Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde

[orangeban]

Simply that she doesn't look like a woman, not like a woman that is old and hasn't been prettied up, simply not like a woman, more like a late change male to female transgender. Shouldn't a woman atleast look like a woman? She isn't simply ugly or something, she just doesn't seem to have a womanly face, that looks like a mans face to me.

Male to female trans* people are women, so if Wynne does look like she is trans*, that doesn't mean she doesn't look like a woman.

 

[Angryman101]

And I've already had this argument multiple times, I don't have time for it right now. I do have studies and sources for my claims, I just do not have the energy or the patience to look for them.

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

You obviously have not seen my debates.

More to the point, I haven't seen your alleged evidence.

What these guys said:

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

Ahh the "I'm too lazy to back up my bullshit claims" defense. Classic.

And for the record, I am very familiar with the feminism debate and its literature. I think I'm aware of which studies you're referring to, and they're contentious at best.

So once again, until you can back yourself up with actual evidence, forgive me if I continue to ignore your arguments.

Sigh.
Fine.
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2009/wp09-11bk.pdf
Study one finds that, within the last 35 years, despite the closing of the pay gap, more women than men going to college, and other such things, women are less happy than they were in the 70s.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2?state=cookieless
Here's a study that shows that men who are traditionally/benevolently sexist are happier, as are the women in their lives.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Things are worse than fucking ever.

Anyone who says "things are worse than ever" as relates to anything obviously never lived in the fourteenth century.

What, you're not nostalgic for the era where rights, medicine, hygiene, literacy, and sewer systems as we know them didn't exist?

 

[Paradoxrifts]

I think Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade conveyed the proper solution best when he wrote this down a few weeks ago..

The answer is always more art; the corollary to that is the answer is never less art. If you start to think that less art is the answer, start over. That's not the side you want to be on. The problem isn't that people create or enjoy offensive work. The problem is that so many people believe that culture is something other people create, the sole domain of some anonymized other, so they never put their hat in the ring. That even with a computer in your pocket connected to an instantaneous global network, no-one can hear you. When you believe that, really believe it, the devil dances in hell.

Ladies, gentlemen sympathisers, you've already proven that you can raise $75,000 for a series of inane, ultimately pointless YouTube videos. All you need now is a reputable businesswoman to step up to the plate, fill a war-chest at either KickStarter or IndieGoGo and you can start participating in the medium as an independent demographic with real buying power. Assuming of course enough women can be found who do want to play video games instead of just endlessly complaining, on and on, about how their gender is being portrayed in escapist entertainment that isn't being marketed to them in the first place.

What's the worst thing that could possibly happen? You've already collectively thrown away $75,000+ trying to one up YouTube trolls.

 

[Angryman101]

Things are worse than fucking ever.

Anyone who says "things are worse than ever" as relates to anything obviously never lived in the fourteenth century.

Then again, anybody who says anything today has probably never lived in the fourteenth century, so maybe I'm just talking out my ass.

You're right, I'm exaggerating. String me up, baby.

 

[Angryman101]

I think Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade conveyed the proper solution best when he wrote this down a few weeks ago..

The answer is always more art; the corollary to that is the answer is never less art. If you start to think that less art is the answer, start over. That's not the side you want to be on. The problem isn't that people create or enjoy offensive work. The problem is that so many people believe that culture is something other people create, the sole domain of some anonymized other, so they never put their hat in the ring. That even with a computer in your pocket connected to an instantaneous global network, no-one can hear you. When you believe that, really believe it, the devil dances in hell.

Ladies, gentlemen sympathisers, you've already proven that you can raise $75,000 for a series of inane, ultimately pointless YouTube videos. All you need now is a reputable businesswoman to step up to the plate, fill a war-chest at either KickStarter or IndieGoGo and you can start participating in the medium as an independent demographic with real buying power. Assuming of course enough women can be found who do want to play video games instead of just endlessly complaining, on and on, about how their gender is being portrayed in escapist entertainment that isn't being marketed to them in the first place.

What's the worst thing that could possibly happen? You've already collectively thrown away $75,000+ trying to one up YouTube trolls.

I like the cut of your gib.
This whole shitshow would be instantly portrayed in a much more positive light if the ***** took the money and made a good fucking game with strong writing for both male and female characters instead of making pointless statements on perceived faults in gender relations in a particular medium.

 

[Angryman101]

Correlation does not equal causation. Just because women are less happy now then in the 70s does not mean it's because of feminism or because they are on more equal ground with men.

Haha, the correlation does not equate to causation came early this time. Good job, buddy. But science doesn't point out causation, only correlations. Causation is educated conjecture based on evidence provided by correlations found. If other, differing correlations are found, then that theory of causation is disproved.
Tell me, sir. What explanation do you posit for trends in women's happiness? Take into account men show an upward trend of happiness in this same study comparably and absolutely.

 

[Kahunaburger]

And I've already had this argument multiple times, I don't have time for it right now. I do have studies and sources for my claims, I just do not have the energy or the patience to look for them.

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

You obviously have not seen my debates.

More to the point, I haven't seen your alleged evidence.

