usually very unrealistic. It's heavily cleaned up to make it seem heroic and dramatic rather than brutal and horrifying like it is in the real world.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,583
3,539
118
ManutheBloodedge said:
When I say power act, the way feminists use it means something akin to believing everyone who does it thinking: "Ha ha! I am gonna deliberately spread my legs AS FAR AS POSSIBLE to prevent women to sit where they want and force then to stare at my crotch. That will learn them!"

i.E. exercising the power men have over women in society in the subway train.

Look, I have nothing against sitting appropiatly, it is the percieved deliberatness of the issue I don't agree with. If someone takes up too much place, you can tell him to scoop over and let you sit too, and when he/she disagrees, he/she is a jerk. There is no need to make this a gender issue, no need for posters, and all the fuss reaches levels where it becomes as ridiculus as the fat people comparison.
As I understand it, the posters about it were part of a series of posters about bad behaviour, I think there were others about littering and so on.

The way I've seen feminists talk about it is as an example of how men are taught they should take up more space in order to be manly. I was flat out told this was the case when I was at school, and I've read that trans men are often told to do this as part of transitioning.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,685
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
ManutheBloodedge said:
And regarding Mrs. Sarkeesian and Mr. Thompsons underpinning philosophies, my understanding of them is as following

Jack: Violence in Video Games causes real world violence.
Anita: Sexism in Video Games causes real world sexism.

so you can maybe understand why I drew a parallel here.

PS: I read Rain too :). Glad to meet another fan.
I think Anita would say sexism in the world causes it in games which reinforces the sexism in the world

Jack thinks that violence starts from video games as you said

In Anita's regard, I partially agree with her. She focus on the negative affect of troupes on women and dismiss anything on men. Which is wrong because she's doing a troupe herself - men's issues don't matter because women's are more important. Like we can't do both at the same time.

Anyway, how about we start making real characters instead troupes irrelevant of gender.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,685
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Here's a different theory. We accept violence because we have to kill everyday.

To eat we must kill animals and hundreds of plants, including their younger and foetuses (i.e. eggs and fruit)
And we do this at least 3 times a day. We can't survive without killing

Sex on the other only propagates the species, which in and of itself is a weird concept to our individualistic selves. We usually talk more about how it fun. But it not necessary to our individual survival.

Killing is.


P.S. I know fruit isn't actually a foetus. I'm being dramatic.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
8,300
6,798
118
Country
United States
trunkage said:
I think Anita would say sexism in the world causes it in games which reinforces the sexism in the world

Jack thinks that violence starts from video games as you said

In Anita's regard, I partially agree with her. She focus on the negative affect of troupes on women and dismiss anything on men. Which is wrong because she's doing a troupe herself - men's issues don't matter because women's are more important. Like we can't do both at the same time.
Does she dismiss men's issues or is it just not what the show's about? Isn't that like complaining a show about Italian cooking doesn't bring up French cuisine?

I'd be all for a "tropes vs men" style show if the last one wasn't a blatent scam. I'd do it myself, but I'm not particularly interested in taking shots from the "video games are perfect and can't ever have any toxic qualities and I'll kill you if you don't shut up about it" crowd.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
I don't particularly like either one. How's that?

My favorite games at present are Big Pharma, Myst, Mini Metro and the economic campaign of Pharaoh. All of which have either no or very-turned-down depictions of those concepts. Big Pharma deals with erectile dysfunction, I suppose...
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
Many have gotten to the puritanical roots of things, but this is an old conversation, so I think there are more mitigating factors, or rather a single one: NIMBY (Not in my back yard) syndrome. I've gotten grief for my opinion that people are more sex negative than they wish to admit, but this is something based on a level of observation. No one is trying to put women in burkas or tell them how to dress, and when the slutwalk or topless protest is just a news article, we're fine. We also don't wish to dictate adult sex lives or sexual preferences for actual sex, or even masturbation. Then, put a character like Quiet in a mainstream game, or include some fetishy mini-game in a tactical RPG and suddenly people squirm and resist. Heaven help it if one of those protests were held in their town, and filled with friends, or even family.

