Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Dystopia]

Saying you can be a feminist without believing in equality is like saying you can be an atheist and believe in god. Do you actually realize the irrationality of your postulates?

Are you saying that those women who argue that women are superior and ought to be treated as such aren't feminist? Because they certainly don't accept equality of the genders.

Did you just miss the part that the definition of feminism is not accepted as pursuing superiority of women - That idea would be indentified with misandry just like a homosexual who thinks homosexuals are superior cannot be identified as pro-LGBT. Is it that hard for people to understand that if you assume a position that is not corresponding the ideology you cannot be a part of it? Just like I cannot simply label myself as a Leninist/marxist if I don't agree with ideas postulated by Karl Marx and later Lenin

I think these women hold so little power, are so insignificant and so little people care about them that we would be better off ignoring because not doing so is exactly what may give them followers.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Yes lighter sentences for women, something any equity feminist is against, but obviously your vast knowledge on the subject says otherwise.

If they were fighting for same sentences for crimes they'd be asking the judge for as much time as a man for the same crime, not whining that it's unfair that women get less time in jail..what the fuck? are you kidding me? that's a positive, not a negative.

Really? Pulling out a personal insult and saying you no longer consider my position doesn't give you any credit.

Yes, you lose all credibility when you say 50% of the world population doesn't suffer oppression simply because of their gender. Something a true sexist and piece of shit would say.

Also, it's hard to be oppressed, to be oppressed you need to have control over something, at least politics, social institutions, means of production, media, etc

Which women do, in many advanced societies...including and especially America.

The vast majority are controlled by men, even if all women hated me or you, they wouldn't be able to oppress us, because the government wouldn't allow it (obviously), and because they don't control political institutions to suppress an entire group

How is that men's fault that women don't seem to pursue politics as much as men do? talk about being a white knight...

Again your ignorance on the subject and your insults to me are of no use. Feminists don't want benefits, they are against female privilege such as, but not only, child custody advantages, lighter sentences and better treatment for just being women.

They don't want benefits but will gladly exploit them to their desire. LOL, the claims of ignorance towards others when you wrote that out, wow. And if they didn't want benefits they would demand to be a part of the draft, demand that men get alimony as much as women, demand that men get custody of children as much as women, but they don't. You are the only one ignorant of the misandrist movement you're part of. And I love how feminists just ignore counter-points brought up to them, I bet if this was in the streets you would just yell into your megaphone at me.

Obviously you're read so many blogs and literature that you can already claim feminists want all the benefits, if someone's brainwashed it must a certain typical male that spends too much time reading 9gag and tumblr posts insulting feminists that forget the benefits the movement has brought to everyone including men.

Obviously you like to make fallacious claims about people's positions that you don't know. Before this your dumbass was saying that I just mimic what Anti-feminists say like I have no mind of my own. Fuck you and your condescending attitude. I can make a broad generalization of you too, you're probably just a feminist to get women. Oh, was that a bad generalization of male feminists? a bunch of mangina's trying to get on some girls good side that they like.

No, because feminists are against and repeal, criticize, not only male sexual assault in prison but also how society doesn't take male rape seriously. Dogmatic? No I'm critical, I stopped reading posts in 9gag insulting feminists and actually read a few articles by men and women who explain the problems, provide evidence and discuss topics without insulting the other part.

I love how you think you can just speak for the whole of feminism. Like there isn't this large portion of feminists that are incredibly dogmatic and misandrist in their ideologies. I don't think I could speak for the whole of people who disagree with feminism, so who the fuck are you to speak for all feminists, again, fuck you, speak for yourself. And again, you avoid the topic at hand, stud shaming doesn't exist? if slut shaming is so bad, then clearing stud shaming is just as bad, but the majority of feminists hardly ever condemn that. In fact, the popular feminists like Rebecca Watson will condemn female "objectification" but will go ahead and objectify men's private parts on her blog right after. You're just like her, hypocritical to the bone.

This doesn't matter, what matters is that both can raise kids and there's no reason to not be equal on child support or custody laws

Then why don't men get alimony if there is some patriarchy against women? lol it's just patriarchy itself giving women advantages even though they are oppressed in western culture somehow? give me a fucking break.

Just think about gay men, they can adopt right now in some countries like Holland and studies show kids grow up fine

Completely irrelevant to what has been said.

This proves it's not women's exclusive feature to raise kids properly. And as I have already said, feminists are against those laws that benefit them

They give alimony to women as an advantage, how the fuck is that oppression, that's the courts trying to help women out who may have never worked in their life and had a husband pay for everything. If anything, feminists would probably support this as a whole because they support women over men and if women get free money from a man, it just disassembles the patriarchy a little bit more. If fairness was really in order the feminists would deny child support and alimony, but they don't.

Simply because they're based on assumptions that women are weaker, or on very old fashioned values (i.e. Like the value that women are supposed to be providers people and the law still have)

It has nothing to do with weakness, get off your high horse.

