PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: sexism



mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 04:31 PM
There are TWO threads visible at a glance about sexism in gaming....I have two questions
1: why? WHY?
2:Is this even something worth debating about? I mean seriously...

I have the solution.
I think it's time "androids" became a factual thing instead of a science fiction thing.
Cut off our lower halves, replace it with robotics, problem solves.
Need to reproduce? Human farms. I mean we grow other people, keep the population at a maintainable level, when someone dies, replace them with a pod child.


Seriously though...While I would love to be active in these talks/debates I hate joining large threads (for me that means it's made a second page already...because 1: I am not reading everyone's post, 2: I am not wanting to post redundant information...then again I suppose that's better than posting a link to a google search...lol)

It's a lot easier to deal with on a person by person basis as opposed to a "general population" basis.
Men like gals, that wont change.
Gals like men, that won't change.
The only exception is the exceptions....circular reasoning? yes. fact? extra yes. Gay/bi/lesbians and such are the exception. They do not of course negate, avoid, or exclude in any way sexism, they too can be sexist.

I do have a third question actually... I never looked at the first post of either topic...and have to wander...what is the basis for these discussions?

Worira
2013-10-19, 04:34 PM
I do have a third question actually... I never looked at the first post of either topic...and have to wander...what is the basis for these discussions?

You're in luck, I thought of a great way to solve this problem.

inexorabletruth
2013-10-19, 04:44 PM
*takes a sip of coffee an tilts head like a dog who doesn't get why you won't throw the ******* ball*

What in the world is going on here? Is this a rant or series of questions? I'm ready to hear some context, if you please.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 04:59 PM
*takes a sip of coffee an tilts head like a dog who doesn't get why you won't throw the ******* ball*

What in the world is going on here? Is this a rant or series of questions? I'm ready to hear some context, if you please.

It's just I thought it a little ridiculous that there are MULTIPLE topics discussing sexism in gaming...
Which is something I don't understand, I personally have NEVER experienced any sexism in table top gaming. There are female players and male players...Everyone I have met have usually left it at that. The same with generally everyone I have ever spoken with.

I know that the books themselves can sometimes show sexist ideas (barely dressed females)
but the thing is they are created by strait men...what exactly is the problem here and what is expected?
It's the same concept for when a female author creates idealistic men...what is the problem and what do the problem holders actually expect?

There ARE sexists out there and always will be...Why should we talk about it so heavily? Shouldn't people expect humans to be humans and not deal with the ones we don't want to deal with?
People expect people to just let them be who they are...but they judge people for being who they are? I can't understand what the ACTUAL issue is...as it doesn't appear to be sexism even though that is the topic...



You're in luck, I thought of a great way to solve this problem.

I can't possibly get what your implying! Sarcasm*
okay okay...I guess I should...but I figure the idea is what the already discussed parts are...so I read the later comments instead....

Hyena
2013-10-19, 05:00 PM
It's just I thought it a little ridiculous that there are MULTIPLE topics discussing sexism in gaming...
Well, congratulations - you've just created one more.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 05:03 PM
Well, congratulations - you've just created one more.

no kidding O_O oops!
Satire....was the idea.

anyways...

I finally read the initial posts...
seems more of others ranting ideas of sexism is the topic...

However I take none of my questions back...

nor can I understand the sudden popularity of the sexism...

or why the majority of it is only talking as if only men are sexist...Or that all female sexists are feminist groups...

Themrys
2013-10-19, 05:04 PM
It's just I thought it a little ridiculous that there are MULTIPLE topics discussing sexism in gaming...
Which is something I don't understand, I personally have NEVER experienced any sexism in table top gaming.

But unlike your avatar, you are female, yes?

Because otherwise, it would not surprise me at all, that you never experienced sexism. Or at least not noticed it. There are few men sensitive enough to feel hurt by the fact that all evil humans their characters have to fight are, for some reason, male, while only female NPC get to be innocent damsels.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 05:27 PM
But unlike your avatar, you are female, yes?

Because otherwise, it would not surprise me at all, that you never experienced sexism. Or at least not noticed it. There are few men sensitive enough to feel hurt by the fact that all evil humans their characters have to fight are, for some reason, male, while only female NPC get to be innocent damsels.

Actually that's a fairly good point....
My current campaign I am running for friends features a male lead villain as far as the players are concerned to this point, he even plans to trump his evil mistress...even though the evil mistress is the actual main villain, her role isn't as obvious until later...

The majority of evil archetypes are men, female roles sporadically in between...

I never have thought about that! I just assumed the evil queen of darkness was most common I guess...

urkthegurk
2013-10-19, 05:37 PM
I'm proud an excited that you're encountering and considering these issues for the first time. Remember sexism, like racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry, are systematic in nature, and your personal experience might not be an accurate study of the impacts of this system.

Please take a moment to consider the kind of priviledge that entails. Not everyone can go through life never being hurt in this manner. The fact that you claim you havent' had this experience says just as much towards a picture of systemitized oppression as the experience of someone who has suffered. Its a part of the picture. You're impacted by it too, but in a positive way; you're the benefactor of the violence. It sucks, I know, but not nearly as much for you as for folks who have it the other way around. So while I encourage you to take a moment to process the discomfort with being implicated in this process, I'd ask you to just remember what other people may be going through.

You see, Many men assume at this point that everyone wants to stop and help them deconstruct their priviledge, since it is hard work, and one doesn't want to make any mistakes and miss an important insight, and remain entangled in the mindset of sexism. Unfortunately, this is often a luxury that cannot be extended, since you are essentially asking a huge favour, both in terms of time commitment, knowledge, and personal risk associated with exposing these kinds of emotions and experiences. It is hard to be vulnerable in that way, with someone who is just beginning to figure out these issues. Whole university courses, entire degrees, are devoted to this subject.

Asking everyone to stop and explain sexism to you is, in a lot of contexts, somewhat sexist. The information is out there, if you want to explore it. While certain elements certainly need to be discussed and explained to be fully understood, essentially hoping that you can skip all the work and just be handed all the answers isn't going to work. Un-learning sexism takes practice, and even if you know all the information, you can still fall prey to conditioning. Framing your inquiry in that way sounds like you're questioning whether sexism exists at all. That is not a fair position, nor the sign of an open mind. Someone who is hurt by it doesn't need it explained; not in the same way. They do, however, need lots of support and tools in order to fight that sort of injustice, and in most cases that is where other people's energy, as well as yours, is better spent: actively helping in the struggle, rather than too much navel-gazing. That's how you really learn how to un-learn sexism.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 05:44 PM
Please take a moment to consider the kind of priviledge that entails. Not everyone can go through life never being hurt in this manner. The fact that you claim you havent' had this experience says just as much towards a picture of systemitized oppression as the experience of someone who has suffered. Its a part of the picture. You're impacted by it too, but in a positive way; you're the benefactor of the violence.This is a non-sequitur. Someone not suffering from an injustice does not mean they are benefiting from it... and a big part of the 'privilege' argument I've seen bandied about and experienced for myself has started ringing maliciously false... such as in this case guilting people unaffected by an issue into thinking they are.

The answer to the -isms isn't to cut out the 'privileged' - it's to empower the victims.

