Jibble

Author Topic: Bechdel test and other media analysis about discrimination  (Read 23142 times)

I merely observe history and culture and evolution and biology as it exists around us

...through some pretty thick, Jordan Peterson shaped glasses, apparently, paired with the exact same energy as these guys: https://twitter.com/soapachu/status/1351450545723240448

I don't understand why you feel the need to participate in these topical threads while being stuck in 2015 and unwilling or unable to advance your weird views? You seriously sound like a 70 year old pre-Trump Republican who just opposes any social progress reflexively, without even understanding or caring what's actually going on, let alone listening to the people fed up with being told to "behave, and we'll all get along".
Just mindlessly both sides-ing BLM and Q, Gamergaters and feminists, anybody who's stepping on your lawn.
Fail at Floaty Rog' now!  still having to deal with what games are going through

WHAM

  • WHAMGAMES
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • I can help with translating
    • I can help with voice acting
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
I could say the same, you started this conversation claiming video games not depicting female soldiers, and historical societies not allowing female soldiers were due to men wanting to protect women and not see women die,
what I've been trying to say this whole time is that that argument is basically painting oppression as some benevolent misunderstanding, and that is pretty insulting to those being oppressed.

I did not claim that. I claimed that may likely have been the case in the earliest history of mankind, where the survival of the species, and slightly later when the survival of early tribes, was reliant on having a way to produce viable offspring and meet the basic criteria for survival. This positively ancient basis then serves as basis over which all forms of later societies and cultures have evolved, and while this has not been a real cause for a very long time, the past still informs the present. Modern society does not exist in a bubble separated from its past, though as we've agreed time and time again, there is no reason for it to still be stuck to its past either.

Then you brought up a bunch of evo-psych talking points about animals and ignored my and Ali's arguments on why that was offensive.
I haven't really seen any evidence whatsoever of you reading or thinking about any of the links I posted with factual sources countering your theories,
if you want to show you're arguing in good faith, I suggest you'd try to actually think about what people are telling you rather than just repeat your pet theories
pretending cultural roles are biological inevitabilities. Read the link with the baboons I sent you and ponder that.

See above. I keep saying one thing and you keep acting like I've said a completely different thing.

If I come across as aggressive in my replies, well, what do you expect when someone posting theories imply that I'm biologically programmed to need to be protected by a group that has historically enacted oppressive laws on people like me,
and that any attempts by my group to gain equal human rights is basically a weird recent human experiment that might have gotten overboard and also be responsible for half the species going flabby and lazy?

And again, this is not at all what I have been saying, save for the part that: yes, modern society provides women with far more opportunities to be more independent and free, and it remains too be seen if this is 100% a positive thing, or if it might have some negative impact on wider society through the standard, normal family unit that was part of developing and stabilizing western cultures and societies becoming less common and popular.

This freedom to focus on oneself is being widely viewed as a good thing as it seems to answer a core part of feminism, seemingly providing women the same equal opportunity to not settle down and start a family and to have their own career and way of life. However, both men and women are biologically wired to want to have a family at some point, and women have the biological disadvantage here of their ability to have offspring decreasing over time at a much faster rate than men. We already see ex-feminists dropping out of the movement and saying that maybe some aspects of that movement, its tearing up of traditional family structures, may have been a mistake after all. For some individuals, at least, that independence has brought serious regrets later in life as women find themselves at an age where having children is increasingly difficult or impossible, but have not settled down to have a family, and now find it increasingly difficult. Whether those women are a freak exception among a grand liberation movement, or a sign of an issue that will become more prevalent in the future, time will tell.

As a proponent of personal freedom for all adults, I support the right of everyone, men and women, to choose their own way in this.

Let me ask you this; if you'd told an African-American that slavery was instituted to protect black people from the harshness of the world, that they were naturally wired to be subservient and want to help other people,
and that civil rights were a recent fluke experiment that might have gone too far, would you expect them to take it kindly?

