This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
@ Feminism
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
The statistics that I would have to see...if they exist, is how many women fit into this category. How many of them actually can say, and within reason 'prove' that they really, really wanted to go to college, but they couldn't because a bias in society stopped them.
I think you're missing the point a bit here - none of them will demonstrate that they really really wanted to go to college but couldn't because society stopped them. The issue is that they are brainwashed into not wanting to go into college. Statistics will never be able to show the societal bias of that, other than looking back in a hundred years time and seeing how backwater we as a society were back at the turn of the millenium.
Edit: If I can suggest another analogy:
Indian parents are notorious for not wanting their kids to marry non-Indian people. So there is active pressure (e.g. 'no, you're not allowed to marry an American boy'), and there is the implicit brainwashing as you're growing up (e.g. constant reminders of how inferior other races are compared to Indians, talking about examples of cross-cultural couples who have divorced, have marital issues, financial issues, social stigma issues, etc.). At some point, a vulnerable child is prone to believe that really, they wouldn't ever entertain a relationship with someone who's not Indian.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
Magician22773
So the whole "inequality' thing, is really that women are just being brainwashed, by a man-controlled society, into voluntarily submitting themselves into a submissive role.
OK....I think I just went from being "atheist / agnostic" on the subject to full blown "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on it....if that is really the position here.
You have kinda just said that
"Well...our position can't really be proven (although, I have noticed that when researching feminist movement websites * see the article I posted about the "5 worst states for women" *, they really like to post statistics and numbers), because it is actually society subliminally programming women into submission, and our "proof" will come in a century or so, when we look back and realize how primitive we were back then"
That really didn't exactly "clear it all up for me". But you are right...I did "Miss the point"
EDIT:...Hmmm...seems the brainwashing isn't working too well.
Women surpass men in both bachelors degrees, and advanced degrees
.
and
In 2009 Bloomberg News reported that the sixteen women heading companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index averaged earnings of $14.2 million in their latest fiscal years, 43 percent more than the male average. Bloomberg News also found that of the people who were S&P 500 CEOs in 2008, women got a 19 percent raise in 2009 while men took a 5 percent cut.
Of course you have the "Gender Gap" in pay, which when looked at objectively, is only about $
150-160
a week averaged across all occupations, and races.
Sure, as a percentage (18% or so), that looks pretty dismal. But remember, that is across
all
types of jobs.
If you look at some very common 'male dominated' professions, and some 'female dominated' professions, it helps explain at least some of the gap. For professions that do not require any, or little advanced education, males tend to dominate work in construction, and as truck drivers. Both of these have a fairly high potential income for not requiring a degree. Women, however, tend to dominate the childcare industry, and office professionals. Neither of these fields are any less important (in fact, I would argue childcare would be the most important of them all), but they have substantially lower income potential.
And yes, there is still an 'unexplained' income gap, virtually across the board. And again, I am not blind to think that discrimination does not play a role....but it also does not sufficiently explain it either. And, rightfully so, we now have the Lilly Ledbetter Act, that should help cut down on blatant wage discrimination.
I do think men may be more aggressive in seeking higher pay then women.
I believe men may be more willing to "risk it all" for advancement. (If you are a valuable employee, and management feels you may move to different company, they will be more willing to pay more to keep you).
I believe it has been studied than men, in the same positions, tend to work more hours than women. More hours = more productivity = more pay.
And..the article that I looked at also grouped 'professions' pretty loosely. For example, it has "medical" as a profession. There is a huge swing of salaries within that category. If you are going to group nurses, which trend more to women, in the same category as surgeon, which trends more to men, then you are going to get a skewed result. Now, if "eye doctor Bob, with 15 years experience, working in Tulsa, Oklahoma" is making 18% more than "Eye doctor Sue, with 15 years experience, working in Tulsa, Oklahoma"...then there is a problem....and that is what the Ledbetter Act is for.
Post by
Gone
And lol, it's nice to see peaceful rationalism in this thread, too, after the drama a couple nights ago.
Aye, been some high tempers this week.
I'm not gonna respond to the thing about Christianity cause this isn't the thread for that.
