The rampant Sexualization in videogames

[Quantum Glass]

I think I wouldn't be so antagonistic towards the sexualization in video games if it were a bit more subtle. A barely dressed nymphomaniac with cleavage that puts Mother Earth to shame (Take that, geologist and/or flat-earth believing time travelers) just seems like something a fifteen year old would design. I'm cool with the sexualization of either gender in fiction--after all, I have evidence to believe that, throughout history, at least two and a half humans have had sex--but there's a point where it becomes juvenile.

 

[CloudAtlas]

I think I wouldn't be so antagonistic towards the sexualization in video games if it were a bit more subtle. A barely dressed nymphomaniac with cleavage that puts Mother Earth to shame (Take that, geologist and/or flat-earth believing time travelers) just seems like something a fifteen year old would design. I'm cool with the sexualization of either gender in fiction--after all, I have evidence to believe that, throughout history, at least two and a half humans have had sex--but there's a point where it becomes juvenile.

And far fewer people would complain about sexualization if it was more subtle and not as juvenile as it usually is.

It's the designers telling me, I want to titillate you, but I'm not willing to put any effort into it.

 

[Angus]

Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.

Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".

 

[Angus]

The fact that neither of us was told of these statistics is a clear indicator that men are disposable- its not weird in evolutionary terms either that such a culture would inevatably arise.
This disposability is common in most males in most species.

Its not morally right to think that way, but its not just by chance that both you and I probably pictured a sad emo-chick with a razor when we thought of suicide, not an unemployed 20+ year old man, or a divorced father or husband.


In sweden newspapers there was great debate about "alvedon-girls" girls that killed themselves with painkillers, but never about the 80% of suicides that are amongst men because of depression, often caused due to not being needed.
Men would rather be drafted in WW1 than bear the shame of being given a white feather from a girl. That says a lot.

I do agree with the premise that, biologically speaking, in a human population males are more expendable than females due to reproduction. That certainly also has informed human society to a big extent. But thats not the whole picture.

Our current society is also heavily influenced by the ideals of enlightenment. And that particular period saw men in positions of power pretty much everywhere. That seems a little bit counter-intuitive: How is the group of people with most of the political and social power also the "disposable" group? Or is the disposable culture something very recent? In that case, what has created it?

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

Could you imagine the authority the few men that made it had? You knew they had to take care of themselves, you knew some of them either had extremely rich parents, or had to fight in the wars of the age. You knew that they either had powerful backgrounds or were self-made men. They were not pandered, they werent selected for beauty, and they werent "married in", but actually in a position of power because they fought all the other men in their "league" and won.

Sure, 80% of all CEOs are men. But what nobody will tell you is that most homeless people also belong to that gender, as well as most work-related deaths.


Peace!

 

[CFriis87]

I really dislike dissecting posts sentence by sentence, it always comes across as so aggressive. I mean no offense, though. I just found it helpful to go along the lines of your argument step-by-step.

The power that men had in the past was a necessity for them to fulfill the societal obligations that came with the rights they had.

Yes, power usually comes with responsibilities. Does not diminish the power, though. Else we would not need checks and balances in government.

Men were solely responsible for building up society (not saying they did it without women, just that they were the ones held responsible), as well as supporting for their families.

Well, obviously, only the one with the power can be the one responsible, right? Everything else is nonsense.

The right to vote was initially something men had to earn through military service, the reasoning being that men should at least have a say in the affairs of the government and country that they were sent to die for.

That happened in some societies, not in others. In fact, the only real evidence I found for this kind of voting right is the UK Representation of the People Act of 1918.

Even the most powerful man today is valued more for his usefulness than his humanity, this is what makes men the "disposable" group, despite their social and political power.

Speculation. There is no way to prove that claim.

Women have an inherent worth in our society, but when a man is no longer useful, he becomes worthless.

Again that "inherent worth" is speculative. It isn't clearly defined, for one. One could easily argue that the worth of women is no more "inherent" than the worth of men, if that worth is supposed to be childbirth. Because there clearly are women who lack that ability, and would hence not possess worth. So childbirth to women would be like physical strength to men. Something that most, but not all members of the group have, and only if you have it, you are useful and have worth.

This culture of disposability is as ancient as mankind itself and has to do with evolutionary psychology, Karen Straughan on YouTube explains it a lot better than I can here, so here's one of the first of her videos I have seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

I'm not asking you to see things my way, I'm just hoping to have more people see the things I see.

Thanks for the heads-up, I will try watching it soon. I think it's perfectly fine if you want me to see things your way, everyone is allowed to argue .

It is obvious that, in a biological sense, women are more important than men for the survival of the species. Biological and cultural definitions of worth are not identical, however. Everyone is an object to those that are in a position of power over them. That happens to men and women equally. The difference in recent history is not that there were no male objects, i.e. disposable soldiers, but that there were no female subjects, i.e. Rulers, Magnates or Popes.

Alright, then tell me, now that women have been given those same rights that men paid for and still pay for with their responsibilities, what responsibilities have been given to women in return for their new freedoms and rights?
Other nations may not have demanded military service for the right to vote, but men still had to meet high expectations before they were given that privilege, this goes for every country in the western world. Voting rights were rolled out in stages, first to the ones seen as most responsible for the welfare of the nation as most infrastructures could simply not support giving everyone a vote all at once.

This is a slight bit off topic, but it's a game idea I would love to see realized as it would help put into perspective the idea of male disposability:

Have you perchance ever heard of The White Feather Girls? They were part of a recruitment campaign in Britain during WWI, devised by a high ranking military officer and supported by the feminist movement of the time.
Young girls would be given white feathers to give to men in civilian clothes as signs of cowardice, to shame them into enlisting with the military. The campaign was very effective.

