Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gentlefish]

-snip-

Excuse u feminism these days deals with gender issues. In fact, feminism, by dealing with the inherent patriarchal structure of our society, deals with the entirety of gender issues and sexual/romantic orientation issues.

Also I was going to poke at:

feminism helped people with the idea that even men

But you were actually right. Because feminism helps ~everyone~ and not just women.

In fact, the title "feminism" is picked because read it again. You take the stance that there is nothing wrong with being feminine and that it doesn't make you less worthy of anything or that it puts you in a different role as opposed to masculine. Everyone has feminine traits. The movement is to abolish the idea that you absolutely have to pick a side or you're wrong and if you're a man better pick masculine and if you're a girl you better be feminine or deal with a lifetime of harassment.

[Urist Tilaturist]

I agree that games should have a content warning "contains rape" if they do, so people who are triggered will not play it. However, you must realise that most people are not triggered and as long as those who are triggered know what is in the game and avoid it, then it can still be there for those who are not. Someone with PTSD might be triggered by shooting, in which case, yes, the game should have "contains shooting" made very clear on it, but that should only mean that those who are triggered should not accidentally expose themselves to it.

Smeeprocket, stop saying that we are in a different reality. If you had actually read and considered my posts in any detail you would have seen that I said that female characters should be just as developed as male ones. It is just that some settings do not feature many women fighting. Others do. Being a properly developed character does not mean fighting; many fighting characters in games are not well developed at all. I also said that many characters in games could be homosexuals, but the player simply does not know about it because such things are not always public. I also said that having a free black character in mediaeval Europe would not be out of place, since we can see contemporary pictures showing black and white people mixing without too many problems.

Do you just type your first angry impulse without fully considering what has already been said?

[Glowcat]

The full Jim Sterling 180-on-sexism Interview mentioned in my edit can be found here.

[UXLZ]

-sigh-.
Issues like this strike somewhat of a cord with me because I believe that I'm sexist (or something like that). I would never act that way, because I can consciously choose not to, but I despise the part of me that objectifies people. It has been extremely troublesome getting rid of. The unspoken fleeting thoughts and glimpsed feelings that seemed to be ingrained into my psyche. Of course, my conscious will does override them in regards to my actual actions but I very much dislike having them to begin with.

[Bohandas]

True enough. Personally I prefer something like Gender Equality since it includes everything.

Feminism is female side equality not general equality.

Did anybody else get an Animal Farm vibe from the above statement? That sounds like a "some are more equal than others" type thing.

[Rolan7]

Because it outlines a hypocrisy in that particular type of feminism.  The goal is to bring about gender equality, but it must be done by focusing exclusively on the problems women face.  Supposedly women are so severely disenfranchised that there's no time to consider the underlying processes, which affect both genders.

I'm open to arguments which explain how men are tricked into sexist thinking, instead of lazily painting us as "entitled" and "the enemy".  Which I think is most serious feminists, but they often get drowned out (particularly in certain online communities) by simpler, more vitriolic "arguments".

[smeeprocket]

Because it outlines a hypocrisy in that particular type of feminism.  The goal is to bring about gender equality, but it must be done by focusing exclusively on the problems women face.  Supposedly women are so severely disenfranchised that there's no time to consider the underlying processes, which affect both genders.

I'm open to arguments which explain how men are tricked into sexist thinking, instead of lazily painting us as "entitled" and "the enemy".  Which I think is most serious feminists, but they often get drowned out (particularly in certain online communities) by simpler, more vitriolic "arguments".

your definition of feminism is wrong from the start, therefore your analysis is inherently flawed.

We are all part of the patriarchy (or kyriarchy, which is what I've started using because it encompasses more than male dominance,) we all end up promoting it in one way or another, unintentionally or otherwise. The trick is to fight it and oppose it whenever possible.

It's why Lean In is more a problem than a solution. It maintains the status quo of the kyriarchy, instead of trying to rewire things to rid ourselves of the problem.

The system is inherently broken.

But more to the point, feminism doesn't actually just focus on women's issues, it focuses on race, and sexuality and class status, and a whole host of other things which I wish people would research enough to realize before making statements like this.

