Why, IMO, it's hard finding a game to like as a female gamer

[papillon]

Since someone was asking, the male gaze is what defines a game "for men," not the gameplay. The fact that the women are naked and the men are not, or the women are vapid play dolls, and the men are not, it's that the women pose is awkward demeaning ways, and the men do not. Etc. That's clearly targeted towards men, even though there was no reason for that particular game to be targeted only to men.

First commenting on the photo; did you ever saw that the female portrayed in the image is not of a human and the second fact being that she (the game character) might have need to hold that pose for a fraction of second, while the real humans were trying to hold that pose for longer.

So you are saying that there should be no game targeted towards male, but having a game targeted towards female is fine. The irony of it.

Do you want me to break the board with the force of my screaming at this point?

Over and over and over and over again we have repeated that it is not a problem that games targeted at men exist. But it doesn't matter WHAT we say or how nicely we say it, people won't listen.

Right up there in the quote you're quoting which you didn't read, she points out that she's objecting to it being weird in a game which wasn't being marketed as a 'game for men' but a 'mainstream game'.

This is the exact problematic thinking that was mentioned. It's not that ALL feminists are bad, just MOST of them? It's the same thing. You're using unfounded statistics as an excuse to dismiss or hate an entire group of people who just want women to have equality. Being against feminists means being against feminism, which means being against women having equality - which just boggles my mind why you wouldn't want that. Except, I do understand, and that's why I get so angry.

I said... only some of them are "evil and hate men". How well you misinterpret my words.
So being against feminist make me a woman-hater. Such lovely thinking.

Being opposed to feminism means being opposed to women being treated as equals. That's not 'lovely thinking', that's the actual definitions of the words.

Now, if you're opposed to particular expressions of feminism, if you're opposed to man-hating female-supremacists, that is NOT hating women.

Equality according to a feminist; Women be treated as superior creatures, getting privileges such as reduced tax, reservations and stuff, not to mention leaving all the physical straining jobs to man... to point out a few.
How is this "equality"? From what I see it is anything but equality.

... because you're completely making that up and that's not what ANYONE here has been arguing for. You're inventing a straw feminist and then saying "See how strawlike it is!"

What you're quoting above IS NOT FEMINISM. That is not what you're going to find proposed in ANY feminist space I have EVER seen in my entire life, and I'm not that young anymore. What you're quoting is an ooga-booga that I've only ever heard spoken by scaremongers who hate feminists.

Now, the world is a big place, there are doubtless a few kooks who believe this, just as there are a few kooks who believe that being Christian means all sorts of insane hateful nonsense that has absolutely nothing to do with mainstream Christianity.

"that is just “to be expected” for girl-children who are getting into gaming."
False... that is something you have made yourself believe in. To me see seems like a child model and she is not exclusive, a boy has to go through the same too, but you know what, he is a boy, so it of course don't matter. After all he doesn't belong to XX chromosome category.

.... At this point I have to admit I am beginning to charitably wonder if you are drunk while you are posting this.

You see a kid at a gaming convention so you assume she is a 'child model'?

Young boys are made to wear corsets by their parents?

What?

[Dollywitch]

One of the problems with being any kind of marginalised person is that you regularly get told how you should feel about your position in society, and if you disagree, it's "Political Correctness Gone Mad". It's not that people can't disagree, but people have to recognise that it goes beyond just opinions, how real people are affected is less subjective. This is probably the biggest problem with modern social/political discussion - the "human" element is missing. Opinions have become more important than welfare, and I think that's wrong.

It may be true, but there is another aspect to it. These so-called marginalised class has formed a mentality that if anyone don't agree with them, even if only a single bit, they feel that they are getting told their position in the society. Call it insecurity if you want to.

Listening and accepting other people's issues is important even if the idea makes you feel uncomfortable. A woman in a male dominated area is a marginalised person, and telling them how they should feel about that is wrong. Any argument against women's issues, gay issues etc. can become obnoxious *really fast*.

This might have been true if we were say, 10 or 15 years in past. But now it isn't. And please don't start posting links, citing other resources, because as I have said earlier, there will always be exception; nothing in this world is 100%.

