The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[Stephen St.]

Alright, then tell me, now that women have been given those same rights that men paid for and still pay for with their responsibilities, what responsibilities have been given to women in return for their new freedoms and rights?

Excuse me, but what? Men didn't sign a magical contract that said "I hereby take responsibilities". Either responsibility follows power, or it doesn't. If you have one, you have the other. Obviously not everyone acts responsibly, but thats another topic entirely.

Other nations may not have demanded military service for the right to vote, but men still had to meet high expectations before they were given that privilege, this goes for every country in the western world. Voting rights were rolled out in stages, first to the ones seen as most responsible for the welfare of the nation as most infrastructures could simply not support giving everyone a vote all at once.

Yeah, either that, or the people in power just liked actually staying in power, and gave rights to vote only to those people that were actually powerful enough to endanger them. Your "every country in the western world" statement shows that you have just made that up because a.) You probably don't know the history of all these countries by heart and b.) there is actually a clear example to the contrary: Germany, where voting rights were given up to all Men as part of a political maneuver to keep the conservative government in power.

Your view of why voting rights were allocated to wealthy people strikes me as unreasonably romantic. In the "game of thrones", it's power that counts, not what you "earned".

This is a slight bit off topic, but it's a game idea I would love to see realized as it would help put into perspective the idea of male disposability:

Have you perchance ever heard of The White Feather Girls? They were part of a recruitment campaign in Britain during WWI, devised by a high ranking military officer and supported by the feminist movement of the time.
Young girls would be given white feathers to give to men in civilian clothes as signs of cowardice, to shame them into enlisting with the military. The campaign was very effective.

My idea for the game is based on a few true stories of this, and is fairly basic for now:
I really want to see a company make a first person shooter game where you play as a British soldier in the First World War.
You start out as a 34-year-old civilian father of three with a chronically sick wife.
One day, one of the White Feather Girls sees you in civilian clothes and gives you a white feather as a sign of cowardice.
A couple of days later you enlist out of shame.
In the army, you meet a 15 year old boy who lied about his age at the enlistment office after receiving 4 white feathers from a group of girls who cornered him on the street.
He'd already been rejected the first time he enlisted for the same reason, which is why he lied about his age the second time.
Throughout the game you and the boy face the horrors of war together, seeing how it changes the boy and yourself.
In the end you die, the boy survives but goes home irreparably damaged, he finds your house to give your wife a final letter you wrote, the door is opened by one of his daughters who takes the letter and reads it before putting it in a box with the rest of them.
The mother is dead.
Camera returns to the now young man walking away, clenching his fist around something.
Just before the screen fades to black he opens his hand and you see five white feathers float away.
Roll credits starting with: This game is based on true stories of WWI.

Interesting game idea. I think it is important that we remember all of history, not just some cherry picked bits. And that white feather business sounds really ugly for the men, so yeah, why not raise awareness.

Now I ask you... how could these women with a clear conscience, shame men and boys into going to war and dieing for them and their country? How could they, if not from a sense that men are only worth as much as their usefulness?

I am unfit to comment on the conscience of people that I did not get to know. That would obviously be pure speculation.

How can this mentality still be pervasive today in popular culture such as movies and games in the court system that is all too ready to imprison fathers as soon as they can't keep up with alimony payments anymore (look up Thomas Ball).
Lifetime alimony that was never even considered for removal before a few women suddenly found themselves victims of it after the economy caused men to lose their jobs at a much higher rate than women... but it was perfectly alright as long as only men got roped into it.
Title IX that requires boys give up otherwise constitutionally secured rights, for the benefit of women.
The lack of admittance for male victims of Domestic Violence in tax-payer funded shelters and the lack of help available to people attempting to open shelters for those victims (look up a man called Earl Silverman).
Men have always been, and still are seen as expendable resources.

I have already agreed with you that there are problemy to be faced, in regard to child custody and in regard to abuse of false claims of sexual violence. People are selfish, not everyone will care about the well-being of those around them, be they men or women.

Again, your conclusion doesn't follow logically from the issues you state. You simply go from "Men are discirminated against, too" to "Men are treated as completely wothless". I exagerate, of course. I am still looking for a compelling reason why the Pope in 1850, as a man, is treated by society as an "expendable resource", while his chambermaid, that he can, realistically, do whatever he pleases too (hypothetically, of coure), is inherently valuable. I get where you are coming from. I get the problems you state. I don't get how one can link everything to the same base reason, black and white (or male and female, as the case may be), as if gender was the only factor at play in society.

You have not adressed any of my points directly, and have now repeated your facts. What about that link between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" that I adressed? What is the difference between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" according to your theory?

 

[Stephen St.]

How about in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of men dieing in coal mines, laying down railroads, transporting goods over stormy seas or at war? Men as a group were and still are disposable unless they can show themselves to be useful.

Uh, what are you referring to? I am going to hazard a guess and assume you are referring to this sentence:

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

That i critized. You have now stated the obvious: Some people are in power, others die. How do we get to women from here? No women are in power and others die? That doesn't seem to be where you want to go.

The definition of disposable is not being useful. Everyone is disposable if they aren't useful.

 

[Darkbladex96]

Funny thing is these sexualized bimbo only make up about 1% of video game females that have a place in the story. Usually these are npcs that dont do anything. Every other time they are usually fleshed out real characters, just half naked with crazy propotions.

Name a Sexualized character. Bet they have everything needed for a well round character. People just bitching about the fact that sex sells.

 

[Angus]

Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.

Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".

I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.

Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!

 

[Angus]

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

Uh, a few? In comparison to what exactly?

Im not really sure if I can convince you with this, but Ill give it a go.
Youve read a bit about ww1 I guess. During this period in time the suffragettes started demanding the right to vote.
They did this because of the fact that theyve started to be allowed into the workforce. This was due to the extreme lack of men in the workforce after the great slaughter of young male soldiers on the extremely bloody battlefields of the time.
For a man to earn the vote he had to risk his life and be drafted. This was true 20 years(it was later amended) after women earned the right to vote with no such demands, at least in Sweden.
What Im trying to say is that sure, a few men had extremely nice positions, rich, politicians, generals etc. They had power and authority.
But a great number of men were simply used as tools, their lives not counted as important unless they gave them for their family or the state.

These demands were never on the women. Sure you might not have had the same freedom historically, but you were always protected.


