Poll: If female characters were given an advantage....

[Danceofmasks]

Well, in such a game you probably just can't play a male.

Then you have Bayonetta.

 

[C117]

Is it just me that comes to think about the disadvantage "Woman" in the tabletop-RPG "En Garde!"?

In En Garde!, the setting is the 18th/19th century, France. Women are a minority. Women are viewed as less than equal. It makes sense. And it isn't even that much of a disadvantage, because;

A: You get extra points to spend on advantages such as "Good Luck".
B: There are far worse disadvantages (I believe you can start out with "Leprosy" if you're up for the challenge).
C: Apart from having a lower status in the eyes of society, there is nothing bad with being a woman (and if you mention something like PMS...).

In other words, it makes sense and it works.

This hypothetical game, on the other hand, doesn't sound like it would work at all. Sure, you can think up some explanation that sounds reasonable, but the balance will be disturbed. No game I've ever heard of have made men and women unevenly matched, without giving the "worse" side some kind of perks that balances it all out.

I'm all for games that picture both sexes as equals, and if it was a non-interactive medium we were talking about, I'd love to see a story where men are considered inferior to all women. But in games, the balancing of the gameplay comes first.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Except yes, it is laden with misandry. Take, for example, her holding the organisation 'Men Can Stop Rape' up as a laudable effort. It is a deeply offensive insinuation that the duty to prevent men raping women somehow lies with non-rapist males more than anyone else and that machismo itself is inextricably tied with rape. It's an 'all men are to blame unless they prove otherwise' assumption. Why should I, a non-rapist male, be more accountable for rapists than a non-rapist female? It's a disgracefully misandric accusation, akin to me saying that all women have a duty to actively stop prostitution or else you're all prostitutes in my book. If you can't see why that's misandric, how lumping all men in as 'the enemy' unless they prove otherwise is anything but pro-equality then I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you.

So...you're saying that she must see all men as rapists and "the enemy" because she has expressed support for a men's anti-rape group? How does that even follow? She's not saying that the duty to prevent rape should fall entirely on men; she's saying that it shouldn't fall entirely on women, and commending men who do their part.

And your analogy is really apples and oranges. Violent crime and vice laws aren't in the same category at all.

It appears to me, from her various rants on The Guardian and The F Word, that she makes the claim that she's not against men, but masculinity. This seems to me to be proposing a system that abhors difference as 'wrong', where if we are not all exactly identical with regards to our interpretations of gender then those who women who are more feminine, those men who are more masculine are 'wrong' and their traits necessarily destructive. Perhaps misandry is an inept title here, I suppose bigot fits better.

...what. She uses "masculinity" to mean (as I put it) a somewhat broader definition of "machismo." How is that "bigoted" by any definition of the word?

 

[flametoad9]

i don't see why wommen can pull a trigger better than men or vice versa

 

[BGH122]

So...you're saying that she must see all men as rapists and "the enemy" because she has expressed support for a men's anti-rape group? How does that even follow? She's not saying that the duty to prevent rape should fall entirely on men; she's saying that it shouldn't fall entirely on women, and commending men who do their part.

And your analogy is really apples and oranges. Violent crime and vice laws aren't in the same category at all.

No, I'm saying that it shouldn't fall on anyone other than the rapist. The sole person who can ensure a rapist doesn't rape is the rapist him/herself. It is no-one else's duty to ensure that a person doesn't choose to become a criminal. I'm saying that the men's anti-rape group shouldn't exist because it should be taken as given that men as a whole are against rape, it shouldn't be a cause for particular commendation that these men are against rape because almost all men are against rape. To say 'these men are against rape, kudos' is equivalent to saying that the opinions of other men vis a vis rape is contentious. It's this flipside that's offensive.

EDIT: The analogy worked fine, you're quibbling. I wasn't analogising crimes, I was analogising the labelling of whole groups for the crimes of the minority. Seriously, there was nothing wrong with that analogy.

...what. She uses "masculinity" to mean (as I put it) a somewhat broader definition of "machismo." How is that "bigoted" by any definition of the word?

Bigotry is an intolerance of difference. If one is against interpretations of gender roles that do not reflect one's own interpretations then one is a bigot. What's confusing?

Valenti is against interpretations of male gender roles that include 'machismo', she is only in favour of (as far as I have seen) male gender roles which conform to feminism. That's intolerance towards the former group ... that's bigotry. In what way is that confusing?

EDIT: Post 1111. Fancy!

 

[Raddra]

I hate design decisions that make one race/gender better than all the others. I don't like being pushed into making a certain decision in a game that supposedly offers a choice.