That was a claim used by slave owners. It was incorrect then, a meritless excuse to try and justify their actions, and remains so now.



You seriously sound like a 70 year old pre-Trump Republican who just opposes any social progress reflexively, without even understanding or caring what's actually going on, let alone listening to the people fed up with being told to "behave, and we'll all get along".

What have I said that opposes "any social progress"?
I may point out pros and cons, the latter especially if I feel they are being ignored in a conversation, but just because I point out that something should be considered does not mean I blindly support that view myself.

You: Chocolate ice cream is great.
Me: Strawberry is a also an option.
You: AHA! SO YOU HATE CHOCOLATE ICE CREAM!
Me: -visible confusion-

Just mindlessly both sides-ing BLM and Q, Gamergaters and feminists, anybody who's stepping on your lawn.

I am not part of any of these movements, so I am not taking sides in their conflicts as long as they do not involve me.

- BLM is barely a thing in Finland, a country where blacks are a tiny minority and entire town exist that have zero black people in them. The movement does have some supporters in the Helsinki area. I have already previously said I support the principle on which BLM is formed, but think the movement is somewhat misguided when it comes to its messaging and methods.

- Q is not a thing in Finland, outside of some imageboard trolls. It is considered one of those internet movements that exist to be laughed at and made jokes of in tabloids.

- Gamergate was also a heavily America focused movement. It probably had some finnish members, but the whole movement was tiny in size, if very loud and obnoxious.

- I do not consider myself a feminist, as I dislike the label and the many interpretations of what that label means to people. I am an egalitarian and believe in equality between men and women. That last part does agree with the views of many feminists, but sadly not all, which is why I dislike the label of feminist.
Wrongthinker and anticitizen one. Pending removal to memory hole. | WHAMGAMES proudly presents: One More Fathom!

WHAM, if you don't want to be seen as a clueless sexist parroting misogynist crap, you need to stop and think what you sound like, and it basically sounds like you're saying;

"Why I totally support women's liberation, and women totally have the right to make choices, but if they don't choose to be housewives they'll become miserable, tear apart families
and become full of angush and regret for not having babies and fighting their own biology, and feminism might be good social progress but there is also a huge chance it's a fluke experiment that has gone too far and everyone will regret later"


Seriously, the argument that career women will become miserable and regret not devoting their lives to babies is brought up every time women's rights make any sort of progress, and right-wing propaganda will produce a few cherry-picked examples of
women unhappy with their careers to hold up as "proof" feminism has failed. Seriously, Susan Faludi wrote about this exact phenomenon way back in the 80s, it wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Let me ask you this; if you'd told an African-American that slavery was instituted to protect black people from the harshness of the world, that they were naturally wired to be subservient and want to help other people,
and that civil rights were a recent fluke experiment that might have gone too far, would you expect them to take it kindly?

That was a claim used by slave owners. It was incorrect then, a meritless excuse to try and justify their actions, and remains so now.
Then why can't you see you hypocrisy in rightfully recognizing racist theories as made-up claims by slave-owners who wanted to justify their enslavement of other people, but you treat the exact same aruguments, only with the word "black person" replaced with the word "woman"
as perfectly reasonable scientific logic and biology, based on nothing but stereotypes you've made up? Can't you see what I'm trying to say?


WHAM

  • WHAMGAMES
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • I can help with translating
    • I can help with voice acting
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
No, I really can't see, since it looks to me like you're comparing apples to oranges. Sorry.

EDIT: One comparison is between different sub-races of humanity, where nearly all difference is cultural and borne from nurture and thus saying one is "superior" or "dominant" over the other based on that race is humbug. The other is a comparison between genders, which are demonstrably different in reproductive biology and thus in their original, historic role in the preservation of the species, and later the tribe, community and civilization.

