Messages

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?

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?

[also]

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.

[agreeing]

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;

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?

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.

save for the difference of you calling it "patriarchal oppression" and me calling it "mostly well intentioned foolishness combined with outdated modes of thought".

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,

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.

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.

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.

[ANY]

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?

ANYWAY, back to topic. We're talking about... cats, right?
This is the real thing to help you erase the images of fish-human hybrids from your mind:

Aww, so cute!

[this exact phenomenon]

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?

I haven't even seen the hashtag, but that screenshot still cracked me up!

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.

And just because I point out that moral policing exists is not saying that is what you are doing, nor do I believe I have said at any point that you were doing such. It's a wider phenomenon that is appearing more and more, creeping into newspapers, columns and editorials. Opinion dressed as the one truth.

It's starting to feel like I'm talking into a broken radio. I keep saying I agree with nearly all of your points and you keep acting like I'm attacking you or accusing you of something, somehow?

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.

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.

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?

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?

[Gamergate was NOT two equal sides]

No. When did we get from women being depicted in media being based on history, which is based on earlier history, to women being forcibly married again? I seem to be confused on the topic of the conversation here.

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, and that new ways are rising to the fore, though they will take time and effort to become mainstream. From this we seem to somehow found the false conclusion that I approve of all aspects of that history or somehow oppose change? 

Because of cause and effect, and me trying to show you that patriarchal oppression isn't the result of men wishing to protect women, it's oppression of women disguised under rhetoric of it being to protect them and for their own good, you keep painting these limitations of women as some idyllic past where they were sheltered by big strong men, I come up with counterexamples to show that it wasn't how it was back then, and this tied back to how you claim not featuring female soldiers in games was
somehow a result of men trying to protect themselves from seeing dead women, but it isn't, it's manchildren not wanting to see women as capable fighters.

And yes, I do think that much of the accomplishments of modern western societies have damaged those societies. 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.

Gamergate was NOT two equal sides. All the death threats, rape threats, and graphic descriptions of how they'd harm their opponents came from the Gamergate side, whereas the only thing people like Anita Sarkeesian and those siding with her did was highlighting the sexism in the industry and suggesting how to improve it.

What I mean by that is the exact kind of moral policing, calling out movies or games for failing to meet some kind of unwritten standard as if doing so were a crime unto itself, which we keep seeing now spread from the online world into the real world.

Did you seriously miss the part where repeatedly I said not all media has to meet all the criteria I set up?
I even brought up an example in Master and Commander which I thought was a good film that didn't pass the Bechdel test and didn't need to?

I know from seeing it in action that trying to force change too rapidly on people who aren't ready for it will only result in a backlash.

Can you think of an historical example of advocates for progressive change not incurring a backlash, and yet succeeding? I'm struggling to think of one. But I think it's a topsy-turvy line of thinking that can turn the people saying, "I want to be treated fairly," into oppressors and the people saying "Hell, no!" into victims.

I must say, I'm particularly repulsed by the contempt you seem to have for the weak, the stupid, the obese, the lazy... your world seems to be full of inferior specimens.

True words, there is no human right we have today that wasn't fought tooth and nail by the proponents of the status quo.

Also:
"It is a shame for a man to grow old without seeing the beauty and strength of which his body is capable."
I think we should apply the same kind of thinking to learning and critical thinking, too, rather than encourage people to be their worst selves just because they can afford it at this moment. I fear society, before long, won't be able to afford it. Feel free to differ on this, of course. I feel you might be obligated to do so by principle at this point. 

Then be your best self and start using empathy and stop using strawman arguments.

no matter how much our modern society breaks this aspect by allowing males to grow soft and flabby and weak

...basically implies that you think it was better back when a man's worth was based on his ability to dominate and subdue anyone weaker than him.

Are you saying modern society does not enable people to be far more lazy, obese and weak than past societies?

