Why are people so against 'feminism' in gaming?

[Mrsoupcup]

ask a fan of any indie band that got popular.

That sounds... Dangerously hipster man.... Main Stream things can be good, I just think people don't expect much in the way of quality anymore. So the entertainment industry in general doesn't have to try very hard. So until people stop putting up with crap, they'll keep having it spoon fed to them.

OT: People are so scared about not being neutral or politically correct these days when something genuinely offensive, (sexist, racist ect) surfaces people shoot down anyone who wont tolerate it. That's why you should never be to Liberal or Conservative. Banning offensive things, and allowing them are both wrong.

Problem is I have no idea how to solve the problem without hampering freedom of speech...

 

[kurupt87]

The world is a bit bigger than the continental US, sorry to say. Have you considered that the "raped while walking to school" bit may cover, oh I don't know, the entire world? And that the national stat for rape in the US is believed to be significantly higher than reported due to the fact that most rape is never reported?

Just keep digging your hole. You're free to cling to your misogynistic, privileged beliefs all you want, but it does not change the fact that feminism is a desperately needed force even in modernized countries.

No offense boss but, you're being a bit of a twerp.

That video is intentionally dishonest and misleading. It quotes statistics from the World at large alongside those from the UK whilst making no distinction in how bad each respectively is; effectively equating women in the UK with women in the most backwards and deprived places on our entire planet. That is outrageous to the women in 3rd World countries and is unbelievably demeaning toward their plight.

It also makes no mention of injustices and abuse that men suffer at the hands of women.

As for penetrative rape; it can only be committed by a man and, as a vagina is generally the preferred orifice, is in most cases perpetrated upon a woman. This is a crime that is almost impossible for one half of our society to commit, so that means the other half is sexist? No, it does not. It means that there are criminals out there, something I'd assume you will accept.

Is a black person who robs from a white family racist? Is the reverse true? Or is it simply down to the fact that the victim has something the perp wants?

The video reels off lots of crimes committed against women, implicitly implying that the motivation for them, one and all, is sexism. That is patently absurd. These are behavioural issues, not sexist ones.

I'm not saying these issues do not exist or that those victims do not need support, but why do these victims need special treatment over other victims? Why is a women who is abused more worthy of treatment than a man? Why is a man who is contemplating suicide scorned in favour of a woman who has been raped? Why is a man killed in an uprovoked attack in a dark alley worth less than a woman killed by an ex partner?

Edit: Ahhrg! The video is ostensibly about equality and yet the major emotional buttons it pushes have absolutely nothing to do with it. The lists of crimes where women are the victim, what have they to do with equality? Are there not lists of crimes that men fall victim too? They have as much claim to be about equality as these; there are also probably more of them.

The only things about equality that it touches upon are sexual license, something which they're a bit out of touch with (women have generally slept with more men than men have women), the wage gap (something the veracity of which I am extremely dubious about) and pregnancy for working women.

Firstly, pregnancy is an inherently unequal topic.
Second, a woman can choose to not get pregnant whilst building a career.
Thirdly, the video falsely implies that the 30,000 jobs women lose per year are each individually equal to a man's career.
Fourthly, how would you protect a "pregnant woman's job security system" from being abused by serially pregnant women?
Fifthly, how do you equate a several month long paid holiday to the remainder of the workforce who have to work the entire time, whilst possibly managing someone elses workload as well as their own? Or to the employer who has to employ a worker who does no work, whilst possibly having to employ an extra one to make up for her absence? Or to the men who have no chance of getting this paid holiday to begin with? This is the real sticker; depressingly complex and it would take up loads time and effort, of which I'm not willing to give.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

Just because there are more men in certain professions, that does not mean that there have to be.

You are 110% correct: no there doesn't, see that is called "Equality of Oppurtunity" & i promise in this discussion that will be the last time we refer to actual equality.

"There are more men in a given profession" does not equal "Men are the default".

Actually it does mean exactly that. If i say draw a fire-fighter, or i say draw a soldier, all but a statisically negligable amount of people shall draw a fireman & not a firewoman. Why? Because there overwhelming majority in the field makes them the default assumption in a binary gendered system. Thats after all exactly what default means.

"You're a girl; you like pink, skipping, flowers, baking and playing at being a nurse." "You're a boy; you like blue, running, mud pies, toy guns and playing at being a fireman."

An that is what we call a false dichotomy. You've given an example of children who by there very nature have the majority of things chosen for them, including prefered colour & toys. However developmentally its during this time that children learn to mimic gender roles. None of which has anything to do with the previous example. Ones an example about people making informed choices, the other is about an assumed preference of someone incapable of offering an informed choice. (i'd prefer if you didn't play the silly semantics game, it makes having an actual informed discussion impossible & seriously makes me want to punch people for being disingenious)

It is not necessarily sexist that there are more men than women in the professions you mention. But until these preconceptions about gender have been completely eradicated, until everyone and anyone is free to express their gender however they wish (which means that it's also fine for either sex to freely assume the traditional gender role currently imposed on them).

now here is where you went wrong. See where you used the word "PRECONCEPTION:" A pre conceptiong is a concept held prior to have actual data. However we have actual data, we know that there ae more men then women in those fields, so when art imitates life, its not a preconception, its just an extension of the original paradigm.

it is not possible to make that assertion. How the hell do you know that it's not in women's areas of interest to be police officers? It's drilled into everyone that this job is meant for men. The standard term is "policeman", for heaven's sake. Your argument is the same old Victorian idea of "separate spheres", all over again.

Actually the standard term is police officer & the slang is cop. At no point is gender mentioned & the reason we know more women aren't interested in becoming cops, is that more women do not in fact become cops or even attempt to become cops. An that sillyness with the victorian seperate spheres is the self defeatist attitude is a self inflicted trap used by women whose reach is not as long as there desire.

And no, of course it's not sexist to write a book with a male protagonist. That is a ludicrous non-argument, and you know it. Where the sexism can be seen in the gaming industry, and the media as a whole, is through trends. If you wrote 10 books with nurses and secretaries as protagonists, and 10 about big-business CEOs and firefighters, and if all 10 protagonists of the first group were women while all 10 protagonists of the second were men, that would make you sexist, or at the very least demonstrate your rigid adherence to restrictive and traditional views on gender. (Which for many people, by the way, is the same thing.)

But i'm not writing 20 books, i'm writing one, just like the people pitching games are pitching one game not 20. See this is that ugly "Patriarchal society, holding back women" nonsense poking its head up again. There are no fat cats sitting around smoking cigars lit by $100 notes & laughing at how they are keeping womyn kind down. someone pitches a game & it eitehr gets green lit or shot down. If the property does well, a sequel is made.

