Is it time for feminists to step off our hobby?

[BloatedGuppy]

Let me repeat myself... again

Never underestimate power of shaming. In it's purest form social shaming is more powerfull than threat of reliving person of their freedom.

During World War I British high command used "White Feather society" to bolster numbers of their soldiers. White Feather society consisted of middle class women that would surround young men out of the uniform, insult and shame him for several minutes upon which they would put "White Feather of cowardice" somewhere on his person. This proved extremely efficient way of bullying young men into army (UK didn't have laws for conscription). Young men were willing to go to the front line rather then face such shaming again. At a time when going to the front line was considered almost equal to the death sentence. And rightfully so since WWII could not match WWI casualties among western countries and British managed to lose 32.000 army personnel in one single day (no prisoners). Number unmatched even by mass charges of Red Army in WWII!

So...what do you propose, Carnex.

Do you propose a moratorium on all forms of criticism on the chance some content creator shares 1930's sensibilities and performs a metaphorical march to the front line because someone had the temerity to dislike something they'd done and speak about it publicly?

Or should we just have someone pick and choose which forms of criticism should be allowed, and which shouldn't? Who would that person be?

 

[Guerilla]

snip

You have some real problems handling statistics, and I simply don't have the time to teach you about how they do and don't work. The fact is, I've done my homework (not yours). You have decided to go "appeal to tradition" and what is or isn't a "gamer" for market purposes, and you've ignored the manifold influences that shape it.

The claim is that many of the AAA products are marketed squarely at men, when market research has shown women will spend just as much on games that are marketed more broadly. (After all, what makes a puzzle game like Candy Crush "pandering toward women?") Your reply is that more men are buying those AAA games.

More men buy THOSE games because they are structured around male characters, male power fantasies, and some flawed male ideas about non-male characters. It's the same reason you'd be less likely to buy a product if it advertised that its use would increase your bust size, or something else largely irrelevant to males.

You can't hang a sign on the door that says, "This part's pretty much just for dudes," and then act surprised when mostly dudes show up. Furthermore, you can't then use the fact that mostly dudes show up as a defense for the sign. It's flipping cause for effect, which is an awful sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Beyond this, you have some real problems with reading someone else's very clearly expressed ideas. You choose instead to filter it through your own assumptions about what you think they are saying. Take the words at face value:

1. Drawing a parallel between racist legislation and the current state of sexism in media is just that: DRAWING A PARALLEL. It is demonstrating how ONE ASPECT of the latter resembles ONE ASPECT of the former.

Think of it this way: If you were unfamiliar with squares, and I told you "Squares have flat sides. You're familiar with triangles, right? Well, the side of a square is a flat, straight line segment, just like the sides on a triangle. It's just there are four of them," would you be so idiotic as to say, "Oh, so you're equating squares and triangles?" For your own sake, I should hope not.

2. It is possible for two injustices to stem from the same personality flaw. Selfishness can cause a person not to share their candy, or it can cause them to steal from a neighbor's house. One is clearly a more serious infraction, but both can rightly be traced back to selfishness. This comparison can be made without arguing for a "slippery slope" (ie, that not sharing candy will lead to robbery) and without saying the two are equal. It is simply showing that both behaviors find their genesis in the same "seed," though the "trees" be of disparate sizes.

Please, really do try to read and comprehend these very simple principles. They aren't difficult. They simply require that you stop, think, and read precisely what I am saying. Not what you assume I'm saying. Not what you guess I'm saying. Not what you think what I'm saying is going to lead to me saying next. Read the words, in their exact sequence, and understand them at face value. I promise you, I say precisely what I mean to, and do not in any way require you to add to or subtract from my statements for me.

And I've done my homework too.

You can't just claim that there are as many male gamers as there are female when talking specifically about AAA games, you're misrepresenting the stats that way. Noone says this party is only for dudes, we just say it makes perfect sense for an industry to focus on its majority of clients instead of the imaginary potential clients it could have according to feminists. Expansion is always a target of course and that's why we've seen some games targeted at women too but you can't possible expect 50/50 representation in genres with 80/20 or 70/30 difference between genders.

It's time for people to accept that men and women have different preferences and stop trying to force absolute assimilation. There's nothing wrong with genders thinking differently, that's what makes it interesting.

 

[carnex]

So...what do you propose, Carnex.

