Sg3 on 26/6/2012 at 09:39
Moderator NoteThe (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139556) original thread is something that has obviously been passionately discussed but has diverged from it's original context within General Gaming. Rather than simply close the thread the latest discussion has been moved here although I'd again ask that insults, empty posts and other attacks are avoided otherwise it will be closed for good.
Thanks, Al
<hr style="color:HR;background-color:HR;display:block;"/>
Quote Posted by heywood
Sexism is not a one-way street.
This is, I think, the main reason for all the fuss: the massive majority of feminists I have known pretend that only men can be sexist, which is a lie. Feminism, as commonly practiced, regardless of actual theory, is itself highly sexist; I've found feminists (both male and female) to be, almost without exception, people who nod approvingly to any female-on-male sexism but scream with rage at any male-on-female sexism, and who seek equal treatment in any particular aspect only when it would result in beneficial treatment instead of detrimental. (E.g. demanding equality in wages but not in barroom brawls; "you don't hit women!" like you hit men*, but you sure jolly well better pay them the same at the company.)
So, while I have something of an issue with the theory itself (more on that later), I think an even worse problem is the one-sidedness and hypocrisy of those who claim to follow it. It's much like the issue of "race": it's supposed to be okay for a minority person to engage in racism against a majority person, but not the other way around. W.T.F.
The theory itself of feminism I also find problematic. If we agree that the theory of feminism is that men and women are exactly equal and should be treated exactly as equals, then we run into a problem: what does "equal" mean? Equal is a judgement value, outside of mathematically quantifiable things. I think everyone is aware that men and women are not
the same, and so treating them exactly the same may not be viable (e.g. unisex locker rooms et al.). Certainly, I don't see any feminists asking to be treated altogether exactly the same as men (and if they do, I almost can guarantee that they don't really mean it).
So what exactly does equal mean, since not the same? This opens up a large debate about what exactly constitutes equal treatment, a debate which has no absolute and clear answer. And so the war goes on. Those who point out, as I have endeavored to do so here, some of the problems with practiced feminism are usually labelled by said feminists as regressive bigots, but while a large number of those who oppose feminism are, no doubt, regressive bigots, at least a significant number of those who question it are, in fact, only looking for fair and equal treatment for both sexes. I oppose the Orwellian "all sexes are equal, but some sexes are more equal than others" which feminists generally practice.
* I don't feel that men should be subject to assault in pubs, nor do I feel that women should be. Just pointing out the double-standard which I've found most people have.
june gloom on 26/6/2012 at 10:17
I've been avoiding this thread because it's a horrible wreck that should be locked up tight and buried under Yucca Mountain but god dammit.
Equal pay for equal work, no glass ceiling, the right to do with one's body as one wishes, not being blamed for being raped, etc. -- how are these at all controversial?
You say you don't see any feminists asking for equality and the theoretical ones that do don't mean it. I say you don't see any feminists at all, and this is all conjecture, leaping at shadows that aren't there. You say the "massive majority" of feminists you know -- and that's hyperbole if I've ever seen it -- have been the kind who don't want equality so much as to bury men in the foundation of a women's shelter. How many of these people have you actually met? Three? You need to realize that with any school of thought -- political, social, whathaveyou -- there are going to be people who don't fully understand what they're talking about and so just repeat the loudest talking points as if that makes them experts. The libertarian movement is filled with these people.
If you've even read my posts in this thread (doubtful, since most people are are just looking for an echo chamber and skip the posts they might disagree with) you'd know that while the "radfem" subset of feminism does exist, it's a very small minority that is doing nothing to stop opponents -- for example conservative males, especially if running for office -- from using them as a scapegoat to vilify all of feminism. That you've bought into the "all feminists are radicals who want to subjugate men for breeding and meat" line -- how fucking gullible are you?
Here, since you missed it, here's an important fact about why behaviour of men towards women has more focus in feminism:
MEN ARE IN POWER, WOMEN AREN'T.
This isn't fucking rocket science. Hell, it's been explained in this very thread. Like the song says, it's a man's world. Our society is systematically designed to keep down anyone who isn't in the majority, in this case women but also ethnic and religious minorities. Hate a man, you hate alone, hate a woman and the world hates with you. And it's not some mysterious Deus Exian cabal of frat boys and pre-teen XBL members behind it, but plain, simple, cyclic ignorance and mean-spiritedness handed down to the next generation. The majority of men don't realize they're perpetuating it and have been taught to perpetuate it through their upbringing and the culture and media around them; many of them wouldn't care anyway because why should they? It's not their problem, or so they think. But we're going back into material I've already covered that you'd know already if your head wasn't too far up your self-righteous ass to actually read my damn posts.
Muzman on 26/6/2012 at 10:17
Oh god, the equality gambit, the monolithic feminism gambit, the everything ostensibly pro-women is feminism gambit/ the straw feminism gambit.
That's got to be bingo by now. Honorarily at least.
I do not have time for this. At least, if you're going to talk yourself in a circle about not understanding feminism in the first place, would it kill you to do some reading first? I know that's not much help.
And seriously; equality in bar fights? If you agree people shouldn't be punching each other in the face why are you even talking about it? People always say this stuff: feminism is out to change the social order therefore everything is up for grabs! Throw out the rulebook and any moral or legal implications of beating on someone not as strong as you, obviously.
It doesn't make any sense logically, reasonably or legally, to even have that discussion.
I don't know who's more influential in this, Rush Limbaugh or the Church of Satan.
Briareos H on 26/6/2012 at 11:12
It is true however that you will have almost as many forms of feminism as people preaching it, along with the same amount of definitions of 'equality'.