I'm also not arguing against your points because I agree with them, I've no reason to argue against them for the most part, save for the difference of you calling it "patriarchal oppression" and me calling it "mostly well intentioned foolishness combined with outdated modes of thought".

After all: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Would you seriously say that denying half the population to vote or own their own money, and putting them into forced marriages before that, or marital rape and beating your spouse being legal for centuries, or girl babies being left to die in the wilderness just because they were girls, were just some stupid mistake that came about by accident? By that logic, was the trans-Atlantic slave trade just a big misunderstanding, or the Soviet gulags just a well-intentioned but slightly mismanaged attempt to educate people into loving citizens?

[far into the 20th century]

And again, comparing humans to animals in your manner is offensive because it's been part of justifying real oppression, in several European countries women couldn't vote or have their own bank accounts far into the 20th century, and this was justified exactly with the sort of bullshit evo-psych you've been spreading, that women aren't biologically suited to do men's work, they should be relegated to the home because they're so much more nurturing/emotional and programmed to take care of babies.

The difference is that I don't justify anything. I merely observe history and culture and evolution and biology as it exists around us, and you seem to take my observation to mean I somehow support or condone these traditions, for some reason. Just because examples exist of one thing that explain things around us in the way, at least over here, we are taught these things in schools, doesn't mean that other ways exist in the broad diversity of animalia across the planet.

You are justifying it by presenting it as a legitimate scientific theory, and not a hodge-podge cobbled together from lazy and simplistic generalizations of animals, and presenting patriarchal oppression as a logical evolutionary outcome instead of the choices and culture of people running society, and by presenting this as somehow programmed into human nature, you are in fact implying that any attempts to challenge female oppression is futile and foolish. and the phrasing;

no matter how much our modern society breaks this aspect by allowing males to grow soft and flabby and weak

...basically implies that you think it was better back when a man's worth was based on his ability to dominate and subdue anyone weaker than him.

I have given you plenty of counterexamples, and links to various sources, I suggest you read them before arguing further.

[far into the 20th century]

WHAM, have you actually read ANY of the arguments put before you here?

Males being more decorated to attract females is NOT the same thing as males being protective of females, and comparing humans to animals is ridiculous because for every example you bring up, there is a perfect counter-example of animals that do the opposite. Among cassowaries, females are larger and protect territories from other females whilst males rear their young, with Seahorses males rear the babies in a pouch on his stomach and Hyenas live in matriarchies where even the smallest female pup outranks the highest male hyena. As for Peacocks, there's this interesting tidbit; Males may display even in the absence of females. When a male is displaying, females do not appear to show any interest and usually continue their foraging.

Or if you want an animal actually related to humans, look at the study of a group of baboons, where a flock came across a batch of poisoned meat, the strongest and most aggressive males hogged all meat for themselves, and were subsequently poisoned, leaving the females, infants and meeker males alone, and the group of baboons permanently restructured their community so as the biting and bullying that had happened with the aggressive males around were no longer accepted, and this change not only remained several generations later, but baboons from the outside adopted the group's rules too.

And again, comparing humans to animals in your manner is offensive because it's been part of justifying real oppression, in several European countries women couldn't vote or have their own bank accounts far into the 20th century, and this was justified exactly with the sort of bullshit evo-psych you've been spreading, that women aren't biologically suited to do men's work, they should be relegated to the home because they're so much more nurturing/emotional and programmed to take care of babies.

I don't want to talk for Blondbraid, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell, what she's saying is like when a humble vegan explains why they don't eat animal products.
She's not telling you to adopt her belief, but she's hoping that by explaining it, others will gain a better understanding and at the very least consider adopting it.

So to answer your question, the person who constitutes a "good" reason for failing the test, would be the person watching the movie or TV show at that time.

Well, that's a fairly good explanation for what I've been trying to say.

I am assuming you mean "would be better" for you personally?

