Kickstarter Video Project Attracts Misogynist Horde

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NEXT
 

ACman:

Calibanbutcher:

ACman:

Well that's tough. One of the realities in allowing people to make accusations about anything is that they may make false accusations. A sad fact of life that we have to deal with.

I feel far more anger about false accusations by police jumped up prosecutors going for the highest possible charge just to make their dick feel big.

I also don't care to whom you were responding to. Screaming loudly about about how women falsely accuse of rape on a forum about misogyny makes you misogynist.

You are a blithering idiot.
And here is why:
He said, that women should not FALSELY accuse a man of rape.
Not that rape victims should not report rape.
They should, always, and rapists deserve harsh punishments.
But a woman that knowingly accuses an innocent man of having raped her, when, in fact, every single thing about her story is made up, deserves to be harshly punished.
She is trying to ruin his life, abuse the legal system and, will, in turn make it harder for actual rape victims to be taken seriously.
Rape is horrible.
But accusing a man of rape, knowing, that this man did not commit such a heinous crime, and, in fact, the story is entirely made-up is also horrible.

He's a blithering idiot for bringing up on a forum about misogyny.

If you can't see how obtuse that is then you're a blithering idiot for defending him.

When the argument is "men shouldn't be sexist dicks in internet posts" the counter argument should not be "women shouldn't falsely report rape." .

A person shouldn't falsely accuse somebody of anything. WHY FOCUS ON RAPE? If you want to talk about that, do it on a separate forum post. Here it just makes him, and by association, the rest of us look like pigs.

The implication is that he thinks (Whether he does or not) that it's okay to call women sluts and whore from the anonymity of an internet terminal because *some* (meaning very fucking few) women falsely report rape.

He even take the time to compare male circumcision (the removal of a small piece of skin which leaves altered sensation but where function and pleasure are still possible) to female genital mutilation where the entire clitoris and even the labial lips are removed. Circumcision is not comparable to female genital mutilation. If they were equivalent the penis would be severed halfway down the shaft.

For female circumcision vs male genital mutilation (two can play this game) see the guy above me.
(But a little add-on: You do know, that male genital mutilation also means taking many, many nerv-endings? That piece of skin is not just a piece of sin, it also contains a majority of all nerve endings in the penis)
Now, as for the rest of your post:

Why is falsely accusing someone of rape:
Again, Schadrach nailed it.

And he never used it as a direct counter-argument to the inital topic, the thread had long since then derailed.

"The implication":
Well, you just had to go and make something up, didn't you?
Never mind that he never said that, never implied it and did not make himself out to be a misogynist and even presented sources to back up his claims.

When in doubt, make up accusations.

Since this is an argument about false accusations, this really is quite ironic, wouldn't you agree?

(Also, anyone got the name for this fallacy?)

And one more thing:
ADOLF HITLER.
Now Godwin's Law is also taken care of.

Trekkie:
snip

Firstly, Jesus Christ that's a lot of text! It's a testament to how deep our feelings are on this subject that we a) can be bothered to spend that much time typing and b)can be bothered to read the reply. It's probably also a testament to how we need to get a life...

Trekkie:
he even showed me the form he had to sign in order to be able to vote :/ , his sister however did not have to register for the draft.

As awful as this is, it's worth remembering that women don't get out of this because they are considered superior in some way. They aren't included because they're not considered physically or mentally strong enough.

Trekkie:
One of my drinking buddies was told that if he didn't marry then he was taking away the happiness of someone ells.... a man is only a stud if he sleeps with attractive women, same with women who get very attractive men or women who get young men and are called cougars, a term used from what iv seen as a glorification whilst a man who sleeps with young women is a called a creep... Seriously I have actually seen men refuse to use the same bathroom stall with a man who dose this in case they get herpes or something. and have seen men clean anything his bare arse touches with bleach, like a portable toilet. and if you think im exaggerating, im really not. Ask guys this they will confirm.

I've definitely NEVER come across either of those two phenomena - men being told they are taking away from someone's happiness, and men ostracising other men who sleep around. Obviously I can't deny it happens, but I'll admit I'm extremely dubious. And it can't possibly be as prevalent as the pressure/disgust showered on women for these things.

Cougar is a fairly new term, but it often still has negative connotations (predatory, for example). The one I've heard most in this situation is 'cradle-snatcher', which is even used for women who are dating someone only a year or so younger. Obviously I've heard men being called 'creep' before, but you just have to look at the amount of age-gap relationships with older men to see that it's a thousand times more acceptable than the other way round (yes, a thousand times is the actual, real statistic. I did research... asking people in a pub counts as research, right?).

Your point about jobs I find difficult to counter, since both of us are only using conjecture. In a society where the gender split is 50/50, the disparity between genders in the workplace is staggering, and one that can't simply be explained away with 'women have families' or 'women don't like stressful jobs'. And don't get me started on different salaries for men and women doing exactly the same job. Seriously, just don't.

Trekkie:
the birth rate is starting to falter because women aren't interested in grass eaters and so it has made the media and Japanese govt put out press releases saying that men need to man up!

Just as I'm sure men aren't interested in women who just sit at home all day twirling their hair and watching Murder She Wrote. That's just common sense - some of it may be materialistic, but not all. Having a job shows drive, intelligence, staying power, interpersonal skills - general stuff that's pretty desirable (essential even) in a partner of either gender.

Trekkie:
and all a circumcision dose is inhibit male sexual sensation. so why is Female GM illegal in most countries and Male GM (and i will call it genital mutilation because that's what it is, you are cutting off a piece of the mas penis that by the way is fused to his glands at birth by default) why is that legal everywhere?

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about this topic, but male circumcision isn't performed on men by women who are doing it as a form of social control.

Trekkie:
apparently he think men who complain about misandry in games are just cry babies who need to grow up. see a parallel? and this is a games journalist.....

I actually agree with everything he says in this article (Jim Sterling - Thank GOD for you!). He makes some good points about the fact that the calls of misandry in computer games is all a reaction to this video. There are negative stereotypes of men in games, films, society in general but they are vastly outnumbered by the negative (and yes, misogynistic) views of women, which are not only prevalent but are largely ignored. See also 'Tropes vs Moviebob'.

Hollyday:

Firstly, Jesus Christ that's a lot of text! It's a testament to how deep our feelings are on this subject that we a) can be bothered to spend that much time typing and b)can be bothered to read the reply. It's probably also a testament to how we need to get a life...

Yeah i think ill make this my last reply, i cant spend all day replying to people, i need to play some skyrim :P

Hollyday:

As awful as this is, it's worth remembering that women don't get out of this because they are considered superior in some way. They aren't included because they're not considered physically or mentally strong enough.

well whilst that maybe true, and the fact of the matter is that men are typicall more physically stronger than women, watch the Olympics weight lifting to see that i guess, and although i don't think most people see women as mentally weaker, but just a few vocal few its worth noticing that whilst feminists rant and rage about discrimination in the military, they haver never once said "we want the draft for women" and campaigned for it.

Hollyday:

I've definitely NEVER come across either of those two phenomena - men being told they are taking away from someone's happiness, and men ostracising other men who sleep around. Obviously I can't deny it happens, but I'll admit I'm extremely dubious. And it can't possibly be as prevalent as the pressure/disgust showered on women for these things.

be honest i think never seeing it towards men may have something to do with by the time most men reach that age they are or have already been married and so you never really see it unless you hang around men all the time. from what iv seen it main component with it is children, like if he is unwilling to father children with someone then he is refusing her the right to be a mother. the easiest way to see it is to go to a family party as a plus one and observe a mother with her adult sons. if they have not already had children she will try to pressure them by saying "i cant wait to be a grandmother, why haven't you two brought a lovely girl with you? how are you not married yet?" etc etc. last time I was at a family party, all my relatives kept asking me "why haven't you got a nice girl, when are you going to get a girlfriend..... i drank sooo much that night :P

Hollyday:

Cougar is a fairly new term, but it often still has negative connotations (predatory, for example). The one I've heard most in this situation is 'cradle-snatcher', which is even used for women who are dating someone only a year or so younger. Obviously I've heard men being called 'creep' before, but you just have to look at the amount of age-gap relationships with older men to see that it's a thousand times more acceptable than the other way round (yes, a thousand times is the actual, real statistic. I did research... asking people in a pub counts as research, right?).

i see your point about cougar being a predatory term but iv seen it used in more positive than negative lights. for instance there was a tv show called cougar town.

as for your research?.... depends how drunk they where? :P

Hollyday:

Your point about jobs I find difficult to counter, since both of us are only using conjecture. In a society where the gender split is 50/50, the disparity between genders in the workplace is staggering, and one that can't simply be explained away with 'women have families' or 'women don't like stressful jobs'. And don't get me started on different salaries for men and women doing exactly the same job. Seriously, just don't.

well like it said in the CONSAD report, there are too many factors to do with choice to accurately account for the gender wage gap and gender disparity in the work place. yes that is shortening it down but i don't want to flood the page again :P

Hollyday:

Just as I'm sure men aren't interested in women who just sit at home all day twirling their hair and watching Murder She Wrote. That's just common sense - some of it may be materialistic, but not all. Having a job shows drive, intelligence, staying power, interpersonal skills - general stuff that's pretty desirable (essential even) in a partner of either gender.

