The opposite of feminism in gaming?

[generals3]

Thinking about it some, though...
Woman: "Huh... Ya know what? I'd like to see more female protagonists in videogames."
Guy: "Trololol! NO! SHADDAP! STAHP! You get a ton of them! Stupid feminists!"

Nono, that's not how it's going. It's more like
Woman: Games are sexist, we need more female protagonists!
Guy: Sexist?! What?!

I know this scenario makes me a bit more sad. Looking through threads on the topic of women in videogames, and seeing people so vehemently against more female protagonsits.
Debating people who say there's nothing wrong, or refuse to believe there's something wrong.
If this small movement gets disrespected so, what does it say about other movements?

But your scenario is a strawman. And what is wrong? So little female protagonists in a game genre which based on the little data available is disliked by women? That's not wrong, that's marketing doing its job.

I'm not saying all guys are bad, and against it, though. No misandry here. Just saying it baffles me how people can argue against it with sincerity. I can assume reasons, and all, but that doesn't make them more right to me.
I can understand doing it because they're bored, but that's not a whole lot better.
But I guess either way it helps as these threads grow, and get attention, and become more numerous.

It shouldn't be any more baffling than gamers fighting against people like Jack Thompson. We don't like baseless accusations against games, that's all.

I mean sure women aren't getting tortured with the expanding pear, or heavy iron masks for speaking out, and yelling at their husbands, and aren't pressured to wear whalebone corsettes that deform them, and generally are treated better in society than they were even a few decades ago, but, well, there's always one more bug.

However that bug doesn't exist, well it may but has yet to be proven, no reason to fight a bug which may or may not be there. (and most likely isn't there)

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Thinking about it some, though...
Woman: "Huh... Ya know what? I'd like to see more female protagonists in videogames."
Guy: "Trololol! NO! SHADDAP! STAHP! You get a ton of them! Stupid feminists!"

Nono, that's not how it's going. It's more like
Woman: Games are sexist, we need more female protagonists!
Guy: Sexist?! What?!

Not a whole lot better there. I mean points get brought up. You wanna call it marketing, that's fine, but don't expect people to buy the excuse. Things won't change if no one has a problem with it.

And believe me, I asked for female protagonists without mentioning sexism in the past, and got called a feminist, and sexism was brought in anyhow. There's no right way to ask for more female protagonists.

I know this scenario makes me a bit more sad. Looking through threads on the topic of women in videogames, and seeing people so vehemently against more female protagonsits.
Debating people who say there's nothing wrong, or refuse to believe there's something wrong.
If this small movement gets disrespected so, what does it say about other movements?

But your scenario is a strawman. And what is wrong? So little female protagonists in a game genre which based on the little data available is disliked by women? That's not wrong, that's marketing doing its job.

A little empathy for the people being excluded, and alienated would be nice, you know. That's part of the problem, here. People are so eager to slam the door on the notion of more female protagonists, too. Feels problematic to me.

I'm not saying all guys are bad, and against it, though. No misandry here. Just saying it baffles me how people can argue against it with sincerity. I can assume reasons, and all, but that doesn't make them more right to me.
I can understand doing it because they're bored, but that's not a whole lot better.
But I guess either way it helps as these threads grow, and get attention, and become more numerous.

It shouldn't be any more baffling than gamers fighting against people like Jack Thompson. We don't like baseless accusations against games, that's all.

Yeah, but there's a lot more point in calling sexism than the notion that videogames lead to violence.

As distasteful as it is to think about, the fact that this "marketing" people use as an excuse allows female protagonsits to get treated more poorly than male protagonists like getting replaced with males, and prominent female characters get relegated to the back of the box (or nearly so), or denied straight relationships in fear of hurting sales, or denied as much advertisement budget exists. This kinda screams some ill feelings towards women. And what do you call it when one gender gets treated better, or worse in a situation based solely on the gender?

Jim Sterling practically spells it out on more than one video, and does so in an amusing, animated, and generally well done manner. having been aware of a lot of what be brought up well before he did, I can say he nails what problems he
brings up, but that's not all of them.

