Vault101's guide to gender debates

[CymbaIine]

- 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.

There is a problem here and it is this - I am quite knowledgable about British Children and Families law both public (adoption etc) and private (custody and visitation). I am not familiar at all with US law. So all this is in the context of the law I am familiar with.

- My point was more "why the fuck is it all on the Mother to go hunting down the guy?" I would have to ponder more if I think it should be a law but of course I think that it is morally right to inform somebody they are a parent (generally speaking).

- "Disowning" is not a term I am familiar with when it comes to family law so I just assumed you meant putting a child up for adoption. If you mean abandoning a child, well that's illegal anyway so I am not sure that making it extra illegal would help. Also in British law a resident parent can't simply offer somebody "custody" it all depends on the circumstances.

- I don't have any internet sources about joint custody but I will try and get back to you with some books (maybe you could Google the reviews?) Some of the reasons it doesn't work are fairly obvious so I will state those and you can consider what I said. Joint custody works if both partners and the child want it, both partners are comfortable financially or at least have similar financial circumstances, the arrangement is amicable and both parents had similar roles within the family before the split (ie both worked similar hours, both didn't work at all). Otherwise it turns into a fucking mess fairly rapidly (hopefully I don't need to explain why).

Joint custody is fab if that's what works (which is rare) but so is sole custody if that's what works. In British law it's about what's best for the child, what's fair for the parents doesn't come into it and why should it? In the UK preference is given to the primary care giver in order to provide stability and continuity, of course that's not the case if the reason for the split is that the primary care giver has started shooting up or something.

There are two issues here- there is what's morally right and what can be realistically enforced legally.

I would condemn any parent that didn't allow the other parent to see their child out of spite. Do I think that we should start locking up/fining these parents? Well no that would impact on the child.

I would also condemn any parent that wanted nothing to do with a child that they didn't live with. Should we started forcing contact with the threat of jail? Well no because that would negatively impact on the child.

The welfare of the child is missing from most of your arguments, you seem far more concerned wit the rights of the parents which is looking at it the wrong way.

Let me finish by saying this. I would LOVE to see an even gender split in childcare, I would love it if more men got residency because this would reflect the fact that more men were the ones providing most of the care. I don't blame men for this by the way. Most new parents want to ensure financial stability for their kids and it's sad but true that for most families it is easier to achieve this by the woman doing most of the caring. Of course in some relationships the men are arseholes who wont change a nappy or the women are arseholes who insist they know best because boobs, but most of the time it's circumstance or societal pressure that force parents into those roles.

And that's why if you really care about those things you should become a feminist activist.

 

[CymbaIine]

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.

Ah okay, I genuinely didn't know what you meant.

Also I just looked at the length of my above post, sorry if I got rambley I am very tired.

 

[CymbaIine]

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

Name of the thread - Vault101's guide to gender debates. Also as I said hegemony ISN'T a gender thing.

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.

"Gaming is patriarchy" makes no sense, like linguistically. I am not being petty or arguing semantics I am saying that your misuse of the word in that phrase again leads me to suspect that you don't really understand the concept. When I read the rest of what you have wrote that suspicion seems to be confirmed.

Let me ask you this - Why feminism in particular? The type of gaming you are talking about isn't just aimed at men it's aimed at young, white, straight men, non-disabled (I could go on) men. Your feminist argument therefore could apply to any number of activist groups so are they too going to "invariably" come along and attack gaming?

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."

If Daniel Vavra is so arsed about his artistic freedom why the fuck is he making AAA games in the first place? Can you give me an example where the games media has been universal in their condemnation of a gay character? You don't even have to link it just tell me the game and I will Google it myself.

Also why exactly do you keep saying "we" do you think their audience begins and ends with people that think like you?

 

[Callate]

If it were framed as, say,

"I like Lewis Carroll; I find his clever use of language, fanciful settings and characters, and play with absurdity highly worthwhile. You are disturbed by allegations that he may have been a pedophile, which colors your interpretation of the same matter and renders you unable to enjoy his works"

...that would be grand.

In the current fair climes of Internet discourse, what one finds often looks more like

"I like Lewis Carroll. You feel continuing to reference Lewis Carroll coddles and encourages child abuse, and that his works and works referencing them should be, if not banned, at least restricted in their viewing and only permitted with prominent liner notes explaining that Carroll was sick and that child abuse is a terrible scourge upon society. If I suggest any part of such a policy would be less than progressive, you will imply that I should not be permitted to be around children."

