The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[thenoblitt]

"But are those women significantly sexualized? Are they trying to sell this makeup in suggestive poses? Does the camera in ads about eyeliner linger on their boobs? Those kind of questions might be a good place for you to start"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbBzlW_c3eI

Yes, yes they are.

 

[Stephen St.]

Things are pretty damn abysmal in both the Europe and Asia too.
With corrupt politicians like Harriet Harman in the UK, and both the EU and UN passing legislation to benefit women at the detriment of men.
Also, your exact logic for why not to call oneself an anti-feminist is just as great a reason to never call oneself a feminist.
MRAs don't want to fight women. At no point have we expressed any hate or even dislike of women. And all the women supporting the causes of the MRM would probably back me up on that.

I don't know about asia. I was under the impression that asia still requires a healthy dose of feminism in some areas, but while I always found e.g. japanese culture fascinating, I am not familiar enough with it to make a judgement. Europe seems mostly fine to me. There are still significant issues in the legal system to be adressed, but I feel Germany has been making steps in the right direction. The only thing people cannot seem to agree on is whether or not we need a state enforced quota for women in leading roles.

Can my logic applied to feminists just as well as anti feminists? I suppose it can, at least in part. I was making a broader point about ideologies in general, in any event. I do still think that there is a difference between feminism and MRA and anti-feminism/anti-MRA. If you describe your position as merely "anti-X", it seems to be you are not being very productive. You fight what you think is wrong, but you aren't making things better. At least that is what the label you give yourself seems to imply to me. Being "anti-X" always seems to make you a slave of "X" to some extent. "X" can choose the battles, and you have to fight them. Being "pro-Y" allows you a more nuanced position. But I guess this is getting kind of off-topic. And by the way, I only just now realized that using "X" and "Y" as placeholders is comically appropriate to the discussion we are having.

I don't accuse you (or anyone at the MRA) of fighting against women. But I get the feeling the sentiment often crops up in discussions such as this one. It may be trolls trying to be edgy, or it may be people who genuinely believe it. It's easy to use stories such as the one of the "white feather girls", together with the sentiment that women have always had it better than men and were just complaining about nothing (I broadly exaggerate here) to make generalizations about women. On the other hand, it really shouldn't be your problem what other people make of your arguments. So please don't read this as if I thought it's not allowed to discuss these issues because it might foster hatefull thinking.

 

[Stephen St.]

Didn't really see a explanatory response to this one. What you've done here is a perfect example of the "Apex Fallacy". Your vision has directed you toward the hero; the masculine center of attention and power. What you failed to see, was everyone else.

Take any video game which features both men and women. Now tell me who the primary protagonist is? Most likely a male yes? Ok. Now tell me who the primary antagonist is? Again, isn't it most likely a male? Interest thought isn't it? Now tell me who the majority, if not unanimously, of the cannon fodder is? Again, you might find it interesting to know it's once again men isn't it? Now can you tell me that even if we replaced the primary protagonist and the primary antagonist with women, do any games or have any games which have done so changed the gender of the cannon fodder? I can't name a single one that did.

During a lot of "sexism" discussions, people tend to focus on the "Apex" of their vision. Actually this happens in general more than people realize. Why else would people complain about rich white men in power but simultaneously ignore all the poor white men on the streets?

So you just made the claim there isn't a problem with male disposability based solely on the characterization of a SINGLE male within the game merely because he's the players avatar, all the while ignoring every other male character within the game because... and that's where male disposability comes into play. If the character, or male, isn't the center of attention, or a means to an end, they are for all intents and purposes invisible to the discussion, and in turn people's concern.

These debates tend to reinforce such notions merely because we, and in turn our media, focus on the characterization of the Apex, while ignoring everything else. Which is why "sexism" comes up so often, because women are still the minority when it comes to the centers of attention. With the obvious exception with visual material which gravitates toward the female form, so people feel the need to get up in arms about that.

I find it hysterical that women(of the RadFem variety) fail to see the inherent power within sexualization given our species sexual reproduction/natures and how it's an unfair representation while committing the Apex fallacy toward the power fantasies of men. The fact of the matter is that the "power fantasy" they keep shoving down people's throats actually requires the rampant disposability in order to make sense. Men want to be seen, not merely exist as an invisible background character that's a one button road block for the primary protagonist.

Did anyone really give two shits about the mushrooms or turtles in Mario? Hardly, they we're just obstacles to be jumped on. Now Mario saving Peach? Apparently that's some sexist shit right there.

This isn't the first time I've commented on the issue, and it's not the first time either that I have read your exact reasoning as a resposne. This is the first time, however, that I have heard the term "Apex fallacy", and a search immediately pointed me to the fact that this is a rather new term specifically coined for this discussion. I don't think it's a fallacy because whether or not the argument is appropriate depends on the context, but I will be discussing your argument on your own terms nonetheless.

Your first point seems to reinforce my argument. If both the primary protagonist and the primary antagonist are male, that means the two people which the story has the most to say about, and which have the largest influence on the events that unfold, are both male.

As for the "cannon fodder", we had threads about that. You can read up entire pages worth of perfectly sound reasons for that fact. But I am not going to go with that line of argument. Instead I want to ask you when you first started noticing the gender of the mooks you kill in droves (and by noticing I mean wonder about). Was it before or after you got into discussions like this one? I can tell you I did not.
Saying the "cannon fodder" exemplifies that we treat males as disposable, because we obviously have no qualms about killing them, is missing a very important aspect: That we do not, generally, see human beings as disposable at all. None of us would be comfortable with killing humans of any gender, I assume. It seems, therefore, quite obvious that as we experience the story of a video game (or action film, for that matter), we tend to ignore all the poor widows and orphans the protagonist produces. Because even though within the story, those were technically human beings, the story tends to gloss over that fact, and the audience ignores it.

In other words: It is no fallacy to concentrate on the "one percent" of a story, because stories usually are about only a handful of people. Their world might, in theory, be populated by female rulers and disposable male soldiers, but the story doesn't tell us about them. It tells us about the deeds of protagonist and antagonist, and those are the characters we care about.