This is getting tedious. What exactly are we supposed to talk about in this thread. "Feminism" itself isn't much of a topic, but covers a WIDE array of other topics, such as abortion, religion, the middle east, voting rights, etc etc etc. If we CANNOT contrast Christianity and Feminism in a thread about Feminism, then I contend that we CANNOT contrast it in a thread about Christianity either. We need to make like, a dozen threads. Each one is a sub topic to feminism. Feminism in video games. Feminism in religion. Abortion and feminism. I think that we should just talk about these things in this thread, as it isn't derailing a thread, and even if it does derail it, shouldn't we be ok with that, to a certain extent? Are there really SO many participants in these threads that it would become mayhem on this board if we didn't? No one is talking about the price of steel, or the velocity of an unlaiden swallow. Let's allow a little bit of topic exploration, eh? The number of posts about how our posts are off topic are becoming a distraction in and of themselves. In the very least, it's making the discussion tedious if we have to change threads 3 times a day every time we shift slightly on the template of feminism.
It's true there has been a lot of "post somewhere else" in this thread. But what I was referring to really did have nothing to do with feminism, and I could see it leading to a longer debate that really would have just derailed this thread.
Post by
Squishalot
OK....I think I just went from being "atheist / agnostic" on the subject to full blown "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on it....if that is really the position here.
Aye, so you think psychology researchers are wrong when they suggest that the attitudes of parents influence the attitudes and development of kids? Sure, whatever you reckon.
Post by
Magician22773
OK....I think I just went from being "atheist / agnostic" on the subject to full blown "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on it....if that is really the position here.
Aye, so you think psychology researchers are wrong when they suggest that the attitudes of parents influence the attitudes and development of kids? Sure, whatever you reckon.
Development of kids...of course not. Proper parenting is always a good thing.
But once that child has reached, even early adulthood, that influence tends to drop like a stone in a lake.
Otherwise, every child that was raised in a good home would be successful and upstanding, and every child that was raised in a bad home would be a degenerate. Every son of a Car Salesman would be a Car Salesman, and every daughter of a Homemaker would be a Homemaker.
Small sample size, I know, but my grandparents had 7 children. My grandmother never worked a day in her life, with the exception of during WWII. She died, having never even held a drivers license. My grandfather worked like a mule his entire life...35 years of it for 1 company.
Of the 4 female children, 2 of them have had professional careers. My mother, who (thankfully) gave birth to me at 14 yrs old, worked as much as she could when I was very young, and worked every day from the time I started school. Only one of the female children has 'somewhat' followed in my grandmother's footsteps, and has really never steadily worked. (and, honestly, she is just
lazy
..I would not really classify her as a 'Homemaker'"
Of the 3 male children, only 1 of them had even the slightest of a 'career', and that was of a truck driver...but, at least he worked until his health (diabetes) forced an early disability retirement. of the other 2 males, both are fully dependent on Government. One of them has, at least, a valid reason, having been injured in Vietnam, and never really readjusting to society. Sadly, his life has been mired by drug and alcohol abuse, compounded by injury from battle. My other uncle is perfectly content with living in Section 8 housing, drawing Welfare, and being a drain on society for no justifiable reason. he is, as polar opposite of what my grandfather was, and raised him to be.
My point is, as an adult, your adult mind can make an adult decision as to what you want from life. I do not buy it, that women are somehow programmed to be unable to make these decisions......especially since we are 2 generations beyond when it was actually the "societal" norm for women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
Post by
Squishalot
Background and attitudes are different things. A homemaker can encourage their daughter to become a doctor, for example. It's also a far cry to suggest that I said that every daughter of a homemaker would be a homemaker. What I'm saying is that it is more likely that a daughter of a mother who thought positively of homemaking would become a homemaker, than a mother who was part of the feminist movement, for example.
Would you agree with that statement?
Post by
MyTie
My point is, as an adult, your adult mind can make an adult decision as to what you want from life. I do not buy it, that women are somehow programmed to be unable to make these decisions......especially since we are 2 generations beyond when it was actually the "societal" norm for women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
But, but... they still can't choose to play their video games with a female protagonist.
Seriously, this is NEVER going to end. It never will be enough. Logic need not enter the equation. Do women make less of an "average" income than men? Yes. But, if you take a sample of men who work full time, and women who work full time, guess what? That gap shrinks to almost nothing. Women in their 20s actually outearn men (
source
). So why the overall income disparity? More women choose to stay at home than men do. So, why don't we have mens rights groups demanding that men in their 20s get paid more, and women get paid less? Because men are the oppressors and women are the victims, that's the way it is, and it will never change. Even when women are treated with great respect and care, in society, to the point of actually getting paid more, having the right to vote, fight in the military, own property, hold high office, etc, there will still be women, all over the world.... who can't play Modern Warfare 2 with boobs. Clear
evidence
of patriarchy.
