But I like “sexualized, scantily clad heroines” in my gaming entertainment.

[Andrew R]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I don't believe that black people or women are less intelligent or intrinsically less capable than white people or men. This used to be believed, but we've moved beyond that.

So, why do black people (for example) need extra help? Why do they, as a group, get lower grades? It's not because they are less intelligent, but because of social, economic and cultural factors.

I fully support the idea of levelling the playing field by providing programs that allow a good education for all. But it would be wrong for this help to be aimed at 'black people', it should be aimed at those whose socio-economic circumstances would prevent them getting that education, since that is the problem not skin colour. And I support this even knowing that the majority of those who would benefit from such programs are black.

Because the skin colour should not be the basis of how we treat people.

Watch it that belief will get you called a racist

[Bill Dunn]

Freehold DM wrote:

Why must things be separated at all?

America tried separate but equal. It didn't work, and not for the reasons most think of today. What's wrong here is wrong. Violence against women may be particularly odious, but violence against anyone is wrong. I'm all for helping the victims of violence, but I think creating a hierarchy where one type of violence is somehow worse isn't the right way to go about it.

Because they are, in many ways, separate problems with different causes, different overall effects on society, and have different solutions. Not all violence is the same.

[Andrew R]

Men bring up mens issues in these threads because it feels safe to mention it once someone else brings up gender issues. We KNOW if we bring it up first it will be screamed at as weak by men, "not as bad as WE have it" by women and the white knights will show up to heap more abuse on a man for daring to compare themselves to the plight of the poor weak women that must be protected. So some mistakely believe they can open up and talk, instead get told to suck it up and accept it, we deserve it, how dare we be weak. Another insult to suffer in silence

[thejeff]

Yeah, it's against the law. And unless you hang out signs saying "No Chinese, Irish or Dogs", it's damn near impossible to prove. "Bob just seemed a better fit for our company than Kwame did. His technical skills weren't quite as good, but his attitude was better." Companies make those kinds of decisions all the time. And justifiably so. If they're just smart enough not to explicitly say on the record that they're discriminating, you don't have a case.

Unless you can show a pattern of such decisions over a lot of employment decisions. Which will pretty much only work for big companies, since smaller ones don't make enough such decisions to show a real pattern and is thus going to be a long difficult and expensive case.

[Bill Dunn]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I don't believe that black people or women are less intelligent or intrinsically less capable than white people or men. This used to be believed, but we've moved beyond that.

So, why do black people (for example) need extra help? Why do they, as a group, get lower grades? It's not because they are less intelligent, but because of social, economic and cultural factors.

I fully support the idea of levelling the playing field by providing programs that allow a good education for all. But it would be wrong for this help to be aimed at 'black people', it should be aimed at those whose socio-economic circumstances would prevent them getting that education, since that is the problem not skin colour. And I support this even knowing that the majority of those who would benefit from such programs are black.

Because the skin colour should not be the basis of how we treat people.

But since skin color did determine how we treated people, leading to centuries of negative discrimination that has a real effect on people today, we set up ways to ameliorate those problems targeting the people who are affected. That's not "reverse discrimination," which is pretty much just a privilege-protection whine. It's remediation. And considering there are still areas of the United States working pretty hard to marginalize black people despite the deranged assertions of the Supreme Court, I certainly don't think we're past the point where we can consider those remediation programs no longer necessary or appropriate.

Now, it may well be that the poor people, in general, deserve remediation as well considering the exploitation they've suffered (and continue to suffer) at the hands of economically and politically dominant classes. But you may notice that most industrialized countries have programs for that too.

[thejeff]

Malachi Silverclaw wrote:

I don't believe that black people or women are less intelligent or intrinsically less capable than white people or men. This used to be believed, but we've moved beyond that.

So, why do black people (for example) need extra help? Why do they, as a group, get lower grades? It's not because they are less intelligent, but because of social, economic and cultural factors.

I fully support the idea of levelling the playing field by providing programs that allow a good education for all. But it would be wrong for this help to be aimed at 'black people', it should be aimed at those whose socio-economic circumstances would prevent them getting that education, since that is the problem not skin colour. And I support this even knowing that the majority of those who would benefit from such programs are black.

Because the skin colour should not be the basis of how we treat people.

That might be fine if racism was actually a thing of the past. A large part of the problem is that they are black. And thus are discriminated against.

It's not just the current socio-economic starting point. Or the history. It's the active ongoing discrimination.

And just to be pedantic: The majority that would benefit from colour blind programs aimed at people in bad socio-economic circumstances would be white. A disproportionate number would be minority, but the numerical majority would be white. That's true of pretty much every government assistance program.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

thejeff wrote:

That said, as Aranna said, this thread started out as about the objectification of women. Now it's about the poor beaten men.

That is a very common process in discussion about women's issues. They easily shift to being discussions about how men really have it just as bad. Not wanting that to happen isn't the same as "Separate but equal"

Yeah, I have to say, I was happy when this thread got restarted because I thought I'd be able to learn more sexual objectification theory, but I stopped paying attention when the subject quickly moved elsewhere.

Oh well.

[Kirth Gersen]

I think part of the breakdown is that we look at statistics that show, clearly and uniquivocally, that women tend to get a raw deal in a lot of situations. We also see rape statistics that are nothing short of horrifying.

But instead of saying, "OK, we need to get women a fair deal in the workplace through X, and we need to deal with rape by prosecuting rapists and better enabling women to report it (Y)," we try to wrap everything together into one big conspiracy and spout slogans like "male privilege is empowering rape culture!" and so on.

Yes, there's male privilege, and that's something to work on. More darkly, there are subhumans who rape women, and they should be imprisoned/killed. Blurring the two together isn't something that I'm sure is useful, because all it does is make the vast majority of male non-rapists defensive and less likely to work on the privilege part.

[thejeff]

Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:

thejeff wrote:

That said, as Aranna said, this thread started out as about the objectification of women. Now it's about the poor beaten men.

That is a very common process in discussion about women's issues. They easily shift to being discussions about how men really have it just as bad. Not wanting that to happen isn't the same as "Separate but equal"

Yeah, I have to say, I was happy when this thread got restarted because I thought I'd be able to learn more sexual objectification theory, but I stopped paying attention when the subject quickly moved elsewhere.

Oh well.

Yes. I'm going to stop contributing to the derail and only respond on topic. Sorry all.

[Chris Lambertz]

Locking. This discussion has spiraled into territory that isn't really "Gamer Talk." If you would like to discuss real world gender issues there are other forums/threads that might be more appropriate.