Vault101's guide to gender debates

[Saetha]

]
Certainly, I can't deduce the favorite movie or foods of someone simply because they identify as a feminist. Saying I can't deduce anything about them at all is silly, and smacks of the word "feminism" being a useless descriptor.

so at what point would YOU call someone a Femenist?

let me ask you again if someone criticises a game for being sexist are they a feminist?

No, and you really ought to stop trying to trap me into saying something just so you can pick it apart. I never said that, I don't think criticizing something for being sexist automatically makes one a feminist, and I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing this up to me. You seem to want me to make an argument just so you can tear into me for making it. Well, sorry, I'm not here to be your personal strawman (Woman. Whatever)

[quote/] I mean, imagine if I said "I'm a car mechanic." You could then ask me what I like about fixing cars. And I could then get irrationally angry, tell them that I actually scoop ice cream, I just call myself a car mechanic, and then invent rules saying that no one can comment on what car mechanics do or do not do, because I'm tired of people assuming I work on cars.

this depends...if you took it upson yourself to deicde tham Femenist meant "I want to destroy all the games" as some people honest to god have (just scroll back a few pages and see the outrageous stuff people have come up with) I'm sure people would be pissed [/quote]

That's great, but again, this does not relate to me or anything I've said in this thread. I don't think feminists want to destroy all games - literally two posts ago I scoffed at the idea that "feminist" and "gamer" are mutually exclusive. Why are you coming at me with this, exactly?

For someone so upset about people generalizing feminists, you sure are eager to tar me with the same brush as people you've debated with in the past.

[quote/]I specifically said "feminist," meaning only those who see themselves as feminists would be subject to it. I never pointed at someone and went "YOU, sir or madam, are a FEMINIST! I now IRRATIONALLY HATE YOU for being a FEMINIST." I never engaged with anyone in this thread but you, much less told them they believed in a philosophy without any knowledge of whether or not they do.

in your very first post the way you used "feminist" described a homogenous group of people who all thought the same thing and were the only ones criticising games [/quote]

Actually, I didn't mention games at all in my original post. I certainly didn't say anything about them criticizing them.

I'll say it again - if you're going to get mad about generalization, why are you doing it to me? This is the second generalization you've applied to me, by the way, after the "People who criticize feminism just don't know what it's about" schtick.

[quote/] but we're not debating games here. Going off the last few pages, we're making up rules and then snarking at people who dare to criticize them. Thus, bringing up the merits of feminism does nothing to shift the discussion off of games, since there was no such discussion in the first place.

obviously no...this thread is purely meta...

but it happens in the general discussion, I mean for fuck sake we have an entire thread titled "should femenists step off our hobby" implying no one ever had a problem or obsevered games that way until the Femenist army moved in[/quote]

And for the third time - how am I to blame for what others think just because we are critical of feminism? Also for the third time - don't get on me for generalizing when, in doing so, you generalize me yourself.

 

[Vault101]

at the risk of dodging the question I want to go back to your original post....

"Nooo, feminists don't want to censor anyone! We don't want to silence anyone! We don't to shut down discussion!

We just want to write up an arbitrary set of rules that obviously favor us with no input from non-feminist or feminist-critical persons, lay out these rules on a forum, and demand you abide by them before engaging us in debate, and basically tell you to sit there and nod your head and lap up every little line we feed you! That's all!"

this was were I took issue

[b/]you immediately put my OP in the "Feminist camp"[/b] you immediately decided my OP was a "feminist" piece and therefore was the banner for your "group" of Feminists, you created "Feminist camp" and "non feminist camp" and reducd the entire debate down to those two sides

you should have replaced "Feminists" in your OP with ME...because "I" was the one saying those things, I never claimed that my post [b/]was using any Feminists theory or ideas[/b] my

post was my OWN opinion and it may very well aligned with a lot of Feminists ideas but unless I specifically said this was related to feminism, feminism the political ideology and not "feminism the incredibly basic idea that men and women are equal" then you should have left out your "group of femenists"

and that was the entire idea of rule 3 and 4....to stop people creating homogenous bogeywoman in their heads

and to stop what we've been doing for the past 3 pages....a round and round loop of talking about what feminism is...now if this were any other thread that would have just been pointless BS (pointless BS I designed my "rules" to cut out) but since this is a meta thread that's fine...even if I kind of had to loop around and go full circle to make my point again...that might be my fault