I remember Ragnarok Online had it that you could only make characters of your RL gender you input.

Due to female characters getting all the benefits in the game due to being able to use all equipment plus female only equipment with good bonuses with nothing exclusive for males, tons of male players resubscribed as females because well.. they have a mechanical game advantage in an MMO.

 

[internetzealot1]

That's a gloriously bullshit idea you've got, OP.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

No, I'm saying that it shouldn't fall on anyone other than the rapist. The sole person who can ensure a rapist doesn't rape is the rapist him/herself. It is no-one else's duty to ensure that a person doesn't choose to become a criminal. I'm saying that the men's anti-rape group shouldn't exist because it should be taken as given that men as a whole are against rape, it shouldn't be a cause for particular commendation that these men are against rape because almost all men are against rape. To say 'these men are against rape, kudos' is equivalent to saying that the opinions of other men vis a vis rape is contentious. It's this flipside that's offensive.

Unfortunately for that argument, crimes do not exist in a vacuum. Should neighborhood watch groups also not exist because breaking and entering is no one's fault but that of burglars?

EDIT: The analogy worked fine, you're quibbling. I wasn't analogising crimes, I was analogising the labelling of whole groups for the crimes of the minority. Seriously, there was nothing wrong with that analogy.

Well, aside from the fact that it operates off of the assumption that prostitution is both tantamount to rape and as overwhelmingly committed by women as rape is overwhelmingly committed by men, and is thus misleading? (Although I'm sure I'll be accused of hating men for pointing out that the overwhelming majority of rapists are male.)

Bigotry is an intolerance of difference. If one is against interpretations of gender roles that do not reflect one's own interpretations then one is a bigot. What's confusing?

Valenti is against interpretations of male gender roles that include 'machismo', she is only in favour of (as far as I have seen) male gender roles which conform to feminism. That's intolerance towards the former group ... that's bigotry. In what way is that confusing?

By that logic, one could be bigoted against bigotry.

However, bigotry is not just "an intolerance of difference." It is an intolerance of people who are different. Being opposed to gender roles that are for the most part socially constructed, and which are used to justify attacking people for breaking stereotypes, is not "bigotry."

 

[Giantpanda602]

A new game has come out - its the bees knees, reveiwers and players are loving it, both singleplayer and multiplayer. its the hot new game, thats selling in droves...

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around. Whether its a mystical force, or a unique and powerful control system that women inherently adapt to faster and better, women are the primary force in the singleplayer, and to map this across to multiplayer by saying that female characters gain skills/ranks/abilities at a notably faster rate. A character of either gender starts even, and the nominal 'caps' are even, but a female character will gain those ranks and reach that cap faster than a male character. What would you make of this?

If it was the opposite it would be sexism. So I'd consider this sexism. And probably sue them =D

 

[BGH122]

Unfortunately for that argument, crimes do not exist in a vacuum.

Correct, socioeconomic factors are the single most important factor in criminal behaviour followed by the closely associated factor of parenting. Nowhere is 'men need to prevent crime' involved.

Aside from presuming that prostitution is both tantamount to rape, and as overwhelmingly female as rape is overwhelmingly male, you mean?

I believe that prostitution is an overwhelmingly female crime. The seriousness of the crime is an irrelevance to the analogy, as I've already explained, as it's an analogy that focuses on lumping an entire group in together based on the behaviours of its minority.

EDIT: Found a source regarding gender and prostitution: ibid., p 196: Average prostitution arrests include 70% females, 20% percent male prostitutes and 10% customers.

It is a female crime.

By that logic, one could be bigoted against bigotry.

However, bigotry is not just "an intolerance of difference." It is an intolerance of people who are different. Being opposed to gender roles that justify attacking people for breaking stereotypes is not "bigotry."

Nah, it isn't:

big·ot·ry
   [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
?noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Bigotry is precisely what I said it was. She is a bigot by definition if she refuses to tolerate gender roles which differ from those she prefers.

It's also a valid criticism that one could be bigoted against bigotry, but this was addressed in Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies': a system of tolerance is paradoxical by its nature as it cannot tolerate intolerance for if it were to do so then intolerance would destroy the system of tolerance, making the argument for tolerating intolerance self-refuting. Although that's just an interesting philosophical quirk and I'm unsure how it applies to either of our arguments meaningfully.

