• 121 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon: Hatred manifests itself in many ways. There's a lot of resentment and contempt for women shown in how people sometimes talk about sexism in games on GB. People often don't even want to try to understand why a lot of girls and women don't like the way their gender is portrayed in games. They act as if they're being nagged whenever the subject is brought up and what they're doing is making it really difficult for the minority of women who actually want to come talk about games to do so meaningfully without being drowned out by a bunch of indignant dudes who act like feminism is somehow a threat to their ability to be men.

#52 Posted by selbie (1969 posts) -

The only White Knight I care about:

#53 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4892 posts) -

@chrissedoff: I've not seen resentment or contempt for women on Giant Bomb, just resentment and contempt for feminism. Fundamental disagreement with or outright hostility toward a social movement does not lump people into a column that says "these people hate women" no matter how frustrating it may seem to you. Just in case the last couple of sentences didn't make it clear feminism =/= women.

That's it.

#54 Posted by Example1013 (4807 posts) -

DAE kitchen jokes?

#55 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@Oldirtybearon: Being opposed to feminism makes somebody a misogynist. Feminism is the idea that both genders are entitled to the same respect and rights. The hatred we sometimes see of feminism is really a manifestation of some men's feeling that they're being emasculated and nagged whenever inequality between the sexes is acknowledged. That's an inherently misogynistic view because it originates from the belief that issues which primarily concern women aren't worth addressing.

#56 Edited by bushpusherr (852 posts) -

Any instance I've ever seen of someone legitimately coming off as a "white knight" never struck me as questing for sex (or pics, or whatever), but mostly just seemed utterly desperate for attention. As we are all intimately aware, the anonymity of the internet can bring out the worst in people. However, the same anonymity can also bring out a kind of social courage in others, especially those who are so massively awkward that they can't begin to talk to girls in the "real" life.

An unconditional, emotionally charged defense of this kind isn't constructive to any kind of logical, reason based debate/argument either. I'm not saying the term is always used appropriately, but I don't feel it's entirely without value.

@chrissedoff said:

@Oldirtybearon: Being opposed to feminism makes somebody a misogynist. Feminism is the idea that both genders are entitled to the same respect and rights. The hatred we sometimes see of feminism is really a manifestation of some men's feeling that they're being emasculated and nagged whenever inequality between the sexes is acknowledged. That's an inherently misogynistic view because it originates from the belief that issues which primarily concern women aren't worth addressing.

I feel like the backlash against feminism for a lot of people isn't against the idea of equality, it's against the type of people who are actively trying to find things to be offended by, prone to often make controversy up out of thin air just to have something to campaign against. As with a lot of social movements, some people take it way too far and give a bad name to the whole movement. It's like PETA. Calling them out for all their bullshit doesn't mean you hate animals and want to harm them; there are way better animal rights groups out there.

#57 Posted by hidys (1029 posts) -

I've learnt to mentally filter out any post which uses the term.

#58 Posted by Liquidus (942 posts) -

@bushpusherr said:

Any instance I've ever seen of someone legitimately coming off as a "white knight" never struck me as questing for sex (or pics, or whatever), but mostly just seemed utterly desperate for attention. As we are all intimately aware, the anonymity of the internet can bring out the worst in people. However, the same anonymity can also bring out a kind of social courage in others, especially those who are so massively awkward that they can't begin to talk to girls in the "real" life.

An unconditional, emotionally charged defense of this kind isn't constructive to any kind of logical, reason based debate/argument either. I'm not saying the term is always used appropriately, but I don't feel it's entirely without value.

@chrissedoff said:

@Oldirtybearon: Being opposed to feminism makes somebody a misogynist. Feminism is the idea that both genders are entitled to the same respect and rights. The hatred we sometimes see of feminism is really a manifestation of some men's feeling that they're being emasculated and nagged whenever inequality between the sexes is acknowledged. That's an inherently misogynistic view because it originates from the belief that issues which primarily concern women aren't worth addressing.

I feel like the backlash against feminism for a lot of people isn't against the idea of equality, it's against the type of people who are actively trying to find things to be offended by, prone to often make controversy up out of thin air just to have something to campaign against. As with a lot of social movements, some people take it way too far and give a bad name to the whole movement. It's like PETA. Calling them out for all their bullshit doesn't mean you hate animals and want to harm them; there are way better animal rights groups out there.

Wow, first person I've genuinely agreed with here. Hats off to you.

#59 Edited by TobbRobb (4848 posts) -

@chrissedoff: Being opposed to feminism at its core does make you misogynist. But being opposed to crazy people finding issues where there aren't any, does not.

Of course everyone should be equal, it's just common sense. But not every feminist actually wants "equality" as much as female empowerment, and they are more or less the scum of the earth, together with actual misogynist men.

#60 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -

You should see the amount of people on your side(not you, specifically) that use the words "mysogyny" and "mysogynist" without even having the balls to go find out what those words mean before using them incorrectly

Online
#61 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -

@chrissedoff said:

@Brodehouse said:

@Abendlaender said:

What does "white knighting" actually mean? Defending someone/something? So, is there a thing like "black knighing" then? Or I guess that would be "trolling" (seems fitting at least cause "dragoning" doesn't sound as cool as I thought it would).

