I am truly, truly shocked by some of the interpretations of 'feminisim' that people on this thread are putting out. Namely the one about how women are apparently trying to become the dominant gender or are making a big deal out of nothing because apparently we are living in a more enlightened sexism free day.
Neither of these things are true.
Feminism was, and to this day remains the pursuit of equality in the world. Not dominance, and frankly I still see a lot of signs that this world needs to show signs of equality. Sure, we have women working in the workforce... but on average salaries are still set differently. Similarly while there are a few jobs that seem primarily female dominated, these are jobs that don't generally get paid as much as men.
Also to all the people saying that today's modern woman gets to live free of sexism... try telling that to the hundreds of women in Arabic countries who still get treated like commodities, explain that to the women stuck in prositution sex trafficing, or the many women a year that get sexually harrassed or hired in a workforce for their looks.
Sure, the world might be better than it was, and women do get more equal oppurtunities... but only a man born of ignorance could claim that the world is a perfect place for women now.
It's like arguing that because politicians can't lobby against gay people anymore, there's no more homophobia.... uh, yes there still is.
You argue that there aren't still gender double standards in our society?
Hell, tell that to all the women who have ever had a relationship with Charlie Sheen. The man threatens them with violence, actually enacts violence on them quite a few times (He shot a woman in the arm once from what I hear) and even though many women come forward to say that he is a raging aggressive egotistical misongyist, he remains the most well paid actor on television.
Until finally he gets busted for drug abuse and ends up becoming a celebrated internet meme.
I get really sick of hearing people call Charlie Sheen 'the coolest drug addict ever' or that he's 'living every man's dream'.
So what? It's every man's dream to be allowed to treat women as horribly as you want to and not get in trouble for it? Where the hell is the moral outrage regarding all this?
Meanwhile, all a famous actress has to do is get fat, or have drug problems or have parental issues... and then the news goes wild with anger and moral outrage and negative publicity associated with it.
Case in point, Brittany Spears. Sure she got drunk a lot and took a few drugs and wasn't a responsible parent, but neither was Sheen. And I don't recall Spears accidentally shooting someone in the arm either. Why do we not hold him to the same expectations?
So to go back to the part about 'where's the moral outrage'... well that's clearly where the feminists come in. If so many cases of domestic abuse can happen and be known publicly to the entire world and no one seems bothered by it, I question the notion of the world being fairer on women.
Plus, if we think that just giving them job oppurtunities is all we need to absolve ourselves on any responsibilities to how we treat women, and to allow us to have to play the victim card like there's some kind of evil feminist monster tearing the societal structures of this world apart... then feminisim is still needed.
I just wish people would stop acting like the fact that women have it easier then they used to have it somehow absolved us males of the simple resonsibilities to actually show them some damned respect. Hell, the replies on this thread alone make it clear how much feminism is still needed in our society if we now think that being morally offended by off color jokes that are being broadcasted and used as advertising and even used as selling points for big popular games and game companies, is something we have the right to mock.
So what? If it had been a joke about jabbering black people in loin cloths who make monkey sounds and eat fried chicken? Would that be okay? Honestly I don't see how subimissive women in bikini's utterly dependant and worshipping of the dominant male, intoxicated by his manliness is any less a demeaning image to broadcast to the world.
Oh and in case anyone was wondering, I am a MAN. I am a masculine manly male with testosterone and an XY chromosome arrangement. My maleness is a staple of my genetic build up.
However I am also a man who is sick of hearing other men try to argue that the group who has had it so good for so long is now the victims at the hands of the other group that has had to claw their way to even come close to being where we are, all because they happen to take umbrage with the idea of us selling and playing games that they percieve demeans them.
Okay, now that I've gotten that nasty bit out of my system... let's talk the actual game for a second.
I'm all for defending video games when controversy shows up... when they deserve to be defended. When Mass Effect got hated and reviled as a 'porn simulator' because the game happened to allow me to see dimly lit one second of the bare arse of Gunnery Chief Ashley Williams, I was quick to cry foul. It was an obvious case of the media overreacting and having not even taken the time to actually PLAY the game they were judging in the first place.
Likewise, if a game wants to try to do artistic expression and make a story or use themes about edgy subject matter, provided the subject matter itself is presented in a respectful way in the game itself, then I will cry foul because that's just a case of the game being cenosored on the basis of it being a game.
However I sometimes wonder if we've gotten so used to just shouting 'idiots' whenever people complain about content of a game that we've forgotten to at least try to see things from the perspective of the people making the accusation. It's as though we now care more about just standing up and shouting about how the people citing controversies are just overreacting blowhards that we forget that sometimes controversial things are controversial for a REASON.
Let's now forget Custer's Revenge. The game where you score points by raping a captive Native American woman. If that game had come out today with a triple A budget and was met by the same hailstorm of criticism and controversy as games today... would you defend it?
I can see it now:
"Oh no really, there's nothing inherently wrong with a game that directly awards a score system to the act of comitting rape! You are all just a bunch of whining femenazi's out to ruin our fun!"
My point is sometimes the controversy is justified. Having a gametype called 'Capture the Babe' which is literally just 'Capture the Flag' but with a sexed up woman taking the part of the 'objective', is something bound to be offensive to people. As is having the main character be portrayed as 'cool' and having 'coolness' be associated with being a womanizer. Something with harkens back to the days when it was considered cool to again, treat women like commodities that you can have sex with.
The game demonstrates this with promotional art of the male lead standing proudly while two women swoon beneath him.
Besides the game's whole story seems to be that aliens are coming to take Earth's 'babes' and that Duke is fighting to stop them and appears intent on taking as many 'babes' for himself. And the 'babes' respond to this with awe and swooning.
I don't CARE if this is a 'joke' or not. To quote Yahtzee:
"If you want to smear shit all over your face to make an ironic statement then more power to you, but you still smell like arse."
Call it a joke as much as you want, it's still a joke and story that is both immature and demonstrates objectification towards women. Female activists have just as much right to be mad about that as any black activist would if it were making fun of black people.
There is only so far the phrase 'it's only a joke, stop taking this so seriously' can take you. There have been plenty of other games that have been entirely humor based that didn't need to use this kind of joke level, like Portal and Psychonauts for example. Both games that revel in absurdism and silly jokes, but neither of them actually ended up directly offending people. Frankly after reading some of the stuff that happens in it, I'm not surprised people were offended.
According to reports the game opens with Duke getting sucked off by two schoolgirls at the same time and that apparently another woman says:
"I have hungry-you have big egg ro' for me, Duke."
These kind of jokes aren't funny, they are lowbrow and frankly, offensive. The 'egg ro'' bit it just plain racist and everything else about it seems to reinforce the image of games being immature. Especially if we, as a gaming community don't actually see a problem with it.