I do not agree that there are "slightly" more male protagonists than female. In my eyes, the discrepancy is overwhelming. Why have you not considered the fact that maybe you are suffering from observation bias, rather than everyone who disagrees with you? This is probably not an argument we can settle without actually going out and counting the protagonists in every game that exists, which frankly I don't have the time for. But I'd like you to at least take a look at the most popular titles in the game charts, note the gender of the protagonists and make up your mind based on that.

thank you for being the first person to ask for Data, because i have it. Here is the list of every PC game to be released in 2011 http://www.mcvuk.com/retail-biz/release-dates/pc . Now go through the list and after taking out all the games that dont include real characters (such as PVP focused FPS, such as Crysis 2, or magic the gathering, or games about robots like portal 2) & games like Batman (where the character is someone elses intellectual property, or a sequal), lets see how many games on that list have no female protagonist (be it player controlled or sidekick)... Hmmm, lets see... less then a handful by the looks of it (heck i'd go as far as saying provisionally, none). hmmmmm, seems like the actual knowledge again out does "common knowledge"... Aint that always the way.

-M

I am not going to continue discussing gender roles with you beyond this if you continue to so spectacularly miss the point. I have no interest in wasting my own time.

To your first point: The fact that people automatically draw men in that situation is precisely the problem. I'd hazard a guess that most people would automatically draw a man rather than a woman in most situations when given the choice. It is that attitude and that assumption (that firefighters, for example, are male) that perpetuates the gender discrepancy in real life. There is an established view in society that firefighters are and should be male; firefighter dress-up costumes are marketed to boys; children learn to believe that "firefighter = boy"; women don't enter the profession because of that stigma. That does not mean that men are by nature the default. What it means is that ingrained assumptions about gender lead people to believe so. Your term was "default assumption", and that is ironically accurate. It's an assumption. And the assumption turns women off the profession, either because they fear prejudice or because they too subscribe to the assumption about gender in that profession. It's not a case of women's "area of interest" not being compatible. For that to be the case, it would have to be ingrained in women not to enter these professions, and that statement is simply not a viable one to make whilst the stigma survives.

To your second point: It is indeed a false dichotomy; one that is imposed on children from birth. That's exactly what I'm complaining about. When these sorts of messages are fed continually to the population, usually in a subtle, underhand way that goes largely unnoticed, and often to children who can't be expected to think critically about what they are told, how far is it possible to say that adults have not been affected by the messages? They are insidious and everywhere. As long as products continue to be marketed specifically to girls when the only difference between it and the non-gendered version is the fact that the "girls" one is pink, gender roles are still being imposed on our children. You've said "children who by there very nature have the majority of things chosen for them, including prefered colour & toys", but the fact is that this applies to almost all children. It starts with "blue is for boys, pink is for girls"; and that rule applies from infancy. Then children grow up a little, at which point girls are given Barbies and boys are given Action Men. The gender stereotyping is undeniable - and it does have an impact. If people grow up in this environment, with nothing challenging it, chances are it will seep in, and thus it will affect their adult lives. Even "informed choices" are not made independently of this world and these messages that surround us.

To your third point: My argument is that there are more men than women in those fields because of the preconception. The preconception drives women away. In fact, it's a vicious circle: preconception about the profession exists -> women are driven away, or stigmatised against -> there is a trend of more men in the profession -> people like you use this as an excuse to perpetuate the assumption that this is due solely to the nature of women -> the preconception continues. It is not as if these fields appeared one day, in a vacuum, and men just happened to start dominating the numbers. There is a very real and very important history which precedes all of this.

To your fourth point: "Cop" isn't used in my area, actually, although that's irrelevant to this discussion. In fact, "policeman" is the traditional term, and it's only through the efforts of people eager not to perpetuate this gender assumption that "police officer" is gaining in usage. You should see my above point for why some women are being driven away from becoming police officers. And are you saying that you do not subscribe to the myth of separate spheres? Because in that case, I'd reconsider making statements along the lines of "there aren't many female police officers because it's not within women's area of interest". That right there is a classic example of the very same argument. Also, I consider it very ironic that you would decide to tell me, as a female, that I am not interested in policing when earlier in the thread you got so angry at the idea of a woman supposedly telling you what you want in a game. (The fact that that is precisely not what I was doing is irrelevant.)

To your fifth point: Yes, people pitching games pitch just one. That's why, if I said "Half Life is a sexist game because it has a male protagonist", you could justifiably laugh at me. But I'm not saying that; I'm saying "There is sexism in the gaming industry as a whole, because game developers repeatedly choose male protagonists over female ones where there is no real reason to". That's why in the hypothetical of you writing books, you would have to have written a decent number of them: you need the numbers in order to observe a trend.

Please note that you are the one to bring up "patriarchal society", not me. And you seem to have a misconception about the way in which this term is normally used. I'm not arguing for the existence of deliberately oppressive corporate fat cats. I'm arguing that insidious messages about gender in our society cause people, game developers being some of these people, to jump to the idea of the male gender as a "standard" and female as a departure, or "other".

To your sixth point: I have many objections to the rather arbitrary criteria you have imposed on this analysis. The first is that a "sidekick" is sure as hell not a protagonist. In fact, relegating women to sidekick roles is another symptom of the privileging of the male gender. The name defines the role of characters like that: they are on the side, secondary. The protagonist comes first. So no, I do not accept "sidekick" females as evidence.

My second and third objections have already been raised by other users: that you arbitrarily exclude Crysis 2 and similar titles, and that you examine only PC games. I consider this to be unnecessarily limiting, and would hazard a guess that these limitations have been imposed to falsely make your argument look stronger.

My fourth objection is that looking for games with "no female characters" is the wrong way of approaching it. So in your eyes there are few games with no females. Great. Now: how many are there with no males?

A final objection, although admittedly off the topic of gaming specifically, is that excluding games based on somebody else's intellectual property (such as Batman) is false compartmentalising, since the problem of the privileging of males as protagonists applies across the entirety of Western media as a whole.

Given these many objections, I don't consider your argument to be of worth. Sorry.

 

[Saint Cynicism]

A final objection, although admittedly off the topic of gaming specifically, is that excluding games based on somebody else's intellectual property (such as Batman) is false compartmentalising, since the problem of the privileging of males as protagonists applies across the entirety of Western media as a whole.

Just adding to this: the games should be counted AT LEAST once (meaning: if it's a sequel with the same protagonist, you should understandably not count it each and every time, as it's not like they're going to change the character's sex midway through the story), because there were and still are other superheroes / superheroines to choose from.

Even if you're going for the Batman 'feel,' you've still got Batwoman and The Question (Renee Montoya).

 

[agrajagthetesty]

"You're a girl; you like pink, skipping, flowers, baking and playing at being a nurse." "You're a boy; you like blue, running, mud pies, toy guns and playing at being a fireman."