White knighting is the idea that if a man doth be trolling, arguing, whatevering a proper lady, it is thine duty to step betwixt her and the knave troll, and thusly meet him in glorious internet combat. A lady cannot defend herself, and is a fragile, shrinking flower, of course!

The subtle sexism of lowered expectations.

That's a pretty good sum-up of what white-knighting really is and why it's a bad thing. On this board, most of the people accusing users of being white knights use the term from a deeply misogynistic perspective... basically to try to intimidate and dismiss any presumably male site user who makes a feminist-positive argument. I don't think these people understand that they can't try to shut out all perspectives on the treatment of gender in games that don't sync up with their belief that things are just fine as they are and then get offended when other people think they're misogynists.

Actually, disagreeing with someone is not 'shutting them out', and it's not misogynistic. The act of disagreeing with someone is an exercise of free speech, it is not censorship of the original argument's free speech. "This game is sexist." "You're wrong." "Quit silencing me!" This does not make sense.

Now, having the entirety of your argument be "you're just a white knight" is an ad hominem fallacy, and should be described as such. Just like the entirety of someone's argument being "you're just a misogynist" should be described as such.

#62 Posted by Sweep (8983 posts) -

@Milkman said:

Whatever, dude. You're just trying to get laid by these RADICAL FEMINISTS.

Damn, they're onto us...

*smokebomb*

Moderator
#63 Edited by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -

@TobbRobb said:

@chrissedoff: Being opposed to feminism at its core does make you misogynist. But being opposed to crazy people finding issues where there aren't any, does not.

Of course everyone should be equal, it's just common sense. But not every feminist actually wants "equality" as much as female empowerment, and they are more or less the scum of the earth, together with actual misogynist men.

@chrissedoff said:

@Oldirtybearon: Being opposed to feminism makes somebody a misogynist. Feminism is the idea that both genders are entitled to the same respect and rights. The hatred we sometimes see of feminism is really a manifestation of some men's feeling that they're being emasculated and nagged whenever inequality between the sexes is acknowledged. That's an inherently misogynistic view because it originates from the belief that issues which primarily concern women aren't worth addressing.

Well, no. Feminism is a social campaign that seeks the continued betterment of women, in perpetuity. It is not egalitarianism, because egalitarianism is egalitarianism. If feminism was just purely about equality, it would be called... egalitarianism. And it's no longer 'women's rights' because that's already been achieved. A lot of people (myself included) identified as feminists because they incorrectly identify it is being egalitarianism when on a purely constructional level, it is not. In fact, I find the way it operates to be about as damaging to women (and more importantly, free speech) as shitty old traditional conservativism. Being opposed to women's rights because you don't see women as people, that's misogynist. Feminism emphasizes female victimhood and hypoagency along with anti-sex censorship in a way that simply turns an egalitarian off.

I'm completely fine with anyone who wants to be a woman's advocate (or a men's advocate), because everyone deserves an advocate. But the core of feminism is improving the lot of women, not simply 'equality'.

@chrissedoff said:

@Oldirtybearon: Hatred manifests itself in many ways. There's a lot of resentment and contempt for women shown in how people sometimes talk about sexism in games on GB. People often don't even want to try to understand why a lot of girls and women don't like the way their gender is portrayed in games. They act as if they're being nagged whenever the subject is brought up and what they're doing is making it really difficult for the minority of women who actually want to come talk about games to do so meaningfully without being drowned out by a bunch of indignant dudes who act like feminism is somehow a threat to their ability to be men.

It has nothing to do with "try to understand", it has to do with "your arguments are purely emotional" and "your offense doesn't get to override anyone else's free speech". Also, do not conflate women with feminists. There are plenty of women who talk about games meaningfully without being feminists. My girlfriend, bless her heart, is not a feminist. And no, I didn't 'trick her!' or whatever narrative is required to make sure she's a victim. She's an adult woman capable of doing whatever she wants.

#64 Posted by TobbRobb (4848 posts) -

@Brodehouse: Welp, I guess feminism just sucks then. No fun at all.

I'd like to think there are selfproclaimed feminists who are only looking for equality, but I don't have any proof or experience with that. So maybe that's just being hopeful.

#65 Posted by bvilleneuve (266 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

It has nothing to do with "try to understand", it has to do with "your arguments are purely emotional" and "your offense doesn't get to override anyone else's free speech". Also, do not conflate women with feminists. There are plenty of women who talk about games meaningfully without being feminists. My girlfriend, bless her heart, is not a feminist. And no, I didn't 'trick her!' or whatever narrative is required to make sure she's a victim. She's an adult woman capable of doing whatever she wants.

