Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Bullsh8t on what? The idea that women should have the maturity to not get upset over cartoon women?
Never mind its all based on a false premise pushed by feminists for so long. The idea of the media being as influential as it is, as damaging as it is. I wish the media were that effective, if skinny models made women thin, we wouldn't have the obesity crisis we do in America.
most female chrachters women like are above averge in terms of attractiveness, check out batgirls new suit, not sexualised, shes still attractive. We don't get jealous over fictional charachters, that is wuite franly sexist...
Most character ARE exceptional. Thats why they are super heros.
I'm not impressed by bagirls new suit, its a perfect example why feminist comics don't work, that is what they aim for, censorship and blandness. You could almost predict every change in the suit based on just thinking about what a steretypical feminist, who is the modern day prude demand of such a character, of course all sexuality is removed. Its why feminists liked the character of chell in portal, bland, almost character free and just not something anyone noticed at all. But good job showing us what to expect from feminists, a character who is flat as a board, and covered from head to toe. But I mean why stop there, form fitting butt hugging suits can be considered both impractical and sexist, in combat she obviously needs armor, put her in a suit like samus, then you can't tell her sex at all, if she is even human, that would be optimal for feminists.
Anyways this concern points to the child like mentality perpetuated by feminism. The assumption is feminine weakness, mental fragility, and thus they must be protected from cartoons women with larger breasts than they have. The same issue raised for men would get the rational response of just grow up. Its only for women that the standard is lowered to the point where people have to walk on egg shells to avoid shattering their fragile psychs, and then yet...we are supposed to believe these same women are "strong independent women"?
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Its true because otherwise there is no problem. People who are driven to create and consume regardless of popularity create their own market.
"there is no problem" because you havent considered how mainstream entertaintment might seem to anyone who isn't you, and anyone who does question your comics/games you can put neatly into the "feminist" box
No I simply don't demand mainstream entertainment cater to a vocal minority group. You are like some man who claims that its only fair if katniss in the hunger games would be better off as a man, and thats the only way they could possibly enjoy that film.
Not everything is your business. A old religious prude has no right to make demands on lady gaga or 50 cents musical choices for instance.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Doesn't matter because men created the continuation into adult comics based on their own interests. Even when they were made for children, there was no huge readership of things like superman for girls. It just didn't happen. Girls had their nancy drew books at the rest. If anything it shows the divergence, chick detective shows are all the rage for female audiences, who make up the majority of tv viewership today. Its why so many older female lead shows exist now. This again, is just another example of how the genders have different interests.
but girls and women DO diverge from what its "assumed" they will like, you SEE us all over the internet, you may think there are too few of us too matter but somtimes being less sexist is not a zero sum game, it dosen't mean always changing what is for the worst or changing some things at all (as I said everything has its place) but this same old "DAE FEMENAZIS GONNA TAKE AWAY MUH GAMEZ" attitude comes up which is not only wrong but somtimes indicates a self centered world veiw, if people spent less time being reactionary and more time listening then we wouldnt be going around in the same hamster wheel
Its not assumed, its just true. Even in young monkeys, given a choice of gendered toys, the obvious happens, and there is no human "patriarchy" telling them to do this. It IS a zero sum game when you demand that others accomodate your supposed tastes which are of questionable legitimacy. Its just very notable feminists don't fill the supposed market gaps they claim exist. Because if you can create comics or video games that cater to 50% of the population which you claim are underserved, you will make hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. Again, one has to ask, do women hate money or is it just that its more likely you don't even believe the things you say yourself. Women don't watch the WNBA because of sexism, its because of their personal choices. And this constant mentality of women being victims who need to be saved by others, because they can't do things for themselves, even lift a finger to draw their own comics at the minimum, means it does cost men something in the end. Who funded the WNBA? Women? No, it was men. Men funded that joke to show you how wrong you are, and how you don't even really believe the things you say.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Batman remains great because it fundamentally remains a male story, it hasn't recently yielded to the calls to dilute its story by injecting unnecessary female characters into the story.
which I don't belive anyone has done recently....and as I said there are (albeit less notable) female charachters in the batverse....alongside a book called Gotham central
It hasn't been done recently, and thats why its remained great.... as I said, alicia silverstone.... once you add a woman to the mix the only way to rationalize it is to either give her super powers, or massively loosen the grip on all reality, as schumacher had to do. Because a woman punching out men isn't going to really be believable. Reality constrains what you can do with females in male stories. Just how it works.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Missing the point entirely. It was mothers who threw those things out, which says a bit about female interest in general, but its more about the general populations lack of respect for this kind of thing for all those years. It was stuff to be thrown out without a second thought.
yes it shows that comics were considered pulp entertainment and nothing more...NO it says NOTHING about being female...
