The opposite of feminism in gaming?

[generals3]

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.

Way to start asking so many irrelevant question to dodge the issue. The point is if all women work less than all the men working for me than it is perfectly natural for me to give a higher salary to the men? Right? Or should i lower the men's hourly salary just so men and women are paid equally? (and when i meant segregated i meant by the employees themselves, they create that segregation by choice, the men decided to work 60 hours and the women 50 hours)

It's exactly the same with video games: Female protagonist would result in less income? Priority to the male. The sex is merely relevant by the profits it generates. Just like my longer working employees create more value. That fact that one sex creates less value than the other doesn't make the choice to favor the one creating more revenue "sexist". It's capitalistic. It's based on profit.

 

[generals3]

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.

Why? Why would you answer to a question based on a scenario with the answer on a totally different one?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

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.

Way to start asking so many irrelevant question to dodge the issue. The point is if all women work less than all the men working for me than it is perfectly natural for me to give a higher salary to the men? Right? Or should i lower the men's hourly salary just so men and women are paid equally? (and when i meant segregated i meant by the employees themselves, they create that segregation by choice, the men decided to work 60 hours and the women 50 hours)

It's not irrelevenat. Dififrent jobs in a company have diffirent pay wages. If a guy was doing a more hazardous, dangerous line of work for those 60 hours while women were doing a safer line of work, then obviously they'd be paid diffirently.
I.E. if your company was a mining operation and the men handled the explosives, and mined while the women handled the heavy machinery which I figure is a lot safer. Then the hourly wage could be diffirent.
But if the women and men both handled the explosives, and mined, they should be paid the same hour to hour.

It's hardly my fault you gave absolutely no details in your hypothetical situation.

I've humored it enough.

Here's where your idealistic little hypothetical situation falls apart. I wasn't part of any meeting where men and women agreed that videogames, and the videogame industry should be unfair to women.

 

[Dragonbums]

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.

Why? Why would you answer to a question based on a scenario with the answer on a totally different one?

You are getting the equal pay for equal work scenario wrong.
I don't think there has ever been a business where a specific gender has to work more/less hours. Taking away other factors like what they are doing and what rank they are in at the job, paying the men more would be logical because they are working more than the women.
However, again, this is a situation that makes no sense even hypothetically because something like this has never happened in real life.
If so, then there are some clear negative motives behind that. Like purposefully giving the woman less hours than men so you don't have to pay them as much. So what would happen if a woman requests for more hours? Would he say no?
That however is off topic.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

SNIP

I like how you cut out the central part of my post where I mention some of the most famous feminist theorists ever, such as BELL HOOKS and JUDITH BUTLER whose theories can't possibly be misconstrued into man-hate, yet are defining texts of feminist scholarship.

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.

And please, oh please, find me evidence of how Allan Johnson and John Stuart Mill hate men. Otherwise you're just full of empty rhetoric, which I know you are, since I'm familiar with works from the four of them.

I'd post more, but there's only so much time I'm willing to burn on obvious trolls.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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.

You've never negotiated a salary? What about bonuses? Promotions? I'm worried the 'everyone in the job should get equal pay' argument simplifies things too much.

Everything being equal, bosses will unconsciously give better starting salaries, bonuses and promotions for stupid things like skin color, height, and gender. It's not a hard bias to spot; I've had people assume I'm in charge because I'm tall, male, and white (my boss at the time was this little latino woman). Thing is, a lot of the people making the assumption weren't tall white men themselves.

There's a lot more to this than just evil white men plotting against everyone else. It's something that everyone in our society has internalized.

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.

This I agree with. There is an overwhelming majority of feminists, prominent feminists, who not only don't hate men but are concerned about the negative effects that patriarchy has on men. Freeing men from limiting gender roles isn't anti-feminism, it's feminism.

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.

Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons.

 

[generals3]

You are getting the equal pay for equal work scenario wrong.
I don't think there has ever been a business where a specific gender has to work more/less hours. Taking away other factors like what they are doing and what rank they are in at the job, paying the men more would be logical because they are working more than the women.
However, again, this is a situation that makes no sense even hypothetically because something like this has never happened in real life.
If so, then there are some clear negative motives behind that. Like purposefully giving the woman less hours than men so you don't have to pay them as much. So what would happen if a woman requests for more hours? Would he say no?
That however is off topic.

