429 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Decontamination in progress.

3 minutes later

[MerinTB]

TheProtheans wrote...
Now you're being ridiculous and making silly examples.
Women being judged on their appearance is somewhat equal to men being judged on their appearance.
Men are obviously different as they have body parts women do not.
I would say the judgement is mostly equal but men are more vocal because women would fear being referred to as ****s by other women.

Being ridiculous?  That women have historically been treated as property, their only worth being their appearance, doesn't make things unequal?

REALLY?

You are showing either a remarkable lack of historical contextual understanding, or you so young that you seriously are stuck in your generation and it's surface level of treating the genders as more or less equal, or something similar--
--but whatever the reason, this is classic argumentum ad ignorantiam.  You do not see that the playing field is unequal, you cannot comprehend that the BLIP of human history we exist in now where women have more rights and equality than they had for 99.99% of civilization doesn't negate the WEIGHT and CONSEQUENCES of that history.

It is not equal.  Again, if men were losing leading roles in movies because they were over thirty, if men were the ones who were the secretaries having to dress in revealing outfits to get promoted to being the boss's assistant, if most advertising and tv shows seemed to fall back on guys in speedos to sell there products... you'd have equality.

Objectification of women is why it is unequal.  Men cannot be objectified in a similar manner while they hold the power.  In the USA, women hold 18% of the seats in the House of Representatives and 20% of the Senate seats.  And this is the HIGHEST it's ever been, and yet there are more women than men in the USA.

You think it doesn't matter?  Here's just one random article from Forbes - http://www.forbes.co...ver-become-ceo/
A woman’s physical appearance is way more under the radar than a
man’s.  Look at the women who do make it to the very top of technology
companies:  Whitman, Rometty, Carly Fiornia.  Notice something? 
Um….they’re good looking!  They are slim, attractive, well put
together.  Do you think a woman who looks like Reid Hoffman stands a
chance at becoming CEO?Don’t deny it- a female’s looks are held to a much higher level of
scrutiny than a man’s.  A guy can pull any one of his two or three suits
out of a closet and throw it on  top of the same shirt he wore the
previous day (and probably the same undershirt too).  Most women in the
workplace spend hours putting themselves together.  They always have to
appear like it’s 9AM.   They’re not allowed to let their guard down,
even if they’re working late into the evening.  Because men (and other
women) will judge their appearance.  And make comments to each other
like, “sure she’s OK, but remember how she looked that night we were
putting together the proposal?  Yeesh!”  Yes, men say that stuff.  And
then they let these things cloud their decision making when it’s
promotion time.  It happens.

Again, in the attempt to avoid a word wall (too late again, I know), I won't keep quoting articles and psychological studies and sociological models.  Science won't affect your set world view (maintained strongly by that argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you hold) nor will examples nor will testimony.

To you, women and men are judged equally on their looks, the field is level, and therefore there's nothing wrong with EDI the sexbot.

[David7204]

MerinTB wrote...

Anyone who's married is, by definition (ignoring infedelity for the moment) not looking for a significant other.
Anyone who is in a steady relationship (again, ignoring cheating scum) is also by definition not looking any longer for a mate.
Anyone under the age of (I'll be generous here) 14 isn't looking for a life partner.
Anyone going to work in the check out line at a grocery store, or serving coffee at a Starbucks, or tuning cars at a garage, or guarding a warehouse at night are engaged in responsibilities that should perclude looking for someone to make out with, and most of them are probably too tired or busy (on the job) to really want to be hit on.
And, believe it or not, there are people, not in relationships, who are NOT looking for any kind of romantic/physical partner for an enormous myriad of reasons at all.  For short periods of time, long periods of time, or EVER.

So we'll just have to disagree on your backhanded, under your breath asserted factoid that "everything in life is about finding someone to bone on some level" and move on.

You consider that backhanded and passive aggresive? I thought I was pretty forward.

What do you intend to prove by this? So a portion of people have no interest in romance. Okay? That doesn't change the fact that plenty of people do.