As for the rest of the "Apex fallacy" issues, I have already adressed most of your points over the course of the discussion. Your argument:
"Why else would people complain about rich white men in power but simultaneously ignore all the poor white men on the streets?"
Implies that while only men could be in power, this was balanced by the fact that only men could be poor and die. As a matter of fact, women also were poor and lived on the streets, not all women of the 19th century were aristocrats. So the argument goes like this:"Most men were poor, and only few were well off, of which a part held power, while on the other hand most women were also poor, of which a few were well off, but practically none held power". If you tell people to look at the whole picture instead of just a specific group, it helps actually looking at the whole picture.

 

[CFriis87]

I don't know about asia. I was under the impression that asia still requires a healthy dose of feminism in some areas, but while I always found e.g. japanese culture fascinating, I am not familiar enough with it to make a judgement. Europe seems mostly fine to me. There are still significant issues in the legal system to be adressed, but I feel Germany has been making steps in the right direction. The only thing people cannot seem to agree on is whether or not we need a state enforced quota for women in leading roles.

Asian culture is too different from ours for our kind of feminism to even be compatible. Japanes culture in particular is very much based on men being obedient worker drones while the women fill the role of housewife. This is changing somewhat and like in the west, more women are entering the workforce out of necessity. The Japanese mentality that men must be obedient worker drones however is so pervasive that a sort of peaceful rebellious movement has risen from it.
In Japan, so many men are now completely refusing to take up their gender role that the phenomenon has been named "Herbivore Men", and as Japanese economists are panicking over the damage that this is doing to the Japanese Business and Industrial Infrastructure, marketing bureaus are scrambling to create new techniques to cater to this new huge target demographic and their news-media are trying good old shaming tactics... much like western media is doing with the so-called XBox-generation of men.
Since August 8, 2013, as per the new "femicide" law, any man in Italy can be jailed, without preliminary due process, if an anonymous allegation of violence is filed against him (thanks Isabella Mussollini):

Illegal immigrants will get a residence permit if they make allegations of violence.

The State will pay for a lawyer for anybody who makes allegations of violence. (Such lawyers are usually feminists and the police already recognize that 80% of such allegations are false).

Women will no longer have the right to stop cases created through their own allegations. (This secures the economical gain of feminist lawyers for about 10 years, given that the Italian judiciary system is so slow)

Such allegations will have a ?preferential path in courts? and the person who makes allegations will be ?protected?. Thus lawyers can be denied of the right to normally interrogate the accuser to establish the truth. In particular, the allegation can be anonymous.

As immediate action, men can be thrown away from their homes if there is ?a risk of danger? for a woman. In other words, men will go to jail before a trial even gets to take place.


And that's not even to speak of the Italian media war there's been against men recently with the Istanbul Convention, in which it was constantly trumpeted out that 7 million Italian women were victims of male violence. A claim based on a phone survey, where Italian women receive questions such as ?does your partner criticize your dressing?? Women who answered ?yes? have been counted as a victim, without even knowing it. The statistical fraud became evident when the researchers asked the same questions to men, getting the same rate of ?yes? answers. Do the Italian feminists care about inconvenient things like facts? Of course not.

Let's move north, to Germany.
The country where schools diligently drill into the heads of students that sexism against women is evil, just like racism, xenophobia, pollution and climate change... but pretend that sexism against men doesn't exist.
Babara Morawec and her followers even blame the entirety of climate change on men, and men's consumerism. Despite the fact that over 80% of all retail purchases are made by women.
A 2007 study by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research showed how hostile German schools had become to boys under feminist supervision. Even revealing that given the same degree of competency, boys received worse grades than girls. In the five years that have passed since this study was completed, nothing has been done about this.
Tellingly, the Education Ministry released the embarrassing study without any press release and without drawing any attention to it. During the 2007 Christmas season, they even tried taking down the study from their webpage, hoping that nobody would notice. Thanks to some inquiring German Men?s Rights Advocates, this attempt at censorship failed and they had to put up the study once again.

Well... maybe it's better in France...
Where apparently a wife can sue her husband for not having enough sex with her, and get the court to demand he pays her $13'000 in damages for her hurt feelings... odd legal precedent to set, considering how marital rape is illegal... oh wait! That's right, it's only rape when men do it. I guess everything is alright in France.

Onwards to Spain!
Have you ever heard of the "Ley Contra la Violencia de Género" (or Organic Act of Integrated Protection Measures against Gender Violence)?
I have.
In my opinion, the law of ?Gender Violence?, that is to say a law defined as violence against women originating exclusively from male partners, is in itself, unconstitutional and should never have been approved. The pre-approval reports issued ​​by the General Council of the Judiciary, the State Council and the Attorney General, were extremely negative and warned of serious legal and constitutional consequences. The question we ask ourselves is why was it approved despite the negative reports issued by important advisory bodies?
This law is fundamentally sexist (protecting only female partners), legally asymmetric and unidirectional. The law interprets lesser acts of violence committed by a woman against a man as a misdemeanor, whereas if the perpetrator is a man, it is interpreted as a crime. It also disregards the right that a Spanish citizen may not suffer discrimination on the grounds of sex. But what is most alarming is that the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence becomes, in the case of a man, a presumption of guilt, reversing the burden of proof, forcing the accused to prove his innocence beyond doubt, directly violating several international laws ratified by Spain, which guarantee the presumption of innocence, as for example, article 14.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 6.2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Man... all these Mediterranean countries sure dropped the ball there... Maybe Sweden, the country most praised for it's advances in equality between the sexes fares better.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen/2013/06/21/the-voice-of-europe-scandinavian-feminism

Hmmm... on second thought... let's not got to any Scandinavian countries, they are silly places where men can be thrown in jail for expressing they are not feminists apparently.

Perhaps in the same way God saves the Queen, the Queen will save us?
Let's check up on the UK.
Erin Pizzey, a self-proclaimed feminist and the one to open the very first Domestic Violence shelter, was actually chased out of the country by her "sisterhood" for daring to open up her shelter to male victims after discovering some truths about domestic violence that she wasn't supposed to know. She chose asylum in a different country after repeated death threats and the murder of her family dog.
Well, that's a bit and some time ago I guess, maybe it's better now.
Or at least it might have been if not for Harriet Harman and her ilk.