Again, I do not think that difference has any real merit in today's world, but I do still believe it still exists as one of many distant root causes that have built up the culture we live in today. One of the founding bricks laid down eons ago, atop which all future cultural shifts, no matter how distant, are still based on. Throughout history there have been different views in different cultures on what the value or merit of that foundation is and some have differed vastly from others (see: Scythians), and each culture and society has its own path to choose in this.
« Last Edit: 21 Jan 2021, 12:39 by WHAM »
Wrongthinker and anticitizen one. Pending removal to memory hole. | WHAMGAMES proudly presents: One More Fathom!

No, I really can't see, since it looks to me like you're comparing apples to oranges. Sorry.
If that's how you see it it just goes to show you can get injustices and dehumanization when it's situations that happen to men, but you don't see women as fully human,
individuals with just as complex and diverse lives and personalities just like men, but you see them as some sort of other, creatures that doesn't have lives and feelings like you do,
and rule by instinct and biology in ways that you aren't, and you are incapable of feeling empathy for women.

If you can admit that different cultures exist, you should also be aware that there are plenty of cultures where families look nothing like the western patriarchal standard and ascribing culture to biology in the
the reductionist way you have done adds nothing to the discussion except dehumanizing women, and it's hard not to see that the only thing you are trying to achieve by doing this has been to legitimize misogynist
historical practices by painting them as logical evolutionary developments, which in turn implies that any abuse of women because they are women isn't opression on par with the opression groups with men suffer,
but just some misguided biological instincts.

Do you have ANY idea how draining it is to have to argue for the very fact that I and other women are full human beings, our human rights aren't some made up experiment exclusive to modern society,
and that women can suffer from unjust limitations just as much as any man does?


WHAM

  • WHAMGAMES
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • I can help with translating
    • I can help with voice acting
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
I'm starting to think we might be speaking different languages here, where the same words have different meanings, since again you keep telling me I've said things I have most certainly not said.
At no point have I said anything of the nature that women were not full human beings, I've said exactly the opposite: they are. I've never justified any kind of abuse of women, either, and I've said I consider myself an egalitarian, as I believe all human beings are equal and deserve the same rights. I specifically pointed out that different cultures have come to different conclusions based on the same shared heritage, which just goes to show that nurture, time and societal development can bring about meaningful change, which is the exact same point you keep making as well.

You seem to be arguing against some kind of imaginary ideas that you keep seeing written between the lines I actually write, that do not correspond with what I am actually saying. I very much understand how draining it is, as it's just as draining for me to try my hardest to explain my beliefs and understanding of the world, agreeing with you, only to have it thrown back in my face as if I'd said the exact opposite.
Wrongthinker and anticitizen one. Pending removal to memory hole. | WHAMGAMES proudly presents: One More Fathom!

I'm starting to think we might be speaking different languages here, where the same words have different meanings, since again you keep telling me I've said things I have most certainly not said.
At no point have I said anything of the nature that women were not full human beings, I've said exactly the opposite: they are. I've never justified any kind of abuse of women, either, and I've said I consider myself an egalitarian, as I believe all human beings are equal and deserve the same rights. I specifically pointed out that different cultures have come to different conclusions based on the same shared heritage, which just goes to show that nurture, time and societal development can bring about meaningful change, which is the exact same point you keep making as well.

You seem to be arguing against some kind of imaginary ideas that you keep seeing written between the lines I actually write, that do not correspond with what I am actually saying. I very much understand how draining it is, as it's just as draining for me to try my hardest to explain my beliefs and understanding of the world, agreeing with you, only to have it thrown back in my face as if I'd said the exact opposite.
1. I haven't seen you actually engage with any of the fact or links I posted refuting your ideas of patriarchy being biological and evo-psych using animal examples to justify opression of human women. You could have just said "I didn't realize that sounded offensive" and dropped the evo-pcych sthick from the discussion after my first reply, but you continued to regurgitate it in every single reply you've made.

