This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
@ Feminism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
And back to gaming, I'm really hoping for more female characters that don't just have ridiculous barbie pornstar bodies. Alyx in half life 2 might have annoyed me to hell and back but she was an amazing example of a good realistic character model. (Now that she had some weird crush on gordon who never speaks is whole other issue.)I really liked Alyx as well. Not only was she a good, realistic female character, but she also was half-black, half-asian as a bonus. Not often you see a good, well-rounded character with that kind of diversity.
Have you played Beyond Good and Evil? Jade reminds me of Alyx a lot, actually.
Post by
Jubilee
I'm about to have a seizure.
What's crazy is that 42% of females said that it would be okay if she excited him sexually. That's just bizarre that the percentages aren't just lopsided, but that that particular question had such a high percentage on
both
sides. What the hell?
To be fair, the question doesn't actually mention rape. Some people are into the whole bdsm thing, and that particular line item could be construed to cover those scenarios. Otherwise, though, the huge lopsidedness is sickening.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I don't know that most high-school students are exposed to enough to be in the mindset to immediately think in terms of consensual bondage when asked a questions like that. At least not a high enough percentage to affect the numbers. Their sub-culture is highly sexualized, but I think most of that comes from mainstream imagery and Hollywood glamorization of sex in high school, and that particular genre is not really represented much there. Also, I think that the word "forced" is pretty definitive in setting up the scenario as a rape scenario.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
And it was phrased as "If she sexually excited him sexually." Only mentions what he wants, not what she wants.
Though honestly, if it had been phrased "If she enjoyed it," that might be even scarier, because one of the perceptions that encourages forcible rape is that the woman is secretly enjoying it.
Post by
MyTie
Yes having a choice of a female lead or a male lead would be ideal. However often we have no choice, though that is changing now, thankfully.
I think this kind of mentality does a disservice to the plight of women on the whole. In many places in the middle east, it is illegal for women to own property, or you know, talk. When this kind of complaint surfaces (as it often does), my immediate thought is that you must not have it too bad if you can complain about this.
By the way, one of the characters I've played the MOST was a female high elf on Everquest. I didn't notice it to be demeaning to me at all.
Post by
Gone
Yes having a choice of a female lead or a male lead would be ideal. However often we have no choice, though that is changing now, thankfully.
I think this kind of mentality does a disservice to the plight of women on the whole. In many places in the middle east, it is illegal for women to own property, or you know, talk. When this kind of complaint surfaces (as it often does), my immediate thought is that you must not have it too bad if you can complain about this.
Dude
Just because there are other places in the world where people have it worse, doesn't mean we don't have the right to talk about lesser problems that we have living in a better part of the world.
By that logic there are places in the world where people have no religious freedom, so you and I have no right to complain about people bad mouthing Christianity, because, as you put it, there are people who have it much worse.
Post by
MyTie
Just because there are other places in the world where people have it worse, doesn't mean we don't have the right to talk about lesser problems that we have living in a better part of the world.
By that logic there are places in the world where people have no religious freedom, so you and I have no right to complain about people bad mouthing Christianity, because, as you put it, there are people who have it much worse.
Lol... really really funny. REALLY REALLY FUNNY.
When was the last time I complained that not enough video game characters are Christian, and that I feel oppressed when I don't have the option to choose a main character who exposes Christian values? That's not oppression. That's just silly.
Further, when was the last time anyone came in this thread and told you that believing that women should be treated equally to men was as silly as believing in unicorns?
In fact, the only thing sillier than the religious comparison, is the believing that one is oppressed because one has to play a video game as a different gender. It causes REALISTIC people to walk away from something that could otherwise have been influential to good. Instead of fighting true injustice or bigotry, we complain about video games, and anyone who has even shallow roots in reality just walks away.
Post by
Magician22773
Just because there are other places in the world where people have it worse, doesn't mean we don't have the right to talk about lesser problems that we have living in a better part of the world.
By that logic there are places in the world where people have no religious freedom, so you and I have no right to complain about people bad mouthing Christianity, because, as you put it, there are people who have it much worse.
