The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[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.

 

[CloudAtlas]

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.

It's not "our" fault if you are unable to see the differences between power and sex fantasies.

 

[Smeatza]

Interestingly enough, scientific research is structured in such a way that trust is largely unnecessary.

But there's no scientific evidence to be had in the situation we describe.

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.

Well in my experience the official party line is "feminism is about equality for men and women," which would make it a lie.
But we weren't talking about feminism specifically.

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?

You wrote that all men were happy with the representation and writing of male characters in fiction, specifically video games.
I stand by my judgement.

Only people can be discredited, not arguments themselves.

And usage of the argument we're discussing discredits the individual using it.

Therefore, you had to be talking about the people making the argument, which I took the liberty to call a movement.

Ah I see.
I'd rather stick to using the singular as I was before.
I wouldn't want anyone to think we're referring to a real movement.

Which is an irrational way to conduct a discussion. Again, in your above example, the person is selfish, but he is not lying.

They are lying about their motivations.

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,

Which they are not if you distrust them personally.

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.

But in the situation we're discussing there are no facts, there is no empirical evidence the person who is recently on fire can fall back on.
And without that objective proof, you're going to have to take them on their word.
And if you don't trust them, that's not going to happen.

 

[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.

Well, really for your statement to be true you would need a representative survey of feminists that proved a majority of them did favor women's rights over equal rights.

Granted I haven't conducted or read a survey either. But, from what I've experienced most people responding in favor of feminism/feminist issues seem to be in reality for equal treatment of the sexes.

So, you are taking great pains to make this distinction but mean nothing by it? I don't buy that...

Yes, a representative study would be nice, but as (afaik) no such study exists, we have to rely on cues. Of course individual clues are not conclusive on there own, but together they can point in a certain direction. One such clue are the definitions that i gave. But there are other ones that point in the same direction. Google, for example "Can men be feminists?" and you will find that there are feminists who believe that men can't be feminists. So, if feminism is equal rights for women and men, why can't men (according to some feminists) be feminists? Of course, based on this clues we can't say how many feminists see feminism as a womens rights movement or a equal rights movements. But i think that this clues (plus my personal experience, which i don't include as a clue, as it evens out with your experiences) are enough to say that feminism is either defined as a womens right movement or a equal rights movement, depending on which feminist you ask.

Why is this important? Because it means that criticism of feminism for not being a equal rights are valid, even as your personal form of feminism is for equal rights. Feminists in discussion often ignore that feminism is more than what they personally define as feminism and ignore differing behavior/opinions by other feminists by saying "But feminism is really...", "All feminists i know...", "But only a small part of feminists..." or (my favorite) "People who say... aren't really feminists". And this inability of feminists to see that feminism is more than what they personally believe or experience (especially in relation to negative behavior and believes of other feminists) and the resulting inability to see and acknowledge the negative parts of feminism is a big problem i have with many feminists.

 

[Stephen St.]

Your whole post went on too long, but just to chirp in here if you don't mind sir:

We can't give fathers the SAME rights, because as you say, bottom line women are stuck with the dirty work(for now. No matter how much feminists oppose the artificial womb, it's an inevitable step). But what we can do is create something like an equivalence.

If a woman fails to properly control her contraceptives or abort and 'accidentally' winds up with a baby she can't care for, she gets a house and free money. There are people in the UK and US that have, for generations, seen breeding as a viable lifechoice, and the worst part is they're right.

You know what a man gets when he fails to use condoms and 'accidentally' winds up with a baby he can't care for?

Prison if he's really really broke, state enforced robbery if he isn't with the female having FULL control over PRECISELY when and how much he can see the kids, and if she's feeling particularly malicious and she says he slapped her once then he instantly gets denied any kind of access, while still having to pay full support, for however long the investigation into his 'assault' takes, which can be years. And when it turns out she lied? She gets about as much of a punishment as the women who lie about being raped. Between little and none.