Averis Vol
2013-10-19, 05:50 PM
But unlike your avatar, you are female, yes?

Because otherwise, it would not surprise me at all, that you never experienced sexism. Or at least not noticed it. There are few men sensitive enough to feel hurt by the fact that all evil humans their characters have to fight are, for some reason, male, while only female NPC get to be innocent damsels.

Wait, what the hell? since when is every evil NPC a man? If you want to argue that you play with sexist DMs and players, that's fine, but the folks I play with and the people I have met keep the realistic expectation that villainous intent can come from either sex.

See, this is why I by and large don't get into debates about sexes; it's always an unwarranted shot at men because the stereotypical demographic of table top non free form roleplaying games is male heavy, and a few bad eggs have made it seem like we all demean women, putting them on the intellectual level of animals and social level of something despised.

If you want to take that shot, how come each time one of my groups two female DM's have run something, it was a either a game centered around amazonian tribeswomen driving out invaders of their land (we were captured outsiders who bargained for our lives because 4 of us were men, so naturally we had to want to harm them, even though one was a cleric with vow of nonviolence, the other a paladin sworn to protect the liberties of all people. The other two were just ordinary men trying to get home.) and the sole woman among us was put in charge of us and given the right to kill us should we disobey. Or maybe the other game where the horrible king sent his wife away because she tried to murder him. The PC's were guards sent to escort her, and were only a little less then murdered in their sleep by peasants for doing our jobs.

The sexist bent in gaming is not only male centric; women take the DM power trip just as hard, some even doing it purely for "payback" over a slight that wasn't even there. Yes, bad things happen to women because of apish social conceptions, and this is used in a plot by many DMs to prove your enemy is a bastard. Sadly, stuff like this happens, while men are generally just murdered. That doesn't have to mean that women are the only ones this happens too; it's just that generally when women become violent it is in more subtle, passive aggressive ways. Man, it's almost like men and women are different!

Now, I'm sorry I had to quote you Themrys because this looks like I'm hashing blame towards you, I kind of am, but it's nothing personal; you just happened to be the first person to throw blanket assumptions based on your own preconceptions of men. In the future it might be best to step back and not throw an entire gender of people under the bus because of a few horror stories.
[/end rant that will probably get me banned]

Themrys
2013-10-19, 05:52 PM
@urkthegurk: Thank you. Good post.




The answer to the -isms isn't to cut out the 'privileged' - it's to empower the victims.

One cannot be done without the other. If no one would profit from it, the oppression would not exist in the first place.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 05:55 PM
One cannot be done without the other. If no one would profit from it, the oppression would not exist in the first place.The oppressors are not the ones that are getting targeted by the Social Justice Crusaders, though.

inexorabletruth
2013-10-19, 05:56 PM
Sexism and sexualization are terms that are often used interchangeably, mostly because they mean very similar things, but they aren't exactly the same.

Perhaps the reason why you don't experience sexism at the tabletop is because you are able to identify sexualization and separate it from it's evil twin: sexism. Sexualization, or "fan-service" in games are common enough, and fantasy games are designed with this aspect in mind. In fact it's a mainstay of their marketing program.

The problem is... just because the male barbarian is in a brown fur banana hammock and the female rogue is wearing a chain mail thong doesn't make the game sexist, but that doesn't stop people from interpreting it that way. In most fantasy settings women are much more empowered than they are in many real-world scenarios... they're just half-naked while being badass. *shrug*

My opinions on the matter is just let it go and enjoy the game. It's fantasy... and in your fantasy, they can dress however they like as long as their AC is high enough.

urkthegurk
2013-10-19, 05:57 PM
This is a non-sequitur. Someone not suffering from an injustice does not mean they are benefiting from it... and a big part of the 'privilege' argument I've seen bandied about and experienced for myself has started ringing maliciously false... such as in this case guilting people unaffected by an issue into thinking they are.

The answer to the -isms isn't to cut out the 'privileged' - it's to empower the victims.

Not suffering can be a priviledge. I'm sure you've had enough suffering in your life to understand that. Relief is a blesssing. Now, consider the forms of violence from which there is little relief.

EDIT

Also its not a non-sequiter. Please explain what you think is a non-sequiter, or just don't point out non-existant fallacies. Its totally and completely on topic. 'Ringing false' isnt' a compelling argument, either.

EDIT:

On the subject of misandry: Its a misapplied term. Yes, women can be prejudiced, and yes, it sucks to be on the receiving end of it. But its not the same as misogyny, which is a form of, wait for it, systemetized violence. That's like saying, to use a DnD metaphore, that the peasants are equally at fault for rebelling against the dictator, or that Robin Hood was as bad as the Sheriff. Sure, both are capable of doing wrong, feminists aren't perfect people, they can even be awful. But the difference is, they don't have an entire cultural arsenal at their disposal. Men do. And to some extent, women also have access to it, but only for oppressing other women, not men.

I'll give you this: YES, if the mythological society of amazon warrior women really existed, that would be a sexist society. But they're a MYTH, and they DON'T. That society doesn't exist anywhere in the world. Real, patriarchal societies DO.

When a woman is prejudiced against a man, its mental self-defence, or justifiable paranoia. When a man is prejudiced against a woman, its mental assualt. Men have a system on their side to back up their hatred, women don't.

Scow2
2013-10-19, 06:03 PM
Not suffering can be a priviledge. I'm sure you've had enough suffering in your life to understand that. Relief is a blesssing. Now, consider the forms of violence from which there is little relief.The suffering I've had in my life comes from a result of my own actions, the actions of specific individuals, or ill-thought-out policies, and tearing others down to my level is most definitely not the answer.

"Because someone else somewhere is suffering, I am benefiting" is the non-sequitur.

urkthegurk
2013-10-19, 06:14 PM
I didn't say 'Somewhere' I said 'Everywhere'. Actually, I said neither, but if you're going to put words in my mouth, they might as well be the correct ones. Either way, it would be just an argument, not a non-sequitur. In order to prove its a non-sequitur, you have to show that the conclusion is not supported by the premise. And this, to me, is not obvious.

EDIT: My point is that, while your claims to do with the sources of your suffering are not possibly true, they completely reinforce my argument. You are LUCKY that you are allowed to believe that your choices are your own, that there is no system working against you, that you are not threatened with violence just for who you are. Not everyone in the world is able to maintain that illusion. That is you privilege.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 06:29 PM
I'm proud an excited that you're encountering and considering these issues for the first time. Remember sexism, like racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry, are systematic in nature, and your personal experience might not be an accurate study of the impacts of this system.

Please take a moment to consider the kind of priviledge that entails. Not everyone can go through life never being hurt in this manner. The fact that you claim you havent' had this experience says just as much towards a picture of systemitized oppression as the experience of someone who has suffered. Its a part of the picture. You're impacted by it too, but in a positive way; you're the benefactor of the violence. It sucks, I know, but not nearly as much for you as for folks who have it the other way around. So while I encourage you to take a moment to process the discomfort with being implicated in this process, I'd ask you to just remember what other people may be going through.