Do you propose a moratorium on all forms of criticism on the chance some content creator shares 1930's sensibilities and performs a metaphorical march to the front line because someone had the temerity to dislike something they'd done and speak about it publicly?

Or should we just have someone pick and choose which forms of criticism should be allowed, and which shouldn't? Who would that person be?

Wow, step on a brake a bit. You know there is a world of difference between critiquing and shaming.

Critiquing does not involve extrapolating perceived characteristics, morality and/or virtues and flaws of creator or consumers of given piece of art/goods other than skill of the creator.Other than that critique is focused on piece of art and it's possible meaning.

 

[AkaDad]

snip

You have some real problems handling statistics, and I simply don't have the time to teach you about how they do and don't work. The fact is, I've done my homework (not yours). You have decided to go "appeal to tradition" and what is or isn't a "gamer" for market purposes, and you've ignored the manifold influences that shape it.

The claim is that many of the AAA products are marketed squarely at men, when market research has shown women will spend just as much on games that are marketed more broadly. (After all, what makes a puzzle game like Candy Crush "pandering toward women?") Your reply is that more men are buying those AAA games.

More men buy THOSE games because they are structured around male characters, male power fantasies, and some flawed male ideas about non-male characters. It's the same reason you'd be less likely to buy a product if it advertised that its use would increase your bust size, or something else largely irrelevant to males.

You can't hang a sign on the door that says, "This part's pretty much just for dudes," and then act surprised when mostly dudes show up. Furthermore, you can't then use the fact that mostly dudes show up as a defense for the sign. It's flipping cause for effect, which is an awful sort of intellectual dishonesty.

Beyond this, you have some real problems with reading someone else's very clearly expressed ideas. You choose instead to filter it through your own assumptions about what you think they are saying. Take the words at face value:

1. Drawing a parallel between racist legislation and the current state of sexism in media is just that: DRAWING A PARALLEL. It is demonstrating how ONE ASPECT of the latter resembles ONE ASPECT of the former.

Think of it this way: If you were unfamiliar with squares, and I told you "Squares have flat sides. You're familiar with triangles, right? Well, the side of a square is a flat, straight line segment, just like the sides on a triangle. It's just there are four of them," would you be so idiotic as to say, "Oh, so you're equating squares and triangles?" For your own sake, I should hope not.

2. It is possible for two injustices to stem from the same personality flaw. Selfishness can cause a person not to share their candy, or it can cause them to steal from a neighbor's house. One is clearly a more serious infraction, but both can rightly be traced back to selfishness. This comparison can be made without arguing for a "slippery slope" (ie, that not sharing candy will lead to robbery) and without saying the two are equal. It is simply showing that both behaviors find their genesis in the same "seed," though the "trees" be of disparate sizes.

Please, really do try to read and comprehend these very simple principles. They aren't difficult. They simply require that you stop, think, and read precisely what I am saying. Not what you assume I'm saying. Not what you guess I'm saying. Not what you think what I'm saying is going to lead to me saying next. Read the words, in their exact sequence, and understand them at face value. I promise you, I say precisely what I mean to, and do not in any way require you to add to or subtract from my statements for me.

And I've done my homework too.

You can't just claim that there are as many male gamers as there are female when talking specifically about AAA games, you're misrepresenting the stats that way. Noone says this party is only for dudes, we just say it makes perfect sense for an industry to focus on its majority of clients instead of the imaginary potential clients it could have according to feminists. Expansion is always a target of course and that's why we've seen some games targeted at women too but you can't possible expect 50/50 representation in genres with 80/20 or 70/30 difference between genders.

It's time for people to accept that men and women have different preferences and stop trying to force absolute assimilation. There's nothing wrong with genders thinking differently, that's what makes it interesting.

Sharing concerns with the way women are portrayed in games isn't even close to forcing absolute assimilation. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.

 

[Guerilla]

Sharing concerns with the way women are portrayed in games isn't even close to forcing absolute assimilation. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.

These "concerns" are being expressed from the point of view of perfect assimilation. If they actually took into account that in fact it's an industry where the main consumers are male they wouldn't have such concerns. Concerns which might I say the last few years have become more like non-stop preaching and self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with the feminist dogma of 50/50 on everything. And 50/50 on everything unless of course the genre is female dominated, then they just ignore the girly puzzle games the industry is full of.