I am pretty sure the same logic has been applied to Christianity on here before.
You do realize you have it so easy being a christian in a christian country. You should try being either being non heterosexual or an atheist to see what it's like to stick your head above the parapet.....
(just the first one I could find...its been used plenty of times before, in every possible manner)
I should have just as much right to disagree with feminism as those that disagree with Christianity, no?
Post by
Skreeran
In fact, the only thing sillier than the religious comparison, is the believing that one is oppressed because one has to play a video game as a different gender. It causes REALISTIC people to walk away from something that could otherwise have been influential to good. Instead of fighting true injustice or bigotry, we complain about video games, and anyone who has even shallow roots in reality just walks away.I don't think anyone said women are oppressed
because
there aren't many female video game protagonists. Rather, it's evidence that women are widely believed to be inferior to men in the first place.
I should have just as much right to disagree with feminism as those that disagree with Christianity, no?The difference is that Christianity is a choice, rather than something you're born with. I don't believe in Christianity, but that lack of belief in a religion is not the same as a belief that women are inferior.
Post by
Gone
Lol... really really funny. REALLY REALLY FUNNY.
When was the last time I complained that not enough video game characters are Christian, and that I feel oppressed when I don't have the option to choose a main character who exposes Christian values? That's not oppression. That's just silly.
Further, when was the last time anyone came in this thread and told you that believing that women should be treated equally to men was as silly as believing in unicorns?
In fact, the only thing sillier than the religious comparison, is the believing that one is oppressed because one has to play a video game as a different gender. It causes REALISTIC people to walk away from something that could otherwise have been influential to good. Instead of fighting true injustice or bigotry, we complain about video games, and anyone who has even shallow roots in reality just walks away.
The difference is that most video games have nothing to do with religion. The idea of women not being in enough validt roles in video games is a valid complaint.
I just took issue with your "other people have it worse, therefore lesser complaints are invalid" argument.
I should have just as much right to disagree with feminism as those that disagree with Christianity, no?
Of course you have that right. being against feminism isn't being against women's rights. Although you also have the right to be against that as well.
The difference is that Christianity is a choice, rather than something you're born with. I don't believe in Christianity, but that lack of belief in a religion is not the same as a belief that women are inferior.
1) To Christians like MyTie, Magician, and myself, Christianity isn't a choice, it's a recognition of reality. Choosing not to be Christian for us is like choosing not to believe the sky is blue.
2) Supporting feminism is a choice as well.
Post by
Skreeran
1) To Christians like MyTie, Magician, and myself, Christianity isn't a choice, it's a recognition of reality. Choosing not to be Christian for us is like choosing not to believe the sky is blue.
2) Supporting feminism is a choice as well.1) But it's still a choice. You say you personally could not believe it, but I did and later chose not to. It's a lot more difficult to choose not to be female.
2) The difference, again, is that believing in Christianity hurts no one (under most circumstances) and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Believing women to be inferior to men (which, people who don't believe in gender equality usually do) often
does
hurt people and infringe on their rights.
Post by
Gone
1) To Christians like MyTie, Magician, and myself, Christianity isn't a choice, it's a recognition of reality. Choosing not to be Christian for us is like choosing not to believe the sky is blue.
2) Supporting feminism is a choice as well.1) But it's still a choice. You say you personally could not believe it, but I did and later chose not to. It's a lot more difficult to choose not to be female.
2) The difference, again, is that believing in Christianity hurts no one (under most circumstances) and doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Believing women to be inferior to men (which, people who don't believe in gender equality usually do) often
does
hurt people and infringe on their rights.
I'm not gonna respond to the thing about Christianity cause this isn't the thread for that.
But you know that supporting feminism and supporting women's rights are two very different things right?
There are plenty of men who fully support women as equal in every aspect of society, who still think feminism is obsolete and that the patriarchy is mostly bull@#$% at this point. In fact there are plenty of women who think the same thing.
