723 réponses à ce sujet

[The dead fish]

Probably not. That was not the point of my reply though. My point was that implying you're a racist if you don't play black characters is complete BS, not to say rude and obnoxious, and comes across as intellectually dense on top of it, exactly the kind of parody the reactionaries tend to make up in order to justify their position.

Also please note the cultural differences. We have few black people where I live. If I walk through my city for a few hours, I may see hundreds of East Asians and Turks, some South Asians and Arabs, and most likely not a single black-skinned person. In ME, I actually tried to give some of my Shepards East Asian and South Asian features, respectively, but that, too, had nothing at all to do with poltics. Neither is it in any way politically or morally "correct" that I did that, nor is it "incorrect" that I didn't do African features. Damn it. /EOR

I've often complained about people who turn everything into a representation issue. This is a prime example of why I hate that.

 

I agree with you. I don't like reading such things, where people are being unfairly accused because of how they choose to play their game. It isn't productive in anyway in my opinion. And spoiler for what follows, because it is a bit long, not about feminism but cultures differences, funny to talk about it though, even if might not be totally related to what you said. =)

 

Spoiler

 

Culture / social environment can have a big impact ( not always ) on our way of seeing things, indeed. For me it's an evidence. I'm taking a few irl examples. I know a bulgarian girl, she never saw once a black guy before coming to live in France, not even other dark skin people. I remember how she she kept looking at me the first time we met. She was fascinated and I couldn't believe myself what she told me. She didn't even see black people on TV or in magazines in her native country.   It was a bit unflattering, but I am pretty sure that what she thought about me, was well, he " looks weird " the first time, given her facial expressions.   So I doubt that she'd ever dream about anything else than what she has only known her whole life. So the white caucasian, blonde or with dark hair, etc etc. I think she doesn't find attractive anything else to her than white caucasian ( indian, muslim, black, asian don't attract her ) That girl likes video games and she certainly never would create a black character in any of them, whether male or female. And it is totally okay for me, because it's not for anyone else to decide what can play, I'm also aware that social environment can really influence the point of view of someone, or maybe not sometime and it is just the way it is ( to each its tastes anyway ), and I don't particularly care in this case to be honest. Everyone is allowed to like whatever the hell they want. 

 

On the opposite I have for example four white female friends of mine and they only date black guys since high school. Why, I don't know, don't ask me, I have no idea and they don't know themself. But they find them very attractive, while they are not particularly interested by other types. What changed ? They didn't think that way before high school. I'd say that culture and social environment might have happened again. Many of their friends are black whether female or male since high school too, those girls for example learned things that they didn't know before, learning for example how to dance black music that they enjoy, [ and today they dance as well as their black friends what they didn't know before but learned with time and experience. You'd almost think it was in their blood ] whether kizomba, zouk, etc, so I suppose it might have affected they way of seeing things. Or maybe not, who knows ? But I guess something happened. You just don't only date one type just like that. 

 

Otherwise, funny note, but that I find interesting since we are talking about culture differences :  I came in Spain for the holidays with my girfriend ( now ex- but whatever ) a few years ago, and plenty of people were looking at us weirdly, plenty of times. I hold her hand or kiss her on the streets, and suddenly white people looked at us ( mostly old people or folks who had more than 30 years old ), almost fascinated. It was obviousy very bizarre for them. My spanish friend who welcomed us in his house for two months for the holidays then explained me the reason : I was black, she was white. In spain, mix couples hardly exist apparently, there are very few black people, and under the dictator Franco, they apparently didn't exist at all. ( I have no idea if it's true or not, but the weird reactions around us many times made me believe it was in part true ) unlike France where it is just a normal thing that happens a lot nowadays. Though in Barcelona, it felt like home, but at the same time in Barcelona, there are also many french folks. You hear so many times people speaking french around you that you'd think they invaded Barcelona. After " catalan " and english, " french is the third language certainly because of that lol.

