I'm tired of the anti-feminist circlejerk here (and every where else on the internet)

[unpronounceable]

/facepalm

I already addressed this exact same question. I'm not even going to bother retyping, I'll just quote myself.

Relax, bro.
There is no need to wig out.

You haven't paid attention to all the stuff I've said about cinematography and the camera, have you? The differences between power fantasy and sexual fantasy are clear as day when you examine the way the camera engages the character. If the camera wanted to sell the idea of a sexy woman as a power fantasy for women, it wouldn't linger on her cleavage or ass (or any part of her body), it wouldn't feature close shots of anything but her face, and it would involve the woman doing something with her appearance. Just like a man with muscles in a power fantasy uses them to lift things, punch things and otherwise exert force unto the world, a woman who would use her appearance as a weapon would use it to accomplish her goals. The power fantasy is about agency. A woman needs to exercise her agency in order to fit the role of power fantasy, and most objectified female characters are allowed little to no agency by their creators.

That's a little unfair. There isn't much you can do with tits.
Muscles are aesthetically pleasing but they do have use outside their appearance.
A more apt analogy would be if a guy had a sexy face that was constantly being focused on.
He's not going to do shit with his face.
Doesn't mean he's being objectified.

I think you are fundamentally mis-attributing the cause of women with breasts and tits.
It's simply because it looks nicer.
Audiences don't like ugly people on their screens.
This applies to bodies as well as faces.

I still don't know what you're talking about when you mention the male gaze.
Ass or cleavage shots?
What kinds of movies are you watching?

Sigh. Must I do this every thread? I had a post in this very thread with several different examples. Furthermore, are you so blind to sexualisation that you can't find those examples for yourself? Do I need to lead you by the hand and show you all the cases of female sexualisation one by one? Or better yet, get bogged down in an endless argument where someone nitpicks every example I pick because semantics and "but that's normal!!"?

Again. Chill out.
I never nitpicked anything, so calm yourself.

I already did what you're asking me to do, and more than once. I am not going to spend another two hours paging through google image search to find pics that prove my point. Go to the wikipedia lists of games from 2010 onwards and look at their images on google images. Whenever you see a woman with unexplained/impractical/gratuitous cleavage or other bits of skin exposed for no reason at all, you'll have the examples you want.

If your argument is "what you're saying doesn't exist", then I'm sorry, but that's patently false. If your argument is "it's not that bad", then we can sit down and go back and forth with that, but we have to start from the self-evident assumption that women are disproportionately sexualised in videogames.

One final point that I want to make. Sexualization of women in games exists.
That is not the same as objectification.
They're scantily clad because the target audience is horny teenagers.
They simply do what sells.
I don't see this as being sexist.

Similarly, I don't see twilight as being sexist despite the fact that the two male leads have unnecessary focus directed to their muscular bodies.
Everyone simply produces what the target audience desires.
Sounds like the free market doing its job, not sexism to me.

 

[Xaio30]

I just think "Feminist" is a stupid term for people who want gender equality.

But the dictionary says it's about gender equality!

But using the term "mankind" is wrong as a method of encompassing the entire species despite being used for years.

Of course very few will acknowledge the double standards there.

That's weird. I've always said "humankind".
Isn't "mankind" only referring to men?

 

[Abomination]

I just think "Feminist" is a stupid term for people who want gender equality.

But the dictionary says it's about gender equality!

But using the term "mankind" is wrong as a method of encompassing the entire species despite being used for years.

Of course very few will acknowledge the double standards there.

That's weird. I've always said "humankind".
Isn't "mankind" only referring to men?

No, to do that you would use the term "men".

"Man" can be used to describe either an individual male human OR the human species as a whole. Some find it offensive but the word "man" or "men" is included in both genders.

HuMAN
HuMEN
WoMAN
WoMEN
FeMALE

Then again the protests towards it are usually the same who take issue with the word "history" because they see "His story". Ultimately it's making mountains out of molehills, like most of the issues that arise in internet debate about gender equality.

 

[Schadrach]

It's even worse in gaming. Gamers have given some of the weakest excuses for sexism in gaming. Few games have female protagonists, almost no games pass the bechdel test, and plenty of female characters are objectified, but whenever someone points this out, gamers get all defensive.

The Bechdel test isn't a very good test for the medium it was designed for, let alone video games. In no small part because it almost automatically excludes any game with a male protagonist, as 90% of game dialog either involves, or is about the protagonist. There aren't a lot of ensemble cast scenarios (though a shockingly large number of movies with ensemble casts fail Bechdel due to the male cast members not excusing themselves from the conversation en masse at any point) nor are there a lot of dialogs related to the plot that don't involve or are about about the protagonist or a major villain.

How would you like to play a game with almost all female characters and the only male character looks like Ryan Reynolds and wears nothing but a thong and high helled boots?

Depends, what kind of game is it? I feel a bizarre need to note that I've played Princess Tomato in the Salad Kingdom and Legend of the Ghost Lion back when I owned an actual NES as a kid (there was this video store near home that had basically every rare NES game ever until it burned down and had great rates -- I played basically everything released for NES/SNES in US at least once as a result).

Although, I didn't think high heeled boots were a common item for sexualizing males, though... Oh, well, to each their own taste, even if it's kind of weird.

A female gamer previously unknown outside of feminist circles launches a kickstarter for constructive criticism on a medium she enjoys. Plenty of commenters threaten to rape and kill her, and when she doesn't release the videos for a while, people make claims about her scamming people.

Anyone who bothered to look her up could get an opinion of her work and see it negatively, and they get lumped in with the comparative few (who were largely riled up by the video being spammed on 4chan for a while, some suspect by Anita herself [several of the spams had an image of Anita attached that wasn't from anything publicly released prior to that]) who did more or less exactly what you said. When you look at it, she posted the video, everything was quiet for a surprisingly long time (hint: it hit Kotaku after the campaign had been running for several weeks, the KS started 5/17 [footnote]http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/[/footnote]), then the chanspam, then the YouTube hatespam, then a massive increase in her funding as people rushed to help her.

As for the claims of scamming, that happens anytime a KS goes quiet for a long period without any real sign anything is happening. See Code Hero for an example about as unrelated to gender as you can get. The best way to avoid it is a lot of communication (see Serpent's Tongue that hasn't had accusations of scamming, but they've spent a lot of effort in dialog with and informing the community).

A male youtuber who frequently uploads MRA horseshit make utterly terrible comments to a rape victim on a "Men's Rights Subreddit." He later makes a video claiming he was bullied, and calls this a "minor trangression." As of now, he has 300,000 subscribers on youtube, and his videos get a large number of likes.

Is this TheAmazingAtheist? I don't think anyone who has heard of him hadn't *LONG* since made an opinion of him. Mine is that he's like a page from a desk calendar -- right once a year, but sometimes the comic on it can be amusing.

But of course, there's no such thing as rape culture.

"Rape culture" will never have any significant traction in gamer communities, because it relies on the same underlying logic as the "video games cause violence" argument, unless you make an argument that essentially amounts to "rape is magic and follows entirely different rules than anything else because it's rape."

And something about all of the most powerful people in the world being men.

The argument that "all men are privileged because a tiny fraction of a percentage of them are at the top" is silly. For the same reason that "all women are privileged because a comparatively massive number of men are at the bottom" (sometimes referred to as the "muddy floor" wherein the worst jobs are very predominately male) is silly.

it's just a lazy no true scotsman argument.

Really, it's the opposite. It's an argument that you can't define a Scotsman at all, so anyone who wants to be is until someone feels they shouldn't be and then they don't count anymore at least for purposes of the current discussion. Immigrate to France, after being born in India to parents of African descent, neither you nor any of your ancestors ever having set foot in Scotland? Still a Scotsman! They call it "feminism is not a monolith", it's used primarily to be able to disregard the statements of anyone claiming a feminist argument that isn't helpful to you now as not "really" counting as feminist, or at least not the same kind of feminist, and therefore it can be disregarded.

I couldn't agree more. Anti-feminism is an unsurprising result of a privileged gender slowly losing their privilege and seeing institutions and social conventions that gave them unfair rights and advantages disappearing.

Name a right men have that women don't in western nations, excepting the ability to serve in specific military capacities in some countries (which they should be allowed to, assuming that they meet the same standards as the men).

a significant portion of the male population have the fantasy of being muscled to a certain degree, and games capitalize on that. Yes, being desired is part of the power fantasy, but it's not the same as objectification.

I would argue that the being muscled and the being desired are inextricably linked for men in this era and part of the world. In that being muscled is presented as how to be desirable to attractive women very consistently in the media -- either that or being obscenely wealthy.

In order for objectification to take place, the game needs to encourage the audience to admire the female character from a distance instead of relating to her on an emotional level. This is most often accomplished with the use of the (straight) male gaze when designing game visuals, and by not informing the player of personal things about her (such as her name, backstory, personality and the like, things that we can use to connect to her on an emotional level). Not all female characters are objectified, but a significant portion of them are, and almost all of them are sexualised to some degree.

There were a bunch of examples of "objectified" women posted elsewhere in the thread, most of which weren't objectified by this definition (certainly not Triss or Maya, for example although I'll give you the Saints from Hitman).

And before anybody jumps in to correct me, male mooks in videogames are often objectified too, but not sexually. Yes, male mooks are often treated as guilt-free gun-fodder to dispose of, with no names, personality of backstory given. Yes, this is true. However, they are practically never put on skimpy clothes to ogle, while female characters very often are.

I'll give you a choice -- you can either be objectified by being depicted as very attractive and your sexuality put on display, or through gradual dismemberment. Which sounds like a better way to be portrayed -- pedestalized sex symbol or more meat for the grinder?

I have this exact problem with people replying to anti-feminists with something along the lines of "You're just angry because you're a fat nerd who won't get laid!". You're insulting instead of actually debating, we would have never gotten anywhere if people just insulted eachother.

You see that kind of shockingly often if you look, despite the same people absolutely not abiding attacking a woman's attractiveness or sexual history (and deeming even mentioning such to be misogyny). Funny how that works, almost as funny as the whole "saying something negative about a woman means you are insulting all women everywhere somehow" thing.

whereas the public are relatively aware of such division in religion because mainstream christianity openly denounces WBC, sunnis and shia constantly bicker over who's the real version of islam or watever, and the constant arguing within political parties is more than self-evident.

It certainly doesn't help when you see glowing memorials written about someone who compared trans folk to Frankenstein's monster and ended her career as a professor by refusing to teach men. At the very least it doesn't distance from those kinds of positions.

Here's the thing: most feminists agree that sexism in society hurts men too.

Only in so far as it can either be used as fuel for the argument from primal misogyny or as a silencing tactic. When the typical perspective is "Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (tm), therefore we need more feminism and more work on women's problems, because through some kind of perverse alchemy solving women's issues will magically also solve men's, so we don't really need talk about men's issues", it doesn't help.

Also, see https://twitter.com/search?q=%23INeedMasculism&src=typd https://twitter.com/search?q=%23INeedMasculismBecause&src=typd and the truly massive amount of trolling they inspired. To be fair #tellafeministthankyou saw some pretty terrible shit when it started not long afterward, but a lot of that was essentially retaliatory trolling, and then was used as a demonstration of what horrible unprovoked misogynists men on the internet are (you know, entirely unlike in many cases the same people on the other tags). Stir up wasps nest, claim being stung was unprovoked and they are innocent victims. That sounds an awful lot like what a certain producer of YouTube videos has been accused of too...

But most of these problems stem from misogyny.