Again being rude to me is not evidence for anything, nor your lack of knowledge on feminism is, you're part of the reason feminists get no credit - Because as soon as one of them gives good arguments why something can be sexist a guy like you spits out something like "Oh shut up just enjoy it don't be a prick" and dismiss what people have to say.

I'm being rude because you're being an idiot. You're the one saying feminists reject benefits when they are the ones who are saying men are to blame for everything but you're going to say at the same time they deny free money from men? you're fucking delusional, people will decide based on what's best for their lifestyle. If a woman can get half of her ex husbands shit, she is more than likely to get a lawyer and fight for it, as well as alimony and child custody and child support. So again, shut the fuck up.

Also seemingly throwing out a typical prejudiced statement of how women live with men's money doesn't aid your cause either. Just because something brings benefits it doesn't make it good, for example I have immigrants living with welfare money and it's a benefit, but I'm still against it because it's unfair, the same goes for child custody laws.

Ask the women who get the free money and benefits, 90% or more will tell you they are happier not having to work and raise their kids on their ex husbands dime. Why the fuck is it not a benefit, if I divorced my wife who worked full time, and got the kids and child support, that's not a benefit to me even though I wouldn't have to work or save up for retirement since I get free money? again, delusional. You're against welfare for the people who do the jobs you don't want to do like clean toilets? fuck you, you sound like a republican shill as well.

If you had any intelligence, you'd know feminism is about equality for females, males, trans, people without gender and everyone. Your ignorance or disagreement doesn't change the definition, the fact you don't like it doesn't change the concept either.

That's an antiquated view on feminism from the early 20th century, that's no different than a theist saying to an atheist that a "theory" in science is just a guess when there are multiple definitions of words and the intrinsic value of words change over time as well. Where feminism used to be about equality, is now about female supremacy in the western world, because women are more than fucking equal in this culture.

If you really think women aren't equal yet in the western world, you haven't been paying attention very closely or are trying to get in the pants of some feminist you like perhaps.

You reduced me down to my gender, which is something that feminism is supposedly against, but clearly isn't since it's clearly a movement for female supremacy instead of gender equality which is what the egalitarian movement is about, equality despite gender, not specifically catering to one gender like feminism. And if you deny that feminism is female oriented you're dumber than I thought.

Actually unlike some people I'm not dictated by my sexual desires. Give me a break, if you are so worried about 3rd world why don't you do something about it? If we could all dump our trash the world would be better, improving first world problems helps third world because we influence those countries if we are better.

I'm not claiming to be part of a movement dedicated to women who does nothing about the women who are actually oppressed in the world and instead worrying about 1st world problems that aren't actually problems. And if you think feminism is dedicated to men as you're saying that men are never oppressed, you just proved my fucking point. Feminism is focused on women and not men, get over it, it's not a gender equal movement, Egalitarianism is, and feminists love to ignore that, as you did for the 100th time, you intellectually dishonest little shill.

On the other hand, I don't think any of the main problems are hipster as you put it, but of course you have so vast knowledge on the subject that you don't even know which are.

Tell that to the hipster feminists all over tumblr who advocated #killallmen.

The fact some people have it worse doesn't justify not solving the issue, i.e. We don't stop prosecuting assault because there's murder rights? The fact I've been paying too much attention is what drove me to this position

Including men, who are oppressed too, but I guess feminazis like you will never admit that.

But obviously your opinion is that feminists want to rule the world

You think women wouldn't be drunk with power if they suddenly ran every branch of government like you claim it is in favor of men? Of course the feminists want power in the world and influence in popular culture, you delusional fuckwit.

It's also funny that I've also provided some facts that can be freely discussed and you are yet to refute them, instead you just throw out bullshit about "women having advantages here and there" that feminists don't even like and dis-considering that the negatives are far worse than those small advantages.

I clearly have, but you clearly don't share the opinion that your worldview has been trounced, so be it. If men had all these advantages in the world, they wouldn't be disenfranchised at all, they wouldn't go to jail more, they wouldn't pay child support, they wouldn't pay alimony, think about it for a second. If men really ruled the world as a patriarchal system where they kept women down specifically, then it would still look like the dark ages.

You also point out obvious problems we men have and forget that feminists fight against them and any feminist blog or forum will confirm you that. Do some research before. Your dunning-Kruger effect is strong on this one, you sound like those people who talk to me (law student) and claim to know everything about law and when they start talking it's noticeable that they never studied and made their own conventional conceptions with little to no value

No they don't, where are the marches for men's rights? non-fucking-existent, get that through your thick fucking head, I don't even think you're really an idiot, I'm just annoyed by your stupid opinions, you're probably a reasonable person outside this one topic. The majority of feminists fight for female rights and female privileges and don't fight against advantages they have otherwise they would be abolished since feminism has quite a few people and heavy influence in society, I mean Anita Sarkisian got on the Colbert Report for being an inconsistent content provider on youtube who claims women are oppressed in video games. And they will say things like you as a white male can't comment on this because you are privileged, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!! and just like that they've reduced my opinions to nothing because of my gender and race, how completely racist and sexist. Ahhhh Feminism, refreshing.

