Poll: If female characters were given an advantage....

[Saltyk]

Didn't Final Fantasy Tactics do something similar, but far better balanced? Males had slightly higher Hp and physical attack while females had slightly higher Mp and magical attack. And by slightly higher I mean maybe 5 Hp/Mp and 1 point of Physical/Magical Attack. It made very little difference in the end. You could still use a male mage or a female warrior, and they would still preform admirably. Maybe a female mage was more powerful, but not game breaking.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I don't think you know what a strawman is, or if you do you're misusing it: a strawman argument is where one constructs an argument that's irrelevant to the main argument in order to knock it down.

No, a strawman is when one misinterprets an argument in order to knock it down. Constructing a completely irrelevant argument is only one possible form.

From what I've read, Valenti has blamed some social ills on culturally "masculine" behaviors. Reading that as "negative male traits" and using it to argue that she's a misandrist is misinterpretation.

The fact that Valenti is both a misandrist and a feminist means that the two are not distinct therefore the argument is valid and in no way a strawman.

Well, here's the thing: I haven't seen much proof that she is a misandrist. Saying that machismo (to use the term perhaps a bit more broadly than usual) is often problematic is really not the same thing as saying that men are inherently problematic.

Didn't Final Fantasy Tactics do something similar, but far better balanced? Males had slightly higher Hp and physical attack while females had slightly higher Mp and magical attack. And by slightly higher I mean maybe 5 Hp/Mp and 1 point of Physical/Magical Attack. It made very little difference in the end. You could still use a male mage or a female warrior, and they would still preform admirably. Maybe a female mage was more powerful, but not game breaking.

Now, see, I think almost everyone on the thread has argued that that's different. There's an effort made to balance it, rather than having one sex be the unequivocally better choice for everything.

 

[zeldagirl]

I don't think you know what a strawman is, or if you do you're misusing it: a strawman argument is where one constructs an argument that's irrelevant to the main argument in order to knock it down. The fact that Valenti is both a misandrist and a feminist means that the two are not distinct therefore the argument is valid and in no way a strawman.

I do have to cut in with this:

"The same social mores that tell young women that they should be good little girls are telling guys to be tough, to quash their feelings, and even to be violent. Their problems are our problems, ladies. Men aren't born to rape and commit violence. Men aren't naturally 'tougher' emotionally. These gendered expectations hurt men like they hurt us."


....

"Feminism can help men too, but only if they're open to it. We can't have a fully successful feminism if we're missing half the population. The thing is, how can we relay the super-fabulous stuff feminism is made of to the men in our lives?

I am by no means an expert on masculinity. There are great people doing amazing work on how sexism hurts men - like academic and masculinity expert Michael Kimmel and organizations like Men Can Stop Rape. I'd highly recommend checking these folks out if you're looking for in-depth information on masculinity.

My thoughs on men and feminism are really just starting to be formed, but it's too important a topic to not get into it. Especially now, in a world where what it means to be "a man" has the potential to damage both men and women. Whether it's a consequence of the way that masculinity is used during wartime, or the way it's presented in pop culture - something just isn't right.

Without dissecting how masculinity standards affect men, we'll never be able to comprehensively address sexism and how it affects women. They're linked like a ************. Besides, imagine how much easier it will be to develop male allies in feminism when they realize that they have something to gain from the movement as well."

That's Jessica Valenti from her book Full Frontal Feminism. I've always gotten the impression that she's always advocated for men in the feminist movement - she does NOT hate them.

 

[CoverYourHead]

Play it as a female at first, switch over to male when I'm bored to give myself a bit more challenge.

Also: As said by everyone; unbalanced and silly.

 

[Kair]

You mean they should receive advantages based only on their gender? It will certainly add some realism to games.

 

[Harbinger_]

A new game has come out - its the bees knees, reveiwers and players are loving it, both singleplayer and multiplayer. its the hot new game, thats selling in droves...

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around. Whether its a mystical force, or a unique and powerful control system that women inherently adapt to faster and better, women are the primary force in the singleplayer, and to map this across to multiplayer by saying that female characters gain skills/ranks/abilities at a notably faster rate. A character of either gender starts even, and the nominal 'caps' are even, but a female character will gain those ranks and reach that cap faster than a male character. What would you make of this?

