It Never Ends

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 

Jonathan Braun:

Nurb:

shifter85:

Oh noes! The feminazis are taking our MANHOOD!

Lol. You and that site is certainly making a good CASE for women in general adopting M4L as their life motto :D

My point is Misandry 4 Lyfers aren't a threat, they're just annoying 13 to 20 middle/upper class white girls pretending to be feminists that "HATE ALL MEN, CEPT MY BOYFRIEND LOL, AND TRANNIES".

They're a very narrow spectrum of people that the gaming media should be smart enough to see it and ignore them. They're the Westboro Baptist Church of feminism; intentionally offensive, invasive, and inflamatory, but laughably harmless.

Unlike feminist lobby groups who actively deny legislation MHRA's try to pass to equal the playing field, now there harmful.

What is an MHRA?

I'll get to the rest of this later.

Jonathan Braun:
You always bold Fifty Shades of Grey, as if saying it is taken as a personal offense to you.

In American English, titles of books are supposed to be italicized. However, at some point when I wasn't looking, everyone started using italics for emphasis (I would guess it happened because of internet forums, where bold words would look aggressive but italicized ones just look assertive). I think italics are already overused, though, in terms of what all they're expected to do--indicate titles, name ships and military crafts, draw a distinction between English and foreign words, and it's becoming more common to indicate silent monologues in fiction--so with all that going on, I think it's unnecessarily confusing to use italics for titles as well. I've therefore decided that bold font will replace italics when it comes to indicating a title. I will make this be true by force of will, so everyone should start adopting this rule already.

Jonathan Braun:
You did though, you feel that "people will buy it" is not a good enough reason when you believe it's just a "sex object" and thus harmful.

I did what? If you won't break up quotes, then please at least use objects in your sentences so I can know what we're talking about.

Jonathan Braun:
When you call something harmful, generally you want to see it gone. Yet in Fifty Shades of Grey's case, you ignore any validity that many women share Erika's tastes, saying that its popularity just means people bought it.

How are these two sentences connected? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.

But as to the second sentence, I am not ignoring any validity because there is no validity to ignore. When you say women buy the book because they share the fantasy, all you are doing is offering a theory that fits the available facts. You are offering no evidence or proof; you're just treating your theory as proof of itself. It's like back in the forties when Frederick Wertham saw that kids who hurt themselves playing make-believe read comic books, so he theorized that comic books were the cause. He had no proof of his assertion either, just a theory that fit the available facts.

Jonathan Braun:
What I mean is if you were the publisher backing her and only believed its worth was to be mined for material, then you wouldn't publish her book.

Why on Earth wouldn't I publish a book that I thought would make money? Why would I care what reason it made money for?

Jonathan Braun:
Mostly tongue in cheek, though cybermen have no gender there all just one, sounds like your problems would be fixed that way.

Tongue in cheek or not, this argument is crap on a variety of levels. On the surface, it's defeatist crap suggesting that there's no point trying to fight against a wrong because it can never be one hundred percent eradicated. On a deeper level, it's disingenuous crap because of how selectively people apply the argument. You never hear anyone say, "There's no point trying to stop people from murdering because people will always murder;" you only hear them say "There's no point trying to stop [X]" when X is something that person personally likes or benefits from. What's the point trying to stop games developers from making sexualized women? People will just keep sexualizing women, plus it gives me a boner!

Jonathan Braun:
Yet you want this industry to cut back on such characters (not even that many) to pander to a smaller audience with some of its members not even interested in the base game.

If the industry can only thrive as long as there's an atmosphere of sexually objectifying women, then the video games industry is fucking toxic and needs to die out.

Jonathan Braun:
Why not create women centric games and pander to them for balance?

For the same reason you don't say you shouldn't cure gangrene in a person's right foot as long as his left foot is healthy because that will balance out the gangrene.

Jonathan Braun:
Most games want as wide an audience they can, yet their main supporters are male gamers. What would such a game even look like to you? Or would it just be any other game with anything you disagree with cut out?