 

[Cronenberg1]

Sharing concerns with the way women are portrayed in games isn't even close to forcing absolute assimilation. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.

These "concerns" are being expressed from the point of view of perfect assimilation. If they actually took into account that in fact it's an industry where the main consumers are male they wouldn't have these concerns. Concerns which might I say the last few years have become more like non-stop preaching and self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with the feminist dogma of 50/50 on everything. And 50/50 on everything unless of course the genre is female dominated, then they just ignore the girly puzzle games the industry is full of.

Or maybe girls don't play those types of games because they are not targeted at them. Maybe more girls would play some of those types of games if they made a better attempt to appeal to them. Also I don't see a reason why games shouldn't be more inclusive even if girls don't like them, having the same type of character in everything is boarding.

 

[AkaDad]

Sharing concerns with the way women are portrayed in games isn't even close to forcing absolute assimilation. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.

These "concerns" are being expressed from the point of view of perfect assimilation. If they actually took into account that in fact it's an industry where the main consumers are male they wouldn't have these concerns. Concerns which might I say the last few years have become more like non-stop preaching and self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with the feminist dogma of 50/50 on everything. And 50/50 on everything unless of course the genre is female dominated, then they just ignore the girly puzzle games the industry is full of.

You're really good at false premises. Nobody that I'm aware of is pushing for perfect assimilation in video games. If there are some feminists saying that, then we can both point and laugh.

I'm not making any accusations here, I'd just like you to perhaps give some thought to why feminists might think that some people are misogynistic when they keep making arguments based on false premises and are constantly negative towards them.

 

[Proto Taco]

And while we might disagree with some creative decisions, ultimately it's the creator's work to do with what he will. Whether that work lives or dies in the court of public opinion is up to us. We can criticise it on its merits, but extrapolating that to making broad statements about the developer's worldview is totally speculative and ultimately fruitless, particularly when they give us more inclusive games and receive just as much, if not more scrutiny.

That right there is both misspelled, and solves your own argument for you. If the significant public opinion were that the representation of women in games is fine, you wouldn't have made this post, because it wouldn't be an issue. It's an issue because a LARGE number of people are finally starting to stand up to passive old guard misogyny and push for actual female equality, not the game industry's, "your pipes are leaking so here's a stopper for your bathtub," mentality. Putting passively heroic women/girls in games as supporting characters does not mean the game has, 'a strong female character.' Especially when you consider the ratio of 'games where women are treated like crap' to the ratio of 'games where women are awesome', the math is simply no where near balanced, even if you narrow your test pool to games in the past 2-3 years.

Additionally, it's the freaking game industry. They make pixel fantasies for a living. Their heroes could be freaking sentient shoe laces trying to make it in a world ruled by despotic candy corn, but instead they choose (the fact of choice is important here), they CHOOSE to make games about grizzled, bearded men, usually white, manipulating, mutilating, beating, raping and killing basically anyone who isn't just like them, and even a few who are, including women. Then they shove it in our face and tell us how awesome it is through every media outlet known to humanity.

In short, the reason you're seeing games lambasted so thoroughly is because they ARE dying in the court of public opinion, BECAUSE they don't portray women in equal light.

If they are dying in the court of public opinion I'm really not sure how, as games sales have never been higher. Triple A's being the market that most of these complaints are leveled at haven't ceded any market share, so I honestly don't see it.

So you say that games having women in as supporting characters does not mean having a "strong female character"... does that mean that in your opinion a female character can only be "strong" if she's the central/player character? What about games like Half-Life 2 where Gordon Freeman is a floating orb with zero personality - basically a conduit for the player to enter the world - and Alex, arguably a supporting character, is one of the best-loved characters in PC gaming? Does the fact that you don't play her invalidate her?

To me this just sounds like trying to justify a position by any means necessary. There are many well loved supporting characters, in many ways loved more than the central ones, whether it be Clank, Daxter, Elizabeth, Ellie, Cortana, Cole Train... If they are all "passively heroic" to you then I think you have a bit of a black and white view of storytelling.

Also, on a pedantic note, could you point out what exactly I misspelled?

To me this just sounds like trying to justify a position by any means necessary.

Pretty much answered your own post there...again.

