255 réponses à ce sujet

[Dokarqt]

Seena wrote...

Well the femininsts in the US are still battling you know - for equal pay, to preserve their right to choose... we leave the porn debate to the religious nuts.

I do feel kind of sorry(don't mean to be condescending) for feminists and other social/civil rights movements in the US, I often get the impression america is about 100 years behind many (especially scandinavian) countries in those areas. The notion of things like rights to free abortions not being obvious is something quite foreign to me.

[Dokarqt]

Summarum wrote...

This thread has really exploded since last time.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's fruitful to bring 'feminism' into this, particularly not as a scapegoat.  It's become a very broad umbrella which accommodates a variety of people from honest-to-god sincere civil rights activists to the kind of people who think that "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."[1], so as a label "feminist" is diluted and useless.  If you identify yourself as a 'feminist' you're probably the kind of person who thinks that the resulting misunderstandings are always the fault of the other person for not knowing that 'your brand' of feminism is the 'correct one' (in your mind).

[1] Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life

Men aren't being sexually objectified like women are in the media.  Most
of those images are actually made for the male audience as an image of
what a "man" should be

  This post is highly illustrative of what the underlying problem is.  When a circumstance C applies to groups A and B independently, it should be intuitively understood that any consequence to A is also a consequence to B.

Instead, what happens is that any circumstance applied to women is explained as indicating oppression of women, while the same circumstance when it applies to men is said to indicate male superiority.

Case in point,  magazines "give the female audience an image of what a woman should be".  Outside of this thread I'll tell you almost anyone will say that's "trying to control what 'women should be' and therefore sexist".  But when you put men in the exact same situation where you're dictating to men what they're supposed to be, bam, "no, it's actually helpful for men".  Sure.

This has been a good thread for me, thanks in particular to a few posters.  It's hard to believe the amount of "why shouldn't the characters look good" and "why are you complaining about the breasts" when, specifically to avoid that, I explicitly said in the OP this thread had nothing to do with the old breast-size complaints.  I'm not a feminist or a gender studies student, and how you'd get that idea to begin with is beyond me because they'd probably disagree with me on everything, violently.  Personally, I think this thread's peaked and it's all downhill from here, time to euthanize.

See you next mission.

Do you have a link of some kind to that [1] reference? As a sociology student I find such things interesting and I might choose some form of gender studies for my next university dissertation.

[Seena]

Dokarqt wrote...

Seena wrote...

Well the femininsts in the US are still battling you know - for equal pay, to preserve their right to choose... we leave the porn debate to the religious nuts.

I do feel kind of sorry(don't mean to be condescending) for feminists and other social/civil rights movements in the US, I often get the impression america is about 100 years behind many (especially scandinavian) countries in those areas. The notion of things like rights to free abortions not being obvious is something quite foreign to me.

Trust me- Sweden/Scandinavia - hell most of  Europe in general IS 100 years ahead of the US when it comes to women's issues/sex/ and keeping religion out of politics,,,,

We've yet to have a female President - that alone says it all.  : )

[Seena]

Summarum wrote...

This thread has really exploded since last time.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's fruitful to bring 'feminism' into this, particularly not as a scapegoat.  It's become a very broad umbrella which accommodates a variety of people from honest-to-god sincere civil rights activists to the kind of people who think that "Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."[1], so as a label "feminist" is diluted and useless.  If you identify yourself as a 'feminist' you're probably the kind of person who thinks that the resulting misunderstandings are always the fault of the other person for not knowing that 'your brand' of feminism is the 'correct one' (in your mind).

[1] Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life

Men aren't being sexually objectified like women are in the media.  Most
of those images are actually made for the male audience as an image of
what a "man" should be

  This post is highly illustrative of what the underlying problem is.  When a circumstance C applies to groups A and B independently, it should be intuitively understood that any consequence to A is also a consequence to B.

Instead, what happens is that any circumstance applied to women is explained as indicating oppression of women, while the same circumstance when it applies to men is said to indicate male superiority.