I really don't know what you're asking me here, so I have no idea if this is an appropriate answer to your question, but: The games I would like to see are games where the female characters dress like human beings dress, basing their choices on what's appropriate to the situation rather than what shows off the largest percentage of titty. Female characters would do things because they have reasons to do them rather than have things happen to them as part of a male character's story arc. Female characters would not have their love or bodies offered to either male characters or to male gamers as rewards, as if a woman's a trophy to be handed out. There would not be an inherent assumption that a female character must be the love interest of a male character, because developers would realize women are perfectly capable of existing outside of a relationship to a man. Writers would not put women into situations they wouldn't put men into, or vice-versa.

Jonathan Braun:
So you believe that twenty million people bought Fifty Shades of Grey to make fun of it?

I have no idea how many people bought it or why. All I'm saying is, you have no proof to offer me.

Jonathan Braun:
The Twilight series was able to make not films not because people laughed at it, but because it had a large fandom that connected with the book.

Fifty Shades of Grey is not the Twilight series.

JimB:
Snip

First of all, twilight is tweenage twilight where as Fifty Shades of Grey is adult twilight, as 50 is merely a fan fic derived from twilight. Also thank you for clarifying about your use of bold.

"For the same reason you don't say you shouldn't cure gangrene in a person's right foot as long as his left foot is healthy because that will balance out the gangrene."

This comment strikes me as if you'd like it if every and all games passed a superior version of the Bechdal test. Not every film passes the Bechdal test, but it also has many female centric films, unlike gaming where there are few female centric content. Games like you described can happen, but other games will exist.

Lastly cybermen is the conclusion to feminism, not a defeatist statement. Feminist hate gender roles thus should eliminate gender.

Nurb:
What is an MHRA?

The reason you know the word misandry.

Men Human rights activists, feminists have succeded in passing many gynocentric laws that negatively affect men that the MHRM wishes to deal with, but they don't have the money of feminist lobby groups and organizations.

Jonathan Braun:
First of all, Twilight is tweenage Twilight, whereas Fifty Shades of Grey is adult Twilight, since Fifty Shades of Grey is merely a fanfic derived from Twilight.

So? How does this prove that studio executives will treat or are treating it the same as the Twilight franchise? The upcoming movie Man of Steel looks, at least from the trailers, to be based heavily on the New Testament, but I don't see anyone hiring James Earl Jones to make audiobooks of the script the way they do for the Bible.

Jonathan Braun:
Also thank you for clarifying about your use of bold.

You're welcome.

Jonathan Braun:
This comment strikes me as if you'd like it if every and all games passed a superior version of the Bechdel test.

What does "superior version" mean? Because if there's a better version, sure, why not? I would like it if more things could pass better tests.

Jonathan Braun:
Not every film passes the Bechdel test, but there are also many female-centric films, unlike gaming where there is little female-centric content.

I am not arguing for the games industry to change its preconceptions because I want there to be more games I would buy. I am arguing for the games industry to change its preconceptions because I believe it is doing empirical harm to men and women alike (mostly women, but we all suffer under sexist assumptions).

Jonathan Braun:
Lastly cybermen is the conclusion to feminism, not a defeatist statement. Feminists hate gender roles, and thus want to eliminate gender.

Unless you are confused about the definition of the word "gender," this is kind of a horrible statement. See, "gender" doesn't refer to sexual characteristics; it refers to expected social roles based on sexual characteristics. It's like the difference between "woman" and "lady," if you see what I mean; or "man" and "gentleman." Anyone who wants to eliminate gender is wanting to eliminate social pressures to behave a certain way not based on your capabilities but based on the shape of your crotch, so unless you're confused about the definition of the word, you're arguing in defense of women having their place and not being allowed out of it.

veloper:
The implication here is that most blockbusters cater to the dumb, or more precisely, the largest audience through lowest common denominator and that will not change.

Except, again, that the lowest theoretically possible common denominator would not consist of less than one-fifth of the world population. (That's the actual proportion of white people in the world. And that's before sex, sexuality, age or religion enter the picture.)

chuckdm:
Making female characters in video games attractive - even comically so - is only a bad thing if they also lack depth.

