Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
and how, pray tell, do you expect "us" to change that? Do tell cause I'd like to see some initiative on this issue. I don't think that men and women should be treated differently. Just like I don't support cops beating up black people. That kind of concept is so old and foreign to me that it seems extremely outdated.
...I don't know how to respond to this...
If I recall correctly, it was allegedly more about who she cheated with than Quinn herself. People long felt her game received undue praise, and being in bed with the very people praising it likely compounded those suspicions.
Oh no, I just meant my specific criticisms would be misplaced in a thread like this. I certainly am not advocating for it to be closed, just explaining why I don't see much good coming from my participation.
I think I might.
They also get many times more harassment. They get attacked for their looks far more than their male counterparts. And yes, the idea that women are all, to some degree, oppressed, is not that "out there". There is a raging undercurrent of sexism throughout all of western culture. Third wave feminism exists largely in part to try to address and draw attention to this. It's often things that miss your attention if you don't pay close attention, or which happen to be disputed. Here's a great example. Do you have a girlfriend/wife/female significant other? Try going out with them somewhere as a couple and counting the number of times someone address her as opposed to you. It's pretty amazing; when we do it, the tally is usually something like me: X, her: 0.
Yes... What's surprising is how often this is trotted out as an excuse to hand-wave away legitimate criticisms.
The idea that the calls of "ethics" Gamergate was anything more than a smokescreen brought up after the fact has been pretty soundly refuted by now. The idea that she somehow slept with critics, leading to positive press, is also pretty much straight-up not true.
I said alleged, and regardless it's incredibly immature to speak in such absolutes over currently controversial matters.
I'm well aware you've not gone over the sources if you think Zoe Quinn is anywhere near the main issue or subject.
Again, the man essentially begged people to leave her alone. Please stop speaking on controversial matters you clearly don't fully grasp.
I don't see the problem here. It's a sexy ad and a pretty effective one at that. Definite gets your attention, doesn't it? I don't see it as demeaning at all. Ivy is a pretty cool character. Strong as hell while looking good. Similar to Bayonetta, it's the idea of using her sexuality in an empowering way.
"Hey look guys, it's a selling point that one of our characters has huge breasts and dresses like a fetish model!"
This would normally be the point where you bring up the problem with men being mostly beefcake, and I point out that this is a male empowerment fantasy rather than a female sexual fantasy... But Astaroth actually is neither. He's not an empowerment fantasy - he's built like a brick ****house, but that's because he's literally a mutated monstrosity. Namor the Sea-Man this ain't.
Because it's needlessly exclusionary and pandering? Because it makes women feel uncomfortable? Like, to bring up a more obvious example, you know that guy at the D&D evening who plays an elf chick with 20 charisma and huge **** who insists on being constantly naked and making out with the other party members? Do you understand at all how he might be alienating towards the women in the party? That's the effect that Ivy has. That's the effect those ads have.
Hey, who brought up video games here? I'm talking about this issue because apparently we're talking about this issue. We can talk about "real" feminist issues instead if you want. And yeah, let's ignore this because it's so much more trivial than issues in other cultures that we cannot reasonably resolve in any meaningful way. It totally makes it not an issue.
I really doubt any successful marketing department is gonna be full of super admirable people, honestly.
so are you denying the fact that sexism is an issue in the industry?
Umm, why don't we just market a generic looking woman. :|
Note I said a lot of, not all. It's much easier to prove a poor decision than that the decision was sexist. And something being able to be labeled "sexist" does not make it an absolute evil.
...I'm no PR whiz but I think slapping a generic looking anything on your product is a bad idea.
Sexism is not pure evil...You're saying an outdated, 60 year idealism is not pure evil. Fine. I'll concede on this notion when the rest of the US stops gawking at a pair of **** every time some woman walks on the street with cleavage. Not so easy is it. Let's be honest, sexism is a pre-conceived notion that is outdated and the fact we still face such an issue simply says our society has to find better ways to deal with it. Look at Japan, you could get sued if you so much as a look at a woman the wrong way. I don't want the US to go down that sort of path, but at the same time the country needs an update when it comes to this ideal. Women have been around for as long as men have been around so this sort of construct mentality and sexism as a whole needs to just flat out end or at least find some common ground. Because until men stop gawking at **** on the street or trying to cheat on their wives, is the day sexism will not be a huge deal or at least a huge issue.