The point of the comic, however, is that this whole "let's call it humanism" argument denies the very specific problems that each minority (in the power structure, though yes the majority of the world is women,) faces. It allows the dominant members to grab focus for their issues, and continue to lead and direct the discussion as they see fit, when it needs to be the oppressed that lead the discussion.

[Neonivek]

But more to the point, feminism doesn't actually just focus on women's issues

Its prime focus is Women's issues.

Everything else is just feeds back into that. Yes, Feminism will often deal with race, but it does so because that also deals with Women's Issues (and women happen to be part of other races).

Feminism ISN'T Egalitarianism, it is Egalitarian but isn't egalitarianism. It is why I often call it "Female Side Egalitarianism".

Don't stretch the definition of Feminism outside its bounds to make it seem prettier for dumb people. It is perfectly fine the way it is.

[smeeprocket]

But more to the point, feminism doesn't actually just focus on women's issues

Its prime focus is Women's issues.

Everything else is just feeds back into that.

Feminism ISN'T Egalitarianism.

I don't feel you are qualified to define it.

The oppression of a black poor trans woman is different than the oppression of a white middle class cis-gendered woman and the issues each face need different amounts of attention.

[Neonivek]

But more to the point, feminism doesn't actually just focus on women's issues

Its prime focus is Women's issues.

Everything else is just feeds back into that.

Feminism ISN'T Egalitarianism.

I don't feel you are qualified to define it.

The oppression of a black poor trans woman is different than the oppression of a white middle class cis-gendered woman and the issues each face need different amounts of attention.

Just because it deals with those topics doesn't mean it is ABOUT them.

I am as qualified as anyone here.

As well just because Feminism isn't about gay rights, it doesn't mean Feminism is "against" Gay rights or that Feminists are too busy to care unless it deals with women. That isn't how things work.

[smeeprocket]

But more to the point, feminism doesn't actually just focus on women's issues

Its prime focus is Women's issues.

Everything else is just feeds back into that.

Feminism ISN'T Egalitarianism.

I don't feel you are qualified to define it.

The oppression of a black poor trans woman is different than the oppression of a white middle class cis-gendered woman and the issues each face need different amounts of attention.

Just because it deals with those topics doesn't mean it is ABOUT them.

I am as qualified as anyone here.

Really, what homework have you done on feminism? Other than listening to the general vitriol that the media and conservatives tend to spew in our direction?

Like I said, you don't get to redefine feminism to fit what you think it is about.

[Neonivek]

You don't get to redefine feminism to fit what you think it is about smeeprocket.

[Tack]

Agreed. Smeeprocket you tend to be as blind toward those of conflicting opinion as the selfsame people you are fighting against.
Lasting change is Not made with blunt force trauma.

[Arx]

Like I said, you don't get to redefine feminism to fit what you think it is about.

I searched for the term "what is feminism" using startpage; the top three results (Wikipedia, Red Letter Press, and feminist.com) all described it as a movement for women's rights. One quoted a description of a feminist as "a women who doesn't want to be treated like shit" and another described feminism as "the radical notion that women are people".

The consensus from the most popular websites seems to be that feminism is about women only. That's not to say that a feminist can't be active otherwise, but feminism itself would appear to be highly specific.

[smeeprocket]

You don't get to redefine feminism to fit what you think it is about smeeprocket.

If Feminism is "Everythingism" then yeah, it is incredibly flawed and INCREDIBLY sexist.

Apparently you can just repeat what I say for a successful argument.

Feminism isn't everythingism. I never said that.

Being a feminist is also about paying attention to all the other struggles and issues out there. In fact, civil rights causes in general are intrinsically linked. It would be silly to only care about your oppression and not the oppression of others (not that people don't do it.)

anyway, I'm not going to argue back and forth about what feminism is or isn't, because I have actually done the research to be aware of the issue, and I don't feel that you have. It's not personal, it's just a matter of putting a lot of time and effort into something, and then having some dude on the internet come along and tell you everything that you have worked for, that you have surrounded yourself, is entirely different than it actually is. There's no basis for the argument.