 

On the opposite, when my spanish friend came to live in my home in France for six months, this time, it's him who was astonished, he never saw so many mix couples, whether in college, high schools, on the streets, whether adolescents or adults, and where it is considered " normal. " Nobody will look weirdly at you on the streets. That's where I came to realize that actually few white dominant countries had probably many black people, and that that kind of things wasn't as " normal " as I might have thought before. 

 

Another example, my sister because of school came in Japan to live over there one year, studying in a japanese school, and she told me that she was treated like a celebrity over there since he first day. Without even asking her opinion, ( what she disliked ) plenty of times japanese folks took shots of her with their phone.  And she was treated as well as a curiosity by many japanese folks, especially by children who were like " ooh look mum ". So obviously, for many of them, I'm pretty sure it would never came to the minds of young people over there the idea to create black characters for them in a video game, but either white or asian. It has just nothing with racism, or bad stereostype. 

 

All those funny life experiences, just to claim that culture differences is a real and big thing, and that we shouldn't blame anyone for liking or dlisking something over tastes, for playing only one thing and not the others. If a male never play female characters, he is not sexist, if a white guy doesn't create anything than white characters, he isn't racist, just because a straight guy doesn't play gay characters, he isn't homophobe. We have just our culture differences, our point of view, our own life experience that can affect us and can design how we see things. Some people like new things, can adapt, others migt just play with what they identify with or what they always have seen in their social environment and what they can relate to, etc. 

 

[Dieb]

I like saying that I don't find it offensive whether someone says "black people aren't attractive to me", because it is a very obvious, major, yet also superficial attribute. The fact that I like redheads better than blondes... well, for one it means I'm a BioWare fan, but it also does not mean blondes are uglier than redheads.

 

The one is a perception, the other is a declaration.

 

On the other hand, I don't think there's any need to discuss someone who doesn't play as (to them) ethnic characters. That's none of our business. Demanding the option to create them to be removed; or Isabela & Vivienne to be turned into whites is a whole different story - according to what I said above, it's not even necessarily racist, it's really just very selfish.

 

...or it really is blatantly racist, but in this case, at least the people in question tend to have the decency to be as sharp as a bowl of jam.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

What are your views on race vs. intellect? He tackles this question and society's discomfort with confronting differences. But what of your views?

 

My view is you cannot base one's intellect on race or gender.

The answer is rather complicated but since you explicitly asked me I will answer it. It will likely be relatively long.

 

Before moving to intellect or intelligence we need to establish that there are indeed physiological differences between different ethnic groups (racial groups/ancestral groups) and by now we know there are. This is well established within athletics. One prominent example of this is Olympic sprinting. The best sprinters in the world have all been of West African ancestry and West Africans have a protein called alpha actini-3 (alpha-actinin skeletal muscle isoform 3) in greater proportion than any other ethnic group on earth, which is encoded by a gene called ACTN3. Not having this gene does not harm you BUT it prevents you from achieving the same sprinting speeds that a disproportionate number of ethnic West Africans can achieve. Most people have a mutation that results in a deficiency of its presence, with Asians have the highest proportion of this mutation and (unsurprisingly) West Africans having the lowest. ACTN3 is only expressed in fast twitch muscle fibres, of the sort required for explosive movements such as sprinting. In shot it allows for more powerful muscle contractions in such activities. It is highly unlikely that someone without this gene will ever be an Olympic class sprinter and it is largely confined to those of specific ancestry. This shows that different ethic groups have specific physiological adaptations that are lacking in other groups, just as certain groups are more likely to develop certain diseases. 

 

