Where did all the feminist/hipsters come from?

[DatPunk]

If you draw your definition from a lot of feminist literature, I assume you’re familiar with ways that it has been used, but the definition I invoked is at least a game attempt to boil privilege down to the basics–perhaps not universally agreed upon, but probably as close as it can get without copying and pasting a Wikipedia/Cliff’s Notes/Whatever summary. Certainly not a gender bigot’s abuse of the term, and what use would anyone who wasn’t a gender bigot have for such a jaundiced definition anyway?

Who knows…all I know is that the term is thrown around a lot by people who use it with a very specific context in mind.

Here’s a complaint that’s been made many a time. When a man and a woman show up to a store to buy a computer together and the salesperson addresses the man rather than both of them together (or, hell, the woman), perhaps it’s that the salesperson chose at random–but more likely the choice was influenced by social norms that paint the man as more likely to be knowledgable and that the woman is more likely to defer to his decision-making. And perhaps the salesperson bases this on past observation, but that still boils down to a prejudgment based on lines of sex and gender, just as much as it would boil down had he chosen based on any other prejudged basis. How does a man earn preferential treatment from a person he’s never met in his life? This is an example based in self-report to be sure, but my goal here is to illustrate the sort of assumptions that color the ways that people treat one another and even accept treatment from one another without realizing it. It’s a subtler sort of discrimination that can’t be legislated against because it occurs in circumstances that don’t lend themselves to legislation, that are difficult to measure except by the testimony of those involved. Because it is so difficult to address in any other way, it is best addressed if people go from not thinking about it to thinking about it–if people think about the assumptions they’re making about the qualifications and life experiences of others, and if they question why they make their choices in how to treat one person versus how to treat another.

Once again though these are not implicit rights but rather assumptions people have…it only becomes a right if the assumption iinfluences law making decisions such as the examples I provided. This was the main point I was trying to illustrate in explaining the difference between assumptions and discrimination. For example if a man and woman are both crying its more likely people will want to comfort her then him under the assumption that her pain must be legitimate and serious…assuming this doesnt have a impact in how we view crimes committed against men and women in the legal system, it only remains a assumption and not some implicit right women have over men.

This treatment does happen and it is B.S. that it does. Of course it needs to stop, and ironically it’s something that feminism applies to. Most feminists can at the very least agree that a reappraisal is in order for the gender roles that we’re expected to fill.

That’s the problem though…feminist say they want to address issues like this but they never do and if anything they are partly responsible for most of this bias against men. I wont come out and say it was the entire fault of feminism because a lot of these biases against men already existed…but it certainly didnt help matters when feminist theory on gender and masculinity began to dominate the conversation and landscape of equality. The fact that father groups cant even organize conferences in public without feminist protesters screaming"you are fucking scum"or"your all rape incest apologetist"makes it very difficult to address problems outside what popular feminist group deem as worthy causes.

For example, the implicit assumption that children are better off in the company of a woman is the vestige of a June-and-Ward-Cleaver social model in which the man is necessarily the breadwinner and the woman is necessarily the child rearer. For the most part, this social model begat the sort of domestic repression that feminism has historically sought to address. If the lingering effects of “ideal” housebound motherhood are done away with once and for all, then so will the implicit assumption that women are necessarily better for children than men.

Actually the funny thing about this is that it was the effort of early feminist that made default mother custody what it is today. I think it was called the "tender years doctrine"but I could be mistaken on that name…at any rate I always chuckle when modern feminist talk about wanting to dispel the societal assumption that women are the "better caregivers"when it was in fact the work of early feminist that created this assumption in the first place lol. Kind of reminds me of comic book writers who try to retcon stupid continuity from previous runs…no new 52 here unfortunately.

It is very much true that the assault of men is relatively rare and that the public harassment of women is a common occurrence. We address the assault, so why not address the harassment? Just because it’s a matter of hearts and minds rather than the law doesn’t mean that there’s nothing to do about it. When somebody catcalls, or makes similarly undesirable remarks, the problem isn’t so much that the recipient finds it offensive or threatening per se, but that the person making the remarks is doing so without caring whether or not the recipient finds it offensive or threatening. It is downright brazen to take advantage of the fact that people are in a position where they have to hear such remarks directed at them without any recourse.

