Messages

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.

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.

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.
For a good modern day example: make good games and movies with female protagonists and support those creators. Create new ideas, characters and stories.
For a bad example: turn every single pre-established story and character into a minority version of itself at any cost just to be able to say you were 'inclusive' because that's what the PR advisory board said the corporation should do with their intellectual property.

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. 

Appreciate the optimism. I'd have put the decrease at more like 5-10% at most, but at this stage it's all just guesswork anyway.

Considering the lack of funding and the general state of public healthcare in the US even during previous presidencies, I find it a bit of a weird fantasy to think that if only we'd avoided a Trump presidency then, magically, nobody would have died of Covid in the US.

Like I said above, I support the change, and I support having more women in prominent roles in media, which includes myself working to have female protagonists in my games, but 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. 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.

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.

It's not an entirely new phenomenon, but the fact seems to be that a large portion of the population is wasting its potential and resources, in a time of abundance and easy life.

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?

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? 

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."

[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.

Isn't everyone always trying to dictate culture?
I'm fairly sure that's how culture comes into existence.

"Culture is all things we do, say, write and draw. Every aspect of every thing we do, is culture."

That's how it was taught to us at school. I think most arguments over culture arise from people with different cultural backgrounds trying to enforce their own idea of "correct" culture over others while refusing the idea that other forms of culture than their own can have merit.
Good thing that's not the case here!

[any]

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.

I'm not saying animals are making a conscious decision to take such actions, as far as I am aware. I am rather referring to biology and evolution. Take, for example, a whole host of birds.

The female peacock:

Dictated by evolution, drably coloured in order to better be able to hide and survive, and to shelter the precious eggs and chicks from predators.

The male peacock:

Gloriously colourful to draw attention, both from females during mating season, and unwillingly from predators.

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.

[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".

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?

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.

True, simulation games have always existed, but they are limited as a genre in the fact that they are trying to simulate and represent the lived-in reality at the time, and most sports are male dominated and when attempts are made to focus on female sports, the audience isn't there, both in real world sports events and in video games. I guess here we can blame capitalism, combined again with millenia of tradition, for the unequal outcome. I can't recall any of my friends complaining of having to play Anna Kurnikova's Tennis as kids, despite the female focus. We didn't reject it, because it made sense.

..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.

You mean you saw a small group of angry people out of a population of millions complain loudly on the internet? Yes, that sounds about right, and happens with every issue. You keep repeating "a huge number of men", and in a way you are right, but saying that a large portion of people think X doesn't tell us much more than the fact that this is the underlying tradition and mindset of the societies these people come from. These ways of thinking are how we are raised as kids, by parents and schools and stories and movies and games and books. I agree that we can change that, hell I've made a game with a female protagonist and worked for years on a second one that fell through, but the fact of the matter is that no matter how much we preach that on the internet the change won't happen in a year, or ten years, or maybe even fifty. It will happen steadily, over time, as new generations replace the old, as new attitudes replace the old, and as long as content producers like ourselves continue to provide those options and views into what could be, rather than what has always been.

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.

I think the matter of having men everpresent in videogames stems from the nature of the vast majority of videogames in that they depict struggle, violence and adversity, which the player must overcome. Historically and culturally the professions of police, soldier and other potentially dangerous jobs and roles that are suited to face such adversity have been the lot of men, with arguments reasonably made that placing women in these roles often carries a greater potential risk to society in losing a precious childbearing mother rather than an easily replaceable male. This was definitely true in the past, of that I think there is little to argue over. Whether that still holds up in todays society, however, is an entirely different matter. The cultural background for the distinctly male role of low-value grunt idolized as hero overcoming odds, and the matronly female holding the fort and caring for the young, is solidly set and maintained for a variety of reasons ranging from ease of following tradition to preference among wider audience, along with experience among creators. Many are the creators of books, movies and games who are so set in their ways that it is an alien idea to them, that a female character might be as well defined and full of character as a male, when they are so used to depicting women as objects and trophies.

However, one could also argue that not placing more emphasis on women as protagonists, leaders and other key figures in games is oppressive and harmful, rather than protective and caring as I think the intention often is. Women are not excluded to spite them, but because it feels alien to many writers of stories to place them in such peril. Both ways can be seen as a negative, especially if handled clumsily and poorly. (See: Ubisoft claiming that including playable female characters, in a game where all player characters wear heavy robes, would be "double the work" and thus infeasible.)

I think this is a matter that will come down to cultural change over time, as well as the preferences of independent creators and audiences first. If those smaller and more independent creators and prove that audiences do enjoy games with a greater focus on strong and well fleshed out female characters, then the larger mainstream developers and publishers will eventually have to adopt the trend to remain viable and popular, or risk losing their market status and share.

One of my favourite kind of protagonist comes in games such as Myst. The protagonist has no name, no voice and no physical body. The games retain a full immersion in first person views, with NPC's regarding the player in neutral but natural terms, and the player gets to feel as though they are the protagonist of the story themselves, whatever their gender, appearance or other traits may be.

As for customizable protagonists in story heavy games, I feel it often results in protagonists that lack character or personality, even if voiced and animated well. The stories cannot really take gender into account in any way, if the player can be either male or female, or even a non-human race entirely, so stories have to be focused on other characters and events with the player reduced to a mere observer, around whom the story happens, regardless of who or what they are. A well defined protagonist, male or female, always trumps a customizable and ill defined one, when it comes to telling the story of that character.

More Koskenkorva for me! Division of labour.

What, no salmiakki to go with it?

Alas, today ends the most entertaining 4 years of American politics. Let us hope that Biden doesn't drag the US right back to all of their old tricks. We've had enough of the warmongering world police. I see a lot of newspapers saying that "Biden is now becoming the leader of the free world", but I think that title has been lost to the US presidency long before Trump even came to office. Maybe around the Bush Junior years. To see something positive in the Trump years: he reminded us all that the rest of the western world should not rely solely on the US and NATO for their protection and stability, and countries should look inward once more, to ensure their own house of cards is in order before preaching beyond their own borders.

I'm just angry at grandma. She should have known better.