Hi again, sorry for double reply. I think you added the bread stuff via edit? If not I somehow missed it earlier.

I understand your point much better now, that really did the trick. I think my question on previous reply is really appropriate. The difference I see is that consuming bread can only reduce hunger, it's impossible for bread consumption to increase hunger. With media consumption, I don't see how you can believe it may reduce sexism, but never cause it to increase... it's like you would say there is some kind of bread which is special, it helps you grow hair, yet you also say bread can't cause baldness, but eating normal bread perpetuates a certain level of baldness. Well, if there is such special bread that reduces baldness, I don't really see why the opposite type of special bread is impossible. You see my point?

PS: if you know of baldness reducing bread, please send me a pm ;)

Precisely. Sexism is a propositional attitude, it can only be held by a person.

What you're using here is, likely, a synecdoche. A game can contain a story. The story can PORTRAY sexism, have a sexist CHARACTER, be FOCUSED on sexism, be WRITTEN BY a sexist person, be written FOR sexist people, etc.
Nowadays "sexism" is a buzzword. When you use it figuratively, it becomes even more incomprehensible. A trope used within a given section of the game is... sexist? What is that even supposed to mean? What does it imply? What impact does it have on anyone or anything? The moment we treat "sexist" the same way people use "fascist" is the moment such statements lose absolutely all sense. It simply becomes "thing that I disagree with, while implying that it's VERY BAD". Vagueness at its worst.

By analogy - we could take other pet peeves. Games can be called "unscientific" (or even "antiscientific") for portraying elements that couldn't exist in our world (like slow lasers, time travel, elves)... People could blame Spore, Starcraft, and Pokemon for misportrayal of evolution. Would that make much sense? We can, of course, focus on violence, enumerate all the violent things a person can do in video games. Does this actually lead to anything meaningful?

People absolutely have the right to like and dislike things about works of fiction. It's just that the moment they try to step out of their warm little hovels of personal taste is the moment their objections usually become silly. On what ground, by what measure could such arguments ever stand public scrutiny? Aesthetics? Ethics? Social mores?

My chair IS black. Check your chair privilege, shitlord!

OK, let's look at this way: a medium cannot be sexist, but its message can be. This still raises the question, how many games do you really believe are telling the player "women are inferior to men"? How many games are set out to fuel hatred towards women? How are any games harming anyone?

Here is a good video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW5PF9yGLhk

No one dares to say it, be everyone is thinking it: the gay theme of Gone Home is the sole reason why the gaming press rallied behind it. From a purely craftsmanship perspective the gender of neither character has any relevance to anything, you could have made them a M/F could and no one would have noticed. But it wouldn't have had any of the praise.

About the video, and mostly, about all the critics that Gone Home or whoever or whatever recieves in a daily basis in that "democratic" people´s voice place, TWITTER... that also has much to be with all the main topic...

Frankly speakin, in the future, if we evolve enough in some years, maybe it will take decades, Twitter will be remembered as the most stupid way of communication ever... Twitter is a FANTASTIC marketing tool, a FANTASTIC place to organize social movements, an awesome place to follow "news" ... we could say Twitter could be the door or probably the "index" for other communication platforms, but by itself, if we dont go beyond Twitter, then as a communication tool is garbage, I need to agree here with Marshall McLuhan, the medium IS THE MESSAGE, this is what happens on Twitter, the shorter, more irrational, briefly, poor, "fastfood" like, way of communication EVER... for an era of monkeys pushing the keyboard trying to make sense in the biggest white noise festival ever... so NO WONDERs, many "social rage" attacks occur on it... the same for using descontextualized Twitter quotes from people, to blame them... ashamed them... accuse them... etc...


Sometimes when I read Twitter I found how amazing and fast this platform can be to follow "the world", some other times, most part of them, I found Twitter is exactly like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBBvXth-O_g

There is a lesson there for you if you wish to learn it. :)

You are right, you don't need to put forward anything, you don't need to post anything at all. If you just enjoy writing things for the sake of it, keep doing what you are doing. If you want to "find the truth" or help people "understand issues better" you may not be going about it the right way. Sometimes less is more.

A big part of finding the "truth" and helping other people understand issues better is to make well thought out arguments in a concise and succinct manner. If you can't do it/don't want to do it, that is fine, but you might find you aren't achieving your goals.

I'll leave you to your writing. I do enjoy reading your posts, probably not for the purpose they are written, however.

Right, but by the same token, why should anybody take feminists seriously when you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag without using your own set of tropes?

I just found something out about the Sound Cloud interview about the reddit admins.
It was done by a guy (Xavier Mendel) that likes to start drama and has a history of doing so.
He was laughed off of Reddit for reasons I do not know of.