Take the discussion going on here as example, because as I have read many times here on similar discussions, this is a male-dominated area. Here women are trying to tell us (supposedly a male-dominant area) what they want from games.
But you know what their gripe is, we are not agreeing to it as soon as they put down their demand and so they are feeling that they are being told.
Just because it's from a woman does not give that idea some kind of clearance slip; they feel that unless everything they say gets instant approval, it becomes "obnoxious".

And it's not a problem exclusive to feminist or woman, it's something that is found in every... every single so-called marginalised people.

And the only solution I see to it is, bow our head and accept everything what they say without second thoughts.
Not happening.

EDIT: Added some missed words...

This is a fantastic example of how arguments can get obnoxious fast, as you quoted me saying.

People like you can easily dissolve an argument to be just about inconsequential "Opinions" where the only sin, utterly and absolutely(please let us not understate the ridiculously sociopathic and inconsistent nature of this form of moral "relavitism") is to be critical of the integrity of someone else's opinion. The reason you can make these types of arguments is that these things don't affect you. They are only concepts to you, not things you have to live with and encounter every day. It's much easier for you to shut off to feminism(as clearly you have already done by your utter cluelessness of the subject, having mostly only been spoonfed by right-leaning media) than it is for women to shut off to things like misogyny in the gaming world.

You even take the opportunity to dismiss all marginalised people by making the light of the idea that they even exist.

You don't have to care about people that are different to you, who are affected by issues you don't understand. What it comes down to at the end of the day, more than any greater understanding, is that you are not a very good human being.

The main gripe here is that arrogantly privileged and morally disgusting attitudes such as yours should not be acceptable. If you disagree, I don't care. You're wrong. Your perception of feminism is certainly factually wrong. If you don't like it, make a better argument than this and don't bitch that people don't accept your rejection of their arguments which contains about as much logic as my right buttcheek. At end of the day you are just bitching that people do not accept your argument. And how in the hell is gaming not male dominated?

You put having to put up with a bit of feminist nagging, something which is at the end of the day inconsequential as you put it yourself, you don't have to "Bow" to it and can elect to stay out of this thread without it affecting your rights or privilege in the slightest, over the rights and privilege of everyone different to you.

That's why you're a bad person. Only the privileged can speak of opinions as if they matter more than human welfare.

[Taosym]

Replies like this are very much the bread and butter of how not to reply to a feminist/women's issues thread.

Replies like this are very much the bread and butter of why we are in situations like this in the first place.

"It's okay to sexualize men for women because men like power, but it's not okay to sexualize women!"

I know plenty of female artists who on their own, draw sexy women, who draw pornography and they love it. Sex is human nature, it is the reason why we are here in the first place. Some societies worship sex and fertility, because it is literally the creation of life, and the most intimate form of contact a human can engage it.

I am at a loss to find what people don't find sexist these days. But if people are offended by sexuality, then I think they are nothing short of insane. Sex and sexuality for both genders is a beautiful thing, hiding it, shunning it or looking down on human sexuality goes against nature itself. And to me, it's both primitive and abhorrent,

No one here is saying women are pigs, people are trying to explain that anyone breathing near a woman is not sexism. There are just as many examples of male sex appeal aimed directly at females. Marketing and magazines aimed directly at women showing sexy men with their shirts off, with tag lines "How to please your man". That's not sexism, that's life itself.

[papillon]

Porn is fun! Stopping men (or women!) from having porn would be cruel.

Inserting porn into everything kinda sucks.

[Dollywitch]

Any argument against women's issues, gay issues etc. can become obnoxious *really fast*.

A big problem is that people claiming to advocate for "women's issues", "gay issues", and so on often consist of relatively small numbers of politicized people claiming to represent larger groups - often to promote one particular solution. It's perfectly legitimate to promote alternative solutions, or to point out that the problems the advocates claim to see do not exist, or are not real problems.

Trying to shut down discussion by people who disagree with you is a lousy way of trying to convince people of your point.

There are several problems with this. First off, who is trying to "shut down" this discussion? It is always feminists and activists type that start up these discussions in the first place - it's people like DragoonHP who probably don't want to see this talked about.

Secondly like a lot of freebertarian rhetoric, that sounds great on paper, completely abstract about what we're talking about.