My idea for the game is based on a few true stories of this, and is fairly basic for now:
I really want to see a company make a first person shooter game where you play as a British soldier in the First World War.
You start out as a 34-year-old civilian father of three with a chronically sick wife.
One day, one of the White Feather Girls sees you in civilian clothes and gives you a white feather as a sign of cowardice.
A couple of days later you enlist out of shame.
In the army, you meet a 15 year old boy who lied about his age at the enlistment office after receiving 4 white feathers from a group of girls who cornered him on the street.
He'd already been rejected the first time he enlisted for the same reason, which is why he lied about his age the second time.
Throughout the game you and the boy face the horrors of war together, seeing how it changes the boy and yourself.
In the end you die, the boy survives but goes home irreparably damaged, he finds your house to give your wife a final letter you wrote, the door is opened by one of his daughters who takes the letter and reads it before putting it in a box with the rest of them.
The mother is dead.
Camera returns to the now young man walking away, clenching his fist around something.
Just before the screen fades to black he opens his hand and you see five white feathers float away.
Roll credits starting with: This game is based on true stories of WWI.

Now I ask you... how could these women with a clear conscience, shame men and boys into going to war and dieing for them and their country? How could they, if not from a sense that men are only worth as much as their usefulness?
How can this mentality still be pervasive today in popular culture such as movies and games in the court system that is all too ready to imprison fathers as soon as they can't keep up with alimony payments anymore (look up Thomas Ball).
Lifetime alimony that was never even considered for removal before a few women suddenly found themselves victims of it after the economy caused men to lose their jobs at a much higher rate than women... but it was perfectly alright as long as only men got roped into it.
Title IX that requires boys give up otherwise constitutionally secured rights, for the benefit of women.
The lack of admittance for male victims of Domestic Violence in tax-payer funded shelters and the lack of help available to people attempting to open shelters for those victims (look up a man called Earl Silverman).
Men have always been, and still are seen as expendable resources.

 

[rob_simple]

There's nothing stopping women from playing therefore it's not excluding them. Whether they were designed to appeal to them is a different story.

Right, just like there's nothing excluding men from playing games aimed at women, so why are so many men so fucking aggressively opposed to the idea of letting women into our culture?

I got you mixed up with someone (I blame lack of sleep) and I thought you were saying we should do away with all games/game characters meant only to induce cheap sexual thrills in men.

I got no problem with variety. Hell I don't even like all the cheap thrills (not while free internet porn is an option), I just don't like people who go on a moral crusade to get rid of them, which is what I thought you were doing (again, totally my fault, I have a lack of sleep).

Carry on.

Well now I'm going to have to apologise in advance for when you read my hyperbole-laden reply to your Sarkeesian comments.

God damn, man, why you got to go and be all civil-like, now?

Oh crap I saw this after your other reply, now I gotta edit my other slightly hostile post to be more civil.

Edit: At least we can be civil now. So that's good.

I say fuck this noise, I'm going to go grab a beer and watch The Expendables 2, I'd offer you one but if you need to sleep you should probably do that instead.

Still, it's good to know that even after being somewhat hostile to each other we can calm our respective hams and get civil again.

Peace out.

 

[Stephen St.]

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

Uh, a few? In comparison to what exactly?

Could you imagine the authority the few men that made it had?

I don't understand.

You knew they had to take care of themselves, you knew some of them either had extremely rich parents, or had to fight in the wars of the age. You knew that they either had powerful backgrounds or were self-made men. They were not pandered, they werent selected for beauty, and they werent "married in", but actually in a position of power because they fought all the other men in their "league" and won.

Yeah, you either already have power, or you gain it. Women in power also either inherited power, or gained it themselves. Who are you comparing to whom, here? Your second statement doesn't logically follow from anything.

Sure, 80% of all CEOs are men. But what nobody will tell you is that most homeless people also belong to that gender, as well as most work-related deaths.

Peace!

Actually, I have been told these things quite a lot, by now. You are stating a lot of facts, but your conclusion "it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary." is still completely in the air. You haven't adressed it once after your first sentence. So I cannot see what you want to argue here. Please state your premises and your conclusions clearly.

 

[CFriis87]

Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.

Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".

I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.

 

[CFriis87]

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

Uh, a few? In comparison to what exactly?

Could you imagine the authority the few men that made it had?

I don't understand.

You knew they had to take care of themselves, you knew some of them either had extremely rich parents, or had to fight in the wars of the age. You knew that they either had powerful backgrounds or were self-made men. They were not pandered, they werent selected for beauty, and they werent "married in", but actually in a position of power because they fought all the other men in their "league" and won.

Yeah, you either already have power, or you gain it. Women in power also either inherited power, or gained it themselves. Who are you comparing to whom, here? Your second statement doesn't logically follow from anything.

Sure, 80% of all CEOs are men. But what nobody will tell you is that most homeless people also belong to that gender, as well as most work-related deaths.

Peace!

Actually, I have been told these things quite a lot, by now. You are stating a lot of facts, but your conclusion "it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary." is still completely in the air. You haven't adressed it once after your first sentence. So I cannot see what you want to argue here. Please state your premises and your conclusions clearly.

How about in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of men dieing in coal mines, laying down railroads, transporting goods over stormy seas or at war? Men as a group were and still are disposable unless they can show themselves to be useful.

 

[Stephen St.]

Alright, then tell me, now that women have been given those same rights that men paid for and still pay for with their responsibilities, what responsibilities have been given to women in return for their new freedoms and rights?

Excuse me, but what? Men didn't sign a magical contract that said "I hereby take responsibilities". Either responsibility follows power, or it doesn't. If you have one, you have the other. Obviously not everyone acts responsibly, but thats another topic entirely.

