At best, this is a thread about if there aren't enough games for women out there - and if not, what's the cause and how we solve it. Showing how people are equal is a valid way to make a point here - and trying to discredit that point by shouting "derailment" presumes a conclusion.
Sorry, but what the hell would you know? Some people in this thread are very experienced with these debates, some may have fought to earn recognition in their community and workplace(and succeeded) and saying people are just shouting "derailment" is an incredible strawman of what's actually being said. The argument of people like Taosym, Dragoon is flimsly as all hell yet you seem to take comparatively less issue with that.
What you're forgetting is that we're not necessarily fighting to convince you. We're fighting to convince others not to be like you. Hopefully then, your position eventually becomes unpopular enough that even you consider changing it. Debate is a spectator sport where the spectators are the goal.
I respect you for the hard work you put into ren'py but nearly every time you open your mouth on this subject you show yourself to be more and more clueless and utterly sheltered.
It's not just a matter of opinion - I, Aleema, and the others find the way in which you present your argument to be disgusting and disrespectful. The responsibility does not lie with us, when forum admin or no, you are the one causing the offense
Step very closely here - you could be very close to chasing a lot of women off the forum, and I know it isn't the first time something like that has happened here. This is not a threat or anything - I am simply pointing out that acting like everything is an opinion and at the heart of it, not giving a shit about women's issues, does not convince anyone who's experienced real sexual harassment.
Sure, but I don't see that blog as a reliable source for anything but the opinions of feminists - and of third-wave/gender feminists at that.
They're not just opinion pieces. They're dissecting arguments. Arguments and opinions are not the same thing. Opinions are just viewpoints. Arguments contain logical statements, and logical statements can be as valuable as solid evidence depending on the context.
Also, the amptoons entry links back to actual studies
, which are more numerous than the ones you have provided.
What you're doing is pretty much the same thing as the people who quote Leviticus at gay people. If you don't accept the authority of the source text, that argument pretty much falls apart.
No, it's not. That's an appeal to authority and is a logical fallacy. Those resources contain some amount of validity for anyone because they make logical statements and document the experiences of feminists. As much as I will tend towards rejecting any argument coming from Freerepublic and the like - it's still important to be familiar with them before making a judgement on that "movement" as a whole. And before you say - again, the responsibility to be rational should be absolved for for those with privilege. If that's what people are like, then a point needs to be made of it.
Quoting Leviticus at gays would be fine if it contained an actual logical argument. Comparing a single "do not do this" to an article explaining where a group of people are coming from is again, relativist absurdity.
Another way to put that is that it's the responsibility of people who want change to convince others change is needed.
Just because you are born gay, or a woman, does not mean you are born with a greater capacity to be an activist. If people make irresponsible decisions such as putting out sexist games or banning women from Battfield 3 LAN parties - they are the ones that have to be responsible. It may be that women & minorities need to stand up for themselves, and need to be the ones to incite change, but the status quo is not
automatically valid and the moral and social responsibility does not
lie with them.
The issue I have with this is that as a Libertarian you have all kinds of unreasonable ways in which to use "Personal Responsibility", such as a reason for reducing welfare, etc. yet when it comes to people who can actually cause damage to other people
, suddenly personal responsibility goes out the window.
People are actively chosing to be sexist, and put out games which drive away women. That is wrong. The market nonsense does not remove the moral right or responsibility here.
It's wrong. If they do put out sexist content, it's wrong, and it's their responsibility not to do it.
Again this is a great thing to say for someone who does not require advocacy
Sorry, but I've had enough of this BS. Saying the responsibility lies with the victim is utter nonsense and extremely abusive.
No, I'm introducing evidence to try to make my point. Accept it, address it, or ignore it - but please don't try to portray it as off-topic.
What evidence? We are talking about the experience of women in gaming here.
It takes a career for people to achieve positions of power - enough time hasn't passed yet. We do have women in high government offices - the last two Secretaries of State have been women. If things had gone a little differently in 2008, we'd have had a female vice president. A woman won the Iowa Straw Poll, and was a legitimate contender for President.
Stop deferring things. If it's 30 years away from states passing gay marriage, it's still an issue. If it takes time for women to reach power, it's still an issue. You cannot claim women have achieved equality when anything could happen in that period. Again, you can't cherry pick examples and the fact that you have to count off a small handful of prominent female politicians only proves my point.
If what you're saying is true, then it should be easy to dig up some statistics that over the last 10 years or so, there was a roughly equal number of men & women entering politics - beginning their career. I doubt you will find this. The same argument was being made 10 years ago and that's ample time for there to be some kind of turn up for the books. The majority of politicians are still male, this changes but at a slow and steady rate.
Women are under-represented in positions of power. Men & Women do not have true equality, even if there are areas which men are also discriminated against. Full stop.
Sort of. We believe that the best way to promote equality is through liberty - taking away the ability of those with power to oppress others. If we do that, then a desirable outcome happens without us - based on what people actually consider to be desirable.
How would this work in practice? Less government means more equality? As a transgendered person, I fear less from the government and far more from employers.
The freedom to not be mocked and jeered as I walk down the street is an important freedom. One you don't understand since you're privileged in that regard.