[quote/]
"Nooo, Vault doesn't want to censor anyone! you don't want to silence anyone! you don't to shut down discussion!

you just want to write up an arbitrary set of rules that obviously favor us with no input from people who disagree wih you or Vault-critical persons, lay out these rules on a forum, and demand you abide by them before engaging us in debate, and basically tell you to sit there and nod your head and lap up every little line we feed you! That's all!"
.[/quote]
you should have said THIS^ because with all that dripping sarcasm you weren't criticising feminist's when you wrote that...you were criticising my post,but instead you used my post to adress a vauge group of "feminists"

I may have identified as "Feminist" ....not by outright saying it but by a vague statement (in the should Femenests step off our hobby thread) it might have been more accurate to merely point out "being feminist and a gamer and not mutually exclusive" instead I said without outright saying it "I won't step off your hobby'

my point is I'm hesitant to use the word "Feminist" in regards to myself or to what I say...NOT for the reasons I'd say most people use [I/]I want to distance myself from negative stereotypes[/I] but because I put more weight on the word, and I believe it requires a little more knoweldege than "men and woman are equal" my understanding of it in an academic sense is rudimentary at best

so...I ain't gonna bring it up unless I absolutely mean it

and many would gladly call themselves femenists based on nothing more than "men and woman are eaqual" and that's perfectly fine

but if youre gonna criticise feminists criticise them...not slap their name on my arguments to do it

 

[Saetha]

Snip

It's great that this is the "idea" you had when creating rules 3 and 4, but one cannot be blamed for not getting the idea, and instead drawing their own conclusions based on the incomplete information you provided.

And if you did not want people to drag feminism into this, you shouldn't have done it yourself with the preface to 4. That preface should've instead been used to explain why you, specifically, don't want anything there to be labelled feminist, rather than take potshots at people who disagree with you and then go on about how using the word feminist makes things political.

Again, perhaps your rules could do with some revision.

And you really shouldn't generalize people at all, especially when lecturing them on how they shouldn't generalize others.

 

[Vault101]

It's great that this is the "idea" you had when creating rules 3 and 4, but one cannot be blamed for not getting the idea, and instead drawing their own conclusions based on the incomplete information you provided.

aplogies....it did take me this long to finally explain my point better

 

[Grampy_bone]

snip

Lots of strawmen in here.

"this isn't about questioning weather or not something might be sexist, that's a discussion worth having, this is about strong denial"

"This really is not political, the issue of female representation in games is a very basic position and shouldn't really be controversial"

I disagree with both of these points, that the issue of sexism in games is a discussion worth having, or that feminism is not controversial. This is what is known as "begging the question," a fallacy. I don't think sexism in games is a valid discussion until the person bringing it up proves why it matters and why it's more important than free speech, freedom of expression, and artistic license. If the people attacking games were making this point as part of a personal critique that would be one thing, but they make it a point of social order and morality. I contend that people cannot seize the moral high ground without fighting for it first. Feminists consider this point a given since their ideology tells them they always possess moral superiority, and thus get irrationally upset when you question their assumptions.

"do you feel that buy insulting your favourite game/movie/book/erotic fan fic that they have insulted a part of you?"

I don't feel personally insulted when feminists insult games I like, but I do feel personally insulted when feminists personally insult me... which they do whenever I question their ideology. As soon as you say anything mean about feminism you are immediately labeled a misogynist. This is a pure ad-hominem attack. Feminists are the ones who go apoplectic when they receive the slightest criticism; this is because feminism is both inflexibly absolute as well as internally inconsistent. Feminists are among the most belligerent and intolerant folks you will ever meet, but because their ideology is about "equality" and "good for everyone," the more you point out their belligerence and intolerance the more belligerent and intolerant they become. This is known as "cognitive dissonance."

