Defining Misogynism

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Batou667:

It's true: men as a whole work harder, longer and in more dangerous jobs and unlike women are expected to risk their lives in times of war.

Yes, this is what we call "traditional gender roles" and they're something that you would learn about in, oh, let's say the first hour of a Gender Studies 101 course. But based on this...

twisted into proof that men are still more "privileged" since fighting and dying in wars is more socially valued than childcare (which is great consolation to the soldiers coming home with limbs missing, or in boxes, I'm sure).

You've already heard someone give a patient definition of "social value" (for example, that a morbidly obese person doesn't automatically have greater social value than a soldier, just because they wouldn't be allowed in the army) and instead of acknowledging it or coming up with an intelligent counter-argument you just went back to restating your original point like it hadn't already been dealt with, with a new "oppression olympics" twist.

Is it worth pointing out that women didn't join the army until recently because men wouldn't let them, and that the only reason they're now allowed to join the army is because of the women who fought tooth and nail for the right to do so? That the draft was implemented and upheld by men? I get the feeling it would fall on deaf ears.

These are facts I've yet to see a feminist tackle head-on - either they get dismissed as MRA propaganda, or hand-wavingly used as "proof" that "the Patriarchy hurts men too, duh".

Way to contradict yourself in the same sentence. So you have seen feminists deal with the issue, probably in the context of having it thrown in their faces as "proof" that there's no such thing as patriarchy (rather than actually, say reading feminist literature, which it's painfully obvious that you've never done), and when they tried to give a basic explanation of what the term "patriarchy" actually means and why it accounts for disadvantages faced by men you dismissed it because you didn't like what you were hearing.

Rgeardless, what point are you trying to make here? That injustices against men were caused by feminists? That feminists are somehow responsible for men working longer hours and more men being recruited into the army and traditional gender roles in general? Or do you just feel like yelling at feminists because you feel they're (according to you) not dealing specifically with the issues that you care about?

Here's a radical idea. If you actually give a shit about men dying in the army, or working hours that were too long, or working "harder" than women (whatever the fuck that means), then maybe you should try and do something about them yourself, rather than blaming other people for not caring about them as much. You'll notice that the Red Cross don't pour all of their donations into angry campaigns complaining that the World Wildlife Fund care more about animals than they care about people.

Batou667:

I take your point, women are seldom unaffected by war, they generally suffer along with the rest of the country in times of war and usually contribute to the war effort. And as you say, there have been some notable female spies, snipers, saboteurs etc. But let's not pretend that the number of women directly killed in warfare is even comparable to the number of men killed, the figures just aren't comparable.

Once again, and I'll put it in block capitals to try and make it easier to spot:

WOMEN WERE NOT ALLOWED IN THE ARMY UNTIL VERY RECENTLY. THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED IN THE ARMY BECAUSE THE MEN IN CHARGE WOULD NOT ALLOW WOMEN IN THE ARMY.

Considering that women have only been allowed to join the army very recently, and in many places are still not allowed in front-line combat, of course more men than women will die at war. That doesn't make it any less fucking disgusting to belittle the women who have given up their lives fighting by playing a numbers game with army corpses and saying that their deaths were statistically insignificant.

boots:
Grr! Argh! Snarl!

You seem upset. Please calm down and stop wildly projecting all over the place.

I wasn't "blaming" feminism or feminists for anything (this time).

What I was doing was agreeing with the points made in the video, and noting that, hey, when feminists talk about workplace equality, that rarely means getting involved with the dangerous and unpleasant things that a lot of men are expected to do on a daily basis. Manual labour. Working in dirty or unsanitary conditions. The occupations with the greatest rates of work-related injury or death. Where's the "privilege" here? If "the patriarchy" hated women that much, then why aren't the mines, the oil rigs and the lumber mills all full of women, coerced or forced to work there against their will, while the men sit around at home?

You think it's a "privilege" to die for your country? That death is so special that we cruelly withhold it from women out of spite because we're vain macho men who don't want to share the glory? Oh come on, get real. Back in the bad old days men didn't get to choose either; men were conscripted and women were left at home to care for the children. That's based on the simple biological principle that women get pregnant, men don't, and therefore men are more disposable. Without going hardcore evopsych, I think that's a fairly clear case of biology informing society.

But hey, if YOU want to become a tin miner or join the bomb squad, god speed and good luck.

Batou667:
or hand-wavingly used as "proof" that "the Patriarchy hurts men too, duh"

I don't understand how you can so readily dismiss arguments along these lines. It's one thing to say "some men tend to have it worse than women in X Y Z," but you do realize... that isn't the fault of feminists, right? These systems are largely enforced and were created almost exclusively by men. The social pressures that push men into traditionally masculine roles are defined by misogyny. The threat to a man's social standing if he refuses is based on the notion that he is feminine, and this is taken to be an objectively bad thing, rather than the way some people are, no better or worse.

And it's worth noting that a lot of the most dangerous/dirty jobs are also the most hyper-masculine in culture. As hostile as the tech sector is to women, I'm sure the trades tend to be much worse. You can't really blame women for the fact that there is incredible pressure, both from society in general and from those sectors in particular, dissuading women from pursuing those careers.

Batou667:
That's based on the simple biological principle that women get pregnant, men don't, and therefore men are more disposable. Without going hardcore evopsych, I think that's a fairly clear case of biology informing society.

image

Batou667:

boots:
Grr! Argh! Snarl!

Well, that's one way to avoid addressing people's points. Do I sense a derailment on the horizon?

Batou667:

You seem upset. Please calm down and stop wildly projecting all over the place.

And bam, straight in with the tone arguments. You don't hang about, do you?

I wasn't "blaming" feminism or feminists for anything (this time).

Really? Because it sounds like you're pretty angry at feminists. Maybe you should calm down, take a few deep breaths, drink a cool glass of water and sit quietly in the corner while I patronize you.

What I was doing was agreeing with the points made in the video, and noting that, hey, when feminists talk about workplace equality, that rarely means getting involved with the dangerous and unpleasant things that a lot of men are expected to do on a daily basis.

Yes, that would be a great talking point for equality rallies. In other news, we should fight for race equality by murdering a bunch of white people (because they statistically experience less violence than ethnic minorities), and trying to force white kids' grades down and dissuade white kids from going to college (because they are at a statistical advantage to African-American kids or hispanic kids when it comes to further education).

Generally speaking, equality is focused on giving people the same advantages, not trying to make sure they have the same disadvantages. That's why you don't see all that many feminists proposing that we tackle the problem of women being at a greater risk of rape by going out and raping a bunch of men to even things up.

The occupations with the greatest rates of work-related injury or death. Where's the "privilege" here? If "the patriarchy" hated women that much, then why aren't the mines, the oil rigs and the lumber mills all full of women, coerced or forced to work there against their will, while the men sit around at home?

bananafishtoday already covered this one. All you're doing is playing oppression olympics and trying to ignore (or perhaps you're just genuinely ignorant of) the fact that feminist theory already deals with these issues.

You think it's a "privilege" to die for your country?

Uh, no, the army says that.

That death is so special that we cruelly withhold it from women out of spite because we're vain macho men who don't want to share the glory?

Sorry, but I'm failing to see your point here. All I see is you dodging and strawmanning your way around the facts that I just stated.

Fact #1: Women have only recently been allowed to join the army.
Fact #2: When women were not allowed to join the army (and to this day, for the most part) the positions of power in the army and government were held by men. Therefore, it was the decision of men to keep women from joining the army.
Fact #3: Women had to fight for the right to join the army.
Fact #4: Women are still not allowed in front-line combat in many places.