The idea that evolution stopped at the neck down, however, is rather absurd for a number of reasons. Physiological differences between different ethnic profiles are fairly well established at the genetic level and if this is the case why would the brain, which is the body's most expensive organ in terms of energy cost, not have developed along different paths due to environmental and selection pressures. The human brain only takes up about 2% of total human body weight and yet requires a disproportionate 20% of the body's energy reserves and is the only organ in the body that requires some amount of glucose as an energy source with others being able to run purely on lipids. The idea that this expensive organ was not impacted at all by the environment is very improbable and there is a prominent example of an isolated genetic population that shows that environment and evolutionary adaptations can affect intellect. Ashkenazi Jews routinely score 5 points higher on IQ tests than the next highest scoring groups, East Asians, with averages of 110 and 105 respectively. Ashkenazi Jews were isolated throughout the European Middle Ages from gentiles and were the only group allowed to engage in money lending (since Christians were forbidden to do so). Money lending and record keeping require high degrees of literacy and arithmetic and many centuries of genetic isolation practising these skills almost certainly created neurological adaptations that are well documented. Ashkenazi Jews are disproportionately represented in terms of Nobel Prizes relative to population size (during the 20th century they made up 3% of the total US population yet won 27% of the Nobel Prizes) and also display unique diseases, such as Tay Sachs. Interestingly, most score lower on visuo-spatial tests than average, which would once again reinforce the specific environment that led to the aforementioned adaptive changes. Centuries of homogeneity and professional isolation led to very specific outcomes that are well documented.

 

The debate of nature vs. nurture is thus a false dichotomy. All adaptive change is the result of a feedback loop between the environment and biology. The environment brings about adaptive change, which is then hardwired into specific groups of people. The idea that we are all same is simply false from a evolutionary, medical and scientific perspective.

 

What is important to be borne in mind is that all of this refers to aggregates. No one individual belonging to a specific group need necessarily conform to the general traits of that group since traits exist on a distribution curve. However, specific group performance, such as West African sprinting ability or Ashkenazi academic performance can be explained along such lines. Most important is that no one who is sane uses group aggregates to judge or interact with individuals. We tend to judge people as just that, individuals. Ethnic differences only account for overall differences in group performance not individual performance or statistical outliers. 

 

So to answer your question, does race and/or ethnicity have anything to do with intellect or mental capacity, probably, but it is not very important on an individual basis or for the purposes of personal interaction The question of male/female differences would require another novel, so perhaps another time. Links are below in case you are interested in the things I referenced. I also did not proofread my post so please forgive any typos and/or errors.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC1180686/

 

http://www.forbes.co...hould-all-care/

 

http://web.mit.edu/f....jbiosocsci.pdf

[Ieldra]

I'd like to add something to StarduskLP's statements:

 

The question of whether ethnicity/race/gender/etc. *should* be irrelevant with regard to what we can achieve is independent from the question whether they *are* irrelevant. I'm actually a progressivist radical in this: we are all human, and ideally there should be nothing that prevents us from achieving whatever we want except our own will and determination to learn what we need and to enact it, and the freedom of others. Where there are factors that prevent that, we should make them irrelevant. All I'm saying is that on the way towards that ideal, the set of hurdles we'll have to overcome will include some biological ones.

 

I am critical of identity politics because it does the opposite: it makes our differences *more* significant rather than less. It's at best a necessary evil, and only because - and if - it makes minorities more visible and thus ultimately less remarkable in the end. "Oh, we have a black president. Now we're represented in an important way", that's not representative of the world I want to see. It's more like this: when a few years ago, a gay man became head of the foreign office in my country, the press didn't consider it worth commenting. He didn't make a secret out of it, we could see his partner occasionally on TV, it was business as normal. Irrelevant. Still, many people didn't know. Some time later, there was a problem because it's traditional in international diplomacy to take your partners on state visits with you, but Malaysia had laws against homosexuality, and now there was a protocol problem. The press did comment on that. The reaction of those people who hadn't known was predominantly something like this: "Oh he's gay? I didn't know. Do we know his partner? Anyway, stupid Malaysians." The goal, as I see it, is not a world where everyone is represented, but a world where such things become complete non-factors except as aesthetic preferences and expressions of individual diversity. 

[Majestic Jazz]

I believe I derailed this topic a bit to another discussion. I guess we can get back on the OT regarding a whole bunch of people playing as female IQs....

[Ieldra]

For some racial diversity....
 

[o Ventus]

Um.. Not every single "feminist" wants the same thing.

 

You're right. Some are more crazy while some are less crazy. But in the end, they all share in the madness.