---

I want to address this a little further. As a single, joint-custodial father, regular child support is in my interest because it is in my son's best interest to have a stable home whether he's at her house or mine that night. Child support is not enough for a woman with a child to live "scott free".

Why wouldn't it be in his best interest for him to go into your custody then? instead of supporting 3 people, you would only have to support 2, you and your son and not your free-loading ex-wife. You said it yourself later in this post, that the courts usually decide custody on who makes more (which is bullshit, they usually just side with women) then why didn't you get custody? just didn't fight to have your kids around? or you wanted to support your ex wife in raising your kids? either one is fine, just asking.

Raising a child is goddamned expensive, and it's only right that the noncustodial parent pay support.

So is supporting an adult who doesn't work and lives of alimony and child support. And no, it's not only right that one parent pay the other parent, the more financially responsible parent should get the children, and if more women are the ones getting alimony and child support that would correlate to most women not being the bread winners for the most part. If you were truly the one making more, you should have the kids, again, unless you are willing to just give your kids away to an ex-partner. (I wouldn't, I would fight for my kids custody, since I work).

I don't begrudge my support (our ruling gives me 42% custody, her 58%, and I pay support to cover the difference)

If you don't care then why doesn't she have to pay you? because she doesn't work or makes far less than you? how the fuck is that "fair" then? how the fuck is that egalitarian if the women are just taking advantage of the system by getting free money for just looking after kids all day which a day care could accomplish (just sayin').

because I know it's put to good use. If I thought it was being put to bad use, I would have every right to reopen the custody case with new evidence, and adjust the settlement accordingly -- just like any other noncustodial parent.

It'd be put to better use if she actually went out and got a job instead of living off free money and not advancing her career or retirement fund whatsoever. Your kids are better off with a freeloading mom, more power to you dude, that's your purgative, fine. But don't pretend like that is some good use to all single parents who get the custody of kids and don't have to work anymore afterwards. Women have ruined men because of alimony and child support, so cry me a river.

As for alimony, in many states that isn't paid man-to-woman, but higher earner-to-lower earner.

Well then I guess men make more money overall according to you, because for the most part the judges will side with the women and give them alimony and child support. And that's somehow fair to you, even though morons like Blackout will say that these advantages are unfair to women even though he propped your post. He's a hypocritical moron.

And finally, even though raising my son is hard work, there's no way I'd say it sucks, and I doubt I'm rare amongst parents in feeling that way.

What the fuck does this even mean? what does this have to do with what I said?

[Dystopia]

If they were fighting for same sentences for crimes they'd be asking the judge for as much time as a man for the same crime, not whining that it's unfair that women get less time in jail..what the fuck? are you kidding me? that's a positive, not a negative.

When did it become a trend for feminists to advocate lighter sentences for women? Do you have any credible feminist literature or articles that prove this is a position followed by feminists?

Yes, you lose all credibility when you say 50% of the world population doesn't suffer oppression simply because of their gender. Something a true sexist and piece of shit would say.

An ad hominem is what you are comitting. And your ignorance on the definition of oppression that can only happen if one groups possesses power over the other is relevant - It is different if some women think all men are pigs and women actually having power to oppress men with legislative, political, social and coercitive measures, something they can't de facto do and most don't want to.

Which women do, in many advanced societies...including and especially America.

What percentage of women control politics, the media, means of production, the army, CEO jobs, social structures and so on?

How is that men's fault that women don't seem to pursue politics as much as men do? talk about being a white knight...

Maybe it's society's fault that politics is seen as a credible normal job for males and as an exception for females, because a female politician is seen as an exceptional strong women and not as a regular politician like a man. And you calling me white knight does nothing about it

They don't want benefits but will gladly exploit them to their desire. LOL, the claims of ignorance towards others when you wrote that out, wow. And if they didn't want benefits they would demand to be a part of the draft, demand that men get alimony as much as women, demand that men get custody of children as much as women, but they don't. You are the only one ignorant of the misandrist movement you're part of. And I love how feminists just ignore counter-points brought up to them, I bet if this was in the streets you would just yell into your megaphone at me.

LOL - You are actually revealing more ignorance by refusing to acknowledge that contact with the actual feminist movement would reveal they are against getting benefits in alimony, drafts, child custody, with general social structures, etc. The draft is completely irrelevant since I'm against drafting for both people and I'm anti-war.