A shitty life has been the rule troughout history. And it might have deviated a bit depending on your gender, but when you sum it up, the powerful men and the victimized or sacrificed men probably had about as much benefits and demands as an average woman. It boils down to risk/possibility of great power and safety/ no real prospect of power basically.
As a woman you didnt have to risk your life, but you werent in authority. And vice versa.





Sorry for writing such a long post, and Im probably not in my rethoric "peak" atm. Im a little to tired of these issues, because I should really be studying- it just strikes such an emotional core, because I guess i feel the whole issue is very sad.

Even my dear father believes that men always opress women, even though he himself got a stroke overworking himself to drive my sister and mother to and from the aiport already owervorked, just because he loves to help them.

Its just a sad view of men and women really.

 

[CFriis87]

Alright, then tell me, now that women have been given those same rights that men paid for and still pay for with their responsibilities, what responsibilities have been given to women in return for their new freedoms and rights?

Excuse me, but what? Men didn't sign a magical contract that said "I hereby take responsibilities". Either responsibility follows power, or it doesn't. If you have one, you have the other. Obviously not everyone acts responsibly, but thats another topic entirely.

Other nations may not have demanded military service for the right to vote, but men still had to meet high expectations before they were given that privilege, this goes for every country in the western world. Voting rights were rolled out in stages, first to the ones seen as most responsible for the welfare of the nation as most infrastructures could simply not support giving everyone a vote all at once.

Yeah, either that, or the people in power just liked actually staying in power, and gave rights to vote only to those people that were actually powerful enough to endanger them. Your "every country in the western world" statement shows that you have just made that up because a.) You probably don't know the history of all these countries by heart and b.) there is actually a clear example to the contrary: Germany, where voting rights were given up to all Men as part of a political maneuver to keep the conservative government in power.

Your view of why voting rights were allocated to wealthy people strikes me as unreasonably romantic. In the "game of thrones", it's power that counts, not what you "earned".

This is a slight bit off topic, but it's a game idea I would love to see realized as it would help put into perspective the idea of male disposability:

Have you perchance ever heard of The White Feather Girls? They were part of a recruitment campaign in Britain during WWI, devised by a high ranking military officer and supported by the feminist movement of the time.
Young girls would be given white feathers to give to men in civilian clothes as signs of cowardice, to shame them into enlisting with the military. The campaign was very effective.

My idea for the game is based on a few true stories of this, and is fairly basic for now:
I really want to see a company make a first person shooter game where you play as a British soldier in the First World War.
You start out as a 34-year-old civilian father of three with a chronically sick wife.
One day, one of the White Feather Girls sees you in civilian clothes and gives you a white feather as a sign of cowardice.
A couple of days later you enlist out of shame.
In the army, you meet a 15 year old boy who lied about his age at the enlistment office after receiving 4 white feathers from a group of girls who cornered him on the street.
He'd already been rejected the first time he enlisted for the same reason, which is why he lied about his age the second time.
Throughout the game you and the boy face the horrors of war together, seeing how it changes the boy and yourself.
In the end you die, the boy survives but goes home irreparably damaged, he finds your house to give your wife a final letter you wrote, the door is opened by one of his daughters who takes the letter and reads it before putting it in a box with the rest of them.
The mother is dead.
Camera returns to the now young man walking away, clenching his fist around something.
Just before the screen fades to black he opens his hand and you see five white feathers float away.
Roll credits starting with: This game is based on true stories of WWI.

Interesting game idea. I think it is important that we remember all of history, not just some cherry picked bits. And that white feather business sounds really ugly for the men, so yeah, why not raise awareness.

Now I ask you... how could these women with a clear conscience, shame men and boys into going to war and dieing for them and their country? How could they, if not from a sense that men are only worth as much as their usefulness?

I am unfit to comment on the conscience of people that I did not get to know. That would obviously be pure speculation.

How can this mentality still be pervasive today in popular culture such as movies and games in the court system that is all too ready to imprison fathers as soon as they can't keep up with alimony payments anymore (look up Thomas Ball).
Lifetime alimony that was never even considered for removal before a few women suddenly found themselves victims of it after the economy caused men to lose their jobs at a much higher rate than women... but it was perfectly alright as long as only men got roped into it.
Title IX that requires boys give up otherwise constitutionally secured rights, for the benefit of women.
The lack of admittance for male victims of Domestic Violence in tax-payer funded shelters and the lack of help available to people attempting to open shelters for those victims (look up a man called Earl Silverman).
Men have always been, and still are seen as expendable resources.

I have already agreed with you that there are problemy to be faced, in regard to child custody and in regard to abuse of false claims of sexual violence. People are selfish, not everyone will care about the well-being of those around them, be they men or women.

Again, your conclusion doesn't follow logically from the issues you state. You simply go from "Men are discirminated against, too" to "Men are treated as completely wothless". I exagerate, of course. I am still looking for a compelling reason why the Pope in 1850, as a man, is treated by society as an "expendable resource", while his chambermaid, that he can, realistically, do whatever he pleases too (hypothetically, of coure), is inherently valuable. I get where you are coming from. I get the problems you state. I don't get how one can link everything to the same base reason, black and white (or male and female, as the case may be), as if gender was the only factor at play in society.

You have not adressed any of my points directly, and have now repeated your facts. What about that link between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" that I adressed? What is the difference between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" according to your theory?

I suppose I should have expanded upon my first question a bit more.
Consider how women have been given the right to choose whether or not to have a baby when they get pregnant, this is reasonable as it is them who carries the child. Her body, her choice.
Would it not then logically follow that the consequences of her choice is her responsibility to deal with? Say the father expressed that he did not wish to become a father, maybe he doesn't think he's ready, maybe the condom was compromised (has happened in a multitude of different ways, usually through some form of foul play), maybe she said she was on the pill when she wasn't, maybe she wanted to get pregnant while he didn't want to be a father and she saved the condom to use on herself later (has happened and worked) or maybe even slept with someone else to get pregnant (30% of men pointed out to be the father by the mother that request a paternity test are proven to not be the father).
What say does the man have? None... her body, her choice... yet he is still financially responsible, and the state will force him to pay even if he isn't the father.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/02/34861/

The fact that the odds of female criminals being convicted of their crimes is lower than it is for men, AND when they do get convicted, the sentencing is much more lenient.
This is another sign of women not being held to the same standard of responsibility as their supposed "equals".