I think this is a pretty good summation of what's broadly wrong with your argument. Are you suggesting here that women are incapable of speaking misogyny? Because I assure you I have seen plenty of women who hate women, and not just in the high school whatever way. There are women out there who have internalized the idea (as you have) that feminism is about pumping up women indefinitely, when in reality it's just a reasonable conclusion to come to when you take into account the fact that women's rights simply have not been achieved. We're working on it, but the fact that we're working on it doesn't mean we can just sit down.

I mean... Jesus christ. Where do you get these ideas, dude?

#66 Posted by VanderSEXXX (552 posts) -

@Example1013 said:

LMAO!!!!! THIS!

#67 Edited by bushpusherr (852 posts) -

@bvilleneuve said:

@Brodehouse said:

It has nothing to do with "try to understand", it has to do with "your arguments are purely emotional" and "your offense doesn't get to override anyone else's free speech". Also, do not conflate women with feminists. There are plenty of women who talk about games meaningfully without being feminists. My girlfriend, bless her heart, is not a feminist. And no, I didn't 'trick her!' or whatever narrative is required to make sure she's a victim. She's an adult woman capable of doing whatever she wants.

I think this is a pretty good summation of what's broadly wrong with your argument. Are you suggesting here that women are incapable of speaking misogyny? Because I assure you I have seen plenty of women who hate women, and not just in the high school whatever way. There are women out there who have internalized the idea (as you have) that feminism is about pumping up women indefinitely, when in reality it's just a reasonable conclusion to come to when you take into account the fact that women's rights simply have not been achieved. We're working on it, but the fact that we're working on it doesn't mean we can just sit down.

I mean... Jesus christ. Where do you get these ideas, dude?

I don't think the movement as a whole can be painted with a broad brush. There are most assuredly people in both camps on this; those that want equality, and those that want more than that.

I remember reading a story about a fire department that had a nearly complete lack of female fire fighters. It was detailed that the physical performance examination as part of the application process was strenuous (being able to wield an axe, carry a certain amount, etc), and that it was keeping many women from employment (either by the intimidation of the test, or being incapable of passing it). There was an outcry from feminists about how the requirements were sexist, and that if a lot of women were having trouble completing it, then special tools should be provided to those women so they could be firefighters as well (giving them electric axes was an example).

The point here is, these feminists are not advocating equality, they are advocating special treatment. There is nothing sexist about the physical requirements of being a firefighter. It doesn't matter what you have between your legs, if you can't bust down a door and carry my ass out of a burning building, then you shouldn't be a fire fighter. This is the kind of feminism that is bullshit and gets a bad reputation.

#68 Posted by Village_Guy (2665 posts) -

I like chess too, oh wait.... nevermind.

Online
#69 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -
@bvilleneuve

@Brodehouse said:

It has nothing to do with "try to understand", it has to do with "your arguments are purely emotional" and "your offense doesn't get to override anyone else's free speech". Also, do not conflate women with feminists. There are plenty of women who talk about games meaningfully without being feminists. My girlfriend, bless her heart, is not a feminist. And no, I didn't 'trick her!' or whatever narrative is required to make sure she's a victim. She's an adult woman capable of doing whatever she wants.

I think this is a pretty good summation of what's broadly wrong with your argument. Are you suggesting here that women are incapable of speaking misogyny? Because I assure you I have seen plenty of women who hate women, and not just in the high school whatever way. There are women out there who have internalized the idea (as you have) that feminism is about pumping up women indefinitely, when in reality it's just a reasonable conclusion to come to when you take into account the fact that women's rights simply have not been achieved. We're working on it, but the fact that we're working on it doesn't mean we can just sit down.

I mean... Jesus christ. Where do you get these ideas, dude?

"Am I suggesting here that women are incapable of speaking misogyny?"

No, I'm not. Do not invent things.

Or are you calling woman who disagree with feminism misogynists? The idea that we have an ideology that cannot be argued, scrutinized of disagreed with on purely logical grounds is the definition of dogmatic, religious thinking. And I do not buy into dogmatic thinking.

"Feminism exists because women's rights haven't been achieved."

Actually, women's rights _have_ been achieved. If you do not believe so, point me to an American that discriminates against women. A law that levies special penalties upon women that it does not do so for men, or special benefits given by law (rights) to men that are not extended to women. Present it to me, I'm an egalitarian, I want equal treatment under the law, I'll say it's bogus; provided it is a rational, evidenced argument.

Feminism IS about the promotion and betterment of women, it is why the word contains the Greek root for woman. It's not about equality and that's why I got off the bus. As I said, I'm fine with someone (generally, a lawyer) who wants to focus their work on women's issues, but I am categorically against any attempt to pass special rules that discriminate based on sex, race or anything else. There's an American legal manoeuvre called 'strict' and 'intermediate' scrutiny, where judges can pass laws that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution if the government believes it is in the best interest of society. This is the mechanism that gives us affirmative action and racial/gender quotas... This is the same mechanism that gives us Japanese internment camps. I do not approve of any attempt to identify gender under law.
#70 Posted by tread311 (357 posts) -

I would definitely get into some Mighty Mint Chew.

