Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

SNCommand

New member
Aug 29, 2011
283
0
0
AkaDad said:
SNCommand said:
AkaDad said:
Is it not reasonable that people might believe that you're obsessed at best, misogynistic at worst?
Tired of arguing against someone? Insult their character, woooo!
I didn't insult his character, I made no accusations. He said feminists just toss out that word for no reason and I was pointing out how one could be perceived that way.
I never said there was any direct accusations, just that you implied something about his or her character, which was a strange thing to bring up as the person you responded to had said nothing to imply anything about your own character.

It would be as if I would point out that you have a brotherhood of steel avatar, you might be a quasi religious technological nut at best, and a fascist at worst
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
I took only a few feminists seriously after reading this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386651/feminists-failure-rotherham-ian-tuttle

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/1400-girls-raped-in-rotherham-england-and-big-league-feminists-dont-care/


"In Rotherham there is a real-life ?rape culture.? But you will not learn anything new about it from Salon, the Daily Beast, Jezebel, or Slate. It has gone unmentioned at Feministing, ***** Media, or the Feminist Majority Foundation. There have been no outraged op-eds from Jenny Kutner, Jessica Valenti, or Samantha Leigh Allen.

These are, apparently, not the rapes they are looking for."


"The power of this fear is astonishing. Even in America, an ocean and many time zones away, feminists and other Social Justice Warriors dare not discuss the Rotherham rapes because to do so is to invite the punishments of ostracization and defamation, possibly resulting in the complete destruction of their social standing."
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
This is for all three comments above.

People say that women just arbitrarily toss out the misogyny word. I'm saying it's your words and your arguments, which are based on false premises as to why people perceive you in a certain way or even actually make accusations.

You have every right to ignore what I said and go on arguing the way you want. The notion of telling people what words they should use is non-existent to me.

My comment about some white, male gamers was my opinion on why they're so angry, it had nothing to with race or sex and I was still accused of hating all white men.

Finally, if you've been actually reading my comments, then you've seen that I've said multiple times, nobody is forcing/mandating/compelling anyone to do anything, yet you all keep saying that.

It's extremely hard to have a conversation when people are making their arguments based on false premises.
 

Duncan Belfast

New member
Oct 19, 2010
55
0
0
Feminists? No.

I don't believe that gaming and fun, and feminism are mutually exclusive. Gaming is a huge ocean, and there's plenty of room for a variety of games catering to a variety of interests and beliefs. Becoming more inclusive won't result in our hobby and our fun being taken away.

Feminazis? Yes. But they need to step off a variety of things, namely feminism.

The people who are intent on demonizing men, and see sexism everywhere, except within. The people who actually are out to take away not just our, but everyone's fun.

Frankly, if a person wants to kill or oppress large quantities of the population in the name of an ideology, then a portmanteau of said ideology and "nazi" seems like the perfect descriptor of their branch of said ideology.
 

SNCommand

New member
Aug 29, 2011
283
0
0
undeadsuitor said:
SNCommand said:
The gaming industry is a free market industry, there's no political party leading it and demanding a certain representation, and there shouldn't be one either, if people find something lacking they could try to finance someone wishing to make the product they want, or they could make it themselves
Actually, while there's no POLITICAL party, there IS a party. It's called investors and publishers. Publishers have the money therefore they have a moderate amount of control, either in direct control of a property they've invested in (ie, making direct decisions in a developers work like "needs more humor/frogs/men...humorous frog men",) or power in deciding what and what doesn't get invested in. It's an investors job to make money, which means that they very rarely stray from 'safe bets'. White male masculine heroes are 'safe bets' (along with sequels/prequels/reboots, which is why media is full of the stuff) therefore they get made more frequently, regardless of actual gamer leaning or data. The vidja gaem market isn't as free as you think it is.
Investors and publishers only care about profit though, if there's demand for more representation then they will cater, as long as they sell more games without catering to specific crowds they'll of course stay the course

And it's not like there doesn't exist hundreds of smaller titles made by and for women, that the larger companies that have for most of their existence catered to a specific crowd is still catering to them is hardly a surprise
 

Don Incognito

New member
Feb 6, 2013
281
0
0
Duncan Belfast said:
Feminazis? Yes. But they need to step off a variety of things, namely feminism.

The people who are intent on demonizing men, and see sexism everywhere, except within. The people who actually are out to take away not just our, but everyone's fun.