It's silly because you only need one universal moral principle to address racism and sexism, something like:
1. People should be empowered by society and its systems regardless of sex and origins.
2. People who consciously do not apply 1. should be punished equally.
There's been a funny debate in France during the last days. Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, newly appointed minister of women's rights said last week that she wanted to abolish prostitution ("abolish", seriously?) instead of pursuing the current --perfectible in its application-- policy of tracking down pimps and organized networks. Most feminist organizations praised blindly her decision. Their reaction, however, wasn't absolutely unanimous: a few other organizations, along with a very large number of independant prostitutes were dismayed by it.
This is a case where I do not understand the larger part of the feminists' reaction: now, organized prostitution is nothing less than modern slavery and should be fought vehemently, I think everyone can agree about that. Girls are taken from their countries, south or east with the promise of making enough money someday to be able to live on their own. They are thrown into the jungle of cheap sexual acts and pimp violence, which is absolutely disgusting and degrading for women.
However, many prostitutes and escorts, women and men, are independant, chose their way of life and are willing to take it to the streets to defend it, sometimes more vocally than many unionists. Those are going to lose their jobs and why? Because an idiot wants to declare moral war on prostitution? I can't understand the feminist logic between supporting the (illusory) eradication of prositution and removing freedom from women (and men) to monetize sexual intercourse. And that's exactly what some of these other, minority feminist groups said: fight slavery, not lifestyle choices.
This was nothing more than an aside, but it demonstrates nicely that there is no "one and unique" feminism out here and that Sg3 isn't wrong when he says that we still need today to define properly what it means to be equal.
faetal on 26/6/2012 at 11:34
I couldn't agree more with the last two posts (Dethtoll and BH in case anyone gets in before this posts).
It's not about men and women being equal - that straw man seems to constantly get dragged out in these types of debate, but equality of opportunity for all.
Papy on 26/6/2012 at 11:44
Quote Posted by faetal
when people on the whole discuss things en masse, altered consensus in response to changed attitudes can end up generating a new status quo.
You mean like talking about politics has now created a new consensus and a new status quo?
Talking will never bring any consensus or any status quo about the place of women in society. This is a debate which is going on since societies exists and things keep changing. The image of women in video game is obviously a new subject, but in the end it's the same old debate, which will never end.
Quote Posted by dethtoll
Equal pay for equal work
The idea of equal pay for equal work is great in theory, but in practice it's one of the worst argument someone who fights for social equality can make. When a woman will take a one year paid maternity leave, men will see that women have privileges they don't. When a woman refuse to do overtime because she says she has to take care of her household, or when she'll demand to leave early because one of her kid is sick, and when because of that the enterprise ask for a men to do the job, men will see that women don't have to do as much as men. When a woman will ask for the help of a man because she don't have the physical strentght to do a particular task, men will see that women can't do equal work.
Fighting for social justice is great, but you must choose your arguments carefully or you will get the opposite result of what you seek.
Anyway, saying that "men are in power, women aren't" is simplistic and borderline idiotic. It is not a man's world, it is a world for the ones who are aggressive and who won't hesitate to fight for power. It happens that it's a characteristic which is more common in men.
Angel Dust on 26/6/2012 at 13:43
Quote Posted by Papy
When a woman will take a one year paid maternity leave, men will see that women have privileges they don't.
You don't have kids do you? Or know anyone who have had some? I have and know plenty of other new parents (most of my workmates are at that family starting age) and I can tell you that all of the Dads are fucking ecstatic that they get to go to work rather than look after the baby. Not that it matters anyway because in most countries a man can opt to take paid maternity too (I actually took 2 months of our allotted paternity leave with our last child because my wife got serious post-natal depression) but generally don't for various reasons, not one of which is 'the wife calling dibs on this sweet, sweet deal of getting no sleep for 9 months and losing 12 months of career progression'.
Quote:
When a woman refuse to do overtime because she says she has to take care of her household, or when she'll demand to leave early because one of her kid is sick, and when because of that the enterprise ask for a men to do the job, men will see that women don't have to do as much as men.
I, and all the other Dads at my workplace whose wives are also working, do all of these things too and our workmates without kids certainly do not feel like we are advantaged in any way. On the contrary I think they're pretty stoked they don't have to worry about that shit. It's also interesting to note that the reason that Dads have more freedom to do these things now days is due to feminism - it's no longer always seen as 'womans work' and therefore 'below' men to do.
Quote:
It is not a man's world, it is a world for the ones who are aggressive and who won't hesitate to fight for power. It happens that it's a characteristic which is more common in men.
So what you're saying is that the world has been shaped to value and reward male characteristics? Almost like it's a man's world?
CCCToad on 26/6/2012 at 14:01
Quote:
Talking will never bring any consensus or any status quo about the place of women in society. This is a debate which is going on since societies exists and things keep changing. The image of women in video game is obviously a new subject, but in the end it's the same old debate, which will never end.
It will never end, but it may evolve. Personally I would love to see some more mature depictations of the fairer sex in video games because it would result in more mature productions.
Kuuso on 26/6/2012 at 14:03
Tbh, everyone should discard the notion of equality, because modern feminism doesn't advocate it aside from fringe groups. Modern (academic) feminism work to prevent and lessen discrimination. I also find it funny how Papy seems to discard all the progress in human rights with his "talking is bullshit" argument.
Sg3 on 26/6/2012 at 15:00
Quote Posted by Muzman
And seriously; equality in bar fights? If you agree people shouldn't be punching each other in the face why are you even talking about it?
It is a silly example, but there's truth in it: most people (and I mean most people) will object more to a woman being punched in the face than to a man being punched in the face, if everything other than the punchee's sex is equal in the situation. This attitude causes much injustice.