Scientific studies have show this to be correct. First they gave girls dolls and boys fire trucks and observed how they played with these toys, then they swapped the toys around and observed how they played with the other gender's toys. They found that the children played with both toys in the same way; girls would have tea parties with dolls and trucks, while boys would throw both of them around. This is because many gender preferences are genetic, rather than taught by society. Similar results were found when they gave apes the same toys, further demonstrated a genetic cause rather than a social one.

I would raise some questions about this. How much exposure had these children already had to toys, toy commercials and other ways in which the media interacts with children? How much information had already, if indirectly, been given to them about the way in which they are supposed to behave and play? I would say that even something as seemingly minuscule as the announcer's tone of voice and other aspects of presentation in commercials aimed at children can have an impact.

Observe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SG3tuYQUmw A seemingly gender-neutral toy, the spinning top, has been marketed towards boys. And what do we see in the commercial? Aggressive music, lots of movement, high energy, and a "battle" element.

Now compare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGPNxjovD4 This is another apparently gender-neutral toy, but the commercial features a girl prominently. Lo and behold, differences abound. The music is exciting but relatively calm and peaceful, there is movement but the girl is relatively static, the voice of the announcer is non-threatening and entirely without aggression, and (intriguingly) the girl is completely passive in her interaction with the toy: she sits there while things happen. These toys in and of themselves are not seen as inherently gendered, but the way in which toys are presented and marketed still depends hugely on whether they are placed alongside boys or girls in the commercial. I would be extremely surprised if the children in this study had never been exposed to messages in this sort of format about the nature of how they are expected to play; and as we've seen, these messages towards the sexes persist even if the toy is not one that is traditionally associated specifically with that sex.

The apes are an interesting point, though. I would maintain that messages given to children about gender are unequivocal and insistent, but it is possible that there is some element of biology present which the media reinforces on people. Not having seen the study myself, I'm willing to take your word for that. But arguing from biology is needlessly restrictive. It can, after all, be argued that since women are the sex that become pregnant, give birth and lactate, their role should be limited only to childbearing. Now, nobody here is saying that, and I'm not even saying that there's a danger people will. But it's an example of how, by focussing on the issue of genes and biology, it is possible to confine people needlessly, and potentially outside of the realm of what they as an individual desire.

If you wrote 10 books with nurses and secretaries as protagonists, and 10 about big-business CEOs and firefighters, and if all 10 protagonists of the first group were women while all 10 protagonists of the second were men, that would make you sexist, or at the very least demonstrate your rigid adherence to restrictive and traditional views on gender. (Which for many people, by the way, is the same thing.)

Given that if you randomly selected 10 big-business CEOs and firefighters, and 10 nurses and secretaries the former are highly likely to be all male and the latter are highly likely to be all female these the books are an accurate portrayal of reality, rather than based on sexism. Trying to introduce diversity into an employment field that is not diverse makes it seem like the writer hasn't done proper research and will weaken the story.

This is an issue of the vicious circle again. Gender roles exist -> they are perpetuated and taught to people -> people make decisions about what fields they enter, in part according to these messages -> the numbers in a given field are skewed -> some people argue this as evidence for the accuracy of the gender roles -> the gender roles continue to exist. In this case, gendering your protagonists in this way would be a case of perpetuating perceived gender roles. Unless you believe that the vast majority of (say) CEOs should be male, why not challenge the expectations imposed on society in your hypothetical book? Having a female firefighter or a male nurse does not cause people to question the author's research skills, since (sadly) everyone is aware of what genders are expected of these professions. It merely causes a raised eyebrow, as it is unexpected. It may even cause people to re-evaluate their assumptions, which is never a bad thing.

It's really not as if fiction is rigorously held up to the standards of reality, in any case. In fact, having a total lack of diversity in fiction would also be unrealistic: it's not as if these fields are not diverse at all, just not much. Even a little progress, whether in reality or fiction, is some progress.

 

[agrajagthetesty]

EDIT: Double post.

 

[4173]

As for penetrative rape; it can only be committed by a man and, as a vagina is generally the preferred orifice, is in most cases perpetrated upon a woman. This is a crime that is almost impossible for one half of our society to commit, so that means the other half is sexist? No, it does not. It means that there are criminals out there, something I'd assume you will accept.

It isn't impossible at all. Is there a distinction between using a penis or an object? (I'm not saying it happens as often, just that it is very possible)

 

[xXGeckoXx]

This may have been discussed before but a search of the forums didn't bring up anything that I was looking for so...

I've been asked to write about sexism in gaming and I know it's a subject that has been done to death. I want to make it as fair an argument as possible. As a girl you can probably figure out which side of the debate I'm on but I do want to know why people are so vocal AGAINST people speaking up against sexist slogans in advertising and reinforcing white male gamer stereotypes.

For example, the recent gamestation advertising campaign saying their pre-owned games were cheaper than your girlfriend. When people complained that it was offensive the minority of gamers told them to shut up and get over it. So..why are people so against gaming becoming more gender neutral and accepting of female, child and elderly gamers.

I'm not slating it, I would just like to understand the mindset a bit better to at least try and make this piece of writing fairer.

Feminism is not equality. Feminism, like many pro-cause moral systems goes too far and begins to make men out as the devil here. There are differences between man and woman, true equality would take into account these differences. To make a game equal between men and women does not mean adding "strong willed tomboy" women to counter the male dominance in action scenarios, it means adding female characters with depth and this rarely means making them more like men to fill the equality "quota" (does that not seem to defeat the point? Most media's emasculate women to create equality; but why? A female character can be both detailed and meaningful while retaining femininity). This is not to say that I am totally against tomboy women, that would be the ignoring the fact that such personalities exist but there should be more consideration put into the creation of characters as a whole rather than making both genders do the exact same things and calling it equality.

--Gecko

 

[Twilight_guy]

Let's make one thing very clear; women getting paid less than men for the same job is a problem. That Marcus Fenix is specifically male isn't!

This is just such a magnificent non-issue, which is what feminism seems to be about these days. When you can't fight for universal suffrage anymore, you're forced to invent problems to pick on. Why not tell a story where the main character has a set gender? Refraiming for the sake of refraiming is pointless.

You get an idea, you put it to paper, there is literally no need whatsoever for pondering the question of whether your idea would suffer more or less from having the player choose gender, because it doesn't matter!

Umm your argument is specifically ignoring white privilege, male privilege, and a bunch of other things of that nature. The anthropologist in me wants to strangle you for that because your argument ignores the inherent divide in "normal" concepts and the inherent inequality in social constructions. I know that everyone has studied things like this or agrees with them though so I'm not going to argue. We'd never get anywhere since our views of the issue are completely different. So I guess it was nice discussing this issue with you. Good day.

 

[BluesHadal]

Despite what people said, I don't think anyone is against feminism in games except that its an agenda. Making a game about women's rights isn't something you can make a lot of games about.

That's because there's a distinction between a good character and a feminist character(neither is exclusive but there's a difference even if its a good female character). Now we can have feminist critique any female or male character just fine. So in general all we can do is have a game that isn't sexist or misogynistic, or filled with misandry unless it's in a context that isn't offensive.