But the problem is you'll be hard pushed to find more than a small handful of LGBTs, or women, that have not had a hard time in gaming. Even if they chose to say otherwise, you could still easily observe it for yourself.

If a majority of women, or gay people are saying something, then you need to listen. There's something particularly dishonest about saying "Well that's only what the advocates are saying - not gay people as a whole." What? Then what are gay people as a whole saying? I don't think you'll find that it's terribly different.

The implications of your argument are particularly frightening - can you give me some examples here? Do you think gay marriage, or employment legislation is something only pushed for by fringe radicals? Finding one or two who claim to disagree doesn't prove anything. They are the fringe radicals. Many of the things pushed for by activists are actually still pretty elementary in terms of equality.

We could easily turn most any apparent consensus on it's head and say it's only something a minority advocates. It's the same rubbish that makes AGW impossible to talk about. Even if you show them a study showing there's a consensus, people will mumble conspiracy or something. At some point you as I pointed out, opinions become no longer useful and you have to deal with factual reality. Just because people are making arguments, doesn't make them any good. There still hasn't been a single one that's shown that women don't have a hard time in gaming, and some of them have been borderline misogynistic in of themselves - there's something seriously wrong with that.

And what else the "alternative solution" here? Not giving a shit?

You're basically using the "Well, That’s Really Interesting, But Have You Perhaps Considered The Status Quo?" argument.

http://www.fugitivus.net/2009/08/25/a-f ... nist-blog/

[Dollywitch]

Replies like this are very much the bread and butter of how not to reply to a feminist/women's issues thread.

Replies like this are very much the bread and butter of why we are in situations like this in the first place.

"It's okay to sexualize men for women because men like power, but it's not okay to sexualize women!"

I know plenty of female artists who on their own, draw sexy women, who draw pornography and they love it. Sex is human nature, it is the reason why we are here in the first place. Some societies worship sex and fertility, because it is literally the creation of life, and the most intimate form of contact a human can engage it.

I am at a loss to find what people don't find sexist these days. But if people are offended by sexuality, then I think they are nothing short of insane. Sex and sexuality for both genders is a beautiful thing, hiding it, shunning it or looking down on human sexuality goes against nature itself. And to me, it's both primitive and abhorrent,

No one here is saying women are pigs, people are trying to explain that anyone breathing near a woman is not sexism. There are just as many examples of male sex appeal aimed directly at females. Marketing and magazines aimed directly at women showing sexy men with their shirts off, with tag lines "How to please your man". That's not sexism, that's life itself.

There are so many resources that have been posted in this thread explaining the difference here, and people have tried to explain it to you. . Do you not accept that the concept of internalised sexism or misogyny can exist? Really? It sure as hell exists for men - with their concept of being a manly men, oh what happened to boys today being feminised etc., you hear this nonstop. I don't see why it would be unbelievable that it'd happen at least as much with women, who are less represented in positions of power.

Read this before replying again, though I expect you won't:

http://borderhouseblog.com/?p=6970

There is a difference in how males and females are depicted in gaming. This is extremely blatant looking at a wide range of character designs from a variety of genres. Trying to obfuscate this is little more than derailment and incredibly dishonest derailment at that.

Feminists are not against sexuality. Feminists are against the concept of the "male gaze" - feminine sexuality created exclusively for men, not celebrated by women]. "Sexy" female characters are nearly always made for men. That's not liberating - it's exploitave. How many overly sexualised males do you get? Showing muscle doesn't count - that's the norm, afterall, for things like superhero comics which have a predominantly male audience. How many sexy butch dykes do you get in gaming? Is the answer None or Almost None? Oh well then. Both men and women are depicted according to the male ideal. That's the problem here.

And ironically you responded to my post using the exact same fallacious reasoning I had pointed out.. You can't point to isolated examples when we're talking about trends, or even a few male characters "in general". Overall, women are not represented as well as men in gaming, and women have a tougher time amongst gamers. This is the consensus of pretty much every female on here, and argument against it, as a man with such poor arguments looks utterly obnoxious. You lack personal experience with the matter, you have an uphill battle. You're also forgetting there are a number of trans folk on the forum who can confirm what it's like on both sides of the fence. Let's put it this way - most MtFs and FtMs I know tend to be feminist.