But it was a hypothetical scenario. Its realism is irrelevant. It was to illustrate that in a capitalistic market if you favor one gender over an other because they bring in more value it is not sexism. It's just pure capitalism. If a male employee works more than a woman he will be paid more. Not because he has a penis but because he works more. If a game featuring a female protagonists is expected to sell less it will get a lower marketing budget, not because the protagonist has a vagina but because the game isn't expected to generate the same revenue stream. The fact that value creation goes hand in hand with gender in the case of AAA video games doesn't make the pursuit to profit "sexism".

 

[generals3]

Here's where your idealistic little hypothetical situation falls apart. I wasn't part of any meeting where men and women agreed that videogames, and the videogame industry should be unfair to women.

Here's something for you: Capitalism isn't fair. Capitalism aims to maximize profits. If not pleasing you does that than you're screwed. Want to change that, might want to look into Marxism.

And (because you seem to be dedicated on missing the so obvious point):
"It was to illustrate that in a capitalistic market if you favor one gender over an other because they bring in more value it is not sexism. It's just pure capitalism. If a male employee works more than a woman he will be paid more. Not because he has a penis but because he works more. If a game featuring a female protagonists is expected to sell less it will get a lower marketing budget, not because the protagonist has a vagina but because the game isn't expected to generate the same revenue stream. The fact that value creation goes hand in hand with gender in the case of AAA video games doesn't make the pursuit to profit "sexism"."

 

[Dragonbums]

You are getting the equal pay for equal work scenario wrong.
I don't think there has ever been a business where a specific gender has to work more/less hours. Taking away other factors like what they are doing and what rank they are in at the job, paying the men more would be logical because they are working more than the women.
However, again, this is a situation that makes no sense even hypothetically because something like this has never happened in real life.
If so, then there are some clear negative motives behind that. Like purposefully giving the woman less hours than men so you don't have to pay them as much. So what would happen if a woman requests for more hours? Would he say no?
That however is off topic.

But it was a hypothetical scenario. Its realism is irrelevant. It was to illustrate that in a capitalistic market if you favor one gender over an other because they bring in more value it is not sexism. It's just pure capitalism. If a male employee works more than a woman he will be paid more. Not because he has a penis but because he works more. If a game featuring a female protagonists is expected to sell less it will get a lower marketing budget, not because the protagonist has a vagina but because the game isn't expected to generate the same revenue stream. The fact that value creation goes hand in hand with gender in the case of AAA video games doesn't make the pursuit to profit "sexism".

But nowhere in your scenario did you indicate that the men were more valuable than the women.
All you stated was that for whatever reason, all the men at the job were working more than the women. We don't know what job they are doing. For all we know, the men could be overworked janitors. This is where your situation falls apart.

As for female protagonists, the industry has assumed wrong about their consumer base on many things. They said Skyrim couldn't sell due to no multiplayer, and sales blew through the roof.
There have been plenty of games featuring female protagonists that have sold millions.
Because nobody but the most sheltered manchildren give two cents about the leading role of a game.
All they care about is if the game is good.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

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.

Not only that, but here's the big fucking point behind feminism: Patriarchy isn't a plot by evil men. Men aren't secretly discussing how we can oppress women. That's not what feminists think.

If people just can't imagine women in prominent, self-determining roles, that's what patriarchy really is. Feminism isn't just concerned with intentional 'sexism' or discrimination against women, it's concerned with the limiting, unconscious, and arbitrary roles that constrain both men and women. It's not just about being 'equal' under law, it's about being full people.

 

[generals3]

But nowhere in your scenario did you indicate that the men were more valuable than the women.
All you stated was that for whatever reason, all the men at the job were working more than the women. We don't know what job they are doing. For all we know, the men could be overworked janitors. This is where your situation falls apart.

As for female protagonists, the industry has assumed wrong about their consumer base on many things. They said Skyrim couldn't sell due to no multiplayer, and sales blew through the roof.
There have been plenty of games featuring female protagonists that have sold millions.
Because nobody but the most sheltered manchildren give two cents about the leading role of a game.
All they care about is if the game is good.

If the leading role doesn't matter, why are we even having this conversation? Oh right... I'm sorry that i prefer to have my leading character to have the same gender as I do because it's easier to project myself into his story.