 

No doubt, there are "Feminazis" that exist. But most of them just want to get paid an equal wage to a man,

 

Which they have, simply by virtue of living in any first-world Western nation. Contrary to feminist opinion, it's actually illegal for an employer to pay a woman less than a man for the same labor, for the same hours. This myth of a wage gap based on gender has been so thoroughly debunked, I cannot fathom how any sane human being can continue to parrot it as a valid form of expression. You may as well be telling me that the Earth is hollow on the inside.

 

want independence rather than be "owned",

 

Which they have, simply by virtue of living in any first-world Western nation. Contrary to popular belief, slavery and the purchasing of human beings as though they are property is actually illegal.

 

and to have freedom rather than the society of old's expectation to put on an apron and make a sandwich.

 

Which they've had for at least, oh I don't know, the last half-century or so.

 

What I'm saying -- and what at least three people have told you already -- is that different people exist within the "feminist" label group. Look beyond the term.. What you are doing is tarring them with the same brush, or rather you expect them to believe and act the same way. They don't.

 

Quite literally the only self-described feminist I've ever heard argue any rational points is Christina Hoff Sommers, who may as well be an anti-feminist with how often she is shunned by the greater feminist community and with how often she counters mainstream feminist viewpoints. Feminism campaigns for things that women already have and doesn't give a f*** either way about actual equality.

[The Oracle]

Just to bring up a point but video games and their demographics are an ever changing and evolving beast. Technology is now no longer so rare and expensive a thing that computer games are available only to the few passionate players. With consoles, pads, laptops, hell, even phones opening up a range of different possibilities, both age and gender demographics will widen and grow. Also given the fact that gaming is becoming it's own commercial media form to rival Hollywood in terms of scale and budget. I've had several female friends who would never have thought to play video games express a real interest when they started to see adverts for games like The Last of Us.

 

I grew up watching my brother play classics like Planescape Torment. It was then that I realised that games weren't all Sonic collecting coins or Mario jumping on mushrooms. They could be interactive stories. they could intrigue you, make you laugh, get you unbelievably outraged or completely devastated. And when my brother dropped his love of games at college, I just kept on plugging through, There's also less of a social stigma now than when I was growing up. I'm now far more open about how I spend my free time (this could also just be down to the older=giving less sh*ts aspect of growing up). 

 

In short, gameplay is going to change, companies are going to market to their growing audience and, if things go well, we will find ourselves positively laden with a whole range of different and unique games to play. Change is inevitable, but it doesn't always have to be for the worst.

[BansheeOwnage]

Reality is neutral, pitilessly indifferent. It is not sexist because that attributes intentionality to something where there is none.

No. The universe itself is neutral. Reality encompasses what is true concerning cultures, therefore, reality is not neutral, and can be sexist.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

So is it your position that there is direct and irrefutable evidence that there are differences in the brain structure, such that it directly contributes to one's capacity for intelligence or strength in certain fields, based on one's race and also gender? So where would that leave me as a black woman? Am I at an intellectual disadvantage from birth because my ancestors came from a desert environment in Africa, where nutrients were scarce and disease prevalent? Can I ever hope to have such an IQ of an Asian or Ashkenazi male, even though a grew up in America, or has my race and gender left me to struggle to attain those racial/ethnic group's intellectual perfection?

I think you missed the major points of the post. It is probable, not irrefutable and more importantly, as I pointed out in the last bit, it all refers to aggregates not individuals. You may be to the right of the distribution curve of your demographic, you might not be. Regardless, we are all stuck with ourselves as individuals. I do not have an athletic bone in my body, which is largely genetic in origin. I cannot do much to change that but I can still reap the benefits of exercise, relative to my athletic deficiencies. The same applies to anything and everyone.

[BansheeOwnage]

Sort of like this saying that in a sinking ship women and children should be saved first. All of a sudden the "being equal to men" stance goes out of the window.

For the record, I always thought that was kind of dumb. Not the saving the children first part, the saving women and children first part. Also, it depends which logic you use here.

 

If you are aiming to help the people who are least likely to get out on their own, you should be helping children and the elderly first.