I also don't like the argument that 'this is a man's game, women shouldn't care what it has in it' because like... really?
It's a game designed for male tastes, marketed for what is believed to be the male mind and so that suddenly makes all the blatant objectification okay? I've seen quite a few female oriented movies and books (no, not those books) and very few of them ever display males in a subservant role, wearing skimpy clothes and swooning in awe at their mistresses.
So how come women aren't allowed to be pissed off that a game that 'wasn't for them' is also tailored to the fantasy of sexed up submissive women swooning in amazement at strong proud male authority figures... and doing so in such a juvenile way.
If I were a woman, looking at this... it would not be a fantasy that I would want enforced on me, let me tell you. And it would sicken me to think that entertainers apparently still think this kind of thing appeals to the male mind, worse still to discover that it does.
Here's the thing, this isn't controversy founded in ignorance. All the stuff being complained about by the feminists are things that the developers gleefully advertise. And frankly 'Capture the Babe' is pretty self explanatory as it literally objectfies the woman involved to the point where that's literally what she is, an OBJECT. Something to be carted around with only the worth and value attributed to it by what score it lays out. This could have been a flag, or a beer bottle or a pair of sunglasses or indeed any other object and the gameplay would still be the same.
Somewhere, a developer conciously decided to make it be a woman.
This also isn't a case of the game boldly trying to make a deep and edgy statement and being met with criticism because of simply tackling an edgy subject matter. This is a case of a game being aggressively juvenile, doing stuff that is both racist and glaringly sexist (context of a joke acknowledged but I really don't think it matters) for basically kicks and farting around purposes. This isn't us trying to push the medium forward and boldly try new things and being met with criticism by an uncaring society.
This is us making immature, crude and stupidly offensive stuff try to get presented publicly and having people aggressively point out that it is immature, crude and stupidly offensive.
Now I'm not saying the feminists are completely valid either, some elements of 'it's just a joke' do still linger on but still if people can honestly look at this game, with Duke getting sucked off by two teenage girls, a character doing a racist Asian stereotype and gametypes that literally reduce women to being objects and think that it's impossible that there isn't something in here people might have a valid reason to be offended by, then I think that says a lot about the maturity level of some people.
I honestly don't think this kind of lowbrow humor is really worth defending. Is it really worth arguing over and trying to defend or justify?
Is it worth condescending the opinons of those who are outraged and making us all look ignorant and arrogant in the process, just for some toilet humor? Let me tell you something, if Duke Nukem Forever (with all the stuff hinted at) was a movie... it would probably still be met with controversy and hatred. Just not as much or as concentrated.
The fact that it's a game does unfairly make it an easy target, but it doesn't undermine the fact that some of the criticisms have a good basis.
Duke Nukem was a game series that had it's time over twelve years ago. It's over now, these days that same humor just won't be met with the same response because in the twelve years that Duke has been out of the loop, his kind of attitude is now considered obnoxious.
I read the descriptions about how you can throw poo at people and piss into urinals, this, combined with the racist jokes and really blatantly sexist imagery makes me wonder why the hell anyone ever waited twelve years to see this game released?
Aren't we at a time when we are trying to fight to show that games can be considered an art? How can we honestly try to defend a game like this? Is it really all just for the sake of 'having a good old laugh?'
Because if that's the case, just play Psychonauts. It was funny and fun to play and didn't need to be sexist or add crude racist stereotypes to the mix to do so.
I'm not here to actually argue that Duke Nukem Forever is sexist (while I do think that there are valid positions on that front).
I just argue that surely, surely we are better than this.
I did not read all nineteen pages nor do I care to.
But I don't mind if a character is feminist, that's the character.
But if the whole game has themes in Feminism, advocating it. Well, to me it's the same thing as having a game advocating racism or something similar.
The world is a bit bigger than the continental US, sorry to say. Have you considered that the "raped while walking to school" bit may cover, oh I don't know, the entire world? And that the national stat for rape in the US is believed to be significantly higher than reported due to the fact that most rape is never reported?
Just keep digging your hole. You're free to cling to your misogynistic, privileged beliefs all you want, but it does not change the fact that feminism is a desperately needed force even in modernized countries.
No offense boss but, you're being a bit of a twerp.
That video is intentionally dishonest and misleading. It quotes statistics from the World at large alongside those from the UK whilst making no distinction in how bad each respectively is; effectively equating women in the UK with women in the most backwards and deprived places on our entire planet. That is outrageous to the women in 3rd World countries and is unbelievably demeaning toward their plight.
It also makes no mention of injustices and abuse that men suffer at the hands of women.
As for penetrative rape; it can only be committed by a man and, as a vagina is generally the preferred orifice, is in most cases perpetrated upon a woman. This is a crime that is almost impossible for one half of our society to commit, so that means the other half is sexist? No, it does not. It means that there are criminals out there, something I'd assume you will accept.
Is a black person who robs from a white family racist? Is the reverse true? Or is it simply down to the fact that the victim has something the perp wants?
The video reels off lots of crimes committed against women, implicitly implying that the motivation for them, one and all, is sexism. That is patently absurd. These are behavioural issues, not sexist ones.
I'm not saying these issues do not exist or that those victims do not need support, but why do these victims need special treatment over other victims? Why is a women who is abused more worthy of treatment than a man? Why is a man who is contemplating suicide scorned in favour of a woman who has been raped? Why is a man killed in an uprovoked attack in a dark alley worth less than a woman killed by an ex partner?
Edit: Ahhrg! The video is ostensibly about equality and yet the major emotional buttons it pushes have absolutely nothing to do with it. The lists of crimes where women are the victim, what have they to do with equality? Are there not lists of crimes that men fall victim too? They have as much claim to be about equality as these; there are also probably more of them.
The only things about equality that it touches upon are sexual license, something which they're a bit out of touch with (women have generally slept with more men than men have women), the wage gap (something the veracity of which I am extremely dubious about) and pregnancy for working women.
Firstly, pregnancy is an inherently unequal topic.
Second, a woman can choose to not get pregnant whilst building a career.
Thirdly, the video falsely implies that the 30,000 jobs women lose per year are each individually equal to a man's career.
Fourthly, how would you protect a "pregnant woman's job security system" from being abused by serially pregnant women?
Fifthly, how do you equate a several month long paid holiday to the remainder of the workforce who have to work the entire time, whilst possibly managing someone elses workload as well as their own? Or to the employer who has to employ a worker who does no work, whilst possibly having to employ an extra one to make up for her absence? Or to the men who have no chance of getting this paid holiday to begin with? This is the real sticker; depressingly complex and it would take up loads time and effort, of which I'm not willing to give.
Nobody is claiming that the motivation for rape or other injustices perpetrated against women is sexism; you don't do it saying "Oh hey, I'm going to be sexist today." They're a result of sexism permeating Western culture, which values women less than men and judges them more harshly - of course it's the other way around in some cases, but those are easily the vast minority of scenarios.
