GameSpot's Carolyn Petit talks to Feminist Frequency's Anita Sarkeesian about feminism, games, her visit to Bungie, and her latest Kickstarter project.
During the last week of May, I had the opportunity to interview pop culture critic Anita Sarkeesian of Feminist Frequency about feminism, games, and her upcoming video series, Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. In the time since, the project has become the target of an organized harassment effort. Of this, Anita says, "While I always expect some level of harassment when discussing gender issues online, this time it's a more extreme and sustained torrent of sexism, hate, and threats. All the horrible backlash has just made me even more determined and committed to creating this video series. I'm also happy that all the backers and supporters of the project have been and continue to be a source of encouragement and inspiration." You can read more about the harassment here on the project's Kickstarter page.
My feeling is that these kinds of reactions only underscore the need for serious considerations of feminism in games; if the idea of a project like this generates this kind of misogynistic outrage, clearly there are serious problems with women's portrayals in games and their place in gaming culture that need to be addressed. And the harassment campaign smacks of desperation to me, which gives me an odd kind of hope. If this small, vocal contingent is working so hard to derail the project, maybe they're scared, and if they're scared by these ideas, then maybe we are getting closer to a gaming culture that is welcoming to everyone.
Below is the interview, which took place before the harassment campaign began.
Let's start with some fundamental stuff. In your work at Feminist Frequency, do you ever run up against difficulties in getting people to be receptive to your messages because they have misconceptions about feminism? If you had to explain feminism in the simplest terms, how would you define it?
One popular quote that sums up how I feel about this is "Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings." Of course feminism has a long, diverse, and complex history with many interpretations and applications, but at the very core it's really about working towards the equal treatment of women socially, culturally, institutionally, and economically.
Feminists want an end to gender-based oppression, and although we have made great strides in some areas, there is still a long way to go in others. There are, unfortunately, a great many misconceptions about the term "feminism" floating around out there in the cultural ether. Much of the confusion can be traced back to a media/political backlash against women's rights and women's equality in general. The Straw Feminist trope, for example, is one popular rhetorical device created to propagate an exaggerated caricature of a feminist. Talk-show hosts and Hollywood writers deliberately use this trope to undermine and ridicule feminist movements by falsely painting us as crazy man-hating extremists. I interact with hundreds, if not thousands, of people who call themselves feminists--or feminist allies--and exactly none of them desire a society in which the scales of power are simply reversed, where women rise to dominate or rule over men. In reality, feminists want an end to gender-based oppression, and although we have made great strides in some areas, there is still a long way to go in others. Ultimately, we are fighting to be full and complete members of human society.
You're a pop culture critic who looks at all sorts of mass media--movies, television, games, and so on. When people respond to your videos with questions like, "Why does this stuff matter? Aren't TV, movies, and games just entertainment?" how do you respond?
Ah yes, the classic "but it's just entertainment" line is one of the most common defensive reactions to my Web show. My short answer is to quote the poet Muriel Rukeyser, who wrote, "The Universe is made of stories, not of atoms." I love that line because it offers a succinct way of saying that culture matters, that stories matter. Narratives have always been a core way human beings learn about, make sense of, and understand the world we live in. Stories have embedded myths and messages and can be carriers of positive, heroic, or subversive values, but they can also propagate or reinforce negative stereotypes and oppressive social norms. Historically, the telling of stories has been an important and revered part of any society, and that is no different today. Popular media culture--for better or worse--is currently where the learning is happening, and that means that movies, TV, music, books, and video games are helping to shape our collective cultural universe.
I think part of the misunderstanding comes from a misperception about how culture works. It's not a direct cause-and-effect situation where everybody just mindlessly copies the behaviors they see in the media. That said, media stories do have a profound effect on us, especially when messages, myths, and images are repeated over and over again. This is the reason why I choose to step back and look at the overarching patterns of how women are represented in video games over time. Because it's this collective repetition that can seep into our minds and shape, perpetuate, and amplify harmful or regressive perceptions of women.
To put it another way, popular culture is like the air we all breathe. It's in everyone's interests to make sure that air is not polluted with poisonous sexism so that we don't all end up with hideous misogynist mutations growing out of the back of our collective heads.
Like you, I grew up being exposed to video games. When I was young, I was excited to discover that Metroid's Samus Aran was a woman. But as the years passed, I realized that in many ways, Samus is handled problematically. The quicker you complete the game, the more of her suit she takes off at the end; her femaleness is presented as a reward, something for players to ogle. That was in 1986. I sometimes think that things haven't changed that much since then. Princess Peach still gets kidnapped all the time, and meanwhile, a character like Lara Croft appeals to me and to some other women I know because she's independent and very capable, but at the same time, there's no denying that she has often been presented as a sex object. Do you think characters like Lara do more harm than good? Can these issues even be discussed in such simple terms, or do we need to look at them more holistically?
Movies, TV, music, books, and video games are helping to shape our collective cultural universe.I will be talking extensively about the Metroid franchise in my upcoming video series and specifically addressing the use of Samus Aran's body as a reward for players as a prime example of the "Women as Reward" trope. Similarly, as part of my video about the "Fighting F@#k Toy" trope, I will be detailing the problematic ways in which even female protagonists like Lara Croft are still objectified and sexualized for a presumed straight-male audience. Obviously, I'm in favor of more female protagonists across the board, but it has to be linked with an intentional shift away from the idea that women in games exist primarily as objects of sexual desire. Sometimes it definitely feels like a "one step forward, two steps back" type of scenario. On that note, though, it looks like Lara Croft is finally wearing pants in the upcoming Tomb Raider reboot. So perhaps we will see less objectification, but judging from the E3 trailer, there are potentially a host of other problematic gendered tropes at play.
There is also a marked increase of what I would called "ironic sexism," whereby game developers will rely on extreme or hypersexualized female characters in very over-the-top or obviously sexist ways. This type of ironic self-aware objectification is in some ways more damaging than the non-ironic forms of yesteryear. Because, as you point out, it's always more helpful to discuss these issues in a more holistic and sustained way, I'll definitely be giving this question a lot of attention in the video series.
Do you think the video game landscape has changed significantly in the way it handles female characters since Metroid and Super Mario Bros. all those years ago, and if so, how?