That would be a game where you would see alot of male gamers with female characters. I also don't think it would happen.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

That's Jessica Valenti from her book Full Frontal Feminism. I've always gotten the impression that she's always advocated for men in the feminist movement - she does NOT hate them.

Thanks for stepping in there. I suspected that my relative unfamiliarity with Ms. Valenti's work might jump up and bite me.

And I also seem to remember an editorial in which she said that the whole "breadwinner" stereotype gives men far too little credit for the ability to be responsible fathers otherwise. That doesn't sound like someone who's got an issue with men. (Just with "traditional" gender roles and stereotypes, and their potential negative effects on everyone.)

 

[BGH122]

I don't think you know what a strawman is, or if you do you're misusing it: a strawman argument is where one constructs an argument that's irrelevant to the main argument in order to knock it down. The fact that Valenti is both a misandrist and a feminist means that the two are not distinct therefore the argument is valid and in no way a strawman.

I do have to cut in with this:

"The same social mores that tell young women that they should be good little girls are telling guys to be tough, to quash their feelings, and even to be violent. Their problems are our problems, ladies. Men aren't born to rape and commit violence. Men aren't naturally 'tougher' emotionally. These gendered expectations hurt men like they hurt us."


....

"Feminism can help men too, but only if they're open to it. We can't have a fully successful feminism if we're missing half the population. The thing is, how can we relay the super-fabulous stuff feminism is made of to the men in our lives?

I am by no means an expert on masculinity. There are great people doing amazing work on how sexism hurts men - like academic and masculinity expert Michael Kimmel and organizations like Men Can Stop Rape. I'd highly recommend checking these folks out if you're looking for in-depth information on masculinity.

My thoughs on men and feminism are really just starting to be formed, but it's too important a topic to not get into it. Especially now, in a world where what it means to be "a man" has the potential to damage both men and women. Whether it's a consequence of the way that masculinity is used during wartime, or the way it's presented in pop culture - something just isn't right.

Without dissecting how masculinity standards affect men, we'll never be able to comprehensively address sexism and how it affects women. They're linked like a ************. Besides, imagine how much easier it will be to develop male allies in feminism when they realize that they have something to gain from the movement as well."

That's Jessica Valenti from her book Full Frontal Feminism. I've always gotten the impression that she's always advocated for men in the feminist movement - she does NOT hate them.

Except yes, it is laden with misandry. Take, for example, her holding the organisation 'Men Can Stop Rape' up as a laudable effort. It is a deeply offensive insinuation that the duty to prevent men raping women somehow lies with non-rapist males more than anyone else and that machismo itself is inextricably tied with rape. It's an 'all men are to blame unless they prove otherwise' assumption. Why should I, a non-rapist male, be more accountable for rapists than a non-rapist female? It's a disgracefully misandric accusation, akin to me saying that all women have a duty to actively stop prostitution or else you're all prostitutes in my book. If you can't see why that's misandric, how lumping all men in as 'the enemy' unless they prove otherwise is anything but pro-equality then I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you.

From what I've read, Valenti has blamed some social ills on culturally "masculine" behaviors. Reading that as "negative male traits" and using it to argue that she's a misandrist is misinterpretation.

It appears to me, from her various rants on The Guardian and The F Word, that she makes the claim that she's not against men, but masculinity. This seems to me to be proposing a system that abhors difference as 'wrong', where if we are not all exactly identical with regards to our interpretations of gender then those who women who are more feminine, those men who are more masculine are 'wrong' and their traits necessarily destructive. Perhaps misandry is an inept title here, I suppose bigot fits better.

