Print

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

[smeeprocket]

Actually women with money have less power than men with money. If you put the two up together, the man will win. But this is why we are using the term kyriarchy. I am perceiving the same thing you are, and you don't need to talk about Marx to me, I am a Marxist.

Though kyriarchy has been defined already in the thread let's do so again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy

Yes the structure is designed to pit the oppressed against each other (though I would argue that men also held power over the house, women never actually had power over anything.)

In the south, it used to be (and really still is) a big thing if you are white and poor to be able to put yourself above poor blacks. Most people in the south didn't own slaves, only the rich and powerful, but dear god, the very thought among poor whites of black people being in any way equal to them enraged them.

My mother in law voted for Obama, and yet when he was passing the ACA she said to me (and this is a nice, very non hateful woman) "he wants us to be like them" "like who?" "the black people"

she can not perceive that she is not really any better off. She fears the thought of being lowered to black person status, when she is so destitute that she can't even get the basic necessary health care. Yes society will benefit her more for being white, but in the long haul, she isn't going to get anything good out of it. Everyone gets to suffer.

That is how the Kyrairchy works. But that does not release the poor white man from responsibility for his actions. We would all be wise to join together and fight for equality for all of us, and heaven knows, I'd love that, but the system is rather rigged.

[smeeprocket]

I'd rather not lose a topic because we really like rambling on about this. Make a new one about feminism in general should you want to.

Also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308508/Gender-pay-gap-U-S-reversed-young-women.html this is my "evidence" to the reversed gender gap theory, since someone asked.

There's better ones with actual sources like this http://www.aei.org/publication/equal-pay-day-for-young-single-men-to-recognize-the-gender-pay-gap-in-favor-of-young-single-childless-women/ but that one's the original.

On game topics, something that we should discuss to ease our heads a bit:

Do you think having a character be physically weak instantly says she's helpless?

As in, do you think not having biological strength hurts a female character on-screen representation wise.

please use something other than the daily mail as a source, they literally make up half their articles.

[Sheo]

I'd rather not lose a topic because we really like rambling on about this. Make a new one about feminism in general should you want to.

Also: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308508/Gender-pay-gap-U-S-reversed-young-women.html this is my "evidence" to the reversed gender gap theory, since someone asked.

There's better ones with actual sources like this http://www.aei.org/publication/equal-pay-day-for-young-single-men-to-recognize-the-gender-pay-gap-in-favor-of-young-single-childless-women/ but that one's the original.

On game topics, something that we should discuss to ease our heads a bit:

Do you think having a character be physically weak instantly says she's helpless?

As in, do you think not having biological strength hurts a female character on-screen representation wise.

please use something other than the daily mail as a source, they literally make up half their articles.

I know, that's why I linked aei.org right below it.

There's other articles on it if you search "reverse pay gap"

In any case, again - we should get back on topic. Make a new thread for this if you like - I find it interesting and enlightening.

[smjjames]

Do you think having a character be physically weak instantly says she's helpless?

As in, do you think not having biological strength hurts a female character on-screen representation wise.

I would say no, within realistic bounds. Realistic bounds being 'not a weak fainting damsel in distress like early/mid 20th century hollywood tends to do'.

If it's for a bit of comedic effect or to trick another character (possible in adventure games), okay. Also within reasonable bounds.

[Sheb]

Yeah, it's possible to have really strong character that are physically weak. Think Dr House for example. I don't see why you couldn't have a female version of that.

[smeeprocket]

Do you think having a character be physically weak instantly says she's helpless?

As in, do you think not having biological strength hurts a female character on-screen representation wise.

I would say no, within realistic bounds. Realistic bounds being 'not a weak fainting damsel in distress like early/mid 20th century hollywood tends to do'.

do you know where all that fainting comes from?

In the Victorian Era woman would take small doses of arsenic to make their skin paler.

So they were actually fainting. The corsets constricting their organs plus small doses of deadly poisons made them into these weak damsels of distress.

Just a fun fact.

[smjjames]

Well, I meant the general 'helpless damsel in distress' thing hollywood often did up to the 70's or something, especially in B-movies.

[wierd]

They would have to be under a rock to not know about the bias in pay between males and females. It's a very well known issue, I'd say on par in exposure to the "Pro life VS Pro choice" controversy.