Can my logic applied to feminists just as well as anti feminists? I suppose it can, at least in part. I was making a broader point about ideologies in general, in any event. I do still think that there is a difference between feminism and MRA and anti-feminism/anti-MRA. If you describe your position as merely "anti-X", it seems to be you are not being very productive. You fight what you think is wrong, but you aren't making things better. At least that is what the label you give yourself seems to imply to me. Being "anti-X" always seems to make you a slave of "X" to some extent. "X" can choose the battles, and you have to fight them. Being "pro-Y" allows you a more nuanced position. But I guess this is getting kind of off-topic. And by the way, I only just now realized that using "X" and "Y" as placeholders is comically appropriate to the discussion we are having.

Maybe fighting the wrongs I see isn't being constructive, but someone once said something along the lines of "For evil to prevail, all it takes is for good men to do nothing."
If I were only an anti-feminist, I would only be trying to stem the tide of shit making the world worse. I might not directly be improving the world, but I would be helping.

I don't accuse you (or anyone at the MRA) of fighting against women. But I get the feeling the sentiment often crops up in discussions such as this one. It may be trolls trying to be edgy, or it may be people who genuinely believe it. It's easy to use stories such as the one of the "white feather girls", together with the sentiment that women have always had it better than men and were just complaining about nothing (I broadly exaggerate here) to make generalizations about women. On the other hand, it really shouldn't be your problem what other people make of your arguments. So please don't read this as if I thought it's not allowed to discuss these issues because it might foster hatefull thinking.

I don't make generalizations about women, I make generalisations about feminists.
I don't hate women, I hate feminists. As even the moderate ones do little other than act as foils to shield the radical ones with their constant "not all feminists are like that" and their "the dictionary says feminism is about equality".
Worthless platitudes.

 

[wearesoneutralthatithurts]

Link is a young boy who is expected to risk his life for someone he's never met. And he's... nothing else. I don't think that's a healthy message if it is repeated ad infinitum to every boy ever: "Your life is nothing, except what you can do to save others".

I'm not claiming there's direct equivalence, but would you say this is also a problem?

This is following thoughts about men being treated as disposable in the media, and this blog post in particular. [http://themalesofgames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/men-are-expendable-gender.html]

Cheers.

Ask not what, ask who
Who controls the military? how much % of the military is male? how much % of the politicians are male? how much % of the professors, of the lawyers and judges (up to the very relevant courts which have a control in government) How much % of the police is male? of the FBI, the DEA etc
How much % of people in Media are male? Newspaper writers, authors in general, people in advertisement etc..
how much % of the people, who really decide things (CEO´s, the head of a newspaper, of a company etc) are male?

These people also define our ideas of the roles men and women(and all the other)they rule in favour of one gender in court because society< believes that only the mother is the most important thing.. These people define what needs to be in a person to be part of the armed forces etc..

patriarchy (or kyriarchy) hurts men too.

you can´t criticise feminist for gender roles the society makes which harm men.
because they didnt made them, they very often even criticise them.

so if you have a problem with the "disposability"(well, arent heroes exactly what people want? have a meaning for other people, being important for the safety and wellbeing of others?) of people, you have to criticize the people who are in control. and that are usually men.
also you should criticize the men who like to be that, the society which expect men to act "manly", the society which defines, waht is acceptable to do as man or woman without fear of being shamed or ostracised.


i find the idea of disposability generally shit-no person should ever be disposable. but that counts for all genders.. I detest the idea of heroic military and shit, war is never heroic, its just controlled murder. also I detest the idea that women should get pregnant and get the child because some people try to force their beliefs down on other people(and sadly are successful) at the cost of their well-being and even their life (e.g:the fetus is more relevant than the life of the mother(and the doctor), and if the mother gets pregnant too early(e.g lack of sex education in school and delivers the child, she gets ignored because she is a bad example because she dared to have sex too early (another problem is this obsession with sexuality and the taboo-isation of sexuality at the same time.)

I dont like forced strict gender roles at all. The idea, a man should be so and so and the woman should be so and so and that there is only woman and man, male and female and all the people who doesn't fit in these rigid roles get shames, become unhappy and ill and suffer sometimes terribly because some people dont understand that their idea of man and womanhood is just that: THEIR idea and not the norm everybody should submit under(because otherwise they will suffer the consequences which can destroy their happiness and cost even their life)

(so, teh diea of disposability is a bit derailinga nd also a big of staw-(wo)-man because I dont think taht the bad feminsit woudl want all men to be disposable and even if, how? they are a minority which are not in dontrol. thepoeple inc ontrol the society makes this shit situation for all. Not feminists)


also-children and women first is a nice idea but there are almost no cases in which this was ever enforced..There was ONE boat on the titanic in which one idiot forced other people off the boat(he had a gun) but usually its the fastest first(and maybe children.) So the idea women& children first is a noble idea but was& is usually not reality.
Also-Woman FAUGHT for the Right to get into the military. against men. (also women were historically part o f army and in revolutions often to 40% involved-fighting(eg part of the Russian army or part of partisans) or as field-medic and in organisation and distribution. If you research enough, you will find this, but the story's in media& history tend to ignore that and help built the picture of the helpless nice(well, female KZ-Guards were as shit as the male ones) women and the heroic fighting male soldier.
I red a nice text about this but i forgot the name and i don't find it-but i have linked the text in one of my postings here in the escapist (i think it was in a thread about tropes vs women inn video-games part 1 or part 2 as an answer on why its so important to rave realistic portrayals of women in media(and the effect of misrepresentation). Because it shapes our reality and our perception of gender)

 

[oreso]

Link is a young boy who is expected to risk his life for someone he's never met. And he's... nothing else. I don't think that's a healthy message if it is repeated ad infinitum to every boy ever: "Your life is nothing, except what you can do to save others".

I'm not claiming there's direct equivalence, but would you say this is also a problem?

This is following thoughts about men being treated as disposable in the media, and this blog post in particular. [http://themalesofgames.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/men-are-expendable-gender.html]

Cheers.

Ask not what, ask who
Who controls the military? how much % of the military is male? how much % of the politicians are male? how much % of the professors, of the lawyers and judges (up to the very relevant courts which have a control in government) How much % of the police is male? of the FBI, the DEA etc
How much % of people in Media are male? Newspaper writers, authors in general, people in advertisement etc..
how much % of the people, who really decide things (CEO´s, the head of a newspaper, of a company etc) are male?

These people also define our ideas of the roles men and women(and all the other)they rule in favour of one gender in court because society< believes that only the mother is the most important thing.. These people define what needs to be in a person to be part of the armed forces etc..