Now, to address your key complaints;

a) Sales =/= Opinion. If no one knows a game will be bad, they will buy it out of ignorance and discover later that they don't like it. Similarly, even if someone knows they won't like it, they may still buy it to ensure they are well informed enough to discuss exactly why they don't like it with accurate, firsthand references, should they come up in discussion. I'm afraid your statement on this front is less of a rebuttal and more of a redirect. My point still stands, if significant public opinion were that these games were fine, you wouldn't be complaining about people lambasting them in this thread.

b) Again, you're not addressing my argument, you're redirecting. The hip internet colloquialism for it is 'strawman argument' I believe? To take your example of Alex Vance from Half Life 2; Yes, she's awesome. Yes, she's cool. She does qualify as a strong supporting character. But does her presence there balance out all of the games depicting brutality against, and institutionalized disenfranchisement of women in that same year? No, it does not. Furthermore she herself is damseled, at points, in order to let the player, grizzled white nerd guy Gordon Freeman, feel heroic about saving her. Furthermore, supporting characters are, by definition, tertiary and easily disposed of during a game if the story 'calls for it'. So even though Alex Vance could be a strong female character, she's not, because her position as tertiary aid/motivation for the main character, grizzled white nerd Gordon Freeman, renders her presence entirely optional. A strong female game character IS the heroine of the game, not next to the hero, not good at watching the hero's back, she IS the heroine. To put it in simple terms, a strong female game character is;

1) The lead heroine
2) Independent
3) Tough
4) Resourceful
5) No matter how bad the situation gets, she's always capable of solving her own problems without additional assistance

The number of female game characters who fit all those descriptors can be counted on two hands, maybe stretching to your toes if you really dig through indy games. Compare that to how many hands and feet you'd need to count the number of 'macho guy saves helpless damsel' games out there.

c) No, I will not save you the seemingly insurmountable effort of using the spellchecker on your own posts.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wow, step on a brake a bit. You know there is a world of difference between critiquing and shaming.

Critiquing does not involve extrapolating perceived characteristics, morality and/or virtues and flaws of creator or consumers of given piece of art/goods other than skill of the creator. Other than that critique is focused on piece of art and it's possible meaning.

Are you suggesting that the problem here is libel? There exists legal recourse for that. If content creators feel that criticism of their products has crossed the line into defamation, it behooves them to seek legal representation.

Or are you suggesting that bickering and flame warring in forums is the remedy to "shaming". Which...apparently if you imply by forethought or accident that someone is sexist it's equivalent to sending them off to their death in a war, but...meh. Metaphors, right? What are you going to do.

 

[R0guy]

I think that just goes to illustrate what's inside your head, not what any of the saner voices are putting forth.

Ahem, no. Those examples I've given are a non-exhaustive list of "sexism" scandals either put forth by Ms Sarkeesian or the gaming press. So, nope.

One of the things she harps on is the lazy writing which keeps throwing out the same handful of scenarios over and over and over and over and over again.

Again, nope. She only harps on one very specific scenario, being the "damsel in distress". Saving the kingdom/world/galaxy "trope" is unsurprisingly never mentioned, because she wants to make the case that super mario contributes to sexism, just like Jack Thompson said that call of duty contributes to school shootings.

Gamers have largely been bored with Mario for a couple of console generations now and I don't think I've seen anyone put forth the idea that we need more Damsel In Distress games because the concept is just so damn great.

*Sigh* nope.

1) In the last couple of generations (just WII and WII U) Nintendo has sold almost 50 million copies of Mario games. Thats excluding DS, 3DS and spin-offs like Mario Kart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Mario_(series)

2) I don't recall anyone wanting more "damsel in distress" games but between saving a man or a woman, from the stats we have, people would rather save the woman.

http://walkingdead.wikia.com/wiki/Video_Game_Statistics
"Who did you save?

Saved Doug - 24%
Saved Carley - 77%"

So, sure, if writers are as unimaginative as you, then it'll be a bad thing; but it really only takes a handful of really well-made books/comics/films/games to point the way. Better written female characters expands the field far, far more than it limits it.

If the article you're talking about is this drivel: http://www.slashfilm.com/what-fast-furious-6-could-teach-star-trek-into-darkness-about-half-naked-women/

Then you might be right about me being unimaginitive, I would've never believed someone could write something so stupid. Aside from Star Trek being a reboot of 60s show with an almost entirely male cast, here is a wonderful quote:

"The sad part of all this is that it?s not as if Fast & Furious 6 is some paragon of feminist ideals. Male roles outnumber female ones by a 2:1 ratio, and the film fails badly at the Bechdel test."