[Taosym]

Porn is fun! Stopping men (or women!) from having porn would be cruel.

Inserting porn into everything kinda sucks.

Feminists are not against sexuality. Feminists are against the concept of the "male gaze" - feminine sexuality created exclusively for men, not celebrated by women. "Sexy" female characters are nearly. How many sexy butch dykes do you get in gaming? Is the answer None or Almost None? Oh well then.

But clearly it's what women want. If such&such magazine, which is marketed and sole demographic is women (maybe 1% men). Shows a beautiful super model on it, or a sexy man. It's because women too want the sex appeal as well as a figure of beauty to idolize. It's an instinctual sexual desire to compare yourself to the same gender. And both men and women can be shamed for not fitting society's opinion of beauty. But those magazines are like that, not because of men, but women. It's because they've spent millions of dollars of focus groups and marketing polls made up of women to make their magazine the most visually appealing and thus make more women want to buy it.

Same could be said for any magazine, but this is just an example. If it was that sexist, women would not buy it. That's the majority. Most people here are probably outliers, we don't fit what society thinks we should be, and what sexually appeals to us, is not normal. We look at these men or women and we are probably not attracted to them at all. I know i'm not. But the grand majority of the entire world are not like us. When the majority of your demographic wants butch dykes, that's what you are going to market to. And there are magazines like that. When there are butch dykes as a key demographic in games. You will get marketing to butch dykes. It doesn't matter what it is. It reminds me of a favorite quote of mine.

"Pay a man enough and he'll walk barefoot into hell."

The "male gaze" theory is a special interest group, as soon as they become a majority, they will get marketed to. Money transcends anything. Sex sells, to men and women. That's life itself.

[PyTom]

Being opposed to feminism means being opposed to women being treated as equals. That's not 'lovely thinking', that's the actual definitions of the words.

"Feminism" is one of those words with two definitions. Merriam-Webster has it as:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

I don't think (1) is particularly controversial, but (2) certainly is. That's especially true if you consider "feminism" to refer to third-wave feminism - which is a particular set of beliefs that many people disagree with. (In my case, because I think it errs too far towards statism, and not enough towards liberty.)

Right up there in the quote you're quoting which you didn't read, she points out that she's objecting to it being weird in a game which wasn't being marketed as a 'game for men' but a 'mainstream game'.

Is the game marketed as a "mainstream" game - explicitly saying it's for both genders? It's pretty rare for something to say "this is for men" or "this is for women" - since in both cases, there's often a significant crossover audience. But that doesn't mean that it isn't meant to appeal to one or the other.

Now, if you're opposed to particular expressions of feminism, if you're opposed to man-hating female-supremacists, that is NOT hating women.

Sure, but what about being opposed to third-wave feminism?

Equality according to a feminist; Women be treated as superior creatures, getting privileges such as reduced tax, reservations and stuff, not to mention leaving all the physical straining jobs to man... to point out a few.
How is this "equality"? From what I see it is anything but equality.

... because you're completely making that up and that's not what ANYONE here has been arguing for. You're inventing a straw feminist and then saying "See how strawlike it is!"

What you're quoting above IS NOT FEMINISM. That is not what you're going to find proposed in ANY feminist space I have EVER seen in my entire life, and I'm not that young anymore. What you're quoting is an ooga-booga that I've only ever heard spoken by scaremongers who hate feminists.

But this is all real - if perhaps not well phrased or cited.

Here's an article that proposes lower taxes on women to increase their participation in the workforce. Here's one that blames the ills of society on men, and claims we should be taxed more.

There are several reservations for women - for example, in the US, the Federal Contracting Rules requires some fraction of money be spent on Women-owned businesses. There's a reservation for women going into science and engineering fields - and an organization set up just to tutor them. (Until recently, there were reservations for all women going to college, at least in a lot of colleges - that seems to have ended, now that women make up a majority of college freshmen.)

Men have been hit disproportionately hard by the recent recession, but there hasn't been much coverage of that.

"that is just “to be expected” for girl-children who are getting into gaming."
False... that is something you have made yourself believe in. To me see seems like a child model and she is not exclusive, a boy has to go through the same too, but you know what, he is a boy, so it of course don't matter. After all he doesn't belong to XX chromosome category.