Other nations may not have demanded military service for the right to vote, but men still had to meet high expectations before they were given that privilege, this goes for every country in the western world. Voting rights were rolled out in stages, first to the ones seen as most responsible for the welfare of the nation as most infrastructures could simply not support giving everyone a vote all at once.

Yeah, either that, or the people in power just liked actually staying in power, and gave rights to vote only to those people that were actually powerful enough to endanger them. Your "every country in the western world" statement shows that you have just made that up because a.) You probably don't know the history of all these countries by heart and b.) there is actually a clear example to the contrary: Germany, where voting rights were given up to all Men as part of a political maneuver to keep the conservative government in power.

Your view of why voting rights were allocated to wealthy people strikes me as unreasonably romantic. In the "game of thrones", it's power that counts, not what you "earned".

This is a slight bit off topic, but it's a game idea I would love to see realized as it would help put into perspective the idea of male disposability:

Have you perchance ever heard of The White Feather Girls? They were part of a recruitment campaign in Britain during WWI, devised by a high ranking military officer and supported by the feminist movement of the time.
Young girls would be given white feathers to give to men in civilian clothes as signs of cowardice, to shame them into enlisting with the military. The campaign was very effective.

My idea for the game is based on a few true stories of this, and is fairly basic for now:
I really want to see a company make a first person shooter game where you play as a British soldier in the First World War.
You start out as a 34-year-old civilian father of three with a chronically sick wife.
One day, one of the White Feather Girls sees you in civilian clothes and gives you a white feather as a sign of cowardice.
A couple of days later you enlist out of shame.
In the army, you meet a 15 year old boy who lied about his age at the enlistment office after receiving 4 white feathers from a group of girls who cornered him on the street.
He'd already been rejected the first time he enlisted for the same reason, which is why he lied about his age the second time.
Throughout the game you and the boy face the horrors of war together, seeing how it changes the boy and yourself.
In the end you die, the boy survives but goes home irreparably damaged, he finds your house to give your wife a final letter you wrote, the door is opened by one of his daughters who takes the letter and reads it before putting it in a box with the rest of them.
The mother is dead.
Camera returns to the now young man walking away, clenching his fist around something.
Just before the screen fades to black he opens his hand and you see five white feathers float away.
Roll credits starting with: This game is based on true stories of WWI.

Interesting game idea. I think it is important that we remember all of history, not just some cherry picked bits. And that white feather business sounds really ugly for the men, so yeah, why not raise awareness.

Now I ask you... how could these women with a clear conscience, shame men and boys into going to war and dieing for them and their country? How could they, if not from a sense that men are only worth as much as their usefulness?

I am unfit to comment on the conscience of people that I did not get to know. That would obviously be pure speculation.

How can this mentality still be pervasive today in popular culture such as movies and games in the court system that is all too ready to imprison fathers as soon as they can't keep up with alimony payments anymore (look up Thomas Ball).
Lifetime alimony that was never even considered for removal before a few women suddenly found themselves victims of it after the economy caused men to lose their jobs at a much higher rate than women... but it was perfectly alright as long as only men got roped into it.
Title IX that requires boys give up otherwise constitutionally secured rights, for the benefit of women.
The lack of admittance for male victims of Domestic Violence in tax-payer funded shelters and the lack of help available to people attempting to open shelters for those victims (look up a man called Earl Silverman).
Men have always been, and still are seen as expendable resources.

I have already agreed with you that there are problemy to be faced, in regard to child custody and in regard to abuse of false claims of sexual violence. People are selfish, not everyone will care about the well-being of those around them, be they men or women.

Again, your conclusion doesn't follow logically from the issues you state. You simply go from "Men are discirminated against, too" to "Men are treated as completely wothless". I exagerate, of course. I am still looking for a compelling reason why the Pope in 1850, as a man, is treated by society as an "expendable resource", while his chambermaid, that he can, realistically, do whatever he pleases too (hypothetically, of coure), is inherently valuable. I get where you are coming from. I get the problems you state. I don't get how one can link everything to the same base reason, black and white (or male and female, as the case may be), as if gender was the only factor at play in society.

You have not adressed any of my points directly, and have now repeated your facts. What about that link between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" that I adressed? What is the difference between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" according to your theory?

 

[Stephen St.]

How about in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of men dieing in coal mines, laying down railroads, transporting goods over stormy seas or at war? Men as a group were and still are disposable unless they can show themselves to be useful.

Uh, what are you referring to? I am going to hazard a guess and assume you are referring to this sentence:

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

That i critized. You have now stated the obvious: Some people are in power, others die. How do we get to women from here? No women are in power and others die? That doesn't seem to be where you want to go.

The definition of disposable is not being useful. Everyone is disposable if they aren't useful.

 

[Darkbladex96]

Funny thing is these sexualized bimbo only make up about 1% of video game females that have a place in the story. Usually these are npcs that dont do anything. Every other time they are usually fleshed out real characters, just half naked with crazy propotions.

Name a Sexualized character. Bet they have everything needed for a well round character. People just bitching about the fact that sex sells.

 

[Angus]

Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.

Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".

I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.

Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!

 

[Angus]

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

Uh, a few? In comparison to what exactly?

Im not really sure if I can convince you with this, but Ill give it a go.
Youve read a bit about ww1 I guess. During this period in time the suffragettes started demanding the right to vote.
They did this because of the fact that theyve started to be allowed into the workforce. This was due to the extreme lack of men in the workforce after the great slaughter of young male soldiers on the extremely bloody battlefields of the time.
For a man to earn the vote he had to risk his life and be drafted. This was true 20 years(it was later amended) after women earned the right to vote with no such demands, at least in Sweden.
What Im trying to say is that sure, a few men had extremely nice positions, rich, politicians, generals etc. They had power and authority.
But a great number of men were simply used as tools, their lives not counted as important unless they gave them for their family or the state.