 

[zeldagirl]

Except yes, it is laden with misandry. Take, for example, her holding the organisation 'Men Can Stop Rape' up as a laudable effort. It is a deeply offensive insinuation that the duty to prevent men raping women somehow lies with non-rapist males more than anyone else and that machismo itself is inextricably tied with rape. It's an 'all men are to blame unless they prove otherwise' assumption. Why should I, a non-rapist male, be more accountable for rapists than a non-rapist female? It's a disgracefully misandric accusation, akin to me saying that all women have a duty to actively stop prostitution or else you're all prostitutes in my book. If you can't see why that's misandric, how lumping all men in as 'the enemy' unless they prove otherwise is anything but pro-equality then I'm not sure what more I can do to convince you.

Oh goodness. If that's how you understand that, then yeah, there's a problem.

The organization Men Can Stop Rape is not saying rape prevention lies exclusively with non-rapist males. It serves different purposes, including:

1) rape prevention is largely placed on WOMEN. Victims of rape. This organization offers women male allies, to let them know that rape is not solely our responsibility.

2) It's not holding you accountable. It's saying "guess what, we know that all men aren't asshole rapists, and this is a group of men acting out against the men that do." Men Can Stop Rape was founded BY MEN. It doesn't lump you with the enemy (rapists), it's an organization that avows to RISE ABOVE the myth that all men are rapists.

The fact is, as it stands, right now women are mostly responsible for rape prevention - that is what our culture. Women are told how they must dress, act, and behave in order to prevent rape. Men, other than the rapist, are not taken into account. That's why the organization exists - to let victims of rape know that there are men who CARE that people, both WOMEN AND MEN, are raped, and find it unfair and something that needs to be changed. That you think that's misandric is frankly completely puzzling and nonsensical.


Also, I would hope that, AS A PERSON, we all work to end rape, prostitution, etc. This group, along with Men Against Violence, exists because culturally, the oft-used 'script' for dealing with rape prevention lies ONLY with women.

It appears to me, from her various rants on The Guardian and The F Word, that she makes the claim that she's not against men, but masculinity. This seems to me to be proposing a system that abhors difference as 'wrong', where if we are not all exactly identical with regards to our interpretations of gender then those who women who are more feminine, those men who are more masculine are 'wrong' and their traits necessarily destructive. Perhaps misandry is an inept title here, I suppose bigot fits better.

I'm no expert on Valenti, but she talks about CERTAIN ASPECTS of masculinity. The fact is, femininity and masculinity are, in essence, cultural concepts that WE have created. There are positives and negatives to both. The idea of GLORIFIED masculinity is something that Valenti combats - and these things are issues our society has labeled as 'masculine,' but are not necessarily inherent to the male sex.

For instance, the issue of crying. Everyone will choose to express emotions differently, but our culture considers it 'masculine' to be stoic and not cry. This is a false issue, something not inherent to masculinity, but men crying in our society earns them ridicule. And this is wrong - and a double standard. But, I'm not going to belabor this point as Lolotea summarized nicely.


I guess main takeaway - I think you don't quite understand Valenti's point, or even realize what she's getting at when she talks about harmful masculinity. :-/

 

[AtheistConservative]

If the game could truly stand on its multiplayer then all the players would be female and nothing would really come of it.

If it was more of single player game, then its success would come down to whether or not it had a strong "Men are dumb/weak/whatever" message. If the overall tone was essentially reversed stereotypes of the 1950's, then males who dominate the gaming market wouldn't buy it.

 

[PatSilverFox]

Totally unbalanced, feministic bullshit. That is all.

Yup that's about it.
It's not like it would actually pull in a female audience either.

 

[zeldagirl]

No, I'm saying that it shouldn't fall on anyone other than the rapist. The sole person who can ensure a rapist doesn't rape is the rapist him/herself. It is no-one else's duty to ensure that a person doesn't choose to become a criminal. I'm saying that the men's anti-rape group shouldn't exist because it should be taken as given that men as a whole are against rape, it shouldn't be a cause for particular commendation that these men are against rape because almost all men are against rape. To say 'these men are against rape, kudos' is equivalent to saying that the opinions of other men vis a vis rape is contentious. It's this flipside that's offensive.

And I see where you're getting at, and that would be great if culturally, we didn't perpetuate this notion that only women are involved in rape prevention. And honestly - as a victim of sexual assault, THAT was the script that myself, and countless other women, have received time and time again. The group was created because just the idea that all men should be against rape was NOT ENOUGH. And furthermore? It is not always reflected in the behavior of men women interact with. That's why the group is necessary. Because sometimes, the theoretical isn't enough.

 

[similar.squirrel]

A new game has come out - its the bees knees, reveiwers and players are loving it, both singleplayer and multiplayer. its the hot new game, thats selling in droves...