You see, Many men assume at this point that everyone wants to stop and help them deconstruct their priviledge, since it is hard work, and one doesn't want to make any mistakes and miss an important insight, and remain entangled in the mindset of sexism. Unfortunately, this is often a luxury that cannot be extended, since you are essentially asking a huge favour, both in terms of time commitment, knowledge, and personal risk associated with exposing these kinds of emotions and experiences. It is hard to be vulnerable in that way, with someone who is just beginning to figure out these issues. Whole university courses, entire degrees, are devoted to this subject.

Asking everyone to stop and explain sexism to you is, in a lot of contexts, somewhat sexist. The information is out there, if you want to explore it. While certain elements certainly need to be discussed and explained to be fully understood, essentially hoping that you can skip all the work and just be handed all the answers isn't going to work. Un-learning sexism takes practice, and even if you know all the information, you can still fall prey to conditioning. Framing your inquiry in that way sounds like you're questioning whether sexism exists at all. That is not a fair position, nor the sign of an open mind. Someone who is hurt by it doesn't need it explained; not in the same way. They do, however, need lots of support and tools in order to fight that sort of injustice, and in most cases that is where other people's energy, as well as yours, is better spent: actively helping in the struggle, rather than too much navel-gazing. That's how you really learn how to un-learn sexism.

Went to get dinner...return to find lots of awesome posts to read! I love you people!

First off I know sexism like any ism exists.
I have suffered first hand from racism...and I am not even full Mexican...The mocking is ridiculous. Even the playful "friendly" mocking.
I wasn't asking so much for the explanation of sexism...see my further posts after the first to get a better idea of my poor wording.

I also believe that having degrees or schools or anything beyond a class or two (college included) about sexism or racism is in part promoting the ideas more than removing them.


inexorabletruth
I agree with you. I know my biggest problem with people is with how they interpret something to be something its not.
I know sometimes I can hit highs (not extremes to my knowledge) of sexualization, I can be rather flirtatious or sometimes creepy...usually the creepy is intended as comedy.

Averis Vol
I would stay away from those gals...Running games like that would upset anyone that I would consider realistic. It might be comic at first, but the way you describe it sounds like they went over the top, or that's my assumption.







WAIIIT...men have a cultural arsenal?
How so?
I see scholarships for being female, not for being male.
Last I checked no company anywhere had to have a specific percentage of their workforce/board members/etc. being men, but for women? Of course!
Our culture supports women in all ways. Rapes against women are handled far better and more honestly.
Something bad happens to a women, or female child, entire communities rally for vengeance! Young boy or man? Pfft he better be black or not from America! (Mexicans only get support anymore if they don't originate from America...I was born in the wrong time period I guess to get that kind of support...)
But our culture anymore supports womenkind and women in power or getting into power. The day of male empowerment is far over.

Hyena
2013-10-19, 06:29 PM
When a woman is prejudiced against a man, its mental self-defence, or justifiable paranoia. When a man is prejudiced against a woman, its mental assualt. Men have a system on their side to back up their hatred, women don't.
...what kind of double standards is that?

Libertad
2013-10-19, 06:30 PM
Also, on privilege: it doesn't automatically mean that you have a higher standard of living (although economic privilege is a form of privilege). It means that as an individual you do not have to regularly deal with certain difficulties for people of your race/sex/gender identity/sexual orientation/etc that those without privilege in that area face on a regular basis.

For example, Person A is of a race which is stereotyped and profiled as criminals and other social malcontents. He is much more likely to be watched with a wary eye in stores and treated with suspicion by the police. Person B is of a race which is part of the majority and treated as the norm in his society. Person A does not have privilege in regards to race, but Person B does.

Privilege incorporates many areas and is not an all-or-nothing. One can be privileged in some areas, and not in others.

So in regards to sexism in media and games (the subject of the other threads), men have privilege in that representations of males in media are much more diverse: they can run the gamut from unattractive to handsome, sexual beings to sexless, much less likely to be stereotyped by their gender, much more likely to have media which explicitly caters to their sexual fantasies and wants, much more likely to be listened to as a consumer.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 06:36 PM
{{scrubbed}}

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 06:38 PM
Also, on privilege: it doesn't automatically mean that you have a higher standard of living (although economic privilege is a form of privilege). It means that as an individual you do not have to regularly deal with certain difficulties for people of your race/sex/gender identity/sexual orientation/etc that those without privilege in that area face on a regular basis.

For example, Person A is of a race which is stereotyped and profiled as criminals and other social malcontents. He is much more likely to be watched with a wary eye in stores and treated with suspicion by the police. Person B is of a race which is part of the majority and treated as the norm in his society. Person A does not have privilege in regards to race, but Person B does.

Privilege incorporates many areas and is not an all-or-nothing. One can be privileged in some areas, and not in others.

So in regards to sexism in media and games (the subject of the other threads), men have privilege in that representations of males in media are much more diverse: they can run the gamut from unattractive to handsome, sexual beings to sexless, much less likely to be stereotyped by their gender, much more likely to have media which explicitly caters to their sexual fantasies and wants, much more likely to be listened to as a consumer.

This and what Hyena said.
That is a ridiculous double standard...though I wish he quoted the name of who posted it as I must have skipped over whoever said that.

urkthegurk
2013-10-19, 06:55 PM
Okay...so I am just going to disregard this post
I wasn't trying to draw crackpots to the bugzapper here...
the fact that you believe anyone other than yourself is maintaining an illusion...means you should probably go get yourself checked out...Your choice though. I guess the system has enlisted us and the aliens to make sure you stay down in the dumps...By force if required...We won't kill you though, cause I guess somehow society thrives from your suffering or something like that...

Hey everyone else here isn't delusional are they?
Please tell me I am not the only one...

Well argued sir, I am quite persuaged by your logic. You've really deconstructed these issues, and pulled apart what makes society tick. Nay, I think, touched upon the core of the human condition! I applaud you.

Averis Vol
2013-10-19, 07:06 PM
Averis Vol
I would stay away from those gals...Running games like that would upset anyone that I would consider realistic. It might be comic at first, but the way you describe it sounds like they went over the top, or that's my assumption.



As players though, they really aren't that bad. Sure, they like to make strong female figures, and being the primary DM I understand that they have problems with women being seen as less able then a man; something I both agree with and disagree with, I feel that certain jobs have a majority of men or women because men or women tend to be better at that job. I have very stern beliefs of gender roles, I know it's offensive, which is why I only bring it up in company of people mature enough to understand that I don't believe women should stay in the kitchen and serve their man, but I don't think a woman should work construction; it's not fitting work for a lady.

I got onto a tangent and I'm sorry, my point is that while these two women in particular think that I try to pull a power position on them when I make a king instead of a queen, or a male mayor instead of female (Which I'm not, I just have some goof balls in my group who would take the chance to oversexualise them to make me squirm. I'm not particularly comfortable roleplaying a woman myself) but I'm really not; If theres going to be extended confrontation with a social figure, I as a DM need to be able to understand the character well enough, beyond pure motivations and into the psyche, to role play them. And while I do have major Female villains, they tend to not proc the evil scale as much because, at least from what I've seen, women tend to be more seductive and subtle about the way they do things, where men tend to be more upfront about their actions.