These demands were never on the women. Sure you might not have had the same freedom historically, but you were always protected.


A shitty life has been the rule troughout history. And it might have deviated a bit depending on your gender, but when you sum it up, the powerful men and the victimized or sacrificed men probably had about as much benefits and demands as an average woman. It boils down to risk/possibility of great power and safety/ no real prospect of power basically.
As a woman you didnt have to risk your life, but you werent in authority. And vice versa.





Sorry for writing such a long post, and Im probably not in my rethoric "peak" atm. Im a little to tired of these issues, because I should really be studying- it just strikes such an emotional core, because I guess i feel the whole issue is very sad.

Even my dear father believes that men always opress women, even though he himself got a stroke overworking himself to drive my sister and mother to and from the aiport already owervorked, just because he loves to help them.

Its just a sad view of men and women really.

 

[CFriis87]

Alright, then tell me, now that women have been given those same rights that men paid for and still pay for with their responsibilities, what responsibilities have been given to women in return for their new freedoms and rights?

Excuse me, but what? Men didn't sign a magical contract that said "I hereby take responsibilities". Either responsibility follows power, or it doesn't. If you have one, you have the other. Obviously not everyone acts responsibly, but thats another topic entirely.

Other nations may not have demanded military service for the right to vote, but men still had to meet high expectations before they were given that privilege, this goes for every country in the western world. Voting rights were rolled out in stages, first to the ones seen as most responsible for the welfare of the nation as most infrastructures could simply not support giving everyone a vote all at once.

Yeah, either that, or the people in power just liked actually staying in power, and gave rights to vote only to those people that were actually powerful enough to endanger them. Your "every country in the western world" statement shows that you have just made that up because a.) You probably don't know the history of all these countries by heart and b.) there is actually a clear example to the contrary: Germany, where voting rights were given up to all Men as part of a political maneuver to keep the conservative government in power.

Your view of why voting rights were allocated to wealthy people strikes me as unreasonably romantic. In the "game of thrones", it's power that counts, not what you "earned".

This is a slight bit off topic, but it's a game idea I would love to see realized as it would help put into perspective the idea of male disposability:

Have you perchance ever heard of The White Feather Girls? They were part of a recruitment campaign in Britain during WWI, devised by a high ranking military officer and supported by the feminist movement of the time.
Young girls would be given white feathers to give to men in civilian clothes as signs of cowardice, to shame them into enlisting with the military. The campaign was very effective.

My idea for the game is based on a few true stories of this, and is fairly basic for now:
I really want to see a company make a first person shooter game where you play as a British soldier in the First World War.
You start out as a 34-year-old civilian father of three with a chronically sick wife.
One day, one of the White Feather Girls sees you in civilian clothes and gives you a white feather as a sign of cowardice.
A couple of days later you enlist out of shame.
In the army, you meet a 15 year old boy who lied about his age at the enlistment office after receiving 4 white feathers from a group of girls who cornered him on the street.
He'd already been rejected the first time he enlisted for the same reason, which is why he lied about his age the second time.
Throughout the game you and the boy face the horrors of war together, seeing how it changes the boy and yourself.
In the end you die, the boy survives but goes home irreparably damaged, he finds your house to give your wife a final letter you wrote, the door is opened by one of his daughters who takes the letter and reads it before putting it in a box with the rest of them.
The mother is dead.
Camera returns to the now young man walking away, clenching his fist around something.
Just before the screen fades to black he opens his hand and you see five white feathers float away.
Roll credits starting with: This game is based on true stories of WWI.

Interesting game idea. I think it is important that we remember all of history, not just some cherry picked bits. And that white feather business sounds really ugly for the men, so yeah, why not raise awareness.

Now I ask you... how could these women with a clear conscience, shame men and boys into going to war and dieing for them and their country? How could they, if not from a sense that men are only worth as much as their usefulness?

I am unfit to comment on the conscience of people that I did not get to know. That would obviously be pure speculation.

How can this mentality still be pervasive today in popular culture such as movies and games in the court system that is all too ready to imprison fathers as soon as they can't keep up with alimony payments anymore (look up Thomas Ball).
Lifetime alimony that was never even considered for removal before a few women suddenly found themselves victims of it after the economy caused men to lose their jobs at a much higher rate than women... but it was perfectly alright as long as only men got roped into it.
Title IX that requires boys give up otherwise constitutionally secured rights, for the benefit of women.
The lack of admittance for male victims of Domestic Violence in tax-payer funded shelters and the lack of help available to people attempting to open shelters for those victims (look up a man called Earl Silverman).
Men have always been, and still are seen as expendable resources.

I have already agreed with you that there are problemy to be faced, in regard to child custody and in regard to abuse of false claims of sexual violence. People are selfish, not everyone will care about the well-being of those around them, be they men or women.

Again, your conclusion doesn't follow logically from the issues you state. You simply go from "Men are discirminated against, too" to "Men are treated as completely wothless". I exagerate, of course. I am still looking for a compelling reason why the Pope in 1850, as a man, is treated by society as an "expendable resource", while his chambermaid, that he can, realistically, do whatever he pleases too (hypothetically, of coure), is inherently valuable. I get where you are coming from. I get the problems you state. I don't get how one can link everything to the same base reason, black and white (or male and female, as the case may be), as if gender was the only factor at play in society.

You have not adressed any of my points directly, and have now repeated your facts. What about that link between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" that I adressed? What is the difference between "inherent worth" and "usefulness" according to your theory?