On a more serious note, you don't see a lot of guys in fashion magazines. I'm going to go way out on a limb here, and say that's because more women read fashion magazines than men, so the fashion magazines get models that apply to their subscribers. I'm also going to postulate that more males play video games than girls. So, maybe it's a marketing thing, and not a "we HATE women, let's oppress them all by not putting women in games" thing. I mean, if you read that article, it talks about the marketing reasons and aspects of their decision.
Post by
Patty
My point is, as an adult, your adult mind can make an adult decision as to what you want from life. I do not buy it, that women are somehow programmed to be unable to make these decisions......especially since we are 2 generations beyond when it was actually the "societal" norm for women to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
But, but... they still can't choose to play their video games with a female protagonist.
Seriously, this is NEVER going to end. It never will be enough. Logic need not enter the equation. Do women make less of an "average" income than men? Yes. But, if you take a sample of men who work full time, and women who work full time, guess what? That gap shrinks to almost nothing. Women in their 20s actually outearn men (
source
). So why the overall income disparity? More women choose to stay at home than men do. So, why don't we have mens rights groups demanding that men in their 20s get paid more, and women get paid less? Because men are the oppressors and women are the victims, that's the way it is, and it will never change. Even when women are treated with great respect and care, in society, to the point of actually getting paid more, having the right to vote, fight in the military, own property, hold high office, etc, there will still be women, all over the world.... who can't play Modern Warfare 2 with boobs. Clear
evidence
of patriarchy.
You're completely missing the point.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Hey, I'm all for feminism, but I'm just taking a realistic and practical approach toward it. Your example of Christians not being able to get their cars to start is a great example of how Christianity doesn't work. And feminism isn't there to ensure video games have female leads, or whine about unfairness. It's there to help ACTUAL oppression. Watch
this
. (WARNING: GRAPHIC) Let's talk about helping them. Because, even though you are a girl, feminism isn't there for you, or most women in the western world. You, quite simply, have it way too good.
Post by
Patty
I'm going to bold/caps this to make it very, very clear:
WOMEN'S RIGHTS HAVE PROGRESSED A LOT IN THE WESTERN WORLD, AND WHILST OPPRESSION AGAINST WOMEN IN PARTS OF THE NON-WESTERN WORLD IS MUCH WORSE THAN SEXISM IN THE WESTERN WORLD, THAT DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THE STILL EXISTING PROBLEMS IN OUR OWN SOCIETIES.
Clear enough?
In earlier pages, you seemed much more open to this fact. I don't know why suddenly your stance is shifting to "feminism is pointless for us because look how women in other countries have it worse". I mean if that's all you're going to say, I don't see the point in you being here.
Post by
240140
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Magician22773
you have nothing to offer, step out of the discussion
What if we have something to offer, but it does not agree with your position?
I can't complain about women never being represented in the right light because apparently it's impossible to do so at the same time as I fight for girls who can't go to school?
You can complain all you like. No one is asking
you
to step out of the thread.
What I'm saying is that it is more likely that a daughter of a mother who thought positively of homemaking would become a homemaker, than a mother who was part of the feminist movement, for example.
I would agree that one of those examples is very likely to try to brainwash their daughter, yes.
WOMEN'S RIGHTS HAVE PROGRESSED A LOT IN THE WESTERN WORLD, AND WHILST OPPRESSION AGAINST WOMEN IN PARTS OF THE NON-WESTERN WORLD IS MUCH WORSE THAN SEXISM IN THE WESTERN WORLD, THAT DOESN'T DETRACT FROM THE STILL EXISTING PROBLEMS IN OUR OWN SOCIETIES.
You can underline it too, and it still does not make me believe that 'problem' is severe enough, in the Western World, to warrant a movement. I think most of can agree on the issues in under-developed nations though. Perhaps that is why it is being mentioned...to help find a common cause?
Post by
Patty
Feminism is a
global
endeavor. The reason western societies have been specified so much in this thread in particular is because, hey, that's the ones we are most familiar with. It's the ones that the posters live in. It's the ones that can hopefully be changed by pointing out problems that others with an outsider's viewpoint may not see at first glance.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
My personal remark was more about what I appreciate in game design than what I consider a societal wrong. I like playing female characters in RPG's. I don't play straight shooters or platformers really, but if I did I don't think I'd care either way. I was more speaking to what I enjoy for game immersion purposes, and not necessarily commenting on the politics of it.