Having known people that have bagged grocieries and served coffee and waited tables, I can guarantee you that that your assertion that anyone working in those jobs immediately closes themself off like a lightswtich for 8 hours is laughably wrong. You're very clearly a feminist. Funny how you can talk up how important choice is and then go making proclimations about what everyone must do. Ridiculous proclimations at that.

You've also failed to distinguish between someone who isnt' looking for romance and someone who thinks 'romance is stupid and I hate it.' The squadmembers of the Normandy are a steller example. None of them are looking for a relationship when recruited, but they nevertheless welcome one with Shepard. There's an immense difference between the two groups, and acting as if they're one and the same is nonsense.

In any case, this is all really irrelevant, since the possibility of romance is not required to appreciate beauty.

MerinTB wrote...

When it comes to physical attraction to someone whom you are thinking of engaging in a romantic relationship, this is where appearance CAN BE a factor.  If looks matter to you (and for most people they matter more than a little bit, yes) then, yes, in your head you can be "judging" if they "measure up" to what you are looking for.  Eventually you may find your criteria are way too high for what you, yourself, can hope to acheive, but that's another topic of inflated expectations.

For friendship, what does it matter what your (male or female, regardless of if you are female or male yourself) friend that you chat with online, that you play games with on weekends with other friends, that you talk to at church, or in any other "non-dating" / "not-looking-for-a-spouse" situation, looks like?  If your male friend is forty pounds overweight and has chronic dandruff, or your female friend has a hairlip and bad acne, are you going to refuse to be their friend, refuse to play cards or crack jokes with them?

Really?

If so, there's a word for you that starts with the letter 's' and ends with the word 'low' ...

Great, thanks for pointlessly repeating your position as if I wasn't aware of it. I wasn't asking you if it was acceptable to judge appearences in relationship. You already agreed it was. I was asking why. Why is it acceptable for beauty to suddenly matter in relationships when it's clearly unacceptable to you elsewhere? This is actually the crux of the issue, so I'd prefer you devote yourself to answering this above my other responses.

MerinTB wrote...

Are you serious?

Women being judged on their appearance is somehow equal to women judging men on their appearance?  You believe that to be true?

If all other things were equal, if there was absolute equality between men and women, and our history was filled with female scientists, presidents, soldiers, buisness leaders, OR full of male actors losing their jobs when they start aging past thirty, men being rejected for cooking schools or decorating schools or fashion schools based on gender, and guys only made seventy cents for every dollar a woman made, and men had only just gotten the vote in America less than a century ago (and even more recent in other countries) leading to the UN having to adopt multiple conventions and declarations declaring that men had to be treated equally because the world was just being jerks to men--

--you would have a point.

History is NEITHER of those, however.  Women were property.  Women were chattle.  Women were not equal citizens.  Women are still not equals in gaming, business, science and more, and not for lack of desire nor ability.

This is like nonsense about reverse racism.

For the two to be the same, all things would have to be equal.

And they are FAR from equal. 

If a race car and a pick up truck both had the same accelaration, top speed and raced on a straight level track with identically skilled drivers, then they'd both cross the finish line at the same time.  That's all things being equal.  Race cars and pick up trucks, however, do NOT have the same acceleration nor top speed and races are rarely on straight, level tracks with drivers of equal skill.

Things being more balanced doesn't make them balanced.

Eighty is closer to one hundred than twenty is, but one hundred is still greater than eighty regardless.

Heh. First of all, you might consider doing a bit of statisical analysis on that 'seventy cents for every dollar' figure to see how well it holds up. (It doesn't.) I'm guessing whatever discipline you studied or are studying didn't require much math?

How is any of this relevent? Women have had disadvantages in history. Okay. Do you expect to throw those figures in my face and convince me that any issue of romance or beauty is an issue of woman's oppression? No.

Modifié par David7204, 03 mai 2013 - 07:49 .

[MerinTB]

David7204 wrote...
Heh. First of all, you might consider doing a bit of statisical analysis on that 'seventy cents for every dollar' figure to see how well it holds up. (It doesn't.) I'm guessing whatever discipline you studied or are studying didn't require much math?