Unlike that latter one, which is rife with religious implication, and philosophically difficult snares, the pay relation issue is pretty cut and dried.

Industry does it, because they get away with it.  They get away with it, because culture is OK with it.  To make it so they cant get away with it, culture has to change.  The only way culture changes, is when people reject the old culture.

The popular position must be "No, that is unacceptable, what are you thinking?!"

If at any point there is "Ok, maybe this time" in the mix, the powers that be (a better term than patriarchy or kyriarchy, IMO) will wrangle and argue about how "This time" is "OK".  It does not matter what gender, gender identity, race, ethnicity, or country of origin you are from.

I'm not sure of the point you were making in this post.

Kyriarchy is the best term, it encompasses all the issues at hand. Though the focus here is on the oppression of women. It is true though, that even in gender, oppression is not at all equal. A middle class white woman is not going to be oppressed in the way that a trans WoC is going to be oppressed.

The problem we are having with regards to keeping this thread on gaming is that to admit there is sexism and inequality in gaming, we have to admit to the existence of sexism and inequality in general, and find the oppressors culpable for it.

This is hitting a road block.

I feel like there is no foundation, we are building on quicksand.

That is because you have continually tried to cast me into an ideological position, in which I never partook, because of superficial similarities to arguments made by people you have encountered in the past.  Rather than actually read what I was writing, you chose to be insulting and shoot from the hip.

I refuse gender charged terms, like "Patriarchy", because they present a false sense that "Men are behind it all!"-- Likewise, I try to avoid obscure terms, like "Kyriarchy", no matter how linguistically correct.  I instead prefer terms like "Powers that be", which convey a faceless quality, which is disconnected from any factor, other than currently being the ones in power.

I am very put off by your arrogant posturing, and would ask for an apology if I thought I would get one-- Given the light that you have openly accused me of positions that I do not hold-- such as refusing to accept that gender pay differences exist.  (Nevermind that I can point out numerous times where I have pointed out that they do indeed exist, and that they are indeed normalizing over time!)

But no.  You can't understand what I wrote above, because it does not conform with your preconception of my ideological position, and therefore you are confused.

I accept that in lieu of an apology. It's the best I feel I am going to get.

My view can be summarized as follows, just so you know.

You cant compromise with tyrants. The only way to deal with a tyrant, is to depose them. The institutional disadvantage of any group by another is tyrrany.  It does not matter if the group is being disadvantaged over race, over gender, over hair color, religious belief, or any other criterion on which one may draw a comparison.  The fact remains that one group is disadvantaging another. To overcome this, the disadvantaged group MUST stand up for, and depose from power, the group doing the disadvantaging.  There is no other way.

The modern corporate world is beholden to one thing, and one thing only:  Profit.

Profit in this case, is getting a financial advantage to doing or selling something.  In the case of the labor market, the company makes more profit when they get you to work harder for the same pay-- or pay you less for the same work.  They want to maximize this profit, no matter what. They dont really give a damn about your gender. What they care about is that they can get away with paying you less, and that society will punish you for trying to get equitable compensation.

Society will try to punish you for being "Aberrant"--  Something I am INTIMATELY familiar with, being asexual.  I refuse to comply with the incorrect views of the society, and consider its punishments to be foolishness in action.  I ENCOURAGE women to disregard such punishments, and stand up for themselves.

That is my position.  Not that "Oh, there's no bias, dont be silly!" or some other made up shit. 

There is no need for me to .. How did you put it?...  "mansplain to [you] womenfolk" about anything.  You are a disadvantaged demographic, suffering from an institutional tyranny of the majority, and the gender is inconsequential.  I would hold this position even if I had a vagina instead of penis.  I am a person, and I am explaining that the only way PEOPLE overcome these problems, is by facing them, and forcing the popular concensus to change by proving the popular concensus wrong.

You assert that this is not how this has historically worked-- That's at least an honest response that does not involve petty name calling and strawmen.  However, if that is so, then explain how it is not--  Since from my perspective, this is how cultural change happens:

Phase one-- There is inequality, and several groups of people within the disadvantaged demographic stand up for themselves and make a public case for change.  The case they make is controversial, but enters the public consciousness.

Phase two-- The arguments they make are weighed by the most impartial members of society-- children-- as they mature and are exposed to the society and its messages.  They decide for themselves if the case being made is proper or not.