I'm not a psychologist, so I can't really speak on the reason why people feel the need to oppress others because of trivial things such as sex(ual orientation) or race, but when it comes to your normal, average people, while many like me may feel there a roles set, these roles are not definitive, they are baseline and by no means a concrete thing, most men don't actually think women are less capable then women, they just realise that some people are better at some things; and the majority of those things also happen to have a greater majority of one gender. Nothing malicious about it.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 07:08 PM
Well argued sir, I am quite persuaged by your logic. You've really deconstructed these issues, and pulled apart what makes society tick. Nay, I think, touched upon the core of the human condition! I applaud you.

thank you, thank you.
wait didn't someone mention earlier about me being female? sir you called me?

I admit it was a bit rude, but have you ever actually thought about those very things you mention? I get it not everyone believes we have choice in our actions in life, perhaps we are controlled by our fates. I wont argue with that, we all have our beliefs. As far as I am concerned I have all the proof I need that I take my own actions, and have directly been the reason I rise up in the world, not because the government decides to pity me, not because it was meant to be.
A lot of issues with people staying on the bottom of the totem pole is directly related to their own doing, and the fact that so many people believe the government or society owes them something.
It's not an issue of class versus class like so many believe. It is an issue of self versus reality.
If I don't make all reasonable attempts to succeed I will not succeed. As opposed to, If I make all reasonable attempts to succeed, somebody else is holding me back.

It's simply not realistic.
Understandably there are circumstances for different people that make things difficult for them...but that is not the case for everyone, nor is it the same difficulty for all people.

Your assuming everyone is threatened because of who we are? Proof please?
I have been threatened yes because of who I am, that is circumstance though and not lifelong fact. But what is threatening all people from being themselves?
How is the government or whatever holding us all back?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 07:13 PM
...what kind of double standards is that?

No double standards, actually. It's seeing reality as it is.
You're still wearing the tinted glasses of privilege, I'm afraid.

Hyena
2013-10-19, 07:20 PM
Oh, right. I'm wrong by the virtue of being a man.
So do I get you right? When a man hates women, it's called misogny and it's wrong. But when a woman hates men, it's okay and it's called a backfire of the misogny? Bull****.

urkthegurk
2013-10-19, 07:25 PM
Mexicans only get support anymore if they don't originate from America...I was born in the wrong time period I guess to get that kind of support...

You obviously understand the advantage to you that would be had if you could benefit from them. So are you arguing that these programs should be extended to Mexicans, to counterbalance some of the obvious prejudice, or that such programs should be scrapped completely, so that everyone can be screwed, unless they're well off? If you're arguing for free education for everyone, I can get behind that!

Themrys
2013-10-19, 07:30 PM
Oh, right. I'm wrong by the virtue of being a man.


No, you're wrong by the virtue of being wrong. You could always choose to check your privilege, and then you could, for a change, be right in a debate.

You don't have to wait for lawful good afterlife for that!:smalltongue:

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 07:30 PM
You obviously understand the advantage to you that would be had if you could benefit from them. So are you arguing that these programs should be extended to Mexicans, to counterbalance some of the obvious prejudice, or that such programs should be scrapped completely, so that everyone can be screwed, unless they're well off? If you're arguing for free education for everyone, I can get behind that!


Why would everyone be screwed?
Isn't equal treatment where all people are treated equally or am I missing something?
I don't want an education because I have heritage or due to gender. That's just silly.
Now free education for everyone? heck yeah. I love me some education. I have always said that if I could I would pursue scholarly knowledge simply because I could. If nothing else it would be nice, if a little inconvenient to the government that has to pay, to get my higher paying job...for free, well as far as doing the work without paying to do the work free can be.

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 07:33 PM
But unlike your avatar, you are female, yes?

Because otherwise, it would not surprise me at all, that you never experienced sexism. Or at least not noticed it. There are few men sensitive enough to feel hurt by the fact that all evil humans their characters have to fight are, for some reason, male, while only female NPC get to be innocent damsels.

That comment could well be considered sexist, you know.

Eric Tolle
2013-10-19, 07:34 PM
Also, on privilege: it doesn't automatically mean that you have a higher standard of living (although economic privilege is a form of privilege). It means that as an individual you do not have to regularly deal with certain difficulties for people of your race/sex/gender identity/sexual orientation/etc that those without privilege in that area face on a regular basis.

John Scalzi actually put privilege in a way that gamers might understand: privilege is the difference between playing the game in easy mode, vs. hard mode.

Here it is: Straight White Male: The lowest Difficulty Setting There Is (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

So yeah, if you're a straight white male, that's the equivalent of playing season 1 Pathfinder with a 30 point buy. If say, you're a black woman, congratulations, you're playing Basic D&D with 3D6, roll in order stats. Now it's possible to screw up badly due to bad decisions or bad rolling in the first case. But it's a lot harder to succeed in the second case. And imaging a player who's only played the easy mode, listening to someone complain about how hard it is to succeed in D&D and going, "I don't get it? What's the problem? Did they build their character wrong?"

My wife had this to add: Imagine you have a GM who usually says "Yes" to your character requests, and if he reluctantly says "no", he explains why logically and completely. Congratulations, you're a guy. Now imagine a GM who pretty much says "no" to almost anything you ask, and doesn't explain his reasons in any way that makes sense, and gets annoyed if you question his decisions. Welcome to being a girl- especially if the GM is behaving in these two different ways to different people at the table.

And I'll add, imagine you mention your GM's behavior in public, seeking to see if there's some way to game better, and a bunch of people say that there is nothing wrong with the GM, that you're just whining, oversensitive, and you're part of a conspiracy to make GMs all suservient to whiny players. Welcome to the internet!

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 07:37 PM
John Scalzi actually put privilege in a way that gamers might understand: privilege is the difference between playing the game in easy mode, vs. hard mode.

Here it is: Straight White Male: The lowest Difficulty Setting There Is (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

So yeah, if you're a straight white male, that's the equivalent of playing season 1 Pathfinder with a 30 point buy. If say, you're a black woman, congratulations, you're playing Basic D&D with 3D6, roll in order stats. Now it's possible to screw up badly due to bad decisions in the first case But it's a lot harder to succeed in the second case.

My wife had this to add: Imagine you have a GM who usually says "Yes" to your character requests, and if he reluctantly says "no", he explains why logically and completely. Congratulations, you're a guy. Now imagine a GM who pretty much says "no" to almost anything you ask, and doesn't explain his reasons in any way that makes sense, and gets annoyed if you question his decisions. Welcome to being a girl- especially if the GM is behaving in these two different ways to different people at the table.

And I'll add, imagine you mention your GM's behavior in public, seeking to see if there's some way to game better, and a bunch of people say that there is nothing wrong with the GM, that you're just whining, oversensitive, and you're part of a conspiracy to make GMs all suservient to whiny players. Welcome to the internet!

Misogyny is not sexism. Defining misogyny as sexism, oddly enough, is sexist, as it discriminates on the basis of gender.

urkthegurk
2013-10-19, 07:37 PM
EDIT: Its not the 'government or whatever' that I'm talking about, per se. Its a culture of violence and control, which the government is a part of. A major part.

But obviously we disagree. I simply don't believe people succeed or fail based entirely on their own potential and willpower. I like to think that talented people can, and often do, put those talents to good use, but there are advantages and disadvantages beyond inherent talent, and aquiring talent is a complicated process. the pulling-yourself-up-by-you-bootstraps is a compelling myth, and a foundational one for America, but that's it.