I'm sure you can pull out more facetiousness to avoid dealing with those facts, but you can't get around them. Your personal opinions about the desirability of an army career are irrelevant; society in general has for a long time believed in "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori" and therefore the right to fight for your country is - socially speaking - considered a privilege. Why else would women fight so hard for army careers, if it was not considered to be a desirable occupation? You've just made a big deal out of insisting that women don't try very hard to get into "dirty" jobs, so how can you reconcile the fact that women campaigned to be allowed to join the army with your insistence that being a soldier doesn't have social value?

Oh come on, get real. Back in the bad old days men didn't get to choose either; men were conscripted and women were left at home to care for the children.

So no one got a choice. The old days sucked. Probably best that we move forward, eh?

That's based on the simple biological principle that women get pregnant, men don't, and therefore men are more disposable.

I would very much like to see you quoting an actual biology textbook that says men are disposable because they can't get pregnant. I mean, were you just really, really hoping that you could claim a random statement that you parroted from r/mensrights is a "simple biological principle" and no one would question it?

"Lol cut+pasting images I found on 9gag makes me look clever."

bananafishtoday:

I don't understand how you can so readily dismiss arguments along these lines. It's one thing to say "some men tend to have it worse than women in X Y Z," but you do realize... that isn't the fault of feminists, right?

Both you and Boots seem to assume that I was blaming feminism/feminists. Please show me where I said that in my first post. Perhaps in the context of this thread it's reasonable to assume that's something I would have said, but I didn't.

And it's worth noting that a lot of the most dangerous/dirty jobs are also the most hyper-masculine in culture. As hostile as the tech sector is to women, I'm sure the trades tend to be much worse. You can't really blame women for the fact that there is incredible pressure, both from society in general and from those sectors in particular, dissuading women from pursuing those careers.

I think we're mixing up "masculine" with "beneficial" or "desirable". Sure, the coal miner or firefighter can come home after a hard day at work and console himself that he does a difficult job. Perhaps his pals at the bar give him an extra bit of kudos for it. Maybe it's helped him impress the ladies a few times, the ladies who like a rugged man, anyway. But that's where the social power and influence associated with these professions starts and pretty much ends. Look at who's really at the top in capitalist, patriarchal society: the CEOs, the bankers, the politicians. People - mostly men - who quite notably don't get their hands dirty on a daily basis.

To say that this is a sex issue is an oversimplification. It's equally, if not more, a class/wealth issue.

boots:

Batou667:

You seem upset. Please calm down and stop wildly projecting all over the place.

And bam, straight in with the tone arguments. You don't hang about, do you?

Well let me see, I posted a fairly innocuous observation in which I didn't attack a particular group, and you weigh straight in with assumptions, circumstantial ad-hominems and SHOUTY CAPS FOR EMPHASIS. Do you realise how aggressive and confrontational you come across? Or do you justify that to yourself as you're "fighting the good fight"? Either way, it's not pleasant to read or conducive to a good discussion, so I'd appreciate it if you could spare me the fire and brimstone.

To answer the rest of your post, see my answer to bananafish. I don't feel that all nuances of workplace inequality can be neatly explained away by patriarchy theory - because here we have a system that is supposedly set up for the benefit of all men, and yet tends to ensure that working-class men work longer and die earlier than anyone else, while upper-class men and women are both in positions of power/privilege. I don't think that's a patriarchal society, that's a plutocracy.

Since we're going down this route, could you tell me what your definition of "patriarchy" is?

Well i must say i can see some very defensive positions in here. It is actually easy to find literature which explains differences in society through biology. Do mind i said "explained" not "justified", which is a common mistake made by over-defensive sociologists (in this particular case feminists).
http://books.google.be/books?id=vq_0BUkcZ5MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Biology+at+work+rethinking&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=rJ-cUbmtCcODO6ORgOAJ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA

Is an example of such literature. Personally, being a scientific person who loves science because it explains things i don't understand the hatred towards science explaining (or at least partly) certain social behaviors. Sure it may hurt "free will" extremists who feel inferior due to the mere idea some of their behaviors may be encoded to a certain extent rather than a result of their own choices. And sure I can understand how feminists may act butt hurt towards it because by removing agency from the human free will you also remove a certain ability to change things.

But here is a statement that the author of the book wrote on the back cover: "what needs to be questioned is the notion that either sex is a victim". Because that's a predominant attitude when we discuss genders in society. That somehow the situation is bad and as such we have victims. But are there victims? If more men than women decide to join the armed forces does that mean there is a victim gender? If less women decide to work their asses off and as a consequence reach the top of the corporate ladder does that mean there is a victim gender? Why do so many people actively seek explanations, often with little evidence, which involves a victim status for either sexes and at the same time disregard any theories which would weaken this "victim" status of either gender? Are our lives really so awesome we need to get out of our way to find things to complain about? Because that's how it sometimes feels like.

Batou667:

Both you and Boots seem to assume that I was blaming feminism/feminists. Please show me where I said that in my first post. Perhaps in the context of this thread it's reasonable to assume that's something I would have said, but I didn't.

I mean ... are you just saying these things in the hope that your bluff ain't gonna get called?

These are facts I've yet to see a feminist tackle head-on - either they get dismissed as MRA propaganda, or hand-wavingly used as "proof" that "the Patriarchy hurts men too, duh", or else twisted into proof that men are still more "privileged" since fighting and dying in wars is more socially valued than childcare (which is great consolation to the soldiers coming home with limbs missing, or in boxes, I'm sure).

And now for a proper deconstruction of Feminism

If you don't think these problems are the fault of feminists, then why are you so angry at feminists for (supposedly) not dealing with them. All of this is redundant anyway, because by your own admittance feminists do talk about these issues, but I'm happy to hang out in your Imaginationland for a little while longer. If you don't think feminists are at fault, then why is your immediate reaction to disadvantages faced by men to yell at feminists for not dealing with them?

I think we're mixing up "masculine" with "beneficial" or "desirable".

Uh, no, bananafish was providing an explanation for why you find more men in these roles than women. I think you just did three leaps and a pirouette to avoid dealing with any of the explanations. The judges give you a unanimous 10 out of 10.

To say that this is a sex issue is an oversimplification. It's equally, if not more, a class/wealth issue.

You were the one who said it was a sex issue. You were the one who brought it up specifically as a sex issue. Now you're scoffing at people for treating it as a sex issue? Would you like us to all leave the thread so that you continue having an argument with yourself in peace?

boots:

Well let me see, I posted a fairly innocuous observation in which I didn't attack a particular group,

Aside from feminists ... and women in general.

and you weigh straight in with assumptions, circumstantial ad-hominems and SHOUTY CAPS FOR EMPHASIS. Do you realise how aggressive and confrontational you come across? Or do you justify that to yourself as you're "fighting the good fight"? Either way, it's not pleasant to read or conducive to a good discussion, so I'd appreciate it if you could spare me the fire and brimstone.

Let's see, you made a generalized sexist statement that men "work harder" than women and then you launched straight into a sneering and ignorant attack on feminists based on your limited and extremely skewed perspective of them, followed by a belittling of female soldiers for not dying often enough. You may as well have come into the thread saying, "Well, on the whole blacks are a lot dirtier and smellier than white people" and then started clutching your pearls when people don't take kindly to it.

Oh, and for the record? Ad hominems attack a person's motivation, whereas I'm simply pointing out your ignorance. It's not my fault that there's a lot of it to point at.

That's the last time I'm going to let you derail the discussion into a tone argument. You can feel free to continue calling me a big meanyhead if it makes you feel better, though.

To answer the rest of your post, see my answer to bananafish.

Which I've already pointed out is a bizarre mix of dodging any actual points that were made and contradicting your own statements.