As by page one this topic already has large groups of people being described as immature defenders of staw-man issues and feminism as a monolithic block of which one and only one definition is acceptable (while multiple such remain on the table), I doubt this is going to be productive.

 

[CymbaIine]

If it were framed as, say,

"I like Lewis Carroll; I find his clever use of language, fanciful settings and characters, and play with absurdity highly worthwhile. You are disturbed by allegations that he may have been a pedophile, which colors your interpretation of the same matter and renders you unable to enjoy his works"

...that would be grand.

In the current fair climes of Internet discourse, what one finds often looks more like

"I like Lewis Carroll. You feel continuing to reference Lewis Carroll coddles and encourages child abuse, and that his works and works referencing them should be, if not banned, at least restricted in their viewing and only permitted with prominent liner notes explaining that Carroll was sick and that child abuse is a terrible scourge upon society. If I suggest any part of such a policy would be less than progressive, you will imply that I should not be permitted to be around children."

As by page one this topic already has large groups of people being described as immature defenders of staw-man issues and feminism as a monolithic block of which one and only one definition is acceptable (while multiple such remain on the table), I doubt this is going to be productive.

I have never heard that about Lewis Carroll before, I just had to whip Alice in Wonderland away from the kids and burn it in front of their weeping eyes.

Seriously though I had never heard that, I just thought he liked the LSD.

 

[Callate]

I have never heard that about Lewis Carroll before, I just had to whip Alice in Wonderland away from the kids and burn it in front of their weeping eyes.

Seriously though I had never heard that, I just thought he liked the LSD.

One article on same from The Smithsonian, which does not credit the suppositions:

[link]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/lewis-carrolls-shifting-reputation-9432378/?page=1[/link]

Though I'm mostly using same as a metaphor to avoid stepping on toes, in case that wasn't clear.

 

[Grampy_bone]

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

Name of the thread - Vault101's guide to gender debates. Also as I said hegemony ISN'T a gender thing.

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.

"Gaming is patriarchy" makes no sense, like linguistically. I am not being petty or arguing semantics I am saying that your misuse of the word in that phrase again leads me to suspect that you don't really understand the concept. When I read the rest of what you have wrote that suspicion seems to be confirmed.

Let me ask you this - Why feminism in particular? The type of gaming you are talking about isn't just aimed at men it's aimed at young, white, straight men, non-disabled (I could go on) men. Your feminist argument therefore could apply to any number of activist groups so are they too going to "invariably" come along and attack gaming?

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."

If Daniel Vavra is so arsed about his artistic freedom why the fuck is he making AAA games in the first place? Can you give me an example where the games media has been universal in their condemnation of a gay character? You don't even have to link it just tell me the game and I will Google it myself.

Also why exactly do you keep saying "we" do you think their audience begins and ends with people that think like you?

You actually misquoted me, the phrased I used was "Heteronormative Hegemony" which is basically gender theory, and in this case is not relevant to the point I am making. I'm stressing this again, it's not relevant to my point.

As to why feminists attack gaming, you tell me? They seem to go after any large gathering of males. It's true I'm greatly simplifying complex feminist dogma, but the SJWs do the exact same thing. You just have to give them the tiniest whiff of "oppression" or "misogyny" and you basically get World War 3.

Other groups--such as religions--understand the concept of boundaries. They may denounce gaming in their own religious circles, but they don't come to gaming sites and demand a voice or a platform, and you don't see major gaming websites writing op-eds about blasphemy. That's because we've all accepted the idea that religious beliefs are a personal matter, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and bringing up religion in a neutral space will only discourage participation by others. Essentially, we all agree to lay down out arms in order to foster peace and cooperation.

But Feminism has no boundaries. Feminism teaches that all boundaries, rules, and laws come from the patriarchy and therefore are null and void. Any law or rule which inhibits feminism is considered invalid. Feminism does not recognize the validity of non-feminism as a belief. You are either a feminist, ignorant and in need of "education," or a misogynist. Feminism will never lay down its arms and agree to be peaceful. Feminism will never "play nice."