Post by
Skreeran
I define feminism as the perception that women are not yet perceived as equal to men, and the desire to fix that problem. In Western Society, the statistics Elura linked, the Stuebenville rape case, and the less important but still significant disparity between male fictional heroes and female fictional heroes are all examples of evidence that woman still aren't perceived as equals by a significant portion of the population.
Post by
Gone
I define feminism as the perception that women are not yet perceived as equal to men, and the desire to fix that problem. In Western Society, the statistics Elura linked, the Stuebenville rape case, and the less important but still significant disparity between male fictional heroes and female fictional heroes are all examples of evidence that woman still aren't perceived as equals by a significant portion of the population.
I'm inclined to agree with most of this, which is why I responded to MyTie as I did. Not all feminists are the same though. Some believe that we need a radical change in society to bring about equality. Others believe what we need are a series of subtle shifts. And then there are the fringe crazies that I'm not going to mention, every movement has them and they hardly define the majority.
I personally am of the opinion that we are on the right track. In order to bring about equality we need to continue doing what we have been. Encourage young women to go out and get their education, and be strong and independent, and teach young men to respect women and not treat them as objects.
I don't think that feminism is obsolete, but I think it's getting there. If we continue on the path we have been, soon it won't be needed anymore, and I can understand why somebody could think that now.
Post by
Skreeran
I define feminism as the perception that women are not yet perceived as equal to men, and the desire to fix that problem. In Western Society, the statistics Elura linked, the Stuebenville rape case, and the less important but still significant disparity between male fictional heroes and female fictional heroes are all examples of evidence that woman still aren't perceived as equals by a significant portion of the population.
I'm inclined to agree with most of this, which is why I responded to MyTie as I did. Not all feminists are the same though. Some believe that we need a radical change in society to bring about equality. Others believe what we need are a series of subtle shifts. And then there are the fringe crazies that I'm not going to mention, every movement has them and they hardly define the majority.
I personally am of the opinion that we are on the right track. In order to bring about equality we need to continue doing what we have been. Encourage young women to go out and get their education, and be strong and independent, and teach young men to respect women and not treat them as objects.
I don't think that feminism is obsolete, but I think it's getting there. If we continue on the path we have been, soon it won't be needed anymore, and I can understand why somebody could think that now.I think I can agree with just about all of this.
And lol, it's nice to see peaceful rationalism in this thread, too, after the drama a couple nights ago.
Post by
Magician22773
the statistics Elura linked
That 'poll', to me, just seems a bit "off" for a couple of reasons.
First, I have a feeling that a very, very large majority of those answers were probably intentionally given by the respondents to "screw with" the pollster.
I just find it unrealistic to think that 54% of 'anyone' finds its OK to force sex on anyone else. (as the males did with the "She changed her mind" question) Even more unrealistic is that 31% of the females voted yes to that question as well.
I would estimate that maybe 5-10% of males, and probably less than 5% of females actually have these views. And those that do, do not indicate a need for 'equality' education, they indicate a need for more sexual education, better parenting, and some moral values.
What I do believe, is that it is more likely that 54% of high school boys, and 31% of high school females would find it pretty funny to screw up a poll.
I know when I was in High School, we had to answer a questionnaire about some pretty personal issues...mainly pertaining to sex and drug use. I, and many others I know, would always answer every question in the worst possible way. According to that poll, we all had used every form of illicit drug available, and we were all had more sexual experience than Dr. Ruth.
the Stuebenville rape case
Steubenville exposed several issues.
First, it exposed how many towns, and to some degree, culture in general grants sports 'stars' preferential treatment, and how that treatment can lead to the 'stars' feeling they are somehow above the law.