Female characters have definitely evolved since the days of the original Metroid, Super Mario Bros., and Zelda games. We now see a slightly larger number of female characters and more protagonists, but things have actually gotten worse in many ways, aside from the handful of fantastic and notable exceptions. In the 1990s we saw the rise of the "Fighting F@#k Toy," the ubersexualized yet violent female character--and today this trope has basically become the default representation for women in much of the gaming industry. On top of that, we've also seen a resurgence of the "Damsel in Distress" in recent years as developers rush to remake or reboot many of the classic 1980s games. This trend has also brought with it an upsurge in original retro-style games that pay homage to the classic gaming era but often borrow or reproduce the old sexist themes, plot devices, and humor. This kind of appeal to nostalgia can obviously be a lot of fun, but sadly it's often unnecessarily done at the expense of female representations.
You've dealt with women in games before. One example of your earlier work on this front is your very entertaining Too Many Dicks video, which juxtaposes a Flight of the Conchords song with images that demonstrate just how male dominated game narratives are, and pointedly shows Faith from Mirror's Edge and Chell from the Portal games at key moments to illustrate that this problem could easily be addressed by game developers. What do you think sets these characters apart?
I included those sequences from Mirror's Edge and Portal for a few reasons. On one level they are there because I love those games. On another level, both characters are women of color, and both serve as the protagonists of their own games without being overly sexualized or objectified, which may be partially due to the first-person perspective, but still it's something to celebrate. It's also worth noting that in addition to the female protagonists, both games worked to creatively expand the first-person/shooter genre--a genre overflowing with lackluster clones. Both employed interesting underdog plots, innovative gameplay mechanics, and emphasized less violent creative problem solving instead of brute force. I will definitely be highlighting both of these games plus several more in my special bonus video that showcases some positive female characters.
Bungie invited you to their offices to speak to them about creating female characters in games, which seems encouraging to me. Can you talk a bit about what your visit to Bungie was like, and what you think are some of the principles developers who are hoping to create great female characters should keep in mind?
I was a little surprised but honored by the invitation to speak at Bungie. As a media critic, who focuses primarily on gender issues, I don't often get the opportunity to talk directly with developers inside the industry. It was especially exciting that a prominent game maker was interested in hearing what I had to say about building strong female characters that avoid the typical stereotypes and cliches. The group that attended my lecture at Bungie was receptive and engaged. Plus, we had a great conversation afterwards that also included a discussion on the importance of developing more in-depth, complex, and diverse male characters as well.
The creation of great and complex female characters in video games is an involved process, but ultimately developers are going to have to take some risks and step outside of the expected or established conventions.
The creation of great and complex female characters in video games is an involved process, but ultimately developers are going to have to take some risks and step outside of the expected or established conventions. Very briefly, some very basic things I look for in female characters are: protagonists with agency not tied directly to their sex appeal; transformative story arcs where characters are struggling with or overcoming personal flaws; and some emotional depth and expression.
With regard to the problematic ways in which women are so often portrayed in games, do you think the fact that game development is a male-dominated field is a factor? Is this something that needs to be addressed in seeking to address the issue of how women are portrayed in games?
Yes and yes. The fact that the gaming industry has historically been and is still so male dominated does play a big role in the types of games, narratives, and characters produced. Including more women on development teams is critical for change, though it's important to keep in mind that the problem is not necessarily solved by simply having a few token women on staff, or even by just putting one woman in charge of a particular project. So in addition to hiring and including more women in creative and decision-making roles, game companies need to intentionally change their male-dominated spaces and internal cultures to actually shift away from the old boys' club mentality and atmosphere--a few companies are already taking some encouraging steps in this direction. Change is coming to gaming, and like all structural or institutional transformation, the process can be slow or painful for some in the old guard, but in the end it's imperative that the shift happens--and I think it will ultimately move the industry to a better, more-equitable place producing better games with better and more-dynamic female characters.
Your latest video project is called Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. It was funded through Kickstarter and very quickly passed its initial funding goal of $6,000, and then a number of stretch goals you added for the production of additional videos were quickly achieved as well. The series is now slated to contain 11 videos in all--10 that examine problematic stereotypes that female characters in games too often fall into (the damsel in distress, the sexy sidekick, and many others), and a bonus video that looks at examples of that rare creation: the positive female character.
What will the videos be like in terms of length and analysis? Will you be looking mostly at contemporary games, or will the series look at games from throughout the medium's short history?
Every video in the series will be between 10 and 20 minutes long and provide a detailed overview of each trope while highlighting why that particular convention is a problematic representation of female characters. These videos will trace the history of each trope beginning in the early '80s and follow its evolution into more recent releases, including the resurgence of retro-style games. Some of these tropes have been used so frequently over the past few decades that it's next to impossible for me to include each and every instance, so I plan to focus in on the most important trend-setting incarnations.
What's your goal with the series--what do you hope people who watch the videos come away with?
I have a few goals in mind with this video series. On one level, I want to promote media literacy and give people some tools to look critically at the games we play. My hope is to clearly present the issues surrounding women's representations as a systemic problem by identifying reoccuring patterns. Sexist representations are not limited to just a handful of games or selected marketing strategies but are part of a larger institutional problem across all entertainment industries. That said, it's also really important to me that my viewers understand that engaging with media is not always an all-or-nothing situation. We can play and enjoy many games while simultaneously being critical of some of their harmful aspects. We can recognize and point out the more problematic representations without necessarily throwing the whole game out, though god knows there have been a handful of occasions when I've been tempted to use a particularly sexist game as a mini Frisbee out my window.
I want complex female characters because it will make games and gaming better overall, more diverse, and more innovative. Making gaming better is not just good for women and girls; it's good for people of all genders.
On another level, I would like this series to serve as a piece of the larger ongoing conversation already happening elsewhere about women in games. Some of the best comments I've received on my videos have been from young women happy to know that they aren't alone in their misgivings about sexist characters, that these issues are real, and that many of us want to see change in the industry. It's important that we speak out collectively and say, "It's not OK to constantly portray women as sexualized objects for male desire. We want genuine female characters!" I want complex female characters because it will make games and gaming better overall, more diverse, and more innovative. Making gaming better is not just good for women and girls; it's good for people of all genders.
When should we expect the videos to start debuting? If people want more info about this project or about Feminist Frequency in general, where should they go?
For more information about my Tropes vs. Women in Video Games series, check out my website at www.FeministFrequency.com, and for more frequent updates, you can follow Feminist Frequency on Twitter or Tumblr. Backers of the Kickstarter campaign will also see more detailed updates on my process and production as it happens on the fundraising page.
The Kickstarter fundraiser will end in mid June, but the research process began a couple months ago, and that phase is ongoing. We hope to have the first video out in the late summer or early fall, and the rest of the episodes will follow at regular intervals.
Carolyn Petit has been reading GameSpot since 2000 and writing for it since 2008. She has a particular fondness for games of the 1980s, and intends to leave the field of games journalism as soon as she hears that her local Ghostbusters franchise is hiring.