"a push for better representation is not and will never be a "threat" to what we hold dear, and if you enjoy projects made from the heart with compelling and diverse characters this should not be a worry

It's ironic that someone would make this claim a week after a large number of media outlets ran articles condemning gamers, arguing they should be expelled from the subculture, and demanding all further games be made according to their personal tastes. I wish I had made that up, but it actually happened. People may point out that it didn't work and now those journalists look like fools, but consider the following hypothetical situation:

Someone's friend comes to your party, gets incredibly drunk, and starts waving a gun around making crazy demands. The gun isn't loaded and they don't hurt anyone, and end up passing out is a puddle of their own vomit. Now, even though they didn't do anything strictly illegal, and even though no one got hurt, and no one probably will in the immediate future, are you justified in banning this person from all future parties you may hold? Of course you are.

This is what feminists have done: i.e. they have made atrocious asses of themselves, ignored all boundaries and rules of decorum, waved around various weapons, made threats and demands, and generally been as unpleasant as possible. Feminists just don't seem to think the rules should apply to them. The greater gaming community is perfectly in their rights to not invite feminists to the party anymore.


Now I have some of my own strawmen arguments which I will refute:

You're generalizing! Not ALL feminists are like that! Feminism is about equality! Argle bargle blurgle hurgle!

The idea that one is not allowed to generalize is a falsehood. Consider cats. Every cat is a unique and special snowflake, but does that mean we can make NO valid generalizations about cats? Of course we can. While humans may be more diverse than cats, feminists certainly aren't. We can look at common feminist behavior, examine the inflexible and inconsistent feminist doctrine, and make completely valid assumptions about feminists as a whole. For example, "feminists oppose patriarchy," is both a generalization and completely true. Saying "you're making a generalization" is just a debating trick to marginalize an argument without refuting it.

What it comes down to is that regardless of what they say feminists don't help anyone, they just shit all over everything. They do not come bringing peace, but the sword. Feminists are more than welcome to be gamers as long as they play nice with everyone else. But I see no reason why we should tolerate a bunch of belligerent jerks in out midst telling us over and over again what horrible pieces of shit we are.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't think sexism in games is a valid discussion until the person bringing it up proves why it matters and why it's more important than free speech, freedom of expression, and artistic license.

Why must criticism be at odds with those freedoms? Most people criticise things all the time without wanting to limit freedom of expression. You're criticising somebody right now, and so am I, and neither of us (as far as I know) wants to limit the freedom of expression.

You have a double standard.

If the people attacking games were making this point as part of a personal critique that would be one thing, but they make it a point of social order and morality. I contend that people cannot seize the moral high ground without fighting for it first. Feminists consider this point a given since their ideology tells them they always possess moral superiority, and thus get irrationally upset when you question their assumptions.

Their ideology tells them this? Is there a definitive feminist handbook of which I'm unaware that lays this out, or are we just generalising?

Someone's friend comes to your party, gets incredibly drunk, and starts waving a gun around making crazy demands. The gun isn't loaded and they don't hurt anyone, and end up passing out is a puddle of their own vomit. Now, even though they didn't do anything strictly illegal, and even though no one got hurt, and no one probably will in the immediate future, are you justified in banning this person from all future parties you may hold? Of course you are.

This is what feminists have done: i.e. they have made atrocious asses of themselves, ignored all boundaries and rules of decorum, waved around various weapons, made threats and demands, and generally been as unpleasant as possible. Feminists just don't seem to think the rules should apply to them. The greater gaming community is perfectly in their rights to not invite feminists to the party anymore.

This is just getting absurd, now. Firstly, the vast majority of feminists I've seen around here are not making "threats and demands"; they're just criticising things, which is something we all indulge in. You're doing it right now; so am I, in response to you. Secondly, you're also appealing to guilt-by-association; tarring a broad international movement of millions of people with the same brush, because of your experience with a relatively tiny subset within the gaming community.