Enjoy another fresh slice of internets: http://www.reddit.com/r/GenderEgalitarian/comments/ydohb/primal_misogyny_and_ozys_law/

Men face an uphill battle in custody disputes and (sometimes, occasionally, rarely) are assigned a financial burden for child support disproportionate to their income vs. the mother's because men are seen as breadwinners and women as caregivers.

I'm kind of close to a guy who got every-other-weekend custody of his daughter because he wasn't the primary caregiver because for one month of the child's life he was employed while she never was. She was abusive, and one of the things that kept him from leaving for a time was the threat that if he left, the little girl would get what was coming to him. He has to pay child support of 30% of what he earned that one month each month, which can be adjusted up if his income ever increases (he's now working retail and being paid less than he was then, so it's more than 30% of his actual income). If he gets behind the DMV will deny license and registration renewals and charge an additional fee for making them have to process it twice (they check you for child support and property taxes whenever you deal with DMV, if you're severely behind they'll call the police otherwise they give you an opportunity to straighten it out but still refuse you service). She doesn't always keep up on the custody agreement, but there's no way to enforce it so he takes what time his ex will let him have with his daughter.

Child support has nothing to do with the cost of the child though, which is why some highly paid individuals pay child support of thousands of dollar per month -- it's generally roughly 30% of income around when it's pursued, comparatively easy to adjust up if the payer comes into money, comparatively difficult to adjust down if their income drops.

though they make less for the same work

Largely false. The 70-odd cents on the dollar figure that commonly gets thrown around is a comparison of male median annual income and female median annual income without consideration for any confounding factors. It compares pay, but not work, in other words. For starters, men work wildly more overtime than women do. CONSAD did a report for the US government that tried to adjust for these factors, and ended up with a number in the 90-odd cents on the dollar range, and a list of factors that they knew were relevant but couldn't accurately isolate with the available data.

men who function as their child's primary caregiver are often scorned or ignored because doing this is thought to be beneath men.

Not going to touch the "assumed to be pedophiles because men are inherently dangerous" angle?

Men abused or raped by women (though examples are exceedingly, incredibly rare compared to women) are often mocked and frequently denied justice because the notion that a "powerful" man could be victimized by a "weak" woman is considered ludicrous by society.

How comparably frequent the two are depends on your choice of definitions. For example, I feel a need to point out that even if 90% of sexual encounters attempted or completed using force, the threat of force, or when the victim is intoxicated, unconscious, or incapable of consent involved a female perpetrator and male victim the vast majority of "rapists" would still be men. You know, because the male sexual organ is the penetrative sexual organ -- literally "because penis."

NISVS, once you realize that the most common form of a woman forcing a man to have sex with her is a sub-type of "other" and not rape, has similar "previous year" numbers for both men and women, suggesting that current rates of occurrence are similar.

* Men flooding spaces devoted to discussing women's issues. "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN????" has become a meme among feminists because any time there's a discussion on the internet about women that goes viral, it's almost certain that people will forcibly try to change the topic of conversation to men.

...

It isn't disbelief, it's annoyance with people trying to warp conversations about women into conversations about men. This happens all the goddamn time, and it gets old quick. These posts are frequently off-topic and almost invariably an attempt to dismiss the original article/post out of hand.

The reverse happens all the goddamned time as well. Usually by saying that men's issues are really about misogyny, thus solving women's issues will magically solve men's issues, therefore we should *really* be talking about women's issues and why are you trying to derail our discussion of women's issues with men's issues. A pattern you started to fall into during an unquoted part of this very post, actually.

Or just blatant trolling (see #INeedMasculism), or protesting (see Warren Farrell at U of T), or what have you.

You can discuss whatever you want. But if you're going to claim, for example, that homelessness doesn't exist because you've never been homeless and neither has anyone important, don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

The problem is that when it comes to gender debates, the argument is instead that hunger doesn't really exist because homelessness does, and even if it does that hunger is really homelessness, so if we solve homelessness magically no one will ever be hungry again, so homelessness is the only real problem related to poverty and any other issue you can conceive of can ultimately be transformed into homelessness. I call this the argument from primal homelessness. =p

I feel as though most of this thread validates the OP's thoughts. Many of you ought to feel very silly and foolish, because it's largely accepted fact that women are disadvantaged compared to men in the contemporary social context. The gap is somewhat mild at times in developed nations, but developing nations and undeveloped nations still have a lot of battles to win in the name of feminism. Even developed nations can be awful about this -- think of what was said last year in relation to rape by some US politicians.

US Republican politicians are pretty terrible, and outside of western democracies there are real and serious problems with women's rights. I won't argue that at all.

Sexism is especially bad in gaming and gamer culture because it means there is no escape for women.

We live in a culture where the concept of "women's space" is practically sacred. Where "men's space" (in the same sense as "women's space" - meaning space from which women are excluded) is practically nonexistent aside from men's restrooms. We expect men to adapt to the space when entering a female-dominant space, and we expect the space to adapt to them when women enter a male-dominant space.

Actually, for a quick gaming-related example. Before each PAX (east and prime) there's a private group who makes arrangements for a "women's meet up" at some local restaurant or another. No one really bats an eye at this (every now and then a promptly moderated troll threatens to party-crash), and they are never even made to explain why men are to be expressly excluded from their event (except that it would make the ladies in question "more comfortable" in some vague sense). In comparison, there was an internet shitstorm when one group decided to throw a men-only local LAN party for the launch of some game or another. They gave a reason, and that reason was largely stupid, but could be translated as making the guys "more comfortable" in some sense. They later retracted the stated reason, but not admitting women to their LAN party was seen as proof of the horrible sexism of gamers as a whole.

Does anyone want to talk about TJ and his horrible comments being ignored despite him being much larger than Anita Sarkeesian?

Who is TJ? Seriously, I apparently missed this entire debacle or I'm just not connecting the initials to the personality.

We manly internet nerds tend to lash out at women a lot. I'm not going to say that this behavior is excusable, but I feel that many of us were disproportionately treated like crap/ignored by women growing up. I love women and most, ok all, of my friends are women, but I have to admit that there are times when I think back to High School, I just can't help feeling bitter. I know it usually wasn't intentional but, growing up with severe social anxiety, women made my life hell. Their presence made me feel judged and unwanted. Constant feelings of rejection have a way of staying with you and I think it turned me into a bit of a sexist. I know my anger towards women is illogical; and unfounded, and I am trying to work on it, but it is still there. I don't know how much of my experience rings true with the nerd community, but this has always been my theory on the hostility directed at women on the internet. That and people are sexist in general. The internet makes them fearless.

Norah Vincent, who spent ~a year in drag posing as a man and wrote a book about the experience[footnote]http://www.amazon.com/Self-Made-Man-Womans-Year-Disguised/dp/0143038702[/footnote] said that after trying to meet and approach straight women as a man (she's a lesbian and already had experience with approaching women in that sense) that she realized the experience was causing her to start to develop a measure of misogyny she really didn't expect going in, and that she had to try hard to rid herself of. So maybe there's something to what you're saying.

They're rare, and IMO don't tarnish the mainstream feminist movement, but they do exist.

http://www.fstdt.com/Search.aspx?board=radfem+hub&page=1

Spoiler: O.o

Well I don't know if we really need the designation "feminazis" for those people. I think "bunch of fucking loonies" will do quite nicely.

I'll call your and raise you a:

Also http://agentorangefiles.com has a forum dump of a forum connected to RadFemHub and doxxes a few of the main posters. There's some...interesting reading in there, including support for male infanticide.

While rape accusations are serious and damaging, it's important to note that the rate of unfounded accusations for rape is no higher than the rate of unfounded accusations for any other crime.

Not according to the FBI. The FBI claimed the unfounded accusation rate was ~8%, citing it as being four times the index rate.

As far as false accusations, different studies give wildly different rates, depending on what counts as "false" and how it's being counted.

This is one of those bits where we use a strict definition of a term in one place and then use it to mean something else when it helps the argument though -- most people who are accused of, but did not commit rape or sexual assault were not "falsely accused" by the definitions used to count cases as "falsely accused" even if that number and term then gets used to suggest that anyone accused is almost certainly guilty because few people are "falsely accused."

I vaguely suspect that there's something similar going on with domestic violence, where there are different "kinds" of DV that get combined by both feminists and MRAs so that one can claim a higher incidence and the other can claim a greater severity (yes, I am in fact suggesting that the most severe kinds of DV are gendered but comparatively rare.

Men don't suffer the overwhelming majority of violence in society, become the overwhelming majority of suicides, live shorter lives, die more frequently from preventable diseases and so forth because society doesn't care about them and thinks they're useless. Quite the opposite. These things happen because society expects and on some level believes men to be invincible.

...or disposable. "Women are; men do" is a pretty terrible but readily apparent sexist dichotomy in how people are valued. As a man, when you can't "do", you no longer have value. It's a fundamentally feminist lens, carved from a solid chunk of primal misogyny (the tendency to recast all gender related issues into being about misogyny) that causes it to be seen the way you do.

Women don't get off lighter in court (at least for petty offenses) because society considers them to be innately good people. Again, kind of the opposite. Women are seen as weaker, both physically and emotionally, and thus their choices are seen to be more limited or less malicious.

You might want to look at your numbers again. The degree of difference in punishment actually gets wider as the crime becomes more severe at least in the US. Black women tend to be punished worse than white men for lesser crimes, but the reverse becomes true as crimes become more severe. This of course screws black men over pretty well on all fronts (getting the black penalty and the male penalty), but a quick look at prison populations could probably suggest that too.

You perceive it through this specific lens though because it's a standard feminism inspired theoretical lens. An argument could also be made that men are seen as more dangerous and violent, and thus there's a greater need to restrain them from hurting others if they cannot control said dangerous violent impulses.

I would wonder for example how you would argue airline seating policies that bar men (but not women) from being seated adjacent to unrelated children is actually based on a negative view of women. I can't even conceive of how that would be, but it's utterly consistent with the perspective that men are seen as innately dangerous and harmful.

 

[Darken12]

That's a little unfair. There isn't much you can do with tits.
Muscles are aesthetically pleasing but they do have use outside their appearance.

This is actually a problem that feminism has been addressing for a long time. That the most widely accepted beauty standard for males is that they are physically powerful (something that has countless uses in everyday life) while the most widely accepted beauty standard for females is directly related to motherhood (curvaceous hips and large breasts) and are useless otherwise, is a very, very sexist thing that has been going on for quite a lot of time.

A more apt analogy would be if a guy had a sexy face that was constantly being focused on.
He's not going to do shit with his face.
Doesn't mean he's being objectified.

You're right, it doesn't. Because, as I stated before, having X or Y characteristic has nothing to do with objectification. Objectification is about the camera's relationship to the character (as directed by authorial intent), and not something present in the character itself. If the camera spent several seconds doing lingering close-up shots of the dude's face as he stands there looking pretty and doing little else, that would be objectification.

I think you are fundamentally mis-attributing the cause of women with breasts and tits.
It's simply because it looks nicer.
Audiences don't like ugly people on their screens.
This applies to bodies as well as faces.

No. Merely being attractive/having large breasts has nothing to do with whether something is objectified or not. It's about how the author engages their character. If the character is given unnecessary exposed skin (especially in settings or stories where it would be impractical, socially unacceptable or otherwise unwarranted), is made to pose/stand around looking pretty, and the camera/narrative engages them as objects to be looked at instead of people to connect with on an emotional level, then the character is being objectified.

I still don't know what you're talking about when you mention the male gaze.
Ass or cleavage shots?
What kinds of movies are you watching?