I'm going to skip most of that to stop the overly long posts, which also means I miss most of the ad hominems (though one squeeks through there about math - nice - I guess computer science (one of three degrees I have, if you care) requires no math.)

Whether I had training in math or not is irrelevant, however.  This is an ad hominem - a personal attack meant to discredit a stastic I quote, as if my training (or lack thereof) in math would in any way affect a statstic.

But here you go -

http://www.nwlc.org/...e-women-overall - gap is twenty three cents
http://bls.gov/news..../pdf/wkyeng.pdf - gap is twenty one cents

Is it "70 cents on the dollar" currently?  No.  But, as I DID say, even though it is BETTER than it had been before, 80 is less than 100.

How is any of this relevent? Women have had disadvantages in history. Okay. Do you expect to throw those figures in my face and convince me that any issue of romance or beauty is an issue of woman's oppression? No.

Judging women by their appearance IS, though.  Kind of the point of the thread, with EDI's body being made into "teh sex" being over-the-top and wrong.

But if you keep moving those goal posts (we gotten to romance and beauty being woman's oppression, from you saying before that all human interactions are about sex) you'll eventually make me look absurd by setting up that straw man.

My initial point to you, arguing against your post of "People are only allowed to think about attractiveness so long as those
thoughts are completely separated from their behaviors and actions in
all spheres. Courtesy and politeness are not sufficient. They must treat unattractive and attractive people the same way, which includes sex and romance. They're obligated to do so. "
was "Outside of casting a specific gendered character for a video production,
or picking the person you want to be your companion in life...gender should be a non-factor.  Outside of actual beauty contests (which I am not condoning in the
mentioning of them,) or lists of "most attractive models" (which I am
also not condoning,) there is no reason to judge a person's sexiness or
attractiveness in venues that have NOTHING to do with sexiness or
attractiveness."

So I never said "physical attractiveness has nothing to do with romance", I specificially (and repeatedly) said that this was the appropriate context.  I also never said romance had anything to do with oppression.

So stop conflating.

[dreamgazer]

I agree, EDI was entirely underpaid in Mass Effect 3.

[MerinTB]

dreamgazer wrote...
I agree, EDI was entirely underpaid in Mass Effect 3.

I know, right?

[David7204]

Gosh, the National Women's Law Center wouldn't possibly release biased information, would it? Not like it has an agenda or anything.

You're right. This has gotten overly long. Here's the simple question I'd like answered.

It's perfectly okay for attractiveness to matter in romantic relationships.
It's unacceptable for attractiveness to matter anywhere else.

Why is this? Do you any evidence or reasoning to convince me why romantic relationship are absolved of the standards every other relationship needs to comply with?

Modifié par David7204, 03 mai 2013 - 08:15 .

[o Ventus]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Sexualization isn't necessarily only about showing skin. Miranda is sexualized, but the only skin you see from her is her head, neck, and the very top of her cleavage. Accenting the body (regardless of the amount of skin shown) is what drives the idea.

So like James then.

Yes. Or UnderwearShepard.

[Fredvdp]

For an infiltration unit that's supposed to blend in, its breasts are unusually large. I would change that and the cameltoe, but I liked being able to take her places. It allowed the character to observe new things and it gave her interesting perspectives on the galaxy.

Modifié par Fredvdp, 03 mai 2013 - 08:30 .

[MerinTB]

David7204 wrote...
Gosh, the National Women's Law Center wouldn't possibly release biased information, would it? Not like it has an agenda or anything.

And the Bureau of Labor Statistics is just all women.  Gotcha.  No poisoning the well there, nope.

David7204 wrote...
It's perfectly okay for attractiveness to matter in romantic relationships.
It's unacceptable for attractiveness to matter anywhere else.

Why is this? Do you any evidence or reasoning to convince me why romantic relationship are absolved of the standards every other relationship needs to comply with?

