The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[Friis]

Sexualisation will always happen to men or women so long as humans have properly functioning gonads.

As the industry catches up, we will eventually see males being objectified for a female audience.

Still, I think a good portion of this argument is due to imagined slights and people only choosing what they want to believe and ignoring the whole picture.


Want to solve the problem permanently? Well, we can always use our amazing advantages in surgery to remove our gonads.

Men are already being objectified and dehumanized for the benefit of women, perhaps not for the enjoyment of a female audience, but the effects of it is to benefit women.

 

[Smeatza]

snip

Interesting study.
Although I wouldn't go making any massive changes to your world view just yet.
It's a very limited study, and even I could find a few points of criticism after a quick scan.

But as someone who was of the same opinion as yourself and the person you were replying to, this certainly gives me some food for though and makes me eager to see more detailed comprehensive studies on the subject.
Although the fact that it's the only paper I (we maybe) could find on subject and the fact it's from 2008 don't make me hopeful we'll see any similar research any time soon.

 

[broca]

Lets see.

fem·i·nism
/ˈfeməˌnizəm/
Noun
The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.

Feminism
The belief that women are and should be treated as potential intellectual equals and social equals to men. These people can be either male or female human beings, although the ideology is commonly (and perhaps falsely) associated mainly with women.

The basic idea of Feminism revolves around the principle that just because human bodies are designed to perform certain procreative functions, biological elements need not dictate intellectual and social functions, capabilities, and rights.

Feminism also, by its nature, embraces the belief that all people are entitled to freedom and liberty within reason--including equal civil rights--and that discrimination should not be made based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, ethnicity, religion, culture, or lifestyle.

Feminists--and all persons interested in civil equality and intellectuality--are dedicated to fighting the ignorance that says people are controlled by and limited to their biology.
Feminism is the belief that all people are entitled to the same civil rights and liberties and can be intellectual equals regardless of gender. However, you should still hold the door for a feminist; this is known as respect or politeness and need have nothing whatever to do with gender discrimination.

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
"Feminism is both an intellectual commitment and a political movement that seeks justice for women and the end of sexism in all forms. However, there are many different kinds of feminism. Feminists disagree about what sexism consists in, and what exactly ought to be done about it; they disagree about what it means to be a woman or a man and what social and political implications gender has or should have. Nonetheless, motivated by the quest for social justice, feminist inquiry provides a wide range of perspectives on social, cultural, economic, and political phenomena."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-topics/

Merriam-Webster
"1. the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2. organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Oxford Dictionaries
"The advocacy of women?s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/feminism

Wikipedia
"Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Of this four definitions, only one names equality (apart from equality for women) as a core part of feminism (and even there only as one of two possible definitions). Most agree that feminism is a movement for women. So either you're right and four credible sources are wrong, or you chose the definitions that reflects what you want feminism to be but that doesn't reflect what feminism is. Also, funny enough, according to wikipedia feminism is "is a collection of movements and ideologies"

Only 1 of the four sources YOU cite only mentions women. The first 3 either directly mention "equality for the sexes" or implies it with "the end of sexism in all forms".

You attempt to call into question someone else's sources and interpretation while you blatantly glaze over the content of the sources you cite as a counter arguement.

Okay, the Stanford definition could be understood both ways, as it is unclear whether "the end of sexism in all forms" applies to men and women (as the "all" implies) or only to women (as "seeks justice for women" before "the end of sexism in all forms" implies). The Oxford definitions doesn't mention "equality for the sexes", it mentions "equality of the sexes" and even that only as the basis for "the advocacy of women's rights". So according to the definition feminists believe that the sexes are equal, but advocate only for womens rights.

Is feminism a movement for equal rights for both sexes? Stanford definition: unclear. Merriam Webster: 1 definition: yes; 1 definition: no. Oxford: no (see above). Wikipedia: no. This adds up 1 yes, 3 no, 1 unclear. Conclusion: Feminism is mainly defined as a movement for women, not a movement for women and men.