Although that is true and trust me id love it if i found a girlfriend who could build a computer and change a cars head gasket, most men dont really care if their GF dose or doesn't work, my EX didn't for example, but i don't want to talk about her..... :/

a couple of years ago when i was doing my bricklaying course i had to wait around for an hour and a half for class to start because my collage was so far away the bus only came at a curtain time. and in that time i used to sit around in the canteen and play angry birds ETC however it was in this time that i also used to casually listen into convocations. now dont get me wrong the girls at that collage where nothing like women on here, the girls at that collage used to sicken me. However I noticed that girls where usually very picky about guys when it came to jobs. i noticed that they would ask around and see what a guy has and dose before they try to get their attention. the most common one was a lot of girls wouldn't consider going out with a guy unless he had a car, things that guys don't really care about.

Hollyday:

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about this topic, but male circumcision isn't performed on men by women who are doing it as a form of social control.

well actually thats where we disagree. http://www.genderlinks.org.za/article/swaziland-women-love-male-circumcision-2012-03-05

in places like Sweden (just don't get me started with that country), Swaziland and most of Africa nations, governments have began circumcision programs. this is apparently to stop aids and other infectious diseases. however in reality it make no difference to HIV/Aids or any other disease but people seem to be convinced that its "cleaner" and in places like Swaziland, Sweden ETC men who aren't circumcised have began to be seen as unclean or a risk and many are finding it hard to find a relationship.

Hollyday:

I actually agree with everything he says in this article (Jim Sterling - Thank GOD for you!). He makes some good points about the fact that the calls of misandry in computer games is all a reaction to this video. There are negative stereotypes of men in games, films, society in general but they are vastly outnumbered by the negative (and yes, misogynistic) views of women, which are not only prevalent but are largely ignored. See also 'Tropes vs Moviebob'.

even if it is just a response every time a man points out misandry we are "cry babies" a while back (it was on here so you may remember) a Russian developer reviled their plans to charge men more than women to play. when people said this is sexist against men the response was "oh quit complaining, they just want more women to play" when really if women wanted to play they would play regardless of the price.

and even if it is a response its still valid. if a youtube video pointed out the fact that men pay 2-3 times more for car insurance than women on the basis that they are men and you pointed out the old women driver jokes and how some men see women as bad drivers for being women. yours is still a valid point and you shouldn't just be called a "cry baby" because your pointing out how women get fucked over to. If we call people cry babies for pointing out the other side of the story then how can we ever have a real in-depth analysis? y'know like me and you are having now.

and yes whilst it may be true that there are an awful lot of negative stereotypes for women, having positive ones isn't so great to. Because if you don't live up to them your not seen as a "real man" like if you don't feel comfortable with going to war after being called up for the draft your "not a real man" because society sees men as couragus and should always be willing to do their part for their country. during WW1 there where groups of women who went around presenting white feather to any man over 16 who wasn't in a military uniform. back then the with feather meant that you was a coward. so what these women did was call any man who didn't want to go to war and die in a muddy, mustard gas filled trench and contract trench foot in the process.. a coward.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/11/first-world-war-white-feather-cowardice

ACman:

If you can't see how obtuse that is then you're a blithering idiot for defending him.

First off thank you for defending :)

ACman:

A person shouldn't falsely accuse somebody of anything. WHY FOCUS ON RAPE? If you want to talk about that, do it on a separate forum post. Here it just makes him, and by association, the rest of us look like pigs.

okay heres the thing, this thread has been going on for over a THOUSAND posts,do you not think it would have derailed and stemmed of into other matters? they all do!

ACman:

The implication is that he thinks (Whether he does or not) that it's okay to call women sluts and whore from the anonymity of an internet terminal because *some* (meaning very fucking few) women falsely report rape.

I never said that. what i said was a flase accusation screws all of us over because it takes police time and Tax payer money away from solving a crime that actually happened. where in my post did i call a women sluts if they report rape? hell where did i even use the word slut before this?

ACman:

He even take the time to compare male circumcision (the removal of a small piece of skin which leaves altered sensation but where function and pleasure are still possible) to female genital mutilation where the entire clitoris and even the labial lips are removed. Circumcision is not comparable to female genital mutilation. If they were equivalent the penis would be severed halfway down the shaft.

your eyelid is a piece of skin do you want that removed? when your circumcise someone you are CUTTING OFF A PIECE OF THEIR BODY! and this is done when they are a baby so they have no say in the matter, taking away their rights as a human being. hell some hospitals do it without telling the parents.

http://mothering.com/jennifermargulis/rejecting-modern-medicine/a-newborn-in-the-hospital-circumcised-without-his-parents-consent

when you circumcise someone you are cutting them up and altering something that their body dose. i think you'll find that there are nerve ending inside the vagina as well as on the clitoris meaning the woman will still fell sex and pleasure is still possible. but that doesn't make it right it is still mutilation!

besides if men where meant to have foreskins we would be born with them..... oh wait....

And, to chime in on circumcision one last time:
It is done as a form of social control and to meet a very twisted beauty standard.
Social control, as in, Kellogs made it popular to prevent boys from masturbating.
And beauty, since by now, it has become so widespread, that some women are disgusted by the non-circumcised penis.

Hollyday:

I've definitely NEVER come across either of those two phenomena - men being told they are taking away from someone's happiness, and men ostracising other men who sleep around. Obviously I can't deny it happens, but I'll admit I'm extremely dubious. And it can't possibly be as prevalent as the pressure/disgust showered on women for these things.

remember when I said about the grass eating boys? well there was one article on here about it. a very short one mind you that briefly discussed the "grass eating boys"

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/115977-Not-Wanting-a-Girlfriend-is-a-Serious-Illness

the article focuses on the Japanese governments blaming of games and nerd culture as part of why it is happening (ofcourse) but the main point is that the article is about guys in Japan just don't want to climb the ladder and compete with each other for societal status anymore. instead just want do their own thing and not society tells them to do..... and this is society's reply. plus it also ties in with men pressure to get married and have a family.

Schadrach:

ACman:

A person shouldn't falsely accuse somebody of anything. WHY FOCUS ON RAPE?

Because it's one of the few crimes where a conviction can be brought about on no real evidence other than an allegation, that in cases of false allegation *still* ruins the life of the accused even if not convicted, and for which even persons who do falsely accuse are only rarely actually charged with it, even more rarely convicted, and even then the punishment in most jurisdictions is equivalent to that of speeding?

ACman:
He even take the time to compare male circumcision (the removal of a small piece of skin which leaves altered sensation but where function and pleasure are still possible) to female genital mutilation where the entire clitoris and even the labial lips are removed. Circumcision is not comparable to female genital mutilation. If they were equivalent the penis would be severed halfway down the shaft.

Actually, male circumcision is exactly homologous to female genital mutilation type Ia, the removal of the prepuce [1] only, removing a large number of nerve endings and causing the glans [2] to become desensitized from being exposed instead of being essentially an internal organ. That this is seen as a horrible and wrong activity to perform against women but not men (actually, WHO is encouraging it on men) is outright sexist.

Most other types of FGM (types Ib, II, and III -- type IV is essentially "other" and includes things as minor as a symbolic nick, but also as severe as slicing the inside of the vaginal canal in order to enlarge it) do not have a real analogue performed on males, and are even more barbaric than type Ia (excepting type IV, which is all over the place).

And it is inappropriate to talk about that on a forum about misogyny.

And NO. SLIGHTLY DECREASED SENSATION IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO HAVING YOUR BITS CUT OFF!!!!

[1] referred to more commonly as the foreskin on males or clitoral hood on females
[2] the head of the penis in males or clitoris in females

Trekkie:

ACman:

If you can't see how obtuse that is then you're a blithering idiot for defending him.

First off thank you for defending :)

ACman:

A person shouldn't falsely accuse somebody of anything. WHY FOCUS ON RAPE? If you want to talk about that, do it on a separate forum post. Here it just makes him, and by association, the rest of us look like pigs.

okay heres the thing, this thread has been going on for over a THOUSAND posts,do you not think it would have derailed and stemmed of into other matters? they all do!

ACman:

The implication is that he thinks (Whether he does or not) that it's okay to call women sluts and whore from the anonymity of an internet terminal because *some* (meaning very fucking few) women falsely report rape.

I never said that. what i said was a flase accusation screws all of us over because it takes police time and Tax payer money away from solving a crime that actually happened. where in my post did i call a women sluts if they report rape? hell where did i even use the word slut before this?