The point of the video is to make viewers honestly consider the fact: Are men and women equal in supposedly modern, progressive societies? That is its entire goal, and even if it does get facts wrong - which I'm skeptical it does - or misrepresent them, it is doing so with the intention of getting you, the viewer, to consider that question honestly and without a knee-jerk dismissal.
The answer is "no," of course.
And the other points are, in fact, points of equality. Women are far more likely to be abused or killed by a romantic partner than the other way around. Domestic violence cases overwhelmingly have women as the victim, etc. Those are issues of equality regardless of how they're phrased.
Come off it, the video manipulates the viewer into one answer and one answer only; it does the opposite of promoting consideration and shocks the viewer into seeing things the way it wants them to be seen. It does exactly the opposite of what you're saying; it promotes a knee jerk response of "no, they're not equal".
Going back to crimes committed against women; you're looking at it with a biased view. You look to see a female victim and she becomes the most important part; therefore the crime happens because she's a woman and you find reasons behind that. That's just wrong. Crimes aren't about victims, they're about criminals; the victim is almost irrelevant.
I articulated badly when talking about rape before, implying that it can only be committed on a woman by a man, this is obviously untrue. I was just trying to explore male on female rape; something that happens more often because more men are dominant than women and that most men are attracted to women. Men can also directly orgasm from committing rape whilst women cannot, something that definitely skews the numbers. If the numbers of straight and gay men were reversed then the same would happen to the numbers of straight and gay rape committed by men.
The crimes that individuals commit, that aren't crimes of passion, are nearly all done via a self justification; the criminal has an inferiority complex and convinces himself that he deserves whatever it is that he wants, that the victim doesn't deserve having whatever it is. So, he's justified in taking it or inflicting whatever it is upon the victim. The criminal does it to make himself feel better, not to make the victim feel worse.
There is no "women are inherently less valuable than men". The criminal just differentiates himself from the victim, s/he has had it rough and deserves better whilst the victim has had it all good and doesn't deserve the good that s/he has. Whatever sets the perp and victim apart is used as justification; whether that be race, sex, sexuality, affluence or social status.
In other words, it's not that the victim is worse than the perp but that the perp is better than the victim and everyone else who isn't just like him.
You then bring up spousal abuse, again something which isn't confined to man on woman. It is therefore not an equality issue, it's a behavioural one.
Straight off the bat half the cases of male on female violence are instigated by women, so you can scrub those.
The remainder of the cases are abuse; just abuse. Serial abuse will near always have the dominant partner be the lone money earner with the submissive victim as a stay at home parent, the property will be in the name of the dominant partner. The money will be in an account controlled by the dominant partner. If it's man on woman he is also confident that he is physically more powerful than the woman; even if that isn't the case the dominant knows that the submissive will just take it. The dominant partner also probably hates their life; whether it be through things like work, stress or social problems. They also hate their partner for not having to deal with any of the crap that they feel that they have to deal with; so they take it out on that partner.
This is abuse of power, it has nothing to do with equality or the lack of it.
Finally, women are judged more than men? Sorry, what? Maybe UK and US culture is more different than I thought but the only judgement on women here is on attractiveness, that's it. Anything else is taken as it comes. This is one of the major advantages of being a woman, there aren't any expectations. They're allowed to be weak but not expected to be. Men have far more judgements made on them than women ever do, and far more expectations. Ever read Rudyard Kiplings If?
I'm sorry, but that you think this - that you can even for an instant actually blame "half the cases of male on female violence" on the victims - just illustrates all the more the need for videos like this one.
You seem like an intelligent fellow. Please educate yourself on this matter, because it's all too unfortunate when intelligent people support and propagate an unhealthy, unequal and dangerous status quo.
Any sort of -isms these days are zealous anti-[blank].
Anti-[gender], anti-[race], anti-[religion], anti-[orientation].
If you were going to be truly equal it isn't an -ism. It just is. If you treat anyone specially because of how they are then it isn't truly equal, man.
Any sort of -isms these days are zealous anti-[blank].
Anti-[gender], anti-[race], anti-[religion], anti-[orientation].
If you were going to be truly equal it isn't an -ism. It just is. If you treat anyone specially because of how they are then it isn't truly equal, man.
Feminism doesn't mean "treating women specially", it means "changing society so that the genders are treated equally". It needs to be an -ism because things have not been equal historically, and are not currently.
The world is a bit bigger than the continental US, sorry to say. Have you considered that the "raped while walking to school" bit may cover, oh I don't know, the entire world? And that the national stat for rape in the US is believed to be significantly higher than reported due to the fact that most rape is never reported?
Just keep digging your hole. You're free to cling to your misogynistic, privileged beliefs all you want, but it does not change the fact that feminism is a desperately needed force even in modernized countries.
No offense boss but, you're being a bit of a twerp.
That video is intentionally dishonest and misleading. It quotes statistics from the World at large alongside those from the UK whilst making no distinction in how bad each respectively is; effectively equating women in the UK with women in the most backwards and deprived places on our entire planet. That is outrageous to the women in 3rd World countries and is unbelievably demeaning toward their plight.
It also makes no mention of injustices and abuse that men suffer at the hands of women.
As for penetrative rape; it can only be committed by a man and, as a vagina is generally the preferred orifice, is in most cases perpetrated upon a woman. This is a crime that is almost impossible for one half of our society to commit, so that means the other half is sexist? No, it does not. It means that there are criminals out there, something I'd assume you will accept.
Is a black person who robs from a white family racist? Is the reverse true? Or is it simply down to the fact that the victim has something the perp wants?
The video reels off lots of crimes committed against women, implicitly implying that the motivation for them, one and all, is sexism. That is patently absurd. These are behavioural issues, not sexist ones.
I'm not saying these issues do not exist or that those victims do not need support, but why do these victims need special treatment over other victims? Why is a women who is abused more worthy of treatment than a man? Why is a man who is contemplating suicide scorned in favour of a woman who has been raped? Why is a man killed in an uprovoked attack in a dark alley worth less than a woman killed by an ex partner?
Edit: Ahhrg! The video is ostensibly about equality and yet the major emotional buttons it pushes have absolutely nothing to do with it. The lists of crimes where women are the victim, what have they to do with equality? Are there not lists of crimes that men fall victim too? They have as much claim to be about equality as these; there are also probably more of them.
The only things about equality that it touches upon are sexual license, something which they're a bit out of touch with (women have generally slept with more men than men have women), the wage gap (something the veracity of which I am extremely dubious about) and pregnancy for working women.
Firstly, pregnancy is an inherently unequal topic.
Second, a woman can choose to not get pregnant whilst building a career.