It's not that we really hold the old values dominantly. We always think we'll be cool with these things, but when the real consequences of an ideology pop up it's a lot harder to accept than when it's an ideology alone. Then the excuses come out. Hence, sexual attitudes change at a slower pace, if at all, because we inadvertently struggle to maintain an older status quo based on biblical edicts to maintain personal comfort.
 

KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime

Lolita Style, The Best Style!
Jan 12, 2010
2,151
0
0
ManutheBloodedge said:
I agree that it is weird when we have games with oversexualized female characters and normal men, but my solution would be to sex up the men as well, not ban the sexy women. I am all for more male eye-candy and romance options, again, variety is a good thing. I know sex sells, that was not the point. What I essentially asked was if you are okay with them existing at all, not because you can't do anything about them. Basically, if you were in a hypothetical position of total control over the Game Industry, would you ban them or let them be? There are some character types I hate, i.E. the slaps of rage, armor and muscles most Triple-A shooters generously call protagonist, but I wouldn't want them GONE, because I know some people like them, and who am I to take someones fun away? I just don't want them to be my only option. Important here: I also don't excisting game series to change, I want new ones that provide the variety. If some Game wants to cater to archetypes I don't care about, more power to them, that is okay, I can play different ones. Again, variety. Dragon Age Inquisition has a trans character, but he is not romancable.
We basically agree, there is a time and a place for characters to be sexy. Characters in over the top fighting games like Dead or Alive having sexy costumes, that's perfectly fine with me, so are sexy characters in 2D and Anime fighting games. Characters not in a combat situation wearing a sexy outfit while "off duty" is perfectly fine as well. A character in a fantasy game who has a class that requires loose fitting, or skimpy garment for it's range of motion is also fine. I don't have a problem with sexually attractive characters in games, until the context becomes: Armor for all the guys, skimpy leotards and catsuits for all the girls. Mostly because that's when "character design" starts showing off a sexist double standard.

ManutheBloodedge said:
Huh... when I looked into the term, I found meanings like "searching for the hidden meaning of a text or argument", not a bad thing. As I understood it "Putting words in someones mouth" is deliberately misconstructing someones argument to discredit them with points they nerver meant or said. "Reading between the lines" is the ability to look past the initial text or argument to point out what they actually meant or implied, even when they never explicity stated it. Something that goes on my nerves is the tendency of people online to go "I never explicitly said that". Yeah, sometimes you don't have to state something explicitly, your intentions come across in subtext, word choice and tone. It is perfectly valid to adress the concieved meaning, implication or logical consequence of a statement. You can't go around saying "I am gonna beat him until he doesn't move anymore!" and then say "Well, I never stated I want to MURDER him!". No you didn't, but it was both heavily implied and the logical consequence of what you were saying. Anyways, I neither meant nor said that you think I can't differentiate between fantasy and reality, it just was the logical consequence of some of your arguments. I was not trying to attack you, I just hate this sentiment that does exist, sorry if I came off as to harsh.
Again I think you're reading a bit too much into that initial post, because I was trying to leave it as broad statement, not to specifically target anyone. It was mostly an off-hand statement post. While context is important, remember that it's extremely difficult to read specific emotions into text posts, that's a well known issue. It's also difficult to read what was implied by a person in their post, because it could simply be the fault of bad wording. So I'll use a paraphrase of Hanlon's Razor:[footnote]Original Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."[/footnote] "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by bad phrasing." Sound fair enough?

ManutheBloodedge said:
The thing with Japan is that many men with their insane rising workloads don't have the energy left to invest in a normal relationship, so they are fine with a synthetic one. I don't think the problem comes from japanese men no longer finding normal women sexy. I can imagine that can happen to some, but that would be extreme cases.
I never said the problem came from Japanese Men, just that they tend to be an example, what's kind of sad is that while you're right in the first part... This problem is becoming more common than not, especially when in Japan the culture is that people over 26 years old are unworthy of getting married, if they haven't already. Which is more true amongst women. With more and more Japanese women working than staying home, it makes the marriage a more difficult proposition in Japan.