I suppose I should have expanded upon my first question a bit more.
Consider how women have been given the right to choose whether or not to have a baby when they get pregnant, this is reasonable as it is them who carries the child. Her body, her choice.
Would it not then logically follow that the consequences of her choice is her responsibility to deal with? Say the father expressed that he did not wish to become a father, maybe he doesn't think he's ready, maybe the condom was compromised (has happened in a multitude of different ways, usually through some form of foul play), maybe she said she was on the pill when she wasn't, maybe she wanted to get pregnant while he didn't want to be a father and she saved the condom to use on herself later (has happened and worked) or maybe even slept with someone else to get pregnant (30% of men pointed out to be the father by the mother that request a paternity test are proven to not be the father).
What say does the man have? None... her body, her choice... yet he is still financially responsible, and the state will force him to pay even if he isn't the father.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/02/34861/

The fact that the odds of female criminals being convicted of their crimes is lower than it is for men, AND when they do get convicted, the sentencing is much more lenient.
This is another sign of women not being held to the same standard of responsibility as their supposed "equals".

Moving on to women's sexual liberation. If a woman has consensual sex after drinking any amount of alcohol, I believe down to as little as one drink, maybe less. The law considers her unable to give informed consent and therefore not responsible for her choices with regards to sex while under the influence.
Men on the other hand are always legally fully responsible for their actions, no matter how drunk they are.

It may not seem like much, but giving women all the reproductive rights while sticking the responsibility with the man is pretty big.
As is the lowered standard of criminal responsibility.

I'll concede that I don't know the history of all western world countries by heart and have probably indulged in hyperbole. I apologize, I guess it being 2 am as a type this out might be taking it's toll on my common sense.

No pope I know of has been pope for all of his life, and while filling the role of pope, he is extremely useful as a powerful figurehead for the richest organized religion in the world, ergo he is seen as useful, giving him worth through his function, not his mere existence as a human being.

There are about 7 billion people on the planet, making for about 3.5 billion women, we're crowding up the planet as it is, and running low on resources. If we consider this, then there is absolutely no rational reason to value a female life higher than a male one.
That however does not keep society from still valuing the safety of women over the safety of men. The way our brains have evolved over time has given women an instinctual urge to weed out threats to keep themselves safe, while men got the instinctual urge to weed out threats to protect women and children.
Rational thought and compassion for all human beings can make us aware of these "primal urges" and ignore them when appropriate, but that's clearly not what's being done by the general public, or the courts, or the government.

Now... I'm pretty tired. So I'll go to sleep and hopefully wake up a bit less loopy and probably realize what madness I've been spouting in my last couple of posts.

 

[CFriis87]

How about in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of men dieing in coal mines, laying down railroads, transporting goods over stormy seas or at war? Men as a group were and still are disposable unless they can show themselves to be useful.

Uh, what are you referring to? I am going to hazard a guess and assume you are referring to this sentence:

Sure, a few men might have been influential and in power- it still doesent mean that men werent disposable, almost to the contrary.

That i critized. You have now stated the obvious: Some people are in power, others die. How do we get to women from here? No women are in power and others die? That doesn't seem to be where you want to go.

The definition of disposable is not being useful. Everyone is disposable if they aren't useful.

I was referring to your question of "Uh, a few? In comparison to what exactly?".
Did you have a chance to watch that video I linked to by Karen Straughan/GirlWritesWhat? I believe she explains pretty thoroughly how men are seen as the disposable sex.

 

[CFriis87]

Oooh! Nice to see I'm not the only one here who knows about the white feather girls.
It'd be great to see something like a WW1 FPS game that starts you off as a 16-year-old civilian boy being handed a white feather and shamed into enlisting to the war effort. Let's see how feminists would react to something like that.

Id like to see that too. For the meantime though Im very much into pickup and dating stuff, like RSD, I believe taking care of your sex and social life lets of tons of pressure on feeling needed.


I think its important for guys to understand how to get girls, to lower our instincts too compete or try to be "macho". So much suffering(especially for men) comes from these old tropes that guys get stuck with- and its just evolutionary shit to pit us against eachother, not even what makes us happy or really gets us laid or gives us love efficiantly.
Self-esteem, being social, genuinely helpful, having your own ideas, your own passions and not being a societal puppet- now that will actually help a man.

As one guy in the PUA community used to say "lets just all get this shit done, so we can go home to our girls".

I can't relate with you there. I'm no PUA, and I frankly find them distasteful and weak.
Everything about PUA except the attitude is gynocentric, as you spend large portions of your time and energy studying exactly how to please women in the moment. To me it just seems like glorified and dishonest pussy-begging.
You're basically still allowing women to have power over you through their genitals.
I lean more towards the MGTOW way. I'm open to a relationship on equal terms, but it'll take a lot of effort to convince me to trust a woman enough for that. I don't see anything else as worth the effort as sex is wildly overrated... companionship is important, but I don't need women or romantic relationships for that.

You certainly have the right to do your thing, I just don't see your way as anything more than yet another symptom of the problem.

Youll notice though, that the more sex you get, the less you actually care for gender issues AT ALL.
Its actually very refreshing, you get more social, and you dont really care about feminism, you get laid anyways, and you dont need to get a relationship, because youd rather have a fuckbuddy.

I dont approve of my "main girls" feminist ideas, but I do enjoy her company(shes quite the nerd too ) and I dont have to worry about sex because I see a bunch.


All I have to do is socialize, go out 3 times a week to keep the blade sharp, and sex is taken care of. Its really the main thing you need girls for, so they actually lose power over you, because you dont need their approval in general when you already have a few sexual partners.

Youll also notice how bored girls are without guys, we need eachother!