ACman:

He even take the time to compare male circumcision (the removal of a small piece of skin which leaves altered sensation but where function and pleasure are still possible) to female genital mutilation where the entire clitoris and even the labial lips are removed. Circumcision is not comparable to female genital mutilation. If they were equivalent the penis would be severed halfway down the shaft.

your eyelid is a piece of skin do you want that removed? when your circumcise someone you are CUTTING OFF A PIECE OF THEIR BODY! and this is done when they are a baby so they have no say in the matter, taking away their rights as a human being. hell some hospitals do it without telling the parents.

http://mothering.com/jennifermargulis/rejecting-modern-medicine/a-newborn-in-the-hospital-circumcised-without-his-parents-consent

when you circumcise someone you are cutting them up and altering something that their body dose. i think you'll find that there are nerve ending inside the vagina as well as on the clitoris meaning the woman will still fell sex and pleasure is still possible. but that doesn't make it right it is still mutilation!

besides if men where meant to have foreskins we would be born with them..... oh wait....

Mate you're obviously a refugee from r/mensrights

I'm not saying I agree with male circumcision but I will unequivocally say that comparing it to female genital mutilation is NOT APPROPRIATE. AND claiming that society supporting one and rightly denouncing another is sexist IS IN FACT SEXIST.

Your a whinging manbaby. Of all the small difficult things that happen to men you can only find one (accusations of rape) that don't happen to women tenfold. And in some countries being raped results in marrying you rapist or being honour killed. DOES THAT EVER HAPPEN TO MEN?

Calibanbutcher:
blah

YES! The fucking implication.

Trekkie's obsession with false accusations of rape, "grass eating boys" in Japan, and comparing male circumcision to female genital mutilation imply something deeply worrying about his character.

A) Men rape. If a tiny minority of us didn't an even tinyer minority of women wouldn't be able to falsely accuse us of it.

B) I don't know where he's going with Grass Eating boy's but he seems to be implying that it's women's fault that as small percentage of men lack the social skills to have a girlfriend.

C) While I don't agree with male circumcision I certainly do not think it's appropriate to complain that societies acceptance of it while vilifying female genital mutilation is somehow sexist against men. <---This is utter insanity.

Yes the piece of skin involved has lots of nerve endings. NEWS FLASH. They don't cut off the entire end of your cock, it does't make sex painful, it doesn't eliminate sexual pleasure as female genital mutilation does for women, it isn't used as a tool to control men's sexuality.

^^^SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

He's trying to justify his misogyny.

And while forum threads may mutate it's tragically ironic that while the topic was originally decrying misogyny it has turned into a list of justifications for it. r/mensrights.

I'll leave you manchildren to it.

ACman:

And it is inappropriate to talk about that on a forum about misogyny.

And NO. SLIGHTLY DECREASED SENSATION IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO HAVING YOUR BITS CUT OFF!!!!

Hmm, an unasked for medical procedure that removes sensations and massive amount of nerve endings based on antiquated religious practices that try to guide population by stemming natural sexual urges and have become followed based on tradition and social pressures...
Yeah....no, they are pretty similar in a lot of respects. Hell, even if only on the whole "unasked for surgery done to a child" aspect, it comes off as pretty evil to both genders, once you abandon the idea that the commonality of it means it is ok.

Also, as people have said, the topic has branched out all over the place. Seems silly to put the foot down on this one issue when it relates back to a counter point concerning misogyny in the first place. Uncomfortable talking about people being mutilated, yeah, but a valid reason relating to the main subject as well. And yes, it is mutilation since that is defined as either "the loss of limb or important part" (which can be argued given the purpose of the foreskin), or more fittingly "To disfigure by damaging irreparably", which is true of having the largest collection of sensitive nerves in the organ being removed. Again, without permission or consent in most cases.

Also, why are you getting so much more hostile as the conversation goes? I mean slinging accusations, attacking the character of other posters... you are starting to come apart at the seems and look more and more like you are trying to troll then have a legitimate discussion here mate.

ACman:
\
Mate you're obviously a refugee from r/mensrights

I'm not saying I agree with male circumcision but I will unequivocally say that comparing it to female genital mutilation is NOT APPROPRIATE. AND claiming that society supporting one and rightly denouncing another is sexist IS IN FACT SEXIST.

Your a whinging manbaby. Of all the small difficult things that happen to men you can only find one (accusations of rape) that don't happen to women tenfold. And in some countries being raped results in marrying you rapist or being honour killed. DOES THAT EVER HAPPEN TO MEN?

Alright. Here we go. I'm not calling you out, I'm using your post as it was the most recent at time of typing.

What the fuck?
Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with the people here?
How did we get from, "A woman who is bringing nothing new to the table and really doesn't deserve money for this project being internet harassed" to,"male circumcision"!?
And rape?

What the fuck. One of you needs to explain it to me because we are 34 pages in, and the subject has long been lost.

LastGreatBlasphemer:

Alright. Here we go. I'm not calling you out, I'm using your post as it was the most recent at time of typing.

What the fuck?
Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with the people here?
How did we get from, "A woman who is bringing nothing new to the table and really doesn't deserve money for this project being internet harassed" to,"male circumcision"!?
And rape?

What the fuck. One of you needs to explain it to me because we are 34 pages in, and the subject has long been lost.

From what I saw, the conversation went from about her issues about female tropes in gaming to opening it up about how tropes of all sorts are prevalent and that there are many that apply to men as well. This was countered by a special pleading about how women have it worse in society in general, which was countered with examples relating to rape (how claims are handled differ by gender, how they affect the gender claimed upon, etc.), and male circumcision (in contrast to female circumcision, which is vilified, male circumcision is widely accepted if not outright encouraged in some places.). Thus we are here. Soo...

Female tropes in games-----> Tropes in games in general ------> special pleading about women's issues in society ----> counter about male issues in society, including those relating to rape and circumcision.

ACman:

Schadrach:

ACman:

A person shouldn't falsely accuse somebody of anything. WHY FOCUS ON RAPE?

Because it's one of the few crimes where a conviction can be brought about on no real evidence other than an allegation, that in cases of false allegation *still* ruins the life of the accused even if not convicted, and for which even persons who do falsely accuse are only rarely actually charged with it, even more rarely convicted, and even then the punishment in most jurisdictions is equivalent to that of speeding?

ACman:
He even take the time to compare male circumcision (the removal of a small piece of skin which leaves altered sensation but where function and pleasure are still possible) to female genital mutilation where the entire clitoris and even the labial lips are removed. Circumcision is not comparable to female genital mutilation. If they were equivalent the penis would be severed halfway down the shaft.

Actually, male circumcision is exactly homologous to female genital mutilation type Ia, the removal of the prepuce [1] only, removing a large number of nerve endings and causing the glans [2] to become desensitized from being exposed instead of being essentially an internal organ. That this is seen as a horrible and wrong activity to perform against women but not men (actually, WHO is encouraging it on men) is outright sexist.

Most other types of FGM (types Ib, II, and III -- type IV is essentially "other" and includes things as minor as a symbolic nick, but also as severe as slicing the inside of the vaginal canal in order to enlarge it) do not have a real analogue performed on males, and are even more barbaric than type Ia (excepting type IV, which is all over the place).

And it is inappropriate to talk about that on a forum about misogyny.

And NO. SLIGHTLY DECREASED SENSATION IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO HAVING YOUR BITS CUT OFF!!!!

Do you understand the language used to describe the various types and kinds of FGM?

Type Ia is the removal of the prepuce. No more, no less. It is literally the removal of the homologous part of the anatomy to what is done in male circumcision. The prepuce in females is more commonly called the clitoral hood, as opposed to the foreskin on a male and it serves an equivalent function -- to cover the glans (the clitoris or head of the penis) protecting it from the environment as it is supposed to be an internal bit, as well as the prepuce carrying a lot of nerve endings of its own. The removal of the prepuce exposes the glans, causing it to dry, toughen, and reduce in sensitivity, in a process that is essentially the same as the one that causes corns on the feet.

Type Ib is partial or total removal of the clitoris. Type II involves partial or total removal of the labia as well. Type III is what is known as infibulation or "pharaonic circumcision", which is the one in which the clitoris and labia are removed and the legs bound together to cause the wound to grow together, leaving only a small opening for urine and menstruation. Type IV is literally anything else, from a small symbolic nick, to gouging the inner surfaces of the vagina.

Type Ia is exactly homologous to what is done to men. The others are much more severe and increasingly barbaric, excepting specific cases of type IV, as type IV is a catch-all for anything that isn't type I-III.

ACman:

B) I don't know where he's going with Grass Eating boy's but he seems to be implying that it's women's fault that as small percentage of men lack the social skills to have a girlfriend.

The "grass eaters" are a subculture in Japan who basically look at the requirements placed on men by Japanese culture, and essentially respond with "fuck that." The concept, if not the execution, is similar to "Men Going Their Own Way."

ACman:

Yes the piece of skin involved has lots of nerve endings. NEWS FLASH. They don't cut off the entire end of your cock, it does't make sex painful, it doesn't eliminate sexual pleasure as female genital mutilation does for women, it isn't used as a tool to control men's sexuality.