Here, have some links: Feminism 101 [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D/] and Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory].

Here's a good summation of the most common techniques used to convey the male gaze:


It's not just "ass and cleavage shots", but the way in which the character is conceived. The character is conceived as something to look at first, and then everything else (personality, backstory, role in story) comes second (if it comes at all). Men are allowed to have any kind of body they want, from muscled to skinny to overweight, and they can still be main characters (while being rarely sexualised), but women must almost always be physically attractive (according to the current cultural definition of female attractiveness) and must almost always be sexualised, because they exist primarily to be looked at by men, and everything else is secondary.

One final point that I want to make. Sexualization of women in games exists.
That is not the same as objectification.
They're scantily clad because the target audience is horny teenagers.
They simply do what sells.
I don't see this as being sexist.

Yes, sexualisation is not the same as objectification. I've said as much before in this very thread. However, the actual problem is that we see that sort of thing as normal. We assume that it's normal that putting on a half naked woman on the cover will increase sales because the only demographic that matters are straight males. This tells society that women don't matter. They don't matter as consumers, and they don't matter as characters. What matters is that the straight males get their eyecandy, and that their male characters are awesome, while women stand there looking pretty.

That IS sexist.

Similarly, I don't see twilight as being sexist despite the fact that the two male leads have unnecessary focus directed to their muscular bodies.
Everyone simply produces what the target audience desires.
Sounds like the free market doing its job, not sexism to me.

Twilight is very sexist, but towards women, and has nothing to do with the sexualisation of the two male leads. It's sexist for a slew of reasons that feminists have dissected better than me, so if you're curious, you can google feminist takes on Twilight easily enough.

Regarding the sexualisation of the male body, I say that it is extremely tame when compared to the sexualisation of women. That the two deuteragonists of the film/book are shirtless a lot (and therefore sexualised) is a poor argument towards sexism against men when both characters are supernatural creatures that are far more powerful than the protagonist, and who spend pretty much most of the time telling her what to do, stalking her, saving her from everything, fighting over her, and more or less having more physical, social, economic and mental power than her while exercising their agency to the fullest (which she does very rarely). Sexualising the two deuteragonists does very little to exemplify sexism against men when the two of them control most of her life and she cannot stop them in any way.

Name a right men have that women don't in western nations, excepting the ability to serve in specific military capacities in some countries (which they should be allowed to, assuming that they meet the same standards as the men).

Why thank you for saying "except this" and name one of the most important rights most feminists are currently fighting for in modern Western nations. I'd say "abortion" but that's not a right men have (for obvious reasons), so that leaves me with "women are not allowed in certain physically demanding jobs (such as mining, construction and the like), even when they meet the endurance, bulk and strength requirements."

I would argue that the being muscled and the being desired are inextricably linked for men in this era and part of the world. In that being muscled is presented as how to be desirable to attractive women very consistently in the media -- either that or being obscenely wealthy.

While I don't agree or disagree with you on that, I find that to be mostly irrelevant to the point. Being desirable is not the same as being objectified or even sexualised. A man can be put on an elegant suit (or even in everyday clothes, provided they are clean and the attire is well composed) and he's portrayed as desirable without being sexualised in the slightest.

There were a bunch of examples of "objectified" women posted elsewhere in the thread, most of which weren't objectified by this definition (certainly not Triss or Maya, for example although I'll give you the Saints from Hitman).

Yes. I know. The restrictions were ridiculous, so I had to pick examples that skirted the line between sexualisation and objectification. If I had been allowed a greater variety of games, I wouldn't have picked 70% of what I picked there.

I'll give you a choice -- you can either be objectified by being depicted as very attractive and your sexuality put on display, or through gradual dismemberment. Which sounds like a better way to be portrayed -- pedestalized sex symbol or more meat for the grinder?

The meat grinder, every time. The meat grinder allows for action and agency. Sure, I'm disposable and I will die a painful death, but everything I do in between matters, and I am allowed to do whatever I want to do so long as I pay the price in the end. Being sexualised and put in a pedestal removes agency and identity. I am not a person that does things, I exist only to be looked at, touched, fucked and then put back on the pedestal. I am someone else's price (instead of someone else's enemy, as is the case with men).

Who cares about physical safety when it comes at such a high price? The meat grinder has something that the pedestal doesn't, and that's dignity. The mook goes down fighting and gets to live a life however he wants to live it, because all that matters is that he dies when he's supposed to. The pedestal is a constant, permanent jail of degradation and submission. I would rather die fighting as a nameless mook than being some hero's ineffectual sex trophy.

 

[unpronounceable]

This is actually a problem that feminism has been addressing for a long time. That the most widely accepted beauty standard for males is that they are physically powerful (something that has countless uses in everyday life) while the most widely accepted beauty standard for females is directly related to motherhood (curvaceous hips and large breasts) and are useless otherwise, is a very, very sexist thing that has been going on for quite a lot of time.

I would argue that this is biology, not sexism.
You appear to have to unfortunate habit of telling people to look stuff up instead of giving a basic explanation, so I will do something else.
I will actually explain myself.

Sexual dimorphism is when there is a phenotypic difference between the genders of the same species.
This means that while they have similar genetics, the way those genes are expressed are different.
This is because they have evolved to fill different roles.
Men are stronger and taller phenotypically than women.
Their genes are expressed in such a way that this is true of most people in a given population.

This has taken place because men and women have different roles which are expressed in their phenotypes.
Men have in the past been tasked with hunting and gathering.
Women can do this too, but it is not the way they have evolved.
Tits, wide hips, and pregnancy are not characteristics that are conducive to physical activity.

I would argue that the beauty standard of men with muscles being desirable without a similar trend for women is not a social construct or a manifestation of sexism, it is our biology.
We have evolved to find the mates who fit the evolutionary role more desirable.
Wide hips are desirable because they allow a greater probability of successful childbirth.
Muscles in men are desirable because they allow the man to provide for his family.

Of course, in the modern world, this need not apply.
I am not making a value judgement here. Only a statement about our evolutionary origins.

But what you must remember is this.
You cannot blame people for following their biological imperatives.
They desire women who can successfully give birth to a child because that is the entire point of reproduction and sex.
The only trait that is really selected for in evolution is the ability to successfully have offspring that can survive.
Muscular women who cannot bear children have absolutely no evolutionary fitness.
Their genes will not be carried on.
This is a fact of biology, not a component of sexism.

You're right, it doesn't. Because, as I stated before, having X or Y characteristic has nothing to do with objectification. Objectification is about the camera's relationship to the character (as directed by authorial intent), and not something present in the character itself. If the camera spent several seconds doing lingering close-up shots of the dude's face as he stands there looking pretty and doing little else, that would be objectification.

I think you missed my point.
You were arguing that because men use their manifestation of physical beauty to do work, they are in a power fantasy while women don't do anything with big tits.
I wasn't talking about the role of the "male gaze" or whatever new terms people want to coin.
I was addressing this particular point

it would involve the woman doing something with her appearance. Just like a man with muscles in a power fantasy uses them to lift things, punch things and otherwise exert force unto the world, a woman who would use her appearance as a weapon would use it to accomplish her goals.

This doesn't look like a good argument because the inherent nature of tits is that they have very little practical use.
Forget about the camera angle or authorial intent.
Even if the author wanted to have the female do something with her tits, what exactly would he make her do?

Also, what fucking female character stands there looking pretty?
At this point, I'm starting to doubt your taste in media.
What kind of shit are you actually exposing yourself to?
I'll get back to this point later.

No. Merely being attractive/having large breasts has nothing to do with whether something is objectified or not. It's about how the author engages their character. If the character is given unnecessary exposed skin (especially in settings or stories where it would be impractical, socially unacceptable or otherwise unwarranted), is made to pose/stand around looking pretty, and the camera/narrative engages them as objects to be looked at instead of people to connect with on an emotional level, then the character is being objectified.

Well, a lot of people have impractical armor or clothing in media.
Men do so as well. Consider for instance, the example of Neo in the matrix.
Bear with me for a minute.
He wears a trenchcoat while fighting the agents.
What a stupid article of clothing to wear into combat, right?
He doesn't wear it because it's practical, he wears it because it looks cool.
This happens all the time in media.

Men like to see less clothing and more skin on women.
This is simply because they think it looks good.
This isn't evidence of sexism. It's just people doing what sells.

Here, have some links: Feminism 101 [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/08/26/faq-what-is-the-%E2%80%9Cmale-gaze%E2%80%9D/] and Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_Gaze#The_.22male_gaze.22_in_feminist_theory].

It's not just "ass and cleavage shots", but the way in which the character is conceived. The character is conceived as something to look at first, and then everything else (personality, backstory, role in story) comes second (if it comes at all). Men are allowed to have any kind of body they want, from muscled to skinny to overweight, and they can still be main characters (while being rarely sexualised), but women must almost always be physically attractive (according to the current cultural definition of female attractiveness) and must almost always be sexualised, because they exist primarily to be looked at by men, and everything else is secondary.

You should stop beating this dead horse.
You've explained the theory behind it over and over and over again.
Your links contain no examples.
The movies and tv shows in your video seem sleazy as fuck.
Proportion of people who watch this shit must be marginal.
I question how really ubiquitous these examples of sexualization are.

I do agree with one point though.
Women are expected to be sexier than men.
Men don't really have to be very good looking to have presence in media.
This is true.
However, this one gripe is hardly an example of systematic sexism.
After all, there are some stereotypes and double standards that favor women.

Yes, sexualisation is not the same as objectification. I've said as much before in this very thread. However, the actual problem is that we see that sort of thing as normal. We assume that it's normal that putting on a half naked woman on the cover will increase sales because the only demographic that matters are straight males. This tells society that women don't matter. They don't matter as consumers, and they don't matter as characters. What matters is that the straight males get their eyecandy, and that their male characters are awesome, while women stand there looking pretty.

That IS sexist.

Again, vague references to the overwhelming presence of half-naked women in the media.
I don't see this very much.
Unless I actually know what you're talking about, I can't refute your point.
For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that you're talking about video games.

The reason that women are admittedly used as eye candy in video game art is because the primary demographic consuming video games is men.
People do what sells.
This doesn't mean it is sexist.
You'll notice that ken dolls are manufactured to look physically fit, with noticeable abs and muscles.
They do this because it sells, not because they are sexist.

If women were a bigger proportion of the gaming market, this wouldn't be happening.
Am I blaming women here?
No.
But it would appear that the vast majority of women have different interests.
Whether this is because of an inherent gender difference or cultural upbringing is uncertain.

However, what is certain is that this is the way to make money.
That's why they do it.
Not because women are objects.
Everything and everyone on a videogame cover is a marketing tool.
This does not mean that they are being objectified.

Twilight is very sexist, but towards women, and has nothing to do with the sexualisation of the two male leads. It's sexist for a slew of reasons that feminists have dissected better than me, so if you're curious, you can google feminist takes on Twilight easily enough.

Regarding the sexualisation of the male body, I say that it is extremely tame when compared to the sexualisation of women. That the two deuteragonists of the film/book are shirtless a lot (and therefore sexualised) is a poor argument towards sexism against men when both characters are supernatural creatures that are far more powerful than the protagonist, and who spend pretty much most of the time telling her what to do, stalking her, saving her from everything, fighting over her, and more or less having more physical, social, economic and mental power than her while exercising their agency to the fullest (which she does very rarely). Sexualising the two deuteragonists does very little to exemplify sexism against men when the two of them control most of her life and she cannot stop them in any way.