I watched her videos on bayonetta and another one about 'All I want for christmas is you'. Essentially she spends several minutes nitpicking and claiming things to be sexist. In what amounts to the ultimate in first world problems.
It's absolutely unfathomable people gave her so much money to take a biased one-sided dump on the history of videogames. God forbid that men have the desire to rescue and protect < they call that "benevolent sexism" these days, what a load of BS. I mean the fact that you rescue Zelda isn't a reflection on her competency. Its not sexism that boys dream of being heroes. I also expect a healthy amount of shaming of men for their attraction to a womans physical form.
even the oldest books are about a princess saved by her prince. it not really a good stori if its the other way around. thats what ppl use in games as well. the only think they can work on is make women more realistic in the way they look and act. in games where you play as a woman you should act as one as well. thats all.
I'm a man who has been playing since Pong was new and I think it's about time that video games grew up with their portrayl of women as weak, slow or just sexual eye candy. Seriously with all the problems this world faces, do we have to create ones like this? If we portrayed people of color in this same way the public outcry would be huge,
and rightly so, the movies and tv have started to change, why not video games.
I don't think objectification of women in video games is a huge problem, but I'm interested in seeing a game that Sarkeesian would consider acceptable.
I also think that these days people have resources available to them that allow them to avoid being oppressed, regardless of sex, race, etc. There is much more to my identity as a white male and I have had struggles regardless of that.
love comments that try to justify the male society by commenting on how males get sterotyped etc to, obviously its not
that bad that their getting demeaned though, obviously women bring it up for a reason, when i play a game im so excited for an then some girl with her ehem, hanging out and so on i never play it again, because its prob only gonna get worse and its very sad, you dont hear women saying to guys "get back in the kitchen" or "make me a sandwitch" and i hear this stuff all the time, and i blame the way women are potrayed, and the amount of women in the industry, as it is growing to be more females there is still a ways to go, only way to have equallity is to resemble it.
you barely see a mans bare chest in games let alone a naked male in a game unless he is some kind of super hero or so on. women make up a huge amount of gamers these days and more and more are being more open about it, as they should be, women are less likely to buy games that protray women in a bad way, thus losing their female player base and in conclusion, sales, because as a female gamer, I will never buy a game that shows a sleezy art cover or a bad story plot that would all come down to, me playing and feeling discusted and demeaned, so when a male plays this, it doesnt neccisarily mean he thinks of the females that way but it sure brings on this behaviour and potrays that, that is how they should be, it makes me sick.
im just trying to say that even tho we see changes here and there, just like men in games, women should be rightously protrayed as well.
no men or women should be potrayed negatively in games, im a feminist, i fight for equallity and i have played games all my life, i wish the best for both genders because we are all the same , men arent human while women are some kinda aliens, this is humanity and we are all apart of it. When men defend me, I defend men.
@shaunnieg wouldn't you think the whole guy-super-hero also puts a strain on men? when you study it closely enough, you find ALL types of media include a stereotype, be it the clumsy, fat, short, comic person or the princess in distress. the fact is, be it in video games or in any type of media that displays a "story", we can find that sterotypes are used as broad examples so that normal people can relate to the characters, be it in the way of "I wish I could do that" or "HAHA I know someone like that"
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Unless I misunderstood you, your appear to be saying that statistics and laws are not real but there to protect the lies and feelings of women. In which case I doubt you have much interest in the links I'm going to post - but just to show you where I'm coming from!
i777i said my reference to evidence was too vague, which I thought was strange because I sent him a direct link, here is the link again:
If you click on it you get the uk government inequality report from 2011 - the information is summarised so you can view headline figures for 'wages' and 'violence'. You mentioned Domestic Violence statistics; headlines from the DVstats are here:
I would defend these sorts of national survey statistics as evidence of inequality. There are different kinds of inequality however, as well as injustices. Incidently, the fact that there are women who earn a lot is not actually contradictory to the wage gap between men and women. So there are many types of injustice and without doubt there are injustices that are faced by men and I think these are important too.
@theteaface Understandably so. Anyway, the reply I mentioned and which you may not have considered can be found further below. I'm out of time right now, but I may copy and paste it later, depending on what you decide to do. Have a good day, tea.
@theteaface The problem with the DV stats given in that link is of course the obvious, IT DOES NOT BOTHER TO MENTION THE MALE VICTIMS! If you wish to look upon the gendered nature (or lack there of as the case may be (actually is)) you can't only claim "so many women were hurt, and that's that", you also need to check how many men were hurt as well! It is of course, nasty massaging of numbers again, and rather outright fraud. By omitting the figures for male victims it gives the impression that there aren't any, especially in a world filled with the myth of the angry, drunk, violent male as the only perpetrator and the put-upon female as the only victim.
Further, it does not mention who, or rather which gender, was victimizing said female. There are lesbian couples, you know, and they too have DV in their ranks. But again, by omitting the gender of the victimizer the illusion is generated that it's only men doing the victimizing.
The numbers of children mentioned (and the lack in gender of their abusers) is done in the same way. Also notice how they conveniently mention it comes from a "women's health" organization, further strengthening the illusion that only female children get victimized, and it's only men doing the victimizing.
Do not think that government institutions are without agenda; they too need funding, and women victims, especially by men, pulls on the innate instincts to protect women; it is easier to continue justifying whatever budget they have or are asking the public to cough up via taxes.
Now, you can trust government studies, especially those merely sponsored by them, but still, you have to remain sharp.
As for the wage gap report, have you not read that paper? If so, read it again, this time more clearly, because you know what that paper says: EXACTLY WHAT I SAID! Men's unemployment is rising, while women's isn't. Women outperform them in school and higher education degrees, men work in lower paying jobs, like factory work, women work in high paying jobs, like office work. Men work longer, and put in more over time, while women comprise the large majority of part-time jobs. There are double the number of homeless men than there are women, and the rise of such was also double for men than for women.
The result is exactly what I said.
Hell, it even shows the higher violence rate on men versus women, yet more women claiming problems with fearing violence, even agreeing with me one my statement that just because women claim they fear violence, it doesn't mean it reflects reality.
Given also the higher rate of suicide deaths, and dying earlier than women while women getting more money from benefits versus men actually working for their money; that report basically says: men are fucked, women have it easy.
Finally my response - Thanks for your patience, i777i
"What makes you think that?"
You asked if the surveys were 'methodologically flawless', which, of course, is impossible. I thought you were saying that you would not accept them as evidence. But clearly you are open to discussing them so that?s great.
"As for academic circles, are you referring to women studies/gender studies"
I mean in the social sciences generally.