I don't feel that all nuances of workplace inequality can be neatly explained away by patriarchy theory

Neither do feminists. Neither does any definition of patriarchy theory. So we're all on the same page. Or we would be if you could be assed to open the book in the first place. You've yet to convince me that you've even so much as bothered to read all the way down the Wikipedia page on patriarchy theory.

FYI, that was a very neat way of dodging all the points that I actually made with one simple but massive fallacy. Did you just not like my explanation of why an army career is considered to be a privileged position and has a great amount of social value? Is your general response to arguments that you can't come up with an intelligent response to, to simply pretend that they don't exist? That does explain a lot...

Since we're going down this route, could you tell me what your definition of "patriarchy" is?

See, what you're actually asking me is, "What is the definition of patriarchy?" But why not, allow me to compensate for your inability to use Google one more time:

pa·tri·arch·y
/ˈpātrēˌärkē/
Noun
A system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line.
A system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it.

You'll notice that nowhere in that definition does it say, "A system of society where all men always have it better than all women all the time" or "A system of society organised by a secret conspiracy of men to ensure that women are kept under their boots." So basically, you've just spent the last few posts swatting at imaginary flies.

At least your fingers got a good workout? That's a positive, I suppose.

boots:
snip

I hope that was nice and cathartic for you to write?[1] Look, I can tell you're simply spoiling for a nice juicy internet fight but that's not what I'm here for. My original post wasn't inciteful or inflammatory, I didn't "sneer" at or "belittle" anyone. What I was hoping for was to get some different opinions on how a system that patently disadvantages, endangers and frankly kills so many men can be seen as part of a "privileged" position. I'm in the process of learning about feminism at the moment and occasionally throwing out questions or observations on forums like these is sometimes valuable. But if you'd rather just insult me, leap to conclusions about my attitudes towards feminism/women in general and make deductions about my level of education, that's cool too I guess.

boots:
See, what you're actually asking me is, "What is the definition of patriarchy?" But why not, allow me to compensate for your inability to use Google one more time:

You misunderstand me. I wasn't asking for the definition of patriarchy, I was asking for your definition of patriarchy. I've come across at least three different definitions of "patriarchy" in the past and I was wondering which you're using, or else we're just arguing past each other and trading insults.

[1] At least your fingers got a good workout? That's a positive, I suppose.

Batou667:

My original post wasn't inciteful or inflammatory, I didn't intentionally "sneer" at or "belittle" anyone.

Fixed.

What I was hoping for was to get some different opinions on how a system that patently disadvantages, endangers and frankly kills so many men can be seen as part of a "privileged" position. I'm in the process of learning about feminism at the moment and occasionally throwing out questions or observations on forums like these is sometimes valuable.

But you didn't throw out any questions, unless you put them in invisible text that I somehow missed. What you threw out were sexist remarks (you still haven't addressed your claim that men "work harder" than women, by the way, though I'm happy to keep quoting it back at you until you do) and dismissals of the feminist explanations that you've already heard without any basis for dismissing them or legitimate counter-arguments.

Forgive me, but it sounds like your "process of learning about feminism" hasn't yet advanced to the stage of looking it up on Wikipedia, let alone actually reading any feminist texts or grasping even the most basic ideas in gender studies. Based on that - and the fact that throughout the entire thread you've been flat-out ignoring any points made that you don't like or can't deal with - I'm not convinced that you're actually interesting in learning at all.

boots:

You misunderstand me. I wasn't asking for the definition of patriarchy, I was asking for your definition of patriarchy. I've come across at least three different definitions of "patriarchy" in the past and I was wondering which you're using, or else we're just arguing past each other and trading insults.

Well, the definition that you've been using isn't actually a definition of patriarchy theory at all, it's a common misunderstanding of the theory that usually gets espoused by MRAs when they feel like attacking something that isn't there, so that's one so-called "varying definition" that you can forget about right away. That leaves two out of the three definitions that you've supposedly heard, both of which are listed in my previous post from the dictionary entry for patriarchy theory. So, confusion solved.

boots:

But you didn't throw out any questions, unless you put them in invisible text that I somehow missed. What you threw out were sexist remarks (you still haven't addressed your claim that men "work harder" than women, by the way, though I'm happy to keep quoting it back at you until you do) and dismissals of the feminist explanations that you've already heard without any basis for dismissing them or legitimate counter-arguments.

http://www.oecd.org/els/family/43367847.pdf
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Employment_rates_for_selected_population_groups,_2001-2011_%28%25%29.png&filetimestamp=20121030183007

Was it really that necessary to ask for evidence for a fact as commonly known as the fact males have an XY chromosome set?

boots:

Well, the definition that you've been using isn't actually a definition of patriarchy theory at all, it's a common misunderstanding of the theory that usually gets espoused by MRAs when they feel like attacking something that isn't there, so that's one so-called "varying definition" that you can forget about right away. That leaves two out of the three definitions that you've supposedly heard, both of which are listed in my previous post from the dictionary entry for patriarchy theory. So, confusion solved.

Fine, I accept I may have unintentionally been insulting. Apologies to anybody who feels aggrieved by my comments.

You're right, "men work harder" is subjective so I retract that. What I meant was that men typically work longer hours, are overrepresented in manual labour and are more likely to be injured or killed in the workplace than women.

I've seen "the patriarchy" variously defined as:

- Any society where the father is head of the household and the majority of political power is held by men.
- A system of social norms put in place to privilege men over women of the same social class (thereby benefiting men)
- A system of social norms put in place to limit and exploit women (thereby benefiting men)
- A synonym for violence and control (or sometimes just negativity on general) and the antithesis of compassion and collaboration (or sometimes just positivity in general), thereby harming the majority of men and women

Are any, all, or none of the above definitions correct?

Batou667:

I've seen "the patriarchy" variously defined as:

- Any society where the father is head of the household and the majority of political power is held by men.

That's the correct one.

- A system of social norms put in place to privilege men over women of the same social class (thereby benefiting men)
- A system of social norms put in place to limit and exploit women (thereby benefiting men)

These are incorrect. Anyone who described patriarchy as "put in place" doesn't understand the theory, since patriarchy theory makes no claims about patriarchy being something that was deliberately implemented. Capitalism is a good analogy for patriarchy; no one woke up one day and said, "I know, let's put capitalism in place"; capitalism was a word that was coined to describe the way that economic systems already worked, just as patriarchy is a word to describe a social system that was already in place.

Now you can (and many people do, unfortunately) make arguments about why our society became patriarchal (men are just naturally superior to women, life was better when women knew their place etc.) but just because society formed in a certain way over centuries, it doesn't mean that that social system is good, fair or beneficial to the people living in it.

Patriarchal social systems can and do privilege men over women and limit women's power, but that's a side effect of the first definition: men holding positions of power.

- A synonym for violence and control (or sometimes just negativity on general)

This sounds more or less like the definition used by radical feminists, some of whom have a tendency to define patriarchy as "things I don't like."

and the antithesis of compassion and collaboration (or sometimes just positivity in general), thereby harming the majority of men and women

This sounds like you're talking about traditionally "masculine" qualities (like strength, bravery, toughness, aggressive sexuality, stoicism, combativeness) being given greater value than traditionally "feminine" qualities (like compassion, emotion, sexual modesty and cooperation). One of the many facets of patriarchy theory is that, as a side effect of men dominating positions of power, men come to be viewed as superior to women, and women are seen as being weak or unreliable. Hence the reason why if someone wants to insult a man, they call him a "bitch" or a "pussy" or a "nancy".

Gender policing is sort of separate area of theory that ties into patriarchy theory, but helps to explain why a patriarchal system comes with disadvantages for both men and women. Because a patriarchal society generally has higher expectations of men, men are therefore encouraged to go into "manly" areas of work like construction or the army, to be the breadwinner of the family and to pay for meals when on dates, are discouraged from childcare or nursing (because those are girly jobs), laughed at for enjoying baking, dancing or knitting, and are frowned upon for showing too much emotion.