I think that there are valid points on both sides of this particular arm of the debate. I agree that when dealing with inequality for women, I think that it's important to prioritize when we're dealing with limited resources. I think it's more urgent to shut down the human trafficking here in the US and other countries which targets primarily women and children, to push for equal legal protection for women in countries where they don't have it, and to provide education for women in places where it is denied to them, than to worry about the perceptions of female protagonists in games. I think that it's important to work on the most egregiousness examples of female oppression and abuse first. I think that this might be what MyTie is trying to get at.
However, on a video game forum where we're all chatting, it's not about resource allocation- pretty much anything we talk about here is going to have the same actual impact on the world. This is more of an intellectual discussion than anything else. And in an intellectual discussion, things that might not take priority when trying to make a plan of action are still viable for discussion. Just because someone wants to discuss perceptions of women in Hollywood or in gaming here doesn't mean that when they're putting their time and money in that's what they're fighting rather than human trafficking or child marriage. So I don't think that saying that other things are much more important invalidates the topic as something for debate, nor forms a real argument about whether or not something should be different (even if the effort vs. reward makes it not worth pushing in someone's opinion).
My personal opinion, as a woman, is that there are a lot of things in media that are disrespectful to women, or over-sexualize them. But there are a lot of things in the media that are disrespectful to men, as well, and over-sexualize them. It has definitely been lopsided since the dawn of media, but I think that as prevailing attitudes change, the art changes with it to reflect society, and we're finding that newer shows, movies and games are making a move towards including more females in traditionally male-cast archetypes, more media that is meant to appeal to heterosexual females on a tawdry level, etc., if for no other reason than it's good business to capture as much of the market as possible.
I'm not offended by male protagonists, short skirts, etc. because different media is designed to sell to different target audiences, and they can sell one game to someone who wants to be a tough guy getting all the girls to swoon, and a different game to me where I can be the smart-alack heroine who has to choose between 3 love interests who may or may not be well written. I AM offended when I see a movie that attempts to normalize abusive or dangerous behavior, but I don't think just not casting a woman is enough to do that. Something like 50 Shades of Grey, which by all accounts was written about a seriously disturbing controlling relationship that was emotionally abusive, and marketed to women as a romance, is something that actually concerns me. Glorifying characters who use disgusting and abusive terminology for women, "take what they want" from them with the implication that the women enjoy that, or put women in a subservient position is something I'd worry about. Glorifying protagonists with an overactive sex drive or code of chivalry that's rather oblivious to a woman's independence is not. I think that there is a difference between things that are not your taste, things that are in poor taste and things that send dangerous messages.
One thing that I will say is that there are some arguments that I have heard made in the general feminist spirit that are so petty that I worry that it takes away credibility from the movement as a whole, and hands chauvinists an example to use to say that feminists arguments are ridiculous. I've had the same experience with racism or other discrimination claims. I have seen women go to customer service and when they don't get the return they want for clearly reasonable and fair reasons, will claim sexual discrimination. I have seen women who will not get position because they came into the interview in jeans, rather than professional attire, because they don't meet the listed educational requirements in the job posting, etc. who then say it was because they were a woman. I think that it's important to make sure that the fights that we're fighting are real fights, because if people make the same kind of ruckus over it being sexist to have pink and blue baby blankets in the store or to have any cooking toys at all, as they do over a boss who fires a woman who won't sleep with them, then we're sabotaging our own progress.
Post by
Magician22773
Feminism is a
global
endeavor. The reason western societies have been specified so much in this thread in particular is because, hey, that's the ones we are most familiar with. It's the ones that the posters live in. It's the ones that can hopefully be changed by pointing out problems that others with an outsider's viewpoint may not see at first glance.
And, as I have said, I do not believe that sexism, in the Western World, exists in such a manner that is warrants a movement. And as long as I can continue that stance in a respectful manner, and with providing a reasonable counter-argument to it, I have that right.
I agree with you that there are issues in other societies, that are so severe, that they are atrocious. I see no reason why mentioning those issues is not relevant to the discussion.