"Men?like to look at images of sexy women?.What is permissible about that?"
"Why would men as a group and as individuals have to create content that (a number of women) dictate?"
I personally agree that we should have better female characters in computer games, not just sex and love interests. I think we should have better male characters too. I do not support or understand some strands of feminism (there are many and few feminists ever agree!). However, I do agree with the more epistemological feminist point: that some gendered sterotypes are unhealthy, even damaging. Of course there should be, and always will be, sexy male and female characters in films, popular music and games. But we also need some more realistic and positive role models. In all cultural formats (it just so happens that games are perhaps a little behind in this respect). I don?t think that there are (or will be) a minority of women dictating what the gaming industry produces. A agree though that there should be a womens voice in these matters.
?Do you know whether the studies/evaluations you have rather vaguely pointed to do control for the factors which I have listed??
I can?t remember the post before this I?m afraid, so huge apologies if this is a misrepresentation. Did you say the factors were that women might choose to stay home so they can have a better standard of living? If not; very sorry! If so, then: to control for whether women have a better standard of life? Well you would look at WEMWBS and mental health indicators ? this I can do if you like. I think many women might say that expectations around familial care mean they do not have the same career prospects as men.
?As a bonus, do you think sex is not about lust but about power (that claim to social learning theory, might be familiar to you?)?
I know a bit about theoris of sex and power, not related to social learning though however. I do not think that sex is necessarily about power.
@l777l Of course it is less organized, and less planned, we're in the beginning stages. We are where feminism was 200 years ago.
And less ideologically structurted, that's a GOOD thing. An ideology is a religion without the gods. It's mythology without a single shred of evidence to support it. An ideology does not accept evidence, an ideology rewrites evidence, it accepts it's own version as gospel Truth and ignores or forces every piece of evidence that does not fit their Truth to fit it.
It's the very reason why feminism cannot stop, and must always continue forward. In feminism, the truth is that women are oppressed, by men, and no matter how much this clashes with past reality, current reality, and future reality after they've gotten the evil patriarchy that supposedly oppressing them to enact draconian after draconian law to help and protect women out of their oppressed situation, to the point of rendering a man guilty until proven innocent, women will continue to be oppressed and they need even greater draconian laws. After all, if women are not oppressed now, let alone ever oppressed, what's feminism and all its funding for?
@theteaface Below is a copy of that - one - post of mine. Anyway, I think we should take a break. Currently, we don't appear to be getting anywhere. I may revisit this, but I'm not making a promise to.
"Well, I may be wrong but, it doesn?t sound like you are really open to evidence that inequality exists. I seems you have kind of dug your heels in and will refuse to be persuaded otherwise."
What makes you think that?
"I actually work as a researcher in this area and I have to say that the idea that there are persistent inequalities in Britain really isn?t that controversial in policy and academic circles."
I don't doubt that differences exist. Determining the meaning and extent of them, however, is essential. As for academic circles, are you referring to "women's studies"/"gender studies"?
"You came back with very excellent point that: well, the games industry IS predominately male!"
That was not my point. And that's not even a point, while it is a fact.
"But I think there is something more important. I think that this ?solidarity of men? you imagine; this ?men making games for men? does not exist as you think it does."
What solidarity of men do you claim I imagine? I've said elsewhere that I appreciate characters with depth. And to further put things in perspective, I prefer female Shepard over male Shepard and I prefer female Hawke over male Hawke. I like Dragon Age's Sten for his philosophical tones and nature. I value intricacy, intelligence and complexity. But that's not the issue here. I don't mind asking for more of that. I question the grounds on which it is done: alleged sexism, misogyny and an unsubstantiated sense of entitlement. You appear to underestimate me and the matter at hand. Related to that, you still haven't answered these questions:
"Men (I'm never talking in absolutes but about a significant number, unless stated otherwise) like to look at images of sexy women. They create such images, in the form of fiction. What is impermissible about that? Why would men as a group and as individuals have to create content that (a number of) women dictate?"
By the way, as a sociologist active in this area, again: do you know whether the studies/evaluations you have rather vaguely pointed to do control for the factors which I have listed? (As a bonus, do you think sex is not about lust but about power (that claim, related to social learning theory, might be familiar to you)?)
@i777i Again you are making guess a wee bit (you've not been too explicit!) From what I remember: No, I don't think that sex is about power; the academic circles I was think of are the social sciences, and; no, I don't think that there is anything permissable about men making games for men.
@theteaface Uh-huh. You could start by answering all of the explicitly formulated questions you (persistently) left unanswered. (Not that "responding to" and "answering" are not synonymous.) As a side note, it may be more effective - meaning any degree of effective - to do this in a conversation of our own, possibly via "private messages".
@theteaface "Last week you said that feminists don't listen to alternative view points (I think)."
As in "no feminist listens to..."? I didn't.
" I asked you what your view is. You asked the question what is wrong with men making games for men. Myself and others responded that there are female gamers too. Furthermore, I pointed out that there were lots of male gamers who, like me, think the representation of women a valid issue. I was suggesting that you should presume to speak for all men."
You're leaving out a great many details. I'm not going to do the work of collecting and providing them. Do that yourself. The posts should still be there.
As for what your seriously flawed attempt at a summary contains, note that mentioning the fact that there are female gamers doesn't in the least answer the isolated question you included. You asked me to presume to speak for all men?
"You said that you are a sociologist in the field (...)"
I didn't say that.
and asked why I thought that sex was about lust and not power."
I asked "if" you thought that.
"These seemed spurious to me so I politely ducked out of conversation."
"I think you should avoid putting big words in your sentences (especially if you're not overly familar with them) and just state clearly: what is your point?"
In light of all your mistakes, tea, I think you should rather think about not constructing your own little phantasy world of things that "occured". Nonetheless, I should contemplate avoiding putting "big words" in my sentences; they appear to greatly stimulate your phantasy and perhaps induce much of your confabulation.
"Sorry if this seems mean."
It isn't, tea. Unfortunately, it is tedious, however.
@theteaface "You say that this is "their" choice to look after "their" children. But children belong to fathers too." So? Are you suggesting that men should overrule women's choices in order to benefit women?
By the way, it's entertaining that you have apparently gone from complete disregard of corrections to the wage gap dogma to pretty much accepting them as true and merely mentioning one countering point, and a secondary one, at that.
In this very context and under these assumptions, it should be noted that wages are actually being paid at least equally. Same pay for same work. It just so happens that no one seems to get paid for in-family child care, neither father nor mother. I am not saying that this is how things should be; I find child care valuable, especially when it comes from the child's mother. As such it should be rewarded adequately. But this, including the questions as to what is adequate reward, and certain feminist views that are likely to object to anything that makes women more likely to "stay at home" and nurture children marks a somewhat different complex of issues.