About the slogan people are talking about. I think most guys think its stupid or don't care. that's indifference, not against anything.

 

[John Funk]

The world is a bit bigger than the continental US, sorry to say. Have you considered that the "raped while walking to school" bit may cover, oh I don't know, the entire world? And that the national stat for rape in the US is believed to be significantly higher than reported due to the fact that most rape is never reported?

Just keep digging your hole. You're free to cling to your misogynistic, privileged beliefs all you want, but it does not change the fact that feminism is a desperately needed force even in modernized countries.

No offense boss but, you're being a bit of a twerp.

That video is intentionally dishonest and misleading. It quotes statistics from the World at large alongside those from the UK whilst making no distinction in how bad each respectively is; effectively equating women in the UK with women in the most backwards and deprived places on our entire planet. That is outrageous to the women in 3rd World countries and is unbelievably demeaning toward their plight.

It also makes no mention of injustices and abuse that men suffer at the hands of women.

As for penetrative rape; it can only be committed by a man and, as a vagina is generally the preferred orifice, is in most cases perpetrated upon a woman. This is a crime that is almost impossible for one half of our society to commit, so that means the other half is sexist? No, it does not. It means that there are criminals out there, something I'd assume you will accept.

Is a black person who robs from a white family racist? Is the reverse true? Or is it simply down to the fact that the victim has something the perp wants?

The video reels off lots of crimes committed against women, implicitly implying that the motivation for them, one and all, is sexism. That is patently absurd. These are behavioural issues, not sexist ones.

I'm not saying these issues do not exist or that those victims do not need support, but why do these victims need special treatment over other victims? Why is a women who is abused more worthy of treatment than a man? Why is a man who is contemplating suicide scorned in favour of a woman who has been raped? Why is a man killed in an uprovoked attack in a dark alley worth less than a woman killed by an ex partner?

Edit: Ahhrg! The video is ostensibly about equality and yet the major emotional buttons it pushes have absolutely nothing to do with it. The lists of crimes where women are the victim, what have they to do with equality? Are there not lists of crimes that men fall victim too? They have as much claim to be about equality as these; there are also probably more of them.

The only things about equality that it touches upon are sexual license, something which they're a bit out of touch with (women have generally slept with more men than men have women), the wage gap (something the veracity of which I am extremely dubious about) and pregnancy for working women.

Firstly, pregnancy is an inherently unequal topic.
Second, a woman can choose to not get pregnant whilst building a career.
Thirdly, the video falsely implies that the 30,000 jobs women lose per year are each individually equal to a man's career.
Fourthly, how would you protect a "pregnant woman's job security system" from being abused by serially pregnant women?
Fifthly, how do you equate a several month long paid holiday to the remainder of the workforce who have to work the entire time, whilst possibly managing someone elses workload as well as their own? Or to the employer who has to employ a worker who does no work, whilst possibly having to employ an extra one to make up for her absence? Or to the men who have no chance of getting this paid holiday to begin with? This is the real sticker; depressingly complex and it would take up loads time and effort, of which I'm not willing to give.

Nobody is claiming that the motivation for rape or other injustices perpetrated against women is sexism; you don't do it saying "Oh hey, I'm going to be sexist today." They're a result of sexism permeating Western culture, which values women less than men and judges them more harshly - of course it's the other way around in some cases, but those are easily the vast minority of scenarios.

The point of the video is to make viewers honestly consider the fact: Are men and women equal in supposedly modern, progressive societies? That is its entire goal, and even if it does get facts wrong - which I'm skeptical it does - or misrepresent them, it is doing so with the intention of getting you, the viewer, to consider that question honestly and without a knee-jerk dismissal.

The answer is "no," of course.

And the other points are, in fact, points of equality. Women are far more likely to be abused or killed by a romantic partner than the other way around. Domestic violence cases overwhelmingly have women as the victim, etc. Those are issues of equality regardless of how they're phrased.

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Because too many gamers are insecure teenage males who either associate feminism with misandry, or who fear females' entrance into their Boys' Only Club.

I really don't get why anyone would be against the desperately needed advancement of women in society.

While I can appreciate the message of the video, there are a few things that I take umbrige with, mainly as to what is being described as a problem of sexism but may in fact may just be a problem in general.

While I don't have official numbers on the matter, the issue of wage gaps and maternity leaves sound like things that if indeed true are signs perhaps not of a sexist agenda necessarily but of sexism through immaturity. The part I have a problem with however is the mention of chances to enter public office or acheive an executive position. I'm going to guess that from that statment in the video that this means the percentage of public officials or executives that are men is incredibly higher than the percentage of women holding the same position. Although it has to be asked, is this an inherint problem of sexism? By that I don't mean does it matter what the percentages are, but rather is the fact the percentages are what they are an effect of sexism? This is only hypothetical, but what if the reason the percentages are like that is because percentage wise not many woman run for public office positions or executive jobs? Perhaps there is data out there that shows that infact several woman apply and they are ignored because of their gender, in which case I would agree that yes the percentages of positions are indeed an effectof sexism, but what if the data showed that the low percentage of women in high positions is due to not many woman applying for these positions? Is that really a product of sexism against woman then? We can't force people to go into positions they don't want to for the sake of equal numbers, so what would you think should be done in order to spark more interest in that field? I can see someone arguing that if there is a low-turn out o applications that this is due to sexist social pressures that discouraged that type of behaviour for women to apply, but I'm a little bit skeptical about this. I'm not sure what the case in the UK might be, but both from what I've heard and both from experience here in Canada I can certainly say that there is a significantly larger percentage of women attending university than men. Perhaps this is just a matter of waiting for this generations women to try and enter the fields of big business and politics, but from what I've understood this ratio of females attending universities is something that has been going on for a while. What I guess I'm getting at here is that it seems that recently women appear to be more enthusiastic than men to enter university and from there enter more advanced fields, yet that if there is indeed simply a low-turn out for apllying to the fields of big business and politics that the percentage of women holding those positions doesn't seem to be a problem of sexism working against women, but rather just a general lack of interest in those fields by those qualified enough to enter them.