I'm sorry, but I can't bring myself to agree with you.
All I see in the PUA community is guys risking their freedom to pander to their sex drives by pandering to women
And I don't want to not care about men's issues. Too many men have been not caring about them for way too long. This is why we are in this mess.
We've been bending over and taking it hard, in hopes that we could make women happy by giving them what they ask for.
I say let them be bored if that's what it takes for them to listen, I for one will not engage in a relationship on the terms of one of the people, whether they're exclusively mine, or exclusively her's.

 

[Stephen St.]

Im not really sure if I can convince you with this, but Ill give it a go.
Youve read a bit about ww1 I guess. During this period in time the suffragettes started demanding the right to vote.
They did this because of the fact that theyve started to be allowed into the workforce. This was due to the extreme lack of men in the workforce after the great slaughter of young male soldiers on the extremely bloody battlefields of the time.
For a man to earn the vote he had to risk his life and be drafted. This was true 20 years(it was later amended) after women earned the right to vote with no such demands, at least in Sweden.
What Im trying to say is that sure, a few men had extremely nice positions, rich, politicians, generals etc. They had power and authority.
But a great number of men were simply used as tools, their lives not counted as important unless they gave them for their family or the state.

So were a great number of women. Only their "uses" were generally different.

These demands were never on the women. Sure you might not have had the same freedom historically, but you were always protected.

Are you aware of the philosophical position that states that security is a function of freedom (i.e. it is only important to preserve freedom), and that there can be no security without freedom? What about the people (irrespective of their gender) that would rather risk their lifes for freedom than spend their lifes safe, but in chains? Can you tell them they are wrong to want freedom?

A shitty life has been the rule troughout history. And it might have deviated a bit depending on your gender, but when you sum it up, the powerful men and the victimized or sacrificed men probably had about as much benefits and demands as an average woman. It boils down to risk/possibility of great power and safety/ no real prospect of power basically.
As a woman you didnt have to risk your life, but you werent in authority. And vice versa.

Exactly, life was tough. Both genders faced risks and hardships. But how can we "sum up" entire lifes into 2, easy to use categories? Historically, Men had a greater risk of dying due to genetic defects, accidents, and wars. That is probably still the case. Historically, Men also had a greater chance of living their life how they wanted it, and gaining positions of power. That is probably still the case. Can these two factors be summed up into one category called "disposability"? I think not. That implies that disposability was the main theme, and the other just an auxilliary.

Sorry for writing such a long post, and Im probably not in my rethoric "peak" atm. Im a little to tired of these issues, because I should really be studying- it just strikes such an emotional core, because I guess i feel the whole issue is very sad.

Even my dear father believes that men always opress women, even though he himself got a stroke overworking himself to drive my sister and mother to and from the aiport already owervorked, just because he loves to help them.

Its just a sad view of men and women really.

Yes, every view that reduces all members of a gender to a stereotype of a single category is a sad view. Unfortunately, I don't think your position is helping matter by introducing yet another oversimplified category. Nevertheless, Thanks for engaging in the discussion, and best of luck for your studies! I know how these discussions always keep you from working, it happens to me, too .

 

[Stephen St.]

I suppose I should have expanded upon my first question a bit more.

Actually, I would prefer that you adress some of the issues I brought up, instead of adding more of your own.

Consider how women have been given the right to choose whether or not to have a baby when they get pregnant, this is reasonable as it is them who carries the child. Her body, her choice.
Would it not then logically follow that the consequences of her choice is her responsibility to deal with? Say the father expressed that he did not wish to become a father, maybe he doesn't think he's ready, maybe the condom was compromised (has happened in a multitude of different ways, usually through some form of foul play), maybe she said she was on the pill when she wasn't, maybe she wanted to get pregnant while he didn't want to be a father and she saved the condom to use on herself later (has happened and worked) or maybe even slept with someone else to get pregnant (30% of men pointed out to be the father by the mother that request a paternity test are proven to not be the father).
What say does the man have? None... her body, her choice... yet he is still financially responsible, and the state will force him to pay even if he isn't the father.
http://www.wnd.com/2006/02/34861/

Thats a bit oversimplified, though.
For one, if you have sex with someone, you generally take the risk of pregnancy. You may use contraceptives, but there stil is a risk. For that action both parties are responsible.
Secondly, many laws in the western hemisphere are based on mutual responsibility of related persons. That means that, irrespective of the circumstances, fathers are responsible for their children, and children for their fathers. If your abusive parents are in need of care as a result of their own choices, you still need to pay for them in most cases.
And if you are not the biological father, and not married to the mother, then legally, you do not have to pay alimony. Everything else is a question of process and rules of evidence. There are a lot of problems with correct design of the latter, I will admit. But the legal responsibility is not based on gender.

It is just fact that someone has to care for the child. If no-one is willing to do that, then the biological parents are simply required to. It may not always be fair, but we decide that the well being of the child is more important than fairness sometimes. Which is not to say we should not strive to make the system of child custody and alimony more fair, because it certainly still has problems.

The fact that the odds of female criminals being convicted of their crimes is lower than it is for men, AND when they do get convicted, the sentencing is much more lenient.
This is another sign of women not being held to the same standard of responsibility as their supposed "equals".

No, they are not. But you are not making a point about equality, you are making a point about worth as seen by society. So in order for that argument to work, you would need to also show that this sentencing disparity is based on some belief that views the female defendand as more important for society. The easiest explanation for this kind of behaviour is, however, that aggression and agency are less likely to be ascribed to a woman, and therefore the sentence is more mild. I think that sounds an awful lot like the common stereotype in videogames.

Moving on to women's sexual liberation. If a woman has consensual sex after drinking any amount of alcohol, I believe down to as little as one drink, maybe less. The law considers her unable to give informed consent and therefore not responsible for her choices with regards to sex while under the influence.
Men on the other hand are always legally fully responsible for their actions, no matter how drunk they are.