2. Here's what you yourself have said throughout this entire discussion, boldening mine;
Quote
it probably makes sense. From the point of view of biology and evolution, preserving the females makes a lot of sense, and is a pattern we see all over the animal kingdom to this day. Why would you think humans are exempt from such basic rules?
Quote
Humans are quite obviously not birds, but human biology and evolution still equips the female for the role of nurture, and the male for providing, hard labour and combat, no matter how much our modern society breaks this aspect by allowing males to grow soft and flabby and weak, while providing women the opportunities to live more free and independent lives. Whether someone embraces this new reality as a grand victory over biology, or views it as some horrid corruption that ruins the species, is up to the person making the interpretation. Human is, as far as I can tell, the only animal on the planet with very much direct control over its own evolution, so this seems to be a pretty new experiment, and future generations will be the ones to see the final outcome.
Quote
save for the difference of you calling it "patriarchal oppression" and me calling it "mostly well intentioned foolishness combined with outdated modes of thought".
Quote
I posed, based on observations of evolution, biology, history and culture, that the most common ways women are depicted are based on all of those things,
Quote
Hell, the very Gamergate event Blondbraid mentioned before is a prime example of people who have no real problems in life, on both sides of the issues discussed therein, venting their lack of meaningful existence into petty arguments with strangers and screaming into the void that is the uncaring internet. It leads to people who lack a cause and purpose to adopt imaginary causes, to live fantasy lives fueled by various forms of media and the internet, and to attack anyone they perceive as threatening that way of life.
Quote
There are always those who resist change. Sometimes they are fools holding us back, sometimes they are wiser than we might have known. The only way to find out is to see things through, so future generations can find out what the outcome was. My point is that by trying too hard, you will once again just push people away from your way of thinking rather than help guide them into the fold.
Quote
And again, this is not at all what I have been saying, save for the part that: yes, modern society provides women with far more opportunities to be more independent and free, and it remains too be seen if this is 100% a positive thing, or if it might have some negative impact on wider society through the standard, normal family unit that was part of developing and stabilizing western cultures and societies becoming less common and popular.

This freedom to focus on oneself is being widely viewed as a good thing as it seems to answer a core part of feminism, seemingly providing women the same equal opportunity to not settle down and start a family and to have their own career and way of life. However, both men and women are biologically wired to want to have a family at some point, and women have the biological disadvantage here of their ability to have offspring decreasing over time at a much faster rate than men. We already see ex-feminists dropping out of the movement and saying that maybe some aspects of that movement, its tearing up of traditional family structures, may have been a mistake after all. For some individuals, at least, that independence has brought serious regrets later in life as women find themselves at an age where having children is increasingly difficult or impossible, but have not settled down to have a family, and now find it increasingly difficult. Whether those women are a freak exception among a grand liberation movement, or a sign of an issue that will become more prevalent in the future, time will tell.
If you truly agreed with me, you wouldn't keep saying that gender roles are biological or keep implying that feminism might be good, but it just might also be a horrible mistake that will destroy families and make men and women miserable and regretful, and you'd stop adding "but maybe feminism is also bad" at the end of every post after being called out on it the first time.

I do not think feminism has gone too far, nor do I think there is any remote possibility that it will make tons of women unhappy or destroy families if allowed to continue.

I do not believe human males are biologically programmed to want to protect and preserve women, and I do not believe human women are biologically programmed to have child-rearing as their foremost goal in life.

You have continuously argued against both these points I'm making.

It's hard not to feel this talk on how you're really agreeing with me is just you trying to save face after writing yourself into a rhetorical corner.


WHAM

  • WHAMGAMES
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • I can help with translating
    • I can help with voice acting
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
So me pointing out basic evolution and biology and pointing out that we have no way to know that current societal trends are good or bad, and that the value judgement is likely to be finally made by future generations, is somehow bad? That by failing to unilaterally agree with you while ignoring any possibility that the future might prove the current trend harmful, I am somehow anti-women? And are you really saying you're one of those people who deny the theory of evolution now?

I do not think feminism has gone too far, nor do I think there is any remote possibility that it will make tons of women unhappy or destroy families if allowed to continue.