Now it's possible to look at the fact that people are constantly expected to reinforce their gender through behaviour and get into all sorts of interesting, if radical, ideas about gender. Judith Butler, for example, has argued that gender doesn't really exist as anything other than a social construct:

But that's getting a little off-topic. This article is a good summary of some of the ways that patriarchal expectations negatively affect men.

boots:
Judith Butler, for example, has argued that gender doesn't really exist as anything other than a social construct:

I wonder what she will have to answer when asked whether the physical/biological differences between genders are also nothing but "a social construct" lol.

Or is she one of those people who tries to focus purely on the mental/psychological side and pretends that physical/biological differences simply don't exist?

Yuuki:

I wonder what she will have to answer when asked whether the physical/biological differences between genders are also nothing but "a social construct" lol.

Or is she one of those people who tries to focus purely on the mental/psychological side and pretends that physical/biological differences simply don't exist?

I actually think she's one of those people who are capable of understanding the distinction between biological sex and gender identity/gender expression.

Helpful infographic:

Having said that, Butler's theory is a little more complex as it belongs to the post-structuralist school of thought, and I'm not about to try and give a concise summary of post-structuralism in a single post that would be end up being very off-topic anyway.

EDIT:

Oh hey, Judith Butler's seminal text Gender Trouble is actually available to read online. And yes, she does deal with the biological facets of sex and gender. Feel free to come back and discuss when you're done reading.

Batou667:
Sure, the coal miner or firefighter can come home after a hard day at work and console himself that he does a difficult job. Perhaps his pals at the bar give him an extra bit of kudos for it. Maybe it's helped him impress the ladies a few times, the ladies who like a rugged man, anyway. But that's where the social power and influence associated with these professions starts and pretty much ends. Look at who's really at the top in capitalist, patriarchal society: the CEOs, the bankers, the politicians. People - mostly men - who quite notably don't get their hands dirty on a daily basis.

I don't disagree that a male coal miner does not get much privilege from being a coal miner (mostly a function of social class,) but he still gets privilege from being male. A female coal miner would suffer in a similar way due to her class as a male coal miner, coupled with and reinforced by oppression related to her sex. A female CEO would suffer in ways that a male coal miner would not because he enjoys male privilege, but her class privilege would insulate her from other forms of oppression that the male coal miner would suffer.

This notion is one of the pillars of third-wave feminism: intersectionality. Essentially, multiple systems of oppression or discrimination such as race, class, sex, gender presentation, sexual orientation, ability, etc intersect and reinforce each other rather than operating independently.

No question that rich men oppress poor men on the daily in our society, but it doesn't change the fact that poor men still have a degree of power that women of any social class do not. One could argue about which forms of oppression are "worse," but it's pointless, divisive, and stupid. It's making the same mistake as the "class-conscious" workers in the pre-WWI era, who argued that workers were united by their being workers, and no other distinction mattered. (Well, generally "working men." Also generally "working men but not black men omg no." But imagine even the least-racist of these folks saying to a black dude in the 1900s, "Forget about race, we're all workers suffering the same!")

So yeah, I get where you're coming from on the class argument, but it's only one facet of a larger system of oppression. I have some very... strong... opinions about the rich, to say the least, but we need to understand and confront all forms coercive power if we're going to get anywhere.

boots:

Yuuki:

I wonder what she will have to answer when asked whether the physical/biological differences between genders are also nothing but "a social construct" lol.

Or is she one of those people who tries to focus purely on the mental/psychological side and pretends that physical/biological differences simply don't exist?

I actually think she's one of those people who are capable of understanding the distinction between biological sex and gender identity/gender expression.

Gender Trouble was prolly one of the most difficult books I've read in my life, both because Butler's ideas are complex and her prose in her early works is needlessly opaque. So I won't pretend to fully understand it all, but...

Butler actually rejects the sex/gender distinction as it's commonly understood. She argues that the problem with presenting sex as "natural" but gender as socially constructed is that it would necessarily break the link between the two concepts. Setting up gender as discursively defined positions biological sex to be somehow prediscursive--described, rather than created, by language--and thus viewing only gender as constructed serves to obscure the fact that sex is as well. In her view, the fact that gender is constructed by discourse coupled with the fact that bodies are understood in gendered language means that sex is necessarily constructed in the same way.

Basically she follows the post-structuralist notion that language isn't the medium through which we understand the world as it exists. Rather, reality itself is created through the process of describing it in language. Her notions of gender performativity also entirely reject the concept of gender identity. Foucault was much the same way--ironic that his ideas kickstarted so many identity movements when he thought the very idea of identity markers was a tool of oppression.

Prolly goes without saying that some of her ideas are controversial to say the least, lol. (Plus a lot of what she says about trans* folks in Bodies That Matter is really... ehhhhhh.)

Edit: I'd post this in its own reply if not for low-content rules, but...

generals3:
me and other post feminists

hahahahahahahahahaha

bananafishtoday:
]I don't disagree that a male coal miner does not get much privilege from being a coal miner (mostly a function of social class,) but he still gets privilege from being male. A female coal miner would suffer in a similar way due to her class as a male coal miner, coupled with and reinforced by oppression related to her sex. A female CEO would suffer in ways that a male coal miner would not because he enjoys male privilege, but her class privilege would insulate her from other forms of oppression that the male coal miner would suffer.

This notion is one of the pillars of third-wave feminism: intersectionality. Essentially, multiple systems of oppression or discrimination such as race, class, sex, gender presentation, sexual orientation, ability, etc intersect and reinforce each other rather than operating independently.

No question that rich men oppress poor men on the daily in our society, but it doesn't change the fact that poor men still have a degree of power that women of any social class do not. One could argue about which forms of oppression are "worse," but it's pointless, divisive, and stupid. It's making the same mistake as the "class-conscious" workers in the pre-WWI era, who argued that workers were united by their being workers, and no other distinction mattered. (Well, generally "working men." Also generally "working men but not black men omg no." But imagine even the least-racist of these folks saying to a black dude in the 1900s, "Forget about race, we're all workers suffering the same!")

So yeah, I get where you're coming from on the class argument, but it's only one facet of a larger system of oppression. I have some very... strong... opinions about the rich, to say the least, but we need to understand and confront all forms coercive power if we're going to get anywhere.

But the big question is: is this female oppression real? Because that's what me and other post feminists actually ask themselves. It's easy to claim it exists but does it really? Mainly in most developed countries. I have no doubt it exists in countries like Saudi Arabia where women have a lot of restrictions, but can the same be said about countries like the UK, Australia, Belgium, Sweden, etc. ?

First of all:

generals3:
me and other post feminists

bananafishtoday:

hahahahahahahahahaha

Pretty much covers it. What generals3 actually knows about feminism could be written on the back of a very small dinner wafer. Moving on.

But the big question is: is this female oppression real? Because that's what me and other post feminists actually ask themselves. It's easy to claim it exists but does it really? Mainly in most developed countries. I have no doubt it exists in countries like Saudi Arabia where women have a lot of restrictions, but can the same be said about countries like the UK, Australia, Belgium, Sweden, etc. ?

I think that this exhausted rant by Lindy West more or less covers my response to this:

I am tired of being called a shrieking harridan for pointing out inequalities so tangible and blatant that they are regularly codified into law. I am tired of being told to provide documentation of inequality in the comments sections of a website where a staff of smart women documents inequality as fast as our fingers can move. Like, you might as well write me a note on a banana peel demanding that I prove to you that bananas exist. I am tired of being asked to "cite sources" proving that sexism is real (that RAPE is real, even!), because there is no way to concisely cite decades and decades of rigorous academia. Allow me to point at the fucking library. We can't cite "everything," and our challengers know that. It's an insulting diversionary tactic, it's an attempt to drag us all backwards, and fuck it. Do your own research like the rest of the grown-ups.