That's not the point I was trying to make though, because that's just a symptom of a larger issue, that's fairly prevalent around the world in general. Certain types of media, like romantic comedies, porn, video games with romance sub-plots, and more, are kind of giving people unrealistic ideas about romance and attractiveness standards for their partners. Well and sex too. Most people can get past this, but plenty enough can't and really it's damaging either way on a societal level. Though I believe this is more to do with the ease of access to media, allowing some people to shut themselves in, away from the world at large, then they get all their ideas about sex and romance from such media. Most people can still get past such things and will settle for a less than romantic comedy perfect relationship and a less sexy than a porn star partner. The big issue though is that when these unrealistic standards get a lot of exposure, it starts allowing people to damage their own self worth, because they're not as sexy as a porn star, or not as romantic as the people they see in romantic comedies. That's the bigger issue.

ManutheBloodedge said:
So we basically agree that finding someone (or some images) sexy is not a bat thing by default, and that objectification is a natural process that is not bad by default either. Great, that is more or less all I have to say about the subject.
Basically, objectification only becomes a serious issue when it's all someone can do when regarding certain people around them. By itself objectification is neither good, nor bad, it's just a thing humans do, but it can easily become a bad mind state. If you look at Roosh V. he's a perfect example of someone who sexually objectifies women to the extreme, there are a lot of people out there like that too. But I digress, we do essentially agree, the only thing is that I don't give objectification a free pass, I even will take myself to task if I notice I'm doing it.

ManutheBloodedge said:
Ok, I have to disagree with you there. Women have access to STEM fields, they are being treated favorably even, with scholarships and the like, the majority of women just don't want to study it, and that is okay. Personal freedom and all. A lot of the differences in men and women in the workfield comes from different choices people make, not structural advantages men have over women. Women have all the freedom to choose whatever job they want. Granted, they may face social pressure in some professions, but that goes for men in certain fields (childcare, flight attendant, beautican) too. Saying women have less freedom would only be accurate if some jobs would be forbidden for women to have, which is simply not true in the western world. And while women may be looked upon as less able, men are viewed by society more often as exchangeable and not in need of protection. And with offers of companies to their female employes to freeze their ovules, it seems to me the expectation of career women is to not have kids, not a shorter career (To be fair, men are not expectet or allowed to stop working to raise their children). So again, I still think men and women have it equally bad, just in different ways. I won't argue with you about the treatment of LGBT people, I think you are right in that regard, and you have far more experience than me in that field anyways.
That's not entirely true, women are actively discouraged from entering STEM fields. The majority of women I know who want to pursue STEM work, get pressured by career advisors not to pursue an education, or career in STEM fields. STEM field's also have a image of being a "boy's club" environment that can be hostile to women. There are scholar ships and aid programs that are specifically targeted at women, but that's because a lot of women simply can't get a standard scholarship, because the bureaucrats see female names and automatically go; "nope!" Yeah there is also a stigma against men being beauticians, childcare experts, flight attendants, and similar. One stigma, which only applies to child care is that men are seen as a threat to children, which is a stupid stigma based on fear mongering. The more applicable one to all "feminine" careers is that femininity is seen as a lesser, which makes expressions of femininity toxic for males.

Also things don't have to be banned by law to make them inaccessible to certain groups, all you need is enough of a social stigma to cause rampant discrimination. At which point such things might as well be banned by law to various social groups, because they have no access anyways. That's where "freedom of choice" falls flat as an argument, because the choices are limited, or outright removed, just by discriminatory practices.