Here again, you direct me to google.
Fuck that shit.
I'll most likely have to sift through mountains of bile before finding anything worth my time.
If you want to bring evidence to the table, find it yourself and then present it.
Do not ask the opposition to find it for you.

All I think you've proved is that you can make contrived explanations for anything.
Yes they are supernatural creatures but I can posit an equally plausible explanation for why it is sexist against men.
Arguably, Bella the protagonist is the one with the greatest amount of power in the series.
She is the one that controls the hearts of both male leads and their power is ultimately subservient to her whims.
She gets to have her pick of the two while they are desperately vying for her affections.

Ultimately, at the climax of the books, it is Bella with her supernatural power that saves the day, not the single-minded violent intent of the two male leads.
It is her emotions and feelings that are the most important, while the men are portrayed as uncomplicated knuckleheads who's only life purpose is to please Bella whenever she desires.

Do I believe this explanation that I just typed out?
Of course not.
I'm trying to make a point.
You can come up with ridiculous explanations for why everything is symbolically sexist against women, just as you can do it for men.
It doesn't mean it's right.

I'm really tired of this arguing.
Who gives a fuck about how things are portrayed in media?
I could argue that asians are underrepresented in modern media and make up some kind of a fucking bechdel test for them too.
Most movies, video games, etc would fail it hard.

Does that mean that there is systematic oppression against asians?
Should I become an asianist or some shit?
Of course not.

Being a proponent of equality is enough.
If all feminists want is egalitarianism, they should stop calling themselves feminists and see themselves as people who believe in human equality.
This is why most women don't label themselves feminists.

 

[Schadrach]

Name a right men have that women don't in western nations, excepting the ability to serve in specific military capacities in some countries (which they should be allowed to, assuming that they meet the same standards as the men).

Why thank you for saying "except this" and name one of the most important rights most feminists are currently fighting for in modern Western nations. I'd say "abortion" but that's not a right men have (for obvious reasons), so that leaves me with "women are not allowed in certain physically demanding jobs (such as mining, construction and the like), even when they meet the endurance, bulk and strength requirements."

I fully accept that my specific exception is a major example of this, and that it is wrong, and that the US military at least is making moves to remedy it (frankly it's silly it's been around this long). I'm all for holding women to the same rights, standards and obligations as men. Hopefully they'll be required to register for Selective Service or else give up an assortment of government benefits soon (I almost expect some guy who didn't register to start a Title IX suit over having additional requirements for student aid because penis at some point), because that's about the only thing that has a chance of ending Selective Service entirely.

As far as abortion, men have essentially no reproductive rights at all, and often are held to strict liability for their sperm. Male victims of statutory rape get required to pay the perpetrator child support because they aren't "sufficiently innocent victims", men who donate to sperm banks sometimes get forced into child support. Personally, I think legal paternal abandonment (such that men have some right to refuse the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, say limited to a finite period during pregnancy or some minimum after being advised of paternity so that a woman acting in good faith can consider his choice in making her own) and routine cheek swab genetic testing of nominal fathers are things that absolutely need to exist.

Care to give me an example of women not being allowed in those fields despite meeting the same standards as the men? Or will it be one of those things where they don't perform as well (they perhaps meet minimum standards but other applicants exceed them or exceed them to a greater degree), but it's sexist not to let them do it anyways?

There were a bunch of examples of "objectified" women posted elsewhere in the thread, most of which weren't objectified by this definition (certainly not Triss or Maya, for example although I'll give you the Saints from Hitman).

Yes. I know. The restrictions were ridiculous, so I had to pick examples that skirted the line between sexualisation and objectification. If I had been allowed a greater variety of games, I wouldn't have picked 70% of what I picked there.

I think it's fair when talking about western sexism to exclude Japanese titles. The platform restriction was kind of odd though. How different would your choices have really been if you were still restricted from Japanese titles but without platform restriction and with "recent" (for some reasonable value of recent, given it was "10 examples" the number of titles released in the time frame in question is highly relevant) as the time frame? No one questions that there is objectification in Japanese titles. But...JAPAN IS WEIRD!

Also, though I hadn't watched the video yet, the still it gives of Cuddy with the subtitle "(Cuddy is his boss)" is a misleading image, in that the scene it's taken from (from the episode House's Head) is a hallucination/fantasy of House. She is a literal sexual fantasy in that scene.

 

[Terminal Blue]

...or disposable. "Women are; men do" is a pretty terrible but readily apparent sexist dichotomy in how people are valued. As a man, when you can't "do", you no longer have value. It's a fundamentally feminist lens, carved from a solid chunk of primal misogyny (the tendency to recast all gender related issues into being about misogyny) that causes it to be seen the way you do.

Let's break this down into points I can answer individually, because right now it's a bit confused up there.

1) Men are disposable

Disposable to whom?

"Society" is not a magical wizard who makes things happen on a whim, it is just a collection of human beings, Society cannot do anything on its own, people have to support it and buy into it in order to make any social trend real. If, as you say, men are disposable, it is because people in society, people whose views are central and important to society believe that men are a disposable worker race. Who are these people?

Now, there are many Marxist feminists who would strongly agree with you on this, so it's not like I'm saying its a terrible thing to believe. But you have to explain it.

2) "Women are; men do"

Really? All women are valued simply for existing and being female regardless of what they actually do? Are you seriously going with that?

Let's get this out the way because it's going to be a recurring point. Valuable to whom? Again, "value" must be the product of actual measurable social forces, so what are those forces? Who imposes the inherent value of female "being" on society and for whose benefit? Why does everyone else go along with it? What do they gain from doing so?

Secondly, women "do", and women have always "done". The idea that there has ever been a time when only men were economically useful to society is rubbish, if nothing else for one very simple reason: how would a world consisting only of men sustain itself over generations?

The economy has always required women to "do". In fact, it's only during the last century (and a bit) that the family wage has prevented women from having to perform "productive" labour, but even during the time when women were barred from the workplace they have still performed "reproductive" labour. They have been required to have babies, they have been required to raise and care for children, they have been required to provide sex to men, or to be appealing to men, they have been required to maintain a family home, to cook and clean and ensure their husband remains productive. These are all economic behaviors, they all have value because without them society would have stopped functioning. The value of women has been at least as dependent on "doing" these things as the value of men.

If the things women were "doing" have generally been seen as less valuable, what does that say?

3) "Primal misogyny"

This is one of the points where I just scratch my head. Because whoever taught you that word doesn't seem to understand what "misogyny" means.

"Misogyny" is a psychological state characterized by fear, hostility or a need to control or subordinate women in much the same way as "homophobia" is a psychological state characterized by fear, hostility or a need to control or subordinate non-heterosexuals.

Most "gender discussions" are not concerned with the internal feeling of the people they describe at all, but rather focus on socially observable behaviors. Thus, misogyny really isn't important to most of these discussions at all. The main area where you'll find discussions of misogyny today is in psychology (obviously) but also anything dealing with art and representation, such as media criticism. It's pretty much absent from any other area of discussion.

The degree of difference in punishment actually gets wider as the crime becomes more severe at least in the US.

Could be. I haven't looked at this lately and I don't think the specifics are particularly relevant so I'm not going to spend time looking it up.

You perceive it through this specific lens though because it's a standard feminism inspired theoretical lens. An argument could also be made that men are seen as more dangerous and violent, and thus there's a greater need to restrain them from hurting others if they cannot control said dangerous violent impulses.

Yeah.. I know that one, it's actually a pretty standard feminist argument.

Again, you're just trying to break this down into "advantage" and "disadvantage" as if its remotely relevant. If I leave an overweight person and a athletic person naked in sub-zero conditions, the overweight person will survive longer. This fact alone hasn't caused society to declare morbidly obese people to be the new privileged master race come to rule over us all.

A trait which overwhelmingly privileges you can also disadvantage you, particularly if your display of it is seen to be either excessive or lacking. Being seen as excessively dangerous may be bad, but being seen as "appropriately" dangerous is a huge advantage, as anyone who is not seen as sufficiently dangerous will be able to tell you.

The fact that a trait or position is valued does not mean that everyone benefits from it equally.

I would wonder for example how you would argue airline seating policies that bar men (but not women) from being seated adjacent to unrelated children is actually based on a negative view of women.

Well, I've talked enough really.. let's see if you can do it.

First things first, stop just looking purely for "advantage" and "disadvantage" and ask yourself why? Why would this be the case? What "male" and "female" traits are being asserted here? Why is sitting a child next to a man different from sitting him or her next to a woman? What is being said about how men and women are?

Take your answers, and think about other situations which occur in society. Consider the impact which possessing or lacking these traits might have on you in a range of different situations, and remember, they aren't binary switches. You can display the same trait very differently in different situations. What kind of traits might make you self sufficient if expressed properly in the right situation? What kind of traits might make you successful or powerful or give you influence if expressed properly in the right situation? What kind of traits might make you feel safer? What kind of traits might give you access to pleasure?

Gender is not an arbitrary mess of advantages and disadvantages set up by some insane deity for the lulz, it is an extensive system which colors almost all human perception and interaction. Treat it as such, and you will start to find it much easier to understand.

 

[Darken12]

I would argue that this is biology, not sexism.

No. No no no no no no no no. No.

Biological determinism should be forbidden by law. Or at least ridiculed like we ridicule racial supremacists. Biology is not a tool to justify sexism. We are not slaves to biology. Just because women can be mothers doesn't mean that we should confine the attractiveness of women to physical indications of motherhood while men can be skinny, muscled, short, tall, hairless, hairy, or anything in between and it's perfectly all right and desirable.

You appear to have to unfortunate habit of telling people to look stuff up instead of giving a basic explanation, so I will do something else.

I do that when I have already explained myself at least twice in this very thread.

I will actually explain myself.

Sexual dimorphism is when there is a phenotypic difference between the genders of the same species.
This means that while they have similar genetics, the way those genes are expressed are different.
This is because they have evolved to fill different roles.
Men are stronger and taller phenotypically than women.
Their genes are expressed in such a way that this is true of most people in a given population.

This has taken place because men and women have different roles which are expressed in their phenotypes.
Men have in the past been tasked with hunting and gathering.
Women can do this too, but it is not the way they have evolved.
Tits, wide hips, and pregnancy are not characteristics that are conducive to physical activity.

I would argue that the beauty standard of men with muscles being desirable without a similar trend for women is not a social construct or a manifestation of sexism, it is our biology.
We have evolved to find the mates who fit the evolutionary role more desirable.
Wide hips are desirable because they allow a greater probability of successful childbirth.
Muscles in men are desirable because they allow the man to provide for his family.

No. No. No no no. No. Please, please stop mangling biology. As a scientist that counts biology as half of his field, I implore you, please stop mutilating my baby and using its severed, bleeding body parts to justify horrible things. This is just like arguing that biologically, some races are smarter than others. It is an atrocious thing that is patently false. That is not how genetics (or biology) works at all.

I will link you to a very basic Feminism 101 post [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/05/10/faq-but-men-and-women-are-born-different-isnt-that-obvious/] on gender differences/sexual dimorphism.

Social roles are not a consequence of genetics. They are arbitrary social constructs, and evolution has absolutely nothing to do with it. Sexual dimorphism is not a justification for sexism. That women were told they were attractive when they had large breasts and hips (both which weren't conducive to physical activity) and that their place was to be passive, while men said that they were attractive when they were muscled, powerful and active, is a social construct. That women were told to stay in the kitchen-area, barefoot and pregnant, while the men went out and did important things, wasn't genetics, evolution or biology. Those were men cunningly eliminating half of the species from the race towards power, privilege and leadership.