.... At this point I have to admit I am beginning to charitably wonder if you are drunk while you are posting this.

I'm not sure what DragoonHP wanted to say. This looks like bad parenting, but I'm not sure that'e exclusive to any one gender. (Although - are corsets exclusively sexual? Would they be in a steampunk environment?)

[Dollywitch]

Porn is fun! Stopping men (or women!) from having porn would be cruel.

Inserting porn into everything kinda sucks.

Feminists are not against sexuality. Feminists are against the concept of the "male gaze" - feminine sexuality created exclusively for men, not celebrated by women. "Sexy" female characters are nearly. How many sexy butch dykes do you get in gaming? Is the answer None or Almost None? Oh well then.

But clearly it's what women want. If such&such magazine, which is marketed and sole demographic is women (maybe 1% men). Shows a beautiful super model on it, or a sexy man.

That doesn't mean it's what women want. Regardless of the readership here - who do you think is the most represented genre when it comes to publishers and media big wigs in general? Please ask yourself that question. You're showing a lack of understanding for one of the cornerstone concepts of feminism.

A game with female characters is not the same as a game for females. You can take this a step further and say that a game aimed at females is not necessarily progressive in of itself.

It's because women too want the sex appeal as well as a figure of beauty to idolize. It's an instinctual sexual desire to compare yourself to the same gender. And both men and women can be shamed for not fitting society's opinion of beauty. But those magazines are like that, not because of men, but women. It's because they've spent millions of dollars of focus groups and marketing polls made up of women to make their magazine the most visually appealing and thus make more women want to buy it.

God, this makes me want to throw up. They also spend millions of dollars telling people what to like in the first place. Are you seriously denying that society has unhealthy standards of beauty, especially for women? That doesn't come about because individuals decide on it. It's a societal trend. I can't believe how little you understand about this yet you still think you're qualified to comment! Unreasonably delusional belief in "Markets" does not constitute a valid argument on gender roles. You have to consider the difference between what women will claim to want under a heavily patriarchal system, versus one where they actually have an unrestrained voice. Of course, even then, very few girls will claim it's not tough as a female gamer, which is what this argument is about.

And again, because both men and women have standards of beauty does not mean they're equally oppressive!

I'm transgender! I know the difference! When you refuse to accept people's experiences when they've actually been through it, you're doing it wrong.

Men don't have to bother shaving their legs, putting on makeup, less pressure to have good hair, wear uncomfortable items of clothing like high heels, oppressively tight jeans(unless you're a hipster) etc.

Don't bother listing the things that men have to do. I know. It's easy to make things sound bigger on paper. But it's not. I know the difference. There are many others that do. And if you bring out those points in a rational debate, they'll fall like a house of cards pretty fast.

Same could be said for any magazine, but this is just an example. If it was that sexist, women would not buy it. That's the majority. Most people here are probably outliers, we don't fit what society thinks we should be, and what sexually appeals to us, is not normal. We look at these men or women and we are probably not attracted to them at all. I know i'm not. But the grand majority of the entire world are not like us. When the majority of your demographic wants butch dykes, that's what you are going to market to. And there are magazines like that. When there are butch dykes as a key demographic in games. You will get marketing to butch dykes. It doesn't matter what it is. It reminds me of a favorite quote of mine.

"Pay a man enough and he'll walk barefoot into hell."

The "male gaze" theory is a special interest group, as soon as they become a majority, they will get marketed to. Money transcends anything. Sex sells, to men and women. That's life itself.

Did you even bother to read the article I linked you to? It's not long, it contains images which is why I had to post a link. Your argument is beyond awful. First off, many women don't buy these games which is partly why gaming is male dominated. Secondly, many women do buy these games, because there isn't a reasonable alternative. If it's a good game, they don't want to have to miss out because of their gender - that wouldn't solve anything. Someone already pointed out that women not buying games would just further send the message that women don't play games.

Your other argument is based on the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, appeal to the majority. Just no. And renpytom keeps using this. One problem here is that not only are butch dykes not found in most, games, they're pretty much not found in any games. Is that representative of reality? Does it have a 1:1 ratio with potential customers? No, it doesn't.