 

If you are aiming to help people based on evolutionary reasons, like contribution to society and continuing the species etc. you should be helping the children and ignoring the elderly if pressed.

 

Sure, there are some hypocrites out there, and they're loud. But they're not everyone, and I would say, they're not even most feminists. I am a woman and support equality, but I have enough integrity (and you don't need much) not to ignore a certain sexist thing just because it favours me. I don't think men should be pressured into opening doors for women or buying them food because they're men opening doors for women or buying a woman food. That's dumb too. People should just be nice and open doors in general (and where I'm from, that's how it is), and men should be able to buy women food if they want, or the other way around.

 

Rant over, I guess.

[BansheeOwnage]

The goal, as I see it, is not a world where everyone is represented, but a world where such things become complete non-factors except as aesthetic preferences and expressions of individual diversity. 

I agree with that 100%. People are way too concerned about highlighting differences. The problem is, I'm not sure we could get to that goal without these movement groups, even if they temporarily highlight differences. Would women have gotten the right to vote in the early 20th century (in Canada anyway) if they didn't fight for it? Probably not. Yes, it's unfortunate that in some ways, advocacy groups do highlight differences, but I think the alternative is worse, and I would simply hope that these groups focus on equality, and highlight differences as little as possible, since it's counterproductive.

[Donk]

You're right. Some are more crazy while some are less crazy. But in the end, they all share in the madness.


Which they have, simply by virtue of living in any first-world Western nation. Contrary to feminist opinion, it's actually illegal for an employer to pay a woman less than a man for the same labor, for the same hours. This myth of a wage gap based on gender has been so thoroughly debunked, I cannot fathom how any sane human being can continue to parrot it as a valid form of expression. You may as well be telling me that the Earth is hollow on the inside.


Which they have, simply by virtue of living in any first-world Western nation. Contrary to popular belief, slavery and the purchasing of human beings as though they are property is actually illegal.


Which they've had for at least, oh I don't know, the last half-century or so.


Quite literally the only self-described feminist I've ever heard argue any rational points is Christina Hoff Sommers, who may as well be an anti-feminist with how often she is shunned by the greater feminist community and with how often she counters mainstream feminist viewpoints. Feminism campaigns for things that women already have and doesn't give a f*** either way about actual equality.

While I do get your point that it's a lot better these days than it has ever been before -- there are still people out there who treat women lesser than men. Hell, some of them are even female.. That have a belief system set in the traditional old ways.

As for the debunking about wage gaps -- the thing about research in any instance is that it isn't always accurate. I take it with a grain of salt, and that's from both sides of the argument.

In fact, actual personal experience is better than so called "professionals". I can give you two examples of such.

1. I once worked for a contractor. I was considered the "best" worker by many. Now, at the end of the financial year the contractor I worked for was outed in favour for a cheaper option. Cheaper for the simple reason that they pay their workers with petty cash, therefore it's illegal because they aren't taxed. I needed money at the time, so I was approached by the new contractor and he offered to pay me cash.. Illegal, yes. But I took it nonetheless. Now he hired one other person, a male, who was a lot younger than me. I later found out he was paid more money than I, and for less hours. The shaky thing in this situation was determining whether it was the "sexist" angle. Now, I can't think of any other reason considering I was well renowned at being the "best" at what I do. Of course, such circumstances wouldn't be on "professional researcher's"radar, as such illegal practices are kept quiet.

In the second example: I was living in a rural area and was out of work for quite a time. An acquaintance of mine tried to get me a job pruning grapes, cause supposedly that contractor was in dire need of a worker but couldn't find one that was responsible or reliable. My friend suggested me, and the contractor supposedly told him he doesn't like to hire women because they are "useless".

Now, as I have no "credibility" you can easily dismiss my claims. To which I don't really care -- it happened in my world, I know the truth.

I do appreciate that females have a lot more freedom these days, but there are still those out there who think they are inferior. Even women themselves believe they are, hence so many domestic violence situations where the woman often "goes back for more" add to that some cultures and religions. You can't do much about the willing.. Like they say, "Can't help those who can't help themselves."