Moving on to women's sexual liberation. If a woman has consensual sex after drinking any amount of alcohol, I believe down to as little as one drink, maybe less. The law considers her unable to give informed consent and therefore not responsible for her choices with regards to sex while under the influence.
Men on the other hand are always legally fully responsible for their actions, no matter how drunk they are.

It may not seem like much, but giving women all the reproductive rights while sticking the responsibility with the man is pretty big.
As is the lowered standard of criminal responsibility.

I'll concede that I don't know the history of all western world countries by heart and have probably indulged in hyperbole. I apologize, I guess it being 2 am as a type this out might be taking it's toll on my common sense.

No pope I know of has been pope for all of his life, and while filling the role of pope, he is extremely useful as a powerful figurehead for the richest organized religion in the world, ergo he is seen as useful, giving him worth through his function, not his mere existence as a human being.

There are about 7 billion people on the planet, making for about 3.5 billion women, we're crowding up the planet as it is, and running low on resources. If we consider this, then there is absolutely no rational reason to value a female life higher than a male one.
That however does not keep society from still valuing the safety of women over the safety of men. The way our brains have evolved over time has given women an instinctual urge to weed out threats to keep themselves safe, while men got the instinctual urge to weed out threats to protect women and children.
Rational thought and compassion for all human beings can make us aware of these "primal urges" and ignore them when appropriate, but that's clearly not what's being done by the general public, or the courts, or the government.

Now... I'm pretty tired. So I'll go to sleep and hopefully wake up a bit less loopy and probably realize what madness I've been spouting in my last couple of posts.

 

[CFriis87]

How about in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of men dieing in coal mines, laying down railroads, transporting goods over stormy seas or at war? Men as a group were and still are disposable unless they can show themselves to be useful.

Uh, what are you referring to? I am going to hazard a guess and assume you are referring to this sentence:

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

That i critized. You have now stated the obvious: Some people are in power, others die. How do we get to women from here? No women are in power and others die? That doesn't seem to be where you want to go.

The definition of disposable is not being useful. Everyone is disposable if they aren't useful.

I was referring to your question of "Uh, a few? In comparison to what exactly?".
Did you have a chance to watch that video I linked to by Karen Straughan/GirlWritesWhat? I believe she explains pretty thoroughly how men are seen as the disposable sex.

 

[CFriis87]

Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.

Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".

I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.

Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!

I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to agree with you.
All I see in the PUA community is guys risking their freedom to pander to their sex drives by pandering to women
And I don't want to not care about men's issues. Too many men have been not caring about them for way too long. This is why we are in this mess.
We've been bending over and taking it hard, in hopes that we could make women happy by giving them what they ask for.
I say let them be bored if that's what it takes for them to listen, I for one will not engage in a relationship on the terms of one of the people, whether they're exclusively mine, or exclusively her's.

 

[Stephen St.]

Im not really sure if I can convince you with this, but Ill give it a go.
Youve read a bit about ww1 I guess. During this period in time the suffragettes started demanding the right to vote.
They did this because of the fact that theyve started to be allowed into the workforce. This was due to the extreme lack of men in the workforce after the great slaughter of young male soldiers on the extremely bloody battlefields of the time.
For a man to earn the vote he had to risk his life and be drafted. This was true 20 years(it was later amended) after women earned the right to vote with no such demands, at least in Sweden.
What Im trying to say is that sure, a few men had extremely nice positions, rich, politicians, generals etc. They had power and authority.
But a great number of men were simply used as tools, their lives not counted as important unless they gave them for their family or the state.

So were a great number of women. Only their "uses" were generally different.

These demands were never on the women. Sure you might not have had the same freedom historically, but you were always protected.

Are you aware of the philosophical position that states that security is a function of freedom (i.e. it is only important to preserve freedom), and that there can be no security without freedom? What about the people (irrespective of their gender) that would rather risk their lifes for freedom than spend their lifes safe, but in chains? Can you tell them they are wrong to want freedom?

A shitty life has been the rule troughout history. And it might have deviated a bit depending on your gender, but when you sum it up, the powerful men and the victimized or sacrificed men probably had about as much benefits and demands as an average woman. It boils down to risk/possibility of great power and safety/ no real prospect of power basically.
As a woman you didnt have to risk your life, but you werent in authority. And vice versa.

Exactly, life was tough. Both genders faced risks and hardships. But how can we "sum up" entire lifes into 2, easy to use categories? Historically, Men had a greater risk of dying due to genetic defects, accidents, and wars. That is probably still the case. Historically, Men also had a greater chance of living their life how they wanted it, and gaining positions of power. That is probably still the case. Can these two factors be summed up into one category called "disposability"? I think not. That implies that disposability was the main theme, and the other just an auxilliary.

Sorry for writing such a long post, and Im probably not in my rethoric "peak" atm. Im a little to tired of these issues, because I should really be studying- it just strikes such an emotional core, because I guess i feel the whole issue is very sad.

Even my dear father believes that men always opress women, even though he himself got a stroke overworking himself to drive my sister and mother to and from the aiport already owervorked, just because he loves to help them.

Its just a sad view of men and women really.

Yes, every view that reduces all members of a gender to a stereotype of a single category is a sad view. Unfortunately, I don't think your position is helping matter by introducing yet another oversimplified category. Nevertheless, Thanks for engaging in the discussion, and best of luck for your studies! I know how these discussions always keep you from working, it happens to me, too .

 

[Stephen St.]

I suppose I should have expanded upon my first question a bit more.

Actually, I would prefer that you adress some of the issues I brought up, instead of adding more of your own.

Consider how women have been given the right to choose whether or not to have a baby when they get pregnant, this is reasonable as it is them who carries the child. Her body, her choice.
Would it not then logically follow that the consequences of her choice is her responsibility to deal with? Say the father expressed that he did not wish to become a father, maybe he doesn't think he's ready, maybe the condom was compromised (has happened in a multitude of different ways, usually through some form of foul play), maybe she said she was on the pill when she wasn't, maybe she wanted to get pregnant while he didn't want to be a father and she saved the condom to use on herself later (has happened and worked) or maybe even slept with someone else to get pregnant (30% of men pointed out to be the father by the mother that request a paternity test are proven to not be the father).
What say does the man have? None... her body, her choice... yet he is still financially responsible, and the state will force him to pay even if he isn't the father.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/02/34861/

Thats a bit oversimplified, though.
For one, if you have sex with someone, you generally take the risk of pregnancy. You may use contraceptives, but there stil is a risk. For that action both parties are responsible.
Secondly, many laws in the western hemisphere are based on mutual responsibility of related persons. That means that, irrespective of the circumstances, fathers are responsible for their children, and children for their fathers. If your abusive parents are in need of care as a result of their own choices, you still need to pay for them in most cases.
And if you are not the biological father, and not married to the mother, then legally, you do not have to pay alimony. Everything else is a question of process and rules of evidence. There are a lot of problems with correct design of the latter, I will admit. But the legal responsibility is not based on gender.