So basically, by following the same reasoning, "Live at the Appollo" and "Bad Boys" 1&2 are reverse racist, "Sex in the city" is mysandrist and "No country for old men" is racist AND mysoginist. All for not ham-fisting different gendered/coloured characters that have little to nothing to do with the context or storyline.

Any better written character would expand the field, but I've been talking about the gaming press and Anita Sarkeesian's view of what is or isn't sexist. Not you're own specific opinion on the subject. All I know is Bordelands 2 got slammed for racism and the lead dev on Saints Row has recently apologised for being sexist.

PS: I'm unfamiliar with "Preacher", therefore I won't comment on it.

 

[Guerilla]

Or maybe girls don't play those types of games because they are not targeted at them. Maybe more girls would play some of those types of games if they made a better attempt to appeal to them. Also I don't see a reason why games shouldn't be more inclusive even if girls don't like them, having the same type of character in everything is boarding.

And maybe men aren't using make up or read erotic novels because those industries only target women. You can't use the chicken and egg argument because it's just an assumption backed up by nothing.

Core games aren't 50/50 inclusive for a variety of reasons. First of all, since men are mainly interested in them it's only natural that the creators will also be mainly male and men make games from their perspective, you can't force them to develop games the way feminists say they SHOULD be made instead of the way they WANT to make them.

Second reason is practicality. No industry in their right mind would create their products for absolutely everyone instead of targeting the demographics who are actually their customers. They'd be bankrupt in a month with all the wasted products noone would buy.

Third reason is competition. Since feminists have practically demonized male sexuality and interest in violent media it means that you can't have neither of those. So which publisher do you think the male dominated clientbase will prefer if everything else is equal, the prude and not so violent one who censors his developers to appease feminists or the one who doesn't give a fuck?

For the record, games ARE inclusive, they just aren't perfectly inclusive to the point of assimilation like feminists want.

 

[Guerilla]

You're really good at false premises. Nobody that I'm aware of is pushing for perfect assimilation in video games. If there are some feminists saying that, then we can both point and laugh.

I'm not making any accusations here, I'd just like you to perhaps give some thought to why feminists might think that some people are misogynistic when they keep making arguments based on false premises and are constantly negative towards them.

Feminists do what they've been doing for years now. Female empowerment is their goal any means necessary, so they ignore the areas where women are favored and keep pushing society to empower women in other areas, with no end in sight. Which explains why the internet is starting to get pissed off with this annoying attitude of demands and accusations. Buzzwords like misogynism are being spammed for the stupidest shit ever and honestly at the rate this is going these words will become meaningless.

Having said that I've met reasonable feminists on the internet who actually do what they say and support equality, not empowerment. The problem is they're not the main voice of the movement anymore and they're definitely not the majority. Their voices are being drowned by people like Sarkeesian and from shitty echo chambers like tumblr and Jezebel.

 

[SNCommand]

I think there's an issue where too many people are trying to mandate what the game industry should be, instead of doing something about it themselves, people keep complaining about lack of representation, design catered to horny teenage boys, too violent, too complex, etc.

The gaming industry is a free market industry, there's no political party leading it and demanding a certain representation, and there shouldn't be one either, if people find something lacking they could try to finance someone wishing to make the product they want, or they could make it themselves

But then you have incidents like what happened to the Fine Young Capitalists, they actually set out on the goal to actually do something about what some people perceived as a lack of female spearheaded game ideas, and they got shit upon by the very people who spend their time complaining about female representation in gaming, that I think is a serious present issue

 

[Don Incognito]

Third reason is competition. Since feminists have practically demonized male sexuality and interest in violent media it means that you can't have neither of those. So which publisher do you think the male dominated clientbase will prefer if everything else is equal, the prude and not so violent one who censors his developers to appease feminists or the one who doesn't give a fuck?

Still waiting for you to answer the question: do you know what censorship actually is? Because a reading of the above post would suggest otherwise.

 

[Billy the Squid]

Sharing concerns with the way women are portrayed in games isn't even close to forcing absolute assimilation. Your whole argument is based on a false premise.