Also, in regards to sexual promiscuity and sexual assault, there are a few issues I have with that as well. While it can certainly be seen that there are indeed places around the world that do treat women badly for promiscuity yet rarely do anything against a promiscuis man, I'd say that those roles are being reversed here in the West, in which it is wrong for a man to be promiscuis but its alright for a woman to be. I'd say the best way to understand this is to look at the media being produced in the West. For example, in regards to how affairs are often looked at in media/art, I often see that men having affairs are shown as monsters, people who mislead and use their comitted partners or spouse while at the same time spending their time with another, just for the sake of it, while I often find that women who have affairs are justified in their resolve, in which unlike the man who did for fun, the woman in these affair stories is often seen as doing so because they are either being mistreated by their partners or because they need some excitement in order to spice up their life. Perhaps there is stuff out there that does the opposite, but I have yet to seen/read/listen to it, meaning that even if this stuff does exist that it is possibly rarer than the other types of affair stories (or admitably possibly not as popular, possibly due to bad quality). Even when the characters aren't in committed relationships and in fact sleep around with several people men doing so in media/art/entertainment from what I've seen so far are painted as shallow and vain characters, people who aren't really experiencing life, while I find often that women doing the exact same thing are instead painted as deep and living life to their fullest. Hell, even how age relationships are dealt with seem to favour female sexuality over male, with men interested in younger girls (barely legal teenagers) as being seen as sick and disturbed, people who should not be around young girls, yet women who are interested in younger boys (barely legal teenagers) are simply exploring their sexuality, interested in something that is simply harmless for them and with no worries of these women being around young boys. Again, while I would agree that there are several places world-wide that do not condone or outright despise female promiscuity, it seems that in the West female promiscuity is seen as normal, and that it is male promiscuity that is seen as abnormal.

Finally, while this is a smaller rant, I want to ask....what does the fact that 6 million girls get raped each year have to do with anything? That there is a problem? Why yes, there does appear to be a problem, but a problem due to male superiority or sexism against women? No, I would say not. Why? Because rape is not a gender exclusive act. Not only can the victims of rape be either male or female, but the perpetrators can be male or female as well. This is not an issue that only concerns women, its is a problem that concerns humans. One may argue that there are fewer cases of men being raped, but why does that matter? The fact that there are men being raped at all shows that perhaps the problem of rape isn't as gender exclusive as some like to think. Further, while I forget where this comes from, I remember hearing from my Criminology Professor and from other sources that male rape is actually a larger problem than what is being reported, that in fact male rape and male domestic abuse may actually be on par with female rape and abuse (in the West anyways), and that the reason why no one hears about it is because these cases are oftened passed off as simply "Really, the guy wanted it, he just felt awkward afterwards" or "She was just exerting her power, he deserved it and she showed him that she won't be dominated". The issue I see with a sexist society and rape isn't that in a sexist society rape will occur, but rather in a sexist society rape will be passed off as no bg deal. Thats what a sexist society against women is, it isn't a society where women are raped, as that can happen in any society (hell, in any society anyone can be raped), it is rather a society in which women are raped but the rape is passed off as simply harmless.

I think what this all evantually comes down to for me anyways is that as well as some aspects that really need to be looked at carefully before they are simply accepted, there is the issue that this ad seems to be conveying that the issues of one society translate into the issues of another society, mainly the issues of countries where women are openly opprossed being shown as issues happening in societies where with the exception of more invisible issues, men and women are equal. Are these concerns that someone should be worried about? Possibly yes, but then why try to solve an issue in an area that doesn't even have that issue? How about instead of bringing in these numbers of how women are being opprossed in other countries and use those numbers as reasons why women should be given more privelages in countries where the numbers did not come from, how about we try to bring the same feminist theories used in the past in the West over to those problem countries and try to educate others into realizing that we all deserve to be treated fairly?

Sorry for the rant there, but I think I would of felt worse had I not said it.


OT: I think your asking two different questions. You ask in your comment why gamers are against gender equality (as well as age equality), and I would say I don't think most gamers are actually against more gender equality in games, since after all it seems that we as a gaming community always ask to have more diverse characters, both male and female, and to also have more opportunities to play as more diverse genders, not just male characters. However, in you title thread you ask why are gamers against feminism in gaming, and I think this is where the issue is. Taking out of consideration the misandrists who take up a portion of the feminist movement (not all and certainly jot the majority, but from what I've seen and from the amount of people on here claiming to have met some I'd say a sizeable portion), ask yourself this. When you mean femisim in gaming, are you referring to making a game from a feminist standpoint, or making a game about or includes femisim as one of its themes? If its the first one, I think its just a matter of whether the person looking at the game from a feminist standpoint is able to make a good game, and whether looking at the game from a feminist standpoint enhances or decreases the experience, which will vary from developer to devloper. If its the seond one though, there may be an issue. While feminism as a theme or the main idea of a game could provide to be intersting so long as its done properly, its important to note that it should not be the only theme in ALL games, or necessarily even just one of several themes in ALL games. This isn't because femisim as a theme isn't good enough to work in a game, but rather it comes to question if every game out there requires it. The worst way in fact to make one have a jaded view of feminism is to include it in places where it wasn't necessary, because either it just makes the theories seem to not fit properly there (and therefore, if taken to a logical conclusion, anywhere) or it makes one wonder if the inclusion of it isn't because of an enhancer to the experience so much as a push by a biased part of the industry.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Finally, while this is a smaller rant, I want to ask....what does the fact that 6 million girls get raped each year have to do with anything? That there is a problem? Why yes, there does appear to be a problem, but a problem due to male superiority or sexism against women? No, I would say not. Why? Because rape is not a gender exclusive act. Not only can the victims of rape be either male or female, but the perpetrators can be male or female as well. This is not an issue that only concerns women, its is a problem that concerns humans. One may argue that there are fewer cases of men being raped, but why does that matter? The fact that there are men being raped at all shows that perhaps the problem of rape isn't as gender exclusive as some like to think.

No-one has said that rape is exclusively male on female. However, seeing as it is predominantly one sex attacking the other, then it fits the definition of an inequality and sexism.

while I forget where this comes from, I remember hearing from my Criminology Professor and from other sources that male rape is actually a larger problem than what is being reported,

Almost certianly, sexual assaults tend to go unreported.

How about instead of bringing in these numbers of how women are being opprossed in other countries and use those numbers as reasons why women should be given more privelages in countries where the numbers did not come from, how about we try to bring the same feminist theories used in the past in the West over to those problem countries and try to educate others into realizing that we all deserve to be treated fairly?

Um, yes, that being the point they were trying to make. Exactly how did you get the idea that they were suggesting men in the West should be oppressed because women elsewhere are?

 

[Eternal_Lament]

Finally, while this is a smaller rant, I want to ask....what does the fact that 6 million girls get raped each year have to do with anything? That there is a problem? Why yes, there does appear to be a problem, but a problem due to male superiority or sexism against women? No, I would say not. Why? Because rape is not a gender exclusive act. Not only can the victims of rape be either male or female, but the perpetrators can be male or female as well. This is not an issue that only concerns women, its is a problem that concerns humans. One may argue that there are fewer cases of men being raped, but why does that matter? The fact that there are men being raped at all shows that perhaps the problem of rape isn't as gender exclusive as some like to think.

No-one has said that rape is exclusively male on female. However, seeing as it is predominantly one sex attacking the other, then it fits the definition of an inequality and sexism.

while I forget where this comes from, I remember hearing from my Criminology Professor and from other sources that male rape is actually a larger problem than what is being reported,

Almost certianly, sexual assaults tend to go unreported.

How about instead of bringing in these numbers of how women are being opprossed in other countries and use those numbers as reasons why women should be given more privelages in countries where the numbers did not come from, how about we try to bring the same feminist theories used in the past in the West over to those problem countries and try to educate others into realizing that we all deserve to be treated fairly?

Um, yes, that being the point they were trying to make. Exactly how did you get the idea that they were suggesting men in the West should be oppressed because women elsewhere are?

1) The problem with that though is that if we are determining if an act is an act of inequality and sexism, why are we using numbers then to determine that? By which I mean why are we using numbers so loosely. If the 6 million girls being raped each year statment is true, all that shows us is that 6 million girls were raped. What it does not show us is how many of those girls were raped because of pervasive sexism and how many girls were raped because of people out there who simply do not care about others lives. And thats where I took umbridge with. The video was using those statistics to suggest that things like rape were only a female issue and was a female issue that can be eliminated through an increase in gender equality. Perhpas this wasn't the intent of those behind the video, but it is certainly something that is suggested through how the video is done. Both statements (rape being a female issue, can be eliminated through increase in gender equality) I find to be inherintly false. As I mentioned before, a sexist society isn't one where rape occours, a sexist society is one where either a)only one gender is being raped, or b) the cases of certain gender rapes are being passed off as harmless. Sparking gnder equality may help to decrease rape, but it won't eliminate it, as this video seems to suggest. Further, I think most people here can agree that rape does not have gender set victims or gender set offenders. The problem though is that there are some people on these forums who think rape is gender-set, and there are several more people I find in real life who think it is gender-set too (these aren't random people too, these are educators and researchers, people who would have enough evidence at their disposal to determine if rape is gender-set and come to the conclusion that it is not through scrutinit research, but through ignoring pieces of evidence all together that would suggest that rape isn't gender-set) Further, as I said before, while sexual assault is indeed a rarely reported crime, I have heard from both one of my professors and a few online sources (I realize this makes it sound dubious, which is fair) that suggests that combined with reported and un-reported cases that male rape is almost on par with female rape, that rape is not, as you said earlier, a predominant case of one sex attacking another (I'm talking about in the West mind you, so while I would agree there is probably more female rape than male rape in areas outside the West, this video seems to be listing problems of the West and problems of the world interchangeably, implying that the problems of other countries are present in countries that may not have these problems).

2) I didn't say oppresion of men in that quote, I said extra female privelage. Oppresion would be if certain rights are being removed or ignored for sake of keeping a gender down. Privelage, as I said, is when one gender has the same rights as another and then some, rights that aren't oppresive in nature necessarily but rights that show a lack of fairness. While these rights neither make it easier or harder than before for a man to live the way they, they are rights that one must question if they truly serve a necessary purpose or if they are rather rights that are reactions to problems that certain areas are not affected by. When looking at the video, it seems to interchange problems found only in the West (specifically the UK as it says) with problems found in the world in general. The issue with this is that it gives the wrong impression that not only are these world-wide problems found in the UK as well, but that by trying to solve for issues that may not be here in the West that this will somehow solve the issues that do exist in other countries. It gloses over the actual problems that may be going on in the West and it lessens the importance of trying to bring feminist theory to these problem countries, in which while that may not be the intention of the video is certainly something that is again being implied through how the video is done. It gives someone who agrees with the message the idea to fight for rights that are already present where they are, something they will continue to do because the numbers where these issues are actually taking place aren't being dealt with, meaning that year after year the same numbers are going to be reported because they weren't being dealt with when they were first reported, and it gives the impression that the society that the person watching this lives in is worse than it actually is, continuing to fight for rights that we already have and rarely attempting to perhaps spread those rights to other countries.

 

[Vrex360]

I am truly, truly shocked by some of the interpretations of 'feminisim' that people on this thread are putting out. Namely the one about how women are apparently trying to become the dominant gender or are making a big deal out of nothing because apparently we are living in a more enlightened sexism free day.
Neither of these things are true.

Feminism was, and to this day remains the pursuit of equality in the world. Not dominance, and frankly I still see a lot of signs that this world needs to show signs of equality. Sure, we have women working in the workforce... but on average salaries are still set differently. Similarly while there are a few jobs that seem primarily female dominated, these are jobs that don't generally get paid as much as men.
Also to all the people saying that today's modern woman gets to live free of sexism... try telling that to the hundreds of women in Arabic countries who still get treated like commodities, explain that to the women stuck in prositution sex trafficing, or the many women a year that get sexually harrassed or hired in a workforce for their looks.
Sure, the world might be better than it was, and women do get more equal oppurtunities... but only a man born of ignorance could claim that the world is a perfect place for women now.
It's like arguing that because politicians can't lobby against gay people anymore, there's no more homophobia.... uh, yes there still is.

You argue that there aren't still gender double standards in our society?

Hell, tell that to all the women who have ever had a relationship with Charlie Sheen. The man threatens them with violence, actually enacts violence on them quite a few times (He shot a woman in the arm once from what I hear) and even though many women come forward to say that he is a raging aggressive egotistical misongyist, he remains the most well paid actor on television.
Until finally he gets busted for drug abuse and ends up becoming a celebrated internet meme.
I get really sick of hearing people call Charlie Sheen 'the coolest drug addict ever' or that he's 'living every man's dream'.
So what? It's every man's dream to be allowed to treat women as horribly as you want to and not get in trouble for it? Where the hell is the moral outrage regarding all this?

Meanwhile, all a famous actress has to do is get fat, or have drug problems or have parental issues... and then the news goes wild with anger and moral outrage and negative publicity associated with it.
Case in point, Brittany Spears. Sure she got drunk a lot and took a few drugs and wasn't a responsible parent, but neither was Sheen. And I don't recall Spears accidentally shooting someone in the arm either. Why do we not hold him to the same expectations?

So to go back to the part about 'where's the moral outrage'... well that's clearly where the feminists come in. If so many cases of domestic abuse can happen and be known publicly to the entire world and no one seems bothered by it, I question the notion of the world being fairer on women.
Plus, if we think that just giving them job oppurtunities is all we need to absolve ourselves on any responsibilities to how we treat women, and to allow us to have to play the victim card like there's some kind of evil feminist monster tearing the societal structures of this world apart... then feminisim is still needed.

I just wish people would stop acting like the fact that women have it easier then they used to have it somehow absolved us males of the simple resonsibilities to actually show them some damned respect. Hell, the replies on this thread alone make it clear how much feminism is still needed in our society if we now think that being morally offended by off color jokes that are being broadcasted and used as advertising and even used as selling points for big popular games and game companies, is something we have the right to mock.

So what? If it had been a joke about jabbering black people in loin cloths who make monkey sounds and eat fried chicken? Would that be okay? Honestly I don't see how subimissive women in bikini's utterly dependant and worshipping of the dominant male, intoxicated by his manliness is any less a demeaning image to broadcast to the world.

