Vault101's guide to gender debates

[JimB]

I know you said you should stay out of these threads, so I won't take it personally if you don't answer this, but I am going to reply all the same.

Well, she does have the right to have the child without the man's consent, thus gaining control over his autonomy through a slice of his income?

I disagree that being able to compel payments is equivalent to being able to compel someone to undergo medical procedures against that person's will. If it is, then any government which taxes its population is absolutely totalitarian. Also, I don't think the laws about child support versus freedom of choice are equivalent: the laws regarding child support are in place to offer protections to a third party who is fundamentally innocent in all of this (the child), whereas the laws about abortion are in place to protect a woman's rights and health, though admittedly technology has advanced significantly since the enactment of these laws and pregnancy is much less dangerous than it was.

My point was simply that there is, out of necessity, an imbalance, something the original poster "Cymbaline" was struggling to acknowledge, preferring instead to argue that merely stating there was imbalance here was proof "we needed feminism."

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

 

[Grampy_bone]

I don't think sexism in games is a valid discussion until the person bringing it up proves why it matters and why it's more important than free speech, freedom of expression, and artistic license.

Why must criticism be at odds with those freedoms? Most people criticise things all the time without wanting to limit freedom of expression. You're criticising somebody right now, and so am I, and neither of us (as far as I know) wants to limit the freedom of expression.

You have a double standard.

If the people attacking games were making this point as part of a personal critique that would be one thing, but they make it a point of social order and morality. I contend that people cannot seize the moral high ground without fighting for it first. Feminists consider this point a given since their ideology tells them they always possess moral superiority, and thus get irrationally upset when you question their assumptions.

Their ideology tells them this? Is there a definitive feminist handbook of which I'm unaware that lays this out, or are we just generalising?

Someone's friend comes to your party, gets incredibly drunk, and starts waving a gun around making crazy demands. The gun isn't loaded and they don't hurt anyone, and end up passing out is a puddle of their own vomit. Now, even though they didn't do anything strictly illegal, and even though no one got hurt, and no one probably will in the immediate future, are you justified in banning this person from all future parties you may hold? Of course you are.

This is what feminists have done: i.e. they have made atrocious asses of themselves, ignored all boundaries and rules of decorum, waved around various weapons, made threats and demands, and generally been as unpleasant as possible. Feminists just don't seem to think the rules should apply to them. The greater gaming community is perfectly in their rights to not invite feminists to the party anymore.

This is just getting absurd, now. Firstly, the vast majority of feminists I've seen around here are not making "threats and demands"; they're just criticising things, which is something we all indulge in. You're doing it right now; so am I, in response to you. Secondly, you're also appealing to guilt-by-association; tarring a broad international movement of millions of people with the same brush, because of your experience with a relatively tiny subset within the gaming community.

That was also an example of colossal false equivalence-- equating the behaviour of internet feminists with the behaviour of somebody threatening those around them with death. There is a gigantic lack of perspective here, especially considering that so many don't use any threats whatsoever. Anita Sarkeesian has threatened nobody. Vault101 has threatened nobody.

You didn't understand my metaphor. I wasn't claiming that feminists were threatening people, I'm saying they are breaking the mutual rules of society by acting like complete dicks while accusing anyone who calls them out on it of being terrible misogynists. It's true that Vault101 has been civil in this thread but they even claim they are not a feminist, so ergo my complaints don't apply to them. (and yet they are defending feminism. Curious.)

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society. Do you see the contradictions here? Who is claiming the double standard exactly?

Feminists adopt a "moral guardian" and "thought police" stance which is starkly different from a critic.

A critic says "This game is bad because of X, Y, and Z. Don't buy it."

A feminists says, "This game is misogynist because of X, Y, and Z, therefore it should not be made."

The feminists goes on to say that X, Y, and Z are widespread social ills which must be expunged from all games everywhere for the good of society. This is not "criticism," it's social engineering, and it's why gamers are sick of feminists.

So the common response is "your generalizing!" which I already addressed, or otherwise claiming "no true feminist would say those things." Well, it's what Anita is saying, it's what her supporters are saying, and it's what the SJW-aligned gaming media is saying. You can hem and haw, and move the goalposts around all you want, but that is why gamers are sick of feminists and want them to go away.

I'll say it again: they aren't adding anything positive, they aren't contributing, they are just shitting all over everyone. Stop inviting them to the party.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society.