However, you invited the discussion. I've given you plenty of opportunity to engage on a human level, but mudslinging works too. Of course I'm disappointed, but I hope I've opened up some possibilities, so you can at least see there are more ways of looking at this, and I hope you can be more considerate and perceptive when engaging with it in the future.

Finally, I'm truly sorry that I misgendered you. 'Sir' was used as a reflexive honorific, and its obviously masculine. A sad mistake, really inexcusable.

Theafroscotsman
2013-10-19, 07:37 PM
As far as I'm still aware, there are tribes that are still "governed" (for lack of a better term (as in I don't have one, not that there isn't)) by women.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 07:38 PM
As players though, they really aren't that bad. Sure, they like to make strong female figures, and being the primary DM I understand that they have problems with women being seen as less able then a man; something I both agree with and disagree with, I feel that certain jobs have a majority of men or women because men or women tend to be better at that job. I have very stern beliefs of gender roles, I know it's offensive, which is why I only bring it up in company of people mature enough to understand that I don't believe women should stay in the kitchen and serve their man, but I don't think a woman should work construction; it's not fitting work for a lady.

I got onto a tangent and I'm sorry, my point is that while these two women in particular think that I try to pull a power position on them when I make a king instead of a queen, or a male mayor instead of female (Which I'm not, I just have some goof balls in my group who would take the chance to oversexualise them to make me squirm. I'm not particularly comfortable roleplaying a woman myself) but I'm really not; If theres going to be extended confrontation with a social figure, I as a DM need to be able to understand the character well enough, beyond pure motivations and into the psyche, to role play them. And while I do have major Female villains, they tend to not proc the evil scale as much because, at least from what I've seen, women tend to be more seductive and subtle about the way they do things, where men tend to be more upfront about their actions.

I'm not a psychologist, so I can't really speak on the reason why people feel the need to oppress others because of trivial things such as sex(ual orientation) or race, but when it comes to your normal, average people, while many like me may feel there a roles set, these roles are not definitive, they are baseline and by no means a concrete thing, most men don't actually think women are less capable then women, they just realise that some people are better at some things; and the majority of those things also happen to have a greater majority of one gender. Nothing malicious about it.

well not every woman is a lady....lol

anyways really the only job I can think of is front line military action, simply because of the proof laid out before us, how the vast majority of women have functioned when put in to test if it was okay for women to be there.
Needless to say it is NOT beneficial.
Now construction work? I fail to understand why you would think a women should not work construction...
The same goes for most any gender role...what reason? Why should a man do "manly jobs"? What makes them manly? Why can't he stay home and care for the kids? I gave birth to the little things, he can care for them I will earn the money...working construction. What makes that so wrong?

Themrys
2013-10-19, 07:42 PM
That comment could well be considered sexist, you know.

Doesn't worry me. I even took into consideration the possibility that he (if he is a he) did experience sexism, but didn't notice it. I feel I'm being very generous today.

Usually I would just have said that men don't experience any sexism to speak of, but I am in a good mood today, as several apparently male users seem to have realized that sexism exists and that its main victims are women, so I felt obligated to be more precise than I usually am and mention that sexism hurts men, too.

I don't think it's sexist to be surprised that a woman has never experienced sexism. I notice sexism very often, and I live in an unusually nonsexist environment, judging from how much worse people in forums often are.

Theafroscotsman
2013-10-19, 07:46 PM
I'm male, and I think I've been in this neck of the the woods far too long to know that I've been subject to sexism several times throughout my life.

Libertad
2013-10-19, 07:46 PM
Misogyny is not sexism. Defining misogyny as sexism, oddly enough, is sexist, as it discriminates on the basis of gender.

Misogyny is hatred, contempt, or otherwise condescending views towards women in general. So misogynistic viewpoints are sexist.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 07:48 PM
EDIT: Its not the 'government or whatever' that I'm talking about, per se. Its a culture of violence and control, which the government is a part of. A major part.

But obviously we disagree. I simply don't believe people succeed or fail based entirely on their own potential and willpower. I like to think that talented people can, and often do, put those talents to good use, but there are advantages and disadvantages beyond inherent talent, and aquiring talent is a complicated process. the pulling-yourself-up-by-you-bootstraps is a compelling myth, and a foundational one for America, but that's it.

However, you invited the discussion. I've given you plenty of opportunity to engage on a human level, but mudslinging works too. Of course I'm disappointed, but I hope I've opened up some possibilities, so you can at least see there are more ways of looking at this, and I hope you can be more considerate and perceptive when engaging with it in the future.

Finally, I'm truly sorry that I misgendered you. 'Sir' was used as a reflexive honorific, and its obviously masculine. A sad mistake, really inexcusable.

I don't mean entirely based on potential (actually potential is meaningless if you don't achieve that potential) and willpower. That would be naïve to think that. I completely agree with you on that entire point.

I don't intend for mudslinging, it's just you threw in some common misguided terms, like I said misguided and usually held by delusional individuals. You did not explain yourself. A civil level would be better than human, human implies mudslinging and civil are both reasonable...so how I disappointed you is beyond me. You bring information at a partial level and expect it to open anything else? That is...strange at best. If you want to discuss, say more than saying someone else sees an illusion, explain that illusion, don't throw in silly terms and leave it at that.


as for the culture of violence and control...I would like you to explain yourself on that too. HOW is it a culture of violence and control? We do CONTROL, but in a sense to allow freedom of none violence...The American culture itself STRONGLY leans towards anti-violence, and always has. A warrior culture we are most definitely not.

mindwarper10
2013-10-19, 07:54 PM
John Scalzi actually put privilege in a way that gamers might understand: privilege is the difference between playing the game in easy mode, vs. hard mode.

Here it is: Straight White Male: The lowest Difficulty Setting There Is (http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/)

So yeah, if you're a straight white male, that's the equivalent of playing season 1 Pathfinder with a 30 point buy. If say, you're a black woman, congratulations, you're playing Basic D&D with 3D6, roll in order stats. Now it's possible to screw up badly due to bad decisions or bad rolling in the first case. But it's a lot harder to succeed in the second case. And imaging a player who's only played the easy mode, listening to someone complain about how hard it is to succeed in D&D and going, "I don't get it? What's the problem? Did they build their character wrong?"

My wife had this to add: Imagine you have a GM who usually says "Yes" to your character requests, and if he reluctantly says "no", he explains why logically and completely. Congratulations, you're a guy. Now imagine a GM who pretty much says "no" to almost anything you ask, and doesn't explain his reasons in any way that makes sense, and gets annoyed if you question his decisions. Welcome to being a girl- especially if the GM is behaving in these two different ways to different people at the table.

And I'll add, imagine you mention your GM's behavior in public, seeking to see if there's some way to game better, and a bunch of people say that there is nothing wrong with the GM, that you're just whining, oversensitive, and you're part of a conspiracy to make GMs all suservient to whiny players. Welcome to the internet!

I believe that has been true at one point, and still true under certain circumstances, about the white male and black woman. However it has greatly changed.
Now the white man really has nothing going for him. He Is white? Okay. He is male? so what?
Now if you take a look at black woman, both the black and woman part are keywords in just about everyone's dictionary.
There are words only she is allowed to say, and conditions only she can fulfill. Neither is true for the white man.

