|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
I just clicked back one page and found the answers I was looking for with my previous question. I apologize for not keeping up with the discussion but I came into this one late.
May I just say that as of right now the discussion seems very calm and peaceful, so kudos to everyone involved.
I see that Anita has been awarded the Ambassador Award from the 2014 Game Developers Choice Awards. I thought it was interesting to hear that "the Last of Us" writer was inspired by her work. Certainly the characters in that story were well written and very well received. It sort of echoes what I was saying about the usefulness of criticism in the locked thread.
What he wanted was equality. That last article you linked, about Cyril Ramaphosa, talks about (amongst other things) the continuing mismanagement of the mining industry. Seems like that would be an industry that should help build the nation yet somehow it's seen virtually no change. We're talking about a serious void in leadership at both the local and national level. It's depressing stuff, but folks forget that the industrial revolution didn't start off so well for the workers, in fact Karl Marx (whom you're no doubt familiar with, but for others I should explain that he was the least funny member of the Marx brothers) thought for certain that the unacceptable conditions he witnessed would lead to a worker's revolt. So ya, kind of funny, but not Duck Soup funny.
Anyways I'll repeat, things are bad in Africa in general, but things were worse in South Africa, and we're only one generation into life without apartheid. Most of these non violent revolutions and movements take a long time and it seems like most of the people in that last story you linked just have no idea what to do with their new found power and money. From the workers that blew their new living allowance on hookers and booze (they said second family in the story but I like my turn of phrase better), to the union leaders that sold out their fellow workers for cushy jobs on the surface. Seems like what we're seeing is the a low point in another revolution. Keep in mind that the industrial revolution was something like eighty year, or four generations, and so I'd guess that things are going to suck in South Africa for quite some time.
India and China are still a pretty crummy places to live as well if you're born in the wrong area or to the wrong caste or class. If anyone who thought Nelson Mandela becoming president of South Africa was going to fix some 350 years of colonial rule, then they were crazy.
Actually let me add a quote from that same article: “Could it have moved quicker in 18 years?” Ramaphosa asked. “My answer is no. Our expectations were far too high. To get education to sink deep into the minds of a nation takes a generation and more.”
Why can't we compromise? Give everyone a open sky with a safety net?
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:
Which is fine because my contention is that biologically we've pretty much stayed the same but culturally we've changed. There are females in the military now because it's acceptable now, not because women of this century are more aggressive and violent.
I'm not arguing that women warriors throughout history have been rare, but I'd maintain that this imbalance likely has cultural or physical reasons rather then purely psychological ones. What percentage of women went off to war throughout the ages? Probably less then 1%, But remember far less then 100% of men went off to war as well, as far as fighters and warriors go (before we had drafts and inscription anyways) we're probably dealing with a smaller percentage of the population with a unique mindset in the first place. Most folks probably preferred to stay at home and tend their families and property.
Culture throughout the ages has tended to place men in heroic roles, so it's hardly surprising that young men love the idea of war, and the few stories that I'm aware of about female warriors (I.E. The Amazons) usually has them cast as villains and ultimately the stories end with them being defeated. It's not surprising if women aren't interested in the stories where they always lose.
Again nurture vs nature, is it that women don't like combat and aren't interested in fighting? Or were women throughout history denied the right to learn combat and warfare? Knowing modern women and looking at the few historical reference we have I tend to believe it's the latter.
Also this 2.7% number, these are woman who see "frontline action". It's the sort of term that I object to. The problem with these modern wars is that there really isn't a frontline. It's not really a fair number to throw around. Lots of women in the military have seen action without being called frontline.
From that same article you linked:
"Women made up 67 of the nearly 3,500 Americans lost in hostile fire in Iraq and 33 of the 1,700-plus killed in combat in Afghanistan; more than 600 others in Iraq and 300 in Afghanistan were wounded."
And the vast majority of that numbers would have been racked up while women weren't allowed on the front line.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Slave women, I read somewhere, did most of the work on American plantations. The idea that they are physically incapable of carrying 100 lbs. of battle gear seems pretty suspect to me.
Also I should point out that women (carrying that aforementioned 100lbs of gear) have been on the "front lines" in the Canadian armed forces since '89 or so, and the Canadian military has been actively recruiting women for combat roles since '98
The 100lbs was in resonance to Wolf's comments on high tec weapons getting lighter.