 

[Amir Kondori]

Everyone can argue about this stuff on internet forums all day and it won't matter one bit. Humans are sexually charged beings and sex attracts us greatly. There will always be sexualized portrayals of both genders and that is not a bad thing.

I think feminists are still trying to sort out what needs to be changed and how going forward and they don't always get it right and they don't always focus on the right things. Just look at how many prominent women in the media won't even call themselves feminists because it has such a bad name today. This comes from the people on the fringe of the movement who say things like "All sex is rape".

So keep beating the drums in forums across the Internet, you'll keep seeing sexed up characters in your media of choice regardless.

 

[generals3]

snip

Interesting study.
Although I wouldn't go making any massive changes to your world view just yet.
It's a very limited study, and even I could find a few points of criticism after a quick scan.

But as someone who was of the same opinion as yourself and the person you were replying to, this certainly gives me some food for though and makes me eager to see more detailed comprehensive studies on the subject.
Although the fact that it's the only paper I (we maybe) could find on subject and the fact it's from 2008 don't make me hopeful we'll see any similar research any time soon.

Off course the results have to be taken with caution. And it's only one study (also the only one I have ever come across) and in that kind of field one study can actually mean little. Hopefully we will get more studies on that subject to further shed light on it.

Though the bigger "philosophical" question still remains, even if it makes some people feel "insecure" should we pressure people to make less of it? After all if it sells it's because people like it. Heck we sell more dangerous things people like (soft drinks, sweets, alcohol, fast food, etc.)

 

[Smeatza]

Though the bigger "philosophical" question still remains, even if it makes some people feel "insecure" should we pressure people to make less of it? After all if it sells it's because people like it. Heck we sell more dangerous things people like (soft drinks, sweets, alcohol, fast food, etc.)

Well being a great supporter of autonomy, I would say no, nobody has a right to say that we should make less or consume less of it.
To be honest I think the question can be avoided mostly if people are suitably educated on the subject. Like any problem, if you aren't aware it exists you cannot avoid it or take steps to combat it. And will probably find it more difficult to dismiss/brush off.

 

[Smeatza]

But people do advocate drinking less alcohol and soda and eating less fast foods and sweets. I don't see much of an uproar about it either. And in the cases of these things I can actually see a benefit from people warning others to avoid excess consumption. Some people are very ignorant of the dangers of overconsumption.

So, you want people to be educated but will complain if you are witness to any "education" that you feel you don't need.

You seem to have entirely missed the point.

"You run the risk of getting fat and dying by eating all those fatty foods"
is different from
"Eating those fatty foods is wrong, you will get fat and die, your are stupid for doing so and I will campaign for the government to forcibly prevent you from doing so."

I'm all for giving people the facts they need to make an informed decision. But that decision is their own, and if they make an informed decision that they want to run the risks of smoking or eating fatty foods, then it's time for you to butt out.

 

[broca]

snip

Okay, the Stanford definition could be understood both ways, as it is unclear whether "the end of sexism in all forms" applies to men and women (as the "all" implies) or only to women (as "seeks justice for women" before "the end of sexism in all forms" implies). The Oxford definitions doesn't mention "equality for the sexes", it mentions "equality of the sexes" and even that only as the basis for "the advocacy of women's rights". So according to the definition feminists believe that the sexes are equal, but advocate only for womens rights.

Is feminism a movement for equal rights for both sexes? Stanford definition: unclear. Merriam Webster: 1 definition: yes; 1 definition: no. Oxford: no (see above). Wikipedia: no. This adds up 1 yes, 3 no, 1 unclear. Conclusion: Feminism is mainly defined as a movement for women, not a movement for women and men.

Well shit, I've got to stop supporting feminism then, because some guy on the internet says that they only care about women's rights, and I have no way of judging things on my own. And I should ignore all of the other feminists that say that they are supporters of equality for BOTH of the sexes. They are clearly lying because the dictionary says so.