Case in point,  magazines "give the female audience an image of what a woman should be".  Outside of this thread I'll tell you almost anyone will say that's "trying to control what 'women should be' and therefore sexist".  But when you put men in the exact same situation where you're dictating to men what they're supposed to be, bam, "no, it's actually helpful for men".  Sure.

This has been a good thread for me, thanks in particular to a few posters.  It's hard to believe the amount of "why shouldn't the characters look good" and "why are you complaining about the breasts" when, specifically to avoid that, I explicitly said in the OP this thread had nothing to do with the old breast-size complaints.  I'm not a feminist or a gender studies student, and how you'd get that idea to begin with is beyond me because they'd probably disagree with me on everything, violently.  Personally, I think this thread's peaked and it's all downhill from here, time to euthanize.

See you next mission.

The first step to allowing men to be "sexually objectified" in the media- is to judge men who oogle/sexually objectify women and women who oogle/sexually objectify men - by the same criterion.

Once the stigma of women being fully sexual beings is removed -  you might see more open oogling of males.

[Summarum]

Dokarqt wrote...
Do you have a link of some kind to that [1] reference? As a sociology student I find such things interesting and I might choose some form of gender studies for my next university dissertation.

Hey, you want an issue of Time magazine from 20 years ago which I cannot link you to, but a different journalist, still from Time however, did paraphrase her with almost exactly the same words in a newer article, and that is online (here).

But I cannot understand the mind that reads a statement equivalent to "Falsely accusing innocent men of rape is good for them" and whose reaction is "Wow, this sounds like something I should study!".  Knock yourself out, though.

The first step to allowing men to be "sexually objectified" in the
media- is to judge men who oogle/sexually objectify women and women who
oogle/sexually objectify men - by the same criterion.

If telling women what they should be like is oppression then telling men what they should be like is categorically also oppression, never mind your "you must take these steps first" nonsense.

Modifié par Summarum, 25 avril 2011 - 09:41 .

[Any0day]

Seena wrote...

The first step to allowing men to be "sexually objectified" in the media- is to judge men who oogle/sexually objectify women and women who oogle/sexually objectify men - by the same criterion.

Once the stigma of women being fully sexual beings is removed -  you might see more open oogling of males.

Is that not already happening? I mean isn't the latest thing like the justin beibler haircut at 120lbs with blue eyes and a huge shlong. To be honest, I think it has more to do with who's offended in any given situation and I don't think it will ever come to a point where things are equal. The problem being that men and women think  differently, and on average what might be offensive to a man wouldn't be to a woman and vice / versa. For instance, most men could give a rats behind what the latest trend is on average. Most women on the other-hand, flock to the latest fashion standards like moths to a flame.

[Wra1thstouch]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Wra1thstouch wrote...
Actually, I feel sorry for that couple (if they exist) because it sounds like they might be self-loathing.

This was one of the general romance threads repeating the complaints and responses to the all gay all dancing all horney cast of characters.

The explanation as I understood it is that they were offended that homosexuality was reduced to a plot device so inconsequential that it changes based on whatever gender the player is.

That's actually very interesting.  I think it should be inconsequential -- like being a brunette, or having green eyes.  Those are physical attributes though, so they aren't necessarily the best examples.  I identify myself as human being.  Labels are for cans.

[the_one_54321]

Wra1thstouch wrote...
That's actually very interesting.  I think it should be inconsequential -- like being a brunette, or having green eyes.  Those are physical attributes though, so they aren't necessarily the best examples.  I identify myself as human being.  Labels are for cans.

Do you feel that sexuality should be a toggel? 
I ask this not as sarcasm but as a means of seeing what your stance is on the matter.

Personally, I think it is poor writing to make any portion of a characters personality into a toggel.

[Seena]

Summarum wrote...

Hey, you want an issue of Time magazine from 20 years ago which I cannot link you to, but a different journalist, still from Time however, did paraphrase her with almost exactly the same words in a newer article, and that is online (here).

But I cannot understand the mind that reads a statement equivalent to "Falsely accusing innocent men of rape is good for them" and whose reaction is "Wow, this sounds like something I should study!".  Knock yourself out, though.