^^^SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

Actually the rise of circumcision in the US started largely it was believed it would reduce male libido and prevent masturbation. So, yeah, outside of the Jews and a subset of Muslims (groups for whom it is a religious obligation), it actually was a tool to control men's sexuality.

This is even more of a derail unfortunately than the previous derail that you were complaining about. =p

[1] referred to more commonly as the foreskin on males or clitoral hood on females
[2] the head of the penis in males or clitoris in females

runic knight:

From what I saw, the conversation went from about her issues about female tropes in gaming to opening it up about how tropes of all sorts are prevalent and that there are many that apply to men as well. This was countered by a special pleading about how women have it worse in society in general, which was countered with examples relating to rape (how claims are handled differ by gender, how they affect the gender claimed upon, etc.), and male circumcision (in contrast to female circumcision, which is vilified, male circumcision is widely accepted if not outright encouraged in some places.). Thus we are here. Soo...

Female tropes in games-----> Tropes in games in general ------> special pleading about women's issues in society ----> counter about male issues in society, including those relating to rape and circumcision.

Thank you for the clarification.
I worry about this place sometimes.

Schadrach:

Actually the rise of circumcision in the US started largely it was believed it would reduce male libido and prevent masturbation. So, yeah, outside of the Jews and a subset of Muslims (groups for whom it is a religious obligation), it actually was a tool to control men's sexuality.

This is even more of a derail unfortunately than the previous derail that you were complaining about. =p

While this is partially true a more significant factor was the germ theory of disease making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine.

And since female genital mutilation almost universally involves the removal of at least the clitoris ("Type 1" is almost invariably Type 1b) and male circumcision never intentionally involves the removal of the glans my argument still stands. ie SLIGHTLY DECREASED SENSATION IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO HAVING YOUR BITS CUT OFF!!!!

The original topic was decrying the misogyny of gamers and my point is that men equating male circumcision with FGM, and bring false-rape-accusation as proof that men somehow are just as descriminated against as women is in fact also misogyny. So I'm still on topic.

minuialear:

Spearmaster:
snip

I'm starting to see more of what your saying and I'm gonna start paying more attention to how women are portrayed in the games I play, I have never enjoyed the over the top game devs (rockstar...and so on) so I might not be seeing the worst of the problem because usually when a game resorts to sex or over the top behavior of any kind to sell its self its a sign for me not to waste my time.

In regard to women supporting games, a blog post is not support, I was talking something more organized like a group or even a web site that gives games a rating not a negative one either I would say a "girl friendly" rating for lack of a better term at this time. Also more from a female gamer perspective not a hardline feminist perspective, there may already be such a site that I have no knowledge of and something of that nature would be tough to get going without the usual hardline sexist harassment that's thrown around the internet these days(Which is sad)

And another point I'm wondering about; can games with over sexualized female characters still exist?
Games like Duke Nukem-forever for example that were most likely designed for men by men for the point of being tasteless because some guys just want to play a raunchy game to appeal to their inner 12 year old or caveman, or does every single game have to conform? Or are we just working towards a better balance?

Ive actually heard women complain about DN:F that actually bought and played the whole game and all I could really think is "what did you expect?" some games are just made for men and I don't know if many women know this but men need "their" things, as I assume women do also. Every game is not for everyone, even if publishers try to sell it that way, which is dumb. I consider games like DN:F a genre game, maybe even a cult game. Is that ok?

I think most of the male resistance comes from a point of fear of loosing all raunchiness or T&A in games all together and that most men would be OK with a better balance.

ACman:

Schadrach:

Actually the rise of circumcision in the US started largely it was believed it would reduce male libido and prevent masturbation. So, yeah, outside of the Jews and a subset of Muslims (groups for whom it is a religious obligation), it actually was a tool to control men's sexuality.

This is even more of a derail unfortunately than the previous derail that you were complaining about. =p

While this is partially true a more significant factor was the germ theory of disease making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine.

And since female genital mutilation almost universally involves the removal of at least the clitoris ("Type 1" is almost invariably Type 1b) and male circumcision never intentionally involves the removal of the glans my argument still stands. ie SLIGHTLY DECREASED SENSATION IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO HAVING YOUR BITS CUT OFF!!!!

The original topic was decrying the misogyny of gamers and my point is that men equating male circumcision with FGM, and bring false-rape-accusation as proof that men somehow are just as descriminated against as women is in fact also misogyny. So I'm still on topic.

So, female circumcision is bad, what a shock.
But does that make male circumcision good? F*ck no.

Also, I don't know if you noticed, but MALE genital mutilation is, tragically, very widespread in the US of A, whilst FEMALE genital mutilation is, rightfully so, I may add, regarded as barbaric.

But why is only the mutilation of FEMALE genital frowned upon, while baby boys are still subject to having important parts of their genitals cut off?
Sexism, that is why.
Sexism: definition:

Discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex.

Put that to the test:
Men getting their bits mutilated: A-OK.
Women getting their bits mutilated: HORRIBLE
The only difference? Their sex.
-> Discrimination based on a person's sex
-> SEXISM

This is the issue I have with this topic, since, imho, both, male and female genital mutilation, should be banned, and I don't see anything misogynist about that.
If anything, you constantly claiming that we should just get over it, because male genital mutilation isn't so bad, etc, IS incredibly sexist (misandrist).

Why should it be ok to cut sth. of men's genitals, but not of women's genitals?

Asking for male genital mutilation to be banned is not sexist at all, since it does not discriminate against women in any way, nor does it imply that female genital mutilation is somehow less of a crime.
It's actually equalist, since men are asking for a privilege women already have. Not getting parts of their genitals cut off, because society believes it to be a good idea.

And how is proof for men being discriminated against misogynist?
How is proving that ONE gender is being discriminated against hateful towards the other gender?
Because, going by your logic, this very topic must be incredibly misandrist then.

(Proof for discrimination against women is being delivered constantly, therefore this topic, must, by YOUR logic and your logic ONLY, be misandrist)

Thus, you telling us that we are misogynist for pointing out that men are discriminated against AS WELL, not exclusively, but in addition to women being discriminated against, is more than just a bit questionable.

Further proven by you calling the "grass-eater boys", who decided that the standards set for men in their society are not to their liking, "lacking the social skills necessary to get a girlfriend", implying that someone alluded to this being the WOMEN'S fault.
No one did so.
It was made clear from the very start that is is in fact the fault of the rigorous standards existing in the japanese society, which men are subject to, but something makes me believe that you do not have a clue about the underlying structures of the japanese society.

And your insistance, that women are being discriminated against (which they are) must make you a misandrist, again, employing the logic you used to mark us as misogynists.

"The implication":
Roll with me on this one:
Trekkie claims men are being discriminated against in society.
( false accusations of rape, etc...)
He provides sources to back up his claim.

Somehow this proves that he hates women?

I don't get it.

Calibanbutcher:

Roll with me on this one:
Trekkie claims men are being discriminated against in society.
( false accusations of rape, etc...)
He provides sources to back up his claim.

Somehow this proves that he hates women?

I don't get it.

Anybody who thinks that men are descriminated against more than women, blacks, latinos, gays lesbians, transgender people, or even the elderly needs to spend more time in reality.

The one or two times where women get preferential treatment over men does not outweigh the massive advantage that men have every other time.

ACman:

DOES THAT EVER HAPPEN TO MEN?

Well yes actually, in places like the Congo and Uganda, homosexuality is illegal and publishable by death. At the same time if a man is raped by another man in those countries the society within then sees that man as gay for some stupid reason and this then means that they can be arrested and put to death because people said he was gay, because he got raped and male rape happens a lot in those countries especially with the civil wars, secret surveys by the UN of POW's showed that 80% of men captured where raped by their captives.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

see how that works?

ACman:

And since female genital mutilation almost universally involves the removal of at least the clitoris ("Type 1" is almost invariably Type 1b) and male circumcision never intentionally involves the removal of the glans my argument still stands. ie SLIGHTLY DECREASED SENSATION IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO HAVING YOUR BITS CUT OFF!!!!
------

Yes the piece of skin involved has lots of nerve endings. NEWS FLASH. They don't cut off the entire end of your cock, it does't make sex painful, it doesn't eliminate sexual pleasure as female genital mutilation does for women, it isn't used as a tool to control men's sexuality.

Well actually i think you'll find that it doesn't because the clitoris has no other function apart from that of sexual gratification (which the glans dose BTW its shaped to make an airtight seal inside the vagina and the ridges are shaped to pull back any other mans sperm that might be inside) and you have already said that "all it means is that sex is less pleasurable, that's not a big deal"

Also like i said earlier there are very sensitive nerves (INSIDE) the vagina, especially on the first 3 inches. if women could only get sexual gratification through clitoral stimulation then why do women find it pleasurable to have a man, fingers or any other object inside them? removing the clitoris don't make sex unpleasant for women, however that doesn't make it right or not a big deal, your still cutting off a part of someone's body, just as with male circumcision.