Averis Vol
2013-10-19, 08:29 PM
well not every woman is a lady....lol

anyways really the only job I can think of is front line military action, simply because of the proof laid out before us, how the vast majority of women have functioned when put in to test if it was okay for women to be there.
Needless to say it is NOT beneficial.
Now construction work? I fail to understand why you would think a women should not work construction...
The same goes for most any gender role...what reason? Why should a man do "manly jobs"? What makes them manly? Why can't he stay home and care for the kids? I gave birth to the little things, he can care for them I will earn the money...working construction. What makes that so wrong?

I honestly cant say why. I may have a backwards mind set, but it isn't because I believe women can't do the job, but they shouldn't have to. Don't get me wrong, I feel that everyone has to work in life to get what they want, but when I see a woman doing hard physical labor, I feel bad for them. Of course I can't know all women, but I assume when a lady has a hard, demanding job like that, they don't do it by choice. Men on the other hand, have a more naturally physical structure, so while they still may do construction because they have to, they are better fit for it.

Really, no matter how you try and deny, theres always some job out there for someone of your skill set, so seeing someone doing things that contrast strikes me as odd. And see, while I would rather not see women die, fighting for your country is for everybody; national pride is the one thing I see 100% no discrimination behind.

Also, I have nothing against stay at home fathers, they can (and the word can is the biggest part of my argument, people of both genders can do anything they wish, it always just strikes me as odd to see someone doing something other then what my mind has predesignated their gender to do. Yea, I know what I said) raise their children just as well as a stay at home mother. In fact, I think that both parents should be equally present in the raising process. Ohh, and also; men don't get leave time to stay home and raise their progeny, women do. Not that I think that's an excuse for women doing the entirety of legwork in the raising process.

My philosophy comes down to making the lives of any women in my life as easy as possible. They're referred to as the fairer sex for a reason, and while everyone must work for their keep, I think women shouldn't be burdened with coming home in so much pain at night they can barely move. My father was that way, pulling double and triple shifts as a paramedic, my brother is doing the same, and I'm slowly on that path as well; the common overwhelming theme in my families male genealogy is that we work like we're providing for a family ALWAYS, even when we arent.

Amphetryon
2013-10-19, 08:41 PM
Misogyny is hatred, contempt, or otherwise condescending views towards women in general. So misogynistic viewpoints are sexist.

So are misandristic viewpoints. Behaving like (or responding like) sexism is one, but not the other, is itself sexist.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-19, 08:44 PM
All misogyny is sexism, but not all sexism is misogyny. And miso- anything certainly isn't the kind of unintentional sexism it's fashionable to worry about - hatred is, if not intentional, at least strong enough feeling to always be conscious. You don't hate something without knowing it yourself.

erikun
2013-10-19, 09:01 PM
I have the solution.
I think it's time "androids" became a factual thing instead of a science fiction thing.
Cut off our lower halves, replace it with robotics, problem solves.
Need to reproduce? Human farms. I mean we grow other people, keep the population at a maintainable level, when someone dies, replace them with a pod child.
You're thinking cyborgs. And that wouldn't really remove sexism at all, since you'd still have different aspects for each of the sexes. Androids are full robots, although ones made to resemble humans - with all that goes along with it.

Interestingly enough, you might want to examine the RPG Eclipse Phase. The principle part of the setting in resleeving, or taking the mind of a person and placing it into a different body. There is no problem with a person resleeving into a male or female body, or even different bodies as desired, or even bodies without genitalia/organs/identifiable sexual features. After all, when you're a giant space manta ray coasting on the solar winds of the sun nearby Mercury, the topic of chainmail bikinis becomes kind of laughable.

The Viceroy
2013-10-19, 09:12 PM
I think that sexism is just like racism. It discriminates against things you have no control over.

Benthesquid
2013-10-19, 10:01 PM
Oh, right. I'm wrong by the virtue of being a man.
So do I get you right? When a man hates women, it's called misogny and it's wrong. But when a woman hates men, it's okay and it's called a backfire of the misogny? Bull****.

Look, it's not a double standard, because you aren't applying two different standards for people in the same situation. You're applying two different standards to people in two different situations.

This is, incidentally, a part of why, in a lot of scholarly discussions, people are moving away from talking about sexism and starting to talk about the patriarchy. So let me break down how I understand feminism and the patriarchy mean to me, as a CIS hetero male.

1) Society in general tends to separate people into predefined gender roles, generally based on what shape their genitals happen to be.
2) The roles that society sorts men into tend to be more powerful and more comfortable than those it sorts women into1. This is called male privilege. It is also why we refer to this system of society as the Patriarchy, and attempts to alter this system as feminism.
3) That being said, the roles that men get put in are not necessarily anymore universally appropriate to all men than the roles women get put into are to all women.

Women who have an irrational hatred of men (http://www.harkavagrant.com/?id=341) probably do exist. Women who wish to oppress men probably also exist, although personally I've yet to encounter either. However, because of the way society is structured, they fundamentally are unable to act upon those desires in the way that those who wish to or find it profitable to oppress women are. So they're really and truly not the issue on a large scale. For actual oppression to occur, you need an imbalance of power, and power, right now, is tilted very heavily towards the male side.

1: Because in every internet discussion of privilege I have ever seen, someone makes this argument- no, this does not mean that each individual male will have a more comfortable existence than any given female. It means that, on average, all other conditions being equal, a male will have an easier time in most fields than a woman.

Morithias
2013-10-19, 11:07 PM
1: Because in every internet discussion of privilege I have ever seen, someone makes this argument- no, this does not mean that each individual male will have a more comfortable existence than any given female. It means that, on average, all other conditions being equal, a male will have an easier time in most fields than a woman.

I actually applied at a security firm once for a guard position and they had a question at the end of it. "Do you identify with any of these minorities."

They had native americans, disabled people, and yes women.

So my question is, if it's 'easier' for a male why the hell is this firm apparently giving special consideration to female applicants?

urkthegurk
2013-10-19, 11:18 PM
they are giving special consideration to women BECAUSE men have it easier. In this case, they are more likely to be hired as security guards. So employers are encouraged to hire more women and minorities, both to provide more even opportunities for employment, and to provide insights those normally excluded groups might be able to provide. I'm not saying its a perfect solution, because in a lot of cases it involves a lot of red tape and arbitrary rules, but there is a REASON people started doing those programs.


Look, it's not a double standard, because you aren't applying two different standards for people in the same situation. You're applying two different standards to people in two different situations.


Exactly. Thanks, squid!

TaiLiu
2013-10-19, 11:24 PM
I actually applied at a security firm once for a guard position and they had a question at the end of it. "Do you identify with any of these minorities."

They had native americans, disabled people, and yes women.

So my question is, if it's 'easier' for a male why the hell is this firm apparently giving special consideration to female applicants?
Huh. That seems to be a misnomer, considering that woman take up [approximately] half the world's population.

Lord Raziere
2013-10-20, 12:13 AM
Yeah.

As a potential male-to-female?

I'm staying out of this discussion.

RPG feminism is a reeeeallllyy ice-thin topic. and I haven't been known to calm discussions down.