Frankly, if a person wants to kill or oppress large quantities of the population in the name of an ideology, then a portmanteau of said ideology and "nazi" seems like the perfect descriptor of their branch of said ideology.
Great! I agree! Care to point out such people? Because I have never met any, and certainly none who are relevant to the discussion at hand.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Duncan Belfast said:
Feminists? No.

I don't believe that gaming and fun, and feminism are mutually exclusive. Gaming is a huge ocean, and there's plenty of room for a variety of games catering to a variety of interests and beliefs. Becoming more inclusive won't result in our hobby and our fun being taken away.

Feminazis? Yes. But they need to step off a variety of things, namely feminism.

The people who are intent on demonizing men, and see sexism everywhere, except within. The people who actually are out to take away not just our, but everyone's fun.

Frankly, if a person wants to kill or oppress large quantities of the population in the name of an ideology, then a portmanteau of said ideology and "nazi" seems like the perfect descriptor of their branch of said ideology.
When you use the term "feminazi" you're saying that the feminists, who want women to achieve social, economic, and political equality, want to wipe out out the male race. It's extremely hyperbolic and utterly absurd.

Edit: As a white male, I certainly wouldn't be part of group that wanted to wipe my kind off the map.
 

thundra

New member
Aug 19, 2014
97
0
0
SNCommand said:
undeadsuitor said:
SNCommand said:
The gaming industry is a free market industry, there's no political party leading it and demanding a certain representation, and there shouldn't be one either, if people find something lacking they could try to finance someone wishing to make the product they want, or they could make it themselves
Actually, while there's no POLITICAL party, there IS a party. It's called investors and publishers. Publishers have the money therefore they have a moderate amount of control, either in direct control of a property they've invested in (ie, making direct decisions in a developers work like "needs more humor/frogs/men...humorous frog men",) or power in deciding what and what doesn't get invested in. It's an investors job to make money, which means that they very rarely stray from 'safe bets'. White male masculine heroes are 'safe bets' (along with sequels/prequels/reboots, which is why media is full of the stuff) therefore they get made more frequently, regardless of actual gamer leaning or data. The vidja gaem market isn't as free as you think it is.
Investors and publishers only care about profit though, if there's demand for more representation then they will cater, as long as they sell more games without catering to specific crowds they'll of course stay the course

And it's not like there doesn't exist hundreds of smaller titles made by and for women, that the larger companies that have for most of their existence catered to a specific crowd is still catering to them is hardly a surprise
Except Publisher and shareholders constantly reject games because they have female protagonist. Ever heard of Remember me they had to fight with Publishers because it had female playable character who would kiss a guy, last of us had to fight to get ellie on the cover and they had to fight Publishers so they would get female focus testers, bioshock infinite put Elizabeth back cover so it woudn't scare off bro gamers. Publisher and shareholders have all power in the industry, developers can't make games what they want unless they are lorne lanning or hideo kojima or working at companies like naughty dog or valve other wise no they will make military shooter 5 set in middle east shooting nazi muslim terrorists.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
R0guy said:
Netrigan said:
I think that just goes to illustrate what's inside your head, not what any of the saner voices are putting forth.
Ahem, no. Those examples I've given are a non-exhaustive list of "sexism" scandals either put forth by Ms Sarkeesian or the gaming press. So, nope.
You do realize most of the "controversies" in any fandom are just a handful of voices sounding off. Only on very rare occasions when fandom rises up (such as the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy) does anyone expect anyone to really do anything about it. If someone makes a compelling argument why something should change, then writers and devs tend to stand up and take notice. Usually it's just noise.

Netrigan said:
One of the things she harps on is the lazy writing which keeps throwing out the same handful of scenarios over and over and over and over and over again.
Again, nope. She only harps on one very specific scenario, being the "damsel in distress". Saving the kingdom/world/galaxy "trope" is unsurprisingly never mentioned, because she wants to make the case that super mario contributes to sexism, just like Jack Thompson said that call of duty contributes to school shootings.
I must have imagined all those bits where she plays the same line of dialogue from a dozen different games and chastises them for lazy writing. If you're a creator you can't expect to keep putting the exact same thing out there forever and expect people not to get bored and move on. While there's still a bit of damseling in games, less and less it's the primary focus of the plot.[/quote]

Netrigan said:
Gamers have largely been bored with Mario for a couple of console generations now and I don't think I've seen anyone put forth the idea that we need more Damsel In Distress games because the concept is just so damn great.
*Sigh* nope.