What are you supposed to do when someone asks you to "prove" that feminism isn't a massive conspiracy theory in a country where we've only had 39 female senators in the nation's entire history, and 20 of them are serving right now? What kind of a stupid fucking question is that? What are you supposed to say when the 8,000th faux-incredulous jackass throws you the same argument about the wage gap or the draft or bumbling dads in Tide commercials-as though holding each of their hands individually through the empirical facts of the world around us is a worthwhile use of my time. As though feminist academics haven't filled books (decades of books) with answers to that shit already.

I mean ... seriously? You ask that in a thread that all started off with a guy claiming that modern women are selfish, vain, cruel, feral "creatures" for refusing to give him the sex that he's entitled to, and a bunch of morons cheering him on in the comments? Probably not the best place to demand proof that sexism exists.

boots:
First of all:

generals3:
me and other post feminists

bananafishtoday:

hahahahahahahahahaha

Pretty much covers it. What generals3 actually knows about feminism could be written on the back of a very small dinner wafer. Moving on.

Your derision is filled with delicious Irony. Maybe next time before laughing at something you see as a sign of ignorance be sure your derision isn't a sign of your own ignorance.

"Post-feminism is a reaction against some perceived contradictions and absences of second-wave feminism. The term post-feminism is ill-defined and is used in inconsistent ways. However, it generally connotes the belief that feminism has succeeded in its goal of ameliorating sexism, making it fundamentally opposed to the third-wave intention of broadening feminist struggle."

And do keep in mind that I said "other post feminists" and not "all other post feminists". The latter would have been incorrect due to the broad use of the term. But the former is perfectly valid.

I think that this exhausted rant by Lindy West more or less covers my response to this:

I am tired of being called a shrieking harridan for pointing out inequalities so tangible and blatant that they are regularly codified into law. I am tired of being told to provide documentation of inequality in the comments sections of a website where a staff of smart women documents inequality as fast as our fingers can move. Like, you might as well write me a note on a banana peel demanding that I prove to you that bananas exist. I am tired of being asked to "cite sources" proving that sexism is real (that RAPE is real, even!), because there is no way to concisely cite decades and decades of rigorous academia. Allow me to point at the fucking library. We can't cite "everything," and our challengers know that. It's an insulting diversionary tactic, it's an attempt to drag us all backwards, and fuck it. Do your own research like the rest of the grown-ups.

What are you supposed to do when someone asks you to "prove" that feminism isn't a massive conspiracy theory in a country where we've only had 39 female senators in the nation's entire history, and 20 of them are serving right now? What kind of a stupid fucking question is that? What are you supposed to say when the 8,000th faux-incredulous jackass throws you the same argument about the wage gap or the draft or bumbling dads in Tide commercials-as though holding each of their hands individually through the empirical facts of the world around us is a worthwhile use of my time. As though feminist academics haven't filled books (decades of books) with answers to that shit already.

This is probably the best way to admit it's all bollocks. And it also shows the big issues I have with a lot of feminist dogma: having only 20 female senators isn't evidence of discrimination or sexism. If you assume that it is, you're part of a big problem.

to quote myself:
"But here is a statement that the author of the book wrote on the back cover: "what needs to be questioned is the notion that either sex is a victim". Because that's a predominant attitude when we discuss genders in society. That somehow the situation is bad and as such we have victims. But are there victims? If more men than women decide to join the armed forces does that mean there is a victim gender? If less women decide to work their asses off and as a consequence reach the top of the corporate ladder does that mean there is a victim gender? Why do so many people actively seek explanations, often with little evidence, which involves a victim status for either genders and at the same time disregard any theories which would weaken this "victim" status of either gender? Are our lives really so awesome we need to get out of our way to find things to complain about? Because that's how it sometimes feels like."

generals3:

boots:
First of all:

generals3:
me and other post feminists

bananafishtoday:

hahahahahahahahahaha

Pretty much covers it. What generals3 actually knows about feminism could be written on the back of a very small dinner wafer. Moving on.

Your derision is filled with delicious Irony. Do you even know what a post feminist is?

Let's look on Wikipedia, shall we?

"Post-feminism is a reaction against some perceived contradictions and absences of second-wave feminism. The term post-feminism is ill-defined and is used in inconsistent ways. "

Yeah, that sounds about right. What, did you hope that if you didn't bold that bit, I wouldn't notice it?

Also, notice the near-total lack of any academic sources in that article.

Also, notice the fact that you had to go and look it up on Wikipedia before you could explain what a postfeminist is. Lol.

This is probably the best way to admit it's all bollocks.

Yeah, that's more or less the reaction I was expecting. "Oh, so now you're refusing to cite every instance of sexism that exists or has ever existed and sum up decades of rigorous academic research and literature in 500 words or less? That must mean it's all bollocks."

I've provided a link to just one of the thousands of feminists texts out there. There's plenty of stuff on sexism in there. Go read it - go on, try reading just one book - and then come back to the discussion.

boots:

generals3:

boots:
First of all:

Pretty much covers it. What generals3 actually knows about feminism could be written on the back of a very small dinner wafer. Moving on.

Your derision is filled with delicious Irony. Do you even know what a post feminist is?

Let's look on Wikipedia, shall we?

"Post-feminism is a reaction against some perceived contradictions and absences of second-wave feminism. The term post-feminism is ill-defined and is used in inconsistent ways. "

Yeah, that sounds about right. What, did you hope that if you didn't bold that bit, I wouldn't notice it?

Also, notice the near-total lack of any academic sources in that article.

Also, notice the fact that you had to go and look it up on Wikipedia before you could explain what a postfeminist is. Lol.

I see why i was often told to ignore you. What is this extremely aggressive way of discussing things with you? I didn't just go and decided to use the word post feminist out of nowhere. I knew damn well what it meant, i quoted that part because otherwise you would have accused me to just be inventing things. But I guess being one step ahead is something you don't like because it reduces the amount of hostility you can throw in my direction?

And who needs academic sources to define a word? If the term is mostly used in a certain way what would be wrong with using it in that way? Just because that gives you the ability to be pointlessly hostile? Ever stopped thinking your methods simply want to make people reject whatever you're trying to promote even more? You might do feminism a great favor by acting a bit more diplomatically. Actually, to think of it, you're doing me a great service.

Yeah, that's more or less the reaction I was expecting. "Oh, so now you're refusing to cite every instance of sexism that exists or has ever existed and sum up decades of rigorous academic research and literature in 500 words or less? That must mean it's all bollocks."

I've provided a link to just one of the thousands of feminists texts out there. There's plenty of stuff on sexism in there. Go read it - go on, try reading just one book - and then come back to the discussion.

Which link have you provided me? Or do you mean links provided to Batou? And which one are you specifically talking about? The one about the ways the patriarchy negatively affects men?

Also it seems there was a bit you edited in later on:

I mean ... seriously? You ask that in a thread that all started off with a guy claiming that modern women are selfish, vain, cruel, feral "creatures" for refusing to give him the sex that he's entitled to, and a bunch of morons cheering him on in the comments? Probably not the best place to demand proof that sexism exists.

There are idiots of all kinds and they will always exist. However the existence of idiots does not prove we have a societal issue. You'll always have sexists around, does that mean humanity is doomed to be facing widespread sexism for all eternity?

Jarimir:

So.... it's wrong for women to want or to ask for something that isn't casual shovelware?

Maybe there isn't a market for more mainstream/hardcore games for women because no developer has had the balls or creative insight to make games like that.

There are many bro-hard, female sex-accessory games out there that completely turn me off and I am a male, so not only are these developers missing out on the female market, but they are also turning some of their potential MALE customers away with this bullshit.

I am failing to see your point here as it seems to be that you are indicating what is A LACK of real effort(shovelware) is also somehow evidence of real development or marketing effort.

Also, you must be high off of directly snorting steroids if you think games about babies, playing dress up, and the wii fit are going to appease women demanding more equal consideration and to be taken seriously by the gaming industry.

If anything your examples reinforce the issues brought up by the other side more than they help your case at all...

Women have a small market in "hardcore gaming", when divide up with in type of games, publishers, console, pc, developer, basically any variables the number grows smaller. Not to say there won't be overlap, but the truth is that women in "hardcore gaming" is insignificant, most thing a publisher and game developer could do is appease to their fan base while trying to garner more consumers. No one can try to appease to a base that just doesn't exist, or don't care about your product at all, as they have their own interest.

It sounds more like reality doesn't fit a belief you have. There is a female market, it doesn't fit your view of what a female market should be, because you figure that "hardcore gaming" was the norm. That's the mistake people keeps on making.

Magenera:
Women have a small market in "hardcore gaming", when divide up with in type of games, publishers, console, pc, developer, basically any variables the number grows smaller. Not to say there won't be overlap, but the truth is that women in "hardcore gaming" is insignificant, most thing a publisher and game developer could do is appease to their fan base while trying to garner more consumers.

28% of the fan base are "insignificant"?

28% of console gamers (note: Farmville ain't on a console) are female. And the casual vs. hardcore thing is still nonsense created by insecure people.

I was actually going to watch the video, but now I don't think I will.

On a slightly less relevant note: What's the deal with all the gender war bullshit?

Has the recent Anita Sarkeesian fiasco really had that much of an impact on the internet, or is it just something that I've apparently never noticed before?

I got to zero seconds through the video, and honestly I don't want to watch it if the comments are anything to go by.
Maybe when it's midnight, and I have nothing better to do, and I'd be too sleepy to give a crap about a wannabe "classy" man trying to define a two sentence definition in 15 minutes.

boots:

Magenera:
Women have a small market in "hardcore gaming", when divide up with in type of games, publishers, console, pc, developer, basically any variables the number grows smaller. Not to say there won't be overlap, but the truth is that women in "hardcore gaming" is insignificant, most thing a publisher and game developer could do is appease to their fan base while trying to garner more consumers.

28% of the fan base are "insignificant"?

28% of console gamers (note: Farmville ain't on a console) are female. And the casual vs. hardcore thing is still nonsense created by insecure people.

Your ignorance of the existence of a female market for video games is what get you in trouble. 50% of gamers being female does not mean that games will have half of it's base being female and male. Quoted hardcore gaming to mean male dominate video games, as it is over represented on the media. On the other hand turning the female base that is currently a minority in the male space of gaming to a phantom force will have trouble as publisher and developers will find that it doesn't exist, in fact they know real well that the female market for male dominate games are small. Females tend to flock towards the casual scene for video-games.

So I will say this again. Being half the gaming sex, does not mean it will have half the share in games. Groups will clutter up and become dominate in one area or another. The problem is that stupid belief, that half gamer's being female, means all games represent or should represent the fact that half the gamer's are female.

Magenera:
Your ignorance of the existence of a female market for video games is what get you in trouble. 50% of gamers being female does not mean that games will have half of it's base being female and male. Quoted hardcore gaming to mean male dominate video games, as it is over represented on the media.

Wait, so your definition of "hardcore" is "games for men"? O.o

On the other hand turning the female base that is currently a minority in the male space of gaming to a phantom force will have trouble as publisher and developers will find that it doesn't exist, in fact they know real well that the female market for male dominate games are small.

No seriously, what games are you talking about when you say "male dominate" games? Skyrim? Mass Effect? Assassin's Creed? Because those are some of the biggest titles released over the past few years and there are a hell of a lot of women playing them.

Females tend to flock towards the casual scene for video-games.

OK, name the "casual games" that are available on console and would account for the 28% of console gamers who are female. Also, explain why the arbitrary classification of a game as "casual" somehow means that the money people pay for it doesn't exist. Are all the dollars that people pour into "casual" games phantom dollars?

To be fair I should probably just leave this thread and let it die rather than open it up for yet more "this game doesn't count as a real game because I say it doesn't" bollocks.

Magenera:

Jarimir:

So.... it's wrong for women to want or to ask for something that isn't casual shovelware?

Maybe there isn't a market for more mainstream/hardcore games for women because no developer has had the balls or creative insight to make games like that.

There are many bro-hard, female sex-accessory games out there that completely turn me off and I am a male, so not only are these developers missing out on the female market, but they are also turning some of their potential MALE customers away with this bullshit.

I am failing to see your point here as it seems to be that you are indicating what is A LACK of real effort(shovelware) is also somehow evidence of real development or marketing effort.

Also, you must be high off of directly snorting steroids if you think games about babies, playing dress up, and the wii fit are going to appease women demanding more equal consideration and to be taken seriously by the gaming industry.

If anything your examples reinforce the issues brought up by the other side more than they help your case at all...

Women have a small market in "hardcore gaming", when divide up with in type of games, publishers, console, pc, developer, basically any variables the number grows smaller. Not to say there won't be overlap, but the truth is that women in "hardcore gaming" is insignificant, most thing a publisher and game developer could do is appease to their fan base while trying to garner more consumers. No one can try to appease to a base that just doesn't exist, or don't care about your product at all, as they have their own interest.

It sounds more like reality doesn't fit a belief you have. There is a female market, it doesn't fit your view of what a female market should be, because you figure that "hardcore gaming" was the norm. That's the mistake people keeps on making.

What are you trying to go on about? For both male and female the hardcore gaming market is smaller, because in both male and female population there are more casual gamers than hardcore gamers. The biggest issue when playing games that I really enjoy such as Darkfall, was not the lack of other females playing, it was the lack of interest to get my male friends to play it with me. With mmo gaming we want games that we can play with our friends as well, and I see the problem with games being too hardcore is that you can't really do that because of the different skill levels of those who you wish to play with. Sure you can play the games you enjoy by yourself, but then it is also not as fun because your friends aren't there with you.

As for women being " insignificant" in hardcore gaming, I also see that as untrue, as there are many women in hardcore gaming, just many women do not run around announcing that they are women in games to begin with. Most of the time, you don't want people to know your a girl because they seem to place more emphasis on that than your actual accomplishments in games and honestly it doesn't matter. Women already get enough harrassment in games, there is no point in drawing unnecessary attention to it. Personally, I could care less who knows I'm a girl, but many of my female friends make male characters and don't want many to know just because of the harrassment issue.

As for this video. Is this a joke? People actually take this creaton seriously? LOL! funny stuff there. I needed some comical relief.

Magenera:

Jarimir:

So.... it's wrong for women to want or to ask for something that isn't casual shovelware?

Maybe there isn't a market for more mainstream/hardcore games for women because no developer has had the balls or creative insight to make games like that.

There are many bro-hard, female sex-accessory games out there that completely turn me off and I am a male, so not only are these developers missing out on the female market, but they are also turning some of their potential MALE customers away with this bullshit.

I am failing to see your point here as it seems to be that you are indicating what is A LACK of real effort(shovelware) is also somehow evidence of real development or marketing effort.

Also, you must be high off of directly snorting steroids if you think games about babies, playing dress up, and the wii fit are going to appease women demanding more equal consideration and to be taken seriously by the gaming industry.

If anything your examples reinforce the issues brought up by the other side more than they help your case at all...

Women have a small market in "hardcore gaming", when divide up with in type of games, publishers, console, pc, developer, basically any variables the number grows smaller. Not to say there won't be overlap, but the truth is that women in "hardcore gaming" is insignificant, most thing a publisher and game developer could do is appease to their fan base while trying to garner more consumers. No one can try to appease to a base that just doesn't exist, or don't care about your product at all, as they have their own interest.

It sounds more like reality doesn't fit a belief you have. There is a female market, it doesn't fit your view of what a female market should be, because you figure that "hardcore gaming" was the norm. That's the mistake people keeps on making.

I know I typed "hardcore" but you seem to have missed the FRONT side of the / where "mainstream" was.

"Hardcore" is a small part of the gaming market whether you are talking about men or women, so why fixate on it? Is it because the small market of hardcore games best fits your narrative and argument? Or is it that you see hardcore games and gamers being the pinnacle of what video games should be? You wouldn't happen to count yourself along with these gods-among-men that are hardcore gamers would you?

You presume to lecture me about reality and beliefs at the same time you blatantly twist reality to suit yourself...

Nice try.

There IS a market for mainstream games that appeal to or at the very least don't turn off/away women. And it's not JUST women, I count myself, as a man, as someone that would like to see MORE games that break the stereotypes and clichés that haunt the gaming industry. You are SEEING that market speak up in forums and other discussions just like this, and the people that are speaking up are just a small part of that market.

Maybe it is you that would prefer to believe that such things just cannot be.

Jarimir:
There IS a market for mainstream games that appeal to or at the very least don't turn off/away women. And it's not JUST women, I count myself, as a man, as someone that would like to see MORE games that break the stereotypes and clichés that haunt the gaming industry. You are SEEING that market speak up in forums and other discussions just like this, and the people that are speaking up are just a small part of that market.

Maybe it is you that would prefer to believe that such things just cannot be.

Are the terms mainstream and AAA interchangeable?
Because with the way the industry is at the moment, 28% of the console market probably wouldn't be enough of a market share to justify a "risky" AAA game.
I personally avoid AAA games and have had no problem avoiding cliches and stereotypes (including those that are commonly considered sexist) when doing so.

Smeatza:

Jarimir:
There IS a market for mainstream games that appeal to or at the very least don't turn off/away women. And it's not JUST women, I count myself, as a man, as someone that would like to see MORE games that break the stereotypes and clichés that haunt the gaming industry. You are SEEING that market speak up in forums and other discussions just like this, and the people that are speaking up are just a small part of that market.

Maybe it is you that would prefer to believe that such things just cannot be.

Are the terms mainstream and AAA interchangeable?
Because with the way the industry is at the moment, 28% of the console market probably wouldn't be enough of a market share to justify a "risky" AAA game.
I personally avoid AAA games and have had no problem avoiding cliches and stereotypes (including those that are commonly considered sexist) when doing so.

Well... Personally I look at games with the following distinctions: casual, mainstream, hardcore
AAA just means a game was released by major developer rather than an "independent" one. You could say that most AAA games are "mainstream" in this scheme.

That is assuming that a game that would appeal to that 28% would be completely ignored by the rest of the 72%. Then there is the prospect that more games that appeal to women would attract more women to play. A savvy set of game developers might be able to create a bigger market.

I recently watched a "Jimquisition" video on pasta sauce. It was an enlightening view on what variety can do to a market. Many people including myself feel that the video game market is kind of stagnant ATM.

Call me judgemental, but the second I saw that guy I thought he'd be an egomaniac, pompous arse. I gave him 1:30 mins, then skipped through randomly. He proved me right. All the usual obsession with assembling strict convoluted hierarchies and self-assuring his own hard-earned superiority. Yes, he's right there are some colossal bitches in this world who are just rude and obnoxious for the sake of it. I don't think this is new, I'm sure their mothers or fathers were just the same, and that's where they learnt it. There's no use rationalising it, they're just spiteful people. It's not fun being on the other end of it, but the best solution is to look unimpressed and cease paying attention to them before they've had a chance to finish their sentence. Good acting is paramount in these situations. The less you appear to care about them, the more upset a narcissist seems to get.

Jarimir:
Well... Personally I look at games with the following distinctions: casual, mainstream, hardcore
AAA just means a game was released by major developer rather than an "independent" one. You could say that most AAA games are "mainstream" in this scheme.

See I wouldn't agree with those classifications.

Casual and hardcore refer to how the consumer plays the game, rather than what type of game it is.
For example, a hardcore World of Warcraft player could play for more than 5 hours a day, every day. A casual world of Warcraft player would play a few hours at a time for one month, and then cancel their subscription until they pick it up again in a few months time.
You might consider World of Warcraft a hardcore game because many people like to no-life it, but I play it casually. Angry Birds might be considered a casual game but I know people who play it for hours on end every day.

Mainstream refers to a game that has been successful. Games that are intended to be mainstream can find a cult following and vice versa. For example, Demon Souls was intended to be a cult classic (at least in the West) but it and it's sequels became so popular they reached the mainstream. On the other end you have games like Alan Wake that were intended to reach a mainstream crowd but ended up garnering a loyal cult following.
The upshot of this is that the responsibility for games to have better written female characters falls to the consumers, not the publishers or developers.

Jarimir:
That is assuming that a game that would appeal to that 28% would be completely ignored by the rest of the 72%.

Which is exactly how the guys in finance would calculate it.

Jarimir:
Then there is the prospect that more games that appeal to women would attract more women to play. A savvy set of game developers might be able to create a bigger market.

This doesn't help for the release of individual games though. A developer can hardly justify a flop with the excuse "well it'll bring us more players down the line."

Jarimir:
I recently watched a "Jimquisition" video on pasta sauce. It was an enlightening view on what variety can do to a market. Many people including myself feel that the video game market is kind of stagnant ATM.

And while I enjoyed that particular video as well, the relevance to the video game industry is limited.
For example, it's not going to cost that much, it's not much of a risk, for a pasta sauce company to produce 40 different jars of pasta source for the purpose of market research. It would be EXTREMELY expensive for a publisher/developer of video games to produce 40 different video games for the purpose of market research. If a pasta source company wishes to test how well received a new sauce will be they can roll it out to a few key stores, they can get people to do taste tests etc. etc. A video game publisher/developer could technically do this as well, but if you have reached the point where you have a product for people to test, you've already spent that much money, made that much of an investment, that there is no point in not releasing it to the public.

To be honest I think the video game industry is only as stagnant as it's ever been. If not then slightly fresher.

Smeatza:

Jarimir:
Well... Personally I look at games with the following distinctions: casual, mainstream, hardcore
AAA just means a game was released by major developer rather than an "independent" one. You could say that most AAA games are "mainstream" in this scheme.

See I wouldn't agree with those classifications.

Casual and hardcore refer to how the consumer plays the game, rather than what type of game it is.
For example, a hardcore World of Warcraft player could play for more than 5 hours a day, every day. A casual world of Warcraft player would play a few hours at a time for one month, and then cancel their subscription until they pick it up again in a few months time.
You might consider World of Warcraft a hardcore game because many people like to no-life it, but I play it casually. Angry Birds might be considered a casual game but I know people who play it for hours on end every day.

Mainstream refers to a game that has been successful. Games that are intended to be mainstream can find a cult following and vice versa. For example, Demon Souls was intended to be a cult classic (at least in the West) but it and it's sequels became so popular they reached the mainstream. On the other end you have games like Alan Wake that were intended to reach a mainstream crowd but ended up garnering a loyal cult following.
The upshot of this is that the responsibility for games to have better written female characters falls to the consumers, not the publishers or developers.

