Messages

Is there an image missing in your reply?

But you're spot on, and what's worse, while some of the token girls, like Gadget in the pic above, at least has some unique personality traits and bring their own skills to the group,
too many token girls literally just have "girl" as their only personality trait, and only talk about liking pink, romance, acting like a mommy to the boys, and nearly all episodes focusing
on her character will be about somebody falling in love with her, and/or kidnapping her or about her becoming a surrogate mom for some creature.

Plus I've noted a visual theme of when it's anthropomorphic animals, the girl will often look way more like a pretty human than her male compatriots, human hair, more of a white human skin tone, and a more human-shaped face in general.

Uhm, am I wrong, or in all those years that MS had that option in win7, nobody sued it claiming they "made  it easy for them to compromise the integrity of their computer!"

True that!

I miss Windows 7...

While I like Beksinski, his style (imo) just isn't distinctive enough to make him a top artist.

Really? I thought he had a pretty recognizable style.

Anyway, it's nice to see so many other Friedrich fans here, I might as well post another great painting of his, this one I even used as a base for a MAGS background:

Though this one here below probably speaks more to me as a Swede! 

Speaking of things that disturb me that shouldn't.
These things are at the top of that list:

I don't find the LoL dolls much worse than your average moe anime, but then again, I don't like the average anime face aesthetic much in general.

You're telling me that this (the most moe anime I know of):
...
is as disturbing as this:
...

Well, I was mainly thinking of this image:

I know it's the most extreme example, but I know lots of anime that's been drawn in a similar style.
Of course, it's not an exclusively Japanese problem, I for one hated the female character designs for Frozen too,
they were so exaggerated they didn't look human but like some human/chihuahua hybrids. Take all the problems
You've had with LoL dolls, and imagine them with realistic hair and skin textures.

Just looking at photoshopped versions with more adult facial proportions, the edited versions always look way better.
I mean, look at these comparision images:




I guess Frozen merch plastered everywhere has jaded me against LoL dolls!

Anyone can stop their Windows from updating if they really want. You can just kill off the Windows update service and force it to not work anymore.
You'll be happier for it precisely up until the point where some issue screws you over and you can only blame yourself for not having your operating system up to date.

I would not advise doing so, but hey: it's an option.

And that's the problem; you're not having a real choice, you're stuck between an awful default option or having your system fail if you refuse it.

I think what bothers me most is that all the updates don't even seem to do any difference, optimizing performance or anything that'd warrant the long loading times,
they just seem to slow my pc down before and for a short while afterward. I just don't get what they're doing. 

Here is another video on these adorable creatures:

To everyone stepping in and speaking up against this blatant sexism:

WHAM, people here have repeatedly explained why the things you say are inflammatory and dehumanizing, do everyone a favor and stop trolling this thread.

If you're looking for a private bubble where everyone blindly agrees with all you say and never challenges your views or ideas, then an open forum with everyone free to speak is probably not the right place.
I find the thread interesting, educating and in some parts most entertaining, and will be around if I see anything worth commenting on.

You've basically spent all your time here trying to steer the conversation into inflammatory subjects and demanding proof that oppression exists whilst ignoring all links and explanations given to you.
And having a forum thread where people stay on topic IS NOT the same thing as an echo chamber.

I quite agree. For instance, outside rare forms of cases involving violent crime, I see no situation where a man could, for example, will their partner to terminate an unborn child against the mothers wishes. However, for the sake of equality in the eyes of the law, I think there are some cases where that right to terminate, if the father opposes it and there was no crime involved, should be restricted until there is a mutual agreement or there is a natural solution to the matter.

Wait a minute, are we talking about effectively forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will? Because that's pretty much what I meant by "inhumane consequences".

Exactly. Plus note how WHAM was huge on using "biological" arguments when it suited his stereotypes, but now, when there is a clear biological difference that weighs against his ideas, he ignores it. A woman has to gestate a fetus for months within her own body in order to carry a pregnancy to term, all a man has to do in order to conceive a child is to have sex; therefore it's absurd to argue that the father and mother should have equal say in the issue when only one of them is risking their life and health in a painful and risky process.

And the words "if there was no crime involved" is classical Republican weasel words, conservatives use it to basically imply that it's OK for rape victims to have an abortion, but women who consent to sex should be punished for their loose ways by being forced to carry pregnancies to term and suffer for it.