Freehold DM wrote:
There was a little thing called World War 1 that is a fine argument against mutual defense pacts. However with nuclear weapons in the mix I'd like to think that super powers casually going to war with each other is a thing of the past. Now we have proxy wars or super powers invading non-super power aligned countries (the old definition of a 3rd world country I believe), which explains why many of these countries are struggling to get nuclear weapons.
Which is a perfectly reasonable opinion. The USA needs more conservatives like you Kryzbyn. Folks might never agree on certain points but I like to think that mutual respect would lead to compromise that would be good for everyone.
I would guess that it was. Who wants to guess that they're also trying to crack down on welfare mommas?
I always thought that "flip flop" was a silly term and a poor criticism of a supposedly intelligent and educated human being. If someone can't change their opinion based on new evidence or reason how is that a good thing? Why is blindly sticking with your original opinion a good thing? I mean it's wonderful if your opinion was seen as progressive and then later accepted by the mainstream but I have a lot of respect for someone that can admit that they were wrong and then change their opinions, far more so then someone who refuses to change.
Republicans get a bad rap on this one, the crazy religious right republicans get all the press, but I'm sure there's a large number of free thinking republicans are fine with this ruling if not in open support of it.
All in all this has been a good day, you had DOMA thrown out, you had the supreme court say it could not rule on Prop 8, and now abortion rights in the state of Texas have been upheld. It makes me sad that these fights were necessary but I'm glad to see the right outcomes.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Yay for the death of DoMA, less excited about Kirth being driven out of the discussion. Didn't agree with him on some things but his arguments were mostly friendly.
Okay so I was watching the Daily Show tonight (my only source for US news) and I see the crazy folks over at Faux are dumping on this guy . . . and when you start sounding like the crazies at Faux news it's time to walk away from the argument. So no more questioning the source of this leak for me.
Not to be too skeptical but are we sure that this guy is completely on the level? I mean I'm not surprised that the US government is monitoring people, that doesn't come as a surprise, but some of his other claims do sound a bit fishy. Supposedly he doesn't have a high school diploma but yet he's got a $200,000 salary? Maybe the guy is telling us the truth but parts of his story make me hesitant. Also I wonder why he'd wait till now to break the story?
I'm curious about that second Hodor spoiler. I think anyone that's read the books or seen the show probably could probably guess the first one but the second . . . man I can't wait to read about that.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
I don't get the rage aimed at Angelina. Shouldn't women be raging at the medical system for making medical testing so expensive? Choosing what course to take is probably better informed by genetic testing and the fact that it's been shown that pricing for medical procedures can be pretty much arbitrary depending on what hospital you go to.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Then please explain why a corporation, whose (if we can agree on this) motivation is primarily to make profit, would go out of it's way to spend substantially more money on one group of employees than on another? What rational is there, if the females are willing to do the same work and have the same qualifications and experience, but are willing to work at the same job for less pay would they ever choose men over women, (when the only different factor is that they need to pay the men more)?
But women aren't willing to work the same job for less. It's only when people compare pay stubs that we see a difference. What you're suggesting is that companies plan to be sexist and pay women less, which would be pretty callous, and if all this gender inequality came from corporate planning then you'd think it would be pretty damn easy to fix.
The problem is that people at the top don't even know they're doing it. That's why there's a struggle.
Nobody would be my guess. I think your idea of what a feminist is comes from Rush Limbaugh or some other raving lunatic. I'd guess that the average feminist would see the sorceress as just another sad typical female representation in video games, and while they might want female characters that appeal to them, I'd think they'd have bigger issues to deal with like the pay gap, the birth control debate, the abortion debate . . . you know the important stuff.
Course if every male character I had to pick from looked like Justin Bieber or Robert Pattinson because games used teen girls as their focus groups and target audience then I'd be a bit miffed at the selection as well. Course I'd be used to playing a female character by then.
I blame religion.
No, scratch that, I blame the idiots that think religion is a good substitution for education. Just because you believe you follow a religion doesn't mean that you're automatically prone to doing stupid things, but if you're using a 2000+ year old book as your source for morality and science you may want to notice that we've progressed as a people since your religion's scripture was published and it hasn't really been updated.
Kids are going to have sex, not because of increased sexual imagery, but because of ragging hormones. It's kind of why teens were having sex before television. This is why RPGs, video games, and other obsessive pastimes need to be introduced into schools at a very early age: to keep teens awkward and unsure of themselves, and so they can experience their first klutzy bumbling sexual encounter at university like it should be.
It's not a simple problem. Unless you're just going to pretend that teens are going to stop having sex.