Also the whole "removing the foreskin dose not make sex more difficult or uncomfortable" comment isn't true either. On of the reasons the foreskin retracts back is to enable a sliding motion inside the vagina for smoother, more comfortable motion when having sex. if you are uncircumcised you will also notice that the glans of the penis is also moist and slightly lubricated when you pull the foreskin back, this also helps with sex as it enables an easier penetration, just like how a women's vagina lubricates itself.

Schadrach:

Actually the rise of circumcision in the US started largely it was believed it would reduce male libido and prevent masturbation. So, yeah, outside of the Jews and a subset of Muslims (groups for whom it is a religious obligation), it actually was a tool to control men's sexuality.

That to.

ACman:

While this is partially true a more significant factor was the germ theory of disease making the public "germ phobic" and suspicious of dirt and bodily secretions. The penis became "dirty" by association with its function, and from this premise circumcision was seen as preventative medicine.

That's not social pressure? If you don't get circumcised then your dirty and likely diseased? not to mention that it has been proven that circumcision has no medical benefits and dose not prevent but can actually make a man more likely to catch something even when not having sex and the orifice has been unshielded.

ACman:

my point is that men equating male circumcision with FGM, and bring false-rape-accusation as proof that men somehow are just as descriminated against as women is in fact also misogyny. So I'm still on topic.

Well men are discriminated against in society just as women are. If you want proof of that see my conversation with Hollyday for examples. Countering an argument is not Misogynous and neither would it be misandrist. However saying that we should shut up because it is misogynous for you to talk about mens rights, is misandry.

(yes two can play at the name calling and shaming tactics to)

The fact that you brought up the mens rights reddit and called me an MRA (and yes i am one and damn proud) as if its a bad thing, just brings me to conclude that you just another white knight who thinks that if a man says anything anywhere about the problems he is facing as a man, then he is just a misogynist and should just "MAN UP" and get on with it.

ACman:

Men rape. If a tiny minority of us didn't an even tinyer minority of women wouldn't be able to falsely accuse us of it.

Okay this is something that really pisses me off. "if a tiny number of us didnt?" so are you saying that all men rape or that rape is something indicative to men? Rape is not common. It happens but it is not common. and before i get the whole ! in 3 or 1 in 4 or whatever the number will be this time around:

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmHETvyk6eA

As you can see the FBI and other agencies combine the number of rape and sexual assault together to get their final figure. and as we all know, sexual assault is a hell of a lot more common than rape so that 1 in 3 bollocks is.... well.... a load of bollocks.

Not to mention that according to the FBI, standard assault is overwhelmingly more common than rape and sexual assault combined and how many times have you or anyone ells you know been assaulted, or mugged.

Plus, "if a tiny minority of men raped, a tinier minority of women would falsely report rape" in what world dose that make seance? a man doesn't need to do anything for a woman to be able to lie about him. In a world where disproving a rape allegation is almost impossible in today's courts and men are presumed to be guilty on accusation, what makes you think the number of false allegation will go down?

ACman:

B) I don't know where he's going with Grass Eating boy's but he seems to be implying that it's women's fault that as small percentage of men lack the social skills to have a girlfriend.

First of its not that they lack the social skills, its that they don't want a GF because they cant be bothered with all the aggravation that comes with relationships. Second I didn't say it was women's fault, I said it was society around them that was at fault. The proper term for the grass eating boys is men going their own way because what they are is men who have had enough of society's overwhelming expectations of them to be successful, to be a good provider, to lay down their life when told to and to be an all around disposable appliance and this is especially true in Japan. You can only push an animal so far before they snap and say "NO! FUCK YOU!"

Plus its not a tiny minority of men its more life 30% to 40% in Japan and is rapidly growing around the world.

ACman:

He's trying to justify his misogyny.

Actually i never said Misogyny was justifiable. all iv done is point out that men face a lot of discrimination in society just as women do and that its wrong to only focus one one of them.

"Feminism is the idea that we can fix gender inequality by only focusing on the problems of one of them" Not my words but good ones.

If anyone here has been sexist its you. because you my friend have at every turn concluded that we shouldn't care about the issues that men face and how they are discriminated against because women are more important. Hell you even tried to justify women falsely accusing a man of rape as okay because rape dose happen. Go read your first post to me and you'll see what i mean. Do the words "oh so women shouldn't report rape then?" when all i said was that false rape allegations are wrong mean anything to you?

yes there is misogyny in the world but there is also misandry. and if we only focus on one of them then that is in it self sexism. all i was doing was offering a counter argument. y'know the reason the comment section even exists in the first place. If we where only allowed to say "yeah i agree" then we might aswell not have them.

Saying that men are discriminated in society is not misogynistic. what it is is telling the truth and for you to come in and say "No you cant say that, saying that is misogynist" is misandric because you are not allowing us to say our side of the story and how society treats men aswell as women.

False rape allegations happen. they send a lot of innocent men and only men (Because according to the western worlds definition of rape, only a man can be a rapist. Even if a woman forces herself onto him.... And no an erection is not a choice) to prison around the world because disproving a rape allegation is incredibly difficult, especially in today's world.

My points are Valid and it seems the only person who doesn't think so is you and last time i checked you are not the arbiter of what is right and wrong. Not only that but if i am a Misogynist then what about Schadrach and Calibanbutcher? are they misogynists to? because they seems to agree with me (thanks again BTW)I am not a Misogynist and I doubt Schadrach and Calibanbutcher are either. From what i have seen the only sexist person here is you because all you have done is try to silence us by saying "your views are not welcome here" not to mention calling us names and insulting us and on top of that you have repeatedly implied that mens issues don't matter.

So why don't you stop calling us sexist and go take a look in the mirror!

Also, regarding the progression of how we got onto false rape allegations, Runic knight had it right,

Runic Knight:

Female tropes in games-----> Tropes in games in general ------> special pleading about women's issues in society ----> counter about male issues in society, including those relating to rape and circumcision.

EDIT:

ACman:

You're missing the point. To be claim decrimination you must be at a disadvantage.

That is Total bullshit! hell even that is discrimination because your saying that men aren't Discriminated against because I feel they aren't disadvantaged enough. Please tell me, who is at a Disadvantage of Affirmative action like Gender quotas? Quotas that make it the law that there has to be a curtain number of women even if their is a man more qualified? is he not disadvantaged? because he is being denied a job because he is male. How is he not the disadvantaged party?

Discrimination is discrimination. It doesn't matter who you are!

ACman:

Anybody who thinks that men are descriminated against more than women, blacks, latinos, gays lesbians, transgender people, or even the elderly needs to spend more time in reality.

see that what i mean. that is sexism, saying that mens needs don't matter because it doesn't happen as often (which it dose BTW)or are less damaging. you sir are a Misandrist.

and that ladies and gentleman will be my final word to him.

ACman:

Calibanbutcher:

Roll with me on this one:
Trekkie claims men are being discriminated against in society.
( false accusations of rape, etc...)
He provides sources to back up his claim.

Somehow this proves that he hates women?

I don't get it.

Anybody who thinks that men are descriminated against more than women, blacks, latinos, gays lesbians, transgender people, or even the elderly needs to spend more time in reality.

The one or two times where women get preferential treatment over men does not outweigh the massive advantage that men have every other time.

So, blacks, latinos, gays, lesbiand, transgender people and the elderly are all, exclusively.
NOT MEN?
Because, if we are honest, the likeliness of gays being male is incredibly high, whilst it shoul be about 50:50 for the other examples mentioned, save for lesbians and women.

You got something mixed up there.
And the fact, that women are being discriminated against, wich no-one was disputing, makes it ok for men to be discriminated against?
Again, you are making shit up.
Noone claimed that men are discriminated against more than women, not even equally so, but rather that men are discriminated against as well.

Also, do you truly believe, that somehow one form of discrimination outwheighs the other?
If we get the right balance of discrimination, then we reach equality?
(advantages women have to not outwheigh advantages men have)
Should we not strive to make it so, that men and women have no advantages any more in any NON-biological field?

Calibanbutcher:

ACman:

Calibanbutcher:

Roll with me on this one:
Trekkie claims men are being discriminated against in society.
( false accusations of rape, etc...)
He provides sources to back up his claim.

Somehow this proves that he hates women?

I don't get it.

Anybody who thinks that men are descriminated against more than women, blacks, latinos, gays lesbians, transgender people, or even the elderly needs to spend more time in reality.

The one or two times where women get preferential treatment over men does not outweigh the massive advantage that men have every other time.

So, blacks, latinos, gays, lesbiand, transgender people and the elderly are all, exclusively.
NOT MEN?

Well lesbians certainly aren't.

You're missing the point. To be claim decrimination you must be at a disadvantage.

Being a white, young, heterosexual, and male are all definite advantages over the alternatives.

ACman:

Calibanbutcher:

ACman:
[quote="Calibanbutcher" post="7.378338.14867246"]

Snip.