[Ieldra]

@FoxyFinn:

I have now sat here for an hour and thought of how to make you understand what it really means that you can't make conclusions about individuals from statistical results. I think you are making the same mistake as the racists and view the situation through the lens of identity politics. Here's a link to a relevant article. Note the part where they talk about the way scientific research has been used to support racist doctrines. The thing is, to use the results quoted by StarduskLP in order to support racist doctrines is not just morally reprehensible. It's methodically, logically wrong. Nothing in it - and nothing in any valid research I know of - supports statements of the kind "You are population group X, therefor you are less intelligent than that person of population group Y over there." 

 

Let's try a different approach: the population group to which I belong scores middle-of-the-road in the line of studies quoted by StarduskLP, rather than top. I can tell you what that means for my life: nothing. Absolutely nothing. My biological limitations - which I don't know but I'm reasonably sure I don't have the potential to be an Einstein - are a part of me as an individual of the human species. Had I been born Ashkenazi, there would've been a higher chance for +5 IQ? So what? Were I the child of my genius neighbour, I might have been born with +10 IQ. The source of my biological limitations is irrelevant. I - the individual I - have them. If I want to know them, I'll have myself tested and won't draw any invalid conclusions from statistics instead. To do anything else would be to fall into the trap of identity politics and think the fact that I belong to a specific population group actually means something. Still, that it doesn't mean anything doesn't mean I can disregard it altogether: if I planned to have children, I'd have myself tested on inherited diseases which are more common in my population group than in others.

 

All that is independent from the fact that I do, in fact, resent some of my biological limitations, no matter where they come from - my parents, my more or less middle European genetic makeup, anything mixed in through the countless generations that separate me from my ultimately African ancestors, or an even older legacy that crosses species boundaries. If I had the chance, I'd change them. This desire exists for myself as an individual and for anyone else who shares it. I hope the human species eventually gets there.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

@FoxyFinn:

I have now sat here for an hour and thought of how to make you understand what it really means that you can't make conclusions about individuals from statistical results. I think you are making the same mistake as the racists and view the situation through the lens of identity politics. Here's a link to a relevant article.

 

Let's try a different approach: the population group to which I belong scores middle-of-the-road in the line of studies quoted by StarduskLP, rather than top. I can tell you what that means for my life: nothing. Absolutely nothing. My biological limitations - which I don't know but I'm reasonably sure I don't have the potential to be an Einstein - are a part of me as an individual of the human species. Had I been born Ashkenazi, there would've been a higher chance for +5 IQ? So what? Had I been the child of my genius neighbour, I might have been born with +10 IQ. The source of my biological limitations is irrelevant. I - the individual I - have them. If I want to know them, I'll have myself tested and won't draw any invalid conclusions from statistics instead. To do anything else would be to fall into the trap of identity politics and think the fact that I belong to a specific population group actually means something. Still, that it doesn't mean anything doesn't mean I can disregard it altogether: if I planned to have children, I'd have myself tested on inherited diseases which are more common in my population group than in others. 

 

All that is independent from the fact that I do, in fact, resent some of my biological limitations. If I had the chance, I'd change them. This desire exists for myself as an individual and for anyone else who shares it. I hope the human species eventually gets there.  

Progressives are a strange lot. Everything is seen through a group. For all their talk of diversity, they claim universal sameness for humans, for all their talk of individuality, they immediately respond as a member of an in-group rather than as an individual, insert woman, black, Asian, etc.. That at least, is my experience

[Ieldra]

Progressives are a strange lot. Everything is seen through a group. For all their talk of diversity, they claim universal sameness for humans, for all their talk of individuality, they immediately respond as a member of an in-group rather than as an individual, insert woman, black, Asian, etc.. That at least, is my experience

I am counting myself progressive as well

 

Anyway, traditionalists can be every bit as bad, if not more so. Group identities are as common anywhere in human society, a part of our Janus-faced biological inheritance. Too useful for survival to discard, but prone to being used as a tool for oppression. I don't blame minorities for having developed strong group identities - it was probably necessary for the fight against racism - but they'll need to discard them eventually or they'll become a crutch or a vehicle for oppression. I'm sure every one of us - minority or not - could present quite a bit of evidence for that from personal experience. Group identities are the reason we're still here, an expression of our most significant evolutionary advantage, the ability for intense, enduring and large-scale cooperation. But they're also the reason why we had things like the holocaust.

