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

[AtheistConservative]

If the game could truly stand on its multiplayer then all the players would be female and nothing would really come of it.

If it was more of single player game, then its success would come down to whether or not it had a strong "Men are dumb/weak/whatever" message. If the overall tone was essentially reversed stereotypes of the 1950's, then males who dominate the gaming market wouldn't buy it.

 

[PatSilverFox]

Totally unbalanced, feministic bullshit. That is all.

Yup that's about it.
It's not like it would actually pull in a female audience either.

 

[zeldagirl]

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.

And I see where you're getting at, and that would be great if culturally, we didn't perpetuate this notion that only women are involved in rape prevention. And honestly - as a victim of sexual assault, THAT was the script that myself, and countless other women, have received time and time again. The group was created because just the idea that all men should be against rape was NOT ENOUGH. And furthermore? It is not always reflected in the behavior of men women interact with. That's why the group is necessary. Because sometimes, the theoretical isn't enough.

 

[similar.squirrel]

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 it's an unbalanced game. What else is there to make of it?

That was both graceful and deadly.

OT: Basically what Susan said. It might work in single-player, but still.. Gender equality works both ways. The male characters need to be compensated in some way.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

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.

If this was a women's anti-rape group, would you be equally offended? Because it's easy enough to say that all responsibility for crime should rest on the criminal.

But, like it or not, society does still tend to put the onus for preventing rape on women. (And is often really ridiculous about it.)

I believe that prostitution is an overwhelmingly female crime.

...no. Mostly female, possibly, but not to the same degree that rape is overwhelmingly male.

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.

Nonsense. I know we're attempting not to view crimes in a vacuum here. But prostitution, with the health risks controlled and minus all of the social baggage surrounding it, would be about as degrading and abusive as hiring a masseuse. Rape would still be assault.

By drawing that analogy, you equated the two. And it's disingenuous to try to absolve yourself.

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.

That's an outdated definition of "bigot" that would stigmatize hate-watch groups and anyone who identifies too staunchly with a particular political party. (And, ironically, gives hate groups a free pass.)

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.

I'm sorry, but I've got a hard time giving any credence to something that sounds so much like arguments used to try to discredit anti-racism.

 

[Stabby Joe]

I recall Elder Scrolls having slightly different perks dependent on gender; pros, cons and equals.

 

[BGH122]

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.

I've already addressed these points above, but it's fine because reading through every post is a bit of a hassle so I'll re-address them:

1) Yes, rape prevention is placed on the victims of rape (both male and female) because there's literally nothing that any of the rest of us can do that'll help reduce rape in any way. The rapist alone needs to choose not to rape. I've discussed the issue of 'stop dressing like a slut' elsewhere (this thread further back, perhaps?) and my take on that response is that dressing differently won't help at all. Rapists don't rape because they're average people overcome by lust, they rape to commit sadism. Dressing like a slut is a total irrelevance before we even get into the moral implications of such statements. Know what I did to prevent rape? I joined the police. That's all I, a non-criminal, can do that's in any way efficacious.

2) My problem with overtly stating that most men are anti-rape is that it should be taken as a given and any notion to the contrary is heinously offensive. This would be akin to having a 'not all blacks are drug dealers' society: only a prejudiced scumbag wouldn't already know.

The reason that women (who're usually the victim in rape cases) are the only ones shown how to prevent it is because, other than the rapist or the police, they're the only ones who can. Learning Krav Maga (for instance) could prevent a rape. This isn't equivalent to saying that women ought to learn to defend themselves or else it's their fault, the fault will always lie solely with the rapist regardless of circumstance. I honestly don't see what non-rapist men could possibly do to prevent rape, this is what makes me assume there's some sort of presumed conspiracy of men inherent to such notions, because otherwise I literally don't understand the point of this organisation.

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. :-/

I do, she's saying that the rigid male gender role is harmful to both men and women. As I've expressed above, this is bigotry: she is saying that only her/feminist interpretations of gender roles are valid and that all others are wrong. We certainly need to loosen the enforcement of gender roles in society by gently reminding people that difference is a good thing, but flat-out declaring certain gender roles 'wrong' is just bigotry.

If this was a women's anti-rape group, would you be equally offended? Because it's easy enough to say that all responsibility for crime should rest on the criminal.

But, like it or not, society does still tend to put the onus for preventing rape on women. (And is often really ridiculous about it.)

Much as I love role-reversal exercises, I don't think they're particularly valid because hypotheticals can't really be answered honestly. So, I don't know if I'd be equally offended. I hope I would be, for it's just as illogical.

If it were teaching women how to disable rapists and escape then I don't know how I'd feel. I'd certainly be annoyed at the implication that women should take responsibility for rape, but I'd also see how such a group could actually have some efficacy.