Snip.

Snip.

1. The lesbian part I corrected later on in the post.
2.
Disctimination:
Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.

Nowhere does it say, anything about having to be constantly at a disadvantage. One instant of being discriminated against is enough to claim individual discrimination, several are enough to justify claiming a group is being discriminated against.

3. I am just getting tired of you being incapable of understanding written lanaguage.
So, I am going to make this as simple as possible for you:

1. Women are discriminated against.
2. Men are also discriminated against
3. Men face less discrimination against them than women do.
4. Does that make discrimination against men ok?
5. FUCK NO
6. Discrimination against men is a problem.
7. Discrimination aganst women is a problem.
8. Discrimination against a specific sex is a problem.
9. One form of discrimination does not outweigh another.

Spearmaster:
I was talking something more organized like a group or even a web site that gives games a rating not a negative one either I would say a "girl friendly" rating for lack of a better term at this time.

I could swear I knew of a site that did something similar, but can't find it. So I agree.

something of that nature would be tough to get going without the usual hardline sexist harassment that's thrown around the internet these days(Which is sad)

I'd bet at the very least there would be people who don't take the site seriously because it doesn't do the same rating for every other demographic on the planet (similar to the reaction to this video). Probably also people saying that the site doesn't even need to exist if they can find positive examples to rate.

And another point I'm wondering about; can games with over sexualized female characters still exist?
Games like Duke Nukem-forever for example that were most likely designed for men by men for the point of being tasteless because some guys just want to play a raunchy game to appeal to their inner 12 year old or caveman, or does every single game have to conform? Or are we just working towards a better balance?

Definitely the latter. For the most part I think the fact that many AAA titles can be just as dangerous as DN:F in terms of how they handle sexuality/women/etc (and that the AAA titles tend to be more subtle about it and thus harder to discuss--see the new Lara Croft game) just makes it that much harder to pass over the more overtly terrible examples simply because they're genre games. There's nothing deep about DN:F and thus it's a lot easier to point to it and say "Hey, this is terrible!" than it is to discuss why the subtle issues with Lara Croft's reboot are problematic, and people go for what's easy.

Ive actually heard women complain about DN:F that actually bought and played the whole game and all I could really think is "what did you expect?" some games are just made for men and I don't know if many women know this but men need "their" things, as I assume women do also. Every game is not for everyone, even if publishers try to sell it that way, which is dumb. I consider games like DN:F a genre game, maybe even a cult game. Is that ok?

Yeah I agree that it's not great to complain about everything (especially when there are handfuls of games that do the same for heterosexual women--even if the ratio of those and those for men is skewed in men's favor). The issue should be whether MOST games are negative, not whether some genre games meet scholastic-quality requirements for character development. But the issue as described above probably exacerbates the complaining more than it would be otherwise.

Although, that said, there are a lot of things in games made "for men," that should be seen as unacceptable by men and women, genre game or not. That card game that had a Kickstarter awhile ago and included tentacle rape as a part of the game being such an example. (And for the purpose of providing equal examples, any game making light of women drugging and then having sex with guys should be an automatic problem, even if it's meant to fulfill a female sex fantasy or is made "for women." I don't know of an example of such a game off the top of my head.) For the majority of games this is probably not an issue, but there is a line that can be crossed.

I think most of the male resistance comes from a point of fear of loosing all raunchiness or T&A in games all together and that most men would be OK with a better balance.

I think this is true in theory, but I'm not sure if in practice and actual discussion in places like these forums that guys really indicate on the whole that they're really just looking to be thrown a bone and would otherwise like to see or be a part of extensive change elsewhere. Particularly because so many people don't seem to understand what the issue is in the first place, never mind understand why anything should be changed in games in general. I'd have to read through this thread before I say that officially, though.

Calibanbutcher:
Also, do you truly believe, that somehow one form of discrimination outwheighs the other?

When one form of discrimination systematically oppresses a demographic in a manner that causes them to be unable to function as well or achieve as much (on average) as their peers in a more privileged demographic, and another form of discrimination causes a detriment to a demographic, but not enough to affect its dominant status in society...then yes, one form is worse than another.

False rape charges don't cause men as a whole to be paid 60 cents for every dollar that women are paid, due to some conception that the men won't or can't do the job just as well and therefore don't deserve the same pay. Black men have historically been more likely to be falsely convicted (not just accused, but actually convicted) of rape than white men (you can look at the ratio of black men now being exonerated for false rape charges versus white men getting the same, and look at the history behind why they were convicted in the first place, to see this correlation and understand why it exists). Etc.

No one denies that discrimination in general is bad regardless of who faces it; but it's an insult to a minority demographic's struggles when your response to their discrimination is "Well, I have to deal with this other thing that doesn't actually affect my societal mobility but greatly inconveniences me sometimes; so we all have problems." If you're of the privileged demographic, your problems are not necessarily equivalent just because they are problems.

First of all, which version of the wage gap are you using?
Since I found several, some of them indicating, that, on a whole, women make 0.28cent for every 1$ men make.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html last paragraph.

Other than that, I bow my head to you.
I wrote rashly, without thinking enough about what I had written.
Chapeau

Hate to divert the track from the discussion on circumcision and false rape accusation, but would anyone be interested if I did a video series about men and tropes in video games?

And no money needed, this stuff comes up for free.

Although I could follow in the footsteps of the great shouty woman and badmouth sucker punch for various baseless subjective arguments based on my own interpretations if that would net me more views.

Well, I wonder if things have mellowed out in the 'Tropes vs. Women' thread-

Also, how on Earth did we get to circumcision and rape? Are those now common game themes? What games are you guys playing exactly?

Surely this is a simple debate. Many games oversexualize women, or present cardboard characters, so we should work harder to demand and create more realistic and relatable female characters (and characters in general, for that matter). Sure, keep some of the oversexualized stuff if it works, just get some good characters in there too. There. Done.

Suicidejim:
Well, I wonder if things have mellowed out in the 'Tropes vs. Women' thread-

Also, how on Earth did we get to circumcision and rape? Are those now common game themes? What games are you guys playing exactly?

Surely this is a simple debate. Many games oversexualize women, or present cardboard characters, so we should work harder to demand and create more realistic and relatable female characters (and characters in general, for that matter). Sure, keep some of the oversexualized stuff if it works, just get some good characters in there too. There. Done.

Even easier:
Games with good writing, generally speaking, have good female characters and good male characters.
Games with bad writing have bad female characters, based on stereotypes and sexualization and bad male characters, based on stereotypes and sexualization.

We need better written characters in general, not only female, but also male.
Ergo: We need more games with honest to god good writing.
Q.E.D.

SkellgrimOrDave:
Hate to divert the track from the discussion on circumcision and false rape accusation, but would anyone be interested if I did a video series about men and tropes in video games?

And no money needed, this stuff comes up for free.

Although I could follow in the footsteps of the great shouty woman and badmouth sucker punch for various baseless subjective arguments based on my own interpretations if that would net me more views.

I would like that.

SkellgrimOrDave:
Hate to divert the track from the discussion on circumcision and false rape accusation, but would anyone be interested if I did a video series about men and tropes in video games?

And no money needed, this stuff comes up for free.

Although I could follow in the footsteps of the great shouty woman and badmouth sucker punch for various baseless subjective arguments based on my own interpretations if that would net me more views.

I'd be all up for it. There's another group discussing much the same, over at http://www.indiegogo.com/misandryinvideogames?c=home . They are taking money, however they've already pledged to give every dollar not spent on the videos to charity, and anticipate spending none of it -- doing a pledge drive at all was basically to mock Anita.

Jim Sterling has even written an article about how horrible they are for wanting to discuss the topic at all.

Calibanbutcher:
First of all, which version of the wage gap are you using?
Since I found several, some of them indicating, that, on a whole, women make 0.28cent for every 1$ men make.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html last paragraph.

Other than that, I bow my head to you.
I wrote rashly, without thinking enough about what I had written.
Chapeau

Admittedly the number was used more as an example than as an actual number (I was in a rush), so feel free to call me out for that. I think the general consensus is that the average is 77 cents per male dollar when comparing exact same career and education (it varies wildly depending on industry, though). The number being a whole lot worse for black/latina women than for other women (much closer to the fake number I provided). I believe the low number cited in that last paragraph isn't an indication that they actually only earn 38 cents to every male dollar, but that over a long period of time, men are more likely to get raises or promotions to high-paying jobs than their female counterparts, and therefore are a lot more likely to earn a lot more money, even when taking pregnancy into account. Because maternity leave alone can't account for that drop.

And I pounced on that sentence mainly because all the people in this thread bringing up the "Men have issues too" argument as a reason to dismiss this video and the concerns it says it will comment upon are admittedly starting to drive me crazy.