 

This actually connects with the DA universe, as I'm just noticing. One reason I almost always side with the mages is that they represent individual autonomy and empowerment, while the templars represent subordination of the individual under the will of the group. I'm also not discounting the possibility that among the various reasons why I play female characters is that women IRL are still disadvantaged enough that the empowerment of a woman in a story is more significant than the empowerment of a man. Not that there's much of that left at the end of Trespasser, to my significant disappointment.

[Majestic Jazz]

For some racial diversity....
 

 

that second one, is that a male or female?

[Ieldra]

That's Lilaeya Lavellan, a female mage. I didn't think it wasn't completely obvious.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

I am counting myself progressive as well

 

Anyway, traditionalists can be every bit as bad, if not more so. Group identities are as common anywhere in human society, a part of our Janus-faced biological inheritance. Too useful for survival to discard, but prone to being used as a tool for oppression. I don't blame minorities for having developed strong group identities - it was probably necessary for the fight against racism - but they'll need to discard them eventually or they'll become a crutch or a vehicle for oppression. I'm sure every one of us - minority or not - could present quite a bit of evidence for that from personal experience. Group identities are the reason we're still here, an expression of our most significant evolutionary advantage, the ability for intense, enduring and large-scale cooperation. But they're also the reason why we had things like the holocaust.

 

This actually connects with the DA universe, as I'm just noticing. One reason I almost always side with the mages is that they represent individual autonomy and empowerment, while the templars represent subordination of the individual under the will of the group. I'm also not discounting the possibility that among the various reasons why I play female characters is that women IRL are still disadvantaged enough that the empowerment of a woman in a story is more significant than the empowerment of a man. Not that there's much of that left at the end of Trespasser, to my significant disappointment.

Yes, in-group/out-group thinking has an adaptive advantage. What disadvantages do women have in the West compared to men? What are they not allowed to do?I am not aware of anything they cannot do.

[o Ventus]

Anyway, traditionalists can be every bit as bad, if not more so. Group identities are as common anywhere in human society, a part of our Janus-faced biological inheritance. Too useful for survival to discard, but prone to being used as a tool for oppression.

 

This is why I don't prescribe myself to any particular social group. The people I choose to associate with are simply "people", not "white" or "Mexican" or whatever other labels people like to apply. It's funny too, because too many times I'm told I'm actually being racist by ignoring things like skin color, or being sexist by ignoring gender in the people I associate with. Because in the mind of a social justice retard, nothing screams "I hate you and want nothing to do with you" like voluntarily interacting with you regardless of what you are.

 

 

I don't blame minorities for having developed strong group identities - it was probably necessary for the fight against racism - but they'll need to discard them eventually or they'll become a crutch or a vehicle for oppression.

 

I see group identities (especially ideological ones) like I see labor unions. Once they were a good thing, even necessary in a lot of scenarios, but now in the modern age they simply aren't needed. Just about everything they campaign for they already have, and it's well past the point of any kind of equality.

 

 

women IRL are still disadvantaged enough that the empowerment of a woman in a story is more significant than the empowerment of a man.

 

Not if you live in any developed first-world Western nation, they aren't.

[o Ventus]

While I do get your point that it's a lot better these days than it has ever been before -- there are still people out there who treat women lesser than men. Hell, some of them are even female.. That have a belief system set in the traditional old ways.

 

More women behave poorly with other women than men do. This is also the subject of a number of studies. Yet for some reason feminist idiots like to blame "the patriarchy".

 

As for the debunking about wage gaps -- the thing about research in any instance is that it isn't always accurate. I take it with a grain of salt, and that's from both sides of the argument.

 

The Department of Labor (where I take my figures from when people want me to present them) is a fairly legitimate source, I would wager. At least for the United States, I'm not sure what country you're from.