That was also an example of colossal false equivalence-- equating the behaviour of internet feminists with the behaviour of somebody threatening those around them with death. There is a gigantic lack of perspective here, especially considering that so many don't use any threats whatsoever. Anita Sarkeesian has threatened nobody. Vault101 has threatened nobody.

 

[Silvanus]

I don't think sexism in games is a valid discussion until the person bringing it up proves why it matters and why it's more important than free speech, freedom of expression, and artistic license.

Why must criticism be at odds with those freedoms? Most people criticise things all the time without wanting to limit freedom of expression. You're criticising somebody right now, and so am I, and neither of us (as far as I know) wants to limit the freedom of expression.

You have a double standard.

If the people attacking games were making this point as part of a personal critique that would be one thing, but they make it a point of social order and morality. I contend that people cannot seize the moral high ground without fighting for it first. Feminists consider this point a given since their ideology tells them they always possess moral superiority, and thus get irrationally upset when you question their assumptions.

Their ideology tells them this? Is there a definitive feminist handbook of which I'm unaware that lays this out, or are we just generalising?

Someone's friend comes to your party, gets incredibly drunk, and starts waving a gun around making crazy demands. The gun isn't loaded and they don't hurt anyone, and end up passing out is a puddle of their own vomit. Now, even though they didn't do anything strictly illegal, and even though no one got hurt, and no one probably will in the immediate future, are you justified in banning this person from all future parties you may hold? Of course you are.

This is what feminists have done: i.e. they have made atrocious asses of themselves, ignored all boundaries and rules of decorum, waved around various weapons, made threats and demands, and generally been as unpleasant as possible. Feminists just don't seem to think the rules should apply to them. The greater gaming community is perfectly in their rights to not invite feminists to the party anymore.

This is just getting absurd, now. Firstly, the vast majority of feminists I've seen around here are not making "threats and demands"; they're just criticising things, which is something we all indulge in. You're doing it right now; so am I, in response to you. Secondly, you're also appealing to guilt-by-association; tarring a broad international movement of millions of people with the same brush, because of your experience with a relatively tiny subset within the gaming community.

That was also an example of colossal false equivalence-- equating the behaviour of internet feminists with the behaviour of somebody threatening those around them with death. There is a gigantic lack of perspective here, especially considering that so many don't use any threats whatsoever. Anita Sarkeesian has threatened nobody. Vault101 has threatened nobody.

 

[JimB]

I know you said you should stay out of these threads, so I won't take it personally if you don't answer this, but I am going to reply all the same.

Well, she does have the right to have the child without the man's consent, thus gaining control over his autonomy through a slice of his income?

I disagree that being able to compel payments is equivalent to being able to compel someone to undergo medical procedures against that person's will. If it is, then any government which taxes its population is absolutely totalitarian. Also, I don't think the laws about child support versus freedom of choice are equivalent: the laws regarding child support are in place to offer protections to a third party who is fundamentally innocent in all of this (the child), whereas the laws about abortion are in place to protect a woman's rights and health, though admittedly technology has advanced significantly since the enactment of these laws and pregnancy is much less dangerous than it was.

My point was simply that there is, out of necessity, an imbalance, something the original poster "Cymbaline" was struggling to acknowledge, preferring instead to argue that merely stating there was imbalance here was proof "we needed feminism."

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I don't think sexism in games is a valid discussion until the person bringing it up proves why it matters and why it's more important than free speech, freedom of expression, and artistic license.

Why must criticism be at odds with those freedoms? Most people criticise things all the time without wanting to limit freedom of expression. You're criticising somebody right now, and so am I, and neither of us (as far as I know) wants to limit the freedom of expression.

You have a double standard.

If the people attacking games were making this point as part of a personal critique that would be one thing, but they make it a point of social order and morality. I contend that people cannot seize the moral high ground without fighting for it first. Feminists consider this point a given since their ideology tells them they always possess moral superiority, and thus get irrationally upset when you question their assumptions.