And for strawman insurance, I hope,
http://www.giantbomb.com/sleeping-dogs/3030-29441/
http://www.gamecritics.com/brad-gallaway/brink-no-girls-allowed
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/games-with-female-heroes-dont-sell-because-publishers-dont-support-them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/123139-Devs-Had-to-Demand-Female-Focus-Testers-for-The-Last-of-Us
http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/remember-mes-surprising-connection-to-facebook-and-why-its-protagonist-had
http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/01/god-of-war-ascension-multiplayer/ or http://www.gameinformer.com/games/god_of_war_ascension/b/ps3/archive/2012/04/30/sony-unveils-god-of-war-ascensions-multiplayer.aspx
I dare not link Anita here, but she's brought up Dinosaur Planet at the least.
Jimquisition isn't hard to find on the escapist, and he has several videos on the subject.
And that's something of a sliver of the stuff I've encountered.

Sure we get the occassional playable female (Largely in the watered down multiplayer modes. I'm looking at you R*.) but there's still extremely few female protagonists, and what few there are are scattered to the four+ corners of the non PC gaming universe that you've gotta be pretty well off to get them. 360, Vita, ps3, wii(u), 3ds. I can't afford to buy all those systems to play female protagonists!

Don't get me wrong, I certainly don't mind sexualization in videogames. It's generally spread out. I enjoy eyecandy as much as the next person, too!
I certainly don't believe videogames cause violence. Anyone set off by videogames into acts of violence was already on the brink, IMO.
Basically I don't really support Jack Thompson.

Also, maybe some humor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNoYk1_njJQ

Essentially, for me, what it boils down to, is I want more female protagonist games on store shelves. And hopefully not terrible games.

I mean sure women aren't getting tortured with the expanding pear, or heavy iron masks for speaking out, and yelling at their husbands, and aren't pressured to wear whalebone corsettes that deform them, and generally are treated better in society than they were even a few decades ago, but, well, there's always one more bug.

However that bug doesn't exist, well it may but has yet to be proven, no reason to fight a bug which may or may not be there. (and most likely isn't there)

Proof isn't the end all, and be all. What bugs people varies from person to person from time to time. The sexism in the videogame industry is hardly the only bug of sadness biting me. Thing is the inequities in videogames bug of sadness doesn't bite on everyone. That's fine.

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm not making a strawman argument.

No, you're just repeating one verbatim. But again, this goes to the thoughtlessness argument I was making.

in the same way a group of sports enthusiasts talking about sports might be uncomfortable to someone who doesn't follow sports.

And now you're make a case of false equivalence. Come on. I doubt anyone's missed out on a job for not following or following sports. Don't trivialise legit complaints AS you're complaining about imaginary feminists who think that there's some conspiracy.

As for women being treated like shit in gaming, what exactly do you mean? As in player interactions? Or poor characterisation?

Yes.

the male side of things isn't a problem and can't be complained about.

And again with the strawmen. This has been fairly well-explained on this site both by posters and Jim Sterling.

It's really not that much to ask for an argument actually grounded in reality.

 

[Something Amyss]

You wanna call it marketing, that's fine, but don't expect people to buy the excuse.

Not to mention an excuse doesn't make it "not sexism."

I get the logic behind this and everything, but it doesn't change its status as sexism. One of the big reasons the justifications come up is to establish gaming as not sexist. But saying women don't play these games and men won't buy them doesn't make that true, it just reaffirms the sexism.

Captcha: One Way. Seems fitting somehow.

 

[Wyvern65]

A little empathy for the people being excluded, and alienated would be nice, you know. That's part of the problem, here. People are so eager to slam the door on the notion of more female protagonists, too. Feels problematic to me.

Mental experiment:

Imagine what kind of reaction a man would get if he went on a forum devoted to harlequin romance novels and said: "I like romance novels. I want to buy more romance novels. I wish there were more romance novels with male protagonists."

Now imagine what would happen if over time larger and larger numbers of men really did start reading harlequin romance novels, to the point where changes were being made in the fundamental conventions of the genre by publishers to keep and attract more of that male audience. Some women would grumble and complain about the men who came along and were ruining everything.