I believe that prostitution is an overwhelmingly female crime.

...no. Mostly female, possibly, but not to the same degree that rape is overwhelmingly male.

It's hard to tell, to be honest, because up until (very) recently, the notion that a woman could rape a man wasn't taken seriously and I know amongst my colleagues the notion of female on male rape is dismissed so crime statistics aren't likely to be very helpful here. Although that sounds rather like a dodge.

Basically (when johns are removed), women are arrested for prostitution 78% of the time, so if roughly 22% of rapists are female then the analogy works.

Nonsense. I know we're attempting not to view crimes in a vacuum here. But prostitution, with the health risks controlled and minus all of the social baggage surrounding it, would be about as degrading and abusive as hiring a masseuse. Rape would still be assault.

By drawing that analogy, you equated the two. And it's disingenuous to try to absolve yourself.

I disagree, you're expecting the analogy to analogise every factor involved and that wasn't its intended purpose, as I have stated multiple times. Just to make it especially clear: rape and prostitution aren't equivalent, the percentage of male rapists and percentage of female prostitutes are similar.

That's an outdated definition of "bigot" that would stigmatize hate-watch groups and anyone who identifies too staunchly with a particular political party. (And, ironically, gives hate groups a free pass.)

It's not outdated, it's from the 2011 Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Waving it away by claiming it's outdated isn't valid. By that (current) definition, Valenti is a bigot. Secondly, it wouldn't prevent hate watch groups that are actively tracking emanation of violent crime (e.g. tracking Nazi movements to prevent violent crime against Jews), only hate watch groups that attempt to homogenise everyone's political beliefs. It doesn't give hate groups a free pass at all, hate groups fit that definition of bigotry perfectly. Please show how hate groups are given a free pass.

I'm sorry, but I've got a hard time giving any credence to something that sounds so much like arguments used to try to discredit anti-racism.

Huh? I must have misrepresented myself because Popper believes the exact opposite of that. Popper would define racist (intolerant) organisations as counter-productive to the tolerant society, because if the tolerant society were to tolerate movements which attack the foundations of the society (tolerance) then it'd become self-refuting.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Guess I'm going to have to either play as a female in this game (which would be fine) or get better at head shots or whatever.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I do, she's saying that the rigid male gender role is harmful to both men and women. As I've expressed above, this is bigotry: she is saying that only her/feminist interpretations of gender roles are valid and that all others are wrong. We certainly need to loosen the enforcement of gender roles in society by gently reminding people that difference is a good thing, but flat-out declaring certain gender roles 'wrong' is just bigotry.

Okay. You claim that she's a "bigot" because she's arguing that these roles are "wrong."

However, you admit that she argues that they're "wrong" (not a word I can recall her using, to tell the truth, but even so) because they're genuinely harmful. Do you agree that they're harmful? (It sounds to me like you actually do.) And if so, how do you justify calling someone a "bigot" for being against them?

And you do know that men get raped, too...right?

 

[Luke Brickner]

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 it's an unbalanced game. What else is there to make of it?

You need balance Its not making one inharently better than the other, Its making them play differntly, say speed verse power. you should never unbalance a game strictly for to promote a the use of a gender, that does a dis-service to the female population by basicly saying with out it no one would play them. once again balance is key without it your just insulting those you mean to impower.

 

[zombieeater6000]

sounds sexist to me

 

[BGH122]

I do, she's saying that the rigid male gender role is harmful to both men and women. As I've expressed above, this is bigotry: she is saying that only her/feminist interpretations of gender roles are valid and that all others are wrong. We certainly need to loosen the enforcement of gender roles in society by gently reminding people that difference is a good thing, but flat-out declaring certain gender roles 'wrong' is just bigotry.

Okay. You claim that she's a "bigot" because she's arguing that these roles are "wrong."

However, you admit that she argues that they're "wrong" (not a word I can recall her using, to tell the truth, but even so) because they're genuinely harmful. Do you agree that they're harmful? (It sounds to me like you actually do.) And if so, how do you justify calling someone a "bigot" for being against them?

And you do know that men get raped, too...right?

Of course, I know men get raped too. We've discussed that and I discussed it in the very post you've quoted. I honestly don't know how many men get raped for the reasons previously mentioned, but I personally know of at least one. Sadly, he said he'd never go to the police because he didn't think anyone would take him seriously. Even sadder, I think he's right.

I'm oversimplifying by saying 'wrong', but you get the gist. Do I think that such gender roles are harmful? I think they can be, but aren't necessarily. I know I'd prefer a society that tolerated things that can be harmful as long as they aren't actively harming anyone than a society which deemed certain behaviours necessarily destructive merely because they can be.

I think great care needs to be taken to show that all interpretations of gender are equally valid as it's essentially a social construct with no fixed objective truth. I think great care needs to be taken to ensure that in doing so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: that we don't deem older gender roles 'wrong' just because they hark of fixed gender roles. It's the latter we need to address, not the former; if someone wishes to act like a 50's man or a 50's woman then that's their business and as long as they don't demand others act in such a way then we have no right to judge.

what is it with this site and people calling bigotry on everything lately?

Because it perfectly fits the definition?

 

[Gamer_152]

I'd say it's a terrible piece of game design making a very questionable message.

 

[Geekosaurus]

Well that's just sexist. It can work both ways, just like everything else.

 

[Zaik]

I'd laugh, then play a male character anyway.

I'm not so reactionary that I'd let a bunch of feminine supremacists work me into a frenzy.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

what is it with this site and people calling bigotry on everything lately?

PS agree wholeheartedly with your post

Thanks! But as for your question: I really have no idea.

Of course, I know men get raped too. We've discussed that and I discussed it in the very post you've quoted. I honestly don't know how many men get raped for the reasons previously mentioned, but I personally know of at least one. Sadly, he said he'd never go to the police because he didn't think anyone would take him seriously. Even sadder, I think he's right.

I wasn't strictly talking about men getting raped by women. (And there's also the stigma against men who get raped: While people are less likely to try to blame the victim, he's going to get attacked on other counts.)

I'm oversimplifying by saying 'wrong', but you get the gist. Do I think that such gender roles are harmful? I think they can be, but aren't necessarily. I know I'd prefer a society that tolerated things that can be harmful as long as they aren't actively harming anyone than a society which deemed certain behaviours necessarily destructive merely because they can be.

I think great care needs to be taken to show that all interpretations of gender are equally valid as it's essentially a social construct with no fixed objective truth. I think great care needs to be taken to ensure that in doing so we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: that we don't deem older gender roles 'wrong' just because they hark of fixed gender roles. It's the latter we need to address, not the former; if someone wishes to act like a 50's man or a 50's woman then that's their business and as long as they don't demand others act in such a way then we have no right to judge.

Yes, I'm sure that if everyone was willing to leave well enough alone, just acting "traditional" would be all well and good.

However, our culture stigmatizes passive, deferential behavior from men. In fact, such behavior is certain to get pretty much anyone classed as weak and ineffectual; one must be assertive or even aggressive to be taken seriously. And yet, aggressive or assertive women are stigmatized to...well, at least about the same degree as passive, deferential men.

So while the gender roles themselves may not be inherently harmful, the fact that they are fixed (that is, socially enforced) is. As is the fact that "feminine" behavior is considered inherently inferior. Until neither is the case, we really won't know how many people actually prefer to conform to them.

Because it perfectly fits the definition?

An outdated definition that pretty much turns it into a synonym for "fanatic." (And I doubt she's even one of those.)

Well that's just sexist. It can work both ways, just like everything else.

Indeed, and I doubt anyone is really arguing otherwise.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around.

I'd be impressed with the game's realism. ^^ [sub]teasing... sort of[/sub]

Women are actually better shots, you know. Technically, a shooter where the women are more accurate than the men WOULD be more realistic. A good balance would be to make men better with heavy weapons, since men are (on average) stronger than women in lifting and carrying, and would therefore be less over-burdened by large assault rifles or rocket launchers.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Women are actually better shots, you know. Technically, a shooter where the women are more accurate than the men WOULD be more realistic. A good balance would be to make men better with heavy weapons, since men are (on average) stronger than women in lifting and carrying, and would therefore be less over-burdened by large assault rifles or rocket launchers.

Yes, but that would be an attempt at balance. I think the OP was trying to imply "this is an overall great game, but female characters are just better in it, full stop." There was no implication that there was any attempt to balance it.

 

[Kevon Huggins]

females characters that would level faster will make it unbalanced but give the males something else such as faster movement and strength and have it son the females get an xp 1.55 multiplier while men get a 1.35 strength and speed buff so they attack better

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Women are actually better shots, you know. Technically, a shooter where the women are more accurate than the men WOULD be more realistic. A good balance would be to make men better with heavy weapons, since men are (on average) stronger than women in lifting and carrying, and would therefore be less over-burdened by large assault rifles or rocket launchers.

Yes, but that would be an attempt at balance. I think the OP was trying to imply "this is an overall great game, but female characters are just better in it, full stop." There was no implication that there was any attempt to balance it.

Yes, I know. You did see the part where I teasingly claimed that the game would be more realistic because women were better than men, didn't you?

I was really tempted to let that stand, just to see people's reactions, but I was compelled to add the other bit for full disclosure. I'm just too honest sometimes....