Why should physical attractiveness matter for a file clerk?  For your friend?  For you lab partner?  For your pastor?  For your teacher?

What is the benefit of deciding any of those positions/relationships based on how "hawt" the person is?

I understand that's answering a question with a question, so I'll give a simpler answer.

Because sex shouldn't be used to make decisions that have nothing to do with sex.  Selling a car, winning a volleyball game, getting a promotion, being the person you call for help when something has gone wrong... none of those need physical appearance to measure up to any standard.  Your physical desire for someone has nothing to do with how close a friend they will become, or how good of service they will give you at a diner when they wait your table, or any of a zillion scenarios.

Sexuality used for anything outside of sex is exploitive.

[David7204]

Do you understand what I'm asking? I'm agreeing with you. I'm agreeing with you that attractiveness should not matter for non-romantic relationships. I'm playing Devil's Advocate. For the moment, nobody is arguing that attractiveness should matter in non-romantic relationships. 

The question I want answered is why doesn't that apply to romantic relationships as well? We're assuming that non-romantic relationships where attraction shouldn't matter are the default. The question is, why do romantic relationships get an exception?

Also, here's a little gem from the 'Gender Pay Gap' page on Wikipedia. The emphases are mine.

"A study commissioned by the United States Department of Labor, concluded that 'There are observable differences in the attributes of men and women that account for most of the wage gap. Statistical analysis that includes those variables has produced results that collectively account for between 65.1 and 76.4 percent of a raw gender wage gap of 20.4 percent, and thereby leave an adjusted gender wage gap that is between 4.8 and 7.1 percent.' The study also concluded that while in principal more of the wage gap could be explained by differences between the groups, the data that  would be need to account for additional factors was not available.

While the conclusions of the study commissioned by the United States Department of Labor regarding the adjusted wage gap are generally in  agreement with other research, there is disagreement on what factors explain the remaining 5-7%. Some studies assert that the remaining gap is due to discrimination, while some others, such as the Department of Labor study above conclude otherwise."

Not only does the Department of Labor conclude your '70 cents on the dollar' estimate is off by miles, but that the gap is not even a product of discrimination at all! It looks like you can't count on the Bureau of Labor Statistics (a division of the Department of Labor) after all.

Modifié par David7204, 03 mai 2013 - 09:02 .

[MyChemicalBromance]

groan

The more you guys talk about gender politics, the more I want to make a thread pointing out that you'll all rot no matter what sexual organs you have.

Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if gender matters. The silence is your answer.


What I believe is that, if anything should be done about gender politics, it should be a move towards gender equality.

That said, I don't think you can claim that feminism is fighting for gender equality.

For instance, if a group that called themselves "masculinists" said they wanted "gender equality," would you feel inclined to trust them? No. Then why should anyone trust feminists?

Gender and social standing are far more complicated than pop-feminism presents it. The dichotomy of gender is a false dichotomy. Many feminists act as if feminine men don't exist, and that feminine women act that way because they've been forced to. That's just as ignorant as suggesting that gay people choose to be gay. Combine with that the fact that gender roles are highly cultural, and it becomes clear why groups like FEMEN find their "universal message" rejected by women in the Middle East.

The counter to this is that all individuals who suffer (regardless of their gender) suffer because of the "Patriarchy." Occam's Razor would then suggest that the Patriarchy doesn't actually exist in the modern age, and is in reality a description of our social structure that is assumed to be correlated to gender.

In the United States, there are far more poor men than there are rich women. There are also far more poor women than there are rich women. The "Oppression" that feminists cite is the oppression of the poor, not just women. I'd really like to hear a College-educated feminist explain the patriarchy to a homeless man. I'm sure it would brighten up his day.

As I said before, I would really like to see gender equality come, but it won't come under the banner of one.


Now please let me know how much I hate and oppress women.

[Argolas]

MyChemicalBromance wrote...

groan

The more you guys talk about gender politics, the more I want to make a thread pointing out that you'll all rot no matter what sexual organs you have.