Depicting a man that has been as sexually objectified as this guy is is a huge subversion of the dictates of the patriarchy. Its such a rare and taboo-ish sight to see sexualized men that we automatically take it as extreme sexualization when in reality, and compared to what is de rigueur for women, its really not.

[Dollywitch]

Is the game marketed as a "mainstream" game - explicitly saying it's for both genders? It's pretty rare for something to say "this is for men" or "this is for women" - since in both cases, there's often a significant crossover audience. But that doesn't mean that it isn't meant to appeal to one or the other.

You know, this is irrelevant when the vast majority of games are obviously marketed at men - it's clearly a problem regardless. Saying "Well that's the market" is idiotic because it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The success of games on the facebook and android platform shows it is possible to reach out to female gamers, but the major gaming companies still don't grasp this.

Now, if you're opposed to particular expressions of feminism, if you're opposed to man-hating female-supremacists, that is NOT hating women.

Sure, but what about being opposed to third-wave feminism?

I don't think third-wave feminism is what you think it is. If anything I've seen more radfems come out of the second wave feminism. Third wave feminism can be too airy-fairy for some feminists. Third-wave feminism is really just a more modern version of feminism that takes into account intersectionality more.

But this is all real - if perhaps not well phrased or cited.

Here's an article that proposes lower taxes on women to increase their participation in the workforce. Here's one that blames the ills of society on men, and claims we should be taxed more.

There are several reservations for women - for example, in the US, the Federal Contracting Rules requires some fraction of money be spent on Women-owned businesses. There's a reservation for women going into science and engineering fields - and an organization set up just to tutor them. (Until recently, there were reservations for all women going to college, at least in a lot of colleges - that seems to have ended, now that women make up a majority of college freshmen.)

Men have been hit disproportionately hard by the recent recession, but there hasn't been much coverage of that.

The problem is that again, you have trouble accepting the concept of privilege. Women on average earn less. You can't bullshit that away by saying "women choose not to work as hard" - that is sexist. I can't emphasise enough that a gender cannot make a career choice. The reasons must be societal/cultural.

Men have not been hit harder than women in the recession - it's just that(largely thanks to feminism) the gap has continued to close more. There is an obvious and steady curve in terms of earnings, positions of power assumed by women etc.(which is a good thing, but it's much slower than it should be) - you can't just discount it when you feel like it.

Just think of it this way - if the gender gap did suddenly close, you would be here using it against women and feminists. That's not really fair, is it? But that's what the gender gap closing in a time of recession would look like.

Also, the article you posted, at least the one I read, was pretty horrible and is not representative of most feminists. It might get a few hurrahs, but actual agreement in terms of policies? In it's defense - it has a point. Most positions of power are taken up by men, in government and corporation. Without that fact, the article could not exist - so it irks me a little you gloss over that. I've always stated that while "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism" are still not acceptable, they are more understandable. Being the underdog sucks.

You can't pick and choose here. There are a number of feminists on this forum who are experienced telling you what it's actually like. All this business about the right and wrong way to put across an argument, respecting disagreement - but what about respecting people's knowledge on a particular subject? There's a strain of anti-intellectualism in this thread that does not sit well with me.

If more women are entering college - then that probably means they feel they need to do that to get ahead. And to be fair - they do. The glass ceiling still exists. College isn't everything either - a lot of other fields are still very male-dominated, such as construction and the military. This is also the other reason why the recession is hitting men "harder". Construction has been one of the fields to really go belly up, and it's very male-dominated. It's not because feminists are proclaiming their supremacy over filthy males. That's some Kenji-level whackery right there.

[Taosym]

I'm transgender! I know the difference! When you refuse to accept people's experiences when they've actually been through it, you're doing it wrong.

You are offended and want to throw up because you want to be offended. I did state that this is not my way of thinking, this is what society wants. this is what women want. This is why women as they are growing up, are mostly under the scrutiny of other women. Not men. Magazines are made to appeal to women. If it was a "males opinion on women" no woman would buy it. They buy it because it's about things that they agree with, with articles in it, written by other women!. What your argument basically says, is that a restaurant will serve you what they want you to eat. Not what you what to order. Most designers for super models are women or homosexual men. They are not sexist. They have a perception of beauty that you don't agree with. Blaming this on all men is in itself sexist. But I have a feeling you have no desire to change society's, and other women's view of men.