Obviously you like to make fallacious claims about people's positions that you don't know. Before this your dumbass was saying that I just mimic what Anti-feminists say like I have no mind of my own. Fuck you and your condescending attitude. I can make a broad generalization of you too, you're probably just a feminist to get women. Oh, was that a bad generalization of male feminists? a bunch of mangina's trying to get on some girls good side that they like.

Lol, I've been dating for two years and I'm everything but sexually frustrated, and feminism has made my relationship more respectful, equal and healthy. I know the position because I labelled myself as an anti-feminism, like you, because I was ignorant, had never been in contact with feminism and had a prejudiced opinion about what it was because of the media, society and people and their biased opinions on what a movement is without even reading literature, blogs, articles, studies and information. Also telling me to go fuck myself isn't really according to a polite conduct.

I love how you think you can just speak for the whole of feminism. Like there isn't this large portion of feminists that are incredibly dogmatic and misandrist in their ideologies. I don't think I could speak for the whole of people who disagree with feminism, so who the fuck are you to speak for all feminists, again, fuck you, speak for yourself. And again, you avoid the topic at hand, stud shaming doesn't exist? if slut shaming is so bad, then clearing stud shaming is just as bad, but the majority of feminists hardly ever condemn that. In fact, the popular feminists like Rebecca Watson will condemn female "objectification" but will go ahead and objectify men's private parts on her blog right after. You're just like her, hypocritical to the bone.

Do you have any evidence that a large portion of feminists are dogmatic, misandrists and so on? BTW, you might not realize it but feminists disagree on many things, they don't hold one political ideology, they don't have the same view on every social issue or political, etc.

I can speak for what feminism stands for with security because unlike you I've been able to refute your biased claims despite your refusal to acknowledge it and I've read and learned about the feminist movement, I've talked to feminism, been to forums, debated topics, and I haven't meet a single one of them who wants superiority. In fact, they are ashamed that some women who label themselves as feminist commit acts of discrimination against men and feel embarrassed that those women who no one likes are associated with the movement. But obviously your vast cultural, sociological and historical knowledge says otherwise.

Then why don't men get alimony if there is some patriarchy against women? lol it's just patriarchy itself giving women advantages even though they are oppressed in western culture somehow? give me a fucking break.

Equity feminists are against those benefits for female because to be pro-equality you want to erase disadvantages AND benefits - Not to mention they fight male problems like male rape or our toxic overwhelming concept of masculinity/manliness.

Completely irrelevant to what has been said.

It's not since it disproves only women should be caregivers.

They give alimony to women as an advantage, how the fuck is that oppression, that's the courts trying to help women out who may have never worked in their life and had a husband pay for everything. If anything, feminists would probably support this as a whole because they support women over men and if women get free money from a man, it just disassembles the patriarchy a little bit more. If fairness was really in order the feminists would deny child support and alimony, but they don't.

Again do you have any evidence that it's a proeminent orientation in feminism to be pro women having advantages? It's not oppression, but it's a double standard, it's a gender stereotype because it assumes women should take care of kids more often - And logically if I was a woman I'd be offended if courts thought I was more fit to raise kids simply because I'm a woman

It has nothing to do with weakness, get off your high horse.

It has to do in child custody with what I talked above.

eing an idiot. You're the one saying feminists reject benefits when they are the ones who are saying men are to blame for everything but you're going to say at the same time they deny free money from men? you're fucking delusional, people will decide based on what's best for their lifestyle. If a woman can get half of her ex husbands shit, she is more than likely to get a lawyer and fight for it, as well as alimony and child custody and child support. So again, shut the fuck up.

Again insulting me is irrelevant, do you have any evidence that it's common among the feminist movement and it's concept to blame men for everything and that woman pursue child custody just to get money as a common practice?

Ask the women who get the free money and benefits, 90% or more will tell you they are happier not having to work and raise their kids on their ex husbands dime. Why the fuck is it not a benefit, if I divorced my wife who worked full time, and got the kids and child support, that's not a benefit to me even though I wouldn't have to work or save up for retirement since I get free money? again, delusional. You're against welfare for the people who do the jobs you don't want to do like clean toilets? fuck you, you sound like a republican shill as well.

Do you have any statistics to prove their happiness? And do you realize that not working and being unemployed often has a bad effect on people? Also, if you don't discount you don't get retirement. How many child custody payments are actually enough for her to support all kids and live without working? I want evidence.

That's an antiquated view on feminism from the early 20th century, that's no different than a theist saying to an atheist that a "theory" in science is just a guess when there are multiple definitions of words and the intrinsic value of words change over time as well. Where feminism used to be about equality, is now about female supremacy in the western world, because women are more than fucking equal in this culture.

Yes, keep telling yourself that - Personal lack of knowledge and facts doesn't make a compelling argument

You reduced me down to my gender, which is something that feminism is supposedly against, but clearly isn't since it's clearly a movement for female supremacy instead of gender equality which is what the egalitarian movement is about, equality despite gender, not specifically catering to one gender like feminism. And if you deny that feminism is female oriented you're dumber than I thought.