Not quite. The problem is that when your character has a vagina, the game becomes porn.

"And for fucking what?" is the problem, more precisely. Are players supposed to masturbate while playing? That's the only possible vibe I'm getting, and for that, far more effective stuff is one Google search away. Hell, let's go ahead and assume it absolutely has to take the form of a video game -- you still have a shitload of choice out there waiting for you.

So what's the point? Could it be the contrarianistic, hardly-any-less-masturbatory thrill of Offending (R) The Feminists (R)? An urge to feel like edgy, special snowflakes apparently so powerful it takes priority over stuff like not being shit -- just to be dicks to a certain group of people? How in the unholy mother of fuck is that defensible?

Also, the other problem again. The guy's a bigoted cunt. Then again, this whole shitstorm -- and the fact that it is a shitstorm to begin with -- does nothing to convince me that the fault is specifically on him. As opposed to nerds at large.

So much for being Nice Guys.

JimB:
snip

My point being passing the bechdal test does not equate to a great, or even good film and that focus on having to pass such tests would kill any art form, turning it into propaganda.

My twilight/50 point is this, they pander to a female demographic, are popular and very profitable. We do not argue sexism in such literature to the same extent that feminist seem to vilify the games industry for pandering to a male audience, instead of them. "I believe it is doing empirical harm to men and women alike", yet female centric/pandering fiction is not, thus this "supposed" harm is hyperbolic at best. The answer is not to censor the games industry into political correct subservience, but to bring in more women, especially non-gamers with games that better appeal to them than fps, fighting, etc.

"you're arguing in defense of women having their place and not being allowed out of it.

No, your arguing for men to have no place, whilst women have there own places. I'm saying if this really does bother you and there really is nothing else you could play, than figure out why and try to come up with better games. Currently "girl games" tends to be viewed as an insult referring to casual or mobile games. This isn't just because of "misogyny", self proclaimed girl gamers seem to believe if they don't act just like the men then it shows that women are weak, that'd be like if a man forced himself to watch and keep up to date with female-centric media, lest he be viewed as a man.

Try as you might, gender roles do relate to our innate biology, so without eugenics and trans-humanism they'll still exist. Until we "evolve" into cybermen, thus losing all gender and sex, these arguments will only continue.

Edit: screwed up quotes

Jonathan Braun:
Men and women liking the same thing is a metaphysical impossibility because girls are strange and they have cooties and they're stupid and gay and they hate fun.

Lee Oyd:
Men and women liking the same thing is a metaphysical impossibility because girls are strange and they have cooties and they're stupid and gay and they hate fun.

There's overlap, but inherently we are different. And since many feminists and their ilk seem to complain about "sexist" video games, then the answer is simple they create games they actually like and stop complaining. Men may complain or laugh at Twilight, but not because they want it to appeal to them.

It's not "not appealing." It's specifically being dicks to a particular group of people just to feel like an edgy seekrit club of oppressed snowflakes. Not even Twilight shits this much, this consistently and this actively on the other half of humanity. Valve games have shittons of female fans and I don't remember being forced to look at Scout's bare ass 8 times per minute.

And shit, making lonely women masturbate to stupid crap doesn't even encompass the entire medium of literature like it does with video games.

Lee Oyd:
It's not "not appealing." It's specifically being dicks to a particular group of people just to feel like an edgy seekrit club of oppressed snowflakes. Not even Twilight shits this much, this consistently and this actively on the other half of humanity. Valve games have shittons of female fans and I don't remember being forced to look at Scout's bare ass 8 times per minute.

And shit, making lonely women masturbate to stupid crap doesn't even encompass the entire medium of literature like it does with video games.

Yeah, like overly sexualized females in games are the issue. They exist, though they barely make up even a fraction of all of gaming. jimB seems to find it problematic that women in gaming aren't the sole main character with no men in there lives, this does happen quite often and could be dealt with, if more females developed games. Of the 46% of female gamers, most only play casual and mobile games or play there games casually, few put in as much devotion as there male counterparts. This tells me that though women can and do like playing games, the current genres do little to attract female attention and a simple paint swap (i.e. removal of sexualization) is not the answer.