Men don't have to bother shaving their legs, putting on makeup, less pressure to have good hair, wear uncomfortable items of clothing like high heels, oppressively tight jeans(unless you're a hipster) etc.

Don't bother listing the things that men have to do. I know. It's easy to make things sound bigger on paper. But it's not. I know the difference. There are many others that do. And if you bring out those points in a rational debate, they'll fall like a house of cards pretty fast.

Women have to do X, Y, and Z. Don't bother posting a counter argument!

Bad Dog!

BAD

BAD!

VERY BAD DOG!

Did you even bother to read the article I linked you to? It's not long, it contains images which is why I had to post a link.

You have a real knack for being as demeaning, and passive aggressive as possible, don't you?

You want to have your cake and eat it to. To say all men are sexist, but claim no responsibility for sexist statements you make. Or even go as far as to justify why it's okay to make sexist statements yourself. You want to post all kinds of "enlightening articles" that I must read from someone i've never heard of. If I don't agree with that article. I'm a sexist. If I try to raise a counter argument, I am a sexist. Because I am not accepting that I am a horrible, evil man.

[papillon]

Being opposed to feminism means being opposed to women being treated as equals. That's not 'lovely thinking', that's the actual definitions of the words.

"Feminism" is one of those words with two definitions. Merriam-Webster has it as:

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

I don't think (1) is particularly controversial, but (2) certainly is. That's especially true if you consider "feminism" to refer to third-wave feminism - which is a particular set of beliefs that many people disagree with. (In my case, because I think it errs too far towards statism, and not enough towards liberty.)

I don't particularly object to someone saying they were opposed to a particular wave of feminism. For one thing, saying that much suggests that you a) have done some actual research into the subject and b) are aware that feminism isn't a monolothic entity.

There have been some weird individual movements at times. Political lesbianism is one that totally baffles me.

To the best of my knowledge third-wave feminism itself is not a very well-defined set of beliefs though, and incorporates as a basic underlying element the concept of diverse approaches and the knowledge that we're all going to come at this differently. That nebulousness makes it hard to address as a movement.

Right up there in the quote you're quoting which you didn't read, she points out that she's objecting to it being weird in a game which wasn't being marketed as a 'game for men' but a 'mainstream game'.

Is the game marketed as a "mainstream" game - explicitly saying it's for both genders? It's pretty rare for something to say "this is for men" or "this is for women" - since in both cases, there's often a significant crossover audience. But that doesn't mean that it isn't meant to appeal to one or the other.

It's quite common for things to be labeled as 'for women'. It's less common for things to be labeled for men, but then creators sometimes fall back on the "It's not FOR you!" excuse when criticisms are raised.

The confusion between "mainstream" and "male oriented" is part of what's often seen as a problem.

Now, like I keep saying, there's nothing wrong with making a male-oriented game. And no company's individual decision to target men rather than women is wrong in itself. It's a perfectly reasonable choice to make, particularly if you're selling on one of the consoles that has a strong male following. Making that choice doesn't make anyone a bad person. The end result is frustrating though.

But this is all real - if perhaps not well phrased or cited.

Here's an article that proposes lower taxes on women to increase their participation in the workforce. Here's one that blames the ills of society on men, and claims we should be taxed more.

Oh, I don't doubt that someone somewhere said it. Like I said, there are always people with strange beliefs. I'm arguing against these beliefs being ascribed to feminism as a whole.

I'd expect most reactions to the first to be a vague "heh, wouldn't that be nice" (which most people would say if someone suggested lowering their taxes, no?) and moving on, whereas with the second, Psychology Today is considered to be a vile piece of trash with no editorial standards and anything they publish immediately binned. (I mean, look at what she's written, it's sexist and full of made-up nonsense.)

There are several reservations for women - for example, in the US, the Federal Contracting Rules requires some fraction of money be spent on Women-owned businesses. There's a reservation for women going into science and engineering fields - and an organization set up just to tutor them. (Until recently, there were reservations for all women going to college, at least in a lot of colleges - that seems to have ended, now that women make up a majority of college freshmen.)