It says a lot actually, because when they were pulp, females were more than happy to join those who just called the fan losers.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Voices in your head don't count ok? We have to talk about objective reality, and if people are giving themselves complexes by soaking themselves in so much feminist dogma that they see sexism around every corner and end up fearful of everything, thats their problem, and its a problem with their outlook, not with reality.
are you a women who has experiences sexism at one point in her life?
sexism in the geek comunity exsits, this false hysteria over "fake geek girls" is just one form, being treated as eather invisible or like crap in those spaces (like comics/games shops) is another
Sexism exists period, much of it existing in feminist circles these days. When feminists make accusations and smears which are baseless against entire groups, its exactly that, sexism. This need to believe that hoards of geeks are sexist is laughable. If anything many are just desperate for female attention that they are the first to be the white knights, saving every internet damsel they can.
There is no false hysteria over geek girls, the fakes exist, and are prevalent. Women exploiting their sexuality is not a new thing, ever notice how many views young women get on youtube? Hell for quite a while there were almost content free response "response" videos by attractive girls who made a business of abusing and exploiting this aspect of female sexuality. Youtube had to crack down on it to the point where they removed response videos last I checked. But it still happens, have a pretty girl and it draws views like flies, no matter the content. Its why you have the token pretty face on so many gaming channels. Hell its why you have booth babes, because thats how you get male attention. The difference is that those are at least honest interactions.
And well, its not hysteria when your most prominent "feminist" in gaming, anita sarkeesian is found to be a blatant fake gamer.
In fact in related news 4chan recently explained "tits or gtfo"
http://www.reddit.com/r/4chan/comments/20wd4d/4chan_explains_tits_or_gtfo/
And its relevant because its an acknowledgement of the truth, on the internet people are anonymous. Only your ideas matter. So generally when gender is brought up, its a demand for special treatment, an exploitation of gender.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
No one knows you are girl reading a comic book, no one knows if you are girl ordering a comic book from amazon. How fragile are you claiming women are anyways?
youre doing it again
I'm having that thing again, oh yea, holding women up to standards of normal responsible people with agency.... how terrible, we must infantalize women...yes.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Again, if women are that fragile, are they really equal?
Again implicit in your argument is the idea of female weakness. Its an idea you continuously promote whether you know it or not.
I am not saying this
you know I am not saying this
from what I can gather you have toruble understanding that its not ok to act like a dick, ESPECIALLY if youre running a buisness
talk to any women who likes geeky things, ask her how she feels, I bet she might feel rather pissed off...especially at this kind of thing
Your feelings are not relevant to business. Your feelings do not necessary represent any reality. Your "feelings" don't stop you from buying a comic book off the internet or creating your own. Honestly I don't care how you feel, and no one else should, either you have the courage to persue your goals or you do not. Do you even know the definition of that term? We respect people for over coming adversity, not for wallowing in self pity like feminists seem to encourage for women. So again, feminists seem to be the worst enemies of women these days.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Beyond that again this is just another one of those smears, all those comic store owners must be vicious sexists, yea that's the ticket, and that's the only possible explanation for why women weren't interested in comics...
Oh wait, women in japan buy comic books written by other women just fine, and under a far more patriarchal society than the west. The difference being this, they actually bothered creating content which appealed to themselves rather than spend their time feeling sorry for themselves. Fancy that!!
And of course its been many years since anyone has really had to step foot inside a comic book store. cuz you know...internet.
you talk about fragility and yet are quick to paint everything as some kind of personal attack...
I didn't say that....I said it happens, thankfully my local comic books stores have all been great, others aren't so luckey
I guess the difference must be explained to you. Your smear of comic book owners is unjust. Did I say that comic book owners shriveled up, closed their stores and never got out of bed again because they were so wounded? Nope. But an unjust smear is an unjust smear, and when groups like feminists rely on this tactic, it has to be called out. Fragility on the other hand does apply to feminists depiction of women. Whereas the comic book store owner just is disgusted by your smear, the fictional woman who is too fearful to even go to a comic book store is encouraged to be a broken person, a powerless victim. So when feminists prattle on about strong independent women on one hand, they undermine it by implying that women are so weak they can't face a comic book store owner. And lets be honest, a fictional comic book store owner.... because since public feminists tend to be useless people, they don't have any knowledge of running a business, so they wouldn't know that a comic book store owner is someone who is always on the look out on how to make another sale. Trying to drive away customers is the last thing a business owner is interested in.