Thirdly, the video falsely implies that the 30,000 jobs women lose per year are each individually equal to a man's career.
Fourthly, how would you protect a "pregnant woman's job security system" from being abused by serially pregnant women?
Fifthly, how do you equate a several month long paid holiday to the remainder of the workforce who have to work the entire time, whilst possibly managing someone elses workload as well as their own? Or to the employer who has to employ a worker who does no work, whilst possibly having to employ an extra one to make up for her absence? Or to the men who have no chance of getting this paid holiday to begin with? This is the real sticker; depressingly complex and it would take up loads time and effort, of which I'm not willing to give.
Nobody is claiming that the motivation for rape or other injustices perpetrated against women is sexism; you don't do it saying "Oh hey, I'm going to be sexist today." They're a result of sexism permeating Western culture, which values women less than men and judges them more harshly - of course it's the other way around in some cases, but those are easily the vast minority of scenarios.
The point of the video is to make viewers honestly consider the fact: Are men and women equal in supposedly modern, progressive societies? That is its entire goal, and even if it does get facts wrong - which I'm skeptical it does - or misrepresent them, it is doing so with the intention of getting you, the viewer, to consider that question honestly and without a knee-jerk dismissal.
The answer is "no," of course.
And the other points are, in fact, points of equality. Women are far more likely to be abused or killed by a romantic partner than the other way around. Domestic violence cases overwhelmingly have women as the victim, etc. Those are issues of equality regardless of how they're phrased.
Come off it, the video manipulates the viewer into one answer and one answer only; it does the opposite of promoting consideration and shocks the viewer into seeing things the way it wants them to be seen. It does exactly the opposite of what you're saying; it promotes a knee jerk response of "no, they're not equal".
Going back to crimes committed against women; you're looking at it with a biased view. You look to see a female victim and she becomes the most important part; therefore the crime happens because she's a woman and you find reasons behind that. That's just wrong. Crimes aren't about victims, they're about criminals; the victim is almost irrelevant.
I articulated badly when talking about rape before, implying that it can only be committed on a woman by a man, this is obviously untrue. I was just trying to explore male on female rape; something that happens more often because more men are dominant than women and that most men are attracted to women. Men can also directly orgasm from committing rape whilst women cannot, something that definitely skews the numbers. If the numbers of straight and gay men were reversed then the same would happen to the numbers of straight and gay rape committed by men.
The crimes that individuals commit, that aren't crimes of passion, are nearly all done via a self justification; the criminal has an inferiority complex and convinces himself that he deserves whatever it is that he wants, that the victim doesn't deserve having whatever it is. So, he's justified in taking it or inflicting whatever it is upon the victim. The criminal does it to make himself feel better, not to make the victim feel worse.
There is no "women are inherently less valuable than men". The criminal just differentiates himself from the victim, s/he has had it rough and deserves better whilst the victim has had it all good and doesn't deserve the good that s/he has. Whatever sets the perp and victim apart is used as justification; whether that be race, sex, sexuality, affluence or social status.
In other words, it's not that the victim is worse than the perp but that the perp is better than the victim and everyone else who isn't just like him.
You then bring up spousal abuse, again something which isn't confined to man on woman. It is therefore not an equality issue, it's a behavioural one.
Straight off the bat half the cases of male on female violence are instigated by women, so you can scrub those.
The remainder of the cases are abuse; just abuse. Serial abuse will near always have the dominant partner be the lone money earner with the submissive victim as a stay at home parent, the property will be in the name of the dominant partner. The money will be in an account controlled by the dominant partner. If it's man on woman he is also confident that he is physically more powerful than the woman; even if that isn't the case the dominant knows that the submissive will just take it. The dominant partner also probably hates their life; whether it be through things like work, stress or social problems. They also hate their partner for not having to deal with any of the crap that they feel that they have to deal with; so they take it out on that partner.
This is abuse of power, it has nothing to do with equality or the lack of it.
Finally, women are judged more than men? Sorry, what? Maybe UK and US culture is more different than I thought but the only judgement on women here is on attractiveness, that's it. Anything else is taken as it comes. This is one of the major advantages of being a woman, there aren't any expectations. They're allowed to be weak but not expected to be. Men have far more judgements made on them than women ever do, and far more expectations. Ever read Rudyard Kiplings If?
I'm sorry, but that you think this - that you can even for an instant actually blame "half the cases of male on female violence" on the victims - just illustrates all the more the need for videos like this one.
You seem like an intelligent fellow. Please educate yourself on this matter, because it's all too unfortunate when intelligent people support and propagate an unhealthy, unequal and dangerous status quo.
For my own sake I'm going to take the fact that you ignore the points I try to raise and concentrate on one mildly flippant remark as a sign that you are at least considering them.
As for that remark, let's explore it. Do I blame the "victim"? There are several points, I'll try to be as concise as possible.
Firstly, I did not and do not put all the blame on one party.
Secondly, some blame is on the woman. This is something that really gets my goat about some feminists, they seem to shirk responsibility at every opportunuity. Yes, society has for the last thousand years or so had all the responsibility fall on the man; that has been one of his roles. Now, with equal rights, that should no longer be the case. You want equal rights? Then stand up and take responsibility for the things you should. With rights come responsibility.
Thirdly, women are very good at insulting people and hurting feelings. It has been shown consistently that women, in general, have better language skills and are better able to use and understand emotions than men.
Alongside this runs the issue that within male culture an argument starts with insults and then, when serious enough, goes to physical violence. A fight breaks out and the argument is sorted out that way.
Women do not, as a rule, go to physical violence. Arguments between women involve increasingly hurtful comments and emotional manipulation.
Put these together and you get a man who is out argued and emotionally compromised by someone innately better at doing this than he. He then cannot do what he would if it were another man taunting him and smack her; you can't hit a woman afterall. He has to keep taking the insults until, eventually and inevitably, he snaps. (Edit: The more often this happens the shorter his fuse gets.)
Fourthly, yes of course blame falls on the man too. You are already more than happy to assume full blame goes here so I won't bother exploring this.
Fifthly, these relationships are destructive. Both partners know it; both partners continue on. The husband knows doing a certain something will enrage his wife; the wife intentionally picks arguments with the aim of enraging her husband. Both parties hurt eachother greatly; emotional hurt on the man and physical hurt on the woman.
This ends up in one of several places.
The man beats the woman so bad during a fit of rage that she suffers serious physical injuries, probably life altering and possibly fatal.
The woman uses a weapon on the man, typically a kitchen knife, and stabs him repeatedly; causing serious physical injuries which are likely to be fatal.
There is a third choice and that is one of them leaves but, that is rarely taken; they'd be the "loser".
The fourth choice is that the authorities get involved but this is complex. Very difficult for the authorities; neither of them want to "lose" by being the one to ask for help and both will likely proclaim themsleves to be happily married and just having a bad day.