Wait, so you've seen men masturbate to Civilization?

Jonathan Braun:
My point being passing the Bechdel test does not equate to a great or even good film.

Fine, but I never said it does, so could you please limit your counterarguments to things I actually said?

Jonathan Braun:
My Twilight/Fifty point is this: They pander to a female demographic, are popular and very profitable.

No, Twilight panders to a pubescent female demographic by simultaneously targeting their budding need for sexual expression and their fear of sexual pain. As for whom Fifty Shades panders to...Christ if I know. Sub-literate masochists with fantasies of being raped, I guess.

Jonathan Braun:
We do not argue sexism in such literature to the same extent that feminists seem to vilify the games industry for pandering to a male audience instead of them.

Who's the "we" who aren't arguing there's sexism in literature? Is it you and me? Because yeah, I am not arguing about books on a website devoted to video games. Should I be?

Also, what do you think the word "pandering" means, such that women want to be pandered to?

Jonathan Braun:
"I believe it is doing empirical harm to men and women alike," yet female-centric/pandering fiction is not, thus this "supposed" harm is hyperbolic at best.

What you just said is so nonsensical I'm having a hard time thinking of a response to it. You seem to think I object to the industry's sexism against women for no other reason than that it's against women, and would have no problem if it was against me. That's crap. I object because--and how many times have I said this now, incidentally? Are you even paying attention any more?--we live in a world where judges will say a woman who accused a man of rape is a liar because she was wearing jeans and a man cannot rape a woman wearing jeans because he wouldn't be able to take them off without her consent, and I think the video games industry contributes to the atmosphere that wants us to treat women as sexual objects. I think that's pretty goddamned inarguable, actually.

Jonathan Braun:
The answer is not to censor the games industry into politically correct subservience, but to bring in more women, especially non-gamers with games that better appeal to them than first-person shooters, fighting, etc.

I do not care about how many women are interested in gaming. That is not my complaint. I care about the message the video games industry is sending and its contributions to a toxic culture of objectification. I care that it is part of the problem. Women not finding video games appealing is at most a symptom of a greater disease, and focusing on it is like giving someone Tylenol because the only part of his pneumonia you care about is his fever.

Jonathan Braun:
"You're arguing in defense of women having their place and not being allowed out of it."

No, you're arguing for men to have no place, while women have their own places.

Crap, and for two reasons. In the first place, a proponent of eliminating gender roles wants there to be no set place for either gender. In the second place, it's ridiculously offensive to me as a man that you sit here and argue a game has to dress a woman like a stripper in order for it to be "my place."

Jonathan Braun:
This isn't just because of "misogyny;" self-proclaimed girl gamers seem to believe if they don't act just like the men then it shows that women are weak.

And you don't see how a belief that acting like a woman is weak and therefore bad is the very definition of misogyny? You really don't?

Jonathan Braun:
Try as you might, gender roles do relate to our innate biology, so without eugenics and trans-humanism they'll still exist.

Crap. They're a social construct, just like wearing clothes and wiping our asses instead of running around naked with shit caked in our pubic hair like the animals we are. Gender roles are taught and learned, and there is no damned reason we can't teach and learn something better than "girls are pink, boys are blue."

Jonathan Braun:
JimB seems to find it problematic that women in gaming aren't the sole main character with no men in their lives.

I have said, multiple times and in extremely explicit language, what I find problematic. Please stop misrepresenting my position.

Jonathan Braun:
Yeah, like overly sexualized females in games are the issue.

Oh for fuck's sake.

The issue is that the very concept of not being about emptying your balls...is made about emptying your balls.

JimB:

Jonathan Braun:
This isn't just because of "misogyny;" self-proclaimed girl gamers seem to believe if they don't act just like the men then it shows that women are weak.