Of course, in the modern world, this need not apply.
I am not making a value judgement here. Only a statement about our evolutionary origins.

But what you must remember is this.
You cannot blame people for following their biological imperatives.
They desire women who can successfully give birth to a child because that is the entire point of reproduction and sex.
The only trait that is really selected for in evolution is the ability to successfully have offspring that can survive.
Muscular women who cannot bear children have absolutely no evolutionary fitness.
Their genes will not be carried on.
This is a fact of biology, not a component of sexism.

You have overcome my capacity for words. I am so horrified (as both a scientist and a human being) that I do not know how to explain how wrong you are.

I will give it a token try:

Biological imperatives do not exist. You do things because you want to, not because God the Devil your genes tell you to. It is literally impossible for genes to make you do anything, because they are not magical forms of mind control, they are instructions for how to make proteins. Proteins aren't magical either. No, not even hormones. While sexual attraction might be genetic (it's still being debated), everything else that gets built on top of that is entirely social (and therefore arbitrary). You find something attractive for basically one of three reasons: A) Society tells you this is attractive. B) Society tells you you shouldn't be attracted to this. C) Something about the thing you find attractive resonates with a part of your personality.

I'm going to try and be as clear as possible: Once humans developed intelligence similar to the kind we enjoy today and started forming societies, evolution stopped having any sort of influence on their behaviour. Our roles, whether gender-based, sexuality-based, racial or otherwise are entirely fabricated and arbitrary. We decide what we find attractive, what our gender roles are, and we can change them if we want to. We just don't want to because we've been doing it like this for so long and because ending male privilege would, well, end men's privilege as a social class. A lot of men do not want that at any cost.

I think you missed my point.
You were arguing that because men use their manifestation of physical beauty to do work, they are in a power fantasy while women don't do anything with big tits.
I wasn't talking about the role of the "male gaze" or whatever new terms people want to coin.
I was addressing this particular point

No. You missed my point. I never said that "men use their manifestation of physical beauty to do work." I said "men enjoy the luxury of having something very beneficial for them (muscles) also considered physically attractive." Muscles benefit both genders (and yes, women can be muscled as well, if they undertake the proper training regime or engage in the same steroid use that many/most muscled men do), but men, because they have been in a position of power for a long time, have dictated that muscles are only appealing in men, not in women. The conventions for what is attractive or not has been dictated by men for a long time. Men have decreed that women are supposed to be attracted to muscles because that gives them an excuse to develop something very useful in daily life (that they have often use to victimise women, too), and then decreed that women are only attractive when they are physically weak and displaying outer signs of motherhood (large breasts and curvaceous hips) to reinforce their role in society as mothers and little else.

This doesn't look like a good argument because the inherent nature of tits is that they have very little practical use.
Forget about the camera angle or authorial intent.
Even if the author wanted to have the female do something with her tits, what exactly would he make her do?

You're confusing different points I'm making. One point is that what society deems attractive for women is almost useless for her (the main use of breasts is breast-feeding). The other point is the difference between sexual fantasy and power fantasy. It IS possible to portray a sexualised female character as a power fantasy by having her use her sexuality as a weapon (to distract, seduce, intimidate, and so on), but the difference is that most of the time, the woman is not sexualised for a purpose other than for the eyes of the straight male audience. That is a sexual fantasy. A power fantasy is about agency, action and accomplishment. A sexual fantasy might contain some degree of agency, action or accomplishment, but they aren't the most important component. In a sexual fantasy, the most important component is the sexualisation or objectification.

Also, what fucking female character stands there looking pretty?
At this point, I'm starting to doubt your taste in media.
What kind of shit are you actually exposing yourself to?
I'll get back to this point later.

No, you're just deliberately misinterpreting my points to avoid acknowledging something you don't want to see. If you genuinely watch regular TV or play videogames and you don't see the way women are sexualised, then you are beyond my help. There is nothing I can do from here, since I cannot watch TV or play videogames with you and point out every single instance a woman is sexualised for no purpose whatsoever but to entice the straight male audience.

When I say "stands there looking pretty" I do not mean literally. That would be ridiculous. What I mean with that phrase is that sexualised women exist primarily to be watched, and everything else they might do in a story is secondary.

Well, a lot of people have impractical armor or clothing in media.
Men do so as well. Consider for instance, the example of Neo in the matrix.
Bear with me for a minute.
He wears a trenchcoat while fighting the agents.
What a stupid article of clothing to wear into combat, right?
He doesn't wear it because it's practical, he wears it because it looks cool.
This happens all the time in media.

Cool =/= sexualised. Ridiculous weaponry is also impractical and unrealistic, but unless the character licks it or strokes it suggestively, it's not sexualised. Making impossible jumps/stunts, surviving unrealistic situations of danger, accomplishing something that has a million to one chance of succeeding, and so on, all those things are cool and unrealistic. They have absolutely nothing to do with sex whatsoever.

Men like to see less clothing and more skin on women.
This is simply because they think it looks good.
This isn't evidence of sexism. It's just people doing what sells.

Thank you for stating the obvious. I already explained why the current state of the entertainment media is sexist. If you missed it last time, I will repeat it:

"The actual problem is that we see that sort of thing as normal. We assume that it's normal that putting on a half naked woman on the cover will increase sales because the only demographic that matters are straight males. This tells society that women don't matter. They don't matter as consumers, and they don't matter as characters. What matters is that the straight males get their eyecandy, and that their male characters are awesome, while women stand there looking pretty.

That IS sexist."

The problem isn't that women are sexualised. The problem is that women are sexualised a hell of a lot more than men are, and that the entertainment media assumes (save specific niche exceptions) that their audience is made up of straight males, and that women do not matter as either consumers or characters. The problem is that women are conceived as being sexual fantasies for men first and foremost (again, save very specific roles such as The Crone, The Mother Figure and The Child), and everything else they do is secondary to that purpose. That is what is sexist.

You should stop beating this dead horse.
You've explained the theory behind it over and over and over again.
Your links contain no examples.
The movies and tv shows in your video seem sleazy as fuck.
Proportion of people who watch this shit must be marginal.
I question how really ubiquitous these examples of sexualization are.

I will stop beating the dead horse when you actually understand what I'm saying.

Those were examples of popular shows (Smallvile, House). There was another video I didn't link because it was near 10 minute long that included popular movies such as Psycho, Roger Rabbit and others I'm forgetting right now. Take any horror movie. Their rating lets them show tits and bare asses left and right, and most of them do it. I went to see V/H/S last weekend with my best friend and it was god-awful. The two best stories were precisely those with little to no nudity. The other three had women getting naked for a camera and the closest thing we had to equal opportunity sexualisation was brief glimpses of man ass.

Take any action movie. Megan Fox has made a career out of appearing in skimpy outfits and leaning suggestively, and many other actresses have been portrayed the same way. How many juvenile comedies have had sexualised women so that the bumbling male main character could pratfall or concoct zany schemes? How many dramas have sneaked in "artistic nudity" for thinly veiled reasons? How many mystery/suspense movies have had women creeping through their homes/dark hallways/woods in their underwear, bathing suit, bath towel or negligée? Hell, even movies predominantly aimed at women (like Magic Mike) have plenty of bare breasts and female sexualisation.

This isn't something weird or out of the ordinary. This is something that happens everywhere, in most of the entertainment media. You get bombarded by it in ads, TV shows, movies, videogames, comics, hell, even books can easily spend paragraphs describing a woman's appealing appearance.

I do agree with one point though.
Women are expected to be sexier than men.
Men don't really have to be very good looking to have presence in media.
This is true.
However, this one gripe is hardly an example of systematic sexism.
After all, there are some stereotypes and double standards that favor women.

Yes, that is the entire point. Women are considered first and foremost to be sexually attractive (again, save very specific exceptions), and everything else they might do or be is secondary. Men are conceived differently by the media.

Also, any instance of a woman being favoured by society is an instance of benevolent sexism [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/09/faq-female-privilege/].

Again, vague references to the overwhelming presence of half-naked women in the media.
I don't see this very much.
Unless I actually know what you're talking about, I can't refute your point.
For the sake of simplicity, I'll assume that you're talking about video games.

I do not consider it reasonable to ask me to demonstrate something that is self-evident. If you cannot see something that is everywhere, then me pointing it out is not going to magically open your eyes. You're going to nitpick every example I might give because you are absolutely convinced that what I'm trying to show you doesn't exist. I do not consider having my time wasted as something very appealing.

The reason that women are admittedly used as eye candy in video game art is because the primary demographic consuming video games is men.
People do what sells.
This doesn't mean it is sexist.
You'll notice that ken dolls are manufactured to look physically fit, with noticeable abs and muscles.
They do this because it sells, not because they are sexist.

I have no idea how you can sustain the cognitive dissonance necessary to say "It's okay for women to be sexualised or objectified under the assumption that the audience is made up of straight males and nobody else matters. No, this isn't sexist, why do you ask?"

Also, something you seem to be claiming over and over is that "because it sells" is somehow mutually exclusive with sexism. You are aware that most men do not want to be sexist, right? You are aware that sexism, despite that, still exists, right? Sexism, for the most part, is entirely unconscious. Most men aren't sexist because they genuinely hate women or think they're inferior, they are sexist because society has taught them sexist things, and they interpret those sexist things as normal. Yes, obviously, game companies put half-naked women on covers because it sells. Duh. I highly doubt any game developer thinks women are worthless bitches (though I'm sure there are a couple who do think so, they are a minority).

Sexism isn't an individual problem. It's a societal and systemic problem. Society perpetuates sexist ideas that get passed down from generation to generation and accepted as normal, and what we're seeing right now is the logical consequence of that.

If women were a bigger proportion of the gaming market, this wouldn't be happening.
Am I blaming women here?
No.
But it would appear that the vast majority of women have different interests.
Whether this is because of an inherent gender difference or cultural upbringing is uncertain.

There is no such thing as "inherent gender difference", let's make that clear from the start.

Now that I got that out of the way, don't you think a simpler explanation (Occam's Razor!) is that women are turned off by the portrayal of women in the medium? Wouldn't you get turned off by a medium if all you saw from it at first glance were half-naked dudes posing suggestively, an overabundance of female main characters, and finding that even when your gender makes it to main character, they are still put on a suggestive outfit and sexualised for the camera? And how would you feel if someone said "Well, if your gender was a bigger proportion of the market, this wouldn't be happening", huh? Wouldn't you find it a bit of a Catch-22 to say that the medium would be more welcoming to your gender if your gender was more prevalent, when the main reason your gender is not as prevalent is because the medium is very unwelcoming?

However, what is certain is that this is the way to make money.
That's why they do it.
Not because women are objects.
Everything and everyone on a videogame cover is a marketing tool.
This does not mean that they are being objectified.

They are not mutually exclusive. A woman can be objectified in order to sell something. In fact, that's the main reason women are objectified, because objectification sells. That's why the porn industry is so big.

I do agree that not all instances of sexualisation are objectification, but the idea that women being sexualised is normal while men being sexualised is out of the ordinary (because the audience is assumed to be straight and male, they assume women don't matter, yadda yadda, you know how this goes) IS sexist. "Because it sells" is just like saying that a company is allowed to do awful business practices that harm their consumers, their employees or the environment because "they have to make money." Yes, the ultimate goal of every business is to make money, but the means by which they achieve that are very much subject to moral and ethical review.

Here again, you direct me to google.
Fuck that shit.
I'll most likely have to sift through mountains of bile before finding anything worth my time.
If you want to bring evidence to the table, find it yourself and then present it.
Do not ask the opposition to find it for you.