Stand in the ashes of a trillion dead souls and ask the ghosts if gender matters. The silence is your answer.


What I believe is that, if anything should be done about gender politics, it should be a move towards gender equality.

That said, I don't think you can claim that feminism is fighting for gender equality.

For instance, if a group that called themselves "masculinists" said they wanted "gender equality," would you feel inclined to trust them? No. Then why should anyone trust feminists?

Gender and social standing are far more complicated than pop-feminism presents it. The dichotomy of gender is a false dichotomy. Many feminists act as if feminine men don't exist, and that feminine women act that way because they've been forced to. That's just as ignorant as suggesting that gay people choose to be gay. Combine with that the fact that gender roles are highly cultural, and it becomes clear why groups like FEMEN find their "universal message" rejected by women in the Middle East.

The counter to this is that all individuals who suffer (regardless of their gender) suffer because of the "Patriarchy." Occam's Razor would then suggest that the Patriarchy doesn't actually exist in the modern age, and is in reality a description of our social structure that is assumed to be correlated to gender.

In the United States, there are far more poor men than there are rich women. There are also far more poor women than there are rich women. The "Oppression" that feminists cite is the oppression of the poor, not just women. I'd really like to hear a College-educated feminist explain the patriarchy to a homeless man. I'm sure it would brighten up his day.

As I said before, I would really like to see gender equality come, but it won't come under the banner of one.


Now please let me know how much I hate and oppress women.

Fair points, but I do have to point out that "feminism" is a large word and can be a justified and respectable cause if done right. However, I do have to say that most feminists that I know are rather conspiracy theorists than working for an actual cause.

[MegaSovereign]

No, you said he had close family; he'll just want revenge. Kill the family first, then he'll get angry and come at you stupid....and then you kill him.

I don't think I know you, human. I'm the Patriarch! Aria's Patriarch. What do you want?

[TheProtheans]

MerinTB wrote...

Being ridiculous?  That women have historically been treated as property, their only worth being their appearance, doesn't make things unequal?
REALLY?

Yes we all know women didn't have that many rights in the far past of days long gone, but they were mostly content and lived in peace.

It is not equal.  Again, if men were losing leading roles in movies because they were over thirty, if men were the ones who were the secretaries having to dress in revealing outfits to get promoted to being the boss's assistant, if most advertising and tv shows seemed to fall back on guys in speedos to sell there products... you'd have equality.

I don't know if women are losing roles because they're over 30.
Women wearing dresses and being flirty to get a promotion is somewhat applauding and they should be ashamed.
Are you talking about equality in ads or equality in general? because lack of equality in ads does not mean everything is unequal.

Objectification of women is why it is unequal.  Men cannot be objectified in a similar manner while they hold the power.  In the USA, women hold 18% of the seats in the House of Representatives and 20% of the Senate seats.  And this is the HIGHEST it's ever been, and yet there are more women than men in the USA.

The women should be using their majority to get more women into power.
If anything this shows women take little interest into politics.

You think it doesn't matter?  Here's just one random article from Forbes - http://www.forbes.co...ver-become-ceo/
A woman’s physical appearance is way more under the radar than a
man’s.  Look at the women who do make it to the very top of technology
companies:  Whitman, Rometty, Carly Fiornia.  Notice something? 
Um….they’re good looking!  They are slim, attractive, well put
together.  Do you think a woman who looks like Reid Hoffman stands a
chance at becoming CEO?Don’t deny it- a female’s looks are held to a much higher level of
scrutiny than a man’s.  A guy can pull any one of his two or three suits
out of a closet and throw it on  top of the same shirt he wore the
previous day (and probably the same undershirt too).  Most women in the
workplace spend hours putting themselves together.  They always have to
appear like it’s 9AM.   They’re not allowed to let their guard down,
even if they’re working late into the evening.  Because men (mostly
women) will judge their appearance.  And make comments to each other
like, “sure she’s OK, but remember how she looked that night we were
putting together the proposal?  Yeesh!”  Yes, men say that stuff.  And
then they let these things cloud their decision making when it’s
promotion time.  It happens.