Anyways it goes back to feminists lack of integrity in argument. comic book store owners are sexist? Prove it. Love to see what % of them wouldn't take a girls money.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Great, so now you are damned regardless, its funny how that works
only if you don't underastand the difference between pedastooling and treating somone as eaqual,it shouldnt be a big deal if a girl has certain interests
Its just a matter of it being a contradiction with your idea that all these geeks hate women. Pedastooling is placing excess value on such people. So basically no you are having it both ways, comic book stores run by girl hating nerds, and comic book nerds pedstooling women everywhere. It starts to reveal your arguments depiction of reality for the cartoon it is.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
While its true no one should pedastool anyone, the fact is that it contradicts your claims of men trying to keep women out of such interests, or being jerks to keep them out. "pedastooling" means they seek the approval of such women, quite the opposite of trying to exclude them
they are not mutually exclusive....
Its a complication of the feminist smear that these places are filled with women haters, and it only stretches credulity even thinner over their depiction off reality.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Its just evidence of trying to damn men regardless.
you really need to stop reading everything as an attack against "teh menz"
When unjust smears are made without a second thought against men because feminism has so normalized this unthinking type of attack, it will be called out. There is no reading anything into it, its only shocking to anyone that its so rarely called out, which is in itself evidence of us living in a society which is quite the opposite of what feminists claim. When these are your pervasive norms, and thats what you can get away with, misandry rules the day.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
no most comics were not the result of massive marketing sprees like you see with blockbuster films. Most organically grew from humble beginnings, and a great many have failed, no matter how much marketing was behind them.
EVERYTHING no matter how small is "marketed" way back when Solder comics had tough and cool solders to appeal to boys, girl comics used cute things and pastels to appeal to girls, everything right down to the gum you buy is "marketed" in some way
also somtimes companies are dumb in regards to demographics...just look at jims countless videos on the game industry and why COD shooters arent the only games that exist
No, early media grows organically. And there has to be interest, you can't market a dud into long term success. Basically you are still trying to claim that people are just "tricked" into hobbies and interests. Anyways thats historical, and today? There is no excuse, with crowd funding and the internet, nothing stops "feminists" from creating their own media. Its only the market and their own lack of belief in the words they say that stop them. Its why feminists like anita sarkeesian can raise 160k to create some extremely dishonest videos about video games where she is so lazy or incompetent she has to steal footage from other youtubers. If that can be funded, there is no excuse for a woman not to be able to succeed at creating content, assuming the market claimed exists at all. There is nothing to stop your theoretical feminist creators from creating the content you demand, and making mind blowing amounts of money.
It doesn't matter how many dumb games are out there, more are made and people gamble to win because the male market demand is proven to exist.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
And frankly that's what your feminist conspiracy theory has to assume, that people hate money
now weve gone from logical gymnastics to logical contortionism...jesus christ
No its logical call out. You claim an unserved market exist, well you just found your gold mine, something to retire on. Go out find these women and create what appeals to you, and if you actually believe what you say, and the market exists, you will be rich beyond imagination.
But you see women sit on their hands just complaining... I wonder why that is?....
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Funny thing, the rationalization hamster is a thing for feminists...
no its some bullshit Redpillers made up
Its a analogy red pillers created to explain feminist thought process and behaivor, and well, sadly it applies.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
But anyways what I said was correct and is implicit in your argument.
I am not saying women are weak...you are puting words in my mouth
I don't have to, its implicit in your argument.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Its accurate and you are just in denial.
quoting fucked up but whatever you meant "you are in denial" is not an argument
The denial wasn't the argument, just pointing our you ignored the argument in the first place.
Need I remind you of your "argument"? "thats bullshit and you know it" not clipped or shorted in any way, that was quite literally all you had.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
That's fine, and its fine that I've never heard of it, it caters to its own audience, and it shouldn't be forced to cater for others, let alone people with no actual interest, like me. You say its very diverse, but well, I've not heard of it, so its not that diverse at all.
ummm....no its still diverse....regardless of how popular it may or may not be,
And missing the point, demanding that everything fit your tastes is not diverse.