Or maybe I will stay just as I am. Male, gay, and a supporter of feminism, enemy of inequality, etc...

You really don't understand was i was saying. Feminism is a movement that is mainly defined as a movement for women, not for equality. Are there feminists that are working for equality? Yes. Is it a defining feature of feminism according to most definitions? No. All i tried to point out is that while there are surely feminists who's goal is equality, you can not say that feminism on the whole is about equality. And saying that the feminists you know feel that way is a really bad argument as you can easily find feminists who would disagree about that.

Also, no idea why you think i want you to stop being a feminist (or even care whether you are or not). First, what's so bad about feminism being for mainly for women? Second, i never claimed that no feminist could be for equal rights. I just pointed out that you can't claim that feminism on the whole is about equality.

 

[Smeatza]

Show me then a government that is using Anita Sarkeesian videos or bad reviews of Dragon Crown as an excuse to forcibly prevent you from playing games that contain objectified women.

Y'know there's a little thing called context, if you'd stick to it then this discussion would be much more coherent.
Allow me to give you another example, one that's actually applicable to the context of video games.

"Those video games could inspire or inflame body image issues"
and
"Those video games are sexist, they show what a terrible state the industry is in, I appeal to all developers to not make characters like as as frequently or at all."

The first option educates the consumer, and encourages them to be more discerning with their purchases.
The second option attempts to guilt the consumer into changing their preferences. And expresses an interest in forcibly reducing consumer choice.

How are you not getting this? Surely you've heard this discussed before, in greater detail in regards to illegal drugs.
Y'Know, the whole "Is it morally sound to stop one from doing something that's bad for them, against their wishes" discussion.

Now considering the fact there's no right answer, and we have to make at least one baseless assumption to have the discussion in the context of video games, I'd rather keep it general.

Also there are plenty of people that crack jokes about being fat and/or eating too much fast food.

Ugh.....

And there are people campaigning the government to try to limit "junk food".

And I think that is wrong.

 

[CFriis87]

Snip

Hey look at that, loads of dictionary definitions.

What the whole 'the word feminism is defined as this therefore it IS this' line of argument falls down when you get men like Earl Silverman who struggle against active opposition from feminist groups and feminist ministers to get funds for battered men, and their oppositional stance is essentially, what do we want to give men funding for things when we could be giving it to women?

You can throw definitions around all you want, but in reality, feminism presents itself as a female advocacy group that won it's battles a long time ago, but see, the trough is there for all to see and why the hell would they walk away? So they lie about how much they've won and they outcast people who speak out against the dogma.

Not to mention a proud tradition in censoring dissent in the name of 'safety'.

What makes it truly odious, and truly dangerous, is that you oftentimes wind up with people like you defending it blindly. Try and convince the government that maybe some of their funds could go towards male shelters as well, and you'll see venom so strong and for such a length of time you'll be destroyed without the blink of an eye, and they'll feel great about it because you were an enemy of woman kind.

But try and criticise the snakes for that? And you'll get people like you quoting how the word is clearly defined as 'equality for women' and how could I possibly not want that? What issues could I possibly have with thinking women are people to?

GOD DAMN! Sometimes I really wish there was some kind of way of up-voting other posters on these forums. Thank you for speaking sense!
Here's hoping the Earl Silverman Center won't get scrapped because of a certain miss Woolly Bumblebee getting bogged down in drama.

 

[generals3]

Here's the crazy thing: A lot of the stuff that feminists are advocating? They actually solve men's issues as well!

Generic cheap feminist answer #2547517924

Now let me ask you how creating a false reality in which men don't get raped nor abused by their partners help men? Oh wait it makes it worse because they actively reinforce the stereotype men can't be victims. Yes that's what happens when you claim to care about both gender but never address issues of one, people get the impression that gender doesn't have issues.

Either feminists are lying or they're dangerously incompetent. Either way there is no reason why any non-mislead rational man would be apart of a movement actively marginalizing his gender's victimization.