If you aren't willing to educate yourself, how do I know that you're going to accept anything I say? How do I know that the time I spend looking for credible sources with understandable and well thought-out arguments isn't going to be wasted by someone who plain won't be convinced no matter how much evidence is piled before them? I've met several people like that on The Escapist and I've learnt not to waste my time on people who are wilfully blind. If you genuinely tell me that you will consider any links I find and might be convinced by rational arguments, I will find you sources. If you are dead-set on your views, I'm not going to waste my time.

All I think you've proved is that you can make contrived explanations for anything.
Yes they are supernatural creatures but I can posit an equally plausible explanation for why it is sexist against men.
Arguably, Bella the protagonist is the one with the greatest amount of power in the series.
She is the one that controls the hearts of both male leads and their power is ultimately subservient to her whims.
She gets to have her pick of the two while they are desperately vying for her affections.

Ultimately, at the climax of the books, it is Bella with her supernatural power that saves the day, not the single-minded violent intent of the two male leads.
It is her emotions and feelings that are the most important, while the men are portrayed as uncomplicated knuckleheads who's only life purpose is to please Bella whenever she desires.

No. Just plain no. Do you see the types of power I cited above? Do you see "emotional" anywhere in there? Emotional power is meaningless. Edward has far more money than she could ever make. He is also far stronger than her (to a point that she could never reach, no matter how much steroids and working out she did). He is also smarter than her, even if only because the author repeatedly forces her to make dumb decisions so that he or Jacob can rescue her. His family has greater social power than hers, though that's also mainly by virtue of how rich they are. No matter what she does, he can rape and kill her at any time and walk away scot-free.

Emotional power is absolutely meaningless, because it's both fleeting and doesn't rely on her at all. She doesn't control their emotions with supernatural powers. The emotions that the two men are feeling are theirs, and can change without her being able to do anything about it. However, the money, physical power, social standing and intelligence that Edward has over her are things that are entirely his and she can't take away. Bella is a powerless, submissive, helpless heroine whose entirely life revolves around men (her father, her boyfriend, Jacob, then her boyfriend again). The only female character that barely counts in her life is her daughter, and even then she is little more than a clumsy anti-abortion message and consolation prize for Jacob.

In short, emotional power is meaningless because it's not something that depends on her. She is not actively doing anything to control him. Everything he does is out of his own free will because he himself became infatuated with her.

The only point in your favour is the bit about the end. Which comes at the end of the book/movie saga and doesn't invalidate what came before. Furthermore, Bella can't use her power to protect herself from her boyfriend's physical or social/economic power, and while she can stop him from reading her mind, she can't stop him from outsmarting her.

Are Edward and Jacob sexualised? Yes, moreso in the movies than the books. That doesn't mean Twilight isn't sexist towards women, it doesn't mean Twilight is sexist towards men, and it doesn't mean that men in the entertainment media are sexualised in any degree of importance.

I'm really tired of this arguing.
Who gives a fuck about how things are portrayed in media?
I could argue that asians are underrepresented in modern media and make up some kind of a fucking bechdel test for them too.
Most movies, video games, etc would fail it hard.

Does that mean that there is systematic oppression against asians?
Should I become an asianist or some shit?
Of course not.

Being a proponent of equality is enough.
If all feminists want is egalitarianism, they should stop calling themselves feminists and see themselves as people who believe in human equality.
This is why most women don't label themselves feminists.

Okay, look. A society's media is a reflection of itself. Society produces a combination of what it is and what it wants to see, so while the reflection might be warped in some respects, it does say something about the society that creates it. Erasure and misrepresentation in the media are bad things because they indirectly marginalise people. Entertainment is both a right and a need in society, and it's not right that it falls exclusively in the hands of the dominant majorities and everyone who is not like them gets erased or used for titillation or made fun of.

I do agree that Asians are under-represented in Western media, but they are at least represented in Eastern media. Women don't have that to fall back on. There isn't a country of women that produces media made by, containing and aimed at women (and similarly, there isn't a country of LGBT+ people either). There is an entire continent that makes media containing and aimed at Asians. It's called Asia.

As for the rest, I'm going to link you to some FAQs that deal with the very subjects you're bringing up:

What Is Feminism? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/faq-what-is-feminism/]
What Do Feminists Want? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/faq-what-do-feminists-want/]
Does Feminism Matter? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/15/faq-does-feminism-matter/]
Isn't Feminism Just Victim Politics? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/faq-isnt-feminism-just-victim-politics/]
Aren't You All Just A Bunch Of Feminazis? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/faq-arent-you-all-just-a-bunch-of-feminazis/]
Why Feminism And Not Just Humanism Or Equalism? Isn't Saying You're A Feminist Exclusionary? [http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/faq-why-feminism-and-not-just-humanism-or-equalism-isnt-saying-youre-a-feminist-exclusionary/]

As far as abortion, men have essentially no reproductive rights at all, and often are held to strict liability for their sperm. Male victims of statutory rape get required to pay the perpetrator child support because they aren't "sufficiently innocent victims", men who donate to sperm banks sometimes get forced into child support. Personally, I think legal paternal abandonment (such that men have some right to refuse the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, say limited to a finite period during pregnancy or some minimum after being advised of paternity so that a woman acting in good faith can consider his choice in making her own) and routine cheek swab genetic testing of nominal fathers are things that absolutely need to exist.

The main problem here is that a child is a huge expense that society forces women to deal with more or less on their own (because of the sexist idea that women must be child caretakers). While I agree that there are some gray areas (such as sperm donation and statutory rape, as you cited), in most cases men are saddling women with a responsibility that they can abandon freely while a woman can't. What if a woman isn't allowed to abort by the law? Why does she have to take care of the child while the man can exert legal paternal abandonment and the only choices the woman has are either give up the child for adoption or try and raise it on her own? And that is, of course, without even mentioning the actual process of pregnancy and childbirth, that the man is mercifully spared.

That men often make more money than the women in question (and they seek to ferociously protect their capital while being perfectly content with letting the woman sink most of her money on the child) also does not help. And, of course, that the social consequences for men who bail on their children go from "mild disapproval" to "complete support" while a woman who chooses abortion or adoption is a monster, aren't precisely fair either.

Care to give me an example of women not being allowed in those fields despite meeting the same standards as the men? Or will it be one of those things where they don't perform as well (they perhaps meet minimum standards but other applicants exceed them or exceed them to a greater degree), but it's sexist not to let them do it anyways?

I already gave you two examples. I wager this varies from country to country (and there are a lot of countries in Europe, North America, Central America and South America), but I know of many cases where women are simply not hired for construction work, mining or any physically dangerous job (such as those that involve radiation, for example, which are justified on the ludicrous idea that a woman can go to work for a sufficient amount of weeks for radiation to have an adverse effect on her foetus while still being unaware that she is pregnant at all), regardless of whether they are strong enough to do the necessary heavy lifting or not. In general, the reasons given are a high rate of workplace accidents or death, which apparently means that it's okay for men to risk life and limb doing necessary things for society, but women shouldn't, or that the workplace is completely male and having women there would be bad because [insert bullshit reason here]. And when I say "construction" I don't necessarily mean only city buildings. It happens when it comes to build things like oil platforms or structures in dangerous places (too deep underwater, too high up, dangerous weather, etc).

While I am definitely not advocating hiring women just because they are women, there ARE women who meet the necessary physical requirements to do physically demanding and dangerous jobs, and they are still not hired because she they are women.

I think it's fair when talking about western sexism to exclude Japanese titles. The platform restriction was kind of odd though. How different would your choices have really been if you were still restricted from Japanese titles but without platform restriction and with "recent" (for some reasonable value of recent, given it was "10 examples" the number of titles released in the time frame in question is highly relevant) as the time frame? No one questions that there is objectification in Japanese titles. But...JAPAN IS WEIRD!

The platform restriction wasn't that bad, and I do agree that Japan is very low hanging fruit (not because it's "weird" but because it's incredibly sexist). I am mainly chafing at the time restriction. If I had been allowed to to 2010-2012 (as I did in another thread), I could have brought up cases like Duke Nukem Forever, for example.

Also, though I hadn't watched the video yet, the still it gives of Cuddy with the subtitle "(Cuddy is his boss)" is a misleading image, in that the scene it's taken from (from the episode House's Head) is a hallucination/fantasy of House. She is a literal sexual fantasy in that scene.

Yes, I know, and this is something that comes up a lot in these types of discussions: there will always be a surface rationale for anything sexist. Always. It will always be given at least a thin veneer of justification, and when there is effort put into it, it will come off as perfectly logical and sensical. That doesn't make it any less sexist.

Sexism isn't just a deliberate instance of blatant objectification without rhyme or reason. Sexism is subtle. Sexism is pervasive. Sexism hides behind normalcy and conformity. Every time someone does something sexist, they can point to someone else and say "they did it too!". Sexism is almost never done on purpose and almost always done because the creator felt they were doing a normal thing. Slavery and racism were normal too at one point, remember? Even though some people do inappropriate things fully knowing that they are inappropriate, most of the time people do things (good, bad or anything in between) because they were told it was okay to do them and don't really think about it.

 

[PhiMed]

snip

snip

snip

Reading back in the cold light of day, I think I owe you guys a bit of an apology. I wrote the first post as a message of support to our original poster, and I didn't really think about my use of language. Anyway, reading back over the post today I can see how it would sound kind of bad to someone who wasn't already sympathetic to the point.

I'll still stand by what I said, but I should have expressed it differently. What I mean to say really is that there is the average dude has a great deal of misunderstanding about feminism and privilege in particular because, to a large extent, it just doesn't make sense to them. I wrote this as if it's a one sided thing which can be explained by subject positions, but really.. it's not just that. It's a weakness in the theory, or certainly the language around the theory, and one which pro-feminists, myself included, need to learn from.

I think the concept of privilege remains incredibly useful in explaining many elements of society which could not otherwise be reasonably explained, and I don't think it's something you can dismiss because it doesn't fit your personal experience as a man. There are very good reasons why it wouldn't. However, it is wrong for me to sit here and talk down to you about your lack of understanding when it's as much a consequence of my failure to communicate as anything else. I shouldn't be blaming you for my poor communication, that wasn't on and I shouldn't have gone anywhere near it.

That said, @FatherTime. I'm really not sure what you think I'm talking about. Also, don't mean to get technical but what I said is no more "sexist" than saying "most women like buying shoes". At worst it's just an unfair thing to say, and I accept that the way I worded it it probably was.

So, let me get this straight. Even if nearly every single facet of public life (which is not exactly the case... yet... but we're moving in that direction) were to be intentionally skewed to give females the advantage, even if males are judged to be almost universally treacherous when encountered out of context, and females are judged to be almost universally "safe" if met under the same conditions, if some private interactions, somewhere, unfairly fell in males' favor, then all males would still be privileged?

Not really.

I gave a more detailed explanation later on, but let me try again.

"Male privilege" is a manifestation of male hegemony, that is to say the social dominance of men in all the arenas which are really important. We use the word "hegemony" because this is not necessarily a violent or coercive dominance. Instead, it's an expectation that almost all the people who really mean anything in our society, who wield genuine power or whose opinions are most valid, will exhibit traits deemed (arbitrarily) to be "masculine", associated with (though not limited to) men.