It's not so much that some male gamers are sexist per se as it is that gaming was (historically speaking) a gendered form of entertainment - as gendered as romance novels. I'm not saying it should have been one or that it's good that it was or that it should stay that way, but that's the simple reality. Games were made for and marketed to young men.

Yes, there have always been women in gaming and interested in gaming (and I'm sure there are men who enjoy romance novels as well) but what we've all been watching play out this past 5 years or so is the attempts of an entire industry and its consumers to adjust to the reality of a massive demographic shift in the market. It hasn't been pretty and probably won't be pretty for the next few years.

The pushback from a core group of male gamers isn't all that hard to understand from that perspective. People like things a certain way, and along comes a group that wants to change it. This is the actual problem we're all seeing. The sexism that comes to the fore as the combatants reach for their instinctive weapons to use against each other is the side-effect, not the actual disease.

I find it useful to compare what's happening in gaming now to what happened in science fiction writing in the 60's and 70's. SF as a genre in the west was popularized in boy's adventure magazines. As a medium it was both aged and gendered. Women writers and female viewpoints and concerns were vanishingly rare. During the change a lot of contentious things were said and a lot of extreme positions staked out. I'd say by and large things worked out in the end. Maybe that example can give us a modicum of hope.

 

[generals3]

As distasteful as it is to think about, the fact that this "marketing" people use as an excuse allows female protagonsits to get treated more poorly than male protagonists like getting replaced with males, and prominent female characters get relegated to the back of the box (or nearly so), or denied straight relationships in fear of hurting sales, or denied as much advertisement budget exists. This kinda screams some ill feelings towards women. And what do you call it when one gender gets treated better, or worse in a situation based solely on the gender

Let me just tell you why you're doing it wrong by addressing this.

Here is what your last phrase should actually be:
"And what do you call it when one gender gets treated better, or worse in a situation based solely on the profits?"

Capitalism. That's what i call it. You need some deep introspection because it seems your quarrel is with Capitalism. I know that being anti-capitalist doesn't get the same sympathy as being anti-sexism, but it would be more honest.

 

[generals3]

You wanna call it marketing, that's fine, but don't expect people to buy the excuse.

Not to mention an excuse doesn't make it "not sexism."

I get the logic behind this and everything, but it doesn't change its status as sexism. One of the big reasons the justifications come up is to establish gaming as not sexist. But saying women don't play these games and men won't buy them doesn't make that true, it just reaffirms the sexism.

Captcha: One Way. Seems fitting somehow.

How does it reaffirm the sexism? It actually affirms that from a company perspective the decision is not based on sexes but profits. Which is what i would call capitalism. It's like saying a company is sexist because it pays its female employees less despite the fact they work 50hours a week on average while the men work 60 hours on average. That's not sexism, that's just basing the money spent on employees on the work they provide and thus value they generate for the company.

 

[Mr F.]

We live in a society that is, in times of emergency and immediate danger, decidedly "Women and children first!". We are also mammals, that, with very few exceptions, leave the violence entirely to males - it's their biological role, their niche, and it's not really something we can do anything about.

Whilst none of us really want or like them, we do have these prescribed gender roles, but it isn't society that prescribed them - it's neurology, not sociology. The very large parts of our brains that are still chimps and lizards expect the females to squeeze out ickle babbies, and the men to die protecting those bundles of joy.

Except that's not actually true. Gender-stratified roles through history have been almost exclusively the domain of the upper classes, who tended to either keep upper class women down or at least misrepresent them afterward (those in power get to write the histories). What we know of most periods of human history for everyone else (<url=http://sandradodd.com/sca/womenandwork>including some with stereotypes in the other direction), not to mention currently existing hunter-gatherer societies, is that human relations tend towards egalitarianism and separate "men's and women's" work is <url=http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Division_of_labor.aspx>fairly recent.

I'm also trying to think which mammal species leaves violence exclusively to males, unless you're referring only to intraspecies competition for mates. I can't think of any when it comes to hunting or defense, except maybe wild pigs.

Cheers, I was gonna get involved but I have a DnD game to run. The whole "Men and Womens" work came about during the industrial revolution. Before then, Jack and Jill both worked in the fields together and they both raised the kids together, those kids would then work in the field together regardless of sex because you cannot say "You sit around and do jack shit" when doing so could cause the entire family to starve.