And It is possible the industry is wrong... But... and this is probably the 100th time i ask for it: show me the market research! If i can chose between trusting big companies who have people who work full time on understanding the market and random posters who i guess in many cases haven't even followed a marketing 101 course the choice is easy.

 

[generals3]

Not only that, but it's kinda the big fucking point of feminism. Patriarchy isn't a plot by evil men. Men aren't secretly discussing how we can oppress women. That's not what feminists think.

If people just can't imagine women in prominent, self-determining roles, that's what patriarchy really is. Feminism isn't just concerned with intentional 'sexism' or discrimination against women, it's concerned with the limiting, unconscious, and arbitrary roles that constrain both men and women. It's not just about being 'equal' under law, it's about being full people.

You're making a lot of assumptions. The AAA gaming segment is dominated by men, what if there are many men like me who prefer their protagonists to have the same gender? That in itself would be giving the protagonist a penis a good reason. And has nothing to do with the typical feminist propaganda.

And please, feminists don't give a rats ass about men. And no, it's not because they talk about it 1% of the time to try and pretend that those disagreeing with them should join them because they give a shit. And for a movement which seeks "gender neutrality" i find the idea of keeping an extremely gendered name hypocritical beyond absurdity. And let's not forget many perceived constraints are just that, perceptions. The feminist assumption is that women should make the same choices as men and if it isn't case... well forget any explanation which doesn't involve "sexism". The Idea that a woman must be a victim of society if she doesn't make the feminism approved choice is destructive. Not only are you putting double the amount of social pressure on women (expected to achieve what men do while still wanting to do what women do) but putting women in a perpetual victim-status is harmful to the morale. No wonder the happiness of women has been drastically decreasing over the past decades despite every objective measure of standards of living improved. If the point of modern feminism is to make men happier than women to prove "patriarchy" feminists are doing a great job.

But that was a hell lot of off topic.

 

[Dragonbums]

But nowhere in your scenario did you indicate that the men were more valuable than the women.
All you stated was that for whatever reason, all the men at the job were working more than the women. We don't know what job they are doing. For all we know, the men could be overworked janitors. This is where your situation falls apart.

As for female protagonists, the industry has assumed wrong about their consumer base on many things. They said Skyrim couldn't sell due to no multiplayer, and sales blew through the roof.
There have been plenty of games featuring female protagonists that have sold millions.
Because nobody but the most sheltered manchildren give two cents about the leading role of a game.
All they care about is if the game is good.

If the leading role doesn't matter, why are we even having this conversation? Oh right... I'm sorry that i prefer to have my leading character to have the same gender as I do because it's easier to project myself into his story.

And It is possible the industry is wrong... But... and this is probably the 100th time i ask for it: show me the market research! If i can chose between trusting big companies who have people who work full time on understanding the market and random posters who i guess in many cases haven't even followed a marketing 101 course the choice is easy.

This has nothing to do with your leading roles being male. Even if they were female your situation would fall apart.
You say the men are more valuable because they work more hours as opposed to the women. However the men could be in the lowest rung tier of the work force and be considered less valuable than the women- who all happen to be programmers. A position that is highly valued in many businesses.
For your hypothetical situation to work, it must have enough details to make an example. You failed at doing this. You cannot simply brush off these gaping holes by stating it "doesn't matter". and you certainly can't brush it off by saying it's because the gender in the advantage here are men.

As for research, I don't need it. This isn't some vague data. This is something you can slam into google search and find. Even critics like the Jimquisition bring reference to this data.
Skyrim sold 7 million copies within the first week of the game being released. Industry stated it was doomed to fail without mulitplayer.

Portal 2 (not including one since it came in Orange box with a bunch of other games) was the best selling game for the first week. Featured a female protagonist the suits in the game industry claimed wouldn't sell well because of it. Proven wrong.

Also if a game gets less funding for having a female protagonist, fine. That is there deal. However there is a difference between lack of funding, and outright telling a studio their game will be shelved if they decide to keep a protagonist female. At that point you are stifling the creativity of videogame creators and assuming the base is so adverse to women in leading roles, that nobody would touch the game with a female protagonist.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

If the leading role doesn't matter, why are we even having this conversation? Oh right... I'm sorry that i prefer to have my leading character to have the same gender as I do because it's easier to project myself into his story.