Oh and in case anyone was wondering, I am a MAN. I am a masculine manly male with testosterone and an XY chromosome arrangement. My maleness is a staple of my genetic build up.
However I am also a man who is sick of hearing other men try to argue that the group who has had it so good for so long is now the victims at the hands of the other group that has had to claw their way to even come close to being where we are, all because they happen to take umbrage with the idea of us selling and playing games that they percieve demeans them.

Okay, now that I've gotten that nasty bit out of my system... let's talk the actual game for a second.

I'm all for defending video games when controversy shows up... when they deserve to be defended. When Mass Effect got hated and reviled as a 'porn simulator' because the game happened to allow me to see dimly lit one second of the bare arse of Gunnery Chief Ashley Williams, I was quick to cry foul. It was an obvious case of the media overreacting and having not even taken the time to actually PLAY the game they were judging in the first place.

Likewise, if a game wants to try to do artistic expression and make a story or use themes about edgy subject matter, provided the subject matter itself is presented in a respectful way in the game itself, then I will cry foul because that's just a case of the game being cenosored on the basis of it being a game.

However I sometimes wonder if we've gotten so used to just shouting 'idiots' whenever people complain about content of a game that we've forgotten to at least try to see things from the perspective of the people making the accusation. It's as though we now care more about just standing up and shouting about how the people citing controversies are just overreacting blowhards that we forget that sometimes controversial things are controversial for a REASON.

Let's now forget Custer's Revenge. The game where you score points by raping a captive Native American woman. If that game had come out today with a triple A budget and was met by the same hailstorm of criticism and controversy as games today... would you defend it?
I can see it now:

"Oh no really, there's nothing inherently wrong with a game that directly awards a score system to the act of comitting rape! You are all just a bunch of whining femenazi's out to ruin our fun!"

My point is sometimes the controversy is justified. Having a gametype called 'Capture the Babe' which is literally just 'Capture the Flag' but with a sexed up woman taking the part of the 'objective', is something bound to be offensive to people. As is having the main character be portrayed as 'cool' and having 'coolness' be associated with being a womanizer. Something with harkens back to the days when it was considered cool to again, treat women like commodities that you can have sex with.
The game demonstrates this with promotional art of the male lead standing proudly while two women swoon beneath him.

Besides the game's whole story seems to be that aliens are coming to take Earth's 'babes' and that Duke is fighting to stop them and appears intent on taking as many 'babes' for himself. And the 'babes' respond to this with awe and swooning.
I don't CARE if this is a 'joke' or not. To quote Yahtzee:
"If you want to smear shit all over your face to make an ironic statement then more power to you, but you still smell like arse."
Call it a joke as much as you want, it's still a joke and story that is both immature and demonstrates objectification towards women. Female activists have just as much right to be mad about that as any black activist would if it were making fun of black people.

There is only so far the phrase 'it's only a joke, stop taking this so seriously' can take you. There have been plenty of other games that have been entirely humor based that didn't need to use this kind of joke level, like Portal and Psychonauts for example. Both games that revel in absurdism and silly jokes, but neither of them actually ended up directly offending people. Frankly after reading some of the stuff that happens in it, I'm not surprised people were offended.
According to reports the game opens with Duke getting sucked off by two schoolgirls at the same time and that apparently another woman says:
"I have hungry-you have big egg ro' for me, Duke."
These kind of jokes aren't funny, they are lowbrow and frankly, offensive. The 'egg ro'' bit it just plain racist and everything else about it seems to reinforce the image of games being immature. Especially if we, as a gaming community don't actually see a problem with it.

I also don't like the argument that 'this is a man's game, women shouldn't care what it has in it' because like... really?
It's a game designed for male tastes, marketed for what is believed to be the male mind and so that suddenly makes all the blatant objectification okay? I've seen quite a few female oriented movies and books (no, not those books) and very few of them ever display males in a subservant role, wearing skimpy clothes and swooning in awe at their mistresses.

So how come women aren't allowed to be pissed off that a game that 'wasn't for them' is also tailored to the fantasy of sexed up submissive women swooning in amazement at strong proud male authority figures... and doing so in such a juvenile way.
If I were a woman, looking at this... it would not be a fantasy that I would want enforced on me, let me tell you. And it would sicken me to think that entertainers apparently still think this kind of thing appeals to the male mind, worse still to discover that it does.

Here's the thing, this isn't controversy founded in ignorance. All the stuff being complained about by the feminists are things that the developers gleefully advertise. And frankly 'Capture the Babe' is pretty self explanatory as it literally objectfies the woman involved to the point where that's literally what she is, an OBJECT. Something to be carted around with only the worth and value attributed to it by what score it lays out. This could have been a flag, or a beer bottle or a pair of sunglasses or indeed any other object and the gameplay would still be the same.
Somewhere, a developer conciously decided to make it be a woman.

This also isn't a case of the game boldly trying to make a deep and edgy statement and being met with criticism because of simply tackling an edgy subject matter. This is a case of a game being aggressively juvenile, doing stuff that is both racist and glaringly sexist (context of a joke acknowledged but I really don't think it matters) for basically kicks and farting around purposes. This isn't us trying to push the medium forward and boldly try new things and being met with criticism by an uncaring society.
This is us making immature, crude and stupidly offensive stuff try to get presented publicly and having people aggressively point out that it is immature, crude and stupidly offensive.

Now I'm not saying the feminists are completely valid either, some elements of 'it's just a joke' do still linger on but still if people can honestly look at this game, with Duke getting sucked off by two teenage girls, a character doing a racist Asian stereotype and gametypes that literally reduce women to being objects and think that it's impossible that there isn't something in here people might have a valid reason to be offended by, then I think that says a lot about the maturity level of some people.

I honestly don't think this kind of lowbrow humor is really worth defending. Is it really worth arguing over and trying to defend or justify?
Is it worth condescending the opinons of those who are outraged and making us all look ignorant and arrogant in the process, just for some toilet humor? Let me tell you something, if Duke Nukem Forever (with all the stuff hinted at) was a movie... it would probably still be met with controversy and hatred. Just not as much or as concentrated.
The fact that it's a game does unfairly make it an easy target, but it doesn't undermine the fact that some of the criticisms have a good basis.

Duke Nukem was a game series that had it's time over twelve years ago. It's over now, these days that same humor just won't be met with the same response because in the twelve years that Duke has been out of the loop, his kind of attitude is now considered obnoxious.

I read the descriptions about how you can throw poo at people and piss into urinals, this, combined with the racist jokes and really blatantly sexist imagery makes me wonder why the hell anyone ever waited twelve years to see this game released?
Aren't we at a time when we are trying to fight to show that games can be considered an art? How can we honestly try to defend a game like this? Is it really all just for the sake of 'having a good old laugh?'
Because if that's the case, just play Psychonauts. It was funny and fun to play and didn't need to be sexist or add crude racist stereotypes to the mix to do so.