In simple terms, it’s called being a douchebag–in this case, a sexist douchebag, which is even worse, because the douchebag’s douchebaggery is predicated on the idea that slightly over half the human race deserves to be a target of douchebaggery based solely on the fact that it is one kind of person and not another. It’s ludicrous.

Yeah but that’s just how the online community is though…well actually most social situations are like this. For example in my case I was constantly ripped on for being fat and bald when I went out to tournaments but eventually over time you develop thick skin and get over it. The main point is that online harassment shouldnt be getting the attention it does let alone portrayed as exclusively directional towards women.In my view if were gonna hold a strict"no asshole policy"online then it has to be a equatable policy in which everyone’s feelings are taken with equal value and consideration. I dont want the BS tunnel vision perspective that it somehow effects 1 group of people more painfully then another…either were all equal and are equally effected by it or we admit certain groups of people’s feelings are more important. This also brings to question what constitutes valid complaints…adria richards and anita have damaged the credibility of this argument because they prove the potential to abuse it.

The homeless population is overwhelmingly male, but the male population (as well as the population in general) is overwhelmingly not homeless. For that reason, male homelessness–which is a problem that I don’t intend to marginalize by any means–is not a great metric for male disenfranchisement as a whole.

I wouldn’t use the homeless population as a metric to judge men as a group for the reasons I would use CEO’s either. My main point was in saying that men occupy both the bottom and top of society…similar to the IQ curve we see in men.

I think we’re at cross purposes here, and it’s my bad. Poor wording. I didn’t mean to imply that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between online harassment and subsequent real world violence. I was suggesting, or attempting to suggest, that while men and women alike experience a certain level of harassment in online spaces, women are more likely to be exposed to such a thing in real world public spaces and have less recourse against it, which is why it’s difficult to compare the two situations. (Yes, I’m aware of the irony that this comparison was the impetus for this thread in the first place, so don’t bother pointing that out.) Again, shit wording on my part in the previous comment.

Thanks for clearing that up.

The only thing I would add to this is that it certainly would depend on the venue and the type of community present. I guess unless we can compare the general experiences of men and women during certain venues and communities it would be difficult to know for certain but I can concede in saying both men and women will probably experience treatment unique to their gender.

I don’t have much to say to this except that I think that the ratio you’re suggesting is backwards when you compare successful men to lottery winners and homeless men to the lottery losers, which would suggest that they represent an overwhelming majority of people. Though perhaps your call for a more holistic approach can result in some insight. One allegation commonly made by feminists isn’t necessarily that men are given success, but that they have more opportunities for success–and therefore more opportunities for failure. The goal, therefore, is not to produce more success for women, but to produce more access to opportunities. Perhaps if this happened, we’d see more successful women and more failing women. The necessary two sides of the coin.

Again the purpose of the homeless/lottery comparison was to illustrate the polarity of men’s positions in society…you have your big winners but far more losers. Moving to the point though, the problem with that goal is that we have to assume the feminist assertion that women lack opportunities is the core issue behind this disparity. I’m sure this is a point we could argue for days though so i’ll leave it for now unless its a point that really needs to get covered.

I’d love to say that I’ll be waiting for that discussion to occur, but there’s some Hello Kitty in one of the other threads and I keep expecting it to leak into here. Never mind that while I find this subject legitimately interesting and commend you for sticking it out where so many others would have lost their attention span days ago, I have to admit that typing all this shit is pretty taxing. I’ve got a stack of comics to read and cartoons to watch just like everyone else, though–again–discussions like this one, on this site, are a rarity.

Haha I agree.

Most people lose interest or erode the conversation to a rage war…its been refreshing to actually have a honest discussion on SRK of all places. Speaking of comics I got a combined total of 30+ to get through and this thread continues to pull me away every time…its becoming quite upsetting knowing I haven’t gotten to the latest superior spider-man yet ha.

The Girl Scouts, to the best of my knowledge, are not nearly the same level of organization that the Boy Scouts is. That said, if they refuse to admit boys, well, shame on them. I’m sure there’s some kind of argument to be made to keep the genders rigidly segregated, why the activities of one group couldn’t be just as beneficial to the other… I just don’t know what it is. I’ve heard plenty of arguments that insist on tradition, which is a fairly empty argument unless the traditions in question have some better merit than just tradition in itself.