Want women to have to register for the draft? Make it so there's no stigma against women doing "manly" jobs.

And how much does this "stigmatizing" happen? And who does it? It wouldn't surprise me many women themselves would be to blame as well. (but it's easier to blame the evil patriarchy)

Want men to not be judged for taking care of children? See above.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say? Since when are men judged for taking care of kids? The only judgement that happens is for not working but both don't necessarily go hand in hand (think of daycare centers which allow both working and taking care of kids).

Want men to not have to conform to the Don Draper stereotype? Well that goes hand in hand with with not forcing women to conform to the passive, motherly stereotype.

But women don't conform to that stereotype already. Unless passive includes being just as violent in relationships as men.

(and i don't personally care about the last issue)

 

[The Material Sheep]

Here's the crazy thing: A lot of the stuff that feminists are advocating? They actually solve men's issues as well!

Want women to have to register for the draft? Make it so there's no stigma against women doing "manly" jobs.

Want men to not be judged for taking care of children? See above.

Want men to not have to conform to the Don Draper stereotype? Well that goes hand in hand with with not forcing women to conform to the passive, motherly stereotype.

Want video games to feature fewer muscle-bound hunks and more realistic looking dudes? Why, in order to that you'd have to be willing to create well-rounded characters that represent a variety of body types... like, say, an overweight black women who is actually capable of doing things for yourself.

(and to everyone saying that the supposed sexualisation of men doesn't bother you; maybe look up "false equivalence.")

Unfortunately most of that is untrue of the feminist movement at large. Feminism is not the be all end all "ism" for gender equality and women's rights. It's a self contained theory that claims certain things about society and defends the tenets religiously. So, you can believe in gender equality, and the rights of women to be individuals in society, but that doesn't make you a feminist. To be a feminist you have to believe in patriarchy, and all the the little tangential beliefs that tie on to it.

Feminism, solves non of the things you mention.

I'm afraid if feminism's only blocking point for women entering the draft was a stigma for doing "manly" jobs then feminism is trying very hard, and really as a theory isn't concerned that the female gender doesn't have to deal with that crap.

Feminists actively work against men to not being care giver's by parroting the notion that as a gender, men are less caring and more abusive. That masculinity is inherently abusive.

And to your last two points, no one has to conform to ANY of these stereotypes and feminism over complicating the discussion on this subject with accusations of misogyny at every other turn doesn't help.

Feminism at this point does NOTHING to solve these problems. It has no interest in solving it's problems because like most ideologies founded around a single oppressed group, the ones propagating it only really maintain any kind of power while there are still people to place in an us verses them paradigm.

 

[Elesar]

The response to this is quick, and I've never heard a good counterpoint to the response. It's such a well known response that both Jim Sterling and Moviebob have made this point, ON THIS VERY SITE, but apparently I have to tell it to you siomasm:

Overly muscled men are not there to be eye candy for the girls. They are there to be self image fantasies for you. You are practicing false equivalency and what's more you KNOW you are practicing false equivalency.

Here is the other issue. Now, do me a favor and run through a list of male and female characters in video games and tell me: What percentage of male characters are depicted as not being attractive vs. what percentage of female characters are depicted as being not specifically attractive. Men can look like whatever they want, they have a wide variety of different looks and body types available to them. Women, with surprisingly few exceptions HAVE to be attractive.

 

[runic knight]

Hate this comic. It seems to miss the damn point. It isn't "pfft, we aren't bitching" it is suppose to be "no, it isn't just because you are a woman, it is part of a larger damn issue that affects both genders." See, the reply here isn't so much to a "gosh, aren't you tired of how often they rehash the same damn character tropes?" As it is a "OMG SEXISM! You guys are sexist for liking these games. That is sexism. Tropes are sexist."
When it is a simple, rational debate most people will agree that more variety can character types are always a good thing. When you resort to accusatory tone and emotionally loaded and manipulating terms to push an ideological agenda instead of seeming like a fan of the hobby wanting to better it, well, part of the reason people get so defensive I think.
So, for a better comparison with the comic, the final one should be the guys standing there on fire trying to convince the asshat with the lighter (with a nice big EA logo to represent the large corporate developers) to stop setting people on fire already. Maybe with a "we know, we been trying to deal with it for a while now" sort of snarky response. Add in someone in the background saying he is ok being on fire for more intellectual honesty, though the joke sort of dies with that much involvements. Wait, no, the joke was dead on arrival anyways.