Their ideology tells them this? Is there a definitive feminist handbook of which I'm unaware that lays this out, or are we just generalising?

Someone's friend comes to your party, gets incredibly drunk, and starts waving a gun around making crazy demands. The gun isn't loaded and they don't hurt anyone, and end up passing out is a puddle of their own vomit. Now, even though they didn't do anything strictly illegal, and even though no one got hurt, and no one probably will in the immediate future, are you justified in banning this person from all future parties you may hold? Of course you are.

This is what feminists have done: i.e. they have made atrocious asses of themselves, ignored all boundaries and rules of decorum, waved around various weapons, made threats and demands, and generally been as unpleasant as possible. Feminists just don't seem to think the rules should apply to them. The greater gaming community is perfectly in their rights to not invite feminists to the party anymore.

This is just getting absurd, now. Firstly, the vast majority of feminists I've seen around here are not making "threats and demands"; they're just criticising things, which is something we all indulge in. You're doing it right now; so am I, in response to you. Secondly, you're also appealing to guilt-by-association; tarring a broad international movement of millions of people with the same brush, because of your experience with a relatively tiny subset within the gaming community.

That was also an example of colossal false equivalence-- equating the behaviour of internet feminists with the behaviour of somebody threatening those around them with death. There is a gigantic lack of perspective here, especially considering that so many don't use any threats whatsoever. Anita Sarkeesian has threatened nobody. Vault101 has threatened nobody.

You didn't understand my metaphor. I wasn't claiming that feminists were threatening people, I'm saying they are breaking the mutual rules of society by acting like complete dicks while accusing anyone who calls them out on it of being terrible misogynists. It's true that Vault101 has been civil in this thread but they even claim they are not a feminist, so ergo my complaints don't apply to them. (and yet they are defending feminism. Curious.)

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society. Do you see the contradictions here? Who is claiming the double standard exactly?

Feminists adopt a "moral guardian" and "thought police" stance which is starkly different from a critic.

A critic says "This game is bad because of X, Y, and Z. Don't buy it."

A feminists says, "This game is misogynist because of X, Y, and Z, therefore it should not be made."

The feminists goes on to say that X, Y, and Z are widespread social ills which must be expunged from all games everywhere for the good of society. This is not "criticism," it's social engineering, and it's why gamers are sick of feminists.

So the common response is "your generalizing!" which I already addressed, or otherwise claiming "no true feminist would say those things." Well, it's what Anita is saying, it's what her supporters are saying, and it's what the SJW-aligned gaming media is saying. You can hem and haw, and move the goalposts around all you want, but that is why gamers are sick of feminists and want them to go away.

I'll say it again: they aren't adding anything positive, they aren't contributing, they are just shitting all over everyone. Stop inviting them to the party.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society.

You could more or less pretend the last two are what are being said, I guess, but purge all gamers? C'mon.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society.

You could more or less pretend the last two are what are being said, I guess, but purge all gamers? C'mon.

Are you pretending there wasn't a barrage of "gamers are dead" and "let's take gaming away from the gamers" articles published across the internet just over a week ago?

 

[CymbaIine]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

 

[CymbaIine]

You didn't understand my metaphor. I wasn't claiming that feminists were threatening people, I'm saying they are breaking the mutual rules of society by acting like complete dicks while accusing anyone who calls them out on it of being terrible misogynists. It's true that Vault101 has been civil in this thread but they even claim they are not a feminist, so ergo my complaints don't apply to them. (and yet they are defending feminism. Curious.)

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society. Do you see the contradictions here? Who is claiming the double standard exactly?

Feminists adopt a "moral guardian" and "thought police" stance which is starkly different from a critic.

A critic says "This game is bad because of X, Y, and Z. Don't buy it."

A feminists says, "This game is misogynist because of X, Y, and Z, therefore it should not be made."