It is just fact that someone has to care for the child. If no-one is willing to do that, then the biological parents are simply required to. It may not always be fair, but we decide that the well being of the child is more important than fairness sometimes. Which is not to say we should not strive to make the system of child custody and alimony more fair, because it certainly still has problems.

The fact that the odds of female criminals being convicted of their crimes is lower than it is for men, AND when they do get convicted, the sentencing is much more lenient.
This is another sign of women not being held to the same standard of responsibility as their supposed "equals".

No, they are not. But you are not making a point about equality, you are making a point about worth as seen by society. So in order for that argument to work, you would need to also show that this sentencing disparity is based on some belief that views the female defendand as more important for society. The easiest explanation for this kind of behaviour is, however, that aggression and agency are less likely to be ascribed to a woman, and therefore the sentence is more mild. I think that sounds an awful lot like the common stereotype in videogames.

Moving on to women's sexual liberation. If a woman has consensual sex after drinking any amount of alcohol, I believe down to as little as one drink, maybe less. The law considers her unable to give informed consent and therefore not responsible for her choices with regards to sex while under the influence.
Men on the other hand are always legally fully responsible for their actions, no matter how drunk they are.

That is not true, at least not in any legislation I am aware of. A completely drunk person, irrespective of gender, cannot be held accountable for their actions. You generally loose the ability to give informed consent before you loose responsibility for your actions, though. Which makes sense, because informed consent requires risk assessment, whereas responsibility only requires the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. I would be very surprised if any law had different thresholds for informed consent based on gender.

It may not seem like much, but giving women all the reproductive rights while sticking the responsibility with the man is pretty big.
As is the lowered standard of criminal responsibility.

What are "reproductive rights"? Last time I checked, both parents were responsible. And there is no different standard for criminal responsibility based on gender. That would certainly be unconstitutional pretty much everywhere.

I'll concede that I don't know the history of all western world countries by heart and have probably indulged in hyperbole. I apologize, I guess it being 2 am as a type this out might be taking it's toll on my common sense.

No pope I know of has been pope for all of his life, and while filling the role of pope, he is extremely useful as a powerful figurehead for the richest organized religion in the world, ergo he is seen as useful, giving him worth through his function, not his mere existence as a human being.

Ok, glad we cleared that up.
Your logic still has the same flaws as it had from the beginning. If the "inherent worth" of women is based on their ability to bear children, then that is worth acuired by virtue of being useful (childbirth clearly being a "use" for society). Consequently, both genders would be exactly as worthwile as they are useful.
The only difference would be that most women would have a relatively static worth, while men's worth is more prone to fluctuation. It does not support the view that, irrespective of current cultural situation, one is generally worth more than the other. In the pope example, the pope's worth would greatly exceed that of pretty much every single woman. The same would be true for a number of important political figures, merchants, etc. Even if the numerical majority of men has a mean worth below that of the mean worth of a woman, the mean worth of men and woman in total may still be equal or even slanted towards men. Unfortunately, since worth cannot be measures numerically, there is no way to tell either way. I hope this example makes clear how ridiculous it is to try to measure "worth" by comparing the amount of people dieing due to certain circumstances, as if worth was not only a number easily assessed, but also only based on length of life.
Maybe you think that a static position in society is better than a mobile one, but that is your opinion, not a logical conclusion.

There are about 7 billion people on the planet, making for about 3.5 billion women, we're crowding up the planet as it is, and running low on resources. If we consider this, then there is absolutely no rational reason to value a female life higher than a male one.

Technically, there will eventually be more men than women, but I agree, there is no rational reason.

That however does not keep society from still valuing the safety of women over the safety of men. The way our brains have evolved over time has given women an instinctual urge to weed out threats to keep themselves safe, while men got the instinctual urge to weed out threats to protect women and children.
Rational thought and compassion for all human beings can make us aware of these "primal urges" and ignore them when appropriate, but that's clearly not what's being done by the general public, or the courts, or the government.

Now... I'm pretty tired. So I'll go to sleep and hopefully wake up a bit less loopy and probably realize what madness I've been spouting in my last couple of posts.

You know, it is a generaly rule of arguing that one should avoid using words such as "clearly" or "obviously", because those words indicate, to a critical reader, a lack of evidence to back up the claim. In that case, your statement that this is "clearly not what is being done" is utterly sweeping and can not be properly backed up. But I guess it is a bit unfair of me to be so nitpicky when you wrote that at two o'clock in the morning. It is just that whenever I read a statement like that, I cannot help but feel that the writer has already made up his/her mind about the issue and there is no need for further discussion.

You are providing evidence for a number of separate problems tied to gender stereotypes, and try to tie them together in one, neat picture under a single headline. Such thinking is generally problematic, as it eliminates all nuances from the picture in order to fit the narrative. For example, it may be correct that thoese urges to protect exist. They are not the only urges, however, nor are they necessarily dominant to the human psyche, let alone human society.

To put it in a few sentences: Are men, biologically, more disposable then women? Yes. has this informed how human society is strutured? Most certainly. Does this sturcture still influence current society? Probably. Is the disposability of men therefore a major theme of current society? That doesn't follow.

 

[CFriis87]

Thats a bit oversimplified, though.
For one, if you have sex with someone, you generally take the risk of pregnancy. You may use contraceptives, but there stil is a risk. For that action both parties are responsible.
Secondly, many laws in the western hemisphere are based on mutual responsibility of related persons. That means that, irrespective of the circumstances, fathers are responsible for their children, and children for their fathers. If your abusive parents are in need of care as a result of their own choices, you still need to pay for them in most cases.
And if you are not the biological father, and not married to the mother, then legally, you do not have to pay alimony. Everything else is a question of process and rules of evidence. There are a lot of problems with correct design of the latter, I will admit. But the legal responsibility is not based on gender.