I don't think that's how conservatives think though. I believe their line of reasoning is thus: kids shouldn't have sex. So they should stop. The end.
I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong though :)
Personally I'd prefer to get funding without threats of death or rape, but thankfully I'm not interested in writing about edgy topics like Mario Brothers, or making controversial statements like "The damsel in distress plot is overused", I mean otherwise I'd be asking for it.
Yes, constructs, not real threats, crazy people that are given increased attention because they're saying crazy things. You think folks like hearing a well reasoned argument as to why it's wrong to pay women less for the same job or why it's acceptable to believe that a woman shouldn't have the right to choose? Of course not, having a real voice of opposition would make their horrible stance make them seem like monsters, so it's best to find crazy people and pretend they in any way represent the feminist movement.
Exactly why is examining video games tropes controversial? Is it because she's female? Because she's using a feminist lens? Is it because she asked for money so she could fund her work? I really don't see what is at all controversial. Glen Beck, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, these folks have made a living saying inappropriate things, I'd expect to see them receive hate mail/death threats (though I doubt Beck or Rush have to sort through many rape threats).
What is controversial about pointing out that Double Dragon objectified and sexualized Marian by making her a damsel and by showing her panties in that brief cut scene that starts the game. As a kid playing that in the arcade it never crossed my mind how that scene might play out in the eyes of a girl my age. I was playing a male character living out a male fantasy but young women at the time wouldn't have had many female characters to identify with . . . unless they fancied themselves as powerless victims.
Personally I love good criticism. You can't get better at something if you can't see your own mistakes and insightful criticism of video games can only lead to better and more complex stories in the future. Video games designers that learn from feminist criticism will make games that appeal to female players which in turn will expand the market. For me it's win/win, but somehow people are threatened by these reviews, and for some reason we have people calling her work controversial. To me it feels like the gaming industry has retreated to their tree house and put a big "no girls allowed" sign up --- only folks have also been making death and rape threats apparently, so this attack on her is less boyish and more thuggish. More akin to something one might expect in the middle east.
Detect Magic wrote:
@ Guy Humual: Rich and powerful people aren't rich and powerful because of their gender. They're usually rich and powerful because they are "in the family", so to speak.
So why is it that most CEOs are male? Why are most governors, senators, congressmen male? I'm not even going to bring up race inequality, but being white and male does have it's privileges. I'm not suggesting that all white men have greater advantages then everyone else. I'm sure Tiger Wood's kids will have far more advantages then I or any of my kids would have, but when I was going to school I was given shop class which taught me the basics of wood working and machine working which is a far more marketable skill then home economics, which is what the girls got, which taught them sewing and cooking.
Now granted chefs probably make more money then machinists or carpenters do, but even that profession seems to have a lot of men at the top, and I'm not even sure you could find a seamstress job in North America these days.
What's wrong with this? As I've tried to point out criticize means to examine and take apart, to try to look at things under a new light, and maybe come away with a different appreciation. Criticize isn't in this case the same as complain.
The fact that she is right is as valid as saying that a documentary about Thomas Jefferson being a hypocrite would be "right".
I'm not super familiar with Tommy boy, but seeing as he was a real living person I'm sure he was a hypocrite on some things, but I'm thinking basing an entire documentary on that would be a bit of a stretch and probably not all that worth watching.
The criticism, right or wrong, was about asking for "public" funding for something people disagreed with funding.
Well yes, but I'd say the complaining or bickering rather then criticism. And honestly if you're not interested in funding something just walk away. I wouldn't take the time to insult you just because you're intent on making this "Thomas Jefferson: Hypocrite!" movie. People really came out of the wood work and it mainly seemed to be "how dare a girl criticize video games! That's a guy thing!"
Which was sort of enforcing her point and reasons for wanting to examine the matter more closely.
The vitriol came from both sides.
I'm sure it did. Vitriol is like that. It's a good reason to not get involved.
She is not wrong. She is absolutely right. I personally felt the same way about her and Zack Braff. I'm not giving you money, because I don't care if what you produce exists or doesn't exist enough to give you money.
Which is fine, the real reason kickstarter exists. People fund projects they want to see.
Just because someone is successful in one avenue doesn't mean they still can't be victims. I see that commenting and voting have been disabled on her YouTube videos, you want to bet that it's because she's afraid of literary criticism of her work? Or do you suppose that the mean spirited troglodytes that disapproved of her kickstarter simply followed her into her actual videos.