"Women are the majority of unpaid carers, which is why they can't work full time or for longer hours."
What "unpaid careers"? Oh and how much should they be paid for child care? By whom should they be paid? How much of that pay should be deducted for rent, food etc. (which their partner's income is being used to pay for)?
I have been having difficulty understanding your opinion. I find your writing a little bit confused to be honest with you. I think you're making me work quite hard actually figuring out what the hell you point is!
Last week you said that feminists don't listen to alternative view points (I think). I asked you what your view is. You asked the question what is wrong with men making games for men. Myself and others responded that there are female gamers too. Furthermore, I pointed out that there were lots of male gamers who, like me, think the representation of women a valid issue. I was suggesting that you should presume to speak for all men. Your response was that I underestimate you, that you like playing the female shepard in ME3 as well as intelligent games. You said that you are a sociologist in the field and asked why I thought that sex was about lust and not power. These seemed spurious to me so I politely ducked out of conversation.
This last post again leaves me a bit confused by what you are actually talking about. I think you should avoid putting big words in your sentences (especially if you're not overly familar with them) and just state clearly: what is your point? What was you issue with the article.
@theteaface 'I keep trying to think of a nice way to finish this discussion. 3DMaster and i777i strongly believe that society is weighed in favour or women. I disagree and we'll probably not convince oneanother! However, another difference is that both of you seem to discuss this in terms of men versus women - "them and us".'
Seriously, tea, it's about time for you to correctly represent my opinion. I do not strongly believe that society is weighed in favour of women, insofar as you construct that as a broad and absolute statement. What I have done is criticize specific examples that were provided by others in order to illustrate how society is weighed in favour of men, or more precisely: adverse to women. Furthermore, if you discuss differences between (how) men and women (fare) in a common society, it is a process of comparison and thus of inherently antagonistic nature. Even more extreme, there's an interplay between how men and women fare and an obvious conflict (of interests). Feminism itself is based on the idea of patriarchy oppressing females, which includes the allegation that men "objectify" women. By the way, in what terms do you think you are discussing "this"?
I strongly believe in pointing out (potential) flaws and mantras and alleged arguments. I have not commented on who may be off worse, overall.
@theteaface Thank feminism. They're the ones who started this gender war, it's just now that men have started to fight back. Although strictly speaking it isn't between men and women, there are women on anti-feminist side as well, and men on the feminist side. But for the most part, men versus women is what it comes down to. It's sad state in our society. Forty years of anti-men regulations, and forty years men nodded and give a thumbs up, now they no longer have a choice. Just look at India, Sweden, to slightly lesser extent the US, and soon to become worse than those three, Australia.
@theteaface How do fathers get to choose to stay at home or not? They don't; even if society doesn't put pressure on them to be the breadwinner, it's their women who do. In a society where a woman's womb is article to be traded for, where women's hypergamy is not only not discouraged, but applauded and encouraged, where a woman has no consequences for ending a marriage with the father of her children to trade him up for a wealthier model, but in fact gets nothing but benefits, as in alimony and child support (aka benefits) usually much more than actually necessary to support said child, let alone half that support, what choice does a man have if he doesn't want to be taken to the cleaners but to obey a woman's wishes? To tickle her hypergamous nature by earning ever more money so she doesn't throw him aside?
In fact, strangely enough, whenever a father manages to achieve custody of the child, he manages to retain his job and do both! He has to, it's the only way to feed his children. The chance of a man getting state funding to raise his kids are slim to non.
So yes, women have all the choice to be and do whatever they wish, while a man is bound by her wishes, that is if he wants to keep her and stay in his children's lives.
I keep trying to think of a nice way to finish this discussion. 3DMaster and i777i strongly believe that society is weighed in favour or women. I disagree and we'll probably not convince oneanother! However, another difference is that both of you seem to discuss this in terms of men versus women - "them and us". I really don't see it like that. Like I said - their are many inequalities and injustices worth discussion.
In terms of the report on equality agreeing with everything you say - I will just say that I don't share your reading of the report. An point to make here is that of childcare. Women are the majority of unpaid carers, which is why they can't work full time or for longer hours. You say that this is "their" choice to look after "their" children. But children belong to fathers too.
@l777l@theteaface However, the mentioning of the education wasn't actually about the education, it was about the fallacy of the "wage gap". Women have higher education, and generally work in higher paying jobs. Women, thus, have HIGHER WAGES. The wage gap is in favor of women.
Yet, men still earn more in longer intervals of time. And even here the study shows; this is because men work longer, harder, put in more over time, and except more jobs that gives them hazzard pay extra.
The "80c to the dollar/pound/whatever currency" women vs. men "wage gap" is not a wage gap at all, it's an "earning gap". Presenting this as a wage gap is outright fraud. This earning gap is created, not by discrimination, but by the choices women and to a lesser degree men make when it comes to their jobs and working habits. (And I say to a lesser degree, because most men's choices here come in response to their women's choices, their instinctive and society-instilled need to provide for them and their children, and thus working extra to cover the gap.)
@l777l@theteaface I don't need to imagine, I know exactly what happened when men were outperforming women in such fashion in the past: they changed the system to benefit women, when the women reached equality, they continued to change the system to benefit women and outright become hostile to boys and young men, while heaping even more help on women.
But now that men in the same boat: derision and laughter, neener, neener dances, at how much better women are than men.
150,000 dollars for some YouTube videos that other people are making without it? In fact, they are making money through the videos themselves via YouTube's adds. In fact, she already made such a series of videos without a 150,000 dollars. So then what's the 150,000 dollars for? Proper and extensive research? Oh, wait, no, she already mentioned several "sexist" tropes she'll be making a video on, before she's even done any research, making her biased, and unresearched. So, what's the 150,000 dollars for again? Oh, right, to make herself rich. 150,000 dollars down a biased toilet, brilliant idea donating.
Well, it's also a symbolic investment. You can't put a price tag on the concepts of "sexism" and "misogyny", they are of almost immeasurarble value to many. Actually, you can occasionally put a price tag on them; after all many people make a living that depends on their ability to come up with accusations of "sexism" and "misogyny". Miss Frequently Feminist seems to be one of them.
Hey Temujin_basic... maybe you're right. Maybe "us feminists" should just separate everything... separate public transportation, living areas, schools... yeah. That sounds really intelligent. Oh wait! This isn't the early 1900's anymore.