That is not true, at least not in any legislation I am aware of. A completely drunk person, irrespective of gender, cannot be held accountable for their actions. You generally loose the ability to give informed consent before you loose responsibility for your actions, though. Which makes sense, because informed consent requires risk assessment, whereas responsibility only requires the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. I would be very surprised if any law had different thresholds for informed consent based on gender.

It may not seem like much, but giving women all the reproductive rights while sticking the responsibility with the man is pretty big.
As is the lowered standard of criminal responsibility.

What are "reproductive rights"? Last time I checked, both parents were responsible. And there is no different standard for criminal responsibility based on gender. That would certainly be unconstitutional pretty much everywhere.

I'll concede that I don't know the history of all western world countries by heart and have probably indulged in hyperbole. I apologize, I guess it being 2 am as a type this out might be taking it's toll on my common sense.

No pope I know of has been pope for all of his life, and while filling the role of pope, he is extremely useful as a powerful figurehead for the richest organized religion in the world, ergo he is seen as useful, giving him worth through his function, not his mere existence as a human being.

Ok, glad we cleared that up.
Your logic still has the same flaws as it had from the beginning. If the "inherent worth" of women is based on their ability to bear children, then that is worth acuired by virtue of being useful (childbirth clearly being a "use" for society). Consequently, both genders would be exactly as worthwile as they are useful.
The only difference would be that most women would have a relatively static worth, while men's worth is more prone to fluctuation. It does not support the view that, irrespective of current cultural situation, one is generally worth more than the other. In the pope example, the pope's worth would greatly exceed that of pretty much every single woman. The same would be true for a number of important political figures, merchants, etc. Even if the numerical majority of men has a mean worth below that of the mean worth of a woman, the mean worth of men and woman in total may still be equal or even slanted towards men. Unfortunately, since worth cannot be measures numerically, there is no way to tell either way. I hope this example makes clear how ridiculous it is to try to measure "worth" by comparing the amount of people dieing due to certain circumstances, as if worth was not only a number easily assessed, but also only based on length of life.
Maybe you think that a static position in society is better than a mobile one, but that is your opinion, not a logical conclusion.

There are about 7 billion people on the planet, making for about 3.5 billion women, we're crowding up the planet as it is, and running low on resources. If we consider this, then there is absolutely no rational reason to value a female life higher than a male one.

Technically, there will eventually be more men than women, but I agree, there is no rational reason.

That however does not keep society from still valuing the safety of women over the safety of men. The way our brains have evolved over time has given women an instinctual urge to weed out threats to keep themselves safe, while men got the instinctual urge to weed out threats to protect women and children.
Rational thought and compassion for all human beings can make us aware of these "primal urges" and ignore them when appropriate, but that's clearly not what's being done by the general public, or the courts, or the government.

Now... I'm pretty tired. So I'll go to sleep and hopefully wake up a bit less loopy and probably realize what madness I've been spouting in my last couple of posts.

You know, it is a generaly rule of arguing that one should avoid using words such as "clearly" or "obviously", because those words indicate, to a critical reader, a lack of evidence to back up the claim. In that case, your statement that this is "clearly not what is being done" is utterly sweeping and can not be properly backed up. But I guess it is a bit unfair of me to be so nitpicky when you wrote that at two o'clock in the morning. It is just that whenever I read a statement like that, I cannot help but feel that the writer has already made up his/her mind about the issue and there is no need for further discussion.

You are providing evidence for a number of separate problems tied to gender stereotypes, and try to tie them together in one, neat picture under a single headline. Such thinking is generally problematic, as it eliminates all nuances from the picture in order to fit the narrative. For example, it may be correct that thoese urges to protect exist. They are not the only urges, however, nor are they necessarily dominant to the human psyche, let alone human society.

To put it in a few sentences: Are men, biologically, more disposable then women? Yes. has this informed how human society is strutured? Most certainly. Does this sturcture still influence current society? Probably. Is the disposability of men therefore a major theme of current society? That doesn't follow.

 

[CFriis87]

Thats a bit oversimplified, though.
For one, if you have sex with someone, you generally take the risk of pregnancy. You may use contraceptives, but there stil is a risk. For that action both parties are responsible.
Secondly, many laws in the western hemisphere are based on mutual responsibility of related persons. That means that, irrespective of the circumstances, fathers are responsible for their children, and children for their fathers. If your abusive parents are in need of care as a result of their own choices, you still need to pay for them in most cases.
And if you are not the biological father, and not married to the mother, then legally, you do not have to pay alimony. Everything else is a question of process and rules of evidence. There are a lot of problems with correct design of the latter, I will admit. But the legal responsibility is not based on gender.

I'd say your view is the oversimplified one.
If I have sex with someone, I do indeed run the risk of contraceptives being ineffective for any reason. But I also run the risk of HER choice to carry the pregnancy through, despite my wishes to not become a father, making any precautions I take irrelevant. Women have the pill, barrier contraceptives, IUDs, morning after pills and a vide host of other types of contraceptives.
Men have the condom, which is always recommended, but never recommended as your sole form of security and easily compromised.
After this, women have the choice to have an abortion (her body, her choice). Whatever HER choice is at this point, the man is forced to go with it. So why should a father be responsible for a child he did not choose to have?
Furthermore, current co-habitation laws mean that you do not have to be married to the mother to be held legally responsible for her child. If she can show the court a receipt for you buying something that fully, or in part would go to the child (i.e. food, diapers, clothes), the court will hold you legally responsible as a "father figure", the same goes for if you co-habitate with her for a certain amount of time, after that time, the law will treat you as married.

It is just fact that someone has to care for the child. If no-one is willing to do that, then the biological parents are simply required to. It may not always be fair, but we decide that the well being of the child is more important than fairness sometimes. Which is not to say we should not strive to make the system of child custody and alimony more fair, because it certainly still has problems.

