Women Gamers

Remove all ads!

Here's the deal: When does a group that's starts off being dedicated to the special problems that any minority group must overcome when breaking into a new area turn into reverse discrimination? Malovae is right - why is it acceptable for there to be a "women only" or "Blacks only" or "Hispanics only" or "redheads only" or... group, when creation of an equivalent "men only" group will immediately result in a wave of lawsuits?

I'm not saying that there aren't serious issues to be addressed, but I agree that exclusivity is probably not the way to go about fixing the problems.

 

Heeeh... Somehow I got the feeling that half of the complaints that have been issued against games are just because some people don't like them and don't know what else to blame.
Frankly, the biggest PST maniac I've seen is a woman, and she absolutely loves morte. Matter of perspective, of course. At any rate, I suppose that when game scriptwriters create their characters, they have at least some awareness that they should appeal to the audience.

 

@Wirhe

Well, one could say its getting very annoying how so many men think that those positions should be handed to them simply because they have a pair of b@*** and a mess between *their* legs.

@master of nuhn

wtf is she thinking? Anyone shouts at me for beer or anything else gets it breaking the sound barrier aimed at where it can do the most damage.

 

The problem with the feminist movement is that their goal is equality in the workplace when the real cause of the problem is inequality in the home.

Fathers are the cause of sexism, not bosses.

 

So what shall we do? Cut fathers off and make women deliver children and bring them up on their own?

 

Exactly Chev. Pure economic equality is a pipe dream.

 

Oh, this thread is still going on. Should probably check AoDA a bit more often...

What-are-you-talking-about?

Good thing you admit it, because I'm right, you're wrong, and there is nothing you can do about it. Nya.

You have that wrong, like you can expect from a woman: we men have something we can be proud of, for isn't male organ the source of numerous legends? Like: "You sure have some (marble) balls", or "That fellow sure has some (pea) cock." It's smooth, it's pretty, and it's a whole lot more convinient than, urgh, that female *thing.* Men can stand where women have to sit, and this alone proves that males are superior. Plus, everyone know that Adam came before Eve, after which she proceeded to get us all kicked out from the paradise.

But you are getting pretty off-topic here, Amatorius.

**Edit**

@ dmc

Heh, you say "no Whatnots", but the original author of the topic created this at that side, obviously meaning this to be light-hearted discussion. Then Taluntain frowned and moved it here, so which one should we listen: the creator of the topic or the admin? You know... Mama tells me to do this, but papa tells me not to do it.

[ August 26, 2005, 02:12: Message edited by: Wirhe ]

 

@Wirne

You can blame me for that one, I started ranting and it got all serious. Whoops

 

No. The key is to find a way to make men give birth to children. Hey, it was done on an episode of Sliders.

 

and with my sincerest apologies to dmc.

@Wirhe. I meant I can't tell you to act defensively since I'm only a mindless creature with a mess between her legs by whom you with your smooth, pretty and convenient *thing* (you have no idea how hilarious that whole passage is )would never allow yourself to be ordered about.

And paradise wasn't fun anyway. I go there on Wednesday afternoons sometimes. Generally at the same time Bhaal pays the little angels a visit as well. He sends you his regards.

On topic!

We need a loving mummy and a loving daddy and we're all right and wrong at times (don't tell Wirhe though, he's still in denial ). Sometimes one sex feels wronged sometimes the other gender feels wronged. But it's the difference between men and women that really makes the world so interesting innit?

It seems I have exited my feeling wronged mood.

[ August 28, 2005, 20:56: Message edited by: Uytuun ]

 

Let's see if I can throw this topic back to Whatnots... Or create yet another 10,000+ views topic... Or both...

Oh, yes, guess you are right. How foolish of me. I definitely agree with you. In fact, I agree with everything else too and won't even try to deny them, like:

Thank you very much; I'm very proud of my thing and are happy to see that we both have come into a common understanding about the differences of female and male genitals.

Well... erm... yes, absolutely. But it is yet to be seen when I can be all right AND wrong at the same time, but -of course- that isn't a question when everyone knows that I'm always right.

So when one sex feels wronged the other feels wronged, or; when one sex feels wronged both sexes feel wronged. We men call this "nagging" or maybe "bitching." Ask from Maddox if you want to know more about what they are.

Oh, yeah; I definitely agree there, despite the question mark in the end. I don't know what I would do if all females had the same equipment as we males. Fact made scarier by some artists who like to draw cartoons of women with "phallus." You don't believe what a pain it is to find anything from 4chan with that kind of cartoons scattered around.

Congrats of the feat. I can't 'exit' my feelings no matter how I try, but I guess you are trying to say "I'm feeling better now."

So this all leads to games and why there are male gamers and some female gamers, coming together pretty neatly and on-topic. Of course, someone could create a new topic in Whatnots, just in case.