But it's mostly women that do it.
Men generally do not care that much, only an odd one would be silly as to say something like that.

Again, in the attempt to avoid a word wall (too late again, I know), I won't keep quoting articles and psychological studies and sociological models.  Science won't affect your set world view (maintained strongly by that argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you hold) nor will examples nor will testimony.

To you, women and men are judged equally on their looks, the field is level, and therefore there's nothing wrong with EDI the sexbot.

If there is nothing wrong with James working out and showing his manly muscles and fighting Commander Shepard in a overly weird uncomfortable fight scene then there is definitely nothing wrong with EDI.
I imagine the only thing worse would be Miranda being a nymph.

[dreamgazer]

TheProtheans ...

If there is nothing wrong with James working out and showing his manly muscles and fighting Commander Shepard in a overly weird uncomfortable fight scene then there is definitely nothing wrong with EDI.

Not the same thing at all, Prothy.

[M Hedonist]

Anyone remember the decontamination sequences in the first Mass Effect? A pointless part of the game, but it was such a nice touch. You won't see that kind of thing in Bioware games anymore I'll tell you that.

[spirosz]

Auld Wulf wrote...


EDI was a fantastic and well loved character.

We're not arguing that and I agree.

A lady friend of mine who absolutely hates sexualised characters (which includes Miranda) had absolutely no problems at all with EDI. Heck, you could even put EDI in a black Cerberus-like uniform if you wanted.

I can say the same about the reverse.

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE: Hey everyone, being overly sexualised and being pretty are two VERY different things. When you cross that line, you're crossing it into very ugly places.

What would be crossing the line for you?

[M Hedonist]

Auld's lying. 4chan trolls don't have lady friends.

[TheProtheans]

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans ...

If there is nothing wrong with James working out and showing his manly muscles and fighting Commander Shepard in a overly weird uncomfortable fight scene then there is definitely nothing wrong with EDI.

Not the same thing at all, Prothy.

Because he is male?
Some modern women do pole dancing as an exercise,  I wonder if we caught Miranda working out if that would spur some outrage.

[Argolas]

Sauruz wrote...

Auld's lying. 4chan trolls don't have lady friends.

This one is actually true. Auld Wulf's lady friend is the sister of my buddy, Ray Magini.

[spirosz]

TheProtheans wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans ...

If there is nothing wrong with James working out and showing his manly muscles and fighting Commander Shepard in a overly weird uncomfortable fight scene then there is definitely nothing wrong with EDI.

Not the same thing at all, Prothy.

Because he is male?
Some modern women do pole dancing as an exercise, I wonder if we caught Miranda working out if that would spur some outrage.

We would get outrage and many tears for laughter.

I would not mind that though

But think about this, how come the designers didn't include a bulge where his crotch is, yet went with that ****** on EDI?

[mumba]

BringBackNihlus wrote...

I'd like to contaminate EDI's body.

Wouldn't it be awfully 'hard'?

[TheProtheans]

spirosz wrote...

TheProtheans wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

TheProtheans ...

If there is nothing wrong with James working out and showing his manly muscles and fighting Commander Shepard in a overly weird uncomfortable fight scene then there is definitely nothing wrong with EDI.

Not the same thing at all, Prothy.

Because he is male?
Some modern women do pole dancing as an exercise, I wonder if we caught Miranda working out if that would spur some outrage.

We would get outrage and many tears for laughter.

I would not mind that though

But think about this, how come the designers didn't include a bulge where his crotch is, yet went with that ****** on EDI?

Well first of all it is a robot that had a ******.
Her outfits are really tight and it does not help she has a robotic body, TIM would have likely wanted EVA to be as realistic as possible.
Outfits like that need to be tight for that sort of robot and especially because tight clothing is superior in many situatuions.
The ****** is only visible for people examining her very closely, it was hardly the highlight of features that went into her, if anything they wanted it to look realistic.

A bulge is not necessary on show, a ****** under those conditions likely will be.