This ends up hinting on something that pisses me off to no end.

Why is it that with regards to sociology or Media and Cultural studies people think they can say whatever they want and be treated as equals? If I have never opened a physics textbook and I lecture a friend of mine, who is doing physics, on gravity he has the right to tell me to fuck myself and that I have no clue. So many people are so very very willing to attack concepts they do not understand because they have never opened a book (I am a sociology major, I get this a lot). Particularly the whole "Patriarchy is a myth" crowd. No, no it is not. We study it. Its a thing. It is a valid term used within sociology.

*rant over*

EDIT:

You're quoting mainly from feminist separatists, which is a sub-movement of feminism and by far not the entire discipline (and taking a few other feminists severely out of context).

*SNIP*

You'd also be in a fix to explain away male feminists (who are themselves not anti-male) such as Allan Johnson, Michael Flood, Marc Feigen Fasteau, John Stoltenberg, and little known names like John Stuart Mill.

For the same reason some jewish people run around screaming about how a secretive cabal known as the NWO (new world order), uses commercial planes to drop chemicals on us to do something endefined but evil.

Because ignorance is not restricted to any particular demographic: And bullshit has an inisidious alure.

John Stuart Mill is one of the most influential theorists there has ever been. A really fucking important guy. You should read some of his stuff before lumping him in with morons. Seriously. Also: Your statements are wrong. You like to use the term objectively, so so shall I.

Your statements are false. Incorrect. Feminism is an intellectual discourse and a movement (Important to remember). The things that feminism dislikes are things that we should all dislike (Gender bias, gendered roles, the patriarchy). Objectively, there are many issues which women and men face in this modern world that feminism is trying to change.

So.

Unless you are willing to actually drag out some core nuggets here and explain why the central theories behind feminism can be shown to be "Objectively" wrong, you are talking out of one of your orifices not normally associated with speech. I am not saying go find video of a feminist doing something, I am not saying go find a blog post by a moron. I am saying go and read some actual bona-fide feminist literature and THEN come to a conclusion.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'm not making a strawman argument.

No, you're just repeating one verbatim. But again, this goes to the thoughtlessness argument I was making.

in the same way a group of sports enthusiasts talking about sports might be uncomfortable to someone who doesn't follow sports.

And now you're make a case of false equivalence. Come on. I doubt anyone's missed out on a job for not following or following sports. Don't trivialise legit complaints AS you're complaining about imaginary feminists who think that there's some conspiracy.

As for women being treated like shit in gaming, what exactly do you mean? As in player interactions? Or poor characterisation?

Yes.

the male side of things isn't a problem and can't be complained about.

And again with the strawmen. This has been fairly well-explained on this site both by posters and Jim Sterling.

It's really not that much to ask for an argument actually grounded in reality.

Since I'm not so good with the quotes:

Where did I repeat my argument from, verbatum?

Nowadays there are plenty of fields open to both genders that some feminists believe are closed to women purely because they are male-dominated, which isn't in itself a sign of sexism, especially when far more males apply. Also, if you don't think there are people who believe that society is passively structured to keep women out of certain roles or professions, then we apparently have had a different experience. I think they exist and you don't.

Come on, you had one or the other in mind. But to address both, you can't force everyone to be decent people regardless of the community in general, and poor characterisation of females tends to be because they're not important to the game. Main characters in gameplay-oriented games don't have to be more than having a motivation and a means, and other characters can be used as objectives without much effort either. It just so happens that males are easier to explain as physical journeying/platforming characters and a female is an easy way to provide a motivation.

Apparently it hasn't gotten through to stupid me, a fairly regular reader of these threads. If you wouldn't mind telling me actually what you are arguing I would be much obliged, "You are using strawmen and should know you're wrong" isn't much to go off. I happen to disagree with Jim on this part of the issue, mainly in the areas that men being objectified is the problem (men being objects is not a desirable thing, men being useful is) and that women being physically attractive is considered by women not to be a particularly good trait. Women, even as main characters, aren't often at least inoffensively attractive, but nor are men often less than reasonably well-built.