I know I’m about to make everybody wince all over again, but I’ll borrow a catchphrase from another movement and say that the dueling Scouts is a case in which separate is not equal. At least, it hasn’t been demonstrated as equal, as far as I can see. Why not allow a girl to participate with the boys, or vice versa? Aside from unquestioning adherence to tradition, that is.

Well if people really think including girls is that important then why not just create a new division of scouts thats inclusive to all people…just seems dumb to me cause that little girl is basically giving a big"fuck you"to the girl scouts lol. Although the main point still remains that there is no consistency in exclusion and it seems directional in terms of who is allowed to exclude. We have several womyn only music festivals which expressly deny admission to men or even trans men, yet because certain communities attract more men then women it suddenly becomes a problem. I think the issue is in eliminating the perception that male spaces are somehow inherently sexist or hostile while female spaces are benign and innocent.

[quote]
That’s a tricky matter of definition, because while it has been suggested that the level of female-on-male abuse is underestimated and underreported, the injury rate resulting from domestic abuse is much, much higher in male-on-female cases. The consequences are graver, and it’s not hard to understand why. Poodles and dalmations tend to be a lot meaner than rottweilers and pitbulls, but I know which breeds I’d rather take my chances with in a scuffle. Nevertheless, you raise a point. People should have access to a place they can go for protection if they feel they need it, regardless of who they are.{/quote}

When it comes to serious injury I believe it was something like "5 men for every 8 woman"or something around that area. Interestingly enough though in cases of severe unilateral abuse against a non-violent partner, women are the perpetrators up to 70% of the time. Women are also more likely to engage in coercive control of a partner as well if im not mistaken but most shocking of all is that the number one predictor of serious domestic violence injury in women is their own initiation of violence. It is when men are hitting them back that women are most likely to be hurt. However because it is seen as socially acceptable for women to hit men and because feminist groups like to pretend women are not as violent men…we are in a sense making it possible for women to seriously injure themselves.

{quote}But I will differ once again on the level of seriousness with which we should treat an adult’s wariness of being around a potentially abusive teenager. Being below the age of majority doesn’t mean that someone doesn’t have a capacity for violence, the wherewithal to carry it out, or the strength to do so effectively. I mean, I was a puny teenager, but I knew a lot of kids my age who weren’t. I was also a relatively level-headed, non-violent teenager, but I still knew a lot of kids who weren’t. For that reason, I do think there’s some merit in taking that into account even when dealing with underage kids.{/quote}

True but these shelters won’t even allow teenage sons to seek rescue with their mothers…at least last I heard unless there was a change in the policy. I get that teenagers have as much potential for violence as a adult but the exclusion of teenagers is directional only against teenage boys and not teenage girls. It falls back into a very inconsistent distribution of equality and is makes it seem as if the potential for violence is more present in men then and women…even when the men in question are only just children.

{quote}Logically, if the goal of feminism is to raise female agency in our society by debunking assumptions about what women are capable of and how they should be treated, then we have to consider the potential for hypocrisy–the presence of people who act in the service of that goal only selectively. To draw an analogy, it’s fairly well-known that one of PETA’s highest-placed officials is an insulin-dependent diabetic who uses some fairly self-serving rationalizations to justify injecting herself with dead animal products in order to prolong her own life. That doesn’t mean that animal rights is a bunk issue, and it doesn’t mean that the ideas she professes to adhere to are bad ones. It means that she’s a shithead who doesn’t practice what she preaches.

While I’m a big proponent of feminism as an idea, I have a fundamental distrust of big top-down organizations that style themselves upon feminism, because positions of authority are going to attract people who aren’t necessarily interested in upholding the stated mission of the organization. Incidentally, I could very well substitute “feminism” in that sentence with “animal rights”.

I realize that sounds precariously close to a “No true Scotsman” argument… but fuck it. It still applies.