I'm not here to actually argue that Duke Nukem Forever is sexist (while I do think that there are valid positions on that front).
I just argue that surely, surely we are better than this.

 

[kurupt87]

Spoiler

The world is a bit bigger than the continental US, sorry to say. Have you considered that the "raped while walking to school" bit may cover, oh I don't know, the entire world? And that the national stat for rape in the US is believed to be significantly higher than reported due to the fact that most rape is never reported?

Just keep digging your hole. You're free to cling to your misogynistic, privileged beliefs all you want, but it does not change the fact that feminism is a desperately needed force even in modernized countries.

No offense boss but, you're being a bit of a twerp.

That video is intentionally dishonest and misleading. It quotes statistics from the World at large alongside those from the UK whilst making no distinction in how bad each respectively is; effectively equating women in the UK with women in the most backwards and deprived places on our entire planet. That is outrageous to the women in 3rd World countries and is unbelievably demeaning toward their plight.

It also makes no mention of injustices and abuse that men suffer at the hands of women.

As for penetrative rape; it can only be committed by a man and, as a vagina is generally the preferred orifice, is in most cases perpetrated upon a woman. This is a crime that is almost impossible for one half of our society to commit, so that means the other half is sexist? No, it does not. It means that there are criminals out there, something I'd assume you will accept.

Is a black person who robs from a white family racist? Is the reverse true? Or is it simply down to the fact that the victim has something the perp wants?

The video reels off lots of crimes committed against women, implicitly implying that the motivation for them, one and all, is sexism. That is patently absurd. These are behavioural issues, not sexist ones.

I'm not saying these issues do not exist or that those victims do not need support, but why do these victims need special treatment over other victims? Why is a women who is abused more worthy of treatment than a man? Why is a man who is contemplating suicide scorned in favour of a woman who has been raped? Why is a man killed in an uprovoked attack in a dark alley worth less than a woman killed by an ex partner?

Edit: Ahhrg! The video is ostensibly about equality and yet the major emotional buttons it pushes have absolutely nothing to do with it. The lists of crimes where women are the victim, what have they to do with equality? Are there not lists of crimes that men fall victim too? They have as much claim to be about equality as these; there are also probably more of them.

The only things about equality that it touches upon are sexual license, something which they're a bit out of touch with (women have generally slept with more men than men have women), the wage gap (something the veracity of which I am extremely dubious about) and pregnancy for working women.

Firstly, pregnancy is an inherently unequal topic.
Second, a woman can choose to not get pregnant whilst building a career.
Thirdly, the video falsely implies that the 30,000 jobs women lose per year are each individually equal to a man's career.
Fourthly, how would you protect a "pregnant woman's job security system" from being abused by serially pregnant women?
Fifthly, how do you equate a several month long paid holiday to the remainder of the workforce who have to work the entire time, whilst possibly managing someone elses workload as well as their own? Or to the employer who has to employ a worker who does no work, whilst possibly having to employ an extra one to make up for her absence? Or to the men who have no chance of getting this paid holiday to begin with? This is the real sticker; depressingly complex and it would take up loads time and effort, of which I'm not willing to give.

Nobody is claiming that the motivation for rape or other injustices perpetrated against women is sexism; you don't do it saying "Oh hey, I'm going to be sexist today." They're a result of sexism permeating Western culture, which values women less than men and judges them more harshly - of course it's the other way around in some cases, but those are easily the vast minority of scenarios.

The point of the video is to make viewers honestly consider the fact: Are men and women equal in supposedly modern, progressive societies? That is its entire goal, and even if it does get facts wrong - which I'm skeptical it does - or misrepresent them, it is doing so with the intention of getting you, the viewer, to consider that question honestly and without a knee-jerk dismissal.

The answer is "no," of course.

And the other points are, in fact, points of equality. Women are far more likely to be abused or killed by a romantic partner than the other way around. Domestic violence cases overwhelmingly have women as the victim, etc. Those are issues of equality regardless of how they're phrased.

Come off it, the video manipulates the viewer into one answer and one answer only; it does the opposite of promoting consideration and shocks the viewer into seeing things the way it wants them to be seen. It does exactly the opposite of what you're saying; it promotes a knee jerk response of "no, they're not equal".

Going back to crimes committed against women; you're looking at it with a biased view. You look to see a female victim and she becomes the most important part; therefore the crime happens because she's a woman and you find reasons behind that. That's just wrong. Crimes aren't about victims, they're about criminals; the victim is almost irrelevant.

I articulated badly when talking about rape before, implying that it can only be committed on a woman by a man, this is obviously untrue. I was just trying to explore male on female rape; something that happens more often because more men are dominant than women and that most men are attracted to women. Men can also directly orgasm from committing rape whilst women cannot, something that definitely skews the numbers. If the numbers of straight and gay men were reversed then the same would happen to the numbers of straight and gay rape committed by men.

The crimes that individuals commit, that aren't crimes of passion, are nearly all done via a self justification; the criminal has an inferiority complex and convinces himself that he deserves whatever it is that he wants, that the victim doesn't deserve having whatever it is. So, he's justified in taking it or inflicting whatever it is upon the victim. The criminal does it to make himself feel better, not to make the victim feel worse.

There is no "women are inherently less valuable than men". The criminal just differentiates himself from the victim, s/he has had it rough and deserves better whilst the victim has had it all good and doesn't deserve the good that s/he has. Whatever sets the perp and victim apart is used as justification; whether that be race, sex, sexuality, affluence or social status.

In other words, it's not that the victim is worse than the perp but that the perp is better than the victim and everyone else who isn't just like him.

You then bring up spousal abuse, again something which isn't confined to man on woman. It is therefore not an equality issue, it's a behavioural one.

Straight off the bat half the cases of male on female violence are instigated by women, so you can scrub those.

The remainder of the cases are abuse; just abuse. Serial abuse will near always have the dominant partner be the lone money earner with the submissive victim as a stay at home parent, the property will be in the name of the dominant partner. The money will be in an account controlled by the dominant partner. If it's man on woman he is also confident that he is physically more powerful than the woman; even if that isn't the case the dominant knows that the submissive will just take it. The dominant partner also probably hates their life; whether it be through things like work, stress or social problems. They also hate their partner for not having to deal with any of the crap that they feel that they have to deal with; so they take it out on that partner.

This is abuse of power, it has nothing to do with equality or the lack of it.

Finally, women are judged more than men? Sorry, what? Maybe UK and US culture is more different than I thought but the only judgement on women here is on attractiveness, that's it. Anything else is taken as it comes. This is one of the major advantages of being a woman, there aren't any expectations. They're allowed to be weak but not expected to be. Men have far more judgements made on them than women ever do, and far more expectations. Ever read Rudyard Kiplings If?