Great! Thank you for your detailed response.

I think it's a little more complicated than that (for example, I believe we tend to police our own gender more than anything. We don't often have much to say about the other gender. For example, women's magazines, with their obsession with appearance etc, tend to be written by women).

But I'm not really interested in laying blame at one gender or another. We're all members of one society, and I believe we'll only be able to make changes if we move together in that.

you can´t criticise feminist for gender roles the society makes which harm men.
because they didnt made them, they very often even criticise them.

I didn't intend any criticism in my post, and I didn't mention feminism at all. I was only raising that it was an issue worthy of attention.

I'll certainly reply to your points though! Personally, I think feminist organisations should remain women's advocacy groups (since that is what they are, 95% of the time), but we should also allow men's groups to have their own voices too. Even if they're critical sometimes, and even if a minority them are crazy and hateful (just as we shouldn't dismiss wider feminism for crazy hateful radfems). It's important that society learns to listen to the complaints of men, not just dismiss their opinions because of a prejudgement like "male privilege".

so if you have a problem with the "disposability"(well, arent heroes exactly what people want? have a meaning for other people, being important for the safety and wellbeing of others?) of people, you have to criticize the people who are in control. and that are usually men.

Well, if you ask soldiers why they're soldiers, I'm sure a goodly number of them have wives to care for (who have a safer and less-well-paid jobs), not because a man strong-armed them into service (at least, since the last draft). Another big reason will be education; women now outperform men at every single level of education, and they now outnumber them at higher education too. Those excess men are likely to be going to more dangerous jobs than their better educated female peers.

Like I say, I think it's more complex than just "Men in charge, so men are collectively to blame". There are lots of reasons for why people make the choices they do.

I mean, I'm sure if feminist groups campaign seriously for the abolishment or equalising of the draft and for getting more women into dangerous jobs, they could do it. Women are the majority of voters after all. But I don't seriously expect them to, of course, since it isn't in their members best interests. They, quite sensibly, seem more interested in getting more female CEOs and the like, not more female garbage collectors, crab fishers and lumberjacks. As it stands though, 90% of workplace deaths are men, and 99% of combat deaths. I don't blame anyone for this, but it is quite clearly unequal.

BUT, regardless of this, I almost totally agree with the following (spoilered for space):

Spoiler

also you should criticize the men who like to be that, the society which expect men to act "manly", the society which defines, waht is acceptable to do as man or woman without fear of being shamed or ostracised.

i find the idea of disposability generally shit-no person should ever be disposable. but that counts for all genders.. I detest the idea of heroic military and shit, war is never heroic, its just controlled murder. also I detest the idea that women should get pregnant and get the child because some people try to force their beliefs down on other people(and sadly are successful) at the cost of their well-being and even their life (e.g:the fetus is more relevant than the life of the mother(and the doctor), and if the mother gets pregnant too early(e.g lack of sex education in school and delivers the child, she gets ignored because she is a bad example because she dared to have sex too early (another problem is this obsession with sexuality and the taboo-isation of sexuality at the same time.)

I dont like forced strict gender roles at all. The idea, a man should be so and so and the woman should be so and so and that there is only woman and man, male and female and all the people who doesn't fit in these rigid roles get shames, become unhappy and ill and suffer sometimes terribly because some people dont understand that their idea of man and womanhood is just that: THEIR idea and not the norm everybody should submit under(because otherwise they will suffer the consequences which can destroy their happiness and cost even their life)

However, you lose me here a bit:

(so, teh diea of disposability is a bit derailinga nd also a big of staw-(wo)-man because I dont think taht the bad feminsit woudl want all men to be disposable and even if, how? they are a minority which are not in dontrol. thepoeple inc ontrol the society makes this shit situation for all. Not feminists)

Society isn't a doctrine written down by a cabal of manly guys. It formed over a long time for the benefit of society as a whole, and has a lot of evolutionary support too.

The cold facts are simple from an evolutionary perspective: Women can mother 1 child a year. Men can father 100 children a year. So even if 98% of a tribe's men die, you still have twice as many men as you need in order to get maximum population growth. So ideally, every woman is protected and cloistered away, constantly making babies, and every man is willing to die for his family, society, etc. Sexism is in nature's best interests.

Of course, none of these factors are important now. We should just be aware of them, so we know what we're fighting against (not a cabal of guys who wrote society for their benefit, but a natural system which protects and restricts one gender, while expending the other).

Feminism doesn't have to want male disposability (I don't believe it does. The feminist literature I've read, admittedly a few years ago, didn't mention it at all), but it is still an inequality that is deeply ingrained in our psyche which should be combated as and where we find it, if we are interested in equality as a whole (which you don't have to be! It's fine to just be a women's advocate if you want to, of course. No one person can campaign for everything simultaneously).

I red a nice text about this but i forgot the name and i don't find it-but i have linked the text in one of my postings here in the escapist (i think it was in a thread about tropes vs women inn video-games part 1 or part 2 as an answer on why its so important to rave realistic portrayals of women in media(and the effect of misrepresentation). Because it shapes our reality and our perception of gender)

I'm actually somewhat sceptical of any strong link between representation in the media and our own behaviour. This is identical reasoning to folks who claim that violent video games cause violence. I mean, certainly some violent folks will play violent video games. And certainly some anorexic girls will obsess over women's magazines. But the video games didn't cause the violence, and the magazines didn't cause the anorexia.

And interestingly enough, we appear to have had high-profile military women in our culture for a very long time. Role models have been available since the Greek Amazonomachy, Mulan, Boudicca, Joan of Arc and every single goddess of War. These are crazily popular role models even, but they haven't really led to large numbers of women taking up arms and dying at any point anywhere on Earth at any time during our entire history (and I think because of other factors, all deriving from the evolutionary factors I mentioned above).


Thank you again for your post!

 

[CFriis87]

Ask not what, ask who
Who controls the military? how much % of the military is male? how much % of the politicians are male? how much % of the professors, of the lawyers and judges (up to the very relevant courts which have a control in government) How much % of the police is male? of the FBI, the DEA etc
How much % of people in Media are male? Newspaper writers, authors in general, people in advertisement etc..
how much % of the people, who really decide things (CEO´s, the head of a newspaper, of a company etc) are male?