I also realize that some of this might come across as hedging, which is not my intention. I just think it’s important to be clear that while I support ideas and goals that are fundamental in feminism, I don’t support every feminist or every feminist organization. Mainly in cases where their tactics don’t stand up to a critique based on their own damned philosophy.{/quote}

I could do a 10 hour rant about why I always disliked feminism and why I think it’s ideological junk but ultimately in spite of my poor feelings on it I’ve always believed that the issue of feminism in the topic of"sexism in gaming"was always misplaced. I see people like anita using the title as a defensive declaration…as if to say"if you attack me you attack feminism too". I dont think people like her or the people behind this sudden surge of"gender in gaming"are sincere…seems more like a cheap way to generate buzz and capitalize on the latest trend. On that note…fuck kotaku and PATRICIA HERNANDEZ!

{quote}I would bet that both are true–nerds insulted, nerds vying for protection of their niche. Both involve a need to maintain a sense of identity, I think.{/quote}

Any new community trying to join a existing one will always feel some resistance and in this case its like 10 times worse because it feels more like assimilation and less like expansion.

{quote}Whoa whoa whoa, let’s not say anything we can’t take back. While I might be sticking up for feminism, I haven’t thrown in my lot with this Anita person by a long shot. It may very well be possible that we hew to some of the same ideas, but I find her tactics silly and I think this whole business of raising money to make a glorified YouTube video, with no better commentary than many other people have already generated in lengthy discussion for free, is basically a scam wrapped in the flag of activism.{/quote}

Heh I threw in the anita line for shock value but unfortunately feminist have now begun to overwhelming side with anita so eventually it will be impossible to tell where one ends and the other one starts.

{quote}Also, I have an unimpeachable history of staunch heterosexuality. I will therefore deny your allegation of homosexuality and rejoinder by suggesting that you, yourself, are a homosexual.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.{quote}

Hey what can I say…I love me dat D!

Edit: Seriously just fucked up the quote thing…aww to lazy to change it enjoy.

[Doc_Robot]

If you draw your definition from a lot of feminist literature, I assume you’re familiar with ways that it has been used

“Has” being the key word here. Past tense.

It’s a subtler sort of discrimination that can’t be legislated against because it occurs in circumstances that don’t lend themselves to legislation

…yet.

For example, the implicit assumption that children are better off in the company of a woman is the vestige of a June-and-Ward-Cleaver social model in which the man is necessarily the breadwinner and the woman is necessarily the child rearer. For the most part, this social model begat the sort of domestic repression that feminism has historically sought to address. If the lingering effects of “ideal” housebound motherhood are done away with once and for all, then so will the implicit assumption that women are necessarily better for children than men.

Not to speak for someone else, but I think the overall sentiment the poster trying to convey was not so much about the dynamics of the nuclear family, but more a list of prejudices against men. They spoke of inequality in domestic violence affairs, the assumption that all men are future rapists or child molesters, etc. Many other things than familial equality.

As for the prison population, that may very well be the effects of a different sort of privilege altogether. Get them in a room together. What do they have in common besides being men?

That they’re mostly members of minority races convicted of non-violent crimes and caught in a privatized prison system intended to make someone else more wealthy, provide slave wage labor for the state, and prevent them from voting?

Or did you mean that they were all criminals? (Kind of a sketchy assumption.)

Where are we going with this?

Logically, if the goal of feminism is to raise female agency in our society by debunking assumptions about what women are capable of and how they should be treated, then we have to consider the potential for hypocrisy–the presence of people who act in the service of that goal only selectively. To draw an analogy, it’s fairly well-known that one of PETA’s highest-placed officials is an insulin-dependent diabetic who uses some fairly self-serving rationalizations to justify injecting herself with dead animal products in order to prolong her own life. That doesn’t mean that animal rights is a bunk issue, and it doesn’t mean that the ideas she professes to adhere to are bad ones. It means that she’s a shithead who doesn’t practice what she preaches.

While I’m a big proponent of feminism as an idea, I have a fundamental distrust of big top-down organizations that style themselves upon feminism, because positions of authority are going to attract people who aren’t necessarily interested in upholding the stated mission of the organization. Incidentally, I could very well substitute “feminism” in that sentence with “animal rights”.

I realize that sounds precariously close to a “No true Scotsman” argument… but fuck it. It still applies.

I’d argue it crosses the line.

You seem to be arguing from a position that assumes your own definition of feminism. I think the one thing we can all agree on is that feminism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. By your own admission, there is no universally agreed upon definition.