Ah, affirmative action! (I'm not used to the word 'reservation' being used in this context.) The generally stated purpose of those movements is to address existing imbalances, not to create a female-dominant structure. They are very much supposed to disappear over time once that imbalance is no longer an issue.

While the fairness or not of them is a WHOLE other debate in itself that I'd rather not get into, these projects are not intended to set up a "woman superior" situation, but to level the playing field.

Men have been hit disproportionately hard by the recent recession, but there hasn't been much coverage of that.

I've seen a number of articles on the subject, actually, despite not going looking for them. It's hard to tell what's 'much' coverage though as I'm sure it varies a lot based on where you get your news.

[Fawn]

It seems that this discussion is getting a bit too personal. This is a heated issue, but, it doesn't need to make us turn against eachother just because of different views. Maybe we should all take a break, the conversation really isn't going anywhere (though, like I stated a few times before, there's no real reason to continue the conversation anyways) Change will happen faster if we stop arguing over specifics and use the time to work on projects/help out those who are making a difference.

[Aleema]

(though, like I stated a few times before, there's no real reason to continue the conversation anyways)

[PyTom]

Dollywitch - you need to be more careful with what you write. I spoilered one of your posts because it came very close to a personal attack. Please try to keep this about issues, rather than insulting users. (I didn't want to delete it, since it was borderline, especially in a thread where I'm involved.)

There are several problems with this. First off, who is trying to "shut down" this discussion? It is always feminists and activists type that start up these discussions in the first place - it's people like DragoonHP who probably don't want to see this talked about.

For example - there have been several cases in which someone is arguing that women are not marginalized, and as evidence they point out cases in which women are treated better than men. They then get told that they are "derailing", and that they should open their own thread if they want to talk about it - when they're replying to something in this thread.

It's far better to address their point, rather than crying "derailing" or linking them to a blog written by third-wave feminists to convince other third-wave feminists.

Secondly like a lot of freebertarian rhetoric, that sounds great on paper, completely abstract about what we're talking about.

But the problem is you'll be hard pushed to find more than a small handful of LGBTs, or women, that have not had a hard time in gaming. Even if they chose to say otherwise, you could still easily observe it for yourself.

If a majority of women, or gay people are saying something, then you need to listen. There's something particularly dishonest about saying "Well that's only what the advocates are saying - not gay people as a whole." What? Then what are gay people as a whole saying? I don't think you'll find that it's terribly different.

The quality of the majority here is important. Third-wave feminism implies a particular (modern liberal) political viewpoint that is far from unanimous among women. If it's a majority, it's a small one - I suspect postfeminism is about just as popular. It's pretty common - at cons and such - to see women dressing up as the characters some rail against. Are they part of the problem, and acting against their own interests? Do they not see this? Or do they simply see the problem differently than you do?

There is a lot of evidence - reasonably objective evidence, that women have achieved equality with men. Women are 57% of the college freshmen. At the height of the recession, men had 10% unemployment, while women had 8%. Movies primarily appealing to women regularly show up in theaters. The NFL dresses up in pink to support breast cancer awareness. And so on.

By contrast, the evidence against this is assumes something that I'm not willing to - that equality of outcome (rather than of opportunity) is desirable. Plus, making the change people suggest would require forcing people to do things against their will - create games that they otherwise wouldn't. So I'm not a fan of that change.

Many of the things pushed for by activists are actually still pretty elementary in terms of equality.

Gay marriage today is where sex discrimination was a few decades ago. If nothing is done, most states (in the US) will have gay marriage in 20 years or so. (But when activists pushed too hard, the time line slowed down substantially.)

And what else the "alternative solution" here? Not giving a shit?

Not changing is an option - if you can't improve the situation, do nothing. Certainly, change for the sake of change is a terrible idea - we need to make things better, not merely different.

(It might not be surprising that I more-or-less side with Bjorn Lomborg on global warming - that we're far better off figuring out ways to deal with it, since the cost of stopping is unacceptably high, and that money could be spend far more effectively curing malaria.)[

http://www.fugitivus.net/2009/08/25/a-f ... nist-blog/

I'm not sure this is relevant. LSF is not a feminist blog, and so I'm pretty sure the etiquette one would have on a feminist blog doesn't apply here.