I'd say your view is the oversimplified one.
If I have sex with someone, I do indeed run the risk of contraceptives being ineffective for any reason. But I also run the risk of HER choice to carry the pregnancy through, despite my wishes to not become a father, making any precautions I take irrelevant. Women have the pill, barrier contraceptives, IUDs, morning after pills and a vide host of other types of contraceptives.
Men have the condom, which is always recommended, but never recommended as your sole form of security and easily compromised.
After this, women have the choice to have an abortion (her body, her choice). Whatever HER choice is at this point, the man is forced to go with it. So why should a father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have?
Furthermore, current co-habitation laws mean that you do not have to be married to the mother to be held legally responsible for her child. If she can show the court a receipt for you buying something that fully, or in part would go to the child (i.e. food, diapers, clothes), the court will hold you legally responsible as a "father figure", the same goes for if you co-habitate with her for a certain amount of time, after that time, the law will treat you as married.

It is just fact that someone has to care for the child. If no-one is willing to do that, then the biological parents are simply required to. It may not always be fair, but we decide that the well being of the child is more important than fairness sometimes. Which is not to say we should not strive to make the system of child custody and alimony more fair, because it certainly still has problems.

Actually no... even after birth, the woman holds the right to give her child away to a center for adoption, the "father" has no right to walk away and not be held responsible (no longer her body, still her choice, still his responsibility)

No, they are not. But you are not making a point about equality, you are making a point about worth as seen by society. So in order for that argument to work, you would need to also show that this sentencing disparity is based on some belief that views the female defendand as more important for society. The easiest explanation for this kind of behaviour is, however, that aggression and agency are less likely to be ascribed to a woman, and therefore the sentence is more mild. I think that sounds an awful lot like the common stereotype in videogames.

No, I was making the point that women are not held as accountable for their actions as men are, but I guess that is also a point about equality, since I'd say accountability for one's actions is a big inequality in our society.

That is not true, at least not in any legislation I am aware of. A completely drunk person, irrespective of gender, cannot be held accountable for their actions. You generally loose the ability to give informed consent before you loose responsibility for your actions, though. Which makes sense, because informed consent requires risk assessment, whereas responsibility only requires the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. I would be very surprised if any law had different thresholds for informed consent based on gender.

Last I checked, a drunk driver was still legally accountable for drunk driving and a drunken rapist(man) was still a rapist. And since women, in the eyes of the law, can't rape men, or at least have to jump through a lot of hoops to do so, drunken men by default give more consent, even if they don't.
If both parties are drunk, in the eyes of the law, the man is the rapist by default.
I'd love to hear about a case where a woman was convicted of rape, because the man she had non-consensual sex with was drunk, but I won't hold my breath.

What are "reproductive rights"? Last time I checked, both parents were responsible. And there is no different standard for criminal responsibility based on gender. That would certainly be unconstitutional pretty much everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights
Scroll down to the Men's Rights bit of that article, apparently is not exactly unconstitutional according to the US Court of Appeals.

Ok, glad we cleared that up.
Your logic still has the same flaws as it had from the beginning. If the "inherent worth" of women is based on their ability to bear children, then that is worth acuired by virtue of being useful (childbirth clearly being a "use" for society). Consequently, both genders would be exactly as worthwile as they are useful.
The only difference would be that most women would have a relatively static worth, while men's worth is more prone to fluctuation. It does not support the view that, irrespective of current cultural situation, one is generally worth more than the other. In the pope example, the pope's worth would greatly exceed that of pretty much every single woman. The same would be true for a number of important political figures, merchants, etc. Even if the numerical majority of men has a mean worth below that of the mean worth of a woman, the mean worth of men and woman in total may still be equal or even slanted towards men. Unfortunately, since worth cannot be measures numerically, there is no way to tell either way. I hope this example makes clear how ridiculous it is to try to measure "worth" by comparing the amount of people dieing due to certain circumstances, as if worth was not only a number easily assessed, but also only based on length of life.
Maybe you think that a static position in society is better than a mobile one, but that is your opinion, not a logical conclusion.

The reason my logic on this is flawed is because I'm not arguing based on logic. I'm arguing based on experience of an illogical system, and your counter-arguments are based on the assumption that the system IS indeed logical.
This is a sort of cognitive dissonance between the two of us and results in both of us arguing different things as though they were the same.
My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively.

Technically, there will eventually be more men than women, but I agree, there is no rational reason.

In some parts of the world there are more men:
Like in China where male children are socially bound to care for their parents when they get old, but female children are not.
In other parts of the world there are more women... like in the US, Canada and most of Europe.

You know, it is a generaly rule of arguing that one should avoid using words such as "clearly" or "obviously", because those words indicate, to a critical reader, a lack of evidence to back up the claim. In that case, your statement that this is "clearly not what is being done" is utterly sweeping and can not be properly backed up. But I guess it is a bit unfair of me to be so nitpicky when you wrote that at two o'clock in the morning. It is just that whenever I read a statement like that, I cannot help but feel that the writer has already made up his/her mind about the issue and there is no need for further discussion.

You are providing evidence for a number of separate problems tied to gender stereotypes, and try to tie them together in one, neat picture under a single headline. Such thinking is generally problematic, as it eliminates all nuances from the picture in order to fit the narrative. For example, it may be correct that thoese urges to protect exist. They are not the only urges, however, nor are they necessarily dominant to the human psyche, let alone human society.

To put it in a few sentences: Are men, biologically, more disposable then women? Yes. has this informed how human society is strutured? Most certainly. Does this sturcture still influence current society? Probably. Is the disposability of men therefore a major theme of current society? That doesn't follow.

I was not aware that I was required to re-post all the evidence of female safety and rights being valued being valued higher than male ones EVERY time I alluded to this being the case.
Even now I won't re-post the links to the stats you've already seen, I'll just ask you a few questions:
Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, when men are: 76% of all homicides, at least half of all domestic violence victims, and by far most victims of aggravated assault?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=uQMLM4vGbtI
When at least half of all domestic violence victims are men, why then are there Predominant Aggressor Policies set in place with police training in the Duluth model to justify arresting the man in almost every single case of domestic disturbances?
Why does Title IX turn innocent young men into acceptable losses, by removing their right to counsel, their right to know their accuser and lowering the standard of evidence from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sns4Dhuw7Nk
Please watch this, although you can probably skip the first 8 or so minutes as they are just her addressing accusations of someone irrelevant to this discussion.