Also, thread starter fails are satire. Most of the issue isn't even with how women are portrayed unrealistically, it is that unrealistic portrayal is so damn common...in the most publicized triple A game market anyways. Namely, it is the complaint that women are always so oversexualized, though in your attempt, you do touch on that portrayals of both genders can and do often suck in gaming. See my earlier point about it being part of a larger issue?

Captcha: Sun is shining. Well, I guess that is a good reason to go all bikini clad...

 

[Stephen St.]

Because you are less likely to trust someone who has been proved a liar.

Interestingly enough, scientific research is structured in such a way that trust is largely unnecessary. Also, even if we accepted that the feminist movement deliberately ignored male issues for their own gain, that would make the egoistic and selfish, but not liars.

Again, a ridiculous generalisation.

How is that a generalisation? Are you going to doubt that the people who fund, make and market videogames are and have been, predominantly male?

Wait, movement? I was talking about one particular argument, I wasn't even talking about a single policy or position of any kind of movement.

Only people can be discredited, not arguments themselves. Therefore, you had to be talking about the people making the argument, which I took the liberty to call a movement.

Let me give you an analogy.
I might try and ban fireworks, using the unnecessary distress they cause wild and domestic animals as my justification. If it were then revealed that I hunt for sport (and therefore don't care about animals being caused distress) and that I am an amateur astronomer (which is why I would prefer the sky be devoid of fireworks), then I would be discredited.
It wouldn't matter if everything I said about fireworks scaring animals was true. Because I as an individual have been proved untrustworthy.

Which is an irrational way to conduct a discussion. Again, in your above example, the person is selfish, but he is not lying. It is fine to distrust a person's factual statements if you distrust them, personally. But as long as the facts are established by a trustworthy party, the argument can no longer be attacked by attacking the person. That is what we call ad hominem arguments, which are not acceptable in a discussion.

 

[Lictor Face]

Everyone got the portrayal of the sorceress in Dragon's Crown all wrong.

In D&D, sorcerers/sorceress's use the charisma stat as their main stat. Thus, if you want to convert this literally. You have every single attractiveness stereotype rolled up into one bundle.

I believe this trope also manifests as the ridiculously large shoulders of the warrior character and the, um, legs of the female barbarian ( Constitution? Fortitude? Honestly I have no idea )

Thus, the sorceress was exaggerated to near comical proportions ( Every part of her literally sways when she walks )

Its astonishing how many people STILL get their jimmies in a rustle over a crude depiction of a fictional woman in a game. Women in video games HAVE always been depicted as, well, over sexualized. Its not stopping now. And it certainly won't stop any time soon. As long as men dominate the video game industry, it will continue to be so.

Kind of strange when you see such a heated debate over over-sexualisation in video games and no one complains about the over-sexualisation of everything else and pornography....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpJGkG1g-Lk

As maddox says, women's magazines are made by women, for women. Likewise. Men's videogame's are made be men, for men.

Granted women DO PLAY video games ( please god no gamer girl rage posts ) , but lets be frank, its not a majority.

 

[Smeatza]

I found Anita Sarkeesian's videos to be educational.

Seriously dude, wtf? Where on earth does she come into this?

Maybe you (and many others) need to work on your guilt complex. Call me or something I like sexist, I wont necessarily feel guilty at all. Hell, sometimes I admit that I am sexist. I don't feel it's over anything important or grossly affecting how other people experience their lives. If someone points out something I did that might be sexist, tells me it offends them, I will make a reasonable effort not to offend them again.