None of these points matter, and your view of the flow of power is overly simplistic.
The military is controlled by politicians, politicians are controlled by popular opinion and popular opinion is feminism.
The media preaches to the choir, and the choir is feminist.
Bringing up professors, lawyers and judges is just about the worst thing you could have done to support your case, since every western country's legal system and academia is militantly anti-male through and through. You'd have had at least an inkling of this if you had actually read some of the posts in this thread.
You may want to read up on something called "proxy violence", which is violence committed by one person, on the behalf of another. The police force may be male, but they exercise their power on behalf of others... as proxies. The same goes for the military, the FBI, the DEA, the CIA, Homeland Security... all there to further the goals of someone other than themselves. Committing proxy violence, against men who don't do as they're supposed to, on behalf of women.

These people also define our ideas of the roles men and women(and all the other)they rule in favour of one gender in court because society< believes that only the mother is the most important thing.. These people define what needs to be in a person to be part of the armed forces etc..

patriarchy (or kyriarchy) hurts men too.

you can´t criticise feminist for gender roles the society makes which harm men.
because they didnt made them, they very often even criticise them.

A wise man once said, "If you want to know who holds true power, find out who you're not allowed to criticize.".
Also, we're not saying feminism created the gender roles they claim to be fighting, but feminism is perpetuating them.
Ever wonder why feminists keep demanding more and more special programs to aid and protect women from any and all perceived threats? Aren't grown women supposed to be equal to men? If so, then why all of this focus on keeping women protected from physical harm (woman are less than 25% of all victims of violent crimes) and psychological harm (men are the majority of victims of psychological abuse).
Men are also the majority of all rape victims in the US, despite what your feminist programming may be telling you.
So why should women be the ones to get the protection? Shouldn't they be equally capable of protecting themselves... actually, shouldn't they be able to do it better than any man, and in heels?

so if you have a problem with the "disposability"(well, arent heroes exactly what people want? have a meaning for other people, being important for the safety and wellbeing of others?) of people, you have to criticize the people who are in control. and that are usually men.
also you should criticize the men who like to be that, the society which expect men to act "manly", the society which defines, waht is acceptable to do as man or woman without fear of being shamed or ostracised.

Funny how the word "men" turns into the word "people" as soon as it feels a little bad to admit they're treated wrong... less funny how your argument then devolves into victim blaming so you can cover your ass.
Guess what happens when men start to act in ways they're not supposed to:
Earl Silverman started a shelter for male victims of Domestic Violence, funding it out of his own pocket until he could get government funding to continue running it. Feminists opposed him for funding, he was denied, apparently the government figured the women needed it more... after all, feminists keep telling us that domestic violence is something women suffer at the hands of men ( ).
He kept trying to get funding, he kept getting denied, he ran himself into the ground trying to help others.
For years he kept fighting until he was broken, broke and depressed. He killed himself...
After this, feminists must surely have found it in their hearts to support male victims of domestic violence... in some fantasy world perhaps. In this world, they're busy washing their hands of the matter, blaming him, dragging his name through the mud at any chance they get.

How about Thomas Ball? The man who spent years fighting for the right to see his children. His ex-wife having made him broke through alimony and child-support, getting the court to send him to prison for being unable to pay.
In the end, he sat down on the steps in front of the court-house, poured gasoline over himself and lit himself on fire.
I guess it was less painful than what he was going through.
Feminists are busy decrying him as a violent sociopath and batterer, saying his suicide was a selfish act and a psychological attack on his ex-wife.

About 80% of all US suicides are men.

i find the idea of disposability generally shit-no person should ever be disposable. but that counts for all genders.. I detest the idea of heroic military and shit, war is never heroic, its just controlled murder. also I detest the idea that women should get pregnant and get the child because some people try to force their beliefs down on other people(and sadly are successful) at the cost of their well-being and even their life (e.g:the fetus is more relevant than the life of the mother(and the doctor), and if the mother gets pregnant too early(e.g lack of sex education in school and delivers the child, she gets ignored because she is a bad example because she dared to have sex too early (another problem is this obsession with sexuality and the taboo-isation of sexuality at the same time.)

Who do you think are the main supporters of the rules making mothers the default custodians of children, allowing fathers to be shut out of families altogether? I'll give you three guesses.

I dont like forced strict gender roles at all. The idea, a man should be so and so and the woman should be so and so and that there is only woman and man, male and female and all the people who doesn't fit in these rigid roles get shames, become unhappy and ill and suffer sometimes terribly because some people dont understand that their idea of man and womanhood is just that: THEIR idea and not the norm everybody should submit under(because otherwise they will suffer the consequences which can destroy their happiness and cost even their life)

Well, that's nice of you... I guess.

(so, teh diea of disposability is a bit derailinga nd also a big of staw-(wo)-man because I dont think taht the bad feminsit woudl want all men to be disposable and even if, how? they are a minority which are not in dontrol. thepoeple inc ontrol the society makes this shit situation for all. Not feminists)

This bit is actually making me suspect you of being an anti-feminist pretending to be a feminist, it's just too dumb. So I'm not even going to bother.

also-children and women first is a nice idea but there are almost no cases in which this was ever enforced..There was ONE boat on the titanic in which one idiot forced other people off the boat(he had a gun) but usually its the fastest first(and maybe children.) So the idea women& children first is a noble idea but was& is usually not reality.
Also-Woman FAUGHT for the Right to get into the military. against men. (also women were historically part o f army and in revolutions often to 40% involved-fighting(eg part of the Russian army or part of partisans) or as field-medic and in organisation and distribution. If you research enough, you will find this, but the story's in media& history tend to ignore that and help built the picture of the helpless nice(well, female KZ-Guards were as shit as the male ones) women and the heroic fighting male soldier.
I red a nice text about this but i forgot the name and i don't find it-but i have linked the text in one of my postings here in the escapist (i think it was in a thread about tropes vs women inn video-games part 1 or part 2 as an answer on why its so important to rave realistic portrayals of women in media(and the effect of misrepresentation). Because it shapes our reality and our perception of gender)

Seriously? You really think the Titanic was the only time "Women and children first" was a thing? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH-gasp-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...
No... just no.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

This isn't the first time I've commented on the issue, and it's not the first time either that I have read your exact reasoning as a resposne. This is the first time, however, that I have heard the term "Apex fallacy", and a search immediately pointed me to the fact that this is a rather new term specifically coined for this discussion. I don't think it's a fallacy because whether or not the argument is appropriate depends on the context, but I will be discussing your argument on your own terms nonetheless.