Even if this is not a major theme of current society (which is always a subjective judgment, and I believe it IS a major theme), does not mean it isn't a pervasive theme, or indeed a major problem.

 

[Stephen St.]

I'd say your view is the oversimplified one.
If I have sex with someone, I do indeed run the risk of contraceptives being ineffective for any reason. But I also run the risk of HER choice to carry the pregnancy through, despite my wishes to not become a father, making any precautions I take irrelevant. Women have the pill, barrier contraceptives, IUDs, morning after pills and a vide host of other types of contraceptives.
Men have the condom, which is always recommended, but never recommended as your sole form of security and easily compromised.
After this, women have the choice to have an abortion (her body, her choice). Whatever HER choice is at this point, the man is forced to go with it. So why should a father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have?
Furthermore, current co-habitation laws mean that you do not have to be married to the mother to be held legally responsible for her child. If she can show the court a receipt for you buying something that fully, or in part would go to the child (i.e. food, diapers, clothes), the court will hold you legally responsible as a "father figure", the same goes for if you co-habitate with her for a certain amount of time, after that time, the law will treat you as married.

First off, please note that "the law" is not equal in all countries, and you should specify which legal system you are talking about. I am going to assume you are mostly concerned with the US legal system, which I am somewhat, but not intricately, familiar with.

Adressing your first point: You run the risk that your partner is lying to you. Therefore, you need to be able to trust your partner. If you have sex with someone you cannot trust, well, that was your risk to take.
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. But here we venture deep into moral territory, and that is somewhat dependant on what core philosophy you are following.

I was not aware of that legal rule, since the system is different where I live (which, in case you wonder, is also part of western culture). That rule seems overly strict to me. But again, the law needs to assign responsibility to someone, so the debate becomes who do we properly assign responsibility? You need to always consider the emotional impact of an abortion on both biological parents. It is hardly a decision that should be governed by financial concerns.

Anyways, I feel this in-depth discussion about Men's reproductive rights is getting slightly off-topic. The topic being "disposability" of men as a theme of current western culture, if I am not mistaken?

Actually no... even after birth, the woman holds the right to give her child away to a center for adoption, the "father" has no right to walk away and not be held responsible (no longer her body, still her choice, still his responsibility)

Isn't the right to put the child up for adoption tied to child custody, and not gender? At least, that would seem to make more sense.

No, I was making the point that women are not held as accountable for their actions as men are, but I guess that is also a point about equality, since I'd say accountability for one's actions is a big inequality in our society.

That is nice of you, but I am not discussing these issues. I certainly don't argue that there is no inequality with regard to gender in our society, though we may disagree on the extent.

What I am discussing, and have tried to discuss for this entire discussion, is your allegation that western society is largely characterized by the "disposability of men", and that videogames are an example of this culture. If you do no longer want to discuss this point, I think we can part ways here.

Last I checked, a drunk driver was still legally accountable for drunk driving and a drunken rapist(man) was still a rapist. And since women, in the eyes of the law, can't rape men, or at least have to jump through a lot of hoops to do so, drunken men by default give more consent, even if they don't.
If both parties are drunk, in the eyes of the law, the man is the rapist by default.
I'd love to hear about a case where a woman was convicted of rape, because the man she had non-consensual sex with was drunk, but I won't hold my breath.

That depends on the level of drunkenness, of course. Few people are drunk enough to be absolved of legal responsibility, but the standard is the same for both genders, at least in the legal system I am familiar with. You have a point about the sexual assault laws, in that it is very hard to determine who is at fault in cases were both parties are too drunk for informed consent, but not drunk enough to be out of legal responsibility. I can see how the assumption would be that the man was the one initiating the contact, and thereby the rapist. Certainly an issue that is worth to be discussed, with the proper legal background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights
Scroll down to the Men's Rights bit of that article, apparently is not exactly unconstitutional according to the US Court of Appeals.

Yeah, I was talking about something else. I am sorry if I did not make that clear: I was talking about different standards of responsibility based on gender, which I cannot imagine any western country would actually pass.

The reason my logic on this is flawed is because I'm not arguing based on logic. I'm arguing based on experience of an illogical system, and your counter-arguments are based on the assumption that the system IS indeed logical.
This is a sort of cognitive dissonance between the two of us and results in both of us arguing different things as though they were the same.
My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively.

If you are not arguing with logic, you are not arguing at all. Or rather you may be arguing, as in "fighting with words", but you are not conducting a rational discussion. I am uninterested in irrational discussions, I am sorry. I agree that there is a cognitive dissoance between the two of us, in that I am arguing purely what is referenced above, the thesis that there is a major trait of western culture that can be labeled "male disposability". You seem to want to discuss gender equality in a broader sense, which I feel is off-topic. But you have now made a clear statement of your logic:

"My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child"

I agree with that premise, as I have stated before.

"and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively."

I disagree with this conclusion, since it ignores any other biological, psychological, and cultural factor that determines the relations between men and women. That too, i have tried to make clear over several posts.

In some parts of the world there are more men:
Like in China where male children are socially bound to care for their parents when they get old, but female children are not.
In other parts of the world there are more women... like in the US, Canada and most of Europe.

Yeah, but if I am not mistaken about human biology, more men are born than women, so eventually, there should be more men in total. Which is why I agree with your premise, by the way.

I was not aware that I was required to re-post all the evidence of female safety and rights being valued being valued higher than male ones EVERY time I alluded to this being the case.

I don't ask you to re-post everything, I am questioning what it actually indicates, and whether your conclusions are sensible.

Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, when men are: 76% of all homicides, at least half of all domestic violence victims, and by far most victims of aggravated assault?

Because people felt that domestic violence was no properly adressed by the legal system, and at the time the act was passed into law, people believed that men, being the pyhsically stronger sex, would be less likely to be the target of domestic violence.

When at least half of all domestic violence victims are men, why then are there Predominant Aggressor Policies set in place with police training in the Duluth model to justify arresting the man in almost every single case of domestic disturbances?

Because apparently, those statistics have not yet overcome societal prejudice that a.) Men are more likely to be aggressive in intimate relationships and b.) Men who can't defend themselves against a woman are pansies, anyway.