There is both positive and negative liberty. If I have certain avenues closed to me because I'm trans, gay, a man or a woman, whatever - whatever
the reason, it's something that needs to be addressed. And you can't pull the personal responsibility rubbish when you've shown what an awful grasp you have on that idea earlier.
Things shouldn't be about "beliefs" or "opinions". People have real life experiences as a result of these issues and treating them like toys in the way you do is inherently disrespectful. People are not just components in your ideology. This is why I try not to subscribe myself to any one ideology, because I'm actually interested in what promotes the most equality and liberty, not picking an idea that sounds nice and hoping it works.
If it's not the creators being forced, it's the publishers. Either new people enter the market - my preferred solution - or people are forced to change. I think I'm using perfectly rational language.
The concept isn't rational at all and I already dealth with issues in terms of the market while addressing the other two.
How can this be solved purely using the market? if women refuse to buy sexist games, they miss out on games, and reinforce the message in the developers mind that girls don't play games. They, like so many in this thread, don't flag things as sexist in the same way we do. Putting out more games that appeal to women and everyone is great - but it presumes that anyone can enter the market and do such a thing. For one, you have to deal with an existing establishment where things are stacked against you. The borderhouse has some horrific examples of how women are treated working in games companies. They essentially have opportunities denied to them because not everyone can have thick enough skin to deal with it - nor should they be expected to when men don't.
Because of that, there is an issue that needs to be addressed that markets can't solve. Either some laws cracking down on workplace sexism need to be passed(not
the same thing as censorship, which generally, I don't endorse), or pressure needs to be put on developers/publishers not to put out this content, or to improve the quality of the content they're doing.
Even just by tackling the rotten attitudes such as yours and Taosym we can help rile people up to the extent that they take action against this.
The worst thing is to do nothing, which is what you advocate, since it's not broken(for you, of course).
Also, what's important here is that we're talking about responsibility
. Conservatives and libertarians love to talk about responsibility abstract of any legislation - developers should be responsible enough not to put out sexist content. It is morally wrong to do so. And that should really be the end of that.
That much power is scary. The one time it was gathered - the Equality Now incident - the result was a chilling effect on visual novels, one that didn't do a damn thing to make games that females want to play.
Funny how the power that sexism has over women in the games industry isn't even remotely "scary" to you.
Funny that isn't it? It's okay when it's privielged, white, straight males exert their power.
The problem with pretty much all your arguments is that you can phrase things in a way that looks innocent. Oh we can't force these poor developers to do this. Look at this big bad feminist group ruining Vns for everyone, etc. But again, that ignores entirely the actual end result of these actions. Women are heavily put off the gaming industry because of male dominance, patriarchal power.
Because people are so used
to male dominance in this regard, and that it's insitutionalised, it doesn't register. But it's still there. People are still, as a group of society, making sexist decisions. Libertarians have a habit on focusing on things that are easy and simple to explain - it's easy to show the government making laws against certain things, but very hard to show knock on effects of certain policies or societal issues.
It's still power, and it's still scary. And it still destroys people's careers and chases them away. We should not make exceptions for the status quo in the way you do. That is another logical fallacy in of itself, appeal to common practice.
So focusing on a group like equality now and calling it "frightening", while rendering no such judgement on the gaming industry, shows up your immense double standards.
The basic argument is based on data by, IIRC, Larry Sabato, that shows that pretty much everyone under 30 supports gay marriage, and people over 50 don't. The dividing line goes up one year by year, strongly suggesting that there will be a majority of people supporting it in another couple decades. (The line varies state by state, but shows up in even the most conservative states.)
Post these stats so I can disect them. Also, people often become more conservative with age as it seems to be what society expeects of people. You can't blindly assume things will work out like that. And either way, it's still a problem now
. If people stop making noise, that gives the anti crowd more breathing room. If this happens - homophobia will become more and more common place and accepted, and the trend will reverse. It's an ongoing battle. You can't claim advocacy isn't needed when people are campaigning against
homosexuality, and this happens in places and eras regardless of the level of activism.
Do you think the opposition towards homosexuality in Uganda came from too much activism?
Pushing too hard has lead to states - even liberal states, like California - passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage. These are much harder to overturn, and will delay legalization in those states.
Prove that this was due to "pushing too hard". There could be any number of reasons for that.
Again, personal responsibility. The flaw lies with the conservatives that pushed for these laws. Not the gay people. Gay people are not automatic experts in advocacy, it is generally not their profession. Of course, they'd still be far more experienced in it than you, so would know better.
If we're focusing on purely "What would the best game plan be", and ignoring responsibility, then frankly half of your ideas go out the window anyway.
I worry about things like the Equality Now case. In attempting to "change", they made games a lot less accessible. That's not a good thing.
The fact that this is your biggest worry speakes volumes to me - such things are things everyone
can worry about - I don't most of the feminists in this thread support censorship(third wave feminists in particular, the ones you don't like, are the ones who tend to be "sex positive"), you said yourself that it did nothing to make games more appealing to women. Ignoring intersectionality will do you no favours - again, this is a concept you'd understand if you'd read one of those blogs supposedly only written for feminist, it explains an idea, it doesn't just say "Thou shalt not have buttsex", making arguments easier.