I just.....I don't.....Who on earth said anything about guilt?
Disagreeing with the exploitation of sensitive issues for personal gain is not the same as guilt.
Disagreeing with the use of sensationalist and deceptive tactics, in order to manipulate others to one's cause is not the same as guilt.

I see people making claims that the gaming industry is sexist and I see the gaming industry taking steps to address that. What exactly is the problem here?

I see people making bullshit claims that the gaming industry is sexist and I see the gaming industry responding to this with nothing more than publicity plays.

Now seen as you seem to have now dropped all pretense of coherence and relevance, you're going to need to pull something awesome out of the bag to persuade me to reply again.

 

[Stephen St.]

Women run that same risk, but the consequences are theirs to choose whether to accept or not. Men do not have that privilege.
"Should the father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have? Yes. Because otherwise, there is no-one responsible, and there are certain compromises we must make."
Last I checked, TWO minus ONE was not ZERO, but it's been a while since I had math in high-school, so I might be a bit rusty. Unless you believe women are not responsible for the babies they choose to carry to term, I don't see why men should be responsible for children they did not choose to have and it *isn't* a compromise we must make.

Unless, of course, it would be problematic for children to be brought up by a single parent, and there would be evidence that having more than one person responsible is beneficial for the child. How are you supposing a single mother (or a single father, for that matter) would be able to provide for a steady and sufficient income while also having enough time to care for and educate their child?

"the debate becomes who do we properly assign responsibility?"
I would think that giving the burden of responsibility to the one who has the power of choice would be the obvious answer to any logical and rational being, but apparently not.

It is unfortunate for us males that we have no control over the birth of the child. However, I simply see no alternative. Having single parents is bad, and forcing anyone to undergo drastic and emotioally scarring surgery against their wishes is worse. How would we give father the same rights as mothers without hurting either the children, the mothers, or both?

Refusing men the same reproductive rights keeps them forcefully useful... like tools that cannot choose whether to be used or not. That's a big part of male disposability.

I never looked at it that way, but I guess you have a point, the law does require both parents to keep being "useful" for the child.

There are legal safe havens where mothers are allowed to leave their children anonymously. So paperwork and custody doesn't really have to factor in at all.

Right. But I guess thats kind of a legal grey area? I am not familiar with the laws pertaining to this kind of behaviour, but I was under the impression we accept these kind of things because they are better than the likely alternative, i.e. a dead child. I would also think that many of these women lack support by their partner. But thats just me guessing.

And apparently you don't think any of the evidence I put forth of male disposability in western culture is relevant to the discussion.
The evidence that male life, health and happiness is an acceptable sacrifice to offer up for supposed female safety.
I suppose I haven't focused much on male disposability in games, as I was of the impression that you already saw the problematic state of the objectifying disposable nature that male video-game characters are usually given.
Perhaps I was wrong in this regard?

The one thing I most certainly do not see is the "objectifying disposable nature" of male video-game characters. In fact, I think it is the most ridiculous argument in the entire debate about sexism in games. Male video game characters are usually also the heroes of their story, and the hero is, by definition, not the disposable one.

Regarding the rest of the argument, I think:

I see a pattern in how men are treated. If you see another pattern, that's fine.

Sums the discussion up quite nicely. I don't think your evidence is irrelevant, I think the pattern you are seeing is only one part of a vastly more complicated structure. Not that this would be a problem if you don't base your entire worldview on one aspect of reality.

I was unaware that there was a point where a man can be so drunk, that it positively affects the legal ramifications of his illegal actions while under the influence? Is this really because of the level of drunkenness that he has inflicted upon himself, or in cases where he was provably, involuntarily drugged by a third party?

Well, in order to be held responsible, you have to be somewhat in control of your actions. If you are to drunk to have any kind of control over your actions, you cannot be responsible for them. You might still be held responsible for the act of drinking itself, but that usually requires some kind of intent to commit crimes while drunk. It's a very controversial topic, though, and might well be handled differently in different countries.