The English language has a tendency to continue evolving based on the growing complexity of the subjects it attempts to address in communication. It being a fallacy involves a discussion regarding gender representation in a singular role within a game; that of the protagonist. But of course, this would not necessarily apply toward a discussion regarding merely a singular depiction of a gender or character within a game.

The reason I brought it up was again the continued focus on an individual depiction of a character within their context, since you seem so keen on that being an important factor. The problem of course with a contextual position is that you can build an arbitrary basis for it compared to alternative contextual explanations. For example, a discussion between Power VS Sex within God of War. One might make an argument regarding the obvious sexualization of the female characters there. But then one needs to take into consideration the context in which they exist; the two I can think of off the top of my head being a Goddess who was known for her sexuality and a slave girl kept specifically for that purpose. Are we to assume over sexualizing these characters to be a sexist depiction of women based on their artistic portrayal? Would it have made a difference in either case? Does it matter?

Your first point seems to reinforce my argument. If both the primary protagonist and the primary antagonist are male, that means the two people which the story has the most to say about, and which have the largest influence on the events that unfold, are both male.

Negative, because only the player has any influence regarding how the story unfolds; the antagonist is merely a plot device. He/she may be an important plot device, but they do not move the story along. The gender of the protagonist is usually rather inconsequential unless specifically brought up in the story for a purpose. There are many characters whose genders could be swapped with literally no impact on the game whatsoever, and would merely change the nature of how they are used in a discussion such as this.

And as a side note, I don't see many people asking for more female villains much.

As for the "cannon fodder", we had threads about that. You can read up entire pages worth of perfectly sound reasons for that fact. But I am not going to go with that line of argument. Instead I want to ask you when you first started noticing the gender of the mooks you kill in droves (and by noticing I mean wonder about). Was it before or after you got into discussions like this one? I can tell you I did not.

I can tell you I always assumed they were male. I did not appreciate what that thought meant until I started dealing with gender issues.

Saying the "cannon fodder" exemplifies that we treat males as disposable, because we obviously have no qualms about killing them, is missing a very important aspect: That we do not, generally, see human beings as disposable at all. None of us would be comfortable with killing humans of any gender, I assume. It seems, therefore, quite obvious that as we experience the story of a video game (or action film, for that matter), we tend to ignore all the poor widows and orphans the protagonist produces. Because even though within the story, those were technically human beings, the story tends to gloss over that fact, and the audience ignores it.

Two points of contention with this...

1. Wanting to specifically dispose of something isn't the only meaning of disposable. You essentially pointed out the other meaning with "ignores it". People are generally invisible to each other save for two exceptions; they offer us something we want or they get in our way. You and I are merely 2 people out of roughly 7 billion people. How many do you interact with on a daily basis? How many of them serve any interest in your life, such as designing video games or fixing your leaky faucet? When someone can easily be replaced, they become disposable.

2. If we find it so simply to ignore the countless male murders we inflict in video games, along with the poor orphans, widows and street urchins, why do we suddenly give a shit when a single character happens to wear a short skirt? Doesn't the *story* simply gloss over that fact? Why the sudden uproar over an artistic representation of a single character who doesn't impact the *story* whatsoever by the way they dress?

In other words: It is no fallacy to concentrate on the "one percent" of a story, because stories usually are about only a handful of people. Their world might, in theory, be populated by female rulers and disposable male soldiers, but the story doesn't tell us about them. It tells us about the deeds of protagonist and antagonist, and those are the characters we care about.

So how does their attire affect the story? Let's not confuse ourselves with our *personal perceptions* of the individual 1% of characters. Tifa could wear a G-String and it wouldn't impact how she performs within a fictional storyline. Her character is already written. If no character, and at no point does the story address her attire in any way, then their attire tells us nothing beyond what we want to personally interpret about them.

Is Princess Peach a Princess because she has a poofy pink dress and a crown on her head? Or is she a princess because she was written and described as a princess? Zelda dressing like a pirate didn't change the fact she was a princess now did it? So why would stocking and a garter belt?

As for the rest of the "Apex fallacy" issues, I have already adressed most of your points over the course of the discussion. Your argument: "Why else would people complain about rich white men in power but simultaneously ignore all the poor white men on the streets?" Implies that while only men could be in power,

Not what I'm implying at all, it's what you're interpreting.

... this was balanced by the fact that only men could be poor and die. As a matter of fact, women also were poor and lived on the streets, not all women of the 19th century were aristocrats.

Yet you admit that some women were 19th century aristocrats?

So the argument goes like this:"Most men were poor, and only few were well off, of which a part held power, while on the other hand most women were also poor, of which a few were well off, but practically none held power".

You really don't understand the argument do you? Let me use some graphics to help you out.

Here's what most Feminists think... (Feel Free to swap out Poor/Rich for any adjective)
-------------------------------
____________________


Here's a better reflection of reality...
-------------------------------

____

Men have always had a larger spectrum than women, when applied to just about every facet of human existence. So it does *no one* any good to focus merely on the 1% at the top and apply that as the average. It's fallacious.

If you tell people to look at the whole picture instead of just a specific group, it helps actually looking at the whole picture.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There are those who ignore the disposability of males within gaming simply because of a statistical prevalence of them being the primary protagonists. While on the other hand they ***** and moan about the artistic representation of the statistical minority of females in gaming. And of course, the constant disagreement behind the concepts behind power and sexuality when applied to the perceptions of both genders and what they perceive about the other gender. Because apparently women in general aren't attracted to men with muscles but men in general all like oversized breasts.

As you said, it helps to look at the big picture and take into consideration the complexity of human nature, human sexuality, and how each gender chooses to depict itself and the opposing gender in either power or sexual fantasies. When one actually goes beyond a cursory glance at it, it's never as simple as anyone, especially Feminists, make it out to be.

As for "rampant sexualization in videogames"; I see no evidence to suggest such a problem exists. Nor do I see evidence to suggest that the rampant sexualization of "anything" do be inherently harmful. Until someone actually provides evidence, and not some cockamany theory, I'll be glad to continue dismissing it as the hogwash it is.