 

[LAGG]

Why is there no masculinism? Remind me when a culture was so much in favor of women being in power, in charge, and otherwise dominant that men had to fight for their rights, like voting?

Or when men were lawfully subject to wearing heavy metal masks that demonized them as witches just for talking, and being belligerent to their spouses?

I wonder how many men were burned at the stake for witchcraft?

So we should all base our activism on what happened in the middle ages? You realize how absurd that sounds? Should we start a free Congo movement here in Belgium because it used to be a colony? Surely you'd agree how such an argument makes very little sense.

Meanwhile in this day and age men are less happy and live less long than women. And unlike some feminists I believe happiness is more important than random numbers about gender representation. I'd rather be poor and happy than a CEO and on Prozac.

Actually i just found this: "By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women's happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women's declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging -- one with higher subjective well-being for men. "
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.pdf?new_window=1

Funny how women are less happy nowadays than during those evil patriarchal times...

If I had shares in pharmaceutical companies which make anti-depressants i'd be tempted to join the feminist crusade to reduce female happiness.

Oh course we shouldn't work based on the distant past with practices no longer practiced. You really misunderstood what I replying to.
I was asked why there wasn't any masculinism. I pointed out why.

Thinking about it some, though...
Woman: "Huh... Ya know what? I'd like to see more female protagonists in videogames."
Guy: "Trololol! NO! SHADDAP! STAHP! You get a ton of them! Stupid feminists!"

I know this scenario makes me a bit more sad. Looking through threads on the topic of women in videogames, and seeing people so vehemently against more female protagonsits.
Debating people who say there's nothing wrong, or refuse to believe there's something wrong.
If this small movement gets disrespected so, what does it say about other movements?

I'm not saying all guys are bad, and against it, though. No misandry here. Just saying it baffles me how people can argue against it with sincerity. I can assume reasons, and all, but that doesn't make them more right to me.
I can understand doing it because they're bored, but that's not a whole lot better.
But I guess either way it helps as these threads grow, and get attention, and become more numerous.

I mean sure women aren't getting tortured with the expanding pear, or heavy iron masks for speaking out, and yelling at their husbands, and aren't pressured to wear whalebone corsettes that deform them, and generally are treated better in society than they were even a few decades ago, but, well, there's always one more bug.

In fact many people couldn't care less for what's protagonist gender is as long as the gameplay (which's what actually matter) is good.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

A little empathy for the people being excluded, and alienated would be nice, you know. That's part of the problem, here. People are so eager to slam the door on the notion of more female protagonists, too. Feels problematic to me.

Mental experiment:

Imagine what kind of reaction a man would get if he went on a forum devoted to harlequin romance novels and said: "I like romance novels. I want to buy more romance novels. I wish there were more romance novels with male protagonists."

Now imagine what would happen if over time larger and larger numbers of men really did start reading harlequin romance novels, to the point where changes were being made in the fundamental conventions of the genre by publishers to keep and attract more of that male audience. Some women would grumble and complain about the men who came along and were ruining everything.

It's not so much that some male gamers are sexist per se as it is that gaming was (historically speaking) a gendered form of entertainment - as gendered as romance novels. I'm not saying it should have been one or that it's good that it was or that it should stay that way, but that's the simple reality. Games were made for and marketed to young men.

Yes, there have always been women in gaming and interested in gaming (and I'm sure there are men who enjoy romance novels as well) but what we've all been watching play out this past 5 years or so is the attempts of an entire industry and its consumers to adjust to the reality of a massive demographic shift in the market. It hasn't been pretty and probably won't be pretty for the next few years.

The pushback from a core group of male gamers isn't all that hard to understand from that perspective. People like things a certain way, and along comes a group that wants to change it. This is the actual problem we're all seeing. The sexism that comes to the fore as the combatants reach for their instinctive weapons to use against each other is the side-effect, not the actual disease.

I find it useful to compare what's happening in gaming now to what happened in science fiction writing in the 60's and 70's. SF as a genre in the west was popularized in boy's adventure magazines. As a medium it was both aged and gendered. Women writers and female viewpoints and concerns were vanishingly rare. During the change a lot of contentious things were said and a lot of extreme positions staked out. I'd say by and large things worked out in the end. Maybe that example can give us a modicum of hope.