Fine.
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2009/wp09-11bk.pdf
Study one finds that, within the last 35 years, despite the closing of the pay gap, more women than men going to college, and other such things, women are less happy than they were in the 70s.

As Eamar said:

Spoiler

Kids these days need to learn the difference between correlation and causation.

http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2?state=cookieless
Here's a study that shows that men who are traditionally, benevolently sexist are happier, as are the women in their lives.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

And why it's important actually read the studies you attempt to use as evidence.

 

[nasteypenguin]

I'd say manly most definitely exists, society is really very clear on it. From the very early ages, dolls are for girls, toy swords are for boys, because fighting and swords are manly. Distinguishing things as unwomanly because men are stereotypically known for doing it is the the definition of sexism, but I'm not the first to do it. Rather, I'm commenting on the fact that society has internalised these distinctions between manly and womanly and expresses them in the form of stereotypes.

And our current views of what is manly is not the only way to portray heroes. You mention unemotional, but why can't we have a very emotional hero? Why don't we see more poets or musicians as heroes? Why must they be big and strong, the less strong can still fire guns or command troops or work out puzzles? Why are their very, very few disabled heroes?

I'm not denying that the stereotype exists right now, in that stereotypically people assume one sex is more likely to act a specific way but I don't believe the idea that said traits are tied to one gender. What I mean is, men may be more likely to be written as a tough, strong willed soldier type but that does not mean a woman can't embody this kind of character just as easily without still being a female character (I think Gears of War and Bulletstorm had these soldier type female characters). The sexism comes from assuming females have an inability to have this personality, not that females who do have this personality are less female because of it.*

I may have made this up, but I keep getting the impression that people have problems with stories which put a female character in the exact same role as a male character, IE a big, tough, unemotional female soldier, and I'm not sure I understand why. I think it's sometimes because writers simply create a male character in the story and just use a female voice actor instead of thinking how a female may act differently to the situation. However, I don't think that kind of thing is sexist as much as it is difficult to create a mentally and physically strong character, regardless of gender, without resorting to the easy-to-write tough, unemotional, brooding one (of course writers which resort to this should not be thanked.)

I always thought unemotional characters were, again, easy writing because it made a characters which always knew what they were doing (because they showed no fear) and were incredibly strong willed (because they never panicked) without any actual effort on the writers part. And yes, an emotional hero with a hobbies and, well, personality would always be good; if theres one thing I think almost the whole gaming community would agree with, it's that games need better writing. There is a shooterfest going on right now however, and they all have to feature soldiers in some shape or form apparently; the writing problem is not currently due to sexism.

PS. I'm sure there's some deep psychological reason why theres a lack of disabled protagonists or heroes, maybe most people can't relate to them for some reason, but I'm not smart enough to guess at that one.

*This makes less sense each time I read it, so much so that I had to make the same point 3 times just to try and be clear... it's late, I do apologise.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

And I've already had this argument multiple times, I don't have time for it right now. I do have studies and sources for my claims, I just do not have the energy or the patience to look for them.

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

You obviously have not seen my debates.

More to the point, I haven't seen your alleged evidence.

What these guys said:

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

Ahh the "I'm too lazy to back up my bullshit claims" defense. Classic.

And for the record, I am very familiar with the feminism debate and its literature. I think I'm aware of which studies you're referring to, and they're contentious at best.

So once again, until you can back yourself up with actual evidence, forgive me if I continue to ignore your arguments.

Sigh.
Fine.
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2009/wp09-11bk.pdf
Study one finds that, within the last 35 years, despite the closing of the pay gap, more women than men going to college, and other such things, women are less happy than they were in the 70s.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2?state=cookieless
Here's a study that shows that men who are traditionally/benevolently sexist are happier, as are the women in their lives.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

I'm just chiming in to say that just throwing out statistics without applying them to context does not actually prove any point, and in this case the only context I can gleam is that 'feminism is supposed to make women happier', which is a gross oversimplification of what feminism is really about. 'Happiness' is an extremely arbitrary factor that is based on personal emotions and doesn't always objectively measure one's quality of life - the improvement of which feminism is trying to achieve.

To counter your example, I could post a link to a survey that ranked the inhabitants of Vanuatu the happiest in the world. Since by and large most people on Vanuatu live in tin shacks, eat tinned foods, fruits and root vegetables, have no electricity and have to boil their drinking water; by your fallacious logic it would be easy to conclude that all forms of development are more or less a waste of time.

 

[Angryman101]

snip

Man, I always enjoy how people almost immediately implying my immaturity and lack of intelligence when I begin to espouse an opposing view of feminism.
And are you implying that I interpreted the study wrong? Please educate me, friend.

 

[Eamar]

And I've already had this argument multiple times, I don't have time for it right now. I do have studies and sources for my claims, I just do not have the energy or the patience to look for them.

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

You obviously have not seen my debates.

More to the point, I haven't seen your alleged evidence.

What these guys said:

Why is it that in every feminism debate on this website the "I have evidence, I promise, I just don't have it with me" people are always on the anti-feminism side?

Ahh the "I'm too lazy to back up my bullshit claims" defense. Classic.