I do not believe human males are biologically programmed to want to protect and preserve women, and I do not believe human women are biologically programmed to have child-rearing as their foremost goal in life.

You have continuously argued against both these points I'm making.

It's hard not to feel this talk on how you're really agreeing with me is just you trying to save face after writing yourself into a rhetorical corner.

I think in western societies feminism has gone far enough, and in some areas has led to legal precedent that is swinging towards being unfair toward men (see: Finnish conscription laws and police standard procedure for handling domestic disturbances, for starters), which seems to be an unintended side effect of feminism and tradition colliding.

I do believe males are biologically programmed to want to produce offspring, and part of that for humans is ensuring the well-being of the mother of that offspring. I also believe that modern western society and culture has eroded those roles over time, likely as a result of the abundance of resources in those societies giving people the option of not having to worry about their offspring starving to death like their ancestors, and that the final outcome of that will be seen by future generations beyond our lifetime.

On these points we clearly do not agree.

We do, however, agree on the fact that women are complete and capable human beings, with every right to self-determination and representation in all aspects of society, including media. I believe that was the original point of this thread, wasn't it?
Wrongthinker and anticitizen one. Pending removal to memory hole. | WHAMGAMES proudly presents: One More Fathom!

You cannot truly believe women are full and equal human beings, and also believe that gender roles are justified by biology, because then you are in fact arguing that people should be treated differently just because of their bodies,
and deny that restrictive gender roles have been used to subjugate women and non-conforming men, often in cruel and violent ways.
So me pointing out basic evolution and biology and pointing out that we have no way to know that current societal trends are good or bad, and that the value judgement is likely to be finally made by future generations, is somehow bad? That by failing to unilaterally agree with you while ignoring any possibility that the future might prove the current trend harmful, I am somehow anti-women? And are you really saying you're one of those people who deny the theory of evolution now?
I have heard racist say the exact same thing, that if you deny that non-white people are biologically superior, you are denying evolution. I am well aware women reproduce differently than males, however, none of the sex differences have justified any of the oppression women have been put through in history, like not being allowed to learn how to fight, not having their own money, or having a say in who they marry, denied education, denied the right to birth control, all serving to keep them subordinate and all of which men have justified by pointing to their biology.
I think in western societies feminism has gone far enough, and in some areas has led to legal precedent that is swinging towards being unfair toward men (see: Finnish conscription laws and police standard procedure for handling domestic disturbances, for starters), which seems to be an unintended side effect of feminism and tradition colliding.
This is a classic anti-women talking point, when forced marriage was outlawed, men said feminism had gone far enough, when women got the vote, men said feminism had gone far enough, when women got their own bank accounts,
men said feminism had gone far enough. Feminism is still needed as long as women face violence and discrimination just for being women, and shit like sexual assault and domestic abuse still happens to an alarming number of women even in my native Sweden, a country leading the charts on equality, and it still happens at the hands of educated western men who claim society is equal for men and women.

I do believe males are biologically programmed to want to produce offspring, and part of that for humans is ensuring the well-being of the mother of that offspring. I also believe that modern western society and culture has eroded those roles over time, likely as a result of the abundance of resources in those societies giving people the option of not having to worry about their offspring starving to death like their ancestors, and that the final outcome of that will be seen by future generations beyond our lifetime.
Then ponder why there are several tribal societies where the father has no input or influence over his offspring at all, the child-rearing being done entirely by the mother and her relatives, maternal uncles being treated as the "real dads" of the kids,
(and even among Jews, who laid the foundations for western religion, children are counted on the maternal side) and in other cultures still, if several men sleep with a pregnant woman, all of them count as her baby's father.

You are exclusively relying on lazy pop-psychology seen on right-wing blogs and stereotypes from the 1950s, and this whole thing started because you forced biology into a discussion on modern pop-culture.