Why does Title IX turn innocent young men into acceptable losses, by removing their right to counsel, their right to know their accuser and lowering the standard of evidence from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence"?

I would say same as above, with the addition of potential lobbying from certain misguided persons.

Even if this is not a major theme of current society (which is always a subjective judgment, and I believe it IS a major theme), does not mean it isn't a pervasive theme, or indeed a major problem.

You are right, it does not mean that. But I don't feel its pervasive or a major problem, either. I think the issues that you pointed out are more easily explained by the common stereotype that Men are active, strong and self-sufficient, whereas women are passive, mild-mannered and in need of guidance and, admittedly, protection.

 

[EternallyBored]

snip

I hate to butt in on your debate, but I thought I would clarify something here, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is actually gender neutral, it was changed in the 90's I believe during the Clinton administration, they just kept the old name for recognitions sake.

I've actually used VAWA money and programs in the past to help male clients who were victims of domestic abuse so I know it does apply to both genders. The main hurdle to reporting domestic abuse in males is the stigma attached to it, as many men and women see it as a mark of shame that a man was overpowered by a woman, so oftentimes men will willingly hide domestic abuse out of fear of being judged by their peers. Women do it too, but it tends to stem more from a fear of retribution from the abuser, than fear of being judged by other women.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

Yeah, but if I am not mistaken about human biology, more men are born than women, so eventually, there should be more men in total. Which is why I agree with your premise, by the way.

Umm that's wrong, even fertilisation rates favour females, the at every stage of life from birth to old age the death rate for males is higher than females, for example males are far more susceptible to genetic conditions because we don't have the redundancy of a second x if there are errors in one

 

[Smeatza]

So, there is no moral or ethical reason, but it still discredits them? Why?

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

The point is men had a voice, all the voice, in fact. But they didn't care.

Again, a ridiculous generalisation.

I just don't see how every group that wants to adress the problems it's seeing has to adress everyone else's problems too. The civil rights movement isn't "discredited" because it didn't simultaneously fight for gender equality or same sex marriage. Feminist are allowed to only adress feminist problems. You might not like it, but thats no argument.

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

I think you missed the point; a compelling counter-argument requires the logic of the argument to be addressed and refuted. Simply stating that it's not a big deal because you go through it too, but you adopt a stiff upper-lip and soldier on is an attempt at redirecting the debate elsewhere. I can sympathize in gender issues to an extent, because people very rarely are interested in discussing much less taking seriously the issues that negatively impact men. That still doesn't excuse it, it's an irrational argument whose purpose is to silence dissent.

See I do wish that were the case.
First of all I wish that all debate and discussion was handled in the respectable, relevant and to-the-point manner you describe. But unfortunately discrediting one's opponent seems to be a widely accepted part of debate and discussion, and not even just political debate or discussion. And I'll admit, that sometimes it is necessary.
Second of all I wouldn't want to speculate as to the specific motivations behind the "we've been on fire for ages" counterpoint. Yeah I imagine people could use it to deliberately stifle discussion, but I also imagine that would be a minority of cases.
For example, if I were to ever use said counterpoint, it would not be in an attempt to stifle discussion, but to illustrate my disappointment that the writing quality of male characters and any of their overused trends would not be looked at or considered a problem, purely because they are male.

A compelling counter-point does not focus itself on attacking the motivations of another.

And I totally buy the male disposability argument.

Well I find it compelling in the way that I'm not likely to trust somebody who has been proved to be exploiting social and ethical issues for their own personal gain.

While I see where you're coming from, the fact that it's selfish of her to not care that the guys were on fire first doesn't change the fact that everyone's on fire and we should probably fix that. That's why the comic chose fire specifically over, say, getting mud all over themselves.

Oh certainly, but it does raise the question whether it's an inherently gender related issue at all, and whether looking at the issue through such a controversial light helps or hinders.

 

[CFriis87]

snip

I hate to butt in on your debate, but I thought I would clarify something here, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is actually gender neutral, it was changed in the 90's I believe during the Clinton administration, they just kept the old name for recognitions sake.

I've actually used VAWA money and programs in the past to help male clients who were victims of domestic abuse so I know it does apply to both genders. The main hurdle to reporting domestic abuse in males is the stigma attached to it, as many men and women see it as a mark of shame that a man was overpowered by a woman, so oftentimes men will willingly hide domestic abuse out of fear of being judged by their peers. Women do it too, but it tends to stem more from a fear of retribution from the abuser, than fear of being judged by other women.

I know that VAWA has been rewritten in technically gender neutral language, but that doesn't mean it's being used fairly.
I only know of very few campaigns to raise awareness of male victims of Domestic Violence, and they're all pretty obscure.
Have you seen this one anywhere before? http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=Y1CfNIZKFiQ
I've heard a lot of stories from male victims, and more often than not, they are the ones to be arrested when calling the police, they get transferred and referred to services for batterers when they call support hotlines, and when they get abused in public, people either don't interfere, or assume he's done something to deserve it. If the woman can tel a lie convincing enough, some people might even join in.
I don't give a shit about the wording of VAWA and I don't give a shit about the dictionary definition of feminism.
I give a shit about their effects.

 

[CFriis87]

First off, please note that "the law" is not equal in all countries, and you should specify which legal system you are talking about. I am going to assume you are mostly concerned with the US legal system, which I am somewhat, but not intricately, familiar with.

While it's true that different countries have different laws. And I am so far most knowledgeable about the US legal system as it pertains to equal rights between the sexes, I have also studied up on the situations in the UK and Sweden (so far). While their laws are different, and the wording of the ones that are similar are different, their legal system holds the same pervasive theme of discriminating against men for the safety of women.

Adressing your first point: You run the risk that your partner is lying to you. Therefore, you need to be able to trust your partner. If you have sex with someone you cannot trust, well, that was your risk to take.
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. But here we venture deep into moral territory, and that is somewhat dependant on what core philosophy you are following.

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.

I was not aware of that legal rule, since the system is different where I live (which, in case you wonder, is also part of western culture). That rule seems overly strict to me. But again, the law needs to assign responsibility to someone, so the debate becomes who do we properly assign responsibility? You need to always consider the emotional impact of an abortion on both biological parents. It is hardly a decision that should be governed by financial concerns.