You could more or less pretend the last two are what are being said, I guess, but purge all gamers? C'mon.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society.

You could more or less pretend the last two are what are being said, I guess, but purge all gamers? C'mon.

Are you pretending there wasn't a barrage of "gamers are dead" and "let's take gaming away from the gamers" articles published across the internet just over a week ago?

 

[CymbaIine]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

 

[CymbaIine]

You didn't understand my metaphor. I wasn't claiming that feminists were threatening people, I'm saying they are breaking the mutual rules of society by acting like complete dicks while accusing anyone who calls them out on it of being terrible misogynists. It's true that Vault101 has been civil in this thread but they even claim they are not a feminist, so ergo my complaints don't apply to them. (and yet they are defending feminism. Curious.)

Feminists say they want inclusiveness in gaming, then they demand all gamers be purged from the culture. They say they want more games for everyone, unless you're a straight white male. They say they just want to be critics of gaming, then they declare games are a social issue and must be changed for the good of society. Do you see the contradictions here? Who is claiming the double standard exactly?

Feminists adopt a "moral guardian" and "thought police" stance which is starkly different from a critic.

A critic says "This game is bad because of X, Y, and Z. Don't buy it."

A feminists says, "This game is misogynist because of X, Y, and Z, therefore it should not be made."

The feminists goes on to say that X, Y, and Z are widespread social ills which must be expunged from all games everywhere for the good of society. This is not "criticism," it's social engineering, and it's why gamers are sick of feminists.

So the common response is "your generalizing!" which I already addressed, or otherwise claiming "no true feminist would say those things." Well, it's what Anita is saying, it's what her supporters are saying, and it's what the SJW-aligned gaming media is saying. You can hem and haw, and move the goalposts around all you want, but that is why gamers are sick of feminists and want them to go away.

I'll say it again: they aren't adding anything positive, they aren't contributing, they are just shitting all over everyone. Stop inviting them to the party.

You know, and I realise I am probably wasting my time here, most of the feminist activists I know (and I mean activists as opposed to those who just self-identify as feminist like myself) don't give a single fuck about this. I am a member of a couple of closed feminist groups on facebook and this stuff has been posted once on one of them and generated not a single response. Those groups tend to focus on organising protests about NI abortion laws, campaigning about FGM, campaigning about forced marriage and raising awareness about the problems rape victims have in the British Justice system.

Also I am a gamer and a feminist, I am sick of neither one of these things. I am however sick of arseholery.

 

[Grampy_bone]

You know, and I realise I am probably wasting my time here, most of the feminist activists I know (and I mean activists as opposed to those who just self-identify as feminist like myself) don't give a single fuck about this. I am a member of a couple of closed feminist groups on facebook and this stuff has been posted once on one of them and generated not a single response. Those groups tend to focus on organising protests about NI abortion laws, campaigning about FGM, campaigning about forced marriage and raising awareness about the problems rape victims have in the British Justice system.

Also I am a gamer and a feminist, I am sick of neither one of these things. I am however sick of arseholery.

Good. Then we are in agreement. Feminist activists should concern themselves with actual political and social issues. It's irrelevant to gaming.

So then my question is, do you denounce or at the very least refuse to defend public liars like Anita Sarkeesian, her irrational followers, or the SJW-aligned gaming media, which has specifically laid out a plan to use gaming as a platform to (quote) "Undermine heteronormative hegemony?" http://pastebin.com/LAmZNVKn

 

[CymbaIine]

Good. Then we are in agreement. Feminist activists should concern themselves with actual political and social issues. It's irrelevant to gaming.

So then my question is, do you denounce or at the very least refuse to defend public liars like Anita Sarkeesian, her irrational followers, or the SJW-aligned gaming media, which has specifically laid out a plan to use gaming as a platform to (quote) "Undermine heteronormative hegemony?" http://pastebin.com/LAmZNVKn

I never said that feminsts "should" concern themselves with anything, I was merely pointing out that I think you overestimate their interest in games.