 

[Jessta]

that just sounds like it would be unbalanced since females get a bonus in everything, however it could work to say something like... Females get a steadier sight while males can sprint faster or take a couple more shots... although that train of thought comes from the fact that most girls have smaller more dexterous fingers than guys where as guys have higher stamina and ability to take punishment.
No I'm not just being sexist, as someone that takes classes in both and PE I've noticed that the girls run out of energy faster and stop running and are more likely to flinch when a dodge ball or something comes at them, sure its kind of a broad generalization but I find it kind of true. At the same time in art class the girls seem to be more dexterous and are better sewing, painting, drawing, pottery, where as the guys have a tendency to push to hard on the clay breaking the form, or have a little twitch while painting creating a stray line, or push to hard on the pencil making a line which can't be erased.
if they were to give females and advantage they would also have to give males an advantage is what I'm really saying, maybe to show their greater manual dexterity give them better aim and to show mens greater stamina and strength give them additional hit points, or make them faster, or make it so they can sprint longer.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, in such a game you probably just can't play a male.

Then you have Bayonetta.

 

[C117]

Is it just me that comes to think about the disadvantage "Woman" in the tabletop-RPG "En Garde!"?

In En Garde!, the setting is the 18th/19th century, France. Women are a minority. Women are viewed as less than equal. It makes sense. And it isn't even that much of a disadvantage, because;

A: You get extra points to spend on advantages such as "Good Luck".
B: There are far worse disadvantages (I believe you can start out with "Leprosy" if you're up for the challenge).
C: Apart from having a lower status in the eyes of society, there is nothing bad with being a woman (and if you mention something like PMS...).

In other words, it makes sense and it works.

This hypothetical game, on the other hand, doesn't sound like it would work at all. Sure, you can think up some explanation that sounds reasonable, but the balance will be disturbed. No game I've ever heard of have made men and women unevenly matched, without giving the "worse" side some kind of perks that balances it all out.

I'm all for games that picture both sexes as equals, and if it was a non-interactive medium we were talking about, I'd love to see a story where men are considered inferior to all women. But in games, the balancing of the gameplay comes first.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Except yes, it is laden with misandry. Take, for example, her holding the organisation 'Men Can Stop Rape' up as a laudable effort. It is a deeply offensive insinuation that the duty to prevent men raping women somehow lies with non-rapist males more than anyone else and that machismo itself is inextricably tied with rape. It's an 'all men are to blame unless they prove otherwise' assumption. Why should I, a non-rapist male, be more accountable for rapists than a non-rapist female? It's a disgracefully misandric accusation, akin to me saying that all women have a duty to actively stop prostitution or else you're all prostitutes in my book. If you can't see why that's misandric, how lumping all men in as 'the enemy' unless they prove otherwise is anything but pro-equality then I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you.

So...you're saying that she must see all men as rapists and "the enemy" because she has expressed support for a men's anti-rape group? How does that even follow? She's not saying that the duty to prevent rape should fall entirely on men; she's saying that it shouldn't fall entirely on women, and commending men who do their part.

And your analogy is really apples and oranges. Violent crime and vice laws aren't in the same category at all.

It appears to me, from her various rants on The Guardian and The F Word, that she makes the claim that she's not against men, but masculinity. This seems to me to be proposing a system that abhors difference as 'wrong', where if we are not all exactly identical with regards to our interpretations of gender then those who women who are more feminine, those men who are more masculine are 'wrong' and their traits necessarily destructive. Perhaps misandry is an inept title here, I suppose bigot fits better.

...what. She uses "masculinity" to mean (as I put it) a somewhat broader definition of "machismo." How is that "bigoted" by any definition of the word?

 

[flametoad9]

i don't see why wommen can pull a trigger better than men or vice versa

 

[BGH122]

So...you're saying that she must see all men as rapists and "the enemy" because she has expressed support for a men's anti-rape group? How does that even follow? She's not saying that the duty to prevent rape should fall entirely on men; she's saying that it shouldn't fall entirely on women, and commending men who do their part.

And your analogy is really apples and oranges. Violent crime and vice laws aren't in the same category at all.

No, I'm saying that it shouldn't fall on anyone other than the rapist. The sole person who can ensure a rapist doesn't rape is the rapist him/herself. It is no-one else's duty to ensure that a person doesn't choose to become a criminal. I'm saying that the men's anti-rape group shouldn't exist because it should be taken as given that men as a whole are against rape, it shouldn't be a cause for particular commendation that these men are against rape because almost all men are against rape. To say 'these men are against rape, kudos' is equivalent to saying that the opinions of other men vis a vis rape is contentious. It's this flipside that's offensive.