Anyways, I feel this in-depth discussion about Men's reproductive rights is getting slightly off-topic. The topic being "disposability" of men as a theme of current western culture, if I am not mistaken?

"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.
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.

Isn't the right to put the child up for adoption tied to child custody, and not gender? At least, that would seem to make more sense.

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.

That is nice of you, but I am not discussing these issues. I certainly don't argue that there is no inequality with regard to gender in our society, though we may disagree on the extent.

What I am discussing, and have tried to discuss for this entire discussion, is your allegation that western society is largely characterized by the "disposability of men", and that videogames are an example of this culture. If you do no longer want to discuss this point, I think we can part ways here.

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?

That depends on the level of drunkenness, of course. Few people are drunk enough to be absolved of legal responsibility, but the standard is the same for both genders, at least in the legal system I am familiar with. You have a point about the sexual assault laws, in that it is very hard to determine who is at fault in cases were both parties are too drunk for informed consent, but not drunk enough to be out of legal responsibility. I can see how the assumption would be that the man was the one initiating the contact, and thereby the rapist. Certainly an issue that is worth to be discussed, with the proper legal background.

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?

Yeah, I was talking about something else. I am sorry if I did not make that clear: I was talking about different standards of responsibility based on gender, which I cannot imagine any western country would actually pass.

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

If you are not arguing with logic, you are not arguing at all. Or rather you may be arguing, as in "fighting with words", but you are not conducting a rational discussion. I am uninterested in irrational discussions, I am sorry. I agree that there is a cognitive dissoance between the two of us, in that I am arguing purely what is referenced above, the thesis that there is a major trait of western culture that can be labeled "male disposability". You seem to want to discuss gender equality in a broader sense, which I feel is off-topic. But you have now made a clear statement of your logic:

"My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child"

I agree with that premise, as I have stated before.

"and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively."

I disagree with this conclusion, since it ignores any other biological, psychological, and cultural factor that determines the relations between men and women. That too, i have tried to make clear over several posts.

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

Yeah, but if I am not mistaken about human biology, more men are born than women, so eventually, there should be more men in total. Which is why I agree with your premise, by the way.

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

I don't ask you to re-post everything, I am questioning what it actually indicates, and whether your conclusions are sensible.

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

Because people felt that domestic violence was no properly adressed by the legal system, and at the time the act was passed into law, people believed that men, being the pyhsically stronger sex, would be less likely to be the target of domestic violence.

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.

Because apparently, those statistics have not yet overcome societal prejudice that a.) Men are more likely to be aggressive in intimate relationships and b.) Men who can't defend themselves against a woman are pansies, anyway.

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 would say same as above, with the addition of potential lobbying from certain misguided persons.

I suppose that would make my reply the same as the above one.

You are right, it does not mean that. But I don't feel its pervasive or a major problem, either. I think the issues that you pointed out are more easily explained by the common stereotype that Men are active, strong and self-sufficient, whereas women are passive, mild-mannered and in need of guidance and, admittedly, protection.

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 mean... sure men are killing themselves off in droves and are legally shut out of their children's lives if their wife feels like it... are arrested via feminist supported and defended predominant aggressor policies when they call the authorities for help with their abusers... have their names smeared in the media and their asses thrown in jail when women for some reason wants to falsely accuse them of rape (but hey, it might teach them to treat women better in the future if they take it as a learning experience)...
I suppose men aren't really seen as disposable and feminism just works in mysterious ways.

 

[Alandoril]

Utterly out of control! I mean, look at the dwarf in Dragon's crown! Dante in DMC? Kratos in god of war!

These musclebound men skew the public opinion of men, vastly oversexualizing us and making more realistically proportioned men feel both inadequate and disgusted, while women in turn expect that all men should be 6 foot tall, muscle bound, scantily clad giants grunting lustily from exertion upon opening doors, lifting heavy objects and defending them from potential rivals.

I for one demand realistic and proper portrayal of men in video games that gives realistic expectations, who's with me!?!

I haven't read all the posts just yet, so if anyone else has pointed this out already I apologize.

Those characters you pointed out? The dwarf, Kratos, Dante? They weren't made to be attractive to women. They were made to be attractive to men, specifically to tune into their desire for a power fantasy. Like so:

Spoiler

Those characters aren't "sexualized," they're made to fulfill the male power fantasy. And sexualized female characters are made to fulfill the male sexual fantasy. So there's your difference. The female characters are made for the male gaze, and so are the male characters. Perhaps Dante would be the most attractive of that bunch, but that's something rather inherent to most Japanese art styles anyway since they tend to focus on the eyes and more lean figures. But your Kratoses and your Marcus Fenixes? Yeah, they weren't made to titillate women.

OK, what exactly is this power fantasy? From my perspective it literally doesn't exist. I don't want to be these characters or be able to do what they do...

 

[dementis]

men aren't getting the lingering camera shots and underwear reveals in games

I kinda wish they were, Devil may cry would be 10 times greater than it already is.

OT: I think the real issue in games isn't that too many female characters are over sexualised, the trouble is not enough male characters are. If we had a nice even balance then everyone would be happy. Quick! Someone start working on the female friendly version of DoA, we'll make a gorram fortune!

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Dont care. Not interested. Men are muscle bound heroes. Woman are over sexualised. Not saying this is a good thing, but its just the way it is. Just like the way geeks in movies look like models with glasses. Its a hyper real version of things, as in fake. Thing is, Lara Croft has done well game sales, i never considered her a sexual character. Just a person i view the game with. An yes a lot of games have that overly sexual armour which is retarded. An developers think thats what they have to do, but unless your a teenager, most people dont care. Good gameplay and good story is all that matters for most people. Most games are fine. Some are the more specifically stylized designed games, as in the men have muscles that are bigger than is normal and the woman have figures that are not normal.

If developers grew up and were not immature then they would still sell games regardless of the characters clothing. A hero is a hero. I get the argument and i agree. But a game is fake and not real, the body dimensions are not real. I have more issue with magazines that say woman should be a thin size even though the models are photo shopped. An mags showing muscle bound men showing you have to be this way to get girls to like you. This is an issue with life, not just with games. Except i have a brain (like most men) and i dont see woman as those in games or mags.I know the difference between a fake girl and a real one. Same way women have brains and dont expect all men to be 6ft 5 muscle bound models. Granted things need to change, but then comes artistic license and creativity.