The first step to allowing men to be "sexually objectified" in the
media- is to judge men who oogle/sexually objectify women and women who
oogle/sexually objectify men - by the same criterion.

If telling women what they should be like is oppression then telling men what they should be like is categorically also oppression, never mind your "you must take these steps first" nonsense.

I read your article - the author is CLEARLY uncomfortable/does not agree with the small number of women who liberally apply the term rape and/or feel that falsely accusing rape is acceptabe.

There are nuts everywhere- to pull that issue out as if it were the crux (or even significant part) of the article is irresponsible.

Where did I mention that telling men how they should behave is acceptable?

I did not.

But women's sexuality and men's sexuality are judged by many on COMPLETELY different terms (as evidenced by the Isabela uproaor vs Fenris' healthy sexual appetite).

You cannot compare the two's "oogling" potential since it is FAR more acceptable for men to oogle - than it is women.

[the_one_54321]

Seena wrote...
it is FAR more acceptable for men to oogle - than it is women.

No, it's not. That's exactly the point. You start right there. It is not more acceptable for men to oggle than it is for women. Say it, believe it, apply it. Change the status quo starting with you.

[Summarum]

Seena wrote...
I read your article - the author is CLEARLY uncomfortable/does not agree with the small number of women who liberally apply the term rape and/or feel that falsely accusing rape is acceptabe.

The author may be, but not the person quoted in the article.  You know, the article which was cited as the source of the quote, of the person quoted.  Because a person asked me to cite it.  A person who had nothing to do with you or anything you said.

Where did I mention that telling men how they should behave is acceptable?

I did not.

And no-one said you did, so I guess everything's fine.

You cannot compare the two's "oogling" potential

I'm not comparing oogling potential, whatever on earth that even means.  I never even mentioned that, "oogling potential" is something you came up with and which essentially no-one else is discussing.  It's a distraction from the bare issue:  if magazines telling women how they should be is sexist, then so is magazines telling men how they should be.  Since you don't think telling men how they should behave is acceptable either, it seems full equilibrium is reached.

Modifié par Summarum, 25 avril 2011 - 10:09 .

[Seena]

Any0day wrote...

Is that not already happening? I mean isn't the latest thing like the justin beibler haircut at 120lbs with blue eyes and a huge shlong. To be honest, I think it has more to do with who's offended in any given situation and I don't think it will ever come to a point where things are equal. The problem being that men and women think  differently, and on average what might be offensive to a man wouldn't be to a woman and vice / versa. For instance, most men could give a rats behind what the latest trend is on average. Most women on the other-hand, flock to the latest fashion standards like moths to a flame.

Women are definitely making gains- but look around this forum - we have a LONG way to go.

But it's my experience that a woman who admits to reading "Playgirl" is viewed quite differently from a male who reads "Playboy".

As for men and women thinking differently -  that's true to a degree- but we are far far far from affording women the same sexual freedoms/thoughts/experiences that we do men. 

As for trends- um ...  we just had a discussion about computer upgrades-  didn't we?  Cars, motorcycles etc - you don't think men follow trends in these areas?

And honestly there's lots of men who follow clothing trends out there also.  Lots.  And I really take issue with your "most women" comment -- I don't follow fashion trends, nor do most of my female friends.

[Seena]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Seena wrote...
it is FAR more acceptable for men to oogle - than it is women.

No, it's not. That's exactly the point. You start right there. It is not more acceptable for men to oggle than it is for women. Say it, believe it, apply it. Change the status quo starting with you.

Dude- I'm an equal opportunity oogler.

[Wra1thstouch]

Hmm, I guess there should be definitive straights characters as well as gay/bi characters. You make a good point about writing. Take DAO's Oghren. The way he womanizes and makes lewd comments to women the entire game, how believable would it be if the male Warden could romance him? Some people have personalities that a gay/straight toggle would work, but definitely not all. Hawke-sexual is an interesting concept though, and it was definitely worth the attempt in DA2, IMHO.