So consider me, in the positions of feminism as "Null" except in the broadest possible interpretation of support for the concept of feminism itself without going into too much detail that leads to discussion, stances and arguments.

rpg racism crusades are my thing, not rpg feminism crusades :smalltongue:

this is the last post you'll hear of me on this. I'm just saying that while I support feminism itself, my support is going to be a distant and uninvolved one without getting into the thick of things myself. not my cup of tea.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 12:16 AM
Huh. That seems to be a misnomer, considering that woman take up [approximately] half the world's population.

Actually in many western countries they're the majority.

Which actually raises an interesting point. If there are more women then men, and we live in a democracy why AREN'T there more women in power? Do they just not run or something?

I mean if this was truly some kind of "us versus them" type thing, women should be able to basically push through an entire senate of females.

Or maybe the fact is that politics is extremely complex, and it's not that simple.

I don't really know.

TaiLiu
2013-10-20, 12:17 AM
Yeah.

As a potential male-to-female?

I'm staying out of this discussion.

RPG feminism is a reeeeallllyy ice-thin topic. and I haven't been known to calm discussions down.

So consider me, in the positions of feminism as "Null" except in the broadest possible interpretation of support for the concept of feminism itself without going into too much detail that leads to discussion, stances and arguments.

rpg racism crusades are my thing, not rpg feminism crusades :smalltongue:

this is the last post you'll hear of me on this. I'm just saying that while I support feminism itself, my support is going to be a distant and uninvolved one without getting into the thick of things myself. not my cup of tea.
Ah! The bard rather than the warrior, eh? :smalltongue:

Actually in many western countries they're the majority.
Really? Huh.

Which actually raises an interesting point. If there are more women then men, and we live in a democracy why AREN'T there more women in power? Do they just not run or something?

I mean if this was truly some kind of "us versus them" type thing, women should be able to basically push through an entire senate of females.

Or maybe the fact is that politics is extremely complex, and it's not that simple.

I don't really know.
It's probably the latter, but I lack the proper political learning to truly answer this question.

erikun
2013-10-20, 12:21 AM
Actually in many western countries they're the majority.

Which actually raises an interesting point. If there are more women then men, and we live in a democracy why AREN'T there more women in power? Do they just not run or something?

I mean if this was truly some kind of "us versus them" type thing, women should be able to basically push through an entire senate of females.

Or maybe the fact is that politics is extremely complex, and it's not that simple.

I don't really know.
I think this may be part of the reason there aren't more women in other jobs as well.

Plus, a lot of politicians have support of groups to get into their positions, which means fitting into these groups and being what they view as "viable" for the position. Unlike a business, a person cannot start up, say, their own Congress and attempt success on their own. They're mostly forced to use the existing system, as problematic as it is. :smallannoyed:

Morithias
2013-10-20, 12:22 AM
Really? Huh.

It's probably the latter, but I lack the proper political learning to truly answer this question.

Yeah they're the majority, but to be fair a lot of that has to do with the fact that on average women live longer (yet more money go towards their healthcare. When's the last time you saw someone collecting money for prostate cancer?), so a lot of them are seniors and such.

Then again, the statistics could be old or I'm remembering them wrong. But I recall reading something like that. To wikipedia!

TaiLiu
2013-10-20, 12:25 AM
Yeah they're the majority, but to be fair a lot of that has to do with the fact that on average women live longer (yet more money go towards their healthcare. When's the last time you saw someone collecting money for prostate cancer?), so a lot of them are seniors and such.

Then again, the statistics could be old or I'm remembering them wrong. But I recall reading something like that. To wikipedia!
Wikipedia agrees with your answer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio) Hooray!

TheCountAlucard
2013-10-20, 12:53 AM
From what I understand, there's the issue that every man pretty much has prostate cancer hard-wired into his DNA; every male who dies without prostate enlargement ever happening to him just hasn't lived long enough.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 01:48 AM
From what I understand, there's the issue that every man pretty much has prostate cancer hard-wired into his DNA; every male who dies without prostate enlargement ever happening to him just hasn't lived long enough.

That makes no sense from an evolutionary point of view, and I seriously question if that's true. Mind giving me a source?

Gavran
2013-10-20, 01:48 AM
On privilege:

Do the un-privileged have the privilege of not having their successes accounted for by privilege and the ability to blame to shunt responsibility for some of their problems to the system?

I'm not saying that, for example, white men definitely don't have objectively more favorable... well, privileges, but I should point out that if I can't know the experience of a female minority, they also can't know mine. I know that I have strong feelings of injustice when I'm denied the opportunity to work, benefit from certain government functions, apply for scholarships/grants and more because I'm not a female or a minority. Two injustices do not make a right, and I've always felt a lot of the... not hostility, but the feeling that "your fight isn't my fight" comes from the fact that a lot of people fail to recognize/accept that those privileged can also be hurt by these things... or when they think I'm actively benefiting from their oppression and reject my support outright.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 02:09 AM
I just had a thought.

Let's say in theory there existed a society where the gender roles evolved in the opposite direction to our own.

One of their "classic" stories, is the kidnapped prince that the female knight must rescue.

Is this story sexist?

Serpentine
2013-10-20, 02:19 AM
Moving this to the other thread, since it is more relevant there.

Morithias
2013-10-20, 02:23 AM
I'm saying, both of them being sexist....means that sexism is not always constant and can change and evolve like other aspects of society.

Who knows what will be considered sexist in 50 years. We've reached the point where we're evolving on a technological and cultural level faster than a biological one.

tasw
2013-10-20, 02:46 AM
There are TWO threads visible at a glance about sexism in gaming....I have two questions
1: why? WHY?
2:Is this even something worth debating about? I mean seriously...

I have the solution.
I think it's time "androids" became a factual thing instead of a science fiction thing.
Cut off our lower halves, replace it with robotics, problem solves.
Need to reproduce? Human farms. I mean we grow other people, keep the population at a maintainable level, when someone dies, replace them with a pod child.


Seriously though...While I would love to be active in these talks/debates I hate joining large threads (for me that means it's made a second page already...because 1: I am not reading everyone's post, 2: I am not wanting to post redundant information...then again I suppose that's better than posting a link to a google search...lol)

It's a lot easier to deal with on a person by person basis as opposed to a "general population" basis.
Men like gals, that wont change.
Gals like men, that won't change.
The only exception is the exceptions....circular reasoning? yes. fact? extra yes. Gay/bi/lesbians and such are the exception. They do not of course negate, avoid, or exclude in any way sexism, they too can be sexist.

I do have a third question actually... I never looked at the first post of either topic...and have to wander...what is the basis for these discussions?


The basis is simple. To physically unattractive feminists any depiction of a woman thats sexy is sexist. No matter whether that image was drawn by a man or woman.

Essentially any image of a female thats sexy is by definition sexist. Because some jealous trolls say so and choose to ignore or invalidate any woman who cares about those things as not mattering

IronFist
2013-10-20, 02:50 AM
The basis is simple. To physically unattractive feminists any depiction of a woman thats sexy is sexist. No matter whether that image was drawn by a man or woman.

Essentially any image of a female thats sexy is by definition sexist. Because some jealous trolls say so and choose to ignore or invalidate any woman who cares about those things as not mattering

I humbly suggest you should research more about this subject.