I keep coming back to the simple question.
"Is it right?"

Would it be right for the man to be excluded, and treated poorly if he wanted to see more male point of view romance novels?

I have a general idea of what's going on, but is it an exuse? I think not. As soon as we accept any excuse it gives the people who fight against a more egalitarian gaming industry more power.

I recognize it won't be a quick, and dirty fight to win in making gaming more progressive to the point that both genders are well represented as protagonists, and all ethnicities as well. Still, it's something that a lot of people evidently feel needs to be done.

I have some hope it's going to change. The change justneeds continued support.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

As distasteful as it is to think about, the fact that this "marketing" people use as an excuse allows female protagonsits to get treated more poorly than male protagonists like getting replaced with males, and prominent female characters get relegated to the back of the box (or nearly so), or denied straight relationships in fear of hurting sales, or denied as much advertisement budget exists. This kinda screams some ill feelings towards women. And what do you call it when one gender gets treated better, or worse in a situation based solely on the gender

Let me just tell you why you're doing it wrong by addressing this.

Here is what your last phrase should actually be:
"And what do you call it when one gender gets treated better, or worse in a situation based solely on the profits?"

Capitalism. That's what i call it. You need some deep introspection because it seems your quarrel is with Capitalism. I know that being anti-capitalist doesn't get the same sympathy as being anti-sexism, but it would be more honest.

How does that change the fact that women are being treated worse in videogames? How does itmake that any less sexist? How does that make the gaming industry any less sexist?

I don't buy the excuse.

 

[generals3]

As distasteful as it is to think about, the fact that this "marketing" people use as an excuse allows female protagonsits to get treated more poorly than male protagonists like getting replaced with males, and prominent female characters get relegated to the back of the box (or nearly so), or denied straight relationships in fear of hurting sales, or denied as much advertisement budget exists. This kinda screams some ill feelings towards women. And what do you call it when one gender gets treated better, or worse in a situation based solely on the gender

Let me just tell you why you're doing it wrong by addressing this.

Here is what your last phrase should actually be:
"And what do you call it when one gender gets treated better, or worse in a situation based solely on the profits?"

Capitalism. That's what i call it. You need some deep introspection because it seems your quarrel is with Capitalism. I know that being anti-capitalist doesn't get the same sympathy as being anti-sexism, but it would be more honest.

How does that change the fact that women are being treated worse in videogames? How does itmake that any less sexist? How does that make the gaming industry any less sexist?

I don't buy the excuse.

Because the reason why a female protagonist is being transformed into a male one isn't due to her gender but profit. Sexism is when something is done just based on gender, here it is done based on profit. Meaning it's not sexist but capitalistic.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Because the reason why a female protagonist is being transformed into a male one isn't due to her gender but profit. Sexism is when something is done just based on gender, here it is done based on profit. Meaning it's not sexist but capitalistic.

But it is still done to the female gender. And the female gender gets treated worse than the male gender as a result.
Thus, sexism.

Simply put if one gender gets treated worse than the other, it's sexism. Period.

 

[generals3]

Because the reason why a female protagonist is being transformed into a male one isn't due to her gender but profit. Sexism is when something is done just based on gender, here it is done based on profit. Meaning it's not sexist but capitalistic.

But it is still done to the female gender. And the female gender gets treated worse than the male gender as a result.
Thus, sexism.

Simply put if one gender gets treated worse than the other, it's sexism. Period.

So if i own a company and all my female employees work 50 hours per week and all my male ones work 60 hours per week and pay more to my male employees because they work more it is sexism because the output is segregated by sex and thus as a consequence the salaries i pay? Because that's exactly the same.

 

[Dragonbums]

You're quoting mainly from feminist separatists, which is a sub-movement of feminism and by far not the entire discipline (and taking a few other feminists severely out of context).

Oh goody, you are bringing out that old chesnut: NAFALT.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what brand of feminism it is, its not the brand of feminism that is the problem, its the feminism part that is the problem.