The feminists goes on to say that X, Y, and Z are widespread social ills which must be expunged from all games everywhere for the good of society. This is not "criticism," it's social engineering, and it's why gamers are sick of feminists.

So the common response is "your generalizing!" which I already addressed, or otherwise claiming "no true feminist would say those things." Well, it's what Anita is saying, it's what her supporters are saying, and it's what the SJW-aligned gaming media is saying. You can hem and haw, and move the goalposts around all you want, but that is why gamers are sick of feminists and want them to go away.

I'll say it again: they aren't adding anything positive, they aren't contributing, they are just shitting all over everyone. Stop inviting them to the party.

You know, and I realise I am probably wasting my time here, most of the feminist activists I know (and I mean activists as opposed to those who just self-identify as feminist like myself) don't give a single fuck about this. I am a member of a couple of closed feminist groups on facebook and this stuff has been posted once on one of them and generated not a single response. Those groups tend to focus on organising protests about NI abortion laws, campaigning about FGM, campaigning about forced marriage and raising awareness about the problems rape victims have in the British Justice system.

Also I am a gamer and a feminist, I am sick of neither one of these things. I am however sick of arseholery.

 

[Grampy_bone]

You know, and I realise I am probably wasting my time here, most of the feminist activists I know (and I mean activists as opposed to those who just self-identify as feminist like myself) don't give a single fuck about this. I am a member of a couple of closed feminist groups on facebook and this stuff has been posted once on one of them and generated not a single response. Those groups tend to focus on organising protests about NI abortion laws, campaigning about FGM, campaigning about forced marriage and raising awareness about the problems rape victims have in the British Justice system.

Also I am a gamer and a feminist, I am sick of neither one of these things. I am however sick of arseholery.

Good. Then we are in agreement. Feminist activists should concern themselves with actual political and social issues. It's irrelevant to gaming.

So then my question is, do you denounce or at the very least refuse to defend public liars like Anita Sarkeesian, her irrational followers, or the SJW-aligned gaming media, which has specifically laid out a plan to use gaming as a platform to (quote) "Undermine heteronormative hegemony?" http://pastebin.com/LAmZNVKn

 

[CymbaIine]

Good. Then we are in agreement. Feminist activists should concern themselves with actual political and social issues. It's irrelevant to gaming.

So then my question is, do you denounce or at the very least refuse to defend public liars like Anita Sarkeesian, her irrational followers, or the SJW-aligned gaming media, which has specifically laid out a plan to use gaming as a platform to (quote) "Undermine heteronormative hegemony?" http://pastebin.com/LAmZNVKn

I never said that feminsts "should" concern themselves with anything, I was merely pointing out that I think you overestimate their interest in games.

In response to your questions

1. I dunno what Anita Sarkeesian has lied about so no I don't "denounce" her.

2. I dunno how her followers have been irrational so can't comment on that either.

3. I don't even know what the fuck "SJW-aligned" is supposed to mean.

4. I don't have any problem with undermining hegemony, I try to do it whenever possible.

 

[carnex]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

I think that @Res Plus meant that it's inherently unfair that woman has every right to

- lie about her fertility or sabotage non-permanent preventive measures male can take
- hide her pregnancy from father or lie about termination
- refuse to give father access to child (father actually has to sue mother in civil court to get to visit his child in case mother opposes)
- that mother can disown child upon childbirth without informing father
- and that even with all that mother can demand part of father's income to help her raise child father had never had say in conceiving, and raising (childbearing is part of the woman's body thus clearly purely her decision no matter how unfair that is towards father)

This is definitely unbalanced state of things but also, for me, unsolvable puzzle without violating either female's autonomy of body or male's autonomy of action.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Good. Then we are in agreement. Feminist activists should concern themselves with actual political and social issues. It's irrelevant to gaming.

So then my question is, do you denounce or at the very least refuse to defend public liars like Anita Sarkeesian, her irrational followers, or the SJW-aligned gaming media, which has specifically laid out a plan to use gaming as a platform to (quote) "Undermine heteronormative hegemony?" http://pastebin.com/LAmZNVKn

I never said that feminsts "should" concern themselves with anything, I was merely pointing out that I think you overestimate their interest in games.