In fact, actual personal experience is better than so called "professionals". I can give you two examples of such.

 

No, it is not. Anecdotal evidence and eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad for proving a case because it presents only 1 side of the story. There's a reason why eyewitness testimonies are thrown away in court rulings without sufficient physical evidence.

1. I once worked for a contractor. I was considered the "best" worker by many. Now, at the end of the financial year the contractor I worked for was outed in favour for a cheaper option. Cheaper for the simple reason that they pay their workers with petty cash, therefore it's illegal because they aren't taxed. I needed money at the time, so I was approached by the new contractor and he offered to pay me cash.. Illegal, yes. But I took it nonetheless. Now he hired one other person, a male, who was a lot younger than me. I later found out he was paid more money than I, and for less hours. The shaky thing in this situation was determining whether it was the "sexist" angle. Now, I can't think of any other reason considering I was well renowned at being the "best" at what I do. Of course, such circumstances wouldn't be on "professional researcher's"radar, as such illegal practices are kept quiet.

 

And this is the reason I said what I said up above. You haven't described what kind of work you do, what level of experience you have, what kind of work your co-worker is doing, what his experience is, his position in the company compared to yours, etc. All you're saying is "he's a man and makes more than me, therefore sexism", which in itself is so devoid of any internal logic that it's just a long non-sequitur.

 

In the second example: I was living in a rural area and was out of work for quite a time. An acquaintance of mine tried to get me a job pruning grapes, cause supposedly that contractor was in dire need of a worker but couldn't find one that was responsible or reliable. My friend suggested me, and the contractor supposedly told him he doesn't like to hire women because they are "useless".

 

Again. One-sided, but this time with a bunch of "supposedly"s thrown in there. None of this is empirical proof of anything. 

Now, as I have no "credibility" you can easily dismiss my claims. To which I don't really care -- it happened in my world, I know the truth.

 

You yourself keep saying "supposedly", which indicates that you don't actually know the truth and are instead acting on faith.

I do appreciate that females have a lot more freedom these days, but there are still those out there who think they are inferior.

 

And the people who think this are wrong.

 

Even women themselves believe they are, hence so many domestic violence situations where the woman often "goes back for more" add to that some cultures and religions.

 

Presuming to think for victims of domestic violence is a rather a**hole-ish thing to do, no? 

 

You can't do much about the willing.. Like they say, "Can't help those who can't help themselves."

 

Depends on the context. In an abusive relationship where there is a clear divide in power between the two parties, you can very easily help the victim by calling the police and offering them shelter. If it's a young 20-something woman who has recently graduated from university with her brand new gender studies degree and she complains that she can't find any work, then you're absolutely right. She didn't help herself by devoting years of her life to getting that useless degree, and nothing anyone else does is going to save her now.

[Ieldra]

Yes, in-group/out-group thinking has an adaptive advantage. What disadvantages do women have in the West compared to men? What are they not allowed to do?I am not aware of anything they cannot do.

Two examples:

They're paid less for the same work in most jobs.

They're often kept out of top jobs by male networks.

 

The first example is particularly significant, because of the economic incentives this creates. Discrimination is illegal, so I don't know why this practice survives.

[DeLaatsteGeitenneuker]

Two examples:

They're paid less for the same work in most jobs.

They're often kept out of top jobs by male networks.

 

The first example is particularly significant, because of the economic incentives this creates. Discrimination is illegal, so I don't know why this practice survives.

You do know how economic markets work? If women were paid less for identical work (hours, overtime, etc) no one would hire men because they could save tons of money by only hiring women. The truth is, women tend to do less overtime, work fewer hours, take off sick more often and schedule their lives differently than men do. Flexible hours and free time are more important to women than to men. The wage gap does not exist in the form that feminists claim it does. They do not take into account number of hours worked, overtime, sick leave, type of work, etc. Recall from our private conversation that working long hours (or doing dangerous work for that matter) offers women no reproductive advantage whereas men gain resources and status from it, which are important in order to attract a mate.