Despite the amount of evidence to the contrary shown to you so far? That's quite impressive.

I was talking specifically about actual legal norms. Like a paragraph that states "Men are responsible for their actions despite their state of mind, while women can be excused if in a state of inebriation, emotional distress, or similar".

Can you please tell me which of these other biological, psychological and cultural factor make it rationally acceptable to treat male human beings as more disposable (worth less) than female human beings?
Because I must have missed them in one or more of your earlier posts

You are misunderstanding me. I was saying that disposability wasn't the only theme of society, and that you are not taking into account all the other factors. Examples given:
- In addition to being biologically less important for the survival of the group, Men also have slightly different physical strength and react to pressure differently than women, which arguably makes them more suitable for dangerous work, while at the same time enabling them to physically dominate a society.
- There is also some evidence that Men tend to perform higher in a competitive environment, while women either perform lower, or at least choose to compete less often.
- There is a pervasive theme in our culture that Men are both phsysically and mentally more capable than women at taking the lead and being in control.
- For most of recent history, while the working world was dominated by Men, Social life also was. While Men had to provide income for their family, this could be done (not everyone had the luxury, to be sure!) as a part time job. A women's chores were full time, there is no closing time for housework. That allowed Men to engage in other activities such as science, sport, games, poetry, all of which were pretty much completely dominated by Men.
- A similar theme still exists in upbringing, in that Men are allowed to "stay children" for significantly longer, while women are supposed to be self sufficient quicker and help in the household. This is also reflected in classic toys for boys and girls.

Those are the things I can think of at the top of my head. None of these contradicts your evidence. They just make the picture a lot more nuanced, in my opinion.

As Anthony Corrigan has already pointed out, your assertion is not correct.

Well, it was just something I think I heard in biology class some time ago. Maybe newer research has changed the picture, or the old research was never really reliable.

Yet this antiquated belief had already been debunked by peer-reviewed studies and reports before the last two reinstatements of VAWA.
Also, believing that the physically stronger sex is less likely to be the target of any kind of violence is like saying that women are less likely to be abused because society generally teaches men to never, ever strike a woman.
It is based neither on facts nor logic and should never be allowed to inform public policy, so why was it? If not because the safety of women was and is irrationally seen as more important than the safety of men.

I think the society always regards perceived "natural" ways to act as stronger than cultural conditioning. After all, People used to say women are unfit for politics because it was "against their nature" for the longest time, despite this obviously being wrong.

I think another poster before me already adressed the VAWA, stating that, in theory, it does actually also apply to violence against men, it is just not utilized.

And the reason that men are not deemed worthy of protection is somehow supposed to disprove that men are not deemed worthy of protection?

I was under the impression that signified that real men are not in need of protection. But this is the same as above. I see one pattern, you see another. At the end of the day, being in need of protection and being worthy of protection are basically the opposite sides of the same coin. We apparently both see the coin, but we can't agree which side it's showing.

Oh well that's great! That'd mean that all the feminists are already working on making life better for everyone... like they have been since the sixties.

I do believe they have made life better for everyone. Not with everything they do, of course. But to say that they have never addressed legitimate concerns is quite a startling claim.

 

[thenoblitt]

It's ok to sexualize men but not women, and if you tell them that, they just say its a male power fantasy. You just can't win cause they make up more bullshit to fit their skewed perspective of things. If everyone is sexualized, then one one is. Feminism is suppose to be about equality and having the same rights, well guess what if you weren't sexualized and men were, its not longer equal and you are no trying to be better and have more rights than man, and that's not equality, its hypocritical.

 

[Archer666]

Sexualizing is and always will be around because sex sells. That's it and thats just how it will be until we finally either collectively outgrow the "sex sells" mentality or blow our genitalia off. You can inform people about its existence or yell out whatever buzzwords you want, but you wont change this simple fact.