This is a partnership between two dominant members, neither of whom are willing to back down.
Any sort of -isms these days are zealous anti-[blank].
Anti-[gender], anti-[race], anti-[religion], anti-[orientation].
If you were going to be truly equal it isn't an -ism. It just is. If you treat anyone specially because of how they are then it isn't truly equal, man.
Feminism doesn't mean "treating women specially", it means "changing society so that the genders are treated equally". It needs to be an -ism because things have not been equal historically, and are not currently.
Racism probably isn't the best thing to compare it to (mostly isn't), but tbh, I can't see how a game entirely based on feminist themes wouldn't be anti-male. All the men in the game would likely end up being incompentant stereotypes who constantly need the female hero to pull their rears out of the fire on a regular basis. I'd love to be proven wrong but that's the only outcome i can see.
Someone earlier (can't remember the page or the name) said something along the lines of that we didn't necessarily need more feminism in gaming so much as we needed more equality, and I can get behind that. What I want is a game where the protagonist, regardless of gender, pulls all rears out of fires, regardless of gender. And if that protagonist is female, that's great, I just don't want to feel insulted for being a dude while playing.
Any sort of -isms these days are zealous anti-[blank].
Anti-[gender], anti-[race], anti-[religion], anti-[orientation].
If you were going to be truly equal it isn't an -ism. It just is. If you treat anyone specially because of how they are then it isn't truly equal, man.
Feminism doesn't mean "treating women specially", it means "changing society so that the genders are treated equally". It needs to be an -ism because things have not been equal historically, and are not currently.
Racism probably isn't the best thing to compare it to (mostly isn't), but tbh, I can't see how a game entirely based on feminist themes wouldn't be anti-male. All the men in the game would likely end up being incompentant stereotypes who constantly need the female hero to pull their rears out of the fire on a regular basis. I'd love to be proven wrong but that's the only outcome i can see.
Someone earlier (can't remember the page or the name) said something along the lines of that we didn't necessarily need more feminism in gaming so much as we needed more equality, and I can get behind that. What I want is a game where the protagonist, regardless of gender, pulls all rears out of fires, regardless of gender. And if that protagonist is female, that's great, I just don't want to feel insulted for being a dude while playing.
For the last time: feminism isn't anti-male. Yes, there are some anti-male women who describe themselves as feminists - but these are a tiny (but loud) minority, and there are also some men who describe themselves as feminists (something that you don't seem to be aware of). The vast (but quieter, because less radical) majority of feminists would be just as disgusted as you are with this hypothetical first game that you describe.
In fact, feminism means nothing more (and nothing less) than the campaign for and support of the ideal of equality, in this case equality between genders. The second hypothetical game that you describe is also what feminists want to see in the market. It is not what we currently have.
Ironically, I see far more 'well rounded' female characters in games than male characters these days. Practically every single male character in a video game is either 90% tank, or a smooth talking, unbelievably good looking ninja type.
With a dedicated lobby group and the ever present threat of lawsuits, our better looking gender has given itself many of the realistic, well rounded characters that quite frankly bore people. When I play a game, I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD. I want men to be one of the above, I want women to be sultry, beautiful and usually dangerous, and I want a world where everything is not a horrible story of taxes, politics and unemployment. I (occasionally) enjoy hanging out with people of both genders in real life, and when I want 'realistic' experiences I will go to the pub not my computer.
My biggest problem with the feminist movement is not, despite my mini-rant above, their ideals, which I actually very much agree with. It is that they want the imagined 'male dominated' world to change to incorporate their wishes, a wish I believe only cements their subservience to it. They might sway it a bit, but the established mainstream will never dramatically change.
Any suggestion that they, you know, do something about it (like in this case start making their own games), is met with a tight lipped "well we shouldn't have to". If a dedicated group starts making games with realistic, well rounded characters of both genders and idealism pouring from all orifices, and makes more money than Bill Gates, it will be a far greater victory than any concession from EA's marketing department. Lobbying for change is laziness in the extreme; if you want something to change why not go and prove that there is an alternative.
Oh, and to address the OP, I in no way see how the Gamestation sign is sexist. IT IS A JOKE. Every time you see an advert in which the fat, useless male is saved or corrected by the active, go-getting woman with product X you are seeing exactly the same thing, and I don't feel insulted by it. Anybody who does should loosen up and enjoy life once in a while, and that goes for both genders!
I don't think people are against feminism, I think people are against man-hating lesbians who curse every man for every problem ever simply for being born with a dick.
People are not against feminism in gaming. They are against feminists full stop.
Because femnazis dont understand the difference between humour and a attack against women.
Duke Nukem goes from this obvious self parody and gets turned into this evil propaganda game thats designed to make men treat women like property.
Besides, games are cheaper than your girlfriend. What is wrong with stating a fact?
Oh and white males are the core audience so it would be stupid to not make games with them in mind.
Besides, women get their panties in a twist over damn near every female character that is hotter than they will ever be. How many times you heard a dude ***** because the male protagonist is a walking slab of muscle instead of a glasses wearing, unkempt, cheeto covered, fat bastard?
In short. Males have to deal with bullshit in games too. We just whine less.
Not so much bothered by how attractive the women in games are (being bisexual might be the cause of that)just at how dumb they are sometimes. About how angry I am at men in games being dumb sometimes. It's just that women in games tend to be dumb more often than men in games. Also, there is a significant amount of utterly useless women in games, whereas men in games don't do that so much. So, personally, I find the Capture the Babe minigame in Duke Nukem objectionable because the woman in it is being utterly useless. It might score some points back if player characters can elect to be women too. Still, a human being being effectively the ball in a sports game is kind of degrading in itself, no matter how you depict it. But whatevs, that shit is going to happen in a Duke Nukem game. It would be better if players could play as women.
This is exactly what most guys are sick of. You whine that something is offenssive that it should be equal, instead of going on with your life you take time to complain. Most of us guys play games that consist of stupid things we cant do in real life. Its a gettaway, and your complaining about it is exactly the thing some guys try to escape from and playing games you call sexist is fun, doesnt mean it teaches us to treat women like that, its a game thats completly not real, so why the fuck do most girls get offended that guys say stuff? Why can you just be mature enough to know that sometimes we want to be immature and we cant do that when women will knit pick at every little thing we say. Just ignore what you dont like and if you dislike something dont fucken buy it. But bitching about while being the minority demographic geared mostly for males is just pissing guys off because were sick of bending our recreation likes to whatyou femi nazis want.
The world is a bit bigger than the continental US, sorry to say. Have you considered that the "raped while walking to school" bit may cover, oh I don't know, the entire world? And that the national stat for rape in the US is believed to be significantly higher than reported due to the fact that most rape is never reported?