In response to your questions

1. I dunno what Anita Sarkeesian has lied about so no I don't "denounce" her.

2. I dunno how her followers have been irrational so can't comment on that either.

3. I don't even know what the fuck "SJW-aligned" is supposed to mean.

4. I don't have any problem with undermining hegemony, I try to do it whenever possible.

So in reference to your answer 4, if you were convinced that games were responsible for, or a part of, "heteronormative hegemony," (which I think is safe to simply refer to by the feminist term "patriarchy,") would you make a cause of undermining, changing, or destroying gaming?

You say the feminists you know are not concerned with gaming, but clearly there are influential feminists who are concerned with it, and they see gaming as part of the "patriarchy" and therefore must be undermined.

 

[CymbaIine]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

I think that @Res Plus ment that it's inherently unfair that woman has every right to

- lie about her fertility or sabotage non-permanent preventive measures male can take
- hide her pregnancy from father or lie about termination
- refuse to give father access to child (father actually has to sue mother in civil court to get to visit his child in case mother opposes)
- that mother can disown child upon childbirth without informing father
- and that even with all that mother can demand part of father's income to help her raise child father had never had say in conceiving, and raising (childbearing is part of the woman's body thus clearly purely her decision no matter how unfair that is towards father)

Yes as I have said (at least twice now, once in the post you quoted) I know what he meant. You can go back through the thread and see these things discussed.

 

[CymbaIine]

So in reference to your answer 4, if you were convinced that games were responsible for, or a part of, "heteronormative hegemony," (which I think is safe to simply refer to by the feminist term "patriarchy,") would you make a cause of undermining, changing, or destroying gaming?

You say the feminists you know are not concerned with gaming, but clearly there are influential feminists who are concerned with it, and they see gaming as part of the "patriarchy" and therefore must be undermined.

I don't really thing you get what hegemony means, it cannot be simply referred to as patriarchy (you may want to brush up on that one too). Sure I undermine that stuff and actively try to change it.

Hegemony isn't a "feminist" thing. Let's pick an issue that comes up a lot in these discussions- the argument about the unfairness of a society that thinks men aren't able to raise their kids as well as women can, well that stereotype is an example of hegemony in action.

I also would like some examples of influential feminists are involved in gaming? I would be genuinely interested in what they have to say.

 

[carnex]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

I think that @Res Plus ment that it's inherently unfair that woman has every right to

- lie about her fertility or sabotage non-permanent preventive measures male can take
- hide her pregnancy from father or lie about termination
- refuse to give father access to child (father actually has to sue mother in civil court to get to visit his child in case mother opposes)
- that mother can disown child upon childbirth without informing father
- and that even with all that mother can demand part of father's income to help her raise child father had never had say in conceiving, and raising (childbearing is part of the woman's body thus clearly purely her decision no matter how unfair that is towards father)

Yes as I have said (at least twice now, once in the post you quoted) I know what he meant. You can go back through the thread and see these things discussed.

No you didn't. I actually went through the thread searching for your handle and I didn't see anything that I would name as argument. But I really don't want to start personal attacks. I will state 4 things I think that should be implemented to make this more fair situation and which I don't see hurting anyone.

- Mother to be should be obligated to inform father of childbearing. Some exception might be given via civil court if father is found danger for mother's or child's health and safety.
- Mother should not be able to disown the child without informing father and offering him custody of the child unless court proves fathe unfit for parenting. In cases in which mother is unable to be in custody of child during the process of decision making about father's fitness for the task child could be kept safe and well in undisclosed location.
- Mother shouldn't be able to deny father joint custody over child without court finding father unfit for parenthood.
- In case of alimony awarded to parent or child itself, amount should be flexible and
recalculated imitatively upon other parents reporting of change of income.

And I'm at loss how one would actually enforce first three points but never the less, they should be stated.