You see, here's the difference I don't complain about Saga, or claim it needs to fit my tastes, feminists on the other hand go around claiming everything else needs to be censored to fit theirs.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Not everything has to be the same, and not everything has to appeal to everyone
which is not what I am saying, when looking at weather or not something could stand to represent certain groups better we have to ask why and how? complaing about lack of female charachters in shaw shank redemption is pointless
That is exactly what you are saying when you attack other media for not fitting your personal taste. Not only attacking the media, but the audience and the creators with generalized smears. But yes, even feminists couldn't pull off an attack on shawshank with a straight face. But they do in every other area, and since they cannot acknowledge any possible difference in interest which would prevent a viable market from existing, they have to explain every failure through sexist conspiracy theory.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Again, this is your assumption. Like the church lady who finds dungeons and dragons satanic and morally corrupting, this is a matter of your personal opinion which you choose to universalize based on nothing at all.
while theres an element of subjectivity I could provide some reasons why the way certain charachters are treated might be considered problematic
It doesn't matter if you find them problematic. No different than how a church lady finds dungeons and dragons and harry potter satanic.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Really? Is that your argument? I might as well say that since forest gump had broad appeal all films must be like that from now on. Its not a serious argument at all.
my argument is in some cases it is not the worst fucking thing in the world and can add to a work, is it aplicable to all works? no, but that should go without saying
Again, why must you force yourself on other peoples work. It implies your gender lacks the ability to create their own work. Its not a good mentality to have. And it is the worst thing in the world, it stops being about art at that point, it starts being about proaganda.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Notable how there is no argument.
Notable how you spend your time clipping out most of what I say in my quotes because otherwise you can't respond at all.
The truth is society is based around male expendability, but that's another discussion.
Fact is you can look at the statistics all you want on things like education, its clearly a system made for women at this point.
see I purposfully didn't explain why because by this point I'm getting tired, but essentialy in entertainment men are always the default and women considered "other"
Quite the opposite. Women are always the smart one barely tolerating the dumb f*** of a husband in every other tv comedy out there. The default? The default to be picked on, the default to be expendable. You see feminists type up pages of rage when a character on game of thrones gets raped, but hundreds of men die? No big deal.
Default is female, and we live in a gynocentric society. Its why breast cancer is receives such disproportionate attention and funding.
Just look at this from maher, which was so many years ago...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRDUcbx9tw
But remains true. Society is organized around "making women nod". And so when anyone dares to argue with feminists these days, they act surprised, unable to even comprehend why anyone would dare disagree with them.
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
Again, no valid argument because you simply can't respond. The broken idea of "objectification" is just the perfect example of the intellectual emptiness which is modern feminism.
objectification is the idea of veiwing women as sexual objects with no purpose other than to be obtained...she is passive, not the one calling the shots in regards to her own sexuality
Nope, objectification is thrown out everytime a man finds something attractive. Is lara croft passive? Nope, but men would want to attain her because she's attractive, therefore objectification. Like it or not a term is defined by its general use, and feminists have used it as a generalized tool for condemning mens sexuality. Anything dealing with womens attractiveness is "objectification" by feminist standards. Its just a fact, and why its a broken concept, and evidence of the lazy type of thought that is pervasive and fundamental to the feminist movement these days.
Anyways you are self contradictory. Sexual display is not "passive".
Vault101 said:
wetnap said:
You've seen nothing, you can cherry pick whatever you want to prove whatever case you want, but it won't be valid. At this point its as I said, you are claiming that because vogue magazine appeals to mostly women, hires mostly women, it and all the fans must be rabid sexists, because the only reason men don't read vogue is because women make them feel unwelcome. Yea thats the ticket.
You know..the only reason women don't watch the WNBA is because of the menz right?
Grown adult women just don't have the backbone to just watch the entertainment they want, these are major life decisions and just anything can disuade them!!
Btw good job mangling the quote system so much that it was a pain for me to fix.
Perhaps you were trying to reinforce gender stereotypes on technology
they do actually
So whats the problem, either they choose to watch what you don't approve or things which don't fit your agenda, or you are saying they don't have the backbone to even make something as simple as their own entertainment choices.
And good job mangling posts quotes again