 

[Deviluk]

Good looking or attractive characters are not the same thing as sexualized characters.

Nicely put. Really nicely put.
<spoiler=This is attractive><img src=http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs48/f/2013/084/a/5/cut__chie_satonaka_by_estormwrath-d26hdxp.png><img src=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_x7TEv9abDCM/Siz3w6wHfLI/AAAAAAAAAS4/QE4DLPbApF0/s400/Lili_13.jpg><img src=http://download.minitokyo.net/Yukiko.Amagi.587090.jpg>
<spoiler=This is oversexualized><img src=http://mobi-wall.brothersoft.com/files/320240/i/12823643811710.jpg><img src=http://static.minitokyo.net/downloads/04/36/466804.jpg>

Hit the nail right on the head there with those characters. Bravo.

 

[Stephen St.]

The English language has a tendency to continue evolving based on the growing complexity of the subjects it attempts to address in communication. It being a fallacy involves a discussion regarding gender representation in a singular role within a game; that of the protagonist. But of course, this would not necessarily apply toward a discussion regarding merely a singular depiction of a gender or character within a game.

The reason I brought it up was again the continued focus on an individual depiction of a character within their context, since you seem so keen on that being an important factor. The problem of course with a contextual position is that you can build an arbitrary basis for it compared to alternative contextual explanations. For example, a discussion between Power VS Sex within God of War. One might make an argument regarding the obvious sexualization of the female characters there. But then one needs to take into consideration the context in which they exist; the two I can think of off the top of my head being a Goddess who was known for her sexuality and a slave girl kept specifically for that purpose. Are we to assume over sexualizing these characters to be a sexist depiction of women based on their artistic portrayal? Would it have made a difference in either case? Does it matter?

I would say sexualization is always sexist, because it basically uses a character as an object of desire. Whether or not the characters in God of War are sexualized, I do not know, I haven't played the game, unfortunately. From the way you describe it, it sounds like the characters were not, in fact, sexualized, because their depictions fitted their characters and roles. Does that matter? In and of itself, probably not. As a general cultural phenomon, probably yes.

Negative, because only the player has any influence regarding how the story unfolds; the antagonist is merely a plot device. He/she may be an important plot device, but they do not move the story along. The gender of the protagonist is usually rather inconsequential unless specifically brought up in the story for a purpose. There are many characters whose genders could be swapped with literally no impact on the game whatsoever, and would merely change the nature of how they are used in a discussion such as this.

I think we need to separate the different layers of storytelling here. In the context of the story, "in-character", so to say, all characters influence the in-game world. Obviously it's all already written down in the code, but for the purposes of the story, the antagonists do have agency. It is that story that is then percieved by the player and influences them.

I can tell you I always assumed they were male. I did not appreciate what that thought meant until I started dealing with gender issues.

Two points of contention with this...

1. Wanting to specifically dispose of something isn't the only meaning of disposable. You essentially pointed out the other meaning with "ignores it". People are generally invisible to each other save for two exceptions; they offer us something we want or they get in our way. You and I are merely 2 people out of roughly 7 billion people. How many do you interact with on a daily basis? How many of them serve any interest in your life, such as designing video games or fixing your leaky faucet? When someone can easily be replaced, they become disposable.

You have a point about most people being "invisible", but I don't quite see how that adresses the argument. When we look at games, movies or books, everything that tells a story, basically, those stories influence us. Some in more profound ways, others only if they get repeated over and over. From a cultural standpoint, it is that influence which is important. The characters that are "invisible" to the story do not take part in that influence, because the story does not say something about them. Unless a game goes the Spec Ops route and says "look at all the people you killed", that part isn't what we take away from the game. Therefore, from a cultural standpoint, the gender of the "cannon fodder" probably has no influence on people's mentalities.

2. If we find it so simply to ignore the countless male murders we inflict in video games, along with the poor orphans, widows and street urchins, why do we suddenly give a shit when a single character happens to wear a short skirt? Doesn't the *story* simply gloss over that fact? Why the sudden uproar over an artistic representation of a single character who doesn't impact the *story* whatsoever by the way they dress?

I don't think the people that actually understand the argument are complaining about clothes, specifically. It is about representation. What a character is wearing is part of that, but that doesn't mean that a depiction is sexist as soon as a character is sexy. Take the famous scene from "Basic Instinct": that exemplified something about the woman's character. The Bikinis in DoA do no such thing. I would agree with you, though, if you say that sexualized enemies like the nuns in Hit Man really don't matter much. What matters is the stories games tell about men and women.

So how does their attire affect the story? Let's not confuse ourselves with our *personal perceptions* of the individual 1% of characters. Tifa could wear a G-String and it wouldn't impact how she performs within a fictional storyline. Her character is already written. If no character, and at no point does the story address her attire in any way, then their attire tells us nothing beyond what we want to personally interpret about them.

Is Princess Peach a Princess because she has a poofy pink dress and a crown on her head? Or is she a princess because she was written and described as a princess? Zelda dressing like a pirate didn't change the fact she was a princess now did it? So why would stocking and a garter belt?

I would like to answer that with a rhetorical question: When you meet a stranger, does their attire matter in your initial assessment of the person? I suppose it does, and it factors in heavily. And that isn't even being shallow, looks can tell you a lot about the character of a person.

So when you design a character, the attire is obviously going to be part of it. If we were told about the delicate princess peach, and then get presented with a woman in full plate and a 2-hander, that would be a message in and of itself. If, on the other hand, we get a character presented as a powerful warrior, competent and strong, and then all she ever does in the story is get captured and make a pretty ornament in a skimpy outfit, that sends quite a different message.

Your Zelda example is actually precisely to the point: As long as Zelda is in a pirate "costume", she is capable and empowered. As soon as she wears a gown, she is helpless and gets captured. What message do you think that sends?

Yet you admit that some women were 19th century aristocrats?

You really don't understand the argument do you? Let me use some graphics to help you out.

Here's what most Feminists think... (Feel Free to swap out Poor/Rich for any adjective)
-------------------------------
____________________


Here's a better reflection of reality...
-------------------------------

____

Men have always had a larger spectrum than women, when applied to just about every facet of human existence. So it does *no one* any good to focus merely on the 1% at the top and apply that as the average. It's fallacious.