In response to your questions

1. I dunno what Anita Sarkeesian has lied about so no I don't "denounce" her.

2. I dunno how her followers have been irrational so can't comment on that either.

3. I don't even know what the fuck "SJW-aligned" is supposed to mean.

4. I don't have any problem with undermining hegemony, I try to do it whenever possible.

 

[carnex]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

I think that @Res Plus meant that it's inherently unfair that woman has every right to

- lie about her fertility or sabotage non-permanent preventive measures male can take
- hide her pregnancy from father or lie about termination
- refuse to give father access to child (father actually has to sue mother in civil court to get to visit his child in case mother opposes)
- that mother can disown child upon childbirth without informing father
- and that even with all that mother can demand part of father's income to help her raise child father had never had say in conceiving, and raising (childbearing is part of the woman's body thus clearly purely her decision no matter how unfair that is towards father)

This is definitely unbalanced state of things but also, for me, unsolvable puzzle without violating either female's autonomy of body or male's autonomy of action.

 

[Grampy_bone]

Good. Then we are in agreement. Feminist activists should concern themselves with actual political and social issues. It's irrelevant to gaming.

So then my question is, do you denounce or at the very least refuse to defend public liars like Anita Sarkeesian, her irrational followers, or the SJW-aligned gaming media, which has specifically laid out a plan to use gaming as a platform to (quote) "Undermine heteronormative hegemony?" http://pastebin.com/LAmZNVKn

I never said that feminsts "should" concern themselves with anything, I was merely pointing out that I think you overestimate their interest in games.

In response to your questions

1. I dunno what Anita Sarkeesian has lied about so no I don't "denounce" her.

2. I dunno how her followers have been irrational so can't comment on that either.

3. I don't even know what the fuck "SJW-aligned" is supposed to mean.

4. I don't have any problem with undermining hegemony, I try to do it whenever possible.

So in reference to your answer 4, if you were convinced that games were responsible for, or a part of, "heteronormative hegemony," (which I think is safe to simply refer to by the feminist term "patriarchy,") would you make a cause of undermining, changing, or destroying gaming?

You say the feminists you know are not concerned with gaming, but clearly there are influential feminists who are concerned with it, and they see gaming as part of the "patriarchy" and therefore must be undermined.

 

[CymbaIine]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

I think that @Res Plus ment that it's inherently unfair that woman has every right to

- lie about her fertility or sabotage non-permanent preventive measures male can take
- hide her pregnancy from father or lie about termination
- refuse to give father access to child (father actually has to sue mother in civil court to get to visit his child in case mother opposes)
- that mother can disown child upon childbirth without informing father
- and that even with all that mother can demand part of father's income to help her raise child father had never had say in conceiving, and raising (childbearing is part of the woman's body thus clearly purely her decision no matter how unfair that is towards father)

Yes as I have said (at least twice now, once in the post you quoted) I know what he meant. You can go back through the thread and see these things discussed.

 

[CymbaIine]

So in reference to your answer 4, if you were convinced that games were responsible for, or a part of, "heteronormative hegemony," (which I think is safe to simply refer to by the feminist term "patriarchy,") would you make a cause of undermining, changing, or destroying gaming?

You say the feminists you know are not concerned with gaming, but clearly there are influential feminists who are concerned with it, and they see gaming as part of the "patriarchy" and therefore must be undermined.

I don't really thing you get what hegemony means, it cannot be simply referred to as patriarchy (you may want to brush up on that one too). Sure I undermine that stuff and actively try to change it.

Hegemony isn't a "feminist" thing. Let's pick an issue that comes up a lot in these discussions- the argument about the unfairness of a society that thinks men aren't able to raise their kids as well as women can, well that stereotype is an example of hegemony in action.

I also would like some examples of influential feminists are involved in gaming? I would be genuinely interested in what they have to say.

 

[carnex]

snip

I don't feel comfortable speaking for Cymbaline, but at a guess, I would say her problem is with how few people think there's a problem with giving a man that kind of control over a woman's health and life, because such an attitude prioritizes women as subservient to men despite the man having considerably less physical involvement in the pregnancy than the woman; it kind of unavoidably says that a woman's free will is less important than her ability to make babies for men.

Thanks and while that is also an excellent point which I agree with my point in that instance was the phrasing. Choosing to not continue with a pregnancy that sex with a man resulted in does not fucking equal legally murdering his kids.

Also I discussed the whole "men don't get a say in abortion" earlier in the thread and as the guy has nothing new to add and you have covered it so neatly I don't feel the need to go into it again.