It might be safe to say that what the majority of people in this thread are arguing against when they say “feminism” is actually “straw” feminism…

Trigger Warning: Weasel Words

Some argue this term describes a feminist that doesn’t actually exist, despite many of the ideals attributed to so-called straw feminism being used by different feminist groups. Are they not feminists? Are they?

Now we’re down to arguing what feminism actually is. Which is going to go nowhere. Quickly.

I just think it’s important to be clear that while I support ideas and goals that are fundamental in feminism, I don’t support every feminist or every feminist organization. Mainly in cases where their tactics don’t stand up to a critique based on their own damned philosophy.

The sticky part here is defining what ideas and goals are currently fundamental within feminism. The feminism I see today is almost certainly not what its founders envisioned. Am I to understand that this is a minority of feminists, and not a sign of the movement having evolved?

I would bet that both are true–nerds insulted, nerds vying for protection of their niche. Both involve a need to maintain a sense of identity, I think.

This much was obvious. I’m curious as to how you actually feel about it, though.

While I might be sticking up for feminism

Are you actually sticking up for feminism, or are you defending a set of now-antiquated ideals that feminism left behind years ago?

[Boel]

I will say that the one saving grace of the new forums is that the quote reply quote reply quote reply adam warlock black jesus randomnigga style isn’t as much of an eyesore

i mean I aint readin this shit but yall know what I mean

[petran79]

it was bound to happen. in the 80s computers and women were not something you heard very often.

[specs]

Noise

Do I re-post all the stuff I’ve said, in this thread and others, about liking sexy, scantily clad women, in art and reality, for the eye candy and pleasing blood flow to my penis? Just to re-affirm my masculinity to this assclown who thinks he knows the first thing about fiction or sociogender issues? Questions I’ve asked myself. Just FYI.

Anywho, 20% comes straight out of your ass, or from some inconclusive result on a website somewhere. (I bolded that word for a reason.) Since you’re content to associate me with less-than-favorable internet types on Tumblr and elsewhere, I’ll go ahead and associate you with the Amazing Atheist, despite the fact you’ve openly said you don’t much care for him. Funny how that works, that whole associating based on fuck all.

And no, naming one or two examples of characters with great female protagonists/antagonists (hey guys, Maleficent and the White Witch were awesome, so there’s no female villain problem, even though I’d struggle to name even two more) doesn’t change the well-recorded tendencies of fiction producers everywhere on this planet, and their audiences, to show clear biases against said strong female characters. Fuck, when I write spec scripts I tend to have male leads, because I prefer and resonate more with male leads, but I try to incorporate strong female villains and hell, regular characters, in there somewhere, partly because it’s not the trend.

Bah, this whole discussion is fruitless. I don’t identify as a feminist, and I hold more than just a few opinions about victims needing to prove their accusers’ guilt, maternity leave, association of guilt to the male in domestic disputes (yup), and other views that probably wouldn’t be popular to them. But fuck, I’m way more on their side than delusional-ass MRA types who actually try to argue that men don’t have it really fucking good everywhere on this planet and bristle when I equate their arguments to creationism. Hell, it wasn’t that long ago that I bought MRA nonsense too… until I actually started listening to the bullshit they spewed.

[Mancub]

Noise

Lack of individual or interesting argument goes here.

If you look on the prior page you’ll see two entire posts dedicated to strictly linking sources that prove what I said earlier, but then again acknowledging proof isn’t your biggest strength, mate. As for citing one or two women, there are:

Cersei
Arya
Catelyn
Daenerys (obnoxious bitch but she’s meant to be portrayed that way)
Sansa
Brienne
Melisandre
Asha
Alerie
Margarey

All of them barring Alerie and Marge are key characters with significant portions of the books dedicated to fleshing them out, growing them and having entire plotlines dedicated to their escapades. That’s 10 well written female characters with plenty of air time and characterization in just ONE series, not to mention they’re all stark(hurr)ly different personalities with differing motivations. Once again, the lack of female characters isn’t lacking, your knowledge of books clearly is. Read some more, pop down to your library and educate yourself before you try and debate literature and women’s roles in it, as it’s clear you know nothing about it. As for women’s roles in MAKING books, one of the most prolific and acclaimed authors of modern literature is a woman that has made a series of books with a number of important female characters in it. I don’t know if you’re legitimately stupid (you don’t appear to be) or if you’re feigning ignorance to try and support your argument, but either way it’s not a good look.