And It is possible the industry is wrong... But... and this is probably the 100th time i ask for it: show me the market research! If i can chose between trusting big companies who have people who work full time on understanding the market and random posters who i guess in many cases haven't even followed a marketing 101 course the choice is easy.

I believe the point was that it won't matter for the game's bottom line. The problem is that whether a cultural artifact sells or not isn't the only impact worth considering. Just because Mein Kampf was a bestseller doesn't mean it was a good thing, nor does it mean that every book that sells well is evil. (I'm not comparing anyone to Adolf or any game to Mein Kampf, I'm pointing out how it'd be nihilistic at best, sociopathic at worst to only care about sales metrics.)

The reason why relying on market research is a bad idea for disputing feminism is it's kinda the point of feminism; feminism outright says that our society's imagination is limited as to what men and women can do. What do you get if you limit what men and women can do in a game or movie based on a random sample from society at large? You can see how in this case that would be anti-progress.

On a personal note, because I believe games are art, I'd rather have artists give me something bold and forward thinking than something that's 'safe' and 'guaranteed to sell'.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Not only that, but it's kinda the big fucking point of feminism. Patriarchy isn't a plot by evil men. Men aren't secretly discussing how we can oppress women. That's not what feminists think.

If people just can't imagine women in prominent, self-determining roles, that's what patriarchy really is. Feminism isn't just concerned with intentional 'sexism' or discrimination against women, it's concerned with the limiting, unconscious, and arbitrary roles that constrain both men and women. It's not just about being 'equal' under law, it's about being full people.

You're making a lot of assumptions. The AAA gaming segment is dominated by men, what if there are many men like me who prefer their protagonists to have the same gender? That in itself would be giving the protagonist a penis a good reason. And has nothing to do with the typical feminist propaganda.

So because you have a penis, you don't want fictional women to play active roles, talk to other women, and be full characters?

That's odd, my penis isn't telling me that.

(This isn't just about who's the lead character. Give me a list of female characters in games who talk to other female characters about something other than a man.)

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Here's where your idealistic little hypothetical situation falls apart. I wasn't part of any meeting where men and women agreed that videogames, and the videogame industry should be unfair to women.

Here's something for you: Capitalism isn't fair. Capitalism aims to maximize profits. If not pleasing you does that than you're screwed. Want to change that, might want to look into Marxism.

And (because you seem to be dedicated on missing the so obvious point):
"It was to illustrate that in a capitalistic market if you favor one gender over an other because they bring in more value it is not sexism. It's just pure capitalism. If a male employee works more than a woman he will be paid more. Not because he has a penis but because he works more. If a game featuring a female protagonists is expected to sell less it will get a lower marketing budget, not because the protagonist has a vagina but because the game isn't expected to generate the same revenue stream. The fact that value creation goes hand in hand with gender in the case of AAA video games doesn't make the pursuit to profit "sexism"."

sex·ism
/ˈsekˌsizəm/
Noun
Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

That's what's happening in the videogame industry.
Your point is invalid. All you're really doing is pointing out why it's happpening, but the fact is it is happening. Why it's happening isn't all that important.
Is it happening? Yes. That's what's important.

 

[VortexCortex]

My guess would be the reason people take the opposite side of not being bastards towards female protagonists, and women in general would be the desire to maintain the status quo of guys being in the majority of protagonist roles for better or worse.

First off. You've done the framing bias thing here: You've framed any opponents as "being bastards towards female protagonists" instead of simply against applying feminism to gaming? Even the name "feminism" is framing bias. Is there a "masculinism"? Why isn't it called Masculinism? Why is a purported gender equal ideology labeled with such strong feminine phasing?

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?

Ah you see. Now you're being sexist, that or you're agreeing that Feminism isn't about equality. Why can't Masculinism be about equality of men? You've demonized the term or at least said it's less useful even though it could seek to achieve the exact same goals as Feminism purports to. That's sexist. Why can't masculinism be about Making men equal to women? Giving the equal pay for equal jobs, giving them equal custody rights, jail terms, and child care benefits -- Men want to stay home with my child on paternity leave too! It could be the exact same as Feminism. I admit it was a ruse. A Jedi Mind Trick that I played on you to test your preconceived sexist notions about equality...