Now saying men have it just as bad... I can agree with that to an extrent, because men literally can't express femininity without being considered as lesser, or gay. The problem is, men still get to control the social discourse, men constantly interrupt women and talk over them in virtually all scenarios. Women are still expected to shut up and let the men talk, which means women generally don't get to make any meaningful input. That and women are generally expected to do all of the emotional and house keeping labor in virtually every work place. [http://www.robot-hugs.com/workplace/] Work that is either unnecessary, someone else's job, costs money out of our pockets, and/or that's just assigned because it's seen as "women's work". Generally this type of emotional labor damages our ability to contribute, but when we don't do it we get told we're not contributing enough. I say this because I've experienced it first hand. A lot of guys also argued that they've had to do work that wasn't in the job description, but that's a false comparison. The work that's generally assigned to guys, which isn't supposed to be part of their job, is done so because there is no dedicated slot for said work, also the work is absolutely necessary. The emotional labor expected of women is generally something men can also do, but women get the task because of latent sexism, it's also virtually always totally unnecessary, or someone else's job.

The reason the term "patriarchy" is used in this case is because men have more control of the social narrative by default, while at the same time women and femme-type folk are always expected to be in the submissive role. That's the major privilege that men have over women in these cases, they're the ones who get control and trust by default. I'm not going to argue that a patriarchal structure doesn't harm men, because it does, just as much as it harms women, but there are certain privileges related to patriarchal structures that men cling to. So long as femininity is seen as a lesser expression and holds it's toxicity amongst men, then we have a patriarchal system. If femininity became the greater gender expression, and masculinity the lesser, then we'd have a matriarchy. What I'm saying is both are wrong, men and women are not equal, and the system we should have is one where neither gendered expression is dominate by default. Because as long as one set of gendered and sex based expression is the socially dominate one, then equality is not present.
 

ManutheBloodedge

New member
Feb 7, 2016
149
0
0
KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime said:
Ok, you make strong arguments in some cases, but I see we disagree on some basic stuff that would make any further conversation more point throwing and less discussion, and I think we both have better ways to spend our time.

I would like to thank you for this discussion and your willingness to educate others on your points of view instead of yelling at them for not getting them. I enjoyed this exchange, and even if we disagree on the basics, I wholeheartly agree on your conclusion: equality and not-enforced gender roles are the way to go.

To make this short for once: You rock girl, carry on.

As long as you ship Rain and Emily too. Or you are DEAD to me. DEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,685
2,879
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
altnameJag said:
trunkage said:
I think Anita would say sexism in the world causes it in games which reinforces the sexism in the world

Jack thinks that violence starts from video games as you said

In Anita's regard, I partially agree with her. She focus on the negative affect of troupes on women and dismiss anything on men. Which is wrong because she's doing a troupe herself - men's issues don't matter because women's are more important. Like we can't do both at the same time.
Does she dismiss men's issues or is it just not what the show's about? Isn't that like complaining a show about Italian cooking doesn't bring up French cuisine?

I'd be all for a "tropes vs men" style show if the last one wasn't a blatent scam. I'd do it myself, but I'm not particularly interested in taking shots from the "video games are perfect and can't ever have any toxic qualities and I'll kill you if you don't shut up about it" crowd.
That's my opinion. I think I've viewed 3 of them and that's a couple of years ago. I seem to remember her stating that particular troupes are used on men, but they don't matter because they don't negatively affect men. That maybe true, but like you I'd like to see a troupes vs men one, for the simple fact that she looks biased.
 

springheeljack

Red in Tooth and Claw
May 6, 2010
645
0
0
Honestly I think sex is shown or alluded to as much as or even more than violence is. I don't think sex is as taboo as you might claim. I mean some of the more shall we say "different" acts are still taboo but for the most part it is really hard to escape.
Oh and why is Anita brought up in every thread at every possible chance? I cannot for the life of me understand the weird obsession with her.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
You're comparing pears to apples. Violence is too broad, sex is pretty specific. You have to either compare violence and sexuality; or torture and sex.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
CaitSeith said:
You're comparing pears to apples. Violence is too broad, sex is pretty specific. You have to either compare violence and sexuality; or torture and sex.
well thats a very odd choice of example. if you think violence is sexuallity then sex would be equivalent to torture? SO biascally you are saying that sex is the worst part of sexuality?