#71 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -
@TobbRobb

@Brodehouse: Welp, I guess feminism just sucks then. No fun at all.

I'd like to think there are selfproclaimed feminists who are only looking for equality, but I don't have any proof or experience with that. So maybe that's just being hopeful.

There absolutely are, there are plenty of people who hear 'feminism is equality' and never really look deeper, and so identify that way. The 'casual' crowd, you might say. And they probably do want equality, I don't begrudge them that at all. But if they learn early that Feminism = Equality then when they hear a leading feminist call for censorship or the elimination of due process, it doesn't even cross their minds that that might be sexism at work. The same way that I can't really blame those 12 year old kids in Jesus Camp, because they been told for the entirety of their lives that the world works _this way_, and they aren't going to apply any kind of scrutiny to it.

If you want equality, call yourself an egalitarian and look at each problem brought up by whatever side based on its merits. And above all, protect free speech, because its free speech that even gave us the ability to have these discussions. As much as I might seem militant about gender, it's really third on my list of social militancy (1. Free speech 2. Logic over emotional rhetoric 3. Gender 4. Religion 5. Uhhhh, lets say race? Not really.). And actually religion might surpass gender, we just never talk about it on Giant Bomb.
#72 Posted by algertman (852 posts) -

Uh oh, somebody didn't like my thread.

#73 Posted by bvilleneuve (266 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

"Am I suggesting here that women are incapable of speaking misogyny?" No, I'm not. Do not invent things. Or are you calling woman who disagree with feminism misogynists? The idea that we have an ideology that cannot be argued, scrutinized of disagreed with on purely logical grounds is the definition of dogmatic, religious thinking. And I do not buy into dogmatic thinking. "Feminism exists because women's rights haven't been achieved." Actually, women's rights _have_ been achieved. If you do not believe so, point me to an American that discriminates against women. A law that levies special penalties upon women that it does not do so for men, or special benefits given by law (rights) to men that are not extended to women. Present it to me, I'm an egalitarian, I want equal treatment under the law, I'll say it's bogus; provided it is a rational, evidenced argument. Feminism IS about the promotion and betterment of women, it is why the word contains the Greek root for woman. It's not about equality and that's why I got off the bus. As I said, I'm fine with someone (generally, a lawyer) who wants to focus their work on women's issues, but I am categorically against any attempt to pass special rules that discriminate based on sex, race or anything else. There's an American legal manoeuvre called 'strict' and 'intermediate' scrutiny, where judges can pass laws that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution if the government believes it is in the best interest of society. This is the mechanism that gives us affirmative action and racial/gender quotas... This is the same mechanism that gives us Japanese internment camps. I do not approve of any attempt to identify gender under law.

You have a really reductionist view of what feminism is and what its goals are. Legal equality is good, and we need to keep working at it because there have been some attempts to overcorrect (as pointed out in his post above), but legal equality is not where feminism ends. There is still widespread, categorical social oppression of women, and it's born from the cultural oppression of women that was in place before the feminist movements.

So no, women are not yet equal, we are not living in a post-racial society just because black people can go to the same schools as white people, and we shouldn't have a Straight Pride Parade. I know, I know, I'm sure there are newspaper columnists and televised automobile commentators who would decry me as a member of the "politically correct brigade" coming in to ruin your fun, but these are the facts. The world can't be reduced to a legal system.

#74 Posted by Christoffer (1921 posts) -

So white knights come in to rescue women from trolls.

Can I roll an axe-wielding dwarf?

#75 Posted by Breadfan (6590 posts) -

Chem trails totally are a thing, bro.

#76 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -
@bvilleneuve

@Brodehouse said:

"Am I suggesting here that women are incapable of speaking misogyny?" No, I'm not. Do not invent things. Or are you calling woman who disagree with feminism misogynists? The idea that we have an ideology that cannot be argued, scrutinized of disagreed with on purely logical grounds is the definition of dogmatic, religious thinking. And I do not buy into dogmatic thinking. "Feminism exists because women's rights haven't been achieved." Actually, women's rights _have_ been achieved. If you do not believe so, point me to an American that discriminates against women. A law that levies special penalties upon women that it does not do so for men, or special benefits given by law (rights) to men that are not extended to women. Present it to me, I'm an egalitarian, I want equal treatment under the law, I'll say it's bogus; provided it is a rational, evidenced argument. Feminism IS about the promotion and betterment of women, it is why the word contains the Greek root for woman. It's not about equality and that's why I got off the bus. As I said, I'm fine with someone (generally, a lawyer) who wants to focus their work on women's issues, but I am categorically against any attempt to pass special rules that discriminate based on sex, race or anything else. There's an American legal manoeuvre called 'strict' and 'intermediate' scrutiny, where judges can pass laws that violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution if the government believes it is in the best interest of society. This is the mechanism that gives us affirmative action and racial/gender quotas... This is the same mechanism that gives us Japanese internment camps. I do not approve of any attempt to identify gender under law.

