Feminism Thread

[archibaldcrane]

Sure it's a but lazy, but is it any lazier than the 'end of the world is coming/here' devices that spur heroes/heroines into action in just about every other vidya ever?

[hey]

Exactly.
I keep seeing this image posted, people really DON'T know what is and is not okay.

Spoiler: show

There's definitely not enough gay male romance in video games

[Plow]

... Wait

She's still seriously on the 'damsel in distress' trope?

The second video is even more focused on it than the first.

But like, is Metroid at least a 'feminism-neutral' game? How about the original Contra? Without at least a compass of what is 'ok' in the feminist mind, she's never going to communicate her point well.

She does make a point of clarifying that she's talking specifically about when women are in trouble because they're weak and need a big strong man to save them, and that things like fighting games are generally excluded from issues with violence against women because the women are usually put on equal footing there.

[Vandalhart]

I just seems like she's going with very specific types of games.

I'm thinking of all the examples she gives about spouses dying and children getting take and they're almost all in an action adventure games. Maybe I'm missing the point, but I think it says alot that the developers feel the only way to get a character they create to go on a revenge filled kill fest is to have the main characters family murdered.
I mean, would she prefer if one of these characters just went off the deep end because of something less severe than that?

Most of the games she brought up as examples were ones that I hadn't even heard of before. I haven't been on top of the game news in the last few years, but I didn't think I was that far removed.

[Quicklet]

She does make a point of clarifying that she's talking specifically about when women are in trouble because they're weak and need a big strong man to save them, and that things like fighting games are generally excluded from issues with violence against women because the women are usually put on equal footing there.

Except she'll have plenty to criticize about women in fighting games once she gets to the "Fighting Fuck Toy" videos (topic #2 on her list).

[Plow]

Well yeah but... I believe she has a point there, lol.

[Byrthnoth]

Any game where you can control bust size might as well be marketed as softcore pornography.

That said, the only one in my lab that owns a DOA game is a girl, and she owns DOA Beach Volleyball.

[Charismatic]

Any game where you can control bust size might as well be marketed as softcore pornography.

Anecdotal (therefore nearly worthless), but I know of a few chicks who like the option.
PSO2's boob options cross the line into such territory though (and I love it.)

[Plow]

yeah you can adjust em in tiger woods lol, but it's nothing remotely graphic by any means

[Ksandra]

I for one, make my boobs as big as possible.

[Xantavia]

I for one, make my boobs as big as possible.

I'll admit, I would do that on wrestling games, but then I realized I couldn't take the character seriously. Great for a giggle the first match or 2, but then I would have to go back and change it to something more proportional with the rest of the body.

[Rhyis.]

Fuck proper proportions.

[Vriska]

... Wait

She's still seriously on the 'damsel in distress' trope?

Well it's her MO; it's how she got her money, it's how she keeps her credibility despite being pretty damn wrong all the time. "Oh no, mean people are saying nasty things about me on the internet! Heeeeeeelp!" But apparently it's a bad thing when it's not working explicitly in her favour.

[Not Kuno]

Exactly.
I keep seeing this image posted, people really DON'T know what is and is not okay.

Spoiler: show

Post of the year every year.

[Ashmada]

Belated, but:

Just a few posts prior, Ksandra said she's "not a feminist," despite being a female who wants equality in society. In those videos posted by someone else on the previous page, the headline is "Feminism VS Facts." Both of these things are indicative of how feminism has a seemingly inextricable negative connotation now, as if it were nothing more than a collection of man-hating, radicalized women who are not interested in equality, but are instead ravenous for superiority. This misconception has been perpetuated by the misunderstanding that a lot of women have, believing that they should distance themselves from the word as much as possible, and the popular depiction of it, which goes in line with that.

I had mentioned this in a previous discussion, and archi had responded that it's essentially only idiots who would believe such a thing, but being that condescending and failing to understand the consequences of a widespread, negative social understanding is something that also perpetuates it.

This may seem to be getting too general and going off-topic, but it comes back to this woman and her videos because they're representative of that overblown, embarrassing, and consequently self-defeating neo-feminism. She raised money to create something that successfully fuels the fire of anti-feminists, as it's unsubstantiated garbage, and it's recited as dispassionately and unsympathetically as they expect it to be. (Not that anti-feminists are usually all that competent; she may use misconstrued facts, but they tend to cherry-pick and argue emotionally, which is borderline valueless.) Meanwhile, actual feminists who are familiar with the term and who wish to do something positive—and to the benefit of all, not only them—must deal with yet another popularized "plea" from someone who they do not stand with, who makes things harder for them than it should be, yet who wears their banner proudly and in misrepresentation.