Egalitarianism and feminism don't work separated, but together. As for your last statement, yeah feminism is more directed towards woman, like LGBT is more towards gays, but that doesn't invalidate their concerns over other issues like men's, people of racial minorities, homosexuals and so on. I didn't reduce you to your gender, I reduced you to your ignorance which is something I don't take any pleasure in. All those ideologies together form an egalitarian perspective.

I'm not claiming to be part of a movement dedicated to women who does nothing about the women who are actually oppressed in the world and instead worrying about 1st world problems that aren't actually problems. And if you think feminism is dedicated to men as you're saying that men are never oppressed, you just proved my fucking point. Feminism is focused on women and not men, get over it, it's not a gender equal movement, Egalitarianism is, and feminists love to ignore that, as you did for the 100th time, you intellectually dishonest little shill.

Calling me indirectly a little shit doesn't prove you're right... Also claiming without evidence feminists don't care about the 3rd world doesn't prove it doesn't. And saying we shouldn't solve first world issues because the 3rd world has it worse is an invalid statement, should we not fix hunger of our homeless because of kids in Africa, for example? Instead of being blind, I actually acknowledge feminism has benefited me as a cis male that enjoys being male, because of many problems I have due to our social concept of masculinity that has given my issues during my lifetime, and feminists are against that same concept.

Tell that to the hipster feminists all over tumblr who advocated #killallmen.

Tell me why those people are actually feminist and not just retards and tell me why if I search on google "women shouldn't" the first search suggestion is "have the right to vote"?

Including men, who are oppressed too, but I guess feminazis like you will never admit that.

Yeah we are oppressed clearly, that's what people with little knowledge will claim.

You think women wouldn't be drunk with power if they suddenly ran every branch of government like you claim it is in favor of men? Of course the feminists want power in the world and influence in popular culture, you delusional fuckwit.

Are you implying that if most politicians were women they'd want to oppress anyone?

I clearly have, but you clearly don't share the opinion that your worldview has been trounced, so be it. If men had all these advantages in the world, they wouldn't be disenfranchised at all, they wouldn't go to jail more, they wouldn't pay child support, they wouldn't pay alimony, think about it for a second. If men really ruled the world as a patriarchal system where they kept women down specifically, then it would still look like the dark ages.

Maybe because men commit more crimes genius? Or they commit the majority of serious crimes (i.e. Serial killers) - No it wouldn't there's subtle institutional ways to discriminate against many people while making it seem acceptable.

No they don't, where are the marches for men's rights? non-fucking-existent, get that through your thick fucking head, I don't even think you're really an idiot, I'm just annoyed by your stupid opinions, you're probably a reasonable person outside this one topic. The majority of feminists fight for female rights and female privileges and don't fight against advantages they have otherwise they would be abolished since feminism has quite a few people and heavy influence in society, I mean Anita Sarkisian got on the Colbert Report for being an inconsistent content provider on youtube who claims women are oppressed in video games. And they will say things like you as a white male can't comment on this because you are privileged, CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE!! and just like that they've reduced my opinions to nothing because of my gender and race, how completely racist and sexist. Ahhhh Feminism, refreshing.

MRA's are non existent? I don't give a fuck about who that person is and she is certainly not evidence that feminism is this and that as an individual person. Also women in videogames is a completely different issue, there's surveys that tell us 40%+ of gamers are female, how is - Portraying women as sex objects in games; putting females as non playable characters most of the time; giving them secondary non important roles in plot; using them as decoration for rooms and atmospheres; using them merely as wives, sisters or for sexual favours; perpetuating stereotypes about prostitutes, gold diggers and so on - Not fucking sexism? I'm saying this because gaming community needs to be inclusive, and telling 40% of the population of gamers that they don't matter is anti-profit, anti-revenue and takes credibility away from the claim that "videogames are art", and since I love games I want female characters who are more than sex objects, wives, princesses, I want more characters like Lara Croft who don't get their value from having merely large boobs.


Honestly, you've just insulted me, committed several ad hominems, provided zero evidence that feminism is what you say it is, and still you think you're right. I'm calm, rational, I argued and said clear reasons why things are like this and that, yet you continue to insult me, you seem mad. Maybe it's because your ignorant, reducionist worldview based on stereotypes, prejudiced and ideas that are not true is being challeged.