You have a really reductionist view of what feminism is and what its goals are. Legal equality is good, and we need to keep working at it because there have been some attempts to overcorrect (as pointed out in his post above), but legal equality is not where feminism ends. There is still widespread, categorical social oppression of women, and it's born from the cultural oppression of women that was in place before the feminist movements.

So no, women are not yet equal, we are not living in a post-racial society just because black people can go to the same schools as white people, and we shouldn't have a Straight Pride Parade. I know, I know, I'm sure there are newspaper columnists and televised automobile commentators who would decry me as a member of the "politically correct brigade" coming in to ruin your fun, but these are the facts. The world can't be reduced to a legal system.

It becomes absurdum ad reductio when I reduce it to something that no longer qualifies the subject as itself. 'Science is mixing chemicals' is reductivist, 'science is the observance of process to form knowledge' remains as a qualifier for what science is. Feminism is a social movement to promote women.

Legal equality is not merely 'good', legal equality is a core necessity of the entirety of Western civilization. Without legal equality, it can be argued that the legal right to free speech 'doesn't apply to X'. You cannot have social and fictional equality without legal equality. Do not underwrite the importance of equality in law.

Now, talking about 'oppression'. I would hope you're speaking about Islamic countries, and places where free speech is not inalienable. If we're talking about the West, what you have to realize is that enforcement of our cultural and sexual norms were not unidirectional. In the same way that women were forced to 'be women' and do the things prescribed for women, men were forced to 'be men' and do the things prescribed for men. Contrary to the belief that way back in the day men used women as ottomans, 99% of the population would qualify as 'oppressed' into their proper social roles. Women MUST perform duties X, Y and Z, men MUST perform duties A, B, and C. Women received benefits 1, 2, and 3, men received benefits #, % and *. You have to realize the vast difference in what qualified as 'men's work' in the Carolingian kingdom of the Franks and what qualified in Paris in 1905, a lot of it was things you simply couldn't expect women to do due to our natural sexual dimorphism. There's a reason why even today, men continue to make up 90+% of workplace deaths.

If you're going to hit me up with a little Patriarchy Theory, let me forestall you that it's been completely busted (largely by women!) by the application of scrutiny and the review of relevant evidence. These are Enlightenment ideals here, the idea that any concept can be challenged based on the application of logic and evidence, they saved the world from thousands of years of Bronze Age mysticism and scientific denialism; and these ideals directly allowed the deconstruction of those obsolete sexual mores.

Here's the problem with your 'post-racial' example. You mark that we're living in a sexist country/world because sexism against women happens, even though we have the legal framework to penalize it and create justice. In this example, logically, the occurrence of sexual discrimination, even when it is tried by law, demarcates a 'sexist culture'. Under such a logical architecture, the occurrence of murder, even when it is tried by law, demarcates a 'murder culture'. The occurrence of rape, even when it is tried under law, demarcates a 'rape culture'. This is just not a useful descriptor, and I would leave it behind.

And people being rude to... Women, men, Christians, Jews, blacks, whites, whatever... That's protected under law. That's free speech. Offense is not a legal right, you are not given the legal right to apply your offense over someone's free speech. This is what a free society is. I can burn a Quran if I want, because I'm not a Muslim and their rules do not apply to me. I can protest laws I don't like provided I follow the laws regarding other people's freedom of movement and liberty. Free societies; they saved the world. Don't allow them to backslide into dogma and censorship because of the tyranny of someone else's emotions.
#77 Posted by Unmada (68 posts) -

I agree with you, Animasta, that reductive labels like "white knight" don't contribute to a discussion. At best, it's used to justify the outright dismissal of someone's validity without addressing their actual contribution. Human motives and thought processes are a hell of a lot more complicated than that nebulously defined term can possibly portray.

#78 Posted by Dagbiker (6978 posts) -

Whats the problem with Knights, the world could use a few more knights.

But I agree.

#79 Posted by EpicSteve (6499 posts) -

Soooooooooooo, what's the White Knight?

#80 Posted by Akyho (1698 posts) -

That absolute sadest fact is there are truw white knights as the picture shows. However I would agree with you that the term is easily thrown around and I dont think at all its accurate on this site.

Alot of people have said "oh a Patrick article on femisms. There he goes white Knighting for his fiance Kate!"

Serously folks think that Patric dosnt have an honest intrest in such subjects and need to impress the woman he has married?

However the term white Knight excists for a reason and its realy sad that it does. Just the use is terrible.

#81 Posted by Bocam (3826 posts) -

Screw being a white knight, black knights are where it's at.

#82 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -
@Bocam

Screw being a white knight, black knights are where it's at.

They'll bite your legs off.
#83 Posted by Veektarius (5024 posts) -

Personally, if I were a knight, I'd probably want to be a white knight. Because like that MTG card says, the pristine backdrop may not last long in the thick of battle, but you get to wear every streak of mud and blood like a badge of honor when you get home. Compare that to being a brown knight - no one would have any idea what the hell whether you dined in style or rolled around in a pile of shit.