All of these things indicate why they're a problem. Their crowd-funding fleeced the people involved, they're constructed to be deliberately negative and controversial (rather than informative and exploratory), they humiliate anyone who wants to do good under the banner of "feminism," and they provide undeniably excellent fodder for those who consider feminism an undesirable thing. Really, I can't blame them for picking on it. Why wouldn't they? It's an easy target, and she's a great hand at setting equality endeavors back several decades.

That's all true, but, in light of this, I cannot conceive of any non-emotional reason to remain attached to the label of feminism.
Why not be pragmatic? Why not eschew the label in favour of that of egalitarianism?
An easy way to distance oneself from the misandrist and keep supporting gender equality.

Not only that, but the label is more semantically appropriate in today's society: "feminism" stems from a time where advancing the cause of gender equality meant granting to women rights that men hoarded for themselves but today issues of gender equality apply to both genders: things like custodial dispute favouring the mothers and alimonies made sense in a society where women were stay-at-home mothers financially supported by their husbands, they do not in a society where both genders are breadwinners.

http://tigerbeatdown.com/2011/08/26/...ge-r-r-martin/

Sady Doyle is a masterful troll.

Not really. The idea of someone that can't enjoy GoT because of self-imposed barriers doesn't make me angry, it makes me sad. Poor thing.

That being said, that article is pretty representatitve.
I particularly like the fact that she manages to rationalise Sansa being "girly" as sexist and Arya being a tomboy as sexist.
Also, the fact that she cannot conceive fiction as anything but wish fulfillment: if you like GoT, you must want to live in Westeros! You must yearn for medieval values!
I dread the reaction the day she discovers Dickens or Zola.

[Ksandra]

but today issues of gender equality apply to both genders: things like custodial dispute favouring the mothers and alimonies made sense in a society where women were stay-at-home mothers financially supported by their husbands, they do not in a society where both genders are breadwinners.

Outside of the negative connotations, this is one of the hugest reasons I don't consider myself feminism. Many say men can't be "feminists," and that feminists only focus on women's rights (naturally). I think if men want to support women's rights, they should be able to, and not be shunned for it. As well, while I care about women's rights, they are no more or less important to me than men's rights, or discrimination towards any group.

[Kohan]

That's all true, but, in light of this, I cannot conceive of any non-emotional reason to remain attached to the label of feminism.

Focus. Egalitarianism may be an ultimate goal, but it is incredibly broad. It includes religious and political concerns, not to mention many, many more. To say "I support egalitarianism" can be interpreted in numerous ways, and perhaps never correctly, unless you provide qualifiers. It's much like saying "I'm a humanist," and expecting that to be that. I consider myself a humanist, and I believe in egalitarianism in relation to gender, race, and so on. As I understand that feminism focuses on specific facets of equality (not only in relation to biological men and women, but—in modern day—regarding gender identity in general), I support it simultaneously. The two things are mutually beneficial, and the existence of the umbrella term (egalitarianism) does not nullify the need for anything existing underneath it (e.g., feminism).

That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with saying: "I'm an egalitarian, so I believe that individuals of any gender identity should have equal opportunities in all respects." Naturally, that's just fine. If you agree with feminist ideals, but wish to identify as an egalitarian, there's nothing wrong with that—so long as you recognize that said causes can work together. After all, considering egalitarianism to be the superior term implies an acceptance of any negative connotations attached to feminism, which is defeatist, considering that feminism contributes to egalitarianism. As such, rather than saying "I would call myself an egalitarian, not a feminist," one could say, "I consider myself an egalitarian, so I support feminist causes." Once again, qualifiers and focus.

Therefore, if someone believes in equal opportunity for all and believes that feminism exists to undermine that, I endeavor to explain why this is not the case. Extremists do not represent feminism, just as they do not represent racial, political, or religious causes, and it is always important to point that out.

[Plow]

Why not be pragmatic?

Haven't you heard? A democrat is president, so being pragmatic is a bad, bad thing.

[Kuya]

Exactly.
I keep seeing this image posted, people really DON'T know what is and is not okay.

Spoiler: show

The last one on the right made me think this was directed at fat yaoi fans.

[Vriska]

Extremists do not represent feminism, just as they do not represent racial, political, or religious causes, and it is always important to point that out.

My brain understands this, but I can't help but feel the non-extremist feminists are very, very quiet as of late, and that worries me.