[ August 29, 2005, 01:52: Message edited by: Wirhe ]

 

My problem is that feminism came before a sufficient understanding of psychology to know if is was a good idea or not. Don't get me wrong, I love and value my girlfriends opinoins and would hate being around her if she couldn't vote . At the same time, however, men and women do have tendencies towards different skills. Example: research shows that when presented with a decision for which they do not know the answer, men are far more likely to guess than to not answer, where as women are far more likely to not answer/think about it for too long than to guess. This is hard to overcome and provides difinitive advantages/disadvantages for fast-paced and slow-paced decision making processes.
We really don't know, however, if women are actually as good/efficient at everything as men are and until we do, the job issue is going to be big.
Think, in the US, all companies are required to give paid maternity leave, but not paternity leave. If you train and pay a woman the same amount and she gets pregnant and becomes a full-time mother, it is much worse than if you train and pay a man and he becomes the traditional working father.
Society has yet to catch up, and until we know more, I don't know which way we should go.

[ September 22, 2005, 23:17: Message edited by: NOG (No Other Gods) ]

 

Wrong. Federal law specifies FAMILY leave and does not restrict who can take this leave by gender.

Ditto that, and in the reverse as well. Perhaps you didn't mean this, but by making a one-sided statement you imply that the opposite statement isn't true - that men do everything in the best/most efficient way possible, thereby setting the standards that women must meet. I can disprove that statement in about one hour. Each gender has its strengths and talents; it's the balance that keeps the world running reasonably smoothly.

 

Once again, Rally has shown us the way. The essentialist line is demonstrably false, and there is no need to try to prove one sex's "dominance" over the other. People who try usually only succeed in convincing me that they need a reality check.

In somewhat of a defence of NOG's line of thinking, though: there will never, ever be "true" equality in every sense, because while men and women should have the same entitlements, they can never be entirely equal. In the end, men and women are different; their biological functions are different, they both exist to serve particular purposes.

Before anyone goes off on me for saying that, I've heard it ALL before (I worked in a university office with seven female twenty-something humanities postgraduates), and biologically, us blokes are the more disposable ones. Those differences mean that attempting to impose "equality" on a constructed setting such as society may be plausible, but when you boil business down to its most basic logic (productivity), the disposable, non-reproducing members of the species have the advantage. On the upside, it means the crappiest and most dangerous jobs are the province of us "disposable" types... yet I don't hear anyone complaining about that. That's an ethical quagmire of a different nature, so I'll leave that one there.

"Formal equality" is not equality at all in that setting, while "substantive equality" gets bitched about as being discriminatory while avoiding the fact that not supporting a more level playing field is just as bad. Fortunately, both are better than essentialist crap which denies anybody the ability to transcend the limitations that others place on them because of their gender. However, I feel that many people have been lulled into the myth that you can "have it all", and should always strive for that. In my opinion, that's BS.

I do feel that feminism has accomplished a great deal socially (universal suffrage, raising social consciousness, identifying rape-in-marriage and domestic violence as criminal acts), but that it has a lot to answer for as well. It is not an unqualified good and has inflicted a considerable amount of damage (both deserved and undeserved) on the collective male psyche in places. The more receptive males tend to be emasculated by it, while the less receptive ones couldn't give a toss (the "antibiotic effect" - it actually entrenches the attitude it's trying to address in some areas). In my experience, its proponents often reject out-of-hand any suggestion that the various branches of feminism should be held at least partially responsible for their unintended consequences.

Of course, I do not intend to sit back and wait for an answer or a solution. It's my place as an educated young man to look for them myself, just as I demand that those responsible should at least cast a critical eye over their own arguments rather than viewing them as unassailable truths.

 

You can't have both, because formal and substantive equality contradict each other in this case. If you take formal equality, biological differences will make the advantage or disadvantage. Depending on the field, either men or women will get the advantage. If you take substantive equality and try to make everything physically the same for men and women, formal equality goes to the moon.

Personally, I'm all for equality. I want a partner, not an underling. I don't want to be hen-pecked (prodded around by the wife) in my house, either. Of course, it's perfectly reasonable to do as she says if it's her field or insist on my opinion if it's my field. Everyone has his or her fields, right? Those may or may not be affected by gender much. I just don't like it when people choose to ignore the physical world in favour of their social or political dreams.

[ September 21, 2005, 11:24: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

In some ways this reminds me of a comment made by a NASA official that got him labeled as a sexist pig, but I personally cannot find fault with it. He was asked if he thought women would ever get to be astronauts, his response was “As soon as we figure out the plumbing.” A comment that in my opinion showed his open mind as to a women capabilities while at the same time admitting that physical differences are a source of problems.

 

I know, Chev, I wasn't suggesting that we should attempt to achieve both; as you've said, that's not possible. I was commenting that either is preferable to biological-positivist essentialism, although to ignore the potential impact of basic biological differences is to indulge in a delusion.

Oh, and I'm 100% with you on the "partner, not underling" part, since that's my current situation and one that I'm quite happy about.

 

Nice to agree. I don't think it's a great idea to overemphasise biological aspects, but no ideology is good enough to engage in delusions.