Pettily try and rustle up a retort, call me a misogynist, a patriarchal dark knight hell bent on destroying any semblance of rights that women and dem colored folk have, I don’t care. Delusional, sheltered feminists don’t dissuade me from living my life as is. In the end the majority of the pseudo activists on the internet are going to continue to do sweet fuck all and cry on their blog about the patriarchy and privilege, but never actually do something about it. Would getting a job, being part of their community or god forbid working at a shelter for abused/homeless women be too fucking hard for these people? I’m sure calling for men to stop opening doors for people and getting angry when they look at them in a remotely friendly manner is going to do more for their collective gender than helping those that can’t or won’t help themselves.

MRA people, who I don’t associate with, are the same people that get their rallies bombarded by mad feminists that yell at them and scream for attention, or fire alarms pulled on what they’re doing. If you want to bundle me in with the Amazing Atheist, then I’ll stand by his viewpoint in the way that it’s a fucking abhorrent and highly hypocritical thing to do and it should be punished legally. Saying men have it good everywhere is ludicrous, by the way, as you’re perpetuating the mindset that being male instantly gives you a free fucking ride in society. Believe it or not, but being a fat, unemployed fuck is still going to make them useless to society regardless of if they have a dick or not. If women just got past their invisible mental barriers about finding work, they’d be able to go into any field they wanted provided they have the skills for it. The only jobs that aren’t going to go well for them are incredibly physical ones, but that’s only if they’re physically unable to do the work that they’d be paid for. Go look at a construction site, you aren’t likely to see many women, but you aren’t likely to see many twinky looking boys, either. If your body can’t handle the work, you either improve it or go find a new job to pursue.

[Bious]

Game of Thrones is an extremely poor example of positive portrayals of women. This is obvious if you read the books. Hell just mentioning Daenerys was a mistake.

[Mancub]

Game of Thrones is an extremely poor example of positive portrayals of women. This is obvious if you read the books. Hell just mentioning Daenerys was a mistake.

It’s about as equal opportunity as you can get. Men get treated like shit, they get their cocks, nails, joints, nipples, tongues, eyes and balls ripped off, families killed and other horrible things, as do the women. And none of it is senseless at least out of the list I’ve provided, it’s either just desserts or a tragedy. In the mythos, the rights are skewed for common folk/peasants, sure, but the airtime, writing quality and accomplishments of the main characters aren’t.

[specs]

Noise.

This just in: naming 10 characters totally proves your point.

Breaking news: naming sources counts as proof, and no thought needs to be given to the veracity of those sources beyond the fact they exist (see also: Wikipedia logic).

Top story: when called on the stupidity of making baseless associations and provided an example of such, own such baseless association and continue to make more; it makes you look good.

Update: having a dick makes a fat, unemployed person far less likely, statistically (verifiably), to be sexually assaulted than having a vagina (even if fat and unemployed), but ignore fact while accusing others of the same; makes you look even better.

[Mancub]

Noise.

This just in: naming 10 characters totally proves your point.

Breaking news: naming sources counts as proof, and no thought needs to be given to the veracity of those sources beyond the fact they exist (see also: Wikipedia logic).

Top story: when called on the stupidity of making baseless associations and provided an example of such, own such baseless association and continue to make more; it makes you look good.

Today’s headlines: disgruntled feminists unable to provide counter arguments in a turn of events surprising absolutely nobody. Continued ignorance or dismissal of proof soon followed, before being dissipated by any and all logical thought being directed towards the argument. Patriarchy groped manchild Specs left us with this quote: ''Their provided proof and citations do nothing to dissuade my unrealistic view on masculine privilege in literature and my continued ignorance of good female characters. If I can’t see it or find it on a 10 second Google hunt, then it doesn’t exist!"

When approached with a solution to the majority of problems women enforce on themselves, the man had no comment and went on an unrelated rant about sexual assault under the impression that it has any correlation with regular, mentally fit people.

[specs]

Terrible.

[Bious]

Game of Thrones is an extremely poor example of positive portrayals of women. This is obvious if you read the books. Hell just mentioning Daenerys was a mistake.