"Hey Temujin_basic... maybe you're right. Maybe "us feminists" should just separate everything... separate public transportation, living areas, schools... yeah. That sounds really intelligent. Oh wait! This isn't the early 1900's anymore."
Yeah, it isn't. And Temujin didn't postulate separation. "You feminists" are entirely free to play the video games males play. If you want to have different games, create them yourselves (allegedly you are perfectly able to do so, interested in doing it, and there's a market for that). This isn't about restricted access to games. You are demanding that daddy buy you a pony, a car and make you the video games you like. You are acting like a princess with an attitude. As a side note, what you've written neither sounds intelligent, nor is intelligent. It's stupid. But at least you played the race card (albeit in an absurd way) and noticed that it's not the early 1900's anymore. Well done, babe.
By the way, is it acceptable for Playboy magazine to not include posters of naked men? Is it acceptable for the NFL to have teams with men only? And should they combine ballet and football in order not to "force" "you feminists" to separate yourselves?
@l777lInteresting. I'm glad you brought up the "rule of thumb" comment. Since the subject is interesting I looked into the topic further and realized that you are correct, the common "origin" of the "rule of thumb" is not as it is often presented. I did see one reference which did state:
"In particular, however, the "rule-of-thumb" meaning as allowing wife-abuse was a "reverse formation" which occurred in the 19th century to justify an *increased* tolerance/advocacy of wife-abuse at that time versus earlier times. But it was projected back into the 15-16th century, where the phrase didn't really have such a meaning." (WMST-L File Collection: Origin(s) of "Rule of Thumb").
Basically, since wife beating had at one time been legal, when woman beating was on the rise, people somehow circulated the myth as old common law and some used this to justify abuse while it was illegal or socially unacceptable. This myth may or may not have been encouraged due to an English judge (Sir Francis Buller) in 1782 who had been referred to in a satirical cartoon as "Judge Thumb" because of his alleged ruling that a man may beat his wife legally so long as the stick is not thicker than his thumb. While there is no proof of his ruling, this may have encouraged the belief that the "rule of thumb" originated from Common Law. (http://www.dukesofbuckingham.org.uk/people/contemporaries/francis_buller.htm)
And on games, I personally don't think that we need to get rid of the older games (I'm personally fond of many) but I agree with Sarkeesian that we do need to encourage more enlightened games in the future because sexism (against both men and women) is still prevalent and if we work on how people view the opposite sex, maybe we can lessen of harassment.
I like how you use female stereotypes like a stereotypical sexist to try to discourage my opinions. Comments refering to how I expect people to give me things and calling me "princess or babe" are insulting and (I bet you know what I'm going to say) sexually stereotyping. I buy my own things. I play games that I like. I pay for myself and have NEVER expected a man to take care of me since I got my first job at 16. I pay for myself on dates. And I drive my own car (which I bought without the help of "daddy" or some other man).
Please tell me how I played the "race" card. I'm unaware that race was a part of this conversation, but if I missed some sort of cue, I'd be interested to know it.
And if a woman can keep up, why not put her in the NFL. I've read playboy and I would even more frequently if there were picture of naked men. And since men are in ballet, your implication that it is a female only sport discredits your opinion on that specific topic.
@l777l In Japan 42% of males are derogatorily called "Grasseaters", that is men who have no interest in eating meat, half-veiled as pussy, they are men who have stopped all care about women, who do not bother to go after women, but also, ignore advances by women. Women, and oddly enough feminists, can't stand it, the government is desperately trying to shame them back into the mold of perform, provide, hand your money over to women while fucking the next generation into existence, so women can consume and consume and consume. Because of their existence, Japanese economy is cracking at the seems. The herbivores don't give a damn, they don't see the point, they have no interest in being feminist, women's and the state's punching bag, and are simply ignoring them.
In the western world, these men call themselves Zeta Males, and their brand of masculinity Zeta masculinity, also know as Men Going Their Own Way, or MGTOW. And their numbers are rising.
The only difference between the Western brand and the Japanese brand is that Zeta Males don't outright ignore and don't bother with women. They'd except sex offers where Japanese ignore women throwing themselves at them; but then, Zeta Males will be very, very, very careful, teaching each other to film everything, always use a condom, and destroy the sperm left in them right afterward, that is washing it out with water, and preferably burning the condom afterward - never leaving a full condom in a woman's home.
@trollkind 3DMaster: 'The Plan in Australia will encode in black on white encode into law, that a man accused of DV is guilty until he proves himself innocent. This while a mere call to the police and a mere accusation even from a girl just moved in - actually one-night stand is plenty - is enough remove the man from his own home that he paid for, and is expected to find new housing, while continuing to pay for his old one for the girl to continue living in. While at the same time expanding the legal definition of Domestic Violence to things such as "Disciplining the dog", or "buying something with his own hard-earned money without asking permission of his girlfriend or wife first".'
trollkind, if this is reasonably accurate then it is rather problematic and hardly blown out of proportion. It may still be a bit of context.
Additionally, did you really notice this section:
3DMaster: "Notice how easy they've already managed to conflate "sexual" with "sexist" even in reply videos of those who are critics of this feminists work. No, games like DoA, are NOT sexist, they sexual, but not sexist.
Just because a man enjoys watching at hot women, it doesn't mean he's sexist or only looks at women as sex object, or even if he looks at some women as sex objects (especially fake ones especially designed to be sex objects) that he looks at every woman as sex objects, or that thinks that all women should be sex objects, or should be reduced to as such. Nor does he think that women are below him."
That is in context and not blown out of proportion. It's a valid point that deserves thought and comment.
@3DMaster It is very likely that the alpha male principle is still active, at least in many of its foundational parts. Men do have a greater sex drive than women, they are worse at impulse control, they are less discriminative when it comes to sex and they still consider status important for themselves, while not considering status nearly as important in women. Of course not all men and women are (precisely) like that, but that's a very significant tendency. It's also one deeply rooted in biology, so I doubt it'll vanish anytime soon. (It should be noted that women also very much value reliability in a partner, not just status.)
Some here may find The Evolution of Desire (which also addresses the trophy aspect) and The Red Queen, by Buss and Ridley, respectively, worthwhile.
@trollkind And my point was that just because some people might see and be that way, it doesn't mean that it is the nature of the entire sex, AND that there women who are exactly the same, yet nobody tries to equate the entire sex to be that way, unlike with men.
@3DMaster Since you blow everything out of proportion and context, I'll stop wasting my time. Just this, I used the "alpha male" part to illustrate how a lot of males see themselves as sexual predators, not out to rape anyone but to "score" and some even keep trophies around. The number of sexual partners wasn't my point, neither demonizing anyone, just that males made a culture out of "the hunt", "the game" complete with hunting and wildlife vocabulary and that that's not made up propaganda by feminists.