Jarimir:
That is assuming that a game that would appeal to that 28% would be completely ignored by the rest of the 72%.

Which is exactly how the guys in finance would calculate it.

Jarimir:
Then there is the prospect that more games that appeal to women would attract more women to play. A savvy set of game developers might be able to create a bigger market.

This doesn't help for the release of individual games though. A developer can hardly justify a flop with the excuse "well it'll bring us more players down the line."

Jarimir:
I recently watched a "Jimquisition" video on pasta sauce. It was an enlightening view on what variety can do to a market. Many people including myself feel that the video game market is kind of stagnant ATM.

And while I enjoyed that particular video as well, the relevance to the video game industry is limited.
For example, it's not going to cost that much, it's not much of a risk, for a pasta sauce company to produce 40 different jars of pasta source for the purpose of market research. It would be EXTREMELY expensive for a publisher/developer of video games to produce 40 different video games for the purpose of market research. If a pasta source company wishes to test how well received a new sauce will be they can roll it out to a few key stores, they can get people to do taste tests etc. etc. A video game publisher/developer could technically do this as well, but if you have reached the point where you have a product for people to test, you've already spent that much money, made that much of an investment, that there is no point in not releasing it to the public.

To be honest I think the video game industry is only as stagnant as it's ever been. If not then slightly fresher.

What a wonderful benefit of living in a relatively free society; two people can have different opinions and come to different conclusions about things and it doesn't have to be the end of the world for either of them.

Smeatza:

Jarimir:
Well... Personally I look at games with the following distinctions: casual, mainstream, hardcore
AAA just means a game was released by major developer rather than an "independent" one. You could say that most AAA games are "mainstream" in this scheme.

See I wouldn't agree with those classifications.

Casual and hardcore refer to how the consumer plays the game, rather than what type of game it is.
For example, a hardcore World of Warcraft player could play for more than 5 hours a day, every day. A casual world of Warcraft player would play a few hours at a time for one month, and then cancel their subscription until they pick it up again in a few months time.
You might consider World of Warcraft a hardcore game because many people like to no-life it, but I play it casually. Angry Birds might be considered a casual game but I know people who play it for hours on end every day.

Mainstream refers to a game that has been successful. Games that are intended to be mainstream can find a cult following and vice versa. For example, Demon Souls was intended to be a cult classic (at least in the West) but it and it's sequels became so popular they reached the mainstream. On the other end you have games like Alan Wake that were intended to reach a mainstream crowd but ended up garnering a loyal cult following.
The upshot of this is that the responsibility for games to have better written female characters falls to the consumers, not the publishers or developers.

Jarimir:
That is assuming that a game that would appeal to that 28% would be completely ignored by the rest of the 72%.

Which is exactly how the guys in finance would calculate it.

Jarimir:
Then there is the prospect that more games that appeal to women would attract more women to play. A savvy set of game developers might be able to create a bigger market.

This doesn't help for the release of individual games though. A developer can hardly justify a flop with the excuse "well it'll bring us more players down the line."

Jarimir:
I recently watched a "Jimquisition" video on pasta sauce. It was an enlightening view on what variety can do to a market. Many people including myself feel that the video game market is kind of stagnant ATM.

And while I enjoyed that particular video as well, the relevance to the video game industry is limited.
For example, it's not going to cost that much, it's not much of a risk, for a pasta sauce company to produce 40 different jars of pasta source for the purpose of market research. It would be EXTREMELY expensive for a publisher/developer of video games to produce 40 different video games for the purpose of market research. If a pasta source company wishes to test how well received a new sauce will be they can roll it out to a few key stores, they can get people to do taste tests etc. etc. A video game publisher/developer could technically do this as well, but if you have reached the point where you have a product for people to test, you've already spent that much money, made that much of an investment, that there is no point in not releasing it to the public.

To be honest I think the video game industry is only as stagnant as it's ever been. If not then slightly fresher.

I think that there is a distinct difference between " hardcore" games vs " casual" games. for example, You do not find " casual" gamers in games like Darkfall and Eve. They may come and go, then not come back but they don't usually play these games.

I think there is much more to it than "how you play the game" vs the game being designed for how they play the game.
The game is either designed for more challenging gameplay or it isn't and those qualities will attract the types of players who enjoy that play style. I do not know any hardcore gamer who actually considers World of warcraft a hardcore game because it does not require the challenge and the skill levels needed to play it as hardcore games do. Simply put, Hardcore gamers become bored quickly with games that are too easy such as world of warcraft.

There are far more casual gamers than hardcore gamers, so of course the games made available to them that are designed for them are much fewer in numbers, so you have more hardcore gamers flocking to specific games, while the majority of gamers play more casual friendly games such as World of warcraft.

As a female gamer who enjoys games like Darkfall and Eve, I find it is even more difficult to find games that I would be considered the target audience simply because the market is already so small for both male and female populations that want more challenging games, they only really cater to males in that market.

Magenera:

Jarimir:

So.... it's wrong for women to want or to ask for something that isn't casual shovelware?

Maybe there isn't a market for more mainstream/hardcore games for women because no developer has had the balls or creative insight to make games like that.

There are many bro-hard, female sex-accessory games out there that completely turn me off and I am a male, so not only are these developers missing out on the female market, but they are also turning some of their potential MALE customers away with this bullshit.

I am failing to see your point here as it seems to be that you are indicating what is A LACK of real effort(shovelware) is also somehow evidence of real development or marketing effort.

Also, you must be high off of directly snorting steroids if you think games about babies, playing dress up, and the wii fit are going to appease women demanding more equal consideration and to be taken seriously by the gaming industry.

If anything your examples reinforce the issues brought up by the other side more than they help your case at all...

Women have a small market in "hardcore gaming", when divide up with in type of games, publishers, console, pc, developer, basically any variables the number grows smaller. Not to say there won't be overlap, but the truth is that women in "hardcore gaming" is insignificant, most thing a publisher and game developer could do is appease to their fan base while trying to garner more consumers. No one can try to appease to a base that just doesn't exist, or don't care about your product at all, as they have their own interest.

It sounds more like reality doesn't fit a belief you have. There is a female market, it doesn't fit your view of what a female market should be, because you figure that "hardcore gaming" was the norm. That's the mistake people keeps on making.

The thing is though, they do not have to alienate their male market by inputting some female content as well. As what they would consider a " Female hardcore gamer" I do not feel that our input is insignificant, and could be considered as well. I see this resulting in more content for everyone rather than less.

If we combine both male and female content I think the games would be better and also increase their market to appeal to both male and female populations in that market. I do realize that the hardcore market in itself is a much smaller market to begin with for both males and females, but that market can be expanded if they make minor changes as well.
TBH from what I see in the " hardcore" market, guys honestly do not care as much about whether some stupid quest has a female trope in it or not. It doesn't always have to be there. They care about the gameplay, the pvp, and mechanics the same as I do. Of course in games like Dantes Inferno, for example, a very old story where the female role is critical to the story line, that should be understood that cannot be changed, nor should they be asking it to be. However, when making quests and such in games where the entire game is not based on this set old story, these things can be changed and are not necessary for the story line, or they can have alternate endings, as we see now in many games and you can choose. That just adds more content rather than takes content away.

I admittedly thought the whole prostitute quest in Conan was actually funny for example, but I can see it being awkward for someone with different sense of humor than I have. Also, as a female gamer, I have no issue with women being portrayed as sexy, I just would like to see men portrayed in the same way as well. Or even better yet have many options available in customization allowing for people to make their character as sexy or as prudish as they like. That again adds content rather than takes it away.

I see no reason we cannot work together, both male and female to make better games and increase content. The idea that is somehow a bad idea is what I find strange.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here