It’s about as equal opportunity as you can get. Men get treated like shit, they get their cocks, nails, joints, nipples, tongues, eyes and balls ripped off, families killed and other horrible things, as do the women. And none of it is senseless at least out of the list I’ve provided, it’s either just desserts or a tragedy. In the mythos, the rights are skewed for common folk/peasants, sure, but the airtime, writing quality and accomplishments of the main characters aren’t.

Yes bad shit happens to everyone. Still doesn’t make the women any less moronic and poorly portrayed.

[Mancub]

Game of Thrones is an extremely poor example of positive portrayals of women. This is obvious if you read the books. Hell just mentioning Daenerys was a mistake.

It’s about as equal opportunity as you can get. Men get treated like shit, they get their cocks, nails, joints, nipples, tongues, eyes and balls ripped off, families killed and other horrible things, as do the women. And none of it is senseless at least out of the list I’ve provided, it’s either just desserts or a tragedy. In the mythos, the rights are skewed for common folk/peasants, sure, but the airtime, writing quality and accomplishments of the main characters aren’t.

Yes bad shit happens to everyone. Still doesn’t make the women any less moronic and poorly portrayed.

Out of the list the only two morons are Sansa and Daeny, who I fucking despise. The rest are either cunning, manipulative, willful, intelligent or incredibly wise, with perhaps the exception of Asha (who I’d consider having the greyjoy equivalent of street smarts). The rest are human beings with actual faults, which doesn’t make them bad characters or poorly portrayed, but rather is a realistic portrayal. They aren’t bumbling retards that can’t function without a stalwart cock to guide them, but they also have clear flaws and suspect motivations centering around their character.

Unless I’ve misinterpreted you and you’re implying that a woman has to be faultless to be a good character, in which case I’d have to strongly disagree with you. My favorite character out of the book is Jaime, followed by Brienne then Jaime, but they all have plenty of character flaws that highlights their humanity.

[Combo_Knight]

I don’t even know what the hell is going on in this thread right now, but I came here because I know specs disrespects motherfuckers like a stroll through the park and I find it funny.

Also, I don’t get why people get up in arms about shit like this when Japan will still make exaggerations to features period, regardless of gender.

[Tanner]

1. Anti-sex feminists are the most vocal and notorious school, but not the most common. Also yeah as I said…feminism, equal rights and opportunities for women. They are not concerned with equal rights for other groups. That is those groups’ fight.

2. Domestic Violence. Sure there is some unreported cases, but female physical abuse of males is rare. I’ve never experienced it, don’t know anyone else who has. Just like most guys would be pretty scared to slug another guy twice their size, women are not going to hit their partners who are much bigger/stronger. Also why it is perceived as much worse when a guy beats a woman than the other way around should be obvious. In general people are disgusted by someone hitting another person much smaller/weaker than themselves.

Why don’t you actually look up the facts instead of making shit up because it supports your “argument”.

Men: The Overlooked Victims of Domestic Violence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

More than 40% of severe domestic abuse injuries are male.

[Combo_Knight]

Why don’t you actually look up the facts instead of making shit up because it supports your “argument”.

Men: The Overlooked Victims of Domestic Violence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

More than 40% of severe domestic abuse injuries are male.
[/quote]

True, and more times than not, the size difference is evened out with something like, Acid, or poison. Like that guy who’s wife was fucking with his coffee for some years (IIRC)

[angelpalm]

Bitches be all on the ninja with those dps attacks.

I personally don’t eat anything made by a woman if she is mad, cause the next thing I know I might be strapped to a chair with my eye lids cutoff or some ish.

[spudlyff8fan]

Specs’ guide to winning an argument:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s16e08-sarcastaball

That said, I’ve never watched Game of Thrones so I’ve got no clue what all y’all are talking about!

[angelpalm]

So what are we arguing about now? Bad portrayal of women in literature?

And somehow that is all mens fault? Don’t women write all those hilarious harlequin novels?

[Mancub]

So what are we arguing about now? Bad portrayal of women in literature?

And somehow that is all mens fault? Don’t women write all those hilarious harlequin novels?

Supposedly there aren’t many good female characters in ALL of fiction, despite me naming near on a dozen main, point of view characters from one series of books, as well as referencing a billionaire female author and her series of books which also feature plenty of female characters in important roles.

But it all came back to rape in the end, lol.