Also no one said you can't comment on anything because you're white male, it's simply important for you to put into other people's places and think how they would feel - I.e. Would you like if you were a male gamer and males in games were portrayed always as hot guys to have sex, as husbands without important roles, as decoration for rooms, as prostitutes and non playable characters? Yeah you don't give a shit about this because you have nothing to lose, you are not affected specifically in gaming because games are made mostly with white males in mind. If you really want to see how stuff works check out an article with several references that shows you why feminists don't like female gendered benefits (for some reason I expect you to continue to affirm that they want benefits even after stating and linking you articles that show it's not really like that)

For further consideration before you reply you can read this article (written by a white man) about how feminism and misandry are different to enlighten the misconceptions you seem to manifest so often that are clearly wrong if you take a look at some facts and realize your opinion on the subject (as well as mine) are completely irrelevant to distinguish two concepts (feminism and misandry) that are already differentiated and shouldn't be confused

[LastPoet]

I have to say, it is not the first time I see a thread about this subject blowing over.

[The Grand Nudger]

Would you like if you were a male gamer and males in games were portrayed always as hot guys to have sex,

-That doesn't describe the lions portion of male video game characters? They don't make the leading man a miserable loser who can't get a date. Panties melt in the presence of his granite jawline, perpetual stubble - and lets not forget his gun-arm (that's pretty much his only job..being the mule that hauls the big fucking gun around-sometimes I think the story would do just fine if the scenery spoke to the gun rather than the character), eh? Is the female sex prop actually fawning over him or the walnut stock on his BFG?

as husbands without important roles,

If he's not the leading man he -is- the husband without an important role to the female lead - or..the bromance with the walking gun platform mentioned above. Non leading male characters do everything short of blowing the hero - that's the only reason they exist in the game.

as decoration for rooms,

again...not the leading man?...scenery.

as prostitutes

Got me there, seems like an uncomfortable line for game devs to cross. Maybe that doesn't test well with their market? Maybe that will change, and we'll see the bromance above blossom into full on oral, guess teenage boys just aren't there yet?

and non playable characters?

Again, not the leading man, the leading mans lady, or the nuetered bromance.....scenery and npcs.

Video games are hilariously sexist...but it's not as if the male characters somehow escape that. They're jokes just the same. Largely, those games are made for kids, and like any saturday morning cartoon the characters are unbelievable and lacking in depth, male or female. All of that said....why -should- video games be a fair representation of reality? Is that what they're supposed to be? Here I thought they were fantasy....an intentional escape. I suppose what I'm wondering in all of this is why anyone would have to -imagine- any of that? Isn't that already the way it goes?

[Dystopia]

-That doesn't describe the lions portion of male video game characters? They don't make the leading man a miserable loser who can't get a date. Panties melt in the presence of his granite jawline, perpetual stubble - and lets not forget his gun-arm (that's pretty much his only job..being the mule that hauls the big fucking gun around-sometimes I think the story would do just fine if the scenery just spoke to the gun rather than the character), eh?

There's a difference between making someone attractive and objectifying someone - Male characters are frequently attractive, but to start off, there are different body types, facial features and so on, not all match the ideal of beauty for males (i.e. Gordon Freeman, Mr.47 from Hitman, Solid Snake as an old man, characters from GTA who were not that attractive, Kratos, do I need to continue) and on top of that male leading characters usually have personality, complex traits, good attributes like intelligence, strategic thinking, leadership skills, a lot of willpower, and this is far more important than their physical traits - Many female characters don't pass the test of having a personality that is more important than their body, not to mention there's a trend to make them all look the same with large boobs and curvy figures, cleavages and scantly clad.

If he's not the leading man he -is- the husband without an important role to the female lead - or..the bromance with the walking gun platform mentioned above.

A secondary character can have a role without being simply a husband/wife or a princess meant to be saved. Uncharted for example has two female characters with roles in the action and story (despite both of them being very attractive)

again...not the leading man?...scenery.

Really not the same.

Got me there, seems like an uncomfortable line for game devs to cross. Maybe that doesn't test well with their market?

It's irrelevant if it sells or not.

Again, not the leading man, the leading mans lady, or the nuetered bromance.....scenery and npcs.

I don't understand this part.

Video games are hilarious sexist...but it's not as if the male characters somehow escape that. They're jokes just the same. Largely, those games are made for kids, and like any saturday morning cartoon the characters are unbelievable and lacking in depth, male or female. All of that said....why -should- video games be a fair representation of reality? Is that what they're supposed to be? Here I thought they were fantasy....an intentional escape.