Actually no... even after birth, the woman holds the right to give her child away to a center for adoption, the "father" has no right to walk away and not be held responsible (no longer her body, still her choice, still his responsibility)

No, they are not. But you are not making a point about equality, you are making a point about worth as seen by society. So in order for that argument to work, you would need to also show that this sentencing disparity is based on some belief that views the female defendand as more important for society. The easiest explanation for this kind of behaviour is, however, that aggression and agency are less likely to be ascribed to a woman, and therefore the sentence is more mild. I think that sounds an awful lot like the common stereotype in videogames.

No, I was making the point that women are not held as accountable for their actions as men are, but I guess that is also a point about equality, since I'd say accountability for one's actions is a big inequality in our society.

That is not true, at least not in any legislation I am aware of. A completely drunk person, irrespective of gender, cannot be held accountable for their actions. You generally loose the ability to give informed consent before you loose responsibility for your actions, though. Which makes sense, because informed consent requires risk assessment, whereas responsibility only requires the ability to differentiate between right and wrong. I would be very surprised if any law had different thresholds for informed consent based on gender.

Last I checked, a drunk driver was still legally accountable for drunk driving and a drunken rapist(man) was still a rapist. And since women, in the eyes of the law, can't rape men, or at least have to jump through a lot of hoops to do so, drunken men by default give more consent, even if they don't.
If both parties are drunk, in the eyes of the law, the man is the rapist by default.
I'd love to hear about a case where a woman was convicted of rape, because the man she had non-consensual sex with was drunk, but I won't hold my breath.

What are "reproductive rights"? Last time I checked, both parents were responsible. And there is no different standard for criminal responsibility based on gender. That would certainly be unconstitutional pretty much everywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_rights
Scroll down to the Men's Rights bit of that article, apparently is not exactly unconstitutional according to the US Court of Appeals.

Ok, glad we cleared that up.
Your logic still has the same flaws as it had from the beginning. If the "inherent worth" of women is based on their ability to bear children, then that is worth acuired by virtue of being useful (childbirth clearly being a "use" for society). Consequently, both genders would be exactly as worthwile as they are useful.
The only difference would be that most women would have a relatively static worth, while men's worth is more prone to fluctuation. It does not support the view that, irrespective of current cultural situation, one is generally worth more than the other. In the pope example, the pope's worth would greatly exceed that of pretty much every single woman. The same would be true for a number of important political figures, merchants, etc. Even if the numerical majority of men has a mean worth below that of the mean worth of a woman, the mean worth of men and woman in total may still be equal or even slanted towards men. Unfortunately, since worth cannot be measures numerically, there is no way to tell either way. I hope this example makes clear how ridiculous it is to try to measure "worth" by comparing the amount of people dieing due to certain circumstances, as if worth was not only a number easily assessed, but also only based on length of life.
Maybe you think that a static position in society is better than a mobile one, but that is your opinion, not a logical conclusion.

The reason my logic on this is flawed is because I'm not arguing based on logic. I'm arguing based on experience of an illogical system, and your counter-arguments are based on the assumption that the system IS indeed logical.
This is a sort of cognitive dissonance between the two of us and results in both of us arguing different things as though they were the same.
My argument is that the baseline worth of a man of male child is less than the baseline worth of a woman or female child and that this is a mentality that determines the differences in treatments of men and women respectively.

Technically, there will eventually be more men than women, but I agree, there is no rational reason.

In some parts of the world there are more men:
Like in China where male children are socially bound to care for their parents when they get old, but female children are not.
In other parts of the world there are more women... like in the US, Canada and most of Europe.

You know, it is a generaly rule of arguing that one should avoid using words such as "clearly" or "obviously", because those words indicate, to a critical reader, a lack of evidence to back up the claim. In that case, your statement that this is "clearly not what is being done" is utterly sweeping and can not be properly backed up. But I guess it is a bit unfair of me to be so nitpicky when you wrote that at two o'clock in the morning. It is just that whenever I read a statement like that, I cannot help but feel that the writer has already made up his/her mind about the issue and there is no need for further discussion.

You are providing evidence for a number of separate problems tied to gender stereotypes, and try to tie them together in one, neat picture under a single headline. Such thinking is generally problematic, as it eliminates all nuances from the picture in order to fit the narrative. For example, it may be correct that thoese urges to protect exist. They are not the only urges, however, nor are they necessarily dominant to the human psyche, let alone human society.

To put it in a few sentences: Are men, biologically, more disposable then women? Yes. has this informed how human society is strutured? Most certainly. Does this sturcture still influence current society? Probably. Is the disposability of men therefore a major theme of current society? That doesn't follow.

I was not aware that I was required to re-post all the evidence of female safety and rights being valued being valued higher than male ones EVERY time I alluded to this being the case.
Even now I won't re-post the links to the stats you've already seen, I'll just ask you a few questions:
Why is there a Violence Against Women Act, when men are: 76% of all homicides, at least half of all domestic violence victims, and by far most victims of aggravated assault?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=uQMLM4vGbtI
When at least half of all domestic violence victims are men, why then are there Predominant Aggressor Policies set in place with police training in the Duluth model to justify arresting the man in almost every single case of domestic disturbances?
Why does Title IX turn innocent young men into acceptable losses, by removing their right to counsel, their right to know their accuser and lowering the standard of evidence from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance of the evidence"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sns4Dhuw7Nk
Please watch this, although you can probably skip the first 8 or so minutes as they are just her addressing accusations of someone irrelevant to this discussion.

Even if this is not a major theme of current society (which is always a subjective judgment, and I believe it IS a major theme), does not mean it isn't a pervasive theme, or indeed a major problem.