If our world was ever in a position where it was dominated by women. Where women occupied all the key positions in society and the valuable traits which made the eligible to do so were considered "feminine". In a world where being "feminine" meant being strong, intelligent, self-sufficient, sexually agentive and all the other things which it currently does not, in a world where the default position in human society was that of a woman and men became the marked category, if the opinions of men were seen to be peripheral and tainted by their own subjectivity, then there would be a "female privilege".

Most of the disadvantages described in this thread are actually themselves symptoms of male privilege, because of course the hegemonic organization isn't as simple as just having a homogeneous bunch of men who are superior to a homogeneous bunch of women. Very few men will ever live up to the demands of "real" or "proper" masculinity, and none of us can do it forever. It is a competition which we are doomed to lose at some point.

Men don't suffer the overwhelming majority of violence in society, become the overwhelming majority of suicides, live shorter lives, die more frequently from preventable diseases and so forth because society doesn't care about them and thinks they're useless. Quite the opposite. These things happen because society expects and on some level believes men to be invincible. When you can buy into that, when you are healthy and strong and able and you know how to fight and can look after yourself the rewards to you are significant but, of course, not everyone can keep this up forever, and that's where the disadvantages start to show up.

Women don't get off lighter in court (at least for petty offenses) because society considers them to be innately good people. Again, kind of the opposite. Women are seen as weaker, both physically and emotionally, and thus their choices are seen to be more limited or less malicious.

Again.. privilege is not advantage. Advantage is completely situational based on what you're trying to achieve, privilege is related to broader social trends regarding what is considered important and valuable in a given society.

That was, without a doubt, the most circular logic I have ever had the misfortune to read. Congratulations.

 

[Terminal Blue]

That was, without a doubt, the most circular logic I have ever had the misfortune to read. Congratulations.

Thanks dude.. I'll certainly take it over no logic at all.

 

[Darken12]

I am not a biological determinist.

[...]

Genes can make us do a lot of things.
The types and quantities of proteins are the mechanisms by which all terrestrial organisms function.
This includes biological directives.
So yes, genes can make you do a shitload of things.

I cannot continue to engage someone who firmly believes in biological determinism (despite how much they claim they don't). The very notion is an affront to my ethics and produces me too much moral revulsion for me to continue this conversation.

The patriarchy does not exist.
It doesn't exist.

[...]

This only works if you already buy into the feminist worldview of there being a systematic patriarchal hierarchy, which there isn't.

[...]

The risk exists that you are wilfully blind and brainwashed the the feminist hate machine.

Congrats, you think I'm wilfully blinded and brainwashed by the feminist hate machine, I now firmly believe you've been blinded and brainwashed by the patriarchy.

I think I'm done here.

Yeah, good call. Me too.

 

[unpronounceable]

snip

My god. You are a med student?
I wasn't going to reply but I noticed that you identify yourself as a medical student on your profile.
If you are the caliber of student that Argentina's medical schools produce, I worry for the state of Argentina's healthcare system.

You don't even believe that genetics has an effect on behavior.
I'm seriously concerned.
I don't think I'll ever get medical treatment in argentina.

Something to remember.

 

[Darken12]

snip

My god. You are a med student?
I wasn't going to reply but I noticed that you identify yourself as a medical student on your profile.
If you are the caliber of student that Argentina's medical schools produce, I worry for the state of Argentina's healthcare system.

You don't even believe that genetics has an effect on behavior.
I'm seriously concerned.
I don't think I'll ever get medical treatment in argentina.

Something to remember.

I would never recommend you to come to Argentina, medical treatment or not. It's a very unsafe country. You should worry about the state of Argentina's healthcare system, but mostly because it's underfunded and neglected by the government.

That aside, I'm also a biochemist (got the degree last year), and within a few months I'll be in charge of running the labs of two different hospitals during the night shift, so you might also want to avoid getting blood tests done as well.

The idea that genetics has an effect on behaviour is so utterly ridiculous and morally repugnant I refuse to see your words as a dig at me, my country or my academic formation. You lose all credibility when you adopt that stance, and your rebukes are little more than petulant glares as far as I'm concerned.

 

[unpronounceable]

snip

No. My horror at the realization that you will one day have a medical degree is genuine.

I'm going to assume that your ignorance is genuinely not your fault, and I am going to try to help you here.
If you are a science student with any knowledge of science, you understand the value of peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals.
You are aware of the rigorous selection process that any paper must go through, being approved by relevant experts in the field before being published.
If you are an educated scientist, you understand the value of scientific papers.
If this is the case, allow me to appeal to your reason, and not your emotion.

Don't give a knee jerk reaction to this.
Stop for a second and think.

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/9/5/160.short
http://mansci.journal.informs.org/content/58/1/21.abstract
http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/24/1/30.short
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JECYNuEsr3MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&dq=behavioural+genetics&ots=My_t1TWK_I&sig=8VNzOdCuvGk1DoqAxN-TSb7Wm4s#v=onepage&q=behavioural%20genetics&f=false
http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?ouvrage=1365393
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/18/4/217.abstract

An excerpt from the abstract of the last paper

The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies. We see little need for further studies of the heritability of individual traits in behavioral science, but the twin study is far from having outlived its usefulness.

This isn't just me saying this.
The effect genetics in cognitive behaviour is well established.
It's almost universally accepted.

Are you religious?
This may explain your lack of understanding on this key issue.

That being said, anyone on the internet can claim to be anything.
Your ignorance leads me to believe that you are not in fact a med student, but are instead just claiming to be one.

Here is the wikipedia article on behavioural genetics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics].

If that's not enough for you, consider for example complex behaviour in animals.
How do birds know how to build nests?
How do many animals know migration routes and times?
Even if animals are raised out of contact with fellow members of their species they demonstrate this behaviour.
This is called instinctive behaviour. (Jensen 13)

I hope you are a troll. I really do.
The idea that someone like you could be in charge of a patient's life is beyond concerning.
The idea that people like you could enter, much less graduate from a medical school is disturbing.

 

[Darken12]

No. My horror at the realization that you will one day have a medical degree is genuine.

I'm going to assume that your ignorance is genuinely not your fault, and I am going to try to help you here.
If you are a science student with any knowledge of science, you understand the value of peer reviewed papers published in scientific journals.
You are aware of the rigorous selection process that any paper must go through, being approved by relevant experts in the field before being published.
If you are an educated scientist, you understand the value of scientific papers.
If this is the case, allow me to appeal to your reason, and not your emotion.

Are you joking? Any lunatic can publish a paper! Do I need to bring out all the religious nutjob scientists that published several papers supporting hideous things? Peer review and scientific publication are great for when it comes to harmless, innocuous things like a new drug for a disease or a new marker for a condition, but when it comes to things that have an actual social impact, such as behavioural studies, you run dead smack into biases, skewed studies and peer reviews made by people who already agree with the results.

As a scientist, I know better than to blindly trust just about every paper or book that gets published under the veneer of science.

Don't give a knee jerk reaction to this.
Stop for a second and think.

http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/9/5/160.short
http://mansci.journal.informs.org/content/58/1/21.abstract
http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/24/1/30.short
http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JECYNuEsr3MC&oi=fnd&pg=PA13&dq=behavioural+genetics&ots=My_t1TWK_I&sig=8VNzOdCuvGk1DoqAxN-TSb7Wm4s#v=onepage&q=behavioural%20genetics&f=false
http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?ouvrage=1365393
http://cdp.sagepub.com/content/18/4/217.abstract

An excerpt from the abstract of the last paper

The heritability of human behavioral traits is now well established, due in large measure to classical twin studies. We see little need for further studies of the heritability of individual traits in behavioral science, but the twin study is far from having outlived its usefulness.

This isn't just me saying this.
The effect genetics in cognitive behaviour is well established.
It's almost universally accepted.

Almost universally accepted? Not in my country and not among any Latin American, European, American or Canadian doctor or scientist I've ever spoken to. Which haven't been many, admittedly, but enough to make coincidence unlikely.

As for the papers, I cannot read the full text on any of those papers, so I cannot see for myself whether their methodology suffers from confirmation bias or any other form of methodology errors (as they are very prone to having. I had an entire class two years ago that taught us, among other things, how to spot errors in methodology, statistical analysis or logical reasoning in already published papers, which had allegedly been peer-reviewed). The only one I can read is the book on Ethology, which is a very poor attempt at justifying your beliefs when there is a very clear difference between Homo sapiens and the rest of the animal kingdom, and that difference is, of course, intelligence. It also conveniently ignores observed animal behaviour that isn't dependant on genetics, such as conditioning, learning and mimicry.

Are you religious?
This may explain your lack of understanding on this key issue.

I am anti-theist. I was actually going to as YOU if you were religious, since all of this reminds me a lot of the tools of oppression used by religious leaders, replacing this veneer of science with divine scripture.

That being said, anyone on the internet can claim to be anything.
Your ignorance leads me to believe that you are not in fact a med student, but are instead just claiming to be one.

Wow, just wow. Do you want me to prove my qualifications, too? Do you want me to describe to you the differences between haemolytic, thalassemic, folic acid deficiency and iron deficiency anaemias and how to detect them on the microscope? Do you want me to explain the differences between hypoparathyroidism, pseudohypoparathyroidism and pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism? Or explain how Type II Diabetes comes about, as well as the damage it causes? Oooh, oooh, I know, I'll just talk about Immunology and how T-cells and B-cells interact in order to effect an immune response! Or explain meiosis and how some errors therein can cause genetic disorders! Or even how to get from "unknown colony on a blood agar plate" to full-on Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus!

Really, take your pick. I've got it covered.

Here is the wikipedia article on behavioural genetics [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_genetics].

If that's not enough for you, consider for example complex behaviour in animals.
How do birds know how to build nests?
How do many animals know migration routes and times?
Even if animals are raised out of contact with fellow members of their species they demonstrate this behaviour.
This is called instinctive behaviour. (Jensen 13)

All that article is saying is that behavioural genetics is something some scientists have believed in and worked on, and then how they justify their ridiculous conclusions.

Answers:
Either parent-to-child imparted behaviour or mimicked behaviour from the same or a different species, with a hefty dose of conditioning.
Electromagnetism, wind currents and temperature.
Some behaviour might be mimicked from other species (particularly nest-building, as it can be mimicked from other species of birds). And I remind you that in many cases, animals never developed certain behaviours when removed from their natural habitat, or developed entirely new ones (such as the famous case with wolf packs. The whole "alpha, beta and so on" thing is entirely artificial. It was behaviour only observed in captive packs. It's possible that, when the animal is taken from their natural habitat, they observe similar cues that would lead them to build a nest. After all, at some point, there must have been a point where no bird had ever built a nest, and then it did, guided by environmental cues or conditioning. It's possible that such cues and condition have been present in the new location that these animals were taken to, and that's why they develop the same behaviour.

I hope you are a troll. I really do.
The idea that someone like you could be in charge of a patient's life is beyond concerning.
The idea that people like you could enter, much less graduate from a medical school is disturbing.

You hope I am a troll because of an ideological disagreement? Whatever evidence behavioural genetics might have is flimsy at best, so don't make it sound like some self-evident fact like gravity. Do tell me, do you think it good that a doctor say "sorry, no hormones or gender reassignment surgery for you. Your genes say that you were born a male, so that's what you were meant to be" or for a scientist to testify on a rape trial saying that the defendant's testosterone levels are too high because of a genetic disorder and that this or that study have "proven" (not really) a correlation between testosterone and aggressiveness/sexual desire, and that therefore the defendant was just a slave to his genes? Or that a woman isn't supposed to abort because every genetic and biological process in her obviously wants to keep the child alive? Or the continuous use of genetics as a tool to support the oppression of minorities?