Just keep digging your hole. You're free to cling to your misogynistic, privileged beliefs all you want, but it does not change the fact that feminism is a desperately needed force even in modernized countries.
No offense boss but, you're being a bit of a twerp.
That video is intentionally dishonest and misleading. It quotes statistics from the World at large alongside those from the UK whilst making no distinction in how bad each respectively is; effectively equating women in the UK with women in the most backwards and deprived places on our entire planet. That is outrageous to the women in 3rd World countries and is unbelievably demeaning toward their plight.
It also makes no mention of injustices and abuse that men suffer at the hands of women.
As for penetrative rape; it can only be committed by a man and, as a vagina is generally the preferred orifice, is in most cases perpetrated upon a woman. This is a crime that is almost impossible for one half of our society to commit, so that means the other half is sexist? No, it does not. It means that there are criminals out there, something I'd assume you will accept.
Is a black person who robs from a white family racist? Is the reverse true? Or is it simply down to the fact that the victim has something the perp wants?
The video reels off lots of crimes committed against women, implicitly implying that the motivation for them, one and all, is sexism. That is patently absurd. These are behavioural issues, not sexist ones.
I'm not saying these issues do not exist or that those victims do not need support, but why do these victims need special treatment over other victims? Why is a women who is abused more worthy of treatment than a man? Why is a man who is contemplating suicide scorned in favour of a woman who has been raped? Why is a man killed in an uprovoked attack in a dark alley worth less than a woman killed by an ex partner?
Edit: Ahhrg! The video is ostensibly about equality and yet the major emotional buttons it pushes have absolutely nothing to do with it. The lists of crimes where women are the victim, what have they to do with equality? Are there not lists of crimes that men fall victim too? They have as much claim to be about equality as these; there are also probably more of them.
The only things about equality that it touches upon are sexual license, something which they're a bit out of touch with (women have generally slept with more men than men have women), the wage gap (something the veracity of which I am extremely dubious about) and pregnancy for working women.
Firstly, pregnancy is an inherently unequal topic.
Second, a woman can choose to not get pregnant whilst building a career.
Thirdly, the video falsely implies that the 30,000 jobs women lose per year are each individually equal to a man's career.
Fourthly, how would you protect a "pregnant woman's job security system" from being abused by serially pregnant women?
Fifthly, how do you equate a several month long paid holiday to the remainder of the workforce who have to work the entire time, whilst possibly managing someone elses workload as well as their own? Or to the employer who has to employ a worker who does no work, whilst possibly having to employ an extra one to make up for her absence? Or to the men who have no chance of getting this paid holiday to begin with? This is the real sticker; depressingly complex and it would take up loads time and effort, of which I'm not willing to give.
Nobody is claiming that the motivation for rape or other injustices perpetrated against women is sexism; you don't do it saying "Oh hey, I'm going to be sexist today." They're a result of sexism permeating Western culture, which values women less than men and judges them more harshly - of course it's the other way around in some cases, but those are easily the vast minority of scenarios.
The point of the video is to make viewers honestly consider the fact: Are men and women equal in supposedly modern, progressive societies? That is its entire goal, and even if it does get facts wrong - which I'm skeptical it does - or misrepresent them, it is doing so with the intention of getting you, the viewer, to consider that question honestly and without a knee-jerk dismissal.
The answer is "no," of course.
And the other points are, in fact, points of equality. Women are far more likely to be abused or killed by a romantic partner than the other way around. Domestic violence cases overwhelmingly have women as the victim, etc. Those are issues of equality regardless of how they're phrased.
Come off it, the video manipulates the viewer into one answer and one answer only; it does the opposite of promoting consideration and shocks the viewer into seeing things the way it wants them to be seen. It does exactly the opposite of what you're saying; it promotes a knee jerk response of "no, they're not equal".
Going back to crimes committed against women; you're looking at it with a biased view. You look to see a female victim and she becomes the most important part; therefore the crime happens because she's a woman and you find reasons behind that. That's just wrong. Crimes aren't about victims, they're about criminals; the victim is almost irrelevant.
I articulated badly when talking about rape before, implying that it can only be committed on a woman by a man, this is obviously untrue. I was just trying to explore male on female rape; something that happens more often because more men are dominant than women and that most men are attracted to women. Men can also directly orgasm from committing rape whilst women cannot, something that definitely skews the numbers. If the numbers of straight and gay men were reversed then the same would happen to the numbers of straight and gay rape committed by men.
The crimes that individuals commit, that aren't crimes of passion, are nearly all done via a self justification; the criminal has an inferiority complex and convinces himself that he deserves whatever it is that he wants, that the victim doesn't deserve having whatever it is. So, he's justified in taking it or inflicting whatever it is upon the victim. The criminal does it to make himself feel better, not to make the victim feel worse.
There is no "women are inherently less valuable than men". The criminal just differentiates himself from the victim, s/he has had it rough and deserves better whilst the victim has had it all good and doesn't deserve the good that s/he has. Whatever sets the perp and victim apart is used as justification; whether that be race, sex, sexuality, affluence or social status.
In other words, it's not that the victim is worse than the perp but that the perp is better than the victim and everyone else who isn't just like him.
You then bring up spousal abuse, again something which isn't confined to man on woman. It is therefore not an equality issue, it's a behavioural one.
Straight off the bat half the cases of male on female violence are instigated by women, so you can scrub those.
The remainder of the cases are abuse; just abuse. Serial abuse will near always have the dominant partner be the lone money earner with the submissive victim as a stay at home parent, the property will be in the name of the dominant partner. The money will be in an account controlled by the dominant partner. If it's man on woman he is also confident that he is physically more powerful than the woman; even if that isn't the case the dominant knows that the submissive will just take it. The dominant partner also probably hates their life; whether it be through things like work, stress or social problems. They also hate their partner for not having to deal with any of the crap that they feel that they have to deal with; so they take it out on that partner.
This is abuse of power, it has nothing to do with equality or the lack of it.
Finally, women are judged more than men? Sorry, what? Maybe UK and US culture is more different than I thought but the only judgement on women here is on attractiveness, that's it. Anything else is taken as it comes. This is one of the major advantages of being a woman, there aren't any expectations. They're allowed to be weak but not expected to be. Men have far more judgements made on them than women ever do, and far more expectations. Ever read Rudyard Kiplings If?
I'm sorry, but that you think this - that you can even for an instant actually blame "half the cases of male on female violence" on the victims - just illustrates all the more the need for videos like this one.
You seem like an intelligent fellow. Please educate yourself on this matter, because it's all too unfortunate when intelligent people support and propagate an unhealthy, unequal and dangerous status quo.
For my own sake I'm going to take the fact that you ignore the points I try to raise and concentrate on one mildly flippant remark as a sign that you are at least considering them.
As for that remark, let's explore it. Do I blame the "victim"? There are several points, I'll try to be as concise as possible.