EDIT: The analogy worked fine, you're quibbling. I wasn't analogising crimes, I was analogising the labelling of whole groups for the crimes of the minority. Seriously, there was nothing wrong with that analogy.

...what. She uses "masculinity" to mean (as I put it) a somewhat broader definition of "machismo." How is that "bigoted" by any definition of the word?

Bigotry is an intolerance of difference. If one is against interpretations of gender roles that do not reflect one's own interpretations then one is a bigot. What's confusing?

Valenti is against interpretations of male gender roles that include 'machismo', she is only in favour of (as far as I have seen) male gender roles which conform to feminism. That's intolerance towards the former group ... that's bigotry. In what way is that confusing?

EDIT: Post 1111. Fancy!

 

[Raddra]

I hate design decisions that make one race/gender better than all the others. I don't like being pushed into making a certain decision in a game that supposedly offers a choice.

I remember Ragnarok Online had it that you could only make characters of your RL gender you input.

Due to female characters getting all the benefits in the game due to being able to use all equipment plus female only equipment with good bonuses with nothing exclusive for males, tons of male players resubscribed as females because well.. they have a mechanical game advantage in an MMO.

 

[internetzealot1]

That's a gloriously bullshit idea you've got, OP.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

No, I'm saying that it shouldn't fall on anyone other than the rapist. The sole person who can ensure a rapist doesn't rape is the rapist him/herself. It is no-one else's duty to ensure that a person doesn't choose to become a criminal. I'm saying that the men's anti-rape group shouldn't exist because it should be taken as given that men as a whole are against rape, it shouldn't be a cause for particular commendation that these men are against rape because almost all men are against rape. To say 'these men are against rape, kudos' is equivalent to saying that the opinions of other men vis a vis rape is contentious. It's this flipside that's offensive.

Unfortunately for that argument, crimes do not exist in a vacuum. Should neighborhood watch groups also not exist because breaking and entering is no one's fault but that of burglars?

EDIT: The analogy worked fine, you're quibbling. I wasn't analogising crimes, I was analogising the labelling of whole groups for the crimes of the minority. Seriously, there was nothing wrong with that analogy.

Well, aside from the fact that it operates off of the assumption that prostitution is both tantamount to rape and as overwhelmingly committed by women as rape is overwhelmingly committed by men, and is thus misleading? (Although I'm sure I'll be accused of hating men for pointing out that the overwhelming majority of rapists are male.)

Bigotry is an intolerance of difference. If one is against interpretations of gender roles that do not reflect one's own interpretations then one is a bigot. What's confusing?

Valenti is against interpretations of male gender roles that include 'machismo', she is only in favour of (as far as I have seen) male gender roles which conform to feminism. That's intolerance towards the former group ... that's bigotry. In what way is that confusing?

By that logic, one could be bigoted against bigotry.

However, bigotry is not just "an intolerance of difference." It is an intolerance of people who are different. Being opposed to gender roles that are for the most part socially constructed, and which are used to justify attacking people for breaking stereotypes, is not "bigotry."

 

[Giantpanda602]

A new game has come out - its the bees knees, reveiwers and players are loving it, both singleplayer and multiplayer. its the hot new game, thats selling in droves...

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around. Whether its a mystical force, or a unique and powerful control system that women inherently adapt to faster and better, women are the primary force in the singleplayer, and to map this across to multiplayer by saying that female characters gain skills/ranks/abilities at a notably faster rate. A character of either gender starts even, and the nominal 'caps' are even, but a female character will gain those ranks and reach that cap faster than a male character. What would you make of this?

If it was the opposite it would be sexism. So I'd consider this sexism. And probably sue them =D

 

[BGH122]

Unfortunately for that argument, crimes do not exist in a vacuum.

Correct, socioeconomic factors are the single most important factor in criminal behaviour followed by the closely associated factor of parenting. Nowhere is 'men need to prevent crime' involved.

Aside from presuming that prostitution is both tantamount to rape, and as overwhelmingly female as rape is overwhelmingly male, you mean?

I believe that prostitution is an overwhelmingly female crime. The seriousness of the crime is an irrelevance to the analogy, as I've already explained, as it's an analogy that focuses on lumping an entire group in together based on the behaviours of its minority.