Even in practice today it has become abundantly clear & over the later half of the last century it become pretty obvious. Oh sure it talks a good game, says all the right things, but the fact remains that it doesn't matter how many times i say "i love you & i'll never hurt you," if i then procced to punch you in the face then what i'm saying & what i'm doing are not synching up.

In other words its all well and good to say "we want equality of the genders" & than instead of doing that, lie, threaten & obfiscate facts to ones own benefit. Because equality, real equality means equality of oppurtunity & equality of responsibility... what it doesn't mean is cry about your victimhood until the government gives in & denounce anyone who points out you are objectively talking shit as a sexist: Kind of like what happened at the Toronto University a few months back.... Unless of course you want to give an excuse for why those feminists where not the right kind of feminists too.

The problem with feminism, as i mentioned in this very thread is that its incapable of doing what it says it wants to do & feminists have become way more interested in being feminists, than finding an answer. Because its always been easier to pretend to be martyrs to a cause, than it is to admit you are personally tilting at windmills.

You'd also be in a fix to explain away male feminists (who are themselves not anti-male) such as Allan Johnson, Michael Flood, Marc Feigen Fasteau, John Stoltenberg, and little known names like John Stuart Mill.

For the same reason some jewish people run around screaming about how a secretive cabal known as the NWO (new world order), uses commercial planes to drop chemicals on us to do something endefined but evil.

Because ignorance is not restricted to any particular demographic: And bullshit has an inisidious alure.

I have seen arguments like this time and time again.
There are many levels to any group. Feminists included. In every group, you will find extremists, hypocrites, and moderate people.
The issue I'm finding with your argument, is that it's starting to devolve into not addressing any of the points the poster him/herself is saying.

For instance I say "I'm a feminist, and I wish men who get raped get the same help, and attention as if a woman got raped." and you reply in kind by saying "Feminists don't want that. Feminists want to do blah blah blah"
Yet here is a feminist telling you right in front of you that she/he wishes for more equality in a situation you call for more equality for.
You aren't addressing the posters opinion. Rather you are simply talking to the omnipotent movement called feminism, and what YOU think it represents.

The thing I see with these arguments is that you bring up the opinions of the most loon nuts that we had the unfortune of identifying as us, and you are using those few ding bats to represent the face of feminism and further your argument that we are some kind of secret illuminati.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Because the reason why a female protagonist is being transformed into a male one isn't due to her gender but profit. Sexism is when something is done just based on gender, here it is done based on profit. Meaning it's not sexist but capitalistic.

But it is still done to the female gender. And the female gender gets treated worse than the male gender as a result.
Thus, sexism.

Simply put if one gender gets treated worse than the other, it's sexism. Period.

So if i own a company and all my female employees work 50 hours per week and all my male ones work 60 hours per week and pay more to my male employees because they work more it is sexism because the output is segregated by sex and thus as a consequence the salaries i pay? Because that's exactly the same.

Is the job paid by the hour as most usually are? Is it the same job? If so, then the ONLY diffirence in pay should be that 10 hours worth the men work more. They shouldn't get bonuses just because they work longer on top of the hourly wage. The reason they might be dissatisfied with that is, well, they would view the women as getting the better deal in having less hours... because it's sexist.

If women worked those 60 hours they should get paid the same amount as the men on payday.

Now, why on earth would you make men work longer anyhow? Seems like sexism right there. Someone's being treated better, there.

So, yes, sexism. On many levels.

 

[Dragonbums]

Because the reason why a female protagonist is being transformed into a male one isn't due to her gender but profit. Sexism is when something is done just based on gender, here it is done based on profit. Meaning it's not sexist but capitalistic.

But it is still done to the female gender. And the female gender gets treated worse than the male gender as a result.
Thus, sexism.

Simply put if one gender gets treated worse than the other, it's sexism. Period.

So if i own a company and all my female employees work 50 hours per week and all my male ones work 60 hours per week and pay more to my male employees because they work more it is sexism because the output is segregated by sex and thus as a consequence the salaries i pay? Because that's exactly the same.

No. If both your male and female peers work 60 hours per week, working just as hard doing the same work and you pay your male employees more than your female employees that's sexism.