Firstly, I did not and do not put all the blame on one party.
Secondly, some blame is on the woman. This is something that really gets my goat about some feminists, they seem to shirk responsibility at every opportunuity. Yes, society has for the last thousand years or so had all the responsibility fall on the man; that has been one of his roles. Now, with equal rights, that should no longer be the case. You want equal rights? Then stand up and take responsibility for the things you should. With rights come responsibility.
Thirdly, women are very good at insulting people and hurting feelings. It has been shown consistently that women, in general, have better language skills and are better able to use and understand emotions than men.
Alongside this runs the issue that within male culture an argument starts with insults and then, when serious enough, goes to physical violence. A fight breaks out and the argument is sorted out that way.
Women do not, as a rule, go to physical violence. Arguments between women involve increasingly hurtful comments and emotional manipulation.
Put these together and you get a man who is out argued and emotionally compromised by someone innately better at doing this than he. He then cannot do what he would if it were another man taunting him and smack her; you can't hit a woman afterall. He has to keep taking the insults until, eventually and inevitably, he snaps. (Edit: The more often this happens the shorter his fuse gets.)
Fourthly, yes of course blame falls on the man too. You are already more than happy to assume full blame goes here so I won't bother exploring this.
Fifthly, these relationships are destructive. Both partners know it; both partners continue on. The husband knows doing a certain something will enrage his wife; the wife intentionally picks arguments with the aim of enraging her husband. Both parties hurt eachother greatly; emotional hurt on the man and physical hurt on the woman.
This ends up in one of several places.
The man beats the woman so bad during a fit of rage that she suffers serious physical injuries, probably life altering and possibly fatal.
The woman uses a weapon on the man, typically a kitchen knife, and stabs him repeatedly; causing serious physical injuries which are likely to be fatal.
There is a third choice and that is one of them leaves but, that is rarely taken; they'd be the "loser".
The fourth choice is that the authorities get involved but this is complex. Very difficult for the authorities; neither of them want to "lose" by being the one to ask for help and both will likely proclaim themsleves to be happily married and just having a bad day.
This is a partnership between two dominant members, neither of whom are willing to back down.
I'm "ignoring your points" as you put it, because I honestly don't have the time to write a huge essay in response. Suffice it to say that blaming the victim for assault, whether sexual, verbal or domestic, is pretty much *never* okay.
Anyway, I'm going to repeat my plea for you to genuinely educate yourself on this matter, because I'd really like to hope that you're not saying that women are men's equals even in the most liberalized Western countries. Because that is outright false.
Sorry for the short responses, they're all I can squeeze out right now.
This is exactly what most guys are sick of. You whine that something is offenssive that it should be equal, instead of going on with your life you take time to complain. Most of us guys play games that consist of stupid things we cant do in real life. Its a gettaway, and your complaining about it is exactly the thing some guys try to escape from and playing games you call sexist is fun, doesnt mean it teaches us to treat women like that, its a game thats completly not real, so why the fuck do most girls get offended that guys say stuff? Why can you just be mature enough to know that sometimes we want to be immature and we cant do that when women will knit pick at every little thing we say. Just ignore what you dont like and if you dislike something dont fucken buy it. But bitching about while being the minority is just pissing guys off because were sick of bending our recreation likes to whatyou femi nazis want.
"I'm so upset and angry at maybe having to give up a tiny proportion of my fun just so other people will no longer feel insulted, objectified, marginalised, upset and humiliated by the media that I enjoy!"
Any sort of -isms these days are zealous anti-[blank].
Anti-[gender], anti-[race], anti-[religion], anti-[orientation].
If you were going to be truly equal it isn't an -ism. It just is. If you treat anyone specially because of how they are then it isn't truly equal, man.
Feminism doesn't mean "treating women specially", it means "changing society so that the genders are treated equally". It needs to be an -ism because things have not been equal historically, and are not currently.
Racism probably isn't the best thing to compare it to (mostly isn't), but tbh, I can't see how a game entirely based on feminist themes wouldn't be anti-male. All the men in the game would likely end up being incompentant stereotypes who constantly need the female hero to pull their rears out of the fire on a regular basis. I'd love to be proven wrong but that's the only outcome i can see.
Someone earlier (can't remember the page or the name) said something along the lines of that we didn't necessarily need more feminism in gaming so much as we needed more equality, and I can get behind that. What I want is a game where the protagonist, regardless of gender, pulls all rears out of fires, regardless of gender. And if that protagonist is female, that's great, I just don't want to feel insulted for being a dude while playing.
For the last time: feminism isn't anti-male. Yes, there are some anti-male women who describe themselves as feminists - but these are a tiny (but loud) minority, and there are also some men who describe themselves as feminists (something that you don't seem to be aware of). The vast (but quieter, because less radical) majority of feminists would be just as disgusted as you are with this hypothetical first game that you describe.
In fact, feminism means nothing more (and nothing less) than the campaign for and support of the ideal of equality, in this case equality between genders. The second hypothetical game that you describe is also what feminists want to see in the market. It is not what we currently have.
I wasn't trying to say feminism is anti-male, I guess it came across poorly. The first example is sort of what would happen if writers took the "easy way out" (for lack of a better term) with writing characters and threw in a stereotypical cop-out rather than realistic characters. Specifically, a stereotyped look at how "feminists" want the world to be.
I'm all for the ideal of equality, I have no beef with that. I just don't want the improvement of one group to mean taking away from another. Like I said, I want to be wrong about the first example, but for me to be wrong, there would have to be well made characters in said game, and (judging from today's standards) that's not always the norm. The only possibility I saw was same problem, different view (or whatever word works best). Same problem with poor characters, just with the filter of a "feminist" (which i use in quotes to mean the loud minority you spoke of) fantasy rather than a "male" fantasy, or what developers believe that to be.
I guess I'm thinking more about game writing in general then feminism in games, but I do believe that feminism is intended to be more about equality and has the same problem that every group of any kind in the world does, which is a loud minority that paints a poor image of the quiet majority.
For the last time: feminism isn't anti-male. Yes, there are some anti-male women who describe themselves as feminists - but these are a tiny (but loud) minority, and there are also some men who describe themselves as feminists (something that you don't seem to be aware of). The vast (but quieter, because less radical) majority of feminists would be just as disgusted as you are with this hypothetical first game that you describe.
In fact, feminism means nothing more (and nothing less) than the campaign for and support of the ideal of equality, in this case equality between genders. The second hypothetical game that you describe is also what feminists want to see in the market. It is not what we currently have.
I wasn't trying to say feminism is anti-male, I guess it came across poorly. The first example is sort of what would happen if writers took the "easy way out" (for lack of a better term) with writing characters and threw in a stereotypical cop-out rather than realistic characters. Specifically, a stereotyped look at how "feminists" want the world to be.