And you don't see how a belief that acting like a woman is weak and therefore bad is the very definition of misogyny? You really don't?

Women are the "misogynists" in that case then, they are the ones putting themselves up against the men. If a woman were to compete in in the mens 100m sprint, she lose and be perceived weak, that's why Olympic events are separated by gender. Gaming can have men/women equal at top tier, but the problem is far fewer women than men devote themselves to a hobby and thus men still dominate the highest tiers.

JimB:

Jonathan Braun:
Try as you might, gender roles do relate to our innate biology, so without eugenics and trans-humanism they'll still exist.

Crap. They're a social construct, just like wearing clothes and wiping our asses instead of running around naked with shit caked in our pubic hair like the animals we are. Gender roles are taught and learned, and there is no damned reason we can't teach and learn something better than "girls are pink, boys are blue."

Have you ever read a biology textbook? Hell, go look at apes, they don't have our harmful taught gender roles, yet they have the female as caregiver and males as strong and dominant. It has been proven in humans even without teaching said gender roles, males and females tended to naturally go that way. So your going to have to do something drastic to remove gender.

JimB:
As for whom Fifty Shades panders to...Christ if I know. Sub-literate masochists with fantasies of being raped, I guess.

That is the most common fetish among women, the fact it sells is proof of that and your lack of sympathy to such a fetish just shows you either do not share such fetish or are in the closet.

JimB:
"we live in a world where judges will say a woman who accused a man of rape is a liar because she was wearing jeans and a man cannot rape a woman wearing jeans because he wouldn't be able to take them off without her consent,"

Bull, a woman can falsely accuse a man of rape and he'll be jailed without even so much as due process, since of course women never lie and any questioning of their supposed "truth" is tantamount to victim-blaming.

JimB:
"Please stop misrepresenting my position." "The games I would like to see are games where the female characters dress like human beings dress, basing their choices on what's appropriate to the situation rather than what shows off the largest percentage of titty. Female characters would do things because they have reasons to do them rather than have things happen to them as part of a male character's story arc. Female characters would not have their love or bodies offered to either male characters or to male gamers as rewards, as if a woman's a trophy to be handed out. There would not be an inherent assumption that a female character must be the love interest of a male character, because developers would realize women are perfectly capable of existing outside of a relationship to a man. Writers would not put women into situations they wouldn't put men into, or vice-versa."

The only way you'd achieve this is to have women as the main character with no men in there lives. Also you are trivializing the immense work and time that goes into writing, and to that I take offense. This is not soviet Russia and you are not the gestapo.

Lee Oyd:

Jonathan Braun:
Yeah, like overly sexualized females in games are the issue.

Oh for fuck's sake.

The issue is that the very concept of not being about emptying your balls...is made about emptying your balls.

Sexualized characters are NOT the issue, it just allows many people to unite against something. If sexualized characters were an issue to people then fashion mags, celeb rags and advertisements portrayal of women, would've been dealt with as they are actually perpetuating harm. Since they still exist, any and all claims of "misogyny" or "harmful stereotypes" from video game characters should fall on deaf ears. "Toddlers in Tiaras" wasn't created because of video games. Normalization of women continually caking there faces with make-up until they've damaged face enough that they need makeup in order to look normal, also was not created nor is it perpetuated by Mai's jigging breasts.

The issue is that traditional gaming does not appeal to the vast majority of women, instead there happily tapping away at some mobile game.

Jonathan Braun:

JimB:

Jonathan Braun:
This isn't just because of "misogyny;" self-proclaimed girl gamers seem to believe if they don't act just like the men then it shows that women are weak.

And you don't see how a belief that acting like a woman is weak and therefore bad is the very definition of misogyny? You really don't?

Women are the "misogynists" in that case, then.

So what? How does that invalidate the point?

Jonathan Braun:
Have you ever read a biology textbook? Hell, go look at apes, they don't have our harmful taught gender roles, yet they have the female as caregiver and males as strong and dominant.

Huh. Been a long time since anyone told me that I should accept a behavior because monkeys accept it.

Jonathan Braun, gender roles are no longer relevant in the western world. Technology has made that so. Male animals are strong and dominant because they are more capable killers and can better defend the family unit, but human beings have guns, and now violence is completely equalized among the genders. Strength no longer matters; you just have to be able to point at someone and they will die.

Likewise, since we use money to buy food and shelter instead of killing other animals directly for them, women can now be every bit as capable as men of stepping out of the caregiver role and into the role of provider, depending on her job.

Jonathan Braun:
[Being raped] is the most common fetish among women.

I demand a citation for your assertion.

Jonathan Braun:
The fact that it sells is proof of that.

First of all, that's crap. That it sells is only proof that it sells, and implies nothing about the fantasies of the people buying it. Second, if we're determining the fantasies of all women based on literary sales trends, then the Twilight series is proof that the most common fetish among women is abstinence.

Jonathan Braun:
Your lack of sympathy to such a fetish just shows you either do not share the fetish or are in the closet.

No, it says I think people who genuinely enjoy Fifty Shades of Grey are sub-literate morons. I don't care if they like it for the bland-as-lukewarm-oatmeal sex scenes, or if they like it because they think the characters are compelling, or if they like it because they think the plot is tense.

Jonathan Braun:
A woman can falsely accuse a man of rape and he'll be jailed without even so much as due process.

Please provide examples of unproven rape allegations resulting in conviction in defiance of the law.

Jonathan Braun:
The only way you'd achieve this is to have women as the main characters with no men in their lives.

Are you arguing that only a woman who knows no men can be a protagonist? That simply knowing a male character invalidates her self-determination? Because that's pretty crap right there.

Jonathan Braun:
Also you are trivializing the immense work and time that goes into writing, and to that I take offense.

Then you are taking offense to a fantasy, because I never directly nor indirectly mentioned or referenced the work or time required to write, and I really have no idea what on Earth you're talking about.

Jonathan Braun:
This is not Soviet Russia and you are not the Gestapo.

I never said this is (whatever "this" means), and I never said I am.

JimB:
I never said this is (whatever "this" means), and I never said I am.

What you say is not just what you say.

this:

JimB:
"The games I would like to see are games where the female characters dress like human beings dress, basing their choices on what's appropriate to the situation rather than what shows off the largest percentage of titty. Female characters would do things because they have reasons to do them rather than have things happen to them as part of a male character's story arc. Female characters would not have their love or bodies offered to either male characters or to male gamers as rewards, as if a woman's a trophy to be handed out. There would not be an inherent assumption that a female character must be the love interest of a male character, because developers would realize women are perfectly capable of existing outside of a relationship to a man. Writers would not put women into situations they wouldn't put men into, or vice-versa."

Translation: Females should dress normal, and must be period clothing (w/e period it is). Females would only do something because the have to, not because some man tells her to. Females should never be in any danger ever and also have no relationship with any other male character. Again, no relationships the woman must be single, otherwise it undermines her credibility. Women and men should be treated completely equal, no exceptions.

JimB:
Are you arguing that only a woman who knows no men can be a protagonist? That simply knowing a male character invalidates her self-determination? Because that's pretty crap right there.

No you did. You cannot adhere to your "guidelines" w/o removing men entirely, or just not including humans at all.

JimB:
Jonathan Braun, gender roles are no longer relevant in the western world.

It is not, relevant or not relevant, we are biologically predisposed to certain attitudes. If you wish to rid yourself of gender roles then, you'll need to make people yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hOYO4KwJbzc

Lastly women being weaker then men, when they do not compete on equal terms, is not misogyny. If women competed on equal terms and won, yet was denied the victory, now that'd be misogyny.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:

feminists have succeded in passing many gynocentric laws that negatively affect men that the MHRM wishes to deal with

Such as?

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:

It is not, relevant or not relevant, we are biologically predisposed to certain attitudes. If you wish to rid yourself of gender roles then, you'll need to make people yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hOYO4KwJbzc

Are you a Poe and I'm not in on the joke, or do you honestly not see how attempting to back your argument with something that not only doesn't prove your point, but is so outdated and wrong as this brand of racism, does nothing but highlight your own flaws?