Men can't really have the same rights as mothers, but there can be something of an equivalence. And even if there can't, we really can't rightly look at a system so ripe for female manipulation at direct male expense and not think it's a bit fucked up.

Well actually, apparently we can because for pointing these things out I'm anti-feminist and that means I'm a misogynist and quite possibly well on my way to getting kicked off certain internet sites for being an 'aggressor'. I wish I was blowing things out of proportion here, I really do.

Actually, most of my answers were only one or two sentences, but I guess the entire discussion got kinda winded .

Are you telling me the U.S. is throwing men in jail if they can't pay child support due to say, unemployment? I know you can get arrested for not paying when you do have money, but that just sounds like a stupid policy.

I am not comfortable calling child support payments "robbery". Don't you agree that these payments can be completely justified?

As for the rest, I largely agree with your points. There are significant problems with the way legal systems handle domestic violence. Seems like we haven't found a way to handle inter-relationship conflicts without massively stigmatising one gender. The prosecution of false claims is especially touchy: Either you don't prosecute and do not discourage the behaviour effectively, or you do prosecute and risk discouraging actually true reports.

Well in my experience the official party line is "feminism is about equality for men and women," which would make it a lie.
But we weren't talking about feminism specifically.

Right, I think we were talking about a specific comic strip.

You wrote that all men were happy with the representation and writing of male characters in fiction, specifically video games.
I stand by my judgement.

I did not mean to imply that. I meant that since no-one complained, even though they could have, the majority did not seem especially unhappy about it. But I do see how I did not make that entirely clear, I guess it could be read as somewhat of a generalization.

They are lying about their motivations.

And these motivations matter?

But in the situation we're discussing there are no facts, there is no empirical evidence the person who is recently on fire can fall back on.
And without that objective proof, you're going to have to take them on their word.
And if you don't trust them, that's not going to happen.

I disagree with your statement that there is no empirical evidence, as quite a few examples have been brought forward.
But that is beside the point, because we have already proven the point the comic wanted to make: "No you are not on fire, prove it!" is a rational response, whereas "so what, I am on fire too" is not.

 

[Smeatza]

I disagree with your statement that there is no empirical evidence, as quite a few examples have been brought forward.

I've seen anecdotal evidence, but nothing empirical.

But that is beside the point, because we have already proven the point the comic wanted to make: "No you are not on fire, prove it!" is a rational response, whereas "so what, I am on fire too" is not.

The question wasn't whether it was rational or not, but whether it's an "effective counterpoint" or not.
And as we've concluded, it can be, and was in the specific situation detailed in that comic strip.

 

[Stephen St.]

I've seen anecdotal evidence, but nothing empirical.

Thats fair enough, but it does mean that there can, in fact, be empirical evidence.

The question wasn't whether it was rational or not, but whether it's an "effective counterpoint" or not.
And as we've concluded, it can be, and was in the specific situation detailed in that comic strip.

I don't care about "effective counterpoints", whatever that may be. Shooting your discussion partner is effective, yet not generally considered got debating. Showing that the argument is irrational is good enough for me.

 

[The Material Sheep]

See I'm of the belief that child support in and of itself is entirely a racket, that will always put he practice of getting pregnant to make money a thing. It's rather unfortunate that acceptance of unequal rights is just the default here. Then again, I'm gay and can have all the sex I want and not have to worry about said things, and have absolute birth control. This may put me faaaaaaaaaaaar out of perspective.

If the woman doesn't want to have an abortion, she should give the kid up for adoption if she can't take care of it by herself. If adoption is considered a bad thing, then perhaps the question is not to inherently have state enforced child support for the father, but to clean up and streamline the adoption system.

Once again I do have to put myself in perspective though. I don't have to deal with this or contraceptives in any form, so it's hard for me to ever personally relate. Just trying to look at this from an outsider's perspective I suppose.

 

[Stephen St.]