[Seena]

Summarum wrote...

Seena wrote...
I read your article - the author is CLEARLY uncomfortable/does not agree with the small number of women who liberally apply the term rape and/or feel that falsely accusing rape is acceptabe.

The author may be, but not the person quoted in the article.  You know, the article which was cited as the source of the quote, of the person quoted.  Because a person asked me to cite it.  A person who had nothing to do with you or anything you said.

Where did I mention that telling men how they should behave is acceptable?

I did not.

And no-one said you did, so I guess everything's fine.

Perhaps I misunderstood:

Since you were addressing me, specifically with your ambiguous "nonsense":

If telling women what they should be like is oppression then telling men what they should be like is categorically also oppression, never mind your "you must take these steps first" nonsense.

And you pulled that one tiny point from that article as if the author herself was a proponent of falsely accusing rape.  It would have been nice that you acknowedge that the author was simply quoting somone she did not, herself agree with. 

Modifié par Seena, 25 avril 2011 - 10:17 .

[the_one_54321]

Seena wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Seena wrote...
it is FAR more acceptable for men to oogle - than it is women.

No, it's not. That's exactly the point. You start right there. It is not more acceptable for men to oggle than it is for women. Say it, believe it, apply it. Change the status quo starting with you.

Dude- I'm an equal opportunity oogler.

Well first you must be the change you want to see in the world. Then you must recognize that public and/or popular percetion of what is acceptable is not the same as what is acceptable.

[Summarum]

Seena wrote...
And you pulled that one tiny point from that article as if the author herself was a proponent of falsely accusing rape.  It would have been nice that you acknowedge that the author was simply quoting somone she did not, herself agree with. 

Then I'm glad you thought it was nice because I specifically said that.

Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life

and as if that wasn't enough,

a different journalist, still from Time however, did paraphrase her with
almost exactly the same words in a newer article, and that is online

So at this point either the problem is that you can't read and comprehend or for whatever reason you're just  blatantly lying about what I said, but either way, stop it.

Modifié par Summarum, 25 avril 2011 - 10:15 .

[Seena]

the_one_54321 wrote...

[Well first you must be the change you want to see in the world. Then you must recognize that public and/or popular percetion of what is acceptable is not the same as what is acceptable.

Imo oogling never hurt anyone other than again-  when there is a disparity between how the public views male and female ooglers.

If your solution is to not have it be ok for anyone to oogle - i respect that.

It isn't however, my solution.

Personally I enjoy oogling and being oogled and my solution would be to make the playing field equal when it comes to male and female ooglers - not to do away with oogling entirely. 

Modifié par Seena, 25 avril 2011 - 10:26 .

[Seena]

Summarum wrote...

Seena wrote...
And you pulled that one tiny point from that article as if the author herself was a proponent of falsely accusing rape.  It would have been nice that you acknowedge that the author was simply quoting somone she did not, herself agree with. 

Then I'm glad you thought it was nice because I specifically said that.

Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life

and as if that wasn't enough,

a different journalist, still from Time however, did paraphrase her with
almost exactly the same words in a newer article, and that is online

So at this point either the problem is that you can't read and comprehend or for whatever reason you're just  blatantly lying about what I said, but either way, stop it.

Your quite adept with the personal insults aren't you? 

I was referring to your second post - not your first - and in the second your words in NO way deliniate that the aurthor does not agree with whom she was quoting. In fact you make it sounds like the author agrees with the woman, and is paraphrasing her to that effect.

When in fact that paraphrase is a teeny tiny part of the article and the author is quite clear she does not agree.

 Again - ambiguity on your part - not a lack of comprehension on mine,.

[Summarum]

Seena wrote...
I was referring to your second post - not your first - and in the second your words in NO way deliniate that the aurthor does not agree with whom she was quoting. In fact you make it sounds like the author agrees with the woman, and is paraphrasing her to that effect.

I literally said that the journalist paraphrased the person quoted.  Any "make it sounds like the author agrees" is purely your imagination.  Just for posterity, here it is.