1) In the last couple of generations (just WII and WII U) Nintendo has sold almost 50 million copies of Mario games. Thats excluding DS, 3DS and spin-offs like Mario Kart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_(series)

2) I don't recall anyone wanting more "damsel in distress" games but between saving a man or a woman, from the stats we have, people would rather save the woman.

http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Video_Game_Statistics
"Who did you save?

Saved Doug - 24%
Saved Carley - 77%"
Give the choice, they'll probably save the girl because they're more inclined to like them, but that's not the point. The point is do people really care about games where the primary focus is saving the girl. You can get away with it movies a bit more since you can split focus with the hostage, but in games you've got a major character off-camera for large chunks of time. As plot and characterization become more important, it becomes much more important to get them into the action as much as possible with perhaps only the last act being centered on saving them. If I saw a game description which stated I had to raid the castle to save the girl, I wouldn't be able to put it back on the shelf fast enough. The scenario pretty much screams "boring character alert".

Netrigan said:
So, sure, if writers are as unimaginative as you, then it'll be a bad thing; but it really only takes a handful of really well-made books/comics/films/games to point the way. Better written female characters expands the field far, far more than it limits it.
If the article you're talking about is this drivel: http://www.slashfilm.com/what-fast-furious-6-could-teach-star-trek-into-darkness-about-half-naked-women/

Then you might be right about me being unimaginitive, I would've never believed someone could write something so stupid. Aside from Star Trek being a reboot of 60s show with an almost entirely male cast, here is a wonderful quote:

"The sad part of all this is that it?s not as if Fast & Furious 6 is some paragon of feminist ideals. Male roles outnumber female ones by a 2:1 ratio, and the film fails badly at the Bechdel test."

So basically, by following the same reasoning, "Live at the Appollo" and "Bad Boys" 1&2 are reverse racist, "Sex in the city" is mysandrist and "No country for old men" is racist AND mysoginist. All for not ham-fisting different gendered/coloured characters that have little to nothing to do with the context or storyline.

Any better written character would expand the field, but I've been talking about the gaming press and Anita Sarkeesian's view of what is or isn't sexist. Not you're own specific opinion on the subject. All I know is Bordelands 2 got slammed for racism and the lead dev on Saints Row has recently apologised for being sexist.

PS: I'm unfamiliar with "Preacher", therefore I won't comment on it.
[/quote]

Passing the Bechdel test is meaningless. Even Feminists readily admit this. The test is only good at taking the room temperature, not the temperature of any individual work.

And you continue to act as though this is an all-or-nothing scenario. You can listen to whatever part of an argument you wish to and work on that. If 90% of a feminist critique is utter bullshit, but the other 10% is really insightful, you can choose to listen to the 10% and ignore the rest. And this is how people react to feminist and racial and homosexual critiques. Quite often the critique is a bit nonsensical, such as Spike Lee criticizing Eastwood's "Flags of our Fathers" for not dealing with the segregation of the troops during WWII. It got published by quite a few newspapers in that "let you and him fight" kind of way, but when Eastwood didn't rise up to the bait and responded in a polite and thoughtful manner, the subject was dropped.

If you dig into what women are saying, you find what they want are more well-rounded and interesting female characters. A lot of the feminist stuff isn't terribly important. If the female character is a damsel, then you better make her an interesting damsel. You don't just lock her in a room where she cowers until the hero comes and rescues her. A lot of women love male-centric fiction, especially if the fiction loves them back. Sons of Anarchy is a show I frequently bring up in these discussions because even though it uses women as decoration, it also features quite a few really strong, interesting, flawed, and vulnerable female characters. They're just as interesting, if not more so, than the male characters.

You mention the Borderlands 2 racism "controversy". This is what I was talking about earlier in that most of these controversies are anything but. A handful of people made a bit of criticism. I don't even know if they were black, because it was mostly just reported on to see what kind of reaction it got. And the Borderlands 2 writer stepped up and responded in the classiest way possible. He asked people if they thought it was racist. Almost no one said it was. Controversy over, Borderland 2 won.