It's not just about me personally, I speak for a lot of women feeling the same way, and I think many minorities feel similar to their representation as I do with women.
Media can affect how we think about things, and I want more and better representation not just because I want to see fellow women in the media I consume, but also because seeing strong female characters can help other people accept women doing
things that doesn't adhere to narrow female stereotypes, and this is why films like Wonder Woman and Black Panther has mattered so much to so many people, because having a good quality film made with a black or female lead showed a lot of people that
women and black people can be people worth telling stories about and not just some optional niche figures who only serves to support white male leads. I suggest watching this;

I thought I'd already mention it, but I'll say it again: I don't think every single piece of media has to pass any such criteria, but I do think more should, and those that doesn't pass the criteria should have a good reason as to why.

So they aren't required to pass the test but they must have a good reason for failing it?

Who decides what constitutes a "good" reason for failing the test?

Like Ali said, I'm not a censor, and I think this is a stupid and reductionist take. Likewise, coming with suggestions on what would be better is not the same as forcing people to conform to your standards.

How can you have any real discussion on anything culture-related if every personal statement of opinion is treated as some absolute law proposal?
Now I get why you're tagged as a Sith Lord.

[any]

1. You should seriously stop bringing up reductive Evo-psych theories into every thread that brings up gender, and you're blatantly ignoring the fact that in many cultures, women were forbidden from carrying arms or learning how to fight, not as a sign of privilege but as a sign of their subordination, as oppressed groups like slaves, Jews, and serfs weren't allowed to carry arms either. And similar to arguments surrounding black and Jewish people, this kind of theorizing has been used to justify societal oppression and mask it as biology. Please just stop, and also, I suggest reading Klaus Theweleits's writings on male anxieties over fighting women and the pathological need to keep their women "pure".

If it smells like it makes sense, tastes like it makes sense, and looks like it makes sense: 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?

1. Because the "protect the females" mentality is non-existent in the animal kingdom. In some species, males will fight off other males, but it has nothing to do with protecting the lives of the females and is only about preventing other males from mating with them. I've yet to come across any example of a male animal protecting female animals from say, being eaten by a predator, or any similar danger. Some male animals will even straight-up fight any female animals of the same species just like they would a male outside the mating season. Seriously, where are these white-knight animals you bring up?

Societies with large-scale armies where you have lots of soldiers dying in great battles and women being expected to have large groups of children to sire future workers and soldiers is an incredibly recent development in human history.
I suggesting reading this text if you want a real reason as to why so many societies have excluded women from warfare.

2. Homophobes, slave owners, and Nazis have used exactly the same logic you use to institute eugenics and oppression of various groups, and it's no coincidence Umberto Eco listed misogyny and subordination of women as a sign of fascism. I've pointed this out to you before, what's not clicking?

Blondbraid - Are you suggesting that all entertainment (books, tv, movies, games, etc) should have to meet these standards you (and others) have created? Or are you saying they don't have to; you just wish more of them did so you, personally, could enjoy them more?

(forgive me if you've made this clear already but there's a lot of long posts in here and I have read things to suggest both answers)

I thought I'd already mention it, but I'll say it again: I don't think every single piece of media has to pass any such criteria, but I do think more should, and those that doesn't pass the criteria should have a good reason as to why.
For example, I think Master and Commander is a great film, although it fails the Bechdel test. However, the reason it fails the test is because the film takes place exclusively on a Napoleon-era warship and all the sailors are men,
so it makes sense as to why it doesn't feature women talking to one another. Meanwhile, there are films like Valerian and the city of a thousand planets that does feature several female characters, and takes place in a sci-fi world where anyone can have any role, but fails the test because the writer didn't think they had anything to contribute to the film other than supporting the stories of male characters, and that's a  bad reason to fail the Bechdel test.

