Starbird said:
I know that sex and sexuality are at least somewhat hardwired. I'm also aware that characters in a video game are characters in a videogame. Meaning that, unlike in real life, people have a lot of choice about what their character does.
Maybe it's that I just woke up, but I'm honestly not sure what your point here is. Mind breaking it down for me?
Starbird said:
But if you narrow it down to purely the dictionary definition you miss out on a lot of semantic context and as I said, the meaning differs from dictionary to dictionary.
This is a problem that can be solved with the application of more words. Rephrase your original question so it becomes...hm. Actually, I'm not sure what your real question is. I'm going to guess it's, "Do I actively and maliciously engage in behaviors intended to oppress and minimalize women?"
Starbird said:
I have a lot of problems with your definition, since I think sexism as a discriminatory practice needs to be viewed as separate from what could be called "natural discrimination" (males finding it easier to understand/identify with other males simply due to common experiential traits).
If we're arguing about the labels to apply to degrees of sexism, then I think we still need to be able to identify the baseline from which those degrees spring.
Starbird said:
I had another dictionary definition which was based more on action than thought. And I have now lost the link.
Eh, it happens.
Starbird said:
Is using the word 'guy' or 'boy' sexist?
I'm unaware of any situation in which "guy" means anything derogatory. "Boy" can be sexist, depending on its use (also racist, but never mind).
Starbird said:
Because I find them both neutral, pleasantly casual when discussing gender. "Woman" just sounds too...cold.
Regardless, a girl is a child. A woman is an adult. I dislike the word "woman" on etymological grounds myself, but the fact remains, an adult who is referred to as a child is one who is not wrong to feel upset by it, because it's disrespectful.
Starbird said:
You know, I think that this perspective is what annoys me most of all regarding militant feminists. I have tons of friends. I have female friends. I have male friends. I have male gay friends. I even had a bisexual girlfriend for a time. *All* of them liked to ogle nice examples of what they were attracted to.
And I'd argue that if you're talking about real people being ogled, there's no issue (or at least, not inherently). What you're talking about is a fake person deliberately crafted to be sexualized and to sell that sexuality to men. The game is making the statement that women aren't to be sold to as customers, they're to be used as selling points; and when enough games and movies and TV shows do this, we create a culture where a woman is judged more harshly and more exclusively for her appearance than a man is because we've been trained to view them as objects first and people second.
Starbird said:
Unless you are saying that women shouldn't be allowed to ogle/objectify good looking guys either?
Sexism applies equally to both sexes.
Starbird said:
Which is why I say, in the context of this argument, you cannot only focus on mental processes, since for the most part they are entirely involuntary and even natural.
It's also entirely natural for human beings with impacted bowels to jam their fingers up their butts and start rooting around until the problem is solved, because that is an animal behavior. However, we've elevated ourselves above the level of mere animals through technology and, more importantly to this discussion, though society, which means we're beholden to the standards of our neighbors.
Starbird said:
I'm trying to home in on why I have a problem with people using words like "discrimination" (which is a pretty nasty word) in connection with mental processes that we have little to no control over, it just seems silly to me.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm using the word without condemnation, since your sexism seems to be mild, passive, and ingrained rather than deliberate.
Starbird said:
Trust me, I grew up in Southern Africa. If you want to see *real* discrimination, give that a try. First world problems and all that.
That's true, but at the same time, comparative standards are a dodge. You don't get to pick the worst possible example of a phenomenon and then tell people they can't judge you unless you're as bad as or worse than that.
Starbird said:
Judgements involve the making of a decision. Making a decision, requiring at least some cognition and conscious choice.
And you decided to buy drinks for pretty girls.
Starbird said:
Yes, but should we? This is *really* something you think needs changing? We should try to somehow teach men to be equally attracted to all people?
I...really don't think what I said can be interpreted that way, but maybe I was unclear, so let me be more explicit.
Attraction is a physiological process, and acting upon it is normal. However, once you allow that instinct to become self-justifying, you've absconded your responsibility to use your reason and you're treating people differently based on appearance. The problem here isn't liking pretty people, but rather the decision to put appearance first--which if literally what's happening, since you're choosing whom to talk to at this party based on appearance--and personality second.
Starbird said:
Perhaps I should have been clearer in my OP. I will choose male characters in RPGs that I know will involve some sort of romance. If there was no romance, I'd probably play a female character.
Uh, what RPG has mandatory romance? Because I can't think of a situation in which it's not your choice to make fucking happen.
Starbird said:
You've made a judgement call that doing the above is somehow sexist.
You asked if it's sexist. You didn't ask if I care enough to try to get you to change your behavior. I don't, because you don't believe me or agree with my stances, so what's the point? Until and unless you come to this on your own, you won't care enough to change, and I have better things to do than rage against what I can't change. Your views on sex are not perfect, but they're tolerable, and I'll take what I can get.
bl4ckh4wk64 said:
You're a straight, human male.
Wow, that might have actually just summed it all up. You're a dude, you don't want to be staring at a dude's ass for the many hours of a game you'll play, you'd much rather it be a girl's ass.
That really isn't helping his case. You're still objectifying people by viewing them according to their fuckability; and worse, you aren't even doing it to a real person. You're doing it to an image on a computer screen. Something you have absolutely no chance of ever interacting with sexually is something you need to judge on sexual criteria?
Really, phrased the way you put it, I can see the point of that person who said it's homophobic. There is no need to be staring at the male character's ass and fixating on trying to fuck it.
It also doesn't help that, once again, the female character is a girl and not a woman.