Bechdel test and other media analysis about discrimination

[WHAM]

This is what seems to me to be a determination to defend the status quo - arguing either that the problem does not exist ("men are sexualised too!"), or that attempts to address the issue are themselves worse ("Oh noes! Anita Sarkeesian").

"Men are sexualized too!" is a true statement, but only tangentially relevant to the topic at hand. This thread was about how women are represented in media, and how we might increase and improve the quality of that representation. The fact that there are other groups out there who the media could represent better feels kind of off-topic, which I'd think we can agree on.

[Blondbraid]

Well, I am sure you agree that it isn't good to present another person's views as different than they are (as Ali did, I am sure without meaning to).
For the record: I am not in favor of sexualized females in games/media, and if a media has such it won't score points with me.

edit: and since you mentioned "strawman arguments" for the thousandth time, you should be aware that your own arguments don't come across as great either; it is just that some are more polite in conversation (because they are angels, no doubt) 

If I mention strawman arguments a lot, that's because they keep showing up.

And even if you aren't in favour of sexualized women in media (and please don't call women "females", I know English isn't your first language, but calling women females makes it sound like you're talking about animals, which I don't think was the intention),
bringing up any random examples you can find on the few women in games that aren't too sexualized doesn't really solve or address the issue. It's like offering up a pack of band-aids to people discussing the horrible US healthcare,
and I think that's what Ali was arguing about.

[KyriakosCH]

Well, I am sure you agree that it isn't good to present another person's views as different than they are (as Ali did, I am sure without meaning to).
For the record: I am not in favor of sexualized females in games/media, and if a media has such it won't score points with me.

edit: and since you mentioned "strawman arguments" for the thousandth time, you should be aware that your own arguments don't come across as great either; it is just that some are more polite in conversation (because they are angels, no doubt) 

If I mention strawman arguments a lot, that's because they keep showing up.

And even if you aren't in favour of sexualized women in media (and please don't call women "females", I know English isn't your first language, but calling women females makes it sound like you're talking about animals, which I don't think was the intention),
bringing up any random examples you can find on the few women in games that aren't too sexualized doesn't really solve or address the issue. It's like offering up a pack of band-aids to people discussing the horrible US healthcare,
and I think that's what Ali was arguing about.

I will stop calling women "females", because you project into that that it is somehow connoted as "animals", yet I think it's only fair that you stop using "strawman" because I due to equally respectable personal reasons find it to be bad posting

[Ali]

Hey, I don't recall ever saying that female characters aren't sexualized. I said that this seems to usually be due to bad/lazy writing. Lara Croft, for example, obviously was sexualized in the game's box art
I also don't care about sexualized male characters - I played Gabriel Knight 1 and 3. I never claimed that such (Gabriel) are sexualized to comparable degree to female ones. Are you actually reading my posts? 

In the spirit of actually reading what the other person posted - I said you gave examples of female characters who you felt weren't sexualised (Grace Nakimura, and the Munch painting). I didn't accuse you of saying that female characters - in general - were not sexualised.

As I've said several times by now, my objection was that you seemed to be presenting cherry-picked examples as some kind of counterpoint, rebuttal or gotcha. If that wasn't your intention, I sincerely don't understand what point you've been making. It's convenient to dismiss sexist writing as bad, but that obscures the fact that what you consider bad writing is popular and influential, and that lots of good writing reproduces sexist tropes.

[KyriakosCH]

Hey, I don't recall ever saying that female characters aren't sexualized. I said that this seems to usually be due to bad/lazy writing. Lara Croft, for example, obviously was sexualized in the game's box art
I also don't care about sexualized male characters - I played Gabriel Knight 1 and 3. I never claimed that such (Gabriel) are sexualized to comparable degree to female ones. Are you actually reading my posts? 

In the spirit of actually reading what the other person posted - I said you gave examples of female characters who you felt weren't sexualised (Grace Nakimura, and the Munch painting). I didn't accuse you of saying that female characters - in general - were not sexualised.

As I've said several times by now, my objection was that you seemed to be presenting cherry-picked examples as some kind of counterpoint, rebuttal or gotcha. If that wasn't your intention, I sincerely don't understand what point you've been making. It's convenient to dismiss sexist writing as bad, but that obscures the fact that what you consider bad writing is popular and influential, and that lots of good writing reproduces sexist tropes.

Ok!
I never go for "gotcha" posts. We are all just discussing here, even if (as is to be expected, happens with all discussions) some are more invested in the subject than others.

[Blondbraid]

I will stop calling women "females", because you project into that that it is somehow connoted as "animals", yet I think it's only fair that you stop using "strawman" because I due to equally respectable personal reasons find it to be bad posting

When it comes to my objection of using "females" as stand-in for "women, I'm not the first or only one to make this complaint. If you've watched a nature documentary in English, you'd see that they always refer to female animals as females and male ones as males
to distinguish the fact that they're talking about animals and not human persons. Here's a list of reasons not to use the word "female" as a noun. This isn't some random personal issue I made up on the spot.

[KyriakosCH]

I will stop calling women "females", because you project into that that it is somehow connoted as "animals", yet I think it's only fair that you stop using "strawman" because I due to equally respectable personal reasons find it to be bad posting

When it comes to my objection of using "females" as stand-in for "women, I'm not the first or only one to make this complaint. If you've watched a nature documentary in English, you'd see that they always refer to female animals as females and male ones as males
to distinguish the fact that they're talking about animals and not human persons. Here's a list of reasons not to use the word "female" as a noun. This isn't some random personal issue I made up on the spot.

Fair enough. I respect your woman point of view. Woman posters are entitled to ask as much, and I certainly wasn't trying to impose my syntactical learned behavior on matters of the woman sex.

[Crimson Wizard]

Fair enough. I respect your woman point of view.

Afaik, "woman" is a noun, not adjective. That probably would be "woman's point of view" at least.

[KyriakosCH]

Fair enough. I respect your woman point of view.

Afaik, "woman" is a noun, not adjective. That probably would be "woman's point of view" at least.

I was told to use "woman" in place of [not to be named term]. Unless I was asked to do more work than that  for the privilege of posting here.
There's also the (albeit uninteresting) possibility I was making a point about the use of [taboo term] fitting in most sentences.

[Crimson Wizard]

KyriakosCH, you are becoming more obnoxious with each single post you make here.

[KyriakosCH]

KyriakosCH, you are becoming more obnoxious with each single post you make here.

Ok, I've had enough of this trash, bye.

[Blondbraid]

KyriakosCH, you are becoming more obnoxious with each single post you make here.

Ok, I've had enough of this trash, bye.

I don't get why you think I'm not allowing you to use the word "female" as a descriptor, using descriptions like female posters is fine, it's using female as a noun that's the problem, it's basic grammar.

It's like the difference between saying "a black person", and referring to all black people as "blacks". Why do you find this hard to understand?
It feels like I have to explain everything twice to you.

[LimpingFish]

Alright, we're drifting into individual user shaming, and away from discussing the original topic in a constructive manner.

Going forward, I would advise:

• If you disagree with someones opinion, but don't have the ability or desire to elaborate beyond a one-line rebuke, then please reconsider posting in the first place.
• Trolling/baiting in the guise of genuine debate is pretty easy to spot and will to be noted. Don't do it. Seriously.
  
• Avoid getting hung up on certain points, especially those that have less to do with the conversation and more to do with etiquette and/or personal affronts.
• Continued personal attacks, no matter how passionate you are about your point of view or how right you believe yourself to be, will result in the thread being locked.

Okay?

[Danvzare]

When it comes to my objection of using "females" as stand-in for "women, I'm not the first or only one to make this complaint. If you've watched a nature documentary in English, you'd see that they always refer to female animals as females and male ones as males
to distinguish the fact that they're talking about animals and not human persons. Here's a list of reasons not to use the word "female" as a noun. This isn't some random personal issue I made up on the spot.

Wow, this is the first time I've ever heard of this.
Let's look at that list...
The first is invalid, because English is a living language. For example, "figuratively" and "literally" mean different things, but they also mean the same thing as a result of English being a living language.
Upon reflection, the second one seems valid.
The third one is invalid. I don't think I've ever heard a group of women being called females, but I'm fairly sure I've heard a group of men being called males.
The fourth one sounds invalid to me. I've never heard "males" or "females" to imply inferiority or contempt. Sounds like a strawman argument.
The fifth one is definitely valid. 
The sixth one is also valid.

That all being said, I'll make sure to avoid using the word "females" to refer to women from now on. Not that I ever did in the first place.
Although personally this kind of reminds me of the time my dad got in trouble for using the word "yard" instead of "garden". I guess different words mean different things to different people.

I don't get why you think I'm not allowing you to use the word "female" as a descriptor, using descriptions like female posters is fine, it's using female as a noun that's the problem, it's basic grammar.

It's like the difference between saying "a black person", and referring to all black people as "blacks". Why do you find this hard to understand?
It feels like I have to explain everything twice to you.

In my experience it's more offensive to say "a black person" than to say "blacks".
And to add to that, I would personally find it offensive if someone used "male" as a descriptor for me, and used a description such as a "male poster".
Cultural difference perhaps? 

I hope nothing I've said offends you. I'm just trying to add to the conversation.

[Blondbraid]

And to add to that, I would personally find it offensive if someone used "male" as a descriptor for me, and used a description such as a "male poster".

Perhaps that example was clunky and poorly explained, but if you were to compare these two sentences;
"A male factory worker" and
"A male working in a factory",
which one sounds more grammatically correct and respectful to the person described?

I've seen a lot of people not knowing about this before, and many people don't think any of it when they use it,
but at the same time, I have definitively seen guys using the word "females" to refer to women in a derogatory manner,
and explicitly doing so to dehumanize women, whilst simultaneously referring to men as "men" unfalteringly, (and I've never
heard anyone speaking decent English casually referring to human men as "males" unless it was a strictly biological discussion where women were also referred to as "females")
and I think accepting "females" as a valid synonym for women, you can unintentionally normalize those attitudes, even if you don't mean anything bad by it yourself.

But even if you don't agree with my last point, would anyone here say I'm wrong if I say that you shouldn't use the word "female" for women in any situation where
it wouldn't be natural to use the word "male" instead of saying men?

I hope this clears things up.

[heltenjon]

"Female" can definitely be used derogatory. But there will also be cases where the term seems more neutral, mainly where it can't easily be replaced with "woman". For instance "The magazine is aimed at 18â€"25-year-old females" or "The number of females competing in college sports has increased" would probably not be rude, because the females in question are both girls and women. These sentences would work equally fine with "males", which I believe should be the real test. (Examples from dictionary.cambridge.org) [/language nerd filter]

[Ali]

I think Blondbraid is was right to give KyriakosCH the benefit of the doubt over "females" (initially), because he's writing in a second language and these sensitivities are culturally and linguistically specific. It's not semantically or grammatically wrong to say "a female", but there's more to communication than being technically correct.

We're talking about using adjectives as nouns, which can be an issue because it reduces a person to a particular characteristic. "A blonde woman" seems more neutral than "a blonde," which carries greater cultural baggage.

In my experience it's more offensive to say "a black person" than to say "blacks".

I'm not sure how "a black person" would be offensive, but "a black" sounds extremely iffy to me. It seems reasonable to follow an adjective up with a noun like "person" to make it clear that you're talking about an individual with a particular quality - not someone who is defined by that quality.

[Scavenger]

"Female" can definitely be used derogatory. But there will also be cases where the term seems more neutral, mainly where it can't easily be replaced with "woman". For instance "The magazine is aimed at 18â€"25-year-old females" or "The number of females competing in college sports has increased" would probably not be rude, because the females in question are both girls and women. These sentences would work equally fine with "males", which I believe should be the real test. (Examples from dictionary.cambridge.org) [/language nerd filter]

"The magazine is aimed at women aged 18â€"25"
"The number of female competitors in college sports has increased"

It's so easy not to noun someone, it's generally more respectful. Besides which, calling women "females" makes you 100% sound like a ferengi.

[heltenjon]

It's so easy not to noun someone, it's generally more respectful. Besides which, calling women "females" makes you 100% sound like a ferengi.

Oh, I agree. The examples are from the dictionary, not mine. In these cases, I would think the writer cuts the noun because it is implied. (Male/Female readers.)

Another thing is when it's okay to refer to someone as boy/man or girl/woman. In your example, "The magazine is aimed at women aged 18-25", this may hold up. But what if it was aged 15-20? In my native tongue, referring to grown women as "girls" is quite common, and in my opinion, often derogatory. But where should this line go? Norwegians would most often refer to themselves as girls/boys until they graduate from the school level below university (aged about 18-19). Are there huge cultural differences here?

[Blondbraid]

It's so easy not to noun someone, it's generally more respectful. Besides which, calling women "females" makes you 100% sound like a ferengi.

I couldn't have come up with a better example myself!

But what if it was aged 15-20? In my native tongue, referring to grown women as "girls" is quite common, and in my opinion, often derogatory. But where should this line go? Norwegians would most often refer to themselves as girls/boys until they graduate from the school level below university (aged about 18-19). Are there huge cultural differences here?

As a Swede, referring to women over 20 as girls would be considered weird and infantilizing in my native tongue, but I'm aware that native English speakers sometimes do that in English, considering it flattering to empathize the women's youth.
However, as a Swede who's learned most of my English vocabulary as a teen or older, I can't help but feel massively weirded out by some American phrases, like calling a loved one "baby" or a male partner "daddy" in a sexual context,
both of which would be impossible to say in Swedish without giving off massive pedophilia vibes.