I'm all for the ideal of equality, I have no beef with that. I just don't want the improvement of one group to mean taking away from another. Like I said, I want to be wrong about the first example, but for me to be wrong, there would have to be well made characters in said game, and (judging from today's standards) that's not always the norm. The only possibility I saw was same problem, different view (or whatever word works best). Same problem with poor characters, just with the filter of a "feminist" (which i use in quotes to mean the loud minority you spoke of) fantasy rather than a "male" fantasy, or what developers believe that to be.
I guess I'm thinking more about game writing in general then feminism in games, but I do believe that feminism is intended to be more about equality and has the same problem that every group of any kind in the world does, which is a loud minority that paints a poor image of the quiet majority.
So your first example was not supposed to describe what would happen if feminists made a game according to their values, but instead what would happen if some developers made a game according to their stereotyped views of what "feminists" want? You're right, that did come across poorly. Apologies for the misunderstanding, but I think a different wording would probably have helped.
That sort of "easy way out" would help no-one, I think. In fact, I for one would consider a game like that rather insulting: an insincere bone thrown to my camp, based on an entirely false conception of our values.
And I would agree with you. Equality doesn't necessitate the bringing down of one group in order to help another. It's been phrased in roughly this way by someone other than me: "Feminism is about bringing women up to men's level, not men down to women's". I see the point that you're making now, but I don't agree that the "feminist" (using the quotes in the same way as you are; thank you for that) game is the only other possibility. It is possible to make games that appeal across genders, that aren't about fulfilling developers' ideas of what men want, or what "feminists" want. Well-made characters are rare across the board, but the world I strive to achieve wouldn't contain well-made characters alone. (I'd like it to, sure, but I know when to separate an achievable ideal from a laughable fantasy!) Instead, well-made characters would be evenly distributed across genders, and diversity would go without saying.
I'm going to go out on a limb here: if a game is made with the deliberate intent of being "feminist", it will never display true equality, since when consciously trying to counter stigma, stereotyping and so on, one will still have those concepts uppermost in their mind.
I'm glad (and relieved) that we're on the same page. Sorry for my brusque tone in my first reply to you; I'm becoming rather frustrated after so many pages of this. I should probably give myself a break...
For the last time: feminism isn't anti-male. Yes, there are some anti-male women who describe themselves as feminists - but these are a tiny (but loud) minority, and there are also some men who describe themselves as feminists (something that you don't seem to be aware of). The vast (but quieter, because less radical) majority of feminists would be just as disgusted as you are with this hypothetical first game that you describe.
In fact, feminism means nothing more (and nothing less) than the campaign for and support of the ideal of equality, in this case equality between genders. The second hypothetical game that you describe is also what feminists want to see in the market. It is not what we currently have.
I wasn't trying to say feminism is anti-male, I guess it came across poorly. The first example is sort of what would happen if writers took the "easy way out" (for lack of a better term) with writing characters and threw in a stereotypical cop-out rather than realistic characters. Specifically, a stereotyped look at how "feminists" want the world to be.
I'm all for the ideal of equality, I have no beef with that. I just don't want the improvement of one group to mean taking away from another. Like I said, I want to be wrong about the first example, but for me to be wrong, there would have to be well made characters in said game, and (judging from today's standards) that's not always the norm. The only possibility I saw was same problem, different view (or whatever word works best). Same problem with poor characters, just with the filter of a "feminist" (which i use in quotes to mean the loud minority you spoke of) fantasy rather than a "male" fantasy, or what developers believe that to be.
I guess I'm thinking more about game writing in general then feminism in games, but I do believe that feminism is intended to be more about equality and has the same problem that every group of any kind in the world does, which is a loud minority that paints a poor image of the quiet majority.
So your first example was not supposed to describe what would happen if feminists made a game according to their values, but instead what would happen if some developers made a game according to their stereotyped views of what "feminists" want? You're right, that did come across poorly. Apologies for the misunderstanding, but I think a different wording would probably have helped.
That sort of "easy way out" would help no-one, I think. In fact, I for one would consider a game like that rather insulting: an insincere bone thrown to my camp, based on an entirely false conception of our values.
And I would agree with you. Equality doesn't necessitate the bringing down of one group in order to help another. It's been phrased in roughly this way by someone other than me: "Feminism is about bringing women up to men's level, not men down to women's". I see the point that you're making now, but I don't agree that the "feminist" (using the quotes in the same way as you are; thank you for that) game is the only other possibility. It is possible to make games that appeal across genders, that aren't about fulfilling developers' ideas of what men want, or what "feminists" want. Well-made characters are rare across the board, but the world I strive to achieve wouldn't contain well-made characters alone. (I'd like it to, sure, but I know when to separate an achievable ideal from a laughable fantasy!) Instead, well-made characters would be evenly distributed across genders, and diversity would go without saying.
I'm going to go out on a limb here: if a game is made with the deliberate intent of being "feminist", it will never display true equality, since when consciously trying to counter stigma, stereotyping and so on, one will still have those concepts uppermost in their mind.
I'm glad (and relieved) that we're on the same page. Sorry for my brusque tone in my first reply to you; I'm becoming rather frustrated after so many pages of this. I should probably give myself a break...
I think you're right about the deliberate intent thing. I might be pessimistic about the subject, but time will tell. And your tone was no biggie, I've be partially following this thread and it's easy to see how anyone could get frustrated.
People are not against feminism in gaming. They are against feminists full stop.
Because femnazis dont understand the difference between humour and a attack against women.
Duke Nukem goes from this obvious self parody and gets turned into this evil propaganda game thats designed to make men treat women like property.
Besides, games are cheaper than your girlfriend. What is wrong with stating a fact?
Oh and white males are the core audience so it would be stupid to not make games with them in mind.
Besides, women get their panties in a twist over damn near every female character that is hotter than they will ever be. How many times you heard a dude ***** because the male protagonist is a walking slab of muscle instead of a glasses wearing, unkempt, cheeto covered, fat bastard?
In short. Males have to deal with bullshit in games too. We just whine less.
The fact that people are against feminism in general is a very, very sad fact.
The problem with that fact is, John, that it implies females are expensive. And, surely, you must know this, John, but women are not really property. See, unlike a video game, you can't really 'buy' a woman because, unless you are talking about a prostitute with a fee, they don't have a prize. We are not commodities, John, we cannot be bought.
OT:I don't think you understand the male perspective on any of this at all. I agree with John in that it IS frustrating as a man to see nothing but uber-muscled brick walls in 90% of games.
Any sort of -isms these days are zealous anti-[blank].
Anti-[gender], anti-[race], anti-[religion], anti-[orientation].
If you were going to be truly equal it isn't an -ism. It just is. If you treat anyone specially because of how they are then it isn't truly equal, man.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