Far worse was said of Bill Gates, the Koch Brothers, etc...
What did she say? I'm not a loyal follower of her work.
Detect Magic wrote:
I'm not sure feminists have singled out white men, it would seem strange for them to do so in the middle east for example, but I don't know what feminists you're listening to.
Detect Magic wrote:
White men might have different experiences than women, but that doesn't make them privileged.No, I think the fact that they are the majority power in most of the North American and European governments, businesses, and own much of the land and wealth is what classifies them as privileged.
Detect Magic wrote:
Some white men, namely rich ones, are doing particularly well,Agreed
Detect Magic wrote:
but so too are rich white women, rich black men, rich black women, rich asian men, rich asian women--you see where I'm going with this one?
That rich people do well? I don't think I was arguing against that. I would suggest that most of the richest people in the world are white males, not all of them certainly, and most of the most powerful people are male.
Detect Magic wrote:
I'm not saying that women have nothing to complain about. I'm certainly sympathetic to the plights of women, and yet, I draw a line. I'm not willing to buy into the concept that white men are to blame for all of the depleting ozone, dead baby seals, and oil spills.
Even though most of the chemical and oil companies are run by men? I would like to point out that I live on the east coast and all the seal hunters around here are white males. I mean there are a few natives in Labrador and Northern Canada but they're mostly white men around here. Not as many natural predators either. So I'd say most of the baby seals are killed by white males. The really young ones (the white baby seals) aren't hunted anymore though, you can thank animal welfare groups for that, but seeing as they're a special interest group you might not want to.
Detect Magic wrote:
Modern feminism ain't what it used to be. It's become hateful and bigoted, and in doing so has become counterproductive.
Seems to me there were some particularly hateful feminists in the 60s, I remember one suggesting that a man shouldn't be allowed to penetrate a woman until he himself had experienced also beening . . . well you get the idea. Also there were calls that women should simply give up on men altogether. These calls were mostly ignored as with any group or movement you get yahoos. Are you suggesting that modern feminists are more extreme?
Detect Magic wrote:
Edit: Some modern feminists have become hateful and bigoted. I don't want to paint all feminists with the same brush. It's the radicals I mean to suggest have corrupted the feminist movement.
Well I don't support radicals and a movement shouldn't be painted by a broad brush. I do fear that folks are getting their opinions of feminists from folks like Rush Limbaugh or Bill Maher, and while these guys are on opposite ends of the political spectrum on most issues, they're pretty unabashed anti feminist.
If there's something wrong with the system we can't really fix it until we've identified the problem and having separate groups identifying problems should be a good thing, and someone that cares about humanity really shouldn't be trying to dismiss or repress these views.
Detect Magic wrote:
White men are privileged and feminists get a pass? I guess I'll "nope" my way out of this thread, too!
So it's your contention that white men don't have privileges and feminists don't have any reason to complain? Maybe it would be best for you to leave . . .
I don't think I did but let's see what you think I'm missing.
His point was that instead of focusing on "female equality" or "black equality" or "gay equality" or "Purple people eater equality", we should just focus on human equality.
But as humans we're doing pretty darn good. We're kicking the hell out of the other animals. The white males of the human species are doing particularly well, so much so that we find it easy to ignore most of the world, including the 50% that are female.
That it, it encompasses all of them without pretending they're separate issues,
But they are separate issues. I've never been pulled over for driving while black, and I've never been threatened with death for wanting an education.
and with the added, wonderful side effect of hopefully utterly annihilating the RadFem movement until there's nothing but dust and crocodile tears where it used to stand.
That's a good thing is it? Seems to me it wasn't that long ago that people were all up in arms because women had the audacity to want to vote (the nerve) but that seems pretty silly these days. Now women have the audacity to want control over their bodies and their reproductive systems. This very thread is about a woman who has the audacity to talk about female representation in video games, and good or bad, just look at the push back she's getting. Seems to me that anyone that was really interested in human equality wouldn't mind the smaller movements to achieve these same goals. But what do I know?
What he's saying is that Feminism has shifted from "Let's fight for female equality!" to "Let's fight for female supremacy!, which is wholly counter-productive, as that would be trading one inequality for another.
Tell you what, when we reach that tipping point where women have equal rights and representation and then demand more, at that point I'll join your cause against the evil feminazies (a term coined by Rush Limbaugh I believe), but until then I'll give feminists a pass.