A different perspective on some evo-bio data:

a feminist biologist discusses gender differences in the animal kingdom

I personally find it quite reasonable.
« Last Edit: 21 Jan 2021, 16:21 by Honza »

WHAM

  • WHAMGAMES
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • I can help with translating
    • I can help with voice acting
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
The fact that people have used, and still use, biology and science as basis for false claims does not make the biology and science false. That'd be very much throwing away the baby with the bathwater.

As for feminism going far enough or not, that depends on your interpretation of feminism and the goal of feminism, doesn't it? I've seen people call themselves feminists and call for equality among genders, I've seen people call themselves feminists and call for payback on all the wrongs women have ever suffered in order to punish men, I've even seen people call themselves feminists and call for the "destruction of all men". This is precisely why I dislike the term feminism, the lack of a clear and shared definition or goal. Egalitarianism has a far clearer term and does not differentiate among genders in its goal of equality. Abuse happens, both by men and by women. Once again the goal should be to reduce and remove that element of abuse for all.

And we keep saying it over and over, different cultures come to different conclusions from the same shared heritage and biology. Societies evolve and grow and choose different paths over time.

Again, I see very little to differ on here, and I don't see how anything I've said is anti-women. Sure, some people who genuinely are anti-women base their claims or justifications on the same science I base my worldview on, as people are free to draw conclusions, even false ones, from the same data (see: survivor bias). Me saying the sky is blue due to the wavelengths of light interacting with the atmosphere and someone else saying the sky is blue because God wills it doesn't change the fact that the sky is blue, nor should it.


Thanks for the link, Honza. Forbes REALLY wanted to fight my adblocker on trying to read the article, but I managed it in the end, and it seems very much agreeable and well reasoned. To me, at least.
Wrongthinker and anticitizen one. Pending removal to memory hole. | WHAMGAMES proudly presents: One More Fathom!

A different perspective on some evo-bio data:

a feminist biologist discusses gender differences in the animal kingdom

I personally find it quite reasonable.
It is fairly reasonable on the most part, however, on part of men occupying the most hazardous and harshest jobs, in most countries, hazardous work like mining and similar is higher paid exactly because it is hazardous and unpleasant, whereas the jobs with less obvious hazards (like cleaning etc) are much lower paid. I just feel like that was a rather skewered generalization.
Thanks for the link, Honza. Forbes REALLY wanted to fight my adblocker on trying to read the article, but I managed it in the end, and it seems very much agreeable and well reasoned. To me, at least.
Curious how WHAM ignored every link with facts I posted, but immediately commented on this one, isn't it?


it seems very much agreeable and well reasoned. To me, at least.

It is fairly reasonable on the most part

Is it just me or could there be some common ground emerging? :)

WHAM

  • WHAMGAMES
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • I can help with translating
    • I can help with voice acting
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
I didn't ignore your links, I just preferred to respond to what you actually wrote since you wrote quite a bit, whereas Honza just provided a link and not much else at this time, so it would have been rude to just ignore that input entirely. I also said before that I found nothing to argue about those links you posted, nor did I really disagree with anything therein.
Wrongthinker and anticitizen one. Pending removal to memory hole. | WHAMGAMES proudly presents: One More Fathom!

it seems very much agreeable and well reasoned. To me, at least.

It is fairly reasonable on the most part

Is it just me or could there be some common ground emerging? :)
If only it was that easy. I agreed with the reasoning that animals are different than humans and humans have no significant sex differences in brains,
but as I mentioned before, I also thought the text had a few skewered generalizations I didn't agree with.
I don't think there can be much common ground between believing that gender roles are imposed by society and believing they are mandated by biology.
I didn't ignore your links, I just preferred to respond to what you actually wrote since you wrote quite a bit, whereas Honza just provided a link and not much else at this time, so it would have been rude to just ignore that input entirely. I also said before that I found nothing to argue about those links you posted, nor did I really disagree with anything therein.
Then do you agree with this text explaining that banning women from bearing arms and learning to fight in earlier cultures has nothing to do with men wanting to protect women?