#84 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -
@Veektarius yeah but the black knight can't be hit with oblivion ring or doom blade!
#85 Edited by troll93 (388 posts) -

@Animasta said:

People believe all sorts of crazy bullshit; people believe in goddamn chem trails!

But there is all these metals in the ground, to many for it to be normal and and and....

@FancySoapsMan said: While I agree, I believe both sides are equally guilty of using the same tactic. for example, people in the Dead Island statue thread accusing everyone they disagreed with of being misogynists or calling them children/neckbeards/whatever. HOW DID YOU KNOW ABOUT MY NECK BEARD!
#86 Posted by troll93 (388 posts) -

@Abendlaender said:

What does "white knighting" actually mean? Defending someone/something? So, is there a thing like "black knighing" then? Or I guess that would be "trolling" (seems fitting at least cause "dragoning" doesn't sound as cool as I thought it would).

Are you kidding me? I am now used the verb, dragoning at every single chance I get.

#87 Edited by AngelN7 (2973 posts) -

I'm more of a Dark Knight kinda guy.

#88 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

@Akyho said:

Alot of people have said "oh a Patrick article on femisms. There he goes white Knighting for his fiance Kate!"

The weird part is that Patrick keeps trying to convince everybody he has a fiancee. Every time someone asks about her, she's "out of town." Why do you keep up the charade, Patrick? We all know "Kat(i?)e" never existed.

#89 Posted by JackSukeru (5967 posts) -

@Brodehouse said:

@Veektarius yeah but the black knight can't be hit with oblivion ring or doom blade!

And, like has been already stated, it's not like being a white knight will actually get you any. Just look at Dante, it's not like his dad was the Legendary WHITE Knight Sparda.

#90 Posted by granderojo (1792 posts) -

Anita is the Brad Newman of feminist games journalism, that's why people lash out at her so much. She could be talking about how games are too violent or any other pet project political thing and she'd still get unfettered hate.

#91 Edited by Jams (2966 posts) -

@Brodehouse: You're my new internet hero. You're able to express my thoughts exactly how I think. Unfortunately I can only come up with "UP YOUR ASS BUTT TOOL!" as a counter argument, so I'm glad you can come up with something better. It's starting to be really clear to me that feminism is about gaining more and more rights for women and not about equal rights. Because equal rights is equal rights. I don't think a female teacher getting 3 years probation and not having to register as a sex offender for sleeping with an underage student is not equal rights at all.

#92 Posted by Hunkulese (2875 posts) -

@Animasta said:

okay so there's been some 'awesome' anita discussions again and those are always fun, but one thing I am tired of is people calling people white knights, because that's entirely disingenious... for a couple of reasons. Look, I respect people who can make good arguments even if I don't agree with them ( is a pretty good example, I disagree with him on most things but I enjoy his arguments) and I think most smart, or even 'smart', people do too (of which I assume Anita thinks herself as smart; whether she is or not is not a discussion I want to have, so shut up). And, if you're really that fucking interested in reading a goddamn feminism debate thread in a video game forum, I assume you are too! So the white knight accusation is completely inaccurate from that point, and most people who enjoy my statements (and follow me because of this) that other people might construe as white knight exemplary are people who make the same arguments, and they aren't all women, though that's because there aren't a whole lot of women here.

The second part though, is the inherent disbelief that "you couldn't think that, you're only doing it because you want a girl/girls to notice you" or fucking whatever. People believe all sorts of crazy bullshit; people believe in goddamn chem trails! i don't know why your disbelief is such that a guy couldn't POSSIBLY be some radical feminist without doing it because he wants some pussy or even... e-pussy (I don't know the word for online sex)? Like maybe comparing radical or even hardcore feminism to chem trails is a little insensitive but it gets my point across. . Hell, people (it was probably endurancefun) have even called me a white knight for patrick. LIKE COME ON.

I mean Patrick's cute and all but...

:)

but seriously, don't be fucking lazy. Think up some new, more interesting, and more debatable words then that, especially considering that will sort of derail a debate, and debates are cool.

I used white knight recently but I was joking, which is how people SHOULD use it. It's such a ridiculous term if you honestly think about it.

Also I wonder if that term is why Dark Souls doesn't have white knights... just silver.

You managed to write a whole lot without actually strengthening your argument. Good work?

#93 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@Brodehouse: Feminism isn't a codified philosophy in anything except for its advocacy of women's rights. Nothing you describe in your posts about women wanting special rights or to somehow subjugate or neuter men's sexuality is an intrinsic part of feminism. What you're doing is chaining the definition of feminism to radical second-wave feminism that has been all but completely dead since the nineties. You don't seem to want to judge individual feminist arguments on their merits, you deny that a social movement for gender equality continues to be necessary and you argue that feminism in the present day is all about emotions. You're a pretty good example of why female empowerment is still a struggle.