This all comes back around to the whole legality-of-abortion question, to which there are varied different answers around the world, and thus no single right answer. The easy answer would be to just say "the mother has 100% control" and that's that, but it shuts out both the rights of the father to their mutually conceived child, as well as the rights of the child itself, if handled so simplistically. I used to be open to the idea of unrestricted abortion for women when I was younger, but have since read up more on the matter and now find it a far less simple a matter, and thus am no longer quite so open to the idea.

Again, my right to my body should not be up for debate. And in countries where women's rights are taken away, the rights of LGBT people and other minorities often follow alongside them.

Stop derailing this thread with your crypto-fascist garbage.

Anyone else who thinks that mouse deers are simply adorable?

So the argument for "women are treated unjustly by western society" boils down to "individual artists don't create art in the way we like it".

I've been clear from the start that women are still discriminated against even in the west, AND it's made worse by the fact sexist media stereotypes makes the discrimination seem more acceptable to audiences,
NOT that it is the only form of discrimination they face, and there is a massive difference with complaining about structural sexism in media and personal dislike of an artwork for artistic reasons.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will always give a feminist an excuse to be offended."

Also this, doing the ole "feminists are shrill and irrational in their complaints" bit.

Exactly, it's a bullying tactic as old as time. You insult and belittle someone, and ignore everything they say about why they are insulted about it,
all so you can pretend to be cool and "rational" when they finally lose their patience.

WHAM, people here have repeatedly explained why the things you say are inflammatory and dehumanizing, do everyone a favor and stop trolling this thread.

WHAM, it seems you have no real arguments left for this topic, so you just tried to derail this thread by steering it towards the most inflammatory topics you could think of now,
with the crime and abortion talk. I and many others have already posted multiple links on the discrimination women still face, and how this is exuberated by
media promoting sexist stereotypes and discouraging empathy for women. You seem to play willfully obtuse at this point.

A woman is just as much a full human being as a man and women's human right's should not be up for debate, so don't treat it as one.

Funny how this turned into "WHAM, prove your egalitarian credentials" somehow, but here we go.

Because you keep saying that you are all for equality and women's rights, but then keep saying things directly antithetical to exactly that.

I've already tried to explain all this multiple times in this thread.

This discussion reminds me of this article, citing a study showing that if there are 17 percent women in a crowd, the men in the audience think it's 50 – 50, and if there's 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.
I'd say it's a pretty clear illustration of unconscious bias, and worth pondering on how it affects other views on women.

Never heard of this before, but what I immediately wonder, is this only gender related thing or more generic psychological effect regarding anyone who a group of people see "different"? In other words, will the same happen with the groups of noticeably different ethniticies for instance.

I bet there is, just from the top of my head, I remember people complaining that the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast was too unrealistic, because in their words, "Half the villagers were black!,
when rewatching it and looking for visible black people though, I could only see one black priest and maybe a handful in the far back of the crowd shots...

In my field and social bubble, it's genuinely about 60 - 70% women. Most of my teachers have been women,

I think over 90% teachers in my school were women (and all or most of the head staff) . In fact, I can barely remember seeing more than 3 male teachers same year.
Things were much different in university, however.

It's similar in Sweden, I had many male teachers in the higher classes, teaching children is a female-dominated job, but it's also a very low-paying job here in Sweden, in large part due to being female-dominated.

I don't understand the issue, unless we believe that men have written better books than women, and that equal representation would mean replacing good books with worse books. Which, I think, is what people are actually afraid of.

My issue was choosing books based on anything else than their actual content. I can't fully speak for my biased subconscious, but I like to think I would be saying the same if the imbalance was reversed. I'd find it weird if I was given a book to read because it was written by a man, or denied a book because it was written by a woman - as if having a Y chromosome was some unique quality with intrinsic worth.

But I realize that's not the full picture. The imbalance seems to be bigger than I imagined, I'll be the first to agree that seeing the world through many different sets of eyes is important, and it's true that there are other arbitrary criteria which I take for granted (nationality). A quick google search gave me this: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/206631137.pdf, I'll probably check it out sooner or later. I'm in a place where I could easily be swayed to your side.

It's great that you've found a research text on the study, I'll check it out when I find the time! 

This discussion reminds me of this article, citing a study showing that if there are 17 percent women in a crowd, the men in the audience think it’s 50 â€" 50, and if there’s 33 percent women, the men perceive that as there being more women in the room than men.
I'd say it's a pretty clear illustration of unconscious bias, and worth pondering on how it affects other views on women.

As I've said, I am an egalitarian, and I care about equality.

The way I've seen it used in practice, the phrase "I'm not a feminist, I'm a humanitarian/equalist" virtually always means that you think the status quo is fine and any oppression western women face is made-up.
Or if you truly did care for equality, could you name and acknowledge any gendered injustice western women face or name anything you've done to further gender equality?

There is a difference between caring about something and doing what you can to promote it, and trying to paint every mundane action you take as being some grand crusade for equality and making a massive show out of it in order to get more attention.

Again, are politicians 100% honest in Finland? Has no Finnish politician ever dressed up cost-saving as something more palatable to the masses? And also, a great deal of cost-cutting is done in idiotic ways that just wind up more expensive in the
long run, and at least in Sweden, voters are pretty jaded to blatant penny-pinching, so politicians more or less have to give another political reason if they want to seem like good leaders. But the snow-plowing thing was something that only happened once,
most of the time, it's dressed up in talk of freedom of choice, future greatness, or how one expert they had said it was great.

This isn't some weird Swedish thing, just look at American politicians and how they paint any mundane legislation as a WAR, war on poverty, war on drugs, war on illiteracy, not necessarily because their leaders want to fight a literal war in those areas,
but because that's the rhetoric that goes home with US voters, but it feels like you're just trying to single out my homeland and paint my culture as bad right now, and you're blowing up a one-off event that's not even representative of Swedish politics as a whole.

That sound precisely like what I figured it was. They could have just done the normal thing and said the changes were made to improve efficiency and better serve the most people with available resources, but as we keep seeing Sweden has some weird fetish about appearing to be the most progressive nation on the Earth, which gives the Finnish media plenty to laugh about! Don't worry, Swedes: we love you for it.

Really, you think caring about equality is, in your own words, "some weird fetish"? This really says it all about where you stand, doesn't it?

Well put, Reiter!

As for the "feminist snow-ploughing", small snowploughs made for footpaths are much cheaper to hire than large, broader ones made for traffic, and so the former were procured as a cost-cutting measure,
which some local politicians tried to dress up as "feminist" because fewer women are registered car owners, but it was derided by pretty much everyone in Sweden, including most prominent feminists.
It was a cost-cutting measure they would have done either way, dressed up in some progressive language in a failed bid for popularity points, largely derided and then fading into obscurity.
It's pretty ridiculous that it got traction abroad because politicians painting cost-cutting as a principled stance exists everywhere, they just use different rhetoric to fit different nations.

Basically, it's not a great idea to use third-hand accounts with clickbait headlines when talking about Sweden to native Swedes.

Also: did Sweden ever actually pass that one law where they threatened the government would seize assets of private corporations if they failed to fulfill gender quotas in their board of directors? I recall that being a pretty major news piece over in Finland several years back, as it was painted as "those wacky Swedes being at it again" over here. Since I haven't heard of it since, I'm guessing no.

As a Swede, I've never heard of such a law, but beware that there's been plenty of right-wing blogs spreading fake news about Sweden.

Ah, so you seem to advocate for either some expansion of current law so it can control people more strictly, stripping them of freedoms to make personal decisions, or some other kind of extra-legal manner in which equality is enforced.

For the record: No. Thinking the Bechdel test is a useful critical tool != advocating for government mind control. This is the kind of hyperbole I'm talking about.

Also, saying than argument is bad because it can be used to justify terrible thing is not the same as saying that an argument is bad because it's used by bad people. Good people use bad arguments, and vice versa. I believe Blondbraid is saying that argument is bad in itself, because the same chain of reasoning has been used to justify things we all agree are unacceptable.

Indeed, some of this debate on feminism  is starting to look a lot like those conservative Americans who'll equate any politics left of Reagan as pure Stalinism.

And yeah, I'm not talking about something bad people brought up once, I'm saying that that kind of reasoning has always been used by people wishing to restrict human rights to groups outside of  themselves.

[exactly]

Ever heard the saying; Your freedom to swing you fist ends where my nose begins?

And again, none of the attmpts to implement any such laws in Sweden has impacted anyones freedom in any significant way, and freedom to opress and discriminate isn't real freedom for the opressed, is it? Your last reply sounds like poor 1984 fanfiction.

Plus you know men used exactly the same arguments you used now when things like domestic beatings and outright barring female applicants for various jobs was outlawed.