EDIT: Found a source regarding gender and prostitution: ibid., p 196: Average prostitution arrests include 70% females, 20% percent male prostitutes and 10% customers.

It is a female crime.

By that logic, one could be bigoted against bigotry.

However, bigotry is not just "an intolerance of difference." It is an intolerance of people who are different. Being opposed to gender roles that justify attacking people for breaking stereotypes is not "bigotry."

Nah, it isn't:

big·ot·ry
   [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
?noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Bigotry is precisely what I said it was. She is a bigot by definition if she refuses to tolerate gender roles which differ from those she prefers.

It's also a valid criticism that one could be bigoted against bigotry, but this was addressed in Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies': a system of tolerance is paradoxical by its nature as it cannot tolerate intolerance for if it were to do so then intolerance would destroy the system of tolerance, making the argument for tolerating intolerance self-refuting. Although that's just an interesting philosophical quirk and I'm unsure how it applies to either of our arguments meaningfully.

 

[zeldagirl]

Except yes, it is laden with misandry. Take, for example, her holding the organisation 'Men Can Stop Rape' up as a laudable effort. It is a deeply offensive insinuation that the duty to prevent men raping women somehow lies with non-rapist males more than anyone else and that machismo itself is inextricably tied with rape. It's an 'all men are to blame unless they prove otherwise' assumption. Why should I, a non-rapist male, be more accountable for rapists than a non-rapist female? It's a disgracefully misandric accusation, akin to me saying that all women have a duty to actively stop prostitution or else you're all prostitutes in my book. If you can't see why that's misandric, how lumping all men in as 'the enemy' unless they prove otherwise is anything but pro-equality then I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you.

Oh goodness. If that's how you understand that, then yeah, there's a problem.

The organization Men Can Stop Rape is not saying rape prevention lies exclusively with non-rapist males. It serves different purposes, including:

1) rape prevention is largely placed on WOMEN. Victims of rape. This organization offers women male allies, to let them know that rape is not solely our responsibility.

2) It's not holding you accountable. It's saying "guess what, we know that all men aren't asshole rapists, and this is a group of men acting out against the men that do." Men Can Stop Rape was founded BY MEN. It doesn't lump you with the enemy (rapists), it's an organization that avows to RISE ABOVE the myth that all men are rapists.

The fact is, as it stands, right now women are mostly responsible for rape prevention - that is what our culture. Women are told how they must dress, act, and behave in order to prevent rape. Men, other than the rapist, are not taken into account. That's why the organization exists - to let victims of rape know that there are men who CARE that people, both WOMEN AND MEN, are raped, and find it unfair and something that needs to be changed. That you think that's misandric is frankly completely puzzling and nonsensical.


Also, I would hope that, AS A PERSON, we all work to end rape, prostitution, etc. This group, along with Men Against Violence, exists because culturally, the oft-used 'script' for dealing with rape prevention lies ONLY with women.

It appears to me, from her various rants on The Guardian and The F Word, that she makes the claim that she's not against men, but masculinity. This seems to me to be proposing a system that abhors difference as 'wrong', where if we are not all exactly identical with regards to our interpretations of gender then those who women who are more feminine, those men who are more masculine are 'wrong' and their traits necessarily destructive. Perhaps misandry is an inept title here, I suppose bigot fits better.

I'm no expert on Valenti, but she talks about CERTAIN ASPECTS of masculinity. The fact is, femininity and masculinity are, in essence, cultural concepts that WE have created. There are positives and negatives to both. The idea of GLORIFIED masculinity is something that Valenti combats - and these things are issues our society has labeled as 'masculine,' but are not necessarily inherent to the male sex.

For instance, the issue of crying. Everyone will choose to express emotions differently, but our culture considers it 'masculine' to be stoic and not cry. This is a false issue, something not inherent to masculinity, but men crying in our society earns them ridicule. And this is wrong - and a double standard. But, I'm not going to belabor this point as Lolotea summarized nicely.


I guess main takeaway - I think you don't quite understand Valenti's point, or even realize what she's getting at when she talks about harmful masculinity. :-/