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Only one thing is ever sexist at one time ever. Nothing is sexist except what I say is.

Do you into words?

Before I begin, I want to thank you, Jonathan Braun, for learning how to quote. It's helpful.

I also want to ask, what the hell is up with your username being changed?

Anyway, let's bang our heads against some walls.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Translation:

I am trying very hard to be nice about this, but I gotta say, if this is genuinely what you think my words mean, then I think your reading comprehension is poor enough that our conversation is useless and should be abandoned. I will try to respond all the same for the sake of clarity, but I may be misunderstanding you since I don't know which specific parts of my argument you think correspond to your representations of my position.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Female characters should dress normally, and must be period clothing (whatever period it is).

I did not say they should dress normally and in period clothes. I said they should dress appropriately to the situation; that if Ivy has a choice between a thong and a suit of armor, but chooses the thong anyway, then she is a gibbering fucking moron.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Female characters would only do something because they have to, not because some man tells her to.

I don't think you understand what "story arc" means. I'm saying I want a female character's decisions to be based on her protagonism, not subordinated to someone else's.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Female characters should never be in any danger ever and also have no relationship with any other male character.

I can't even guess where you're getting this crap from. Is it the line about not putting women in situations you wouldn't put men in? Because all I'm talking about is not creating minigames around lesbian orgasms or including rape scenes, since you wouldn't do those things to a male character.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Again, no relationships; the woman must be single, otherwise it undermines her credibility.

No, I said I don't want there to be an inherent assumption that she'll hook up with a man. It's actually not terribly prevalent in games where women are the protagonists (Final Fantasy X-2 is the only one I can think of off the top of my head), but I thought it was worth emphasizing: If Megaman X, Kratos, and Link don't have to be someone's boyfriend at the end of the game, then female characters don't have to be someone's girlfriend.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Women and men should be treated completely equal, no exceptions.

Equality is crap. Equality is a stupid idea. Equality leads us to absurd arguments like putting the mentally handicapped in the same public schools as everyone else because it wouldn't be equal not to, despite their situations not being equal. I've never once used the word "equality" in this thread, and there's a reason for that.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
No you did. You cannot adhere to your guidelines without removing men entirely, or just not including humans at all.

Crap. Male protagonists manage to have their own agency all the time despite knowing female characters; it just so happens the female characters are shadows of the male characters who only exist to serve the male characters' story arcs (Kratos's wife by dying; Princess Peach by being a reward for Mario; et cetera). I am emphatically not proposing a reversal of the situation, but I am saying if it can be done for one sex, it can be done for the other.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:

JimB:
Jonathan Braun, gender roles are no longer relevant in the western world.

It is not, relevant or not relevant, we are biologically predisposed to certain attitudes.

This sentence is put together in a very weird way, and I do not understand it.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Lastly women being weaker then men, when they do not compete on equal terms, is not misogyny.

Same with this one.

Knight Templar:

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hOYO4KwJbzc

Are you a Poe and I'm not in on the joke, or do you honestly not see how attempting to back your argument with something that not only doesn't prove your point, but is so outdated and wrong as this brand of racism, does nothing but highlight your own flaws?

Hm. I didn't bother watching the video because I resent being expected to watch a video someone else made to get at in this case Jonathan Braun's words, but it sounds like I missed something good.

So I just realized something on the drive home from work.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY:
Have you ever read a biology textbook? Hell, go look at apes, they don't have our harmful taught gender roles, yet they have the female as caregiver and males as strong and dominant.

It just now occurred to me that I don't think I've ever heard you say gender roles are a good thing. You've only said there are biological reasons for them, which doesn't even imply that they're good; shit, there are biological reasons for schizophrenia, but no one is suggesting we shouldn't treat schizophrenics just because there's a biological cause for their behaviors.

TTYTYTTYYTTYTTTY, do you actually think gender roles are a good and necessary element of society? If so, why?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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
Register for a free account here