Ugh. That you continue to try and use science to justify something that has nothing to do with science whatsoever absolutely sickens me.

 

[Darken12]

They're not any paper, bud. They're peer reviewed.
One of them is backed by the american psychological association or APA.
You may have heard of them.

Yes, and people have confirmation biases. It happens, particularly in charged topics.

As of now, a few possibilities exist.
You might be a troll. You might just be terrible scientist. Or you might be a lying 12 year old.
Any one of these things are possible.

Humans are a member of the animal kingdom. The basic mechanisms by which we operate are the same.
Conditioning, learning and mimicry are not ignored, genius.
Nowhere in the book does anyone assert that those things do not exist.
But the point is that conditioning, learning, and mimicry are not enough to explain the behaviour of animals.

How do the animals know what behaviour to imitate?
How do they know to avoid pain?
How does conditioning work universally on all animals?
What is the mechanism by which the learning behaviours you mention function?
The answer is genetics.

If the answer was genetics, we would be nothing but organic machines. I think that there was such a philosophy that died out a century or two ago, called mechanicism, that believed the human body was nothing but a machine. It saddens me that this still lives to the day.

Animals have some form of intelligence. I don't think I need to cite you sources for this self-evident fact. This intelligence might not be as complex or advanced as ours, but it exists. Animals make decisions, learn and remember using their intelligence, within their limitations. To ask how animals learn is to ask how humans learn, to ask how animals mimic is to ask how children mimic, and so on. All these things happen because we reason and make decisions, not because a cell makes more or less of a certain protein, or because this or that protein binds to this or that receptor. Thought is independent of the neurobiology it needs to exist. You cannot inject someone with a cocktail of neurotransmitters and get them to think of specific things.

Anyone can look up obscure biology on the internet, buddy.

Hah, I knew you'd say that. You've already made up your mind and cannot tolerate that a reliable source disagrees. Therefore, I must either agree or be unreliable. Since I don't agree, you are dead set on casting me as the latter.

If a theory is widely discredited, wikipedia mentions this.
Example. Climate change denial.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity.

Your claim was that the idea that genes have an impact on behaviour is widely rejected by the scientific community.
I say that's uneducated horshit and that you're talking out of your ass.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
You will not find a single serious paper that makes the claim the genetics has NO INFLUENCE ON HUMAN BEHAVIOUR.
You are beyond help. This is a special, transcendent level of ignorant and uneducated.

No, you're right. I was wrong. Clearly it isn't as widely discredited as I thought it'd be. Which simultaneously scares the everloving shit out of me and suddenly explains why so many scientists side with religious figures when it comes to oppression. After all, if you replace "God" with "genes", the discourse is the same.

Again. I must ask how they know how to interpret sensory information.
How do they know what to imitate?
Biological imperatives.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
There is literally no way you are med student.
Confirmed troll.

Biological imperatives do not exist once you reach rudimentary intelligence levels. Sure, biological imperatives exist in things like fungi, plants, bacteria, protozoaires and the smallest of animals. But once the animal develops sufficient intelligence to learn, remember and make decisions, biological imperatives become "biological urges" at best, like hunger, thirst or the desire to procreate. An urge is something that can be controlled, while an imperative can't (that's why it's an imperative), and the use of that intelligence is what allows animals to ignore their urges for one reason or another (such as the experiment that shocks an animal when they reach for food. The animal then suppresses their urge to feed until it either outsmarts the mechanism or judges that starvation is more lethal than the shock).

And again, you cannot accept the idea that a credible source would disagree with you, so clearly I am not a credible source.

And here you make the most mind-bogglingly RETARDED point of all.
We are not subservient to our biology.
The fact that moral dilemmas arise as a result of our discoveries is not evidence against the discovery.
I call you a troll because this is not a debate of ideology.
This is a debate between facts and stupidity.

Find me one peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal that refutes the fact of behavioural genetics.
You won't find a single one.

What? That's what you've been saying all along! Biological determinism is the ludicrous belief that we are subservient to our biology, and that's exactly what behavioural genetics purports. The wikipedia page even says that schyzophrenia, which is a complex psychoneurological disorder, can be reduced to something as simplistic as a single gene.

Speaking of which, have some papers refuting behavioural genetics and their theories:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685358/
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/ehpp/2010/00000012/00000003/art00003
https://files.nyu.edu/alp219/public/Panofsky%20Gene%20for%20Trouble%20Writing%20sample.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394457/
http://shm.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/3/581.short
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588854/

And from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332233/

We thus offer a glimpse of an aspect of compatibilism that does not address the compatibility of freedom with determinism per se, but instead addresses the compatibilism of responsibility with neurobiology and mechanism. By showing how choices are made, the neurobiology does not dismiss choice as illusory, but highlight?s the agent?s capacity to choose.

Emphasis mine. Just because science might discover correlations between behaviour and something physical (in this case, brain activity, or some other neurobiological manifestation), it doesn't mean that there is no free will that exists independent of the physical (and therefore, of the genetic). Such free will can overwrite, ignore or accept any biological urges a creature might feel.

If I ever find out who you are, I will report you to the Medical Association of Argentina and ensure that you have your license revoked.
Someone as stupid as you should not be practicing medicine.

We won't be conversing again.
Goodbye.

It's quite concerning that your worldview is so fragile. One person disagrees and your grabbing your torch and pitchfork. Quite fanatical, really. Though not entirely unexpected. Zealots gonna zeal, I guess.

 

[Terminal Blue]

This isn't just me saying this.
The effect genetics in cognitive behaviour is well established.
It's almost universally accepted.

I see what you're doing here.
You're taking an incredibly broad statement.
A statement which is generally accepted to be true.
Although the precise degree is debatable.
Then you're selectively applying it to social phenomena.
Without any detailed evidence that it is relevant.
For example, none of the sources you have posted have any relevance to what you are describing.
None of them relate to sexual selection in any way.
They simply suggest that behavioural trends are influenced in some way by genetic factors.
And even then, all that is being suggested is loose correlation.
So none of it even matters as regards social policy.

A cursory examination of human culture will yield some basic observations.
Whatever instinctive "drives" exist in human psychology are impossible to generalize about.
This is because they are socially moderated.
Not all humans desire to have sex.
Some humans are asexual.
This should be very obvious.
For that matter, evolution doesn't even require all humans to have sex..
Like all social animals, we can pass on our genes without breeding.
So the idea of a universal desire to have sex is not necessary.
Even if such a thing exists it doesn't always manifest socially.
It can be moderated and thwarted by social influence.

What is far more useful to talk about is an inarticulate drive towards "pleasure".
A drive which manifests as a desire for sex in most individuals due to social moderation.
Nonetheless the specifics remain highly variable.
People will come to imbue a wide range of objects and stimuli with pleasurable associations.
Some people will become sexually aroused by shoes.
This is not because they evolved to be sexually aroused by shoes.
Shoes did not exist in the ancestral environment.

So please.
Stop misrepresenting your sources.
They are not relevant to this discussion at all.

 

[Darken12]

snip

You're arrived at a place that is extremely sad and unfortunate.
Before you congratulate yourself, understand one thing.
The fact that genetics influences your behaviour does not mean that there is no meaningful choice that can be made.
Biological impulses can be overridden.
Educate yourself. [http://www.bvog.com/?post=IDrTC3PboenrIAmS9]

None of the links you posted refute shit.
Every time I want to end this exchange you manage to say something even more ridiculous.
A never ending escalation of ignorance.

I am 99% certain you are a troll now.
I congratulate you on being such a successful troll.
I guess everyone needs to have at least one talent.
In your case, logic and debate is obviously not among your skills.

Oh, so they're "impulses" now instead of imperatives, huh? And they can be overridden, even? They're not very imperative then, are they?
Pfft, your stance has been all over the place, and when I finally bother to find you evidence (just like you've been pestering me about since the beginning), you do exactly what you accused me of doing, and simply dismiss everything baselessly because you don't agree with it.

Also, the link is broken. But even if it wasn't, it would only be supporting MY claim that whatever biological urge you might have is under your control (and therefore citing genetics as a rationale for anything social is irrelevant, since our behaviours are under our control and we can change them if we want to, which includes the way we treat women as a class and how they are portrayed in the media) and not an imperative in any way.

You can say I'm a troll all you like, it doesn't make it any less false, or my views any less genuine. But it's okay, we were both done with the discussion several posts ago, so let's give it a rest. Have fun supporting the patriarchy, I guess.

 

[Schadrach]

The main problem here is that a child is a huge expense that society forces women to deal with more or less on their own (because of the sexist idea that women must be child caretakers). While I agree that there are some gray areas (such as sperm donation and statutory rape, as you cited), in most cases men are saddling women with a responsibility that they can abandon freely while a woman can't.

Wait, the woman *can't*? And here I thought abortion, adoption, and abandonment were all options available to women to revoke the rights and responsibilities of parenthood. It's also worth noting that the latter two can be done without the father's consent, and the father has no say in what happens to his child in those cases.

What if a woman isn't allowed to abort by the law?

If the goal is equity of rights, then if a woman cannot revoke the rights and responsibilities of parenthood, then that option should not be available to men. What we really have in most western countries right now is a scenario where the mother has the right to do so both before and after the child is born, and the father is beholden to the mother's choices whatever they may be.

Why does she have to take care of the child while the man can exert legal paternal abandonment and the only choices the woman has are either give up the child for adoption or try and raise it on her own?

Why is the man beholden to the woman's choice to have and keep the child? Since she is choosing to a) not abort, b) not give it up for adoption, and c) not "safe haven" abandon it it seems like she is taking that burden of her own free will.

And, of course, that the social consequences for men who bail on their children go from "mild disapproval" to "complete support" while a woman who chooses abortion or adoption is a monster, aren't precisely fair either.

Huh, around here, we revoke your driver's license, start garnishing wages and possibly jail you (usually for contempt of court, during which time it continues to accrue) for failing to pay child support. A woman aborting, adopting, or abandoning gets what some disapproving comments?

Also, to quote #INeedMasculism: #INeedMasculismBecause not wanting to be a father makes me a scumbag while her not wanting to be a mother makes her pro-choice.

I already gave you two examples.

I was hoping for something more specific than broad categories of industry and a statement that "it happens".

I am mainly chafing at the time restriction. If I had been allowed to to 2010-2012 (as I did in another thread), I could have brought up cases like Duke Nukem Forever, for example.

The interesting question is how many examples of objectified female characters (per the previous definition you yourself gave) out of how many titles? You were grasping at straws for 10 in the admittedly tiny time restriction originally given (seriously, Triss and Maya?), while more would be easy to point out with a longer time span, are they a bigger proportion of the overall catalog? Was the time frame you were originally given just unusually light on such things?

Yes, I know, and this is something that comes up a lot in these types of discussions: there will always be a surface rationale for anything sexist. Always. It will always be given at least a thin veneer of justification, and when there is effort put into it, it will come off as perfectly logical and sensical. That doesn't make it any less sexist.

I have a feeling you are missing something important about that specific example -- that is not a typical representation of that character in any fashion. The entire episode that scene is from is filled with dream sequences, hallucinations, and the like, with that particular one being the only one that could be described as sexualized. The framing of the scene there is interesting (for example, dubbing music over it rather than the original audio which changes the character of things significantly, ignoring the supplied context of the scene [Just subtitling it with "Cuddy is his boss" as though that was a typical representation of her], etc). For contrast, here's the whole scene, with original audio: http://telly.com/CSZVZ Though I'd recommend the entire episode (or even series) instead.