As for your comment about Daniel Vavra, that sounds like victim blaming to me. If he didn't want to get raped he shouldn't have dressed like a slut, right?

 

[Vault101]

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

I'm not sure I want to tackle your first post but I'm gonna jump on here

the point of rule 3/4 (and all the rules) was to cut out unnecessary derailing of thease kinds of arguments

as it applies to rules 3 and 4:

you read my points and then went on a rant about "feminists" and "feminism" which...ok fine this thread is kinda meta afterall, but the issue is (and it happens so many times) is that when you start mass applying the label you turn into into a conflict between "non-femenists" vs "femensits" neatly assuming that people think or believe, and then it turns into a big long debate about the merits of the movment

like if I started a discussion on the ethics of animal testing and someone barged in saying [i/]well the problem with environmentalists is they want to take away our meat! and our pets! and want us all to live in hippie communes![/i] <-now weve derailed the original topic and opened up all kinds of dubious assumptions about what "environmentalism" means...which drags it all on unnecessarily

you don't like femenism? great! you want to criticse it? great!

[sub/]which I'm sure is a conclusion you came to after doing at least a [i/]little[/i] research outside of a forum setting and how it releates to games right?...not JUST because somone person who made some videos you disagree with is a femenist?...like...I don't know...a wikipedia article at least? mabye you should read the book "bad feminist" I hear its really good[/sub]

but that argument and the topic at hand (say why somone thinks a game might be sexist) aren't always relevant to each other

I also wouldn't trust such a discussion (again not about games but about the movement itself) to people who A.) don't know what theyre talking about B.) have a big old axe to grind with the words "MUH GAMEZ" etched on the handle

 

[Weaver]

Vault, I'm sorry but Enya's Sail Away is a really shitty song.

 

[Silvanus]

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.)

I understood that just fine. Using a metaphor which involves threat-of-death was crass.

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?

You are. I have never seen feminists say those things; I've heard anti-feminists claim it about them numerous times. If these accusations are to be taken seriously, then I need examples, and evidence also that they are representative of the broad movement as a whole.

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.

Do they say that? Or is this just something said about feminists, by their detractors?

Again, I've never actually seen any feminists saying those things. If the reason "gamers are sick of feminists" is entirely in the minds of the gamers, then that is not the fault of the 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.

The goalposts are exactly where they started. They still require actual evidence to get a ball through.

Anita is not saying those things. That's just a fib. These are just strawmen after strawmen.

 

[CymbaIine]

You actually misquoted me, the phrased I used was "Heteronormative Hegemony" which is basically gender theory, and in this case is not relevant to the point I am making. I'm stressing this again, it's not relevant to my point.

I think it's relevant, you think heteronotmative hegemony is good and I think it's bad. I think if you really understood it you would agree it's bad. But I am happy to agree to disagree.

As to why feminists attack gaming, you tell me? They seem to go after any large gathering of males. It's true I'm greatly simplifying complex feminist dogma, but the SJWs do the exact same thing. You just have to give them the tiniest whiff of "oppression" or "misogyny" and you basically get World War 3.

I was just wondering why you think your map for how feminists attacking gaming doesn't apply to other groups. Now I see I misunderstood. Again this is just a basic difference between what we see as right and wrong. I am fine with people critiquing mediums that discourage diversity. It's a good thing that people challenge these things. I am talking conceptually here and not about your specific concern regarding the silverstring conspiracy. I am not sold that this conspiracy exists or that the games industry is in anyway effected by it even if it does.

Other groups--such as religions--understand the concept of boundaries. They may denounce gaming in their own religious circles, but they don't come to gaming sites and demand a voice or a platform, and you don't see major gaming websites writing op-eds about blasphemy. That's because we've all accepted the idea that religious beliefs are a personal matter, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, and bringing up religion in a neutral space will only discourage participation by others. Essentially, we all agree to lay down out arms in order to foster peace and cooperation.

But Feminism has no boundaries. Feminism teaches that all boundaries, rules, and laws come from the patriarchy and therefore are null and void. Any law or rule which inhibits feminism is considered invalid. Feminism does not recognize the validity of non-feminism as a belief. You are either a feminist, ignorant and in need of "education," or a misogynist. Feminism will never lay down its arms and agree to be peaceful. Feminism will never "play nice."