@trollkind Right, anti-porn people are against any kind of porn, uhuh. I would like you look around and try to find a significant campaign, a significant voice of movement - not single individuals - that go "Porn must stop, look at the exploitation of those male actors! Let alone the ones in the gay movies, that's even worse!" Or even a neutral "actors are being exploited by the filmmakers". No, all the anti-porn sound is about the exploitation of women actors, even by their fellow male actors, and how denigrating it is to women and how that must stop. If those people see the end of female porn actresses, they will happily rent and buy the remaining gay porn movies to frig and/or jack off to. Granted, they may not outright state so, because that would highlight their sexist bigotry a little too obviously, but that is the way they are.
"The game" played by "alpha males" to get as many sexual partners? You call that predatory, wrong, vile and sexist? Like women who get many sexual partners are predatory, wrong, vile and sexist and thus all female sexuality is predatory wrong, vile and sexist?
I kind of have to thank you for make so blatant your bigotry and your agreement on demonizing men! Thank you, no amount of argumentation could have highlighted the success and ongoing campaign to demonize men and their sexuality as effective as you just did for.
Heh, 84% of all custody cases go to the mother, a large majority of the remaining is joint custody, but this joint custody does not get enforced, indeed false accusations of DV and child abuse leveled at the father during the trial or after the joint custody ruling will effectively turn a joint custody into a full custody situation. The family courts not requiring any evidence for DV accusations, a mere accusation is enough for restraining orders and the rest of the grinding machine to be put into motion.
And that's in the US, a typical western country in these matters. Sweden is worse... and Australia is about to implement a draconian "Plan to End the Violence against Women and their Children" law that'll make Sweden look like paradise in comparison. Where men are effectively guilty until proven innocent even in Sweden they still play lip service to "innocent until proven guilty" allowing a man a tiny bit of leeway. The Plan in Australia will encode in black on white encode into law, that a man accused of DV is guilty until he proves himself innocent. This while a mere call to the police and a mere accusation even from a girl just moved in - actually one-night stand is plenty - is enough remove the man from his own home that he paid for, and is expected to find new housing, while continuing to pay for his old one for the girl to continue living in. While at the same time expanding the legal definition of Domestic Violence to things such as "Disciplining the dog", or "buying something with his own hard-earned money without asking permission of his girlfriend or wife first".
Also, whenever a woman can show she had a job, she is more likely to get custody. Indeed, as the breadwinner, the example of bread winning, should be better for the child. In fact, statistics show that the large majority, some three quarters, of all people that derailed, came from from fatherless homes.
@zyxe If you genuinely believe in equality in opportunity you are not a feminist, alow me to illustrate.
Of course, the MRM has very different views on prostitution and porn, and unless there some obscure pocket that managed to stay hidden, this view is across the board.
To illustrate this view let us consider gigolos, male prostitutes. Officially they may be as illegal as female prostitutes, but try to find anyone calling them bad and exploitative. Try to find a single cop going after them, let alone their customers, especially their female ones.
Why is this so? Because society throughout history has put agency on men and no agency on women, a mere passive receptacle were they. This is not oppression of women, indeed, women cultivated this eagerly, even the genes help by given women more child-like features. This elevated women into positions of privilege, while men and even boys, they got to die for women... a lot.
Now feminism is nothing new, indeed, it is merely the old view of passive receivers of women and men across the board if they have agency everywhere over women and against women. Even when they are in jail or are homeless, it's a man's own fault, while a woman is a victim. You can call this hyperagency. The result is that society and feminism in general looks at female prostitutes as being exploitative and victims, while male prostitutes are merely men exercising their choices. Female prostitutes are always victims, of men of course, even though the majority of pimps are female. You can see the effect of feminism here, how they enemies to women as adult human beings with agency. Try to find a recent film with a female pimp. How far do you have to go back to find madam? Westerns in the sixties, maybe seventies? Before forty years of feminist propaganda, women regarded as more equal, more like adult human beings with agency than today, that should tell you something.
Unlike feminism, you at least object-status, child-status, non-adult having no agency status to both males and females; all prostitutes, all (nude) modeling is exploitation. But why? They are grown adults aren't they? Can't they make their own choices? Can't they do what they want? Why do you have to tell grown adults that they are merely victims being exploited?
The MRM in contrast does not do these things. They let adults be adults, all adults, women included. A adult woman who chooses to make money by having pictures taken of herself, nude or otherwise, or even to have sex for a living, in front of a camera or not, is an adult with agency who can make that choice for herself, just like adult males. They are not victims, they are simply adults making choice on their profession.
@3DMaster " they want to abolish all porn for male, while porn for females is okay; that's feminism for you - and in fact, that's merely the beginning. Supremacy, not equality."
Come on, you discredit your other points with ridicolousness like that. There may be groups and single persons that work towards such goals, though anti-porn people are usually against any kind of porn, they might call themselves feminists but that doesn't mean you can color the whole movement with that.
"condemning male sexuality as bad, wrong, PREDATORY, vile, and sexist."
"The game" played by "alpha males", trying to get as many sexual partners as possible. That bull... must have been dreamed up by feminists, right?
And the last paragraph, it's in the nature of politics that they do what they perceive as popular, not what would make sense and they like to take clear stances on issues to appear strong and engrave them in the media and minds of their voters. Or they just get off on a power trip and don't care for what their base thinks.
Oh and child support isn't really about gender, no? There's probably still a preference to place the children with the mother by default but that's usually due to the work schedule of father vs mother and because the mother took more previous care of them. The situation can be the other way around just as well though. My boss just had her second child and she was barely gone, her husband now taking care of their little ones.
@3DMaster easy so long as you don't define "feminist" as you do previously. i would call myself a feminist (as in i want equality in opportunity but understand the genders DO have typical differences but our differences do not mean either is "better" than the other), and i am really against playboy AND playgirl. i don't think it's right to exploit sexuality for the sake of pure lust, but i also dislike any form of porn, which is a rarity anyway. so i would agree that i am a minority in a lot of aspects of what you're talking about.
then again, i also wear low-cut tops (though not "spilling out") and enjoy being a woman and being sexy to a certain point, so i'm not sure if that nullifies my position or not.
@theteaface Funny you should mention that. Now that slutwalk thing? Women protesting about what they can and cannot wear while society is collapsing economically around them?
It isn't the first time that happened; a student of history can tell you, women were protesting what they could and couldn't where while the society around them had much bigger problems before. It was in the Roman Empire, about a decade before it collapsed.