Yes, men have problems. Yes, many of them are serious. But it is not appropriate to hi-jack a conversation about problems women face to discuss those, as though the problems men face are, as a whole, equally damaging to those faced by women, or as though women shouldn't be discussing problems they face unless they also want to discuss problems that the dominant sex faces. It's not only insensitive to suggest that one is equivalent to the other (certainly the issues that face men are important and do need to be addressed; but not as though they're the same problems that women face), but it's also more than a bit disconcerting that anyone would feel the need to turn a conversation about a minority demographic into a conversation about the dominant demographic; as if a conversation about the oppression of a demographic can never be complete without the dominant demographic maintaining some portion of the spotlight. I'm willing to bet money that everyone in this thread who complained about this woman focusing on women in games but not men, didn't also complain that she's not discussing transgender/transsexual or hermaphrodite representation in games (i.e., isn't talking about those who may not fit the gender binary). And yet people are crying for a need to keep the conversation "equal" by taking a supposedly more comprehensive look at the representation of characters in games? This seems a bit off.

The mere fact that so many people find it completely acceptable to interrupt a conversation about women in media to talk about men (i.e., the dominant sex) in media and dismiss a discussion that doesn't specifically delve into the latter, when a woman interrupting a conversation to speak specifically about women (i.e., one of the sexes that faces damaging discrimination as a whole on a regular basis) often causes a collective groan and in some instances a fair share of harassment and bullying (even when she starts a conversation rather than interrupting another conversation; see the comments for this video for examples) reveals a lot, I'd say.

LastGreatBlasphemer:

Thank you for the clarification.
I worry about this place sometimes.

Looking at how the comments have been going, I'd ;say this thread is still a hell of a lot better off then any youtube page that isn't religiously monitored and censored. Still, yeah, see an unpleasant path of discussion given the starting point but there was at least a logical path there...for the most part.

--edit---
I know, double post. Thing acted up on me....

ACman:

Anybody who thinks that men are descriminated against more than women, blacks, latinos, gays lesbians, transgender people, or even the elderly needs to spend more time in reality.

The one or two times where women get preferential treatment over men does not outweigh the massive advantage that men have every other time.

Who said they are discriminated against more? I don't think a single voice has spoken that, save you in an attempt to straw-man other people's arguments. The only thing being mentioned here is that discrimination affects everyone, in different ways, but it still does. The point being raised, near as I can see from everyone posting that concept, is that because discrimination affects everyone, it comes off as a little narrow viewed to concentrate on a single aspect of a single example of that discrimination and then play off every other sort.

If anyone is getting preferential treatment over another, that is a problem. It doesn't matter what gender. If you had any conviction to the idea of justice and equality, this should not have to be explained to you. Instead you come off as biased and, yes, sexist. No one has denied sexism does exist, that there are differences and differing amounts based on gender, or that it affects society and cultural views different. Instead all I have seen is a number of people promoting an idea of equality when discussion the issue at all, and you trying to make it a women's only issue. It isn't, it affects us all, and the sooner you let go of this notion you have that being white male and young is inherently blessed with advantage, the better.

Hell, you want to know what promotes far worse inequality then gender? Money. You can look and see such a greater extreme based on money then gender in a number of categories. does that mean that since the rich are more privileged they shouldn't be able to say anything on the matter? Because that comes off as what you are saying about gender...

-------------------------------------

Back to topic. I look at women's portrayal in games as a loud annoying cough. It is always there, sometimes faint, sometimes more prominent. Sometimes I forget about it until an unusually loud fit of it reminds me of it's presence. Video games have a bit of an illness, you know? But I know that things aren't always simple and that the cough itself is a symptom of a deeper problem. And it isn't limited to video games either. Movies, tv, comics, culture at large seems to have this cough.

Now, when I see people talking about the issue, I give pause and look. After all, sometimes you get used to a cough, or it comes and goes, or you just can't afford to have it fixed right then, like if you are American like me with our broken healthcare system. And as such, being reminded there is a problem is good. But what they are telling me is not quite right. Yes, there is a cough, I know that. But when they concentrate on female issues in video games, it seems like they are telling someone to fix the cough but nothing more. They are concentrating on the cough alone, like that is the single most important aspect. Being people are generally lazy, and that remains constant be it single people or groups working together to make video games, concentrating on that one issue, that one symptom might not be the right way to handle it. Yes, you might get change, and stop overtly sexist portrayals in games. Yes, you might stop that cough, but then what? Like taking a cough suppressant, it doesn't actually fix anything, it just quiets the symptom. And rather then game makers fixing the underlying issue, they will instead find a way to mask it. We already see various ways they do, from male/female replaceable characters, player made characters, or attempts to force depth or character artificially as they seem to be with the tomb raider game, equating trauma and exploit as character growth and depth.

But what if there is also a rash? It isn't as loud, it isn't as noticeable and is generally just accepted as normal now. When you concentrate solely on the cough, any attempt to get people to pay attention to another symptom, especially one deemed less important, or more controversial, it is blown off or ignored most of the time. Why worry about that slight rash when we got this hacking cough starting up again? This is all the more sad as both would be symptoms of the same illness, and illness itself vastly over looked when just covering up that annoying cough.

Now, when someone like the kickstarter presented her idea, I have to look at it in much the same light. Not only is it a narrowed view concentrating solely on a symptom (and being rather pointless in stating the obvious about it), but it provides excuse to not fix the underlying issue. Why should we keep working on it, we just addressed the cough, let us rest a little, you guys complain too much. And that is to say nothing of the sort who actively deny the other symptoms or deny them any importance.

Games have a problem, one that needs to be looked into and really explore the underlying issue of what is causing it. Attacking a symptom may work, short time, but it doesn't really fix anything, and if you have noticed, often the attempts to mask that symptom is rather sad and backfires. I don't want sexism in gaming in any form, but I know that most of the sexism is the result of more then just a male mindset of some of the designers. It is, as lightly touched on by the kickstarter, related to tropes. But the tropes themselves are reflective of the sort of story telling and the culture the stories are told to and pulled from.

Now, you can concentrate on the female portrayal itself. Goad and prod and guide game designers into making females as equivalently represented as their male counterparts. Watch as they flail, fail, and occasionally succeed and hope the final result is something worthwhile. Myself? Rather then watch them start using more test groups to determine how certain characters will be taken by the public and watching as the stories get worse and worse as they sterilize them in order to be conscious of the female demographic, I would have them find the true cause of it, dig deeper and fix the issue at the source. I don't want all games to be male centered fantasy trips, but I don't think we should stop some from being made. Yet that might be how the treatment of the symptom is handled. And the underlying problem would still persists, if not worsen. No one wants to see a reoccurring illness, and I worry if not handled right, we will see just that.

minuialear:

Spearmaster:
snip

Now I think im seeing the broader scope, If I may generalize and correct me if im wrong here, it seems that at the heart of the issue its not an issue of more women in games or even better women in games really or even how they are portrayed, its that the mostly male gaming superstructure is doing little or nothing to make women feel welcome as equal gamers, that a bridge needs to be gaped for women, not because men have to do it for them but that women are trying to reach halfway already and men, male run company s and male game designers need to be reaching out to them as equals to bridge the gap and have a better gaming environment for all.

Trying to do it from an our side your side standpoint will get us nowhere and the responsibility for the effort doesn't fall on men but rather those in charge and who have the power to make the changes needed for bridging this gap, which just happen to be men at this time.

On the topic of Lara Croft...I watched the trailer and it was quite disgusting, on the surface it seems to have a powerful woman who overcame horrible things to be a hero...but that's the problem, not only was it at the hand of men that she underwent the ordeal but it says to everyone that women can only achieve if they were brutalized and almost raped and their heroism is a by product of physical and psychological trauma which is completely absurd and could be seen as actually more damaging than DN:F because of the illusion and facade it creates. Women have no need of special situations or need to overcome insurmountable odds to be spectacular, only that they be human like the next person, man or woman.

minuialear:

Admittedly the number was used more as an example than as an actual number (I was in a rush), so feel free to call me out for that. I think the general consensus is that the average is 77 cents per male dollar when comparing exact same career and education (it varies wildly depending on industry, though). The number being a whole lot worse for black/latina women than for other women (much closer to the fake number I provided). I believe the low number cited in that last paragraph isn't an indication that they actually only earn 38 cents to every male dollar, but that over a long period of time, men are more likely to get raises or promotions to high-paying jobs than their female counterparts, and therefore are a lot more likely to earn a lot more money, even when taking pregnancy into account. Because maternity leave alone can't account for that drop.

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers.

That is the source of the 77 cents number. It does not group by career or education. As you start comparing on other factors, the gap gets smaller and smaller, which is why the 77 cents number is so often used (as the goal of those persons is to make it as big a problem as possible).

Overtime is a big one. If I were to compare my total earnings to a theoretical woman who is in the same position and paid the same hourly rate (I say theoretical because we are a small business and I'm a one person department) but has the work habits of most of my female coworkers (that is to say, eschews non-mandatory overtime despite it being offered) she would make "73 cents on the dollar" merely due to differences in hours. I am typically working 50 hour weeks, while every female employee we have is typically working 40 hour weeks. Many of the production employees work even longer weeks than I do. The thing is, we're not unusual in that regard -- the vast majority of overtime is worked by men.