Many towns place their High School sports players in a class that is above reproach. Many colleges do the same. And we see it in professional sports as well. (Kobe Bryant comes to mind here)
Again, mix up a lack of parenting and a lack of moral education, mix in a large dose of alcohol, sprinkle in a developing mind that is clouded by puberty and hormones...and then place that mixture on a pedestal where it can ferment into an ego bomb....and you get Stubenville. (and many, many other similar incidents all across the country. This one just made bigger headlines because is was so vile, and so prevalent in Social Media)
Second, it exposed the utter stupidity of the Media. The media is so aggressively looking for ratings, and talking points, that they open their mouths before they think about what is going to come out of them. The media screws up so much these days, because no matter what they say, they can just dismiss it, or redact it later. Look at all the wrong reports of the Sandy Hook shooting. In at attempt to get a 'scoop', we had reports of multiple shooters, and wrong identification of who the shooter was...all dismissed as if it didn't happen. If the 'news' would just report the 'news', and stop trying to op-ed every story on-the-fly, we would have a lot less ignorant and insensitive statements made by them.
Again, I do not think this exposes a 'gender inequality' issue. I think it exposed a problem with how today's media works. And it exposed that people can say some really stupid #$%^ when they don't think about what they are saying before they say it.
less important but still significant disparity between male fictional heroes and female fictional heroes
This is both an issue with marketing, and an attempt to 'force' something, just to appease.
More males play video games, read comic books, and watch action movies than females. I am pretty sure that is a fact....if its not, feel free to correct me.
Smart marketing (these are media that is produced for profit, after all), is to create a product that is going to appeal to your largest target audience.
And just replacing a male role in an action movie with a female, for the sake of 'equality' would just be ignorant in my opinion.
I do not think that "Taken" would have quite as good a movie as if you had replaced Liam Neeson with his wife.
I don't think "The Expendable's" would be a good (or as cheesy), if you replaced Chuch Norris, Van Damme, Schwarzenegger, and Stallone with Angelina Jolie, Sigourney Weaver, and Milla Jovovich.
And, just the same, Alien would not be one of my favorite movies of all time, without Weaver, and neither would the Tomb Raider or Resident evil series' be with male leads.
examples of evidence that woman still aren't perceived as equals by a significant portion of the population.
I am not sure that you, or anyone else can provide actual 'evidence' of that. You can provide 'examples' of inequality...and I can provide counter examples of inequality towards men, towards whites, towards....well...anything really. Somewhere, every race, sex, color, or creed had been discriminated against.
First of all...statistics are going to be skewed, because there are always going to be variables that are unaccounted for. (FWIW, I am pulling these 'statistics' out of my rear...I really don't see the need to look up the actual ones)
If you say that only 20% of a state legislature is female....that shows 'inequality'. How many qualified female candidates ran? And what percentage of the overall districts had qualified female candidates? If only 40% of the districts ran a qualified female candidate, that means 50% of them won...that is 'equality'.
If you say only 21% of women in a state have a college degree...how many of them chose to forgo college by personal choice? Virtually everyone in the US has the opportunity of an education, if they have the desire. I do not think there is a patriarchal conspiracy to deny scholarships, grants, and loans to women.
If you say only 31% of women in a state have healthcare.....what percentage of men have it? If the men have a higher percentage, does that show 'inequality', or does that show that more men work in jobs that provide healthcare? And for those that self-insure...does that reflect that health insurance is significantly more expensive for women than it is for men...because healthcare for women is significantly more for women than it is for a man...because they have certain healthcare issues that are only applicable to women (childbirth, yearly 'female specialist' visits, and...sadly, abortion, just to name the biggies)
Statistics do not provide evidence in these cases. They provide statistics. Unless you crunch all the calculations to account for variables that have nothing to do with 'discrimination' to arrive at these statistics, they prove little or nothing.
My opinion of gender inequality in the US is much the same as that of an atheist, or an agnostic.
I do not believe it exists
, because I do not see it with my own eyes, and there has not be significant, unbiased evidence provided to 'prove' its existence.
Post by
Squishalot
If you say only 21% of women in a state have a college degree...how many of them chose to forgo college by personal choice?
As easy as it is to agree with the pure statistical nature of that sort of question, I don't think it really applies in this case. The figures aren't trying to say that college markers are discriminating against women, they're suggestive of a general bias in society towards women not going to college and graduating, which is discrimination of a more subtle nature.