There's no known reason to be against female protagonsits to me. Excuses are just that. Excuses. I honestly find it hard to stomache people who defend the status quo, and the status quo itself. I admit that much.

You're labeling anyone who is anti feminist as also not wanting more female protagonists in games. This is what's called a False Dichotomy. I fear you've got a mental block. THINK! Stop ignoring that beautiful mind of yours and USE IT: Just because I say there is no evidence that the tropes presented need exclusion from games, or that they further sexsism, and also point out that you may be biased, and that Feminism itself is inherently biased (on average, based on a random sampling, and it's damn name), does not mean I want less female protagonists. I am being harsh not because you're female, but because of THIS:

To be clear, I make games and seek to provide equal representations of women in games

How much more clear can I POSSIBLY be? I am one of the ones you want to convince to put more females in protagonist roles, I say I want the same thing.... Yet, you can't stomach my "excuses" when my only "excuse" for not hopping on your bias band wagon is that I REQUIRE PROOF to make a determination to determine if I should? Do NOT lump me in with those you despise simply because I am a Scientist who does not agree with you. That would be exceedingly ignorant. Indeed, I feel it a charity to even reply.

You've demonized the opposing side of the argument as being the wrong one, failing to consider if there are any non-anti-female counter points. This sort of argument for feminism is detrimental -- It's biased and deceptive, and thus wrong.

The problems men and women face in the gaming industry are not equal. Women have a lot more ground to cover to get to that equality, IMO.

Escapist's own Jim Sterling touches a lot on my gripes with the gaming industry.

That is YOUR SEXIST OPINION. I think men have JUST AS MUCH ground to cover in terms of gender equality. If you do not, then that is your opinion, and I will label it as sexist. For, how do the women cover the ground in the games without affecting the mens' roles in games too? I say the issue is one and the same, one of equality. You say one gender deserves more consideration than the other. To quote Mr. Sterling: "Bull. Fucking. Shiiit!"

Also citing Sterling agrees with you, and implying that both your opinions are therefore more valid than mine, is an appeal to authority. A logical fallacy. BULL-FUCKING-SHIT This comment may exist on the escapist website, but make no mistake, I don not hold anyone's opinion above the examination of science, or the requirement of evidence in order to prove a hypothesis.

I run short on time, so I will simply reply to the marketing comments without quotation. I proposed a solution to the perceived problem, and attempted to prove I was on your side -- if you could stop redefining where the "sides" actually were, it would be really great. Do not say "Who is making the games I want" Hell, start a campaign to do so and fund the development if you so desire. You cited self selective examples to support your claims of misogyny. SOME publishers don't support games with female heroes. I can not make a logical leap to labeling this as sexist misrepresentation without more evidence. That you can does not make my point less valid: Where's the damn numbers? Is this representative of all game publishers as a whole? Is the problem getting worse or better?

To me it seems you are disgusted at folks who disagree with your position simply because they disagree, even when THEY WANT THE SAME THING YOU DO AND ARE THE VERY PEOPLE YOU WANT TO CONVINCE TO THINK THE SAME WAY YOU DO. You have preconceived notions that those opposed to your OPINION are disgusting and uninformed. It smacks of simple minded biased thinking. THAT disgusts ME.

I want more females roles in games too. Not as the result of feminist mandates, but because I like to explore both female and male characters' stories. Yep. Female centered stories. I'm making a distinction based on sex. Guess what? I have a sexual preference too!

The point I'm making is for you to do this: Prove to me you're not tilting at windmills just like the anti-violence in games folks. Do that, then I'll consider your points valid, and adjust my thinking accordingly. I don't have a strong opinion either way -- I wait for EVIDENCE. I am a Scientist. Your borderline Ad Hominem Attack of claiming I'm not scientific because I'm ignoring evidence is quite ridiculous when you consider: 1. There is no hard evidence, only hearsay, and 2. You're not examining the entire pool of evidence, just a few self selected samples. On average, I'd say that MOST companies AREN'T being sexist. I posit the frequency of male vs female protagonists can be directly linked to the frequency of male vs female players. I have evidence to back this argument for myself. I will not try to convince you of it. I fear that is a waste of time. Open your closed mind. There is knowledge to be had outside of it.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

Why can't Masculinism be about equality of men?