These "concerns" are being expressed from the point of view of perfect assimilation. If they actually took into account that in fact it's an industry where the main consumers are male they wouldn't have these concerns. Concerns which might I say the last few years have become more like non-stop preaching and self-righteous condemnation of everyone who doesn't agree with the feminist dogma of 50/50 on everything. And 50/50 on everything unless of course the genre is female dominated, then they just ignore the girly puzzle games the industry is full of.

Or maybe girls don't play those types of games because they are not targeted at them. Maybe more girls would play some of those types of games if they made a better attempt to appeal to them. Also I don't see a reason why games shouldn't be more inclusive even if girls don't like them, having the same type of character in everything is boarding.

See that's the problem, right there, and you haven't even noticed.

If the market is so wide and more women than ever are in gaming, then why don't they play those types of games more? Namely, because they don't like what that game is specifically designed around eg FPS, Strategy etc. The women that do play the games like it for the very reason that other women and men don't.

You are trying to push women into playing a game they have no interest in playing, because "hopefully if we make it more inclusive they will" you have no evidence for this at all, just some vain hope that if you standardize and turn the games into cut and paste copies of one another maybe more women will play them.

They had this issue in England, the sciences predominately attract men at university, subjects like Chemistry, Engineering, Physics, Mathematics, while women gravitated towards other subjects which they enjoyed. That apparently was a problem, so certain University boards decided to drop the grade boundaries, put in quota systems and offer grants to encourage more women to take those subjects. You know what happened? The faculty departments closed because the new women joining it didn't like the subject and dropped out, they lost money, and lost male students who they couldn't take, as women had taken their place, to other Universities only for those same women to later change subject. And the women who had chosen those topics because they liked them were driven out too, because the department closed it's doors.

That's the future you're pushing for. Where was this great new market when the Tomb Raider game came out, playing as a woman is inclusive, surely right? Nowhere to be seen, it was still the same type of person buying it, man, woman doesn't matter; a certain game will attract a certain type of player based on their traits, not their bloody genitals.

A lot of young men enjoy competitive FPS games, the vast majority of CoD players are men. What are you going to do? Change the core of the game to appeal to women who have no interest in it, and by default irritate the bigger market of young men and the women that do enjoy that competition?

Certain devs don't like the thing you're driving for either, he's not the only one.

http://orogion.deviantart.com/journal/Save-the-Boob-plate-380891149

Why shouldn't games be more inclusive? What are you going to do to make it so? Stick a woman in as the main character maybe? I doubt it'll make much difference to who buys it. Are you going to start shifting game mechanics and designs? Not going to happen in the big FPS market or Strategy market, nor racing. So what are you left with? RPG's so you're going to limit the portrayal of events and stop devs creating content they want because it could be offensive and needs to be inclusive? So we can effectively throw the likes of The Witcher, Bayonetta and Dragon's Crown into the bin then. If people want to make an inclusive game which doesn't offend anyone, have at it, they should be able to create whatever they want. But, if you want to start poking fingers into games simply because it "potentially offends" and change them, that's when people have a problem.

Is that really what you're asking for. Give me a breakdown of how you actually plan to put your idea into effect.

 

[AkaDad]

You're really good at false premises. Nobody that I'm aware of is pushing for perfect assimilation in video games. If there are some feminists saying that, then we can both point and laugh.

I'm not making any accusations here, I'd just like you to perhaps give some thought to why feminists might think that some people are misogynistic when they keep making arguments based on false premises and are constantly negative towards them.

Feminists do what they've been doing for years now. Female empowerment is their goal any means necessary, so they ignore the areas where women are favored and keep pushing society to empower women in other areas, with no end in sight. Which explains why the internet is starting to get pissed off with this annoying attitude of demands and accusations. Buzzwords like misogynism are being spammed for the stupidest shit ever and honestly at the rate this is going these words will become meaningless.

Having said that I've met reasonable feminists on the internet who actually do what they say and support equality, not empowerment. The problem is they're not the main voice of the movement anymore and they're definitely not the majority. Their voices are being drowned by people like Sarkeesian and from shitty echo chambers like tumblr and Jezebel.

Once again your arguing from a false premise. Empowerment is power through legal or official means. There are no bills in Congress mandating game developers to do anything. There's no angry mob of feminists holding game developers down and forcing their feminism down their throats.

Women make up 50% of the population while Congress is 80% male. Is it not a reasonable goal that the people who supposedly represent us, actually represent the demographics of the population?