Yeah I don't know what you are talking about here, there has never been an op-ed piece about racism/homophobia/disability rights? I find that hard to believe and not a good thing if true. What are the fucking rules? If you think somethings harmful you can dislike it only to the extent where you don't challenge anybody actually involved in it? Also it's utter bollocks that other groups tend to sit around decrying things to each other for fear of breaking the rule of "let's not bother anybody with this".

As for your comment about Daniel Vavra, that sounds like victim blaming to me. If he didn't want to get raped he shouldn't have dressed like a slut, right?

I'm going to ignore the rape thing because... seriously. Now can you please answer my question regarding that gay character that everybody denouced?

 

[CymbaIine]

Actually I think you ignored the post because you didn't want to engage with the bizarre feminist rant about war memorials. I guess it's hard to admit the sainted feminists are just as guilty of unpleasant hyperbole as evil men. Ho hum!

Maybe you're right as I genuinely don't have a single clue as to what you are talking about.

 

[Nowhere Man]

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.

Oh thank Christ, finally someone gets it.

 

[Montezuma's Lawyer]

I just can't resist this one since it's so bloody relevant to prove how irrelevant definitions are

NSDAP stood for right of German people to stand equal to other European nations. Right out of their chapter.

[sub/]oohhhh lord[/sub]


I don't know much about the Nazi party's polices but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, I don't think Germany as a whole was more "oppressed" than other nations or that the Nazi party specifically marketed themselves as "we deserve the same rights as other nations" I would have thought it was more "Germany is awesome and here are our social and economic polices!"

or more to the point false equivalency

Did you read my first sentence. I said "I'm making a point to show how definitions can be irrelevant". Perhaps i should have stated "compared to real world events"

It is not false equivalence when in both cases definition of organization and it's actions are quite frankly opposed to each other.

You heard it folks, "feminists" are gonna start exterminating Jews.

I'd better get back to my bunker then.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You heard it folks, "feminists" are gonna start exterminating Jews.

I'd better get back to my bunker then.

It would be interesting to see how many posts that would get, if everyone agreed to stop talking about games for the duration.

 

[Syzygy23]

tl;dr: Curious why the emphasis is on feminism while racism seems much worse.

There's a term for that. "Appeal to a greater problem" or something.

Or to put it another way:

Someone walks up to you, spits in your face and then walks away.
You call after them, "Hey, fuckwit, what the hell was that about?" A reasonable response in the circumstances.
They turn and reply, "Geez man, don't you know that there are homeless people dying of hypothermia every winter? And all you care about is some saliva on your face? Get some perspective and focus on what matters!"

The existence of a greater problem does not diminish a lesser problem. Especially if the two are unrelated. Also, caring about a lesser problem does not automatically mean that one does not care about a greater problem.

Lastly, people tend to be more concerned with that which is in their face and relevant to their own lives than that which is not. For example, most people would get more distressed over, say, losing their job than over the fact that hundreds of people are dying of ebola right now.

Several thousand now, actually.

Also, the human brain is estimated to be able to actually care about 217 (might be 271, I can't quite remember the exact number) human beings maximum (not including itself) You can't expect the brain to process the appropriate emotional response one would ascribe to a dead grandmother to several thousand, million, or billions of other human beings in similar circumstances. It just isn't physically possible unless you were immortal, and even then you would never get a break from mourning everyone that passed.

So if anyone accuses you of being a heartless bastard for not caring about the millions of dead orphans in Africa, it's not your fault you don't care, you physically can't.

 

[entelechy]

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.

No feminist critique of games that I have seen (not even the great and horrible Anita Sarkeesian) has ever framed the argument in that way. Rather:

A feminist says, "This game contains some sexist material which really didn't need to be there to make a fun game."

I think what's so appalling about many instances of sexist material in videogames is that a lot of it is non-essential to the games tone, narrative or gameplay -- i.e. if it had never been there, no one would have noticed anything was missing. Educating designers about these issues would change the kind of games that get made in the future, but so will any cultural trend.

As for "social engineering," the gender tropes that you are defending are themselves a product of social engineering -- Bronze Age social engineering -- but nonetheless the patriarchy is not a biological phenomenon. Strict gender roles and treating women as objects to be prized by men is purely a product of agricultural civilization. You can't escape living in an engineered society. That ship sailed long before any of us were even born.