I think it's a sin to ruin our society with stereotypes of women as a whole.
Not everyone can, should be, or wants to be a special snowflake. This goes for both men and women. That's all I'm going to say.
I do not understand your argument.
You ever hear about the "yes all women" campaign? The difference between that guy and the woman in the other video is that the woman in the other video basically has to think, "****, any one of these guys could try to **** me". This guy? Probably doesn't have to worry quite as much. And then there are the cultural norms which paint men approaching women as inherently more predatorial than the opposite - not exactly sexist against women, but something feminists are trying to change.
This is probably because you're not looking, and because it's moved down from "Honey, don't speak unless spoken to" to far more subtle forms. This doesn't mean they don't exist, and it doesn't mean there isn't a problem. And it is really easy to miss this stuff. It's easy to just not notice when these kinds of things occur until someone brings them up, and then suddenly it clicks - "Wait a minute, you're right - nobody ever addresses my girlfriend when we're out in public either, it's always me!" These kinds of casual sexism that have just sort of sunk into society with nobody really paying much attention to them. It became normal to expect women to be more reserved and polite; for women not to act like they're in charge in most situations. It became normal to assume that the man was the dominant part of the relationship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLDgPbjp0M
Well, tell you what - find some data on harassment of furries in the Smash community, and we can talk. But that would do nothing to minimize or decrease the harassment women face. What is this, "oppression olympics"?
Take that up with Melee It On Me; I'm sure those guys would love to hear about how little sexism matters in the Smash community. You know, given that a good 20% of female smashers either have quit or have considered quitting over the sexist treatment they receive. I can't do **** about Saudi Arabia. What I can do is try to reduce the sexism in play in my own community. I don't pretend that it's not a problem. You seem to think that there isn't an issue of sexism in the Smash community or in gaming in general. You're just wrong.
1. Death threats are irrelevant to the fallacious arguments and misleading rhetoric surrounding this feminist video.
Wow, way to ignore almost everything and completely miss the single point you decided to bring up.
^^
So are you gonna debate or do I win by default...
We both have exactly one source claiming to have got death threats. Last I checked 1 = 1. Your move!
Which fallacious arguments and misleading rhetoric? What, exactly, is the problem here? My point with the threats is to point out another incongruity - men and women who speak out like this do not get similar treatment online. It's not supposed to be relevant to that video, it's supposed to be relevant to the pathetic attempt at false equivalency going on here.
This is true. One of these was considered newsworthy; the other was not. I'll let people make their own conclusions on this one.
http://time.com/3305466/male-female-harassment-online/
Notice that last part. Was Pizzey threatened because she was a woman with an opinion? Or was she threatened because she was a person with a horrifyingly stupid and harmful opinion? Was Anita Sarkeesian targeted for having an opinion? Or because she was a woman? Well, I dunno. Her thoughts are neither unique nor revolutionary, and there are many in the industry offering similar rhetoric, but I'm not aware of too many other people who get bomb threats called on their speaking arrangements. Maybe Salman Rushdie?
Dude. At least spend some time trying, eh?
Guys often get their sexuality questioned and receive harsher treatment in many circumstances on and offline. Nobody denies that sexism against women exists - that would be ridiculous - but many people deny that sexism against men exists. Even those who acknowledge misandry severely under-estimate its extent and impact and act as though it is negligible.
Hollaback! argues that street harassment is a particularly big problem for women, and requires greater attention as a women's issue. This argument fails for several reasons:
This opinion piece fails to refute any of Cathy Young's arguments that Men Are Harassed More Than Women Online, because Young anticipated all of its relevant points:
Cathy Young said:
2. Chemaly accuses Young of ignoring offline context; yet Young quoted a Pew survey relating online events to physical danger.Soraya Chemaly said:
Pizzey was threatened because she dared to acknowledge reciprocal violence at her women's refuge, contradicting the feminist paradigm of treating domestic violence as unilateral patriarchal oppression. Threats with intent to silence are equally bad regardless of whether they're motivated by (misogynist) bigotry or (feminist) zealotry. Splitting hairs only reveals your prejudices.BPC said:
Not specifically. Basically any marginalized minority will do, although the app is targeted specifically at women. This may be due to real reasons of oppression, or because it's a more susceptible market.
I addressed the ModelPranksters clip at length in my response to Yort.