So saying "they're right" doesn't mean you have to stop using whatever trope it is, but, as is the case with any over-used trope, you have to get more creative using it. A good critique informs the creator. It lets them know when they're being lazy, when they could and should be doing better. Sometimes a writer is completely well-meaning, but they end up crafting something which is insulting. A good critique knows their heart is in the right place, but let's them know they're being condescending or completely missing the point. In a lot of ways, the way you're talking reminds me of all those people who get pissed off that someone ruined Toy Story's perfect score on Rotten Tomatoes, or got pissed off that someone dared give GTA V a 9/10 instead of a perfect score.

I don't exactly see eye-to-eye with these videos, but I think she's hitting a lot of the right targets. Most of the scenes she complains about in those games aren't exactly over-flowing with brilliance. Maybe she's completely off-base about why those tropes are bad, but she ain't wrong about most of those tropes needing to be less abused. Games like Watch Dogs and Max Payne 3 should be taught in schools on how not to write video games because of how awful and cliched their stories are and the presence of so many paper-thin cliched characters. I keep saying their worst sin isn't that they're sexist or racist or homophobic, it's that they're boring. I defend interesting any day of the week, boring never.
 

Panda Pandemic

New member
Aug 25, 2014
59
0
0
Grahav said:
I took only a few feminists seriously after reading this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386651/feminists-failure-rotherham-ian-tuttle

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/1400-girls-raped-in-rotherham-england-and-big-league-feminists-dont-care/


"In Rotherham there is a real-life ?rape culture.? But you will not learn anything new about it from Salon, the Daily Beast, Jezebel, or Slate. It has gone unmentioned at Feministing, ***** Media, or the Feminist Majority Foundation. There have been no outraged op-eds from Jenny Kutner, Jessica Valenti, or Samantha Leigh Allen.

These are, apparently, not the rapes they are looking for."


"The power of this fear is astonishing. Even in America, an ocean and many time zones away, feminists and other Social Justice Warriors dare not discuss the Rotherham rapes because to do so is to invite the punishments of ostracization and defamation, possibly resulting in the complete destruction of their social standing."
Because rampant speculation with no basis?

And linking a hate site where you can find an article from the owner saying he'd always vote to acquit in a jury on a rape trial.

Looks like your standards are pretty off if you'd link AVFM and not trust feminists because they didn't complain about one of many events in the world.
 

Allan Foe

New member
Dec 20, 2007
198
0
0
Grahav said:
I took only a few feminists seriously after reading this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386651/feminists-failure-rotherham-ian-tuttle

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/1400-girls-raped-in-rotherham-england-and-big-league-feminists-dont-care/
Leaning a bit too hard of right-wing publications aren't we? Evil evil immigration and the terrible lefties and so forth and so on?

The above articles can be basically paraphrased as:
Why aren't feminists attacking those filthy dirty immigrants and their red-toothed colluders?

This far right propaganda is barely a step away from Neo-Nazism material, a rather horrifying read for different reasons than the authors might have intended.

And if you are really concerned about the Rotherham case, please do a search on BBC articles and reports on child grooming. It is a hotly discussed topic in Britain.
 

AkaDad

New member
Jun 4, 2011
398
0
0
Allan Foe said:
Grahav said:
I took only a few feminists seriously after reading this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/386651/feminists-failure-rotherham-ian-tuttle

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/1400-girls-raped-in-rotherham-england-and-big-league-feminists-dont-care/
Leaning a bit too hard of right-wing publications aren't we? Evil evil immigration and the terrible lefties and so forth and so on?

The above articles can be basically paraphrased as:
Why aren't feminists attacking those filthy dirty immigrants and their red-toothed colluders?

This far right propaganda is barely a step away from Neo-Nazism material, a rather horrifying read for different reasons than the authors might have intended.

And if you are really concerned about the Rotherham case, please do a search on BBC articles and reports on child grooming. It is a hotly discussed topic in Britain.
Thank God someone made a website called avoiceformen, because men clearly needed a place on the internet where they can voice their opinions.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
Panda Pandemic said:
Because rampant speculation with no basis?

And linking a hate site where you can find an article from the owner saying he'd always vote to acquit in a jury on a rape trial.

Looks like your standards are pretty off if you'd link AVFM and not trust feminists because they didn't complain about one of many events in the world.
I found the article, you mentioned. Also, found this one by the same author.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/on-jury-nullification-and-rape/

A little piece:

Enter, however, Rape Shield Laws; the final nail in the coffin that holds the remains of our presumed innocence and right to a fair trial.

Ostensibly, rape shield laws were enacted to limit a defendants ability to cross examine a plaintiff regarding her past sexual conduct, the logic being that such information is not only irrelevant, but might prejudice jurors. For instance, if it were brought out that a married woman alleging rape had engaged in extramarital affairs, it might cause a bias in some jurors that strongly disapprove of such behavior and prompt them to acquit her alleged assailant.

It would seem reasonable, until you go back and review the information provided by The Innocence Project and consider what this type of system does with these kinds of laws.

In 1998, Oliver Jovanovic was convicted and sentenced to 15 years to life for kidnapping, sexual abuse and assault. It was alleged that he held 20 year old Jamie Rzucek in his apartment against her will for 20 hours while he brutalized her with sadomasochistic torture. Rzucek testified against him for six days in court.

During the trial, the judge, under the rape shield statutes, refused to allow email communications that she sent to Jovanovic after the incident, among other evidence.

Later an appeals court found that the judge had misapplied the laws and the conviction was overturned, but only after Jovanovich had served 20 months in prison, during which he was attacked and injured by another inmate.

The email from the woman that was excluded? In it, she described herself as ?quite bruised mentally and physically, but never so happy to be alive.? And in another communication, she said, ?the taste was so overpoweringly delicious, and at the same time, quite nauseating.?

It was also revealed that in the early part of the relationship the woman had expressed an interest in snuff films (films where actors are actually killed or death is simulated in a fashion as to appear real, for sexual stimulation).

Despite the conviction being overturned, and the prosecutor, Linda Fairnsteen, knowing about the exculpatory evidence, she still wanted to charge and retry Jovanovic. It was only when Rzucek, having to face the certainty of questions about her emails, refused to testify a second time that the case collapsed and was dismissed with prejudice.

Allan Foe said:
Leaning a bit too hard of right-wing publications aren't we? Evil evil immigration and the terrible lefties and so forth and so on?

The above articles can be basically paraphrased as:
Why aren't feminists attacking those filthy dirty immigrants and their red-toothed colluders?

This far right propaganda is barely a step away from Neo-Nazism material, a rather horrifying read for different reasons than the authors might have intended.

And if you are really concerned about the Rotherham case, please do a search on BBC articles and reports on child grooming. It is a hotly discussed topic in Britain.
Ad hominem. Is just that. Far right may be nazism and far left is Stalinism. Same shit.

Quote from BBC.

'Racism' fear
The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

Is BBC racist, also? Outside cultures only have virtues and not vices so we do not need to worry?
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
i hate social justice advocates but i for one, wont kick anybody out of this hobby just for their opinions

i will however ask em to stop when they try to inflict self-censorship on artists with their slander and insults, that i wont accept

honestly at this point i dont even know what they want, ive seen countless female characters being critized for what i consider the most stupid of reasons, itd be easier and much MUCH more productive if these people made games with the characters they want instead of critizing games for not having the characters they want

criticism is acceptable, but not if it doesnt contribute to making a game better, if a game has a "sexist" character it doesnt become a worse game, is not less entertaining

no pushing of political agendas please thanks bye
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
NuclearKangaroo said:
honestly at this point i dont even know what they want, ive seen countless female characters being critized for what i consider the most stupid of reasons, itd be easier and much MUCH more productive if these people made games with the characters they want instead of critizing games for not having the characters they want
Considering the wide range of people in the feminist movement, is it really any different than fandom. If I was to go by the comments at Gallifrey Base, then I could declare that Doctor Who fans think every single episode of Doctor Who is awful. Not a single exception, they're all crap. I could line up quotes for every single episode if I so choose.

Therefore no one should ever listen to anything a Doctor Who fan ever has to say about Doctor Who, because they clearly hate everything.

Except they don't. There are simply so many voices with so many different ideas of what is good and bad, that trying to paint them as a single entity is self-evidently absurd. Feminists are no less fragmented than that. They barely agree on the broadest of issues, much less things such as "is this sexist?" or "is this is a good female character?" I've got feminist friends who can only take so much of it, because someone or other is always on about something they think is pointless.

It doesn't mean the process is useless. It just means you have to make up your own mind and filter out the stuff you think is noise. Get beyond that in Doctor Who fandom and you find a bunch of people who are really excited about one of their favorite shows. There's never a shortage of people to discuss the most recent episode in a sane and reasonable way... because the ones saying "worst episode ever" aren't worth talking to.
 

NuclearKangaroo

New member
Feb 7, 2014
1,919
0
0
Netrigan said:
NuclearKangaroo said:
honestly at this point i dont even know what they want, ive seen countless female characters being critized for what i consider the most stupid of reasons, itd be easier and much MUCH more productive if these people made games with the characters they want instead of critizing games for not having the characters they want
Considering the wide range of people in the feminist movement, is it really any different than fandom. If I was to go by the comments at Gallifrey Base, then I could declare that Doctor Who fans think every single episode of Doctor Who is awful. Not a single exception, they're all crap. I could line up quotes for every single episode if I so choose.

Therefore no one should ever listen to anything a Doctor Who fan ever has to say about Doctor Who, because they clearly hate everything.

Except they don't. There are simply so many voices with so many different ideas of what is good and bad, that trying to paint them as a single entity is self-evidently absurd. Feminists are no less fragmented than that. They barely agree on the broadest of issues, much less things such as "is this sexist?" or "is this is a good female character?" I've got feminist friends who can only take so much of it, because someone or other is always on about something they think is pointless.

It doesn't mean the process is useless. It just means you have to make up your own mind and filter out the stuff you think is noise. Get beyond that in Doctor Who fandom and you find a bunch of people who are really excited about one of their favorite shows. There's never a shortage of people to discuss the most recent episode in a sane and reasonable way... because the ones saying "worst episode ever" aren't worth talking to.
thats absolutely understandable, the problem is, i dont think doctor who fans insult you if you like one particular episode (atleast i hope so), thats the problem with modern feminism, if you like something one of them considers offensive, their first response seems to be insulting you

atleast when it comes to video game, i think they would probably benefit from turning into something like, a fan club of female characters, instead of waving the flag of a political movement, becuase you know, if they want to be a political movement they better start agreeing on stuff and become more consistent

and im not using the term "fan club of female characters" as an insult, they could try talking about the positive despictions of women in gaming and less people would have such poor opinions of them
 

Allan Foe

New member
Dec 20, 2007
198
0
0
Grahav said:
Allan Foe said:
Leaning a bit too hard of right-wing publications aren't we? Evil evil immigration and the terrible lefties and so forth and so on?

The above articles can be basically paraphrased as:
Why aren't feminists attacking those filthy dirty immigrants and their red-toothed colluders?

This far right propaganda is barely a step away from Neo-Nazism material, a rather horrifying read for different reasons than the authors might have intended.

And if you are really concerned about the Rotherham case, please do a search on BBC articles and reports on child grooming. It is a hotly discussed topic in Britain.
Ad hominem. Is just that. Far right may be nazism and far left is Stalinism. Same shit.

Quote from BBC.

'Racism' fear
The report found: "Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

Is BBC racist, also? Outside cultures only have virtues and not vices so we do not need to worry?
See the problems here are:
1. You did not use a credible source in the first place. What does BBC have to say about femenism in relation to this issue? You used articles that co-opt the the issue of racial relations onto the fight against femenism, just because they are a human rights group but concerned with a different domain. Let's not forget that extremists like the far right (same would apply to the far left, of course) are concerned with human rights only when it suits their agenda.


2.Far right are close to nazism, yes. Far left are closer to trotskyists or anarchists, and it is not the same thing in all respects but one -- its extremism. Femenism, unless it's the subset known as "Radical Feminism" can not be considered extremist so I fail to see the connection in that little Ad Hominem quip.

See, the problem with Rotherham events, even as described in your original articles is one of cultural and racial relations. They drag Femenism into this because the gender of the abused provided a convenient opportunity to do so.

AkaDad said:
Thank God someone made a website called avoiceformen, because men clearly needed a place on the internet where they can voice their opinions.
Rather presumptions on their part, to speak on my behalf. I wonder if there is any chance one could sue for defamation.
 

SidheKnight

New member
Nov 28, 2011
208
0
0
No.

I don't want anyone to "step off" of gaming. And it's not only "our" hobby, if they like gaming, it's their hobby too.

People who have opinions and ideas different to yours have as much right to be gamers as you do.

I don't agree 100% with everything proposed by feminist game critics (for example, I think there's nothing wrong with prostitution or male power fantasies like GTA) but they have all the right to say it and express their opinion, just as you do, just as all gamers and game critics do.

Gaming is a big party, everyone's invited.