That's why a lot of games are M rated and the average gamer age goes beyond 14 years old (they're not for kids) - They're fantasy, but as a form of entertainment what is portrayed (like in the media or films etc) influences how we see and expect society to behave - Yes many people like me care about the plot, characters depth of thematics other than graphics or gameplay (an example is Metal Gear Solid) - And having a sexist tone for any side (this is valid against women and men) supports stereotypes that people who play games are exposed to - If I played games my whole life that had women as prostitutes who had sex all the time, it would be natural for me to go out and think of all women as prostitutes. There's actually a lot of male characters that could use depth as well, to be fair, I'm merely talking about inclusive gaming and as you cannot ignore a significant part of the market since it can cause less revenue - It's easy for a male to say there's no sexism because you're not the female playing a game and finding female characters without personality (compared to males) portrayed or depicted as sex objects with no intelligent whose only role is to arouse the gamer, or maybe to be saved as a princess, etc doesn't affect you directly - I don't like this BS because some awesome gaming moments and characters who could have been great are reduced to empty concepts that hold little value and ruin my enjoyment. - And because I'm a pragmatic capitalism and I care about the industry since I want to continue to play games.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's a difference between making someone attractive and objectifying someone - Male characters are frequently attractive, but to start off, there are different body types, facial features and so on, not all match the ideal of beauty for males (i.e. Gordon Freeman, Mr.47 from Hitman, Solid Snake as an old man, characters from GTA who were not that attractive, Kratos, do I need to continue) and on top of that male leading characters usually have personality, complex traits, good attributes like intelligence, strategic thinking, leadership skills, a lot of willpower, and this is far more important than their physical traits - Many female characters don't pass the test of having a personality that is more important than their body, not to mention there's a trend to make them all look the same with large boobs and curvy figures, cleavages and scantly clad.

Now, perhaps this is endemic to video games...but regardless of the sex of a character in a game they -have- to be objectified. They're dolls that you're playing with - you make them jump and do things. You make things happen to them. Yes, the females get drawn to be precisely what a teenage boy fantasizes about......but so do the males.

Gordon Freeman. Walking gun platform.
Mr. 47. Walking gun platform.
Solid Snake. Walking gun platform.
GTA "anything" Walking gun platform. (course, I think that stereotypes and sexism is pretty much intentionally ported into GTA..don't you?)

It's unlikely that you'll find a male character who's personality is more important than his gun arm, there aren't alot of successful "personality simulators" in the world. In any case, we seem to have a simple difference of opinion. You see depth where I do not.

A secondary character can have a role without being simply a husband/wife or a princess meant to be saved. Uncharted for example has two female characters with roles in the action and story (despite both of them being very attractive)

Never played it, Uncharted, to me, will always be a naval combat/trade top down 2d rpg..lol.

Really not the same.

Seems the same to me. Look, if someone wants to say that games are sexist, and depict females in an unrealistic and objectifying manner I;m going to say "Yeah, no shit, guys too..wtf is up with that?"

-except that I already know "wtf is up with that" -teenage boys.

It's irrelevant if it sells or not.

Umm............devs aren't running a charity. That's -the- relevant thing to them. The reason, for example, that you can beat hookers in GTA - is that this is, apparently, part of what sells the game.

I don't understand this part.

Again, seems to be a difference of opinion between us - but speaking strictly from my own opinion:

Whatever time a dev spends trying to impart a character with depth is going to be limited by a host of factors. Firstly their ability as storytellers - secondly the genre of the game and it's intended audience, thirdly - the time they have budgeted. So your leading character is going to eat up the lions portion of all of that because the leading character drives the narrative (or is the hook by which you experience it). It's unsurprising to find the supporting cast lack depth commensurate to the lead. I'm sure we could have a very long discussion about that. Trends in gaming, or methods of effective storytelling (sometimes you don't want "deep" characters, or you want the depth of your lead to be enhanced by the shallow pools of wasted pixels around them...they're the hero after all, eh?). To me, firstly, it's unsurprising that the leads are commonly male. So is the consumer (though that's changing). It's unsurprising that anyone who isn't the lead isn't a very well developed character. GTA isn't the great american novel and I'm pretty sure the devs neither tried to make it so or could have made it so even if they wished for it to be. I was a reader long before I was a gamer, so when you say "depth" to me.......my mind doesn't wander to -any- video game character.

That's why a lot of games are M rated and the average gamer age goes beyond 14 years old (they're not for kids) - They're fantasy, but as a form of entertainment what is portrayed (like in the media or films etc) influences how we see and expect society to behave -

The M rating is -also- a hook designed to sell more games to kids. It was supposed to be some sort of oversight, but it was a juvenile attempt at oversight...and game houses find a way to turn it into a marketing tool. Think of that deep, gravelly voice at the end of the cutscene "rated m for mature!" - thanks Mr. Movie announcer, sounds badass and manly, I'll take two!

Yes many people like me care about the plot, characters depth of thematics other than graphics or gameplay (an example is Metal Gear Solid)

Walking gun platform. This right here describes our difference in it's entirety. I just don't see the depth...but I do see the stereotype. Great games though, fuckin loved em. Munching on performance enhancing drugs so that I could shoot a nameless faceless bad guy for the millionth time, sign me up.

- And having a sexist tone for any side (this is valid against women and men) supports stereotypes that people who play games are exposed to - If I played games my whole life that had women as prostitutes who had sex all the time, it would be natural for me to go out and think of all women as prostitutes.

Would it? Is it natural for you to think that foxes talk because you read it in aesops? Whatever happened to the scores of kids who played mousetrap (and other boardgames) - they don't seem to have waded into life expecting reality to conform to the contents of the cardboard box. Video games don't -make people sexist-...they cater to -existing- sexism. Business, not a charity, not a social experiment.