Phase Three--  These children replace their parents as the current powers that be of the society.  The views they hold directly shape public policy, and it is at this point that changes in the status quo occur.

You dont get from Phase One to Phase Three without fighting the fight.  In fact, the more it looks like you are just blowing smoke and causing a fuss for no reason, the more your cause will be actively refused by the next generation.  You cant circumvent the generational nature of this process, because that is how culture changes-- generation to generation.

Now, please explain how the above is wrong.

[Phmcw]

Actually women with money have less power than men with money.

No. Add statistically and you have half a point, but it's still meanignless.

That system COUNT on that reaction. I said it again and again, it's the point. Rich slaveowners would have appily enslaved both race equally, but they would have had a revolt. By introducing an inequality, you get destitute peoples to fight for the system that crush them. It's rather elegant, and a trick used consciently and constantly during colonisation : colonial armies were small and expensive to move most manpower was from a local ruling class. Segregation in south africa was etablished because poor whites where living and sympathising with poor black peoples.

In one sentence, you're all puppets of the ruling class, and that's why they can rule. If you cannot see that it's stealing all the power again you're blind.
It's not men, it's not whites, it's not even wealthy peoples : it's a very small elite, less than 1% off the population, and it's like that everytime. The elite may change but the system stay roughtly the same.

[Frumple]

Yeah, it's possible to have really strong character that are physically weak. Think Dr House for example. I don't see why you couldn't have a female version of that.

... honestly, I've noticed in the recent-ish years there's been a fair amount of games with physically weak characters, female or otherwise. It plays into a lot of puzzle design as well as alternate conflict stuff. Personally often a bit fond of such -- I'm pretty flimsy myself, but enjoy leveraging physics and whatnot to get shit done. It's nice when you're running a protag that pushes through adversity with the lever and inertia instead of the bicep, or somethin' along those lines. Pulleys instead of punches and stuff -- it's nice when a game revolves around humanity's defining feature instead of what we get out performed in pound for pound by most every other primate in existence.

Though on the other hand, I'd probably buy into a game that lets you play as a chimp, too. Anything for a good excuse to rip off someone's arms and beat them to death with 'em, wot.

[smjjames]

@wierd: How about you two take the discussion between you two to PMs? Since it's more or less a back and forth between you two.

Sorry if I sound demanding or something.

[Phmcw]

Back on point, in fighting games there are strong and heavy and swift and nimble characters, so it's kind of alreay the case. Same thing in Moba's.

[smjjames]

Back on point, in fighting games there are strong and heavy and swift and nimble characters, so it's kind of alreay the case. Same thing in Moba's.

How about we diverstify into games besides fighting, you guys are ignoring entire genres.

[smeeprocket]

Actually women with money have less power than men with money.

No. Add statistically and you have half a point, but it's still meanignless.

That system COUNT on that reaction. I said it again and again, it's the point. Rich slaveowners would have appily enslaved both race equally, but they would have had a revolt. By introducing an inequality, you get destitute peoples to fight for the system that crush them. It's rather elegant, and a trick used consciently and constantly during colonisation : colonial armies were small and expensive to move most manpower was from a local ruling class. Segregation in south africa was etablished because poor whites where living and sympathising with poor black peoples.

In one sentence, you're all puppets of the ruling class, and that's why they can rule. If you cannot see that it's stealing all the power again you're blind.
It's not men, it's not whites, it's not even wealthy peoples : it's a very small elite, less than 1% off the population, and it's like that everytime. The elite may change but the system stay roughtly the same.

But I have been agreeing with you this whole time. I have also said that we are all part of the kyriarchy. I am not arguing with you to much of a degree. However, most of this is not conscious at the lower levels, and why yes absolutely a small percentage truly reap the rewards, they divy out smaller rewards to certain groups in a manner that supports them best.

Also, that small group of rich people is, you guessed, mostly white straight cis-gendered males. They have good reason to reinforce social norms.

However, even if say, a somewhat rich man doesn't reap the benefits part of the 1% reaps, he still reaps benefits, the system is still skewed in his favor, and he still gets rewarded through it.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting with all this though.

Also, I don't even know what tinfoil hat stuff weird is on about now so I am not even going to bother.

[wierd]

Yes, of course smeep. It is my fault that you cannot comprehend an outside argument. Of course.

(Nevermind that PHMCW is saying the same thing in a different way, and you are agreeing with it.)