Firstly, yes. In some cases the man thats being shaken down isn't even the father. Are there any repercussions for the women that knowingly decieve men in this most horrid of ways? Is there fuck. But you'll never see a feminist picking up the flag of equality to tackle these real and blatant injustices that drive men to kill themselves, not so long as there are men entering colleges. Colleges where women go to. We all know that when men and women are in the same place men just get itchy for a rapin.

http://thefire.org/case/841.html

"She Fears You" is based on the theory that men need a "combined emotional and cognitive intervention" to reform their deeply ingrained rape-supportive beliefs about gender and sexuality.

People ask me why I'm anti-feminist. I wonder how any can support something that sends these sorts of messages and look themselves in the mirror quite frankly.

To answer your question about child support and robbery... I think it's a good idea that's in need of politicians accepting that fact that facing reality isn't the same thing as being a politically incorrect monster, despite what feminist have to say on the matter.

Of course the state can't be expected to feed every baby, and there are realities in the way of the ideal of everybody only having babies once they can actually afford them.

The reason I call it enforced robbery though is because you get sent to prison for not paying it, and because the ONLY safeguard that women aren't just cashing in on her children(and believe there are lots that do) is the ridiculous notion that a woman "couldn't possibly be so selfish, she's just a woman, and if you take care of a woman than the only thing she'll want to do is take care of her children all the better."

You and I both know this is true. I wouldn't abolish the thing if I could, but I would damn sure put some checks in. Things like paternity tests, and I'd probably do away with handing over actual money, and instead make it so the father is buying things like vouchers that can only be traded for essentials.

Now who is the one giving long answers? Just kidding, of course .

Hum, that sounds like things are really bad over in the U.S. Are you sure the "shakedown" isn't due to the authorities believing the man does actually have funds, and is just unwilling to pay? I mean not that my confidence in the US legal system was hight to begin with, but that is crass.

Interesting read about that lecture. Certainly making it mandatory is a great way to encourage critical thinking, discussion and self-reflection. Also "emotional intervention"? That sounds sinister to me, unless done by a psychologist.

But you know, I think you shouldn't call yourself an anti-feminist (or be one, for that matter). Because being anti-something always ties you to that position for better or worse. As the situation in current U.S. politics shows, purely antagonistic behaviour is not getting anyone everywhere. One of the things that bugs me the most about these discussions is how easily we go from fighting discrimination of men to fighting feminism to just fighting women. If you want things to change, being antagonistic is often a good way to start, but it's not a good idea to make it a philosophy.

Anyways, before we go completely off-topic, I think your argument is overall reasonable (even though I find the rhethoric a bit aggressive), so yeah, good talk.

 

[CloudAtlas]

It's not "our" fault if you are unable to see the differences between power and sex fantasies.

This sentence is weird.

Either you're a man, and you're firstly saying that power and sex aren't things which cross over in all kinds of ways for all kinds of people(which is wrong), and secondly you're presuming that what is a power fantasy to a man might not be simultaneously be a sex fantasy to a female(which presumes intimate knowledge of a thing you can't have intimate knowledge of). I don't know about you, but when I was a younger lad and I saved Tifa for the first time with that sick one handed pull up, I often wondered why Cloud didn't do what she clearly wanted him to and take her home and show her the promised land, if you feel me.

Saying that power and sex fantasies are different doesn't mean they're mutually exclusive. But if someone thinks that male characters are "constantly" [significantly] sexualized, as often as female characters, then he either doesn't know what he's talking about or he is a troll.
You know, many women find Brad Pitt attractive, but that doesn't make every character Brad Pitt plays sexualized.

 

[CFriis87]

Maybe nobody ever told you or you just plain forgot all of a sudden, but your personal opinion means diddly-squat in a debate. Please try not to use your opinion as an argument in the future, it makes the gaming community look even more immature and dumb than otherwise.

And what makes your diddly-squat opinion better than mine?

And what exactly is my diddly-squat opinion on this then? Which parts of what I have said in thins thread is nothing but my opinion?