Jaycemonde
2013-10-20, 03:10 AM
I humbly suggest you should research more about this subject.

I concur. Just trying to read this thread made me lose a few brain cells.

AuraTwilight
2013-10-20, 04:07 AM
The basis is simple. To physically unattractive feminists any depiction of a woman thats sexy is sexist. No matter whether that image was drawn by a man or woman.

Essentially any image of a female thats sexy is by definition sexist. Because some jealous trolls say so and choose to ignore or invalidate any woman who cares about those things as not mattering

What about hot chicks who hate being treated like objects because of their beauty?

BTW, there are guy feminists too.

Themrys
2013-10-20, 04:23 AM
What about hot chicks who hate being treated like objects because of their beauty?

BTW, there are guy feminists too.

You could start with not calling women "chicks", although it is a good example of why it can be a disadvantage to be beautiful.

I'd rather be called an unattractive feminist. While beautiful, I am certainly unattractive to the likes of tasw. :smallbiggrin:
(I have that user on my ignorelist, but I guess it was him you quoted, as he has been one of the more hateful misogynists here.)

And yes, I'm aware that "chicks" is often used in that context, but as non-native speaker of English, I am also very aware what "chick" also means, possibly moreso than native speakers who are used to it being used in the context you used it in.

AMFV
2013-10-20, 04:30 AM
You could start with not calling women "chicks", although it is a good example of why it can be a disadvantage to be beautiful.

I'd rather be called an unattractive feminist. While beautiful, I am certainly unattractive to the likes of tasw. :smallbiggrin:
(I have that user on my ignorelist, but I guess it was him you quoted, as he has been one of the more hateful misogynists here.)

And yes, I'm aware that "chicks" is often used in that context, but as non-native speaker of English, I am also very aware what "chick" also means, possibly moreso than native speakers who are used to it being used in the context you used it in.

Actually chick is kind of a standard thing to call somebody. I think that the main difference I've noticed between men and women linguistically, and this is not researched, but rather from my personal observation so it could be completely wrong. But men tend to like to like classify groups, they call each others "dudes", "bros", "eses", "hombres," dawgs", and a variety of other terms, it's not really offensive for guys, it's just how men normally talk, but women tend to not talk this way and become offended when men try to refer to them in such a manner. I think it's more of a difference in linguistics between genders than anything particularly offensive in and of itself.

Themrys
2013-10-20, 04:37 AM
Actually chick is kind of a standard thing to call somebody. I think that the main difference I've noticed between men and women linguistically, and this is not researched, but rather from my personal observation so it could be completely wrong. But men tend to like to like classify groups, they call each others "dudes", "bros", "eses", "hombres," dawgs", and a variety of other terms, it's not really offensive for guys, it's just how men normally talk, but women tend to not talk this way and become offended when men try to refer to them in such a manner. I think it's more of a difference in linguistics between genders than anything particularly offensive in and of itself.

You can leave it in my capable hands to decide what is offensive to me and what is not.

Also, if you are just talking about women in general, why not just say "women"?

I do know that "chick" is considered "standard", but I question the implications this has.
Why is it considered normal to call women "chicks" and not, say, "owls", or, to get away from birds "lionesses"?

AMFV
2013-10-20, 04:41 AM
You can leave it in my capable hands to decide what is offensive to me and what is not.

Also, if you are just talking about women in general, why not just say "women"?

I do know that "chick" is considered "standard", but I question the implications this has.
Why is it considered normal to call women "chicks" and not, say, "owls", or, to get away from birds "lionesses"?

When I'm talking about men, I say "dudes", or "guys" not "men", it's an informal thing and when I call somebody a dude, it's letting him know that he's part of my group, if I'm angry at somebody and I call them "Dude," then I'm trying to assert authority over them as part of my group. I've worked with men and women in command structures, and men tend to be very hierarchical, while women to not have as rigid a social structure. Although this again is my own experience from having both female and male sergeants which is I think a pretty good sampling.

I don't the evolution of the term "chick", "lionesses" would be too long to use without stammering, we could probably come up with some happy medium, although many other big cats have already become pejoratives in their own right, "cougars" or "panthers" can't be used. "Dudettes" works although it's kind of unwieldy.

Black Jester
2013-10-20, 05:10 AM
The basis is simple. To physically unattractive feminists any depiction of a woman thats sexy is sexist. No matter whether that image was drawn by a man or woman.


Yeah sure the only reason why women (or men) argue against the objectification of their bodies is because they are ugly and secretly jealous. if you wanted to prove that you have a strong opinion about a subject matter you don't completely understand, congratulation, you just succeeded.

Themrys
2013-10-20, 05:26 AM
When I'm talking about men, I say "dudes", or "guys" not "men", it's an informal thing and when I call somebody a dude, it's letting him know that he's part of my group, if I'm angry at somebody and I call them "Dude," then I'm trying to assert authority over them as part of my group.

See? Completely different word usage from "chick". At least from what I know from German, the equivalent of "hot chick" is used to let women know they are NOT part of men's groups, but objects to be desired by men.

Besides, if you're hierarchical, and talk to people who are not, the polite thing is to not try to assert your authority.

Descriptions for women have become pejoratives. Yes. This, however, is no coincidence. Think about it - for which groups are new, politically more correct words invented, and why is this necessary? You'll recognize a pattern there.

AMFV
2013-10-20, 05:38 AM
See? Completely different word usage from "chick". At least from what I know from German, the equivalent of "hot chick" is used to let women know they are NOT part of men's groups, but objects to be desired by men.

Besides, if you're hierarchical, and talk to people who are not, the polite thing is to not try to assert your authority.

Descriptions for women have become pejoratives. Yes. This, however, is no coincidence. Think about it - for which groups are new, politically more correct words invented, and why is this necessary? You'll recognize a pattern there.

I don't think it is necessary usually, but in my experience different people are offended by different things. I generally try to avoid offending people. I don't think the usages are completely different, I think it's just a different way of speaking, as I said a linguistical hurdle.

It's hard not to assert a hierarchy if it's what you're familiar with, I try not to, just like I try not to yell at folks now that I'm a civilian. Sometimes you slip up though, it's just human nature.

Amphetryon
2013-10-20, 07:04 AM
The confirmation bias in this thread is really interesting.

Frozen_Feet
2013-10-20, 07:09 AM
"You can leave it in my capable hands to decide what is offensive to me and what is not. "

I find your attitude offending. :smalltongue:

Eldan
2013-10-20, 07:59 AM
See? Completely different word usage from "chick". At least from what I know from German, the equivalent of "hot chick" is used to let women know they are NOT part of men's groups, but objects to be desired by men.

Besides, if you're hierarchical, and talk to people who are not, the polite thing is to not try to assert your authority.

Descriptions for women have become pejoratives. Yes. This, however, is no coincidence. Think about it - for which groups are new, politically more correct words invented, and why is this necessary? You'll recognize a pattern there.

So suggest another word for "Female Friend", then. With the qualificiation that like Dude, it should have one syllable and roll of the tongue easily. Because apparently, I can't call women "dude" either.

Roland St. Jude
2013-10-20, 08:02 AM
Sheriff: Try to keep to one thread per topic. Thread locked.