Differences in work history is another. Pregnancy is bad for a woman's career, because it means significant time off of work, which effects promotions (between missing opportunities to prove oneself and needing to get back up to speed), in much the same fashion as prolonged illness does. Whereas men in hourly positions tend to be chomping at the bit for more overtime when their wife/girlfriend is pregnant or has recently had a child, to soften the financial stress of, well, babies being expensive and the mother necessarily missing some work.

Single, childless women who entered the labor market in the 90s or later actually make more than similar men.

There have been studies that actually try to account for all other known factors, and depending on exactly how they weigh the various confounding variables, typically come up with with women earning between $0.93 and $1.07 per male dollar that can't be accounted for by known confounding variables, with ~$0.95-$0.98 being common.

minuialear:
I'm willing to bet money that everyone in this thread who complained about this woman focusing on women in games but not men, didn't also complain that she's not discussing transgender/transsexual or hermaphrodite representation in games (i.e., isn't talking about those who may not fit the gender binary). And yet people are crying for a need to keep the conversation "equal" by taking a supposedly more comprehensive look at the representation of characters in games? This seems a bit off.

We could talk about that if you like. There aren't a whole lot of transgender or intersex characters out there to even use as examples, that's for certain. There's Poison, and Kaine from Neir, and at that point I'm drawing a blank. Interestingly, the male presenting "monster" that Kaine's infected with is her gestalt, which has interesting implications once you think about it.

Spearmaster:
Now I think im seeing the broader scope, If I may generalize and correct me if im wrong here, it seems that at the heart of the issue its not an issue of more women in games or even better women in games really or even how they are portrayed, its that the mostly male gaming superstructure is doing little or nothing to make women feel welcome as equal gamers, that a bridge needs to be gaped for women, not because men have to do it for them but that women are trying to reach halfway already and men, male run company s and male game designers need to be reaching out to them as equals to bridge the gap and have a better gaming environment for all.

There is definitely a "Things have always been this way and we shouldn't have to change just because someone tells us we should" mentality that seems prevalent in the broader gamer audience. It's frequently expressed whenever any minority demographic (ethnic, sexuality, gender, religious, etc) starts saying "You guys keep portraying us like this or not putting us in games at all and we don't like it." The exact same thing happens with race; when people complain about how racist black Final Fantasy characters can be, for example, the gaming community as a whole (not entirely, because there are obviously rational gamers) not only puts down the people saying it's a problem ("Barret's not racist; you're just oversensitive"), but they then take the responsibility they have in representing others in a fair and just light, and stick it on the minority ("If you don't like it, you do something to fix it; we shouldn't have to be politically-correct or cater to you, because we're fine with things as-is"). As if portraying minorities as normal people (or as normal as everyone else is portrayed, at least) rather than stereotyped monstrosities is catering to the minority and not just a smart and compassionate thing to do.

Which is further problematic because it's pretty hard to do anything about it when you're the demographic being oppressed or discriminated against by a demographic that doesn't seem overly concerned about the fact that it's doing so. Because even if you make those games, it's not like it changes the fact that the AAA games are still presenting your demographic terribly, that people still seem to think it's alright, and that now they justify the fact that they continue to do it with the fact that you just made a small indie game that featured positive female/black/gay/Muslim/etc characters, thus good minority characters exist, and thus we can stop worrying about how we represent them in games. Even the most resolute people of that minority are going to be a bit put off and discouraged by that.

Trying to do it from an our side your side standpoint will get us nowhere and the responsibility for the effort doesn't fall on men but rather those in charge and who have the power to make the changes needed for bridging this gap, which just happen to be men at this time.

Exactly.

On the topic of Lara Croft...I watched the trailer and it was quite disgusting, on the surface it seems to have a powerful woman who overcame horrible things to be a hero...but that's the problem, not only was it at the hand of men that she underwent the ordeal but it says to everyone that women can only achieve if they were brutalized and almost raped and their heroism is a by product of physical and psychological trauma which is completely absurd and could be seen as actually more damaging than DN:F because of the illusion and facade it creates. Women have no need of special situations or need to overcome insurmountable odds to be spectacular, only that they be human like the next person, man or woman.

Also exactly. And if it didn't feel like strong female leads were categorically being presented or revised as people who started out weak and had to face trauma to become heroic (or started as weak women who wanted to be strong to woo a guy; i.e., Samus), it wouldn't be as much of an issue, since it wouldn't feel like an industry-wide assertion that female characters must start out this way for their personalities to make sense. Because of course you can find examples of male characters becoming heroes to woo women or starting out weak and becoming strong characters; but there are also just as many (if not more) male characters who are heroic "just because" it's who they are, to the point where singular examples of men becoming heroes without having inherently heroic personalities don't seem to imply a broader assumption about how men become heroes.

Schadrach:
That is the source of the 77 cents number. It does not group by career or education. As you start comparing on other factors, the gap gets smaller and smaller, which is why the 77 cents number is so often used (as the goal of those persons is to make it as big a problem as possible).

That depends on the factors that you compare and how you compare them, I would imagine.

If I were to compare my total earnings to a theoretical woman who is in the same position and paid the same hourly rate (I say theoretical because we are a small business and I'm a one person department) but has the work habits of most of my female coworkers (that is to say, eschews non-mandatory overtime despite it being offered) she would make "73 cents on the dollar" merely due to differences in hours. I am typically working 50 hour weeks, while every female employee we have is typically working 40 hour weeks. Many of the production employees work even longer weeks than I do. The thing is, we're not unusual in that regard -- the vast majority of overtime is worked by men.

Is this based on research as well or just personal experience? And is this comparing like jobs to like jobs? Because the women and men where I work spend equal amounts of time in the office (assuming we're talking about people in the same position; support people don't spend as much time as people doing the "main" work).

Differences in work history is another. Pregnancy is bad for a woman's career, because it means significant time off of work, which effects promotions (between missing opportunities to prove oneself and needing to get back up to speed), in much the same fashion as prolonged illness does. Whereas men in hourly positions tend to be chomping at the bit for more overtime when their wife/girlfriend is pregnant or has recently had a child, to soften the financial stress of, well, babies being expensive and the mother necessarily missing some work.

The fact that maternity leave isn't required to be provided (which allows the father to earn money while his wife can't because she's recovering from what can amount to a surgical procedure) likely has something to do with this as well.

Single, childless women who entered the labor market in the 90s or later actually make more than similar men.

As far as I can tell, this applies only to those who work in major metropolitan areas (i.e., New York, Atlanta, LA, etc). It's also because "For every two guys who graduate from college or get a higher degree, three women do." I.e., 50% more women are getting higher degrees than men, and therefore earn more. I.e., it's not necessarily that they're being paid more equally on average (or that they get paid more than men ever), it's that they start out better-educated on average, and since the jumps in salary from GED to Bachelors, Bachelors to Masters, and Masters to PhD are so big, the only way women wouldn't be paid more on average is if their salaries literally weren't changing when they got higher degrees (which thankfully isn't the case, but it paints a deceptive and, when you really think about it, a pretty depressing picture).

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html#ixzz1ySa0boeX

We could talk about that if you like. There aren't a whole lot of transgender or intersex characters out there to even use as examples, that's for certain. There's Poison, and Kaine from Neir, and at that point I'm drawing a blank. Interestingly, the male presenting "monster" that Kaine's infected with is her gestalt, which has interesting implications once you think about it.

I think you've missed my point, so I'll use an analogy.

Oftentimes, when black people are talking about how past racism accounts for a poor, lower class population of blacks today, people will interject to say, "But there are poor white people too; why are we only concerned with poor black people?" First of all, it's a discussion about black poverty; black people are not obligated to talk about white people when they are discussing their own poverty. Yes, there are poor white people and yes they don't all have super-awesome lives (though they are still better off than their black analogues, based on every research study out in the last few decades). But that is a discussion unrelated to black poverty (considering the reasons for it are completely different), and belongs elsewhere.

But secondly (and more to the point I raised in that paragraph you cited): if someone is so concerned with broadening the discussion to be not about just black people, but a broader discussion of poverty, then what about Latino poverty? Native American poverty? Etc? Why is it (mostly white) people say "Well we have problems too, so let's broaden the discussion to the point where it's not just about you" in response to a black person's discussion of black issues,, but they only think to expand the discussion to the point where it includes their (i.e., the dominant demographic's) perspective?

Does that seem as odd to you as it does to me? Have you seen as many examples of, say, Latino people interrupting a discussion about black poverty to say "This conversation doesn't include analysis of my problems, and it should"? How often do these (mostly white) commentators also say "Latinos are also poor; let's talk about them, whites, Native Americans, Asians...rather than just black people"? What is really behind their request to include their problems in the discussion?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 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
Register for a free account here