I offered up two points a couple pages back....education, and wage gap. I offered some research and opinions on those points. That seems like a good start for some 'conversation'....especially the wage gap, since some parts of it are still considered "unexplained", even by the experts. Perhaps some debate on that topic could be constructive.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Human Trafficking targets
- An estimated 17,500 foreign nationals are trafficked annually in the United States alone. The number of US citizens trafficked within the country are even higher, with an estimated more than 200,000 American children at high risk for trafficking into the sex industry each year.3
- 80% of trafficked persons are women and children.
This does not mean that men are not victims of trafficking. Men are more likely to be victims of forced labor (e.g.: day laborers, construction or restaurant workers, etc), while women and children are often exploited in the sex industry. These are not fixed rules, however, but general trends.
http://www.humantraffickinged.com/
I would say that women and children (mostly female) being sold into the sex trade in the USA and other western countries is an issue that points out that not ALL women in these countries have it too good, and that there isn't no reason for people to work for the protection of women here. There are still issues that need to be addressed here.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
Gone
I do not believe that sexism, in the Western World, exists in such a manner that is warrants a movement.
I guess it really depends on what you think of as a "movement".
Do we need to be marching through the streets or doing hunger strikes to petition congress to pass new laws (in the western world)? No, at this point I think we are well past that.
Do we still need to continue to educate the newer generations in order to continue to shift the attitude of society? Yes.
I think feminism gets a bad reputation because a lot of people think the movement is somehow anti men, or in favor of giving women special consideration. This is really only true of the ultra extreme members of the community, AKA the crazies. For the most part feminism is just about equality, and as I said earlier, men are negatively impacted by the current views as well.
Human Trafficking targets
- An estimated 17,500 foreign nationals are trafficked annually in the United States alone. The number of US citizens trafficked within the country are even higher, with an estimated more than 200,000 American children at high risk for trafficking into the sex industry each year.3
- 80% of trafficked persons are women and children.
This does not mean that men are not victims of trafficking. Men are more likely to be victims of forced labor (e.g.: day laborers, construction or restaurant workers, etc), while women and children are often exploited in the sex industry. These are not fixed rules, however, but general trends.
http://www.humantraffickinged.com/
I would say that women and children (mostly female) being sold into the sex trade in the USA and other western countries is an issue that points out that not ALL women in these countries have it too good, and that there isn't no reason for people to work for the protection of women here. There are still issues that need to be addressed here.
Things like that can never be expected to change though. The goal of feminism is to bring about social equality. You can't expect criminals and criminal organizations to abide by social norms and standards. The fact that women and children are victims of human trafficking more than men are because they are used as sex objects by criminals, and because children are easier to control. That isn't a result of the patriarchy, that's a result of criminals having a larger market for women than for men.
Post by
MyTie
"feminism is pointless for us because look how women in other countries have it worse"
There were 10 people put in a room because they liked to wear hats. Society hates people that wear hats, so they were put in that room. 5 of the people are beat up, daily, one to the point of death. The ten people begin to advocate for their release, and the end to oppression. One of the five people that wasn't beaten up, however, is complaining that the air conditioner needs to be turned up by a few degrees. That person lists it as evidence of their oppression, that the air conditioning isn't quite high enough.
It's not that I don't believe in women's rights, but when people advocate for women's rights, but reduce the struggle to petty whining, it cheapens the actual travesties in the world. Women, in some parts of the world, are property. What kind of world is this? Let's talk about REAL ways to improve these people's lives. Petitions? lol. How about we go to war with countries that don't guarantee equal trial by jury for women? How about we put international sanctions on countries where the women are burned with acid if they don't cover their faces, or school children are threatened with death. How about that? I'm not looking down on feminism. I'm looking down on whiners. Stop being a victim ALL THE TIME, and have some perspective. That's my opinion. Maybe you actually believe those trivial causes are worth lamenting. If that's the case, perhaps I should be happy for you, that you have enough time to put into that, and have it good enough that you even notice those things.
I'm going to put this in caps and bold so you, Elura, and others get this. I mean,
really
get this.
TELLING ME I DON'T BELONG IN A DISCUSSION IS NOT GOING TO GET ME TO LEAVE. I WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED INTO LEAVING SIMPLY FOR HAVING AN OPINION THAT YOUR OPINION IS WRONG. I'M HERE TO STAY. DEAL WITH IT.
Post by
Skreeran
WHY ARE WE YELLING?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.