There's actually a lot of male characters that could use depth as well, to be fair, I'm merely talking about inclusive gaming and as you cannot ignore a significant part of the market since it can cause less revenue - It's easy for a male to say there's no sexism because you're not the female playing a game and finding female characters without personality (compared to males) portrayed or depicted as sex objects with no intelligent whose only role is to arouse the gamer, or maybe to be saved as a princess, etc doesn't affect you directly - I don't like this BS because some awesome gaming moments and characters who could have been great are reduced to empty concepts that hold little value and ruin my enjoyment. - And because I'm a pragmatic capitalism and I care about the industry since I want to continue to play games.

Except that I'm not saying that there's no sexism, and I'm really not sure why it would be easy for -anyone- to say that there's no sexism in gaming. I -am- disappointed at the predictable and consistent sexism touted out in the design of both the male and female characters.....but not so much I pitch a fit about it - because it's a game and I'm not expecting social justice or the great american novel. If there are titties on the cover I'm not going to expect any mysteries inside the box.

I'm saying that it's all sexist......or do you think that Solid Snake is any more a fair and accurate representation of a man than the hooker on the street corner in GTA is of a woman? Seems to me that you've found an incredibly sexist stereotype that you connect with, a character that you admire, appreciate, want to be. Unhindered by reality or the distracting complexities of an actual male human being. A vehicle for immersion that encourages you to play out your fantasy in the fantasy world. See, they know you......

[Dystopia]

There's not much point in discussing this much further since we seem to have a divergent opinion and because of that we'll basically be arguing for different things - It's true that videogames are a business, but, like I said, ignoring a part of the market is not a wise decision for profit, and assuming the majority of gamers are teenage boys is also not wise because many of these teenage boys who played games (like me) continue to do so and with that our standards change with age and we start expecting something different. Your comparison with reading is not accurate since gaming and reading are two different forms of art/entertainment/media and obviously gaming focuses heavily more on gameplay and fun than storytelling and character depth - That doesn't mean gaming can't possess standards for the later nor it shouldn't, games like MGS like I mentioned to despite your disagreement are commercially successful and the plot plays a significant role.

I'll address this

Video games don't -make people sexist-...they cater to -existing- sexism. Business, not a charity, not a social experiment.

Specifically there's not evidence a videogame (a particular one) makes people sexist - However saying it simply caters to sexism is not a wise argument - It doesn't cater, it basically perpetuates it by recurring to the lowest common denominator. I can't prove that game X or Y results in increased sexism against individual Z, but I can prove since there's tremendous research on it since decades ago that forms of entertainment and media impact how we see society, and therefore a game keeping a certain stereotype in it's content is basically saying "this stereotype is ok, it's not wrong, it's fun, it's real"... Se where I'm getting to? And what harm would it do to the gaming community including males to have more female representation? Males like playing as females or having strong aggressive females in games, some men even have fetishes with that stuff (women like Lara Croft and such), Tomb Raider for example proves males like playing as females as well as long as there's adventure, plot, puzzles, combat, good gameplay, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

Specifically there's not evidence a videogame (a particular one) makes people sexist - However saying it simply caters to sexism is not a wise argument - It doesn't cater, it basically perpetuates it by recurring to the lowest common denominator. I can't prove that game X or Y results in increased sexism against individual Z, but I can prove since there's tremendous research on it since decades ago that forms of entertainment and media impact how we see society, and therefore a game keeping a certain stereotype in it's content is basically saying "this stereotype is ok, it's not wrong, it's fun, it's real"...

If people weren't sexist (and if sexism couldn't be fun) there would be no market for sexist games- and devs, not running charities, wouldn't waste their money making them. Notice the dearth of feces flavored ice-cream on store shelves? Same forces at play. We've heard this song and dance over here decades ago. Busybodies in government plied the same bullshit, it got shot down, and all we got were the "M ratings" that..apparently, boosted sales of violent video games...lol.

Se where I'm getting to? And what harm would it do to the gaming community including males to have more female representation? Males like playing as females or having strong aggressive females in games, some men even have fetishes with that stuff (women like Lara Croft and such), Tomb Raider for example proves males like playing as females as well as long as there's adventure, plot, puzzles, combat, good gameplay, etc.

Lara Croft is the feminine version of a walking gun platform. She's a rack to hang tits on (who occassionally shoots people). Good game though. Seriously, you're having a discussion with me about sexism in games and the good ones you point to are Solid Snake and Lara Croft? This discussion must have an entirely different flavor overseas.....

[abaris]

That game discussion seems utterly pointless. In most RPGs today you can create a male or a female hero to your liking and they're treated equally by the game's environment and NPCs. You can even select male of female in action comedies like Saints Row.