And for the record, I am very familiar with the feminism debate and its literature. I think I'm aware of which studies you're referring to, and they're contentious at best.

So once again, until you can back yourself up with actual evidence, forgive me if I continue to ignore your arguments.

Sigh.
Fine.
http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2009/wp09-11bk.pdf
Study one finds that, within the last 35 years, despite the closing of the pay gap, more women than men going to college, and other such things, women are less happy than they were in the 70s.
http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-011-0017-2?state=cookieless
Here's a study that shows that men who are traditionally/benevolently sexist are happier, as are the women in their lives.
I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

I'm just chiming in to say that just throwing out statistics without applying them to context does not actually prove any point, and in this case the only context I can gleam is that 'feminism is supposed to make women happier', which is a gross oversimplification of what feminism is really about. 'Happiness' is an extremely arbitrary factor that is based on personal emotions and doesn't always objectively measure one's quality of life - the improvement of which feminism is trying to achieve.

To counter your example, I could post a link to a survey that ranked the inhabitants of Vanuatu the happiest in the world. Since by and large most people on Vanuatu live in tin shacks, eat tinned foods, fruits and root vegetables, have no electricity and have to boil their drinking water; by your fallacious logic it would be easy to conclude that all forms of development are more or less a waste of time.

Pretty much this. The studies admit that quality of life has improved. How one is supposed to objectively judge happiness I do not know, and these studies have done nothing to enlighten me.

 

[Kahunaburger]

snip

Man, I always enjoy how people almost immediately implying my immaturity and lack of intelligence when I begin to espouse an opposing view of feminism.

If you make flawed claims, there's no reason to get all offended when people point out the flaws in your claims. It's certainly nothing personal.

And are you implying that I interpreted the study wrong? Please educate me, friend.

Maybe you should read the study. The error you made in citing it as evidence should become apparent by the time you finish.

 

[Furrama]

Side boob exposure? You made that blasphemous link, not me.

Look at women's issues of today. Look at yesteryear. Things are better. Look at civil rights issues for African-Americans of today and yesteryear. Better. But still broken when compared to the rights and privileges to men in America and Japan, the places where games are made. Sure, everyone has their kicks, but their kicks don't really limit them in such a drastic way.

Things are BETTER? Things are worse than fucking every. More women are unhappy, and more are on antidepressants than ever before. The only people things today are good for are attractive, intelligent men. Why is that? Because feminism. So, good job to feminists, I guess. lol.
'Rights and privileges to men in America/Japan'
Hahahaha. Right. Divorce rape, alimony, child support, false rape claims, and a biased judicial and media system. It must be hard being a woman, seeing how other, more attractive women seem to drive men insane while they barely give a plain jane the time of day.

Did you forget the title of this post?

Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde.

Your argument has officially fallen apart and become the ugly troll that it always was. I can't argue with that, just throw billy goats over the bridge and get out. Enjoy your muddy hole I guess.

 

[Angryman101]

I'm just chiming in to say that just throwing out statistics without applying them to context does not actually prove any point, and in this case the only context I can gleam is that 'feminism is supposed to make women happier', which is a gross oversimplification of what feminism is really about. 'Happiness' is an extremely arbitrary factor that is based on personal emotions and doesn't always objectively measure one's quality of life - the improvement of which feminism is trying to achieve.

To counter your example, I could post a link to a survey that ranked the inhabitants of Vanuatu the happiest in the world. Since by and large most people on Vanuatu live in tin shacks, eat tinned foods, fruits and root vegetables, have no electricity and have to boil their drinking water; by your fallacious logic it would be easy to conclude that all forms of development are more or less a waste of time.

What you don't seem to realize is that literally everything anyone has ever done or will ever do has its roots in attempting to achieve happiness in some way or another. If you don't believe that feminism is trying to give its followers and believers at least some level of greater happiness, I would say you're a fool, sir.
And you're on to something there. Tribes in Africa that are still hunter/gatherer are also much happier than the typical western adult, if I remember correctly. I wonder what that says about people? What exactly makes my logic fallacious?

 

[Kahunaburger]

And you're on to something there. Tribes in Africa that are still hunter/gatherer are also much happier than the typical western adult, if I remember correctly. I wonder what that says about people? What exactly makes my logic fallacious?

...he posted on the video game website.

 

[Angryman101]

snip

Man, I always enjoy how people almost immediately implying my immaturity and lack of intelligence when I begin to espouse an opposing view of feminism.

If you make flawed claims, there's no reason to get all offended when people point out the flaws in your claims. It's certainly nothing personal.

And are you implying that I interpreted the study wrong? Please educate me, friend.

Maybe you should read the study. The error you made in citing it as evidence should become apparent by the time you finish.

I've already read it multiple times, and once more when you pointed that out. I'm thinking you're the one who's misinterpreting it. I'm not offended, just exasperated at you comparing me to a child for holding opposite viewpoints.

And you're on to something there. Tribes in Africa that are still hunter/gatherer are also much happier than the typical western adult, if I remember correctly. I wonder what that says about people? What exactly makes my logic fallacious?

...he posted on the video game website.

Hey, I'm not saying I would give up modern technology and all that, I'm just pointing it out. I find it interesting.