And the basis of the game is that women are inherently better at whatever form of combat its based around. Whether its a mystical force, or a unique and powerful control system that women inherently adapt to faster and better, women are the primary force in the singleplayer, and to map this across to multiplayer by saying that female characters gain skills/ranks/abilities at a notably faster rate. A character of either gender starts even, and the nominal 'caps' are even, but a female character will gain those ranks and reach that cap faster than a male character. What would you make of this?

That it's an unbalanced game. What else is there to make of it?

That was both graceful and deadly.

OT: Basically what Susan said. It might work in single-player, but still.. Gender equality works both ways. The male characters need to be compensated in some way.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

Correct, socioeconomic factors are the single most important factor in criminal behaviour followed by the closely associated factor of parenting. Nowhere is 'men need to prevent crime' involved.

If this was a women's anti-rape group, would you be equally offended? Because it's easy enough to say that all responsibility for crime should rest on the criminal.

But, like it or not, society does still tend to put the onus for preventing rape on women. (And is often really ridiculous about it.)

I believe that prostitution is an overwhelmingly female crime.

...no. Mostly female, possibly, but not to the same degree that rape is overwhelmingly male.

The seriousness of the crime is an irrelevance to the analogy, as I've already explained, as it's an analogy that focuses on lumping an entire group in together based on the behaviours of its minority.

Nonsense. I know we're attempting not to view crimes in a vacuum here. But prostitution, with the health risks controlled and minus all of the social baggage surrounding it, would be about as degrading and abusive as hiring a masseuse. Rape would still be assault.

By drawing that analogy, you equated the two. And it's disingenuous to try to absolve yourself.

Nah, it isn't:

big·ot·ry
   [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
?noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Bigotry is precisely what I said it was. She is a bigot by definition if she refuses to tolerate gender roles which differ from those she prefers.

That's an outdated definition of "bigot" that would stigmatize hate-watch groups and anyone who identifies too staunchly with a particular political party. (And, ironically, gives hate groups a free pass.)

It's also a valid criticism that one could be bigoted against bigotry, but this was addressed in Popper's 'The Open Society and Its Enemies': a system of tolerance is paradoxical by its nature as it cannot tolerate intolerance for if it were to do so then intolerance would destroy the system of tolerance, making the argument for tolerating intolerance self-refuting. Although that's just an interesting philosophical quirk and I'm unsure how it applies to either of our arguments meaningfully.

I'm sorry, but I've got a hard time giving any credence to something that sounds so much like arguments used to try to discredit anti-racism.

 

[Stabby Joe]

I recall Elder Scrolls having slightly different perks dependent on gender; pros, cons and equals.

 

[BGH122]

Oh goodness. If that's how you understand that, then yeah, there's a problem.

The organization Men Can Stop Rape is not saying rape prevention lies exclusively with non-rapist males. It serves different purposes, including:

1) rape prevention is largely placed on WOMEN. Victims of rape. This organization offers women male allies, to let them know that rape is not solely our responsibility.

2) It's not holding you accountable. It's saying "guess what, we know that all men aren't asshole rapists, and this is a group of men acting out against the men that do." Men Can Stop Rape was founded BY MEN. It doesn't lump you with the enemy (rapists), it's an organization that avows to RISE ABOVE the myth that all men are rapists.

The fact is, as it stands, right now women are mostly responsible for rape prevention - that is what our culture. Women are told how they must dress, act, and behave in order to prevent rape. Men, other than the rapist, are not taken into account. That's why the organization exists - to let victims of rape know that there are men who CARE that people, both WOMEN AND MEN, are raped, and find it unfair and something that needs to be changed. That you think that's misandric is frankly completely puzzling and nonsensical.


Also, I would hope that, AS A PERSON, we all work to end rape, prostitution, etc. This group, along with Men Against Violence, exists because culturally, the oft-used 'script' for dealing with rape prevention lies ONLY with women.

I've already addressed these points above, but it's fine because reading through every post is a bit of a hassle so I'll re-address them:

1) Yes, rape prevention is placed on the victims of rape (both male and female) because there's literally nothing that any of the rest of us can do that'll help reduce rape in any way. The rapist alone needs to choose not to rape. I've discussed the issue of 'stop dressing like a slut' elsewhere (this thread further back, perhaps?) and my take on that response is that dressing differently won't help at all. Rapists don't rape because they're average people overcome by lust, they rape to commit sadism. Dressing like a slut is a total irrelevance before we even get into the moral implications of such statements. Know what I did to prevent rape? I joined the police. That's all I, a non-criminal, can do that's in any way efficacious.

2) My problem with overtly stating that most men are anti-rape is that it should be taken as a given and any notion to the contrary is heinously offensive. This would be akin to having a 'not all blacks are drug dealers' society: only a prejudiced scumbag wouldn't already know.