[fine]

1. You should seriously stop bringing up reductive Evo-psych theories into every thread that brings up gender, and you're blatantly ignoring the fact that in many cultures, women were forbidden from carrying arms or learning how to fight, not as a sign of privilege but as a sign of their subordination, as oppressed groups like slaves, Jews, and serfs weren't allowed to carry arms either. And similar to arguments surrounding black and Jewish people, this kind of theorizing has been used to justify societal oppression and mask it as biology. Please just stop, and also, I suggest reading Klaus Theweleits's writings on male anxieties over fighting women and the pathological need to keep their women "pure".

2. Right from the start of video games, there have been games that aren't about war and fighting, but sports, exploration, and different kinds of job simulators. Plus in the 1980s, when gaming really started to take off, there were female action heroines like Ripley, Sarah Connor, various Bond girls, and Valeria from the Conan the Barbarian movie, so it's not like female soldiers or action heroes were unheard of or unacceptable to a mainstream audience.

Women are not excluded to spite them, but because it feels alien to many writers of stories to place them in such peril.

That's RIDICULOUS. I saw gamergate unfold when it started, and there were tons of guys complaining that games included female soldiers, even when they were in historically accurate situations, like female Russian scouts in Battlefield 1, or in contemporary/near-future settings like Call of Duty: Ghosts. Meanwhile, the exact same audience was fine with women portrayed as damsels who were kidnapped, murdered or violated to motivate male heroes to go on a revenge quest, or sometimes not even that, but just used as gritty set dressing, Red Deads Redemption even has an achievement for tying a female NPC to the railroad track.

Let's face it, a huge number of men are perfectly OK with women being tortured, hurt, and killed when they are portrayed as helpless damsels who need a man to protect or avenge them, and only bring up the white knight shtick about being queasy of violence against women when it's women portrayed as soldiers and warriors equal to the men.

Tolkien highlighted this male hypocrisy way back in the 1940s;
“And she answered: 'All your words are but to say: you are a woman, and your part is in the house. But when the men have died in battle and honour, you have leave to be burned in the house, for the men will need it no more. But I am of the House of Eorl and not a serving-woman. I can ride and wield blade, and I do not fear either pain or death.'

'What do you fear, lady?' he asked.

'A cage,' she said.”

And of course, this iconic line they kept in the movie;
'And those who have not swords can still die upon them.”

The hands and ears kind of make her look like a primate.

True, I added the gloves because I've seen some catgirls have fussy cat-paw gloves, but I also noticed it made the cat look more monkey-like.
So much of the cat silhouette is recognized by the ears too, that's what weirds me out when I see Scottish fold cats.

Both lice and turds are difficult to illustrate, of course. Difficult to model in a game. And in most war stories, there would be little point. In a Big Serious War is Hell picture, most certainly worth trying to bring across. Less so in Where Eagles Dare, for instance. Or indeed Call of Duty. War as entertainment is a different question all together.

I don't know where or when it began, but it's not uncommon to see soldiers vomiting of stress and fear in contemporary movies. Which was not shown in the XX century films, I believe.

Well, I think Blackadder goes forth had several jokes about both lice and all the other poor hygiene in the trenches.

As for Sunless Skies, that is an interesting point, though I would say that an unique title that designates the owner as their own version counts as a form of name. My main reason for putting a name on 1 on my list was mainly because I've seen many games where female characters don't have any real names, but are just referred to as "player's girlfriend/wife", "a woman" or something generic like "the princess" or "evil queen".

ow! Pertinent to the topic, I just thought of something. I recently fell in mad love with the game ArmA III. However, it fails the test quite severely as it does not seem to feature any women at all, which is a most curious absence now that I see it.

Yeah, I think it says something about how society views women when I can think of many high-budget and high profile games that lack women entirely, but I can't really think of any games that feature a lot of women but no men unless it's some low budget waifu game aimed at straight guys. Even the games aimed exclusively at little girls I played as a kid used to feature men, often in the role of a mentor/father figure guiding the player.

Cute, in a kinda disturbing way.  Actually, the cat itself looks a bit disturbed.

I guess pondering the side-effects of anime tropes could make anyone feel disturbed! 

And nice lion, very majestic!