The analogy I would use is that 75% of US residents are Christian - how many of them chose to be Christian?
Now, it's very easy to say 'all of them', we have to be cognisant of the fact that people who are brought up in a Christian family are more likely to identify as Christian and have Christian values and beliefs. For the same reason, women throughout the ages who have been brought up to believe that their place is in an apron and in the kitchen doing housework are more inclined to pursue that path of homemaking.
So it's not quite as simple as saying "well, they could have gone to uni if they wanted to" when society puts pressure on them
not
to want to. The concept of Barbie dolls and toy soldiers does play an influence on the development of children.
Post by
MyTie
I'm not gonna respond to the thing about Christianity cause this isn't the thread for that.
This is getting tedious. What exactly are we supposed to talk about in this thread. "Feminism" itself isn't much of a topic, but covers a WIDE array of other topics, such as abortion, religion, the middle east, voting rights, etc etc etc. If we CANNOT contrast Christianity and Feminism in a thread about Feminism, then I contend that we CANNOT contrast it in a thread about Christianity either. We need to make like, a dozen threads. Each one is a sub topic to feminism. Feminism in video games. Feminism in religion. Abortion and feminism. I think that we should just talk about these things in this thread, as it isn't derailing a thread, and even if it does derail it, shouldn't we be ok with that, to a certain extent? Are there really SO many participants in these threads that it would become mayhem on this board if we didn't? No one is talking about the price of steel, or the velocity of an unlaiden swallow. Let's allow a little bit of topic exploration, eh? The number of posts about how our posts are off topic are becoming a distraction in and of themselves. In the very least, it's making the discussion tedious if we have to change threads 3 times a day every time we shift slightly on the template of feminism.
Post by
Magician22773
If you say only 21% of women in a state have a college degree...how many of them chose to forgo college by personal choice?
As easy as it is to agree with the pure statistical nature of that sort of question, I don't think it really applies in this case. The figures aren't trying to say that college markers are discriminating against women, they're suggestive of a general bias in society towards women not going to college and graduating, which is discrimination of a more subtle nature.
The analogy I would use is that 75% of US residents are Christian - how many of them chose to be Christian?
Now, it's very easy to say 'all of them', we have to be cognisant of the fact that people who are brought up in a Christian family are more likely to identify as Christian and have Christian values and beliefs. For the same reason, women throughout the ages who have been brought up to believe that their place is in an apron and in the kitchen doing housework are more inclined to pursue that path of homemaking.
So it's not quite as simple as saying "well, they could have gone to uni if they wanted to" when society puts pressure on them
not
to want to. The concept of Barbie dolls and toy soldiers does play an influence on the development of children.
I am not suggesting that their are not women that are pressured into it. Just as their are people who have been pressured into religion, and men (and women) that are pressured into joining the military. There will always be a portion of any society, any sex, any race, and any religion that is oppressed in some form or another.
The statistics that I would have to see...if they exist, is how many women fit into this category. How many of them actually can say, and within reason 'prove' that they really, really wanted to go to college, but they
couldn't
because a bias in society stopped them.
And then, I want to see statistics...if they exist, of how many men skipped out on education in lieu of providing an income to take care of a family. (would this not be the societal equivalent to a woman skipping education to care for a child?), or to join the military (again, a socially 'pressured' choice, to some).
And then take those statistics, and account for a proper ratio to male / female population, allow for other possible influences (cultural, financial, lack of motivation...or just lack of intellectual skill required for higher education, ect.), apply a reasonable margin of error, ...and then, if there is a significant discrepancy between the two genders, you will have at least provided enough evidence to warrant a change of opinion to 'plausible'.
And honestly, with something that has so many possible unknown variables, the potential for bias, or untruthful answers, and the fact that you would have to repeat this testing across hundreds of different sub-sets of participants (different ages, different areas of the country, different religions, different financial brackets...all of which could have altered results)....'plausible' is about the best that you could hope for.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.