We already have a movement against applying limiting gender roles to men. It's called feminism.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: Feminism is anti-patriarchy (what we call the social structure of arbitrarily assigned gender roles), not anti-men. Anita even did a thing on male gender roles in liquor ads, for fuck's sake. She's done other videos on the same subject. She even mentioned male gender roles in the latest Tropes VS Women video.

Giving the equal pay for equal jobs, giving them equal custody rights, jail terms, and child care benefits -- Men want to stay home with my child on paternity leave too!

Um, actually...

It could be the exact same as Feminism.

That already is feminism. You're describing Sweden. Feminists would be thrilled if our society encouraged men to be nurturing and take up our share of child care duties. If you think you had a clever ruse going, you only managed to outsmart yourself.

 

[VortexCortex]

Why can't Masculinism be about equality of men?

We already have a movement against applying limiting gender roles to men. It's called feminism.

Doesn't change the fact that there's no reason to actually call it Feminism then. We already have a movement that needlessly applies gender specifics to things that should be neutral: SEXISM

Giving the equal pay for equal jobs, giving them equal custody rights, jail terms, and child care benefits -- Men want to stay home with my child on paternity leave too!

Um, actually...

Yes? Do go on?

It could be the exact same as Feminism.

That already is feminism. You're describing Sweden. Feminists would be thrilled if our society encouraged men to be nurturing and take up our share of child care duties. If you think you had a clever ruse going, you only managed to outsmart yourself.

No, I'm not trying to be clever. Throbbing ego went off on a tirade as to why it is more valid to call it Feminism than Masculinism. I purposefully did not even define what the principals of masculinism were. They could have been the exact same as Feminism, and so there should have been ZERO reasons why Feminism shouldn't be called Masculinism too. There should have been the concession that, "Hmm, that's a good point, the genders should be equal, we COULD HYPOTHETICALLY have a Masculinism too." Instead, the term was shot down only because it had "masculine" as a root word. If feminists are pro equality, there should indeed be such a damn term as Masculinsim.... OOPS, you failed the sexist test too!

You've missed the entire point of everything I've said. Which is that I can not be swayed by compelling opinions. I won't change a behavior based on speculation and untested hypotheses. Whether or not you've label something some term (noticed a trope) or have strong opinions about it, or discuss it at length, does NOT make a bit of difference as to affecting change when arguing for the position unless you can provide me evidence. This is because I am logical, and rational. Others are more easily swayed. In either direction. I am not. I know what a Null Hypothesis is.

Since we're posting videos, here, have one.

We can go back and forth about opinions all day. You can have an infinite amount of pundits and books to cite that back your opinion. I won't care. Gimme some facts and figures, that's what I want. That's all I've ever started out saying that I want. The lack thereof is the very evidence that the Scientific Method's vantage point's is under represented in these emotionally charged and opinionated "discussions"... Which is why I even entered the fray.

The inability of anyone to quantitatively prove changes are required is telling. Give some evidence that the tropes need to be avoided, and that it's not just confirmation bias, and I'll get behind it full force. Look the DSMV - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a once respected comprehensive book about mental problems is basically being considered BULLSHIT because it's just a bunch of psychiatric guesses, not based on neuroscience or provable repeatable results. Your Feminist Theory of Patriarchy is in the same damn boat. Doctors proscribed MEDICINE even including SHOCK THERAPY based on the DSMV's nebulous results and reccomendations, that's how well respected, but ultimately bullshit the book is. You've got a pretty high bar to pass. I'm not against your theories specifically, just any unproven untested speculative bullshit in general.


Here, have another:

That's two to your one. I win!

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

No, I'm not trying to be clever

I admit it was a ruse. A Jedi Mind Trick that I played on you to test your preconceived sexist notions about equality...

I have the sneaking suspicion I'm engaging in an argument against random words taken out of the dictionary.

If you can acknowledge that there are arbitrary gender roles in society, you acknowledge patriarchy. If you can't acknowledge the presence of arbitrary gender roles, you're somehow typing from a coma.

Speaking of shock therapy: podcasts.howstuffworks.com/hsw/podcasts/sysk/2013-05-14-sysk-electroconvulsive-therapy.mp3

I'm a fan of Josh and Chuck.