My friends, please don't feed the heat. It wasn't my intention.

_

WHAM

  • WHAMGAMES
    • I can help with AGS tutoring
    • I can help with play testing
    • I can help with scripting
    • I can help with story design
    • I can help with translating
    • I can help with voice acting
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • WHAM worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Then do you agree with this text explaining that banning women from bearing arms and learning to fight in earlier cultures has nothing to do with men wanting to protect women?

Not really. To me it rather shows another example that culture can override the underlying biological instinct, which is something I pointed out earlier as well, along with pointing out that female warriors are also a thing in some historical societies. Just as our modern society is altering gender roles, such alterations have happened in the past, with some being more successful than others. I see nothing here that would really refute the underlying idea, though.
Wrongthinker and anticitizen one. Pending removal to memory hole. | WHAMGAMES proudly presents: One More Fathom!

BarbWire

  • Purify the World!
    • BarbWire worked on one or more games that won an AGS Award!
    •  
    • BarbWire worked on one or more games that was nominated for an AGS Award!
Yawn!  Sorry, but I'm finding this topic exceedingly boring. The whole battle of the sexes issue is one that nobody can ever win.
Let's just learn to live together and enjoy each others company.

Now, where did I put my duster  :-D

Quote
So me pointing out basic evolution and biology
Quote
The fact that people have used, and still use, biology and science as basis for false claims does not make the biology and science false.
Quote
human biology and evolution still equips the female for the role of nurture, and the male for providing, hard labour and combat

As puzzling as that may seem, these statements were all made by the same person. Who is also a Gamergate apologist:
Quote
I never said the gamergate situation had two equal sides, but there were still idiots on both sides making thins worse. More so on one side than the other, sure, but still. Stones and glass houses.
In other words, some Gamergaters made valid points about... ethics in gaming journalism, I guess?

And the "I consider myself an egalitarian" stance is the same deliberate obtuseness as "All Lives Matter"; the fact that a tiny fraction of self-proclaimed feminists are deluded people who want to "kill all men" does not (and should not) keep me from using the label "feminist" where appropriate, unless of course I'm regularly around people who think that "feminism is cancer" maybe? Maybe.

However, WHAM, the main point I'm trying to make here (and one you are in fact making for us), is that you are not willing to actually listen to people who tell you that some of your views are problematic, simply because you don't agree with that assessment. Which is precisely the problem in the first place.
You may not be actively hindering social progress, but every post of yours radiates that you are perfectly fine with the status quo, that you don't see any problem here, that efforts are indeed underway, you know (more female game protagonists, did you know?) It's like an extreme form of social libertarianism, where we should just let the marketplace of ideas take care of every social injustice, lest we might disrupt civil society. (Which will absolutely not work, as history keeps telling us, in case it needs to be spelled out.)

It's also curious how whenever anybody points out that they think we could improve society somewhat, along comes you, WHAM, posting and posting and posting endless "observations". A more suspicious person could get the idea you want to shut up a troublemaker.

You said something about malice recently, so I'm not going to insinuate you are doing this deliberately. But that is the effect of your posts, intentional or not.

edit: added emphasis
edit2: added link
« Last Edit: 22 Jan 2021, 09:22 by Khris »
Fail at Floaty Rog' now!  still having to deal with what games are going through

Excellent points all in all Khris, WHAM, I suggest you read this comic:
Spoiler: ShowHide







Furthermore, it's damn easy for men to spend a bunch of theories cementing gender roles as evolution when it paints them as the stronger and more rational sex, and the "biological" roles for women just happens to be subordination, child-rearing, and all the gross and boring housework these men don't want to do. But should a woman use biology and evolution to argue that males are simply too aggressive to be allowed leadership roles, and argue for mandatory vasectomies for all men once their wives or girlfriends don't want any more children, we all know that woman would be called a feminazi witch and worse immediately by the exact same men spreading the arguments WHAM keeps posting here.