Whether he's correct or not I cannot say, but I do know that I have never met a "Feminist" who did not share that attitude in one way or another, whether it be the "I want Castration Day to be an international holiday!" level of crazy, or the milder but still stupid "I want to be treated equally, but I also want to be doted on by the man in my life because I'm special!".
So in conclusion I'd say no, I didn't miss his point or yours.
If they were, men would be farting in their faces as they do other men ...
Which is juvenile and comes with it the understanding that retaliation to juvenile behavior could very well turn violent, I mean if you did that to me I'd likely put you on your rear, but then if you're physically larger and you don't have to fear any sort of retaliation then it's just basic bullying and humiliation. Men you see Bruuunwald have an understanding of violence, some of them tease each other out of respect with the understanding that should we go too far the other is capable of retaliating with physical violence, but women are usually smaller and less capable of defending themselves against men. Civilized folk generally treat all people with respect regardless. But the other thing is that social constraints also suggest that if a woman were to respond in turn then she'd be called un-lady like (at best) and would be ostracized for acting out of her acceptable social norm.
So physically and socially she's restrained. Course having her complain labels her as a b!$&& or a stick in the mud by you. Can't imagine why feminists get upset. Personally I don't see why wanting a little human decency is offensive to some folks but then again I'm not a "Humanist" and I think we have a long way to go before women of this world achieve equality.
I'm just going to go right out there and say this. I am a Humanist. I believe in treating all human beings equally. That means that I am an anti-feminist. Because feminism is by its very definition, divisive.
Well it's nice to know that 100 year old struggle for equality has finally hit the tipping point. Woman of the world can now not only vote but now actually represent half of all elected officials, always make as much as a man doing the same job, and always have control over their bodies. I'm so glad that things are finally equal now and we can put all that ugly unfairness in the past just like we did racism after the 2008 election./sarcasm
Let me tell you a story about ice cream: This one time I went to the store and bought some grape-nut ice cream. I got it home only to discover that there weren't even any grapes or nuts in it at all! Not even any raisins! True story. Amazing as it seems. I'm not even going to get started on my heavenly hash story, though in hindsight I should have been suspicious when they weren't selling it by the gram, but that's an entirely different rant.
Anyone ever think that it's less a case of people being easily offended and more a case of people no longer being afraid to say they're offended? Maybe people aren't actually any more easy to offend but are now just more likely to speak up when they are offended?
I think the Westboro Baptist Church serves a purpose. It is what I can point to when people claim there are no extremists Christians.
I always thought that they were there to help encourage and spread atheism.
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Come on, fiction writers want their characters to be believable, what self respecting author would invent a character like that? If she hadn't been a real person I'd say it was the most ludicrous character ever invented. Women weren't like that back in the 17th century! The idea of a female bisexual cross-dressing swordswoman opera singer is preposterous! What's that you say? She wasn't just good, she once bested three men at once in a duel? She made a living singing and putting on sword displays? Oh and one time she fell in love with a girl, followed her into a convent, replaced her love with an already dead nun and then faked her death by burning the place down? She is sentenced to die but then her death sentience is overturned by the King? Completely unbelievable. Wait, there's more? Apparently she was also very beautiful and sang at the famed Paris opera house? Of course she did.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Upon second reading, I think I misread your post, Citizen Humual. My apologies.
No problems, I was merely pointing out that the thread isn't going unnoticed and why there aren't more posts.
Anyways here's something to contribute to the thread: They say real life is stranger then fiction, in this case it is.
Hey climate change takes a long time, we might have already damned the future human population for all we know, but seeing as making changes now is hard we should probably just not do anything.
Never mind countries in Africa, how does that 10 billion stack up against oil companies or banking profits? If you want to look for conspiracy theories have a look at them. Unlike most counties they have a vested interest in the global oil market. I think the top 5 oil companies had 62 billion and change in earning last year, would you suggest that it's not in their interest to spread misinformation or outright lies about their environmental impact?
I don't recall "jumping on" anyone. I am baffled by the conclusions though. Sissyl hasn't questioned the science behind greenhouse gasses, the CO2 build up, but she has doubted the effects it's already had on the climate. Basically she's saying: "yes I understand the science, I accept what it should do to the environment, but clearly the researchers are lying about the effects it's already had and I don't believe what they think it will do in the future. I accept that it should (in theory) happen but clearly the scientists are falsifying reports to make it appear that it has already started."
I have no problem with someone questioning the science (I mean that's why we have peer reviewed journals), zero problem with someone questioning the effects, but to accept the science and then decided that we don't need to do anything? It blows the mind.