Summarum wrote...

Dokarqt wrote...
Do you have a
link of some kind to that [1] reference? As a sociology student I find
such things interesting and I might choose some form of gender studies
for my next university dissertation.

Hey, you want an
issue of Time magazine from 20 years ago which I cannot link you to,
but a different journalist, still from Time however, did paraphrase her
with almost exactly the same words in a newer article, and that is
online (here).

 Again - ambiguity on your part - not a lack of comprehension on mine,.

There was nothing ambiguous about who was being quoted, and nothing insinuated anywhere as to what the opinion of Time's journalist is on any matter.  "You make it sounds like the author agrees" is, once again, a blatant lie.

[Seena]

Summarum wrote...

[1] Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life

Men aren't being sexually objectified like women are in the media.  Most
of those images are actually made for the male audience as an image of
what a "man" should be

And just for a little more clarification for those who might interpret that Dr. Catherine Comins speaks for femininsts - she's a board certified psychologist.  She is not a femininist scholar nor is she recognized as a champion of feminist issues/thought. 
Nuts abound. But she doesn't speak as a  feminist scholar - she speaks for herself.

[Seena]

Summarum wrote...

Seena wrote...
I was referring to your second post - not your first - and in the second your words in NO way deliniate that the aurthor does not agree with whom she was quoting. In fact you make it sounds like the author agrees with the woman, and is paraphrasing her to that effect.

I literally said that the journalist paraphrased the person quoted.  Any "make it sounds like the author agrees" is purely your imagination.  Just for posterity, here it is.

Summarum wrote...

Dokarqt wrote...
Do you have a
link of some kind to that [1] reference? As a sociology student I find
such things interesting and I might choose some form of gender studies
for my next university dissertation.

Hey, you want an
issue of Time magazine from 20 years ago which I cannot link you to,
but a different journalist, still from Time however, did paraphrase her
with almost exactly the same words in a newer article, and that is
online (here).

 Again - ambiguity on your part - not a lack of comprehension on mine,.

There was nothing ambiguous about who was being quoted, and nothing insinuated anywhere as to what the opinion of Time's journalist is on any matter.  "You make it sounds like the author agrees" is, once again, a blatant lie.

Right.  Clear as a bell.  Uh huh. Unbiased also....  yep... nice job.

Modifié par Seena, 25 avril 2011 - 10:46 .

[Summarum]

It's meaningless whether *you* think this person is "a champion of feminism" because you don't have unilateral control over whether Dr Commins gets to identify herself as a feminist. And she does. Which was the point, QED style.

[Seena]

Summarum wrote...

It's meaningless whether *you* think this person is "a champion of feminism" because you don't have unilateral control over whether Dr Commins gets to identify herself as a feminist. And she does. Which was the point, QED style.

She WAS an assistant dean of student life who got her moment of fame for saying something stupid when the campus was trying to deal with the issue of date rape.

Quoting her words as being representative of feminist thought - is like quoting Terry Jones words as being typical of Christian thought.

Extreme is extreme - and it exists everywhere.

[whykikyouwhy]

I think that, in the context of this thread and its many tangents, we should agree to disagree. Things are slipping into some rather personal attacks that aren’t really helping broach any sort of understanding. And that may just be a sad drawback to forum posting – we lose some of the nuances of face-to-face discussion.

The fact is, many men may never understand women, and many women may never understand men (excuse the use of “never” here). Our perception of our own gender identities and our place in society (not to mention the microcosms of family or friends) stems from many things – religion, politics, household, education, etc. Personal experience adds uniqueness to our view of things – the existence of, and definition of, sexism included. One woman’s experience is going to be different from another’s, and therefore you could have two women who identify themselves as feminist, yet are on opposing sides of a single argument. Somewhere between them is the foundation – equality/acceptance – but where or how that is applied will be handled differently for each.

The best we can do is try to keep an open mind and continue to engage in discourse. What is refreshing here, 8 pages later, is that people are passionate about who they are as gamers, and as individuals just trying to find a place in the world.