Not exactly. Attractiveness is not a determining factor in sexual abuse, harassment, and **** the way that gender is. Yeah, attractive privilege is a thing. But it's like comparing, I dunno, straight privilege to cis priviliege. There's a world of difference there.
Yes, but this isn't just blanket "street violence". It's a particular type of sexualized aggression - sexual harassment and ****. Conflating it with generalized street violence misses the point completely.
Fair enough.
Yes, ignoring a 66% increase from men to women actually is pretty much ignoring it.
Yeah, I'm not finding that figure on BJS either, but this CDC report has 18%, which isn't far off. This is what RAINN cites for their "1 in 6" figure. As for stalking, I dunno about the Justice Department, but Pew seems to support a similar figure when comparing young men and women. (Oddly, this does seem to contradict what Young said about 5% vs. 3% - men actually see more threats of violence, but that might be a different type of data, I dunno.)
Although depending on who you ask, the idea that men are always responsible for domestic abuse is actually a patriarchal problem, because its main supporting factor is the propped-up bogus gender roles. Either way, fair enough on this point.
You're saying that (1) feminists want to gender-equalize the stigma for approaching strangers even though (2) women's fears are uniquely necessary. At first glance (1) and (2) together suggest that feminists are wrong, since the violence that justifies women's fears would also justify norms against men approaching or catcalling them. How do you resolve this contradiction?
The vast majority of her interactions were identical to ModelPrankster's ("damn!" "how you doing?" etc.). Twice in 10 hours walking NYC, a muscular guy walked with her for a few minutes while she ignored him. Creepy but not oppressive. We need to soften the gender roles that caused these men to act this way, without resorting to blamey/exaggerated language like "patriarchal oppression" and "toxic masculinity". Feminism here has the right idea but a needlessly offensive approach.
My experience has been the reverse. My GF is talkative, so people address her first and assume she is dominant. I guess we're nontraditional in that way. I consider myself an ideological ally of feminism when it comes to fighting rigid gender roles, and surely there's room for progress. But feminists have been so partial to women's interests, and so effective at changing law and public opinion, that men's rights and legitimate interests are being unfairly neglected as a result.
By resolving 2, in other words by resolving **** culture as an entity. There shouldn't be anything inherently predatorial about approaching women on the street, and that's something I'm fairly sure many feminists are working towards.
But once again, you make the mistake of conflating all violent crime with the kind of violent crime that this catcalling, following-around, and aggressive sexual behavior implies risk of: sexual assault. Catcalling leading to murder or robbery is not
Depends on which feminists you ask. Those who are not trying to destigmatize non-aggressive interactions are, in my opinion, wrong. The problem is that you encounter men catcalling, striking up conversations, demanding things of you (when someone tells you to "just smile!" they're demanding that you do something for their benefit), etc. on a near constant basis.
Except they really weren't. Not only that, but again, the social mores are different. It's like MGDMT put it:
Somewhere between "creepy" and "terrifying". As I said above, if that was me, my immediate thought would be, "Oh ****, is this guy going to drag me into an alley and **** me?" (By the way, to whomever it may concern, I get why censoring "r***" is a good idea given the term's history within the community but boy does it make conversations like this one difficult, given that it's yet another completely censored 4-letter word.) The oppressive part comes from the difference in gender dynamics.
The hollaback! about page features neither patriarchal/patriarchy, toxic, or masculine/masculinity. Yes, the language can get needlessly blamey, but let's stick to what we're actually talking about.
Quite.
But that's hardly a criticism of feminism. Were feminists responsible for this neglect? I don't think so. Personally, I'd say that someone else ought to take that torch up. Maybe the Men's Rights movements could pull their heads out of their collective asses, stop complaining about women ruining everything, and actually step up to address these issues?
Not to come off as criticizing, but I don't quite fully understand the point this comic is trying to convey. Could someone explain the meaning of this to me?Except they really weren't. Not only that, but again, the social mores are different. It's like MGDMT put it:
Uh, of course feminists were responsible for this neglect. They time and time again facilitate the claim that feminism is about equality for both genders, but operate under the assumption "inequality" is an absolute less/more issue, and that giving women more rights makes things more equal overall.
I also don't really understand the comic. I guess it's saying what's degrading/problematic is how they're dressed, and the slap... Not one or the other. Which makes no sense no matter how you look at it. Just the fact the artist seems to think hitting someone becomes unacceptable based on what they're wearing is pretty worrying.