The reason that women (who're usually the victim in rape cases) are the only ones shown how to prevent it is because, other than the rapist or the police, they're the only ones who can. Learning Krav Maga (for instance) could prevent a rape. This isn't equivalent to saying that women ought to learn to defend themselves or else it's their fault, the fault will always lie solely with the rapist regardless of circumstance. I honestly don't see what non-rapist men could possibly do to prevent rape, this is what makes me assume there's some sort of presumed conspiracy of men inherent to such notions, because otherwise I literally don't understand the point of this organisation.

I guess main takeaway - I think you don't quite understand Valenti's point, or even realize what she's getting at when she talks about harmful masculinity. :-/

I do, she's saying that the rigid male gender role is harmful to both men and women. As I've expressed above, this is bigotry: she is saying that only her/feminist interpretations of gender roles are valid and that all others are wrong. We certainly need to loosen the enforcement of gender roles in society by gently reminding people that difference is a good thing, but flat-out declaring certain gender roles 'wrong' is just bigotry.

If this was a women's anti-rape group, would you be equally offended? Because it's easy enough to say that all responsibility for crime should rest on the criminal.

But, like it or not, society does still tend to put the onus for preventing rape on women. (And is often really ridiculous about it.)

Much as I love role-reversal exercises, I don't think they're particularly valid because hypotheticals can't really be answered honestly. So, I don't know if I'd be equally offended. I hope I would be, for it's just as illogical.

If it were teaching women how to disable rapists and escape then I don't know how I'd feel. I'd certainly be annoyed at the implication that women should take responsibility for rape, but I'd also see how such a group could actually have some efficacy.

I believe that prostitution is an overwhelmingly female crime.

...no. Mostly female, possibly, but not to the same degree that rape is overwhelmingly male.

It's hard to tell, to be honest, because up until (very) recently, the notion that a woman could rape a man wasn't taken seriously and I know amongst my colleagues the notion of female on male rape is dismissed so crime statistics aren't likely to be very helpful here. Although that sounds rather like a dodge.

Basically (when johns are removed), women are arrested for prostitution 78% of the time, so if roughly 22% of rapists are female then the analogy works.

Nonsense. I know we're attempting not to view crimes in a vacuum here. But prostitution, with the health risks controlled and minus all of the social baggage surrounding it, would be about as degrading and abusive as hiring a masseuse. Rape would still be assault.

By drawing that analogy, you equated the two. And it's disingenuous to try to absolve yourself.

I disagree, you're expecting the analogy to analogise every factor involved and that wasn't its intended purpose, as I have stated multiple times. Just to make it especially clear: rape and prostitution aren't equivalent, the percentage of male rapists and percentage of female prostitutes are similar.

That's an outdated definition of "bigot" that would stigmatize hate-watch groups and anyone who identifies too staunchly with a particular political party. (And, ironically, gives hate groups a free pass.)

It's not outdated, it's from the 2011 Random House Unabridged Dictionary. Waving it away by claiming it's outdated isn't valid. By that (current) definition, Valenti is a bigot. Secondly, it wouldn't prevent hate watch groups that are actively tracking emanation of violent crime (e.g. tracking Nazi movements to prevent violent crime against Jews), only hate watch groups that attempt to homogenise everyone's political beliefs. It doesn't give hate groups a free pass at all, hate groups fit that definition of bigotry perfectly. Please show how hate groups are given a free pass.

I'm sorry, but I've got a hard time giving any credence to something that sounds so much like arguments used to try to discredit anti-racism.

Huh? I must have misrepresented myself because Popper believes the exact opposite of that. Popper would define racist (intolerant) organisations as counter-productive to the tolerant society, because if the tolerant society were to tolerate movements which attack the foundations of the society (tolerance) then it'd become self-refuting.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Guess I'm going to have to either play as a female in this game (which would be fine) or get better at head shots or whatever.

 

[Farseer Lolotea]

I do, she's saying that the rigid male gender role is harmful to both men and women. As I've expressed above, this is bigotry: she is saying that only her/feminist interpretations of gender roles are valid and that all others are wrong. We certainly need to loosen the enforcement of gender roles in society by gently reminding people that difference is a good thing, but flat-out declaring certain gender roles 'wrong' is just bigotry.

Okay. You claim that she's a "bigot" because she's arguing that these roles are "wrong."

However, you admit that she argues that they're "wrong" (not a word I can recall her using, to tell the truth, but even so) because they're genuinely harmful. Do you agree that they're harmful? (It sounds to me like you actually do.) And if so, how do you justify calling someone a "bigot" for being against them?

And you do know that men get raped, too...right?