He has had a beef with certain the Reddit mods and Admins for a long time - This is his chance to strike back at them.
I really see this as a chance for people such as Xavier - To get back or even so to speak at people that wronged him.

My advice - Go over and [url=https://soundcloud.com/mattias-pettersson-1/redditmoderatorcodenoise-coughgone]the interview with a fine tooth comb.

There are some discrepancies in there that will make you question what he is saying.

I know I sound like a crazy saying this but - When a large group of people are angry sometimes that it seems like a good time to hurting others that wronged you.

My 2 cents

That said - I do not have a beef with this Xavier guy - I do not even know him. But from what I heard. He likes to start drama.

When I completed the game I came to a few such conclusions. The others were:
- if the sister had been a gay guy, the game would have received a lot less attention or high scores
- both girls were relatively cute - especially Lonnie. If both girls had been ugly ...
- if the two girls had been boy and girl instead, the story wouldn't have worked

I think the game creates a double whammy: people would feel sorry about this girl not having any friends far more than they would for a teenage guy. Then they picked a really cute girl as budding girlfriend and here, guys would be able to identify with that, remembering their own teenage years. A girl with a boyfriend wouldn't have worked on several levels because of this.

Basically, the game was cleverly crafted to appeal to guys (as well) and many elements fit just right to make the game engaging. Personally, I think it was hypocritical of the devs to add two pretty girls - in that respect, they either should have left out the two Lonnie pics, or have her be less cute. Right now she's a girl any guy her age would have dreamed of having as a gf and that is a bit ... much.

nice sharing.........

Does the human rights situation in Zimbabwe influence the human rights situation in Burma? If not, then you're right, otherwise your wrong. You can't claim to be for equality and then only look at one side. Equality by its very definition has two sides. You can't balance a scale while only looking at one of its sides. The reason why early feminism worked was because the scale was so out of balance that doing anything was likely to work. Today the scale is much more balanced.

Here is a recent example:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29406138
It's a law that says that "Yes" does not always mean "Yes". the problem with this law is that it puts way too much power into one side. A girl can hook up with a guy, they both have a good time and the next morning she can start blackmailing him or otherwise she'll accuse him of rape because she had drunk alcohol during the evening. This is what happens when you only look at one side.

Be happy about it, it's nothing nice.
I've been objectified more than once and although it might look nice from far away, it's not a nice experience, because you get treated without any respect in a first seemingly nice way = lied to, because the person on the other side only wants to reach a certain goal.
I pity women as well as men that have this problem more often than me, although I really don't understand, why many people do not seem to have any problem with it, probably because it goes both ways all the time. The capitalistic mindset makes people only see the personal benefits/profits for themselves in each other rather than the other person as... well... a person.

Woah, we finally aggree.
Although of course I think that quotas are the biggest open discrimination of men today, you just mentioned the results of all the steady silent discriminations people (including the victims) rarely talk about.

In principle it's very simple. Everyone is foremostly a person. The sex is just a minor, minor attribute which tells almost nothing about the person (except when sex comes into play, but otherwise ... not at all). So whenever someone makes statements about all women or all men, especially about the character or something else, it's most probably totally bullshit. So the lesson to be learned is: never judge people by their sex, just don't do it and don't listen to others who do it. Only on the day nobody really cares (more than a tiny bit) anymore is the day you are judged by what you really are.

I disagree. Sure you can.

Let's say there is a problem in a workplace with women not getting paid a lower hourly rate than the men, even though they are doing the same work. I go in there to to fight for equal pay for the women.

Maybe there is also a problem with men getting less of a lunch break. If someone else wants to go in to bat for the men on that issue they can, right now, I'm focussing on the equal pay for women.

There might be some issues where men have advantages over women and women have advantages over men. I can argue for one and say that other issue doesn't concern me, I want to focus on this issue. If you want to focus on that one, go for it.

Likewise, if I am raising the high suicide rate of men in regional Australia as an issue, the last thing I want is someone to bring up is that women are under-represented in video games. You don't have to be an advocate for every single issue, we would spread ourselves too thin and nothing would get done.

But what if the reason the men are getting paid more is because they have less of a lunch break? Your view is too short-sighted. By your logic you could say that white supremacists are fighting for equality for "white" people. Thy just have to rename themselves to white equalists. (BTW, if calling Asian people "yellow" is racists, then calling European people "white" is racists too, since both terms have the same origin - and yes, it has nothing to do with the discussion)

You don't have to take every issue in consideration, but you do have to look into connections. What if in a year or two the male suicide rate in California jumps up because of women making life hell by threatening men with rape accusations based on the recently passed law? You see how one side can affect the other?