Look around you, do you think an economic crisis lasting 4 years, and prognoses say it'll last at least 3 more and it'll get worse before has any chance of getting better, is a little hickup?
@3DMaster@trollkind "You don't get it, they want to abolish all porn for male, while porn for females is okay"
said who? this is not feminism as it is defined in this article. no doubt you have run into what you are describing; however, this is not what the interviewee in the article is asking for, demanding or trying to accomplish.
@trollkind You don't get it, they want to abolish all porn for male, while porn for females is okay; that's feminism for you - and in fact, that's merely the beginning. Supremacy, not equality. These accusations, about the horrible sexism in video games and everywhere else, isn't a threat to "make it more politically correct to feature anything", no, it's a direct attack on male sexuality itself.
Notice how easy they've already managed to conflate "sexual" with "sexist" even in reply videos of those who are critics of this feminists work. No, games like DoA, are NOT sexist, they sexual, but not sexist.
Just because a man enjoys watching at hot women, it doesn't mean he's sexist or only looks at women as sex object, or even if he looks at some women as sex objects (especially fake ones especially designed to be sex objects) that he looks at every woman as sex objects, or that thinks that all women should be sex objects, or should be reduced to as such. Nor does he think that women are below him.
No, it simply means he is a healthy human male with male sexuality and enjoys looking at sexy women. And the same goes for the designers and makers of these games.
It would be the same as accusing women of being sexist for buying the playgirl, or ogling hot guys in video games or wherever.
But, by already succeeding in reducing any sexualized female character to "sexist", they have succeeding in making any male interest in these characters as "sexist", indeed, even those men who don't look at them, but aren't outright claiming condemning the video games, their makers, and the men buying them are reduced to "sexist". They're trying, if they haven't already succeeded, in condemning male sexuality as bad, wrong, predatory, vile, and sexist.
The result as reaching far beyond merely turning some media into something bad, it's turning or turned men themselves into something bad.
You can predict the next couple of steps if you know your history, hell, if you know the feminists in positions of power and the things they've said. You can even look around the world, and see several of the next couple of steps already implemented, or about to be implemented in other countries.
@l777l People was correct, as it seemed you both didn't know the other gender version of that magazine. Well, turns out you both know it anyway. Just wanted to clear up that it wasn't only adressed to wolskesk.
Point being, that there is a similar magazine that only features naked guys, so you might as well ask "Is it acceptable for Playgirl magazine to not include posters of naked women?". I still don't think feminists want to make every piece of media feature everything, every time and in a politically correct manner. Which seems to be what you and some others are afraid of.
@trollkind "People" is a plural form. If you want to address a single person, it's a rather bad choice for that. If you wanted to address a group of people you should have made clear what that group is marked by.
I'm aware of Playgirl. Make your point, if you have one. To reduce the chance of having you come up with something ridiculous, (re-)read my actual question "By the way, is it acceptable for Playboy magazine to not include posters of naked men?".
"Please tell me how I played the "race" card. I'm unaware that race was a part of this conversation, but if I missed some sort of cue, I'd be interested to know it.
When you spoke of separating "everything" ("separate public transportation, living areas, schools"), did you intend to avoid invoking/evoking images or racial segregation?
"I'm glad you brought up the "rule of thumb" comment."
I'm happy that you're glad. That being said - and being meant without reservation - where exactly did I do that?
"And if a woman can keep up, why not put her in the NFL. I've read playboy and I would even more frequently if there were picture of naked men. And since men are in ballet, your implication that it is a female only sport discredits your opinion on that specific topic."
There's no implication that ballet is a female only sport. There is an implication that females tend to appreciate ballet more (and an implication that men would like to not combine football and ballet). I don't see how that discredits "[my] opinion on that specific topic"; what opinion and topic exactly are you referring to? Furthermore, you haven't answered a single one of the actual questions. You'll find them again, right below. Please answer them.
"By the way, is it acceptable for Playboy magazine to not include posters of naked men? Is it acceptable for the NFL to have teams with men only? And should they combine ballet and football in order not to "force" "you feminists" to separate yourselves?"
wolskesk: "I like how you use female stereotypes like a stereotypical sexist to try to discourage my opinions. Comments refering to how I expect people to give me things and calling me "princess or babe" are insulting and (I bet you know what I'm going to say) sexually stereotyping. I buy my own things. I play games that I like. I pay for myself and have NEVER expected a man to take care of me since I got my first job at 16. I pay for myself on dates. And I drive my own car (which I bought without the help of "daddy" or some other man)."
I think you don't like how I do that -- and by expressing that I don't mean to discourage your opinion. In more detail, what falls under "discouraging" your opinions? Does being critical and expressing disagreement or reservation in respect to them discourage them?
My comment was referring to how you expect people to give you things. "You" expect game developers and publishers (the people that constitute them) to give you the video games (things) that you demand. The people in question happen to be men, mostly. That strongly resembles the classic princess scenario. The classic princess - or daddy's little girl - tends to be a little more courteous, however. Hence the adjustment to "princess with an attitude". I'm not sexually stereotyping here. You act in a stereotypical way, and I'm pointing it out. You are sexually stereotyping (yourself).
I called you "babe" to get you to take a stand, and to get you to reveal your contradictory behaviour. And that appears to have worked. I am genuinely interested in what you think about all of this (including the above paragraph). Please let me know.
While we're talking, excuse me for mentioning a few other things. I respect what I have seen of your intelligence. I, so far, enjoy reading your opinions. And, even though you may occasionally face some sarcasm or other things that may seem harsh to you, I do not want to discourage you from outlining your views. I would like to encourage you to express them, but not disagreeing with you where I truly do is not the right way to go about that. I prefer being honest to you. That seems to be more respectful.
This question is not designed to trick you into something, I am "just" interested. If you find the question appropriate, do you absolutely insist on paying for yourself on dates?
I thank you for your time and wish you a pleasant day, wolskesk.
Since you doubt the objectivity, and thus validity, of my sources, I will make sure you know that I chose a blog about harassment for my original post due to the personal nature of how harassment makes women feel, not for its statistical value.
I've been subjected to similar harassment, but I usually avoid areas where men have a tendency towards this behavior and make sure that my friends have a healthy respect for others regardless of their sex.
I agree with you actually. I personally don't mind some of these games, but the fact is that she's trying to change the way we view these games in an effort to change the still pervasive sexism in our society. Saying that "we" (as in females) shouldn't criticize sexism is ignorant and backward. Our inability to discuss and shed light on sexism and objectification again both men and women is also backward. And while I don't think it will fix everything, but bringing an awareness to the gaming community (in which many people are involved) can help move towards less harmful gender stereotyping.