In the Zoe Quinn thread, I made a negative comment towards white, male gamers. I got 25 replies, some accusing me of hating white men. So based on just one comment I was accused of hate. You've been a member of the Escapist for 2 days, you've made 75 posts, the majority of which were negative towards feminists and feminism. Is it not reasonable that people might believe that you're obsessed at best, misogynistic at worst?

 

[SNCommand]

Is it not reasonable that people might believe that you're obsessed at best, misogynistic at worst?

Tired of arguing against someone? Insult their character, woooo!

 

[AkaDad]

Is it not reasonable that people might believe that you're obsessed at best, misogynistic at worst?

Tired of arguing against someone? Insult their character, woooo!

I didn't insult his character, I made no accusations. He said feminists just toss out that word for no reason and I was pointing out how one could be perceived that way.

 

[Guerilla]

Once again your arguing from a false premise. Empowerment is power through legal or official means. There are no bills in Congress mandating game developers to do anything. There's no angry mob of feminists holding game developers down and forcing their feminism down their throats.

Actually no that's not what empowerment is only about. The term is kind of vague and it means power through many means and for a lot of causes. And yes there kind of is an angry mob, figuratively, that demands games the way they want them and accuses developers of some pretty awful stuff. Hating women for example is their favorite one which I find juvenile and libelous.

In the Zoe Quinn thread, I made a negative comment towards white, male gamers. I got 25 replies, some accusing me of hating white men. So based on just one comment I was accused of hate. You've been a member of the Escapist for 2 days, you've made 75 posts, the majority of which were negative towards feminists and feminism. Is it not reasonable that people might believe that you're obsessed at best, misogynistic at worst?

So wait, you were being openly racist and sexist by generalizing about people based on their race and gender and there were replies to your post reacting to that? Well, no shit dude.

And once again you guys equate not liking feminism with hating women and use it to make accusations against people. Can you please stop with this ridiculous ad hominem? Just because I enjoy debating this stuff doesn't mean I'm obsessed btw, it means that I enjoy it. What, are you gonna regulate what people discuss too now?

 

[Billy the Squid]

You're really good at false premises. Nobody that I'm aware of is pushing for perfect assimilation in video games. If there are some feminists saying that, then we can both point and laugh.

I'm not making any accusations here, I'd just like you to perhaps give some thought to why feminists might think that some people are misogynistic when they keep making arguments based on false premises and are constantly negative towards them.

Feminists do what they've been doing for years now. Female empowerment is their goal any means necessary, so they ignore the areas where women are favored and keep pushing society to empower women in other areas, with no end in sight. Which explains why the internet is starting to get pissed off with this annoying attitude of demands and accusations. Buzzwords like misogynism are being spammed for the stupidest shit ever and honestly at the rate this is going these words will become meaningless.

Having said that I've met reasonable feminists on the internet who actually do what they say and support equality, not empowerment. The problem is they're not the main voice of the movement anymore and they're definitely not the majority. Their voices are being drowned by people like Sarkeesian and from shitty echo chambers like tumblr and Jezebel.

Once again your arguing from a false premise. Empowerment is power through legal or official means. There are no bills in Congress mandating game developers to do anything. There's no angry mob of feminists holding game developers down and forcing their feminism down their throats.

Women make up 50% of the population while Congress is 80% male. Is it not a reasonable goal that the people who supposedly represent us, actually represent the demographics of the population?

That is such an utterly ridiculous thing to say. You do realise that women are more likely to vote than men. In fact I believe 65% of the people who vote in the US are women, and yet they still elect men. What's your plan? Push more women into politics even if they're unsuited or don't want to? Quota systems to ensure 50% of congress is female? Do you realise that you will end up a laughing stock? Don't you think that if what you're claiming was such an issue Palin and her ilk wouldn't be considered a joke given that 65% of voters are women.

Personally I tend to give women a bit more credit when it comes to how they think, and that they don't vote based on what sex the candidate is.

Politics attracts certain types of people, man, woman it's irrelevant the traits which are well suited to politics tend to be found in men. We elected Margret Thatcher for 3 terms as Prime Minister, and she didn't win because she was a bloody woman, she won because she was formidable and possessed the traits and personality that marked her out as a leader, the vast majority of the House of Commons were still men as were the people that voted for her, didn't make a difference.