#94 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -

@chrissedoff said:

@Brodehouse: Feminism isn't a codified philosophy in anything except for its advocacy of women's rights. Nothing you describe in your posts about women wanting special rights or to somehow subjugate or neuter men's sexuality is an intrinsic part of feminism. What you're doing is chaining the definition of feminism to radical second-wave feminism that has been all but completely dead since the nineties. You don't seem to want to judge individual feminist arguments on their merits, you deny that a social movement for gender equality continues to be necessary and you argue that feminism in the present day is all about emotions. You're a pretty good example of why female empowerment is still a struggle.

I am not changing the definition of feminism. Feminism is a social movement for the betterment and promotion of women. That's why it's called feminism. Simple as that.

I will judge any 'feminist' argument on its merits. Simply bring one forward.

And female empowerment is not 'a struggle'. Women are not born weak, they are not made weak, and they are not weak now.

#95 Posted by GERALTITUDE (3507 posts) -

e-pussy. Genius.

#96 Posted by ManMadeGod (1585 posts) -

It's really no different from the other side mud slinging the term misogynist around. It's just name calling and ego boosting.

#97 Posted by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@Brodehouse: Women face continuing legal and cultural challenges to their equality, most notably in the form of pay inequality and restriction of their reproductive rights. It's amazing that you're so convicted of the belief that feminism is solely about the advancement of women to the exclusion of men; it makes it hard to even have a conversation with someone when they base their beliefs on a presumption that is just flat out wrong. I recommend you register for a gender studies class if have the ability to do so, because you would really benefit from broadening your perspective in that regard. At least read a Wikipedia entry?

#98 Posted by Brodehouse (10130 posts) -

@chrissedoff said:
Women face continuing legal and cultural challenges to their equality, most notably in the form of pay inequality and restriction of their reproductive rights. It's amazing that you're so convicted of the belief that feminism is solely about the advancement of women to the exclusion of men; it makes it hard to even have a conversation with someone when they base their beliefs on a presumption that is just flat out wrong. I recommend you register for a gender studies class if have the ability to do so, because you would really benefit from broadening your perspective in that regard. At least read a Wikipedia entry?

Feminism is about the advancement of women to the exclusion of men. This is a matter of historical record. Feminism has yet to achieve any meaningful advancement of rights for men and boys. This is actually the problem a lot of women have with feminism, is that it has labored to break the chains of gender performance from many women but failed to do so for men. This is a sentiment held especially by mothers of boys who see the evidence before them and worry for their sons. Feminism is what's responsible for policies like DV shelters (domestic violence shelters) telling battered mothers that their 14 year old son, a fellow sufferer, had to leave because men were not allowed. Feminism didn't campaign to end gender discrimination regarding car insurance. In fact, they opposed the abolition of it because it would mean higher rates for women.

Now, ahem. Restriction of women's reproductive rights, this is a Republican/Christian/religious thing that hasn't been remotely close to succeeding at any point in 40 years. And they're getting further and further away, abortion is going a-nowhere. Women remain free to get abortions, to abandon their children to orphanages, regardless of what the theists think. You can claim it's being 'challenged', but I don't see due process being thrown out, especially when it comes to women. Decisions are challenged almost every day, and every day they continue to stand. In the unlikely circumstance Roe-v-Wade is overturned, I would fight alongside of women's rights to keep the government out of it, because I believe in the Fourteenth Amendment. With that said, I don't believe in the government paying for its citizens' privilege to buy birth control. That's what it is, a privilege, no different from purchasing and driving a car. Your reproductive freedom and your decisions are your right, but sending the bill to the government is not. Americans have the right to lawfully own guns, but not to charge them to the government.

Now let's talk about the male side of things... which is to say, men have no reproductive rights. If a woman chooses to abort the baby, the man cannot force her to have it (I agree with this, it makes sense). She has the right to surrender her responsibilities to the child (the pregnancy and raising). The opposite situation, where a woman wishes to keep the baby, the man cannot force her to abort (I still agree), but the man is never given the right to surrender his responsibility to the child. Whereas a woman is given a number of choices, the man is given nothing, not even a choice of his own involvement. This is inequality. And so far the leading defense is "well you should've thought about that before you had sex"... but this 'advice' doesn't apply to the mother. That's inequality. If the man wants to be a father, he should be allowed to. If he does not, he should be able to waive all legal rights and responsibilities to the raising of that child. If you believe in feminism because you believe in equality, like you say, you would have to agree with this as being a fair and equitable proposition. Regardless of gender, you cannot force someone to become a parent if they do not want. Men cannot force women to be parents, and women should not be able to force men. That's equality.

I'm sure you're thinking of a way to catch me in hypocrisy, but it's going to be hard. I'm an egalitarian, I believe in equality before gender ideology. If equality on an issue falls in favor of feminism, I will stand with them. If feminism falls against equality, I will stand against it. I don't care about the gender, I care about the law. As I've said, the Fourteenth Amendment carries both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. It is maybe the most important Constitutional amendment after the First.