I think that @Res Plus ment that it's inherently unfair that woman has every right to

- lie about her fertility or sabotage non-permanent preventive measures male can take
- hide her pregnancy from father or lie about termination
- refuse to give father access to child (father actually has to sue mother in civil court to get to visit his child in case mother opposes)
- that mother can disown child upon childbirth without informing father
- and that even with all that mother can demand part of father's income to help her raise child father had never had say in conceiving, and raising (childbearing is part of the woman's body thus clearly purely her decision no matter how unfair that is towards father)

Yes as I have said (at least twice now, once in the post you quoted) I know what he meant. You can go back through the thread and see these things discussed.

No you didn't. I actually went through the thread searching for your handle and I didn't see anything that I would name as argument. But I really don't want to start personal attacks. I will state 4 things I think that should be implemented to make this more fair situation and which I don't see hurting anyone.

- Mother to be should be obligated to inform father of childbearing. Some exception might be given via civil court if father is found danger for mother's or child's health and safety.
- Mother should not be able to disown the child without informing father and offering him custody of the child unless court proves fathe unfit for parenting. In cases in which mother is unable to be in custody of child during the process of decision making about father's fitness for the task child could be kept safe and well in undisclosed location.
- Mother shouldn't be able to deny father joint custody over child without court finding father unfit for parenthood.
- In case of alimony awarded to parent or child itself, amount should be flexible and
recalculated imitatively upon other parents reporting of change of income.

And I'm at loss how one would actually enforce first three points but never the less, they should be stated.

 

[CymbaIine]

No you didn't. I actually went through the thread searching for your handle and I didn't see anything that I would name as argument. But I really don't want to start personal attacks. I will state 4 things I think that should be implemented to make this more fair situation and which I don't see hurting anyone.

- Mother to be should be obligated to inform father of childbearing. No exceptions, even if he is homicidal junkie.
- Mother should not be able to disown the child without informing father and offering him custody of the child unless court proves fathe unfit for parenting. In cases in which mother is unable to be in custody of child during the process of decision making about father's fitness for the task child could be kept safe and well in undisclosed location.
- Mother shouldn't be able to deny father joint custody over child without court finding father unfit for parenthood.
- In case of alimony awarded to parent or child itself, amount should be flexible and recalculated imitatively upon other parents reporting of change of income.

Okay I will ignore the first part because fine. Here is is my response.

-How about, instead, Fathers should not be allowed to have sex with anybody they don't intend to see at all for the next 9 months?

-Well where I live the adoption process involves this anyway. As for Mother not being allowed custody... I am not sure why you feel the need to add this?

-Joint custody is bad for kids, it's bad for parents (both of em) it's always held up as this ideal solution but all it really does is remind me of he old "Wisdom of Solomon" story.

-I know nothing at all about alimony and can't be arsed learning to debate it on the internet.

 

[carnex]

No you didn't. I actually went through the thread searching for your handle and I didn't see anything that I would name as argument. But I really don't want to start personal attacks. I will state 4 things I think that should be implemented to make this more fair situation and which I don't see hurting anyone.

- Mother to be should be obligated to inform father of childbearing. No exceptions, even if he is homicidal junkie.
- Mother should not be able to disown the child without informing father and offering him custody of the child unless court proves fathe unfit for parenting. In cases in which mother is unable to be in custody of child during the process of decision making about father's fitness for the task child could be kept safe and well in undisclosed location.
- Mother shouldn't be able to deny father joint custody over child without court finding father unfit for parenthood.
- In case of alimony awarded to parent or child itself, amount should be flexible and recalculated imitatively upon other parents reporting of change of income.

Okay I will ignore the first part because fine. Here is is my response.

-How about, instead, Fathers should not be allowed to have sex with anybody they don't intend to see at all for the next 9 months?

-Well where I live the adoption process involves this anyway. As for Mother not being allowed custody... I am not sure why you feel the need to add this?

-Joint custody is bad for kids, it's bad for parents (both of em) it's always held up as this ideal solution but all it really does is remind me of he old "Wisdom of Solomon" story.

-I know nothing at all about alimony and can't be arsed learning to debate it on the internet.

Well, I will take this as pure provocation, because I will not accept that person can spew things as stupid as these and really mean them. And and on second point, that's your concept. I never said that mother should not be in custody of a child.

All in all, pure facepalm material if it was meant to be taken seriously.

 

[CymbaIine]

Well, I will take this as pure provocation, because I will not accept that person can spew things as stupid as these and really mean them. And and on second point, that's your concept. I never said that mother should not be in custody of a child.

All in all, pure facepalm material if it was meant to be taken seriously.

Well to your first point- Well stated, you have given me a lot to think about. Thanks.

To your second- I wasn't clear, apologies, I meant the part you felt the need to specify that the Mother wasn't allowed custody during the court process.

 

[carnex]

Well, I will take this as pure provocation, because I will not accept that person can spew things as stupid as these and really mean them. And and on second point, that's your concept. I never said that mother should not be in custody of a child.

All in all, pure facepalm material if it was meant to be taken seriously.

Well to your first point- Well stated, you have given me a lot to think about. Thanks.

To your second- I wasn't clear, apologies, I meant the part you felt the need to specify that the Mother wasn't allowed custody during the court process.

- On the first post, I reworded it, changed it quite a bit. Although I still believe that father should know that he is father it's counter productive towards child's and mother's safety in certain circumstances so I changed my mind. Simple as that. If your comment still stands with my new opinion, I would say that then mother would have to have same obligation.

- My point of the second part was for mother not to be legally allowed to disown the child without first informing and offering custody to father. Unfit fathers excluded from that right. It's not adoption process I make a point about, but obligation of informing and offering custody.

- Sources for that statement. And I do mean only validated statistical and/or research data. Anything I found stated that joint custody, unless there is domestic/partner (I don't know how else to label relationship between mother an father that do not live together and do not spend significant portion of time together) abuse/violence within that relationship is vastly superior environment for children to single parenthood.

- OK, nod discussion there than.

 

[carnex]

Sorry, didn't answer your second part

I said if mother wasn't able to be in custody, if for some reason she wasn't able to provide care for child that child would be taken to undisclosed location for the duration of decision making. I was very careful to word it as such. That would be protection of the child from father who's fitness for parenthood is debatable.

 

[Grampy_bone]

So in reference to your answer 4, if you were convinced that games were responsible for, or a part of, "heteronormative hegemony," (which I think is safe to simply refer to by the feminist term "patriarchy,") would you make a cause of undermining, changing, or destroying gaming?

You say the feminists you know are not concerned with gaming, but clearly there are influential feminists who are concerned with it, and they see gaming as part of the "patriarchy" and therefore must be undermined.

I don't really thing you get what hegemony means, it cannot be simply referred to as patriarchy (you may want to brush up on that one too). Sure I undermine that stuff and actively try to change it.

Hegemony isn't a "feminist" thing. Let's pick an issue that comes up a lot in these discussions- the argument about the unfairness of a society that thinks men aren't able to raise their kids as well as women can, well that stereotype is an example of hegemony in action.

I also would like some examples of influential feminists are involved in gaming? I would be genuinely interested in what they have to say.

Well, I'm not here to debate gender roles or gender theory, that seems like a topic for another thread.

My point is that despite how many people claim "Not All Feminists Are Like That" or insist that the idea of feminists trying to destroy gaming is silly, it's easy to show how basic tenants of feminism will almost invariably lead to an attack on gaming, or indeed any other male-dominated subculture.

It's simple. Take a universal concept such as "Feminists hate Patriarchy." I just claim that "Gaming is Patriarchy" and viola, now I get "Feminists hate Gaming." It's easy to do with gaming because it was largely created by men, for men, so simply pointing out the subject matter and screaming "SEXISM!!!!" over and over again is enough to spark a huge outcry from women.

The SJW media is essentially everyone who created #gamergate. Prominent feminists in gaming include Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn. These SJW journalists have been forcing their agenda on developers and readers alike. They crammed the issue down their audience's throats, no matter how much we complained we didn't care. They also attack any and all developers for the slightest perceived violation of feminism. This is the best interview I have read on the matter:

http://techraptor.net/2014/09/12/interview-daniel-vavra/

Daniel Vavra is an industry veteran who worked on several AAA games, and he reveals he is sick and tired of being harrased by agenda-driven gaming media who just want to make political points rather than talk about games:

"And they will never be happy. If you don?t have a gay character in your game, you are homophobic, if you do have gay character in your game, you are homophobic, because they don?t like the character. If women in your game look good, you are sexist, if they look bad, you are sexist, if you can fight with them, you are misogynistic, if you can?t fight with them, you are using them as objects, if you don?t have any women, because there is no correct way how to have them, you are misogynistic.
It?s a witch hunt and it?s affecting my artistic freedom."