So, let me get this straight: You now explain to me, how my argument is supposed to work? I think we got confused on the roles here. I have never made the argument you outlined above, nor has, to my knowledge, anyone else in this discussion.

The point is, quite simply, that men had the ability to get into positions of power, while women had not. This is not an argument to the effect that the mean "hardship" of life wasn't equal for men and women. It therefore doesn't quite matter how many female aristocrats there were, or whether there were more female aristocrats then male. Those are all arguments that treat society like it's some kind of point system, where your "worth" is measured as an exact number and we look at what gender has more points in total.

Men controlled the property, because they inherited; Men controlled religion, because women couldn't apply; Men controlled politics, because women were deemed unfit for debating serious issues; Men controlled science, because women were unfit for science. Those factors all influenced the culture. It doesn't say that women had it worse in life than men. What it says that women weren't equal. What it says is that women weren't in control of their own destiny. And in videogames, female characters often still are not.

That's exactly what I'm saying. There are those who ignore the disposability of males within gaming simply because of a statistical prevalence of them being the primary protagonists. While on the other hand they ***** and moan about the artistic representation of the statistical minority of females in gaming. And of course, the constant disagreement behind the concepts behind power and sexuality when applied to the perceptions of both genders and what they perceive about the other gender. Because apparently women in general aren't attracted to men with muscles but men in general all like oversized breasts.

As you said, it helps to look at the big picture and take into consideration the complexity of human nature, human sexuality, and how each gender chooses to depict itself and the opposing gender in either power or sexual fantasies. When one actually goes beyond a cursory glance at it, it's never as simple as anyone, especially Feminists, make it out to be.

As for "rampant sexualization in videogames"; I see no evidence to suggest such a problem exists. Nor do I see evidence to suggest that the rampant sexualization of "anything" do be inherently harmful. Until someone actually provides evidence, and not some cockamany theory, I'll be glad to continue dismissing it as the hogwash it is.

If you are looking for evidence, watch "Tropes vs Women", especially part 2 (but beware of the spoilers). Lots of statistical evidence, albeit not for sexualization in particular.

Also, I find your choice of words entertaining: People "***** and moan". Ever heard of the phrase "words shape beliefs"?

But it's true, these matters are never simple, I cold not agree more. That is why it bothers me that "male disposability" is brought up in order to defend completely different and unrelated issues such as the presentation of women in videogames. It would seem that there can be more than one problem in a given medium at the same time, and just because both issues are tied somewhat to the gender doesn't make them part of the same issue. And it most definetly doesn't lead to one isse somehow "balancing out" the other.

So how about we keep a level head and realize that there are legitimate issues with discrimination against both men and women, and that one can adress one side of the issue without invalidating the other?

 

[Negatempest]

Just going to put this out, for every moment of a woman being depicted sexually in a video game, there is a guy who is the meat shield for her. Should he not use himself as a meat shield his worth as a person will plummet.

 

[broca]

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.

I cant speak for other people. Nor do I have the agency to counter the actions of more than 1 or 2 other people. I certainly cant control what other people do or say. So, I don't understand what you hope to gain here.

I would hope that our discussion makes you understand that if you call yourself a feminist you will get judged based on the actions and believes of all feminists, not just the ones you agree with. Is this fair or sensible? Probably not. But it's a deeply human thing to do judge a group of diverse people by the actions of a loud and radical minority. And feminists do the exact same things when talking about gamers, where a small portion of games or gamers are enough to declare that games/the gaming community have a problem with sexism, homophobia, ect.

It has become difficult for non-extreme feminists to have their voices heard. Because, people are too focused on the extremists and it's far too easy and frequent for people to lump any appeal to limit sexism or forward equality into "crazy shit extremists say" or "part of a scary agenda to oppress men".

You haven't done that, yet. But, this is where I am coming from and now I am wondering where are you?

I can understand your frustration about not being heard because of the extremists, but as i said above, it's just how it works. The loud, extreme minority will always be heard more than the sensible ones. And as this is how it is, the question should be how to react to that. Many feminists react (as i said before) by ignoring or dismissing differing or negative behavior or believes by other feminists (as you did in the beginning when you said that feminism is about equal rights for men and women, ignoring plenty of feminists for whom feminism is a fight for womens rights) instead of acknowledging that this differing/negative behavior and believes exist. Why is this important to me? Because, while i disagree with plenty of individual feminists and feminist theory (as far as i bothered to read up on it), i can also see that feminism has achieved extremely much over the last century and is still (in varying degrees depending on the specific society) necessary. Therefore, i often would like to agree with feminists in discussion, but stuff like their inability to accept and confront differing or problematic parts of their movement (among other things) put me off.

 

[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?

Well, maybe you need to explain what you thought was my opinion. The video's were educational as myself and many others learned things that we didn't know otherwise. The passage about guilt was me using personal experience in dealing with guilt and accusations of sexism as a means of pointing out another option to responding to guilt rather than either allowing the guilt to manipulate the situation or completely dismissing the person trying to assign guilt. This was relevant to the discussion I was having.

And it certainly is your opinion that-
1. This is a debate where personal opinion has no bearing at all
2. Mentioning one's opinion "makes the gaming community look even more immature and dumb than otherwise".

Maybe I intended to have a discussion and not a debate. Words like "immature and dumb" are subjective; and therefore, in the context in which you used them, an opinion. I don't care to scour the rest of this thread for your comments, for they aren't really relevant to your response to me nor my counter-response.

I'm sorry, but pointing out that your opinion is an opinion and thus should not be used as an argument in a debate or discussion is not an opinion, that is a pointing out of a fact.
When discussing or debating, there are only two intellectually honest ways of argumenting.

1. Pointing out flaws in another's facts.
2. Pointing out flaws in another's logic.

You stated your opinion as if it was fact, I pointed out the flaw in this.
Trying to claim that my doing this was just me stating my opinion makes for just as faulty logic as your opinion makes for fact.

 

[broca]

...if you call yourself a feminist you will get judged based on the actions and believes of all feminists... The loud, extreme minority will always be heard more than the sensible ones.

You just basically said that I was being judged based on the actions of a vocal minority.

All you are doing is helping to confirm that I am on the right side of this issue. A Prejudiced and centric set of ideals versus less so.

I thank you for your thoughtful and calm conversation, but I don't have anything I want to add at this point. May your life be long and prosperous.

Same for you.