Now, regarding the 'wage gap'. I'm sure you're referring to that old dog, the 80 cents to the dollar thing. I was discussing this with Animasta in a previous thread. A woman and a man who work the exact same job, with the same seniority, the same hours, the same duties... make the same money. I know because I do payroll, and my superiors are mostly women. I don't pull out my calculator to zip 20% off if the name says Joan instead of John. Women and men, in general, we're talking a statistical representation of an entire country here, work in different fields to different extremes, with different hours, and different duties. Women generally choose careers that offer less extreme hour demands (last I checked, American men worked 6 hours, or 15% longer than American women), more health benefits, or other tertiary benefits like less travel or more safety (men absolutely dominate in high-paying hazardous jobs, but it's also why men make up 93% of workplace deaths). Children and maternity are the real serious difference between the working lives of men and women, and unless biology makes some very interesting changes, that will likely stay the same... in fact, childless, college educated women actually earn more on average than childless, college educated men. Crazy, right? The 80 cents to the dollar thing also has a lot to do with some rather specious statistical usage; using the median rather than the mean. Based on the last estimate by the American Association of University Women, when using the mean and adjusting (though how you accurately perform that is perhaps a little tough), the wage gap sits a little more accurately at 93.4 cents. So men earn about 7% more while working about 15% more. The difference is in choices, which people free societies are free to make.

The problem with the wage gap was always such; if I could pay a woman 20% less to do exactly the same work as a man... why would I ever hire the more expensive gender? Or perhaps there's more to it? If you'd like some sources, here ya go;

http://www.businessinsider.com/actually-the-gender-pay-gap-is-just-a-myth-2011-3?op=1

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-hoff-sommers/wage-gap_b_2073804.html

As a side note, I generally disagree with Christina Hoff-Sommers about most things, she's a traditionalist and I'm a progressive. I don't want women back in the kitchen and men in the coal mine. I don't want 50s Americana gee-whiz nonsense. But I appreciate facts more than ideology. If you'd like to hear more arguments regarding the parental surrender thing, there's an advocate for it on Youtube who has a lot to say and I would gladly pass her on.

Near the end there you get a little hostile and condescending. I'm actually fairly well read on this subject and a number of others. Would you like to have a discussion about Napoleon, or perhaps Slavic mythology? They were big into deities who had many aspects. Isn't that interesting? Did you know that the term 'barbarian' was originally an insult created by Greeks to refer to anyone who wasn't Greek? I find anthropology, history, biology, tribal culture, I find all this stuff extremely fascinating and have 'broadened my horizons' a great deal. I find time for this when I'm not patriarchally terrorizing my girlfriend.

Thank you for your time. Have a great day!

#99 Edited by chrissedoff (2167 posts) -

@Brodehouse: You're still making declarative statements that are flat out wrong. Restating your point about feminism being for the advancement of women only doesn't become persuasive as soon as you say, "Trust me, it's a part of history". If you're going to demand that feminism achieve something for men that's as meaningful as women's suffrage was, then that's just stupid. Men already have enjoyed privileged status so I don't think there's any obligation for feminists to spend equal time reminding everyone how important men's rights are too. All the same, it is not uncommon to see feminists argue that the patriarchy also oppresses men in how it tries to codify and enforce a narrow definition of manhood. Your example about women's shelters is totally irrelevant to feminism at best and could be totally spurious for all I know.

Saying that restrictions of women's reproductive rights hasn't succeeded at any point is not just ridiculous, it's fucking ridiculous. State legislatures have been playing all kinds of tricks to try to intimidate and shame women who choose to have abortions (forced ultrasounds, counseling, vaginal probes), have prevented abortions from receiving any federal funding, which places a heavy financial burden onto women seeking abortions, passed all kinds of crazy draconian regulations on abortion clinics and doctors to try to make almost impossible to operate a clinic. Employers have been allowed to exclude birth control from their insurance plans on "religious grounds" even though employees' health insurance is a form of compensation and employers aren't supposed to have the right to exercise control over what you do with your compensation. If you want to say that women's access to birth control is this privilege that they should be 100% responsible for, that in itself is enforcing an economic inequality limiting how much control women have over their sexuality compared to men, because of the difference in birth control costs and the difference between the consequences of lack of birth control between the two genders.

You and your articles are cherry-picking stats and making the same old argument about different career paths and so on even though everyone already acknowledges that men often choose higher-paying careers. In apples to apples comparisons, women still make less than men for doing similar jobs. Even your HuffPo article acknowledges that there is a significant (the article acts like it's not significant, but it is) difference in earnings between the narrowly-selected-to-support-the-argument group of young college graduate professionals. It's actually totally fine to deny that that income inequality is a pressing matter as long as it's accompanied with support for legislation ensuring equal pay, if only to humor those silly people among us who somehow gotten the idea that there's gender pay discrimination.

Dude, I get it. You think you're really super well read. That's why you can't get this right. You're a know-it-all and you think you're too smart to allow yourself to be introduced to an idea that you don't already have. Supporting the rights of women and being a feminist are the same thing. We all support the aims of feminism, even if we disagree on the particulars. General opposition to feminism is the same thing as misogyny. Those last three sentences are all I really care about you taking away from this argument.

#100 Posted by ItBeStefYo (1007 posts) -

THA TRTH

@Animasta: